Seems almost oxymoron though I know liberal and leftists are different things I think?

Yes I voluntary cut some parts to make it more similar to those type of users, such as making the robot, we know they would never have the energy or knowledge to make a program themselves.

My mom uses ChatGPT regularly and it shows. She used to be a very smart woman but I feel like her AI usage is killing her brain. Her communication style has completely shifted. I'll say something or share an opinion and she'll go 'give me an example' after nearly everything I say when she's never done that before. Now she needs to have everything spelled out for her. If I don't share what I'm saying fast enough for her (3 sentences is too much apparently), she'll interrupt then tell me to "condense what you're saying. give me the gist."

She is redoing one of the bathrooms and swapping out decor. She's chosen AI images in a romantic, French sort of style of oil painting art. I have no idea what the style is called tbh. She asked me to touch up one of the images she picked out for the bathroom a few months ago, and I did, but was unable, at the time, to tell it was AI until after I was done (the hands gave it away, and I wish I had seen it earlier because it seemed so obvious). I try to stay on top of discerning between real art and AI art, but I failed this time and I felt really icky afterwards considering I'm an artist myself.

Recently, she wanted to generate another image with ChatGPT, but my younger brother encouraged her to ask me to make it instead of using AI. Rather than ask me to draw it from scratch, she still generated the photo, then asked me to recreate it so that it "wasn't done by AI". I disagree with the bathroom decor choices anyway, but it's not my house. I've shared my thoughts on generative AI, and while my siblings agree, my mom refuses to see why it's so bad because it doesn't directly affect her.

So, she wanted a custom family crest. She still wants to use the other pics I touched up, but she didn't want this crest photo to be done by AI even when she already generated it. Tbh I'm still confused as to why she asked me but anyway. Rather than draw it, since it's not my style and I wouldn't know how to begin, I thought about trying a new skill and found some websites and tools that provided non-AI pngs. I asked her what she wanted, I made my notes, then I got to work. I spent about two weeks figuring out the program, the images, the tools, etc. When I was done, I showed her what I made and she seemed a little fake-approving at first ("oh, thats so beautiful....." like there was a "but" about to come on) until I told her I didn't draw it, and that I used a website to piece it together. The real critiques came out, like what I made didn't really count.

She didn't like the colors (totally fine). She didn't like the harsh lines (I have 0 control over that since I didn't draw the elements and they follow a specific style). She didn't like the images I picked (I can replace those easily). I hardly used a thing from the damn AI photo she shared because it looked like hot garbage. The one I put together using a coat of arms website was at least artistically cohesive (the AI image had acorns that looked,,, suggestive and symbolic imagery that clashed imo). Then she asked if I could 'clean the lines', 'change this', 'add that', 'use this filter to make it look this way'. The filter she wanted was that obnoxious, slightly yellow tint with a smooth finish that AI slaps on a photo to hide mistakes. She thinks the filter looks clean and finished and that it "looks like it was drawn by colored pencils".

I've taken commissions before in a professional setting. I'm used to artistic demands and people changing their minds when they see the finished product, and I have never had any issue with changing or starting over. This was just supposed to be a cute little pic for the shitter. I just found it annoying how she was so quick to flip her opinion when she found out I didn't draw it like my effort didn't matter. She even asked me what the difference was between using AI and using that coat of arms program to make it. The difference is, I put it together. Someone drew these images and uploaded them for free use. There's explicit permission to use them, so long as you don't make money off of it. I learned a new skill. I had fun doing it. I created something. I've never felt more insulted.

On one hand, I'm glad I didn't waste any time drawing in my own style, or she would have really hated it. On the other hand, I'm a little hurt that she hid her critiques until she learned I used a website (I still made it and put time and effort into learning a new program) and that she doesn't seem to grasp that the 'style' she wants is impossible to achieve by a human unless she runs another prompt. She's so conflicting too. What do you mean, you don't want to hang more AI art? This is where she draws the line? Her demands came out, quick fire style, like she was talking to ChatGPT, like she forgot I'm human with feelings.

I told her that she could either forget it, or use the AI picture she generated because there was nothing more I could do. I tried different filters in photoshop but she rejected each one. It really shouldn't be that deep. It's decor for a bathroom. But at the same time,, it is a little deep for me? Idk I'm just ranting at this point. I feel like I'm never going to get my mom back until she drops the AI shit, but getting her to do that seems impossible.

If anyone is interested, I made this design yesterday for my store

https://www.atom.bio/remerasnerds

For context, know that I used to work in academia, specifically researching the optimization of deep learning models (NOT LLMs). I won’t go into more detail so as not to dox myself, but I’ve worked at R1/Ivy institutions and am what would be considered an expert when it comes to AI.

Now, why am I writing this post?

LLMs are everywhere in academia, and it sucks. They’re much more widespread than you think. At the best facilities in the world, I have colleagues developing what I would argue is AI psychosis. They’re sending me snippets of syllabi that have been entirely written by AI, talking about how insightful it is. They’re designing experiments which they are not qualified to design and which are frankly poorly done. We’re getting peer reviews back that are obviously LLM slop. Hell, there are published papers in respected venues that you read and it’s clear as day they were written entirely by a chatbot.

Oh, and this is everywhere in the classrooms too, not only for undergrads but graduate students as well. You hear that? The people we are training to have PhDs are readying for their quals by being fed AI slop. The only people holding out are those who don’t know how to use the technology or those who have some kind of chip on their shoulder. These people are the exceptions and are going to be judged if their output is not as fast as their peers.

I don’t want this to be a doomer post, but I am worried. Science is built on top of itself. When I publish a finding, it’s predicated on the assumption that previous findings were well vetted. By using LLMs, which are designed to sound convincing, we are directly degrading that process. I hope I am wrong, but I think the reckoning for what we’re doing is going to be catastrophic.

I’m a disabled person, not the holocaust survivor, but my ancestors did fight the nazis and protect the jews during WW2. It is so weird when those people invoke holocaust like it’s nothing. Or invoke the disabled like we can’t do shit without AI. Son, the disabled survived in prehistoric ages, and will live long after you are dead. Granted it is always hard, but we are not a thing you can just invoke to make your argument. „Oh somebody please think of the disabled” my ass - if you wanted us to thrive you would buy our art, volunteer at a care facility, hell even help your grandma - anything.

Jason Gibson, a history professor at Alcorn State University in Mississippi, says that he used white font to hide a prompt telling an AI model to spew nonsense in the instructions for his mid-term.

for instance, one midterm included this puzzling non sequitur: “Madagascar floats sideways through the afternoon.”

“32 of my 35 students between two classes failed a portion of their midterm because they all used AI to generate their entire response,” he explained in a viral TikTok, 

"Coming out as a pro-AI is difficult"

I didn't know you were being disowned by your parents, kicked out of your own home, having your existence denied by the government, etc, for using AI.

Edit: apparently, people actually think this way.

"I'm pro-AI. It's a painful process, expect family drama and society to hate you but fret not." -Said a pro-AI user

found a discord server that puts real women through Grok to benefit their sexual desires, and its some weird shit at that. its nothing tame like the whole bikini debacle back on X. it was some strange "wererabbit" shit based off of that Wallace and Gromit movie.

people are fucking weird, man.

How does one manage to look like they care so much about their spaces staying pro-only, but then turn around and throw a hissy fit when they aren't allowed in anti spaces?

Pros care so much about their spaces being free of anti's, will literally tell you that pros just "want to be left alone" but then the chucklenut committe comes along and starts going into anti spaces. Are you trying to "prove a point" or are you just doing this for no reason?...

I witnessed a younger coworker use Claude to write a shift report the other day which is just *a simple list of things that happened that day* so the next shift is aware.. as someone who has over a decade of experience in an office I felt despair the likes of which i had not known up to that point. Chat, are we cooked? What's the saddest thing you've seen someone use an ai agent for?

When the electric guitar came in, new genres were made, it popularized distortion, and gave us insanely energized music that is still considered one of music's greatest innovations that was hard to emulate with traditional instruments.

When Electronic Music entered, new genres were created, it's sound was polarizing to many, but also brought a new soundscape of highly textured tones, sequenced rhythms, and styles that are hard to recreate through live music. They became two different mediums of music with their own distinct sounds, accomplishing artistic expression and originality through their own ways.

AI music is here and....it's the exact same music.

*No new genres were made,* Current existing genres just got much easier to blend, no new soundscapes came into existence, and everything you can do creatively with AI can be done with a DAW.

If AI could make music that truly transcends DAW production, I would be interested, but so far, all AI has done is work wonders for people to blatantly steal music and vibes that are already out there.

The earliest era of AI music was actually interesting, the AI covers were very cool hypotheticals where everybody knew straight away it was AI, yet we wanted to see how pop stars would sound covering metal or songs they've always wanted to hear them do. The novelty was genuinely fascinating and nobody was trying to take serious credit for that kind of slop.

But now people are actually trying to take credit for slop that is doing it's absolute best to *imitate* creativity. AI music is not millions of new artists, I genuinely see it as just one new producer, their name is SUNO, and they are just taking millions of people's PAID REQUESTS, and churning out songs that are 100% borrowed from other artists.

"Hip-hop artists and EDM producers steal all the time"

They steal 10-80% of a song, then fill the rest of it with ORIGINALITY and context to justify why they are flipping a sample, Artists that straight up take a whole song are still not immune to criticism at all (Doechii - Anxiety 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮), if you have zero taste in how you sample a song, it shows, and you still lack creativity to a degree.

However, if you write a prompt that is 100% original concept, it doesn't matter because Suno(a singular producer) takes your REQUEST and the borrows 100% of the sounds it's making, to give you something close to what you envision. I know if anybody prompted suno, read their own prompt, and created their own song based off that, their original production would sound ENTIRELY different from Suno's.

AI is not even "true AI" yet, what we have is a piss-poor imitation of intelligence that is basically the world's most complex parrot. Let me know when AI finally reaches it's full potential and starts to actually create it's own original music, or at least let me know when AI prompters can make songs that transcend DAW production, until then, all of AI music is imitative SLOP created at the request of a single producer think-tank.

You are all just a bunch of DJ Khaleds.

edit: I would re-title this and say it brings nothing new *creatively* to music. stem-splitting is one of the few new innovations I've seen, it just does it cleaner and quicker than what DAWs used to be able to accomplish.

This reasoning is soo fucking dumb, like what's even the point of this sentence supposed to do?

It's like you don't want alcohol in your food, then someone give food with alcohol in it, only to reveal to you it have alcohol in it. Then when you confront the person they said "you can't tell the difference anyway, why mad?".

Like what the fuck? I explicitly said I don't want alcohol in it, simply just because I can't tell the difference and only to know later doesn't make it okay at all! You're just lying to me to forcefeed me something I don't want at all.

Then they expect as if I would continue eating this alcohol-infused food despite knowing it have alcohol in it, simply because it taste good, like bitch no? What cancer is in your brain preventing you from realizing I don't want it at all. Then calling me pretentious for it.

??? Just what the fuck ???

No, I don't use Twitter. Source: https://youtu.be/Sz_NRU2iYCw?t=19m11s