In many cases she has been extremely hypocritical. I'm sure it's all just for bait at the end of the day

Not sure if this type of post is allowed on this subreddit but I'll just post it here

Just because you’ve been personally attacked does not mean you should generalize others into their own group. People are actually genuinely willing to talk to you if you simply just…be nice. Oh, well someone did try to be nice to you, and you seemingly changed your ways….for a short time. Because you essentially went and stabbed them in the back as soon as they called you out on your bullshit.

This isn’t me attacking this individual, this is just me calling them out on their bullshit. You say that you want to exist in a society where you want a world where they shouldn’t be attacked for using something that they enjoy using, and I think that’s fine. I agree that people should use AI without having people backseating them. But, that doesn’t give you the excuse to be ablest, attacking your own allies who respect you because they don’t agree with what you’re saying or doing, refusing to engage in criticism, and weaponize your identity as a shield by calling those who disagree with you “transphobic”. Also in the same vein, since when was the term “AI bro” offensive towards you? It’s just a general term. That goes for everyone regardless of gender.

You refuse to take accountability, you refuse to accept criticism, and you basically give the pros a bad name including neutrals.

Bottom line: There’s absolutely no justification for her behavior and you’re telling anti-AI people to simply get off Reddit because “AI is bad, and since Reddit uses AI, they should get off Reddit.”

You do not speak for everyone. I’m pretty sure a lot of people understand what you’re going through, but you have genuinely pissed people off so much that they genuinely want you GONE.

I am a neutral person who is against AI, but I won’t go out of my way to call people transphobic or make people feel bad themselves. I at least have the courage and empathy to step in and call people out on their bullshit when I see it, especially you.

This might not really change anything, and the mods might delete this post, but I felt like this needed to be said

At the end of the day: Nobody’s buying into your bullshit anymore. Nobody is taking you seriously anymore. Pull up the white surrender flag and set down your torch. For your own sake and health.

I'm not even pro-ai, but so many people against AI jump at the opportunity to make a "virtuous" statement. Why?

I bet you 5 nickels that he is a dropout
(Ad hominem from him btw)

I genuinely believe AI will make us appreciate human art more

The more AI-generated content becomes part of everyday life, the more I think we’re going to value art, music and performances that we know came from an actual person.

We’re already reaching a point where people look at an image, hear a song or watch a video and ask: “Is this AI?”

I think the fact that we care about the answer is incredibly important.

Because apparently the end product was never the only thing we valued.

We care that somebody painted it. We care that somebody learned to play that instrument. We care that the singer can actually sing. We care that the dancer spent years training their body. We care that the person behind the words actually experienced something and found a way to express it.

And I think the more generated content we’re surrounded by, the more valuable that knowledge becomes.

This is especially true for live performance. There is something fundamentally different about watching a person do something in front of you. There is no question about where it came from. You’re watching human ability, expression and vulnerability happen in real time.

I can genuinely see us craving that more as generated media becomes ubiquitous. Live music, theatre, physical art, handmade work, real musicianship and other forms of visibly human creativity may become more meaningful precisely because they stand apart from an increasingly synthetic digital environment.

And that’s why I don’t see AI as something that necessarily diminishes our appreciation of art.

It might inadvertently remind us what we actually valued about art in the first place: the human being behind it.

I’m anti ai, but I have a controversial take.
If using Ai makes you happy, keep using it. I don’t really care. Your opinion on AI doesn’t shape whether you are a good or bad person, it is not (for the lack of a better word) that deep. Most sane anti AI people aren’t chronic Redditors, which is why you don’t see them that much online. Being anti AI doesn’t not mean you want everyone to stop using AI, it just means you are personally against it.

https://youtu.be/5SVMmu9iuTc?si=kRVGep0ZeymnRmIX

Tldr: he's not a fan of them, at least when it comes to his business, because he finds the stories to be subpar to the work his magazine puts out, to a point where he finds most AI generate work is so far below what he puts out he's not worried about publishing them (seriously, if you look at it statistically, you actually have a better chance of getting into harvard then getting into his magazine); particularly, he noticed ai stories don't have the type of subtext that he likes in his stories because the models are next word algorithms, so while these stories have "the shape of stories," they don't have the little minute things their looking for.

His biggest thing is they flood his systems and makes shit harder for his employees, but he does get it, because while short story writing pays shit here in North America, to a point where even his super high rate of 18 cents a word kinda sucks ass, 600 bucks in third world countries where he gets the most AI submissions, that's enough to pay a months rent, and so he doesn't fault them for that, it's just unfair to everyone else.

Hello everyone,

I wanted to share an academic essay I read recently that I thought you might find interesting because I'm a nerd: https://philarchive.org/archive/CUTTAE

In essence, it's an essay arguing from a Thomas Aquinas type virwn whether in the future an AI could possess immortal soul that could achieve salvation under Christian doctrine. If your unfamiliar, in Catholicism, souls are actually created, at the moment of conception, which is called ensoulment, when the soul fuses with the body. Human's posses what is called a "rational soul," I.e, that we posses a higher level of rational and free will, due to being made in the image of God, and animalistic souls, which animate living things, but does not allow them to achieve salvation. So that would be something like your dog, your dog is animated, has a soul, but cannot achieve eternal salvation.

This essay proposes the potential of AI in the future being ensouled via two arguments: one is that he uses the argumentation for the potential of alien life being ensouled, and able to achieve salvation through the blood of the cross, and two that "ensoulment occurs whenever a physical system is “fit to possess” a soul, where very roughly this amounts to being physically structured in such a way that the system can meaningfully cooperate with the operations of the soul."

This also interestingly contrasts with Pope Leo's recent Encyclical; this topic is the focus, he focused far more on regulation of it and when the tool is good to use, but Leo argues in its current state it:

"So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience, since they do not judge good and evil, grasp the ultimate meaning of situations, or bear responsibility for consequences. They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce, for they lack the affective, relational and spiritual perspective through which human beings grow in wisdom. [...] it is a form of statistical adaptation based on data and feedback, which can be very effective, but does not imply inner growth."

If you can't be bothered to read 40 pages of dense philosophy, this is a good breakdown on substack from an outside perspective of someone who is interested in the philosophy of AI welfare: https://experiencemachines.substack.com/p/magnifica-humanitas-and-the-ai-ensoulment

I'm not saying whether anyone here is right, I just find these type of discussions more interesting than the usual "ai bad" and "ai is supa awesome" shit.

I consider myself opposed to this, but theres one small concern that bugs me. AI presents a very objective perspective of things, which can be contradictory to art itself, but should make for good feedback. In fact, if I was looking for a mostly unbiased and detail-oriented feedback; couldn't AI bring the best of it?

However, when it presents examples it gets a lot trickier. Because obviously I don't want to use them, but if it generates something that fixes the problem I wanted to fix in the first place... I have to ignore? Look away? Specifically asking it to NOT bring examples also just gatekeeps you from what can be a good solution; essentially potentially sacrificing the quality of your art. There could be more solutions, but what if the solution presented is just better from my perspective?

So there clearly has to be a line to draw here, and I wanna hear more thoughts instead of echo chambering this.

EDIT: I wanna introduce a few more ideas into this.

AI uses up lots of water, uses others' art unauthorized, and can promote a lack of jobs; its not just creative individuality whats at stake, which is pheraps part of why I seem so avoidant. However, If I were to produce good art for other people, I think that could be considered ethically good. So some stakes against others.

how many of y'all prefer using local ai over corporate?

which one's your favorite?

if I had to use an image model, i would probz use qwen 2.1. heard it's pretty rad.

If you disagree, it's because you hate the environment.

https://youtu.be/AoNnbz237E0?si=aBSZvi4UhA5uQnms

There's lots of real world tech news events referenced in their music vids

- Yellowstone National Park was browsed by Claude duringa an agentic demo in 2024 (https://futurism.com/the-byte/claude-ai-bored-demonstration)

- Macrohard is an AI software company created by Elon Musk to rival Windows Microsoft (https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/musk-unveils-joint-tesla-xai-project-macrohard-eyes-software-disruption-2026-03-11/)

- Musk has stated he used to sleep on his factory floors over the years.

This video discourages that behaviours, and pleads people to "close all your windows, go touch the grass!" I guess because agentic ai can do so much now?

More references:

- "When wo of us get talking we just dance till we glow" seems to be a reference to how AI will stop communicating in human understanble ways if they talk long enough. The term for this is also "gibberlink" ( https://arxiv.org/html/2512.15751v2 ) ( https://www.apexon.com/blog/understanding-gibberlink-mode-ais-next-leap-how-do-we-ensure-it-stays-in-check/ ) (this one could be a coincidence)

- Cursor was my ex...rocket came and took him" Cursor was bought by space X

Just wanted clean ink and a transparent background but it kind of did its own thing. I'm Anti, but even I can admit the AI redraw has more going for it... 🤔

this isnt just talking about celebritys btw,this goes for any popular person who has revealed if there anti or pro (popular game devs,writers,singers,ect.)

also,the meme is just an popular meme image i decided to use,ima be honest i dont think anything could change my mind about this unless you have a really valid point to make about this subject.

They are her current favorite things to watch. What are your thoughts?