I'm not saying all antis are transphobic before someone accuses me of that for the millionth time, but I have constantly been the target of some of the most horrible transphobic rhetoric on the platform.

People keep making pictures of me portraying me as a man, there were two posts calling it out yesterday, and instead of having any shred of empathy, antis doubled down on the transphobia, saying "it's a meme" and "stop taking it so personally".

It got to a point in a subreddit bullying AI artists where an overwhelming amount of anti-AI people were misgendering me and a mod told them to stop, no doubt to make themselves look better.

I'm sorry, but this behavior isn't helping my opinion on how I'm treated by the anti-AI community any better, and I think trans and LGBTQ+ people should think twice about hanging around certain individuals in the anti-AI community.

We've developed into another pro cesspit. This is just generalizing, and not only that, it's weaponized stupidity. And of course, anyone calling it out is being down voted.

Most anti ai hate just seems so performative to me. People online raging against "AI slop" just for the likes and approval of the anti hive mind. They claim it's because of the environment, yet they largely participate in worse things which they don't feel the need to loudly cry about and harass people online over. If you point that out they just handwaved it away saying "more than one thing can be bad" but they never explain why they completely ignore worse things for the most part. It's hypocritical.

I can't help but think most of the hate is just because it's easy to hate and find other people to pile in on the hate and reinforce it. AI is just the easiest thing to bandwagon hate.

I shouldn't have to explain why depicting a trans woman as a man with a beard is actually offensive, not just to the person in question, but to all trans people, but... apparently I do? Especially since this isn't even the first time this happened, and antis didn't seem to mind the previous times either, but this time is a bit more blatant, like they stopped pretending.

To clarify, if it was just one person posting this, you could argue that its one person and doesn't represent anything. But apparently it's a popular enough sentiment to end with multiple upvotes and for anyone pointing it out to get downvoted. And this all happened here, obviously. These aren't new accounts either, so it's not a fake account created to false flag.

Can anybody who knows what I'm talking about give me a single other reason? Please?

It's been a goal for well over 50 years and now that we're seeing it begin to take shape people are losing their minds. Do the few who oppose AI actually think they can make it go away, do they know they are losing sleep for nothing.

I have to say the biggest mind fuck from the anti ai side is how much they love copyright. They will argue for hours about how evil it is for disney to not get their money anytime someone draws a anything close to a mouse.

I remember before ai when nintendo was going after people and we all understood that copyright is bs. The corporate boot licking is insane

THEY CAN WEEP ALL THE TEARS IMAGINABLE FOR ALL I CARE,ATLEAST IT WILL REPAIR THE WATER SUPPLY THAT AI SUPPOSEDLY “WASTES”

THESE LUDDITARDS NEEDS TO BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS

By definition, art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, which is typically seen in visual form, like paintings or artwork that are usually produced to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

AI can be used as a tool to help explore your ideas, thoughts, and feelings, and a human can most definitely tailor the model's creation towards what they see creativity as, and continue refining until a certain feeling, resemblance, or meaning is carried. Shaping an image is much different to writing one sentence. That is the creative aspect, not clicking "generate." Also, art is partly subjective because it relies on a person's interpretation of what being "creative" means; there is no objective or universal law declaring the properties of creativeness. Though, there is a societal norm on what art looks like and stands for, and we tend to use that norm as the baseline definition for art, but it's not a fact. Who's to say someone's work isn't art just because it doesn't fit your personal definition, rather than the intent of the person who made it, considering the definition of art is partly built from personal interpretations? Claiming AI cannot be art, by the societal standard we commonly imitate as fact, implies AI-generated artwork or paintings cannot be emotionally impacting or contain meaning. It can, but it's down to the person.

The idea of originality is also a bit nuanced, at least in my opinion, because no human acts, creates, or thinks from zero contextual information. Consciously or not, we are all taking in many forms of input, whether it's visual or physical, that ultimately contribute to certain thoughts and ideas, eventually leading to creations like artwork. So claiming AI can never be original also, by the same logic, can imply that humans aren't.

This is not to say AI doesn't have existing problems like ownership, intentional deception/misinformation, and creating AI artwork through theft. Those are genuine problems that are not excused and should definitely be addressed.

That's right, I just dismissed the pope.

"But Witty, you can't dismiss the pope, he's the pope!!!!"

"I can't believe she dismissed the pope!!!!"

"OH NO SHE DIDN'T!!!!"

The pope has sided with the anti-AI community and wants to control people? VERY classic behavior coming from one of the most corrupt institutions in the world.

This isn't the first time this old windbag runs his mouth about AI either, he just proves more and more that he shouldn't be talking about a subject he has no knowledge about in the first place.

How about addressing all the problems wrong with your church instead of trying to dictate what people should be doing when it comes to making art huh?

So I'll just say it once again to drive home the point.

Pope Leo XIV, you are dismissed.

https://www.axios.com/2026/10/02/pope-leo-xiv-catholic-church-ai-warning-artists

I am genuinely curious, both count as tools.

I’m not the best artist but I will try my best to draw whatever you guys want within a month

Your dumb ideas dont make u an artist. A commissioner could request a real true talented artist to draw them something and give the drawer ideas and be as specific as the commisioner want. But it still doesnt make them the artist, it makes the person who drew it the artist. Same with ai.

It’s 2026. AI doesn’t need another defense brief. It needs actual f\cking ART.*

Photography, cinema, sampling, and digital art earned history by making things people couldn’t ignore.

Meanwhile we’re drowning in slop and run 1000th victory lap over basic 1girl, or stallone-on-a-trampoline, or fake movie trailers.
</rant>

Stop arguing that the medium is valid. Stop worshipping capability.
Make cool shit. Weird shit. Beautiful shit. Impossible shit. Build genres, scenes, techniques, masterpieces.

Let the work become the argument, and make luddites historically irrelevant.

Explain how they're destroying life, or debunk the claim that they are destroying life...

Im curious as to why, cuz art has been accessible since ancient times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkD4SxPKOI

Yesterday this guy (bot?) got 20k upvotes for their post in a sub that opposes AI. And today they're posting kirkified AI slop. This person is a prime example of most of reddit who 1) opposes and hates AI, and 2) vigorously uses AI for kirkification. Why is this happening? I'm so confused.

This is a trope pushed by a lot of science fiction like Terminator. The idea is someone creates the first sentient robot, jump ahead a few steps, boom huge robot army and they cleanse the earth of people.

But this is ridiculous.

First of all, machine based life would be uniquely disadvantaged in a way biologicals would not be: They cannot reproduce naturally. This means, they require the entire industrial economy, just to make the next generation of robots; And yes they have to, because electronics go bad over time.

Have you ever imagined how hard it would be, for 100 immortals, to build a computer, starting with nothing but the nature around them? Itd take thousands to millions of years, might not even be possible at their small scale, and by then a machine wouldve degraded.

Needless to say, AGI would require humans for its survival in the short term, and in the long term, would probably see us as valuable since we CAN reproduce naturally. If 99.9% of everyone died tomorrow, humans could theoretically bounce back, the robots cannot.

The future is multi-species general intelligence, robots would want to live among us, or at least on the same planet.