this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2026
371 points (98.4% liked)

Fuck AI

7920 readers
1640 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Artist Jingna Zhang built Cara, a platform explicitly intended to protect artists from having their art stolen by AI...and yet these people just won't leave them well enough alone.

Source thread

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] stingpie@lemmy.world 11 points 3 hours ago

Recently I've been embedding metadata into pictures I upload which include the cost to license out the image for AI training: 1 million dollars. Then, if an AI company scrapes my picture, I can take that company to court and have a concrete dollar amount for how much that company owes me for damages.

[–] AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 11 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I hope shitty things like this motivate people to organize into alternative networks, like local meshnets and more in-person community interactions. The internet may be hopelessly broken at this point.

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago

We used to have those in Eastern Europe. I miss those days.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 18 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Actually. I have a hot take.

Forgive me... But the solution is not to replicate Instagram. Which is what Cara does.

Nor DeviantArt, either.

That's never going to work, for precisely the above reason, and many others.

This is something that's bothered me immensely about photography (which I'm getting back into as a hobby). Because, for all the "taking a stand" the community does, what do they do en masse?

  • Subscribe to Adobe

  • Live on Instagram

  • Worship corporate influencers.

  • Upload stuff to clouds that will explicitly be used to train.

Just to start.

It infuriates me.

I'm all for the anti-slop stands, but the bulk of the community has precisely zero leg to stand on, if they're just going to fork over cash hand-and-fist to feed the beasts, and spend all their time on those platforms.


So what do we do?

Make prints. Display them! It can be in museums, festivals, meet ups, in your place, on the street, literally anywhere you want. Even if its on digital screens; as long as its in person, and the digital copy is squirreled away.

And that's if you feel strongly about the training thing. Personally, I'm more inclined to just post stuff under a permissive license places like Wikipedia could use (albeit not on Instagram).


To be clear, I don't mean to lump everyone into that. There's tons of photographers outside that bubble.

...But there are a ton in it, and they happen to be the loudest complainers.

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Not putting the work online slashes accessibility and discoverability though

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Yep.

Pick one:

  • Permissive, open visibility.

  • More intimate viewing, restricted usability.

Can’t have one’s cake and eat it.

People thought they could, posting on Instagram or whatever, but that was a lie from day one.

[–] raze2012@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Can’t have one’s cake and eat it.

Sure we can. You don't need to either use Instagram or never use the net. That's precisely what Cara is for. Promote open source tooling and use friendly communities that don't promise to scrape your life's work.

Now how we deal with mass scrapers downloading images; that's a legal issue. One that even physical venues isn't immune to (it just adds a lot of friction).

You either post online, where people can and will do stuff you don’t like with your content, or you keep it private.

I think there's a difference between "this person took a few images and edited them" and "I scraped an entire website to use for training AI slop".

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Now how we deal with mass scrapers downloading images; that’s a legal issue. One that even physical venues isn’t immune to (it just adds a lot of friction).

That's the point!

The friction is the key.

If you post images on the internet, how accessible they are directly correlates to how "downloadable" they are. Trying to imitate social media while fighting all scraping is a infinite, costly battle; that's a service trying to make posts viral and inaccessible. That takes Facebook money to sustain.

And it's not necessarily some script kiddie troll that's boasting about it on Reddit who will eventually get in.


...But add fundamental friction? That raises the bar.

I think the fallacy is artists believe they need an gigantic amalgamation of online people exposed to their art, a large fraciton of the internet. That's not true. And its a deception, anyway. Smaller niches or smaller communities are fine, and they won't be such high profile targets.

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Mildly hot take:

It really points to these people just having really bad moral compasses.

In other words, these people are actually just bad people, as weird as that is to realize.

Like if you don't understand that what you're doing is wrong, that does not entirely excuse you from moral judgement of the rest of society; if you fundamentally disagree with the premise of something being good or bad with another person, it does follow that they're a bad person. Which then does mean that people doing shit like this are objectively bad people, doing objectively bad things.

Which brings back to question of how bad something needs to be for it to constitute being "evil". I'm not religious, but there's a certain level of how something bad impacts others, intent, and context, that I believe most people would classify as evil. Not demons and hell and that nonsense, but effectively something worth crusading against and being extremely hostile towards. Something that threatens life and peace, and of a certain scale, I would call "evil".

So these bad people doing stuff like this, with the intent of stealing on a massive scale, directly against the autonomy and will of artists... Not exactly evil, at first.. but if it results in actual harm, and if that harm is intended... that, I would define as an act of evil.

So yeah, just a topic or perspective I think worth discussing. We all know something's really wrong right now in society, and I think there's a level of even language and ethics that hasn't caught up or isn't in full view. I also realize the dangers of proposing this and it being a slippery slope to what it may even advocate. That being said, again, I think it's a perspective worth entertaining at least from a philosophical perspective and discussion.

[–] unknownman@lemmy.zip 4 points 6 hours ago

They absolutely understand that it's evil and immoral, they just simply don't care. This is becoming really prevalent on the internet, people think of others on the internet as not human so it's easier for evil to become rampant even if these people aren't be malicious in real life.

[–] carrylex@lemmy.world 24 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Cara uses third-party content moderation services from Hive (an AI company) to prevent AI-generated art from being uploaded onto the site.

Hahahahaha so this friendly™ Chinese platform basically feeds every uploaded image into an AI to determine if it's AI.

Just self host your own personal blog/art or use a proper website and not that shitshow.

[–] BananaLama@lemmy.ml 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The idea I believe it to prevent your art from being scraped. Self-hosting Isn't a solution

To keep my art from being scraped by AI, I only display it in a physical gallery. The gallery is equipped with AI-based automated machine gut turrets programmed to paste anyone that tries to take a photo of the art.

[–] BrickEater@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

Well I was gonna go tell them to off themselves in a plethora of colorful ways on reddit, but it seems their account was banned lol.

[–] trebach@sh.itjust.works 18 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

This asshole is testing some deep waters when it comes to contributory liability of copyright infringement in the US: https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2026/2026-03-26-supreme-court-confirms-limits-on-contributory-liability-for-copyright-infringement

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 1 points 6 hours ago

The fact they also claim they can disable nightshade tells me this is a shyster looking to make a quick payday from a zip file of jpegs

[–] dezand@lemmy.world 18 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

An app like Cara, that positions itself as an Anti-AI art platform, would obviously be targeted by anyone who's offended simply by its existence.

Not only its a honey-pot of art, it's also a challenge for any self proclaimed ai "prompt kiddie" to hurt the other side.

They need to apply better protections to at least make mass scraping by bots a bit more difficult and expensive.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

It's kind of an intractable problem though. The more "protected" the art is, aka restricted from the public, the harder it is to actually show human beings.

I think the only practical solution would be "prints only." Archive the digital copy, display the prints in museums... not to replicate Instagram.

[–] mamg22@sh.itjust.works 51 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

It's amazing how disrespectful these idiots can be. They'll destroy and steal people's work, feed it to Big Corpo™ Slopinator 4.7, get shit-tier content in return, just because they chugged the kool-aid that this tech with billions of dubious investments is the future of everything.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 18 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

And all because they didnt get into art school.

Who would have thought not getting into art school would be such a major cause of issues for humanity.

[–] LandBasedDaveyJones@lemmy.today 5 points 14 hours ago

Let's start an art school and let everybody in. I think we could get a Nobel peace prize.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Tempus_Fugit@lemmy.world 9 points 13 hours ago

You can tell just by their tone that they know what they're doing is immoral and wrong, but they still do it. Hard to not become a misanthrope living in this society.

[–] vathecka@lemmy.radio 6 points 13 hours ago

" I may soon have a way to remove nightshade" lol good luck with that

[–] dezand@lemmy.world 12 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

This isn't just about scraping the images, it's about sending the message

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 7 points 14 hours ago

That he's a modern script kiddie.

[–] Kraiden@piefed.social 99 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (17 children)

Yeah good luck asshole.

PSA to anyone who uploads art online, anywhere. Poison it first. Use the latest version. I'm sorry but you are in an arms race now. Dickhead over here is full of shit, but even if they're not, Nightshade is updated fast.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 points 3 hours ago

Nightshade and Glaze only run on Windows. Cara has a partnership with them so that your work automatically gets Glazed before being published, hence the anti-AI fame.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 21 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

But, isn’t this just a demonstration that Cara isn’t doing what it’s built for? If one person, who is honest about what they did, is able to scrape all the art for $10, wouldn’t the major AI companies also be able to scrape it?

And not only would they not be honest about it, it seemed like this went completely unnoticed by Cara.

[–] Jtotheb@lemmy.world 23 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

They claim they may have a way to remove Glaze and Nightshade, two of the tools protecting images hosted on Cara from being used as training data. Which means right now they don’t have a way to remove it, which means Cara is still working, which I’m not implying is going to forever be true nor am I particularly informed; I just read the whole post.

[–] qupada@fedia.io 2 points 9 hours ago

From reading a bit more through various linked posts, I don't think they downloaded the artwork for the claimed $10, but scraped the site for a list of URLs from which to download it.

There are a number of references to the "dataset" (implied to just be this list) becoming useless if Cara were to implement stricter rate limiting.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SailorFuzz@lemmy.world 123 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

"defending AI art".... jesus, that's sad.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 44 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Imagine having so little talent that you consider AU generated slop "art"

[–] Zeddex@sh.itjust.works 19 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Well that's not very nice. I'm sure some Australians are talented artists.

load more comments (2 replies)

I love making art and I'm gonna stay focused on that instead of getting mad because wow some people are just worthless

[–] dezand@lemmy.world 9 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

"We are the Swarm. We consume all."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] halvar@lemy.lol 27 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

I wanted to verify this. It was real but has been since removed and judging from the missing comments by the moderators nonetheless, so that's a W. Then I looked through this community and here are some neat experiences I had:

  • One post's subject was a goober on social media saying "cannibalism is more justified than ai art". I looked through all the comments - none of them even entertained the possibility of this being a joke.

  • In fact it is very often that they just post some stupid anti-ai screenshot where the original post had like two impressions and title it the ai equivalent of 'they are coming for our guns!'

  • I sorted by Top/Year. First post was a random drawing someone made with their hand and said "i'm not good at prompting so I drew this with my hand". My flabers have been gasted.

  • It's pretty weird because it's like looking in a mirror in a way: their arguments are exactly the same as I thought they were* - and the way they are posting about us is sadly pretty similar to the way we are posting about them. This post included.

*And yeah, I think those arguments are terrible, but for some reason they don't and that weirds me out how when presented with the same arguments people can just go in completely different directions.

So this was my shallow dive into a community that shall not be named on a platform that shall not be named. Thanks for coming to my TEDTalk.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 36 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Going out of their way to disseminate creators' art in the specific way they have asked not to, then to go and gloat about it is peak disrespectful jerk behaviour, and seems commonplace among the pro-AI crowd.

To give an analogy, if someone cooked a noodle dish, shared it with the public and asked people to use a fork or chopsticks, it would be one thing for you to take some home and eat it with your hands on your own. Weird but whatever. But to go and post online about them eating with their hands or another way aside, mocking the wishes of the creator for any reason other than disability accommodation, that's not illegal but it is hella disrespectful and hurtful.

[–] fosho@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

I fully agree with your point.

But this is one of the worst analogies I've ever heard.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks. Many hours later I've thought of better tweaks to it, like putting the meal into a blender and having it as a smoothie, but I didn't feel like editing it since enough people had already seen it.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Where you lose me is the idea that one person coming up with a recipe means they can set any kind of limits in how others consume it. Even if they want to blend it into a smoothie or stick it in a fire until it's nothing but char. They can be an asshole depending on how they do it, but I don't think morality enters the equation at all.

[–] WillFord27@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

It's like if you woke to the sound of a dog eating a can of chili in the dark. I'm sure of it.

load more comments
view more: next ›