Like I honestly cannot fathom where this (ragebaitey) mindset comes from. When was creativity ever reserved for a select few?

In order to make AI art you need to have a computer, possibly a subscription to a service with a monthly cost, an internet connection, software to run your computer, and of course electricity. For people in villages, this stuff is not readily available.

But yet I've seen poor people make guitars out of tin cans and firewood.

Only a "select few" have access to powerful A.I.

Repost because I had to edit out the subreddit name, but there's only one main one so it's obvious which one it is.

I made a post asking for advice on how to ask the union for help with workplace bullying (from a senior member in the school I work out), the post had absolutely nothing to do with AI.

My post was instantly removed, and when I contacted the mods asking why and if it could be approved, the response I received was

" But you are a programmer", linking to a post I made on an AI subreddit, when I replied back stating that I'm a teacher and that is a side hustle I was permanently muted.

It's clearly obvious I was banned and muted for being associated with AI.

I want to make this extremely clear:

AI STAYS OUT OF MY TEACHING.

I do not use AI whatsoever for my main job, all of my lessons and resources are planned by myself, which I spend countless hours on, I mark every piece of work without AI, and In school I come across as Anti-Ai (despite I'm actually pro), because I while I believe it is a powerful tool, I don't believe it has a place in an education setting. What's worse is that a lot of senior leaders use actual AI slop for posters and resources around the school (and I usually hate the term AI slop, but it actually is - e.g. a group of kids in a very similar school uniform to ours, but it's not. Also why does the classroom have two doors next to eachother?, even the kids think it's a joke).

Which brings me to the point, I think it's absolutely ridiculous to be treated like that by another teacher. Without even getting a response back to my reply, and just permanently muted with no explanation.

What's the biggest kicker is that every teacher knows most of the job is shit, the pay is shit, so some teachers do have side hustles.

I'm glad I'm leaving teaching, it's not worth being treated like crap in person by a teacher as an adult, and internet "heroes" who think they are doing the world a favour on a subreddit made dedicated to supporting teachers in the UK.

It sucks is that some of the kids won't get a proper education due to a teacher shortage on my subject, but I don't get why there is so much drama in teaching, online and in person. I just want to teach.

I made a similar post about this a few weeks ago when it happened, I'm still pretty disgusted tbh. They act worse than the children I teach. I will keep bringing this up at any opportunity I get until I get a valid response from that subreddit.

Like.... I'm on Fedora Rawhide, I accept that things are going to break. The last time there was an issue with an Nvidia update somebody else had posted a repo with a fix and I was able to get back online. What I just don't understand is like what these two people mean precisely by why would I do that or why not just go to an older kernel? Well I like rolling releases and I disliked having to maintain Arch so I went with fedora rawhide, if anyone else like me happened to have had the same issue and woke up to a system that didn't display properly I put out a fix.

Vibecode the means of production.

No hate, just curious

You can't have feelings, I guess.

Not allowed.

there's a reason its called ARTIFICIAL intelligence. I dont like ai and even I know it gets stuff wrong. It's ARTIFICAL because it thrives off existing knowledge. It's not a thing that knows everything. The captial of france could be rome for all it knows. Ai isnt always right yknow.

Why do people who don't understand capitalism think they are entitled to a "job"?

Companies exist to make profits, not jobs.

Bullies should not be employable.

I, for one, do not want to buy a product made by a self-entitled bully! Do you?

I’ve been thinking about some of the feedback on my first chapter, and I can’t get over how funny it is that so many people were CERTAIN I’d used AI to write it. So much so that it got removed. Twice.

The funniest part is that a lot of their observations were completely accurate. The repetition, deadpan dialogue, oddly definitive sentences, selective descriptions, and bookends.

Someone pointed to the circular structure of the chapter as evidence of AI. Meanwhile, I’ve been doing that in my artwork, poetry, and music for YEARS.

Some of the things people identified as suspicious about the narrator are actual functions of the narration. Sometimes it’s just reporting what it observes. Sometimes it’s behaving a little strangely. Sometimes it might just think something is funny.

Why are these literary CHOICES making people so certain I’ve used AI?

My working theory is that it’s what they were looking for.

THAT is the funniest part to me because expectation, perception, and the conclusions people draw from incomplete information are recurring themes in the book itself. I just hadn’t considered AI detection as one of the expectations readers would bring with them.

For the record, I don’t use generative AI. I’ve absolutely used AI to help with work emails and I’m sure countless other things I’m unaware of.

Your email suggesting the rest of your sentence? Predictive text? Automated replies? You’re using AI. We’ve been interacting with forms of it for years, but now everyone seems to use “AI” as though it exclusively refers to having a large language model generate something for you.

I wrote my book, and I’m not especially concerned with convincing anyone of that.

I am, however, fascinated by how people reached their conclusions.

I’m trying to figure out how readers interpret the information I give them, and apparently I’ve accidentally collected a whole separate study on how they interpret ME.

I couldn’t have planned that better if I’d tried Lmfao.

This is an article about a pretty fresh talk that happened yesterday at a "Steam Indie Connect" event in Korea. It's a very good write-up so I recommend reading it in full but here are some notable points and quotes from the event that was worth highlighting:

Total Steam revenue in South Korea grew 126% over the past five years, with premium game and DLC revenue increasing by 70% and in-game purchase revenue surging by 388% over the same period.

On AI copycats:

Giardino said, "Rather than relying on a single mechanic that someone can easily copy, you need to keep growing your game by adding features, personality, and creativity that stem from your own perspective."

Tom Giardino expressed regret, noting that this was the first time he had heard of such extortion cases. He started with Valve's underlying principle regarding new technologies. "We don't want to be gatekeepers telling developers which tools they should or shouldn't use," he said, stating that whether to use AI in development is a decision for the developers themselves.

However, he pointed out that clone games existed long before AI. Spotting an interesting concept during Next Fest and quickly making a similar game or chasing trends has always happened; AI has simply accelerated that pace.

Valve has historically not been aggressive with DRM or anti-piracy measures. Instead, it placed weight on making the legitimate version the best version available, and he explained that Valve views AI cloning through the same lens. Giardino said, "Rather than relying on a single mechanic that someone can easily copy, you need to keep growing your game by adding features, personality, and creativity that stem from your own perspective."

On "AI Slop" hitting Next Fest and its current staggering 7000+ participants:

Marc Wilkinson explained the visibility structure of Next Fest. For the first two days of the event, games are shown to players on a virtually random basis. After that, personalized recommendations kick in, surfacing more games that a player is likely to enjoy and purchase. He pointed out that many articles complaining about a flood of low-quality games were written based solely on those first two days.

He also shared the reason behind starting randomly. It is to prevent system abuse by those trying to enter early just to gain immediate visibility, and to give every game a fair share of exposure during Next Fest. "We recognize that the trade-off is some low-quality games get exposed," he said. "We are fully aware of the situation, and a significant number of people are thinking about how to solve this problem."

He also pointed out that the benchmark for success varies for each game. There are titles overjoyed to gain 10,000 wishlists during Next Fest — tripling their previous total — while others are disappointed even after gaining 50,000 because it fell short of expectations. "As platform operators, we can't define what success means for an individual game," he said, explaining that Valve chose to keep the doors open for both Next Fest and seasonal sales while continuously refining page layouts and placements.

He noted that this concern was not new. When Steam Greenlight launched around 14 years ago, developers asked if Greenlight games could be filtered out. When Steam Direct, the current self-publishing system, was introduced, requests came in for a checkbox to hide Steam Direct games. Every time, rather than turning developers away or trying to pre-filter good games from bad ones, Valve chose to improve the shopping experience.

Giardino said, "We don't think we're perfect and there's plenty of room for improvement," but added, "Rather than limiting developer access, making Steam a smarter and more dynamic platform is the starting point of our philosophy."

On Discoverability and the Personal Calendar:

He explained that this feature differs from other Steam features because it revolves around recency. While top store recommendations and top seller lists include games from years ago like 'GTA 5' or 'Tactical Breach Wizards,' the Personal Calendar is virtually the only space dedicated exclusively to brand-new releases.

Nevertheless, he noted that the Personal Calendar was designed to reach deep into the catalog. "It doesn't matter if this game is a global top seller. What matters is whether there are enough signals indicating it will be popular with you personally," he said, stating that Valve will continue to refine the feature so games can connect with their audience even if they aren't top sellers.

Much of the criticism of AI coming from the anti-AI camp is, in fact, entirely valid in its own right. AI poses a threat to art as a craft and as paid labor; it facilitates the spread of propaganda; it carries an environmental cost, and so on.

The problems begin when they use this as the foundation for an anti-AI ideology, an ideology of opposition to technology.

The problem, as I see it, is that it shapes into the idea that "we must oppose technology because the way it’s currently being implemented has a number of issues."

In a sense, I partly agree that we need to respond to all of this (and, in fact, we are already doing so, for instance, universities have reintroduced exams using pen and paper to prevent students from cheating with the help of AI, revenge porn was banned even before, so part of harm was prohibited even before ai ). However, those who oppose AI take it a step further, arguing that AI, as a technology, is, on the whole or in certain specific applications, more harmful than beneficial.

My issue is that, at this stage, you’re no longer critiquing AI as a human technology, which is, by definition, something whose use is optional, but rather treating it as some sort of mythical evil that is inherently bad, regardless of how it’s applied.

So, responding to this thread here.

The OP in this thread is right. It doesn't necessarily take a lot of money to learn to draw. If you have the tools to use and take advantage of AI to make projects, you also can acquire artistic software and learn art skills that way. The privilege here isn't financial, it's time. Having the free time to set aside to devote a lot of time to becoming a quality digital artist, modeler, vector artist, CGI etc (when you're making a game or piece of software - it's going to be more complex an ask than just "learning to draw") nor the time or interest to spend, assuming they get to a good base level of quality, their time making all the assets for whatever project they're trying to do. And it does take time. I have seem some anti's on here share some competent amateur art. Would be acceptable on deviantart, but it is still in no way the quality that someone would expect playing a video game. Genuinely.

And this isn't just specifically a "literally no time" thing. Sometimes you do literally have time if you abandon all of your other interests and just focus on art skill attainment. That's not a reasonable request or expectation for anyone who has need of visual assets for a game or project.

The utility and value of AI now is that projects fulfilled by just one person really can now exist in a way they couldn't beforehand. Before AI, if you were not omnidisciplined - you would likely have to work as part of a team or commission artists or other people to fill in the gaps that you can't do. That's all gone now.

I will start with two, for the "opposing AI is ableist" just because AI can help neurodivergent or physically disabled individuals create assets or write, any critique of generative AI or its data-scraping practices is inherently ableist.

Also, the "Adapt or die / Learn to code / Learn to prompt" BS, Telling displaced workers or artists that their jobs are gone, and that they just need to "adapt" or become a "prompt engineer" if they want to survive is incredibly unempathetic, socially tone-deaf, and treats devastating job loss with smug dismissal. I execpt people from my side advocates or acknowledge that economic disruption is a massive, painful issue that requires safety nets and serious policy, not this garbage.

So I've played an instrument my whole life, and started trying to record music over 20 years ago. I started on Sony Acid, I can't even remember if it had a "pro" version it's been so long. Got myself a midi keyboard and made electronic music. Then sort of stayed in the rock and guitar lane for a while and eventually landed in modular land.

I fell in love with modular synthesis and built a fairly extensive rack. A lot of personal issues popped up and I lost it all except a midi keyboard a friend was nice enough to gift me along with a laptop.

Spent a couple months with Suno writing an album but like many suno users wasn't happy with the amount of input I had in it. They're still my songs, but I wanted them to be fully mine.

Since Opus 5.5 I've been making my own synthes and electronic instruments for myself and have been writing music algorythmically and expect in a couple months I'll have my own system ala Autecher, AFX etc.

I read some posts lately saying that some of these things aren't creative, but I'm not sure why someone would say that.

I have never felt so musically liberated in my life.

https://americanhumanist.org/news/humanist-secures-workplace-accommodations-from-personal-ai-use-on-the-basis-of-his-beliefs/

Edit: the wave of downvotes really makes it seem like the Pros don’t actually care about personal choice, and want to force AI use on everybody. They are pissed about one guy getting to opt out of AI use at his job

I get it if it's breaking a rule of lying about AI in that subreddit but if you see an AI post in a pro AI or a subreddit that isn't against AI then most of y'all take your pitch forks and raid it "Your AI Slop bores me." reaction images

It's like a vegan complaining about meat in a Chick fil A subreddit. Just downvote and move on, you don't have to be a d***

I like watching these. I don't know why. I just like watching them. Do you have a playlist or a long compilation or a series or something when i can just watch one after another after another after another? I'm not joking.

Imagine a publicly posted illustration being used in three different ways:

1. Someone looks at it as a reference while drawing a new image.
2. Someone uploads it to an AI image generator to create a variation.
3. A developer includes it in a model’s training dataset.

In each case, the original artist is credited but wasn’t asked for permission.

Which uses would you consider acceptable with attribution alone, and which would require permission? What principle explains where you draw the line?

I’m interested in ethical standards here, rather than assuming the same legal answer applies everywhere. If your answer depends on copyright law, please specify the jurisdiction and link the source.

Disclosure: I’m exploring this topic for a class project.

A lot of anti AI people seem almost hysterical about it. I was basically bullied out just for suggesting that they should allow AI tools to help with grammar and spelling, especially for people with disabilities and non native English speakers.

I wasn't asking them to allow AI generated posts or walls of text. Witch i hate.
All I wanted was for them to relax their rules slightly so people could use AI to improve their English. They could still be 99% against AI instead of 100%.

The best tools spelling/grammar tools today is powered by Ai.

Instead, everyone turned against me, accusing me of having some hidden agenda to bring AI into the sci-fi community. The moderators even made fun of me in private messages. Eventually, I got fed up, told them to piss off, and got banned.

A lot of anti AI folks seem to have an almost religious, extremist hatred of AI and refuse to acknowledge anything positive about it. They show zero tolerance, a complete lack of empathy, and absolutely no willingness to compromise.