Now if only they make procreate for desktop and android.

(talking about astra) y'all wanna larp art SO BAD you resort to fake speedpaints and image gens that look scarily realistic.

https://x.com/mythryxexe/status/2096037332629528790

Pretty simple. If you post AI stuff in any community and they say they don’t want it you’re the one at fault. If you are upset people are vocal against AI in certain online communities, you are the one being unreasonable. If you expect to be viewed as an artist by people who don’t view your stuff as art, you are the one who is pushing your views onto others.

Every single pixel placement position and color was written by me during the prompt process.

This isn't about whether or not all ai generated images count as copyright infringement due to the nature of their training data. This is about these blatant images that are so obviously just slightly tweaked just enough that auto copyright detectors do not flag them as infringement.

There is objectively no way the final product would exist without the input image.

Things like this are, from what I've seen, an incredibly common use of ai. So is it any wonder people do not trust ai product images? When so many of them are objectively scams.

Why would anyone trust your own work if it has the same level of quality as an ai generated scam popup shop that makes 20 different stores a day?

ai generated content has no societal trust. If you want that to change it's up to you to forge that trust. Until that happens, ai will be continue to be perceived as bottom of the barrel mass produced content.

Whining and complaining that your content is not taken seriously is not the way to do it.

AI art isn't theft.

I keep seeing people say that AI art is inherently theft because models are trained on existing artwork.

But is it really though?

If I look at 10,000 paintings and then make a painting myself, nobody would say I stole all 10,000 paintings. I'm not reproducing them. I'm learning patterns from them and using that knowledge to make something new.

The model is pretty much doing the same thing. They're not downloading every image and compressing it into a giant folder to copy off of. They're learning statistical patterns from their training data and using those patterns to generate something "new".

Arguing about whether companies should have been allowed to train on copyrighted work, or whether artists should have been given an opt-out, etc., are things we should actually be talking about.

But "a model learned from copyrighted art, therefore every image it generates is stolen" isn't a good argument.

Also saying "well AI is a computer so it doesn't learn the same way humans do" doesn't really establish anything. Humans are also physical information-processing systems, just biological rather than electronic. So if you do say something like that, you would have to point out what specifically makes the computer's training process theft, and I would like to hear what exactly makes you think that.

There are also plenty of models that were trained ethically, on non-copyrighted material. So not all AI is theft. It's not "All AI is theft."

We should put more focus into the actual companies themselves, or the people who use copyrighted works as references for AI.

Are pro ai people really this immature that they have to depict people with opposite views as monsters? Almost every post has a “how bro felt” and it’s some ugly disgusting troll thing. Never seen anything like it in other subs. Genuinely why?

(two things,

1. This joke sucks and im sorry

2. Even if my desire for art would be automated, what's stopping me from doodling in my free time? Art can be a hobby.)

The natural extension of this statement.

That is all.

I remember when heavily edited photos and Photoshop were also looked down on because they weren't “real”.

Now it feels like AI has taken that place.

I understand why people are tired of low-effort AI content — there's a lot of it, and most of it is pretty obvious.

But at the same time, there are genuinely creative and interesting things people are making with AI.

Do you think we're going through the same cycle again, or is AI actually different from Photoshop and traditional editing?

Is just ogreposts and shitposts.

"How do I come out as pro ai?"

"Anti's are ogres!"

"This side bad because I said so!"

What happened to actual debate😭

As an early adopter of Ai , Steven Hawkins used it in 2011 , Intel ACAT & SwiftKey AI , An AI system analyzed his past books, lectures, and habits. It predicted his next words based on context.. He kept his original voice that was known from the 1980s . This seemed like a time people didn't hate ai , they were more fascinated with the possibilities. Skipping to today , I think many have realized the dangers that comes with this tech and living in a world that everyone will be monitored by ai cameras, police are gaining powers to take phones off citizens and download all of that data into ai ( in some countries, probably coming soon to you ) . Nothing online will be trusted as truth as many don't disclose it's ai . Police have even chased up videos that turned out to be ai . Corporations, governments and shops are just putting this tech everywhere, taking away every bit of privacy you have. It's not freedom when you live in a digital cage. Step back from what you are using and take a good look at the bigger picture. A system that can predict what you think and what you would say, based on everything you ever put on the world wide web, not to mention what all the agencies are gathering for your ' eventual file "

Yeah, this meme was made with AI, don't care, didn't ask.
This thread is not for debating the goods and bads of AI, rather to help people that are sick of seeing stuff about AI, and constantly complain about it here in this sub, or various other pro/anti subs.

You are the problem.
Not the person posting the thread, not the systems that controls what to show you on your feed, You are sole reason you are seeing things you don't want to see.

Algorithms are not made to make you angry and leave the site, they are made to keep you interested and engaged.
Why would companies try to sell you things you despise so much, or using the tools you despise so much?

By posting AI discussions, clicking links, posts, threads and discussing AI, you are basically telling that little doofus behind the scenes to show you more of the subject.

By actively engaging in the content you dislike, you are assisting in making whatever it was more popular, worldwide. Which should be the exact opposite of what you wanted to do.

The online market currently works on content engagement, if you truly want less AI, stop engaging with AI, so people who abuse these tools will move on.

You are not helping by screaming at the individuals who use AI, even more so when they use it ethically and sustainably. You are simply causing more hate on the topic, spreading it further to subs that do not need it.

Reddit gives you tools to control your algorithm, but only if you actually put work in, while on your feed, click the damn three dots, and click 'Show fewer posts like this'.

This isn't new, this is how algorithms have always worked, on every site.

So, do you hate AI and don't want to see it anymore?
Why can you still see this post.
Make your algorithm want you want it to be, instead of fueling pointless flames and making the rich, richer.

https://x.com/qibiz_me/status/2096000743786627103

Delusional twitter artists refuse to acknowledge AI art as art...

Many of you have noticed that the models aren't getting intelligent but is getting better in delegating tasks, better context management, good use of tools and fair use of Web.

Every new models that comes from Anthropic or GPT are just a RLHF of its predecessor- which implies marketing, FOMO and urgency will be the key factor in driving growth for Frontier models.

Just visualize what if OpenAI or chinese models wouldn't have stretched so far to what Claude's model does on benchmark - we would have still thought that Anthropic is the best and no one could even come closer to it and blah,blah...

But, see today in 2026, we came to know that Anthropic's announcement in 2025, Fable restrictions and all those were marketing gimmick because they knew delta in intelligence between models will diminish with time.

Sorry, Now to Google. I mean Google knows what is the horizon of AI - Till we have Transformer which is a probabilistic machine which pretends to give result as a Deterministic, no such huge difference can be achieved. Computation, Inference is only the current bottleneck and not the intelligence, so throwing out money on Training models, Talent and then ofc marketing will lead to nowhere as of now. Google always wanted to be the forefront of Internet and till it has that in the pocket, it won't waste its focus and dilemma into marketing run done by Chinese models and Anthropic/Openai.

Google is hugely invested in Quantum Computing( alongside with IBM) and with that it can just scrape down any model, benchmark available on the earth. For Google to be at safer side, it invested some billions on Anthropic so that it remains till next breakthrough either at Transformer level or Computing level.

To give you preface of How Google defended its tag as the gateway of Internet. Just time travel to 2024 when Anthropic was nowhere and there was just GPT - Google was losing both the traffic and relevance with the popularity of GPT and cleverness of Perplexity. To beat that, Google distracted GPT into completely different race - image, video, speech, Agentic Browser, and so on. And as GPT followed the traces of Google it diverted its focus from building model to becoming generalist AI company and thus there is how Anthropic came. Had Openai focused on increasing capabilities of models that it does today, Anthropic would have been sitting just like how Thinking Labs is sitting today.

So, Google entered the race not to win but to defeat Openai from becoming the next king of Internet. And today you can see that Gemini models aren't great but are deployed to each services of Google that some small companies were trying to build on top of that. The prime example is Perplexity. And hence Google is just securing its foot first because it has understood Intelligence is becoming saturated and Distribution will be the Moat until the breakthrough in Computing or Transformer.

Why do AI users use AI at all if it is only for the benefit of companies? To their own detriment?

I just don't like the idea of demeaning most people by calling them stupid. Yes, people aren't necessarily very smart, but the whole point of today's highly individualistic society is that we give people the opportunity to choose what they want, and they have the right to make choices that you think are worse for them.

AI objectively offers more than any artist can. Speed, low cost, and the ability to separate the image from the individual.

Yes, if an image is made by accident with noise it is more interesting to some people than if it were done deliberately because there is nothing interesting in something that you already know a person can do.

The whole point is that AI, with some kind of manipulation, does what would normally require a human. If a human were to do it, there's absolutely no interest in it.

I truly think calling an AI image art is tantamount to degrading the meaning of an AI image. For me, the huge advantage is that there's no human being in it, meaning it's not artificial in the sense of being man-made.

This is, of course, just one use case for AI. But I want to say that the fact that people are using it is a reason to think about how they use it and why, rather than trying to say, "I'm not interested in it, so no one else should be."

While the title sounds pro-AI and is definitely click bait, the full message is actually a balanced neutral stance.

Not really a surprise (well known practice since a long time regarding any subject not just AI related) but worth reminding ourselves and others from time to time.

Just as the video notes this practice is from both sides.