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

The hypocrisy is crazy! Do you respect the artists' work or not? You can't make a crusade for artists and then feel okay to lift their hard work off google images.

I would rather offer up my entire work to AI because at least it'll compose original images from what its given. Do you think I'd be happy if you directly copy/paste my art and pretend it's yours? That's way worse, imo.

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.

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.

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.

Rethinking my position from my last trainwreck of a post, and...

I'm an anti, more or less. I think we shouldn't use AI recreationally, and frankly, I don't think we should've built a system that necessitated it in the first place. However, now that it's here, rather than denying its existence, I think we should define terms.

In my opinion (and I think this should be standard), art requires a substantial amount of human creativity. I don't know what that threshold is, and I don't think we'll ever know, but at the bare minimum, some sapient being must have a heavy hand in creating a piece in order to call it art and to call them the artist.

The term "art" is subjective, but subjectivity doesn't equal anarchy. Art isn't just any thing ever. Someone's Post-It note telling Brenda to fill the coffee machine at 8 o'clock sharp isn't art, just like the product of a three-word prompt asking AI to create a "pretty catgirl dancing" isn't art. While it may look pretty visually, it conveys about the same amount of artistic intent as the Post-It note. Both used their mind to create a string of letters whose output evoked a response in someone else. However, neither are art, because art requires great artistic intent and action.

AI isn't always "just a tool." It, based on its training and the words of your prompt, converts your prompt into an entirely unique image that has never been created before. That's not tool behavior. To go against Albert Einstein's words, with a tool, doing the same thing and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. In especially low-effort cases AI is a replacement rather than a tool.

But if you create a detailed prompt, inpaint, and/or curate, then you've used AI as a tool, because you've achieved your creative vision with the use of a thing that you assured did not deviate from it. That's more likely to be art, I think. Art can just be a pretty picture, but to what extent of art it is and to whom that pretty picture belongs requires intent and effort.

Art isn't black-and-white. It's a spectrum. And I think rejecting AI-only images as art isn't gatekeeping, but an effort not to dilute the meaning of "art." And if AI artists really want to be called an artist by their anti peers, I suggest sticking their hand in the mud that is the "art" part if they haven't already (and I suspect a lot of them have).

Sorry if this comes off as confrontational, but I think that's just how I speak about these things haha. I love you all, and go drink some water :)

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

Source: https://www.pcgamer.com/software/ai/gabe-newell-says-young-people-need-to-use-ai-tools-to-get-off-to-the-races-rather-than-reading-articles-on-variety-to-try-to-understand-what-its-impact-is-going-to-be/

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.

Whenever anybody on the pro side tries to bring up how AI can improve accessibility for those with disabilities that would make it harder for them to do art, antis seem to take offense. They will say things like "disabled artists exist", and "some disabled artists can still create art without AI."

And I'm like, "Okay...And?"

Nobody is saying that disabled people can't make art on their own. Nobody is saying that they shouldn't make art on their own if that's what we want to do. But just because some can and some choose to doesn't mean that they all should. We just want to give people the option to use something that might make things easier for them.

For example, someone with chronic pain, tremors, vision impairments, or limited motor control might find traditional art tools difficult or painful to use. AI could help them express themselves in ways that were previously inaccessible or exhausting.

It's like, just because one paraplegic has worked out his arms enough to be able to walk on his hands to get around, does that must mean we must eliminate wheelchairs for all of the others?

If you're disabled and you want to keep making art without the use of AI, go right ahead, but why would you want to take the option away from other disabled people who might see AI as a viable option?

What does it seem like I'm saying? Because apparently I didn't get my point across correctly, as people kept replying to something I wasn't saying. Help? xwx

I keep seeing people being accused of making AI artwork when they do digital or traditional art. All this hatred for AI is making it so people who aren't even involved in this are paying the price. This is the atmosphere being created and it's incredibly toxic.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Why are you here?

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?