You have no sense of wonder or imagination, do you? We have been making robots for decades, and this is the first time we have ever made humanoid ones which is able to outperform actual humans in this way. At last year’s robot games, the highest one was able to jump was under a meter, and now they can beat the human world record of 2.45 meters.

That’s absolutely phenomenal engineering, and it’s completely reductive to equate it to completely different technologies that exist to solve completely different problems. It’s phenomenal in the same way that it was phenomenal when we created the first chess bot that a human was unable to defeat.

Why would they do that if they can make more money the way they did it, while facing no consequences?

You can’t seperate the technology from the company in this case. The complete violation of privacy is baked into the technology with no way to seperate it. The companies practices are baked into the technology with no way to seperate it. Which also applies to most technologies.

If you think we can/should seperate the technology from the company that makes it, you’re incredibly naive. The privacy violations are an inherent feature of the technology itself.

Because male nurses are uncommon and in that specific circumstance female is the default that most people assume.

I’ve literally never installed an operating system. I can pretty confidently say that most of the people I know have never installed an operating system either.

I probably could follow all those steps because I’ve had experience navigating my computer’s BIOS, but most people don’t even know what a BIOS is. To ask them to navigate and make sense of it without detailed instructions is pretty unfair.

The fediverse is a very niche place, and the general tech savvyness that’s common here should not be taken as an actual measure of how tech savvy the general population is.

Technically, calling different distributions of Linux “versions of Linux” is completely accurate based on the definition of the word “version,” and based on how the word is generally used in every day speech.

You’re just being pedantic. Which is completely valid, I’m also being very pedantic.

That must feel so good

They obviously meant patriotic citizens of the countries in question

You can’t think of an actual argument with substance, so you’re just going to try and paint me as someone hateful. How embarrassing for you.

You keep changing the question.

You asked why people dislike AI. I gave you reasons. Now you’re arguing whether AI users should be legally responsible for misuse. That’s a completely different conversation.

And your gasoline analogy falls apart because gasoline isn’t designed to generate persuasive text, images, voices, or code at scale. AI is. The concern isn’t that it’s “a tool” it’s that it’s a tool that dramatically lowers the cost and effort required to produce plagiarism, scams, misinformation, and deepfakes. Society has always treated technologies differently when they massively change capability and scale. That’s why we have regulations for cars that don’t apply to horses, and aviation laws that don’t apply to bicycles.

As for the “fuck_ai” crowd: congratulations, you’ve found some extremists on the internet. They aren’t representative of everyone who criticizes AI. You asked why people dislike it, not whether literally every critic wants it banned.

The irony is that you’ve spent this entire discussion asking for reasons people hate AI, then dismissed every reason as either “humans do it too,” “it’s already illegal,” or “those people are morons.” You didn’t come looking for reasons you came looking for excuses to ignore them.

Every one of your rebuttals boils down to “humans do it too,” as if that settles anything. It doesn’t. Humans can lie, plagiarize, scam, and spread misinformation. AI makes all of those faster, cheaper, and infinitely more scalable. That’s the entire point, and you keep pretending scale is irrelevant because acknowledging it wrecks your argument.

Your “Pandora’s Box” rant is just a straw man. Nobody said AI should be abandoned because of its social impacts. You asked why people dislike AI beyond data centers. You were given several reasons. Instead of addressing them, you built a ridiculous caricature so you could dunk on an argument nobody made.

At this point, you’re not refuting the criticisms, you’ve just downgraded every objection to “humans do it too.” By that logic, we’d never regulate anything. Humans steal, so why have laws? Individual humans pollute, so why regulate industrial pollution? Humans commit fraud, so why care when AI lets fraud happen at industrial scale?

At this point, you’re not rebutting the criticisms, you’ve replaced them with a lazy thought-terminating cliché. “Humans do it too” is what people say when they don’t have an answer but still want to sound like they won.

“My GPU runs on solar” is a great answer… to a question nobody asked. Hosting locally cuts server energy use. It doesn’t magically erase the training data issues, copyright, scams, misinformation, hallucinations, or the broader social impacts. You’re arguing against one criticism while pretending you’ve answered them all.