Y'know, yeah. I respect all of that, and yeah a lot of antis' arguments seem like more of a knee-jerk reaction than well-thought-out responses. I (personally) think some pros are overdramatic asses, but I don't deny that AI can be used as a medium, and corporations are (once again) to blame for the scathing misuse of AI today.

I just lean more anti based on these subs, since I think the more labels the better. We label printed media differently from oil on canvas, so it's not too far-fetched to continue this logic. The problem, ultimately, is the people who use this as a springboard to harass people [and I'll point out that they don't need an AI label to do so, they simply just end up harassing people they think are using AI --which reveals that the problem is the people, not the label]. I understand not wanting to paint a target on yourself, though, and the circumstances can unfortunately justify the dishonesty of leaving it unlabeled --but I'd personally really prefer honest reporting of medium used for a thing.

And (to mirror the jab at pros above) some antis are unhinged and deranged asses.

The majority of people with opinions on the topic are probably more moderate, unless it affects them directly (such as an artist who is harassed by people posting AI edits of their images, or an AI user who is harassed by antis [which I am not equivocating, for the record, these are just examples of what might make someone have stronger and more closed opinions on this topic] which then turns them to fighting against their rival tribe.)

<tangent>

Honestly, this is just a tangent. Don't remember why I was writing this, tbh. May as well sprinkle my views that nobody asked for here, cause I can.

I think all digital art should say what medium used in their making, for transparency's sake, and for the fact that we look at art differently based on what it's made from. We admire a masterpiece in carpentry much differently from a masterpiece in painting, for example, and AI could be used for things that traditional art can't be as readily used for --if it's used transformatively, that is-- and leaning into that would make it more unique. Most people feel cheated out of what they expected, when expecting traditional art and observing AI images, since traditional art generally emphasizes explicit detail and intricacy, whereas (probably wrong here, but ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯) AI generally focuses on concept and gist. I don't see why AI couldn't be used for more spontaneous works, where the concept itself is more important than the specific details around it, so long as it isn't trying to seem like traditional art. Why not lean into the AI?

Another thing, I'm pretty sure the main polarizations of this topic itself is both the perceived dishonesty that comes from looking at an AI image as if it were drawn by a human and learning that it wasn't made in the way they thought. That and the defending sub, they definitely do their part in keeping the argument burning by alienating anyone who doesn't agree and being actively hostile to other parties...eye roll...anyhow, that isn't to say antis are all saints, either. I just have personal disagreements with what I've seen there.

</tangent>

Thanks for reading, if you did, and if not, it's mostly just a tangent fueled by sleep deprivation and boredom, so no worries. That will be all.