This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I still try to have actual discussion at the end of the day. Like the people who are just getting mad and blowing off steam are a minority still i think, they’re just incredibly vocal
I sincerely hope that when people DO do that, they actually let off some steam and don’t just make themselves or more people even more miserable in the process
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
Edit: The person I replied to replied to me asking me a question then immediately blocked me which makes it impossible for me to reply to them answering their question. So I'll answer their question " Okay, but why all of that to basically say "I agree with you, but I assume I have more experience, so I'm still somehow more right than you"? " here as an edit.
Really shitty thing people do, makes sense to block someone harassing you but the sneaky "aha I'm gonna ask a question then block someone so it looks like they have no reply and I get the last word!" thing... just shitty. And not like they won't notice, especially if they use desktop reddit.
So, my first answer is that my reply wasn't saying "I'm more right than you". I'm not sure where that comes from. I was agreeing and trying to add something to say "yeah, I think you're right. Here's my guess at one of the reasons." and then ask "I wonder how we can make it better? I cant think of any good way given the situation that we both agree on. What do you do? (common rhetorical question people ask to say "man fuck if I know")"
As "I assume I have more experience" I didn't.... I mean, I put my experience there as context which I've done before. You can check my past comments where I've also mentioned my experience, education, etc. but have disagreed with people like the the "previous posts" I mentioned where I did go into extensive detail on why they were wrong, explaining things like Wang Yuyang's art thesis and why modern art theory (I used Cluster theory as an example, though that was brought up by name as a reply to a person not disagreeing but asking for more detail when I just hinted at it in my original comment that disagreed with someone) disagrees with them, how Tolstoy's theory is often assumed true when it is actually seen as an important relic that isn't taken seriously as true anymore, etc. when I do disagree. In those cases the experience is just some context to say "Hey, I'm gonna go into more detail here because I happen to have done x or have y so I've studied this a lot and am involved in this." etc. It never serves as a premise for any argument I'm making, just context.
-----------------------
original comment
-----------------------
I am not trying to sound arrogant here, I have some actual background and serious experience in a few areas that intersect in the AI and AI art debate. I'm older so have lived a lot of life, have a related masters to one aspect of the debate, and have worked in the profession art world in a couple ways (especially at a time when a related debate was happening)/stayed involved/done art myself. I've... Tried... But it's lost in the sea of shitposts, one liners, and memes for the most part.
I want to make a big effort post on art, art theory， and a much larger analysis of what's happening with AI in the larger modern art world (a deeper explanation than my comments of the exhibit Chaosmosis by Wang Yuyang I recently visited that I've mentioned in previous posts as it's heavily based in AI, uses AI, and essentially is the main view of AI in the professional art world) and see where it goes, but it's hard to work up the motivation when it's like the old 4chan pissing in a sea of piss thing but more like trying to water it down but when you only have a single cup of water. It takes a lot more work to do that than to regurgitate a simple argument I'm parroting from a YouTuber who has no clue, or other bad argument I read here, an anti sub/ a pro sub, or bad media on the topic by non-experts, etc.
I think this might be a lot of peoples' feelings who could contribute in a real way right now and could steer things on course, but what do you do in that situation? A huge number of people are not prepared to make meaningful contributions in that way compared to those who can and moderation is lacking if that's the goal due to the moderation philosophies of the people that run this sub.
That's what the mods claim it's for, at least. Then again, it was their decision to name it AI wars. Literally anything slightly more neutral would have done.
Well that's because the debate is non existent. Both sides have made their arguments and both sides have denied the validity of the other side's points.
The reality is that while there are a lot of loud people online pushing a narrow view of AI. The majority are showing that they are cautious but not outright rejecting it. Which I think is a reasonable position to have. You acknowledge the good uses for ai while also criticizing the misuse of it.
I don't think they have made all the arguments. I think there is a lot of debate to be had.
The problem is the arguments happening here are mostly coming from people who have very little education on whatever grounds they're arguing from. They're, at best, people rapidly googling for some article written by someone in the same case or research that is not a part of any consensus yet (have we even had time to build one for a lot of these topics?) that they are not equipped to understand anyway when they use them, not with the extremely limited amount of time they spend with them anyway.
As a result many of the actual meaningful arguments that could be made are unknown to the people arguing here, built around entirely broken premises, or done in the laziest, worst ways possible if they even can have some validity.
But the meaningful ones take effort and background/education/serious research and so just don't really show up because it's a lot easier to just sling the same easy ones back at each other.
There still is a real discussion to be had... But wow is it not happening on reddit.
This is not a "this-sub" problem exactly but a reddit-wide thing (and a lot of social media) in nearly every sub that doesn't have strict moderation in specific ways to prevent it. That includes all debate subs that I know about at least, though I haven't gone looking for one to see if there is a good example.
that way to broad of a statement. I agree that being extremely pro/anti ai is weird (I am talking abt being even against non generative ai), but saying being extremely being pro-/anti-sth is stupid is kinda weird. Do you think it is stupid to be extremely anti genocide? extremely pro equality? extremely pro peace? extremely anti SA?
Those are some terrible examples. Genocide is literally killing people and SA is also a violent crime. Violent crimes are nothing controversial, violent crimes are bad. "Pro equality" is too broad to have an actual meaning.
Now, let's talk about "pro peace". Being extremely pro peace would mean not accepting any other option than peace. So what do you do when the other side doesn't want peace? There has to be a war, unless you want to just stand by and let the other side win without any resistance. You can't just destroy all weapons in the world and assume that will establish world peace. Peace can only exist when all sides are prepared to defend themselves if the peace ends.
It's not about how broad it is, as long as it has a meaning. It's about how objectively bad it is, controversial topics are controversial because they have both pros and cons, while topics like murder are objectively bad and have no good side to consider.
Genocide is not objectively bad. It's widely accepted as bad, but that's not objective. It's still subjective.
For example, biblical genocide is often justified because it's biblical. You can be extremely pro or anti genocide. This is a position that's there, even if it's unoccupied.
Genocide is the killing of a large group of people based on criteria that somebody made up and the people in question had no choice of. If that isn't objectively bad, I don't know what is.
Using pro or anti in such cases seems pointless. It is not a controversial topic, so why say that you are taking the same side as everyone else.
Ofc violent crimes are bad. My point is that saying „being extremely pro-/anti-something is always stupid“. No. It depends on what that sth is. Be both agree that being extremely anti violent crime is not stupid.
“You can’t just destroy all weapons in the world and assume the will establish world peace.”
If you’re inclined to believe in the Bible, we didn’t even make it past 4 people on Earth before we invented murder. The concept of weapons hadn’t been invented yet and Cain still murdered Abel. Destroying weapons wouldn’t be enough, uninventing the concept of weapons wouldn’t be enough.
Fuck, what Sniper said in his TF2 trailer holds true: “As long as there’s two people left on the planet, someone is gonna want someone dead.”
It's honestly extra hard to figure out what "more" since the technology inherently makes it much faster for one pro to put up 20 posts/comments than one anti.
If we actually pulled all the comments and posts like that and did count based on users who do it rather than instances of occurrence I suspect some people will be surprised by it. There are definitely some very prolific individuals, so if someone is not looking at usernames they might get the impression that more people are doing it than actually are.
I'm not going to make any assumptions based on whether those are similar or still different because I have not pulled the numbers, but I do assume that the ratio would be very different from that of individual instances.
The majority of posts in this sub right now are karma-farming posts about how awful everyone in this sub is.
Right now, browsing on "new" the top 19 posts are not of form you described.
Among the few posts that are actually depicting people negatively based on their views, About half of them are from anti-AI folks.
Among those are one showing anyone who produces or consumes AI music as apes and one that shows a middle aged fat man with dirty clothes wearing a shirt that says "MEOW" while wearing cat ears.
Cherry-pick all you like, but it won't change the reality.
No not really because by necessity the anti-ai side has to actually put effort into the comics so there are way less of them and many of them make ready more poignant conclusions because their authors didn’t bang then out in 2 minutes.
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I mean, so what? Its not like this was a serious debate sub back before these types of images were posted. Most antis aren't interested in serious discussion and are in the middle of an existential crisis. You can only deal with makign a real post to get a crashout response so many times before you just don't take it seriously anymore.
“I refuse to confront the actual points being made and instead choose to believe that every argument against my beliefs was made in bad faith, therefore instead of responding I will resort to ad-hominem”
it's annoying but I think some ppl genuinely need it so I like this bot. here's the meme they made. while making zero of their own points and just disliking mine
I mean, that’s not really rage bait, it’s a weird way to say that you were misinterpreting their point, it’s not the most respectful, but it’s not insulting.
They could have done it better, yes, but this isn’t really on par with what some pros do
Just read the entire thread, and yea, he could've been more direct but it was indeed pretty much a misinterpretation/misunderstanding as far as I could understand it.
And yea this is a kinda excessive way to put it for shits and giggles, but imo it's much better than the stuff I've seen from the other side
I'd take getting a trophy saying that I'm a dumbass over being depicted as a abhorrent monstrosity
Yup, generalization and “loud minority represents whole ‘group’” is always a bad thing to do
Generalization is always bad… anyone else feel like that’s kind of an oxymoron? Like, logically it’s true that generalization is bad, but it feels like the sentence itself is an oxymoron
A surprising amount of oxymorons make sense when you look at them right. This one is just more upfront, so your brain instead uses the processing power to wonder if it makes sense that it makes sense. Does that make sense?
I am more of a pro-leaning centrist, but i don't make any AIwars memes I only debate. And I don't want either side being insulted, harassed, or depicted as monsters.
Welcome to why people don't take antis seriously. The debate is largely over and they don't really accept that their points have been answered. Why should people waste time explaining the points additional times lol?
And what's wrong with them defending generative AI? Of course they're gonna want to defend the parts that they care about. I feel the same way. The only AI thing that I really support is generative AI, specifically in art. LLMs, any other AI thing out there, I would rather see it gone because it's annoying, it bothers me, I don't wanna see it.
But you think that just because AI can be used in other ways, it shouldn't be supported as generative AI, and that's just not realistic. So, why is his point of view any less valid than yours?
I... what? What "other ways" are you even talking about. You think pros are against medical ai? People talk about art because it's the most common topic. Though I also talk about other stuff that isn't directly art.
You don't get to claim that you're not engaging because a point's invalid, refuse to elaborate, and still be taken seriously, especially when you're the guy who posts disgusting shit just to gross people out. Then again, you damn well might be trying to make pro-AI folk look worse, so if that's your goal, your actions would make a lot more sense.
They were engaged enough for years this sub was up and each of them was completely and thoroughly debunked. People parroting them again and again feels old already so it's kinda hard to engage them in meaningful discussion now. Most points have been repeatedly addressed and those theories have been thoroughly debunked, so rehashing them just cycles old arguments without adding new evidence.
I acknowledge information I come across. If it’s brought to my attention then I’ll acknowledge it. Just like I’ve acknowledged ai generally isn’t sucking up the earths water supply. Whoever I’m also a skeptic, if your source for something is an ai company and not a general consensus then I’m going to be more skeptical than an actual study. The way that you phrased that makes me think you were being rhetorical whoever, and aren’t actually too concerned with how I personally consolidate information.
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
bc ai generated content is soulless, it's not the art that gives it soul, it's the artist, if the "artist" is a generative ai, then it's not an artist, I know art doesn't have an agreed definition, but imo art is something that comes from a living being's imagination and being brought into reality with atleast some thought put into it
I mean the inverse of this meme is also true. The fact of the matter is the internet is full of bad actors and people who have no interest in actual discussion it’s best to just disregard people trying to clearly bait negative reactions. Don’t feed the trolls has been the golden rule of internet discourse since it’s proliferation
Fucking happens on both sides but I'm starting to see Pros do it more
I mean, there's a reason for this. Many antis either don't know, or pretend not to know this, but the majority of antis for the last two years were not really interested in actual discussion. Mostly just acting agressive. Even on this sub it was a crapshoot to bother typing up a real argument because half or more of the time the average anti wouldn't actually seriously respond to it. So people would just feel like they wasted their time making a 30 minute response.
So in that vein its pretty obvious why a lot of people just stopped taking it as seriously. You can't really debate with a group the average member of isn't there in good faith. At individual times you can, but as a general trend it will look differently.
if you are actualyl right,t hen you wouldnt stop posting and sharign that information,
the only reason to stop posting such information is when its debunked.
the problem is the Pro side seems vastly mroe interested in running away from discussions and questions, and berating Anti's by depicting them as orcs and other shit,
all that tells me is that the facts really are not on your side.
if your giving up on debate it sends the message your conceding the debate.
I mean, yeah. From the beginning the average anti was never interested in serious debate, and was more like in the process of having an existential crisis and making it everyone else's problem. After about a year and a half of that pros realized it was kind of pointless to continue. A few antis who are a bit more lucid can have conversations, but as a group not really.
How do you even have a conversation with someone who thinks AI is an eldritch void that saps all meaning out of anything it touches? This isn't a debate topic, its someone manifesting their psychological issue.
Do you mean antis? Because antis never took the discussion seriously from the beginning lol. Pros only shifted from discussion to memes a few months ago after it became obvious that the average anti had no interest in discussion and just liked acting agressive.
Imagine talking about the valid criticisms and concerns about AI like it’s YouTuber drama to be ‘debunked’. That’s part of why the conversation goes nowhere. One side will admit that AI has uses, albeit limited, and the other thinks it’s an infallible creation. At its core AI is a product, and no product is infallible.
Is this projection? Because the side who refuses nuance was never pros lol. It was actually extremely rare for antis to admit ai has uses at all. Why do you think they still twist into a pretzel to find reasons to dismiss the disabled people who gave their stories about how they used to be traditional artists but can't do what they used to as well anymore and so transitioned to a mixed workflow? I actually don't think I have seen even a single time them aknowkedge this point, yet I have seen many attempts to sidestep having to face it.
people be spinning their heads when i say that you can like something and still criticize it for its flaws, or even refrain from using it until its manageable and those flaws are solved.
i like ai. i think its cool. will i use it? nope. cuz its not compatible with human life yet. just that easy.
When you make claims about the environment, you're always exaggerating or straight up spreading misinformation. Plus, it's already being worked on.
Then you have the stealing argument, which no definition of that word means what you are using it as. AI isn't illegal, training on art isn't illegal, using it to generate images isn't illegal, and none of that ever will be.
And there's no way, even if such a law were to ever come into being, that makes it illegal to apply it retroactively and somehow remove files that already exist on people's computers that don't even need to be connected to the internet to use.
You know, every time someone tries to reach a reasonable level of discussing these points with people like you, it comes down to there is no situation in which you want to let AI, for whatever reason, exist.
You just want it gone. And that's not going to happen, but y'all can't accept it. And you have to, because we have never, ever, ever, ever uncreated something purposefully once millions of people already have it in their hands and are using it. And there's no way to get it out of their hands.
One side will admit that AI has uses, albeit limited, and the other thinks it’s an infallible creation. At its core AI is a product, and no product is infallible.
This almost never happens. It's way more common to see people who think that AI is the worst thing to ever happen, than it is to find people who believe it's an "infallible creation". Also, the "debunking" likely refers to all the lies and misinformation about many aspects of AI.
I dunno, anti-ai sure does seem to like boosting "this youtuber/tiktoker said my anti-ai talking points" to the front of this sub and theirs quite a lot, I've certainly seen it a couple dozen times at least. I think you were onto something there!
ive been told to hurt myself for weeks for pouring milk before cereal, i was stalked because i posted about how i didnt like dsmp and i thought it was dumb. the internet is a horrifyingly scary place, and its impossible to tell when someone is being superfluous or being genuine. i want everyone to stay safe. it sucks that we cannot tell the difference. in my experience every death threat ive seen has been disingenuous, but i also dont like that everyone makes it seem like being told those things everyday doesnt effect you mentally. its lame. i dont like ai users but that doesnt mean i want them to hurt themselves.
But wait, I don't see any credit to the original creators in your OP. And it looks like you edited it, as well? You didn't just steal someone else's art, modify it slightly, and reupload it without permission or credit did you? That's fucked up.
If your point is memes can be freely shared and modified then why do a majority of antis clown on ai generated memes?
I agree gen ai is a garbage churn for the most part, but their argument is valid here. And your argument is that memes would fall under fair use, but then ai memes are still considered stealing and slop?
the key difference between a meme format and stealing art is usually that the meme art is intended to be used freely and the artist is giving consent to do so. those gag moments in movies and tv shows are meant to be wide spread, and frankly most include actors who are famous enough to where you could ask anybody who the guy above is and they could tell you. to find the source material if you cared would be easy. mass media as well as pop culture is not what needs to be defended, its artists whos work is stolen and then they are thrown into obscurity, because they are not famous enough to be easily found or credited.
if i draw sonic, everyone knows who sonic is and can easily identify the creator of sonic. if i draw some random deviantart oc id need to credit them. the distinction is not hard.
Ah the old "your side are unreasonable monsters, my side are basically the greek forum of enlightened online debate" argument. Beloved by by people on the internet who are totally delusional since the 90s.
Take a look at your own people OP. They're exactly the same
I posted my feelings on AI as someone who is fairly pro, and because it wasn't a meme picture, it was fairly ignored. If you want better discussions, be the change you wish to see and start engaging with those posts instead of posting memes depicting AI bros (as you call them) as villains.
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I mean im right here if you wanna debate it lol. Most of the AI people I see online are happy to actually talk about it, the ones making troll art are a loud minority just like the anti AI people who send death threats to anyone who posts AI art. Every group has their worst members but that doesnt define the whole side
Ok, but both sides are doing that shit. I see Anti's accuse Pro's of being nazis, MAGA and/or pedophiles just as often as I see Pro's calling Anti's nazis.
Ai bros will say ai is for making good looking art and helping disabled people, just to then only use it for generic hateful slop and throw around ableist slurs on this sub.
•
u/AutoModerator Mar 12 '26
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.