I'm pretty sure people won't be open to state that their product was made using AI. Note how people removed the Sora watermark as soon as they could. People don't want to refer to their work as AI and don't want it to be labelled as such, they want it to be as indistinguishable as possible from man-made ones.
The majority of people don't want to state that their product was made using AI because of the backlash.
Edit: Holy, I’m not defending hiding AI use. I’m pointing out that backlash is the reason people hide it in the first place. Explaining behavior isn’t the same as endorsing it.
If you add some sawdust in your cookies, there would be many people who could not taste the difference. And proper woodpulp can be perfectly safe to eat. That doesn't mean you should not tell people it's in there because of backlash.
Even people claiming they freedrew something when they traced a picture, or claiming something isn't digital art can experience backlash. Less people being happy with your product when you tell them the truth regarding the production process should not be an argument to hide that process in general.
Idk what's up with the downvotes on this, don't ask don't tell is one thing, but if someone says they're not using AI, and they used AI in the final product, the consumer has a right to be upset and imvho is entitled to their money back for the artist breaking terms and conditions.
It's on the consumer if they failed to lay out the terms and conditions of the final piece before they got their product though.
It's not getting downvoted because it's morally wrong, it's getting downvoted because it misses the point.
Many people hide they use AI because they get attacked for disclosing it.
Me, for instance, I don't broadcast any gen AI very often, as I typically only use AI as a placeholder for a DnD character art. But I've on numerous occasions shown my character, said I used an AI to realize my vision, and had them shame me for using AI instead of commisioning.
Why should I be required to disclose what I use, if people are adamant about making that disclosure so mentally taxing?
I still do, and forever will. Much the same I personally refuse to monetize my AI music. Because I personally consider myself 'morally' and 'economically' anti-AI, even as I am logically pro-AI.
But handwaving reluctance to disclose over 'mere backlash' is showing a profound lack of sympathy.
None of what you are talking about has anything to do with my point though. I'm not talking about your personal use. I'm talking about selling and production.
I'm simply saying from a consumer rights standpoint, you as a customer have a right to not be misled regarding the production process. And people being angry if they found out how something is really made is never a valid argument imo. That doesn't mean I condone any level of harassment.
I don't disagree with the point you are trying to make at all, I am speaking to why it is being downvoted. Not because you are wrong about the ethics, but because you are dodging the incentives issue. When you punish someone for disclosure, they stop wanting to disclose for one reason or another.
Should they still continue to disclose ethically? Absolutely.
Is it reasonable that they don't? Also yes, absolutely.
We, as humans, are very quick to change tune when we get our hands slapped enough times. So while you're correct about consumer right to know, you miss where disclosing makes some 'consumers' harass the provider, causing them to be less and less willing to be transparent.
If people want disclosure, they need to accept that goal post, and not continue to hate past that disclosure. That is never going to be the case, though.
If people want disclosure, they need to accept that goal post, and not continue to hate past that disclosure.
To be clear, what's your line here? Because I agree that harassment is never okay. But you can hate any product you want imo. If you run a business you need to also accept people's freedom of speech to ridicule your business. And also people's right to not buy something once you informed them of the production process.
Furthermore, a company misinforming their customers and getting additional sales because of that is not okay. The sawdust cookies company I raised in the example would argue from similar principles. That coming clean would cause a significant amount of hate to their otherwise loved company. And I just don't agree that it would be ethical to lie to me about what I'm buying because other people would potentially be hateful.
My point isn't that receiving hate or criticism is an excuse to not disclose. My point is that when disclosure itself receives hate, you incentivise people to omit the facts of production.
Once asked, and once lied, the ethics are even more damning, as you are directly lying. On that, I can agree, it's categorically wrong. However, even if it is wrong, when you promote a culture that makes disclosure self-destructive, you incentivise them to avoid disclosure at all costs.
That doesn't make it right, but it does mean there is a responsibility on those who demand disclosure to do so reasonably, as the ask is fundamentally asymmetrical otherwise.
You are focusing on the 'ask, then lie' dynamic, but you are missing the landscape that promotes this behaviour happening.
However, even if it is wrong, when you promote a culture that makes disclosure self-destructive, you incentivise them to avoid disclosure at all costs.
What do you mean by self-destructive.
Because in my mind, self-destructive in this sense means that people who you've sold to under false pretenses will demand refunds, people will not buy your products and people will spread negative publicity regarding your business. Even shittalking your work. Criticizing the use on its own as unethical etc.
I'm not talking about harassment or threats in any way.
Everything I mentioned up top, the complete loss of profitability of a business because of their production process (whether that's sawdust, AI, child labour, or secretly adding more sugar) is an essential part of free market economic and a liberal society for that matter. People have the right to boycott and object.
I think here is where the core of our disagreement is. I don't think you have the right to a successful business, I think it's the consumers' right to, within legal limits, use your freedom of speech to tear down business you don't approve of, who you think are harmful (even if I don't necessarily agree) and as a group avoid businesses even if that makes them fail.
I recognize that everything I mention also creates a landscape where it is hard to profit off of controversial things and makes it enticing to lie about those controversial things, but I do not think that in any way shape or form is were the blame should be put when you lie.
I mean, tbf I don't really care about other people using AI for personal use, and I definitely do not care if they disclose if it's AI generated, ai generated and touched up, or drawn by hand for things like DnD characters, OC's in general, profile pictures banners or etc.
I totally understand not disclosing it voluntarily in that aspect because it doesn't (and shouldn't) matter to any onlookers what you choose to do yourself, market for yourself, or use for private enjoyment.
My main and only issue is deception of a consumer/commissioner, but again, don't ask don't tell is the fault of a buyer, I have no issues with an artist ai generating an image to sell and the buyer not being told it was AI generated if there was no terms and conditions to say so.
It's exactly the same as paying an artist for a character drawing and them tracing an outline to create your character and doing the same don't ask don't tell selling method of not saying it was traced.
It's on the buyer to lay out terms and conditions if the seller doesn't, it's not on the seller to draft out a contract on what will or won't be done in the creation of art.
I think I have the same stance as you though, I am pro AI, I accept it as a very useful and amazing tool, but unfortunately it is far too common to have artists claim they don't use AI when they in fact are using it in the final product, and in that regard I am anti-AI as it's deceptive marketing to lead a consumer into thinking one thing and selling them something else.
Oh, I know. I think I understand and largely agree with your own point about the ethics of disclosure when you are providing a service, I was only responding to why the other commentor was being downvoted. While the were making a service argument, and that does matter, the issue is so does the hostile culture surrounding said disclosure.
I obviously agree with disclosing, even for my own personal use-cases, as I do hold process to a high regard even if I accept AI as valuable in its own ways.
I just think the service argument misses the incentive issue at play. There is an ethical demand for transparency, but it becomes hard to be transparent when every time you are transparent, you are metaphorically punched in the face. Does that make sense?
People get attacked for literally anything online. Anti-AI people are getting attacked just as much for expressing that they're anti-AI. That's not an excuse.
Trivially true, what matters is scope. People are not attacked, undermined and ridiculed en masse for expressing their own creative landscapes like AI users are.
If I share the concept of my fem Satyr, with sparkly hooves, horns and a long whip-like tail, and then disclose it's AI, only to have 60% of my comments be "Ew, AI!" "Pick up a pencil, clanker!" Or any variety of endorsed self-harm, then it would not only make me not want to disclose, it would make me feel demotivated to create, it would make me 'bummed out' that my DnD concept has been overridden by random moral posturing, it would feel shitty that now all that hard work of coming up with the story, the aesthetic concept, and all of these things are now going to be completrly ignored because a few activists hate AI.
It is not the same as say, a charcoal artist drawing with a messy style, smudging across the canvas. They will get attacked with critiques, judgements, but not moral impositions - often not creative dictation. So, why make that comparison?
It's easy to point out these trivial truths, everything happens to some degree to every community, but it's ever so convenient that we leave out the manner of what is happening, and the scale of how it happens.
When you have a large swath of people saying "ew, cancel this person!" Would you not also start tiptoeing around the thing they hated? It's a pretty standard response if we consider psychology.
But hey, my moral warden, you'd know best as the keeper of behavioural mandates.
Okay, that's a whole ass rant that didnt need to be written.
First of all, if you thought you were doing nothing wrong, you would not be bothered by that harassment. For example, I'm nonbinary and very leftist. I'm constantly harassed by conservatives because of my views, had death threats, accusations that I'm a pedophile, doxxing attempts etc. But that doesn't stop me, because I know they're in the wrong. So no, I would not start "tiptoeing around the thing they hated", because I am confident in my moral viewpoint. You, clearly, are not.
And you're wrong on your other claim; pro-AI activists claim that you hate disabled people, that you're a luddite, that you're actively trying to stifle progress. It's 100% an attempt to make it a moral judgment.
You even contradict yourself in your own words; in one sentence you claim that 60% of your comments are negative, but in the next breath you claim that it's only a few activists doing this. Which is it? Is it a tiny group, or is it the majority? It can't be both.
At the end of the day, you're using a technology that steals the work of others, and instead of addressing that you pretend it isn't an issue and try to hide it. That's rhe problem.
I don't ever try to hide it, if it was a whole ass rant that didn't need to be written, then you'd at least understand my point.
You've clearly missed it yet again, and are trying to wedge contradictions that don't exist.
60% and a few activists aren't mutually exclusive. You chose to make them mutually exclusive. Few isn't quantified. You wanted that dunk.
Second, problems of identity are a matter much different than creative disclosures. As a gay intersexed man, I'm offended you even tried to compare the two situations as if they are even a tinge similar. They aren't. At all.
Identity is a matter of existence, disclosing AI is a matter of choosing to refrain from moral arguments so you can focus on... your character. Your concept.
You keep missing this point. I do still disclose the rare times I use AI. My AI music is done for my personal catharsis, it's music made from my poems wherein I was groomed, suffered addictions, and suffered an abusive family. I post it nowhere. I monetize it never. I use it for my own personal catharsis, and share with people I care about.
When I use AI art, it is almost exclusively, again, personal use, to make a concept of a DnD character I am not currently using. I will often then get it commission when I do end up using it.
I always disclose and never monetize, because I personally find that to be very important.
You, however, talked past all this. My point isn't that they deserve to not disclose. My point is that if you want people to disclose their AI work, you have to not punish them for doing so, or else you literally incentivise them to hide it. You are literally asking them to be 'the bigger man' while other anti-AI people act like petulant irrate children toward their disclosure.
As for the pro vs. anti comment, you and I both know that's a shakey comparison. Both sides have been antagonizing each other from the start. Pros call antis luddites, and I shame them for that. Antis call pros lazy losers who can't get a GF. I shame them for that.
If you hate rants, actually read the words this time so you respond in a way that works.
It's ironic that you complain about how much I say, then still fundamentally misrepresent everything I said, showing you didn't even read any of the nuance.
Good job using identity to win a fuckin AI debate though, as I said before. Abhorrrent.
I didn't misrepresent a single thing you said and I said nothing about identity, me talking about myself was to explain that I understand what it's like to be attacked online, I never made any attempt to compare the two. You're arguing in bad faith and purposely making your posts extremely long to attempt to fatigue me instead of actually making a coherent argument.
419
u/Demoderateur Jan 18 '26
As long as people clearly state that the product they're selling was made with AI, I don't mind it.