Something that's been bugging me with a lot of the recent drama and arguments is that a lot of people, especially vocal ones promoting AI, say that artists need to learn how computers/the internet works (even going as far as to belittle and call them dumb), yet aren't expected to learn the arts.

I don't mean by "picking up a pencil" and actually drawing. I mean learning how art works, how genres/movements work, their history, and how the art community acts. I've seen people display ignorance on how art works, either using the toilet/banana or minimalism as a "gotcha" against effort in art - which doesn't even apply because the former are examples of Modern Art, which is about ideas/concepts and isn't how most contemporary artists work; and minimalism still requires effort, mainly in the "economy in art" - as in the usage of little to achieve more, which for some artists is very difficult.

Or the idea of the fundamentals of art and design, and why a detailed AI-generated piece doesn't work because while it uses a lot of the superficial traits of what people consider good art, it fails in actually utilizing what critically matters - like the aforementioned economy and understanding "less is more"; or how colors work; or how images are structured - which can also be connected to the photography argument wherein people say it's "just pressing a button" even though actual photographers need a lot of experience to make a photograph beautiful or interesting.

Then there's just the misunderstanding of the art community and it's various subjects for argument, like consent in using art or how critique/development work. I've seen some people dumbfounded that the art community is fine with "poor/shitty" art, when it's no stranger to me since there's always been an unspoken rule about helping new artists by being supportive and being easy with criticism - as in recognizing someone's skill and applying the right level of critique.

There's more, but overall I feel like I'm speaking to people who can't speak my language. I've been part of the art community for basically 20 years and all of this is natural to me - so to see people insist upon being part of the arts, yet display total ignorance, is rather frustrating at the worst of times.

I may not understand deeper programming, but I at least accept it and keep my criticisms/observations where it is appropriate. Yet how is it I am "dumb" for not understanding computers as well, yet the same people won't educate themselves on something they're so insistent on getting into?

Apologies beforehand if this comes across as heated. It's just so annoying how my expertise is looked down upon, something that seems more frequent in this day and age.

I'll explain why. This song here posted is "Isn't It 'A'" by PinocchioP, where it features Miku and Rin. Rin in this song is optimistic. Miku, on the other hand, is pessimistic. Since both are in different sides, they oppose each other and it's split into two sides: the positive and negative of life. The song meaning explores the painful opposes between extreme opinions and how people fail to truly understand one another, usually in the internet.

Now, how does this correlate to the AI war? Well, here, I interpret that life represents the AI, Rin represents the acceptor, and Miku represents the rejector, generally. In the AI war, both sides oppose each other, and they have extreme opinions about AI and is split into two sides, representing the sad reality that sometimes things are black and white. Of course, NOT ALL acceptors or rejectors are like this, I believe, it's that some of them I see on the internet are kinda like this, but again, NOT ALL acceptors or rejectors are like this

But this would be an interesting analogy.

Things about life → AI

Rin → acceptor

Miku → rejector

The song meaning and this war relate a LOT, in my opinion. What do you think?

Yes, I know. Both subreddits oppose each other. One is generally pro-AI, the other is generally anti-AI. But can we just at least not goddamn flame each other? It's getting a bit too out of hand imo.

Now, I sound stupid for saying that. But we're still going on with the war and even though I'm anti, this has to stop. If there isn't a way, then I might lose hope. Both subreddits try to protect their stance, which is good. What is NOT good is that they're flaming each other. What's unfortunate is that both have a right and wrong, so neither side is "better".

What do you guys think? Also I apologize if this sounds dumb but I'm kinda tired of this war. Especially in art.

Unfortunately, it seems like the moment this discussion is brought up, all hell breaks loose and some people (both sides) become unable to be civil. As this sub is a debate sub on the topic of AI, rather than the “sides of the AI war”, I see no reason for this type of discourse to occur on the subreddit. However, I don’t think it’s fair to just push this rule forward, so I will leave it up to a vote.

So, should this rule be implemented?

View Poll

Hi, I'm a communist who is against the boycotting of AI, because I see ownership as the enemy and not the machine, and I see consumer abstention to be the wrong form of politics. I also don't like how many anti-AI advocates defend IP. pls note i am looking for the views of communists specifically and not broader 'leftists' whether it be left-liberals or 'socialists'.

However I know that being pro-AI is often not the common stance among communists and I'm interested in why that is?

Hi, I have my own answer to this question, but want to see other anti ai people/pro ai people explain their takes. My answer is: There is not, it takes the style of many artists with no crediting whatsoever (like that would even make it better-) and amalgamates it together into a picture that has no creative thinking behind it. (because an ai cannot think on its own, it can take a prompt and process what the words mean, but in the end, it's an outsider with no feelings or autonomous thinking, it only knows words because it was programmed to associate words with certain things. It's trying to make something that takes those listed traits to make when it can't have it.) So therefore, it can't even be called "inspired" like how other humans are by other human's art.

It's stealing art, including artstyle.

On a different but smaller note... I don't see many ai stans ever talking about the fact it's stealing, and I kinda wish I knew why they didn't. If it's for not knowing how to defend against the argument or maybe just never hearing it before.

edit: I have worded some things wrongly, so I will correct them here.

when I say stealing, I mean when someone takes something that is not theirs, and optionally, saying it's original, new, or theirs. at least for this debate that is what the definition needs to be for debating the ai art. it is not a legal debate, it is supposed to be on ethics, morals, and just... decency to other people's works. So I'm thinking that when an ai takes many pictures and makes it into one, it's just stealing on a mass level that, in a court of law, would be called "copyright infringement". which it is.. but it feels like it's fancying up a word that can be described as taking what is not yours. (Aka stealing.)

I also want to mention that I originally said "does ai art steal artstyle?", but I actually just meant art in general, not just artstyle.

I hope this helps people understand what I mean more ^^​

So i used chat gpt to look up links to unity assets i can legally buy for my unity vrchat avatar project im making shared 2 of the links in the server asking which asset looks better and which to buy. (So giving money to actual artists not using AI)

Then, someone cropped the link where it says chat gpt and called me out for using ai in general chat publicly and said im on my own there.

So, essentially, im not worth talking to or helping because i used the free version of Chat gpt to look for a link? Im no better than companies that mass use ai and build ai data centers or mine crypto ? I didn't know that sharing a chat gpt domain would paint me as the servers' punching bag, and I'd be painted as the person making artists lose jobs.

I mean, I've been paying people to make skyrim mods for years even though they publish them for free, so this really hurt.

I left after that to think an lgbt focused server about acceptance designed to be a safe space would be so black and white political... i was just there because my friend is, but now, just looking at the server icon makes me salty.

And then i go to reddit to try and vent over this (i guess my mistake), and the first comment i got for posting this somwhere else calls me a baby a lier and that im to lazy to do the hard work myself and just use AI okay thanks just paint me as something again.

How is it even different from googeling something

It’s like saying eating cereal with milk means I endorse everything the dairy industry does, and therefore, i am evil

Art, being an expression of one’s ideas brought forth, has many classical and modern forms, but I’m still skeptical about calling ai art “art”.

With every established art form the first person to have brought the creation into being is the one who claims the artwork to be their own. But with ai, the lines between who created the piece is blurred. On one hand you have a person’s novel idea that they want to express, so they have a lesser intellect generate/create it by prompting them with the details they want included. On the other hand the lesser intellect is the one putting in the efforts to make those demands, and it the one at the end of the creation pipeline who finishes the product. Because of the joint effort put in between the two beings, which one should be able to claim they created the art? The one with the original input, or the one interpreting the input? If the ai is the one that has a rightful claim to the art then does that mean people shouldn’t be able to monetize its works as their own, or that they simply have to disclose what made the art? And if the art belongs to the human then can it truly be considered art if it did not come from their own interpretation of their thoughts, but rather the interpretation from an ai pretending to have the ability of expression? Is there a nuance between the other two scenarios that blend either answer into a more complex solution?

I have a mixed opinion on AI and I kinda debate with fellow pros and antis. I'm not trying to pick a side so just watching some crossfire feels a little entertaining.

When we dismiss a piece of writing purely because artificial intelligence was used to generate the text, we are committing one of the oldest errors in logic: the genetic fallacy. By judging the merit of an argument based entirely on its origin, we fail to engage with the actual substance, accuracy, and logic of the ideas presented.

Dismissing an AI-assisted article without reading it is not a defense of intellectual rigor; it is a refusal to think critically.

The New Credentialism

To understand why this is intellectually dishonest, consider how society often treats individuals who lack formal academic credentials. If someone without a college degree writes a brilliant, well-reasoned article, it is highly dismissive and arrogant to claim their work as bad simply because they lack the credentials indicating they have the skill to make a good article. Lacking formal education does not mean a person lacks profound intelligence, practical experience, or valuable insights.

The prejudice against AI-assisted writing operates on the exact same logic. AI acts as an accessibility tool for people who have brilliant concepts or a deep understanding of a subject, but perhaps lack formal prose training or fluency. Gatekeeping someone because they used a tool to articulate their thoughts is essentially saying: “If you cannot jump through the specific hoops of formal writing syntax, your thoughts do not deserve to be heard.”

Just as we can judge a book or a movie intelligently without possessing the technical skills to write or film it ourselves, a person can intelligently direct an AI to articulate their ideas.

Breaking the Monopoly on Creative Execution

For centuries, skilled writers and visual artists have held a monopoly on creative execution. If you had a visionary idea, you were entirely bottlenecked by your own technical dexterity or your ability to pay someone who spent years mastering their craft.

AI fundamentally breaks that monopoly.

It is helpful to think of AI not as an autonomous creator, but as an employee or a tool used by a director. A film director does not need to build the sets, sew the costumes, or hold the camera to be the visionary behind a great movie. In the same way, AI is employed by the user to execute a vision.

Critics often argue that AI merely steals, but this misunderstands the nature of synthesis. Human artists and writers learn by studying thousands of past works, absorbing styles, and synthesizing them into something new. AI does the exact same thing at an algorithmic scale. Unless an AI is directly plagiarizing a specific, existing work — which is unequivocally wrong and should be treated as such — its output is a synthesized execution of the prompt it was given. The user is the director; the AI is the hired hands.

The True Measure of Effort

This does not mean all AI use is inherently equal or honest. There is a distinct line between honest tool use and intellectual laziness.

If someone entirely gives up their critical thinking skills, prompts an AI, and blindly copy-pastes the output while claiming, “Look at my hard work,” they are essentially plagiarizing the AI itself. They are taking credit for intellectual labor they did not perform.

So, how do we verify if a work contains genuine human effort? Currently, society relies on “AI detectors,” but these tools are an inconsistent mess. They are fundamentally flawed because they are set up to judge work in a shallow way — scanning for stylistic traits, sentence perplexity, and syntax patterns — rather than measuring the actual intellectual effort involved. They penalize humans who write in a structured way and reward shallow content that happens to look conversational.

If we ever develop an honest, programmatic way to check content, it must be an AI designed not to punish a writing style, but to measure the percentage of raw, unedited algorithmic generation versus human curation and original intent. It could look at a piece and honestly conclude: “97% raw AI generation, 3% unknown human adjustment.”

Ultimately, intellectual honesty is not about whether a human typed every single letter on a keyboard. It is about whether a human applied their judgment, directed the logic, and engaged their critical thinking skills to bring a worthwhile idea into the world.

However, a counter argument someone could make is, “What if a person fully typed out everything, and it just so happened that an AI could have done that exact same thing, giving their article a score of 100*% raw AI generation*”? And my counter argument to that is, “How does promoting articles or art that an AI could easily make, contribute meaningfully to society?”