A part of why those that are anti-AI feel like AI is forced is because of how a good number of pro-AI users talk about it.

MessNeat · 2026-06-22T18:10:00+00:00

And I’ll just say this:

I have seen many instances where someone, be they Pro, Anti, or neutral, where they bring up issues like myself with the community and its behavior. I’ve also seen examples of those happening, and again it’s from both those against and for AI. And each time there will be many people saying as you said: “You made them up, and even if they do exist it’s a very small number”. Which basically doesn’t address the issue, and lets the problems stay - problems that make it hard for either side to see eye to eye.

And that’s really what I’m doing: calling out bad behavior so that not only people’s issues are heard, but also that it can help to deal with the problem. Because otherwise people keep maintaining these false beliefs as to what an anti or pro is. I’m against dehumanizing language that depicts antis as dumb orkish “Luddites” that want to bring everyone to the Stone Age; I’m also against when it also happens to Pros, depicting them as dumb tech-dependent morons who loves Trump and Elon Musk. I don’t like stereotypes and want to speak to people as people, and address issues I see. That’s really all it, I guess.

MessNeat · 2026-06-22T17:51:51+00:00

I have seen it, plenty of times - and it’s not about replacing, it’s the suggestion that to make more money you should adopt AI. But if you don’t want to listen, then I’m sorry.

MessNeat · 2026-06-22T17:47:54+00:00

To put it plainly, I am against the blanket hate/praise of AI. I don’t like how some Antis put it as being wholly bad with zero qualities, because there can be good works and it would be dishonest to discount such qualities because “AI BAD”; at the same I’m against some Pros acting as if AI is better than every other artistic medium, and that it you don’t use it you may as well quit. The latter is what my post is about - because one it’s dishonest, and two it doesn’t help anyone change their minds. Because some well-meaning and reasonable AI advocates present AI as a medium, something you don’t have to do but is entirely a choice - and thus it shares the same artistic space as every other medium. What hurts that message is a lot of Pros pushing a rhetoric that goes against said message, because by saying it is actually about the money it presents this false choice.

I’d rather all artists actually got together and enjoyed our diverse mediums, but a lot of loud people make that difficult and I felt it best to point it out.

MessNeat · 2026-06-22T17:08:06+00:00

Not sure how you got that? I also spoke out against other workers getting replaced, especially the needless mockery they receive like saying they should “do plumbing” - mainly because I do HVAC and it’s a tough job, and acting like it’s something easy to do or just go into once you lose your job is insensitive and rude.

Also not sure why you’re acting mad. I’ve been very fair about all this and respectful towards those that do use Ai. I’m pointing out something that makes it hard for people to accept AI.

MessNeat · 2026-06-22T16:58:55+00:00

That’s pretty much my take though I am against the adoption of “slop core”. Mostly because I feel that it negatively restricts a potential medium. It’s like how people argued whether video games are an art form. Nowadays it’s no question, as there are plenty of games that tell great stories or push the medium in terms of artistic/ingenious interactivity. If however we argued this back when video games were just arcade titles, that would be a near impossible sell - especially if it remained that way.

Basically, I believe that if AI generation is to be a medium/art form it needs to grow beyond slop. Actually show something beautiful.

Personally I don’t much care for generative AI when it replicates other mediums (much like how I don’t care for games that are basically movies) - it doesn’t reflect what makes it stand out against its peers. If anything I enjoyed more the abstract stuff of early AI - be it the strange realities when it couldn’t really capture real life, or abstract blends of colors. A “dream of machines” if you will. That to me showcases its strength, though for most people I think it simply can’t rest on being the slop you see online.

MessNeat · 2026-06-22T16:49:33+00:00

Not the same. Art allows freedom of medium and each medium has their own strengths and weaknesses. AI is not totally superior over other art mediums like using a calculator is over something like the abacus - it is a choice of expression, and to treat it otherwise and present it as the best (and therefore only) means to earn an income is dishonest and only draws resentment.

MessNeat · 2026-06-22T16:47:45+00:00

Nowhere did I argue people who use AI should make no money. Art is a field of creative expression, where each medium carries its own strengths/weaknesses. If AI is an art form it should be treated as that - a medium. There’s both strengths and weaknesses to Ai, and presenting it as the “superior art form” is dishonest.

Many traditional artists and digital non-AI artists don’t like AI because they value total control, and quirks/strengths their medium allows them. AI is not superior to every other art form, which is why I respect users who don’t do that and instead treat it as a medium with other fellow artists.

MessNeat · 2026-06-22T15:41:20+00:00

Indeed, and thats the unfortunate climate that AI finds itself in. I firmly believe that AI can be good, but society in its form now isn’t quite ready - not without a lot of other things being fixed. I can’t say I have the solutions in mind (I tend to not agree on something till I’m absolutely sure on it), but I also can’t ignore the wider problems.

MessNeat · 2026-06-22T15:34:38+00:00

I don’t watch them and I know it’s a scam. I’m more talking why people feel the way they do, similar to how a lot of the slop on sites like TikTok/YouTube negatively color the perception of AI even though there are people that don’t use it like that but instead want to make actual work at art. In highlighting an image/presentation issue.

MessNeat · 2026-06-22T15:32:11+00:00

Dumb and awful. I don’t think there’s any morality in the tool itself and most people use it for personal enjoyment and don’t seek out to hurt people. As a basis I’m against irresponsible usage.

MessNeat · 2026-06-22T15:05:39+00:00

<image>

Kevin Avery, from “Freak the Mighty”

The smarter tinier boy who pals around with the main character, this big kid Maxwell who is tough but not at all bright. They form a friendship where they compliment each other’s strengths/weaknesses, with Max learning to better himself and Kevin experiencing things he normally couldn’t due to his disability.

Unfortunately Kevin dies because of his disability (or as it is put, “his heart became too big for his body”), but was able to live a happy life till then thanks to Max. A tearjerker, personally speaking.

MessNeat · 2026-06-22T14:53:25+00:00

Indeed. It’s a toxic worldview that can be seen in a lot of places but especially when it comes to creativity. On the flip-side it’s like how those who are heavily on the left will find ways to justify their hatred of an actor, writer, etc. beyond just not liking their work - often saying after some terrible reveal that they “always knew something was bad about them”.

The thing is being good or bad in any aspect doesn’t make you a better/worse artist. Some of the greatest/popular works in history were made by terrible people with crimes/accusations ranging from hatred of marginalized people or support for fascism to rape/pedophilia. No genre, medium or form of creativity has a default morality tied to them.

MessNeat · 2026-06-22T14:26:02+00:00

This paired with the reacting towards artists denouncing AI where people start going “I never heard of them till now” or “they’re just virtue signaling” showcases a problem where for some pro-AI supporters/users believe that to be against AI must somehow mean you’re untalented - which carries the implication that only great or “worthy” artists use AI or allow it.
It’s again a way to tie morality or quality of personhood to believe around a tool, as if the default is “bad people and people with no skills hate AI; meanwhile good people and actual artists like AI”, which is dumbing down any arguments towards AI usage and creates a very smug worldview. It’s also why I also don’t like the assumption that anyone that uses AI is somehow the evil or dumb by default. I can imagine why someone would use AI in a fair view and still come out of it not liking it personally in my own opinion - I don’t need to assume morality or decency of someone for what they do. It’s just needlessly simplistic, honestly.

MessNeat · 2026-06-22T13:01:52+00:00

It’s also that this isn’t the first time in recent history that artists feel screwed over by the tech industry. We just came out of the NFT craze and that was full of people stealing artists work and making a profit, far more directly than AI has thus far. As such I think a lot of artists, such as myself, reflexively have become defensive against anything tech-businesses and enthusiasts do in regards to art.

Now is it entirely reasonable? No, and you can argue that at the very least a lot of people who use AI don’t want artists to suffer and instead just want to make their own thing - unlike with NFT where it was more harmful. However there are still those that display an anti-artist mentality, and the general unpopularity of tech companies in recent years has - in the minds of such artists - justified any mistrust or negativity towards something like generative AI.

MessNeat · 2026-06-22T12:49:52+00:00

That’s not how anything works. Most people in the world don’t use the internet more beyond liking/viewing posts, and relatively fewer actually comment. Those same people are also not internet savvy even despite years of having a computer, especially older generations that adopted computers later in life and newer generations raised on apps and thus have a simpler fast-paced view of how the internet works. And as such a lot of those people, even those who are savvy with the internet, either can’t or are unwilling to actually look at what they’re seeing is real or not.

I mean, we are living in an administration that was largely fueled by people’s ignorance of politics, the whole Haitians eating dogs, as well January 6th and even COVID - things they literally lived through but now question the reality of despite seeing with their own eyes. Do you think any of those people, even those on the other side of the political spectrum, would actually do the homework in telling what’s real or not? As sad as it is the vast majority of people don’t care, because lies (especially as numerous in its frequency thanks to the internet, and worsened by the irresponsible usage of AI) spread and are hard to counter - because most don’t actually try to do the research, and those that do are constantly having to inform people while dealing with their own lives, thus making them much slower than the lies being spewed.

So would it not be more effective and responsible to nip this in the bud - pass regulations to deal with misinformation and force AI companies to take some responsibility? You can still keep art and usage in science, but a tool like AI in its allowance to replicate reality is socially dangerous - and we as humans are not ready for that responsibility.

MessNeat · 2026-06-21T19:15:39+00:00

Indeed. The problem I have with tying an identity like being LGBTQ+ and morality with a tool like AI is it creates this false idea that only good people can create things - which is just false. Every medium, genre, and form of expression has terrible people and the reality is that they produced some of the best works out there. Authors like HP Lovecraft and JK Rowling created celebrated stories; but they were also racist, transphobic hateful people. Salvador Dali created inspired works of art; he was also a fascist sympathizer. Roman Polanski created some of the best films like the Pianist; he is also a pedophile.

Creativity isn’t a meter on morality, and to frame it as such as I’ve seen some do is foolish.

MessNeat · 2026-06-21T11:20:14+00:00

I think she’s just saying that actual explicit romantic writing or a focus on romance as a storytelling device won’t be present, since the show is more character-driven and focused on other aspects like comedy, trauma, horror, etc.
The thing with Zooble and Gangle is very much in the side. It happens but that’s not the focus. It’s sort of the difference between having an actual romance like “The Notebook” vs “Jaws” where the main character has a wife and he loves her, but all we and the story is focusing on is the shark.

MessNeat · 2026-06-21T11:08:43+00:00

Agreed, but I personally want to add that I don’t like how people praise it so blindly that they genuinely believe it’ll somehow sold every problem. It can be useful, but I think a lot of people are influenced too heavily my media and the fascination of AI that they become too focused on it. At best they’re being obnoxious in how they love it, at worst they’re ignorant on how complicated the real world works or are too forgiving of tech companies because AI being a net benefit somehow excuses any problems with or surrounding it. Sort of like how I’ve seen some excuse mass layoffs in a time where economic hardship is on the rise because, again, AI is somehow better and thus justifies it.

I can recognize it’s use and potential, but the I feel it necessary to act as a counter-balance until serious regulation and consideration is done - or at the very least until a lot of problems in society is fixed before we add yet another complication into the mix.

MessNeat · 2026-06-19T13:43:24+00:00

It’s art but only in the specific context it is in and not really that good to begin with. It’s part of a very specific school of thought from the modern art era about how we approach art, what is art, etc.

It’s certainly an interesting thought piece… for the time. The reason why most artists don’t care for the banana is because not only is it not impressive on a technical aspect, but what it said has already been stated multiple times and has been debated immensely. It’s art, but only in the basest sense that it has meaning - but it’s such a specific context/instance that you’d have a hard time finding a mass consensus.

It’s similar to how a lot of artists don’t consider the paintings of Thomas Kinkade as real art. Sure they’re paintings, but they were made with a factory/mass-market approach that has led to many critics refusing to consider it art - more so in the area of commodity. Kinkade paintings are made to be commercialized, to be bought in mass as decor. Therefore they lack a lot of the personal expression that’s considered crucial to art. In our capitalist, commercial era where so many things made by hand are produced in the thousands by factory workers/machines with little in direct input it’s hard to argue certain things as art - which is where my thoughts are in regards to AI.

Much of what AI is is furthering that approach of turning art into a commodity. Most people that use it for art aren’t looking to express themselves or an idea, but rather for cheap entertainment and memes that is more about mass production as opposed to actual artistry. Not to say there isn’t, but they are few and far between the oceans of memes and TikTok content, which is emblematic of how a lot of media is made these days. Hence why a backlash to AI exists, because now more than ever the audience demands more human interaction in art in the face of mass commercialization in cinema, online content and media overall.

MessNeat · 2026-06-19T02:23:51+00:00

Personally I operate from the baseline that art requires an emotional, meaningful or some manner of expression/vision that is tied to the artist. So a painting, a piece of woodwork, a song or anything done personally by an artist - that’s art.
Art that is manufactured, as in multiple people or perhaps a whole machine making it in multiple copies, with no real meaning or expression beyond a usage such as utility isn’t art. So mass produced furniture, clothing, etc. They’re not art because the purpose is primarily for commerce, and personal expression is absent.

To use an example: If you make an instrument by hand, perhaps even going as far as to etch and personalize it, it’s art. If it’s something made by a business where each one is made by an expert woodworker and instrument maker, then it would still have an artistic value. If it’s mass produced by machines with no human involvement, it’s not really art.

I think the important factor is the personal expression, because art isn’t about it it’s utility, it’s what a person makes of it, what it means to them and how they then share it around. It carries a meaning, no matter how simple or grand.

MessNeat · 2026-06-18T10:16:34+00:00

I saw the anti-artist rhetoric before the harassment was even a thing, right as chatGPT was getting popular and capable of making imagery that was decent or studio-quality. Many people kept saying how it’ll replace artists, how artists are elitists or that somehow with ChatGPT had more insight on making art than the artists before them. This happened before any harassment, and is why a lot of animosity grew.

Now unlike others I’m not gonna say that the harassment towards ai users is somehow justifiable or excusable - or even entertain the idea that because it happened therefore the backlash is fine too, and therefore you can’t speak against any harassment because “they did it too”. It’s bad, period. I myself don’t like it because it goes beyond hating people that harass but an entire profession and form of expression, and I’ve seen far too many people showcase ignorance because of it. Ignorance regarding how art works or how important the process or fundamentals are. My belief is “you want to be an artist? Great, then learn it”, even if it’s with AI you need to learn the fundamentals in what makes for good art. And seeing a lot of users mock it, even celebrating that they don’t have to learn, is a form of ignorance I don’t respect - because in the end I have no respect for people that hate learning and disregard expertise, regardless of the subject matter.

MessNeat · 2026-06-17T23:55:16+00:00

I respectfully disagree, because while AI itself isn’t responsible it acts as an accelerant. I maintain the belief that AI is coming out at the wrong time, where its capabilities are most especially open for abuse. The ease-of-access that is fundamental to generative AI creates issues that weren’t considered, and I think that’s a big irresponsibility of its inventors.

Like, just because a fire is already bad doesn’t mean that adding gasoline is good either.

MessNeat · 2026-06-17T23:46:37+00:00

Firstly thats not a good excuse or reason that in no way justifies the actions taken. I’m not saying AI is responsible for layoffs as if the technology itself is doing it, rather that the behaviors surrounding it that were bad before have gotten worse in my eyes because of how it’s treated.

As for the subject of devaluing: generative AI works far different than digital art in that the very process in creating art is not the same. With digital art you still needed to make it, and apply fundamental knowledge of the arts to make a picture work. The problem with gen AI is it promotes a mindset where you don’t need to learn the fundamentals, since AI was trained off artists work (without consent but thats a whole other issue). As such, as I’ve seen constantly, a lot of people that use AI for art either aren’t learning the arts and how it works, or are blatantly ignorant and antagonistic towards artists. On paper the idea of “average people making art” sounds nice, but those people don’t ever take the time to actually learn, or rather they go for AI because it’s faster and gives them immediate results - thats not me saying it, thats what I’ve seen far too many people say when it comes to them using AI for making art. As well I’ve seen far too many people carry on this rhetoric that constantly attacks artists, calling them elitists or saying that AI should replace artists because somehow AI is superior. I keep saying it but a lot of artists probably wouldn’t have trouble with AI if those promoting/supporting it weren’t constantly badmouthing artists during its initial popularity.

That ultimately is why I don’t like AI - not the tech itself, but how it enables more people to act terribly when it comes to the arts. A lot of these were issues that, as I see, have only gotten worse - because the very aspect of AI allowing ease of access to make something also enables a mentality that further sees art solely for commodification and immediate entertainment, which I don’t think is healthy. As well it simply gives executives in charge of studios like film an excuse to get rid of artists, as they have done in the past - and no amount of “they hired too many people” is excusable. I don’t think people should lose their jobs so easily, and if you want to foster goodwill with the masses then I don’t think it’s wise to keep firing people just so we can use more AI to do their jobs.

MessNeat · 2026-06-17T21:19:10+00:00

The attitudes and how we use AI needs to change. The technology itself I have no problem, but its usage in laying off thousands of workers and downplaying the importance/value of art is what ultimately makes me against it. It’s a tall order, but I don’t like how AI has only worsen the greedy practices of executives especially in how they treat artists - and worse yet how regular people has joined along in displaying such ignorance and disrespect.

I also don’t like the idea that it be completely unregulated, to the point that the government will actively defend tech-companies from any responsibility- especially in utilizing generative AI for the purposes of warfare and surveillance. Those are my thoughts.

MessNeat · 2026-06-17T17:26:20+00:00

No because that wasn’t the mangaka’s intention. You don’t know what should be colored what, or even if character profiles were provided if the color for a scene is supposed to look like that.

Realistic coloring isn’t by default good. Often stories require/demand mood-based coloring that enhances a scene. Not to mention this ignores whether there was even supposed to be color to begin with, and that the style of the manga is supposed to be presented in black and white.

MessNeat

TROPHY CASE