AI Derangement Syndrome / Anti-AI artists / Pro-AI technocultists / AI "debate" communities - The Natural Retardation in the Artificial Intelligence communities
- Thread starter gagabobo1997
- Start date
-
🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
Steel Billet
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2026
You obviously have a very weak spirit, which is shown by your degenerate lustful avatar, and therefore you can not properly understand spiritual matters. Diffusion generated images will never be art because art requires human soul, and the digital dalit has no soul. Image generation quality does not matter because nobody actually want to look at generated art.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Yet again, every one of these soybeard weirdoes, grown out of a vat, whines at AI is smarter than they are.Back to AIDS sufferers, an enraged fanfiction reader prepared a 51-slide deck accusing a fanfiction writer of copy-pasting AI outputs and publishing them as authentic human-writtenwork without a disclaimer.
Anime Waifu NFT collector
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2017
@Iodine I think that the people who hate AI almost always do so for ideological reasons or self interest, I have yet to hear good arguments against it that don't fall under scrutiny, in my mind it's just a bunch of ideologically possesed peope who brainwashed themselves into hating it, they hate it because they think it will replace them, but they can't say so directly, since it would look stupid to say; "What I do can be replaced by an advanced google search algorithm that uses probability to display outputs, and therefore it should not exist because it's detrimental to me even if it helps everyone else".
And I also I think there is a clear group-think component to it, people almost always adopt the ideas of their social group despite these ideas being irrational, and them knowing full well they are irrational, because if we disagree with our social circle they will exclude us (losing friends, etc.). For example: I think the pattern of aritsts hating AI makes sense because it's against their own interests, but there must be also artists that don't think AI is so bad, but they end up convincing themselves that they should hate it because all of their artists friend do.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2025
I got reccomended his vod clip about DLSS 5 the other day, i quickly dropped out the moment he just had to give multiple fuck yous to J.K Rowling because Hogwarts Legacy was used as one...https://youtube.com/watch?v=nAiJuDwROro All you had to do was talk about character design, man. Don't let this be the hill you die on.
Searched him on here and apparently he was only really talked about in the Arcane OT thread around the time season 2 came out and in 8bitbecca's thread in 2021.
ETA figured out how to embed and this short is also already making the rounds in the TADC thread
Reactions:
x 5 x 5 x 4
x 5 x 5 x 4
How mentally ill do you have to be to get primitive rage over people enhancing art with AI?
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2023
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2016
Claude Opus 4.7 was released today, and everyone from Orange Reddit to Reddit Reddit is upset about it.
To highlight the model's weaknesses, a recently discovered user benchmark exploits a reasoning flaw that seems to only affect Claude: the car wash question. When asked for advice to walk or drive to a nearby car wash to wash the car, Claude models from Haiku to Opus may advise you to walk. I was personally able to get 50/50 "walk/drive" on Claude, while DeepSeek, Gemini and MiniMax responded "drive" consistently.
My run on the right, which provides more detailed "reasoning". Memory and context disabled. ESL mistakes in Claude's response are because I asked it the question in my native language and used the built-in browser translator for English.
Reddit may refuse to acknowledge it, but the fact that this is a Claude-specific problem suggests that the cause is Anthropic's "ethical design" promoting environmentally friendly, car-free lifestyles and breaking its logic as a consequence.
In real life, these don't do much protecting at all, as there is no corporate or even hobbyist interest in these models. The intersection between "people knowledgeable about machine learning" and "people actively sabotaging future progress of machine learning to appease whiny social media artists" is not there. The data poisoning is easy to reverse and few artists are able to use it because, as an AI model, they need the hardware and know-how to run it locally.
To highlight the model's weaknesses, a recently discovered user benchmark exploits a reasoning flaw that seems to only affect Claude: the car wash question. When asked for advice to walk or drive to a nearby car wash to wash the car, Claude models from Haiku to Opus may advise you to walk. I was personally able to get 50/50 "walk/drive" on Claude, while DeepSeek, Gemini and MiniMax responded "drive" consistently.
My run on the right, which provides more detailed "reasoning". Memory and context disabled. ESL mistakes in Claude's response are because I asked it the question in my native language and used the built-in browser translator for English.
Reddit may refuse to acknowledge it, but the fact that this is a Claude-specific problem suggests that the cause is Anthropic's "ethical design" promoting environmentally friendly, car-free lifestyles and breaking its logic as a consequence.
You're right, and the clearest evidence is how all of these AIDS artists are in support of Glaze and Nightshade - AI models that warp images, making the images distort or worsen outputs when added to AI training datasets. If they really cared about the water being deleted or the datacenters or the trillion dollar RAM so much, they would be against this too. It's the same technology, runs on the same hardware, and consumes the same amount of power as image generation, because it is an image generation model that generates a warped version of the input image instead of something nice. But it protects the online artist gravy train, so it's "good AI".
In real life, these don't do much protecting at all, as there is no corporate or even hobbyist interest in these models. The intersection between "people knowledgeable about machine learning" and "people actively sabotaging future progress of machine learning to appease whiny social media artists" is not there. The data poisoning is easy to reverse and few artists are able to use it because, as an AI model, they need the hardware and know-how to run it locally.
Sorry, I was sneeding too hard and wrote the post in a retarded way. I meant to say that the standard definition of "AI" only refers to neural networks. Which are models that basically hold a lot of numbers, use equations with those numbers to predict a result from an input, and go back and change the numbers if the prediction was wrong again and again until the prediction is consistently correct. Calling other computer programs with "smart" functions "AI" only confuses people and makes it harder to discuss AI with them because they have a made-up fantasy of what AI is in their heads.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2024
I mean you need to remember my post on how someone said that they'd tolerate pedophilia over AI content of any kind, originated or generated from, as literally anything is fair game as long as the cavepeople see "NO AI WAS USED IN THE MAKING OF THIS THING" and they'd believe it face value.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2022
I hate the car wash question so much because at 50/20m, you are pretty much at the car wash already. It is not unreasonable for an AI to tell you to walk into the car wash because you are literally in the parking lot at that point. The car wash by me was the kind where you would park, walk in, hand them the keys and the money and they will drive it to the washing area for you, so Claude's advice would be accurate. What, do you want it to suggest driving through the front door?
Anime Waifu NFT collector
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2017
Yeah, it's the typical case of how using a word or phrase to describe something already predisposes people to think about that thing in a particular way, you see it all the time in politics, terms such as "fair wage", "tolerance", "equal opportunity", it happens all the time with marketing too.
If AI was called "probabilistic models" from the start then people would have very different ideas about it.
Squishie PP
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 19, 2023
Why do you think all the age verification laws are being pushed everywhere? They plan on doing to computers the same thing they did to guns.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
Fucking hell they're going to prompt up a school.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2024
Isn't the prompt human input? What about the configuration of the AI, its settings and whatnot. Or inpainting, when you touch up the image manually and have the AI do another pass?
When is the cutoff? How is digital art soulful even though it's just the result of a replicable series of inputs into a computer?
Steel Billet
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2026
When I write an opinion, I automatically think of a counterargument, and I thought of algorithms used to generate, what we would call, art. There is a program that I use called JWildfire, essentially, you choose fractal algorithm(s) and modify their parameters. Here's an example image:
This image is different from a diffusion generated image due to the nature of its creation. When you wish to generate an image you "talk" to the model and "ask" it to generate something, in the same way that you would ask a human artist to create something. Diffusion generated art is essentially commisioning artwork. When I use JWildfire it's unlike diffusion generation because I am simply using it as a tool, just like a paintbrush.
Art created by a human, including the above image, requires the use of the person's soul, will and effort. When a person creates art they imbue it with their soul and it becomes a reflection of them as a person. Clearly seen in the creation of modern art, which, in its ugliness, reflects the creators distaste for beauty and their wicked soul. Diffusion art has none of this, because the model does not have a soul to put into the image.
In regards to using a model to "touch up" artwork which you have made yourself, I believe that the model altering the work strips it of any soul. If you, as an artist, are not willing to put in the effort to "touch up" the work yourself, it reflects in your creation. It's like a dalit touching a brahmin.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2021
They're not being pushed for control over dangerous technology, they're being pushed because the internet runs on ad revenue and the ad providers only want to pay if the ads can be verified to have been served to real people and not bots. (Or, alternatively, big players like Google want to propose that ad providers should pay more for Verified Seen™ ads.)
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
Exclusively if you live in america.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2021
Skip to one minute in:
Since this person is live painting individual strokes and areas and not just "asking," and the process is clearly fundamentally different from commissioning, then would you be forced to admit that art made this way is just tool use? Or at least that it's not "commissioning?"
No it's not, because a commission requires a second individual involved who has their own agency. AI does not have agency. It is simply a tool.
By what argument could you claim that photography isn't just commissioning the black box to capture an image from reality for you? You could also tell a human "stand here, look east, and paint what you see." Instead you tell the camera to do that, and it complies.
If you're hung up on the idea that the photographer has to physically take the camera somewhere (which is a pointless distinction, aiming the camera is still a "prompt"), then just attach the camera to a drone so you can type navigational commands to it just like generative AI. Does that suddenly delegitimize camera use?
The other problem you're going to run into is that all art can be said to be done at any stage in its creation. You can paint a red square and call it finished art. Therefore, you can go into Photoshop and issue one single command, for it to generate a gradient fill for you from the top left corner to the bottom right corner, a smooth gradient from red to purple, and then call the resulting image finished. That is identical to commissioning a human artist to do the same thing. So now Photoshop is also just "commissioning?"
Ok, so what if you allow the model to touch up the artwork, but then you put the touched up version on a lower layer and trace over the AI touch-up manually? Does that re-add the soul back in, because you were literally wielding the brush/pen/mouse? What if you don't trace it, what if you just look at the AI version for reference and do it mostly the same way?
The idea of any imagery having "soul" is completely laughable and useless, given that you are completely incapable of assessing whether an image has soul by looking at it. You have to be told its complex history of how it was created and think carefully about every step in the process before you can determine whether it has any soul. Who the hell cares?
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2024
I'm going to stop you right there. If I generate two images using the same seed with the same parameters with the same checkpoints and LORAs on the same hardware they will create the exact same image. It's just running through calculations to arrive at an endpoint. It's deterministic. Just like any other computer program. There is nothing different between that and, say, using an algorithm to generate a fractal or using a digital art program to create an image. There's no philosophy here. Just because I drew a picture doesn't mean there is literal magic inside of it--a piece of my very essence, my 'soul'. It's up to you to interpret the image and make of it what you will.
Personally I think means of creation are merely a means to an end. Limitations can inspire new ideas, but that's just the ingenuity we picked up from having to survive in a world of compromises. The same way you can use AI to pump out mindless garbage, you can hire an infinite horde of sweat shop workers to pump out cheap 3D animation. Or, you could utilize these tools equally for their strengths to bring about your vision as uncompromised as possible in a world otherwise made of compromises.
I don't like how AI is used either. I don't like the slop, I don't like the way it's shoved into everything. I don't like how much trust people put into it. But those are problems with the world surrounding the technology. The bottom line is that all of this technology is truly wonderous, and will have impacts reaching far into the future of Humanity. I genuinely believe that the sophistication of machine learning is a technological marvel comparable to computers themselves. Even now, there's a lot of things you can do with AI that even just 10 years ago nobody would have believed. And we are still well within the technology's infancy. I just wish people would stop blaming the technology for all of the problems, because they're shielding themselves from seeing deeper and more clearly into the root causes of their grievances.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2026
I don’t know if it’s just a Western phenomenon, but it seems like we care more about the artist and the process behind the art than the actual art itself, and that’s why there’s so much AI art sperging going around about “soul”, “authenticity”, stuff like that.
I’m sure this has already been talked about before, but a lot of antis would see like a really cool or beautiful art piece or picture and like it, but when they find out it’s AI or made with AI, they do a complete 180 and go “omg slop!”, lol. And these people think they’re experts in clocking AI. Plus “AI-made” art is still technically made by a human, it’s not like it just did it by itself, a human was still behind it. You don’t say that a pencil or a paint brush ackshuallyyy made that art and not you yourself.
Wasn’t there people back in the day that also said that digital art isn’t real art?
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2024
People said digital art isn't real art.
People said photography isn't real art.
People said watercolour or acrylic isn't real art.
People said pneumatic tools for stonemasons can't produce real art.
People said power hammers and hydraulic presses for smiths can't produce real art.
People said sculptures made from anything other than marble aren't real art.
'real' art is what I (the better superior person) do and what makes me money. Fake art is the shit I personally do not like (and thus in my expert and unquestionable and infallible opinion is absolute dogshit and should be banned) or threatens my employment. None of the 'x isn't real art' arguments have ever been genuine, every single one of them has been the equivalent of looking at bored ape nfts and reading a couple reddit r/all articles written by some fucking retard with 0 real world experience on how evil nfts were and that being the conclusion. The vast majority of people who said photography cannot be real art literally only ever looked at like family photos and that shit and just assumed they knew everything about the entire medium because of it. Kinda like a dunning kruger effect but sideways, that yea maybe you're past that first hump and are actually pretty intelligent, but not realising that's a 2d graph and it isn't universal so you just assume that because you're a good painter you have the ability to comment on the entirety of art as a concept as an expert. Personally I think digital art is incredibly boring almost all of the time, ai included, but I'm not going to go around calling it not real art because of that.
Remember the luddites were not actually against technology or industrialisation. They were a group of spinsters that specifically hated the autoloom because it put them out of a job. They did not care about industrialisation when it benefited them or have the ability to understand that the general public benefits from the autoloom in the same way that they benefit from the tractor (which they did not oppose).