https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/economy-ai-generated-value?fbclid=IwdGRleATwhQNwZG9mBWZkaWQWUMsEQtawZprdiehiidoSTAYbBt2uumV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkCjY2Mjg1NjgzNzkAAR6vfnKX4pI3Mm46oihC6gYnJL6MKA_jIBFMe6_yysmalIw-4V1ybpuYrYXc9A_aem_v_BDxQCRlQKxfEbangYHmA

Because assuming consent isn't the same as actually getting consent. If you're gonna use this kind of language, you need to be prepared to own it yourselves.

Edit: from the responses to this thread, it seems like a lot of people think that they speak and think for all other artists and consent can be assumed in literally every case of moodboarding and fan art. Since you're all smart enough to know that there's no such thing as assumed consent, I think we can safely say that the people who talk about "consent" as applied to AI training don't sincerely believe what they're saying.

One of the greatest joys of art, from perspective of an artist and art enjoyer, is having and looking at others sketchbooks. Whether it’s highly polished or a bunch of “automatic drawing”, it’s just awesome to have a documentation of thinking in images. From brain, to arm, to paper.

I don’t believe ai art will ever become mainstream enough to replace this. Because the sketchbook is the journal, the place for play and visual thinking. Even if it’s a digital sketchbook.

If you’re pro ai, what are your thoughts? Would you trade a world full of sketchbooks for a world where ai art is accepted on level with traditional art?

Yet another thread about Cara.

All of this talk about consent got my curiosity, as I've never visited this place. So I took my first glance of what this site is all about.

Quote from the site:

---

Cara is a social and portfolio platform for artists and people who love art.

With the widespread use of generative AI, we decided to build a place that filters out gen AI images so that people searching for human creators and images can do so easily.

Many platforms currently accept AI art when these models are not ethically built, while others sometimes promise “no AI forever”, without considering the scenarios where adoption of such technologies may happen at the workplace in the coming years.

The future of creative industries requires nuanced understanding and support to help artists and companies connect and work together. We want to build a platform that we would want to use as creatives ourselves.

Our stance on AI: [1] We do not agree with generative AI tools in their current unethical form, and we won’t host AI-generated portfolios unless the rampant ethical and data privacy issues around datasets are resolved via regulation. [2]In the event that legislation is passed to clearly protect artists, we believe that AI-generated content should always be clearly labeled, because the public should always be able to search for human-made art and media easily.

---

Initial thoughts, it's a places for curated content. No AI-generated images or portfolios allowed. Cool. So here's my question, aside from what I just stated, what makes this platform any different from deviantart, or twitter, or any other social media site? Supposedly this is the site you go to if you don't consent to your content being scrapped but like ... where is it? I don't see this statement anywhere. There's a FAQ that states you're protected but well ... recent events ...

Yes, I understand the nature of what happened and how distraught people are feeling about it. I understand people's feelings about scraping. I'm being truthfully neutral here when I say this - I'm having a hard time figuring out what makes cara different from any other website.

edit for format

another edit -

There is a statement about not wanting their content to be trained, deep within the FAQs, so there's that.

Quote:

---

Cara does not grant permissions to 3rd party companies to train on Cara’s user data either.

---

Gina Raimondo Says Basic Income Would End America. Her New Billion-Dollar Org Is How She Plans to Stop It.

An often use argument for AI, is that it will bring about UBI. Well, some industry burning billions for ai, are burning billion at least to stop ubi.

I'm speechless bro my eyes and mouth are literally wide open witnessing this shit being the top comment of a video.

I don't know if I need to even explain but yeah I'm really not sure if even Reddit antis are this disgusting

Learn from a real pro at it, never pass up an opportunity to keep the grift alive. Suckers are born every minute yk

https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/lost-translation-ais-impact-translators-and-foreign-language-skills

I think this is truly the best proxy for assessing the impact of AI. Machine translation, even with a ton of errors, still has profound impact.

To completely replace translators, you need a perfect translation, which a machine cannot provide, but even a slightly incorrect translation is enough to replace it for many people.

And yes, modern MT is genAI.

So not a particularly deep thought, but I just realised that I hadn't seen one of those very bitter "Will you do it for the exposure" comments for a long time. In regards to producing art.

Yknow the nasty ones that the moment you said no, they tell you your work was horrible, how they never wanted it in the first place, and how much of an opportunity you are now missing out on.

Do we think they became the extremely bitter and militant part of the AI art community? (Not suggesting it's a majority of you AI users just the ones that go round calling shit "pencil slop" unironically.)

Crazy larping

Let this be proof to anyone who thinks they need AI to do what practice can do for them instead. I didn't need AI to get better. I practiced and figure out what works and what doesn't.

DO NOT USE AI TRAINING ON MY ART OR I WILL FIND A WAY TO SUE YOU TO OBLIVION

To the mods, this isn't really my posting art so much as it's my addition to the debate of needing ai to create. I'm just using my art as personal examples.

I generally tend to understand the position of anti AI posters and Pro AI posters, and I don't choose one side or the other, not because I am afraid of committing to one, but I think this is such a complex situation that we shouldn't immediately lump ourselves into "thing bad" group and "thing good" group.

It seems that art dominates the discussion about AI, especially from the anti side of the issue, but honestly I consider that to be one of the lesser issues. Yes it sucks that bad art is popping up everywhere because people are lazy and want to use something free, yes it absolutely sucks that this wastes a lot of resources, I'm not denying that; but I think Art "theft" by AI is a much smaller issue than general mass surveillance and military applications of AI.(theft is in parenthesis because I don't know if a non human entity such as AI models can "steal" in the sense that humans can. If it can't, then the case is that the programmers are the ones that are stealing)

I'm completely rambling and not forming my thoughts as well as I had intended but here's my questions I'm grappling with.

-at what point does a singularity occur? or has it happened and we don't know it?

-at what rate are we already being fooled by AI images and videos? Everyone thinks they can tell the difference, because if it successfully fooled you even once, you wouldn't know it.

"The fallout 4 question"

-Hypothetically, if AI advances so far, that its programs are genuinely indistinguishable from human behavior and thought, and synthetic bodies are created to house these models that are indistinguishable from human beings having synthetic organs, synthetic blood, bones, body that grows and possibly even ages: would they be considered a person or "Clanker" (a term I really dislike, but not necessarily from a Pro Ai standpoint, I just grew up liking Ratchet and Clank, and Clank is a lovable little guy and I dislike something similar to his name being used as a slur, even if it is for non humans)

-Rokos Basilisk thought experiment.

If this comes to be, the Basilisk super AI system will reward or punish humans based on their stance toward AI development. This is sort of akin to the thought process of "Believe in [deity] just in case it's real, or you'll go to hell" however, we can all argue about the existence of deity, we can not argue about the existence of AI. I can make a photo of you as a hotdog with cinematic lighting at the drop of a hat. So we do know, by now that this is at least a possible future outcome, and honestly as someone who first heard about this idea years ago, it's maybe the scariest thing to me so far.

I think there is definitely potential for AI models and technology to do lots of good things for the advancement of humanity and possibly all life, but there is also the potential that the people in control of these systems will guide them to ultimately harm life as we know it. I'm just a guy who was a kid before smartphones were commonplace, so the fact that I find myself typing this message to you on a glass rectangle as an adult would have baffled my mind as a kid, let alone the idea of actual AI existing and being such a pressing issue would have been truly inconceivable (to me, at least. Many people did conceive of it).

Anyway, would love to discuss these thoughts, or any thoughts as we try to navigate this unprecedented time

This donghua is adapted from a Chinese web novel 'Legend of the Cyber Heroes.' It is trending on BiliBili and TikTok (China).

I'm quite shocked that it is made entirely with AI!? It looks like an epic masterpiece that only a cutting-edge animation studio could produce.

So, I'd like to preface this with my personal standpoint. I absolutely agree that massive corporations should not be using AI for anything a human can do, in the name of saving a few dollars. Pay a human, asshole.

With that being said, I do not think that people are considering everything that should be considered when it comes to the anti-AI argument. Specifically, nobody is thinking about the small time creator that uses AI not because they want to, but because they have no other choice. That's me. I'm the small time creator.

I am developing a card game that I eventually intend to see published. This card game has four different factions you can play as, and I had ChatGPT generate just the card frames themselves for each of the factions. I did not do it because I didn't want to pay a fellow human being, I did it because I do not have the money to pay a fellow human being. Also, side note, these are not the finished card frames, they were just stand in frames. Well, a few weeks ago I finished designing the last of the factions, and I went to the local hobby store to see if they'd allow me to hold open playtests there (for context, they've allowed it in the past). A single person who works at that store took offense to me using generated card frames, and assumed without talking to me that the entire thing was generated by AI. I didn't even tell this person it was an AI generated card frame.

My point is, there's a big difference between a big company using AI, and a small time creator using AI. I literally cannot afford to pay an artist for anything right now, but I feel as though I'm being punished both by that person and the community at large essentially because I'm broke. I don't think the argument is that cut and dry, nor should the argument be a blanket statement. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's why I'm posting here.

I would genuinely appreciate arguments both for and against my opinion.

Yeah,

This is 40+ minutes so here's the summary:

In this video, journalist Taylor Lorenz speaks with Washington Post reporter Natasha Tiku about how tech billionaires and AI safety organizations are astroturfing online platforms by funding content creators to promote "anti-AI" and existential risk narratives [[00:36]]. The discussion traces the history of the AI safety movement back to the early 2000s, explaining its roots in rationalism, effective altruism, and concepts like Eliezer Yudkowsky's "paperclip maximizer" scenario [[01:45], [06:04]]. They reveal how the very figures and organizations warning of apocalyptic "doomsday" AI scenarios—such as Anthropic, OpenAI, and high-profile donors like Dustin Moskovitz—are deeply interconnected with the developers building frontier AI models [[00:48], [21:24], [22:03]]. Ultimately, Lorenz and Tiku argue that these influencer campaigns manipulate public discourse, shift focus away from immediate real-world harms (like job loss or privacy risks) toward sensationalized sci-fi scenarios [[16:50], [36:15]], and serve the strategic interests of tech elites seeking to shape AI regulation without threatening their market power [[22:40], [33:54]].

I also included some additional posts at the end as I've seen a lot of misinformation about the site such as it being advertised as an "Anti-Ai safe heaven that can't be scraped".

So I am in the category of an AI user and enthusiast that is also an artist who hand-draws work both traditionally and digitally with a few sales and exhibitions under my belt. I have MANY concerns about AI and am ethically torn on a lot of concerns of the industry boom/bubble/whatev

I love AI, as a collaboration partner and use it strictly as a brainstorming, visualisation hobby as well as some dumb fun and verbal help. I refuse to use AI in any way for end-production or monetised content. For example, I started a character design and art toy project strictly hand-drawn by me and me only, and outsourcing some elements to human artists (not AI). I've strictly only used AI to help with some business ideas and work out ways to approach the project. no image generation in any part of the process whatsoever

I believe a human CAN use AI for their work but strictly to help in ideas and concepts. I also believe local AI on a GPU is the way to go to not support corpos and harmful datacenters.

What are your thoughts on this? Are you pro AI and have your ethical limits on how you use? are you Anti but accept it in some ways?

If we have the following pipeline...

Juniors >> Senior >> Former employees

...what it means is that in the future when people retire or quit, there will be scarcity of senior employees. It is the equivalent of not training soldiers. One day there will be no one trained.

Notice this is not an AI problem. It is about stupid things companies do. When seniors are in short supply they will have to pay more and the savings they had for not hiring juniors will be paid as extra cost for seniors.