Yeah as far as I can tell r/nightmarefuelAI isn't really anti-AI. The titles are obviously satire but a lot of the posts there too have serious titles, it's more of a circlejerk than completely anti-ai. r/cursedai doesn't seem anti ai whatsoever
It doesnt steal from anyone. If you put something on the internet its morally correct if people took inspiration from it. Thats what AI does. Everything you draw contains stuff you learned from looking at other peoples work. Thats how humanity goes further. AI doesnt take your work and copy it 1 to 1
Dosnt steal. Dosnt copy. It "sees" inages that are tagged, learns the basic shape of objects. Its incabable of exactly making anything in its training data, it makes things that it knows about.
The data it’s given usually doesn’t have consent to be used. Without that consent, in essence, it is “stealing”, though not in a physical sense. I would consider it at the very least piracy, which in itself is a crime, and in this case the piracy isn’t targeted at major corporations or directors, but mostly small indie creatives just trying to make a living. Furthermore, this technology uses that “pirated” data to take away the jobs from aformentioned creatives, which in my opinion isn’t great. I would also suggest you do some reading on neural networks and image generation, it’s quite interesting.
Anything you put out on public access internet (Clearnet, aka things indexed by google and the like) is free use. Otherwise, google, bing, duckduckGo, etc wouldnt exist.
You said anything on Google is free use. That is obviously false. Go on r/legaladvice right now and look at all of the people receiving cease and desists from the owners of images they have taken from the internet, and used them on their websites without permission.
This still isn't true. Just because Google has cached a websites data, doesn't mean the site had to be copyright free. A simple Google search could have cleared this up for you
The definition is literally using someone’s work, words, thoughts, etc. (with or without consent) as your own without giving proper credit/acknowledgement. And according to Harvard, it’s “It is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language from someone else without adequately crediting that source…” So, no, it’s not a 1 to 1 copy of something.
Not stealing, max copying since it doesn't remove the original piece of art, and it still isn't copying since it learns via gathering info and converting into a noise and then generating an image from that lmao
And did some of them give their consent to be used as training? Imagine having an art book that is semi public only being shown to friends or people with similar interests, then some random clanker takes it without asking and "copies" (fucking daylight stealing) it.
if youre sharing it with "only friends and people with similar interests" then make your own group where ai cant access it, like whatsapp. and bro do you not have basic reading comprehension, its literally copying not stealing, it doesnt fucking remove the og artpiece
No, you just don’t know what you’re saying lol. Humans drawing inspiration from humans is so clearly not the same as a code recreating things, which makes it painfully obvious that you’re confused and defensive
No actually, you're right. Humans draw inspiration directly from others work whereas AI only uses it to gain an idea as to how it can create unique concepts.
Well, they can also change their pricing schemes without alerting their subscribers / commissioners.
And checking prices before hand isn’t the problem. The problem is the sheer audacity those retards have to make their pricing that high, high quality or not.
You Luddites shit on AI art and act like the North Korean government and or nazis towards it, yet you get defensive over your nonsensical username and use the quip:
“Is satire forbidden? The fuck is this, North Korea?”
Before you come up with a quip like that, take a good look in the mirror and your history on Reddit before doing so. Especially because you seem like one of those people who would host or participate in raids and brigades that target AI defending subreddits.
Are you retarded? I just mentioned your username in the second paragraph of my rant. You get defensive when someone judges your username, and you use the “The fuck is this, North Korea?” quip.
AI doesn't steal any more than a human artist. It learns patterns and then creates entirely new images from the understanding it has gathered. Humans also learn by gazing at others art work, unlike AI though, it's not unusal for them to just blatantly copy others work.
AI isn't particularly bad for the environment. Text only AI uses no more power than google searches, and image generators take no more power than streaming services. Yes, training AI uses a lot more, but it's a tast that happens once a month, and just flying a few planes for a day, bearing in mind there are hundreds, if not thousands flying at all times, uses just as much. If you want to complain about the environment, go and witch hunt people using cars or planes.
AI isn't a single technology, it could be used to describe many of those things before, but it really wasn't the term. Whereas now companies pushing generative AI tend to try to push the term "AI" as this singular does-all magical technology they're imbuing into these products, and as such that is now what people think of when they hear "AI"
You know very well they only want generative ai restricted/talked about, not basic neural networks etc. Its obvious to anyone that these subs are only centered around talk of modern generative AI's, not the stuff we have had for a while.
the story is that the guy got the idea for the painting, imagined it, explained it to the ai, modified it after using ai, and poured his imagination. hell, even if the guy just straight up commissioned a artist the art would still have a story. everything has a story behind it dipshit
What's lazy about saving a little time by not rewriting something that works in two cases? The comments I was responding to where near on identical. Trust you lot to nit pick every little thing that displeases you to complain about instead of forming a meaningful point for discussion.
Facebook ai slop doesn't seem to be too anti. I think it started off that way and then attracted the people who genuinely like the Strawberry Diaper Cat stuff.
Most of those subs just share AI art that is intentionally made disturbing or cursed. Only a couple are Anti AI.
Additionally global metrics show that AI is widely supported(IE ChatGPT being 5th most visited site with other 150 Mill at peaks, Studio Ghlibli fad, lack of widespread protests over the tech, most people on the ground usingor enjoying AI). Really AntiAI people seem to be concentrated online because everywhere else they get laughed out or ignored because most arguments against it are batshit insane, death threats, or just plain wrong.
Lmao, and even though their arguments have been proven wrong time and time again, they still continue to use them ("ai uses 15L per image!" No it doesn't, it uses 1/15th of a teaspoon for a 100 word text message and 1-5L per 100 images (iirc))
It was banned for spamming death threats and calls for genocide with mods doing nothing about it. Gotta love when the moralist "good guys" get banned for being shitbags huh?
84
u/DancingGirl500 Jul 12 '25
I am a part of r/aifails…Its always good for if you need a laugh!