Meta
I hate the sheer amount of threats from anti ai people
Anti ai is seriously gone from hating ai slop, to hating billionaires, to hating data centers, to just flat out encouragement of violence. I've only ever seen these threats based around art too. Not that data centers suck, not the billionaires are shitty, just over fucking art of all things. It's gotten to the point that people try to defend their posts composed of "all ai people should die" as being satire. What the fuck people.
as someone who frequently participates in anti-AI spaces, i have seen very few instances of this happening, and the times that i do it's typically shunned because needless violence is bad
stop making shit up with a sample size of exactly one (1) image and getting mad at your scarecrow
There's no such thing as hyperbolic speech, and people are ACTIVELY hunting you down to kill you because you AI-generated a photo of Will Smith eating spaghetti. We should all be very scared and clutching our pearls.
Ai Bros joke about people losing their jobs being replaced ai constantly ,oblivious sending death threats is reprehensible but don't act like their wasn't a Catalyst for it
It's very rare for us to be happy someone is losing their job, obviously. Yet death threats & insults are extremely common on any post with an AI image.
they said on posts, meaning they're seeing comments of death threats "extremely commonly". Now, either this person has been searching really hard for them or they're lying
Fun how you casually equated "death threats" with "insults", so you can really just admit that the problem here is people disagreeing with your bullshit.
I never equated them. Also it's implied to be extreme insults. Obviously lol. The latest thing is that video where a dude "imitating" an AI user goes crazy while prompting an image.
To have some standards, not every hating is equally valid and if one is clown then they are not safe from being rightfully called so, this is not a dictatorship
Literally what I'm thinking. Even if I don't agree with the person ranting and posting on this sub I can acknowledge the the ENTIRE point of the sub is exactly that. At that point, there IS no point to the sub, you're basically just putting your opinion out there for everyone else to make fun of just as if you were in literally ANY OTHER sub or thread.
tbf it’s called “i hate this smug” not “everyone has to validate you” the point is to hate… not to have everyone glaze you. if you’re wrong, youre allowed to be wrong!
People feel powerless. People say "vote," you vote, you lose and you lose rights. People say "push back against data centers," you go to city council meetings, you argue with your community to push back against them, they keep getting built. You say you don't want AI generated content, people say "support real art," a bunch of scammers and corpos don't disclose they're AI generated and lie about it, AI content keeps propagating
Wait. Do you think this drawing is trying to advocate for violence against literal people who use AI? Have you never heard of metaphors or figurative language in general?
As a balanced take I am generally opposed to people just depicting violence on just actual people when they disagree on an opinion like AI, so I get what you mean.
Putting stuff like Wumpus in the bronze bull is fine though, but that’s unrelated.
People caring about how new an account is has always been weird to me. And I don’t wanna hear about “ai” or “bot” accounts. No, this has been a long standing forum thing for years. People just like to be dicks to newbies.
People only use the bot card when someone says something they disagree with I’ve noticed. Or if the subreddit is a circlejerk and they don’t want to see any newcomers.
I mean, there are a lot of times asking nicely worked, but it takes a lot of people willing to endure a lot of suffering to make it work. You need to be in the headlines as the clear victim with no room for interpretation so that people will listen to what you have to say.
Getting in the headlines as the violent monsters doesnt really send the same message.
Pinkerton strikebreakers had no problem with shooting at workers who were on strike. Besides, even if you die like a good martyr they can always slander you after the fact and say that you attacked first, and they were the ones acting in self defense.
When Jesus said to turn the other cheek, I'm pretty sure he meant to do so in defiance. There's plenty of situations where he crashed the fuck out, besides that time he flipped tables in the temple.
I'm fine with defense, though it may be framed against you. I'm even fine with attacks, but I think that they are oft counterproductive to the movement as a whole because they're harder to justify. I genuinely believe the best thing people can do in the long run is look pitiful and go viral because exposing cruelty towards those that without a doubt do not deserve such cruelty is how you change minds. Kill all tbe billionaires you want, but that isnt gonna make billionaire lovers think billionaires are bad, they're going to be even more in love with billionaires because they'll think they're the victim.
Its also so so much harder to do things peacefully, because I agree, just taking your beatings is maddening and slow. Im fine with going to the source in all honesty, but that only works in the long run if you've already changed the minds of the masses, because say you get rid of the guy running things, there will just be someone else to take their place—and they might even be worse.
Edit: I kinda forgot that we were talking about ai for a second and started putting on my antifa hat, mb. Yeah I have no good solution for ai because I dont see it going away, I think best we can do is push for more regulations on ai
Wah wah supporting an extremely harmful technology that is trained on stolen art, text and is contributing to the devaluation of art is hated what a surprise
You know damn well if the roles were reversed in the pic it would be seen as a threat. Dont be a disingenuous shit head and pretend to not understand things.
I use AI and I dont give a shit if artists draw pics of their characters murdering chat gpt. I dont think theyre coming for me bc I wanna make my work emails sound more professional. But also I understand why theyre mad. AI is ugly as shit and I hate having to look at it plastered everywhere
Because a picture of an AI killing a trans artist is fundamentally different than a trans artist killing an AI. The lack of media literacy being displayed by the digital nanny defenders here is somehow even worse than expected.
It's what's called "basic critical thinking." An AI isn't a sapient being, much less a marginalized person at high statistical risk of targeted violence. Anyone too dense to get that could have a promising career in STEM as a radiation shield.
Are we sure that body is supposed to only represent AI and not users of AI? Why personify AI with any human characteristics at all when AI is the antithesis of humanity?
And dont point out the details like extra hands being present to represent the shitty ai slop image hallucinations proves its just ai and not the people using it. Ive seen the same details used to portray ai users before in other illustrations.
"Prove it to me, but don't you dare cite any of the proof I've already decided to ignore"
It is a personification. It is obviously not a real person. You have a victimhood complex. If you need proof, talk to your chatbot life partner like you want to believe you have a victimhood complex, and it will most assuredly convince you.
Your reading makes the image incomprefuckinghensible. Why are you going to be telling someone to put down a pencil and learn to draw if you've already murdered them? The "gun" is an embellished pencil, does it seem like that would be a symbol intended to kill a person or a media concept? Big brain time now.
This. All the Anti-AI stuff is getting so annoying. I don’t wanna sound like an AI-Bro, AI is being used for a lot of bad stuff. Generative AI is bad for example. But using it in the medical field? Using so we can fucking play Minecraft in Elden Ring? Hell yeah.
Don't think folks are complaining about the scientific field. But sone things need humanity, and art kinda crosses the line. Corporate art is samey enough as it is
Seems like sealioning to me. You could have started the reply chain with a "I don't personally believe it is. There are real people like this".
It wasn't my intention to be passive aggressive to you personally anyway. Since I am sincere in calling you correct on your point. People like to claim every little thing is a psyop or a conspiracy. This, again, however, is a psyop
I looked up the artist and it doesn't seem like the art itself is a psyop! I still don't believe I was passive-aggressive so it would feel weird to insincerely apologize for that but I will concede to the point you made!
I am sorry I called you passive agressive that definitely is on me I just cannot stand “!” They remind me of my parents when they message when they are upset.😵💫
I looked it up and the artist DOES seem queer so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. They even lampshaded their own over-the-top design, which, all power to them.
lol right? I don't think anyone had even replied to the art yet, they had that locked and loaded. Which, to be fair, I do believe it to be a cool design as a genderfluid person myself. Reminds me of EPIC the Musical Odysseus edits. But unfortunately it DID also remind me of the kind of caricatures that queerphobes like to make of us. Especially when paired with OP's rant
Man how many times a week do you actually see this happen, there are a few weirdos in the community but they always get told off, the most just wanna save the enviornment and have clean drinking water ffs
Well if your career was replaced by a robot that can only do so by stealing from everyone on earth and making everyone lose their jobs you might be pissed off too.
I myself am not fond on generative AI, but death threats are just such a barbaric thing to do and definitely has no place in a polite society.
The entire "threats against people who use AI" is unnecessary, death threats are bad no matter what, especially if the person hasn't committed any sort of heinous crime.
Tbh I find the labels of “pro” and “anti” to be rather reductive and not representative of a good chunk of people. I’ve seen pros (cough cough DAIA cough cough) tell others that they aren’t “real pros” because they aren’t “pro enough” due to having rather valid concerns about the issue; and I’ve seen Antis be told that they’re horrible people/not antis because they make distinctions about local vs. corporate models or are forced to use it (like at work, for example) or make clarifying points on aspects that are somewhat misunderstood (like the data center thing being, in part, somewhat of a zoning issue). Overall, while I understand the functionality of the labels, I just think that they brush neutrals/people with nuanced takes/people who have a slight lean in one direction or the other completely under the bus.
Firstly, not all, this is a pretty inherent fallacy in every internet discussion. Only the people who feel strongest about an issue post about it, and the people who feel even STRONGER do this.
Secondly, there are plenty on the other side of the aisle who are as shitty as this.
Thirdly, I simply don't try to convince people who oppose me as one conversation will never be enough to flip someone's perspective.
Lastly, I hate what Image Generation and LLMs STAND FOR, vehemently. But I have as much consideration to at least lay out what I want to say.
Yeah, I've seen a rather equal amount on both sides being shitty. Seen AI lovers basically saying that anyone who disagrees is just a loser who knows their job is worthless.(rather fucked up)
And on the other side, I've seen the haters outright saying that AI will force itself upon them sexually(the r-word so I don't get banned) once they become a Skynet level threat.(also fucked up)
Moral of the story, people fucking suck on both sides.
A pattern I've observed is that those with an unbridled hatred for AI that borders on misanthropy are also those with objectively poor art skills. There are exceptions of course but they're just that, exceptions.
No, they don't. In regular non-Reddit spaces people have a wide variety of opinions and generally care "extremely less" than they do here (other than a vague unease, mostly in young people, that it might take everyone's job). I've heard negative comments in real life about data centers or whatever, but other people are actively positive/excited. Lots of people I know mostly discuss it in terms of "not missing the boat" - like, they're asking me how can they make money on it.
Or, like, one of the people I'm often on business meetings with (in a non-tech sector) has an AI-generated "my dogs, but origami" image as her profile picture. It receives consistent positive comments, and people are always like "oh, how did you make that?".
Or, among the non-native-English speakers I know, they use ChatGPT all the time to help them write stuff, and swap tips about how to use it. Shockingly, they do it without shame, and without Reddit's approval or permission.
Why does that matter? Wouldn't it follow that the people who are the best at art would be the most mad since they have the most to lose? People who suck at art should be more likely to use AI tools to make up for that lack of skill to create the art they want to create.
I think you might just be full of shit, most people hate AI slop and since most people aren't going to be artists there's just a larger majority of people that don't like AI and also happen to not be artists. It's correlation, not causation.
Re-read again. There's regular "ew AI" and then there's borderline misanthropy. You don't see the likes of Mike Inel, Nhim, Kurenaiz and Masoq creating pieces like this.
Also to answer your question: It matters because it's extremely performative and speaks more of a fragile artist's ego than anything involving the actual harm AI data centers cause. Professionals and those with objectively amazing art skills tend to look at AI with either pragmatism or disappointment rather than extremism.
Of course, there are exceptions. But they're just that, exceptions.
But you can't possibly know that, even if someone has absolutely dogshit art of their own, them hating AI doesn't inherently have anything to do with that.
Of course, we can't confirm, but the pattern is there and until I see Mike Inel create "anti-AI" pieces like in OP's post this is a point I will stand on.
But it's nothing? There's zero correlation there, you're standing on nothing. You're not even guessing, you don't have enough data points to call it a guess, you're doing no better than an AI hallucinating data.
Sorry, meant causation, I'm tired. The point I'm making, which you're ignoring completely, still stands though. You are, effectively, just making stuff up because it agrees with viewpoints you already have.
Is it really making stuff up, though? This belief didn't manifest out of thin air. I'm not saying I believe in it 100%, not saying it's a hill I'm willing to die on, just something I'll be keeping in the back of my mind thanks to the pattern I've been seeing.
Don't want to believe it, be my guest, but it's a point I'll be keeping until I see something else that completely tosses it the wayside.
Ok but the thing I'm trying to get you to realize is you aren't really seeing a pattern, the categories you are using are way to broad to narrow down anything to a pattern. Unless you have some metric or cutoff point of art that is too good to fit your criteria all youre doing is taking 2 large groups of people with very normal characteristics and drawing conclusions.
It's like saying you see most people that are left handed wearing the most denim so you're drawing the conclusion that being left handed means you like a lot of denim. Or like hearing the old joke about Lesbians driving Subarus and coming to the conclusion that most women that drive Subarus are lesbians.
I see a dumb post wanting to kill an AI, but I very much so don't see anything about anyone wanting to kill normal people who use AI. I've yet to see these supposedly common posts encouraging violence anywhere else either. I think you've just been lied to by other AI users about these supposed posts my guy.
considering the amount of water and living spaces used for a technology that serves no purpose other than being used to create non consensual porn of peolple then yeah they kinda deserve all of it
There's always gonna be extremists and people who make certain things their whole personality. It's probably best to just ignore these types of posts and not engage with them.
I dont get why reddit is so transfixed into hating ai for some reason that if you mention for a SECOND that you use ai you will get your karma halved in 10 days.
People on the internet will always go to extremes. It's hard to find nuanced discussions on most topics here, including the negatives and positives of AI and Gen AI.
Plus, in general a lot of people are genuinely opposed to learning new things especially when they contradict their previous knowledge. It gets genuinely weird at times. Some people's knowledge and opinion about AI is based on like 3 or 4 years ago and they refuse to get with the (very fast changing times), and often quote misinformation.
That being said AI annoys me at times, especially with how much they're pushing it at jobs. But, as always, use it to your advantage if you can, or argue for your position based on its results. Its been working well for me so far, but it requires not blindly hating (or loving) the newest thing and working with it instead. You can stem the tide for a while, but it'll always break through eventually.
68
u/Altruistic-Ease5236 4h ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/ifwYdZChwC4Ae5e5m0
the downvotes are coming/j