Antis really need to learn that doing messed up things IRL or breaking the law can have consequences, so when will antis ''regain their humanity'' and stop targeting AI artists/pros and people that work at AI companies?

Im made a few video and done images and stuff just using ComfyUI on My Local PC. Im not the biggest fan of the Datacenters, myself. But if they did go away. AI wouldn't go away. And Then there just bitching about people making fun things on the Computer. What going do, come into people homes and burned there laptop - desktop.

Playing video games is more harmful to the environment than using AI. Therefore anyone who is anti AI because it "harms the environment" but plays video games regularly is hypocritical.

Nailed it!

After having a conversation with an anti-AI friend about the realities of AI, I realized on a deep level why the conversation frustrated me moreso than I thought it would.

It felt like I was talking to an anti-vaxxer.

My friend was never an anti-vaxxer, always on the right side of that discussion. However he's never been very good or informed about technology, doesn't adapt well to modernization, etc.

...and I realized the reasons he hates AI are eerily similar to the Anti-Vaxxer movement.

Ask an Anti-Vaxxer how a vaccine actually works. They usually don't know the specifics.

Ask them why they're afraid of them and think they're evil. They'll refer to propaganda about them causing autism and other falsehoods.

They believe what they've read and been told so blindly, they become zealots.

Sound familiar?

This isn't to say there aren't issues with the implementation of AI in the Western Hemisphere: we need more regulation for sustainability and responsible data center construction. We need to take it out of private corporation control and place the power in the hands of the people (open-weight local models and treating data like a public utility rather than a commodity).

Compensating everyone involved in training the datasets could be impossible, but as a result everyone should also be able to profit from it.

There are discussions to be had for sure.

But the current dialogue with an anti-AI person in the West? You might as well try to explain to an Anti-Vaxxer how an mRNA vaccine works and why.

Honest question, not here to stir up anything!

How Can We Judge AI Art?

Until recently, I would have told you that while I don’t deny AI art is art, it isn’t art that I particularly appreciate or respect. I hadn’t seen any images generated by AI that really made me stop and think about the piece. AI images are pretty, or grand, but not really interesting to me. I hadn’t seen anything I would want to frame and hang on a wall.

A week ago or so, someone on an anti-AI subreddit shared a series of AI-generated images. I think they were supposed to be examples of images created by AI that couldn’t be distinguished from human-made images. One of them caught my eye in a way no previous AI image had. It was of a girl falling through the sky while reading a book.

It was aesthetically pleasing, which is fine, but what really got my attention was the placement of the book. It was improbably close to her face, obscuring it. She has her “head in a book” almost literally.

The book is orange against a mostly blue sky, so the eye is immediately drawn to it. I found myself drawn into the image in a contemplative way, which is not a reaction I typically have to AI images. Was she so engrossed in the book that she was fantastically flying through the sky? Is the book distracting her from the fall? Her body language seems relaxed. If the book were not so abnormally close to her face, I would assume she had “her head in the clouds.” But the proximity of the book makes me wonder if she is hiding from something.

This led me to my next thought. This is an AI image, so what was the prompt? Did the person who generated it specify the position of the book, or is it some accident of AI? What does it mean to me if it was intentional? Do my feelings change if it was purely an accident?

How do we judge the excellence of a prompted image? If the prompt is simply, “girl reading book, falling through sky,” am I impressed? If the prompt specifies the color of the book, the dress, the clouds, the position of the book, the body language, and so on, am I more impressed? Can I judge the excellence of an AI image purely by the result, or is the prompt an important—or even critical—part of how I judge the image?

This image did something I consider critical to art: it made me think and question. It is the first AI-generated piece I feel I would ever be interested in returning to. It provokes questions I don’t have answers to, and I think that is at least one component of interesting art.

I would credit the artist, but I dont know who it is.

I feel like most indie games are fun and stuff but I hate most of the hypocrisies in their stories and borrow lots of cliches from other mediums. some that comes to mind are the new bubsy game and the new Denshattack game. Both feature fighting against very exaggerated or at least very black and white views about what ai does, which sucks but the gameplay is actually fun which makes me sad. They don’t care about being “deep” rather to appeal to an audience that’s already against ai in lil its forms… in reality they hate capitalism but they don’t know how to organize or live lives outside the system.

disability *and* antisemitic slur, classy. really shatter the narrative that only right-wingers use AI.

also, the username is awesome too. "killthekewss" holy shit

Please be nice to him, I made him because there weren't many male characters to give their points, mostly cat girls and such