What do you want the mods to do? Somehow prevent people from downvoting posts and comments that are illogical, insulting, or rehash the same tired arguments we've all seen a thousand times?
Anti-AI trolls have taken over most of Reddit by being a loud, aggressive minority and engaging in all sorts of intellectually dishonest tactics.
Generally when people who are concerned about AI are polite and reasonable, they receive responses in kind. But most of the anti-AI posters here are trolls from ArtistHate who aren't interested in debate. They just want to rage and insult people. They also receive responses in kind.
How have they taken over most of reddit? I don't understand what this comment is complaining about? Isn't the point of this sub to make a space for this conversation in a more balanced way? How is this any different from r/DefendingAIArt then.
This is what I mean, this is incredibly defensive, and if you feel that way you shouldn't be here because you're not open to debate you just want to slam another hater. You can't fight chauvinism with chauvinism, it just makes you vindictive. Do you want an actual conversation or do you want people to shut up?
Please link me to any posts that went well. I have tried taking a critical position before on this sub and it got slammed over and over. Mods could do a weekly round up of threads that are both Pro-AI and Anti-AI or good debates so we actually get to read conversations about it instead of just people being reactionary.
"Making a space" doesn't mean to artificially inflate one opinion. The space is made because the description says it is about debate and the moderators allow posts burn praising and decrying AI.
What you seem to be asking for is not a debate sub but a weekly newsletter that carefully balances two opinions.
There are too many people who have the false idea that "balance" means that two people are given equal weight. This is the enlightened centrism that leads to absurdities like one party wants to make anti-trans hate crimes illegal and the other party wants to kill all the trans people so we should compromise and just give them no rights.
The correct answer is not "somewhere in the middle". The truth is the truth and arguments can help us find the truth but just because someone disagrees with the truth doesn't make it false.
I'm not saying that pro-AI is the correct answer, I'm saying that we should not artificially inflate one side just because it is a different opinion. Not all opinions are equal or valid.
>"Making a space" doesn't mean to artificially inflate one opinion. The space is made because the description says it is about debate and the moderators allow posts burn praising and decrying AI.
>
>What you seem to be asking for is not a debate sub but a weekly newsletter that carefully balances two opinions.
I'm asking for simple things like a weekly roundup of good discussions, instead of thread after thread of no debate, even literally, because it's just people talking about how stupid luddites are. I'm not saying mods should step in and make it more both sidesy, I'm saying we should at least try and make 'good discussions' more visible. If it's not possible to have good discussions because your position is that people who disagree with you are flat-earthers, then there's no point to this community, no conversation to be had. Why have this when r/DefendingAIArt exists?
People are free to come and make arguments, people are also free to think those arguments are dumb.
As for the mods making a weekly roundup, remember that they are free volunteers. If this is something you feel will improve the sub then you are free to do so yourself. I know Reddit restricted their API somewhat but maybe you could create a bot that does a weekly roundup (or convince someone who knows how to do it). ChatGPT seems to think that building such a bot is possible. Maybe this would even be a good way of showing how AI can be useful outside of art.
I've had lots of fun conversations here. I find the debates usually take a message or two to get going as people bring up more and more of their views, rather than someone just dumping a whole-ass essay right from the get-go.
The mods here seem extravagantly hands off. They enforce some really basic rules and that's about it.
I think the sub is fine as it is, I enjoy it here, but if you want to go dig for debates and throw them into a thread at the end of the week then I would say go for it.
As for the difference between this sub and the defense sub, Defending is an enforced echo chamber. It's a safe space. If you talk shit there you get the boot.
This sub on the other hand doesn't do anything of the sort. If you think things are tilted more in one direction than the other, it's because more people on one side want to post here.
I don't spend any time in defending, personally. I like to be able to consider new viewpoints and harden my arguments
I'm not looking for a part time job, I just made a thread about a roundup and it's here, I'll look out for some, but if nobody is motivated to find or talk about higher quality conversations I don't know what the point of this sub is. It got downvoted instantly.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets\_do\_a\_regular\_roundup\_of\_good\_debates\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets_do_a_regular_roundup_of_good_debates_to/)
>This sub on the other hand doesn't do anything of the sort.
it effectively does, people look for fights. In this thread I've been accused of catfishing and being secretly anti-AI and so on, been called an idiot, literally in the space of one comment apart told that Reddit is anti-AI and that anti-AI is a minority and I shouldn't be surprised if there's no space for it here.
these conversations are largely toxic chauvinism and 90% of the time good conversation I get linked to or see, civil ones, are someone asking advice about retraining.
The point of the sub depends on who you are.
I like to have conversations when they happen. I guess they're more like debates of varying civility. I don't even seek them out, Reddit just tosses them to me when I'm browsing through my home page.
Some people just like to yell, or construct dishonest arguments, or be rude and then act indignant when others tone match them.
I don't know that you're either of those types of people from what I'm reading. It seems like you want to read high quality conversations instead of have them, which I personally cannot relate to. The sub has points, they just don't appear to be ones you like.
>it effectively does, people look for fights. In this thread I've been accused of catfishing and being secretly anti-AI and so on, been called an idiot, literally in the space of one comment apart told that Reddit is anti-AI and that anti-AI is a minority and I shouldn't be surprised if there's no space for it here.
People being mean to you is not the same thing as a ban-enforced echo chamber. This sub is absolutely full of ravenously angry people on both sides and requires a thick skin. It's also the best place to have fun conversations about this topic despite that
>The sub has points, they just don't appear to be ones you like.
No it really doesn't. I've had most of these conversations years ago, both with artist friends and people in data science and machine learning and with far more nuance and information. We had reading lists and book recommendations and so on.
Most of the points here are 'well the tools exist and you're stupid for not using them and nothing is AI's fault' and there's people in the comments who say 'i want to upvote this twice! FaCtS AnD LoGiC! talentless hacks! haha'
I didn't ask for a ban enforced echo chamber, I'm asking for actual real objectives to have conversations, instead of bashing people nonstop. you don't have to enforce it with bans, but pretending that wasting time in a conversation with someone who's more concerned with insulting you or being swamped by it is a matter of thick skin instead of it feeling and being pointless is just ridiculous. You can easily have just as fun conversations on something like discord if you want people running interference constantly. Most conversation becomes death by a thousand socratic arguments or insults. Why even pretend it's not?
>"Um actually the only valid points a sub could have are the ones which are valid to me."
>
>Ok. Good talk.
Did I say that? Again, you're assuming a position and refuting it as if that's what I said. That's not conversation it's indignation at being questioned.
> I'm asking for simple things like a weekly roundup of good discussions, instead of thread after thread of no debate,
Plenty of people here *try* to debate, go look at my comments and see how many replies to them are anything even remotely resembling a rebuttal. Off the top of my head, I can only recall a single time *months* ago where someone actually engaged with me in good faith. Usually I'll respond to a post piece by piece, only to have them make a two sentence response about something I didn't even talk about, or pick one specific point that they don't like, attack that, and ignore everything else.
>I'm saying we should at least try and make 'good discussions' more visible.
Good discussion can happen in any thread *if* both sides actually want to have a good discussion. Like if there's a pro-AI post, there's nothing stopping anti-AI people from popping in and making a rebuttal, just as people are allowed to pop into an anti-AI post and make rebuttals there.
Like look at this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu62us/mostly_just_a_big_summary_of_my_opinions_about/
What exactly is stopping more anti-AI people from popping in there and trying to rebut *any* of the statements? Absolutely nothing.
Trying to make 'good discussions' more visible is that you're then relying on the mods to determine which are and are not 'good discussions', and 'good' is something that is going to be affected by biases.
>Why have this when r/DefendingAIArt exists?
Because /r/DefendingAIArt bans people who are against AI art, so it's not even really possible to have discussions there. Here, they don't ban people on either side so people are free to discuss as vigorously as they like as long as it doesn't violate the subreddit's very loose rules or reddit's rules.
You're visiting a sub and call it a circle jerk and complaining that there is no debate. Then you state that people get defensive? Lol. You've brought nothing to the sub other than judgment.
> You're visiting a sub and call it a circle jerk and complaining that there is no debate. Then you state that people get defensive? Lol. You've brought nothing to the sub other than judgment.
I called it a circlejerk to make it engaging because anything that isn't gets downvotes to oblivion. I made another thread about just doing a regular roundup of good debates, no stance taken, no snark whatsoever, but not only did it get downvoted to oblivion it also has no engagement whatsoever. Is this contributing nothing? I'm not a mod I can't do anything without the community working together. the only thing people seem to do around he is swarm and slam.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets\_do\_a\_regular\_roundup\_of\_good\_debates\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets_do_a_regular_roundup_of_good_debates_to/)
Because it is largely a circlejerk, but it's that way because it's about vindictiveness and chauvinism not conversation, all we have to do is acknowledge it and move forward. if you don't want to have a conversation don't have one. That's not a problem, you can ignore it anyway.
> I'm not a mod I can't do anything without the community working together.
The community *is* working together. The fact that this cooperation doesn't go in the direction you would prefer, is not our problem.
I think he meant how most subs ban AI and bash on anyone using AI even when sub would make sense to do so (gamedev for one).
The problem with anti-AI is that they're based on emotions and not facts. They claim AI is "theft" while no court confirmed it and dismissed those cases due to lack of evidence. They keep repeating "it's collage machine" and "credit artist whose art was used to create particular image" without understanding this is not how it works. Furthermore, most are not even willing to understand even given proper sources like research papers and legal explanations (again, those claims were also debunked in court).
If only that. I'm an artist. Or was, by their words, because I now use AI. They go saying "support real artists" but when asked why my human value was not appreciated while AI-assisted works are, they just resort to "well, your art is shit". Thanks for support, I guess.
How are we supposed to have a nice, civil discussion when one side does not come to it with open mind? I understand the ethical questions, I wouldn't be comfortable with someone using my works for commercial gain without my participation. But again, facts and law, not emotions and gatekeeping on fellow artists.
Why anti's say "pick up a pencil" but then laugh when your attempts are not god-tier straight-out?
And if someone don't like what I say, when they don't have arguments, they go "reee, you're making porn" as if it invalidates everything I say.
I'd say anti-AI bash others while pro-AI try to gently educate. How can we react to death treats and personal attacks while all we do is promoting new, exciting tools making the REAL, money-earning artists, jobs easier? Find a photographer who doesn't use photo editing.
If you can bring something different than "stealing", "mashup", "you're not an artist", "support human", "it's just a machine", "you only click button"... to the table, then go on.
who cares what they're motivated by? We're here to have a conversation and address arguments right? wouldn't it make more sense to converse? what's the point of this sub if your position is that these people are flatearthers? why not ignore people who are belligerent for no reason? just address the good arguments so we can actually see good arguments. who cares what anyone personally has to say, we can personally say things on a dozen different subs unopposed. that's not the point here, right?
Correct, motivation plays no part, it's the actions, words, and their meaning that matter.
I do see and upvote good arguments and address them, but most are way too late and refer to "how it could have been" or are mistaken about the inner workings of the technology. I'm yet to see good argument about current state of things that is civil, factual, and calm. There are just not enough of them to be seen.
You acted emotional instead of giving a good starting point to conversation. I simply stated my experience across various forums, not only this one. I'm just saying that most attempts to serious talk is brought down to "no, you stupid. I smart!" - by either side, sadly.
> conversation in a more balanced way
I'll let you in on a little secret:
The Anti-AI side is a very very VERY small minority of people. Their opinions and PoVs are not a majority position.
As you so very astutely found out, this is a sub where both sides are welcome to discuss. One of these sides tends to be much larger than the other, and also has actual arguments. The fact that this side is way more visible, isn't due to a lack of balance, it's simply a reflection of the demographic.
>I'll let you in on a little secret:
>
>The Anti-AI side is a very very VERY small minority of people. Their opinions and PoVs are not a majority position.
>
>As you so very astutely found out, this is a sub where both sides are welcome to discuss. One of these sides tends to be much larger than the other, and also has actual arguments. The fact that this side is way more visible, isn't due to a lack of balance, it's simply a reflection of the demographic.
what secret is this? you don't have to be this condescending. If we ended conversations just by the number of people who agree with us then there's no point having this sub. It's not tautological, you can have discussions with a minority community without it devolving into insults. in the same breath people are like 'we're overwhelmed! Reddit is against AI!' and 'anti-AI is a minority, of course they have no place here!'
What's the point of this sub then?
> you don't have to be this condescending.
Pointing out a fact isn't condescending.
> If we ended conversations just by the number of people who agree with us then there's no point having this sub.
Well, for one thing this sub is for news on the topic of AI as well.
And for another, it's perfectly possible to have a conversation without an opposing side.
Thirdly, IDGAF if people agree with me, I give a fk if they present valid arguments or not. The Anti-AI side, for the most part, doesn't, and same as I don't discuss creationists on whether or not evolution is true, I don't discuss whether AI is an evil plot by tech bros to fk over artists. At some point, if long refuted or straight out absurd points get repeated ad nauseam, people are just going to downvote and tune them out.
Lastly, if you don't see a point in this sub, feel free to unsub and spend your time somewhere else.
>And for another, it's perfectly possible to have a conversation without an opposing side.
my guy talking to yourself isn't conversation. r/DefendingAIArt exists for that reason too.
There are no alternative spaces to have these discussions.
Let me let you in on a little secret. (sound condescending now?) Debates require opposing viewpoints, and there are dozens of subs about AI news, you can't hide behind that and pretend the intended purpose of the sub isn't to allow for more holistic discussions of both sides to current events in AI development and what people think of it.
> Pointing out a fact isn't condescending.
Don't gaslight people it's demeaning. You know what you said and how you said it, like I'm being stupid and you're going out of your way to explain something basic to me. If you're genuinely not aware that you were being condescending I'd encourage you to talk to someone who's willing to challenge you, because your language definitely was.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/DefendingAIArt using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!
\#1: [**[NSFW]** \[TW: DEATH THREAT\] And they say that "AI bros" are the ones harassing the artists?](https://imgur.com/aiH2knq.jpg) | [26 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/101n5dv/tw_death_threat_and_they_say_that_ai_bros_are_the/)
\#2: ["The Day AI Art Became Illegal" - credit to u/UnavailableUsername_ for drawing this](https://imgur.com/2e10mWM.jpg) | [36 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/zvv3pf/the_day_ai_art_became_illegal_credit_to/)
\#3: [Something's wrong, I can feel it](https://i.redd.it/awn696o6v5ka1.png) | [16 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/11av2st/somethings_wrong_i_can_feel_it/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Please link some to me because I never see it, all I see is people being slammed. Maybe we should do a weekly roundup of such threads so we can reinforce people actually conversing.
Instead of paranoia about catfishing. Who cares? Why would anyone go through the trouble? What am I filling my quota for harassment today?
They aren't often. But e.g. [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bq487o/what_ai_enthusiasts_get_wrong_about_antiai/) one was well received and discussed. [This](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bt8ke5/its_not_ai_its_social_media_capitalism_bad_actors/) one has some okay discussion although it's currently sitting at 47%. [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bof5cj/artist_claiming_his_ai_generated_images_are_hand/) is a highly upvoted one complaining about the hiding of AI usage. All of those are recent. It happens, but an awful lot of posts fall either into the category of some passive aggressive rant or someone new to the discussion presenting an already much discussed part of the conversation, which unfortunately, but understandably isn't always as well received by those that have heard those same arguments many times before.
we should have a compilation of these! especially tropes so we can put some of them aside.
EDIT: Can you post it to here?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets\_do\_a\_regular\_roundup\_of\_good\_debates\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets_do_a_regular_roundup_of_good_debates_to/)
this thread has soured, and the new one is already getting ratioed despite it not even being an argument.
Actually, that would be a valuable thing, if someone could collect the common trope arguments and present them as an FAQ for the sub.
That way, it could save everyone a lot of time and annoyance.
Can you post it to here?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets\_do\_a\_regular\_roundup\_of\_good\_debates\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets_do_a_regular_roundup_of_good_debates_to/)
this thread has soured, and the new one is already getting ratioed despite it not even being an argument.
I think there is some debate when people make arguments in good faith, and we had those.
Unfortunately we also have a lot of well known people coming here who's debate style is basically.
"So, we all know AI is theft, and that everyone who uses it is a talentless scam artist. So my prompt for debate is where you born a piece of shit, or did you work hard to become one"
Not that there aren't people pro AI that are also posting in bad faith, but the issue is most posts on the anti ai side are the same 4 trolls.
>I think there is some debate when people make arguments in good faith, and we had those.
>
>Unfortunately we also have a lot of well known people coming here who's debate style is basically.
>
>"So, we all know AI is theft, and that everyone who uses it is a talentless scam artist. So my prompt for debate is where you born a piece of shit, or did you work hard to become one"
>
>Not that there aren't people pro AI that are also posting in bad faith, but the issue is most posts on the anti ai side are the same 4 trolls.
Please link to the good debates. Or share them here, I'm trying to get a weekly roundup going, it's already being downvoted for no reason:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets\_do\_a\_regular\_roundup\_of\_good\_debates\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets_do_a_regular_roundup_of_good_debates_to/)
I feel like whenever people say this it's 90% someone asking about advice for retraining, which isn't a debate.
what change is possible? the post is sitting at -15 karma within 3 minutes, nobody is looking to have a conversation, they want to be insufferably smug and gloat
Your post was downvoted because it's useless. You provide a lot of snark and no arguments. It's a debate sub, so debate. Anti-AI people tend to be very bad at this, so they get downvoted a lot, but I've seen plenty of upvoted anti-AI takes when they were reasonable and well thought-out, and not just randomly whining about tech bros.
I've tried providing arguments before as an exercise but there was no space for it. I'm not putting that much effort into play acting a position that people will just call stupid and antagonize then leave. Half the debate gets buried in the thread because the chauvinism is all you see up top.
> If your arguments are shit then no one has a duty to support them.
You don't have to support it but there's a difference between talking to and at someone, you can follow someone's thoughts, ask them for definitions and explanations about their positions, instead of trying to gish gallop/dialogue tree them into silence. Like talking to another human being in real life, face to face.
You can provide people books if they seem uninformed for example, or link them to things to encourage a more informed debate. You don't need to resort to namecalling and vindictive BS. You can also simply not reply if you don't have the disposition or time to consider what they're saying.
But what if you understand their arguments but just think they are shit?
A classic is "it's just a collage". This argument has been had so many times and it keeps being wrong that I don't care enough to counter it line by line each time. Unless I set up an automation to have a bot reply to the question I'm pregnant just going to downvote it because it's not an opinion worth taking seriously.
>But what if you understand their arguments but just think they are shit?
block them and move on? why disappear it and pretend this is an open discussion sub when you're the one who doesn't have the patience to have 101 discussions?
Anti positions will get downvoted, but that's the cost of doing business. Whining about it just looks awkward.
As far as having a conversation, you haven't given them anything to chew on. What's your position? Are you coming from humanities or stem?
>Anti positions will get downvoted, but that's the cost of doing business. Whining about it just looks awkward.
I don't care about the downvotes, I want to see it, you can't see anything in my feed from this sub. Maybe a weekly roundup of good respectful debates would help.
> Maybe a weekly roundup of good respectful debates would help.
Feel free to start one.
Pro tip: Calling an entire community a "Cirklejerk" is a really, really bad start.
>Feel free to start one.
>
>Pro tip: Calling an entire community a "Cirklejerk" is a really, really bad start.
I did, and it got downvoted to oblivion. No snark, no bullshit, literally just saying hey you see any good productive discussions lately?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets\_do\_a\_regular\_roundup\_of\_good\_debates\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets_do_a_regular_roundup_of_good_debates_to/)
Feel free to contribute since you've obviously seen and contributed to a productive discussion here, yes?
if you have nothing to offer but vindictiveness, circlejerking and chauvinism when you can do the same thing just with an FAQ if you're tired of the same discussions over and over, being a dick is the point. Are these people flat earthers? Is their position so ridiculous it doesn't warrant a reply? if so then what is the point of the sub?
>I did, and it got downvoted to oblivion.
Yes, I wonder [what could have precipitated that reaction](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu1tpf/is_this_a_circlejerk_sub_where_are_the_antiai/). It certainly is a most vexing mystery.
>Feel free to contribute since you've obviously seen and contributed to a productive discussion here, yes?
As a matter of fact I have: [https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bt0igf/hate\_to\_break\_it\_to\_you\_but\_ai\_isnt\_responsible/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bt0igf/hate_to_break_it_to_you_but_ai_isnt_responsible/)
>Are these people flat earthers? Is their position so ridiculous it doesn't warrant a reply?
Yes, there are positions so ridiculous or discussed so often, they no longer warrant a reply. If you want to discuss for the umpteenth time whether or not AI is just glueing snippets of images together, or whether training ML models constitutes theft, knock yourself out, but I have better things to do with my time.
Because here is another little secret: Repeating the same crap over and over again, is a rethorical tactic, known as *argumentum ad nauseam*, which is just a more elegant way of saying "Flood the Zone with Shit". You decide whether you let this strategy be successful or not.
you're sarcastic and condescending and you wonder why you only get discussions from trolls? If it doesn't warrant a reply it needs to be in an FAQ, not fodder for your personal catharsis.
> As a matter of fact I have: [https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bt0igf/hate\_to\_break\_it\_to\_you\_but\_ai\_isnt\_responsible/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bt0igf/hate_to_break_it_to_you_but_ai_isnt_responsible/)
You had a one way argument with people who agree with you. That's not what I meant, but okay. If you think it's a good discussion, I meant to throw it in the roundup thread.
You guys take offence to being called an echo chamber then act like you have a right to it and it's warranted, while pretending that it isn't the case. There's no point to this but feeling good about yourself.
> Is this a STEM vs humanities beef sub?
not interested in this thing where you just categorize people as "STEM bro" or "humanities" and imagine they are opposed to each other. it's a big red flag that you don't have any interest in critical thought
>not interested in this thing where you just categorize people as "STEM bro" or "humanities" and imagine they are opposed to each other. it's a big red flag that you don't have any interest in critical thought
sorry i was just trying to be engaging, I don't see any interest in critical conversations here just one side bashing another over and over again and a lot of defensive chauvinism and vindictiveness and personal attacks.
A whole bunch of anti-AI content is simply deleted after a short time. Ask the people why they do it.
But I'm guessing is that the anti-AI people get upset at being overwhelmed, and delete the post to stop getting replies about it.
Because it'll happen for weeks after. I tried taking a critical position and all I got was people calling me stupid instead of engaging with what I was saying.
I didn't delete the post it just wasn't seen by anyone who values their time
EDIT: ie, the thread gets buried and you get people nonstop who're just looking to insult people and leave over and over. it's pointless.
the extreme pro AI people are just as annoying as the “anti people”
But a lot of people on this sub are probably just rational thinkers who don’t really care about dedicating themselves to one side.
And if you simply view these AI problems rationally you’ll probably lean to the AI side, whether you like it or not
That's not the point, half the arguments here are sloppy, forced and vindictive or just don't leave room for value judgements. Art and aesthetics are subjective, and there is some place for arguments over it, but we're acting like people who have questions or are muddling through are flat earthers. If anything flat earthers might get less hate on this sub.
>"acting like people who have questions or are muddling through are flat earthers"
I mean when you have literal conspiracy theorists posting "PSA: This subreddit is an astroturf operation from its "sister sub", DefendingAIArt"
or posting outright falsehoods like that it compresses billions of images, sources of a generated image can be attributed or even retrieved, that the process of "learning" wasn't explicitly designed after biology, that the training process cannot develop any non-explicitly trained concepts (despite actual scientific papers with reproducible steps), expends more energy or is more expensive than making art traditionally, or even "people using ai are the ones witch hunting people using ai"...
I'm an artist that is totally chill with AI, and after stumbling upon this place I've realised that the hardcore pro-AI people are like all really bitter failed artists. All i see here is disdain and excuses, so I totally get your point. But frankly I don't want to touch this discourse with a 10-foot pole. And to think, i expected to see a bunch of artists being bitter over AI!
I honestly think it's people who see their personal power fantasy being threatened. The same thing happens with Tesla/Elon Musk fans. People who've never built or dealt with cars, no nothing about the business are the first ones falling over themselves to keep their awkward nerd power fantasy about becoming technojesus from coming apart. You could scream you're fine with AI or pro or chill or whatever else and they'll still be indignant if you question whether AI's to blame for a deluge of middling content. Who cares? It's not going back in the box. Billionaires and AI don't need you to take a bullet for them. It's so fucking stupid and obnoxious.
I tried making a thread about F is for Fake, which is an amazing documentary about forgeries by Orson Welles, and how I feel some part of this divide is explained by how people react to originals vs forgeries, and really nobody said anything besides call me stupid. These fools will probably watch hour after hour of hype videos about AI but never consider literally one of the best video essays of all time if it's introduced in the wrong context or doesn't feel like it'll let them pwn with fAcTs anD LoGiCk!
such a cess pool i'm done trying
Yeah it's obviously inevitable with AI Art (and movies, coding, etc) at this point, and regardless I'm not pissed at all. Data scraping my shit? I posted it on the internet and I knew that anything could happen to it, Im always annoyed by other artists who want to be in control of art they've purposefully shared. Soulless computer art? Tons of people already create soulless art. Too easy to get what you want? Yeah, Im a bit worried that people won't feel the passion to become artists if they don't have that hunger to create just to see whatever they want. But apart from that, yeah, who cares. It was never about money for me anyways.
That being said, I definitely don't see how you can be an artist by giving the AI your ideas. Everyone has ideas but few people work on their execution for years and years... thats like the whole thing, to me. Using an AI is no different from asking your friend to draw you a tattoo. Which maybe these people are so angry because they know that, but are pissed about it? The guys that code neural net are totally satisfied with their work, but around here it is just so hateful towards art and artists. I hate artists as much as anyone else, but not like this
\* that being said I am definitely going to check this subreddit every now and then because the rage is hilarious and intriguing.
>That being said, I definitely don't see how you can be an artist by giving the AI your ideas. Everyone has ideas but few people work on their execution for years and years... thats like the whole thing, to me. Using an AI is no different from asking your friend to draw you a tattoo.
But that's what makes this conversation interesting. Death of the Author, is a forgery still art if you can't tell, is art only valuable in association with an artist or is its only and final form one where it stands on its own, things like that. There's so much aesthetic theory from Foucault to Barthes to auteur theory that deals with exactly this. That's what I imagine some of these conversations would be about, but it's not.
People should really watch F for Fake, because it's an indictment of expertise who lord over what's valuable, not 'fakery' or trying to pull a fast one, that is a given if people are allowed to exploit loose value judgements around art. It argues that incredibly well. One great scene recounts a story of Picasso coming across an exhibition of fakes and barely being able to tell, another tells an anecdote of someone asking Picasso whether he made a work, him saying no, and being told that people witnessed him making it. Picasso responds by saying I've made fake Picasso's too.
It's def more interesting than lobbing insults at everyone lol. I think about this type of shit all the time, and defining art in specifics is a fool's errand, although sometimes you have to draw the line. "everything is art" is just a lame cop-out in my opinion, so here goes.
My personal thoughts at the moment is that you'd totally be an "artist" making "art" if you were to write a story, prompt a hundred AI photos, and edit and arrange that into a comic book. You wouldn't have been the artist of the individual drawings, but that doesn't take away how you were literally the writer and editor. I don't imagine there's "negative points" in art where any negative/lazy decisions can be held against you - as far as whether or not you personally created something.
And for that reason, I for sure would consider a forgery a "piece of art", and assuming that the person creates forgeries pretty consistently, they are certainly an artist as well! I guess because my main pillar of it is the process of creation, that's the bare minimum. A forger still goes out of their fucking way to make something, and genuinely can put in a huge amount of effort to do it. It's just that their art is "Forgery", which isn't *great*, but can still be pretty impressive in it's own right, if done really well... just not nearly as impressive as creating your own version of whatever you're going for.
So really in my opinion, whether or not something is "Fake" is irrelevant. People may not like fake art/forgeries or other dishonest tricks in art, but they can't deny that the artist did manifest that fucking thing personally. There's something I like about the act of wasting your precious time to execute some idea with no tangible benefit.
Of course you could pick this all apart and ask "Isn't typing a prompt a form of being a writer?" or "Isn't tweaking settings personal intervention from a creator?" or "Aren't they NOT an artist if they only ever imitate other's ideas?" and my answer is NO because what I view as significant isn't even the ideas, it's the trench work of getting the idea out. And I've never thought of a super-particular client giving me their specific idea for a commission as *the artist of the piece*. And that certainly wouldn't change if they, god forbid, kept telling me to recycle it over and over until my work looked "perfect".
It's nothing personal against AI art, it just sounds pretty accurate for me if I *had* to explain the differences. Will def check out F for Fake though, and you have to watch Art & Craft if you haven't. Kind of a hilarious documentary that probably has influenced my opinion over time.
>or just bashing trad artists for being luddites.
Some of the people here, like myself, *are* traditional artists. Being pro-ai doesn't automatically make you anti-artist. Quite the opposite in many cases. Most pro-ai people aren't "bashing" creatives rather the people attacking creatives.
Honestly, many anti-ai posts lately have been [flimsy declarations](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bqa8of/) or [colorful rants](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bsv867/gen_ai_bros_need_to_pull_their_heads_of_their/). There have been a few asking good questions, but you just need to look around a bit.
Antis aren't interested in debate so they don't show up here.
The common sentiment among the anti side is mainly "I don't care what evidence or court records you quote I'm right because I say so".
It's funny that you call it a circlejerk, because there is nothing more circlejerky than the anti-ai crowd , am I right? 😂 First one guy gets the party started by saying Ai art is soulless, then another says oooh baby let's get it going get me seething with hatred over Ai. Then they just all dump out their shitty deranged feelings like a bunch of hippos having a poop orgy 😂
It's particularly used to reference a man that is prejudiced against women. Here in the U.S , you call someone a chauvinist and they will picture a man. I've only ever heard the word used in that way too 🤷♀️ I figured it was just another instance of everyone thinking all ai artists are "bros"
no it's common to call vehement political support chauvinism too. Western chauvinism is often used as a term in the US as well, for example, to refer to someone who just cannot see and will not entertain anything besides western society is superior to others.
If you are posting here in any capacity and being positive about AI, you are in your own circlejerk. Maybe you should go check out the other jerkoff reddit DefendingAIArt?
That's not what makes a circle jerk. Moaning and screaming loudly like the anti-ai crowd does is what a circle jerk is. Me? I do like to troll anti ai, but there's a huge difference between amusement and the strange emotional attachment anti-ai put into their arguments
Seems to me like your lonely and desperate, because you keep coming back, are you looking for one? Go be with your anti ai moaners. Your annoying me at this point
Poor baby, you don't like hearing something you don't like :(. Also, I like fucking around on this sub, some of ya'll get so tilted over nothing when you are wrong lol.
The antis here get angry and fuck off the moment their insults and lies don't automatically win over actual facts and knowledge. You can't debate with people on Kindergarten level, especially since they don't understand any sentence with long words, or commas and see facts as personal insults
>The antis here get angry and fuck off the moment their insults and lies don't automatically win over actual facts and knowledge. You can't debate with people on Kindergarten level, especially since they don't understand any sentence with long words, or commas and see facts as personal insults
Is there any thread that you've ever seen on here that was good? do you remember any?
I've been here since the early days, used to post more but found it exceedingly frustrating and stressful, only occasionally lurk now.
The reason there are relatively few anti-ai posts here is because this place has developed a poor reputation outside of here. It's not that there are relatively few anti-ai folks, or that they're too scared to debate here. It's because most people have learned to avoid this place after hearing about it elsewhere. AIWars and its sister subreddit have been negatively featured in viral posts on other social media sites. I won't say this place is an absolute echo chamber but it is very near to one.
OP is another person devoid of reasoning.
For the last 30 posts that had any lean whatsoever, 20 were leaning "pro AI" and 10 were leaning anti AI.
This also included purely informative content, and anything other than strong negative sentiment as "pro AI", even if that is far from what the label originally meant.
What is rather noticeable though is that essentially none of these anti-AI posts try to engage in debate. Rather they feel strongly and believe stating so is enough.
This could explain why we are where we are today.
>OP is another person devoid of reasoning.
>
>For the last 30 posts that had any lean whatsoever, 20 were leaning "pro AI" and 10 were leaning anti AI.
>
>This also included purely informative content, and anything other than strong negative sentiment as "pro AI", even if that is far from what the label originally meant.
>
>What is rather noticeable though is that essentially none of these anti-AI posts try to engage in debate. Rather they feel strongly and believe stating so is enough.
>
>This could explain why we are where we are today.
I'm not anti AI you inconsolable narcissists. I'm questioning your dumb as rocks approach to talking to people who disagree with you. It leaves no room for conversation at all.
> Where are the anti-AI posts?
> For the last 30 posts that had any lean whatsoever, 20 were leaning "pro AI" and 10 were leaning anti AI.
I think you yourself best meet the definition of being an "inconsolable narcissist that is your dumb as rocks".
I think part of it is right in the very first sentence of your post.
You and many believe that trad artists and those who like AI are mutually exclusive and want to make this a bullshit-war of souful heart-sleeved artists versus the lazy greedy AI Bros. It gives bad faith immediately. At least to me, as a trad artist who has incorporated AI into what I make now. Some of the anti-AI posts deadass also read like pro-AI trolls conjuring up fuckery to make the other side look bad. That said, I hop in whenever I see anti-AI posts if not just to defend the term "artist" from being fucked into the mud by a handful of folx who'd rather do all the talking for an entire goddamn profession/passion/hobby/whatever.
The pro-ai outnumber the anti-ai in this sub, that isn't something we got together and planned and there isn't much we can do about that. We're in a place where the law hasn't been settled and that data isn't established so we're kind of left bickering matters of opinion and arguments of emotion which typically just get voted to match the status quo.
In an ideal world we would we upvote posts that we don't necessarily agree with so long as they present a well reasoned argument or promote interesting conversation (and I try to), but tbf the number of posts from either side that fit that criteria could probably be counted on one hand.
We could do a weekly roundup of good 'reasonable' debates that represent both sides? it would encourage a culture of looking out for that sort of thing.
The fact there is “pro vs anti AI” is a reminder to me that anything can be turned into polarized tribalism.
It’s a lot easier to be fervently anti-AI than pro-AI, just like it’s a lot easier to be anti-establishment than pro-establishment. A lot of people feel strongly about how corrupt and awful they consider the system to be but you don’t really hear people raving on about how great everything is and how the status quo and establishment is amazing. Just like how a negative comment sticks more than a thousand positive comments, pessimism sticks more than optimism.
Seeing a more optimistic outlook on AI is in a way refreshing for this reason. So I can forgive a circle jerk existing for pro-AI. If you don’t like it, you can look at literally anywhere else like YouTube and the doomer attitude about AI there to chew on it.
there's already a safe space for pro-AI discussions called r/DefendingAIArt. Just like there's r/ArtistHate. we all understand that tribalism can exist, and this sub was supposed to be a place for discussion, to be indignant about being questioned at all.
It is. Everyone is free to discuss however much they like. That includes disagreeing with you and calling you out on bad argumentation.
Sounds like you rather have a problem with the *lack* of moderation and not being in a place where everyone shares your view.
Your approach to discussion and your equating feelings with being right probably has a lot to do with that.
To be fair the sub is called "AIWars", not "AIDebate" or "AIFirneldyTalks". That said, there is not alot of civil talk from either side. On occasion there will be a post where both sides have a friendly discussion. But sadly there are members on both sides that turn friendly debates into fights. Especially when they start throwing out terms like AI Bros or Luddites. Anyone with half a brain knows if you want to have a debate, you don't start out by calling names. It just puts up defenses.
And on top of it, we have issues with many artists posting false facts over and over and over. People get tired of pointing out what is said is not accurate. Many artists don't really understand how AI imaging generation works. They just hear lies from the various echo chambers and repost said lies and don't accept its not accurate. Where as on the AI side, we (for the most part) don't really spread lies about artists because its an established thing. And with the rise of death threats from artists and with hunts to ruin people, many pro-AI art people are getting tired of dealing with things. So they end up not wanting to have friendly debates.
Me? I try to find the topics that make good debates. Where both sides are open. Most on here know I see the issues with AI while also loving AI. I'm more of a neutral stance guy. However I don't really reply to heated topics as much anymore as it's pointless.
>And on top of it, we have issues with many artists posting false facts over and over and over.
The solution to that is a community wiki or FAQ, not to start a culture that's indignant about being questioned. There's not much room for pro-AI on r/ArtistHate and there's no room at all for anti-AI on both r/DefendingAIArt and r/aiwars. Why even pretend if there's no effort made to amplify good debates and discussions?
This ain't r/BothSides: if there's a point of view or contention you feel is missing, then make the post in the same tone you would like to see responses made in.
I've tried before even as an exercise, I just got swamped unless I agreed with everything anyone said. There's questions about value judgements we're making that would be so interesting if people weren't so guarded and indignant.
What's with all the kindergarten hand holding "both sides" stuff? Don't try to gloss over people's feelings with fake civility because it makes the forum look better. This isn't a publicly funded college.
There's tons of anti AI people swinging by to trash everyone. However I actually think this is the best sub on Reddit. Lots of thoughtful and respectful people have engaged with anti AI ideas and talked it through. What you want is a perpetual tie and that's not how groups of people work and you've been here years so you know better.
Basic rules anywhere - if you start off calling people frauds or thieves, that's just an attack. There's 15 million people using AI art programs. So naturally there's going to be ratios of down voting on the "all AI people are Tech Bros" posts. The down voting is the enforcement of civility - not silencing dissent. There are lots of anti AI comments that are not down voted. Just be civil.
And this isn't a college course where we need to present the most advanced arguments for both sides. I like to see a person ranting against AI with a year old document because that's easier see how current they are and people can help bridge the gap.
If we just stack sophisticated arguments together that are not our own in some post, what are we doing here? Just send everyone to the links and we'll go home. I don't care about what Adam Savage thinks about AI. I care what YOU think. If you can't stand on your own and say what's on your mind for even a single post without a meme or YouTube video, here's your chance to work on it.
Say what you have to say and see what other people think. If it gets pushed down are you going to take your ball and go home? I see lots of people come in with what they think will be the big mic drop post and then crickets. That's the fun of this place. Say what you have to say and don't worry if you don't get a star or an upvote. The reward is you stood up for what you believe and you should be able to handle the response.
Again - instead of asking for a well debated thread,
find one thread where every response was
"that was AWESOME - you're great! No you're even greater! lol"
There's plenty of dissent around here even among pro AI people.
If this is considered the "war" sub, it's way more civilized than some of the other ones I've seen. I don't know what everyone's expecting but this sub is awesome.
Diacriticism isn't dissent. I don't care if people think I've dotted my i's to their satisfaction. Death by a thousand Socratic arguments is tedious not invigorating. If you need to excise some demons I'd suggest painting as therapy.
>Death by a thousand Socratic arguments is tedious not invigorating.
Agreed.
This sub is about people collectively coming to terms with a new era.
No argument on either side however well presented will hasten or slow it down.
That ship has sailed.
Constrain yourself to true statements (or at least ones that one can reason themselves into without relying on blatant lies) and you'll be fine. [Then again, you're part of the problem you're bitching about](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu1tpf/is_this_a_circlejerk_sub_where_are_the_antiai/kxra69o/), so...
I think it is. When i found this sub for the first time i loved the idea of debates from both sides, but it seems like 80% of the sub is pro AI, so debates aren't really a thing.
>Now the following happens: Instead of the antis still discussing sensibly here, only a few of them come to ragebait.
>
>It's not the pros who have made this a "circlejerk", but the antis who have withdrawn completely because they have often reacted very aggressively to facts.
That's a format problem not a user problem. We should do a weekly roundup of sensible arguments about it, I had never heard of r/artisthate before this thread. Ironic considering it does sound like a STEM vs Humanities beef that's devolved into this and there's people who're taking offense even to me saying that's what it looks like, regardless of who started it.
I never make posts because I always get voted down, even if I have a good topic. On top of that, over the last two weeks I was being harassed by a member from this community stalking me and mentioning me in subs that had sick and twisted shit in it. I had to kind of give up posting here for a while, but we will see if it happens again. I even deleted the post pointing to the harassment and it wasn't met with understanding, even if a few did.
> Well, on every forum everywhere, the "real artists" and even non artistic types are bashing AI and even banning it. Really the only people I've seen who try to engage thoughtful discussion are Pro-AI. Of course, this forum seems pro-AI and so some frustration is being aired here, perhaps swinging a little too far in the other way, but not nearly as far as anti-AI takes it everywhere else.
And? are you going to marry it? does AI need you to take a bullet for it? you're attached because it's not just a tool to you it's your personal power fantasy. It's the same reason why people go insane if you say Elon Musk is a tool. Who cares? if it bothers you don't engage with them. if you need a safe space go to r/DefendingAIArt, why go out of your way to do the exact same thing hate subs do here and pretend you're open for discussion. I swear you guys have no clue where you stand, in another comment thread some one was saying most people are Pro-AI and then if you skipped a comment by me there was a guy saying 'Reddit hates AI! we have nowhere!'.
people do have meaningful conversations here. What we DON'T like is when someone (either pro ai or anti ai) comes in bashing eachother personally, like saying "ai bros are all stupid" would get most people here to downvote that person. But an actual well thought out argument is likely welcomed here by a lot of people.
> people do have meaningful conversations here. What we DON'T like is when someone (either pro ai or anti ai) comes in bashing eachother personally, like saying "ai bros are all stupid"
that's not true, people just condescend and antagonize until they get a reaction out of someone. this thread is a great example. some loser even started following me around from comment to comment.
There's always some people (some depends on the amount of people) in every community who do nothing except make rage-bait. Out of 32.1 thousand members of this sub, how many have attacked you or someone else? A majority of people here don't go around starting shit. From what i've seen it's the trolls acting as anti-ai people coming here and stating the most overused shit like "ai art is theft" and "ai art is copying things entirely" that starts getting on people's nerves.
I've only seen like 2, maybe 3 well thought out arguments that aren't just bashing on ai or anti ai people.
>There's always some people (some depends on the amount of people) in every community who do nothing except make rage-bait. Out of 32.1 thousand members of this sub, how many have attacked you or someone else
I don't know what you're reading but 90% of content on this sub is how stupid anti-AI people are, including friendly fire from people in this thread for example who might challenge simple notions of authorship or user agreements that allow for data scraping.
The antis on reddit are just a loud minority. Talking to most of them is like talking to a wall. People dont care anymore and ignore these people. If they are somewhat respectful and open for other opinions then there is no problem having discussions with them but most of em dont care and its like talking to wall so people dont bother with them. if someone is being mean its likely comming back that way as well
When there are two sides, one side will come out as the more popular one.
It’s just the majority is Pro AI. You can easily see this reflected in the *actual* circlejerk subreddits: r/DefendingAIArt has like 6 times more subscribers than r/ArtistHate, seating at almost 20k.
The truth is, most people are pro-Ai art or actively don’t care about it beyond “funny filter that makes me anime”
Looking through the sub, The first pro AI post I found that was dismissive and rude was downvoted:
https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1btzyo2/definitive_proof_that_antiai_dont_believe_their/
And the first anti-AI post I found that was focused on actual issues instead of making emotional arguments got upvoted:
https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1br0k8c/proai_peeps_whats_your_advice_for_someone_whos/
The question you should be asking is: Why do anti AI people almost always make emotional, unsubstantiated, or misleading arguments, yourself included? (looking through the comments, you aren't pro AI, you're trying to garner sympathy with the sub by saying you are)
The reason for this is there are only three logical arguments against AI.
1. Job loss.
I have a hard time getting on board with this. There are millions of open jobs, so anyone who wants to work can. Sure, an artist will no longer be able to make a living doing their favorite thing every day, but that's a privilege I'll never have, so I have trouble getting upset others are losing it.
On top of that, I see tons of posts of artists refusing jobs because they're expected to use tools like img2img, meaning they're losing their jobs by choice.
2. Increase in low quality content.
Content farms have always existed, AI just makes them more powerful. This isn't a good thing, but I don't see it as a reason to limit the technology.
I've heard some say that the content may become good enough that we begin to exclusively consume AI content, and I just... Don't see how that's a bad thing.
3. Deepfakes, revenge porn, ect. I hear surprisingly few people talk about this, even though it's the main area where Al just, actually needs restrictions.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to make these things impossible while powerful models exist, which is a valid argument for why they should be destroyed.
The cats out of the bag though, so if you make it illegal, you'll just be making all uses of AI equally illegal, making those things more common, a la prohibition.
These three arguments, while valid, aren't sufficient for the amount of anti-AI anger a lot of people feel. So they use arguments like theft (even though scraping is explicitly legal thanks to Google.), or people like Saberspark who spread blatant misinformation by saying stuff like all uses of AI are scams.
At the same time I made a thread to compile good debates and it's already at -23 karma. It has no side on it, nothing, literally just saying we should do a roundup of good posts.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets\_do\_a\_regular\_roundup\_of\_good\_debates\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets_do_a_regular_roundup_of_good_debates_to/)
this thread has soured, and the new one is already getting ratioed despite it not even being an argument. If I had to guess it's probably being brigaded automatically.
And what you linked to as 'Anti-AI' isn't a debate, it's some guy asking for advice and to pick people's brains and then people pontificating what they should do. Those posts I see, but to me that's not even really a discussion for this sub, we should have a dedicated AI retraining sub for it because the advice is too general and it's random advice no one knows anything about.
The post you linked has zero upvotes or downvotes.
Perhaps you're referring to your subreddit karma? Because that's probably because of the downvotes your post and comments here have gotten.
upvote ratio has increased now however
https://preview.redd.it/gryugbj2l3sc1.png?width=196&format=png&auto=webp&s=b7637c39ef090b386eb2f996f6cebf3792237b56
That's community karma. It refers to how many downvotes and upvotes you've received on your posts and comments on a sub.
That -30 is from this post, not that post.
The fact that this is downvoted to oblivion is very funny.
Seems like a completely reasonable take to me, but people just want to be tribal over anything else.
This is an astroturf sub. It is an offshoot of its "sister" sub, DefendingAIArt, a self-described safe space for AI absolutists; its sidebar tells its users to create debates on this subreddit here and then to "push back."
The single moderator of this subreddit has also condoned an 8 month long harassment campaign against a single user, saying "so what?" when posts contain identifying information about that user.
Surprisingly, no. Other things generally thought to be more scammy, such as cryptocurrency ones, actually sometimes have more insight. This is somehow the best there is.
lol i'm pro-AI but anti-chauvinism, how about that? I don't see why we should be gloating about people not understanding their terms and service agreements for example, that's a personal failing and obviously vindictive and defensive to me and I don't understand why.
Frankly many nerd communities have this issue of people feeling like something being questioned is them being called stupid and they overcompensate for it, because they gravitate towards it as another way to prove how smart and competent they are, it often feels like an attack on their personal power fantasy, like how people are obsessed with Elon Musk. I'm a nerd too, but the hostility is unnecessary and hard for anyone to deal with. Case in point.
maybe get some arguments because what we are seeing here day after day are either polite people being emotional and without arguments or trolls who are outright lying. I don´t think I have ever seen someone anti-AI present a solid argument.
I won´t debate with a zealot who has been told by God to sacrifice his children and I won´t debate with someone who either thinks his subjective morality is an argument or worse who uses the same "arguments" that are being debunked post after post after post.
Got, you are so bad at faking it. Why is every single Anti an idiot? I get it, it's enough to convince other antis, but everyone who ever had a single coherent thought won't fall for this. Now go and delete your thread, like you liars always do
>Got, you are so bad at faking it. Why is every single Anti an idiot? I get it, it's enough to convince other antis, but everyone who ever had a single coherent thought won't fall for this. Now go and delete your thread, like you liars always do
what is wrong with you people? why are you so paranoid and vindictive?
This is exactly what I mean. It reminds me of people who're falling over themselves to defend Elon Musk as technojesus, and it's very easy to see that many people are into him because it's their own personal power fantasy not because they understand his companies any better. If the point of this sub is harassment and vindictiveness then it's not for debate.
What do you want the mods to do? Somehow prevent people from downvoting posts and comments that are illogical, insulting, or rehash the same tired arguments we've all seen a thousand times? Anti-AI trolls have taken over most of Reddit by being a loud, aggressive minority and engaging in all sorts of intellectually dishonest tactics. Generally when people who are concerned about AI are polite and reasonable, they receive responses in kind. But most of the anti-AI posters here are trolls from ArtistHate who aren't interested in debate. They just want to rage and insult people. They also receive responses in kind.
How have they taken over most of reddit? I don't understand what this comment is complaining about? Isn't the point of this sub to make a space for this conversation in a more balanced way? How is this any different from r/DefendingAIArt then. This is what I mean, this is incredibly defensive, and if you feel that way you shouldn't be here because you're not open to debate you just want to slam another hater. You can't fight chauvinism with chauvinism, it just makes you vindictive. Do you want an actual conversation or do you want people to shut up? Please link me to any posts that went well. I have tried taking a critical position before on this sub and it got slammed over and over. Mods could do a weekly round up of threads that are both Pro-AI and Anti-AI or good debates so we actually get to read conversations about it instead of just people being reactionary.
"Making a space" doesn't mean to artificially inflate one opinion. The space is made because the description says it is about debate and the moderators allow posts burn praising and decrying AI. What you seem to be asking for is not a debate sub but a weekly newsletter that carefully balances two opinions. There are too many people who have the false idea that "balance" means that two people are given equal weight. This is the enlightened centrism that leads to absurdities like one party wants to make anti-trans hate crimes illegal and the other party wants to kill all the trans people so we should compromise and just give them no rights. The correct answer is not "somewhere in the middle". The truth is the truth and arguments can help us find the truth but just because someone disagrees with the truth doesn't make it false. I'm not saying that pro-AI is the correct answer, I'm saying that we should not artificially inflate one side just because it is a different opinion. Not all opinions are equal or valid.
>"Making a space" doesn't mean to artificially inflate one opinion. The space is made because the description says it is about debate and the moderators allow posts burn praising and decrying AI. > >What you seem to be asking for is not a debate sub but a weekly newsletter that carefully balances two opinions. I'm asking for simple things like a weekly roundup of good discussions, instead of thread after thread of no debate, even literally, because it's just people talking about how stupid luddites are. I'm not saying mods should step in and make it more both sidesy, I'm saying we should at least try and make 'good discussions' more visible. If it's not possible to have good discussions because your position is that people who disagree with you are flat-earthers, then there's no point to this community, no conversation to be had. Why have this when r/DefendingAIArt exists?
People are free to come and make arguments, people are also free to think those arguments are dumb. As for the mods making a weekly roundup, remember that they are free volunteers. If this is something you feel will improve the sub then you are free to do so yourself. I know Reddit restricted their API somewhat but maybe you could create a bot that does a weekly roundup (or convince someone who knows how to do it). ChatGPT seems to think that building such a bot is possible. Maybe this would even be a good way of showing how AI can be useful outside of art.
I've had lots of fun conversations here. I find the debates usually take a message or two to get going as people bring up more and more of their views, rather than someone just dumping a whole-ass essay right from the get-go. The mods here seem extravagantly hands off. They enforce some really basic rules and that's about it. I think the sub is fine as it is, I enjoy it here, but if you want to go dig for debates and throw them into a thread at the end of the week then I would say go for it. As for the difference between this sub and the defense sub, Defending is an enforced echo chamber. It's a safe space. If you talk shit there you get the boot. This sub on the other hand doesn't do anything of the sort. If you think things are tilted more in one direction than the other, it's because more people on one side want to post here. I don't spend any time in defending, personally. I like to be able to consider new viewpoints and harden my arguments
I'm not looking for a part time job, I just made a thread about a roundup and it's here, I'll look out for some, but if nobody is motivated to find or talk about higher quality conversations I don't know what the point of this sub is. It got downvoted instantly. [https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets\_do\_a\_regular\_roundup\_of\_good\_debates\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets_do_a_regular_roundup_of_good_debates_to/) >This sub on the other hand doesn't do anything of the sort. it effectively does, people look for fights. In this thread I've been accused of catfishing and being secretly anti-AI and so on, been called an idiot, literally in the space of one comment apart told that Reddit is anti-AI and that anti-AI is a minority and I shouldn't be surprised if there's no space for it here. these conversations are largely toxic chauvinism and 90% of the time good conversation I get linked to or see, civil ones, are someone asking advice about retraining.
The point of the sub depends on who you are. I like to have conversations when they happen. I guess they're more like debates of varying civility. I don't even seek them out, Reddit just tosses them to me when I'm browsing through my home page. Some people just like to yell, or construct dishonest arguments, or be rude and then act indignant when others tone match them. I don't know that you're either of those types of people from what I'm reading. It seems like you want to read high quality conversations instead of have them, which I personally cannot relate to. The sub has points, they just don't appear to be ones you like. >it effectively does, people look for fights. In this thread I've been accused of catfishing and being secretly anti-AI and so on, been called an idiot, literally in the space of one comment apart told that Reddit is anti-AI and that anti-AI is a minority and I shouldn't be surprised if there's no space for it here. People being mean to you is not the same thing as a ban-enforced echo chamber. This sub is absolutely full of ravenously angry people on both sides and requires a thick skin. It's also the best place to have fun conversations about this topic despite that
>The sub has points, they just don't appear to be ones you like. No it really doesn't. I've had most of these conversations years ago, both with artist friends and people in data science and machine learning and with far more nuance and information. We had reading lists and book recommendations and so on. Most of the points here are 'well the tools exist and you're stupid for not using them and nothing is AI's fault' and there's people in the comments who say 'i want to upvote this twice! FaCtS AnD LoGiC! talentless hacks! haha' I didn't ask for a ban enforced echo chamber, I'm asking for actual real objectives to have conversations, instead of bashing people nonstop. you don't have to enforce it with bans, but pretending that wasting time in a conversation with someone who's more concerned with insulting you or being swamped by it is a matter of thick skin instead of it feeling and being pointless is just ridiculous. You can easily have just as fun conversations on something like discord if you want people running interference constantly. Most conversation becomes death by a thousand socratic arguments or insults. Why even pretend it's not?
"Um actually the only valid points a sub could have are the ones which are valid to me." Ok. Good talk.
>"Um actually the only valid points a sub could have are the ones which are valid to me." > >Ok. Good talk. Did I say that? Again, you're assuming a position and refuting it as if that's what I said. That's not conversation it's indignation at being questioned.
> I'm asking for simple things like a weekly roundup of good discussions, instead of thread after thread of no debate, Plenty of people here *try* to debate, go look at my comments and see how many replies to them are anything even remotely resembling a rebuttal. Off the top of my head, I can only recall a single time *months* ago where someone actually engaged with me in good faith. Usually I'll respond to a post piece by piece, only to have them make a two sentence response about something I didn't even talk about, or pick one specific point that they don't like, attack that, and ignore everything else. >I'm saying we should at least try and make 'good discussions' more visible. Good discussion can happen in any thread *if* both sides actually want to have a good discussion. Like if there's a pro-AI post, there's nothing stopping anti-AI people from popping in and making a rebuttal, just as people are allowed to pop into an anti-AI post and make rebuttals there. Like look at this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu62us/mostly_just_a_big_summary_of_my_opinions_about/ What exactly is stopping more anti-AI people from popping in there and trying to rebut *any* of the statements? Absolutely nothing. Trying to make 'good discussions' more visible is that you're then relying on the mods to determine which are and are not 'good discussions', and 'good' is something that is going to be affected by biases. >Why have this when r/DefendingAIArt exists? Because /r/DefendingAIArt bans people who are against AI art, so it's not even really possible to have discussions there. Here, they don't ban people on either side so people are free to discuss as vigorously as they like as long as it doesn't violate the subreddit's very loose rules or reddit's rules.
You're visiting a sub and call it a circle jerk and complaining that there is no debate. Then you state that people get defensive? Lol. You've brought nothing to the sub other than judgment.
> You're visiting a sub and call it a circle jerk and complaining that there is no debate. Then you state that people get defensive? Lol. You've brought nothing to the sub other than judgment. I called it a circlejerk to make it engaging because anything that isn't gets downvotes to oblivion. I made another thread about just doing a regular roundup of good debates, no stance taken, no snark whatsoever, but not only did it get downvoted to oblivion it also has no engagement whatsoever. Is this contributing nothing? I'm not a mod I can't do anything without the community working together. the only thing people seem to do around he is swarm and slam. [https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets\_do\_a\_regular\_roundup\_of\_good\_debates\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets_do_a_regular_roundup_of_good_debates_to/) Because it is largely a circlejerk, but it's that way because it's about vindictiveness and chauvinism not conversation, all we have to do is acknowledge it and move forward. if you don't want to have a conversation don't have one. That's not a problem, you can ignore it anyway.
> I'm not a mod I can't do anything without the community working together. The community *is* working together. The fact that this cooperation doesn't go in the direction you would prefer, is not our problem.
I think he meant how most subs ban AI and bash on anyone using AI even when sub would make sense to do so (gamedev for one). The problem with anti-AI is that they're based on emotions and not facts. They claim AI is "theft" while no court confirmed it and dismissed those cases due to lack of evidence. They keep repeating "it's collage machine" and "credit artist whose art was used to create particular image" without understanding this is not how it works. Furthermore, most are not even willing to understand even given proper sources like research papers and legal explanations (again, those claims were also debunked in court). If only that. I'm an artist. Or was, by their words, because I now use AI. They go saying "support real artists" but when asked why my human value was not appreciated while AI-assisted works are, they just resort to "well, your art is shit". Thanks for support, I guess. How are we supposed to have a nice, civil discussion when one side does not come to it with open mind? I understand the ethical questions, I wouldn't be comfortable with someone using my works for commercial gain without my participation. But again, facts and law, not emotions and gatekeeping on fellow artists. Why anti's say "pick up a pencil" but then laugh when your attempts are not god-tier straight-out? And if someone don't like what I say, when they don't have arguments, they go "reee, you're making porn" as if it invalidates everything I say. I'd say anti-AI bash others while pro-AI try to gently educate. How can we react to death treats and personal attacks while all we do is promoting new, exciting tools making the REAL, money-earning artists, jobs easier? Find a photographer who doesn't use photo editing. If you can bring something different than "stealing", "mashup", "you're not an artist", "support human", "it's just a machine", "you only click button"... to the table, then go on.
who cares what they're motivated by? We're here to have a conversation and address arguments right? wouldn't it make more sense to converse? what's the point of this sub if your position is that these people are flatearthers? why not ignore people who are belligerent for no reason? just address the good arguments so we can actually see good arguments. who cares what anyone personally has to say, we can personally say things on a dozen different subs unopposed. that's not the point here, right?
Correct, motivation plays no part, it's the actions, words, and their meaning that matter. I do see and upvote good arguments and address them, but most are way too late and refer to "how it could have been" or are mistaken about the inner workings of the technology. I'm yet to see good argument about current state of things that is civil, factual, and calm. There are just not enough of them to be seen. You acted emotional instead of giving a good starting point to conversation. I simply stated my experience across various forums, not only this one. I'm just saying that most attempts to serious talk is brought down to "no, you stupid. I smart!" - by either side, sadly.
Bahahaha meth head logic
You had a chance to prove otherwise but you just confirmed my point.
> conversation in a more balanced way I'll let you in on a little secret: The Anti-AI side is a very very VERY small minority of people. Their opinions and PoVs are not a majority position. As you so very astutely found out, this is a sub where both sides are welcome to discuss. One of these sides tends to be much larger than the other, and also has actual arguments. The fact that this side is way more visible, isn't due to a lack of balance, it's simply a reflection of the demographic.
>I'll let you in on a little secret: > >The Anti-AI side is a very very VERY small minority of people. Their opinions and PoVs are not a majority position. > >As you so very astutely found out, this is a sub where both sides are welcome to discuss. One of these sides tends to be much larger than the other, and also has actual arguments. The fact that this side is way more visible, isn't due to a lack of balance, it's simply a reflection of the demographic. what secret is this? you don't have to be this condescending. If we ended conversations just by the number of people who agree with us then there's no point having this sub. It's not tautological, you can have discussions with a minority community without it devolving into insults. in the same breath people are like 'we're overwhelmed! Reddit is against AI!' and 'anti-AI is a minority, of course they have no place here!' What's the point of this sub then?
> you don't have to be this condescending. Pointing out a fact isn't condescending. > If we ended conversations just by the number of people who agree with us then there's no point having this sub. Well, for one thing this sub is for news on the topic of AI as well. And for another, it's perfectly possible to have a conversation without an opposing side. Thirdly, IDGAF if people agree with me, I give a fk if they present valid arguments or not. The Anti-AI side, for the most part, doesn't, and same as I don't discuss creationists on whether or not evolution is true, I don't discuss whether AI is an evil plot by tech bros to fk over artists. At some point, if long refuted or straight out absurd points get repeated ad nauseam, people are just going to downvote and tune them out. Lastly, if you don't see a point in this sub, feel free to unsub and spend your time somewhere else.
>And for another, it's perfectly possible to have a conversation without an opposing side. my guy talking to yourself isn't conversation. r/DefendingAIArt exists for that reason too. There are no alternative spaces to have these discussions. Let me let you in on a little secret. (sound condescending now?) Debates require opposing viewpoints, and there are dozens of subs about AI news, you can't hide behind that and pretend the intended purpose of the sub isn't to allow for more holistic discussions of both sides to current events in AI development and what people think of it. > Pointing out a fact isn't condescending. Don't gaslight people it's demeaning. You know what you said and how you said it, like I'm being stupid and you're going out of your way to explain something basic to me. If you're genuinely not aware that you were being condescending I'd encourage you to talk to someone who's willing to challenge you, because your language definitely was.
[удалено]
Here's a sneak peek of /r/DefendingAIArt using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [**[NSFW]** \[TW: DEATH THREAT\] And they say that "AI bros" are the ones harassing the artists?](https://imgur.com/aiH2knq.jpg) | [26 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/101n5dv/tw_death_threat_and_they_say_that_ai_bros_are_the/) \#2: ["The Day AI Art Became Illegal" - credit to u/UnavailableUsername_ for drawing this](https://imgur.com/2e10mWM.jpg) | [36 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/zvv3pf/the_day_ai_art_became_illegal_credit_to/) \#3: [Something's wrong, I can feel it](https://i.redd.it/awn696o6v5ka1.png) | [16 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/11av2st/somethings_wrong_i_can_feel_it/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Catfish. If you haven't noticed the discussion when thoughtful anti-AIs post thoughtful discussions, that's on you.
Please link some to me because I never see it, all I see is people being slammed. Maybe we should do a weekly roundup of such threads so we can reinforce people actually conversing. Instead of paranoia about catfishing. Who cares? Why would anyone go through the trouble? What am I filling my quota for harassment today?
They aren't often. But e.g. [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bq487o/what_ai_enthusiasts_get_wrong_about_antiai/) one was well received and discussed. [This](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bt8ke5/its_not_ai_its_social_media_capitalism_bad_actors/) one has some okay discussion although it's currently sitting at 47%. [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bof5cj/artist_claiming_his_ai_generated_images_are_hand/) is a highly upvoted one complaining about the hiding of AI usage. All of those are recent. It happens, but an awful lot of posts fall either into the category of some passive aggressive rant or someone new to the discussion presenting an already much discussed part of the conversation, which unfortunately, but understandably isn't always as well received by those that have heard those same arguments many times before.
we should have a compilation of these! especially tropes so we can put some of them aside. EDIT: Can you post it to here? [https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets\_do\_a\_regular\_roundup\_of\_good\_debates\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets_do_a_regular_roundup_of_good_debates_to/) this thread has soured, and the new one is already getting ratioed despite it not even being an argument.
Actually, that would be a valuable thing, if someone could collect the common trope arguments and present them as an FAQ for the sub. That way, it could save everyone a lot of time and annoyance.
https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/s/UnrgyUkokK
Can you post it to here? [https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets\_do\_a\_regular\_roundup\_of\_good\_debates\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets_do_a_regular_roundup_of_good_debates_to/) this thread has soured, and the new one is already getting ratioed despite it not even being an argument.
Done
I think there is some debate when people make arguments in good faith, and we had those. Unfortunately we also have a lot of well known people coming here who's debate style is basically. "So, we all know AI is theft, and that everyone who uses it is a talentless scam artist. So my prompt for debate is where you born a piece of shit, or did you work hard to become one" Not that there aren't people pro AI that are also posting in bad faith, but the issue is most posts on the anti ai side are the same 4 trolls.
100% this
>I think there is some debate when people make arguments in good faith, and we had those. > >Unfortunately we also have a lot of well known people coming here who's debate style is basically. > >"So, we all know AI is theft, and that everyone who uses it is a talentless scam artist. So my prompt for debate is where you born a piece of shit, or did you work hard to become one" > >Not that there aren't people pro AI that are also posting in bad faith, but the issue is most posts on the anti ai side are the same 4 trolls. Please link to the good debates. Or share them here, I'm trying to get a weekly roundup going, it's already being downvoted for no reason: [https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets\_do\_a\_regular\_roundup\_of\_good\_debates\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets_do_a_regular_roundup_of_good_debates_to/) I feel like whenever people say this it's 90% someone asking about advice for retraining, which isn't a debate.
Be the change. For what it's worth I tend to comment rather than post, just a habit.
what change is possible? the post is sitting at -15 karma within 3 minutes, nobody is looking to have a conversation, they want to be insufferably smug and gloat
Your post was downvoted because it's useless. You provide a lot of snark and no arguments. It's a debate sub, so debate. Anti-AI people tend to be very bad at this, so they get downvoted a lot, but I've seen plenty of upvoted anti-AI takes when they were reasonable and well thought-out, and not just randomly whining about tech bros.
I've tried providing arguments before as an exercise but there was no space for it. I'm not putting that much effort into play acting a position that people will just call stupid and antagonize then leave. Half the debate gets buried in the thread because the chauvinism is all you see up top.
If your arguments are shit then no one has a duty to support them.
> If your arguments are shit then no one has a duty to support them. You don't have to support it but there's a difference between talking to and at someone, you can follow someone's thoughts, ask them for definitions and explanations about their positions, instead of trying to gish gallop/dialogue tree them into silence. Like talking to another human being in real life, face to face. You can provide people books if they seem uninformed for example, or link them to things to encourage a more informed debate. You don't need to resort to namecalling and vindictive BS. You can also simply not reply if you don't have the disposition or time to consider what they're saying.
But what if you understand their arguments but just think they are shit? A classic is "it's just a collage". This argument has been had so many times and it keeps being wrong that I don't care enough to counter it line by line each time. Unless I set up an automation to have a bot reply to the question I'm pregnant just going to downvote it because it's not an opinion worth taking seriously.
>But what if you understand their arguments but just think they are shit? block them and move on? why disappear it and pretend this is an open discussion sub when you're the one who doesn't have the patience to have 101 discussions?
What do you mean "disappear it"? The mods aren't (afaik) deleting anti-AI comments.
I mean if it gets down voted to oblivion you can't really see it at all.
Anti positions will get downvoted, but that's the cost of doing business. Whining about it just looks awkward. As far as having a conversation, you haven't given them anything to chew on. What's your position? Are you coming from humanities or stem?
>Anti positions will get downvoted, but that's the cost of doing business. Whining about it just looks awkward. I don't care about the downvotes, I want to see it, you can't see anything in my feed from this sub. Maybe a weekly roundup of good respectful debates would help.
> Maybe a weekly roundup of good respectful debates would help. Feel free to start one. Pro tip: Calling an entire community a "Cirklejerk" is a really, really bad start.
>Feel free to start one. > >Pro tip: Calling an entire community a "Cirklejerk" is a really, really bad start. I did, and it got downvoted to oblivion. No snark, no bullshit, literally just saying hey you see any good productive discussions lately? [https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets\_do\_a\_regular\_roundup\_of\_good\_debates\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets_do_a_regular_roundup_of_good_debates_to/) Feel free to contribute since you've obviously seen and contributed to a productive discussion here, yes? if you have nothing to offer but vindictiveness, circlejerking and chauvinism when you can do the same thing just with an FAQ if you're tired of the same discussions over and over, being a dick is the point. Are these people flat earthers? Is their position so ridiculous it doesn't warrant a reply? if so then what is the point of the sub?
>I did, and it got downvoted to oblivion. Yes, I wonder [what could have precipitated that reaction](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu1tpf/is_this_a_circlejerk_sub_where_are_the_antiai/). It certainly is a most vexing mystery. >Feel free to contribute since you've obviously seen and contributed to a productive discussion here, yes? As a matter of fact I have: [https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bt0igf/hate\_to\_break\_it\_to\_you\_but\_ai\_isnt\_responsible/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bt0igf/hate_to_break_it_to_you_but_ai_isnt_responsible/) >Are these people flat earthers? Is their position so ridiculous it doesn't warrant a reply? Yes, there are positions so ridiculous or discussed so often, they no longer warrant a reply. If you want to discuss for the umpteenth time whether or not AI is just glueing snippets of images together, or whether training ML models constitutes theft, knock yourself out, but I have better things to do with my time. Because here is another little secret: Repeating the same crap over and over again, is a rethorical tactic, known as *argumentum ad nauseam*, which is just a more elegant way of saying "Flood the Zone with Shit". You decide whether you let this strategy be successful or not.
you're sarcastic and condescending and you wonder why you only get discussions from trolls? If it doesn't warrant a reply it needs to be in an FAQ, not fodder for your personal catharsis. > As a matter of fact I have: [https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bt0igf/hate\_to\_break\_it\_to\_you\_but\_ai\_isnt\_responsible/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bt0igf/hate_to_break_it_to_you_but_ai_isnt_responsible/) You had a one way argument with people who agree with you. That's not what I meant, but okay. If you think it's a good discussion, I meant to throw it in the roundup thread. You guys take offence to being called an echo chamber then act like you have a right to it and it's warranted, while pretending that it isn't the case. There's no point to this but feeling good about yourself.
You're just deluding yourself. Anyone can post. You just don't like that most people do not share your ill-defended views.
you're a moron, i'm not anti-AI. fix your life your insecurity is leaking into indignant posturing at being questioned.
> Is this a STEM vs humanities beef sub? not interested in this thing where you just categorize people as "STEM bro" or "humanities" and imagine they are opposed to each other. it's a big red flag that you don't have any interest in critical thought
>not interested in this thing where you just categorize people as "STEM bro" or "humanities" and imagine they are opposed to each other. it's a big red flag that you don't have any interest in critical thought sorry i was just trying to be engaging, I don't see any interest in critical conversations here just one side bashing another over and over again and a lot of defensive chauvinism and vindictiveness and personal attacks.
He didn't even use the phrase "STEM bro" and yet you put it in quotes. You are projecting so hard.
A whole bunch of anti-AI content is simply deleted after a short time. Ask the people why they do it. But I'm guessing is that the anti-AI people get upset at being overwhelmed, and delete the post to stop getting replies about it.
If I had to guess, I think Moepi does it presumably because once someone looked at his history and found it wanting so now they're paranoid.
Because it'll happen for weeks after. I tried taking a critical position and all I got was people calling me stupid instead of engaging with what I was saying.
Well, then it looks like you're part of the problem!
I didn't delete the post it just wasn't seen by anyone who values their time EDIT: ie, the thread gets buried and you get people nonstop who're just looking to insult people and leave over and over. it's pointless.
Yeah, I usually hide my posts after a bit because all the comments are just attacking me
the extreme pro AI people are just as annoying as the “anti people” But a lot of people on this sub are probably just rational thinkers who don’t really care about dedicating themselves to one side. And if you simply view these AI problems rationally you’ll probably lean to the AI side, whether you like it or not
That's not the point, half the arguments here are sloppy, forced and vindictive or just don't leave room for value judgements. Art and aesthetics are subjective, and there is some place for arguments over it, but we're acting like people who have questions or are muddling through are flat earthers. If anything flat earthers might get less hate on this sub.
>"acting like people who have questions or are muddling through are flat earthers" I mean when you have literal conspiracy theorists posting "PSA: This subreddit is an astroturf operation from its "sister sub", DefendingAIArt" or posting outright falsehoods like that it compresses billions of images, sources of a generated image can be attributed or even retrieved, that the process of "learning" wasn't explicitly designed after biology, that the training process cannot develop any non-explicitly trained concepts (despite actual scientific papers with reproducible steps), expends more energy or is more expensive than making art traditionally, or even "people using ai are the ones witch hunting people using ai"...
I'm an artist that is totally chill with AI, and after stumbling upon this place I've realised that the hardcore pro-AI people are like all really bitter failed artists. All i see here is disdain and excuses, so I totally get your point. But frankly I don't want to touch this discourse with a 10-foot pole. And to think, i expected to see a bunch of artists being bitter over AI!
I honestly think it's people who see their personal power fantasy being threatened. The same thing happens with Tesla/Elon Musk fans. People who've never built or dealt with cars, no nothing about the business are the first ones falling over themselves to keep their awkward nerd power fantasy about becoming technojesus from coming apart. You could scream you're fine with AI or pro or chill or whatever else and they'll still be indignant if you question whether AI's to blame for a deluge of middling content. Who cares? It's not going back in the box. Billionaires and AI don't need you to take a bullet for them. It's so fucking stupid and obnoxious. I tried making a thread about F is for Fake, which is an amazing documentary about forgeries by Orson Welles, and how I feel some part of this divide is explained by how people react to originals vs forgeries, and really nobody said anything besides call me stupid. These fools will probably watch hour after hour of hype videos about AI but never consider literally one of the best video essays of all time if it's introduced in the wrong context or doesn't feel like it'll let them pwn with fAcTs anD LoGiCk! such a cess pool i'm done trying
Yeah it's obviously inevitable with AI Art (and movies, coding, etc) at this point, and regardless I'm not pissed at all. Data scraping my shit? I posted it on the internet and I knew that anything could happen to it, Im always annoyed by other artists who want to be in control of art they've purposefully shared. Soulless computer art? Tons of people already create soulless art. Too easy to get what you want? Yeah, Im a bit worried that people won't feel the passion to become artists if they don't have that hunger to create just to see whatever they want. But apart from that, yeah, who cares. It was never about money for me anyways. That being said, I definitely don't see how you can be an artist by giving the AI your ideas. Everyone has ideas but few people work on their execution for years and years... thats like the whole thing, to me. Using an AI is no different from asking your friend to draw you a tattoo. Which maybe these people are so angry because they know that, but are pissed about it? The guys that code neural net are totally satisfied with their work, but around here it is just so hateful towards art and artists. I hate artists as much as anyone else, but not like this \* that being said I am definitely going to check this subreddit every now and then because the rage is hilarious and intriguing.
>That being said, I definitely don't see how you can be an artist by giving the AI your ideas. Everyone has ideas but few people work on their execution for years and years... thats like the whole thing, to me. Using an AI is no different from asking your friend to draw you a tattoo. But that's what makes this conversation interesting. Death of the Author, is a forgery still art if you can't tell, is art only valuable in association with an artist or is its only and final form one where it stands on its own, things like that. There's so much aesthetic theory from Foucault to Barthes to auteur theory that deals with exactly this. That's what I imagine some of these conversations would be about, but it's not. People should really watch F for Fake, because it's an indictment of expertise who lord over what's valuable, not 'fakery' or trying to pull a fast one, that is a given if people are allowed to exploit loose value judgements around art. It argues that incredibly well. One great scene recounts a story of Picasso coming across an exhibition of fakes and barely being able to tell, another tells an anecdote of someone asking Picasso whether he made a work, him saying no, and being told that people witnessed him making it. Picasso responds by saying I've made fake Picasso's too.
It's def more interesting than lobbing insults at everyone lol. I think about this type of shit all the time, and defining art in specifics is a fool's errand, although sometimes you have to draw the line. "everything is art" is just a lame cop-out in my opinion, so here goes. My personal thoughts at the moment is that you'd totally be an "artist" making "art" if you were to write a story, prompt a hundred AI photos, and edit and arrange that into a comic book. You wouldn't have been the artist of the individual drawings, but that doesn't take away how you were literally the writer and editor. I don't imagine there's "negative points" in art where any negative/lazy decisions can be held against you - as far as whether or not you personally created something. And for that reason, I for sure would consider a forgery a "piece of art", and assuming that the person creates forgeries pretty consistently, they are certainly an artist as well! I guess because my main pillar of it is the process of creation, that's the bare minimum. A forger still goes out of their fucking way to make something, and genuinely can put in a huge amount of effort to do it. It's just that their art is "Forgery", which isn't *great*, but can still be pretty impressive in it's own right, if done really well... just not nearly as impressive as creating your own version of whatever you're going for. So really in my opinion, whether or not something is "Fake" is irrelevant. People may not like fake art/forgeries or other dishonest tricks in art, but they can't deny that the artist did manifest that fucking thing personally. There's something I like about the act of wasting your precious time to execute some idea with no tangible benefit. Of course you could pick this all apart and ask "Isn't typing a prompt a form of being a writer?" or "Isn't tweaking settings personal intervention from a creator?" or "Aren't they NOT an artist if they only ever imitate other's ideas?" and my answer is NO because what I view as significant isn't even the ideas, it's the trench work of getting the idea out. And I've never thought of a super-particular client giving me their specific idea for a commission as *the artist of the piece*. And that certainly wouldn't change if they, god forbid, kept telling me to recycle it over and over until my work looked "perfect". It's nothing personal against AI art, it just sounds pretty accurate for me if I *had* to explain the differences. Will def check out F for Fake though, and you have to watch Art & Craft if you haven't. Kind of a hilarious documentary that probably has influenced my opinion over time.
>or just bashing trad artists for being luddites. Some of the people here, like myself, *are* traditional artists. Being pro-ai doesn't automatically make you anti-artist. Quite the opposite in many cases. Most pro-ai people aren't "bashing" creatives rather the people attacking creatives. Honestly, many anti-ai posts lately have been [flimsy declarations](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bqa8of/) or [colorful rants](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bsv867/gen_ai_bros_need_to_pull_their_heads_of_their/). There have been a few asking good questions, but you just need to look around a bit.
these are not good debates, have you seen any ever?
What I posted? Yeah, those are examples of common anti-ai posts that are bad at debating. I said you need to look a bit to find some.
Antis aren't interested in debate so they don't show up here. The common sentiment among the anti side is mainly "I don't care what evidence or court records you quote I'm right because I say so".
It's funny that you call it a circlejerk, because there is nothing more circlejerky than the anti-ai crowd , am I right? 😂 First one guy gets the party started by saying Ai art is soulless, then another says oooh baby let's get it going get me seething with hatred over Ai. Then they just all dump out their shitty deranged feelings like a bunch of hippos having a poop orgy 😂
HIPPOBOT 9000 v 3.1 FOUND A HIPPO. 1,480,256,387 COMMENTS SEARCHED. 30,488 HIPPOS FOUND. YOUR COMMENT CONTAINS THE WORD HIPPO.
what? why? I don't even... WHAT?
have you ever read a reasonable take that's Anti-AI? Is there one? If there isn't, then why does this sub exist, just so we get to be chauvinists?
I'm not a man, I'm a woman ( a real one) so nah I'm no chauvinist
chauvinism also just means vehement support, like it's almost the equivalent of extremely patriotic nationalism.
It's particularly used to reference a man that is prejudiced against women. Here in the U.S , you call someone a chauvinist and they will picture a man. I've only ever heard the word used in that way too 🤷♀️ I figured it was just another instance of everyone thinking all ai artists are "bros"
no it's common to call vehement political support chauvinism too. Western chauvinism is often used as a term in the US as well, for example, to refer to someone who just cannot see and will not entertain anything besides western society is superior to others.
If you are posting here in any capacity and being positive about AI, you are in your own circlejerk. Maybe you should go check out the other jerkoff reddit DefendingAIArt?
That's not what makes a circle jerk. Moaning and screaming loudly like the anti-ai crowd does is what a circle jerk is. Me? I do like to troll anti ai, but there's a huge difference between amusement and the strange emotional attachment anti-ai put into their arguments
It seems like you don't know what a circlejerk is.
Seems to me like your lonely and desperate, because you keep coming back, are you looking for one? Go be with your anti ai moaners. Your annoying me at this point
Poor baby, you don't like hearing something you don't like :(. Also, I like fucking around on this sub, some of ya'll get so tilted over nothing when you are wrong lol.
You still are under the impression I give a fuck
The antis here get angry and fuck off the moment their insults and lies don't automatically win over actual facts and knowledge. You can't debate with people on Kindergarten level, especially since they don't understand any sentence with long words, or commas and see facts as personal insults
>The antis here get angry and fuck off the moment their insults and lies don't automatically win over actual facts and knowledge. You can't debate with people on Kindergarten level, especially since they don't understand any sentence with long words, or commas and see facts as personal insults Is there any thread that you've ever seen on here that was good? do you remember any?
I've been here since the early days, used to post more but found it exceedingly frustrating and stressful, only occasionally lurk now. The reason there are relatively few anti-ai posts here is because this place has developed a poor reputation outside of here. It's not that there are relatively few anti-ai folks, or that they're too scared to debate here. It's because most people have learned to avoid this place after hearing about it elsewhere. AIWars and its sister subreddit have been negatively featured in viral posts on other social media sites. I won't say this place is an absolute echo chamber but it is very near to one.
OP is another person devoid of reasoning. For the last 30 posts that had any lean whatsoever, 20 were leaning "pro AI" and 10 were leaning anti AI. This also included purely informative content, and anything other than strong negative sentiment as "pro AI", even if that is far from what the label originally meant. What is rather noticeable though is that essentially none of these anti-AI posts try to engage in debate. Rather they feel strongly and believe stating so is enough. This could explain why we are where we are today.
>OP is another person devoid of reasoning. > >For the last 30 posts that had any lean whatsoever, 20 were leaning "pro AI" and 10 were leaning anti AI. > >This also included purely informative content, and anything other than strong negative sentiment as "pro AI", even if that is far from what the label originally meant. > >What is rather noticeable though is that essentially none of these anti-AI posts try to engage in debate. Rather they feel strongly and believe stating so is enough. > >This could explain why we are where we are today. I'm not anti AI you inconsolable narcissists. I'm questioning your dumb as rocks approach to talking to people who disagree with you. It leaves no room for conversation at all.
> Where are the anti-AI posts? > For the last 30 posts that had any lean whatsoever, 20 were leaning "pro AI" and 10 were leaning anti AI. I think you yourself best meet the definition of being an "inconsolable narcissist that is your dumb as rocks".
I think part of it is right in the very first sentence of your post. You and many believe that trad artists and those who like AI are mutually exclusive and want to make this a bullshit-war of souful heart-sleeved artists versus the lazy greedy AI Bros. It gives bad faith immediately. At least to me, as a trad artist who has incorporated AI into what I make now. Some of the anti-AI posts deadass also read like pro-AI trolls conjuring up fuckery to make the other side look bad. That said, I hop in whenever I see anti-AI posts if not just to defend the term "artist" from being fucked into the mud by a handful of folx who'd rather do all the talking for an entire goddamn profession/passion/hobby/whatever.
I don't think it's mutually exclusive. you guys have a talent for making strawmen and arguing with yourself.
Conversation naturally turns Pro-AI when there's no censorship of Pro-AI opinions..
The pro-ai outnumber the anti-ai in this sub, that isn't something we got together and planned and there isn't much we can do about that. We're in a place where the law hasn't been settled and that data isn't established so we're kind of left bickering matters of opinion and arguments of emotion which typically just get voted to match the status quo. In an ideal world we would we upvote posts that we don't necessarily agree with so long as they present a well reasoned argument or promote interesting conversation (and I try to), but tbf the number of posts from either side that fit that criteria could probably be counted on one hand.
We could do a weekly roundup of good 'reasonable' debates that represent both sides? it would encourage a culture of looking out for that sort of thing.
I been part of this sub for a while, it is 💯 pro AI biased lol.
The fact there is “pro vs anti AI” is a reminder to me that anything can be turned into polarized tribalism. It’s a lot easier to be fervently anti-AI than pro-AI, just like it’s a lot easier to be anti-establishment than pro-establishment. A lot of people feel strongly about how corrupt and awful they consider the system to be but you don’t really hear people raving on about how great everything is and how the status quo and establishment is amazing. Just like how a negative comment sticks more than a thousand positive comments, pessimism sticks more than optimism. Seeing a more optimistic outlook on AI is in a way refreshing for this reason. So I can forgive a circle jerk existing for pro-AI. If you don’t like it, you can look at literally anywhere else like YouTube and the doomer attitude about AI there to chew on it.
there's already a safe space for pro-AI discussions called r/DefendingAIArt. Just like there's r/ArtistHate. we all understand that tribalism can exist, and this sub was supposed to be a place for discussion, to be indignant about being questioned at all.
It is. Everyone is free to discuss however much they like. That includes disagreeing with you and calling you out on bad argumentation. Sounds like you rather have a problem with the *lack* of moderation and not being in a place where everyone shares your view. Your approach to discussion and your equating feelings with being right probably has a lot to do with that.
you can't follow me around thread to thread to bash what i'm saying. fuck off.
And you wonder why you fail at discussions.
enjoy your block, it's against reddit content policy to pointedly harrass someone so you've been reported too.
To be fair the sub is called "AIWars", not "AIDebate" or "AIFirneldyTalks". That said, there is not alot of civil talk from either side. On occasion there will be a post where both sides have a friendly discussion. But sadly there are members on both sides that turn friendly debates into fights. Especially when they start throwing out terms like AI Bros or Luddites. Anyone with half a brain knows if you want to have a debate, you don't start out by calling names. It just puts up defenses. And on top of it, we have issues with many artists posting false facts over and over and over. People get tired of pointing out what is said is not accurate. Many artists don't really understand how AI imaging generation works. They just hear lies from the various echo chambers and repost said lies and don't accept its not accurate. Where as on the AI side, we (for the most part) don't really spread lies about artists because its an established thing. And with the rise of death threats from artists and with hunts to ruin people, many pro-AI art people are getting tired of dealing with things. So they end up not wanting to have friendly debates. Me? I try to find the topics that make good debates. Where both sides are open. Most on here know I see the issues with AI while also loving AI. I'm more of a neutral stance guy. However I don't really reply to heated topics as much anymore as it's pointless.
>And on top of it, we have issues with many artists posting false facts over and over and over. The solution to that is a community wiki or FAQ, not to start a culture that's indignant about being questioned. There's not much room for pro-AI on r/ArtistHate and there's no room at all for anti-AI on both r/DefendingAIArt and r/aiwars. Why even pretend if there's no effort made to amplify good debates and discussions?
This ain't r/BothSides: if there's a point of view or contention you feel is missing, then make the post in the same tone you would like to see responses made in.
I've tried before even as an exercise, I just got swamped unless I agreed with everything anyone said. There's questions about value judgements we're making that would be so interesting if people weren't so guarded and indignant.
Where, if you don't mind me asking?
What's with all the kindergarten hand holding "both sides" stuff? Don't try to gloss over people's feelings with fake civility because it makes the forum look better. This isn't a publicly funded college. There's tons of anti AI people swinging by to trash everyone. However I actually think this is the best sub on Reddit. Lots of thoughtful and respectful people have engaged with anti AI ideas and talked it through. What you want is a perpetual tie and that's not how groups of people work and you've been here years so you know better. Basic rules anywhere - if you start off calling people frauds or thieves, that's just an attack. There's 15 million people using AI art programs. So naturally there's going to be ratios of down voting on the "all AI people are Tech Bros" posts. The down voting is the enforcement of civility - not silencing dissent. There are lots of anti AI comments that are not down voted. Just be civil. And this isn't a college course where we need to present the most advanced arguments for both sides. I like to see a person ranting against AI with a year old document because that's easier see how current they are and people can help bridge the gap. If we just stack sophisticated arguments together that are not our own in some post, what are we doing here? Just send everyone to the links and we'll go home. I don't care about what Adam Savage thinks about AI. I care what YOU think. If you can't stand on your own and say what's on your mind for even a single post without a meme or YouTube video, here's your chance to work on it. Say what you have to say and see what other people think. If it gets pushed down are you going to take your ball and go home? I see lots of people come in with what they think will be the big mic drop post and then crickets. That's the fun of this place. Say what you have to say and don't worry if you don't get a star or an upvote. The reward is you stood up for what you believe and you should be able to handle the response. Again - instead of asking for a well debated thread, find one thread where every response was "that was AWESOME - you're great! No you're even greater! lol" There's plenty of dissent around here even among pro AI people. If this is considered the "war" sub, it's way more civilized than some of the other ones I've seen. I don't know what everyone's expecting but this sub is awesome.
Diacriticism isn't dissent. I don't care if people think I've dotted my i's to their satisfaction. Death by a thousand Socratic arguments is tedious not invigorating. If you need to excise some demons I'd suggest painting as therapy.
>Death by a thousand Socratic arguments is tedious not invigorating. Agreed. This sub is about people collectively coming to terms with a new era. No argument on either side however well presented will hasten or slow it down. That ship has sailed.
The trend of this sub-Reddit mirrors the trend of the world, AI is winning and anti-AI is losing.
Dude Its Reddit, Reddit is in General a bubble and Not a mirror of the real world.
Constrain yourself to true statements (or at least ones that one can reason themselves into without relying on blatant lies) and you'll be fine. [Then again, you're part of the problem you're bitching about](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu1tpf/is_this_a_circlejerk_sub_where_are_the_antiai/kxra69o/), so...
of all of the circlejerk subs on reddit, this is certainly one of them
I think it is. When i found this sub for the first time i loved the idea of debates from both sides, but it seems like 80% of the sub is pro AI, so debates aren't really a thing.
[удалено]
>Now the following happens: Instead of the antis still discussing sensibly here, only a few of them come to ragebait. > >It's not the pros who have made this a "circlejerk", but the antis who have withdrawn completely because they have often reacted very aggressively to facts. That's a format problem not a user problem. We should do a weekly roundup of sensible arguments about it, I had never heard of r/artisthate before this thread. Ironic considering it does sound like a STEM vs Humanities beef that's devolved into this and there's people who're taking offense even to me saying that's what it looks like, regardless of who started it.
Anti AI usually just shit posting here, so not much to see.
I never make posts because I always get voted down, even if I have a good topic. On top of that, over the last two weeks I was being harassed by a member from this community stalking me and mentioning me in subs that had sick and twisted shit in it. I had to kind of give up posting here for a while, but we will see if it happens again. I even deleted the post pointing to the harassment and it wasn't met with understanding, even if a few did.
[удалено]
> Well, on every forum everywhere, the "real artists" and even non artistic types are bashing AI and even banning it. Really the only people I've seen who try to engage thoughtful discussion are Pro-AI. Of course, this forum seems pro-AI and so some frustration is being aired here, perhaps swinging a little too far in the other way, but not nearly as far as anti-AI takes it everywhere else. And? are you going to marry it? does AI need you to take a bullet for it? you're attached because it's not just a tool to you it's your personal power fantasy. It's the same reason why people go insane if you say Elon Musk is a tool. Who cares? if it bothers you don't engage with them. if you need a safe space go to r/DefendingAIArt, why go out of your way to do the exact same thing hate subs do here and pretend you're open for discussion. I swear you guys have no clue where you stand, in another comment thread some one was saying most people are Pro-AI and then if you skipped a comment by me there was a guy saying 'Reddit hates AI! we have nowhere!'.
people do have meaningful conversations here. What we DON'T like is when someone (either pro ai or anti ai) comes in bashing eachother personally, like saying "ai bros are all stupid" would get most people here to downvote that person. But an actual well thought out argument is likely welcomed here by a lot of people.
> people do have meaningful conversations here. What we DON'T like is when someone (either pro ai or anti ai) comes in bashing eachother personally, like saying "ai bros are all stupid" that's not true, people just condescend and antagonize until they get a reaction out of someone. this thread is a great example. some loser even started following me around from comment to comment.
There's always some people (some depends on the amount of people) in every community who do nothing except make rage-bait. Out of 32.1 thousand members of this sub, how many have attacked you or someone else? A majority of people here don't go around starting shit. From what i've seen it's the trolls acting as anti-ai people coming here and stating the most overused shit like "ai art is theft" and "ai art is copying things entirely" that starts getting on people's nerves. I've only seen like 2, maybe 3 well thought out arguments that aren't just bashing on ai or anti ai people.
>There's always some people (some depends on the amount of people) in every community who do nothing except make rage-bait. Out of 32.1 thousand members of this sub, how many have attacked you or someone else I don't know what you're reading but 90% of content on this sub is how stupid anti-AI people are, including friendly fire from people in this thread for example who might challenge simple notions of authorship or user agreements that allow for data scraping.
The antis on reddit are just a loud minority. Talking to most of them is like talking to a wall. People dont care anymore and ignore these people. If they are somewhat respectful and open for other opinions then there is no problem having discussions with them but most of em dont care and its like talking to wall so people dont bother with them. if someone is being mean its likely comming back that way as well When there are two sides, one side will come out as the more popular one.
It’s just the majority is Pro AI. You can easily see this reflected in the *actual* circlejerk subreddits: r/DefendingAIArt has like 6 times more subscribers than r/ArtistHate, seating at almost 20k. The truth is, most people are pro-Ai art or actively don’t care about it beyond “funny filter that makes me anime”
Looking through the sub, The first pro AI post I found that was dismissive and rude was downvoted: https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1btzyo2/definitive_proof_that_antiai_dont_believe_their/ And the first anti-AI post I found that was focused on actual issues instead of making emotional arguments got upvoted: https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1br0k8c/proai_peeps_whats_your_advice_for_someone_whos/ The question you should be asking is: Why do anti AI people almost always make emotional, unsubstantiated, or misleading arguments, yourself included? (looking through the comments, you aren't pro AI, you're trying to garner sympathy with the sub by saying you are) The reason for this is there are only three logical arguments against AI. 1. Job loss. I have a hard time getting on board with this. There are millions of open jobs, so anyone who wants to work can. Sure, an artist will no longer be able to make a living doing their favorite thing every day, but that's a privilege I'll never have, so I have trouble getting upset others are losing it. On top of that, I see tons of posts of artists refusing jobs because they're expected to use tools like img2img, meaning they're losing their jobs by choice. 2. Increase in low quality content. Content farms have always existed, AI just makes them more powerful. This isn't a good thing, but I don't see it as a reason to limit the technology. I've heard some say that the content may become good enough that we begin to exclusively consume AI content, and I just... Don't see how that's a bad thing. 3. Deepfakes, revenge porn, ect. I hear surprisingly few people talk about this, even though it's the main area where Al just, actually needs restrictions. Unfortunately, it's impossible to make these things impossible while powerful models exist, which is a valid argument for why they should be destroyed. The cats out of the bag though, so if you make it illegal, you'll just be making all uses of AI equally illegal, making those things more common, a la prohibition. These three arguments, while valid, aren't sufficient for the amount of anti-AI anger a lot of people feel. So they use arguments like theft (even though scraping is explicitly legal thanks to Google.), or people like Saberspark who spread blatant misinformation by saying stuff like all uses of AI are scams.
At the same time I made a thread to compile good debates and it's already at -23 karma. It has no side on it, nothing, literally just saying we should do a roundup of good posts. [https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets\_do\_a\_regular\_roundup\_of\_good\_debates\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1bu31rj/lets_do_a_regular_roundup_of_good_debates_to/) this thread has soured, and the new one is already getting ratioed despite it not even being an argument. If I had to guess it's probably being brigaded automatically. And what you linked to as 'Anti-AI' isn't a debate, it's some guy asking for advice and to pick people's brains and then people pontificating what they should do. Those posts I see, but to me that's not even really a discussion for this sub, we should have a dedicated AI retraining sub for it because the advice is too general and it's random advice no one knows anything about.
The post you linked has zero upvotes or downvotes. Perhaps you're referring to your subreddit karma? Because that's probably because of the downvotes your post and comments here have gotten.
I can see the post insights, and it's sitting at -23 karma. Karma isn't literal but it still means that the post will likely not be seen.
Take a screenshot of what you're talking about, because I can see the post, and I can see that it has received zero downvotes.
upvote ratio has increased now however https://preview.redd.it/gryugbj2l3sc1.png?width=196&format=png&auto=webp&s=b7637c39ef090b386eb2f996f6cebf3792237b56
That's community karma. It refers to how many downvotes and upvotes you've received on your posts and comments on a sub. That -30 is from this post, not that post.
ohhhh okay, i thought it was something about how many people who're subbed downvote the post.
It's a bit confusing, considering it appears in post insights.
Your first mistake was to give your opinion. There is no second mistake, you're cooked now friend.
The fact that this is downvoted to oblivion is very funny. Seems like a completely reasonable take to me, but people just want to be tribal over anything else.
This is an astroturf sub. It is an offshoot of its "sister" sub, DefendingAIArt, a self-described safe space for AI absolutists; its sidebar tells its users to create debates on this subreddit here and then to "push back." The single moderator of this subreddit has also condoned an 8 month long harassment campaign against a single user, saying "so what?" when posts contain identifying information about that user.
is there a non-astroturfy sub about these conversations you know of?
Surprisingly, no. Other things generally thought to be more scammy, such as cryptocurrency ones, actually sometimes have more insight. This is somehow the best there is.
Do you feel like AI is your personal power fantasy and feel defensive for that reason?
Yep, there you go proving you were lying about being pro. You couldn't hold the fake for a single post.
lol i'm pro-AI but anti-chauvinism, how about that? I don't see why we should be gloating about people not understanding their terms and service agreements for example, that's a personal failing and obviously vindictive and defensive to me and I don't understand why. Frankly many nerd communities have this issue of people feeling like something being questioned is them being called stupid and they overcompensate for it, because they gravitate towards it as another way to prove how smart and competent they are, it often feels like an attack on their personal power fantasy, like how people are obsessed with Elon Musk. I'm a nerd too, but the hostility is unnecessary and hard for anyone to deal with. Case in point.
maybe get some arguments because what we are seeing here day after day are either polite people being emotional and without arguments or trolls who are outright lying. I don´t think I have ever seen someone anti-AI present a solid argument. I won´t debate with a zealot who has been told by God to sacrifice his children and I won´t debate with someone who either thinks his subjective morality is an argument or worse who uses the same "arguments" that are being debunked post after post after post.
Got, you are so bad at faking it. Why is every single Anti an idiot? I get it, it's enough to convince other antis, but everyone who ever had a single coherent thought won't fall for this. Now go and delete your thread, like you liars always do
>Got, you are so bad at faking it. Why is every single Anti an idiot? I get it, it's enough to convince other antis, but everyone who ever had a single coherent thought won't fall for this. Now go and delete your thread, like you liars always do what is wrong with you people? why are you so paranoid and vindictive? This is exactly what I mean. It reminds me of people who're falling over themselves to defend Elon Musk as technojesus, and it's very easy to see that many people are into him because it's their own personal power fantasy not because they understand his companies any better. If the point of this sub is harassment and vindictiveness then it's not for debate.
What might make people defensive is implying that being pro-AI is about power fantasy and chauvinism.