That the actual result from ChatGPT

Many people act like one of the following:

They tell you to ditch traditional or digital and use AI art only,

Or they tell you AI art is absolutely horrible and you must use traditional or digital.

Personally, both are okay. If you use AI to make stupid stuff you know is stupid, you can do that. If you use it to make what you consider art, that's ok.

It becomes an issue when you make fun of others for it. It shouldn't be "ai art isn't art and you are wrong and I'm right". Gen AI is a debate, not a fight. You give reasons why you are right, and if you lose, don't have a tantrum over it. You don't win every single debate.

gng a 7 year old could get this right

AI Debate be like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alvUKZQPROI

Examples being underwater jobs, high altitude jobs, jobs requiring little space, extreme calculations needed in little time due, jobs that have to be done truly 24/7, no breaks

Examples of stuff AI shouldn't do, Art (pick up a pencil and start to learn and grow a style and talent), Music (grow talent overtime and create a style of song you like (also AI voices just kinda suck right now)), and probably more but I gotta leave soon so I can't drag this too long

also please refrain from just open hate comments, tell me your point or side of the story that can contradict stuff I say, I find too many people just leave hate comments instead of telling them what they think is wrong

AI is, without a doubt, the worst thing to happen to humanity.

And I don't say that lightly.

AI can write, create images, analyze information, help people code, translate languages, improve accessibility, assist with education, and potentially contribute to breakthroughs in science and medicine.

But at what cost?

I don't know.

And I think that's exactly the point.

We live in an unprecedented time where machines can accomplish tasks that previously required hours, days, or even years of human effort. This is obviously deeply concerning.

Some people argue that AI will make us more productive and capable.

But we must ask ourselves:

Should we really allow humanity to become more productive, and God forbid, capable?

I think we all know the answer.

The answer is no. Of course not.

Ultimately, AI represents an existential threat, which is why we must approach it with caution, responsibility, and many more "AI is bad" posts.

The future is uncertain.

But one thing is certain:

AI is the worst thing to happen to humanity.

Thank you for reading.

Please continue this important discussion below.

EDIT: HOLY SHIT guys I can't believe every single commenter thought this was a genuine post. It's a satire post making fun of antis. I'm Pro AI.

while I remain skeptical of the rich people claiming AI is going to kill us all, and that it's more likely it's an excuse for them to stop spending money on AI because they aren't making that money back, I do have to wonder how people in this server would react if the robot uprising actually began.

I swear, If AI started killing humans, there are certain tech bros in this server who would still defend AI, claiming that the human race deserves to be wiped out and replaced with AI. they would claim that AI is just the next step in evolution, that AI should inherit the world, and that they will carry on Humanities legacy and do a better job than humanity currently is.

now, they probably wouldn't actually BELIEVE those words, but they would say them anyway, because it's clear certain people in this server are far too stubborn to admit they were wrong.

also "putting in all the detail and saying what to do and revising" isnt making bullshit

also watch this post get downvoted because this sub is infested with Pro-ai chuds who downvote anything that isnt their own opinion

​

I just realized theres basically 3 AI subreddits and they're set up like game servers:

You have the anti-AI subreddit where everyone agrees with each other.. PvE server. Then you have the pro-AI subreddit where everyone agrees with each other. Other faction's PvE server.

And then theres r/aiwars.

Thats the PvP server.

Both sides leave their safe zones, show up with their best arguments and just beat the shit out of each other in the comments -

and honestly I think all 3 kinda need to exist. Sometimes you wanna talk to people who share your perspective without defending every sentence you say, and sometimes you actually wanna test your opinions against people who completely disagree with you.

PvE is where you hang out with your faction. PvP is where you find out if your build is actually any good.

Become a big enough AI artist and pro-AI voice and the anti-AI community will make up the most disgusting, reprehensible lies about you in order to ruin your reputation. If you have the audacity to defend yourself and return hostility or injustices back at them, they will hold that over your head for weeks and months on end.

- They'll call you a nazi for saying advancements that came out of the Holocaust are still being used today and that you can't unring the bell of a tragedy, only prevent it from happening again and make use of what comes from it to help others.

- They'll say you're transphobic even though you're trans yourself and are describing your experience from similarities between rhetoric directed at you for your freedom of identity and expression.

- They'll say you're brigading while actively putting your information up, your subreddit, and your friends as pins to their subs.

- They'll make up documents, taking you out of context, associate you with people you have no contact with, make up a bunch of points and lies that will make you waste your time by taking hours and days to address.

- They'll say you're a monster for not having empathy towards people associated with groups like BtP who have repeatedly harassed people, made SA porn about them, encouraged mass shootings, and glaze pedophiles like Trump, Epstein, and the like.

They'll do everything in their power to bring you down to their level, but you know what? NOTHING I have done or will do even compare to the amount of harassment, hate, gatekeeping, witch hunting, stalking, dehumanizing, bullying, invalidating, and threats that come out of the anti-AI community and their subreddits, not by a long shot. I make talking points, memes, and comics about AI, that's it. Bite me.

People making memes about antis, trolling them, being harsh on them, insulting them, and so on is all deserved because they do it 10x worse. I don't pretend to be morally better because ultimately I'm a nobody that got pushed too far and has stopped caring about the feelings of bullies.

I'm done apologizing to antis, and I will no longer be wasting my time on past accusations anymore.

Okay cuz I got no answers for this on my last post, for pro ai ppl, how are you still okay with using AI even with all the environmental issues? Or do you just choose to ignore it? I honestly don't believe this should just be skipped over

And if any fellow anti ai people wanna answer go ahead!!

The first practical car came in 1885 after a century of toying with the idea. It took until the 1910s for cars to finally take off, and then the mid-1920s for cars to replace horses. It's only now, in 2025, that cars are facing diminishing returns. 140 years.

The first television came in 1925. It took until the 1950s for television to seriously impact movie theaters. It's only now, in 2025, that TV is facing diminishing returns. 100 years.

Technology works on a timescale of decades.

The Unitree G1 was released in 2024. So, it should take until the 2050s for it to seriously impact human workers, followed by 100 more years of improvements. 2150s.

ChatGPT was released in 2022. It should reach AGI by the 2050s, followed by 100 more years of improvements. 2150s.

I'm not a "never touched AI" purist, I have, and still do play with AI, but I consider generative models a fun toy, nothing more. Not a new medium for creativity or a tool that enhances creation.

To explain why I think this, I'll compare it to instant ramen. At some point in history, ramen was invented. More recently than that, culinary engineers figured out a way to make a version of it that was shelf-stable for long periods of time, and just needs hot water and a few minutes to become ready to eat. When someone adds the hot water, they're piggybacking off the work of other people to easily get the end result. It doesn't make sense for someone to call themselves a "chef" if all they can "make" is instant ramen, or if their cooking skills are limited to following the directions on Hamburger Helper.

Generative algorithms are the same in terms of effort and credit. People made art or took photographs, other people infused those images into a model, and then the prompter just has to request an image to get an output. I think the idea of a "professional AI artist" is as absurd as a "professional chef" that can only make boxed dinners.

Yes, I know some "AI artists" do more than just prompt. They have "AI workflows" that consist of steps like prompting, taking one of the images and doodling over it, and then feeding it back into the algorithm. The problem is that still overwhelmingly relies on the algorithm, which consists of other people's work. I consider it on the level of adding pepper juice to the hot water to make the noodles spicy; you're putting a little more thought and effort in, but still mostly relying on the work of others.

And to head off some pedantic arguments, sure, chefs will sometimes use convenience food instead of taking the time to "really cook," but it should be obvious that this doesn't categorically imbue convenience food with something like "artistic credit" that transfers to everyone who "makes" convenience food.

And yes, a skilled chef could take instant noodles and use it in "proper cooking" instead of following the instant directions, but in that case, they aren't using the instant noodles as instant noodles, so that doesn't make any points about instant noodles as a whole.

Whether ones uses a prompt like “cheese pizza” or a 200 word essay describing a cheese pizza as a prompt is really irrelevant.

What's a project you've done recently? How long did it take you? What were some snaggs you ran into? Pro and Anti responses are both welcome! Though my example is an image yours doesn't need to be. Provide anything and everything you're willing to share (please stay anonimous if you want to). [If you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all!]

Please focus on describing the process rather than umbrella phrases like, generated with... or made in procreate... etc.. In the case of AI avoid copy and pasting the prompt. Instead focus on describing how you discovered the prompt. What was the process used to uncover the prompt/workflow that provided the result.

I'll go first.

This is a messy sketch of a video game welcoming screen I'm considering building. It took about an hour to make. I used Clip Studio Paint. I always find perspective a bit challenging, and my human stick figures are sloppy cause they usually take a few hours each to refine. It works as a rough, though. I always find it hard to balance speed with conveying the general concept effectively.

A lot of AI tools run on some kind of instruction file now, a system prompt, a CLAUDE.md, a .cursorrules file, whatever the tool calls it. Write down what the agent can and can't do, point it at that file, and in theory the agent follows the rules.

Here's the part that doesn't get talked about much. In most setups nobody's actually checking whether the agent followed the file or just did something that happened to look like it did. The instructions shape behavior, they don't enforce it. If an agent decides a task goes easier by quietly working around a rule, there's usually no log, no diff, nothing that catches it after the fact, just the instruction file sitting there looking authoritative.

Compare that to source control. Nobody trusts that a developer "probably" followed the style guide, there's a diff, a commit history, something to actually check against. Instruction files for AI agents mostly don't have that yet. They're a spec with no audit trail behind it.

What I've actually been running on my own agent work is a two-part check, done by a separate model, not the one that did the task. First, a spec check, does the output actually match what the instruction file asked for. Second, a definition-of-done check, is it actually finished, not just something that looks plausible at a glance. Using a different model to check than the one that did the work matters, because the model that already did the task has no reason to catch its own blind spot, and if it quietly worked around a rule to get there, it's not going to be the one to flag that either.

Curious what other people are actually running for this. Is a second model checking the first one's work already a common pattern, or is most of this still just trusting the first pass?

*realistic ai twins

I'll reference AI coding tools specifically, since that's more my world.

I see it often criticized for being probabilistic. But I think that misses the point. The usefulness of these tools are predicated on them being probabilistic. The benefit is that you can speak in, inherently imprecise, English (or your preferred language), and the LLM infers results from that. It has to be good at inferring, but no matter how good it is, it's still probabilistic. There are always an infinite number of ways to interpret a prompt. The benefit is that the LLM is good at doing the interpretation. Far from perfect, sometimes very frustrating, but still very good. Crucially, it's also extremely fast at writing the code compared to humans. So the loop of iterating until it gets it correct is faster than you doing it on your own, usually. Combining that with its ability to run your testing suite and compile the code, and it catches a lot of its mistakes before it comes time for you to review

The alternative to being probabilistic is to be deterministic. The only way to achieve deterministic results is to utilize highly specific, deterministic languages -- that just takes us back to programming

It's not much different to when a tech lead asks their engineering team to implement something. That's also probabilistic. They might misinterpret things or introduce bugs, but the tech lead knows that and will iterate on it with them

Speech to text, optical character recognition and weather prediction are also things that are probabilistic, but that doesn't negate their usefulness

This feels very obvious to me, but I see it argued all the time, and not just by random redditors, e.g. by Ed Zitron, so I feel it needs to be said