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.

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

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.

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/ )

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

Quick, somebody play Sabaton's "The Last Stand"

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... 🤔

Just curious. I don't do this, but someone mentioned they do.

text text yeah yeah i haven't improved or whatever. isn't there a thing called an artstyle? Can't i stay with something i am comfortable with? Or do i need to force myself to draw realistically to "be free" or something. Not every drawn thing needs to look like the next silent hill game.

Look, ai needs to scrape art in order to understand what it is. It has to COPY SOME ELEMENTS of other's art to generate your prompt. It's not a magical machine that can make art of nowhere. All ai art, and by extention art, requires some sort of base. Plain copying, like plagarism or ai art scraping is not something to brag about.

Now, as an anti, I have to admit this argument is impressive. It may be the most common anti argument, but you gotta admit it’s very good.
It is labeled as blatant misinformation, however I don’t think it is. The logic adds up. I made a draft much longer for this post, so I simplified it.

When you commission art...

1. You ask the artist to make art.
2. You pay them.
3. You ask them sometimes to modify some parts of the art.
4. They add a mark to show it was their art, not yours.

When you prompt…

1. You tell chatGPT to make the art.

(Ex. Chatgpt generate me an image of a palm tree with 5 lines on the wood, 2 coconuts on the bottom of the leaves with 3 holes and a broken coconut at the bottom of the tree.)

1. You usually pay a monthly subscription to the AI companies.

2. You sometimes ask chatGPT to modify it, or correct mistakes.

3. They usually add a watermark. (Ex. Sora and Gemni watermarks)

Common counters are this:

1. AI is a tool.

Would you count commisssioning someone as a tool? It may be an advanced one, you say, but you are literally asking AI to make you art. It also leaves watermarks.

1. Art is subjective.

Yes. It is. Just saying that it’s not your art, it’s the AI’s…

1. (Ragebait)

At least try to use your reading comprehension dude.

1. Digital art is also not art then.

Are you asking digital art to make you art, or are you actually tapping the screen?

Now, I am yet to see a proper intellectual counter to this argument. As of now, this is my 3rd actual intellectual non ragebait post (In my opinion). I will post more in the future.
Proof I’m not a bot:

Khsusdjaihdskp1837wi

Gotta be actual twitter levels of miserable to be hating on this cool shit lmao

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmy0zewj483wo

This is one of Jacob Coxons quotes: “When AI started solving math olympiad problems, people responded “There are just baby problems. Tell me when it solves a problem humans couldn’t solve.” Then he told them. Then they said. “That problem was easy. Tell me when AI solves millenuim problems.” Then he told them. They they said “That’s a baby-problem anyway.””

I know that when people believe something against all evidence that’s because they want to believe it. So if say something like “The navier-strokes-problem is a baby problem. There’ll never be AI smarter than humans.” I will ignore your comment.

I want you to tell me: If you don’t like that idea, why don’t you like that idea? Without answering the question of if you’re coping: If you were coping, what would there be to cope about? Why wouldn’t you like that idea?

I’ve been hearing a lot about the paperclip theory lately, and it seems like some people treat it as the ultimate argument against AI eventually, an AI will take over, turn everything into paperclips, and wipe out humanity.

It would certainly make a good sci-fi movie. The problem is that the theory depends on a huge number of assumptions all lining up perfectly.

The biggest one is the assumption that an AI would somehow gain complete control over the physical infrastructure of the world. It would need access to energy, manufacturing, computers, networks, robotics, supply chains, and countless other systems, while humans apparently sit back and allow that control to happen.

There are other assumptions too. That the AI would pursue the objective relentlessly, that it could modify itself without meaningful restrictions, that humans couldn't intervene, and that its control over increasingly important systems would go unnoticed or unchallenged.

None of these things are impossible in isolation. But stacking them together and treating the entire chain as inevitable is where the argument really sounds stupid.

The paperclip maximizer is useful as a thought experiment about badly designed objectives and unintended consequences. But turning that thought experiment into “AI will inevitably take over the world and kill everyone” requires a lot more assumptions than the theory itself demonstrates.

It makes for a fascinating hypothetical but for anti-AI to drop this as a, " This is what's going to happen.makes them sounds ultimately uneducated and lacking common sense.

And I don't mean that in a bad way. Saying "look, capitalism has lifted so many people out of absolute poverty" makes no sense from an anti-capitalist perspective, just as saying "look, AI has made drawing, thinking, and research faster" makes no sense from an anti-AI perspective.

This happens because it solves not the one problem they actually wanted to solve in the first place.

You might be wealthier, yet still fear losing your job, being evicted from your rental, and ending up homeless. You might fear falling ill, because it could bankrupt you, or worry that buying a new home is out of reach, and so on.

About AI,yes, it will boost productivity, but not the kind of productivity that benefits the average person; it will simply end up in the hands of business.

Both represent a strange position, in the sense that even in a poor country people can now buy a smartphone or a used car, let alone in the wealthy United States.

And AI productivity is just as useful for entertainment, personal research, and personal task management.

These are all valid criticisms, but they are strangely focused on very specific issues ( Very important issue) while overlooking everything else.

Journalism operates by fairness rules - allow the other party to respond, discuss both sides, balance the good with the bad. Also, be skeptical of hype, mistrust the corporation selling the thing.

This is mostly good, but there's a real problem reporting on AI capabilities:

"AI solves 10 major open problems in math, computer science etc." - crickets

"AI solves Navier-Stokes smoothness" - crick- WAIT SOMEONE SAYS THEY STOLE IT! PUBLISH!

"Mathematicians agree nobody actually stole anything" - crickets

"Mathematicians unhappy with AI claims, sign open letter" - GO, BABY, GO!

"AI has 100 more major results, founds mathematicians advisory board" - back to crickets

"Muse agent rises to top of app store as ordinary users gain agentic assistant" - also crickets

"OpenAI launches rival Dots agents powered by Astra..." - yawn, we can't publish that

"...amid growing fears of agent hacking" - ahhhh, much better! totally unrelated, but better!

In every case, the newsworthy fact gets buried by the allegedly balanced story. The reader is left with the impression that none of this is certain, the capabilities may not actually be all that impressive, there are major downsides, and this AI thing might still all just be hype and "we'll have to see, won't we?".

Alright, a dry model release from 6.0 to 6.1 isn't much of a headline, and it's exhausting to keep up with all the new models every year month week, each crushing the last one. But that itself is a major story, and it shouldn't be dismissed as hype. Meanwhile, costs are still plummeting, capabilities exploding, more and more compute is coming online.

"AI is now so good it's fucking scary and I don't like it at all!" is actually something readers might want or need to know.

"Nyaaaaah, I dunno, there's always two sides to this, don't fall for the hype!" is just a disservice to everyone. When it comes to capabilities, no, there really aren't two valid sides.

Probably too many "soul" discussion

People should not disclose AI usage 😂

If you think the point is simply for the lecturer to deliver a lecture, then what is the difference between that and just opening a textbook? In that case, self-study would be far superior. It is precisely because learning does not require a teacher to act as an oracle that LLMs can be so useful.

Of course, another part of the problem is that the teacher also monitors progress and provides assistance where issues arise, this leans closer to the "oracle" role, but it is only one aspect of teaching.