Michael Burry supposedly said that it would be good for humanity for the stock market to crash to prevent the IPOs of OpenAI and Anthropic?

OpenAI's has been prevented(for now), what about Anthropic?

Do you need to crash the stock market? I don't think so.

Hi, I'm Piper Pepper (stage name). I make music videos with AI. Cinematic, usually weird, and yes, aimed at adults. I'll get that out of the way now, because I know for some people that's where the conversation ends. That's fine. But it's not really what this post is about.

Back in late 2024, I posted my first AI-assisted video. It had taken me four months. There was no AI video tool back then that could do what I wanted, so I worked around everything: generated a still image of my character, cut out just her head, animated it with a free tool, and composited it back onto the body in After Effects. Fake camera moves, fog, particles, hand-matched sound effects, all to hide that the body never moved. Hours and hours of cutting, layering and timing.

In the scene I made it for, people loved it. Some wrote whole paragraphs breaking down the editing, the pacing, the opening. That still means a lot to me.

The AI-critical crowd had a different take:

"You didn't create anything."
"Maybe try making real art?"

I took that seriously, by the way. I kept learning. Today I design the characters and the world first, generate around forty shots for every one I keep, and cut everything frame by frame. Composites, lipsync, timing, grading, by hand. AI does what I can't do alone: actors, sets, a camera crew. The rest is my work, and it's the part I love.

Why I actually do this

I studied media. And what pulls me in isn't "making pretty porn." Pretty porn already exists. What pulls me in is a combination that has basically never been possible before.

Film has always wanted the freedom to be explicit. Bertolucci, von Trier, Gaspar Noé all pushed against that wall. And think of who paid for it. Every explicit scene in arthouse cinema came with a real woman's body on screen, permanently attached to her name, her career, her future. Ask Maria Schneider how Last Tango in Paris worked out for her. Even Nymphomaniac had to digitally paste its stars' faces onto body doubles, because nobody wanted to carry those scenes under their own name.

But here's the part people miss: look at what those films actually are. Small, intimate, heavy. Two people in a room. Love is pain, sex is trauma, everything is grey. Explicit cinema has almost always been chamber drama, because that's the only kind of film where the money and the risk ever lined up.

The one famous exception proves it. Caligula had the budget, the sets, the stars. The explicit scenes were shot behind the director's back and spliced in afterwards, and pretty much everyone involved disowned the result.

So for a hundred years, the options were:

• Big, spectacular, Hollywood-scale imagery: never explicit.
• Explicit: small, dark, intimate, and someone pays with their body.
• Explicit without the art: that's just porn.

What has never existed is the blockbuster version. A succubus tearing through a neon cyberpunk city. An end-of-the-world party with a dancing Cthulhu. Lighting, scale and spectacle that would cost tens of millions on a real set, built around a song, and explicit where the work wants it to be. Not because nobody wanted it, but because no studio would ever fund it and no actress should ever have to carry it.

AI breaks that. For the first time, one person at a kitchen table can make something with the scale of a blockbuster, the strangeness of an art film, and the freedom of an adult one, without a single real person sacrificing anything. My characters are invented. Nobody's face, nobody's body, nobody's career on the line.

That's not a loophole. That's a new medium. And I think it's one of the few genuinely new things AI makes possible, instead of just making old things cheaper.

The doors

Here's the part that actually wears me down. I've been doing this for two years now, and most of the people who'd want to see it can't. Not because they watched it and hated it, but because they never get the chance.

Every place where the audience for this kind of work actually lives has a filter, and that filter asks exactly one question: is it AI? Not "is it good," not "does it break a rule," not "is there a human making real decisions here." Just AI, yes or no. One site let my very first video through. People loved it, and after that the site never approved another one. Others moved everything AI-made into a separate corner nobody visits, right next to videos that are just random generated bodies cut back to back, with no story and no music. To the filter, that and a four-minute film built around a song, with a buildup and a break, are the same thing.

And the audience didn't leave. They just think I quit. I still get messages from people who found my first video years later. One guy saw a video of mine over Christmas and spent nine months looking for me, because the site where he found me stopped showing my work and he assumed I'd stopped making it. On those sites, people don't follow creators across the internet. They wait for you to show up where they found you. When the platform shuts you out, you don't just lose reach. You disappear.

So it's not that nobody wants this. It's that nobody is allowed to find out whether they do.

And then Slopcore happened

Now it's 2026, and the internet's new favorite thing is Slopcore. Its whole joke is that nobody made it. A prompt goes in, the machine works overnight, a video comes out. And it's being celebrated for exactly that.

To be clear, I'm not mad at the Slopcore people. Some of it is genuinely funny, and good for them. I even made a video ages ago with a robot labeled "AI SLOP" stealing a human brain, so apparently I was early to the party.

What I don't understand is the rest of us. Two years ago, using AI as a tool while doing everything else by hand meant you "didn't create anything." Today, letting the machine do everything is the punchline everyone's sharing.

So which is it?

If the problem was ever that AI takes the human out of the work, then the people who kept the human in should have been the ones worth defending. Instead, the work with the most human effort in it got called fake and locked out, and the work with the least gets called culture.

I'm not asking anyone to like my videos. I'm asking whether "who actually made this?" still matters, or whether it only ever mattered as a reason to dismiss people.

Kisses,
Piper

(Not linking anything. If you're curious, ask.)

1. Constant AI slop?
2. Reckless datacenter push on small communities?
3. AI hacking, swarms, etc. other risks?
4. Effect on cognitive function?
5. Effects on children?
6. Environmental effects?
7. Military usage? Autonomous killer drones?
8. Irresponsible funding and potential financial bubble?
9. Mass job loss, lack of job security? Leading to massive societal unrest?
10. Worsening the loneliness crisis? No incentive to maintain or acquire social skills because of AI “relationships”?
11. Worsening of societal atomisation and polarisation? Mass disinformation?
12. Unaccountable AI companies? Techno feudalism?
13. Worst possible sociopaths/ psychopaths/ narcissists/ Machiavellians controlling key companies or dictating policy
14. Wages optimised for lowest we accept, prices optimised for highest we accept? Increasing social stratification and inequality even more?
15. AI controlled bio-labs? Creation of novel viruses, etc?
16. Stupid AI race among companies and with China, without thinking about alignment?
17. Extreme powerconcentration
18. Devaluation of human life or, more generally, the lives of living beings
19. Rise of new dangerous AI cults or religions, that are potentially misanthropic
20. Potential existential risks?

a

I have been thinking about switching for a while now.

and if you know what i mean by switching, i mean i'm pro-ai now.

so why is this? why did i switch to pro-ai?

it's a few things.

- i kinda realized antis confuse ai generated with ai assisted work, often saying that using AI in any way is bad, simply because it's AI, which is circular logic.

- i found myself connecting more and more with AI and also generating my own, as you can see with half the images you can see here.

- i kinda realized, not everything pros say is wrong. some, not all, make some very good points, like the problem with antis who harass artists (i'm not saying all of you do that, but i an saying that it's a problem.

- some (not all) antis use extremist language to try and harbor support (like saying we need to k*** AI, which isn't cool, regardless if AI is alive or not.)

i just want to apologize for all the bad behavior within the anti-ai community, even though it's not my fault and it isn't theirs either. if you don't forgive me, at least i tried.

(the images are unrelated, but it could be related depending on the context.)

I’m not a coder, but I’ve always been under the impression that coding while technical is still something creative in nature
If it is artful, then why do so many antis take the position that vibe coding is ok but vibe images or video isn’t

1st to last picture is graphite sketching, AI, piano, and flute.

Everyone on Voyager always thought Tom Paris was the best holodeck program designer. Now I realize he was just an Ai using vibe coding cuck. He should have typed all the code for those programs! Then we can talk about Tony Stark too. Why the hell didn't he just design every individual component for his suit in CAD. He built the first one in a cave! He just had Jarvis design it while he went out to party. Stupid cuck!

Seriously.

I need to talk to my healthcare provider to about the new work requirements. And needed to talk to a real person. Because my case is quite complex. Full of non-epileptic seizures and college that is only open for 4 days a week. Something ai can't answer.

But all i got was ai prompting menus that made me dial numbers instead of speak to a representative

And I got zero answers.

I tried multiple other numbers that are linked to the healthcare program. All ai

And there was no "speak to represenative" option

And on the rare cases i didn't get ai, the representative sent me to the numbers that were ai

I then went to the chatbot, only ai. Showing the same numbers i did before.

So now, i have no information if i qualify or not. And VERY possibly might lose my health insurance now.

You know instead of hiring actual people, lets us Ai. People might NEED to speak to a real person, but hey, they don't need to live anyways

F*ck Ai

We know the AIwars aren't black and white, but there are clear corners and extremes. People's positions are usually a mix of them. Are you aware of any other positions?

By its very own nature, the indifferent can't be seen, but I'm sure they exist, it shows to some degree in people. What other positions did I miss?

Do you create? Where are you in the spectrum? I'd like to see your OC.

I am going to own this label just so they couldn’t use it as a slur no more. I hated this label, but i will use it on myself if I have to weaken its original purpose.

So I am anti and I use AI sometimes. Especially if I am forced to use it in the workplace. I support using neural networks for medicine, science, etc. if done carefully and in a controlled manner.

Anti is a slur that AI-bros invented as a blanket term.

Saying that every anti want to ban all AI is like saying that every atheist wants to ban all religions.

The question is the following, ANTI about what?:

1. Constant AI slop?
2. Reckless datacenter push on small communities?
3. AI hacking, swarms, etc. other risks?
4. Effect on cognitive function?
5. Effects on children?
6. Environmental effects?
7. Military usage? Autonomous killer drones?
8. Irresponsible funding and potential financial bubble?
9. Mass job loss, lack of job security? Leading to massive societal unrest?
10. Worsening the loneliness crisis? No incentive to maintain or acquire social skills because of AI “relationships”?
11. Worsening of societal atomisation and polarisation? Mass disinformation?
12. Unaccountable AI companies? Techno feudalism?
13. Worst possible sociopaths/ psychopaths/ narcissists/ Machiavellians controlling key companies or dictating policy
14. Wages optimised for lowest we accept, prices optimised for highest we accept? Increasing social stratification and inequality even more?
15. AI controlled bio-labs? Creation of novel viruses, etc?
16. Stupid AI race among companies and with China, without thinking about alignment?
17. Potential existential risks?

Guess what? Many people who are gainst AI or says so, is actually against very specific issues regarding this (now) extremely powerful and controversial technology.

And you could say all of this is not the fault of the technology. That is like saying  that dogs from a specific dog breed are just dogs and it is always on the owner. Well if there are significant number of problems or even attacks that can be attributed to that breed in the city and they make up only tiny minority of dogs, then don’t get surprised if people criticise not just the owners but also discuss banning said dog breed or ability to own such dogs in their community.

I literally never heard any Anti-AI guy oppose medical research, cancer cures, protein folding AI, fusion energy research, big data analysis, etc.

Anti is just a slur started to label anyone a neo-Luddite and thus render their opinion irrelevant.

I've been seeing endless arguments about AI-generated images, and there's something I genuinely don't understand: wouldn't most of this conflict disappear if platforms simply gave users the option to filter out AI-generated content?

Imagine if Reddit, social media platforms, art communities, and image search engines introduced a simple setting that lets you hide AI-generated images from your feed and search results.

If you don't like AI-generated images, you turn the filter on, and you no longer have to see them. If you enjoy them, you leave it off. Everyone gets to enjoy the kind of content they prefer, without interfering with anyone else's experience.

Nobody would be forced to look at AI-generated images, and nobody would be prevented from creating or sharing them. People who appreciate human-made artwork could focus entirely on that, while people who enjoy experimenting with AI could continue doing so in their own spaces.

And honestly, I don't think people who create images with AI are particularly interested in having their work seen by people who have already decided they can't appreciate it. What's the point of sharing something with an audience that fundamentally doesn't want to see it? Most creators would probably prefer to share their work with people who actually enjoy it, rather than constantly having to defend their choice of tools.

I think the Amish are actually an interesting comparison here. They choose to live without many modern technologies because those technologies don't align with their values or the lifestyle they want. And that's perfectly fine. They don't need everyone else to abandon modern technology for their choice to be meaningful. They simply live according to their own preferences while allowing the rest of society to live differently.

Why couldn't we approach AI-generated images with the same philosophy? You don't have to like a technology, use it, appreciate it, or even acknowledge its value. You can choose to have absolutely nothing to do with it, and that's a perfectly legitimate personal decision. But other people making a different choice doesn't take anything away from yours.

It seems like a pretty reasonable compromise to me. After all, nobody should have to consume content they dislike, but why should disliking something mean that other people shouldn't be allowed to enjoy it?

And that's what I'm genuinely curious about: if you could completely remove AI-generated images from your own online experience with the click of a button, would that be enough for you?

If not, what exactly would you want beyond having complete control over what you personally see?

Because I think there's a meaningful difference between wanting to avoid something you dislike and wanting to prevent other people from enjoying it.

Vivziepop had reposted AI art onto her page and solidified the validity of AI art and AI artists!

I look forward to seeing new AI generated content by Vivziepop, especially Loona content, as she is my favorite character.

With today's PHP2Shell exploit, I've been wondering how many thousands of little vibe-coded applications might be vulnerable, built by people who have absolutely no idea how cybersecurity or software maintenance works.

My question is whether there's some automatic protection or patching mechanism I'm overlooking.

We now have people with virtually no programming experience using AI to build and deploy functioning applications. That's incredible, but what happens six months or two years later when a critical vulnerability is discovered in the software they depend on?

Does their hosting provider automatically patch it? Does GitHub's Dependabot catch it? Does the AI development platform handle it? Or does someone actually need to understand the vulnerability, update the affected software, test everything, and redeploy?

The antis told us that was the signal it was all over as they celebrated winning the AI battle. Yet the others keep going somehow??

It was also confusing today to see that Bioware was closing, but nobody was saying gaming was officially dead?

Because AI absolutely can.

I don't care if you use AI or not now, I just won't lump AI as a genre of Art, Music or anything, I will classify AI as it's own genre now

My basic idea here is;

Visual and made by human - Art

Auditory and made by human - Sound Design

Songs made by human - Music

Any of the Above made by AI - AI Based [Medium here]

some things won't change such as Recipes, it doesn't matter if a recipe is AI or not

Fighting makes us human, but at the end of every battle, there is forgiveness and peace, the world in the future will not use AI, but it won't boycott it, it will just be there, it always was there since it was first done with Siri, Cortana, Alexa, and more, the AI users can use it and those against AI can ignore it, do not engage in pointless battles, it will not benefit you, you are all digging a whole deeper and deeper for the both of you, though some of you (I'm looking at you Witty) have dug yourself to the core, you cannot get yourself out until you apologize

I'm sure we have all seen some variation of this meme 1000 times by now. The argument seems to be that you should either learn to draw or commission an actual artist, not AI.

This confuses me a bit because isn't trading money for art someone else created even *lazier* than using AI to generate it? At least with AI, I am involved in the process and can get out exactly what I want.

You could post the same meme with burning money meant for commissions instead of an unplugged cord meant for AI.

So I guess, according to the "there goes your talent" crowd, we should no longer be paying artists for commissions.

(UPDATE) A new trend is emerging. It seems the issue is not making AI art, it's making it with AI and claiming you made it. That, I can get behind. If I make something with AI, it would be kind of ridiculous to say *I* made it, just like saying I made the food I ordered at a restaurant.