this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025
698 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
74331 readers
3436 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There are things that could be done to improve Excel. For instance, fully integrate python and allow it to be used to create custom functions. Then, maybe one day, VBA can ride off into the sunset where it belongs.
Adding Copilot to Excel is not an improvement because Copilot and all other LLM based platforms frequently barfs out totally incorrect information about how to do something in Excel.
"You do that using formula."
No, I can't, you worthless pile of shit because THAT FORMULA DOESNT EXIST.
Yea like what? It's been a big increase in workflow for me.
Lol you shared your personal experience and got downvoted... lmao even
Lemmy is propaganda against AI at this point. Not sure what paid for it but it has all the markers. Feels like being in the comment section of ny post articles.
Same energy as talking online about immigrants, nuclear energy or marvel
It's using a community to post toxic and dystopian articles over and over again. Lemmy technology communitys are extremely vile. Not sure why it happened but it's turned toxic
There isn't propaganda against AI, it's totally grassroots because companies are overselling it.
No it isn't. There is 100% propaganda and media targeting communities to spread it.
The Gap between peoples opinion towards AI in everyday life vs people on Lemmy is massive and a good indicator that Lemmy is astroturfed to be toxic towards it. People who are influenced cannot see it, outsiders can though. It's like seeing right wingers talk about immigrants. They'll never be able to see how their news and media influence them. That is their truth and it's as true to them as hate towards AI is towards lemmings in places like c/technology
Look at the articles posted, the headlines, the appeals used, the comments. It has all the markers of an Astro turf campaign.
By who? Your conspiracy theory makes no sense. Why would anyone want to do that.
You really can’t imagine why corporations and political groups who spend billions paying people to manufacture narratives and flood feeds might hate the idea of ordinary people suddenly having their own free, on-demand content factory, fact-checker, and megaphone?
That's on both sides of the political spectrum. These AI tools are not just Google chat. You can build with them rapidly. Is it some revolutionary thing? No
But can it be a game changer in some areas? Absolutely.
They moved rapidly with the media on this. Compare headlines for AI to any other yellow journalistic topic. They're identical
In favour of AI absolutely, against it, no I can't. What group would want to disvalue AI, after all most of the big tech companies are developing their own. They would want people to use AI, that's the only way they make a profit.
You keep providing these vague justifications for your belief but you never actually provide a concrete answer.
Which groups in particular do you think are paying people to astroturf with negative AI comments? Which actual organisations, which companys? Do you have evidence for this beyond "lots of people on a technically inclined forum don't like it" because that seems to be a fairly self-selecting set. You are seeing patterns in the clouds and are insisting that they are meaningful.
You call it “patterns in the clouds,” but that’s how coordinated media campaigns are meant to look organic, coincidental, invisible unless you recognize the fingerprints. Spotting those fingerprints isn’t tinfoil-hat stuff, it’s basic media literacy.
And let’s be real: plenty of groups have motives to discourage everyday people from embracing AI.
Political think tanks and content farms (Heritage Foundation, Koch networks...) already pay for astroturfing campaigns and troll farms. They do it on issues like immigration, climate, and COVID. Why would AI magically be exempt?
Reputation management/PR firms (Bent Pixels, marketing shops, crisis comms firms) literally get paid to scrub and reshape narratives online. Their business model depends on you not having the same tools for cheap or free.
Established media and gatekeepers survive on controlling distribution pipelines. The more people use AI to generate, remix, and distribute their own content, the less leverage those outlets have.
Now why does this matter with AI in particular? Because AI isn’t just another app it’s a force multiplier for individuals.
A single parent can spin up an online store, write copy, generate images, and market it without hiring an agency.
A student can build an interactive study tool in a weekend that used to take a funded research lab.
An activist group can draft policy briefs, make explainer videos, and coordinate messaging with almost no budget.
These kinds of tools only get created if ordinary people are experimenting, collaborating, and embracing AI. That’s what the “don’t trust AI” narrative is designed to discourage. If you keep people from touching it, you keep them dependent on the existing gatekeepers.
So flip your own question: who pays for these narratives? The same people who already fund copy-paste headline campaigns like “illegals are taking our jobs and assaulting Americans.” It’s the same yellow-journalism playbook, just aimed at a new target.
Dismissing this as “cloud patterns” is the exact mindset they hope you have. Because if you actually acknowledge how coordinated media framing works, you start to see why of course there are groups with the motive and budget to poison the well on AI.
Consider these recent examples:
The pro-Russia “Operation Overload” campaign used free AI tools to push disinformation—including deepfakes and fake news sites—on a scale that catapulted from 230 to 587 unique content pieces in under a year .
AI-generated bots and faux media orchestrated coordinated boycotts of Amazon and McDonald’s over DEI reversals—with no clear ideology, just engineered outrage .
Social media networks ahead of the 2024 U.S. election were crawling with coordination networks sharing AI-generated manipulative images and narrative content and most such accounts remain active .
Across the globe, AI deepfakes and election misinformation campaigns surged from France to Ghana to South Africa—showing clear strategic deployment, not random dissent .
Because AI expands creative sovereignty. It enables:
It keeps people bypass expensive gatekeepers and build tools, stories, and businesses.
Activists and community groups to publish, advocate, and organize without top-down approval.
Everyday people to become producers, not just consumers.
The moment ordinary people gain these capabilities, the power structures that rely on gatekeeping be they think tanks, PR firms, old-guard media, or political operatives have every incentive to suppress or smear AI usage. That’s why “AI is dangerous” is convenient messaging for them.
The real question isn’t whether cloud patterns are real it’s why shouldn’t we expect influential actors to use AI to shape perception, especially when it threatens their control?
Lemmy isn’t just a random forum it’s one of the last bastions of “tech-savvy” community space outside the mainstream. That makes it a perfect target for poisoning the well campaigns. If you can seed anti-AI sentiment there, you don’t just reach casual users, you capture the early adopters and opinion leaders who influence the wider conversation.
I haven't checked my feed. But good money I can find multiple "fuck AI" posts that sound similar to "they took our job"
Lemmy is pretty consistent with the people I know IRL in terms of opinions on AI.
Not where I am. I haven't met anyone irl that has any spite with AI. They think it's interesting. Have tried it a few times. But nobody is out there saying fuck AI.
No, I'd definitely agree that AI sentiment overall is pretty negative. I am not such a hardliner, but they are definitely out there. I don't see it as astroturfing at all, to even suggest this is ironic because LLMs are the ultimate astroturfing tool. The institutions capable of astroturfing do support AI and are using it. What institution or organization are you accusing of anti-AI astroturfing, exactly? This question requires an answer for that claim to be taken seriously.
IMO the problem is not LLMs itself, which are very compelling and interesting for strictly language processing and enable software usecases that were almost impossible to implement programmatically before; the problem is how LLMs are being used incorrectly for usecases that they are not suited for, due to the massive investment and hype. "We spent all this money on this so now we have to use it for everything". It's wrong. LLMs are not knowledge stores, they are provably bad at summarization and as a search interface, and they should especially not be used for decision making in any context. And people are reacting to the way LLMs are being forced into all of these roles.
People also take strong issue with their perceived violation of intellectual property and training on copyrighted information, viewing AI generated arts as derivative and theft.
Plus, there are very negative consequences to generative AI that aren't yet fully addressed. Environmental impact. Deepfakes. They're a propaganda machine; they can be censored and reflect biases of the institutions that control them. Parasocial relationships, misguided self-validating "therapy". They degrade human creativity and become a crutch. Impacts on education and cheating. Replacement of jobs and easier exploitation of workers. Surveillance.
All of these things are valid and I hear them all from people around me, not just on the internet.
You're probably debating a tool.
Honestly, probably lol
That was the initial impression of it. Now that we've had more experience with it and learned that it can't be relied on, perception has changed. It is oversold and the costs are not worth what we are getting out of it.
I fed AI all my Lemmy posts and asked it for a portrait of the artist. Not bad, down to my 6 fingers.