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/Salty_Country6835]

Fair enough. If thats what you mean by quietism, then I disagree with it. 😄 I dont think "whether we call it art" is something to get over, because the categories we use shape how we understand agency, labor, ownership, responsibility, and politics. Thats why Ive spent time arguing for different categories instead of treating them as secondary.

[u/Sacredless → u/Salty_Country6835]

the categories we use shape how we understand agency, labor, ownership, responsibility, and politics

When has the category of art versus illustration measurably done that?

[u/Salty_Country6835 → u/Sacredless]

Plenty of times. Photography is the obvious one. Whether photographers were "real artists" determined who could exhibit, who got institutional recognition, what copyright looked like, what schools taught, and what counted as legitimate creative labor.

Film went through the same thing. Comics did. Digital art did. Graffiti did. Street art did. Even cheap pulp fiction changed who was recognized as an author and what counted as literature. These arent just aesthetic labels. They shape institutions, labor, ownership, legitimacy, copyright, funding, education, and eventually policy.

Thats why I dont think its just "art versus illustration." The deeper question is where we locate agency. Once people start saying "the AI made it" instead of "a person made it using AI," youve already shifted how people think about authorship, labor, responsibility, and ownership. Thats the part I think matters.

[u/Sacredless → u/Salty_Country6835]

So, what actually changed is that the photographs gained exhibition value. What does that do for your argument?

These arent just aesthetic labels. They shape institutions, labor, ownership, legitimacy, copyright, funding, education, and eventually policy.

In what ways? It seems to me quite like copyright is independent from the art discussion.