-35
What is Lemmy's problem with AI?
(lemmy.zip)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
-35 points (34.8% liked)
Asklemmy
49785 readers
556 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Lemmy loves artists who have their income threatened by AI because AI can make what they make at a substantially lower cost with an acceptable quality in a fraction of the time.
AI depends on being trained on the artistic works of others, essentially intellectual and artistic property theft, so that you can make an image of a fat anime JD Vance. Calling it plagiarism is a bit far, but it edges so hard that it leaks onto the balls and could cum with a soft breeze.
AI consumes massive amounts of energy, which is supplied through climate hostile means.
AI threatens to take countless office jobs, which are some of the better paying jobs in metropolitan areas where most people can't afford to live.
AI is a party trick, it is not comparable to human or an advanced AI. It is unimaginative and not creative like an actual AI. Calling the current state of AI anything like an advanced AI is like calling paint by numbers the result of artistry. It can rhyme, it can be like, but it can never be original.
I think that about sums it up.
Can you make an example of something 100% original that was not inspired by anything that came before?
That's not what imaginative means.
If you'd like an example of AI being exceptionally boring to look at, though, peruse through any rule 34 site that has had its catalogue overrun with AI spam: an endless see of images that all have the same artstyle, the same color choices, the same perspective, the same poses, the same personality; a flipbook of allegedly different characters that all. look. fucking. identical.
I'm not joking: I was once so bored by the AI garbage presented to me, I actually just stopped jerking off.
If you people would do something interesting with your novelty toy, I would be like 10% less mad about it.
Ironically you just said that artists are wrong to be concerned.
The threat of AI is not that it will be more human than human. It is that it will become so ubiquitous that real people are hard to find.
I couldn't find many real people.
Are you sure that I'm real?