Anonymous #1 13w

1. There’s no reason to attack me and be rude. 2. Most of those arguments have been debunked, though I would love to look at these intelligence studies if you don’t mind sharing. 3. Neil deGrasse Tyson made a very good point, I think, in that within these models, his work makes up roughly 0.000083% of the training data, which isn’t much. Training a model specifically to steal somebody’s work is obviously a dick move, and wrong, it’s stealing, but general models are not designed to be that way.

-2

Anonymous #1 13w

The interview I was referring to, if you’re curious, he makes a lot of good points: https://youtu.be/5Qon72VKH30?si=H_xVXu9W8k4PxFz3

-1

Anonymous #1 13w

Anyway, I really think calling the use of a general model to help create something original “theft” is a pretty big stretch. Even copyright law protect things like this as original artwork:

-1

Anonymous OP 13w

Recent MIT study- here’s a link discussing it since the study itself isnt fully released in a non paywall form : https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/06/17/using-ai-makes-you-stupid-researchers-find/ Just because the theft it commits against an individual is very little of its total data doesn’t make it any less theft. We also can’t include how much of each persons art it replicates in its generative slop to really tell. It’s just insane to not want to improve ai to protect real people

7

Anonymous #1 13w

Here’s another interesting video around common ai controversy and copyright law, if your curious about where I got that from: https://youtu.be/gv9cdTh8cUo?si=_BpT6AudFaTxtAuW

1

Anonymous #1 13w

I never said it shouldn’t be improved. I said it shouldn’t be hated. There are people posting things like “oh look I trained a model on my face and made a Simpsons version of myself 😄” and some people comment and treat them like they just said the holocaust wasn’t real or something. Like those people need to relax a little.

0

Anonymous OP 13w

Currently the biggest issue is we have no standing law or court decisions to truly makes these decisions, and the current government is trying to make it so we can’t pass laws to decide on the legality of it. Even if it is deemed perfectly legal, laws don’t dictate morality. And it’s immoral to use artists’ material without their permission to train a generative model with the goal to be able to replicate their art without people so their jobs are useless

7

Anonymous OP 13w

No it should 100% be hated in its current state

6

Anonymous #1 13w

No offense, but this is a pretty bad random sample for any kind of study 😅 like of course if you rely on something else to do your homework for you, you’re not going to learn anything, or develop skills. That was kind of my whole point from the start.

0

Anonymous #1 13w

Yeah, well I didn’t vote for them. There’s not much we can do about that. I am an artist, that is my full time job. I’m not concerned at all about ai replacing me. When you actually work with the currently available tools, you quickly realize that it’s just a fancier version of tools that we already had. Even google’s new thing is still useless outside of mindless advertising and novelty.

-1

Anonymous #1 13w

And I mean I’ve been saying this, the goal isn’t to replicate their work. Especially now the major model releases have all had safeguards put in place to avoid reproducing real people’s faces, and living artist’s work. The issue is shitty people take those models and train in content that wasn’t there to directly steal from people. But there’s not much we can do about that, because anybody with a computer can do it. It’s the same problems with plagiarism that the world has always had.

-1

Anonymous OP 13w

And for what it’s worth, popular model sharing sites are making policy against posting models trained on real people and other people’s work.

-1

Anonymous OP 13w

If you genuinely think your job as an artist isn’t in danger then you’re a lost cause. You REALLY think big companies and corps won’t just use ai so they don’t have to pay an actual artist?

7

Anonymous OP 13w

All models are trained on real people and others work. It’s impossible not to be

6

Anonymous #2 13w

Oh I know they will. But it’s not going to work. The tools aren’t good enough to give them what they want, and they never will be, because THEY DON’T KNOW what they want. It’s both the most insufferable, and most reassuring part of working as an artist.

0

Anonymous #1 13w

If it’s trained on one person’s work, then it’s theft. If it reproduces that person’s work, then it’s theft. If somebody tries to find a magic prompt that bypasses safety and reproduces somebody’s work, that is theft. Hell, if you just type out a prompt, and share whatever gets crapped out as yours, even THAT is theft. But if train my face into something, use that to render a few different generic art style portraits, pick one I like, and polish it manually myself? That’s not theft.

0

Anonymous #1 13w

It doesn’t matter if it’s trained on so many people that the individual is lost in the data. That’s literally how the human brain works. Every artist in all of recorded history based their work off of work that they had scene from other people, and the natural world.

1

Anonymous OP 13w

Seen*

1

Anonymous OP 13w

And there are major concerns here. I’m not saying there aren’t. Creative jobs are safe for the foreseeable future, but there are a lot of jobs that 1. CAN be replaced by ai, which is going to have a major impact on the economy that needs to be addressed, and 2. People THINK ai can replace, but can’t, and is actually dangerous, because people aren’t double checking work that can put people’s safety and risk.

1

Anonymous OP 13w

Education for example… something Neil deGrasse Tyson also mentioned in that interview I posted that everyone ignored 🥲 We need educators, they need to be people, and they need to be well paid. But there are a lot of uneducated idiots right now thinking “oh the ai can just do that for free”. No, it can’t…

1

Anonymous OP 13w

How do you feel about the ecological impact of the massive AI databases and computers? With the water coolant polluting water in ways that make it non-recyclable?

7

Anonymous OP 13w

I think ai could be helpful especially when used in the medical field to help doctors, but it’s not being done it ethical ways at the moment

7

Anonymous mother_russia 13w

I’ll have to look into it again, but last I checked the concerns were fairly exaggerated/misrepresented. I’m not sure how water coolant in computer systems can be polluted, even at larger scales they generally reuse the same water over and over, it’s in a closed system. But ai aside, all of our data centers and our energy sources need shift to cleaner practices. We have options, but we aren’t switching because of lobbying and profit concerns… general billionaire shittiness.

1

Anonymous mother_russia 13w

There’s one doctor who was using it in a really good way that I saw a report on a while ago. I should’ve saved it, it was on Philip defranco’s show. But it was really impressive what they were doing, without any big red flags, treating rare diseases with unorthodox treatments in a safe way. Also I heard researches have made major advances in mapping out proteins using ai models. Same thing goes in the field of material science. Crazy stuff.

1

Anonymous #4 13w

Like I also disagree with the take don't get me wrong. But more importantly, I really don't like the implication you shouldn't speak out against something you see as a problem just because it's "inevitable", especially when it exists solely because people are actively choosing to support it. I also think something being AI is a valid reason to hate it. Besides, it's basically synonymous with being shitty art (at least in its current state) because 90% of it has the same tasteless style.

6

Anonymous mother_russia 13w

Hi Russia

3

Anonymous #1 13w

Hello!

1

Anonymous #4 13w

That’s what I’m saying. If you can tell ai was used just at a glance, or even under a little scrutiny, then it’s not good art. It’s lazy slop. And I’m not saying you shouldn’t speak out against injustices, but a lot of people are painting any remote ai as an injustice even when it isn’t. And also that there’s no point in stressing over it, because the technology exists now. Whether you support it or not, consumer hardware is capable of doing these things, and the software is out for free.

0

Anonymous mother_russia 13w

You know who I am but I forgor my emoji so here I am in the shadows I guess lmao

1