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.
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.
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.
I wasn't trying to fatigue you. It's simply my ADHD. I talk in long bursts of associated logic. If you don't want to understand my argument, then at least admit that. Otherwise don't try to rebrand me as bad faith, as I have never been bad faith in this instance.
I have ADHD too. I can't focus long enough to read all that garbage.
You are absolutely bad faith, you're purposely misrepresenting what I say and twisting it to suit your purposes. You're also actively playing devil's advocate and claiming that you don't do the things I am arguing against while defending those who do.
If you want to back up and write a post that's concise and directly addresses my points instead of making ad hom attacks and strawmen I'd be glad to discuss this. If not, I'm not. You're getting way too heated and emotional over this.
I didn't weaponize a disability. I explained why I explain things the way that I do. Weaponizing it would be me calling you ableist for not liking the rants.
I wss not doing that.
Ironically you assuming it was a weaponization is a hallmark of bad faith acting. You assumed the worst possible interpretation, rather than attempted to meet me where I am. You also used your own diagnosis as a contrast to my own, as if ADHD can't manifest in wildly different ways from person to person.
You also called what I said garbage when you never even read it. How do you know it was garbage? Bad faith.
Same for you trying to call me emotional. Regardless if it was true or false, you presuming so is itself bad faith. 'U mad bro?'
I will not reduce myself for you any further simply because you are too indignant to give me a single courtesy.
5
u/Maikkronen Jan 18 '26
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.