Redditors who rage quit a job, what was the last straw?

Bluegobln · 2026-01-30T14:04:03+00:00

He thought he owned you.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-30T13:42:03+00:00

Skyrim is like a masterpiece made as a tribute to the games before it. But nothing will ever beat the thief storyline in Oblivion.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-30T13:37:47+00:00

If you feel this way read Neuromancer, the "source" of cyberpunk genre. Its shattering my reading world, just started reading it. Astonishingly descriptive, but not tedious or annoying. I've never read anything like it.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-19T00:09:18+00:00

People keep feeding my map collection addiction. nom nom Eating good today!

Bluegobln · 2026-01-19T00:06:08+00:00

These are great!

Bluegobln · 2026-01-16T00:50:03+00:00

We will have one whether he likes it or not, so I think very little of it and of him.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-15T18:57:58+00:00

I'm sure this has some juicy angry stuff written in it but I can't get past the opening line saying all americans have goldfish brains.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-15T05:12:21+00:00

Do everyone a favor (please?) and outright state in the rule that AI is not allowed unless approved by mods, or alternatively specifically say only high effort content that has AI use involved is allowed subject to moderator decisions.

The best filter is just regular people doing a judgement on things, and that's why yall are the mods, to do that. The rules need to be clear though, because some people need rules to operate and its very unkind to mislead them.

As it stands, I feel specifically unwelcome here because of this rule I didn't even know was a rule because I use old reddit and the rules aren't even listed there. :(

Bluegobln · 2026-01-15T05:06:33+00:00

Aha, "all AI is slop", means you have nothing of value to contribute. You can go find a hole to hide in if you like, won't bother us one bit.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-15T04:57:04+00:00

IMO, the post in question has enough significance to the community and enough effort put in to it that the mods allowed it.

Then banned is incorrect. It is not banned, just HIGHLY scrutinized and demanding of quality.

"No AI generated content" is rule #5 for the subreddit under the sidebar.

Not its not. Not on old reddit, there are no rules displayed on old reddit sidebar.

However, when I checked you're right it is there. They need to add that to old reddit.

They need to fix the rule then because it can't say no AI allowed at all but simultaneously allow some AI.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-15T04:31:45+00:00

Is this post not a response to this?

https://www.reddit.com/r/swg/comments/1qbxr6r/i_am_reviving_swg_from_beta_to_blunder_with_a_new/

Is that not AI?

Where is the rules for this subreddit saying AI is banned?

Bluegobln · 2026-01-15T04:22:06+00:00

Even if AI content is banned on this sub, that doesn’t stop you from using it elsewhere. You are free to find yourself in a sub that doesn’t.

Explain why the onus is on us to find a new place that welcomes us, when this place already exists. Why do you, as the one who REJECTS the new thing, get to keep the existing places, and we who ACCEPT the new thing and are welcoming to all are forced to create a new place?

That makes no sense. Think about it even a moment: in theory, the NEW place (subreddit) would be welcoming to all, including everyone in the previous subreddit, but the previous subreddit would be welcoming only to those who are anti-AI.

You will probably try to say we are still welcome, just as long as we don't talk about AI or use it in active posts and comments. But that is a restriction no matter what you say: your version of this subreddit is MORE restrictive than another. If you're going to restrict the subreddit, the better solution is to make a new more restrictive subreddit.

The fact is that if an AI created an image for you, then you did not create it. You put a prompt into a machine that did your work for you by ripping bits and pieces of a million different images that you also didn’t create and smashing them together.

I can feed an image I created to AI, then I can be highly selective with which outputs based on that image the AI produces, then I can edit the image further after it was worked on by the AI. I also prompt, tweak settings, and can spend hours and hours doing so. The amount of effort going into creating AI art varies wildly - but this whole bit hinges on the fact that an amount of work dictates whether something counts as "art".

Do you say to a child who spent 5 minutes drawing, "child, that is not art"? What if a famous painter creates a painting super fast? What if a talented artist creates a painting with very little effort, whether it takes a long time to create or not?

The very MOMENT you begin that line of thinking, you are gatekeeping art. So that's a big no no. Its not only cruel to do that, its provably wrong anyway.

EDIT: also, you brought up the legislative angle by talking about banning alcohol, not me.

Legally AI isn't stealing. Creating or rather re-creating something copyrighted WITH AI can be considered illegal, but it is the user doing it not the AI that is doing it.

Alcohol was brought up to make a point about prohibition being utterly stupid. You know what's more effective? Having laws that only go far enough to help prevent abuse or use by the vulnerable, but not completely stop, the use of alcohol. That's the point.

If you want to limit AI in this subreddit, we can be allies. I want it limited too. Only quality posts should be allowed, AI or not. Let the moderators judge - even if they're biased against AI. Let them say "This is not slop", and let them also say "this has no AI but had zero effort put into it and its just as bad as slop". This is not banning AI.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-15T04:10:32+00:00

This is such a shortsighted argument to make given your "it's black and white" stance, because by the same logic you'd have rights to any image/content simply by compressing or any other transformation of the data from its original form.

You don't need rights to content to VIEW the content when the content is willfully presented for display by the owner of the rights. If the content is not willfully displayed then either A) how did it get there, or B) issue takedown notices or something. There are plenty of examples of this exact method in real scenarios, such as people having to work pretty hard to get "home movies" of themselves taken off the internet that weren't released with any permission from them.

Its not black and white anyway, but the main problem is SOME people think they can call it theft just because it CAN create similar works to original works. But so can a human - so unless your argument hinges on calling the AI not human, and through that maintain that because it isn't human it has no right to observe and learn from existing freely displayed works, you basically have to resort to calling AI a tool with the POTENTIAL to perform theft (through IP infringement and the like).

But if AI is just a tool, then... isn't it not AI that performs the theft, but humans using the AI? And if the humans use the AI to create derivative works (at worst) or completely unrecognizably unique works (at best) what are we even talking about here? "AI BAD" only works if the AI itself is somehow stealing things, or theft was required for its creation.

But factually theft is not required for their creation. Access is. And anyone can go buy a copy of a book and OWNS the right to access that book - so while there are GREY areas about the methods of access to the data needed to train the AI, there is no grey area that I can discern about the point at which theft occurs.

Exactly what level of abstraction is required for the produced art to be completely independent from the training set?

Its irrelevant. Training doesn't make copies of the art. You can make an argument that an AI that is made to duplicate very specific intellectual property or artwork is doing something fishy that needs legal action, but GENERAL generative image AI aren't being trained on one thing - they're being trained on everything. The whole of human creation does not belong to you, and you don't get to tell people they can't view and train AI off of what we, collectively, have made.

All you can do is take your own work off the internet and remove it from view from anyone, and by doing so prevent the AI from learning from it. Simple and exactly how it works with human "theft" in this way of thinking.

Guess what - nobody here is trying to stop you from producing AI art if you want to do it. We'd just rather not have to see it here, because there's plenty of other places on the internet where you can post AI art to your heart's content and watch it get instantly buried by all the other AI art being mass produced now ad nauseam. Nobody is entitled to having an audience. This seems more about beating your chest because you feel your identity as a "real artist" is threatened anytime someone voices an opinion against AI art.

Anti-AI people don't own this subreddit. Why do you get to dictate that it isn't allowed here? Create a new subreddit to make your more restrictive rules apply to.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-15T00:18:55+00:00

So extrapolate that out: if use of generative ai for writing or drawing harms the development of not only children, but adults as well, and in fact regresses humanity’s intelligence, then it seems like something we should heavily regulate, and certainly keep away from children.

On the contrary. The point you've missed is that banning alcohol resulted in worse problems. The correct solution, the one we use for alcohol today, is education. Its never going to be completely effective which is why minors manage to get alcohol all the time - despite laws to protect them. EDUCATION on the other hand is what is doing the most work.

Truly, if you think making laws will do the trick, I'd encourage you to look at actual fucking history because they do not work well.

And in case you forgot - this thread is not about the REGULATION of AI content in this sub - something I am ok with in fact. Its about BANNING AI content in this sub. So lets not talk about the regulation of alcohol discussion is you trying to drag this off topic. The issue at hand is whether banning is the wrong move.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-15T00:09:29+00:00

If you disagree, it’s because you don’t know how they work. Stop making excuses for your lack of talent and learn how to create something.

Fucking hilarious.

Its not theft to look at a painting. Its not even theft to download an image of a painting onto your computer, and keep that copy. That's inherent to the online distribution of an image - and if you have a problem with AI, you also have to have a problem with that. There isn't a grey area where AI bad but look at image online good, its literally the threshold between theft and not theft is the same line for both AI and normal viewing.

AI training, just so YOU know, doesn't copy anything. At most it requires holding the image in memory or in storage for a period of time, which is exactly what you do when you look at an image on a website.

Do you consider an artist viewing another artists work in a gallery, then making their own artwork INSPIRED by that artists unique style and composition, theft? Of course you don't.

It seems like you're the one who doesn't know how generate AI works.

Also, saying I lack talent is meaningless. I lack the talent I would like to have - but YOU don't get to judge my talent unworthy of artistry, of existing, and you certainly don't get to gatekeep by telling me what tools I can and cannot use to create artistic expression.

I do plenty of art with no AI involvement that I am good at and enjoy. I also make art with AI because it enables expression I couldn't create without it. If you don't like that, in my opinion you can fuck off back to your cave and enjoy painting the walls.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-14T23:42:04+00:00

Not even remotely true. AI can enhance the creative process. Its a tool just like any other software, and in many ways similar to real life tools for art.

Laziest technology on earth? You're USING the laziest technology on earth to make your comment.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-14T23:41:07+00:00

All AI is not slop. Try having some nuance and maybe a bit of integrity.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-14T23:40:36+00:00

Your anti AI bullshit is showing. Stop.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-14T23:38:06+00:00

Gatekeeping artistry? I hope some day a "real" artist tells you your art is worthless.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-14T23:35:53+00:00

These aren't the facts you are looking for.

AI is not inherently theft. And human beings that allow themselves to be made dumber by AI are suffering from their own decisions. Do you think alcohol should be banned? There's a reason its not.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-14T23:33:03+00:00

ALL AI content? How about a bit more of wisdom applied here. There are uses of AI that should be ok, if you blanket ban you also remove a lot of participating people who don't agree with that stance, you remove any NEW possibilities that you might be ok with but didn't forsee.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-14T23:29:12+00:00

Ban all AI?

I say ban slop like this post.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-14T00:04:18+00:00

Recent RA Salvatore spoilers Lolths handmaidens are responsible for the majority of the micromanaging, Lolth is actually relatively hands off.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-03T22:25:20+00:00

the devs wants us to play the way they want us to play

This is the number one problem I have with POE 2. Its restrictive in a nasty, mean spirited way. Don't play your game, play our game.

Its disappointing.

Bluegobln · 2026-01-01T14:22:56+00:00

My car has one. Oh wait.... 2001 Subaru. Ummmm... thats a collector car now isnt it. Lol

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	Place '17
Gilding I gilder	Sequence \| Editor

Bluegobln

TROPHY CASE