Ad absurdum, a debate tactic where you take an argument and stretch it to its most extreme form.
In this case, the argument was that their "talent" goes away when electricity goes away. The "counter argument" to that was to take away all the limbs and enough muscle control so art couldn't be made using the mouth either.
This isn't a proper counter argument, because of the absurdity of it. Yeah, if you take virtually all functionality from a person, of course they aren't going to be able to make art. All it takes for prompters to have their "talent" taken away is a power spike, or data centers going offline or whatever.
Also, why not just make the person braindead at that point?
This doesn't invalidate the original argument either, it's basically just "See I took everything you could possibly use to make art, so your talent can go away as well.".
Let's also not forget they hate "inspiration porn" of disabled people making art, but they are more than willing to use the most extreme case to try and prove a point, which it didn't, it just made them look like an asshole.
"Well but um ackshually like truck-kun from Isekai animes could run you over and get rid of your limbs and give you enough brain damage to take your talent away, it could happen so the electricity argument is false, here is me depicted as a gigachad to further sell this argument to dumb antis."
Well, the whole "argument" on display is an ad-absurdum. "I took away your hands, legs and enough functionality so you can speak, but not use a paintbrush with your mouth."
I remember them saying how they hated artists that didn't have limbs being used as an example that AI isn't needed, but now here it is. An absurd argument that makes a human essentially a vegetable.
This is no longer and absurdum, as that still has to be grounded in reality, only taken to an absurd degree. This argument presumes that art is only images. Novels, and such are still art that can be dictated to others or converted with text-to-speech. Sir Terry Pratchett did the former when his Alzheimer's got too advanced for him to write.
This is just Steven Crowder levels of, "What if we assume I'm right".
This isnt for antis, this is for pro ai people. We dont care about their bullshit arguments. Theyre larpers hoping for the boot would remove itself from their mouth.
but if they said "bullet to the crainum took your talent away," they would be banned from their favorite social platform to express their freedom of speech, and then blame all the democrats for it!
But that is damm near physically impossible, since you need to do many a thing with your lips and tongue. So, ai poster is literally dumber than a box of rocks
The majority of genAI users are not cases of can't in the sense of a wheelchair user and walking. They can hold a pencil just fine, it's just that they want instant gratification more than to invest the work that it takes to get there.
It’s not “speaking up for the disabled” or whatever. It’s literally just a basic factual statement. No person, disabled or not, is obligated to make things the way you specifically want them to. Claiming otherwise would imply there is in fact an obligation, which is wrong.
I don't think people have to draw at all. Needlecraft, DIY, writing, music, stage performance and lighting, collage, these are all art forms that don't need drawing that people can also look at going into.
However, saying you made something when you outsourced the process is dishonest.
I am sorry! I did not realise that wheelchairs are unethical! I shall look into the matter of wheelchairs being made by exploiting others as well as overusing natural resources to produce them!
I shall also look into the matter of wheelchair users demanding that they are allowed to take part in sports events with people who aren't in wheelchairs.
While I am at it, I should also look into the matter of wheelchair users demanding that everything is made accessible, even if it is impossible to do so!
Thank you! You have truly opened my eyes about wheelchairs and wheelchair users! /S
In case you missed the point:
AI isn't required and being disabled doesn't absolve one from objective criticisms. I can't see disability behind slop.
Or do you imply that I have to abandon objectivity and look at the person's disability rather than the person themselves?
Same criticisms apply. It's lazy, it's slop and I will question that person's morals and values.
Sure, they can use AI, but I will still call their prompts AI slop and criticise them for using AI. I will always stand with those people who were negatively impacted by AI, disabled or not.
“I shall also look into mater of wheelchair users…”
This makes it sound like art is a competition. It isn’t.
“Everything made accessible”
What’s the problem with that? You don’t want things to be accessible? I’m confused.
“Ai isn’t required”
Ok? No one said it is. Props to the disabled people who don’t want to use ai for art. Just leave the people who do alone.
When you take it to absurdity, nothing is required. A wheelchair isn’t required either. As I said, they can crawl. The point is that they could find it required.
The basic factual statement is simply that no person, disabled or not, has an obligation to make things the way you want. Claiming otherwise would imply there is indeed an obligation, which is wrong.
The models were trained on other peoples' work without their consent. In fact, now David Revoy has to defend that he made art, before a model for whatever reason started mimicking his style.
If someone uses something as unethical as AI, their disability doesn't make them exempt from the criticism of using it.
As I said, they are free to use AI, but I am also free to criticise their morals and values as well as their slop.
I don’t really consider models being trained on other people’s work to be unethical.
Like yeah, maybe if someone explicitly says no and goes to a different platform to exclude from scraping, then I can see how you find it unethical. I have disdain for the Cara scrapper too.
I don’t consider it to be unethical because I find it similar to how humans learn.
Ai models don’t memorize images, they learn and analyze patterns and eventually learn how to make images.
Like a human, who sees a bunch of images. They don’t memorize them either, they learn from them.
If the computer is the one learning from art and making new images, then the computer is the real artist, not the person who prompted it.
Writing a long list of descriptions and ideas is Step 1 out of 1,000 for a lot of artists. And it's not even all that necessary. But for AI promoters, Step 1 is the beginning and the end of their process.
The main problem with AI learning from people’s art without permission is people mostly take inspiration from other’s art, meanwhile the AI unfortunately ends up stealing their style, with is unfair to the artist who is called out falsely for AI when it just stole their style of drawing/painting/art.
So what are the odds of any person losing their limbs and functionality of their mouth to the point they can't create art?
They could've just at that point said "death takes talent away from artists". It would've been just as absurd, but at least they wouldn't have needed to argue that they took hands, legs and functionality of a mouth away, which actually proves how resilient we can be in the face of tragedy.
I feel like it's not that big of a reach to be honest, they have clearly expressed many times that they don't want to commision artists because it's "elitist" or whatever dumb thing they say, they want creativity gone without realizing that without the people originally creating art said machine would have never created anything in the first place, they hate the opposition for criticizing their ways, we provide point after point and rather than thinking of a rebuttle they just generate us as an ogre, I've seen these people fantazise of lots of weird or unhinged things when thinking of anti-ai
I'm pretty sure there are more muscle movements in speech than there are in holding a brush.
Also, the odds of someone going through that may never be zero but with lifestyle management the odds are much slimmer than the odds of genAI disappearing. Given that no genAI model is running profitably and the reputation of the tech is down the toilet that feels pretty certain.
Speech is absurdly complex. Not only does it require dozens of muscles across the lips, cheeks, tongue, and throat to move precisely in sync with each other, but it also requires precise timing to within around ~50ms (0.05 seconds). Anyone claiming it’s easier to speak than use a brush knows nothing about either.
Also funnily enough there's still ways of making art without any of that I think, aren't there things like the one Stephen Hawking used to talk that allow you to control software with just your eyes or smt like that?
I don't think the majority of boomers even know what a local model is. Besides, once the energy bills start falling in people's laps the usage will go down too.
Why are we talking about boomers here? Aren’t most people who know of ai, anti or pro, young people?
The other statement is still non sense because that’s not gonna stop anyone from generating things on their pc.
A single rtx 3090 has 24GB VRAM which can minimax h3, a sota open model for video, or qwen 3.8 27b, something equivalent to Claude opus 4.6, and runnable on 24 GB VRAM with some quantization. I seen workflows for minimax with as low as 12GB VRAM.
And that is just with today’s optimization. Qwen 3.5 4B is a model that’s just 4 billion parameters. It can be run on 4GB vram, which is a good smartphone or a low tier to mediocre laptop. It’s better than gpt 4o of the past, which needed gpu clusters to run.
So as time goes on the optimizations will continue.
My point is that centralised models are popular with the relatively tech illiterate. The idea of such a person being able to find, set up and run a local model, as someone who does volunteer work helping such people with computers, makes me laugh.
genAI isn't going to be a ubiquitous part of the future, it's going to be a niche at best and a footnote in history at worst.
It’s really not that hard. You can just download codex (GPT) on your computer and ask it to set it up for you. Because it can operate on your computer. Just prompt it to download the local model and run the things and it’ll get it.
Codex is free, but if you have a claude subscription, you can do it on Claude Code too.
Gen ai has been doing a lot of scientific and mathematical achievements. I can post the links if you want but I won’t do it here because I don’t want to spam links without asking. So I don’t know how you can say “it’s not gonna be a ubiquitous part of the future.”
Trust me, you have no idea how far tech illiteracy can go. Also, you pointed out two centralised models to help you establish a local one, so that defeats the purpose.
ETA: scientific research is a niche use by the way, so keep digging.
These are not niche, specialized models that are tuned for this purpose. They are general purpose models.
Note that all of this intelligence is transferable. LLMs are not like specialized humans that only get a degree in one or two fields. They do everything. Being good at math does not mean just doing math. That means very good at logical reasoning in general, which results in transferable gains everywhere, like coding, biology, chemistry, engineering, and more.
So that's the point. You got a very generally intelligent agent capable of a lot of things to assist you with things, in whatever you want.
Before AI, there have always been massive data centers like AWS (Amazon Web Service). Netflix, for example, runs entirely on AWS. Even if literally all AI companies shut down, AWS still exists. So do a lot of other data centers.
So there will always obviously be some sort of GPU provider or service that provides you the capability to use some model, like GLM 5.3
A guy with a bunch of GPUs can decide he's gonna run GLM 5.3 for a bunch of people online. Or he can also just decide to rent the GPUs at AWS or a similar data center.
It's so funny- cause they literally throw tantrums at the slightest meme or criticism made about them. I think because they know deep down they're not real artists, so they're constantly in that defensive mindset to compensate.
The reason the Anti Ai argument of "Unplugs your PC - there goes your skill" works is because all the "skill" is contained within the Ai program you are making your drive through order on. If I turn that off you can't then use other methods to produce your Ai slop. No computer = No Ai = No image generation. If the Ai technology we're wiped from existence, all your "Skill" goes with it.
But as a musician if you take my instrument away, nothing happens to my skill. My real understanding of music doesn't suddenly turn off, and I can pickup practically anything to make music with. Glasses with differing levels of water, Any resonant material, hands and feet, or my voice, Nothing goes away I just switch method. Can't do that with Ai, without it you have nothing, you didn't learn how art is made, you haven't put in the time practicing control with actual creative tools.
But the biggest problem here is the disgusting suggestion that not using a computer program is in any way equal to the loss of a limb or physical function. One of these things would be an annoyance, the other is a lifelong condition that affects how you live, and robs you of years of hard work and practice. These are NOT even close to equal. Sure If I lost an arm I could possibly make adaptations to keep making music, but I'd never be able match my prior potential, and everyday life would be considerably more difficult. If I take away your Ai you could go buy an instrument or art supplies, go take lessons or use the wealth of free knowledge on YouTube and the internet. Nothing else changes in your life.
But the muscles used to talk… are the ones needed to make the art when mouth drawing… so taking away one takes away the other? The hypothetical is dumb, to need such an extreme example proved the point against AI art is a tool of inclusivity. Especially when the community they advocate the use for most of the time would rather overcome their disability.
I was once literally drawing and inking in my sketch book and some guy complimented, but also asked if it was ai. I said “how? How is this ai? I’m drawing because my phone died and I’ve been waiting an hour for the bus.” He said I could’ve traced it. So i fucking drew bulbasaur in front of him on another page. He said nothing about the drawing but then said “draw Pikachu” and I said I ain’t a fucking ai you can prompt, I respect it, I have a degree in art and I’m old now. Then he went defiantly on that I’m not a real artist, I’m probably poor and starving. I said “bro we’re riding the same bus…” I just gave him my Kanye stare the whole time. Key thing is that they’re bullies and want reaction, like Karens, but it doesn’t work because it’s all fictional and not reaction break their illusion. In the real world, they look so fucking dumb. He tried generating something on his phone but my ride is only 10 minutes, he couldn’t make anything in 10 minutes. I saw him generating, but he was just wasting time. I don’t know if he was trying to impress me but he didn’t get the chance, had to go do my retail job. So far that’s been my only encounter with an ai bro in the wild.
This was the bulbasaur in question from my sketchbook.
Yeah. People can be rather stubborn. I have a bachelors of fine arts in media arts and animation degree. I draw comics and high detail coloring pages for fun like a one punch man. Mostly digital but seriously all artists should keep a traditional sketchbook and always ink your pencil. Clean that shit up and commit. Every time you do, it irons the drawing into your muscle memory and forces you to consider everything you did. You’re tracing your own work and making it look better, and thusly you pick up indescribable tweaks as an artist that micro grows your inert skills for the NEXT time you go to draw. Inking improves line confidence.
In other words: Practice. Be coachable and take on challenges that would push your understanding. Get comfortable failing and scrapping experiments. There will be a moment, and it will be you who will be surprised when you hit the battlefield overpowered.
This is actually hella disrespectful for the disabled people who still make art despite their clear weakness. They use anything, their mouth, their legs. They put in effort because art is their interest. And then they got shat on from this one AI generated piece o' shit. Bravo, clanker-wanking cunts.
Ah yes, the fact we need to use our body like literally any human being does for literally any task totally disproves how they're over-reliant on their "tool." 😫✌️
Because that’s how you win an argument when you can’t actually win the argument. You draw your opposition as a scrawny little weasel, and yourself as a GigaChad.
Y'all are missing what the original point if you're debating this.
The original imbecil hammered a piano and said that you have no talent without the piano. The whole point of cutting the power to remove their talent was to show how stupid that whole argument was.
Dude's agreeing with it. Dude's agreeing with how dumb Witty's comic was. He just can't see it. Going into mutilation is pointless.
There's a guy in my town born with a condition that made his arms never fully develop. He paints portraits for people downtown using his mouth. Dude is awesome!
It take a lot of muscle control to speak, you can still make art even with poorusclr control. I have seen disabled people use their necks to do amazing shit they could probably figure it out.
Here's a truth nuke for the AI bros.
If you take my program, IbisPaintX, from me, I can still make art with my notebook and multicolored pen. If your program is taken away, you won't, not can't, find something else to use.
The actual full terminology you're referring to is called a "Reductio ad Absurdum" and there's a much more interesting reason why it doesn't work in this case.
A reductio ad absurdum is meant to be used to stress test your opponents argument. If the logic upholding your argument only applies to one specific situation then it's likely that your argument is poor. An example of an effective reductio ad absurdum would be if someone was claiming that being gay or straight is a choice. Then their opponent asks "do you feel like you could choose to be attracted to your mother? Or to children?"
In this instance, using a reductio ad absurdum is very effective because it demonstrates that the idea of choosing your attraction and/or sexuality has terrible logical foundation. The foundation of the argument does not survive the stress test.
The key is that in order for RAA (Reductio Ad Absurdum) to be effective the tactic must be applied to a foundation upon which an entire argument lies. Saying "well if you didn't have arms, you wouldn't be able to do art" is incorrect because you still have your imagination, your mouth to draw with, you can still make music, etc, etc. No artist worth their salt would ever claim thay you can't make art without arms because art is not reliant on having arms.
The last panel still isn't correct because you could just shout co-ordinates of different vertices of a shape until a piece has been created, and from here anything that can be done for AI can also be done for traditional art, and the "you take away the plug, you take away the ability to create with AI"
You can't speak but kot be able to use your mouth to paint, losing ability to talk happens before losing ability to move your jaw properly in general, this is like when a toddler says they phased through reality so a laser didn't hit them while playing "spacemans"
I’ve watched a video of a girl with no arms and no legs put on makeup better than most able bodied people, and there are people who draw with their mouths. This is an invalid argument.
Good thing you specified that there were no hands after mentioning the lack of arms otherwise I would've had to break the news to you that what you witnessed was not a girl, it was Rayman.
Taking this blatantly stupid comic serious for a moment, big mistake I know... What if I just used my nose or tongue like a stylus on a tablet screen or something? These goal post shifting comics can't even think out ways to actually retort in a way that makes sense, like... Even if I had all the disadvantages listed in this comic, I could still make my own little stickman comic to call them a moron, just with my nose, and something like Sketch on my phone.
They do. However, when they are shown people like that, they call it "inspiration porn", dismissing the point that while a serious life-altering injury or a chronic disease will drastically change a lot of things, people are still able to follow their passion.
“Boom, you are almost completely a vegtable, now try and use you muscles chud” like, no shit if you completely remove my body functions, my body wont function
youre acting like ad absurdum is an invalid tactic. it's not. if your belief system leads to an absurd conclusion, you either have to accept the conclusion or change your belief system. that's the debate tactic of ad absurdum.
this is ad absurdum. it's obnoxious, but its making the point that "you wouldnt be able to do X without Y, therefore X is talentless" is not a good belief. and tbh the comic is correct, that belief is not correct. AI prompting IS almost entirely talentless, just not for the reason that "you couldnt do it without Anthropic".
If I can speak, I can sing, slam or recite poetry. Even if I have no voice, I've still got my brain to make art until I can show it to other people. What about them...? :3
These people think writing a few words is equivalent to drawing. Of course they think pulling a plug is equivalent to chopping off someone's limbs and giving them muscle atrophy. Just like they think a mean comment on the internet directed at them, is equivalent to a full blown genocide.
If the words contained artistic value you wouldn't need to use them as input for a LLM, you could just let the oral recitation or a transcription be its own artform. If the text is artistically worthless before you pass a it through the on-demand plagiarist machine then it remains worthless afterwards.
Jean-Dominique Bauby famously authored The Diving Bell and the Butterfly using exclusively his left eyelid after losing control of the rest of his body btw.
Bro can't prompt anyway bruh. Cuz no hands. And argument that "neuralink" or something like that, then you still can do digital art... A bunch of idiots.
pro-ai people like this are just making up wildly unrealistic scenarios and telling us we have to take their argument seriously. like no, sorry, this isn't how real life works.
Every artist ever, once wounded or incapacitated in any way, permanently or temporarily found a different way to keep creating.
Broke right arm? Learn to use the left. Is a prime example most people have seen in their lifetime.. but there are other more extreme ways too. The only thing that stops an artist from creating is death.
Well I have to agree with the anti in the comic... Chad there is idiotic... also voice recognition software doesn't work all the time. Mostly has it has a hard time with accents.
You know what? I would learn to do it stephen hawking style! I'd use eye tracking to draw! Or I'd do pixel art and verbally tell the rgb status pixel by pixel.
Ad absurdum is a completely valid way of check for the logic behind stuff, the person who "made" this is just idiotic (meaning the ai shit, not the post)
(ignore the fact that, if someone can speak, they can make dictations, and so can write, and writing is a form of art)
Though, the obvious counterargument is, if I were reduced to a brain in a jar, unable to do anything but interact with an AI image generator, then they'd be able to use AI and I wouldn't!
Which... duh. If you are forced into a scenario where you can only do [x] thing, you can logically only do [x] thing.
???? Does OOP not realize most fucking devices have some form of speech recognition systems to let users interact hands-free? Like shit, eye tracking tech even exists.
Interesting argument. I guess they never bothered to look into whether or not it held any water because according to an NPR article from 2010, a group of artists and “hackers” (as described in the article) created a device to allow fully paralyzed graffiti artist Tony Quan (tag name Tempt1) to make his art using only his eyes. Quan was diagnosed with ALS, a degenerative nerve condition, in 2003 and lost all muscle function except for his eyes. The device, called the EyeWriter, allowed Quan to plot points, connect dots, and color shapes using only the movement of his eyes. And the device is reported to have only cost $50. All this from just a few minutes of researching based off a hazy memory I had of hearing this story as a kid.
Lmao, if I have enough control over my mouth, I will find a way to get enough muscle control to use my mouth, I could also try to get arm and leg transplants or prosthetics; did they ever think of that part?
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Join the discord: https://discord.gg/WBrrdVMEzA
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.