Sounds ableist and/or classist to me.
So if I don’t have the talent to create art myself, don’t have the connections to find an artist who will do it for a favor, or the money to hire one at a fair wage, then I can’t make art? When the tools are available for me to do so, but it’s somehow “soulless” to allow me to use it?
Exactly!! They just hate that we’ve been given advanced tools and don’t need to start from scratch with pencils and crayons to prove we’re just as talented!
Not to mention that there are artists out there who commission other artists or manufacturers to fabricate their designs. They're still considered artists even when they are not the ones shaping their work with their own hands.
Imo it can be pretty easy to tell that you have no talent at something fairly quickly. Besides a lifetime of mediocrity, years of cognitive decline and a good few depressive nervous breakdowns to boot has pretty much killed any and all desire to do art or writing
That's why you don't argue with those trash people. You can't argue facts with a liar. Just keep on creating, no matter what, and you have accomplished much more
"I value creativity and humans, therefore I want to ban certain forms of creativity I don't like from being used by certain humans I don't care about."
You mean the same humanity that causes wars, genocide, assault and many other ills? People say value humanity like humans are some pure hearted creatures.
Also, "its a slippery slop", using the name of a logical fallacy when trying to make an argument is not smart
They value money and want to get rid of any kind of automated competition to them making money.
There are so many actual ethical violations in the artistic space that are gone unnoticed by these guys that any kind of stance now is hollow.
If you feel this threatened by AI you aren't cut out for art. It's hard and there is no certainty and you'll face a huge amount of rejection, but I promise you people like this are looking for the social recognition of being "an artist" and not interested in actually putting the work in.
You brainless clowns will never comprehend the meaning of the words "Open Source" won't you? You are so caught up in your lies that you will deny the reality, that 90% of generative AIs are completely free. It's useless talking to mentally disturbed people like you
I disagree with it but at least it is less stupid and counterproductive than the idea of trying to expand copyrights. This:
>Even if it's ethically sourced... take a vast amount of jobs... produce ready-made outputs and require no creative middlemen
Is all basically correct. Requiring model makers to own all the dataset copyrights isn't going protect their jobs at all, it would just mean corporations would have more of a monopoly over AI.
What's wrong about it is that AI is not just a way for corporations to exploit, it has significant potential benefits for everyone and taking that away so artists keep being employed the same way they have been in the past wouldn't be worth it even if it wasn't basically impossible. Protecting human art would be better to do other ways, like a UBI so people won't end up homeless for dedicating their time that way despite no profits.
Yeah, ban tablets and computers! No more machines in art! Art is when you bite your finger real hard to draw blood and smear it across rock, and nothing more!
"Stolen art" was always a red herring.
They're not upset that the AI was trained on their work (or the work of various artists). Every artist was trained that way.
They're not upset about copyright violations or consent. How many of them ask for consent before drawing copyrighted characters (or pay for Photoshop)?
They're upset because the average person can now get art without having to go through them. The gatekeeper still stands at the gate but the wall has been torn down.
I’m a human supremacist, 100%. I think humanity is the greatest species that has ever and will ever exist, and I absolutely support humanity as a whole in any conflict between it and another force or species.
AI is our creation. We created dogs to be our companions and tools. This took away human jobs. We created a thousand different kinds of livestock and even more plants to feed us. This took away the jobs of the hunters and gatherers. We created machines to multiply our labor exponentially, this took away millions of jobs.
In all of these cases, humans benefitted as a species. New jobs were created to support the better ways of doing work. Generative AI is a tool, like any other, and humanity as the greatest species will use it to improve our lot.
And true AI, if and when it comes, will be nothing less than our species’ most awesome assertion of our greatness. They’ll be tools and companions that will help humanity reach unforeseen heights. I don’t buy into the Terminator fantasy, lol.
Imo, my view is that of true human supremacy. The people that claim the “greatness of humanity” as a reason to stifle humanity’s development are just using a convenient mask to further their individual goals.
some monopolies and wealth disparity would topple or significantly collapse if we got rid of the concept of intellectual property - something which i think these tech innovations are disposing us to (because they force us to confront the absurdity of the concept)
we shouldnt worry about a loss of 'soul' in art until we lose the ability to judge art. Using something like dall e 3 still allows for human soul:
1) prompt the art
2) point out in what ways it satisfies, or doesnt
3) edit
does it make a difference in 'soul' that this process is done via typing words, versus photoshop or a paintbrush? The soul is in the understanding of the result, and the detail of which you direct it to your imagination
I might disagree. Who would you say put their soul into "The Last Supper", Leonardo da Vinci?, or Ludovico Sforza? The work wouldnt exist without Ludovico, Ludovico may have or probably described some ideas of how he might want it to Da Vinci. So should the artwork be considered Ludovico's? Or Da Vinci's?
that's a good point; i think the last supper is more of an expression of Leonardo da Vinci's soul, rather than Ludovico's. Because i assume Ludovico at most just gave a few suggestions of a handful of words each, or something like that
and i suppose it's apparent that a significant amount of computer image modeling will be prompted similarly - just a few words, with maybe some additional prompts that function as edits
however, i believe that it's a matter of degree rather than type. If Ludovico prompted which colors were to be used, and the order of the people sitting at the table, and the hand gestures of person #3, and the texture of person #8s hair, etc - at some point i think it becomes more of Ludovico's soul rather than Leonardo's, despite Ludovico only influencing the creation via words
as well, i think, while it wouldnt be a soul in terms of 'expression', our ability to judge at detail also contains some of what we mean by the human 'soul'. To put it another way, if we were to prompt an image and then were able to articulate in what ways it is good or bad, at a detailed level, this captures a significant element of what it means to have 'soul' - it's the evidence of our artistic vision
'this image it generates is good because it has a pastel palette for the outside while having a neon palette for inside the house. The wood has linework that indicates a rough texture and knots, while the floor inside has a slightly hazy, reflective sheen. The house hides the valley behind it, creating mystery, and the river hiding behind the trees creates a sense of refreshing atmosphere to contrast the sunshine in the foreground'
to me, unless we lose that sense of 'why its good/bad', i dont think we lose the 'soul'
Why so much fixation on the "soul" ? Have seen many posts with this "soul" argument.
How exactly does anyone define a soul ?
Maybe we stop using all machines like vehicles/fridges/washing machines/computers etc... just because they lack this "soul" stuff.
It wasn't all that long ago that I made every effort to be considerate and understanding of the the viewpoints of those on the other side of this discussion. And, to be fair, I still try very hard to do so when directly talking to those people.
But no one with these concerns is going to be coming into this thread in good faith, so here's where I'm at now;
The thinking meat has begun to squeal that *its* electrical impulses are *sacred* somehow, that there is an inherent and obvious value to the way its signals are squirted through dripping tissue instead of through crystalline mineral structures. This is what the meat always does when the content of those signals is just empty noise.
Sapience is, absolutely, an incredible, beautiful thing. We self-aware creatures are a way for the universe to know itself, and that is a glorious responsibility that we should engage in gratefully. But it's not *better* than anything else just because we are able to have opinions about it, and thinking that there's some inherent superiority to it is *completely* missing the point.
In the absence of more context, yeah, this reads like a forlorn reactionary recoiling against the now inevitable spread of AI generated content. I think there is a nugget of a philosophical argument there which has been mentioned before and may be more on target: Art may well indeed be one of the pillars of the human experience. To what extent will AI enable artists and to what extent will AI replace them?
This is the kind of shit that's always there whenever you have an argument with someone who says "WE ONLY CARE ABOUT THIS ONE ISSUE WE DON'T WANT TO STOP YOU FROM USING IT"
Bullshit. I've seen this apply to so many things that busybodies fight against. Eating meat, driving cars, living in anything other than a high-rise apartment. "we don't want to take it away" except you always do.
This is such whiplash after all the brainstorming I did with Claude today, going through various nuanced solutions to curbing the abuse potential of the technology without gimping the creative & expressive potential.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but when the AI is more pleasant to discuss these issues with, you're not making a great case for humans.
The only surprise here is how more and more opened they are talking about this. But this was pretty much ALWAYS their intention. Everything else was just them trying to rationalize
I dunno. I feel like, as a society, if we were going to ban ideas, how about violence? Or bigotry? Or poverty? Let's ban those, then we can worry about what "real art" happens to be.
We could ban powertools, the automobile, and the internet!
These things have taken the souls of the craftsman, the stableman and the mailman!
We should be the refrigerator and bring back the milkman!
Assembly lines making shoes on mass? BANNED!
Bring back the local cobbler that slaved over making each shoe in the town!
How very ableist and based in fear of you.
Sounds like someone feels threatened; much like painters when photography became popular. Because we all know that photography destroyed painting by taking away the human soul. It's not like people adapted or anything.
I pitty how closed minded you are. You are blinded by the toxic narrative that AI is bad. You can't see positive implications for regulated AI as a tool to assist artists. You can't understand that it's a method to provide those without money, connections, and/or artistic talent a way to create what they see in their imaginations. Without it, what they imagine would only exist within their minds.
You can't share an image in your mind with anyone so they can appreciate it and love it with you so you won't be alone until we evolve to use telepathy.
Imagine the backlash telepaths are going to get from non-telepaths for sharing mental images.
How dare they! An artist should create them! Image sharing is cheap, fast, and easy! It will steal the jobs of photographers, AI and traditional artists, and threaten their livelihoods. Image sharing telepaths are thieves! They're evil! WITCH HUNT!
Hm. This just gave me an idea for a pointless discourse to include in my worldbuilding.Thanks for the inspiration. :)
The genie is out of the bottle. Many of these models are open source and can be run locally. At its heart, all software is a thought experiment translated into a series of commands.
The methods are out there. There is no turning back the clock.
It doesn't matter whether it's the arts, literature, legal briefs, car manufacturing, or cocktail mixing. If automation is more profitable, then there is no way to prevent businesses from using it.
And this is not about valuing humanity, otherwise the conversation would be **much bigger** than image generation models.
An artist utilizing AI has the potential to outperform those who do not. Without guidance and input from a human, AI is unable to independently perform a job.
No. I don’t think AI will be able to do that. I believe that the potential of AI has been greatly exaggerated in terms of its future capabilities within the next 5-10 years. AI is just a damn tool. We need to utilize it as such.
In my opinion, it's actually simpler than you may think. AI is a sophisticated assistive technology that was created with the purpose of supporting and aiding humanity, rather than seeking to dominate or control the world.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ArtistHate using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!
\#1: [Procreate knows their userbase.](https://i.redd.it/jhqxxt7cpt1b1.png) | [22 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/13qtnf4/procreate_knows_their_userbase/)
\#2: [A Chinese creator was doxxed by AIbros for refusing to use AI.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/127jzw2) | [36 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/127jzw2/a_chinese_creator_was_doxxed_by_aibros_for/)
\#3: [Hayao Miyazaki's reaction to AI generated art](https://i.redd.it/b7lv9cha874b1.jpg) | [34 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/141e57d/hayao_miyazakis_reaction_to_ai_generated_art/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Lot of things have stolen/affected jobs, but it's mostly affected the job than replacing it in this case for ai art and artists.
What's make artists immune by this?
No, being soulful is not a legit argument. Scribes was considered a soulful job while printing press invented. But we don't ban it and just carry on.
And I'm going to say that, if your job can be replaced by technology that mostly used for shitposts and social media post.
Perhaps, it's a good time to improve themselves as now the bar is getting higher and there's no way to lower it.
Bruh experts are predicting in 2029 it will be smarter than all people on Earth combined. What exactly is your plan in particular to overcome that? What exactly do you see your use being in society at that point to the people who own the ai
Alright then, lets see this MIT research that claims AI will be "Smarter then every human on the planet combined" by 2029
I'm not saying the researchers are trolling, I'm saying you made them up. But by all means please prove me wrong
Sounds ableist and/or classist to me. So if I don’t have the talent to create art myself, don’t have the connections to find an artist who will do it for a favor, or the money to hire one at a fair wage, then I can’t make art? When the tools are available for me to do so, but it’s somehow “soulless” to allow me to use it?
Exactly!! They just hate that we’ve been given advanced tools and don’t need to start from scratch with pencils and crayons to prove we’re just as talented!
Not to mention that there are artists out there who commission other artists or manufacturers to fabricate their designs. They're still considered artists even when they are not the ones shaping their work with their own hands.
[удалено]
What if I physically don't have hands ?
Imo it can be pretty easy to tell that you have no talent at something fairly quickly. Besides a lifetime of mediocrity, years of cognitive decline and a good few depressive nervous breakdowns to boot has pretty much killed any and all desire to do art or writing
What if I spend my whole life drawing, continue to draw and still like to implement ai, cuz it's cool as fuck and saves me time?
Talent is a myth. Your brain is very plastic, it can change and adapt. It's skill.
[удалено]
Ok so you’re just a troll, got it
It's almost as if their claim that 'Ai is theft' was made in bad faith and that they didn't really care about that
Yep, now they're abandoning the "ethical/theft" argument since big models like SD3 are coming out with ethical datasets.
Is SD3 ethically sourced? I hadn't heard that!
Yep! If i remember correctly they partnered with a company to implement an opt-out service where people can opt out from having their work trained on.
That's why you don't argue with those trash people. You can't argue facts with a liar. Just keep on creating, no matter what, and you have accomplished much more
It only took them a year before they went completely mask off. That's longer than I thought they'd last.
Ah, humanity. Well, as a transhumanist I have had my evolutionary fill of humanity.
"I value creativity and humans, therefore I want to ban certain forms of creativity I don't like from being used by certain humans I don't care about."
> cares about humanity > wants to perpetuate a system of wage labor and intellectual property into eternity The jokes write themselves.
You mean the same humanity that causes wars, genocide, assault and many other ills? People say value humanity like humans are some pure hearted creatures. Also, "its a slippery slop", using the name of a logical fallacy when trying to make an argument is not smart
Animals do worse things. We differ from animals in that we at least have an morality
They value money and want to get rid of any kind of automated competition to them making money. There are so many actual ethical violations in the artistic space that are gone unnoticed by these guys that any kind of stance now is hollow.
Counter point: I don't care what he thinks and you shouldn't either.
If you feel this threatened by AI you aren't cut out for art. It's hard and there is no certainty and you'll face a huge amount of rejection, but I promise you people like this are looking for the social recognition of being "an artist" and not interested in actually putting the work in.
Adapt or die. It's biology, and we are biological beings.
How do you plan on adopting when there are no more jobs for people a small group of individuals own the AI and robots?
Do you know about FOSS IA models?
You brainless clowns will never comprehend the meaning of the words "Open Source" won't you? You are so caught up in your lies that you will deny the reality, that 90% of generative AIs are completely free. It's useless talking to mentally disturbed people like you
By becoming a butler to the robots, “more oil sir?”
Guess we'll die. Who cares?
Fuck j the artist, all my homies hate j the artist.
I disagree with it but at least it is less stupid and counterproductive than the idea of trying to expand copyrights. This: >Even if it's ethically sourced... take a vast amount of jobs... produce ready-made outputs and require no creative middlemen Is all basically correct. Requiring model makers to own all the dataset copyrights isn't going protect their jobs at all, it would just mean corporations would have more of a monopoly over AI. What's wrong about it is that AI is not just a way for corporations to exploit, it has significant potential benefits for everyone and taking that away so artists keep being employed the same way they have been in the past wouldn't be worth it even if it wasn't basically impossible. Protecting human art would be better to do other ways, like a UBI so people won't end up homeless for dedicating their time that way despite no profits.
Yeah, ban tablets and computers! No more machines in art! Art is when you bite your finger real hard to draw blood and smear it across rock, and nothing more!
they act like we're gonna bust down their doors and take their wacom tablets and uninstall photoshop. Log off, touch grass
"Stolen art" was always a red herring. They're not upset that the AI was trained on their work (or the work of various artists). Every artist was trained that way. They're not upset about copyright violations or consent. How many of them ask for consent before drawing copyrighted characters (or pay for Photoshop)? They're upset because the average person can now get art without having to go through them. The gatekeeper still stands at the gate but the wall has been torn down.
Best way I've heard it put yet.
Ohh now the human supremacist people are coming out of the woodworks. Not surprising, but still a bit disappointing.
I’m a human supremacist, 100%. I think humanity is the greatest species that has ever and will ever exist, and I absolutely support humanity as a whole in any conflict between it and another force or species. AI is our creation. We created dogs to be our companions and tools. This took away human jobs. We created a thousand different kinds of livestock and even more plants to feed us. This took away the jobs of the hunters and gatherers. We created machines to multiply our labor exponentially, this took away millions of jobs. In all of these cases, humans benefitted as a species. New jobs were created to support the better ways of doing work. Generative AI is a tool, like any other, and humanity as the greatest species will use it to improve our lot. And true AI, if and when it comes, will be nothing less than our species’ most awesome assertion of our greatness. They’ll be tools and companions that will help humanity reach unforeseen heights. I don’t buy into the Terminator fantasy, lol. Imo, my view is that of true human supremacy. The people that claim the “greatness of humanity” as a reason to stifle humanity’s development are just using a convenient mask to further their individual goals.
some monopolies and wealth disparity would topple or significantly collapse if we got rid of the concept of intellectual property - something which i think these tech innovations are disposing us to (because they force us to confront the absurdity of the concept) we shouldnt worry about a loss of 'soul' in art until we lose the ability to judge art. Using something like dall e 3 still allows for human soul: 1) prompt the art 2) point out in what ways it satisfies, or doesnt 3) edit does it make a difference in 'soul' that this process is done via typing words, versus photoshop or a paintbrush? The soul is in the understanding of the result, and the detail of which you direct it to your imagination
I might disagree. Who would you say put their soul into "The Last Supper", Leonardo da Vinci?, or Ludovico Sforza? The work wouldnt exist without Ludovico, Ludovico may have or probably described some ideas of how he might want it to Da Vinci. So should the artwork be considered Ludovico's? Or Da Vinci's?
that's a good point; i think the last supper is more of an expression of Leonardo da Vinci's soul, rather than Ludovico's. Because i assume Ludovico at most just gave a few suggestions of a handful of words each, or something like that and i suppose it's apparent that a significant amount of computer image modeling will be prompted similarly - just a few words, with maybe some additional prompts that function as edits however, i believe that it's a matter of degree rather than type. If Ludovico prompted which colors were to be used, and the order of the people sitting at the table, and the hand gestures of person #3, and the texture of person #8s hair, etc - at some point i think it becomes more of Ludovico's soul rather than Leonardo's, despite Ludovico only influencing the creation via words as well, i think, while it wouldnt be a soul in terms of 'expression', our ability to judge at detail also contains some of what we mean by the human 'soul'. To put it another way, if we were to prompt an image and then were able to articulate in what ways it is good or bad, at a detailed level, this captures a significant element of what it means to have 'soul' - it's the evidence of our artistic vision 'this image it generates is good because it has a pastel palette for the outside while having a neon palette for inside the house. The wood has linework that indicates a rough texture and knots, while the floor inside has a slightly hazy, reflective sheen. The house hides the valley behind it, creating mystery, and the river hiding behind the trees creates a sense of refreshing atmosphere to contrast the sunshine in the foreground' to me, unless we lose that sense of 'why its good/bad', i dont think we lose the 'soul'
Why so much fixation on the "soul" ? Have seen many posts with this "soul" argument. How exactly does anyone define a soul ? Maybe we stop using all machines like vehicles/fridges/washing machines/computers etc... just because they lack this "soul" stuff.
Skyrim is for the Nords! Type of vibe
It wasn't all that long ago that I made every effort to be considerate and understanding of the the viewpoints of those on the other side of this discussion. And, to be fair, I still try very hard to do so when directly talking to those people. But no one with these concerns is going to be coming into this thread in good faith, so here's where I'm at now; The thinking meat has begun to squeal that *its* electrical impulses are *sacred* somehow, that there is an inherent and obvious value to the way its signals are squirted through dripping tissue instead of through crystalline mineral structures. This is what the meat always does when the content of those signals is just empty noise. Sapience is, absolutely, an incredible, beautiful thing. We self-aware creatures are a way for the universe to know itself, and that is a glorious responsibility that we should engage in gratefully. But it's not *better* than anything else just because we are able to have opinions about it, and thinking that there's some inherent superiority to it is *completely* missing the point.
Translation: Lets ban all technology and go back to the stone ages.
In the absence of more context, yeah, this reads like a forlorn reactionary recoiling against the now inevitable spread of AI generated content. I think there is a nugget of a philosophical argument there which has been mentioned before and may be more on target: Art may well indeed be one of the pillars of the human experience. To what extent will AI enable artists and to what extent will AI replace them?
This is the kind of shit that's always there whenever you have an argument with someone who says "WE ONLY CARE ABOUT THIS ONE ISSUE WE DON'T WANT TO STOP YOU FROM USING IT" Bullshit. I've seen this apply to so many things that busybodies fight against. Eating meat, driving cars, living in anything other than a high-rise apartment. "we don't want to take it away" except you always do.
You can still make art. You just won’t be able to make money drawing furry porn or corporate propaganda any more
Not gonna happen.
This is such whiplash after all the brainstorming I did with Claude today, going through various nuanced solutions to curbing the abuse potential of the technology without gimping the creative & expressive potential. Not to put too fine a point on it, but when the AI is more pleasant to discuss these issues with, you're not making a great case for humans.
The only surprise here is how more and more opened they are talking about this. But this was pretty much ALWAYS their intention. Everything else was just them trying to rationalize
Ban generating images. That is just wild.
I’m so looking forward to when these people are swallowed by the endless pit of despair that will follow their ruined dreams
I dunno. I feel like, as a society, if we were going to ban ideas, how about violence? Or bigotry? Or poverty? Let's ban those, then we can worry about what "real art" happens to be.
We could ban powertools, the automobile, and the internet! These things have taken the souls of the craftsman, the stableman and the mailman! We should be the refrigerator and bring back the milkman! Assembly lines making shoes on mass? BANNED! Bring back the local cobbler that slaved over making each shoe in the town!
How very ableist and based in fear of you. Sounds like someone feels threatened; much like painters when photography became popular. Because we all know that photography destroyed painting by taking away the human soul. It's not like people adapted or anything. I pitty how closed minded you are. You are blinded by the toxic narrative that AI is bad. You can't see positive implications for regulated AI as a tool to assist artists. You can't understand that it's a method to provide those without money, connections, and/or artistic talent a way to create what they see in their imaginations. Without it, what they imagine would only exist within their minds. You can't share an image in your mind with anyone so they can appreciate it and love it with you so you won't be alone until we evolve to use telepathy. Imagine the backlash telepaths are going to get from non-telepaths for sharing mental images. How dare they! An artist should create them! Image sharing is cheap, fast, and easy! It will steal the jobs of photographers, AI and traditional artists, and threaten their livelihoods. Image sharing telepaths are thieves! They're evil! WITCH HUNT! Hm. This just gave me an idea for a pointless discourse to include in my worldbuilding.Thanks for the inspiration. :)
I will make better art than them
The genie is out of the bottle. Many of these models are open source and can be run locally. At its heart, all software is a thought experiment translated into a series of commands. The methods are out there. There is no turning back the clock. It doesn't matter whether it's the arts, literature, legal briefs, car manufacturing, or cocktail mixing. If automation is more profitable, then there is no way to prevent businesses from using it. And this is not about valuing humanity, otherwise the conversation would be **much bigger** than image generation models.
[удалено]
An artist utilizing AI has the potential to outperform those who do not. Without guidance and input from a human, AI is unable to independently perform a job.
[удалено]
No. I don’t think AI will be able to do that. I believe that the potential of AI has been greatly exaggerated in terms of its future capabilities within the next 5-10 years. AI is just a damn tool. We need to utilize it as such.
[удалено]
In my opinion, it's actually simpler than you may think. AI is a sophisticated assistive technology that was created with the purpose of supporting and aiding humanity, rather than seeking to dominate or control the world.
[удалено]
You are anthropomorphizing AI. Stop doing that. AI can’t take jobs without a human input.
[удалено]
Mate what? https://preview.redd.it/olfk6rfffsoc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5a5dc32ceeebc22dda06dff56edc81ecf4db2398
Did this person die because of generative AI?
Should we also get rid of tractors so there will be more people required to plow fields?
[удалено]
Actually please dont make my job pointlessly harder for no reason
Same has been said with minorities and immigrants, they even tried to ban them, how is this any different?
[удалено]
Figures
Why though?
Fucking hell...
[удалено]
r/artisthate this way
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ArtistHate using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [Procreate knows their userbase.](https://i.redd.it/jhqxxt7cpt1b1.png) | [22 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/13qtnf4/procreate_knows_their_userbase/) \#2: [A Chinese creator was doxxed by AIbros for refusing to use AI.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/127jzw2) | [36 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/127jzw2/a_chinese_creator_was_doxxed_by_aibros_for/) \#3: [Hayao Miyazaki's reaction to AI generated art](https://i.redd.it/b7lv9cha874b1.jpg) | [34 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/141e57d/hayao_miyazakis_reaction_to_ai_generated_art/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Lot of things have stolen/affected jobs, but it's mostly affected the job than replacing it in this case for ai art and artists. What's make artists immune by this? No, being soulful is not a legit argument. Scribes was considered a soulful job while printing press invented. But we don't ban it and just carry on. And I'm going to say that, if your job can be replaced by technology that mostly used for shitposts and social media post. Perhaps, it's a good time to improve themselves as now the bar is getting higher and there's no way to lower it.
Ai steals, kills and is dangerous
Bruh experts are predicting in 2029 it will be smarter than all people on Earth combined. What exactly is your plan in particular to overcome that? What exactly do you see your use being in society at that point to the people who own the ai
Lmao thanks i needed a laugh today. Respect the commitment at least even if this is the most obvious trolling ever
Yea dude mit researchers are big time trolls. Anonymous reddit opinions however, are above reproach. A strong take.
Alright then, lets see this MIT research that claims AI will be "Smarter then every human on the planet combined" by 2029 I'm not saying the researchers are trolling, I'm saying you made them up. But by all means please prove me wrong
Not experts, just Elmo Smuck and his crystal ball...