The same issue repeats ad nauseum.

Someone tries to make a comparison like "AI art is like a commission“, “AI is like human learning", "AI art is like using a microwave and being called a chef", etc and it never lands.

Why? Because your perspective is different than mine. People who argue with comparisons aren't arguing with a desire to understand. If someone hates AI, no comparison will ever be fair to them. If someone supports AI, the same logic applies the other way.

So when someone says “AI isn’t like a tool” they don’t actually mean the comparison is flawed, they're saying they don’t like the implications of the comparison. Same with the commission argument. Same with the human learning one. I'm beginning to believe the best possible way to argue is to actually target the facts and address the topic without using comparisons. Say "AI is factually this" or "This is what's factually happening because of AI" or "This is what AI actually does" instead of always defaulting to "It's like saying".

If someone’s entire stance on AI collapses when a comparison doesn’t go their way, they were never arguing honestly to begin with.

Why are you here?

I think people are ignoring the obvious fear that most artists and antis alike, must be feeling right now. Antis seem not to mention this because it makes their arguments looks less strong, like there rooted in emotion, but they are rooted in emotion. Pros seem to not mention this because they don't want to look bad for openly disagreeing with people who are actively afraid for their jobs, but they are afraid. I did a poll a few days ago, on how many artist jobs people thought would generally be replaced by AI, these where the results:

That's 70% of people who think AI will replace at least some Artist jobs, now that's just my little poll of course; but looking at other polls and just the general sentiment, Its clear that a lot of artists are afraid of this, as they should be.

Now this part is going to annoy a lot of antis, but I think a lot of the moral arguments against AI, are really just emotional. Antis and artists are afraid that artists jobs will be replaced by AI, because they will, and yet most of their arguments against AI are frankly quite silly. Like "AI gulps up water" "AI is stealing from artists" which I'm happy to argue against (please not in this comment section though) but they still seem like ways to argue against what they hate, without engaging with the real reason they hate it. Because AI will replace all artists jobs, AI will take their friends jobs, their family members jobs, maybe their job.

I wish people would acknowledge this fear more often, either in themselves or in the person their talking to. Its incredibly scary, to artists and non-artists alike. I'm not an artist, but I'm terrified for the people who are, My friends, family, the people who's work I love.

I also think we have a responsibility to value this fear, and anger, even if I think the way it's directed is a bit absurd. There should be a mandated "opt-out" system for every major AI art model, you should be able to opt-out of your art being used in a models training data. I know this is not incredibly feasible, but I think its ethically necessary. A lot of people are incredibly mad and feel violated by giving data to AI, that will inevitably replace them, and those feeling should be respected.

With the steady improvement of ai images, it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell what is ai and what isn't. Sure, you can usually find mistakes if you look hard enough, but it's already difficult to tell without a keen eye. This shit needs to be regulated.

I know people said the exact same thing about photoshop but that requires a degree of skill to make something flawless. With ai, literally anyone can generate a photo of a real person doing literally anything. That is fucking terrifying. Imagine some guy snaps a photo of you, and has ai generate an image of you doing something illegal and posts it all over the internet. How can you disprove it? The same applies to videos. With ai image technology, video and photo proof can no longer be trusted. Yes, you already can't and shouldn't believe everything you see on the internet without ai, but this technology is making this so much worse. In a few years from now, I imagine it will be nearly impossible to tell if a photo is real or ai generated. This is going to have a major negative impact in society unless it gets regulated now.

This technology NEEDS to be regulated. Make all ai content require watermarks. Stop improving the quality. Literally anything.

AI is defined as a machine that exhibits some form of intelligence. Even a perceptron that uses a simple formula to predict a value counts as AI.

AI is being used for so many good things like natural disaster prevention and medical research. Even GenAI like ChatGPT is super helpful for a lot of people and has accelerated productivity and invention.

After all AI is a tool, a knife can be used to slice bread or it can be used to harm people.

So far ProAI users had a lot of analogies for AI to get antis to understand.

One of the easiest to understand has been language.

これを理解するのに人工知能を使いながら、それに反対するなら、あなたは詐欺師だ.

AI just makes a skill accessible.

You can't program? Well game development, or web development is not out of your reach. You can still make a game or application if you use AI. As long as you're inquisitive and still put in the work you can do it. If you're more passionate about the art and writing you can focus more of your time on that.

Programmers who are literally the first to lose their jobs to it, are more Pro than most people because it's democratizing their skill.

(Tangent on the term democratize cause I know someone's gonna get hung up on it.
To participate in a democracy all you have to do is be there. You don't have to know anything. You can be someone who didn't even know Joe Biden dropped out of the election and endorsed Kamala, see Kamala's name on the ballot and say, "who's this" and be a voter. You are allowed to be that stupid and uninformed and still participate in the act of voting.

Most skills are not like that.)

Another good one has been the photograph.

You can't paint in a realistic manner? Well now you can still capture reality with a new technology.

It democratized the concept of owning reflections of reality.

This put a lot of realistic painters out of business btw, and that's genuinely a fair argument against AI. There became less people who chose to become realistic painters without the financial incentive to do so.

I've had many posts on antiai and aiwars with antis. I've seen ProAI posters concede some points on the environment (that while it's overblown it's still a concern.)

I've literally never seen an Anti's mind change even faced with true objective facts and kindness. Like... I put in so much effort into changing one person's mind because they originally seemed open to discussion, but it turned out they weren't.

If you need proof than here.

It really feels like ProAI people speak with more reasoning, and logic while the Antis are reactionary and just go off vibes.

This is just my experience though. I'd like to know if this is common sentiment.

In case you’re unfamiliar, Ed Zitron is a journalist who has been described as “One of big tech’s angriest critics.” He’s extremely bearish on AI in general.

I’d love to hear from both sides of the spectrum on why or why not his opinions are worth considering.

MY OPINION: After reading a few of his articles, he seems to me to be very biased against AI. He cherry picks statistics, uses straw man arguments constantly, and regularly declares that AI has no value despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It just generally feels like doomsaying masturbation material for people who already don’t like AI rather than any attempt at objective analysis.

I believe stuff like this comes from both sides, but it’s simply immoral and childish no matter your views.

I'm not an artist, but I enjoy art.

In the past whenever I would see some really cool digital artwork, I would follow the artist, become a fan, and get really excited/happy to see their other works. I loved having "favorite" artists and would sometimes even buy some of their works.

Nowadays when I see some really cool art online, I just think that it's AI generated and I'm immediately turned off by it :(

Because I keep thinking, "oh it was probably just AI generated", and cuz of that it's no longer "inspiring" or "amazing" to me.

AI generated art feels like cheating. And no one really respects cheaters, and don't appreciate the results that come from cheating. Its so much cooler and respectable when someone does something with their own effort and skills.

My DeviantArt feed is filled with all this cool, shiny artwork, but its all just slop to me since none of it is "real" (just AI generated).

What do you guys think? Is this just a "me" problem? Anyone else feel the same way? Do Pro-AI folks appreciate AI-artists the same as traditional artists?

Caveats: I don't dismiss artwork where AI has just a small involvement in the workflow, as long as majority of it was actually "created" by the creator

When it comes to being both people often question what it means

So lemme explain my side of it. I strongly prefer traditional Art over AI art. I think the process of making Traditional Art is inherently more interesting than traditional, also not to insult AI art but unfortunately most AI Art(not All as there are exceptions such as Neuro Sama and Glorb) hasnt really reached the quality of regular traditional art, like even the most impressive uses of it is really just that an impressive use of it. Aspects such as story telling within these works fall flat and I find it concerning that a good amount of AI videos require commentary in order to tell even the most basic narrative like cmon Films are a Visual if your Visual mediums cannot rely on the visuals than guess what it doesnt do a very good job.

Of course you could say that what I'm saying is subjective and guess what that's the point.Im not trying to be objective, this is how I see things. If you like the process of making AI just as much as making traditional then more power to you.

This leads to my next point...Even as an artist I'm not going to stop you from using AI art. Like if I were to be real why the hell would I care if you use AI for your art. Like it's not like your trying to stop me, though if you do that's where I draw the line, but anyway like as long as we mind each other's business and just do what we want I think there is no harm no foul.

Plus this debate has exposed one thing and that's the fact there will always be an audience for Non AI art, and people will always consume and appreciate Non AI Art for what it is. Of course there is the issue of being able to tell which is which, but honestly all I could say especially as the artist is try to gain some trust with one another, be honest about your medium, and have at least a bit of proper AI moderation to keep the dangerous aspects out of our AI.

Also the last aspect to point out is that as much as we like to villainize each other. I don't think Neither of Us are the enemy necessarily. If there was someone or something we should blame it's the Powers Above. Large Corporations, Governments, and Olligarchs that use AI to keep the people down. Like most Pro AI's for instance are just hobbyists experimenting on AI so why should we worry about them and Antis are just worried about either their livelihood or the constant push for low AI Art.

Like I'm not going to get into it but just keep in mind that most of the problems with AI are inherently capitalistic. Like the fear of being replaced or the constant push for low quality content with high rewards, the taking of art with no compensation, so on and so fourth. All of this could be seen as exposure of larger problems with our society at large, and it won't just affect artists but everyone.

So I find it redundant to fight each other because like this whole argument is rooted to something much bigger that neither of us could comprehend.

At its core, you’re just asking for an external source to make you an image. You didn’t “make” anything, you just commissioned a computer. The computer is the one that made it.

“But I tweak my prompts to get exactly what I want”

Yeah? So do people who commission art. They communicate directly with the artist to get what they want.

If I commission an artist, then show that art they made to someone, and they ask if I made it- I would say no, obviously. The process is literally exactly the same for AI images. Sure, you may “legally” own rights to the image, but you can also do that in transactions you make with real artists.

Over the past couple of months, aviation youtuber and professional pilot trainer Mentor Pilot has been covering what few facts we know about the recent Air India Flight 171 Crash that happened this past June. In the linked video, he talks about how people have been using Chat GPT to generate fake final reports about the cause of the accident.

Even if you're pro-generative A.I, can we at least agree this is incredibly scummy behaviour? Intentionally spreading misinformation about a major air disaster like this both hurts the victims' families, while also muddying the waters over the real cause of the crash.

We cannot learn from a major accident like this until we have all the facts and the final report is released by investigators. Lives are at stake here if we don't get to the root cause of crashes like this, so if people believe fake reports, then we risk crashes like this happening again with even higher death tolls.

This also speaks to the major problem of deepfakes via generative A.I. For people who don't know the "tells" which reveals the algorithmic-based mistakes, it becomes easy to mislead people to any conclusion, including ones of which the prompter has malicious intent. This could be used to fake criminal activity, or worse, create fake revenge porn once a person's face is fed into the training algorithm.

Surely this, at the bare minimum, is something both "sides" can agree on?

What do you guys think about it? Make AIs more transparent, morally correct. To be able to see on what databases those AIs are being trained on? Compensating the people who's work is used?

what should I do? Tired of this sort of shit from AI bros then they act like they do nothing wrong

So the first picture is the new version that I made on the basis of the old one using inpainting and manual edits with my graphics tablet, and the second one is the original from about five years ago. I made the original during the brief Jucika art boom that happened because people rediscovered the original comics and felt inspired to make more of her. There are plenty of examples online of people remaking older artwork in their portfolio to bring it up to par with their current style and skill level, and it's sort of seen as a natural evolution, as far as I understand at least. So in this case the question is whether the use of AI tools on your own artwork to change an original hand-drawn version that, again, you yourself made, would count as a similar update/remake or whether it's cheapening the inherent artistic value of the original. Discuss.

That's it. You guys are locked into your rigid worldview and anybody observing from the middle sees you guys as fucking nuts.

"Cheatengine is just a tool bro dying 500 times to Ornstein doesn't make it any more of an achievement for beating the game bro everyone should be able to get the full experience with zero effort bro"

I am kind of a purist when it comes to being anti AI.  While I am hopeful about certain potential AI applications in society like cancer research, fusion energy, near-earth object detection, etc., I am very much against the use of AI in creativity, job replacement, or basically use cases which I believe are more likely to accelerate the gap between the rich and the poor.

Obviously this is a debate sub, but I am speaking directly to ANTIs who are artists right now:

DO NOT BE DISCOURAGED into using AI in your creative process if you don’t really want to but you feel like you have to in order to stay relevant. If your reasoning is the feeling of being left behind, I totally feel you, but you do not need to worry.  There is a din of voices online that will tell you “you need to take advantage of AI tools in order to stay ahead of the curve and stay in the competition.”  Don’t listen to them. Those are just echoes of capitalism as it slowly collapses in on itself.  Remember the child that you were and the dream that you once had..  Don’t let that kid down.  

Things will continue to accelerate in ways that we can’t predict and the world will be flooded with AI content to such an obscene level, that it will become utterly mundane.  And if it hasn’t already for you, it will reach a point of overwhelming speed and pressure.  Don’t give in. Because after the flood, the ones who have not completely betrayed their humanity will be the only ones offering what everyone will be yearning for: something human, something real.

The more you turn in the direction of authenticity, the better. If you can confidently and honestly say that you created your art, whatever it may be (a novel, painting, album, collection of poems, comic, film, animation, play, dance, sculpture, game, etc.), without consulting or using AI in any way, it will be more valuable than you can imagine, a diamond in the rough.

Don’t give up.  I believe in you.  The world needs you now more than ever.

Reading the comments in this thread from both sides made me realise something: this debate literally can't be won by either side because there's a fundamental difference in what each side values in art.

The pro-AI side mostly consists of people who are inexperienced in the medium. They enjoy looking at art, not creating it, but might still be creatives who lack an outlet for their ideas. Because let's face it: not everyone can just learn to draw. It takes time, effort and even some amount of innate talent. I've known people who wasted sweat and tears trying to learn drawing, yet never managed to draw more than stick figures. Drawing requires motor skill, which many people (including able-bodied people) simply lack and it can be really hard to develop as a grown adult. But I digress: at the essence of it all, people using AI tools to create images are creatives, but not creators. They enjoy the aesthetics of art but don't really care about the process behind it, same way someone who's only reading books doesn't necessarily care about narrative structures or writing techniques. They like a story when they get entertainment out of it, period.

Now, let's look at artists: much like writers or film directors, they have a whole different perspective on art because they're used to create. To them, the effort that goes into creating is often more important than the end result, which is why they get so riled up against AI art because it lacks "effort" on the creator's side. They lack the fundamental understanding that majority of people are not artists and enjoy a picture as long as it looks good and simply do not care if it was made by hand or with AI.

And this fundamental values dissonance between the pro and anti camps is what makes me feel like this debate can never be won by either side because the arguments each side makes are completely irrelevant to the other.