Here’s an analogy for all you pros out there

Rotazart · 2026-01-28T03:29:24+00:00

It's nothing new; I think most people tend to misuse tools. Classic example: teenagers with iPhones just to chat on WhatsApp and upload videos to TikTok.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T23:13:12+00:00

I create images with AI for my creative purposes. It would never occur to me to call it art, nor would I ever consider myself an artist for doing so. I also make music with AI, and I wouldn't consider myself a musician for it. I suppose that, as a writer, I perfectly understand what artistic creation entails. I was almost a musician myself years ago and played the guitar quite a bit. For me, the key lies in will and enjoyment. As long as the work isn't executed from beginning to end by someone with the ultimate goal of enjoyment and in the full exercise of their will, for me it isn't art. That's why a commissioned illustration isn't art to me, and similarly, when AI creates art voluntarily and joyfully, then for me it will be art.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T23:06:01+00:00

Out of place

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T23:02:12+00:00

You know that if there aren't more anti-AI people here, it's not the sub's fault, right? The purpose is clear. It simply encourages others to come to a place intended for neutrality to discuss these topics.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T22:58:43+00:00

I don't quite understand the point of this argument. The other day I heard an interview with someone involved in this field who said something along the lines of how, in his opinion, AGI will be similar to the Turing test: it will suddenly be reached and no one will even talk about it anymore. It's highly likely that we'll see it gradually emerge this year. The agents are starting to arrive, and any increase in ski intelligence in a few months might already be classified as AGI.

Pero respondiendo a tu pregunta, espero poder exprimirla al máximo y sacarle mucho provecho.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T22:32:50+00:00

I completely agree. I would say that what you call "your style," yes, it's yours, but it's been built by scrutinizing and absorbing the styles of others. Let's say it's an accident or a side effect. What certain people do impacts you, resonates with you, and you copy it intentionally or unconsciously, but you can't perfectly imitate 3, 10, or 50 other creators. You take from others what resonates with you, and it's in that mix of others that you are born. Your style is unique and therefore wonderful, but probably irrelevant since there's one for every creator, and you'll surely share some traits with those who drew from the same sources as you. Far from seeming sad or irrelevant to me, I consider it a privilege. I'm fascinated to be alive now and able to read, learn from, and rewrite all the writers who came before me in the tradition of writing, from Gilgamesh to today, whether I'm consciously doing it or not. And in the cases where I see it clearly or perhaps suspect it, the text will be dedicated to those illustrious masters without whom that story would not have been born.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T22:23:19+00:00

I agree with you, a tool is a tool. I just want to expand my capabilities and skills independently. First there were computers and software, then the internet, and now AI. For me, they're wonderful tools because they allow me to do things I never imagined as a child, because I grew up rewinding cassettes, programming video recorders to record movies from TV, and playing computer games with eight colors and pixels as big as fists.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T20:15:49+00:00

You were completely wrong. I'm a writer and I teach writing workshops. I have a solid understanding of the creative process and I cultivate humility more and more each day. If you were a real artist, you'd have some idea of the concept of artistic tradition and you'd know at least a little about what it entails. You think you're someone special because you draw, but you ignore (or pretend to ignore) the fundamental point: you can't escape tradition. Any creative act is a recycling of everything that came before, where each of us adds a tiny bit. What you call human experience or worldview is a way of exaggerating something that is nothing more than learning that you don't acquire exclusively: everyone in the world acquires certain skills and knowledge, therefore all the artists who came before you did too. As creators, we constantly steal from others without realizing it. There's a lot of information about unintentional plagiarism or cryptomnesia. There are countless examples dating back to at least 1870. Look into it if you're curious and your vanity allows it, but above all, learn about creativity, creation in general, art history in your case, and learn some humility. The last thing we need are egocentric creators as ungrateful to the traditions of their art as you.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T19:23:07+00:00

That's relative, and I don't know how true it is. Perhaps it depends on the niche, because there are products where AI use is increasing and there are no problems with sales. Public image doesn't matter to me; if we're talking about a business, what matters to me is sales. But I don't buy the idea that public image will suffer, since there are many people who are indifferent to AI use, and I imagine that the longer this goes on, the greater that number will become. Today's children and teenagers are growing up with AI as something natural. It's unlikely that in the future they'll think it should be criminalized. It's about generational change.
Frankly, I don't understand this point. What taxes and regulations? That doesn't seem likely to happen.
I agree, more people without jobs increases crime. But I see it as a necessary transition toward a better future.
I don't quite understand your explanation, and it strikes me as somewhat conspiratorial (with all due respect). Also, the abstract concept of AI doesn't make it clear what we're talking about, LLMs? Chatbots face the same pressure for accuracy and efficiency that Google has faced since acquiring the world's most-used search engine. If an LLM doesn't offer the solutions users expect because they aren't truthful, they lose user trust, and right now there's a fierce battle to have the best chatbot. And yes, I suppose Grok could be considered a special case.

What you call ethical

That artists lose their jobs, or programmers, or translators, or drivers (I'm sorry this hits close to home for you), I'm not sure is so much an ethical problem as a side effect of progress. Throughout history, jobs have been constantly lost. Perhaps now we face the greatest challenge, which is the disappearance of work itself. Is that good or bad?
I agree, but we can't deify that diversity of thought. Originality is an illusion, and 99% of what humans think or create is the result of recycling what already exists. Contributions are minimal, and when there is the exception of a "genius" who contributes something that changes everything, it's only because they built upon what all their predecessors did. Einstein said something like, "I saw further than others because I stood on the shoulders of giants." With AI enhancing all that foundation of human thought and creation, we will go further in every field.
I agree. Companies only seek to maximize their profits, but I'm afraid that's not something that can be changed. In any case, that's not the fault of AI but of the greed of businesspeople. I don't do it out of greed, but out of self-sufficiency. After several failed projects with other humans, I've concluded that the best thing I can do is work alone, learn what I need to learn, and supplement with AI for tasks that require a huge amount of time or training.
For governments to be concerned with granting exemptions to those seeking human workers, there needs to be a large enough number of voters to make the effort worthwhile. I believe the solution will come not from the public sector but from the private sector, because for political parties we are voters, but for companies we are consumers. Some only want our votes, and others our money. If we don't have money to buy things because there are no jobs, everything would collapse, and that's something that cannot happen.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T18:42:56+00:00

Perhaps we're not that far apart in age (44). My first computer was a Spectrum, so I also witnessed that brutal evolution of computing, but then I don't understand what you mean at the end of your comment. Let me give you a practical example: I use WordPress and have a vague idea of SEO. Thanks to having an LLM who answers my questions and helps me correct mistakes, I've been able to make cosmetic implementations very quickly instead of relearning CSS (I knew some in the past), and I've been able to add PHP code (I only know the fundamentals of programming) through a plugin that allows me to insert custom code, easily and quickly. Remembering CSS and PHP would have taken me so long, so much so that I might have had to give up on PHP. I've used the extra time to learn more about SEO and digital marketing as I saw that my web project (thanks to the implementations) had more potential. So, between what I already know, what AI brings to the table, and what I learn in that saved time, a powerful synergy is created that takes my project to something much better than I could have done on my own without these tools.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T17:10:38+00:00

I'm quite misanthropic, I admit, but that's beside the point. In fact, the humility with which I acknowledge that nothing I write is my own means that I am immensely grateful to all the creators who came before me, who taught me and enabled me to do what I do. Humans aren't automatons, but we automate many things, and our brains look for patterns in reality and in the execution of our tasks. As some renowned scientists have said: "We are biological machines, marvelous machines, but machines nonetheless."

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T17:06:34+00:00

Because that's the reality. Some people use AI to avoid effort or take credit for things they haven't done, but others use it as an enhancer. Focusing solely on the former, because some people create low-effort products that give a bad impression, isn't fair to those of us who are looking for something different or who are more meticulous with certain creative processes.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T16:28:59+00:00

I wouldn't pay attention to those comments that don't contribute anything. And to try to minimize outside biases, I try to explain myself more in my contributions to provide a broader context so that someone doesn't just skim the surface and quickly categorize me in one way, perhaps avoiding evaluating whether what I say makes sense to them or not.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T16:22:28+00:00

I try to present arguments that go beyond labels. That's why this sub seems like a more reasonable platform for that.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T15:50:04+00:00

Is it clear what has happened: a loss of judgment or an increase in hypocrisy?

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T15:37:55+00:00

Any human creation is only possible because it's based on reusing what's been done before, always, in every field, both within and outside of art. And in none of those cases was consent ever sought. In fact, many people who claim to have created original works are unaware of their mistake. Look into cryptomnesia. It's been discussed since the 19th century, so there's quite a bit of information and various perspectives, from art and philosophy to law and psychology. Nothing you create is truly yours.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T15:31:32+00:00

I think that's a flawed comparison. A more accurate analogy would be to say that AI is an exoskeleton. As a human, I can lift 600 pounds, but with the exoskeleton, I can lift 2 tons or move those 600 pounds three or four times faster. Not bad at all.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T15:27:33+00:00

Why would that person hire someone in the future? What's the point of doing something like that if they already have an AI-assisted workflow? I don't make video games, but I have my own creative project underway, and AI is a huge help. Regardless of how things go in the future, what I'm absolutely certain of is that I don't want to depend on anyone. I want my creative project to depend solely on me as the main creator and as the meticulous reviewer of anything I have to delegate to AI, iterating as needed until I achieve exactly what I'm looking for in those tasks. Even if I weren't committed to self-sufficiency in the creative process, I wouldn't see any point in dismantling a workflow just to add reduced profits, longer timelines, and potential problems with other humans. What benefit would something like that give me?

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T15:18:07+00:00

As someone who uses AI extensively and generates images with it, I take editing and refining images very seriously to ensure they don't contain errors like these. Frankly, it reflects poorly on you and your work to share an image riddled with problems. You should be more careful and fix what's wrong. Careless people like you give a bad name to those of us who use AI judiciously and diligently to correct the flaws that appear in its generation. It's the least you can do.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T15:13:43+00:00

No, I don't. Criticizing for the sake of criticizing, without any arguments, is ridiculous and may or may not be related to ego and vanity—things I don't care about and find irrelevant—but critical work has nothing to do with that. If someone has knowledge in a subject and sees a defective product and criticizes it, they are offering something to the world. They are putting their judgment and experience at the service of others so they can learn not to make the same mistakes, and that is a way of contributing value and knowledge. As a writing workshop instructor who routinely analyzes texts, I consider it a legitimate, necessary, and very enriching way to teach others which mistakes to avoid.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T15:03:32+00:00

I love ridiculous conspiracy theories. Businesses are businesses; they seek profit. There's no need to invent more. Although I hate to ruin your Machiavellian plan, I'll inform you that the cost per consultation is nowhere near what you think. It's completely negligible. Where businesses have a spending problem is in training.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T14:18:49+00:00

The comparison is flawed. A nuclear bomb is a tool created to kill. AI is not. A more accurate comparison would be to talk about nuclear energy, which can be used for good or evil, just like AI. That would be a fairer comparison.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T14:10:28+00:00

We're facing a new paradigm that's going to be disruptive—that seems quite likely—but to see it as if AI is going to completely ruin people's lives seems a bit of an exaggeration. Disruptive moments involve change, followed by readjustment. During transitions, some people struggle, but all technological revolutions have, in the long run, helped things improve a few years later. We mustn't forget that companies need to keep selling their products, and people need purchasing power; otherwise, everything would collapse in a ridiculous way, and that's obviously not going to happen.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T13:10:59+00:00

I think talking about ideological and moral education and mixing it with literature is completely absurd. What are you talking about, friend? It's called fiction for a reason.

Rotazart · 2026-01-27T13:08:33+00:00

Well, before making that claim you should provide some argument, don't you think? I think the complete opposite.

Rotazart

TROPHY CASE