r/DefendingAIArt

Went to a new sub that was a circlejerk of a show I used to watch. Wrote a humorous post detailing why the protagonist of the show should have been someone different in the cast of characters. It had word play - obscure references - unique comical phrasings - it was a cool post.

Uploaded three pics of my preferred protagonist - I guess the last one was AI made? I honestly couldn't tell (I don't think anyone really can anymore). Guess what happened.

You don't have to - because you've likely been on Reddit before. My entire post was ignored - like, everything I had actually written - and people in there were having literal meltdowns over the fact that I had put an AI image in there - including the mod of the sub - who responded after two minutes - meaning he didn't even read the post either.

And it was just an onslaught of the most genuinely dislikable Karens who were collectively clutching an oyster farm's worth of pearls about an image that AI may have generated. And everything else I had written was ignored entirely. And it was like - okay - I get it now ...

This is another modern-day asshole test. If you flip out on someone because they used an AI image - you might just have found the perfect vehicle to transfer and dump your surplus of mental-illness refuse.

Fucking hell, I swear ...

Looking at other posts in the sub - from a few days prior - and it was, I kid you not, "We need to attract more people to the sub."

And like a gigantic 1,000 piece puzzle in the hands of AI - the whole picture came together in seconds.

I think quite a few people probably came to the same conclusion a while ago.

It’s not just that they don’t exist in real life. They barely seem to exist at all.

Most of the stories many of them post are fake and AI-generated. I ran about five of them through my own AI, and it came to that conclusion. It could still be wrong, but it’s suspicious.

I haven’t met a single anti-AI person in real life, nor have I heard of any known cases. The closest thing would be the YouTubers they watch, but anyone can pretend to believe something on camera without any problem.

At least, I’ve come to the conclusion that they’re just pure bait for Reddit, and that’s it. That would explain why their arguments and posts are so dramatic, paranoid, and honestly pretty funny in a way xd

I came online in the early '90s, when digital tools were new and most people were skeptical of them. I've spent years fascinated by editing and creating with technology, and the current debate over AI-generated images and video feels like a rerun of an argument I remember well.

When Photoshop arrived, the early results were often obvious fakes, and critics dismissed the whole medium. Darkroom photographers saw digital manipulation as a lesser craft. Over time, though, retouching and compositing became standard practice, and the skill matured into a discipline. The people who thrived weren't the ones who applied a filter and called it art. They understood light, composition, and the tool well enough to use it with restraint.

I think AI is following the same arc. Right now anyone can generate something, and much of the output is crude, which invites the same backlash. As the tools mature, the meaningful distinction will be between casual output and skilled, intentional work. Creators who know exactly what they want and how to direct the tool will set the standard, much as the best Photoshop artists did.

That's not to say the critics are wrong about everything. Concerns about authenticity, labor, and disclosure are legitimate and deserve serious answers. But history suggests a medium is ultimately judged by its best practitioners, not its worst examples.

I just find it weird how people keep saying that ai takes water and stuff, but there’s bigger things that take water. Also, since when did anyone even care for the world, it’s like one day they suddenly started to care when ai took over-