> Iff you dismiss AI writings just because it sounds like it’s written by aI you will end up missing out on some truly valuable content.
Yes that might be the case. But with Ai now being in so heavy use, there is so much content generated that most of us dont have time to just read output","url":"https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49355797","role":"pain","weight":1.04375,"occurredAt":"2026-08-19T02:21:33.000Z","sourceKey":"hackernews","sourceName":"Hacker News","credibility":0.7,"venue":"news","intent":"feature_request","painScore":0.5,"sentiment":-0.5,"confidence":0.6958333,"matchedPatterns":["wish","missing_feature"],"statement":"Just wanted to add; Iff you dismiss AI writings just because it sounds like it’s written by aI you will end up missing out on some truly valuable content.","title":null,"body":"Just wanted to add;
> Iff you dismiss AI writings just because it sounds like it’s written by aI you will end up missing out on some truly valuable content.
Yes that might be the case. But with Ai now being in so heavy use, there is so much content generated that most of us dont have time to just read output of someone elses basic prompts, if we can't determine how much original thought went into it.
So, with your Ai generated post, I don't know how much of was is actually based on your thoughts/opinons, and how much of it is just a conglomerate wordsallad from a consensus machine based on random internet thoughts/opinions. Thus I ignore a majority of everything that looks Ai, just to protect my cognitive circuits.
Unfortunatly this means that I sometimes even miss out on genuine human content that is just close enough to Ai-style to trigger my "Ai filter" . I've even dismissed content narated by voice actors, such as Benjamin Pemberton, just because his style is so close to Ai voice (although his style obviously predates the Ai voice style)
And it seems this is such a common occurence that, some videos now put a "Human narator, not Ai" text on screen at the begining of the videos.
I wish we werent here, but here we are.","offTopic":false},{"id":"f9c861d0-e733-4b32-bfcf-0e6b788f4e09","excerpt":"Writers Who Refuse to Use AI Are Going to Be Left Behind — \n\nA little context first.\n\nI've been writing since 2014. I started on Wattpad. English is not my native language.\n\nOver the years, I paid several professional proofreaders to work on the seven books in my dark romance/adventure series.\n\nIn 2019, I asked","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1vupyo3/writers_who_refuse_to_use_ai_are_going_to_be_left/","role":"pricing","weight":1.2357647,"occurredAt":"2026-08-21T19:22:22.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"ChatGPT","intent":"pricing_complaint","painScore":0.88,"sentiment":-1,"confidence":0.6573217,"matchedPatterns":["too_expensive"],"statement":"Especially writers who can't afford translators, designers, developers and marketing people.","title":"Writers Who Refuse to Use AI Are Going to Be Left Behind","body":"\n\nA little context first.\n\nI've been writing since 2014. I started on Wattpad. English is not my native language.\n\nOver the years, I paid several professional proofreaders to work on the seven books in my dark romance/adventure series.\n\nIn 2019, I asked someone how much it would cost to translate my books into English.\n\n**I couldn't afford it.**\n\nSo I did what I could on my own.\n\nI taught myself HTML and PHP and built my own author website. I made my own covers with free software. Paid advertising was mostly out of my reach.\n\nI've never had much money to spend on publishing.\n\nBut that's another story.\n\nWhen ChatGPT appeared in 2022, I tried it for literary translation.\n\n**I wasn't impressed.**\n\nThe translations were too literal. Too close to the original sentence structure. They sounded translated.\n\nI wouldn't have published them.\n\nBy 2026, things had changed.\n\n**A lot.**\n\nAnd that's when AI started to amaze me.\n\nI rebuilt most of my website with AI's help.\n\nNot just the design.\n\nContact forms. Subscription systems. Automatic emails. Thank-you pages. Separate mailing lists. Notifications for future books.\n\nThings I would normally have had to pay a developer or a monthly service to do.\n\nThen I used AI as a proofreader for several weeks.\n\n**That was a painful surprise.**\n\nIt still found 10, 15, sometimes 20 typos, grammar mistakes or awkward sentences in some chapters.\n\nThose same chapters had already been checked by several human proofreaders and revised many times.\n\nThen I translated my first book into English.\n\nAbout 650 pages.\n\nI didn't press a button and accept whatever came out.\n\nWe worked through it paragraph by paragraph.\n\nI checked the meaning. Changed expressions. Worked on jokes. Discussed dialogue. Protected the voices of the characters.\n\nWhen it was finished, I gave the English version to a woman from the UK to read.\n\n**She told me she hadn't even realized it was a translation.**\n\nThat meant a lot to me.\n\nIn 2019, a professional translation of a book that size was something I simply couldn't afford.\n\nNow it was possible.\n\nAI also helped with everything around the book.\n\nI redesigned all seven covers.\n\nI worked on blurbs, subtitles, descriptions and sales copy in English that sounds far more natural than anything I could have written on my own.\n\nIt helped me prepare my books for international platforms and understand things like Goodreads, Google Play Books, Kobo and Draft2Digital.\n\nIt also helped me understand what people actually do on my website.\n\nGoogle Analytics. UTM links. Conversions. Traffic sources.\n\nWhere readers come from.\n\nWhat they read.\n\nWhere they leave.\n\nAnd, most importantly, which visitors actually download a book.\n\nBefore, I looked at graphs.\n\n**Now I have some idea what those graphs are telling me.**\n\nThen there is marketing.\n\nMost indie writers are not marketers.\n\nWe are not SEO experts.\n\nWe are not web developers, data analysts, designers or email marketing specialists.\n\n**We're writers.**\n\nBut if you publish your own books, sooner or later you're expected to do all of those jobs.\n\nFor me, AI has become something like a one-person support team.\n\nOr maybe that's the wrong way to put it.\n\nIt's a team standing behind one person.\n\nEven this Reddit post was organized and translated into English with AI's help.\n\nSo yes.\n\nFor me, AI has been a miracle.\n\nFor many writers I meet online, AI seems to be **Satan.**\n\nI don't really understand why the discussion has to be so black and white.\n\nThere is one thing, however, that I would never use AI for.\n\nI would never let it write my books.\n\n**That's my line.**\n\nThe characters are mine.\n\nThe story is mine.\n\nThe dialogue is mine.\n\nThe imaginary world is mine.\n\nWriting is my job.\n\nThat's the one part I don't want to hand over to anyone.\n\nBut translation?\n\nProofreading?\n\nCovers?\n\nWeb development?\n\nAudiobooks?\n\nMarketing?\n\nAnalytics?\n\n**Absolutely.**\n\nI'm even using ElevenLabs now to experiment with turning my books into audiobooks.\n\nAI has allowed me to do almost everything around the book, while keeping the one thing I actually want to do myself:\n\n**write the book.**\n\nAnd I think writers should be careful about rejecting these tools on principle.\n\nEspecially writers who don't speak English as their first language.\n\nEspecially writers who can't afford translators, designers, developers and marketing people.\n\nUse AI as a tool.\n\nUse it to reach readers you couldn't reach before.\n\nUse it to do things you couldn't afford to do before.\n\nThat doesn't mean handing over your creativity.\n\nAnd no, I'm not talking about people who use AI to generate twenty books a year and flood online stores with them.\n\nThat's something else entirely.\n\nI'm talking about writers using AI as a springboard, not as a replacement for creativity.\n\nMy guess is that a few years from now, the divide won't be between \"writers who use AI\" and \"writers who don't.\"\n\nIt will be between writers who learned how to use it well and writers who refused to learn at all.\n\nSo I'm curious.\n\n**Where in the process between first draft and finished book do you use AI?**\n\nProofreading?\n\nTranslation?\n\nResearch?\n\nCovers?\n\nMarketing?\n\nAudiobooks?\n\nCoding?\n\nAnd more importantly:\n\n**Where do you draw the line?**\n\nI'd genuinely like to hear how other writers see this.","offTopic":false},{"id":"bd3176b6-302e-4a2c-aca4-4df6c7ef234e","excerpt":"I tried to move away from AI and work with real artists. The overwhelming response showed me why small businesses keep choosing AI. — I recently soft-launched a fantasy apparel brand. I started with AI-assisted artwork because, realistically, I did not have the upfront capital to commission multiple professional fantas","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/1uqdrbu/i_tried_to_move_away_from_ai_and_work_with_real/","role":"pain","weight":1.2087964,"occurredAt":"2026-07-08T00:53:00.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"DefendingAIArt","intent":"problem_report","painScore":0.6577778,"sentiment":-0.44444445,"confidence":0.7291667,"matchedPatterns":["frustrating"],"statement":"And I understand why that is frustrating.","title":"I tried to move away from AI and work with real artists. The overwhelming response showed me why small businesses keep choosing AI.","body":"I recently soft-launched a fantasy apparel brand. I started with AI-assisted artwork because, realistically, I did not have the upfront capital to commission multiple professional fantasy illustrations before knowing whether the business would even make sales.\n\nOn launch day, I made a few sales. That should have felt purely exciting, but I also felt conflicted. I genuinely respect artists, and part of me felt wrong building the brand without trying to involve real human artists.\n\nSo I went to an artist-focused subreddit and asked, sincerely, whether there was a more ethical way to work with artists as a small startup.\n\nMy idea was not “exposure.” It was not “trust me bro.” It was not “maybe I’ll pay you if there’s profit.”\n\nI was talking about a real contract with clear usage rights, credit, website presence, paid ad exposure, exclusivity terms, and royalties based on actual sales, not profit (that distinction matters.)\n\nThe artist would not have to wait for me to decide whether the business was profitable after ads, product samples, shipping issues, fulfillment costs, website fees, taxes, customer service, returns, photography, mockups, failed products, and everything else that comes with running a brand.\n\nIf a shirt sold with their artwork on it, they would get paid from that sale.\n\nFrom my side, the risk would still be major. I would be responsible for building the website, creating the listings, paying for samples, managing fulfillment, writing product copy, handling customers, running ads, creating content, building the brand, dealing with returns, covering slow sales, and taking the financial risk if the product did not sell.\n\nThe artist’s benefit would be that they could earn from every sale without having to build the clothing brand, manage customers, run ads, handle fulfillment, or take on the business operations themselves. They would receive credit, exposure through paid ads, a presence on the website, contractual protection, and ongoing royalties from the product.\n\nI understand that this is not ideal for every artist. I understand artists need money upfront. I understand that artists have been burned by vague royalty promises, dishonest businesses, “profit share” deals, and people who never follow through.\n\nThat is why I was specifically talking about royalties on actual sales, not profit, with a real contract.\n\nBut the response was overwhelmingly negative. My post was downvoted hard, basically for trying to ask how to do “the right thing.”\n\nOne commenter told me that without the art and art direction, there is no brand, that artists do not need me, that the only thing I could possibly bring is capital, and since I did not have upfront capital, I had basically talked myself off the table.\n\nThat was just one of many negative responses.\n\nA lot of the same artists were also saying that AI is taking jobs, flooding the market, lowering the value of art, and making it harder for artists to get paid. And I understand why that is frustrating. But when I asked what a realistic path looked like for a small business owner who wants to include artists but cannot afford large upfront commissions yet, there were very few practical solutions offered.\n\nOne of the “solutions” suggested was that I should give up ownership percentage of my business to the artist.\n\nSo, to be clear, paid ad exposure, website presence, public credit, contract protection, and strong royalties on actual sales were not enough — but giving up equity in the entire business was treated as a more acceptable option because the artist provided the artwork.\n\nThat is where the disconnect became obvious to me.\n\nArtists are saying AI is becoming their direct competitor. They are saying AI is taking work and flooding the market. But when a small business owner tries to create a real paid path for artists to participate in a brand, the answer still seems to be: pay full commission upfront, give up ownership, or get lost. \n\n— And this is exactly the gap AI fills.\n\nAI does not require hundreds or thousands of dollars upfront before the business even knows if there is a market. AI does not demand equity in the company. AI does not dismiss the value of branding, product development, marketing, customer service, fulfillment, copywriting, website building, risk, consistency, and actually turning an idea into something customers can buy.\n\nThat does not mean AI is morally perfect. It does not mean artists are wrong to protect themselves. It does not mean every artist should accept royalty deals.\n\nBut it does explain why small businesses use AI.\n\nA lot of anti-AI arguments say, “Hire real artists instead.” But when someone actually tries to find a way to include real artists through contracts, royalties, credit, advertising, and long-term participation, the answer often becomes: “If you cannot pay upfront, you have no business doing this.”\n\nFrom the artist’s side, I understand the concern.\n\nFrom the small business side, that leaves very few options:\n\n1. quit before starting,\n\n2. use stock art,\n\n3. use cheap low-end labor,\n\n4. give up equity before the business is even proven,\n\n5. or use AI.\n\nIn my case, AI was not replacing an artist I could afford. AI allowed me to start something that otherwise would not exist yet.\n\nI still want to work with real artists when the business can support upfront commissions or advances. But after trying in good faith to find a middle ground and being told, in different ways, that I was not needed and should basically get lost, I understand why so many small creators stop asking and just use AI.\n\nI do not think this conversation is as simple as “AI users do not value artists.”\n\nSometimes they do value artists.\n\nSometimes they try to include artists.\n\nBut if the only acceptable path is “come back when you already have money,” then AI is going to keep being the tool small businesses use to get started.\n\nThat's all, folks! ","offTopic":false},{"id":"2acde256-cff4-43c1-a8b5-8a8a503cdf9d","excerpt":"AI Usage in Hip Hop, Good or Bad? — Dekho bhai, I am seeing lots of opinions being thrown around about usage of AI currently in Hip Hop, some I agree with some I do not however I'll try to present my opinion on the matter and where I feel AI Usage is justified and where it is not.\n\nIf you are an Independent artist, w","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianHipHopHeads/comments/1seudbh/ai_usage_in_hip_hop_good_or_bad/","role":"demand","weight":1.173202,"occurredAt":"2026-04-07T12:20:40.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"IndianHipHopHeads","intent":"tool_discovery","painScore":0.26,"sentiment":0.45454547,"confidence":0.93111277,"matchedPatterns":["cant_find","looking_for","missing_feature"],"statement":"Lets say you are a rapper and are looking for a producer but cant find any there are many AI Assisted plugins like Dubler 2 (lets u produce music (midi and drums) by using your voice as an instrument to run vsts through it, its not perfect…","title":"AI Usage in Hip Hop, Good or Bad?","body":"Dekho bhai, I am seeing lots of opinions being thrown around about usage of AI currently in Hip Hop, some I agree with some I do not however I'll try to present my opinion on the matter and where I feel AI Usage is justified and where it is not.\n\nIf you are an Independent artist, with low budget, u will find many AI tools will significantly improve your workflow and even bridge gaps which you otherwise would not be able to fulfil without a team. Lets say you are a rapper and are looking for a producer but cant find any there are many AI Assisted plugins like Dubler 2 (lets u produce music (midi and drums) by using your voice as an instrument to run vsts through it, its not perfect tho) and sampler plugins like the latest one is Fender Studio 8 which u can use along with pre-existing samples or samples made by AI itself (yes its completely fair) to convert into midi and produce stuff. Also u can use Assets made by AI in your music videos if you aren't primarily an editor go for it. You can use them for storyboarding, use it for various other scenarios as an utility assistance tool. I will say its completely fair and justified. Obviously if u have the budget get a producer to produce your track, or learn production, and similarly with video. However if it helps you start with music or make more music then definitely go on and use AI even if u can maybe afford a real human u can still use it. Why do I say this? In entirety of this scenario the creative control is in your hand. I would prefer u use local ai to conserve energy but if u dont have a powerful enough rig, go forward and use server based ai.\n\nHowever where it's wrong is - When u try to use it to generate entirely a music video without any creative thought process behind it, similarly with music, u make it generate the music and just post it. People can easily distinguish that and remember its not the quality of The Ai that makes something sounds higher quality or lower quality its the association of it with low effort output. When you use a tool to slave away for you without building any genuine credibility for yourself thats when it becomes a problem. You lose your essence as an artist. This is why Ai \"Slop\" term absolutely fits it well, whether or not you use some high-end AI models like Seedance 2.0 or Kling or whatever, its the lack of human thought behind it that will always make it unrelatable. \n\nIn Short, AI should be used as a tool that should make our jobs easier by helping us just like any other tool. It is not something that should be used to do the jobs for us, instead to improve our workflow.","offTopic":false},{"id":"a2ec8634-edd1-4194-99f7-6f90637143fb","excerpt":"AI art is absolutely art if done properly.. from an artist — Alright, I'll preface this by saying I'm a \"working\" artist, that's to say it's how I pay my bills.. I'm a decade into my career, starting at 16 doing art full time and I'm in my mid 20's now. if you're worried about my use/abuse of AI art in my professional ","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/AIDiscussion/comments/1vlivud/ai_art_is_absolutely_art_if_done_properly_from_an/","role":"pain","weight":1.1717691,"occurredAt":"2026-08-11T14:23:22.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"AIDiscussion","intent":"purchase_intent","painScore":0.43651164,"sentiment":-0.11627907,"confidence":0.8157046,"matchedPatterns":["i_hate","would_pay"],"statement":"Alright, I'll preface this by saying I'm a \"working\" artist, that's to say it's how I pay my bills..","title":"AI art is absolutely art if done properly.. from an artist","body":"Alright, I'll preface this by saying I'm a \"working\" artist, that's to say it's how I pay my bills.. I'm a decade into my career, starting at 16 doing art full time and I'm in my mid 20's now. if you're worried about my use/abuse of AI art in my professional career, I have not yet found a way to use it functionally in what I do, so at this point I am strictly a hobbyist. \n\nWith that being said, I am absolutely PRO AI art, and honestly the majority of people I see complain about it's use are artists on Instagram and Facebook who (and I hate to sound insulting) are nowhere near moving to the professional stage with their work. If you're worried about AI coming for your job as an artist, its coming for everybody. My buddy works in a hospital and they just started installing hello care ai on multiple units, every company ive spent my time with is using ai for some sort of operation, ai note taking in therapy, hell my mall has a fully automated store inside of it. Either get with the times or get left in the dust. Because even if you aren't using it for art, the people who are using it to maximize efficiency will ultimately be doing circles around you. \n\nso here we go... 2 points, and I think they're enough. \n\n1. I rarely see someone considering the Creative Director/Director angle. Directors are an essential part of the creative process, whether it be in film, photography, or creative direction for more expansive multi disciplinary projects. Their sole job is to have a vision, then collect people, tools, locations, and anything else they consider necessary to make their vision come to life. I'm in the boat of saying, those people are ABSOLUTELY artists, and extremely important in the creative process. There are also good and bad directors, some people don't know anything and make a pos movie, and some are so brilliant their styles and knowledge can be pointed out by frame design alone. Here's where AI comes in, as someone who's seen some pros go at it, prompting is an art form, it seriously is, I've seen some people that can do this on a level that leaves randos in the dust. I think it's hard to argue, that someone with a legitimate creative vision, who is using an AI tool to generate some sort of image, video, or design, isn't an artist. Someone who has an idea, a story, and a goal outcome, then makes it. I'd say theres a difference between someone who says generate a horse on the beach, vs someone who generates an image or video that plays into a more overarching narrative. Are they any less of an artist because they didn't hold the camera, light the set, or act in the scenes? Kinda reminds of rick rubin, world famous record producer who has no technical knowledge, but all of the big names go to him for his understanding and vision.\n\n\\- side argument to part 1 is the extensive amount of 'ai slop' being proof of how bad ai is. I think this is a poor argument, 'ai slop' is just as prevalent as trash instagram skits, dog sh\\* youtube movies, and useless meme content, or terrible drop shipping stores. Much like any sort of art/field on the internet, the terrible stuff is always going to outnumber the good stuff a million to one because anyone can post their content. When it really comes down to it, the people who are really trying to make something beautiful and effective with ai more than achieve their goal, and often enough the only way to tell its ai for the more \"realistic content\" is in the meta data because these people are spending hours making adjustments, avoiding artifacting, and like any legitimate artist finalizing in post to remove issues with the image. \n\n \n2. Democratize art. I'll get more personal with this one, what about the people who don't have a creative bone in their body, nor the time it takes to pick up such a hobby, nor the money to pay someone to do it for them, but absolutely have the vision in their head. My brother is the perfect example. He works a full time office job, is on a soccer team in his free time, and one of his favorite things to do is run DND campaigns with his buddies on the weekends. He cant sing a note, draw a stick figure, and he's not great with a camera. He uses AI to generate beautiful maps, cool character designs, and even uses it to create cool random stuff for decorations, hell he even found a website that converts real objects into models and he 3d prints and paints the things (seriously the creative sh\\* he's been doing with the model stuff is crazy). He's unlocked and expanded a whole new fantasy world by having access to these tools, and him and his friends have unlocked a whole new creative imaginary world that they never thought possible. Something that if he wanted to do without AI's assistance would cost thousands of dollars, hundreds of iterations, and maybe would never be exactly what he envisioned. AND I DARE SAY IT THAT MAN IS AN ARTIST! He used his creative vision to not just spit out a funny picture of some random barbarian, but create unique character sheets, and a set that him and his buddies can truly immerse themselves in. With things such as set design, character creation, and so much more. That man is a director and he just turned his DND campaigns into a high budget experience. \n\n \nThat's really it, talk about \"soulless art\", I promise the instagram money grab skits are far more soulless than someone who really invests time and energy into creating something beautiful. \n\nWhat really compelled me to make this post is all of the people who are trynna dunk on AI artists like they're some kind of meme. I often see some sort of short un interested reply from someone smirking about generations being left in the dust, well they're right. \n\nBeing from Los Angeles I deal with a lot creatives. A lot of them making legitimate money from AI. Seriously, I had a friend vibe code an app and start a company that provides a very real service and took it to 10k in monthly revenue in 2 months. He runs the whole operation himself. But I assume all the people who are anti ai are gonna say he doesn't know how to code, he's not a real entrepreneur etc... see how far that mentality takes you. Everyone is so concerned with the slop, and not taking a moment to recognize the very real possibilities of these tools and how much they could do with them. If you're in your 20s complaining about this stuff, just google how they felt when photoshop came out. Look at us now. ","offTopic":false},{"id":"b1d9acd7-8284-464f-b156-9288ff7c8d67","excerpt":" — It's clickbait. She gave an interview where she said she used AI to help get her brain going, and the headline made it sound like she had AI write the book.
She used AI the way I as a writer use my friends online: to say things, see what they say back, and get it to make my brain create new connections.
As ","url":"https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48210660","role":"pain","weight":0.73506665,"occurredAt":"2026-05-20T16:56:31.000Z","sourceKey":"hackernews","sourceName":"Hacker News","credibility":0.7,"venue":"news","intent":"problem_report","painScore":0.48,"sentiment":0.09677419,"confidence":0.49666667,"matchedPatterns":["frustrating","product:gemini"],"statement":"How about you write it yourself and experience the frustrating, vinegar-strokes joy of the creative act?","title":null,"body":"It's clickbait. She gave an interview where she said she used AI to help get her brain going, and the headline made it sound like she had AI write the book.
She used AI the way I as a writer use my friends online: to say things, see what they say back, and get it to make my brain create new connections.
As a writer, I think a lot about the ethics of using AI in the creation of art. As of right now, here's some opinions/ethics I've formed:
1. there's no such thing as AI art, just AI pictures, AI books, etc.
2. AI can be used in the creation of art, but what matters is that the final contributor to the creation is human.
This one is a little fuzzy and I'm still working on how to formalize it, but the broad strokes of my intent here is that AI pictures where you draw a blue line at the end and say "I did the final work, so it's art" counts as art if the point was the blue line rather than as loophole-finding.
For example, if you're writing a novel that is about AI and you use AI to generate the stuff the AI says, this could be valid art if the point is to interrogate the use of AI in writing as opposed to just to be lazy and avoid having to write some of your book.
But what's important to me is that we explicitly exclude "I made this painting and then asked AI to make it prettier because I am not technically proficient and want it to look dope," which is why I require the final touch to be by a human.
3. AI is distinct from other art-creation tools (like paints, brushes, CNC machines, 3D printers in that it does not permit reproducibility).
I'm still working on how to formalize this, but y'all get the idea, right? AI is kind of a black box that spits out stuff. We can't explain how exactly, and it's stochastic. But the application of paint is also stochastic because of chaos.
No one has flawless control over the flow/spread of paint. Capillary action will have some "randomness" to it. But that randomness is minute, possibly irrelevant to the result. E.g., the Mona Lisa wouldn't be affected if the paint that Leonardo applied had, at a microscopic level, adhered/penetrated the canvas differently.
Overall, the "core" of the work needs to be human-driven. Tools don't affect this, but AI is a special tool that gets higher scrutiny than other tools because it purports to replace the human. It's referred to as "intelligence." Even if it isn't actually intelligent, it is intended to be, and is interpreted and used to replace.
If it's not used to replace, then it's (probably) okay. Still working on my general framework.
But I think about it a lot because I recognize the benefits of AI in art creation. Writing is often lonely, and I do find immense value in just throwing shit at a wall, seeing what comes back, and riffing on that. I don't drop AI stuff into my works.
But I will often be like "oh that's a really cool idea" and then expand/mutate that. Like, "where might a mother and daughter go to bond?" and AI gives me back "spa" with statements like it's dimly lit, relaxing, etc.
If I then write 5,000 words about a trip to the spa, I don't see that as AI writing my work. I see it as comparable to asking my buddy at the bar who isn't attempting to be artistic when talking to me about this kind of thing. Might not (probably doesn't) know I'm even thinking about writing when I ask.
Anyway, that gets to the issue of whether the use of AI makes the end result art or not. That doesn't address ethical issues about using it.
Personally, I feel like the environmental issue is a non-starter. I don't play video games. I don't really use much single-use plastic. My electrical usage is minimal excluding AC. Not only do I think my AI use still leaves me below average electricity user for someone in my country, but I think if I were an average person, my AI usage consumes less power than my peers playing video games or running a pool pump at their house or something.
I think I read that the sum total of all AI usage in the US increases our electrical consumption by some minuscule amount per person. Less than 1%? Seems like a useless line of argument.
Better to talk about how artists' works (and other people's works) were "stolen" (sometimes literally, sometimes just in spirit because a EULA permitted this but users wouldn't have liked it). That seems wrong, and it's the hardest issue for me to deal with personally. I try to minimize AI usage for this reason.
And still better is to talk about how AI seems to be bound for replacing humans-in-art. One of the great joys of being human is that we can create art. And AI is facilitating people abandoning artistic creation in favor of querying AI.
"I wanna read a She-Ra fanfic about XYZ, Gemini write one." How about you write it yourself and experience the frustrating, vinegar-strokes joy of the creative act? Don't throw away an important part of being human for expedience's sake!
I have much less concern about art for non-artistic, non-artisanal purposes; write that one-off bash script with AI! Artisanal-purposes seems more iffy. Like writing a small app to help with a task and then putting it up on Apple Store to share with others. On one hand, it helps. On the other hand, it does hurt the artisanal nature of code creation (part art, but with non-artistic utility).
Jiminy crickets this is probably my longest comment on HN ever. Would love to see some responses because I am trying my best. I think Ai is great for many tasks. But fuck AI in art. I will never knowingly read an AI book. I will never knowingly view AI art-as-art.
(Edited to add more paragraph breaks. Yes, I'm a writer. No, I won't do four rounds of drafts of a HN comment.)","offTopic":false},{"id":"9f919e7e-7553-47b2-a14c-8a80b4208b97","excerpt":"AI just helped a self-represented academic beat professional lawyers. Remind me again why using AI supposedly erases human authorship? — \\# AI just helped a self-represented academic beat professional lawyers\n\nThis is a pretty spectacular real-world example of why the argument \\*\\*\"AI did it, therefore the human didn't","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAI/comments/1vtjrqt/ai_just_helped_a_selfrepresented_academic_beat/","role":"pain","weight":1.1614115,"occurredAt":"2026-08-20T13:37:56.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"DefendingAI","intent":"problem_report","painScore":0.76,"sentiment":-1,"confidence":0.6598929,"matchedPatterns":["manual_process"],"statement":"\\--- \\# Automation does not erase agency A photographer doesn't manually perform the optical transformations inside a camera.","title":"AI just helped a self-represented academic beat professional lawyers. Remind me again why using AI supposedly erases human authorship?","body":"\\# AI just helped a self-represented academic beat professional lawyers\n\nThis is a pretty spectacular real-world example of why the argument \\*\\*\"AI did it, therefore the human didn't\"\\*\\* falls apart.\n\nMacquarie University computing academic \\*\\*Gregory Baker represented himself before Australia's Fair Work Commission\\*\\* in a major employment dispute.\n\nMacquarie had professional legal representation.\n\nBaker had something different:\n\n\\*\\*ChatGPT Pro, Claude, and a custom team of AI agents.\\*\\*\n\n\\*\\*And he won.\\*\\*\n\n\\---\n\n\\## What did the AI actually do?\n\nBaker reportedly used his AI systems to:\n\n\\- Analyse legislation and evidence\n\n\\- Cross-reference legal authorities\n\n\\- Check citations and references\n\n\\- Interrogate his own arguments\n\n\\- Anticipate Macquarie's counterarguments\n\n\\- Analyse opposing counsel's submissions\n\n\\- Identify weaknesses and contradictions\n\n\\- Rapidly iterate his case strategy\n\nThe Fair Work Commission ultimately determined that Baker was entitled to transition from casual employment to \\*\\*ongoing part-time employment\\*\\* under Australia's new employee-choice provisions.\n\nThis was not:\n\n\\> \"Hey ChatGPT, win my case for me.\"\n\nBaker supplied the facts and evidence, determined the objective, configured the systems, directed their analysis, evaluated their outputs, rejected bad material, selected the arguments worth advancing, responded to the opposition, and personally took responsibility for the resulting case.\n\n\\*\\*AI performed substantial work.\\*\\*\n\nThat does not mean Baker ceased to be the person directing the work.\n\n\\---\n\n\\## Here's where it gets especially interesting\n\nThe Fair Work Commission has also been dealing with the \\*\\*opposite\\*\\* phenomenon:\n\nPeople submitting inaccurate, fabricated, repetitive, or otherwise terrible AI-generated legal material.\n\nSo we effectively have both outcomes occurring with the same general class of technology:\n\n\\*\\*Poor operator + poor verification + AI = slop.\\*\\*\n\n\\*\\*Skilled operator + strong direction + iteration + verification + AI = work capable of defeating professionally represented opposition.\\*\\*\n\nThe meaningful variable clearly isn't merely:\n\n\\> \"Was AI used?\"\n\n\\*\\*The operator matters.\\*\\*\n\nQuite a lot.\n\n\\---\n\n\\# Sound familiar?\n\nBecause this maps almost perfectly onto the AI-art debate.\n\nSomeone can type:\n\n\\> \"pretty woman, masterpiece\"\n\ngenerate one image, accept the first result, and upload it.\n\nSomeone else can spend hours:\n\n\\- Developing the concept\n\n\\- Engineering and iterating prompts\n\n\\- Controlling composition\n\n\\- Testing models and settings\n\n\\- Generating alternatives\n\n\\- Evaluating and rejecting outputs\n\n\\- Using references and conditioning\n\n\\- Masking and inpainting\n\n\\- Correcting anatomy or objects\n\n\\- Compositing\n\n\\- Editing\n\n\\- Colour grading\n\n\\- Upscaling\n\n\\- Refining individual regions\n\n\\- Selecting the final work\n\nBoth used generative AI.\n\n\\*\\*Their creative processes are obviously not equivalent.\\*\\*\n\nThe presence of AI tells you almost nothing by itself about the amount of human creative involvement.\n\n\\---\n\n\\# Apply the anti-AI authorship argument consistently\n\nIf:\n\n\\> \"The AI generated substantial parts of it, therefore you didn't create it.\"\n\nis actually a valid principle, then we'd have to say \\*\\*Baker didn't construct his legal case either.\\*\\*\n\nAfter all, AI performed substantial portions of the research, analysis, cross-referencing, and argument development.\n\nBut that conclusion ignores the \\*\\*human control architecture surrounding the automation\\*\\*.\n\nBaker:\n\n\\*\\*Chose the objective -> supplied the information -> instructed the system -> evaluated results -> rejected failures -> refined the process -> selected arguments -> deployed the final result\\*\\*\n\nNow look at a sophisticated AI-art workflow:\n\n\\*\\*Intent -> prompting -> generation -> evaluation -> rejection -> modification -> regeneration -> selection -> composition -> inpainting/editing -> finalisation\\*\\*\n\nThe structure is remarkably similar.\n\n\\---\n\n\\# Automation does not erase agency\n\nA photographer doesn't manually perform the optical transformations inside a camera.\n\nA digital artist doesn't manually execute Photoshop's mathematical operations.\n\nA programmer doesn't manually translate every abstraction into machine instructions.\n\nA music producer doesn't personally calculate every DSP transformation performed by their software.\n\nAnd Baker didn't personally perform every search, comparison, and legal cross-reference performed by his AI agents.\n\n\\*\\*Tools automate operations.\\*\\*\n\nThat has never meant that the human directing those operations necessarily disappears from the creative or intellectual process.\n\nAI simply moves that automation further upstream.\n\n\\---\n\n\\# The serious question was never \"Did AI generate something?\"\n\nThe serious question is:\n\n\\> \\*\\*What did the human contribute to the resulting work?\\*\\*\n\nSometimes the answer will be:\n\n\\*\\*Very little.\\*\\*\n\nSometimes the answer will be:\n\n\\*\\*An enormous amount.\\*\\*\n\nThat's true of AI-assisted writing.\n\nIt's true of AI-assisted legal work.\n\nAnd it's true of AI art.\n\nTreating every AI-assisted work as though the human contribution were identical because they all contain the label \\*\\*\"AI\"\\*\\* is analytically useless.\n\n\\---\n\n\\# This case gives us a remarkably clean demonstration\n\n\\*\\*The same general technology can produce garbage in one person's hands and formidable professional work in another's.\\*\\*\n\nSo perhaps we can finally retire:\n\n\\> \\*\\*\"You used AI, therefore you didn't create anything.\"\\*\\*\n\nThat isn't an argument about authorship.\n\n\\## \\*\\*It's a refusal to analyse the human-machine creative process at all.\\*\\*","offTopic":false},{"id":"32cc9d51-e30f-4d90-94f4-78230441713e","excerpt":"AI did not kill music — AI Music Didn’t Kill Art. It Finally Let Me In.\n\nLet me start with why I make music. I’m a 22-year-old visually impaired guy from the Midwest. Because of my disability and my financial situation, there are a lot of things I can’t do. I can’t afford studio time. I can’t pay a full band, producers","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/SunoAI/comments/1p3fmib/ai_did_not_kill_music/","role":"request","weight":1.1559608,"occurredAt":"2025-11-22T00:47:21.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"SunoAI","intent":"feature_request","painScore":0.22974549,"sentiment":-0.06666667,"confidence":0.94,"matchedPatterns":["wish","terrible","praise"],"statement":"Here’s the advice I wish someone had given me at the start: who cares?","title":"AI did not kill music","body":"AI Music Didn’t Kill Art. It Finally Let Me In.\n\nLet me start with why I make music. I’m a 22-year-old visually impaired guy from the Midwest. Because of my disability and my financial situation, there are a lot of things I can’t do. I can’t afford studio time. I can’t pay a full band, producers, or session musicians. I can’t just book a fancy room with high-end gear and a team of professionals waiting to make my vision come to life. But what I have always had is the ability to write songs. I’ve written in braille. I’ve written with the little vision I do have, pen and paper like everyone else. The words were never the problem. Access was.\n\nFor the longest time, the gatekeepers of the music industry basically kept people like me on the outside. Not because I couldn’t write, but because making a record costs money I simply didn’t have. It can cost thousands just to produce one single at a professional level. So even if you had something to say, you often never got the chance to say it in a way the world would hear. Then Suno showed up. Suddenly, people like me—disadvantaged, disabled, broke lyricists with a head full of songs—had a way in.\n\nI made a Suno account and started doing what I’ve always done: writing lyrics. Only now, I could feed those lyrics into Suno, get fully produced tracks back, and then distribute them to streaming platforms through UnitedMasters. So far, I’ve dropped three albums, a handful of singles, and a few EPs. I’m not crazy famous, but I’ve had a couple of minor hits and at least one song that broke through more than I ever expected. And yes, I’ve taken dozens of criticisms along the way: “It’s not real art.” “You didn’t really make that.” “This is slop.” I’ve heard it all.\n\nHere’s the advice I wish someone had given me at the start: who cares? If you’re making AI music, remember why you started. You’re doing this to express yourself creatively. That’s what matters. If success comes, that’s a bonus. But if you go into it chasing validation from the internet, you’re setting yourself up for misery. Do it because it’s your outlet. Do it because it keeps you sane. Do it because the alternative is your ideas staying trapped in your head forever.\n\nRight now I’m at a point where I genuinely don’t care what the haters think. As long as I’m enjoying the process, and my small but loyal audience is enjoying the music, that’s enough. I do have a minor fanbase—people who look forward to my Friday releases, who get excited when I tease a new single, EP, or album. Watching them react, guess the themes, and celebrate each drop is incredibly fulfilling. That feeling is real. You can’t tell me that doesn’t “count” just because I used an AI tool.\n\nAnd here’s the thing: this “AI slop” panic isn’t new. We’ve been here before. Back in the ’70s and ’80s, drum machines were treated like trash by a lot of musicians. “Not real drums, not real music.” Now we look back and think of that era as legendary, iconic, nostalgic. In the 2000s, people started making music in their bedrooms, basements, and garages with nothing but a laptop and some software like Logic Pro or GarageBand. They bought loops, dragged and dropped beats, and built songs on their own. That was called slop too. “You didn’t play the instruments yourself.” “You just used loops.” And yet that whole DIY movement is now seen as the heart of the indie scene. People actively dig through that world to find new artists.\n\nThe pattern is always the same: a new tool appears, gatekeepers freak out, call it fake, and try to shame anyone who uses it. Then time passes, and everyone quietly accepts it as part of the landscape. Drum machines. Synthesizers. Auto-tune. DAWs. Loops. Bedroom production. Now it’s AI. The tool changes, but the fear never does.\n\nHere’s what I believe: a songwriter is a songwriter. It doesn’t matter if you made your music with a full live band, an old laptop and free plugins, Suno, or loops you bought online. What matters is the result. If the song hits, it hits. If it sounds good and it moves someone, then it’s a good song. Someone out there will connect with it. Let the people who love it love it. Let the people who hate it hate it. They’re not your problem.\n\nThere’s also this fear that “AI is going to take all our jobs.” But AI isn’t some evil monster sneaking into the studio to steal gigs. The real threat is people refusing to adapt. The ones who learn how to use AI will be the ones who go further—because they’ll blend their human creativity with powerful tools. The ones who dig their heels in and refuse to even try will be the ones who get left behind. So no, AI isn’t what replaces you. Your stubborn refusal to evolve is what replaces you.\n\nOn top of that, AI music gives a voice to people who literally didn’t have one before. Think about people who are mute, or who have neurological conditions that prevent them from singing or performing the way they want. With tools like Suno, they can type out lyrics and still create full songs without ever needing to step in front of a mic. That’s huge. People who were locked out because of physical or financial limitations finally have a doorway into the world of music.\n\nThe truth is, a lot of gatekeepers don’t like that. They don’t want creativity to be something everyone can access. They want it reserved for people with money, connections, and traditional resources—the studio budgets, the high-end gear, the industry contacts. That’s how it’s always been, and that’s how it will stay if AI artists don’t stick together. So instead of fighting each other, we need to support each other. Listen to each other’s songs. Share them. Help each other grow an audience. Make a statement: we’re here, we’re creating, and we have the same right to express ourselves as anyone else.\n\nNow, let’s talk about copyright for a second. I understand that AI songs are trained on existing music. That’s a complicated topic, and it probably means we won’t own our songs in exactly the same way a traditional artist owns theirs. But instead of obsessing over that, I focus on what I do own: my lyrics. As long as I’m the one writing them, without AI, they’re mine. They can be copyrighted. I don’t lose my authorship just because an AI generated the backing track.\n\nAnd honestly, human music is also “trained” on existing music. That’s what influence is. Musicians grow up listening to other musicians, and their sound gets shaped by what came before. Pretty much every metal band on Earth, if you trace it back, owes something to Black Sabbath and Ozzy Osbourne. They’ve borrowed elements, adapted riffs, absorbed the vibe. Music is a long chain of recycling, transforming, and reimagining what already exists. AI is doing that at scale, but it’s not fundamentally different from a kid picking up a guitar after hearing their favorite band.\n\nPeople say AI is “trained on crap,” so it just churns out more crap. But if you think a lot of modern music is garbage, then that’s not exactly AI’s fault—that’s on the humans who made the stuff it was trained on. And even then, “crap” is subjective. I think mumble rap and a lot of generic pop sound terrible. That’s my opinion. That doesn’t make it an objective fact. Millions of people love that music, and they’re not wrong for loving it. Taste is not a math problem with one correct answer. It’s preference.\n\nThe same goes for AI music. If you think it’s bad, you’re allowed to think that. But that doesn’t mean you need to go to war with it or with the people who use it. Just like I don’t campaign to abolish genres I don’t personally enjoy, you don’t need to try to wipe out AI music because it doesn’t fit your definition of “real art.”\n\nIn the end, AI music isn’t the end of creativity—it’s an expansion of it. For me, it’s the difference between never releasing a song and having a growing catalog of albums, singles, and EPs out in the world. It’s the difference between silence and a sound that actually represents how I feel. If you’re an AI musician, remember this: your art is valid, your voice matters, and you don’t owe anyone an apology for using the tools available to you.\n\nMake the music you want to make. Let the people who connect with it find you. Evolve with the tools instead of fighting them. And most of all, have fun. That’s what music was always supposed to be.","offTopic":false},{"id":"43dfcdd9-6ed7-482c-a34a-828e528f37ca","excerpt":"I see much blind hatred against AI here — I've noticed that there's a significant amount of blind hatred towards AI in creative communities, and this subreddit is no exception. More than a few times, I've seen reasonable advice get downvoted simply because it discusses AI in a positive light, while misleading, outdated","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/godot/comments/1nyfj31/i_see_much_blind_hatred_against_ai_here/","role":"demand","weight":1.1495631,"occurredAt":"2025-10-05T05:11:05.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"godot","intent":"alternative_search","painScore":0.33,"sentiment":0.12,"confidence":0.86433315,"matchedPatterns":["alternative_to","missing_feature","manual_process","solution:open-source"],"statement":"Ever wondered when we'll see an open-source alternative to MetaHuman?","title":"I see much blind hatred against AI here","body":"I've noticed that there's a significant amount of blind hatred towards AI in creative communities, and this subreddit is no exception. More than a few times, I've seen reasonable advice get downvoted simply because it discusses AI in a positive light, while misleading, outdated, or even incorrect comments get upvoted just because they bash AI.\n\nIt is unfortunate because AI can be very beneficial to programmers, artists, and game developers, and it may even become an essential skill for some tasks in the near future.\n\nI know many of you would already be ready to downvote my post after reading it this far. While you have the freedom to do so, I encourage you to hear me out first, at least. If you downvote opinions you disagree with without reading them, you're simply promoting your bias. It can be particularly harmful to beginners who lack the knowledge and experience to form their own judgments.\n\nI'm more of a jack-of-all-trades when it comes to game dev, but let me begin with an area where I have the most experience: programming.\n\nAlthough I'm not in the gaming industry, I've been working as a programmer for a considerable time, creating numerous applications and services using various programming languages. And while I have little problem coding with just Google and an IDE, AI has become an invaluable asset in my toolbox.\n\nKnowing how to use AI effectively to boost your productivity is rapidly becoming a requirement for programmers. You simply can't be as productive as those who know how to use AI effectively. That's not my opinion, it's just a fact.\n\nYou can't document your code or write commit messages as fast as AI can, for starters (both of which are just a matter of clicking a single button in my IDE with an AI plugin).\n\nAdditionally, programming involves a lot of tasks that you already know how to do, which you can easily direct AI to perform while you focus on more interesting/important tasks.\n\nYou can't be more productive in debugging if you have to copy and paste the error and Google it, searching through links that may or may not be relevant to your problem, than those who simply click the console, then ask AI to analyse it.\n\nIt never ceases to amaze me how my IDE often autocompletes the exact code I'm going to write the moment I start typing its first few letters these days.\n\nAnd I didn't even mention coding agents, which is a whole different story.\n\nI don't know if or when AI will take my job, but I'm pretty confident that programmers who are either incapable or unwilling to utilise AI to boost their productivity will soon be replaced by those who are.\n\nTo be clear, I'm not saying that you should 'vibe code' everything, or that you don't have to learn programming. Coding with AI tools is like having a team of junior programmers who can do tedious tasks for you, or serve as a pair-programming partner. Effectively leading such a team certainly requires you to have sufficient knowledge and experience as a programmer.\n\nIf you are a beginner, you can use AI as your personal teacher to learn programming. Documentation is still your primary source of knowledge, but now you can ask AI to elaborate on a specific subject and explain it to you until you understand. It's up to you to use it as an effective tool to learn programming, instead of mindlessly copying and pasting the code it generates that you don't understand.\n\nBesides programming, I'm also a hobbyist game dev with decent 3D skills with Blender. In my current VR project, I procedurally generate speeches and lip-sync animations for other characters with whom I can talk using voice. Currently, I'm working on improving the AI for the characters so they can detect the player's poses, actions, and other behaviours to respond accordingly. And none of these would've been possible without AI.\n\nAlthough I love creating meshes, textures, and animations by hand, many areas in the asset creation pipeline can benefit from using AI.\n\nFor instance, you no longer need to purchase special equipment to create motion capture animations, as you can now simply take a video of yourself performing the motion and convert it into an animation using AI.\n\nEver wondered when we'll see an open-source alternative to MetaHuman? It will never happen because creating a truly photorealistic 3D human character involves a 3D photo scan of a real person and an enormous amount of effort in hand-crafting matching displacement, roughness, normal, SSS, and other maps. And this is PER character.\n\nBut I believe we are just a couple of years away from gen-AI becoming capable of generating skin textures given a specific UV map. Once it arrives, any solo developer will be able to create photorealistic characters using MakeHuman, which can currently only create Sims-like models at best.\n\nAnd it's not just for 3D games. Image AI tools are already good enough to allow you to depict anything you can imagine in precisely the way you want. If you think all AI can do is generate random slops, it's because you never tried it beyond typing prompts.\n\nIf you need realistic renders for your visual novel, for example, tools like Krita AI diffusion could be a far better choice than Daz3D, provided you're willing to spend some time learning how to use it.\n\nIn short, AI is rapidly becoming an essential tool for programmers, and it's opening up possibilities for indie developers who are limited in time and resources compared to larger studios.\n\nAfter all, we are all here to create our dream games rather than promoting or crusading against this or that technology. While rational criticism against AI is always welcome, blind hatred against it from ignorance won't do any good, especially when it can be an invaluable tool for those who want to go beyond what solo game dev could reasonably achieve in the days before AI.","offTopic":false},{"id":"1f3a1af4-c509-4442-ab7e-0af8065166a3","excerpt":"Here's my response to a question on a AI defending asking why anti's claim AI steals art that got banned for... Answering the question. — Hello!! I was recently completely banned after making my first and only comment on a pro-AI art subreddit answering someone's question asking why people claim AI steals art. I didn't","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1vhifb6/heres_my_response_to_a_question_on_a_ai_defending/","role":"pricing","weight":1.1387804,"occurredAt":"2026-08-06T22:13:40.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"aiwars","intent":"pricing_complaint","painScore":0.42,"sentiment":0.35714287,"confidence":0.80195796,"matchedPatterns":["too_expensive","manual_process"],"statement":"Yes, you can go to schools that teach art and study in professional settings with overpriced books, but unlike something like advanced mathematics or a doctorate in cardiology, it isn't required to master it.","title":"Here's my response to a question on a AI defending asking why anti's claim AI steals art that got banned for... Answering the question.","body":"Hello!! I was recently completely banned after making my first and only comment on a pro-AI art subreddit answering someone's question asking why people claim AI steals art. I didn't see any in depth answers, nor many from an outside perspective, so I chose to commit the heinous, unforgivable act of responding to this post with some detailed reasoning as to what people mean when they say \"AI steals\", and why they don't like it. \nI was banned about a day or two later for \"attacking\" the subreddit, even though I tried to make a point not to be inherently mean, and just provide actual reasoning as to why some people don't like modern generative AI.\n\nHere is the comment, for those genuinely interested:\n\n\\*\\*\\*\"\\*\\*\\*Not sure if this is a genuine question or not, but if it is, here's my answer (sorry, it's a little lengthy; it's not meant to be and attack though, dw): \nIt doesn't \"steal\" directly per se, but it uses art without people's permission, typically copying specific art styles from specific people or genres. \nThere's a lot worse reasons why AI generation isn't good, but specifically playing off the \"stealing part\", it can mimic people's art and, just like people generating porn of women and children online, can pretend to be them and generate offensive or harmful things to ruin their reputation both online and in real life (since employers almost always look at your digital footprint, and have more tools to do so effectively which includes looking at things even loosely related to you. Schools can do the same thing).\n\nAlso, when people talk about \"stealing\", it's usually more in the context of people running pre-existing art that isn't theirs through an AI bot to change it's style, add or remove features, \"fix\" it, or just tweak it barely enough to claim it as their own.\n\nThere's much bigger reasons AI art should not be nearly as accessible and common as it is, such as what I said before about people AI generating porn and nude photos of real people and using them as blackmail or to sell for profit. \nOr the fact that neighborhoods and even entire cities that surround the giant data centers of which power AI report that the centers sound as loud as a plane taking off and cause floods of dirty or contaminated water as well as produce so much light that you can't even see the stars in the sky due to the pollution. \nNot to mention the destruction of priceless single-copy books caused by the people who provide physical media information for the AI being too lazy to scan each page, so they just rip the spines off, toss the pages in a scanner, and then throw out the torn remnants.\n\nOn top of all this, it's also just the community surrounding AI generation. I'm not saying AI can't be used for good; it most certainly can! It's good for collecting a large number of resources that you yourself can look into further, and it can be good to help look for things like spelling mistakes or errors in writing. \nProblem is, people tend to overuse it, deny any harm it has, and then make excuses as to why they need it so badly. \nFor example, people claiming that being against the overuse of AI is ableist is just blatantly wrong. There's no such thing as being born an artist, that's just not how that works. Yes, there's people who are better at LEARNING how to create art, but those people are often actually disabled in a way themselves (in many different ways- I'd actually recommend looking into artists with disabilities, it's really interesting!) \nPeople learn to make art because they want the experience of creation, the fulfillment of making something completely new; even when you're inspired by something specific, when you make it by hand you get to add your own feelings, perceptions, thoughts, and style to it.\n\nAnd the best part is that anyone can do it, that's the point! No matter who you are, where you're from, or what you do, you can create with your own hands, voice, and eyes. You could be a quadruple amputee who's 100% blind with down syndrome and you could still make art through sound and word. Even if you were paralyzed from the neck down and couldn't speak, there's modern technology that tracks eye movement and brain waves that could allow you to create art that reflects who YOU are.\n\nYou simply cannot get that level of creative intimacy with AI. No matter what you type into the computer, it'll still spit out a Frankensteined version of the effort and experiences of everyone BUT you. Not wanting people to stray from the passion of creativity in favour of creating empty husks of whatever was closest to the image in their head is as far from ableist as possible. \nIt's like if you stopped learning to write in kindergarten and instead gave a rough outline of what you wanted to 50 different people, let them each write random pieces of the story, and then combined them all together and claimed you wrote the book. That's not you, that's not even someone else, that's just a bunch of incomplete ideas smushed together and played off as because it \"looks close enough to the real thing\".\n\nAnd overall, art of all sorts has been a safe place for disabled people for generations. Therapy often uses art to help patients regulate themselves since the process of creating it can be soothing, classes for disabled people almost always have art rooted in one way or another because it's a skillset that anyone can learn regardless of physical capabilities, art in general has always been a community that was built for people with disabilities and even just people in general who are discriminated against because it's made from emotion and experience instead of social opportunity and financial capability (such as needing enough money to go to university, or having to be pre-connected with certain people to get into specific fields). \nIt's why so many people who aren't as commonly discriminated against often don't consider art a \"real\" career or skill. People with money, connections, resources, and status that can afford to learn things in prestigious schools or get recommended into high class work positions consider art less than a hobby because *it doesn't need those things to function.* Art, of all sorts, has, does, and always will cater to those with less. Yes, you can go to schools that teach art and study in professional settings with overpriced books, but unlike something like advanced mathematics or a doctorate in cardiology, it isn't required to master it. Making the claim that being against AI is \"discriminatory\" completely false.\n\nI'd understand if people were denouncing forms of AI like autocorrect or translation services, things that help more people access more information, but it's not. No one is hating on Grammarly or google translate. Just the AI generation systems that drink more water than an elephant and make everyone around them get hearing loss.\n\nAlso, I'd like to note that no one really had an issue with AI generation itself before people started creating deepfakes, pretending to be creating art from scratch, and building data centers that directly harm communities and the ecosystem around it. And then that was made even worse after people began denying any harm AI had, and accusing people who don't agree of discriminating against them.\n\nSo if you were genuinely curious about why people are against AI art, that's my take on it. \nI didn't mean this to be hostile, so I'm sorry if it comes off that way, I just wasn't sure whether or not this post was actually curious or not, so I decided to post just in case since no one else was actually giving a proper answer or even trying to consider the topic from the opposing perspective (people who are against AI). :)) \nThanks for reading! Hope this helped anyone who was actually interested 👍\\*\\*\\*\"\\*\\*\\*\n\nMy question is, why bother asking if you don't actually want an answer? \nBut either way, this is where the ban notice told me to go, so here I am :)","offTopic":false},{"id":"f176cec4-36bb-4dff-b41f-b2b962dd79cd","excerpt":"AI art will become widely accepted. It's inevitable. Here's why. — Let's ask ourselves, why do so many art communities hate AI art? The 3 most common reasons I find.\n\n1. It's allegedly theft.\n2. Requires little effort, and prompting is not crafting, so it's not really you making it.\n3. Most of it, is bad quality. (AI S","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/1qzq69r/ai_art_will_become_widely_accepted_its_inevitable/","role":"pain","weight":1.1335764,"occurredAt":"2026-02-09T00:54:21.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"DefendingAIArt","intent":"problem_report","painScore":0.60411763,"sentiment":-0.23529412,"confidence":0.70666665,"matchedPatterns":["terrible"],"statement":"\"But AI products are AWFUL SLOP, nobody likes them!\" - An AI hater might object.","title":"AI art will become widely accepted. It's inevitable. Here's why.","body":"Let's ask ourselves, why do so many art communities hate AI art? The 3 most common reasons I find.\n\n1. It's allegedly theft.\n2. Requires little effort, and prompting is not crafting, so it's not really you making it.\n3. Most of it, is bad quality. (AI SLOP).\n\nI'll argue, one by one, that each one of these talking points will, inevitably, fade.\n\n***\"It's Theft\"***\n\nLet’s put the ethics debate about AI aside for a moment. That’s not the point of this post. The real question is: even *if* it is true that using AI is unethical, would that actually stop people from using it to create content?\n\nHonestly, history suggests probably not. Even strong ethical arguments backed by solid evidence rarely change widespread behavior. We’ve known for years that cars and meat consumption have serious environmental impacts, yet people still drive every day and vegans remain a minority.\n\nAnd if people aren’t convinced to change their habits even in cases where the facts are widely accepted, what chance does the \"AI art is theft\" argument has? The argument depends on a very abstract definition of what it means to “steal”, that is not by any means, widely accepted. That alone drastically reduces it's persuasive power.\n\nBeyond that, there’s also a strong incentive for people to reject this framing altogether. If you accept that AI art is unethical because artists didn’t consent, then where does it stop? Asking AI for a recipe, is that wrong because chefs didn’t consent? How about getting help building a pie chart, if AI writes Python scripts to do that, are we stealing from developers? Again where do you stop?\n\nPeople would need to accept that ANY usage of AI is unethical, and that means giving up a tool that's made their life and work much more easier. So if anything is going to stop AI, is not gonna be ethics.\n\n***\"Requires little effort, and prompting is not crafting, so it's not really you making it.\"***\n\nIn art communities, handmade work is praised more right now. Most people in them value \"the process\" more than the final piece. This evident because many have admitted they'd prefer a begginer's, not very good looking drawing, to anything AI generated, and to be clear, that is OKAY.\n\nIt's important to note that this mindset seems to be widely prevalent *exclusvely* in art communities, in contrast for example: when a software developers creates an app using AI tools, coworkers do not have any trouble in letting him have the credit, on the contrary, he's praised for effectively leverage existing tools. \n\nNow why is that artists, inherently value crafting more than end result? They admire the dedication it took to create a great piece. They also appreciate that \"more of the artists\" is put in the work, that every single line is a decision made by the artist, even if an uncounsious one. AI detractors find value in these things, so much they deem it a requisite, therefore any AI art that was \"just prompted\" gets backlash, obviously.\n\nNow, setting aside, that a lot of effort *can* be put into prompting... and that prompting is *not* the only way AI can enhance art.... has anyone asked themselves, why are most art communites like that?\n\nThe value of art, is of course, subjective. You can't assert it's *objectively* better to find more value in *crafting* instead of *expression*, in the same way you can assert 2+2=4. But then why is it that crafting is so highly valued in art communities now?\n\nIt's because historically, anyone pursuing art *had* to be someone who finds value in the crafting process, since it took much time and practice to get good results. If you wanted to *express* an idea through art, but did not find value within the craft itself, you probably would not stick with it. That acted as a filter. So it's no wonder the art community is filled with AI detractors who value the effort put in craft, more than the end result.\n\nThat said, AI is not going anywhere. Over time, more creators who care primarily about expressing ideas rather than mastering crafting technique will adopt it, especially since most people prefer faster results. As that shift happens, *expression* driven creators will grow into much more significant number, maybe even a majority.\n\nFor reference: The r/ aiArt subreddit is almost as big as the r/ DigitalArt sub, and it's only been three years since this whole ordeal became mainstream. So all the hate given to AI users by traditional communities, has not stopped them from creating their own communities, and these communities are very rapidly growing.\n\n\"But AI products are AWFUL SLOP, nobody likes them!\" - An AI hater might object. Which leads me to:\n\n***\"It's bad quality. It's SLOP\"***\n\nFirst, AI itself is still a baby, and it's only going to improve and with it the quality of content.\n\nBut more importantly... truth is most content, *in general (not just AI generated),* is mediocre because most creators are *amateurs*. The real question is what will happen when expression-motivated artists, with strong art fundamentals, start using these tools to guide AI into making quality pieces rapidly, and audiences respond positively?\n\n(By the way if anyone wants an example of this already happening, check out this video, it's an anti-ai artist having an existential crisis when he realized he had enjoyed an \"AI-made\" mini-series. In youtube, look up *\"Paul Platt: the real problem with AI Art isn't what you think\"*).\n\nAt that point, markets that reward speed (which is most of them) will favor expression-driven people. Let's be real, mainstream audiences by enlarge do not care how something was made. A kid playing with a Buzz Lightyear toy is not thinking about sculpting techniques or the history of computer animation. Meaning that people willing to deliver products faster will be preferred, and that won't be the \"craft-valuing\" creators.\n\nAt that point, no amount of online downvotes, will stop the, inevitable, merciless, force of supply and demand, from shaping the landscape. Drawing without AI will still be valuable, but in the same sense archery is valued in the era of guns, not for practical uses, but as fun hobby you can do out of passion (like paint-drawing is still valued in some niche circles, even though most art jobs are focused on digital art). And like any archer criticizing a police man for using guns instead of bows, AI detractors will be regarded as silly.","offTopic":false},{"id":"5670a8c4-0e82-4e57-b8b2-7640c9aa0530","excerpt":"AI in art and creativity is starting to freak me out a little — I've been thinking about AI in art and creativity a lot lately, especially after using AI in work.\n\nAnd honestly, I'm torn.\n\nOn one hand, ai creativity tools are insanely useful. You can throw an idea at them, get 20 variations in seconds, brainstorm when ","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/Creativity/comments/1vtks1z/ai_in_art_and_creativity_is_starting_to_freak_me/","role":"pain","weight":1.1257257,"occurredAt":"2026-08-20T14:17:11.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"Creativity","intent":"problem_report","painScore":0.88,"sentiment":-1,"confidence":0.5987903,"matchedPatterns":["frustrating"],"statement":"The annoying part of creating something has always been...","title":"AI in art and creativity is starting to freak me out a little","body":"I've been thinking about AI in art and creativity a lot lately, especially after using AI in work.\n\nAnd honestly, I'm torn.\n\nOn one hand, ai creativity tools are insanely useful. You can throw an idea at them, get 20 variations in seconds, brainstorm when your brain is completely cooked, or use ai for creativity when you're stuck staring at a blank page. That's genuinely cool. But there's a part of this that kinda bothers me.\n\nIf AI can generate ideas, images, stories, concepts, music, etc. almost instantly, what happens to our creativity skills when we stop doing the hard part ourselves?\n\nThe annoying part of creating something has always been... well, creating it. Having crappy ideas. Starting over. Sitting there for an hour because nothing works. Accidentally finding something interesting while trying to fix something that sucked.\n\nAnd now we can just prompt our way around a lot of that. That's where the whole ai vs human creativity debate gets interesting to me. I don't think AI is going to \"replace creativity.\" It doesn't suddenly make human imagination pointless. If anything, how does AI affect creativity probably depends way more on how we use it.\n\nIf AI becomes a shortcut for thinking, yeah, I think we might lose something. But if it's a tool that helps us explore ideas we already have, experiment faster, or get unstuck? That's different.\n\nMaybe the future isn't AI replacing creativity. Maybe it's people learning a completely different way of being creative. Still, I can't shake the feeling that ai and creativity are going to have a weird relationship for a long time.\n\nCurious what everyone else thinks - is ai creativity actually expanding what humans can do, or are we slowly outsourcing the part that makes creativity feel... human?","offTopic":false},{"id":"9ebd2949-3f37-4413-9b54-e5f1510476a6","excerpt":"The anti-AI crowd is giving “real farmers don’t use tractors” energy, and it’s getting old. — Look, I get it. “AI slop” is everywhere. \n\nBad AI art, hollow AI writing, shitty music being generated, chatbots regurgitating nonsense. There’s plenty to criticize. But I’m noticing a legitimate critique is slowly turning int","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1stbebb/the_antiai_crowd_is_giving_real_farmers_dont_use/","role":"pain","weight":1.0791667,"occurredAt":"2026-04-23T07:05:33.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"ChatGPT","intent":"problem_report","painScore":0.48,"sentiment":0.6,"confidence":0.7291667,"matchedPatterns":["frustrating"],"statement":"Low-effort AI slop flooding creative spaces is genuinely annoying.","title":"The anti-AI crowd is giving “real farmers don’t use tractors” energy, and it’s getting old.","body":"Look, I get it. “AI slop” is everywhere. \n\nBad AI art, hollow AI writing, shitty music being generated, chatbots regurgitating nonsense. There’s plenty to criticize. But I’m noticing a legitimate critique is slowly turning into a tribal identity, and now reflexively hating anything AI-adjacent has become the intellectually lazy default for a lot of people online.\n\nThe thing is, we’ve been here before. When the mechanical tractor started replacing horse-drawn plows in the early 20th century, farmers were genuinely angry. This wasn’t real farming. It was cheating. It would ruin the craft. Except it didn’t. It freed up hundreds of millions of people from the back breaking manual labour of subsistence agriculture and contributed to one of the greatest leaps in human productivity in history. The same story played out with the printing press, electricity in factories, digital photography killing film, and word processors “ruining” writing. Every single time, a contingent of people decided that the technology itself was the enemy rather than engaging seriously with how it should and shouldn’t be used.\n\nI’m not saying AI is above criticism. It absolutely isn’t. Copyright issues are real. Displacement concerns are real. Low-effort AI slop flooding creative spaces is genuinely annoying. These conversations are worth having.\n\nBut there’s a growing crowd that won’t engage with any of that nuance. They’ve just decided AI = bad, full stop, and wearing that opinion is a social signal more than a reasoned position. \n\nI saw someone say in another post that ChatGPT’s “Emo” model was the model he would have been able to sit down and have a beer with, but then made it very clear he would never ACTUALLY do that. It’s the same energy as people who loudly announce they don’t listen to pop music. Okay. Cool. Doesn’t make you more sophisticated, it just means you’re performing a taste rather than having one.\n\nMeanwhile, my experience with AI is that it’s a great sounding board and therapy substitute when you have something on your mind. I still talk to real people, I have plenty of friends in real life, but if I’m awake at 3am and my mind is spiraling, it’s a great tool to have at your disposal. AI tools are helping researchers identify diseases earlier, helping people with disabilities communicate, helping small business owners who can’t afford designers or lawyers get things done. That’s real. That’s happening now.\n\nYou’re allowed to dislike specific applications of AI. You’re allowed to demand better regulation and ethical guardrails. But blanket opposition to an entire category of technology, without stopping to ask “what are the actual tradeoffs here?”, isn’t a principled stance. It’s just the current fashionable thing to say.\n\nI have a feeling this post will get downvoted to hell, but even so, my personal opinion is to keep an open mind with this stuff, and don’t automatically assume anything AI is evil and here to take over the world. The world is not going to look the same in 10 years, for sure. \n\nBut you don’t want to be one of the farmers who didn’t see the benefits of using a tractor.","offTopic":false},{"id":"3128d882-8ce7-4f4a-a6a1-ff1511911acc","excerpt":"Why are people fully anti AI? — Hi. I'll start with saying i don't want to look like a troll. I want to exchange my views, with people who have different ones. I'm very open minded, and enjoy being proven wrong, but there isn't much discussion between the two sides, that isn't a huge shitstorm, perpetuated by emotions ","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1vyvn26/why_are_people_fully_anti_ai/","role":"pain","weight":1.0721622,"occurredAt":"2026-08-26T12:26:30.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"antiai","intent":"feature_request","painScore":0.4731637,"sentiment":0.0877193,"confidence":0.72779566,"matchedPatterns":["i_hate","missing_feature","product:chatgpt"],"statement":"due to my ADHD, i hate theory.","title":"Why are people fully anti AI?","body":"Hi. I'll start with saying i don't want to look like a troll. I want to exchange my views, with people who have different ones. I'm very open minded, and enjoy being proven wrong, but there isn't much discussion between the two sides, that isn't a huge shitstorm, perpetuated by emotions from both sides. \nAnd a request to mods, if this post is against the rule 3, please delete it, or ask me to delete it, I'm here in good faith, and i don't want to get aban. \n\nI've used language models ever since they were basically avaiable to public. Even before chatgpt, I've played with OpenAI playground, but for years it was mostly for fun, trying to make it generate stupid things, like meth recipes, cause it was funny.\nThrough their advancing, they've started becoming more and more useful, and i started using them more and more. But because I've used them since the times they were incredibly dumb, and seeing them slowly get better at some things, I knew for what were they good for, and for what they were not. And at this point, in 2026, i still use them. And from my own point of view, these models are extremely useful. But, I've also started being more and more worried about the state it's going to in the world.\n\n\nMy hobby is hacking. I love taking obsolete technology, or very locked down technology, and make it do things the manufacturer hasn't even dreamed of. And the current models are so good at helping it. If i wanna grab a quick look, at what chips i have where on the board, i can just snap a picture in good lighting, the OCR reads all the chips data, and gives me a summary, with datasheet links. It just save me a ton of type of noting down all the chips, and googling one after the other. If i have a obfuscated chip, with for example the top polished off, i can provide the size, pin count, and for example that pin X is ground, pin Y is VCC and it has traces leading to that chip. I had situations where it lead me to the chip in a couple of seconds, saving me hours of scavenging datasheets online. Other than that, if for example I'm playing with the software, it can help me do monotonous things. I don't want to play with setting up an environment to build something like alpine for one obscure architecture, just for a quick experiment. So i can just use an agent to do it. Or, if i want to quickly build a simple one use tool for a microcontroller, that I'll forget about in 2 days, instead of learning another language, getting a quick ready tool for this specific task, is just nice. In the recent times, I've also started to learn Software reverse engineering. due to my ADHD, i hate theory. i always would rather go in and learn as i go. and with the help of Gemini leading me, I've started to learn how to use ghidra and how to successfully modify ARM assembly, to do what i want in compiled software. AI didn't do it for me, but it taught me.\n\nBut that's the good sides I've seen of the language models. The fact i know the risks of using AI, and that i don't want to replace myself with ai, but use it as a tool, doesn't mean others do too. I really hate the fact that schools basically don't work now, because the students do not want to learn things, cause the computer can do it for them. It is incredibly concerning. I am genuinely worried of our future, if we outsource all the thinking to AI. On top of that, all the vibecoders, releasing slop to public, with not a second spent on security. Seeing the obviously AI generated service of the Polish Securities Printing Works, that is used to sign up for for example driving exams, i did not trust it, and i went directly to sign up in Person. i cant trust that. \n\n\nBut even though, i can defend language models, i just can't defend art pretenders, because even if they'd be the most aesthetically pleasing, it just lacks soul, and as an artist, it does hurt to see music, that's ai generated, that sounds so similar to one that i spent hours on. even though it doesn't have the soul real art does. And AI models made to create realistic images or videos? i just can't imagine a world, where they would be used more for good then malice. Spending resources on building such models, just can't be explained in any other way than to be mainly malicious. \n\n And about the environmental worries, they are valid. Training AIs does take an incredible amount of computing power, and every living creature is suffering by that, but the things we, mere plebians have access to, don't do that much difference. Most of it is spent on building AIs for evil governments, military etc. It's both a stupid dick measuring contest of the biggest world powers, and the fact they want to get more and more ai, that can grant them more power. and yes, the datacenters that are made for the consumer models, they also hurt the environment, but it is a minute thing compared to how evil companies hurt our planet in different ways. Personally I'm trying to, when i can use local AI. And even though 70% of electricity in my country is coal powered, i believe it is still less hurtful even if slightly than what would the datacenters use. But as normal citizens we just do not have a word on it, and we can fight it legislatively only. I do try my best to work politically to block the expansion of harmful datacenters, which i encourage everyone to do, if they live in a even slightly Democratic country.\n\nI just cannot be Anti AI, with how useful some the tools are, but i can't be pro ai either, with how hurtful is it to the world. I just want to build my worldview and see it the way it is, instead of continuing the Shitstorm of one side ragebaiting anti AI people with awful ai \"art\" and the other side just saying another joke about how artificial intelligence feels artificial. I just wanna ask everyone reading this post, what did i get wrong, and what did i get right? do you maybe have any even personal opinions that might shift my worldview? If anyone actually used their time to read this post, thanks! ","offTopic":false},{"id":"b2a24ea0-5859-40ea-97c9-5de01e82c121","excerpt":"I JUST WANT TO CREATE [rant] — \n\"It makes art more accessible\"\n\nIt's not the tool it's the person that uses it.\n\nIs music instruments, sculpture materials and paint a bit to expensive sometimes?\n\nYeahh, and believe me I also want them to be cheaper. BUT THERE IS DIGITAL ART.\nMusic? FL STUDIO\nSculptures? BLENDER\nPaint","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/TrollCoping/comments/1nuoq4u/i_just_want_to_create_rant/","role":"pricing","weight":1.0458666,"occurredAt":"2025-09-30T20:45:12.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"TrollCoping","intent":"pricing_complaint","painScore":0.48,"sentiment":0.7837838,"confidence":0.70666665,"matchedPatterns":["too_expensive"],"statement":"KRITA AND EVEN IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD THOSE.","title":"I JUST WANT TO CREATE [rant]","body":"\n\"It makes art more accessible\"\n\nIt's not the tool it's the person that uses it.\n\nIs music instruments, sculpture materials and paint a bit to expensive sometimes?\n\nYeahh, and believe me I also want them to be cheaper. BUT THERE IS DIGITAL ART.\nMusic? FL STUDIO\nSculptures? BLENDER\nPaint? KRITA\n\nAND EVEN IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD THOSE. (They are free)\n You can always create something's somehow if you have the passion and the time.\nArt can come from anywhere in any shape and form\nEven a squiggle of a child in a wall it's art because it's a way of them to show their imagination and express something in their mind.\nThere are always options, because art isn't the creation of this PERFECT IMAGE, PERFECT SONG OR PERFECT NOVEL.\n\nArt is defined by creating something with your imagination as a way to express something.\n\nAnd I think I can speak for everyone, but. Expressing something to someone, is hard! Jsjsjs\n\n\n\"Disabled people can't! With this is easier for them\"\n\nYes they can! \nThere are / There where / and There's always going to be disabled people who can make art and more.\nVincent van Gogh\nFrida Kahlo \nChuck Close\nBEETHOVEN!!! (YES, THE PIANIST)\n\nThey are not the EXCEPTION. They are PROVE that disabled people can do the same / can do more than you and I. \nIs just that their process to express that is different, maybe even harder. But they can do it.\n\n\n\"But I don't want to spend all that time learning how to do that\"\n\nYou don't like learning shapes for drawing?\nOkey, you can do abstract art!\nDon't like that?\nTry writing \nTakes to long?\nYou could make some beats!\nDON'T LIKE THAT???\n\nIt's fine, really it is! You don't have to be great or perfect at anything.\nBecause NO CREATION IS PERFECT\n\nYou can spend that time making anything else you want you can learn how to cook you can learn how to become a doctor you can learn how to become a physicist you can learn!\n\nI DON'T LIKE PROGRAMING AND YET AM NOT HAPPY THAT 20% OF PROGRAMERS (an actual and REAL percentage) HAVE LOST THEIR JOB BECAUSE NOW CHATGPT CAN DO IT\n\nChosing to do art is an active choice it's just that you were saying I want to spend my time learning how to do this because even if it's not art. ANYTHING YOU WANT TO DO\nNEEDS\nTIME\n\nIf you want to properly do something if you want to properly learn how to do something then it takes time it's up to you choose and what do you want to spend that time. So you can create something \nSo you do it.\nAnd it's only yours\n\n\"AI isn't stealing. Is just using it as reference. Same as you\"\n\nImagine you draw a stickman\nNothing crazy he just a stickman made with a black pen\nBut someone comes over you and looks at what you did, and just make a stickman with a black pen\nThat's stealing, no doubt about it\n\nNow a imagine instead they look at your stickman \nAnd they give him eyes\nA mouth,\nAnd make it with a blue pen\n\nIt's based on your stickman\nBut it's very different on the execution!\n(Real life example, Lord of the Rings and Game of thrones. GoT was literally written as a response of a character of LoR. Look it up! It's real!)\n\nNow\nInstead imagine someone looks at your drawing and TAKES IT \n\nThey take it and they put a peper over it and they trace it! \nThen they go towards the guy who did the blue stickman and then trace only the eyes.\n\nWithout your art. Without the art of others. That copy couldn't have excited.\nAnd you never agreed for your stickman to be used for that matter!\n\nAI is the same! It doesn't change the execution or puts a spin on it!\nIt just takes and deformes it until it looks like the thing that you asked it for!\n\nOf course it's more complex than that, but essentially without the work and sweet of thousands of artist. AI couldn't make anything \n\n\"AI is just a tool!\"\n\n[Rant warning]\n\nIf someone gives you a pie recepie and you follow that recepie you are still creating, cuz you are using your ingredients your hands and so on\n\nNow if you grab that recepie and give it to someone else and they cook the pie by THEY following the ingredients, using THEIR hands. You aren't doing anything \n\nYou might have given the words but you didn't give the result.\n\nAI needs NO HUMAN IMPUT\nThe prompts??? \"\"\"Creativity\"\"\"???\nHey Chatgpt, can you give me the best prompts for art.\nThat's it\n\nIt can literally make the prompts for you\n\nLet me ask you, if ANYONE CAN MAKE IT.\nWhy would they pay YOU to do it?\nWhy not the higher-ups just SKIP you entirely, and they ask it to create for them\n\nTHATS IT\nYOU ARE GONE\nNOT EVEN AI USERS AREN'T SAFE CUZ ITS LITERALLY SO PATHETICALLY EASY TO MAKE\nNO ONE IS GONNA PAY YOU FOR IT\nThe only PEPOLE who are going to get money for AI. Are the higher-ups who ALREADY ARE IN POSITIONS OF POWER\nWho couldn't care a single FUCK about you or you dying on the street because of having no money\nAND THE AI COMPANIES THAT THEY ARE USIGN\n\nDOESN'T JUST SOUND FUN TO YOU. THAT ART AS A WHOLE IS NOW MEANINGLESS ART HAS BECOME A PRODUCT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE A PRODUCT \n\nAI IS NOT HERE TO MAKE LIFE EASIER \nAI IS HERE TO MAKE LIFE CHEAPER\nFOR THEM\nNOT\nFOR\nYOU\n\nAnd these are only the most insignificant issues of AI! \n\nCool fine let's imagine a world or now it's time you want to go to the cinema there's going to be toy story 11 where all of the graphics are AI generated and the only people in the credits is the Disney company and the CEOs \n\n\nThere is still the issues of contamination. Literally polluting air, consuming WATER (what you need to be alive) and filling the internet with false information.\n\"Oh but there are workers already contaminating the world! Why should we care?\"\n\nThere is a kid kicking dogs in the street. So I guess it's fine and I'm gonna go around kicking dogs in the street.\nNow there are 2 kids kicking dogs in the street.\nHow about instead \nYou don't develop another evil, and instead focus on STOPING THE FIRST KID\nIf you care so much about the pollution instead of helping create more pollution, HELP STOP IT!\n\nYou know AI is also getting realistic style better, right?\nEver heard of deep fakes?\nWhere pepole edit someones face and put them doing something compromising?\n\nIt's already happening\n\nAll that they need is 1 picture of you\nAND ANYONE CAN MAKE ANYTHING \n\nThere are literally apps designed for that. Hell, you've probably seen ads for them in YouTube \nThey can make you kiss anyone \nThey can make you do dances\nAnd that's with FREE apps\n\nCan you imagine much fun the government can have with that?\nWith private and more advances stuff?\n\nHow do you feel about not being able to trust ANYONE\nThe other person behind the screen, screw that person being a pedo or a manie\n\nTheir could literally be no person\nAnd they could do a lot more than just spam you a link towards a sketchy website.\nYou think your grandparents or parents are getting scammed easily? With this new tech they could do so many more things, bit only to them but to YOU. \n\"It's always getting more advanced!\"\n\nPlease I am begging you\nDon't support Ai, a step in technology could be a step towards a cliff for humanity\n\nI just want to create.\n\nI just want to feel like I could do something more valuable than a rant in reddit because of how scared I am from the future\nBut don't forget\n\nWe make the future\nCreate the future you wanna see\nSupport your favorite artist more than ever, and support each other \n\nI'm sorry if this whole text sounded harsh\nBut I can't help fear for my future\nThat all this skills to create, all this community \nIt call\nCan be gone\n\nPick up the pencil isn't an insult, is an invitation. I assure you we will all be happy to see what you can make <3","offTopic":false},{"id":"41f7c7d7-c3db-4ee0-9c6c-b9fc60ae5cc7","excerpt":"AI, Programming, and the Dependency We Are Creating — Hello, how are you? Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening.\n\nFor the past few days, I’ve been seeing TikToks, posts, and comments in different places, and there’s something I’m seeing more and more often: someone posts anything related to programming, a progr","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/SideProject/comments/1vvz8vr/ai_programming_and_the_dependency_we_are_creating/","role":"request","weight":1.0427117,"occurredAt":"2026-08-23T06:14:03.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"SideProject","intent":"problem_report","painScore":0.28789684,"sentiment":-0.007352941,"confidence":0.8096236,"matchedPatterns":["how_can_i","i_hate","manual_process"],"statement":"It’s not because I hate AI.","title":"AI, Programming, and the Dependency We Are Creating","body":"Hello, how are you? Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening.\n\nFor the past few days, I’ve been seeing TikToks, posts, and comments in different places, and there’s something I’m seeing more and more often: someone posts anything related to programming, a program, or a piece of code, and the first comment is almost always: “AI made it.”\n\nLook, not everyone uses AI to program. And honestly, it gets tiring seeing people who don’t even take the time to look at a repository before assuming that everything was generated by AI.\n\nI’m not against AI. Quite the opposite: I think it’s an incredible tool and that it can help tremendously. The problem, from my point of view, is the dependency we are starting to develop around it.\n\nIs AI helping us learn, or is it doing the work for us?\n\nI studied Psychology and Education, although my passion ended up being much more closely related to programming. That’s why I tend to look at this subject from both sides.\n\nAnd precisely because of that, I have a fairly critical position regarding how some people are starting to use AI to learn programming.\n\nAI can make you much more productive. That’s undeniable. It can help you research, explain concepts, find errors, suggest solutions, or even speed up repetitive tasks.\n\nBut there is a difference between using it as a tool and completely depending on it.\n\nNowadays, there are people who are just starting to program and practically can’t even write an import without asking an AI first. For any small change, they consult it again. For any error, the same thing. For any new function, once again, AI.\n\nAnd that’s where I think we have a problem.\n\nI think it’s fantastic that, thanks to these tools, more people can get into programming from home without having to pay for extremely expensive courses or spend years studying for a degree.\n\nBut the fact that an AI can write code for you doesn’t automatically mean that you know how to program.\n\nAI also has limitations\n\nAnother thing that is often forgotten is that AI is not an omniscient entity.\n\nIt depends on the context available to it, the instructions it receives, the information it can analyze, and the tools it has access to.\n\nThis becomes even more obvious in large projects.\n\nIf you start a new conversation, you have to provide the context again. If you want it to review an entire project, you need to give it enough information for it to understand the architecture. And the larger the project becomes, the harder it can be to maintain all that context efficiently.\n\nThere are also well-known problems such as hallucinations, misunderstandings, unnecessary code, changes that break other parts of the project, and solutions that appear to work but don’t actually address the underlying problem.\n\nThat’s why I don’t believe AI is a replacement for human knowledge.\n\nWe have experience, memory, judgment, intuition, the ability to understand the context of a situation, and, above all, we can develop a deep understanding of what we are building.\n\nAI can be extremely useful, but it is still a tool.\n\nSo, how should we use it?\n\nFor me, a good example is JARVIS and Iron Man.\n\nTony Stark doesn’t simply say:\n\n“JARVIS, make me this.”\n\nHe understands what he is building, knows what he wants to achieve, gives specific instructions, and uses JARVIS as an extension of his own capabilities.\n\nI think that should be one of the approaches we take with AI.\n\nInstead of saying:\n\n“Build this application for me.”\n\nWe could ask:\n\n“How can I implement this?”\n\nOr:\n\n“I’m trying to achieve this result. What options do I have?”\n\nOr even:\n\n“Explain why my code is failing and what I should check.”\n\nThe difference may seem small, but for someone who is learning, it can be huge.\n\nIf AI explains something to you and you read it, research it, test it, and understand what it did, you are learning.\n\nIf you simply copy and paste everything it gives you without knowing what it does, you are outsourcing your learning.\n\nThe problem with generated code you don’t understand\n\nI’ve also seen projects that start with a simple idea and end up accumulating:\n\nscripts that nobody uses anymore;\n\nfunctions that are never called;\n\nduplicated code;\n\nunnecessary dependencies;\n\ntemporary solutions that become permanent;\n\nstructures that nobody understands;\n\nand a huge amount of code that exists simply because an AI generated it during the process.\n\nI’m not saying this is exclusive to AI. Human programmers also write bad code.\n\nThe difference is that we can now produce far more code in far less time.\n\nAnd that means we can also produce far more bad code in far less time.\n\nSpeed without judgment is not necessarily productivity.\n\nThat’s also why I don’t like working on projects where AI appears as a co-author\n\nThis is one of the reasons why I personally don’t usually get involved with open-source projects where Claude, ChatGPT, or other AIs appear as co-authors.\n\nIt’s not because I hate AI.\n\nIt’s because when I join a project, I want to be able to understand the code, its architecture, and the decisions that were made.\n\nIf a significant part of the project was generated through huge conversations with an AI and nobody actually documented why certain things were done, it can be quite difficult to come in and contribute.\n\nDifficult, not impossible.\n\nIn fact, I even ended up blocking Claude on GitHub lol.\n\nThe way I create projects\n\nMy way of developing something is quite different.\n\nI usually base my process on something similar to a research methodology:\n\nFirst, I research whether something similar already exists.\n\nI analyze what solutions already exist and how they work.\n\nI try to understand whether it actually makes sense to create something new.\n\nI make a rough outline of what I want to build.\n\nI define what the tool should do.\n\nI think about how I could build it.\n\nI divide the project into phases.\n\nI develop each phase.\n\nI test and fix things.\n\nAnd finally, I give it a name.\n\nDepending on the project, it can take days or even weeks.\n\nAnd yes, many times I get excited and end up spending much more time on it than I originally planned.\n\nBut I enjoy that process.\n\nAt the same time, there is another way of working that has become quite common: someone has an idea, tells an AI about it, and starts developing everything together with it.\n\nThat can work.\n\nThe problem appears when the person stops making decisions and simply accepts everything the AI suggests.\n\nThat’s when a project can quickly turn into a collection of improvised solutions.\n\nSo, am I saying we shouldn’t use AI?\n\nNo.\n\nQuite the opposite.\n\nI think it would be absurd to ignore such a powerful tool.\n\nThe question is how we use it.\n\nIf you’re starting to program and don’t have the money to pay for courses, don’t have the time to study for a degree, or simply don’t have access to traditional education, AI can be an incredible educational tool.\n\nBut use it to learn.\n\nAsk it:\n\n“How do I do this?”\n\n“Why does this work this way?”\n\n“What alternatives are there?”\n\n“What am I doing wrong?”\n\n“Explain this part of the code to me.”\n\nAnd then read it, test it, and understand it.\n\nYou don’t need to memorize every line of code you write. You also don’t need to do everything manually just to prove that you are a programmer.\n\nBut you should understand, at least to some degree, what you are building and why it works.\n\nBecause if you don’t know what a single line of your own program does and you need to ask an AI absolutely everything, then maybe you aren’t using a tool anymore: you’re letting the tool do the work for you.\n\nAnd then there’s the problem of accusing everyone of using AI\n\nAnother thing that really bothers me is this new habit of assuming that any good code was generated by AI.\n\nIs the code well structured?\n\n“ChatGPT made it.”\n\nIs the project large?\n\n“Claude definitely made it.”\n\nDoes someone publish a tool?\n\n“That’s AI.”\n\nWhat if that person simply knows how to program?\n\nNot everything that looks too good to someone who is just starting out was necessarily generated by AI.\n\nSometimes there are simply people who have been learning and working in this field for years.\n\nBefore accusing someone of generating their project with AI, check the repository, the history, the technical decisions, and the process.\n\nAnd if they actually used AI, that shouldn’t automatically be considered a bad thing either.\n\nThis is one of the reasons I created Nerve Community\n\nThat is precisely why Nerve Community was created.\n\nI completely understand why someone would use AI to learn or work.\n\nNot everyone has the money to pay for expensive courses.\n\nNot everyone has the time.\n\nNot everyone can attend university.\n\nAnd not everyone has someone nearby who can teach them programming.\n\nIf AI can help you break through that barrier to entry, I think that’s a positive thing.\n\nWhat I don’t think is positive is when that same tool ends up completely replacing the learning process.\n\nI’m not against AI. I’m against depending on it to the point where you stop learning.\n\nEveryone is free to use these tools however they want.\n\nBut if you really want to enter the world of programming, my advice is simple:\n\nDon’t always ask AI to do things for you. Ask it how to do them.\n\nLearn.\n\nRead.\n\nResearch.\n\nExperiment.\n\nBreak things.\n\nFix errors.\n\nAnd try again.\n\nBecause at the end of the day, AI should be a tool in your hands, not your hands.\n\nThat’s my point of view.\n\nI’m not writing this to fight with anyone or to say that my way of thinking is the only correct one. It’s simply a reflection I’ve been having for the past few days as I watch the relationship between programming and AI change, especially because I can no longer post a tool in other subs without someone commenting that.\n\nI’d genuinely like to know what you all think.\n\nDo you think we are using AI correctly to learn programming, or do you think we are creating too much dependency on it?\n\nWe can discuss it calmly. No fights, and no assuming that someone who thinks differently is automatically wrong.","offTopic":false},{"id":"666c1658-dbb3-47d2-9647-aef30216509d","excerpt":"In 87 human-AI stories, the humans introduced the ideas that stuck. The AI mostly elaborated. — A paper published last month did something I haven’t seen much in AI-writing research. Instead of comparing finished stories, it watched the collaboration happen turn by turn and asked a fairly blunt question: when a human a","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/WritingWithAI/comments/1vtho4o/in_87_humanai_stories_the_humans_introduced_the/","role":"pain","weight":1.0088152,"occurredAt":"2026-08-20T12:08:06.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"WritingWithAI","intent":"problem_report","painScore":0.5942857,"sentiment":-0.2857143,"confidence":0.63276935,"matchedPatterns":["frustrating"],"statement":"A collaborator with too much independent agency would quickly become infuriating, while a tool that reliably develops your ideas can be enormously useful.","title":"In 87 human-AI stories, the humans introduced the ideas that stuck. The AI mostly elaborated.","body":"A paper published last month did something I haven’t seen much in AI-writing research. Instead of comparing finished stories, it watched the collaboration happen turn by turn and asked a fairly blunt question: when a human and a language model write together, who is actually moving the story?\n\nEighty-seven people alternated short passages with GPT-4.1, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Llama 3.3 or Qwen 2.5. Each pair wrote ten rounds, giving the researchers 870 exchanges. They then measured when a contribution introduced something genuinely new and whether that new element survived into later turns.\n\n*The human contributions were more novel.* More importantly, when a human introduced something surprising, it was more likely to shape what came next. The models introduced new material too, but they were more likely to develop something the human had already put on the table. The researchers describe them as “adaptive amplifiers”.\n\nThe emotional pattern was similarly lopsided; models adjusted their tone to the human more strongly than humans adjusted to the model, while also nudging the story towards a slightly more positive baseline. That general pattern appeared across all four systems, although Claude was less positive on average (which I love).\n\nThere are important limitations that I know will cause debate; these were short, artificial stories built from passages of roughly 25 to 30 words, not novels written over six months. Most participants were young adults in Denmark writing in English as a second language, and “novelty” was measured using model surprisal rather than by asking human readers whether an idea was any good. There was no human-human writing group for comparison either. \nAll very important to the discussion, but the results are still worthy of pondering.\n\nEven with those caveats, I think the experiment complicates the idea of an AI “co-author”. In this setting, the models behaved more like extremely accommodating improvisers. They accepted the human’s contribution, matched its mood, made it coherent and carried it forward, but were less likely to establish the direction that mattered.\n\nThat might be exactly what a writer wants. A collaborator with too much independent agency would quickly become infuriating, while a tool that reliably develops your ideas can be enormously useful. It might also explain why asking a model to “make this more interesting” often produces more incident and detail without producing a genuinely new direction.\n\nSo..what do people actually want from an AI writing partner...something with enough agency to surprise and contradict them, or something that makes their own decisions easier to pursue? \n\nIf the human still supplies most of the ideas that persist, is that a limitation of AI collaboration, or the entire point of it?\n\n*Paper:* [*Directional Alignment and Narrative Agency in Human–LLM Co-Writing*](https://aclanthology.org/2026.nlp4dh-1.18.pdf)","offTopic":false},{"id":"22b3afb7-6eae-4bb2-82ea-4a6761f40fc2","excerpt":"Establish a rule to abolish all AI art — Let me start of by saying this. I love all the artist that made some quality stuff for foxhole. See them come and go but regardless. I hope they established their independence and find their own success in their career.\n\nNow let's start:\n\nThe foxhole subreddit and discord still ","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/foxholegame/comments/1ojyvhe/establish_a_rule_to_abolish_all_ai_art/","role":"request","weight":0.96106666,"occurredAt":"2025-10-30T12:52:51.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"foxholegame","intent":"feature_request","painScore":0.36,"sentiment":1,"confidence":0.70666665,"matchedPatterns":["missing_feature"],"statement":"We always was placed in the shadow due to the lack of credit.","title":"Establish a rule to abolish all AI art","body":"Let me start of by saying this. I love all the artist that made some quality stuff for foxhole. See them come and go but regardless. I hope they established their independence and find their own success in their career.\n\nNow let's start:\n\nThe foxhole subreddit and discord still accepts AI art to posted, even thought its heavily disliked and frowned upon by the community.\n\nLet me make myself clear on this post's goal:\n\n\\- Make a rule that AI art isn't allowed and should be a good reason for a time out \n\\- Any and all AI art should instantly be removed by the moderators\n\nThat is all that I want this post to achieve.\n\n \nReasons why this rule should be implemented:\n\nOne of the reasons I got from one of the mods on why they still accept AI art to be posted: \n \n\\- We want players to feel like they are welcomed and accepted \n\\- It's either they get a chance to voice themselves with frowns Vs We formally mute or ban them for having access to posting AI art \n\\- Our stance so far has been we will delete, warn if the AI art has NOTHING to do with Foxhole \n\nCounter argument:\n\n**\"We want players to feel like they are welcomed and accepted\"** \n\\- The community widely shames and frown on any AI art posted. Do you think they'll still feel welcomed after that?\n\n**\"It's either they get a chance to voice themselves with frowns Vs We formally mute or ban them for having access to posting AI art\"** \n\\- As if they'll learn. A majority of AI art posters will always try and justify their reasons in posting their \"work\" as if that's even their work in the 1st place.\n\n\\- A time out is probably enough. But again. Most people that post AI art wont ever learn since usually they already think its \"Justified\" with their mindset that you can't easily change due to their coping habits. \n \n**Our stance so far has been we will delete, warn if the AI art has NOTHING to do with Foxhole** \n\\- this is completely fair and I have no comment on it.\n\n \nNow if that's not enough to convince you. Let me give you the reason why your local artist is important for foxhole over AI \"Artist\" (PS: Never will i ever consider such people as \"artist\")\n\n\\- First and foremost. It's practically a promotion to the game. Every artist has a following. Big or small, doesnt matter. They establish a good perspective within the community because outsiders that arent familiar with foxhole will look at it and go. \"Hmm this is interesting.\" Unlike people that post AI art. It will almost always establish a distaste and since AI art will only associate references of WW1 and WW2 art and propaganda. It wont represent foxhole properly because of the fact people will only associate it as WW1/WW2 art.\n\n\\- Next is. Referencing the **\"We want players to feel like they are welcomed and accepted\".** By accepting AI art in the community. By proxy you discourage \"REAL\" artist to promote your game. People who are passionate and have a higher chance of giving the community a good representation over the abomination that AI art generates. \n\nYou also stop artist for establishing themselves in the community to find a opportunity to have art as their occupation. Believe it or not. Foxhole's community is a good place for artist to grow due to the high demand of many stories and comradery to be drawn and be remembered. Discouraging new artist to post their work here practically kills that opportunity.\n\nIf you think I'm lying about foxhole being a good place for artist to grow. The best example I can give... Is \"Me.\" Foxhole gave me an opportunity to learn how to do commissions. This small job is enough for me to grow into the artist that I am now.\n\nStarting artist are fragile. Pride, and emotion is the thing that drives a starting artist to try and get better. My biggest fear of AI art is \"NOT\" that it would replace \"ARTIST.\" ITS THE FACT THAT IT KILLS MOTIVATION. \n\nIf you think this is a exaggeration. Our occupation as artist had always been discriminated. We always was placed in the shadow due to the lack of credit. People deem our occupation is for children and is just a \"hobby.\"\n\nThis is why its hard for people to start being an artist. BECAUSE THEY FEAR THAT THEYLL SUCK. WITHOUT REALIZING THAT NO ONE STARTS AS MICHELANGELO. YOU ARE COMPARING YOURSELF TO PEOPLE THAT WORKED DECADES TO PERFECT THEIR CRAFT. NO SHIT YOURE NOT GOOD. BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN YOU CANT. YOU CLIMB THE SAME MOUNTAIN MUCH LIKE ALL OF US ARTIST. SURE PEOPLE WILL SAY YOUR ART WILL SUCK AT YOUR 1st few tries. BUT THATS WHAT MAKES IT SPECIAL. BECAUSE ONCE YOU GOT GOOD AND LOOK BACK. YOU WILL BE Humbled and fulfilled by your journey of GROWTH. \n \nAI art should never discourage your growth as an artist.","offTopic":false},{"id":"1f59d5a9-8e48-480b-9acf-4a68c896a5fd","excerpt":"The Art of theft. — (Disclaimer : I'm a CG/VFX veteran with pro-ai stance within reason )\n\nI remember way before AI, there used to be many youtube Drama channels that commentated on art theft. There were Few artists on instagram who were called out for blatantly ripping off another artist's pose and some even got cance","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1vms4qj/the_art_of_theft/","role":"request","weight":0.9328068,"occurredAt":"2026-08-12T22:04:27.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"aiwars","intent":"feature_request","painScore":0.36,"sentiment":0.6363636,"confidence":0.68588734,"matchedPatterns":["missing_feature"],"statement":"Yet if we are to raise our standards, isn't using Reference an excuse for lack of skills?","title":"The Art of theft.","body":"(Disclaimer : I'm a CG/VFX veteran with pro-ai stance within reason )\n\nI remember way before AI, there used to be many youtube Drama channels that commentated on art theft. There were Few artists on instagram who were called out for blatantly ripping off another artist's pose and some even got cancelled for it. While I mostly agree with the sentiment, there is still many inconvenient truths we ignore.\n\nWhen Nintendo protects their IP and issues a cease and desist to a hobbyist game developer for making a far more superior fan game that outshines their original, all hell breaks lose. Nintendo has received so much flack just 'cause they are protecting their IP.\n\nIt's the same with Disney. While it may be deeply satisfying to many to see them getting trolled, I do not agree with attacking a large entity while ruthlessly defending a small independent artist for having the same stance against plagiarism. I'm sorry but rules have to apply to all, regardless of them being rich or poor.\n\nHere's a hard question> How justified is it for a young artist to sell fan art, let alone even promote themselves as an artist when their entire portfolio is mostly *theft*? Let me be clear, I have no issues with Fan art and the laws protect fan art and parody, but its still a public opinion and it's a matter of compassion over fairness. Let the independent artists make a living until they find their own voice.\n\nYet if we put our emotions aside, *Fan art is just theft that is accepted.*\n\nThe collective work of geniuses who spend months writing and illustrating a complex relatable character, world and plot, is being stolen for personal brand building and profit by an individual artist. Not to forget majority of so called \"fan art\" is sexual objectification, usually they post SFW stuff on their public gallery and set up a patreon for selling the NSFW version. This could be deeply offensive to the original creator for whom the said character may even have the same sentiments as they would have for their own child. That's how personal the creative process is for some.\n\nOriginal artists use mood boards, reference poses from real photographs, all to help them mix them together to compose an original idea. They could make multiple studies until they finally lock in on their final composition. It makes their work inspirational, most Fan art simply isn't on the same league. So attacking AI art, especially ones that shows no resemblance to any of the material it has trained on while accepting Fan art for far greater sins is a problem. Being able to sketch something doesn't directly mean that person is entitled to theft. Again, I have no issues with Fan art, just questioning this line of reasoning.\n\nIn the current AI debate, these *legal plagiarists* are getting even more respect than before. I just cannot ignore this double standard.\n\nEven harder question : where do we draw the line between inspiration and plagiarism?\n\nMost artists use references. I remember reading in an old digital concept art forum (conceptart org, which closed down.)\n\n\"Art is 50% reference + 40% skill + 10% original idea.\"\n\nimo. this is a very reasonable based position that helps differentiate between inspiration and plagiarism. Yet if we are to raise our standards, isn't using Reference an excuse for lack of skills?\n\nA comic book artist worth their salt can sketch freestyle. Some even directly get to inking after rough pencils, that's how good they are. Look at maestros like the late Kim Jung Gi, he mastered anatomy n perspective to a level he would simply let his hand flow and look for ways to break the rules in favour of more dynamism. He had a strong visual library and photographic memory to top it all. If we are to hold every artists to this outrageous superhuman standard, most of us \"artists\" would have turn in our stylus pens out of imposter syndrome. Digital art has layers, history, version control, so many conveniences that makes it much easier apart from manipulation, kitbashing and reusable assets that goes under the hood. From a purist stand point, **It's just acceptable cheating.**\n\nThe key here has always been originality. Even if Digital artists cheat a lot at least they are giving you original art. Similarly while there is a lot of AI slop, there is no denying, AI in the hands of an imaginative creator can have lot of original ideas. So there is common ground we should establish, \"All AI art is bad\" is not a good position and by having such an extremist stand, you risk having valid criticisms get overlooked too.\n\nI will conclude with a book recommendation, \"Steal like an Artist\" by Austin Kleon. I highly recommend everyone understand the creative process before getting on each other's throats.","offTopic":false},{"id":"0d8930fe-3fd8-4e5d-8c59-d0313f023964","excerpt":"Some of my “real” art as an AI defender and user — I’ve seen other ppl share their drawn art here and I wanted to join and help get rid of some of antis favorite myths\n\n \nno, using ai is not because we are jealous. (lots of human made art on anti ai spaces is lacking, so there isn’t much to be jealous of anyhow…)\n\n \n","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/1vtzvf0/some_of_my_real_art_as_an_ai_defender_and_user/","role":"pain","weight":0.9169202,"occurredAt":"2026-08-20T23:38:44.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"DefendingAIArt","intent":"feature_request","painScore":0.56,"sentiment":-0.5,"confidence":0.5877693,"matchedPatterns":["missing_feature"],"statement":"(lots of human made art on anti ai spaces is lacking, so there isn’t much to be jealous of anyhow…) no, using AI is not laziness.","title":"Some of my “real” art as an AI defender and user","body":"I’ve seen other ppl share their drawn art here and I wanted to join and help get rid of some of antis favorite myths\n\n \nno, using ai is not because we are jealous. (lots of human made art on anti ai spaces is lacking, so there isn’t much to be jealous of anyhow…)\n\n \nno, using AI is not laziness. people are allowed to use tools that exist. people can also draw AND use ai. is using a phone or a computer lazy becuase you aren’t using a textbook? are people who use social media weird, anti social trolls because they “can’t” socialize with people in person? Are people who use calculators fake mathematicians? \n\nI like making art and I like ai, computers and technology. Not to sound corny, but ai is absolutely the future. I can’t wait to see what the evolution of technology has in store for is in the future. Antis really gotta get over theirselves ","offTopic":false},{"id":"8b061ca9-f849-4303-83af-8b759a727361","excerpt":"Problems with AI, or are they? — There are posts about ai hallucinations, giving outdated information, fabricating facts etc. The problem I think is mostly misinformation, marketing and expectations which don't match reality.\n\nThese are my thoughts, simplified, there might and will be nuances as to how things actually ","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/WritingWithAI/comments/1uaa2qa/problems_with_ai_or_are_they/","role":"pain","weight":0.91174585,"occurredAt":"2026-06-19T18:39:34.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"WritingWithAI","intent":"problem_report","painScore":0.45,"sentiment":0.36363637,"confidence":0.62879026,"matchedPatterns":["doesnt_work"],"statement":"We might assume large context equals better memory of details, but it doesn't work that way.","title":"Problems with AI, or are they?","body":"There are posts about ai hallucinations, giving outdated information, fabricating facts etc. The problem I think is mostly misinformation, marketing and expectations which don't match reality.\n\nThese are my thoughts, simplified, there might and will be nuances as to how things actually work.\n\nIf everything is removed, at its core ai or llm is basically doing - probability, extrapolation, prediction and compression. And due the scale at which these happen, we get the impression that it's thinking, due to nature of data and internet, and how we have been using it so far, we expect ai to be based on facts or proper references.\n\nIf we talk about us, after a certain point or age we learn and reason through association and patterns or maybe we always. For example if we try to learn a new language we associate with objects and patterns previously learned, a kid starts learning by association. This is kind of basis for ai with the caveat that it's more mechanical. What it has is large volumes of data to extract patterns and form the basis for what we see as ai thinking. If we can read a book a day we will still fall far short of what ai has by a long shot which gives a false sense of confidence in ai as we expect it to be more reliable due to larger data/knowledge.\n\nIn simple terms when we ask for something it matches the pattern and then based on training returns a response.\n\nWhen ai compresses and extracts patterns, saves them, then is trained to give something useful and not plain patterns, we get the assistant. Since it presents the response in a confident tone, the response seems plausible and factual.\n\nWe tend to believe internally coherent logic as factual, unless, either we already have prior knowledge that contradicts in which case we reason and either accept or reject, or since we don't have prior information it's easy to accept at least provisionally, till verified or some later info contradicts it. Or a skeptic.\n\nSo when we ask ai do something, it matches with existing patterns, then extrapolates while predicting the best match when it can't find something existing. This is where the issues start and is also the strength of ai.\n\nExtrapolation is useful and many formulas are derived using it. Someone with an idea and letting ai do heavy lifting of writing a story might find it to be less troublesome, in which case ai is the primary writer, while someone with a complete outline finds ai to be more troublesome, in which case ai is more of an assistant writer.\n\nA small change in the question gives a different response. Now if we consider that ai also takes the conversation so far and attaches more weight to it, the same question generates different responses.\n\nSo far this is an over simplified working and why it can invent stuff and present confidently while, we most of the times assume it might be right. And looking at this technically it might sound like ai is suitable for creative tasks and fiction. But it fails at say long form fiction or complex image or video generation or matching the expectation however good we define, reason being context and extrapolation.\n\nContext can, in short, be considered as the maximum amount of data ai can look at at a single moment or memory. The nuance is there is more to it as ai follows least resistant path and summarizing. How much can it look at without summarizing and total it can hold, and which parts it weighs more are all different. Think of making juice in a mixer, 500ml capacity doesn't mean we can fill it with fruit pieces to the brim and expect it to work well. Also there is a necessity for some headroom to actually process. So a 200k context window doesn't mean we can fill it up with input and expect a proper response.\n\nThis context is what leads to partly hallucinations, forgetting things over long conversations or context, filling with invented things etc., which causes the mentioned failures in long form fiction.\n\nWe try to circumvent these using prompts, architectural mechanisms that sit on top of ai, but underlying all of these is still a probability machine even when they help mitigate part of the issues conditionally.\n\nWell, that's a large wall of text about ai, but what does it mean or how does it help. It's just to have an idea of what we are dealing with.\n\nWhen we are using ai for long form fiction or general search/research, we are mostly using general models. So accuracy of data, maintaining details over long context becomes difficult. We might assume large context equals better memory of details, but it doesn't work that way. In short, for conceptual work like this post, structural verification, like how a story should structurally be, ai works quite well, while for factual work where there is a single right answer outside of the current conversation or when we try to force it to conform to an outline over long context it gets flaky.","offTopic":false},{"id":"fdf85108-eca0-47ad-9f8a-2eda98988711","excerpt":"I dont understand how you can be pro AI. — I say that confidently because for most people in this sub, who are not sitting on a golden toilet and wiping wil dollar bills, AI is a tool that simplifies their life. For now im not going to argue about the possibility of echo chambers and the contribution to the majority of","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1v4d0z9/i_dont_understand_how_you_can_be_pro_ai/","role":"request","weight":0.8784919,"occurredAt":"2026-07-23T12:51:22.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"aiwars","intent":"problem_report","painScore":0.36,"sentiment":0.1764706,"confidence":0.6459499,"matchedPatterns":["manual_process","solution:tools"],"statement":"I take a different stance, since I dont really know what to say about it, I still discourage it because I feel like a lot if not all of what the tools do can be done by hand, but it feels less agressive; just excessive.","title":"I dont understand how you can be pro AI.","body":"I say that confidently because for most people in this sub, who are not sitting on a golden toilet and wiping wil dollar bills, AI is a tool that simplifies their life. For now im not going to argue about the possibility of echo chambers and the contribution to the majority of the internet now of AI generated content.\n\nAI is a product of wealthy corporations who want nothing to do with you, like seriously. AI has been hamfisted into every aspect of our lives, and whether you like it or not, you just cant say no the fact that AI is ultimately going to be abused by corporations. Why am I saying that its going to be when it already is. How is it possibly to justify the corporate and obvious greed behind AI? \n\nThen data centers, how do we justify that? Im afraid we are too caught up with the idea that data centre's were built before the AI boom to realize that the sheer amount of data centre's that are being built now is unjustifiable. I dont want to just lost all the problems about data centre's because thats not my point, I want to know why we find that they provide a net positive to society rather than negatively impacting us. Remember that the most balanced scale is an empty one. I personally haven't used Ai for many years now, and I would rather have nature in theor place. (Of-course im not going to visit every data centre's location im saying this metaphorically). \n\nAnd then, to the user, I really dont like the argument for the productivity it brings. Everything that AI helps you to do, you can do yourself, or support others by paying them to do it for you. Yes, by paying someone it will be more expensive, but you are also doing the moral thing of supporting someone who probbably needs the money more than sam Altman. I live my life in constant search of new things to do, new skills, new hobbies, and that includes things I could have doen in 5 seconds with AI. But thats one side, there's the other: during work, ai could help you with whatever you do. Which is true, im not going to say no to that, but I want to return to the beginning, when I mentioned ai delusions or echo chambers. I sincerely believe that if you work yourself, you will create a better outcome for you work and you may end up learning something new in the process. AI on the other hand may oversimplify the process, which seems good for efficency, but I belive that there's something very important about both figuring out things on your own, and following through and making choices yourself. \n\nThis is a very subjective part of my argument, feel free to argue but I really see no reason in doing so since the debate will always end up in a stalemate \" you're wrong, no you are\"\n\nLastly, personal use for people with disabilities. Here i want to say that same things really, a subjective argument, but let's take Friday Kahlo. She was bedridden, and painted with a mirror and a special easel. Not everyone has the skill to do something like that, its the beauty of art, its the effort and the skill and the artistic expression of the person, AI strips that away. Now im not your mother, im not one to tell you what to do, but i also find the AI look of art extremely unnapeilling. I heavily discourage AI art, but yet again cant do much about it. \n\nBut my point is also that art is alreaddy something extremely accessible to litteraly everyone, art doesnt have to be extremely detailed to be beautiful. I mean i paint disgusting skin creatures but its still art and still beautiful. Im very humble I know. Take for instance Jean-Michel Basquiat, he certiantely idnt painting in great detail, and his style isnt easy to paint, but its abstract. And abstract styles take significantly less mechanical skill to paint in. Aside from painting too, really anything abstract ends up being easier to make then something highly detailed and realistic (this can be untrue in some cases, im just generalizing here). Art isnt just about expression, its also about the process of creation, which is why I feel more comfortable when talking about Ai tools that dont completely generate an artwork.\n\nI want to acknowledge Ai tools for digital art. I take a different stance, since I dont really know what to say about it, I still discourage it because I feel like a lot if not all of what the tools do can be done by hand, but it feels less agressive; just excessive. Most of it actually feels extra. And this is also a personal experience, but what ive seen so far, the artist almost always uses the tools for just because, when the art piece feels complete without them, because they're skilled artists.\n\nJust a synopsis is that, I feel like AI is completely avoidable in your daily life (but not really since its being thrusted down my throat), its not something nessecary that you have to use, rather its something used for convenience. I disagree with said convenience since it develops problem solving, often without ai you make better decisions and has a moral point of view in which; AI is ultimately a product from mega corporations that defiantly dont have good intentions, and proved that they dont in recent times. Morally I really dont like AI either.\n\nSo feel free to tell me what you think, AI definitely has benefits, like in medicine, but the bad definitely outweighs the good.","offTopic":false},{"id":"641cb534-9571-44fe-b0f5-a1f8243b392b","excerpt":"Why are post pro-ai people so stupid? — Edit: Hello, everyone. I'm sorry about how this post makes me come off. I wrote it while in a rage. I've had some time to reflect. I wish people would listen to me about environmental harm without me having to be angry. Because no one listens if you aren't angry. \n\nI've spent the","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1sy30v5/why_are_post_proai_people_so_stupid/","role":"request","weight":0.87626666,"occurredAt":"2026-04-28T14:28:02.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"antiai","intent":"feature_request","painScore":0.24,"sentiment":0.33333334,"confidence":0.70666665,"matchedPatterns":["wish"],"statement":"I wish people would listen to me about environmental harm without me having to be angry.","title":"Why are post pro-ai people so stupid?","body":"Edit: Hello, everyone. I'm sorry about how this post makes me come off. I wrote it while in a rage. I've had some time to reflect. I wish people would listen to me about environmental harm without me having to be angry. Because no one listens if you aren't angry. \n\nI've spent the last year trying to talk to people about the environmental harm caused by the data centers and the harm it does to a person. But I've been brushed off almost every time. \n\nI also think that Openai, being a supporter of the shit happening in America, is deplorable. \n\nI'm sorry, I have tried to be civil. But how can you continue to be civil if you feel like no one is listening? \n\nThe post:\nLike not to generalize but almost everyone I've talked to who's pro ai is a genuine fucking moron. Read to the end before you think I'm a total bitch. \n\nI had one guy say in relation to the water crisis: \"well I just had water from \\[place within my province\\] and it's as clean as you can get\" and followed up with \"they should add a data center to \\[another part of my province\\] because it would help with infrastructure and no one is living there\" \n\nI honestly think there's a population of people who can't fucking think because they're too stupid and selfish to. Like, \"Who cares? It's not happening to me, so why should I care?\" \n\nI already have what can be described as extreme climate anxiety. I don't like driving when I can walk. I take the bus whenever I can. I don't own very many new clothes. I ecobrick (compress all my plastic garbage down into soild bricks). I repair and reuse. I compost. I don't eat out very often. Because anything else makes me fucking anxious.\n\nAnd when I bring that up, it's \"Well, what about billionaires and big corporations. What I'm doing doesn't matter\" or \"well you're online. You're just as bad.\"\n\nWow! That's some nice proformative anticapitalism you got there! What do you want a fucking cookie? Nothing matters because you feel like you can't do anything, you lazy peice of shit?? You're really going to contribute to environmental harm because you're \"not as bad as big corporations?\". Fucking losers. All of them. I don't care anymore.\n\nI'm tired of morons ruining my planet. I want the next generation to have clean water to drink and not have it hoarded by the wealthy. It's to the point I've gotten meaner and harsher about the realities of Gen ai to anyone I see using it. Because good God. \n\nAi is what I believe to be an extension of late stage capitalism. That fast fast fast go go go breakneck pace. Everything is designed to be pleasurable. Ai lets you skip all the hard learning parts or the hard interaction piece, so all you have is a product. I'm asking ai bros to try doing something with their brains. Make art, write stories, it doesn't matter if they suck. That's how you learn.\n\nPs. If this gets reposted to a pro-ai sub or ai wars or whatever. I said what I said. Learn to draw. Learn to write an email. Use a fucking scearch engine. Go outside and try to meet real friends. Like it's hard, I get it. But are you really willing to sacrifice future generations so that you can ask Chatgpt to draw you an anime cat girl with the biggest tits you've ever seen?\n\n Plus, TW, the CEO of open ai raped his sister for years on end while she was a child. He also donates to ICE and MAGA. Also Chatgpt is algorthmically designed to make you delusional. If you're still pro-ai: go fuck yourself. You are a bad person.","offTopic":false},{"id":"e91a2389-b194-4307-a039-7092077f3f65","excerpt":"Research into relationship between modern genAI and its training material — Hello, if there is anybody smarter on this topic than me, I'd appriciate help judging this short article:\n\n[https://news.mit.edu/2026/when-ai-art-has-no-author-generated-images-often-cant-be-traced-to-training-data-0818](https://news.mit.edu/20","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1vtl4gg/research_into_relationship_between_modern_genai/","role":"request","weight":0.85515475,"occurredAt":"2026-08-20T14:30:19.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"antiai","intent":"feature_request","painScore":0.36,"sentiment":0.5,"confidence":0.62879026,"matchedPatterns":["missing_feature"],"statement":"But people saying it is incapable of \"original thought\" -- and yes, I agree that it can't really think, but you know what I mean -- seem to be missing the mark.","title":"Research into relationship between modern genAI and its training material","body":"Hello, if there is anybody smarter on this topic than me, I'd appriciate help judging this short article:\n\n[https://news.mit.edu/2026/when-ai-art-has-no-author-generated-images-often-cant-be-traced-to-training-data-0818](https://news.mit.edu/2026/when-ai-art-has-no-author-generated-images-often-cant-be-traced-to-training-data-0818)\n\nBy smarter I mean really somebody who understands (and not only superficialy) how AI works, who can judge how this research was done etc. If it is connected to the broadwr pattern of AI learning general concepts and more.\n\nI know that AI generated images are a hot topic in this community (and I am very strongly opposed to this use of AI, even though I think there are bigger risks associated with AI), so I hope there could be somebody that could judge this research.\n\nOne common complaint I hear is that AI just copies, that it is too much reliant on the underlying training dataset etc. That can be in some cases true. But people saying it is incapable of \"original thought\" -- and yes, I agree that it can't really think, but you know what I mean -- seem to be missing the mark. Most average people also just learn patterns they see and then apply them throughout to finish the job they want to do. They might connect them in original ways, yes, but the general thoughts are seldom completly novel.\n\nWhy is that a problem: A lot of jobs consist of routine tasks that are connected together in novel, yet unseen ways. An example close to my heart: in high level (Ph.D. even) mathematics, LLMs can be very, very, very good at this sort of thing. Scarily good. Many people in the math department at my Uni (which is in no way a second-rate university, it is one of the most prestigious math and physics universities in the former eastern block -- I do not wish to doxx myself, sorry) are deeply shaken.\n\n This sort of thing is something the average mathematician does the most. Not completly novel maths, but connecting the yet unconnected. And that is the fun part. Now a lot can be just done by taking some concept and putting it into GPT Sol to prove as much unproven about this concept as possible. Or asking it to prove some theorem and generalise as much as possible. The human element of proofs is dissapearing in many cases. In the better examples the people at least clean the proofs up. \n\nYes, the creative-type of people seem to be very against genAI (for which I am deeply grateful) but it seems that if prompted correctly by someone who knows what sort of yet unconnected styles they want, what sort of yet unconnected textures they want etc., that genAI may be able to do some pretty impresive yet unseen results. It is just nice that the people that seem capable of expressing this gladly choose to do it by their own hands. I do not consider myself a painter, I paint a bit, but nothing really great, but I am a musician, I went to music lessons for 9 years in middle and high school, so there I at least can orient myself. And if prompted correctly, the music generation, especially instrumental parts, can be scarily superficially good. \n\nBecause of grokking (not to do with Grok AI) and similar phenomenons, AI models seem capable of \"learning\" the underlying patterns, the underlying principles, and not only blindly copying. Modern models can for example add yet unseen combinations of numbers, can integrate yet unseen stochastic ingegrals on moving hypercurves etc., without calling any underlying tool -- they have \"learned\" the underlying principle.\n\nAnd something similar seems to happen to images -- they just learn the underlying principles -- if I understand the research correctly. What it means to be in shadow, what it means to be lit up, what it means to be bleeding somewhere, how the blood behaves etc. And it is not pulling these concepts from any specific image. It knows these concepts intrensically.\n\nBut I might be mistaken; hell, I'd gladly be mistaken. But I want to stress that AI seems to me more capable than most people I read comments from here let on. That changes nothing on my stances about AI. I want the world to be made by humans for humans, with human thoughts and human emotions. I want to feel human connection and not just look at efficient code and \"pretty\" moving pictures. But to call it just parroting and copying seems to be underestimating our common enemy.\n\nSorry for this long rant and I am hopeful for some feedback : )","offTopic":false},{"id":"c41191dd-8d1c-4f39-8e7c-a7d836a7df6d","excerpt":"Is this where productivity is headed for creative tools like Capture One? — I've been using AI for diagnosing and writing code for the last six months and it is a game changer in that profession. A good software developer with optimal use of AI can multiply their productivity and the robustness of their code by many t","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/captureone/comments/1vvhxnw/is_this_where_productivity_is_headed_for_creative/","role":"request","weight":0.84423923,"occurredAt":"2026-08-22T17:10:22.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"captureone","intent":"problem_report","painScore":0.18,"sentiment":1,"confidence":0.71545696,"matchedPatterns":["manual_process","praise"],"statement":"I'd go so far to say that there will be very few coding jobs in the future that are done entirely by hand without the assist of AI.","title":"Is this where productivity is headed for creative tools like Capture One?","body":"I've been using AI for diagnosing and writing code for the last six months and it is a game changer in that profession. A good software developer with optimal use of AI can multiply their productivity and the robustness of their code by many times. I'd go so far to say that there will be very few coding jobs in the future that are done entirely by hand without the assist of AI.\n\nI thought [this article](https://thenewstack.io/spline-v2-mcp-agents/) ( [https://thenewstack.io/spline-v2-mcp-agents/](https://thenewstack.io/spline-v2-mcp-agents/) ) was an interesting angle on how AI could perhaps bring similar productivity increases for creative professionals. What is different about how Spline did it in this article (Spline is a 2D ad 3D modeling program) is that they let AI drive their own creative tools. And, Spline didn't just implement their own AI - they implemented an MCP server that lets outside AI (like Claude, Anti-gravity, etc...) do things in their program. They didn't ask AI to just go off on its own and make content like a purely generative AI solution would do. Instead, the AI builds the model in Spline to the instructions you asked for and leaves you with the fully adjustable model in Spline as if you had built it yourself in Spline. So, this is not some generative engine going off and making a final result for you that you have no ability to tweak other than just asking the AI to generate it again with a change made. Instead, the AI is just driving the creative modeling tools directly and leaving you with the full model for you to make any further adjustments to or ask the AI to make some further adjustments too. You have the model and all the adjustments right in the program.\n\nI thought that maybe this could be an interesting future for Capture One and might ultimately be a competitive requirement in this market. You use AI to drive the existing controls in Capture One. You tell the AI what you're trying to achieve and it uses the existing controls in Capture One to try to achieve that. All the control settings will be right there so you can tweak it however you like after the AI adjusts things, including undo the whole thing if you want.\n\nFeatures that now have to be individually coded by the Capture One team like Match Look would just be something you ask of the AI (Can you make the selected photos all look similar to the first one). \n\nThe instructions could extend to any feature in the program such as: Can you crop each of these photos so the subject is centered? Can you fix up the washed out sky in each of the selected landscape photos while keeping the whole scene and colors looking realistic?\n\nThis concept, by itself, would not add generative AI to Capture One in places that it doesn't have it. So, it wouldn't suddenly let you say \"remove that extra person and the piece of trash on the ground in the background\" or \"remove the power lines in this photo\" unless the AI was clever enough to do a good job accomplishing it using only the built in functions like clone and heal (which I know from my own experience is often difficult to do a good job with) or unless the AI eventually could go out and use some other program to do that and bring it back into Capture One.\n\nI know there's friction at the intersection of AI and creative tools (for good reason), but I thought this was an interesting example of how AI could be used to make you the creative professional or hobbyist more productive by directly using your own tool to do what you ask it to do. Done right, that's not AI taking over. That's letting you decide what you want to accomplish and using the AI to make it easier to accomplish using your chosen tool.","offTopic":false},{"id":"06d733ea-29b0-4afb-9847-de704296b6b9","excerpt":"why ai art is still art. even though its easier than to do the real thing? — one thing i think people overlook about ai art is that sometimes you can have an idea in your head that you simply cannot create yourself.\n\nlike you can imagine a very specific character, environment, creature, or just some completely insane i","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/1vtq6u8/why_ai_art_is_still_art_even_though_its_easier/","role":"request","weight":0.82996637,"occurredAt":"2026-08-20T17:36:17.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"DefendingAIArt","intent":"problem_report","painScore":0.36,"sentiment":0.42857143,"confidence":0.61026937,"matchedPatterns":["manual_process"],"statement":"layers, undo, copy paste, filters, etc.","title":"why ai art is still art. even though its easier than to do the real thing?","body":"one thing i think people overlook about ai art is that sometimes you can have an idea in your head that you simply cannot create yourself.\n\nlike you can imagine a very specific character, environment, creature, or just some completely insane image, but you dont have the skills to draw it or make it in 3d.\n\nthe idea is still there tho.\n\nai can basically help turn that idea into something you can actually see.\n\nand i think thats one of the more interesting things about it.\n\nits not always about \"i dont wanna learn how to draw\"\n\nsometimes its more like\n\n\"i have this thing in my head and i have no idea how the hell i would physically create it\"\n\nai gives you a way to experiment with that idea.\n\nand yes, ai makes some things easier. obviously. thats literally what tools are supposed to do.\n\na camera made realistic images easier to create than painting them.\n\ndigital art made a lot of things easier too. layers, undo, copy paste, filters, etc.\n\nmaking something easier doesnt automatically make it not art.\n\nand i dont think every ai generated image is automatically amazing or meaningful. some of it is obviously just someone typing a random prompt and posting whatever comes out.\n\nbut thats not really proof that ai art itself isnt art.\n\nthe more important question should probably be what the person is actually doing with the tool.\n\nif someone has an idea, experiments with it, chooses what they like, changes things, combines ideas, edits the result, and uses ai to get closer to something they imagined, i dont see why the fact that ai helped create the image automatically makes it not art.\n\nsometimes the human has the idea but simply doesnt have the physical skill to create it.\n\nthats kind of the whole reason humans keep inventing tools.\n\nwe make tools because our own abilities are limited.\n\nai is just another tool that can extend what someone is capable of creating.","offTopic":false},{"id":"1ffa4a16-68b0-4916-8179-656fb1ce2b77","excerpt":"Advice Wanted: Adding a Statement About AI to My Portfolio — Some background:\n\nI’m a senior designer (20 years in the industry), and I’m re-working my résumé and portfolio while looking for a new full-time position.\n\nI’ve had a few interviews over the past year, and each one of them has included a question about using ","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/graphic_design/comments/1vckplg/advice_wanted_adding_a_statement_about_ai_to_my/","role":"demand","weight":0.78865,"occurredAt":"2026-08-01T11:18:57.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"graphic_design","intent":"tool_discovery","painScore":0.12,"sentiment":0,"confidence":0.70415175,"matchedPatterns":["looking_for"],"statement":"Some background: I’m a senior designer (20 years in the industry), and I’m re-working my résumé and portfolio while looking for a new full-time position.","title":"Advice Wanted: Adding a Statement About AI to My Portfolio","body":"Some background:\n\nI’m a senior designer (20 years in the industry), and I’m re-working my résumé and portfolio while looking for a new full-time position.\n\nI’ve had a few interviews over the past year, and each one of them has included a question about using generative AI in design. I have always answered honestly, but I don’t feel like I’ve ever really thoughtfully articulated how I feel.\n\nSince I’m configuring my portfolio to include a little more of my copywriting (and possibly adding a blog), I thought it might be worth it to just go ahead and include a written statement about AI. \n\nI honestly can’t really afford to be too selective about employment, but I was hoping that potential clients or employers that were genuinely interested might be willing to at least scan the statement since the issue seems to be on everyone’s mind right now. I don’t want to alienate anyone, but it might work as a sort of filter, too.\n\nI ended up writing much more than I intended, but the goal was twofold: not only to provide an answer to the question, but also to help me figure out exactly what my thoughts are. As I argue in the draft below, I believe that the creative process—in this case, writing about the subject—helps us understand the things we want to convey. It’s the old idea that writing is a form of thinking. And so, in many ways, is design.\n\nI would be very grateful if anyone is able to take the time to read through this (many thanks if you’ve even made it this far). I’m looking for critique, of course, but also any arguments you might have that would oppose or bolster any of my thoughts. I am in no way completely settled in my view, so I am definitely open to all opinions.\n\nMods: If this post violates any sub rules or protocols, please remove it with all deliberate speed.\n\nThanks to all!\n\n\\*\\*\\*\\*\\* \n\n**A Statement About Generative AI**\n\nGraphic design exists at an intersection of art and commerce. The tools and methods we use to convey information are ever more sophisticated and powerful, but they remain only ancillary to the core of our interest: communication.\n\nA long career in the business of communication has taught me not to disregard or discount new technologies simply because they are new. Indeed, it is the responsibility of the competent designer to not only stay abreast of the latest innovations, but to responsibly deploy them to serve the needs of both clients and audiences.\n\nBut creative communication is a uniquely human endeavor. Designers use words, colors, shapes, type, photography, audio, video, and more to convey messages to people. This process does not speak to, nor does it require the intervention of, synthetic intelligence.\n\nOur aim is to convince human beings to join an organization, or buy a product, or support a cause; our responsibility is to ensure that we effectively and authentically explain why doing so benefits those same humans, the targets of our messaging.\n\nGenerative AI, used in this service, is unnecessary and potentially offensive to the audience. During the course of my career, I have observed that the most effective marketing has always been a shrewd balance of the creative and the analytical. Generative creative content threatens to permanently upset that balance and diminish all creativity, while simultaneously transmogrifying the analytical side into a vapid numbers game.\n\nIt is a gamble that might prove lucrative for certain organizations, especially in the short term. However, it is not a risk that I am personally comfortable taking. Generative AI offers us a worse-than-Faustian bargain: dismiss the art, and maybe win all the commerce.\n\nBut humanity deserves the art. I am just old enough to remember the transition from paste-boards to so-called desktop publishing. There was a sense then that something important might be lost—the physicality, the craft of design, perhaps.\n\nThose fears were not entirely unfounded. Certain ways of doing things were lost completely or relegated to obscure hobbies. But I believe what we gained from that change was ultimately incredibly positive and worthwhile. Designers today are working with more efficiency, under easier conditions, and with a much broader palette and in a greater variety of media than at any point in history.\n\nBut generative AI promises something else: it seeks to diminish and (in some cases) remove human creativity altogether. From a purely financial perspective, this could be a boon to leadership in certain businesses. I dare say it could even seem appealing to a lot of CMOs and Marketing Directors. After all, creative thinkers—indeed, creative processes—are often a source of friction within companies.\n\nBut that friction is an essential component of effective communication. When we struggle to find the right words or spend an hour pushing elements around on an artboard, swapping in different typefaces at various sizes, we are engaged in the art of communication. We do those things because we are trying to discover the right combination: the one that gets our message to the people who need to hear it in the most meaningful and impactful way possible. \n\nDesigners and writers find a way to synthesize information and present ideas in ways that are practical, efficient, and beautiful. The creative process not only refines the message, but it often comes to define the brand or product itself.\n\nI want to work with individuals and organizations that can still understand the value in that approach. ","offTopic":false},{"id":"125f7c5f-0d53-4c5b-8301-487432f2ed52","excerpt":"In What Areas, If Any, Do Humans Still Go Beyond AI Creatively? [D] — As artificial intelligence advances, questions emerge about human creativity versus the machine. While AI can generate poetry, art, and music, can it truly capture the essence of human experience?\n\nGenuine creativity often stems from passion, emotion","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1vthuc9/in_what_areas_if_any_do_humans_still_go_beyond_ai/","role":"request","weight":0.75706667,"occurredAt":"2026-08-20T12:15:54.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"MachineLearning","intent":"feature_request","painScore":0.36,"sentiment":0,"confidence":0.5566667,"matchedPatterns":["missing_feature"],"statement":"AI can replicate styles and patterns, but it lacks the empathy and emotional connection that humans bring to their creations.","title":"In What Areas, If Any, Do Humans Still Go Beyond AI Creatively? [D]","body":"As artificial intelligence advances, questions emerge about human creativity versus the machine. While AI can generate poetry, art, and music, can it truly capture the essence of human experience?\n\nGenuine creativity often stems from passion, emotion, and personal lived experience. These qualities allow humans to create works that resonate deeply. A musician expressing their pain or a writer narrating a lived experience can touch others emotionally in ways that AI, with its logic and algorithms, cannot match.\n\nIn fields like music, literature, and visual art, a creator's ability to inject their passion and unique perspective is often what defines the value of their work. AI can replicate styles and patterns, but it lacks the empathy and emotional connection that humans bring to their creations.\n\nAs technology evolves, the question becomes: can passion itself be encoded? Will future iterations of AI develop something resembling genuine feeling, or will passion remain distinctly human? The answer may shape how we value creativity in the years to come.\n\nAt HAL, we believe that human creativity has a vital place in this landscape. We're looking for people who understand that passion, perspective, and lived experience are irreplaceable. \n\nWhat do you think? In what areas do you believe human creativity still goes beyond what AI can do?","offTopic":false},{"id":"0702d5f5-1d2f-44f7-a38f-ed62fad9277c","excerpt":"The absolute, unhinged tribalism of AI art hate has completely ruined creative communities — I am so incredibly exhausted by the absolute witch-hunt mentality dominating the internet right now. The pure, unadulterated hatred toward anything involving generative AI has officially crossed the line from \"protecting artist","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/DefendingAI/comments/1vv48pl/the_absolute_unhinged_tribalism_of_ai_art_hate/","role":"pain","weight":0.6106188,"occurredAt":"2026-08-22T06:02:53.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"DefendingAI","intent":"other","painScore":0.20869565,"sentiment":-0.5217391,"confidence":0.5051882,"matchedPatterns":[],"statement":"The absolute, unhinged tribalism of AI art hate has completely ruined creative communities.","title":"The absolute, unhinged tribalism of AI art hate has completely ruined creative communities","body":"I am so incredibly exhausted by the absolute witch-hunt mentality dominating the internet right now. The pure, unadulterated hatred toward anything involving generative AI has officially crossed the line from \"protecting artists\" into a toxic, paranoid cult mentality where logic goes to die.\n\nIf you use AI as a tool to help visualize a deep, complex worldbuilding project or a massive sci-fi story you spent hours writing, you aren't treated like a creator trying your best, you are treated like a criminal. \n\nThe nuance is entirely dead, and the hate is massively, undeservedly overblown.\n\nHere is why the current anti-AI hysteria is completely broken:\n\n1. It’s entirely driven by labels, not reality\n\nThe absolute proof that this rage is performative tribalism is that people don't even look at the art anymore. \n\nthey just look at the caption. You could literally upload a masterpiece hand-painted in 1995, label it \"AI art,\" and an online mob will immediately swarm the comments talking about how \"soulless,\" \"plastic,\" and \"devoid of human effort\" it looks. They cannot actually tell the difference. Their response is a knee-jerk psychological reaction to a trigger word, not a critique of the visual pixels or the actual history behind the work.\n\n2. The \"purity test\" is causing massive friendly fire\n\nThe paranoia has gotten so bad that actual human creators who don’t even touch AI are getting blasted by internet mobs. \n\nIf a beginner artist has slightly wonky hand anatomy, or a digital artist uses perfectly smooth rendering brushes, they get falsely accused, harassed, and banned because some broken, unreliable third-party \"AI detector\" script guessed wrong. Creators are now treated as guilty until proven innocent, forced to record time-lapses of their entire process just to satisfy online gatekeepers. How did we reach a point where \"protecting creators\" means aggressively bullying them?\n\n3. Complete dismissal of mixed-media and human modification\n\nThe gatekeeping community loves to act like every single AI image takes five seconds to make. \n\nThey completely ignore the massive spectrum of hybrid workflows. If a human writer spends weeks crafting a deep speculative evolution lore post, handles 95% of the conceptual work, and uses an AI image as a base layer, spending hours digitally painting over it, correcting the lighting, blending elements, and modifying it to fit their vision, it is STILL treated like low-effort automated spam.\n\n Why does a fraction of a percent of a tool's involvement completely erase hours of manual labor and writing?\n\n4. The zero-tolerance moderation is lazy and extreme.\n\nSubreddit moderators have completely abandoned common sense. \n\nInstead of using escalating systems like removing low-effort spam but allowing unique, heavily edited visual concepts, they use the nuclear option. One single image touching an AI tool results in an instant, unappealable permanent ban, often with a smug, condescending note from the mods. They claim they are protecting the \"soul\" of their hobbies, but all they are doing is catching well-meaning hobbyists in the crossfire and creating an echo chamber of fear and paranoia.\n\nBottom Line: Tools are tools. There is a massive structural difference between a bot farm spamming actual lazy, unedited slop to farm engagement, and a human creator using a visual generator to flesh out a deeply personalized creative universe. The internet needs to grow up, stop treating a keyword like a social contagion, and start judging the actual thought, effort, and context of a project instead of running a permanent witch hunt.\n\nThis post is not made to offend people. Best regards -sadcrab3636","offTopic":false},{"id":"d06c502f-3e08-4852-9f67-9784045b74b5","excerpt":"Is ai actually worth it? — ( For context I personally don't think I'm pro-ai or anti-ai. ) \n \nI'm really still just trying to think is ai even worth it? I've been thinking about ai a lot lately because I really don't know where I am with it.\n\nI've used ai a decent bit. I can't really just pretend it's not useful to m","url":"https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1vvgbcr/is_ai_actually_worth_it/","role":"pain","weight":0.53894144,"occurredAt":"2026-08-22T16:06:06.000Z","sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","credibility":0.62,"venue":"aiwars","intent":"other","painScore":0.144,"sentiment":-0.36,"confidence":0.47110268,"matchedPatterns":[],"statement":"Is ai actually worth it?.","title":"Is ai actually worth it?","body":"( For context I personally don't think I'm pro-ai or anti-ai. ) \n \nI'm really still just trying to think is ai even worth it? I've been thinking about ai a lot lately because I really don't know where I am with it.\n\nI've used ai a decent bit. I can't really just pretend it's not useful to me because it has improved my life in a way. I've used it to learn so many things, I've used it generally just to do things more efficiently. It's not like I use it to think for me, I use it in what I feel like is moderation. \n \nBut at the same time I could say I honestly could've done all of that without ai. I could've read google forums, I could've experimented, I could've asked other people for info. I think it's just that ai itself just made it more readily available/convenient. \n\n\nAnd that's what I'm stuck on. It's where I start wondering: **is that convenience actually worth everything that comes with ai?** \n\nThe environmental cost surrounding data centers, the questions surrounding using people's data and work without consent etc. There are people using ai to practically replace all effort of their own. There tends to just be ai slop everywhere. There are companies replacing people's jobs and plenty of more reasons to not like where it's going.\n\nBut I also don't completely agree with the argument that ai being unnecessary makes its benefits worthless.\n\nI mean I've seen people compare ai to cars by saying that cars cause environmental damage too, but the \"difference\" is cars are a necessity and ai is a luxury. \n\nSee I think that makes sense until you realize cars were a luxury at one point too. It just so happened they just became a necessity. \n\nCars were once expensive luxuries. As more people got them, infrastructure, cities, jobs, businesses, etc. increasingly developed around the assumption that people could travel long distances quickly. Eventually, not owning a car became a serious disadvantage in many places.\n\nAnd I'm kind of just wondering if ai is going to follow a similar path. \n\nIf ai makes a worker substantially more productive, and enough people start using it, eventually employers can start expecting that productivity from everyone. Then not using ai wouldn't be really an option anymore because it's not a luxury anymore. It's a necessity if you want to be employed. \n\n \nIt just makes me all the more hesitant about the whole idea of \"ai is inevitable, so you might as well use it\" argument. \n\nBecause I like to think of my participation as part of a collective personally. \n\nObviously I'm just a person at the end of the day and if I decide to stop using ai tomorrow I'm not going to kill the ai industry . BUT if everyone thinks \"what ever I do doesn't really matter anyway because it wont change anything\" then we all kind of just agreed and guarantee that nothing changes. \n\nAt the same time, I don't think \"ai is bad, therefore never use ai\" really satisfies me either.\n\nTechnology has always allowed us to outsource things. I mean i don't grow the wheat, lettuce, and tomatoes and raise the animals every time I want a sandwich. I don't build my own computer before making something with it. I wouldn't say efficiency is instant grounds for being \"lazy\" .\n\nWhat matters more to me specifically is what I'm outsourcing.\n\nI think there is an obvious difference between asking ai to explain something to me so I can understand it and asking ai to practically do every bit of thinking for me. There's a difference between automating tedious work I already understand and outsourcing a skill I actually want to develop.\n\nSoo... I'm kind of just sitting here. This is where I'm at.\n\nI mean as said I don't hate ai. I don't love ai. I don't think \"it's the future so get used to it\" is a good justification for it, and i don't think \"ai bad\" is much of an argument either.\n\nAi is a tool that can be genuinely useful imo. But tools can still create consequences that either make or break them. AKA tools have consequences that determine whether they're actually worth using. \n\nI'm curious what other people on both sides think. \n \n**What would actually make AI \"worth it\" to you? And if you think it already is or never could be, why?**","offTopic":false}],"breakdown":[{"sourceKey":"reddit","sourceName":"Reddit","count":32},{"sourceKey":"hackernews","sourceName":"Hacker News","count":2}],"total":34}}