this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2025
262 points (92.5% liked)

Technology

74114 readers
2688 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. 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
[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 11 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Everyone who uses AI is slowly committing suicide, check ✅

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Well, philosophical and epistemological suicide for now, but snowball it for a couple of decades and we may just reach the practical side, too...

Edit: or, hell, maybe not even decades given the increase in energy consumption with every iteration...

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 9 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

When technology allows us to do something that we could not before - like cross an ocean or fly through the sky a distance that would previously have taken years and many people dying during the journey, or save lives - then it unquestionably offers a benefit.

But when it simply eases some task, like using a car rather than horse to travel, and requires discipline to integrate into our lives in a balanced manner, then it becomes a source of potential danger that we would allow ourselves to misuse it.

Even agriculture, which allows those to eat who put forth no effort into making the food grow, or even in preparing it for consumption.

img

This is what CEOs are pushing on us, because for one number must go up, but also genuinely many believe they want what it has to offer, not quite having thought through what it would mean if they got it (or more to the point others did, empathy not being their strongest attribute).

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Technology that allows us to do something we could not do before - such as create nuclear explosions, or propel metal slugs at extreme velocities, or design new viruses - unquestionably offer a benefit and don't require discipline to integrate into our lives in a balanced manner?

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 6 points 17 hours ago

We could bomb / kill people before. We could propel arrows / spears / sling rocks at people before. All of which is an extension of walking over and punching someone.

Though sending a nuke from orbit on the other side of the planet by pressing a couple buttons does seem like the extension is so vast that it may qualify as "new".

I suppose any technology that can be used can be misused.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 7 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

The people who commission artists have no interest in being an artist; they simply want the product. Are people who commission artists also "slowly committing suicide?"

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 7 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

People who commission art don't call themselves the artist. That's the big difference. If people found out you commissioned the painting that you later told everyone at the party that you painted yourself, and that it is practically your work of art, because you gave the precise description of what you wanted to the painter, and thus you're an artist. Then you would be the laughing stock and the butt of many jokes and japes for decades. Because that's ridiculous.

If people found out you commissioned the painting that you later told everyone at the party that you painted yourself, and that it is practically your work of art, because you gave the precise description of what you wanted to the painter, and thus you're an artist.

"The best person who ever painted spots for me was Rachel. She’s brilliant – absolutely fucking brilliant,” Damien Hirst said. “The best spot painting you can have by me is one painted by her”.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

It's not the difference you think it is. Lots of people who use AI art generators don't call themselves artists either. I certainly don't, because I don't care whether I'm called an artist. I just want the art.

I think you may be generalizing a stereotype.

[–] thedruid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Then you arent getting art. Your collecting pretty computer generated images

That's fine.

But your arent getting art. It's just not. And yes. Your a stereotype.

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 6 points 17 hours ago

I misread you at first so here's an answer to if someone uses AI art:

Within the jokingly limited sphere of the discussion... "yes"? Particularly their artistic ability in that situation is being put to death slowly as whatever little they might have attempted without access to the tool will now not be attempted at all.

I don't know as much about if someone were to commission art from an actual person.