[akira2501]

> Please don't position it so that if I want to use AI I have to defend myself from accusations of exploiting labor and the environment.

I don't think this article even remote attempts this claim. The closest it gets is suggesting that if these defenses are too much trouble for you, then perhaps your use case for AI wasn't great in the first place.

> but diatribes like this

How is this a diatribe? There's nothing bitter about the writing here, it's entirely couched within the realm of personal opinion, and is an unexpurgated sharing of that opinion.

Please don't position your arguments so that if I want to share my opinion I have to defend myself from accusations that I'm being exceedingly bitter or somehow interfering with what you intend to do.

You're effectively attempting to bully people out of their own opinions for the sake of your convenience.

[handoflixue]

> it's entirely couched within the realm of personal opinion

"AI output is fundamentally derivative and exploitative"

"If you want custom art, pay an artist."

"Human recommendations will always be better."

If you can't argue against any of those stances, what stances are up for debate?

Surely the person you're responding to was just posting their own opinion, and you're as much a bully as they are?

[stolenmerch]

> I don't think this article even remote attempts this claim.

It's in the first sentence, "AI output is fundamentally derivative and exploitative (of content, labor and the environment)."

[Joker_vD]

Any fruit of any manufacturing labour is fundamentally derivative and exploitative: it needs raw materials from the environment, and it needs labour for the intended transformation; if anything, the AI output is less exploitative because the raw inputs don't end up destroyed in the process.

[trashymctrash]

> You're effectively attempting to bully people out of their own opinions for the sake of your convenience.

Maybe it's just me, but "bully" seems like a very exaggerated choice of words here.