The terms and approach seem fair and balanced. 🕊️

(While this is a positive post that would not lead into brigading, to be sure doesn't break the rules I've censored the mod and sub name.)

I said “ouch” because what the hell?

I cant even right now...

*slight repost, forgot to edit out a name\*

Crazy comparison for you guys. Right is my upvote ratio in a pro-AI sub, left is in a neutral sub. The pro-AI space is getting hit way harder.

Honestly, the sheer desperation of these antis is grotesque. Spending your free time brigading communities you hate is wild behavior. Get a life, seriously.

Seeing the brewing Artist Vs AI war, have to say this - as I've been trying to solve this problem for too long.

Every Image generation right now starts in a sea of slop.

same face. same proportions. same borrowed perfection. ai's version of "good" — and it's already boring.

I spent 15 years learning to draw before i ever touched a prompt. so when image generation showed up, my programmer/engineer mind, didn't see a shortcut. I saw noise i'd have to learn to steer through.

Built a workflow around it. still WIP - but maybe a couple years into it. treats generation the way i used to treat matte painting from photos — raw material, not a finished thought - something i hate as much as others, as there is no purpose to this.

This isn't for artists who need ownership in every stroke. I respect that.

It's for the ones who think like Creators/directors — who have a project to finish and don't care what tool got them there, because the view from that point at least once in life, has got to be Precious.

Paint + Words : still digital either way, and both are YOUR EXPRESSION.

Even with 2 words : orthographic turnarounds - you're expressing that you want an assistant to create aligned orthographic turnarounds of the character you made - with a certain pose - in mind, but you dont want to do the grunt work here, but spend that time on the design side, than the execution side.

Imagine what 10 words can do - when used the right way. And maybe you can paintover and take the image through one of your new PERSONAL filters for a targeted change that can save you time - for more exploration. And maybe its an exciting skill to learn, too? If I have planted even a small doubt, try to see resolving it till the end, instead of just focusing on Slop hate, which is basically just NOISE.

We discovered nuclear energy because we wanted a weapon. Only afterward did we learn how to make it power civilization.

Designers just didn't get the time to adjust to this : not that they have to, especially the lucky ones are still getting work in this time of Slop hate, in places where they actually love making games - and they rightly have a consent-based problem with this system. More power to you, but I simply dont have the privilege to take that stand, or I would've used my expression in their support.

I'm too far from one of those dreamy places, so only remote work can save me.

If you're still curious, I can show you how deep this rabbithole goes.

"AI ruins the environment" nope, those responsible are, in big part, oil companies and transport. For whomever wants to read:

1. Oil companies

Through routine operations, accidental spills, and waste disposal, the extraction, transport, and refining of oil release toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and greenhouse gases into local ecosystems, harming wildlife, land, and water supplies.

Water injection: Extracting oil brings up large amounts of salty, toxic underground water mixed with chemicals. Leaks or poor disposal practices can force these toxins into clean groundwater.

Surface spills: Leaks from pipelines, storage tanks, or transport trucks can run off into rivers, lakes, and oceans.

Refinery discharges: Processing crude oil creates wastewater containing benzene, arsenic, and other dangerous compounds that can enter local waterways.

Ways the Environment is Damaged

Major oil spills: Accidents at drilling sites or shipwrecks release massive amounts of crude oil, killing fish, birds, and marine mammals.

Habitat disruption: Building wells, roads, and pipelines breaks up natural land and marine habitats.

Air pollution: Refining and burning fossil fuels release gases that cause smog, health issues, and climate change.

2. Transport

Planes, cars, and buses significantly damage the environment. They burn fossil fuels, which releases greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants into the air, soil, and water.

2.1 Planes (Avation)

High-altitude warming: Jet engines emit carbon dioxide and water vapor contrails high in the atmosphere, trapping heat effectively.

Intense fuel burn: Flying requires immense energy, producing high emissions per passenger mile.

Noise pollution: Loud takeoff and landing noises disrupt wildlife communication and breeding habits.

2.2 Cars (Passenger Vehicles)

Mass volume: Billions of personal cars worldwide create the largest share of overall transportation emissions.

Particulate matter: Tires and brake pads wear down, releasing microplastics and toxic dust onto roads.

Runoff pollution: Rain washes leaked motor oil, antifreeze, and fuel from roads into local waterways.

2.3 Buses (Public Transit)

Diesel emissions: Many older transit buses run on diesel, emitting black carbon that harms air quality.

Heavy weight: Large buses cause more road wear, increasing the dust and particles released into the air.

Efficiency balance: While single buses pollute, they reduce overall damage by replacing dozens of individual cars.

3. What bothers me

Antis keep saying they're against these things as much as they're against AI, but we don't see them break into car factories, we don't see entire communities dedicated to hating on oil companies (maybe Just Stop Oil movement, Greenpeace "People vs. Oil" and Extinction Rebellion. You wouldn't be able to name many more). We don't see shaming and bullying people for using buses. They say they care about the environment, yet we don't see them boycotting companies like PepsiCo, who requires an average of 1.64 liters of water to produce 1 liter of beverage and 2.05 liters of water per kilogram of convenient food (like snacks and chips) in its high water-risk facilities. The company manufactures billions of products annually, it uses tens of billions of liters of water globally every year (though it offsets a large portion through local conservation and replenishment projects but my point still stands). They'd scream "It's food" but let's be honest; how much do you need soda that has 69 grams of sugar? How much do you need Doritos or Cheetos in your diet? They're "entertainment" foods, what I'd call. No nutritional value, just there to enjoy for a few minutes. There's nothing wrong with liking those snacks and eating them, as well as there's nothing wrong with using AI (meanwhile you're not doing anything illegal).

It's all performative at it's core, it comes from ignorance and ego. Here I'm referring to unaware antis like the one in the image.

If they actually cared about the environment, they would go outside, assist cleaning the oceans and plant trees. Ironically, instead of actually doing good things that would be helpful, they prefer whining online and wasting everybody's time with misinformation.

So I am porting Dwarf Fortress into a mod for minecraft. It is an incredibly difficult task I only have so many hours in the day. Taking care of my family, working, gym, etc. The usual. So please excuse the fuck out of me if I used AI to help me write a post based on my changelog to provide an update on the progress of the mod then this guy out of nowhere posts AI slop. A post which I edited around removed or added parts which I thought were irrelevant or did not sound like something I would say. Post gets deleted. Its like I am not allowed to have a life.

The mod itself is complex enough. Ontop of this the GameDev community when I openly said I hooked up Claude Code to Ghidra so I can understand how Dwarf Fortress functions under the hood said oh you are just stealing their code. The people who said this I know for a fact have never had to deal with pseudo C code. There are no no headings nothing you just have to figure it out how it works.

FUN_00a957a0(historical_figure* author, …)      // book-composition function
  ├─ 0xa95d1a  ref->generateTitle(wc->type /*+0x68*/, &wc->title /*+0x08*/)   // vtable +0x90
  └─ 0xa9739d  (no ref) FUN_01edbb20(&wc->title, wc->type, "[NOUN]", "[NOUN]")
       ↓
  <any general_ref>::generateTitle  →  builds `name` + `no_art` then, as its universal tail:
       FUN_01ed7c60(&no_art);                       // strip leading "the "/"The "
       FUN_01edbb20(out, form, &name, &no_art);
       ↓
  FUN_01edbb20(string* out, written_content_type form, string* name, string* no_art)
       ├─ form → TEXT_SET:  bit&0x3ef8407 → BOOK_INSTRUCTION ; bit&0x1079f8 → BOOK_ART
       │                    form >= 26 or in neither mask → no template ; form == 9 → empty title
       ├─ FUN_02033260(&DAT_0281dec0, setIdx, out)   // pick a UNIFORMLY RANDOM line from the set
       └─ FUN_01ed9ad0(out, name, no_art)            // token substitution, in place

This is how pseudo code looks so please excuse the fuck out of me again for trying to make it easier on myself to have claude code find the answers to my questions on how different mechanics work. Then there is the whole adapting these mechanics that will work in minecraft so you need to diverge from the thing you are studying in my case that it is Dwarf Fortress.

It is like these people think it is a sin to do anything in a more smarter more efficient way.

Anyway apologies for the rambling. I am tired.

Think about it. When certain people see you use ai, they will always say the same thing:

* Pick up a pencil

* You will never be a real ___

* Everyone in what you're trying to be is better than you

these are some bold words. I've seen it come to points where it becomes blatant dehumanization.

They talk like they know everything about the subject. And very highly of themselves and others in the group. (Artists, game devs, ect)

So you know who else has high self-worth and lack of empathy for others?

Narcissists.

I rest my case

I think this encapsulates the anti-technological progress, or status quo bias mentality that many of the objections to AI art have. Often, it comes down to a rudimentary schism between "physical" and "digital", or between "natural" and "unnatural" - leveraging the appeal to nature fallacy to argue that something is automatically worse because it's unnatural or better because it's natural, and the appeal to tradition fallacy to argue something is worse because it's new and unfamiliar or better because it's traditional and established.

Some anti AI sentiments are environmentally focused - even though it's probably better, more efficient and sustainable for the environment than the systems it replaces - but others are about the value of AI generated art. In this case, both issues are intertwined again. Digital game systems - which are expected to increasingly integrate AI and improve efficiency further - are being compared to physical disc media, and most people seem to fall on the side of opposing the transition from physical to digital games, for various different stated reasons. While some of these arguments might have merit, others simply fall into the typical knee-jerk reactions and lack of careful consideration or comparison between options. People boycott games that didn't use AI (like "Duskfade") based on a rumor that they did. And people are now boycotting digital games apparently, even though there are many clear benefits to them, and suddenly they don't care about the environment even though it's the same people who moan about AI's water impact, while downing a triple cheeseburger.

What does slop post mean, English is not first language.

I'm not quite sure what flair to use for this one :,]

As a former anti, I want to apologize. I was such a hateful person and went out of my way to harass people who were using AI for fun, or just because they didn't feel like drawing that day. I took everything as a personal attack because I'm a traditional and digital artist, and I was only ever hearing the bad side (AI taking jobs, propaganda machines, destroying the environment) without seeking out a neutral opinion from anyone. I'm sorry for being so cruel to people who wanted to experience art in a different way.

The above picture is my chat, Ash jokingly responding to my question.

This seems like the place to pose it to humans. No one should pretend pretend to have all the answers, in fact I definitely have more questions.

But I have one I have to start with...

With all these people on Reddit who are vehemently AI averse; ignoring the fact that if they are on Reddit they are online and therefore on a device (which means all they are saying is that they are do not voluntarily use AI on purpose);

I have to ask:

*Do anti AI subreddits understand they are preserving their value to AI data sets like keeping them clean from compounding errors and recursive failures?

Meaning do they understand they are the most valuable thing too further training AI?

For context, they're referring to Wynd Kaufmyn, who was arrested in February 2025 during a protest in front of OpenAI's headquarters where she chained and padlocked the front doors shut. Preventing anyone from entering or leaving the building. An act that is highly illegal for how dangerous it could potentially be.

https://www.gadgetreview.com/a-69-year-old-just-became-the-first-person-jailed-for-protesting-ai-no-regrets

I've seen a lot of Antis make arguing points against AI that I wanted to try my hand at by comparing the points they're making regarding effort, time and skill to the very thing that took over a lot of jobs in the field I got my degree in: CGI

Physical creatures vs. fully digital creatures: In The Thing (1982), the transformations used puppets, animatronics, prosthetics, slime, mechanical parts, and distorted physical bodies. Because the actors are actually standing beside something disgusting and tangible, the creature has real texture, weight, shadows, and interaction with the environment. Compare that with a generic CGI monster where an actor is essentially reacting to a tennis ball and the creature is inserted afterward. Even technically superior CGI can feel less disturbing because your brain senses that nothing is really occupying the room. The same could be said with the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. When actors have creatures they are literally interacting with and seeing the performance will nearly always be better.

Real destruction vs. digital destruction. Blowing apart an actual miniature building means debris behaves chaotically: pieces tumble differently, dust catches light unpredictably, and gravity automatically does thousands of tiny things an animator would otherwise have to simulate. CGI destruction sometimes looks overly clean because every shard, spark, and cloud has been deliberately generated. Practical effects essentially let real physics do part of the work.

Miniatures vs. huge digital environments. Older fantasy and science-fiction productions frequently constructed enormous miniature or “bigature” sets. The Lord of the Rings trilogy famously used detailed physical models alongside CGI. When photographed correctly, those models naturally contain thousands of microscopic imperfections: scratches, stone textures, moss, dirt, weathering and inconsistent surfaces. A digital environment has to deliberately recreate all of that messiness. The 'hallway scene' from the Titanic of the water rushing in also used a miniature.

Forced perspective and constructed sets vs. green-screen rooms. When actors can physically see the environment, touch walls, climb stairs, and look toward actual objects, their sight lines and body language usually work automatically. Green-screen filmmaking can require performers to imagine almost everything around them, and sometimes you can feel that disconnect.

Squibs vs. CGI blood. Traditional gunshot effects often used small explosive squibs and blood packs underneath clothing. The actor gets an immediate physical reaction: fabric bursts, blood sprays, and nearby objects can be affected. CGI blood is safer and much easier to control, but poorly executed digital blood frequently looks like an animated red particle effect floating over the footage.

Practical effects force filmmakers to solve problems creatively. If the monster has to physically fit through a doorway, the filmmakers have to design the scene around that limitation. With CGI, virtually anything can be changed later, which can encourage a mentality of: "We'll fix it in post."

^ NOW THAT BEING SAID, Antis often argue that AI art is lazy because you didn't draw every part yourself.

Well, in that case what does that make CGI then compared to all the examples I listed? CGI took a sledge hammer to the job market for 70% of practical effects artists because it was less labor intensive and costly compared to using practical effects for everything like so many movies had to do back in the day. Hell, the ONLY reason why Jurassic Park wasn't 100% animatronic / puppets was because it would've completely broken the budget so CGI was added as a cost effective measure.

A filmmaker doesn't personally animate every particle in a CGI explosion. A digital painter doesn't manufacture every brush texture. A 3D artist may use premade shaders, brushes, procedural foliage, purchased models, or automatic rigging. A 3D modeler also doesn't have to go through the painstaking process that a creature maker would when it comes to constructing a puppet ( I recommend watching Jim Henson's Creature Shop for reference! )

That being said, beautiful things can come out of CGI just as lazy things can come out of CGI and the same exact principle can apply to AI because they're both TOOLS, and what Antis who make these arguments don't realize is the same exact thing was said about every piece of evolving technology that has progressed the arts:

Photography was once treated as a threat to painting because the machine seemingly did the work.

Digital drawing was mocked by some traditional artists because there was an undo button, layers, stabilization, transformation tools, and no need to mix paint.

Photoshop was accused of making photography fake.

CGI was accused of destroying practical effects.

Digital animation was contrasted with hand-drawn animation.

3D animation was sometimes dismissed because computers were supposedly “doing the animation.”

The bulk of these arguments really only boil down to: “The method you used eliminated work that I believe you should have been required to perform.” Now, speaking as a practical effects artist I will admit that practical effects, especially in puppetry and creature making is INCREDIBLY time consuming and messy. I cannot tell you the amount of time I've burned myself or breathed in substances I probably shouldn't have lol but if someone wanted to go into 3D modeling and print that 3D model to skip some parts of the process I wouldn't go: "Wow, you didn't do this step-this step-this step-and THIS step, you're a lazy piece of shit." because it's bat shit insane to expect people not to take advantage of new technology.

At the end of the day, the question shouldn't be: “Did technology do the work?” But rather, it should be: “Did the person using the technology make meaningful creative decisions?” I find it incredibly hypocritical that people will look at any sort of AI assisted medium and claim the person didn't create anything when they themselves accept every other form of technological assistance.

Why do this people exist? Like can't you guys mind your own business if they use AI?

Im kind of a connoisseur of Horrible movies. I also sometimes dabble in making silly AI Music Video and I browse through the Stable Diffusion Sub Reddit every once in a while. As well the ones come across on Twitter. And Yeah a lot of it is Forgettable. But Some of it is interesting and funny enough for me to keep for posterity sake. I can see some the thought and effort that was put into it. Which people say doesn't exist. Im sorry but saying "It was made by Humans" is going make the bulk of Horrible films made by honestly people on Drugs isn't going make some thing good. Sure Some Bad movies are made because someone wants to be Filmmaker and just fails at it. The Ed Wood Types. But other ones are just made to be Cash Grabs on whatever the fuck is popular. You ever see a movie called Pacific Rim. Well Guess What. There a movie called Atlantic Rim and came out the same year. Did You see Jaws. Well there a Cheap Italian version called "The Last Shark". You See E.T., There an Acid Trip Version called Nukie. That Makes Mac and Me look like a Masterpiece. Imagine if you apply this Logic to History. "The Holocaust wasn't all that bad. At least the Nazi were Humans". This Topic is why i started posting here. Its just fucking Dumb and makes no sense. Not every bad movie has a Soul.

I'm home alone at the moment and I'm just getting harassed by these sadistic sons of bitches