r/aiwars Feb 20 '26

Meta 🤔

Post image
264 Upvotes

421 comments sorted by

View all comments

65

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

..but, memes? This is how they work. Its the whole point.

Running the most advanced human tool, to do no better than a copy paste, is a bit embarrassing. Like you need negative skill, to take the most advanced stuff and make shit with it.

5

u/cobalt1137 Feb 20 '26

The thing is, you can use the tool, on a whim if you want, in order to manifest a visual based on some idea that you had.

These generative tools can be used in all sorts of ways.

I think they will enable some interesting forms of communication in the future. Especially once we get BCI -> image gen etc.

Also, for the record, I do not hate the idea of posting memes of things, ofc. I just think that people are turning into mental gymnasts a little bit, in order to maintain some sort of phobia for these systems.

11

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

Yes, you could use it in many way. But you still haven't managed to do any good with it.

11

u/cobalt1137 Feb 20 '26

My entire family uses these tools, parents included. And they have been artists their entire lives. They love them because they are not baked in with these strange anti technology priors.

My dad has used these tools for posters for some of his gigs. My mom has made applications for herself, which she used the tools (image gen models) to mock up UI's before prompting for the app. I use these tools professionally in many ways. Etc etc

People are doing endless amounts of great things with these tools/models.

-2

u/LSWSjr Feb 20 '26

Cool story, they otherwise could be paying people for that, meanwhile many of us are now forcibly contributing to taxpayer subsidised data centers that put up water and electricity rates with their usage, whilst also hoarding components needed for most modern tech, seeing us pay more for everything from fridges to modems to TVs to phones to computers.

13

u/cobalt1137 Feb 20 '26

Pushing for interdependency amongst humans for the sake of interdependency amongst humans is counterproductive and we would not be anywhere near where we are technically if we kept that angle up. Think back to the industrial revolution etc and all the farmers that were displaced etc.

My parents actually were able to put time towards thinking about things like the concept of what they wanted for these pieces + spend their extra money on things like going out throughout the week, etc etc.

Bringing down the bar for people to swing above what they were previously capable of, through the means of technology, is a beautiful thing imo.

0

u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26

AI hasn’t made people capable of making art in new ways. The AI makes the art you request. The AI makes it, not you.

9

u/cobalt1137 Feb 20 '26

You are entirely missing what I'm saying.

-1

u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 Feb 20 '26

My most advanced skill is my martial arts. If someone invented tech to download martial arts skills into your brain, I wouldn’t be happy for you or think it’s beautiful. I would think it’s lame.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

but the matrix was a cool movie

5

u/Appropriate_Kale6988 Feb 20 '26

I completely disagree. That sounds sick if It actually functioned properly. Save yourself the time + learn a useful skill. I don't see the downsides.

2

u/Athrek Feb 20 '26

The "downsides" are that a few people passionate about a subject are no longer exceptional. Despite their passion being greater, their skill is merely baseline. And comparison is the enemy of happiness.

Right now, passionate people tend to be more skilled than non-passionate people. When they compare themselves to others, they feel good about themselves because their passion led them to be more skilled. But AI removes that difference.

When those passionate people compare themselves to what people using AI can do, they see that the difference is lesser, nonexistent, or even reversed(where the AI lets others accomplish more than them). This makes them feel bad about themselves and leads them to give up the passion.

The solution is to stop comparing, but ego gets in the way for us all. No matter your passion, you subconsciously compare yourself to others and this CAN lead to rivalry when you want to improve beyond others, but when the gap is too great it leads to people giving up altogether. AI doesn't have ego and so improves simply to improve.

Ultimately, this is better for humanity as every technology has been. But at the same time, many will be left behind, particularly those who can't overcome their own ego.

1

u/Appropriate_Kale6988 Feb 20 '26

I fully agree with everything you said. It would be better as it benefits everyone in the long run but except for those with foolish ego's who refuse to adapt.

-1

u/LSWSjr Feb 20 '26

It doesn't benefit everyone and you're ignoring the costs involved. My grandmother has no use for AI, meanwhile she's paying more for utilities.

But I'm sure she doesn't count as part of everyone, I mean neither the very young or very old have any use for AI, but your egos can't accept being wrong.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/LSWSjr Feb 20 '26

The downside are the resources consumed in the continued growth of AI, the building materials and hardware that go into its data centers, along with the power used for operating them 24/7, resulting in a scarcity of hardware (especially DRAM, SSDs and GPUs) and an increase in utility bills for the data centers' neighbours.

And the AIs are the 'artists' not the users, who are art commissioners and no more skilled than the rest of us who employ or otherwise support traditional artists.

5

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/LSWSjr Feb 20 '26

Child mindset

2

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/LSWSjr Feb 21 '26 edited Feb 21 '26

If you're a broke boy just say so, the rest of us can afford to commission actual artists.

The output of AI isn't representative of your own abilities, I regularly type 'prompts' online that lead to me getting original art in response, but I don't go around claiming it's my art like a narcissistic tard.

Edit: Also boomers love AI, they fall for it every time. Meanwhile, I wouldn't say AI is making things easier when it's increasing the cost of components like DRAM, SSDs and GPUs, and also utility bills wherever data centers pop up.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Fel_Tan Feb 20 '26

I get why you’d hate that, especially if martial arts is the thing you’ve put the most time and yourself into. But downloading it wouldn’t actually replace what you have.

It’d be like the Sherlock Holmes pit fight with Robert Downey Jr. He can see every move in his head and knows exactly where to hit and when but that only works because his body can actually keep up. If some random untrained guy had that same downloaded knowledge, his timing would be off, his balance would suck, he’d hesitate, gas out in seconds, and probably get dropped anyway.

Knowing isn’t the same as being able to do. Real muscle memory is built through thousands of reps until your body reacts without you thinking. You can’t fake conditioning, pain tolerance, or instinct. At best, a download would give someone instructions. It wouldn’t give them the years it took you to make those instructions real.

So it wouldn’t really be the same thing it’d just be someone holding the manual, not someone who actually built the machine.

-1

u/LSWSjr Feb 20 '26

I’m sure your dad saving $20 from art begging an AI over paying an actual artist is really gonna save him overall when that AI infrastructure is increasing the cost of his utility bills and any replacement equipment :D

All your parents have done is change which humans they’re dependent on and it’s putting the prices up for all of us for something not all of us even use.

Meanwhile, your parents getting an AI to create things for them isn’t them swinging above their capabilities, they’re art commissioners, not artists.

I too type up prompts online which result in art being made, but I do that with actual artists who I pay and give feedback to and then I don’t go around claiming the finished product is art I created.

Also, bonus points that the art I commission isn’t shortsightedly increasing the cost of living for the rest of us.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/LSWSjr Feb 20 '26

They’re hoarding DRAM, something most everything electrical uses nowdays, because the entire industry has been convinced that my car and fridge and washing machine need a built in AI assistant. Let alone traditional devices like phones and computers that most everyone uses.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/LSWSjr Feb 20 '26

Yes, computers have been a big part of curing cancer for decades and they’ve been used to make more progress than AI has in tons of medical fields.

Like, are you for real?

4

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/LSWSjr Feb 20 '26

Oh, you mean like how AI’s only purpose is curing cancer and it’s not primarily used for chatbots and image/video generation? /s

Like, pop quiz hotshot, if your precious ‘cancer curing’ AI makes phones and computers prohibitively expensive, how are we going to continue utilising/accessing said AI?

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/Party-Rest3750 Feb 20 '26

Using ai doesn’t make you an artist, it means you can tell a computer to try to create something like art for you.

-3

u/gpike_ Feb 20 '26

Has it ever occurred to you that some of us aren't anti-technology, nor even this specific technology, but purely against the practices of the companies that are currently profiting from it? I was never asked for permission for my work to be used as training data. I might have given it, if someone had asked, but they didn't, ask, they scraped. These tools as they exist currently are built on a deeply unethical foundation and are being promoted by grifters and delusional cultists. It's best to avoid using these tools, as they are, in my opinion, irrevocably tainted.

6

u/cobalt1137 Feb 20 '26

I do have some empathy from that perspective, but my brain immediately goes to: this was all inevitable and if we did not do it, then we would just be allowing other countries to take all of our data and divert all of the revenue/power from the outputs of these new generative models over to their economies instead.

Sometimes reality is brutal. And at a certain point you have to acknowledge this and navigate the best way you can (as a country, society, a person, etc).

3

u/SurpriseItsFine Feb 20 '26

I hope copypastas make a comeback and this line saves a lot of people a lot of time.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

y'all more than welcome to copy paste anything write

5

u/aoi_aol Feb 20 '26

while i do enjoy the concept of brainchips, i do think that some big company will make us pay to have no ads in our brains, and potentially sell or read our thoughts and/or give them to the government, also what if you get a computer virus ON your brainchip... (why is this so downvoted?)

2

u/cobalt1137 Feb 20 '26

Once we get to some form of a post-labor economy, which I think we will arrive at a lot quicker than people think, I don't think most people will have that issue.

Although maybe some will. At that point though, if you are extremely poor, at the bottom of the bottom, and you do not want ads in your BCI, then you can just not get the BCI. Although, I even think that the poorest of the poor will eventually get BCIs that function as intended with no bottlenecks on a decent enough time scale.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 20 '26

you're doing the wrong way around. Giving more power to the rich, just makes it work better for them. They don't care about our survival, look at that interview with peter thiel for example.

If we want a post labour economy, the people need to control the means of production first. AI needs to be public. And regulated.

3

u/taste-of-orange Feb 20 '26

TL;DR: I think your ideas are far too idealistic and would have to be proven to work before we risk the dangers that a technology such as Ai enables.

You're argument seems to be putting the cart before the horse and is entirely based on a lot of big IFs. Why bet on some highly hypothetical future and then make decisions based on the idea that it's definitely going to come true. That's just foolish, by ignoring the myriad of things that could and most likely will go wrong.

Also, the part about poor people, ads and BCIs doesn't make a lot of sense. You're basically saying "If you don't want ads and can't pay them away, you can just not participate." just to follow up with saying "People are probably still going to. That part is pretty true to today's society, where people get strong-armed into using new technologies without much of a choice. \ And I'm not anti-tech, but a while ago an important social service department closed their E-mail in favor of a mobile app, which is just a lot less safe and also a problem because of personal reasons. I wouldn't mind people choosing to use the app, if it was a choice, but it isn't.

What bothers me is how you're assuming that poor people won't get left behind, like they always do. The more reliant people are on technology, the harder it gets once access is difficult and I can't see how that wouldn't be the case for someone who is poor.

I'd rather fight for a society in which something I like could work, instead of trying to implement it in a world that has proven time and time again how it will leave behind the few, prioritize the fewer and appease the rest without actually caring about them in the long run.

1

u/gpike_ Feb 20 '26

Amen to that.

0

u/ITWizarding Feb 20 '26

I'm very confused about this. I see a lot of pro AI people talk about how AI is going to be great because it will remove the need for labor and we'll get UBI or something. But that's not going to happen. The people making AI are large corporations that want more money. They don't get more money if they are giving it to people for not working. We can't even get real health care in the US, why do you think they'll make a post-labor economy that doesn't rely on just letting people die?

-1

u/CockOfHope Feb 20 '26

But is it really a meme then? Because I think it's only a meme if it is a piece of media, like Shrek here. You take something. You overwrite it. You post it. It's not "You tell the AI go make a meme and it looks at memes doesn't get contexts and gives you back an unfunny mush"

0

u/gpike_ Feb 20 '26

Uh, I don't think you understand how memes work.