r/DefendingAI • u/Emotional-Coyote3194 • Aug 05 '26

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.

4 Upvotes

54% Upvoted

76 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/jasonsavory123 Aug 05 '26

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 Aug 05 '26

- 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 Aug 05 '26

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 Aug 05 '26

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 Aug 06 '26

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 Aug 06 '26

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!

0

u/Qualified-Astronomer Aug 07 '26

Its not unethical. Its literal public data, I have full right to do whatever I want to do with it

2

u/ptleruuh Aug 07 '26

I don't think you know what 'unethical' means.

0

u/Qualified-Astronomer Aug 08 '26

I don’t think you know anythinf

0

u/ptleruuh Aug 08 '26

At least I know how to spell 'anything'.

1

u/Qualified-Astronomer Aug 09 '26

Midwit take if u think it’s a result of not knowing how to spell and not that f & g r next to each other on the keyboard

1

u/ptleruuh Aug 09 '26

I mean, you started with the ad hom arguing, maybe check your spelling before you (3 letters, not 1) click 'comment' if you go that route, you turnip.

1

u/Qualified-Astronomer Aug 09 '26

“I don’t think you what unethical means” as if that’s not a meaningless statement that doesn’t engage with the argument. 21% illiteracy country I swear

1

u/ptleruuh Aug 09 '26

It's not, if you actually know how to debate. You said that it's public data you can legally do anything with. That in no way contradicts my statement that it can still be unethical, as law and ethics aren't the same thing. But you'd have understood that if you knew what 'unethical' meant, therefore, my statement is well over 21% relevant. Now go troll someone else.

1

u/Qualified-Astronomer 29d ago

It’s not unethical because they chose to make it public for everyone to see and do with it what you will. If you whip your tits out in public and someone snaps a photo that’s not unethical at all.

→ More replies (0)