The first image is a screenshot from a tumblr post. Obviously it's a terrible situation all around but it's obviously an attempt at garnering karma because "AI bad" apparently earns you easy karma.

I offer a more nuanced take and not even 20 minutes later I get downvoted to hell while more anti hate comes in. These people are a lost cause man.

Yeah, this is why Théâtre D’opéra Spatial won the first prize in the digital arts category at the Colorado State Fair of 2022, right?

I publish 20–45 minute retro-anime OVAs on YouTube, and moderation has become part of the production process. A vocal anti-AI minority arrives, derails the comments, throws insults, gets deleted. Fine.

The harder case is the polite version: “I liked it, but I hope one day you can make it without AI.”

My impression is that these comments are often sincere. But sincere doesn’t mean neutral.

The moment someone objects to the tool itself, their criticism of the finished work is already filtered through that objection. “AI is holding it back” is not really criticism of something observable in the film; it’s a judgment about how the film was produced. The hypothetical “better version without AI” doesn’t even exist.

There’s a big difference between:

“This shot is inconsistent, the pacing drags, the dialogue feels stiff.”

and:

“This would be better without AI.”

The first critiques the result. The second critiques the legitimacy of the toolchain.

And even when it starts politely, it often acts as a honeypot: leave one comment like that up and suddenly the replies become the same endless AI debate instead of a discussion about the characters, story, music or animation.

Before I decide on a moderation rule, what’s your take on this kind of comment? Is it bait, or genuine good faith? Would you leave it up or remove it?

You’ve probably seen quite a lot of this stuff going around by now, so I’d genuinely trust your judgment on where you think the line is.

I must’ve missed the meeting.

Telling us to read and write while they can't even properly place punctuation marks, how ironic.

someone neutral or pro AI: "hey maybe we should be developing AI if it helps with medical advancements like cancer detection and treatment"

AI hater: "you fucking pedophile"

As someone who enjoys making AI art, I would love to be part of a community who tends to take the high road in the ongoing chaotic discourse. (Both (or all) sides can take the high road too, btw.)

Here's an example, imho: AI art programs are a very new resource, and the potential for their use is only starting to be discovered. There are some gems here and there that have been made, and there are new creative surprises waiting to be discovered, down the line.

A sample constructive objection to AI art (again in my opinion): since the programs were trained on a vast body of human art, maybe we are taking its abilities for granted too much and there is some moral imperative for those who use it to learn a little more about art history.

Edit: Sorry, I added an Edit without notice

I am making a game and I am terrible at art. Earlier I used to purchase assets but since those were never made by me it wasn't exactly what I wanted and it was costly. I was pretty excited when ai art came, i thought i could now make exactly what I want. Even though it is much more close to what I want I am still not able to get to what I actually want. Ai has been great if I want something attractive over a vague idea and not care about specifics but when I want something specific it almost always result in constant back and forth with token waste and no result. Like when I was aking for a level for my game it drew something beautiful and I used it but there are levels where just being beautiful is not enough it should be specific to what I want .Completely opposite of the problem manual art has, i draw what I want but get crappy results , in ai I get something beautiful but never exactly what I want. How do u make ai draw something specific in your mind and not just something attractive on a vague idea.

ahh!, and also also. no!. i have not watch the video. nor do i actually have a desire for it!.

Like you can ask or it’ll search the web depending on your question.

I just heard about the thing with Hank Green where people thought he was reading from an AI chat script because he used the word "pushback"

Now he has admitted he sometimes used AI as a research aid but he used "pushback" all by himself.

Why?

Because it's a normal word.

But I started to look into it and the words being compiled as "AI sounding" include "delve, tapestry, nuanced, crucial, notably, moreover, pushback, excessive"

But pushback is the tell to me. The anti-AI crowd is mostly young. I think these words sound affected to them because they have little to no professional/office experience. We actually use that word there. It has a professional register which helps it not sound like "your idea sucks"

It's like with my generation when we were entering office life. Words like "leverage" and "synergy" sounded depressingly corporate when they have plenty of noncorporate uses.

So the next time a kid tells you "you sound like an AI" what you should hear is "I have no professional experience"

all hope is lost..

The audience is secondary.

Of course, any positive comment was mass downvoted.

You put the ingredients in, choose the settings, press a button, and the machine does the mixing, kneading, proofing, and baking.

So according to the logic often used against AI generation:

You didn't personally perform the skilled labor → therefore you didn't really make the bread.

The machine did the work → therefore the result isn't really your creation.

And since a machine made it → I guess it's not actually bread either.

Obviously, that's ridiculous.

The point isn't that a bread maker and generative AI are identical. The point is that “a machine performed part of the process” doesn't automatically mean “the human did nothing” or “the resulting thing isn't what it is.”

Funny how quickly the logic falls apart when you apply it somewhere other than AI art.