ADMIN NOTE: I pulled a number of posts out of our "Alexa in the Garden of Epicurus" thread insofar as they addressed specific methods of resistance against the AI takeover. I wanted to use Post 2 as the most appropriate starting point, as Pacatus suggested how to get around AI in Google searches, but I didn't want to burden Pacatus with his avatar showing up as originator of the thread, so I picked this thread of mine.
Let's continue to use the "Alexa" thread for general commentary that flows with what is already there. Let's use this thread for more technical and specific suggestions about how to get around AI dominance, such as ways to access non-AI search engines, or my post today about a browser which is taking a stand against incorporating AI.
Now, if you want to compare it to taking pleasure in a sunset that was unplanned and due to random fluctuations in the atmosphere... okay? In relation to that AI poem, you - the reader - are imbuing that poem with meaning. The "author" of the poem is NOT trying to communicate their feeling to you. The AI poem is a Rorschach Test. A random inkblot that you can look at and say "that looks like a bee resting on a flower" or read a poem and say "Oh, this reminds me of a day I spent in the sunshine." YOU are imbuing algorithmically-selected words with meaning. Granted, we do SOME of this with all poetry, but the author has an intention of what they wrote if it's a human author.
You and Pacatus are building a strong argument in favor of judging whether you want to participate in a pleasure by an across-the-board requirement that the source from which it comes NOT be AI.
I definitely sign on to that viewpoint to the extent that you have to understand the source of a pleasure in order to evaluate whether in the end it is going to cause you more pleasure than pain.
But isn't that just the same question just stated differently(?) Don't we have to be certain that *all* AI generated pleasure is going to harm us more than help us in order to reach that conclusion? Because certainly there are *some* major benefits to AI or else it would not be "taking the world by storm." Are we to adopt Cicero's viewpoint on Epicurean philosophy and go on a crusade against AI? I'm all for crusades in the right context.
But that's where I think the debate is still open. I don't yet have the sense that by necessity all use of AI is so dangerous that it should be banned (and we're not just talking the forum but society as a whole). I would think that there's a lot of subtlety on where to draw the line.
And my gosh this debate is everywhere. It's hard to read a list of articles on any subject at any time day or night without some part of this debate being brought up.
