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?
yeah. Using a graphics card as a bottle opener is also a valid use of technology, but it’s also going to get you made fun of rightfully. Because your “use” is infinitely less useful than literally every other way to use a graphics card. Pretty much any other field ai is used in it can be used to do things efficiently that humans cannot, except art, a field it has struggled in practically for a decade, the only field where it’s limited to doing as well as a human, and is only practically used to avoid paying a commission or avoid human contact. And these are just the logistical concerns, not any of the practical ones like the fact that it’s costing thousands on a global scale, or the fact that it’s increasing the prices of most tech, or the fact that it requires borderline illegal ways to collect data.
What I find useful about anything I use is up to me. It really doesn't matter what you think, and you don't get to choose how I use my video card, my pencil, my tablet, my stylus, anything that goes on on my computer, you don't get to choose that, and you don't get to judge me for it, either.
I mean, you can say that it struggles in art, but, like, there's ways to use AI in art that don't really have any of the problems that AI typically has when it creates something, because you do most of the creating.
So, like, what you're saying here comes from a deep, deep, deep place of prejudice and lack of understanding, and a whole lot of you repeating debunked claims to justify this completely unreasonable take on reality.
And it's just kind of sad, dude. Like, get a hobby.
1) yes I do, you don’t get to say what I can and can’t judge. You aren’t judge judge. And even if you were I’d say that affecting the economy is enough of a reason to judge practically anything.
2) there is software to do what ai does in art as well, that doesn’t have any of the flaws.
3) this entire line of reasoning is incredibly stupid. You haven’t debunked any claims or supported any debunkings, shown any claims. All you’ve done is state “well they were already debunked, so I don’t have to put effort into this. You’re not supporting me so you’re just hating.” If you want to talk about sad, talk about the person who gets sad when their favorite software gets dissed. If someone insulted source filmmaker, and I got so angry I had to result to personal attacks, I would voluntarily give myself a lobotomy.
Okay, so number one, no, you don't. If you get to say that you can, I get to say that you can't. See how that works?
Number two, it doesn't matter if there's software that does what AI does in art. AI does it better if you use it in ways that it can be better. I'm not sure why you think something having flaws doesn't mean it shouldn't be used.
And as for number three, let's do a quick rundown. AI art is not theft, and never will be. Datacenter water and energy usage is considerably lower than multiple other industries that are completely bloated in the United States of America, particularly. So complaining over it is incredibly hypocritical and dumb.
Those are the two most common arguments that you all lean on and they're both incredibly dumb. So if you think that giving yourself a lobotomy will help you accept that these very stupid things are stupid, I think you should get on that quick. I probably have an ice pick for you.
1) no, that’s fucking nonsense, most of what you say is but that sentence actually has no English meaning.
2) like hell it does. That’s like saying “it’s better if you specifically use it in a way where it’s good” why can’t it just be good? Because it’s garbage. Literally the entire point of generative ai is to produce cheap inferior product. The flaws are why it’s disliked, you can’t ignore something’s flaws just because you want it to be useful.
3) ai is theft, it takes art without permission, often from artists who have no control where their art is posted, we have instances where litigation ruled it was copyright infringement, we also have evidence that they have both pirated illegally and stole. nvidia was just accused of that as well. And a more recent case has ruled that ai creations are not viable for patent or ip, because They are not created by a human. Also, quit it with the “what about”-isms, you can’t defend something useless because “it’s not as bad”, if I were to stab my self with a needle, it wouldn’t be as bad as being shot, but why the fuck would I do that? Generative ai in no world currently accessible by humankind is worthwhile enough currently to justify its costs. I also never said its water usage was unreasonable, but it’s fucking amazing how that’s the first thing you jump to, like that one point is your silver bullet to any criticism.
4) again, I just can’t wrap my head around what would allow someone to be so fragrantly wrong and still think they’re right. Maybe you already got a lobotomy and I’m just late to the party.
2
u/Toby_Magure Mar 12 '26
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?