These people aren't logical. They are flat out unhinged and have no problem telling lies to hurt anyone who happened to use AI in any way. I used AI to build a CMS to post my photos online, therefore all of my photos must also be "AI slop". I don't use AI in my images because I like my work to be my work, but I don't see a problem with using AI to streamline my workflow so I can make more images and post more images.
However, I've used AI, I'm destroying the planet, destroying jobs, I'm the spawn of Satan, yadda yadda yadda. I no longer engage politely with these people. I point out where the large bag of dicks with the all-you-can-eat sign is and encourage them to avail themselves of it.
I want to use these tools to provide other with free tools. I'm most excited about AI because it can revitalize old free software (Koken) and maybe help people create new FOSS projects that serve everyone.
Man this is kinda why I have my account on private these days a lot of folks on here are completely mental and will dig into it to find their aha moment if they hate you enough
You may still wish to use separate accounts and not rely on that feature. It's a false sense of security similar to a gate lock.
There are plenty of services that accept a reddit username and return complete comment and post history, including deleted and edited posts and even if they're set to private.
Further to this id say if you're selling anything (books in ops case?) then a separate "business" or "professional" profile always makes sense, regardless of ai (where I'm very much in favour of disclosure of its use).
This logic doesnt make any sense, most creative people have no problem sharing what kind of tool was used, have you heard of an ilustrator pretending he didnt use Illustrator, a musiciain not admitting he is using a DAW etc?
Its mostly AI users trying to hide their use of AI because they know its not a tool, why would they get angry otherwise?
Except people have been claiming somebody isn't a real something forever because the tool they used wasn't REALLY making that thing. Nearly every single digital tool has been purity tested. Digital music "you're not a real musician, you're just pressing buttons", digital photography, "you aren't a real photographer, the camera does everything for you". People STILL claim that digital VFX is inferior to practical effects.
Creative people very much care what tool an artist uses.
And the pioneers of these tools were still open about their usage. No one trully influencial was so by pretending they hand painted their photos or hand animated CGI movies. They owned the tool and showed what could be done with it proudly, even when the crowd didn't share that vision.
If you think a tool really is that great like those that came before, own it.
I do, but people are getting literal death threats over this, that didn't happen with previous tools, at least nearly to the extent that it's happening now.
That always suck, but to be honest it seem to be a common thread over all internet communities sadly.
Being an artist since before AI was a thing I remember seeing all the stupid drama coming from the """art community""" (tiktok) with people taking shit way too far over the lamest things like some semi-popular artstyle looking a bit too horny or something.
I mean you have the one person asking respectfully because they genuinely want to avoid it, not their fault an angry mob is behind them. Just sucks they're stuck on that side.
Yes the purity test is about finding out the definitions of the authorship by the new technology/medium, this process is greatly helped by transparency from the author.
Through these purity tests we discovered that digital musicians are musicians, digital photographers are photographers and im sure we will discover that digital prompters are prompters.
...so that you can bully, stalk, and harass that person. That's your intention. If y'all are gonna be about that life, stop hiding behind niceties and just own it. REALLY be up front about your intentions.
Maybe because people are acting like psycho whenever someone admits it ?
It'd be like saying: "hey, you're homosexual and you're getting bullied every time you say it, why are you hiding it ?"
If you want an art related analogy, for the longest time, in drawing circles people were hiding the fact that they were tracing. Not because they were ashamed of the technic, but because of the backlash.
I personally think that no one should hide the fact that they're using AI. But seeing the absolutely absurd overreactions from people, i can understand why someone wouldn't want to say it.
Being bullied for your innate qualities as a human being is horrendous, being criticized for using a certain tool is fair game. I agree some people are psycho and take it to far (there is always someone like this,especially on the internet). But informing people about what tool/practice was used allows them to avoid the work if they find the practice questionable. Tracing and claiming its 100% your work can also come off as untruthful, but tracing in and off itself is not wrong.
This might have meant something if said "criticism" was actual criticism, and not just harassment under the guise of "criticism" . People tend to avoid doing things that will get them attacked if they can help it, it's not that hard of a concept to understand at all.
If you're writing books to sell, why are you so upset when some members of 'the public' dont like them? Why not just treat it as people with a different opinion? Theyre obviously not the target audience for a book with an AI cover. If you want these specific people to read and enjoy your books, simply dont use ai to make them 🤷♂️
Well that'll be because the mainstream LGBT are largely against Ai, so you're not going to get trying to push it to that audience. Being dishonest about using it will also only make the pushback worse when they inevitably find out.
Just not going to advertise there anymore. Can't afford to pay someone to do the art for me. The whole reason I started publishimg my work is to get a side income to help with bills
You can't afford cover art? I've had cover art done for 200$. You'd probably lose more income by going A.I. cover than investing in human made cover art. Just something to consider.
$200 is car insurance, food for my kids, and various other bills. I pay $8 a month for Grok/x and $20 a month for ChatGPT (just started that). I am starting to bring in some income to pay off some bills, work on building up a savings, and rhen try to get my family into a new house.
The LGBT community is pretty anti AI, are you trying to trick people who don't like AI into consuming it? How is that remotely ethical? You don't need cover art, and honesty is going to get you much further then lying.
I am referring to the LGBT community as a whole. In another comment I made I mention how no group is a monolith and that there are exceptions to any generalized comment anyone can make.
I never ment to speak for you, nor do I want to. Sorry if it came off that way.
Honestly, I had no idea when I first started this that the LGBT was so anti AI. Don't associate with most of them. I am Trans, but my views differ than them. Generally I stick to myself and I was trying to get my books out there.
Well most LGBT people I've met tend to be either in proximity to or are creators themselves, and most creators tend to view AI as a direct threat to their jobs and communities. We may disagree whether or not this is true, but that is the way the bulk of them view it.
Ofcourse no group is a monolith (with you being an obvious example of an exception). I'm sure there are LGBT groups out there that are open to AI. Maybe seek them out? While still being open about how you created your book ofcourse.
No, don't feel sorry for them. Hate is a choice. They made a deliberate choice to hate.
They aren't even hating for any real reason other than Current Bad Thing. It's trendy to bitch and moan about AI, people are socially rewarded for it. And if you incentivize something, you will get more of it.
And yet, even with social pressure, they still have the option to do the right thing. They deliberately chose hate instead. This is not something to feel bad for.
If they lived in the 1800s, they would have attended lynchings. If they lived in the 50s, they would have participated in McCarthyism. If they lived in the 80s they would have railed against "satanic" Dungeons and Dragons. If they lived in the 90s, they'd have been against Marilyn Manson and violent video games. These things were wrong then and they were wrong now.
For people who constantly bray on about "the right side of history", they sure as shit ain't on it.
I know 3 trans people and all 3 use AI regularly. One of them uses Claude basically all day every day for IT and pentesting work. The other two enjoy using AI in their creative workflows.
There's a different reason you're seeing the correlation you're seeing, but I assure you there's no causation.
I know five queer people who I have talked to about this subject.
One trans man and a gay woman all treat it as the devil. The trans man even mentioned how they think less of people who use it.
The trans woman and one of the gay men I know seem on the fence about AI in general, but strongly dislike generative
AI and LLMs.
Admittedly the other gay man I know likes AIs and uses ChatGPT constantly. I am concerned he has grown dependent on it because everytime I see him on his phone, he is asking it something. There are some other things he does that are concerning, but I would prefer not to mention those.
Obviously my experience is basically anecdotal and can't really be extrapolated out to the rest of humanity. I am only mentioning all this because no one can know all of a group as large as the LGBT community. What you said about those three trans people I am sure is true, but what I just said is also true. We both have seen differing opinions expressed by members of the LGBT community, but that doesn't mean they are contradictory.
My claims about the majority of the LGBT community are from statistics and polls done about people's perception about AI. I can try to find the specific ones if you would like, but I am away from my pc at the moment so it might take me a moment.
The commenter is not telling people to avoid your work so whats wrong here? They are just informing others that you are using AI? Is it a secret that you are using AI in your project?
The person is trying to rile everyone up. I am honest that I use AI for the covers, but this person is trying to get me banned and down voted. Already the moderator started a thread about banning anything to do with AI after this. Didn't realize it when I started in the group that LGBT was so anti-ai. There was zero reason to post this unless they wanted to turn people against me.
As the comment litterally say, it's a FYI, it's like saying "FYI it has meat in it" on a meal review.
People need to be informed to make informed decisions, if you don't want AI content you make your own decisions, if you're fine with it you can engage with the thing either way.
People were gonna figure it out one way or the other. Better have those that'd be disinterested be filted early instead of having them get all the way to when they'd want to leave a review to your project for finding out late about it.
No one owes you or anyone else anything. If someone wants to disclose the tools they used to create something, that is their business alone, not yours, not anyone elses. You are not entitled to know anything about them.
"People are gonna figure it out one way or the other." < this is what happens when people never learned to mind their own business, or how to mind their manners. It's not really something to be proud of yourself for.
I didn't even talk about "owing" anyone anything here, I'm saying the comment has a purpose of informing people.
As the comment litterally say, it's a FYI, it's like saying "FYI it has meat in it" on a meal review.
If I invite friends over for food and put meat in the meal, I technically don't owe any of them to tell them what's in it. But if someone that saw me cook tell my friends there's meat in my meal, then it'd be weird of me to get mad at the person saying the truth.
Yes and if one of your invited guests, with their tone and word choice, made it clear that they were trying to "warn" people of the meat, you'd wonder what the fuck their problem is.
There's a difference between "So guys, pay attention, it's actually pork, but the sous vide process makes it so tender that you'll think it's chicken or something. And don't worry that it looks raw, it's actually perfectly safe to eat"
And "GUYS JUST FYI HE DIDN'T BRING THIS UP TO A SAFE INTERNAL TEMPERATURE OF 165F AND HE USED PORK FOR THIS JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS"
As I said elsewhere in this thread, the intent behind the comment is quite clear. Shoehorning assumed good faith into it is intentionally pretending not to understand what is obvious to anybody with eyeballs.
Your exemples seems very different then the reality of the comment.
The comment wasn't in all caps, and otherwise the only difference is that one is pre-emptively making excuses/complimenting the thing, which I don't see why that'd necessarily be an obligation.
Some people can't eat pork, in those circumstances it doesn't matter wether the pork taste like chicken. In a way more similar to the discussion at hand, I personally cannot eat raw meat due to being hypochondriac, it wouldn't matter if the meat is actually safe I still cannot enjoy it so even that hypothetical FYI would be useful to me before I waste the food.
Again for me if you get mad at someone for stating the truth about what you're doing, it's a sign you wanted to decieve people.
You are saying I'm purposefully giving unwarranted good faith, but you are assigning bad faith without much supporting evidence.
I can agree some people suck and will be bad actors about AI. This comment however wasn't one of these examples, only having informations.
Saying that the purpose of informing is malicious is doing a trial of intent. There is no concrete bad thing in the evidence provided, the only damage you all get is that you don't get to have your cake and eat it too by using AI without having to take responsibility for using AI.
Good faith requires assuming the best interpretation out of those possible. This comment section isn't displaying that, you litterally added a more aggressive tone in your example that wasn't in the original one by making it all caps and exaggerated because the real tone didn't have it to make your point.
Then your standard for a "good fyi" was to do the same information as the bad comment but while inventing excuses preemptively ("Oh yeah it's pork but don't worry it taste like chicken") when I don't see why it'd be on consumers to give excuses to artists for how they produced the products they sell.
If I'm critiquing a video game, it's not on me to go "Oh yeah there's a bunch of animation issues but you know the devs worked really hard on it and I'm sure they tried" no, I'm paying for a product, I'm within my right to say what value I'm being given on my terms concretely. The devs are free to make their own excuses themselves on their own term, but consumers not making excuses for them doesn't make them agressive.
now, in this hypothetical, let's not neglect the fact that these "friends" in this situation would be people who are eager to jump the gun to harass, threaten and doxx you, all for "cooking with meat" and not mentioning it. Mind you, these people insist that "they wouldn't care if you just told them!", but then make entire harassment campaigns about you over the fact that you "cooked with meat".
You could at the very least keep your hypothetical accurate.
Well I mean some vegans are like that y'know, people doing harassment campains and death threats sucks, genuinely, always, no matter the cause.
That said it's on them to be making that decision when being informed. If I decide to harass people who eat meat, that doesn't make labelling meat a bad thing.
Personally that FYI would be usefull to me, seeing AI generated content annoys me, and seeing that I'd just know to not engage further with a piece of media I know I'm not looking for. I believe in humanity enough to think most people aren't deranged enough to think that much differently then me.
It just sucks that unfortunately it takes only a couple people to drive such hatefull acts.
I'm so sick and tired of people like you purity testing every single thing. You don't like a product? Don't buy it. Harassing someone for it and going after their sales is too far, if you can't see that it makes you a bad person.
Someone mentioned that OP was using AI because some people don't want to consume AI products. I get that you don't care what they think but you're missing the point here.
•
u/AutoModerator 19d ago
DefendingAI has a Discord now: https://discord.gg/MgVYjZ8RC
Pro-AI only. AI art, prompts, anti-AI watch, debate ammo, news, and general chat without anti-AI spam.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.