From Conflict to Common Ground: An AI Debate That Changed Minds

From Conflict to Common Ground: An AI Debate That Changed Minds

From Conflict to Common Ground

How a heated Threads debate about AI art revealed our shared values

Posted by albertonorato on April 11, 2025

What began as another frustrating exchange about AI "art theft" on Threads turned into something remarkable - a genuine meeting of minds. Over the course of 24 hours, CG artist and vocal AI critic andrew_vanhaastert went from calling me a "pretentious fuck" defending "plagiarism machines" to acknowledging that assistive AI could have legitimate uses. Here's why this conversation matters.

andrew_vanhaastert: AI Slop is not real art. AI Users are not real artists. AI generated works are soulless, pick up a pencil and start drawing.

albertonorato: Since when is a pencil more 'accessible' than free AI tools for disabled folks, overworked parents, or people without art school privilege? The 'soul' isn't in the tool—it's in the fight to create against a system hoarding resources.

The initial exchange was familiar territory for anyone following AI art debates. Andrew, like many working artists, sees generative AI as an existential threat to creative livelihoods. His anger is justified - I've seen the same layoffs in the industry, the same corporations replacing human artists with inferior AI knockoffs while executives pocket the difference.

But something shifted when we moved past the surface-level arguments. When I asked: "Why should creating art require exceptional effort from disabled folks when we could remove those barriers?" The conversation turned.

andrew_vanhaastert: Wow, I went from being 100% against you to actually agreeing with you haha. Who woulda thought 😂. I agree, ai should be used to assist people, with everyday needs and essentials.

Three Lessons From This Exchange

1. Accessibility isn't theoretical

When Andrew initially claimed "anyone can draw," he wasn't considering artists with Parkinson's tremors, chronic pain flare-ups, or nonverbal autistic creators who think in images but struggle with fine motor control. Concrete examples matter.

"Chuck Close painted with a brush strapped to his hand—should we deny others eye-tracking tools?"

2. We agree more than we disagree

Both sides hate corporate AI abuse. Both want artists compensated. The real divide is whether to abandon the technology or fight to democratize it.

3. Change is possible

This wasn't about "winning" an argument - it was about finding shared values. Andrew's willingness to reconsider his position gives me hope for more productive conversations.

The Path Forward

As Andrew noted, capitalist societies "have a tendency to fall backwards on their ass when handed a new pogostick." Our challenge is to demand:

  • Worker-owned AI models with ethical training data
  • Stronger protections against artistic labor replacement
  • Accessible tools that empower rather than exploit

The technology isn't going away. But as this conversation proved, neither is our collective ability to imagine - and fight for - better ways to use it.

albertonorato is a neurodivergent and ecosocialist organizer advocating for ethical AI development. Follow them on Threads for more discussions at the intersection of technology, and justice.

🌱 Ecosocialist - Techno-optimist ✊ Anticapitalist - Abolitionist 🌍 Antiracist - Feminist ⚡ Neurodivergent

Commentaires

Enregistrer un commentaire

Posts les plus consultés de ce blog

Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen: A Clash of Values, Not Just Talent

Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen: A Clash of Values, Not Just Talent Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen: A Clash of Values, Not Just Talent Let's cut through the noise: Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen may both be elite drivers, but their careers, their impact, and what they stand for couldn't be more different. One is a transcendent icon who reshaped Formula 1—and the world beyond it. The other? A generational talent with the mentality of a mercenary. On Track: The Revolutionary vs. The Ruthless Hamilton's career is a masterclass in sustained excellence. Seven world titles, 105 wins, and a record-breaking 104 poles—but his greatness isn't just in the numbers. It's in how he achieved them. He dominated the V8 era, redefined the hybrid era, and even now, in his late 30s at Ferrari, he's still fighting at the sharp end. His adaptability is unmatched. Verstappen? Lightning fast, no question. Four titles (so far)...
Lire la suite

IA, Art & Accessibilité : Un débat révélateur

IA, Art & Accessibilité : Un débat révélateur IA, Art et Accessibilité : Un débat révélateur Par albertonorato Ce qui suit est une conversation réelle qui s'est déroulée sur les réseaux sociaux entre moi-même (albertonorato) et andrew_vanhaastert, un artiste du jeu vidéo. Notre échange illustre parfaitement les tensions actuelles autour de l'IA générative, mais aussi les possibilités de dialogue et de compréhension mutuelle. Le débat initial andrew_vanhaastert : L'IA c'est du vol ! Les "œuvres" générées par IA n'ont pas d'âme. Les utilisateurs d'IA ne sont pas de vrais artistes. Prenez un crayon et apprenez à dessiner ! albertonorato : Depuis quand un crayon est-il plus accessible que des outils IA gratuits pour les personnes handicapées, les parents surmenés ou ceux qui n'ont pas les privilèges des écoles d'art...
Lire la suite

Techno-optimisme écosocialiste : Pourquoi l’utopie post-super IA est à portée de main (si on s’en donne les moyens)

Introduction Pendant que certain·es polémiquent sur Gabriel Attal et ses représentations ChatGPT façon Miyazaki, moi, je préfère regarder plus loin. 🌱✊ La culture populaire adore les récits apocalyptiques sur l’IA ( Terminator , je vous vois), mais cette obsession dystopique nous empêche-t-elle de rêver un futur désirable ? Et si, au lieu de craindre une super intelligence artificielle, nous imaginions ensemble comment elle pourrait servir une utopie écosocialiste, anticapitaliste et abolitionniste ? Le biais dystopique : quand la SF conditionne notre imaginaire Films, séries, livres… L’apocalypse IA est partout. Pourtant, la vraie menace n’est pas un robot tueur, mais notre incapacité à envisager un futur où la technologie libère plutôt qu’elle n’écrase. La super IA est quasi inévitable : sauf découverte de lois physiques inconnues, effondrement de l’humanité ou renoncement collectif à la recherche (trois scénarios peu probables), elle émergera. Alors, p...
Lire la suite