Hacker News Reader

Comment by vouaobrasil | Hacker News Reader

I was thinking exactly that: a coalition of people who refuse to use AI, and who refuse to interact with or support others who do use AI. I actually work for Photography Life, and we have already committed to 100% AI free: no generative AI for articles and no gen AI for photos either. I also have a 100% AI-free commmitment on my YouTube channel. Procreate for iPad believes in no AI as well.

But we need more supporters. Place AI-free banners on your site if you have one and send me the link. Encourage others to declare their support against AI. Writing and art is about communicating what humans make because it transmits experience! We have to come together and refuse as much as possible to support those who use AI! Feel free to contact me if you want to collaborate!

View on HN

coalition makes it sound like its in the millions all coordinating together like these guys : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

I am happy to declare that I am myself, a Luddite in many ways. No problem with that. I like lots of technology, not gonna lie. I'm a programmer and have a PhD in math, but I think it's gone too far in many respects. And if I have to build a coalition into millions, I'll do it one step at a time.

where do I sign up?

early 2000s style amish would do it for me...

Where do I sign?

No problems with that. I don’t even call you luddite. I wouldn’t look down on you and call what I don’t like anti art.

Mill and factory owners took to shooting protesters and eventually the movement was suppressed by legal and military force, which included execution and penal transportation of accused and convicted Luddites.[5]

The outcome of the times. Likewise it is far more likely harmless AI (like adding dumb AI stuff to a family video) will have stronger suppression by current power systems than society suppressing critics of generative AI. Mostly because the latter boils down to cultural preferences and protectionism, not the real sort of harm that would build collective mass to threaten progress. And the former because people are heavily motivated these days by outrage and abstract future threats, well before the tangible evidence exists of widespread harm.

How do you protect your community from the inevitable arrival of trolls who try to blend in and poison your photo collections with AI generated ones, only so they can say "see? it's so good, they don't even notice!"

The community has to be based on actually knowing people and a progressive level of trust. Just like other things in society: doctors and accreditations make sure that fake doctors don't practice, keeping sensitive information is based on trust, etc. An anti-AI community has to be a real community that is based on knowing and actually working with people, and not some online thing where anyone can sign up.

In other words, it's not a social network or an amusing website with a free account. Nor is it just about photo collections. It's about supporting real people who do not want to support or use AI.

Turning it into a prohibition-style movement where using AI taints you forever unless your confess your sins and pledge total abstinence seems like the opposite for the group that wants to present itself as a return to sanity and moderation. It would be better to say, "Do what you want elsewhere, but we don't do that here."

If you want to go full-radical, bombing a few data centers would probably be more effective than being mean to randos who used Midjourney a few times.

Hey, I am not trying to be mean to anyone. We all are forced to use technology more than we could choose too. Some friends and family of mine use AI and I am not mean to them. I just gently talk about it. Even my Macbook has some AI processor in it though I don't use it.

There's no condemnation whatsoever, except for some who are really pushing AI.

>who refuse to interact with

Zero-tolerance ostracization is mean. If you're not doing that, and simply setting your boundaries - "I don't like the technology, let's talk about something else" - that's one thing. That's not what you were encouraging people to do in GP. I think we should be concise in our rhetoric, because it does have the potential to create needless conflict.

"But you just said-"

I did. People keep saying that AI is an existential threat requiring the most extreme action to stop. So... do people really believe that? Or are they just saying it? The treehuggers have a whole file on their actions[1]; where are the luddites? Is there really conviction, or just people letting off steam at convenient targets.[2]

[1]: https://www.dhs.gov/archive/science-and-technology/publicati...

[2]: I am not encouraging nor do I condone illegal or destructive acts, I'm analogizing a similar movement and its tactics.

I do think there has to be some responsibility taken, rather than being "nice" all the time. And I was speaking of a business sense. If someone uses AI in their own work, I fully support not supporting them. That's not social ostracization, that's just good business sense in not supporting a technology that I don't believe in.

So yeah, let me be clear: I absolutely support boycotting people who use AI when it comes to business decisions, and I absolutely support an economic war of attrition against them.

You know what's mean? Creating a technology that takes other people's jobs en masse like AI. But refusing to do business with those who use AI? I think that's fair play, and if it is at all mean, then it's just karma.

You're conflating the totally sound business decision not to use AI (as it currently exists, in its current legal limbo) in production, with an emotion-driven appeal to normalcy (which itself you have conflated with justice).

Support, boycott, war: these are words when your intent is to not associate with someone at all, not just in a business sense. You're trying to present your argument as soft and hard at the same time, and I'm saying that it's completely disingenuous if you don't choose one or the other: either this is an existential crisis that deserves radical action, or it's not and therefore not worth ruining relationships or unintentionally presenting yourself as hysterical or a less-than-rational bully. I'm asking you to choose for your sake, and for the sake of the argument you end up actually wanting to stand behind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com