-9
*wanking gesture*
I... Don't know... How to interpret that. Are you... Are you getting off to my opinion? 😳
They're saying fuck off you wankstain
Upvoted for a truly unpopular opinion. "Devs should disclose whether or they used a keyboard or a typewriter" defeats the purpose of anti-ai sentiment, which I believe is your intention. Good job, bozo.
He... Almost has a point. He's likely so close. It's actually painful to watch him fumble that hard.
It's unpopular either way. But like damn it. He could have gotten there if he just tried a bit harder.
Maybe if he used to write this it could have helped him. Kek
Dangit! What part did I miss? I really should have told DeepSeek to scrutinize my analogy so it would pass muster.
Thanks, person who chose to insult me. It isn't my intent to "defeat" anything - other than Apple's Trump-like appeal. That is likely to be as successful as Lemmy's attempt to defeat AI.
Sorry that wasn't a person, that was a result generated by my LLM swarm selfhosted on my Mac mini. It's the algorithm who called you a bozo. I, a human stranger, would never misinterpret your position and make hasty judgments like that.
A completely understandable but unfortunate series of events. I hear the models hosted on Macs can get especially vicious. Exceptionally so if you haven't paid the Apple obsolescence ransom fee lately. Maybe host your future models on a TI-80?
Using words like "prejudice" and "discriminate" implies a moral dimension that I don't think applies here. There's nothing inherently immoral about disapproving of AI use or not wanting to unwittingly consume AI-generated content.
I mean by definition it's a moral stance. Morals literally by definition just mean the belief of what is right or wrong.
It's basically impossible for any stance to not be a moral one on nearly everything. Prejudice and discrimination are entirely the correct words here.
The problem is the way people typically use these words makes it feel wrong to use them in this context in this fashion.
So despite them being technically correct. They feel wrong.
I'm not saying the user isn't making a moral judgement, I'm saying the OP is implying a moral parallel to racism and bigotry that simply doesn't exist here.
Thank you. They seem the right words to me, too, but I'm always open to alternatives in using the right words as I make a sincere effort to be exact in my vernacular.
They're accurate by dictionary definition. Care to make alternative suggestions so I can improve the accuracy of my analogies?
My critique of your position is that you are intentionally using these words to imply immorality where there is none, not that you are using the words incorrectly.
In other words, I believe you're trying to say that boycotting or calling out AI use is immoral in the same way that racism is immoral. If that's not what you are trying to say, then I would suggest using different words.
I do believe it is an issue of morality, though. At least so far as people judging others for using AI. It's no different from judging someone based on their haircut, their tattoos, or the clothes they're wearing. All of these are choices.
There's nothing immoral about judging someone by their choices, though. Whether it's the clothes they wear or the tools they use. In fact, I would argue that their personal choices are the most morally defensible basis from which to form an opinion about someone.
So would it not be accurate to say you're discriminating against people based on their clothes/facial hair/tattoos/etc? Or in other words, you're prejudiced against people with a beard/wearing a tie dye shirt/sporting a skull tattoo on their face? Those all seem like accurate words and statements to me.
This is just adding a new discrimination/prejudice to the list. Discriminating against a developer based on their choice to use AI. Prejudiced against people who utilize LLMs. It's just as much based on an individuals morals as they relate to the other person's judgment. Unless I'm missing something?
The issue I'm pointing to isn't that you're misusing the words technically, but that you seem to be using them to draw a parallel to unfair discrimination and prejudice, such as in racism.
The strict definition of a word can vary from its connotation in context, and a well-communicated idea accounts for both. If it was never your intention to draw a parallel to racism or other forms of bigotry then your opinion as presented is less "unpopular" and more "badly communicated".
But 'fair' is entirely subjective. Moreso than almost any other term. What you think is fair isn't what I think is fair, and vice versa.
I try not to discriminate against anyone, as I aspire to be an egalitarian, but if society is gung ho on discriminating then let's go all the way. People who hate AI can discriminate against those who celebrate it, and people who hate Apple can discriminate against their customers. That seems fair to me. Does it to you?
People who hate AI can discriminate against those who celebrate it, and people who hate Apple can discriminate against their customers. That seems fair to me. Does it to you?
I see zero problem with this, at least from a moral or ethical point of view, and except perhaps describing it as "hate". This is another choice of words that seems to draw a parallel to racism and other forms of bigotry.
You must not have seen the /c/fuckai community yet 😂
Very unpopular opinion.
The trouble with AI is it allows a gaming of consumers (dropping shovelwear, using review farms to boost it, cashing out, repeat) which reduces the overall quality of product on the market.
An AI flag warns people of this risk, and helps mitigate this harm.
I won't go into the dubious legal status of AI content, but that is also a risk the consumer should be aware of.
You wouldn't think so from the upvotes 🤔 Maybe there are more who think like me than either of us would have imagined.
I don't disagree with your assessment, I'd just say that the same argument applies to empowering the creator of the tools in my argument. Giving money to Apple results in more e-waste, due to their corporate strategy of forced obsolescence, harming the environment for everyone.
Upvotes mean they agree the opinion is unpopular.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it’s something that’s widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Exactly. So the lack of upvotes implies my opinion is popular, no? At least when compared to the ratio of upvotes on the top comments.
I'm 99% sure you're a troll.
I swear I'm not being obtuse, but for the purpose of my edification would you please define a troll by your own personal definition. Maybe I am, and just don't realize it. I don't believe so, but apparently silent observers agree with you.
I would disagree that your sentiment matches - my argument is that AI can strongly facilitate anti-consumer practices that directly impact the buyer.
You're arguing on broader ethical grounds - it's less direct.
Sorry if I'm being obtuse, as it's not intentional, but I don't understand. You don't believe that Apple implements anti-consumer practices that directly impact the buyer? If so, and I'm understanding correctly, then we greatly disagree on that point. I'd say their impact is even more direct than that of AI.
Apple's processes impact the users of Apple devices (in your scenario, the developers), not those who purchase the games made on apple devices (in this scenario, the ones who are warned).
Again, for clarity, the warnings of AI content protect the purchaser of software, not the developer. So far, you've failed to assail, or offer even reasonable doubt upon, this point.
Actually their anti-consumer choices impact everyone, not just developers nor just gamers, due to the creation of e-waste. Hardware that is still fully functional and powerful, but Apple has arbitrarily decided they are excluding it from OS updates. It's planned obsolescence, and it unnecessarily causes people to churn through hardware - filling up landfills.
I disagree that warnings will protect anyone, or are even necessary. However, since they're there they should be used to warn people that their money will go towards the creation of more e-waste.
I think, at this point, you're determined to conflate things to defend AI labelling. Re-read my posts a few times and when you manage to untwist the concepts of purchaser and developer drop me a reply.
You're being intentionally obtuse. This is less an unpopular opinion and more a strawman that you can dominate. Gen AI end product is often low quality, hallucination prone, expensive and unreliable. Using AI to code also exponentially raises the likelihood that you do not fully understand "your" code and thus limited in improving it. AI hate us not a random "prejudice" or arbitrary "discrimination" but an evaluation of the final product and the limitations of the tool that made it.
It's normal to continue arguments in your head when your upset, but those thoughts generally shouldn't turn into posts.
I don't believe I am being obtuse. I think we just have different perspectives, and that's okay.
As I said in another analogy, some people are prejudiced against those with tribal tattoos, because they feel like it's usurping cultural heritage. They would boycott a restaurant where the chef has such a tattoo, even though it's a visual style of personal choice that in no way affects the food served. It's the same thing with AI - people argue it's appropriation of others efforts, and they refuse to eat at a restaurant where the menu designer used the tool on the menu.
Perhaps with this analogy you can better see the similarities in thinking?
Yep, that'll be unpopular. But I also agree: disclose your toolchains.
Most of the time this is probably going to be inferable from a public repository: there will be "dotfiles" and similar IDE and CI configuration files committed. Various scripts for testing and bootstrapping the development environment will tell you if the developer's OS.
Thank you. Yes, if it's an open source project this is already possible to an extent.
I had to upvote because both the title and text do qualify as unpopular by several standards. I suspect that it's rage bait rather than an actual opinion though.
Just in case it isn't bait, and is just unnecessarily aggressively worded, I agree with the underlying concept. I don't think it would apply to OS levels just because it's not relevant to the end user. No closed source os is going to be fully ethical. No corporate os can be either, imo, though I'm not as confident that a non profit is or isn't at the same risk of bad behavior.
But yeah, we should all have some degree of information about fundamental decisions in the process of what we use. How much detail, what details, and who is obligated legally is the real difficulty. You make it too much of a pain in the ass, and bye-bye big segments of the FOSS dev community.
However, I think trying to pin it on the fact of AI existing and being treated as a bad thing is spurious thinking. That's because there are already people that will object to and refuse to use software that's significantly dependent on apple or Microsoft. Not a ton of people, but they've existed for decades. Others will refuse to use anything closed source. People do what you're suggesting as well. Very, very rarely but some developers are quite open about some details of their hardware, and plenty will gladly talk about their os of choice and why they chose it.
So trying to shoehorn it into a false equivalency with ai doesn't hold water even with that false equivalency in play. Supervising a generative llm or letting the llm do everything, vs running an os on hardware just aren't the same thing at all.
Let's be blunt nothing made by humans can be truely and purely "ethical" if for no other reason then ethics vary.
Plenty of things are on that sliding scale of mid ground where any reasonable person could go either way.
Ethics are what the person defining them believes they are. No more or less. There's after all no such thing as universal ethics.
We get close with some things but they are almost universally the extreme ends.
Like unless we want to pull out the Nazi arguments saying something is always unethical is just hard to do.
Yeah, I'm on board with the all ethics being situational wagon. I'm just saying that weighing a given issue ethically is necessary in a complex society.
Thank you, you get it. Besides, when people making decisions are involved, it is indeed prejudice and discrimination. Refusing to eat at a restaurant that uses AI imagery is no different from refusing to eat there because the cook has a tattoo. Some people are just put off by the visual, even if it has no impact on the food.
I didn't intend it as rage bait. It is my sincere opinion. I only post here because it seems ALL of my opinions are unpopular. Bully for me, no?
Given the mood here on Lemmy, I really don't think my intentionally passive aggressive prose is unnecessary. This is literally a new culture war, and there are literally people on this platform saying they'll make it their life's mission to harass people who use AI.
Personally, I'm a realist, so I would rather see constructive solutions that aren't adversarial. Such as instituting AI-usage tax that is paid out universally, so that everyone who contributes to what amounts to a social project to benefit from their unintended efforts.
I really do hate Apple with the same passion others hate AI, though, and I'd love to be able to exercise my own prejudices in the same way that people are currently exercising their prejudice against LLM technology. 😒
I mean, no, the passive aggressive thing isn't necessary. Hell, I'm aggressive fairly often, I just don't make the habit of assuming it's okay and trying to justify it. Sometimes, I'm an asshole. If you're also going to be an asshole with that kind of base assumption (which comes across pretty damn "look at me" edgelord), you gotta at least not pretend it's acceptable.
That being said, I think you miss a lot of the fediverse nuance on the issue. There's entire instances that a ai/llm friendly. There's plenty of folks like me that will openly discuss their stance that the problems are about implementation, not the underlying idea or technology (what I think of as the FOSS AI crowd).
I'm also with you on apple, though I don't waste hate on them over any other massive corporation fucking with the world.
I'm also with you on the heavy taxation idea, and would add heavy regulation to it. If we're going to be fucked over by capitalist ai, at least give us a reacharound and ban non consensual anal.
Point taken. I'll try to rein in my sour disposition about my passion, and chosen career, being everyone else's target dummy 😂 Thank you for sharing your insight.
Yep, this is unpopular, so get an upvote.
Thanks, Mr. Foot. May the hair on your toes never fall out!
Most people think that someone should have to disclose if they're a sex offender, but why stop there? I think everyone should have to disclose whether or not they've ever done it missionary or doggy style.
Oooh, edgy. I could see some prudes making this argument unironically.
What about a carpenter who uses Parkside or Ryobi power tools? Why would I buy a kitchen table from a guy who uses interior tools? I think a carpenter should use something nicer like Makita tools.
load more comments
(1 replies)
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2026
-9 points (42.6% liked)
Unpopular Opinion
9649 readers
101 users here now
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
6. Defend your opinion
This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS