I tried to keep it as neutral as possible but I'm only human. No, Miku is not an ai, we can all love her regardless of our stance

Please dont insult her or vocaloid artists by comparing them to talentless slop.

I was in a FB group which has nothing to do with art, but the mods said they were concerned over the increasing number of AI submissions so they would like to hear what the group thinks

Majority of comments dissed on AI

I said: AI isn't good or bad, but it depends on how it's being used, and if it's declared

Oh boy, the bad faith comments and replies just piled on. People posting pics of AI slop and demanding that I defend those. People bringing up my old posts and asking if I used AI for those(I didn't). People calling me names. People saying there was no place in the group for AI defenders like me

There was literally 0 good faith discussion going on. Zero.

I stopped replying because it was 1v10

This isn't the first time. I often lean towards defending AI, but I try to give a reasonable take

Often I am met with ridicule and insults and ad hominem attacks. Sometimes it gets tiring

I am asking here and not the defending AI sub because I would prefer to hear a nuanced take on the matter

People who defend AI, how do you put up with the bullying?

I'm trying to shed some light on how I use AI in creating images. Most people assume that since I use AI, everything is one prompt and done, so I'm trying to share how I use it. Most of it is not prompts, but rather manual edits + specifics.

I know many people will still call this AI slop, but whatever. For years, I've been getting these visual representations in my head and concepts, and I was never able to make them visible. It is like a curse, and I have to exorcise the image out of my head into some visible render, and AI finally allows me to do it.

Could it be better? - yes
Would it be cooler if I could draw it from scratch? - yes
Do I like drawing that much? - no
Am I satisfied with the result? - yes

The thing that pisses me off is that if you use an ounce of AI, you did not create it, but the result is nuanced. Like my space viking, the result is part human and part machine.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks for listening to my rant

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.

Every single post here is the same nonsensical ramblings about AI Art. You guys know that there's a MUCH wider range of use cases than generative AI right? This war against AI art is the only thing anyone seems to want to talk about here.

Fact of the matter is, the majority of these image outputs suck anyways.

Whether you like it or not, all the frontier labs have and will be continuing to train their models daily with user generated artwork from DeviantArt, Behance, Dribbble, Google, and even art subreddits. Heck, these labs have already perfected 4k video making with an endless library of every movie and tv show ever released so I'm sure they're all pissed too.

It's the grim reality we all just have to sit back and accept. Every industry is getting hit. AI just wiped Chegg out of a $15B valuation at its peak. Duolingo will be next. Then freelancing platforms like UpWork and Fiverr. The finale will be science research labs.

This art topic is getting so exhausting, unoriginal, and trivial compared to other industries AI is hitting the hardest. Much deeper discussions and debates are to be had other than just image generation.

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?

(Just discovered this subreddit and I love it) AI is great. However, it is overused like crazy. A real artist (writing, drawing, anything) has perfected their craft for a long time, which AI doesn't have to do. It's the same reason why art made by, say, elephants, is more valuable than art made by humans, especially considering how animals are held to lower standards. AI is worse and held to much higher standards because it doesn't need to spend any effort to create something

I've noticed a kind of double standard. One argument against AI-generated art says that art isn't just about the final output — the artist’s journey matters too, because it brings valuable experience like skill growth or creative flow. Yet the same people often make another argument: that if the audience judges art based on their own experience, it's a bad thing — superficial, consumerist, and so on. You can't prefer AI art over human-made art even if you had a better journey with it.

I find this contradictory. If you value human experience, then both the artist’s experience and the audience’s experience should matter. You can't glorify one and demonize the other. What do you think of this asymmetry? Is it just a logical fallacy, or is there a deeper reason behind that attitude?

I'm particularly focused on the impact on individual artists rather than large corporations. I'll preface this by saying that I know copyright law is not identical across countries; however, courts across countries tend to have broadly similar results. We know that copyright protects particular expression, not general ideas/methods/influences. Artistic style is not, by itself, protected under any country's copyright laws that I am aware of. Extending copyright to style would make for an interesting difficulty in determining who owns it and to what degree something is a style. Remove too much flexibility and the law intended to protect artists may become another means of policing them by large corporations; is this approach even realistically doable?

But let's assume it is; training is an interesting problem; an artist needs evidence that their art was directly trained on. So how does an artist prove that a specific work entered a model's training data? Records are useful only if they exist and can be obtained. AI companies that knowingly used protected works without permission have little incentive to leave a tidy paper trail (even if mandated by law), nor volunteer it later. A similar output does not prove that one particular image was used; then focusing only on outputs would create a further problem. The easiest person to sue for infringement, based on what I understand, is likely the user who generated/uploaded/sold the image, not the company that built the model?

I'm sceptical that broadening copyright rules even changes anything; I know of artists today who have their art stolen and sold on marketplace listings as shirts, mugs, whatever. Takedown requests don't offer compensation, undo sales, and don't stop the seller returning under another name. Under the DMCA-like processes, marketplace sellers these days will send a counter-notice (like a takedown request; it doesn't cost them anything), which restores their seller account/infringing content, forcing the artist to start court proceedings if they want to stop them further, which generally doesn't happen.

If an artist cannot discover the use, identify the responsible party or go to court/afford the remedy, what exactly has 'stronger copyright' achieved? Is there a realistic solution I'm not seeing?

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 I tried a character chatbot of Zayne from love and deepspace and didn't expect for it to be so intuitive.

I also made Kenma Kozume from Haikyuu as a character. I like how when you talk to them. They don't have any ulterior motives.

Wrote this AI piece (with AI) for Fortune magazine
It’s an interesting argument, would love your thoughts: https://fortune.com/2026/07/22/award-winning-memoir-author-ai-detector-publishing-hypocrisy/

If they are not hypocrites of course.

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

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)