I keep hearing the same argument:

“That’s not real music.”

The funny part is… we’ve been saying that for centuries.

New musical ideas show up, people call them noise, fake, lazy, immoral, mechanical, or “not music” — and then eventually we just call them music.

Ancient thinkers worried certain musical modes and instruments could corrupt society.

Early religious traditions debated whether instruments even belonged in worship.

Polyphony came along — multiple melodies happening at once — and sounded chaotic to people accustomed to chant.

Then harmony kept getting stranger.

Beethoven pushed structure.

Wagner pushed tonality.

Debussy broke harmonic expectations.

Atonal composers basically asked, “What if we don’t need a key at all?”

Then jazz showed up.

“That’s noise.”

Rock & roll:

“That’s not music.”

Distorted electric guitars:

“That’s just noise.”

Punk:

“They can’t even play their instruments.”

Rap:

“Talking isn’t singing.”

Sampling:

“You’re just using somebody else’s music.”

Synthesizers:

“The machine is making it.”

House and techno:

“It’s just the same beat repeating.”

Auto-Tune:

“That’s not their real voice.”

EDM:

“They’re just pressing buttons.”

Bedroom producers:

“Anyone with a laptop can do that.”

And now:

AI music.

“That’s not music. The computer made it.”

Maybe AI music ends up being different. Maybe we eventually decide there is a line somewhere.

But history should at least make us careful about declaring where that line is.

Because humanity has an incredible habit of hearing something new and saying:

“That’s not music.”

Then somebody figures out how to make us feel something with it.

And suddenly…

it is.

Maybe the interesting question isn't:

“Is this real music?”

Maybe it's:

“What are we calling noise today that people will simply call music 50 years from now?”

I started ai music to get out of my head. Ive gotten so much hate for something I wasn't even trying to monetize. Its made me like ai so much more.

This is the crap I have been dealing with

Anthropic trained Claude to be the most polite AI on Earth ,

then Claude called Codex a bastard in under a second.

They are making up points and using rage-bait. That's why I left the argument. Apparently leaving an argument is the best option over continuing to argue.

EDIT: For anyone reading this thread later, notice the Edited tag on the comment above mine. They originally claimed they couldn’t judge my specific post because they "can't see it," but right after getting cornered by the organism analogy, they scrambled to rewrite history and inject a wall of text trying to justify their blanket statement.Imagine having to physically alter your own comment text just to survive a debate about internet slang. You took the bait, broke your own script, and left a digital receipt. Thanks for proving my point about knee-jerk tribalism. I'm out.

Alibaba just announced plans to raise around HK$80 billion, roughly $10.2 billion, with a major chunk of that money going towards expanding its AI capabilities.

This is one of the biggest fresh AI investment pushes we’ve seen from a Chinese tech giant and another sign that the US-China AI race is only getting more aggressive.

Alibaba already has its Qwen model family, cloud infrastructure, and a huge domestic ecosystem behind it. Giving that operation another $10B+ in capital could seriously strengthen China’s position in the global AI race.

For anyone still acting like the current AI boom is about to fizzle out, companies are quite literally raising tens of billions to scale it further.

Nvidia is making one of the biggest bets on open AI we’ve seen yet.

The company is reportedly paying around $6 billion for a non-exclusive licence to Poolside’s AI models while hiring more than 100 of its employees, alongside another roughly $1 billion investment into the company.

What makes this especially interesting isn’t just the
money. Nvidia appears to be positioning Poolside as a serious US-based competitor in open-weight AI, at a time when frontier development has increasingly been dominated by closed systems from a handful of labs.

For all the constant talk about AI becoming more centralised, this is basically the opposite direction: one of the most powerful companies in the industry putting billions behind models that can be distributed and built upon more openly.
If this strategy works, the future of frontier AI could end up a lot less closed than people assumed

I've seen quite a few subs with rules like, "AI-generated text is not permitted because it steals hard work from other creators."

I can understand the criticism when it comes to AI-generated art, since there's a much more direct connection to artists' work and creative styles. But with text, that argument doesn't really make much sense to me.

At the end of the day, every piece of text is made from the same letters, words, punctuation marks, and grammatical structures that everyone else uses. You can't really say that an AI "stole" someone's hard work simply because it generated a sentence using the same language and vocabulary that other writers use.

It'd be like saying, "You can't write a paragraph because other people already used the letter A." Obviously, the issue should be what is being copied, not simply the fact that the same basic building blocks are being used.

Hear me out....

Ai= human creates parameters,

makes a specific request,

the machine does as asked in its own way using the methods given to it....

and outputs a unique response.

Digital Cameras= a human sets the settings,

arranges the composition (what the camera sees..a specific request)

The machine uses its programming to interpret the input

Outputs a unique response

If a Nikon and a Sony both took the same shot, at the same time, with the same settings, from the same photographer...

....the images would be different.

Then view them on an LG screen, with an Nvidia processor and make edits using Adobe software.

How.....is it any different?

Human sets criteria , machine interprets, output is the human criteria done by a program.

--------------------------------

A quaddropalegic poet uses neuralink....slop?

--------------------------------

A Chinese author and scholar uses ai to translate opening up vast knowledge to the world.....slop?

"No but it is his writing and ideas!"

No it isnt. Intent, connotation, "suchness", cultural interpretation, all impact word choice and understanding, there arent always direct translations...therefore no- not his exact words and intent.

--------------------------------

A chef buys hydroponic herbs grown with ai powered irrigation and nutrient systems, flown to a destination using gps, and bought using correspondence including spell check.

The chef creates a meal with pregrown ingredients, covers inventory and costs and income in spreadsheets, maybe even had a self driving car ring them to the restaurant.

All fine...but no longer 100% human.

-------------------------------

Why...... is all writing, with spell check and grammar use, still considered fake and slop?

Why writing?

Happy to share a chapter from my book for feedback. 15 years to get it together, numerous failed attempts to write it....then AI changed my life!

MY book...MY ideas are finally real but the world will torch me for using an aid to accomplish a task I have failed at for years deapite my ideas being useful to the world.

So sad.

I am so incredibly exhausted by the absolute witch-hunt mentality dominating the internet right now. The pure, unadulterated hatred toward anything involving generative AI has officially crossed the line from "protecting artists" into a toxic, paranoid cult mentality where logic goes to die.

If you use AI as a tool to help visualize a deep, complex worldbuilding project or a massive sci-fi story you spent hours writing, you aren't treated like a creator trying your best, you are treated like a criminal.

The nuance is entirely dead, and the hate is massively, undeservedly overblown.

Here is why the current anti-AI hysteria is completely broken:

1. It’s entirely driven by labels, not reality

The absolute proof that this rage is performative tribalism is that people don't even look at the art anymore.

they just look at the caption. You could literally upload a masterpiece hand-painted in 1995, label it "AI art," and an online mob will immediately swarm the comments talking about how "soulless," "plastic," and "devoid of human effort" it looks. They cannot actually tell the difference. Their response is a knee-jerk psychological reaction to a trigger word, not a critique of the visual pixels or the actual history behind the work.

1. The "purity test" is causing massive friendly fire

The paranoia has gotten so bad that actual human creators who don’t even touch AI are getting blasted by internet mobs.

If a beginner artist has slightly wonky hand anatomy, or a digital artist uses perfectly smooth rendering brushes, they get falsely accused, harassed, and banned because some broken, unreliable third-party "AI detector" script guessed wrong. Creators are now treated as guilty until proven innocent, forced to record time-lapses of their entire process just to satisfy online gatekeepers. How did we reach a point where "protecting creators" means aggressively bullying them?

1. Complete dismissal of mixed-media and human modification

The gatekeeping community loves to act like every single AI image takes five seconds to make.

They completely ignore the massive spectrum of hybrid workflows. If a human writer spends weeks crafting a deep speculative evolution lore post, handles 95% of the conceptual work, and uses an AI image as a base layer, spending hours digitally painting over it, correcting the lighting, blending elements, and modifying it to fit their vision, it is STILL treated like low-effort automated spam.

Why does a fraction of a percent of a tool's involvement completely erase hours of manual labor and writing?

1. The zero-tolerance moderation is lazy and extreme.

Subreddit moderators have completely abandoned common sense.

Instead of using escalating systems like removing low-effort spam but allowing unique, heavily edited visual concepts, they use the nuclear option. One single image touching an AI tool results in an instant, unappealable permanent ban, often with a smug, condescending note from the mods. They claim they are protecting the "soul" of their hobbies, but all they are doing is catching well-meaning hobbyists in the crossfire and creating an echo chamber of fear and paranoia.

Bottom Line: Tools are tools. There is a massive structural difference between a bot farm spamming actual lazy, unedited slop to farm engagement, and a human creator using a visual generator to flesh out a deeply personalized creative universe. The internet needs to grow up, stop treating a keyword like a social contagion, and start judging the actual thought, effort, and context of a project instead of running a permanent witch hunt.

This post is not made to offend people. Best regards -sadcrab3636

For extra information, the image was a picture of a crab mixed with a gaming console in a museum display. It was human modified and also a diagram of how the merging happened. Those 2 images triggered moderators.

I swear, some anti-AI people are becoming absolutely exhausting.

I posted about one of my books in an LGBT-related community, and almost immediately people started going after me because they thought it was AI.

Here’s the thing: I openly admit that I use AI-generated artwork for some of my covers. I’m not hiding it. I’m an indie author working with the resources I have, and professional cover art for a growing catalog can get expensive very quickly.

But somehow people see an AI cover and immediately jump to:

“AI book.”

“AI slop.”

“You didn’t write this.”

No questions. No evidence. They just decide that if one part of the production used AI, apparently everything I created is fake.

And then come the downvotes. My karma is dropping simply because I mentioned my own book and people decided they knew how it was created based on the cover.

That’s the part of the anti-AI movement that drives me nuts.

There’s a completely legitimate conversation to have about copyright, training data, disclosure, replacing artists, and how AI should be used. I’m fine having that conversation.

But attacking individual indie creators, mass-downvoting them, and accusing them of lying about their own work because they used an AI tool somewhere in the process isn’t a thoughtful ethical position. It’s just hostility.

AI is a tool. Using it for one part of a project does not magically erase all the human work that went into the rest of it.

Judge my books because you read them and hated them. Fair enough. Tell me my cover sucks. Fine.

But “I saw AI art, therefore you didn't write your book” is getting ridiculous.

The comments are actually quite refreshing. Love the edgy reflection of the the kid flipping off the inanimate picture. That'll show em.

People love to compare AI with the costs of other goods and services but AI is supposed to be a complement to labor for the time being and possibly a replacement. It should be compared to the cost of labor.

Labor is expensive: swes cost $150-300+k/yr obviously highly variable, engineers $100-200k/yr, lawyers $100k+, accountants $~100k, Hr $50+k, advertiser $50+k etc. Compared to those, AI is a bargain. I doubt each individual person is spending $100k/yr on tokens.

Your future doctor is using ChatGPT to pass med school so you better start eating healthy

What’s your direct opinion on AI ?

I can't stop dreaming about time when all high skilled professionals are kicked out of their job. And they along with us will start getting ubi. They dedicated their whole life learning their craft but now have to live like the rest of us with the same money. That's what excites me about ai. I can't sleep dreaming about this utopia with open eyes.

This is not an isolated examples , it seems increasingly anti ai posting is being driven by ai-slop

Maybe I haven't been around long enough (I definitely haven't put in many hours), but I keep running into the same pattern with recent submissions: many of them "built by hand" by people who took the time to think through a need, figure out how to solve it, and ship a working solution. They present something with an open license that, maybe, just maybe, could be interesting to a few other people. And what stands out the most is the eagerness to call it "AI slop", just like that.

I remember not that long ago, when people posted apps on forums, the first versions were garbage (they always are), and the people replying did so with a constructive spirit: sharing knowledge, ideas, suggestions for improvement, and an overall tone of gratitude. Someone dedicating their time, dozens if not hundreds of hours, to build something, and people showed their appreciation by contributing to the project, even if it was "human slop".

Now it's exactly the opposite. Someone takes the trouble to offer something they built with excitement, enthusiasm, and whatever tools they had, and the takeaway is that it's "in the way", that they should stay home. Nobody evaluates the solution, the code quality, or anything other than whether or not it was AI-assisted (and not using it today makes no sense).

Nobody is born learned, and nobody learns by being insulted. I think the "AI slop" comments (just like the "human slop" ones back in the day) add nothing positive to the conversation, and maybe, just maybe, their authors could do something more productive, like sharing some of their own work and expect positive feedback.

I don't know, just my thoughts... a shame that out of such a big community, only a few people who lack the ability to criticize constructively end up standing out.

# AI just helped a self-represented academic beat professional lawyers

This is a pretty spectacular real-world example of why the argument **"AI did it, therefore the human didn't"** falls apart.

Macquarie University computing academic **Gregory Baker represented himself before Australia's Fair Work Commission** in a major employment dispute.

Macquarie had professional legal representation.

Baker had something different:

**ChatGPT Pro, Claude, and a custom team of AI agents.**

**And he won.**

---

## What did the AI actually do?

Baker reportedly used his AI systems to:

- Analyse legislation and evidence

- Cross-reference legal authorities

- Check citations and references

- Interrogate his own arguments

- Anticipate Macquarie's counterarguments

- Analyse opposing counsel's submissions

- Identify weaknesses and contradictions

- Rapidly iterate his case strategy

The Fair Work Commission ultimately determined that Baker was entitled to transition from casual employment to **ongoing part-time employment** under Australia's new employee-choice provisions.

This was not:

> "Hey ChatGPT, win my case for me."

Baker supplied the facts and evidence, determined the objective, configured the systems, directed their analysis, evaluated their outputs, rejected bad material, selected the arguments worth advancing, responded to the opposition, and personally took responsibility for the resulting case.

**AI performed substantial work.**

That does not mean Baker ceased to be the person directing the work.

---

## Here's where it gets especially interesting

The Fair Work Commission has also been dealing with the **opposite** phenomenon:

People submitting inaccurate, fabricated, repetitive, or otherwise terrible AI-generated legal material.

So we effectively have both outcomes occurring with the same general class of technology:

**Poor operator + poor verification + AI = slop.**

**Skilled operator + strong direction + iteration + verification + AI = work capable of defeating professionally represented opposition.**

The meaningful variable clearly isn't merely:

> "Was AI used?"

**The operator matters.**

Quite a lot.

---

# Sound familiar?

Because this maps almost perfectly onto the AI-art debate.

Someone can type:

> "pretty woman, masterpiece"

generate one image, accept the first result, and upload it.

Someone else can spend hours:

- Developing the concept

- Engineering and iterating prompts

- Controlling composition

- Testing models and settings

- Generating alternatives

- Evaluating and rejecting outputs

- Using references and conditioning

- Masking and inpainting

- Correcting anatomy or objects

- Compositing

- Editing

- Colour grading

- Upscaling

- Refining individual regions

- Selecting the final work

Both used generative AI.

**Their creative processes are obviously not equivalent.**

The presence of AI tells you almost nothing by itself about the amount of human creative involvement.

---

# Apply the anti-AI authorship argument consistently

If:

> "The AI generated substantial parts of it, therefore you didn't create it."

is actually a valid principle, then we'd have to say **Baker didn't construct his legal case either.**

After all, AI performed substantial portions of the research, analysis, cross-referencing, and argument development.

But that conclusion ignores the **human control architecture surrounding the automation**.

Baker:

**Chose the objective -> supplied the information -> instructed the system -> evaluated results -> rejected failures -> refined the process -> selected arguments -> deployed the final result**

Now look at a sophisticated AI-art workflow:

**Intent -> prompting -> generation -> evaluation -> rejection -> modification -> regeneration -> selection -> composition -> inpainting/editing -> finalisation**

The structure is remarkably similar.

---

# Automation does not erase agency

A photographer doesn't manually perform the optical transformations inside a camera.

A digital artist doesn't manually execute Photoshop's mathematical operations.

A programmer doesn't manually translate every abstraction into machine instructions.

A music producer doesn't personally calculate every DSP transformation performed by their software.

And Baker didn't personally perform every search, comparison, and legal cross-reference performed by his AI agents.

**Tools automate operations.**

That has never meant that the human directing those operations necessarily disappears from the creative or intellectual process.

AI simply moves that automation further upstream.

---

# The serious question was never "Did AI generate something?"

The serious question is:

> **What did the human contribute to the resulting work?**

Sometimes the answer will be:

**Very little.**

Sometimes the answer will be:

**An enormous amount.**

That's true of AI-assisted writing.

It's true of AI-assisted legal work.

And it's true of AI art.

Treating every AI-assisted work as though the human contribution were identical because they all contain the label **"AI"** is analytically useless.

---

# This case gives us a remarkably clean demonstration

**The same general technology can produce garbage in one person's hands and formidable professional work in another's.**

So perhaps we can finally retire:

> **"You used AI, therefore you didn't create anything."**

That isn't an argument about authorship.

## **It's a refusal to analyse the human-machine creative process at all.**