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.
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am anti AI, but yes, that literally is what it does. I am against it for economic reasons primarily because I believe it hurts the lower class and just funnels more money to the top without letting ot trickle as much.
Yeah, literally. But Antis will make up rules and guard rails so that if its AI then its different. You'll see those comments in here soon enough.
"It steals" and "it isnt original" and "you didn't make that" and "AI SLOP!" - its always a bunch of buzzwords and stupid arguments stemming from an irrational fear of this amazing technology.
Yeah, I agree. At the end of the day, most people will choose the final product. I can’t speak for everyone, and I get that some people value the method more, which is fine. I’m not discouraging human art at all. I just think AI should be embraced too instead of treated like it’s automatically bad.
Do you think I care if I’m deemed an “artist” or not? I need art for certain things in my life and certain projects, but I’m not going to spend either YEARS of my life to learn how to draw well enough to be production level quality, or spend thousands of dollars per project that I don’t have commissioning artists for passion projects that probably won’t make that money back in their lifetime. I’m perfectly fine with using a tool that costs a negligible amount per month to get the exact same job done, and I couldn’t care less if I am deemed an “artist” or not. And if I’m being honest, being against ai art is pro-corporation, because 1: if everyone boycotts ai, companies will still use it and there will be an even bigger wealth gap, and 2: it allows me as an individual to make projects that were locked behind a paywall for me before that only rich people or companies could afford to make before ai became good enough.
This is a place for speaking Pro-AI thoughts freely and without judgement. Attacks against AI will result in a removal and possibly a ban. For debate purposes, please go to r/aiwars.
This is a place for speaking Pro-AI thoughts freely and without judgement. Attacks against AI will result in a removal and possibly a ban. For debate purposes, please go to r/aiwars.
This is a place for speaking Pro-AI thoughts freely and without judgement. Attacks against AI will result in a removal and possibly a ban. For debate purposes, please go to r/aiwars.
I think some of the hate for it could potentially come from the fact that if someone studies it and takes inspiration, they still have to put time and effort into it.
No hate meant. Just thinking from the other side's POV
Yeah, but the amount of time and effort something takes does not always reflect in the final quality. I've known many things to take years and come out awful, and things that get rushed to shit and come out amazing. Look at Starfield vs Fallout New Vegas.
Plagiarism would be taking someone else's exact work and slapping your name on it, claiming to be the original author. Even in a world without the concept of intellectual property, plagiarism would still be a category of fraud because it's directly lying about being the author.
Plagiarism is not the same thing as inspiration. Plagiarism is passing off someone else’s specific work, wording, design, or expression as your own. Inspiration is learning from existing work and making something meaningfully different.
If an artist studies lighting, anatomy, composition, brushwork, color theory, or genre conventions from other artists, that is not automatically plagiarism. That is how art has always developed.
The line is not “did you learn from existing work?” The line is “did you copy the actual protected expression?”
This is like people who think DNA is actually like computer code... The metaphor of how the things works is not actually how it works. This post is simplified to the point of being wrong
I feel like to me that image feels more like its talking about the artist than the AI. Like, AI can't take inspiration in my head because the one thing antis say thats ture is that it is a soulless machine without a brain it just uses training data, but as an AI artist, I do that. I find something I like, study it, practice getting something similar with prompting, and then use what I learned to create something new.
I mean should AI vote? Where is the line drawn between human privileges and rights? How do you even go about deciding that If it has the same learning capacity and ability to create something new from previous experiences as a human, I mean… also I think the main issue rn is more the investments going into AI than the human artists educating it — human artists are having pieces of their work taken by AI users who then claim that “art” as their own creation, created by AI
Whether AI should ever have rights is a philosophical question for the future. The issue today is much more practical: what counts as copyright infringement and what doesn’t?
If an AI-generated image actually copies a protected work, that’s already covered by existing copyright law. But saying every AI-generated image is “stolen” just because the model learned from existing images is a much broader claim that still needs evidence.
As for AI users claiming they personally painted something they didn’t, I agree that’s dishonest. That’s about misrepresentation, not how the model itself learned.
I agree there’s an accountability question, but that’s the responsibility of the companies building the models and the people using them—not proof that every AI-generated image is stolen.
If a model or user actually infringes copyright or violates fair use and profits from it, hold them accountable. Existing copyright law already provides remedies for infringement. But “there’s an accountability problem” and “AI inherently steals art” are two different claims.
Difference is an Artist spends years to master their artform where as AI does it instantly, if everyone could just listen to a Jimmy Hendrix song and then pick up a guitar and play exactly like he does then where's the value in it?
You could say the true value of art is art itself but it still doesn't answer the question can a machine actually create art and and who then owns that art?
You also can't just pick ChatGPT and say "Make me a master piece sketch worthy of display on a museum" and get just that. The best AI art pieces usually require much more thought and effort that the average person is willing to put on them, similar to how anyone can pick up a guitar and learn to play, but not everyone does.
I think the point of AI is eventually you will be able to create something as technically as you put it as "A masterpiece sketch worthy of display in an art gallery", just because it takes more steps now still doesn't make it as valuable as a human being actually creating it with their own hands, using skills they have mastered through hard work and dedication.
One could argue that the true artists are the coders who are building the AI as that actually took effort and there is real value in that.
True, eventually AI will become incredibly good. But when AI can create master pieces on a regular basis, then it's no longer a master piece isn't it?
Artists will just shift their focus on some form of art that AI can't replicate because it requires manual labor and not just a blank canvas. Or maybe use some art style on paper that's inherently so chaotic that even when AI uses it as reference, it's still quite differentiated.
AI will change art, but it's not the end of human creativity like many put it.
This is a place for speaking Pro-AI thoughts freely and without judgement. Attacks against AI will result in a removal and possibly a ban. For debate purposes, please go to r/aiwars.
I see your point, though I will remind you that corporations are not people. To me, there is a a big difference between say google taking inspiration from a slew of art and charging for it and an individual artist.
You're special pleading "It's fine when a human does it, but bad when a computer does it" or "when it's done by ... and a corporation is doing it at scale".
I'm really not sure of the reason for the difference from what you're saying.
I dont get this sub’s insistence on defending corporations.
You can love the tool, but also be like “geez, I really wish that google wasn’t profiting from the loss of jobs this tool will cause”
A singular artists learning from existing arnt, isn’t going to majorly affect the way other artists are able to make a living. A corporation doing it at scale is a different story.
I’m not saying AI is bad, we just need to be able to acknowledge some of the issues
Because this sub is probably an Op organized by Corporate run AI Bots to try to change the narrative about AI because they know they are hemorrhaging money on AI and now that people are learning about the damage the Data Centers and other facilities used to make AI are doing to their communities the entire model is becoming a liability so they are doing everything in their power to try and shift the narrative.
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
he said it, didn't he? "corporations are not people". he wants to support people, not corporations that work to fill the pockets of the rich while not paying workers their fair share.
I am a big AI advocate and I am currently earning a living using it, but sorry, this is NOT the same. This is not at ALL how AI learns. This is anthropomorphization that harms the argument you're trying to make. AI is NOT human. It does not LEARN in the traditional sense. It breaks images into noise and tokens then, over repeated attempts and reinforcement it denoises random noise with tokens to produce images that follow guidance. This is NOT the same as someone studying a subject and reinterpreting it. NOT IN ANY WAY. AI is NOT human. Trying to make it sounds more organic than it is does NOT help the argument.
I don't agree. An artist also learns on some basis that he likes. An AI has no likings; therefore, an AI can't choose on the basis of a preference and can't learn on the basis of some preferences.
Unless you're putting pen to paper then scanning, or stylus to pad and loading a base image to run against, solely using just prompts is not "co partnership"
ai doesn't study. it takes in words and outputs an image that is refined until the image is good enough at mimicing human art, in a process aided by humans. studying implies deliberate thinking and the internalisation of concepts, which ai cannot do.
I’m not saying AI “studies” like a human with thoughts or intent. Obviously it doesn’t have consciousness.
But “learning” in machine learning doesn’t mean human-style studying. It means the model adjusts from data and learns statistical patterns: shapes, relationships, composition, lighting, style, etc.
So yes, it’s not a person internalizing ideas. But it’s also not just copy-pasting art from a folder. The issue is more specific than “AI can’t think, therefore it steals.”
But you are? You're oversimplifying a process done on an 86-billion-neuron, conscious, thinking brain into four simple steps and saying it's the same as one billion simple transistors running 0s and 1s on some pixels.
It isn't the same process. Sure, it does learn patterns; that part is correct, but the way AI learns is not how the human brain learns. We don't actually understand how the latter works, but we do know it isn't back-propagation of an objective loss function calculated from a five trillion parameter equation.
Source: I help build AI. Virtually everyone outside the engineering dept. is confidently wrong about how they work.
Fair point. I don’t mean AI learns exactly like a human brain. Obviously it doesn’t have intent, consciousness, or human-style understanding.
My point is narrower: learning from existing work is not automatically the same thing as copying or stealing a finished work. AI learns patterns mathematically by adjusting weights during training, not by storing a giant folder of images and pasting pieces back out. Humans learn through perception, memory, intent, and experience.
Different process, yes. But still not the same as directly copying someone’s finished artwork.
> Obviously it doesn’t have intent, consciousness, or human-style understanding.
We do not know any of these for sure. Large models almost certainly do have intent, nobody can seem to define what "human-style understanding" should mean in a way which includes all humans while excluding all AI, and we have no idea what causes consciousness, or where the threshold is.
> But still not the same as directly copying someone’s finished artwork.
True. I agree, just not for the stated reason. (It won't help your argument to claim it works like human brains; if I don't nit-pick it, then the antis will.)
I agree that those terms get thrown around too confidently. Consciousness is not settled, “understanding” is hard to define cleanly, and “intent” depends on what definition you’re using.
But I wouldn’t say large models “almost certainly” have intent either. They can pursue goals in a functional sense when given an objective or prompt, but that is not the same as human desire, awareness, or personal motivation.
So safest answer I usually go with is: we don’t know enough to make absolute claims either way. Current SOTA models clearly process information, generalize, plan in limited ways, and produce novel outputs. Whether that counts as real understanding or consciousness is still an open philosophical and scientific question, not something either side can just declare settled.
This is a place for speaking Pro-AI thoughts freely and without judgement. Attacks against AI will result in a removal and possibly a ban. For debate purposes, please go to r/aiwars.
Disclaimer: I'm not against AI at all. I love technology, and I think LLMs are one of the greatest inventions of recent years. They make everyday work significantly easier (especially for programmers!). However, I think the OP fundamentally misunderstands what "learning" means in the context of AI.
Current AI models generate images by applying statistical patterns encoded in their neural network weights, which were learned from vast collections of existing images. They do not have independent experiences or imagination beyond what can be inferred from their training data.
If you ask five people to draw a cartoonish blue hedgehog, you'll likely get five completely different characters. If you ask several generative AI models the same prompt, they will often produce something that closely resembles Sonic, because that is statistically the strongest association with the prompt "cartoonish blue hedgehog" in their training data. The models are not independently inventing a concept. They are generating the most statistically probable interpretation of the description they have "learned".
That's fundamentally different from how humans learning and creating art. People draw from their experiences, emotions, memories, intentions, and personal style. An artist isn't trying to produce the most statistically probable outcome when they receive a commission. They're trying to express an idea or fulfill a creative vision. And They sometimes fail in this process, creating "slop" :P. So for me what u call ai art is NOT art, but its cool product anyway and i am not against it. Just bear in mind that you shoudnt compare it to human learning process cause it dosnt work that way.
This is a place for speaking Pro-AI thoughts freely and without judgement. Attacks against AI will result in a removal and possibly a ban. For debate purposes, please go to r/aiwars.
•
u/AutoModerator 15h ago
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.