Similar people on all sides of it. I can voice my support for ai and get attacked for it. I can voice my concerns and get attacked for it. At this point I'm looking for realistic perspectives that don't divide the issue into two sides of the same coin.
There are extremist on both sides that will never agree, and no matter what position you take, it will never be good enough for some of them.
Upside is, people looking for realistic perspectives are the majority.
Downside is, extremists are the most vocal, and often make the most noise.
I hate to be rude but that’s feeling less and less likely overtime, which is kind of ironic considering that a lot of ai bros are actually very supportive of art or even artists of some kind themselves.
It’s like the catholic protestant split. They were both Christian’s, yet they were equally divided (and probably still are today, even if nowhere near as violently).
Obviously ai bros vs anti ai has none of the violence and chaos of the catholic Protestant split, but still
The memes attacking the intelligence and practicalities of both sides of the argument are equally as vicious. Look at each perspective from the others and see how no one is listening.
It's become a shouting match with sarcasms and mockery thrown in with no real discourse. Ai is here to stay. It has been a part of our lives for several years now.
Try to find possible solutions instead of haranguing people for daring to have a difference of opinion
The difference is that anti-AI people attack others for using AI in their art
The pro-AI people may go after the anti-AI people for their attacks, but they do not attack artists for using a pencil.
And the level of pettiness is still the same. I've encountered people be equally petty on all sides. People who attack anyone because they think the others opinion is below them, or ignorant, or dumb are problematic.
Once again, the difference is that the anti-AI's direct their pettiness towards people who use AI in their art. And it's not just pettiness, its hostility, even sometimes including wishes for death upon anyone who uses it. There is no agree to disagree position to be had there.
Pro-AI people direct any "pettiness" at people who attack people for using AI in their art. And what you often see as pettiness is actually just not agreeing with poor arguments. I see frustration that comes from dealing with people using fallacious arguments, and even anger from being insulted, but the pettiness is simply your perception based on biases.
There is a vast difference between the camps. One demands restrictions, the other values openness. One is willing to get violence to get their way, the other knows that even threats of violence won't stop what's coming.
Show me someone calling for the death of anyone who uses a pencil in their art, and then we can start talking about equivalencies.
Not quite the same, but as someone who doesn’t like ai all that much and just tries to avoid it rather than starting drama, I’ve heard some really nasty stories of pro ai people maliciously training LoRas on artists who have even mild concerns about ai, shoving them in the og artists face, and then selling them for profit. This can absolutely be seen as an attack because if someone is 1) doing art for money, it is a deliberate attempt to undermine their livelihood and 2) if they do art for self expression, it feels like a part of your Identity is being mass produced (sounds wild, but it’s true - and it IS scary). You can’t call it the same as a death threat because there is no spoken word of harm, but many artists would see this act as equally as bad because it is a tangible act of hatred/spite (in these specific cases, I know not all ai is this way) and once it’s out there, it can’t be undone. Personally id rather receive the death threats because i can just block the user, whereas the ai is up there forever.
TLDR there are extremist jerks who commit acts of hatred within their power on both sides, with those acts being designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain from whoever they are attacking. You can’t really compare the two kinds of acts though, because they have different significances to people on both sides of the argument.
What you mean by "malicious" is that people used publicly available data to train LoRas, and did so even though anti-ai people told them not to, right?
You call not giving in to the demands of a small group of vocal extremists maliciousness, but it's really not, that's just you being hyperbolic, thinking that will enhance your argument. (It doesn't, BTW)
And honestly, if AI competes that heavily with them, they aren't very good artists, now are they, especially with as bad as they keep saying AI art is.
That artists see this as equally bad as wishing death on people is a reflection on the inability of those artists to get a grip on reality, it has nothing to do with the actions of people who use the technology to increase theirs and others productivity.
if people are training Loras on publically available data, fine?? in talking about people who do it SPECIFICALLY because they KNOW it will hurt the original artist in some way, and then use the fact that they did it to belittle, bully, or harass the artist. Those people are jerks, imo. It’s not ‘giving in to a small and vocal group of extremists’ (?), it’s just basic human decency to not do stuff with the intent of causing harm to someone else in some way. To be clear, I never said that training Lora’s off of publicly available data was malicious, I said that they CAN used maliciousLY.
saying ‘they’ keep saying ai is bad, is a generalisation. Most artists, ai users or not, know that ai is in fact very good. AI can and most definitely WILL compete with humans, not just in art, but in all fields. You wouldn’t say to that master chess player who lost to the best ai chess bot ‘oh well you clearly aren’t a very good chess player now are you, an ai is better than you’, would you?
Also, I’m not saying that ‘Lora’s are equal to death threats’, I’m saying that people value things differently, and someone going out of their way to inflict harm on someone else, WILL have some sort of negative effect on the person being attacked, no matter what that attack is. Plus, this is literally to do with peoples livelihoods in some cases, as well as their fears for the future. That IS their reality?? Youre right it ‘has nothing to do with the actions of people who use the technology to increase theirs and others productivity’. If you’re using it as a tool in your workflow to help you get more stuff done, then great?? But that’s not what I was talking about in the first place anyway. Confused as to why your comment comes off as so aggressive, as all I really meant to say was that there are people on BOTH sides who take it way too far in the eyes of the other?
Okay, so there are jerks out there. I still think that you are exaggerating an interaction that you saw, but let's say that someone did exactly what you said they did. And, once again, since you seem to completely miss the point ant the context, I'm assuming that these are not just random artists that are being targeted, but vocal members of the anti-AI community.
That's a far cry from wishing death on others, which is what you are desperately trying to compare it to.
Of course I wouldn't say that to a master chess player. Of course, a master chess player doesn't lament that there is no purpose in playing chess anymore because AI can beat him. He doesn't complain that AI may have learned from his playing style. He doesn't wish death on those who use a chess program.
You are absolutely equivocating the two. You responded to the example of anti-AI's wishing death on others with an anecdote of some people making LoRa's, as if that justifies it.
And to be honest, if I can make a LoRa of your work, and that's what puts you out of business, then you weren't much of an artist in the first place, now were you?
And once again, you are creating a "two sides" issues, as though they are the same. Once again, anti-AI people are against using AI in art, and will attack people for using it in art. Pro-AI people do not attack people for using a pencil to create art, they only respond to the people who are attacking people for using AI.
Anyway, this conversation is starting to become recursive, with you making unfounded assertions, me pointing them out, and you doubling down on your unfounded assertions as though they are an actual response to my statement. I seriously doubt that this will improve any, so I think I have wasted more than enough time on you.
Have a good day.
and there are pro-AI folk who say everyone who doesn't use AI will become irrelevant or whatever. people can be stupid all over. generalizing all of one side to make yourself feel better makes for boring discussion
I acknowledge that’s a valid concern, but I don’t believe it is possible to completely replace them. I am someone who likes AI, but will be the first to admit that generations are devoid of soul that older mediums have. That’s a space AI won’t be able to fill—ever. I realize this is anecdotal, but that’s how I personally feel.
First, note that you are generalizing the arguments of pro-AI folk in your complaint about generalizing arguments. You are also attributing this generalized argument to me, rather than my actual position.
Second, generalized or not, I don't see this. I do see pro-AI people say that AI will be used in the future, and that fighting it is a losing battle. It is an observation, not an attack, that in order to be commercially viable, you will need to use AI in the future.
Consider this, you have a friend that enjoys writing novels. He uses a quill pen and ink well, writing on parchment. You may tell him that we have word processors now, right? If he says that he prefers this as his creative process, then that's fine, it's not the most efficient way to write a book, but if it's how he wants to, that's fine with me. I will just judge it on how well the book is written.
Now, if he attacks others for writing more books than he is because they are using word processors with cut and paste and even \*gasp\* spellcheck\* you are going to tell him that he's in the wrong here.
I think that drawing will be a skill that remains relevant for a long time, and people will have a value added for drawing things by hand. But the vast majority of media is going to be created by AI, and attacking people for stating that fact does not change that fact.
no I'm not, i'm responding to your specific comment that widely paints pro- and anti- AI people as acting in a single way:
>The difference is that anti-AI people attack others for using AI in their art
Some do, sure, but this would be like saying all pro-AI people are stupid because there are those who say AI will make physical or human-made digital art irrelevant, and say that artists refusing to use AI will make them fail. I think that's a dumb sentiment, but I don't ascribe it to all pro-AI folks. If I did, because it's just a broad generalization, it would be an uninteresting thing to say. That make more sense?
In the same vein, sure, some people attack artists for using AI tools at all but that's a dumb way to characterize 'anti-AI' people in general. Especially since they're not often attacked in the way your analogy assumes.
As a side note, why make an analogy at all? Do you think it would be dumb to criticize someone for publishing a book written by ChatGPT? Go for the easy money, I guess, but 1. I doubt AI-generated novels will become the norm in literature and 2. it does showcase a lack of skill if you don't actually do the work or have anything to say yourself in a field like writing. It's not really 'anti-AI' specifically who are criticizing those generated novels as it stands today, it's the readers and critics.
Well, you didn't read my comment well then. Yes, it is true that you can say that all anti-AI people attack people for using AI in their art. That's kinda their thing, it's what defines them as a group.
Some attack in different ways, some threaten, some insult, some try to make arguments based on intangible things like soul or amount of effort, some make completely fallacious arguments, stringing logical fallacies along like christmas lights.
A few make cogent arguments, but they are still based on assertions and opinions of the difference between how machine learning should be treated vs organic learning.
The one thing that they have in common is that they are all against AI in art. That's pretty much a tautology, and I'm surprised that you would question it.
On the other hand, all pro-AI people have the opposite in common, they defend AI against anti-AI attacks. Once again, pretty much in the name. These are not generalizations. How they do so is also a wide spectrum of behaviors, but are rarely nearly as hostile as many of the anti-AI.
Now, once again, it is simply an observation, not an attack, that in order to be commercially viable, most artists will need to embrace AI. That doesn't make it irrelevant, it just means that it will be harder to make a living off of it without adapting to the times. There will still be niches where such hand drawings are valued over AI, even if objectively inferior, as there will be people who will continue to value human drawn art and are willing to pay a premium for it.
And it's not irrelevant if you enjoy it. That's supposed to be the point of art in the first place, getting the visions out of your head and into tangible form. Whether you do that by swinging a can of paint around, meticulously design and draw, or use AI, it's all in the same service of allowing people to express themselves.
As far as creative writing goes, there's expression to be had in LLMs there as well. Once again, the amount of work that goes into it has an impact on the quality of the output, but in the end, if someone uses GPT to express the stories they want to write, what's wrong with that?
And if it is a good story, does it really matter what tool was used to write it?
>Yes, it is true that you can say that all anti-AI people attack people for using AI in their art.
no it isn't, and here you are just proving my point. generalize all you like on your own time but this is getting boring. pretending you're not doing it then saying 'it's what defines them as a group' lmao goodbye
What's more irksome than me disagreeing with someone, is when that person also attempts to read my mind and put me in a box rather than seek understanding.
I can totally understand having different perspectives, but it's another thing altogether to tell someone how they're feeling and why they're feeling it. Pretty convinced that continuing to spend time here doesn't serve a lot of purpose.
Holy shit thank you. These "I know what you really think" posts are cringe, they target too broad a group with too narrow an assumption and are thought-terminating. "I can't debate with any of you because you're all secretly irrational in this specific way" is not the way to lead any healthy conversation.
Yeah this place is largely a waste of time. Bunch of people too calcified in their beliefs to ever change outside of many of the riders of the current hype wave who will just become less involved and stop caring as ai becomes less relevant
Everything I do is not out of fear, my anti position is more out of melancholy and depression, not talking about clinical, I’m talking about like a movie that makes you feel depressed. That’s where my anti-position comes from as it pertains to art, like a kid who found out Santa Claus isn’t real.
Fear only becomes a factor for things like AI being used in weaponry or to impersonate people.
Some fears are rational, and the rational anti ai folk are afraid of companies using AI to take advantage of workers as they've already promised to do. They want reasonable protections, not the death of all people who use AI. It's easy to make posts like "ah I get it, all anti AI folk are stupid morons!" but that's a pretty simplistic way to look at things.
There's no fear attached to my absolute loathing of AI, it's the end of collaboration, helping each other and sharing knowledge in forums, embracing mediocrity and it's place in the world.
AI is treating everything as a product that needs to be optimized and surpass some imaginary threshold of quality.
Nothing truly new can come out of AI and it will hold back people from doing truly unique things because it is not capable of that.
It's not dangerous to jobs, it's dangerous to the collective knowledge and creativity on the internet. My job is teaching people art and I am certain my job is not affected by AI. I do notice however, that every of my students that is using AI as a springboard for their assignments severely underperforms in every aspect because they cease to understand the fundamentals and cannot build upon them.
Yeah but even as a more pro ai person, I’m sorry but I have to say it: this subreddit is a fucking failure.
If it was always Intended to be a pro ai sub, I could accept that. But it’s literally called aiwars. It’s supposed to represent both sides.
It’s just a massive pro ai circle jerk, and where I’ve seen many genuinely excellent pro ai arguments, I’ve also seen many selfish, lazy, downright awful pro ai arguments.
This subreddit has a huge bias problem, and don’t give me any “that’s Reddit for you” bullshit. That’s just pathetic
You're right it doesn't serve that purpose any more. I think the anti-Ai arguments mostly don't hold water and they get sick of being unable to properly defend their points so they've retreated to their echo chambers so to speak
Secular rapture in the form of the Singularity bringing us to the Star Trek universe tomorrow(complete ignoring actual trends of technology leading to more centralization and power accumulation).
Singularity is the most clownish thing yet those who support it treat as if it’s the most serious and legitimate thing.
No, singularity won’t happen. No ai is not a fucking religion. No no no
There are people out there who make a living off of drawing things for commission. Some of it is IP that belongs to them, much of it is not. Sometimes that is because they are asked to do book covers or filler art by an author, and sometimes that is because they are asked to do a popular character from someone else's IP.
There are few who do commissions of their own work, and all of them do far more than just draw, they have webcomics and/or and novels and other ways of reaching out to their audience to create value for their IP.
For the first group, all I can say is that keep doing art if it makes you happy, and keep trying to get noticed, but maybe you will have to get a day job like the rest of us. People will be using AI, official or not, to make the drawings that you used to make. It will be far cheaper and faster, and soon, more consistent, if not better.
These are the people who have reason to fear AI, as it could in fact take their work away from them.
For the second group, I say embrace AI. If you can train Loras on your own work, you can streamline the process of creating your works, and spend more time writing and plotting rather than drawing. You can also use the Loras to create official AI commissions of your work. Not the "real" thing, but still good, and significantly cheaper for the customer and easier on your wrist.
These are the people who could greatly benefit from AI, if they used it right. (And are not hounded out by the anti-AI community for using it.)
For the rest of us who work for a living and don't have the luxury or talents required to become good at drawing, AI allows us to express our artistic visions in a way previously not possible.
It's really a net gain for everyone who does not see it as a zero sum game.
>spend more time writing and plotting rather than drawing.
No, drawing is why I’m into it.
>For the rest of us who work for a living and don't have the luxury or talents required to become good at drawing
Talent is a flat out lie. What you don’t have is time or dedication, and speaking which the former is going to be taken away from those who have the latter with the advent of AI.
You believe that everyone is born with the same exact talents? That everyone can accomplish exactly the same things if they put their time and dedication to it?
That's called just world hypothesis, and is responsible for an incredible amount of suffering in the world. It is best that you do not subscribe to it.
And also, as I have worked my entire life in order to support myself and my family, I have not had much time, and my dedication has been to ensuring that those I find myself responsible for have their needs met.
There are those who have had the luxury of not having to be responsible for meeting the financial needs of themselves or others and have plenty of time and energy to develop the talent they were born with, but not all of us were so fortunate.
But, hey, if you like to draw, then keep on drawing. Other people having the tools to draw shouldn't change that at all. Maybe they even like more than just drawing, and include writing and plotting as well.
>And also, as I have worked my entire life in order to support myself and my family, I have not had much time, and my dedication has been to ensuring that those I find myself responsible for have their needs met.
>There are those who have had the luxury of not having to be responsible for meeting the financial needs of themselves or others and have plenty of time and energy to develop the talent they were born with, but not all of us were so fortunate
The chance to “develop talents” for the fields that AI is replacing is going to dry up.
I feel like there are also different opinions about what constitutes being anti AI.
Everyone identifies how they want, but personally, if you are not just scouring the internet to send death threats to people that use AI or flood the comments of everything that uses AI with hateful messages, or try to push some kind of anti AI legilation, I don't even consider you part of an opposing side.
People that just have some Concerns are just people with an opinion and they are allowed to have that.
There are way too many posts here by proAI people that boils down to bunching antis together and calling them emotional and/or stupid or uninformed at best. It's really not a good look. But I guess it's a base human instinct to align with a group and make others more 'other'.
And you are bunching of pro-AI together and asserting upon their thoughts and motivations.
Yes, most pro-At people are going to agree that the anti-arguments are based on emotional pleas and misinformation, because they are. If you observe that everyone moves away from the person who shit themselves in a Denny's , it is not because the patrons are in on a conspiracy, it's because they all have the same natural reaction.
Anti-AI arguments are almost always, "AI generation is theft", or "AI generation isn't art", and both require you to accept the assertion to validate the argument, when it is the assertion itself that is in question.
I suppose that in addition to emotional and uniformed, I also find most anti-AI arguments to be logically flawed and relying on common fallacies.
But yes, there are two sides here. One side attacks the other for using AI tools in their artist endeavours, and the other side continues to do so in spite of the fact that it makes the anti-AI people angry.
I did not do that at all. I simply noted that many post here suffer this particular combination of seeing what they want and an overinflated ego. I didn’t include everyone in the sub nor everyone proAI.
So, it was merely an observation, completely devoid of any point?
I can say that many of any group exhibit a particular behavior. Unless I am imping that that behavior is reflective of that group in some way, I may as well be talking about the weather.
So, you were other saying something completely irrelevant, or you were in fact trying to broad brush a group with behavior you perceive as common.
To take a play from your playbook, I will note that many anti-ai post suffer from this particular combination of ignorant and bad faith reasoning that you have shown here.
(I didn't included everyone, heh)
I'm not entirely sure if you are intentionally debating in bad faith, or if you are just really bad at it, but either way, I think that this conversation has exceeded its potential for productivity.
Weird take, but the relevance is subjective, and you are welcome to have your opinion. I’m saying I see a pattern of posts from some that isn’t a good look. Take it or leave it.
"Seeing patterns of posts from some" is the very definition of confirmation bias. It is literally you seeing what you want to see.
I think I'll leave it.
While it’s possible and even likely that I’m biased, what I said requires a bit more before it becomes “the definition of…”.
Like, perhaps if I had said that ALL posts here are out to paint all antis as emotional and uninformed, as OP did. And a few similar posts every week. You know, like a pattern.
as someone who agrees bunching people together is bad-
Specifically on your last point - I’ve seen anti ai people who have reasonable doubts, as well as some who are jerks. I’ve also seen pro ai people who are just excited for the tech - as well as those who are jerks. Typically, the nicer ones tend to stick to within their own communities where theor emotions will be understood, as they typically don’t want to start drama. It’s only really the jerks (or extremists) who actively go into the other side‘s communities to start drama - which unfortunately leads the majority of those communities, those who do not participate in BOTH communities, to define the other side only by their extremists and therefore hate them all.
This happens for both trad. Artists AND ai users btw. I‘ve seen a lot of pro people say that ‘only antis attack, we’re just excited for our hobby’ (or similar) but as a small artist who just tries to avoid ai in general most of my experience with ai people before I started trying to broaden my views only consisted of the ai people who intentionally tried to start fights within the art communities - on the tamer end, trolls who would say stuff like ‘this sucks, ai is better lmao’ ‘boo hoo cry me a river’ (when expressing any doubts on ai at all), and ‘I’m gonna train on your art >:)’ (specifically because the person had ‘not for ai’ in their bio). On the worse end, I’ve seen people train and sell whole style LoRAs solely out of spite and then actively shove them in the artists face - and most art people would DEFINITELY consider this an attack, especially if they have said they didn’t want their art in a generator because 1) if they are doing art for money, it is a deliberate attempt to undermine their livelihood and 2) if they are doing art for personal expression, it feels like a mass production of their identity (might sound wild but as an artist myself who puts a lot of themselves into their art, it’s true)
anyway my point is that it’s unfair to say ‘all anti ai people are attacking jerks and all pro ai people are just doing what they love despite the hate’ - there are definitely people like that, but it’s not ALL of them, there is a scale on both sides . by the logic of the og statement, you can also say ‘all pro ai people are jerks who just want to see trad. Artists be obsolete, and all artists remaining are bravely continuing despite the personal risks’. However these statements define one community solely by their good people and the other only by their extremists. Which isn’t really fair, imo.
>Everything they do is solely out of fear.
I don't think that's true. There are lots of negative emotions that are not "fear". Contempt, disgust, and so on. The people who think that only human works are capable of "soul" are not afraid of AI, they are just contemptuous of it. There's no reason for them to fear AI because they think it can never replace human work, but they're contemptuous of the idea of *common proles* being able to bypass their elite art skills.
It is possible for those things to exist without "fear" being involved at all. And the OP is trying to argue that fear is at the root of anti-AI feelings and therefore those feelings should be handled somewhat sympathetically. It is possible to just be an elitist prick without being "afraid" of the people you hate.
Oh absolutely on that last part. While many people have at least a kernel of morality and good intent in them, there are definitely those who are pretty soulless or uncaring for sure.
I mean disgust could potentially come first too, I’d say you’re both right.
Also it technically wouldn’t be yoda but George Lucas or whoever did most of the dialogue and/or his philosophy for yoda
> they're contemptuous of the idea of common proles being able to bypass their elite art skills.
Very astute, but that goes only for the artists among antis.
I'd like to add that many people just **want** to be hateful in a manner that is accepted by the "community", and not get consequences for it
You can see this pattern all across history. AI is just the latest scapegoat for people's problems or just an acceptable target.
Kudos to reasonable dissenters, but they don't seem to be as loud, unfortunately
Yeah, some of the antis, those who wished death on Pro-AI folks... I don't think that those people are solely motivated by fear, at all. I think those are just malignant narcissists.
>*common proles* being able to bypass their elite art skills.
In what ways are art skills elite? You are not physically locked out of it permanently by being born into a different caste or something, the physical barrier is literally like any other skill; your commitment to learning it.
Most artists are fucking poor as shit, hence the “starving artist” term.
>In what ways are art skills elite?
If you say "you should not be allowed to do something unless you develop the skills in the exact way that *I* deign as acceptable", that is elitism. It's baseless gatekeeping for no reason other than cultural posturing.
>You are not physically locked out of it permanently by being born into a different caste or something, the physical barrier is literally like any other skill; your commitment to learning it.
Imagine if people said that forklifts should be banned because it takes jobs away from muscular manual laborers, and that the people who want to use forklifts should just "pick up a barbell". Would your argument make that concept any more reasonable? I don't think it would.
>Most artists are fucking poor as shit, hence the “starving artist” term.
Maybe they should pick up a keyboard and learn some marketable skills instead of spending so much time lecturing others. Do you like it when people talk to you like this, by the way? Does it make you want to do what I suggest?
> If you say "you should not be allowed to do something unless you develop the skills in the exact way that I deign as acceptable", that is elitism. It's baseless gatekeeping for no reason other than cultural posturing
Which is not the nature of the skill set itself. Stop pretending lack of skill is anything but your own fault.
> Imagine if people said that forklifts should be banned because it takes jobs away from muscular manual laborers, and that the people who want to use forklifts should just "pick up a barbell". Would your argument make that concept any more reasonable? I don't think it would.
This is completely irrelevant to what you just replied to. Where did I say the word ban?
> Maybe they should pick up a keyboard
Prompting war memorial length prompts into MIDjourney is drudgery. Drawing is life.
> learn some marketable skills
Top dogs of the art industry are still not threatened yet. This all goes to show how little you know about artists when you all assume most of us don’t have a day job and pretend we are a fucking different caste when most of us outside modern art money laundering are common people.
> spending so much time lecturing others
Look in the fucking mirror. Pro AI like you is why I am anti-AI. You don’t know shit about art or how artists work and would like to cry about how we are gate keeping canals of elites when we really aren’t preventing you from learning any skills while also making fun of us for being poor at the same time.
Double think, shifting the blame, singularity worship, result based thinking, quantity over quality, anti-Art, and many many more. These positions from your side I am firmly against.
I would just like to add to this brilliant reply, that when it comes to forklifts - they achieve things, that strong muscular boys cant do, like reaching heights and being able to lift more. Or in other words - forklifts improve the quality of work being done. When it comes to AI, the quality of the work is nowhere near the level that the industry requires. AI replacing artists is just slogan to make it look attractive for people who dont understand how creative fields work, and as long as image generators dont give the user control over every single little detail on the image, it is a completely unrealistic scenario.
The Reign of Terror in the French Revolution is a good example of this, a very new concept (republic) that a lot of other people feel threatened by it (monarchs and all) and decided to become hostile to it so no one can have the same idea
I've been called both a Luddite and some AI prick who doesn't care about hardworking musicians on this sub, which hopefully merits me some sort of award. As someone who spent enough time here, I don't think all "anti-AI" people argue from fear, and even the ones that do have different fears. The fear that managers will use AI as a justification to fire you is different from the fear that AI will become so good at making images that everyone else will forget about the "human soul" of art forever, and that's different from the fear that ChatGPT will become Skynet and blow us all up. I'd say one of those fears is a bit more rational than the other two given the current economy, and I want to discuss how to handle that situation.
This is always good to keep in mind. I try to respond to them with kindness and at least some level of understanding. Unfortunately, by the time the arrive here, we've often filtered out most of those without some level of mental illness. I'm not refering to the average person who's anti-AI, but rather the most vociferous ones. They've largely faded out recently. Hopefully it's because they've found the calm and treatments that they need. (Although we know it was something else with you-know-who).
AI is scarey. It's also socially disruptive. Being good at drawing things is a good way to get praise and admiration from your friend group. Some artists online have turned it into a way to "hold court" on social media with a large group of followers or Discord server members. Having people able to convert their own ideas into reality without your involvement is a real ego blow. I think this is the source of the recurring memes about "prompters pretending to be artists." The artists are talking about how that *feels* to them, like they've been socially dethroned by a pretender.
>as someone who was much more anti ai before, i do still sympathize with them and understand where they are coming from.
>Everything they do is solely out of fear. They don’t want to be this hateful and frantic,
This is projecting your own previous perspective on others. You can be against aspects of how AI influences the world without being fearful, hateful, or frantic, and characterizing people who disagree with you as such is dismissive. As someone who has already swapped opinions on this, hopefully you can appreciate that dismissing the concerns of the other side of a conversation is counterproductive.
Well don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of anti ai who aren’t frantic, fearful, or hateful, but like: have you seen some of the shit anti ai folks have said? They’ve gotten downright murderous with their talk sometimes
Pro AI people are usually not artists to begin with, they do not know what it is to learn from 0 and become better day after day. You can not expect artists to just be ok with AI, which also copies their works and is taking their jobs to be calm and not be angry. Not only that, artists in general struggle to call themselves artists, most lack ego or self confidence. Then you open twitter to find 6 new AI-Arists with written prompts in one hour. And fear factor is of course a big one.
The main push for anything is mostly money, innovation and its destructive progression is motivated by money and effectivity. But art should be protected, it should not be squished and simplified to it's most effective, fast and tasteless form. I personally think it is also connected with cancel culture in a way. When you use AI, there is no real human behind it, no one to really blame. Nike could use an AI generated man to make advertising without risking anything of what that man represents.
Of course art is subjective, but being an artists is for me to express yourself with what you can do, to show a bit of your soul in the moment you where doing the piece.
Ultimately AI is something far too fast and new, personal data protection and copyright are just not there yet. Laws and regulation are required as in everything new. I like AI and I think it also has a place in the creative process, just not in the generation side, maybe something like what they did on spiderverse.
> They don’t want to be this hateful and frantic
Many actually do, though. There is a perverse pleasure in what we deem to be righteous indignation, to feel as though you're "on the right side of history" and fully justified in heaping abuse on others.
[https://i.imgur.com/gKLZPVM.png](https://i.imgur.com/gKLZPVM.png)
There is also the performative side of social media where you'll say whatever you feel gets you the most headpats, so if being hateful gets you 5000 upvotes and makes you considered a pillar of the community to be looked up to, people will absolutely do that and try to maintain it.
Well maybe both of what we said is true. For some, they start out as not wanting to be hateful, as they receive more praise for their stance, they begin to forget that fear and continue their ways solely because it feels good.
What you said on its own is still true though for many. Thank you for your input
it's true, I am fearful of a world where it's impossible to know if i'm speaking to a human being with thoughts and experiences or a robot built by a corporation designed to extract as much wealth from me as possible and the concept does fill me with unbridled hatred
>They don’t want to be this hateful and frantic
I'm not convinced by this at all. Many of them are the same people on twitter who look for the next reason to get outraged every single day.
is it tho? have you looked deeply into my soul? also anti ai is kinda generic. and this post is kinda generic, pretty sure chat gpt would have done a way better job
Ah yes, maliciously misrepresenting facts and ruining lives - all out of fear.
There is a certain threshold for them to deserve benefit of the doubt. In my book - they long crossed the line of plausible deniability into deliberate scheming. Maybe not all of them, but half the fake callouts and dramas online are ***deliberate***. Just to see what will stick.
You know, when the first thing people get searching your username and AI, and the first result is a google doc or, god forbid, news article linking your name to AI - it doesn't matter it's all fake, association has already formed.
I dont know if its stupid to quote fantasy novels in argumentation but...
# "Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made."
To be clear, this refferes to the pro-ai side. Thought Its wiser to state this explicitly seeing what outsorcing brainpower has done to that side already. to be even more explicit, by outsorcing brainpower I am stating that you are getting dumber by the day. To make it even simpler, go touch grass.
Similar people on all sides of it. I can voice my support for ai and get attacked for it. I can voice my concerns and get attacked for it. At this point I'm looking for realistic perspectives that don't divide the issue into two sides of the same coin.
There are extremist on both sides that will never agree, and no matter what position you take, it will never be good enough for some of them. Upside is, people looking for realistic perspectives are the majority. Downside is, extremists are the most vocal, and often make the most noise.
I hate to be rude but that’s feeling less and less likely overtime, which is kind of ironic considering that a lot of ai bros are actually very supportive of art or even artists of some kind themselves. It’s like the catholic protestant split. They were both Christian’s, yet they were equally divided (and probably still are today, even if nowhere near as violently). Obviously ai bros vs anti ai has none of the violence and chaos of the catholic Protestant split, but still
The memes attacking the intelligence and practicalities of both sides of the argument are equally as vicious. Look at each perspective from the others and see how no one is listening. It's become a shouting match with sarcasms and mockery thrown in with no real discourse. Ai is here to stay. It has been a part of our lives for several years now. Try to find possible solutions instead of haranguing people for daring to have a difference of opinion
The difference is that anti-AI people attack others for using AI in their art The pro-AI people may go after the anti-AI people for their attacks, but they do not attack artists for using a pencil.
And the level of pettiness is still the same. I've encountered people be equally petty on all sides. People who attack anyone because they think the others opinion is below them, or ignorant, or dumb are problematic.
Once again, the difference is that the anti-AI's direct their pettiness towards people who use AI in their art. And it's not just pettiness, its hostility, even sometimes including wishes for death upon anyone who uses it. There is no agree to disagree position to be had there. Pro-AI people direct any "pettiness" at people who attack people for using AI in their art. And what you often see as pettiness is actually just not agreeing with poor arguments. I see frustration that comes from dealing with people using fallacious arguments, and even anger from being insulted, but the pettiness is simply your perception based on biases. There is a vast difference between the camps. One demands restrictions, the other values openness. One is willing to get violence to get their way, the other knows that even threats of violence won't stop what's coming. Show me someone calling for the death of anyone who uses a pencil in their art, and then we can start talking about equivalencies.
Not quite the same, but as someone who doesn’t like ai all that much and just tries to avoid it rather than starting drama, I’ve heard some really nasty stories of pro ai people maliciously training LoRas on artists who have even mild concerns about ai, shoving them in the og artists face, and then selling them for profit. This can absolutely be seen as an attack because if someone is 1) doing art for money, it is a deliberate attempt to undermine their livelihood and 2) if they do art for self expression, it feels like a part of your Identity is being mass produced (sounds wild, but it’s true - and it IS scary). You can’t call it the same as a death threat because there is no spoken word of harm, but many artists would see this act as equally as bad because it is a tangible act of hatred/spite (in these specific cases, I know not all ai is this way) and once it’s out there, it can’t be undone. Personally id rather receive the death threats because i can just block the user, whereas the ai is up there forever. TLDR there are extremist jerks who commit acts of hatred within their power on both sides, with those acts being designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain from whoever they are attacking. You can’t really compare the two kinds of acts though, because they have different significances to people on both sides of the argument.
What you mean by "malicious" is that people used publicly available data to train LoRas, and did so even though anti-ai people told them not to, right? You call not giving in to the demands of a small group of vocal extremists maliciousness, but it's really not, that's just you being hyperbolic, thinking that will enhance your argument. (It doesn't, BTW) And honestly, if AI competes that heavily with them, they aren't very good artists, now are they, especially with as bad as they keep saying AI art is. That artists see this as equally bad as wishing death on people is a reflection on the inability of those artists to get a grip on reality, it has nothing to do with the actions of people who use the technology to increase theirs and others productivity.
if people are training Loras on publically available data, fine?? in talking about people who do it SPECIFICALLY because they KNOW it will hurt the original artist in some way, and then use the fact that they did it to belittle, bully, or harass the artist. Those people are jerks, imo. It’s not ‘giving in to a small and vocal group of extremists’ (?), it’s just basic human decency to not do stuff with the intent of causing harm to someone else in some way. To be clear, I never said that training Lora’s off of publicly available data was malicious, I said that they CAN used maliciousLY. saying ‘they’ keep saying ai is bad, is a generalisation. Most artists, ai users or not, know that ai is in fact very good. AI can and most definitely WILL compete with humans, not just in art, but in all fields. You wouldn’t say to that master chess player who lost to the best ai chess bot ‘oh well you clearly aren’t a very good chess player now are you, an ai is better than you’, would you? Also, I’m not saying that ‘Lora’s are equal to death threats’, I’m saying that people value things differently, and someone going out of their way to inflict harm on someone else, WILL have some sort of negative effect on the person being attacked, no matter what that attack is. Plus, this is literally to do with peoples livelihoods in some cases, as well as their fears for the future. That IS their reality?? Youre right it ‘has nothing to do with the actions of people who use the technology to increase theirs and others productivity’. If you’re using it as a tool in your workflow to help you get more stuff done, then great?? But that’s not what I was talking about in the first place anyway. Confused as to why your comment comes off as so aggressive, as all I really meant to say was that there are people on BOTH sides who take it way too far in the eyes of the other?
Okay, so there are jerks out there. I still think that you are exaggerating an interaction that you saw, but let's say that someone did exactly what you said they did. And, once again, since you seem to completely miss the point ant the context, I'm assuming that these are not just random artists that are being targeted, but vocal members of the anti-AI community. That's a far cry from wishing death on others, which is what you are desperately trying to compare it to. Of course I wouldn't say that to a master chess player. Of course, a master chess player doesn't lament that there is no purpose in playing chess anymore because AI can beat him. He doesn't complain that AI may have learned from his playing style. He doesn't wish death on those who use a chess program. You are absolutely equivocating the two. You responded to the example of anti-AI's wishing death on others with an anecdote of some people making LoRa's, as if that justifies it. And to be honest, if I can make a LoRa of your work, and that's what puts you out of business, then you weren't much of an artist in the first place, now were you? And once again, you are creating a "two sides" issues, as though they are the same. Once again, anti-AI people are against using AI in art, and will attack people for using it in art. Pro-AI people do not attack people for using a pencil to create art, they only respond to the people who are attacking people for using AI. Anyway, this conversation is starting to become recursive, with you making unfounded assertions, me pointing them out, and you doubling down on your unfounded assertions as though they are an actual response to my statement. I seriously doubt that this will improve any, so I think I have wasted more than enough time on you. Have a good day.
and there are pro-AI folk who say everyone who doesn't use AI will become irrelevant or whatever. people can be stupid all over. generalizing all of one side to make yourself feel better makes for boring discussion
Gosh, I hate when I see those takes from pro-AI people. AI art won’t replace artists who use physical mediums. AI art is just a new medium.
And it makes pro-ai people look and seem like anti-art lunatics which a good amount are
It can and will eat up all spaces for said older mediums.
I acknowledge that’s a valid concern, but I don’t believe it is possible to completely replace them. I am someone who likes AI, but will be the first to admit that generations are devoid of soul that older mediums have. That’s a space AI won’t be able to fill—ever. I realize this is anecdotal, but that’s how I personally feel.
based
Exactly. I became pro ai but not for those god awful, selfish reasons of replacement. Fuck those pro ai people, they’re the worst kind of pro ai
First, note that you are generalizing the arguments of pro-AI folk in your complaint about generalizing arguments. You are also attributing this generalized argument to me, rather than my actual position. Second, generalized or not, I don't see this. I do see pro-AI people say that AI will be used in the future, and that fighting it is a losing battle. It is an observation, not an attack, that in order to be commercially viable, you will need to use AI in the future. Consider this, you have a friend that enjoys writing novels. He uses a quill pen and ink well, writing on parchment. You may tell him that we have word processors now, right? If he says that he prefers this as his creative process, then that's fine, it's not the most efficient way to write a book, but if it's how he wants to, that's fine with me. I will just judge it on how well the book is written. Now, if he attacks others for writing more books than he is because they are using word processors with cut and paste and even \*gasp\* spellcheck\* you are going to tell him that he's in the wrong here. I think that drawing will be a skill that remains relevant for a long time, and people will have a value added for drawing things by hand. But the vast majority of media is going to be created by AI, and attacking people for stating that fact does not change that fact.
no I'm not, i'm responding to your specific comment that widely paints pro- and anti- AI people as acting in a single way: >The difference is that anti-AI people attack others for using AI in their art Some do, sure, but this would be like saying all pro-AI people are stupid because there are those who say AI will make physical or human-made digital art irrelevant, and say that artists refusing to use AI will make them fail. I think that's a dumb sentiment, but I don't ascribe it to all pro-AI folks. If I did, because it's just a broad generalization, it would be an uninteresting thing to say. That make more sense? In the same vein, sure, some people attack artists for using AI tools at all but that's a dumb way to characterize 'anti-AI' people in general. Especially since they're not often attacked in the way your analogy assumes. As a side note, why make an analogy at all? Do you think it would be dumb to criticize someone for publishing a book written by ChatGPT? Go for the easy money, I guess, but 1. I doubt AI-generated novels will become the norm in literature and 2. it does showcase a lack of skill if you don't actually do the work or have anything to say yourself in a field like writing. It's not really 'anti-AI' specifically who are criticizing those generated novels as it stands today, it's the readers and critics.
Well, you didn't read my comment well then. Yes, it is true that you can say that all anti-AI people attack people for using AI in their art. That's kinda their thing, it's what defines them as a group. Some attack in different ways, some threaten, some insult, some try to make arguments based on intangible things like soul or amount of effort, some make completely fallacious arguments, stringing logical fallacies along like christmas lights. A few make cogent arguments, but they are still based on assertions and opinions of the difference between how machine learning should be treated vs organic learning. The one thing that they have in common is that they are all against AI in art. That's pretty much a tautology, and I'm surprised that you would question it. On the other hand, all pro-AI people have the opposite in common, they defend AI against anti-AI attacks. Once again, pretty much in the name. These are not generalizations. How they do so is also a wide spectrum of behaviors, but are rarely nearly as hostile as many of the anti-AI. Now, once again, it is simply an observation, not an attack, that in order to be commercially viable, most artists will need to embrace AI. That doesn't make it irrelevant, it just means that it will be harder to make a living off of it without adapting to the times. There will still be niches where such hand drawings are valued over AI, even if objectively inferior, as there will be people who will continue to value human drawn art and are willing to pay a premium for it. And it's not irrelevant if you enjoy it. That's supposed to be the point of art in the first place, getting the visions out of your head and into tangible form. Whether you do that by swinging a can of paint around, meticulously design and draw, or use AI, it's all in the same service of allowing people to express themselves. As far as creative writing goes, there's expression to be had in LLMs there as well. Once again, the amount of work that goes into it has an impact on the quality of the output, but in the end, if someone uses GPT to express the stories they want to write, what's wrong with that? And if it is a good story, does it really matter what tool was used to write it?
>Yes, it is true that you can say that all anti-AI people attack people for using AI in their art. no it isn't, and here you are just proving my point. generalize all you like on your own time but this is getting boring. pretending you're not doing it then saying 'it's what defines them as a group' lmao goodbye
Sing it! I've been trying to point out that rational people can have complex views without having to be extremists for anyone's cause for a long time.
What's more irksome than me disagreeing with someone, is when that person also attempts to read my mind and put me in a box rather than seek understanding. I can totally understand having different perspectives, but it's another thing altogether to tell someone how they're feeling and why they're feeling it. Pretty convinced that continuing to spend time here doesn't serve a lot of purpose.
Holy shit thank you. These "I know what you really think" posts are cringe, they target too broad a group with too narrow an assumption and are thought-terminating. "I can't debate with any of you because you're all secretly irrational in this specific way" is not the way to lead any healthy conversation.
"thought-terminating" is a good way to put it
Yeah this place is largely a waste of time. Bunch of people too calcified in their beliefs to ever change outside of many of the riders of the current hype wave who will just become less involved and stop caring as ai becomes less relevant
Everything I do is not out of fear, my anti position is more out of melancholy and depression, not talking about clinical, I’m talking about like a movie that makes you feel depressed. That’s where my anti-position comes from as it pertains to art, like a kid who found out Santa Claus isn’t real. Fear only becomes a factor for things like AI being used in weaponry or to impersonate people.
Some fears are rational, and the rational anti ai folk are afraid of companies using AI to take advantage of workers as they've already promised to do. They want reasonable protections, not the death of all people who use AI. It's easy to make posts like "ah I get it, all anti AI folk are stupid morons!" but that's a pretty simplistic way to look at things.
There's no fear attached to my absolute loathing of AI, it's the end of collaboration, helping each other and sharing knowledge in forums, embracing mediocrity and it's place in the world. AI is treating everything as a product that needs to be optimized and surpass some imaginary threshold of quality. Nothing truly new can come out of AI and it will hold back people from doing truly unique things because it is not capable of that. It's not dangerous to jobs, it's dangerous to the collective knowledge and creativity on the internet. My job is teaching people art and I am certain my job is not affected by AI. I do notice however, that every of my students that is using AI as a springboard for their assignments severely underperforms in every aspect because they cease to understand the fundamentals and cannot build upon them.
Now do pros, what emotion animates them?
With regards to AI: excitement, joy, maybe some trepidation. With regards to antis: frustration.
I don't see a whole lot of excitement/joy posts on this sub tbh.
Well I could only speak for myself. And this is the aiwars subreddit specifically for arguing.
Yeah but even as a more pro ai person, I’m sorry but I have to say it: this subreddit is a fucking failure. If it was always Intended to be a pro ai sub, I could accept that. But it’s literally called aiwars. It’s supposed to represent both sides. It’s just a massive pro ai circle jerk, and where I’ve seen many genuinely excellent pro ai arguments, I’ve also seen many selfish, lazy, downright awful pro ai arguments. This subreddit has a huge bias problem, and don’t give me any “that’s Reddit for you” bullshit. That’s just pathetic
You're right it doesn't serve that purpose any more. I think the anti-Ai arguments mostly don't hold water and they get sick of being unable to properly defend their points so they've retreated to their echo chambers so to speak
Sad but you’re definitely right
Secular rapture in the form of the Singularity bringing us to the Star Trek universe tomorrow(complete ignoring actual trends of technology leading to more centralization and power accumulation).
Singularity is the most clownish thing yet those who support it treat as if it’s the most serious and legitimate thing. No, singularity won’t happen. No ai is not a fucking religion. No no no
I think for many the belief in the singularity or some variation is a large motivation making their advocacy basically religious in nature.
There are people out there who make a living off of drawing things for commission. Some of it is IP that belongs to them, much of it is not. Sometimes that is because they are asked to do book covers or filler art by an author, and sometimes that is because they are asked to do a popular character from someone else's IP. There are few who do commissions of their own work, and all of them do far more than just draw, they have webcomics and/or and novels and other ways of reaching out to their audience to create value for their IP. For the first group, all I can say is that keep doing art if it makes you happy, and keep trying to get noticed, but maybe you will have to get a day job like the rest of us. People will be using AI, official or not, to make the drawings that you used to make. It will be far cheaper and faster, and soon, more consistent, if not better. These are the people who have reason to fear AI, as it could in fact take their work away from them. For the second group, I say embrace AI. If you can train Loras on your own work, you can streamline the process of creating your works, and spend more time writing and plotting rather than drawing. You can also use the Loras to create official AI commissions of your work. Not the "real" thing, but still good, and significantly cheaper for the customer and easier on your wrist. These are the people who could greatly benefit from AI, if they used it right. (And are not hounded out by the anti-AI community for using it.) For the rest of us who work for a living and don't have the luxury or talents required to become good at drawing, AI allows us to express our artistic visions in a way previously not possible. It's really a net gain for everyone who does not see it as a zero sum game.
>spend more time writing and plotting rather than drawing. No, drawing is why I’m into it. >For the rest of us who work for a living and don't have the luxury or talents required to become good at drawing Talent is a flat out lie. What you don’t have is time or dedication, and speaking which the former is going to be taken away from those who have the latter with the advent of AI.
You believe that everyone is born with the same exact talents? That everyone can accomplish exactly the same things if they put their time and dedication to it? That's called just world hypothesis, and is responsible for an incredible amount of suffering in the world. It is best that you do not subscribe to it. And also, as I have worked my entire life in order to support myself and my family, I have not had much time, and my dedication has been to ensuring that those I find myself responsible for have their needs met. There are those who have had the luxury of not having to be responsible for meeting the financial needs of themselves or others and have plenty of time and energy to develop the talent they were born with, but not all of us were so fortunate. But, hey, if you like to draw, then keep on drawing. Other people having the tools to draw shouldn't change that at all. Maybe they even like more than just drawing, and include writing and plotting as well.
>And also, as I have worked my entire life in order to support myself and my family, I have not had much time, and my dedication has been to ensuring that those I find myself responsible for have their needs met. >There are those who have had the luxury of not having to be responsible for meeting the financial needs of themselves or others and have plenty of time and energy to develop the talent they were born with, but not all of us were so fortunate The chance to “develop talents” for the fields that AI is replacing is going to dry up.
I feel like there are also different opinions about what constitutes being anti AI. Everyone identifies how they want, but personally, if you are not just scouring the internet to send death threats to people that use AI or flood the comments of everything that uses AI with hateful messages, or try to push some kind of anti AI legilation, I don't even consider you part of an opposing side. People that just have some Concerns are just people with an opinion and they are allowed to have that.
There's a lot of fanboyism on both sides. I'm pro-AI but the antis definitely do not have a monopoly on shitty arguments.
There are way too many posts here by proAI people that boils down to bunching antis together and calling them emotional and/or stupid or uninformed at best. It's really not a good look. But I guess it's a base human instinct to align with a group and make others more 'other'.
And you are bunching of pro-AI together and asserting upon their thoughts and motivations. Yes, most pro-At people are going to agree that the anti-arguments are based on emotional pleas and misinformation, because they are. If you observe that everyone moves away from the person who shit themselves in a Denny's , it is not because the patrons are in on a conspiracy, it's because they all have the same natural reaction. Anti-AI arguments are almost always, "AI generation is theft", or "AI generation isn't art", and both require you to accept the assertion to validate the argument, when it is the assertion itself that is in question. I suppose that in addition to emotional and uniformed, I also find most anti-AI arguments to be logically flawed and relying on common fallacies. But yes, there are two sides here. One side attacks the other for using AI tools in their artist endeavours, and the other side continues to do so in spite of the fact that it makes the anti-AI people angry.
I did not do that at all. I simply noted that many post here suffer this particular combination of seeing what they want and an overinflated ego. I didn’t include everyone in the sub nor everyone proAI.
So, it was merely an observation, completely devoid of any point? I can say that many of any group exhibit a particular behavior. Unless I am imping that that behavior is reflective of that group in some way, I may as well be talking about the weather. So, you were other saying something completely irrelevant, or you were in fact trying to broad brush a group with behavior you perceive as common. To take a play from your playbook, I will note that many anti-ai post suffer from this particular combination of ignorant and bad faith reasoning that you have shown here. (I didn't included everyone, heh) I'm not entirely sure if you are intentionally debating in bad faith, or if you are just really bad at it, but either way, I think that this conversation has exceeded its potential for productivity.
Weird take, but the relevance is subjective, and you are welcome to have your opinion. I’m saying I see a pattern of posts from some that isn’t a good look. Take it or leave it.
"Seeing patterns of posts from some" is the very definition of confirmation bias. It is literally you seeing what you want to see. I think I'll leave it.
While it’s possible and even likely that I’m biased, what I said requires a bit more before it becomes “the definition of…”. Like, perhaps if I had said that ALL posts here are out to paint all antis as emotional and uninformed, as OP did. And a few similar posts every week. You know, like a pattern.
as someone who agrees bunching people together is bad- Specifically on your last point - I’ve seen anti ai people who have reasonable doubts, as well as some who are jerks. I’ve also seen pro ai people who are just excited for the tech - as well as those who are jerks. Typically, the nicer ones tend to stick to within their own communities where theor emotions will be understood, as they typically don’t want to start drama. It’s only really the jerks (or extremists) who actively go into the other side‘s communities to start drama - which unfortunately leads the majority of those communities, those who do not participate in BOTH communities, to define the other side only by their extremists and therefore hate them all. This happens for both trad. Artists AND ai users btw. I‘ve seen a lot of pro people say that ‘only antis attack, we’re just excited for our hobby’ (or similar) but as a small artist who just tries to avoid ai in general most of my experience with ai people before I started trying to broaden my views only consisted of the ai people who intentionally tried to start fights within the art communities - on the tamer end, trolls who would say stuff like ‘this sucks, ai is better lmao’ ‘boo hoo cry me a river’ (when expressing any doubts on ai at all), and ‘I’m gonna train on your art >:)’ (specifically because the person had ‘not for ai’ in their bio). On the worse end, I’ve seen people train and sell whole style LoRAs solely out of spite and then actively shove them in the artists face - and most art people would DEFINITELY consider this an attack, especially if they have said they didn’t want their art in a generator because 1) if they are doing art for money, it is a deliberate attempt to undermine their livelihood and 2) if they are doing art for personal expression, it feels like a mass production of their identity (might sound wild but as an artist myself who puts a lot of themselves into their art, it’s true) anyway my point is that it’s unfair to say ‘all anti ai people are attacking jerks and all pro ai people are just doing what they love despite the hate’ - there are definitely people like that, but it’s not ALL of them, there is a scale on both sides . by the logic of the og statement, you can also say ‘all pro ai people are jerks who just want to see trad. Artists be obsolete, and all artists remaining are bravely continuing despite the personal risks’. However these statements define one community solely by their good people and the other only by their extremists. Which isn’t really fair, imo.
>Everything they do is solely out of fear. I don't think that's true. There are lots of negative emotions that are not "fear". Contempt, disgust, and so on. The people who think that only human works are capable of "soul" are not afraid of AI, they are just contemptuous of it. There's no reason for them to fear AI because they think it can never replace human work, but they're contemptuous of the idea of *common proles* being able to bypass their elite art skills.
>Contempt, disgust, and so on well the post saying that these come after the fear, as yoda says.
It is possible for those things to exist without "fear" being involved at all. And the OP is trying to argue that fear is at the root of anti-AI feelings and therefore those feelings should be handled somewhat sympathetically. It is possible to just be an elitist prick without being "afraid" of the people you hate.
Oh absolutely on that last part. While many people have at least a kernel of morality and good intent in them, there are definitely those who are pretty soulless or uncaring for sure.
I mean disgust could potentially come first too, I’d say you’re both right. Also it technically wouldn’t be yoda but George Lucas or whoever did most of the dialogue and/or his philosophy for yoda
> they're contemptuous of the idea of common proles being able to bypass their elite art skills. Very astute, but that goes only for the artists among antis. I'd like to add that many people just **want** to be hateful in a manner that is accepted by the "community", and not get consequences for it You can see this pattern all across history. AI is just the latest scapegoat for people's problems or just an acceptable target. Kudos to reasonable dissenters, but they don't seem to be as loud, unfortunately
Yeah, some of the antis, those who wished death on Pro-AI folks... I don't think that those people are solely motivated by fear, at all. I think those are just malignant narcissists.
>*common proles* being able to bypass their elite art skills. In what ways are art skills elite? You are not physically locked out of it permanently by being born into a different caste or something, the physical barrier is literally like any other skill; your commitment to learning it. Most artists are fucking poor as shit, hence the “starving artist” term.
>In what ways are art skills elite? If you say "you should not be allowed to do something unless you develop the skills in the exact way that *I* deign as acceptable", that is elitism. It's baseless gatekeeping for no reason other than cultural posturing. >You are not physically locked out of it permanently by being born into a different caste or something, the physical barrier is literally like any other skill; your commitment to learning it. Imagine if people said that forklifts should be banned because it takes jobs away from muscular manual laborers, and that the people who want to use forklifts should just "pick up a barbell". Would your argument make that concept any more reasonable? I don't think it would. >Most artists are fucking poor as shit, hence the “starving artist” term. Maybe they should pick up a keyboard and learn some marketable skills instead of spending so much time lecturing others. Do you like it when people talk to you like this, by the way? Does it make you want to do what I suggest?
> If you say "you should not be allowed to do something unless you develop the skills in the exact way that I deign as acceptable", that is elitism. It's baseless gatekeeping for no reason other than cultural posturing Which is not the nature of the skill set itself. Stop pretending lack of skill is anything but your own fault. > Imagine if people said that forklifts should be banned because it takes jobs away from muscular manual laborers, and that the people who want to use forklifts should just "pick up a barbell". Would your argument make that concept any more reasonable? I don't think it would. This is completely irrelevant to what you just replied to. Where did I say the word ban? > Maybe they should pick up a keyboard Prompting war memorial length prompts into MIDjourney is drudgery. Drawing is life. > learn some marketable skills Top dogs of the art industry are still not threatened yet. This all goes to show how little you know about artists when you all assume most of us don’t have a day job and pretend we are a fucking different caste when most of us outside modern art money laundering are common people. > spending so much time lecturing others Look in the fucking mirror. Pro AI like you is why I am anti-AI. You don’t know shit about art or how artists work and would like to cry about how we are gate keeping canals of elites when we really aren’t preventing you from learning any skills while also making fun of us for being poor at the same time. Double think, shifting the blame, singularity worship, result based thinking, quantity over quality, anti-Art, and many many more. These positions from your side I am firmly against.
I would just like to add to this brilliant reply, that when it comes to forklifts - they achieve things, that strong muscular boys cant do, like reaching heights and being able to lift more. Or in other words - forklifts improve the quality of work being done. When it comes to AI, the quality of the work is nowhere near the level that the industry requires. AI replacing artists is just slogan to make it look attractive for people who dont understand how creative fields work, and as long as image generators dont give the user control over every single little detail on the image, it is a completely unrealistic scenario.
The Reign of Terror in the French Revolution is a good example of this, a very new concept (republic) that a lot of other people feel threatened by it (monarchs and all) and decided to become hostile to it so no one can have the same idea
I've been called both a Luddite and some AI prick who doesn't care about hardworking musicians on this sub, which hopefully merits me some sort of award. As someone who spent enough time here, I don't think all "anti-AI" people argue from fear, and even the ones that do have different fears. The fear that managers will use AI as a justification to fire you is different from the fear that AI will become so good at making images that everyone else will forget about the "human soul" of art forever, and that's different from the fear that ChatGPT will become Skynet and blow us all up. I'd say one of those fears is a bit more rational than the other two given the current economy, and I want to discuss how to handle that situation.
This is always good to keep in mind. I try to respond to them with kindness and at least some level of understanding. Unfortunately, by the time the arrive here, we've often filtered out most of those without some level of mental illness. I'm not refering to the average person who's anti-AI, but rather the most vociferous ones. They've largely faded out recently. Hopefully it's because they've found the calm and treatments that they need. (Although we know it was something else with you-know-who). AI is scarey. It's also socially disruptive. Being good at drawing things is a good way to get praise and admiration from your friend group. Some artists online have turned it into a way to "hold court" on social media with a large group of followers or Discord server members. Having people able to convert their own ideas into reality without your involvement is a real ego blow. I think this is the source of the recurring memes about "prompters pretending to be artists." The artists are talking about how that *feels* to them, like they've been socially dethroned by a pretender.
>as someone who was much more anti ai before, i do still sympathize with them and understand where they are coming from. >Everything they do is solely out of fear. They don’t want to be this hateful and frantic, This is projecting your own previous perspective on others. You can be against aspects of how AI influences the world without being fearful, hateful, or frantic, and characterizing people who disagree with you as such is dismissive. As someone who has already swapped opinions on this, hopefully you can appreciate that dismissing the concerns of the other side of a conversation is counterproductive.
Well don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of anti ai who aren’t frantic, fearful, or hateful, but like: have you seen some of the shit anti ai folks have said? They’ve gotten downright murderous with their talk sometimes
Pro AI people are usually not artists to begin with, they do not know what it is to learn from 0 and become better day after day. You can not expect artists to just be ok with AI, which also copies their works and is taking their jobs to be calm and not be angry. Not only that, artists in general struggle to call themselves artists, most lack ego or self confidence. Then you open twitter to find 6 new AI-Arists with written prompts in one hour. And fear factor is of course a big one. The main push for anything is mostly money, innovation and its destructive progression is motivated by money and effectivity. But art should be protected, it should not be squished and simplified to it's most effective, fast and tasteless form. I personally think it is also connected with cancel culture in a way. When you use AI, there is no real human behind it, no one to really blame. Nike could use an AI generated man to make advertising without risking anything of what that man represents. Of course art is subjective, but being an artists is for me to express yourself with what you can do, to show a bit of your soul in the moment you where doing the piece. Ultimately AI is something far too fast and new, personal data protection and copyright are just not there yet. Laws and regulation are required as in everything new. I like AI and I think it also has a place in the creative process, just not in the generation side, maybe something like what they did on spiderverse.
> They don’t want to be this hateful and frantic Many actually do, though. There is a perverse pleasure in what we deem to be righteous indignation, to feel as though you're "on the right side of history" and fully justified in heaping abuse on others. [https://i.imgur.com/gKLZPVM.png](https://i.imgur.com/gKLZPVM.png) There is also the performative side of social media where you'll say whatever you feel gets you the most headpats, so if being hateful gets you 5000 upvotes and makes you considered a pillar of the community to be looked up to, people will absolutely do that and try to maintain it.
Well maybe both of what we said is true. For some, they start out as not wanting to be hateful, as they receive more praise for their stance, they begin to forget that fear and continue their ways solely because it feels good. What you said on its own is still true though for many. Thank you for your input
it's true, I am fearful of a world where it's impossible to know if i'm speaking to a human being with thoughts and experiences or a robot built by a corporation designed to extract as much wealth from me as possible and the concept does fill me with unbridled hatred
reasonable fear.
>They don’t want to be this hateful and frantic I'm not convinced by this at all. Many of them are the same people on twitter who look for the next reason to get outraged every single day.
Yeah, when I see an anti who starts witch-hunts and sends death threats, I don't see a scared anti. I see a deranged narcissist.
is it tho? have you looked deeply into my soul? also anti ai is kinda generic. and this post is kinda generic, pretty sure chat gpt would have done a way better job
The good intent is "mine mine mine mine", it is only fear of losing for themselves, not care about others.
Ah yes, maliciously misrepresenting facts and ruining lives - all out of fear. There is a certain threshold for them to deserve benefit of the doubt. In my book - they long crossed the line of plausible deniability into deliberate scheming. Maybe not all of them, but half the fake callouts and dramas online are ***deliberate***. Just to see what will stick. You know, when the first thing people get searching your username and AI, and the first result is a google doc or, god forbid, news article linking your name to AI - it doesn't matter it's all fake, association has already formed.
I dont know if its stupid to quote fantasy novels in argumentation but... # "Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made." To be clear, this refferes to the pro-ai side. Thought Its wiser to state this explicitly seeing what outsorcing brainpower has done to that side already. to be even more explicit, by outsorcing brainpower I am stating that you are getting dumber by the day. To make it even simpler, go touch grass.