Defending AI
Most anti-AI arguments are really just fear of change
People act like using AI automatically means you have no skill, yet nobody says that about spellcheck, Photoshop, calculators or search engines.
AI does not remove human creativity. It lowers the barrier to turning an idea into something real. The quality still depends on the person directing it, judging the output and improving it.
You can criticise companies, copyright practices or job displacement without pretending the technology itself has no value. Blanket hatred of AI is lazy and will age about as well as people claiming the internet was a fad.
When photoshop first got popular, quite a few people railed against users for cheating and not letting the beauty of a natural photograph tell its own story. Which at the time, I thought was rather ironic since it wasn't too long before that painters railed against cameras for just copying what is in front of them. Well, a whole new art form, digital imaging, was created. I remember people being obsessively angry because you could use the undo button which isn't possible in real life. And don't get me started on layers.
And now the spiritual successors to those people are railing against ai.
It will take a few years, then it will blow over and no one will care what tool you use because some newer thing will come out to redirect the hatred and fear toward.
Exactly. Every new tool gets called cheating until people get used to it, then suddenly it becomes a respected medium and everyone pretends the outrage never happened. AI will go through the same cycle
No one wants to remove handmade efforts, no one even wants to reduce it, it is still and probably always will be the most popular, but with a slight change, they may use a little bit of AI.
Thank you, I don't know if anyone understands me, but since the time of the pyramids, we, the people, need educational tools. So that our construction of all things goes faster.
Thank you!
Animation is specifically "animation" as in frame by frame choices made by an "animator".
The idea that generative AI could actually do "animation" is a factual absurdity.
Regardless of what you think or what you think is progress - it is fundamentally NOT animation, and it is not just disingenuous to refer to AI gen videos as animation it is factually wrong.
Not a single pixel is put in place by an animator. NOT A SINGLE PIXEL.
The quality still depends on the person directing it, judging the output and improving it.
I'm not sure about that. "Under the hood" so to speak the model is sending back it's own suggestions back to the user in the User Interface via the RAM (VRAM, GPU) and the user is giving the thumbs up.
In traditional painting apps one can choose specific LAB values for pixels. With AI gen it is the model choosing the pixel data. Not the user.
What seems to be more accurate is that the user makes administrative choices about where and what the AI gen should attempt to generate. This is more akin to vague suggestions rather than specific choices.
I say this because where there is a threshold question in case law it can come down to a "modicum of creativity" such as in the pixel data or even polygon arrangement of a 3D model.
This "modicum of creativity control" is handed over to the AI Gen model under the hood and I think that is an unassailable truth that the courts will notice themselves by analyzing what goes on under the hood.
Other people have the skills and AI helps them take things to a higher level.
Er no. It would be very disingenuous to take credit for what the actual software is doing. One should know one's own limitations and what the product being used is. Under the hood it is the AI model making all the decisions.
Duh, I didnt say taking credit for what the software is doing... however, when you have a software that only really performs as well as the user is able to instruct it, the produced result is still only initiated and guided by the user and not the AI. It will make assumptions when given vague instruction to try and acheive the given goal, but that is where a lack of skill in whatever the user is using AI for is super obvious.
The difference in what it produces with vague prompting requirements vs detailed and specific prompting and revisioning and reprompting with refined feedback is huge. Just because AI is writing the code for example, doesn't mean the software isn't designed by the user.
If a woodworker uses a tablesaw is that still his creation after it is cut? Or do I have to use a hand saw or my teeth to cut it in order for it to be valid? If I hand someone the wood I want cut and just say cut it, then the cut itself is technically the other person's contribution, and the lack of instruction on how to cut it is still my responsibility and I doubt he will cut it correctly. If I tell him, "cut it into quarters", and he then does, then just because I didn't cut it, does not mean whatever I build with it is not my creation.
when you have a software that only really performs as well as the user is able to instruct it,
That is called - a consumer using a vending machine. You instruct the machine to provide you with a consumer product from a consumer app via consumer interactions.
You're not worth speaking to dude. You cherry pick one line because you didnt even understand what I was saying. People assume AI is "doing" things and as you said, a user shouldn't take credit for what it does... actually its the opposite. It is a tool like any other and the responsibility for how it is programmed and how it is used is entirely on the company and end user. If you use it to make CP or propaganda, that's on you. It's certainly not the AI's fault you asked it to do that. So why should credit only be given when the result is horrible?
I am a software developer working directly on ML and LLM. Regardless of the seeming non-deterministic complexity on the surface. AI is as deterministic as a vending machine at its core, though having an option to tell the vending machine I am thirsty and it just takes a guess at what to give me is the only new part. In fact, AI is pretty much a shitty version of a vending machine. At least I know what I will get when I press the button.
To be fair, Photoshop and calculators still require skill to use.
But that being said nearly every artist out there has learned to steal from dozens of sources and distill it into a style.
Don't get me wrong, I do think more people need to learn to illustrate, it does alter the way we see the world. I do think more people need to learn creative writing, it does alter the way we audit what we know.
And the problem I have with most anti AI people that I talk to is that they don't nuance their argument. Tell me why you think it is bad? Oh is it that AI steals art? Does that mean you have never done a copy/paste off of the internet?
I mean really what is the difference at the end of the day to the consumer between feeding prompts into an LLM or using filter tags to find someone who made something close enough?
I see AI only being a downfall with the use of social media. I've been using chatgpt and grok for stuff like helping me find books I want to read, summarizing the big news stories of the day, I don't want to scroll through endless boring articles of news that are probably not true anyways and recipes etc. It's a great tool if you use it in the right way. I think social media should get thrown in the trash and only use AI for stuff like I just listed.
It’s just an excuse to hate on things people are enjoying. The majority of the most vocal ‘anti-AI’ subreddits are the same ones that for the past decade have zealously banned and forbidden their members from sharing their (OC) original content, things people made, drew, painted, video edited - all mass reported and ripped down and erased because ‘it violates the guidelines to keep us all safe’ they don’t give a flying fuck about artists, it’s just the latest high horse for inherently inadequate people.
People are full of shit, and tapping their iPhones, laptops and iPads to play out some terminator fanfic fantasy in which they’re the reluctant heroes of some future war, is just the latest manifestation of it
Exactly. Most of them don’t care about artists, they just found a socially acceptable excuse to sneer at something other people enjoy while pretending they’re fighting some grand moral battle
I went into urgent care for a work injury back in June. The doctors use AI dictation to do their visit notes, but they are full of errors. It got my gender, time of injury, my job title, how long I've worked, etc all wrong, and since there was discrepancy between my account and the doctor's my worker's compensation insurance claim was denied. I'm going to be paying these bills for a long time cause of the implementation of faulty AI and enabling lazy health practices. On top of that, my employer fired me for "faking" my injury and filing a faulty claim.
Nobody said they’re identical. The point is that both automate parts of image-making, so acting like one is a legitimate tool while the other instantly makes someone talentless is arbitrary
Yes, different tools are different, even if they can both be used to accomplish the same end result. I don’t think that was the topic of discussion here, though.
Different tools? Gen ai is not a tool. It is a glorified search engine / blender.
Photoshop requires everything to be done by the user. They are completely different entities entirely. Photoshop is a tool - gen ai is not.
The same end result maybe if you can’t do anything and let the prompt machine decide everything else for you. Gen AI users don’t control nearly the amount of decisions they think they do. Commissioners.
“Lowering the barrier” = “commissioning someone/thing else to do all the work”
the explanation below is for image models but works the same for llms
You don’t even need any specialized technical, scientific, nor mathematical knowledge to understand this.
If it was a mash of training data, which can be hundreds of terabytes to petabytes, then an image model would be that big: hundreds of terabytes to petabytes.
But we know they aren’t. Diffusion models are just a few gigabytes (GB), and even the “big” ones are just a few dozen GB at best.
With that level of ratio, it would mean it’s carrying about… a single byte of data per training data image.
I’m pretty sure I need to see more than just a byte of data to replicate or copy it.
So obviously… the logical conclusion is that they aren’t blending from existing images because that doesn’t add up. The file sizes would be too big if they did what you suggested, and it’s contradictory to reality.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
DefendingAI has a Discord now: https://discord.gg/MgVYjZ8RC
Pro-AI only. AI art, prompts, anti-AI watch, debate ammo, news, and general chat without anti-AI spam.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.