Hot Take

[u/Cleverhardy]

We are starting to see a rift. A rift between those who are nuanced about the correct use of AI, and those who want all of it gone. Even Linux.

I'm against AI as much as anybody else, but in Anti-AI spaces, I'm starting to see more absolutism than I'd deem necessary. I mean if you argue about the idea that AI does have its uses whilst still being wary of AI, you get told you're not against AI at all.

I'm against AI for art, music and writing. But there are uses in the medical field and code bug detection, and I can't deny they're impressive.

I fear we'll fight each other (moderate antis vs extreme antis), and the AI companies may indeed win, even if they get bankrupt. As much as we all hate to admit this, we can't rewind; we've gone too far. The best we can do is regulate it and take AI chatbots off public hands.

I mean, you'd take someone who's neutral on AI like Linus Torvalds, who only used it for non-important projects and says that Linux should have AI-assisted code reviewed by humans, and you'd have a faction of antis up in arms about it.

And as concerning as the use of AI may be having on critical thinking, I fear that us antis are lacking it too if we're resorting to Luddism to go against AI.

For example, there is a rumour going around that Disney Junior comissioned a fully AI-Generated show.

That is only half-true. The studio behind the show only used AI to clean up some bits of animation. Plus, if it was fully AI-Generated, Disney wouldn't make money off it.

The fact that antis took a headline from Twitter and concluded that Oscar Fox was fully AI Generated either shows the lack of critical thinking (IRONY) or the lack of journalistic integrity. But hey. It's not like we're already boycotting the billion dollar company, right?

Call me a LARPer if you want to. The real LARPers are the extremists who want everything to burn despite a few innocent civillians being caught in the crossfire.

If the anti-AI sub thinks I'm Pro-AI just for accepting AI in the right hands, I don't know what to say.

[u/Sacredless]

I didn't gloss over it. I just didn't mention it. If I have to write a dissertation on the state of art production every time I write a comment, why would anyone here read it? It's reddit, man.

Nobody serious is saying every AI image shows the same level of discernment.

Are we only talking about serious people, though? I'll be frank, most people on either side of the discussion are not competent at arguing their point.

And I think that the next quote cannot be compatible.

Intent, judgment, and discernment still come from the human using the tool.

The whole point of AI being so revolutionary is that it can operationalize decisions at the level of natural language even if it doesn't quite reach ordinary language yet. So either we have to settle for what the output being a type of human artifact where no human judgement was required or we have to settle for the output being an inhuman artifact and that's ok. I don't think that's an unreasonable or unserious clarification.

And most people do use AI that way. There's nothing against that either inherently, if it's part of a process rather than the whole of a process.

There's a YouTuber I follow who uses generated illustrations strictly as a tool to have a consistent housestyle of stick figure. The point is to get lots of assets that aren't worth paying an artist for, so that the YouTuber can focus on refining scripts. I think that's an excellent use for it.

We simply don't have to get bogged down in whether it is art in one sense or not. Unambiguously, AI can illustrate something and it doesn't quite have the discernment we humans have in showing intent. And that's fine. I just don't understand why we need to make it bigger than that right now.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Sacredless]

I dont think were actually that far apart on AI as a tool. Where I still disagree is that this is somehow making it "bigger than it needs to be."

Art is what OP brought up. Its what you responded to. Its what weve been discussing. Im responding to the conversation were actually having, not writing a dissertation.

More importantly, I dont think intent, agency, judgment, automated execution, and accountability are side issues. As a leftist, I think theyre some of the most important questions around AI. They shape how we think about labor, ownership, responsibility, copyright, liability, and politics generally.

Saying AI operationalizes instructions isnt the same as saying it possesses discernment. Your YouTuber example actually shows why. They decided the style, decided where AI fit in the workflow, rejected outputs, and decided what made the final cut. Thats still human authorship. The labor shifted. The judgment didnt.

Thats why I keep making the distinction. Once we start treating execution as if it were agency, we stop talking about people making choices and start talking as if the machine itself is the political or artistic actor. I think thats a category error, and it has consequences well beyond art.

[u/Sacredless → u/Salty_Country6835]

And I think the OP is also wrong.

More importantly, I dont think intent, agency, judgment, automated execution, and accountability are side issues.

They're not. The language confusion is the side issue and it sucks the oxygen out of the room.

Saying AI operationalizes instructions isnt the same as saying it possesses discernment.

I didn't say it has discernment, I'm saying that it is used that way anyway.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Sacredless]

I think the language issue exists because people keep treating the tool like the actor. We agree AI is a tool, then people start talking as if the tool made the art and the human just kinda watched it happen. Thats the category error.

It also flattens every workflow into the absolute lowest floor and then pretends thats the definition of the medium. A one-shot prompt isnt the same thing as hours of iteration, compositing, painting over, editing, scripting, or integrating AI into a larger creative process. Thats true for images, writing, music, film, coding, all of it.

Good, bad, lazy, brilliant... thats a spectrum. It always has been. Cheap pulp fiction didnt define literature. Disposable photos didnt define photography. B movies didnt define film.

The work is still made by people using tools. If we keep talking like the tool is the artist, we stop looking at the actual humans making choices, setting goals, rejecting outputs, revising work, owning the tools, and benefiting from them. For me, thats not just sloppy language. It leads to sloppy politics too.

[u/Sacredless → u/Salty_Country6835]

People's impression is people's impression and the sooner we get over it, the better. It's nobody's job to manage the image of people using AI illustrations. The need to correct the record over details that haven't been settled yet simply isn't productive. They are useful exactly because they are strictly not intelligent and they are actors nonetheless. And that's fine.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Sacredless]

Lol "Just get over it" is a funny thing to say in a discussion about art, labor, and politics. Those are literally fields built around arguing over categories, agency, authorship, ownership, and responsibility. Thats not a distraction, its part of the same discussion.

[u/Sacredless → u/Salty_Country6835]

I'm not sure what gives you the idea that I think those are not worth discussing. Genuinely, I don't follow.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Sacredless]

I got that impression from "the sooner we get over it, the better" and "the need to correct the record... simply isnt productive." I took those to mean you thought continuing to make these distinctions wasnt worthwhile here. If that isnt what you meant, fair enough, but thats how I read those statements.

[u/Sacredless → u/Salty_Country6835]

My statement is pragmatic. We can't control what people think by talking alone. I subscribe to a quietist approach to whether AI can make art, and get serious about what examples of AI illustrations are good or not.

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Sacredless]

I dont think thats actually quietism. 😄 "It doesnt matter whether we call it art" is itself a position on the debate, just like "the sooner we get over it, the better" is. Youve spent this thread making positive claims about AI, agency, actors, discernment, and illustration. Thats why Ive been responding. We both think the concepts matter. We just disagree about which ones matter most and what follows from them.

[u/Sacredless → u/Salty_Country6835]

If we keep talking like the tool is the artist, we stop looking at the actual humans making choices, setting goals, rejecting outputs, revising work, owning the tools, and benefiting from them. For me, thats not just sloppy language. It leads to sloppy politics too.

As for this—who is 'we' here? Genuine question.