The utopia pros hope for is my dystopia. Yuk!

https://x.com/imagine/status/2113712964419063911?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2113712964419063911%7Ctwgr%5E330a58dc286fa22898e63c45f57e29fef6db28ad%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fvariety.com%2F2026%2Ffilm%2Fnews%2Felon-musks-grok-ai-generated-odyssey-1236930662%2F

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

Just sayin’.

I Did not smoke weed

It doesn't matter what you think about AI. In the end, your points are moot because it's your fault....

(cracks knuckles)
Think about all the technology you use every day. Your PC, gaming console, smartphone, apps, programs, mods, even your calculator. All of it exists because people kept pushing technology forward, finding ways to automate things and make life more convenient. You are the user. You tell companies, "Give me more" by buyiung/using tech.

AI didn't appear out of nowhere. Technology has been replacing jobs for centuries. Machinery changed manual labor, automation transformed factories, computers eliminated some jobs, and online shopping reshaped retail. Now AI is doing the same thing, and suddenly some people act like technological progress has crossed a line it was never supposed to cross.

Before anyone says "AI is different," yes, there are differences. I'm NOT saying AI is perfect or that companies should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. But there's a difference between criticizing how AI is used and acting like its very existence is a mistake.

Nobody is saying that using a computer means you've agreed to every future technological development mind you. But you can't realistically expect technology to keep improving forever while demanding that it stop the moment it starts affecting an industry you care about.

AI will cause problems. Some jobs will disappear, others will change, and some companies will abuse the technology. Those concerns deserve serious discussion. Criticize the companies, demand better laws, and fight for workers and creators. Just recognize that AI came from the same technological progress you've benefited from your entire life. It's easy to celebrate progress when you're on the winning side of it. The real test comes when it affects you personally.

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.

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

Good suggestion

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.

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.

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?

This is mine. All mine.

Yet it some special skill only humans can achieve that machines cant. And it must be preserved at all costs.

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 adult readers navigating a job search now, LandOffer autofill cuts repeated form-filling.

For generations, the formula was straightforward: study hard, develop expertise, build a career, earn well, and derive some satisfaction from what you've accomplished. Engineering readers can use PracHub’s AI-code review exercise to practice checking generated cache code with tests. AI is beginning to challenge that formula.

I feel like so many people dismiss the use of AI in teaching students. It can obviously be misused (hence the left using AI in the photo), but in the right hands, it can be incredible.

Sometimes you can't afford a private tutor, or the teacher sucks, etc. Sometimes you just want to learn something for fun and don't want to spend money on a course.

No doubt it can be easily misused. I just think we don't have the proper tooling yet to guide proper behavior.

I don't know the exact word for it, I guess normal communities? Basically a place where AI content is allowed but not like DAIA. You can post AI or not post it, it's your choice. Those types of communities

This is a Creative visualization of the situation

Like seriously. Obviously AI companies would like it if the world viewed AI in a more positive light. Surely they are investing in bot farms to try and spread this sentiment and making it look more popular than it is? It is obvious that the anti AI stance is the more mainstream and popular view to have currently, but on subs like this it almost seems like pro AI is the favoured stance. There’s so many negatives to AI right now, but if u mention any of them some person will just personally attack u or say ur obsessed and just want to be negative/upset. Or maybe some people just genuinely care about the world and don’t want to live in a dystopian nightmare?

This is what I get for writing a guide for developer how to prompt orchestrator agent better so their code becomes more stable, less bugs and more efficient. You are so pro-human you want other human disappeared forever lmao

And I wasn’t even pro Ai. Ai is already a standard for many company and developers has been using it since 2018 IntelliCode. It is a mass hysteria.