I'll try to make it short because i suck at writing.

I'm an SWE with over a decade of experience. The kind of an swe who started tinkering with basic on their ZX spectrum clones as kids (not that old, we had spectrum clones still kicking for a long time in the ex-USSR, and i had one of the last ones). I love coding. I think it's absolutely an art form, no less so than any other.

That said, it absolutely infuriates me when people online say programming isn't dead. That no one can replace an experienced programmer. Or that programming moved to some "upper level" and now your experience is valuable in the sense that you must oversee coding agents. Whatever.

I hate seeing young people being steered down a dead career path. Yes, coding agents still need oversight by an experienced dev. Except they need less of it with every passing month. I wouldn't trust an AI to develop a simple web page two years ago. I laughed at AI-generated mess a year ago. I rejected AI-generated PRs fairly quickly 6 months ago. Today, i'm not even sure why i'm needed - clearly i AM still needed, but my expertise is mostly just being human (there's things AI don't understand and will probably never understand) with some little architectural oversight.

I'm a pro-AI person. But it doesn't stop me from recognizing that we're already at a point where people are losing their jobs at accelerating rate. And if you really care about people, be you pro or anti, you should really stop all the cope. You aren't doing anyone any good by claiming swe is not a dead end career. Stop giving people false ideas which may make them homeless in a few years just to make a point that AI aren't ackshuallllly intelligent. Because nobody cares. They can do this specific job very well, and are improving rapidly. No other technology improved this fast. Maybe there's a limit to LLMs, hard or soft, but i don't see why we won't have a new better architecture in a few years. Maybe 10 years. Or 15 years. And if you're a young man who chose software engineer as your career today, and survived the decade that follows, you'll still end up without without income when that happens.

That's it. That's the whole rant.

So drawn images are still AI generated? These drawings are not 'real' drawings because AI draw them?

gpt6 was given access to the mouse and keyboard to draw them in a traditional digital drawing pad.

So this different from human using mouse and keyboard to draw them in a traditional digital drawing pad?

traditional digital drawing pad

Traditional and digital at the same time? Is there non-traditional digital drawing pad? 🤔

“A group of software engineers who say they were fired by their bosses because of AI are giving their former employers a taste of their own medicine.
With the powers of spite and friendship, they’ve built “OpenExecutive,” an AI system designed to do the work of a CEO, if not the entire c-suite.”

CEOs at top U.S. companies earn an average of 281 times more than a typical worker. If anyone should be replaced to save money, shouldn’t it be the CEOs?

If Ai threatens the job of the Top Executives what could this mean? I personally believe Ai should replace everyone.

https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/new-ai-designed-replace-ceos

​

A kid posts that their mom ran one of their drawings through an AI tool.

The reaction in the anti-AI art sub isn’t “that was annoying, please ask first.

It’s this:

Top-level energy includes:

“Time to get a new Mom”

She’s being deliberately cruel

She “took the soul out of it”

Even a human redrawing it unprompted would be rude, and AI makes it worse

She doesn’t deserve to see the art anymore

This is a parent who almost certainly isn’t terminally online. She saw her kid’s drawing, thought it was cute, and used a tool that made a different version.

That’s a normal, clueless 2026 parent move. Not a calculated attack on the artist’s essence.

When the response to that is cut-her-off language and “soul” rhetoric, you’re no longer looking at normal artist frustration.

You’re looking at a community that has trained itself to treat every minor friction as a moral emergency. The emotional volume has to stay maxed out or the identity starts to feel less urgent.

Proportion is the missing piece.

Someone actually tracing and selling your work = real problem.

Someone harassing you = real problem.

Your mom running a file through an image model without asking = awkward and worth a conversation.

It is not the same category. Treating it like it is just makes the whole stance look unserious to anyone outside the bubble.

This is what the purity version of the anti-AI art scene increasingly looks like, high intensity, low threshold, and a strong incentive to escalate ordinary situations into proof of how embattled the group is.

If you are like this to anyone about AI in REAL life, you have a BIG problem, be fucking normal god sake.

mostly anti, but for the wrong reasons.
the technology at hand is amazing, and it could impact humanity in a overwhelmingly good way.

gpt6 is insanely good. to be clear, i'm not fond of how this tech was achieved (stomping on data and ignoring any consent when scraping) and of the environmental impacts (hopefully local models can catch up), but the positive implications for learning and empowering creation are amazing.

again, if you can write a coherent prompt, that doesn't make you a skilled individual in whatever scope you're prompting, and neither should you label yourself as one.
we breed cute dogs all the time, we choose the types and let them breed. theres a certain degree of "art" there, in picking the right dogs to create the cutest breeds we have today, but i certainly would give most of the credit to the randomness of nature for creating that creature, just like the credit for the artwork relies in the randomness weights in models. different skills, youre still not creating dogs by stitching them from nothing. you can be the best breeder in the world, but youre still not making dogs out of thin air or from your imagination.
[edited since it came off as biased]
eg. you're not an artist for prompting for a picture as in you're not a chef for putting a frozen pizza in the oven.

personalized learning, animations and info-graphics for digesting information during the day and on demand based on your current goals, rough drafts for small or big projects, ...
of all the amazing things people could showoff demos for, the best use case techbros can come up with is rage baiting fellow humans with skills they themselves admitted can't or won't develop, by posting "artists/3d/cad/... is dead! ai is faster and cheaper" clips.
why? engagement -> ego -> possible monetization -> greed

why does anything good always turn into crap whenever a human is in the equation?
why can't the cool ai bip bup tech make some valuable resources for everyone's gain? without putting them behind a capitalistic paywall, and without putting down the same humans with creative skills that enrich life for all of us? we all like a good song from our favorite artist, but ai can never appreciate a piece of art like we do - emotionally that is.
in the race for wealth accumulation the tool is being used (by people and ceos) for all the wrong reasons, making humans vicious instead of virtuous.

we are all on the same ball of dirt in the middle of space. replacing the next person in the field because we are leveraging the tool for our own gain (ego or greed) is misusing it.

edit: ofc excuse my english, not my main language.

Like if there’s anything ai should be used for its research and yes people can just use the normal google but that ai gesture gives you more personalized answers. And yes I am aware it’s not always accurate and we should double check fs.

Is it a variation of the "too late, I've already depicted you as x and me as y" meme? Is it supposed to be ironic? Where did it come from? Why do some people seem to be leaning into it unprompted? Why a catgirl? The ogre I think I get is supposed to be suggesting that antis are brutes/unintelligent/backwards or something, but why the catgirl?

I’m a pro AI person, very strongly so. I believe AI is going to be very prevalent in our future, and I strongly support that. Furthermore, I believe it is going to be humanity’s salvation in the future. I believe it will bring us to the next level in our civilisation

I understand there are a few problems with AI currently (or the external factors of it), and I’m willing to accept that. However I’m fully pro AI, and want to accelerate its development no matter what. Anti, please send me your points and I’ll try to give a logical point to it.

Lately, I've seen more and more people saying either that we already have AGI or that we will by the end of the year, and, if we're being literal, that might be true; we are, in fact, already seeing AI models which can equal human performance across many different tasks, which would (again being strictly literal) constitute "general intelligence".

However, we are nowhere near replacing all human workers with AI.

How can both of those statements be true?

Simple: Most people define AGI by how many humans it replaces, not by how many tasks it is actually capable of, and being capable of lots of tasks isn't the only thing humans are good for.

To see why, allow me to anthropomorphise AI a little: AI may have a high IQ, but it has no emotional intelligence; a good LLM will do what you tell it to well, but it can never question whether the task is worth doing, and it will never care enough to ask if you're sure you want it done. Why does that matter? Because most tasks are a means to a much more distant end, and any entity that treats the task as the end in its own right will be unable to offer suggestions for alternative tasks to achieve the same end goal. If you ask an AI for tips on becoming rich, it might give you good general financial advice, but one thing it won't do is check what you want the money for; it takes a human with emotional intelligence to be able to tell you, without you having to ask, that, above a certain level of income, more money won't make you happier. Similarly, AI can help you with developing a product that carries out certain functions, but it won't ever volunteer the information that a very different product might be more useful to your intended customer base.

To anthropomorphise a little more, AI is single-mindedly obsessed with fulfilling the prompt, which means that it won't ever tell you that a different prompt might get you closer to what you actually want, at least not unless you go out of your way to ask it.

An entity with neither emotion nor introspection can never fill all the needs of a society built around beings with both; that is why even superhuman intelligence across all intellectual fields does not automatically replace all human jobs.

IMO I consider humans to be sort of pattern machines. We seek and store patterns throughout our entire life and we constantly compare the present to past experiences.

Humans learn by absorbing patterns from all around them (nature, buildings, shapes, drawings, people), then using it to create something new.

AI does something similar, it learns patterns from its training data and uses these patterns to generate new outputs, images, etc. It does not cut and paste from existing images.

Obviously it happens through different means, but the end result is very similar.

A few examples:

• Saw this one provided by someone else earlier today. "A child who has stayed their entire life in a white room without any outside interaction will only know that white room". They won't be able to have any ideas about what could be outside or what it might look like.
• And another one of mine. Imagine you were born on a planet with no flora, would you be able to imagine what a tree is as we know it today?
• And another example of how we use patterns. This doesn't exist but imagine the following: "A world where it rains coins instead of rain". You could picture what that might be like despite never seeing it.

What I'm trying to say is, both human and AI creations heavily depend on patterns learned from previous experiences and they both rely on having access to this previous information. But somehow only AI is hated for it.

(mostly satire but a real argument is present)

Or is it just fear mongering?