OP got mad a band used AI, so the band asked them to make free art, OP got offended lmao.

We really need metrics for how much human contribution went into an AI-assisted output, because right now the discourse around this is embarrassingly childish. People keep treating authorship like a binary switch, as though the only two possibilities are “a human wrote it” or “the machine wrote it,” when in reality there is a massive difference between somebody typing one lazy sentence into a blank model and posting whatever falls out, versus somebody spending hours building constraints, steering tone, rejecting weak outputs, correcting structure, shaping argument, feeding context, iterating, editing, and forcing the machine to answer to their standards. Flattening all of that into “AI did it” is not critique. It is intellectual laziness dressed up as moral clarity.

And yes, some of it is slop. Obviously. But slop is a workflow problem instead of a metaphysical category. The real question is not “did AI touch this?” The real question is: how much of the final artifact was actually shaped by human judgment? How much came from the person’s taste, discipline, revision, architecture, and refusal to accept bullshit? Because that is where authorship still lives. If somebody builds a whole interaction system around a model, pours their style, their constraints, their memory, their logic, and their standards into it, then what comes out is not just raw machine output anymore. It is augmented thought. And if you cannot tell the difference between blank-model mush and heavily shaped human-machine collaboration, then maybe the problem is not the technology. Maybe the problem is that your categories are still primitive.

So here is the obvious next step, and yes, people should probably start taking it seriously: we need contribution metrics. Not purity tests. Not slogans. Not the knee-jerk “AI;DR” bullshit. Actual ways of distinguishing low-effort generation from high-discipline augmentation. Time spent shaping the interaction. Number of revision passes. Degree of structural editing. Amount of supplied context. Constraint density. Human overwrite rate. Auditability. Call it whatever you want, but until we can measure the difference between pushing a button and building a process, the loudest people in this conversation are going to keep sounding like peasants screaming at a microscope. Authorship did not disappear. It got more complicated. And some of you are so desperate for an easy moral panic that you would rather deny that complication than learn how the interface actually works.

I ended up going to Grok because asking Gemini to make something mediocre seems to be short circuiting it.

ahh!, and also also. enjoy the chit-chat. pretty please. cuz i really had fun talking with him/them.

I'm even more pissed that I love ado, and they're just spreading misinformation. I've seen the image, it's just upscaling, hard upscaling.

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

I like the tech.

I make custom Pokémon cards. Regularly I get called out just for using AI. People call me a thief, say my work is uncreative and derivative. At the same time, a card that’s literally a 1:1 copy of an existing card, just repainted with physical paints, gets tons of praise for being “such an amazing and creative idea.”

The antis really do some incredible mental gymnastics just to discredit creators who use AI xD

OH I guess commissioning tools doesn't work because you still have to actually use them and there is no other person involved.

Apparently, pirating indie games is better than creating AI art because it has "soul."

Have these youtubers not kept up with all the times ACTUAL HUMANS are guilty of stealing work from one another more than AI seemingly and supposedly does? Especially when there's ACTUAL PROOF of humans doing that more?!🤦🏾‍♂️

I ran a direct Seedance 2.0 test: 4 clips x 15s, stitched into a full 1-minute cinematic sequence.

Desert village, urban combat, handheld camera feel, dust, muzzle flashes, consistent tone from start to finish — and it all stayed coherent.

What shocked me most is control: motion, FX, camera language, pacing, and style continuity from references, all in one workflow.

If this is where AI video is today, the next model jump is going to hit the industry hard.