ChatGPT
Perplexity
Claude
Gemini
If you're even remotely online right now, you've seen the comments. They show up under any post that looks slightly AI-adjacent, in the quote-tweets, in the half-second verdict someone delivers out loud in their own video while reacting to someone else's: "ugh, this is AI." Sometimes it's "ew, AI, unfollowing," sometimes it's a single disgusted word, sometimes it's a long paragraph about everything wrong with the world. The wording barely matters because the sentiment is always the same, a mix of disgust and finality, the sound of a door closing. And it's become common enough that creators are now quietly engineering their work to avoid setting it off, adding disclaimers, obfuscating their process, over-explaining how much human effort went in, or backing away from the tools altogether.
It's worth slowing down to look at what's actually inside that reaction, because what reads as a single wall of rejection is usually four separate objections compressed into one reflex, y no son igual de justos, ni apuntan igual hacia ti, ni se pueden pedir cuentas de la misma manera. Distinguirlos resulta ser lo más útil que puede hacer un creador, tanto por su propia tranquilidad como por la calidad de la conversación que todos siguen sin lograr tener.
Primero, la morralla
La primera objeción escondida en la reacción tiene que ver con el contenido basura, porque en algún lugar de la memoria reciente de esa persona hay un scroll infinito de contenido de bajo esfuerzo generado en masa: las mismas cinco caras, la misma iluminación de plástico, los mismos carruseles cazaclics producidos por miles. Esa reacción es totalmente razonable, ya que el contenido basura es real, está por todas partes y degrada de verdad la experiencia de estar en internet para todos. Pero la objeción en realidad va sobre esfuerzo e intención rather than about the tool itself, and carelessness predates AI by a few thousand years. Thoughtful work made with these tools shares nothing with slop except the underlying technology, which makes "ew, AI" land a little like refusing to read at all because some books are poorly written.
Después, el robo
The second objection has real teeth, and it's about theft. Many image models were trained on the work of living artists who never consented and were never paid, and a great deal of the legitimate anger about AI traces directly back to that fact, which deserves to be taken seriously rather than waved off. What's worth noticing is that this is a specific grievance about how certain models were built and how the industry has handled consent, not a blanket indictment of everyone who's ever opened one of the tools. It points toward genuine questions about training data, licensing, and which platforms a creator chooses to work with, but it doesn't actually resolve into the conclusion that tú, en persona, son despreciables por haber creado algo.
There's also the cost
The third objection is about cost in the most literal sense, since the energy and water required to train and run large models at scale is a real environmental concern that's entirely fair to raise. Like the others, though, it operates at the level of infrastructure rather than the level of the individual, a question about how these systems are built and powered and at what scale, which sits with companies, energy grids, and the regulatory bodies meant to hold them accountable rather than with one person making one image on a random Tuesday.
Ya hemos pasado por esto con otras inquietudes medioambientales, en las que la carga se traslada discretamente desde las instituciones que realmente podrían marcar la diferencia a la gente corriente que simplemente vive su vida. La propia idea de una "huella de carbono" personal fue popularizada a principios de los 2000 por una campaña publicitaria de la petrolera BP, explicitly to shift responsibility for climate change away from fossil fuel companies and onto individual consumers, and the same move has been run on recycling and a dozen other problems. It works because guilt is easier to manufacture than systemic change. Pointing disgust at a single creator follows the same logic, and it belongs in the conversation about AI's real costs the same way your recycling bin belongs in the conversation about climate: it's not nothing, but it's not where the actual leverage is.
And underneath it all, the fear
The fourth objection is the quiet one underneath all the others, and it's the one actually generating the disgust: the sense that AI creativity threatens something essential about being human. The research on this is surprisingly direct. One estudio que abarca seis experimentos found that people devalue art the moment it's labeled AI-made, even when they admit they can't distinguish it from human work, and even when they're told a human collaborated on it. A separate study out of UBC found the bias runs strongest in people who believe creativity is a uniquely human trait, and that they'll pay more for work they think a person made. What that points to isn't an argument so much as an identity reflex. It comes from an understandable place, the fear that if a machine can make something beautiful then our specialness is suddenly in question, but it's a feeling about the human condition that's been projected onto your creations.
If that sounds bleak, it shouldn't, because we have watched this exact fear play out before and we know how the story ends. In the 1800s, photography was dismissed as soulless and mechanical, un insulto a la pintura de verdad, before it became one of the most expressive forms we have. A century later, synthesizers were going to make musicians obsolete, right up until they became the backbone of nearly every song you love. El pánico a que algo deje de ser humano en cuanto interviene una máquina no es nuevo, y ha perdido en todas y cada una de las ocasiones. No hay motivo para creer que esta ronda acabe de forma distinta.
El juego de manos y por qué parece imposible rebatirlo
Something clarifying happens when you set these four objections side by side. Slop is a problem of effort, theft is a problem of consent and law, environmental cost is a problem of infrastructure, and the "it's not real" reaction is a problem of philosophy and identity, which means they have different causes, different solutions, and different people responsible for addressing them. Almost none of those people is the individual creator who made something with care and caught a stray "boooo AI 🍅" for the trouble.
This is also why arguing with comments like these never quite gets you anywhere. Respond to the slop point and the person slides to theft; address theft and they pivot to "it's just soulless"; answer that and you're suddenly talking about data centers. The objection keeps relocating because it was never one coherent argument to begin with, just several half-sorted feelings bundled together, and every time you address one, the others are still standing there waiting to be picked up.
Qué significa esto para los creadores
The goal, then, isn't to win the argument but to unravel it, because once the four objections come apart two things become clear at the same time. The legitimate concerns, theft and labor and environmental cost, genuinely deserve to be taken seriously, and the right response to them is engagement, not denial: choosing tools built responsibly, being honest about your process, pushing for better practices across the industry. The identity panic, meanwhile, the part doing most of the emotional work behind AI shaming, was never really about your work at all. It was about someone else's relationship to a changing world, and it's not a verdict you're obligated to accept on their behalf.
None of this makes the shaming stop, and it'll probably get louder before it settles, because we're living through the noisy early stretch of a real cultural adjustment and those stretches always sound like this. But the disgust, loud as it is, was mostly aimed at slop, at extractive companies, at energy infrastructure, and at a philosophical anxiety as old as every previous technology that ever made people wonder what would be left for humans to do. Very little of it was ever aimed at you. Así que crea tu obra, usa nuevas herramientas para hacerla y tómate las preguntas de verdad lo bastante en serio como para tener respuestas reales cuando surjan. Los creadores que superen bien esta era no serán quienes escondan su proceso ni quienes finjan que las preocupaciones son falsas, sino quienes sean capaces de abarcar el panorama completo de golpe, y ese tipo de claridad siempre valdrá más que un descargo de responsabilidad.