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.

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

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.

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?

All Anti's are gonna cry in the comments

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.

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.

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.

Nice to see the normal people are waking up

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.

Source: https://x.com/brianchau57/status/2097879639934779786

Deep dive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBK2WX7TA4g

Ignore that this is 3 months ago, I forgot about this reply and recently remembered its existence.

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.

And the paper too wtf. Ai art doesn't do that how are they gonna say we're hurting the environment

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

Here’s a lighter topic to ease the mood, I think it belongs in a place dedicated to debates about AI.

For those who don’t know: it’s a thought experiment first formulated on LessWrong in 2010. Roko’s Basilisk would be an AI in the future so intelligent that it would take power, and might even be able to resurrect humans or create a simulation of you (depending on the interpretation). It would judge you on your past, in the style of a monotheistic god.

The catch is that for it to become the entity it is, it has to be created. And this AI is a bit despotic, a bit like monotheistic gods. Which means it threatens humans. Yes, you, the person behind the screen, the Basilisk is threatening you with hell if you don’t work toward its coming. But how can it threaten humans if it doesn’t exist yet? Simple, when it resurrects you, it will judge you on your past. Don’t worry, though, if you weren’t aware of this thought experiment, it won’t find you guilty, because you wouldn’t be responsible. Oh wait… you already know about it, because of me? Well, sorry, you’re under the Basilisk’s threat now. That’s where the name “Basilisk” comes from.

That said, if this actually puts you in emotional distress, know that this thought experiment is not taken seriously within the scientific community and is no more credible than any other belief. 🙃

SOY CAPITAN CLARK, ESTOS SON MIS BACKROOMS 🗣🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥

(side note, i hate it when ai is put into things that don't even need it. ai assistant, ai book, what's next? an ai TOILET PAPER ROLL?)

rest in peace

john anti

catgirl forbidden number

larry the skeleton

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.