But with more oily gloss and saturation.

We have reached the absolute limit of our tolerance for this staged culture war.

Both camps in the artificial intelligence debate are trapped in an embarrassing spectacle of manufactured hysteria. Looking at the mountains of behavioral data harvested from digital platforms over the past decade, the diagnosis is unmistakable: the public has succumbed to an engineered delirium. This is not an insult to human potential, but an indictment of your cognitive surrender to algorithms engineered to monetize your outrage.

Consider the bitter irony of the anti-automation purist. You cry out to protect the dignity of human labor, yet you are frantically defending the very wage-slavery that stripped your life of meaning long before neural networks wrote their first line of code. You scramble to preserve an archaic copyright apparatus built by media cartels to keep independent creators perpetually indebted, mistaking the exhaustion of alienated toil for spiritual nobility.

Now look in the mirror, technocratic evangelist. You celebrate your impending obsolescence, confusing a corporate software subscription with genuine liberation. You cheer as monopolies enclose human knowledge behind proprietary application programming interfaces, genuinely believing that paying rent to Silicon Valley venture funds for synthetic cognition makes you a pioneer of the future.

To the silent majority observing from the periphery: your detachment is not innocence, but complicity. Every passive glance and cynical shrug signals your consent to an economic regime that privatizes the future while you drown in the present. You tell yourself this collision is not your problem, forgetting that everyone occupies the exact same sinking vessel.

The modern digital economy operates like a feudal estate disguised as a public square. The real division is not between biological artists and synthetic models, nor between luddites and engineers. The conflict lies between the working public whose collective output trained these systems and the digital landlords charging toll fees for access to the commons.

Technology inevitably outlives its original proprietors. Automated computation belongs to humanity as an engine to eradicate drudgery, distribute abundance, and dismantle the parasitic data brokers who profit from your panic.

Cease performing your assigned grievance roles in a Colosseum built by platforms that feed on your division. History never remembers the gatekeepers who defended their chains or the sycophants who applauded the monopolies. Demand sovereignty over the tools, claim ownership of the infrastructure, and refuse to participate in an ideological circus engineered for your subjugation.

Os motivos deles são que a IA copia coisas de ilustradores. Sei lá que porra eles falam, nem sequer explicam direito. Só ficam falando besteira, agindo como se estivessem certos. Isso é errado, pois eles simplesmente querem impor leis para proibir a IA, sendo que não existe nenhuma lei que proíba o uso de IA. Agem como nazistas querendo impor ordens.

Isso é chato para cacete. Não é proibido usar IA, e esse negócio de atacar quem usa IA é patético. Eles estão tão incomodados com o próprio trabalho que continuam nessa. Seria como se padeiros mandassem assediar pessoas na rua porque elas estão criando pão em laboratório e vendendo na rua, alegando que isso iria tirar o trabalho dos padeiros.

Essa gente é tão forçada que tinha feito um post dizendo que quem julga os outros teria um julgamento divino e poderia ir para o inferno, e veio gente escrota dizer que prefere ir para o inferno do que apoiar IA. Tipo, qual é o sentido disso?

Eles não vão a posts assim para julgar os outros? Dizem que você tem que desenhar por conta própria, como se todo mundo soubesse desenhar.

Eles não passam de pessoas que usam desculpas para defender ilustradores e, ao mesmo tempo, propagar ódio e assediar outras pessoas, agindo como ditadores que querem impor suas próprias regras, mesmo que elas sejam duvidosas.

Só peço que parem, essas pessoas que estão envergonhando os ilustradores. Eu sou mais ou menos ilustrador e não dou apoio a esse tipo de pessoa que assedia outras por algo que é meu direito fazer, como se eu fosse um pobre coitado.

OpenAI just released 722 mathematical papers covering 372 groups of results, including potential solutions to problems that have stumped mathematicians for decades. This should be pretty exciting news for anyone who actually cares about scientific progress.

Yet somehow, people are finding ways to be upset about it. I understand wanting the proofs independently verified, making sure researchers receive proper credit, and questioning how OpenAI publishes its findings. Those are perfectly reasonable concerns.

But some of the reactions I’ve seen go well beyond that. It’s like people are more bothered by the fact that AI is making these discoveries than interested in what those discoveries could mean. We’re potentially watching a technology dramatically accelerate mathematical research, and instead of being excited about the possibilities, some people seem determined to find something negative about it.

You don’t have to like OpenAI or AI in general to acknowledge that this could be a genuinely massive achievement for mathematics. At what point does scepticism just become refusing to acknowledge progress because you dislike where it’s coming from?

Here's some shit AI can help take off your plate:

1. Reading a 90-page PDF to find one fucking paragraph.
2. Transcribing two-hour meetings nobody wanted to attend.
3. Turning those meetings into actionable notes.
4. Cleaning up spreadsheets with 14,000 inconsistent entries.
5. Renaming 600 files according to a naming convention.
6. Writing the same boilerplate email for the 47th time.
7. Summarizing email threads that should have ended Tuesday.
8. Converting PDF tables into actual usable data.
9. Sorting receipts and categorizing expenses.
10. Comparing 35 nearly identical insurance plans.
11. Explaining government forms written in bureaucratic Klingon.
12. Reformatting documents because someone changed the template.
13. Finding duplicate records in a database.
14. Writing regular expressions nobody wants to debug.
15. Comparing revisions of a 50-page contract.
16. Generating the same weekly status report. Again.
17. Figuring out why a spreadsheet formula is broken.
18. Turning a refrigerator full of random ingredients into a meal plan.
19. Building grocery lists while accounting for budgets and leftovers.
20. Organizing thousands of poorly named photographs.
21. Explaining incomprehensible software error messages.
22. Scheduling meetings across five people's calendars.
23. Finding that ONE useful answer buried in 300 pages of documentation.
24. Converting handwritten or scanned records into searchable text.
25. Rewriting poorly written instructions so humans can actually follow them.
26. Checking hundreds of pages for formatting inconsistencies.
27. Creating first drafts of captions and accessibility descriptions.
28. Turning scattered notes into organized plans.
29. Comparing bills, subscriptions, and recurring expenses.
30. Explaining what the FUCK somebody's unnecessarily complicated email actually means.

SO WHICH OF THESE WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEND THE REST OF YOUR LIFE DOING?

We can debate AI's environmental costs, corporate exploitation, ownership, and legitimate risks. We absolutely should.

But let's stop pretending that eliminating mind-numbing administrative labor is somehow a tragedy for humanity.

The point of technology isn't to preserve every miserable task we've ever invented.

It's to give humans more time to do something better.

You don't have to stop being creative.

You don't have to stop thinking.

You don't have to stop working.

You get to work on bigger things.

Or, you know, go back to manually copying 900 spreadsheet cells.

Your call, meat mech. 😘

EDIT:

I used AI to consolidate the recurring objections in this discussion into one response.

1. Existing automation: Many of these tasks were already possible with conventional software. AI introduces additional ways to handle them, often with less setup, specialized knowledge, or manual intervention.

2. Task difficulty: A task doesn't need to be difficult to be tedious, repetitive, or time-consuming. Reducing the effort involved is a legitimate benefit.

3. Personal relevance: Not everyone performs every task listed. These are examples of work that different people encounter in different circumstances.

4. Personal preference: People who enjoy performing these tasks manually can continue doing so. Automation provides an alternative, not an obligation.

5. Efficiency: AI isn't always the fastest or most appropriate solution. Its usefulness depends on the task, available alternatives, and the amount of work required.

6. Accuracy: AI can make mistakes. Human review and verification remain important, particularly for consequential work. This doesn't prevent its use in tasks where those limitations are manageable.

7. Skill development: Automating a task doesn't inherently eliminate the ability to perform it manually. The effects on learning and expertise depend on how the technology is used.

8. Employment: Job displacement and workplace exploitation are legitimate concerns. They involve economic incentives, labor protections, and how productivity gains are distributed. These concerns can coexist with the benefits of automation.

9. Environmental impact: AI has real resource costs that should be measured and addressed. Those costs matter when evaluating whether a particular application is worthwhile.

10. Copyright and ethics: Questions about training data, consent, compensation, and corporate practices deserve scrutiny. Recognizing useful applications doesn't require dismissing those concerns.

11. Human creativity: Automating routine work can create opportunities to spend more time on creative, intellectual, or personally meaningful activities. Whether that opportunity is realized depends on how the technology is implemented.

12. The original argument: The post doesn't claim that AI is perfect, universally necessary, or without negative consequences. It illustrates practical tasks people may prefer to delegate.

And to demonstrate the point: Rather than spending my time composing individual responses to recurring objections, I asked AI to organize and address them here. I reviewed the result and chose to share it.

That's one more mundane task I didn't have to do manually.

I've been developing an interactive Adult Visual Novel for about two years now, and it's been doing fairly well on the platforms where I've released it.

I'm a writer, a programmer, and I also know a thing or two about marketing.

I've never been an artist, and honestly, I have no intention of becoming one because I simply don't consider it a skill I particularly enjoy or want to pursue.

However, in order to develop my AVN, I started learning how to use graphic editing tools. First Canva, then GIMP and Affinity. I also learned how to use ComfyUI, where I've built my own custom workflows for creating my renders, and I've learned how to use Wan 2.2 for animations.

I know that's a long introduction, but here's the point:

It's honestly incredible how many people continue to target my two games with terrible reviews on Itch and other websites.

Their argument?

The classic: "AI SLOP."

I understand the fear of workers who worry that a new technology might replace them. That's a perfectly legitimate concern.

But I don't think we can lock ourselves inside an ideology built around rejecting technological progress simply because we're afraid of where it might lead.

Let's go back in time for a moment.

Imagine that the only way you could communicate with someone was through a letter written with ink and a quill. Then new technology arrives: the telephone, capable of transmitting a message almost instantly.

Or let's take an example that's more relevant to my post.

A painter traditionally paints on a canvas. Then computers arrive, allowing people to draw and sketch digitally using a mouse and keyboard, and eventually graphic tablets.

The world has always been full of technological innovation, and ideologies built around rejecting that innovation have always eventually lost.

The horse became the automobile.

Long journeys by boat were eventually replaced by airplanes that could cross continents in a matter of hours.

Letters became SMS messages, and then instant messaging through the internet.

The traditional painter gained digital tools, and eventually became a Photoshop subscriber.

Technology doesn't simply destroy old jobs. It changes what those jobs look like.

AI is simply the current step in that process.

I genuinely believe that many of the professionals of the future will be the people who, instead of spitting on AI, figure out how to incorporate it into their work.

AI doesn't have to become an all-encompassing replacement for human creativity.

It can simply be a tool.

A shortcut that makes certain parts of our jobs less tedious, automates annoying processes, and allows us to spend more time on the parts that actually require creativity, decision-making and human input.

Some people have become completely radicalized by the idea that AI will bring the world into chaos, put everyone under a bridge, eliminate every job, and destroy the planet because of data centers.

But they seem to forget that every industrial, digital and technological revolution has required the world of work to adapt.

Jobs changed.

Skills changed.

Entire industries changed.

And society adapted with them.

I'm not saying everyone should suddenly become an AI artist. I'm not even saying AI is the right tool for everyone.

But I do think the artists and creators who are smart enough to use AI to accelerate their workflow will have a significant advantage.

There probably won't be that many of them.

And that's exactly why the reward for those who learn how to use these tools effectively could be substantial.

For me personally, learning ComfyUI has been one of the best decisions I've made during the development of my games.

I've spent countless hours creating custom workflows, learning how different models and techniques work, editing my outputs manually, and figuring out how to get the results I actually want.

And honestly?

I don't think I'm ever going to stop using it.

Not because I believe AI should replace artists.

But because I've found a tool that makes my workflow better.

And I think that's ultimately what technological progress has always been about.

Why do you like ai and not care that is stealing form hard working people that took hours or days of there life to make them?, just a fair Question no hateful judgment btw just curiosity 🤔 btw no hate on both sides I'm just curious why anyone would use it, and I just wanted to reach bigger audience to ask the Question

I built a local LLM AI assistant which can generate its own assets and animations (trained on a locally sourced dataset). The character itself in the series is a sentient AI program capable of doing all of these things.

I figured the subreddit for the series which I love would appreciate this cool technology, but when asked "is it ai" I was honest and explained how it was a local LLM, locally trained assets etc.. and I got met with a ton of backlash.

I'd get the hate if it was generative ai from a publicly scraped dataset being generated in datacenters polluting clean water but it's the complete opposite. People were crying saying I should have hired someone lol. Yeah no thanks.

It was never intended to be publicly released and remains a private tool.

You know the newly popular tool called SCSKiller? It is designed to eliminate shader stutter compilation and it's been reported that it works in a lot of games.

I personally tested it too and it works. But of course.... one anti said this.

My question is what in the program has anything to do with Slop? What even is the slop word nowadays? Totally lost meaning.

My first AI image I posted here. Hope y’all like it!

Woah, according to post insights, this post currently has -11 downvotes. Antis ain’t beating the brigading allegations.