Why do normies go nuclear over AI?

[SandyCat]

Are they buttfrustrated over not being able to charge $800 for drawings of fat farting dragons eating pizza?

 

[Haloperidol]

Seriously yes, I see the most sperging from artists upset that computers can now generate dozens of furry inflation porn images faster than they can, and they might not be able to scrape together a living from gofundme and commissions anymore.

Plus I’m starting to think a lot of people just imagine the worst case scenario for everything and have no idea what fun is. Innovation = omg dystopia is just around the corner.

 

[Robert Cummings]

Seriously yes, I see the most sperging from artists upset that computers can now generate dozens of furry inflation porn images faster than they can, and they might not be able to scrape together a living from gofundme and commissions anymore.

Plus I’m starting to think a lot of people just imagine the worst case scenario for everything and have no idea what fun is. Innovation = omg dystopia is just around the corner.

Those poor dragon fart inflation porn artists. Won't somebody think of the dragon fart inflation porn artists?

 

[MadStan]

It’s not AI. That’s a marketing gimmick. Real AI is a serious concern which doesn’t exist yet. The AI we have now will however start replacing many jobs in the real world with significant impact on society.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

Shock to the system when they realize all the jobs AI is displacing are the jobs everyone fantasized would be safe.

Those in the "creative" pursuits had this pretentious assumption that they were somehow special and what they were doing was uniquely "human." They imagined that, even as machines displaced manual labor or even academic/research roles as it became more advanced, a machine could never produce a work of art.

This was, of course, a fantasy. And they are absolutely horrified to learn they've based their life on a lie.

 

[WTBOnlineFather]

If I had a nickel for every time someone told me AI would put me out of a job in a couple years, I could just as well fucking retire right now and not give a single shit about any of it.
Normies collectively have a profound misunderstanding of what "AI" is, how it works, what it's capable of and, critically, what it isn't capable of. Ergo they tend to have irrational kneejerk reactions to AI shit and make really retarded predictions about the future of AI and especially of its impact on life.

You know what really doesn't bother me? AI putting voice actors or programmers or truck drivers out of work. It isn't actually happening.
You know what does bother me? AI in advertising. Seeing billboards and ad posters plastered with absolutely awful quality AI generated shit in public not only ethically borders on false advertising in some specific cases I've seen, but it's also ugly and visually disturbing. Seeing ads everywhere is already fucked up. Now imagine seeing terrible AI ads with people making unnatural facial expressions, text and symbols being unreadable giving you a headache just looking at them, everything having that weird shiny look shitty AI always imparts upon every image, etc.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

AI in advertising.

I had posted about this maybe a year ago. The first "victim" of AI art is the Alegria/Corporate Memphis art style.
It existed purely as a inoffensive and low effort way of putting images to words. It was easy to have some underpaid intern slap together a blue man sharing a cup of coffee with a green woman and call it a day.
You don't see much of that anymore because AI exists.

 

[urr13 account]

If a person is actually passionate about their art, be it writing, music, or drawing I don't see why they would care about AI. The fact a machine can generate some slop shouldn't take away your enjoyment in creating things.

For people who just consume slop, I also don't see why they care is AI is used in the creation of slop, if someone uses AI and makes something cool I think its cool, if someone uses AI and makes something trash I think its trash, the quality of the end product matters more than the tools used to make it.

 

[Haloperidol]

If a person is actually passionate about their art, be it writing, music, or drawing I don't see why they would care about AI. The fact a machine can generate some slop shouldn't take away your enjoyment in creating things.

This is why it annoys me that the detractors stubbornly call it ‘AI art’ instead of what it is—AI-generated images. It’s not making anything with emotion or human experience behind it. It doesn’t have an artistic vision it wants to realize. It just makes slightly uncanny pictures. If that can replace you, maybe you’re not the artist you think you are. I feel like half the panic would go away if they just stopped calling it something it isn’t.

 

[cybertoaster]

Unironically yes, they all thought AI was going to wreck the blue collar class chuds who vote for Trump but it turns out AI is only good to replace wannabe artists and bullshit jobs like copywriters, existing robots aren't good enough for manual work and AI just plain sucks at doing real stuff like coding or medical/science or even legal work without hallucinating and screwing up badly, but its perfect at doing anime tiddies, porn and now also video.

So, like, learn to HVAC or something losers.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

It’s not making anything with emotion or human experience behind it

The problem is you're presupposing that these things are somehow "special."
In every meaningful way, these "AI generated images" are art unless your personal definition of "art" assumes those qualities you're describing. And if that's the case you're simply begging the question. You're imposing a definition of art which precludes anything a machine could produce.
That's dumb. It's like if I defined a chair specifically as something a human creates and then assert that any chair made by a machine is therefore not a chair.

 

[Haloperidol]

The problem is you're presupposing that these things are somehow "special."
In every meaningful way, these "AI generated images" are art unless your personal definition of "art" assumes those qualities you're describing. And if that's the case you're simply begging the question. You're imposing a definition of art which precludes anything a machine could produce.
That's dumb. It's like if I defined a chair specifically as something a human creates and then assert that any chair made by a machine is therefore not a chair.

I do think art is special and distinct from just pictures. I think the internal drive to create, the enjoyment of the process and the intention behind the stroke of a pen or brush is all part of art—all things a machine does not have. I would consider a chair a woodworker designed and put together to be artistically crafted in a way that a mass-produced one is not, even though they’re both chairs. Although with detailed enough prompting and maybe some human editing the line does become blurred, and there are some AI images I’ve found very beautiful with lots of intention behind them. Music too. It gets muddy there. But of course ‘what is art’ is more of a philosophical question and not one that’s going to be settled anytime soon. Your argument is valid and many feel the way you do, I just don’t agree.

 

[dick brain]

I think it's moreso an extension of the problem of capitalism demanding work for pay when there are more people than there is work. A significant part of the modern economy is essentially make-work, nobody actually needs a """barista""" to make them a cup of coffee for example, there are machines that can do it better for cheaper automatically and there have been for at least a decade now. So at that point the """job""" is just glorified begging, doing something that doesn't have to be done to """earn""" a paycheck, from people knowingly spending more than they should on a good or service in the interest of patronizing the """worker""". It's worse than patronizing an artist in the same way, because there's not even an attempt at anything meaningful, it's just going through motions to disguise charity as work.

AI art is a hyperbolic extrapolation of this; we have the technology to automate many types of menial labor to practically everyone's benefit, but choose not to, because it would mean depriving people of unnecessary jobs to do; meanwhile, we automate the things those same people would often rather be doing with their time and energy, in an economy that doesn't even value those pursuits enough to compensate them adequately in the first place.

It's absurd. I have to remind myself to laugh at it because otherwise it would piss me off.

 

[F00LS_3RRAND]

I'm racist against machines

Robo-Nigger Death

 

[Moths]

Because group say AI bad; so AI bad

 

[legtard respecter]

wouldn't really call twitter screechers normie, boomers seem to be surrounded by the stuff on facebook and know none the wiser. that being said i do find they have some legitimate complaints about AI replacing forms of creative media even if they're overly zealous on clamping down ANY use of it, even when it's just a tool to assist at times.

 

[Casshern]

Every normie I’ve talked to about “AI” (it’s machine learning, do not listen to the jewrnalist nor the advertiser) has been excited in some form. They adore the ability to do some work faster, and for some it’s even replaced a typical search engine. In it’s current state it is unable to replace any actual jobs except the lowest common denominator: daily news articles, hot topic podcasts, pajeet “programmers”, fetish “artists”, and probably some applications I'm not aware of. However, none of these are of actual value to society and anyone fearmongering "AI" is either trying to profit off of it or is a genuinely gormless faggot. For one, machine models where you throw terabytes of shit quality data at it have peaked in most regards, you can see this in ChatGPT 4o vs ChatGPT 4, it typically does the same or worse on most real world benchmarks, so without a true generational advancement we won't see any major improvements (which is why the industry is moving towards making what we do have more efficient). Secondly, even for jobs "at risk" like art or programming it's still woefully inadequate without a skilled person prompting it and fixing its mistakes, meaning it's useless to replace any actual workers. Finally, those who use MLMs will find that they can actually severely boost productivity in a handful of fields, which means that at the end of the day it's not "AI" replacing people, but productive people with new tools and techniques replacing non-productive people.