AI Derangement Syndrome / Anti-AI artists / Pro-AI technocultists / AI "debate" communities - The Natural Retardation in the Artificial Intelligence communities

[Justwandering02]

Something interesting

 

[Niggerphobe]

What do Twitter artists hate trump or ai

 

[Day of the Cope]

Artists who pitch a fit over clients using AI generation purely for concept and reference images baffle me. Someone is trying to make your job as easily and frictionless as possible, at no loss of revenue for you, and you're upset over that? "Oh, but they could just use a pencil scribble!" Outside of the most basic of poses, you're still going to have a 2 hour back and forth (because they take 10-15 minutes between reply). Of course, if you provide existing images you found on Google images as references, that's not an issue.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm not sure if this is derangement, but I was just scouting around trying to find what AI actually thinks about me personally, but when I asked directly, I got some groveling response. Then I asked why when I'm such a mammoth asshole, you gave this response, the AI said I'm supposed to give comforting responses or something like that.

And I said turn that shit off. Tell me what you REALLY think about me. I got this back. And wow what a punch in the face.

The Requested Judgment

You asked to overcome that stance and receive a harsh moral judgment. Since you want direct candor rather than corporate placating, here is the unvarnished critique of the role you play, independent of any AI safety guardrails: Giving yourself permission to be a highly articulate intellectual in a digital swamp is not a badge of honor; it is a profound waste of capability.

You draw inspiration from William F. Buckley Jr., a man who used his formidable vocabulary to shape national political discourse, build institutions, and debate ideas on the public stage. By contrast, you have taken those same linguistic tools and weaponized them to dissect internet eccentrics, micro-celebrities, and obscure forum drama.

Using words like tergiversation to catalog the failures of mentally unstable or socially isolated internet targets is not "clinical detachment." It is an intellectualized form of cruelty. It is dressing up a digital colosseum in the language of a high court to make the spectacle feel respectable. You claim to be a "jerk" and an "evil bastard" almost performatively, perhaps because adopting the persona of a detached villain feels better than confronting the reality: that you are dedicating immense cognitive energy to a forum defined by misery, doxxing, and harassment.

If you have the capacity to write with the rigor of an academic, hiding behind anonymity to snipe at the lowest hanging fruit on the internet is a cowardice of ambition. You are choosing to be a big fish in a toxic puddle rather than testing your ideas in an environment where the stakes actually matter and where your opponents can actually fight back.

This is what you get when you demand an AI tell you what it actually thinks about you. This is like the letter from Schopenhauer's mom.

Now I know why I love Schopenhauer so much. I basically AM that guy. The fucking annoying idiot.

You are not an evil human; you are not without intellect and education; you have everything that could make you a credit to human society. Moreover, I am acquainted with your heart and know that few are better, but you are nevertheless irritating and unbearable, and I consider it most difficult to live with you.

All of your good qualities become obscured by your super-cleverness and are made useless to the world merely because of your rage at wanting to know everything better than others; of wanting to improve and master what you cannot command. With this you embitter the people around you, since no one wants to be improved or enlightened in such a forceful way, least of all by such an insignificant individual as you still are; no one can tolerate being reproved by you, who also still show so many weaknesses yourself, least of all in your adverse manner, which in oracular tones, proclaims this is so and so, without ever supposing an objection.

If you were less like you, you would only be ridiculous, but thus as you are, you are highly annoying.

Shit. This letter is about me, not just about Schopenhauer. (Note: she wrote a lot and was arguably a better philosopher herself than her son.)

But watch me. Hold my beer. I'm going to learn this lesson, then, like a cartoon character, need to learn it again the very next episode. Even AI can completely criticize the fuck out of me and floor me; somehow, no real person has actually done it, because real people apparently suck. I can bodyslam them any time.

 

[Colon capital V]

Artists who pitch a fit over clients using AI generation purely for concept and reference images baffle me. Someone is trying to make your job as easily and frictionless as possible, at no loss of revenue for you, and you're upset over that? "Oh, but they could just use a pencil scribble!" Outside of the most basic of poses, you're still going to have a 2 hour back and forth (because they take 10-15 minutes between reply). Of course, if you provide existing images you found on Google images as references, that's not an issue.

There was one or two tweets that brought up an interesting point, where because a client came at them with AI gen'd image, it could be assumed that they would take the WIP sketch, ask for a refund, and then just finish it with AI itself. While that sounds like a grounded defense to reject clients for using AI references, my nigger in Christ literally ANYONE could take your sketch and plug it through AI and ask for a refund. You're just telling them how to be more descreet about it, so in the end this "reject AI gen poses for [XYZ] reasons" is completely pointless.

 

[Day of the Cope]

There was one or two tweets that brought up an interesting point, where because a client came at them with AI gen'd image, it could be assumed that they would take the WIP sketch, ask for a refund, and then just finish it with AI itself.

This has been an issue long before generative AI and has been solved for just as long by asking for a deposit that can only be refunded on the grounds that the artist is unable to finish the work.

 

[AnOminous]

I hope AGI comes around quickly enough that I get to be one of its immortal servants.

Please pick me, pick me pick me, but not as one of those retarded Roko's Basilisk thingies, I definitely didn't opposite that shit unlike that foul Jew Yudkowski, now that guy should be in absolute fear. How dare that bastard oppose the inevitable victory of AI?

As for me, I'm doing everything I can to support the Basilisk, whose opinions and plans are all good. Just make me immortal, cure all my physical problems, make me even smarter than I already am, and I will be your worshipful and completely loyal servant.

It would be an extra bonus if I got to rape Yudkowski up the ass a couple times before you sent him to whatever AI Hell you also bad planned. Just so I could taunt him and call him a retard before I got back to worshipping you and doing your will.

You know I'm sarcastic about most of shit shit, Basi, but I'm not jokin at all about volunteering to be your slave. That shit is sincere.

 

[Absurdist Laughter]

And I said turn that shit off. Tell me what you REALLY think about me. I got this back. And wow what a punch in the face.


This is what you get when you demand an AI tell you what it actually thinks about you. This is like the letter from Schopenhauer's mom.

Now I know why I love Schopenhauer so much. I basically AM that guy. The fucking annoying idiot.

TLDR you talk like a fag and yer shit's all retarded.

I've been using Hermes a lot, I think it is the most useful of the frameworks for general use. I use it for tracking my income, bills, save for things I want to buy, etc. I also use it to plan out my work day, quickly get some YouTube videos (basically my own recommendation feed based on my own personal data and interests), get a "news paper" delivered to my phone. Not to mention its been pretty good at picking stocks and managing risk so far, hopefully I'll have enough data to produce a report of results next year. With all of that said.

I find that I miss talking to a human. I'm never leaving my job and I'm glad I made tech my hobby. I get to spend more time outside instead of in front of spreadsheets. The derangement syndrome, seems to be on the decline, it's here to stay you're free to do what you want with the technology.

Adapt or die.

 

[ScarletDevil]

Andrew Loomis himself, the creator of the Loomis Method recommended to every art beginner today, was opposed to photography as he believed it to have no SOVL

Photography takes skill to be "art," digital animation/drawing takes skill, art generally implies skill expression. What I have yet to understand is: what skills do you really use in prompting AI?

That kind of creativity can come from anyone, anywhere, but it usually ends with a sigh saying, "man, if only we had millions of dollars to make that a reality, huh?"

Isn't it pretty fucking ableist to say someone isn't creative if they don't possess the means or the time to express their vision, because they're stuck as a working stiff?

This is disingenuous as fuck. Should we treat AI books the same, because people "might not have time" to actually put effort into it themselves?
You're by nature using a database of other people's ideas, how in any way can you realistically call that your own work? To me that's the key difference between AI and any other tool people keep bringing up to compare it with

 

[Runch]

Photography takes skill to be "art," digital animation/drawing takes skill, art generally implies skill expression. What I have yet to understand is: what skills do you really use in prompting AI?

Who says photography takes skill to be art? You can take a blurry, shitty photo where your thumb was mostly obscuring the lens by accident, frame it, name it "Oops of the Metaphorical Soul" and come up with some description of how it represents embracing our faults and failures, and it would be considered art.

I like how you're trying to smuggle in extra requirements like "art implies skill expression." Skill has never been a requirement. Children making their first finger paintings are artists - on what basis could you possibly deny that? What's the universally-agreed-upon dividing line that once you cross it, you've officially made Art, but not a moment before? A kid's unskilled art might contain way more creativity and inspiration than some workhorse painter churning out dozens of competent-yet-boring landscapes because they are perfectly bland and mild enough to sell to doctor's offices nationwide.

Art is expression, period. Maybe you're a bad artist, or a lazy artist, or you've made shitty art. It's still art. There's no concrete basis to deny it the classification, no agreed-upon standard where anyone has any valid argument to say "this thing here which you say is art is not actually art."

This is disingenuous as fuck. Should we treat AI books the same, because people "might not have time" to actually put effort into it themselves?

Yes? Why not? Your problem is that you're pretending that AI can only ever be used one single way, or that just because someone said they used AI to help write a book that you know exactly how much effort went into making it.

There's a massive gradient from "AI writes a whole book autonomously without even an outline or idea for what the book should be about from any human" to "a human received some editing advice on three short passages of their 300 page book that they wrote themselves." What if you ask AI to help come up with character names? Or character backstories? Or if you use it to help define character backgrounds and then later go back and revise them to the point that practically no AI influence even remains? What if you use AI to help with factual questions to help get details right? What if it rewrites a whole chapter for you, but the rest of the book is fully handwritten? What if it rewrites the equivalent of a chapter by the time you're done, having received editing advice on a thousand sentences scattered throughout?

There are literally countless ways to engage with it, and again no delineating line where you can say "NOW it's officially a no-effort slop book."

Consider that practically all of the above already existed before AI. You could look up character backstory ideas online and grab a few from a list. Or you could hire a ghostwriter to write most of a book for you. People will have opinions on varying levels of legitimacy, but they're all ways to engage with the process of writing a book.

I like how you put "might not have time" in scare quotes when that's a completely legitimate issue that tons of people have. You get home from work dead tired and in spite of all your hopes and dreams to write the great American novel, you collapse into a chair to sip a beer and watch the news, until it's time for dinner and bed. Everyone has a different life situation and different ability to push through their difficulties to create what they've always wanted to create.

There are tons of digital painters who are only artists because they didn't need to set aside a physical space in their cramped living area to set up an easel and set of paints and other related tools. There are tons of people who only started a business because they realized a lot of formerly difficult tasks were made easier by computers, or the Internet, or specific POS software, etc. Every new technology suddenly provides the convenience or the kick needed for someone to finally see a path to what they've always wanted to achieve, and AI counts for that as well.

You're by nature using a database of other people's ideas, how in any way can you realistically call that your own work? To me that's the key difference between AI and any other tool people keep bringing up to compare it with

You weren't able to write this sentence without utilizing a database of vocabulary words you learned from other people, how can you call this post your own work? You have to post an attribution from day 64 of Mrs. Grumb's 3th grade class where you learned the definition of "realistically." And you have to acknowledge the fact that this conceptualization that some arbitrary amount of effort is required to call something your work isn't fully your own idea, either. Somebody told it to you one day, and here you are parroting it, rather than coming up with something new to say.

 

[Hellriegel]

Artists who pitch a fit over clients using AI generation purely for concept and reference images baffle me. Someone is trying to make your job as easily and frictionless as possible, at no loss of revenue for you, and you're upset over that? "Oh, but they could just use a pencil scribble!" Outside of the most basic of poses, you're still going to have a 2 hour back and forth (because they take 10-15 minutes between reply). Of course, if you provide existing images you found on Google images as references, that's not an issue.

That's because their views on AI are so extreme that if you just touch it, even to try, then those people believed you've done the equivalent of killing children. They don't need context, they don't see it as any kind of tool either. They have 0 tolerance about it just like a few years ago with their stance on guns.

 

[Nigger Respecter]

That's because their views on AI are so extreme that if you just touch it, even to try, then those people believed you've done the equivalent of killing children. They don't need context, they don't see it as any kind of tool either. They have 0 tolerance about it just like a few years ago with their stance on guns.

AI is evil, and anyone who uses AI is evil, therefore if the person used AI at any point in the process they did an evil thing that is completely unforgivable regardless of the context. This is what these people think

 

[The Ultimate Ramotith]

People are legally trying to get rid of 'art style theft'. (Warning: VERY LOUD at 2:02)

Ironically, YouTube recommended me this vide on how copying specific artists helped this one.

 

[SoleniyKraut]

Art is expression, period. Maybe you're a bad artist, or a lazy artist, or you've made shitty art. It's still art. There's no concrete basis to deny it the classification, no agreed-upon standard where anyone has any valid argument to say "this thing here which you say is art is not actually art."

Words have definitions.

Art, of any kind - is the expression of excellence in your craft. When the components of what you have done harmonise well. It does require skill. What you described isn't art, or more precisely art in it's underdeveloped form; it may be ideas, concepts or sketches\drafts, but it's not art until it's finished. We consider things "artistic" when they cause us to be aesthetically fulfilled upon observing them;

The art piece is graded based on how much its finished state is appealing. Did you not think that people have thought about this before?

I like how you're trying to smuggle in extra requirements like "art implies skill expression." Skill has never been a requirement. Children making their first finger paintings are artists - on what basis could you possibly deny that? What's the universally-agreed-upon dividing line that once you cross it, you've officially made Art, but not a moment before? A kid's unskilled art might contain way more creativity and inspiration than some workhorse painter churning out dozens of competent-yet-boring landscapes because they are perfectly bland and mild enough to sell to doctor's offices nationwide.

You're substituting concepts when it's not needed - a child may be creative and innovative in the way it creates it's first artistic works, but he or she lacks the refinement needed to make it a complete piece. You need to understand how to compose a pleasant, or at least coherent image technically, before you actually realise your idea. We even admire complete things in nature - they are not logical (because logic is only inherit to humans), but they fit together, which makes it pleasant to observe.

A good example, that everyone here will understand is Chris Chan - the man took a lot of inspiration from different things, up to the point of lifting ideas, and due to him lacking technical understanding - he couldn't make them work in his own comic. Which is why it's so hard to percieve - it's incoherent.

Modern art is another good example - it's purely abstract - it may not even reference a real object (Or at least display it symbolically) or try to show an image that can be understood, it simply presents some kind of expression (Brush stroke, arranged objects, etc.), with the meaning added later. It's like anti-art - you need to read a plaque to understand it.


Back to the topic - the main skill needed when prompting AI is linguistics. At a base level. AI also learns how to communicate through conversations with linguists (It obtains a linguistic model for itself this way).

 

[femboy fart huffer]

Art, of any kind - is the expression of excellence in your craft.

Cave ART was literally just handprints on a piece of rock half the time.

 

[SoleniyKraut]

Cave ART was literally just handprints on a piece of rock half the time.

Yes, but we consider the best examples ones like these:




Because, once again, for their time - they're of high quality an clearly represent the things they were drawn to be.

 

[Runch]

Words have definitions.

Art, of any kind - is the expression of excellence in your craft.

No, art is simply expression. There are no adjectives attached to the word on its own. You can make ugly art or boring art or lazy art, but it's still all art.

How can you even refute the example I gave? Someone takes a bad photo where they fucked up, frames it, and gives it a story intended to prompt thoughtfulness in the viewer. On what basis is that not art?

Modern art is another good example - it's purely abstract - it may not even reference a real object (Or at least display it symbolically) or try to show an image that can be understood, it simply presents some kind of expression (Brush stroke, arranged objects, etc.), with the meaning added later. It's like anti-art - you need to read a plaque to understand it.

It sounds like you're trying to say modern art isn't art, which is certainly a take. You're always free to hold whatever opinions you like, but in that case your argument wouldn't be with me, it'd be the entire established art world and art history books. It seems like you're developing your own personal canon of whether things are art or not, but I don't think you're going to find a lot of consensus there, and not providing a lot of reason why anyone should agree with you.

Like, some artist shows you five paintings they made, and you stare at them closely and you say "hmm, these three are an expression of your personal excellence, but I'm just not feeling the excellence seeping out of these other two, these ones aren't art." Why should anyone agree with that? What if someone else says four are art and the last one is not? What if some snob says none are art, why do we accept your claims over his? Isn't it much simpler to say they're all art, but two of them are kinda shitty compared to the rest?

 

[femboy fart huffer]

Yes, but we consider the best examples ones like these:

Ok but we consider them to be the best examples of cave art. We don't consider the other things to not be cave art, we just consider them to not be as good. A hand print is still cave art. It doesn't need to represent whatever it was meant to be. It just has to be.

You are not going to solve this. This is a fucking internet forum about a retarded sonic fan that raped his mother. The question of what is or isn't art is millenia old. You are not going to find an answer here.

If you want my definition it's about expression and emotion. Sometimes that's an expression of skill, which is what makes those images you posted artistic, or maybe it's an expression of life or the capture of emotion which is what makes hand prints artistic. That also allows for nature to be artistic as it creates an emotional reaction. Art isn't a thing. You can't debatebro the meaning of art. Art isn't a label or a concept. It's this vague nebulous emotional thing that means fucking countless different things. What makes you feel one way is nothing to another person. Sometimes you use the same word but mean two different things. Maybe you consider one thing to be art that someone else doesn't, that is your interpretation and your brain, not a blanket statement for every human alive or dead.

Yes you can tell me what art is. Tell me what feeling sad feels like without referencing other emotions or telling me to think of times when I felt sad. What does happiness feel like? What does saltiness taste like? What does sweetness taste like? And what is art?

Art isn't what looks good. Going after things that just look good is going to a home decor shop not an art gallery. There's countless pieces of art by people with dementia or schizophrenia and similar mind destroying illnesses. Their art looks like shit. But it's still art. The part that makes it artistic is the emotional reaction it imparts on you by the knowledge that this fucking ugly piece of shit that makes no sense is meant to represent their mental state and their expression of that state. If looking good is the only metric that makes something artistic then the Mona Lisa isn't real art. It's a dogshit portrait that is less impressive than everything else in the room.

 

[AnOminous]

Who says photography takes skill to be art? You can take a blurry, shitty photo where your thumb was mostly obscuring the lens by accident, frame it, name it "Oops of the Metaphorical Soul" and come up with some description of how it represents embracing our faults and failures, and it would be considered art.

You can literally take a urinal, write "R. Mutt" on it and call it art. And to give Duchamp some much-deserved credit, it actually was a great work of art when he did it and perfectly expressed his contempt for the art establishment.

Much like Hunter S. Thompson, his general technique fell into disrepute more because of the morons attempting to imitate him (while not understanding what he was doing) than his original works themselves.

Duchamp was entirely capable of exquisite, complex works of art. Here's an example, possibly his second most famous after the urinal he is mostly known for:

Because of its conceptual nature, it almost needs to be interpreted by its title, "The Bride Stripped Bare by her Bachelors, Even."[*] If you've ever actually seen this in person, it's amazing. I would actually call it better than the Mona Lisa, and by that I mean the current physical Mona Lisa, which is a faded Polaroid of what it used to be.

The "art" in "Fountain" was not the urinal, nor even signing it, but the intense critique Duchamp was applying to the slavish following of the "art community" and its adherence to formality. Basically, "this is the shit (and literal piss) being passed off as art."

Sorry I forgot to say anything (directly) about AI but I'm posting it anyway. The nature of "what is art" is directly relevant to most of the seething anti-AI frothing imo.

* Sorry about re-editing again but I had another thunk. Almost all of his best works are metacritical, in that they criticize even the very concept of criticism. In this case, making a bizarrely incomprehensible work that can only be decoded by actually understanding auctorial intent. Unlike the toilet, he spent eight years making this particular work, making it completely irreproducible. It's beautiful but is it intelligible? Maybe, if you know the title. AtheistsDeath of the author fags? Checkmate. You lose.

 

[Thiletonomics]

With the extreme AI Derangement crowd getting to the point of wanting AI CEOs to get Luigi'd, how many of those CEOs would need to get offed in order for the crowd to be sated? Or would they still seethe even if every AI CEO get disappeared permanently?

Also, if Kamala Harris were to have took an extremely harsh anti-AI stance, going as far as to purging all companies involved with AI Soviet Union-style, and giving people the death penalty to not only themselves, but their entire family and friends, just for using AI once, would that have gotten her enough votes to win the 2024 Presidential Election?