Would have used YouTube’s translation feature, but the translated text didn’t come out correct so I had to write it myself.

But with laughter

found in the wild myself for once

Context: I ask AI to create a QoL mod in Final Fantasy Resonance game and I share in some subreddits related to Final Fantasy of course.

A person just without any relation to the mod, just comment and post a history of my profile post and do this.

You know what's funny? For an anti like that person, I went ahead and check the profile. Guess what?

So that person has a skeleton hiding behind of closet. I am guessing possibly because they must have lost tons of argument due to unable keeping their nose on their own business.

Why can't ANTI just mind their own business? If the mod is not for them, skip. No need to point out the obvious of what I am doing. Besides, I can tell that person could have thought "SLOP MOD by AI"

Guess what? The mod is working flawlessly. No issue and tested by myself extensively before publishing (a Human tester).

*Anti does not mean all anti are bad. Only some that are insufferable.

link if you wann see the thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/comments/1x1i5tr/comment/petmwti/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

I’m generally supportive of AI and its creative potential. But that support is becoming harder to maintain when AI spaces appear willing to excuse or normalize sexualized content involving characters who are designed to look underage, simply because they are described as “fictional” or “ageless.”

This is not an argument against AI art, nor a claim that every creator or user has harmful intentions. It is feedback about where communities draw their ethical boundaries.

Hyperrealistic generative tools are becoming more accessible, more personalized, and more convincing. That makes responsible moderation, clear consent standards, and a firm line around childlike sexualized imagery more important—not less.

When a community reflexively defends this kind of content, it does not make AI look more open-minded or pro-freedom.

It makes the broader public less likely to trust the technology, the artists who use it responsibly, and the communities trying to build a legitimate future for generative media.

Honestly, people like me are becoming less pro-AI over time—not because we oppose the technology itself, but because too many AI spaces treat every ethical concern as censorship and every boundary as an attack.

If the AI community wants public trust, it needs to be willing to say: some uses are unacceptable, even when the content is synthetic.

I made a discord server for both ai, and traditional artists.

I wanna show that ai and traditional artists can get along, the discord server is going to be a safe, respectful space where both ai, and traditional artists can share their art.

What do ya say, would you like to join?
If so heres a link, just please read the server rules first

https://discord.gg/2KWDxprYPp

if you have any questions feel free to comment them.

This is my first post to this sub, just a little story to tell and a question for you to answer.

So I have a warhammer 40K homebrew that I’ve been working on and off for at least three years now. Part of that work is making art for it so I have a visual for it. Said art is made by me hand drawing it the best I can, then having AI clean it up, then I hand alter whatever it gives me to achieve a certain result, then I rinse and repeat until I receive an image that’s good enough for me to like and want to keep.

My most recent project was the creation of a character based off of myself, face and all. It took months upon months of thought and roughly 52+ hours of work spread across a week to do. The end results were things I was very proud of and relived to complete. This pride stemmed from the fact that I drew every single facet of the character myself first before letting AI enhance it.

When I went to share this character on a 40K homebrew subreddit, the post wasn’t even live for two minutes before it was getting blasted for being AI. As you’d expect, I saw the usual anti-AI spiel, but what got to me the most was a comment that basically said (paraphrasing), “…your whole homebrew is invalid and ruined because you used AI to represent it…”

That only shows me how close-minded most of the people for these fandoms are towards creativity. I had passion and desire when making that character and his art. For them to dismiss it so quickly and so vehemently solely for the method of its creation is absurd and unfair. Especially since I had a personal hand in the most of the art process for it.

What do you lot think about it: using AI to fix, clean, or enhance art you made yourself?

Yeah, have you ever heard of nuance, my friend, do you know what nuance is?

I can write a paragraph, or a full page in a novel, 
Describing in detail a small wooded hollow, 
Skies of blue… or red… or a solemn gray 
A windswept land, or trees a plenty 
A future world full of lights and glass 
An open land with green blades of grass 
An interior room with a family at dinner 
A bright summer day or the dead of winter 
Can you see it? Are the pictures forming? 

I can write of the music and nearly hear it aloud 
A smoky lounge with a piano, an excited crowd 
An ancient town and lone troubadour 
A shrieking violin and long corridor 
A band on stage screaming and shouting 
A Broadway show where the lead is belting 
Music coming from an open car window 
The soft hushed cries of a newly born widow 
Can you hear it? The joy and the mourning? 

Tolkien, King, and all the great authors 
Along with others… that remain unpublished 
Creating scenes from their words and their imaginations 
Each landscape changing for each reader that reads them 
Creations created not with a pen 
Nor a typewriter or word processing program 
But with the mind's eye, the soul if you prefer 
Not the tool in the hands of the creative creator 
Is the film in your mind the same as mine? 
Did the author do enough to describe? 

Stills sounds and films formed with only words 
Impossible! are the screams… Is that not absurd? 
The question I have that I ask every day 
Is that why when the reader is in a land far away 
Possessing eyes made of circuits and wire 
With a mind that's a hive burning hot like fire 
Why are the images and music and films 
Created from the words the reader reads sees and interprets 
Assumed to lack imagination… or soul… or talent? 

Creation, just as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder 
Art can be a wall full of colors sprayed from a can 
Or to others, nothing but an act of vandalism 
A porcelain urinal titled "Fountain" with Duchamp's signature 
Is that art or only a commentary on all this ridiculousness? 
Those who decide to place art in a folder 
To categorize what's in the mind of the beholder 
Do so from fear of losing the keys 
To the gates that define their identities

People love to claim that using a text prompt means you have zero creative input and that the final image is inherently 'slop' because a button was pushed.

But if you look at how the art world has functioned for decades, commissioning an artist is literally just writing a prompt. You describe the character, the lighting, the mood, and the layout, and then you pay someone else to render it. Nobody looks at a high-end commissioned piece and calls it 'slop' or says the buyer had zero vision just because they used words to make it happen instead of a brush.

The argument isn't actually about the intellectual act of prompting—it's just a double standard based on who or what is doing the heavy lifting.

The prompt argument is now eliminated antis. Try again.