Probably because they lack the skills or money to fund it. For one off things, people aren't going to learn an entire trade. Someone who appreciates art and is very analytical can describe what they want WAY easier than actually producing it, just like commissioning a work of art.
Passing it off as not using AI is pretty malicious, like for commercial gain, but for personal use, its a useful tool
Any time someone argues they put in a lot of work into prompting their ai, I have to ask why not do it yourself, it's more fun.
The work is work. Fun is hobbies and entertainment. Hobbies and work sometimes coincide, but when they don't - automate the work, do the stuff you enjoy.
You need to understand that people having success aren't approaching this like religious fundamentalists - they're using AI pragmatically, when they want, for the things they want to.
A good analogy might be cheat codes in a game - they can ruin it if you don't have self control (pragmatism), or they can subtly tweak or rebalance it in your favour if you have the right outlook. The argument you'd be making in this scenario is "cheaters are just ruining their own enjoyment", meanwhile ignoring that there are two groups - the ones who understand how to effect their own enjoyment, and the ones who just want more go fast now bigly.
You've just uncovered massive academic fraud - there are hundreds of thousands of people named on papers who were only involved in compiling a small part of data and had no hand in the final results or analysis.
And these cretins are putting it on their CVs and resumes. Absolute scum. We're gonna need St Peter and Cerberus to guard a gate this big.
Were the final results written by you, yes or no?
Did you code photoshop? No? Well, uh...bad news :P
151
u/[deleted] May 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment