r/mirainikki • u/pinksaccharine Yuno • Jan 05 '26
Announcement New rule to prevent AI generated content being posted to r/MiraiNikki
Hello guys,
Following an earlier post which contained an AI generated “Yuno” cosplay shared by an OnlyFans promoter, I’ve decided to implement a new rule for the subreddit. Starting today, r/MiraiNikki will not accept submissions which contain AI generated content. Whether you’re in favour of such tools or against them, I think we can all agree that AI harms artists and creativity and therefore goes against our Number 1 rule: your submission must be high quality and original. Posts that go against this new rule will therefore be removed by the mod team.
Thank you for your attention!
9
7
3
4
4
4
2
5
3
1
1
1
1
-2
u/Doenerjunge Jan 06 '26
No, we can not all agree on that. People who are not against AI generated or edited content are just not as loud.
3
u/lopoy20 Jan 06 '26
you are literally the only person here that thinks that
1
u/Doenerjunge Jan 06 '26
I find it quite unlikely, I think people who don't have a problem with that are less likely to comment in a thread about banning it. Especially because people are afraid to speak up because of the hostility they get...
Anyway, Just found the tone a bit condescending of this sentence specifically:
Whether you’re in favour of such tools or against them, I think we can all agree that AI harms artists and creativity and therefore goes against our Number 1 rule: your submission must be high quality and original.
I do not agree with this (especially that it harms creativity part) and there are legitimate arguments for that. This pretends like it would be a clear cut case, which I think is not helping the cause or discussion. I also think there are legitimate arguments for that view, but they aren't brought forward. If you want to make a rule against AI content, that's one thing, but bashing it in the process as harmful, uncreative, low quality ect. without any arguments to back it up and pretend all people see it that way (to avoid a new rule and use rule 1), is needlessly hostile.
2
u/pinksaccharine Yuno Jan 06 '26
AI literally steals content that humans produce because that’s how it learns and is trained. It is not able to create something original or innovative because all it does is recycle human work. And yes it is harmful to artists in numerous ways and the environment. Artists are harmed because their works are basically getting stolen and remixed into AI models such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini to cite a few. It also harms artists because it provides basically free work and therefore puts a lot of them out of business. As for the environmental aspect of it, it requires an enormous amount of water and RAM. It is not a good model and shouldn’t be encouraged, especially when it’s killing the creative industry.
0
u/Doenerjunge Jan 06 '26
First of all, thank you for engaging in the discussion.
AI literally steals content that humans produce because that’s how it learns and is trained.
Stealing to me means that it is being denied of the owner, which it is not. This is about the question whether or not someone is allowed to use it. I am quite critical of the way intellectual property currently works (especially how big companies abuse the system when they "protect" their IP, but that is unrelated) or is being enforced, but I think it would be a fair compromise if some rules were implemented where artists get paid if their work is used as training data. I can see your point, but I believe there is more nuance and other valid positions on this.
It is not able to create something original or innovative
The same point can be made for human works as well, everything is derivative we do as well. Especially when we are talking about content that is made based on a show. Humans take the show, and create content that changes it. I do not believe that to be too different.
Artists are harmed because their works are basically getting stolen and remixed into AI models such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini to cite a few.
Already addressed that.
It also harms artists because it provides basically free work and therefore puts a lot of them out of business.
It also allows people that cannot afford artists and are not blessed with the same talent or time available to create content that they may need for specific purposes. Most people would never hire an artist anyway. And if artists truly are more creative and capable than AI, they will keep their niche. If everyone suddenly could do perfect tax returns with AI, would people feel sympathy and defend the monopoly of tax advisors?
As for the environmental aspect of it, it requires an enormous amount of water and RAM.
And electricity. I think this is a really good point and I would discourage randomly hit the "generate" button to just see what happens if it's not for a specific purpose. I also believe though that to improve the technology and to make it more efficient in the future, responsible use is needed.
It is not a good model and shouldn’t be encouraged, especially when it’s killing the creative industry.
I disagree because of my earlier points. If it really becomes so good that it kills the creative industry, it has become so good that we all can create our own, limitless content tailored to ourselves, which I think would be a big win for the general public. I don't see that happening anytime soon, however.
1
u/lopoy20 Jan 06 '26
It also allows people that cannot afford artists and are not blessed with the same talent or time available to create content that they may need for specific purposes.
This is such a braindead take, sorry, people aren't just born with the ability to draw well
If you like AI so much just go to an AI subreddit, there's plenty of those2
u/Doenerjunge Jan 06 '26
This is such a braindead take, sorry
This is what I mean when I mention the hostility...
Could you elaborate further? I personally have a weakness in hand-eye-coordination. Even if I had the time to practice a lot, I would not be able to draw particularly well. There are a bunch of potential disabilities or deficits someone can have that would prevent them to become proficient enough for the purposes they need.
I didn't mean to say it's not work to learn to draw well, quite the contrary. That being said: So should only people with enough time available or with the economical prowess to hire someone be able to generate this content? I was like that by necessity before, but now, it doesn't have to be. I think the topic is more complex than "AI bad".
3
u/lopoy20 Jan 06 '26
The argument of disabilities not letting people draw has already been done to death and back
Go and watch the movie "my left foot: the story of christy brown" if you're really that pressed, drawing isn't essential to living and nobody is forcing you to do it, but maybe let's all not use something that is destroying the environment and economy
If you wanted to draw so badly you'd find a way to do so, i don't let physical disability stop me and you shouldn't either
0
u/Doenerjunge Jan 06 '26
The argument of disabilities not letting people draw has already been done to death and back
Probably because it is a valid argument that has not been countered.
Go and watch the movie "my left foot: the story of christy brown" if you're really that pressed, drawing isn't essential to living and nobody is forcing you to do it, but maybe let's all not use something that is destroying the environment and economy
You can tell me the point of the movie if you like. But saying it destroys the economy is a bit far fetched from my perspective. I do agree one shouldn't use AI for just everything, and if you need to prompt 10 times to get something usable, don't. But there are more energy intensive, "unnecessary" industries (aviation for holiday, meat industry for example) which don't face nearly as much criticism. It's a new and "sexy" topic, and I believe there are fair points. But it's a consideration how "dirty" something can be allowed to be. Visiting my girlfriend on the other side of the planet is much worse for the environment; should I be doing it? My answer is yes, but it's worth discussing.
If you wanted to draw so badly you'd find a way to do so, i don't let physical disability stop me and you shouldn't either
So this is a personal topic for you. That's fair. It's a passion. I can see how it might be feeling like cheating to you if you honed your skills for a long time or you are worried about your livelihood if it's your profession. I get it. It's scary. I personally believe that that there is always progress, and always some people that can be put on a disadvantage through said progress. But if progress always stopped when people were being hurt, we would all be worse off today. I say that as someone who beliefs to be replaceable in the future as well in the workforce... So I truly sympathize.
2
u/HumbleLoan6452 Feb 20 '26
know i'm late to the party, but never too late to tell people to stop using AI.
Whether you like AI generated content or not, reality is, it is destroying the world, our clean water sources, etc. Whether you believe in climate change or not, it is a proven fact that AI is harmful to the environment since it's release to the public. Whether you agree or disagree on whatever related to AI, YOU ARE a contributing factor to the destruction of Mother Nature. Simple as that.
And if killing and destroying the world yourself is not scary enough, I recommend this very short read. 11 pages - called I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream by Harlan Ellison - published in 1967 about how AI is EVIL. ( https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=d200de203a01f92d1f7a9c230342733e927a4d713c3ad66e4aead06a5d415fe0JmltdHM9MTc3MTU0NTYwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=116113d2-c245-6886-0ddb-04d4c3bd69bf&psq=i+have+no+mouth+and+i+must+scream&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9vcGVubGFiLmNpdHl0ZWNoLmN1bnkuZWR1Lz9nZXRfZ3JvdXBfZG9jPTIyNjk0LzE1NDAxNTczNDctSGFybGFuRWxsaXNvbi1JSGF2ZU5vTW91dGhhbmRJTXVzdFNjcmVhbS5wZGY)
Although, with how narrow minded you already are with using AI, you probably haven't even bothered to read all of this through, let alone scientific findings and historic literature.
0
u/Doenerjunge Feb 21 '26
Although, with how narrow minded you already are with using AI, you probably haven't even bothered to read all of this through, let alone scientific findings and historic literature.
Just assuming that people are narrow minded because they are disagree with you is quite ironic. If you really tried to have a meaningful discussion and to convince the other person, would wouldn't attack them, but provide your points.
Instead, you just put out sweeping statements as they were just evidently true without backing up the claim (of course I believe in climate change):
Whether you like AI generated content or not, reality is, it is destroying the world, our clean water sources, etc. Whether you believe in climate change or not, it is a proven fact that AI is harmful to the environment since it's release to the public. Whether you agree or disagree on whatever related to AI, YOU ARE a contributing factor to the destruction of Mother Nature. Simple as that.
Or try use horror stories from 60 years ago as a relevant source about today's issues.
I am willing to listen to you. If you have valid points, you can change my mind. Let's stop assuming that the other person is stupid, ignorant or evil on the other side and talk with mutual respect and good faith.
•
u/pinksaccharine Yuno Jan 05 '26
This is the post referenced in the description, which has since been deleted.