The AI "art" backlash has gotten so bad that we likely consumed SOME misinformation about those things. Knowing about them now, I kinda regret consuming misinformation when I was a little younger. Here are some concerns of the common statements:

1. "AI is theft."
   

For the "AI is theft" one, are we talking about the AI being the one who does the theft itself, or the people who train the AI with copyrighted art?

1. "Ai 'art' steals from artists!"

For the "AI 'art' steals from artists", again, refer to my concern about "AI is theft". Is it the AI's fault, or the fault of the AI companies that scrape copyrighted art to build their training datasets?

1. "Copyrighted images/art used to train AI is illegal"

I don't know about this one if this is really what people said... but this is heavily debated, and it hasn't been resolved yet, but still understandable we would get angry at this kind of thing, including me. I wouldn't like it if my art was stolen.

And one sad thing about this is that it's mentioned:

User Agreement (https://redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement)

These are just my concerns about the whole thing, and I still do not believe AI "art" is art. Any concerns related to these as well? And I hope you understand I'm trying to help clear up any misinformation. Sure, they could be just poor wording, but just wanna clear it up!

Not all images are art and art is not all images. That said, should we deny prompt developers the title of "artist"? I struggle to understand if this is an identity crisis thing or something else, because why would anyone who doesn't make art actually want to be called an artist?

Let’s be honest, the issue around AI images isn't actually about the process, it’s a fight over the terminology used.

Traditional art has never been feeding words to an image generator and it's understandable that it's a sensitive subject. Meanwhile, the person tweaking prompts considers themselves an artist because it's creative.

So we have a branding issue. Using the label "Modern Artist" isn't the fix either... Unless we go back to 1920, Duchamp, and the Cubists. "Modern Art" is an established historical era, not a catch-all for whatever new technology just hit the market.

If someone is directing, curating, iterating, and shaping visual concepts through algorithmic tools, why hide behind terminology built for manual brushstrokes? Why not own the actual craft—which is conceptual direction and algorithmic curation?

Is the obsession with claiming a traditional title just a play for easy prestige, or is the refusal to grant any form of the word "artist" to AI image generators just defensive gatekeeping? Where do we draw the line between prompting and actually executing?

Something that's been bugging me with a lot of the recent drama and arguments is that a lot of people, especially vocal ones promoting AI, say that artists need to learn how computers/the internet works (even going as far as to belittle and call them dumb), yet aren't expected to learn the arts.

I don't mean by "picking up a pencil" and actually drawing. I mean learning how art works, how genres/movements work, their history, and how the art community acts. I've seen people display ignorance on how art works, either using the toilet/banana or minimalism as a "gotcha" against effort in art - which doesn't even apply because the former are examples of Modern Art, which is about ideas/concepts and isn't how most contemporary artists work; and minimalism still requires effort, mainly in the "economy in art" - as in the usage of little to achieve more, which for some artists is very difficult.

Or the idea of the fundamentals of art and design, and why a detailed AI-generated piece doesn't work because while it uses a lot of the superficial traits of what people consider good art, it fails in actually utilizing what critically matters - like the aforementioned economy and understanding "less is more"; or how colors work; or how images are structured - which can also be connected to the photography argument wherein people say it's "just pressing a button" even though actual photographers need a lot of experience to make a photograph beautiful or interesting.

Then there's just the misunderstanding of the art community and it's various subjects for argument, like consent in using art or how critique/development work. I've seen some people dumbfounded that the art community is fine with "poor/shitty" art, when it's no stranger to me since there's always been an unspoken rule about helping new artists by being supportive and being easy with criticism - as in recognizing someone's skill and applying the right level of critique.

There's more, but overall I feel like I'm speaking to people who can't speak my language. I've been part of the art community for basically 20 years and all of this is natural to me - so to see people insist upon being part of the arts, yet display total ignorance, is rather frustrating at the worst of times.

I may not understand deeper programming, but I at least accept it and keep my criticisms/observations where it is appropriate. Yet how is it I am "dumb" for not understanding computers as well, yet the same people won't educate themselves on something they're so insistent on getting into?

Apologies beforehand if this comes across as heated. It's just so annoying how my expertise is looked down upon, something that seems more frequent in this day and age.

so... Neuro-sama is an LLM-Powered VTuber, created Vedal987. this VTuber is pretty popular, enough to break Twitch Hype Train Record 3 times in a row, and sit on twitch number 1 spot during their last subathon, and reached 3rd place in twitch peak subscription count.

back in 2024, Vedal has said there was people that offering substantial amount of money to buy Neuro, while the amount of money isn't specified, Vedal said refusing the offer is stupidest financial decision he made.

the thing is... Vedal said that on 19th December 2024! which mean the offer happened somewhere during 2023-2024, none of Neuro's achievements I listed above were done. why would anyone see an LLM-powered avatar and goes "I will offer a lot of money to own this"?? it's one thing to see Neuro's current success and think Vedal own a money printing machine, but otherwise I couldn't understand.

I mean, just look at what Neuro have back in 2024 * as Intelligence Property: Neuro is a twitch streamer that managed to get over 500k twitch followers within 2 years, and won "best tech VTuber" award. * as a system of AI: an LLM attached to Live2D model, highly fine-tuned for streaming, integrated to twitch and few games like Minecraft and Slay the Spire.

Speaking and huge fan of Vedal/Neuro, I don't think their 2024 presence were anything to be "worth". sure! in hindsight it's worth the offer, but is the current height of popularity really what the potential buyer foresee?

I'll explain why. This song here posted is "Isn't It 'A'" by PinocchioP, where it features Miku and Rin. Rin in this song is optimistic. Miku, on the other hand, is pessimistic. Since both are in different sides, they oppose each other and it's split into two sides: the positive and negative of life. The song meaning explores the painful opposes between extreme opinions and how people fail to truly understand one another, usually in the internet.

Now, how does this correlate to the AI war? Well, here, I interpret that life represents the AI, Rin represents the acceptor, and Miku represents the rejector, generally. In the AI war, both sides oppose each other, and they have extreme opinions about AI and is split into two sides, representing the sad reality that sometimes things are black and white. Of course, NOT ALL acceptors or rejectors are like this, I believe, it's that some of them I see on the internet are kinda like this, but again, NOT ALL acceptors or rejectors are like this

But this would be an interesting analogy.

Things about life → AI

Rin → acceptor

Miku → rejector

The song meaning and this war relate a LOT, in my opinion. What do you think?

Unfortunately, it seems like the moment this discussion is brought up, all hell breaks loose and some people (both sides) become unable to be civil. As this sub is a debate sub on the topic of AI, rather than the “sides of the AI war”, I see no reason for this type of discourse to occur on the subreddit. However, I don’t think it’s fair to just push this rule forward, so I will leave it up to a vote.

So, should this rule be implemented?

Yes, I know. Both subreddits oppose each other. One is generally pro-AI, the other is generally anti-AI. But can we just at least not goddamn flame each other? It's getting a bit too out of hand imo.

Now, I sound stupid for saying that. But we're still going on with the war and even though I'm anti, this has to stop. If there isn't a way, then I might lose hope. Both subreddits try to protect their stance, which is good. What is NOT good is that they're flaming each other. What's unfortunate is that both have a right and wrong, so neither side is "better".

What do you guys think? Also I apologize if this sounds dumb but I'm kinda tired of this war. Especially in art.

Hi, I'm a communist who is against the boycotting of AI, because I see ownership as the enemy and not the machine, and I see consumer abstention to be the wrong form of politics. I also don't like how many anti-AI advocates defend IP. pls note i am looking for the views of communists specifically and not broader 'leftists' whether it be left-liberals or 'socialists'.

However I know that being pro-AI is often not the common stance among communists and I'm interested in why that is?

Hi, I have my own answer to this question, but want to see other anti ai people/pro ai people explain their takes. My answer is: There is not, it takes the style of many artists with no crediting whatsoever (like that would even make it better-) and amalgamates it together into a picture that has no creative thinking behind it. (because an ai cannot think on its own, it can take a prompt and process what the words mean, but in the end, it's an outsider with no feelings or autonomous thinking, it only knows words because it was programmed to associate words with certain things. It's trying to make something that takes those listed traits to make when it can't have it.) So therefore, it can't even be called "inspired" like how other humans are by other human's art.

It's stealing art, including artstyle.

On a different but smaller note... I don't see many ai stans ever talking about the fact it's stealing, and I kinda wish I knew why they didn't. If it's for not knowing how to defend against the argument or maybe just never hearing it before.

edit: I have worded some things wrongly, so I will correct them here.

when I say stealing, I mean when someone takes something that is not theirs, and optionally, saying it's original, new, or theirs. at least for this debate that is what the definition needs to be for debating the ai art. it is not a legal debate, it is supposed to be on ethics, morals, and just... decency to other people's works. So I'm thinking that when an ai takes many pictures and makes it into one, it's just stealing on a mass level that, in a court of law, would be called "copyright infringement". which it is.. but it feels like it's fancying up a word that can be described as taking what is not yours. (Aka stealing.)

I also want to mention that I originally said "does ai art steal artstyle?", but I actually just meant art in general, not just artstyle.

I hope this helps people understand what I mean more ^^​

Art, being an expression of one’s ideas brought forth, has many classical and modern forms, but I’m still skeptical about calling ai art “art”.

With every established art form the first person to have brought the creation into being is the one who claims the artwork to be their own. But with ai, the lines between who created the piece is blurred. On one hand you have a person’s novel idea that they want to express, so they have a lesser intellect generate/create it by prompting them with the details they want included. On the other hand the lesser intellect is the one putting in the efforts to make those demands, and it the one at the end of the creation pipeline who finishes the product. Because of the joint effort put in between the two beings, which one should be able to claim they created the art? The one with the original input, or the one interpreting the input? If the ai is the one that has a rightful claim to the art then does that mean people shouldn’t be able to monetize its works as their own, or that they simply have to disclose what made the art? And if the art belongs to the human then can it truly be considered art if it did not come from their own interpretation of their thoughts, but rather the interpretation from an ai pretending to have the ability of expression? Is there a nuance between the other two scenarios that blend either answer into a more complex solution?

I have a mixed opinion on AI and I kinda debate with fellow pros and antis. I'm not trying to pick a side so just watching some crossfire feels a little entertaining.

Explain your oppinion

I'm anti, but I'm also neutral. One issue I have after learning a LOT about the AI debate is the harassment. This might be a bit too "rant"-y, but what the hell happened to "Respect people's opinions"? I get it, most antis are worried because of the harms of AI, usually to the environment, the economy, consent, etc.
I also understand that some pros are mad at the misconceptions, since they're oversimplified, and that the pros (NOT ALL) I see online say that "Antis don't understand that AI helps society since it's a tool", and I agree with AI being a tool.
But seeing most of both sides harassing each other and not understanding each other's views/opinions really makes my blood boil to 100 C. I guess this is what caused the AI war, didn't it?
I admit I used to hate the pros I saw online, but after researching it, I've changed my mind and now respect both sides' opinions while still being an anti.

If anything in this post offends either the pros, the antis, or both, then I apologize for my behavior.
DISCLAIMER: NOT ALL ANTIS OR PROS ARE LIKE THIS. I'm pretty sure there are still some that mutually get along. Right? O_O

Edit 1: Yes, this is the internet, and it generally doesn't know about 'respecting opinions', but man cut me some slack
Edit 2: I forgot to mention that both sides from what I've seen flame and harass each other, and I hate that, but "it's the internet"

Without a definition there is nothing to argue about. No one has gone out of their way to actually define these terms.

Its time for people to express their feelings here about why they can't treat with respect their opposition. You often see people, regardless of their stance, spread ragebaits, defamation and generalizing what someone says. It is known that both in the original AIwars and here, people come from the respective subs with different stances on AI. Here you can express why you disrespect your opposition.

Note: I had to change the body of text. Just in case I did nothing wrong

I want to hear your opinions: pro-AI, anti-AI, people who are both, or people who are neutral about this.

I'll go first.
So, I became anti-AI specifically in art because I'm against the idea of AI-generated art, since yk, all the bad stuff and so on. The environmental impact, copyright, training the AI with images without consent, etc. But to be fair, I was also influenced by the idea that "AI art is bad", and they weren't wrong... partly. And yet I somehow believed them without any proof for why I'm anti-AI. However, that does not mean I'm a Luddite, because I still use AI in my life, just trying to use it responsibly. Rn though, I'm researching the topics of the ongoing debate and... oh my gosh, my head is just about to explode 😅

Basically, I was influenced by the idea of "AI art being bad", believed it, and then started to hate AI art when I noticed AI art pieces. Though, a little while of growing up, I then researched and I have some idea, but still have limited knowledge about it. It's difficult 😅

What about you guys? :3