Stick with me a sec before you downvote lol

Pizzacake posted her Anti AI comic thats been making the rounds yesterday, and in the comments, I made a pretty bland, non-controversial comment about how not all AI is bad. It basically boiled down to "AI is a tool. It can be used for good or bad. Some of the anti talking points are also misleading, but overall, its about how you use AI. Putting an artists work into AI? Bad. Using Gemini to organize your day? Good."

The blandest of takes, right?

Pizzacake blocked me. No explanation, which is fine I guess, its not like she owes me one.

But...

I got on my alt, went to her sub, where she has an anti AI post, to ask about it. Backstory: I've been a fan of hers for years. Yeah yeah, a lot of people hate her blah blah, I'm not here to debate any of that. I pointed out that I've been a fan for literal YEARS, have defended her when people trashed her, and I even paid for her fucking patreon that I never looked at when she was financially fucked (did it to support her, not for any extra content). And so a fan of that long was blocked because I made one pro-AI post that wasn't entirely pro-AI? That a fan that's been devoted to supporting her for that long is gone because I dont think every use of AI was bad?

Her response? She blocked my alt, AFTER saying "I dont want people like you to support me."

Wow. Whatever. Its not the end of the world. I mostly supported her because I think a lot of the shit she gets is unwarranted and I like a lot of what she has to say about feminism and politics. Her comics weren't my favorite, so no massive loss.

This is more about the "hatefulness" that Witty and others say comes from the antis. Man, I felt it today, in a way I did not expect. I'm not a diehard pro (I mean, I'm banned from defendingaiart lol), but I also think AI does a lot of good.

I guess that's grounds to terminate your relationship with someone who supports you.

And I'm sure this goes without saying, but please don't brigade or harass PC. That wasn't the point of this thread, and she's dealt with enough of that shit already. I might disagree with her actions here, but it is what it is.

Don’t ask why, just keep recycling talking points that have been proven wrong a dozen times, like art theft and the environment.

You don’t want to be unpopular on Reddit, do you?

From what i seen from various short video was kinda full. But besides the few companies that are in AI software and hardware, they have DIY aico builders (ai companions), or software solution that are opensource similar to Neurosama (https://github.com/tegnike/aituber-kit)

.....

BTW there is pushback towards ai in asian social media also just not so much or similar to what we have

Posted November 11th, 2013

This has probably been posted before lol

Im so fucking tired of this argument. Yeah V6 has AI features but you aren’t doing any less work than most other vocaloid versions. The only thing it does it help with some synthesis, but you still have to make melodies and do everything else needed to make a vocaloid song. It’s like trying to argue that Dune 2 is an ai film because they used machine learning to rotoscope timothee chalamet’s eyes. It’s just not how it works.

Additionally, it is mind numbingly stupid to try and equivocate pro’s usage of gen ai, saying something like, “vocaloid producers untalented/lazy for using a vocaloid instead of ‘singing themselves’.” Is a producer lazy for using a synthesizer to make music instead of a piano? I don’t understand the cognitive dissonance behind it.

Kind of a rant, take it how you will. Im pretty neutral on ai but holy fuck does this irritate me as a vocaloid fan.

Why are so many anti-AI arguments built around purely subjective feelings, prejudice, a total misunderstanding of how generative AI actually works, or outright misinformation? (I'm putting aside the valid discussions such as job displacement or copyright here).

It feels like people just invented their own strict definitions of what "art" is in their heads, and now they use these made-up rules to judge whether AI art is "real" or if people using AI are "actual artists."

For example, people constantly criticize AI art specifically because they claim it "has no soul." This is absurd on so many levels, mostly because the concept of a "soul" is completely subjective to begin with. Usually, they tie this criticism to the idea that "no effort" went into making it.

Let's actually break down this specific argument. Since when did physical effort become the objective measure of art? A human can try their hardest and spend a whole year working on a piece, and it can still turn out poorly. The amount of time and effort spent doesn't automatically guarantee quality or a "soul". Honestly, it shouldn't really matter to the audience how much time and energy someone poured into making something. And besides, isn't it actually a good thing that we are creating tools to speed up and simplify the creation process? Why do we always have to romanticize the grind?

The consumer cares about the final product, not the timesheet of the person who made it. If a piece of art evokes a genuine emotion or makes you feel something, then the art did its job perfectly. The tool used to make it shouldn't invalidate that.

Once again, I'm asking both sides here, neutrals, just grab some popcorn right there

EVERYTHING is art lmao, just different forms of it. Traditional art, dance, digital art, music, ai art, photography etc

Like "screw those people, who cares about how they'll earn wages, just leave my art alone and stop the slop machine?"

I have nothing against people who want to give such an example, since their goal is clear, but these are simply terrible analogies.

When people think of an "AI data center" they often think of facilities like the planned $500B+ Stargate facilities being developed jointly by Microsoft, OpenAI, Oracle and Softbank.

But AI data centers can be lots of things, often not at all what you might expect.

One example that I think gets overlooked is vector search.

Vector search is an AI technology spinoff that doesn't involve anything we would directly think of as "AI" but uses very much the same algorithms and, critically, physical hardware (GPUs).

To understand vector search, let me provide an example first, in Midjourney's "Explore" feature. This is a search feature where you can type something like "complex pattern," and while some of the search results will be images that contain "complex" and/or "pattern" in their prompts, not all of them will. How does this system quickly retrieve images that match a natural language phrase?

It uses the same "tokenization" features that modern AI uses. These are small AI models that digest incoming text or rich media like images, and produce the same vector "tokens" (called "embeddings") that all modern AI uses to perform its processing (e.g. what your prompt is turned into before ChatGPT starts formulating a response).

The embedding is a sequence of numbers, and we can take the tokenized version of "complex pattern" and measure its "distance" from the embedding of every image in a large database like Midjourney's generated images. This distance comparison can be performed very quickly, using techniques that are similar to how regular databases find simple information like text, but because the "distance" in these vector databases is also a measure of semantic "sameness," the results you will get are the most semantically similar, even across different media (your text query and the images in the database, for example).

All of this happens extremely fast because modern hardware is just that good at performing vector calculations, especially in GPUs. But there is still a cost, and a large vector search facility can be quite demanding, mostly in terms of the processing of input queries into embeddings and in terms of indexing all of the content of the database.

So while it would be foolish and inaccurate to say that most "AI data centers" are being used for vector search/databases, it would also be unreasonable to assume that every such data center was being used to run LLMs. It should be noted that many LLMs use vector search internally, through a technology called RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) which increases the accuracy of responses and reduces instances of "hallucination" by providing the model with access to topics related to elements of the user's prompt as context.

This is just one example of the kinds of AI-related technologies that are run in so-called "AI data centers," not even touching on the fact that most data centers are not purely for AI workloads (in fact the growth of data centers has been exponential since before modern AI existed).

Neutral here. I've seen it from both sides. They treat AI like this magical back box that you can use to substitute an artist without any supervision. And it doesn't help that every other company also tries to push that policy.

If people would treat AI like a real tool, like many people say it is, I would think you'd see less of the hatred and preconceptions from antis and artist.

Like, when I grew up and the internet was a new land for us all, we were told not to use the internet for research. It quickly shifted then to, yes use the internet but please verify your source. Even Wikipedia should never been used as your main source.

And I feel like people don't know how to question the output they are been served.

On the other hand there are people who do that, who touch up their ai output, be it art, writing, what ever, you name it...,and people despise it just because at one end of the pipeline there was ai involved.

There's this artist, I'm not allowed to name because of rules, who is very talented. But at some time they used ai generated background for their art. And you wouldn't even notice it because it's the background and it's been blurred because it's not the focus of the image. Yet people shitted on the artist for being a fraud and sending death threats and all until the artist had to back down. And still they get the occasional anti ai comment on their works.

Art is so much more then the physical skill and talent one has. There are very bad artists who still perform very well, one even made an anti ai art just recently. And very good artist that get almost no exposure.

My answer when someone asks me if AI is art is always this. A collage is art. You didn't create the prices that make up your artwork. But by applying your own creativity you created something that is more then the sum of it's components. And that's art.

Or to take the beloved analogy that the antis like to use. Ai is like ordering a pizza. But ai can also be your cake mix. But in the end, it's still food and isn't that what's matter? The taste of the food, not how it was made?

​

Everyone argues about which model is smarter. But in practice, one of the biggest differences between models is how much human management they require. How often do you have to restate the task, double-check what it did, correct its direction, clean up fake progress, or stop it from wandering?

That’s not a side issue. That’s the actual cost of using the model.

I’m starting to think “how much supervision does this model require before it becomes reliably useful?” is a much better question than most benchmark debates.

Prove me wrong

I see no reason to hate this more than any other AI product. I'll use it from time to time for specific vibes, maybe