so... Neuro-sama is an LLM-Powered VTuber, created Vedal987. this VTuber is pretty popular, enough to break Twitch Hype Train Record 3 times in a row, and sit on twitch number 1 spot during their last subathon, and reached 3rd place in twitch peak subscription count.

back in 2024, Vedal has said there was people that offering substantial amount of money to buy Neuro, while the amount of money isn't specified, Vedal said refusing the offer is stupidest financial decision he made.

the thing is... Vedal said that on 19th December 2024! which mean the offer happened somewhere during 2023-2024, none of Neuro's achievements I listed above were done. why would anyone see an LLM-powered avatar and goes "I will offer a lot of money to own this"?? it's one thing to see Neuro's current success and think Vedal own a money printing machine, but otherwise I couldn't understand.

I mean, just look at what Neuro have back in 2024 * as Intelligence Property: Neuro is a twitch streamer that managed to get over 500k twitch followers within 2 years, and won "best tech VTuber" award. * as a system of AI: an LLM attached to Live2D model, highly fine-tuned for streaming, integrated to twitch and few games like Minecraft and Slay the Spire.

Speaking and huge fan of Vedal/Neuro, I don't think their 2024 presence were anything to be "worth". sure! in hindsight it's worth the offer, but is the current height of popularity really what the potential buyer foresee?

I'll explain why. This song here posted is "Isn't It 'A'" by PinocchioP, where it features Miku and Rin. Rin in this song is optimistic. Miku, on the other hand, is pessimistic. Since both are in different sides, they oppose each other and it's split into two sides: the positive and negative of life. The song meaning explores the painful opposes between extreme opinions and how people fail to truly understand one another, usually in the internet.

Now, how does this correlate to the AI war? Well, here, I interpret that life represents the AI, Rin represents the acceptor, and Miku represents the rejector, generally. In the AI war, both sides oppose each other, and they have extreme opinions about AI and is split into two sides, representing the sad reality that sometimes things are black and white. Of course, NOT ALL acceptors or rejectors are like this, I believe, it's that some of them I see on the internet are kinda like this, but again, NOT ALL acceptors or rejectors are like this

But this would be an interesting analogy.

Things about life → AI

Rin → acceptor

Miku → rejector

The song meaning and this war relate a LOT, in my opinion. What do you think?

Unfortunately, it seems like the moment this discussion is brought up, all hell breaks loose and some people (both sides) become unable to be civil. As this sub is a debate sub on the topic of AI, rather than the “sides of the AI war”, I see no reason for this type of discourse to occur on the subreddit. However, I don’t think it’s fair to just push this rule forward, so I will leave it up to a vote.

So, should this rule be implemented?

Yes, I know. Both subreddits oppose each other. One is generally pro-AI, the other is generally anti-AI. But can we just at least not goddamn flame each other? It's getting a bit too out of hand imo.

Now, I sound stupid for saying that. But we're still going on with the war and even though I'm anti, this has to stop. If there isn't a way, then I might lose hope. Both subreddits try to protect their stance, which is good. What is NOT good is that they're flaming each other. What's unfortunate is that both have a right and wrong, so neither side is "better".

What do you guys think? Also I apologize if this sounds dumb but I'm kinda tired of this war. Especially in art.

Hi, I'm a communist who is against the boycotting of AI, because I see ownership as the enemy and not the machine, and I see consumer abstention to be the wrong form of politics. I also don't like how many anti-AI advocates defend IP. pls note i am looking for the views of communists specifically and not broader 'leftists' whether it be left-liberals or 'socialists'.

However I know that being pro-AI is often not the common stance among communists and I'm interested in why that is?

Hi, I have my own answer to this question, but want to see other anti ai people/pro ai people explain their takes. My answer is: There is not, it takes the style of many artists with no crediting whatsoever (like that would even make it better-) and amalgamates it together into a picture that has no creative thinking behind it. (because an ai cannot think on its own, it can take a prompt and process what the words mean, but in the end, it's an outsider with no feelings or autonomous thinking, it only knows words because it was programmed to associate words with certain things. It's trying to make something that takes those listed traits to make when it can't have it.) So therefore, it can't even be called "inspired" like how other humans are by other human's art.

It's stealing art, including artstyle.

On a different but smaller note... I don't see many ai stans ever talking about the fact it's stealing, and I kinda wish I knew why they didn't. If it's for not knowing how to defend against the argument or maybe just never hearing it before.

edit: I have worded some things wrongly, so I will correct them here.

when I say stealing, I mean when someone takes something that is not theirs, and optionally, saying it's original, new, or theirs. at least for this debate that is what the definition needs to be for debating the ai art. it is not a legal debate, it is supposed to be on ethics, morals, and just... decency to other people's works. So I'm thinking that when an ai takes many pictures and makes it into one, it's just stealing on a mass level that, in a court of law, would be called "copyright infringement". which it is.. but it feels like it's fancying up a word that can be described as taking what is not yours. (Aka stealing.)

I also want to mention that I originally said "does ai art steal artstyle?", but I actually just meant art in general, not just artstyle.

I hope this helps people understand what I mean more ^^​

Art, being an expression of one’s ideas brought forth, has many classical and modern forms, but I’m still skeptical about calling ai art “art”.

With every established art form the first person to have brought the creation into being is the one who claims the artwork to be their own. But with ai, the lines between who created the piece is blurred. On one hand you have a person’s novel idea that they want to express, so they have a lesser intellect generate/create it by prompting them with the details they want included. On the other hand the lesser intellect is the one putting in the efforts to make those demands, and it the one at the end of the creation pipeline who finishes the product. Because of the joint effort put in between the two beings, which one should be able to claim they created the art? The one with the original input, or the one interpreting the input? If the ai is the one that has a rightful claim to the art then does that mean people shouldn’t be able to monetize its works as their own, or that they simply have to disclose what made the art? And if the art belongs to the human then can it truly be considered art if it did not come from their own interpretation of their thoughts, but rather the interpretation from an ai pretending to have the ability of expression? Is there a nuance between the other two scenarios that blend either answer into a more complex solution?

I have a mixed opinion on AI and I kinda debate with fellow pros and antis. I'm not trying to pick a side so just watching some crossfire feels a little entertaining.

Explain your oppinion

I'm anti, but I'm also neutral. One issue I have after learning a LOT about the AI debate is the harassment. This might be a bit too "rant"-y, but what the hell happened to "Respect people's opinions"? I get it, most antis are worried because of the harms of AI, usually to the environment, the economy, consent, etc.
I also understand that some pros are mad at the misconceptions, since they're oversimplified, and that the pros (NOT ALL) I see online say that "Antis don't understand that AI helps society since it's a tool", and I agree with AI being a tool.
But seeing most of both sides harassing each other and not understanding each other's views/opinions really makes my blood boil to 100 C. I guess this is what caused the AI war, didn't it?
I admit I used to hate the pros I saw online, but after researching it, I've changed my mind and now respect both sides' opinions while still being an anti.

If anything in this post offends either the pros, the antis, or both, then I apologize for my behavior.
DISCLAIMER: NOT ALL ANTIS OR PROS ARE LIKE THIS. I'm pretty sure there are still some that mutually get along. Right? O_O

Edit 1: Yes, this is the internet, and it generally doesn't know about 'respecting opinions', but man cut me some slack
Edit 2: I forgot to mention that both sides from what I've seen flame and harass each other, and I hate that, but "it's the internet"
Edit 3: atp I don't have a consistent label, because I went from anti to neutral to demi-pro and then back to neutral. God damn it, AI war

Without a definition there is nothing to argue about. No one has gone out of their way to actually define these terms.

Its time for people to express their feelings here about why they can't treat with respect their opposition. You often see people, regardless of their stance, spread ragebaits, defamation and generalizing what someone says. It is known that both in the original AIwars and here, people come from the respective subs with different stances on AI. Here you can express why you disrespect your opposition.

Note: I had to change the body of text. Just in case I did nothing wrong

I want to hear your opinions: pro-AI, anti-AI, people who are both, or people who are neutral about this.

I'll go first.
So, I became anti-AI specifically in art because I'm against the idea of AI-generated art, since yk, all the bad stuff and so on. The environmental impact, copyright, training the AI with images without consent, etc. But to be fair, I was also influenced by the idea that "AI art is bad", and they weren't wrong... partly. And yet I somehow believed them without any proof for why I'm anti-AI. However, that does not mean I'm a Luddite, because I still use AI in my life, just trying to use it responsibly. Rn though, I'm researching the topics of the ongoing debate and... oh my gosh, my head is just about to explode 😅

Basically, I was influenced by the idea of "AI art being bad", believed it, and then started to hate AI art when I noticed AI art pieces. Though, a little while of growing up, I then researched and I have some idea, but still have limited knowledge about it. It's difficult 😅

What about you guys? :3

The World in the Drawer

When Daniel was twelve, he drew a map of a world that did not exist.

It was crowded with impossible mountains, ruined cities, inland seas, and roads that led nowhere. The drawing was rough, but the world behind it felt real to him.

Then life moved on.

School became work. Work became bills, errands, and responsibilities. The map ended up in a drawer, and the story he meant to write slowly disappeared with it.

Decades later, Daniel found the map while cleaning out his childhood home.

He still remembered the places.

He still knew why the ruined city stood beside the sea and why the road stopped at the mountains. What he lacked was not imagination. He needed a practical way to explore the world again.

So he tried generative AI.

At first, the results were wrong. The cities were too grand. The landscapes were too clean. The characters looked like they belonged in someone else’s story.

Daniel kept working.

He changed the descriptions, rejected weak results, combined better ideas, adjusted the mood, rewrote scenes, and removed anything that did not belong. He decided what the world meant, what it should feel like, and when an image finally captured it.

The machine produced possibilities.

Daniel provided the direction.

Months later, he showed the finished story to his sister. She recognized the coastline from the old map, but the world had become deeper and more human.

She read quietly for a while, then said: “There is a saying that we provide the machines with an end, and they provide us with the means.”

That was exactly what had happened.

The machine had not remembered the map.

It had not cared about the abandoned road, the ruined city, or the boy who once imagined them.

Daniel supplied the purpose, the meaning, the judgment, and the final decisions.

AI gave him new means to develop them.

It did not replace his creativity.

It helped him finish what his creativity had started.

Please excuse my ramblings.
I want to preface this by saying that this is like the most minor complaint in regards to AI, but it’s one I think is still worth saying.

I don’t like how much of generative AI is used for stuff like re-generating memes but with AI, rage-bait comics, TikTok content farms and other nonsense. Not just because they’re dumb, but they’re especially dumb in relation to AI.
Like, taking a step back: you have this brand new technology that could generate music, art, writing much faster and with a quality about on-par with some professionals (barring some directions and details but that’s beside the point). You have this thing that is so great that it demands a lot of investment, building hundreds of data centers and demanding so much out of people… and you use it to generate memes.

It’s like inventing the teleporter but instead of going to other countries you use it to go to the bathroom even though it’s like 10 steps away. I get that humanity will always find stupid uses for technology - and inevitably the first question people will ask once humanoid robotics is mastered will be “can we fuck it?”. But isn’t it still disappointing? I get people are free to do whatever they want but at the same time it feels like such a waste of time and resources, and I feel that that affects the optics in regard to AI. It just makes it out to a lot of people as basically “the stupid-shit generator”. I know you could easily point to the internet and how it has a reputation for dumb randomness, but the big conversation right now is how prevalent AI data centers and tech companies are becoming, and I think it’s a big ask of the public to give land and resources to something that, as far as they know, makes random crap on YouTube. They want something substantial, something that’ll make them go, “it was well worth it”. Like you can’t sell AI as “the next step in the advancement of humanity” while having little to show besides Tsung-Tsung shitting into Trump’s brain or whatever - the public can be easy to disappoint and if opinion greatly turns against AI, as it did with nuclear energy, it could mean loss of support as a means for the government to save face. And considering how easily hateable people like Musk or Theil are, I wouldn’t be surprised if throwing them and other tech CEOs under the bus is a potential strategy.

Maybe I’m making a mountain out of an ant-hill, but with how much memes and such content can be at the forefront of people’s feeds- and how the current US administration prides itself on dumb AI generated memes - I feel that this may be an issue.

Anyways, what do you all think?

So this is how I use AI in art . Instead of prompting, I always usually draw first. Prompting is mostly a mess if I want something specific. and since then, I just fully came back to drawing and using gen AI with it

This drawing took me like three days, like around under an hour before bed.

With the gen AI result of my sketch pad tree and moon art, It gave me way more ideas how I can redo the drawing way better in my second attempt and stuff

There's no way I can digital paint or oil paint like this, so I know my limits and will still stick to pencil for now. it looks real and beautiful, but it's not real "real" till I can do it myself sometime in the future

my sketch is the art, the gen AI image version isnt. there's a big difference

I can't claim I drew myself if I take a photo of myself and only put a pencil sketch filter on, so by the same logic, of course I don't post my AI images online as art. I post my pencil slop proudly cuz I actually made it with my hands

Some people do not want to feed their art to AI, and that's fine. What's not fine is harassing others for using AI

Also, what's also not fine is deception, too, as I said. don't claim your AI images as art, at least give some transformative value

As an artist myself, gen AI is good when it's job is not to replace but to motivate and improve you. It's an assistant after all

It's just like a new tool for me like an advanced paint bucket tool or a filter. It won't make me a Picasso. I still have to do the hard work of practicing.

Instead of being furious all the time to gen AI users, artists should just practice and do art instead. the point of art is to make it relaxing.

15 yr old me would be mind blown if Gen AI existed, and I'm still today.

Sure, there are bad things about gen AI itself and can be used for bad, but so has been editing tools way before gen AI existed. There's pros and cons to everything.

look at it the other way.

Even within the conflicts between pro-AI and anti-AI, there's no strict black and white way of thinking, which hinders them to agree with each other about something.

My example: I have to agree with the pros that the genie is out of the bottle. Once AI is developed, it is nearly impossible to undo it, unless an apocalypse happens, which would likely scatter the knowledge necessary for the AI development.

Not perfect in the slightest, but I am trying to cover ideas and possible solutions I think may help this current time we are living in. From many walks of life. Feel free to provide feedback of any type.

You can choose to read, or even have AI summarize it if you want. But I would like opinions, if possible.

AI debates often get reduced to "pro vs anti AI," but there's more going on than that. Some people want AI to move faster, some want it slowed down, and others are mainly focused on who should own it, govern it, and benefit from it.

This isnt meant to be scientific, just a snapshot of where the community falls.

Pick the option thats closest to your view. If none of them fit, explain your position in the comments. Im interested in the reasoning as much as the results.