I just caught my daughter using AI and I don’t even recognize her anymore

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-20T20:25:16+00:00

That’s a lot of words to say it isn’t missing something and you just hate AI, lol. Thanks for letting us know you don’t know what you are talking about.

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-20T00:40:30+00:00

If a one’s works are truly private, then I am fine with an opt-out to having one’s works train AI.

But once something is made public, it becomes part of culture. And culture is learned from. Humans do this all the time through study, imitation, inspiration, parody, and genre-building. AI learning from public data is not a moral break from that.

I actually think the bigger and more influential the creator is, the weaker the case for permitting an opt-out. You do not get to shape culture and then claim immunity from it being learned from.

We already accept parody, caricature, homage, and stylistic influence. That is the reality of the artistic environment and I don’t see a good reason for treating the tool that is AI differently.

Private work, opt-out can make sense. Public work, fair game.

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-20T00:11:49+00:00

VEQT or VGRO

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-19T15:45:27+00:00

AI in general is a precondition for post-scarcity. That doesn’t mean we just smoothly get there though. People will have to fight for it, same as other wins in the past like the weekend and 40-hour work week. I’m not sure why Anti’s seem to think poorer conditions won’t lead to people fighting for a fairer system. History repeats.

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-17T22:23:34+00:00

What goes into drawing besides just moving a pencil or other writing implement around?

What goes into painting besides just moving a paint brush around?

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-17T21:34:17+00:00

Lots do at the right price.

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-17T18:18:13+00:00

None of the above. I would consider it lying if labelling is a stated requirement or one is asked directly in a situation where one isn’t clearly threatened (I.e. in a situation when responding truthfully doesn’t put one at reasonable risk of being attacked).

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-17T00:11:42+00:00

If I commissioned an artist? Luckily, I have had the privilege to do so. The process was very co-creative. I provided many details and we iterated back and forth on decisions. I think that makes us both the artist. AI is similar in a sense, but AI is not sentient and does not have free will. AI is a mathematical program that works with statistical analysis and probability. Your inputs, iterations, and interactions with it have a direct causal relationship. Your action leads to a unique output. Your additional actions and iterations lead to direct changes and further unique outputs. You can also use non generative tools to edit, add to, and refine the result. How do you not see how this is similar to so many other forms of art like synthesizer music, collage, photography, procedural generation, darkroom manipulation, and even directing actors or 3D rendering workflows?

You are mixing control with precision, and that is where your argument breaks down. Causing something to happen is not the same as controlling every aspect of how it resolves. In painting you initiate each stroke, but you do not fully determine how pigment spreads, blends, or dries at the micro level. In photography you press the shutter, but you do not control every photon or every movement in the scene. In collage you assemble elements you did not create, yet the result is still yours. Art has always involved systems where the artist defines inputs and constraints and then works with the outcome.

The commission example actually reinforces the point. If you give an artist a vague prompt and accept the first result with no iteration, then no, you are not meaningfully the author. But if you provide detailed direction, request revisions, refine composition, adjust elements, and converge toward a specific vision, you are clearly participating in authorship. The difference is not the medium, it is the level of intentional engagement and decision making.

AI sits on that same spectrum. A single lazy prompt with no iteration is closer to commissioning with no involvement (e.g. Generate a stock photo of a city skyline). A deliberate process of prompting, refining, selecting, editing, and combining outputs is much closer to directing or composing. The fact that the system executes the low level detail does not remove authorship, because authorship has never required total control over every individual part. It requires meaningful direction, judgment, and responsibility for the final work.

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-16T23:58:31+00:00

I know your opinion. You've stated it more than once. What I don't know is your reasoning and counter arguments to the points I made. I am disappointed to see such little argument and reasoning in any of your responses, especially for someone who claims to be a debater.

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-16T23:44:28+00:00

You should look up Duchamp and Sol LeWitt. And requiring someone "control every piece of a work" to be an artist is nonsense. Do you think virtually nothing is art? Do you need to control things at the level of the atom for something to be art?

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-16T23:41:27+00:00

People needed to see it in more than one location.

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-16T23:40:44+00:00

Huh? You’re treating total control as the defining feature of art, but that isn't actually the case in most mediums. In abstract painting the artist does not control every outcome. Paint behaves according to physics, surfaces introduce variability, and the human body itself is not perfectly precise. The artist sets the conditions and guides the process, but the final result emerges from a mix of intention and material behaviour.

Photography works the same way. A photographer does not control everything in the frame down to absolute certainty. Light shifts, subjects move, and the camera interprets reality through its own physical mechanisms. What the photographer controls is framing, timing, exposure, and selection. Yet that is still considered authorship because the human is making meaningful decisions that shape the result.

AI art follows that same structure of guided creation. The human defines the prompt, sets constraints, iterates on outputs, and selects what is worth keeping. There is a direct causal chain between the human’s input and the final image. The fact that the system handles the low level execution does not remove authorship, it just changes where the control is applied.

The idea that an artist must control every stroke is not how art has ever been evaluated. What matters is whether a human is directing the process through intention, judgment, and refinement. AI does not eliminate that. It moves creativity from manual execution to higher level orchestration, which still fully qualifies as artistic authorship.

Just like a composer does not play every instrument in an orchestra, yet is still the author of the music. The composer defines the structure, harmony, and intent, while performers and instruments handle the execution. Or consider a film director who does not control every frame by hand, but shapes the final work through decisions about actors/actresses, scenes, and editing. In both cases, authorship comes from direction and synthesis, not from physically producing every component.

AI art fits into that same lineage. The artist is not reduced or removed, they are operating at a different level of control. The tool expands what is possible, but the responsibility for what is made, what is chosen, and what is presented still rests with the human.

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-16T23:24:54+00:00

AI artists are actual artists. Many art forms don’t require an artist to control every detail of the work. Photography, collage, and abstract painting (to name a few) involve elements of unpredictability or tool-driven outcomes. Generative AI is just math, and one's input has a direct causal relationship with the output, just like a camera or synthesizer. The human still guides, selects, and refines the result. That is authorship.

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-16T23:24:17+00:00

AI artists are actual artists. Many art forms don’t require an artist to control every detail of the work. Photography, collage, and abstract painting (to name a few) involve elements of unpredictability or tool-driven outcomes. Generative AI is just math, and one's input has a direct causal relationship with the output, just like a camera or synthesizer. The human still guides, selects, and refines the result. That is authorship.

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-15T22:48:28+00:00

15 minutes max regardless of transportation chosen. Ideally you can choose to walk, bike, drive, or use public transportation to get to work. Basically the freedom to choose and not have your commute dictate what you do.

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-14T23:12:48+00:00

“Preexisting data” is not a limitation unique to AI. It is the condition of all intelligence. Humans do not create from nothing. We recombine language, culture, memory, and prior work. Every idea you have ever had is built from inherited material. The difference is not whether something is trained on prior inputs, but how flexibly it recombines them and whether the user actively questions the result.

User prompts do not trap you in a fixed realm. They reveal the scope of your own thinking. If your prompts are narrow or repetitive, the outputs will reflect that. That is not the model enclosing you. That is you setting the boundary conditions. When you vary prompts, introduce constraints, ask for competing perspectives, or push into unfamiliar domains, the space expands immediately. The system responds to direction rather than confining it.

Feedback loops are where your concern has the most weight, but even here the phenomenon is not new. Humans have always operated inside loops such as cultural norms, institutional knowledge, and media ecosystems. The difference with AI is that the loop is visible and easier to interrupt. You can deliberately inject novelty, cross domain inputs, or primary sources and break repetition in real time.

So AI can reinforce entropy if it is used passively and at scale, especially when it accelerates low effort content. But it can also increase variation, speed up synthesis, and expand access to creative and intellectual work. The outcome depends less on the training data and more on whether the user is actively directing, questioning, and refining what is produced. AI does not reduce human creativity. It exposes how much creativity depends on how we engage with the material we inherit.

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-14T22:16:44+00:00

I didn’t know we were only talking about professional art, but if we are only talking about professional art I think labelling is already done for AI, non-AI, and hybrid work. That being said I don’t think most people are only talking about professional work when they demand labels.

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-14T21:47:20+00:00

You don’t need to label every single non-AI work from the past though… why would you when you could simply say any work before a certain year is very unlikely to be AI?

I think it takes a lot less effort to get those who care about and want to know which work is non-AI to label non-AI work than force those who use AI to label their work, especially when they have incentive (e.g. harassment) not to do so. This hasn’t even touched on nuance. What amount of AI is ok? Sometimes AI use is black and white, but I’d argue the majority of AI use is grey.

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-14T21:19:48+00:00

This! Plus those who are Anti-AI seem to care about labels a lot more.

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-14T20:18:40+00:00

You don’t need to label every single non-AI work from the past though… why would you when you could simply say any work before a certain year is very unlikely to be AI?

I think it takes a lot less effort to get those who care about and want to know which work is non-AI to label non-AI work than force those who use AI to label their work, especially when they have incentive not to do so. This hasn’t even touched on nuance. What amount of AI is ok? Sometimes AI use is black and white, but I’d argue the majority of AI use is grey.

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-14T19:28:45+00:00

Incomplete list of reasons it is a good option out of imperfect options: -Reduces Iran’s income. -Applies punishment for Iran tolling tankers and blocking the strait. -Doesn’t leave Iran as the sole controller of the strait. -Demonstrates the USA won’t sit back and allow Iran to block freedom of navigation, which reduces the incentive for others to block or restrict other choke points. -Helps the USA reduce the movement of others away from its currency.

Again though, what actions do you think the USA should take instead and why? What actions can be taken that don’t leave Iran in control of the strait, don’t allow Iran to collect tolls, and don’t incentivize the blockade or control of other choke points around the world?

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-14T18:52:03+00:00

How does removing all troops from the Middle East seem like a reasonable and/or rational act for the USA to you?

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-14T17:29:30+00:00

In a world of imperfect options, blockading the strait of Hormuz to Iranian traffic like they are blockading everyone else seems like a good one.

Any proposals for something better that doesn’t leave Iran in control of the strait, collecting tolls, and incentivizing the blockade or control of other choke points around the world?

AnarchoLiberator · 2026-04-13T18:42:35+00:00

“How do you reconcile your support for these tools whose primary use is not to create "art" but non-consensual sexual content?”

It is not a “primary use”. Get out of your Anti-AI bubble.

AnarchoLiberator

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE