I think you are assuming everyone views pride and such the same way as you do. And I don't think that is a fair assumption.
Try going to an eatery in a college town with a popular football team or such. Many will have a menu item named after a player. It usually some unusual combonation they used to order. And I have seen them take pride in that menu item. They certainly didn't physically make it. But they did come up with the combo.
In addition, some people don't value the journey, they value the destination. And they take pride in getting their with the least amount of effort.
It's all objective. There is no one right anwer to what brings people joy.

And where do computers take the pictures they mash together for your convenience?

I upvote you because yes, but also I have a few light independent (non sighted) coworkers who like all the details.

Same way other artist learn how to make art. By looking at other artists works and using them for inspiration. But I already said that. You just ignored it because you thought your reply was a mic drop. It's not.

So if I was making a website or posting to Facebook it’s probably table of snacks. But since it’s people whose preference I know and who were there I’ll go all out and ask AI to give all details

Funnily enough that's not how that actually works with AI. The two are not the same.

You just going to claim that, or you going to back it up. I have experience with AI development, but not specifically image stuff. So it could be done differently, but if it is trained the same way as the other AIs, it is in fact how it works.

Inspiration is not the same thing as turning pictures into static, turning static into numbers, then taking someone's text and turning it into numbers and using those numbers to generate more static that gets translated into an image. Looking at a painting isn't the same thing as plagiarism, and even with inspiration there is choice in its execution. With ai slop there is no choice in execution, from the computer nor the user.

Don't anthropomorphize the pollution making job killing surveillance machine.

Well whatever. You don't really care, you just want to hate anything about AI. Your last two sentences show that clearly. If it makes you happy go ahead. Some of us use it to make our lives better. So we will carry on.

You're actively making everyone's lives worse by using it. If it was a simple dislike of something that was harmless, that would be one thing, live and let live.

But it's doing irreparable harm to our environment, to our communities, to our arts, to our jobs, to truth, and our minds.

You think you're making your life better but you're really just taking a shortcut because you don't want to put in the work to get better.

Your attitude is disgusting and selfish.

You do know that just being alive pollutes the environment as well. Nearly everything we do does harm to the environment. Farming, livestock, driving, watching tv, using the device you are using to post this, flying, bathing, shitting, breathing... so are you disgusted by yourself?
AI's impact on the environment is popular to talk about right now, but it pales in comparison to the impact of the oil industry. The impact of my driving my kid to sports practice is likely more significan than my use of AI to generate images.

As for arts, jobs, truth, and everyone elses minds. I'm not that important. My use impacts none of those.

Oh so other things are bad so it's ok to do theoretically less bad things. What stupid logic. So it's ok to hack off someone's arm because murder happens elsewhere? We shouldn't bother to cut back on pollution because there's bigger pollution elsewhere? "But Billy stole a bunch of the cookies so it's ok for me to steal one" is some infant level logic.

Supporting a thing and using it definitely contributes, whether you like it or not. Your use does impact those other things. Your use does enable it. Your use is causing constant droning in an infants ear in a community that didn't ask for it. You use is sucking up water.

"I'm only a drop in the bucket" is a poor excuse, and just admitting you're doing something shitty, just on a small scale.

You're doing the wrong thing, you know it, but you don't care. Selfish.

So... you don't eat meat? You don't drive? I could rail against you driving, which you know is polluting, and you know is wrong, but you don't care. You're just selfish.
I drive very little. Mostly to get kids to school or such since the school cut back on bussing. So odds are my carbon footprint is smaller than yours as driving is one of the most polluting things we do as individuals. And yet I am somehow the bad guy in your eyes. The mental gymnastics that takes to believe are pretty astounding.

Imagine equating something people need to do to survive in this society, like driving, to be equal to being too lazy to learn something on your own so you use the pollution theft job killer lie machine.

False equivalence fallacy, try again.

Imagine thinking that your last drive for a vacation is something you need to survive in society.
If that's still hard to grasp, how about a flight. Plenty of people never fly, but you probably have. One flight would be worse for the environment than all of the times I used AI for enjoyment.
Your grasping at straws and trying to use inflammatory language to make your words look like a valid point, but you aren't even close.
My best guess is you blame AI for something bad that happened to you or someone you care about. So you now hate it beyond any logical reasonjng. And you can't separate AI itslef from the abuses industry is doing using AI as their excuse. They were building data centers before. And in the same terrible way. Now people notice, and now people are fighting back. Datacenters don't have to be heavy polluting structures. They are just taking the cheapest way foreward, and they need to be forced to build them the right way.

Nah, ai did nothing to me personally, not the way you're thinking. No one has fallen to ai psychosis or worshipped it like a god.

The fact you think that's common enough, or even something that potentially could happen, shows you know at least cognitively that it has negative effects.

It's just, you know, ai sucks and everyone knows it.

Unless you're a gullible rube, but then you'd be the type of person who offloads their thinking or homework to a corpo lie machine anyway, so if course someone would like that would like ai.

It's not very common, no. But when it comes to layoffs, a lot of people blame AI when really AI is just the spin the CEO puts on the reason for the layoffs. So it is common formpeople to wrongly believe they were personally impacted by AI.

And AI doesn't suck. It's a step forward in technology. And like all steps forward, some people will hate it simply because it is change. But your hate seems deeper. Even if AI did suck, your hate is deeper than what would be normal. Lots of things suck, but hnless you have this deep a hatred of a lot of things, then there is something special and personal that is generating your deep irrational hate.

My gate isn't irrational and you're trying to paint it as such. It's not a "technological step forward", it sucks ass. It's not because of some deep rooted fear of change or something ai has done to me be personally.

Ai just sucks. It's bad for the environment and bad for people, and hasn't really contributed as much as the fanboys say it will.

Seems like you have a strong need for others to take care of you instead of you doing it yourself. Maybe you had neglectful parents or something. But there's some of us who actually want to improve ourselves instead of have half baked inaccurate answers handed to us. Have fun failing your final when you can't get a robot to take the test for you.

I hope they build a data center next to your house, maybe you'll change your tune then.

You still haven't given any logical reason why it sucks. Not living up to the hype doesn't mean something sucks. And if anything bad for the environment sucks that means you suck and nearly everything humans make sucks too. Which would make saying something sucks meaningless. And bad for people... same problem. The list is so long it just means everything sucks.
Maybe that is all you are really saying. Everything sucks, and AI is part of everything?

Bruv I've given multiple reasons why ai sucks this entire conversation, it's not my fault you got holes in your memory.

Maybe it's because you offload your thinking? Hm.

Sure you did. Here's a banger:

"It's just, you know, ai sucks and everyone knows it"

That is a reason alright. But not in any meaningful way.

How many times have I, and the rest of the Internet, talked about the environmental impact? The mental faculty drain? The misinformation? The use of media without permission?

Don't pretend to be ignorant of the glasses of AI, you're grasping at straws.

A pathetic squirming, an attempt to validate your own repulsive and pathetic actions.

I tesponded to each of those reasons and countered them easily. AI is no different than all the other late stage capitalism products that extract money and value from everything they can with no concern for anything else. I'm not saying it is great, I am saying it is just like everything else. In some cases it is less damaging than other things we already have/do like burn oil.

False equivalence fallacy. Just because two things are bad doesn't mean they are equally bad. You want to "easily counter" any of my points? Prove them incorrect with facts.

You'll probably have to get a robot to do the thinking for you so have fun with that.

I didn't say equally bad. I said AI is actually less bad then things like bruning oil.
I also said the impact of my use of AI is outweighed by one airline flight.
You have yet to even respond to my points because you know they are correct. While I have countered nearly all of yours. So maybe you really need a robot to think for you, cause you clearly can't think on your own.

You're clearly ignoring what I've read. You haven't countered anything, you just keep saying "we we well other stuff is bad too" or "we we well other stuff is worse", and I've said multiple times that is a fallacy.

Just because other things are bad and some other things, theoretically, are worse (which you have failed to provide evidence for or prove), that doesn't make AI ok to use.

Would you be ok with me torturing you? No? But murder exists and it's worse! So torture is ok, right?

You haven't disproved or rebutted anything, and you're acting like you won, typical clanker thinking. Sorry you're not used to being told no you selfish prick.

So in your scenario above, AI is the torture, and taking a plane flight is murder. Hm. If those are equvilent in your head, I think you have issues.
But let's play your game.
If the purge night were real, and it was common place to murder people all night long. Then a person who only tied people up and say tickled them relentlessly (which is torture) but released them at the end of the night alive would in fact be better than someone who murdered.
Now of course you say, but someone who didn't even torture would be better. Yes absolutley. But in the real scenario talking about damaging the environment, everyone is damaging it. So there is no option to choose the no damage doing person. That leaves you with choosing the better of two evils.
So a person who stays home and uses AI does less damage then one who takes a flight. Yet you can only focus on the AI case. So much you can't see anything else. Thus you can't see the forest because of the trees.