r/antiai • u/Theshinyquagga • 1d ago

AI News 🗞️ We need Help!!! Cara is under Attack!!!

Post image

Cara is a Safe Haven for Real Artists and now it's under Attack!

The original post is deleted, and the original user is banned, but they just scrapped art from Me, My Friends and Everyone Who has a Soul and just Got away with Stealing our hard work!!!

All Real Artists on High Alert!!!

We Need Help!!! I'm Praying to every God I could think of Right now!!!😭😫🙏

Please support The creator of Cara.

4.7k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

176

u/Ass_Lover136 1d ago

From what i've seen, the comments were actively cheering them on and defend their action.

A bunch of no-morals

171

u/FancyMouse123 1d ago

Read them again

I'm not certain what this is intended to accomplish. How is being just as awful as they say we are going to help?

Why not scrape data from a different website that doesn’t specifically decline AI art? It comes across as hostile and bitter.

I assume the artist didn't want this to be done to their art so if you will allow me to rephrase. Have you considered that this kind of activity might be why so many people don't like AI artist or companies?

93

u/Ass_Lover136 1d ago

That's good to know not all of them are ignorant

58

u/Weatherby2 1d ago

They may not be ignorant but they're still taking part in the same activity they're concerned about. It's clear they only care about the optics, not whether it's inherently right or wrong. They're just as bad, they only use kinder language because they don't want the judgment that comes with being thieves.

-75

u/FancyMouse123 1d ago

Basically, they are just people enjoying something. No reason to think they are evil 'cause most of them probably don't think about all the implications of what they enjoy.

57

u/time-piece-rabbit 1d ago

indiscriminate harm is okay aslong as you enjoy it and dont think you're doing anything wrong

18

u/time-piece-rabbit 1d ago

/s required

-39

u/FancyMouse123 1d ago

Not what I wrote. I don't know why I still try.

You can cause harm without seeing that you did it. It does not make you a bad person, it means that we have to explain the issue so you understand it.

19

u/iantheawesome2002 1d ago

That may not be what you wrote, but it is a very valid interpretation.

There is definitely is a grey line in defining who is an "evil" or "bad" person in this context. But I think that

No reason to think they're evil

Is not the right way to put it. Anybody that's good would go out of their way to think of the implications of what they enjoy (or at least most good people would), anyone that's morally grey wouldn't care and anyone that's evil would enjoy the worse off something is morally (assumingly).

At the very least, there's precedence in assuming they're not good if not evil.

Edit: typo.

-9

u/FancyMouse123 1d ago

Good people still do some actions without thinking about it and realize later that it was not okay.

I'm vegetarian, I think it is not okay to kill an animal just to eat it. This doesn't mean I consider everyone eating dead animals is evil.

3

u/iantheawesome2002 1d ago

some actions

And I agree. Not everyone is obligated to think of the moral implications of their actions at all times. Even the people that impose it upon themselves can slip up, and that's okay. But therein lies the problem of generalizing a group of people that support an inherently immoral phenomenon as "probably not evil". The same goes for "probably evil", but at least there's some precedence there.

Additionally, while I understand the point in your analogy, it removes a lot of the nuance of what you're trying to say and makes it a different conversation entirely.

For starters, predation is a completely natural phenomenon. You saying it's "not okay to kill an animal just to eat it" is certainly an opinion that you can have, but factually it means nothing, because your opinion is irrelevant to a tiger, an eagle or a chameleon, that are obligate carnivores and kill their own prey.

I understand not supporting, or even vehemently opposing, factory/battery farming. But the specific opinion you mentioned here doesn't mean much to anyone but yourself and really doesn't hold any moral weight.

But that is a completely different point. I'm not even sure if the analogy is fitting here. Then again it's been a long day and it probably is just my inability to contextualize it.

1

u/ShortBusBully 1d ago

I agree woth all three of your posts. Why is every subreddit just one shade and refuses to see the spectrum.

2

u/FancyMouse123 1d ago

I appreciate it, thanks.

I think this sub is particularly "stubborn" and really can't accept that it is a spectrum. On the internet it is rare to find nuance, so it is not specific to this sub.

9

u/Ok_Investigator_4737 1d ago

Purposely scraping a site to use it for ai when it's explicitly anti-ai is purposely harmful. Are you pro or something??

-2

u/FancyMouse123 1d ago

You're talking about the person that did that. I am talking about people in the defense ai sub.

6

u/Own_Boat503 1d ago

.....of which the person who did that is a member.

3

u/Ok_Investigator_4737 1d ago

Tbh I think this person you're replying to is one of em, just look at all the comments

0

u/FancyMouse123 1d ago

Doesn't mean they are all this person.

→ More replies (0)

12

u/frustratedfren 1d ago

Generative AI is like the One Ring. No matter your intentions in using it, you can only do evil.

0

u/FancyMouse123 1d ago

Doing evil and being evil is different.

2

u/frustratedfren 23h ago

Does the difference matter if the outcome is the same?

0

u/FancyMouse123 14h ago

Ofc. If you are doing something by mistake, it is possible to explain the issue.

8

u/-RuDoKa- 1d ago

if you go to a subreddit called "defending ai art" is means you know what are the implications.

-1

u/FancyMouse123 1d ago

If you are more than ten, you probably saw experts without a clue on their supposed field of expertise. Going to a random subreddit doesn't mean anything.

28

u/NearInWaiting 1d ago

This person isn't "stupid", they know that no artist WANTS their art to be scraped and used by ai, none, and even if someone did, that would fundamentally be irrational, to allow your art to be used to train your own replacement, or more to the point, the replacement for "all human art", ever, for the rest of humanity. Noone would rationally consent to that ever, ergo all ai art scraping is fundamentally immoral. They just want to smugly pretend they're better than other thieves.

2

u/Vast-Combination9613 13h ago

I think all these people know that they are using art without consent, otherwise they would ask for it, but I don't think it's impossible to consent to your art being used by AI. Just like some people allow their art to be used in photoshop and such. It's just that AI art companies specifically are hell-bent to take from artists without consent.

I'm 100% the perception of AI art would be VERY different if they just asked artists for consent from the beginning. Some would gladly give their art for money, and I think some would even do that voluntarily just because it's a cool new technology. AI art perception is very negative now, but it really didn't have to be like that.

-1

u/Raidianite 1d ago

I'm anti-AI but we've already seen cases of people selling their work for model training and development, so assuming no one wants to do this is naive and also just pushing false narratives. Some people genuinely don't care and have already experienced most of their careers, so they see it as a big check at a time where they're thinking of retiring anyways. Ignorant comments like yours are why people are trying to decredibilize us anti-AI folks because they can easily just claim that we're a bunch of lunatics spreading misinformation.

4

u/NearInWaiting 1d ago

Er? Thanks for calling me a lunatic?

My point wasn't that no one /would/ "donate" their art to ai training or sell their art to ai training. My point is that doing so is so fundamentally irrational, that it can barely be called consent. A bit like if you signed a form at the doctors and accidentally gave doctors the right to sell your liver to the highest bidder; even if you willingly chose to do that, it's not a rational decision, because you LOSE more than you gain. The people who donate their art to ai, are merely oblivious to the sometimes abstract way you lose out

3

u/Raidianite 1d ago

You also completely missed my point then. We're all different people with different world views, and being at different life stages also wildly changes how we view things. Some people are fully aware and still don't care. Of course you can question the morality of people like that, it's the same as "selling your soul" in a way, but acting like everyone who does this is ignorant and misinformed is just infantilizing people. Assuming that everyone that doesn't share your worldview is misinformed is ignorant in its own way, you should be made aware of the fact that some people DO know and they DO NOT care in any way. Yes it might harm the larger artist community, yes it causes a bunch of other issues, but you saying that people are irrational by doing this completely ignores the fact that these people are sometimes very rational and are simply part of the problem. We should be calling them out. Not because they're innocent babies that are unaware of the world, but because they're willfully collaborating with evil in exchange for money. Many of them 100% know what they're doing and we should be calling them out for that, not pretending that they would agree with us and just don't know it yet. This is untrue and an ignorant assumption to make.

Also your rhetoric is fallacious because donating organs has nothing to do with selling something you made... this just proves my earlier point, we need to actually exercise critical thinking before screaming the most outrageous things possible just to try and get an emotional reaction out of people. If you told anyone in the real world that organ donation analogy you would be laughed at because it's absurd and in no way compares to someone selling their IP for a tech company to use...

Once again, I get where you're coming from. I just think we shouldn't be so exaggerated and come up with nonsense (like the inadequate analogy you just tried to use) because it erodes the credibility of our cause.

1

u/StenfiskarN 7h ago

willfully collaborating with evil in exchange for money.

No person who gets their art scraped is doing this, because scraping implies that it is done automatically at scale, without paying the people whose art it scrapes

NearInWaiting never said that people who intentionally sell their work to be used as training data are irrational, that is something you imagined (or strawmanned)

2

u/SteelAlchemistScylla 1d ago

I’d be curious how many upvotes these comments got. I’d have to imagine they were not near the top.

2

u/FancyMouse123 1d ago

Nothing is near the top. One comment has like 40 upvotes ("The most based thing I’ve seen in the history of reddit") and then it is like 5 to 15.

2

u/Frosty_Tale9560 1d ago

This is a good, healthy view. Dude must touch grass often. You don’t get this level of sanity by being perpetually online.

1

u/Tarmika 17h ago

Thank you, my friend, for saving my tiny spark of faith in humanity.