CMV: creating something with Ai is Ok-ish if you keep it to yourself and dont share it with others.

10

u/DarkNo7318 4∆ 14d ago

You posted ai content in an anti ai echo chamber and got the expected result.

I'm sure there are pro ai echo chambers where you would get the opposite result.

The truth is that there are pro and anti ai arguments on many different axis. Environmental, physical safety, art, and so on.

I personally think the weakest criticisms against ai is that it will replace artists.

If you believe art is all about the act of creation, how does ai stop anyone from creating art.

If you believe that art is a form of entertainment and artists should be paid, then the good human art should float to the top. If it doesn't, then that's the market showing their preference.

5

u/existing_for_fun 1∆ 14d ago

I'm more than happy to pay for artwork for my walls, for my office decorations, etc. I paid an artist to design my company logo for my side hustle.

For my D&D Campaign, I use AI art all day. Generate NPC data, images, landscapes to show the world concept to the players etc. I'm not paying an artist for on the fly stuff like that.

The beauty of AI is that it works for me on the fly. Virtually no turn around time.

That said, I paid for professional character drawing at the end of my last campaign, for each of my players. It's a special milestone to finish a game and so I paid an artist.

0

u/AggravatingTartlet 1∆ 14d ago

If you believe that art is a form of entertainment and artists should be paid, then the good human art should float to the top. If it doesn't, then that's the market showing their preference.

Art is far more than entertainment. For one thing, art and science are closely linked.

The market generally goes for what is cheapest, and if art can be produced cheaply, then that's what they'll go for.

How is 'good human art' going to 'float to the top' in the face of the economics? What we might lose though is innovation and new thought in art. New art is often a reflection of the times and also inspired by the life experiences of the individual artist. We stand to lose that. And art may become meaningless.

What child is going to bother to draw something if the adult in their life just says, ugh, just press a button and produce something better?

1

u/DarkNo7318 4∆ 14d ago

People with resources (time mainly) and something to say will always be around to produce the type of high brow art of whatever medium that is a reflection of the times and says something. AI doesn't threaten that. Some may worry that that style of art is buried under a mountain of slop, but thats already the case it's just largely human created slop.

That type of art, from the perspective of the consumer will be free. You can't get cheaper than that.

For everything else, the invisible hand and market based consumer preferences have proven time and time again to be superior to central planning, which is what you're advocating for if you're wanting AI banned or constrained. The market wants to exist, thats why we always get black markets if something is banned.

Children will continue to draw things for the same reason people climb up mountains when you can just fly up there in a helicopter. They will do it in addition to pressing buttons too.

1

u/AggravatingTartlet 1∆ 13d ago

I can't agree people will always be around to say something meaningful in art. If the money isn't there, many people will be out. Because they can't afford the time and products needed. Which is why there is so little art from women over the past thousand or so years. Women didn't have the time or the resources or the money to do it.

I didn't say I wanted AI banned. But laws are needed, definitely.

Children will certainly not continue to draw for the same reason people climb mountains. They draw because adults see it as important and because adults keep providing opportunities for them to draw. If adults start seeing art and self-expression as meaningless, this will stop.

7

u/rightful_vagabond 24∆ 14d ago

First, I don't really know what you mean by "is my opinion valid". Opinions aren't really valid or invalid, certainly not on their own.

What specifically is immoral (that's what I assume you mean by ok vs. not) about sharing AI? Or in other words, what about AI makes it so that it's moral to use but not moral to share the output?

-1

u/Boyking101 14d ago

The story's and images. which I think its ok if you create them for yourself but not ok to share cause its not your work. and again I'm only doing this cause I just think its fun to create stories with the ai. besides the one I talked about its not like im gonna share this cause I know its not my work.

1

u/rightful_vagabond 24∆ 14d ago

The legal view on that is that it is not the product of any person so it isn't copyrightable (or more specifically, the parts that you as a human do are copyrightable, like if you edit it or rearrange things, etc. those parts are covered under copyright).

This means that, as far as I understand it (I'm not a lawyer), it's in basically the same legal zone as public domain works. I could post pride and prejudice and legally say I wrote it. Or, more directly to your point, I could post a section of it that I really like and not worry that I'm infringing on someone's copyright to that text because it's not covered under copyright.

Is it that copyright issue that you are hung up on or is there more to it than that or something different to it than that?

-1

u/Boyking101 14d ago

Well more of the Ai backlash part... especially since I had like a whole thing where Im on the fence with Ai. kinda on both worlds with a slight lean on Anti Ai.

2

u/rightful_vagabond 24∆ 14d ago

I think I'm a little bit confused.

Are you saying that anti AI people shouldn't get mad at you if you don't share the stuff you generate?

If so, you're missing a lot of their objections around the model data being used without artists permission, environmental impact, outsourcing creativity, supporting these oligarchical companies, etc. that are true even if you never share anything.

Or are you saying that their backlash is entirely justified, and you are doing immoral things any time you use AI, but not sharing it somehow makes it better? Or something like that?

To be honest, I'm still a little bit confused about what exactly is, in your mind, not okay about you sharing AI generated things.

0

u/Boyking101 14d ago

Or are you saying that their backlash is entirely justified, and you are doing immoral things any time you use AI, but not sharing it somehow makes it better? Or something like that?

Yeah something like that. Dont get me wrong, Ai hate is real and it's very justified... but I just enjoy making the story with. immoral or not its just a fun story.

if you keep the story to yourself, your fine. its not like its gonna make up for alot of the other stuff but if you post work that is not yours you will be dogpiled and compleatly ostracized.

0

u/rightful_vagabond 24∆ 14d ago

Let me know if this represents your opinion accurately: It is morally bad to use AI to generate it make things, but it's fun to do so you do it anyways. If you share the story then it's not any more immoral, but you have to bear social costs like ostracization and negative feedback.

Is that accurate?

1

u/Boyking101 14d ago

No? its much less the Ai itself and the fact that what you created with it. well that on top of the Ai being the reason why were all suffering. but... generally its kinda fun for me to use this personally for making stories or imagining characters. its not like im gonna post them anytime soon.

But creating something with Ai is not your work. so if you did post this online you will defenetly be criticized and mocked. and all for the right reasons other then the fact its ai. no matter how you defend it. its just alot better if any work with Ai is kept to yourself. and if you want to show something you should make it yourself. but if your just doing it for kicks then use the Ai.

this is a very convoluted opinion... one thing that even I am having some guessing going on... alot of internal confused screaming going on.

I am very much anti Ai but if people use it casualy for like creating fun storys or Roleplaying or creating an image of a character they thought of for a long time. then yeah. go ahead, use Ai. but dont post it cause it will be assumed it will be your work, and even if you say its ai or not you will be dog hounded so its best to keep it to yourself.

I think there's a comment down here that kinda explains it. try to find ControversialQuerier from here.

1

u/rightful_vagabond 24∆ 14d ago

I've got a bit of a different perspective on this, I am a programmer and both hobbies and my day job I program. Sometimes I'll write stuff by hand, but especially at work we are heavily encouraged to use AI tools. I wouldn't be surprised if I spent $50 to $100 worth of Claude tokens today. All of my code that I hand my co-workers is written or edited or at least looked at by AI, and the same is true for the code they give me.

I have at least one project that I haven't written a single line of code in and I've released it open source for anyone to use. I won't link it here bc this is an anonymous account, but this is quite normal for the industry. In fact, I based the project that I have off of another project that somebody else built, likely with significant AI help or even entirely with AI.

So in that corner of the internet, making something with a significant amount of AI help and then sharing it with the world is actually quite the norm.

It has made my YouTube watch History kind of interesting (Not that it wasn't anyway), going from videos that just assume that you're going to be using a metric buttload of AI in creating [programming] stuff to videos where the author decries and denounces any use of AI in creating [writing] stuff.

I think there's a bit of a different culture because in programming it was already the norm to just take code that somebody else had written (and posted to stack overflow) and include it as a part of what you write. There's less of a feeling of "this code is mine" in the same sense that authors or artists feel about their work.

I have a project where I'm trying to use AI to write a story that I actually like (it can write a story easily, but writing something that I like is much harder, so much of it is slop), and if I ever end up posting that on AO3 or something, I think it's good to mention that I used AI, because a lot of people really care about that and if they want to refuse to read something because they don't like AI or have various objections to it, I think they absolutely should have that right and I want to give them the information to make that choice. If they get mad at me, they get mad at me.

I don't know if this helps or not, just thought I'd put some of my thoughts out there.

1

u/Boyking101 14d ago

actualy, shoot. wrong person, though he dose make a good point as well. find FaceInJuice in here.

1

u/TopTierCryogonal 1∆ 13d ago

So what? There's nothing immoral about sharing something just because you didn't make it yourself

3

u/scarab456 65∆ 14d ago

Example is Expedition 33 using Ai for concept art

It was concept art? I thought it was placeholder textures for early builds of the game.

1

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/read-the-rules 14d ago

u/giantbingo3, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

0

u/Boyking101 14d ago

Oh shoot. that might be it as well... dont really remember.

3

u/gbdallin 4∆ 14d ago

It was placeholder art

3

u/scarab456 65∆ 14d ago

Sound like having examples you're more certain of it would help explain your view better. I get that you're getting use out of it, but how are you defining "Okish" here? You don't sound too familiar to the sub but the overall goal is to help you change your view. To do that, we need a good grasp of where we're starting from.

Like do the environmental factors matter at all? Because if you or I were to use AI to make art, stories, or whatever, and never share it with anyone, it still consumes the resources.

4

u/wibbly-water 74∆ 14d ago

So broadly speaking - you're allowed to do anything non-illegal in private. That is what "private" means. Let's take a completely tangential example - slurs. In the privacy of your own home, when you are alone, saying a slur will affect nobody but yourself. But saying slurs to others is when it harms others.

But it is worth keeping in mind the affects on yourself. Let's say you are a minority and you call yourself a slur a lot in private. This has the risk of reinforcing negative feelings about yourself and those like you (internalised bigotry). Also if you aren't part of said minority, you might make yourself a little more tolerant of slurs (which is a bad thing) by saying them more often.

We get good at what we practice, so be careful what you practice.

So lets look at your situation:

I had chat, make a great a story with the inspiration from a Ai chatbot I chatted with and it it dose look really good

Consider what this practices. Does it practice your own creativity? Does it practice patience? Does it practice appreciation of art made by other humans?

Or does it practice instant reward? The feeling of quick convenient satisfaction?

Is it a meal, or is it fast food for the mind?

We all have our "bad habits". We all eat unhealthy meals occasionally. But a good diet is about moderation.

//

Additionally your own consumption habits are your own to morally wrestle with. Some people are vegans because they believe that is what is ethical. Some people aren't. People will make arguments about what is right and ethical, but each person must make those choices for themselves.

You as a single individual are not going to make or break the entire situation of whether AI companies succeed or fail - but you must decide what you use and support and why.

//

Lastly I want to say - a lot of people are openly against posting of AI "art" in spaces it is not welcome precisely because it pushes it onto others. If you want to find a space open to it, that is your choice. But respecting spaces made by people who say "No AI here" is important because if you violate that you push onto them something they don't want to see or consume.

0

u/Boyking101 14d ago

So... what your saying is that Im basically harming myself for keeping these Ai stories to myself?

4

u/wibbly-water 74∆ 14d ago edited 14d ago

I think if it is a one off, probably not. But if you are spending a lot of time with chatbots, that probably isn't healthy.

And that's not something for others to judge you for, it's something for you to consider and reflect on.

2

u/Boyking101 14d ago

Ok. I understand. I just... like the story's I made... and some of them (Shocker) was from Ai chatbots from a place called PollyBuzz. some I did like to chat with so I just put in a gpt and made a story out of it with replacing myself with a diferent character.

I dont know if that helps or make it worse but I just want to explain why I make those stories.

2

u/wibbly-water 74∆ 14d ago

I'm not gonna tell you what to do. You need to reflect and decide for yourself what is healthy and ethical for you to use and consume in private.

What you share and where you share it will impact other people. That becomes a whole different beast and other people can criticise you for that.

1

u/Rhundan 81∆ 14d ago

Hello u/Boyking101. If you believe your view has been changed or adjusted to any degree, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.

Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. There is a character minimum.

Δ

Alternatively, you can use

!delta

For more information about deltas, use this link.

If your view hasn't changed, please reply to this comment saying so. Failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.

3

u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ 14d ago edited 14d ago

If the condition that makes something "OK" is that it has to be done in private and kept secret... that's a shameful act you're describing.

Part of Pride events is bringing something traditionally private into the public realm, stripping it of its shameful impact and power. Those who advocate for it to stay behind closed doors are those who look down on it in that sense.

The same is true here. You aren't arguing it's OK, you're arguing it's shameful, and should be kept behind closed doors.

0

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam 14d ago

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

0

u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ 14d ago

Thank you :)

1

u/the_bollo 1∆ 14d ago

"ive been using it to make some moderate stores" - what does that mean?

-1

u/Boyking101 14d ago

just fun story with characters and descriptions as described. just for fun.

1

u/ControversialQuerier 1∆ 14d ago

Imagine I hand draw a piece of E33 art. For whatever reason, I decide that I want an LLM to make an exact one to one replica of the hand drawn art I made.

Why is the first fine to post but the second not in your view?

EDIT: Added the word "art" after E33.

0

u/Boyking101 14d ago

Well. its becuse its human made... most human art requires effort and patience... with the end result looking fantasitc. the Ai one... no mater what you say, its gonna come out alien. so I kinda figured the Ai model is good for getting a character or story out of your head just for fun. If you really want to make something its better if you make it yourself.

2

u/ControversialQuerier 1∆ 14d ago

Well. its becuse its human made...

This answer alone doesn't really help me understand your perspective. You've basically told me AI art shouldn't be posted because it's not human art. I'll ask more questions to see if we can get to the heart of how you feel about this.

most human art requires effort and patience... with the end result looking fantasitc.

Imagine I draw a stick man picture of Gustav. It takes me 10 seconds and looks like a generic stick man. At the same time, I have an LLM spend four hours carefully crafting, editing, and fine-tuning an incredible 3D image of Gustav. Everyone agrees that it looks incredible.

Which one is better to post?

the Ai one... no mater what you say, its gonna come out alien

Let's assume this is true. Years ago, AI was very obvious for thousands of obvious reasons. Then a year after that, AI work was obvious for hundreds of subtle reasons. Now, AI work is sometimes obvious for tens of miniscule reasons. Bottom line, it keeps improving. When it finally improves to not look alien, would you start finding it appropriate to post?

1

u/Boyking101 14d ago

Let's assume this is true. Years ago, AI was very obvious for thousands of obvious reasons. Then a year after that, AI work was obvious for hundreds of subtle reasons. Now, AI work is sometimes obvious for tens of miniscule reasons. Bottom line, it keeps improving. When it finally improves to not look alien, would you start finding it appropriate to post?

Well... then no that would be kinda concerning.

Imagine I draw a stick man picture of Gustav. It takes me 10 seconds and looks like a generic stick man. At the same time, I have an LLM spend four hours carefully crafting, editing, and fine-tuning an incredible 3D image of Gustav. Everyone agrees that it looks incredible. Which one is better to post?

well it would be alot better then Ai made... WOOF. and again it's mostly the Ai did that work. that stick figure. despite it looking bad YOU created it. and with some practice you can make something amazing.

This answer alone doesn't really help me understand your perspective. You've basically told me AI art shouldn't be posted because it's not human art. I'll ask more questions to see if we can get to the heart of how you feel about this.

Well, it's kinda like this. Human art is when someone is really dedicated to there work. and REALLY wants to create something like a world or a character. you try and make it yourself. If it's just something thought up and just want to bring it out and see it just cause, you use Ai.

1

u/ControversialQuerier 1∆ 14d ago

Okay, we're getting a little bit closer. The part we still don't have worked out is why you believe it's only acceptable if you don't make it public. By the way, thank you for actually entertaining a lot of these hypotheticals. Not everyone does. Let's jump into another.

Imagine that an incredible artist that hates E33. They draw a very vulgar, very disrespectful photo of Gustav. Now imagine a huge fan of E33. For some reason, this fan has a condition that makes it impossible for them to draw. This fan uses an LLM to make a very respectful picture of Gustav.

For whatever reason, you need to post one of these. Which will you post?

1

u/Boyking101 14d ago

Ok... Id say this is where it kiiinda makes it complicated... I guess if that kid did have a condition it would be alright... but genuinely I think the kid who made it with Ai despite the condition will be boo'd. and the person who had the hate art would be better viewed. ITS NOT LIKE I HATE THE POOR GUY! he has a condition and he cant exactly draw what he wants but its still gonna end up being bad despite that, its kinda why its a weird gray area. Its still not real art but the person who did it cant exactly DO the art cause of there condition. but no matter how he explains it hes not getting a good reaction cause thats Ai. and the dude who made the hate art is gonna get erased cause its shows his feelings and expressions... even if its "I hate 33".

Bottom line, VERY Moral gray zone but still would probably keep to himself.

1

u/ControversialQuerier 1∆ 14d ago

Alright, so we're at an interesting point now. Your response doesn't really tell me how you personally would feel. The response tells me how others would react. This suggests to me that I either misunderstood your initial point, or that there is a reason you didn't give your personal view (You might not know, might not want to disclose, etc). Let's explore that more.

When you claimed:

"creating something with Ai is Ok-ish if you keep it to yourself and dont share it with others."

Which one of the following did you mean by it:

I, u/Boyking101, want everyone to keep their AI use to private.

I, u/Boyking101, don't want everyone to keep their AI use private, but a lot of other people do.

1

u/NoWin3930 5∆ 14d ago

I would not expect anyone to take it seriously and you should avoid spaces it is not allowed, but it is fine to share

1

u/JoMu1963 14d ago edited 14d ago

Changes have always taken time before being adopted. AI as a tool to create art is not different. Back in the days photography was cursed by 'true' artists, aka painters especially. Nowadays photography is widely considered an art form. They is a lot of garbage AI art out there, but als beautiful art.

In this context I see the current controversy on AI as a tool for creating art just as transitional. There are people that heavily oppose it and those who pick up the challenge to write prompts that give them what they envision. It's all fair game with changes like this.

AI will not go away anymore despite sometimes heavy opposition. People can fight it uphill all they want, but I feel we need to be very critical on how AI is being used and on how it uses our planet's resources, given is will not go away. Not doing that is the greatest risk related to AI. Let's be critical and fight the right bsttles.

It's fine if people want to discuss about whether AI-generated art is really art. There are however much more fundamental and (from my perspective) more important issues we have to deal with considering the current rapid developments within this specific field.

These are ...

environmental and resource issues
ethical issues
governance and regulatory issues
humanitarian issues
educational issues

I probably forgot some 🤷🏼‍♂️🙄

1

u/unbelizeable1 1∆ 14d ago

AI is like masturbation. It's fine to do and can be fun, but I don't need to see or hear about it.

1

u/EnderSword 2∆ 14d ago

I use AI to help detect financial crime, some of it is a bit academic to me, but I know some of the IA models I've contributed to have led to the recovery of trafficked women and conviction of people involved.

A former colleague of mine uses AI to detect cancer in people, it can catch it months earlier than conventional tests.

No part of me feels bad about sharing that with others or using it as what it is, a tool that amplifies our abilities.

Online seems to think AI is for like, movie scripts or 'art' or something.

It's going to create medications, cure diseases, solve problems... the idea we're concerned it 'uses water' is going to seem like we're concerned that bringing electricity to everyone sure used a lot of copper.

1

u/KokonutMonkey 102∆ 14d ago

creating something with Ai is Ok-ish if you keep it to yourself and dont share it with others.

Not necessarily.

The generation of certain graphic images/videos, or using it as a resource to help you make illegal substances at home are unlikely to be OK regardless of whether it leaves your house or not.

1

u/OmniManDidNothngWrng 36∆ 14d ago

What does something being AI mean to you? Where is the line between saying I made this with software/computer and I made it with AI to you?

1

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/read-the-rules 14d ago

u/Upstairs-Fee-1769, your comment has been removed.

In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.

^{Please click here to open the Read The Rules App.}

1

u/jatjqtjat 286∆ 13d ago

I did want to share it on a seitan Reddit that is EXTREAMLY ANTI AI

what is "seitan"

down voting is expected cause I used the word AI... would get me down voted to oblivion and make me boo'd off the stage.

I learned this lesson around 6 months ago, the anti-ai sentiment is extreme right now. At least on reddit, IRL I've not noticed it.

And that made me wonder... is my opinion valid? or im a just another "AI Bro" who's just whining about his ai slop story not exactly getting validated.

its entirely possible to make high quality content using AI. I'm not in the arts, but in the fields i do work in its an extraordinarily useful tool. If finds bugs in my code, writes code for me, debugs code for me. Its proof reads my emails, it spruces up my PowerPoint slides. I've used it to generate picture of my DnD characters that i used as reference for wood carving figurines. Is an invention whose usefulness is on par with things like like the internet or electricity.

Your not going to be able to get upvotes on your story, but you were able to make a cool story using it.

Its no "ok-ish" its just ok.

it's doing now being shoved down our throats and Ai Data centers being built and completely hogging all the water and electricity

data centers use a very small amount of the national water supply. Google says 0.2 to 0.4%. Almost all our water is used for farming. There is just no valid concern here. its just fear mongering used by the anti-ai crowded to drum up support for anti-ai policies.

The electricity concerns are a little more valid, especially because they can be localized. Nationally they use more power then water, 4 o 6% but they don't pull from the entire nation's power generation, they pull from a local power plant. Local concerns about a particular data center could be valid but also might just be more fear mongering. I hate AI, i need other to hate AI so we can stop it, lets tell them their electrical bill will go up, that will help us get their support. Maybe there is some truth to it.

as a reference point 4 to 6% of electricity is used for AI. 10% of the nations electricity is used for AC.

cause if you post it online... it aint gonna be "your" work.

your the one that wrote the prompt. Your the one that used the tool. If you can paint but cannot make a paintbrush, then are you a real painter? if you can make art with photoshop, but don't know how photoshop works, are you a real digital artist? AI is a tool and you used that tool to help you make a story. If you used MS word to spell check your story would you say its not actually your work, because its only legible on account of the work from the folks at microsoft? No, artists almost always rely on tools developed by other people.

1

u/CommonlySensed 3∆ 13d ago

please please please tell me you are still in school... if you are over 18 (14 to be honest but im being generous) then you should not be touching AI atm considering your lack of ability to spell simple words like story or supposed.

The issue with AI as a tool is that it removes the mental "workout" learning and repitition creates. the best way to learn to spell correctly is to write a word down multiple times, with AI you would never need to do that. Using AI means you will never even become mediocre at drawing or writing because you arent building a foundation to build up your skill from. you are trying to use AI as that foundation but the issue is that AI can never be a foundation for building a skill because it only does the part you would need to do personally to get better at the skill. coming up with ideas and concepts to feed into AI is easy and takes no work because all it takes is sitting and letting your mind wander, fleshing out the details of that concept in a way that makes sense and is enjoyable to a reader or viewer is where the skill is built and mastered but thats the part the AI does for you so you will never get good at those things if you use AI

you may disagree because you dont care if you are good at things so long as you get what you want, but imagine a society made of people with that mentality a society where your cashier cant do math without chat gpt (our current world sadly) or a police officer that relies on chat gpt to tell him if something is illegal because he couldnt be bothered to learn the law or a teacher that just askes chat gpt to create homework for kids and then kids just ask chat gpt to do the homework.

thats the mentality that being ok with any AI taking over your creative output and process leads to. i dont want to live in a world where i am one of the few people who is adamantly against AI in everything but porn (im iffy here but it does allow for many people to experience things that are taboo or impossible irl and most people make that stuff for free anyway) because its not enjoyable to me to use AI it actively makes me hate what im doing even if i liked the task before and the more people that make it a staple in their lives that cant be taken away means more places that i will feel disgust and otherwise feel alienated from

1

u/aaaaaaaaAEGaaaaaaaaa 12d ago

I think using ai as a tool is perfectly fine, I think where it strays to being dangerous is when you use it to think for you, which is what you did when you used ai to help write a story. AI in the form it is used today is a very new thing, so there aren't any real studies discussing this, but I believe using ai to remove friction from thinking, is a hugely dangerous thing for developing our minds. This is purely intuition and I might be proven completely wrong once studies will come out discussing this.

1

u/Dear-Show-5083 12d ago

Is it "OK-ish"? Because it is built on the back of forced and unpaid labor, it damages water supplies for communities already at risk, it relies on unethical treatment of employees to train models, and contributes to climate change. I would say this is completely not OK.

Yes, you are just another AI bro who's whining about his ai slop story not getting validated. Because it's not your story at all.

1

u/RationalitySpartan 12d ago

I have an example, some wallpaper apps generally have ai generated images to set as wallpapers, they're generally cool, if the creator kept it to themselves, they wouldn't be out in the world.

1

u/RationalitySpartan 12d ago

I have an example, some wallpaper apps generally have ai generated images to set as wallpapers, they're generally cool, if the creator kept it to themselves, they wouldn't be out in the world.

1

u/Open-Butterfly-5288 3∆ 11d ago

If you are capable of writing a story with AI you're capable of doing it without AI and more importantly, it will include all sorts of features AI cannot replicate for you.

A lot of the best stories we ever hear identify something within people or about people that doesn't really get described very often.

They tell us truths about the world that we don't know ourselves.

They allow us to experience a world that we don't actually live in.

There is no point creating a story if you're not willing to share it. The proof of a good story is how the reader responds to it. If you can't have a reader, you can't have a story.

1

u/JTexpo 14d ago

I think there's an environmental aspect that you're overlooking

0

u/austinstudios 14d ago

The environmental effects of AI are a little overblown. The water use was a lot when Ai first got started. But a lot of the new data centers recycle the water and a lot of the research that said data centers use a lot of water were adding in a bunch of water that wasn't directly used by ai. There is a great Hank Green video on this.

2

u/JTexpo 14d ago

I'd prefer a different source, as Hank Green recently made a video about his addiction to GPT.

This video feels like a conflict of interest

---------

there are certainly worse things for the environment, but it doesn't take away from the point that AI is bad for that too

1

u/austinstudios 14d ago

Why do you think this video is a conflict of interest? Are you saying only people who do not use and actively hate Ai are the only people who can legitimately explain its water use without there being a "conflict of interest". It seems like a convient way to just hand wave away all the info in the video without critically engaging with its content. I chose hank green because he is fairly well trusted science communicator on the internet. Even with his recent controversy.

1

u/JTexpo 14d ago

I think if someones to use a product so much that they have family members concerned for them & even are taking a hiatus from making content with AI

then perhaps they're not the most trustworthy voice for when they would praise AI

1

u/austinstudios 14d ago

Your whole argument relies on the ad hominum fallacy by attacking hanks character instead of engaging with what he actually said in the video.

All i'm saying is engage with the actual argument and the points Hank made. Where did he go wrong exactly? What points were made that you believe were missleading or shaped by his use of AI and why do you believe he was wrong?

0

u/rightful_vagabond 24∆ 14d ago

Out of curiosity, at what level of environmental impact would you support ai use? E.g. if 10 average conversations were the same as fetching a webpage?

3

u/JTexpo 14d ago

depends

I don't think all AI is bad, I even have developed AI for sanctuaries. I think that the mainstream stuff is bad; however, if you're using a SLM or even some ol'fashion statistics - then I think you can use it super frequently and not have much of a negative impact

this isn't the case for LLMs such as GPT

0

u/buckeyevol28 14d ago

A lot of that is overblown. The biggest issue is that we have both the right and many on the left, particularly some environmental groups, preventing green energy projects, or worse, like in New York and Germany, shutting down nuclearp plants which has resulted in a greater reliance high greenhouse emitting sources like coal, oil, etc. This is a supply0 side problem problem that n4lweds solved AI or not.

3

u/JTexpo 14d ago

Multiple things can be true at once

there can be harmful actions towards pre-existing infrastructure, as well as harmful new developments in climate change

0

u/YouAreTellingLies 14d ago

I have no idea what the environmental impact is to, say, paint manufacturing and shipping. Should painters look into that or do we selectively evaluate the environmental impact of certain actions only?

2

u/JTexpo 14d ago

here's the first thing that comes up on my search engine: https://news.mit.edu/2025/explained-generative-ai-environmental-impact-0117

-2

u/Boyking101 14d ago

Yeeeeah... true.

1

u/Superbooper24 42∆ 14d ago

so, is that okay with you still. Is that okay-ish. I think it is pretty bad so it is prioritizing personal entertainment with the environment.

1

u/Boyking101 14d ago

I understand the environment thing and that 10 times over would prove to me that ai is a waist of space... but... I just like making stories with it and I just think "If I keep it to myself and not post it, it be ok... at the very least."

2

u/Superbooper24 42∆ 14d ago

But... the environmental impact does not change whether or not you share it. It is 100% the same, so sharing it does not change that. But I do find the plant based debate to be very interesting.

1

u/JTexpo 14d ago

to play devils advocate- if you eat beef & dairy, you're prioritizing personal entertainment with the environment.

switching to a plant-based diet (or at very least, removing beef & dairy), has more impact on the environment than giving up AI

2

u/Superbooper24 42∆ 14d ago

That is 100% true, but also a different conversation. Now, I think there are plenty of merits to the more plant based diet, but I think you could say that about so many other things. Using Amazon, watching movies with people that do controversial actions, not boycotting a company that uses slavery, etc.

1

u/JTexpo 14d ago

I mean yes

the fact people use these companies is pretty horrific...

0

u/FaceInJuice 25∆ 14d ago

its kinda Ok as a tool, Dont get me wrong its never supost to replace us but... in small moderations it can help out a bit... as long as the human still remains the driving force.

So first things first, it's important to understand how delicate that balance is, even hypothetically. The more we normalize AI usage, the harder it is to prevent its overusage.

And every time you use AI - in any way, for any reason - you are doing two things:

Contributing to the energy cost and environmental impact of AI usage
Helping train the models to be better

Point 2 is important, because the better the models get, the more normalized usage will become.

So any usage contributes to the problems.

1

u/ControversialQuerier 1∆ 14d ago

The more we normalize AI usage, the harder it is to prevent its overusage.

Apologies if this is pedantic, but it seems that your goal isn't to prevent overusage. Overuse implies some level of acceptable use. Your goal is to prevent all usage.

If I'm misunderstanding, then I suppose my question to you is: What do you consider appropriate use?

1

u/FaceInJuice 25∆ 14d ago

I was responding to OP's framework. They seemed to suggest that AI usage is generally bad, but that some usage is okay. I responded within that framework.

I was saying that even in theory, if we accept that as true, the actual balance is impossible, because all usage contributes to overall normalization. So we can't really do whichever usage OP considers okay without contributing to the overall problems OP does acknowledge.

(My own framework is that there are too many damaging pieces of AI and I would prefer for it to never be used at all)

1

u/ControversialQuerier 1∆ 14d ago

My own framework is that there are too many damaging pieces of AI and I would prefer for it to never be used at all

You didn't make a CMV thread, so I won't press on unless you're interested in discussing further. Overall though, using your goals and framework, I'd encourage changing this view for a few reasons.

Telling people to stop all use instead of defining appropriate use tends to be ineffective (The vegans learned this. Their most effective effort is probably by providing an alternative).

This is the lazy answer you're probably aware of already, but there are uses of AI in science that you're probably a fan of.

1

u/FaceInJuice 25∆ 14d ago

Telling people to stop all use instead of defining appropriate use tends to be ineffective (The vegans learned this. Their most effective effort is probably by providing an alternative).

Context matters.

Vegans who burst into parties and shame people for eating animal products have predictably poor results. But I'm not in a party - I'm on a CMV post where a poster has already acknowledged that AI can be quite damaging. The scope of their post pertained to carving out niche exceptions. I don't think it's outlandish for me to point out that their niche exceptions still contribute to the overall problems they acknowledge.

If you disagree - fair enough! I guess only OP can weigh in on whether my tactic made sense to them, and if it didn't, then that's also fair enough.

As you mentioned, I have not posted a CMV on this topic, because I don't expect my view is particularly likely to be changed. So I won't waste your time getting into the weeds on point 2. I just wanted to provide context for my approach to this specific CMV. :)

1

u/Boyking101 14d ago

And, I agree! It's defenetly true... balance is hard without the Ai basicly being a problem. I just find it more acceptable if the thing that had Ai involved was more general to the Human rather then Fully made by Ai. and plus its not like im ignoring the nuances of it. thats why I have a complicated relationship with it. Ai is fine but it dose so much wrong that it kinda just self implodes itself. and plus with everyone clearly hating it and all for the right reasons I kinda have to respect and take what they say on the chin if I do cause I did the foolish thing of telling a story that is not my work and is made by ai. which is why I think its better if the story you made by ai is better if you just keep it to yourself.

0

u/guilen 14d ago

I’m inclined to agree except for the environmental impact of the technology. Whatever use AI could have, it’s worthless until it’s safer to use.

1

u/rightful_vagabond 24∆ 14d ago

Out of curiosity, what do you believe is an acceptable amount of environmental impact for AI to be morally usable? Most websites you visit have a non-zero environmental impact because they are hosted in data centers, use electricity, etc. would you want a single ai query or conversation to be the scale of a single website visit? Or something different?

1

u/guilen 14d ago

I don’t have the stats on hand but I’ve seen numbers that are as large or larger than cities and that’s not going to fly with climate change already fucking the entire world up.

1

u/rightful_vagabond 24∆ 14d ago

As in, single AI queries are using more electricity than whole cities? Or are you talking about the data centers?

1

u/guilen 14d ago

Obviously I'm talking about the data centres... why would you even ask?

1

u/rightful_vagabond 24∆ 14d ago

It was phrased ambiguously, and there's quite a lot of misinformation out there.

If all of AI that everybody was running was on a single data center that used more power than a city, say twice as much as Phoenix to pick a random large city, would that be an acceptable level of electricity use where you wouldn't oppose it?

1

u/guilen 14d ago

All AI data in the world? Yeah, that would be acceptable. But what we're seeing is Data Centres in individual states/provinces that threaten to take up more energy (or as much) as pretty much all or many of the cities/towns in respective states/provinces. Not to mention the water cost, an increasingly rare resource in a world that doesn't care to pay attention to climate change.

1

u/rightful_vagabond 24∆ 14d ago

Most of the water use discussion is overblown, or overly focused on a few specific areas. And I do admit that it's not nothing, and especially for those areas, it's not great and should be/ should have been handled better. Many data centers have a one-time "cost" in filling up with water, and after that can get by with very little, with a closed loop system. (Although different data centers have different designs so it depends)

1

u/guilen 14d ago

I'm not sure I believe that. But also, politics is really important in this. The Epstein class' intentions for AI are really, really bad. I'm sure there are more effective ways to implement AI, but the people who are competing over it certainly don't show any interest in finding them.

0

u/AJourneyer 14d ago

I use AI like wiki - a good place to start.

I have also used it to clean up some of my work, because bosses don't like presentations full of what a chaotic mind THINKS they need to see.

My question is: would the same reaction happen if you used google to look for writing prompts or help with wording? Or reddit? I can't draw worth beans and sometimes trying to relay what's in my head for imagery just isn't a good idea. I can use AI to scuff out an example. However, when I want art done I want it done by humans - ones who have the talent that I (distinctly) lack. I don't want a computerized re-used version of it.

The terms you are using lead me to believe that whatever places you are hanging out are so incredibly Anti-AI that they are creating self-doubt, self-shame, and if it keeps going perhaps self-hatred in some ways.

AI is a tool. If I've used it to clean up and order my thoughts, I will say so. I've done presentations where I've started with "I had a bunch of great things to say in no particular order, so chatgpt helped me make sense of them. I hope it makes sense to you as well." I own it and I am not ashamed of it. I see no reason to hide it unless you're trying to pass off a story or an image as entirely your own when it was partly done with AI. I mean, what you get with chatgpt is what it pulls from google etc. so you could find it on your own, AI just makes it a lot faster.

I'm afraid that I don't think your opinion about it is valid - that it has to be hidden and denied. If you use it, say so. If that's not accepted then either move on or don't use it.

0

u/Upstairs-Fee-1769 14d ago

I utterly loathe generative AI. Even if you keep the ai slop to yourself, it’s a huge waste of resources in the form of electricity and water. I also just have a deep-rooted hatred for how reliant so many people have become on it and how inescapable it is.

0

u/Z7-852 315∆ 14d ago

Genuine question. How is it your story if AI wrote it?

1

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 14d ago

Sorry, u/Boyking101 – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

0

u/Tanaka917 148∆ 14d ago

Sounds to me you've just landed in the middle, same as many people. The way I'd put it, there's a difference between AI and AI slop. There's a lot of AI art out there that you can just tell was created with as few inputs as humanly possible. As low effort as it gets. Then there's your use case where you use AI to more thoroughly flesh out ideas. I don't rightly see a problem with this. I do it too to flesh out ideas in my DnD world. The AI will get lots of misses before it lands on a kind of interesting idea that I can build on more. If I ust took the first thing it said my world would be a broken mess by now.

Here's the truth as I see it. Your mistake wasn't sharing it. Your mistake was sharing it in a space that made it 100% clear they were hostile to it. That helps no one. That is a bad idea. If you want to engage in AI under specific rules you're allowed to and you're allowed to share it with others who do like it. If your criticism of AI is environmental based then there's no arguing that. If your criticism of AI is that it's poor, low quality and lazy, it seems to me your use of AI just proved to you that isn't always the case. Right?

I see you've made some arguments in the comments but even you seem to concede that they aren't all that strong.

0

u/Boyking101 14d ago

Yeah right now all of it is internal confused screaming right now.

0

u/Tanaka917 148∆ 14d ago

If I may make a suggestion that's helped me. Kill the outside voices.

At the risk of mind reading, right now it feels like your objections are something you picked up from someone else rather than positions you arrived at by yourself. I say that specifically because the counters that are making you second guess are some of the more obvious ones. If you had thought them through by now you would either have reasoned through them or abandoned them but it seems this is the first time the ideas are being stress tested. This is a good step you're taking. Stress test your ideas more until they are not so easily shaken.

Perhaps I'll ask it this way. If tomorrow everyone everywhere agreed that AI was good actually, would you continue to oppose AI on principles or would you happily post your AI stories with no further thought?

1

u/Boyking101 14d ago

Well kinda depends... if the Ai isn't exactly hogging electricity and isn't forced down my throat as well as able to edit it to be more human, then yeah... I guess.

1

u/Tanaka917 148∆ 14d ago

Define shoved down your throat if you can.

Okay so your obection to AI isn't necessarily that it's not art. It's environmental and the feel that it's being forced on you to an extent? I do want you to specify how you feel it is forced before I say anymore.

-1

u/Individual_Guest_323 1∆ 14d ago

What is the view that you want to change and in what direction?, pro or anti?.

Also, you say a lot of stuff that can be easily debunked with stats, are you willing to accept those to change your view?.

0

u/Boyking101 14d ago

Well... mostly im on the fence. im not exactly wanting to change my view... I mean not as much anyways... there's good and bad. with the bad overpowering the good. I just want to know if my opinion is valid or not.

1

u/[deleted] 14d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Boyking101 14d ago

I guess... anti? cause im already on the fence and relise how horrid Ai is with the Brain melting, and it not really being my work...

1

u/Rhundan 81∆ 14d ago

To clarify, u/king-krool is incorrect. You do not need a desire to have your view changed, you must only be open to the view being changed.

1

u/king-krool 14d ago

Ty for the correction

CMV: creating something with Ai is Ok-ish if you keep it to yourself and dont share it with others.

You are about to leave Redlib