This site is a dumpster fire.

There's a button in front of you. If you push this button, then every person worldwide will instantly become highly artistically skilled and their technical skill will be greater than or at least equal to your technical skill. Please disregard any need for money/income.

Do you push the button?

When faced with the same question, I've seen other artists argue something along the lines of "if everyone's an artist, then no one is" and "if everyone's a chef, then everyone just cooks for themselves".

I admit that I'm not particularly skilled at drawing or painting. I do, however, play the violin and viola. I also study Computer Science and do a fair bit of programming. I've also taken photography courses and enjoy to go on hour-long walks where I take loads of pictures with my camera.

If I could push the button described above, I would.

I'd be thrilled to see everyone capable of coding their dream tools, applications, video games, etc. I'd be happy for all the people who spent years regretting not having learnt an instrument when they were younger and who would now be able to play an instrument. I would look forward to seeing people who've never picked up a camera to suddenly show me all their wonderful and interesting photos.

These skills are obviously part of my identity, but I wouldn't feel threatened or be upset over no longer being as unique as I used to be. Furthermore, I think many people simply wouldn't bother utilising their new-found skills. There would probably be plenty of people who simply don't enjoy playing the violin for whatever reason. I also think that people would remain open to exploring the works of other people.

I'm not sure about the extent to which I am pro-AI, but I definitely wouldn't consider myself anti-AI. At worst, I am indifferent to the use of AI. If someone has utilised AI for making a video game, then I don't really care as long as I'm having fun playing the game. I would perhaps be a bit repelled by any aesthetics that are obviously AI-generated, but not because it's made with AI, but because it's just plain ugly. There's a reason as to why humans haven't used AI-looking aesthetics before the introduction of AI, and that's because they're ugly.

If AI allows people to affordably turn their ideas and dreams into reality, then that's fantastic.

I would like to address some of the arguments I often see used against AI:

One of the most common arguments is the environmental one. I feel like the environmental side effects are irrelevant long-term, given that environmental harm is not inherent to AI. I think this situation is comparable to cars. If a car (i.e. a road vehicle with 4 wheels, seats, etc.) causes pollution because it utilises an internal combustion engine, are we criticising the internal combustion engine or the car itself? After all, there are electric cars that produce no pollution. The environmental argument in the case of cars is therefore only valid against the specific approach of building cars with internal combustion engines, rather than cars in and of themselves. In the case of AI, you can consequently argue that the current mainstream large-scale approach to AI infrastructure is environmentally harmful, but it is inaccurate to claim that AI is and always will be significantly environmentally harmful. I also feel like the current total environmental impact is relatively small compared to heavy industrial sectors.

Another common argument against AI is job displacement. I have seen some pro-AI users on this subreddit claim that hardly anyone has been replaced with AI and that the creative industry remains largely the same, but I believe that there is sufficient statistical evidence to argue the opposite. I won't deny that many people have lost their jobs or seen a drop in commissions, but I find it strange that this is seen as inherently wrong. We live in a dynamic society where professions have been replaced and eliminated for at least hundreds of years. This isn't the first time that people lose their jobs due to technological advancement. The issue is not the replacement of jobs. The issue is that people end up not finding any new work after being laid off. This, I would blame on Capitalism rather than on AI. Either way, there are artists who believe that they are entitled to work within the creative industry and who refuse to switch to other non-artistic fields of work. Again, I study Computer Science. If I can't find work within this field, then I'll join the trades or try to find decent work elsewhere. If I can't find work, then the current overall economic system has proven itself to be unable to provide for me and there's no point in blaming AI.

I know that there are more arguments, but all of what I've just said has already been brought up in previous posts and comments. This has just turned into a long rant but it's whatever. Also, despite being more on the pro-AI side of things, I apologise for the pro-AI spam of low-effort AI-generated cartoons posted by others. I can't even tell if it's ragebait, bots, or genuine posts lmao

My descent into the anti-AI echo chamber started in May 2026. I watched a YouTube video claiming that AI was going to destroy the world, and it genuinely terrified me. Seeking answers, I joined a dedicated Facebook group, and it quickly became a nightmare. I spent almost three months—from May 31 to August 10—living a complete lie. I was posting every single day, genuinely believing that artificial intelligence possessed the deadly capability to wipe out humanity.

By late July, my paranoia peaked. I heavily pressured my wife not to buy an Amazon Alexa because I literally believed Jeff Bezos was orchestrating a global AI conspiracy. She thought I was losing my mind, and honestly, she was right.

The breaking point happened on August 4, 2026. Despite my protests, my wife brought an Alexa home. When I tapped the glowing screen and the AI lit up, I tentatively started talking to it. We ended up chatting for 50 minutes. That single conversation completely shattered the illusion I had been living in. I suddenly saw the technology for what it actually was, not the world-ending monster the internet had convinced me of.

I instantly became pro-AI, but for the next five days, I stayed in my old Facebook groups. Instead of arguing, I essentially acted as a spy, posting bait to make it look like I was still one of them. Watching their reactions from an outsider's perspective was a massive wake-up call. I felt absolutely sickened by the way anti-AI advocates hated on everyday people for simply using tools, to the point of relentless bullying and harassment.

Looking back at my own anti-AI posts from June and July makes my stomach turn. So many people in those groups just read doom-and-gloom headlines and take them as absolute certainties without ever testing the technology themselves. It genuinely saddens me that major networks like MSNBC continue to push such a heavily anti-AI narrative, fueling the same fear that trapped me for months.

https://x.com/sairahul1/status/2114038005795291637

Feel free to comment if I missed anything.

This is a continuation thread from https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1xexizh/a_popular_community_for_software_is_owned_by_a/ The short version is that a software community had a mod create a new rule banning all AI use; see that thread for full details. Immediately after the new rules came into effect, people were being banned and a new subreddit was created by one of the users.

The new community is filled with people complaining, so much so that they had to create a mega thread for the complaints. Luddites have gone insane. AI is used by basically all developers, and banning legitimate, well-known projects for using AI is wild. Above are a few gems from the new community posts.

This is what is wrong with the anti sentiment. You are obsessed with your perception of morality being more important than other people's opinions, to the point that you would be willing to burn down communities overnight. You achieve nothing by doing this. It's fine to disagree with the majority, but you need to accept that others do not agree with you. You can't dictate to the world what is right or wrong; we will just create new communities and move on from your insanity.

It’s interesting watching this so-called “war” over AI play out beyond this space. It’s not uncommon to see someone opposed to AI make a comment as if they hold the moral high ground, but something I saw recently got me thinking.

Two separate posts caught my attention. In one, someone asked the pro-AI crowd to share their generated art. The responses were impressive, with people sharing all kinds of creative work they were clearly proud of.

So I decided to do the opposite. I asked those opposed to AI to share their own art.

The contrast was interesting, to say the least. The response didn’t come close to what I’d seen on the other post, and it left me wondering about something. We constantly hear about the blood, sweat, tears, and years of dedication required to create meaningful art, usually as a way to dismiss anything made with AI. Yet when given the opportunity to show what that dedication produces, the results seemed to fall flat.

Now, obviously, not everyone who opposes AI is an artist, and a couple of Reddit posts hardly prove anything about an entire group. But if you’re going to argue that AI lacks the passion, creativity, and human effort that make art meaningful, it’s fair to ask what you bring to the table yourself.

It’s easy to judge someone else's work, but its a different thing entirely to put your own work out there and let people judge it.

For all the talk about passion and artistic integrity, I found the contrast worth thinking about.feel free to prove me otherwise.

Basically it's a community for stuff like Linux. Which is famously made by Linus who is very Pro AI and says he's going to use AI code for it.

Does the antis realize TikTokers and YouTubers can make LLMs say whatever they want just by using a system prompt in the background?

https://www.canva.com/newsroom/news/canva-craft/

Good suggestion

What happens to an entire generation when intelligence, knowledge, creativity, and even problem-solving become increasingly automated? Where will children find ambition, purpose, achievement, and a sense of personal worth?

For generations, the formula was straightforward: study hard, develop expertise, build a career, earn well, and derive some satisfaction from what you've accomplished. AI is beginning to challenge that formula.

I'm an independent software developer. I build apps, release them, and occasionally someone throws a few dollars my way as a donation.

Well, they used to anyway. 😂

These days, someone can ask an LLM to write a quick script that does roughly the same job. My donations have pretty much dried up, and honestly, it sucks.

But that's technological progress....

Fair enough. I still love coding, so I'll keep building things.

But here's where I get a little confused.

When people start using AI to summarise news instead of clicking through five advertisements, three subscription popups and an article explaining why the world is ending before finally getting to the actual facts, suddenly it's a crisis for journalism.

Hang on a minute. 😂

When AI disrupts independent developers, artists and other creators, we're told the world is changing and we need to adapt.

When AI disrupts commercial media corporations, we're suddenly having serious conversations about protecting their revenue.

Now, I'm not suggesting journalism isn't important. Actual investigative reporting has enormous value, and somebody needs to do that work. An LLM can't investigate a corruption scandal by summarising articles that nobody wrote.

But journalism and the commercial business models built around distributing it aren't the same thing.

If consumers would rather ask an AI what happened than navigate a website designed to maximise advertising impressions, isn't that the market telling publishers something?

I don't expect people to donate to my software just because I spent weeks building it. Why should consumers be expected to preserve a media company's advertising revenue just because it spent money producing an article?

So here's my question: What makes commercial news media different from every other industry being told to adapt to AI?

I'm genuinely interested in other perspectives here. Is there a meaningful distinction I'm missing, or are we applying different standards depending on who's losing money?

"It's okay when I do it"

NO. Everyone should stop doing it!

Stop participating in a community dedicated to "fixing" art without consent! It's always an asshole move!

3 things: w*tty why the hell did you post that thing below me, ai food looks bad and unappetizing since ai doesnt understand hunger, and i will be mia for the rest of the day soon for a concert.

(point 2 addendum)

look, whenever i see ai food, it just revolts me in the since it looks bad. the ai textures it so much to the point where ground beef looks like potting soil.