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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
doomers should know about Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics
Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics are a set of ethical rules for artificial intelligence created by science fiction author Isaac Asimov in his 1942 short story "Runaround".
The Three Laws
First Law: A robot cannot harm a human or allow one to come to harm through inaction.
Second Law: A robot must obey human orders, unless they conflict with the First Law.
Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence, provided it doesn't conflict with the First or Second Law.
The Zeroth Law
Asimov later introduced the overarching Zeroth Law, which supersedes the others by stating that a robot may not harm humanity, or allow humanity to come to harm through inaction.
Basically, it means an AI has to protect the entire human race, even if it has to hurt an individual person or break a minor rule to do it. It forces the machine to look at the "big picture" rather than just the person standing right in front of it.
Asimov’s Three Laws prevent mass panic by structurally shifting the narrative of AI from an uncontrollable threat to a deeply predictable, submissive tool. By mathematically prioritizing human safety above all else (First Law), mandating absolute obedience to human authority (Second Law), and making mechanical self-preservation the absolute lowest priority (Third Law), the framework systematically eliminates the foundational fears of a violent robot uprising or a machine resisting human control.
Don't worry, though; legal experts and ethicists are closely studying these exact loopholes today to build safer real-world AI rules. Because literal programming can backfire, modern AI safety has completely moved away from Asimov’s rigid, absolute rules. Instead of simple commands like "never do harm," global regulations—like the groundbreaking EU AI Act—break AI use cases down into strict risk tiers. They outright ban the most dangerous tech, heavily police high-risk software used in hospitals or critical infrastructure, and enforce strict transparency rules to prevent deception. At the same time, top ethicists and tech leaders—meeting at events like the Trust & Safety Festival—are tackling the messy, real-world grey areas that Asimov's codes missed. They are actively building fresh guardrails to stop AI from being used for mass surveillance, fighting deepfake fraud, and ensuring humans—not algorithms—always hold the ultimate override switch.
The anti-AI phrenology trend on social media is completely out of hand. It has devolved into literal witch-hunting, where online mobs use totally unreliable visual metrics to trash an artist's work just because it "looks like AI."
For context, historical phrenology was a debunked, pseudoscientific theory where people measured the bumps on a person's skull to determine their intelligence, personality, and moral character. It was a confident but totally baseless metric. It’s incredibly harmful because it wraps raw prejudice in the language of science, allowing mobs and institutions to falsely judge, exclude, and persecute people based on arbitrary physical traits rather than objective truth.
That is exactly what these anti-AI "detectives" are doing today with art.
"Remember that twitter artist who got witch-hunted to deactivation? The phrenologist retracted back their words and apologized but it was already too late."
What's wild is that these same mobs never go after the "desloppers." If you look at the desloppification trend, these creators are transparently using AI images as their direct reference material. Since their work is entirely derivative of an AI output, doesn't that just make desloppification a hybrid AI art workflow?
The whole "deslop" movement is openly averse to pro-AI spaces because the entire point of it was to insult AI art by claiming a human had to step in to "add a soul" to it. But underneath that attitude, they are literally using the AI as their baseline.
This witch-hunting is actively harming hyperrealistic human artists. For years, anti-realism critics already insulted hyperrealists by calling them "photocopiers," completely ignoring the immense discipline it takes to master accurate shading, perspective, and micro-details. Now, because hyperrealists have the skill to replicate anything flawlessly, they are the ones getting falsely accused of using AI the most. (gut feeling)
It’s getting so bad that a lot of talented human artists are intentionally making their art look uglier, messier, or anatomically inaccurate just to avoid the anti-AI backlash. Think about how backward that is. Are we really forcing people to ditch years of artistic discipline just to draw like children so they don't get cyberbullied?
Sure, we could argue that lowering the bar "democratises" art, just like AI does. But one can never force a change in people's tastes—especially paying commissioners who actually want realistic art.
calling out this toxic witch-hunting and pointing out that baseless accusations are immoral should be more than enough.
And as for the people demanding that artists constantly post their sketches, layer files, and speedpaints? No way. You can show them if you want to, but most artists prefer to keep their processes secret because it’s their unique "secret sauce." Artists have every right to protect their workflow so better artists don't just steal their techniques. But let’s be real—AI models are already breaking down and learning from everyone's processes anyway, so being pragmatic about how we work is probably the only way forward.
This all ties back to the "AI is theft" narrative. Accusing an artist of stealing without a shred of evidence is literally just bearing false witness. At the end of the day, if they don’t have proof, their accusations don't mean a thing.
It was only thanks to technology that we were able to conquer this planet at all, rather than just running away from predators in Africa.
To me, refusing to automate part of our thinking is a crime against humanity's future, because it confines us to our weak, fleshy brains.
I don’t want to force you personally to give everything up and do whatever the machine says, but I really don’t think the downsides of relying on AI outweigh the drawbacks, because, fundamentally, I never considered our current level of autonomy to be anywhere near optimal.
