PeriodicallyPedantic

Calling people against the current incarnation of AI "luddites" is a gross mischaracterization.

I'm glad that you seem to have at least completely given up the pretense that this will somehow benefit society.

Im telling you that again that the jobs that AI makes are orders of magnitude fewer, and far less fulfilling.
I'm telling you again that the impact goes way beyond corpo art jobs.

But youre refusing to listen, or even put up a reasonable defense, you're just reiterating your previous completely unsupported assertion in really suspicious ways.

Nobody is trying to argue the feasibility of stopping the change, we're saying the change is bad. The argument that the change is inevitable therefore it is good (or that at least we shouldn't be upset by it) is crazy

As someone who is part of the problem (working on creating AI products, too scared to quit in protest) I can promise you that is not how it works. That is a frighteningly naive and short sighted view of the repercussions.

Coal mining was bad, and using coal was bad.
We found a replacement for it, which is good. some people were affected, which is bad. But replacing coal had a minimal impact on the overall job market and was a huge benefit to society.

AI is taking away safe skilled jobs from people who love them. It's affecting many industries, and will affect many many more if you can actually believe the promises of the LLM providers.
First it's affecting the fine arts. Beginner illustrators, authors, etc, can't compete, so they leave the industry. After all the old hands die out, there is nobody left to replace them.
Then it's affecting technical industries; software development, hardware design. Same thing, eventually nobody will be left.
Finances and accounting, of course
Then medicine. And there is a knock-on effect here where areas that AI cant do are also affected because the industry as a whole is on the decline so nobody bothers to even apply - you usually start school as a generalist and specialize later.\

And the new "prompt artist" jobs being offered are orders of magnitude fewer and less gratifying.

If what you said was true, then there wouldn't be any benefit to corporations, and they wouldn't be investing billions into it.

All this would be ok if the fruits of this new advancement went back into society, to help people, especially those who were displaced. But it doesn't. It goes straight into the pockets of business owners and shareholders in the form of increased margins and stock buybacks.

You're literally arguing that we should just let big business interests walk all over the job market because that's "just how it is".

That's true.

But in terms of power/emissions, data centers are far far better. The waste of potable water could be addressed if we make them, but the inefficiency of running locally cannot be.

I still prefer to run locally anyways, because fuck the kind of people who are trying to sell AI, but it is absolutely more inherently wasteful

It's not giving them elsewhere.
There is not and will not be an abundance of prompt "engineering" jobs, it's not creating new industries, and it's not significantly lowering the bar for people to start their own businesses is existing industries.

What it is doing is data-mining on a scale never seen before, and increasing profit margins for megacorp business owners.

Honestly that's kinda worse, because it's specifically replacing entry-level jobs

That's almost certainly more wasteful. The machines they run them on are going to be far more efficient.

Running it locally is better because of all the other data mining that goes along with capitalism

There is, and that's typically less bad, but it still has ethical issues with how it was trained.

It's a tool created and controlled by the bourgeoisie, primarily designed to and markered for replacing skilled labor.

The fact you think displaced artists are petite bourgeoisie instead of skilled labor is telling.

I also think capitalism is a race to the bottom, but I believe it is so because it subverts the value of labor. It's shit like AI that makes it a race to the bottom.

shit most wouldn't spend money on or stuff where instead of paying for a stock photo they just generate shit and be done with it.

Then pay for the stock photo. There, an artist is being paid for their work. But realistically the little stuff you're talking about is the occupation of entire departments in megacorps.

It feels like you're directing that at me, but I agree with you, so I'm not sure what tone that was written in

I don't agree:

Before if you chose not to hire someone, you'd be competing against better products from people who did hire someone. Hiring someone gave them a competitive advantage.

By removing the competitive advantage of hiring someone, you're destroying an entire career path, harming the economy and society in general.

I agree, except you're the one showing solidarity with the bourgeoisie.
AI is a too of the bourgeoisie to suppress the working class