Discovery and user abstraction are Lemmy's biggest issues and we are not addressing them to the degree we should.
I know there's some stuff on all those centralized platforms that's way over the top, but most of it is actually pretty helpful. And you'll miss it once you switch here.
The one thing that really trips me up is that I am now really interested at how many people are assholes because they aren't able to be good, and how many do it for other reasons...
Two things come to mind:
a psychopath wants to be good because he knows this will give him a better social stand. But he doesn't really get it, because some things his peers do just look irrational to him. At some point he just reverts back to manipulation because that's what he understands.
an autistic guy tries to be nice, but he doesn't get it. People are puzzles to him, and the way he is nice is very different from everyone else. He starts becoming jaded and stops trying to be nice like everyone else.
Both examples are people who don't have the extended knowledge of what "being nice" is, and therefore they stop being nice. I would love to know how big that percentage is amongst all assholes.
This is also intertwined with the fact that if there's an asshole for every 20 people who are nice (just as a thought experiment), you wouldn't remember the nice people, because they don't give you a headache. The asshole does. So for us, the percentage always looks really skewed, in fact it's almost exclusively the assholes we hear about.
I mean it assumes not everyone can be good (which is fair) but it's also assuming everyone wants to be good. And to be blunt, I think there's some people out there that don't care if they're assholes.
It's an interesting thought though, and I totally agree, some people really don't know how to be good.
Let me chime in as someone who would probably fall under your definition of an AI defender.
How do I defend AI? Well, I think AI really flips the world on it's head. Including all the good and the bad that comes from it. I still think the industrialization is a good metaphor. Things changed a lot. A lot of people were pissed. Now we don't mind as much anymore, because it's the new normal, but at the time, most people weren't happy about it.
Same with AI. I think overall it's a plus, but obviously it comes with new pitfalls. LLM hallucinations, the need for more complex copyright and licensing definitions, impersonation, etc. . It's not entirely great, but I totality, when the dust settles, it will be a helpful tool to make our lives easier.
So why do I defend AI? Basically, because I think it will happen, whether you like it or not. Even if the law will initially make it really strict, society will change their mind about it. It might be slowly, but it's just too useful to outlaw.
Going back to industrialization metaphor, we adapted it over a longer period of time. Yes, it forever changed how most things are made, but it wasn't necessarily a bad thing. It's just a thing. And even though lots of logistics chains are streamlined, there's always gonna be handmade things and unique things. Ofc, not everything is handmade, but some important things still are. And for both of them, there's some stuff that's totally fine to be automated, and then there's some stuff that just loses it's value if we just gloss over with automation.
Now I don't want AI to just roam free (ofc not, there's some really bad stuff happening and I'm not pretending that it's not) but what we need is laws and enforcement against it, and not against AI.
Imagine if most countries outlawed AI. It would make all AI companies and users move operation to that one country that still allows it, making it impossible to oversee and enforce against. So we better find a good strategy to allow it for all the things where it doesn't do damage.
Now let me address some specific points you brought up;
In the near future no one will "need" to be a writer
But isn't this already how it's going? Only people who wanna be a writer are one, anf it's good that way.
Also, AI can only remix the art that's already there, so if you're doing something completely unique, AI won't ever be able to replace you. I find that somehow validating for the people who make awesome and unique art. I think that's how it should be.
Do these people not see or feel the human behind the art at all?
I do. And that's the exact reason I'm not concerned. Everyone who puts in the work to make something very particular to them should not be impacted in any way.
Now there's an argument to be made how consent for training data is given (opt-in / opt-out) and what licensing for the models can and should look like, but this is my very basic opinion.
Are these really opinions you have encountered outside of the internet?
I may have about one friend out of 30 who thinks like me.
I mean I am living proof we exist, but I can't say this is a popular opinion, which is fair.
I don't want people to mindlessly agree, I want them to come their own opinions because of their own research and presumptions.
I also don't expect you to agree with me, but I hope some people will understand my perspective and maybe this brings a bit more nuance to this bipolar conversation.
This is a video about it, which I think takes a very sobering approach to it. Her humor tends to be very dark, but if you look at the comment section, she seems to be hitting it head on.
Now for solutions, I don't know anyone who talks about it beyond the basics of "listen to men" and "give them a healthier and less judgy space to develop social skills". But that's probably because this is such a complex issue and there seems to be no simple solution.
Harsh, but from what I see I agree, fixing it might be harder than redoing it, and covering it up if it looks good is the easiest solution you have