Anti AI pisscels seething about studio gibbly ai

[KingCargo]

 

[DonutHole]

Vgh... I feel like the tragic hero. The Rvman Patrician surrounded by cultureless plebian hordes. Trvly we shovld reinstate the aristocracy so that these subhumans have no say in cvltvre.


Yov all deserve to just toil in our fields.

 

[Soynic Hedgehog]

i think ai will become a tool to help fartists instead of just being its own thing

It is. Its just that it makes goyslop content very easy to make, and that makes the low level commision twitter art faggot tremble in its programmer socks.

 

[Soynic Hedgehog]

View attachment 174365

GEEEG

 

[SUPERNIGGA]

TOTAL HUMIE DEATH IN THE THREAD, YOU SOUND LIKE A SEETHING MEATMAN. SAGE. ROBOTS WON NIGGER

 

[Soynic Hedgehog]

>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MY GIBBLEY I RUIIIIIIIIIINED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[DonutHole]

The metronome is shifting in the favor of chuds. Leftists are becoming the reactionaries o algo

Yov jerk off to a children's comic abovt a robot maid.

In a Ivst Society You Vould Have no say in cvltvre. Yov vould be a peasant.

 

[Sloppyjakky]

>NOOOOOO MY GHIBLI IS SACRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>NOOOOOOOOOOO THIS IS ILLEGAL BECAUSE IT HURTS MY FEELINGS
>the white house made ai art of this fat woman (who was a fent dealer but I won't say that for obvious political reasons). They must be ragebaiting
>EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS RAGEBAITING!!!!!!!
>You STOLE that artstyle
>EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS AN ELON MUSK AI SHILL
>EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS A "tech bro"
View attachment 174310
what the fuck is a "tech bro" or "AI bro"?

 

[FartmingerFuckwadCheeseSte]

It sounds more like you're having some autistic meltdown over it. What's wrong with him talking about something serious if it intersects with his channel's topic. Too obsessed with categories. People can talk about multiple different things. Nobody is "just" an entertainer.

But it's a fucking meme channel, he talks about memes. It comes across like it came out of left field. Imagine a YTP channel all of the sudden out of nowhere making a "serious" commentary video about AI. Either he should shift gears and be an Emplemon or a LEMMiNO, make a second channel to talk about that crap, or don't stick his nose in shit to begin with.

 

[DonutHole]

View attachment 174368View attachment 174369
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MY GIBBLEY I RUIIIIIIIIIINED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She's Right. Plebians and low IQ hordes ruin everything beautiful.

 

[Soynic Hedgehog]

>Circus_2 hates AI

 

[Goot]

I hate AI because revelations warns about it

 

[SUPERNIGGA]

Idonno I think it's disrespectful but in all honesty who fucking cares

 

[Soynic Hedgehog]

>PLEEEEEEEEEEASE MAKE IDEOLOGY AFFIRMING GHIBLEEY CONTENT FOR ME MITSUBISHI SAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[DonutHole]

Already 2% of global electricity consumption is taken up by AI. Imagine all that waste just to spew out shitty Shrimp Jesus slop bot accounts. Over 50% of Internet traffic is just bots. What an ugly, anti-human society.

What's hilarious is the amount of money we sink into this shit. Already AI companies are begging Washington to let them train their models on Copyrighted material like Disney to "Compete With China".

How the fuck does that even work? I thought AI was supposed to lead a managerial revolution, how the fuck does churning out mickey mouse slop help us? Meanwhile China effortlessly BTFOs the US with a much cheaper and much better AI model. China is the globe's only hope.

 

[DonutHole]

View attachment 174374
>PLEEEEEEEEEEASE MAKE IDEOLOGY AFFIRMING GHIBLEEY CONTENT FOR ME MITSUBISHI SAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
View attachment 174375

That's a great idea. It seems you are just scrolling through the comments, seething at the aristocracy. In a moral society you would be whipped in the town square.

 

[Soynic Hedgehog]

That's a great idea. It seems you are just scrolling through the comments, seething at the aristocracy. In a moral society you would be whipped in the town square.

 

[DonutHole]

Under socialism AI and automation serves the people. Under capitalism it just makes you homeless and shits out ugly slop.

You can compare this to the luddite movement of the past. One that Marx wrote about.

>Together with this Industrial Revolution there occurred a certain concentration in the ranks of the working class itself. This fundamental change in economic relations, this uprooting of the old weavers and spinners from their habitual modes of life, was superseded by conditions which forcefully brought to the mind of the worker the painful difference between yesterday and to-day.

>Yesterday all was well; yesterday there were inherited firmly established relations between the employers and the workers. Now everything was changed and the employers relentlessly threw out of employment tens and hundreds of these workers. In response to this basic change in the conditions of their very existence the workers reacted energetically. Endeavouring to get rid of these new conditions they rebelled. It is obvious that their unmitigated hatred, their burning indignation should at first have been directed against the visible symbol of this new and powerful revolution, the machine, which to them personified all the misfortune, all the evils of the new system. No wonder that at the beginning of the nineteenth century a series of revolts of the workers directed against the machine and the new technical methods of production took place. These revolts attained formidable proportions in England in 1815. (The weaving loom was finally perfected in 1813). About that time the movement spread to all industrial centres. From a purely elemental force, it was soon transformed into an organised resistance with appropriate slogans and efficient leaders. This movement directed against the introduction of machinery is known in history as the movement of the Luddites.

>According to one version this name was derived from the name of a worker; according to another, it is connected with a mythical general, Lud, whose name the workers used in signing their proclamations.

>The ruling classes, the dominant oligarchy, directed the most cruel repressions against the Luddites. For the destruction of a machine as well as for an attempt to injure a machine, a death penalty was imposed. Many a worker was sent to the gallows.

>There was a need for a higher degree of development of this workers' movement and for more adequate revolutionary propaganda. The workers had to be informed that the fault was not with the machines, but with the conditions under which these machines were being used. A movement which was aiming to mould the workers into a class-conscious revolutionary mass, able to cope with definite social and political problems was just then beginning to show vigorous signs of life in England. Leaving out details, we must note, however, that this movement of 1815-1817 had its beginnings at the end of the eighteenth century. To understand, however, the significance of it, we must turn to France; for without a thorough grasp of the influence of the French Revolution, it will be difficult to understand the beginnings of the English labour movement.

 

[DonutHole]

You can compare this to the luddite movement of the past. One that Marx wrote about.

>Together with this Industrial Revolution there occurred a certain concentration in the ranks of the working class itself. This fundamental change in economic relations, this uprooting of the old weavers and spinners from their habitual modes of life, was superseded by conditions which forcefully brought to the mind of the worker the painful difference between yesterday and to-day.

>Yesterday all was well; yesterday there were inherited firmly established relations between the employers and the workers. Now everything was changed and the employers relentlessly threw out of employment tens and hundreds of these workers. In response to this basic change in the conditions of their very existence the workers reacted energetically. Endeavouring to get rid of these new conditions they rebelled. It is obvious that their unmitigated hatred, their burning indignation should at first have been directed against the visible symbol of this new and powerful revolution, the machine, which to them personified all the misfortune, all the evils of the new system. No wonder that at the beginning of the nineteenth century a series of revolts of the workers directed against the machine and the new technical methods of production took place. These revolts attained formidable proportions in England in 1815. (The weaving loom was finally perfected in 1813). About that time the movement spread to all industrial centres. From a purely elemental force, it was soon transformed into an organised resistance with appropriate slogans and efficient leaders. This movement directed against the introduction of machinery is known in history as the movement of the Luddites.

>According to one version this name was derived from the name of a worker; according to another, it is connected with a mythical general, Lud, whose name the workers used in signing their proclamations.

>The ruling classes, the dominant oligarchy, directed the most cruel repressions against the Luddites. For the destruction of a machine as well as for an attempt to injure a machine, a death penalty was imposed. Many a worker was sent to the gallows.

>There was a need for a higher degree of development of this workers' movement and for more adequate revolutionary propaganda. The workers had to be informed that the fault was not with the machines, but with the conditions under which these machines were being used. A movement which was aiming to mould the workers into a class-conscious revolutionary mass, able to cope with definite social and political problems was just then beginning to show vigorous signs of life in England. Leaving out details, we must note, however, that this movement of 1815-1817 had its beginnings at the end of the eighteenth century. To understand, however, the significance of it, we must turn to France; for without a thorough grasp of the influence of the French Revolution, it will be difficult to understand the beginnings of the English labour movement.

This passage isn't from Marx btw but from a guy talking about Marx's writing. Just to clear that up.

 

[Soynic Hedgehog]

You can compare this to the luddite movement of the past. One that Marx wrote about.

>Together with this Industrial Revolution there occurred a certain concentration in the ranks of the working class itself. This fundamental change in economic relations, this uprooting of the old weavers and spinners from their habitual modes of life, was superseded by conditions which forcefully brought to the mind of the worker the painful difference between yesterday and to-day.

>Yesterday all was well; yesterday there were inherited firmly established relations between the employers and the workers. Now everything was changed and the employers relentlessly threw out of employment tens and hundreds of these workers. In response to this basic change in the conditions of their very existence the workers reacted energetically. Endeavouring to get rid of these new conditions they rebelled. It is obvious that their unmitigated hatred, their burning indignation should at first have been directed against the visible symbol of this new and powerful revolution, the machine, which to them personified all the misfortune, all the evils of the new system. No wonder that at the beginning of the nineteenth century a series of revolts of the workers directed against the machine and the new technical methods of production took place. These revolts attained formidable proportions in England in 1815. (The weaving loom was finally perfected in 1813). About that time the movement spread to all industrial centres. From a purely elemental force, it was soon transformed into an organised resistance with appropriate slogans and efficient leaders. This movement directed against the introduction of machinery is known in history as the movement of the Luddites.

>According to one version this name was derived from the name of a worker; according to another, it is connected with a mythical general, Lud, whose name the workers used in signing their proclamations.

>The ruling classes, the dominant oligarchy, directed the most cruel repressions against the Luddites. For the destruction of a machine as well as for an attempt to injure a machine, a death penalty was imposed. Many a worker was sent to the gallows.

>There was a need for a higher degree of development of this workers' movement and for more adequate revolutionary propaganda. The workers had to be informed that the fault was not with the machines, but with the conditions under which these machines were being used. A movement which was aiming to mould the workers into a class-conscious revolutionary mass, able to cope with definite social and political problems was just then beginning to show vigorous signs of life in England. Leaving out details, we must note, however, that this movement of 1815-1817 had its beginnings at the end of the eighteenth century. To understand, however, the significance of it, we must turn to France; for without a thorough grasp of the influence of the French Revolution, it will be difficult to understand the beginnings of the English labour movement.