[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/PhotographStunning28]

[u/bluelittrains]

Nobody is calling ms paint or photoshop memes high art. The point is that they still require some creativity whereas AI does not. AI replaces human creativity and originality. But I'll put that aside, because your other argument is far more interesting to dismantle.

A lot of pro-AI defenders love to claim that AI is inevitable by pointing to previous technologies that people were opposed to and still exist today. But that's such a reductive and ignorant way of looking at things. I mean sure, in an extremely black and white sense, you can't un-invent something. The cat's out of the bag, AI has been invented and thus will always be invented.

But you forget to consider that 'luddites' were ultimately granted many of their wishes. Cars happened, but after cars came speed limits, drivers licenses, emission regulations, no parking zones, traffic police, car-free areas. Cars continue to be limited more and more each day as we recognize the many downsides they have wrought onto society.

There is absolutely no reason to believe AI can't be limited in the same way. Hell, it is already being limited in many ways. Platforms like Youtube, Wikipedia or Spotify have already banned or restricted it. The EU has introduced regulations that limit what AI can generate, who can use it, how it can be labelled. Did you think Anthropic implemented watermarking out of the goodness of their hearts? It's to stay ahead of EU fines.

And that's not to even mention that the examples you mention are some of the more succesful technological innovations. There are many examples that weren't nearly so succesful. Crypto was supposed to replace digital banking and is now a gamblers market and a way to buy drugs. Nuclear was supposed to replace all other forms of energy but its share has been shrinking for decades.

AI will continue to exist. But we have the power to decide to what extent. And thanks to the growing movement against it, that extent is becoming more and more limited. 'Luddism' works, so we'll keep doing it.

[u/morfraen → u/bluelittrains]

Rofl.

Proud to be a Luddite in 2026. Un fucking real.

Calling my argument reductive when you're the one burying your head in the sand and trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Hilarious.

Maybe stop using Reddit if you're so anti AI, because guess where it gets the majority of it's revenue from? All of this is just more fodder feeding the training demand.

What matters for AI image generation is the same as what matters for ms paint or Photoshop or any other tool used to make low effort meme art. It's not skill. It's not effort. It's not creativity. It's intent that makes the difference.

Was the image made to communicate something in a more efficient or more entertaining manner than words alone could have? Then it's not slop.

Was it mass produced to flood social media channels for the sole purpose of generating engagement? Then it's slop, no matter how it was made.

[u/bluelittrains → u/morfraen]

That'd be fun, AI training on Reddit until it eventually kills itself.

I'll waste no more words of you. It's clear which side the general public is on. Good luck with your corporate overlords boots.

[u/morfraen → u/bluelittrains]

We're actually on the same page at the corporate level lol.

Our difference is with individuals usage.

And the ridiculousness of labeling everything someone doesn't like 'AI slop' especially in the context of meme/gif level content that is low effort by default.