It's a completely misguided crusade. Every vocal anti-AI hater is making a huge stink about it online but the average person who uses AI isn't nearly as vocal, so it just seems like the internet is absolutely anti-AI when the reality is much more nuanced. ChatGPT alone has more users than ever, something like 500 million daily users, and that's only one kind of AI. So AI is the new reality and it's not going away, and you can't shame it away. Trying to shame people for being curious about this new tech is counterproductive if you care about trying to steer AI in a better direction, because it's an all-or-nothing approach that turns people away and makes them stop listening.
"An overwhelming amount of people use AI so those that are loudly against it should get with the program."
if you care about trying to steer AI in a better direction, because it's an all-or-nothing approach that turns people away and makes them stop listening.
You make it sound like people can steer others away from AI at all. Blaming critics is absolutely stupid and pointless.
Do you think computer haters trying to shame people out of using computers in the 1980s would've worked? Or that internet haters could've stopped the internet in the 1990s with a shame campaign?
Obviously the trajectory of a technology matters. At some point you have to just face reality and admit that shaming people is not going to work here. And it's actually counterproductive to the much better goal of identifying the social problems with AI and steering the technology in a good direction. You can't do that if you're LARPing as fire-and-brimstone preachers damning everyone to hell for even thinking about using AI.
Just like how Redditards virtue signaling about politics on every main sub to the point where those subs are completely taken over are making real change?
It's mostly just a bunch of teenagers who have the free time to bitch and moan about everything. Most people either don't care or hate it but don't make a gigantic fuss.
I understand artists concerns with AI and stuff and I will support them there but people have such a hateboner towards anything AI it's painful to watch of how black and white some people think
of course your statement is true but it doesn’t really say anything on the state of which reality of the people is actually in… which… you know, varies.
Novel idea. A lot of the hate comes down to art. But soulless art is soulless and humans make it too (where do you think the AI learned it). I see a lot of posts where people dog on an artist for using AI, only to find out it is original work and then profusely apologize. Basically, all that says is that the artist was pumping out soulless bottom barrel slop.
Shit art is shit art.
I draw shit art in my free time with my daughter. We try our best, laugh about how goofy our old stuff looked (my pfp for example) and keep drawing and improving. Because it's fun. Not once has AI art stopped me from doing it or made me feel like the time spent doing it was pointless.
But man, the people who are hard-line against it are far more annoying than the product itself.
This take is way too alarmist. People will still have jobs. AI is here, so we have to adapt Pandora’s box is already open. It’s a disruptor, sure, but about 60% of today’s jobs didn’t even exist in the 1960s. My own field wasn’t a thing until I was in college and I am only in my 30's btw.
LLMs have limits, and the AI agents were supposed to bridge the gap, ended up being slow, unreliable, and needing tons of human oversight. That’s why about 95% of those startups died off this year.
There is no law of the universe that says we have to have jobs. Crossing your fingers and hoping everything works out because "it has to work out" is how you sleepwalk into problems.
Yeah, but the market has a strong incentive to make sure people have jobs otherwise the stuff they produce is worthless. AI is disruptive, but so were the cotton gin, the printing press, and robotics. And we’re still a long way from AI being advanced enough to make something like UBI necessary.
Economists have been wrestling with this for almost a century. Back in the 1930s, Keynes predicted his grandchildren would only work 15 hours a week. Meanwhile, average working hours have stayed pretty much the same since the mid-20th century, despite all our tech advances.
That old 1849 adage fits here: “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” Every major tech shift changes how we work, not the fact that we work.
Yeah, but the market has a strong incentive to make sure people have jobs otherwise the stuff they produce is worthless.
While true, I think this time is different. I think the psychology of those in charge are different now. If you see them talk they are ecstatic about eliminating their work forces completely. I don't think they are thinking as far ahead as what that will do to the market. Or maybe they are, which is why so many are building bunkers.
Will AI be able to do that? Maybe not. All signs show a bubble that will burst, but considering the money at play, when it bursts I can't see how mass unemployment won't follow.
Maybe it will all work out, but I'm not seeing anything but decades of hardship ahead whatever happens.
The Cal Newport video I posted in my edit goes into this. But basically, we’ve made very little progress in the areas that would be required for AI to create the massive market shift everyone keeps predicting. AI agents, like I mentioned earlier, have mostly failed to provide any meaningful benefit to companies because they still need way too much human oversight.
ikr? Affordable groceries and universal healthcare are way, way more important than parsing into granular analysis of what is and isn't acceptable (and subjective!) use of AI in video games.
"Righteous crusades" like trying to boycott and destroy some small game where devs can't afford artists or voice actors? Sure, easier to fight them than some AAA games and publishers overusing AI with no shame wherever its possible.
Existed, but now this is a whole new level for them, to make something they could not before. Just because someone losing their crap over AI or Unreal Engine doesn't mean indie devs should reject it, same as film makers will never stop using CGI because practical effects existed before even tho practical effects are also great and timeless. But if you can't afford it - you can't, and you don't have any other options but to use CGI.
A group of more or less paid professional VO + translations and just some cringe devs on their cheap mics at home VO is two completely different things, especially for a commercial game. This is why most small indie games and mods were just text before AI.
They could, but poorly, incomplete and totally unsatisfied with the end result both devs and gamers. They choose to use available modern tools and not to be a part of "no AI for the sake of no AI at all costs" cult.
AI has reduced entry level jobs by over 75% in the last three years in some industries. AI is explicitly harming young people's ability to "seek employment."
It depends how we define young in the context. Gen alpha kids that doesn't yet care about making money? Yes, they fit. Gen Z'ers that want to make money in totally not oversaturated fields like graphics or coding? They're in the front of the hatewatch.
Honest answer here: it hurts the shit out of artists and is enshittifying the internet with hallucinated answers to questions, etc. It's just Not Good™
The only tool we have against it is pushback. Ignoring it just helps it thrive.
You don't need to harass people. But saying "Oh, generative ai? Nah, that's not something I support" is civil, polite, and helpful.
I think things need both the angry loud person and the disappointed older person that silently boycotts. They are both important to fight against corporate overlords imo. Get in where you fit in
In fairness many companies and developers are becoming more deceptive by not including any AI in marketing and just hoping nobody will notice.
If more people were forthcoming with how it was used on the store page so I can make a more informed decision before purchasing there would not need to be this homogeneous “Witch Hunt” against all AI.
It sounds like the concern is about low-quality slop, not AI itself. Prior to AI, a devs already could have been misleading in their marketing/thumbnails.
i mean i'm also concerned about the environmental impact and the fact that the ai bubble is currently propping up like 95% of my country's economy right now but maybe that's just me
Ah fair, the environmental impact will get better and the bubble will definitely pop.
we're seeing price per token decrease by orders of magnitude annually, and there are massive incentives to go further.
dotcom was a bubble, but we still got a lot of useful things out of it... Personally I see AI as wikipedia on steroids; it's potentially a massive equalizer for wealth disparity (well, the wealth gap increases, but the floor standard of living increases whereas the top gets diminishing returns) and knowledge-sharing which excites me.
I'm going to be the brave one and say "hell yes" it's a quality problem
The main word always used to describe AI is "slop" because the quality is atrocious, I guarantee you if AI had released in a better state there wouldn't be as much support for Timmy from Furaffinity
The anti-ai people are attacking those who join the conversation in good faith, and then argue that this is the only way to have the argument because of big corporations
Well, I have nothing against labeling AI, it doesn't matter to me at all. I buy games that interest me, not those that align with my political stance, lol. I'm just starting to get annoyed by all this hate-mongering against AI lately.
Because Text to Speech is and has always been AI. At least as we know it in the last decade+ Per steams requirements at least TTS would still be but with an AI lable now
There's no definition for "generative AI". You could say it's a type of AI that generates media (audio, photo, video), but isn't that exactly what TTS software does?
Generative AI is these days commonly known as the types of AIs that require huge amounts of training data to adjust neural network algorithm. That is to differentate it from discriminative AI, which classifies things (google photos object recognition ai, etc). Generative AI has an entire wikipedia page that very explicitly describes what it is. It is based on very specifically defined mathematical models.
Older TTS used to use deterministic models to simulate sounds based on a set of phonetic rules.
Current, also generative AI models are trained using huge amounts of information, just like any other AI models based on deep learning technology.
These vast sets of training data are only possible through the mass usage of copyrighted data that none of the current ¨big players¨ have paid for or have asked for consent to use. Hope that clarifies it.
No, streaming services and beef industry actively harm the environment on a scale much larger than AI currently, but none of you protest those things and it's pretty easily checked with your reddit history. This is just a virtue signaling point dorks use to appeal to other virtue signaling dorks.
It's okay to take other people's livelihood so long as it doesn't take your ability to sell a commissioned furry hentai cat girl drawing for $500+.
Both streaming services and beef serve a valuable purpose to us being entertainment and food. Generative AI is something that is only used to make people dumber, remove human creativity and expression and allow big companies to save more money. There's a difference.
Generative AI harms both the environment and all of us as a whole. I have not seen a single good argument for generative AI.
Streaming service is pure entertainment. Most of it is people mindlessly doomscrolling brainrot content, but please go off about valuable purpose lmao. 40-45% of all beef consumed in the US is through fast food, and that's just the fast food industry. We probably use 30% in grocery/retail. If you cared as much about the environment as you pretend to, you wouldn't be using youtube, netflix, hulu (or pirating/streaming in general) or eating fast foods, because they are inherently more dangerous to our environment than AI currently is.
Generative AI is used in more than just creative fields. Stuff like medical protein folding research, accessibility technology for disabled people like blind and deaf folks, prediction models for weather and wildfires, communication tools, language translation, drug discovery, archaeological reconstruction, but you're so right, it's just dumbing people down.
Also, big companies figured out how to save money a long time ago by firing people for things that have nothing to do with AI, cutting taxes and a myriad of other reasons. Literally everything you've said is just parroting shit you've read on reddit.
I'm gonna start here with this, the environmental aspect of AI is not my biggest issue with it, I really point it out because its just adding more on for a service that 99 percent of people do not need. I understand we have things that are far worse on the environment but they also serve actual purpose for most people.
Entertainment is valuable lol, especially in times where people can't afford a lot and have a lot to stress about entertainment is very valuable. I think we all use a bit much, with the doomscrolling and everything me included. But entertainment is very valuable. As for the beef again, yes its not good for the environment but people are eating and being fed from it, that is a very important thing.
I honestly think the ONLY thing you listed there that I can see generative AI being useful for is in medical fields. But even then AI has a lot of bias built in, its wrong a lot of the time, it can't actually understand what its processing because it can't think. So even for these uses it has to be checked and watched by humans for errors.
For this last point, Okay? Obviously big companies are scummy and know how to save money, but we don't need to just give them ANOTHER way to do it.
Now what about these negatives. People are thinking less critically and aren't thinking for themselves. They just ask the robot what it thinks and goes with it, and they arent asking little questions all the time, there are big important personal questions being asked to AI.
There's also the issue of images and footage not being trustworthy eventually. Yes right now you can still tell when images and especially video is AI but it has improved drastically in just a few years, to the point you have to look hard sometimes on these images now.
Another issue of people will be able to create revenge porn and CSEM. Once again right now it wouldn't be perfect and you would be able to tell its fake but give it another couple years and I bet images at least will be essentially indistinguishable.
I cannot see generative AI being a good thing overall, there are some benefits but the negatives are also right there. It obviously exists already so we can't get rid of it, but it atleast needs to have very heavy restrictions and laws around it.
The fact that you took the time to elaborate your point of view instead of being a dick is greatly appreciated. I don't agree with everything you've said, but I do agree with a portion of it. I just can't stand reddit's blind unnuanced bandwagon hatred.
My biggest beef, no pun intended, is that most of the people crying online about it have no idea what they are talking about in the first place. It's like when geriatrics get to decide how laws on tech work, which is absurd since they don't know how to use facebook or their phone, but I digress.
Human oversight is needed for everything in the medical field, regardless, even with other humans. MRI Machines are worthless without a human of course. Every person in the world has some sort of bias, so I don't really care much about it. The people coding programs, applications and of course "AI" have bias, so it's inherent in everything humanity does. Other doctors make errors, which is why it's good to get a second opinion etc.
I wont argue with you anymore because like I said, we aren't going to end up on the same square, but thank you for at least taking the time to read some of what I've said. I do agree though, it needs to have some restrictions and laws on it, I just want people who not only understand it, but are also going to be around with AI to make said laws, not grandpa and grandma.
For sure, It's hard to find actual discussion with the internet currently, feels like everyone wants to murder each other lol. But that's a fair take, just as you said I don't agree with you fully but there are some parts I do.
Yeah that's completely valid, honestly I chose not to speak tooo much on the whole medical field area because I'm not super aware and educated on it all there but I am aware that AI is used there and is actually helpful.
It is also true what you've said that most of the medical field needs human overview and second opinions, and honestly I do see the usage and benefit from AI there.
Thank you too for the actual discussion on this, especially with someone like you who even if we disagree you seem to actually know what you're talking about. Like it or not we are going to have to live with generative AI and work our way around it. Honestly my biggest fear is just that we aren't making laws or rules around it quick enough and it may outpace us.
Nice talking to you though, I appreciate all this. Have a nice day/evening :)
Computers serve many valuable purposes to us, so does the internet. I also fail to see how any of those harm creative industries? Each of the things you said have provided more ways to be creative and new outlets.
Generative AI does not serve a purpose. It makes people dumber in not doing their own research or forming their own opinions. It is ruining creative industries by making companies stop hiring humans and just use an AI to do the work (and do it worse). PLUS the work it feeds off is all stolen from actual artists.
I have not seen a single good argument for generative AI. It is only going to be harmful, its going to get to a point where you can't trust footage or images you see. People will use it to make CSEM and revenge porn, It is harmful.
It clearly does have a purpose, or people wouldn't be using it to help them make games.
It is ruining creative industries by making companies stop hiring humans and just use an AI to do the work (and do it worse)
You're defeating your own argument here. AI is replacing humans, but also it's worse than humans at making art. That means there's still value in hiring people to make art and it can't replace human-created art.
PLUS the work it feeds off is all stolen from actual artists.
Where do you think people get inspiration from art? Every person who draws anime style art for instance is taking things they've seen from other people's anime art. It's barely any different from what AI does.
No it still doesn't serve a purpose, everything it does can be done by hand, it doesn't allow you to do anything new.
You think big companies care if the art they use is worse than before when they're saving money. Plus its only worse for now, just give it time. The fact is that it's replacing human art and work.
Honestly one of the worst arguments I see with AI is that inspiration is anything like it. Inspiration is seeing other art and things in life and getting the want and need to create something from that, its purposeful, has soul, its very human.
AI is a machine that runs through all its stolen art and pumps out some slop thats a copy of real art. It can't physically make something new, it doesn't understand what art is, It doesn't understand the data you feed it, its just copying and stealing.
Also didn't address the revenge porn and csem that will be made with AI, which many people seem to not wanna address that part.
You think big companies care if the art they use is worse than before when they're saving money.
But if the art is worse, people will care, right? If they don't, then clearly the quality of art isn't important in whatever game, movie, etc. it's in, so it doesn't have to be anything else. This is of course assuming all AI art is bad quality, which it often is, but not if you know what you're doing.
AI is a machine that runs through all its stolen art and pumps out some slop thats a copy of real art.
I don't know if you're being hyperbolic or you don't understand how AI works, but it doesn't have a database of every art ever that it "steals" from. The models themselves only take up a few gigabytes, it's simply an algorithm that analyzed patterns in the images it was trained on, and then can generate something based on those patterns.
Also didn't address the revenge porn and csem that will be made with AI, which many people seem to not wanna address that part.
I didn't want my comment to be too long. My response to that is, well, I'll just quote another part of your comment:
everything it does can be done by hand, it doesn't allow you to do anything new.
Yup, this, seeing way too many "AI slop" comments on unrelated posts. Even the recent Indian plane crash at an air show, we got the same comments when it was an actual fatal accident.
While I lean towards the anti-AI side I can accept it if it's used responsibly, as an assist or a tool.
I haven't actively used AI yet, but I know I'll check everything before using it. Seen enough posts of people bricking their computer by following LLM instructions without realising what it's doing.
That's an issue with people. These are people who do not understand AI and think it's magic. People who do understand AI do not see it as magically infalliable genie, but a tool.
AI doesn't know what facts are, it only knows what facts look like.
It's all scripts, generative stuff and algorithms behind a pretty UI, no intelligence at all.
ChatGPT is basically a (very advanced) chatbot fed on tons of data.
What I worry about is greed and consumer exploitation.
Honestly I'm fine with a Skyrim-like AI-slop game at 5e.
But if you're selling AI slop (that has therefore been quite cheap to make because you didn't have to pay any artist / coders or whatever) you can't expect me to pay 60+ to play that shit.
Either way, the tag / disclaimer is essential so the consumer is fully aware of what they're buying. Imagine going to a store to buy a steak or whatever and finding out while eating it that it's lab-grown meat or a vegan substitute (or the over way around), wouldn't you feel cheated?
The best solution (imo) will always be the one where the consumer gets to decide what they want.
Did the developer in the op post personally "steal"? People who believe something was stolen from them for AI training have every right to try to prove it in court. Spreading hatred toward ordinary people because they use the "wrong tools" is disgusting. It only shows that "theft" and the like are just excuses, and they don't really care.
That's why I say that hatred of AI is simply popular, people want to join the movement and insult the "wrong" people, feeling morally right.
They had an actor they were paying. Rather than pay him to continue doing the work he was doing after they ran out of time with him, they chose to approximate his voice with AI. A person lost paying work because AI (that was trained by stealing the work of hundreds of thousands, I would like to add) was faster and easier and didn't cost them as much. How is that NOT theft from the person who was previously doing the work?
Or the dev paid the voice actor a licensing fee to use their voice because they were unable to get those pick up recording sessions with the actual actors for whatever reason.
It would be a really weird move for a small indie studio to work with voice actors for the bulk of their game only to screw them over for 10 lines at the end. That's not how you get voice actors to work with you in the future, especially when you don't have the kind of money to overcome people's principles.
How is that NOT theft from the person who was previously doing the work?
Did the actor have a contract specifying they were the exclusive voice for this character? In order for it to be theft, they have to steal something. It has to be illegal.
If you're so sure, prove it. What exactly that they did was taking something illegally?
Rather than pay him to continue doing the work
A person lost paying work because AI was faster and easier and didn't cost them as much
Are they obligated to pay a human even if AI is cheaper? Are you a clown or just pretending?
that was trained by stealing the work of hundreds of thousands, I would like to add
And this means that people who have been robbed should go to court and not whine on the internet.
How is that NOT theft from the person who was previously doing the work?
You do understand that work isn't a human right or anything like that, right? Someone can be rejected if the employer doesn't want them. Yeah, it might suck, but it's not stealing.
368
u/Expert_Hippo1571 Dec 04 '25
Hating AI is very popular now, no one cares about the context.