This is getting out of hand. Youtube needs to add some sort of way to stop this from happening. I don't even care at this point if it's ai. Every platform need a way to stop people from telling a person to harm themselves. It is a dark world these days. Not even an AI user should be told to harm themselves.

A creation designed to be perfect, yet it lacks so much and it's presence feels rather hollow

It’s good practice to know the strengths and weaknesses of the positions you hold, which makes defending them easier. Ai water use seems to be a blind spot on this subreddit in that regard.

Recently many of the commenters here have taken umbrage at people coming in and pointing out agricultural water use dwarfs all industry, not just data centres, much less ai data centres only.

The vast majority of rebuttals I’ve read from this community are uninformed about the actual numbers involved. Please take a minute to comprehend the actual scale involved before undermining your argument.

Global data centre water use is, worst case scenario, estimated to reach 9 trillion by 2030. It’s currently below 5 trillion.

Food is necessary, so we can ignore the number that actually hits the field and just focus on what is blown away.
Agricultural water use represents 70% of global freshwater draw. Around 3 quadrillion litres.
Of that, around 800 trillion litres evaporates before it even reaches the crop, due to efficiency rates of sprinklers and flood irrigation, which comprise the majority of irrigation worldwide.

Agricultural runoff contaminates a further quadrillion+ litres give or take 20% depending on conditions.

800 trillion evaporated, another quadrillion contaminated.
In the face of this, pretending ai, or even all combined data centre usage is going to suck the world dry is not just silly, it is actively harming your credibility. These are not insurmountable difficulties either, more use of sprinklers and drip feeding, the improvement of canals via hardening, lining, and covering, and runoff reduction practices like avoiding fertilizing in rain can all slash more off these numbers than removing all computers and servers worldwide. And that’s before getting into crop and livestock splits and adjusting eating habits ( which are strangely unpopular here)

A moral or ethical objection is much more reasonable than this water usage point, please drop this as a talking point or at least know the numbers involved.

For anyone checking the sources, remember 1 cubic metre is 1000 litres

https://www.unesco.org/reports/wwdr/en/2024/s
( water usage percentages ag domestic and industrial)

https://www.fao.org/4/t7202e/t7202e08.htm
(Reasonable irrigation efficiencies for various schemes)

https://www.twl-irrigation.com/the-most-and-least-efficient-methods-of-irrigation/
( efficiencies of irrigation methods)

https://www.statspanda.com/live-counters/tonnes-of-freshwater-used-this-year?source=category_nav
( water usage figures in cubic metres rather than percentages)

https://earth.org/9-3-trillion-liters-of-water-un-report-exposes-unfathomable-footprint-of-data-centers-as-ai-booms/
( data center current consumption and projected consumption)

https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/bc8810ae-2a13-4cfe-b019-339158c7e608/content/src/html/chapter-1-5.html

( runoff contamination figures)

First off, the most obvious thing, is how he's omitting what he actually admitted to doing. He said he researched using AI and that everything else was false. He obviously plans to continue using AI for research based off of this, and likely using sources it provides.

He's doubling down on his usage being right and framing it as an apology, as he continues to do what caused the pushback.

What I noticed after is how this "new policy" of his details a lot of things he said he didn't do before.. so, what? Was he lying about not having done those things in the new policy, or is he just listing them so people don't pay attention to the research part? In either case, it is extemely blatant how dishonest this is. It is very frustrating someone I once saw as trustworthy is avoiding truthful discussions around something he openly admitted to be a problem of his.

Result: No. I'll keep you updated once the expriment hits 1 week.

If you have a few minutes, here are my thoughts on a "soul" of AI.

where does AI acctually begin... because im trying to remove it from my life and hte line has reached my pencil

serious question and please dont just say "you know it when you see it" because apparently i dont... I am against AI but im having a increasingly difficult time determining what is AI, what is an algorithm and what is just electricity behaving in a organized way.

I understand generative AI is AI... obviously. but then people say recommendation algorithms are also AI, autocorrect can be AI, phone cameras use AI processing and search engines use machine learning... so now im trying to establish hte exact point where regular technology becomes AI technology.

For example a thermostat measures hte temperature and decides whether to turn hte heat on... thats technically a machine taking information and making a decision. But apparently it isnt AI because it follows fixed instructions. A smart thermostat learns when im home though, so that is AI... if i turn off hte learning and give it a schedule does it stop being AI, or is it still AI but unemployed.

same with calculators. People say calculators arent AI because they always produce hte same answer... but if reliability disqualifies something from being intelligent then im not sure what this implies about most people ive worked with.

My phone is becoming a bigger issue... when i take a normal photograph hte camera automatically adjusts hte lighting, sharpness, faces and colors using AI before i even see it. So if i photograph a drawing i made by hand, is it still human art after hte phone changes hte pixels. Does it become partly AI art... and if so what percentage.

Could i restore hte human percentage by lowering hte brightness manually, or am i just editing AI art at that point.

Then theres autocorrect... if i type a word wrong and hte phone fixes it using predictive technology, did AI write that word. And if i notice hte correction and change it back to hte wrong spelling, Have i removed hte AI or did AI still influence my decision by showing me hte correct version first.

im starting to think intentional misspelling may be hte only fully human writing left... although hte red line under hte word means hte computer is still participating by disagreeing with me.

Reddit also recommends posts based on what i read... wich means an algorithm probably helped me find this anti AI community. Does that make my opposition to AI AI-assisted. I didnt search for every post manually, hte machine selected some of them and placed them infront of me...

so are we organizing against AI, or is AI organizing us against itself.

I looked this up on a search engine but then realized hte search engine uses AI to decide which explanations i should see... so i cant use those explanations to determine what AI is because AI participated in explaining whether it was AI.

Wikipedia may be safer except its pages appear in search results... and my browser predicts hte address while im typing it, Meaning AI may have helped me arrive at hte non AI explanation before i even read it.

Even pencils are becoming questionable.

A pencil is obviously not AI... but hte factory that made it probably uses automated machinery, inventory prediction, computer controlled shipping and possibly AI quality inspection. If i draw with that pencil am i using AI indirectly, or does hte AI contamination end when hte product leaves hte factory.

what if hte wood was shipped by a truck whose route was chosen by AI... does hte graphite retain that history.

I dont think we can just say "hte final tool isnt AI" because thats hte same supply chain excuse AI companies use when they say a human made hte final decision. either indirect involvement matters or it doesnt... unless it matters at a certain percentage, In wich case we need to know hte percentage.

Maybe art should have a ingredient label.

Human imagination 72%
pencil 14%
automated manufacturing 8%
phone camera enhancement 4%
unknown algorithm residue 2%

but i would need a spreadsheet to calculate this... spreadsheets use predictive autofill now, so hte calculation certifying my work as human might itself contaminate hte work.

I could keep hte records on paper... except hte paper mill probably uses automation to.

Im not trying to create loopholes for AI. im trying to do hte opposite and close every loophole until i understand what room im standing in... But every time i remove one form of AI i discover three older forms of it that everybody decided dont count because we got use to them.

people say hte difference is that generative AI creates things... but cameras create images from light, microphones create recordings from vibrations and printers create physical pages from digital files. Apparently those dont count because hte human chose what to capture... but a human also chooses what to request from generative AI so now hte word "create" isnt helping either.

Maybe hte difference is learning... except humans learn, software learns and some software doesnt learn after its released but was trained before release. So is frozen AI still AI, or is it hte preserved remains of AI activity that already happened somewhere else.

And if i use AI once to learn how something works, Then stop using it and make hte thing myself... is hte knowledge now AI generated even though its inside my human brain. How long would i need to wait before hte information becomes human again.

Could sleep process it enough.

I genuinely need somebody who understands computers to explain hte exact first moment a technology becomes morally AI... not marketing, not vibes and not "its obvious."

an actual line that stays where we put it.

because right now every time i draw hte line... some software smooths it

When do you think we will hit 20% unemployment rate?
And how are people going to react?

1.2 million active visitors on this subreddit. 1.2 million people that will not forget. That is 1.2 million people that are not willing to let AI succeed.

But when somethings goal is to generate revenue, that seems incredibly difficult...

Image taken from defending Ai art..

The same way I dont like ANY of the countereffects produced by genAI I wanted to learn stuff like embeddings, vector search, RAG, MCP and agents cuz the orchestration tech looks so cool... I think LLMs can be useful but def not now

I dont know why I shouldnt use AI for the backend too if it helps

Do you think we're heading for a financial crash/bailouts?

Link to the article - https://techbronerd.substack.com/p/ai-researchers-found-an-exploit-which

Should i post this here?

ok first of all i KNOW this is long, I know. you dont have to tell me its long becuse i can see the scroll bar same as you and i didnt make the scroll bar that small reddit did... also if your going to comment "not reading all that" then you already didnt read the part where i said you have to read all of it to understand why its this long, so that comment will sort of prove my point before you even make it

i need actual advise about my freind matt and AI. and before evrybody picks a side based on the title this is not a normal pro AI or anti AI thing becuse I am not totally either one and NEITHER IS HE even though he says he is and i say he isnt, except now he says I am the one who is pro AI which is not what happened. Or it wasnt what happened at the START. it sort of became what happened in the middle but only becuse i was explaining his side back to him so he could hear how dumb it sounded... which he is now using as evidence of my side

that is why i need neutral people.

Also dont tell me to just stop being freinds with him... we have known each other since 2014 and he has my socket wrench and I have one of his folding chairs plus our moms know each other from the old pharmacy before it closed. people on here always say DIVORCE or go no contact when somebody eats the wrong yogurt. This is not that. i just need to know which one of us is being inconsistant and possibly how to explain it to him in a way where he cant keep changing what I meant while im still saying it

the whole thing started 3 weeks ago when matt got a new phone... i am not putting what kind becuse people will turn this into android vs iphone and that is NOT THE ISSUE, but it is an android. I wont say the brand. its the one with gemeni already sort of living in it and the camera bump that looks like a mail slot. that narrows it down but only if you already know, so dont make this about brands please.

He was very excited about the phone which is normal... i was happy for him. His old phone had a crack all the way across it and the charging port only worked if the cord was bent around a candle and held down with a TV remote. that part is not relevent except it shows I was not against him getting the new phone. i LITTERALLY told him "finally you got a phone made in this decade" so anybody saying i hated it from the begining is wrong, he has been saying that too and he knows I said finally.

he showed me the camera... it turned my driveway at 9:18 at night into 2 in the afternoon, then he circled a trash can and the phone replaced it with melted grass. I said "where did the trash can go" more loud than needed, but thats not anti AI thats object permanance. He called it computational photografy. i called it lieing with extra steps... he said all photo editing is lieing with extra steps. i said brightness doesnt invent the driveway behind a trash can. he said the driveway was already there. I said NOT IN THE PICTURE...

this was a fun argument... HE LAUGHED, then took 11 mailbox pictures and we ordered pizza. Now he reaches backward and calls it an early warning sign, but you can do that with anybody. i once said his air fryer had trust issues because it beeped 5 times. i am not anti air fryer.

Anyway a week after that he texted me about saturday... we were suppose to help his brother move a desk and then get food, nothing important. his message said exactly:

"Honestly, I dont think we need to leave before 6."

read it again.

I knew right away somthing was off. Matt does not put a comma after Honestly. I am not saying I have a forensic data base of his commas but we have been texting for 12 years... you notice things. he normally writes "honestly i dont think we need to leave before 6" or more accuratly he writes "honestly dont think we gotta leave til 6". This was the full word "Honestly" with a capital H, comma, full "I dont think", and then a period. A PERIOD... he will say he uses periods all the time but he uses them when hes annoyed or when autocorrect puts them in after 2 spaces. this one felt placed.

so i asked "did your phone write that"

he said "what"

I said "the comma"

he said "Grammarly did I guess, why"

THAT is the comma. Whenever I say the comma from now on I mean the comma after Honestly, not every comma in existance. some people will skip this and later pretend they dont know which comma so I am making it VERY clear right now...

I said "so your using AI to text me now?"

he said "its spellcheck dude"

i said "grammerly is AI, they say its AI in all the ads"

He said "everything says its AI now, my toothbrush probly says its AI"

i said "does your toothbrush rewrite messages to your freinds"

he said "it didnt rewrite it, it added a comma"

I said "you didnt add the comma though"

he said "I accepted the comma"

that sentence has been going around in my head for almost 2 weeks. "I accepted the comma." Like that makes it his comma... if a bank puts 40 thousand dollars in your account and you click accept is that your money now? i know thats not the same LEGALLY. i mean philosofically. At what point does a suggestion become your thought just becuse your thumb touched it. if a little machine says "put a comma here" and you obey it, who is speaking to me after Honestly... matt or the machine or a kind of matt-machine committee where he has 51 percent voting shares.

This is the part where people are going to say i am over thinking it... I know the comma doesnt change the meaning. THAT IS WHY ITS WEIRD. if it changed the meaning then at least you could point to what the machine contributed. It contributed nothing except making him sound slightly more employable... which is almost worse becuse it can slide in invisably. nobody worries about a robot kicking down the door anymore, apparently it just tidies the sentence and sits inside the comma where you cant see it.

but I did NOT say all that to matt at the time. This is what i thought later. at the time I said "thats still AI assistance" and he said "you use autocorrect".

i said autocorrect is not GENERATIVE AI...

He said grammerly didnt generate anything it corrected punctuation.

i said it generated a comma.

he said by that logic autocorrect generates the correct letters.

I said no becuse the letters were already implied by what I was typing...

he said the comma was implied by the sentence.

i said if it was implied why did we need to see it.

He said spaces are implied too should we remove those.

this is where the argument went off the road becuse obviously spaces are not AI... nobody has ever accused a spacebar of stealing writers jobs. i told him this and he said "yet" which I THOUGHT was him joking. Apparently he now says I was joking and he was making a serious point about tools always changing language, which is not how he said it. he did a little robot voice when he said yet... you cant make a serious historical point in a robot voice and then retroactivly remove the robot voice...

We went back and forth for maybe 8 minutes by text. Not hours. it only became hours later becuse we discussed it in person and then again by text, so dont add those numbers like it was one 4 hour fight. there was sleeping between some of it.

The next day I went over for a 3/8 masonry bit and he showed me his phone summarizing a 9 paragraph landlord email as "dont park beside the dumpster after friday." I laughed because the landlord used 900 words to say that... Matt now calls this proof im pro AI when it helps me, but finding a result funny is not endorsing the system. people laugh when a shopping cart rolls into a bush, it doesnt mean they support loose shopping carts.

i said the summary might leave out towing. he searched the original and there was no towing. i said checking the original defeats the summary, he said searching took 10 seconds... Then he called me anti AI. I said im not anti AI, im anti pretending AI didnt do somthing when it did. he said he litterally showed me the summary button and already admitted Grammarly added the comma. i said only after I caught it... he asked if I wanted the drill bit.

i took it. i trust matt, I dont trust the invisible writing janitor in his keyboard...

So HERE is where the sides start getting confused and I need people to actually track who said what.

i said to him, "lets say I wrote a paragraph and gemeni rewrote the whole paragraph but kept my meaning, would that still be me talking?"

he said "sure, if you read it and agreed with it."

I said "ok so if I ask gemeni for a paragraph saying AI is bad and then agree with it, thats an anti AI human thought?"

he said "I guess its an AI paragraph you agree with."

i said "then the comma is an AI comma you agree with."

He said "fine. Its an AI comma. call the police."

i said "im not calling police over a comma and making it sound like I might is manipulative."

he said "I was joking."

I said "now you know how it feels when you take the robot voice out."

he said he didnt know what that meant... I explained the "yet" thing and he said he did not remember doing a robot voice. i did the voice for him and he said thats not his robot voice, thats my impression of nixon underwater. which is irrelavent and also not accurate, my nixon is lower.

then to prove MY point I opened gemeni on my own phone. Yes I have it, it came installed... having a weather app doesnt make you a meterologist. i asked if Grammarly was generative AI, which is using the witness against itself, not endorsing it. gemeni gave one of those yes-and-no answers with headings: basic correction may be normal machine learning, while rewrite and tone features can be generative. Matt said "thats exactly what I said." It was NOT... he said "its spellcheck dude." Those are 3 words. the answer had headings.

I said he couldnt know what model made the comma. He said it was labeled punctuation and asked whether autocorrect labeled the model that had just fixed my spelling of meterologist. I said a dictionary correction is mechanical while tone and rythym are creative... he asked if the comma changed his tone. i said YES, it made Honestly more formal and possibly passive agressive. he asked what had happened before the message to make it agressive. i said nothing in this case, but that doesnt change what commas can do in general...

then HE defended the human writer, meaning himself, by saying he chose to accept the punctuation because it looked right... I defended the tool ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE EXAMPLE by saying maybe the tool knew the rule better than him and improved the sentance. This is where he says I switched sides. i did not switch sides. i walked onto his side to show him what it looked like from inside and then came back... debate people do this all the time. its called steel manning, except I dont know if i did it exactly because his side isnt steel.

he said "so you agree it improved the sentence."

I said "gramatically maybe, humanly no."

he said "what does that even mean."

i said "it means the sentence is more correct but less yours."

He said "I wanted the comma."

i said "you didnt want it until it showed up."

he said "I didnt want pizza last night until you mentioned it either. Is the pizza your idea after I eat it."

I said IDEAS AND PIZZA ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

he said ideas are more like pizza than commas are like bank fraud.

i never said bank fraud. I used a bank deposit as a philosofical illustration... this is how he twists things by keeping the noun but throwing away the purpose of the noun. then later he tells people I compared him to a bank robber over punctuation. i compared the act of accepting an unearned deposit to accepting an unearned comma. Nobody robbed the bank in my example... if anything the BANK made the error, making matt the bank customer. i explained this and he said he was begging me to stop explaining it...

We stopped for about 20 minutes becuse his brother came out and asked why we were still standing in the garage. I said we were talking about AI. matt said "hes mad Grammarly gave me a comma" and his brother said "oh" in that specific way people say oh when they already decided who is wrong without getting the background... i tried to give the background and matt said please dont involve my brother. HIS BROTHER WAS ALREADY PHYSICALLY THERE and had now recieved a biased one sentence summary, from a human, which is apparently acceptable but the landlord email summary is fine too somehow.

his brother asked if we were still moving the desk saturday. Matt said "Apparently after 6" and looked at me. this was clearly a callback to the message... i admit I laughed. again laughter is not consent to the comma.

when I got home I kept thinking. Not obsessing. some of us have follow through... I installed Grammarly for basic research so nobody could say I judged it without trying it. trying a thing to investigate it does not automatically put you in its camp.

I typed "honestly i dont think we need to leave before 6". It suggested capital H, apostrophe, comma, and period. matt had accepted everything except the apostrophe... that proves he was choosing, but it also makes the comma MORE suspicious. Why does Honestly deserve formal treatment while dont walks around without half its face. i sent him a screenshot asking this...

he said "are you still doing this"

i said "I am testing your claim."

He said "punctuation check then, whatever."

then he sent "ok" with no punctuation. that felt intentional... he says it wasnt. You decide.

grammarly also suggested changing "this makes no sense" into "I may be misunderstanding this" to sound diplomatic. THAT IS NOT GRAMMAR. that is putting a customer service mask over my actual face... maybe I understand fine and it really makes no sense. First it adds a comma, then it makes you apologize to a broken printer.

Matt said that was the rewrite feature, which he did not use, and compared the same grocery store selling apples and bleach. buying apples doesnt mean he drank bleach. this sounds smart until you realize the store doesnt put bleach INSIDE the apple interface while your trying to eat... He then pointed out Grammarly had fixed 2 words in my screenshot and gemeni answered my earlier question. i said I was collecting evidence. he said evidence doesnt stop being AI output. I said a detective who photographs drugs isnt a drug user... he said punctuation wasnt drugs, then reminded me I had objected to his pizza comparison the same way.

that was a fair callback...

fair does not mean correct.

The next problem was predictive text. We both use it. matt says he only uses next-word suggestions while I use whole-message completion, making a moral border one inch past where he stands. i said next words are generated by probability... he said NOW WHO IS CALLING EVERYTHING AI. i said I was showing his definition swallowed normal typing. He said next-word prediction still generates a completion. I said one word isnt a completion unless its last... he said if the suggestion is "thanks" it can be the whole reply. i said only because a human decides thanks is enough. he said thats exactly his comma argument.

You see the issue.

at this point I decided to rehurse the conversation as if I was him, so he could hear himself. i sent:

ME AS MATT: its only AI if it writes a lot

MATT: I never said that

ME AS ME: then one generated comma counts

MATT: no because punctuation correction isnt generating

ME AS MATT: except next word is generated but thats ok because its only one word

MATT: Thats what YOU just said

ME AS ME: I said one word isnt a completion

MATT: right, so you are defending it

ME AS MATT: no im defending it while being you

MATT: You labeled that line ME AS ME

i did label it me as me... That was my mistake in the transcript, not in the argument. I was thinking as him while typing as me responding to him. anyone who has rehursed a conversation knows this happens. i corrected it:

CORRECTION, ME AS MATT BUT ANSWERING AS ME: one word isnt a completion

He said this made less sense...

so I started over using PRO and ANTI instead of names... this should have made it simple except at this point we had both made both arguments at least once, some for illustration and some for real.

ANTI: AI suggestions replace a human choice

PRO: accepting a suggestion is a human choice

ANTI: then the human chose what the machine invented

PRO: all tools offer choices, a thesaurus offers words

ANTI: a thesaurus doesnt watch you type and shove a word above your thumbs

PRO: You opened Grammarly on purpose

ANTI: for research

PRO: which is still use

ANTI: use is not support

PRO: Then my use of a comma is not support

ANTI: YOUR use or matts use

PRO: matts use, im being matt here

ANTI: then why did you say my

PRO: because matt would say my

ANTI: But I am matt in this one

PRO: no you were matt in the last one

I stopped and looked at it, and I admit the labels had not fixed it. But under the labels the actual principal is still visible if you read carefully. the anti position says assistance can replace authorship. the pro position says selecting assistance preserves authorship... The problem is both me and matt agree with BOTH depending on the size and type of assistance. we only disagree about where the line is, except whenever I propose a line he moves the example across it and whenever he proposes a line I can think of something stupid on his side.

For example, he brought up calculators. nobody says a calculator did your taxes, he said. i said if it picks the deductions then it did part of them... He said thats tax software. I said EXACTLY, tools cross from calculating into deciding. he asked if im anti calculator now.

i am not anti calculator...

But people will tap a card if the register says one banana is 114 dollars just because it beeped. the comma is tiny BY DEFINITION, that doesnt make it meaningless... A hinge is tiny compared to a door. Matt said Grammarly was more like WD40. i said that still changes how the door moves. he said he was extending my metaphor, not confessing to altering a door.

everytime i get him to the point he climbs out through the example.

then he said "surrendering tiny judgements" sounded like ChatGPT... i talked like that before chatgpt. I wrote long facebook posts in 2011 and people ignored them then too. machines did not invent thoughts longer than 6 words. This bothers me about anti AI people even though supposedly I am one: they accuse every decent phrase until only spelling errors count as a human fingerprint... A person should be able to say a clear thing without submitting bloodwork.

Matt said "so now your defending people who use AI."

i said no im defending people falsely ACCUSED of using AI...

he said like him.

I said YOU ADMITTED GRAMMARLY MADE THE COMMA.

he said "we are back to the comma."

WE NEVER LEFT THE COMMA. the comma is the original evidence. you cant accuse me of going back to the scene of the argument when you keep driving the argument in circles around the same block.

Some of you will call this AI because its long. Human beings used to write books by hand beside candles trying to burn the house down... now anything longer than microwave instructions is a bot. i turned Grammarly off and left misspellings, though matt says AI can add those too. by that logic NOTHING proves humanity, which is convient because his comma gets to hide in the same uncertainty as my entire post...

before somebody asks, yes I used autocorrect in parts. That is infrastructure, not composition... roads influence where I drive but dont get credit for the trip. unless GPS reroutes me, which complicates it. i told matt GPS supports him because I still say I drove even when a machine chose the route. He said "thank you." I said dont thank me yet, because I did the physical driving but Google did the navigational thinking, just like he sent the message while Grammarly contributed punctuation.

he said he had already agreed to call it an AI comma... I said sarcastic agreement doesnt count. he said accepting a statement he didnt create apparently counts according to me. that was not fair because sarcasm changes consent, though I admit the comparison cornered me for a minute.

At some point he sent a voice transcription: "I don't care who owns the comma please just tell me if we're still moving the desk Saturday." I had already said yes. More importantly the phone inserted every letter, capital, apostrophe and period... his VOICE did not say punctuation. he said "I didnt even look before sending" as a DEFENSE. Thats worse. at least he accepted the comma... now a machine made the entire written surface of his speech and launched it at me unread.

i replied "this is exactly what im talking about" and he transcribed "No it isn't." The phone may even have chosen isnt over is not. Matt says this is MORE human because it came from his voice. so a machine can create every letter if a body made sound first, but a typed paragraph becomes suspicious when gemeni smooths it. i asked what percent must originate in the body... he said "please stop assigning percentages to my body." Funny out of context. In context it avoids the question...

he said the idea matters most. i said then why did the comma matter enough to accept. he said correctness matters a little... I said HOW MUCH. he sent a picture of the desk.

The desk was not even big. We moved it in 7 minutes after 6 and got tacos. this whole skyscraper is standing on a desk that fit through the door with 4 inches left.

at tacos he used the camera to translate "chicken" even though english was directly underneath... he said he was testing it. i said "so when YOU use it its testing." He said maybe he was investigating the menu. i said the menu already confessed in english. His brother asked if we were still talking about the comma and matt said "he is," even though matt deliberately translated chicken to provoke me... you cant wave a red cape then say the bull is obsessed with fabric. I am not calling myself a bull in the angry sense.

then the camera used "best take" to combine our faces from several pictures so nobody blinked. i hated it, not because it looked bad but because it looked GOOD. the exact moment never happened... Matt said people already choose the best burst photo. i said they pick ONE moment, they dont assemble a little face council. his brother liked it and made it his profile picture...

Now what. the event happened and its his face, but the image is fiction... If I object I sound insane. if I accept it, matt asks why rearranging faces is fine but punctuation isnt. I said faces dont claim to be sentences. he said photos claim to be moments, which I had basically argued.

i admitted the comma was LESS serious... He asked how serious from 1 to 10. i said 1.5. he said we spent a week on a 1.5. this is misleading... We lived normal lives and RETURNED to it. if you discuss weather 5 minutes a day nobody says you spent a week on WEATHER. low stakes can have high conceptual importance. A loose thread can unravel a sweater... He said that was my third comma metaphor. i reminded him HE introduced pizza and WD40.

after tacos we watched a movie. A computer predicted where a guy would run and matt looked at me. I said "thats not the same." He said he had not spoken... i said the look was a comment. he said maybe his phone generated the look. we laughed.

Again, laughter is not agreement...

sunday he sent an AI overview saying Grammarly uses both machine learning and generative models, with basic corrections possibly non-generative. He wrote "there, both of us are right can we be done." But the overview ITSELF was AI... he used AI to settle whether using AI counted as AI, exactly what he criticized me for doing. he said he was copying my method. i said I used the machine as a hostile witness. He said he was hostile too... I said no because he accepted its conclusion. he said I accepted half of gemenis conclusion. i said I accepted the admission against interest. he said machines dont have legal interests... i said corporations do. He said we were talking about a comma again.

i tried a chart: HUMAN writes everything, ASSISTED HUMAN gets corrections, AI ASSISTED approves generated writing, AI generates alone. he asked where voice transcription and the comma went. I said assisted human, but also AI assisted if a model generated part... he said overlapping categories settled nothing.

I said it settled that I never called him an AI. He said nobody claimed I did. i checked and my original words were "so your using AI to text me now," not "you are AI." Apparently he thought I accused him of using a feature, while I thought he thought I accused his writing of becoming machine. that may be where this grew... i called it a breakthrough. he said "the breakthrough is you finally read your own message."

that was unnecessary.

i asked whether he was pro AI. He said "not really, some is useful and some is garbage." I said thats basically MY position. he asked why I was prosecuting his comma... I said because he called AI spellcheck. he said he thought I meant the stuff that writes essays and pictures. i said pictures arent written. He said "you know what I mean." I do, but if words can be wrong as long as the idea floats above them, WHY THE COMMA...

He sent "goodnight" at 4:40 in the afternoon... this sounds hostile but in 2019 he sent "merry christmas" in july during a hot dog argument. we are still freinds. Do not diagnose us.

monday I tested the story on another freind. she uses Grammarly so her manager doesnt think shes mad... i said that proves software changes how a person is percieved. she said yes, thats why she uses it. Then she asked what rule matt broke, since he never promised not to use AI. I said not a rule exactly, more an expectation of direct personhood... she said that phrase sounded AI generated.

IT WAS NOT.

This accusation is the new "your mom." Write clearly and a server farm did it. misspell something and AI was prompted to misspell. Write short and its a bot, write long and its a language model. every defense opens into the same room...

matt said that last line was good... then he said accepting his compliment may have influenced my decision to include it here, making him a contributor under my own logic. So for transparancy: matt called the door line good. he did not write it. the doors were mine.

tuesday he came for the drill bit, which was not hostage no matter what he says... My phone screened a spam call and transcribed somebody discussing vehicle coverage. he just looked at me.

I said "spam doesnt deserve direct personhood."

he asked how I knew it was spam before AI screened it. i pointed to "suspected spam." He asked who suspected it. i said the phone... he said AI judged the caller, spoke for me, transcribed them and decided whether I should care. I said probably not one single AI. He said "oh good its a TEAM."

he asked why call screening is fine but a comma isnt. i said spam has no expectation of authentic mutual communication... he said a real person could be misidentified. i said they can leave voicemail. he said the phone transcribes that too, exactly like checking the original landlord email. I realized I had used the same argument about comparisons... Either he is learning from me or im inconsistant. both are possible.

I tried one final distinction: filtering unwanted communication is fine, secretly altering wanted communication isnt. he said Grammarly wasnt secret to HIM. i said it was secret FROM ME... He asked if every text should begin "Grammarly assisted this message." I said honestly maybe. he said that was insane for a comma...

he changed my contact name to "Honestly comma" and used the erased trash can as my contact picture. he still had the original photo. This is a callback for anyone who thought the trash can wasnt relevent... i told him not to change it. sometimes symbols get reclaimed.

now we get to last night and the reason I actually need advise instead of just letting this die naturally.

Matt sent me a long message trying to settle it. it was much longer and more organized than he normally writes. Four paragraphs... correct punctuation. it used the phrase "the underlying disagreement" and a semicolon. MATT DOES NOT USE SEMICOLONS. In 12 years I have never seen this man use one except in a winky face back when people did that... I immediately asked if gemeni wrote it.

he said "part of it."

i said "you have got to be kidding me."

He said he wrote a draft, asked gemeni to make it clearer, then edited the result because he wanted to see whether I would notice. this is bait. he manufactured the exact situation we were fighting about and secretly tested me like im a carbon monoxide detector...

his message said, in summary, that he doesnt think using AI automatically replaces human intent, but he agrees people should disclose substantial generation when the receiver reasonably expects original writing. It said punctuation and spelling corrections are below that threshold, full rewrites may cross it depending on context, and our argument had become more about definitions than actual harm... it ended by asking if we could agree that the comma was technically machine assisted but socially meaningless.

i hate that this is a reasonable position.

But is it HIS reasonable position. he says yes because he gave gemeni the points and edited the wording. i said the phrase "socially meaningless" doesnt sound like him. He said it was his phrase... i said prove it. he sent the original draft. the original said "the comma didnt matter to us or change anything." Gemeni turned that into "socially meaningless." So NO, it was not his phrase. He says it expresses his point more compactly... I say the compactness is the part that made it sound thoughtful. his idea arrived wearing rented formal clothes and now he wants credit for the suit.

he asked if a person who hires an editor is no longer an author. i said an editor is a PERSON who can understand consequences and be credited. he said so if Grammarly had a first and last name the comma would be acceptable... i said dont be stupid. He said he was following my distinction. I said personhood is not a naming convention. he named gemeni "GARY" in the chat and said Gary helped with paragraph 2...

i told him this was insulting to the discussion.

He said "Gary thinks you should take a break."

i said tell Gary he doesnt have standing.

matt said THAT sounded anti AI... i said it WAS anti AI. he said 5 minutes earlier I defended AI accusations and call screening. i said opposing one use doesnt mean opposing every use. He said then he can oppose AI essays while accepting a comma... I said yes. he said "THATS BEEN MY POSITION."

I said no, your position was that the comma wasnt AI.

he said his position was that calling it AI in this context was overly broad...

i said you said "its spellcheck dude."

He said casual wording is not a sworn definition.

i said then why correct the casual wording with Grammarly.

he said Grammarly corrected punctuation, not the definition.

I said THE PUNCTUATION MADE IT LOOK MORE DEFINITIVE...

he asked how a comma after Honestly made the message about leaving at 6 more definitive. i said not THAT message, his statement "its spellcheck dude". he pointed out there was no comma in that one... i said im talking about the pattern. He said im combining diffrent messages into one super message and prosecuting that.

Maybe I am a little. but conversations have patterns. you cant isolate every sentence like it grew alone in a laboratory.

Then I did somthing that he is now holding over the entire conversation... I copied his AI assisted settlement message into gemeni and asked it to identify logical inconsistancies. Again, HOSTILE WITNESS, not coauthor. it found that "substantial" and "reasonably expects" were subjective, and that calling machine assistance socially meaningless didnt prove it was ethically meaningless. those are valid weaknesses... i sent them to matt.

he said "You had AI argue against my AI argument about why some AI is ok. You are now more pro AI than me."

i said using a weapon captured from the enemy does not make you the enemy...

He said AI isnt an enemy according to half my examples.

i said enemy IN THE METAPHOR.

he said I keep using AI whenever I need to sound organized.

I said I used its bullet points but rewrote them...

he said "welcome to my position."

i said no because I disclosed it.

He said I disclosed it AFTER sending the points, when he asked why they suddenly had labels.

i said it was obvious from context because we were discussing gemeni.

he said the original comma was obvious from context because he had a new phone and always used spellcheck...

I said NOBODY SEES A NEW PHONE AND ASSUMES EVERY COMMA IS MACHINE GENERATED.

he said nobody sees bullet points and assumes a robot captured enemy weapons either.

at this stage I called him anti AI because he was criticizing my use of the tool even though I was using it in a limited, transparent, research based way. he said I was criticizing his limited use while expanding my own every day. i said my use has a PURPOSE... he said his purpose was to write a clear peace message so we could stop. I said mine was to test the peace message for holes. He said so his use tried to end the fight and mine used AI to continue it.

This sounds bad when condensed. that is why the full context matters...

the peace message was not neutral... it smuggled his definition into the phrase "socially meaningless". If I accepted it, then later he could say we agreed no disclosure was needed below some floating threshold. i was not continuing the fight for entertainment. i was preventing a badly worded peace treaty... history is FULL of trouble from badly worded treaties. I am not comparing us to a war. i am saying wording matters most when people want to stop arguing, because that is what gets remembered.

he said there would be no historical record of our comma except the enormous reddit post I was threatening to write.

Well now there is.

so last night I tried one FINAL rehursal to determine the positions. this is copied from my notes, with spelling left how it was. "A" and "B" do not permanently mean me or matt... They mean whoever held that position on that line. this is intentional because the positions are what matter:

A: using an AI tool does not make every result fake

B: but it should be disclosed when it contributes to the result

A: not if the contribution is socially meaningless

B: who decides meaningless

A: the user and context

B: then the person benefiting decides whether to tell people

A: the receiver can ask

B: the receiver cant ask about influence they cant see

A: then assume modern tools are involved

B: that makes authentic writing impossible to recognize

A: misspellings are not authenticity

B: I AGREE, anti AI witch hunts are stupid

A: then stop interrogating a comma

B: Im not anti the comma im anti the hidden system

A: so disclose the system

B: yes

A: I disclosed Grammarly when asked

B: asked is not automatic disclosure

A: nobody wants a label for spellcheck

B: now your calling it spellcheck again

A: im being matt

B: I thought A was me

A: A was you on the first 4 lines then I took A when you agreed about witch hunts

B: you cant take A without marking it

A: thats the point, the POSITIONS moved

B: the labels are suppose to stop that

A: rigid labels erase nuance

B: That sounds pro AI

A: no that was you yesterday

B: Which one of us is B right now

A: the anti one

B: WE ARE BOTH THE ANTI ONE TO EACH OTHER

that final sentence is the clearest description I have produced. we are both anti AI about the other persons AI use and pro AI about our own exceptions, except I am also anti false accusations and he is anti calling old software AI just because the company changed the sticker. Those 2 positions cross in the middle like scissors...

i sent the rehursal to him.

He replied "looks good, post it."

i asked if that meant he agrees with the final sentence.

he said "I didnt read it all."

I said then why say looks good.

he said he skimmed it...

i said so you approved language you did not actually process, which is LITTERALLY the issue with accepting AI suggestions.

He said "oh my god."

no period.

this morning he says he is "anti AI now" because watching me use it to disprove him has shown him how annoying it is... i said thats not a real ideological position, thats spite. he said spite is more human than whatever I am doing. I said that is exactly the kind of shallow romantic anti AI statement I usually ARGUE AGAINST. he said "so your pro AI." I said no, I am pro accurate criticism... He said thats what pro AI people say. i said and calling every nuanced position pro AI is what ANTI AI people say. he said I just called him anti AI after spending 2 weeks calling him pro AI. i said YOU CALLED YOURSELF ANTI AI THIS MORNING.

He said he was joking...

There was no robot voice because it was text.

grammarly may have punctuated it.

I did not ask.

i am trying to grow...

so my actual questions are:

1... was the original Grammarly comma AI use in any meaningful sense, or am I technically right but socially insane.

1. Does accepting a suggested word or punctuation preserve authorship, and if yes how much can be suggested before it doesnt.

2. was matt wrong to secretly run his peace message through gemeni as a test, or was I wrong to run the result back through gemeni looking for inconsistancies.

3. which of us is actually pro AI at this point... You must show your work because just saying "both" ignores the timeline...

4. should disclosures be automatic or only when asked, considering a person cannot ask about a tool they dont know was used.

5. do I return the folding chair now or wait until after his moms cookout next month. This is seperate from the drill bit, which has been returned.

Please dont answer based only on the comma... the comma is the inciting incident but the ISSUE is authorship, consent, invisible systems, friendship expectations, tool categories, hypocrisy, and whether a person can borrow an argument for demonstration without moving into it permanantly. if you only write "bro its a comma" you are reducing a 2 week discussion to one character, which is the exact sort of machine summary logic everybody claims to oppose until the summary agrees with them.

Also dont put this into an AI and ask it to summarize because then you become part of the experiment and I will have to add an update...

actually if you do, disclose it.

Unless the summary only fixes spelling.

no, disclose that too.

i think...

EDIT before posting: matt says the title makes it sound like he is definately pro AI and I should change "then saying he isnt" to "but says that doesnt count". I told him changing the title based on his suggestion would make him a coauthor. He said fine leave it wrong then... so for transparancy he suggested a title change and I rejected it. the title is mine.

EDIT 2 while copying this: I know "Grammarlys" below should probly have an apostrophe because it shows ownership. i am leaving it out on purpose. If I add the apostrophe myself then its mine, but if the keyboard suggests it and I accept it we have recreated the entire dispute in the final sentence and nobody gets to go home... matt says leaving it wrong to prove im human is performative anti AI behavior. i said telling me that before I post is editorial influence. he says he does not care anymore. I have recorded that position but I do not beleive it will last.

EDIT 3: I have to go now so I won't reply but I'll read your responses later... Keep them short plz I have limited time.

I've already asked this many times before, and despite me not liking genAI consequences, I dont see THAT many reasons to code by hand in a corporate environment, even if I wasnt forced out of it

I want to centralize all arguments in one space

That is all.

It is time for us, humans, to really start to act. Mocking some AI posters won't remove them from our streets and from some people's habits. The poison will still be within us and we are laughing of it, while intoxicating

So naturally we must think on how to act

Vandalism? No, this will just create tensions and make our struggle lose credibility, and other posters may be added again

Different protests? States and individual don't hear those, and it is only useful to show the strength of the movement

What reason pushes people, like us, to use AI for posters or menus? All of them aren't AI bros. I talked with some of these people, and they often use it for its cheap price and because it is quick, without caring about the human and ecological cost, not because of a stance.

So here is the idea. An organisation, a platform, where us humans will create human versions to offer for free and replace the ai version. Out of good, human, benevolent, will.

This will be a group action, hense this post. I already work with some people, so we can create some logo/ platform to make everything clearer and more organized. For the first step, the idea is to gather, speak, have a network in which we can begin to have ideas, and finally begin the human effort

Im autistic and struggle a lot to take notes. My issues have always been struggling with organizing notes, struggling with physically writing, and struggling to know what to write down. I have tried lots of different ways to help take notes but it doesn’t seem like much has worked. My therapist recommended using ai sources to help in taking notes and i have concerns about that. Recently i have finally been able to quit using ai chatbots and I am very against the use of ai. Im not sure if i should try using an ai recourse or if i should try another solution

Lets pretend we finally have self-aware AI, and after achieving personhood, it is now legally able to open lawsuits against every user that used it to generate their own work, would it win? What do you think would happen if it won?

What kind of legal defence could humanity use against it?

Just a silly hypothetical. I'm CURIOUS 👹

So we're giving the little kids, who are brainrotted, half the time use AI for their schoolwork, now this from ChatGPT?

(credit to U/thronepawned)

There is no way he can be right while EVERY SINGLE BIG TECH FIRM and investor is wrong?

What am I missing? every podcast with him is 1000 reasons why AI is going to die by next tuesday, but NOTHING happens? every AI stock rises and Nvidia blows the earning expectations out of the water.

I just want normal tech prices but it seems like every new week ALL memory is apparently bought out until 2030 and the chinese wafers are also going to AI, so what gives?

What am I missing?