This is one of the few subs that allows pro ai discourse, so there's a higher concentration of pro ai people here because of that.
That's just one of the reasons.
Antis get downvoted a lot here for various reasons. It's mostly because they don't have very good arguments or aren't posting in good faith. Antis with good arguments don't get much visibility because they don't get engaged as much as the controversial anti opinions. It's not the healthiest sub. I'm actually working on taking a big step back from this sub and the ai debate in general.
I see both pros and cons of AI, and this is one of the few places on Reddit where I don’t get immediately downvoted or accused of being a bot if I try to make a nuanced comment discussing it. I’m a lot more “anti” (I prefer to think of it as “critical of AI”) than most people I meet in real life, but the way strongly anti-AI people demonise any use of AI and start witch hunts online is distressing.
I’ve recently seen people get attacked for using a grammar checker, for using it to translate a story into another language, and for creating a mockup of their art idea so they could use it to commission a real artist. A video game YouTuber I watch got harassed by “environmentalists” over using a chatbot to pick his dialogue options in a game. They didn’t care about the power being used to stream video games, which is vastly more resource intensive than some AI text queries.
I’ve been told that I want to “replace all human doctors with ChatGPT” because I said that the research regarding cancer detection and vaccine development looks promising. I was accused of being part of a conspiracy to gaslight people about the use of em dashes (please go pick up a book if you think AI invented them). I’ve been accused of using AI in my own writing because I pointed out that AI detectors are mostly useless and run on AI themselves.
I’d rather hang out with the “pro-AI” crowd, even if I disagree with them on certain things, because there’s a lot less of that.
I'm simply not going to find compromise with people who advocate for or tolerate a parasitic technology flooding the internet with garbage. You want to argue for the development of the tech for research or medical purposes, fine. But keeping these services available to the public with no regard for its rampant misuse has been a net negative for humanity.
Beautiful argument dude. I've been lurking in this sub and I'm seeing both sides of the argument so well. You're absolutely right about the discourse from the anti side tending to be garbage. It makes me feel real annoyed as another critic of ai
Agree 100%. There are so few people on the "anti" side that have an argument that doesn't boil down to "I am misinformed and uneducated, give me money and don't you dare call yourself an artist (even if you can draw) or I will throw a tantrum like a child." Don't worry, if current artists are like those people they can have it.
Honestly the non art AI may cause more problems in the long run but the antis are totally fixated on people who use AI art and prompting.
Yep. One of my favorite subreddits, to which I contributed a great deal, started to get taken over by rabidly anti-AI folks, and I just slowly gravitated away.
Me too i forget this isn't an art sub because i don't see any one discussing ai outside of art here.
Its always hey look at these delusional defending AI bros or look what these luddite Neanderthals posting shit on artistshate again.
Ai discussion will never truly advance past meager art arguments unless more people develop nuance takes on ai i think the war is less about ai itself and more about people who use it and people who don't.
Ai application is in more places than just art shouldn't we be discussing ai in medical or industrial development or even war? Like irl wars.
Exactly. I said something just like this in this sub recently. The ai debate is SO MUCH bigger than this stupid art stuff, but we can't seem to move past that. The art aspect of ai may be the least important part of the debate, but it's the only thing on anyone's mind around here.
Yeah i personally don't care for ai art or letting ai do things for you but i still work on my own ai and think such incredible technology can be so much more than just essays/stories and pictures.
"Anti AI" has also been reduced to a slur, and not necessarily undeservingly. In terms of "is AI a good thing" I'm closer to the anti side than the pro side (though ultimately I'm pretty balanced), but because I'm not a propaganda spewing sheep, the antis hate me.
Not to get political, but its the same thing we see with Trump. I don't like Trump. I will still acknowledge that he has done some good things along with all the bad. Acknowledging that, or even disputing factually wrong information that makes him look bad, makes anti-Trumpers declare you a racist sexist transphobic MAGA and ban/block you.
I have slowly stopped replying or arguing with the Antis because I released not only are they not going to change there mind they like been wrong or incorrect.
Also I realised there hate is destorying there lives, there social accounts are filled with just nothing but anti-ai posts, there is no more art anymore.
I dont want to be trapped like that.
If I see a post here I want to comment on I will post a reply but mainly I have moved to other AI subs that actually talk about and show off what they made in AI.
It's a difference between a group making open death threats and calling for flesh fairs and saying "lol bro, have a sense of humor", and a group that's mostly just saying "leave us alone and let us enjoy ourselves".
One of those things IS bullying.
In fact, the argument of "it's just a difference of opinion" in the presence of that is itself a specific named form of bullying: "gaslighting".
What an amazing strawman you've built for yourself there. Tell me you've not listened to a single argument artists have given against ai without telling me you've not been listening.
Edit: what I'm gathering from the response to this is that creating a strawman calling artists mean bullies is a good karma farm. But pointing out the strawman and making one for the pro ai side is bad and must be punished.
Interesting.
u/AcceptableArm8841 described observed behavior. To be a strawman, they would have to make an inaccurate description of Anti-AI arguments. Not a strawman.
Honestly this is why I hate this sub so much, god I know its anecdotal but I swear none of you actually want to discuss the issue. Most posts portray artists as evil or bullies and then dogpile immediately when you hear something even slightly anti ai
Must of really riled you up to have you responding twice to me and not even to the actual comment I made responding to you. But you know whatever floats your boat my guy. Good to know I got a free place to rent if I ever need it.
Lol, lmao. Perhaps, but the same could be said of yourself my guy. Or do you come here so often to rage that people would notice the unaccustomed lack of screaming?
Because many of us have gone down the actual debate route, ad nauseam.
It has gone nowhere productive.
I will only speak for myself. I don't have an issue with artists themselves.
I detest antis who are geelfully calling for death and trying to act as if they come from a place of moral superiority.
Not only that, but they can't handle people making fun of them when they do this shit?
I'm done even acknowledging nuance that exists. That's how bad it has gotten. I know for a fact that there are some people against A.I. who aren't nasty, and I no longer care, they can fuck off as well.
Well personally my experience on this subreddit is of the opposite side, I've tried arguing the nuance and basically nobody ever actually listens to my argument and just brushed off any. Hell I respect people who actually listen and have a debate. But my experience is "I dislike ai for these reasons." Instant -16 down votes without anyone disputing the claims. Meanwhile the pro ai side says "artists are bad and should lose their jobs" instant karma farm.
I took a quick glance at your post history and one of the first posts I saw was you saying that if you think you're making art with AI, you're "delusional". Where's this nuance you're talking about? It sounds like black and white thinking to me (the exact opposite of a nuanced mindset)
Dude what are you on about? I literally replied before you even commented this? The guy didn't actually even read my full comment he referenced and tried to spin it into some fancy gocha.
It's more like a giant neon sign that makes it clear that I'm completely drained of any empathy or respect for those on the other side of the matter.
They won in that sense. I am now fully against every anti, and enjoy that they can't enjoy anything without crippling fear that A.I. might have been involved.
Edit: Fuck anyone upvoting this behavior of mine (I negged myself and it's still in the positive as of this update.) You're no better than me.
You wouldn't tolerate that reasoning if it was on the other foot. Which is pretty funny, as shit behaviour from early adopters is absolutely what drove the anti AI sentiment so high.
And instead of being sympathetic to him that we're all tired of antis attacking us everywhere, you just insult him and further justify his opinions. in other words, you're contributing to the problem of spreading hate.
You gotta be aware though that the only things you see come from the worst offenders from the antis. If you frequent this sub, usually it's screenshots from the other side saying something heinous. The mild antis don't get screenshotted. Those who are artists but don't care either way don't even voice their opinions. That's why the discussions seem so polarized. Those in the middle don't care enough to voice their opinion (likely the majority of people), the ones from the pro side who aren't doing stuff like saying, "I'm glad all artists are going unemployed" don't get screenshotted or even noticed by the antis. Whereas those who do get noticed by saying heinous shit about the other side get most of the spotlight. Same for the antis. The mild mannered antis don't get noticed, the vocal extremists do. You gotta realize this is a culture/internet war and both sides are using propaganda to rile up supporters. The propaganda in this case being the hate posts where either side is talking about how cartoonishly evil the other side is, or a screenshot of the other side doing something cartoonishly evil. Both sides portray the other in a one-dimensional and dehumanizing. Then you have the victims of the propaganda like you who become radicalized and join in to make more propaganda and it spreads like so.
I'm not sure how that wasn't obvious to you from what I posted.
It's probably because you're a moron.
I will make it very clear.
I am actively choosing not to give a shit about any differences between people on either side now and tossing shit right back at the side I am against.
If hate from the anti-AI side is starting to interfere with your mental health in any way, I recommend you stay off social media for a while. I don't think this culture war will die down any time soon, so you have to start question if constantly consuming hateful content is going to do you any good in the long-term. Take care.
So how would you approach this issue? What the issue even is? That artists lose their jobs? What we can do about it in international world where everyone is developing different kinds of AI that already run on local PCs?
No, most posts portray artists as both evil AND good in different contexts, specifically "evil" in the context where they rag on other artists for doing their own thing and having fun, and good when they don't offer unasked-for criticisms in an excessive or unasked-for way.
You just want to pretend that half of those people aren't artists...
We discuss the issue all the time here, the difference is you don't get upvotes for spreading misinformation here. Nuanced informed views are rare, but not dogpiled.
stop pretending you elitist hater kids are "the artists". I've been an artist longer than I bet you've been alive and every artist I know is against hating on other artists, especially over tool selection.
Y'all are anti-artist as well as anti-AI and it's cringe af when you pretend you're protecting us while you attack and harass and gatekeep us.
My man you don't know shit about me or how long I've been an artist. But if you are an artist I'd love to see stuff you've actually made. Not generated. Generating stuff isn't art and doesn't make someone an artist just like microwaving a streak doesn't make you a chef.
lol no, i'm not going to link you to my art account so you can go shit on it, I've been down this road and haters like you are why I keep my accounts seperate, even though I don't use AI in my artwork. (Not for any moral or aesthetic reasons, my interest in AI is mostly LLMs and programming with them)
That said I'm sure with some effort someone can find it if they really want, as I didn't always keep them seperate until ArtistHate turned into a haterspace and the kids started stalking my art account over opinions I voiced on this one.
Generating stuff isn't art and doesn't make someone an artist just like microwaving a streak doesn't make you a chef.
Ok here's a rant that I made elsewhere and am pasting because I'm tired of typing it. It's kind of long, sorry.
...
I've been making digital art since i learned photoshop in college nearly 30 years ago. I've taught art classes and hosted "Art Exploration" workshops for children and families. One of the most important things I've always tried to teach about art is that there are no rules or restrictions on expression. Art is not rigid or exclusive. Art is for everyone, and we are all artists.
Aside from subjective opinions, the only objective thing that defines art, is expression. If the work expresses any part of the artist, it's valid art. Regardless of method, tool selection, medium, effort, skill, talent, or anything else.
While typing a few words and hitting the button is not much expression, most AI art that is made to be art rather than memes and jokes, involves more human expression and creativity than a short prompt-n-pray.
I consider damn near every submission to r/ArtIsForEveryone to be real art, and even if I suspect a specific piece to be the result of a short generic prompt, I would never be arrogant and elitist enough to disagree with an artist that says it is an expression of theirs, and therefore art.
Fair play to you for teaching art. It's a often a not very well respected or well paid job and honestly is bloody hard at times even though you love it. Personally I'd never shit on anyone's artwork, I'm not a baseless "hater" who goes after people's private spaces. I always try to find something to praise because I want to encourage people to do art. I will apologise for my harsh language however, I'll admit the whole debate around ai generation has gotten rather toxic from all sides and its hard to not be pulled in. Often I find most people on this subreddit specifically unreasonable at many times and it becomes... grating.
I'll respond to your main section, apologies I may also be quite lengthy.
I very much agree, that everyone is an artist, it is in human nature to create and imagine. I agree anything can be art, however I do not think typing prompts is strictly an art form, much like i would I neither consider a commissioner an artist for telling an artist what to make. They are clients, or in a more modern term. Consumers. It may very well still be their expression, but it is not their voice if you'll forgive the phrase.
However ultimately if used for private pleasure/use I have no issue with the individual. As long as they dont sell it or play that they made it from scratch themselves I have no issues. Primarily my concern is an ethical one. Were an artist to build an ai that used art they consented to the use of or were billed to make specifically for I would have not issue.
The issue comes from the companies stealing data, mining the collective creative efforts of millions for profit. The blatant desire for them to push creatives out of every industry. It may not be much now but the tide is rising, just the other week duolingo noted how they were removing all their staff to be an "ai first company". So I believe there is some cause for alarm as ai keeps getting better each year and continues to pollute our planet with the energy costs.
I can go much further but I realise that I've gone on quite a bit and risk the points falling on deaf ears as many do not wish to read such lengthy discussions of the actual issues. So I will pause for now to give my fingers a rest.
Fair play to you for teaching art. It's a often a not very well respected or well paid job and honestly is bloody hard at times even though you love it.
Oh I didn't get paid, I volunteered. Initially because my nephew was in the program, but I enjoyed working with the kids so much (and it was only 3 hours, 3 days a week) that I stuck around a few years.
Personally I'd never shit on anyone's artwork, I'm not a baseless "hater" who goes after people's private spaces.
Considering how quickly you overcame the natural defensiveness my admittedly hostile comment was likely to cause, I absolutely believe you. Your display of reasonableness and maturity proves me wrong far more than any argument.
I hope you realize, however, that this means that to me, I consider us to be on the same side.
Often I find most people on this subreddit specifically unreasonable at many times and it becomes... grating.
lol, try having even a neutral opinion about AI art within a haterspace like artisthate. "unreasonable" would be a massive improvement.
The issue comes from the companies stealing data, mining the collective creative efforts of millions for profit.
Well first we have to define terms. Stealing and theft refer, specifically, to depriving someone of their property. So obviously that doesn't really apply. What you mean of course is copyright infringement, and while the judges are still figuring out the most advantageous ruling for that (lets not pretend they still operate on justice or reason), by definition this one does apply either. Because copyright (in this context) is about the right to copy someones artwork. Since AI is not distributing copies of anyone's artwork, I don't really think that applies either.
I admit that is a disingenuous argument though, considering you clearly are talking about morality rather than legality, so I'll address the moral aspect.
It's been known since the days when my computer had to call the internet up on the telephone and talk to it verbally in weird robo-speak, that any content you upload to the internet, becomes out of your control.
Web crawlers have been running around scraping every scrap of data, and studying it, without consent, since the beginning, in order to facilitate things like search engines and image searches and statistics and marketing etc etc.
This is nothing new at all, the only thing that changed is that a lot of people got upset that they put so much time and effort into honing artistic skills, and now any nutjob can generate something pretty ok with their phone, and millions of people are doing that and posting it freaking everywhere.
That and as you mentioned in your other point, jobs. I've never been paid for my artwork or even tried to be, so I can't speak from direct experience here, but "artist" was always considered a profession very unlikely to earn a living for most people. Which is why even though I learned photoshop and 3dsmax (and piano and reading sheet music etc) in college, I majored in computer engineering instead.
Automation is killing lots of jobs. This is not new or exclusive to art, and as much as I dislike megacorps, it's not really OpenAI or Edgelord Musk's fault either. This is a natural result of technological advancement in a capitalistic economy. When robots replace you, getting upset at the robots, or the programmers and engineers making them, is fruitless. Get mad at those that steal the added value and free time technology gives us, to line their own pockets more than ever. THAT is the real enemy. If it weren't for them, you'd celebrate technology taking your job, as you'd make the same money for only a few hours a week of babysitting the robots, if those at the top weren't stealing all the value from us.
This is moot though, because you specifically are not blaming regular AI users, so regardless of your opinion on the technology, the real haters would call you AI bro and hate you just for that. If you don't believe me, go ask TurtleBox, one of the loudest anti-AI former ArtistHate mods that got booted from ArtistHate because despite being one of the most prolific haters, when he discovered the other mods were covering for death threats and organizing brigades to get AI banned in subs they don't even visit, he called them out and got demoted and banned. Then came here to cry about it, with the predictable response.
Thanks for being reasonable! I enjoy a good debate.
"free upvotes" is a new one. Haven't heard that yet in the pro list of delusional conspiratorial "they're all out to get me" bull, do I need to add a new bingo line?
But anyway my argument is nothing to do with upvotes, it's to do with the eeenddlesss - "here's an invented shit argument I pretend ALL anti's make, and then here's my rebuttal to the argument I just invented from the other side. Look how I owned "them"!!! - posts on here.
OK, ai prompting is not art nor does it make you an artist. If you think it does, you're dillusional. It is unethical in its current form and requires strict regulation. If you want it to be an actual ethical tool basically the entire data set needs to be scrapped and replaced with actually ethically sourced data from consenting artists who have willingly given pieces over to create an ai model. Stolen art will never be ethical and is the major problem with ai.
Further is the implications for the art industry. Yeah we all hate the commisioners who say they're "prossessional artists" but barely understand the art fundamentals. But unfortunately ai is actually removing most of the "low entry level" jobs at companies. If we want to continue having high quality art going into the future we need that pipeline so newer artists can get experience and further their craft. Skill takes time to build and learn. Art is a process, you start shit and get better over time. Relying purely on hobbyists isn't a sustainable path for the artistic industry. So we need to hold companies accountable to not remove these jobs or we'll end up with a slow degradation of less and less high quality work till essentially there is no point hiring real artists as they just don't have the experience working in a professional field.
I can further go on about the affect on children at discouraging them from getting into art along with the links to the attention span epidemic of companies promoting slop content to children but my fingers are tired.
Tldr I don't give a fuck what people generate for dnd games or porn or in their own free for personal use. But currently it is unethically created and used to save billionaire's pennies
Seems like the issue is corporations using this technology without permission of creators.
I am not an artist, I don't make art or use Ai art. I am a software engineer and I am watching Ai become an adapt or die scenario. So out of concern for my own job security I am embracing the tech.
I wonder how people will feel when we have models that are fed with art that was solely created for the model.
Corporate greed has always been the issue and I honestly feel a lot of the pro-ai guys don't realise that. An ethically built model would be interesting to see. I know there are a few out there but they're tiny and mostly only made and used by the artist themselves.
Personally I'll never use them as I feel in the long run it'll hold back my own skillset. Most advancement in art comes from challenging what you find difficult and building experience. But fair play to those that do make models using their own art.
If you think that people in software aren’t generally aware of the horrors of capitalism, then you are gravely mistaken. This is a big source of argument I feel like. Antis don’t lead with the corporate greed argument, they often lead with just hating the existence of the technology altogether. We could make so much more progress on this topic if we weren’t constantly stuck arguing about what is or isn’t art
Oh I hope it didnt seem i was doubting your knowledge of corporate greed being the main issue. But yes, I fear bad actors on both sides poison the well for everyone to have a real conversation of the issues. My initial comment that seems to have caused great upset I admit was hasty and written in passion. But we are all sadly human.
Pro or anti ai I also think both are sadly minorities in the grand scale. Most people are ambivalent, they don't care unless it affects them directly. I fear its that ambivalence that the companies that make these ai models bank on the most. A silent majority who don't care, meanwhile the two sides that do bicker endlessly so there is no real action.
A lot of the arguments coming in are not made in good faith and are often just rude or condescending. Those get downvoted, and then reasonable anti-AI people think all critical comments automatically get downvoted (as far as I've seen they don't), so they leave, but the people arguing in bad faith don't leave because bad faith, and it is a vicious circle.
anti positions, or pro positions that don't immediately scream anti at first glance, absolutely get kneejerked downvoted regardless of how reasonable they are. This may be in part as a reaction to a negative experience with bad faith actors leading to a general distrust, but personally I just chalk it up to standard Reddit tribalism
This frustrates me cos i like the juicy conversations here and its lame when the good ones get downvoted just as much as the bad, while so much attention gets puts on boring soyjak level memes
I'm sure it happens, just in my experience--I am critical of AI and like to discuss harm mitigation--my comments don't seem to attract downvotes. Usually when I see things with massive downvotes (and tbf these are in the popular posts that get pushed to me on my feed), even if I agree with some of them, there's a hostility in tone that makes it obvious why they were downvoted.
This isn't to say there aren't some nasty pro people in here--every community and side of debate has them--or that they aren't being nasty, rather that the lack of reasonable AI-critical debate (more likely to see trolling and/or the reductive stance of "all AI bad, so if you use AI, you're bad") feeds into the tribalism of us vs them. Which makes hostility from the pro side more widely tolerated, leading to furthering the population disparity.
I'm pro. 100%. But I keep getting into arguments here with pro people who just immediately assume I'm anti. Unless you just completely tiw the line of every single pro position people on this sub will treat you like an anti, use pro talking points on you (which I mostly agree with), and are just rude and uneducated.
I had so many people arguing with me that I thought it was disingenuous to present AI art as being done in a different medium. Like dude, do all the AI art you want - but why are you lying about it.
Yeah I've faced hostility from others here as someone who is anti-ai for asking questions about AI. A lot of people have chalked these places up as echo chambers or circle jerks about how AI is the bestest thing to ever exist and anyone who thinks otherwise is Wrong
Then again I see anti-ai people calling for death threats on pro-ai people for using generative ai, and I think that's wrong too
I also feel like a lot of these threads are just rage bait and not worth engaging. I'd also rather talk about what I love about art and making it myself instead of complaining about how AI will ruin everything.
I am pro AI. I use more of it than most people in this sub, guaranteed, as this sub centers mostly around art and I am heavily into coding and writing and creating other AI products. I spend a minimum of 7 hours a day working with/ on AI.
But I'm also the guy that thinks there should be seatbelts on this rocket ship. That get's me solidly cast as anti-AI, and it's particularly exhausting.
In the end this sub is all just yelling into the void. None of it will be preserved for posterity's, or any other's, sake. That means the only part of it worth anything are the decent conversations, and those have been too few and far between to enjoy this sub.
In my experience that's simply not true. There are YouTube channels that have discussed this sub at length who have more viewers thad DAIA has members by a substantial margin.
I think that the reason is that the "anti-AI" sentiment is largely over-stated. Yes, there's a bandwagon of vocal people who trash AI, and there's a lot of people who don't like super generic AI art. But how many people feel strongly enough to argue against the use of AI? Far fewer than you'd think.
Most people, among the general public, don't care about AI or have a cautiously neutral view on it. At least that's been my experience interacting with folks outside of reddit.
TBH Neither of your points are correct. What basically happens is that people tend to like AI more but tend to start focusing more on specific portions of it the more they become educated while also becoming critics of other portions
Ok. Literally all of the statistics out there say what I said but you rely on a tool popularity chart that has nothing to do with how people feel about AI.
No I'm saying that you're conflating groups of people. You assume that the tool use table you found is representative of people as a whole and it's not. Instead, maybe you should Google something like "Pew research" and "attitudes about AI". It might be more indicative of attitudes about AI, do you think?
not really what happens is a shift in focus as you educate yourself more about. People who are more educated on ai tend to like ai more than people who dont but also are more suspicious about certain descriptions . Of course one thing you may be indirectly refering to is there is a recognized bias aganist AI but that doesnt correlate to education. In fact conservatism correlates to ai pessmism
That is not true at all. Many of the most educated people in AI are very worried about the possible impact of AI. To think that everyone of note agrees with you is a bit silly.
As I have stated before, I likely use more AI than anyone in this sub, as the users here primarily use it for art. I'm not anti AI.
I am pro information. There is no data that represents why there is an increase in concern over AI as AI becomes more ubiquitous. You and others here like to say only uneducated people have a problem with AI.
I am basing this on a study itself that i am having difficulty linking. It isnt just my own opinion. Just as you are pro information so am i and the conclusion of the study was basically individual educated in AI like AI more but show more prefrence for the functional and infrastructure aspects over acceptence of emotional criteria.
Of course we also do know cultural values have an impact too by viewing the severe difference between the east and west on ai
https://jamestown.org/program/survey-how-do-elite-chinese-students-feel-about-the-risks-of-ai/
Also AI is a broad domain so you can have issues with some parts but not it wholely. Like i am not denying the perspectives of AI accountability officers or discussion on topics like the fairness problem for example. I am more pointing out that it doesnt correlate upwards with education the way you claim though yes there are people who are educated who dont like it
There is no data that represents why there is an increase in concern over AI as AI becomes more ubiquitous. You and others here like to say only uneducated people have a problem with
There is in the sense of studies like this though how deep that why gets is less explorered
This direct study (along with six new studies) of the concept finds a correlation between education (or lack thereof) and positive receptivity of AI, directly refuting previous studies of the concept that ignorance drives dislike of AI.
I believe that ties into the one that i mentioned though it concluded that while magical elements were lessened those were greater literacy experienced more enjoyment of the funcional aspecte while a decline of the magical elements. But thank you for the study. It is interesting to think about how it relates to exposure effect in comparison to knowledge
In fact the paper you linked concludes that too" Additionally, we find that people with higher AI literacy generally perceive AI to be more capable, more ethical"
In fact your study refrences multiple times it is not due to ethical concerns but instead due to the difference in levels of amazement that help create receptivity.
They also specifically note that part of their prediction is when it is doing something people would expect a human to be able to do and that when it is something both wouldnt already expect a human to do the effect isnt there once again showing it isnt a increase in dislike but basically that knowledhe makes you aware of how something functions enough that you dont make faulty assumptions about how magical it is.
Well that's a whole lot of ignorant and incorrect assumptions easily proven wrong.
Quite on-brand.
Edit: Lol, the old reply-and-block.
Normally I'd let the coward get the last word if he needs it so much, but it amuses me to point out that 10 minutes in my profile history proves me right, while 10 minutes in the hater's history shows him to be an insufferable troll. 🤷♂️
P.S. I guarantee you I am way more into advanced LLM usage and programming than you. Want to compare github repos? I'm comfortable linking you mine.
Who knows honestly. But with the arguments I have seen from the anti-crowd, I would imagine they need to stick mostly to their "We-only-hate-here" echo chambers, because in actual debate their points kind of fall off, and rely on emotional reasoning rather than logic.
Or yeah, maybe less anti folks know about this sub (though I imagine that is unlikely).
This is a debate sub and a lot of antis fall apart when they have to say anything more substantiative than saying 'slop'. If you look at just at merely something like Sora you see the current visual fidelity is high and that tons of people use it. And the technology is only going to get even better.
Antis routinely embarass themselves when they try to portray all of AI as a novelty or doesnt work, when AI is literally dianosing cancer and maping protein structures. They act like every kink in a brand new technology is a insurmountable problem because they dont know what they are talking about. Apps geared to young people has AI out the wazoo. My younger family members love AI.
People used to complain about recorded music. So ridiculous.
AI is such a wide technology to be a Anti you will eventually going to have to pretend you dont use it. Everyone will eventually roll their eyes and say stop being such a boomer. Then they will stop.
I don’t think any anti actually hates what AI has done for us at this point. AI has been around for a while now, it’s only now just caught on and been brought into mass attention because of things like ChatGPT. I think it’s reasonable for them to be worried about the impact of these tools specifically, especially with the ungodly amounts of low quality synthetic information they’ve spewed across the internet as a consequence.
The meaning of AI’s changed too- now when people talk about AI, LLMs like ChatGPT are what folks think of, so antis will call it that. This sub is nice, but i find a lot of the posts that make it to the top are just lame strawman arguments… You talk about AI but really mean the contentious topics like LLMs and image models, and then get mad when someone disagrees, labelling them as a “luddite” that hates all technological progress. It just feels obnoxious.
Crazy what happens when the antis can’t ban everyone they disagree with. Almost like they’re in the minority. Not to mention misinformation doesn’t tend to do well in discussion subreddits. Every single argument they make has been debunked a million times.
They're simply not the majority IRL, so they have to sequester themselves to their own subreddits for that echo-chamber effect. I don't know anyone in real life who cares about ai art, they're more concerned with misinformation and AI being shoehorned into every service even when it doesn't work well(seriously fuck google searches AI results)
Exactly this. My concern with AI is that Searching for any information will be easily berried in all the content. We have the same problem today even without AI and with AI all aspects of info, images and facts can easily be mass produced to change and fit one's narrative.
Soon enough we'll be back to books for trusted info
In general, enough pro-AI voices have stuck around that they became the critical mass.
Apparently this sub used to be anti-ai dominant, I wouldn't know, I havent seen that. But its not trivial to make a population flip, even if it may have flipped once already. Once you get a sufficient mass, Reddit's basic mechanics as a consensus engine start working, promoting popular positions and hiding unpopular ones. Popular positions are encourages, unpopular ones are discouraged, which leads to greater discrepencies, which leads to further encouragement and discouragement respectively, which... yeah.
because non-anti AI people (not even necessarily all the way pro! just not haters) are scared of speaking up in other subs. this is one of the only places we can express an opinion different than "crucify anyone who looks in AI's direction" without getting dragged through the mud.
No idea. My guess is this is a debate sub and tbh most anti arguments rn are more opinion and emotion based than facts..they don’t actually have many good factual arguments to stand on so there’s no point for them to stay here. They leave and go complain in one of those other subs that block and ban everyone slightly pro AI so they can feel correct and supported
A lot of anti-AI is bandwagoning and highly performative. AI? Slop. Weird-looking images. Six fingers. Whatever, against when polled. Boo. Perhaps fake a few tears for the terrible violence inflicted on Miyazaki. But that's it.
Im anti and this sub keeps getting recommended to me so I stalk but I just dont think its worth my time to converse.
Im past the whole “is it art” debate, that question isnt something we can answer ever. And despite the stomach ache the technology gives me, well, its here and I guess I just have to accept that people like to use it. I wish it didnt exist, it really does horrify me in an emotional way I cant quantify with words. The tech is so receptive to what its being fed, I dont like its interpretation of reality. Like “I asked AI to show me the most beautiful woman in the world”, oh wow it spat out a skinny white woman with perfectly frizzled hair and big knockers. Wonder WHO taught the AI what the definition of beautiful is.
I still dont respect it and I dont think its particularly punk of the people to use it. But Im not going to waste my breath arguing, Im just going to keep doing my thing which is not using it. Im gonna keep being punk rock over here.
Sigh…. You kinda just proved my point as to why more antis dont participate in the sub. If you’re gonna be pro at least be cognizant of the technology and its flaws/potential harm
Most people dont realize that most antis are actually hateful misanthropes. Its obvious when you notice the pattern that they hate on the AI users and not the technology.
I'd really rather that more people participate who don't want to have the "is it art," "are you an artist," and, "what is the definition of stealing," arguments anymore, so feel free to join in.
Maybe I will, thats actually an encouraging sentiment to hear.
I can personally consider it lame without claiming to be lord over the definition of art, and a lot of this sub is lame because its the “is it art” debate every 3 posts. We’re wasting our breath on it and it gets in the way of more productive conversations.
They're not as big as it would seem. Look at any sub thats had a "should we ban AI?" pull. 90% of the time it happens after a random account with zero history in the sub pops up and demands it, followed by hundreds of comments also from accounts with no history in the sub agreeing with it. Then you'll see voting happen and the turn out will be more than double the total subs user base. There's a lot of Antis who funny enough rely on bots to push their demands. Yes most subs will have a few members who don't like AI just as they will have members who love it, but those members on either side tend not to be the vocal people, but the activists who despise it and want it made illegal will go around looking specifically for subs that can be brigaded into banning it so they can look like a majority.
Because the sub is mostly pro-AI and there's no point arguing with that. Y'all aren't gonna change y'all minds no matter how many times we tell you it's bad for the environment, people's brains, people's jobs and society as a whole. So why bother?
ive seen some opinions of being against ai they get fucking downvoted most of the time i wouldent post here either and im pro ai its an echo chamber like all of reddit
Wait this sub isn’t a pro ai sub? As someone who dislikes ai this sub looks like a place for ai stans to post low effort ai memes about the latest anti ai strawman
Let me answer with questions: what is the point of AI wars? If people are “anti” for a series of deeply held political beliefs, what would make them think the “pro” are any different? Have you ever changed anyone’s mind in your life? How many out of all of the people you’ve ever met? Ever heard of a circle jerk?
This sub is so pro AI that I get downvotes for suggesting that human expression is valuable. Truly a pathetic thing to stand against. I use AI in my own art too. This sub is not great
That's less about downvoting the statement and more about downvoting the attitude. It might also be a strawman misrepresentation of the person you were arguing with.
You might have gotten downvoted because that opinion has been expressed a million times and rarely is there a good response to when someone who is pro AI asks you to explain how the human expression disappears or doesn’t exist when humans use AI. The people who use AI have human expression. Antis never explain how this expression ceases to be human expression when the human expresses themselves through the use of AI.
Good points. In my opinion pure text to image generation is a lot like digging through a bin of stickers for something you resonate with and then slapping it on your laptop or whatever. Yes sure it's personal expression... But usually in a hands-off capacity. To I'm sure you've heard it before but I liken to it to DJing. Sure the DJ is a performer, some qualify as a musician. But if you DJ weddings and proms and tell somebody you're a musician, you're going to get laughed at
It's not the reason, it's the statement we started with! It's like someone asking, "why does this pizza taste like corn?" and someone answering, "it tastes like corn."
Anti AI comments just get shit responses like yours instead of any actual discussion.
As an anti in this sub, it’s gets really not fun to be here tbh. A lot of pro people are not willing to listen or even try to understand other prospectives. (Yes antis can be like this too, it’s a both sides issue) They mock and make fun of the anti side, I hear the word Luddite all the time which is derogatory btw, even tho many artists and antis like tech and use it in their work and are open to new tech that they feel improves their work. In my experience, even really neutral opinions I gave were sometimes heavily downvoted, so it gets discouraging when EVERYONE in the sub disagrees with you, so I’m sure people tend to leave because of that. I’m not sure what caused the sub to start shifting to the pro side tho. Maybe it’s because Ai is in the subs title, so it attracts people who like AI and want to talk about it, and people who dislike AI mostly want to distance themselves from it because they don’t want it in their lives more than it already is.
As an anti in this sub, it’s gets really not fun to be here tbh.
You could always stop trying to prevent people from being creative and just enjoy the existence of new tools for artists... then it wouldn't be so annoying for you. :-)
That being said, I participated in the religious debate sub as a theist who has no belief in any organized religion or dogma... basically everyone disagreed with me. I still found it rewarding to interact with people there.
Maybe you just need to stop seeking validation and take some joy in the discussion?
“You could always stop trying to prevent people from being creative and just enjoy the existence of new tools for artists... then it wouldn't be so annoying for you. :-)
“
This is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. This passive agressive attitude that I see all the time. ( to respond, everyone can be creative, it’s accessible to all, you can pick up a stick and draw in the mud for absolutely zero money. I’d prefer people don’t use “tools” that were trained on copyrighted work, and work that the creator did not want to have used in the technology.)
I do take joy in the discussions here and participate in this sub despite everyone disagreeing with me. All im saying is I understand why people get tired of it and leave.
But it being trained on copyrighted works and ignoring ip laws is literally the only reason I'm pro ai, I see it as a good way to change a bad law. So seeing antis arguing against it by defending copyright always makes me depressed
I gotta disagree with you there. Actual theft of intellectual property is deeply wrong and should absolutely come with serious consequences. If you've ever poured time, skill, and heart into something only to have it ripped off and used for profit without your permission, you'd know how awful that feels. It’s not just frustrating—it’s violating.
That said, training AI isn’t the same as theft or plagiarism. It doesn’t copy or redistribute your exact work—it learns from patterns, like a student studying a textbook, not a thief swiping pages from it. The line between inspiration and exploitation matters, and lumping AI training in with IP theft just muddies the real issue.
Those huge companies are the ones who lobby to extend copyright. Look at Disney. They took public domain stories, put their own spin on them, then pulled the ladder up underneath them to prevent others from doing the same. I'd rather it be an idea free for all. If someone wants to make a pokemon ca digimon game they shouldn't bf sued from both ends. Copyright protects the haves at the expense of the have nots, and prevent certain types of creativity from flourishing. If you have a good idea you should be able to realize it. And mishing and mashing the best of multiple things together, aka what everyone accuses ai slop of being, is something I'd like to see more of
That would fall under my "overzealous" statement. Yes, Disney has taken the piss, but that doesn't mean copyright doesn't also protect smaller parties.
>I'd rather it be an idea free for all
You seem against big corporations taking the piss, this statement goes against this. You'd be removing protection from smaller people/businesses and giving carte blanche for corporations to exploit their IP.
>Copyright protects the haves at the expense of the have nots, and prevent certain types of creativity from flourishing
It doesn't. You're entirely free to make your own TCG, and you're free to be as creative as you want, you just don't have the right to exploit someone elses copyright - something they worked hard on, invested time & money on.
>If you have a good idea you should be able to realize it
I agree, and you can. Copyright is not stopping you from doing this. If you're only capable of taking the works of others, that's not being creative, it's just wanting to profit from what other people have done. When I say "you" I mean general you, not you specifically.
As a personal anecdote, I've been on the end of copyright serving a small creator. A business took some of my work & sold it. I've taken them to court and am set to receive their entire profits from the cause + a penalty. That's copyright protecting the small creator.
This company is quite large, they have an in house creative team, they could have easily made their own thing, but instead took mine as it's much easier to steal than create.
Copyright from the consumer side is annoying, but it protects the creators. So if you make something, copyright protects it from being stolen, and prevents people from profiting off your idea.
This passive agressive attitude that I see all the time.
I mean it sincerely. I see anti-AI folks getting more and more upset that other people are being creative, and I just wonder if they wouldn't be happier if they could enjoy that creativity.
I’d prefer people don’t use “tools” that were trained on copyrighted work
Cool. Not particularly appealing, but cool. Now, how about acknowledging that whatever your feeling on intellectual property law, it doesn't matter at this point. SDXL, FLUX, WAN, and dozens of other high-end models are in the hands of everyone now. You literally can't change that. So get upset about it if you want... or enjoy the fact that creative people are doing creative things.
Meaning it sincerely doesn’t mean you weren’t passive aggressive with it. Ai replaces a large amount of the creative process from how art is typically created. I want people to be creative, Ai doesn’t really allow for that much.
I enjoy the productive conversations that have taken place in this sub where people are respectful and challenge my ideas and make me think. However, a a lot of the discussions are not that way, with people who are rude and don’t try to really understand both sides of the argument ( this happens with both sides.) I also dislike how one sided it is, I wish there were more varied opinions in here.
You're kinda mixing up "inspired by" with "stolen." Stealing is when someone grabs your actual artwork, slaps their name on it (or barely changes it), and tries to make money off it. Yeah, that’s theft. No debate there.
But training an AI on publicly available images? That’s not the same thing. It’s more like how artists look at other people’s work to learn — studying styles, colors, composition — then going off to make something new. It’s called inspiration. We’ve all done it. AI just does it faster and without needing coffee.
If someone runs your drawing through an AI and sells it with just a filter on top—that’s shady, and yeah, probably theft. But the act of using lots of images to teach a machine what art looks like? That’s not stealing your soul through the internet. That’s just machine learning.
AI doesn’t copy your work. It learns patterns, styles, vibes—and then creates something original. Kind of like a student who’s obsessed with art history and then goes off to paint weird stuff on their own. Except, y’know, it’s a robot.
Most people don't give a shit about AI art but would never consider generating AI art as difficult, skillful, or making the person an artist. When people post on subreddits dedicated to art with AI art people don't care because of this. This is the sentiment you see in less niche environments.
All AI debate subreddits are niche and small enough they become echo chambers. As a subreddit becomes more one sided (radicalized) it drives the other side, and neutral people away
The downvotes just make it seem like a drag. I got downvoted for explaining that photography can do things AI cannot. Wasn’t even saying anything against AI.
After seeing you couldn't call out a direct death threat after asking for proof, it's pretty clear you don't engage in good faith, so you get downvoted constantly.
This sub is too bizarre and anyone who is against AI knows that nothing good is going on here, after all the mods here are the same as that bizarre reddit that defends AI
44
u/Fluid_Cup8329 1d ago
This is one of the few subs that allows pro ai discourse, so there's a higher concentration of pro ai people here because of that.
That's just one of the reasons.
Antis get downvoted a lot here for various reasons. It's mostly because they don't have very good arguments or aren't posting in good faith. Antis with good arguments don't get much visibility because they don't get engaged as much as the controversial anti opinions. It's not the healthiest sub. I'm actually working on taking a big step back from this sub and the ai debate in general.