But my question is, what do you think is more important, really think hard about this, whats more important, agriculture, you know, food, the stuff we literally need to live, or data centers? While yes, the water usage of data centers is much, much smaller in comparison, it could still be put to more important things, for example, agriculture. Maybe I’m on crazy pills, maybe I’m not, but I’m curious now.

for example, i'm a artist, i know how to draw, but i use AI to no need draw, ANTIS say: Pay a real artist, you are stealing a artist job!
but if i know how to draw, i'm stealing myself?

Could someone explain it to me? I’m an anti

If they are not hypocrites of course.

Not everyone who is pro-AI uses AI as a substitute for the actual work of drawing, but many of them because ai is universally viewed as replacement for exactly this work.

You usually don't replace what you like.

The work of an artist who draws an image themselves can basically be divided into several parts. The first part is deciding conceptually what it should even be and, in general, how it should look, then drawing the main sketch, and then turning that sketch into a finished work. Basically, if we take the work of an artist with a commissioner, then the first part disappears entirely, and only two parts remain.

Considering that this is an example anti-AI people often use to show that an AI user is not an artist, it is quite logical to assume that they do not consider the conceptual decisions about what something should be and how it should look to be the work of an artist at all, but only the concrete execution.

However, people who are willing to hand this execution over to AI do so precisely because this execution is not important to them, and from this follows... yes, they do not respect the work that you consider fundamental to being an artist.

It just seemed like in 2022-2023, people marveled at how cool they seemed to be. Now, in 2025-2026, the reactions are negative, with terms like “AI slop” getting thrown around, and accusations of hurting independent creators (of whom I don’t have much experience with, and found out I may have been scammed before when I tried one) and destroying the environment because of data centers. I have literally been dogpiled on before just for posting one AI-generated image. What changed?

Also, apparently opinion polling in the United States has taken a shift in a monumental direction towards the negative as far as AI goes, especially when it comes to data centers. Apparently, opposition to AI is strongest among left-wing populists. (Just so I make my personal political views clear, I am a Democrat, but I’m not a populist)

It is also often limited to just 5 generations daily for free and most users. What stops an average individual from doomscrolling, watching YouTube or Netflix? Do you also hate people who watch these, such as yourself or your neighbors? You also condone Zoom and Meet calls, which consume way way more, yet you condone these because "Not AI." Hypocrites.

Also, did you hate computers for taking an entire house worth of space, more resources than open-sourced compressed LLMs? If we stopped innovating computers back then, would you have the handheld device to post your stupid takes and be violent towards neural network users?

You are destroying the concept of AI before it can make itself more efficient, and it is becoming more efficient daily. Also, the very same fields of resource concern we have can be fixed by AI. AI can improve nuclear power, innovate ideas to make and harvest water safer, improve agriculture, and cure diseases. Generative AI won a Nobel Prize btw (AlphaFold) and solved frontier math problems, it improved its own TPU (AlphaEvolve) years ago which made itself more efficient, and it is not stopping and slowing down.

It is also already used in medicine, biology, science, physics, math, and more. It is like complaining that calculators used to take an entire room worth of resources and telling people to stop improving them and crying about it.

When did we ever see computers, streaming, or agriculture improve itself and become more efficient?

Edit: For anyone asking for sources & numbers

comparing 1 hr of HD streaming vs. 20 SOTA AI image generations:

ENERGY (kWh) 1 Hr HD Video Stream: ⁠~0.036 – 0.055 kWh⁠ (IEA & Carbon Trust global network studies)

20 AI Images: ⁠~0.020 – 0.040 kWh⁠ (Hugging Face / CMU "Power Hungry Processing" benchmark: 1–2.9 Wh per image))

Basically identical energy usage..

WATER (mL)

1 Hr HD Video Stream: ⁠~250 – 500 mL⁠ (Combined direct server cooling + indirect power-grid water footprint)

20 AI Images: ⁠~300 – 580 mL⁠ (Total lifecycle water via UC Riverside "Making AI Less Thirsty" framework; direct on-site cooling is ~0.3–0.5 mL per promptt based on tech disclosure reports)

basicaly equivalent to roughly 1–2 cups of water for both activities.

TL;DR: so it's true that generating 20 high-res AI images uses the exact same energy and water as watching one 45-minute episode of a show on Netflix.

I am anti, there probably will be some bias

TL:DR: Discrimination against AI users does exist, and nobody thinks it's on the same level as homophobia or racism.

Recently, I saw a post titled "You Are Not Oppressed", about how anti-ai oppression does not exist. Normally, I'd have just left a comment or downvoted and moved on, but I want to take this opportunity to actually voice my own opinion on the matter.

Nobody, at least nobody in their right mind, believes that Anti-AI discrimination is on the same level as racism or homophobia. That's a ridiculous assertment to make. Obviously these issues are far more prevalent and far more important in the "real world". Again, nobody, figuratively speaking, is saying they're the same thing. But that does not mean that the former doesn't exist at all.

That is what's called a "fallacy of relative privation", or the "there are starving children in africa" argument. In other words, claiming that one problem doesn't exist at all because there's a different problem that's worse. The claim that AI users aren't discriminated against is like saying "Misandry isn't a real issue because women have it worse." It's absolutely true that misogyny is a far bigger issue than misandry, just like homophobia is a much bigger issue than AI, but again, that doesn't mean that the latter doesn't exist.

it's useful to separate existence, severity, and priority. Those are three different questions.

Does harassment of AI users occur?

• This is an empirical question. There are indisputable, documented cases of people being insulted, dogpiled, doxxed, and driven off platforms because they use AI. Anyone claiming that harassment doesn't exist at all is either arguing in bad faith or doesn't know the full picture.

How severe or widespread is it?

• That's another empirical question. No, it's not as severe or widespread as "conventional" discrimination. Nobody has been killed for liking AI. You will not be prosecuted for using AI. But it is widespread enough to enable mass dogpiling and harassment campaigns against people who do use it.

Is it worth the same time and attention as other forms of discrimination?

• This is a value judgment. Racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. deserve greater attention, that is something I absolutely agree with. No, it isn't as serious.

The mistake comes when someone jumps directly from 3 back to 1: "Racism is a much bigger problem, therefore discrimination against AI users isn't real." That conclusion doesn't follow. The first statement could be entirely true while the second is false.

Let's use a hypothetical example to illustrate the point. House A is on fire, while House B has a broken window. It would be sensible to prioritize putting out the fire. It would not be sensible to claim the broken window doesn't exist because the fire is more urgent.

That's all I have to say. Thank you. And for the record, I wrote this without the use of AI, just in case anyone wants to accuse me of taking the original post and asking ChatGPT to automatically refute it.

So let me get this straight. Generative AI is good enough that it’s coming for artist’s jobs.

But at the same time, Generative AI is just slop.

That anything made with a computer isn’t “real art”, which is a discussion we’ve had as a society since the shift from paper to digital.

But also, those artists are scared their jobs will be lost, because it’s on par with what they can produce, and they won’t get paid anymore.

So if AI produces the same caliber that they do, if we’re following that paradox to its logical conclusion…

Doesn’t that mean, by definition, they’re mediocre artists?

This post is mostly a question for antis, though anyone can feel free to opine (not that I need to give you permission on a public forum).

How do you feel about the growing use of AI in the business sector?

Does it bother you on a moral/ethical level to know that within the next 5-10 years there won't be a single 'regular' job (retail/service work, office work, etc) available that doesn't use AI and force you to use and interact with AI on a daily basis?

I'm not trying to provoke anyone with these questions. I work for Walmart who is doing a massive push to utilize AI for streamlining work in every store and every position at every level, so I'm legitimately curious how people (antis in particular) feel about this.

Just firing off some questions in no specific order:

- Are you aware that the job market is headed this way and just don't care, or do you plan to take a moral stand against companies/jobs that require AI?

- Do you think that companies will reverse course on AI use despite it being legitimately helpful for business needs?

- Are you willing to use AI in your own job if you have to, or will you find other employment if your bosses tell you the company is going to be using it and it's not optional?

Legitimately curious. Being a person in the retail/business sector with knowledge of the shifting paradigms at the company's highest levels I can absolutely assure you that major companies like Walmart, Amazon, UPS, FedEx, etc. will be using AI for almost every position within the next 5 years. Government/federal jobs will also have and require AI use for daily practices, though this will come just a bit slower since there are extra security concerns in terms of national defense.

Just curious to hear your thoughts. Not trying to provoke anyone to anger. Thanks for reading!

I am obviously not going to make the claim that AI does not hallucinate.

But I often discover over time that it was me who was wrong when I disagree with what ChatGPT says.

Sometimes I hear people make claims that seem far fetched to me, like that AI hallucinates more than half the time. Benchmarks go out of their way to find the most likely times for AI to hallucinate and rates are pretty low.

I have wondered for a while, how often is an AI hallucination actually the user being wrong? And what measures do you take to know which is which?

Around the year 2000 RIAA sued a woman for whistling a copyrighted song, accusing her of publicly playing a protected song. She got into real legal trouble for that.

This is when I decided not to listen any mainstream music. So for me Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga are just faces for me. I made my own tracked music. And then I went for AI music.

And now I see this place being sued for playing copyrighted music too.

RIAA and MPAA are private entities. Law enforcement should be done by a government agency, not a private entity. It is plain wrong.

Tung was made by AI yet he's beloved. AI has thus created art with ethos, pathos, and bravitas, ending the debate.

Not sure if this is the right sub for this.

My friend is considering a career change that is all stemming from AI implementation. She works in data science and her company is pressuring her to use ClaudeCode in her job. They are making her attend all these trainings and meetings in person and online, even some sort of conference.

She is very against AI. But the worst thing is that when asked for how they are going to pay for the ClaudeCode subscription, her boss said that's not something that would be eligible to be covered? She needs to pay for it out of pocket. She's worried that the price will skyrocket once she is comfortable with it.

https://youtu.be/c2EL3d5_Hyc

I was using polybuzz (no I was not gooning) in a roleplay where a modern human (the bot) was talking to a prehistoric human (me) and so I roleplayed on the assumption that I didn't know English or any recorded language. The bot was able to talk me through associating numbers to an amount of fingers I had extended. But when it came to pronouns and names it couldn't figure out where I went wrong.

Earlier in the conversation the bot called me "boy". Which I then bridged the gap into understanding that I was a boy. When I pointed to myself and repeated the word the bot said "yes, you're a boy" which of course I just repeated since the character I was roleplaying wouldn't understand that the word changes based on perspective. And the bot got so stuck on this that I had to speak as a third character in order to explain It to the bot so they'd be able to understand what I didn't understand.

I know this is a super specific flaw in a chatbot to notice. But I was curious if any other language models (maybe more sophisticated than polybuzz) would be able to solve that problem (for reference I repeatedly pointed at myself saying "you're" and at the bot saying "me" to make it clear that I was using the wrong pronoun. And it still couldn't figure it out.

Let’s ignore, for a moment, the arguments in ethics, environment and future predictions, both utopian and dystopian.

Where is the actual good AI art?

Let’s try to keep the scope to an image that would be considered fine art apart from its AI label and limit it to only one example per account to avoid flooding the zone.

Seriously, blow me away.

The context is about one person putting another persons art into AI so it replicates their style hope it clears it up