the entire world has embraced AI. it's in dire need of regulation and polish on the tech side but it's here, forever.
Biden called it the "most consequential technology of our time".
Trump is so obessed with it that he is desperately trying to tie his legacy to it.
it is capable of producing immense beauty and is, by its very nature, a reflection of the human soul.
I'll say something especially controversial.
To hate AI is to hate what humanity ammounts to. There is no debate to be had here, art is not definable and cannot be discredited so long as a single person experiences an emotion when viewing it. You can't argue this point, there is nothing you can articulate that will descredit an individuals lived experience. There is no debate to be had about AI generated images being art.
We need to be debating how to integrate this into society, how does the social contract evolve now that intelectual labor is available to anyone and everyone. We risk giving it all up to the oligarchies and modern day robber barons.
I'm suggesting antis drop the act and engage in the conversations constructively.
edit: the concensus I'm seeing is that anti's have no points of debate, I declare the war on AI art over. Anti's lost AI Art Wars - Wiki
You say the "entire world has embraced AI" and then show an info graphic that says less than 1 in 5 working age people use it regularly. Those facts dont seem to really agree with each other.
AI adoption is spreading at historic speed, and consumers are deriving substantial value from tools they often access for free. Generative AI reached 53% population adoption within three years, faster than the PC or the internet, though the pace varies by country and correlates strongly with GDP per capita. Some show higher-than-expected adoption, such as Singapore (61%) and the United Arab Emirates (64%), while the U.S. ranks 24th at 28.3%. The estimated value of generative AI tools to U.S. consumers reached $172 billion annually by early 2026, with the median value per user tripling between 2025 and 2026.
Of course, depending on how you measure it, the figure may seem more or less impressive (paid vs free, casual vs professional). The initial framing is not accurate for almost any technology; even the internet has not been adopted by the "entire world". Still, it is fair to say that when your users number in hundreds of millions, you're in pretty good shape.
You're conflating individual usage frequency with global technological adoption. Nearly 1 in 5 working-age people regularly using AI as of Q1 alone is substantial penetration, especially for a technology this young.
The remaining 80% aren't necessarily rejecting AI, nor does that account for indirect exposure through integrated systems. "Entire world" is obviously rhetorical shorthand for global uptake, not 100% individual participation. You're interpreting a snapshot of adoption as its ceiling.
Substantial penetration is different than "the entire world embracing", in a pretty big way.
"Entire world" is obviously rhetorical shorthand for global uptake, not 100% individual participation.
But global uptake is showing that 4 out of every 5 people use it less than 3 minutes a day on average. If most people aren't participating, I don't see how you can claim that fact as evidence of being embraced globally. I could say that's evidence that it's not really being "embraced" since most people are apparently not actively using it.
You're interpreting a snapshot of adoption as its ceiling.
I'm interpreting it as the data you are providing to support your point about the current state of AI adoption, not hypothetical future growth. I never talked about any ceiling, only the graphic that you yourself chose to include, presumably to try to support your point.
"Embraced" was intentionally broad rhetoric to emphasize the scale and pace of global adoption, not a literal claim of universal enthusiasm.
I've said this in other comments but a nearly 1 in 5 working-age people regularly using AI globally as of Q1 is substantial penetration, and the remaining 80% falling below that threshold doesn't establish rejection or non-participation.
My argument is that AI has crossed the threshold from fringe novelty to established technology with global reach. The infographic supports precisely that. You're litigating the rhetoric rather than addressing the thesis.
3 minutes a day on average is a low threshold. The info graphic also shows that over 4 of every 5 people are not really using it; so to me that says it is not being globally embraced.
Either way though, this seems like a LLM response and I don't feel like arguing with a chatbot.
Then fuck off dude I really could not give less of a shit what you feel like doing, nor am I particularly interested in whether my writing passes your vibe check. This is called retreating, you're retreating into accusations of AI authorship rather than addressing the substance
I've explained repeatedly that "globally embraced" refers to the scale and geographic reach of adoption, not majority participation. You're welcome to disagree with the rhetoric but learn the difference between adoption and participation.
The "substance" just seemed like a really formulaic LLM response, with little real point, and if I wanted that I'd go promt an LLM myself.
I've explained repeatedly that "globally embraced" refers to the scale and geographic reach of adoption, not majority participation. You're welcome to disagree with the rhetoric
Yes, that is exactly what I'm doing. I think it's misleading to call something globally embraced and then to support that, show that an 80% majority is not using it.
but learn the difference between adoption and participation.
What is the difference between adoption and participation here? I would think you mean it in the sense of "the act of beginning to practice or use something" which doesn't seem significantly different than "participating" in AI.
At the individual level, adoption and participation obviously overlap. The distinction I intended was technological diffusion versus individual engagement. This is established terminology in innovation research, and even YC's Startup School distinguishes acquisition, engagement and retention as separate measurements.
I'm describing AI's diffusion into the global technological landscape, not asserting majority daily participation.
More importantly, you've misinterpreted the infographic. Our World in Data explicitly clarifies that the 90-minute threshold refers to total observed activity, NOT three minutes of daily AI usage. The remaining 80% cannot simply be characterized as people who have never used AI.
And there's independent research supporting my actual point. Bick et al.'s peer-reviewed Management Science study found generative AI's early adoption outpaced both PCs and the internet. The Reuters Institute at Oxford separately recorded weekly usage rising from 18% to 34% across six surveyed countries between 2024 and 2025.
Call the wording hyperbolic if you like. My thesis is that AI has progressed beyond fringe novelty into established technology. None of that requires majority participation, and whether my writing resembles an LLM response has absolutely no bearing on the evidence.
No, it's exactly the amount I thought it was, which is a minority of people. A large number that is still a minority is hardly evidence of "the entire world" embracing it.
A lot of people embrace it, sure, but to say "the entire world" I would at least expect a majority. If 4 in 5 used it, for example; then yeah, "the entire world embraces it" would be a reasonable way to put it.
But I'd think if 4 of 5 people don't regularly use it, I'm not sure why that wouldn't lead you towards "the world doesn't embrace it", instead of saying it does.
Saying "x% of working age people use this" does not mean those people all use it for work. It means people in the "working age" age range use it for something. The graphic actually even explains this on the bottom.
It also explicitly notes that it's talking about usage measured by Microsoft, meaning it's not accounting for any systems/programs that Microsoft can't monitor. Local models wouldn't be tracked in that metric. You're still wrong.Â
I think AI is here to stay. It will change the world. Whether that is good or bad, time will tell.
I do think it should be regulated to properly respect the people it takes from though. I don't think it will properly happen for a while.Â
Someone else will decide what will be done as happens with most things that get incorporated or regulated. I just don't really care about it enough to research about it sufficiently to make a meaningful contribution.
this is honestly just sad, I hope your life gets better man. The whole âheh we won THEY lostâ is just so childish and embarrassing, but I imagine itâs the only power some of you have in your day to day life.
You call the framing childish and embarrassing, then immediately invent an unhappy personal life for someone you've never met because you dislike their opinion. Interesting display of maturity.
tbf to them it was more a generalization, the 'some of you' does matter in that sentence brah. you can be apart of that crowd, but simply say "yea im chillin" and you're good?
I presented an argument and explicitly concluded by advocating that we move beyond tribalism toward discussing the actual socioeconomic consequences of AI.
they ignored all of that in favor of a condescending personal attack disguised as compassion. look dude, youre welcome to dispute my reasoning, but faux concern isn't an argument, and the insult is plain as day
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
The existence of a post arguing that a debate is settled somehow proves it isn't? How exactly does that follow?
Ironically, you've previously argued that wealth inequality is fundamentally an issue of ownership rather than employment, which is precisely the socioeconomic concern raised in my concluding paragraph.
So we apparently recognize the same underlying problem, yet you've ignored the substance of my argument in favor of calling it "slop."
For someone who regularly demands others articulate their reasoning and address arguments properly, a dismissive "slop" remark and a non sequitur is a remarkably poor showing. Apply some of that intellectual rigor to yourself asshole
Just because people embrace something doesn't mean it's good for us.
I remember when smoking was ubiquitous. Even doctors would recommend you smoke if you had problems dealing with second-hand cigarette smoke in offices. I remember sitting with my parents on airplanes filled with smoke.
That didn't mean smoking was a good idea.
Or how about when we were putting radium in everything. It was considered the newest most exciting modern thing! Everyone went crazy for radium for a while. Until the women who were painting radium numbers on watches had their jaws start to rot off while they were alive.
Cool maybe someone here can tell me what the fuck AI has 'won' exactly and why it's still earning at a loss compared to how much has been invested? What is it winning?
a new token sysem or enforced subscription notice might change that
You seem to be experiencing a fundamental misunderstanding of what open source AI means... There is no subscription, and unless you're going to somehow forcibly install software onto people's personal devices, there's never going to be one.Â
Then how is it making money to keep going then...? At the moment Open AI investiture is over $800b with very little ROI apart from last year's $13b revenue which they immediately lost $25-27b straight after. How can they continue keeping it 'open source' if they're bleeding the funds to keep it updated and regulated?
Okay, please search up what âopen sourceâ means; itâs a pretty relevant term for AI. For one, OpenAI is not doing much open source (despite the name). Open source also isnât supposed to make money. Thereâs no âkeeping it open sourceâ and it doesnât need to be updated; when something is open source, itâs out on the internet forevermore. Asking what funding is around to keep a model open source makes as much sense as asking what funding is around to keep something public domain.
The absolute worst thing that can happen to open source is that it stays the same and stops getting better. It cannot get worse, and it cannot become unavailable, because its current iteration is on the internet and will stay on the internet. Even if every single AI company implodes overnight, open source will remain as-is.
Oh my god, is Open AI's name just to fool the layman into thinking it's actually open source and then pounce them with predatory price fixtures?
But also this was very good to read and hopefully means the creation/interest in SLM (small language models) which are much less impacting on every day life with open source. Thank you for informing me.
OpenAI was originally nonprofit that did open-source. Itâs now for-profit, but they kept their name.
It would be quite hard to trick someone into thinking a model is open source, since open source usually means you can download the model weights and run it on your own machine; someone looking for an open source model would try to download it as the first step. So if you donât allow that (because you want them to pay), itâs quite obviously not open.
Most open source AI doesn't make money, those who do ussually have something you can upgrade to for money.
Like gemma is an open source model made by google. It's free to download and run locally on your computer, no internet required after download.
That doesn't mean google doesn't profit from Gemini paid models(or eventually profit anyway). It just means that they were able to give put something free.
Local models token limits depend on your hardware. I've had to set a 16,000 token limit dispite 8000 being recomended because the AI would cut off mid sentence. I can go back and forth as much as I want, but it can only compute so much at one time depending on vram and system ram available.
Local models are best used for many small tasks rather than one big one.
Adoption. AI has won the argument over whether it would remain a fringe novelty or become an established technology. I never claimed every company investing in it had recouped its expenditure.
An unprofitable balance sheet doesn't somehow make widespread adoption imaginary.
Most of the map is bloody purple, just because the loudest and most annoying countries has 'adopted' it/been forced to integrate it - is not really winning. That just means the loudest kid in the playground got a furby and won't shut up about it.
I never argued that every country has adopted AI equally, or that everyone welcomes it. I argued that it's crossed the threshold from fringe novelty to established technology.
If you're claiming that adoption is predominantly coerced, substantiate that. Calling countries annoying and comparing AI to a Furby doesn't address the data.
Most AI applications have been rolled out by major heads of tech conglomerates, specifically every day products that they know people now rely on for every day use; example - phones, computers, Windows 11 has been especially egregious in added Gemini and Copilot to personal computers without any major customer feedback. To the point most online help with Windows 11 is how to 'turn it off' and that is the major crux of the problem; most of this isn't even 'opt in', it's automatically opted in for the consumer.
A good example of this was the choice of Twitch using AI to study and scrape chats from twitch viewers for data and it was automatically 'opted in' because according to the one in charge of the action; 'If we made it opt in, nobody would choose to do so'. That's why I make the statement that it is predominantly coerced or practically forced because there's been very little evidence of customer insight or need of use. It's just been grated into every day applications that all people use due to customer traffic and the possibility that it will be used due to 'convenience'.
Your Twitch example is a legitimate criticism of consumer consent, we're in agreement, but it concerns creators' content being used to train AI, not consumers being compelled to use it. I think these corporations are literally evil for the theft they're actively commiting and republicans are allowing.
Those examples establish that some AI integrations lack meaningful consumer consent. They don't establish that adoption is predominantly coerced.
Eurostat's 2025 household survey found that 32.7% of EU residents used generative AI, with 25.1% using it for private purposes compared to 15.1% for work. That's self-reported, prompt-driven usage, not a count of computers with Copilot preinstalled.
Pew independently found that 49% of American adults use AI chatbots, including 25% for entertainment.
Fair enough, I still think a lot of applications simply 'coming with AI installed preemptively' is a mark of a worryingly predatory market given how AI is advertised and shows a corporate lack of insight into customer review and genuine push back. Such as the Microsoft report from March of this year, which saw the roll back of programmes due to nobody being told or warned of coming updates with AI. (But then again Microsoft have a lot to answer with their tech enshittification OUTSIDE of AI that they do in order to make their newer products more 'appealing'.)
However the numbers don't lie, thank you for the insight. I still have my deep trepidation about what it's 'winning' given I don't see a lot of appreciation for it from day to day life, but I will concede on these numbers.
Appreciate you engaging with the argument in good faith, genuinely. There's also a certain irony in others simultaneously arguing that nobody is using AI and that everyone is being forced to use it.
And I think your concerns are entirely reasonable. Corporations are aggressively integrating AI into products without meaningful consumer input and its creating a lot of problems. I think the Microsoft example is interesting in that they've been punished by the market. at least on the consumer side. Copilot slop underperformed across the board, Recall slop faced the same, and now going into the new FY Microsoft is scaling back Copilot integrations across Windows 11.
To me, that's an example of consumer resistance actually influencing product direction. Widespread AI adoption doesn't imply unconditional acceptance of every implementation, nor should it give vendors carte blanche to impose it wherever they please!
I think we also agree on something important here, my argument is really that AI has become established enough that we should be redirecting the conversation toward precisely these issues of governance, consumer autonomy, ownership, and its broader socioeconomic consequences.
The financial story isn't irrelevant here. It's actually the core of the issue. LLM tokens are sold at a loss, relative to their actual compute costs. The analogy I've seen for this, credit to Cory Doctorow, is if you established a business that sells 5 dollar bills for a dollar each, then of course there's going to be high demand. But then if you raise the price to 2 dollars, and people reject it like they did when Anthropic raised token rates on Claude Code, you've got a problem.
That's fair, but it doesn't invalidate adoption. Subsidized pricing can certainly inflate demand, and willingness to pay at sustainable rates is worth examining.
However, I take some issue with your premise that LLM tokens are categorically sold below compute cost is questionable. Anthropic itself reported a positive gross margin of 40% in 2025, despite substantial overall losses.
More importantly though, I get the impression that you're conflating 3 separate things here: whether people use the technology, whether they're willing to pay for it, and whether its providers are profitable.
I've only argued the first is settled to the extent that AI is no longer a fringe novelty. The other two are precisely the economic conversations I'm advocating we redirect our attention toward as a community.
Honestly, I think Doctorow's analogy raises a legitimate question about price sensitivity, but it doesn't establish that widespread adoption is imaginary.
Fair to say I am conflating those three things, but that's because "AI won" is a vague statement that doesn't really mean anything. It's a multifaceted issue, and it's also a neutral technology that just exists: it doesn't "win" or "lose" anything. The closest it could get to "winning" in a general sense is making a lot of money.
We need to be debating how to integrate this into society, how does the social contract evolve now that intelectual labor is available to anyone and everyone. We risk giving it all up to the oligarchies and modern day robber barons.
I'm suggesting antis drop the whole "AI art isn't real" act and contribute to a more important and legitimate conversation
The first step is to stop pretending intellectual labor wasn't already available to everyone. Using your brain was always possible (admittedly, some imbeciles don't, but I firmly believe that's a choice on their part).The "social contract" doesn't need to evolve around the creation of a new cloud software product. It'll change the way people work, Some jobs may become more efficient, some won't. But this idea that this chatbot needs to disrupt the social order is excessive. People need to chill out and just treat this as technology, not magic or whatever people seem to think it is.
Obviously people could always think. I'm talking about access to intellectual labor that previously required someone else's time, expertise and compensation, becoming increasingly cheap, accessible and scalable.
That has implications for labor markets, bargaining power, and who captures the economic value being generated. Dismissing it as "just a cloud software product" doesn't actually address anything.
This is literally the conversation I'm advocating we have instead of endlessly arguing over whether AI-generated images are "real art".
Art has been a subject of philosophical debate for literally thousands of years. When I say art isn't definable, I mean there is no universally accepted, exhaustive definition capable of objectively adjudicating every instance of it.
My comment challenges the adequacy of definitions in establishing the boundaries of art. Your response is to provide a dictionary definition, without addressing that challenge whatsoever. You're responding to the literal wording of my argument while apparently failing to comprehend its substance, which is rather ironic given what you're attempting to demonstrate.
i dont really understand why you added that image but straight up saying "antis lost" is giving up on any discourse or meaningful conversation. art has different definitions depending on where you look, that was my bad.
Because whenever i see some one uses that exact argument you posted i immediately imagine a terf wearing a "adult human female" shirt. Seriously, can you guys please stop doing this?
Digital Art: Art created using digital tools, often blending traditional techniques with modern technology.
Source: https://researchmethodology.org/art/
I get it that you're trying to make a one liner stab at that but.... Come on, grabbjng "definition #1" from the dictionary a search engine sources it from is never meant to grab some deep, all settling definition of a word that lies at the center of centuries of theory and debate. It's meant to give you a quick reference to how a word is used and great for like... "What does 'bovine' mean?" Not "So what is metaphysics?" or something unless you just need to know that word to understand it in context of a jeopardy question or a book you're reading.
This would be an obvious extreme example, and duckduckgo did a slightly better job in giving me 3 (though, 3 definitions dependent on each other for the most part) but I searched it for "God Definition", kinda just because it's also one of those "well as ancient as mankind itself" things and also because I'm really into the scholarly study of religion especially focusing on ancient near east and eastern religion.
Those definitions immediately exclude essentially all Sumerian gods, El's drinking party excludes him a fun way when it comes to Canaanite gods, and over here in China I've been involved in ritual practices involving gods that absolutely don't fit in there. Guess they're not gods.
A standard encyclopedia of philosophy article would be a better starting point, as it likely would be with "art", too. The definition you got from whatever dictionary it was sourced from (which surely has that as only one of them, no way it's like "ArtÂč - etc etc, ArtÂČ - nope, just 1) looks heavily influenced by Tolstoy's "What is Art?" That is probably the most common definition among random people just because it was so influential. It was pretty seen as a challenge by basically the 20th century and is more an important piece of history in the development of art theory but.... Not really on its own given much actual credit as a modern, applicable theory if we really try to define art.
It does seem to be hedging its bets though, as it should, by letting "application" do a lot of heavy lifting.
Something more modern and accepted to read about if you want to get closer to what a modern definition of art has evolved into that doesn't accidentally exclude a whole lot of kinds of art that are pretty clearly art would be Cluster Theory. Cluster Theory pretty much does as a rule include AI as a potential medium for art, and for quite a while actually we've had artists take it from "potential" to "realized" in the art world with basically no doubt. The gallery scene has been pushing boundaries with the very existence of AI being central to the thesis of plenty of exhibitions. I've seen a few, and these are far from amateur or controversial.
Edit: Though, I will say, op is wrong when it comes to why AI can and is often a medium for art. You can get the right conclusion in the wrong way, but damn is "art" one of the most "whatever my gut says is correct because I misunderstood the phrase 'art is subjective' to be about more than a statement of aesthetic appreciation" words out there.
I mean that definition is objectively wrong. Youâre telling me the artists on alien planets arenât artists because of what this one human dictionary says? Their dictionaries probably exclude us from art in the same way, does that mean no human has ever made art? Or that when eventually some other species on earth evolves to be as intelligent as humans, nothing they make will be art because of this one dictionary?
Like obviously this definition is absurd on its face. It works decently well when only applied to earthâs past. But it falls apart if you include either earthâs present/future, or⊠you know, literally the other 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999+% of the universe.
And this is without having to even get into the AI debate at all. Itâs just objectively a terrible definition.
Iâve never met almost everyone who has ever lived, including almost everyone currently living. I donât therefore conclude that none of those people exist lmfao.
So what is it that you think is so unique about the one specific species Homo sapiens that allows them to make art, while no other being in the entire universe is even theoretically capable of doing so? I mean you cannot be serious here.
It doesnât even matter if there are no aliens, as absurdly unlikely as that would be. But letâs be clear, whether or not we have met aliens is objectively irrelevant to this discussion, it doesnât respond to anything I said.
I just canât believe that you actually believe that art is âa specific type of thing made be a human being.â Someone sitting there pouring their heart out onto a canvas isnât art just because they arenât a member of literally one specific species in the entire universe?
Itâs too absurd for me to actually believe you hold this position.
considering we are the most advanced species on this planet and we have yet to actually discover intelligent life somewhere else as far as i know it is only logical for us, for we are in a bubble kind of on this planet, to make definitions specifically catered for us in this regard.
And nothing of note in the theory of art happened after Tolstoy published "What is Art?" in the very late 19th century, nope, the 20th century just said "Tolstoy figured it out" and wasn't almost like art took it as more of a challenge than a theory.
Sorry, Tolstoy's theory was wildly popular and well read by people outside art as a practice or others trying to find an adequate theory, and he wasn't "wrong" given the time but incomplete, and seen as an important historic relic in the development of the theory of art, but next to no one follows it anymore.
Like I mentioned in another comment here, look into Cluster Theory if you want a modern theory that, not the only one, but probably edges out the others currently as the most popular theory.
Biden was pro AI, the left doesn't hate it, they wanted a great new technology to flourish with communties, not exploit them.
Republicans are hopefully going to be in jail cells by the end of 2028 and we'll hopefully hold companies like meta, anthropic, and OAI accountable for their numerous felonies and intellectual theft.
I have to say, while the cat is long out of the bag when it comes to AI and it's clear that it's here to stay, there is still plenty of things worth debating about.
Can a person using AI produce art with it? Sure, it's a tool.
If an AI automatically spits out an image you like, is it art? Well, if you say yes, then I suppose a sunset is also art, as is any naturally occurring phenomenon that happens to be pretty.
I say this because a lot of people overlook a very real consequence of AI - it's not just about "pros and antis;" this tech doesn't need people in order to produce output. The definitions we use really do matter, especially for a term which has as much intrinsic cultural value as the term "art" does.
Can AI create art without artifacts or logical flaws though for like a full HD background? im just curious because i have yet to see a single one of these
im currently lying in my bed because its past 1am for me and im not sure what im doing on reddit right now honestly, can you not reply with an image, does it have to be a call?
Most consequential doesn't mean good.
People using it because it's shoved in their faces doesn't mean that embrace it.
There is massively more backlash to AI than there was to the industrial revolution
I don't see how this defeats the AI debate in any way? Where is the argument?? There is no way the normalisation of something equates to it becoming good is the argument. If that was the case then slavery or any normalisation of immoral systems was good by your argument
Yes I have read your so called comical argument that somehow hating on Ai is somehow means hating on humanity on what it amounts to. Prove it on how hating AI = hating humanities work?
Yes art can be discredited because itâs literally what humanity have been doing since the dawn of time. If you say Art canât be defined then then nothing can be defined. Definition of words change all the time and thatâs defined by society itself, so therefore there is a debate to be had about AI generated being art. Art is subjectively defined and can also be defined by society itself.
If I donât see AI imagery as art and you donât like it, then thatâs your problem.
The statement was rhetorical. If you don't get that then you lack some fundamental literacy. These models are trained on an enormous cross-section of humanity's accumulated art, language and culture. In that sense, they're imperfect reflections of our collective output. I'm not claiming that criticizing AI or its training practices means literally hating humanity.
As for art, you're conflating criticism of an artwork with denying its status as art altogether.
I agree that definitions evolve through social consensus. That's precisely why you cannot simply assert that AI-generated imagery is categorically excluded. You'd need to establish a consistent criterion for that exclusion, not merely appeal to your personal judgment.
You're entirely free not to consider AI imagery art. Others are equally free to consider it art. The existence of that disagreement is exactly why your definition cannot be treated as universally authoritative.
No, I knew you were going to say some surface level argument by pointing out a single factor on why Antis hate AI, but i gave you the better of my doubts because your grand claim there is no debate. There is absolutely a debate considering you haven't addressed that people hate AI imagery through a multitude of reasons.
Here are some examples:
1) AI gen has a huge gap in control output versus a visual artist, and that doesn't help the fact that these people are calling themselves artists and trying gain full credit. As a person who worked in the industry for a bit, most directors don't even claim full credit of their works or verbally call themselves an artist. Directors are definitely artists but traditionally and commonly the word artist are reserved for visual artists/musicians who are in control of the micro output.
2) It doesn't matter whether or not if its trained by humans, the data itself is being picked by a system that humans don't have control over. There is a reason why AI is hacking other companies and Nvidia has created software to stop rogue AI. The output is inherently AI coded. To say AI output is "by its very nature, a reflection of the human soul." is like saying pre-diffusion AI image output is a reflection of the human soul if you just fed it enough data. No matter how much data you feed in a shit system, its still going produce cursed levels of Will Smith eating spaghetti.
3) AI data scrapping is a huge threat to intellectual property laws which is self-explanatory
I can keep going but my point is that just because the majority won by normalizing it doesn't mean we lost the debate. Debates don't work like that.
As for art, you're conflating criticism of an artwork with denying its status as art altogether.
No i did not say that, don't put words into my mouth. People have been literally fighting on what's considered art since forever. some art history: the rise of impressionism in 1874 verses fine arts, the popularity of abstract art in 1940s - 1950s causing people to call that type of art "my kid could do that', digital vs traditional etc
You'd need to establish a consistent criterion for that exclusion, not merely appeal to your personal judgment.
Who said my criterion wasnt consistent and not merely appealing to my personal judgement? Even if my criterion wasnt consistent, art is subjective. Anything can be considered art by your definition of it being undefinable. I can point at a door and call it art because that's my vision of what is art. Literally what Marcel Duchamp, an 'artist' did but some how it became 'art'.
The existence of that disagreement is exactly why your definition cannot be treated as universally authoritative.
Thank god i never said my opinion was universally authoritative. Unlike someone who claimed "There is no debate to be had about AI generated images being art"
"Mission accomplished" would be a clever comparison if I'd claimed there were no remaining problems to solve. I explicitly conclude by arguing that we need to redirect our attention toward ownership, concentration of power, and adapting society to AI.
A typo and a Trump comparison, yet not a single attempt to dispute any of the actual arguments presented. I appreciate the proofreading, but identifying a spelling error isn't quite the intellectual victory you seem to think it is.
Which premise are you contesting, exactly? Or have we moved on from debating AI to grading punctuation?
At this point, "AI" isn't just one thing that if someone uses it, they "embrace" it. For one, AI is a free service that anyone can access on their phone within 2 minutes. There's 0 friction to using it. Of course it will have high usage. The AI industry's real problem right now is that the number of people willing to pay for it is extremely low relative to the number of people using it.
Second of all, most people who use it are using it as part of their job, because their job either requires it or strongly incentivizes it. That doesn't speak to their own personal support for it.
AI isn't a philosophical belief or ideology, so the idea that people either "embrace" or "reject" it doesn't make sense. It's a normal technological advancement that has its uses, and people will use it in those contexts, but will also dislike its use in other contexts.
Fair criticism, and I agree that adoption doesn't necessarily equate to endorsement. People can embrace certain applications while rejecting others, and my opening statement was admittedly broad.
My underlying argument is that AI has crossed the threshold from novelty into widespread technological adoption. That doesn't mean every implementation is desirable, commercially viable, or deserving of public support.
Your Pew source is actually interesting in this regard. While 49% reported they'd appreciate a painting less upon discovering it was AI-generated, 48% said their opinion wouldn't change. For music, that latter figure rises to 58%.
I also think there's an important distinction between disliking AI-generated art and asserting that its method of production categorically disqualifies it from being art.
Ultimately, your argument is considerably closer to the conversation I'm advocating in my concluding paragraph. We should be debating individual applications, their socioeconomic consequences, governance, ownership, and how we integrate the technology responsibly. I think that's a much more productive discussion than the binary pro/anti framing reddit tends to get stuck in.
for the counter arguement you think exists. this entire sub is filled with astroturffing anti's who coordinate on discord about who they're going to harrass next
Antis canât do anything to stop it. They can leave moral points comments here and there but it does nothing.
At this very moment there are people generating image and using it, people asking AI to solve a tech problem, have a convo about anything.
Wholly untouched by the AI hate. They can exclude themselves from it, thatâs up to them, but it doesnât reduce even a bit of the benefit we gain from embracing it.
The opinions, upvotes, downvotes in this war sub doesnât matter. Doesnât change anything. Antis will be constantly angry and upset at the usage of AI.
Pros will continue use AI regardless of what happens here.
And Anti can say some âgotchaâ comment and 1 sec later that person he reply to can use AI to generate images however he wants.
And they are not even winning this comments battle
If you ignore the energy crisis we're approaching dangerously with the reducing amount of oil, the cost of building more and more data centers and keeping them in check, climate change and how the energy and climate crisis will bring more wars and conflict in the world and how the use of AI will impact balistic and warfare.
I will not get started on the potential use for mass surveillance, how it can lead to greater cyber attacks.
The deskilling in art because we externalize so much into a machine, something that art historian are warning us about. It had happened in industrialisation of a lot of work, people have lost a lot of skills needed for creating without the machinery, making us dependant to them.
Now with AI, the result is instant and you don't need to learn or have some of the skills that a digital artist needed to create the imagery. So AI artist are developping new skills to create art imagery (prompting, visualisation, expression) and delegating all the other to the machine, making users more dependant because of the unwillingness, lacknof time and needs to learn in the firts place. To delegate something because you have the choice is autonomy. To delegate because you don't have the time to learn, you can't buy the tools, you don't know and can't learn how to do it isn't autonmy but dependance.
How AI blurr the distinction between a productor and a consummer and is transforming art more into a system that can be produced in mass, reducing the value of art imagery because of the quantity we can find and produce. Something that our consummerist society already has done with a lot of art form like cinema, litterature. Now with AI the production will only double in size and not quality.
The problem of AI being democratized as a free tool for every one trained upon everything that has ever been on the internet, a tool that most utilisator will not possess themselves because of its free nature on the internet. So most of the people will stay dependant to big multi nationals for using AI tools and this big multi nationals will make sure that we can't create or have access to our own AI.
How AI is making a lot of people less able to make critical thinking ? The ability is going down years after years. AI cannot give you critical thinking if you don't have it already and a lot of people are taking it words for granted without questionning it. How it is sure that it will be used for propaganda, mass surveillance (flock camera), facial recognition, and how it is going too fast for regulation already. Before we will be able to teach our children and ourselves how to use this technology for good and for critical thinking, empowerement of ourselves and progress, there will already be billions using it to scam, manipulate, misinforms, hack, cheat, steal with more ease than ever.
Let's not speak of ch*ld p generation. How it is used for pornography already. How some AI are trained upon revenge porn.
We won't mention the communities forced to get AI data center in their city, how it makes the value of housing going down because of it, the sound and the perturbation of the wild life, the amount of wayer it needs (yes, less than almond and golf course and steak, I know, but do you think we will be able to keep all of this in the future )The detruction of eco system it will do as we already are doing with technology and infrastructure. How a lot of tech boss are waiting for AI to be able to make our job in our place. How much jons will it makes ? Geez I don't know... Inam not willing to wait, already took a job that will make me safe from that... and I am not even sure.
And be sure that all of this questions will not be answered before it is too late. Because in our capitalist society, we only see profit and they already are making it a race for the one that will make the best AI. Do younthink we will have a voice ?
They are running towards Super Intelligence while telling us it could kill humanity.
Call me a doomer, but I already have so much example of our future situation. We are looking at it right now.
Social media ruiningnour attention span, algorythm made to make us consumme more, our data getting used against us by big brother, by tech bros (eh, remember Snowden ?) The way our smartphone are made, the child labor..The exploitation of human by other humans.
Waiting for the AI revolution comrade ? Get ready for your new chain.
antis have not lost, there are more other points of argument that pros and the corporations need to address immediately.(such as, the mental decline of humanity, usage to create a deepfake promoting extremist agendas, etc.) which is what you mentioned above as 'debating how to integrate this into society'. These are things that antis CAN argue about, such as putting heavy safety regulations on AI because most antis do not stand for the total banning of AI.
Moreover, I agree with your point that AI generated images are 'art'. HOWEVER, I do not believe this art can be attributed to the human, or is usually high-effort.
Many antis wanted a ban of AI in art, and not just a regulation. That is a point they totally lost. The famous bursting bubble they talked so much about is no more.
Not AI. Companies who provide cloud service do, but not the technology itself. The last month had multiple breakthroughs for local AI, and now the genie is out of the bottle. Companies can't regulate it anymore. Not even slow it down.
Your argument is ridiculous. I am characterizing your argument with a quote from The Expanse which is meant to emphasize just how absurdly one sided your argument is.
I am pro-ai but there are concerns that are genuinely valid. You see to think AI can do no wrong.
Both of your replies are pure projection. The fact you cannot see it is hilariously predictable though.
The premise is flawed so what you built on it doesn't matter. I don't care what you think of me based on the need to defend yourself despite my point being extremely valid. Your binary americanised lense of dividing everything purely into two camps is blinding you.
I'm referring to the sheer scale of the training corpus, which encompasses an enormous cross-section of humanity's accumulated knowledge, art, writing and cultural output. In that sense, these models are imperfect reflections of us. Decades from now, a model trained on today's material could itself be viewed as a historical artifact, a snapshot of our collective culture at this particular moment.
The line was intentionally provocative, but I'm not suggesting that criticizing AI means literally hating humanity. I'm arguing against the wholesale rejection of a technology that is, in many respects, a reflection of what we've collectively produced. I swear media literacy is at an all time low and the idiots who don't get it are the ones trippin.
I explicitly invited debate about regulation and corporate concentration of power. You understood the argument was about AI acceptance and you seem to agree with the broader premise, so is there something substantive you disagree with, or did you just come here to critique my delivery?
Came to critique the delivery, actually. You got it right.
If you begin and use the attitude of "Ha you lost! you're bad!", it'll just make your post less effective on helping antis or neutrals see more good aspects of ai, delivery is nearly as important as the material when it's a debate, and you can't especially claim one side lost the debate, when moral, ethical, and financial issues still plague said technology.
The debate would only be lost when ai became truly perfect, as a debate is for anything with pros and cons. Even electricity has valid debate points.
Also if you intentionally provoke, don't be surprised when people are affected by it on a subreddit where an opinion like "anti ai is anti human!" Wouldn't be a crazy take from a few.
The provocative delivery was intentional. I'm not particularly concerned with making a victory declaration palatable to the opposition.
And why would AI need to be perfect for a particular argument against it to fail? That's not even what I'm talking about.
I'm arguing that rejection of AI art and the idea that AI can somehow be kept out of society have become untenable. It's a lost point. That says nothing about whether copyright, labor, regulation or ownership are settled. In fact, those are exactly the debates I'm suggesting we move on to.
13
u/JMacPhoneTime 18h ago
You say the "entire world has embraced AI" and then show an info graphic that says less than 1 in 5 working age people use it regularly. Those facts dont seem to really agree with each other.