Become Human

Majority of water is WASTED on Animal Ag

When “AI Ethics” = Gatekeeping 

#disability #ethics #nuance #binaryfallacy

"Any ethical framework that becomes discriminatory the moment disability is introduced is not ethical — it’s incomplete at best, and harmful at worst."

Transformative use is the principle that new works or outputs derived from existing material can be ethically and sometimes legally justified when they:

substantially transform the source material,

serve a different purpose or function,

do not act as market substitutes for the original,

or improve accessibility, education, commentary, or participation.

In the context of AI and disability access, transformative use is not only a legal discussion - it is also an accessibility and participation issue.

Common Criticism

“AI was trained on copyrighted material. That’s theft.”

This criticism assumes that AI systems function like searchable archives that reproduce original works on demand.

Modern generative AI systems do not primarily operate through direct retrieval of books, articles, or artworks. Instead, they are trained by optimizing statistical relationships across massive datasets of language and imagery.

That does not mean memorization never occurs - researchers have demonstrated LIMITED cases where models can reproduce portions of training data - but ordinary outputs are usually synthesized rather than copied verbatim.

The ethical and legal questions therefore depend heavily on:

how the system was trained,

how outputs are generated,

and how the tool is being used.

What GPT Models Actually Do

GPT-style systems learn probabilistic patterns across language rather than storing complete documents as a conventional database.

A more accurate analogy is:

learning writing patterns from exposure to many texts,

not memorizing and replaying a fixed script.

This resembles:

a student synthesizing ideas after reading many books,

a musician developing improvisational style through exposure,

or assistive technologies like OCR and text-to-speech that transform inaccessible information into usable forms.

The analogy is imperfect - AI models are not human minds - but the key distinction is that generation is usually compositional rather than intentional duplication.

Common Reasoning Errors

Intent Reductionism:

Reducing all ethical evaluation to the origin of the tool while ignoring how it is used.

Ownership Absolutism:

Treating all informational influence as permanent ownership over every downstream transformation.

Harm Flattening:

Treating all AI use as equally harmful regardless of scale, purpose, accessibility, or market impact.

False Equivalence:

Equating assistive drafting or communication support with wholesale copying or piracy.

AI systems do not only transform information - they can transform a person’s ability to participate.

For many disabled users, the ethical significance of AI lies not merely in content generation, but in restored access to communication, organization, learning, and expression.

---

Moral absolutist claim:

“AI tools are unethical and should not be used.”

This claim is usually framed as universally true - not conditional, not contextual.

A hypocrisy test asks: Does this rule still hold when applied to edge cases it harms?

Introduce a disabled subject.

A person with limited motor control

A person with chronic fatigue or pain

A person with cognitive, neurological, or sensory impairments

A person who cannot draw, animate, code, or produce at the same physical rate as others

This person uses AI to:

Generate visual art

Assist writing

Translate ideas into output they physically cannot produce

No replacement. No deception. No profit off stolen labor. Just participation.

Application of the Absolutist Rule 

Apply the rule consistently:

“AI tools are unethical and should not be used.”

Therefore:

This person should not use AI

Their only ethical options are:

Produce nothing

Or pay for commissions they may not afford

Contradiction Exposed 

At this point, one of three things must be true:

Option A - Exclusion 

Disabled people simply don’t get to create.

➡ This is discriminatory.

Option B - Wealth Gatekeeping 

Creation is ethical only if you can afford it.

➡ This is classist.

Option C - Exception 

AI use is acceptable for disabled people.

➡ The absolutist claim collapses. It was never universal - only selectively enforced.

Conclusion 

If a moral rule:

Fails when disability is introduced

Requires exclusion to remain “pure”

Or needs exceptions to avoid obvious harm

Then it is not an ethical principle.

It is aesthetic morality - a vibe masquerading as ethics.

Most of the loudest voices screaming “AI is unethical” are the same people who ignore disabled developers.

They’re not talking about AI being used to help someone write after a stroke. They’re not talking about helping a student with dyscalculia graduate. They’re not talking about any of us.

They only talk about ethics when it threatens them. Not when it liberates us.

They don’t want equality-they want control. They want the monopoly on creativity, productivity, intelligence. And when that monopoly starts to crack because AI lets someone like me express my own brilliance? Suddenly it’s a “threat.”

AI cracks that barrier. It bridges the gap between thought and expression. And that’s why so many “language elites” are afraid.

If someone who struggled to write an email suddenly drafts an eloquent letter using an assistant... If someone with dyslexia can now write a full essay... If someone who thinks in diagrams can use AI to translate that into readable syntax...

Then the old hierarchy collapses.

And that’s what they fear. Not loss of jobs. Not plagiarism. But the loss of control over who gets to speak and be heard.

What's an ARGame?

https://www.reddit.com/r/HyperSanity/comments/1ingfo5/tutorial_whats_an_arg/

Talk about misrepresenting someone and not having a basic understanding of what an ARG is - or hyper-sanity. Just... Lazy.

So I've been learning about kite man, who is one of my new favorite characters/archetypes - the cyclic pattern of always starting over - applying new information from failures to slowly overcome obstacles not faced by normal standards and experiences - reflects one of the methods I use to learn since memory's different (and memory and understanding are completely different and misunderstood).

And I happened upon a character I've literally never heard before - Animal Man.

Seems to have ties to swamp-thing, which makes sense that he's reminiscent of a druid - but in like a venom style where things aren't black and white but a spectrum of shades.

Vegan anti/hero? https://www.dcuniverseinfinite.com/comics/book/animal-man-2011-1/85ebe20d-c87a-4cdc-bf15-65d1b3de400b/story-animalman-the-hunt-books

"Evolve or die" - actually an activist superhero that understands there are no heroes without a world to live in. By standards today this would be seen as "radical", when in actuality, it's being ethically consistent in ones abilities and choices that can be entirely avoided - but chosen NOT to.

About holding YOURSELF accountable in actions that lead to a global effect and collectively, instead of waiting for a point of no return.

---

"The believer": Here points out he's (Animal Man) an auto-didact who's not satisfied with just doing one thing and sticking to it like everyone else.

Philosophy

Something that I find hilarious and intentionally ignorant as fuck, is that people say philosophy isn't good for anything, not for music/ movies etc.

But without philosophy, there's nothing compelling - without philosophy, there's no imagination, no philosophic archetypes like kite man/animal man/venom/magneto and many others archetypes that use philosophy to add depth.

Otherwise everything would be grey without philosophy, archetypes strictly confined to pre-determined "forms" of philosophy.

Elitism and narcissism make an intersection when someone says that "oh this belongs to author x" - philosophy is a human invention, someone doesn't have to read x amount of books or specific books to learn philosophy.

One doesn't need to have a degree - this is ultimately reminiscent of a fascist.

The first people to invent philosophy - didn't have books to create new forms of it.

Many philosophies borrow from others to create a new one.

A philosophy itself isn't inherently good/evil (minus exceptions for those literally designed as such) - but in how someone uses it.

The worst kind of malignant narcissists say, "you have to purchase x amount of something to be x".

You don't have to read books about philosophy to learn about it, you can learn from archetypes, mythology, experiential experiences or wiki.

No-one starts learning at the same periods, no-one starts on the same resource -

Saying you have to understand philosophy by solely reading specific books, is the most un-human way to approach something.

The best movies and comics use philosophy, if you say otherwise, you're not actually proving it - you're just asserting your belief, despite not actually being interested enough in philosophy to engage in a way that's not just parroting the most famous philosophers and saying it's not.

Exposing the Right-Wing Ableism in AI Direct Response https://api.raindrop.io/v2/raindrop/964699498/file?type=application/pdf

Ableist bad-actor, discrimination after the same ideologies you claim to be against. https://metalheadsforblacklivesmatter.tumblr.com/post/774568009511665664/the-ethics-of-ai-and-their-accessibility?is_related_post=1

It’s one thing to have a conversation about AI ethics—it’s another thing entirely when people use that conversation as a weapon to attack marginalized individuals. What’s happening right now? A group of bad-faith actors, who use AI themselves, have taken it upon themselves to launch a targeted harassment campaign against one disabled person using AI as an accessibility tool.

This is not an AI ethics debate. This is far-right purity testing disguised as "progressive" discourse—and they are using it to justify their ableist, exclusionary, and deeply hypocritical stance.

1. AI for Me, But Not for Thee: The Hypocrisy

The very people accusing others of AI misuse are actively using AI without need, while attacking those who do need it for basic accessibility and learning. The people spreading these attacks? ✅ Use AI when convenient for themselves ✅ Back communities that actively steal and re-purpose original content (Discordian sub-groups) ✅ Support AI-generated content as long as it benefits them ❌ Only have an issue when marginalized people use AI to overcome structural barriers

This isn’t about ethics—it’s about control. It’s about deciding who is “allowed” to participate in knowledge creation and discourse.

2. The Right-Wing Ableist Playbook

This entire campaign follows the historic patterns of ableist exclusion that right-wing ideologies have always pushed:

Demonizing disabled people for needing accommodations

Gaslighting those who point out systemic oppression

Engaging in ideological theft while accusing their targets of "stealing"

Using AI themselves while denying its use to others

Let’s be clear: 🚨 AI has environmental impacts, but these are NOT the fault of disabled people using it to learn. 🚨 The biggest AI consumers are corporations—NOT marginalized individuals trying to access basic education. 🚨 Attacking disabled individuals over AI use is not "ethical"—it's just ableism.

When someone who cannot learn through traditional means uses AI to develop their own ideas, that’s framed as “cheating.” But when they take those ideas, reword them, and push them into far-right purity tests? Suddenly it’s okay.

3. How They Use AI to Push Far-Right Narratives

The real reason they’re so pressed? Their rhetoric and tactics align with the far-right: 🔹 Using AI-generated content selectively for personal gain 🔹 Gatekeeping knowledge from marginalized individuals 🔹 Using mass-reporting to silence disabled voices 🔹 Framing accessibility as a “privilege” instead of a necessity 🔹 Collaborating with ideological grifters who distort information to serve right-wing narratives

Their behavior echoes historic Nazi tactics against the disabled, where they systematically excluded and erased disabled voices under the guise of “purity” and “ethics.”

This is not the first time right-wing purity tests have been used to attack marginalized people. It won’t be the last.

4. What They Should Be Focused On (But Aren't)

If they actually cared about AI ethics, they’d be pushing for: ✔️ Restricting AI for corporate misuse, not individuals who need it ✔️ Real solutions for the environmental impact of AI (instead of scapegoating disabled people) ✔️ Holding accountable the people who actually profit from AI exploitation

Instead, what are they doing? They’re joining a 4chan-adjacent hate campaign targeting one disabled person, while avoiding any real discussion about corporate AI abuse. Their performative outrage does nothing to fix real AI ethical issues—it just serves right-wing gatekeeping.

5. Exposing Them for What They Are

This isn’t a good-faith debate. This is ableism, ideological theft, and bad-faith disinformation wrapped in a weak attempt at moral grandstanding.

They are not here to challenge AI’s environmental impact. They are not here to create real solutions. They are not here to have an actual ethics discussion.

They are here to:

Silence disabled people.

Push ideological purity tests straight out of a right-wing playbook.

Maintain control over knowledge and discourse by deciding who is allowed to participate.

They aren't stopping AI. They're just ensuring that only the privileged get to use it.

6. Final Word: We See Through This

I’ve already laid out an ethically consistent framework for AI regulation​FireShot Capture 043 - …. I’ve acknowledged its environmental impact, unlike them. I’ve provided a real-world example of how AI can be used responsibly and equitably.

Instead of offering real solutions, they are: ❌ Spreading disinformation ❌ Engaging in ideological theft ❌ Using AI themselves while attacking those who need it

They are not anti-AI. They are anti-disabled, anti-accessibility, and pro-right-wing gatekeeping.

And they just got caught.

--- Falsely mass-reporting a comment that proves you're a bad-actor, I made a backup because I knew you would do this to serve the far-right by perpetuating ableism - despite you doing actually nothing in your daily choices but what everyone does - Copy paste content from someone with actual ideas on reforming something that causes harm, restricting it to only those that NEED it, which you don't but still openly admit using it. Working with computers doesn't teach ethics, neither does harassing a minority.

Please subscribe to my youtube, eviltube kicked me out of my THIRD-party partnership with the gaming network in 2016 just because I was under 1000 subscribers. They also shadowbanned me for my activism, I have videos of me unable to post comments on some of my OWN videos.

HyperSane | Linktree I'm extremely sick and take care of my bed-ridden mom, can't work and now can't get disability thanks to anti-equality republicans. I run an educational activist Alternate Reality Game that teaches ethics and vedic+gnostic equality. I've produced dozens of books not published because I can't afford to get help finalizing and publishing them in a way where I don't get ripped off and my voice isn't censored.

I'm TRYING to save yet another cat that my sicko neighbors abandoned, any donations would be greatly appreciated in getting her shots so I can take her in, she's a house cat and not feral but can't let her inside before getting her checked up. Everything about me is in my linktree, top links of cashapp and patreon. HyperSane | Linktree

Seems like luck only favors those who don't need it in these dire and mortal times.

Join The Game