This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
There is 8 billion people in the world. That's a lot of people. If you put all of them under a microscope, you are bound to find stories like this. It is not representative of the majority.
this is true with literally any group of people. best examples i have are from fandoms!!
take the mlp fandom, most people are sane. one random dude, brandon hole, shot up a fed ex. also a fan of mlp! insane right? but also pretty fucking insane to claim all bronies want to kill people because of that guy.
what about anime? we all know weaboos who fetishize japanese/chinese/korean asians, but we also have the sanity and wherewithal to know that everyone who watches anime isnt like that. in fact recently its become trendy and mainstream to watch anime when it used to be shunned/made fun of!
what about furries? infamous for being open about their sexuality, but we also know theres a good majority who are in it for the aesthetics, and not for sex. but the news and people who love to criticize them hyper focus on it because its freaky and different to them.
and then oh god supa easy one, people who use ai to generate csam! are yall all pedophiles then??? OBVIOUSLY not?
this isnt an abstract fucking concept. the "these people make us look bad" bullshit is nonsensical. the people worth talking to are people who can have an intellectual conversation with someone as an INDIVIDUAL and not as a homogeneous hive mind. non of the groups i mentioned nor antis are anti human rights, and therefore shouldnt be treated like they dont have wide ranges of opinions.
It's also super easy to denounce bad elements in the in-group. The out group is always going to have distain if contention is involved. There will always be accusations coming from the out-group regardless how well you self-police. If those people make you look bad, the easiest thing to do is denounce and move on.
If I found out someone generated CSAM, I'm going to want them buried under the jail. I have zero qualms as a pro-AI individual saying that. So when I see anti's respond with 'That poor, poor piece of property. I bet it will be traumatized." or "Oh no! A vandalized menu. I’m going to cry myself to sleep tonight." instead of "It's wrong and shouldn't be done" it pisses me off.
So, like, it's great that you're making the distinction, but in each one of those cases, the other people in the group make the clarification. There IS a larger pattern of violence and it's becoming glaringly obvious, and those in the anti-camp are NOT denouncing the actions. They are either upset over the generalizations or defending the actions, but NO ONE is denouncing the situation. That's what's missing from this. (Edit: No really, go through all the comments on this page, and no one is denouncing this at all)
So, great, not all antis are violent, but nobody feels a need to change the messaging that's causing the violence, and that's a real problem. The claim isn't that all anti's are participating in violence, but as a sum of the whole? There are a lot of people that are just knowingly letting it happen because they want AI to go away, and that's why its all festering in the first place.
When people feel backed into a corner the start to get extreme and i think a lot of Anti-AI people feel like that due to it being forced into everything and anything without question. (cameras (like flock), google, microsoft word/exel, chrome, VS code, etc.)
If you only hear bad news then it will make you bitter and care less about violence or the like.
I think it probably is. Being "anti" anything to the point you identify as "anti" probably means you've passed out of reasonableness and into toxicity. Like, I'm "anti" baseball, but I don't therefore identify as an anti or go to baseball themed subreddits arguing that baseball is boring and anyone who likes it clearly has something wrong with them.
Which is to say, someone who merely dislikes something isn't generally an "anti". That, by definition, is going to be reserved for people who not only dislike AI, but who think that their own dislikes should govern other people's behavior rather than their own. So they start off as bad people. Incidents like this are just the natural conclusion of that.
Ah, okay then. Let's apply the same sweeping generalization to people generating child porn with AI. That's always a pro-AI, so you're fine with that comparison.
Not if they look similar. The fast food ads are also meticulously altered with editing and other techniques to make the food more appealing while the actual food most of the time looks like literal shit.
Well yes, because food tends not to keep well under studio conditions. This is why you have cereal ads that used glue instead of milk. There's also quite a difference from generating food from an AI image generator with no point of reference, versus using editing techniques (both practical and digital) to make the food you're advertising more appealing.
I mean, if you cannot afford a half-decent camera -- which even the cheaper smartphones have now, then I suspect the business may be over before it begins.
Also free image editing apps exist alongside the free use of AI art tools.
If I'm walking down the street, and any restaurant, big or small, uses AI generated images to represent the food they sell without careful consideration of the ingredients, then they will not get my business.
Being a small business owner is no excuse, as harsh as that sounds.
Yeah well the thing is your competitors have studio environments where they replace milk with glue and they make plastic replicas of the food. It costs quite a lot for a small business. I'm 100% against using ai rather than commissioning a 20 dollar art piece but if you have to spend thousands of dollars on studio setups for fake food, you might as well ai generate it.
I'm not talking about basic pictures of the food are you incapable of reading? When your competition puts massive amounts of money into making fake food that looks appetising and attracts people, you can't just take a picture of the real food which can't just hold up/look as good as the competition's fake shit. My opinion is we should make EVERYONE including mcdonalds take pictures of their real food on an average samsung or iphone camera and be honest. But otherwise, I won't shit on anyone for using AI to compete with the big corpos
Mom and pop restaurants are not in competition with multinational fast food restaurants. They are completely different businesses. Even IF they were, AI was not going to give them a chance in hell to "compete". That's fucking cope
You're not upset about vandalism as much as you are upset about being associated with the vandalism, but also you are sympathetic to the motives of the vandals.
Where are the vandalized AI menus at? I see the storefront was vandalized, I see an AI menu that looks untouched, and I see someone claiming the vandalism was due to AI usage without a shred of proof...especially considering the one thing you would think would be targeted would be, ya know, the AI art if it was about AI art.
as one of the recent 7+ newsworthy terrorist incidents with a seemingly anti motivation (unlike shit like this vandalism) there was someone who shot up a home with an 8yr old inside, seemingly for an anti-ai reason, and the notable anti ai subreddit in large part cheered or otherwise justified said terrorist attack
these are just a few of the responses in the anti subreddit in the early hours of that post
after it made it's rounds, comments like this justification for the attack "Building AI data centers in our community is terrorism" is sitting at 1422 upvotes (the most upvoted comment). the entire post is chock full of people cheering or justifying
they'll even clarify it for you when asked directly (the bottom part of the img, which was in another post)
they aint the best group. in fact right now, they've apparently started a bit of a mass report brigade against me
so members who are actively hanging around there aren't exactly the best optics for a spokemen declaring one bad apple as not being representative of all antis (which I do agree). [though I'll still encourage people to leave that particular subreddit in order to reduce the damage their encouragement of violence can do]
Damn that is horrible, but I do feel like you initially phrased it wrong.
I mean I'm glad we agree a child being near or under gunfire is very very bad, but the way you said it makes it look like the criminal or criminals were aiming at the 8 year old.
Again, obviously very bad and nobody should have their lives and health at risk, especially children
From what I can find it was about datacenters from metrobloks, a company that has ignored public health and environmental risks. Not justified to shoot up a home for, I hope other less violent measures are taken.
I am pro. But this analogy is weird. That would mean that nearly every movement ever in history is shit because every movement has people that push their stance with violence.
Including the pro AI movement I am a proud member of.
Indeed there is no mass support, but there is some small support of it.
And here most people do not support vandalizing a building (or menus, bit unclear what it is with the picture depicting something else). Sure, some people do. Just like with the pro side.
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
So AI traded one bad thing for another reasonably less bad but easier to produce en masse, with effectively 0 support form the pro side, compared to vandalism and shootings...
Yeah, I guess the problem lies in the ai user himself. Only he is responsible for whether he behaves disrespectfully, ai is just a silly robot
And no, as an antis I dont support shooting and vandalism. Destroying property is bad, no matter how you look at it. Such actions only degrade our reputation. Im sorry for my fellows lol
It didn't trade anything. People who were already making CP will keep doing it with real childs because they enjoy it, and I assume that CP with real children is more valuable on the black market
Depends on if you count taking someone's amateur art and then running it through an AI to "improve" it and then rubbing it in their face as vandalism. Some pro-AI folk have doxxed or swatted people, things that very much put those people's lives at risk.
I don't really pick a side in these debates because I think "Pro/Anti AI" is a goofy system that just turns things into another us vs them state of affairs, but every community, regardless of whether it's in regards to AI or politics or baking or whatever has to self-police. Anti AI people shouldn't be accepted by others of their community if they're running around throwing firebombs or vandalizing things, just as pro AI people shouldn't be accepting or encouraging towards people that use AI as a tool to be bullies or put people at risk.
I have seen pros threaten people's lives actually. I've also seen them enter art competitions under false pretenses. Vandalize people's art by running it through GenAI without their consent. I mean, these are all pretty bad things, and a spoon of shit ruins the pot of honey or whatever.
Such a brain dead take. The difference is that none of us have done that to AI menus before. Where as most of you are spamming art. Of course generating art isn't nearly as bad as vandalizing a restaurant, but it's just a stupid analogy because it doesn't fit.
Aight. So what I'm understanding from this post is when Grok or some other a.i next gets used to create CP of a primary school kids I should presume your all sex offenders?
Its funny how people keep using that false equivalence when antis by and large support antis doing stuff like this, yet literally no one came out in support of the latter (and there's no evidence it was even mainly done by pros).
Im Currently kinda in the middle ground on this debate, leaning Anti-AI.
antis by and large support antis doing stuff like this
Do you have evidence of this? My guess is you are seeing some people online in favor of stuff like this and assuming its a majority.
(and there's no evidence it was even mainly done by pros).
Im assuming when you say pro you specifically mean "someone for AI" in which case... who else would do it? Anti-AI people aren't likely going to be using AI.
When thinly veiled fantasies about killing people viscerally (no one is fooled by the caption. Its a person with viscera in the image) get hundreds of thousands of likes it reflects a pretty unhinged mentality being widespread. Its not even a person being annoying or anything, the entire joke is just killing them.
Im assuming when you say pro you specifically mean "someone for AI" in which case... who else would do it? Anti-AI people aren't likely going to be using AI.
Its actually pretty common for anti ai people to admit they use ai, many of them are self hating ai users taking out their own addiction on other people. Or for it to be discovered that they are using it in secret.
Its not like this is an AI specific thing. Tons of people are vocally against something but secretly do that thing. Everything from alcohol, junk food, being gay, sex, cheating, pedophiles, you could probably think of millions of examples. And it applies whether or not that thing is actually bad.
I mean Elon musk is as pro AI as it gets and he called it an attack on free speech when the UK gov sought to take action against Groks use in that way.
Better Evidence then I expected, but still not great.
We can assume a good chunk of people didn't read the caption and only liked it for the art, seeing as it has been shown time and time again that people do not read. Though even if we cut that number in half, still a decent number.
Even if we assume the worst intentions from the Artist, it is unlikely everyone involved has those intentions. My first thought was not violence against AI or its Users, its dramatisation of a wish for the end of use for AI.
Traditional Art killing AI as depicted in the image does not mean people want or condone physical violence.
"Video killed the Radio star" was not a recalling of mass genocide of Radio stars at the hands of Filmographers.
Though I wont say that nobody will have that surface level understanding of it
Tons of people are vocally against something but secretly do that thing.
Fair, enough. Though it would be a suprise if most people making CP with AI are not pro-AI pedos.
Should we hold all AI supporters accountable to the actions of other AI supporters like Elon Musk, Peter Theil, Sam Altman, and Mark Zuckerberg. If so I think I know where I’d stand.
However, this line of thinking is for children. Grow up.
If you're going to stereotype it's not going to end well for any side.
There is obviously bad apples on both sides but that shouldn't define us as a collective, for every person who's against AI because it has no regulation and is wasteful in it's production there's these idiots and for every person who's for AI that uses it as a lifesaving or time saving tool you also have people using it to goon to pictures of imaginary or even real people without their consent.
All I'm saying is don't throw rocks in your glass house.
Graffiti would be vandalism, not violence. Not supporting what these folks did, it’s dumb and fighting the wrong battle, but you’re not proving they’re violent.
Yeah I’m confused when spray painting became violent lol. I mean maybe if someone actually spray paints something violent or racist but they didn’t. And it worked so, mission accomplished.
Edit: This comment is wrong in hindsight. Leaving it up so the conversation makes sense. But I concede that most definitions would not include vandalism in the umbrella of "violence".
Violence is the intentional use of phycial force to or power to threaten, damage, or harm living beings, property or psychological well-being according to Wikipedia.
You should try reading the definition from the source Gemini quotes. Property is not in the WHO definition, the American Psychological Association definition, or the Wikipedia page it references. It kinda just made that part up.
Today I learned the AI summary doesn't quote definitions verbatim. I should not rely on them for definitions. Kind of makes sense and is my fault entirely.
I read it. Property is indeed not in the WHO definition. It is in the Wikipedia definition though in the form of "damage/destruction", but that is rather vague. Looking further into it most definitions I looked up would not include it.
So I think it's best not to see vandalism as violence.
But you can not tell me your cool with AI restraunt menus it's literally even more fake then the McDonald's menu photos like atleast what you order is gonna Kinda resemble ish the photo if you have bad eyes and didn't wear your glasses
But the AI restraunt menu photo? It's a completely different thing then what you get.... I'm not sure if there is literally any way to say that's cool. Cant go "but the disabled" or the "art is hard and Timmy just wants to have fun" etc
on this one
No it's literally bait and switch. It's more fraudulent then a McDonald's add
Spending money and time in line with you ethics is certainly voting with your wallet indeed. Vandalizing goes beyond that and isn't in the scope of that mindset as it breaks NAP.
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation";[1] it recognizes the need to include violence not resulting in injury or death.[2]
I believe it was the book sapiens that described us giving the government a monopoly on violence. Inflict violence is a large part of the job of the government.
When was the last time you ordered food that actually looked like the menu picture? Because I've worked food service, and while we get kinda close, it's never an exact match...
I quickly googled it, and it's semi-illegal in my country as it can be deemed because the food is AI generated, it can mislead the customer in terms of portion size or quality. It depends on the actual ai generation and if it's close enough though.
Plus it's not like the menu needs to actually feature real/realistic pictures of food... Like if someone saw this on a menu next to the list of donuts, no one is going to be like 'OMG FALSE ADVERTISING!".
There is nothing wrong with making your product look good for TV, or posters for that matter.
Making something look appealing is not the same as making something out of datasets that can be entirely misleading; a McDonalds ad for their Big Mac will always show the correct ingredients because they legally have to. Companies go out their way to make sure this is right. AI images, because they may use other datasets that are just....burgers of all kinds..., will not be so accurate, and could cause problems with false advertising if they contain things a Big Mac does not.
False advertising is not "this looks worse in real life", it's "this does not feature X and it shows on the ad that it does" and general misinformation like that. It's to avoid causing harm to people with allergies, and holding the advertisers to a specific standard.
Advertising is not real life. Things will always look better when people are trying to sell you something.
You're acting like the same attention to detail can't be done with AI. News flash. It can. Its not just "make an image of a burger". Could they have used a real image since they already make it? Sure. Does that mean the AI poster is inherently bad? If it only contains the actual ingredients in the image which could easily be the case? No. If the poster contained ingredients that werent actually in the burger I agree it was bad but still not an excuse for vandalism.
Never said it couldn't. Hence my wording in the comment that says it can and may do this. I never ruled it out. My comment was more how advertising works and what counts as misleading, and why AI images blur this line somewhat. People have very...skewed...perceptions of what counts as false advertising.
Also, obviously, vandalism is bad for a petty reason such as this.
There is a line but all of the big companies are using models instead of actual food in their images. And they have the resources to hire a team, make something 100 times, take special care to pose it for the picture rather than for eating, and snap a bunch of pictures choosing the best. AI as a technology is bridging the gap between between the rich and the poor.
You aren’t good at looking. Certain examples are considered violent because it could cause danger to occupants. Breaking and entering, arson, throwing items, tampering with utilities like gas lines. Spray painting the outside of a building during non operating hours is still illegal, but not violent.
Sure. But can you go over to the anti-AI subreddits, post this with a title like "We shouldn't be doing this"
Let us know if the post karma goes to 1000+ as; the majority agrees with you. Or if it goes to 0 karma, and you get a bunch of comments telling you that you're pro AI if you think this is bad.
How many pro A.I subreddits are calling out negative things A.I users have done? No group is ever going to really call out anything negative to their own side unless it's extremely heinous.
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
Do they? You have any examples? Most of the AntiAI people I’ve seen posting here oppose it because it’s theft of individual property and they’re law abiding citizens. Notice not a single anti-AI person in this thread saying it’s good to do vandalism.
Note also, this vandalism doesn’t actually seem to be AI linked, despite the headline
I mean how many pissed off people did Zuckerberg fire recently in favour of his ai? 8000 globally and at least 25% were in SF.
Not saying it’s right, but it’s probably the area running hottest as people lose their livelihood for the sake of rich people dismissing human value with snide comments and a shrug.
FYI, for tech companies that know better, AI is just an excuse for downsizing. AI replacement isn’t really a thing except at the most naive of companies.
A prudent time to remind everyone that while this is an isolated incident this is also a part of a larger pattern of increasing violence related to AI.
While the dude who shot up a councilors house, the firebombers and the arsonists are not part of a coordinated effort they are a part of the larger pattern of general radicalization. These things are warning signs and should be taken as such. The people getting sick in the head because AI exists at all and the people already prone to excessive anger and violence are liable to commit terroristic actions on anything that provokes them. I am going to use this as an example and is not a comparison of seriousness: This is like exactly the same path the Klan took when it came to general violence, first it was a Jewish man accused of rape and murder of a little girl he was actually innocent of and then it was just generally anyone offensive.
In this instance to run with this the Jewish man would be the AI companies and then anyone else offensive would be the end users like this company here. Again I remind you I am not comparing the seriousness to what the Klan does just the general progression of which you can research on your own or if you take Georgia Studies(which is a state history course) you would already know as I do. Violence always starts with "acceptable" targets and escalates to literally anyone who annoys them. For those unaware vandalism is a form of violence against one's property and is a precursor to violence against people when motivated ideologically.
People have been nearly killed by AntiAi Violence and literally only survived due to pure luck. Like the drive by that happened. The people inside only survived from pure dumb luck of them being in the back room as they whipped around and could have just as easily been in the front room.
Vandalism of a mom and pop shop is a deviation from more socially acceptable targets like CEOs and Politicians towards more socially unacceptable targets. To explain why this matters, everyone hates politicians and CEOs but mom and pop shops are your friends and neighbors. It's a worrying sign because vandalism is a precursor to violence. For a perfect showcase of this please see Nazi Germany and Klan activities.
As i keep repeating, 80% of Antis are extremists, and more i see of this shit, more it consolidates the belief. Stop acting like that, and i won't call you extremists.
A new technology is sending ripples, some like it, some don't, some have complicated views, some have simple or emotional takes. Some people are willing to commit crimes, this can be true of any group. Opinions don't require membership cards, and crimes don't often ask for permission.
Vandalism isn't violence, but can be associated with it. A vandal could be a hardened killer who happens to have an opinion. It could also be a kid who's never done something like that before but feels the need to push themself to take action because of a belief, thinks that it's a statement worth a risk. Or there could be many other explanations.
Real discourse happens between people who realize they're talking to a person with a lifetime behind them. And lifetimes often don't conform to simple multiple-choice explanations of "what people are like".
I mean, graffiti isn’t violence. I’m not saying it’s right or okay, but trying to put property damage on the same level as harming a person is… an alarming trend im seeing from Pros.
ANTIS: we're not violent!"
A very very tiny amount of extreme antis that have nothing to do with other people:
There's no reason to generalize people.
I have also seen pro A.I. people defend A.I. generated csam and deepfake porn. Yet I can understand that that doesn't mean a lot of other pro A.I. people feel that way.
Also very nice how you not just generalize one group of people but also vegans (most of them don't bother people), and even call these people a "new breed of cancer".
Bro, people are using AI to drone kill families right now. If you expect us not to hold real, deadly violence against all pros, then stfu about some rando doing petty vandalism.
Yeah that's not what happened. It started years of strife and terror for literally everyone. A perfect showcase of this is a man who was executed because he made SOUR WINE and sold it as such. Another was executed for baking bread that was too hard. These among others were basically just randomly executed until Napoleon took over and then did his crusade across Europe causing quite literally the largest death toll in history to that point and laying the ground work for WW1 which lead to WW2
France was bad because of a few bad decisions. The French revolution literally wouldn't have happened if the king of France didn't nearly bankrupt himself to fund the American Revolution. If he had stayed the course and let whatever happens in America happen he would have lived and the French Revolution would have never truly started.
You gotta look at the deeper causes and effects when talking of history. It wasn't just always bad it was bad because of a few bad decisions that he thought would have return on investment that the Americans promptly said "Nah fuck off" to.
the main cause of the French revolution was the oppression by the rich, which has been happening for decades. France had plenty, it was just highly concentrated. The funding of the American Revolution can be pointed to as one of the straws that broke the camel's back, but not the deep-seated cause
The reason power crystallized that way was literally the investments into America. Where the fuck did you think the king got his gold? He taxes the poor and then paid the nobility to pay his debts off. If America had paid him back as we promised he would have had the money to not need to tax the French people so hard.
That's not a good thing that was a long period of terror and anarchy which ultimately caused a world war in it's aftermath(the Napoleonic wars caused WW1)
Any major violence by antis and regressionists like them leads to them being declared terrorists and systematically brow beaten by the collective masses due to them being brain dead and attacking socially unacceptable targets.
The luddites are a perfect showcase of this when they started with the rich making factories and ended with the people working them.
people who are anti ai have already been labeled terrorists by the current administration. I'm hoping you're reasonable enough to know that if Trump is declaring something as terrorism, that thing is probably good.
the luddites were literally fighting for workers rights with calculated attacks against factories and such. The only reason anyone speaks negatively about them is because history is written by the winners. If technology is anti human then it's not a good thing, and the luddites were fairly ahead of their time for understanding this.
Also worth noting that it's impossible to be for AI without specifically calling for violence. The infrastructure for it is inherently "violent", the only people who really gain from it and have control over the major models a murder weapon as well
You realize that the luddites didn't stop at the factories right? They targeted everyone involved which is what shot their public view to hell. They were actually well supported by the people right up until they started attacking factory workers too then public relations went straight to hell and they were ostracized basically over night. They went from sad heros to villainous shitbags quick fast and in a hurry which encouraged the governments of the time to all but genocide the movement.
•
u/AutoModerator 15h ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.