Let me trace the timeline here because nobody's connecting it.
Step 1: Scrape the entire internet. Every book, every article, every conversation, every piece of art, every forum post. Do it without asking. Do it without paying.
Step 2: Train a model on all of it. Call it "artificial intelligence."
Step 3: Go to BlackRock's Infrastructure Summit and announce: "We see a future where intelligence is a utility, like electricity or water, and people buy it from us on a meter."
Step 3 is where you sell people's own knowledge back to them. On a meter.
They took the collective output of human thought, compressed it into a model, and now they want to charge you by the token to access a version of what you and everyone you know already created.
One Reddit user put it perfectly: "They stole all this data from us, the people, our life's work, creativity, art, by devouring the internet and blowing through all copyright laws. Now they want to sell it back to us in the form of a utility."
Imagine if someone photocopied every book in the public library, burned the library down, and then opened a subscription service for the copies.
That's the metered intelligence business model.
And they're pitching it to infrastructure investors as though they invented water.
@notiansans Nope. It's just factual reality. If an AI generated an output, you did not make it. It doesn't matter if it was your idea or you pressed generate 50 times. You didn't make it.
The Academy has banned AI from ever winning an Oscar.
• Only roles “demonstrably performed by humans with their consent” can be nominated for acting Oscars
• Screenplays “must be human-authored” to qualify for a nomination
Interesting experiment I showed my dad this who is a programmer and now works in AI. (Not on the art side of things but programming)
I asked him which image looked better and he consistently preferred DLSS off.
He showed me a song he wrote that he put into suno and he then realized how it completely overwrote everything from the original and replaced it entirely with something else.
People spend their lives learning and refining these skills, every detail is placed there with intent, and we have failed to acknowledge and respect that.
AI has very useful applications but randomizing details and artistic decisions that are intentional choices of the artist is not one of them.
We are trying so hard to replicate something we don't need to. Even with all the RAM and processing power in the world and all the destruction it brings environmentally we continue to fall backwards in tech, it's not ready.
What AI hawkers simply can't understand is: even if you put aside the stolen training data, unwanted integration, environmental impact, creation of low-trust culture, and dogshit output, they still talk and behave like fanatical tent preachers and no one wants to be around them.
@Khyle_stufff Professional animator of 20 years here. This is lovely - nice secondary movement on the tie/whiskers and the smear frames look cool. I like that it looks like it's animated on 2's as well. You made it yourself, too, which matters most. Good work, chap.
I feel bad for a lot of the AI bros on here. It's like, you can tell they so badly want to be filmmakers and want to be accepted by the film community as filmmakers, but because they wont be, they are forced to sort of band together in their "these people don't get it and are scared" cave. Look, go get rich using AI to grift fake books or text books or generate 10 second slop that gets millions of views. That's your best bet. Truly. No one is seeing your AI film and thinking of you as a filmmaker. At best, you're commissioning a painting and then calling yourself a painter and that's not only sad, but really boring. At least go get rich off this.
Brother, the difference here is that you aren’t using oil OR acrylic. You’re just saying “flower” and then complaining you aren’t in the same conversations as van Gogh.