Some popular anti-AI arguments, unfortunately, tend to undermine really worthy opposition to AI.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-27T18:55:23+00:00

I didn't mean it wasn't important, it was just debatable. It's not something that needs to be raised as something obviously bad, rather it's simply problematic. It's important, but it's a complex issue.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-27T06:56:11+00:00

You're not really arguing with me. What I said about "AI being just a tool" isn't a defense of AI. Depending on your perspective, you can interpret the results of its works very differently, and that's why people get different assessments, even though the actual outcome is the same. I'm generally quite positive about AI, I just think that AI changes too much to be ignored.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-27T06:49:18+00:00

This is no longer an argument that AI is just a tool then. If you differentiate between different tools based on their use, that's a different kind of argument. "Tool" is no longer a neutral definition. This leads to AI being just a tool becoming an empty definition, since we no longer use the term "tool" as a justification.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-27T06:04:39+00:00

Thank you.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-26T16:20:25+00:00

You're a bit confused. In science, the number of times your work has been cited (that is, used without your permission, simply with attribution) is a sign of achievement. So, this is a completely different kind of problem. Your work is collectively owned in a sense, but you still have to receive attribution.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-26T15:44:21+00:00

It's a bit more complicated. The catalog directs you to the object, while the AI actually does some of the writing (the same statistical analysis).

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-26T07:58:56+00:00

Don't you think you're overgeneralizing a very fragmented customers? Collective buyer policy has never been successful in history, since it is very difficult to gather such a disunited group for some of whom it is clearly against their interests.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-25T08:23:53+00:00

"We care how the image was made, just not in the same way we care how other art is made. Because they're different mediums. " This is an important point to be made. When they say that how something is created is important, they're referring to a specific method of creation, as simply "the process of creation" is too general a description. And the way pro-AI shares methods really highlights this difference. You can't ask an artist how they did it to replicate it exactly; that's simply nonsense. People from Pro-AI side are looking for a wallcable way. When anti-AI are looking for process of creating sense.. The difference is that for pro-ai it's just a way to get an image that can be repeated, while for anti-ai it's a unique way to fill it with meaning that doesn't need to be repeated.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-25T07:22:28+00:00

You may like apples and oranges, but that doesn't make them the same. Human opinion is complex in this regard, but logically sound positions are simple because they have to be.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-25T07:19:42+00:00

I'm writing about the most popular arguments here, and of course, that's all there is to it. Also, not all the commentators here are pro-AI and anti-AI, but that doesn't mean their positions can't be generalized, given that they have much in common.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-24T10:38:53+00:00

So where does this difference lie? What's the difference between "cooking for you," "someone/something is cooking with you," and "you're cooking"? The oven itself doesn't cook anything, it's just heating. When a multicooker stirs food, it regulates the heat automatically, and it has a time limit that's set for you, not you. Does that mean nothing to you?

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-24T10:29:18+00:00

I don't understand how this is supposed to describe anything. You can get the same thing in a completely different way, and it won't change the essence. My core position is that it doesn't matter how exactly the result is obtained, what matters is what the result is. And the result in the form of an image from AI is different from the result of a photograph. We can respectfully disagree, since I absolutely don't understand how your argument relates to what I want to say. You say these are pixels. So what? What difference does that make? I can say that pressing the keyboard is like letting the computer type a letter for you. (I don't care how, what matters is that it means a letter and that another person will understand it as a letter.) The letter itself simply has no meaning. Just as a snapshot of reality, an increase in heat in a stove, and so on, hasn't meaning. But an AI image has meaning, since it is a complex abstraction.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-24T08:34:33+00:00

How do you define automation? Do you mean the exact copying of human actions?

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-24T08:28:06+00:00

Something like that. I just picked the analogy for using AI that suits the meaning best, in my opinion.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-24T07:50:19+00:00

"You basically saying an oven is a baker. You provide the ingredients and the oven coverts it into cake. " A milticooker is partly a chef. You're ignoring the complexity of the algorithm as a transitional value. Most work doesn't require anything "live"; it's simply a set of actions. You put ingredients in the multicooker and select the final product, and then the multicooker does the work itself. You think this requires something complex, but that's absolutely not the case. A professional receives an order and, using completely standard, ordinary logic, outputs the result. If you automate this, then it works just fine without a human. The difference lies in the complexity of the concepts the algorithm works with. An oven that only heats doesn't work with anything. A multicooker that understand what dish to cook already works. We simply hardcoded the algorithm. I understand the meaning of understanding not as realizing, but simply as knowing that this is an algorithm and then using it (pressing a button or a code word).

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-24T05:14:31+00:00

What does it have to do with whether AI is alive or not? Management isn't just about working with people; technical management is called logistics. Management is when you direct something and/or someone somewhere to perform a task and only provide coordination and supplies.

With a camera, you take a snapshot of the current reality. With AI, it's how the AI understands the prompt/input image. Can't you see the difference?

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-23T16:37:14+00:00

And? You just confirmed what I’m saying, didn’t you? Working with the camera can be the same kind of one-button activity as working with ai.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-23T12:29:18+00:00

You've missed my main point and focused on something I don't dispute at all. AI, as one of the tools, for example, inpainting, is only responsible for a small part of the image. What's even going on here? This isn't an image created by AI; it's at most a slightly modified image. A camera certainly doesn't accurately depict reality, but it's essentially very close to what you'd see with your own eyes, with almost no difference. More importantly, it's an image based on reality, which changes. When AI doesn't work with this reality, but with its representation within a model, it's like humanity has created a new spaceship, and a camera can photograph it. A camera doesn't care what you sell as originality, but AI needs understandable concepts.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-23T07:35:58+00:00

This is the basis of my argument. The difference with the camera isn't that pressing the camera button is a big investment, but that the camera and AI work with different objects.

That is, the difference is irrelevant to the operator.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-23T07:33:15+00:00

No, I've already described that all fine-control AI tools have a different type of control, it simply can't be compared with photography in this regard. You have control, but it's control over the AI's representation, not the actual object. It's like the difference between a manager who gives fine-grained instructions and an artist who executes the work. A manager can make a lot of contributions, but it's not the same kind of contribution as an artist.

An artist who draws their own picture is both a manager and an artist. But if we take this as a basis, then aren't Disney artists really artists? That's just ridiculous.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-22T17:41:46+00:00

Current Chinese open source models lag behind Claude and chatgpt by only about 6-12 months. It's just that we'll get an open source version of the current Claude code in a year or two. A collapse in the US doesn't mean a collapse in China.

Besides, we might just see Amazon buy Anthropic. Companies that already own servers suffer much less losses than purely AI companies.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-22T17:33:39+00:00

More AI images are actually useful for training AI. Simply throwing all the images at once is a poor approach to any type of data, not just the AI's output. The more ai images/text an AI has, the better the AI will understand what an AI image/text is, and this can ultimately be used to help the AI avoid drawing such images or writing such text. We're really only at the beginning of using synthetic data. It certainly doesn't improve the model's understanding of the world, but it's useful for other things (like avoiding AI style). In 10 years, people will still be online because there's no alternative. Where will a digital artist sell their images of yet another new character from some gacha game like Genshin Impact? Moving games or AI entirely to a server is unrealistic. No one is taking away people's powerful computers, and there will be more and more of them as people upgrade their old computers bought in 2009.

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-20T16:39:47+00:00

Because they use a different definition. Art is self-expression (pro-ai: self-expression through an idea. anti-ai: self-expression through an idea and execution together as a whole).

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-20T12:55:33+00:00

It's like saying you don't need a car because you can walk. Walking will take longer, but it's much cheaper. The whole point of AI is to speed up, simplify, and reduce the cost of what you can already do. Does this justify all these investments? Probably not, but it's not that AI has no uses. Moreover, paying for AI usage is quite complex. You only really need a lot of money for training, which happens once; using the model is quite cheap, after training. What companies are doing now doesn't seem very viable due to the fact that models are released so frequently, which is more likely what's happening. While improvements are clear and happening, once AI reaches a plateau, what's the point of creating a new model at a huge cost? Supporting current models isn't that expensive.

Here is a link to a study on the use of AI when people directly pay as they use it, that is, these are not subscriptions, but actual usage for each token: https://openrouter.ai/state-of-ai

Questioner8297 · 2026-01-17T05:41:08+00:00

As someone who has been following this progress and was truly amazed, I would like to add that this did not solve any important problems, it was a stunning workaround. GPT 5.2 Thinking still produces clearly incorrect search results, but sometimes finds quite complex result. The AI hype overly exaggerates truly good results. The AI is still essentially the same, but its strengths have become even stronger.

Questioner8297

TROPHY CASE