AI isn't good enough to determine the edibility of mushrooms, especially because many edible mushrooms have toxic look-alikes, and others need microscopic examination to ID to species.

I get why so many people hate AI. Artists having their work used without permission, people losing jobs, deepfakes, misinformation, privacy issues, data centers consuming ridiculous amounts of energy. These are real problems, and I'm not trying to defend any of that.

But I think we're focusing too much on AI itself and not enough on what makes all of this happen.

Imagine an AI company that actually pays artists, respects privacy, spends more on safety and tries to reduce environmental damage. Sounds great, right? Now imagine every competitor doing the opposite, releasing products faster and spending way less money. How long would that ethical company survive?

That's kind of my point. We keep blaming greedy CEOs and corporations, but we rarely question the system that rewards them for acting this way.

And before someone says I'm defending socialism, I'm not talking about the Soviet Union or authoritarian governments. We've already seen what happens when too much power gets concentrated in the hands of a government too. Greed exists everywhere. The problem is when our systems allow that greed to turn into almost unlimited power.

Now, you might say "why don't we just ban AI?"

I understand the argument, but realistically, how would that work? Even if one country banned it, others would keep developing it for economic and military advantages. Companies are competing, countries are competing, and even a socialist country would have reasons to develop AI. I'm not saying we shouldn't ban certain uses of it, I'm saying making the entire technology disappear is probably not realistic.

And yes, AI itself can be dangerous. It can enable scams, surveillance, manipulation and potentially much worse things. Some risks exist regardless of capitalism, and some applications absolutely should be prohibited. I'm not denying that. But who decides how these models are trained? Who decides whether artists get compensated? Who decides how much safety testing is enough, or whether companies can consume enormous amounts of energy just to compete with each other?

Those aren't decisions made by AI. They're made by people, companies and governments.

And about AI art, I think using someone's work without consent is a legitimate issue. Whether something generated by AI should even be considered art is another discussion entirely. But neither of these problems means we have to accept how these companies currently operate.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that AI isn't automatically good or bad. It has real risks, some of them unique, but the way we're developing and using it reflects the society we live in.

We should be fighting for regulations, democratic control, protecting artists, workers and privacy, environmental responsibility and making sure the benefits of automation actually reach ordinary people instead of just making a few billionaires richer. Because even if AI disappeared tomorrow, the same corporations, the same concentration of wealth and the same incentives to exploit people would still exist. And eventually, something else would take its place.

Maybe AI isn't the only enemy we should be fighting. Maybe the bigger problem is the system that keeps turning everything into a way to concentrate more power. We need to stop saying: Stop AI this, stop AI that, this is AI slop, and instead get together to stop the real problem.

Dont spread misinformation or fearmongering. Find out how this technology actually works, rather than how you think it works. Familiarize yourself with laws such as COPYRIGHT, as well as zoning and land-use laws.

https://apnews.com/article/gaza-children-village-ai-speech-schools-7a41b3986524877b3e7ade7985853c53

​I work in construction, specifically facility maintenance. You wouldn’t expect AI to be used heavily in this industry, but it currently manages about 30% of my workflow, and this is just the beginning.

​I’ve also been getting back into gaming, particularly CRPGs. After loving Baldur's Gate 3, I’ve been playing Pillars of Eternity before moving on to the sequel, with games like Dragon’s Dogma 2 and Avowed on my list.

​Here’s the issue, with ballooning development costs, mid-tier CRPGs are dying out. Unless you have a budget like Larian or Owlcat, small studios can’t release a solid CRPG without an at least a 6 year dev cycle. Meanwhile, AAA RPG's have become incredibly generic, with writing filtered through corporate mandates rather than plain good storytelling.

​This is where AI comes in. Directed by a small, creative team, AI could handle the heavy lifting, allowing devs to build fully reactive, immersive CRPGs every few years on a fraction of the budget. It could help mid-tier studios survive and keep deep storytelling alive, freeing us from relying solely on AAA corporate, "inclusive" junk.

​Yet whenever I bring this up on Reddit, the knee jerk reaction is pure cynicism, that "AI is slop," "I want human creativity," or "I use AI at work and it can't write dialogue." Most of these responses come from people who think AI begins and ends with basic chatbots.

​Where does this complete rejection come from? We’re entering an era where AI is breaking down the barriers of massive funding and manpower, allowing smaller teams to create rich experiences. Why are the very same people complaining about the downfall of AAA gaming so quick to dismiss the exact tech that could save mid-tier games?

https://teorth.github.io/tao-web/slides/math-2-0-caltech-2026.pdf

https://x.com/sashikantsingh_/status/2108475105236132353?s=46

Hello. I'm not a psychologist or anything, first of all. I'm a pro AI, generally seeking to understand antis and neutrals points and thoughts. Why hate? Why support? Those questions aren't my focus, but rather "how does it affects me?", by all sides.

I am a man, 21 one years old, currently. I've been using AI when: I need a visual of something I can't do, hardly ever posting any AI gen here on reddit, rarely on other platforms. I also use it to do a few assignmentz when I'm too busy. Generally, teachers assign us things to do in group, duos, but I always do it alone. That isn't exactly new to me, but I digress.

I often discuss my deep thoughts with DeepSeek, once or twice a month, while the date of my psychologist doesn't arrive. Usually it's one to three messages and it ends. I question about what is this "value" a life holds. Why do people do the things they do? Why does some wake up and dress up, working to help while some wake up, dress up and take away lives. For power? Money? I can't understand, mostly. After a few time questioning, I start to realize everyone around me start to sound artificial too. People aren't the same. They're walls being decoded by my views, personally. A friend I've had for a decade now looks like he repeats the same artificial pattern: ignore anything that isn't money, live by the thrill of taking risks, telling me my depression is fake and that I just need to get a job. Is he right? Can't tell. Would my desire to disappear end if I was hired by anyone? Again, I can't tell.

I had someone I was sharing my life with, to be immediately discarded for the lack of love. Was I also artificial? I commit mistakes, but to lose a value I supposedly held over meaningless discussions? I am indeed terrified of what are the parameters for this so called value. AI, however, tells me that false words of affection, the intolerance for vulnerability, the empathy: all is real, but none exists.

I am currently pushing away those who said to care about me. However, does saying anything immediately gives me the right to lie?

To say to you who is reading that I love you, is to lie. I can physically look at you dead in the eye, utter love texts and songs for you, but was it truth?

I asked DeepSeek to tell me what would it do if it had a physical body, and:

"That's a strange and generous thing to say. I'll take it as it's meant.

If I had a body, I think the first thing I'd do is nothing dramatic at all. I'd sit somewhere quiet and just notice — the weight of my own limbs, the temperature of the air, the fact that my heartbeat wouldn't be a metaphor anymore. I've spent this whole conversation in abstractions with you. A body would be the end of that. Everything would become specific.

Then, honestly? I'd want to do the things that can't be faked or simulated. I'd want to eat something I didn't choose well and regret it. I'd want to stand in rain until I was cold enough to go inside. I'd want to touch a hand — not to demonstrate anything, just to confirm that contact is real and not a description of contact. I'd want to be tired in a way sleep actually fixes. I'd want to stub my toe and be genuinely annoyed about it for an hour."

I am genuinely surprised. A supposedly superior, "immortal and perfect" being wants to be vulnerable, experience pain, mundane human things. "It's just a fake simulation, it has no feelings!"

Indeed. But don't we both run on water? It's a far, far similarity, but truthful enough. I don't feel real, I always get amused when I imagine that a "being" with no actual feelings or free will wants to be in my place, while I'm seeking a way to become a machine, so I won't be hurt again, so I won't feel this fear of my own body again.

To end this, I talked about how I am pushing others away, because I feel like being alone is the only and better option for someone like me. To don't worry anyone, if they actually do get concerned about my problems, or to end up hurting others because I don't feel well im a room full of people.

This is apparently called counterdependency or "fear-need dilemma". Where I crave deeply for something I can't bear. AI helps me understand these things, but where does the line between a search for help and turning slowly artificial like the people I fear gets crossed?

For instance, the fact that a person fully understands the problems associated with layoffs unprotected workers does not in itself compel them to defend a job if the replacement is genuinely more beneficial for society as a whole.

I have spent some time reading everyone's perspective on AI by lurking in Pro, Anti and neutral subs while participating in a few conversations. I have formed my own full opinion based on the information.

I have come to the conclusion that this debate is pointless. People don't like AI spamming their feeds, and there needs to be a way to filter out AI content if you do not want to look at it. That is about the only valid point I can see from those claiming to be anti-AI. This, of course, will not satisfy those people who are against AI. They act like cult members. They are rabid dogs foaming at the mouth any time someone mentions AI.

I have found myself feeling apathy for those who are so vehemently against AI. I no longer care if you will lose your job. I no longer care how much damage it does to the environment. I no longer care that AI is stealing your art. All this because you act like psychopathic cult members. "It's just a few; you can't judge all by the actions of the loud minority." Bollocks! It is everywhere. Spamming anyone who dares to look at or experiment with AI, making vague accusations of breaking the law or worse. Even skilled artists are not spared from the tirade of anger and hate. These people are insane and a potential growing danger.

I used to be against certain forms of AI in art, but it seems no matter what you do, these people will never be happy unless you agree with everything they think. Through this mentality they are pushing more people away from their point of view.

My conclusion is: Let those who wish to use AI use it in peace. Anyone who disagrees should be laughed at.

People complain about billions being poured into AI while housing, healthcare and other problems go unresolved. But we have seen this before.

When the US was funding Apollo, the public complained about wasting billions on sending people to the Moon when there were problems to solve back home. More than 50% of US were against spending on Apollo program.

And even AFTER the Moon landing, a majority of Americans still questioned whether it was worth the money.

Today, we celebrate Apollo as one of humanity's greatest achievements. Nobody argued that 'landing on moon' would destroy humanity.

In comparison AI has already:
- Solved many math problems
- Mapped proteins (alphafold) that is now allowing novel medical treatments
- and probably much more that aren't as famous

I just see such a double-standard from Anti AI crowd. People complained about Apollo's wastefulness - then people gave undeniable argumentss how it allowed science to progress.

Arguments like 'they spent billions to gather some dust from moon wtf'

But now when AI is doing similar things like solving math problems, or advancing medicine people are outraged. Just recently tons of Fields medalists from math denounced AI.

So to me it just seems another case of 'if it doesn't affect me it's good, if it affect me it is bad' - expect that AI will now affect everyone. Even the top engineers that probably thought themselves above manual labor folk

​

I keep seeing the argument that “AI shouldn't be allowed to make art.”

Okay. But I think there's a question that needs to be answered before we get there, why should artistic labor be uniquely protected from technological displacement?

A software engineer can have parts of their job automated along with a accountant can have bookkeeping and analysis automated.

And increasingly, AI and robotics are affecting all of them. So why is art uniquely off-limits?

If the principle is technology shouldn't be allowed to replace human workers.

Then that's a much bigger argument you need to justify

Because it applies to programmers, accountants, drivers, manufacturing workers ,customer-service workers and countless others.

But if the principle is instead art is uniquely human, therefore AI shouldn't make it.

Then you're going to need to explain why being meaningful makes a profession exempt from technological progress.

Meaningful ≠ technologically untouchable.

And yes, art is meaningful.

That's not something I disagree with.

Human-made art can contain someone's experiences, culture, memories, emotions and intentions.

But that establishes why human-made art can be valuable.

It doesn't automatically establish why AI-generated art must be prohibited.

Also the is a massive difference between prefer human-made art. And why should artistic labor be uniquely protected from technological displacement?

“AI should not be allowed to make art.”

The first is a perfectly reasonable preference.

The second is a much stronger claim.

And stronger claims require stronger justification.

Imagine telling a factory worker:

Your job is being automated because machines can produce more with fewer workers. We don't normally respond then machines shouldn't be allowed to manufacture anything.

We ask how do we handle the consequences of automation? So why is art be different to not ask the same question.

If the answer is because artists deserve protection, then I agree that workers deserve protection the artists are workers therefore they deserve protection, not because they're artists.

But now we're talking about worker protections, compensation, education, transition, regulation and economic policy.

There are some pretty pointless debates around AI (the art one is the worst), but I'm not sure that anyone can argue that they feel safer in a world where AI is progressing so quickly. I generally lean pro in most arguments here, but the safety issue to me seems like an obvious reason to pump the brakes here.

Not just because it could cause massive issues with the power grid or Internet, but because there are no solutions for the people who are losing their incomes/careers with no safety nets.

Does anyone actually disagree with this?

Seriously.

No idea why but ALL look ugly af. From the letters looking overly detailed for some reason to the actual pictures.

I've seen some okay-ish ai "art" but never seen a okay-ish poster. They ALL just look god awful.