General Discussion

For instance:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100221159855

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/09/style/gen-z-ai-gallup-study.html

https://news.gallup.com/poll/708224/gen-adoption-steady-skepticism-climbs.aspx




The artists I know on Bluesky who'll block anyone promoting AI or posting AI slop include very few older people.

GenAI is not viewed favorably by most people on Bluesky, which is a mostly liberal platform.

And it's good that it ISN'T viewed favorably, because genAI - the tech and the AI bros - are on the wrong side of issues liberals are supposed to care about.

GenAI is not viewed favorably by most people on Reddit, which tends to be liberal, with the exception of the specifically pro-AI forums.

You wrote:



You're also in favor of people wearing smart glasses, as I recall.

Generative AI is extremely flawed tech - so flawed even the genAI companies warn (as a way of reducing their legal liability for their defective AI tools) that its results should always be checked - but people who like it enough to keep using it have been found to check results for errors less and less, and to become more and more dependent on it, even outsourcing their judgment to it. That's probably in part because chatbots are designed to flatter AI users to keep them engaged and make them more and more dependent on AI.

Some people are unfortunately forced to use AI because of school or work. But it's unethical to use genAI voluntarily if one's aware that it's trained on stolen intellectual property.

Multiple studies have already shown that it dumbs users down.

And those very basic and catastrophic problems with genAI come with the additional problems that it harms both the natural environment and the information ecosystem, wrecks education, worsens inequality, and puts our digital infrastructure at risk through flawed code.

The question shouldn't be why anyone dislikes genAI, but why anyone who's even slightly aware of all the harm it does would think genAI is a good thing.