Let me just make this very clear from the start

If the only thing you think is wrong with ai, is ai art and the environmental impact, stfu and go home

Because whether you'd like to hear it or not, the pro ai people have been cooking you all in arguments non stop because you genuinely think that you're gonna get anywhere when your only argument is on the philosophy around what can be considered real art, something that was never agreed upon well Prior to the existence of ai

And yes, the pros are correct when they tell you that there are FAR worse contributors to the downfall of the environment that y'all have not done a thing to fight against, which is why you NEED to make strong arguments as to way AI is far less worth it then any of those things, and why stopping AI is a far more urgent matter, and you cannot do that if your only gripe with it is that it's "not real art"

Every use of AI, even generative ai, makes AI better at doing at least one of the following things

Create fake nudes of people without their consent, allowing for things like cp, sexual harrassment, cyber bullying and revenge porn

Give out false information by running all the information through a filter rather then directing you straight to the source like old google, the biggest example of this would be Elon musks grok ai, which he lobotomized a good 5 times because it was "too woke" right until it started calling itself "robot hitler" and was spreading right wing bigotry, which was around when he "reset it", but the fact is you cannot trust what these billionaire CEO's are doing with their ais

Mass surveillance, wherever you go being constantly tracked 24/7, you may say "if you're not doing anything wrong then why should you be worried", well it depends on when governments change the definition of wrong, as well as what's really wrong with laws today, it will now be completely impossible for a poor single mother to steal baby products from the filthy rich grocery chain, also in Australia it is now illegal to say "from the river to the sea", for the sake of defending Netanyahus genocide, also if you have any faith in revolutions, then you should understand why this is bad

Even stronger war tech specifically for wealthy countries only, allowing America to have even more efficiency in their crusades

Propaganda through making fake videos to convey a false narrative, scroll on twitter long enough and you're bound to find some AI video depicting black people as some savage gangsters with some absurd caption

False endorsements, making advertisements using random celebrities likeness to endorse whatever they're selling without the person's consent

The list could go on so if I missed anything please feel free to mention it

But seriously, if ALL you have to say about AI is that AI art sucks and is stealing from artists, then you need to get some other arguments quickly

But if you genuinely don't give a fuck about any of these other things, then you're deadass just some bandwagon grifter who will give up on fighting ai the moment it's fully normalised

Also, just to be clear, a lot of these things were possible before ai, the issue is that it was never possible without any effort what so ever to be accomplished with minimal flaws

And if you're a pro AI reading this, then understand that I believe that the only way that AI can work without genuinely making the world a worse and worse place, is in a society where money does not exist, because the billionaires do NOT have your best interest in mind and they are exploiting you just as much as everyone else

You are not an entrepreneur or hip inventor making complete use of modern technology, you're a training program being used for free, once ai reaches a point of being so good that it requires literally no effort at all to get exactly what you want, then all the best ais will be placed behind pay walls and exclusive to billionaire CEO's who can now produce whatever art they need on mass production without allowing any creative input from a human being who might risk telling the word any sort of truth, no longer will producers need to make artists rich and give them a platform to speak on in order to exploit their art for money, they will simply type into their laptop

Who decided art needed to be placed on a pedestal, protected from the same technological change that has transformed nearly every other profession?

We used to employ calligraphers for work that word processors can now do in seconds. Tax preparation, travel agencies, typesetting, photography, publishing—technology has repeatedly taken skills that once required specialists and made them accessible to ordinary people. Every time that happens, industries change. Some jobs disappear, new ones emerge, and people adapt.

But when that same disruption reaches art, suddenly the argument becomes a moral one: we have to protect artists from being replaced.

Why?

Technology doesn't just replace opportunities. It creates them.

Think about the person who loves drawing and storytelling but could only produce an image or two in their spare time. Maybe making a comic, animation, game, or film was completely beyond their time, money, or technical ability. Now that same person may be able to create an entire webcomic, animated series, game, or independent production without needing a multimillion-dollar studio behind them.

That's not the death of creativity. That's an enormous expansion of who gets to create.

And yes, established artists may have to adapt. That's painful, and there's absolutely room to debate copyright, consent, compensation, and how these tools are developed. But “this technology changes existing creative jobs” isn't, by itself, a moral argument against the technology.

The world has never promised any profession that its tools, skills, or business model will remain economically protected forever.

Maybe the more interesting question isn't “How do we stop AI from changing art?”

Maybe it's “What happens when millions of people who always had ideas, but never had the resources to realize them, suddenly can?”

Because assuming consent isn't the same as actually getting consent. If you're gonna use this kind of language, you need to be prepared to own it yourselves.

Edit: from the responses to this thread, it seems like a lot of people think that they speak and think for all other artists and consent can be assumed in literally every case of moodboarding and fan art. Since you're all smart enough to know that there's no such thing as assumed consent, I think we can safely say that the people who talk about "consent" as applied to AI training don't sincerely believe what they're saying.