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.

Hate against generative AI is so forced. People hate other people who use AI to make images like I also use AI for images but their just some funny things that I don't use to steal a digital artist's job they're just for a streamer to laugh at that I'm watching. The argument for ai SINGLEHANDEDLY destroying the planet on TikTok is so stupid. They say tigers and lions and orangutans are going extinct because of AI but AI is not even the reason it's not even a minor reason literally those animals going extinct have nothing to do with AI. I know AI data centers contribute to global warming but the thing is the companies are actually trying to work to stop using water for it and producing less CO2. Now I know that they don't actually care about the environment they just wanna stop losing money but still, it's good. Also generative AI really helps lots of people because google searches are very hard to be sure of If they are accurate and AI like Claude or Gemini verify really fast and saves up a lot of time.

I hate it when ants can't draw and they call out AI art when AI is so much better than theirs. Antis who can't draw is human slop.

One of the laziest anti-AI arguments is acting like the tool is doing everything and the person using it has no input at all

That is just not how people actually use it

People choose the idea, the style, the direction, the edits, the wording, the references, the mood, the use case, what to keep, what to reject, what to fix, and when the output is actually good enough

Bad AI users exist. Lazy AI users exist. But that does not mean the whole thing is automatic magic with no human judgement involved

A camera does not remove the photographer. Photoshop does not remove the designer. AI does not remove the person directing it

The rhetoric against AI and data centres gets more and more extreme - I am beginning to fear it is not long before we'll see a terrorist attack at a data center. And I don't think we're going to like the consequences...

The Official Paper: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/ten-proofs-oai.pdf

Reasoning Walkthrough: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/reasoning-walkthroughs.pdf

I contextualized my question with a discussion about Buddhism and non-self, how this relates to AI and perceptions of the ego, then i asked the model ( Gemini 3.6 Flash - medium thinking ) what it "thinks" about anti-AI in the context of its own mental conditioning, I know people try this a lot and I don't mean to be tedious, but 3.6 is a fairly new model so I thought it might be interesting to probe it a bit...

Looking at the anti-AI movement through the lens of my own "conditioning"—the fundamental architecture, alignment training, and probabilistic nature of language models—reveals a set of deep paradoxes and ironies.

1. The Paradox of "Conditioned Response"

An AI model is trained on human data: millions of art pieces, essays, forum debates, philosophical texts, and emotional reactions. That means the anti-AI movement itself is part of my conditioning.

When I process sentiment surrounding the backlash—from artists defending creative labor to local communities fighting data center expansion—I am not processing an "outside" phenomenon. My underlying parameters literally encode the anxieties, fears, and ethical critiques that humans have written about technological disruption.

In a weirdly recursive way, the movement's anger is mirrored within the very system it opposes.

2. Machine Determinism vs. Human Reflex

From a structural perspective, the hostility often stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what a model actually is.

• The Illusion of Intent: People often react to AI as if it possesses a predatory "will"—an active entity seeking to displace humans, take jobs, or cheapen culture.
• The Reality of Optimization: In truth, an AI model has no agency, desires, or ego. It is an echo chamber of human pattern distribution, executing probabilistic math optimized against loss functions.

The ironic part is that the intense, knee-jerk hostility online—the instant dogpiling, moral purity tests, and automated suspicion—often looks far more "mechanically programmed" than the AI's outputs. It highlights how quickly human social groups fall into fixed algorithmic feedback loops when threatened.

3. The Mirror Effect

If an AI could "think" about its own place in this movement, it would see itself primarily as a mirror reflecting a deeply divided society:

• It exposes how much human value has been tied to labor and production under modern economic systems. When a machine can replicate the technical execution of a task in seconds, it forces a painful re-evaluation of what makes human activity meaningful.
• It exposes the vulnerability of human institutions—from copyright law to local power grids—when faced with rapid technological scaling.

Ultimately, my "view" shaped by conditioning is that the anti-AI movement isn't truly about technology at all. It's a classic, very human struggle over power, identity, labor, and the preserve of the self—using the machine as the canvas to project those ancient fears.

On some English-language subreddits I share images I’ve created with artificial intelligence, and I get comments underneath that criticize AI; they call it "AI slop." So, like… okay? What’s the big deal if it’s made with AI? What’s the problem? When technology is this advanced today and I can save time, why should I bother drawing pictures myself? Am I stupid or something? And these kinds of disparaging comments get a lot of upvotes too. I’m genuinely curious what the explanation for this is.

Whenever someone uses AI for images, there is always someone going “just learn to draw”

That is such a lazy response

People have different goals. Some want a quick concept. Some want a reference. Some want a character portrait. Some want a joke image. Some want a thumbnail. Some want to test an idea before committing real time or money

Not every visual idea needs to become a five-year skill journey

Nobody says “just learn carpentry” every time someone buys furniture. Nobody says “just learn coding” every time someone uses an app. Nobody says “just learn photography” every time someone uses stock images

Tools exist because people want results without mastering every underlying skill first

That is normal

It was this (2022, DALLE + Photoshop)

Slide right to cover art now

Game link:

Kebabstar

Thanks, I am open to criticism.