Technology

To try to come up with an explanation that doesn't pretend these peoples brain fell out of their heads:

Some people are crafters. For them the process and even the tools around that process are important, maybe even more important than the outcome. It makes sense that they would be wary of AI, to put it mildly.

Other people are builders. For them, all they want is to solve an issue, build a solution, create an art. The way they get there is an implementation detail they don't care about. They don't care whether it's real oil, or digital oil, as long as the oil painting in there head becomes a real thing somehow. It's understandable why they might at least try to use AI for art.

I don’t get it how do artists get captured by the Shortcut Machine like this?

True, maybe we need to police artists more to ensure moral purity and alignment with political correct ideology. Make them delete their "work" line by line, file by file /s

PS: Reminds me of this: https://lemmy.world/post/51139260 . The age of pluralism is definitely coming to a middle.

“It would be better if you couldn’t tell that you were being lied to, and I’m annoyed that we got caught.”

“We aren’t creative enough to tell this story ourselves.”

That dude’s dumb as rocks, glad they’re facing a consequence.

His response is shockingly tone deaf and approaching genuine hilarity.

AI boosters are controlling the narrative around AI, and what constitutes as extreme positions on it. They made the general population believe, refusing to use AI, refusing to engage with genAI output, especially if paired with mean online comments, is extremism. Meanwhile they claim the "golden middle road" is using it as a tool, such as an already established artist using it to brainstorm ideas, use it for reference material, or use their preexisting capabilities to fix up the AI generated output. Similarly, pro-AI extremism is being downplayed to "slop posting", especially if it is paired with severe AI psychosis.

Reality:

• There are now some actual anti-AI extremists. The worst of them would not mind sacrificing a portion of the population to put the genie back into the bottle. Less severe people would just put the tech oligarchy and some AI devs in front of a Nuremberg-style trial, ban the use of LLMs altogether, force AI companies to delete any models that made without consent, try to come up with an international agreement on a global AI ban, etc.
• Pro-AI extremists are a lot worse in actuality, than just some third world guy posting AI slop as a side hustle or engagement bait, to get ad revenue money. The DOGE boys' excuse for the USAID massacre and the deregulation is that any problem, including 600 000 (!) people dying from USAID funds getting pulled, is that AI deregulation will lead to artificial superintelligence, which will lead to a quadtillion human being living in the solar system in a few centuries. TESCREAL is a fucking cult, that would be too extreme for Shin Megami Tensei, let alone the real world.
• "Moderate usage" or "rational adaptation" is often a slippery slope. I've seen way too many devs trying to use it as a "tool", only to implement things on AI hallucinated specs and similar shenanigans, with many falling down the rabbit hole of loop engineering and vibe coding, all while claiming the decreased code quality worth the "productivity gains". Said "productivity gains" don't last for too long though.
• The "I want more ethical AI" crowd are usually hypocrites IMHO. At best, they secretly run their own model. At worst, they're the same as your average AI bro with mild AI psychosis, except usually more leftist and more secretive about their AI usage. I heard that some devs who previously had issues with attributing open source code are those most likely to be in this group, though I cannot confirm due to lack of a solid evidence.
• Your average "can you please not post AI slop?" people are the real centrists.
• You're right if you refuse to use AI, you're right to not want to engage with AI slop, even if your aunt disagrees.