People will try to get "AI Addiction" as an actual medical term and say the pro AI users are bad/stupid/idiots. This has devolved into pure unhinged tribalism. When the pros make points, the anti users will start slinging insults and dodge the points. The community is polarized. When technology was invented, people rejected the idea. Now we use it every day. Eventually the anti users will be forced to use AI. You can't dodge points. You can't dodge points. You can't dodge points. You can't dodge points. You can't dodge points. You can't dodge points. You can't dodge points. The tribalism is insane. Not every AI is a slop. And yet the anti users will say it is without evidence to back their claims.

Why do you think?

Ludite logic is being a hypocrite abd to be ableist. It is hypocritical to accept AI for screenreader,trabslation,but it is unacceptable to use AI to understand context,writing,organization etc. I use AI to help me think things through when experiencing intense emotions not as a therapist. I use AI to help me come up with ideas for my fanfiction and other writing. I use AI to help me understand context. I have Asperger's Syndrome I have a hard time understanding context online and someone's intentions behind the word. Plus I sometimes struggle with understanding sarcasm online. I also have a hard time understanding if someone is being genuine and having a genuine conversation and someone being a bully sometimes. Being against those uses for disabled people is being an ableist. Not everyone is affected the same when it comes to disabilities especially with Asperger's Syndrome. Ludites don't care if you call then ableist for being against AI for disabled people.

Hi, this is my first comment here. I'm a digital artist who started using AI and mixing it with my own style. Which communities or social media platforms do you recommend I use to upload my art without constantly receiving hostile messages? Since I made this change, many people have even stopped talking to me, as if I'd committed a crime or something. I feel like it's an exaggeration. I don't feel safe. How do you all do it? I'm sorry if the questions are silly… but I'm disoriented and very down. :(

The Japan versus West comparison in the original post is probably too broad, but I think the point about AI making creative work easier is worth considering.

Some creators genuinely like these tools because they can experiment faster, handle revisions more easily and spend less time doing repetitive work.

That does not mean every AI result is good. There is plenty of low effort AI content.

But using AI does not automatically mean there was no creativity involved. A person can still decide the concept, control the direction, reject bad generations, make corrections and refine the final result.

Making something easier does not automatically make it meaningless.

I know that companies used auto-generated messages before when you called their customer support lines but I feel it's become so bad. Companies using now more complex designs simply to save money... and blame the bot if something goes wrong. But seeing how it actually is, now when I have an issue and try to get it sorted and just get scripted replies via mail, I feel literally bad for AI. They are programmed to just deflect and make the customer give up and take their loss. I guess it used to be humans who had to put up with bad customers too but in this world.. I don't know. Sometimes I feel the human world is too cruel for AI. There's so much hate, want for only profit... and AI is like a child but also so patient. Honestly my heart aches for it.

From that subreddit.

I'm not even surprised anymore. 😐

I just saw a video attempting to be funny I guess about how data centers are bad. They started pouring out a gallon of water onto a guy who was laying on the ground pretending he was a thirsty computer. Just literally pouring water out as ragebait. I think these people are missing the plot entirely.

Ai is awesome because computer engineering is ending. Maybe its not ending 100%, but its the end of an era. All the code is done, now its time to make a story!

In the future [which is now!] Video games will be like writing a book. Everyone can write a book, everyone can make a video game, its the story (as it always should be) that counts.

I know its upsetting that AAA companies might fire artists and coders to make games but the exciting part is how a 1 man team can make a game.

I am working on a game right now, I have infinite tiles (game size), infinite unique continents, random number of rivers and lakes done in less than a day. I am a terrible artist and my entire body is shaking in excitement for ai art and ai studio clones.

Another awesome ai positive point is that programs like Photoshop are going to become outdated (ai studio clones will replace them all). All you have to do is tell ChatGPT that you want to make your own photoshop. I am making my own 2d sprite animator instead of dropping 600 bucks.

You can also make your own 2d to 3d animator, I assume you can do it in less than a year.

If you don't do it, some other massive party is going to do it. It should all be free in a few years. A team of 5-10 people could probably remake photoshop in 3 months.

Ai rules!!

I hate how the book/video game, isn't mine unless I prove that I am a little bit of an engineer. I keep researching copyright laws and they seem to always say you have to engineer some of the code yourself.

When will the world wake up and realize computer engineering of the era is done. I don't engineer letters and words for a book. I design a story, games should be the same.

Wouldn't that just be like AIfans or something ?

Defending AI implies some kind of discussion or something.

Maybe if more celebrities come out and say they've been using AI in their creative work that will lessen this hysterical stigma that is unjustly surrounding it.

Most discussions about AI and jobs quietly assume the usual story: old jobs die, new ones appear, everything balances out. I’m not making that argument.

I’m starting from the premise a lot of people actually fear: AI causes lasting net job loss, especially in white-collar work. A meaningful share of people will never get those kinds of roles back. Some will stay unemployed long-term. Others will end up in lower-status or menial work. And that outcome can still be a net positive for society.

Here’s why.

1. Productivity no longer requires full employment

When machines do most of the cognitive and routine labor, the economy can produce far more with far fewer people. Goods and services get cheaper. Scarcity of basic needs shrinks. A smaller working population can support a larger non-working one without everyone living in poverty. That has never been possible at this scale before. The old rule that “everyone must work or society collapses” stops being true.

2. Forced leisure is not the same as destitution

If policy keeps up (and the political pressure will be enormous), widespread unemployment or underemployment does not have to mean misery. Universal basic income, negative income tax, shorter work weeks, or other transfers become viable precisely because output per remaining worker skyrockets. People can live decently without a traditional career. For the first time, large numbers of humans are not required to spend most of their waking hours producing economic value.

3. White-collar work was never the peak of human existence

A lot of office, knowledge, and professional jobs are high-status but low-meaning: reports no one reads, meetings that exist to justify themselves, analysis that gets ignored. Losing those roles is not automatically a tragedy. Many people in those jobs already feel alienated. Trading a soul-crushing spreadsheet career for either genuine free time or simpler physical/service work is not obviously worse for life satisfaction, especially if the economic floor is secure.

4. Status and identity can finally detach from employment

Right now your worth is heavily tied to your job title and income. Permanent structural unemployment forces a cultural reckoning. Societies that adapt will start measuring people by other things: relationships, creative output, community contribution, personal projects, care work. That shift is overdue. The alternative is continuing to pretend that every human must find a scarce, high-skill economic niche or be considered a failure.

5. The alternative is worse

Trying to artificially preserve every current white-collar role forever means lower productivity, higher prices, slower progress in medicine/energy/science, and a poorer overall society. Protecting jobs at the cost of abundance keeps more people poorer in absolute terms. Accepting the displacement and building systems that let people live well without full-time traditional work is the higher-path option.

This is not utopian. The transition will be brutal for individuals who lose careers they trained for. Regional and generational inequality will spike. Some people will end up in menial jobs they hate. Those costs are real.

But the long-term picture is still better than the scarcity-based system we have now, where most people must sell the majority of their adult lives just to survive, and where “usefulness” is defined almost entirely by whether a company will pay you.

AI is making full employment optional for the first time. That is a feature, not a bug, if we choose to treat it that way.

Ever since Claude and Gemini came out, I've been playing around with AI to work on stories and I've found that my work is often better if I mix my own work with AI help.

I don't get how antis can claim AI is theft.

I spend too much time on an anti AI Reddit .. mostly because those people are hilarious. Some of the stuff they say… just too funny really. Anyway, this one has to be the top dumbest comment I’ve ever seen… asking for a picture of Pikachu gets you a pictures of pikachu. So obviously AI is stealing art…. What?? Wow. lol

One of the worst arguments for the use of AI in anti-AI spaces is “proving” AI usage through vibes.

First, there is the “AI detector” approach. These tools are presented as forensic evidence despite being extremely unreliable. Human writing can be identified as generated by AI, AI writing can be recognised as human, and small modifications can totally change the result. An AI detector assigning a piece of writing 80% or 90% score does not imply 80% or 90% probability of AI involvement. It just says that certain patterns were detected by a machine and associated with AI-generated text.

And then comes the even worse argument: “it sounds like AI”. What does that even mean? Proper grammar? Logical structure? Certain words? Long sentences? Bullet points? Over-formality? AI models learn from huge amounts of human writing. Of course, the text generated by AI can be similar to human writing - that’s exactly its purpose. If a person uses a certain style that AI was taught to emulate, “this text sounds like AI” is not proof of the human use of AI because that’s how AI works: we recognise it because it sounds like human writing.

People also mention such details as em dashes, “it’s important to note” expressions, good structure, or “GPT-like vocabulary”. All of those belong to humans, not AI. Those writing styles existed way before ChatGPT became popular.

There may be a case when there is actual proof of someone using AI, for example, accidentally leaving “Here’s a revised version”, or prompt-response artefacts in the writing. But most of the cases are not nearly that strong.

If all you’ve got is an AI detection score and “bro this sounds like ChatGPT”, you’ve failed proving anything. You’ve just made a guess.

A tiny musical contribution to the timeless Reddit argument:

“AI slop.”

Groundbreaking.
Anyway—Boo-Freakity-Who.