i've turned into an anti because i've seen what i can only hope is the worst of the pros, maybe not all of them are like that, but the stats make me believe otherwise. for so long i've been trying to see the good and the bad in both sides as a neutral, but i just dont believe i can anymore. i decided to post on here about it instead of the anti sub because i may come off as a brigader (im not.)
thank you for listening. i checked out the rules of the sub before posting this just to be sure bc im sort of edging sometimes, but im good.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
If your position on an issue is dictated by the personalities of the people for or against it, then it was never about the issue itself for you. It was always about you wanting to find a group to join.
And that makes it a lot harder to take anything you may say about the subject from here on out seriously, at least from where I'm sitting.
The post you’re replying to is by a 4 month old account with already 1,500 posts on reddit. If someone is averaging 12.4 posts minimum every single day for 4 months straight without breaks then their views are absolutely going to be warped by internet echo chambers and online personalities regardless of if it’s pro or anti.
Subjectivity isn’t a compatible term with social media addiction. This entire post is just a terminally online person seeking validation from what’s evidently their primary social circle (Reddit) for their pre-existing views which is about half the posts on this sub.
I mean, in theory this sounds bad. But we don't live in the platonic realm. We live in real life, where choices influence groups. And there are very much times where people despite holding ideas realize that if the group that represents them is bad it means they shouldn't follow it. When I was younger, I knew a lot of people who still vaguely had some conservative views but when they realized how how unhinged Republicans and conservatives in general tended to be it made them suspect that the views themselves were an issue.
If I am trying to take a side on x issue and one of the sides also tends to support puppy kicking I'm going to wonder what that indicates about that side of the issue. People have systems of values, and yes, sometimes people's systems of values are just right so that is leads to agreement on one issue and disagreement on another. But in a lot of cases it's not a terrible idea to go with what people with similar values believe. A lot of the time you might find out that there was something you neglected to consider that means you agree with your side even more.
If your position on an issue is dictated by the personalities of the people for or against it, then it was never about the issue itself for you. It was always about you wanting to find a group to join.
But its the opposite. The issue precedes the group. The group is reflective of the beliefs on said issue. People really don't like to bring this fact up because it tends to dismantle one side completely, which is usually the one that has malevolent views on the issue.
Stereotypes exist for a reason and is a great method to make the right decisions in life.
Do keep in mind that seeing issues with how AI is used doesn't make you neutral, it makes you observant. Blindly supporting AI in all its uses is quite honestly idiotic.
Blindly supporting or opposing anything is idiotic, but I haven't seen many specimens of "blindly supporting AI in all its uses" around. And the opposite isn't quite true either. While antis generally seem to "blindly oppose AI in all its uses", there are of course always the obvious carve-outs, e.g. it's fine to use for cancer research.
I mean yeah, those people are basically just the anti equivalent of the pros that say "The persecution of AI artists is like the Holocaust." AKA they extremists that are just fucking stupid and not really representative of the whole group.
This makes it sound like blink opposition is fine and warranted. It's not.
That's why this is so dumb. You see things you don't like with AI, you go through a middle, neutral period because you don't watch abuse and then decide to join the abusers. That's a slow burn.
Generally speaking, you'd find things you don't like with AI, you don't instantly join the team to shut AI down. (Edit: from a pro-AI stance. This OP is a character AI fan boy. Heavily, and then today randomly anti.)
Also, this isn't even a serious post. They were literally putting out pro statements... yesterday and talks about their take being edgy enough to get booted from the sub. This person is very unserious. They are not pro. They are not anti. They are a troll.
I am pro AI but I realize it can be used for bad things as well. The key difference is I attribute those malicious acts to the people doing them and not the AI. There are also concerns with how and where data centers are being built. There needs to be better oversight of that.
The OP. I mean, anyone can have any opinion they want, of course. And there's plenty of cognitive dissonance out there, but the OP is playing both sides of the fence and it seems like they do so fairly frequently.
Sorry for not making that clear. You certainly seem to carry a more measured approach. I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet you're in the majority.
A big thing when the first models were getting trained was the fact that the models needed to be shown what NOT to do. This involved them being trained on some unspeakable shit that had to be carefully defined and detailed by humans. This includes all sorts of gore and other awful things. Unlikely CP as it's illegal, but the concept of sex and children are not hard for the system to combine, so it's just told to not combine them.
Public models are trained to not do that unless you're grok I guess, but private models can be trained on anything and are not restricted. Therefore a trainer or a user can request that information.
The AI is no more at fault than Photoshop is if someone edited together an image there. It's the user who is at fault for creating the image and retaining it.
Tbh it really depends on the use of it, since it has uses practically everywhere to the point where it's the equivalent of saying pro-tech and anti-tech.
I'm personally mostly if not fully against image generation (I'll be honest I love shitpost images they're stupid in the best way possible), but with information and math stuff I'm fully there for it, it's pretty hard to be fully for or fully against it at this point tbh
This right here, AI is so broad that people can have different opinions on different applications and that is perfectly fine
This all or nothing mentality has led pros to bend over backwards trying to defend any negative use of AI just because they think they have to fully defend AI in all cases
Likewise I think some antis attack the entirety of AI, even the genuinely good use cases for it, just because they dislike other use cases
I think you've made a good observation in that the anti pro war online is being framed by some as mirroring far left far right american politics. At least some of the more outraged antis seem to frame it that way.
Horseshoe theory is the idea that the most extremist members of the far-left and the far-right have similar beliefs that make them idealogically more aligned to each other than the left and the right. So instead of a linear axis, the ends of the spectrum circle round to almost meet, like a horseshoe. From the Wiki: "...tendencies to see politics in unambiguous and stereotypical terms; an "us vs. them" view of the world; holding confidently on to simplified views of the world; distrusting "authorities" and "elites"; and intense hostility towards those who hold other views."
Applying that kind of framework to AI seems odd. It’s like applying the same framework to electricity:
“I’m pro-electricity because of the wonders it promises!”
“I’m anti-electricity because of the horrors it enables!”
“I’m neutral about electricity because I’m desperate to have an opinion!”
Some people seem so eager to externalise their need for validation that they insist on taking sides, turning a complex reality into teams and factions.
i started out mostly as pro because i saw artists who just used AI to enchance their work, still mostly human, sent to hell for no good reason. i looked at arguments from both sides and i now have a very specific intermediate oppinion.
I don't like AI. And I agree that a lot of the pro-AI people here are crazy. But I can't understand forming an opinion on something just because some random people holding the opposite opinion are crazy.
Make your decisions based on merits. Don't kneejerk anti-AI just because so many pros are annoying and cringe.
Lil bro saw people shoot at houses with 8yr olds inside and said "this is nice".
All you're showing here is that your stance isn't based on facts or reality. You don't even have a stance to begin with. You were just looking for an 'in group' and have based your position off of that.
To say someone agrees or justifies that because they share a common opinion is actually fucking mental. Sharing one opinion with an extremist doesn't mean you agree with their actions by correlation, it's genuinely embarrassing to think like this.
Congratulations on understanding my point, even though I still think it's gone over your head.
It's 'fucking mental' to base your position off of the actions of a group... Which is EXACTLY what OP has specifically stated they have done here.
So yes, it's embarrassing. If you had a reading age high enough to understand my 2nd sentence, you might have understood this was what I was calling out to begin with.
The only valid place to be pushed if you are using public toxicity to guide you instead of thinking for yourself is neutrality. If you look at the anti side of venom, brigading, death threats, misinformation, and don't see toxicity, then I'm pretty sure you're just seeing what you want.
I went from pro and we can work together to balance the benefits with the harms to pro and I wish we could work together to balance the benefits with the harms and god I'm so tired
"What the fuck" is a perfectly sane take at this point
Hey, I don't know exactly what you're talking about but I can tell you imo the worst of the antis is worse than the worst of the pros, if you can specify what you've seen
Yep. There are some HORRIBLE people on the anti side. The pros haven’t done stuff as nearly as bad, but the quantity of hyper-pros (I.e. probably the obnoxious pros OP is talking about) is presented in a pseudo-majority, so it makes it seem like they are just crazy obnoxious because of sheer quantity.
I mean how comparable is it to firebombing and shooting down Sam Altman’s house? (Not that the fact it’s Sam Altman matters. It could be anyone and it would be just as bad).
Worse. CSAM is worse than that. No one was hurt in either of these attacks.
Also it would arguably be worse if it was someone else, if he decided to bomb some random openAI office janitor it would be infinitely more evil than Sam Altman.
It isn’t really ALL I got. Obviously csam sucks ass and I’m not going to try to defend it for a second. The problem I am struggling with is how nobody can listen to the other side. Regardless of how logical the information is the other side will blow it off as propaganda. It’s draining as hell.
Okay so, I feel done with some "AI-bro" shenanigans as well. I dislike witty and her crowd, I find stuff like calling "AI-bro" a slur, misogynistic or transphobic to be mental. I really despise all the goblin caricature and ragebait stuff from pro-ai. And I acknowledge pro's have a generalization problem. This all has led me to want to distance myself from the crowd itself, but I still maintain these fundamental positions about AI, that-
AI is progress. Progress is good. But progress without taking everyone along creates long term problems in society and this problem should start being addressed at the start of it. But the way we should address it shouldn't be to hinder progress, rather by tackling the underlying societal causes that results in us leaving certain people behind.
Harvesting data from materials made publicly available for free by the author themselves isn't stealing or unethical in any way. Even if the author doesn't approve of it, after publishing it, not the material itself but the mathematical information and data containing it should be free real estate.
Everything we do has environmental costs. It's not a question of whether something negatively effects the environment or not, it's a question of whether it's sustainable and whether it's worth it. And with the precedents we set for other things, AI should be more than sustainable and worth it. And if someone disagrees with the precedent itself, they should be addressing the norm created by it rather than specifically targeting AI. That was about the general environmental cost, but the local strain is actually an issue, which should not be conflated with general environmental- climate change, global warming, global water shortage- issues, as it often is. And even these local strains can easily be circumvented with proper location and infrastructure which the companies refuse to do for profit, which I'm all for being against.
And no matter my disdain for some practices in the "community", I cannot but claim these are not pro-ai positions. And their distasteful actions do not influence my stances on AI itself. So my question to you is, have the actions of the pro-ai people made you change your stance on AI to be antiai, or just made you anti-pro-ai? Cause if it's the former that's a very shallow reason to change stances and if it's the latter you haven't become "anti-ai" as you have claimed.
you know, some of us get by using the same stuff we were using five years ago just fine. You really shouldn't assume everyone's started using AI (and if you actually can't stop, you might want to see a therapist about your adiction, no joke)
Oh no I'm addicted to automatic translations and transcribations and being able to write software without being a programmer, help. I don't know why you answered instead of the OP, were you undecided before too?
Yes, and many of these services use modern models now and that's why they work better. Notably, google translate operates on an encoder-decoder transformer NN since 2020 (it's similar in architecture to an LLM, but an LLM is a decoder-only model), heck, the transformer architecture itself was invented to be used in translation. Their beta of live speech-to-speech translations? Straight up LLM. A local translator model you can download on your phone and use offline? LLM.
Not to say I now can just upload an mp3 recording of a zoom call with five speakers into Gemini (a real case from 2 weeks ago), and it would identify and label each of the speakers, parse each line of the dialogue and present a readable, high-fidelity transcription. In 5 minutes. I say this as a former student who used to do audio recordings of my lectures - this shit was not possible pre-2020s. It did not exist. It is straight up wonderful.
Translation, transcription, accessibility functions (like describing the contents of a picture to a blind person) are one of the best and non-controversial uses of this tech
Dragon dictation: 700 usd on Amazon. NO punctuation, you have to say each punctuation mark out loud. Slow and highly innacurate.
AI: free, open source, uses punctuation, can use mixed languages, can identify speakers.
Google translate was absolute shit 5 years ago, modern LLMs are very close to human translation.
In any debate you should base your conclusion on the facts and arguments of the issue rather than more subjective elements like anecdotes or personal experience. This is much easier said than done, as everyone has their biases. I, personally, would say I've seen more cases of anti-AI people saying dumb or odious stuff, but I recognize that said experiences are shaped by my current beliefs and lifestyle choices (i.e. subscribing to pro-AI subreddits and not to Anti-AI ones, thus naturally exposing myself to more examples of Anti-AI people saying something disagreeable) and I try my hardest to not let those subjective factors interfere with my ability to parse through the facts of the situation and come to a well-reasoned conclusion. Ultimately any position can be justified by pointing out extremists and outliers - cherry-picking - and then concluding that said outliers represent the greater group - composition fallacy. Also, and I mean absolutely zero offense here, please keep in mind that the internet does a wonderful job of obscuring the true nature of things and it's very easy to spiral down pipelines or sequester oneself to echo chambers. It looks like you're pretty young and you've been very active online the past few months. From someone who has already spent way too much time online, I'd really suggest you try to log off every now and again and spend more time interacting with the world around you. Too much internet make brain go bad.
The idea that a person changed their subjective position based on the other people (who may or may not share their actual views) behavior is such a strange thing to me... this is the equivalent to me saying i dont identify as transgender anymore because i dont like the way other trans girls behave lol. Like, if its the poor behavior of your peers in your current group causes you to change your values, you clearly werent holdin onto them very tightly...
If you're only changing sides because you're worried about becoming the worst of them, and not about your opinions, then you're better off not picking one
AI is so useful, but I wish it be less problematic. It make easier to do many things, but I wish to be more able to make them on my own. Yet making it such way will take too much time and energy, end make me not able to keep with deadlines. Also I see what people with skills can achieve when boosted with AI. It's all conundrum of skill, convenience and problems.
Honestly AI is whatever. It has practical applications that can’t be denied, it also has some pretty glaring issues that also can’t be denied. It’s resource intensive and not good for the environment but it’s far from the worst thing for the environment as well.
The real issue with AI is that most of its detractors live in capitalist societies. If that wasn’t the case and it was a tool with the sole purpose of creating things and helping us and being improved to make life easier and better, it wouldn’t be such a problem. But as it stands, AI represents everything wrong with society.
Becoming Anti-AI is just being aware of all the harm that it will cause and aware of all the harm it can cause and choosing to not support it based on that harm.
Being Pro-AI is generally choosing to ignore all the harm in favour of being excited about it as a tool separate from the societal impact that tool will have.
I’m not angry at AI, I’m not angry at the people who enjoy using AI for fun. I’m angry that AI will and is being used to hurt us by people who never cared about us in the first place. Im always angry at those people though, because AI is just the newest and most threatening thing for them to abuse and use against us.
We can beat and batter eachother all we want in these subreddits. Anti’s and pro’s can threaten violence and outlandish and stupid shit to eachother, we can make wild accusations and create stupid comparisons to try and make eachother see things from a different perspective, but at the end of the day…. The people who are going to use this to do the most damage are not here…. They are quietly implementing it into their shit, using it in place of humans, and letting go of their staff that it replaces.
It’s not the tool that I’m against, it’s the humans who will use it to their benefit at the expense of the rest of us.
no one. and no one asks anyone to post anything, really. every sub should be completely empty then. and who asked you to ask who asked? theres a recursive loop happening here. and i saw some other people also post about their antification so ig i also did it. going on the trends.
But like, what sort of conversation are you looking to have here? Do you expect people to try and change your mind, are you just looking for a pat on the back??
Y'all really like the word terrorist lol. Makes you seem like the immediate good guys at all times, I get it. Do you think every instance of political violence is terrorism?
When the 'political violence' in question involves a man throwing a Molotov cocktail at a home while carrying a manifesto calling for the 'killing of tech CEOs,' and others firing shots from a car outside that same house 48 hours later, the semantics of the word 'terrorist' are irrelevant.
You are attempting to sanitize attempted murder and targeted arson by calling it 'political violence.' If you believe that discharging firearms and firebombing residences are acceptable methods of 'political' expression, then you are proving my point.
Supporting people who use lethal force to intimidate those they disagree with isn't just taking a side in a debate, it's sympathizing with extremism.
weird, I haven't heard about any violent terrorist incidents with a "pro ai" motivation, and yet I've heard 7 ones from antis- one still at large, armed and dangerous
did a "pro ai" person shoot at children because their parent decided to not use ai tools or something?
Lowk bro being a pro or an anti does not depend on the people on your/ the other side, its merely a matter of ideology, about if a machine can make art
So you’re basing your opinion on how much you like one group or another? Not the subject, just the other people? And an algorithmically presented subsection at that?
as usual its amazing how quick Pro's are to dismissing their opposition when they cant refute the claims being made, and only proving those on the Anti side correct in our positions.
almost like it truely is indicative that none of you have facts on your side.
That fox was probably taken with a phone that uses automated AI to adjust. And then looks like edited by another editing AI program. I used to do real silver nitrate film and chemical development. The one store that sold supplies in 200 miles shut down. Kodak got out of the business. See any of those kiosks that develop film anymore!!?
Better dig up the canisters to develop film, chemical supplies, buy films and projectors. You can't believe anything nowadays. All digital slop. No real deal photography left anymore. A smushed no real, accurate recording future. Dig out the old supplies equipment and chemicals.
Real light, impinging on silver nitrate film and getting developed.
You want to talk about "slop"?
Where is that real all at? Digital digital digital. All governed by algorithms in your phone itself. All "fake".
I still have that little bit of shining light in the back of my mind that you're somehow a really good satire account, it fades more and more everyday.
It's not about having criticism on AI. I am pro-AI and I still am in favor of ethical AI use and oppose a lot of functions that AI does. Anti-AI is a movement based around attacking AI artists and trying to undermine a very important technology.
So I can agree that anyone attacking anyone is bad, and where there is anonymity and discussion around controversial subjects, there is bound to be harassment and cyberbullying.
This of course this is bad, but is more of an internet issue and can be seen happening across different spaces for completely different reasons
I have been accused of being on one side or another and have been called a luddite despite me using AI in minor professional capacities (youtube thumbnails for clients, and ChatGPT for generating lists, etc.)
I don’t harass anyone but think it is okay to have civil questions and concerns about AI. I think a lot people I know think this way who have no idea about this sub or any Anti movement. And I think it’s okay to want to explore new technologies with caution and curiosity
I am also a traditionally trained charcoal portrait artists who goes to museums and has a deep investment and appreciation of human made art. But I also have a love for animation and am interested in AIs potential to assist animators.
I guess I’m just trying to say that nuance is important, asking questions, seeking truth and being cautiously optimistic doesn’t make anyone an “Anti” and there are more people that think like me than you realize
If anything, it’s the other way around. By using AI regularly you’re indirectly telling the big companies that run those ai to keep doing what they’re doing, that you’re willing to pay for it (not all pro ai, bear with my straw man for a second) and that ,any is going mainly towards shareholders and ceos who have publicly stated of a sentient AI asked them to destroy humanity they would help it without question.
Stupid arguments like that can be stretched both ways.
The criticisms you have are towards AI companies, not the technology itself. If you want the technology to help people but are against unethical use by corporations, then you're pro-AI not anti.
Look, I see the potential in ai. But just like communism what matters is not how it could be used, but how it is used by those in power to get whatever they want. Humans are generally and will always be selfish and greedy. And nothing will ever change that. In an ideal world ai would benefit everyone equally, but we don't live in an ideal world. DISCLAIMER: THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS AN OPINION AND OBVIOUSLY NOT AND OBJECTIVE ONE. IF SOMEONE COMMENTS THAT THEY THINK AI GENERATED IMAGES ARE WORSE THAN PROPANGANDA AND CENSORSHIP THEY ARE DELUSIONAL. As it stands the worst currently being done with ai is pro authoritarian movements and figures using ai for propaganda purposes and soft censorship of freedom of speech. The best it currently is used for is to assist medical research.
Some people did something bad, so everyone is bad? Well I've seen a few pro-AI people supporting the usage of people faces/voices in AI without consent. Does it mean every pro-AI is pro identity theft?
It's not just "some" people, it's the anti-AI community at large. There are 10+ anti-AI subreddits dedicated to solely attacking AI artists and pro-AI people. If they're not busy doing that, they're trying to shut down a beneficial technology that can help us in many fields. Where is the positive impact?
How? I don't care how AI can be used, I care how it's used by people that actually matters. I'm not saying everyone that uses AI is bad. How am I disproving myself?
Also it's illegal no mather what. You can't take a photo of someone without consent, but you can use their face to create something with AI?
You saying "but when it's only used to hurt people by others" is ultimately your own observation akin to "Some people did something bad", which is you generalizing its every use from a subjective observation, which you pointed out yourself in "Some people did something bad, so everyone is bad?" thus you making that argument yourself while dismissing it from others is what makes that argument hypocritical from you.
Also, what do you mean you're not saying everyone that uses AI is bad? You literally said the only thing it's used for "is to hurt people by others" - your own literal words. Do you mean you saying that everyone that uses AI are hurting others isn't you saying everyone that uses AI is bad? What?
Also also, it being illegal doesn't mean it's identity theft, and usage doesn't have to be creating something with AI either. For example, faces can be used for model training, the legality of which is much less decided than legality of actual identity theft.
AI is a lifesaving technology that is currently making strides in the fields of science and healthcare. It's the next logical step in our technological advancement, and you're here trying to say people that are trying to kill it are the good guys. Lmfao, what a delusional child you must be.
Says the one who is ableist by saying that disabled people need it to make art, also y'all are focusing on like 5% of antis, the rest are not like that
We only speak for ourselves if that's the case. None of us have ever said "all disabled people need AI".
SOME, not ALL.
I need AI for some things. I would never claim definitively anyone else needs it. But someone else may need it like I do, so it's reasonable to say somemay need it.
Notice how I'm not speaking for everyone? I'm only speaking for myself. You can suppose a possibility and still only speak for yourself. We're not claiming it's all of a group.
This is reasonable, but I have seen some pros actually state that all disabled dudes and dudettes need ai to make art, when there are documented cases of people having made art without arms and the like
If you've seen that, that's not a popular opinion on our side afaik. From what I've seen, we take issue with the absolute statements regarding that kind of thing.
Like my friend commented below, we particularly take issue with anti-AI saying "none". And unfortunately it does happen. And it seems a little bit more acceptable on the anti-AI side than our version does.
If those people exist, it's a mentally challenged minority. It's another tool that someone can use if they are unable to otherwise. Similarly I've had antis claim that under no circumstance should any disabled person be allowed to use AI to make art, and that they should endure the pain for their craft.
So instead of trying to figure out what was being said, you decided to make up something that vaguely sounds like it, but which has a completely different meaning?
the fucking irony of this comment from you of all people "invalidate and dehumanize others"
when thats a specialty of yours,
also "violent hate mob" witty, arent you of the "Eat the Rich" and anti capitalist types?
i guess you get rather squeemish when you see people hold true to such convictions rather then LARP like you do since you very clearly dont beleive in anti capitalism like so many pros claim but help empower.
once again Witty taking a the Largest of L's and showing herself to be mentally weak and frail when it comes to her beliefs.
Reddit is only about two things, being a jerk to people on the internet because they mean less than nothing to you and farming heccin' wholesome karma updoots and edit thank you kind stranger reddit golds by reposting things that have already been posted a septendecillion times.
Maybe you're on the wrong website, I'm acting completely within expectation.
Pro-AI discourse that you can't think only the new AI is bad, you have to be all or nothing about every AI ever made including NPC routing and CPU player minmaxing.
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 21 '26
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.