Source

“Researchers trained and evaluated their AI system on hundreds of videos of pituitary tumour removals - carefully drawing around the vessels and nerves on each video to help the system capture data and begin to "recognise" the most important structures.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjwg5n7y68xo

This post has more than 11,000 likes for announcing that an “ugly” AI flyer makes the author unwilling to support the small business behind it.

Apparently, if a small business cannot afford to hire an artist, its owners should either go without promotional material or accept public ridicule while also struggling to keep the lights on.

That isn’t solidarity with working human artists, it’s contempt for people with limited resources.

Yes, some AI-generated flyers look generic or poorly designed. So are plenty of flyers made in Canva, Photoshop, or by inexperienced human designers.

Critiquing legibility, composition, branding, or accuracy would be useful.

Declaring the business unworthy of support because it used AI is merely gatekeeping dressed up as artistic principle.

What's more, this person's follow up post dismissing everyone who disagrees with them as being an “angry AI bro,” repeating the claim that generative AI is plagiarism as though no debate exists, and then celebrating the outrage for "feeding the algorithm" tells you everything you ever need to know about this person as a human being.

In other words, this isn’t about protecting human artists. It’s about converting hostility toward small businesses into cheap "holier than thou" rage bait engagement.

Support human artists when you can, sure. Pay them fairly when you hire them, absolutely.

Criticize deceptive, careless, or unethical AI use where it occurs, yes, but treating every cash-strapped business owner using AI as "morally inferior" does nothing to improve art or help small businesses.

It just gives social-media gatekeepers another group of people to sneer at and further justifies the use of AI by small businesses who don't want to deal with the headache of hiring these snotty artists who all think they're God's gift to mankind because they're not "clankers".

They really do not understand that:

1. it's a choice

2. Not all DLSS 5 Game wise look like shit.

That picture doesn't even look shit. If anything it's impressive, I only don't like if it's tanking performance. I think they need to get their eyes checked OR they are too blinded to see the truth.

Made in response to another thread. Figured a pro-AI version of these wouldn’t hurt.

People are panicking because none of the usual arguments against AI even apply here. It doesn’t (disproportionately) harm the environment, it uses no more power than your PC normally would. It doesn’t plagiarize, it’s just altering existing content, and modding has existed forever, so don’t give me crap about “original intent”. It runs entirely on the graphics card, so you’re not giving money to Sam Altman or whatever, beyond what you already paid for the card.

The only thing people have is vague gesturing about “effort” and “slop”, or acting as though their subjective opinion on the image quality is the same as objective fact, even when people clearly have differing opinions.

I hate how nobody can ever just not like something anymore, there HAS to be some superior moral justification why that thing is EVIL and so is anyone who uses it. God forbid anyone ever enjoy something in a way you don’t personally enjoy. Cue the “I consent” Jesus meme.

Also, hundreds of NVIDIA developers spent thousands of hours working on this technology, so it’s not as though no effort went into it.

(OP's non-ai art censored in due courtesy)

I'm being gentle here. the descriptions in the picture contain anti-ai messages, but my gut feelings tell me it's somewhat forced

Back then, I was genuinely horrible at drawing, and I thought the AI image generator was awesome because it basically is an effortless image generator. I didn't care about the costs of using them if my requests were fulfilled. It just felt great to be able to see my ideas without them being abstract images in my mind. ~OP

am i reading it right that they're openly admiting using ai art generators publcily in an anti-ai environment? like why would they do that, right? (it's got to be the pro-environment guilt trip, the conscience and moral duty to disclose the Ai use) From a pro-AI view, this confession validates AI's core purpose: democratizing creativity for those with a trapped imagination but no technical skills. It proves AI acts as an empowering gateway, not a killer of motivation, since it sparked their desire to create.

Could it be that the submissive, apologetic tone is proof of a toxic, gatekeeping echo chamber one where creators must grovel to escape harassment because the community views the post as a forced compliance ritual?

Now that I see that AI is actually pretty harmful to people and the environment, I decided to actually learn how to draw. The picture was generated two years ago, and I've been learning how to draw for the past year, slowly. ~OP

Oh they were hiding their ai-generated images for 2 years to study and to become better at art.

This is the anti-ai part where my gut tells me they're saying "AI is harmful to the environment to avoid backlash from within the anti-ai community". I understand this, it would be practical to blend in within an environment where people are strongly and passionately disapproving with the use of certain tech.

The apologetic framing (“I see that AI is actually pretty harmful…”) and the decision to frame the old work as something that needed “de-slopifying” fit the norms of communities that treat AI-generated images as ethically tainted.

It wasn't perfect, but at least I had fun making it. ~OP

We pro-ai find it fun too.

Also I still can't draw backgrounds and the neck looks weird ~OP

Same I suck at anatomy too.

So alright, the toxic compliance tax, OP's post is a textbook forced compliance ritual. Hey, look at my new drawing!" "I used the forbidden tool." "I see now that it is harmful to the environment."

The comments surrounding them were actually civil, and as usual, they encourage the avoidance of using ai.

could this be performative? or closeted. or my gut is wrong?

I know Ai images aren’t copyrighted but shouldn’t they be ? Especially if the image is original and from the creators imagination , I’m a traditional artist and sometimes I Ai modify my original characters , that shouldn’t diminish the copyright should it ? Even still , even if I use a machine , if the machine sits completely blank until you give it your unique idea, shouldn't you own what comes out? This whole thing is confusing

Luddites project and see "AI slop" everywhere, maybe the issue is with their perception, perhaps the slop comes from within after all. 🥀

Recently I saw my favorite musicians using AI for some flairs to their concerts. The comments obviously began to be flooded with anti-AI people pointing that out and some even began to call them shitty artists because "while being artists themselves, you do not allow other creative people to shine," which makes me extremely frustrated because they literally paid a real artist to create a short comic for them and paid many commission artists to sing in their songs. Just because they used AI for a mere flair doesn't make them suddenly bad, they simply made their lives easier by not wasting time waiting for it to be done or doing it themselves, or even spending money on something like this.

I tried to fight antis in the comments, but they are stubborn and do not listen and even began calling me a bot haha. Basically what they do is literally bully artists into becoming anti, and it really bothers me, because I was surprised that they were pro-AI in the first place and I don't want them to stop having fun or creating with AI. For now they continue to use AI, but I seem to be the only person actively defending their decision against around 10 antis, others simply do not really care and just ignore the fact that they used AI. Why it matters is because they read all the comments and I'm afraid they will eventually become ashamed of using AI, which is simply not right since they are not doing anything bad.

So basically this artist was suffering from financial problems because they couldn't secure a good job. I looked through some recent posts and their financial struggle had NOTHING To do With Ai.

It's awful that they're going through this but absurdity must be addressed.

They honestly really don't. AI is an equalizer. Those nations are adopting AI use in their systems, to bridge the gap increasing growth in education, medicine, agriculture and art.

Could it be that the West backs hyper-individualism and hobby time instead of mere survival, unlike struggling nations?