Post #762179

2025-11-22 14:09 UTC

My friend seems genuinely baffled that I am an AI researcher who refuses to use AI! Not only that, but I argue against it from theory, not experience. Why don't I just give it a try for a while, and see what it's really about before I judge it? I guess I see where he's coming from. Part of the problem is the word "AI." LLMs are not my research focus, so it's less of a contradiction than it sounds. But I admit, being a non-user makes my arguments against LLMs less credible. I just don't understand why I owe it to anybody to give AI a shot. I know how LLMs work in gory detail, and I don't trust them. I've seen the mediocre work they produce. I've read studies about the seductive illusion of competence and caring they create, and how people fall for that. I know it's all built on an incredibly exploitative business model. I feel entirely justified in not giving them a chance. I guess I'm just as baffled by how badly he wants me to try it, and how sure he seems to be that it would change my mind.

Replies (13)

@futurebird@sauropods.win 2025-11-22 14:13

@ngaylinn@tech.lgbt It will only make him more annoyed if after you do (not saying you should) you are still not impressed. I have tried it. In good faith too. Let me see if I can make this work. Can it save me any time? But the time savings are an illusion. I tried it for feedback on a poem and it was very flattering but then on reflection that felt hollow and I didn't want to trust the advice since... well I didn't write the poem for machine validation I write a poem to impress my friends.

Open ##3220031
@AT1ST@mstdn.ca 2025-11-22 14:33

@ngaylinn@tech.lgbt I guess one way to get the point across is to compare it to pharmaceutical drugs: just because one might study opioids for painkiller purposes doesn't mean that one feels the need to inject heroin directly into one's veins. Even if one might take Tylenol to deal with a migraine, there is a line one wouldn't cross. And a pharmacist would be fully justified in refusing to take heroin, no matter how much someone else talks about how good it feels to use. That *might* backfire, because LLMs are not necessarily heroin, but the general idea is that "I have heard heroin is bad - I do not necessarily need to do my own research using it to believe that to be true.".

Open ##3220059
@dahukanna@mastodon.social 2025-11-22 14:36

@ngaylinn@tech.lgbt THIS! THEM: “Such & such is the best mallet hammer ever!” ME: “happy for you on your behalf but I don’t need nor have use for one.” THEM: “But, you have to try it. It will change your life!” ME: “happy for you on your behalf but I don’t need nor have use for one.” THEM: “But, you have to try it. You will get left behind (FOMO move in action). ME: “happy for you on your behalf but I don’t need nor have use for one.” THEM: “But, you have to try it.” No why, reason or benefit given.

Open ##3220063
@lilacperegrine@clockwork.monster 2025-11-22 14:38

@ngaylinn@tech.lgbt I kind of worry that I will get sucked into it if I am forced to use it for work etc. maybe that's not justified, but by seeing how badly people want me to "just try it", it sounds like an addiction i want to steer clear of.

Open ##3220065
@coolbean@linfan.moe 2025-11-23 07:43

@fiore@brain.worm.pink @lilacperegrine@clockwork.monster @ngaylinn@tech.lgbt yea you have to be a pretty shitty developer for the stuff to even seem appealing regrettably like half of all code in the world is npm packages

Open ##3220074
@kimapr@ublog.kimapr.net 2025-11-23 07:51

@fiore@brain.worm.pink @lilacperegrine@clockwork.monster @ngaylinn@tech.lgbt forcing devs to use AI is crazy tbh like Yeah you must use the shitty crap generator instead of doing things the way you know to do or your fired

Open ##3220075
@abucci@buc.ci 2025-11-22 14:45

@ngaylinn@tech.lgbt If you'll indulge me, how about a word replace: "My friend seems genuinely baffled that I research lotteries but refuse to play the lottery! Not only that, but I argue against it from theory, not experience. Why don't I just give it a try for a while, and see what I really win before I judge it?"

Open ##3220077
@Psyche30_@mastodon.social 2025-11-22 14:58

@ngaylinn@tech.lgbt "the best way to quit smoking is to never start smoking" When I explain why I'm not a botlicker, I do it from a perspective of marketing, that shit was made to be adictive. With neuromarketing things are made to benefit the company, not the user. If the human has a reflex they can't avoid then it's used against them for profit. Ask someone to quit smoking, they could. If possible then everyone can argue it's the users choice... right?

Open ##3220080
@smutmag@mstdn.social 2025-11-22 15:00

@ngaylinn@tech.lgbt I've gotten the same argument from gun nuts. "How can you say you don't like guns if you've never fired one?" Because if I fired one and liked it, that would make it WORSE. There's all kinds of bad stuff humans do that we like to do--because we're predators. We are animals and we are predators, and if we steal the labor of others or build the propaganda/war machine and enjoy doing it, our enjoyment doesn't make it the right thing to do. You don't have to try it to know that it's wrong

Open ##3220082
@chu@climatejustice.social 2025-11-22 15:04

@ngaylinn@tech.lgbt People who are tech researchers (like my partner) are the ones most against the stupid use of tech. The more you know HOW it works, the less you want to apply it to your own life. We have dumb everything in this house. We don't owe it to anyone to give the bullshit machines a try for ourselves. We know HOW they work. We don't need to see it work on us.

Open ##3220083
@geonz@mathstodon.xyz 2025-11-22 15:21

@ngaylinn@tech.lgbt Right. Should I have to try every math software education program (built on exploitative business models) and take time away from working with the actual humans?

Open ##3220087
@BenAveling@infosec.exchange 2025-11-22 15:24

If you've never tried cocaine, how can you have an opinion on whether it is good or bad? @ngaylinn@tech.lgbt

Open ##3220088
@mcSlibinas@mastodon.social 2025-11-22 15:29

@ngaylinn@tech.lgbt you don't need to lay eggs to see omelette is bad. You don't need to try cigarettes to say smoking is bad. So it's perfectly fine to criticise AI and AI users. The only scientists can use AI with succes - in biology, astronomy or plasma physic. And it's not chatgpt AI.

Open ##3220089