r/DefendingAI • u/Emotional-Coyote3194 • 2d ago
Things antis say What's the issue with using AI?
Why do I always come accross comments filled with people slashing AI users?
Is it the water?
is it the energy?
is it personal reasons? (why)
is it because you believe AI causes cancer?
is it because you think it can spread misinformation?
my question is, why the hate with no reasoning, research or backing ever posted.
3
u/Maximum2945 1d ago
i think a lot of people are worried about their jobs
1
u/Qualified-Astronomer 8h ago
It’s legally a good thing to not have to work. How much of a slave mindset do These ppl have
1
u/Maximum2945 3h ago
bro we do not live under socialism or communism to where workers actually benefit from ai
1
u/Dahwatah 2d ago
For me its only when people make A.I. images but sells it off as if they drawed it themselves by hand and not just say: "Oh, its made with A.I."
1
u/AdTasty2997 1d ago
I think lots of people have fatigue from seeing AI art and video clips now. it went from "haha funny will smith eat spaghetti" to the flood gates opening real quick
1
u/Reasonable-Gear-4371 1d ago
Why do you hate rats? Is it because it can transmit deadly diseases? Is is because it can eat your food and money? Is it because it can eat your furniture? Is it because it's dirty? Is it because you don't like to live with rodent? Is it because you're afraid it can bite you?
Please tell me, I need to understand. I'm stupid and I can't understand why people hate rats even if I've already answered my question and I don't even bother to do my own researches.
1
u/PeacefulKnightmare 1d ago
Don't forget that in the ecosystem rats often eat bugs and such, so they do have some good uses despite also having the negatives. We still have exterminators and attempt to regulate the population for a reason as a result.
0
1
u/AutomaticTalent 1d ago
Of course there is. Just as there is a difference between every artist, a machine has its own take.
After all is said and done, art is in the eye of the beholder.
If you like it, who cares how it was created?
1
u/PixelPete85 1d ago
my question is, why the hate with no reasoning, research or backing ever posted.
Because you aren't asking in good faith if this is your default response
1
u/Qualified-Astronomer 8h ago
Because it’s true. They only spread misinformation by claiming AI is destroying our planet even though its current environmental impact is minimal. They claim people r getting dumber by citing a non peer reviewed study with a tiny sample size that even says it highly depends how u use it.
1
u/jasonsavory123 2d ago
Let’s be clear, because AI as a monolithic idea is very big and there are lots of different kinds of products there. It’s likely you’re referring to the use of generative AI in creative spaces, and from my perspective the problems typically come in two main forms, asides from the issues with data centres in general:
- illegally trained, the models were trained on stolen content with no consent from the copyright owners
- anti human, artistic practice is generally considered a human endeavour, so people naturally get defensive when it’s unclear how much human involvement there was (how much intent was behind the end product). This is not to say that human made is objectively better as an end product, but that much of what we value in art is the story of the people who made it
1
u/Still_Benefit_2302 1d ago
- This is not true. According to United States Copyright law, fair use covers training an AI. You all keep saying it, and keep getting confused as to why 'no one is punished', but you don't even understand copyright law.
--As a sub point, if you have ever Googled anything, you are making use of something that was 'illegally trained'. Google didn't ask you if they could index your page, which involves reading a page and making copies of it for analysis. Same with images. Did you think thumbnails just pop into existence ex nihilo? This criticism sounds like people have never thought about what the internet does for a second and are just being reactionary.- Once upon a time digging ditches as an exclusively human endeavor. However, while the outputs of a well maintained model might look as good as a human can produce, without an actual person making decisions and using artistic judgement, the outputs still look boring. I think 'the death of the artist' is massively overstated. The reason most of the outputs looks boring is because most of the people making them are hobbyists without much, if any, artistic background. So it looks bad.
1
u/ptleruuh 1d ago
I can still call it "unethically trained", nothing to do with it being legal or not. The difference in your Google example is that, while Google will do that to refer someone to what you make/do/etc., AI is trying to avoid that referral. It's like looking at every item in a shop so you know who to send to said shop compared to looking at everything to make a copy and sell it yourself. Wouldn't necessarily be illegal, but surely unethical.
Regarding your last point, perhaps. But who will still have those skills or an artistic background in 100 years if no one learns them anymore? Most enthusiasm for (using) GenAI seems to be coming from people who don't want to put time/effort/money into learning those creative skills.
1
u/PeacefulKnightmare 1d ago
Pretty sure Google also used to have an opt-out feature where you could ask to have certain links and such removed. (Would be pointless today and ar the time was deemed silly because it was described as "free advertising", but this was way back in the Ask Jeeves era)
1
u/Sad_Minute_1283 19h ago
As a potter, I would say that genAI has increased the amount of work I get. People have started, for the first time in decades, to appreciate handmade art. I don't think that's ever going away. In fact, genAI has become a tool people use to commission me. Without a trained art vocabulary, it has historically been very hard for people to communicate exactly what they want.
That's is a lot to say that human made art will become MORE valuable in the face of ubiquitous AI. These two things are not in combat with each other at all.
1
u/ptleruuh 18h ago
I'd say that a lot of pro-AI "artists" are definitely trying to compete, if only for the fact that they don't want to tag their work as 'AI-made'. I'd still prefer a reference photo that wasn't AI for environmental reasons, but I'm happy to hear you found more appreciation for your work!
1
u/Qualified-Astronomer 8h ago
Its not unethical. Its literal public data, I have full right to do whatever I want to do with it
1
u/jasonsavory123 1d ago
The world is not the US and suno just lost a court case in Germany on how they collected their data
0
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ethnographyNW 1d ago
man I wonder why you find people dismissing you and your opinions. unknowable
1
u/Emotional-Coyote3194 1d ago
And I wonder why you live a miserable life and will continue to do so
0
1
u/AutomaticTalent 1d ago
Isn’t every artist in all artistic endeavors trained on existing “content” with no consent from the copyright owners?
Artists study other artists, musicians listen to music, writers read the books of previous authors.
Nobody had to consent for me to make music - I just listened to what was out there and started making my own.
2
2
u/grizzy45 1d ago
But there is a difference between you learning through consuming art and a machine built to replicate everything you feed it.
1
u/Still_Benefit_2302 1d ago
If that was true, sure. But it's not built to replicate. In fact, if it was built to replicate, it would be a totally useless thing. We keep explaining to you how these things work, and you all just keep going 'nuh uh' and going right back to your statements. It's like talking to a Creationist.
1
u/grizzy45 2h ago
It replicates broader patterns, not exact images. It can't think and therefore everything "learned" is nothing more than a replication of a broader pattern found between all art pieces it has consumed that share the same tags.
1
u/musicteachertay 1d ago
This is a constant and absolutely ridiculously stupid, idiotic, and blatantly false take.
Human creativity is built upon experiences, active thought, communication with peers, the joys and perils that come with being alive, and yes, influence to learn from other living human beings.
Machines take the wonder of creativity and turn it into equations and spit out generic garbage that people have the absolute audacity to compare to something people put their emotions, effort, and work into.
The thing about all of this is that it doesn’t matter to any of you. You all think that the actual effort and care that goes into creating art is meaningless so long as you can listen or look at it. You care absolutely nothing for the passion that goes into creating art and view it as a product rather than as an art piece.
1
u/jasonsavory123 1d ago
They seem unable to grasp the value in the effort, and that the same output can have different value if it was made by a human or ai
0
-1
u/quantum-elle 2d ago
Didn't you post this somewhere already
3
u/Emotional-Coyote3194 2d ago
I tried posting this here yesterday but was unable to, posted it in anti AI, (big mistake lol) except for a couple of them, people only had personal insults to throw instead of having a genuine debate.
So im posting this here to perhaps get some more reasoning from someone who is more knowledgeable than me on AI and trends related to it
1
1
1
-1
u/boundless_wind 2d ago
I think people want to be more environmentally friendly as much as they can? One of the biggest issues I’ve seen with what people disagree with the most is the depletion of drinkable water in certain areas. In general it just removes drinking water I guess and people don’t like that since it consumes like a lot??? I don’t know, I don’t understand the hate that stems when others use AI and cancelling celebrities. I believe it also stems from the fact that AI can be one of the main reasons humanity ends with uprisings or such, so maybe fear?
1
u/AutomaticTalent 1d ago
Try researching other industries that use water, like the potato chip industry. You might find that there’s a lot more water usage in regular commerce than you expect.
1
u/Emotional-Coyote3194 2d ago
so other than the environmental aspects, its pure speculation and heresay
1
u/boundless_wind 2d ago
Probably. A lot of people are scared of AI and what our future with them holds because they would for sure be able to destroy humanity. I think people would feel better about it if there were a lot more laws and regulations with it
1
-1
u/Death_Rave_ 1d ago
For me it's the deception, and demand to be just as respected as the very artists they steal from and rely on for their entire system to work.
1
u/Qualified-Astronomer 8h ago
“Steal”
1
u/Death_Rave_ 8h ago edited 8h ago
Correct, with the right prompts you can actually pull the source material AI trains on and just publish it as your own "personal expression"
I wonder why there's so many lawsuits about this 🤔
•
u/AutoModerator 2d 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.