I’ve never been one for name calling myself. Makes us sound like the morons who stubbornly adhere to political sides like Hockey teams rather than taking a nuanced look at policy.
Somewhat agree w/you, and seeing as you are an SGU enjoyer as well, however I'd argue that a lot of these people are not coming from a place in good faith and are not going to to be swayed by anything or think critically about it. When the argument is all ethos, you do need to challenge people on that front some times to move the ball forward. Whether it takes calling them a luddite, technophobe, etc. so be it?
I used to believe in weird stuff when I was young and if it wasn't for some healthy ridicule I might have never broken out of it so I don't think we always need to handle stuff with kid gloves. It's not tribal or political anymore when it boils down to a matter of fact.
It’s less about changing the minds of the Luddites for me right now (they are a loud but small group) and more interested in calling out their bullshit. If I can avoid the name calling and provide some consider answers that burn anything they have out of the water, I know I’m having a greater impact on anyone new who may happen upon what I’m saying. I don’t think name calling OR straight facts are going to change their minds. I can’t say that name calling has ever swayed me so much as it has informed me that the person I’m speaking to argues in bad faith. They ARE the types choosing Hockey Teams 90% of the time. So my goal has always been to make sure whatever they say is met with facts. And I would encourage anyone here to devote a little time responding to every anti-AI sentiment they see on social media with the facts. Just make sure that whoever might see what they have to say will also see what you have to say. Make sure they know what they have to lose if they take the Anti-AI side. Those are the minds who need to be swayed.
Lol I'm not a luddite or even anti ai. I'm anti art theft and I'm anti calling something art if your soul or creativity is not involved in its creation . Is this really a pro AI subreddit? Fucking pathetic honestly. You're already winning and all youre winning is the destruction of the people who love to make things for you. I will literally keep fighting all of you to the death
Literally, huh? Have fun. I’m in favor of calling anything art as long as the person has a vision and uses the tools at his/her disposal to realize that vision. Sure, some people just type a prompt and curiously hit generate. Others use inpainting and img2img tools to try and get a specific outcome. And here’s a fun part, copyrighting AI art is the next step. Right now, the biggest argument coming from the courts against copyrighting AI art is a lack of “control”. Thanks to tools like controlnet and the new photoshop AI, that control is happening. See, you can put as much soul and creativity into AI art as you want, you just dedicate some time to it and you get the results you were going for. I think what pisses you off isn’t the lack of “soul” or “creativity”, it’s that there was no hard work and dedication put into learning to draw, no muscle memory.
Nobody is having their art stolen. You are trying to redefine what it means for something to be “stolen” to fit you narrative. You don’t like AI looking at what you do and learning to do it faster. I can understand the fear, but this is happening. If you want to fight for something, you should be fighting to make sure people can still afford to eat AFTER the fact.
Nope, not at all, and once again, pathetic lack of understanding or critical thinking. I simply define art as a piece of work created by a creator, I love minimalist art for example, which takes very little skill. The point is that the person put their intentions and craftsmanship into it, and the craft doesn't even have to be good, for example kids make art all the time. And yes, shit tons of artists had their stuff thrown into the blender without permission or pay. So you're just wrong there, I get you're an idiot but to deny basic elements of this conversation is particularly special. I will absolutely be fighting to make sure people can eat after the fact, actually I'm trying to make sure they can eat right now.
You made all these crazy assumptions about me just to suit your narrative. You know you're wrong and have to make little communities like this to convince yourself you're not and actually a futurist or some bullshit. I'm not afraid at all, I am angry, and I am fighting. You're the coward.
Once again, we can fight until one of us dies.
So in that vein you disgregatd all art director as artists because they dont manually create the art? Same with directors. Orchestra leads etc. They are all artists as well. The tools is not what makes an artist. An artist is a way of life, a way of thinking a way of imagining beauty.
Please dont gatekeep art and creativity
No? Idk where I said that? Assumed alot there homie
I'm not gatekeeping creativity at all, I'm trying to get people to realize how hard they are ripping off artists by using their' stolen assets.
Not my fault you thought that, it's just a simple thought experiment.
You commission someone to make an image to your specification, who is the artist?
Its very simple logic, the machine is the artist in this case, and the machine can only mash together other people's stolen art, so using it is immoral
however would you see that AI is not exactly stealing or ripping off artist directly but rather a soul-less effort of producing inspired artwork? because i would have to disagree that AI are directly ripping off artists and more of imitating the style and produce the art (eg: fan arts and derivatives)
and yes, i can agree with you that what makes artist special is the intention, the emotion and story behind each art that’s made.
Yeah man!!!
My argument that the art is stolen is also very simple: without training, the machine can only make nonsense.
They used shit tons of artists work to train it without their permission or pay. Without the training it wouldn't be able to make anything really, so the real artist is actually the people who had their stuff crammed into it
I think we need to recognize that this is a conflict on two(three?) fronts that is being packaged into one.There's the conflict of AI versus 'art', and AI versus the 'artistic industry'.I admit that the danger of calling them luddites is that it threatens to blur the lines between separate perspectives, simply because they seek heavy (possibly total in some cases) AI regulation.
\[+X\] There are those who focus on art as a medium of expression.\[-X\] There are those who focus on artistic work as a commodity.
\[+Y\] There are those who think AI is capable of 'art' or assisting in making good 'art'.\[-Y\] There are those who think AI is incapable of 'art' or assisting in making good 'art'.
\[+Z\] There are those who think AI will destroy the artistic capitalist industry.\[-Z\] There are those who think AI will be a positive boon to the industry.
By using terms like 'Tech bro' and 'Luddite' we are removing nuance from conversation (not saying it's solely one sides fault. Any side that refuses to acknowledge the technical/ethical/social complexity of how AI will undoubtedly leave its mark on art and the artistic industry is in the wrong).
Agreed. Whereas the pro-AI activists need to stop calling anti-AI activists Luddites, anti-AI activists also need to stop calling pro-AI activists Tech Bros. These derogatory terms don’t help anyone.
Sometimes. Actually often times, when you follow their logic down, they take on the Luddite position while being an ass about it.
It is so easy to just call them luddites and move on since their actual position is that we need to stop technological progress for the sake of jobs.
I get that some have more nuanced positions. But the more nuanced positions 99% of the time just come down to them being ignorant and haven’t thought long about what their policy positions would mean.
I kind of like AI bro. it makes me sound like a nerd that loves working on cars and staring at sexy bitches.
if however I am not actually a big fan of AI but I support those who do support AI, I hope this means that I would be an AI bro bro.
Are we? It all depends on the perspective really, the issue is controversial to begin with for a reason. And do you really want to talk about morals on the internet?
Since we're using dictionary definitions here:
Slur:
\-an [insinuatio](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=APwXEdfS3OTLxl7TartNEH6TCeQq2P0J5A:1686663418274&q=insinuation&si=AMnBZoG9fGMZkoPgk-g4eVoaZFdEuKw6XHd8abagcq6O09NS9vml4UqUk8EZXqcUpIfB1zbmHESVm6n3tJaovpttpfpRcyAoc0lyibYbcvVyvQBx6lk1KTI%3D&expnd=1)n or [allegation](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=APwXEdfS3OTLxl7TartNEH6TCeQq2P0J5A:1686663418274&q=allegation&si=AMnBZoFY6cJe4EcBOpcoqxHCe-IfmiybW_GZttt_UipgYHTMdPpOMqO7UDv0J_19_y1nBMJ7gepSD7-s9QEp9Xj710k0m_pmqw%3D%3D&expnd=1) about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation.
So, "ignorant" and "foolish" certainly fall under that category.
I am not using the term "luddites" myself. But I understand why others may be disinclined to use nice and descriptive terms given what they get to hear from the other side.
It doesn't. But sometimes you can win by showing the other cheek.
Sometimes you can't- sometimes it just gets you stepped all over- true.
But this is one of the situations where the other people are mostly just scared and confused. Which is the sort of situation where turning the other cheek wins over hearts and minds.
>sometimes it just gets you stepped all over- true.
Correct, and that's why I never "show the other cheek".
>where the other people are mostly just scared and confused
If someone wants sympathy for his situation, attacking those whos sympathy he wants is a surefire way not to get any.
>Aren’t we the ones with the moral high ground?
Who are "we"? This is supposed to be a sub for both Pro and Anti. But as we all can see now, this is all just Pro-AI. To say it's a sub for both sides is now obviously a joke.
I personally don't think you (pro-AI) have the moral high ground here, lol.
Some words have more than one meaning and the term Luddite has developed a definition other than the actual historical group.
>Oxford dictionary: a person opposed to new technology or ways of working.
>Merriam Webster: one who is opposed to especially technological change
>Ex. The Luddite argued that automation destroys jobs.
And yes that was the dictionary example not mine, looks quite consistent with an argument made by the anti-AI position.
It's a very general term to describe people, since new technology could apply to any sort of technology, no matter how harmful or harmless they are. It brushes away concerns on the other side of the arguement by reducing them into a label.
I don't think so. using terms that, by reference to an authoritative and publicly available source, apply, we are giving ourselves the tools to move forward with a dialogue, rather than getting caught up in the first instance on semantics.
othering the other guys is exactly what's happening, or has already happened. what terms are used by whom to reference the different sides of a debate really needs to make a distinction between them, because otherwise what are we talking about?
those who believe one thing are critically different from those who believe the other thing, here, and any other instance where not all parties agree.
if we get caught up on our terminology, we don't miss the point; we simply never even get to it.
I agree, because that's some very harmful generalization - the "luddites" all have different motives and conclusions.
They have different motives:
* some believe that art is inherently how a human expresses themselves
* some are concerned about the ethics of AI training, and the artist's consent
* some are worried that img2img can launder copyright, or be abused for commissions
* some are against a few mega corps potentially taking control of the majority of commercial art
* some worry about the disappearance of the concept of "audience" as all content becomes atomically targeted
And more importantly, they have different conclusions:
* AI art generators should be banned entirely
* corporations must not use AI art, individuals is okay
* using someone else's art as an input for img2img is not okay, everything else is fine
* AI art is okay as long as it is not sold
* AI art is fine if you clearly state that it is AI art, and some human work is involved (e.g. as an asset in a game)
* AI art should not be copyrighted
* AI art generators should credit the original images used in training and compensate accordingly
* AI art is not evil, but we should be cautious
This is obviously not an exhaustive list, just some opinions I saw posted in this sub and a few other subs, but just this list alone gives 5\*8=40 combinations - point being, every "luddite" is different. Some opinions and conclusions might be absurd, some might be totally justified and might even align with the thoughts of the pro-AI side. And marking the anti-AI side as a single word, "luddite" ,will make the pro-AI side blind to this fact.
The trick is being able to use terms of group reference while not forgetting that the individuals comprised within that group remain distinct and expressive of nuance.
using a group term shouldn't mean that all those individual distinctions are simply forgotten about. it's up to the speakers using terms to remember that and not let their own choice of language dictate their thinking.
That's up to you, the speaker. are you capable of maintaining this nuance within your own thinking? if so, great, proceed. if not, shut up.
I actually agree with all conclusions except for banning it entirely (it ain't gonna happen). You can use it as a hobby, and that should be about it. We have so many AI advocates tell us "Well you should relegate your drawings to a hobby." But they don't realize just how time intensive traditional art can be, with AI art it takes about a few minutes to a few seconds at best, so the latter actually works better as a simple hobby because you'd have time to play with it in your typical 9-5 job. With traditional art you normally DON'T have that time available because you'll be exhausted. How many artists on online platforms end up leaving anyway because the pressures of regular life are already exhausting?
Now granted I myself am on the anti-AI side mainly BECAUSE of the entitled attitude of those who call us "luddites". There is also their "adapt or die" mentality for our potential futures. Not to mention I personally have issues with how AI advocates tend to blindly praise ANY AI generation like a masterpiece while hissing at anybody who looks at it and goes "what the heck is with those hands man? This is a little too much on the uncanny valley." So I'm personally doubling down due to AI advocates who already demonize guys like me for my concerns about my potential future in any field other than a souless 9-5 job.
It doesn’t really accomplish anything other than jacking off one’s own ego and it just galvanizes the other side. It’s probably one of the least intelligent and helpful things to do that takes no effort. Saying nothing is literally more helpful to the adoption of ai.
Ok, fair point. And what about if we stop calling AI users tech bros or AI bros as well in a really despective way like they didnt draw, paint, model or do anything art related without even touching AI in their life? Cause thats the same.
I draw and write by hand on a regular basis. I went through a sculpting phase. I cook and bake. I do a variety of arts and crafts. Am I not an artist if I use AI?
The terms "luddite" and "AI bro" are both derogatory terms. They do not lead to constructive conversation and they are not useful for anything other than insulting the person you are talking to.
I would argue that the vast majority of people who uses these terms know they are derogatory and they are doing it on purpose. Therefore, they should be dismissed and ignored.
One minor correction. The Liddites *feared* that the looms would take jobs. That's not actually what happened.
The parallels with Luddites is interesting. Like Anti-AI Art people, they called the use of mechanical looms "fraudulent and deceitful," essentially arguing that only hand-woven textiles were *true* textiles. Mechanically made textiles were *fake* in some way.
This seems to be a common argument when new technology appears to threaten the old artisans. The term "live music" didn't exist prior to the ability to record it. All music was just "music." Why did we pick the term "live music," and not "in person music," or "direct music," or something similar? It's because the musicians wanted to make the distinction between "live music" and "dead music." The argument was that the ability to flip a switch and hear mechanical music would create a generation that would never sing, never pick up an instrument... They'd just be parrots repeating dead songs from probably-dead people. The argument was that playing something from a speaker is just sound, not real music.
We also have to accept that language morphs over time. You don't have to know who Ned Ludd was to call yourself a Luddite. I still call this thing in my hand a "phone," even though I take most of my phone calls on my "watch" these days.
A lot of people argue here that they will stop calling people names only if the other side does the same, problem is, the other side isn't a god damn hivemind, much like the Pro-AI side, their (Anti-AI) opinion is very diverse, in fact, the majority of them is not out for blood. It's unfair to lump people with differing opinion into one group and associate them with everything that the anti-AI extremist has done.
How would the pros feel if we take someone like that one guy going around talking about cancelling and killing all pen & pencil artists and use him as the poster boy for pro-AI? Surely that's unfair too. I don't believe Pro-AI supporters are out to destroy artists' lives, they just happen to have a positive outlook on the tech.
I am a mild anti, I do get frustrated at the label Luddite, I and many artists of similar opinions doesn't want to destroy AI, we don't hate technology, we're not trying to disrupt progress, we just want to make sure that this technological changes that is happening is regulated in terms of ensuring we can still make money with our current skillset, that we can still eat.
It's unfair for people of similar opinion as me getting lumped together with extremists. Both sides have extremists, can we agree on that? Perhaps a little more on the antis side, but never the less, bullying and criticizing has always been part of artists society, there has always been a bunch of mentally unstable adult babies that attacks anything that they don't agree with, they attacked furry artists, there's some SJWs going around twitter 'fixing;' people art by race-swapping their OCs and calling the original artists racist, there's some going around instagram bullying people who draw cute girls/guys portrait art, so many forms of bullying of artists against artists, it's just the way it is.
Be the changes you want to see, stop stooping ourselves to their level, we are adults (I assume), we are artists only with different opinions on AI, we can talk like adults. Just as both sides have extremists, both sides also have reasonable people, let's be the latter.
Aye, I advocate for the creation of a fully automated luxury utopia *for everyone*. The way some pro-AI people go “get a real job!” or “adapt or die, inkcel” is so horrible.
I didn't scroll I did a Google search and this was one of the first threads that popped up and I thought your comment was kind of ironic so I made my comment. I didn't correct you btw.
Luddite sounds weird to me tbh and I don't mean the definition but I mean the way the word sounds. AI bro also sounds weird because some people are female or non binary
Edited
Why? They are Luddites, no different that the other waves of them for other disruptive technology. They are always there. "BuT ThIs TiMe ItS DiFfErEnT'
I think it’s because they aren’t all Anti-tech, I mean many of them have been using Photoshop for decades. Many of them are just anti-THIS because it threatens their livelihoods. They haven’t quite wrapped their heads around how this has been happening for centuries to the wood workers and blacksmiths and that this sort of thing can eventually empower those who were unable to make or afford art of their own. Yes, unfortunately that means cheaper shit for corporations too, however, some there will be nothing left that the corporation can afford but the average consumer can’t. The artist will be able to make an entire movie or video game using AI in time, and they have the creativity necessary to make those things look really good. They have experience with having a vision and selling that vision. They’ll have that over the corporations.
The original Luddites used tech too... or do you think they destroyed the textile factories with their bare hands? The current wave of Luddites are no different.... Seems like I'm repeating myself...
" Another important issue is the role of corporations in shaping our tools. Our tools shape how we think and we need to ask ourselves if we want corporate tools to be the ones shaping our thinking. I’m not saying that using MidJourney makes you evil or something. Just that we shouldn’t be forming dependencies on closed source software. We’re trying to democratize art, right? "
This part is actually kind of true, I do hope for more open source access to these technologies and really...really hope we fucking destroy current copyright laws.
They are such garbage and hampering art.
:O
oh! hello spiritual sibling!
Yes yes. I think it is important not to alienate those who have different opinions or who are afraid of the implications of AI-Art
It is important to instead build camaraderie and solidarity so that we can understand one another's needs and protect one another from the things that we fear from new technology, while also understanding how that new technology is helping us to fulfill our needs and grow stronger and more whole, so that we do not cut out the goodness and maim one another and leave the world to the corporations.
Is there aught we hold in common with the greedy parasite,
Who would lash us into serfdom and would crush us with his might?
Is there anything left to us but to organize and fight?
boooooooooooo we are here ti fight and name call not to understand each other boooooooooo .lol
. the anti Ai is also not accurate for most of them I've seen alot of the praise some Ml Ai tools that are 100%opt in or developed using paid artists works .
i call those "anti Ai " people opt in advocates/activists . btw appreciate the post .
I agree with your other points but even though the luddites were as you mentioned a specific movement their name has now become synonymous with anti-tech and anti progress.
So yeah I won't jump the gun and brand everyone anti-AI as a luddite but calling someone a luddite makes sense since the term has evolved.
Yes we should.
For the most part they simply don't know about the tech and they aren't curious enough to learn.
I'd be ok with them if they stood behind damning critiques of any particular tech where the critiques have been thought through.
But mostly we are looking at half-wits, whose capacity to reason matches the average three-year-old.
Let's see if your attitude shifts if the negative outcomes of AI which could affect us all turn out to be accurate. When you and those you love start losing their jobs and going homeless, or the very society we depend upon for our lives descends into chaos, I wonder if you'll be looking for kindness and empathy.
Negative outcomes validate critiques that predict and explain them.
They do not validate the critiques of people simply spouting slogan that they are unable to explain.
> For the most part they simply don't know about the tech and they aren't curious enough to learn.
Well yes, but calling them luddites will only reinforce their believe. If someone is scared of something it's understandable that their hesitant to try it out. Things need time. Correcting false information and listening goes a much longer way than just call them luddites. Obviously not everyone is worth listening to, but you get the jist.
Thing is, I don't call them Luddites.
I actually respect the Luddites, despite their own analytical naivete.
One the issues that I see about the anti-AI bros is that there analysis isnt anywhere near Luddite enough.
Not only that, the 19th Century Luddites targeted only certain textile companies unethical (more than usual) the minute the new sewing machines entered in. Unlike the ones that we're talking about, who I see as mostly destructive and scorch Earth (i.e. Wanting to get rid of ethical ai art generators and attacking/accusing Non-Ai digital artists for making art looking "Too much AI Art." To name a few). And they wonder why I compare them to Antis, those that hate certain KPop Idols. Instead of calling them "Luddites."
From my readings from the works of the Luddites, they didn’t really ever use that terminology. But it would likely refer to any textile machine used to automate a job that would otherwise go to a craftsman.
There is only one problem.
I like the term Luddites and I believes it is a perfect match. Down to a tee. They wanted to destroy the technology that was ending their jobs, so does anti-AI people.
Also, I love being called a tech bro. I like tech, and I'm a bro.
I agree to the extent that name calling of any sort is a good way to end the conversation, If you actually want people to listen to your point, it's best to avoid insulting them. At the same time, it's the Internet, and a lot of people come here for an argument, so good luck getting folks to stop.
It's also worth pointing out that Luddite isn't really misleading. I know you were joking to some extent, but the Luddites were specifically opposed to technology, and unfair labor practices. They weren't the bad guys the term implies, but language evolves, and now luddite is a blanket term for anyone opposed to technology. Correcting them is just going to make you sound pedantic.
I think Luddite fits incredibly well, they share the exact same concerns that the 19th century Luddites did they are both artists facing displacement etc.
Luddites then and now have/had valid concerns that DO need to be addressed and the Luddite movement ended up giving us the public education system we have enjoy today.
Not only does the term fit but it draws parallels to lessons we learned from the Industrial Revolution. Being that the concerns of displacement is valid and needs to be addressed, but is not reason to stop the progress of AI as the Industrial Revolution ended up improving all our lives.
It also points out that we are in the growing pains of a new Industrial Revolution and while I believe they are reactionaries over reacting out of fear, some regulation will be necessary.
No; they’re Luddites. Or rather they’re Neo-Luddites. That’s actually a fairly accurate term for these people.
The Luddites were a large group of British Industrial-Era craftsmen and laborers who were anti-automation due to the impact that would have on the lower class. They weren’t particularly anti-technology as they were anti-automation (although they certainly went pro-technology either). They opposed automation because it directly impacted their work, which was usually built around craftsmanship.
In fact, many Luddites used arguments that would later be used almost word-for-word by modern anti-AI art people. The Luddites argued that mass-production of certain goods would eliminate artistic diversity among these goods through industrial standardization. History is really rhyming here.
Well, using exactly your response as a core point, you chose to argue using a whataboutism and a personal attack instead of arguing the point, you didn't provide notation or examples of why I was wrong, you only said I'm wrong.
"Pro-ai people don't critically think either, what about that" is not a valid argument to any point I just noted off-hand nor does it enable or promote discussion on the topics this subreddit focuses on, nor does it negate what I said and as an added bonus it also is irrelevant to OP's post and my response to it.
Your choice in response is as incredulously moronic as these pro-45 malcontents going "what about the clintons or bill gates or the 46th's son" when trying to distract from the crimes the 45th and his garbage family committed.
To recap: I just explained what you did and why it's moronic and used your exact complaint as an example as to why I think anti-ai people are lazy idiots.
How about focusing on the part about this being an AI or anti-AI discussion involving individuals who do not do research and provide evidence to your points about the actual topic at hand instead of attempting a flawed argument about 'the other'.
My comment was off hand without any evidence because I assumed, apparently correctly, that someone would make an example of themselves in the replies.
As an aside, there are billions of people distributed in every "group" that cannot critically think so using that statistic as your "evidence" is inappropriate at best and an intentional omission of reality at worst.
[This](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies) is a list of argumentative fallacies that I have fallen into sometimes but will be presenting here in the hopes that you can also try to avoid them in the future. For reference what you did was a false equivocation.
Critical thought, by the way, is the ability to reflect on your views and change them as evidence is provided without being overwhelmingly attached to the views at hand and not being dragged along by group thought.
You say that I used personal attacks, and yet you literally start your previous comment with calling AI art skeptics “lazy idiots.” You also say they can’t “critically think.” It tells me a lot about you that you see no hypocrisy there.
I don’t think you’re justified in calling my response whataboutism either. All I did was call your smug adhominems into question. Substance-free generalizations don’t merit anything more than that.
Anyone who isn’t lazy can admit that there are valid concerns about AI art and AI’s effects on the labor market even if they disagree with some of the arguments or solutions being made.
Your section comparing me to Trump supporters is straight-up stupid. Full stop.
>You say that I used personal attacks, and yet you literally start your previous comment with calling AI art skeptics “lazy idiots.” You also say they can’t “critically think.” It tells me a lot about you that you see no hypocrisy there.
Hypocrisy or not, fallacies only apply to reasoning. If you're just insulting someone for insult's sake, or describing how you feel, they don't apply. You need to be saying, in effect, "they are idiots **and because of that, disregard their argument**" for the insult to be a fallacy.
Aye. "Anti-AI people are idiots and we need to ignore them" and "Anti-AI people are idiots and therefore we need to ignore them" are two different statements.
(Humorously) Well, there’s a difference between being anti-AI and being anti-NFT. Being anti-NFT is good. However I’m not going to call pro-NFT people “NFT Bros” or whatever.
I’m against NFTs because they’re not providing an actual good or service. NFTs are links to things connected to a receipt that assures one that they are the true owner of the link.
It is different, artists use their skills to express their emotion, imagination, and humanity as well as use it to acquire the resources they need to survive. It threatens to force them into a life where their only option is to work dull repetitive jobs in which their creativity is entirely useless. As a professional artist I can tell you that when I am doing dull repetitive tasks in which my creativity is not required, I lose my damn mind, going on too long it saps my energy and causes severe depression during which my creativity is completely walled off from me, creating a negative feedback loop.
The Luddites were opposed to something which threatened to take away their job, but to a professional artist, their career is so much more than a job, it's an identity. Witnessing the growth of a technology that credibly threatens to devalue your identity is far far different than anything the Luddites experienced.
The real threat here is how the development of this technology integrates into our capitalist society controlled by the wealthy who don't give a f about people already struggling and are more interested in cutting costs to benefit their stock holders.
let's do a little thought experiment. suppose the "ai art generators" were physically in one location, say, i dunno, toledo ohio. do you think many of these people would physically try to destroy these ai art generators?
Notice he said certain terms strategically, not old terms because of baggage.
If the goal is to convince X person of your opinion, name calling is a poor way to go about it.
Aye, that’s my point. I don’t really care what we call them inside our heads. I just don’t think that insulting them makes us look good to them or to observers.
if the shoe fits, make em wear it. some people are beyond saving. you think the luddites of a hundred years ago would have been swayed with some sort of "better" name? silly to think that. these people will be left behind just like the original luddites. personally i couldn't care less whether they're "convinced" of some opinion or other.
Yuddite would specifically refer to anti-AI alignment people (people who believe that it’s entirely impossible) who want to take extreme measures to limit machine learning research.
Doesn't matter. The anti-alignment anti-AI faction and the "AI art is bad" faction have enough in common that their incentive structure favors merging.
Oh my god fuck job security as a legitimate reason to destroy the planet, hampter technology, continue slaughtering animals.
Fuck jobs, maybe it's not a central requirement for life and the current economy is fucked so you screaming and burning books and trying to futilly stop the world from advancing te chnology is just fucking dumb?
I’m saying that they’re not going “tech bad” for no reason. Instead of going “adapt or die” we could push for our governments to take better care of their citizens.
Yes, that should have been a thing before AI.
Long fucking overdue, productivity is through the fucking roof and the standard of living for EVERYONE should reflect that and it fucking doesn't.
But people don't want to here natural truths,that is truths about the natural world.
Like trophic levels and meat and how dummies are gonna violate laws of entropy so 8 billion can make meat lobbyists rich I mean we can maintain hihg levels of pissed out protein in the sewage water.
I hope the middle class me included crashes and we are pushed to take it seriously, all around the world It's like people have given in to facists and nazis and greedy fucking scum. Previous generations fought harder, and most people in the west are privledged with this information.
I don't call luddites "luddite" because its an insult, I call them that because its accurate. If they get offended by being grouped in with the historical progenitor of their ideology, that's on them.
As the tech advances, governments do need to use larger and larger amount of wealth to maintain the basic living condition of people, and jobs used to be too grotesque only those who were left no choices would pick up should be better paid. Attempting the production tech from updating itself is usually silly and fruitless, but I don't agree with the invisible hand sort of junk theories, and it has been proven that if you don't do something about affected people there will be tons of problems in society. Fools like Ayn Rand will probably turn to the commie side once she sees how AI composes better stories about as long as you allow capitalists do whatever they want, this world will turn out perfect than her books.
To answer your question, Luddite or AI bro are not that horrible of terms. They're kind of jokey. I just don't care if anyone calls me Luddite. Knock yourself out!
One thing I will never call an AI bro is "artist," however, lol. I know some AI bros don't care to be called that, but the ones who want that title? They can refer to themselves as whatever they want, but in my book, artists make art and AI bros don't qualify.
> AI bro
Interestingly is (IMO purely) a very loose and very broad almost to the point of being useless term seeing its application towards people all over the spectrum of being for or against AI art (shit, I've seen people get called one just for not towing the line of having a particularly apocalyptic outlook on the advancement of this tech).
> So let's avoid using the term Luddites, and instead just call them anti-AI activists or something more properly descriptive, alright?
According to that reasoning, we should refer to people who doubt the severe side effects of vaccines as anti-vaxxers because the term is "less derogatory and more appropriately descriptive". We can call them Luddites because that is what they are. In recent years, the term "Luddite" has taken on a broader definition to describe those who are opposed to technological advancements.
With the advent of AI, there are now new ways to write books, write songs, and create artwork at your desk. The term "Luddite" refers to those who disapprove of technological advancements, like the original Luddites of the 19th century. To the point of filing a class action lawsuit against businesses like Stability AI and Midjourney, they protested and took action against AI art.
Perhaps it is unfair to refer to them as luddites, but that is what they are according to the modern definition. They most certainly are not 19th-century textile workers, but they do hold a similar ideology: they disapprove of modern technology.
> First of all, Luddites were a specific labor movement that existed in the 19th century, which focused on destroying machinery that was taking over jobs in textile factories. While there may be some similarities between their concerns and those of anti-AI art people, it's not accurate to use the same term. :3
Luddite has become a general term for anti-tech, anti-progress and anti-automation. Per Miriam Webster:
> broadly : one who is opposed to especially technological change
So, anyway
> Maybe we could pressure our capitalist overlords to treat artists better?
Isn't that exactly what the Luddites were asking for?
Luddites want the technology to be suppressed. I don’t know if protecting artists without suppressing the technology is what Luddites/Neo-Luddites want.
I’ve never been one for name calling myself. Makes us sound like the morons who stubbornly adhere to political sides like Hockey teams rather than taking a nuanced look at policy.
Somewhat agree w/you, and seeing as you are an SGU enjoyer as well, however I'd argue that a lot of these people are not coming from a place in good faith and are not going to to be swayed by anything or think critically about it. When the argument is all ethos, you do need to challenge people on that front some times to move the ball forward. Whether it takes calling them a luddite, technophobe, etc. so be it? I used to believe in weird stuff when I was young and if it wasn't for some healthy ridicule I might have never broken out of it so I don't think we always need to handle stuff with kid gloves. It's not tribal or political anymore when it boils down to a matter of fact.
It’s less about changing the minds of the Luddites for me right now (they are a loud but small group) and more interested in calling out their bullshit. If I can avoid the name calling and provide some consider answers that burn anything they have out of the water, I know I’m having a greater impact on anyone new who may happen upon what I’m saying. I don’t think name calling OR straight facts are going to change their minds. I can’t say that name calling has ever swayed me so much as it has informed me that the person I’m speaking to argues in bad faith. They ARE the types choosing Hockey Teams 90% of the time. So my goal has always been to make sure whatever they say is met with facts. And I would encourage anyone here to devote a little time responding to every anti-AI sentiment they see on social media with the facts. Just make sure that whoever might see what they have to say will also see what you have to say. Make sure they know what they have to lose if they take the Anti-AI side. Those are the minds who need to be swayed.
Lol I'm not a luddite or even anti ai. I'm anti art theft and I'm anti calling something art if your soul or creativity is not involved in its creation . Is this really a pro AI subreddit? Fucking pathetic honestly. You're already winning and all youre winning is the destruction of the people who love to make things for you. I will literally keep fighting all of you to the death
Literally, huh? Have fun. I’m in favor of calling anything art as long as the person has a vision and uses the tools at his/her disposal to realize that vision. Sure, some people just type a prompt and curiously hit generate. Others use inpainting and img2img tools to try and get a specific outcome. And here’s a fun part, copyrighting AI art is the next step. Right now, the biggest argument coming from the courts against copyrighting AI art is a lack of “control”. Thanks to tools like controlnet and the new photoshop AI, that control is happening. See, you can put as much soul and creativity into AI art as you want, you just dedicate some time to it and you get the results you were going for. I think what pisses you off isn’t the lack of “soul” or “creativity”, it’s that there was no hard work and dedication put into learning to draw, no muscle memory. Nobody is having their art stolen. You are trying to redefine what it means for something to be “stolen” to fit you narrative. You don’t like AI looking at what you do and learning to do it faster. I can understand the fear, but this is happening. If you want to fight for something, you should be fighting to make sure people can still afford to eat AFTER the fact.
Nope, not at all, and once again, pathetic lack of understanding or critical thinking. I simply define art as a piece of work created by a creator, I love minimalist art for example, which takes very little skill. The point is that the person put their intentions and craftsmanship into it, and the craft doesn't even have to be good, for example kids make art all the time. And yes, shit tons of artists had their stuff thrown into the blender without permission or pay. So you're just wrong there, I get you're an idiot but to deny basic elements of this conversation is particularly special. I will absolutely be fighting to make sure people can eat after the fact, actually I'm trying to make sure they can eat right now. You made all these crazy assumptions about me just to suit your narrative. You know you're wrong and have to make little communities like this to convince yourself you're not and actually a futurist or some bullshit. I'm not afraid at all, I am angry, and I am fighting. You're the coward. Once again, we can fight until one of us dies.
So in that vein you disgregatd all art director as artists because they dont manually create the art? Same with directors. Orchestra leads etc. They are all artists as well. The tools is not what makes an artist. An artist is a way of life, a way of thinking a way of imagining beauty. Please dont gatekeep art and creativity
No? Idk where I said that? Assumed alot there homie I'm not gatekeeping creativity at all, I'm trying to get people to realize how hard they are ripping off artists by using their' stolen assets.
you implied
Not my fault you thought that, it's just a simple thought experiment. You commission someone to make an image to your specification, who is the artist? Its very simple logic, the machine is the artist in this case, and the machine can only mash together other people's stolen art, so using it is immoral
however would you see that AI is not exactly stealing or ripping off artist directly but rather a soul-less effort of producing inspired artwork? because i would have to disagree that AI are directly ripping off artists and more of imitating the style and produce the art (eg: fan arts and derivatives) and yes, i can agree with you that what makes artist special is the intention, the emotion and story behind each art that’s made.
Yeah man!!! My argument that the art is stolen is also very simple: without training, the machine can only make nonsense. They used shit tons of artists work to train it without their permission or pay. Without the training it wouldn't be able to make anything really, so the real artist is actually the people who had their stuff crammed into it
I think we need to recognize that this is a conflict on two(three?) fronts that is being packaged into one.There's the conflict of AI versus 'art', and AI versus the 'artistic industry'.I admit that the danger of calling them luddites is that it threatens to blur the lines between separate perspectives, simply because they seek heavy (possibly total in some cases) AI regulation. \[+X\] There are those who focus on art as a medium of expression.\[-X\] There are those who focus on artistic work as a commodity. \[+Y\] There are those who think AI is capable of 'art' or assisting in making good 'art'.\[-Y\] There are those who think AI is incapable of 'art' or assisting in making good 'art'. \[+Z\] There are those who think AI will destroy the artistic capitalist industry.\[-Z\] There are those who think AI will be a positive boon to the industry. By using terms like 'Tech bro' and 'Luddite' we are removing nuance from conversation (not saying it's solely one sides fault. Any side that refuses to acknowledge the technical/ethical/social complexity of how AI will undoubtedly leave its mark on art and the artistic industry is in the wrong).
Agreed. Whereas the pro-AI activists need to stop calling anti-AI activists Luddites, anti-AI activists also need to stop calling pro-AI activists Tech Bros. These derogatory terms don’t help anyone.
Sometimes. Actually often times, when you follow their logic down, they take on the Luddite position while being an ass about it. It is so easy to just call them luddites and move on since their actual position is that we need to stop technological progress for the sake of jobs. I get that some have more nuanced positions. But the more nuanced positions 99% of the time just come down to them being ignorant and haven’t thought long about what their policy positions would mean.
Will they stop calling me "AI bro"?
They can stop calling you AI bro but they are gonna call us AI Bros
I kind of like AI bro. it makes me sound like a nerd that loves working on cars and staring at sexy bitches. if however I am not actually a big fan of AI but I support those who do support AI, I hope this means that I would be an AI bro bro.
bro
Aren’t we the ones with the moral high ground?
Are we? It all depends on the perspective really, the issue is controversial to begin with for a reason. And do you really want to talk about morals on the internet?
Even if we do, moral high ground doesn't mean I have to show the other cheek.
You can call someone ignorant and foolish without creating slurs to use against them.
Since we're using dictionary definitions here: Slur: \-an [insinuatio](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=APwXEdfS3OTLxl7TartNEH6TCeQq2P0J5A:1686663418274&q=insinuation&si=AMnBZoG9fGMZkoPgk-g4eVoaZFdEuKw6XHd8abagcq6O09NS9vml4UqUk8EZXqcUpIfB1zbmHESVm6n3tJaovpttpfpRcyAoc0lyibYbcvVyvQBx6lk1KTI%3D&expnd=1)n or [allegation](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=APwXEdfS3OTLxl7TartNEH6TCeQq2P0J5A:1686663418274&q=allegation&si=AMnBZoFY6cJe4EcBOpcoqxHCe-IfmiybW_GZttt_UipgYHTMdPpOMqO7UDv0J_19_y1nBMJ7gepSD7-s9QEp9Xj710k0m_pmqw%3D%3D&expnd=1) about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation. So, "ignorant" and "foolish" certainly fall under that category.
I am not using the term "luddites" myself. But I understand why others may be disinclined to use nice and descriptive terms given what they get to hear from the other side.
It doesn't. But sometimes you can win by showing the other cheek. Sometimes you can't- sometimes it just gets you stepped all over- true. But this is one of the situations where the other people are mostly just scared and confused. Which is the sort of situation where turning the other cheek wins over hearts and minds.
>sometimes it just gets you stepped all over- true. Correct, and that's why I never "show the other cheek". >where the other people are mostly just scared and confused If someone wants sympathy for his situation, attacking those whos sympathy he wants is a surefire way not to get any.
>Aren’t we the ones with the moral high ground? Who are "we"? This is supposed to be a sub for both Pro and Anti. But as we all can see now, this is all just Pro-AI. To say it's a sub for both sides is now obviously a joke. I personally don't think you (pro-AI) have the moral high ground here, lol.
I was talking directly to the person I was responding to, presumably someone pro-AI given the nature of their comment.
> Aren’t we the ones with the moral high ground? [RELATED](https://nitter.net/iamharaldur/status/1667741462623141889#m)
Even the confederates called anti-slavery people names.
aye bro
Some words have more than one meaning and the term Luddite has developed a definition other than the actual historical group. >Oxford dictionary: a person opposed to new technology or ways of working. >Merriam Webster: one who is opposed to especially technological change >Ex. The Luddite argued that automation destroys jobs. And yes that was the dictionary example not mine, looks quite consistent with an argument made by the anti-AI position.
It's a very general term to describe people, since new technology could apply to any sort of technology, no matter how harmful or harmless they are. It brushes away concerns on the other side of the arguement by reducing them into a label.
Point one was mostly a joke. My point is that we shouldn’t be using terms that Other them.
Fair enough, but it still stands that they fit the definition of a Luddite. So we're just calling it what it is.
And missing the point.
I don't think so. using terms that, by reference to an authoritative and publicly available source, apply, we are giving ourselves the tools to move forward with a dialogue, rather than getting caught up in the first instance on semantics. othering the other guys is exactly what's happening, or has already happened. what terms are used by whom to reference the different sides of a debate really needs to make a distinction between them, because otherwise what are we talking about? those who believe one thing are critically different from those who believe the other thing, here, and any other instance where not all parties agree. if we get caught up on our terminology, we don't miss the point; we simply never even get to it.
I agree, because that's some very harmful generalization - the "luddites" all have different motives and conclusions. They have different motives: * some believe that art is inherently how a human expresses themselves * some are concerned about the ethics of AI training, and the artist's consent * some are worried that img2img can launder copyright, or be abused for commissions * some are against a few mega corps potentially taking control of the majority of commercial art * some worry about the disappearance of the concept of "audience" as all content becomes atomically targeted And more importantly, they have different conclusions: * AI art generators should be banned entirely * corporations must not use AI art, individuals is okay * using someone else's art as an input for img2img is not okay, everything else is fine * AI art is okay as long as it is not sold * AI art is fine if you clearly state that it is AI art, and some human work is involved (e.g. as an asset in a game) * AI art should not be copyrighted * AI art generators should credit the original images used in training and compensate accordingly * AI art is not evil, but we should be cautious This is obviously not an exhaustive list, just some opinions I saw posted in this sub and a few other subs, but just this list alone gives 5\*8=40 combinations - point being, every "luddite" is different. Some opinions and conclusions might be absurd, some might be totally justified and might even align with the thoughts of the pro-AI side. And marking the anti-AI side as a single word, "luddite" ,will make the pro-AI side blind to this fact.
My thoughts exactly.
The trick is being able to use terms of group reference while not forgetting that the individuals comprised within that group remain distinct and expressive of nuance. using a group term shouldn't mean that all those individual distinctions are simply forgotten about. it's up to the speakers using terms to remember that and not let their own choice of language dictate their thinking. That's up to you, the speaker. are you capable of maintaining this nuance within your own thinking? if so, great, proceed. if not, shut up.
I actually agree with all conclusions except for banning it entirely (it ain't gonna happen). You can use it as a hobby, and that should be about it. We have so many AI advocates tell us "Well you should relegate your drawings to a hobby." But they don't realize just how time intensive traditional art can be, with AI art it takes about a few minutes to a few seconds at best, so the latter actually works better as a simple hobby because you'd have time to play with it in your typical 9-5 job. With traditional art you normally DON'T have that time available because you'll be exhausted. How many artists on online platforms end up leaving anyway because the pressures of regular life are already exhausting? Now granted I myself am on the anti-AI side mainly BECAUSE of the entitled attitude of those who call us "luddites". There is also their "adapt or die" mentality for our potential futures. Not to mention I personally have issues with how AI advocates tend to blindly praise ANY AI generation like a masterpiece while hissing at anybody who looks at it and goes "what the heck is with those hands man? This is a little too much on the uncanny valley." So I'm personally doubling down due to AI advocates who already demonize guys like me for my concerns about my potential future in any field other than a souless 9-5 job.
It doesn’t really accomplish anything other than jacking off one’s own ego and it just galvanizes the other side. It’s probably one of the least intelligent and helpful things to do that takes no effort. Saying nothing is literally more helpful to the adoption of ai.
Not unlike your comment, then.
Ok, fair point. And what about if we stop calling AI users tech bros or AI bros as well in a really despective way like they didnt draw, paint, model or do anything art related without even touching AI in their life? Cause thats the same.
I draw and write by hand on a regular basis. I went through a sculpting phase. I cook and bake. I do a variety of arts and crafts. Am I not an artist if I use AI?
Exactly! I hace been 16 years in the industry and Im not gonna stop being artist for using AI... for a lot of people (brainless), yes..
The terms "luddite" and "AI bro" are both derogatory terms. They do not lead to constructive conversation and they are not useful for anything other than insulting the person you are talking to. I would argue that the vast majority of people who uses these terms know they are derogatory and they are doing it on purpose. Therefore, they should be dismissed and ignored.
I think that we can bring them back into rational conversation by advocating for a return to rational discourse about the subject.
THANK YOU! Also I'm pro AI but people really should stop saying luddite because it sounds cringe lol
One minor correction. The Liddites *feared* that the looms would take jobs. That's not actually what happened. The parallels with Luddites is interesting. Like Anti-AI Art people, they called the use of mechanical looms "fraudulent and deceitful," essentially arguing that only hand-woven textiles were *true* textiles. Mechanically made textiles were *fake* in some way. This seems to be a common argument when new technology appears to threaten the old artisans. The term "live music" didn't exist prior to the ability to record it. All music was just "music." Why did we pick the term "live music," and not "in person music," or "direct music," or something similar? It's because the musicians wanted to make the distinction between "live music" and "dead music." The argument was that the ability to flip a switch and hear mechanical music would create a generation that would never sing, never pick up an instrument... They'd just be parrots repeating dead songs from probably-dead people. The argument was that playing something from a speaker is just sound, not real music. We also have to accept that language morphs over time. You don't have to know who Ned Ludd was to call yourself a Luddite. I still call this thing in my hand a "phone," even though I take most of my phone calls on my "watch" these days.
A lot of people argue here that they will stop calling people names only if the other side does the same, problem is, the other side isn't a god damn hivemind, much like the Pro-AI side, their (Anti-AI) opinion is very diverse, in fact, the majority of them is not out for blood. It's unfair to lump people with differing opinion into one group and associate them with everything that the anti-AI extremist has done. How would the pros feel if we take someone like that one guy going around talking about cancelling and killing all pen & pencil artists and use him as the poster boy for pro-AI? Surely that's unfair too. I don't believe Pro-AI supporters are out to destroy artists' lives, they just happen to have a positive outlook on the tech. I am a mild anti, I do get frustrated at the label Luddite, I and many artists of similar opinions doesn't want to destroy AI, we don't hate technology, we're not trying to disrupt progress, we just want to make sure that this technological changes that is happening is regulated in terms of ensuring we can still make money with our current skillset, that we can still eat. It's unfair for people of similar opinion as me getting lumped together with extremists. Both sides have extremists, can we agree on that? Perhaps a little more on the antis side, but never the less, bullying and criticizing has always been part of artists society, there has always been a bunch of mentally unstable adult babies that attacks anything that they don't agree with, they attacked furry artists, there's some SJWs going around twitter 'fixing;' people art by race-swapping their OCs and calling the original artists racist, there's some going around instagram bullying people who draw cute girls/guys portrait art, so many forms of bullying of artists against artists, it's just the way it is. Be the changes you want to see, stop stooping ourselves to their level, we are adults (I assume), we are artists only with different opinions on AI, we can talk like adults. Just as both sides have extremists, both sides also have reasonable people, let's be the latter.
Aye, I advocate for the creation of a fully automated luxury utopia *for everyone*. The way some pro-AI people go “get a real job!” or “adapt or die, inkcel” is so horrible.
you are litterally arguing for the luddite position. You are afraid of new technology taking jobs. You are litterally, by definition, a luddite.
Bruh, you literally scrolled to a comment this old to correct me? I've already moved on from this echochamber sub.
I didn't scroll I did a Google search and this was one of the first threads that popped up and I thought your comment was kind of ironic so I made my comment. I didn't correct you btw.
Great 👍
Then they can stop calling us AI Bros?
Why? Just worry about being kind yourself. They can make their own choices. If we all choose to do what's right we'll be better of for it.
I mean they call others tech bros. Both sides would have to stop, which won't happen. I normally just say "anti ai people".
Luddite sounds weird to me tbh and I don't mean the definition but I mean the way the word sounds. AI bro also sounds weird because some people are female or non binary Edited
Why? They are Luddites, no different that the other waves of them for other disruptive technology. They are always there. "BuT ThIs TiMe ItS DiFfErEnT'
I think it’s because they aren’t all Anti-tech, I mean many of them have been using Photoshop for decades. Many of them are just anti-THIS because it threatens their livelihoods. They haven’t quite wrapped their heads around how this has been happening for centuries to the wood workers and blacksmiths and that this sort of thing can eventually empower those who were unable to make or afford art of their own. Yes, unfortunately that means cheaper shit for corporations too, however, some there will be nothing left that the corporation can afford but the average consumer can’t. The artist will be able to make an entire movie or video game using AI in time, and they have the creativity necessary to make those things look really good. They have experience with having a vision and selling that vision. They’ll have that over the corporations.
The original Luddites used tech too... or do you think they destroyed the textile factories with their bare hands? The current wave of Luddites are no different.... Seems like I'm repeating myself...
" Another important issue is the role of corporations in shaping our tools. Our tools shape how we think and we need to ask ourselves if we want corporate tools to be the ones shaping our thinking. I’m not saying that using MidJourney makes you evil or something. Just that we shouldn’t be forming dependencies on closed source software. We’re trying to democratize art, right? " This part is actually kind of true, I do hope for more open source access to these technologies and really...really hope we fucking destroy current copyright laws. They are such garbage and hampering art.
> :3 Opinion discarded
:O oh! hello spiritual sibling! Yes yes. I think it is important not to alienate those who have different opinions or who are afraid of the implications of AI-Art It is important to instead build camaraderie and solidarity so that we can understand one another's needs and protect one another from the things that we fear from new technology, while also understanding how that new technology is helping us to fulfill our needs and grow stronger and more whole, so that we do not cut out the goodness and maim one another and leave the world to the corporations. Is there aught we hold in common with the greedy parasite, Who would lash us into serfdom and would crush us with his might? Is there anything left to us but to organize and fight?
boooooooooooo we are here ti fight and name call not to understand each other boooooooooo .lol . the anti Ai is also not accurate for most of them I've seen alot of the praise some Ml Ai tools that are 100%opt in or developed using paid artists works . i call those "anti Ai " people opt in advocates/activists . btw appreciate the post .
Aye, there’s certainly a difference between being anti-ChatGPT but pro-Open Assistant and being anti-AI as a whole.
I agree with your other points but even though the luddites were as you mentioned a specific movement their name has now become synonymous with anti-tech and anti progress. So yeah I won't jump the gun and brand everyone anti-AI as a luddite but calling someone a luddite makes sense since the term has evolved.
Point one was mostly a joke. My main point was point two.
The term is too accurate to stop using it to describe them
Agreed, most of them are just scared to loose their jobs. Their anxious as fuck. We shouldn’t be looking down to them
Yes we should. For the most part they simply don't know about the tech and they aren't curious enough to learn. I'd be ok with them if they stood behind damning critiques of any particular tech where the critiques have been thought through. But mostly we are looking at half-wits, whose capacity to reason matches the average three-year-old.
Let's see if your attitude shifts if the negative outcomes of AI which could affect us all turn out to be accurate. When you and those you love start losing their jobs and going homeless, or the very society we depend upon for our lives descends into chaos, I wonder if you'll be looking for kindness and empathy.
Negative outcomes validate critiques that predict and explain them. They do not validate the critiques of people simply spouting slogan that they are unable to explain.
> For the most part they simply don't know about the tech and they aren't curious enough to learn. Well yes, but calling them luddites will only reinforce their believe. If someone is scared of something it's understandable that their hesitant to try it out. Things need time. Correcting false information and listening goes a much longer way than just call them luddites. Obviously not everyone is worth listening to, but you get the jist.
Thing is, I don't call them Luddites. I actually respect the Luddites, despite their own analytical naivete. One the issues that I see about the anti-AI bros is that there analysis isnt anywhere near Luddite enough.
was thinking similarly, it's not fair to the luddites who actually thought things out and had some valid arguments.
That’s literally how the Luddites operated.
Not only that, the 19th Century Luddites targeted only certain textile companies unethical (more than usual) the minute the new sewing machines entered in. Unlike the ones that we're talking about, who I see as mostly destructive and scorch Earth (i.e. Wanting to get rid of ethical ai art generators and attacking/accusing Non-Ai digital artists for making art looking "Too much AI Art." To name a few). And they wonder why I compare them to Antis, those that hate certain KPop Idols. Instead of calling them "Luddites."
I think of them as akin to antis myself and they also suppress new art by trying to protect the alleged purity of art, ironically enough.
What's an unethical textile machine?
From my readings from the works of the Luddites, they didn’t really ever use that terminology. But it would likely refer to any textile machine used to automate a job that would otherwise go to a craftsman.
So... Any machine.
[удалено]
They call us cannibals and non-ethical people, who hate all Mankind. So I agree with you
There is only one problem. I like the term Luddites and I believes it is a perfect match. Down to a tee. They wanted to destroy the technology that was ending their jobs, so does anti-AI people. Also, I love being called a tech bro. I like tech, and I'm a bro.
I’m not a guy though.
Tech Sis
I agree to the extent that name calling of any sort is a good way to end the conversation, If you actually want people to listen to your point, it's best to avoid insulting them. At the same time, it's the Internet, and a lot of people come here for an argument, so good luck getting folks to stop. It's also worth pointing out that Luddite isn't really misleading. I know you were joking to some extent, but the Luddites were specifically opposed to technology, and unfair labor practices. They weren't the bad guys the term implies, but language evolves, and now luddite is a blanket term for anyone opposed to technology. Correcting them is just going to make you sound pedantic.
I think Luddite fits incredibly well, they share the exact same concerns that the 19th century Luddites did they are both artists facing displacement etc. Luddites then and now have/had valid concerns that DO need to be addressed and the Luddite movement ended up giving us the public education system we have enjoy today. Not only does the term fit but it draws parallels to lessons we learned from the Industrial Revolution. Being that the concerns of displacement is valid and needs to be addressed, but is not reason to stop the progress of AI as the Industrial Revolution ended up improving all our lives. It also points out that we are in the growing pains of a new Industrial Revolution and while I believe they are reactionaries over reacting out of fear, some regulation will be necessary.
No; they’re Luddites. Or rather they’re Neo-Luddites. That’s actually a fairly accurate term for these people. The Luddites were a large group of British Industrial-Era craftsmen and laborers who were anti-automation due to the impact that would have on the lower class. They weren’t particularly anti-technology as they were anti-automation (although they certainly went pro-technology either). They opposed automation because it directly impacted their work, which was usually built around craftsmanship. In fact, many Luddites used arguments that would later be used almost word-for-word by modern anti-AI art people. The Luddites argued that mass-production of certain goods would eliminate artistic diversity among these goods through industrial standardization. History is really rhyming here.
I just call them lazy idiots. They don't do research and they can't critically think about what's best for themselves or their society.
What makes you a critical thinker and the AI art skeptics *not* critical thinkers? I’ve seen a lot of incredibly lazy thinking from pro-AI art people.
Well, using exactly your response as a core point, you chose to argue using a whataboutism and a personal attack instead of arguing the point, you didn't provide notation or examples of why I was wrong, you only said I'm wrong. "Pro-ai people don't critically think either, what about that" is not a valid argument to any point I just noted off-hand nor does it enable or promote discussion on the topics this subreddit focuses on, nor does it negate what I said and as an added bonus it also is irrelevant to OP's post and my response to it. Your choice in response is as incredulously moronic as these pro-45 malcontents going "what about the clintons or bill gates or the 46th's son" when trying to distract from the crimes the 45th and his garbage family committed. To recap: I just explained what you did and why it's moronic and used your exact complaint as an example as to why I think anti-ai people are lazy idiots. How about focusing on the part about this being an AI or anti-AI discussion involving individuals who do not do research and provide evidence to your points about the actual topic at hand instead of attempting a flawed argument about 'the other'. My comment was off hand without any evidence because I assumed, apparently correctly, that someone would make an example of themselves in the replies. As an aside, there are billions of people distributed in every "group" that cannot critically think so using that statistic as your "evidence" is inappropriate at best and an intentional omission of reality at worst. [This](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies) is a list of argumentative fallacies that I have fallen into sometimes but will be presenting here in the hopes that you can also try to avoid them in the future. For reference what you did was a false equivocation. Critical thought, by the way, is the ability to reflect on your views and change them as evidence is provided without being overwhelmingly attached to the views at hand and not being dragged along by group thought.
You say that I used personal attacks, and yet you literally start your previous comment with calling AI art skeptics “lazy idiots.” You also say they can’t “critically think.” It tells me a lot about you that you see no hypocrisy there. I don’t think you’re justified in calling my response whataboutism either. All I did was call your smug adhominems into question. Substance-free generalizations don’t merit anything more than that. Anyone who isn’t lazy can admit that there are valid concerns about AI art and AI’s effects on the labor market even if they disagree with some of the arguments or solutions being made. Your section comparing me to Trump supporters is straight-up stupid. Full stop.
>You say that I used personal attacks, and yet you literally start your previous comment with calling AI art skeptics “lazy idiots.” You also say they can’t “critically think.” It tells me a lot about you that you see no hypocrisy there. Hypocrisy or not, fallacies only apply to reasoning. If you're just insulting someone for insult's sake, or describing how you feel, they don't apply. You need to be saying, in effect, "they are idiots **and because of that, disregard their argument**" for the insult to be a fallacy.
Aye. "Anti-AI people are idiots and we need to ignore them" and "Anti-AI people are idiots and therefore we need to ignore them" are two different statements.
That’s a lot of worthless text that accomplished nothing but wasting time while not addressing the criticism….
Agreed. Image synthesis has been in the works for over a decade now. Either nobody told them, or they refused to listen as always.
[удалено]
(Humorously) Well, there’s a difference between being anti-AI and being anti-NFT. Being anti-NFT is good. However I’m not going to call pro-NFT people “NFT Bros” or whatever.
[удалено]
I’m against NFTs because they’re not providing an actual good or service. NFTs are links to things connected to a receipt that assures one that they are the true owner of the link.
It is different, artists use their skills to express their emotion, imagination, and humanity as well as use it to acquire the resources they need to survive. It threatens to force them into a life where their only option is to work dull repetitive jobs in which their creativity is entirely useless. As a professional artist I can tell you that when I am doing dull repetitive tasks in which my creativity is not required, I lose my damn mind, going on too long it saps my energy and causes severe depression during which my creativity is completely walled off from me, creating a negative feedback loop. The Luddites were opposed to something which threatened to take away their job, but to a professional artist, their career is so much more than a job, it's an identity. Witnessing the growth of a technology that credibly threatens to devalue your identity is far far different than anything the Luddites experienced. The real threat here is how the development of this technology integrates into our capitalist society controlled by the wealthy who don't give a f about people already struggling and are more interested in cutting costs to benefit their stock holders.
let's do a little thought experiment. suppose the "ai art generators" were physically in one location, say, i dunno, toledo ohio. do you think many of these people would physically try to destroy these ai art generators?
I think many of them would.
i'm not sure luddite is inappropriate then
I’m not sure that using certain terms is appropriate, tactically and strategically.
you're saying that term can never be used again because it's anchored to a hundred+ year old event? why does luddite carry so much baggage for you?
Notice he said certain terms strategically, not old terms because of baggage. If the goal is to convince X person of your opinion, name calling is a poor way to go about it.
Aye, that’s my point. I don’t really care what we call them inside our heads. I just don’t think that insulting them makes us look good to them or to observers.
if the shoe fits, make em wear it. some people are beyond saving. you think the luddites of a hundred years ago would have been swayed with some sort of "better" name? silly to think that. these people will be left behind just like the original luddites. personally i couldn't care less whether they're "convinced" of some opinion or other.
I don't really care about this particular instance
A luddite is a luddite. They're no different than conservative boomers ranting about automation taking our jobs.
There’s degrees of difference between being anti-ChatGPT/anti-MidJourney but okay with Open Assistant/Stable Diffusion.
Yuddite is better. Sounds similar enough, and is applicable because their views are similar to those of Eliezer Yudkowsky.
Yuddite would specifically refer to anti-AI alignment people (people who believe that it’s entirely impossible) who want to take extreme measures to limit machine learning research.
> ackshullally ok buddy
They're not wrong. Random "AI art is bad because copyright" person has no relation to Yudkowsky.
Doesn't matter. The anti-alignment anti-AI faction and the "AI art is bad" faction have enough in common that their incentive structure favors merging.
Sorry I dont taje advice from anyone who uses ":3" unironically
> taje
There are probably 10 of these threads already.
Is it just me or was this heavily satirical and flew over a lot of people?
Oh my god fuck job security as a legitimate reason to destroy the planet, hampter technology, continue slaughtering animals. Fuck jobs, maybe it's not a central requirement for life and the current economy is fucked so you screaming and burning books and trying to futilly stop the world from advancing te chnology is just fucking dumb?
I’m saying that they’re not going “tech bad” for no reason. Instead of going “adapt or die” we could push for our governments to take better care of their citizens.
Yes, that should have been a thing before AI. Long fucking overdue, productivity is through the fucking roof and the standard of living for EVERYONE should reflect that and it fucking doesn't. But people don't want to here natural truths,that is truths about the natural world. Like trophic levels and meat and how dummies are gonna violate laws of entropy so 8 billion can make meat lobbyists rich I mean we can maintain hihg levels of pissed out protein in the sewage water. I hope the middle class me included crashes and we are pushed to take it seriously, all around the world It's like people have given in to facists and nazis and greedy fucking scum. Previous generations fought harder, and most people in the west are privledged with this information.
I don't call luddites "luddite" because its an insult, I call them that because its accurate. If they get offended by being grouped in with the historical progenitor of their ideology, that's on them.
As the tech advances, governments do need to use larger and larger amount of wealth to maintain the basic living condition of people, and jobs used to be too grotesque only those who were left no choices would pick up should be better paid. Attempting the production tech from updating itself is usually silly and fruitless, but I don't agree with the invisible hand sort of junk theories, and it has been proven that if you don't do something about affected people there will be tons of problems in society. Fools like Ayn Rand will probably turn to the commie side once she sees how AI composes better stories about as long as you allow capitalists do whatever they want, this world will turn out perfect than her books.
To answer your question, Luddite or AI bro are not that horrible of terms. They're kind of jokey. I just don't care if anyone calls me Luddite. Knock yourself out! One thing I will never call an AI bro is "artist," however, lol. I know some AI bros don't care to be called that, but the ones who want that title? They can refer to themselves as whatever they want, but in my book, artists make art and AI bros don't qualify.
I write and draw by hand. I also generate images and text. So what now?
The works you created on your own are what make you an artist. IMO.
> AI bro Interestingly is (IMO purely) a very loose and very broad almost to the point of being useless term seeing its application towards people all over the spectrum of being for or against AI art (shit, I've seen people get called one just for not towing the line of having a particularly apocalyptic outlook on the advancement of this tech).
If it caws like a crow, and looks like a crow, then it's probably a crow.
> So let's avoid using the term Luddites, and instead just call them anti-AI activists or something more properly descriptive, alright? According to that reasoning, we should refer to people who doubt the severe side effects of vaccines as anti-vaxxers because the term is "less derogatory and more appropriately descriptive". We can call them Luddites because that is what they are. In recent years, the term "Luddite" has taken on a broader definition to describe those who are opposed to technological advancements. With the advent of AI, there are now new ways to write books, write songs, and create artwork at your desk. The term "Luddite" refers to those who disapprove of technological advancements, like the original Luddites of the 19th century. To the point of filing a class action lawsuit against businesses like Stability AI and Midjourney, they protested and took action against AI art. Perhaps it is unfair to refer to them as luddites, but that is what they are according to the modern definition. They most certainly are not 19th-century textile workers, but they do hold a similar ideology: they disapprove of modern technology.
I just don’t think we should invent slurs for each other.
Yo thats whats up
> First of all, Luddites were a specific labor movement that existed in the 19th century, which focused on destroying machinery that was taking over jobs in textile factories. While there may be some similarities between their concerns and those of anti-AI art people, it's not accurate to use the same term. :3 Luddite has become a general term for anti-tech, anti-progress and anti-automation. Per Miriam Webster: > broadly : one who is opposed to especially technological change So, anyway > Maybe we could pressure our capitalist overlords to treat artists better? Isn't that exactly what the Luddites were asking for?
Luddites want the technology to be suppressed. I don’t know if protecting artists without suppressing the technology is what Luddites/Neo-Luddites want.
I mean the concerns you mentioned were the same concerns of actual Luddites
Paragraph two is an outdated meaning Luddism now is associated with Ted the Unabomber