stupid headline from the guardian but that's just expected.

• Teetotalers: alcohol vegans.
• Straight edgers: drug vegans.
• Recycling: waste vegans.
• Solar power: power vegans.

The possibilities are infinite if you are a netaphor vegan.

"AI vegans"

ffs, just publish an article with a single clownemoji for the same effect.

It’s quite common for me to be annoyed, angry, or upset at a headline writer. Then there’s the feeling I got reading “Meet the AI vegans.”

Whole new level.

This is such a stupid name for this.

Abstaining from a thing does not make one a vegan. That's not how any of this works.

Calling them after a maligned (if harmless) group seems like a choice to paint refusing to use AI as being annoying, preachy and scorn-worthy.

They seem very determined to pressure people into using AI regardless of it's practicality, environmental impact, or anything. Fuck this shit.

"Have you ever been called an AI vegan?"

"No... Shit no! I believe saying something like that'd get your ass kicked!"

how to belittle and minimize a very serious thing: call any protesters of it a " ___ vegan"

It's not cool to use "vegan" like this.

People just going about their business living their lives as they have for many years...

Silicon Valley: Hey fuck you. Also I came up with a dumb nickname for you.

"Newspaper which uses AI to write its articles concocts derogatory term for people who doesn't use AI"

This makes about as much sense as calling Linux users "Windows vegans".

Choosing to not use AI isn't some wacky contrarian position, it's a tame position that can easily be justified. (Don't want to use AI? Then don't.) If anything, trying to assert that constantly using AI for everything would be the new normal is the wacky position.

i wonder if they came up with such term to mock those who dont want to use ai and possibly actual vegans on the side.

And here i am not using it because I'm old and cranky.

I'm choosing to abstain because it's shit. The ethical things are just a bonus. It produces inaccurate information and bland soulless images.

I refuse to use it because it's shit.

We are not the same.

I don't use A.I. because I've had nothing but negative interactions with A.I. Customer service bots that fail to give adequate responses, unhelpful and incorrect search result summaries, and, "art," that looks like shit hasn't made me want to sign up for ChatGPT or Gemini. For most people, this isn't a moral stance, it's just that the product isn't worth paying for. Stop framing people that don't use A.I. as luddites with an ax to grind just because tech bros spent billions on a product that isn't good yet.

What bullshif us this?

A. I vegan is a nonesence title.

How about " people who don't want the world to end even faster tell corps to fuck off"

I try not to use AI at all. I am not missing out on anything.

I applaud folks like this - they make a choice and stick with it. No "I'll never use AI to generate art but I vibe code to save time" hypocrisy. No "I use it to help me with maths, but I'd never use it to steal artistic work".

Just straight up "it is an environmental hazard, it is unethical, not engaging". Should be called "AI Ethicists" rather than "AI Vegans".

This is the dumbest shit I've ever read. Refusing to submit to corpo ratfuckery isn't a lifestyle choice. It's common sense.

Shitty click baity title

I don't use it because I have no trust in it.

Stupid-ass title.

No, I didn’t make it up. Although I rather wish I did, because it’s quite catchy, isn’t it?

No, it isn't, it's fucking stupid. The author was kind enough to link the source of that shitty idea, and the AI/vegan parallels are, per said article: ethical, environmental and wellness concerns.

Gee wiz, I sure never saw people with those 3 concerns in regards to anything other than veganism!!!

/s