I am not calling you, personally, hysterical. I am referring to the groups that broadly rally against AI, even exclusively generative, as hysterics due to the extreme emotions associated with the technology. Their arguments are closely aligned with your own and are constantly riddled with contradictions and assertions that have little basis if any. Yes I see you’ve hotlinked many articles, unfortunately opinion pieces such as and others don’t interest me because they too are full of appeals to emotion to invoke fear and panic.

Well I am one of the people rallying against generative AI. I don’t see myself as hysterical as I am opposing the negative effects of generative AI.

And news stories highlighting the negative effects of AI are “opinion peices” now?

I would love to hear more of the contradictions from us anti AI people as the one you gave is not a contradiction.

I’m positive you can grasp how giving everyone the ability to readily generate media can be a benefit.

No I cannot. Please elaborate as to why allowing people to generate slop is a good thing?

Slop is mass produced, meaningless content. AI getting better will not change that.

Respectfully, unless you directly work with AI or have the credentials/sources to support that opinion, I can’t take your word for it. Something other than “Why ChatGPT is dogshit” articles would be appreciated. I’m trying desperately to use the sources you’ve given me but wading through articles of emotionally charged individuals is exhausting.

So a published research article is not adequate?

https://officechai.com/stories/ai-models-seem-to-be-hitting-a-ceiling-of-capabilities-marc-andreessen/

https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/confirmed-llms-have-indeed-reached

Sources such as https://aaai.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AAAI-2025-PresPanel-Report-Digital-3.7.25.pdf (Page 44) I widely agree with because it identifies the bad uses of AI, calls for unified effort for regulatory safeguards to be put in place, and at no point attempts to discredit its usefulness or demean the technology as a whole. Your own source is opining the benefits of artificial general intelligence.

“Architectures Beyond Transformers: The standard transformer architecture has demonstrated remarkable capabilities, but it has fundamental limitations, such as fixed context windows, lack of explicit memory, inability to learn and react to real-time feedback from environments, and inefficiency and challenges in complex reasoning tasks”

Pg61

And they specifically say that new models of AI must be developed. The reason I said that is because AGI is an entirely different conversation than the one we are having now.

Art can be a form of communication but to say that it is only a form of communication and the prospect of a ‘creatorless’ piece of art, devoid of purposeful intent is somehow worth less or even meaningless I believe it more a personal testament than anything. I enjoy art because it allows me to introspect. To allow the thoughts which control my inner monologue to fall away so that everything left can simply ponder. A blank canvas with exclusively white paint used, titled “Hare in a Snowstorm” can easily be mocked as having no effort or even joked about but personally it was the first time I was absolutely captivated by a piece of art. (Yes, a fictional piece of work in DareDevil was the first time I ‘understood’ what art means to me.)

So… you use a film as an example for your point?

“Becoming an effective filmmaker involves being deliberately mindful of the structures and conventions that allow film to communicate meaning to a global audience. The Language of Film explores complex topics such as semiotics, narrative, intertextuality, ideology and the aesthetics of film in a clear and straightforward style, enabling you to apply these ideas and techniques to your own analysis or film-making. With full-colour film stills, in-depth case studies and a wide range of practical exercises, The Language of Film will help you to make the transition from consumer to practitioner - from someone who just responds to the language of film, to someone who actively uses it.”

https://archive.org/details/languageoffilm0000edga_p7q9_2ed

Do you really think that the filmakers put no thought about the message that piece of art portrayed? That they did not think about how its framing would get people to think and introspect? Almost like the filmakers were trying to say something.

Individually, the cost of generating an image seems to be hard to find. All I can find with the articles you’ve linked is that at scale AI is expensive which yes, I agree. Nearly millions of images being generated and deleted at scale is expensive but if we’re not footing the bill, who is? Like with Uber, Uber and their investors are. Using the technology is costing rich people with money…

Why do you think that people with money are financing AI?

Also the articles I linked talked about how OpenAI is losing money on a $200 a month plan. Meaning it costs more than $200 a month to service a single AI user that uses it at a high level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification

https://expertbeacon.com/why-is-uber-so-expensive/

and I’m struggling to find the moral ramifications.

So artist’s work being used on mass without their permission has zero ethical ramifications?

How are the people who use generative AI being targeted for rich companies buying up property and using it to support AI when nothing was stopping said companies from doing this prior to the ‘AI boom’?

What are you trying to say here?

Tell me then, why don’t we blame Google gift cards for scamming the elderly? Why are international scammers taking the heat when the technology of gift cards is being abused so that Google and others like them can make money off tech support scams? Or what about getting mad at cash transferring apps like Cash App or PayPal for allowing free money to transfer between drug dealers and their clients? Why does that sound absurd but villainizing AI as a whole for internet con artists seem entirely fine?

I didn’t know the google was actively promoting gift card scams, or that cash transfer apps were promoting drug dealing.

https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/9057338?hl=en

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-finance/news/2025/03/government-strengthens-canadas-anti-money-laundering-framework-with-new-regulatory-amendments.html

The most coherent way I can argue why AI generation should exist is that artists, game developers, and similar creators are already being worked under inhumane conditions. Put to work with a “metaphorical” gun to their head. Why should AI generation not be used to reduce workload? Why should this technology be scrapped entirely when it’s already shown it can produce a battery of simple content that can be expanded on by a more skilled hand?

https://aftermath.site/ai-video-game-development-art-vibe-coding-midjourney

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/lee_2025_ai_critical_thinking_survey.pdf

It’s frustrating to me because the arguments always seem to water down to another Luddite movement. Would it be less hurtful to be called an “AI Luddite” I wonder?

https://thenib.com/im-a-luddite/

Be the change you want to see in the world.

Look at their other artwork.

That looks really good, great job!

Also we have a specific community for the eeveelutions !eevee@pawb.social

Source (Via Xcancel)

“Uh, dude… why is your Vaporeon white?”

“She really likes to drink milk”

“Right… ‘milk’”

“Wait, no not like that!”

AI hysterics speak out of both sides of their mouth on this issue.

AI is either slop that can never live up to the creative intricacies the human mind can fabricate, that it is little more than a simple imitation of what we have, rather than new and budding ideas from talented human beings.

Or

AI is a dangerous technology that serves to completely eclipse and replace artists as well as other professions and should be actively sabotaged or legislated against to be defeated before it has the chance to become even stronger than it is.

First, I do not appreciate being called hysterical.

Secondly, it is not a contradiction. Petrol_sniff_king already put it more eloquently than I could.

I understand having a bias, but it’s important to not react to things out of fear or anger especially when it’s misused by others.

I partially agree. There are use cases of AI that are unambiguously good. Such as assisting radiologists in detecting cancers or allowing for the profitable sorting of mixed recyclables. No one is against those uses as the benefits are clear. The benefits of generative AI on the other hand are less clear while the costs are far greater and more salient.

https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/03/31/uk-government-cuts-funds-for-actually-working-anti-cancer-ai/

I want AI to become a titanic force for good and to have that opinion in a sea of people desperate to murder it in the womb is exhausting to say the least.

Right now generative AI is an extremely negative force for humanity, that is why I am angry. I would be curious what “titanic” good generating slop provides us?

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/lee_2025_ai_critical_thinking_survey.pdf

https://c3.unu.edu/blog/the-rise-of-ai-crawlers-a-digital-menace-reshaping-the-internet-landscape

https://futurism.com/internet-polluted-ai-slop

https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/04/openais-gpt-helps-spammers-send-blast-of-80000-messages-that-bypassed-filters/

Also, please do not opine the benefits of artificial general intelligence. The architecture that is currently being developed is not the way to get to that.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381278855_ChatGPT_is_bullshit

https://aaai.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AAAI-2025-PresPanel-Report-Digital-3.7.25.pdf

Comparing it to a chef is one of many disingenuous analogies that serve to perpetuate the idea that AI is bad, will always be bad, and should be cast aside now to spare everyone the trouble.

How so? It is replying to the specific idea that prompting an image is not the same as creating art.

I will also respond to your other comment here.

but if we’re discussing the quality of art, that becomes subjective almost immediately. Yes you can point to 7 fingered hands and I can just as easily point to a beautiful landscape that’s never existed.

If you see art as nothing but a product to be consumed, then yes AI will eventually be able to produce something good. But if you instead see it as a form of communication, as I do, then AI ‘art’ strips away all but the most superficial of communication from said art. See my other comment for more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GAIlanN_-k

I’m not even sure you can call it cheap when yet another argument posed by AI hysterics is that it’s so expensive the servers that are being water cooled are actively accelerating climate change.

It is not cheap, ecologically or financially. The only reason it is as cheap as it is to the end user is thanks to the massive amount of money being pumped into it. It is the same reason that Uber was so cheap for so long. This is also completely ignoring the moral cost.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ai-boom-could-use-a-shocking-amount-of-electricity/

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ai-data-centers-threaten-global-water-security

https://futurism.com/the-byte/openai-chatgpt-pro-subscription-losing-money

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/04/18/ai-bubble-hype-dying-money/

https://futurism.com/the-byte/openai-losing-money-chatgpt

https://futurism.com/the-byte/microsoft-losing-money-ai

But to fault a tool for being attractive to those which use it nefariously isn’t just a misunderstanding, it’s the peak of ignorance.

It is difficult to see it that way when the largest people in the space are explicitly promoting the use of the tool in said nefarious way.

https://tante.cc/2025/03/28/vulgar-display-of-power/

Did you know

…that in terms of human companionship, Flareon is objectively the most huggable Pokemon? While their maximum temperature is likely too much for most, they are capable of controlling it, so they can set themselves to the perfect temperature for you. Along with that, they have a lot of fluff, making them undeniably incredibly soft to touch. But that’s not all, they have a very respectable special defense stat of 110, which means that they are likely very calm and resistant to emotional damage. Because of this, if you have a bad day, you can vent to it while hugging it, and it won’t mind. It can make itself even more endearing with moves like Charm and Baby Doll Eyes, ensuring that you never have a prolonged bout of depression ever again.

The way I can tell is through nonsensical lighting and/or composition, while it is not foolproof it is still fairly reliable.

I don’t have a Mastodon or Bluesky account, I am only here @ThefuzzyFurryComrade.

I am going to put one of my earlier comments that is fairly relevant

Ah yes, because when humans do art we never add little touches that make it our own even if we are closely following the source material. Meanwhile AI only closely follows its data

Take for example this redraw of this meme:

Source

Vs the original:

Source

While they appear similar you can clearly see where they differ, with the end result being much better vs if they had copied the original more faithfully. Those changes were all intentionally done, based on the artists experiences biases and even mood. When AI makes changes it does not have the same intentions because it does not have artistic intent.

Art is a foundational way of human communication. AI slop is not that, as it mimics art while losing out on all but the most superficial of its communication.

I would argue that cooking is similar.

And again AI recipes do not work as they take what word is most likely to be next, not what would actually work.

But unless you’re the one working in the kitchen, you didn’t cook a damn thing

The artist is clearly drawing an analogy to ordering food.

Chefs regularly make recipes…

Yes and the chef would need to experiment in the kitchen in order to make said recipes. Meanwhile AI recipes.

I think that is Glaze and/or Nightshade as this is taken directly from the source.

Definitely looks interesting, thank you.

Agreed, not the best headline for an otherwise solid article.

To be fair, if I spent 60% of a house on such a useless vehicle, then I would probably need a lot of support too.

(In case the link expires, it links to a real estate listing costing 243,500 CAD or 171,000 USD. Meaning that the Swastdumpster would cost 58.4% of a rather nice house located here)

I mean, depending on where the company is located that may be a good pivot.

https://interestingengineering.com/military/ukraine-fury-ground-drone-machine-gun

https://stockinvest.us/digest/european-defense-stocks-surge-amid-geopolitical-tensions-a-look-at-market-movers-and-future-trends

Good art by the way.

Characters from a cartoon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octonauts

how tf are these things insurable

That’s the neat part, they aren’t.

or even in compliance with federal motor vehicle safety standards?

Because American standards only focus on the safety of those inside the vehicle, they also assume that the manufacturers make the frame out of something at least a little stronger than wet tissue paper.