If I tell someone that I am going to take a coordinated effort to undermine their business and get customers to stop shopping there, potentially resulting in the demise of the business, the loss of their livelihood and ability to provide for themselves or their family, I cannot think of any reasonable person who would not categorize that as a threat. A threat by no means is limited to violence only.

I am really disturbed by language minimizes concrete actions taken to cause harm.

"I am not hurting your business I am just talking to my friends!"

▲

jlarocco an hour ago | parent [-]

Sorry, but the business owner has to own their actions. If they have a large customer base of artists who will feel betrayed by their using AI, then it was a mistake to use it.

It's her right to use AI, but the customers also have the right to say they won't patronize businesses who use AI, and are free to tell people they know that the business is using it.

If the shop's oat milk was really cow's milk, would it be "threatening their business" to tell other customers that?

▲

TheOtherHobbes 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Did you not read the article? She was unaware of the controversy and had just had a baby - which tends to be quite a stressful and time consuming thing.

The milk comparison is specious and irrelevant, because consumers are there for the product. Coffee shops sell coffee, not jpegs.

But aside from that - bullying and threatening a working mother with a newborn is not the moral high ground you seem to believe it is.

She's not a witch, and your assumed right to burn her is not a good look.

▲

brandon272 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

If the "business owner needs to own their actions", shouldn't the people who are seeking to take a coordinated effort to harm that business also "own their actions" and be able to say plainly what they are doing instead of misrepresenting it via "Stop being crazy, I'm not making threats, I'm just talking to my friends" gaslighting nonsense?

> If the shop's oat milk was really cow's milk, would it be "threatening their business" to tell other customers that?

To entertain this analogy, if a shop is misrepresenting their ingredients then it can make sense to spread the word, particularly if the shop owner refuses to rectify the issue, because there are health implications which represent a legitimate material harm to their customer base and the safety issue takes priority over the shop owner's bottom line.

An AI menu, assuming it offers a reasonable representation of what the shop offers, has no safety issue.

▲

jlarocco an hour ago | parent [-]

AI stealing their jobs isn't a "legitimate material harm"?

It doesn't matter anyway, because "using AI" doesn't make somebody a protected class. If people don't want to patronize businesses that use AI, there's nothing wrong with that.

	▲	brandon272 19 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> AI stealing their jobs isn't a "legitimate material harm"? No, if you have to make several indirect causal leaps, to get from "shop owner uses ChatGPT instead of MS Word to generate a menu" to "somewhere a graphic designer loses their employment" it is not legitimate. And if that is how you interpret the world, virtually any harmful or even violent action can be rationalized in the name of stopping some probabilistic harm. Sticking with your cow's milk analogy, serving the wrong milk to the wrong customer with a dairy allergy can cause immediate harm to their health. Generating an AI menu cannot be reasonably interpreted as causing direct harm to anyone. > If people don't want to patronize businesses that use AI, there's nothing wrong with that. I completely agree. But making a personal choice to not visit a business and undertaking a coordinated effort to organize a boycott against a business is in a different category altogether.