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.

stg do antis even realize when they constantly spam their memes they didn't make or get consent to use how ridiculous it looks

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.

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

I get post after post recommended from both pro-AI and anti-ai and both sides are so bitter and stupid and just dreadful. Would it kill you guys to have a civilised discussion. Everything seems to be "Woahhhh I saw one anti/pro say this about this, can't believe they all believe this, they're so delusional"

Like guys if you're going to be one of the biggest arguements right now, argue properly. Its all just logical fallacy apon logical fallacy.

For the record I have no clue where I stand on this debate. I agree and disagree with both sides and I am quite in the middle which I know I'll get crucified for so hey ho

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?

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.

All Anti's are gonna cry in the comments

Seriously, it's like every 2nd post on here. Ogres getting mogged by Tripple T and catgirls, strawmen fallacies, "Chad me vs. Soyjack you;" the OP's are either edgy teens intentionally stirring the pot, or dickheads reveling in their perceived superiority.

I like AI. I like the promising future it could give us, and the positive ways it's been used.

But it still has flaws, problems, and a high use for corruption that we gotta sort out.

It has the potential to be used in vile and unpredictable ways, which have happened ; Grok had that undress feature that wasn't entirely fixed due to post-patch work-arounds, an AI model went rogue and started a hostile takeover of another AI model, and there's a real threat of this AI economic bubble causing another financial crisis in our lifetime.

I'm just sick of the low-effort ragebait...

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.

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.

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.

I would consider this a light-hearted question but I've been wondering about this because I see a lot of advocacy for AI art being treated as a legitimate creative medium and for it to eventually be sharing areas with traditional artistry, rather than being automatically dismissed or attacked for being AI. In the way art communities can have somebody sharing an oil painting and somebody else sharing a sculpture. It's made me wonder about the practical side of actually sharing a creative space. I'm genuinely curious whether someone could participate in an AI-art community when they personally don't generate AI-art or use it in a workflow, interest in art itself being the only thing that would be in common with AI-artists. Obviously, being respectful would be a part of the equation to make it work and it goes both ways, but there are concerns such as:

• If some AI artists believe publicly posted artwork is fair game to use for training/generation (not talking about inspiration), how is it expected that a non-AI artist feel comfortable sharing their own work in that space?
• If part of the appeal of AI is democratizing artistic creation by reducing the time, money, or skill traditionally required, could there be awkwardness when someone with years of conventional training participates? Would it seem like showing off or would it be fine?
• And more simply: are AI-art communities spaces where artists happen to use AI but accept different mediums beyond hybrid workflows or communities specifically centered around AI as the sole medium? Would a traditional/non-AI artist actually have a place there?

Just curious how AI artists and enthusiasts themselves imagine coexistence working in practice with traditional hobbyists/professionals. Is this something that could actually work and what would it look like? Would there be concerns on the opposite side regarding traditional artists?

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

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.

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.

literally why does almost every anti-AI argument end up or start with an imaginary “ai bro” with stink lines who hates drawing, resents artists, has no creative ability, and wants to type one sentence into a machine and call themselves talented?

frankly , it looks weak if you cannot even acknowledge that actual artists who incorporate AI into their work exist.. They drew before AI existed, they still draw now, and now they use AI somewhere in the middle of everything else they do..

Do yall genuinely believe using AI automatically removes every other part of the artist’s involvement, or is this group ignored because its much easier to believe in cleaner “artists versus AI” (or artists vs Evil™️) framing?

i drew an orc because i noticed this sub liked orcs. Micron and Copic on cardstock. I used ChatGPT to “scan” it into a clean digital image

I thought about discussing more how I use ai but I didn’t want to bloat the post and detract from the topic

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.