Search Results
6/13/2025, 3:26:08 AM
>>7607293
>Absolutely nobody who is pro-ai is arguing in good faith.
I'm pro AI but I'm a non-AI artist. I think the main haters of it are
>people who want to make slop for a corporation
because it only competes en masse with slopfoundries. This is the position that few will actually admit to because it's really unconvincing, so many resort to bad faith presentations of other reasons. Typically such a person has a cynical view of art, either from being in the industry and having their hope and enthusiasm drained, or from already having a nihilistic outlook and lack of self-confidence.
>people who just dislike how most of it is shit
and early on it was somewhat difficult to filter out on certain sites. Less of a problem now. This is moreso a position that proposes an extreme solution for a mild problem, and can be relaxed by showing them filtering tools and how to find good art in 2025+.
>people who are overly-protective of their art
and think ANY reuse should be copyright infringement. This is the most uninformed of the positions, and is difficult to rectify because it typically relates to someone's entire viewpoint of art history and art as an entire concept being terribly off-base from reality.
>people who think AI art is competition with ANYONE and it has to be stopped before it gets good enough
This is mostly people who don't know why people pay artists in the first place. I argue this is the 2nd most uninformed position, because it's usually hinging on a few key misunderstandings, but can be a struggle to deal with because such a person also typically has poor self-esteem, and this is a fearful place to be.
>Skynet-doomsayers
Most of this goes back to a harry potter fanfic author's insane ramblings, which is the reason why OpenAI exists: their mission is one of fear of an AI apocalypse, and they're retardedly trying to develop a "safe AI" to prevent it. This type of individual typically acts in bad faith until backed into a corner. Ressentiment motive.
>Absolutely nobody who is pro-ai is arguing in good faith.
I'm pro AI but I'm a non-AI artist. I think the main haters of it are
>people who want to make slop for a corporation
because it only competes en masse with slopfoundries. This is the position that few will actually admit to because it's really unconvincing, so many resort to bad faith presentations of other reasons. Typically such a person has a cynical view of art, either from being in the industry and having their hope and enthusiasm drained, or from already having a nihilistic outlook and lack of self-confidence.
>people who just dislike how most of it is shit
and early on it was somewhat difficult to filter out on certain sites. Less of a problem now. This is moreso a position that proposes an extreme solution for a mild problem, and can be relaxed by showing them filtering tools and how to find good art in 2025+.
>people who are overly-protective of their art
and think ANY reuse should be copyright infringement. This is the most uninformed of the positions, and is difficult to rectify because it typically relates to someone's entire viewpoint of art history and art as an entire concept being terribly off-base from reality.
>people who think AI art is competition with ANYONE and it has to be stopped before it gets good enough
This is mostly people who don't know why people pay artists in the first place. I argue this is the 2nd most uninformed position, because it's usually hinging on a few key misunderstandings, but can be a struggle to deal with because such a person also typically has poor self-esteem, and this is a fearful place to be.
>Skynet-doomsayers
Most of this goes back to a harry potter fanfic author's insane ramblings, which is the reason why OpenAI exists: their mission is one of fear of an AI apocalypse, and they're retardedly trying to develop a "safe AI" to prevent it. This type of individual typically acts in bad faith until backed into a corner. Ressentiment motive.
Page 1