this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2026
245 points (95.9% liked)

Fuck AI

6809 readers
1096 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Lawsuits: OpenAI didn’t report ChatGPT user to cops to protect Altman, IPO.

top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hakase@lemmy.zip 44 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

God, Lemmings are such a bunch of fucking hypocrites. Loudly advocating for privacy and huge, faceless, multibillion-dollar corporations not being able to sell personal information to governments out one side of their ass, all while upvoting bullshit like this to high heaven and sucking off government surveillance in the comments out the other.

News flash: giving governments access to megacorps' personal data doesn't mean they'll only use that data in the tiny number of ways that you agree with, or only against the people you don't like!

Edit for context: the other top comment was getting hammered with downvotes when I posted this.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Many - myself included - will upvote messed up or unpleasant or concerning stuff because we feel it should be discussed, and discussion tends to correlate with visibility.

Upvote != agree in a ton of cases. Reddit worked (works? Haven’t been on in a few years actually) the same way.

[–] hakase@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 day ago

Thanks, this is an excellent point that my comment doesn't account for.

[–] okamiueru@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Selection bias is relevant here. Some people care about X, some about Y. The intersection might be hypocrites, but your argument seems to imply they are the same group.

[–] PearOfJudes@lemmy.ml 2 points 13 hours ago

Ngl they probably are though. I think there are other ways to prevent school shootings then making companies give private information to the government.

But since OpenAI is already stealing your data, they definitely arne't using it for good.

[–] shani66@ani.social 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Different people, but yeah lemmy is getting kinda authoritarian lately. I've been tagging probable trolls and neonazis for a long time, but maybe I'll tag general political stances just to look at who is who.

[–] pilferjinx@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, I agree. I don't want corporations giving my info to my government for any reason. Imagine the huge waste of resources and violations for false positives. And if they did hit a positive correctly, are they going to apprehend them for thought crimes?

[–] hakase@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Respect for unselecting your own upvote - Lemmy hardcore mode.

[–] pilferjinx@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago

Haha. Yeah that was unintentional. Just had a quick moment while waiting.

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (4 children)

no, not fuck AI. keep the internet private

[–] Jo4ted@lemmy.zip 1 points 13 hours ago

Agree. Sam Altman is the face of evil, just not for keeping user data secure (in this particular instance in this particular way, they are 1000% selling your data in many other ways)

[–] osanna@lemmy.vg 1 points 16 hours ago

I got some news for you: the internet hasn't been private in a VERY long time.

[–] Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Absolutely not.

Leaders rejected the safety team’s urgings and declined to report the user to law enforcement.

OpenAI will “find ways to prevent tragedies like this in the future” and to continue “working with all levels of government to help ensure something like this never happens again,” Altman said.

They already have a fucking way to prevent this and they opted not to, for PR reasons. They are complicit, they provided a service that aided planning and decided to continue service and allowed further planning.

If you post a message to a website, that message is not private from the website regardless of the method they use to receive it. They have the moral responsibility to respond to threats to life regardless of the legal responsibility they are arguing they don't have.

If I put a cork board up in front of my house and someone pins threats to it, when I notice it it's now my responsibility to act on that.

[–] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 22 hours ago

They train their ai on your data.

That is not really a case of privacy.

I am all for privacy but then you can let a company collect all that data to begin with (especially one that states clearly that they will leak your information and has a history of respecting privacy and copyright) and then cry over privacy.

That company wanted to have the data. Now even if you don't want to share the data with the government, they carry the responsibility that they could have done something.

A gun manufacturer carry the weight of the responsibility of what is done with those weapons. That is just how it is. Even if they are required and even if you don't want to prevent the existence of these weapons, the manufacturer carries the responsibility.

If you want a private internet, use a private internet. Stop supporting big data while crying about surveillance. Big data is always 1 law away from surveillance state.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Reporting a user for risky behaviour relies on an assessment that violates the EU AI legislation. It seems they reasoned a machine assessment is already a rights violation too far.

[–] Nooodel@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

Which is really interesting.

If you order large quantities of chemicals commonly used for making explosives, there's rules in place requiring the resellers to report you AFAIK. Seems the idea that Ai can be used as weapon or to radicalize people isn't something they considered yet when they wrote that legislation.

[–] eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 day ago

Couldn't have said it better myself.