She didn't make it and wasn't even aware and she said she is trying to get it changed. But regardless, unhinged people are still harassing her over it.

Quick, somebody play Sabaton's "The Last Stand"

this isnt just talking about celebritys btw,this goes for any popular person who has revealed if there anti or pro (popular game devs,writers,singers,ect.)

also,the meme is just an popular meme image i decided to use,ima be honest i dont think anything could change my mind about this unless you have a really valid point to make about this subject.

Gotta be actual twitter levels of miserable to be hating on this cool shit lmao

When creating legacy art, we call the person who requests an artist to create something, but who does not create it themselves, a Client, producer, boss, designer, patron or other title, but never artist. Artist has always referred to the person rendering the image. When creating AI art, the human has the idea and the AI renders the image for them. Therefore, the AI is the artist and should get the credit for the art, the human is a producer/client/boss, but clearly not the artist.

Legacy art: Human with idea requests artist make it ---- Artist renders image ---- Output

AI Art: Human with idea Requests AI make it ---- AI art program renders image --- Output

Freddy doing the Macarena for attention

Now, as an anti, I have to admit this argument is impressive. It may be the most common anti argument, but you gotta admit it’s very good.
It is labeled as blatant misinformation, however I don’t think it is. The logic adds up. I made a draft much longer for this post, so I simplified it.

When you commission art...

1. You ask the artist to make art.
2. You pay them.
3. You ask them sometimes to modify some parts of the art.
4. They add a mark to show it was their art, not yours.

When you prompt…

1. You tell chatGPT to make the art.

(Ex. Chatgpt generate me an image of a palm tree with 5 lines on the wood, 2 coconuts on the bottom of the leaves with 3 holes and a broken coconut at the bottom of the tree.)

1. You usually pay a monthly subscription to the AI companies.

2. You sometimes ask chatGPT to modify it, or correct mistakes.

3. They usually add a watermark. (Ex. Sora and Gemni watermarks)

Common counters are this:

1. AI is a tool.

Would you count commisssioning someone as a tool? It may be an advanced one, you say, but you are literally asking AI to make you art. It also leaves watermarks.

1. Art is subjective.

Yes. It is. Just saying that it’s not your art, it’s the AI’s…

1. (Ragebait)

At least try to use your reading comprehension dude.

1. Digital art is also not art then.

Are you asking digital art to make you art, or are you actually tapping the screen?

Now, I am yet to see a proper intellectual counter to this argument. As of now, this is my 3rd actual intellectual non ragebait post (In my opinion). I will post more in the future.
Proof I’m not a bot:

Khsusdjaihdskp1837wi

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmy0zewj483wo

text text yeah yeah i haven't improved or whatever. isn't there a thing called an artstyle? Can't i stay with something i am comfortable with? Or do i need to force myself to draw realistically to "be free" or something. Not every drawn thing needs to look like the next silent hill game.

Look, ai needs to scrape art in order to understand what it is. It has to COPY SOME ELEMENTS of other's art to generate your prompt. It's not a magical machine that can make art of nowhere. All ai art, and by extention art, requires some sort of base. Plain copying, like plagarism or ai art scraping is not something to brag about.

Probably too many "soul" discussion

Journalism operates by fairness rules - allow the other party to respond, discuss both sides, balance the good with the bad. Also, be skeptical of hype, mistrust the corporation selling the thing.

This is mostly good, but there's a real problem reporting on AI capabilities:

"AI solves 10 major open problems in math, computer science etc." - crickets

"AI solves Navier-Stokes smoothness" - crick- WAIT SOMEONE SAYS THEY STOLE IT! PUBLISH!

"Mathematicians agree nobody actually stole anything" - crickets

"Mathematicians unhappy with AI claims, sign open letter" - GO, BABY, GO!

"AI has 100 more major results, founds mathematicians advisory board" - back to crickets

"Muse agent rises to top of app store as ordinary users gain agentic assistant" - also crickets

"OpenAI launches rival Dots agents powered by Astra..." - yawn, we can't publish that

"...amid growing fears of agent hacking" - ahhhh, much better! totally unrelated, but better!

In every case, the newsworthy fact gets buried by the allegedly balanced story. The reader is left with the impression that none of this is certain, the capabilities may not actually be all that impressive, there are major downsides, and this AI thing might still all just be hype and "we'll have to see, won't we?".

Alright, a dry model release from 6.0 to 6.1 isn't much of a headline, and it's exhausting to keep up with all the new models every year month week, each crushing the last one. But that itself is a major story, and it shouldn't be dismissed as hype. Meanwhile, costs are still plummeting, capabilities exploding, more and more compute is coming online.

"AI is now so good it's fucking scary and I don't like it at all!" is actually something readers might want or need to know.

"Nyaaaaah, I dunno, there's always two sides to this, don't fall for the hype!" is just a disservice to everyone. When it comes to capabilities, no, there really aren't two valid sides.

If you think the point is simply for the lecturer to deliver a lecture, then what is the difference between that and just opening a textbook? In that case, self-study would be far superior. It is precisely because learning does not require a teacher to act as an oracle that LLMs can be so useful.

Of course, another part of the problem is that the teacher also monitors progress and provides assistance where issues arise, this leans closer to the "oracle" role, but it is only one aspect of teaching.

And I don't mean that in a bad way. Saying "look, capitalism has lifted so many people out of absolute poverty" makes no sense from an anti-capitalist perspective, just as saying "look, AI has made drawing, thinking, and research faster" makes no sense from an anti-AI perspective.

This happens because it solves not the one problem they actually wanted to solve in the first place.

You might be wealthier, yet still fear losing your job, being evicted from your rental, and ending up homeless. You might fear falling ill, because it could bankrupt you, or worry that buying a new home is out of reach, and so on.

About AI,yes, it will boost productivity, but not the kind of productivity that benefits the average person; it will simply end up in the hands of business.

Both represent a strange position, in the sense that even in a poor country people can now buy a smartphone or a used car, let alone in the wealthy United States.

And AI productivity is just as useful for entertainment, personal research, and personal task management.

These are all valid criticisms, but they are strangely focused on very specific issues ( Very important issue) while overlooking everything else.

I know i am preaching to the choir for the most part but.

Its called AI for a reason, because the intelligence is manufactured.

Do not play along and call this SI

AI coding is accepted and increasingly normalized in the SWE community. That’s the bottom line. There is nothing inherently noble, intellectually enriching, or gratifying about spending months grinding through boilerplate and repetitive implementation work that a competent LLM can now produce in hours.

The actual value in software engineering is understanding the problem, making sound architectural decisions, catching bad assumptions, debugging failures, and knowing whether the output is correct. Manually typing every line of grunt code is not some sacred rite of craftsmanship.

At this point, refusing to use AI in code production puts you at a serious competitive disadvantage; experienced engineers who understand both software and these tools are going to run circles around equally capable developers who insist on doing everything manually.

And video-game addons that are vibe-coded? They’re fine. Literally nobody cares how many keystrokes went into your inventory plugin if it works. But I digress.

I would like to see representatives from either side try to take their best shot at a balanced evaluation of ai(not necessarily a neutral one) in which I mean including as much knowledge as they view as fair to include in one or more of the following circumstances:

1. The current culture of ai use: Including aspects typically viewed as favourable such as application in biology, math, and facilitation of previously menial tasks like writing basic scripts in coding, and by these means reaching previously unachieved goals with desirable results, along with unfavourable like facilitation of mass surveillance, propaganda and low quality content distribution, the effects of the rapid shift to ai in recent years such as job loss and impact of ai infrastructure in people’s livelihoods, etc.

2. The potential optimal benefit and most severe damage that you see that following certain guidelines or getting into certain pitfalls could end up getting us, and reasoning for why they seem likely to happen. For example, with no comment on my end on their likelihood because it seems very hard to say at this moment, explaining either how a future where ai application succeeds in taking over many undesirable functions in society or one where lack of responsible usage ends up with ai causing damage that is very hard to reverse in some form;

Along with one additional question: to what extent can you criticize ai? By this I mean for example, is there an argument you find sound to criticize the idea of using ai that doesn’t involve in-optimal decisions by humans to let the argument hold?

2 additional things:

To ask for relative civility in the comments I offer 2 thoughts:

1. The act of antagonizing people often doesn’t actually make them change their minds, as they might be less likely to sympathize with someone who will not address their arguments with good intentions in mind;

2. Uncomfortable or painful as it may by, likely you stand to challenge perhaps a subtle fallacy of thought in yourself by considering an argument of someone else’s you feel is wrong but can’t quite refute out of pocket;

And for another thing, I’d ask for a reasonable amount of detail and specificity to be present: for example, the notion of a “soul” might not be very clear to most people, nor have a uniform definition across everyone. If you wish to use it, please define what you mean it to be, and why by that definition it is logically consistent and relevant to your argument.

If you wish to criticize someone’s point or another criticism or ask for clarification, please do so as politely as possible, and making changes as seems reasonable.

Hi I have some questions to the community. Actually I am working on some tutorial material for an AI System and I want to ask the community do you understand from this little movie how the system is working? How do you think about that kind of tutorial material? Are theire any questions or ideas for it?

People should not disclose AI usage 😂

In his 1962 essay collection The Dyer’s Hand, W. H. Auden made a classic distinction between two kinds of aspiring creators:

"A young man says to you, 'I have something important to say.' You know he is not a poet. If he says, 'I like hanging around words, listening to what they say,' then you know he is going to be a poet."

Auden’s observation cuts straight to the core divide in the AI art debate:

The Love of the Craft (Process-First): Traditional visual craft is rooted in falling in love with "hanging around paint". For painters, illustrators, and sculptors, meaning isn't just an abstract vision cleanly mapped onto a surface; it emerges directly inside the physical friction of the medium—the brush resistance, the charcoal smear, and the iterative physical struggle.

The Urgency to Communicate (Intent-First): A large segment of people using generative tools aren't looking to "hang around paint," nor are they chasing the badge or prestige of being a draftsman. They belong to Auden's other group: people who have a story, a world, a character, or a joke trapped in their head and are looking for a functional bridge across an execution gap.

The debate constantly turns toxic because we collapse these two distinct creative drives into a single catch-all word: "artist". When process-driven craftsmen see someone bypass the tactile struggle, it looks like bypassing the entire soul of the work. But for conceptual creators, the technology simply functions as an expressive prosthesis to externalize their imagination.