Also when a chef writes a recipe, it’s usually from experimenting and experience while cooking. An AI writing a recipe will say to use a dozen eggs, a teaspoon of sugar, and a metric ton of flour to make 2 pancakes.
Or if we’re talking about prompting like in the post, it’s far more like ordering at a restaurant and then eating what’s put in front of you. If I place an order, even if I get them to make a custom request, I wouldn’t take what I receive and say I cooked it. I just ordered food and something got put on my plate.
If this were re-framed as a commission, where you gave detailed instructions to an actual person to create something, you receiving those results wouldn’t make you the artist in that situation. These are both human involved scenarios, but removing the human doesn’t really change that asking for something is not the same as creating something.
… So you’re saying they have a large sample of data to pull from and give a recipe they believe will work based on that data? I don’t like this analogy…
I am going to put one of my earlier comments that is fairly relevant
Ah yes, because when humans do art we never add little touches that make it our own even if we are closely following the source material. Meanwhile AI only closely follows its data
While they appear similar you can clearly see where they differ, with the end result being much better vs if they had copied the original more faithfully. Those changes were all intentionally done, based on the artists experiences biases and even mood. When AI makes changes it does not have the same intentions because it does not have artistic intent.
What makes my position difficult is that I understand the logic of where you’re coming from, that AI in its current state regularly produces slop. However, AI hysterics speak out of both sides of their mouth on this issue.
AI is either slop that can never live up to the creative intricacies the human mind can fabricate, that it is little more than a simple imitation of what we have, rather than new and budding ideas from talented human beings.
Or
AI is a dangerous technology that serves to completely eclipse and replace artists as well as other professions and should be actively sabotaged or legislated against to be defeated before it has the chance to become even stronger than it is.
I understand having a bias, but it’s important to not react to things out of fear or anger especially when it’s misused by others. I want AI to become a titanic force for good and to have that opinion in a sea of people desperate to murder it in the womb is exhausting to say the least.
Comparing it to a chef is one of many disingenuous analogies that serve to perpetuate the idea that AI is bad, will always be bad, and should be cast aside now to spare everyone the trouble.
AI hysterics speak out of both sides of their mouth on this issue.
AI is either slop that can never live up to the creative intricacies the human mind can fabricate, that it is little more than a simple imitation of what we have, rather than new and budding ideas from talented human beings.
Or
AI is a dangerous technology that serves to completely eclipse and replace artists as well as other professions and should be actively sabotaged or legislated against to be defeated before it has the chance to become even stronger than it is.
First, I do not appreciate being called hysterical.
Secondly, it is not a contradiction. Petrol_sniff_king already put it more eloquently than I could.
I understand having a bias, but it’s important to not react to things out of fear or anger especially when it’s misused by others.
I partially agree. There are use cases of AI that are unambiguously good. Such as assisting radiologists in detecting cancers or allowing for the profitable sorting of mixed recyclables. No one is against those uses as the benefits are clear. The benefits of generative AI on the other hand are less clear while the costs are far greater and more salient.
I want AI to become a titanic force for good and to have that opinion in a sea of people desperate to murder it in the womb is exhausting to say the least.
Right now generative AI is an extremely negative force for humanity, that is why I am angry. I would be curious what “titanic” good generating slop provides us?
Also, please do not opine the benefits of artificial general intelligence. The architecture that is currently being developed is not the way to get to that.
Comparing it to a chef is one of many disingenuous analogies that serve to perpetuate the idea that AI is bad, will always be bad, and should be cast aside now to spare everyone the trouble.
How so? It is replying to the specific idea that prompting an image is not the same as creating art.
I will also respond to your other comment here.
but if we’re discussing the quality of art, that becomes subjective almost immediately. Yes you can point to 7 fingered hands and I can just as easily point to a beautiful landscape that’s never existed.
If you see art as nothing but a product to be consumed, then yes AI will eventually be able to produce something good. But if you instead see it as a form of communication, as I do, then AI ‘art’ strips away all but the most superficial of communication from said art. See my other comment for more.
I’m not even sure you can call it cheap when yet another argument posed by AI hysterics is that it’s so expensive the servers that are being water cooled are actively accelerating climate change.
It is not cheap, ecologically or financially. The only reason it is as cheap as it is to the end user is thanks to the massive amount of money being pumped into it. It is the same reason that Uber was so cheap for so long. This is also completely ignoring the moral cost.
First, I do not appreciate being called hysterical.
I am not calling you, personally, hysterical. I am referring to the groups that broadly rally against AI, even exclusively generative, as hysterics due to the extreme emotions associated with the technology. Their arguments are closely aligned with your own and are constantly riddled with contradictions and assertions that have little basis if any. Yes I see you’ve hotlinked many articles, unfortunately opinion pieces such as and others don’t interest me because they too are full of appeals to emotion to invoke fear and panic.
The benefits of generative AI on the other hand are less clear while the costs are far greater and more salient.
I’m not going to flood this response with citations of opinions, that’s not going to be helpful, but I’m positive you can grasp how giving everyone the ability to readily generate media can be a benefit. ‘Slop’ has existed since the dawn of internet and has only rapidly ramped up with two major things changing. The term used to be ‘Spam’ and I can’t say I’ve noticed a very big change. The strongest argument I believe those who oppose AI have is that while ‘Spam’ was disruptive, ‘Slop’ is increasingly difficult to detect. Yet, as with photoshop or other tools that manipulate media more slowly, tools will be developed that can differentiate between AI generation and human generation. The moment between a new technology and those rails are turbulent but the wild calls to action to kill the technology outright is bizarre to say the least.
Also, please do not opine the benefits of artificial general intelligence.
Sources such as https://aaai.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AAAI-2025-PresPanel-Report-Digital-3.7.25.pdf (Page 44) I widely agree with because it identifies the bad uses of AI, calls for unified effort for regulatory safeguards to be put in place, and at no point attempts to discredit its usefulness or demean the technology as a whole. Your own source is opining the benefits of artificial general intelligence.
The architecture that is currently being developed is not the way to get to that.
Respectfully, unless you directly work with AI or have the credentials/sources to support that opinion, I can’t take your word for it. Something other than “Why ChatGPT is dogshit” articles would be appreciated. I’m trying desperately to use the sources you’ve given me but wading through articles of emotionally charged individuals is exhausting.
If you see art as nothing but a product to be consumed, then yes AI will eventually be able to produce something good. But if you instead see it as a form of communication, as I do, then AI ‘art’ strips away all but the most superficial of communication from said art.
Art can be a form of communication but to say that it is only a form of communication and the prospect of a ‘creatorless’ piece of art, devoid of purposeful intent is somehow worth less or even meaningless I believe it more a personal testament than anything. I enjoy art because it allows me to introspect. To allow the thoughts which control my inner monologue to fall away so that everything left can simply ponder. A blank canvas with exclusively white paint used, titled “Hare in a Snowstorm” can easily be mocked as having no effort or even joked about but personally it was the first time I was absolutely captivated by a piece of art. (Yes, a fictional piece of work in DareDevil was the first time I ‘understood’ what art means to me.)
It is not cheap, ecologically or financially. The only reason it is as cheap as it is to the end user is thanks to the massive amount of money being pumped into it. It is the same reason that Uber was so cheap for so long. This is also completely ignoring the moral cost.
Individually, the cost of generating an image seems to be hard to find. All I can find with the articles you’ve linked is that at scale AI is expensive which yes, I agree. Nearly millions of images being generated and deleted at scale is expensive but if we’re not footing the bill, who is? Like with Uber, Uber and their investors are. Using the technology is costing rich people with money… and I’m struggling to find the moral ramifications. How are the people who use generative AI being targeted for rich companies buying up property and using it to support AI when nothing was stopping said companies from doing this prior to the ‘AI boom’?
Arguing morality to me is tough because these companies and investors already had the finances to do what they’re doing, they’re just being grossly misguided into the AI bubble and putting money down on it. They were already going to use that money in morally dubious ways to make more money, this is just their chosen outlet.
It is difficult to see it that way when the largest people in the space are explicitly promoting the use of the tool in said nefarious way.
Tell me then, why don’t we blame Google gift cards for scamming the elderly? Why are international scammers taking the heat when the technology of gift cards is being abused so that Google and others like them can make money off tech support scams? Or what about getting mad at cash transferring apps like Cash App or PayPal for allowing free money to transfer between drug dealers and their clients? Why does that sound absurd but villainizing AI as a whole for internet con artists seem entirely fine?
The most coherent way I can argue why AI generation should exist is that artists, game developers, and similar creators are already being worked under inhumane conditions. Put to work with a “metaphorical” gun to their head. Why should AI generation not be used to reduce workload? Why should this technology be scrapped entirely when it’s already shown it can produce a battery of simple content that can be expanded on by a more skilled hand? It’s frustrating to me because the arguments always seem to water down to another Luddite movement. Would it be less hurtful to be called an “AI Luddite” I wonder?
Why should AI generation not be used to reduce workload?
I’m asking for the crowd here: why… would it do that?
If you got time to lean, you got time to clean. As your manager, we have 105 AI pipelines generating content we’d like to get into the next build. I’d like you to evaluate and process all the output by tomorrow. K thanks~
I am not calling you, personally, hysterical. I am referring to the groups that broadly rally against AI, even exclusively generative, as hysterics due to the extreme emotions associated with the technology. Their arguments are closely aligned with your own and are constantly riddled with contradictions and assertions that have little basis if any. Yes I see you’ve hotlinked many articles, unfortunately opinion pieces such as and others don’t interest me because they too are full of appeals to emotion to invoke fear and panic.
Well I am one of the people rallying against generative AI. I don’t see myself as hysterical as I am opposing the negative effects of generative AI.
And news stories highlighting the negative effects of AI are “opinion peices” now?
I would love to hear more of the contradictions from us anti AI people as the one you gave is not a contradiction.
I’m positive you can grasp how giving everyone the ability to readily generate media can be a benefit.
No I cannot. Please elaborate as to why allowing people to generate slop is a good thing?
Slop is mass produced, meaningless content. AI getting better will not change that.
Respectfully, unless you directly work with AI or have the credentials/sources to support that opinion, I can’t take your word for it. Something other than “Why ChatGPT is dogshit” articles would be appreciated. I’m trying desperately to use the sources you’ve given me but wading through articles of emotionally charged individuals is exhausting.
Sources such as https://aaai.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AAAI-2025-PresPanel-Report-Digital-3.7.25.pdf (Page 44) I widely agree with because it identifies the bad uses of AI, calls for unified effort for regulatory safeguards to be put in place, and at no point attempts to discredit its usefulness or demean the technology as a whole. Your own source is opining the benefits of artificial general intelligence.
“Architectures Beyond Transformers: The standard transformer architecture has demonstrated remarkable capabilities, but it has fundamental limitations, such as fixed context windows, lack of explicit memory, inability to learn and react to real-time feedback from environments, and inefficiency and challenges in complex reasoning tasks”
Pg61
And they specifically say that new models of AI must be developed. The reason I said that is because AGI is an entirely different conversation than the one we are having now.
Art can be a form of communication but to say that it is only a form of communication and the prospect of a ‘creatorless’ piece of art, devoid of purposeful intent is somehow worth less or even meaningless I believe it more a personal testament than anything. I enjoy art because it allows me to introspect. To allow the thoughts which control my inner monologue to fall away so that everything left can simply ponder. A blank canvas with exclusively white paint used, titled “Hare in a Snowstorm” can easily be mocked as having no effort or even joked about but personally it was the first time I was absolutely captivated by a piece of art. (Yes, a fictional piece of work in DareDevil was the first time I ‘understood’ what art means to me.)
So… you use a film as an example for your point?
“Becoming an effective filmmaker involves being deliberately mindful of the structures and conventions that allow film to communicate meaning to a global audience. The Language of Film explores complex topics such as semiotics, narrative, intertextuality, ideology and the aesthetics of film in a clear and straightforward style, enabling you to apply these ideas and techniques to your own analysis or film-making. With full-colour film stills, in-depth case studies and a wide range of practical exercises, The Language of Film will help you to make the transition from consumer to practitioner - from someone who just responds to the language of film, to someone who actively uses it.”
Do you really think that the filmakers put no thought about the message that piece of art portrayed? That they did not think about how its framing would get people to think and introspect? Almost like the filmakers were trying to say something.
Individually, the cost of generating an image seems to be hard to find. All I can find with the articles you’ve linked is that at scale AI is expensive which yes, I agree. Nearly millions of images being generated and deleted at scale is expensive but if we’re not footing the bill, who is? Like with Uber, Uber and their investors are. Using the technology is costing rich people with money…
Why do you think that people with money are financing AI?
Also the articles I linked talked about how OpenAI is losing money on a $200 a month plan. Meaning it costs more than $200 a month to service a single AI user that uses it at a high level.
and I’m struggling to find the moral ramifications.
So artist’s work being used on mass without their permission has zero ethical ramifications?
How are the people who use generative AI being targeted for rich companies buying up property and using it to support AI when nothing was stopping said companies from doing this prior to the ‘AI boom’?
What are you trying to say here?
Tell me then, why don’t we blame Google gift cards for scamming the elderly? Why are international scammers taking the heat when the technology of gift cards is being abused so that Google and others like them can make money off tech support scams? Or what about getting mad at cash transferring apps like Cash App or PayPal for allowing free money to transfer between drug dealers and their clients? Why does that sound absurd but villainizing AI as a whole for internet con artists seem entirely fine?
I didn’t know the google was actively promoting gift card scams, or that cash transfer apps were promoting drug dealing.
The most coherent way I can argue why AI generation should exist is that artists, game developers, and similar creators are already being worked under inhumane conditions. Put to work with a “metaphorical” gun to their head. Why should AI generation not be used to reduce workload? Why should this technology be scrapped entirely when it’s already shown it can produce a battery of simple content that can be expanded on by a more skilled hand?
It’s frustrating to me because the arguments always seem to water down to another Luddite movement. Would it be less hurtful to be called an “AI Luddite” I wonder?
Well I am one of the people rallying against generative AI. I don’t see myself as hysterical as I am opposing the negative effects of generative AI.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say you only oppose the negative effects of generative AI while undermining it entirely. You aren’t “opposing the negative effects of generative AI.” you are opposing generative AI at the least and from what I can tell, AI in general.
And news stories highlighting the negative effects of AI are “opinion peices” now?
Do you genuinely not understand the difference between an article reporting news and a bias hit-piece serving to prop up your pre-existing beliefs while ignoring any evidence to the contrary? These articles are no more news than Mein Kampf is an expert account of WWII and it’s extraordinarily bad faith to pretend otherwise.
I would love to hear more of the contradictions from us anti AI people as the one you gave is not a contradiction.
Pulling from the bottom of the last responses, you seem to like the idea of being a luddite yet enjoy and prosper from their failure. The device you use for instance, the clothes you wear, the food you eat. It’s interesting that even with that hindsight you’ll allow the fear of short term job loss to effectively kill technologies that can be used to advance oneself exponentially.
And they specifically say that new models of AI must be developed. The reason I said that is because AGI is an entirely different conversation than the one we are having now.
"such as fixed context windows, lack of explicit memory, inability to learn and react to real-time feedback from environments, and inefficiency and challenges in complex reasoning tasks”
This is the contradiction I spoke of. Where you can seemingly rally against the destruction or at least heavy scaling back of “generative AI” (or even all of AI) yet when presented with the chance by seemingly ethically acting individuals to ‘reboot’ the architecture to be stronger, faster, and capable of so much more than data scraping you… support it wholeheartedly? You want “new models” of AI yet how will you better control it against the perceived negatives you’ve stated you’re against? Even now with ethical guardrails being put in after the fact, people have found ways around it and continue to do so in order to make AI do what it specifically was told not to do. It sounds akin to a peace activist voicing their excitement over bigger bombs with larger ranges.
So… you use a film as an example for your point? Do you really think that the filmakers put no thought about the message that piece of art portrayed? That they did not think about how its framing would get people to think and introspect? Almost like the filmakers were trying to say something.
I used a Television Series to explain that art does not need to communicate in order to be meaningful to oneself. That I don’t need to know who made it, why they made it, or even the title of the work to examine how it makes me feel. Which, yes, to the contrary of my point the show makes clear through other dialog. The show helped unlock how I view art as a whole but the art itself, the painting, did not communicate that. The art is not responsible for communicating to me what I feel about a work, if it was, we’d all come away with the same conclusion.
Why do you think that people with money are financing AI? Also the articles I linked talked about how OpenAI is losing money on a $200 a month plan. Meaning it costs more than $200 a month to service a single AI user that uses it at a high level.
Was that not the point you made when you referred to Uber being propped up in the same way? Why be concerned on the expenses of a company you are not investing in or is being subsidized by the government? If you’re concerned about the environmental impact in terms of water usage, you have my complete support in regulation which would limit their usage. However, that’s not what you’re saying, is it? Who is paying the “$200 a month” and why should you or I care?
I didn’t know the google was actively promoting gift card scams, or that cash transfer apps were promoting drug dealing.
Is it your assertion then that the creators of OpenAI are actively encouraging people use their services for illegal or unethical activities?
So artist’s work being used on mass without their permission has zero ethical ramifications?
What’s unethical about it? We already have laws which state if you use creative works that aren’t sufficiently altered, you cannot be allowed to profit off them or claim credit for said works. We have, since the dawn of DMCA, had the ability to take a work, modify it “enough” and sell it within legal and ethical frameworks. There are robust creative protections with songs to where if you record yourself singing Firework by Katy Perry, you can sell that recording and not send a dime to her. Why? Because your voice and instruments are different enough that all the other similarities don’t matter - you can profit off that work.
Now, I heavily disagree with about 80% of the DMCA and believe it’s woefully outdated but no, if you put out work publicly and it’s used in a data set I don’t think legally or ethically you need to be compensated however I would more readily support AI architecture that does pay for their training sets especially on work that isn’t lingering on the open web. It might make you and I both feel a little violated knowing millions of data scraping scripts exist designed to take and repurpose every kilobyte of content on the internet, but it’s neither illegal nor unethical.
Fuck I love extreme left propaganda. The extreme right makes idiots feel like a hardened warrior, surrounded on all sides, but you have the strength to persist while extreme left shit just makes otherwise educated individuals feel stupid and afraid. How dare you not realize all these threats around you, are you dumb? You support something I don’t, have you considered it could be turned into the most oppressive, worldwide threat of our time?
If you have a point to make, using the propaganda that makes you feel good is typically the worst way to convey that point to anyone who doesn’t already agree. It’s circlejerk material you should safe for your buddies, not evidence or a convincing point.
AI is either slop that can never live up to the creative intricacies …
AI is a dangerous technology that serves to completely eclipse and replace artists …
This is not a contradiction.
AI is better at specifically one thing: volume. And, cheap garbage you can convince some schmuck to pay for is a pretty attractive offer to suits who care more about the lines on their graph paper than the things their employees are making.
People have long complained about modern Hollywood being plagued by shitty, formulaic, half-baked sequels to movies that came out 40 years ago: AI, as a technology, represents more of this, but with even fewer people who give a shit.
AI is better at volume, speed, and the details are often good enough to fool people into believing it’s real. That, by definition, is not slop. Abundance and a lack of quality defines “slop” but if we’re discussing the quality of art, that becomes subjective almost immediately. Yes you can point to 7 fingered hands and I can just as easily point to a beautiful landscape that’s never existed.
I’m not even sure you can call it cheap when yet another argument posed by AI hysterics is that it’s so expensive the servers that are being water cooled are actively accelerating climate change.
AI is being used to perpetuate what was already happening, more efficiently. Yes, it’s much easier to generate decent or even good assets to wallpaper over actual slop. It’s the makeup of choice to masquerade the modern con artist, to that I don’t disagree.
But to fault a tool for being attractive to those which use it nefariously isn’t just a misunderstanding, it’s the peak of ignorance.
You have a profoundly different definition of that word, then. As always, it is purely aesthetics with you people.
I’m not even sure you can call it cheap
You know that factories, those things that make your doritos and your mcdonalds soda straws, are really expensive buidlings, right? By gosh, how can a single bag of chips ahoy cost $3.49, then? We’ll never know.
But to fault a tool for being attractive to those which use it nefariously
Cigarettes are a tool. Maybe your grandpa shouldn’t have smoked so many—he might still be alive.
So do 3 year olds who run mud-pie shops in my garden.
Anyone can make a recipe. Many people are physically able to cook, even. Chefs are actually good at it, and thus people are willing to pay for the food they make.
I have no idea if there was an argument, or if we are just saying things, so I’ll leave it at that.
Chefs regularly make recipes…
When a chef writes a recipe they are not cooking, they are writing a recipe
Also when a chef writes a recipe, it’s usually from experimenting and experience while cooking. An AI writing a recipe will say to use a dozen eggs, a teaspoon of sugar, and a metric ton of flour to make 2 pancakes.
Or if we’re talking about prompting like in the post, it’s far more like ordering at a restaurant and then eating what’s put in front of you. If I place an order, even if I get them to make a custom request, I wouldn’t take what I receive and say I cooked it. I just ordered food and something got put on my plate.
If this were re-framed as a commission, where you gave detailed instructions to an actual person to create something, you receiving those results wouldn’t make you the artist in that situation. These are both human involved scenarios, but removing the human doesn’t really change that asking for something is not the same as creating something.
… So you’re saying they have a large sample of data to pull from and give a recipe they believe will work based on that data? I don’t like this analogy…
I am going to put one of my earlier comments that is fairly relevant
I would argue that cooking is similar.
And again AI recipes do not work as they take what word is most likely to be next, not what would actually work.
The artist is clearly drawing an analogy to ordering food.
Yes and the chef would need to experiment in the kitchen in order to make said recipes. Meanwhile AI recipes.
What makes my position difficult is that I understand the logic of where you’re coming from, that AI in its current state regularly produces slop. However, AI hysterics speak out of both sides of their mouth on this issue.
AI is either slop that can never live up to the creative intricacies the human mind can fabricate, that it is little more than a simple imitation of what we have, rather than new and budding ideas from talented human beings.
Or
AI is a dangerous technology that serves to completely eclipse and replace artists as well as other professions and should be actively sabotaged or legislated against to be defeated before it has the chance to become even stronger than it is.
I understand having a bias, but it’s important to not react to things out of fear or anger especially when it’s misused by others. I want AI to become a titanic force for good and to have that opinion in a sea of people desperate to murder it in the womb is exhausting to say the least.
Comparing it to a chef is one of many disingenuous analogies that serve to perpetuate the idea that AI is bad, will always be bad, and should be cast aside now to spare everyone the trouble.
First, I do not appreciate being called hysterical.
Secondly, it is not a contradiction. Petrol_sniff_king already put it more eloquently than I could.
I partially agree. There are use cases of AI that are unambiguously good. Such as assisting radiologists in detecting cancers or allowing for the profitable sorting of mixed recyclables. No one is against those uses as the benefits are clear. The benefits of generative AI on the other hand are less clear while the costs are far greater and more salient.
https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/03/31/uk-government-cuts-funds-for-actually-working-anti-cancer-ai/
Right now generative AI is an extremely negative force for humanity, that is why I am angry. I would be curious what “titanic” good generating slop provides us?
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/lee_2025_ai_critical_thinking_survey.pdf
https://c3.unu.edu/blog/the-rise-of-ai-crawlers-a-digital-menace-reshaping-the-internet-landscape
https://futurism.com/internet-polluted-ai-slop
https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/04/openais-gpt-helps-spammers-send-blast-of-80000-messages-that-bypassed-filters/
Also, please do not opine the benefits of artificial general intelligence. The architecture that is currently being developed is not the way to get to that.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381278855_ChatGPT_is_bullshit
https://aaai.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AAAI-2025-PresPanel-Report-Digital-3.7.25.pdf
How so? It is replying to the specific idea that prompting an image is not the same as creating art.
I will also respond to your other comment here.
If you see art as nothing but a product to be consumed, then yes AI will eventually be able to produce something good. But if you instead see it as a form of communication, as I do, then AI ‘art’ strips away all but the most superficial of communication from said art. See my other comment for more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GAIlanN_-k
It is not cheap, ecologically or financially. The only reason it is as cheap as it is to the end user is thanks to the massive amount of money being pumped into it. It is the same reason that Uber was so cheap for so long. This is also completely ignoring the moral cost.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ai-boom-could-use-a-shocking-amount-of-electricity/
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ai-data-centers-threaten-global-water-security
https://futurism.com/the-byte/openai-chatgpt-pro-subscription-losing-money
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/04/18/ai-bubble-hype-dying-money/
https://futurism.com/the-byte/openai-losing-money-chatgpt
https://futurism.com/the-byte/microsoft-losing-money-ai
It is difficult to see it that way when the largest people in the space are explicitly promoting the use of the tool in said nefarious way.
https://tante.cc/2025/03/28/vulgar-display-of-power/
I am not calling you, personally, hysterical. I am referring to the groups that broadly rally against AI, even exclusively generative, as hysterics due to the extreme emotions associated with the technology. Their arguments are closely aligned with your own and are constantly riddled with contradictions and assertions that have little basis if any. Yes I see you’ve hotlinked many articles, unfortunately opinion pieces such as and others don’t interest me because they too are full of appeals to emotion to invoke fear and panic.
I’m not going to flood this response with citations of opinions, that’s not going to be helpful, but I’m positive you can grasp how giving everyone the ability to readily generate media can be a benefit. ‘Slop’ has existed since the dawn of internet and has only rapidly ramped up with two major things changing. The term used to be ‘Spam’ and I can’t say I’ve noticed a very big change. The strongest argument I believe those who oppose AI have is that while ‘Spam’ was disruptive, ‘Slop’ is increasingly difficult to detect. Yet, as with photoshop or other tools that manipulate media more slowly, tools will be developed that can differentiate between AI generation and human generation. The moment between a new technology and those rails are turbulent but the wild calls to action to kill the technology outright is bizarre to say the least.
Sources such as https://aaai.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AAAI-2025-PresPanel-Report-Digital-3.7.25.pdf (Page 44) I widely agree with because it identifies the bad uses of AI, calls for unified effort for regulatory safeguards to be put in place, and at no point attempts to discredit its usefulness or demean the technology as a whole. Your own source is opining the benefits of artificial general intelligence.
Respectfully, unless you directly work with AI or have the credentials/sources to support that opinion, I can’t take your word for it. Something other than “Why ChatGPT is dogshit” articles would be appreciated. I’m trying desperately to use the sources you’ve given me but wading through articles of emotionally charged individuals is exhausting.
Art can be a form of communication but to say that it is only a form of communication and the prospect of a ‘creatorless’ piece of art, devoid of purposeful intent is somehow worth less or even meaningless I believe it more a personal testament than anything. I enjoy art because it allows me to introspect. To allow the thoughts which control my inner monologue to fall away so that everything left can simply ponder. A blank canvas with exclusively white paint used, titled “Hare in a Snowstorm” can easily be mocked as having no effort or even joked about but personally it was the first time I was absolutely captivated by a piece of art. (Yes, a fictional piece of work in DareDevil was the first time I ‘understood’ what art means to me.)
Individually, the cost of generating an image seems to be hard to find. All I can find with the articles you’ve linked is that at scale AI is expensive which yes, I agree. Nearly millions of images being generated and deleted at scale is expensive but if we’re not footing the bill, who is? Like with Uber, Uber and their investors are. Using the technology is costing rich people with money… and I’m struggling to find the moral ramifications. How are the people who use generative AI being targeted for rich companies buying up property and using it to support AI when nothing was stopping said companies from doing this prior to the ‘AI boom’?
Arguing morality to me is tough because these companies and investors already had the finances to do what they’re doing, they’re just being grossly misguided into the AI bubble and putting money down on it. They were already going to use that money in morally dubious ways to make more money, this is just their chosen outlet.
Tell me then, why don’t we blame Google gift cards for scamming the elderly? Why are international scammers taking the heat when the technology of gift cards is being abused so that Google and others like them can make money off tech support scams? Or what about getting mad at cash transferring apps like Cash App or PayPal for allowing free money to transfer between drug dealers and their clients? Why does that sound absurd but villainizing AI as a whole for internet con artists seem entirely fine?
The most coherent way I can argue why AI generation should exist is that artists, game developers, and similar creators are already being worked under inhumane conditions. Put to work with a “metaphorical” gun to their head. Why should AI generation not be used to reduce workload? Why should this technology be scrapped entirely when it’s already shown it can produce a battery of simple content that can be expanded on by a more skilled hand? It’s frustrating to me because the arguments always seem to water down to another Luddite movement. Would it be less hurtful to be called an “AI Luddite” I wonder?
I’m asking for the crowd here: why… would it do that?
If you got time to lean, you got time to clean. As your manager, we have 105 AI pipelines generating content we’d like to get into the next build. I’d like you to evaluate and process all the output by tomorrow. K thanks~
Well I am one of the people rallying against generative AI. I don’t see myself as hysterical as I am opposing the negative effects of generative AI.
And news stories highlighting the negative effects of AI are “opinion peices” now?
I would love to hear more of the contradictions from us anti AI people as the one you gave is not a contradiction.
No I cannot. Please elaborate as to why allowing people to generate slop is a good thing?
Slop is mass produced, meaningless content. AI getting better will not change that.
So a published research article is not adequate?
https://officechai.com/stories/ai-models-seem-to-be-hitting-a-ceiling-of-capabilities-marc-andreessen/
https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/confirmed-llms-have-indeed-reached
“Architectures Beyond Transformers: The standard transformer architecture has demonstrated remarkable capabilities, but it has fundamental limitations, such as fixed context windows, lack of explicit memory, inability to learn and react to real-time feedback from environments, and inefficiency and challenges in complex reasoning tasks”
Pg61
And they specifically say that new models of AI must be developed. The reason I said that is because AGI is an entirely different conversation than the one we are having now.
So… you use a film as an example for your point?
“Becoming an effective filmmaker involves being deliberately mindful of the structures and conventions that allow film to communicate meaning to a global audience. The Language of Film explores complex topics such as semiotics, narrative, intertextuality, ideology and the aesthetics of film in a clear and straightforward style, enabling you to apply these ideas and techniques to your own analysis or film-making. With full-colour film stills, in-depth case studies and a wide range of practical exercises, The Language of Film will help you to make the transition from consumer to practitioner - from someone who just responds to the language of film, to someone who actively uses it.”
https://archive.org/details/languageoffilm0000edga_p7q9_2ed
Do you really think that the filmakers put no thought about the message that piece of art portrayed? That they did not think about how its framing would get people to think and introspect? Almost like the filmakers were trying to say something.
Why do you think that people with money are financing AI?
Also the articles I linked talked about how OpenAI is losing money on a $200 a month plan. Meaning it costs more than $200 a month to service a single AI user that uses it at a high level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
https://expertbeacon.com/why-is-uber-so-expensive/
So artist’s work being used on mass without their permission has zero ethical ramifications?
What are you trying to say here?
I didn’t know the google was actively promoting gift card scams, or that cash transfer apps were promoting drug dealing.
https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/9057338?hl=en
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2025/03/government-strengthens-canadas-anti-money-laundering-framework-with-new-regulatory-amendments.html
https://aftermath.site/ai-video-game-development-art-vibe-coding-midjourney
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/lee_2025_ai_critical_thinking_survey.pdf
https://thenib.com/im-a-luddite/
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say you only oppose the negative effects of generative AI while undermining it entirely. You aren’t “opposing the negative effects of generative AI.” you are opposing generative AI at the least and from what I can tell, AI in general.
Do you genuinely not understand the difference between an article reporting news and a bias hit-piece serving to prop up your pre-existing beliefs while ignoring any evidence to the contrary? These articles are no more news than Mein Kampf is an expert account of WWII and it’s extraordinarily bad faith to pretend otherwise.
Pulling from the bottom of the last responses, you seem to like the idea of being a luddite yet enjoy and prosper from their failure. The device you use for instance, the clothes you wear, the food you eat. It’s interesting that even with that hindsight you’ll allow the fear of short term job loss to effectively kill technologies that can be used to advance oneself exponentially.
"such as fixed context windows, lack of explicit memory, inability to learn and react to real-time feedback from environments, and inefficiency and challenges in complex reasoning tasks”
This is the contradiction I spoke of. Where you can seemingly rally against the destruction or at least heavy scaling back of “generative AI” (or even all of AI) yet when presented with the chance by seemingly ethically acting individuals to ‘reboot’ the architecture to be stronger, faster, and capable of so much more than data scraping you… support it wholeheartedly? You want “new models” of AI yet how will you better control it against the perceived negatives you’ve stated you’re against? Even now with ethical guardrails being put in after the fact, people have found ways around it and continue to do so in order to make AI do what it specifically was told not to do. It sounds akin to a peace activist voicing their excitement over bigger bombs with larger ranges.
I used a Television Series to explain that art does not need to communicate in order to be meaningful to oneself. That I don’t need to know who made it, why they made it, or even the title of the work to examine how it makes me feel. Which, yes, to the contrary of my point the show makes clear through other dialog. The show helped unlock how I view art as a whole but the art itself, the painting, did not communicate that. The art is not responsible for communicating to me what I feel about a work, if it was, we’d all come away with the same conclusion.
Was that not the point you made when you referred to Uber being propped up in the same way? Why be concerned on the expenses of a company you are not investing in or is being subsidized by the government? If you’re concerned about the environmental impact in terms of water usage, you have my complete support in regulation which would limit their usage. However, that’s not what you’re saying, is it? Who is paying the “$200 a month” and why should you or I care?
Is it your assertion then that the creators of OpenAI are actively encouraging people use their services for illegal or unethical activities?
What’s unethical about it? We already have laws which state if you use creative works that aren’t sufficiently altered, you cannot be allowed to profit off them or claim credit for said works. We have, since the dawn of DMCA, had the ability to take a work, modify it “enough” and sell it within legal and ethical frameworks. There are robust creative protections with songs to where if you record yourself singing Firework by Katy Perry, you can sell that recording and not send a dime to her. Why? Because your voice and instruments are different enough that all the other similarities don’t matter - you can profit off that work.
Now, I heavily disagree with about 80% of the DMCA and believe it’s woefully outdated but no, if you put out work publicly and it’s used in a data set I don’t think legally or ethically you need to be compensated however I would more readily support AI architecture that does pay for their training sets especially on work that isn’t lingering on the open web. It might make you and I both feel a little violated knowing millions of data scraping scripts exist designed to take and repurpose every kilobyte of content on the internet, but it’s neither illegal nor unethical.
Fuck I love extreme left propaganda. The extreme right makes idiots feel like a hardened warrior, surrounded on all sides, but you have the strength to persist while extreme left shit just makes otherwise educated individuals feel stupid and afraid. How dare you not realize all these threats around you, are you dumb? You support something I don’t, have you considered it could be turned into the most oppressive, worldwide threat of our time?
If you have a point to make, using the propaganda that makes you feel good is typically the worst way to convey that point to anyone who doesn’t already agree. It’s circlejerk material you should safe for your buddies, not evidence or a convincing point.
Well your response makes it clear that it is a waste of time to continue this conversation. Thank you for the debate.
This is not a contradiction.
AI is better at specifically one thing: volume. And, cheap garbage you can convince some schmuck to pay for is a pretty attractive offer to suits who care more about the lines on their graph paper than the things their employees are making.
People have long complained about modern Hollywood being plagued by shitty, formulaic, half-baked sequels to movies that came out 40 years ago: AI, as a technology, represents more of this, but with even fewer people who give a shit.
AI is better at volume, speed, and the details are often good enough to fool people into believing it’s real. That, by definition, is not slop. Abundance and a lack of quality defines “slop” but if we’re discussing the quality of art, that becomes subjective almost immediately. Yes you can point to 7 fingered hands and I can just as easily point to a beautiful landscape that’s never existed.
I’m not even sure you can call it cheap when yet another argument posed by AI hysterics is that it’s so expensive the servers that are being water cooled are actively accelerating climate change.
AI is being used to perpetuate what was already happening, more efficiently. Yes, it’s much easier to generate decent or even good assets to wallpaper over actual slop. It’s the makeup of choice to masquerade the modern con artist, to that I don’t disagree.
But to fault a tool for being attractive to those which use it nefariously isn’t just a misunderstanding, it’s the peak of ignorance.
You have a profoundly different definition of that word, then. As always, it is purely aesthetics with you people.
You know that factories, those things that make your doritos and your mcdonalds soda straws, are really expensive buidlings, right? By gosh, how can a single bag of chips ahoy cost $3.49, then? We’ll never know.
Cigarettes are a tool. Maybe your grandpa shouldn’t have smoked so many—he might still be alive.
My grandfather actually died of stomach cancer from chewing tobacco. Go fuck yourself you luddite prick.
So do 3 year olds who run mud-pie shops in my garden. Anyone can make a recipe. Many people are physically able to cook, even. Chefs are actually good at it, and thus people are willing to pay for the food they make.
I have no idea if there was an argument, or if we are just saying things, so I’ll leave it at that.