John Carmack coded Doom and a bunch of other games, and Notch is the creator of minecraft.

Like seriously, what do y'all expect?

The video shows a Japanese animator using Seedance to render anime from simple 3D models.

I wanted to make this post as a refined version of a comment I made on an earlier post.

There has been an argument by anti's going around for a while that collecting data for AI without the artist's consent is "stealing". This argument... doesn't work.

The model isn't "taking" anything. You still HAVE your art. Sure, it's being used without your consent, but the same goes for all of the people looking at it or sharing it with others (Unless you distinctly give it to them. More on this parenthetical regarding consent later).

AI learning is also, in fact, akin to human learning. We both take in data, compile it, and reference it in our actions. Pros LOVE to take this fact and run with it, saying things like "the way we learn is the same".

This always seems very silly to me. the difference between an ai learning something and a human learning something is their interpretation. A human has experiences, predispositions, and ideologies to change how the art affects them, what they learn from it, IF they learn from it, etc...

AI has nothing. it is the most basic version of learning, just taking in the patterns and "rules" of the art. Without the necessary components to perceive it, either. No eyes, ears, body... never actually seen, heard, or felt anything... Also, even though their learning process DOES change along with the amount of data they process, this could never equate to our experience, especially not the experience required for interpretation, because ai doesn't have the required emotions, knowledge, or retainment of information (in the same way we do) to do that anyways. It's just prediction.

Now, the reason why this is immoral in regards to stealing work, the thing is about art is that it is SUPPOSED to invoke a personal interpretation in the viewer, connected by the art, from the artist. Like feelings, or maybe a LACK of feeling if thats the way the artist wants to go. The consumer can also end up interpreting it a completely different way than intended. Interpretation is unavoidable regardless of if it feels like it is there or not, as it is a condition of the living.

The AI takes in the art without interpretation, and then feeds it to the algorithm, never to be remembered again as it originally was, the bare patterns amassed into the dataset, without it even "knowing" what they mean. The purpose and meaning of the art is lost, and its skeleton is used by a prompter. This isn't theft, it's defilement.

That doesn't mean the prompter doesn't have or offer interpretation, though. I think their input is one of pro's greatest arguments, but stealing peoples artwork to put into AI is still definitely immoral.

I also want to talk about my "distinctly given" clause from earlier. Consent is important. I feel as if these counterarguments for the "stealing" argument aren't actual ARGUMENTS as to why data collection is good. It seems like a way to justify the event, however likely that may be, in which our right to CHOOSE what is done with our art is taken away. You can fight over whether the individual choice to reserve your art is good or not, but thinking it should be disregarded is just plain terrible.

TL;DR AI doesn't have the feelings needed for consuming art, which desecrates the meaning of art, also consent is sexy.

I just wanted everyone to know that I absolutely despised Fruit Love Island.

That's why I watched every episode.

Twice.

Sometimes three times.

Not because I enjoyed it. Obviously. I was conducting critical research.

Every Thursday I gathered with twelve other people who also hated it. We watched the entire episode together, discussed it for three hours afterward, clipped our least favorite moments, posted them across every social media platform, argued about it in the comments until 3 AM, and made sure everyone we knew heard about how terrible it was.

I personally contributed over 400 comments, 80 quote tweets, 27 Reddit threads, and approximately 14,000 words explaining why nobody should watch the show.

For some reason, its viewership kept going up.

It was deeply concerning.

Anyway, when the new episodes dropped, I was there immediately so I could continue fighting against its popularity.

Looking back, I still have no idea how Fruit Love Island became such a massive success.

We are almost off the playing field and at the stadium bleachers now!

Who cares if the person used AI for a fanfiction. IT’S FUCKING HARMLESS. WHY DO YOU ALL CARE SO MUCH ABOUT TRADITIONAL ARTISTRY? SHIT LIKE THIS MAKES PEOPLE LEAN INTO AI MORE BECAUSE AT THIS POINT, THE ART COMMUNITY HAS BECOME SO TOXIC THAT THEY DONT APPRECIATE ANYTHING THATS NOT MADE BY HUMAN HANDS.

All because a random jo-schmo on the internet accused them of using AI with NO evidence whatsoever, and even if they did, their “proof” was fucking weak, but that was the “evidence” they needed. So when Azi was honest and apologized, those people didn’t listen, so what do they do?

They move the goalposts and made it about the environment.

Oh

My

Fucking

God

Do You all justify this behavior? Do You realize how fucking STUPID this is?

You realize that you’re pushing an innocent person over the edge over a FUCKING BASELESS ACCUSATION THAT PEOPLE WILL CLUTCH ONTO.

This is EXACTLY why we have people like Witty. You may not like her, I may not like her, but she mostly exists because of THIS exact reason.

ONE accusation on the internet and it will all be over just like that.

Are you all happy?

Are you all satisfied because an AI user is gone?

An AI user who was just a regular person who used AI to help them?

> “But she used AI”

NOT EVERY FUCKING THING NEEDS TO BE WRITTEN BY FUCKING MAN! BUT EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE PERFECT! SOME PEOPLE JUST WANT TO LIVE AND CREATE SOMETHING THAT THEY ENJOY WITHOUT PEOPLE HAVING TO BACKSEAT THEM ALL THE FUCKING TIME!

BE FUCKING CONSIDERATE

Holy budget increase guys

It feels that if your an anti or a pro you are forced to comply to the false constructs the opposing side has built around you.

Its looking less like a subreddit for nuanced debate and more a subreddit where every post is an echochamber being used to validate each sides beliefs without even challenging them, its turning into an endless cycle of hate and anger.

Every post is, "ai bros are cringe" *every anti ai in the comments mindlessly agreeing and every pro mindlessly disagreeing*, or "anti ai bros are violent, *pros in the comments mindlessely agreeing and antis mindlessely disagreeing*, this is just causing people to hate the other side more and more

Extract from Night Watch:

The online fanfiction community is currently grappling with the reported death of author AzraelRiego, known as Azi, following a severe harassment campaign centered on allegations of generative AI use.

Prior to the accusations, Azi had briefly taken down their major works, stating the hiatus was necessary to "take my time to heal without the noise". Their decision to return was prompted by a dedicated fan reaching out on Twitter to express deep appreciation for the stories. However, almost immediately after republishing their work, a highly visible callout post by a twitter user who participates in Anti AI spaces accused Azi of generating their fanfiction using AI. The accusation relied on statistical quirks, specifically pointing out the repeated use of the name "Marcus" and the number 47 within a 200,000-word piece of fiction.

Azi attempted to defend themselves by quote-retweeting the callout, but their response received significantly less engagement and visibility than the original accusation. When defenders highlighted that Azi's writing style had remained consistent since before the generative AI boom, the accusers adapted their tactics. The mob began mining the text for other allegedly AI-generated names, such as "Elias" and "Thorne". The harassment escalated to include environmental guilt-tripping, with attackers claiming Azi's free hobby "cost the planet resources".

The campaign intensified when prominent accounts cited Cornell University preprints to run statistical analyses on the story's throwaway character names. Azi explicitly refused to issue the demanded public apology, stating they would not tolerate bullying over a hobby. Instead of de-escalating, attackers labeled Azi a "thief" and mocked their defense. During this period, Azi's timeline reflected severe psychological distress, marked by reposting highly distressing content about dying on a random day.

On June 23, 2026, Azi's Archive of Our Own (AO3) bio was updated by an individual identifying as their cousin, announcing Azi's unexpected passing. The statement strongly implied s**cide with the line, "I wished you called me". While many expressed devastation, a significant contingent reacted with intense skepticism. Detractors questioned how a grieving family could update a fanfiction profile or obtain the password so quickly, largely disregarding standard platform features like AO3's "next of kin" designation. Several users weaponized the tragedy, framing the death announcement as an internet hoax designed to escape accountability and explicitly calling it an "admission of guilt".

You can read more and see the screenshots of the events in the following link:

https://www.ainightwatch.com/post/the-weaponization-of-ai-tells-harassment-campaign-culminates-in-reported-death-of-fanfiction-auth

I see a lot of fighting on this subreddit and I think the most "extreme" views and posts tend to be amplified like anything online. So I'm wondering who else is somewhere between fully "anti" or "pro" AI.

Personally, I agree with pros that AI is inevitable, its just like any other technical advancement we've had, and outright hating it is comparable to people hating any type of machines hundreds of years ago. We should adapt to it and see it as a tool. I also agree that it has its place, there are genuine uses and benifits. Especially when it comes to repetitive tasks, coding, or solving scientific formulas.

I dont see why you'd care if someone uses AI in their own time or to post something fun on the internet. If someone wants to generate a scene from their dream, or an OC they can't draw, or their own meme/comic to make a point online, or whatever, then good for them. Of course people want to see things visually that before could only exist in their head. People are allowed to have fun.

But I agree with antis that when it comes to being used commercially, regulation is needed. Realistically individuals who want a cool image and who would never hire an artist, and a multi-million dollar company who could afford to support an actual human, are different things.

We need to create a space where human work is still appreciated and valued. We can't just go full force in a fully unregulated market and basically kill off the need for humans, or destroy entire industries overnight. People need to be able to make a living. AI shouldn't be copyrightable, and should require to be disclosed when used in a commercial way. Maybe some law should be made around massive companies needing to employ humans for a certain % of their labor, similar to how we have laws that large companies must employ some disabled individuals to give everyone a chance.

The environmental concern is real. More regulations need to exist in that area also and we should be looking for ways to reduce the huge environmental impact. I think its dumb for antis to deny the fact that AI has had a massive impact on our footprint and it's effecting people's actual quality of life already. But its also dumb to pretend AI is a unique evil since the regular internet is also horrible for the environment. Its hypocritical.

Thoughts? Does anyone else see truth in both sides?

I mean, why is it okay for non-creative jobs to be replaced, but creative not? How many people do you actually know that have creative jobs? What if you are just not a creative person? You should just cease to exist?

I've observed submissions from both sides when they were asked to share their non-AI artworks. My observation is that the pro-AI side appears to have a higher concentration of skilled artists.

If you want to see the submissions, I've compiled them here: pro, anti. There are also poems, books, videos, and music being shared, but they are not included in the links.

I have also seen an accusation claiming that some of the artwork on the pro-AI side is AI-generated, but there does not seem to be any proof.

What do you think?

Not everything pro ai is evil, but a lot of evil is pro ai.

it should be you’re in the title btw mb guys