The No. 1 Country Song in America Is AI-Generated.. looks like Gospel Charts.. too

AlexY · November 2025

@Fruitbat1919 said:
Just a general AI comment / opinion:

My feelings in general as well. Well put.

Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr · November 2025

@maxxpower18 said:
I hate AI because it's being used by the technocrats and oligarchs to ultimately control us. If I knew the people training these models had good intentions I'd probably give it a shot.

Facebook now requires you to pose for a face modeling app before it lets you sign up for a new account. ICE is using AI to decide who to harass. I like AI for answering questions I have, but there is definitely a dimension to it that will empower evil autocrats.

Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr · November 2025

@michael_m said:
It might sound OK for a listener whose tastes match the parameters provided by the tool, but it takes all the fun out of making music. The industry that grew around recorded music has reached the point where the artist is the least important person in the process.

Musicians have always been the last ones to profit from their own work. This is not a new phenomenon, just a new way of screwing the artist.

Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr · November 2025

I was supposed to get $5000 from that class action lawsuit, for a book I wrote that was sucked up by the machine. Then the judge and the lawyers changed the rules, and now my publisher gets to keep the whole amount. I don't get a penny.

Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr · November 2025

@Fruitbat1919 said:

@oldsynthguy said:

Yep agree for the most part. I tend to like some things tight as it gives perspective to the bits that arent. The imperfections in balance with the robotic lol. I do think a lot of music has that 'jamming band' vibe missing now that the vast majority of music is made by one person. I think thats the one thing modernity has made worse, the lack of in person social interactions that made even synth music more alive.

The other missing piece today is composing and arranging. Ninety percent of what I hear is just a beat with some vocals. No development, no drama. Because making a beat is easy, but taking people on a journey is very hard work.

Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr · November 2025

@bluegroove said:
If all humans did was simply rehash, then music would never progress or evolve, but it obviously has...

I would argue that in the limited domain of the pop music charts, there has been very little evolution since 1980. The one exception is the sounds we use; production is far more sophisticated and varied today. But melody, harmony, and rhythm have hardly evolved at all, and composing and arranging has devolved.

Fruitbat1919 · November 2025

@Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

@Fruitbat1919 said:

@oldsynthguy said:

Yep agree for the most part. I tend to like some things tight as it gives perspective to the bits that arent. The imperfections in balance with the robotic lol. I do think a lot of music has that 'jamming band' vibe missing now that the vast majority of music is made by one person. I think thats the one thing modernity has made worse, the lack of in person social interactions that made even synth music more alive.

The other missing piece today is composing and arranging. Ninety percent of what I hear is just a beat with some vocals. No development, no drama. Because making a beat is easy, but taking people on a journey is very hard work.

I would agree for a lot of commercial music, but there is a fair amount of decent developmental and emotive music out there, its just that there is a lot of stuff to trawl through to find the decent music. I suppose hobbyists like myself dont help as I often post music in varying stages of 'unfinished' lol.

At times im quite fond of a bit of industrial noise inbetween some a decent melodic and emotive journey. And love a bit of emotive saxaphone played over a drum machine. I do get what you mean though.

Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr · November 2025

@Fruitbat1919 said:

@Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

@Fruitbat1919 said:

@oldsynthguy said:

Yep agree for the most part. I tend to like some things tight as it gives perspective to the bits that arent. The imperfections in balance with the robotic lol. I do think a lot of music has that 'jamming band' vibe missing now that the vast majority of music is made by one person. I think thats the one thing modernity has made worse, the lack of in person social interactions that made even synth music more alive.

The other missing piece today is composing and arranging. Ninety percent of what I hear is just a beat with some vocals. No development, no drama. Because making a beat is easy, but taking people on a journey is very hard work.

I would agree for a lot of commercial music, but there is a fair amount of decent developmental and emotive music out there, its just that there is a lot of stuff to trawl through to find the decent music. I suppose hobbyists like myself dont help as I often post music in varying stages of 'unfinished' lol.

At times im quite fond of a bit of industrial noise inbetween some a decent melodic and emotive journey. And love a bit of emotive saxaphone played over a drum machine. I do get what you mean though.

I was speaking mostly about pop music. There is good stuff out there beyond the T40 for sure. For me, this piece is the epitome of mixing synths, voices, and acoustic instruments in a compositional work that takes you on a fantastic trip:

Fruitbat1919 · November 2025

@Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

@Fruitbat1919 said:

@Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

@Fruitbat1919 said:

@oldsynthguy said:

Yep agree for the most part. I tend to like some things tight as it gives perspective to the bits that arent. The imperfections in balance with the robotic lol. I do think a lot of music has that 'jamming band' vibe missing now that the vast majority of music is made by one person. I think thats the one thing modernity has made worse, the lack of in person social interactions that made even synth music more alive.

The other missing piece today is composing and arranging. Ninety percent of what I hear is just a beat with some vocals. No development, no drama. Because making a beat is easy, but taking people on a journey is very hard work.

I would agree for a lot of commercial music, but there is a fair amount of decent developmental and emotive music out there, its just that there is a lot of stuff to trawl through to find the decent music. I suppose hobbyists like myself dont help as I often post music in varying stages of 'unfinished' lol.

At times im quite fond of a bit of industrial noise inbetween some a decent melodic and emotive journey. And love a bit of emotive saxaphone played over a drum machine. I do get what you mean though.

I was speaking mostly about pop music. There is good stuff out there beyond the T40 for sure. For me, this piece is the epitome of mixing synths, voices, and acoustic instruments in a compositional work that takes you on a fantastic trip:

Will take a listen tomorrow as its just hit the witching hour and my bed time lol

AudioGus · November 2025

@Parthand said:

A vast amount of music nowadays is written by people, or groups, who think it’s normal or ok to reuse chord sequences or even melodies from classic songs. It’s a field. It appalls me. We have possibly the majority of music being made by producers who can’t play an instrument or write a song stringing together samples of others music because they can legally - and this is now considered normal. The bar of creativity and originality has never been lower. Many people here and many apps use generative stuff for creating sequences; I find it genuinely bizarre that this motivates people but that’s just me. Ai is the natural progression and punishment for that. I find it comparatively honest.

I think it is far more the natural progression and side effect of social media.

bluegroove · November 2025

@Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

@bluegroove said:
If all humans did was simply rehash, then music would never progress or evolve, but it obviously has...

I would argue that in the limited domain of the pop music charts, there has been very little evolution since 1980. The one exception is the sounds we use; production is far more sophisticated and varied today. But melody, harmony, and rhythm have hardly evolved at all, and composing and arranging has devolved.

Fair point, but I was talking about the progression of music as a whole from its original inception, not modern pop music. The previous post claimed that there was no evidence to suggest that humans do anything other than simply rehash what we've already heard. I'm saying, if that were true, we never would've progressed beyond simple nursery rhymes, yet even those were more complex than the earliest forms of music... and then when you compare that to what the musical geniuses have done just in the last few centuries, it's truly astounding.

NeuM · November 2025

@maxxpower18 said:
I hate AI because it's being used by the technocrats and oligarchs to ultimately control us. If I knew the people training these models had good intentions I'd probably give it a shot.

These things exist because people demand them. That's how this all works. No one is being forced to do anything.

NeuM · November 2025

@Gavinski said:
AI could be a force for good, but in our very imperfect world, if AI lives up to its potential (that is just an if, thank God), the downsides will outweigh the benefits. The main dangers are:

Massive unemployment. No previous tech innovation had the potential to replace humans in thinking and creative tasks so quickly. Artists, musicians, doctors, programmers, teachers and thousands of other professions are suddenly at risk of widespread job losses.

Misinformation. The flooding of the internet with misinformation will create a society where nobody knows what to believe or who to trust. We're already half way there due to social media and even much of the corporate-owned mainstream media. The less informed and less educated members of such a society are ripe for manipulation, and will often act against their own best interests.

Concentration of power. Companies like OpenAI, Palantir and Meta incentivize benefits for their shareholders. They don't give a f*ck about the common good and yet they already have more power than some governments. Goodbye democracy, hello oligarchy. Again, we're already part way there, but things will worsen.

Then there are all the existential risks of 'misaligned' AI running wild. Even if we don't get 'evil' AI overlords, we might simply get very powerful but incompetent ones capable of unintentionally causing huge problems. See the Paperclip Maximizer analogy.

History has made it clear that we humans are great at inventing tech but are not good at using tech wisely. More and more people already regret the invention of the smartphone. The damage AI causes to society will be much worse. I think we need to act accordingly and do what we can to thwart the AI revolution. The genie is out of the bottle, yes, but there's still time to prevent the very worst case scenarios. Ps: remember that in the Aladdin story, the genie does get put back in the bottle

Point 1. Massive unemployment from AI replacing thinking and creative tasks

Historical precedents show technology displaces jobs but creates more in the long run. The Industrial Revolution eliminated manual labor roles but birthed factories, engineering, and service economies; computers wiped out typists and switchboard operators but exploded demand for programmers, data analysts, and IT support. AI follows this pattern: McKinsey Global Institute estimates AI could automate 45% of work activities by 2030, but it will also generate 20-50 million new jobs in AI maintenance, ethics, data curation, and human-AI collaboration. Creativity isn't vanishing—AI tools like Midjourney or GPT models augment artists (e.g., enabling faster ideation for concept artists at studios like Disney) rather than replace them wholesale. Professions like doctors benefit from AI diagnostics (e.g., Google's DeepMind improving cancer detection by 11%), freeing humans for patient interaction. Net effect: higher productivity leads to economic growth, shorter workweeks, and new fields we can't yet imagine, as seen with the internet creating billions of jobs since 1991.

Point 2. Flooding of misinformation creating a society where nobody trusts anything

Misinformation predates AI—propaganda, yellow journalism, and deepfakes via Photoshop existed long before generative AI. Social media amplified it, but AI offers countermeasures: tools like Grok's real-time search, fact-checking bots (e.g., OpenAI's integration with moderators), and watermarking for AI-generated content (adopted by Adobe, Microsoft) help detect fakes. Studies show educated users already navigate this (Pew Research: 60% of Americans fact-check news). AI accelerates truth-seeking too—e.g., Perplexity AI or Consensus app synthesize peer-reviewed science instantly. The "less informed" being manipulated ignores that AI democratizes education (Khan Academy's AI tutors reach millions underserved). We're not "halfway there" irreversibly; blockchain-verified media and AI moderation (e.g., reducing hate speech on platforms by 90% per Meta reports) are scaling solutions, making information ecosystems more robust than pre-digital eras.

Point 3. Concentration of power in companies like OpenAI, Palantir, and Meta leading to oligarchy

AI development is decentralizing, not concentrating. Open-source models (e.g., Meta's Llama, Stability AI's Stable Diffusion, xAI's Grok) allow anyone to build/customize AI, countering proprietary giants—thousands of startups and governments (e.g., EU's AI Act, China's state AI) compete. Power isn't zero-sum: Palantir aids governments against threats, OpenAI partners with nonprofits for societal good (e.g., climate modeling). Democracy thrives with regulation—antitrust actions against Big Tech (e.g., DOJ vs. Google) and open AI reduce barriers. Shareholders incentivize profit, but market forces reward ethics (boycotts hit unethical firms); xAI's mission explicitly prioritizes understanding the universe over pure profit. We're not "partway to oligarchy"—global AI investment is $200B+ annually across 100+ countries, diluting any single entity's dominance far more than oil or railroads ever did.

Point 4. Existential risks from misaligned or incompetent AI (e.g., Paperclip Maximizer)

The Paperclip Maximizer is a thought experiment by Nick Bostrom, not a probable outcome—real AI alignment research (e.g., Anthropic's Constitutional AI, OpenAI's safety teams) mitigates this via techniques like reward modeling and scalable oversight. Probability of "runaway" AI is low: experts like Yann LeCun argue superintelligence requires breakthroughs we lack, and current systems are narrow tools, not general agents. Even if risks exist, benefits outweigh—AI already averts catastrophes (e.g., predicting hurricanes with 30% more accuracy via IBM's models, saving lives). "Incompetent" AI causing harm is addressable through testing (e.g., red-teaming by Adversarial Robustness Toolbox) and kill switches. History shows we manage risks: nuclear tech brought mutually assured destruction fears but led to treaties and peaceful energy; AI will follow with international pacts (e.g., UNESCO's AI ethics recommendations adopted by 193 countries).

Point 5. Humans are bad at using tech wisely; AI damage will be worse than smartphones; we should thwart the AI revolution

Regret over smartphones ignores net positives—global connectivity lifted 1 billion people out of poverty via mobile banking/education (World Bank data), reduced isolation, and enabled movements like Arab Spring. AI's upsides dwarf this: curing diseases (AlphaFold solved 200M protein structures, accelerating drug development), combating climate change (Google's AI cut data center energy 40%), and boosting GDP (PwC: AI adds $15.7T by 2030). Supply and demand and the forces of capitalism work—cars caused accidents but birthed seatbelts/traffic laws. Thwarting AI is Luddite folly: it would cede advantages to adversaries (e.g., nations pausing while others advance). The genie analogy fails—we don't "put it back"; we guide it, as with fire or electricity, for unprecedented human flourishing. Preventing "worst cases" means accelerating safe development, not sabotage. China won't be holding back in the development of strong A.I. and it would be ignorant to claim otherwise.

Fun fact: I used "A.I." to respond to this post because I wouldn't want to waste the time responding to it otherwise.

NeuM · November 2025

@Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

@maxxpower18 said:
I hate AI because it's being used by the technocrats and oligarchs to ultimately control us. If I knew the people training these models had good intentions I'd probably give it a shot.

Facebook now requires you to pose for a face modeling app before it lets you sign up for a new account. ICE is using AI to decide who to harass. I like AI for answering questions I have, but there is definitely a dimension to it that will empower evil autocrats.

Using A.I. to identify people who are not authorized to be in the US is a good use of A.I. Used correctly, it will prevent false arrests. And by the way, immigration laws predate the current administration. They were not being enforced in the prior one.

Also, could you guys stop turning every A.I. thread into a political soapbox?

espiegel123 · November 2025

LOL

I’m sorry but discussion of U.S. immigration policy strikes me as completely off the topic of the discussion of the pros and cons of generative AI in the arts.

Gavinski · November 2025

@NeuM said:

@Gavinski said:
AI could be a force for good, but in our very imperfect world, if AI lives up to its potential (that is just an if, thank God), the downsides will outweigh the benefits. The main dangers are:

Massive unemployment. No previous tech innovation had the potential to replace humans in thinking and creative tasks so quickly. Artists, musicians, doctors, programmers, teachers and thousands of other professions are suddenly at risk of widespread job losses.

Misinformation. The flooding of the internet with misinformation will create a society where nobody knows what to believe or who to trust. We're already half way there due to social media and even much of the corporate-owned mainstream media. The less informed and less educated members of such a society are ripe for manipulation, and will often act against their own best interests.

Concentration of power. Companies like OpenAI, Palantir and Meta incentivize benefits for their shareholders. They don't give a f*ck about the common good and yet they already have more power than some governments. Goodbye democracy, hello oligarchy. Again, we're already part way there, but things will worsen.

Then there are all the existential risks of 'misaligned' AI running wild. Even if we don't get 'evil' AI overlords, we might simply get very powerful but incompetent ones capable of unintentionally causing huge problems. See the Paperclip Maximizer analogy.

History has made it clear that we humans are great at inventing tech but are not good at using tech wisely. More and more people already regret the invention of the smartphone. The damage AI causes to society will be much worse. I think we need to act accordingly and do what we can to thwart the AI revolution. The genie is out of the bottle, yes, but there's still time to prevent the very worst case scenarios. Ps: remember that in the Aladdin story, the genie does get put back in the bottle

Point 1. Massive unemployment from AI replacing thinking and creative tasks

Historical precedents show technology displaces jobs but creates more in the long run. The Industrial Revolution eliminated manual labor roles but birthed factories, engineering, and service economies; computers wiped out typists and switchboard operators but exploded demand for programmers, data analysts, and IT support. AI follows this pattern: McKinsey Global Institute estimates AI could automate 45% of work activities by 2030, but it will also generate 20-50 million new jobs in AI maintenance, ethics, data curation, and human-AI collaboration. Creativity isn't vanishing—AI tools like Midjourney or GPT models augment artists (e.g., enabling faster ideation for concept artists at studios like Disney) rather than replace them wholesale. Professions like doctors benefit from AI diagnostics (e.g., Google's DeepMind improving cancer detection by 11%), freeing humans for patient interaction. Net effect: higher productivity leads to economic growth, shorter workweeks, and new fields we can't yet imagine, as seen with the internet creating billions of jobs since 1991.

Point 2. Flooding of misinformation creating a society where nobody trusts anything

Misinformation predates AI—propaganda, yellow journalism, and deepfakes via Photoshop existed long before generative AI. Social media amplified it, but AI offers countermeasures: tools like Grok's real-time search, fact-checking bots (e.g., OpenAI's integration with moderators), and watermarking for AI-generated content (adopted by Adobe, Microsoft) help detect fakes. Studies show educated users already navigate this (Pew Research: 60% of Americans fact-check news). AI accelerates truth-seeking too—e.g., Perplexity AI or Consensus app synthesize peer-reviewed science instantly. The "less informed" being manipulated ignores that AI democratizes education (Khan Academy's AI tutors reach millions underserved). We're not "halfway there" irreversibly; blockchain-verified media and AI moderation (e.g., reducing hate speech on platforms by 90% per Meta reports) are scaling solutions, making information ecosystems more robust than pre-digital eras.

Point 3. Concentration of power in companies like OpenAI, Palantir, and Meta leading to oligarchy

AI development is decentralizing, not concentrating. Open-source models (e.g., Meta's Llama, Stability AI's Stable Diffusion, xAI's Grok) allow anyone to build/customize AI, countering proprietary giants—thousands of startups and governments (e.g., EU's AI Act, China's state AI) compete. Power isn't zero-sum: Palantir aids governments against threats, OpenAI partners with nonprofits for societal good (e.g., climate modeling). Democracy thrives with regulation—antitrust actions against Big Tech (e.g., DOJ vs. Google) and open AI reduce barriers. Shareholders incentivize profit, but market forces reward ethics (boycotts hit unethical firms); xAI's mission explicitly prioritizes understanding the universe over pure profit. We're not "partway to oligarchy"—global AI investment is $200B+ annually across 100+ countries, diluting any single entity's dominance far more than oil or railroads ever did.

Point 4. Existential risks from misaligned or incompetent AI (e.g., Paperclip Maximizer)

The Paperclip Maximizer is a thought experiment by Nick Bostrom, not a probable outcome—real AI alignment research (e.g., Anthropic's Constitutional AI, OpenAI's safety teams) mitigates this via techniques like reward modeling and scalable oversight. Probability of "runaway" AI is low: experts like Yann LeCun argue superintelligence requires breakthroughs we lack, and current systems are narrow tools, not general agents. Even if risks exist, benefits outweigh—AI already averts catastrophes (e.g., predicting hurricanes with 30% more accuracy via IBM's models, saving lives). "Incompetent" AI causing harm is addressable through testing (e.g., red-teaming by Adversarial Robustness Toolbox) and kill switches. History shows we manage risks: nuclear tech brought mutually assured destruction fears but led to treaties and peaceful energy; AI will follow with international pacts (e.g., UNESCO's AI ethics recommendations adopted by 193 countries).

Point 5. Humans are bad at using tech wisely; AI damage will be worse than smartphones; we should thwart the AI revolution

Regret over smartphones ignores net positives—global connectivity lifted 1 billion people out of poverty via mobile banking/education (World Bank data), reduced isolation, and enabled movements like Arab Spring. AI's upsides dwarf this: curing diseases (AlphaFold solved 200M protein structures, accelerating drug development), combating climate change (Google's AI cut data center energy 40%), and boosting GDP (PwC: AI adds $15.7T by 2030). Supply and demand and the forces of capitalism work—cars caused accidents but birthed seatbelts/traffic laws. Thwarting AI is Luddite folly: it would cede advantages to adversaries (e.g., nations pausing while others advance). The genie analogy fails—we don't "put it back"; we guide it, as with fire or electricity, for unprecedented human flourishing. Preventing "worst cases" means accelerating safe development, not sabotage. China won't be holding back in the development of strong A.I. and it would be ignorant to claim otherwise.

Fun fact: I used "A.I." to respond to this post because I wouldn't want to waste the time responding to it otherwise.

I knew immediately u used AI so I didn't even bother reading it, and I give your opinions on important topics like this no weight, move on...

Gavinski · November 2025

@NeuM said:

@maxxpower18 said:
I hate AI because it's being used by the technocrats and oligarchs to ultimately control us. If I knew the people training these models had good intentions I'd probably give it a shot.

These things exist because people demand them. That's how this all works. No one is being forced to do anything.

You have no understanding of how power works

bluegroove · November 2025

@Gavinski said:

@NeuM said:

@Gavinski said:
AI could be a force for good, but in our very imperfect world, if AI lives up to its potential (that is just an if, thank God), the downsides will outweigh the benefits. The main dangers are:

Massive unemployment. No previous tech innovation had the potential to replace humans in thinking and creative tasks so quickly. Artists, musicians, doctors, programmers, teachers and thousands of other professions are suddenly at risk of widespread job losses.

Misinformation. The flooding of the internet with misinformation will create a society where nobody knows what to believe or who to trust. We're already half way there due to social media and even much of the corporate-owned mainstream media. The less informed and less educated members of such a society are ripe for manipulation, and will often act against their own best interests.

Concentration of power. Companies like OpenAI, Palantir and Meta incentivize benefits for their shareholders. They don't give a f*ck about the common good and yet they already have more power than some governments. Goodbye democracy, hello oligarchy. Again, we're already part way there, but things will worsen.

Then there are all the existential risks of 'misaligned' AI running wild. Even if we don't get 'evil' AI overlords, we might simply get very powerful but incompetent ones capable of unintentionally causing huge problems. See the Paperclip Maximizer analogy.

History has made it clear that we humans are great at inventing tech but are not good at using tech wisely. More and more people already regret the invention of the smartphone. The damage AI causes to society will be much worse. I think we need to act accordingly and do what we can to thwart the AI revolution. The genie is out of the bottle, yes, but there's still time to prevent the very worst case scenarios. Ps: remember that in the Aladdin story, the genie does get put back in the bottle

Point 1. Massive unemployment from AI replacing thinking and creative tasks

Historical precedents show technology displaces jobs but creates more in the long run. The Industrial Revolution eliminated manual labor roles but birthed factories, engineering, and service economies; computers wiped out typists and switchboard operators but exploded demand for programmers, data analysts, and IT support. AI follows this pattern: McKinsey Global Institute estimates AI could automate 45% of work activities by 2030, but it will also generate 20-50 million new jobs in AI maintenance, ethics, data curation, and human-AI collaboration. Creativity isn't vanishing—AI tools like Midjourney or GPT models augment artists (e.g., enabling faster ideation for concept artists at studios like Disney) rather than replace them wholesale. Professions like doctors benefit from AI diagnostics (e.g., Google's DeepMind improving cancer detection by 11%), freeing humans for patient interaction. Net effect: higher productivity leads to economic growth, shorter workweeks, and new fields we can't yet imagine, as seen with the internet creating billions of jobs since 1991.

Point 2. Flooding of misinformation creating a society where nobody trusts anything

Misinformation predates AI—propaganda, yellow journalism, and deepfakes via Photoshop existed long before generative AI. Social media amplified it, but AI offers countermeasures: tools like Grok's real-time search, fact-checking bots (e.g., OpenAI's integration with moderators), and watermarking for AI-generated content (adopted by Adobe, Microsoft) help detect fakes. Studies show educated users already navigate this (Pew Research: 60% of Americans fact-check news). AI accelerates truth-seeking too—e.g., Perplexity AI or Consensus app synthesize peer-reviewed science instantly. The "less informed" being manipulated ignores that AI democratizes education (Khan Academy's AI tutors reach millions underserved). We're not "halfway there" irreversibly; blockchain-verified media and AI moderation (e.g., reducing hate speech on platforms by 90% per Meta reports) are scaling solutions, making information ecosystems more robust than pre-digital eras.

Point 3. Concentration of power in companies like OpenAI, Palantir, and Meta leading to oligarchy

AI development is decentralizing, not concentrating. Open-source models (e.g., Meta's Llama, Stability AI's Stable Diffusion, xAI's Grok) allow anyone to build/customize AI, countering proprietary giants—thousands of startups and governments (e.g., EU's AI Act, China's state AI) compete. Power isn't zero-sum: Palantir aids governments against threats, OpenAI partners with nonprofits for societal good (e.g., climate modeling). Democracy thrives with regulation—antitrust actions against Big Tech (e.g., DOJ vs. Google) and open AI reduce barriers. Shareholders incentivize profit, but market forces reward ethics (boycotts hit unethical firms); xAI's mission explicitly prioritizes understanding the universe over pure profit. We're not "partway to oligarchy"—global AI investment is $200B+ annually across 100+ countries, diluting any single entity's dominance far more than oil or railroads ever did.

Point 4. Existential risks from misaligned or incompetent AI (e.g., Paperclip Maximizer)

The Paperclip Maximizer is a thought experiment by Nick Bostrom, not a probable outcome—real AI alignment research (e.g., Anthropic's Constitutional AI, OpenAI's safety teams) mitigates this via techniques like reward modeling and scalable oversight. Probability of "runaway" AI is low: experts like Yann LeCun argue superintelligence requires breakthroughs we lack, and current systems are narrow tools, not general agents. Even if risks exist, benefits outweigh—AI already averts catastrophes (e.g., predicting hurricanes with 30% more accuracy via IBM's models, saving lives). "Incompetent" AI causing harm is addressable through testing (e.g., red-teaming by Adversarial Robustness Toolbox) and kill switches. History shows we manage risks: nuclear tech brought mutually assured destruction fears but led to treaties and peaceful energy; AI will follow with international pacts (e.g., UNESCO's AI ethics recommendations adopted by 193 countries).

Point 5. Humans are bad at using tech wisely; AI damage will be worse than smartphones; we should thwart the AI revolution

Regret over smartphones ignores net positives—global connectivity lifted 1 billion people out of poverty via mobile banking/education (World Bank data), reduced isolation, and enabled movements like Arab Spring. AI's upsides dwarf this: curing diseases (AlphaFold solved 200M protein structures, accelerating drug development), combating climate change (Google's AI cut data center energy 40%), and boosting GDP (PwC: AI adds $15.7T by 2030). Supply and demand and the forces of capitalism work—cars caused accidents but birthed seatbelts/traffic laws. Thwarting AI is Luddite folly: it would cede advantages to adversaries (e.g., nations pausing while others advance). The genie analogy fails—we don't "put it back"; we guide it, as with fire or electricity, for unprecedented human flourishing. Preventing "worst cases" means accelerating safe development, not sabotage. China won't be holding back in the development of strong A.I. and it would be ignorant to claim otherwise.

Fun fact: I used "A.I." to respond to this post because I wouldn't want to waste the time responding to it otherwise.

I knew immediately u used AI so I didn't even bother reading it, and I give your opinions on important topics like this no weight, move on...

Same. I Instantly could tell it was AI and scrolled past. Sad that some people can't even think and speak for themselves any more...

Gavinski · November 2025

@bluegroove said:

@Gavinski said:

@NeuM said:

@Gavinski said:
AI could be a force for good, but in our very imperfect world, if AI lives up to its potential (that is just an if, thank God), the downsides will outweigh the benefits. The main dangers are:

Massive unemployment. No previous tech innovation had the potential to replace humans in thinking and creative tasks so quickly. Artists, musicians, doctors, programmers, teachers and thousands of other professions are suddenly at risk of widespread job losses.

Misinformation. The flooding of the internet with misinformation will create a society where nobody knows what to believe or who to trust. We're already half way there due to social media and even much of the corporate-owned mainstream media. The less informed and less educated members of such a society are ripe for manipulation, and will often act against their own best interests.

Concentration of power. Companies like OpenAI, Palantir and Meta incentivize benefits for their shareholders. They don't give a f*ck about the common good and yet they already have more power than some governments. Goodbye democracy, hello oligarchy. Again, we're already part way there, but things will worsen.

Then there are all the existential risks of 'misaligned' AI running wild. Even if we don't get 'evil' AI overlords, we might simply get very powerful but incompetent ones capable of unintentionally causing huge problems. See the Paperclip Maximizer analogy.

History has made it clear that we humans are great at inventing tech but are not good at using tech wisely. More and more people already regret the invention of the smartphone. The damage AI causes to society will be much worse. I think we need to act accordingly and do what we can to thwart the AI revolution. The genie is out of the bottle, yes, but there's still time to prevent the very worst case scenarios. Ps: remember that in the Aladdin story, the genie does get put back in the bottle

Point 1. Massive unemployment from AI replacing thinking and creative tasks

Historical precedents show technology displaces jobs but creates more in the long run. The Industrial Revolution eliminated manual labor roles but birthed factories, engineering, and service economies; computers wiped out typists and switchboard operators but exploded demand for programmers, data analysts, and IT support. AI follows this pattern: McKinsey Global Institute estimates AI could automate 45% of work activities by 2030, but it will also generate 20-50 million new jobs in AI maintenance, ethics, data curation, and human-AI collaboration. Creativity isn't vanishing—AI tools like Midjourney or GPT models augment artists (e.g., enabling faster ideation for concept artists at studios like Disney) rather than replace them wholesale. Professions like doctors benefit from AI diagnostics (e.g., Google's DeepMind improving cancer detection by 11%), freeing humans for patient interaction. Net effect: higher productivity leads to economic growth, shorter workweeks, and new fields we can't yet imagine, as seen with the internet creating billions of jobs since 1991.

Point 2. Flooding of misinformation creating a society where nobody trusts anything

Misinformation predates AI—propaganda, yellow journalism, and deepfakes via Photoshop existed long before generative AI. Social media amplified it, but AI offers countermeasures: tools like Grok's real-time search, fact-checking bots (e.g., OpenAI's integration with moderators), and watermarking for AI-generated content (adopted by Adobe, Microsoft) help detect fakes. Studies show educated users already navigate this (Pew Research: 60% of Americans fact-check news). AI accelerates truth-seeking too—e.g., Perplexity AI or Consensus app synthesize peer-reviewed science instantly. The "less informed" being manipulated ignores that AI democratizes education (Khan Academy's AI tutors reach millions underserved). We're not "halfway there" irreversibly; blockchain-verified media and AI moderation (e.g., reducing hate speech on platforms by 90% per Meta reports) are scaling solutions, making information ecosystems more robust than pre-digital eras.

Point 3. Concentration of power in companies like OpenAI, Palantir, and Meta leading to oligarchy

AI development is decentralizing, not concentrating. Open-source models (e.g., Meta's Llama, Stability AI's Stable Diffusion, xAI's Grok) allow anyone to build/customize AI, countering proprietary giants—thousands of startups and governments (e.g., EU's AI Act, China's state AI) compete. Power isn't zero-sum: Palantir aids governments against threats, OpenAI partners with nonprofits for societal good (e.g., climate modeling). Democracy thrives with regulation—antitrust actions against Big Tech (e.g., DOJ vs. Google) and open AI reduce barriers. Shareholders incentivize profit, but market forces reward ethics (boycotts hit unethical firms); xAI's mission explicitly prioritizes understanding the universe over pure profit. We're not "partway to oligarchy"—global AI investment is $200B+ annually across 100+ countries, diluting any single entity's dominance far more than oil or railroads ever did.

Point 4. Existential risks from misaligned or incompetent AI (e.g., Paperclip Maximizer)

The Paperclip Maximizer is a thought experiment by Nick Bostrom, not a probable outcome—real AI alignment research (e.g., Anthropic's Constitutional AI, OpenAI's safety teams) mitigates this via techniques like reward modeling and scalable oversight. Probability of "runaway" AI is low: experts like Yann LeCun argue superintelligence requires breakthroughs we lack, and current systems are narrow tools, not general agents. Even if risks exist, benefits outweigh—AI already averts catastrophes (e.g., predicting hurricanes with 30% more accuracy via IBM's models, saving lives). "Incompetent" AI causing harm is addressable through testing (e.g., red-teaming by Adversarial Robustness Toolbox) and kill switches. History shows we manage risks: nuclear tech brought mutually assured destruction fears but led to treaties and peaceful energy; AI will follow with international pacts (e.g., UNESCO's AI ethics recommendations adopted by 193 countries).

Point 5. Humans are bad at using tech wisely; AI damage will be worse than smartphones; we should thwart the AI revolution

Regret over smartphones ignores net positives—global connectivity lifted 1 billion people out of poverty via mobile banking/education (World Bank data), reduced isolation, and enabled movements like Arab Spring. AI's upsides dwarf this: curing diseases (AlphaFold solved 200M protein structures, accelerating drug development), combating climate change (Google's AI cut data center energy 40%), and boosting GDP (PwC: AI adds $15.7T by 2030). Supply and demand and the forces of capitalism work—cars caused accidents but birthed seatbelts/traffic laws. Thwarting AI is Luddite folly: it would cede advantages to adversaries (e.g., nations pausing while others advance). The genie analogy fails—we don't "put it back"; we guide it, as with fire or electricity, for unprecedented human flourishing. Preventing "worst cases" means accelerating safe development, not sabotage. China won't be holding back in the development of strong A.I. and it would be ignorant to claim otherwise.

Fun fact: I used "A.I." to respond to this post because I wouldn't want to waste the time responding to it otherwise.

I knew immediately u used AI so I didn't even bother reading it, and I give your opinions on important topics like this no weight, move on...

Same. I Instantly could tell it was AI and scrolled past. Sad that some people can't even think and speak for themselves any more...

Dude also doesn't even try to prompt an honest, balanced answer from the AI. He has no interest in truth whatsoever.

NeuM · November 2025

@espiegel123 said:
LOL

I’m sorry but discussion of U.S. immigration policy strikes me as completely off the topic of the discussion of the pros and cons of generative AI in the arts.

You're right. And I wasn't the one who brought it up.

NeuM · November 2025

@bluegroove said:

@Gavinski said:

@NeuM said:

@Gavinski said:
AI could be a force for good, but in our very imperfect world, if AI lives up to its potential (that is just an if, thank God), the downsides will outweigh the benefits. The main dangers are:

Massive unemployment. No previous tech innovation had the potential to replace humans in thinking and creative tasks so quickly. Artists, musicians, doctors, programmers, teachers and thousands of other professions are suddenly at risk of widespread job losses.

Misinformation. The flooding of the internet with misinformation will create a society where nobody knows what to believe or who to trust. We're already half way there due to social media and even much of the corporate-owned mainstream media. The less informed and less educated members of such a society are ripe for manipulation, and will often act against their own best interests.

Concentration of power. Companies like OpenAI, Palantir and Meta incentivize benefits for their shareholders. They don't give a f*ck about the common good and yet they already have more power than some governments. Goodbye democracy, hello oligarchy. Again, we're already part way there, but things will worsen.

Then there are all the existential risks of 'misaligned' AI running wild. Even if we don't get 'evil' AI overlords, we might simply get very powerful but incompetent ones capable of unintentionally causing huge problems. See the Paperclip Maximizer analogy.

History has made it clear that we humans are great at inventing tech but are not good at using tech wisely. More and more people already regret the invention of the smartphone. The damage AI causes to society will be much worse. I think we need to act accordingly and do what we can to thwart the AI revolution. The genie is out of the bottle, yes, but there's still time to prevent the very worst case scenarios. Ps: remember that in the Aladdin story, the genie does get put back in the bottle

Point 1. Massive unemployment from AI replacing thinking and creative tasks

Historical precedents show technology displaces jobs but creates more in the long run. The Industrial Revolution eliminated manual labor roles but birthed factories, engineering, and service economies; computers wiped out typists and switchboard operators but exploded demand for programmers, data analysts, and IT support. AI follows this pattern: McKinsey Global Institute estimates AI could automate 45% of work activities by 2030, but it will also generate 20-50 million new jobs in AI maintenance, ethics, data curation, and human-AI collaboration. Creativity isn't vanishing—AI tools like Midjourney or GPT models augment artists (e.g., enabling faster ideation for concept artists at studios like Disney) rather than replace them wholesale. Professions like doctors benefit from AI diagnostics (e.g., Google's DeepMind improving cancer detection by 11%), freeing humans for patient interaction. Net effect: higher productivity leads to economic growth, shorter workweeks, and new fields we can't yet imagine, as seen with the internet creating billions of jobs since 1991.

Point 2. Flooding of misinformation creating a society where nobody trusts anything

Misinformation predates AI—propaganda, yellow journalism, and deepfakes via Photoshop existed long before generative AI. Social media amplified it, but AI offers countermeasures: tools like Grok's real-time search, fact-checking bots (e.g., OpenAI's integration with moderators), and watermarking for AI-generated content (adopted by Adobe, Microsoft) help detect fakes. Studies show educated users already navigate this (Pew Research: 60% of Americans fact-check news). AI accelerates truth-seeking too—e.g., Perplexity AI or Consensus app synthesize peer-reviewed science instantly. The "less informed" being manipulated ignores that AI democratizes education (Khan Academy's AI tutors reach millions underserved). We're not "halfway there" irreversibly; blockchain-verified media and AI moderation (e.g., reducing hate speech on platforms by 90% per Meta reports) are scaling solutions, making information ecosystems more robust than pre-digital eras.

Point 3. Concentration of power in companies like OpenAI, Palantir, and Meta leading to oligarchy

AI development is decentralizing, not concentrating. Open-source models (e.g., Meta's Llama, Stability AI's Stable Diffusion, xAI's Grok) allow anyone to build/customize AI, countering proprietary giants—thousands of startups and governments (e.g., EU's AI Act, China's state AI) compete. Power isn't zero-sum: Palantir aids governments against threats, OpenAI partners with nonprofits for societal good (e.g., climate modeling). Democracy thrives with regulation—antitrust actions against Big Tech (e.g., DOJ vs. Google) and open AI reduce barriers. Shareholders incentivize profit, but market forces reward ethics (boycotts hit unethical firms); xAI's mission explicitly prioritizes understanding the universe over pure profit. We're not "partway to oligarchy"—global AI investment is $200B+ annually across 100+ countries, diluting any single entity's dominance far more than oil or railroads ever did.

Point 4. Existential risks from misaligned or incompetent AI (e.g., Paperclip Maximizer)

The Paperclip Maximizer is a thought experiment by Nick Bostrom, not a probable outcome—real AI alignment research (e.g., Anthropic's Constitutional AI, OpenAI's safety teams) mitigates this via techniques like reward modeling and scalable oversight. Probability of "runaway" AI is low: experts like Yann LeCun argue superintelligence requires breakthroughs we lack, and current systems are narrow tools, not general agents. Even if risks exist, benefits outweigh—AI already averts catastrophes (e.g., predicting hurricanes with 30% more accuracy via IBM's models, saving lives). "Incompetent" AI causing harm is addressable through testing (e.g., red-teaming by Adversarial Robustness Toolbox) and kill switches. History shows we manage risks: nuclear tech brought mutually assured destruction fears but led to treaties and peaceful energy; AI will follow with international pacts (e.g., UNESCO's AI ethics recommendations adopted by 193 countries).

Point 5. Humans are bad at using tech wisely; AI damage will be worse than smartphones; we should thwart the AI revolution

Regret over smartphones ignores net positives—global connectivity lifted 1 billion people out of poverty via mobile banking/education (World Bank data), reduced isolation, and enabled movements like Arab Spring. AI's upsides dwarf this: curing diseases (AlphaFold solved 200M protein structures, accelerating drug development), combating climate change (Google's AI cut data center energy 40%), and boosting GDP (PwC: AI adds $15.7T by 2030). Supply and demand and the forces of capitalism work—cars caused accidents but birthed seatbelts/traffic laws. Thwarting AI is Luddite folly: it would cede advantages to adversaries (e.g., nations pausing while others advance). The genie analogy fails—we don't "put it back"; we guide it, as with fire or electricity, for unprecedented human flourishing. Preventing "worst cases" means accelerating safe development, not sabotage. China won't be holding back in the development of strong A.I. and it would be ignorant to claim otherwise.

Fun fact: I used "A.I." to respond to this post because I wouldn't want to waste the time responding to it otherwise.

I knew immediately u used AI so I didn't even bother reading it, and I give your opinions on important topics like this no weight, move on...

Same. I Instantly could tell it was AI and scrolled past. Sad that some people can't even think and speak for themselves any more...

Responding to a lengthy political post with a generated response used 50% less electricity.

NeuM · November 2025

@Gavinski said:

@bluegroove said:

@Gavinski said:

@NeuM said:

@Gavinski said:
AI could be a force for good, but in our very imperfect world, if AI lives up to its potential (that is just an if, thank God), the downsides will outweigh the benefits. The main dangers are:

Massive unemployment. No previous tech innovation had the potential to replace humans in thinking and creative tasks so quickly. Artists, musicians, doctors, programmers, teachers and thousands of other professions are suddenly at risk of widespread job losses.

Misinformation. The flooding of the internet with misinformation will create a society where nobody knows what to believe or who to trust. We're already half way there due to social media and even much of the corporate-owned mainstream media. The less informed and less educated members of such a society are ripe for manipulation, and will often act against their own best interests.

Concentration of power. Companies like OpenAI, Palantir and Meta incentivize benefits for their shareholders. They don't give a f*ck about the common good and yet they already have more power than some governments. Goodbye democracy, hello oligarchy. Again, we're already part way there, but things will worsen.

Then there are all the existential risks of 'misaligned' AI running wild. Even if we don't get 'evil' AI overlords, we might simply get very powerful but incompetent ones capable of unintentionally causing huge problems. See the Paperclip Maximizer analogy.

History has made it clear that we humans are great at inventing tech but are not good at using tech wisely. More and more people already regret the invention of the smartphone. The damage AI causes to society will be much worse. I think we need to act accordingly and do what we can to thwart the AI revolution. The genie is out of the bottle, yes, but there's still time to prevent the very worst case scenarios. Ps: remember that in the Aladdin story, the genie does get put back in the bottle

Point 1. Massive unemployment from AI replacing thinking and creative tasks

Historical precedents show technology displaces jobs but creates more in the long run. The Industrial Revolution eliminated manual labor roles but birthed factories, engineering, and service economies; computers wiped out typists and switchboard operators but exploded demand for programmers, data analysts, and IT support. AI follows this pattern: McKinsey Global Institute estimates AI could automate 45% of work activities by 2030, but it will also generate 20-50 million new jobs in AI maintenance, ethics, data curation, and human-AI collaboration. Creativity isn't vanishing—AI tools like Midjourney or GPT models augment artists (e.g., enabling faster ideation for concept artists at studios like Disney) rather than replace them wholesale. Professions like doctors benefit from AI diagnostics (e.g., Google's DeepMind improving cancer detection by 11%), freeing humans for patient interaction. Net effect: higher productivity leads to economic growth, shorter workweeks, and new fields we can't yet imagine, as seen with the internet creating billions of jobs since 1991.

Point 2. Flooding of misinformation creating a society where nobody trusts anything

Misinformation predates AI—propaganda, yellow journalism, and deepfakes via Photoshop existed long before generative AI. Social media amplified it, but AI offers countermeasures: tools like Grok's real-time search, fact-checking bots (e.g., OpenAI's integration with moderators), and watermarking for AI-generated content (adopted by Adobe, Microsoft) help detect fakes. Studies show educated users already navigate this (Pew Research: 60% of Americans fact-check news). AI accelerates truth-seeking too—e.g., Perplexity AI or Consensus app synthesize peer-reviewed science instantly. The "less informed" being manipulated ignores that AI democratizes education (Khan Academy's AI tutors reach millions underserved). We're not "halfway there" irreversibly; blockchain-verified media and AI moderation (e.g., reducing hate speech on platforms by 90% per Meta reports) are scaling solutions, making information ecosystems more robust than pre-digital eras.

Point 3. Concentration of power in companies like OpenAI, Palantir, and Meta leading to oligarchy

AI development is decentralizing, not concentrating. Open-source models (e.g., Meta's Llama, Stability AI's Stable Diffusion, xAI's Grok) allow anyone to build/customize AI, countering proprietary giants—thousands of startups and governments (e.g., EU's AI Act, China's state AI) compete. Power isn't zero-sum: Palantir aids governments against threats, OpenAI partners with nonprofits for societal good (e.g., climate modeling). Democracy thrives with regulation—antitrust actions against Big Tech (e.g., DOJ vs. Google) and open AI reduce barriers. Shareholders incentivize profit, but market forces reward ethics (boycotts hit unethical firms); xAI's mission explicitly prioritizes understanding the universe over pure profit. We're not "partway to oligarchy"—global AI investment is $200B+ annually across 100+ countries, diluting any single entity's dominance far more than oil or railroads ever did.

Point 4. Existential risks from misaligned or incompetent AI (e.g., Paperclip Maximizer)

The Paperclip Maximizer is a thought experiment by Nick Bostrom, not a probable outcome—real AI alignment research (e.g., Anthropic's Constitutional AI, OpenAI's safety teams) mitigates this via techniques like reward modeling and scalable oversight. Probability of "runaway" AI is low: experts like Yann LeCun argue superintelligence requires breakthroughs we lack, and current systems are narrow tools, not general agents. Even if risks exist, benefits outweigh—AI already averts catastrophes (e.g., predicting hurricanes with 30% more accuracy via IBM's models, saving lives). "Incompetent" AI causing harm is addressable through testing (e.g., red-teaming by Adversarial Robustness Toolbox) and kill switches. History shows we manage risks: nuclear tech brought mutually assured destruction fears but led to treaties and peaceful energy; AI will follow with international pacts (e.g., UNESCO's AI ethics recommendations adopted by 193 countries).

Point 5. Humans are bad at using tech wisely; AI damage will be worse than smartphones; we should thwart the AI revolution

Regret over smartphones ignores net positives—global connectivity lifted 1 billion people out of poverty via mobile banking/education (World Bank data), reduced isolation, and enabled movements like Arab Spring. AI's upsides dwarf this: curing diseases (AlphaFold solved 200M protein structures, accelerating drug development), combating climate change (Google's AI cut data center energy 40%), and boosting GDP (PwC: AI adds $15.7T by 2030). Supply and demand and the forces of capitalism work—cars caused accidents but birthed seatbelts/traffic laws. Thwarting AI is Luddite folly: it would cede advantages to adversaries (e.g., nations pausing while others advance). The genie analogy fails—we don't "put it back"; we guide it, as with fire or electricity, for unprecedented human flourishing. Preventing "worst cases" means accelerating safe development, not sabotage. China won't be holding back in the development of strong A.I. and it would be ignorant to claim otherwise.

Fun fact: I used "A.I." to respond to this post because I wouldn't want to waste the time responding to it otherwise.

I knew immediately u used AI so I didn't even bother reading it, and I give your opinions on important topics like this no weight, move on...

Same. I Instantly could tell it was AI and scrolled past. Sad that some people can't even think and speak for themselves any more...

Dude also doesn't even try to prompt an honest, balanced answer from the AI. He has no interest in truth whatsoever.

Dude, you come here promoting Socialism. Socialism doesn't work. It's a dishonest, anti-human political philosophy. It has a long history of failure and it results in misery and economic destruction everywhere it's used. That's the truth.

So stop promoting it.

Gavinski · November 2025

@NeuM said:

@Gavinski said:

@bluegroove said:

@Gavinski said:

@NeuM said:

@Gavinski said:
AI could be a force for good, but in our very imperfect world, if AI lives up to its potential (that is just an if, thank God), the downsides will outweigh the benefits. The main dangers are:

Massive unemployment. No previous tech innovation had the potential to replace humans in thinking and creative tasks so quickly. Artists, musicians, doctors, programmers, teachers and thousands of other professions are suddenly at risk of widespread job losses.

Misinformation. The flooding of the internet with misinformation will create a society where nobody knows what to believe or who to trust. We're already half way there due to social media and even much of the corporate-owned mainstream media. The less informed and less educated members of such a society are ripe for manipulation, and will often act against their own best interests.

Concentration of power. Companies like OpenAI, Palantir and Meta incentivize benefits for their shareholders. They don't give a f*ck about the common good and yet they already have more power than some governments. Goodbye democracy, hello oligarchy. Again, we're already part way there, but things will worsen.

Then there are all the existential risks of 'misaligned' AI running wild. Even if we don't get 'evil' AI overlords, we might simply get very powerful but incompetent ones capable of unintentionally causing huge problems. See the Paperclip Maximizer analogy.

History has made it clear that we humans are great at inventing tech but are not good at using tech wisely. More and more people already regret the invention of the smartphone. The damage AI causes to society will be much worse. I think we need to act accordingly and do what we can to thwart the AI revolution. The genie is out of the bottle, yes, but there's still time to prevent the very worst case scenarios. Ps: remember that in the Aladdin story, the genie does get put back in the bottle

Point 1. Massive unemployment from AI replacing thinking and creative tasks

Historical precedents show technology displaces jobs but creates more in the long run. The Industrial Revolution eliminated manual labor roles but birthed factories, engineering, and service economies; computers wiped out typists and switchboard operators but exploded demand for programmers, data analysts, and IT support. AI follows this pattern: McKinsey Global Institute estimates AI could automate 45% of work activities by 2030, but it will also generate 20-50 million new jobs in AI maintenance, ethics, data curation, and human-AI collaboration. Creativity isn't vanishing—AI tools like Midjourney or GPT models augment artists (e.g., enabling faster ideation for concept artists at studios like Disney) rather than replace them wholesale. Professions like doctors benefit from AI diagnostics (e.g., Google's DeepMind improving cancer detection by 11%), freeing humans for patient interaction. Net effect: higher productivity leads to economic growth, shorter workweeks, and new fields we can't yet imagine, as seen with the internet creating billions of jobs since 1991.

Point 2. Flooding of misinformation creating a society where nobody trusts anything

Misinformation predates AI—propaganda, yellow journalism, and deepfakes via Photoshop existed long before generative AI. Social media amplified it, but AI offers countermeasures: tools like Grok's real-time search, fact-checking bots (e.g., OpenAI's integration with moderators), and watermarking for AI-generated content (adopted by Adobe, Microsoft) help detect fakes. Studies show educated users already navigate this (Pew Research: 60% of Americans fact-check news). AI accelerates truth-seeking too—e.g., Perplexity AI or Consensus app synthesize peer-reviewed science instantly. The "less informed" being manipulated ignores that AI democratizes education (Khan Academy's AI tutors reach millions underserved). We're not "halfway there" irreversibly; blockchain-verified media and AI moderation (e.g., reducing hate speech on platforms by 90% per Meta reports) are scaling solutions, making information ecosystems more robust than pre-digital eras.

Point 3. Concentration of power in companies like OpenAI, Palantir, and Meta leading to oligarchy

AI development is decentralizing, not concentrating. Open-source models (e.g., Meta's Llama, Stability AI's Stable Diffusion, xAI's Grok) allow anyone to build/customize AI, countering proprietary giants—thousands of startups and governments (e.g., EU's AI Act, China's state AI) compete. Power isn't zero-sum: Palantir aids governments against threats, OpenAI partners with nonprofits for societal good (e.g., climate modeling). Democracy thrives with regulation—antitrust actions against Big Tech (e.g., DOJ vs. Google) and open AI reduce barriers. Shareholders incentivize profit, but market forces reward ethics (boycotts hit unethical firms); xAI's mission explicitly prioritizes understanding the universe over pure profit. We're not "partway to oligarchy"—global AI investment is $200B+ annually across 100+ countries, diluting any single entity's dominance far more than oil or railroads ever did.

Point 4. Existential risks from misaligned or incompetent AI (e.g., Paperclip Maximizer)

The Paperclip Maximizer is a thought experiment by Nick Bostrom, not a probable outcome—real AI alignment research (e.g., Anthropic's Constitutional AI, OpenAI's safety teams) mitigates this via techniques like reward modeling and scalable oversight. Probability of "runaway" AI is low: experts like Yann LeCun argue superintelligence requires breakthroughs we lack, and current systems are narrow tools, not general agents. Even if risks exist, benefits outweigh—AI already averts catastrophes (e.g., predicting hurricanes with 30% more accuracy via IBM's models, saving lives). "Incompetent" AI causing harm is addressable through testing (e.g., red-teaming by Adversarial Robustness Toolbox) and kill switches. History shows we manage risks: nuclear tech brought mutually assured destruction fears but led to treaties and peaceful energy; AI will follow with international pacts (e.g., UNESCO's AI ethics recommendations adopted by 193 countries).

Point 5. Humans are bad at using tech wisely; AI damage will be worse than smartphones; we should thwart the AI revolution

Regret over smartphones ignores net positives—global connectivity lifted 1 billion people out of poverty via mobile banking/education (World Bank data), reduced isolation, and enabled movements like Arab Spring. AI's upsides dwarf this: curing diseases (AlphaFold solved 200M protein structures, accelerating drug development), combating climate change (Google's AI cut data center energy 40%), and boosting GDP (PwC: AI adds $15.7T by 2030). Supply and demand and the forces of capitalism work—cars caused accidents but birthed seatbelts/traffic laws. Thwarting AI is Luddite folly: it would cede advantages to adversaries (e.g., nations pausing while others advance). The genie analogy fails—we don't "put it back"; we guide it, as with fire or electricity, for unprecedented human flourishing. Preventing "worst cases" means accelerating safe development, not sabotage. China won't be holding back in the development of strong A.I. and it would be ignorant to claim otherwise.

Fun fact: I used "A.I." to respond to this post because I wouldn't want to waste the time responding to it otherwise.

I knew immediately u used AI so I didn't even bother reading it, and I give your opinions on important topics like this no weight, move on...

Same. I Instantly could tell it was AI and scrolled past. Sad that some people can't even think and speak for themselves any more...

Dude also doesn't even try to prompt an honest, balanced answer from the AI. He has no interest in truth whatsoever.

Dude, you come here promoting Socialism. Socialism doesn't work. It's a dishonest, anti-human political philosophy. It has a long history of failure and it results in misery and economic destruction everywhere it's used. That's the truth.

So stop promoting it.

The way you use socialism like it's a dirty word, and the way you conflate it with communism, shows how ill informed you are tbh. But furthermore, there's nothing in my original post that is 'promoting socialism'. You're seeing ghosts. Anyway, I really don't have any interest in debating with you. You constantly try to turn every discussion on this forum into an excuse to harp on about neoliberal capitalism and how great it is. I don't think I'm the only person here who finds it tedious. Our discussion is over, from my side

NeuM · November 2025

@Gavinski said:

@NeuM said:

@Gavinski said:

@bluegroove said:

@Gavinski said:

@NeuM said:

@Gavinski said:
AI could be a force for good, but in our very imperfect world, if AI lives up to its potential (that is just an if, thank God), the downsides will outweigh the benefits. The main dangers are:

Massive unemployment. No previous tech innovation had the potential to replace humans in thinking and creative tasks so quickly. Artists, musicians, doctors, programmers, teachers and thousands of other professions are suddenly at risk of widespread job losses.

Misinformation. The flooding of the internet with misinformation will create a society where nobody knows what to believe or who to trust. We're already half way there due to social media and even much of the corporate-owned mainstream media. The less informed and less educated members of such a society are ripe for manipulation, and will often act against their own best interests.

Concentration of power. Companies like OpenAI, Palantir and Meta incentivize benefits for their shareholders. They don't give a f*ck about the common good and yet they already have more power than some governments. Goodbye democracy, hello oligarchy. Again, we're already part way there, but things will worsen.

Then there are all the existential risks of 'misaligned' AI running wild. Even if we don't get 'evil' AI overlords, we might simply get very powerful but incompetent ones capable of unintentionally causing huge problems. See the Paperclip Maximizer analogy.

History has made it clear that we humans are great at inventing tech but are not good at using tech wisely. More and more people already regret the invention of the smartphone. The damage AI causes to society will be much worse. I think we need to act accordingly and do what we can to thwart the AI revolution. The genie is out of the bottle, yes, but there's still time to prevent the very worst case scenarios. Ps: remember that in the Aladdin story, the genie does get put back in the bottle

Point 1. Massive unemployment from AI replacing thinking and creative tasks

Historical precedents show technology displaces jobs but creates more in the long run. The Industrial Revolution eliminated manual labor roles but birthed factories, engineering, and service economies; computers wiped out typists and switchboard operators but exploded demand for programmers, data analysts, and IT support. AI follows this pattern: McKinsey Global Institute estimates AI could automate 45% of work activities by 2030, but it will also generate 20-50 million new jobs in AI maintenance, ethics, data curation, and human-AI collaboration. Creativity isn't vanishing—AI tools like Midjourney or GPT models augment artists (e.g., enabling faster ideation for concept artists at studios like Disney) rather than replace them wholesale. Professions like doctors benefit from AI diagnostics (e.g., Google's DeepMind improving cancer detection by 11%), freeing humans for patient interaction. Net effect: higher productivity leads to economic growth, shorter workweeks, and new fields we can't yet imagine, as seen with the internet creating billions of jobs since 1991.

Point 2. Flooding of misinformation creating a society where nobody trusts anything

Misinformation predates AI—propaganda, yellow journalism, and deepfakes via Photoshop existed long before generative AI. Social media amplified it, but AI offers countermeasures: tools like Grok's real-time search, fact-checking bots (e.g., OpenAI's integration with moderators), and watermarking for AI-generated content (adopted by Adobe, Microsoft) help detect fakes. Studies show educated users already navigate this (Pew Research: 60% of Americans fact-check news). AI accelerates truth-seeking too—e.g., Perplexity AI or Consensus app synthesize peer-reviewed science instantly. The "less informed" being manipulated ignores that AI democratizes education (Khan Academy's AI tutors reach millions underserved). We're not "halfway there" irreversibly; blockchain-verified media and AI moderation (e.g., reducing hate speech on platforms by 90% per Meta reports) are scaling solutions, making information ecosystems more robust than pre-digital eras.

Point 3. Concentration of power in companies like OpenAI, Palantir, and Meta leading to oligarchy

AI development is decentralizing, not concentrating. Open-source models (e.g., Meta's Llama, Stability AI's Stable Diffusion, xAI's Grok) allow anyone to build/customize AI, countering proprietary giants—thousands of startups and governments (e.g., EU's AI Act, China's state AI) compete. Power isn't zero-sum: Palantir aids governments against threats, OpenAI partners with nonprofits for societal good (e.g., climate modeling). Democracy thrives with regulation—antitrust actions against Big Tech (e.g., DOJ vs. Google) and open AI reduce barriers. Shareholders incentivize profit, but market forces reward ethics (boycotts hit unethical firms); xAI's mission explicitly prioritizes understanding the universe over pure profit. We're not "partway to oligarchy"—global AI investment is $200B+ annually across 100+ countries, diluting any single entity's dominance far more than oil or railroads ever did.

Point 4. Existential risks from misaligned or incompetent AI (e.g., Paperclip Maximizer)

The Paperclip Maximizer is a thought experiment by Nick Bostrom, not a probable outcome—real AI alignment research (e.g., Anthropic's Constitutional AI, OpenAI's safety teams) mitigates this via techniques like reward modeling and scalable oversight. Probability of "runaway" AI is low: experts like Yann LeCun argue superintelligence requires breakthroughs we lack, and current systems are narrow tools, not general agents. Even if risks exist, benefits outweigh—AI already averts catastrophes (e.g., predicting hurricanes with 30% more accuracy via IBM's models, saving lives). "Incompetent" AI causing harm is addressable through testing (e.g., red-teaming by Adversarial Robustness Toolbox) and kill switches. History shows we manage risks: nuclear tech brought mutually assured destruction fears but led to treaties and peaceful energy; AI will follow with international pacts (e.g., UNESCO's AI ethics recommendations adopted by 193 countries).

Point 5. Humans are bad at using tech wisely; AI damage will be worse than smartphones; we should thwart the AI revolution

Regret over smartphones ignores net positives—global connectivity lifted 1 billion people out of poverty via mobile banking/education (World Bank data), reduced isolation, and enabled movements like Arab Spring. AI's upsides dwarf this: curing diseases (AlphaFold solved 200M protein structures, accelerating drug development), combating climate change (Google's AI cut data center energy 40%), and boosting GDP (PwC: AI adds $15.7T by 2030). Supply and demand and the forces of capitalism work—cars caused accidents but birthed seatbelts/traffic laws. Thwarting AI is Luddite folly: it would cede advantages to adversaries (e.g., nations pausing while others advance). The genie analogy fails—we don't "put it back"; we guide it, as with fire or electricity, for unprecedented human flourishing. Preventing "worst cases" means accelerating safe development, not sabotage. China won't be holding back in the development of strong A.I. and it would be ignorant to claim otherwise.

Fun fact: I used "A.I." to respond to this post because I wouldn't want to waste the time responding to it otherwise.

I knew immediately u used AI so I didn't even bother reading it, and I give your opinions on important topics like this no weight, move on...

Same. I Instantly could tell it was AI and scrolled past. Sad that some people can't even think and speak for themselves any more...

Dude also doesn't even try to prompt an honest, balanced answer from the AI. He has no interest in truth whatsoever.

Dude, you come here promoting Socialism. Socialism doesn't work. It's a dishonest, anti-human political philosophy. It has a long history of failure and it results in misery and economic destruction everywhere it's used. That's the truth.

So stop promoting it.

The way you use socialism like it's a dirty word, and the way you conflate it with communism, shows how ill informed you are tbh. But furthermore, there's nothing in my original post that is 'promoting socialism'. You're seeing ghosts. Anyway, I really don't have any interest in debating with you. You constantly try to turn every discussion on this forum into an excuse to harp on about neoliberal capitalism and how great it is. I don't think I'm the only person here who finds it tedious. Our discussion is over, from my side

Terrific. Let's get back to no politics for now.

oldsynthguy · November 2025

@Gavinski said:
AI could be a force for good, but in our very imperfect world, if AI lives up to its potential (that is just an if, thank God), the downsides will outweigh the benefits. The main dangers are:

Massive unemployment. No previous tech innovation had the potential to replace humans in thinking and creative tasks so quickly. Artists, musicians, doctors, programmers, teachers and thousands of other professions are suddenly at risk of widespread job losses.

Misinformation. The flooding of the internet with misinformation will create a society where nobody knows what to believe or who to trust. We're already half way there due to social media and even much of the corporate-owned mainstream media. The less informed and less educated members of such a society are ripe for manipulation, and will often act against their own best interests.

Concentration of power. Companies like OpenAI, Palantir and Meta incentivize benefits for their shareholders. They don't give a f*ck about the common good and yet they already have more power than some governments. Goodbye democracy, hello oligarchy. Again, we're already part way there, but things will worsen.

Then there are all the existential risks of 'misaligned' AI running wild. Even if we don't get 'evil' AI overlords, we might simply get very powerful but incompetent ones capable of unintentionally causing huge problems. See the Paperclip Maximizer analogy.

History has made it clear that we humans are great at inventing tech but are not good at using tech wisely. More and more people already regret the invention of the smartphone. The damage AI causes to society will be much worse. I think we need to act accordingly and do what we can to thwart the AI revolution. The genie is out of the bottle, yes, but there's still time to prevent the very worst case scenarios. Ps: remember that in the Aladdin story, the genie does get put back in the bottle

You know, I honestly don’t know what to think about the future of AI at the moment.

I agree with all of what you wrote above, and after watching a couple of video interviews with guys who know a lot more than we do about the subject, it pretty much confirms it and worse:

But then I read this, “ The Great AI Bubble” from a journalist I take seriously, and it seems there’s potential that this AI apocalypse might be just a tech bro flash in the pan:

https://broligarchy.substack.com/p/the-great-ai-bubble?r=nv9u6&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

I guess we just have to wait and see what our tech overlords have in store for us minions.

Gavinski · November 2025

@oldsynthguy said:

@Gavinski said:
AI could be a force for good, but in our very imperfect world, if AI lives up to its potential (that is just an if, thank God), the downsides will outweigh the benefits. The main dangers are:

Massive unemployment. No previous tech innovation had the potential to replace humans in thinking and creative tasks so quickly. Artists, musicians, doctors, programmers, teachers and thousands of other professions are suddenly at risk of widespread job losses.

Misinformation. The flooding of the internet with misinformation will create a society where nobody knows what to believe or who to trust. We're already half way there due to social media and even much of the corporate-owned mainstream media. The less informed and less educated members of such a society are ripe for manipulation, and will often act against their own best interests.

Concentration of power. Companies like OpenAI, Palantir and Meta incentivize benefits for their shareholders. They don't give a f*ck about the common good and yet they already have more power than some governments. Goodbye democracy, hello oligarchy. Again, we're already part way there, but things will worsen.

Then there are all the existential risks of 'misaligned' AI running wild. Even if we don't get 'evil' AI overlords, we might simply get very powerful but incompetent ones capable of unintentionally causing huge problems. See the Paperclip Maximizer analogy.

History has made it clear that we humans are great at inventing tech but are not good at using tech wisely. More and more people already regret the invention of the smartphone. The damage AI causes to society will be much worse. I think we need to act accordingly and do what we can to thwart the AI revolution. The genie is out of the bottle, yes, but there's still time to prevent the very worst case scenarios. Ps: remember that in the Aladdin story, the genie does get put back in the bottle

You know, I honestly don’t know what to think about the future of AI at the moment.

I agree with all of what you wrote above, and after watching a couple of video interviews with guys who know a lot more than we do about the subject, it pretty much confirms it and worse:

But then I read this, “ The Great AI Bubble” from a journalist I take seriously, and it seems there’s potential that this AI apocalypse might be just a tech bro flash in the pan:

https://broligarchy.substack.com/p/the-great-ai-bubble?r=nv9u6&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

I guess we just have to wait and see what our tech overlords have in store for us minions.

Yes, might not quite live up to the hype, that's why I wrote 'if AI lives up to its potential (that is just an if, thank God), the downsides will outweigh the benefits'.

oldsynthguy · November 2025

@Gavinski said:

@oldsynthguy said:

@Gavinski said:
AI could be a force for good, but in our very imperfect world, if AI lives up to its potential (that is just an if, thank God), the downsides will outweigh the benefits. The main dangers are:

Massive unemployment. No previous tech innovation had the potential to replace humans in thinking and creative tasks so quickly. Artists, musicians, doctors, programmers, teachers and thousands of other professions are suddenly at risk of widespread job losses.

Misinformation. The flooding of the internet with misinformation will create a society where nobody knows what to believe or who to trust. We're already half way there due to social media and even much of the corporate-owned mainstream media. The less informed and less educated members of such a society are ripe for manipulation, and will often act against their own best interests.

Concentration of power. Companies like OpenAI, Palantir and Meta incentivize benefits for their shareholders. They don't give a f*ck about the common good and yet they already have more power than some governments. Goodbye democracy, hello oligarchy. Again, we're already part way there, but things will worsen.

Then there are all the existential risks of 'misaligned' AI running wild. Even if we don't get 'evil' AI overlords, we might simply get very powerful but incompetent ones capable of unintentionally causing huge problems. See the Paperclip Maximizer analogy.

History has made it clear that we humans are great at inventing tech but are not good at using tech wisely. More and more people already regret the invention of the smartphone. The damage AI causes to society will be much worse. I think we need to act accordingly and do what we can to thwart the AI revolution. The genie is out of the bottle, yes, but there's still time to prevent the very worst case scenarios. Ps: remember that in the Aladdin story, the genie does get put back in the bottle

You know, I honestly don’t know what to think about the future of AI at the moment.

I agree with all of what you wrote above, and after watching a couple of video interviews with guys who know a lot more than we do about the subject, it pretty much confirms it and worse:

But then I read this, “ The Great AI Bubble” from a journalist I take seriously, and it seems there’s potential that this AI apocalypse might be just a tech bro flash in the pan:

https://broligarchy.substack.com/p/the-great-ai-bubble?r=nv9u6&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

I guess we just have to wait and see what our tech overlords have in store for us minions.

Yes, might not quite live up to the hype, that's why I wrote 'if AI lives up to its potential (that is just an if, thank God), the downsides will outweigh the benefits'.

Just seen this, looks like the bubble might burst sooner than expected:

thesoundtestroom · November 2025

Now migrating this thread the “Other” category.

Simon · November 2025

@thesoundtestroom said:
Now migrating this thread the “Other” category.

Good move.

Simon · November 2025

@NeuM said:
Socialism doesn't work. It's a dishonest, anti-human political philosophy.

Unlike capitalism, which is honest and pro-human? Come on...

Tarring socialism as being all bad is as silly as tarring capitalism as being all bad.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems.

I like a regulated capitalist system with what some might call "socialist elements" like free education, healthcare and a social security safety net.

Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.

The No. 1 Country Song in America Is AI-Generated.. looks like Gospel Charts.. too

Comments