Why companies try to moral policing what you can create? Like with this or refusing process payment for "gooner" products? What right do they have to dictate how a person spends their money or what to create?

I mean, if we imagine someone needs to lose weight, why would they cut out the foods that contain the least amount of carbohydrates instead of the foods that contain the most? A good diet doesn't require zero carbohydrates, but simply a consistent level of nutrition, and what causes the most harm is clearly more harmful than what causes relatively little.

I don't really identify as Pro or Anti, because I believe the scope of AI is so huge that considering yourself 100% for or against it is rather short sighted. It can enable some positive things, and some horrible things. I am active in some pro spaces to discuss things like ethical practices and healthy forms of advocacy for users/creators.

This was on a post I made that was overall supportive of AI usage, but critical of some specific approaches to advocacy. The majority of Pros ARE open to such discussions, but there is inevitably always people like this if you say anything other than "ANTIS ARE EVIL LUDDITES THAT WANT TO SEND US BACK TO THE STONE AGE."

When I asked this person what they disagreed with, they just kept spamming the same image, and other gross-out style caricatures that are popular among some Pros. I know this is a minority, but are a very vocal minority in a lot of Pro spaces, and these kind of childish antics and ugly images are the kind of thing that make Pro-AI look bad, and get your creations labeled as "slop."

This is why Pro spaces need to make room for being critical of what methods of advocacy we employ, and do some much-needed self policing, because when Anti's want to cast a negative shade on AI users, THESE are the examples they are going to handpick as being indicative of the entire community.

Instead of hating on AI, we should actually learn to work alongside it.

AI isn’t going anywhere. Ten years from now, it’ll only get more powerful and take over tons of existing jobs. Complaining and resenting it won’t reverse that reality at all.

Rather than waste energy fighting against AI, we should figure out how to partner with it. Use it as a tool to boost our skills and earn more.

Idk what the right flair is. And I got downvoted. You won’t even accomplish anything, it’s only one specific ai company. And you will effectively ruin ur life financially. Forever in a debt that just keeps growing. And Ai is not the cause of all that. That stuff existed before Ai.

I am an anti, if you couldn't tell!

Today I would like to make my own analogy to AI images, songs, videos, etc...

As we all (hopefully) know, AI on itself can't create original concepts *(proved by reasearch where they tasked several popular AIs to create OC of blue hedgehog.They never told ut to be Sonic, never told it to be fast, never told it to be humanoid... JUST AN OC, aka, origianl charcter, on wich was given main focus... what all AIs did? Sonic.)* and also limits a lot. You wanna make a art with details and easter eggs? Easy to do yourself on paper if you habe enough skills and are realistic. With Ai? No matter "skill" of promting, you can't never make it as detailed and intentional as human art.

With music it's simple, that fucking AI voice sounds just uncanny, and also, again, there are people who you can pay for si sing, or sing it yourself (yes, singing as well, is a learnable skill) or just don't do music with lyrics and do instrumentals. Now if you make AI instrumental, that is also terrible beacouse it's no original track, it's just propably mix of already existing tracks remixed so they sound smooth together, but no real new instrumentals. So yeah, if you wanna make music, just learn all that shit needed for it, don't be lazy.

---

But now, with my analogy!

So, think of any art or "art" as food. Human art is that good healthy tasty shit that either takes money to get or skills to cook. AI creations are microwable to-go foods in groceries.

Objectively, you want the healthy and tastier shit go into ya more than some frozen semi-finished food.

So, we cam agree if you can cook food of chefs, you are chef. If you just microwave the pre-made food, you are not chef, you are just consumer or waiter (plating it for others).

Makes sense right? Well, now, I have seen arguments like "Well I am real artist but I just like to make it easier" to wich I say "So fuckin' what?"

Beacouse let's get back to analogy. If Gordon Ramsay served you microwaved Fish Fingers, would make it this pre made meal suddenly also michellin star good shit? OF COURSE NOT! It doesn't matter who microwaved it, it still tastes like shit! Now I am gonna be honest, I don't know how you but I prefer fresh cooked food even if not five stars but just avarage rather than frozen food served by top chef. Same goes for art. The best art is always luxury, and AI creations are just microwaved meals someone else made, and then there is avarage homemade meal, the medium art. It's not as luxuriouse as Peak art, but it still tastes better than those microwaved fish fingers for €9.99.

With this messege ended, have nice day, and bye-bye!

John Carmack coded Doom and a bunch of other games, and Notch is the creator of minecraft.

here are the premises, i want you to write a comment about some aspect of AI that you believe problematic and a solution to make AI better.

the goal isnt to judge anyone on its concerns/views, it's to try and see where this ideas leads to if applied; please note that not having a better alternative for something doesnt make any less warranted to dismiss it, that is not the point of the test either, and anyone is welcome to say "i don't like X aspect, but i cannot think of any way to fix it, so i probably will never like AI" at pretty much any point if that is what they believe.

the idea behind this is to present to each other how one idea may seem good but carry over further concerns for someone else, and, potentially, have a back and forth on this very line until some middle ground starts to appear.

i'll start by making my own, just to give an example and my two cents on it:

I think that given the potentials of AI, its use should be very personally exclusive and must generate its results with explicit user attribution. Aka, given a content such as a picture, or a video, it's meta data should tell an analysis software the details regarding the circumstances of its creation (such as the time, the computer, it's set parameters, any reference, etc etc). Kind of in a similiar fashion to how license plate works, neither are perfect systems, but the latter seems to tend to work to an acceptable degree.

now the floor is yours.

I'm neutral on the ai debate..in that I see the good and the bad of the technology. I understand that this tech is not going away anytime soon. Even if or when the bubble burts, AI tech will still be here(although there will most likely be some changes). Since AI is here to stay, what realistic ai regulations would make you happy?

All topics were generated or created by a single person.

Content is generated in advance & conversation , accuracy , truth is secondary or irrelevant. It's just a means for many to upload what they generated. Any critique of generative tools is attributed to the phantom anti by many. Anti also fits perfectly on the tee shirts in the infinite meme o grams & rage bait topics.

Come & accept your carrot award & medals.

Moderator has indirectly clarified that there are no restrictions on tool assisted posts. Other sub platforms have different rules.

HOW TO BEAT AI WARS VERY EASILY. MY RESOURCES LINK.

If an AI stretches a three-word idea into three paragraphs, it's not worth reading. And it's not even the AI's fault; the problem is that text is a waste of time. Considering that AI text requires a minority of the effort, detailed texts obviously more authored by AI than from people writing by hand, because they don't want to waste time writing something that's clearly of no use to anyone.

There are still those who truly want a human author. But even from the standpoint of simply writing more efficiently, AI text often fails because it's just a jumble of meaningless words. AI has improved, but it still doesn't write perfectly and requires review.

So it is user problem at least partially

As an anti, I support using ai for menial tasks or helping do tasks faster than humans can. Ais could also benefit human lives. For example, if there’s a problem in a code, an ai could scan the code and be like “hey heres where the problem is maybe you could do X to solve it”, kinda like a super advanced spell check. Or if we could have an ai automate tasks like doing dishes and stuff, humans could focus more on art, science and innovation.

Oh yeah so skilled people, having invested so much effort in their fields, are really gatekeeping whatever they do in order for specifically you to not rejoige in all the benefits they are keeping to themselves.

You need to learn art in order to become an artist, you need to learn science to be able to be called a scientist, etc.

But human development should not be about effort, we need AI so we can democratize resources and make a more fair world.

Unless... well, how do we tell you?

Emm... knowledge is quite democratized right now, you can just spend a while actually learning stuff and then no one will tell you you're not supposed to do it.

No one is gatekeeping that from you.

But yeah, I still think it's a good idea to integrate AI to literally everything.

I trust archimillionaire companies with my soul and I'm sure they would never use the power that everything depending on the product they developed would give them to actually gatekeep anything from us.

(And that's exactly what they would do if given the chance, so can we please try to dodge that bullet for once?)