Calling people Anti-AI misses the point of the stance. Most are simply Pro-Human. Most people would agree AI should enhance human creativity, agency, curiosity, and well-being rather than get in the way of those qualities as it often does in its current state. It goes without saying, humans should be in control of how the technology is developed and used not the other way around where the technology drives of how people view and maintain themselves. AI is an impressive technological advancement. It doesn't need anyone to advocate for it, the innovation speaks for itself.

What concerns me is seeing a handful of people have seemingly resigned themselves to letting AI replace critical thinking, the ability to self-reflect, artistic curiosity, guidance and mentorship, and/or basic problem-solving capabilities. From what I'm seeing it's an oddly selfish endeavor, but everyone is entitled to their own pursuit of happiness. Do what you want, but don't think anyone is just going to blindly follow along with this idea of “machine is better” being some kind of new foundation of civilization.

Here's a loosely related drawing:

They are two memes here based on a pattern I saw on Reddit lmao.

I keep seeing people argue it's fine to let AI handle the "mundane" parts of their workflow. Absolutely not. Automating the boring parts is cheating

That's why I don't use Google. Letting some clanker sift through millions of pages for me? Lazy. Inaccurate. Disrespectful to the craft

Instead, I do research the honest way. I walk to the library, pull the card catalog, and flip through books by hand. Does it take three days instead of three seconds? Yes. But I earned that citation. When I cite a source, I know its Dewey Decimal number personally

People say "but the boring parts have no creative value, they're just time sinks." Exactly. That's the point. If a task is mundane and soul-crushing, that's how you know it's building character. The suffering IS the craft.

My colleagues finish literature reviews in an afternoon with search engines and databases. Sure. And I finish mine in six weeks with a bad back and a library fine. Who's the real researcher?

TLDR; If you use Ctrl+F you're not a scholar, you're a fraud

Let's just let them decide please, we shouldn't speak for them on either side.

Context: Saw this response on a post from an Ai Service advertising that their Ai has no rules or "limits" in a very sexual manner using A photo of a girl on the subway that's seemingly being preferred by the guy behind her.

Sorry for the repost, image keeps failing to upload.

I'm one of over a billion AI users, and have very special insights into how AI should and shouldn't be used. I'm something of an expert, because even though I don't understand how any of it works, I've been using it for a few months so pretty sure I know best particularly when it comes to telling other people what to do.

I strongly feel that AI should only be used the ways I want to use it, and it should be illegal to use in ways I don't want to use it.

You're welcome.

However the hate directed at individuals and small business owners is pretty unnecessary not everyone has the budget to hire a graphic designer and even if they did they don’t have to. Redirect your anger at the system not other people.

I'm generally an AI skeptic in terms of whom it's a benefit for and vehemently against so-called "generative" AI (check my post history), but to the extent that DLSS5 is used in the pursuit of increased realism, I think it makes sense.

The headlines right now are that it "halves frame rate". Okay. But how much slower would the equivalent result be to generate using pure rasterisation or ray tracing?

I wouldn't call myself an expert any more, but I do have thirty years of experience writing graphics engines, shaders, and so on, and we've been chasing diminishing returns for a while now. This isn't the first time something has halved frame rates (coughcrysiscough), but it IS the first time in at least five years that I've been able to look at two screenshots featuring old vs new technology and been able to see at a glance a very clear difference (with the exception of some well-chosen ray tracing examples).

For clarity: I have absolutely no affection for the creepy, soulless, flawless, AI-generated "characters" flooding social media, and no desire to play games featuring them. But that's not what I'm seeing with the current DLSS5 screenshots. They kinda just look like the character did already, but with much more true-to scene lighting and skin that actually looks and behaves like skin. They look more real. In some cases they just look real.

Is that going to run slower than before? I'd kind of assume so. Is it a bigger visual differential than anything else you could do that would halve frame rate? I think yes, and we're right at the start of figuring out how to get the best from it and building hardware to excel at it.

I think AI is mostly a vengeful spirit conjured by grifters and thieves to devour our pensions. But if it can cure cancer and substantially move the needle on in-game realism, maybe there's a baby somewhere in that there bathwater.

Hi everyone! Let me first state that I’d like to hear both perspectives, whether pro or anti, and that I’d like to keep this conversation respectful to both.

That said, I find myself leaning anti due to a number of things I’ve learned about recently (or, at least, become more aware of). Before a few days ago, I was somewhat anti-AI with some mixed opinions, but following a certain post made on the Washington Post, I find myself vehemently against the use of generative AI at the moment.

To be specific, it’s the article discussing a US district court’s decision to protect a person’s right to AI-generated CSAM. I understand that it protects only possession and not acquisition, as well as that it’s in line with existing law, but I find the decision to be profoundly disturbing. Even if the individuals in it aren’t real, for AI to be able to generate such material, there must have been some illegal material involved in the process, and frankly, I still feel very sour about the potential normalization of even fake images of this kind in our culture.

While I don’t necessarily believe generative AI is inherently bad and can be used responsibly, I don’t feel comfortable supporting a technology for which this is a legal precedent in my country. Not to say that one prompt will immediately cause the collapse of the law, but rather, I’m concerned that if it continues to be normalized and spread at the level that it is now before the law can catch up and set new, healthier precedents for it, we could see similar or even more questionable legal decisions be made.

However, I also do want to keep in mind that AI is currently a hot topic and that there can be sensationalism surrounding it, and that I’ve had some trouble finding additional information about this decision. I wanted to know if anybody had more information, as well as your opinions on the matter. While I am against the use of AI at this time based on the harm I believe it to be causing in a number of areas outweighing the benefits, I don’t want to use this purely to put down the technology. At the same time, however, I really don’t want to play around with something as this caliber because I very much value the safety of children and would rather be cautious.

Thank you for reading everything if you did!

how do you talk sense into someone who thinks the entire world is getting destroyed by AI? That water is getting polluted everywhere, that people are getting dumber and that everyone lives in ai psychosis?

A bold idea though I’m not certain if anyone has suggested it before. What if we teach AI the theories of colouring, perspectives, lighting, etc? What if we try to mimic the process a human being learning art, to a much larger extent?

I assume that will be very complicated and consuming. But I want to believe humanity will eventually have the conditions to carry out experiments like this.

“it deserves to be bashed and shunned for it being trash no real person wants.. looking away is just normalizing filth”

(and why do yall sound like the westboro baptist church?)

He is %100 right. For something to be GenAI, it needs to generate something new from thin air. It doesn't make anything up from thin air. That's also why its very consistent %85 of times and doesn't include input lag like Frame Gen.

Can all the Anti AI biased crowd stop crying over something literally optional now?

Genuinely curious to see some real reasons