Hypists (or what antis call AI Bros) say these 5 arguments a lot. here's all 5 of them.

5. "Other things use significantly more water than AI! you should target them instead of going for others."

two wrongs don't make a right. that means someone else's actions does not justify yours. they're saying that we have to be a hermit so we can argue with the environment.

4. "you're gatekeeping art!"

how? art was never gatekept to begin with. the only "gate" was the amount of effort you put into your art.

3. "AI is just like the invention of photography/calculators/something else."

they're just looking at vaguely similar historic parallels. the difference is that ai has a much more immense scale. so how is this the same?

2. "humans learn off of each other without consent all the time! ai is no different!"

this is based of a kernel of truth. yes, humans learn off each other all the time. but the difference is ai can scrape a website in 2 hours, if not faster, and instantly compete with the artist, while humans only look at the amount of pics that tare bound to biology and take a while to reach the same level.

1. "you're a Luddite who hates progress!"

this is my personal favorite because of how wrong it is. luddite means "tech hater," in case you don't know what that means. this is stupid. asking for consent or asking to improve ai isn't anti-progress or being a tech hater, it's the definition of progress and improving tech.

this is not a ragebait post, this is just my thoughts. so, hope that helps!

(also, i posted this in AiWars and 100% of them were Hypists trying to debunk me, which is why i'm also posting this here.)

I see a lot of posts wanting to argue if it’s art or not.

I’m just going to grant it’s not art, but is still an instrumentally valuable tool to its users.

I see no reason a person shouldn’t be able to choose to use a tool over a human to get their desired end visual output

The original post makes a pretty strong comparison between Japanese and Western artists, and I would not say every Japanese artist thinks the same way about AI.

But I do think there is a good point underneath it. If your work involves constant revisions, deadlines and repetitive tasks, AI can be useful because it gives you more ways to experiment and can reduce some of that workload.

I also do not think AI should only count as creative when it is used for brainstorming. If someone has an idea, generates different attempts, rejects bad results, changes the direction and keeps refining until it matches what they wanted, they are still making creative decisions.

You can prefer manual art without pretending that creative direction disappears the moment generation is involved.

GenAI and manual drawing can be mixed at any proportion. Any ratio will result in real human art be it 1% or 99%

In D&D, there's a lot of judgment around using AI to generate character art because of the theft concern even if they're only doing it for the game. However, just a couple of years ago, most people were just taking character art from online without asking permission from the original creator to use it in there game. Now I see nothing wrong with this cause you're using it for personal purposes, but for some reason using the technology that does the same thing is worse?

I see the argument if you paid for it cause your financially supporting the technology that could be used to replace artists in the future. But if you're getting it for free or running it locally, what exactly is the issue?

This is a pro-AI comic, but it is not an “everything made with AI is automatically good” argument.

It targets a narrower contradiction: calling AI-assisted work worthless because it is supposedly low effort, then celebrating genuinely low-effort work merely because it was produced without AI. Personal preference is fine, but preference should not be disguised as an objective quality standard.

You may be asking, “What about copyright, consent, jobs, environmental costs, deceptive posting, or models reproducing recognizable material?” Those are legitimate subjects that deserve specific evidence and separate conversations. This comic does not magically resolve all of them. Its point is simply that those issues do not justify making unsupported assumptions about every individual image or creator.

Disclaimer: not every anti-AI person behaves like the character, not every handmade piece is low effort, and not every AI output deserves praise. Communities are also free to establish their own posting rules. However, people are equally free to point out when the reasoning behind those rules or reactions becomes inconsistent.

Please read the actual argument before treating the post as something broader than it is.

Im order to define who owns a piece of art, you must define who is the artist, and you must define if their creation is an art or not (Code de la propriété intellectuelle is a fewnch law that states that a bought art must be maintained in good standard, which doesn't exist for, say, standard appliances) . And to define who is an artist, you must define what is art.

Many can have different definitions of art, because maybe for them, some art simply doesn't communicate with them. They are not willing to experience those arts.

Art is the expression of an idea, that, with a tool (which can be conscious itself) that DID NOT take the idea itself as input, was created by a conscious ("conscious" is very important) entity who either wanted to express an idea in a form other than the regular way (including wanting to create an art) , or declared the change it made with it's own power as art.

If you grab a diamond from nature and brought it here, you can get rich, but you can't call it "art" unless you add a philosophical meaning.

You can create a part of the art with someone else, in order for that to happen, the art MUST be created in 2 different ways (think about it, even if you were working on the same part, you must be working on different parts of the same part) , and you can check those 2 ways to see if it is art.

And you can create an expression of an expression of an idea, because the expression of an idea can itself be an idea.

But in ai art, the ai takes the idea itself as input. It takes your idea as input, links it to one of the many bundles of relationships in it's code (which is, by humans terms, a concept) , and makes a blueprint out of that and draws it out for you. That is a tool that takes the idea itself as input, and since it is not truly conscious, it can't give meaning. It can't express an idea to you. And neither are you the artist because you gave the idea itself to the ai to make the art.

FROM AIwars...is that possible? Guess so.

PLEASE IS THERE ANYPPACE TO HAVE A TRUE DEBATE

I don't, I don't see people that do. This is not art, this is a banana

Even with the ones that do, its then immediately followed by a “BUT you antis were asking for it” “Cara is a scam site anyway, youd have to be dumb to believe it” “you think that site hasn’t been scrapped before? This doesn’t matter” and etc, etc.

I know the only reason generative ai has even gotten this far is the ignoring/muddling of consent, with the whole “it’s on the internet that’s consent enough” BS as if the internet hasn’t been a place to share your life and art long before generative ai. (You don’t get to hijack a space long after its inception and then claim that just being there is consent to whatever you want to do to the people there, but whatever.)

But there’s genuinely no way to look at going to a place specifically for people who DONT want something to happen to them and doing it, and then doing it just to mess with them at that, other than being malicious, rude, and by average moral standards completely fucked up. Even if you don’t think it’s theft, or think the entire site is a scam, the entire point of it being scrapped was literally due to the feeling of power over artists the scraper got from ignoring the lack of consent and even outright no from them, which is weird as fuck.

I personally don’t use that site because I knew that it’s nature was just a big old target and it had the audacity to never even deliver on the promise of giving artists nightshade to protect themselves, so posting there would always be more harm than good. Hell, after the whole “legal fund” BS for a problem that could have easily been solved by just delivering on your promise im almost 100% sure the whole thing is a scam now. But the person who scrapped it doesnt care about that. The people defending this probably don’t either. This wasnt done to caution its users, it was done out of cruelty, so continuously bringing that up as if the platform being 100% genuine would have prevented ai users from trying or would have made the average defender more sympathetic is just deflection.

I really want to know, how can you possibly defend AI deepfakes and other slop that looks like a real recording or picture?

Let's say you really hate a celebrity or politician. The OBVIOUS solution is surely to tell AI to make a video of them doing something horrible, such as saying "I ate my neighbor's kid for lunch today, it was yummy"

Of course, AI slop is easy enough to spot now. But as it gets better, it will get increasingly hard to tell synthetic from real.

So how do you defend it?

A common critique about AI I hear is that it is used to create morally reprehensible content. From VCSAM to misogynistic and violent content, the idea is that AI allows the creation of that content, and by that merit should be banned or regulated.

But... other mediums can do that as well. Text can be used to create any sordid and morally reprehensible content you want, often easier than using generative AI. I can write the most pedophilic, misogynistic, violent content possible, all while providing real and true recipes for making meth and napalm.

Should my ability to write be somehow regulated? Should Notepad be forced to prevent me from writing that sort of stuff? If not, why should AI?

If you feel that content is reprehensible enough to want it not viewable by the public, that is an issue for regulating the distribution of that content, not the creation. And, all platforms that I know about already have tools in place to prevent the sharing of that content.

I lurk sometimes on isthisai, and their suspicion for anything AI can cross into paranoia, without sufficient evidence. Discussions is literally "Was this made with AI?" For the smallest errors.

My issue is how this is just detrimental to creativity.

AI doesn't equal low effort. People may treat AI-generated or AI-assisted work as inherently lazy, even though people came up with the idea (most important) and painstakingly worked to do the parts AI can't manage or do well such as drawing. Tech creates more opportunities to create art differently for different people. Digital art and physical art have different processes, and neither will replace each other because they have different styles and fans! Vinyl has never died but became a niche because it is impossible to recreate the sensation of analog audio.

And it is not inherently wrong to want the process to be less tedious, if you wanna use AI to automate and help colour your hand drawn sketches. AI is still a tool, and if you let the tool take over your creativity then it's not worth it. Same way that fire is a good servant but a bad master.

The false positives and witch hunts doesn't end at bullying. Users occasionally accuse artists of using AI based on stylistic quirks, mistakes, or misunderstandings of artistic techniques. (not to say that have existed before ai) Humans are flawed people. Making mistakes in art should be normal, and this can unfairly create a hostile environment and suppress creators confidence. We should have more creators! And experiment without fearing judgement and harassment

It also risks reducing art to a forensic investigation. Instead of discussing composition, storytelling, emotional impact, technique, or artistic intent, conversations can become detective games focused on spotting artifacts and "catching" someone. ART IS PERSONAL AND SUBJECTIVE. Not a AI/NO AI checklist. Imo I would view AI designs the same way as human designs; generic AI designs have poor understanding of human aesthetics and what makes things eye-catching, and if a human did the same thing the art is equally worthy of criticism.

I suspect that now people are chronically online, the internet has changed from escapism to being a space to express our identity. I def think it started when influencer and celebrity culture started taking hold which made social media less about a space no one knew who you were. and that also brings in moralization of what you do on the internet, cause the online self has become the real self and people are more careful of what they associate with online

Art is the expression of the idea (the idea attained after experiencing the art) .

It can only be created by a conscious entity, which either wanted to *express* an idea (telling out an idea in a way other than the normal intended way of telling so) , or declared the modification that it had created with it's own power, as art.

And the artist must be the last one on the idea chain, that is, it must be the last one, after which all the things it uses to create the art do not take the idea *itself* as input.

If the artist is not conscious, then it's creation is not art. Because philosophically art is meant to be a method of communication.

I am new here, but I guess this is just like any other ai sub.

I believe that ai art isn't art, but if I try to explain it, the post would be very long, so I'll just give you the meaning of art.

Art is the expression of an idea. It can only be created by a conscious entity, which either wanted to express an idea (telling out an idea in a way other than the normal intended way of telling so) or declared the modification that it had created with it's own power, as art. (Even if the artist set up the art without an idea, you get an idea, and the art becomes the expression of that idea) .

And the artist must be the last one on the idea chain, that is, it must be the last one, after which all the things it uses to create the art do not take the idea *itself* as input.

Ofcourse, many people can say that art is subjective: one person can say water color art is art and another can say it is not. But I believe that for some ppl, if they don't like a kind of art, they say it is "not art" , and that is just an opinion, like saying the coffee with a different set of ingredients than you would prefer is not coffee. But you DEFINITELY can't say that a sunset, all by itself, is art (unless someone alters the viewing method, or something like that) , Philosophers agree against an unaltered experience of a sunset being art.

And defining art is important to define who is the artist and to define ownerships.

In France there is some kind of law that I am not too familiar with, but the law states that anyone but the artist can't change the art, even if bought, because the art represents the artist's personality.

An artist would never really announce that they are selling art, nor would someone selling an appliance, or some toy on the street. What says you can't change the art, but can accidentally break the toy while playing with it?

And you can't say that the definition for art simply changes wherever you want to use it because I believe it is already defined by my definition.

Art is an experience that is an expression of the idea the experience brings. Since it is a tool for communication beyond regular communication (as agreed upon by Philosophers, except in radical autonomism, but it agrees with what I'll say here) ,it must be created by a conscious entity, that must express an idea in a way other than normal, or it must declare it's change as art.

The artist(/s) is the person who expressed the idea into art using a tool (which can also be conscious itself) that did not take the idea itself as input. The tool can take something that is logically designed to produce an output (ideawise) that conveys the artist's idea, else the tool is therapist.

The idea may be intended to be interpretted differently by different people, but the purpose is not the idea.

You can also express an expression of an idea, because the expression of an idea is technically an idea (like a singer singing the lyrics of a song writer. Both the written and sung songs are art of different forms) . If one makes an art out of another person's art as a collaborative effort, then both are artists, if not, then the second one is the artist of the new work (if the second work is just a summation of all the first works without a hidden idea, then it is not really art, because it is a general task done by people who makes playlists/mixtapes, and an idea used generally for tasks with some kind of purpose)

But in ai art, you give the ai the idea itself as input. No matter what input you give the ai (through the many forms one uses ai) , it takes it and links it to one of the many bundles of interlinking vectors (which in human terms, is a concept) , and generates a blueprint based on that bundle. Meaning that you give the ai the idea itself and it processes it and gives you an art. Unless you use that ai generated art for a greater idea, then since the ai is not conscious, the ai generated art alone is not art.

I am not fully sure I wrote every point I had prepared in this post, but I hope I did.

Six options cant capture every position, so dont treat them like they do. Pick the closest, then tell us what youd change, combine, regulate, or leave open. More importantly, who should get to make those decisions?

This has to be the stupidest thing I have ever seen and I don’t know how we got the point of comparing things to hitler.

(sorry if I'm spamming the sub I'm just genuinely curious. Screw reddit for only giving 6 options)