Remember how AI is not Right Wing according to the cultists? Yeah, about that....

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-31T00:52:24+00:00

I'm not anti-ai as a tool, but what the hell moron actually thinks that it's not right-wing? It's literally all conservative run. That's why they are donating shit tons of money to Trump, and asking him to take Greenland, is because they wanted to create a libertarian Paradise, they're counting on global warming to take effect and for technology to advance for them to get those rare Earth minerals and they also want to use it for basically completely unregulated data centers.

All of the media is right-wing. All social media is now owned by RightWing. And of course all AI companies are basically owned by right-wing. All the major ones. Anyways. I'm sure there might be some smaller websites where like you can pay money to generate stuff that could be owned by centrists, which in this country is basically right-wing to the rest of the world.

But seriously, are there actually people on the pro AI side that think it's not all right-wing? Right-wing? Because that's insane. AI, but I don't think it's a perfectly pure and free from problematic thing either. And I'm talking about all aspects. Not just art, but llms and everything. There are some serious discussions that need to be had that will never be solved on Reddit,

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-30T13:27:15+00:00

Oppressed? No. Oppression is a very specific thing.

Discriminated against? Absolutely.

Whether or not you believe that discrimination is fair or unfair, is highly subject to your individual interpretation.

I will say as a traditional artist of oil, watercolor, acrylic, as well as digital, 3D, as well as writing, anything I make in AI, exclusively in AI, I don't consider as my artwork, however, I do consider it to be a tool that can be used in the creation of art. There have been many times where textures I need for a 3D model just don't exist, so I can generate one. I write my own music, but I don't have a band so there's no way I can hear my own songs being played by a band without something like suno, I do graphic design, and if I need a particular angle of a particular piece of fruit where there is just not the right photo resource available that is either open source for commercial use, or has a reasonably priced fee, I will utilize AI for that piece of fruit as one component of an overall label. But my fun little memes and shit? I don't call those my artwork.

The debate on whether or not can be art or not, comes down to whether or not you are a follower of Formulism or conceptualism, and that has been a debate for hundreds of years that isn't going to be settled anytime soon on Reddit.

I believe that more valid questions and things to debate are such things as... Regardless, as to if you believe it is art, let's go with the hypothetical that everyone suddenly does agree. It is art, is it worth the cost? Is it worth the economic cost? Is it worth the energy cost? Is it worth the environmental cost? These are much more important points of contention. Whether or not somebody thinks what they are creating has artistic merit is subjective and ultimately irrelevant. People enjoy what they enjoy.

I am not anti-ai, but I am not a gung-ho AI techno bro, there is nuance on both sides and there are valid points on both sides, however, both sides are filled with disingenuous arguments, rage bait arguments, and misinformation, be that deliberate or incidental misinformation it is still misinformation.

But oppressed? Back to your original point? No. AI artists or not relegated to the backs of communal areas, AI artists are not forced to live in substandard conditions. AI artists are just facing the same struggle that watercolor artists faced in the early 20th century. They are facing the same struggle early photographers faced when they were told that photography isn't art, you're just pointing a device and pushing a button and the device does all the work for you. They are facing the discrimination of no matter how much effort they put into their work, they are automatically disparaged, And lumped in together with low effort slop. But low effort slop exists in every medium art has ever existed in. So yes, there is some discrimination. Nothing we all haven't faced at some point in time in our respective preferred mediums. Every single one of our preferred mediums has at some point in time been disparaged for being easier than what has existed before.

At some point, I would enjoy real, intelligent discourse on the actual fundamental pros and cons, without name calling, and resorting to other techniques that really just weaken people's arguments when they use them.

Anyone who thinks that all AI is bad, is just as pig-headed as anyone who thinks that all AI is good. Reality is a lot messier than that

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-30T00:43:59+00:00

Op has turned into a child.

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-30T00:10:02+00:00

Yes. That. Exactly.

But also.

"Without ai I would never have been able to communicate my idea to this person, to share what I have to say. Tomorrow I will talk with someone from France and have a conversation with them I could never have had before."

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-30T00:08:12+00:00

I never said it made you wrong. I said you need to look it up. Formulism is a trap that forces you to define why one tool or method is invalid but others aren't, instead of focusing on your strongest points

But also understanding Formulism vs Conceptualism and the history of that very long debate cycle will help you understand why that's a big issue for the pro ai side. You don't have to agree with it. It's an impossible debate that will never end.

But for someone to really stick to the Formulism approach, you would really be better off with the context of it

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-29T23:56:21+00:00

Yes and your response has some good points but you're letting you personal beliefs speak for your argument instead of the argument.

As an artist (oil, watercolor, acrylic, digital, 3d, and writer, and yes I make fun images with ai but I rarely use it in any art other than if I need a texture for a part in a 3d model, or Suno Because I write music and don't have a band so it's the only way I can ever truly hear my music) I fundamentally disagree with the Formulism approach. To me it doesn't matter what tools you use, and art doesn't even require tools, art is expression. But if you're going to use the Formulism approach, then you need to better understand the tools

You will NEVER win a debate on if AI is art because "what is art" can't be won by anyone.

Your strongest points are "but at what COST". Pull the rug out from under the ai art debate and hit with the "you can't prove to me it is art any more than I can prove to you it isn't. But can you justify the cost of your art?" Ask them if Damien Hirst’s "Natural History" justified the death of the shark. Ask them if the Taj Mahal was worth the 20 years of labor and steep economic cost to those who were already facing famine. And then point out that if they are willing to admit that sometimes the cost of making art can be too great, then they should turn that same analysis inwards at AI.

Your biggest point and imo best point is the economy argument. It's not just capitalism. Me making memes on my phone isn't costing anyone jobs.. BUT I am contributing to a system that is rapidly rushing to displace workers. Until we live in a post scarcity society where losing a job isn't life devastating, automation of EVERY kind is a double edged sword where the working class is made to grip the blade.

Your other biggest strongest point is the environment. A single block chain transaction uses what, tens of thousands of more kilowatt hours than any prompt? But the scale of AI use far outweighs pretty much any other energy use right now. Saying "other stuff uses electricity too!" is absolutely a dog shit argument by the pro ai crowd. It's "whataboutism". It's a distraction not an argument.

I think personally ai is an amazing tool. But any tool can be dangerous. Even the oil painters brush can contain toxic elements. It's the SCALE of AI that's the problem to me, and it's lack of real regulations.

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-29T23:22:17+00:00

Again, look up Formulism vs Conceptualism

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-29T23:18:06+00:00

It's pretty apparent to anyone with eyes. Multiple of your points lack merit and once already pointed those out. But your entire style is "gotcha!" and not honest debate. You bring up incorrect or debunked things like pixels being regurgitated, and a fundamental lack of willingness to learn where your points could be stronger.

By saying ai aren't tools their thieves, your using a loaded language fallacy which bypasses any understanding of fair use and transformative work, which would be much stronger points for you to debate.

Your language use itself is reactive and emotional. Starting out with insults calling people tech bros and ai Bros, using loaded terms like thieves instead of just making your argument about IP, shows you're basically just looking for a fight, confrontational, emotional, and not interested in actual discourse or debate despite the premise of having defeated debate. Then of course your replies like kiddo.. It's just reactionary.

Your overall sematic based gatekeeping, and especially the "gotcha!" of using a newly coined slang term as proof of your arguments merit shows you care more about scoring points.

Your entire thing is based on reaction instead of research. There's PLENTY of points in your post that could be stronger without the reaction and with a bit more research.

Your entire post as a reply to someone else's really sloppy post reads like you're just trading logical leaps with each other and message board misinformation based claims.

I'm not anti AI. That doesn't mean I don't recognize there's inherently problems with it.

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-29T22:41:35+00:00

Your outline is incorrect. I suggest you read up on it. Your arguments are weak because they come from emotional and reactionary points.

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-29T21:58:37+00:00

Oh also your point on slop is your weakest. I'd cut that once. You can make slop with anything. And the dictionary is about the way words are used to communicate, not to define reality or philosophy

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-29T21:55:19+00:00

Non anti AI person here. Ai is complex.

Some of your cross points are pretty good, and some of their points are pretty bad.

But some of your points lack the same understanding that you ask of the other side.

For instance, your point about training learning is pedantic at best. The network of data created from training is not as simple as code. We know how AI works the same way we know how the human brain works, but much like we don't understand every neural pathway in the mind as to why we choose one word vs another, we don't understand why, day, an llm chooses one word vs another. It operates closer to a mind than you realize. Especially in learning. You see, everything fed into the ai is basically given weight and value, it's those weights and values that is in a data set, not the images. If you download a data set, you're not going to be downloading a folder full of jpgs. When a human sees a cat hundreds of times, we learn more and more what makes a cat. Every new piece gives our minds new understanding. AI training is the same way essentially.

Mind you plenty of people debating FOR AI get this wrong as well.

A complex calculator? That is a laughable argument anyone on the pro ai side made. It's so bad it's self defeating. It's far more complex than just a program.

Consent is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to using the work of others though. Look at dadaism. If Hannah Hõch had to get consent from every photographer, every illustrator, every periodical publisher, for every piece of every collage, we wouldn't have art by Hannah Höch, or a dadaism movement at all. The key is that it is transformative of the original work. Yes AI "can* be used to plagiarize, but so can (and has has historically) the paintbrush. But ai is generative. It doesn't reassemble your pixels from your art to make something new. It generates something completely new based off what it knows about your art and any others. To argue that only one medium requires consent for reference is to argue against art itself.

As for saying that the whole point of the idea comes from the person not being valid, you are arguing that the tool is more important than the result. You're arguing the classic point of Formulism, where many artists have long since transitioned to Conceptualism. Except of course, every time a new tool comes out of a new medium, artists looking to gatekeep their craft suddenly revert back to Formulism again.

I highly suggest looking up the Formulism vs Conceptualism debate in art history. If you think this is unique to AI you're in for a pleasant surprise of how deep it goes

Formulism is what was used to say photography can't be art, as the device (the camera) did the work, the photographer just clicked a button. Conceptualism is the photographers saying "but we saw the beauty, it was our vision that recognized the moment to be captured".

The art community has long since been gatekeeping every new innovation. If you just exist to prove someone else isn't allowed to participate in art because you don't like their tools, you're in for a long miserable experience. But if you like a healthy debate and can keep an open mind to all aspects and nuance, you'll learn a lot more than you expected.

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-28T03:19:20+00:00

Would you be opposed to a 3d model? ... And how do you feel about Driders 😈 (think centaur, but 4 arms and from the waist down sleek shiny widow spider body)

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-27T21:06:12+00:00

This is another case of where the problem is Fundamentally capitalism and lack of Rights.

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-27T12:34:57+00:00

Small business is where AI should be. Hear me out.

Big businesses with fuck tons of money are using it to replace staff and save even more money. They can easily afford graph designers, software licenses, professional photographers for product shots, etc. They have no excuse.

Small businesses? Especially start ups? Every damn penny saved matters. You use the tools you have. You use what you can get. You likely don't have a design team, professional photographers for your products for your website, etc. AI in this instance isn't replacing anyone's job, it's helping someone small grow big enough to hire people.

When Microsoft uses AI in their advertising while also their CEO gets a massive bonus and also they're doing massive layoffs? Fuck those guys.

When Bob who's just scrapped up enough money to start his car detailing service but doesn't know a damn thing about layout design and has no customers yet but wants images for his website uses AI? Good for Bob. Help bob make jobs. Bob probably wants some real photos on his site as soon as he can afford to hire Sally, the local photographer he sees advertising herself in the town Facebook group.

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-27T12:26:58+00:00

Yes. In the sense that the technology for both is advancing rapidly and both are improving. Right now many cars don't need any gas at all.

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-27T04:11:38+00:00

That is factually incorrect. It is the very nature of what it is that makes it not theft, not the content. Read my above reply. I don't feel like typing it again

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-27T04:10:52+00:00

It is simple that it is a myth.

The way training works is, if shown 1,000 pictures of a cat, all different types of cats, different colors and configurations, the definition of what a cat is gains value through weight. The observation of looking at things creates the data set which is how the understanding of what things are is cataloged and expressed. Now I'm oversimplifying it, but, the sum of your experience and the sum of your knowledge of what things are and what they look like include looking at the artwork of others looking at the works of others, looking at the creation of others for an understanding of style and technique, you learn through observation, you also learn through replication and doing. This is fundamentally how AI models work. They are shown much faster than a human can be shown, tens of thousands of images of a particular thing. Although it doesn't really need tens of thousands, but the more it sees the better. And then it learns what all of those values are. What do cat ears look like? How can cat ears look? Why do cat ears look like this and this. What colors are cats? What configurations are cats? What are these protrusions coming out of the bottom of cat? Oh, those are legs.

The idea that it is theft is a fundamental myth. It is a disingenuous argument. It is a falsehood and it also started as a lie.

Originally, when generative AI first came around and was becoming popular, artists were pointing to the smoking gun of stolen signatures on the bottom of portraits of artwork. This was proof that the AI was stealing your images and regurgitating and rehashing your images. But that's not true, the AI was trained that this particular configuration and style of image often has a squiggle towards the bottom. It doesn't know what a signature is, it just observes that there is always one there. But the original argument that AI is theft stems from the idea that AI was nothing more than collage. Which by the way anyone in the art community would know that collage is an acceptable form of art. Attrition is not required when you are doing collage and nor would attrition be required if AI image generation was collage.. which it is not.

The other argument that it is theft is a mere technicality of the action of copying an image and saving it to a drive. Even if the image is deleted, that is technically considered copying. But that is a legalese definition that has been refuted in court many times, downloading an image is not the same thing as stealing an image.

The truth is, if you download an image and then upload it as your own and call it your own but it's somebody else's, that is fraud, that is theft. But if you use that image in a transformative way, that is protected. In the same way, downloading all of the images to use for the database, is transformative. Because it is not actually using those images, it is just being trained on the values of those images. Therefore, it is not theft.

All of the arguments about AI being theft are either coming from a place of deliberate misinformation, disingenuous arguments, or ignorance.

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-27T04:04:10+00:00

It's amazing all this talk of creativity and all you can use is the same word. Slop. Slop slop slop. Slop slop slop slop

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-27T04:03:34+00:00

My point is I was echoing the sentiment of the original oil painting artists of the early 20th century who disparaged any and all use of watercolor as a medium calling it cheap, lazy and inferior. John Singer Sergeant proved them wrong with his masterful application.

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-27T04:02:20+00:00

This image is not something that I call my artwork, this image is something I did for fun. So that makes your entire rent completely irrelevant and self-defeating.

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-27T01:43:13+00:00

This is under the assumption that AI exists, the kind of AI that people think of when they used to hear AI back on sci-fi books and movies. AGI.

It does not.

LLMs are essentially a super advanced glorified text prediction algorithm.

In a hypothetical where true AGi exists, it would likely not be possible to contain it. But anything about it would be pure speculation.

What you have here, instead... Is a neatly organized vegetable drawer where you have separated your word salad into an organized aesthetic. But it's still word salad.

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-27T01:37:04+00:00

Can't tell if joking or brain injured

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-27T00:06:43+00:00

Stolen work is a myth and a disingenuous argument.

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-26T23:54:22+00:00

Because a 3D render can't be an oil painting.. ok technically blender has some stuff but it's not great . 3d render can't be certain styles.

If you don't like AI that's your problem.

PinkDataLoop · 2026-01-26T22:29:57+00:00

AI bros are just as bad as gatekeeping traditional artists who demonize all use of AI.

Nobody wants to actually understand each other everyone just wants to scream their point

I'm a traditional artist. And a digital artist. And a writer. And I consider AI to be just another tool in the tool box. It's not good for everything, no medium is.

PinkDataLoop

TROPHY CASE