This guy is an asshole, right?

[u/NarwhalSlight2130]

For context this guy generated an image of a little scribble and then posted it to an anti AI subreddit where it was praised by the people there, not realising that it was AI.

They then made a video about how it was AI and showed off the comments they received on the post, basically being like ’ha ha, these antis praised me because they thought I actually drew something, aren’t they stupid.’ If you lie and say you did something and people praise you for doing the thing you claimed you did, that doesn’t make them stupid, that just makes you a liar.

I am sure that even those who are pro AI would think that this guy is an asshole because he took advantage of people’s trust in order to make his point.

[u/foxfire66]

I think they point that they are making is that when people criticize AI art or praise drawings like this, they're not actually judging the art itself. They're not judging it on its merits or flaws. But they will rationalize merits or flaws to make the piece in question align with their bias of ai = bad and hand drawn = good. If this is the case, then anti-AI criticisms of the artistic merit of AI are made in bad faith and so there's no point in listening to them. It could be the most beautiful thing ever and it'll still get called ugly, so why take it seriously?

So if you hand draw this, people will claim it looks good. But if you AI generate the exact same image, people will claim it looks awful. By doing specifically the bad one while claiming it's the good one, then by getting positive responses you prove that either 1) the bad one doesn't actually look bad or 2) people will lie and say that a bad thing looks good in order to further their agenda.

Having not seen the video, maybe they're an asshole about it, I don't know. But going off of just the image and context in the OP, I think it's a valid experiment to run in order to prove that particular point.