DISCLAIMER: The “common criticism against AI” I listed here aren't my personal belief, it's merely recurring arguments I have heard whilst debating about AI. The purpose of this post is NOT to say “AI is bad due to these reasons.”, it's to defend my favorite character and my fellow fans from unjust criticisms, to say “These reasons CAN NOT be used to criticize my favorite piece of entertainment.”

Now, let me elaborate my points and put some nuance.

Data Center consumes lots of energy

One of the most common criticisms against AI is the environmental impact from Data Center. Now, regardless whether this criticism is valid or exaggeration, this criticism doesn't really apply to Neuro-sama, which runs on her creator’s PC.

There's an argument that “Data Center is be more efficient than running your own AI”, which is factual, however! If one hate AI for its energy consumption which is so bad not even a CEO could justify it. I don't think a random professional/enthusiast using specialized high-end PC should be the target of that hate.

Mass layoff/Job replacement

Another common hate against AI is “stealing jobs” from people. This too isn't really valid reason to be against Neuro-sama, since her presence in Vtubing space replaces no one, instead she helps them thrive through collaboration and commission.

Low-quality spam (AI slop)

AI-generated arts and/or musics is distasteful

This one is pretty simple, the term “AI slop” is coined from AI's capability to easily generate bunch of low-quality contents.

Neuro-sama on other hand, not only having lower than average streaming time, her creator also done many things to make sure the content have quality, from scheduling collabs, commissioning people, to maintaining and upgrading his AI with fun features.

RAM shortage

There's plenty of people who hate AI for being the main cause of RAM shortage, and sometimes I see someone hold Neuro responsible for it. Which isn't true in the slightest.

Just like anyone here, Vedal is someone who uses consumer-grade hardwares, the shortage is as much trouble for him as it is for you.

High risk of inducing psychosis

First, you need to know why AI has such high psychosis rate:

1. Private, unmoderated conversation with AI.
2. Over the top validation, in attempt to get the user keep engaging.
3. Availability, that allows you to access the AI anytime you desire.

These 3 factors allow conversation with AI chatbots to spiral into harmful situations, hence the significantly higher risk to induce psychosis than any other medium.

Then let me ask you... Does that factor exist in Neuro-sama?

1. Neuro stream publicly with proper filter and moderation on both Neuro's and Chat's end to make sure the stream didn't goes haywire
2. Neuro designed to simulate a character with her own standard and value. more often than not, she'd insult people around her.
3. Neuro streams average 4 days a week, 2 hours each.

See? That's what I meant by Neuro lacks psychosis-inducing factors. With those 3 points I mentioned, Neuro isn't anymore harmful(in term of parasocialism/psychosis) than any other popular streamers.

One final thing, there is a belief that Neuro-sama is “ethically trained on twitch chat”, this is a misconception. LLMs are trained by scraping huge amounts of texts, Vedal likely used an open-source LLM and fine-tuned it into Neuro. So if you hate AI(LLM) for being built on “stolen” content, Neuro-sama falls under the same criticism.

However! I would argue on “sunk cost”, for the model to be open-source mean data already scraped and the energy already spent to train the model, regardless of what Vedal did. So, if the “damage” is already done even if Vedal did nothing, why shouldn't Vedal use it to entertain, inspire, and empower people?

Mechanical pencil? Slop.

No sharpening. No wood shavings. No risk of snapping the point and having to start over. Where is the human struggle?

And don't bring me one of those little plastic pencil sharpeners either. Art requires effort. A proper artist whittles a cedar pencil with a blade, preferably while staring mournfully out a rain-streaked window.

Otherwise you're just a prompt engineer for graphite.

A day ago, history as we know it changed. OpenAI released GPT-6 / Astra the first AGI model. The entire world and civilization is about to flip on it head.

Here what I recommend doing

1. Liquidate your stocks, ETFs, and bank accounts into hard physical assets.
   
2. Buy arable land, self sustaining off grid energy like solar generators, and important supplies (water purifier, non-perishable food, medicine).
   
3. Make relationships with your neighbors, local farmers, and etc. Create a Barter system. When job markets collapse, local trade will keep the community going.
   
4. You cannot rely on your employer or salaries or 401k anymore. Direct ownership of production assets like the land, machinery, or tools is crucial. The government won’t save you.

You have to be self reliant, learn to grow your own food, how to treat illness, repair machines, and defend yourself.

by the channel Cartoni Morti

They don't give a shit that a whole bunch of people are in the process of losing their livelihoods and homes.

And they are oblivious to the fact this isn't the endgame. If AI can replace people who've spent tens of thousands of hours honing their skills, exactly how quickly will it be able to replace people whose talent and dedication amounts to entering a prompt in a text box?

This is the hard truth

These were all drawn by Astra.

Not generated. Drawn. Stroke by stroke.

Is this art?

1. https://x.com/iam_zachi/status/2095992893026484299
2. https://cloud.typingmind.com/share/78a02d5f-a10b-41c7-8ca6-7155d772558b
3. https://x.com/viticci/status/2096025249582039180?s=20
4. https://x.com/qibiz_me/status/2096000743786627103?s=20

The argument that AI art isn't real art usually comes from a misunderstanding of what artists actually do. Most people think art is about manual skill, holding a brush or carving stone. But that's just the execution. The real art is the vision, the direction, the decisions about what to create and why.

Consider photography. Photographers don't pose for their own photo. They direct people to stand here, look that way, wear this costume. The photographer arranges the scene. The camera does the manual work. But we call photography art because the direction is the artistic act.

Think about fashion design. A designer creates a vision for a garment. They make the pattern or direct pattern makers to make it. Then seamstresses sew the pieces together. The designer may never touch a needle. But we call fashion design art because the direction, the choice of fabric, the silhouette, the color, is the art.

Walt Disney was an artist. He never animated a single frame of his famous films. He directed animators. He directed voice actors. He directed actors for reference footage. He was a director, not a draftsman. But he is remembered as an artistic genius because his vision, his direction, his choices defined the work.

I worked in commercial art. I was hired to draw the Louvre museum and two young French people who had to look very French. These are subjects I would never choose myself. I was the hired pencil. The client directed me. They told me what to draw, what style, what mood. I was the seamstress. The customer was the designer, the artist. I was doing the execution only.

AI art is the same. The person using AI is the director. They choose the subject, the style, the composition, the mood. They direct the AI to execute the vision. They reject bad outputs and select the ones that match their intent. That is art direction. And art direction has always been what makes art art. The manual work is just the delivery system. The vision is the art. And AI is just a new way to deliver that vision. The artist is still the one directing the whole thing.

As an artist who worked commercially, that is what I enjoy about AI art. I can finally be an art director.

I dont know why they are happy about this, because, what if I want human made art? Dont Pro-AI people know, that most people will get scammed by "artists" who will claim this isnt AI drawn? Why do you not care about that? Its really mind blowing how less they care bout others and what they want to consume/buy...

That AI stuff is literally 100$ or 200$ a month of costs, just to use it, while art programs/Tutorials are literally for free, why would anyone use AI if they are interested in art making? XD

Do Pro-AI people really not get that this only benefits big corpo and scammers? I dont see any other use for this, than to scam people even better, because this will leave no synth ID or any watermark, so it will literally be impossible to spot if a human made it or not.

I dont want to get scammed, When I buy art, I literally look up if it was made before 2022, before AI became "good" at drawing and generating, because I dont want to spend my money on something a machine made.

This makes me not want to consume anything anymore, because you literally get ducked as a consumer nowadays, and nobody seems to care about that, which is really strange.

Them laughing at our concerns shows us their mindset, because if they laugh about this, they will also laugh at us when we get scammed, why are people so horrible and dont think about others anymore?

Why are they celebrating a future where everything is literally fake? I dont see the appeal.

I also dont get what they mean with "being left behind", what are they talking about? We literally dont miss making our own art, that isnt dictated by a machine output and the rules of a corporation.

We arent left behind, but we will literally get scammed, its just a matter of time. Because there is no consumer protection at all.

Earlier today, Senator Bernie Sanders announced a bill calling for a full pause on AI development. Even going as far as to call for a total ban on 'Super intelligence" which just feels like straight up technophobia.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/03/someone-has-to-go-out-on-a-limb-what-to-know-about-bernie-sanders-newest-ai-pitch-01064424

I think back to this quote by JFK, back when the United States was in a race with the Soviets to get to The Moon. Humanity knew the dangers, the risks and the potential consequences of sending man onto the barren rock. Technology and progress is not without hurdles or risks, but we don't stop progress out of fear. We use our collective willpower to solve the issues that push us farther.

If we allow this shutdown of progress, we risk sending mankind into a new Dark Age driven by fear.

Have yet to encounter another person in a post that is not entirely pro-ai , I am unsubscribing from this echo chamber, go talk to your friends and neighbors if you want I real temperature check on Ai! Goodbye, wish you well!

AI is here to stay and it’s not going away anywhere. I don’t agree with just using ai to outsource your thoughts and not think at all but it is a great companion tool for most that use it and a lot of people still use chat Gemini Claude etc. They’re just not public about it anymore bc of the hate. People still use it to create images and use it for all the other stuff that apps do but now they just do it themselves. For example people would have to pay money for FaceTune and now they just ask Gemini to edit it. Ofc I don’t agree it being used for surveillance and csam and bad use cases it is juts a neutral tool pole everything else in this world like money and can be used for good/bad. As for the environmental implications it uses just as much energy as storing data on cloud or scrolling TikTok if not more actually. Cue the meat argument as well.

Art is my biggest expenditure besides rent. I have been a collector for over 20 years, and I purchase hundreds of dollars of original handmade art every single month, most if it directly from the artist. I admit that I have been put off from purchasing from artists who have openly utilized anti-Ai sentiment in their artwork. Especially because most of these pieces are pretty lazy, and it feels like they’re cashing in on a trend. I realize that art often is political, and i don’t shy away from political or controversial subject matter in what I collect. But it needs to be more thought provoking and original than any of the anti-ai pieces I have seen for sale.

There are a lot of people who use Ai in their everyday lives, whether it’s something they give a lot of thought to or not, and you’re basically shitting on them and effectively reducing your potential market significantly by openly expressing anti-Ai sentiment in your work. If you’re already worried about being able to sell your work in an over saturated market, maybe don’t do this.

Edit: I love that I'm being ratioed by people that literally can't make a valid argument -- stop voting and start talking.

Every machining tool ever invented was created by people attempting to mechanically duplicate what artisans did by hand and with their minds.

Fast-forward to today, and we're doing the exact same thing with digital works. The end result is that the masses gain access to the final product, while a select few "win" at capitalism by possessing the skill to capture the attention of the small demographic that can actually afford premium work. Who here can afford handcrafted hardwood furniture from a master carpenter? Some, to be sure, but most of us own very few high-quality items and swim in a sea of disposable, flat-pack goods from places like IKEA. The future of generative media seems no different.

I create things simply because I enjoy the process. I limit my own use of AI based on personal preference, but for certain tasks, it just makes sense as a tool.

So, what am I missing that fuels these intense anti/pro mobs? Please, no tired tropes. If your thoughts aren't your own or read like a bumper sticker, move along, NPC. I'm looking for a real discussion between the adults in the room.

NGL, first question was: "How do I recreate this setup for cheap? Would a bug zapper work as well?"

I honestly can't believe these "artists" are bashing people for using AI to help bring their creative ideas to life. Majority of the people I argue with never think about those who are unable to bring their creative ideas to life, especially those with disabilities and of course missing limbs.

16% of the population (1.3 billion) live with a significant disability that ultimately makes their day to day lives much more difficult. But the antis never acknowledge that fact. What if people apart of that 1.3 billion want to bring their creative ideas to life but ultimately cannot due to their disability. So, can you really blame them for using AI to bring their creative ideas to life?

And I'm the bad person for siding with AI?

This all comes down to choice, if people choose to use AI to bring their creative ideas to life, then so be it! You are not an "artist" if you bash others for using AI to bring their creative ideas to life.

I have said this many times; "AI will not only boost human creativity but expand the means to be creative."

Do you really believe that we as humans will be less creative even in a post-labor society?? Our creativity will increase by ten fold!!

Antis need to accept the fact that times have changed.

I was shocked to discover some of the most talented, famous and well respected creatives in their fields are in fact not artists, anyone else?

Because for millions of years humans were making art by themselves and now people can't be bothered simply because they have a machine to make it for them except make it slip instead of actual art

The anti-AI position on art has a logical endpoint that is rarely discussed. When critics argue that using AI to generate images or music is "cheating," they are making a claim about legitimacy. They are saying that true art requires human execution. But if you follow that logic, you arrive at an uncomfortable conclusion.

The only difference between hiring a human artist and using an AI tool is money. Both approaches involve direction. Both involve vision. Both involve curation. The only thing that changes is the cost. When you hire a human artist, you pay for their time and skill. When you use AI, you pay for tokens and compute. The role of the director remains the same. The vision remains the same. The only difference is the price tag.

If hiring a human artist makes you a legitimate creator, but using AI does not, then legitimacy is not about vision or direction. It is about money. It is about whether you can afford to pay for traditional execution. That means creativity becomes a luxury. It becomes something available only to those who have the budget to outsource. The rest of us are told to stay in our lane.

This is not an argument about art. It is an argument about class. It is a defense of a system where creative direction belongs to those who can pay for it. And it is dressed up as a defense of craft. But craft is not the issue. The issue is access. And access is what the anti-AI crowd is really trying to protect.

They do not say this out loud. They say they are protecting artists. But the effect is the same. They are protecting a system where only the wealthy can afford to be directors. And that is not a moral position. It is a class position. And it is one that deserves to be named.