[magic_hamster]

There are a few issues here that should be addressed. There's the AI hype and deafening echo chambers, but then there's also the actual value you can find in AI when you just try it a little bit quietly.

I totally disagree with the comparison to something like NFT. While AI is being pushed aggressively and it can definitely be annoying, AI is actually useful unlike NFTs.

Much like the author, I also enjoy photography, graphic design, and other creative hobbies. It's entirely my choice how much and where to apply AI.

We have to accept that yes, it's useful, and yes you can definitely produce good deliverables with it, not just slop. Yes, when looking for assets and not the artistic process, many people will use AI and the cost of creative work will plummet. It's not great but that's the way it is.

But it's not like we should just stop creating, especially if it's a hobby. Do it for fun. Or, maybe use AI to try something new.

Either way AI is too useful, it's here to stay and it doesn't need a do-over. It's true, we should accept the world is changing, and no amount of moaning or complaining will make this disappear.

[spacechild1]

> Much like the author, I also enjoy photography, graphic design, and other creative hobbies. It's entirely my choice how much and where to apply AI.

The platforms are now flooded with AI slop and it's getting more and more difficult to discover new (honest) art and to present your own art to the public. The problem is exactly that there's no consent: we can't prevent AI companies from using our art or software for training and we can barely prevent our platforms from being eroded by AI slop.

> Either way AI is too useful

The jury is still out on whether the advantages and opportunities of AI outweight all the negative sides.

> It's not great but that's the way it is.

Why does it have to keep that way? Do you also think like this about political topics? Why should artists have to put up with this gross violation of copyright on a massive scale? Did anyone ask us if we actually want this? As the people we always have the right to say: "this is not ok and we demand change". Yes, there is no going back, but we can still shape the direction we are heading!

[magic_hamster]

> The platforms are now flooded with AI slop

What did we do before "platforms"? This wasn't that long ago (20 years give or take). If you want to share, join a club, meet people, do your hobby with a group. Personally I create for the joy of it so I don't really care what's going on on "the platforms".

> The jury is still out on whether the advantages and opportunities of AI outweight all the negative sides.

The jury is extremely clear on the benefits of AI, even if it is very annoying and being pushed everywhere. We are not going back to a world without AI, and this is something you just have to accept.

> Why does it have to keep that way?

Because you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

> Why should artists have to put up with this gross violation of copyright on a massive scale?

I don't think this is necessarily true anymore. Adobe is training their models purely on legally licensed material, for example. Many of the open source models aren't available for commercial work by default. My guess is the copyright issue is not why people hate AI. People hate AI because it's a replacement for humans and for human creativity, which sucks. But it can be legal.

> Did anyone ask us if we actually want this?

Who is us? I want AI models. Lots of people want AI models. It's not all nefarious. You can have some fun with AI as a hobby and see what it enables you to create.

> As the people we always have the right to say: "this is not ok and we demand change"

Okay, what kind of change do you want?

[civet_java]

There is something about your comment that is deeply off-putting which is odds with your actual tone itself. My hunch is that while what you're saying is couched in all the traditional markers of polite and civil discourse the content seems to lack its spirit. While I don't think you want society to degenerate in the ways that it is I can't help but feel it also isn't something that is a priority for you because you get to continue "creating".

The thrust of your argument seems to rest resigning yourself to the impossibility of unhitching the global economy from the AI bandwagon and being unwilling to want to do it because it works for you; this part I don't personally care about very much about. The annoyance, I think, stems from you then suggesting the same resignation others as well while skirting around what I thought were pointed questions with unhelpful responses:

i) You don't bother actually stacking up the harms of generative systems against their benefits. ii) You don't actually bother backing up your own position of resignment to the status quo. iii) You forget that your opinion is your's alone while ignoring that the vast majority of humanity had no say in society being upended in this particular way. This assymetry has largely held through history, but is least defensible today. iv) Finally you forget that people aren't bound by laws in the way we like to believe they are.

A more cynical person might infer vested interest from the state of your argument.

I hope for your sake you continue getting the same joy from "creating" as society continues it ride down to the bottom.