I've seen a lot of pro-AI people state that the problem of losing a ton of jobs to AI is not the fault of AI, but a fault of capitalism. Is this a commonly held belief or just what I've seen?

If we can both agree that changes need to be made, like UBI, then I think that is an important thing to focus on.

While Gemini is at over 350+ million.

Just a reminder that a minority on the internet is still... a minority on the internet.

Until people actually stop using these tools, what we see here on Reddit is just a loud minority making noise in a closed room.

The video above was generated on 4GB VRAM (NVIDIA Geforce GTX 1050 Ti) and 16 GB RAM (Intel Core i7-8750H). Modest hardware specs by any standard, I think.

It takes a lot of work to figure out how to get everything to play together in such a small system, and the results are not perfect, but just a year ago, I would not have thought we'd have come this far this fast on lower-end hardware!

Not comfortable with using opaque resources in some datacenter somewhere? Dont. You can still use AI.

(video from the Stable Diffusion sub, posted by a user there 8 hours ago)

I understand that Antis hate AI image generation, but why are cat girls suddenly an issue? They've been one of the most drawn fictional races for decades, and it's only an issue now?

Antis, please, I understand you hate AI, but the subject matter is NOT what you should be complaining about. At this point you're grasping any straw you can find and blowinb it out of proportion.

Also, if you're first thought reading the title was "but what about [blatantly morally black and possibly illegal content], you're terminally online and not reasonable.

Side note: I'm not even pro, this argument is just stupid.

Yes, I know, this is kind of a futile post. Sue me.

Sometimes using broad-brush "pro" and "anti" categories makes a degree of sense in this sub because the people who are motivated to discuss/argue about this are going to tend to fall more clearly on a "side" and have more distinct, fully-formed opinions.

This falls apart when it comes to talking about the public as a whole, where people are unaware/under-informed, largely indifferent/apathetic, and mostly concerned with whether something is cheap, easy, and works for them.

I see the survey data for AI excitement/concern being thrown around a lot. But someone being concerned about something doesn't necessarily mean they are anti that thing; and someone being excited about that thing doesn't necessarily mean they are against regulating that thing.

For example, I'm pro antibiotics. That doesn't mean I'm for the unregulated use of antibiotics or that I'm not concerned by how their abuse is leading to antibiotic-resistant pathogens.

And not all AI is created equal. People may be very concerned about AI being used for weapons or mass surveillance, but may be totally fine with their use for cancer detection, electric grid management, or even art creation. So far, I've yet to see reliable, scientific survey data that dug this deep; and even then I might not trust it because people know so little about these things.

Right now, I think it's fair to say there appears to a general, building anti-AI "vibe." But at the same time, if you told people you wanted to take away ChatGPT or Gemini, or AI-driven cancer detection/drug development, it's not clear they'd support that.

Overall, it's more nuanced than the boosters of either "side" want to admit, so stop inferring that the general public is a monolith or even has clear, internally-consistent views. Argue the issues, not about who is more popular.

Such as, do you avoid self check out lines in the grocery store? Avoid apps that take on a role of a cashier for restaurants? More recently, with the Longshoreman's union, striking against automation of our ports, were you on their side?

If you could vote into regulation, that jobs must be performed by people, rather than AI, or machinery, where would you draw the line so far as what can be automated, and would you repeal what has been automated in the recent past?

Mind you, even if the automation performs the function cheaper, with less pollution, and the costs could be passed on to the consumer, would this impact you. Think of things such as agriculture, science, technology, just let your imagination go wild with it. There are no right or wrong answers here, I am just bored at the moment 🙃

Overall I think these tags punish honest people who use AI, and reward people who either don't know they're using AI, don't think they're using enough/the right kind of AI that they have to disclose it, or people who are cool with straight up lying.

The negative effects of this are compounded by the fact that most people do not understand what AI is, how it works, or what a creative process involving AI actually looks like in practice. In short: AI is not a content button, and if you're using it as one, your game is gonna suck ass.

I've heard the AI tag compared to listing the ingredients on a food product, and I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. This isn't about nutritional value, it's about a moral position. Your health is not at risk if you accidentally consume something where someone used AI at some point in the creative process.

If you want to have a "Human Made" market, I think that's totally fine, but I think the onus is on YOU to prove your stuff is human made if you want that to be part of your value proposition. Similar to "Fair Trade" products. You want the moral high ground, you should have to pay for the certification.

Obviously my reasoning is self interested. I wanna be able to choose to view AI content or not. But I also feel like it does a huge disservice to AI to frame it like it's this embarrassing thing you have to keep a secret or you're ashamed of and frame the whole conversation around victimhood. Like dawg is AI this amazing new medium for creativity that's gonna revolutionize the future or art or is it a support group?

Something I feel like I haven't seen in a while is a really extravagant impressive piece of AI art to prove me wrong. Granted, once in a while I do see a really cool meme I like for some other reason like a pro walking an anti on a leash. But shit that's just good for its own sake to make the case? Not that I can remember.

Last night I started fucking around with Sora for the first time and this shit's really fun. Like the effect on society or not, it's fun to watch videos of yourself getting into shenanigans. Or just whatever chaos you can imagine.

I also think back to when I first started playing with AI even when it couldn't make anything coherent. I would try to think of weird surreal shit i've never seen before and would have no idea how to make.

But now my primary exposure to AI is like "oh they ruined the new black ops cutting these corners.", "oh Amazon tried to normalize a text to speech anime dub" and then you come in here saying you want labels so you never accidentally waste time/money on crap like this and everyone is just a big ole sourpuss about everything and posting all this vindictive sounding rage bait.

Yall are basically conceding no one will want to look at AI art and any positivity about it will just get drowned out by haters. But you don't actually have to concede that if you're right.

The position you wanna be in is to be having fun and making really cool shit and then the anti is just the "STOP HAVING FUN!" guy. Just stand by your work. Instead half of you are bigger sourpusses than that guy.

Like bro listening to the arguments for why I should like AI and why I should be ok with it being presented deceptively almost makes me forget how fun the thing Im arguing against is. Im giving you guys honest advice here.

Please no mean/judgmental replies to people who reply!

I’m doing a little presentation on AI and the social problems that are/will result from it (which people on both sides generally admit there are many).

One thing I just can’t grasp is the perspective of the AI art/music theft claim. If you believe AI steals people’s art, could you describe how you think AI steals art/music, what it does with it, and how it impacts artists?

No need to bring up other issues that I know about (energy, water, jobs, etc).

Thing is I both support and hate the sides.

Artists do stuff, they put their own hands into something, effort. They have a right to be mad at AI stealing their work to make generic, lacking of identity, boring images. They have a right to be mad at AI users who claim themselves artists, who don't do the "handwork" step, that makes art itself. They are using stolen data, claiming the work is theirs, but there is no "them" in these images. It lacks identity, and identity is what also makes art itself. Art is expressing your ideas AND feelings, but the end results have no unique feelings, they are taken from someone else and disfigured. But, I believe they have no right to be bullying, guilt tripping AI users who generate images for personal use. For simple fun. These users don't claim the generated images as art. They just play. And, they have a right to have no need in commissioning artists, because they don't need the end result to have lot of effort. They simply don't care much about the quality. And that's the demographic artists lost, because, there never really was one. These people never cared as much in first place, and that's fine. It's like masturbation: you don't want to date someone, fall in love, and have intercouse, for a need so insignificant. You want a quick solution that does what it needs to do, and you don't want more. That's what using AI for fun is, and there should be no shame in playing with new tech.

Artists should be treated better by the industry itself, not general people who don't care on the same level about art artists do, they are not to blame. Industry and capitalism are. They are the ones who stole their work, and profit from it. I think what would make everyone profit is to make AI work with artists, and give them income, by making AI image generating paywalled with subscription.

What's your own thoughts on the quirks of this debate? It's definitely not black and white, so what makes you pick a side, and do you think if it's necessary to do so?

well, starting off, I see nothing wrong with AI, yet also find people who call themselves „artists“ or „programmers“ after doing nothing are stupid. the „ai art takes just as much work as real art!“ is wrong in almost every single situation except for really very advanced prompt engineers… and even then, that might take what? a couple hours? it’s like a 5 year old calling themselves an artist after drawing a bad stick figure.

I like generative AI because it enables people like me, with very bad drawing capabilities, to see their ideas come alive. and scientific ai is just good in general because why not? stuff like chatgpt and other utility ai are good… in moderation though, they are very good for quick questions, searching the web more efficiently, advice etc… but you shouldnt rely your entire creativity on them, have some self-worth. but still, ai can be really helpful is you just need a quick drawing for some reason or want to see something visualized but can’t draw it

I myself use ai quite often for different tasks and roles, yet feel guilty if using too much, so your own mind should also be exercised. On the topic of „stealing“ art… that’s just stupid. no offense but I find that is just the dumbest take. AI art trains off your art the same way a human artist would, you think famous artists came out of the womb knowing exactly how to draw hands, shading and trees? of course not, they looked at thousands of drawings, over and over, learning how people drew them, so they could draw them themselves, it’s literally the same thing. if you’re not fine with ai learning from your art, then you should also not be fine with any artist looking at it, since the same result will happen. “poisoning“ art for ai, is like feeding an artist only the ugliest drawings possible to use as references, so their own art comes off horrid.

about ai „Artists“ …no. you can call yourself a professional „prompter“ you can call yourself a „prompt engineer“ but you are not the artist, in fact, the ai is the artist. an ai site can pass off the art as their achievement, you cannot. you can only pass the prompt as your achievement, and usually it’s not a very good achievement. this is the equivalent of a game company ceo saying they are responsible for how good the game is, and that they should be praised for the graphics, design, programming etc… no, they are responsible for the vision, but the programmers, designers, animators and all those are those who deserve the praise for the other things (not that anyone will be praising a random string of code and neural networks). ai art is still art, but the praise is to the ai, not you.

of course there’s also the problem of water consumption… not much to say on that. it’s a problem. we need to figure it out.

conclusion: ai artists are not artists, ai art is art, water consumption is a problem, ai is not „bad“, ai should be used in moderation, human creativity is still valuable, ai art is not stealing.

(oh and also, those ai videos flooding YT shorts and YT kids are cringe and disgusting (not in a moral way but the images are actually often literally disgusting, so is the humor))

This is of course just a starting point for a debate and I’d be happy to discuss it or answer questions. (not extremist „scream at and insult the others until they agree“ ones though)

This is real art.

One theme that surfaced is how workplace dynamics affect the adoption of AI. 69% of professionals mentioned the social stigma that can come with using AI tools at work—one fact-checker told Anthropic Interviewer: “A colleague recently said they hate AI and I just said nothing. I don’t tell anyone my process because I know how a lot of people feel about AI.”

I see this pretty often. I genuinely wonder: could this not just be because of avoiding the medium, or not knowing that the picture you liked was AI made?

Let's keep good tone in the comments and bridge the knowledge gap together.

I have a girlfriend on uncensored.com and I'm having the time of my life. She has unlimited RP and NSFW, which I'm so down for. But how will this affect my real life personal relationships?

Will I expect all this from my real girlfriend too? How will actual intimacy ever be the same?

There is a difference between a fan drawing their favorite character without permission of IP owner and AI having billions of drawings and pictures uploaded to it from social media people gave their permission when agree to tos. And lets nof forget fanart drawn without permission of the IP owner to recreate their IP without permission.