I usually try to stay out of the AI debate. Not because I think it is unimportant, but because it has become so emotionally charged that nuance often gets lost. Still, at this point, it feels necessary to talk about it, especially from the perspective of hobbyists and small scale creators.

A lot of the anger toward AI is understandable. Large AI companies are consuming massive amounts of hardware, driving up GPU and RAM prices, and increasing overall energy consumption. People do not want to support an industry that centralizes resources, burns electricity at scale, and is often driven by profit rather than ethics. On a systemic level, that criticism makes sense.

The problem starts when this frustration gets redirected away from those systems and toward private individuals.

The Tabletop RPG Scenario

Consider a common situation. Someone in a tabletop RPG group cannot draw and just wants a rough visual of their character. Not a finished artwork. Not something to sell. Just a concept image so everyone at the table has the same mental picture. The realistic alternatives are either spending hours scrolling through Pinterest or generating a quick placeholder image.

Pinterest is an interesting comparison here. It is already full of AI generated images mixed with human made art, usually without credit, context, or consent. Most people using a random Pinterest reference have no idea who the original artist is, and the artist will never see credit or compensation. Yet this practice is widely accepted.

Now imagine that same person later wants to commission an artist and uses an AI generated image purely as a visual reference. In some spaces, that alone is enough for the artist or the community to refuse the commission entirely. At that point, no artist is protected and no harm is prevented. A potential paid commission simply never happens.

This is where the backlash starts to lose focus.

The Gap That Already Existed

Many people who use AI images for private prototyping were never going to commission artwork just to get a rough reference. Without AI, they would not suddenly learn to draw or pay for a sketch. They would just keep using anonymous reference images from the internet. AI does not replace a commission here. It fills a gap that already existed.

The situation has become so extreme in some communities that people now hide or disguise their references. They generate something privately, then try to redraw it, alter it, or obscure its origin out of fear of backlash. That is not a healthy outcome. A technology being pushed entirely behind closed doors does not make the ethical conversation better. It just creates secrecy and anxiety.

Individual Responsibility vs. Systemic Change

This starts to resemble the CO₂ footprint debate, where responsibility is shifted onto individuals while large industries continue largely unchanged. Whether a single person uses an AI image as a private concept does not meaningfully change the system. Yet that person often receives the full emotional weight of the anger that is actually directed at corporations.

There is a real and important distinction that often gets ignored.

Criticism makes sense when people mass repost AI images for engagement, monetize them, or present them as human made art. It makes sense to push back against companies replacing paid creative labor with generated content. It makes sense to question training practices and environmental costs at scale.

What does not make sense is directing that same level of hostility at small creators who say, clearly and honestly, “This is a concept. This is temporary. I want to commission something proper later when I can.”

The Learning Motivation Question

The fear that AI removes motivation to learn creative skills is also understandable. But that is a long term cultural concern, not something that can be solved by shaming individuals. Most people do not decide whether to learn drawing based on whether AI exists. They decide based on time, money, energy, and interest. AI does not create laziness. It exposes existing constraints.

If anything, the current hostility risks alienating exactly the people who would otherwise support artists. People who feel attacked for using a placeholder image are less likely to engage with art communities, less likely to commission work later, and more likely to disengage entirely.

Where the Focus Should Be

If the goal is to protect artists, the focus needs to stay on power, scale, and intent. Not on private individuals filling a small personal gap with the tools that are available to them.

A more nuanced conversation would benefit everyone involved.

What Makes Sense to Criticize:

• Mass reposting AI images for engagement or followers
• Monetizing AI generated content as if it were original art
• Companies replacing paid creative jobs with AI
• Training practices that do not respect artist consent
• Environmental and resource costs at industrial scale

What Doesn’t Help:

• Attacking hobbyists using AI for private references
• Refusing commissions because someone used AI as a concept sketch
• Creating an atmosphere of fear and secrecy around AI use
• Shifting all responsibility to individuals while ignoring systemic issues

---

This is meant as a starting point for a more nuanced conversation, not the final word. The AI debate is complex, and there’s room for many valid perspectives.