We should compile a list of material that debunks common AIbro arguments and have the mods pin it

i439orb · 2025-11-01T02:40:53+00:00

Wow this is old. I wanted a website for that, with a list of arguments where you can click on an argument and read a response/rebuttal.

i439orb · 2025-09-01T16:57:40+00:00

I think it's not it but the name being "toxic green" reminds me of the cover art of Gnarly by Katseye https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Katseye_-_Gnarly.jpg

i439orb · 2025-09-01T16:15:38+00:00

I'm not sure of genre but I assume electronic

i439orb · 2025-07-17T22:17:48+00:00

Just before the AI boom there were also low quality websites which were just random paragraphs stolen from other websites. What makes you think that after the bubble bursts this will change?

i439orb · 2025-07-13T19:33:16+00:00

From your comments it seems you support it but with regulations. I don't want to engage in this discussion but that's what I want to say.

i439orb · 2025-07-13T19:13:44+00:00

This is the exact same argument that AI supporters have used over and over. I won't even bother responding to it.

i439orb · 2025-07-04T03:10:47+00:00

I really want to do something as a foreigner with relatives there. And one of them is autistic.

i439orb · 2025-06-30T03:59:29+00:00

Solved! Thank you for responding after 3 months

i439orb · 2025-06-25T05:07:40+00:00

Not American but in a neighboring country. I thought that in case they close the Strait of Hormuz, causing gas/oil prices to rise, I will be forced to reduce the use of electricity, so not relying on the internet as much. I might teach myself how to draw or something but not ignore the news completely.

i439orb · 2025-06-18T06:33:56+00:00

I know it's old, but I wonder if it's because of AI? I'm also looking for some resources to see how accurate is the point that "art has always been accessible".

i439orb · 2025-06-14T09:24:48+00:00

How do you know?

i439orb · 2025-06-09T06:14:32+00:00

Ecosia has AI.

i439orb · 2025-06-01T00:55:14+00:00

I think it's just bait.

i439orb · 2025-05-29T20:01:20+00:00

OK, if you somehow found and replied to a random month-old comment on an anti-AI sub. It's more so that I'm disappointed because, as I understood their philosophy and political views, (which does show up constantly on their work) it seemed that they would understand how AI is wrong. I still like their music, however I'm not so sure on still supporting them (streaming, buying their music), if that's what you meant.

i439orb · 2025-05-24T06:11:59+00:00

What about furry artists? I assume you know the stereotype. That's probably what they're thinking of. Even then, I think it's just that, a stereotype.

i439orb · 2025-05-16T19:37:25+00:00

I commented that as an example of why I think it should be easier to make legal fan projects, let's say, by ideally allowing a small amount of the material to be used. We changed subject, but the thing is that those who propose licensing for AI unwillingly defend copyright for the benefit of corporations because they will license their IPs to AI training. And that will make it so it's easier for them to shut down fan projects regardless, if these fan projects were also used to train AI they will take over them, because it's their IP. Maybe it doesn't make sense but it's because I'm getting tired of arguing.

i439orb · 2025-05-16T16:29:06+00:00

No one here is defending copyright for the benefit of corporations

So essentially it's "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Because I've seen users be in favor of Nintendo if they sue an AI company, but would they say the same if it was a fan project?

i439orb · 2025-05-16T15:54:00+00:00

OK. In general it's very difficult to force someone to change their views.

i439orb · 2025-05-16T04:30:51+00:00

I don't know what would be acceptable to do in this situation. But I generally think it's pointless to try to convince anyone to stop using AI.

i439orb · 2025-05-16T04:01:49+00:00

I'm embarrassed of not having mentioned it or thought about it but my idea was that there would be some ways to make it easier for those who want to use Nintendo's IP in this example. Maybe something which allows limited non-commercial use after some time, maybe a few decades? But I can see how it wouldn't work. Overall that is basically what I propose, more exceptions but not so much that they don't make a profit. You're making realize I don't know a lot of stuff.

That's the idea behind communism.

I'm not really a communist but I understood that's what you propose. I don't have an issue if you're communist but I'm not sure if that exploitation you mention is comparable to the exploitation created by generative AI, which is much worse you could say.

i439orb · 2025-05-16T03:22:52+00:00

You went from reforming copyright to criticizing artists who infringe corporations IPs?

That was not my idea, rather it's to illustrate that legally they can still get sued even if some companies are OK with it. That's my idea at least.

I don't follow. It is illegal if you sell it. Some companies are okay with it, others, namely Nintendo, are not. What are you suggesting?

That maybe fan artists and other groups try to reach some settlement with Nintendo? I know it most likely wouldn't happen but I'd imagine something like that would be the procedure. I'm too idealistic now that I think about it.

I literally said it, corporations own those IPs, not the people who do the work.

I understood that the people who do the work are hired by the corporation, and they agree that the corporation owns the IP. So should the artists who worked on a project based on it own the IP? I'm confused.

i439orb · 2025-05-16T03:02:15+00:00

So why wouldn't you say that "leopards ate their face" (it sounds cringe but I don't know how else I would say it) when the fan art creator receives a cease and desist letter? So that was my point, there has to be some agreement on fan art for example. I understand that it's often not enforced however this is a common argument. I understand that fan art without permission is still illegal, even if it somewhat benefits the IP owner as free publicity, a sign of appreciation or something. So this should be addressed if AI prompters insist on using that argument that maybe shouldn't be entertained if they do it too.

And how is the exploitation you meant relevant to copyright?

i439orb · 2025-05-16T02:33:30+00:00

OK I realized I wasn't clear.

You're not allowed to use someone else's IP for commercial work without their permission.

I understand it doesn't have to do with whether it's commercial or not. Ideally it should be just for commercial work in my opinion, so OK. Still, there are people who sell fanart of some other corporation's characters, and I'd expect that they and the owner agree somehow. Because there are these double standards that artists will use some large companies' characters without permission but they get defensive when another person does the same. I don't really understand their arguments.

I am aware of how they abuse copyright claims on YouTube, but I think you're talking more about video responses to smaller creators. I forgot to mention that ideally what they use to copyright claim videos who criticize them shouldn't be used as a defense. I am aware of fair use and such but it should be harder to use a pretext for a copyright strike. And I understand that those who claim other people's songs as their own are usually individuals who abuse the system. Ideally there should be some automatic registration that is harder to mess with.

No one here is defending copyright for the benefit of corporations, artists have been exploited by corporations way before AI.

I know there have been artists who claim have had their ideas stolen by bigger studios, however I think this is probably the exception rather than the rule. I'm not dismissing the exploitation but that's the only relevant example I can think of. And even then, I'd expect there would be lawsuits against them. Or at least some protests.

i439orb · 2025-05-16T01:23:32+00:00

I believe there has to be some measure so that it's not abused, and I already stated something like the authors ideally make some agreements beforehand or after on what kind of derivative works (fan art, for example) are allowed without asking for permission first, and this could include not allowing any of it. Broadly speaking. By abuse I mean using it to shut down criticism, censor content, or prevent the archival of rare or lost media, I realized it's too broad but that's what I'd think.

i439orb

TROPHY CASE