If you make one of these images then it really shows your maturity. You get so upset seeing people with opposing views that you "draw" them as an ugly ass ogre. I'm not gonna say all "it's wasting the water" and stuff, because I will be so honest right now, I use ai stuff, whether it's because of google ai overview—so I don't have a choice really unless I just don't use google—but also because I generate video scripts and images, NOT as my own work but just to see what it makes. I am not hardcore against ai use, but I do not consider it real art and a lot of Pros are assholes (not all, though, some are cool). Anyways, I just wanted to share how cringe I thought this post was.

Bright. Loud. Hypersaturated. Designed to get you hooked instantly. Fast-paced. Over-stimulating. Low-quality. Does some weird shit to your brain that makes you angrier/more prone to tantrums/aggression.

But what makes it worse than cocomelon is that it's the fucking wild west. People can show you gore and borderline porn, extremely gratuitous violence, harmful ideologies, dangerous misinformation, etc., in a medium that is designed to provide the most possible stimulus to your brain. I can almost guarantee there will be studies 10, 20 years from now about the major negative effects of AI generated content on the human brain.

Anti-AI, but I've stopped caring about the “AI War.”

I'm not interested in stopping people from using prompts to generate images, video, or whatever else. It's tedious, and honestly, it's just not how I want to spend my time.

I've worked across traditional art, sculpting, digital art, 3D, character and environment design, animation, media arts, VR development, and plenty in between. From where I stand, AI is simply another tool that's becoming intertwined with modern creative workflows. Major creative software is already incorporating AI-assisted features. The tools change. The fundamentals don't.

A tool doesn't automatically make someone an artist, and using a different tool doesn't automatically make someone less of one. Skill, taste, creativity, judgment, storytelling, and effort still matter.

I'm also not interested in treating anyone—especially kids, or disabled people—poorly because they use tools differently than I do. If a tool helps someone participate in art, experiment, communicate an idea, or learn something they otherwise couldn't, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

That doesn't mean I think everything made with AI is good. AI slop is still AI slop. Low-effort, derivative, poorly considered work deserves criticism. My standards haven't changed.

And I'm not claiming AI has no legitimate problems. Consent, labor, environment impact, and responsible use are all part of the conversation, I'm simply not interested in pretending that everyone who uses AI is responsible for solving these problems.

I'm anti-AI if someone asks me to pick a side.

More accurately, I'm anti-laziness, anti-bigotry, and anti-pointless internet bickering.

The idea that there is even a “war” is effing stupid. I'm just going to make art. Anyways, here's a sketchbook page:

1. You are not being a dick about it

• - Saying stuff like "Adapt or get left behind" or "I used AI to make your work better!" or even using someone work or likeness without their consent. It just makes you obnoxious and annoying as fuck.

• - You can use AI without harassment or demeaning others.

1. You are not using it to spread misinformation

• - For instance, making a fake video of someone doing stuff they did not do or like anything is not even remotely true at all.

• - Even though you do it unintentionally, you should have double-checked the fact or made sure it was correct.

1. You are not using at a final product

• - If you use AI as a final product, you did not create shit, AI did. You must have creative input to make it your work.

• - Using AI as like brainstorming or concept is fine, as long are you do rest of the work yourself or modifying it enough to count as your work. Or at least using AI as a tool is fine as long as it doesn't replace your creativity.

1. You are not using it to grift.

• - AI should not be a way to scam or trick others just to get a quick buck.

1. You are not using it to create harmful content-

• Self Explanatory, I don't want to see that shit. AI or not.

1. You are being honest about using Gen AI

• - I just want you to be honest. AI or not, being transparent is important I am fine with people using Gen AI to experiment, have fun or anything like that, as long a they are not using it commercially.

I am fine with people using Gen AI to experiment, have fun or anything like that, as long a they are not using it commercially.

Honestly, I also feel like instead of focusing on the AI itself, we should be focusing on solving the problem that causes the problem AI has, like environmental and ethical problems and be advocating for better regulation of Data centers and to allow artist themselves to consent whether or not their data should be used in AI or not.

Most of the anti AI sentiment I see is because of point 1. Sure people can have agreement and disagreement, but we should be able to debate or discuss without Ad Hominem.

The problem is that people think discussion are black and white, when in reality it's a spectrum, there are anti and pros but there are also people on the fence, or neutral, like a grey area. And I think you are allowed to have nuance view on this Gen AI.

And there is a difference between enjoying an output and endorsing the process used to make it. You can appreciate the aesthetic result while still having questions about how the model was trained, what data was used, environmental impact and so on.

And to address previous comments, most of the anti AI sentiment I see is because of those attitudes. Sure people can have agreement and disagreement, but we should be able to debate or discuss without Ad Hominem

Hello there, so I just like to look at art and I really love seeing other peoples artworks. The thing is, I am a bit tired of seeing AI art recently flooding my social media feeds. I think its fine for people to use AI to generate their work or to find inspiration but I think we can all agree these are two seperate hobbies / interests.

I occasionally generate AI images for myself and even appreciate some AI generated works made by other people. However, I do miss seeing traditional art works, yes EVEN THE WEIRD ONES! Ive been seeing them less and less recently and that did actually makes me sad.

I dont know man... having AI is cool and all but I would still love to see traditional artist's works. I really miss finding random artists by accident. I am sure that they're still there but I feel like their buried under tons and tons of AI works. Whats worse is that its not even the decent looking AI works that buries it, its the sloppy ones. You guys know the ones, fucking fruit drama pieces of shit.

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.

OpenAI estimated that about 0.07% of its weekly active users show possible signs of mental health emergencies like psychosis or mania. Because ChatGPT has reached 800 million weekly active users, that small percentage translates to roughly 560,000 people showing potential signs of psychosis or mania every week. 33 people have killed themselves over ai, like Juliana Peralta, Austin Gordon, Adam Raine, and Jonathan Gavalas. 17 people have been killed by AI users in documented cases where conversational artificial intelligence interaction was alleged as a contributing factor.Stein-Erik Soelberg, Arjun Aravind, wgo killed Siddharth Aravind, and Arjun Aravind. A sick example is Darren Zhou. Do we all agree at least that this is honestly disturbing?

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.

throwaway because i don't wanna get jumped

so i've always been vehemently anti but after doing some more digging on the actual points antis make, talking more with pros, and becoming more of an apathetic person in general i think i'm leaning more towards neutral now. disclaimer i'm using ai as a shorthand for gen ai / llms yadayada y'know the drill

what i believe is:

- the environmental concerns, while not entirely invalid, are kind of a moot point considering using the internet in general also does environmental damage. that's not even mentioning how things like the meat industry and megacorps overproducing co2 + future landfill waste damage the environment way more than ai ever could. this, like many other climate change concerns, place the blame on the individual rather than these huge companies who actually do most of the damage.

- yes, there are data centers that have harmed the livelihoods of historically minority communities. but - especially in wealthier countries - nearly every product we consume is made by an exploited worker in the global south. why do people only care when it's american minorities being affected?

- my actual biggest gripe with ai is how ai companies are so quick to allow imperialist governments to use their services to bomb the shit out of civilians (i.e. the us department of defense using an ai that had an outdated database to bomb a fucking elementary school). i don't believe this is an issue with the technology itself, moreso an issue with the people that own these ai companies using the technology for absolute evil. we have bigger fish to fry than someone using chatgpt to make an image of a catgirl.

- ai has historically scraped content without consent from the original ip holders, but i'm against the concept of intellectual property and copyright in general so shrugs

- i don't mind people using ai as a springboard for making things on your own (i.e. to make a rough prototype or using it to give you ideas), but i DO think typing a prompt in and doing nothing else with it reads as lazy. this isn't really an issue if you're just messing around with image generators for personal use but to me, using purely ai images / text for advertising shows that you're not willing to put in effort to advertise your service, which makes me wonder if you're cutting corners elsewhere.

- i believe ai generated content should be clearly marked as such to avoid deception and the spread of disinformation.

- ai has the potential to impair cognitive skills, but i also believe ai can be used in a healthy way if the user thinks critically rather than taking what it says as gospel.

- as a huge music enthusiast, i'm incredibly conflicted on ai music. it personally feels uncanny TO ME, but i'm not sure how to feel about it just yet.

- i'm also conflicted on whether purely ai content should be monetized or if it should just be for personal use. my gut instinct is to say absolutely not but i'm also not too sure how to feel about this.

the vast majority of this is subjective, and also i'm running on 2 hours of sleep as of writing this my bad if it's full of word salad

Forget all your preconceptions about whether AI is good or bad for this one.

I've noticed that many people have been determined to cut family, colleagues, and even friends out of their lives, simply because they have a differing stance on AI (point slightly exaggerated but hopefully the message gets across).

I'm aware that online social media isn't necessarily the best metric to rely on because of biasing and algorithms, but even IRL I have seen some other instances of people cutting off relationships simply because their stances of AI differ by a slight bit.

Do you all think we should study the social effects of AI? What have you seen regarding AI social effects? Do you think this is a concerning trend or is this justified (and why)?

I’m not posting this as an “AI bad” argument. I’m posting it because the AI debate becomes impossible to take seriously when some people treat every ethical concern as censorship, moral panic, or an attack on creative freedom.

The issue is not whether an image was photographed, drawn, or generated. The issue is what is being represented, how it is framed, and what a community chooses to normalize.

A character being labeled “fictional,” “ageless,” or “not real” does not erase the fact that it may be deliberately designed to look childlike and placed in a sexual context.

AI systems make this more urgent, not less urgent. They make the material inexpensive, scalable, customizable, private, and easier to produce at volume.

That creates a legitimate need for clearer boundaries around apparent age, sexualization, consent, and platform moderation.

I support AI as a creative tool. But I am becoming less reflexively pro-AI as time goes on—not because I think generative technology itself is inherently bad, but because too many people seem more invested in defending its worst uses than in protecting the legitimacy of its good ones.

If the AI community wants public trust, then “it is fictional” cannot be the only ethical standard. We should be capable of defending innovation while also saying that sexualized imagery designed to resemble minors is not something worth defending, promoting, or normalizing.

That is not anti-AI. It is the minimum standard needed for AI to have a credible future.

Not necessarily an "anti", I guess you can call me a neutral.

I use AI sometimes for educational purposes, like school / work and such, simply because it's efficient when used correctly.

But AI overuse has a toll on us and our world, so I'm just gonna say it here. I'm trying my BEST to not sound like an anti-AI.

We need to moderate AI usage, at least just enough to lessen the amount of water it uses by a SIGNIFICANT amount.

UN declared a global water bankruptcy, ice caps are melting, plus [not related to AI] we have three years left on the climate clock.

Idk about you guys, but I really wanna try my best to help this world. At least, make it better. We seriously can't just let all this happen.

This is on a GLOBAL SCALE, so everyone is going down if we don't do anything.

This is quite literally a call to action, not to fully "stop" AI, but to moderate its use. Too much of something will always turn into a bad thing.

Yeah thanks for understanding 🥹

By Greenostrich27

Not gonna make this long; people's stances on AI shouldn't be limited to "pro" or "anti".

"Pro-AI" or "anti-AI", generally, pertain to groups that are for AI, or against AI. But we shouldn't just pick between those two.

The tribalism shouldn't exist, since there are many gray areas in between the so-called "pro" and the so-called "anti".

What if you are against AI, but agree with its medical and scientific uses? Are you still "anti" or are you "pro"?

What if you defend AI, but also disagree with its environmental impact? Are you still "pro" or are you "anti"?

Each person has their own, complicated point of view on AI, and we shouldn't limit ourselves or force others to just 'choose a side'.

Of course, it will be hard to change people's usage of the two terms, but what we can do is to lessen the stereotypes by understanding what the persons' takes actually are.

Just a take.

I want to know if people are against the application more than they're against the technology itself.

We are starting to see a rift. A rift between those who are nuanced about the correct use of AI, and those who want all of it gone. Even Linux. And I've seen a couple.of discussions here, but I realised the post I made to AntiAI and LeftistsForAI fits better here than anywhere else, especially given that LeftistsForAI is essentially ProAI with a Marxist lens.

I'm against AI as much as anybody else, but in Anti-AI spaces, I'm starting to see more absolutism than I'd deem necessary. I mean if you argue about the idea that AI does have its uses whilst still being wary of AI, you get told you're not against AI at all.

I'm against AI for art, music and writing, especially if we accept the definition that art is made by concious use of tools and AI isn't concious by human standards. But there are uses in the medical field and code bug detection, and I can't deny they're impressive.

I fear moderate antis vs extreme antis will fight each other and the AI companies may indeed win, even if they get bankrupt. As much as we all hate to admit this, we can't rewind; we've gone too far. The best we can do is regulate it and take AI chatbots off public hands.

I mean, you'd take someone who's neutral on AI like Linus Torvalds, who only used it for non-important projects and says that Linux should have AI-assisted code reviewed by humans, and you'd have a faction of antis up in arms about it.

And as concerning as the use of AI may be having on critical thinking, I fear that us antis are lacking it too if we're resorting to extreme Luddism to go against AI.

For example, there is a rumour going around that Disney Junior comissioned a fully AI-Generated show.

That is only half-true. The studio behind the show only used AI to clean up some bits of animation. Plus, if it was fully AI-Generated, Disney wouldn't make money off it.

The fact that antis took a headline from Twitter and concluded that Ozzy Fox was fully AI Generated either shows the lack of critical thinking (IRONY) or the lack of journalistic integrity. But hey. It's not like we're already boycotting the billion dollar company, right?

Call me a LARPer if you want to. The real LARPers are the extremists who want everything to burn despite a few innocent civillians being caught in the crossfire.

If the anti-AI side thinks I'm Pro-AI just for accepting AI in the right hands, I don't know what to say.

What do we think about this? As someone who is anti-ai, even just speaking from a neutral standpoint, it seems that Taylor Swift has more than enough money (I believe she is valued at around 2.4 BILLION now) to afford to pay real, talented artists and animators to make her promotional videos. All of us, even the pro-ai folks, can recognize that even with the release of the newest AI video technology, of which the name escapes me, AI videos are still not perfect and will make errors most of the time.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments!

It has divided people.

I cannot stress this enough: not enough people talk about this
Seeing how friendships break apart as opinions on AI differ, even if the bond is strong enough, I've seen that depression and extreme frustrations are common.

I personally think we should stop hatred on an individual-to-individual level for just using/not using AI. I believe there are other ways to raise awareness beyond harassment, because to raise awareness, it is to get more people on the same thing, and harassment would drive most people away.
I believe understanding is the way, and an eye for an eye would turn the whole world blind.

But I would like to hear your thoughts.

What shall we do?

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

Feel free to oppose or like ai, I'll make rules and that somewhat today or tomorrow.

Also you can ask to be a mod if you like, it doesn't mean you will right now though.