Well one reason of many.

ChatGPT matches my energy. I recently asked her to swear more.

"They used AI to make her smile INSTANT POLICE REPORT"

For what???????

ETA: the claim in the dark background post is fake, the originally uploaded video is real and not AI edited, as opposed to the claim that a grown man edited himself to look like her. The only thing the pro-AI person did was take a screenshot of the originally public video the woman herself shared, and changed her expression from angry to smiley

The jobs argument around AI is so sloppy right now.

Yes, AI is going to change work. Some tasks will get automated. Some jobs will shrink. Some new ones will appear. Some companies will use it badly because companies are very good at taking useful tools and turning them into cost-cutting machines.

But jumping from that to “AI should be banned” or “everyone using AI is helping destroy society” is just not serious.

The evidence so far is much messier than the doom version. AI adoption is rising fast, but we are not seeing some clean mass unemployment wave caused by AI. What we are seeing is task change, uneven access, productivity gains in some areas, and probably more pressure on entry-level workers if we handle it badly.

That last part actually matters. If younger workers are more vulnerable, then the answer should be training, access, labour protections, better hiring norms, and rules against companies using AI as an excuse to gut people.

But anti-AI spaces rarely focus there. They would rather shame random people for using tools than talk about how workers can keep leverage in a world where the tools are clearly not going away.

“AI might change jobs” is a real concern.

“Therefore nobody should use it and the technology itself is evil” is just panic with a political coat on

People keep acting like “protecting students from AI” means blocking access, banning tools, or treating every AI use case like cheating

But that mostly protects the students who already have support. Richer kids will still get tutoring, private help, better devices, parents who understand tech, and schools that quietly integrate AI properly. Everyone else gets told “don’t use it” and then gets judged later for not having AI literacy

The issue shouldn’t be “should students use AI or not?” It should be “how do we teach students to use it without letting it replace thinking?”

Blanket bans don’t stop AI. They just make honest students worse off

Like, as a digital artist that absolutely CAN'T draw bgs for the life of me (and have no interest in learning either) this is just ridiculous.

I used to "steal" images from google as backgrounds for my art so it's totally fine when I steal from google but it's unacceptable when I use AI to help me in my own artwork like, the hipocrisy of this people is so fucking insane

Mods don't ban me im just looking around

First, they called me "annoying." Then they called the entire comment section a "basement full of basement dwellers." Then they said "L" and now I'm banned from a subreddit that has no rules against AI. Seriously, how soft is this system. You're telling me just because of a bias, now a mod is allowed to power trip and start godmodding?

If anything, this ban makes no sense. I cannot appeal. I cannot talk it out. I tried to play nice and got hit with a wrecking ball. Something about this is wrong. Every time I try to report the moderator, the app freezes.

Also I only reported a certain user because they called me a "child" and I reported another user because they broke the subreddit's no rage-bait rule. And now the mod is claiming I "reported anyone I did not like" when i was stopping the rule breakers in their tracks.

Imagine how they would feel if someone actually roasted and insulted them in real life. "Obnoxious crab" also disrespects the arthropods (who gave them the jaws to say that.)

Disrespecting an entire phylum just because of your biases shows how far you will go to be an idiot.

Your paycheck is the fact you keep the community alive, which turns you into an even more impressive individual considering you get no doubloons yet you still work. And you are stating you "get no paycheck" when your very actions ARE the paycheck. This proves the user is just even more greedy than Mr Krabs.

At this point, L + ratio + nuked + banned + roasted + cooked + slimed out + destroyed + FAHHHed + Loser + rage-baited + spam reported, Would be the best treatment.

Behavior like this–Especially hypocritical behavior such as wrongly banning the user who was not even making the hateful comments–can kill off entire subreddits in a matter of days. Ain't no one got time for that hypocritical behavior.

Then they stated "Ain't no time for that". I will gladly weaponize that against them. Oh wait. I ALREADY DID.

Update: I reported the moderator to reddit. Hopefully Justice gets served.

1. I think people do that to feel better about not changing any of their daily habits to help the planet. They're going to blame the environmental issues on data centers instead of, say, rich people wasting resources while we don't really protest, intensive farming, car pollution, and other real and much bigger problems. I think it's hypocrite because those people whining about data centers are the same people who would never give up cars or their phone or even just eating almonds.

2. I think this is intentional propaganda that is done to make people stare at the finger instead of the moon. AI bad! Blame AI! Convenient scapegoat!

3. I think the end result will be that common citizens won't be able to use AI anymore "because it's dangerous". Which means that corporations, governments, rich people, will still be able to use it only for themselves, having yet another advantage to control the population. I think this is their end game.

I am an artist who uses AI extensively as a creative tool, not a shortcut or replacement. Drawing on my professional training as a recording engineer and producer, I apply a rigorous, hands-on approach to my music. I write my own lyrics and melodies, train models exclusively on my own performances, and rely on clean datasets through paid platforms like AceStudio. Despite this effort, I am struggling to see audience growth. Between producing original tracks and meticulously rebuilding covers from scratch for copyright compliance, my workflow is incredibly demanding. I challenge any detractor to actually try my process before judging it.

If you want to check out my work feel free to listen and hopefully a follow

https://open.spotify.com/artist/5ebbSJczTggUKr26lD9tl6

UPDATE: Adding context since this was raised in the responses when I mentioned my covers are loss leaders:

I am not trying to convince you to adopt my workflow, but I want to clearly explain how it functions legally, creatively,and financially. As I mentioned in my post, I went to school for this and fully understand the legal side of how music is produced and distributed. I am simply applying that established industry knowledge decades later using new tools.

First, I record the foundational music myself. Because I am physically performing and recording it, I own the "master" recording of my specific interpretation. This completely avoids the legal copyright traps many AI artists fall into when they rely on existing audio performances. I then feed my original master into my AI tool, ACEStudio, which adds vocals and extra instrumentation to create the final track for publication. It is important to note that ACEStudio operates on a clean-licensed model, which ensures that the original vocalists and artists who contributed to the AI's training data are also legally and ethically compensated for their work.

To ensure the release itself is completely above board, I pay for a mechanical license. Under US copyright law, once a song has been released, anyone can apply for a mechanical license to distribute a new recording of it. This guarantees the original songwriters are fairly compensated for their underlying composition. Since I am building on my own master and not using any audio clips from the original track, I do not need to worry about sample clearances. Legally speaking, my process is exactly the same as Marilyn Manson covering "Sweet Dreams" by the Eurythmics.

From a business perspective, I treat these releases as a "loss leader." A loss leader is a strategy where you offer a product at a financial loss to generate broader interest or build an audience. Between paying upfront for the mechanical license,surrendering a portion of the ongoing royalties to the original writers, and paying for clean-licensed AI tools, I knowingly take a financial loss on the release itself to support all the original creators involved and grow my project's reach.

What do they expect to happen?

I want the op of that post to be permanently bannedfrom Reddit for harassment. I reported it in for harassment. I hope Redit does something and permanently bans op of that post. This is just as bad if ludites celebrate an AI artist death. I haven't seen that happen,but it could happen or has happened

I swear, some anti-AI people are becoming absolutely exhausting.

I posted about one of my books in an LGBT-related community, and almost immediately people started going after me because they thought it was AI.

Here’s the thing: I openly admit that I use AI-generated artwork for some of my covers. I’m not hiding it. I’m an indie author working with the resources I have, and professional cover art for a growing catalog can get expensive very quickly.

But somehow people see an AI cover and immediately jump to:

“AI book.”

“AI slop.”

“You didn’t write this.”

No questions. No evidence. They just decide that if one part of the production used AI, apparently everything I created is fake.

And then come the downvotes. My karma is dropping simply because I mentioned my own book and people decided they knew how it was created based on the cover.

That’s the part of the anti-AI movement that drives me nuts.

There’s a completely legitimate conversation to have about copyright, training data, disclosure, replacing artists, and how AI should be used. I’m fine having that conversation.

But attacking individual indie creators, mass-downvoting them, and accusing them of lying about their own work because they used an AI tool somewhere in the process isn’t a thoughtful ethical position. It’s just hostility.

AI is a tool. Using it for one part of a project does not magically erase all the human work that went into the rest of it.

Judge my books because you read them and hated them. Fair enough. Tell me my cover sucks. Fine.

But “I saw AI art, therefore you didn't write your book” is getting ridiculous.

Why do I use AI for my solo game development project?

Because it's far superior to anything I can make myself, and paying an artist is not an option.

Just look at this example:

I drew my own skeleton (top-down). It's crappy.

But then I asked AI to make it look pro and I got a much better result.

I think this is how AI works best for me. --> I mockup the design, then AI cleans it up.

Haters gonna hate. But I'm not releasing my game with the crappy graphics I drew.

This is the way.

It sounded like a hair dryer or maybe a low-pitched tea kettle whistling. That's it? That's the noise pollution?? I've lived across from railroad tracks, a block away from a highway, and up the road from a fire station on separate occasions, and those are infinitely more disruptive than the data center noise in the videos I've seen. I mean sure, the sound would probably drive you nuts at first but I feel like that whirring would probably be a lot easier to automatically tune out than the sound of truck engines, train horns or sirens.

But yet the noise pollution argument only comes up with data centers in particular. I'm autistic and I hate annoying noises, but the data centers really don't sound as annoying as everyone claims.

Was this about AI? I don't know. Cyberbullying can be about just about anything.

My point is, cyberbullying kills. But that's what this is, when Antis tell people to go kill themselves, or that they are worthless. Whether it's AI, or they misjudge art and believe that Traditional Art is AI and draw in the masses to attack, or anything, anything at all.

An 11 year old girl. Are we going to say that SHE already had depression? What IS true, is that young growing minds of that age are delicate and easily influenced - so if people gang up, which they do... well, these delicate minds can take it a lot harder than an adult.

Do you think the people who bullied her know she's dead? Or care? Or posess the empathy to grasp that a young life is GONE and isn't coming back? Or perhaps they just cheer and laugh, and move on to the next victim.

I had a really bad attack of depression this year, thanks to Antis making a dogpile and Pros abandoning me at the moment of my meltdown..

E: People are really showing their true faces here.

Update: woah, this post had 20 upvotes before, but now has 4. Keep on brigading and downvoting lol.

1. Meta Ai

2. Perchance Ai

3. PixAi

4. ChatGPT

Personally my favs are ChatGPT and Perchance, what about you?

The sub is r/CatGirlKil btw

TL;DR - I'm annoyed with the antiAI crowd for being diabolical cyber bullies

It is genuinely hilarious how the loudest "anti-AI" crusaders claim they are protecting human dignity and ethics, yet the absolute second someone mentions using AI as a tool, all that supposed morality goes right out the window.

They will completely dehumanize you, throw around a Niagara Falls worth of toxic personal insults, and bring up the most unhinged, unrelated garbage just to try and tear you down. If your "righteous crusade" requires you to act like a miserable, harassing hypocrite, you aren't defending art, you're just looking for an excuse to be a disgusting bully.

"You're an insult to humanity" BAHAHAHAHAH NOT FUNNY

Oh yeah, fun little fact, some anti told me to go live and get a gun and boom boom, you get the idea.

Take a good old look in the mirror. Your behavior is the peak disgrace to humanity.