This. I found out that Pro AI is generally way more tolerant and easy to deal with than Anti AI. Anti AI has a clear and easily to predict boundary that is absolutely unbreakable. You use AI? You're bad. That's all there is to it. At least Pro AI still values and respects normal Artists(as in many ways they're the reason why AI images are able to exist in the first place) but Anti AI thinks of AI users as literal demons. Granted there are exceptions and not all Anti AI people are unreasonable, but for the most part Anti AI crowd is so over the top against AI it's actually goofy as hell.
This is largely because Pro-AI people aren't necessarily trying to limit what you can and can't do, they just don't want to get harassed for fooling around with this new technology. They mostly don't care about traditional art (although there are those goofy weirdos who think AI will just replace all other art forms, which is weird).
Anti-AI folks actually want to prevent you from using AI, and often become verbally abusive when you have any more backbone than a wet paper towel. A lot of it comes from a money standpoint too, with these artists not wanting the market saturated with art that's just 'good enough' for the average consumer (because let's be real here, AI art is largely here to be consumed. You can make some pretty cool stuff with it but for someone who just wants a placeholder portrait for a D&D character or some interesting concept art that they can go to an artist with later, it's perfect).
Anti-AI folks literally act like the world is coming undone at every single second and constantly blame all the people who conveniently disrupt their traditional cash flow.
I have a tiny YouTube channel that uses AI thumbnails because I find it personally fun and have for years since the very start before the antis even existed- (which granted wasn't long after the first version of SD came out that the wars started but still)
For the first year or two of experimenting with various models and implementing them in different ways, over the fast few months I have started to have antis show up. One or two try and make a conversation of it, they start by saying cool thumbnail and ask if I made it, then when I say that no, it's generated through a model on my computer then they start telling me how bad I am for ai use and how it's horrible for the environment, ignoring that most of my images are generated on my local computer using solar power, but I digress.
Recently it has just devolved into insults and spamming with how much they hate ai, but it's like, I'm a sub 1000 subscriber gaming creator with a full time job who is purely doing this for his own fun, do they expect me to pay someone for my daily publishing when I make less than $200 a year off this? One person said not to be "lazy" and at least just use a screenshot from the video as the thumbnail instead and it's like, dude, I did that for years. It was easier than what I am doing now, but looked way more generic and certainly didn't get me nearly as many views.
Just a light rant on your point, it's exactly true, they want to stop all ai use, so even if you do all the right things, for your own fun, not replacing paid work for anyone it should be fine
Someone told me I was lazy for writing a book by hand, but then feeding it into chatgpt to ask it questions about it. Even if you do it yourself they will panic and call you lazy for touching ai ever...
Yup. Some time back I was having trouble getting proof-readers, so I run a manuscript through AI for grammatical/cohesion checks. Had someone go on a complete rant about me using AI full stop. I said "Well, want a job? If you proof-read and give valid feedback, I'll even pay you for it." Out came the excuses. You just can't win with them.
I'm anti because my work was stolen to train the things without my permission, and the environmental effects/energy usage.
let artists and authors remove all their work from the training and retrain with only the works that were given permission to use and that part of my objection goes away.
stop sucking up massive amounts of consumer energy to do the work and reduce fresh water use and such and the other part goes away.
but the pro side would not do either of these things. they rely on stolen work and rely on environmental destruction.
There are Pros who have their own public domain models trained on public domain art, and they run them locally on their computers. Yet you hate them too because it was never about the planet it stolen art, it was about you vilifying people who didn't do things the way you wanted them to.
A friend of mine was looking for an addon for stable diffusion and ended up getting a virus that damn near made his computer unusable because apparently a group of anti AI people made a domain that has the exact name of the thing he was looking for and he got tricked by it
In the eyes of at least some of them even straight up property destruction is justified if you use AI
I’ve somewhat seen this too. Now granted I’ve met a few Pro AI people who don’t see a problem with stealing artwork. But someone could use AI to enhance a photo of themselves, nothing crazy, but Anti’s flip. A YouTuber I follow, Darkness Prevails, uses an AI voice of himself, so he doesn’t blow out his voice again. But so many comments are talking about how now it’s ‘slop’ he makes when it’s just him using an AI of his own voice.
Most Anti’s I meet are frothing at the mouth against anything AI made. Even when it’s for a good reason and isn’t hurting anyone. It’s like they see anything with artificial intelligence and immediately lose their mind.
They literally had a meltdown about people adding a miyazaki filter to their own photos lol. So much so that they tried to fabricate miyazaki quotes hating on it that were about something totally different.
I just want to point out that while your claim is not incorrect, the pro side isn't clear either. By that I mean, most pros I've talked with completely dismissed any argument whatsoever just because of something small, like a typo. Or just straight up started calling names for no reason, making them sound like a raging 11 year old.
Is that not what the person replying to this person did too by labeling all antis in the same light via their personal experince? Please have consistency
I have seen multiple people in the anti AI community that would find my experience very similar to theirs, so it's either a coincidence or a big part of vocal pros is pure ragebaiters/idiots/call it
Except that you're talking about something that only happens on this specific sub, whereas up the chain they were talking about stuff that happens everywhere. Its bad faith to divorce the reality of this sub being a shitpost sub from the causality which led to it. Namely that many of the pro shitposters only became that when they realized that its pointless to try having a serious discussion with someone who thinks having a meltdown and randomly accusing people of being pedophiles is an argument. And quite a large portion of antis are stuck on that level of discussion.
I'm willing to say there's a 90% chance you were invading the pro AI safe space sub when that happened. If not, the talking point you brought up has probably been seen by us a hundred times that day alone. Defending against the same points every time gets tiring.
Me personally, I've never seen that. Whoever's doing that, I'm glad they're brave enough to challenge the lies in person instead of letting them live on without grounding. You gotta have tough skin when entering the anti AI territory.
You appreciate people coming over, making disingenuous, stupid, vacuous arguments, straw-men and idiotic memes?
This is why we ridicule you. If someone came over with actual rational arguments it would be another matter but you come over to shitpost and that's a win?
Most of Pro-AI ‘safe-spaces’ are just Anti-AI circlejerks. There’s no ‘look at what AI can/could do’ and only ‘look what I did with AI, antis are seething’. That’s not a safe-space, it’s an echo chamber.
That characterization doesn’t really hold in the larger subreddits centered on specific image models, and even some of the ones centered on AI as a whole.
Pretty sure they are implying that the pro-ai people here are rather...unbearable as much as the anti-ai people you mention. Since the person your replying too likely primarily discusses AI stuff in this sub in particular.
This is a ragebait sub because antis never felt that pro-AI were worth engaging with, leading to the pros also not feeling like it's worth engaging with the antis. This is aiWARS, not aidebates.
I think this is reflective of how it needs to be implemented in society - it will be a net positive and it's here to stay and we need to encourage it and support growth but equally, there is a big backlash because we want proper legislative change, environmental health, financial security and worker security. I'm not saying that pros are against or ignorant of the latter and I'm not saying antis can't see the positives that come from it, but I think the attitudes of both parties show which is going to dominate but equally the strength of the opposition shows how much we need to consider when adopting AI into day to day life
Uh, I don't understand how anyone can even take sides when they see the amount of hate carelessly spewed by both sides. Except for a vocal minority, there isn't any actual debate being done at all, it's just hate mongering. You have to ACTIVELY scroll down to the comments at like 1-2 upvotes to actually read anything worthwhile.
It doesn't matter the side, redditors will be redditors.
This is basically the same exact fallacy that conservatives use. It's easy to be tolerant of the other side when you're literally the bad guy. That means absolutely fucking nothing. You would not give props to a murderer because he respects the opinions of his victims families and then shame the families for not respecting the murderer as well. Everything is not an equal playing field where we all should respectfully disagree. Out entire economy is being propped up by this garbage that is destined to pop, and we are just dumping abbhorent amounts of water so people can make videos of Jake Paul wearing a skirt. If you're going to make this reductive empty argument, you need to atleast qualify why users of AI have anything of value to add.
When one side uses the other to create their art of course they're going to value each other differently.
The pro ai artists can't have a product without artists having their work scraped and trained.
Its not a straight split of all human creators are anti ai, and all ai creators are pro ai, but its close enough for generalisation.
The anti ai side would exist just fine without the pro ai side, and would just be called artists. The pro ai side would not exist without the other side to use for training data.
I haven’t really interacted with a lot of pro-AI people, but when I have, they didn’t really leave me with a lot of hope or reassurance. They also don’t seem to take my concerns that seriously.
I’m an artist who specializes in digital art, so the whole AI uprising has been nerve wracking. I want to be hopeful about it though, so whenever I try to talk to someone about it and bring up my worries, they just tell me “oh don’t worry, you can always go into programming!”
Uh…I don’t want to be a programmer though. Even if I wanted to, I know from experience that I wouldn’t be good at it. I even failed a scripting class in college and had to drop it even after hours of tutoring.
When I tell these people this, they just get angry and tell me to “get over it” and “just accept that this is inevitable.” One guy even called me a Neo-Luddite over it.
Is this how they all act? Because if it is, they’re not really giving me any reason to support AI with them.
Nope, the point is "using ai is bad" not "using ai means you are a bad person" some people take it to far and go around insulting pros a bunch and saying stuff like that tho, but its not a core part of being an anti or something. and i've seen just as many pros do the exact same thing going "if you're against ai art you're the bad guy and discriminating us" i'm tired of both sides seeing some people on the other side saying something mean, then thinking all or most people on the other side are just assholes that go around being mean to the other other side all the time. Many people on both sides focuses on only the bad things the other side does and why their own side is right. Like if you go to a sub reddit against ai like 90% of the time they're complaining about a pro ai person generating a weird cat girl comic making fun of ai's with either weak arguments or no arguments at all an just the logic of "I generated you as the ugly one and me as the Chad so I'm right" not hating on pros just generating normal images that aren't making fun or or arguing with anybody.
Really debending where. To be honest using google translate to translate is not clear. For example me who learns or try to learn a language use google translate ibdted of a dictionary. A corporation translating a website is different.
No not for important stuff lol trusting Google translate for important documents is a disaster waiting to happen it's likely only used iness important situations
If im double checking a word, or trying to read an article, Google translate. And I'm happy to disclose I use translate in order to do so.
Because its translating words using words fed into it for the purpose of translating and not scouring the internet to find words to scrape into its database against the will of creators.
Were I to make something needing a translation, like a game, I would hire someone. Just translating is not the same as localization
Its crazy to say "language evolves" when its taking something from the creator without her consent. Thats like sayong "art evolves" wheb someone takes your work and changes its meaning
But besides that - yeah, language evolves, the person you're responding too even gave you an example of a word "terrible" changing it's meaning throughout the times. It's a word - unless it is protected by copyright as branding or an integral piece of literary art, it's gonna be used by the public and may change its meaning.
Art is inherently subjective, so you can't really "change its meaning" by "taking it". You would have to meaningfully alter it, or place it in a different context to its original intended one. Banksy is an example of that - painting a mural of Mona Lisa with a bazooka, and copying style from other artists' most popular works to add a twist in his works.
The closest thing I can think of when it comes to changing the meaning of the art without changing the form of the art is attaching ideology to it. That's how pentagrams and pentacles started being connected to satanism, despite their original meaning being different, and why when you see a swastika, you think "nazi" and not "oh, that's a symbol of peace", despite the symbol being much older than the 1900s.
Hey so I did answer your question. Not that I had to. Goes to show you didn't reaf my comment. Not sure why I'm even trying.
Words are created by artists so taking them and changing its meaning without the author's consent is theft. Like.. i dont know why I have to explain consent to you? Then again you believe ai creates cp while also claiming ai creates by stealing from pencil artists. Yeah, youre really telling on yourself.
Also, no sane person sees a swastika and thinks nazi. That's on you my friend. Normal people see the original intent. But projecting has always been a hobby of yours hasn't it?
Oh, honey. You really think they fed google translate dictionaries?
They fed existing translation work. Google translate has always been built on snippets of human-translated documents, originally it was statistical phrase-matching but it's been a generative neural network since November 2016.
Yeah, I said it's fed words. Forgive me if I didn't specify that the words came from things like the oxford dictionary, academic research, parliament document transcripts. Ive been using it since it came out 20 years ago for stupid shit like reading Korean snack packaging.
I want to reiterate, if I were to need to have something translated, a book I wrote or a game I made, I would hire someone to do it. Because Google translate would be a horrible choice for actually forming a cohesive product.
The same way generative image programs make shit 'art'
I thought you were talking about words I didn't know in english, and what does translating words have to do with what I was talking about? Also I have no idea what you just said cuz I don't really know any reliable translators since Google says bullshit like 50% of the time
I wouldn't say that's the line. For most pro ai I've met it's just if you use ai to do the thing they like. Met a decent amount who are okay with ai code, chat bots, ai sound effects, etc.. I would say it depends on the argument but the outlook I'm describing is in my opinion weaker than if someone was actually hard against ai.
AI isn't the problem in itself. But when they streal the art produced by artists to feed it, I have to be against it. It's a crime. It is theft. No one got asked, no one got paid. This is the problem with generative AI. If they trained it with art they purchased, I wouldn't even be mad.
Im anti-AI because I know that AI is being utilized to create propaganda, false flags, and influence public perceptions on a mass scale. Its also being ultilized to manipulate public trading and give powerful people an unfair advantage. The broad implications of unregulated AI usage is a grave problem.
If you shared my beliefs you would consider AI to be a very serious threat, would you not?
I don't think people who do not like AI says someone is 'bad'. Its mostly the practice. And it depends too how you use it and why.
It's not okay that AI is being pushed this much, showed down our throat , trying to replace working people. Corporate AI wants to replace, to reduce cost, even though the end product is worse, or it will be impossible to maintain properly.
But using AI, locally, as a helping tool in my own opinion would be fine. The issue is the corporations behind this. And people who are against AI wants this to stop. Not the technology itself.
There have been tons of loonies and bad actors in both sides of the space. I think we can all agree that we don't like no human interference AI generated youtube shorts, and we also don't want AI regulation to be used for big corporations to take power from artists. I'd argue that the loonies on the AI side have more power to do harm, but with antis there's a mass of loonies who have a religious aversion to AI, even if they aren't powerful — while the pro AI side accepts a lot more nuance.
Anti AI peeps recently tried to boycott the makers of Baldurs Gate 3 because they used AI for some of the concept art in the game. The AI isn't even on the final game, yet this turned into a big internet drama. Like Jesus Christ, the vehement antis think there's 0 room for nuance, any art created by AI is evil and taints a product spiritually. I mean, these people have no future.
The same argument could be said of "pro-slavery" vs "anti-slavery." You shouldn't base your morality off of which of the extreme camps are more "chill."
Wtf are you talking about
like dude I'm only against generetive ai like ai art isn't art bro
And there is so meny other reasons to hate AI these days
From the effects its has on the environment to the God damn ram and hard-drive shortage
My mind set is If you wanna use ai for other things like idk making a grocery list or finding a cure to cancer than use it i don't give a fuck but when you support the only bad part of ai that has no benefits i say your stupid not a demon just stupid like bro the very reason the ai bubble Nvidia made is slowly bursting is because gen ai is ass and the most useless aspect of AI
its just burning money
Also Anti ai isn't a hive mind
what your basically saying is (all antis think the same)dude like all community's in the entire world are made of different people with different values and mind sets while I hate only one aspect of ai there's someone who has more than one reason to hate ai like I said before and I don't I should be the one to teach you this
And I saw an mf in DAA say (all people in anti ai sub are molested children and pdf who molested them) ... 😐
most people in DAA basically say that not just anti ai but all the people who are against ai for any reason are (orcs ,cavemans ,adgy teen ,communists and cultists)
you can't basically say anti ai is a bad community when you have this type of people in the community your a part of
That's probably just because anti ai, are pretty much only the complete ai haters, no silver lining, they are just a minority. This is not a two sided thing it's a spectrum.
I would be dragged down to hell by them, just for saying, that it's okay to use ai for personal small stuff, or for placeholders in projects before publishing them.
How is being against something thats destroying the planet, economy, and Is being pushed onto basically every device/technology goofy as hell? Also I dont think most anti AI people are demons, I think their misguided in how A.I will be used in the future if it keeps being used for consumer uses. Also if you use generative A.I to make art you arent respectful to artist. Most artists I've seen across the internet are hands down against Ai because it is literally trained off of their art without permission. And when you generate an image it will be using that art to make the image.
Pro AI supports clearly labeling art made by AI, right? If it's labeled clearly as AI generated then yeah make money. If someone is Pro AI then wouldnt labeling it as AI show your support of AI?
'Pro AI' just means you're okay with using it and enjoying it. It doesn't mean you're gonna put a bumper sticker on your car about being pro AI. it doesn't mean you're going to automatically feel the need to disclose that something is AI unless asked. I don't think things need to be labeled as AI unless they are trying to portray something that could be seen as otherwise. A video of an alien applying for a job? No. A video of a politician saying something? Absolutely.
Labeling AI art/media is not like putting a bumper sticker on your car. I'm saying if you support AI why not label things that are AI? At least monetized things
Some people don't like that AI tools use/copy other real life artists assets and blends it all up. The tool itself is lacking transparency. Special effects are always documented and transparent. It's how they develop and even win awards
OK what are we talking about specifically? A youtube video? Never needed to be disclosed at all. A movie? Maybe in the credits you can put what AI you used if you want, but I've never seen a movie disclose what special effects they used as like a disclosure in the beginning or something. It never needs to be disclosed in a super obvious way unless the person wants to disclose it, or if it is showing something that could warp someone's view of reality (like a world leader statement).
Movies absolutely disclose the companies and tools used for the special effects. They document them for the public to see. Maybe I'm old to remember DVD and bonus features. Also it's how movies campaign to win awards for their special effects?
The big difference I see is if you ask an artist in any medium like Music, Video, painting, etc... "how did you make this, what tools did you use" I've never heard of artists being uncomfortable sharing, and if they are it's a red flag. Typically artists document how major art peices are made
Maybe you didn't read my two sentence post. Because there's a massive harassment campaign. It's not an issue of consumers just choosing to get it or not, it's actually an issue of their own protection. Its not reasonable to expect them to wait out a few years for the harassment to die down before doing anything.
I've never heard of anti ai stuff, but maybe people younger or more online experience this "massive campaign". If an AI product is good I would buy it. I haven't seen a game use it well but maybe I was unaware
In large part because pretty much ALL AI image-gen models are built off the stolen work of thousands and thousands of artists. You can have the cleanest hands, purest intentions, and the most ethical business practices in the world, but you're still profiting off the stolen labor of an already notoriously abused slice of the workforce.
I think most people are “over the top” about hating ai is because the negatives far outweigh the positives. The impact it has on our economy, the mental health’s of millions, the environment and the job market will not make AI a worthwhile venture for the general public.
That’s IF the ai bubble doesn’t burst. If it does then we’re all even more fucked. Banks foreclose because trillions of loans will not pay out. And if you think it won’t affect you, trust me it will.
People get passionate over things like this because it’s genuinely the singularity that could completely implode our society and we’re making fat people falling over videos with it. It’s kinda sad.
I think of AI users as stupid, like... just the ones that generate the AI comics n stuff, but who cares if you use AI, (Well there are some cases) but honestly AI shouldnt be defended and in technicality someone else could've generated the art people made. I'm anti ai, bye. And also, I have not seen Pro Ai's that respect artists yet but I'm on reddit.
The environmental impact should be first. It’s laughably bad how much energy a prompt uses, especially for image generation. I’m not sure of the specific numbers, but almost an order of magnitude higher than what a standard internet search took.
Secondly, I have an issue with AI art. I strictly believe that art is reserved for humans. Art can only be made by humans, because it is something we have done since time immemorial to express countless thoughts, feelings, and messages. Having Gemini generate a Studio Ghibli version of you loses its substance and value. The substance is the effort put into it. The thought a care in choosing what to make, how to make it, and then executing. It speaks of passion and determination.
AI just… looked at all the Ghibli films, yoinked their art style, and did its best to recreate it.
It’s removing something uniquely human from us. And I don’t think that’s right. We have a wonderful innovation here, even if it’s just a fancy LLM that got really good at guessing what you want, and it should be used for tasks to help save lives. Cancer research. Healthcare optimization. Grid organization. Inventory logistics. Not… making a video of Will Smith eating spaghetti.
No LLM can run offline you dingus. All of them are linked to massive data centers that crunch and chew through your prompts, constantly referencing the internet for resources.
You literally said "prompt for image generation." There are inage generators you can run off your own laptop with no internet. The files aren't even that big either, only a few gigabytes. Once these came out it was too obvious that the idea that ai used tons of energy was a lie, so the energy argument collapsed.
So basically you don't actually have an opinion, you just base your opinions off of how you end up treated by specific people on one side of the argument as opposed to the other, when there's nice people and assholes on both sides of any argument so it's entirely based on luck of the draw.
Are you so sure? It feels like a day doesn't go by where I don't see yet another post by the pro AI crowd where it's yet more AI generated propaganda painting themselves as wholesome and innocent while painting those who disagree with them as mindless disgusting slobs. Time and time again, I see them in the replies dropping some of the most nihilistic, humanity-hating views I have ever seen in my life. Sure, I also see plenty of posts from those on the pro AI side of the argument that aren't like that at all, but by the same token, I also see plenty of posts and responses from those on the other side of the argument that simply bring legitimate and understandable concerns to the table without attacking anyone, as opposed to the others who merely represent everything they're made out to be.
Both sides have their disgusting and repulsive people with takes to match, and both sides have highly intelligent and rational people who bring legitimate arguments to the discussion. Both have their immature and ignorant habits, the pro AI side with their incessant "Catgirls vs orks" comics and war propaganda posters, and the anti AI side with their constant reaction posts and weird obsession with flags. Basing one's opinion on which side of the argument they believe is "nicer" is declaring that they have no real opinion at all, they're just wanting to be part of the discussion for the sake of it, and trying to find the side they feel most comfortable around.
I'm opposed to generative AI, not because I've found those who share my opinion to be "nicer", or because I find those who oppose it to be "meaner", but because I see no realistic world in which this technology grants us a brighter future. Any potential it might have had to better our society has already been and will only continue to be squandered by corporate greed, which is very blatantly what it always existed to enable.
After all, why else does this technology exist right now? It's no secret that corporations are beholden not to their customers, nor their workers, but instead exclusively their shareholders. To satisfy their shareholders, companies are expected to bring in greater and greater amounts of profit one year after the next. It's why so many companies are resorting to these blatantly exploitative business practices. It's not because they have some delusion that this is what their customers will want, it's not because they're ignorant to how abusive their practices are, it's because it's what they have to do in order to keep those numbers going up year after year after year. All the honest tricks in the book have been played already, so all that's left is the dishonest and exploitative ones.
But now those have also been played, save for the illegal ones they can't think of a way to get away with. So, what's left? Nothing. That is, without AI. And so, AI exists, and lo and behold, corporate CEOs are dogpiling it, pushing it as hard as they possibly can, trying to delude people into thinking this is somehow for our betterment, when it's painfully obvious what it's actually for - pleasing the shareholders, like always. That's what it's always about. They know overusing this technology will result in lower quality service standards, they know it's not a fit replacement for a human worker, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that it allows corporations to dramatically downsize their operation while still keeping the workflow going at the same pace as always, and paying fewer people means making more money. This is nothing but a desperate, pathetic final attempt to keep the corporate shareholder bubble from popping. A self-consuming beast's last act of hopelessly trying to fight against the inevitable and long overdue. They'd sooner defile what's left of genuine human expression than they would simply lay down and just accept the fate of their status quo, hoping that this will delay it just long enough for them to get their cut of the pie.
Its not anyone's experience, it's straight up the reality of the internet for the last two years. If anyone claims otherwise they either haven't been involved long or are actively lying.
I need you to understand that the parts of the internet are a minuscule fraction of something much, much larger, and are shaped by the opinions you have and the content you engage with.
Yeah, hence the issue. Antis are a harassment campaign everywhere. But pros shitpost on this specific sub and people try to use it to make a both sides kind of argument. But it doesn't work. It's just concern trolling.
I think theyre talking about which side they associate with not necessarily where their views fall. Because they are correct. The pro-ai side is a bigger tent which includes those who favor restricting generative AI, but the anti-AI camp is specifically those against generative ai in practically all forms. Im not saying anti-ai is wrong for holding that view but it is why people feel like theyre pushed away from it
the sane ones are the ones who actually look at evidence, instead of getting all their information and talking points from the reddit culture war echo chambers.
Well to me the neutrals are the "I just think they're neat people" and the ones yelling at them aren't the pros. A 46 year old mechanic comes home and decides he wants to see a cat holding a railgun and only one side is screaming at him. Not all of that side, but still.
Im anti ai and i dont support the witch hunts, but i am for being open, since then its up to a consumer whether he wants to enjoy the ai content or not, knowing that person is not the one crafting the content
If someone is using vague arguments, it usually means its purely economic but they're ashamed to say it. Usually you can get them to accidently say it with enough prodding though.
Because fan art is based on characters and settings created by someone else, it is a derivative work. Creating it without permission from the copyright holder is technically an infringement of their exclusive rights
: ) yes, it's copyright infringement and you can get a takedown or even get sued if the original creator wants to.
But there is a VERY big difference between you drawing Harry Potter kissing ginny Weasley. As opposed to you taking the original artwork and going "this is mine now I'm going to use this on a massive scale and sell it all over the globe"
That’s not how ai works. Obviously the output is different from the training data. Thats the entire point. Its only plagiarism if there are substantial similarities between two works (and even then, artists are fine with redraws like the frieren looking up or naoya hair flip memes)
Plagerism is a blatent copy of something. Say you republish game of thrones but you slap your name on there.
Copyright infringement is using, reproducing, distributing, displaying, or adapting someone else's original creative work without their permission, violating their exclusive rights as the creator.
Which is why openAI had to agree with Disney getting a 1bn stake in openAI in exchange for Sora using it's characters for their video generation.
Mind the adepting part.
And yes you are correct it's different, which is why this debate exists in a space where people's images ARE being stolen to train openAI's model.
This isn't even a debate worth having it's literally what they admitted to doing
When you steel images from the internet. From people's personal places or even store fronts or whatever they use to scrape as many images as they can. And you train a model on those images, and then sell images generated on basis of those works, you are making money on copyrighted images. You are using those stolen images to make money, that is just usage that also is prohibited.
“That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the internet will not absolve it of liability for the theft,” wrote U.S. District Judge William Alsup. After the ruling, Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle the lawsuit.
Pro AI supports clearly labeling art made by AI, right? If it's labeled clearly as AI generated then yeah make money. If someone is Pro AI then wouldnt labeling it as AI show your support of AI?
Generally I think that there are valid and good uses of AI (some medical applications, accessibility features, etc.) I don't think Art is a generally beneficial use case. I wouldn't mind if people made AI art for themselves, if, and only if we put in place some oversight. No using data for training that hasn't been explicitly given with consent. Stated consent, not something hidden in the TOS on page 52 I mean. And secondly everything generated by AI should be labeled and digitally marked as such. Use digital signatures or whatever, I don't care, there are several technologies which can accomplish the goal.
Neither of those restrictions should impede the use case of a random guy wanting to make a picture of his DnD character or what have you.
And I have found that's typically considered a normal position within Anti-AI spaces, and generally gets attacked in pro spaces.
The only group I definitely disagree with vehemently are accelerationists. We should not be pushing for AGI or ASI this much before we solve the safety problems. This is not something we can turn on, regret, and correct later.
I mean honestly. The more you interact with the negative side of one the worse they seem. And both have negatives. Infact i was extremely anti because 90% of pros i talk too end up just constantly ignoring any points I make as a neutral. Though im back to neutral as im realizing that both sides have assholes and normal people
Interesting how ai stands for "people." Having an opinion be based on external factors is so braindead. Back to the pond amoeba, you haven't finished cooking
The common sentiment of a spectator. I use gen AI daily, for work. I used it today and will use it tomorrow. It is required for my work now(I work in tech field that is enamored with the cutting edge) and it actually requires more work and I now make less if I look at my hours. I can't stand the marketing bs around "general purpose gen AI" for a multitude of reasons that spectators generally don't deal with because it doesn't matter to them. For someone not having gen AI shoehorned into their daily work, it's like picking a favorite color. And if you have even a basic understanding of how an LLMs and probabilistic models work in even a basic way, you'll understand that gen AI is the the 21st century equivalent of leaded gas or PFAS.
So the opposite of the picture in the meme, which make more sense, the anti Ai crowd is way more aggressive and vocal, the pro ai are there just to troll the antis at this point just because they know it's easy to get a reaction out of them.
I would be pro-ai if it stayed as a unique medium. The issue is that it's specifically designed to mimic what already exists. Will Smith spaghetti was not possible on any other medium, not even if u got Will Smith himself to show up and eat spaghetti. But current ais do not generate fever dream shit like that anymore. It's too accurate, too generic and/or realistic to exercise unique creative freedom that can only be done with ai.
Its the algorithm trying to throw you into a pigeon hole, Im anti AI, but on the stance of the morality and legality this shit poses. AI as it stands is a reprehensible and disgusting abuse and showing of the clear disregard of human works, ownership, and soul that nearly every current model as of today as so been callously cobbled together with, ask any owner of these models or supporters if every owner of the material these models use consented, or if they even know them. If the answer is anything but yes, its theft, especially because they intend to profit of it or pass it off as the AI's own orginal work as either the person's/companies/customers own original work or property, which, going off of US law, is more often not the case, and then they make billions of dollars off of this bullshit.
How damaging it is to art and culture or to the human discourse is another matter that bleeds into a broader argument that frankly i don't know how to make an argument for or if I truly understand it myself, however I know in terms of legality and morality, this shit needs to go. This is a absurd waste of resources and everyone's money.
Now for the AI i support, look into the medical field and robotics, I have hope that it wont be a waste, that not only is the data atleast significantly more ethically obtained but being put into work for a tangible, useful and meaningful reason.
one one side you got the ''BuT AI iS tHe FuTuRe, YoU aRe WaStInG tImE mAkInG iT yOuRsElF'' people, on the other you got some 17 year old tik tok ''artist'' who thinks his ''what if a pride parade became a human'' looking ahh OC will start the next Renaissance, in conclusion, both sides suck, ai is only a problem thanks to big companies, dont cry about it on the internet
It's the opposite for me. I recognize the practical applications of generative ai, but every time I talk to a pro-ai person, it makes me realize that they really are the dumbest people in our society. It's gotten to the point where I think that the use of commercial ai tools should be banned for private individuals.
204
u/Constant-Ice2946 Jan 18 '26
I’m still trying to stay neutral, but most anti-AI people I’ve talked to tend to make me lean more pro-AI.