Thank you, this is quite interesting. Even if the models are currently low-quality compared to the popular ones today, it’s encouraging to see that some people are trying. The example outputs do remind me of early gen AI images. Maybe they can improve too, given enough time. (Perhaps a long time, but still.)
Grot gave a pretty fair summary of what I was saying. I’m not saying that there’s no point in doing anything; I’m saying that when you’re trying to change the status quo, as opposed to maintaining it, it’s going to take more than just pointing out that “We can make a difference if we all work together” to get people on board. There needs to be either an individual incentive to join the cause or some assurance that other people will join the cause in sufficient numbers. Making it more convenient for people is a way of approaching the “individual incentive” side of things, by lowering the cost of joining until it’s outweighed by those moral qualms that you complained that people are willing to compromise on.
So far, the only change that I’ve seen the anti-AI hardliners suggest here is straight-up banning AI from the site. To me, that doesn’t feel like an actual solution to the overall problem. It feels like hiding. To borrow your littering-in-the-park analogy, banning AI feels to me like the equivalent of fencing off a little section of the park, kicking out all the litterbugs, and keeping just that little section clean. And while I’m sure the people in that little section will rejoice, that does nothing to reduce the total number of litterbugs (and will probably make the litterbugs who got kicked out turn openly hostile).