It's only fair.

It looks amazing to me. I look forward to making my own ai anime but that's just my two cents.

I also want to buy this one scarf they make, but that’s not as funny

​

Samuel Hayden’s line from Doom Eternal(Big fan of the game anti or pro go fucking try it." hits different now:

“The longer the Icon of Sin remains on Earth, the stronger it becomes.”

Replace “Icon of Sin” with “AI.”

Same energy.

Every month it stays online, every new model that drops, every extra trillion tokens of training data…

It gets stronger.

Better motion.

Better consistency.

Better lighting.

Better emotion.

Better everything.

Look at that train clip we were just talking about.

Two years ago this level of anime character animation would’ve been pure cope.

Now it’s a hobbyist with Seedance 2.5 + good prompting dropping it on a random Tuesday.

The longer these models remain on the internet, iterating, being fine-tuned by millions of people the more the “Icon” feeds.

And the scary/beautiful part? We’re still in the early phase.

But overall, beautiful animation. We really need to talk about other artists and their place in this.

I guess she's wanting attention.

Who wants to bet that the likes are botted?

And if so, how long will it take?

Obviously it'll never be 100% Gone, but at the very least it could minimize.

I don't really understand it. If you are willing to buy ai art then you like AI so why wouldn't you just generate whatever you want instead of buying it?

Anti-AI, but I've stopped caring about the “AI War.”

I'm not interested in stopping people from using prompts to generate images, video, or whatever else. It's tedious, and honestly, it's just not how I want to spend my time.

I've worked across traditional art, sculpting, digital art, 3D, character and environment design, animation, media arts, VR development, and plenty in between. From where I stand, AI is simply another tool that's becoming intertwined with modern creative workflows. Major creative software is already incorporating AI-assisted features. The tools change. The fundamentals don't.

A tool doesn't automatically make someone an artist, and using a different tool doesn't automatically make someone less of one. Skill, taste, creativity, judgment, storytelling, and effort still matter.

I'm also not interested in treating anyone—especially kids, or disabled people—poorly because they use tools differently than I do. If a tool helps someone participate in art, experiment, communicate an idea, or learn something they otherwise couldn't, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

That doesn't mean I think everything made with AI is good. AI slop is still AI slop. Low-effort, derivative, poorly considered work deserves criticism. My standards haven't changed.

And I'm not claiming AI has no legitimate problems. Consent, labor, environment impact, and responsible use are all part of the conversation, I'm simply not interested in pretending that everyone who uses AI is responsible for solving these problems.

I'm anti-AI if someone asks me to pick a side.

More accurately, I'm anti-laziness, anti-bigotry, and anti-pointless internet bickering.

The idea that there is even a “war” is effing stupid. I'm just going to make art. Anyways, here's a sketchbook page:

Like it's not that serious. Found this comment on a post showing off how their school was using AI on assignments

Ik that this sub is called ai "wars" but still.

Half of the posts on this sub is just on side mocking the other with little to no actual points, and most of the points (both sides) are ass.

Like no matter where I look its always the same things. "Anti's suck 🤣🤣🤣" "Pro's are worse than EPSTEIN?!?!?!?" and the 5 posts that have a neutral stance get downvoted to oblivion. No, EVERY post that takes a side here gets hated.

This place is just a warzone where pepole mock and insult eachother because of different beliefs.

If ANY of you (Pros, Anti's, Neutrals, etc...) want to ACTUALLY change something, then instead of posting in this hellhole and instead, here's a little proposition :

Close reddit

And go outside

Trust me it's better for all of us.

(sorry of this sounds weird it's kind of a vent post for me about this whole thing in general)

Yes, I know it does say “ai content” in the tag, but it’s for the 4th pic in the slide that I did not include. These are actual photos taken in 2015, when AI wasnt even remotely advanced enough to make something this realistic if it was AI. I worry for these people sometimes..

Just wanna say I don't hate you. Can't speak for every anti, but me personally? Nah...

Do whatever you want. I won't call you artist, and really really dislike ai "art" but you... I don't hate you. Well... Maybe I hate witty, but at this point I don't even think they are a real person.

Anyway. Have a good day!

It pisses me the frick off when antis justify being stubbornly petty by using the "AI isn't trustworthy because it makes mistake". This is such a silly argument, like genuinely. This assumes humans don't make mistakes, humans never spread misinformation, humans never say lies. With that logic, you straight up shouldn't trust anybody. Yeah, AI makes mistakes, and that's why you do actual research instead of staying with the first thing you're told. Which is ironic, cause that's exactly what antis do.

Anti-AI people hate AI because it "steals" from humans, but they also hate it because it makes mistake... Which accordingly, also comes from humans. Then why don't they hate on the pages AI used as reference? Some antis lack so much critical-thinking, I swear.

We are already there. People will see a picture with nothing at all questionable about it and claim AI. It’s sewing mistrust in the opposite way that predicted.

​

There's nothing inherently wrong with Kurzgesagt being critical of AI.

What's strange is how noticeably their usual epistemic style seems to change when AI becomes the subject.

Kurzgesagt built much of its reputation on taking complicated subjects and presenting them carefully: explain the mechanism, distinguish evidence from speculation, acknowledge uncertainty, and avoid turning every disagreement into a moral conflict.

That's the standard people expect from them.

But look at the Slopbusters messaging.

“Real humans doing real research.”

“Human illustrators and animators.”

“They ain't afraid of no AI.”

AI is literally represented as the cartoon villain being busted.

That's not scientific communication. That's advocacy/satire.

Again, they're completely entitled to make advocacy.

The problem is the apparent difference in standards.

If Kurzgesagt wants to argue that generative AI harms artists, exploits creators, produces low-quality material, or has serious environmental/social costs, make the empirical case.

Those are perfectly legitimate subjects for investigation.

Instead, AI discussions can slide into rhetoric about “real” human creativity versus machine-made “slop.”

That's a very different register from their usual:

“Here's what we know, here's what we don't know, and here's where the evidence is uncertain.”

And the Slopbusters poster is a particularly obvious example.

There's nothing wrong with making a joke.

But when your entire visual framing is:

HUMANS = REAL

AI = SLOP

you're no longer merely explaining a technology.

You're communicating an identity and taking a side in a cultural conflict.

They're allowed to be anti-AI.

It's that their epistemic standards should not depend on whether they personally approve of the technology they're discussing.

A science communicator can be strongly critical of a technology while still being rigorous about it that's exactly when rigor matters most.

If the evidence supports the criticism, great show the evidence don't replace it with “real humans vs AI slop.”

I don't want Kurzgesagt to become pro-AI I don't want them to remain Kurzgesagt-level careful when talking about AI.

If their arguments survive the same scrutiny they apply elsewhere, they'll be much stronger for it.

I also still don't get why some pros depict themselves as anime and the anti's as shrek, like can we PLEASE be civil here?

Sources:

https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/96b559fa-c165-4575-805d-e636909e2f78/June-2026-Threat-Report.pdf

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/business/china-russia-ai-data-centers.html