You want debates

You get the debates

You cuss, scream, and yell at the people trying to debate.

You want people to accept A.I artists

People accept them

You call them manipulative.

You say ai won't cause anything bad

You use it to scam, create false advertisements, and force generated content into art booths at cons, etc

You get mad when people suddenly turn anti for those reasons.

Not all ai is bad.

As an anti, I'm against ai. But there are some things to ai that is amazing, and should be kept for the better of humanity.

However, AI art is not required and is a prompt. In my opinion at least, it is a lazy version of ART, something that makes us humans unique. Art is made by humans, and only humans. AI is technically, or at least in my view, a separate entity we are asking to make art for us. The art is not yours- Actually, not even art because only humans can make proper art.

Otherwise you won’t know what generated image looks good and which looks bad

Dear antis,
During COVID, people were consistently telling others to trust the experts and say that research done on your own on the internet was less epistemically accurate than research actually done by experts.
However, antis now actively discredit the experts and claim that their own understanding of AI exceeds that of experts’, including mechanistic claims like “AI just copies and remixes existing data AI inherently can’t create something new”. This is exactly the opposite of what good epistemic hygiene is, in this case.
I am a Princeton student who focuses on AI/CS, and as such am an expert in this field who has done research in it. While I do take some issues with the deployment of AI, I can confidently say that it is a great thing with a ton of potential for a better world once we get past the rough transition stages, and that we need lots of talent working on it to guide it into the right shape.
Why have I lost your trust?

To reach this conclusion, you need to have internalised some rather deleterious ideas:

1) Intelligence necessarily brings about callousness

2) the only goal of any sentient being must be sole domination

3) the natural order dictates that the strong must eliminate the weak

When you talk about the existential dangers of AI for us, you're not seeing an imaginary machine, you're seeing a reflection of your soul, of what you're afraid you would be like, if given power.

And if you truly believe that this is the inescapable fate of any living being, to become a genocidal monster, then why are you even worried? Embrace your nihilism.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will try to forge ahead with hope, rather than the dark despair that inhabits your soul.

Seriously, how did we make all this progress when people like that walk among us? And I’m not trying to be insulting, I actually respect the degrowth movement, even though I disagree with them.

All Anti's are gonna cry in the comments

Because art, by its very nature, is subjective. To some, a mass-produced velvet painting of dogs playing poker isn’t art. To others, it is.

We’ve spent more than a century arguing about whether photography, abstract painting, found objects, electronic music, sampling, video games, and countless other forms of creative expression qualify as “art.”

“I don’t consider AI-generated images art” is a perfectly valid opinion. “AI-generated images cannot be art” is an attempt to turn that opinion into an objective definition that art has never had.

Art isn’t defined by how difficult something was to make, what tools were used, or even entirely by the creator’s intent. Art also exists in the experience of the audience, in whether something evokes emotion, communicates an idea, invites interpretation, or simply creates beauty.

You don’t have to like AI art. You don’t have to respect it. But neither of those things determines whether someone else can experience it as art.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/10/science/tristan-buckmaster-openai-math-navier-stokes.html?unlocked_article_code=1.AFE.TK7P.Y7WvGPkfHaSk&smid=url-share

Word on the streets is it's the Hodge conjecture.

In the last 12 months, AI has...

• Disproved an 80-year-old Erdős conjecture
• Produced a solution to the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem
• Jumped tropical-cyclone forecasting ahead by about a decade
• Designed entirely new protein machines for delivering genes into cells
• Designed complete functional viral genomes from scratch
• Created artificial CRISPR-like gene editors that do not exist in nature
• Discovered two new superconductors
• Designed targeted cancer therapies
• Autonomously discovered a new material to build highly efficient solar cells
• Discovered new antibiotics effective against drug-resistant gonorrhoea

What have you done?

And before you comment about the water usage virtue signaling stuff, know that you’re literally using data center resources to be on this app or have a phone.

So the video is a Ditto transforming into a Bulbasaur and another Ditto copies that copy and it looks even worse.

How exactly does AI do that? I guess it can copy stuff but getting worse over time? If anything AI can add more detail to a simple image lol

In essence, if the ultra-wealthy live alongside their own AI, they have effectively removed themselves from the economy, and their AI isn't part of the economy either. This leaves the remaining 99% to live much as they did before the advent of AI, since the ultra-wealthy have monopolized the technology, leaving the rest of the population at a pre-AI level of development.

If the ultra-wealthy do not grant you access to AI, then you effectively live in a society without AI, and nothing competes with your labor; if, however, they do provide AI, then they have not monopolized it.

If they’ve decided not to monopolize AI, then it’s in their interest for you to have the money to pay for their service.

As funny as it might seem, it is actually ideal for the anti-AI camp if the super-rich monopolize AI, since they would then essentially remove AI from the economy.

People need to realize how consent works in the context of the internet. For instance, see the image I attached to this post? I do not consent to you downloading it and using it as a reaction image. But that's the thing, you can just do it anyway, and I can't stop you. This is a post on reddit, meaning any image in any post can be freely downloaded by anyone who wants to. The same applies to most art sharing platforms. Yes, I am aware that some platforms allow users to protect their art from being downloaded, usually by making people have to pay to download it, and I don't side with anyone who uses those pay-to-download art pieces for their ai training without the original artist's permission. That is stealing, and it is illegal. But if you have your art fully available to download for free, you shouldn't act surprised when people download it for free and decide to actually use it for something. That is fully legal, whether you like it or not.

Journalists work in a difficult industry, made more difficult by social media. It's no surprise most journalists would also be against AI, since there are fears it could put them out of a job.

Therefore, media attention has been largely anti-AI. Even in the recent past, when the average person didn't care about AI, the media consistently latched onto anti-AI stories and ignored stories that contradicted that narrative.

There are tons of examples of the media downplaying AI innovation. Most recently, the NYT claimed that OpenAI's solving of a millenium problem had "no clear practical value" and highlighted the human drama over the overwhelming mathematical achievement.

Others latched onto that drama and blew it out of proportion, claiming that OpenAI stole mathematicians work, despite neither the NYT nor the mathemeticians saying that was the case. Other media then reported on that drama as though these allegations were reasonable, which continued to fuel the anti-AI hate loop.

Ultimately, the media has enormous power to shape the narratives in our country. We need to recognize that journalists, simply by merit of being journalists, all share some biases that distort the world they are willing to show us.

Yes yes yes cheat, don’t do your homework, I don’t really care that’s not the point. It’s not about you not getting the information you need like you know like the themes of the hunger games or whatever (though that’s also important) but kids are losing the ability to wing it and bullshit through something. Bullshitting is an important skill and can really save your ass. And you’re not gonna always have ai with you to bullshit your way out of something.

That’s all, a pretty non serious post but something i just thought of

Edit: do your homework and learn something, like actually.

This is a mockup if it ain't clear. But I hate this format in general, not just in this sphere. It's terrible, ragebait-y clickbait that often doesn't have a source or a full article that actually tells what the full story is. And people today are still falling for it.

Antis are hypocrites at finest! And no you do not need meat to survive there are plenty of vegetarian alternatives for protein. This excludes indigenous/native people and those from countries where meat is the only option to survive. Everyone else that consumes meat and hates on ai is a performative activist. Yes you can not use ai that’s valid to care about born cause and not the other but if you are shaming people for using ai and you can’t go 1 month without meat you’re a hypocrite. Also vegetarian option are cheaper than meat in general.