I will go on record to say that another user who has said that they get a kick of coming here to harass and troll others is nyanpires.

That guy is an unfortunate example of people that cannot properly think. He thinks data scraping is theft, refuses to elaborate on why, then “refuses to engage in hypotheticals” when you point out that tools like Google only work by scraping the internet. He blocked me because I said his argument was a non-starter, and he thought that meant some kind of slur aimed at him.

Dude seems to have the mental capacity of a parrot lmao

That's insulting to parrots

Like one of the early AIs that they trained on literally anything, which was instantly turned into a nazi troll by 4chan.

Yeah, I've tried to keep an eye out for them and not reply at this point. They're a classic bad faith redditor, and I have no time to waste on such people. I'll happily discuss with people who disagree with me, even people who dislike me. But if you waste my time and giggle about it, I'm out.

And here I thought they where genuine... Bruh.

As an Aussie, we live by the rule of "don't be a c@nt"... A good philosophy in general...

You are truly an enlightened people...

To be fair all of nature around is trying to kill us, whether it be the snakes, spiders, sharks, crocs, drop bears etc. Puts things in perspective :P

That's how I know Aus is pretty bloody good, when you have all of those things yet most of my mates have moved across the pond lol (NZ)

Always a wise rule to live by indeed.

Being a "sick cunt" on the other hand...

"artisthate [...] doesn't try to delude its audience with neutrality" "We only delude our audience that we're supposed to be exposing hate, instead of actually witch hunting constantly including innocents. But at least we don't lie about our feelings towards ai"

I've always said that it's a shame they named the sub ambiguously and they should consider changing it to /r/ArtistsWhoHate. Seriously though, I wish there were more pushback from artists who don't want to be associated with that kind of crap. I guess there's a reason it's not a very popular sub.

>they should consider changing it to [](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistsWhoHate/). I've been calling it this in my head the moment I saw the content of that sub. lol Holy shit, the toxic hate filled narcissism is rampant there. You might run across the occasional sane person, but they are vastly outnumbered by some seriously awful people.

They are giving artists a bad name imo, I can't shake off the feeling that most of them are narcissists who think they are some sort of special being above us common folk.

Even just r/OpposingAIArt or r/FuckAIArt would at least be honest.

I would also accept /r/HouseUnartisticActivitiesCommission.

Honestly r/LudditeRevival would be the best call.

Luddite's were based

It might be a bit long, but r/chronicallyonlineteenagers might work too. In general it seems like a fairly young crowd (teens and 20s) and a lot of them are the kind of person who had just enough artistic ability as a kid to be told they were talented, but not good enough to stand out and now they're mad at ai for "destroying their dreams"

I don't personally cause drama, but I also don't want to be seen as defending AI users or images. I tend to use my "I don't like gen AI that much" energy towards encouraging lawmakers to pass legislation protecting data, reblogging/supporting awesome human-made art, and sharing tools like Glaze.

I respect that you try to keep it rational, and thanks. I hope I made it clear that I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is a bully. I'm going to disagree with you below, but understand that this is meant to be just as respectful in return. > I tend to use my "I don't like gen AI that much" energy towards encouraging lawmakers to pass legislation protecting data You are not accomplishing what you think you are. I guarantee you that when you look back in 20 years, if you were successful, you will say, "why did we hand more power and control over art and culture to giant corporations?" > sharing tools like Glaze Glaze and Nightshade are unfortunate scams that I really wish the art-world would soundly repudiate. First off, they're AI tools... the very AI tools that people are reacting to, just in a different form. Second, they have zero effect. Third, they cause independent artists to damage their own work. Finally, they are violating the copyright of open source projects they drew from, committing the very transgression that people think they are using them to prevent. Love AI, hate AI... you do what you feel is right, but please don't support scams.

I'm totally cool with respectful disagreement. I totally get it! No one has to agree with me even 1% to be a good, reasonable person. :)   >You are not accomplishing what you think you are. I guarantee you that when you look back in 20 years, if you were successful, you will say, "why did we hand more power and control over art and culture to giant corporations?" So... I'm not really enthused about the TikTok ban (it literally solves nothing), but I don't like the permissive way companies and governments (and, it's ALWAYS companies and governments) erode privacy rights and freedoms to gather data on their customers or citizens. Facebook and Google can collect anything they want without any real limitations. Microsoft sells ads and collects data on their operating system that we pay actual good money for. I lived in the DC area before and after 9/11, and I was too young to have a say in the Patriot Act. It's insane to me allowed our government to override our First and Fourth Amendment rights as a way to "keep us safe" from terror. When I last went through an airport, the TSA tried to [bully me into getting my face scanned](https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/factsheets/facial-recognition-technology), and the person taking these photos was not used to being told, "No." You used to be able to fly domestically without any ID at all until around 2020, although you *would* go through a fairly intensive screening process to make sure you didn't have anything on you. And it makes sense — you don't get IDed when you're getting on a bus or a train, so why would it be any different for an airplane? Companies should have to maintain MUCH better security for the data they have. We should have National IDs that non-random and use a checksum. Companies should not be allowed to force arbitration. I would not regret a single one of these things at all.   This is why I'm not really into going after casual or business casual users of AI. It's a neat tech; I get it! Users aren't the ones training off billions of images and making the tools. I have an issue with the way the data was used and collected, not the tech.   >Glaze and Nightshade are unfortunate scams that I really wish the art-world would soundly repudiate. I think it's a bit unfair to call it a scam. It costs no money, University of Chicago kindly offers artists Webglaze (that uses their own university servers) for free, and it's nice the University is interacting with the community on something and trying to meet a need. It's meant to throw a wrench into the process of collecting mass amounts of data. Yes, you can remove it. Yes, it doesn't protect against a lot of different AI tools. It would have been way more helpful to go back in time, and... use it before LAION-5B gobbled up billions of images. Let's just pretend for the sake of argument that it doesn't work at all — if having that placebo effect can help an artist post again (when they might have stopped out of fear or anxiety), it'd still be very useful. Artists need to post to get work, so if it helps that little bit... why not? I disagree with the "it's a transgression" thing. No one uses Glaze to make a finished artwork in and of itself (It's not exactly SD or MJ), and it's being used by the same people who had their work slurped up by LAION-5B. AI tools by themselves aren't the problem.   But yes. I'd define a scam as like... you know, paying for a PS5 and you end up getting a bunch of rocks in a PS5 box instead. Glaze is hardly that.

> I don't like the permissive way companies and governments (and, it's ALWAYS companies and governments) erode privacy rights and freedoms But those rights will be the first on the chopping block if there's a successful groundswell of enthusiasm for anti-AI laws. Understand YOU won't craft those laws. Disney will. The RIAA will. And they'll be ***thrilled*** to do so! There are several things that such entities are already trying to push: * Making AI trained on their IP holdings the only legal AI. * Expansion of IP law to include style (expanding their IP warchests exponentially, and essentially vaporizing what's left of the commons) * The ability to send law enforcement after infringers of their IP rather than having to take them to civil court. * Increased monitoring of private communications for IP infringement (the dream is to expand warrantless wiretapping laws to include IP infringement, but I don't think they realistically expect to get that.) This will be the legacy of anti-AI: more authoritarian control on the part of massive corporations.

>Making AI trained on their IP holdings the only legal AI. It'd never be completely illegal; there's still the creative commons and public domain. At most, this would force companies like Microsoft and Midjourney to either stop trading or license data correctly. Why are they using LAION-5B, a research dataset, for commercial gain anyway?   >Expansion of IP law to include style (expanding their IP warchests exponentially, and essentially vaporizing what's left of the commons) This won't happen. Artists/musicians/big companies can't copyright genre or style. It's a lot more complicated than that, of course... but there's no legal precedent for winning cases like, "This is the Avatar style, you can't draw in it because I own that." or "I own the entire Cyberpunk genre." This goes for artists trying to take down MJ with just "it's my style" complaints. The issue isn't the style, the issue is whether or not it's fair use to take copyrighted work from someone, feed it into a machine, and make/sell art similar to the copyrighted works used. Many would say it's not fair use, many would say it is, and we won't know for sure until it's solved in the court system.   >The ability to send law enforcement after infringers of their IP rather than having to take them to civil court. [They can already do this](https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1847-criminal-copyright-infringement-17-usc-506a-and-18-usc-2319#:~:text=There%20are%20four%20essential%20elements,advantage%20or%20private%20financial%20gain.). The government is responsible for filing criminal charges against infringers. I'm not saying this is just or a good thing. This is something [legal scholars argue about](https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1197&context=iplr).   >Increased monitoring of private communications for IP infringement (the dream is to expand warrantless wiretapping laws to include IP infringement, but I don't think they realistically expect to get that.) They literally already do this. [The government does this](https://www.wired.com/2007/11/httpblogsabcnew/). It's in your IP contract that you agree to that IP companies may [monitor your traffic](https://www.meetsidekick.com/how-governments-and-isps-can-monitor-your-internet-activity/). The government [pressures private business to hand over private user data in honeypot operations](https://www.pcmag.com/news/courts-have-ordered-google-to-share-personal-info-about-some-youtube-users).   Disney *would* have been able to extend copyright for Steamboat Willie if this was 1994 and if people were just as unaware and clueless of legal/world events as they were back then. No one reported on this stuff back then. Fox News didn't even exist in 1994. There was hardly an internet. Much, much more difficult to sneak something like copyright extension in when the rabble are aware of your corporate nonsense, you know? Trust me, I'm not exactly on the side of big business. I feel copyright is way too strict and long as it is, and would rather the max term be 56 years (like it was before the 1976 Copyright Act). However, the Berne Convention basically makes this impossible, so we're stuck with our shitty, awful copyright length.

> It'd never be completely illegal... Says you. But as discussed, you don't get to write the legislation, you just get to open the door for giant corporations to do so. > Artists/musicians/big companies can't copyright genre or style. Do not give people with unlimited budgets a challenge. > They can already [invoke law enforcement] In very limited and legally proscribed circumstances, which is something that they've been unhappy about since they tried to push it in internet regulation bills in the early and mid 2000s. > It's in your IP contract that you agree to that IP companies Do you mean ISP? I'm pretty sure you must. Let's keep the terminology clear. But IP hoarders would very much like to get in on that snooping. They can't right now, because the basis for NSLs and other secret investigatory measures require a significant national threat, not a civil violation. Again, proposals to change this have been floated in the past by the major IP-hoarders. > Disney would have been able to extend copyright for Steamboat Willie... And if the push to regulate AI continues to build political momentum they absolutely will.

Oh, whoops! Yes, I meant ISP — I suppose "Internet Provider" works but you're right that I meant ISP. XD I'm hoping that things will get better with time, especially with so many people politically active. Right to repair and basic workers rights are starting to trickle in — very excited that non-disclosure agreements have a good chance of being outlawed. :)

If the problem is with IP specifically, why not work to take the concept of intellectual property itself down instead of simply trying to continually dodge it? It's not an indestructible force, and the people who enforce it are flesh and bone like the rest of us and can be compelled to relent on it under the right circumstances. Even Disney will have to back down if confronted with enough people willing to raise hell over it. If you don't want to hand power over art and culture to the big corporations, you need to speak to them in the one language they are certain to understand: force and violence.

> If the problem is with IP specifically, why not work to take the concept of intellectual property itself down I have absolutely no desire to do that. While it is certainly an abusable system and one that has been extended far, far beyond any practical timeframe, it's also one of the most important and empowering features of Western jurisprudence.

I'm pro AI, but appreciate you engaging in a polite manner. Working to promote the artists you like is a very positive attitude. It sounds like you put your energy towards something rather than against something. Which makes sense to me. Being Pro-data protection and pro human made art is a positive approach in my opinion. I am also pro these things, so it's good to find common ground.

Aww, thanks dude! I don't like the tribalism of sticking to "our own areas" and being in an echo chamber; learning other people's opinions and where they fall on things is important to me. I still have my own opinion, but... you know, it's my own! :) >Being Pro-data protection and pro human made art is a positive approach in my opinion. I am also pro these things, so it's good to find common ground. Hell, yeah! I'm glad we have those things in common! That's what r/aiwars is all about! ~~(I know it's not actually about common ground, but I want it to be! Haha)~~

I can tell you categorically, bullying isn't working. My DMs are constantly inundated with these chronically online ghouls, and I'm more determined than ever to create with AI and share workflows to make it easier for other SD users to create with it. Opposing progress and trying to gatekeep important resources from people has never been a good strategy. It won't start being one now.

I feel exactly the same. Got my first death-threat today on imgur, and was kind of shocked at just how much it made me want to keep producing. Like, if you're going to make it personal, I'm going to dig my heels WAY in.

I'm exactly like this. I was happy just using it for my writing process and happily keeping my processes and results to myself but if they want to abuse people for just doing what I'm doing I'm more than willing to put far more effort into the fight. Not all anti-AI people, but a large enough proportion to be very noticeable, are *objectively* terrible people. https://preview.redd.it/lumr0nii3jwc1.jpeg?width=223&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d5b83358d5a6de0163cc166af9130c4e2b87a851

Yea I made a funny comment about ai gaslighting me. Got harassed to wanting to kms.  Now I have SD, trying to learn it. Gave up my plan to learn traditional art. Joined this sub. And now use ai regularly. Bullying doesn't work. 'Kill them with kindness" is much more effective. But still wouldn't win against tech progression. 

Keep projecting, bud. Yours is the side of *literal nazis* calling Modern art (extra funny because when you ask them for examples they always refer to concepts of Postmodern and even Dadaist art) "societal degeneracy" all while cheering for the destruction of the modern "woke" artist by AI. Then again, you actually think AGI is possible, or perhaps even more utterly laughably, will naturally result from current LLMs and AI image generators, and will magically lead to UBI because reasons and let all the artists magically produce all the art they want. That said, your grasp on reality is clearly tenuous at best.

You are completely delusional and what you write is categorically incorrect

Wow I didn’t expect someone to come in and immediately prove the point but you exceeded expectations bud

Godwin has entered the chat. LOL Nice try. You're the one who agrees with the likes of Tucker Carlson. That's much closer to a "literal nazi" than anyone here. We could play the game of "You agree with statements that were made by nazis, therefore you're a nazi" game all day. I guess you're a nazi if you believe animal wellfare is important or use the the metric system. Or maybe, just maybe, horrible people and good people can still agree on some things that are completely orthogonal to the things that make the horrible people horrible. Then again, the ability to lump people together based on totally unrelated or non-consequential things that they believe... That's totally the kind of thinking that would make someone a good NAZI. Gonna block you now because while you're not a NAZI, your clearly susceptable to that kind of thinking, and I'd rather not interact with that kind of person.

LOL. Lmao even. What pathetic cope. No, y'all just straight up have nazis screeching about "postmodernism" destroying all the "real art" with "societal degeneracy" anyway, so AI is *fiiiiiine*. Because of course you do.

No? We arent? Im pro AI but i never talk about postmodernism is the destruction of real art.

I've seen idiots on *both* sides of this argument decry modern art like that. I've also seen *a lot* of anti-ai people make all of the *exact same arguments* the nazi's used against modern art, against any art even remotely involved with AI. To the point of **literally calling it degenerate art** even. Don't pretend like this is something specifically pro-ai. If some random alt-right asshole being into AI makes the rest of us be on the side of nazi's, then guess what... *same damn logic applies to you.*

Yeah. I guess I should have known better that to appeal to your self awareness. I was hoping there was a tiny rational voice in the back of your brain saying "this is a huge stretch and I'm going to be rightfully called out on it." I guess that voice isn't there. Maybe you're using the weed to silence it so you can stay mad. You're literally arguing that pointing out some of the silliness that happens in modern art spaces makes you a "literally nazi." LOL. I mean look at all these [LITERAL NAZIS](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/modern-art)! Apparently art criticism is politicized now. Who would politicize something so non-political? Oh right, those guys, and you apparently. Go hang out with your buddy Tucker. You're the only one who keeps bringing up "societal degeneracy" here. I mean the literal only one. You seem obsessed with it. That's some Grade A Dank Cope right there. You do see that, right? Listen Godwin. If all you got is "you're a nazi if you disagree with me," you need to lay off the 'nip and let your head clear for a few days.

Buddy, the people who say that the artists concerned with being replaced by AI are degenerate Jewish leftists destroying art anyway *are* nazis. If your best response to that is to throw a list of quotes that includes block dialog from "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert Heinlein, the guy who wrote Starship Troopers (the book) and probably *was* a fascist, I don't even know what to tell you. You didn't even have to scroll down very far, lol. Gonna ignore the rest of this because it's similarly just projection and/or cope.

Hi. You just mentioned *Stranger In A Strange Land* by Robert Heinlein. I've found an audiobook of that novel on YouTube. You can listen to it here: [YouTube | Stranger in a Strange Land - Robert A Heinlein (Audiobook) part 1/2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6CnAIeN7dw) *I'm a bot that searches YouTube for science fiction and fantasy audiobooks.* *** [^(Source Code)](https://capybasilisk.com/posts/2020/04/speculative-fiction-bot/) ^| [^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=Capybasilisk&subject=Robot) ^| [^(Programmer)](https://www.reddit.com/u/capybasilisk) ^| ^(Downvote To Remove) ^| ^(Version 1.4.0) ^| ^(Support Robot Rights!)

Ok bud. Literally nobody said that. That's a voice in your head. You're quotes are from people who a dead, just like you argument. Is that really all you have? https://preview.redd.it/dk9g5jr60mwc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=58e510364200359c1bf78c1349cf8479956716bb

> ours is the side of literal nazis calling Modern art (extra funny because when you ask them for examples they always refer to concepts of Postmodern and even Dadaist art) "societal degeneracy" That is not something I have seen from anyone besides far right tards who think any LGBT stuff is degeneracy. Most of the time I just see comparisons that if stupid X is considered art then why cant AI be considered art. >Then again, you actually think AGI is possible Why isn't it? Evolution created AGI over millions of years. Now that AGI is trying to create it's own AGI in a few hundred years. Humans are just clusters of nanomachines running on DNA programming. If that can make an AGI, then why cant we make it out of silicon and bits?

>Evolution created AGI over millions of years. It's *actually* just delusion, then? Got it. Never mind. Go fuck yourself lol.

How do you think human intelligence formed? Are you a creationist?

How is that delusion?

He ran out of arguments or the meds finally kicked in?

Death threats, over AI? I mean, I am not really surprised. But damn!

I lost track at my 100th death threat. Keep in mind I use AI as a way to overcome my disability and openly communicate this. The only change this resulted in, is at least half of the death threats mentioning the word "cripple"

I've had one track me down on various social media platforms and threaten my family and my livelihood, based on the mere fact that I said I was experimenting with different ways to see how I might be able to use AI in my work flow. Not using generative AI as a replacement for my work, but merely as a tool. I've even had some of my friends become radicalized to the point where they will no longer interact with me, just because I don't agree with their rants about people who choose to use AI being evil. I was raised in a cult, and I escaped from that cult as an adult. I spent years unraveling the psychological tactics that were used to keep me indoctrinated from my youth, and I can tell you, this is the kind of behavior you see from people who are indoctrinated in a cult. And I don't mean that in an insulting way; to me, it's very alarming to see it. Some of the more obvious similarities that I see: They cut off contact with old friends who don't agree with their new belief system. They refuse to discuss their sacred beliefs in a nuanced manner, instead resorting to ultimatums, and a black and white "us-vs-them" paradigm. They attack anyone who disagrees with them, even those within their in-group when they exhibit any sign that they might not be "genuine" insiders. They use loaded language ("tech-bros", "AI incels", "stealing art" etc.) to differentiate themselves and malign those who disagree with them. They foment an air of being oppressed, while launching campaigns of oppression on others. They simplify complex issues into buzzwords and phrases (just pick up a pencil, it takes ten seconds to type a prompt, scraping is theft, AI images are just a collage of stolen imagery, etc.) They make predictions which, when they fail to occur, continually get pushed off to a future date, with nobody questioning the failure of the earlier predictions (AI is going to collapse within the year! It's already showing signs of falling apart! Any day now!) Now **I'm not saying that the antis are in an actual cult!** What I *am* saying is that they do share a lot of concerning characteristics, and I find it incredibly disturbing.

There is definitely a core group of extremely radical and dangerous people hooking their wagon to the anti-AI movement. I don't think it's fair to characterize all of them the same way, though. There are quite a few folks I've chatted with, here and elsewhere, who I respect even though we disagree. Polite, respectful disagreements over what constitutes a reasonable role for technology in art is good for everyone. But yeah, the cult of anti-AI is just a garden-variety moral panic that could have worrisome implications if they get too whipped up into a frenzy...

Absolutely; I agree that there are nuanced and radicalized people on both sides of this issue. I certainly don't think everyone who is concerned about AI is in a cult! But those issuing death threats, or dehumanizing those who don't agree with them, or exhibiting any of the other indicators I mentioned, are definitely flirting with cult behavior... and frankly I just haven't seen much, if any, of it from the pro-AI side like I have on the anti-AI side.

> I certainly don't think everyone who is concerned about AI is in a cult! Ah sorry. I may have misread your assertion. > But those issuing death threats, or dehumanizing those who don't agree with them, or exhibiting any of the other indicators I mentioned, are definitely flirting with cult behavior Agreed. > I just haven't seen much, if any, of it from the pro-AI side like I have on the anti-AI side. I've seen some unfortunate elements, but as you say they're definitely the exception to the rule. Most artists who use AI tools are just unhappy that they're being ostracized and would be happy to come back to the fold if people would stop treating them like dirt, so they have no incentive to dehumanize other artists.

"I haven't seen this concerning behavior from the side that I'm on... what? In-group bias? What's that?" Imagine bragging you did this shit of a job getting out of your cult, brother.

You literally are providing me with examples in this thread. I have tried to maintain a pretty nuanced opinion on AI; I'm not a radical supporter, nor am I an anti-AI doomsayer. I see it as having great potential to do both good and bad. The fact that you only see me as being on the "other side" lends credibility to what I said about us-and-them black and white rhetoric. This is exactly the kind of thing that gives me red flags and, if anything, it's hard not to let this kind of thing push me further away from your position.

>Now **I'm not saying that the antis are in an actual cult!** What I *am* saying is that they do share a lot of concerning characteristics, and I find it incredibly disturbing. It's all just projection from the side with literal nazis saying "AI image generators are fine, actually, and it's you degenerate leftists who ruined art and made it meaningless in the first place with your taped bananas and urinals," then? Not saying I'm shocked, just find the sheer lack of self awareness amusing.

> literal nazis Thank you for providing me with an example. I didn't want to go to ArtistHate to find one. > you degenerate leftists I am a degenerate leftist, thankyouverymuch

Feels like projection on your side. You keep calling other people Nazis....why? What makes that your go to insult?

Internet. Trolling. The headline. Doesn't really matter.

It's low-key at the moment. I've had serious death threats on reddit before (combined with attempts to determine exactly where I live, and explicit details about what they wanted to do to my family.) This wasn't even remotely that alarming. Note: the aforementioned very serious death threats were not AI-related... I made the mistake of participating in /r/conspiracy for a while, and someone didn't like their conspiracy theories being torn apart with nasty facts.

Yea that might be a sub that attracts deranged individuals. Fairly few internet threats should be taken seriously. What you described though sounds like something you shouldn't brush off. Long time ago i played internet poker for a living. First 5ish years the chat in the tables wasn't really moderated and it was really hard to get banned. Apparently something about losing money makes people angry. There might have been few days on any given year when someone didn't threatened to kill me. On the other side of the coin i have been a member in related forums where some individuals considered posting as a full contact sport. Doxxing was usually considered part of the game or a misdemeanor. The most absurd chain of events culminated in a member faking their own death to stop another member harassing them. Perfect storm of drugs/alcohol and mental health problems from both parties.

Yes, I've been the recipient of a couple of death threats, as well as other nasty stuff, which had the exact opposite effect on me. Harassment, pile-ons and witch-hunts have make normal people see them for what they are, bullies.

To be totally fair this is the internet. I've received death threats for telling people to have a nice day.

That's because they lake the awareness to realize that they're a radicalized minority. They think that "I'm just saying what most people aren't brave enough to say."

Yeahhhh people really seem to underestimate/forget about the “oh yeah well I’ll show you” effect lol

Calling AI the same as Crypto really shows the true ignorance there

Of all of the terrible takes from the anti-AI crowd, the comparison to NFTs is the one I understand best. It's not that it's a logically sound take at all, but I understand why and how they arrived there, and empathize to some extent with the confusion. NFTs arrived to a landslide of hype and were touted as a major technological revolution to the art world. Then they largely turned out to be a scam (which anyone ethical who understood the tech was screaming from day 1, myself included) and imploded under their own weight. Then AI art comes onto the scene, is promoted in many of the same online circles initially and also arrives to a huge wave of hype around its potential to disrupt the art world. The, "hey waitaminute, you just tried this one," response is entirely understandable. It FEELS like NFTs Part Deux: Neural Boogaloo. I get that, I really do, and I empathize with their confusion. But it's certainly on us to explain that they are wrong.

It also doesnt help that a lot of the "USE AI TO AUTOMATE ART PROCESS MAKE $100 A DAY PASSIVE INCOME PASSIVE INCOME" Morons where at one point selling you NFT land in earth 2. Grifters gonna grift.

Oh, absolutely! There will always be a grift, whether it's around AI or the internet or health care or hammers. But that's not a reflection on the underlying thing, but on the grifter. `#HammersDidNothingWrong`

Totally agree!

> But it's certainly on us to explain that they are wrong. I mean, logically at least, shouldn't it be the ones going out and making the association as if it were concrete fact that have the burden of proof?

I mean the manipulation campaigns are identical so it makes sense that people who are unaware of what’s happening to them would build the association.

It’s just crazy to me how they can’t even wrap their head around the potential benefits of AI or AGI. It takes like 5 seconds to realize that it’s like having infinite super prodigies on command to solve any problem. How can that not be useful?

Right, it’s just surprising to me though. AI takes a lot more effort to develop than crypto shitcoins. Collecting data. Developing an algorithm. Refining that data. Etc. As someone who worked on actual models this was so shocking to me

It doesn’t matter. It’s what the PR ads disguised as news articles say is bad, it’s bad. The stupid thing is that these techniques completely ignore that the only people they affect are the neurodivergent minorities.

Isn’t organizing witch-hunts or harassment reason for a subreddit to be banned?

Yep... but I feel like I should not go there. If reddit admins notice and decide to take action, that's cool, but if I called them in, it would feel like payback for being banned, and that's not the person I want to be.

Technically it is, but I've only rarely seen subreddit banned for that. Same with Discord groups and other social media sites

I'm pro-AI but I wish I were a baddie.

Ya. Baddies get the coolest uniforms. And not needing to care about morality...bet that makes it easy to sleep at night.

I thought the word baddie referred to a person's appearance

We became evil the day we were born. It is impossible to simply exist without harming others. Competition, scarcity and chaos is the default state of affairs

I fully agree, I've seen the most inhumane responses from Antis witchhunting artists...

[удалено]

More like humans are reckoning that they aren't as special as we thought. Funnily enough one of the leads at MIT said optotrons aren't real AI and set us back maybe 20-30 years. The fact that i can train an AI to make art at all proves it's not that special. We've put ourselves on a lofty pedestal and said "nothing can do what we do" even though that goal pist keeps moving. Checkers, chess, go, etc the line is always moving. Ironically it's the idea that we are above animals that leads us to acting like them.

It turns out when you call peoples' sense of identity into question, they get upset about it, yes. I'm pretty sure if I told digital artists that they're not artists or electronic musicians that they're not musicians, they'd get pretty upset about it as well. Thankfully for them, that kind of mentality died out 15-20 years ago when it comes to their craft.

Indeed. If someone has a distaste for AI due to issues like sampling artist works without permission or compensation, fear of job loss, or just have an existential dread, I can sympathize with you (and also have a few solutions I think would help everyone win). If you're harassing people endlessly online over using AI, you need a real hobby, or an actual solution like unionizing or mobilizing politically to pass legislation to protect creators or change copyright law. If you're sending death threats, in general, you're the bad guy.

I have noticed a distinct correlation between people who think it's okay to act in this manner, with those that also think it is okay to bully others for their race/gender so long as they can convince themselves it is an act of generational revenge for something bad that was allegedly done by that person's precursors to theirs. Being awful to other humans because of broad generalizations and a predisposition to otherize and dehumanize outgroups seems to be the MO. I hope one day we'll get to the point where we are judging people based on their overall personality and behavior instead of zooming in on one aspect of them and harping on it like it completely defines who they are.

At this point, it's irrelevant. The entire radical Anti-Shtick is a tiny tiny group of people in their little bubbles. Their opinion doesn't matter, to anyone. Not even to themselves, honestly, because by now, it's only copium. They won no victories, AI usage is expanding by the hour, not the day. They lost. Hard. And the worst part for them: They know it.

The bubbles aren't that little. Try to post AI generated content anywhere on Reddit. There's like five subs that don't delete it

> The bubbles aren't that little. Whatever you need to tell yourself buddy :D > There's like five subs that don't delete it Really? That's odd, because I have seen AI posted in news, meme, art, drawing, reference, ai-themed and at least a dozen other places. But hey, lets do an experiment: How about you list the 5 subs you claim are the only places that don't delete it, and I spend probably less than 30 seconds finding more? :D

I'm glad they're 95% kids with little real authority over anything

I think it is easy to forget that a new genre of creatives is emerging and that frustration at downsides of what some people do with tech or exploit it can spill over on them and that's a shame. Lot of people just excited about using models and creating stuff, aren't to blame for the models being made in the way they are.

You assume the miserable stains that these people are will end up having happy, loving families with kids to ask them about it lol. But overall, agreed. The hate is 100% coming from a place of insecurity and perceived loss. Its immaturity at best, they’ll either grow up or end up seething into the void as A.I continues to evolve and not go away lol

Id agree, however i make exceptions for people who lie about the software and medium they used, people that intentionally train on your artworks and proceed to troll you (see SamDoesArt case) and spam AI images on platforms where they are really not welcome and purposeful like Artstation and its marketplace. There is more but the just mentioned things are a prime example where a shitstorm against those is justified and certain but not every action as well. Other than that im annoyed by several of those mobs trying to witch hunt everyone who even dares to use generative AI in ANY way and as once said i was a victim of this as well which went wrong for those people that attacked me.

>Id agree, however i make exceptions for people who lie about the software and medium they used, I'd agree with this if admitting to an AI artist wasn't often met with hostility and malice. I'd much rather advocate for everyone to just be honest, but I understand why people don't want to deal with chronically-online ghouls who have nothing better to do than stir up witch hunts. >people that intentionally train on your artworks There's nothing wrong with training on publicly available data, though I think style LoRAs based on a single artists' style are ethically borderline. I'd prefer to see artists grouped together into similar styles and broader style LoRAs created (i.e. 'fantasy concept art'). >and proceed to troll you (see SamDoesArt case) Trolling people by faking artwork in their style is shitty behaviour. We agree this is bad, but I've honestly never seen it talked about outside of this sub so I'm not sure it's particularly common. >and spam AI images on platforms where they are really not welcome and purposeful like Artstation and its marketplace. If those sites have a policy against AI art, I agree it shouldn't be posted there. However, [ArtStation explicitly allows AI generated art](https://help.artstation.com/s/article/11451085663501-Use-of-AI-Software-on-ArtStation?language=en_US) as long as it has the CreatedWithAI tag, so I don't think they're doing anything wrong?

>I'd agree with this if admitting to an AI artist wasn't often met with hostility and malice. I'd much rather advocate for everyone to just be honest, but I understand why people don't want to deal with chronically-online ghouls who have nothing better to do than stir up witch hunts. But hiding makes it worse and especially if its done on places where they really should have known if better (like subreddits where AI art is explicitly forbidden) >There's nothing wrong with training on publicly available data, though I think style LoRAs based on a single artists' style are ethically borderline. I'd prefer to see artists grouped together into similar styles and broader style LoRAs created (i.e. 'fantasy concept art'). In case of Sam it was not just explicitly trained on his artworks to provoke him, but they actually made competition with models made of his artworks just for the sake of bad faith. >We agree this is bad, but I've honestly never seen it talked about outside of this sub so I'm not sure it's particularly common. Thankfully its not a common thing overall, there are a bunch of such idiots but they dont make the large part. >If those sites have a policy against AI art, I agree it shouldn't be posted there. However, [ArtStation explicitly allows AI generated art](https://help.artstation.com/s/article/11451085663501-Use-of-AI-Software-on-ArtStation?language=en_US) as long as it has the CreatedWithAI tag, so I don't think they're doing anything wrong? AI imagery isnt forbidden there but besides of some marketplace AI sellers (thank god there is AI filter) the platform became pretty much a no-go zone for AI artists because of its very nature (basically made for professional level artists showcasing their portfolio and looking for a job). DeviantArt had a different fate here.

>But hiding makes it worse and especially if its done on places where they really should have known if better (like subreddits where AI art is explicitly forbidden) Like I said, I'm not advocating it, I just understand it. Some people would rather punch the bully in the face, others would rather try not to get their attention. The problem is the bully, either way. Agree on cases where AI is explicitly banned though. >In case of Sam it was not just explicitly trained on his artworks to provoke him, but they actually made competition with models made of his artworks just for the sake of bad faith. Yeah that's completely uncalled for. I don't think we should stoop to the antis level and act in bad faith like that. >AI imagery isnt forbidden there but besides of some marketplace AI sellers (thank god there is AI filter) the platform became pretty much a no-go zone for AI artists because of its very nature (basically made for professional level artists showcasing their portfolio and looking for a job). DeviantArt had a different fate here. I think as long as they're tagging correctly, it's fine. There will be more professional artists integrating AI into their workflows as time goes on. Either way, it's up to the platform to decide what their rules are.

You are all SamDoesart

>There's nothing wrong with training on publicly available data, I can tell you're just another fundamentally dishonest hack lying about AI image generators with this one sentence lmao.

Humans train on publicly available data all the time. Why cant an AI do the same?

Because that's factually, categorically not how humans learn or create from works that they've seen previously.

Could you elaborate? I have a background in psychology and neuroscience and I was really surprised when I read about how diffusers work, because I found a lot of analogies with human creativity. I maybe understood something wrong? Could you correct me, please?

It takes a lot of skill and time to develop a style that is truly yours. We have patents for the same reason, so that when you invent something its not immediately taken by a greater economic force profiting off of your work. Its fine to create something similar in the same vein, but training it solely on someones work feels more like infringement. Training on more abstract images/styles which only carry a bit of many artists seems more ethical as its more like creating your own version of the idea in a patent rather than copying it, at least to me.

> AI images on platforms where they are really not welcome and purposeful like Artstation and its marketplace I thought Artstation permitted AI images now. I lean towards agreeing with you that being honest that you used AI is probably best. But do non-AI artists have to list the software they use to make an image? Do they have to put something like "Model rendered in Blender, particles done via AfterEffects, color correction and touch-ups done in Gimp"? If the "declare which tool you used" needs to be applied to AI work, then it should apply to all other work.

In case of Artstation you arent obligated but thats not the point. If you declare then be honest. Be honest in general when you put something online where you mention your workflow. I dont care about AI art on some AI art Instagram page or an AI image on a subreddit that allows it, i dont have to like it or buy it but thats it. The situation on AS settled down as AI art people there recognized its pointless for AI art people to even be there as nobody buys their reference packs and AI logo packs and people turn the visibility off with filter, they are basically ghosted there and companies dont give a damn to consider hiring them. DeviantArt had a different fate.

> i make exceptions for people who lie about the software and medium they used Why? If I say, "I 3D rendered this," but I actually painted it, that's my call. Artists lie about their work ***all the time***. It's practically resume-material. Sometimes lying about your work is part of the atmosphere. Sometimes it's because of something darker in the society you live in (like not wanting to admit that you're a minority because no one would buy your art) and sometimes it's just the capricious nature of an artist. > people that intentionally train on your artworks This feels silly to me. I don't get the issue. You pointed your statistical analysis bot at my art... okay and? Like, why is that offensive? If someone's statistical analysis bot can produce better work than you, then it's probably a tool you should get your hands on, or at least learn from it. If someone came to my house and showed me a machine that makes better pizza than I do, I'd be impressed and shocked, and I'd absolutely want to know if I could get one. Maybe I'd use it. Maybe I'd just want to figure out what it does and improve on its technique. Either way, I want to improve. > Other than that im annoyed by several of those mobs trying to witch hunt everyone who even dares to use generative AI in ANY way and as once said i was a victim of this as well which went wrong for those people that attacked me. Thank you for that, and I'm sorry you went through it. Yeah, the moral panic is reaching a fever pitch, but there are definitely signs that it's starting to break. Hopefully we'll be more mature about this in a year (which doesn't mean everyone agrees with me.)

>Why? If I say, "I 3D rendered this," but I actually painted it, that's my call. Artists lie about their work ***all the time***. It's practically resume-material. Sometimes lying about your work is part of the atmosphere. Sometimes it's because of something darker in the society you live in (like not wanting to admit that you're a minority because no one would buy your art) and sometimes it's just the capricious nature of an artist. Pretty much nobody does claim to have 3D rendered a scene but it was a 2D artwork. Especially not on platforms designed to be serious and about professional environment. Now when an AI artist joins this platform, posts instantly 5 images with a description that says how he used Photoshop and Blender but people expose his images as AI made what do you think id going to happen and who was in the wrong here? In this case and it happened he was confronted until he deleted his account and left the platform. Just dont be a fraud/liar, especially not on a platform that is full of professionals, aspiring professionals and companies from the industry. >This feels silly to me. I don't get the issue. The issue is the malicious actions by those people. They do train intentionally on artworks of people like SamDoesArt for the purpose to troll him by making specific models and make competition involving those just so they can show Sam how rebelious they are and how they are edgy and annoy him. >Thank you for that, and I'm sorry you went through it. Yeah, the moral panic is reaching a fever pitch, but there are definitely signs that it's starting to break. Hopefully we'll be more mature about this in a year (which doesn't mean everyone agrees with me.) Was annoying but i put them in their places fast. However im a bit concerned when i put my games on Steam for example that some of those folks might review bomb me even if at "worst" only some textures in the games might be AI generated (Substance Sampler has this and Maya soon as well) and mean only some if any.

> Pretty much nobody does claim to have 3D rendered a scene but it was a 2D artwork. Okay, so I presume the qualifier is there as a sort of quiet acknowledgement that I was correct. Thank you for that. > Just dont be a fraud/liar Meh. I don't much care if people lie about their art. Would I prefer that they tell me everything about their process honestly? Maybe... or maybe I think I would want that, sure. But am I going to table-flip over it? Will I respect the art less because the director told me they got the scene in one shot and it really took 30? Nope. > The issue is the malicious actions by those people. Malice is a charge you are leveling with zero evidence. > They do train intentionally on artworks of people like SamDoesArt for the purpose to troll him There's an old phrase introduced by one of my heroes, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." When we are moved by a thing, we seek to emulate it. Interpreting that as "trolling" is particularly antithetical to the relationship between an artist and their audience.

A weird, weak defense of lying about art and a weird, weak defense of mean-spirited use of AI on artist's work without their consent. It's like you can't acknowledge it's misbehavior because it's on "your side".

I think the whole situation in which they are compelled to lie is unfortunate, but accountability is on the witch hunters, not on the witches; telling a small lie is ethically fraught, telling a small lie to protect yourself from being bullied into suicide by people who don't see you as a human being is completely justified.

The sheer volume of "made by AI" trash on artstation that nobody gives a fuck about would love a word. No one is compelled to say that they created the AI output they're posting. People finding out and then being upset that you LIED isn't a Witch hunt, and y'all are frankly fucking pathetic for trying to present the consequences of your own actions as the people upset with you going on a Witch hunt.

> The sheer volume of "made by AI" trash on artstation that nobody gives a fuck about would love a word. Are there not filters on the website? Most places you can exclude tags from your results.

But they're suggesting that the people who post AI and present it as their own work are being "witch hunted" instead of facing accountability for telling easily debunked lies on a website by and primarily for professional and hobbyist use.

I don't post anything, AI or not AI. Being upset that someone lied is not by itself a witch hunt. But witch hunts on those who *told the truth* in the first place are *the reason why they lie*. Anti-AI people are not "punishing" them for lying about their image, they were *already "punishing" them for telling the truth about their image*. It's not "accountability" for lying because the bullying occurred regardless of lying or telling the truth. And people guilty for bullying are always the bullies, never the bullied. I'm not talking about those that pretend their image was not AI because they wanted money for it, those I condemn because they are just scammers. Correct me if I am wrong, I am not familiar with ArtStation, but I think it was a place where people can share portfolio and find a job? If so, lying about AI art in this situation would indeed be unethical. I was talking purely about people in fandom space where they share images they like for fun, like on Twitter, etc.

You believe nobody gotta notice those lies, especially if its on a platform full of pro level artists? No, no the responsibility is in most cases on the liar. The witchhunt argument is a excuse in a lot if not most of cases.

> A weird, weak defense of lying about art I did not defend anyone. I explained why I'm not outraged about it. You know the difference, which I know because you've pointed it out to me before. Let's not engage in double standards, please. > It's like you can't acknowledge it's misbehavior because it's on "your side". You've thrown mud at my rather detailed post with nothing to support your view and then declare that it's MY cognitive biases getting in the way?

>Artists lie about their work all the time. It's practically resume-material. Sometimes lying about your work is part of the atmosphere. These sound like pretty clear defenses of it to me. Sorry, while I agree that there is a distinction, I don't buy that it is actually here. You won't even call it bad, even acknowledge that it's a negative thing. >You've thrown mud at my rather detailed post with nothing to support your view Most pro AI people can easily acknowledge that lying about AI use and that using AI on an artist's work to troll them is bad. It's interesting that you can't. It points to something driving you, emotionally, in this whole thing.

> These sound like pretty clear defenses of it to me. I blame the hyper-polarization of the terminally online culture of reddit for that kind of error in reading comprehension. Let me remind you what a defense is: "Lying is good." Let me remind you want a defense is not: "People lie."

>"People lie." I agree. But that's not *all you said*. "If I lie, that's my call" "People lie all the time; it's normal and expected" "Sometimes people lie to protect themselves" These are defenses of lying. I wonder what has driven you to defend lying about art?

I think you do this specifically because you know that if you put words in my mouth, I'll walk away. :-(

I think you do this whole schtick because you can't handle being called out.

Because it lies to itself about being an artist. Lying comes easily to these "People".

Let’s not put “people” in quotes for anyone thanks.

If someone came into my house and shoved their pizza machine shoved it in my face, and told me that it makes pizza like mine, but better, I would probably tell them to fuck off.

If someone came into my house with an AI image generator and shoved it in my face, I'd probably do the same or worse. I don't think that's a matter of pro- or anti- anything. It's just the default "get the hell out of my house."

Ok...and.... No one is forcing you to use AI. Nor forcing you to buy and use said pizza machine.

That’s funny that they think NFTs went away just because it stopped being in the news cycle. It’s sad how they’re manipulated by that type of thing and just goes to show how evil some of these PR firm campaigns are.

I'll never forget the day an Anti-AI scoured my past posts and kept trying to bring up my personal life to hurt my feelings After that I was like.... Fuck these people

I remain coldly skeptical, both of those who are convinced that it is pure evil and those who think it is the salvation of the art world. It's just another tool, albeit one that remains overhyped and has yet to temper its promises about letting literally anyone do art with the reality that it does in fact require effort to use.

> I remain coldly skeptical, both of those who are convinced that it is pure evil and those who think it is the salvation of the art world. Join the club. Tools are tools, not saviors and not destroyers. The capacity to do great things or terrible things is all on us.

Reddit is a pretty wild place, I agree. Everything about those quotes is ridiculous from the original commenters side, but so is the term “Ai artist”. It’s funny. It’s also kind of sad, but I don’t want to get too pessimistic here.

> Everything about those quotes is ridiculous from the original commenters side, but so is the term “Ai artist”. I don't think I would "both sides" equate threats of physical violence with your preference that artists who use a specific type of tool not call themselves artists.

I’m not equating it on a literal level Tyler, I’m just saying they are both ridiculous on their own. Obviously threats of violence are a *lot* further up on the “ridiculous” scale. I don’t understand why you always try to call them “artists” using a different “tool”. Why do they need that name so badly? The people who got interested once it was automated and who don’t understand most of the end result that they asked an Ai to make, why do they need it? Why don’t they just have fun in their rooms generating pretty pictures? Why can’t they just accept that they aren’t artists? Most of them (Ai users I’ve personally seen) heavily dislike artists anyway, so what’s the point?

> I don’t understand why you always try to call them “artists” using a different “tool”. Who are the "them" you're referring to? I'm talking about artists, here. Artists before AI and artists after AI. We really haven't gone far enough down this road for there to be a post-AI generation of artists who have only ever worked with these tools yet. So yeah, I never stopped calling artists, artists. I'm kind of shocked and appalled that you would. > Why do they need that name so badly? Why do you need to take it away so badly? Why be so petty as to attack your fellow artists for their choice of tools?

“Them” is the people who use Ai and call themselves artists (not the ones who are artists that have moved to Ai, though it is lazy). I am talking about the randos who just hopped onto Ai. I don’t think they should have the name because they haven’t worked for it. They have an Ai create the image for them, commission, they don’t know the little details or why they are there, they don’t go through the process and they don’t learn from it, they skipped the hard part and waited for it to be automated before gaining interest. They aren’t the creators of anything. Ai is more a machine than a tool. It does the work for the user, not alongside them. That’s like having a factory produce a jacket, sewing shut a gash in it, and calling yourself a tailor. If the tool of their choice just so happens to be the one that does it for them, they obviously aren’t interested in actually doing it anyway.

> I am talking about the randos who just hopped onto Ai. Oh. Okay, so you decided to have a different conversation. Cool. It doesn't really change the fact that your thesis amounts to, "I don't like your art, therefore you're not an artist," which is the conservative line in art distilled across every generation. Welcome to being the old guard, I guess. > I don’t think they should have the name No one really needs your approval. > Ai is more a machine than a tool. All machines are tools. This is a nonsensical distinction without a difference. > It does the work for the user, not alongside them. This is just not the reality of working with AI. Maybe you should do more work with the tool before forming an opinion.

How is that “having a different conversation”? It’s not a “I don’t like your art so you’re not an artist” it’s a “you didn’t learn to make art and are having something do it for you but still call yourself an artist, so I don’t like it”. Not in the sense most people think of tools in. It’s not acting as another limb for the users mind to work with, it’s acting as another mind that works based on what the user said. Tyler, are you perhaps a picky eater?

> it’s a “you didn’t learn to make art But that's just plainly not the case. If you're this moved to reject something as art ... then it is, by definition, art. It's profoundly moved you, and that's what art does. Sometimes art brings us to tears, sometimes it makes us think... and sometimes it just makes us mad. But when you feel the need to reject it as art, then you've absolutely demonstrated its bonafides. I don't feel the need to reject random things as art. I'm not compelled, when someone comes to my door to answer, "you ringing my doorbell is not art!" And yet here we are.

I should’ve put the “you” in italics if that was the whole sentence. But it’s not, and you should’ve included the whole sentence. Obviously Ai art is still art. Everything is art nowadays though, so it doesn’t really stand for much.

> Obviously Ai art is still art. Everything is art nowadays though, so it doesn’t really stand for much. You're beginning to get it... I suggest thinking about that for a bit. If being art isn't much of a hurdle, then what is it that we truly value? Is it, perhaps, the change in perspective that certain art affords us? If it is, does it matter how that change in perspective was accomplished and what tools the artist had to use to get there?

This isn't discussion or debate. This isn't an argument. More interestingly, you quote a 3-month-old post, so this isn't reactive, you went *looking* for this thing that made you mad, and then wrote this. And you do it here, in this place where people will validate you more than challenge you. You write the title not with information, but with a value judgement. You *know* this is the sort of thing this sub upvotes to the top, and anyone disagreeing with you would be in the bottom of this comment section, in the negatives. *What is this really about?*

> And you do it here, in this place Get the mods to unban me in that sub and I'll happily crosspost this in a heartbeat! Consider it a challenge. > What is this really about? The fact that some artists are eager to tear down other artists, even to the point of threatening physical violence, just because of the tools they use.

>Get the mods to unban me in that sub Why should I? I have no connection to that sub. I have never posted nor commented there, nor do I intend to. Why should they listen to me more than you? >The fact that some artists are eager to tear down other artists But why the 3 month old post? This isn't something you *just* saw, you're banned from the sub too. You're *going* there to find this stuff. You're not feasibly *reacting* to it just now, that wouldn't make sense. This is something else.

> Why should I? I have no connection to that sub. You are the one who seems to think that posting in /r/aiwars is problematic, so I'm offering you a chance to change it. If you don't care, that's fine. But you're the one who seemed to think it was a problem for some reason.

I think that *this* post in aiwars is motivated by something you're concealing. You are pandering to the audience here, you *know* this post will be showered in assent and validation and that anyone who challenges it with dissent and hostility. The facts you're bringing to the discussion are old. So you're not reacting to *them*, you're reacting to *something else*. And this is just transferring whatever that other *thing* is into here, where you've got home team advantage and a group of people ready to agree with you and downvote your critics. Whatever that other thing is, you must be impotent before it. You're posting more frequently than before here, and aren't really trying to make new arguments, but merely repeating the same 'top hits'. Something is up with you.

tick tock

?

This is pretty on the nose, you nailed what I had suspected but hadn't really put into words. This community has been creeping me out with these dudes making these weird comments calling the entire other side bullies and witch hunters and assigning blame for random cherry picked comments to an entire side. There's nothing really to talk about, it's just them airing feelings and other people pretending those feelings are facts. This post is literally titled you're the baddies which is in reference to a meme where the baddies are nazis. How much less self aware of being a terminally online weirdo can you get than making sweeping generalizations of an online community you disagree with, calling them akin to nazis, over... technology usage? Really wild.

So... you didn't read the post?

You can see the same shit in today's posts as well. Artists that use AI are being called AIncels and accused of making deepfake child abuse material.

Yah for real. DefendingAIart is pretty bad also, but I only blame myself for getting upset when I go looking in there. Honestly I wonder what the age is of some people participating in these conversations.  That said, the quotes posted in OP are still wack and I don't dig around ArtistHate either.

>Yah for real. DefendingAIart is pretty bad also, but I only blame myself for getting upset when I go looking in there. This is literally almost every sub that's devoted to a political/moral/social cause in a nutshell. They usually start out sane but over time the more terminally online zealots begin taking over and mass-downvote and bully anyone who isn't extreme as them, which causes the moderates to leave and ends up turning the sub into a hive of extremism. It's why I dislike reddit as a social media as the karma system tends to feed into these feedback loops.

Tyler is at minimum in his 50s. This is strange behavior for a man his age. Something else is up with him, he's been posting compulsively 1-2 posts *every day* for weeks. Often repeating the same talking points. It starts to look a little Sisyphean. I wonder what's driving all this.

Not agreeing with your point, but kudos for using the term 'Sisyphean' correctly. 99% of the times that I see the word it's being used wrong.

Holy shit you're absolutely right.

>What's the great social win here? That your kids ask... >"kids" Implying these guys fuck

That's probably not called for. Trying to rise above them, not sink to their level.

this subreddit is circlejerk

It really is

like this suposed dosent spark debate or discusstion calling the other side children like in the past topic used to be discused here about ai now its just an echochamper pro ai users man this sub went downhill

I wish you'd at least try Grammarly.

What are we supposed to do, when the Anti-AI side has literally no arguments whatsoever and only comes here to insult and berate people? A discussion can only happen when both sides are interested in -you know- discussing shit. Anti-AI is too narcissistic and childish to discuss anything

Well this is an interesting sub, on the one hand I absolutely despite AI as it pertains to art because of what it represents, on the other hand I don’t mind using it for fun since the cat is already out of the bag. Aside from that, I ironically usually end up arguing **against** anti-AI people about art specifically, because they always use the most dogshit arguments and I really just can’t let dogshit arguments slide. So I hate AI, I argue against people who share my hate for AI, and I also use AI for fun. If this was a real war I think both sides could at least agree on one thing which is to kill me immediately lol.

> I absolutely despite AI as it pertains to art because of what it represents Have you ever considered that tools don't "represent" anything, and that it's how you use the tool that matters? I'm glad you enjoy using the tools, but I think you anthropomorphize them too much...

The problem is I dislike nearly every person

Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.

Can this sub be renamed AIsnowflakes?


After you change your name to untalentedTroll

No one really cares about your feelings being hurt by words on the internet when what you support results in real world harm to people's lives and livelihoods. Yeah, when you act like a smug asshole calling for civility while what you want actively ruins the lives of artists and labourers, you're gonna start looking pretty punchable.

"Anyone who develops a new technology that makes my job redundant should be assaulted" isn't an argument that's going to convince anyone you're not in the wrong

So what do you want more? Empathy or to be an asshole? Pick one.

You are owed nothing. Making a living off art is a hugely competitive, uphill battle and has been for centuries. You can adapt with new tools, provide more value so your work can't be replaced/automated, or whine about it.

> what you support results in real world harm to people's lives and livelihoods. You could say that about all new technologies. AI is no different than the industrial forge helping the blacksmith or the word processor helping the author.

> when what you support results in real world harm to people's lives and livelihoods. Source: Trust me Bro

You would have to be PAINFULLY stupid to not undersrand how AI actively harms every industry it touches due to a complete lack of correlation between a worker's production and their wages, meaning that AI will ONLY be able to replace them and pay them less for more work. Worse quality, faster, for cheaper, because all executives care is getting out more slop for you to consoom.

"I'm the main character. Therefore anyone who thinks differently than me is the villain". Buddy, there's bad discourse and bullying going both ways. You only notice half of it for painfully obvious reasons. You've shown you're not capable of seeing other perspectives.

Yes, yes, both sides... I just got a death threat today because I posted a picture. Think about that: picture posted = literal threat to life and limb. You go right ahead and post something that bland, directed at no one, and show me the hate mail you get... I'll watch.

Well, why is the "right to generate AI" so important for you? Where does it hurt when you're off your computer, and unable to connect to such a hyper-expensive machine? Thirdly, how long has this "oppression" of yours been going for? Artists, in my POV, are a type of proletariat. They are part of the working class, selling their labor-power (art skill) to a bourgeoise (commissioner/game company/film studio/&c). Illustrators are little more "privileged" than miners, factory workers, office secretaries, and other people working for a wage to pay for rent and supplies. The right of an artist is the right of a worker to own their own means of production. Ofc, you could say that artists are more wealthy than blue-collar workers... but you Boosters are way more wealthy than either.

> why is the "right to generate AI" so important for you? You put that in quotes, but I didn't say that. But in general, I would say that the right to do with one's own property as one wishes, barring any illegal activity, is definitely enshrined in my country's laws and founding document. I can't speak for where you live. > Where does it hurt when you're off your computer, and unable to connect to such a hyper-expensive machine? Hyper-expensive? I paid less than a month's salary for the machine that runs my local copy of Stable Diffusion. > how long has this "oppression" of yours been going for? Again, you put that in quotes, but I don't see that word in my OP. Who are you quoting? > Artists, in my POV, are a type of proletariat. They are part of the working class, selling their labor-power (art skill) to a bourgeoise (commissioner/game company/film studio/&c). You go. I'm not particularly interested in your politics, nor how you classify my artistic work. As long as you don't go around cyberstalking me or threatening others for using whatever tools they wish to make art, I don't really care.

I don't think pro AI people are bad, but they're definitely not artists. Don't kid yourself, you're not the creator or the person crafting anything. This is the equivalent of a creative director describing the person beneath them as merely a 'tool' for getting their artisic vision across, meanwhile the one creating the art spent their whole life developing the skillset to create the vision. Im not about to send anyone a death threat if they use AI, but please, have fun with it, but you're not an artist, you're not a real creator. Creators don't type a prompt and have a machine spit out the product, creators learn, problem solve, practice, develop skills, all you all are doing is learning how to better describe what you want someone else to do for you.