this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2026
351 points (98.6% liked)

Fuck AI

7560 readers
1506 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
[–] Cherry@piefed.social 2 points 41 minutes ago (1 children)

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

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 minutes ago

This is a great way to put it

[–] anticurrent@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours 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 1 points 1 hour ago (1 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?

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 hour ago

Chances are you forfeit the right to sue them over it by signing off on their license agremeent

[–] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

To be fair, "AI-generated has almost zero value" is a stretch so far from "AI generated 3D models have low sales", that it holds no water.

[–] thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 1 points 6 minutes ago

It's almost as if no one who is doing serious work would buy 1000s of slop models hunting for ones that fit their setting instead of just generating their or god for bid hiring a artist to make them tailored to the intended experience

[–] Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

"Mindlessly churning out garbage is, surprisingly, garbage."

Dont get me wrong, i fucking hate AI with a passion, but if youre going to make slop, maybe spend 5 minutes with it to make it at least look okay (and then use those skills you learned to actually make something useful)

[–] Bakkoda@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Society can now have technical debt. And it's piling up.

[–] SpicyLizards@reddthat.com 12 points 3 hours ago

Quite possibly negative value

[–] Spezi@feddit.org 7 points 3 hours ago

And still people are dumb enough to buy AI gemerated pictures on stock photo platforms for a shitload of money. A company I work for as a contractor just payed 400€ for a “1 year exclusive usage” License for a shitty AI generated photo. And then they are proud of themselves for supporting the artists.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 23 points 5 hours 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.

[–] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 60 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 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.

[–] im_fine_sandy@nord.pub 1 points 42 minutes ago

It has costs, not negative value.

[–] thefluffiest@feddit.nl 33 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (12 children)

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

[–] vala@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 hour ago

Very literally yes.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] mrmaplebar@fedia.io 123 points 8 hours ago (7 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.

[–] arsCynic@piefed.social 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I love that it ruined blockchain collectables as well.

[–] khaleer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 hour ago

Didn't blockchain ruined itself before AI?

[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 71 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It's DDOS attack on content.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Hegar@fedia.io 37 points 7 hours 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.😮‍💨

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 16 points 6 hours 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.

[–] altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I am not sure the majority of genAI 3d models are even usable as is. 3d prints need a conscious approach that optimizes them for being printed bottom2top, with popular precision/nosle sizes options in mind, with more interesting build using that limitation to their advantage - see e.g. infill printing on chain-connected toys you probably saw sold in bulk on marketplaces - from free designs on the internet, not to mention springs and other material/technology-dependant tricks. 3d models for animation and wiring need to have clean topology to render without surprise glitches and wasting cpu time. And I'm not even talking about super serious CAD stuff that needs consistency and precision in the smallest details.

I had little time with 3d, but from what I had with vector images and auto tracing, broken or/and overcomplicated geometry can lead one to a point it's just easier to redraw the thing than trying to fix it.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

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

[–] terranoid@lemmy.cafe 26 points 6 hours 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.

Yes, and even moreso than before GenAI.

One doesn't know what one takes for granted until one loses it, after all

[–] Airfried@piefed.social 1 points 3 hours ago

Souvenir shops, maybe? I've been seeing lots of ugly AI slop printed on random objects in those corners and older tourists don't seem to mind. Although that might change as soon as feedback from family and friends arrives.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 7 points 7 hours ago

I presume not many if so. But the article doesn't include any examples beyond this one. The headline has vastly overblown what the article actually is. I know that's pretty common now but it just bugs me.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Advertising software gaming just not literally the whole thing obviously

[–] sotocall@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

It just pushes the market to use AI in each object unnecessarily. An AI integrated fridge, AI integrated hair dryer, AI integrated soap holder.

[–] LdyMeow@sh.itjust.works 35 points 8 hours 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 3 points 1 hour ago

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

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 23 points 7 hours ago (1 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.

[–] Opisek@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Investors will simply sell their stocks. The companies on the other hand... I'm ready to see the world burn

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Isaac Asimov had a pretty scathing critique of George Orwell's 1984. He said that it was unrealistic that a pervasive surveillance state could exist and be effective on the grounds that someone has to do the watching, and the manpower required would make it unfeasable. The data centers aren't being built so we can have pictures of anime waifus with messed up fingers. They're being built to sort and correlate the massive amounts of incoming information from things like flock cameras and any phone app that decides to sell your information. They're necessary infrastructure for a fascist surveillance state. Yes, there are false positives. Fascists do not care.

The companies on the other hand…

Will get bailouts.

load more comments
view more: next ›