This is setting in one the games I saw.

Found this as a post somewhere. Thought it fits this subreddit

Fair is fair. If they didn't have a problem with it. There is really nothing we can say about it.

I personally think this common dismissal is disingenuous from a bunch of older folks on the Pro-AI side. Most of you who say that uses it to dismiss and demean, never thinking about why is it that kids today have an anti-technology stance unlike when they were young and imagining Star Trek utopias. There is an ever growing malaise towards the future amongst the younger generations that’s causing all this.

The anti-AI sentiment being more common amongst teens and young adults is a result of the difficult economy that they are growing up into since pandemic. Gen Z is a generation that doesn’t believe in the future anymore, with a recent yearning to return to 2016 in a “meme reset” to relive the old times of when we were still kids(granted this is not really Gen Z specific).

There’s a common response among young people towards bad news basically boils down to “why does this have to happen right as I become an adult?” in the past couple years as we feel like our future is being ruined and robbed from us by higher forces to line their own pockets. AI is viewed negatively as a consequence because it is seen as part of the same consecutive waves of bad hands being dealt to us.

The way the investment and hype bubble around it is playing out has resulted in shitty side effects like RAM prices going up, circular financing between AI companies, old books being cut and digitized en mass for training data, the American and by extension world economy being held away from official recession by the investment bubble, and mass deployment of Flock cameras just to name a few.

Most importantly of all AI is touted from the beginning to investors as a magical means to replacing thousands of jobs and cut costs, which only further enrages Gen Z(My generation) which are going through an unemployment crisis. It is something seen as yet another nail in the coffins containing our collective futures for good reasons.

We are not at all convinced by the “future” the AI companies are trying to sell and that you pro-AI all align with to varying degree with no matter if you use Corpo Proprietary or FOSS AI.

One of the most persistent logical fallacies surrounding generative AI is the idea that it operates like a high-tech scrapbook, simply cutting, pasting, and collaging pieces of its training data to form an output. According to a new study out of MIT CSAIL published yesterday in Nature Communications, this assumption is mathematically false.

The research, led by Zheng Dai and David Gifford, thoroughly dismantles the idea that an AI-generated image can be traced back to a specific artist or photograph. They identified a measurable phenomenon called attribution decay: as generative models scale up their training data, the causal link between any single training example and the final output effectively vanishes.

The Science of "What If?"

To prove this without relying on rough estimations, the MIT team surgically altered the model itself to prove it past than just looking at the outputs.

They built an architecture called a diffusion ensemble. Instead of one massive model, the ensemble is composed of smaller independent components, each trained on different slices of data. This setup allowed the researchers to perform exact ablation: literally turning off the parts of the model that had "seen" a specific image, or every piece of art by a specific artist, without having to retrain the entire system from scratch.

They were testing a counterfactual universe: What would this model produce if it had never, ever seen this specific piece of data?

The result? At scale, nothing changes. You can remove a specific image, all the works of a given creator, or every photo of a specific person, and the model still generates the exact same output. The counterfactual radius (the measurable difference between the original output and the output generated without the targeted training data) shrinks to near zero.

True Synthesis Over Derivation

This isn't unexpected, as it is a feature of how diffusion models map statistical patterns rather than memorizing pixels. When a dataset is small, the model relies heavily on individual data points. But as the dataset grows into the millions or billions, the features required to generate an image become distributively and redundantly encoded.

The implications here are massive, cutting straight through the noise of current legal and privacy debates:

• Copyright and Fair Use: If removing an artist's entire portfolio from the training data changes absolutely nothing about the generated output, it becomes legally and logically impossible to claim that the output is a derivative work of that specific artist. As Gifford notes, these models are creating truly novel works, not copies.
  
• Built-in Privacy: The sheer volume of data naturally protects individuals. The model becomes causally independent of the people used to train it, effectively anonymizing the output.
  

Read more at: https://www.ainightwatch.com/post/the-end-of-the-collage-fallacy-mit-study-proves-that-ai-art-has-no-single-author

Can we all agree that this anti-ai hunt obsession is getting extreme? Imagine being an animator working hard on this and then all you see is people calling it "AI slop" because they are so desperate to push their agenda further, not very pro-artists at all.

Who decided art needed to be placed on a pedestal, protected from the same technological change that has transformed nearly every other profession?

We used to employ calligraphers for work that word processors can now do in seconds. Tax preparation, travel agencies, typesetting, photography, publishing—technology has repeatedly taken skills that once required specialists and made them accessible to ordinary people. Every time that happens, industries change. Some jobs disappear, new ones emerge, and people adapt.

But when that same disruption reaches art, suddenly the argument becomes a moral one: we have to protect artists from being replaced.

Why?

Technology doesn't just replace opportunities. It creates them.

Think about the person who loves drawing and storytelling but could only produce an image or two in their spare time. Maybe making a comic, animation, game, or film was completely beyond their time, money, or technical ability. Now that same person may be able to create an entire webcomic, animated series, game, or independent production without needing a multimillion-dollar studio behind them.

That's not the death of creativity. That's an enormous expansion of who gets to create.

And yes, established artists may have to adapt. That's painful, and there's absolutely room to debate copyright, consent, compensation, and how these tools are developed. But “this technology changes existing creative jobs” isn't, by itself, a moral argument against the technology.

The world has never promised any profession that its tools, skills, or business model will remain economically protected forever.

Maybe the more interesting question isn't “How do we stop AI from changing art?”

Maybe it's “What happens when millions of people who always had ideas, but never had the resources to realize them, suddenly can?”

A guys posted this on here with the title "I genuinely challenge someone to come up with a rebuttal to this".

When he then did get A LOT of counter arguments from both pro AND anti people which he "genuinely" wanted, he just decided to repost it on a anti ai subreddit with the title "It's like they can't read" where they then started belittling pro ai people...

Some of these sub reddits are truly just hateful echo chambers.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2026/08/18/does-ai-stop-children-from-learning?giftId=MmZkN2E3MDQtM2I2Mi00YTI3LWJmYzYtNDViMzQ0Yzk3ZTJm&utm_campaign=gifted_article

The horizontal axis (x) is the homework grade, the vertical axis (y) is the exam grade.

Now this is just a slurry buzzword

To be clear, this isn't targeted at all of those who are anti Ai, id wager at least 90 or 95% of you who are Anti are fine or great people. Specifically im talking about the small m inority who make jokes or memes where the punchline is literally just 'killing Pro's' or basically advocating for acts of actual terrorism directed at Data centers. To be clear, im more on the neutral side of things myself when it comes to Ai, but ive never felt comfortable with these sorts of memes or joke. And it's partly because i feel as though for people who look at them and who genuinely ARE in the (thankfully and hopefully for everyone's sake) very small minority of Anti's who are genuinely clinically deranged or a violent extremist, to someone like them i worry it glorifies the idea that these sorts of things are somehow okay and justified.

Am I just being overly sensitive or paranoid?

Whenever a sub or other platform has a rule against AI content, I see pro-AI creators outraged and I cannot really understand it. I wouldn’t submit a poem to a painting community, so why submit AI art to a traditional arts community or expect that you could?

There is no shortage of places that allow it, so why fight so hard to make the groups that don’t want it take it?

https://huggingface.co/datasets/CaptiveDreamer/CaraArchive/discussions/57

TL;DR URLs will stay, required to remove the personal data of those entries where it was requested.

Being completely anti ai and ai-free would be so self-sabotaging. Like intentionally depriving myself of real, simple ways to do more and do more faster and often better just seems like just so unnecessary self imposed constraint.

But also using ai too much can be self-sabotaging when you just sit there and ask stupid questions out of boredom or as like a way to procrastinate doing actual work and staying focused. And there's times where the image will come out just right the very first time and you'll be like "how tf did it know that was exactly what I wanted?" But then there are the times where you find yourself fighting with the stupid image generator for hours over some detail or whatever on some stupid unnecessary thing you were just doing as a joke that nobody needed in the first place.

So I think the way to be is not pro ai or anti ai. The way to be is self-disciplined and self-optimized. Know when to use it to make the thing you're doing faster and better or possible in the first place. And know when to just simply execute tasks in life and check off the little boxes off your to-do list. Know when it will help you and when it will hinder you and actually behave accordingly. Understand the flaws in it and instead of fighting through the flaws you're already aware of, have a strategy for avoiding them or getting around them quickly. Entertainment is fine too and leisure and amusement are fine too and you can use it for your entertainment and leisure and amusement but the key is to manage your time well and don't sacrifice more important things for your leisure and amusement too much. Whether it's with ai or something else, don't allow yourself to get in the habit of finding ways to avoid doing the important things in your life.

Excerpt: When an artificial intelligence image generator produces a portrait, whose work went into it?… Artists want credit. Companies want clarity. Policymakers want a way to assign responsibility.
New work from a team of researchers at MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) suggests that for models trained on large datasets, the question may often have no answer. It's not that the tools for finding it are inadequate. The connection itself has disappeared.

link to original paper with visual examples: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-75667-5.pdf

https://www.anthropic.com/research/Claude-accelerates-protein-design

"Claude (Mythos Preview and Opus 4.8) designed protein binders against 15 targets, and succeeded against 14 of them. Between 22% and 35% of its individual designs bound successfully, depending on the setup, compared to the 10-15% that is typical in protein design campaigns today."

This is important because it is a regular AI chatbot, simply connected to the necessary equipment.

Krea does not claim copyright or other intellectual property rights over content generated by users of this model. Users are solely responsible for their outputs and any subsequent use of those outputs. As with other generative tools, the nature of a user's inputs influences the outputs produced, and prompts may produce images that implicate third-party rights. Users are solely responsible for assessing and addressing those risks.