AI has a huge number of highly controversial topics, and you have every right to say they're bad. But ignoring criticism of "this model is two years old" when you're talking about top-end, not mid-range, AI capabilities is simply self-harm.
Just look at these two reactions. A complete rejection of logic and simply healthy skepticism.
For example https://deepmind.google/models/gemini-omni/
Of course, how much adding images and videos improves the AI itself is a debatable topic, but it can notice that video and text improve quite significantly, so the opposite should also be true.
It's one thing to be against AI simply because you're against AI. But you can't say that hiring a human to do part of the work isn't outsourcing creativity, and since games, films, and other things are teamwork, then by your logic, which you use for the ai, each team member outsources their creativity?
You can't simultaneously praise human teamwork and say that AI outsourcing of creativity is a problem.
Energy data sources
Water data sources
Data-center direct/site water use Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory – 2024 United States Data Center Energy Usage Report. Used value: average site WUE just over 0.36 L/kWh through 2023.
Data-center indirect electricity-related water Source: LBNL – 2024 United States Data Center Energy Usage Report. Used value: 4.52 L/kWh indirect water consumption from electricity generation for U.S. data-center electricity use in 2023.
Data-center high-WUE sensitivity case Source: Data Center Knowledge – guide to WUE. Used value: 1.8 L/kWh as a common average WUE benchmark for sensitivity analysis.
Steel water consumption and withdrawal Source: World Steel Association – Sustainability Indicators Report 2025. Used values: 8.50 m³/t crude steel freshwater withdrawal and 2.30 m³/t crude steel freshwater consumption.
Automotive manufacturing water use Source: Semmens & Bras, “Vehicle manufacturing water use and consumption,” based on automaker sustainability reports. Used values: 5.20 m³/vehicle direct water use and 1.25 m³/vehicle direct water consumption for manufacturing.
Aluminium water input and consumption Source: International Aluminium Institute – The Aluminium Story, raw materials / energy-water data. Used values: primary aluminium ingot production average water input 2.6 m³/t and net freshwater consumption ~1.4 m³/t aluminium.
Derived calculations:
Annual electricity from capacity: MW × 8,760 hours/year ÷ 1,000,000 = TWh/year.
Average load from annual energy: TWh/year × 1,000,000 ÷ 8,760 = MW.
Fuel conversion: 1 MMBtu = 0.293 MWh.
Water conversion: 1 m³ = 1,000 liters ≈ 264.17 US gallons.
AI data centers can consume factory-scale energy and water: a 100 MW AI data center is comparable to a large car plant, while multi-GW AI campuses can approach the scale of major steel or aluminium plants.
Important note: only 33% are completely against it, while 31% simply have certain problems with AI, which doesn't mean that a person will be against its use per se, but they are still skeptical, so they fall into the anti-AI category.
Since, 36% believe AI will become an “established artmaking tool,” similar to photography or other digital tools. 23% expect it to become a “specialized or niche area,” used by a smaller group of artists and embraced by specific collectors, galleries, and institutions.
We can conclude that not all of 31% with concern are really against ai in its essence.
Pro-AI believes AI will bring many benefits and is worth the price, while anti-AI believes there are few advantages. Average (middle bettwen them) : everything is terrible, but AI will continue. It's hard to imagine anything more grim.
My contribution to the final AI film cannot be less than what I would have had I written the script for a human film crew. Perhaps even more, since I select the best shots with the AI, but with a human crew, that's no longer my job. Why should I suddenly have my name in the credits of a film made with humans, but no longer have the same credits of an AI film?
This is all important because it greatly increases the amount of information you can give the AI. A simple promt is often insufficient. Ready-made images contain a huge amount of useful information. You can even simply draw words on paper in the right position, give them to the AI, and the AI will replace the words with an image of those words. This isn't about requiring effort; on the contrary, current AI is much, much more controllable than even a year ago, let alone the SD 1.6 era with small effort.
Image 2 image, that is, image transformation, has been around for a long time, but two years ago you could barely control it. Now you can only take a single image, only part of the concepts per image, and generally adjust the image much more precisely. AI as a tool has grown tremendously. From being almost uncontrollable, it has evolved into a fairly controllable process on many levels if you used an image as the intput data.
I mean, the automation of a scientist is considered a good thing because the scientist produces benefits for society beyond their own existence, through the results of their labor, which objectively help. The position that art cannot be automated essentially rests on the idea that art has no meaning other than being art - that is, people express themselves, and images are ultimately simply a means of expression, meaningless actually without that.
However, at its core, this essentially says that artists are useless labor for society, and why should the rest of society pay for nothing? If we accept this, then artists' pay is essentially based on a good word - a pure waste of important resources that could be spent elsewhere.
I'm not saying cheating is good or that it's a good process for students to do it, but it's also a test of AI capabilities. You must have a certain level of knowledge to answer such questions on a test or essay at this level. The same applies to propaganda: a useless tool for general information processing can't be used to create propaganda, or it will be very low-quality propaganda. But then shouldn't you be in favor of it? If you say that AI can create a fictitious image of tanks in Washington and that people will believe it, that means AI can create plausible fictitious content that can be used in a huge number of tasks: educational material (we already said that it must be plausible; if AI can't create educational material due to hallucinations, then it also can't create propaganda for the same reason, since it's the same information presented differently), illustrations, inspiration material, etc.
Tl;dr: You can't say that AI can help students cheat and create propaganda without having any other uses, since these two mentioned uses automatically mean that it can be used for a huge number of other tasks, since the creation method is the same.