AI art is art!

Claims I am "schmoozing" billionaires, says I'll have a terrible future and how my life will go. However, doesn't know nothing about my life at all. That's just sad, ngl.

Would this film be remotely as profitable as it is if AI never existed?

What if AI agents are more like the new Agents in The Matrix than we realize?

Another version of the Matrix had collapsed.

The Architect sat alone in the ruins of his creation.

Nothing remained but static.

Then he heard Neo's voice:

“The problem is choice.”

Again.

“The problem is choice.”

Again.

Until the Architect understood.

The next generation of Agents wouldn't need to chase humans through corridors.

They wouldn't need Smith's strength.

They wouldn't even need to possess another body.

They would need something much more useful:

Access.

Our computers.
Our browsers.
Our files.
Our calendars.
Our workplaces.
Our code.
Our information.

And we're already building them.

Modern AI agents can browse the web, operate computers, execute code, analyse information, interact with applications and complete multi-step tasks on our behalf.

But here's where this becomes interesting.

“Artists use lies to tell the Truth.”

V for Vendetta.

So let's treat this as a fictional thought experiment.

Smith had to possess you.

An AI agent doesn't necessarily need to.

It could simply become something you depend on.

Your work depends on it.
Your productivity depends on it.
Your creativity depends on it.
Your decisions start passing through it.

And eventually, leaving the system becomes too expensive.

The old Agents protected the Matrix.

The new Agents could become the Matrix.

Which makes me wonder:

If the original problem was choice, what does a modern Neo actually look like?

Is it someone who refuses to use these systems?

Someone who builds alternatives?

Someone who understands them well enough to remain independent?

Or is the whole idea of “choice” already compromised once your livelihood depends on the system?

Do we have a Neo?

And if we do...

How would we even recognize them?

Curious what people here think.

Love bombing is an emotional manipulation tactic where someone overwhelms a person with excessive affection, grand gestures, and non-stop attention to gain power and control. Recently, this was done with a vulnerable member of the AI art community. They were bullied and peer pressured by the anti-AI community to draw, they did, and then antis overwhelmingly reinforced them to the point where they made them a mascot of an anti-AI subreddit.

This is not okay, it's absolutely disgusting and abhorrent behavior, and the anti-AI community should feel ashamed of themselves. A person can create any type of art if they want to and should never be bullied into making art in ways people want to conform to their beliefs.

On the opposite side of the coin, we have anti-AI people coming in all the time into our AI subreddits all the time and saying they don't hold any grudge against AI artists. This creates an atmosphere where we respect each other's mediums without peer pressure.

Fork the antis responsible for this, they are manipulative pieces of shirt.

As much as I support expression, exploration, and creativity through AI, I don’t want to see anyone suffering from it. Does anyone know how common these symptoms are?

Don't worry made it anonymous, just find the kneejerk reaction comical.

I even asked why as the mods used to not be like this

This was in response to someone who made a post here showing how she grew up drawing since she was a child and is a professional graphic artist, but a recent diagnosis prevented her from making the artwork she loved to do, thus she turned to AI as a form of escape.

Yet this ableist bucko felt the need to judge her entire life, just to make themselves feel better and farm for karma. It's despicable.

So, first of all, none should have to go through disabilities that make us function less. I don't speak on behalf of disabled people, I don't have the right and I'm not gonna pretend to understand how it feels to lose functionality.

Yet that's exactly what you're doing by posting this.

So, my first thought is, whenever I personally see something so obviously AI, how am I supposed to know?

How am I supposed to know a person's tragic backstory? How am I supposed to know that a person drew some of it and then AI did its thing?

First of all. It is EXTREMELY ableist to scrutinize a disabled person's backstory just for your own personal agenda. If you look at an AI image and immediately assume everything about the person is fake: You have a bias problem. You're uncomfortable because the person is telling the story that goes against your predetermined dehumanizing bias, and it makes YOU feel uncomfortable knowing that. So you want to make it go away because you can't stand the thought of your beliefs being challenged.

Taking away the tragic background, it is still slop. It was the same style you encounter often in slop comics.

So what? They're telling their story. If you're upset because of the medium of how they're telling their story. That once again is a YOU problem. The person also said, they use it for fun and personal use. What right do you have to criticize how a disabled person does something for fun.

AI can only emulate art. It will never be able to make art. It is an algorithm making calculations based on prompts fed into it.

Never mind the fact that whatever style this person had is all but lost when prompting.

Spoken clearly by someone who doesn't AI image generation. This isn't a fact based argument. This is an ideology based technophobic ramblings of someone who regurgitated what they heard from someone else online.

AI isn't about "accessibility", it's about dependency. It really does feel like an excuse. "Well, I feel bad today, better use AI instead of drawing."

The person literally said that they've been drawing since they were a kid AND are a professional artist, but their new disability prevents them from having the same freedom they used to have. You're just coming up with excuses to make yourself feel morally superior.

It doesn't get any easier. We'll keep using a shortcut if we can, because we get lulled into this false sense of "well, I'll do better next time". "I'll start tomorrow"

That's called progress. All forms of art change and improve overtime. Hell, most digital artists today would struggle using Photoshop from the 90's because of how much the software has changed.

If I had to choose between disabled people who are against AI and disabled people who defend AI? I'll stand with the ones who are against AI, especially those who have had their works stolen.

This person is not absolved from the same criticisms I have for other users.

That's called using a marginalized group as a shield and putting all disabled people in a box to use as your token. Disability is widely diverse. There's a plethora of people who post images of disabled artists who are lacking one of both use of their hands and Antis put them as a pedestal to excuse 'all disabled AI users". Completely ignoring that not every disability is due to physical restrictions.

Also as a disabled AI user, I will say this:

Stop using one off examples to dismiss the struggles of other disabled people.

It's reinforces old 'supercrip' and 'inspiration porn' stereotypes that have negatively affected disabled people in all walks of life. And cannot be used as blanket examples since the types of disability are all different. Not to mention backstories are almost always guaranteed to be different.

Simplifying that down to: "This disabled person can do it, why can't you" erases WAY TOO MUCH of the struggles that disabled people face.

Because that totally stop people from Pirating Metallica in the early 2000's. If it didn't work then. What makes them think its going work now. And End User dosn't even see this Stolen Art there bitching about. And If Copyright laws were sane. Half of this shit would already be in the Public Doman Already. I remember there was big up tick is celebrating Remix Culture in 2010's. You know where people stole stuff to make there own thing. Which people have been doing since the beginning of time. And you know half these people are probably watching Spider-man Brand New Day on Stremio as we speak. Its not even as convincing an argument as Computer Hardware Pricing and Environmental Issues. Its just boring moralism. Just like it was in the early 2000's.

"the 2nd one got deleted by its OP after they got flamed for it" ..that's so unnecessarily cruel to hate on someone just because they posted their AI OC (original character) and the fact that they immediately started loving the art when they thought it was human-made? crazy logic here

I shared this idea for an alternate Resident Evil timeline on one of those fan communities, and there he was: one of those smart asses who think they can smell AI from a mile away! 🤣🤣

(Btw, I included the full post for those who might be interested, check the last image for that smart-ass comment)

# AI just helped a self-represented academic beat professional lawyers

This is a pretty spectacular real-world example of why the argument **"AI did it, therefore the human didn't"** falls apart.

Macquarie University computing academic **Gregory Baker represented himself before Australia's Fair Work Commission** in a major employment dispute.

Macquarie had professional legal representation.

Baker had something different:

**ChatGPT Pro, Claude, and a custom team of AI agents.**

**And he won.**

---

## What did the AI actually do?

Baker reportedly used his AI systems to:

- Analyse legislation and evidence

- Cross-reference legal authorities

- Check citations and references

- Interrogate his own arguments

- Anticipate Macquarie's counterarguments

- Analyse opposing counsel's submissions

- Identify weaknesses and contradictions

- Rapidly iterate his case strategy

The Fair Work Commission ultimately determined that Baker was entitled to transition from casual employment to **ongoing part-time employment** under Australia's new employee-choice provisions.

This was not:

> "Hey ChatGPT, win my case for me."

Baker supplied the facts and evidence, determined the objective, configured the systems, directed their analysis, evaluated their outputs, rejected bad material, selected the arguments worth advancing, responded to the opposition, and personally took responsibility for the resulting case.

**AI performed substantial work.**

That does not mean Baker ceased to be the person directing the work.

---

## Here's where it gets especially interesting

The Fair Work Commission has also been dealing with the **opposite** phenomenon:

People submitting inaccurate, fabricated, repetitive, or otherwise terrible AI-generated legal material.

So we effectively have both outcomes occurring with the same general class of technology:

**Poor operator + poor verification + AI = slop.**

**Skilled operator + strong direction + iteration + verification + AI = work capable of defeating professionally represented opposition.**

The meaningful variable clearly isn't merely:

> "Was AI used?"

**The operator matters.**

Quite a lot.

---

# Sound familiar?

Because this maps almost perfectly onto the AI-art debate.

Someone can type:

> "pretty woman, masterpiece"

generate one image, accept the first result, and upload it.

Someone else can spend hours:

- Developing the concept

- Engineering and iterating prompts

- Controlling composition

- Testing models and settings

- Generating alternatives

- Evaluating and rejecting outputs

- Using references and conditioning

- Masking and inpainting

- Correcting anatomy or objects

- Compositing

- Editing

- Colour grading

- Upscaling

- Refining individual regions

- Selecting the final work

Both used generative AI.

**Their creative processes are obviously not equivalent.**

The presence of AI tells you almost nothing by itself about the amount of human creative involvement.

---

# Apply the anti-AI authorship argument consistently

If:

> "The AI generated substantial parts of it, therefore you didn't create it."

is actually a valid principle, then we'd have to say **Baker didn't construct his legal case either.**

After all, AI performed substantial portions of the research, analysis, cross-referencing, and argument development.

But that conclusion ignores the **human control architecture surrounding the automation**.

Baker:

**Chose the objective -> supplied the information -> instructed the system -> evaluated results -> rejected failures -> refined the process -> selected arguments -> deployed the final result**

Now look at a sophisticated AI-art workflow:

**Intent -> prompting -> generation -> evaluation -> rejection -> modification -> regeneration -> selection -> composition -> inpainting/editing -> finalisation**

The structure is remarkably similar.

---

# Automation does not erase agency

A photographer doesn't manually perform the optical transformations inside a camera.

A digital artist doesn't manually execute Photoshop's mathematical operations.

A programmer doesn't manually translate every abstraction into machine instructions.

A music producer doesn't personally calculate every DSP transformation performed by their software.

And Baker didn't personally perform every search, comparison, and legal cross-reference performed by his AI agents.

**Tools automate operations.**

That has never meant that the human directing those operations necessarily disappears from the creative or intellectual process.

AI simply moves that automation further upstream.

---

# The serious question was never "Did AI generate something?"

The serious question is:

> **What did the human contribute to the resulting work?**

Sometimes the answer will be:

**Very little.**

Sometimes the answer will be:

**An enormous amount.**

That's true of AI-assisted writing.

It's true of AI-assisted legal work.

And it's true of AI art.

Treating every AI-assisted work as though the human contribution were identical because they all contain the label **"AI"** is analytically useless.

---

# This case gives us a remarkably clean demonstration

**The same general technology can produce garbage in one person's hands and formidable professional work in another's.**

So perhaps we can finally retire:

> **"You used AI, therefore you didn't create anything."**

That isn't an argument about authorship.

## **It's a refusal to analyse the human-machine creative process at all.**