I do believe in climate change as a risk, but I also don't think it will lead to human extinction. Humans are pretty resilient. More so I am worried about non-human life. But if I did believe strongly that it was an existential threat, I would definitely be advocating sabotage. Wildcat strikes were called for a lot less a hundred years ago. 

Because we don't wanna risk killing innocent people, assuming by sabotage you mean blow up the refinery, which would thus burn oil and release harmful chemicals into the atmosphere anyway.

I don't know why the discourse needs to go as far as we either need to accept whatever shit comes from AI because it's inneviatable, or that we can't have anything about AI because it can be misused.

DLSS 5 reveal was a shitshow, and I don't want any of that shit in the games I play.

Game devs already come out saying they discovered what it was doing to their games at the same time as the public.

That shitty presentation was running at 2 RTX 5090s together, one of them solely to run DLSS 5, as reported.

AI is already factually making our gaming hobby and many other tech products way more expensive than it should, to feed a market that for now is living on speculation, regardless at what level Nvidia is involved on that or not, Nvidia did not become the world's most valuable company for no reason, it is spearheading the AI to the world as the company developing the hardware most capable of making use of it, that alone already basically killed their entry level hardware offerings to gamers some time ago. DLSS 5 running on 2x 5090 at the time of its reveal is not helping either.

DLSS 4 and other levels of machine learning tech like FSR 4 are already providing lots of benefits without destroying the identity of games, nobody needs to accept it becoming so shit as to immediatly evokes thoughts about AI filters on social media videos because it is being called the future or evolution of it.

Machine Learning is not purely bad that any change to shit on it needs to be taken as opportunity to take all of it down, but also don't need to be defended at all costs when something about it is bad, people don't like what they see, that's the sentiment. It backing down would be ideal at all fronts IMO.

I don't want companies firing talented people to replace them with AI so the already putrid rich leaders become even richier.

I don't want things to cost triple or five or ten fold their actual price because productions line are being fully dominated because a few people decide the humans consuming the products are worthless against the promisse of infinite money that doesn't exist. And I do hope it receeds enough that stability for actual people to make use of it exists on reasonable levels while tech keep progressing, like we used to have.

But regardless of my fear about those things, that I addessed in my first post here, the biggest point here is:

I don't want to see games having to look like what a code decides what they should look like to the point they lose the identity as what was shown. It looks terrible on games that past iterations of it did not have this problem, it is evolving to a point where a lot of people are not happy with, clearly, if it was being well accepted nothing else would have been given attention to.

Nvidia came out from a very positive reception of past updates like 3 and 4 to a complete mockery now with 5. Things don't change so drastically without a good reason or a coordinated effort to provoke it, and I'm seeing too little of the later to disagree with my own opinion that is it definitely the former the cause of such strong reactions. It is for a good reason, even if it can have some big technical merits, the results speaking way louder for themselves.

We need to move beyond calvinism and embrace being free from labor. We have two extremes. Black Mirror or The Culture. We need to become The Culture. 

I mean while I don't agree with everything he has said, captainexplosion has advocated for sabotaging data centers, he just hasn't physically done it himself.

In so much as CaptainExplosion is serious about that, I respect it. I do think AI is a risk, not necessarily an existential risk, but it is going to disrupt the prevailing economic system even if it doesn't become AGI. 

Being free from labor sounds like accepting unemployment, lying down and waiting to die.

I'm only able to survive so far because of collecting disability benefits and my parents letting me stay with them, seeing as I'll never find someone to grow old with (long story). -_-

I often plan what I would do if I didn't have to work to live. I would be a lot more productive than I am now, because I would produce what I enjoy. We all will have to accept that our worth is not determined by employment. Our distinct existence and experience is what creates value.

But I wanna be able to have my own house one day. Disability benefits alone won't get me there. -_-

I'm fine with AI being used to take a game and upscale it from 540p to 4k or whatever, as long as it keeps the assets the same. I'm also fine with AI being used to make FPGA clone consoles like the Superstation One, because writing an FPGA core for even a PS1 is brutally hard without AI to speed it up. But both of these things are "soft AI" and not really AI as in the ridiculous crap that is now being pushed onto everyone.

I couldn't call someone a hypocrite for buying a Nintendo game that uses DLSS to take a game from 540p or whatever to 4k. Not the same thing as redrawing entire assets.