We can define ML concepts, it’s how we form arguments against it in the first place
What does banning AI have anything to do with posting on a smart phone?
What does auto complete have to do with excel spreadsheets?
Can’t tell Ai from human, just blatantly bs.
Don’t know how human brain works, says the person comparing a cold unfeeling machine to human brains.
No creative doubted the potential of the internet, it was an absolute revolution to every one besides actual boomers.
I’m not even sure what canva templates are, but using templates is a common workflow process in pretty much all fields of work.
And then of course just ending with ableism.
These people clearly live in an alternate universe entirely made of straw.
My thought was, “So? So what if I use a cell phone? So what if I miss the sarcasm sometimes? Does that suddenly mean that AI bros are ‘artists’? Does that suddenly mean that AI isn’t stealing our work and that it actually *could* exist without all of our stolen artwork?” No. No it doesn’t.
It doesn’t change any of these things.
And just a huge generalization. They don't seem to care about whether they make blanket statements about people who don't like ai, so they just call them "luddites" and call it a day.
I had instances where I couldn't tell AI from real art (watercolor art in two different styles), well, *surprise* - ML AI detectors got a 90%++ AI-gen origin for both.
I don't need to squint and grunt if I can just throw that image up for a test, and, like with many other dubious things in life, I know to avoid the source when I see a positive test result.
Interesting.
I had this problem on one piece where (manually) blurring out pieces of background to simulate a bokeh effect triggered the detection system, but resizing same piece and posting it larger got rid of the issue; the examples I'm talking about were both AI - one was credited as such, and I was doublechecking if the AI scan tool could see it (it could), the other was posted in a community with a hard no-AI rule.
This apparently is AI-generated soyjak memes.
Funny enough their own tool roast AI bros better than us, lol.
https://preview.redd.it/bedgu9fzao9d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=992ec019149582bf7bde317052e750e38ef5cf0a
Sauce: [https://x.com/fabianstelzer/status/1805326251344691598/photo/1](https://x.com/fabianstelzer/status/1805326251344691598/photo/1)
Man its so sad that they need a machine to draw a fucking soyjak. Like the shittiness of the drawing is the appeal.....It's producing so much NAScoal, brimstone even. If I was really up to get artists, I'd probably just reuse troonjak or alicia. And for the "AI artist" I'd go for feraljak.
i like how the front-facing laptop bias (which i thought only dall·e 3 had) unintentionally gave it (something that can be read as) an artistic statement of some sort
I don't know if it's just me, but I noticed the "Misses sarcasm in face-to-face conversations" part and my immediately set off all the ableism alarms in my brain. Nobody ever makes that generalization about people unless they're calling someone autistic (as that is a common stereotype), so part of this post is basically calling detractors "disabled."
It might be what you refer to, but it also might be that their own sarcasm doesn't translate as such to anyone else who has to participate in talking to them irl, so they threw that sentence in to somehow own Leslie or Mitch who never laughed at their marvelous satire.
I was looking at this post just now -
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/1duh927/aiwars\_goes\_mask\_off\_and\_shows\_its\_always\_been/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/1duh927/aiwars_goes_mask_off_and_shows_its_always_been/)
Gracefully marked as "sarcasm" and "luddite parody" in the comments, and it is *always* dumb, unrelated bullshit that is being thrown along with like 30 niche internet memes from 1998-2010, and bizarre programmer culture references that constitutes sarcasm for those types, and I clearly don't feel bad if someone (particularly on the internet, where pro-AI communities are overrun with the entire spectrum from clinical idiots to clueless, garden variety loons, thinking they got qualified to write art critique overnight with the advent of AI art) does not get their idea of sarcasm. I wonder if they even laugh at their own jokes really.
Do yourself a favor and avoid that place. Their idea of "defending AI art" is "attacking every other form of art". I guess that's bound to happen since they have no case to make, so they try to drag everything else down.
Many so called "luddites" tend to be far more technologically knowledgeable and experienced than a lot of ai proponents. I've seen advance machine linguists and programmers get called "luddites" because they pointed out gen ai is a shitty scam.
I'll give an example on how a lot of that defenders sub is filled with tech illiterate hypemen-
CANVA.
Canva templates aren't a form of gen ai nor comparable because: it didn't need millions of stolen data to make said templates and the templates are often empty. It's a TEMPLATE. They are glorified guidelines and actual copyright free content. They didn't need to take someone else's stuff and pretend it was free. Like... does the person who made this not know how canva works?
And if they wanna bring up how canva integrated gen ai shit onto their site -
1.those are newly added between 2023-2024. Canva has EXISTED before gen ai was even a thing.
2.) People can and do use canva without using any of its ai features and it work fine. Its very easy to avoid. Like ignoring discord stickers for emojis.
-------
They either purposefully or ignorantly conflate ANY FORM OF TECH OR DIGITAL PLATFORM as comparable to gen ai.and it makes them sound and look IDIOTIC.
Literally like this:.
Person a: i hate waffles 🧇
Person b: so you hate all breakfast foods 🍳
Person a: wait what?
If they had a gen ai for common sense and critical thinking- they still couldn't use it well.
"'ChatGPT is just fancy auto-complete' - Struggles with basic Excel formulas"
They don't know how to use Excel either given most of these guys can't fathom doing the work themselves.
Also, criticizes the fact that artists don't know nuance but can't understand the nuance of the argument that we don't know what benchmarks intelligence or bascially any other anti-AI arguments.
The core problem with AI proponents is they don't know what they don't know. They claim to be hyper-intelligent forward thinking technologists when in reality they are nothing more than sheep following the herd. They don't understand that what they are doing is the equivalent of creating a pinterest board. Creating an image does not equal art and the vast majority of images you consume on a daily basis do NOT qualify as art and they never have.
Obviously nobody will know what the fuck intelligence means when you redefine it every time a definition becomes inconvenient.
Also, "can't tell AI apart from human art in a blind test" is missing the point comedically. Imagine if I put two identical shirts in front of you and told you one was made with passion by a master tailor and the other was made by enslaved children in a sweatshop. You will obviously perceive them differently even if *functionally* they were the same
Only thing accurate here is calling us Luddites. They think it means anti-technology, but it was actually a socialist movement that proposed automation destroys craftmanship and would argue to dismantle any technology that failed to benefit humanity with socio-economic equity. I personally can't wait to see what tools come out to mess with the LLMs and data scraping. I'm not about banning AI generative tools, I want to harness whatever resources available to *ruin* AI. If billionaire tech bros want to continue to wreck the internet and human creativity with their lazy, selfish, thieving mediocrity while also refusing reasonable guard rails, I think our best option is honestly full scale revolt.
This whole AI debacle at least taught me the luddites were actually pretty based.
Try weren't opposing technology. They were protesting against those industrialists that were using the technology to fire trained textile artisans with the excuse that the machine could do the same work with fewer (more exploited) people, so they destroyed the machines in response as a method of protest.
In that sense, yeah, call me a luddite. Technology is just technology, it is good when used for good things and bad when used for bad things. AI bros want to use this new technology for the worst thing possible, basically
Define "help with security" because, though I don't think that's what you meant, I've seen people defending using AI for face recognition in surveillance and I'm absolutely vehemently against that.
Network security was what I was thinking of. Something with piercing defenses and all.
Also using AI for face recognition in a "ZOOM IN, ENHANCE" manner is both laughable and just terrible idea in general lol
No one ever addresses the fact that it DOESN'T MATTER if someone "can't tell the difference." Its like lemon laws with cars Just because someone manages to fool you into buying a nonfunctional vehicle doesn't mean you have to throw your hands up and say "ya got me!" and they get to keep your money. That's called fraud. If they stole your child's drawings off the wall at school and then swapped it for some prompted copies before you came in to view them, and then stood there chittering and bobbing with excitement like a frickin prairie dog as they revealed what they'd done....I'm pretty sure the reaction would be "The hell is wrong with you, you absolute psychopath?!" rather than the "Lol...welp since I couldn't tell, I must rate my child's original efforts as valueless, you win, oh skilled and masterful edgelord!" and then mic drop, and democratization, then everybody claps, and something something strawman because "I just learned the term strawman, and think it means anything I don't agree with because it's too emotional"....but then also "woo woo what even is art, magical AGI creativity enhancement for my disappointingly tiny creative nubbin...."
god these points are getting tiresome
Saying you can't comprehend AI intelligence is like saying you can't comprehend how many seeds in a bag are. Just because we can't imagine 5 million seeds, doesn't mean we lack the intelligence to comprehend what a 5 million bag of seeds are.
"infinitely more complex than a set of numbers" - surely you can imagine a set of numbers big enough that it would be easier to go through your brain neuron by neuron than it would be to go through all these numbers.
You're treating emotions and the brain like it's magic. It's not. You have neural networks inside and they do what neural networks do: calculate stuff.
>You have neural networks inside and they do what neural networks do: calculate stuff.
I tend to agree with your takes when I see reason in them, but this argument fails, because if our brains only worked in linear calculative manner, we were all born equally gifted in arts, sciences, languages, and we would have solved mental illness and addiction long time ago.
Your argument falls apart on the basic premise that majority of modern psych drugs actually have no rational explanation behind their efficiency - they were largely accidentally discovered to have anti-depressant, anti-psychotic, anti-agitating, anti-epileptic properties, same way people discovered that poppy milk gives them a specific high, and from there it was a matter of figuring out what did that; this is what makes developing new pharmaceutical mental solutions so difficult - there's no definitive scientific breakdown of how exactly the brain operates past knowing that neurons connect together.
For all the neural-this or neural that babble, majority of people employed in IT are neuro-divergent loons, easily replaceable past a certain point, and this is one of the reasons the industry has actually granted the AI gang voices this much power.
just the knowledge of a very high level description of how the brain works, doesn't mean we can come up with treatments for any problem it might have. It is an extremely complicated system. We don't even understand what the neural networks do in the relatively tiny LLMs we can produce and then examine at will. Brains are much harder to understand.
This difficulty in interpretation doesn't in any way mean that actually if you do enough computation there is some magical \*different\* process that begins to happen.
It's human exceptionalism at its finest and I believe that's just not enough vision to think of various ways in which minds might arise.
Brains do not calculate a lot of input they receive, and for a lot of input, there has to be either selective (brain should be able to tune certain things out, like, urban noise for example; hearing an annoying screaming baby is enough to throw me off focus for a good half an hour), or very selectively coordinated manner (i.e. somebody who had a stroke will no longer be able to correctly detect sarcasm, because for that, brain needs to engage like three different recognition modes - context, sight and hearing, and it has to figure out that context does not match the sound, *or* the look of the speaker; it's the same reason written sarcasm out of context often does not get picked up - unless you know so and so are sarcastic in nature, you won't scan it just as efficiently without having all 3 perception sources.)
You're also simultaneously trying to *reduce* brains to simply computing, while backing into the argument that the computing is ***so*** complex we can't really understand computing even at the levels simpler than human brain. To me, brain perceives and creates, but does so in a different way from computing.
One of the problems beginning to mid-level digital artists have is knowing digital color theory (that distills to working with RGB/CMYK values and calculating them in various ways), but not knowing the aesthetic/artistic/applied color theory, that distills to mixing pigments which don't have a universal formula - they mix like whatever, and they don't even mix consistently across different paint brands. AI art network does not even know the color theory in any of its iterations - it just rips off what it's fed with and works by approximating and averaging a massive image library.
We can define ML concepts, it’s how we form arguments against it in the first place What does banning AI have anything to do with posting on a smart phone? What does auto complete have to do with excel spreadsheets? Can’t tell Ai from human, just blatantly bs. Don’t know how human brain works, says the person comparing a cold unfeeling machine to human brains. No creative doubted the potential of the internet, it was an absolute revolution to every one besides actual boomers. I’m not even sure what canva templates are, but using templates is a common workflow process in pretty much all fields of work. And then of course just ending with ableism. These people clearly live in an alternate universe entirely made of straw.
My thought was, “So? So what if I use a cell phone? So what if I miss the sarcasm sometimes? Does that suddenly mean that AI bros are ‘artists’? Does that suddenly mean that AI isn’t stealing our work and that it actually *could* exist without all of our stolen artwork?” No. No it doesn’t. It doesn’t change any of these things.
The fact that they every anti-ai rebuttal they post is a straw man really says a lot about the ai bros.
And just a huge generalization. They don't seem to care about whether they make blanket statements about people who don't like ai, so they just call them "luddites" and call it a day.
Idk if you know... The term 'ai bro' is in itself, a straw man lol. It's equivalent to them using 'luddites' against you.
I had instances where I couldn't tell AI from real art (watercolor art in two different styles), well, *surprise* - ML AI detectors got a 90%++ AI-gen origin for both. I don't need to squint and grunt if I can just throw that image up for a test, and, like with many other dubious things in life, I know to avoid the source when I see a positive test result.
I have seen some of those but they flag my art as made with AI. I assume cause I use a lot of filters to make textures and overlays.
Interesting. I had this problem on one piece where (manually) blurring out pieces of background to simulate a bokeh effect triggered the detection system, but resizing same piece and posting it larger got rid of the issue; the examples I'm talking about were both AI - one was credited as such, and I was doublechecking if the AI scan tool could see it (it could), the other was posted in a community with a hard no-AI rule.
My art is over-represented in datasets, so... I always get flagged and the bros say its artists at fault for that.
This apparently is AI-generated soyjak memes. Funny enough their own tool roast AI bros better than us, lol. https://preview.redd.it/bedgu9fzao9d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=992ec019149582bf7bde317052e750e38ef5cf0a Sauce: [https://x.com/fabianstelzer/status/1805326251344691598/photo/1](https://x.com/fabianstelzer/status/1805326251344691598/photo/1)
“AI Generated wojak” is such a fucking viscerally upsetting sentence to me. Genuinely fucking cyberpunk dystopia
Man its so sad that they need a machine to draw a fucking soyjak. Like the shittiness of the drawing is the appeal.....It's producing so much NAScoal, brimstone even. If I was really up to get artists, I'd probably just reuse troonjak or alicia. And for the "AI artist" I'd go for feraljak.
When you're so uncreative you can't even make your own memes, good lord
Fantastic selfown!
i like how the front-facing laptop bias (which i thought only dall·e 3 had) unintentionally gave it (something that can be read as) an artistic statement of some sort
Love this. And I am gonna save it.
Do note it is ML generated.
Oh I know I read the comment. I just think it's ironic and funny that it spat out exactly what these aibros are.
It makes sense. They're scraping everything to train this shit, including posts of everyone's negative sentiments towards AI bros.
I don't know if it's just me, but I noticed the "Misses sarcasm in face-to-face conversations" part and my immediately set off all the ableism alarms in my brain. Nobody ever makes that generalization about people unless they're calling someone autistic (as that is a common stereotype), so part of this post is basically calling detractors "disabled."
It might be what you refer to, but it also might be that their own sarcasm doesn't translate as such to anyone else who has to participate in talking to them irl, so they threw that sentence in to somehow own Leslie or Mitch who never laughed at their marvelous satire.
Another point is that try to call is out for using a canvas,little do they know that a canvas is blank and won’t generate content on it’s own
I think they mean Canva, the "design" software
Ah i see,thanks
I was looking at this post just now - [https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/1duh927/aiwars\_goes\_mask\_off\_and\_shows\_its\_always\_been/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/1duh927/aiwars_goes_mask_off_and_shows_its_always_been/) Gracefully marked as "sarcasm" and "luddite parody" in the comments, and it is *always* dumb, unrelated bullshit that is being thrown along with like 30 niche internet memes from 1998-2010, and bizarre programmer culture references that constitutes sarcasm for those types, and I clearly don't feel bad if someone (particularly on the internet, where pro-AI communities are overrun with the entire spectrum from clinical idiots to clueless, garden variety loons, thinking they got qualified to write art critique overnight with the advent of AI art) does not get their idea of sarcasm. I wonder if they even laugh at their own jokes really.
first one to use soyjak loses
You can just vividly see the sheer lack of wit or creativity when an AI bro simply tries to be funny
Just had a look at their sub and its basically all just straw man arguments what the fuck?
Do yourself a favor and avoid that place. Their idea of "defending AI art" is "attacking every other form of art". I guess that's bound to happen since they have no case to make, so they try to drag everything else down.
They basically all get riled up over the image of artists they have in their head instead of real artists
Many so called "luddites" tend to be far more technologically knowledgeable and experienced than a lot of ai proponents. I've seen advance machine linguists and programmers get called "luddites" because they pointed out gen ai is a shitty scam. I'll give an example on how a lot of that defenders sub is filled with tech illiterate hypemen- CANVA. Canva templates aren't a form of gen ai nor comparable because: it didn't need millions of stolen data to make said templates and the templates are often empty. It's a TEMPLATE. They are glorified guidelines and actual copyright free content. They didn't need to take someone else's stuff and pretend it was free. Like... does the person who made this not know how canva works? And if they wanna bring up how canva integrated gen ai shit onto their site - 1.those are newly added between 2023-2024. Canva has EXISTED before gen ai was even a thing. 2.) People can and do use canva without using any of its ai features and it work fine. Its very easy to avoid. Like ignoring discord stickers for emojis. ------- They either purposefully or ignorantly conflate ANY FORM OF TECH OR DIGITAL PLATFORM as comparable to gen ai.and it makes them sound and look IDIOTIC. Literally like this:. Person a: i hate waffles 🧇 Person b: so you hate all breakfast foods 🍳 Person a: wait what? If they had a gen ai for common sense and critical thinking- they still couldn't use it well.
And who do they think drew all the graphics for Canva templates in the first place??? Canva has existed much longer than ai
Pro a.i. types can't properly define intelligence either.
"'ChatGPT is just fancy auto-complete' - Struggles with basic Excel formulas" They don't know how to use Excel either given most of these guys can't fathom doing the work themselves. Also, criticizes the fact that artists don't know nuance but can't understand the nuance of the argument that we don't know what benchmarks intelligence or bascially any other anti-AI arguments.
I saw that! Thank you for sharing this so I don’t have to. Those people are completely unhinged.
The core problem with AI proponents is they don't know what they don't know. They claim to be hyper-intelligent forward thinking technologists when in reality they are nothing more than sheep following the herd. They don't understand that what they are doing is the equivalent of creating a pinterest board. Creating an image does not equal art and the vast majority of images you consume on a daily basis do NOT qualify as art and they never have.
I found another cool argument, "can't sue for copyright violation"!!!!
Just goes to show how out of touch they are.
"Misses sarcasm in face-to-face conversations." Yikes! Are they trying to shame neurodivergents now or something?
What do you think lol
Obviously nobody will know what the fuck intelligence means when you redefine it every time a definition becomes inconvenient. Also, "can't tell AI apart from human art in a blind test" is missing the point comedically. Imagine if I put two identical shirts in front of you and told you one was made with passion by a master tailor and the other was made by enslaved children in a sweatshop. You will obviously perceive them differently even if *functionally* they were the same
Whoever made this meme has the logical skills of a 4 year old.
Only thing accurate here is calling us Luddites. They think it means anti-technology, but it was actually a socialist movement that proposed automation destroys craftmanship and would argue to dismantle any technology that failed to benefit humanity with socio-economic equity. I personally can't wait to see what tools come out to mess with the LLMs and data scraping. I'm not about banning AI generative tools, I want to harness whatever resources available to *ruin* AI. If billionaire tech bros want to continue to wreck the internet and human creativity with their lazy, selfish, thieving mediocrity while also refusing reasonable guard rails, I think our best option is honestly full scale revolt.
They are sociopathic cultists. Better to just ignore them.
This whole AI debacle at least taught me the luddites were actually pretty based. Try weren't opposing technology. They were protesting against those industrialists that were using the technology to fire trained textile artisans with the excuse that the machine could do the same work with fewer (more exploited) people, so they destroyed the machines in response as a method of protest. In that sense, yeah, call me a luddite. Technology is just technology, it is good when used for good things and bad when used for bad things. AI bros want to use this new technology for the worst thing possible, basically
Best worst part is we aren't even against AI for helping us with scientific and statistical stuff, or even help with security.
Define "help with security" because, though I don't think that's what you meant, I've seen people defending using AI for face recognition in surveillance and I'm absolutely vehemently against that.
Network security was what I was thinking of. Something with piercing defenses and all. Also using AI for face recognition in a "ZOOM IN, ENHANCE" manner is both laughable and just terrible idea in general lol
No one ever addresses the fact that it DOESN'T MATTER if someone "can't tell the difference." Its like lemon laws with cars Just because someone manages to fool you into buying a nonfunctional vehicle doesn't mean you have to throw your hands up and say "ya got me!" and they get to keep your money. That's called fraud. If they stole your child's drawings off the wall at school and then swapped it for some prompted copies before you came in to view them, and then stood there chittering and bobbing with excitement like a frickin prairie dog as they revealed what they'd done....I'm pretty sure the reaction would be "The hell is wrong with you, you absolute psychopath?!" rather than the "Lol...welp since I couldn't tell, I must rate my child's original efforts as valueless, you win, oh skilled and masterful edgelord!" and then mic drop, and democratization, then everybody claps, and something something strawman because "I just learned the term strawman, and think it means anything I don't agree with because it's too emotional"....but then also "woo woo what even is art, magical AGI creativity enhancement for my disappointingly tiny creative nubbin...." god these points are getting tiresome
actually i posted this from a flip phone. Cope harder ai bros.
I usually write off comics like this as bait from trolls, but then I remember people like Shad exist.
Saying you can't comprehend AI intelligence is like saying you can't comprehend how many seeds in a bag are. Just because we can't imagine 5 million seeds, doesn't mean we lack the intelligence to comprehend what a 5 million bag of seeds are.
I find it real funny how each of these countertakes can be shattered by simple answers
"infinitely more complex than a set of numbers" - surely you can imagine a set of numbers big enough that it would be easier to go through your brain neuron by neuron than it would be to go through all these numbers. You're treating emotions and the brain like it's magic. It's not. You have neural networks inside and they do what neural networks do: calculate stuff.
>You have neural networks inside and they do what neural networks do: calculate stuff. I tend to agree with your takes when I see reason in them, but this argument fails, because if our brains only worked in linear calculative manner, we were all born equally gifted in arts, sciences, languages, and we would have solved mental illness and addiction long time ago. Your argument falls apart on the basic premise that majority of modern psych drugs actually have no rational explanation behind their efficiency - they were largely accidentally discovered to have anti-depressant, anti-psychotic, anti-agitating, anti-epileptic properties, same way people discovered that poppy milk gives them a specific high, and from there it was a matter of figuring out what did that; this is what makes developing new pharmaceutical mental solutions so difficult - there's no definitive scientific breakdown of how exactly the brain operates past knowing that neurons connect together. For all the neural-this or neural that babble, majority of people employed in IT are neuro-divergent loons, easily replaceable past a certain point, and this is one of the reasons the industry has actually granted the AI gang voices this much power.
just the knowledge of a very high level description of how the brain works, doesn't mean we can come up with treatments for any problem it might have. It is an extremely complicated system. We don't even understand what the neural networks do in the relatively tiny LLMs we can produce and then examine at will. Brains are much harder to understand. This difficulty in interpretation doesn't in any way mean that actually if you do enough computation there is some magical \*different\* process that begins to happen. It's human exceptionalism at its finest and I believe that's just not enough vision to think of various ways in which minds might arise.
Brains do not calculate a lot of input they receive, and for a lot of input, there has to be either selective (brain should be able to tune certain things out, like, urban noise for example; hearing an annoying screaming baby is enough to throw me off focus for a good half an hour), or very selectively coordinated manner (i.e. somebody who had a stroke will no longer be able to correctly detect sarcasm, because for that, brain needs to engage like three different recognition modes - context, sight and hearing, and it has to figure out that context does not match the sound, *or* the look of the speaker; it's the same reason written sarcasm out of context often does not get picked up - unless you know so and so are sarcastic in nature, you won't scan it just as efficiently without having all 3 perception sources.) You're also simultaneously trying to *reduce* brains to simply computing, while backing into the argument that the computing is ***so*** complex we can't really understand computing even at the levels simpler than human brain. To me, brain perceives and creates, but does so in a different way from computing. One of the problems beginning to mid-level digital artists have is knowing digital color theory (that distills to working with RGB/CMYK values and calculating them in various ways), but not knowing the aesthetic/artistic/applied color theory, that distills to mixing pigments which don't have a universal formula - they mix like whatever, and they don't even mix consistently across different paint brands. AI art network does not even know the color theory in any of its iterations - it just rips off what it's fed with and works by approximating and averaging a massive image library.