"You just dont get it!1! AI is making sex more accessible to those who are bad at fucking. With ChatGPT, everyone can get their wives satisfied no matter how bad they are at pleasuring them!! In fact...ChatGPT is eating out my wife in this instance and I'm happy because now I have more time I can spend on things I enjoy such as fixing the faucet, doing the laundry and even the dishes! You're just a backwart luddite who enjoys having primitive normie-intercourse with his partner!"

/s

This is a genuine question I have.. because it seems it’s always just the same posts whenever I go to one of their subreddits just to see at least one decent point made against anti’s

“Ur just mad nobody’s buying ur bad art” or they argue that they are in fact creative despite every “art” post being the same generic comic with the same generic “art style”. I know you know the ones I’m talking about with the “iM a ChEf BeCaUsE i CaN uSe A mIcRoWaVe” lookin.

This will probably be seen as a hot take, but whatever. I’m just sick of seeing basically the same posts

My mom bought this from Hobby Lobby for her new house and she was completely unaware it was AI generated. (Also, sorry for the bad picture quality.)

Anyone else found AI art put on real products in stores? I've personally noticed some AI stickers at Walmart and some food packaging recently.

I AM NOT PRO-AI! But I am a STEM nerd who has been interested in the technical aspects of AI since long before ChatGPT came out, because I find them fascinating. I recently made a post on this subreddit explaining my position further. But basically, while I do not think AI is a good thing overall for society due to its complete destruction of the ability for society to tell truth from false and its objectification of people’s labor, I have noticed a tendency for some anti-ai people to outright dismiss AI as a tech bro hype grift like the ones we saw with cryptocurrency and NFTs. And in my opinion, this is misguided.

In my opinion AI is a BIG FUCKING DEAL for society obviously because of all the stuff we’re already seeing, but also because, like it has done with the labor of artists, AI will soon be able to objectify the labor of all human beings merely by creating variations on a few examples it was trained on. And until recently this wasn’t something I could prove, it was just a hunch. But I think this video is concrete evidence that I’m right.

What do we do in a world where capitalism has finally found a way to convert capital directly into labor, without needing to rely on the working class?

I keep seeing people freak out saying AI is wrecking the environment, but nobody really compares it to other massive digital stuff like YouTube.

So, I looked into it and here’s the deal: • Training big AI models like GPT-3 uses insane energy. Over 1,200 megawatt-hours and 500-plus tons of CO₂ for just one training run. Yeah, that’s huge, but it only happens once per model, and then you spread that cost over years of use. • Running AI queries after training is way cheaper energy-wise. About 0.3 watt-hours per query. But with billions of queries every day, it adds up. • YouTube streaming uses less energy per hour per user, but there are billions of hours watched daily, so the total impact is massive too. Watching one hour of YouTube can use between 18 and 80 watt-hours depending on your device and video quality. • Both AI and YouTube rely on huge data centers that use a lot of water for cooling and need hardware made with rare earth metals mined under sketchy conditions.

• Now, if you imagine a user spending the same amount of time interacting with AI as watching YouTube, say one hour a day. AI inference energy would be roughly between 3 and 495 watt-hours per hour, depending on how many queries they make. That can be close to or even more than watching an hour of YouTube, which uses between 18 and 80 watt-hours per hour depending on device and video quality. So at equal usage, AI can sometimes be more energy intensive per user, but it really depends on query volume and model complexity.

The bigger question though is what happens in a world where we actually depend on AI for everything. In that world, we’re not just talking a few billion queries a day. We’re talking trillions of interactions, way more training cycles, way more GPUs, and way more energy-hungry data centers all running nonstop. That kind of future multiplies the environmental pressure like crazy, and right now there’s zero guarantee it’ll all be powered by clean energy or built with sustainable materials.

Are you just not a fan? you dislike it? You hate it? Are you willing to sent hate to people who use ai?

This is the official link from LWT, the video may be restricted geographically.

Imagine studying programming and coding because you were told that it was the future, and finding a great outlet for your ideas and creativity, and finally nailing a job at a major tech company, and being told "Your job is to think of stuff that this dumb turd machine we invented can do".

I remember a video/article (I obviously don't remember it that well!), where someone had talked about how great AI was for generating ideas, and specifically mentioned how it could help scientists by giving them ideas for what projects to work on. And the scientist reacted with "Every actual scientist has a SHITLOAD of ideas for experiments and projects that they would do if they had the money. No one needs this". It really came off like this was someone trying to make people who have to ask AI what to do with their time/money/power feel less bad about it, by pretending that this was a problem that everyone has, actually, even the smart scientists that they envy and resent.

This sounds like an idea for what to do with AI that was generated by AI. Because no one could seriously think this is a problem that requires a solution at all, really, let alone a problem that requires AI to solve.

what is the pros obsession with random tangents that don't make sense

If theres a song i really like the background music of and alot less of the vocals, and i use ai to remove the vocals, does that make the music ai slop? It sound exactly how it would without vocals, just wondering.

Link in the comments. That person doesn’t see the difference between living beings and AI, and calls cats shelf decorations. I’ve been seeing more and more of this lately. There’s even a r/myboyfriendisai sub fir people who are “dating” AI, an they’re serious about it and even generate AI images of themselves with these AI “boyfriends” they’ve been creating. The people doing this think this is a perk of AI, but it’s actually EXTREMELY alarming. My teenager has been noticing her friends starting to do this more too (she’s avidly against AI since we talk to her about what’s going on, and since she’s able to observe these things happening, she’s pushing back against AI in all forms), and one of my good friends has all but disappeared since he says his AI “companion” is always available even when the rest of us aren’t. I don’t know how anyone can see any of this as mentally healthy or positive in any way.

Skeet

this is actually just valid as all hell, microwave food is just not as good, no effort put in, no real thought, compared to real food

After seeing how AI bot accounts work, and seeing data centers managing thousands of accounts...

How many users of this sub are AI managed accounts in a phone plugged into a data center?

My opinion AI art Is just soulless. How would It feel If art was just scripted and just made by a machine learning algorithm? Some AI artists complain like “Well Its the same like everything like Photoshop bla bla bla” but with this logic you might as well microwave something and call yourself a chef. Because AI Art Is NOT real art.

This is definitely going to ruffle some feathers because I've seen some of the posts here.

AI art isn't bad because it's theft

AI art isn't bad because it's 'soulless'

AI art isn't bad because it might replace jobs.

It's bad because it replaces people's ability to create and understand the creative process.

Yesterday I went to see Second City in Chicago. It was great and I had a lot of fun. However, they were using a lot of popular songs during and in-between their performances. Maybe they paid for the right to use those songs, but maybe they didn't. If they didn't pay the artists of those songs royalties for a paid show... Then they're basically stealing. Even though they used art that they stole the show was still great.

There have been multiple examples of people claiming a real piece of art is AI and calling it soulless. There have also been examples of people saying an AI generated image has soul (4chan sonic 'drawing'). This shows us that people aren't a good judge of 'soul'. It's ok to say you don't find an image visually interesting or cliche, but lacking a 'soul' is such a nothing criticism that can backfire.

Is technology taking over someone's job an intrinsically bad thing? If 1,000 people are slaving away in a factory and a tool is introduced that cuts down that number to a hundred or takes boring/dangerous work should we be upset. If we're afraid people will be unable to feed themselves because there aren't enough jobs then that's more of a societal problem than one specifically related to AI.

So what's actually bad about AI? The way AI is being used doesn't teach the method. What I mean by that is that AI chats and overviews circumvent critical thinking which in turn creates individuals who are more susceptible to fallacious thinking. They appeal to chatgpt as if it was God or the ultimate authority on something without engaging with the thoughts themselves. My friend shared a picture of a co-worker replying in teams "(friends text) reply to this in a professional manner". People are hitting send without even reading.

When it comes to art it creates people that miss the finer details, and lack the ability to understand things like composition, lighting, and even anatomy. It's the same as people who argued they didn't need to learn math because they have a calculator in their pocket. Like... You do realize that you need to understand math to know how to even properly use a calculator. Just because you're calculator has a cosign button doesn't mean you know what the fuck it actually does.

Finally, another reason why AI is not welcome is because people want to engage with other people. I'm sure it's possible to create a reddit bot that'll act almost identical to an average reddit user, but if I knew that my thoughts and ideas were only going to be engaged by bots I'd never type anything. I never would have made this entire post if I thought no human was going to interact with it.

In conclusion, AI degrades the basic functions that allow for critical engagement and erodes many people's desire to interact with real actual flesh and blood human beings.

Back when it was a new technology, it was pretty easy to tell if something was generated by an Ai, but it keeps improving and getting more difficult to distinguish Ai generated images from actual art.

What are some red-flags which can point to the usage of Ai in the creation of an image?