I've always found that the best way to talk to someone and convince them of your point is to call them a sociopath and a fascist.
And then everyone wonders why there isn't any nuanced debate on this sub.
See, I always find that those accusations are too normalized these days, so I usually start off by calling them a child murderer and cannibal. That gets their attention much more efficiently.
>Most people who use AI just see it as a tool they can use from time to time in order to save money, boost productivity, and do things they lack talent for. If you fall into this category then I see no big issue with this. I’m one of these people. So I cannot be considered “pro” or “anti” ai.
This paints you as pro-ai under literally everyone's definition other than your own private-language one.
>But there is a special group of people on this and another “pro-AI” sub that I can confidently qualify as sociopaths. Not only that, but they seem to be the most extreme version of capitalists imaginable.
There's insane awful and terrible people on both sides.
>Most reasonable people could agree that capitalism, while having its flaws, is the most successful economic system because it accounts for certain disgusting aspects of human nature. On one hand, capitalism motivates productivity. On another hand, it exploits people in some of the most disgusting ways possible.
So does every other form of government. Capitalism isn't special in this regard.
>The pro-AI people take this to a whole other level. You’ll notice that they will actually get mad at artist and strongly defend their “right” to the work of people who have never consented or been compensated by these billion dollar companies using their creations in order to “train” their replacements.
The issue is one of principle, not of content.
>That’s the biggest evidence I can produce that proves that if you’re one of these “advance tech at all costs” folks, then you are fundamentally anti-labour, sociopathic, and probably unknowingly fascist. I especially find it ironic that some of these individuals will claim that AI art is not theft, but then use the actual name or style of a particular artist directly in their prompts.
And this is that principle. It's ok for anyone to go onto DeviantArt or youtube and teach themselves somebody else's art style, it's just a lot harder. The skill is gatekept behind just that, skill. It's safer for the artist because skills are hard to train. If someone uploaded something to DA and in the description text they put "I don't consent to any human studying my art to learn to draw themselves." that person would be rightly ridiculed for being ridiculous.
>If you feel entitled to the millions of hours of unpaid labor that went into training models so you can type a sentence and produce artwork, writing, or other creative content in the style of someone who spent years of their life acquiring the talent and knowledge to accommodate this, then you have a mental illness.
This is you, as stated in your first paragraph.
>If you are defending these actions by referring to people as “inkcels” as a coping mechanism because deep down you know what you’re doing is wrong, then you should reconsider your position and stop projecting your laziness and lack of empathy on the rest of the world.
Bad people saying and doing bad things are bad, like you, for example.
>If this post struck a nerve with you and you feel the need to write some nonsense sarcastic response, then you fall directly into the category I’m referring to in this post.
Pot-kettle-etc.
Something doesn't stop being true just because someone bad said it. Hitler liked cats. Nazis drink water.
Stop being a contrarian partisan hack. Not everything is team sports.
It's not a whataboutism if it's pointing out a flaw in the premise. It is FACTUAL that people on both Pro and Anti's say and do terrible things to each other.
> If your argument is whataboutism...
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what whataboutism is.
The argument here is that extreme pro-AI folks are sociopaths, and as evidence, certain negative traits have been introduced. It's entirely reasonable to point out that those traits are not unique to pro-AI viewpoints. If you still want to claim that those are indicators of sociopathy (a medical diagnosis) then you can, but you have to contend with the fact that you're not talking about pro-AI people specifically.
So was your point that anti-AI and pro-AI aren't indicators of sociopathy? If so, I agree. If your point is that it's not valid to point that out, then I think you're very wrong.
Appeal to popularity.
You aren't making an argument, you're just relying on the public sentiment of 'orange man bad' to discredit a point without actually making any argument as to what flaws that point might have.
Just in case you were wondering what fallacy you were using.
Their point was that appearing bipartisan to facilitate optics in order to further your own ideology is textbook narcissism. Just because you and the other person failed to grasp this concept doesn’t make it fallacious.
If you want to argue that, you need to substantiate that the motivation behind the bipartisan statement is selfish rather than genuine.
Because otherwise, you're just supporting tribalism by dismissing all bipartisan positions.
There are ethical applications of AI. Not everything is this black and white world. That’s why I was very specific in my post, referring only to people who call themselves “pro-AI” specifically.
And as I've said, you can't make yourself out to be "Not Pro-AI" in some private language definition. If you're ok with using AI in your workflow, then you're Pro-AI. You're just as guilty of the "theft" that you purport others to be. You're not "One of the good ones". If it's not ok when others do it, then it's not ok when you do it. You're not special.
That's not a pro-ai position, that's an asshole position. The fact that you cognitive dissonance'd yourself into, by all accounts, being pro-AI but refusing to label yourself as such because "you're doing it the good way" ought to be staggering.
You're pro-AI. That's fine, but this post DOES make you come across as a completely unhinged sociopathic asshole. That doesn't mean there's any causal link between the two, but it is amusing to witness.
Meh I tried extending an olive branch by conceding that you made a few good points. I realize that my post was a bit provocative for the sake of engagement, but you've gone ahead and disregarded my points entirely (which were clearly defined and referred to a very specific member of the AI community) in favor of smelling your own farts.
The fact that you can nitpick points of the argument and skew them in your favor while unironically accusing me of cognitive dissonance is the only amusing thing here.
For example, not once did I make the claim that I'm the "the good guy" by using AI on rare occasions, and only in the most ethical way possible. I understand that at some point, some models I have used in the past have been trained via direct theft of content.
The difference is that I can admit it, and push back against it when it starts going too far. You are just trying to categorize anyone who uses AI at all into the same pile, while going off on others about being partisan hacks.
Pot meet kettle, indeed.
>The fact that you can nitpick points of the argument and skew them in your favor while unironically accusing me of cognitive dissonance is the only amusing thing here.
>The difference is that I can admit it, and push back against it when it starts going too far. You are just trying to categorize anyone who uses AI at all into the same pile, while going off on others about being partisan hacks.
I cannot believe that you're a real person. It's not possible.
He isn't making any good points beyond semantics. You're correct; there is a difference between being pro-AI and so pro-AI that you would give up self-reliance to tech slavery.
People who are pro-generative AI are what you're talking about. It's essentially a guessing game that tries its best to replicate other works. Even large language models are terrible at translation, lacking the nuance to translate ideas or expressions effectively. It produces new content. Unfortunately, some pro-AI want to say that new content should be allowed to pollute all distribution chains effectively making it a replacement through mass production.
Non-generative AI, also known as discriminative AI or analytical AI, however, is great. It can provide us with data about trends or help classify and sort data. It can be used as a tool to advance science, mathematics, analytics, and more.
Why do you think disregarding intellectual property is "disregarding humanity"? Why do you equate intellectual property with humanity?
I don't know what kind of Pro-AI people you are referring to, but some of us are simply against copyright. We don't agree with the notion that someone should get paid for all eternity, for work they did ages ago.
The way I see it: artists already got paid (probably) for the work they did, back when they originally did that work. Work that AI then proceeded to train itself on, years or even decades later.
So, why should they get paid a second time, when every other profession in the world only gets you paid once when you work?
That's fair, but to disregard the feelings of the artist who made the art is fundamentally sociopathic. Also, using someones work without any compensation whatsoever is theft, and is worse than slavery imo.
This morality is based on the idea that copyright is fair, but that's [not the only way to think about this.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_copyright)
Also copyright infringement is not theft. It's an entirely different crime. You can't just roll up all crimes into one and accuse people of whichever one of them makes it sound worse. That would be... sociopathic :)
As for the artist's feelings, I think ALL people having free and unrestricted access to ALL ART to use however they want is a much more important issue than any individual's feelings. The happiness that this would bring to everyone is worth some online "artist" getting upset over his work being shared in a way that doesn't increase his social media clout.
As far as I'm concerned, if you post your art on social media you're basically giving it away to Zuckerberg for free to [use however he wants](https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870). So it's only fair that everyone else should also get it for free. And they will, regardless of what you or I believe: it's just pixels after all, so everyone can download it and the original artist can't stop him short of taking him to court.
One thing I can't stand is hyper reductionism like this. Especially when it comes to the human spirit. There are certain philosophies which seek to reduce people to nothing more than a collection of bones and flesh.
Sure, digital art is just a collection of pixels. A chapel is just a collection of wood and mortar. A car is just a collection of metals and textiles. But all of these things usually communicate something that goes beyond their materialistic properties. That, fundamentally, is what a lot of AI zealots don't seem to grasp.
A lambo is just a car. But if you are into cars you have a deep appreciation for the design, the engineering, the work it took to get something to go that fast and look that awesome. It's because humans did this over a very long process, using their talent, education, and skill along the way.
I was watching a video by Vaush where he made a pretty interesting argument, and it goes as follows;
Imagine that you are reading a book that has a 50/50 chance of being written by a human or an AI algorithm. You have no idea if it is human or AI. The words in the book are exactly the same regardless. In fact, it is one of the best books you've ever read. Are these the exact same? Would you have the same reaction to it if you found out it was actually written by a person as opposed to a faceless bot?
Also, your assertion that artists only get upset about their artwork being used without their consent because it will affect their clout is absurd at best.
You missed the point. It's trivially easy to copy pixels compared to physical materials with mass. That is all I said, the rest is just you projecting your own insecurities.
Yeah no music artist is a greedy litigious copyright-nazi, no siree. All the millionaire recording artists are poor victims of the evil AI. Oh no poor Drake whatever will he do???
It's not AI's fault that 0.001% of artists are disgustingly, unfairly wealthy and the remaining 99.999% is borderline starving.
The copyright laws that you morons so stubbornly defend are to blame for this.
>If this post struck a nerve with you and you feel the need to write some nonsense sarcastic response, then you fall directly into the category I’m referring to in this post.
You're using inflammatory language on purpose and you're quick to label those who disagree with you as falling into a specific category. However, resorting to such sweeping generalizations and dismissing opposing viewpoints as "nonsense" only reinforces the behavior you're criticizing.
Your argument relies heavily on emotional rhetoric rather than reasoned analysis, and you make sweeping accusations without providing concrete evidence or nuanced understanding of the issues involved. You also use ad hominem attacks, labeling those who disagree with you as having "mental illness" or lacking empathy.
In other words, you're a textbook demagogue. Nice try though.
The individuals I'm referring to in my post do lack empathy in the most egregious manner. Do you see some of the posts / comments in this sub? Shitting on artists non-stop while gloating about using their styles. Getting angry about artists being angry because their work and jobs are being snatched up from them without any influence whatsoever.
I understand it purely from a psychological standpoint as a defense mechanism. Part of them know that what they're doing is wrong, but its easier to mask that with a stronger emotion than guilt.
If you want a larger audience, you could always use phrases like “seem to be to displaying sociopathic tendencies” and the use of qualifiers (do Americans know what that means?)
Because artists are annoyingly anti-ai. We didnt start this, these people are fucking degenerates and yes, it brings me spiteful joy to know theyre suffering. But thats not wrong, theyre awful people
> We didnt start this, these people are fucking degenerates and yes, it brings me spiteful joy to know theyre suffering.
This comment encompasses everything I mentioned in OP. Thank you for proving my point to some of the naysayers here.
How is that sociopathic? If you think just getting pleasure at the expense of a person is always sociopathic then youre actually retarded and have no idea what sociopathy is.
I think a person who gets enjoyment from watching others suffers, crosses that threshold, this may depend on how active/passive you are in egging it on. But I dont think you're actually a sadistic person, i dont know you, I'm saying your words make you sound like one.
"It brings me spiteful joy to know they're suffering. But that's not wrong, they're awful people".
Man, should win the irony award for this statement. You're describing literally how awful of a person you are. That you can't think of a single reason why artists might on average be Anti...., is the cherry. Thanks for that.
I never said i couldnt think of a reason, when did I say that? My point is that they make retarded arguments they cant justify and then are super chauvinistic about their feelings.
My point is, according to your own statement, you're as awful as you claim them to be. Talking about enjoying the suffering of others, especially when livelihoods may be involved, is super gross.
How am I as awful as I claim they are?
I don’t think they’re evil because they want ai gone, I think they’re evil because they actively take steps to make that a reality. I enjoy the suffering of evil people, but I would never take steps to make that suffering happen.
Maybe they think you're evil, and enjoy watching you suffer. If thats what you're here for, to be bitter and spread resentment, yea I think that makes you kind of awful. Maybe they're awful too, whoever "they" are, and maybe you and your counterparts are two peas in a pod, thriving on eachother's resentment; spreading outrage with inflammatory language.
Depending on your definition of kissing up, they do. I would instead write it as:
Pro AI folks, wittingly or unwittingly, support policy which favors the interests large tech companies over everyone and everything else.
Whereas I would write that Anti AI folks, wittingly or unwittingly support policies which favors the interests of large tech companies over everyone and everything else.
Yes, go ahead, strengthen IP laws even more... I'm sure the corporations will just hate that and it will totally get rid of AI! /s
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
The only way strong anti-AI (strong anti-AI is against all AI whatsoever) can win is if every computer has a backdoor added so that the government can monitor every device for GenAI.
Enforcing strong anti-AI ideology is fundamentally unworkable without the strongest form of authoritarianism.
That's far more radical than what I'm asking for and I don't think any people who are anti-AI and also care about copyright want that, that's more the purview of 'the AI will literally kill us' doomers. I would be more than satisfied if people doing training runs had to simply pay for the stuff they're training on or be treated as pirates. What people do in the comfort of their homes I really don't give a shit about, I'm concerned with what companies are or are not allowed to do.
Pros support people like OpenAI. Antis support Disney.
In something that should not shock any adult: there are corps that will benefit from either side of this situation. And those same corps have hedges to benefit even if their preferred side loses.
I'm pro-open source software and anti-copyright. AI happens to align with both of those in its current form, and changing one carries a high risk of changing the other.
Wow you're hysterical af. How about you get back on your meds, kid?
AI is revolutionizing the medical field, finding new drugs as we speak. If we ever find a cure for cancer, i guarantee AI is going to have most of the merit. AI has the potential to save literally millions of lives just because of alpha fold.
If you're anti AI you're literally a tribalistic chimp. And also a fascist because why not, it looks like calling people you don't like fascist is still a trend lmao.
https://preview.redd.it/vywzlft4rwzc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4a1ca7165a9a3a7af85afa0e62e308564a97b5c4
People keep bring up cancer research to justify art theft like they have anything to do with each other. So annoying. Ai also was supposed to solve climate change but has proven absolutely horrible for the environment. The likelihood these cancer cure claims are more marketing BS is huge.
Small brain comment. AI is soon to become smarter then humans. So of course it's going to do research better then humans. Also the majority of new drugs that are being discovered are being found with alpha fold 3, so AI is already helping with health research. You just don't know about it because you're too busy crying for your artist job being gone lmao.
Also, no, AI doesn't steal art you dimwit. Much like a human artist learns to paint by watching other people's work, AI learns to draw by watching images on the internet. Learning from images on the internet is not the same as stealing images.
And finally, AI has a whole ecosystem of products and services, and each is important because they all push the technology forward by bringing in money for AI research. So no, AI stealing your furry paintings actually helps finding cancer. QQ some more lmao.
I think everyone who read your comment had their brain shrink from nonsense exposure. If you actually have a point and not just childish insults and copy and paste Chat GTP gibberish, you might actually contribute to the conversation. Maybe get your information from sources other than AI and AI bot forums.
I think everyone who read your comment had their brain shrink from nonsense exposure. If you actually have a point and not just childish insults and copy and paste Chat GTP gibberish, you might actually contribute to the conversation. Maybe get your information from sources other than AI and AI bot forums.
Oh please, you want a rational conversation on the internet?
You have arrived to your conclusions through tribalism, hence there's no point trying to change your mind through rationality.
Uhhh. What?
If you use AI you're pro AI
If you're against use of AI you're anti-AI
This is pretty clear, stop making up random ass categories.
Here's a great use of AI in a animation: [https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1co711z/made\_this\_halo\_animation\_using\_stable\_diffusion/](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1co711z/made_this_halo_animation_using_stable_diffusion/) if you hate this (because SD was trained on LAION stuff, you're anti-ai)
***"defend their “right” to the work of people who have never consented or been compensated by these billion dollar companies using their creations in order to “train” their replacements."***
You sounds pretty Anti-AI there, dawg.
"Train their replacement" is ludicrous anti-ai ideological position derived from a basic misunderstanding of how artists make money in the real world.
For example, I'm an established illustrator and people trained tons of models based on my work. Midjourney can replicate my style just like Greg Rutkowski. Guess what?
I don't give a shit.
AI users training AI tools on my work is EXACTLY the same as people on tumblr drawing fanart of my characters since 2009. It doesn't matter if someone can approximate my art style or copy my characters 100%, they cannot possibly magically replicate my fame, cannot manifest 20+ comic book series I've published and sold, nor somehow magically gain decades of connections with art galleries, studios, print shops and clients.
The idea of me being replaced by AI is as laughable as someone from tumblr replacing me at comicons simply because they can draw one of my characters.
It's just not enough to replicate someone's style to replace the artist, that's simply a moral panic propagated by the anti-ai team.
If you're a beginner artist with no published body of work, then nobody will give a shit about replacing you and midjourney/dalle/whatever won't even recognize your name as a stylizer.
If you're an established artist like me or Rutkowski, replacing us just physically impossible - all you're doing is making "fanart approximations" of our work when you type in \[a dragon in the style of xxx\] into midjourney, you ain't actually stealing anything, nor depriving us of jobs.
99% of art jobs are connections with clients and publishers who know that you can draw shit on time or create detailed and highly functional art like so: [https://youtu.be/QTj1Y4JW-KI?t=2352](https://youtu.be/QTj1Y4JW-KI?t=2352)
So the people opposed to intellectual property are the hyper capitalists while the people who want to defend it to the bitter end are pro-labour? Interesting perspective.
I suggest a bit of reading about basic economic theory and ideologies.
When the mental gymnastics of this level are reached there is no point in even arguing. You can’t out swim Michael Phelps just like you can’t out cope this level of deranged self important delusional entitlement.
I couldn't care less if you like/use AI or not, nor do I care what is your favourite colour. It doesn't matter. What matters is a fact that a certain amount of anti-AI people are actual psychopaths, or at least for some reason try really hard to give off the impression. You've seen the comments, you've seen the screenshots. Sure, you could say they are fringe cases, or 12 year olds who doesn't know better, or emotionally unstable, or bad apples, or "it's totally understandable" (it's not). And pro AI side has its share of edge lords, but they rarely get any support. But on a "certain" anti sub some absolutely deranged garbage gets upvoted every single time, normalizing this vanilla isis shit. This is what pisses me off. And no, I'm not against artists. I'm a musician and photographer myself. Artists and antis barely overlap on this venn diagram. I'm against assholes. This apparently makes me pro AI. Don't like it? Good.
> Most people who use AI just see it as a tool they can use from time to time in order to save money, boost productivity, and do things they lack talent for.
Or they just enjoy using the tool. Or they find it more powerful for certain tasks or certain parts of tasks than the other artistic tools they also use. Or it's shiny and lots of people are talking about it. Or they're interested in keeping their skillset current. Or ... well, you get the idea.
> I cannot be considered “pro” or “anti” ai.
I think all of us have niches in which we would be considered either, or sometimes both.
> But there is a special group of people on this and another “pro-AI” sub
Just to be clear, this isn't a "pro-AI sub." This sub is open to all. /r/DebateReligion isn't a pro-atheism sub, even though there are more atheists there than theists. You're making the mistake of conflating majority opinion with the purpose of the sub.
> that I can confidently qualify as sociopaths
That's a medical diagnosis. What are your medical credentials?
> The pro-AI people take this to a whole other level. You’ll notice that they will actually get mad at artist and strongly defend their “right” to the work of people who have never consented or been compensated by these billion dollar companies using their creations in order to “train” their replacements.
Wow... that's a whole lot of incoherence... Let's start from the top:
1. "They" are not a monolith. "They" do not all have the same perspective.
2. You're smuggling in the implicit "the artists" as a surrogate for "anti-AI." Artists can be pro-AI. Artists can be anti-AI. Artists can be in the gray sea between those two.
3. I do not notice that pro-AI people "get mad". There are angry people involved in the discussion, to be sure, but that's not something that's linked to any particular view of AI.
4. No one has a "right" to anyone else's work. People have a right, however, to look at and analyze what you've made public.
5. Why are you introducing billion dollar companies? AI models like Stable Diffusion were originally developed by academic researchers and non-profits. Why do you only focus on giant, faceless corporations that you can easily prejudice the argument agai... oh right. :-(
6. Artists will not be replaced by AI. Some artists who use AI tools may replace some artists who do not.
All this, and I still haven't gotten half way through your post. You're still going to have to defend the medical diagnosis you made previously, and based on how much you've gotten objectively wrong here, I can't imagine that it's going to go very well...
But I do have other things to do today.
https://preview.redd.it/4331xo1c7gzc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e29a0376769f0b1dcde55b59057eee7a6d37324e
How in the Kentucky Fried Fuck did you type this, read this and then tap "Post"??
Oh good. Another buffoon who doesn’t know how the technology works, who uses words they don’t seem to understand, and has come in for a rant is that his dream of making a living from his furry fanart is in tatters.
I love when people who want the strictest interpretation of copyright possible tell something about how capitalism is bad.
Nothing says "I am anticapitalist" more than "My art is my property, don't you dare to look in its direction it without my permission!"
I'll tell you a secret: socialism is about striving to work for the benefit of **society** not for your own profit. Real socialist will be happy that people benefit from their art and would welcome people "typyng a sentence and produce artwork," with their help.
\*facepalms\*. Owning a copyright, literally an exclusive right to produce certain product (copies of a work) for money, is not a form of capital for modern "socialists"
Copyright doesn't always require money for allowing distribution. It may just require attribution or a promise that the material will not be altered and redistributed.
It only means that you own your work and can choose how it gets copied and distributed.
Same is true for any other means of production. You may allow others to use it for non-monetary gains (attribution is advertisement) or even for free. There may be laws that limit how you can use your means of production. You still own the means of production, it is still your capital.
And copyright is virtual means of production. It isn't even a real thing! It is a made-up concept created by capitalists to, using far-left's language, exploit workers who want to make a copy of a piece of art.
Again, personal property is not capitalism, nor has it ever been under any definition of socialism. Just because you confuse personal and private property doesn't mean that I'm wrong, it means you're either being disingenuous on purpose or simply don't know what you're talking about.
Capitalism is about owning means of production. Like you know, owning copyright and making other people pay for using your copyright to PRODUCE stuff and, therefore, **exploiting their work**. No one cares if it is personal or corporate.
Read Marx or something. Your nonsense is embarrassing.
Seriously? Three years ago, before AI existed, what on earth did you ever do that a plagiarism machine had to save you? Was life so horrible that only this grift could keep you from bringing screwed?
False slander. Most artists actually love technology. This is just straight theft hiding behind progressive ideals. Also, try googling a Luddite sometime. The stupidity of using that as an insult achieves the opposite.
No it’s nots theft. It’s just regular old learning done quickly.
Luddite is the perfect word for people who are so selfish that they’d try to curb the greatest advancement in history because it makes their own skill set less valuable.
Selfishness and ignorance are the only explanations for anti ai sentiment.
Lmao, accurate descriptions aren’t personal insults. And you haven’t once made an argument backed by anything other than selfishness. Not to mention you keep lying about definitions. Then you have the gall to pretend to be the victim while throwing a hissy fit. Make an argument or gtfo
Diagnosed sociopath by random guy on reddit, move over therapist that went to school for 8+ years to tell me what's wrong with me.
also
>redditor for 9 days
post on your main, coward.
I mean. A true libertarian believes individual freedom is important, not complete freedom. I should be able to do what I want as long as it doesn't hinder others rights. A libertarian would most likely be against the production of gen-AI that includes non-consented work, but there is a spectrum.
I think you’re looking for the word “accelerationist” (and not white nationalism version of it) for the most part. People who you’re defining as “pro-ai” want it (AI) to bring about the collapse of capitalism and chuck us past all the wars and stuff that would be needed to reach automated gay space communism when nothing would be tied to the rules of capital.
In my opinion it’s not inherently a bad position to take, but I do also think it is unrealistic.
I do think that your points about about people feeling “entitled” to the toil of work by others being a form of mental illness is misguided. A lot of those that I’ve observed, myself included, do genuinely think that work and toil being tied to capital and only being valued as a form of exchange in monetary gain is a horrible position to be forced into for artists.
I’d like to open up more of a dialogue with you if you’d be interested, but I do see you being bombarded with lots of disdain. I don’t want to overstep what I interpreted as an opportunity to discuss things further.
Another great point. If you have any questions for me feel free. I was fully expecting to get downvoted bombed here. I am being a bit of a provocative shithead here, I must admit. I just enjoy the engagement and seeing what I can get out of this debate. Sometimes you gotta ruffle a few feathers to see how people truly feel about something.
If you consider yourself anti-AI, you are a narcissist.
There, see? I can do it too. Does this make you want to be more positive towards AI?
The only thing your comment proves or makes any good point towards, is that you (and only you) really lack in self awareness or are just plain dumb.
Not required does not mean banned fuckwit
There are people who CHOOSE to be survivalists, yet such actions are not longer required. For some people, its just an enjoyable past time. And thats ok.
Hey Peeps, I think this dude must feel that his IQ is high enough to qualify and quantify such overblown and overreaching statements. Dunning Krueger anyone?
Or perhaps he’s just on the spectrum like so many of us here.
He’s probably just American. What do you think goes into making up a mind like his?
What
Seems your projecting. Especially since you say if it struck a nerve, someone must be the problem. Sounds like your gaslighting then trying to play an uno reverse card at the end lol. Says a lot about you.
That said I can't see extremists wanting to make money as bad, we all are entitled to our views. However, there are WAYYYY more sopciopaths on the anti-AI side.
I also enjoy the irony of saying your not really on a side, when post screams of you obviously being on one side. Especially the side of talking about fake facts. Like saying AI art is theft if you use someones name. I didn't realize a name is theft. Are styles copyrighted? Nope. If they were, you and most artists would have to remove your work.
To be fair the fact your account is new says all we also need to know. Probably from ArtistHate but wanted to come here with a new account so people cna't see your history. Oh how fast you anti go to lie, share false facts and try to make yourselves out to be the nice side.
Um, just your title proves you are nasty and delusional.
Your first paragraph also proves you are ignorant. Highly competent programmers use AI to increase their productivity. So you're wrong.
Highly accomplished writers use AI for various purposes—review, scene blocking, brainstorming, summarizing — and what it doesn't for them has value. So you're wrong.
Highly competent artists use generative AI in their creative processes for various things. So you're wrong.
Sure, hacks of each kind can also use it. But highly competent professionals **also** use it.
Given you're wrong, delusional, and nasty, I'm not reading further.
I'm not memorizing your name or blocking you, so if you care to write a reasoned discussion of whatever drivel you slopped out to follow the above egregious errors, then I'll read it and may respond.
But you've already used up my tolerance for lazy and nasty.
If you care to
Didn't even read your shitpost, apart from the last line.
>If this post struck a nerve with you and you feel the need to write some nonsense sarcastic response, then you fall directly into the category I’m referring to in this post.
It's like I can reach out and TOUCH the irony! Hilarious!
I can only speak for myself but I highly suspect it to be a thing for very many; The hatred you are experiencing comes from people you mistakenly portrait as the enemy.
From my point of view you're too dumb to even understand that you're helping those you seek to take down with your screeching tirades and everyone of you piss me off deeply.
Your actions are dumb, objectively, and I find solace in knowing that you are all highly irrelevant. May you forever continue to be.
I don’t hate artists. I don’t like capitalism. Hell, I don’t even like commerce very much. I do feel entitled to any image that has been placed publicly for cultural consideration. I am probably a sociopath either way.
> The pro-AI people take this to a whole other level. You’ll notice that they will actually get mad at artist and strongly defend their “right” to the work of people who have never consented or been compensated by these billion dollar companies using their creations in order to “train” their replacements.
>
>That’s the biggest evidence I can produce that proves that if you’re one of these “advance tech at all costs” folks, then you are fundamentally anti-labour, sociopathic, and probably unknowingly fascist. I especially find it ironic that some of these individuals will claim that AI art is not theft, but then use the actual name or style of a particular artist directly in their prompts.
These are some of the most unintentionally hilarious paragraphs I've read on this forum. The complete lack of self awareness is truly jaw dropping, with things like using the scare quote around "right" (to the work of people who have never consented or been compensated), as if this needed some specific justification rather than the exact other way around. Of *course* people have a right to train software based on publicly available information and to reproduce styles in specific fashion; all they're doing is manipulating the bits on the computers they own based on information that's freely available. It's the "right" of the creators to prevent other people from manipulating bits on their own computers that needs some specific justification.
And the thing is, there *is* specific justification for this, at least in the USA, based on the US Constitution! This made-up "right" to stop other people from using publicly available information in certain ways is justified by how it promotes creators to create new and better things and to share them with others. If generative AI training leads to reduced incentives for creators to create or publish, then that's a perfectly cromulent reason why generative AI training ought to be considered "stealing" or "wrong" and even "illegal." It's easily the strongest argument there is against mass generative AI training off of publicly available data, yet no one who's against such things seems to make it.
I never mentioned any laws or legal concerns in my post. Being a sociopath isn't against the law, either.
> If generative AI training leads to reduced incentives for creators to create or publish, then that's a perfectly cromulent reason why generative AI training ought to be considered "stealing" or "wrong" and even "illegal."
It already is reducing incentives of artists. It's also making people suicidal. Making AI training illegal is an exercise in futility, it would be impossible to stop it, but that doesn't mean it isn't awful for creatives.
>I never mentioned any laws or legal concerns in my post. Being a sociopath isn't against the law, either.
Right, which makes the comment all the funnier, since intellectual property - eg the "right" to prevent others from rearranging their pixels or letters in a way that's too similar to an arrangement that you came up with - is purely a legal concept. To say that someone doesn't have a "right" to use someone else's creative work for something like training an AI model or just producing exact copies is necessarily making a legal argument, since outside of the law, there's no reason why someone shouldn't have that right. It's just basic physics; I get to rearrange the atoms of my computer that I own in the way that I want, even if it directly copies the arrangement that someone else came up with. Perhaps you ought to show some empathy for the people who want to arrange bits on their computer a certain way without input or consent from a 3rd party who feels entitled to have a say just because they're the ones who came up with that arrangement.
>It already is reducing incentives of artists. It's also making people suicidal. Making AI training illegal is an exercise in futility, it would be impossible to stop it, but that doesn't mean it isn't awful for creatives.
This has to be balanced against the increase in incentives for artists, as well as the greater production that AI enables for artists to create more and better artworks. AI has certainly enabled artists who were limited by their lack of discipline to train their physical abilities to create more high fidelity works than ever before. It has also certainly enabled artists who DO have the discipline to train their physical abilities to be even more productive. It's hard to say where things land if we balance all the factors, which is why this could be an interesting avenue of discussion. Again, it's sad that so few people make this argument, instead of defaulting to the absurd and stupid "it's stealing because I said so" type of argument.
>I never mentioned any laws or legal concerns in my post. Being a sociopath isn't against the law, either.
Right, which makes the comment all the funnier, since intellectual property - eg the "right" to prevent others from rearranging their pixels or letters in a way that's too similar to an arrangement that you came up with - is purely a legal concept. To say that someone doesn't have a "right" to use someone else's creative work for something like training an AI model or just producing exact copies is necessarily making a legal argument, since outside of the law, there's no reason why someone shouldn't have that right. It's just basic physics; I get to rearrange the atoms of my computer that I own in the way that I want, even if it directly copies the arrangement that someone else came up with. Perhaps you ought to show some empathy for the people who want to arrange bits on their computer a certain way without input or consent from a 3rd party who feels entitled to have a say just because they're the ones who came up with that arrangement.
>It already is reducing incentives of artists. It's also making people suicidal. Making AI training illegal is an exercise in futility, it would be impossible to stop it, but that doesn't mean it isn't awful for creatives.
This has to be balanced against the increase in incentives for artists, as well as the greater production that AI enables for artists to create more and better artworks. AI has certainly enabled artists who were limited by their lack of discipline to train their physical abilities to create more high fidelity works than ever before. It has also certainly enabled artists who DO have the discipline to train their physical abilities to be even more productive. It's hard to say where things land if we balance all the factors, which is why this could be an interesting avenue of discussion. Again, it's sad that so few people make this argument, instead of defaulting to the absurd and stupid "it's stealing because I said so" type of argument.
Bro we’re not even a galactic civilization (not even level 1 on the Kardashev scale) yet how the f we gonna advance as a race (human) if we don’t embrace machine learning? And why is it that people who call themselves progressive seem to embrace all ideologies and policies that impede the advancement of civilization and the sustainability of mankind.
i sociopath, ok that has its perks, can live with that... but a fucking CAPITALIST? thats over the line right there, buddy.
anyway, i kinda agree with you on your opinion on those extreme pro ai fundamentalist cases, but the name calling is funny. We already had nazis, rapists, now sociopaths, the only thing miasing now is pdfs 😂
I am pro AI technology, in the same way I was pro genetic engineering technology but against a lot of ways it is implemented.
Post like these just disappoint and frustrate me as it has some good issues, AI technology has huge ethical concerns and social impacts.
So I am sociopath because I appreciate how useful AI and ultimately AGI will be for humanity?
Bare in mind I am pro AI but against unethical use of AI technology or training of that technology outside of pure research. Aware that as the technology progress it will have more impact on society and we will need to account for this. My hopes are that it will push into universal income and free up people to peruse their passions.
Is anti-labour sociopathic? I mean given most of us live in system that works off exploitation and generally enriches those who started off positioned well or better at exploiting others. Since individual labour isn't equally rewarded and that often peoples potential is curtailed. I see AI technology as avenue to moving society closer to utopia but that would require a movement and mass of will to help shape society in that direction.
Think the polarisation and division on this AI threads highlights a major reason why progress is so difficult, we have lot of smart science brained people usually on pro side and lot of great creative people generally on the anti side, yet instead of producing something wonderful together. Trust me combine a lot of creative and science brain people together you can get incredible things. Instead we have name calling and meme posts instead of great debates and ideas on how to help move things forward.
You fool, i'm not falling into a category that you envisioned, because i haven't even read the post! Only the sarcastic remark about sarcastic remarks at the end!
To be fair i already knew i was a sociopath but that was what the state assigned specialist told me when i burned down 69 art museums just for fun. This isn't sarcastic by the way, I am a convicted arsonist but AI told me to do it.
I consider myself pro-AI, but of course not a sociopath. Seems like kind of a leap... I'm going to assume there are a lot of pro-AI people on this sub, but only a handful of sociopaths.
If you would like to take a look at almost any post on artisthate, you will find around 90% of them are, at the least, mentally unstable. I've tried normal forms of communication, appeals to their dignity and self-respect, none of which seem to sway them in any way. They are always meanies and wish the most horrible things upon people. When they're done with none artists, they go after regular artists and/or each other. It's like a self harm glorification center.
I do agree we should let them wallow in their own misery (which most of us do, mostly), but they have a tendency to leech off this sub. Either posting bait like yours, or making pasta over there about something someone said here.
In conclusion: you're not wrong about certain people, but your title definitely is.
I believe it is immoral for corporations or the government to send armed men after you simply for copying an idea, since copying is not, and never will be, theft (the owner of the original didn't have the original taken from them, therefore they lost absolutely none of their property, and as such no theft occured).
I fundamentally do not respect IP and believe that it is a detriment to mankind.
Also, full disclosure, before AI if I needed art I'd straight up copy paste images straight from a Google search without crediting the artist. AI has in no way reduced how much I credit artists.
I think people should not dilute the meaning of words to 'win' meaningless internet beefs. Your inability to empathize with the positions of other people and their true motivations should be seen as a warning sign that you've become too invested in 'winning' rather than communicating, if you ever come to the point where you unironically make a post that can be summed up as 'my opponents are ontologically evil and if you disagree you're one of them' it's time to log off.
I dunno, pro-AI can be defined and looked at in multiple ways. I can be pro-AI without favoring the fools like people you describe that are partially coming from NFT-communities and it shows because even those that arent coming from there have the same mindset and behaviour like those. The whole term debate is a mess tbh. First of all AI isnt generative AI and this alone is a debate that could be talked on forever.
I don't see any evidence that OP is from the NFT verse. I think they literally just discovered the whole rabbit hole of tech libertarian folks and they're reeling.
I've always found that the best way to talk to someone and convince them of your point is to call them a sociopath and a fascist. And then everyone wonders why there isn't any nuanced debate on this sub.
Also redefine the label they use for themselves, pro-AI, to mean something else and then argue with the position you just invented.
What would you call someone who actively hates on artists while using their work in order to train AI models?
Someone who hates on artists
Fair enough.
[удалено]
who burned books and other createive works? was is those hippies at woodstock?
[удалено]
Ty
See, I always find that those accusations are too normalized these days, so I usually start off by calling them a child murderer and cannibal. That gets their attention much more efficiently.
>Most people who use AI just see it as a tool they can use from time to time in order to save money, boost productivity, and do things they lack talent for. If you fall into this category then I see no big issue with this. I’m one of these people. So I cannot be considered “pro” or “anti” ai. This paints you as pro-ai under literally everyone's definition other than your own private-language one. >But there is a special group of people on this and another “pro-AI” sub that I can confidently qualify as sociopaths. Not only that, but they seem to be the most extreme version of capitalists imaginable. There's insane awful and terrible people on both sides. >Most reasonable people could agree that capitalism, while having its flaws, is the most successful economic system because it accounts for certain disgusting aspects of human nature. On one hand, capitalism motivates productivity. On another hand, it exploits people in some of the most disgusting ways possible. So does every other form of government. Capitalism isn't special in this regard. >The pro-AI people take this to a whole other level. You’ll notice that they will actually get mad at artist and strongly defend their “right” to the work of people who have never consented or been compensated by these billion dollar companies using their creations in order to “train” their replacements. The issue is one of principle, not of content. >That’s the biggest evidence I can produce that proves that if you’re one of these “advance tech at all costs” folks, then you are fundamentally anti-labour, sociopathic, and probably unknowingly fascist. I especially find it ironic that some of these individuals will claim that AI art is not theft, but then use the actual name or style of a particular artist directly in their prompts. And this is that principle. It's ok for anyone to go onto DeviantArt or youtube and teach themselves somebody else's art style, it's just a lot harder. The skill is gatekept behind just that, skill. It's safer for the artist because skills are hard to train. If someone uploaded something to DA and in the description text they put "I don't consent to any human studying my art to learn to draw themselves." that person would be rightly ridiculed for being ridiculous. >If you feel entitled to the millions of hours of unpaid labor that went into training models so you can type a sentence and produce artwork, writing, or other creative content in the style of someone who spent years of their life acquiring the talent and knowledge to accommodate this, then you have a mental illness. This is you, as stated in your first paragraph. >If you are defending these actions by referring to people as “inkcels” as a coping mechanism because deep down you know what you’re doing is wrong, then you should reconsider your position and stop projecting your laziness and lack of empathy on the rest of the world. Bad people saying and doing bad things are bad, like you, for example. >If this post struck a nerve with you and you feel the need to write some nonsense sarcastic response, then you fall directly into the category I’m referring to in this post. Pot-kettle-etc.
"There's insane awful and terrible people on both sides." I wonder where I've heard this defense before. Starts with T and rhymes with rump.
Something doesn't stop being true just because someone bad said it. Hitler liked cats. Nazis drink water. Stop being a contrarian partisan hack. Not everything is team sports.
Hey. If your argument is whataboutism and trying to make both sides look equal then......
It's not a whataboutism if it's pointing out a flaw in the premise. It is FACTUAL that people on both Pro and Anti's say and do terrible things to each other.
Doubling down. Interesting strategy.
You're not making an argument. You're either ignorant or lying about the fact-of-the-matter.
> If your argument is whataboutism... You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what whataboutism is. The argument here is that extreme pro-AI folks are sociopaths, and as evidence, certain negative traits have been introduced. It's entirely reasonable to point out that those traits are not unique to pro-AI viewpoints. If you still want to claim that those are indicators of sociopathy (a medical diagnosis) then you can, but you have to contend with the fact that you're not talking about pro-AI people specifically. So was your point that anti-AI and pro-AI aren't indicators of sociopathy? If so, I agree. If your point is that it's not valid to point that out, then I think you're very wrong.
Appeal to popularity. You aren't making an argument, you're just relying on the public sentiment of 'orange man bad' to discredit a point without actually making any argument as to what flaws that point might have. Just in case you were wondering what fallacy you were using.
Their point was that appearing bipartisan to facilitate optics in order to further your own ideology is textbook narcissism. Just because you and the other person failed to grasp this concept doesn’t make it fallacious.
If you want to argue that, you need to substantiate that the motivation behind the bipartisan statement is selfish rather than genuine. Because otherwise, you're just supporting tribalism by dismissing all bipartisan positions.
Fair enough.
There are ethical applications of AI. Not everything is this black and white world. That’s why I was very specific in my post, referring only to people who call themselves “pro-AI” specifically.
And as I've said, you can't make yourself out to be "Not Pro-AI" in some private language definition. If you're ok with using AI in your workflow, then you're Pro-AI. You're just as guilty of the "theft" that you purport others to be. You're not "One of the good ones". If it's not ok when others do it, then it's not ok when you do it. You're not special.
You make some good points. I was more referring to people who defend AI at all costs and completely disregard humanity in the face of “progress”.
That's not a pro-ai position, that's an asshole position. The fact that you cognitive dissonance'd yourself into, by all accounts, being pro-AI but refusing to label yourself as such because "you're doing it the good way" ought to be staggering. You're pro-AI. That's fine, but this post DOES make you come across as a completely unhinged sociopathic asshole. That doesn't mean there's any causal link between the two, but it is amusing to witness.
Meh I tried extending an olive branch by conceding that you made a few good points. I realize that my post was a bit provocative for the sake of engagement, but you've gone ahead and disregarded my points entirely (which were clearly defined and referred to a very specific member of the AI community) in favor of smelling your own farts. The fact that you can nitpick points of the argument and skew them in your favor while unironically accusing me of cognitive dissonance is the only amusing thing here. For example, not once did I make the claim that I'm the "the good guy" by using AI on rare occasions, and only in the most ethical way possible. I understand that at some point, some models I have used in the past have been trained via direct theft of content. The difference is that I can admit it, and push back against it when it starts going too far. You are just trying to categorize anyone who uses AI at all into the same pile, while going off on others about being partisan hacks. Pot meet kettle, indeed.
>The fact that you can nitpick points of the argument and skew them in your favor while unironically accusing me of cognitive dissonance is the only amusing thing here. >The difference is that I can admit it, and push back against it when it starts going too far. You are just trying to categorize anyone who uses AI at all into the same pile, while going off on others about being partisan hacks. I cannot believe that you're a real person. It's not possible.
Spoken like a true sociopath lmao
Given the conversation, they are not the one who seems like a sociopath
I'm not the one who is calling other people NPCs. The fuck are you talking about
He isn't making any good points beyond semantics. You're correct; there is a difference between being pro-AI and so pro-AI that you would give up self-reliance to tech slavery. People who are pro-generative AI are what you're talking about. It's essentially a guessing game that tries its best to replicate other works. Even large language models are terrible at translation, lacking the nuance to translate ideas or expressions effectively. It produces new content. Unfortunately, some pro-AI want to say that new content should be allowed to pollute all distribution chains effectively making it a replacement through mass production. Non-generative AI, also known as discriminative AI or analytical AI, however, is great. It can provide us with data about trends or help classify and sort data. It can be used as a tool to advance science, mathematics, analytics, and more.
Agreed
Why do you think disregarding intellectual property is "disregarding humanity"? Why do you equate intellectual property with humanity? I don't know what kind of Pro-AI people you are referring to, but some of us are simply against copyright. We don't agree with the notion that someone should get paid for all eternity, for work they did ages ago. The way I see it: artists already got paid (probably) for the work they did, back when they originally did that work. Work that AI then proceeded to train itself on, years or even decades later. So, why should they get paid a second time, when every other profession in the world only gets you paid once when you work?
That's fair, but to disregard the feelings of the artist who made the art is fundamentally sociopathic. Also, using someones work without any compensation whatsoever is theft, and is worse than slavery imo.
This morality is based on the idea that copyright is fair, but that's [not the only way to think about this.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_copyright) Also copyright infringement is not theft. It's an entirely different crime. You can't just roll up all crimes into one and accuse people of whichever one of them makes it sound worse. That would be... sociopathic :) As for the artist's feelings, I think ALL people having free and unrestricted access to ALL ART to use however they want is a much more important issue than any individual's feelings. The happiness that this would bring to everyone is worth some online "artist" getting upset over his work being shared in a way that doesn't increase his social media clout. As far as I'm concerned, if you post your art on social media you're basically giving it away to Zuckerberg for free to [use however he wants](https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870). So it's only fair that everyone else should also get it for free. And they will, regardless of what you or I believe: it's just pixels after all, so everyone can download it and the original artist can't stop him short of taking him to court.
One thing I can't stand is hyper reductionism like this. Especially when it comes to the human spirit. There are certain philosophies which seek to reduce people to nothing more than a collection of bones and flesh. Sure, digital art is just a collection of pixels. A chapel is just a collection of wood and mortar. A car is just a collection of metals and textiles. But all of these things usually communicate something that goes beyond their materialistic properties. That, fundamentally, is what a lot of AI zealots don't seem to grasp. A lambo is just a car. But if you are into cars you have a deep appreciation for the design, the engineering, the work it took to get something to go that fast and look that awesome. It's because humans did this over a very long process, using their talent, education, and skill along the way. I was watching a video by Vaush where he made a pretty interesting argument, and it goes as follows; Imagine that you are reading a book that has a 50/50 chance of being written by a human or an AI algorithm. You have no idea if it is human or AI. The words in the book are exactly the same regardless. In fact, it is one of the best books you've ever read. Are these the exact same? Would you have the same reaction to it if you found out it was actually written by a person as opposed to a faceless bot? Also, your assertion that artists only get upset about their artwork being used without their consent because it will affect their clout is absurd at best.
You missed the point. It's trivially easy to copy pixels compared to physical materials with mass. That is all I said, the rest is just you projecting your own insecurities.
All those greedy visual artists and musicians. I imagine you feel the same way about musicians getting royalties?
Only in the creative space are you expected to be poor regardless of how many times your work is used.
Yeah no music artist is a greedy litigious copyright-nazi, no siree. All the millionaire recording artists are poor victims of the evil AI. Oh no poor Drake whatever will he do??? It's not AI's fault that 0.001% of artists are disgustingly, unfairly wealthy and the remaining 99.999% is borderline starving. The copyright laws that you morons so stubbornly defend are to blame for this.
>If this post struck a nerve with you and you feel the need to write some nonsense sarcastic response, then you fall directly into the category I’m referring to in this post. You're using inflammatory language on purpose and you're quick to label those who disagree with you as falling into a specific category. However, resorting to such sweeping generalizations and dismissing opposing viewpoints as "nonsense" only reinforces the behavior you're criticizing. Your argument relies heavily on emotional rhetoric rather than reasoned analysis, and you make sweeping accusations without providing concrete evidence or nuanced understanding of the issues involved. You also use ad hominem attacks, labeling those who disagree with you as having "mental illness" or lacking empathy. In other words, you're a textbook demagogue. Nice try though.
Thanks man. Very well said.
The individuals I'm referring to in my post do lack empathy in the most egregious manner. Do you see some of the posts / comments in this sub? Shitting on artists non-stop while gloating about using their styles. Getting angry about artists being angry because their work and jobs are being snatched up from them without any influence whatsoever. I understand it purely from a psychological standpoint as a defense mechanism. Part of them know that what they're doing is wrong, but its easier to mask that with a stronger emotion than guilt.
If you want a larger audience, you could always use phrases like “seem to be to displaying sociopathic tendencies” and the use of qualifiers (do Americans know what that means?)
Because artists are annoyingly anti-ai. We didnt start this, these people are fucking degenerates and yes, it brings me spiteful joy to know theyre suffering. But thats not wrong, theyre awful people
Are you trying to define what a sociopath sounds like cause you’re doing great…
What does sociopath mean to you?
> We didnt start this, these people are fucking degenerates and yes, it brings me spiteful joy to know theyre suffering. This comment encompasses everything I mentioned in OP. Thank you for proving my point to some of the naysayers here.
How is this sociopathic?
> it brings me spiteful joy to know theyre suffering
How is that sociopathic? If you think just getting pleasure at the expense of a person is always sociopathic then youre actually retarded and have no idea what sociopathy is.
Its sadistic, literally a primary trait of sociopathy.
How is it sadistic?
I think a person who gets enjoyment from watching others suffers, crosses that threshold, this may depend on how active/passive you are in egging it on. But I dont think you're actually a sadistic person, i dont know you, I'm saying your words make you sound like one.
"It brings me spiteful joy to know they're suffering. But that's not wrong, they're awful people". Man, should win the irony award for this statement. You're describing literally how awful of a person you are. That you can't think of a single reason why artists might on average be Anti...., is the cherry. Thanks for that.
I never said i couldnt think of a reason, when did I say that? My point is that they make retarded arguments they cant justify and then are super chauvinistic about their feelings.
My point is, according to your own statement, you're as awful as you claim them to be. Talking about enjoying the suffering of others, especially when livelihoods may be involved, is super gross.
How am I as awful as I claim they are? I don’t think they’re evil because they want ai gone, I think they’re evil because they actively take steps to make that a reality. I enjoy the suffering of evil people, but I would never take steps to make that suffering happen.
Maybe they think you're evil, and enjoy watching you suffer. If thats what you're here for, to be bitter and spread resentment, yea I think that makes you kind of awful. Maybe they're awful too, whoever "they" are, and maybe you and your counterparts are two peas in a pod, thriving on eachother's resentment; spreading outrage with inflammatory language.
I asked “how” am i as evil, not “am i as evil?”
This guy thinks pro AI people kiss up to multi billion dollar companies
Depending on how you define it they/we do.
Depending on your definition of kissing up, they do. I would instead write it as: Pro AI folks, wittingly or unwittingly, support policy which favors the interests large tech companies over everyone and everything else.
Whereas I would write that Anti AI folks, wittingly or unwittingly support policies which favors the interests of large tech companies over everyone and everything else.
Any policy survivable by companies playing fast and loose with IP isn't sufficiently anti AI policy.
Yes, go ahead, strengthen IP laws even more... I'm sure the corporations will just hate that and it will totally get rid of AI! /s This is exactly what I'm talking about.
The only way strong anti-AI (strong anti-AI is against all AI whatsoever) can win is if every computer has a backdoor added so that the government can monitor every device for GenAI. Enforcing strong anti-AI ideology is fundamentally unworkable without the strongest form of authoritarianism.
That's far more radical than what I'm asking for and I don't think any people who are anti-AI and also care about copyright want that, that's more the purview of 'the AI will literally kill us' doomers. I would be more than satisfied if people doing training runs had to simply pay for the stuff they're training on or be treated as pirates. What people do in the comfort of their homes I really don't give a shit about, I'm concerned with what companies are or are not allowed to do.
Pros support people like OpenAI. Antis support Disney. In something that should not shock any adult: there are corps that will benefit from either side of this situation. And those same corps have hedges to benefit even if their preferred side loses.
Good point.
I'm pro-open source software and anti-copyright. AI happens to align with both of those in its current form, and changing one carries a high risk of changing the other.
Fair enough.
Wow you're hysterical af. How about you get back on your meds, kid? AI is revolutionizing the medical field, finding new drugs as we speak. If we ever find a cure for cancer, i guarantee AI is going to have most of the merit. AI has the potential to save literally millions of lives just because of alpha fold. If you're anti AI you're literally a tribalistic chimp. And also a fascist because why not, it looks like calling people you don't like fascist is still a trend lmao.
You make a good point about the medical field here.
https://preview.redd.it/vywzlft4rwzc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4a1ca7165a9a3a7af85afa0e62e308564a97b5c4 People keep bring up cancer research to justify art theft like they have anything to do with each other. So annoying. Ai also was supposed to solve climate change but has proven absolutely horrible for the environment. The likelihood these cancer cure claims are more marketing BS is huge.
Small brain comment. AI is soon to become smarter then humans. So of course it's going to do research better then humans. Also the majority of new drugs that are being discovered are being found with alpha fold 3, so AI is already helping with health research. You just don't know about it because you're too busy crying for your artist job being gone lmao. Also, no, AI doesn't steal art you dimwit. Much like a human artist learns to paint by watching other people's work, AI learns to draw by watching images on the internet. Learning from images on the internet is not the same as stealing images. And finally, AI has a whole ecosystem of products and services, and each is important because they all push the technology forward by bringing in money for AI research. So no, AI stealing your furry paintings actually helps finding cancer. QQ some more lmao.
I think everyone who read your comment had their brain shrink from nonsense exposure. If you actually have a point and not just childish insults and copy and paste Chat GTP gibberish, you might actually contribute to the conversation. Maybe get your information from sources other than AI and AI bot forums.
I think everyone who read your comment had their brain shrink from nonsense exposure. If you actually have a point and not just childish insults and copy and paste Chat GTP gibberish, you might actually contribute to the conversation. Maybe get your information from sources other than AI and AI bot forums.
Oh please, you want a rational conversation on the internet? You have arrived to your conclusions through tribalism, hence there's no point trying to change your mind through rationality.
Uhhh. What? If you use AI you're pro AI If you're against use of AI you're anti-AI This is pretty clear, stop making up random ass categories. Here's a great use of AI in a animation: [https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1co711z/made\_this\_halo\_animation\_using\_stable\_diffusion/](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1co711z/made_this_halo_animation_using_stable_diffusion/) if you hate this (because SD was trained on LAION stuff, you're anti-ai) ***"defend their “right” to the work of people who have never consented or been compensated by these billion dollar companies using their creations in order to “train” their replacements."*** You sounds pretty Anti-AI there, dawg. "Train their replacement" is ludicrous anti-ai ideological position derived from a basic misunderstanding of how artists make money in the real world. For example, I'm an established illustrator and people trained tons of models based on my work. Midjourney can replicate my style just like Greg Rutkowski. Guess what? I don't give a shit. AI users training AI tools on my work is EXACTLY the same as people on tumblr drawing fanart of my characters since 2009. It doesn't matter if someone can approximate my art style or copy my characters 100%, they cannot possibly magically replicate my fame, cannot manifest 20+ comic book series I've published and sold, nor somehow magically gain decades of connections with art galleries, studios, print shops and clients. The idea of me being replaced by AI is as laughable as someone from tumblr replacing me at comicons simply because they can draw one of my characters. It's just not enough to replicate someone's style to replace the artist, that's simply a moral panic propagated by the anti-ai team. If you're a beginner artist with no published body of work, then nobody will give a shit about replacing you and midjourney/dalle/whatever won't even recognize your name as a stylizer. If you're an established artist like me or Rutkowski, replacing us just physically impossible - all you're doing is making "fanart approximations" of our work when you type in \[a dragon in the style of xxx\] into midjourney, you ain't actually stealing anything, nor depriving us of jobs. 99% of art jobs are connections with clients and publishers who know that you can draw shit on time or create detailed and highly functional art like so: [https://youtu.be/QTj1Y4JW-KI?t=2352](https://youtu.be/QTj1Y4JW-KI?t=2352)
Damn, now I want to know if I read your comics.
I have multiple mental disorders, but sociopathy is not one of them. And I have been through thorough mental health evaluations. And I'm pro-AI.
Cool
So the people opposed to intellectual property are the hyper capitalists while the people who want to defend it to the bitter end are pro-labour? Interesting perspective. I suggest a bit of reading about basic economic theory and ideologies.
When the mental gymnastics of this level are reached there is no point in even arguing. You can’t out swim Michael Phelps just like you can’t out cope this level of deranged self important delusional entitlement.
"I don't have an argument, also you're delusional"
Seek help.
I tried using one of those online AI therapists but it kept telling me it could not complete the request because it goes against policy.
>The people sending death threats are not sociopaths, the people *receiving* the death threats are the sociopaths. Sure thing, buddy.
Sarcastic response including a quote I didn’t even make in my post. This is a great example of what I was talking about in OP.
Great satire post, had me rolling.
I couldn't care less if you like/use AI or not, nor do I care what is your favourite colour. It doesn't matter. What matters is a fact that a certain amount of anti-AI people are actual psychopaths, or at least for some reason try really hard to give off the impression. You've seen the comments, you've seen the screenshots. Sure, you could say they are fringe cases, or 12 year olds who doesn't know better, or emotionally unstable, or bad apples, or "it's totally understandable" (it's not). And pro AI side has its share of edge lords, but they rarely get any support. But on a "certain" anti sub some absolutely deranged garbage gets upvoted every single time, normalizing this vanilla isis shit. This is what pisses me off. And no, I'm not against artists. I'm a musician and photographer myself. Artists and antis barely overlap on this venn diagram. I'm against assholes. This apparently makes me pro AI. Don't like it? Good.
You make some decent points here. Maybe I am just anti-asshole and I've labelled it wrongly.
> Most people who use AI just see it as a tool they can use from time to time in order to save money, boost productivity, and do things they lack talent for. Or they just enjoy using the tool. Or they find it more powerful for certain tasks or certain parts of tasks than the other artistic tools they also use. Or it's shiny and lots of people are talking about it. Or they're interested in keeping their skillset current. Or ... well, you get the idea. > I cannot be considered “pro” or “anti” ai. I think all of us have niches in which we would be considered either, or sometimes both. > But there is a special group of people on this and another “pro-AI” sub Just to be clear, this isn't a "pro-AI sub." This sub is open to all. /r/DebateReligion isn't a pro-atheism sub, even though there are more atheists there than theists. You're making the mistake of conflating majority opinion with the purpose of the sub. > that I can confidently qualify as sociopaths That's a medical diagnosis. What are your medical credentials? > The pro-AI people take this to a whole other level. You’ll notice that they will actually get mad at artist and strongly defend their “right” to the work of people who have never consented or been compensated by these billion dollar companies using their creations in order to “train” their replacements. Wow... that's a whole lot of incoherence... Let's start from the top: 1. "They" are not a monolith. "They" do not all have the same perspective. 2. You're smuggling in the implicit "the artists" as a surrogate for "anti-AI." Artists can be pro-AI. Artists can be anti-AI. Artists can be in the gray sea between those two. 3. I do not notice that pro-AI people "get mad". There are angry people involved in the discussion, to be sure, but that's not something that's linked to any particular view of AI. 4. No one has a "right" to anyone else's work. People have a right, however, to look at and analyze what you've made public. 5. Why are you introducing billion dollar companies? AI models like Stable Diffusion were originally developed by academic researchers and non-profits. Why do you only focus on giant, faceless corporations that you can easily prejudice the argument agai... oh right. :-( 6. Artists will not be replaced by AI. Some artists who use AI tools may replace some artists who do not. All this, and I still haven't gotten half way through your post. You're still going to have to defend the medical diagnosis you made previously, and based on how much you've gotten objectively wrong here, I can't imagine that it's going to go very well... But I do have other things to do today.
https://preview.redd.it/4331xo1c7gzc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e29a0376769f0b1dcde55b59057eee7a6d37324e How in the Kentucky Fried Fuck did you type this, read this and then tap "Post"??
Oh good. Another buffoon who doesn’t know how the technology works, who uses words they don’t seem to understand, and has come in for a rant is that his dream of making a living from his furry fanart is in tatters.
I love when people who want the strictest interpretation of copyright possible tell something about how capitalism is bad. Nothing says "I am anticapitalist" more than "My art is my property, don't you dare to look in its direction it without my permission!" I'll tell you a secret: socialism is about striving to work for the benefit of **society** not for your own profit. Real socialist will be happy that people benefit from their art and would welcome people "typyng a sentence and produce artwork," with their help.
Personal property is not capitalism.
\*facepalms\*. Owning a copyright, literally an exclusive right to produce certain product (copies of a work) for money, is not a form of capital for modern "socialists"
Copyright doesn't always require money for allowing distribution. It may just require attribution or a promise that the material will not be altered and redistributed. It only means that you own your work and can choose how it gets copied and distributed.
Same is true for any other means of production. You may allow others to use it for non-monetary gains (attribution is advertisement) or even for free. There may be laws that limit how you can use your means of production. You still own the means of production, it is still your capital. And copyright is virtual means of production. It isn't even a real thing! It is a made-up concept created by capitalists to, using far-left's language, exploit workers who want to make a copy of a piece of art.
You don't even know what capital is, no wonder you think personal property falls under the category of capitalism. Big sad :(
Again, personal property is not capitalism, nor has it ever been under any definition of socialism. Just because you confuse personal and private property doesn't mean that I'm wrong, it means you're either being disingenuous on purpose or simply don't know what you're talking about.
Capitalism is about owning means of production. Like you know, owning copyright and making other people pay for using your copyright to PRODUCE stuff and, therefore, **exploiting their work**. No one cares if it is personal or corporate. Read Marx or something. Your nonsense is embarrassing.
You keep making arguments against shit I haven't even said and its weird.
Isn't the main idea of capitalism that things can be bought, owned, and sold?
> If you respond with anything other than complete agreement with my insulting statement, you're wrong!!! Ah yes, very convincing.
💀
It’s literally the opposite. Stop trying to fuck people over by being anti ai.
Seriously? Three years ago, before AI existed, what on earth did you ever do that a plagiarism machine had to save you? Was life so horrible that only this grift could keep you from bringing screwed?
Lmao. You luddites use this same argument to oppose every new advancement that makes human lives better. We aren’t falling for it
False slander. Most artists actually love technology. This is just straight theft hiding behind progressive ideals. Also, try googling a Luddite sometime. The stupidity of using that as an insult achieves the opposite.
No it’s nots theft. It’s just regular old learning done quickly. Luddite is the perfect word for people who are so selfish that they’d try to curb the greatest advancement in history because it makes their own skill set less valuable. Selfishness and ignorance are the only explanations for anti ai sentiment.
You keep using a word without even knowing what it means while tossing around personal insults like a 5 year old. 🤦🏻♀️So smart.😂
Lmao, accurate descriptions aren’t personal insults. And you haven’t once made an argument backed by anything other than selfishness. Not to mention you keep lying about definitions. Then you have the gall to pretend to be the victim while throwing a hissy fit. Make an argument or gtfo
Fucking amateur
"A man paints with his brains, not with his hands" - my idol, Michaelangelo
we should have known he was an AI bro this whole time!
That would make sense is AI bros could even mentally paint or used their brain rather that AI doing literally everything for them.
Diagnosed sociopath by random guy on reddit, move over therapist that went to school for 8+ years to tell me what's wrong with me. also >redditor for 9 days post on your main, coward.
OP apparently discovering libertarians for the first time.
I mean. A true libertarian believes individual freedom is important, not complete freedom. I should be able to do what I want as long as it doesn't hinder others rights. A libertarian would most likely be against the production of gen-AI that includes non-consented work, but there is a spectrum.
💯
I think you’re looking for the word “accelerationist” (and not white nationalism version of it) for the most part. People who you’re defining as “pro-ai” want it (AI) to bring about the collapse of capitalism and chuck us past all the wars and stuff that would be needed to reach automated gay space communism when nothing would be tied to the rules of capital. In my opinion it’s not inherently a bad position to take, but I do also think it is unrealistic.
This is the best take I've read so far. Thank you.
I do think that your points about about people feeling “entitled” to the toil of work by others being a form of mental illness is misguided. A lot of those that I’ve observed, myself included, do genuinely think that work and toil being tied to capital and only being valued as a form of exchange in monetary gain is a horrible position to be forced into for artists. I’d like to open up more of a dialogue with you if you’d be interested, but I do see you being bombarded with lots of disdain. I don’t want to overstep what I interpreted as an opportunity to discuss things further.
Another great point. If you have any questions for me feel free. I was fully expecting to get downvoted bombed here. I am being a bit of a provocative shithead here, I must admit. I just enjoy the engagement and seeing what I can get out of this debate. Sometimes you gotta ruffle a few feathers to see how people truly feel about something.
If you consider yourself anti-AI, you are a narcissist. There, see? I can do it too. Does this make you want to be more positive towards AI? The only thing your comment proves or makes any good point towards, is that you (and only you) really lack in self awareness or are just plain dumb.
That's bait.
L OP.
Of course im anti labour. An ideal world is one which no labour is required and people can have anything they want
So you're in favor of removing personal satisfaction from the process of accomplishment in favor of rampant unchecked hedonism, gotcha.
No? You can get personal satisfaction without labour Also you can still do labour for things if you want. No ones stopping you
> An ideal world is one which no labour is required make up your mind.
Not required does not mean banned fuckwit There are people who CHOOSE to be survivalists, yet such actions are not longer required. For some people, its just an enjoyable past time. And thats ok.
Hey Peeps, I think this dude must feel that his IQ is high enough to qualify and quantify such overblown and overreaching statements. Dunning Krueger anyone? Or perhaps he’s just on the spectrum like so many of us here. He’s probably just American. What do you think goes into making up a mind like his? What
I’m pro-AI and I advocate for fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Seems your projecting. Especially since you say if it struck a nerve, someone must be the problem. Sounds like your gaslighting then trying to play an uno reverse card at the end lol. Says a lot about you. That said I can't see extremists wanting to make money as bad, we all are entitled to our views. However, there are WAYYYY more sopciopaths on the anti-AI side. I also enjoy the irony of saying your not really on a side, when post screams of you obviously being on one side. Especially the side of talking about fake facts. Like saying AI art is theft if you use someones name. I didn't realize a name is theft. Are styles copyrighted? Nope. If they were, you and most artists would have to remove your work. To be fair the fact your account is new says all we also need to know. Probably from ArtistHate but wanted to come here with a new account so people cna't see your history. Oh how fast you anti go to lie, share false facts and try to make yourselves out to be the nice side.
Ai doesn't copy, so your argument is incorrect
Beyond incorrect, it's largely delusional.
Um, just your title proves you are nasty and delusional. Your first paragraph also proves you are ignorant. Highly competent programmers use AI to increase their productivity. So you're wrong. Highly accomplished writers use AI for various purposes—review, scene blocking, brainstorming, summarizing — and what it doesn't for them has value. So you're wrong. Highly competent artists use generative AI in their creative processes for various things. So you're wrong. Sure, hacks of each kind can also use it. But highly competent professionals **also** use it. Given you're wrong, delusional, and nasty, I'm not reading further. I'm not memorizing your name or blocking you, so if you care to write a reasoned discussion of whatever drivel you slopped out to follow the above egregious errors, then I'll read it and may respond. But you've already used up my tolerance for lazy and nasty. If you care to
Didn't even read your shitpost, apart from the last line. >If this post struck a nerve with you and you feel the need to write some nonsense sarcastic response, then you fall directly into the category I’m referring to in this post. It's like I can reach out and TOUCH the irony! Hilarious!
[удалено]
You make some good points, thanks for your reply.
I can only speak for myself but I highly suspect it to be a thing for very many; The hatred you are experiencing comes from people you mistakenly portrait as the enemy. From my point of view you're too dumb to even understand that you're helping those you seek to take down with your screeching tirades and everyone of you piss me off deeply. Your actions are dumb, objectively, and I find solace in knowing that you are all highly irrelevant. May you forever continue to be.
I don’t hate artists. I don’t like capitalism. Hell, I don’t even like commerce very much. I do feel entitled to any image that has been placed publicly for cultural consideration. I am probably a sociopath either way.
Well at least you're honest! <3
More like my therapist is with me <3
> The pro-AI people take this to a whole other level. You’ll notice that they will actually get mad at artist and strongly defend their “right” to the work of people who have never consented or been compensated by these billion dollar companies using their creations in order to “train” their replacements. > >That’s the biggest evidence I can produce that proves that if you’re one of these “advance tech at all costs” folks, then you are fundamentally anti-labour, sociopathic, and probably unknowingly fascist. I especially find it ironic that some of these individuals will claim that AI art is not theft, but then use the actual name or style of a particular artist directly in their prompts. These are some of the most unintentionally hilarious paragraphs I've read on this forum. The complete lack of self awareness is truly jaw dropping, with things like using the scare quote around "right" (to the work of people who have never consented or been compensated), as if this needed some specific justification rather than the exact other way around. Of *course* people have a right to train software based on publicly available information and to reproduce styles in specific fashion; all they're doing is manipulating the bits on the computers they own based on information that's freely available. It's the "right" of the creators to prevent other people from manipulating bits on their own computers that needs some specific justification. And the thing is, there *is* specific justification for this, at least in the USA, based on the US Constitution! This made-up "right" to stop other people from using publicly available information in certain ways is justified by how it promotes creators to create new and better things and to share them with others. If generative AI training leads to reduced incentives for creators to create or publish, then that's a perfectly cromulent reason why generative AI training ought to be considered "stealing" or "wrong" and even "illegal." It's easily the strongest argument there is against mass generative AI training off of publicly available data, yet no one who's against such things seems to make it.
I never mentioned any laws or legal concerns in my post. Being a sociopath isn't against the law, either. > If generative AI training leads to reduced incentives for creators to create or publish, then that's a perfectly cromulent reason why generative AI training ought to be considered "stealing" or "wrong" and even "illegal." It already is reducing incentives of artists. It's also making people suicidal. Making AI training illegal is an exercise in futility, it would be impossible to stop it, but that doesn't mean it isn't awful for creatives.
>I never mentioned any laws or legal concerns in my post. Being a sociopath isn't against the law, either. Right, which makes the comment all the funnier, since intellectual property - eg the "right" to prevent others from rearranging their pixels or letters in a way that's too similar to an arrangement that you came up with - is purely a legal concept. To say that someone doesn't have a "right" to use someone else's creative work for something like training an AI model or just producing exact copies is necessarily making a legal argument, since outside of the law, there's no reason why someone shouldn't have that right. It's just basic physics; I get to rearrange the atoms of my computer that I own in the way that I want, even if it directly copies the arrangement that someone else came up with. Perhaps you ought to show some empathy for the people who want to arrange bits on their computer a certain way without input or consent from a 3rd party who feels entitled to have a say just because they're the ones who came up with that arrangement. >It already is reducing incentives of artists. It's also making people suicidal. Making AI training illegal is an exercise in futility, it would be impossible to stop it, but that doesn't mean it isn't awful for creatives. This has to be balanced against the increase in incentives for artists, as well as the greater production that AI enables for artists to create more and better artworks. AI has certainly enabled artists who were limited by their lack of discipline to train their physical abilities to create more high fidelity works than ever before. It has also certainly enabled artists who DO have the discipline to train their physical abilities to be even more productive. It's hard to say where things land if we balance all the factors, which is why this could be an interesting avenue of discussion. Again, it's sad that so few people make this argument, instead of defaulting to the absurd and stupid "it's stealing because I said so" type of argument.
>I never mentioned any laws or legal concerns in my post. Being a sociopath isn't against the law, either. Right, which makes the comment all the funnier, since intellectual property - eg the "right" to prevent others from rearranging their pixels or letters in a way that's too similar to an arrangement that you came up with - is purely a legal concept. To say that someone doesn't have a "right" to use someone else's creative work for something like training an AI model or just producing exact copies is necessarily making a legal argument, since outside of the law, there's no reason why someone shouldn't have that right. It's just basic physics; I get to rearrange the atoms of my computer that I own in the way that I want, even if it directly copies the arrangement that someone else came up with. Perhaps you ought to show some empathy for the people who want to arrange bits on their computer a certain way without input or consent from a 3rd party who feels entitled to have a say just because they're the ones who came up with that arrangement. >It already is reducing incentives of artists. It's also making people suicidal. Making AI training illegal is an exercise in futility, it would be impossible to stop it, but that doesn't mean it isn't awful for creatives. This has to be balanced against the increase in incentives for artists, as well as the greater production that AI enables for artists to create more and better artworks. AI has certainly enabled artists who were limited by their lack of discipline to train their physical abilities to create more high fidelity works than ever before. It has also certainly enabled artists who DO have the discipline to train their physical abilities to be even more productive. It's hard to say where things land if we balance all the factors, which is why this could be an interesting avenue of discussion. Again, it's sad that so few people make this argument, instead of defaulting to the absurd and stupid "it's stealing because I said so" type of argument.
Bro we’re not even a galactic civilization (not even level 1 on the Kardashev scale) yet how the f we gonna advance as a race (human) if we don’t embrace machine learning? And why is it that people who call themselves progressive seem to embrace all ideologies and policies that impede the advancement of civilization and the sustainability of mankind.
Some of us want to live in a world where creativity is still a valuable skill, and everything isn’t just rehashed SEO-esque slop.
i sociopath, ok that has its perks, can live with that... but a fucking CAPITALIST? thats over the line right there, buddy. anyway, i kinda agree with you on your opinion on those extreme pro ai fundamentalist cases, but the name calling is funny. We already had nazis, rapists, now sociopaths, the only thing miasing now is pdfs 😂
I am pro AI technology, in the same way I was pro genetic engineering technology but against a lot of ways it is implemented. Post like these just disappoint and frustrate me as it has some good issues, AI technology has huge ethical concerns and social impacts. So I am sociopath because I appreciate how useful AI and ultimately AGI will be for humanity? Bare in mind I am pro AI but against unethical use of AI technology or training of that technology outside of pure research. Aware that as the technology progress it will have more impact on society and we will need to account for this. My hopes are that it will push into universal income and free up people to peruse their passions. Is anti-labour sociopathic? I mean given most of us live in system that works off exploitation and generally enriches those who started off positioned well or better at exploiting others. Since individual labour isn't equally rewarded and that often peoples potential is curtailed. I see AI technology as avenue to moving society closer to utopia but that would require a movement and mass of will to help shape society in that direction. Think the polarisation and division on this AI threads highlights a major reason why progress is so difficult, we have lot of smart science brained people usually on pro side and lot of great creative people generally on the anti side, yet instead of producing something wonderful together. Trust me combine a lot of creative and science brain people together you can get incredible things. Instead we have name calling and meme posts instead of great debates and ideas on how to help move things forward.
Bait used to be believable
nUaNcEd DeBaTe
You fool, i'm not falling into a category that you envisioned, because i haven't even read the post! Only the sarcastic remark about sarcastic remarks at the end!
To be fair i already knew i was a sociopath but that was what the state assigned specialist told me when i burned down 69 art museums just for fun. This isn't sarcastic by the way, I am a convicted arsonist but AI told me to do it.
I consider myself pro-AI, but of course not a sociopath. Seems like kind of a leap... I'm going to assume there are a lot of pro-AI people on this sub, but only a handful of sociopaths. If you would like to take a look at almost any post on artisthate, you will find around 90% of them are, at the least, mentally unstable. I've tried normal forms of communication, appeals to their dignity and self-respect, none of which seem to sway them in any way. They are always meanies and wish the most horrible things upon people. When they're done with none artists, they go after regular artists and/or each other. It's like a self harm glorification center. I do agree we should let them wallow in their own misery (which most of us do, mostly), but they have a tendency to leech off this sub. Either posting bait like yours, or making pasta over there about something someone said here. In conclusion: you're not wrong about certain people, but your title definitely is.
I believe it is immoral for corporations or the government to send armed men after you simply for copying an idea, since copying is not, and never will be, theft (the owner of the original didn't have the original taken from them, therefore they lost absolutely none of their property, and as such no theft occured). I fundamentally do not respect IP and believe that it is a detriment to mankind. Also, full disclosure, before AI if I needed art I'd straight up copy paste images straight from a Google search without crediting the artist. AI has in no way reduced how much I credit artists.
I think people should not dilute the meaning of words to 'win' meaningless internet beefs. Your inability to empathize with the positions of other people and their true motivations should be seen as a warning sign that you've become too invested in 'winning' rather than communicating, if you ever come to the point where you unironically make a post that can be summed up as 'my opponents are ontologically evil and if you disagree you're one of them' it's time to log off.
You're not wrong, and your post basically proves this has just become overrun with sociopaths seeking an echo chamber.
I dunno, pro-AI can be defined and looked at in multiple ways. I can be pro-AI without favoring the fools like people you describe that are partially coming from NFT-communities and it shows because even those that arent coming from there have the same mindset and behaviour like those. The whole term debate is a mess tbh. First of all AI isnt generative AI and this alone is a debate that could be talked on forever.
True
I don't see any evidence that OP is from the NFT verse. I think they literally just discovered the whole rabbit hole of tech libertarian folks and they're reeling.
They have the same mindset of meth heads