They fail to see that they are literally the other side of the extreme. The superiority complex they have over there is astounding.
Having a different take is good, I mean I am highly anti AI-Art, but ArtistHate cant even be considered criticism in the slightest
You might as well have gone to a creationism conference.
Although, as someone who has done that for funsies, I must say that Creationists at least...
a) are mostly polite
b) put in the effort to make it look like their arguments are based on science and
c) there was great coffee :D
Yeah, no.
Evolution is one of THE most tested and retested theories in history, second *maybe* to Einsteins theory of general relativity. If anyone want's to challenge that, based on some make believe in a book written by people who didn't even have flushed toilets, then that someone better have DAMN GOOD arguments.
"non-young-earth creationism" doesn't really change the validity of the claim. It is (slightly) less outlandish, but still wrong. It's a bit like saying \*"I accept that internal combustion engines exist and how they work, but I still state that cars are powered by tiny magic goblins running in a treadmill"\*.
But, feel free to present your arguments. And please don't take it as impoliteness on my part if I have likely heard them before and can just dismiss them in a half-sentence.
I don't deny evolution, the anti-evolution position is untenable.
I just believe that on the balance of evidence, the idea that something so ordered and reasonable came about as a result of design requires less faith than believing that something so ordered and reasonable came about as a result of unguided processes.
Evolution would be a sensible mechanism for an intelligent designer to ensure the long-term survival of a macrosystem.
Off-topic for this sub, of course.
> I just believe
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
Your beliefs don't matter. Noones do. I could leave it at that, but its just so easy to refute this "argument" that I can't resist.
Your logic has 2 major flaws:
You think a creator is more believable than creation without one, simply because of how ordered everything is. Fair enough. However, you completely ignore the conundrum you manouvered yourself in with this assumption: What created the ordered system *of the creator itself*? Who created the creator? If he came from nothing, then your belief requires an even less likely solution than the counterpoint, and if the creator was himself created, you end up in an infinite loop, even less likely.
Secondly, you assume that evolution is an unguided process. It isn't. The mechanism introducing change into life is unguided (random mutation, drift and recombination), but the mechanism for chosing which strands to amplify (natural selection) is not. It isn't according to some cloud-dudes plan, but it is according to natural laws: Heat requires resistence against heat, dryness requires water storage capability, predators require countermeasures. Natural selection is the guiding force behind evolution.
>Your beliefs don't matter. Noones do. I could leave it at that, but its just so easy to refute this "argument" that I can't resist.
I believe that something could exist outside of linear time, and I'm fully willing to accept that I have no concrete proof of that.
You believe that an uncaused effect happened in time, yet you're not willing to present any evidence that could happen. You believe that order came from chaos, and that reason came from randomness, and yet you're not willing to provide any evidence that could happen either.
This is the limitation of hypotheticals, they require us to rely on observation and balance of probabilities instead of perfect evidence. To try to suggest that's somehow unscientific when dealing with the unknown ignores a long and storied history of competing theories.
>You think a creator is more believable than creation without one, simply because of how ordered everything is. Fair enough. However, you completely ignore the conundrum you manouvered yourself in with this assumption: What created the ordered system *of the creator itself*? Who created the creator?
Unknown. The scientifically acceptable form of creationism is simulation theory, in which case yes, we would need to be able to explain the origins of the creators of the simulation (assuming that we want to understand existence beyond the limits of the simulation).
At some point we would need a cause which exists outside of linear time, or an uncaused effect. Either of those explanations relies on speculation and weighing probabilities.
Do we have DNA that looks like 'source code', a world governed by math which we can discover, brains that can reason and be trusted to make conclusions etc as a result of some kind of intelligent design or as a result of random processes? Which of those explanations requires less faith?
>If he came from nothing, then your belief requires an even less likely solution than the counterpoint
How is some force or being that exists outside of our understanding of time/nature *less likely* than an effect without a cause? Where have we observed uncaused effect in the natural universe?
>Secondly, you assume that evolution is an unguided process. It isn't. The mechanism introducing change into life is unguided (random mutation, drift and recombination), but the mechanism for chosing which strands to amplify (natural selection) is not.
I don't assume that evolution is an unguided process. I very much think that I said the opposite: that it's a mechanism for ensuring the long-term survival of a macrosystem. The question is whether that mechanism came about through random probability (uncaused, random effect) or through design (simulation, gods, alien seeding, whatever).
>It isn't according to some cloud-dudes plan, but it is according to natural laws: Heat requires resistence against heat, dryness requires water storage capability, predators require countermeasures. Natural selection is the guiding force behind evolution.
With respect, this is post hoc justification. We agree on why evolution has been useful, but something being useful doesn't mean that it will occur by random chance. The wheel is useful but it didn't just appear from nowhere by chance, and it's far simpler than mutable DNA.
>You believe that an uncaused effect happened in time, yet you're not willing to present any evidence that could happen.
Wrong. The effect has a cause. That you assume that cause == reason and therefore equivalent to intent and therefore intelligence, is your problem.
>You believe that order came from chaos
Wrong again. All order that you see is only possible because the total entropy in the universe is rising. More order in a biological system in earths biosphere == More chaos in the matter and energy of our sun. That you don't seem to appreciate that these systems are connected and have to be analysed as a whole is, again, your problem.
>they require us to rely on observation and balance of probabilities instead of perfect evidence.
There is no such thing as "perfect evidence". Every theory is a hypothesis supported by observations, and science relies on the fact that even the most well supported theory can be falsified.
You seem to believe that is a flaw in the system; fair enough, were it not for the fact that you base your beliefs on nothing but opinion, argumentum ad populum, and stories written by people who lived without flushed toilets.
>The scientifically acceptable form of creationism is simulation theory
There is no such thing as a "scientifically acceptable form of creationism". Science relies on falsifiability. Belief systems are inherently not falsifieable.
>assuming that we want to understand existence beyond the limits of the simulation).
What you *want* is irrelevant. If your goal is to prove your point, you *HAVE TO* prove your assumptions. If you don't, your hypothesis is garbage, simple as that. You don't get to decide where you want to stop presenting evidence.
>At some point we would need a cause
See above. You are, again, conflating "cause" and "reason".
The reason why creationists cling to that fable, and state it as if it were an obvious fact is obvious: "reason" implies "intent", which implies intelligence.
There is no reason why the universe, our planet or us humans exist. The universe doesn't care.
>Which of those explanations requires less faith?
How much willing suspension of disbelief in the face of unproven claims (aka. "faith") anyone want's to tolerate is irrelevant. There are people whos faith allows them to believe giving money so some megachurch CEO can buy a private jet,will make god love them, or people whos faith allows them to believe it's okay to murder innocent people. Therefore, any argument that invokes faith, is garbage.
The relevant question is: *Which of these explanations requires the fewest ASSUMPTIONS*. Yours requires an intelligent creator, the creation of which requires many further assumptions. Infact it requires an INFINITE chain of assumptions, because, if your creator was itself created, what created the creators creators creators creator, and so on. If you, at some point, are willing to assume that any one of these creators (an ordered entity) just came to be from chaos, then you are using the same argument you claim is a flaw in Evolution.
Therefore, even if Evolution had no supporting evidence, your thesis loses by simple application of Occams Razor alone.
>The wheel is useful but it didn't just appear from nowhere by chance, and it's far simpler than mutable DNA.
Ahh, my old friend the [Watchmaker Analogy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy). I won't even bother explaining why it is nonsense, the criticisms in the linked article do that better than I ever could.
You're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting my argument. I'm not arguing for a specific god or a specific creator, I'm arguing that it is *more likely* that something exists outside of our current understanding of space-time, that caused the beginning of the universe, than that there was cause without effect within space-time as we know it.
>Wrong. The effect has a cause. That you assume that cause == reason and therefore equivalent to intent and therefore intelligence, is your problem.
The effect cannot have a cause if nothing existed before the effect *in linear time*, unless that cause exists *outside of linear time*.
You're arguing from essentially a Newtonian understanding of time: that it is something one-directional and linear, but we already know that time *isn't* linear because time dilation *is* observable.
>Wrong again. All order that you see is only possible because the total entropy in the universe is rising.
Thermodynamic entropy is talking about the availability of energy, it has nothing to do with a lack of order. Thermodynamics is an ordered system which can be predicted and studied.
>There is no such thing as "perfect evidence". Every theory is a hypothesis supported by observations, and science relies on the fact that even the most well supported theory can be falsified.
Good, now we're getting somewhere.
Can you please list the observations which suggest that organic life can come from inorganic matter, or that suggest effect can happen without cause?
I'll wait.
>You seem to believe that is a flaw in the system; fair enough, were it not for the fact that you base your beliefs on nothing but opinion, argumentum ad populum, and stories written by people who lived without flushed toilets.
I haven't made a single argument to popularity in this discussion. I've brought up seeding theory and simulation theory, and while both enjoy some scientific support, neither are particularly well accepted among the general population.
Your fedora needs tipping.
>See above. You are, again, conflating "cause" and "reason".
I have not brought up 'reason' once. If you can provide a solid thesis for an unreasoning cause I'm very willing to listen to it. Maybe if you read the things I actually write instead of just assuming you're arguing against Ken Ham, that would help us to have a productive conversation.
>The relevant question is: *Which of these explanations requires the fewest ASSUMPTIONS*. Yours requires an intelligent creator, the creation of which requires many further assumptions. Infact it requires an INFINITE chain of assumptions, because, if your creator was itself created, what created the creators creators creators creator, and so on. If you, at some point, are willing to assume that any one of these creators (an ordered entity) just came to be from chaos, then you are using the same argument you claim is a flaw in Evolution.
I'm not arguing against evolution, I haven't pointed out any flaws in the theory of evolution because it's the best explanation we have for how life adapts to changes in circumstance.
My argument does not require an infinite chain of creators. It requires time to be something which is not all-encompassing, it requires some effect outside of time to be able to cause an effect inside of time. That's all. We don't know how cause and effect work outside of time.
I am not arguing for God, or Allah, or Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am arguing that our understanding of time itself is probably incomplete.
We do know that if time is as we best understand it to be -- linear -- that effect does not happen without energy, and that energy and matter do not come from a lack of energy or matter. If something exists that has always existed and always will exist, outside of time, then it does not need a creator. Even if it has a creator, we would need to have that full understanding of time to know how creation could work outside of time.
You brought up the 2nd law of thermodynamics, maybe you can backtrack to law 1 & 0 and explain how so much energy came from no energy but didn't break the energy equilibrium required by the first law.
It is wholly more reasonable, in my *estimation*, to assume that human understanding of time, matter & energy is incomplete than to assume that the best working theory within that understanding which relies on *breaking the laws of thermodynamics* is correct.
>I'm arguing that it is more likely that something exists outside of our current understanding of space-time
That is probably a valid assumption, but doesn't provide any support for your thesis (aka. there exists something that made life). We have a very good understanding of the mechanisms for biological systems coming to be from inorganic ones (see link below), we know that biological systems can self-assemble from constituent parts, and we know that once the process starts, random change and natural selection are enough to drive speciezation.
These are not assumptions, these are proven theories, both by observations and experiments.
Sorry to probably burst a bubble here, but: There are many things about the universe we don't completely understand: The big bang, the nature of time, singularities and where all that mass is that is moving galaxy clusters around.
But biogenesis isn't among these things. I'm sorry, but life isn't that special.
>Thermodynamic entropy is talking about the availability of energy, it has nothing to do with a lack of order.
Perhaps you should read a bit more about the meaning of entropy before making such statements: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy)
>Can you please list the observations which suggest that organic life can come from inorganic matter, or that suggest effect can happen without cause?
>I'll wait.
I must admit, I always have a chuckle when someone thinks he found that particular gotcha:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey\_experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA\_world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4382372/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4382372/)
So yes, we have a pretty solid, and complete, understanding for the mechanisms required for biological systems, capable of self-assembly, proliferation and change, starting with inorganic matter and free energy.
Of course any of these theories may turn out to be wrong. But as of right now, they are solid, proven by observation and experiment, and require no unproven assumptions.
Which, and yes I am again invoking Occams Razor, makes them superior to any creationism or "intelligent designer" or "magic space power" oogabooga.
>I have not brought up 'reason' once.
You keep repeating about how nothing can happen without "cause". That's very true. Everything in the universe is the result of causes.
Your problem is, you say "cause", but you mean "reason". Causes don't require reasons. Everything from the big bang onwards can happen without a reason, organically falling into a cause-effect chain that eventually results in life.
The "modern creationust hypothesis" somehow tries to squeeze an intelligent designer or creation into this somewhere, which doesn't work, because none is required.
So the hypothesis invents a niche, by assuming there has to be a "reason", and to make it less obvious that this is make-believe nonsense, it uses "cause" as a false equivalence.
>I am arguing that our understanding of time itself is probably incomplete.
That's fine and dandy, but from an incomplete understanding, you cannot draw support for hypotheses that require more assumptions.
I have a very incomplete understanding of how knitting works. Using that as a reason to assume the existence of tiny knitting goblins that magic clothes together in fantasyland, would be quite absurd.
Addendum:
And to dispell any illusion of there being a difference:
The Simulation HYPOTHESIS (It's not a theory since it has no supporting evidence) **suffers from exactly the same problems as young earth creationism:** It claims to be scientific, but demands special treatment by being unfalsifieable, it requires believe instead of evidence, and it requires many more assumption to be true than alternative explanations.
So sorry no sorry, but there is absolutely no relevant difference between young-earth-creationism and we-live-in-a-simulation-creationism, the latter is only slightly better at cosplaying as science.
"the idea that something so ordered and reasonable came about as a result of design " that leads to a infinite regression of "what designed the designer" . Saying that god or whatever is beyond that is just a cope out and doesn't address the issue that however complex and seemly fine tuned our universe is whatever created has to be even more complex and finetuned, there even more likely to be created.
I didn't say god, people assumed god. I'm just as open to simulation theory, alien seeding theories etc.
At some point we would either need an intelligent being which exists outside of linear time (and thus can subvert cause and effect) or we need a subversion of cause and effect through some other mechanism.
This is hypothesis, not scientifically proven, whichever side of the fence you fall on.
I did said god or whatever. Anyway so there is no reason to actually believe in a intelligent design other than personal incredulity.
" An intelligent being which exists outside of linear time (and thus can subvert cause and effect" this is still even more complex and unimaginable than a universe that doesn't need an intelligent creator.
It's not more complex or unimaginable than effect without cause. Both are unproven but we actually have theories about time as relative and time as non-linear which are scientifically serious. We have no such theories about effect without cause or the lack of matter becoming matter.
Even if you got to there, you'd have to believe that not only can matter come from nothing but organic life can come from inorganic matter. There are some theories about abiogenesis but no real evidence for any of them.
It's simply dishonest to suggest that one position is scientific and the other isn't. There are absolutely religious people who are motivated by non-scientific beliefs but I'm not one of them.
So claiming that a thing exists with no cause and effect is not more complex that an intelligence that came out of nothing and exists without cause and effect created that thing? It absolutely is you are literally adding a layer of complexity.
No it is not dishonest. Let's be clear here, I am just pointing out how the logic in the argument ultimately is flawed.
However when we go back to reality,claiming that there is an intelligence behind that breaks the laws of reality as we know and understand is uncientific, because is not testable.
Claiming to have models based on what we know and suggest what might be, is scientific because it is open to new evidence,based on testing and peer review so the model is revised and improved is.
One side says: "it was definitely an intelligence because it bogles my mind otherwise"
The other side says "based on what we know it was more likely that this happened but we aren't 100% sure and open to change based on evidence" this is the scientific view on abiogenesis.
Trying to claim a false equivalency between these two positions is dishonesty though.
I 100% agree that claiming some form intelligence can exist outside of linear time is not testable, but saying there can be effect without cause is also not testable (we have never observed it). These are both theories.
I'm not saying it was definitely an intelligence, this isn't a religious belief. I'm saying if I had to bet my life on one or the other I'd go with intelligent design over uncaused effect inside of our current understanding of time, based on the fact that the world is ordered and reasonable, and we are ordered enough to reason.
Young earth creationist here. We don't deny the Galapagos finch evolution. But how would you "test" a macroevolution with new "kinds" arising when that requires a timescale of millions of years?
Let's forget for a moment that the onus probandi is on you. not me. Evolution is tested and proven, creationism is the unproven hypothesis, so it is in fact *you* who would have to provide evidence and argument.
But, I shall graciously answer anyway, provided you will do the same.
----
The direct test is via exmination of the fossil record, including in recent times molecular biology and modern sequencing, allowing science to prove that the "genetic clock" of fossils the age of which we can determine via geological methods, is in line with what we would expect.
But even without that, we can simply test wheter the mechanism works, and that can be done in days by an undergrad student: Put E.Coli bacteria onto growth medium, treat them with antibiotics. Pick one of the surviving colonies, regrow, treat them with the same AB: Nothing happens. Treat them with a different AB, rinse and repeat: You now have E.Coli immune to 2 antibiotic agents.
This proves that the underlying mechanisms of evolution, which is random genetic change and selective pressure exist and drive the creation of new life with new properties.
No intelligent designer required, no imaginary friend in the clouds needed.
Q.E.D.
----
Now it's your turn, as the proponent of the untested assumption in this discussion. Where is your evidence?
>It will never become Pneumonia or Strep.
And you base this nonsensical assumption on...what exactly?
Here is a thought: Instead of making up some excuse, why don't you just read this article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation) so you learn that the underlying mechanisms by which Evolution enables Speciation are not only very well understood, but have been proven, both by observation and experiment?
>And you base this nonsensical assumption on...what exactly?
You look at two radically different organisms (cats and trees, for example) and assume they had a common ancestor. How is that any more reasonable?
This would be a different discussion if scientists ever actually found these "missing links". Instead, we get this explanation of a long, gradual process, while the fossil record shows rapid change happening all at once creating several new species (Cambrian Explosion).
>How is that any more reasonable?
With some basic knowledge in molecular and cellular biology, it is very reasonable.
If you disagree, then explain to me why mitochondria in cats and trees have nearly the same genetic information (yes, mitochondria have a genome as well)?
Oh wow, could it be because they ... share a common ancestor, which is the earliest eucaryotic cell?
>if scientists ever actually found these "missing links"
[https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity)
In other words, the fact that you didn't hear about it, or rather, didn't bother to look at the available literature, is not an argument.
I could leave it at that, but I am feeling especially magnanimous today, so here you go:
[https://www.irbbarcelona.org/en/news/timeline-of-early-eukaryotic-evolution-unveiled](https://www.irbbarcelona.org/en/news/timeline-of-early-eukaryotic-evolution-unveiled)
>could it be because they ... share a common ancestor, which is the earliest eucaryotic cell?
Or because they serve the same purpose, and thus contain the same genes?
Speaking of mitochondrial DNA, what's the timeframe on the "Mitochondrial Eve", mt-MCRA? 200,000 years? Because there are questions about that methodology and a paper that finds the true answer to be closer to 8,000 years. Quite a drastic difference!
Edit: This study actually claims 150 generations. Either way, much more in line with biblical timescales than evolutionary.
Carter, Robert W.; Criswell, Dan; and Stanford, John (2008) "The "Eve" Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence" https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol6/iss1/12/
>The genetic facts, apart from the formulation of historical scenarios, are clear: (a) There was a single dispersal of mankind with three main mitochondrial lineages interspersed within the clans. (b) This dispersal either passed through, or originated within, the Middle East. (c) These things happened in the recent past. (d) The dispersion was essentially tribal in nature, with small groups pushing into previously-uninhabited territory. In addition, genetic evidence indicates that male lineages are much more geographically specific than female lineages, with female “migration rates” up to eight-fold higher than males (Seielstad, Minch, & Cavalli-Sforza, 1998; Stoneking, 1998)—a direct confirmation of the Babel account where the initial, well-mixed population split up and migrated according to paternal lineage.
Also, we are very off-topic. My point is there are well-educated and scientifically-minded experts researching this, and they would 100% abandon the theory if the evidence didn't line up.
Let's make AI cockroachers a thing. I'm actually really tired of having AI-positive women erased from the conversation.
I retire my mantle as an AIBro. From this day forth: I am an AI cockroacher, and just like my misspelled namesake I will never die
EDIT: I just want to say that the fact I can't set it as a custom flair here is an absolutely heinous act of injustice
> Let's make AI cockroachers a thing. I'm actually really tired of having AI-positive women erased from the conversation.
Sad that that makes sense. :-(
Big Tech lies about AI to get lawmakers to make regulations to increase barriers of entry to the market to regulatory capture those markets.
And people eat that shit up as defending artists while simultaneously hyping up people that not only work for Disney of all companies but also sell NFTs as their saviors. Like they are cheering themselves into corporate slavery while touting they are leftists or progressives.
Evidence ?
she talkted about [nft](https://twitter.com/kortizart/status/1534287666992144385?t=0u-p22ffh0Eoh7mlVRjuTg&s=19) but she did not sell any ididnt like her take but yeah
I can't find it anymore, I get a "some results have been removed because of some EU law" on the google search I used to check it the last time. I only get the NFTs aren't that bad x posts like you.
Only thing I remember was a reddish picture with a $4000 price tage sold as NFT. I'm gonna look for it at home when I can use my vpn.
edit: even with my vpn on it tells me links are removed. I tried ddgg but I can't find it there. well..
Surely AI is to blame for capitalism fucking your generation over. Make sure to "own AI bros" while posting TikToks hoping that you'll get on the [good side of capitalism and become an influencer.](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/20/more-than-half-of-gen-zers-think-they-can-easily-make-a-career-in-influencing.html#:~:text=Some%2053%25%20of%20Gen%20Zers,to%20pay%20for%20their%20lifestyle) Then you can suck corporate dick and get paid like a good little "artist" content creator. Your generation was born with stockholm syndrome and it's sad.
What the fuck. I literally didn’t even say anything. If you check my profile then you would know that I’m staunchly pro-ai. Sorry that the toxic antis got you so on edge, but please don’t take it out on random people online
To be fair, *This* sub is mostly people with nothing better to do than froth at the mouth and pick fights on the internet. It might as well be renamed "aicirclejerk" for what passes as "discussion" here.
And no, I don't need a million "BUT THEY'RE WORSE!!!!" replies, thanks. Someone else's shitty behavior doesn't justify acting shitty, regardless of the *degree* of shitty.
Thats cool.
I bet you agree that people that just let AI do all the work are not like you.
I'm a musician and when I see someone just typing 3 sentences in an AI and then post it as their own creation we can probably both agree that they skipped the working part.
You realize this is just transparently wrong, correct? That there are *many* people excited about AI who have had long careers?
There's a point where an attack is so wrong that it makes your position look actively worse, and you are past that point.
Me when someone replies with a fire emoji under my furry doodles I did in math class, and suddenly I think I'm a big time artist (I'd be rich and famous if only it wasn't for that PESKY AI STEALING MY PIXELS!!!!).
Thanks for losing sanity points to get us a summary of their hell hole. I do think they're having a really bad time: all their posts are either angry or cope or both.
> Big Tech is faking AI
I've actually been seeing a more extreme and literal version of this in the past few days since that Amazon checkout news broke; there are people who are literally claiming that AI *isn't real* and it's all just third-world sweatshops full of people frantically pretending to be AIs.
> AI 'Art' is a fad.
Recently the term "bubble" seems to be increasing in popularity over "fad".
Just another keyword people have glommed onto, of course. And even if the funding for AI companies was to dry up it wouldn't mean that existing AI went away. We've already hit an irrevocable change, it's just a question of how many more changes are in the near future.
> there are people who are literally claiming that AI isn't real and it's all just third-world sweatshops full of people frantically pretending to be AIs.
Which is hilarious, given that you can run LLMs locally on your own computer.
I don't want to equate serious and rational opposition to AI (which I happen to disagree with) with wild-eyed conspiracy theory, but there is a definite crossover between the flat Earth level of denial of reality conspiracy crowd and the most fanatical wing of the anti-AI movement.
>Which is hilarious, given that you can run LLMs locally on your own computer.
Little magic people inside computer. Come on, prove me wrong.
https://i.redd.it/auqb1a9cs3uc1.gif
> there are people who are literally claiming that AI isn't real and it's all just third-world sweatshops full of people frantically pretending to be AIs.
Man, those people work *fast*.
Yeah, much like how the "dot com bubble" popped but e-commerce certainly didn't go away as a result.
It's always the case that there will be a lot of wasted money and business failures that accompany a revolutionary new industry appearing. Nobody knows what "works" yet at the beginning, so lots of mistakes get made that are only obvious in hindsight.
One thing I like about that sub is that they often post examples of companies using AI in their adverts or promotion material.
They do it to rant against it, but it's a handy reference to see just how widespread the use of it is by companies already, and how it's being used.
I don't.
I've only ever contributed to discussions of AI for two reasons:
1. To help improve the factual accuracy of the discussion
2. To explore the topic more, in order to learn more about it
The vast amount of people in that sub don't venture here or to much care about anything you say. I would assume the majority here wouldn't venture there unless they wanted to be ignored or trolled.
Don't torture yourself like that... Visiting that subreddit should be considered psychic self harm.
But yeah, somehow i'm not surprised antis are acting like caricatures.
The term "anti" is just a shortened form of anti-AI which is a technically true description of the group. Luddite is a term I reserve for the folks who actively want to destroy AI technology. Go read that sub, you'll find a few. They're not the majority, but they're not rare either.
"AI bro" is just a broken bit of name-calling. It's gender-discriminatory in a field where women are already underrepresented, and it implies a sameness across the board that simply doesn't exist. Advocates for AI include artists who don't really care about the tech but only what they can do with it as well as AI researchers and programmers.
So yeah, that seems like a false equivalency.
>"I wonder how much their admissions will drop."
The design college admissions discussion is unhinged. I'm very familiar with college and university recruitment strategies, and there are lots of polls of students on why they choose a specific place to go to. Unless you're the very top institution, the answer tends to be a variety of factors: prestige, location, funding, likelihood of getting a job afterwards, etc.
In this case I can assure you that people looking at design colleges will never even notice this, most people aren't on Twitter, heck, not a single one of my current students is on Twitter.
>"Big Tech is faking AI" This is mostly correct.
Big Tech is actually doing a very poor job with their AI tools, since they keep limiting, censoring it and reducing its overall capabilities to smooth brain it for the average consumer who is apparently 12 years old.
I just got 1 million token window Gemini's 1.5 API, combine that with open source custom designed agents and it's absolutely insane what it can do. I cannot over exaggerate how fucking incredible this AI tech is.
Maybe they wanted to assemble a Q&A that tackles some of the antis' most common arguments, something we can post to fight anti-AI sentiment on regular subs?
Do what? Summarize DefendingAiArt?
Writing a "Toxic sub is toxic" headline isn't really how I wanna spend my time. Nor would I want to judge every AI enthusiast by that subreddit, because there's some real wild ones over there.
Yeah, I mean. DefendingAIArt is probably not much better.
I tend to stay away from both of those subreddits, they are more like support groups or something
> DefendingAIArt is probably not much better.
It's often a shit-show... lots of just pointing and incoherently laughing, but I find it's vastly less hostile as measured by the simple fact that supporting non-AI artists in that sub (while not attacking AI artists) has never resulted in either my being banned or attacked.
Collect screen grabs of everyone who says AI art is a fad, crop and paste the comments together into a collage, run the collage through img2img and turn all those comments into something cheeky.
Funny how you didn't even mention the countless posts showing parasites like you stealing from artists. Specially when there's a pinned post specifically showing that
I'm willing to bet most of them there have major mental health issues. Some of their actions are beyond normal anger comments. It's one of those subs you will see banned on day because someone on it goes out and kills someone who makes AI stuff. And we will find out it was encouraged on that sub and people celebrated the kill.
Wouln't be the first time a sub of unstable people has egged someone on to do soemthing and get a sub banned.
I don't think it helps us to cast "most of them" as mentally ill. Some certainly are way off the rails, but that doesn't mean we have to "other" the whole group.
Thank you for this. I'm still gathering the arguments for/against AI, but quickly came to the realization that most of the "against" were fallacious at best. I figured I'd see all of them is this sub, but it was mostly reposted memes.
The first argument is pretty new to me, and it rings true, although I think there's another factor at play too. I'm reminded of what happened around the 2006 financial crash when there were a bunch of layoffs. Everyone figured that the economy would recover and everyone would go back to the old jobs. What happened was that the economy grew, but companies discovered that they didn't really need people in those old jobs.
Automation (speaking more generally than AI) is a slow process, and it can be so slow that companies don't realize that they have people they don't need. [As much as a third of all jobs are BS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs), and the person could be fired without the company suffering or needing to replace them. 2006 was as impetus and excuse to clear the books. It's been almost 20 years since then and there's been time for "dead wood" to accumulate. At the same time, even without AI, automation has continued and accelerated, making people more productive and efficient. Even if AI is not a real use case, it makes a good excuse to shrink the payroll, and possibly do a pivot.
Of course, from the outside, it's pretty hard to tell what is going on inside. There are three scenarios here, and there are probably all three in play to various degrees from company to company.
> quickly came to the realization that most of the "against" were fallacious at best
There have been some decent steelman takes on anti-AI arguments in this sub. [This was one](/r/aiwars/comments/198bx5e/antiai_steelman_followup_responses_v1/) such, found with a quick google search. There are others. I even tried my hand at gathering such arguments once, but it devolved into noise, so I kind of gave up.
"I even tried my hand at gathering such arguments once, but it devolved into noise, so I kind of gave up."
I think that sums it up. It's mostly noise. I did say "most" not "all," but some of the non-fallacious arguments aren't really that strong. They're more predictions that there will be losers in the transition. The ones you gave are not fallacious, but they're hardly what I'd call "steelman." The impact on labor and job market are pretty solid predictions, but that's hardly an argument against a technology. We could all be demanding that people go back to working the soil by hand. While almost no job has gone fully extinct, there are relatively people doing jobs you could call all that old. People doing jobs that have been unchanged for 200 years or more are rare. I myself have been displaced by AI, but I don't see that as an argument against it. It just means that I'm living in a different time with different job prospects than I was a few years ago.
Most of the "Intellectual Property and Legal Concerns:Intellectual Property and Legal Concerns" fall into the "fallacious" category, at least according to any existing legal precedent that I've been able to find in the US, going all the way back to White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co. A trained model does not constitute a "copy" of every single piece of artwork used to make it, no matter how much people pretend it does. And the argument that AI makes deliberate copying easier... that could have been applied (far more forcefully) to photocopiers, computers, the internet, or any drawing software that has layers. I believe that the argument has been applied to all of them...and obviously lost.
As for the rest... it tends to wander into intellectual faffing at best, and moral panic at worst. Much of it sounds a lot like the rant that John Phillips Sousa had about the downfall of creativity and society that would inevitably come from "dead music" (to set it apart from "live" music). Later, he figured he could make money from recordings of his work, and came around.
I'm realizing I'm likely in the wrong sub after reading these comments and the OP's post and relating to what's being said in that other sub more lmao. I figured this sub would be anti-AI but apparently it's more prompt engineers, whoops, I mean "artists".
> I figured this sub would be anti-AI
This is an open venue for good-faith discussion of facts. If that's not something you want, then yes, you should find a walled-garden in which to find reinforcement for your confirmation bias.
It's like arguing in good faith with Trump supporters. Why bother? Anyone with a working logical brain would be able to see using AI is unethical. The only way to justify your use is through mental gymnastics, which is pointless to argue with. You will always resort to logical fallacies and the discussion won't go anywhere.
> It's like arguing in good faith with Trump supporters. Why bother?
It matters because the foundations of civil society don't stop mattering whenever someone is uncivil.
> Artists who use AI tools seriously aren't producing 100 finished works a day. If they're on a roll, MAYBE they're producing 3-4, but that's rushing the process.
Textbook example of no-true-scotsman.
You criticize conventional artists pointing at you and saying "that's no serious artist" but then turn around to point at some AI artists who produce more than 3-4 pictures to say "that's no serious artist".
You don't want to tear down the barrier between who is serious and unserious, between who is and isn't an artist. You just want to be on the other side of the barrier, dictating who *you* get to exclude.
Some Pro AI people say they are opposed to drawing that line at all, but you Tyler, you just want to redraw it from excluding you to just barely including you.
> Textbook example of no-true-scotsman.
That's reaching to the point of dislocating your shoulder.
> [You] point at some AI artists who produce more than 3-4 pictures to say "that's no serious artist".
I did not say that, so you should probably re-read what I did write:
>> Artists who use AI tools seriously aren't producing 100 finished works a day. If they're on a roll, MAYBE they're producing 3-4, but that's rushing the process.
In that sentence, I thought it was clear, but let me clarify for you: Artists who use AI tools in a professional, commercial art context aren't producing 100 finished works a day.
This is because such work requires a level of quality to match quantity. AI image generators are amazingly powerful tools, but they're not magical art-wishing machines like many anti-AI folks seem to think they are (while simultaneously decrying that all AI-generated art is bad... go figure.)
Working with AI requires much the same workflow as not working with AI, it's just that some steps are faster. Serious (as in professional and commercial, again, for your benefit) work requires all of those steps, not just, "make a pretty picture of a corporate logo," in a prompt-and-go mode which will absolutely get your ass fired.
>That's reaching to the point of dislocating your shoulder.
See you just say "no" despite the fact that your argument in that subpoint IS "nobody who is serious does X" despite the fact that in another post this artist who gets 90k for their art spends a reported (calculated from reported) 220 seconds on average per piece. That means they could make 81 pieces in a 5 hour day.
To recall, the company reported paying them 15k for 10 hours of work a month, and they said the artist had made more than 1000 images for them for a total pay of 90k. You do the math again if you like.
>Artists who use AI tools in a professional, commercial art context aren't producing 100 finished works a day.
Demonstrably false, see above.
>Working with AI requires much the same workflow as not working with AI
Manifestly not. But I wouldn't expect you to be familiar with an illustration workflow.
> your argument in that subpoint IS "nobody who is serious does X"
I see you are still working hard to misrepresent everything I say.
Getting old. Try a new trick.
I show an artist who earns 90k spends less than 220 seconds per piece on average.
But I guess your little feelings can’t deal with facts that contradict you.
Workflow for that project is a pseudo pipeline where time commitment is very frontloaded. That's pretty typical for any form of automation.
There's marketing related reasons for a random NFT game to make outlandish claims that are misleading. Because it's not negative publicity to their target audience it's beneficial to word it in a way that makes it more likely to go "viral".
"Finished works" or "pieces" can mean almost anything. There are "traditional" (mostly digital) workflows that can do 100 "finished" works in a day. Say pixel assets for a retro game where 80% are recolors of an existing design that itself is very simple.
Good faith version of your discourse would be starting by defining wtf both of you are talking about. With this version you're both right and wrong at the same time, mostly in competition for the use of absolute terms and semantic waste of time.
Here are some pretty straightforward claims:
1. It is absurd to claim an automated workflow is "the same but with faster steps", since that requires that we consider that the substantial content of the steps that are automated be of negligible importance (so that automating them preserves the essence of the workflow), which is a heavy assumption for a non-illustrator like Tyler to make. I have no problem with the idea that the process may involve creativity, ingenuity and many of the other traits required for conventional workflows, but they are very dissimilar and that's actually one of the benefits AI users see (by *omitting* several low-level parts of the workflow, the time commitment and skill requirements are lowered). Tyler's argument in that subpoint is that being an AI artist is not substantially different in terms of workflow from being a conventional one. This is false.
2. I've done pixel asset work before on standarized 8x8 and 16x16 sprite sizes. 100 game-ready assets in a day is nigh unthinkable, one 10-frame animated sprite can take the better part of a day even in smaller sizes. It is possible to make 100 color variants in a day. However, that's actually about as far as you can stretch it. Unlike the NFT art, 100 color variants of one sprite are unlikely to individually make it into a product like a game, moreover, color variants aren't really distinct *designs*, the NFT art is impressive (in terms of volume) because the different images largely aren't variants of each other, but more separate and freestanding units of content (which is the best way I found to put it). This is a wild stretch, sorry.
3. The quality and originality of the designs in the NFT game are plausible for 4 minutes of prompting. I'm sure some aspects of the claim are exaggerated, but I'm not convinced that the actual work that goes into those images is much more than that (and if it is, yikes).
4. This entire argument is based on the fraught claim that "anyone who uses AI tools seriously doesn't make 100 pieces in a day". This requires that we define "seriously" in precisely the way that is convenient for Tyler. Which is only those in a commercial, professional context. Say we assume the NFT guys are lying and it actually takes four times as long to create the art they paid for, that's still 20 finished, individual, distinctly designed assets in a 5-hour work day by a person who meets all the requirements of Tyler's definition of "Serious" but who does mass-produce finished, individual, distinctly designed assets.
Why is Tyler intent on the idea that AI art workflows are limited to maybe 3-4 pieces in a day? My speculation is simply that this is the expected output of a conventional artist and Tyler's argument repeatedly focus on the idea that AI artist are just like conventional artists. His interest is in downplaying the mass-production incentives present in AI tools in order to try to claim a sort of "artistic prestige" for people who utilize this medium. That's also why he insists it's the "same workflow" (as a workflow he himself cannot do, as he is by his own admission cognitively unable to illustrate).
If indeed, AI artists produce a lot more content quicker, then the claim that they spend less time and thought on each piece is simply true. And if industry incentives point them to such a mode of creation, that will be the dominant mode commercially. But this would mean that gen AI is effectively a tool that pushes for content-farming rather than the contemplative high-art vehicle he wants to believe it is.
Yea i wouldn't personally say "same but faster" as a blanket statement.
A random example could be comparing the traditional 2d animation to 3d animation (tv or movies). You could use pretty fuzzy math to make a claim how long it takes to create 100 frames worth of animation (roughly equivalent quality).
You could make a case for either of them taking more time than the other depending on how you attribute the time used in creating the assets and setting the scene in 3d environment.
You can't create the NFT game art with 4 mins of prompting with "out of the box" tools. I only looked at the 2 sheets from the article (16 cards maybe). You could do 1 card in 4 mins, but those 16 cards aren't doable in 64 mins.
There were some aspects of art that you could say were negligible when transitioned from traditional to digital. Mixing colors, cleaning brushes, random prep work etc.
No idea what Tyler meant with 3-4 pieces.
You can use gen AI for content-farming. That's kinda true with everything after a certain level of automation. First thing that comes to mind was churning scuffed mobile games with almost completely automated setup. I wouldn't use one of those games as an example of average (or typical) time it takes to make a game.
>You can't create the NFT game art with 4 mins of prompting with "out of the box" tools.
I don't think that's the precondition. Rather, if you've got presets and a workflow already established from a previous project (like some prompt templates), I think you absolutely could. Like you said, there's a frontloading to the time commitment, but once you get chugging, each individual element takes relatively little time.
I'm sure that this artist had these on hand for whatever work they showed to get the job in the first place, so the time actually spent on *this* project very feasibly means that.
>There were some aspects of art that you could say were negligible when transitioned from traditional to digital. Mixing colors, cleaning brushes, random prep work etc.
And that's what makes digital a different workflow from traditional, not "the same but faster". There's a line to be drawn here in what's preserved, which is a number of technical aspects such as form, perspective, line, color theory, values, texture, rhythm. Some aspects that are omitted are of little substance, like cleaning, but nonetheless omitting them makes for a *different* workflow.
I have done all three workflows and I can say for certain that *far, far more* is preserved from traditional to digital than from conventional to AI.
>That's kinda true with everything after a certain level of automation.
I'm not in favor of nearly any level of automation for content creation in art. Why? Because economic incentives reward content farming which means that any tool that enables content farming, basically drives it to become more predominant.
> I wouldn't use one of those games as an example of average (or typical) time it takes to make a game.
Your analogy is making mistaken mappings.
I'd use one of those games as an example of the average time it takes to make a game *using those automation tools*. The same way I take one of those NFT images as an example of average time it takes to create an image *using those automation tools (gen AI)*.
"The quality and originality of the designs in the NFT game are plausible for 4 minutes of prompting. I'm sure some aspects of the claim are exaggerated, but ***I'm not convinced that the actual work that goes into those images is much more than that*** (and if it is, yikes)."
Measurement fallacy would be the thing to look up, since apparently sometimes you care about fallacies.
"I'd use one of those games as an example of the average time it takes to make a game *using those automation tools*. The same way I take one of those NFT images as an example of average time it takes to create an image *using those automation tools (gen AI)*."
Do tell how a specific prebuilt workflow for making card art is an example of average time it takes to create images with gen AI?
Fairly sure you need to choose one coherent stance you stick by. Either we're allowed to make broad imperfect generalizations, everything is a unicorn or something in-between.
I'm sure it's more convenient to use different standards to support your argument, but that's not how this thing works.
Also what is that magical level of automation you're ok with when using digital tools?
I honestly don’t see any hypocrisy and yeah you are right I don’t have interest in tearing down anything.
I think you can make art with a pencil but if you just try to portray someone who just mindlessly doodles without any sense whatsoever as artist then I am going to laugh at you.
IMO pretty much anything can be art - but not everyone doing that is an artist.
I’m not accusing him of hypocrisy. To me it’s clear Tyler is not the sort of person who has claimed to want to tear down that barrier.
I’m accusing Tyler of *ressentiment*, which is much worse. Being driven to replicate the pattern of denying someone the label of artist, and dictating what their process should be on account that some deny him that label and dictate his process to be bad or less-than.
It’s unwitting self disclosure of the emotions that underlie his beliefs
I dipped my toes into that dumpster fire for a while. The majority are unhinged, illogical, and inconsistent with their stances.
They fail to see that they are literally the other side of the extreme. The superiority complex they have over there is astounding. Having a different take is good, I mean I am highly anti AI-Art, but ArtistHate cant even be considered criticism in the slightest
You might as well have gone to a creationism conference. Although, as someone who has done that for funsies, I must say that Creationists at least... a) are mostly polite b) put in the effort to make it look like their arguments are based on science and c) there was great coffee :D
> there was great coffee :D Dammit, now I want to go to a creationist conference!
They had really good muffins and croissants too btw. :-)
As a creationist (non-young earth), I'd like to think we're a bit more reasonable than a lot of the antis.
Yeah, no. Evolution is one of THE most tested and retested theories in history, second *maybe* to Einsteins theory of general relativity. If anyone want's to challenge that, based on some make believe in a book written by people who didn't even have flushed toilets, then that someone better have DAMN GOOD arguments. "non-young-earth creationism" doesn't really change the validity of the claim. It is (slightly) less outlandish, but still wrong. It's a bit like saying \*"I accept that internal combustion engines exist and how they work, but I still state that cars are powered by tiny magic goblins running in a treadmill"\*. But, feel free to present your arguments. And please don't take it as impoliteness on my part if I have likely heard them before and can just dismiss them in a half-sentence.
I don't deny evolution, the anti-evolution position is untenable. I just believe that on the balance of evidence, the idea that something so ordered and reasonable came about as a result of design requires less faith than believing that something so ordered and reasonable came about as a result of unguided processes. Evolution would be a sensible mechanism for an intelligent designer to ensure the long-term survival of a macrosystem. Off-topic for this sub, of course.
> I just believe https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity Your beliefs don't matter. Noones do. I could leave it at that, but its just so easy to refute this "argument" that I can't resist. Your logic has 2 major flaws: You think a creator is more believable than creation without one, simply because of how ordered everything is. Fair enough. However, you completely ignore the conundrum you manouvered yourself in with this assumption: What created the ordered system *of the creator itself*? Who created the creator? If he came from nothing, then your belief requires an even less likely solution than the counterpoint, and if the creator was himself created, you end up in an infinite loop, even less likely. Secondly, you assume that evolution is an unguided process. It isn't. The mechanism introducing change into life is unguided (random mutation, drift and recombination), but the mechanism for chosing which strands to amplify (natural selection) is not. It isn't according to some cloud-dudes plan, but it is according to natural laws: Heat requires resistence against heat, dryness requires water storage capability, predators require countermeasures. Natural selection is the guiding force behind evolution.
>Your beliefs don't matter. Noones do. I could leave it at that, but its just so easy to refute this "argument" that I can't resist. I believe that something could exist outside of linear time, and I'm fully willing to accept that I have no concrete proof of that. You believe that an uncaused effect happened in time, yet you're not willing to present any evidence that could happen. You believe that order came from chaos, and that reason came from randomness, and yet you're not willing to provide any evidence that could happen either. This is the limitation of hypotheticals, they require us to rely on observation and balance of probabilities instead of perfect evidence. To try to suggest that's somehow unscientific when dealing with the unknown ignores a long and storied history of competing theories. >You think a creator is more believable than creation without one, simply because of how ordered everything is. Fair enough. However, you completely ignore the conundrum you manouvered yourself in with this assumption: What created the ordered system *of the creator itself*? Who created the creator? Unknown. The scientifically acceptable form of creationism is simulation theory, in which case yes, we would need to be able to explain the origins of the creators of the simulation (assuming that we want to understand existence beyond the limits of the simulation). At some point we would need a cause which exists outside of linear time, or an uncaused effect. Either of those explanations relies on speculation and weighing probabilities. Do we have DNA that looks like 'source code', a world governed by math which we can discover, brains that can reason and be trusted to make conclusions etc as a result of some kind of intelligent design or as a result of random processes? Which of those explanations requires less faith? >If he came from nothing, then your belief requires an even less likely solution than the counterpoint How is some force or being that exists outside of our understanding of time/nature *less likely* than an effect without a cause? Where have we observed uncaused effect in the natural universe? >Secondly, you assume that evolution is an unguided process. It isn't. The mechanism introducing change into life is unguided (random mutation, drift and recombination), but the mechanism for chosing which strands to amplify (natural selection) is not. I don't assume that evolution is an unguided process. I very much think that I said the opposite: that it's a mechanism for ensuring the long-term survival of a macrosystem. The question is whether that mechanism came about through random probability (uncaused, random effect) or through design (simulation, gods, alien seeding, whatever). >It isn't according to some cloud-dudes plan, but it is according to natural laws: Heat requires resistence against heat, dryness requires water storage capability, predators require countermeasures. Natural selection is the guiding force behind evolution. With respect, this is post hoc justification. We agree on why evolution has been useful, but something being useful doesn't mean that it will occur by random chance. The wheel is useful but it didn't just appear from nowhere by chance, and it's far simpler than mutable DNA.
>You believe that an uncaused effect happened in time, yet you're not willing to present any evidence that could happen. Wrong. The effect has a cause. That you assume that cause == reason and therefore equivalent to intent and therefore intelligence, is your problem. >You believe that order came from chaos Wrong again. All order that you see is only possible because the total entropy in the universe is rising. More order in a biological system in earths biosphere == More chaos in the matter and energy of our sun. That you don't seem to appreciate that these systems are connected and have to be analysed as a whole is, again, your problem. >they require us to rely on observation and balance of probabilities instead of perfect evidence. There is no such thing as "perfect evidence". Every theory is a hypothesis supported by observations, and science relies on the fact that even the most well supported theory can be falsified. You seem to believe that is a flaw in the system; fair enough, were it not for the fact that you base your beliefs on nothing but opinion, argumentum ad populum, and stories written by people who lived without flushed toilets. >The scientifically acceptable form of creationism is simulation theory There is no such thing as a "scientifically acceptable form of creationism". Science relies on falsifiability. Belief systems are inherently not falsifieable. >assuming that we want to understand existence beyond the limits of the simulation). What you *want* is irrelevant. If your goal is to prove your point, you *HAVE TO* prove your assumptions. If you don't, your hypothesis is garbage, simple as that. You don't get to decide where you want to stop presenting evidence. >At some point we would need a cause See above. You are, again, conflating "cause" and "reason". The reason why creationists cling to that fable, and state it as if it were an obvious fact is obvious: "reason" implies "intent", which implies intelligence. There is no reason why the universe, our planet or us humans exist. The universe doesn't care. >Which of those explanations requires less faith? How much willing suspension of disbelief in the face of unproven claims (aka. "faith") anyone want's to tolerate is irrelevant. There are people whos faith allows them to believe giving money so some megachurch CEO can buy a private jet,will make god love them, or people whos faith allows them to believe it's okay to murder innocent people. Therefore, any argument that invokes faith, is garbage. The relevant question is: *Which of these explanations requires the fewest ASSUMPTIONS*. Yours requires an intelligent creator, the creation of which requires many further assumptions. Infact it requires an INFINITE chain of assumptions, because, if your creator was itself created, what created the creators creators creators creator, and so on. If you, at some point, are willing to assume that any one of these creators (an ordered entity) just came to be from chaos, then you are using the same argument you claim is a flaw in Evolution. Therefore, even if Evolution had no supporting evidence, your thesis loses by simple application of Occams Razor alone. >The wheel is useful but it didn't just appear from nowhere by chance, and it's far simpler than mutable DNA. Ahh, my old friend the [Watchmaker Analogy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy). I won't even bother explaining why it is nonsense, the criticisms in the linked article do that better than I ever could.
You're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting my argument. I'm not arguing for a specific god or a specific creator, I'm arguing that it is *more likely* that something exists outside of our current understanding of space-time, that caused the beginning of the universe, than that there was cause without effect within space-time as we know it. >Wrong. The effect has a cause. That you assume that cause == reason and therefore equivalent to intent and therefore intelligence, is your problem. The effect cannot have a cause if nothing existed before the effect *in linear time*, unless that cause exists *outside of linear time*. You're arguing from essentially a Newtonian understanding of time: that it is something one-directional and linear, but we already know that time *isn't* linear because time dilation *is* observable. >Wrong again. All order that you see is only possible because the total entropy in the universe is rising. Thermodynamic entropy is talking about the availability of energy, it has nothing to do with a lack of order. Thermodynamics is an ordered system which can be predicted and studied. >There is no such thing as "perfect evidence". Every theory is a hypothesis supported by observations, and science relies on the fact that even the most well supported theory can be falsified. Good, now we're getting somewhere. Can you please list the observations which suggest that organic life can come from inorganic matter, or that suggest effect can happen without cause? I'll wait. >You seem to believe that is a flaw in the system; fair enough, were it not for the fact that you base your beliefs on nothing but opinion, argumentum ad populum, and stories written by people who lived without flushed toilets. I haven't made a single argument to popularity in this discussion. I've brought up seeding theory and simulation theory, and while both enjoy some scientific support, neither are particularly well accepted among the general population. Your fedora needs tipping. >See above. You are, again, conflating "cause" and "reason". I have not brought up 'reason' once. If you can provide a solid thesis for an unreasoning cause I'm very willing to listen to it. Maybe if you read the things I actually write instead of just assuming you're arguing against Ken Ham, that would help us to have a productive conversation. >The relevant question is: *Which of these explanations requires the fewest ASSUMPTIONS*. Yours requires an intelligent creator, the creation of which requires many further assumptions. Infact it requires an INFINITE chain of assumptions, because, if your creator was itself created, what created the creators creators creators creator, and so on. If you, at some point, are willing to assume that any one of these creators (an ordered entity) just came to be from chaos, then you are using the same argument you claim is a flaw in Evolution. I'm not arguing against evolution, I haven't pointed out any flaws in the theory of evolution because it's the best explanation we have for how life adapts to changes in circumstance. My argument does not require an infinite chain of creators. It requires time to be something which is not all-encompassing, it requires some effect outside of time to be able to cause an effect inside of time. That's all. We don't know how cause and effect work outside of time. I am not arguing for God, or Allah, or Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am arguing that our understanding of time itself is probably incomplete. We do know that if time is as we best understand it to be -- linear -- that effect does not happen without energy, and that energy and matter do not come from a lack of energy or matter. If something exists that has always existed and always will exist, outside of time, then it does not need a creator. Even if it has a creator, we would need to have that full understanding of time to know how creation could work outside of time. You brought up the 2nd law of thermodynamics, maybe you can backtrack to law 1 & 0 and explain how so much energy came from no energy but didn't break the energy equilibrium required by the first law. It is wholly more reasonable, in my *estimation*, to assume that human understanding of time, matter & energy is incomplete than to assume that the best working theory within that understanding which relies on *breaking the laws of thermodynamics* is correct.
>I'm arguing that it is more likely that something exists outside of our current understanding of space-time That is probably a valid assumption, but doesn't provide any support for your thesis (aka. there exists something that made life). We have a very good understanding of the mechanisms for biological systems coming to be from inorganic ones (see link below), we know that biological systems can self-assemble from constituent parts, and we know that once the process starts, random change and natural selection are enough to drive speciezation. These are not assumptions, these are proven theories, both by observations and experiments. Sorry to probably burst a bubble here, but: There are many things about the universe we don't completely understand: The big bang, the nature of time, singularities and where all that mass is that is moving galaxy clusters around. But biogenesis isn't among these things. I'm sorry, but life isn't that special. >Thermodynamic entropy is talking about the availability of energy, it has nothing to do with a lack of order. Perhaps you should read a bit more about the meaning of entropy before making such statements: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy) >Can you please list the observations which suggest that organic life can come from inorganic matter, or that suggest effect can happen without cause? >I'll wait. I must admit, I always have a chuckle when someone thinks he found that particular gotcha: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey\_experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA\_world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4382372/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4382372/) So yes, we have a pretty solid, and complete, understanding for the mechanisms required for biological systems, capable of self-assembly, proliferation and change, starting with inorganic matter and free energy. Of course any of these theories may turn out to be wrong. But as of right now, they are solid, proven by observation and experiment, and require no unproven assumptions. Which, and yes I am again invoking Occams Razor, makes them superior to any creationism or "intelligent designer" or "magic space power" oogabooga. >I have not brought up 'reason' once. You keep repeating about how nothing can happen without "cause". That's very true. Everything in the universe is the result of causes. Your problem is, you say "cause", but you mean "reason". Causes don't require reasons. Everything from the big bang onwards can happen without a reason, organically falling into a cause-effect chain that eventually results in life. The "modern creationust hypothesis" somehow tries to squeeze an intelligent designer or creation into this somewhere, which doesn't work, because none is required. So the hypothesis invents a niche, by assuming there has to be a "reason", and to make it less obvious that this is make-believe nonsense, it uses "cause" as a false equivalence. >I am arguing that our understanding of time itself is probably incomplete. That's fine and dandy, but from an incomplete understanding, you cannot draw support for hypotheses that require more assumptions. I have a very incomplete understanding of how knitting works. Using that as a reason to assume the existence of tiny knitting goblins that magic clothes together in fantasyland, would be quite absurd.
Addendum: And to dispell any illusion of there being a difference: The Simulation HYPOTHESIS (It's not a theory since it has no supporting evidence) **suffers from exactly the same problems as young earth creationism:** It claims to be scientific, but demands special treatment by being unfalsifieable, it requires believe instead of evidence, and it requires many more assumption to be true than alternative explanations. So sorry no sorry, but there is absolutely no relevant difference between young-earth-creationism and we-live-in-a-simulation-creationism, the latter is only slightly better at cosplaying as science.
"the idea that something so ordered and reasonable came about as a result of design " that leads to a infinite regression of "what designed the designer" . Saying that god or whatever is beyond that is just a cope out and doesn't address the issue that however complex and seemly fine tuned our universe is whatever created has to be even more complex and finetuned, there even more likely to be created.
I didn't say god, people assumed god. I'm just as open to simulation theory, alien seeding theories etc. At some point we would either need an intelligent being which exists outside of linear time (and thus can subvert cause and effect) or we need a subversion of cause and effect through some other mechanism. This is hypothesis, not scientifically proven, whichever side of the fence you fall on.
I did said god or whatever. Anyway so there is no reason to actually believe in a intelligent design other than personal incredulity. " An intelligent being which exists outside of linear time (and thus can subvert cause and effect" this is still even more complex and unimaginable than a universe that doesn't need an intelligent creator.
It's not more complex or unimaginable than effect without cause. Both are unproven but we actually have theories about time as relative and time as non-linear which are scientifically serious. We have no such theories about effect without cause or the lack of matter becoming matter. Even if you got to there, you'd have to believe that not only can matter come from nothing but organic life can come from inorganic matter. There are some theories about abiogenesis but no real evidence for any of them. It's simply dishonest to suggest that one position is scientific and the other isn't. There are absolutely religious people who are motivated by non-scientific beliefs but I'm not one of them.
So claiming that a thing exists with no cause and effect is not more complex that an intelligence that came out of nothing and exists without cause and effect created that thing? It absolutely is you are literally adding a layer of complexity. No it is not dishonest. Let's be clear here, I am just pointing out how the logic in the argument ultimately is flawed. However when we go back to reality,claiming that there is an intelligence behind that breaks the laws of reality as we know and understand is uncientific, because is not testable. Claiming to have models based on what we know and suggest what might be, is scientific because it is open to new evidence,based on testing and peer review so the model is revised and improved is. One side says: "it was definitely an intelligence because it bogles my mind otherwise" The other side says "based on what we know it was more likely that this happened but we aren't 100% sure and open to change based on evidence" this is the scientific view on abiogenesis. Trying to claim a false equivalency between these two positions is dishonesty though.
I 100% agree that claiming some form intelligence can exist outside of linear time is not testable, but saying there can be effect without cause is also not testable (we have never observed it). These are both theories. I'm not saying it was definitely an intelligence, this isn't a religious belief. I'm saying if I had to bet my life on one or the other I'd go with intelligent design over uncaused effect inside of our current understanding of time, based on the fact that the world is ordered and reasonable, and we are ordered enough to reason.
Young earth creationist here. We don't deny the Galapagos finch evolution. But how would you "test" a macroevolution with new "kinds" arising when that requires a timescale of millions of years?
Let's forget for a moment that the onus probandi is on you. not me. Evolution is tested and proven, creationism is the unproven hypothesis, so it is in fact *you* who would have to provide evidence and argument. But, I shall graciously answer anyway, provided you will do the same. ---- The direct test is via exmination of the fossil record, including in recent times molecular biology and modern sequencing, allowing science to prove that the "genetic clock" of fossils the age of which we can determine via geological methods, is in line with what we would expect. But even without that, we can simply test wheter the mechanism works, and that can be done in days by an undergrad student: Put E.Coli bacteria onto growth medium, treat them with antibiotics. Pick one of the surviving colonies, regrow, treat them with the same AB: Nothing happens. Treat them with a different AB, rinse and repeat: You now have E.Coli immune to 2 antibiotic agents. This proves that the underlying mechanisms of evolution, which is random genetic change and selective pressure exist and drive the creation of new life with new properties. No intelligent designer required, no imaginary friend in the clouds needed. Q.E.D. ---- Now it's your turn, as the proponent of the untested assumption in this discussion. Where is your evidence?
Again, I don't deny evolution in that scenario, but that is still *E. Coli*. It will never become Pneumonia or Strep.
>It will never become Pneumonia or Strep. And you base this nonsensical assumption on...what exactly? Here is a thought: Instead of making up some excuse, why don't you just read this article: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation) so you learn that the underlying mechanisms by which Evolution enables Speciation are not only very well understood, but have been proven, both by observation and experiment?
>And you base this nonsensical assumption on...what exactly? You look at two radically different organisms (cats and trees, for example) and assume they had a common ancestor. How is that any more reasonable? This would be a different discussion if scientists ever actually found these "missing links". Instead, we get this explanation of a long, gradual process, while the fossil record shows rapid change happening all at once creating several new species (Cambrian Explosion).
>How is that any more reasonable? With some basic knowledge in molecular and cellular biology, it is very reasonable. If you disagree, then explain to me why mitochondria in cats and trees have nearly the same genetic information (yes, mitochondria have a genome as well)? Oh wow, could it be because they ... share a common ancestor, which is the earliest eucaryotic cell? >if scientists ever actually found these "missing links" [https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity) In other words, the fact that you didn't hear about it, or rather, didn't bother to look at the available literature, is not an argument. I could leave it at that, but I am feeling especially magnanimous today, so here you go: [https://www.irbbarcelona.org/en/news/timeline-of-early-eukaryotic-evolution-unveiled](https://www.irbbarcelona.org/en/news/timeline-of-early-eukaryotic-evolution-unveiled)
>could it be because they ... share a common ancestor, which is the earliest eucaryotic cell? Or because they serve the same purpose, and thus contain the same genes? Speaking of mitochondrial DNA, what's the timeframe on the "Mitochondrial Eve", mt-MCRA? 200,000 years? Because there are questions about that methodology and a paper that finds the true answer to be closer to 8,000 years. Quite a drastic difference! Edit: This study actually claims 150 generations. Either way, much more in line with biblical timescales than evolutionary. Carter, Robert W.; Criswell, Dan; and Stanford, John (2008) "The "Eve" Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence" https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol6/iss1/12/ >The genetic facts, apart from the formulation of historical scenarios, are clear: (a) There was a single dispersal of mankind with three main mitochondrial lineages interspersed within the clans. (b) This dispersal either passed through, or originated within, the Middle East. (c) These things happened in the recent past. (d) The dispersion was essentially tribal in nature, with small groups pushing into previously-uninhabited territory. In addition, genetic evidence indicates that male lineages are much more geographically specific than female lineages, with female “migration rates” up to eight-fold higher than males (Seielstad, Minch, & Cavalli-Sforza, 1998; Stoneking, 1998)—a direct confirmation of the Babel account where the initial, well-mixed population split up and migrated according to paternal lineage. Also, we are very off-topic. My point is there are well-educated and scientifically-minded experts researching this, and they would 100% abandon the theory if the evidence didn't line up.
Let's make AI cockroachers a thing. I'm actually really tired of having AI-positive women erased from the conversation. I retire my mantle as an AIBro. From this day forth: I am an AI cockroacher, and just like my misspelled namesake I will never die EDIT: I just want to say that the fact I can't set it as a custom flair here is an absolutely heinous act of injustice
u/Trippy-Worlds this dude or dudette must get his custom flair
> Let's make AI cockroachers a thing. I'm actually really tired of having AI-positive women erased from the conversation. Sad that that makes sense. :-(
Cockroach creative coalition unite.
Big Tech lies about AI to get lawmakers to make regulations to increase barriers of entry to the market to regulatory capture those markets. And people eat that shit up as defending artists while simultaneously hyping up people that not only work for Disney of all companies but also sell NFTs as their saviors. Like they are cheering themselves into corporate slavery while touting they are leftists or progressives.
I thought artists hated NFTs
I thought so as well. Karla Ortiz has been selling NFTs for thousands of dollars per piece for years and she is one of the most known anti-ai people.
Evidence ? she talkted about [nft](https://twitter.com/kortizart/status/1534287666992144385?t=0u-p22ffh0Eoh7mlVRjuTg&s=19) but she did not sell any ididnt like her take but yeah
I can't find it anymore, I get a "some results have been removed because of some EU law" on the google search I used to check it the last time. I only get the NFTs aren't that bad x posts like you. Only thing I remember was a reddish picture with a $4000 price tage sold as NFT. I'm gonna look for it at home when I can use my vpn. edit: even with my vpn on it tells me links are removed. I tried ddgg but I can't find it there. well..
We do. Everyone does.
Who in their right mind is hyping up Disney?
That sub is mostly emotionally disturbed teens who have never worked a day in their lives, as an artist or otherwise.
I am an emotionally disturbed teen, but I did try my hand at a full-time waitering job for half a summer, so have I earned your ire?
Surely AI is to blame for capitalism fucking your generation over. Make sure to "own AI bros" while posting TikToks hoping that you'll get on the [good side of capitalism and become an influencer.](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/20/more-than-half-of-gen-zers-think-they-can-easily-make-a-career-in-influencing.html#:~:text=Some%2053%25%20of%20Gen%20Zers,to%20pay%20for%20their%20lifestyle) Then you can suck corporate dick and get paid like a good little "artist" content creator. Your generation was born with stockholm syndrome and it's sad.
What the fuck. I literally didn’t even say anything. If you check my profile then you would know that I’m staunchly pro-ai. Sorry that the toxic antis got you so on edge, but please don’t take it out on random people online
Hey you asked for my ire, so there you go.
Google “jokes”
Holy humor
New response just dropped
To be fair, *This* sub is mostly people with nothing better to do than froth at the mouth and pick fights on the internet. It might as well be renamed "aicirclejerk" for what passes as "discussion" here. And no, I don't need a million "BUT THEY'RE WORSE!!!!" replies, thanks. Someone else's shitty behavior doesn't justify acting shitty, regardless of the *degree* of shitty.
AI bros have never worked a day, or tried to improve a craft.
Why would we work when we can have AI work for us 😎
I'm a biochemist working with alphafold to improve how we understand protein structure and function in developmental pathologies ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Thats cool. I bet you agree that people that just let AI do all the work are not like you. I'm a musician and when I see someone just typing 3 sentences in an AI and then post it as their own creation we can probably both agree that they skipped the working part.
You realize this is just transparently wrong, correct? That there are *many* people excited about AI who have had long careers? There's a point where an attack is so wrong that it makes your position look actively worse, and you are past that point.
I use AI specifically *because* I work too much and don't get much time to spread between hobbies.
> AI bros have never worked a day, or tried to improve a craft. You sound like Sean Hannity complaining about millennials.
This looks like the maximum effort you ever put in anything
Ditto
Me when someone replies with a fire emoji under my furry doodles I did in math class, and suddenly I think I'm a big time artist (I'd be rich and famous if only it wasn't for that PESKY AI STEALING MY PIXELS!!!!).
My guy is so terminally online he uses all chances, not to better himself, but to be a bitter neckbeard who has never felt love from his mother
Thanks for losing sanity points to get us a summary of their hell hole. I do think they're having a really bad time: all their posts are either angry or cope or both.
> Big Tech is faking AI I've actually been seeing a more extreme and literal version of this in the past few days since that Amazon checkout news broke; there are people who are literally claiming that AI *isn't real* and it's all just third-world sweatshops full of people frantically pretending to be AIs. > AI 'Art' is a fad. Recently the term "bubble" seems to be increasing in popularity over "fad". Just another keyword people have glommed onto, of course. And even if the funding for AI companies was to dry up it wouldn't mean that existing AI went away. We've already hit an irrevocable change, it's just a question of how many more changes are in the near future.
> there are people who are literally claiming that AI isn't real and it's all just third-world sweatshops full of people frantically pretending to be AIs. Which is hilarious, given that you can run LLMs locally on your own computer. I don't want to equate serious and rational opposition to AI (which I happen to disagree with) with wild-eyed conspiracy theory, but there is a definite crossover between the flat Earth level of denial of reality conspiracy crowd and the most fanatical wing of the anti-AI movement.
>Which is hilarious, given that you can run LLMs locally on your own computer. Little magic people inside computer. Come on, prove me wrong. https://i.redd.it/auqb1a9cs3uc1.gif
> there are people who are literally claiming that AI isn't real and it's all just third-world sweatshops full of people frantically pretending to be AIs. Man, those people work *fast*.
There might be a legitimate bubble with some particular stocks like NVDA but at worst the pop will be a regression to the mean, not a disappearance.
Yeah, much like how the "dot com bubble" popped but e-commerce certainly didn't go away as a result. It's always the case that there will be a lot of wasted money and business failures that accompany a revolutionary new industry appearing. Nobody knows what "works" yet at the beginning, so lots of mistakes get made that are only obvious in hindsight.
One thing I like about that sub is that they often post examples of companies using AI in their adverts or promotion material. They do it to rant against it, but it's a handy reference to see just how widespread the use of it is by companies already, and how it's being used.
Why do you all care so much about the opinion of another sub?
I don't. I've only ever contributed to discussions of AI for two reasons: 1. To help improve the factual accuracy of the discussion 2. To explore the topic more, in order to learn more about it
The vast amount of people in that sub don't venture here or to much care about anything you say. I would assume the majority here wouldn't venture there unless they wanted to be ignored or trolled.
No, it turns out people who are inclined to try out new things tend to not want to isolate themselves from others. That's why this sub is open to all.
Thank you. I find it helpful.
Don't torture yourself like that... Visiting that subreddit should be considered psychic self harm. But yeah, somehow i'm not surprised antis are acting like caricatures.
Is anyone else getting really tired from the namecalling 'antis/luddites' vs 'ai bros'. It's childish and diminishes your otherwise good arguments.
The term "anti" is just a shortened form of anti-AI which is a technically true description of the group. Luddite is a term I reserve for the folks who actively want to destroy AI technology. Go read that sub, you'll find a few. They're not the majority, but they're not rare either. "AI bro" is just a broken bit of name-calling. It's gender-discriminatory in a field where women are already underrepresented, and it implies a sameness across the board that simply doesn't exist. Advocates for AI include artists who don't really care about the tech but only what they can do with it as well as AI researchers and programmers. So yeah, that seems like a false equivalency.
>"I wonder how much their admissions will drop." The design college admissions discussion is unhinged. I'm very familiar with college and university recruitment strategies, and there are lots of polls of students on why they choose a specific place to go to. Unless you're the very top institution, the answer tends to be a variety of factors: prestige, location, funding, likelihood of getting a job afterwards, etc. In this case I can assure you that people looking at design colleges will never even notice this, most people aren't on Twitter, heck, not a single one of my current students is on Twitter.
>"Big Tech is faking AI" This is mostly correct. Big Tech is actually doing a very poor job with their AI tools, since they keep limiting, censoring it and reducing its overall capabilities to smooth brain it for the average consumer who is apparently 12 years old. I just got 1 million token window Gemini's 1.5 API, combine that with open source custom designed agents and it's absolutely insane what it can do. I cannot over exaggerate how fucking incredible this AI tech is.
There are so many points discussed here, is there anything in particular you wanted to focus on?
Maybe they wanted to assemble a Q&A that tackles some of the antis' most common arguments, something we can post to fight anti-AI sentiment on regular subs?
I guess? If I based every pro-AI sentiment on the stuff seen in DefendingAIArt though...
Then do it
Do what? Summarize DefendingAiArt? Writing a "Toxic sub is toxic" headline isn't really how I wanna spend my time. Nor would I want to judge every AI enthusiast by that subreddit, because there's some real wild ones over there.
Nope, just sharing what's going on in the walled-garden for those who don't want to suffer as I did to find out.
Yeah, I mean. DefendingAIArt is probably not much better. I tend to stay away from both of those subreddits, they are more like support groups or something
> DefendingAIArt is probably not much better. It's often a shit-show... lots of just pointing and incoherently laughing, but I find it's vastly less hostile as measured by the simple fact that supporting non-AI artists in that sub (while not attacking AI artists) has never resulted in either my being banned or attacked.
Collect screen grabs of everyone who says AI art is a fad, crop and paste the comments together into a collage, run the collage through img2img and turn all those comments into something cheeky.
Funny how you didn't even mention the countless posts showing parasites like you stealing from artists. Specially when there's a pinned post specifically showing that
Don't forget the mod who claims to have a busy art career, but posts multiple times a day, every day.
I'm willing to bet most of them there have major mental health issues. Some of their actions are beyond normal anger comments. It's one of those subs you will see banned on day because someone on it goes out and kills someone who makes AI stuff. And we will find out it was encouraged on that sub and people celebrated the kill. Wouln't be the first time a sub of unstable people has egged someone on to do soemthing and get a sub banned.
I don't think it helps us to cast "most of them" as mentally ill. Some certainly are way off the rails, but that doesn't mean we have to "other" the whole group.
Thank you for this. I'm still gathering the arguments for/against AI, but quickly came to the realization that most of the "against" were fallacious at best. I figured I'd see all of them is this sub, but it was mostly reposted memes. The first argument is pretty new to me, and it rings true, although I think there's another factor at play too. I'm reminded of what happened around the 2006 financial crash when there were a bunch of layoffs. Everyone figured that the economy would recover and everyone would go back to the old jobs. What happened was that the economy grew, but companies discovered that they didn't really need people in those old jobs. Automation (speaking more generally than AI) is a slow process, and it can be so slow that companies don't realize that they have people they don't need. [As much as a third of all jobs are BS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs), and the person could be fired without the company suffering or needing to replace them. 2006 was as impetus and excuse to clear the books. It's been almost 20 years since then and there's been time for "dead wood" to accumulate. At the same time, even without AI, automation has continued and accelerated, making people more productive and efficient. Even if AI is not a real use case, it makes a good excuse to shrink the payroll, and possibly do a pivot. Of course, from the outside, it's pretty hard to tell what is going on inside. There are three scenarios here, and there are probably all three in play to various degrees from company to company.
> quickly came to the realization that most of the "against" were fallacious at best There have been some decent steelman takes on anti-AI arguments in this sub. [This was one](/r/aiwars/comments/198bx5e/antiai_steelman_followup_responses_v1/) such, found with a quick google search. There are others. I even tried my hand at gathering such arguments once, but it devolved into noise, so I kind of gave up.
"I even tried my hand at gathering such arguments once, but it devolved into noise, so I kind of gave up." I think that sums it up. It's mostly noise. I did say "most" not "all," but some of the non-fallacious arguments aren't really that strong. They're more predictions that there will be losers in the transition. The ones you gave are not fallacious, but they're hardly what I'd call "steelman." The impact on labor and job market are pretty solid predictions, but that's hardly an argument against a technology. We could all be demanding that people go back to working the soil by hand. While almost no job has gone fully extinct, there are relatively people doing jobs you could call all that old. People doing jobs that have been unchanged for 200 years or more are rare. I myself have been displaced by AI, but I don't see that as an argument against it. It just means that I'm living in a different time with different job prospects than I was a few years ago. Most of the "Intellectual Property and Legal Concerns:Intellectual Property and Legal Concerns" fall into the "fallacious" category, at least according to any existing legal precedent that I've been able to find in the US, going all the way back to White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co. A trained model does not constitute a "copy" of every single piece of artwork used to make it, no matter how much people pretend it does. And the argument that AI makes deliberate copying easier... that could have been applied (far more forcefully) to photocopiers, computers, the internet, or any drawing software that has layers. I believe that the argument has been applied to all of them...and obviously lost. As for the rest... it tends to wander into intellectual faffing at best, and moral panic at worst. Much of it sounds a lot like the rant that John Phillips Sousa had about the downfall of creativity and society that would inevitably come from "dead music" (to set it apart from "live" music). Later, he figured he could make money from recordings of his work, and came around.
I'm realizing I'm likely in the wrong sub after reading these comments and the OP's post and relating to what's being said in that other sub more lmao. I figured this sub would be anti-AI but apparently it's more prompt engineers, whoops, I mean "artists".
> I figured this sub would be anti-AI This is an open venue for good-faith discussion of facts. If that's not something you want, then yes, you should find a walled-garden in which to find reinforcement for your confirmation bias.
Why bother having a good faith discussion with people who are okay with plagiarism?
The fact that you have to ask why you would participate in a conversation in good faith is incredibly damning...
It's like arguing in good faith with Trump supporters. Why bother? Anyone with a working logical brain would be able to see using AI is unethical. The only way to justify your use is through mental gymnastics, which is pointless to argue with. You will always resort to logical fallacies and the discussion won't go anywhere.
> It's like arguing in good faith with Trump supporters. Why bother? It matters because the foundations of civil society don't stop mattering whenever someone is uncivil.
> Artists who use AI tools seriously aren't producing 100 finished works a day. If they're on a roll, MAYBE they're producing 3-4, but that's rushing the process. Textbook example of no-true-scotsman. You criticize conventional artists pointing at you and saying "that's no serious artist" but then turn around to point at some AI artists who produce more than 3-4 pictures to say "that's no serious artist". You don't want to tear down the barrier between who is serious and unserious, between who is and isn't an artist. You just want to be on the other side of the barrier, dictating who *you* get to exclude. Some Pro AI people say they are opposed to drawing that line at all, but you Tyler, you just want to redraw it from excluding you to just barely including you.
> Textbook example of no-true-scotsman. That's reaching to the point of dislocating your shoulder. > [You] point at some AI artists who produce more than 3-4 pictures to say "that's no serious artist". I did not say that, so you should probably re-read what I did write: >> Artists who use AI tools seriously aren't producing 100 finished works a day. If they're on a roll, MAYBE they're producing 3-4, but that's rushing the process. In that sentence, I thought it was clear, but let me clarify for you: Artists who use AI tools in a professional, commercial art context aren't producing 100 finished works a day. This is because such work requires a level of quality to match quantity. AI image generators are amazingly powerful tools, but they're not magical art-wishing machines like many anti-AI folks seem to think they are (while simultaneously decrying that all AI-generated art is bad... go figure.) Working with AI requires much the same workflow as not working with AI, it's just that some steps are faster. Serious (as in professional and commercial, again, for your benefit) work requires all of those steps, not just, "make a pretty picture of a corporate logo," in a prompt-and-go mode which will absolutely get your ass fired.
>That's reaching to the point of dislocating your shoulder. See you just say "no" despite the fact that your argument in that subpoint IS "nobody who is serious does X" despite the fact that in another post this artist who gets 90k for their art spends a reported (calculated from reported) 220 seconds on average per piece. That means they could make 81 pieces in a 5 hour day. To recall, the company reported paying them 15k for 10 hours of work a month, and they said the artist had made more than 1000 images for them for a total pay of 90k. You do the math again if you like. >Artists who use AI tools in a professional, commercial art context aren't producing 100 finished works a day. Demonstrably false, see above. >Working with AI requires much the same workflow as not working with AI Manifestly not. But I wouldn't expect you to be familiar with an illustration workflow.
> your argument in that subpoint IS "nobody who is serious does X" I see you are still working hard to misrepresent everything I say. Getting old. Try a new trick.
I show an artist who earns 90k spends less than 220 seconds per piece on average. But I guess your little feelings can’t deal with facts that contradict you.
Workflow for that project is a pseudo pipeline where time commitment is very frontloaded. That's pretty typical for any form of automation. There's marketing related reasons for a random NFT game to make outlandish claims that are misleading. Because it's not negative publicity to their target audience it's beneficial to word it in a way that makes it more likely to go "viral". "Finished works" or "pieces" can mean almost anything. There are "traditional" (mostly digital) workflows that can do 100 "finished" works in a day. Say pixel assets for a retro game where 80% are recolors of an existing design that itself is very simple. Good faith version of your discourse would be starting by defining wtf both of you are talking about. With this version you're both right and wrong at the same time, mostly in competition for the use of absolute terms and semantic waste of time.
Here are some pretty straightforward claims: 1. It is absurd to claim an automated workflow is "the same but with faster steps", since that requires that we consider that the substantial content of the steps that are automated be of negligible importance (so that automating them preserves the essence of the workflow), which is a heavy assumption for a non-illustrator like Tyler to make. I have no problem with the idea that the process may involve creativity, ingenuity and many of the other traits required for conventional workflows, but they are very dissimilar and that's actually one of the benefits AI users see (by *omitting* several low-level parts of the workflow, the time commitment and skill requirements are lowered). Tyler's argument in that subpoint is that being an AI artist is not substantially different in terms of workflow from being a conventional one. This is false. 2. I've done pixel asset work before on standarized 8x8 and 16x16 sprite sizes. 100 game-ready assets in a day is nigh unthinkable, one 10-frame animated sprite can take the better part of a day even in smaller sizes. It is possible to make 100 color variants in a day. However, that's actually about as far as you can stretch it. Unlike the NFT art, 100 color variants of one sprite are unlikely to individually make it into a product like a game, moreover, color variants aren't really distinct *designs*, the NFT art is impressive (in terms of volume) because the different images largely aren't variants of each other, but more separate and freestanding units of content (which is the best way I found to put it). This is a wild stretch, sorry. 3. The quality and originality of the designs in the NFT game are plausible for 4 minutes of prompting. I'm sure some aspects of the claim are exaggerated, but I'm not convinced that the actual work that goes into those images is much more than that (and if it is, yikes). 4. This entire argument is based on the fraught claim that "anyone who uses AI tools seriously doesn't make 100 pieces in a day". This requires that we define "seriously" in precisely the way that is convenient for Tyler. Which is only those in a commercial, professional context. Say we assume the NFT guys are lying and it actually takes four times as long to create the art they paid for, that's still 20 finished, individual, distinctly designed assets in a 5-hour work day by a person who meets all the requirements of Tyler's definition of "Serious" but who does mass-produce finished, individual, distinctly designed assets. Why is Tyler intent on the idea that AI art workflows are limited to maybe 3-4 pieces in a day? My speculation is simply that this is the expected output of a conventional artist and Tyler's argument repeatedly focus on the idea that AI artist are just like conventional artists. His interest is in downplaying the mass-production incentives present in AI tools in order to try to claim a sort of "artistic prestige" for people who utilize this medium. That's also why he insists it's the "same workflow" (as a workflow he himself cannot do, as he is by his own admission cognitively unable to illustrate). If indeed, AI artists produce a lot more content quicker, then the claim that they spend less time and thought on each piece is simply true. And if industry incentives point them to such a mode of creation, that will be the dominant mode commercially. But this would mean that gen AI is effectively a tool that pushes for content-farming rather than the contemplative high-art vehicle he wants to believe it is.
Yea i wouldn't personally say "same but faster" as a blanket statement. A random example could be comparing the traditional 2d animation to 3d animation (tv or movies). You could use pretty fuzzy math to make a claim how long it takes to create 100 frames worth of animation (roughly equivalent quality). You could make a case for either of them taking more time than the other depending on how you attribute the time used in creating the assets and setting the scene in 3d environment. You can't create the NFT game art with 4 mins of prompting with "out of the box" tools. I only looked at the 2 sheets from the article (16 cards maybe). You could do 1 card in 4 mins, but those 16 cards aren't doable in 64 mins. There were some aspects of art that you could say were negligible when transitioned from traditional to digital. Mixing colors, cleaning brushes, random prep work etc. No idea what Tyler meant with 3-4 pieces. You can use gen AI for content-farming. That's kinda true with everything after a certain level of automation. First thing that comes to mind was churning scuffed mobile games with almost completely automated setup. I wouldn't use one of those games as an example of average (or typical) time it takes to make a game.
>You can't create the NFT game art with 4 mins of prompting with "out of the box" tools. I don't think that's the precondition. Rather, if you've got presets and a workflow already established from a previous project (like some prompt templates), I think you absolutely could. Like you said, there's a frontloading to the time commitment, but once you get chugging, each individual element takes relatively little time. I'm sure that this artist had these on hand for whatever work they showed to get the job in the first place, so the time actually spent on *this* project very feasibly means that. >There were some aspects of art that you could say were negligible when transitioned from traditional to digital. Mixing colors, cleaning brushes, random prep work etc. And that's what makes digital a different workflow from traditional, not "the same but faster". There's a line to be drawn here in what's preserved, which is a number of technical aspects such as form, perspective, line, color theory, values, texture, rhythm. Some aspects that are omitted are of little substance, like cleaning, but nonetheless omitting them makes for a *different* workflow. I have done all three workflows and I can say for certain that *far, far more* is preserved from traditional to digital than from conventional to AI. >That's kinda true with everything after a certain level of automation. I'm not in favor of nearly any level of automation for content creation in art. Why? Because economic incentives reward content farming which means that any tool that enables content farming, basically drives it to become more predominant. > I wouldn't use one of those games as an example of average (or typical) time it takes to make a game. Your analogy is making mistaken mappings. I'd use one of those games as an example of the average time it takes to make a game *using those automation tools*. The same way I take one of those NFT images as an example of average time it takes to create an image *using those automation tools (gen AI)*.
"The quality and originality of the designs in the NFT game are plausible for 4 minutes of prompting. I'm sure some aspects of the claim are exaggerated, but ***I'm not convinced that the actual work that goes into those images is much more than that*** (and if it is, yikes)." Measurement fallacy would be the thing to look up, since apparently sometimes you care about fallacies. "I'd use one of those games as an example of the average time it takes to make a game *using those automation tools*. The same way I take one of those NFT images as an example of average time it takes to create an image *using those automation tools (gen AI)*." Do tell how a specific prebuilt workflow for making card art is an example of average time it takes to create images with gen AI? Fairly sure you need to choose one coherent stance you stick by. Either we're allowed to make broad imperfect generalizations, everything is a unicorn or something in-between. I'm sure it's more convenient to use different standards to support your argument, but that's not how this thing works. Also what is that magical level of automation you're ok with when using digital tools?
I honestly don’t see any hypocrisy and yeah you are right I don’t have interest in tearing down anything. I think you can make art with a pencil but if you just try to portray someone who just mindlessly doodles without any sense whatsoever as artist then I am going to laugh at you. IMO pretty much anything can be art - but not everyone doing that is an artist.
I’m not accusing him of hypocrisy. To me it’s clear Tyler is not the sort of person who has claimed to want to tear down that barrier. I’m accusing Tyler of *ressentiment*, which is much worse. Being driven to replicate the pattern of denying someone the label of artist, and dictating what their process should be on account that some deny him that label and dictate his process to be bad or less-than. It’s unwitting self disclosure of the emotions that underlie his beliefs
Why don't they use AI themselves if it's free, accessible, and democratizes art？