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.

grown ass adults shitting their pants and crying over the “artistic intent” when they’re injecting it (adding a MOD) into old games not meant for it and cranking the hell out of sliders… just a circlejerk of rage baiting with intentional bad results and fake results (chat gpt generated Cloud from final fantasy)

to make it worse they aren’t even letting you like it or think it looks good ever. people are saying if you’re “defending it” you’re literally a bot or they insult your intelligence and call you blind dumbass moron shill destroying the planet

for using a mod for a videogame btw

fuck yall

In 2026, I think it's pretty clear that AI is useful, but I've seen people claim it's completely worthless and can't do anything useful. I'm not going to argue that it can't create slop, but in the right hands, it can do amazing things.

(In this post, I'm generally talking about LLMs)

I'm going to debunk a series of claims people make when they say "AI isn't actually useful".

1. AI can't create anything new

I hope we can all agree this one is false. Thousands of people have built custom applications, solved brand new problems, and (as controversial as it is) generated brand new ideas using image/video models.

The best example I can find of this is new math proofs being generated by AI. You can read about it here: https://openai.com/index/ten-advances-in-mathematics/

1. AI isn't actually intelligent

This claim is super hard to debunk because everyone has a different definition of "intelligent". Putting that aside, I think it is pretty clear that LLMs do have some form of intelligence (even if it's not in the same way humans do).

I feel that the best benchmark that shows this is "Humanities last exam," which you can read about here: https://agi.safe.ai/

Humanities last exam is a benchmark "designed to be the final closed-ended academic benchmark of its kind with broad subject coverage**".** Current frontier models score about 50%. If a human could do that, then we'd think that they were the smartest person in the world.

Going back to the math example, I think that also is a clear show of intelligence. When humans solve complex math problems, they are praised, and everyone treats them as highly intelligent individuals. Why should it be any different with AI?

1. AI can't do any real work

AI very clearly can do real work. Ignoring the math problems I've already mentioned, OpenAI's Codex has 25 million active users (https://x.com/i/trending/2093684512190247026). In case you don't know, Codex (and GPT Work) are tools designed to get real work done. If 25 million people using a tool isn't enough to convince you that it's useful, I don't know what is.

In conclusion, I hope this post informs people that, yes, AI is actually useful. We're not stuck in 2022, when ChatGPT couldn't tell you how many Rs are in strawberry.

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?

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

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.

“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?)

no opinion

in fact; dumb war

ai should be useable. just don't use it for everything, do something yourself once in a while

i'm just gonna call myself ambi-ai like ambivalent

Here is the report

I find it striking how quick misinformation spreads here. A narrative that critics of AI are simply being "propagandized by the CCP" was manufactured by high-reach individuals and repeated as fact.

The report cited by AI real-estate developers and niche figures in this space explicitly states the PRC-linked campaign had "little to no observable engagement". The report was never intended to be used as a debate tactic; it was a strategic assessment intended for state actors.

So I have to ask: when will these people apologize for their continued campaign of mis- and disinformation against their own community and the broader public?

Summary: The supposed "CCP astroturfing" campaign had no measurable impact. OpenAI's own report confirms it. The narrative is a distraction and its time to hold those spreading it accountable.

I was going to post this on the antiai subreddit but I am yet to hear from the mods over there if I could post this.

Assume there was a game where you speak (using your voice) to an NPC and that NPC replies back using an AI model and a mumble voice (think text bubble with mumble voice). The game would have non-AI generated assets, art, etc. Your voice isn't saved at all, it is transformed to text locally and sent over to an AI model that determines a good response.

Would you play such a game?

Edit: The game's genre won't be an RPG, it'll be multiplayer coop / friendslop.

Just further proof that a lot of anti-AI sentiment in the west is pushed by China in order to cripple rival nations adoption and advancement of AI.

Source: https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/2093130747796148634

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?

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 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.

For context, I am anti ai. However many people on the cesspool that is called the “anti AI” sub (that I do not feel accurately represents real antis besides unemployed Redditors) have been blatantly calling out vibecoded to the point of witch-hunting. My question is why. Why?? If someone is having fun on their passion project and uses ai, then let them. Maybe it’s a buggy mess. But who cares? As long as they are having fun doing what they like I don’t see a problem. Personally for bigger codebases there might be a risk with using AI, but for small indie games or passion projects I don’t see the problem. I’ll never buy a vibecoded project because it doesn’t align with my beliefs, buts that’s not saying other people won’t. They might even have fun with a vibe coded project. Overall, please stop harassing people over having fun. Personally I don’t support AI, but if other people want to use it it’s not harming me (unless they are directly stealing from me).