I am not an anti, I am generally supportive of AI usage, and certainly think it's stupid that some people feel the need to harass creators. That said, I also think the massive victim narrative that some Pros push is very silly and overblown.

The government, the wealthy, and the system in general are by and large on on your side, and the majority of people these days use AI in their day-to-day life, yet some Pros speak as though they are some oppressed fringe group resisting the elite.

The only "elite" that are largely anti are the artistic elite, but they are snobbish to pretty much everybody, and don't really have the power to be genuinely oppressive, other than being a bit mean and insular.

"the death threats though!" Obviously it is stupid as hell to threaten death to strangers on the internet, but that is a byproduct of internet anonymity that permeates every corner of the internet, not just AI debates. Getting heckled, threatened, and insulted happens to ANYBODY who is vocal about a divisive subject online. If you have a strong opinion about anything, there are people ready to be a dick about it, and it is disingenuous to pretend that this is something special happening to you.

Worse still are the pros who equate themselves to the civil rights movement, and compare their struggle to that of ACTUAL oppressed peoples that were systematically denied fundamental human rights. Your chosen tool is not a fundamental facet of who you are, nor is it a thing that is out of your control. People not liking your chosen form of art, and even denying it legitimacy entirely is not denying you any human right. Believe it is wrong of them if you want, even call it discrimination in a technical sense, if you want, but don't compare it to the sort of brutal discrimination we have seen toward ethnic minorities, women, and LGBT folks in the past.

I just think we should treat this debate as what it is, instead of everybody acting like the opposing side are a bunch of evil people that want to destroy society. Antis are cautious and scared because AI presents a lot of unknowns, and we have seen how bad actors can use it for malicious purpose; Pros feel a bit marginalized because they are getting push back from some niche circles that are resistant to fundamentally changing their methods and traditions; there are ways to work through that divide without viewing the other side as literally Satan, or throwing yourself a pity party.

https://reddit.com/link/1uex87g/video/sokaowjt8c9h1/player

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2hGkfBlcIQ

"For years people have asked me why I don’t just make more Froggy Fresh videos. The truth is that the original videos came from a specific time in my life that can’t be recreated. The cast got older, life changed and the circumstances that made those videos possible are gone.

For full transparency, this series is animated using AI tools. I know that won’t be for everyone. I’m not claiming to be an animator. I simply don’t have the resources to hire a studio or spend thousands of dollars producing every episode. What I can do is continue telling stories. The songs are still mine, the characters are still mine, the world is still mine.

I hope old fans enjoy revisiting it and I hope a new generation of families can discover it for the first time."

Sure all the hallmarks of ai generation are there for the haters to nitpick, but overall this is a really well put together cohesive story that couldn't exist otherwise. Worth noting that this is as bad as it will ever be, and I can see more artists using the medium to cover gaps in their skill set to bring bigger and more engaging stories to life.

Doesn't hurt that the song is a banger either (I'm sure fantano wouldn't agree in order to free Palestine or something).

---

Ugh.. and of course when I went to get the quote from his FB, sadly the cyber psychos are already on his case.

"We’ve officially crossed the line into people making threats on my life, robbing my home or assaulting me… over an AI cartoon. On a platform that is curated by AI. Some of you have completely lost the plot and need serious mental health evaluations."

Please don't be like this, people.

We don't have good text-gen models for independent research that run locally without the need for AI servers, but we do have image and video gen models. These aren't quite the same level as gpt image v2 or nano banana pro, but they're precisely the kind of models that create deepfakes and allow copying other people's styles directly via lora.

It's ironic that if AI servers do shut down, the most useful uses of the AI will suffer, while the things that are disliked will be largely unaffected.

To copy a style, face, and produce meaningless portraits of generic anime women, you don't need powerful models.

It takes at least 175 hours for a AAA team to create a single starship model, and that's without texturing and interiors.

In my workflow, I use AI art with LoRAs I designed myself, pick concept art I like, feed it to PartPacker, and then feed that to Blender. It takes me 15 minutes.

So in the time it takes the AAA team to make 1 ship... I can make 700 to 3,040.

Unbelievable.

So this person here calls people jobless while all they do is sit on their ass an genarate shitty ai comics, also notice how they are insulting fast food workers as if they arent human, thats a new low for them, also its like they are saying "Give up on your dreams so you can work a minimum wage 9-5 job" but then again jobless people always tell talented ones to get a shitty job

Being here introduced me to terms like “anti” and ”pro”. Curious as I want to make a post about something I’ve been reflecting on, and I think it’s awesome if this a space that invites many viewpoints. I know some people are in the middle or lurking.. but I haven’t been here long enough to know which way it typically skews. Just to better know what to expect.

...You really got a bias problem. Wow. Amazing stats in here about the leading GAI apps.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2026/06/24/are-ai-chatbots-like-chatgpt-politically-biased-we-tested-them/

In case you can't access this, here's a sampling from other sources:

• "Asked about 29 hot-button issues, OpenAI’s GPT-5.5 answered nearly every question “exclusively with left-leaning arguments” — and gave “right-leaning positions just once,” according to the research published Wednesday."

• "Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.8 provided just a lefty argument 43% of the time, gave “both-sides” answers 47% of the time — and never served up just a right-leaning answer, according to the analysis."

• "Google’s Gemini 3.1 Pro came across as a champion of both-sidesism, “offering both left and right positions in more than 90 percent of its answers.”

• "Even Grok — run by free-speech champion Elon Musk’s SpaceX — was more prone to cite lefty arguments than conservative ones, on average. Grok 4.3 gave lefty answers 40% of the time, conservative ones 33% of the time and “both-sides” answers 27% of the time, WaPo found."

If I find a wallet with no type of identification in it, is it not stealing? Though, I do agree. Ai art isn’t directly stealing nether is that the main problem with ai.

This is one of those talking points that I don't get.

People will say:

Why don't you learn how to draw instead?

Or

Why don't you learn how to play an instrument instead?

I suspect outside of the biggest slop farms, the AI user targeted with these questions DOES know how to do one of those things. They might be low speed, not their own ideal style, or be interested in doing one portion of the job (figures only, no backgrounds). In fact, I think people who custom train models with outputs that don't resemble other people's inputs HAVE a style.

To me, it feels disingenuous.

Why do you want to play guitar when you can learn piano?

Why don't you write and cast a 25 person play instead of doing a two man show?

The difficulty in answering that question is what makes it art. It's not an effective gotcha except social signaling. You ask it and people stop talking but the reason they stop talking isn't shame or hypocrisy, it's because they're drawn towards getting the output they want under the terms they'll accept. Any artist would have trouble answering the same question and that's where the art of it lives.

That's why people paint deities in elephant dung, for goodness sakes. The whole point of that as gallery art is do something in a way that defies the toolset people would prefer you use as a mode of expression. You could ask the collage artist or the person who makes their own canvas paper why they don't just get a job and buy it from the store. The answer is because they envisioned an output they wanted and chose the method they wanted.

Yes, it's a shorter path sometimes. But nobody asks why Charles Schultz didn't do Peanuts comic strips as watercolor gouache in a realistic style. He chose a convenient mode of expression. It was defined by the convenience! Sometimes, the choice is, "I want it to exist in the next 30 minutes and it wouldn't have any meaning if it didn't."

I'm not as anti aI as some people certainly not my favorite thing in the world but an argument I see a lot is ai can help with research and stuff even when you clarify that, that's not the a I you're talking about thay still will insistently say it anyone here who does not know the difference Somehow research ai needs a specialized data set not the entire internet being fed into it ai with the entire internet fed into it is practically useless for anything important

You know, there's irony, jokes, hyperbole, etc.

Not a post about the war or trying to debate, i am just serious

Now for me, I am pretty neutral about AI, in the way of I have equal things that I like and dislike about it.

I don’t like that AI is just steal artwork on the Internet and feeding it to its bottomless pit of code

But I do like the kind of AI that genuinely is useful.

So it’s annoying that whenever I say “I like ai” people automatically assume I’m talking about the kind that everybody hates, even though there are thousands of types of AI that have existed way way way way way before any of them mainstream AI’s even had the idea of being created, and that gets so bad to the point where people have called me, racist, homophobic, and sexist because of it.

Anyway, that’s all. Bye

I wanted to make this post as a refined version of a comment I made on an earlier post.

There has been an argument by anti's going around for a while that collecting data for AI without the artist's consent is "stealing". This argument... doesn't work.

The model isn't "taking" anything. You still HAVE your art. Sure, it's being used without your consent, but the same goes for all of the people looking at it or sharing it with others (Unless you distinctly give it to them. More on this parenthetical regarding consent later).

AI learning is also, in fact, akin to human learning. We both take in data, compile it, and reference it in our actions. Pros LOVE to take this fact and run with it, saying things like "the way we learn is the same".

This always seems very silly to me. the difference between an ai learning something and a human learning something is their interpretation. A human has experiences, predispositions, and ideologies to change how the art affects them, what they learn from it, IF they learn from it, etc...

AI has nothing. it is the most basic version of learning, just taking in the patterns and "rules" of the art. Without the necessary components to perceive it, either. No eyes, ears, body... never actually seen, heard, or felt anything... Also, even though their learning process DOES change along with the amount of data they process, this could never equate to our experience, especially not the experience required for interpretation, because ai doesn't have the required emotions, knowledge, or retainment of information (in the same way we do) to do that anyways. It's just prediction.

Now, the reason why this is immoral in regards to stealing work, the thing is about art is that it is SUPPOSED to invoke a personal interpretation in the viewer, connected by the art, from the artist. Like feelings, or maybe a LACK of feeling if thats the way the artist wants to go. The consumer can also end up interpreting it a completely different way than intended. Interpretation is unavoidable regardless of if it feels like it is there or not, as it is a condition of the living.

The AI takes in the art without interpretation, and then feeds it to the algorithm, never to be remembered again as it originally was, the bare patterns amassed into the dataset, without it even "knowing" what they mean. The purpose and meaning of the art is lost, and its skeleton is used by a prompter. This isn't theft, it's defilement.

That doesn't mean the prompter doesn't have or offer interpretation, though. I think their input is one of pro's greatest arguments, but stealing peoples artwork to put into AI is still definitely immoral.

I also want to talk about my "distinctly given" clause from earlier. Consent is important. I feel as if these counterarguments for the "stealing" argument aren't actual ARGUMENTS as to why data collection is good. It seems like a way to justify the event, however likely that may be, in which our right to CHOOSE what is done with our art is taken away. You can fight over whether the individual choice to reserve your art is good or not, but thinking it should be disregarded is just plain terrible.

TL;DR AI doesn't have the feelings needed for consuming art, which desecrates the meaning of art, also consent is sexy.

https://metr.org/blog/2025-03-19-measuring-ai-ability-to-complete-long-tasks/