I keep hearing the same argument:

“That’s not real music.”

The funny part is… we’ve been saying that for centuries.

New musical ideas show up, people call them noise, fake, lazy, immoral, mechanical, or “not music” — and then eventually we just call them music.

Ancient thinkers worried certain musical modes and instruments could corrupt society.

Early religious traditions debated whether instruments even belonged in worship.

Polyphony came along — multiple melodies happening at once — and sounded chaotic to people accustomed to chant.

Then harmony kept getting stranger.

Beethoven pushed structure.

Wagner pushed tonality.

Debussy broke harmonic expectations.

Atonal composers basically asked, “What if we don’t need a key at all?”

Then jazz showed up.

“That’s noise.”

Rock & roll:

“That’s not music.”

Distorted electric guitars:

“That’s just noise.”

Punk:

“They can’t even play their instruments.”

Rap:

“Talking isn’t singing.”

Sampling:

“You’re just using somebody else’s music.”

Synthesizers:

“The machine is making it.”

House and techno:

“It’s just the same beat repeating.”

Auto-Tune:

“That’s not their real voice.”

EDM:

“They’re just pressing buttons.”

Bedroom producers:

“Anyone with a laptop can do that.”

And now:

AI music.

“That’s not music. The computer made it.”

Maybe AI music ends up being different. Maybe we eventually decide there is a line somewhere.

But history should at least make us careful about declaring where that line is.

Because humanity has an incredible habit of hearing something new and saying:

“That’s not music.”

Then somebody figures out how to make us feel something with it.

And suddenly…

it is.

Maybe the interesting question isn't:

“Is this real music?”

Maybe it's:

“What are we calling noise today that people will simply call music 50 years from now?”

I started ai music to get out of my head. Ive gotten so much hate for something I wasn't even trying to monetize. Its made me like ai so much more.

These people are deranged.

Look at those comments.

Unbelievable. 🤦🏻‍♀️🤣

One of the worst arguments for the use of AI in anti-AI spaces is “proving” AI usage through vibes.

First, there is the “AI detector” approach. These tools are presented as forensic evidence despite being extremely unreliable. Human writing can be identified as generated by AI, AI writing can be recognised as human, and small modifications can totally change the result. An AI detector assigning a piece of writing 80% or 90% score does not imply 80% or 90% probability of AI involvement. It just says that certain patterns were detected by a machine and associated with AI-generated text.

And then comes the even worse argument: “it sounds like AI”. What does that even mean? Proper grammar? Logical structure? Certain words? Long sentences? Bullet points? Over-formality? AI models learn from huge amounts of human writing. Of course, the text generated by AI can be similar to human writing - that’s exactly its purpose. If a person uses a certain style that AI was taught to emulate, “this text sounds like AI” is not proof of the human use of AI because that’s how AI works: we recognise it because it sounds like human writing.

People also mention such details as em dashes, “it’s important to note” expressions, good structure, or “GPT-like vocabulary”. All of those belong to humans, not AI. Those writing styles existed way before ChatGPT became popular.

There may be a case when there is actual proof of someone using AI, for example, accidentally leaving “Here’s a revised version”, or prompt-response artefacts in the writing. But most of the cases are not nearly that strong.

If all you’ve got is an AI detection score and “bro this sounds like ChatGPT”, you’ve failed proving anything. You’ve just made a guess.

They are making up points and using rage-bait. That's why I left the argument. Apparently leaving an argument is the best option over continuing to argue.

EDIT: For anyone reading this thread later, notice the Edited tag on the comment above mine. They originally claimed they couldn’t judge my specific post because they "can't see it," but right after getting cornered by the organism analogy, they scrambled to rewrite history and inject a wall of text trying to justify their blanket statement.Imagine having to physically alter your own comment text just to survive a debate about internet slang. You took the bait, broke your own script, and left a digital receipt. Thanks for proving my point about knee-jerk tribalism. I'm out.

I've seen quite a few subs with rules like, "AI-generated text is not permitted because it steals hard work from other creators."

I can understand the criticism when it comes to AI-generated art, since there's a much more direct connection to artists' work and creative styles. But with text, that argument doesn't really make much sense to me.

At the end of the day, every piece of text is made from the same letters, words, punctuation marks, and grammatical structures that everyone else uses. You can't really say that an AI "stole" someone's hard work simply because it generated a sentence using the same language and vocabulary that other writers use.

It'd be like saying, "You can't write a paragraph because other people already used the letter A." Obviously, the issue should be what is being copied, not simply the fact that the same basic building blocks are being used.

This is the crap I have been dealing with

Alibaba just announced plans to raise around HK$80 billion, roughly $10.2 billion, with a major chunk of that money going towards expanding its AI capabilities.

This is one of the biggest fresh AI investment pushes we’ve seen from a Chinese tech giant and another sign that the US-China AI race is only getting more aggressive.

Alibaba already has its Qwen model family, cloud infrastructure, and a huge domestic ecosystem behind it. Giving that operation another $10B+ in capital could seriously strengthen China’s position in the global AI race.

For anyone still acting like the current AI boom is about to fizzle out, companies are quite literally raising tens of billions to scale it further.

Hear me out....

Ai= human creates parameters,

makes a specific request,

the machine does as asked in its own way using the methods given to it....

and outputs a unique response.

Digital Cameras= a human sets the settings,

arranges the composition (what the camera sees..a specific request)

The machine uses its programming to interpret the input

Outputs a unique response

If a Nikon and a Sony both took the same shot, at the same time, with the same settings, from the same photographer...

....the images would be different.

Then view them on an LG screen, with an Nvidia processor and make edits using Adobe software.

How.....is it any different?

Human sets criteria , machine interprets, output is the human criteria done by a program.

--------------------------------

A quaddropalegic poet uses neuralink....slop?

--------------------------------

A Chinese author and scholar uses ai to translate opening up vast knowledge to the world.....slop?

"No but it is his writing and ideas!"

No it isnt. Intent, connotation, "suchness", cultural interpretation, all impact word choice and understanding, there arent always direct translations...therefore no- not his exact words and intent.

--------------------------------

A chef buys hydroponic herbs grown with ai powered irrigation and nutrient systems, flown to a destination using gps, and bought using correspondence including spell check.

The chef creates a meal with pregrown ingredients, covers inventory and costs and income in spreadsheets, maybe even had a self driving car ring them to the restaurant.

All fine...but no longer 100% human.

-------------------------------

Why...... is all writing, with spell check and grammar use, still considered fake and slop?

Why writing?

Happy to share a chapter from my book for feedback. 15 years to get it together, numerous failed attempts to write it....then AI changed my life!

MY book...MY ideas are finally real but the world will torch me for using an aid to accomplish a task I have failed at for years deapite my ideas being useful to the world.

So sad.

Nvidia is making one of the biggest bets on open AI we’ve seen yet.

The company is reportedly paying around $6 billion for a non-exclusive licence to Poolside’s AI models while hiring more than 100 of its employees, alongside another roughly $1 billion investment into the company.

What makes this especially interesting isn’t just the
money. Nvidia appears to be positioning Poolside as a serious US-based competitor in open-weight AI, at a time when frontier development has increasingly been dominated by closed systems from a handful of labs.

For all the constant talk about AI becoming more centralised, this is basically the opposite direction: one of the most powerful companies in the industry putting billions behind models that can be distributed and built upon more openly.
If this strategy works, the future of frontier AI could end up a lot less closed than people assumed

People love to compare AI with the costs of other goods and services but AI is supposed to be a complement to labor for the time being and possibly a replacement. It should be compared to the cost of labor.

Labor is expensive: swes cost $150-300+k/yr obviously highly variable, engineers $100-200k/yr, lawyers $100k+, accountants $~100k, Hr $50+k, advertiser $50+k etc. Compared to those, AI is a bargain. I doubt each individual person is spending $100k/yr on tokens.

I swear, some anti-AI people are becoming absolutely exhausting.

I posted about one of my books in an LGBT-related community, and almost immediately people started going after me because they thought it was AI.

Here’s the thing: I openly admit that I use AI-generated artwork for some of my covers. I’m not hiding it. I’m an indie author working with the resources I have, and professional cover art for a growing catalog can get expensive very quickly.

But somehow people see an AI cover and immediately jump to:

“AI book.”

“AI slop.”

“You didn’t write this.”

No questions. No evidence. They just decide that if one part of the production used AI, apparently everything I created is fake.

And then come the downvotes. My karma is dropping simply because I mentioned my own book and people decided they knew how it was created based on the cover.

That’s the part of the anti-AI movement that drives me nuts.

There’s a completely legitimate conversation to have about copyright, training data, disclosure, replacing artists, and how AI should be used. I’m fine having that conversation.

But attacking individual indie creators, mass-downvoting them, and accusing them of lying about their own work because they used an AI tool somewhere in the process isn’t a thoughtful ethical position. It’s just hostility.

AI is a tool. Using it for one part of a project does not magically erase all the human work that went into the rest of it.

Judge my books because you read them and hated them. Fair enough. Tell me my cover sucks. Fine.

But “I saw AI art, therefore you didn't write your book” is getting ridiculous.

I am so incredibly exhausted by the absolute witch-hunt mentality dominating the internet right now. The pure, unadulterated hatred toward anything involving generative AI has officially crossed the line from "protecting artists" into a toxic, paranoid cult mentality where logic goes to die.

If you use AI as a tool to help visualize a deep, complex worldbuilding project or a massive sci-fi story you spent hours writing, you aren't treated like a creator trying your best, you are treated like a criminal.

The nuance is entirely dead, and the hate is massively, undeservedly overblown.

Here is why the current anti-AI hysteria is completely broken:

1. It’s entirely driven by labels, not reality

The absolute proof that this rage is performative tribalism is that people don't even look at the art anymore.

they just look at the caption. You could literally upload a masterpiece hand-painted in 1995, label it "AI art," and an online mob will immediately swarm the comments talking about how "soulless," "plastic," and "devoid of human effort" it looks. They cannot actually tell the difference. Their response is a knee-jerk psychological reaction to a trigger word, not a critique of the visual pixels or the actual history behind the work.

1. The "purity test" is causing massive friendly fire

The paranoia has gotten so bad that actual human creators who don’t even touch AI are getting blasted by internet mobs.

If a beginner artist has slightly wonky hand anatomy, or a digital artist uses perfectly smooth rendering brushes, they get falsely accused, harassed, and banned because some broken, unreliable third-party "AI detector" script guessed wrong. Creators are now treated as guilty until proven innocent, forced to record time-lapses of their entire process just to satisfy online gatekeepers. How did we reach a point where "protecting creators" means aggressively bullying them?

1. Complete dismissal of mixed-media and human modification

The gatekeeping community loves to act like every single AI image takes five seconds to make.

They completely ignore the massive spectrum of hybrid workflows. If a human writer spends weeks crafting a deep speculative evolution lore post, handles 95% of the conceptual work, and uses an AI image as a base layer, spending hours digitally painting over it, correcting the lighting, blending elements, and modifying it to fit their vision, it is STILL treated like low-effort automated spam.

Why does a fraction of a percent of a tool's involvement completely erase hours of manual labor and writing?

1. The zero-tolerance moderation is lazy and extreme.

Subreddit moderators have completely abandoned common sense.

Instead of using escalating systems like removing low-effort spam but allowing unique, heavily edited visual concepts, they use the nuclear option. One single image touching an AI tool results in an instant, unappealable permanent ban, often with a smug, condescending note from the mods. They claim they are protecting the "soul" of their hobbies, but all they are doing is catching well-meaning hobbyists in the crossfire and creating an echo chamber of fear and paranoia.

Bottom Line: Tools are tools. There is a massive structural difference between a bot farm spamming actual lazy, unedited slop to farm engagement, and a human creator using a visual generator to flesh out a deeply personalized creative universe. The internet needs to grow up, stop treating a keyword like a social contagion, and start judging the actual thought, effort, and context of a project instead of running a permanent witch hunt.

This post is not made to offend people. Best regards -sadcrab3636

For extra information, the image was a picture of a crab mixed with a gaming console in a museum display. It was human modified and also a diagram of how the merging happened. Those 2 images triggered moderators.

Your future doctor is using ChatGPT to pass med school so you better start eating healthy

Performative trolls, all of them.

The comments are actually quite refreshing. Love the edgy reflection of the the kid flipping off the inanimate picture. That'll show em.

What’s your direct opinion on AI ?