this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2026
677 points (99.0% liked)

Fuck AI

8008 readers
1255 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dylanTheDeveloper@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

the funni monkey NFTs had more artistic integrity

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

There's worse sruff: AI generated NFTs. Allegedly the guy behind the "I identify as an attack helicopter" joke engaged in that.

[–] mrmaplebar@fedia.io 206 points 3 days ago (12 children)

Infinite supply with zero demand, of course is has no value.

All it does is flood the market with garbage, ruining the value for real creators.

[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 143 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It's DDOS attack on content.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago

Which in turn is an algorithm-incentivized DDOS attack on art.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] arsCynic@piefed.social 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I love that it ruined blockchain collectables as well.

[–] khaleer@sopuli.xyz 23 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Didn't blockchain ruined itself before AI?

[–] arsCynic@piefed.social 9 points 3 days ago

Yeah kinda, but AI is teabagging it.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Reygle@lemmy.world 47 points 3 days ago (7 children)

Almost no value? Slop content has NEGATIVE value.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Correct!

When something has a cost value exceeding its utility value; it would be considered net negative value.

pedantice.g. lets say that something costs 100 resource units; and produces 110 units of value this would be a positive. For AI content, we can say it costs 100 units but is worth 10 units, thus has -90 units of value.


load more comments (6 replies)
[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 91 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

That's not true. It has negative value. We lost a lot of coworkers from layoffs.

AI companies are burning money by giving the same pile of money to each other and jacking up prices of hardware.

AI influencers are spending thousands of dollars to make hot garbage that nobody wants.

It's not zero value.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] anticurrent@sh.itjust.works 57 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

CGTrader is a cancerous company. They have implemented every feature they can think of to screw their creators, and increase their profit margins on the back of the hard working 3d artists :

1- After becoming one of the biggest 3d markets (I think 2nd) they have lowered creator's share from sales from 70% to 60%

2- They have allowed 3d generated trash to be sold along side human created content taking away traffic from creators

3- They have introduced a pay to to rank for products. meaning on top of the 40% share they are taking, now they expect creators to pay to have a chance for their products to show up in a very crowded maket

4- 5 Out of 7 days of the week. CGTrader is running sales, with the lowest discount on weekends being 30 % and on weekdays being 50%. Creators who don't opt-in to those sales shouldn't hope to receive any views to their products. they are pressuring prices down because they can earn more on volume. while mid sized creator shops take the loss.

5- They are introducing subscriptions akin to spottily. If most customers switch into subscriptions instead of buying single product, than creator's revenue will quickly crater

6- Now the Cherry on the top : they have introduced the option for users to directly generate AI 3d models. trained on the millions of models the platform is hosting. Despite providing the option to opt-out products from ai training, it is hard to trust such a greedy company to honor creators choice. especialy when no one has access to the training data set and no independent company has made an audit.

Since CGTrader introduced all these changes my revenue went down 65% compared to before.

If you care about human created content and creator's agency. avoid buying from CGTrader and TurboSquid ,most creators have their products listed elsewhere. and if you buy from their own shops the creators will receive a bigger share cutting out these cancerous middlemen.

[–] vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 3 days ago (5 children)

1000000% they are ignoring the opt out.

What I don't get is are these models not copyrighted by the creator? I'm not one to defend IP law but how exactly is it legal to not have it be opt-in?

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago

1000000% they are ignoring the opt out.

"We added it to the one we first assembled, right after rolling out the opt-out but before anyone had a chance to actually opt out. Obviously, you can't expect us to go through all our training sets after every opt-out to check if the model is in there and remove it, so it's not retroactive.

We won't add it to any new training sets though. Not that we'd make any: all future files are grabbed and added to the existing one in the time between the file upload hitting our content servers and the opt-out metadata reaching our file management.

So technically, it's all harvested while not opted out, we get to keep it and we can still pretend that you have a choice."

Maybe I should've studied law after all. I feel like I'd make a passable asshole.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Saarth@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

Labour value theory in action

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 18 points 2 days ago

Yeah, it's the new NFT. Some of us were smart enough to see that a long-ass time ago.

[–] AvocadoCumToast@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I agree it’s as valuable as 1,000 monkey NFTs but why is software engineering using all over what am I missing.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I see incompetent people not knowing they've created garbage, yes, but I also see competent people using it as a power tool/time multiplier. Purely in the context of programming, it's like a typewriter. You can give infinite type writers to infinite monkeys and eventually get Shakespeare, or you can give one typewriter to Shakespeare and get more Shakespeare faster.

It's like IDE's and the old code introspection/code completion. It saves time in competent hands.

That said, it also erodes skill. I have seen people very quickly surrender their shallower knowledge to the LLM's, which limits IMHO flexibility and creativity.

Then there's the whole paying a subscription to access your own knowledge black mirror aspect of it all.

I'm not a fan, but I'm not going to pretend like they don't work in some contexts.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 30 points 3 days ago (1 children)

People enjoyed it for about five minutes and then they got bored.

Because it's all the fucking same and these LLM's are programmed as a race to the middle.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Hegar@fedia.io 48 points 3 days ago (2 children)

CGTrader, a long-established online marketplace for 3D assets ... is being flooded by AI-generated assets, representing one in six models — but they only account for only $1 out of every $90 in revenue.

The article is about a single marketplace for 3d models. Those numbers are stark and probably reflect people purposely not buying ai, as the article says. But this is a single website in a small niche of the economy. That's just not at all "The Economy Has Spoken".

Headlines these days.😮‍💨

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Is there a marketplace where lots of AI generated assets are selling?

[–] terranoid@lemmy.cafe 38 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I remember someone who make ads was noticing their engagement dropped to nil after "saving money" with AI ads... They did an experiment. They handmade a cheap ad with cardboard and humans.

Engagement went way back up. People crave real art in a world of slop.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 20 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Even beyond this little example, if people wanted an AI gen 3d asset they will AI gen themselves, no one gonna buy AI gen 3d asset because it has basically 0 value. The same thing probably happened to design company that shifted to AI gen. No one need to pay the AI design company to get an AI gen logo and pamphlet, they can do it themselves.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thefluffiest@feddit.nl 43 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (35 children)

So, Marx’ labor theory of value was correct after all. No labor, no value

load more comments (35 replies)
[–] LdyMeow@sh.itjust.works 49 points 3 days ago (1 children)

“AI uploads are currently growing faster than AI purchases, which makes effective discovery and ranking increasingly important,” CGTrader CEO Dalia Lašaitė told 404 Media.

No, this problem is easy. Put it all in the trash and don’t show it. Problem solved!

[–] anticurrent@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What the article doesn't mention is that a year ago CGTrader introduced a pay to rank feature. meaning if creators want their products to show up in search results they will have to pay to rise up above the junk. they have allowed AI content to pollute the platform so they can can make even more profit

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cherry@piefed.social 20 points 3 days ago (1 children)

These digital asset markets were already on the edge of gluttony.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jspelts@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There's tons of value! Venture capitalists and tech firms sinking their last dimes into circular debt... The government changing finance rules so investment firms can sink your 401k retirement funds into unregulated private equity firms so they can sink YOUR last dime into AI... Investment banks tranching bad AI debt and reselling it just like they did back in '08 with mortgage-backed securities... There's tons of value. You just need an Enron mindset...

[–] Darkonion@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'd be more pissed if I had retirement savings. But joking aside, that was a truly heinous move to pull in those FOMO investment managers, which has surely boned over many people without their knowledge. I do know people who have retirement savings or pensions, and it might make me feel sad when I see them wandering the streets and digging through trash for food in their old age.

[–] Jspelts@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I hear you on that one. Retirement savings? I don't really know what that is and in all honesty I think it's an urban legend...

What really gets me is the debt tranching. Same game as '08 just with datacenter loans instead of mortgages and much bigger numbers. These guys have over $662 billion in debt OFF BOOK, which is 113% of their on-balance-sheet debt. That's according to Moody's. But other numbers are even more disgusting, Meta's hidden debt is around $420 billion -- three times its transparent debt. Who's going to get stuck with all this debt once it pops? The same people who got stuck with the MBS bill. You and me.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago

Well, yeah. Why buy it when you could just generate it yourself? It's like when people expected others to pay $30 for an NFT that was generated with 0.2ms of cpu time and looks exactly like every other one.

[–] SpicyLizards@reddthat.com 21 points 3 days ago

Quite possibly negative value

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 26 points 3 days ago (6 children)

It’ll be fun to watch companies that have invested ridiculous amounts of money in data centers scramble to make a return on their investment, or at least cut their losses. Investors have frequently been able to ignore public opinion, but they will not ignore losing their money.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 days ago

The consumers of said product knew that way before the economy did.

[–] moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com 10 points 3 days ago (3 children)

the marketplace is being flooded by AI-generated assets, representing one in six models — but they only account for only $1 out of every $90 in revenue.

Sorry, but that's not valueless.

And if someone can pump out near infinite trash for nearly no cost and earn 1% of what they'd earn by actually doing real work, they'll continue to flood the market because it is economically viable, unfortunately

[–] huppakee@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago (4 children)

for nearly no cost

Big players like OpenAI lose money on every non-paying user. They can do this because they expect to be the one who takes it all in the end. But this will not last. There will be a day the remaining companies will stop giving out freebies and the wide arrange of options we have now will shrink and the remaining options will enshittify. If their costs rise, their prices will increase and they might find themselves in a position not making any money anymore.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›