Yes, I agree. It took science to prove that life doesn't arise from rotting meat. But the fact that populations (even in developed countries) are rapidly getting less and less educated indicates that people are less and less likely to have the critical thinking skills to understand when their eyes are not adequate instruments of observation.

Also AI slop exists, certainly; people aren't wrong to hate AI slop, but you have to agree that slop isn't the entirety of AI.

You might not like it, but that doesn't make my argument inaccurate. Every discussion I've had about the topic, anti-AI folks are willing to acknowledge exactly 0 benefits of AI. That is just dumb, because benefits do exist, and it prevents a rational discussion and analysis of costs and benefits.

When a side in a debate cannot or will not acknowledge the strengths of the other side's position, they aren't having an informed argument; they are ranting. (This is also the chief issue with contemporary electoral politics globally, imo. People arguing from principles rather than facts.)

Finally, I don't claim to be the only one who is informed; where did I say that? I didn't even claim that anti-ai people are stupid. I do claim that most anti-ai people are uninformed and this is because in my experience, they are unwilling to acknowledge any benefit of AI. Further, I propose a mechanism for their uninformed opinions: because slop is highly visible, whereas benefits are mostly invisible. As examples, take drug discovery and deeper understanding of maths: do you honestly expect a population where 1 in 5 adults is functionally illiterate and the literacy and numeracy scores of our youth continue to plummet will value those things that are literally not things that can be seen (and rely on very advanced degrees to understand), versus the prevalent and highly visible slop that exists?

Get real.

I don't think it does more harm than good. Maybe I'm biased because it's been very good for me and the people around me.

> Isn't the criticism rather that the poll distinguishes between you and the people polled?

No. The argument being made in this thread is that people hate AI slop (people just hate slop), rather than AI in general. This poll was linked as evidence that people hate AI. My argument is that the poll is flawed and does nothing to counter the point being made in this thread about slop vs. AI.

As for Steam...ever since they opened up who can publish and how publishing works, there been _a lot_ of slop pre-AI. I'd rather have more interesting and more controvesial filters. People will get surprised how few recent games aren't going to be filtered by "No AI"