---BEGIN POST---

Long Post: The ENTIRE pro-AI argument consists of two completely contradictory stances that must both be held simultaneously to have even a semblance of being "correct". Remember this and you'll never need to argue with a single AI bro again.
Discussion

I stopped engaging with AI bros on the topic of whether generative AI is ethically and legally ok long ago. But before I did I experienced and observed every attempt at justifying, gaslighting and straight up lying to try and make artists and other creatives who've been exploited by this billionaire-sponsored theft technology doubt their position. I want to share my observations and explain why the entire pro-AI argument literally cannot be correct. Hopefully this can ease some of the stress and frustration experienced by people who are still actively engaging with AI bros, and even those that have stepped away but still have the topic pop up on their screens or in their thoughts. You would never argue with a flat earther or a holocaust denier because you are 100% certain they are wrong, I want to instill the same mentality toward AI bros.

To summarize: The entire pro-AI argument consists of two general positions, I'll call them Position A and Position B. Each position individually is massively flawed when scrutinized even a little bit, so AI bros employ both simultaneously depending on where the discussion is centered. The simple fact that these positions contradict each other renders their entire, and I mean ENTIRE, stance as empty bullshit. Let's dig into it:

Position A: The pseudo-philosophical position that AI learns and creates just like the human mind.

Use: Position A is used to draw a 1:1 comparison between a bunch of code and the mind of a sentient, living being. This comparison is used as justification for why copyright enforcement cannot apply to generative AI and why no laws or regulations should ever be applied to the tech. They carefully use terms like "learning", "teaching", "memorizing" and even the cringe "I asked AI to--" in order to anthropomorphize AI in daily discussions, and its purposeful.

Example: When an artist or other creative points out that their copyrighted work was used to create genAI, the AI bro uses Position A to say "AI doesn't copy your work, it merely looks at it and learns from it, then creates from what it learned just like every human artist, musician, writer, etc. has done forever. If you consider that copyright infringement then every reference image or other artist's work that inspired or taught you is also copyright infringement".

Why Position A fails individually: If we are to accept that AI functions just like a human brain and is literally capable of learning, thinking, and creating then everything it produces is property of the AI and not the prompter. By taking this position, the AI bro can seemingly defeat the copyright argument but they are simultaneously admitting that they are simply requesting a sentient entity that learns and creates to make something for them with exactly zero contribution from the prompter. This means AI generated images cannot be owned and sold by the prompter, it means they are by definition not an artist or writer or musician. To take it to an extreme, accepting AI as a learning, thinking and creative entity implies that governments should be having discussions about giving this entity rights and protections like we do with humans and animals. That's how idiotic Position A gets if you take it seriously.

Position B: The technologically based position that AI is just a tool, a product no different from Photoshop or the camera.

Use: Position B is used to dismiss the loss of employment in fields scraped by AI as an inevitable progress of technology. The implication is that throughout history humans have advanced and those advancements have made many careers obsolete, and AI is no different. It is also used to separate any nefarious and unethical elements from AI, with the implication that a tool is neither good nor bad and creatives should simply shut up and learn to use the tool instead of trying to "fight human progress".

Example: When an artist or other creative points out the current and future damage genAI is doing to their career as well as the rest of the world (deepfakes in politics and porn, grifters selling AI images as hand made works, etc), Position B is used to imply it is all emotion and hysterics from a Luddite that is against progress. By constantly equating genAI with Photoshop or the camera, they are trying to gaslight you into doubting your very real feelings about a very real unethical industry, because you've likely used Photoshop and a camera in your life.

Why Position B fails individually: By admitting that AI is not a learning, thinking and creating entity but is instead simply a tool and product, they are admitting this product was in fact made with copyrighted content from millions of non-consenting people. A for-profit product cannot be made using copyrighted content without agreement/permission from the copyright holder. Yet that is exactly how genAI was made, the product literally does not exist in its current form without the use of millions of copyrighted works.

This is where the technical jargon comes in, AI bros will dip into their tech-thesaurus to hit you with everything including "diffusion", "black box", "neural networks", etc to explain why your copyrighted work is not really being used in their product. This is an attempt to gaslight you into doubting your (very real and accurate) stance, and that maybe if you don't understand all the terminology then it could mean that you may be wrong and they may be right. Just look right through the techno-jargon and think logically: if AI generators did not use any copyrighted work in their development they would not be close to functioning the way they do right now. It's as simple as that. Their selling feature is the output, and the output does not exist without YOUR copyrighted art, text, photograph, or code. It doesn't matter if they dump the evidence via "diffusion", your art could turn into unicorn farts after it's been downloaded and added to the product's dataset. It was still 100% used to make the product that is being sold to replace you.

Finally, why Position A and Position B are contradictory and fail together: AI cannot simultaneously be an entity that learns, thinks and creates while also being a mindless tool/product simply being used by the hands of an entity that learns, thinks and creates. It's one or the other, and as I've explained each position fails ethically, logically, and legally on their own. Both must be used to even attempt to argue in favor of this predatory technology. And we all know that no argument that relies on two totally contradictory positions should ever be taken seriously.

Conclusion: this post might be a waste of time, it's long-winded as hell and most people may not read through it. BUT this realization helped me to avoid the pull of getting into it with some disingenuous AI bro online or irl, because I have 100% confidence that they are simply wrong and their arguments are meaningless attempts to personally justify laziness, entitlement, and straight up theft from the working class. No matter how many technical terms are thrown at you, or how many comparisons to the human mind are made, you should be able to have complete confidence that it's all verbose bullshit, and instead of spending your time arguing or even considering these disingenuous arguments you can focus on your art and pursuing your goals.

Keep your pencils/stylus sharp and pay the prompt monkeys no mind. Even if you don't "make it" in the creative field, you'll have spent your time on this planet in this physical form bettering yourself and developing skills and work ethic. No amount of images generated with greasy fingers hitting keys will ever be worth a fraction of that.

---END POST---

Task:Critique the above post.