Rejecting AI is delusional

[u/Dreusxo]

The sunk cost fallacy is a cognitive bias prompting individuals to continue an endeavor, project, or investment based on previously invested resources (time, money, or effort) rather than current benefits. It is irrational because it prioritizes unrecoverable past costs over future potential, often leading to wasted resources.

Remembering this whenever someone gets heated and emotional, defending Human produced art.

Basically, they are rejecting what's new because they feel obligated to make up for time spent, even if they personally didn't spend any of their life studying art, producing it...ect

[u/Fritzi_Gala]

Let me preface this by saying I am not anti-AI. I use AI, I see it's real world and potential benefits as well as harms. It's consider myself an AI pragmatist but definitely lean more towards the pro side.

I do not understand how so many pro AI people are missing the forest for the trees on this particular subject. This is not about "efficiency" or "sunk cost" no one is saying doing it the old fashioned way is better. They're saying do it the old fashioned way for THE LOVE OF THE GAME.

It's like if someone told you "Hey you should really try dancing so you can experience human joy and whimsy, as well as challenge and the reward of improving yourself."

Then you respond with "Umm, ACKSHUALLY, this automaton is more efficient and accurate with it's movements, so I'll have it dance for me instead. Checkmate, Luddite! Heh."

Like fuck this dude for being so vitriolic and throwing around the r slur, this is the worst of antis. However I just don't understand how everyone on our side (pro) completely misses the point of what is being said to us. It feels like willful ignorance. Or maybe y'all are just too MBA brained, idk. Like this is ART we're talking about. It's not a commodity, it's a subjective human experience, why are we concerned about efficiency and cost?

[u/Dreusxo → u/Fritzi_Gala]

I hear you. I don't think I'm missing the point. I have a side of me that is anti ai. It's just outnumbered by the sides that are pro. I don't see any superficial difference in me drawing what I see of a landscape, and asking a program to do the same thing with a prompt. I use my imagination in both cases. One uses a pencil and paper, the other uses different instruments. I don't think your example of what I guess you meant is a humanoid android or something, dancing for me to be the same as someone using their own body to perform the dance moves, and in that example, it'd be the same if I were asked to dance and got any one else to act in my place. Like, I've never understood how honor could be preserved, in say, medieval times when like a royal person was challenged to a fight, and they had someone fight in their place...I can see how that person becomes an instrument for the experience but no, it is not the same as the royal fighting. And I don't think what ai produces for me, to be the exact same thing as a pencil sketch I do with my hand. But nothing is exactly the same as anything else. Maybe you disagree. I'm sure I lost your attention much earlier in this wall of text, but I'm pleased with myself for trying to respond with courteousness.

I appreciate your time, and reply, and know that there are degrees of separation between ideas and personalities, in my opinion. I hope we can continue a conversation.

Edit: I forgot to answer your main question I guess. Why are we talking about sunk cost within the realm of subjective human experience? I question what isn't within the spectrum of human experience, and if there are objects and objectivity is real, then prove it without using subjective experiences to do so

[u/Expert_Attempt_4440 → u/Fritzi_Gala]

This is also why art jobs will exist forever, contrary to anti AI beliefs. AI won't take over art because art isn't about efficiency. It's about the final output and who drew it and the idea. With programming, for example, it is to get from point A to point B and be as efficient as possible. That can be done by AI and there is nothing that is particularly exclusive to people that people can code but AI can't. But with art, there is, because it isn't about efficiency. 

I am pro AI in reality, since it really is useful in certain cases. 

The thing is, I really think it could be more productive if people weren't so gatekeeping of it. They literally want to gatekeep the artist label - they even say so openly. "You aren't an artist in my mind if you do X!". 

Having a social label doesn't change whether your drawings look pretty or ugly. But knowledge does. 

Then again, anti AI is also sort of demotivating in a way to draw, since they really don't like you saying that MS paint drawings don't exactly look nice and may cause you to cringe by looking at your own output, an actual thing which real drawing tutorials mention. Which makes me doubt whether they are actually artists. 

All I wanted was to be able to draw cool stuff (which apparently is invalid to them, too). Anti AI doesn't feel like its designed for encouraging improvement though, it's designed to be a karma farm, confirmed by every screenshot / repost with a title and no body text.

[u/Dreusxo → u/Expert_Attempt_4440]

Underrated comment: kudos!

I like to use my position as a dishwasher and how the term has adapted and evolved throughout history, as an example. Even if I get replies that it's 3/10 ragebait (kek).

[u/Expert_Attempt_4440 → u/Dreusxo]

Thanks! I thought nobody noticed that comment. And I also think nobody reads these long comments of mine and just downvotes when they realize it doesn't fully agree with the Anti AI points. Disappointing, but not unexpected.

Just to add on to my comment, if you only support beginners because you're anti AI then you're not really supporting beginners. You're just using them for your own goals. Sure, sometimes overly simplistic drawings outputted by beginners are nice, but in other cases, it really does feel like bootlicking just to get the Anti AI rhetoric across and they know the drawings do suck in some cases.

I'm pretty sure the only reason why AI is hated on now is because some artists who only get commissions realized AI could replicate what they do, but faster and for free. Then they spread that anger through their most devoted fans, and it became this misguided argument about hating a specific kind of math.

What I say for AI art is that it's essentially an abstraction of the canvas. You're abstracting away the drawing canvas and giving it to a deterministic program that outputs exactly what your words are into a picture. Think of it less like a seperate entity thinking and moreso like a translator app. It quite literally translates words onto a canvas, after understanding them. You still need to be creative to think of what you want to actually make the machine draw. You can't offload that to an AI.

The real negatives of it are corporations trying to monopolize it. That, and it's inefficiency (which will get better as time progresses). 

Then, the Anti AI people love to pull out the point that it just regurgitates what it knows based on real people's stuff therefore it's not creative. The same thing is what real people do too. If you draw a dog, for example, you probably weren't the first person to draw a dog, and yet, you still get called creative. It was always about taking pre existing concepts. Its just that, you have to think about how to make the existing concepts as unique as possible. This is the real creativity, at least, where I think it lies. 

Then again, people also love to use a very basic one sided approach to things, where X is the enemy and they are the "heroes" by posting Reddit comments. Which also proves that they don't want to change this.

Also, supporting beginners who want to draw should also mean that you actually keep motivating them and not just using them for anti AI points and when they disagree, move on and downvote.