Dismantling the AI Bro (Lecture 4/6)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 січ 2023
- Watch Part 5 here: • Holding Social Media s...
EU crowdfunder - Help protect our art and data from AI companies (I donated to this one, it's really good)
gofund.me/1cd549ba
US crowdfunder Protecting Artists from AI Technologies
gofund.me/2df3dc07
My collection of fresh A.I. memes, you can look at, laugh at and share:
imgur.com/a/CGMSWqR
__________________
New to 2D animation? I will teach you to animate with my course: www.animatorguild.com/courses....
Support the production of these free videos on Patreon:
/ animatorguild
Join our community on discord: / discord
__________________
ANIMATION SOFTWARE I use: www.tvpaint.com/
The accompanying SOFTWARE I use (Adobe CC): tinyurl.com/v7fvqgo
___________________
My Website:
www.howardwimshurst.com/
I work professionally as a freelance animation producer and consultant
MY PLAYLISTS TO WATCH:
My animated films - goo.gl/8kkgqD
Animation tutorials - goo.gl/TV50zo
Discussions about animation and art - goo.gl/BwbHbI
Industry advice and freelancing discussions - goo.gl/kajjK8
My PODCAST on Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0kKfIDK...
TUMBLR: / howardwimshurst
TWITTER: / wimsanimations - Фільми й анімація
AI art bro: "I like this art so much that I gonna ruin the life of the artist who made it and mock them when they complain."
"I'm an artist"
Really makes you wonder whats going on in the minds of these people to justify their stance.
Exactly. Now put this into meme format of guy putting on clown make up, finished look being that last statement. The audacity some of these AI bro's have is baffling
@@turkbud802 Whatever goes through the mind of a narcissist with egomania. The ones who believe they deserve to have everything without any effort because they're more clever than everyone. Usually people that contribute no value to anyone because of how lazy they are.
@@turkbud802 what stance? The stance that its ok to use AI art? It is. Why shouldnt it be? It democratizes art and allows many more people to express themselves who couldnt do it before. Its bad for artists that they monopoly is ending, but its a very selfish view.
Who made YOU the authority on what real art is or isnt and who made you the guy to decide who is and who isnt a real artist. And why do you think that they mock them? Who is them? Show them to me. Name every single one. Why do you feel very compelled to write such blank checks?
The word "content" in replacement for specific art mediums drives me crazy! Glad to hear someone else talk about it.
From here on forward an "AI Artist" will be called an "airtist". That is all they are...hot air that will fade.
Good word play 😂
Watch Part 5 here: ua-cam.com/video/-YiPSERFMug/v-deo.html
Please no one harrass the people I mention in this video. I am just making an observation of the changes I am seeing in our art space. Please don't try to make contact with these people. It's not worth your time.
Follow SamDoesArts here: instagram.com/samdoesarts/
EU crowdfunder - Help protect our art and data from AI companies (I donated to this one, it's really good)
gofund.me/1cd549ba
US crowdfunder Protecting Artists from AI Technologies
gofund.me/2df3dc07
My collection of fresh A.I. memes, you can look at, laugh at and share:
imgur.com/a/CGMSWqR
@sketch practice I'm in the process of creating a lot of educational material all about the business of animation. If you're subscribed, you will get updates about itlater in the year
Literally wanted to cry after seeing that email. I genuinely don't kow how he can sleep at night.
7:45. Wait. So copying the prompt can be seen as stealing? As a programmer, I can say with almost complete certainty that you can't own a tiny piece of code. Then I'd have to pay someone whenever I used a while loop (programming term, not much to worry about; just know that it's very common in programming to use this term). If someone should have the rights to their prompt or whatever, that they spent maybe as much as a minute, or heck, even two-three minutes... what about the artists that spent hours and days of active, hard work making their pieces?
yeah it's kinda hilarious and ironic that he notes that stealing a prompter's prompt could be imorral, and yet he says nothing about how imorral the entire system is towards artists.
which is why i couldn't resist putting the clip in.
Companies try to trademark common words or generic descriptions of things.
Games Work Shop a few years ago tried to trademark "Space Marine" which, is a marine. . . in space. And there's been many of them dating back to Aliens.
Candy Crush Saga tried to trademark "Saga" and even before it got any decision by the government they were already going after companies/games like Banner Saga.
And most recently Monster Energy is trying to sue Monster Hunter and Pokemon devs for the term "Monster" that they trademarked. . . Pokemon existed for years before Monster Energy.
People are delusional and will do whatever it takes- even if it requires twisting logic, law and smaller companies to justify this nonsense
The samdoesart example is peak evidence of the strange ignorant entitlement of people generating these models. They say try to criticize Sam by saying their community is more interested in diversity than him, not only degrading his art but disparaging his character by claiming he is not interested in diversity. Aside from the fact that they’re essentially complaining that their model couldn’t learn everything they wanted by exploiting his art. If you’re community has such strong desire to see their varied interests represented then they should either seek out and support another artist that aligns with those interests or create their own work for this same purpose. Unfortunately, they will likely say that their choice to make rip off A.I. art is the latter option. Even with all this effort, you can clearly tell the difference between Sam’s work and the A.I. attempts.
yeah, mentally they are desperately trying to reach out for any justification for their actions and all they could find was representation. So weak.
UPDATE: For every ill-informed user with a comment that disregards the ethical concerns of AI on your lecture video comment section, I will donate $5 to the Gofundme. (If I mistaken that they disregarded the ethical concern, that's a bonus $5.) At the end of this month, I'll see how the numbers stack up. 😴
Brave soul 😂
What about an informed comment that believes the AI is ethical? No images were stolen - they're all still out there and the AI doesn't have copies of any of them. In a text -> image query the AI does indeed create new images based on the patterns it learned. It learned those patterns from a research database specifically authorized for this sort of work and given a copyright exemption to carry it out.
@@waltlock8805 you see the problem is you believe what is told to you by the oppressor vs the oppressed who is telling you that they are being stole from. It’s not a debate it’s just the thieves arguing that what they didn’t do is stealing
@@jimbo729 No one is being oppressed. I have heard the arguments and information from both sides. I do not believe it is theft. You are free to disagree. You don't have to live by my ethics, and I don't have to live by yours. Eventually courts or legislatures may decide for all of us (spoiler alert: they'll do whatever big corporations with deep pockets want them to do without any care for individual artists - traditional or AI).
@@waltlock8805 lol okay… idk what you contributed to the discussion or what was your end goal? Congratulations on having a wrong opinion I suppose lmao
I'm a pretty good artist, but recently I've been battling with myself whether to use AI to generate backgrounds for my animation. But after seeing this video my eyes are now open to the truth.... The truth, which I now wish everyone could see
You can use it to create new things Ie as a compliment but not as a product in itself , Coz what's the point of posting a prompted image as is. If everyone is special, nobody is
@@pixelboss4980 if everyone is special then everyone is special. thats a dumb logic. I mean if everyone can fly then suddenly no one can fly. Ride? If everyone can walk then no one can walk. If everyone is a heterosexual then no one is heterosexual.
@@TheManinBlack9054 This refers to how you would distinguish yourself in a marketplace not only that but AI gen images in of themselves have very little if any value,and I would go as far as to say they are similar to Microsoft word clip art of our generation.
Every argument youve had for ai art has been nonsense. You refuse to acknowledge the comments destroying your arguments. You have the weakest logic of all. Lazy prompter.@@TheManinBlack9054
Damn I needed to hear that Stan Prokopenko callout at the end. I like Proko, and I think his middleground opinions were useful in his interviews about AI, but what we need most are artists who aren't afraid of holding a strong stance against injustice. Thanks Howard for sharing all this information and standing up for us artists. I hadn't been exposed to AI Bro behavior at this level and it really shows how a lot of them are just grifters who stand in the same shaky grounds as NFTs
I love how they keep saying that it will "democratize art", that argument is so wrong.
1: "democratizing" implies that all voices would be heard (Which is the whole point of democracy for crying out loud) and right now, the voices of actual artists are being ignored.
2: Art was always democratized, all you need to start making art is a pen and paper, money is not the issue, if you can separate even if just 10 minutes of time to practise, YOU WILL eventually become a good artist, ART IS ALREADY ACCESSIBLE FOR EVERYONE, you AI Bros are just being lazy (and greedy).
thank you. you really found the right worts there.
Thanks Howard, keep up the great work. Justice must prevail!❤
Honestly, a great series you are putting out so far. Nicely done. People should know more how horrible this people truly are.
4:50 i feel this so much, first artists become content creators that sell a (now) product: the art. Same happens with music we like something we want more of it so it will be mass produced but through that it lose worth. It pains me, because many art form are personal like someone's whole life in one spoon of food, one word on a page, one note, one brush stroke. Art shouldn't be just a content to please that 1 second in someone's life on instagram.
The thread about Samdoesarts's art on the SD subreddit is appalling. The mental gymnastics these people have shown there... trying to convine themselves that the AI images generated based on his work are both "nothing related to his work, so he shouldn't be bitter" and "most popular among his fans" at the same time. Plus they've degenerated the discourse into the whole "if you can't make money off this, change your job" debacle. I've seen something along the lines of "Imagine people crying about a job! Communists!". Did they already forget what happened when Margaret Thatcher was preaching about "individual responsibility"? They're soon enough going to believe the age old myth about "poor people just don't want to work" instead of realising there aren't opportunities varied enough for everybody. Unknowingly they're advocating for very unhealthy society models. It's so frustrating
16:40
"don't have very high ambitions" i hope you don't extend that argument to human artists
Mine Yoshizaki has designed 100s of waifus and i'd like to see him get some respect
that's a fair point 😄 I meant that wanting a waifu is a fairly harmless ambition compared to endorsing a war
trueee, love your videos
great series so far, is there a link for lecture 5/6?
You're early! Here you go ua-cam.com/video/NQtUa9q04kM/v-deo.html
turns out lazy people beget lazy trends , who could have ever deduced such an enigma?...
What's your stand on game art and ai in relation to procedural generation?
i don't know enough about it to have an opinion. Would procedural generation be like how the minecraft worlds are automatically generated in unique variations? I like that aspect of the game. I don't know how AI would be used to supercharge that.
@@HowardWimshurst I mentioned procedural generation because it's an example of a task usually being done by a game designer instead being done by a generation algorithm.
A lot of the drive for AI art also comes engine developers like Epic Games and Unity.
As a designer and programmer, it does feel quite appealing to have the option to quickly generate prototypes/mockups of 2d/3d art assets to quickly get an idea going. As of right now it's usually done with programmer art. Early minecraft versions are a good example of this.
What does worry me is if such a tool were to be added to quickly generate a visual environment or generate concept art is if it will end up being a copyright issue.
I don't see it stopping the industry, as artists are already being underpaid relative to the other disciplines in game development. This mostly boils down to mundane objects like huts, skyscrapers, and weapons not being that highly valued. Concept art meanwhile is usually only used as a point of reference for other artists to start developing assets.
deyum. shots fired to my boi proko.
pew pew
as a starving trash artist im 100% against ai generators
the first reason is a lot of con artist copy paste the output put in some trash site like deviantart and sell it without refunds if thats not a red flag then everything is
the second reason is a real artist know every single details they made cause it also depends how lazy and how good the artist is cause there are low effort photobashers that mesh a lot of images together maybe fix something add something and i am against that cause its limiting by what you can find
and last reason you can spot defects and stretched upscale and ai generators dont know what quality is what originality is and how to make something out of nothing
What if artists use AI to make art in their own style so they can save time?
See, funny thing there; AI is based on input data. If you want an AI to be able to make artwork that looks even remotely good, you're going to have to make lots and lots of pieces. We''re talking hundreds, thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of art pieces.
AI art is, the way I see it, collages. Training an AI, from what I know as a programmer, is not feasible. You'd be better off just drawing. I suppose you wouldn't be wasting much time since you're making artworks anyway, but what I'm trying to say is that you'd likely need many years to have enough sample data to train the AI on.
@@goatsfluff That notion may be incorrect. You can have an agnostic model that knows of art, but no specific art. There's a voice model that works somewhat like that that can copy/clone a voice from just 10 seconds of audio. I imagine something like that also exists for art.
I advise to not use any AI text to image generator until we have a fair opt-in system established.
@@FHBStudio Perhaps.
But the thing is, that's probably not going to work very well, is it?
I believe it'd be perfectly morally and legally okay to use AI trained only in your own art. The problem is that you can't guarantee what the AI has 'taken inspiration from' if it's just scraping the Internet for images.
The less material an AI program has, the worse its results tend to be. I haven't heard of the AI you mention, and if that's true, it's horrifying.
Computers are great at many things, but they're generally not at imagining things, is my understanding. AI is not my field; I only have a pretty basic understanding of them.
But I'm pretty sure that if you train an AI with only one thing as input, it's only going to be good at reproducing that input. There are methods to achieving better results, but you typically want a larger pool.
The one thing I disagree with you on is, what's the difference between an agnostic and a non-agnostic model when it comes to art? How can it only 'know of' something? Has it seen the image or not? If it hasn't, I don't think it'd be able to make something similar to a particular artist's piece. And if it has seen it, how do you know it's not just taking the basic image and changing it up slightly, practically speaking?
I have to admit I don't know much about how AIs draw; only how a basic artificial intelligence program can work, with combining stuff it already knows by mashing it together or by changing things slightly outside of what it knows is a good result, in hopes to achieve something better.
As far as my understanding goes, it's still just making a collage, no? And again, how can it be agnostic (only know of a piece and not have the piece available as a resource to copy-paste from), if that's not a stupid question?
@@goatsfluff Well for example, on the agnostic vs gnostic part. AI can depict in very many ways, though at the moment convolution seems to be a front runner on how to make pictures. It's not a learned system and more like a very complex probability machine on a near pixel to pixel level.
But so agnostic I figure would mean it knows what a cat is, and it would know generalized artistic techniques on composition, shading, perspective, various stylistic traits (from past era's, from publicly available images), etc. It can be trained on these things without it needing final art pieces from artists if trained well enough.
Right now, a lot of AI's can be prompted to do art in the style of a specific artist, meaning it's consumed a lot of images that have been tagged with that artist's name.
What I'm talking about is essentially the artist tag being removed and techniques used to be added. Obviously, also not including the artist's artwork. So it'd have samples of types of shading. Samples of types of composition and layout, lighting, etc without it being part of a final piece.
Remember that picture of blindfolded people all holding a different part of an elephant and trying to describe it? An AI would be able to reproduce the elephant from those details. Give it some techniques, a palette, a composition and other techniques, and it can generate an acceptable piece for AI bro's without the need to harm current artists.
I was sort of rambling since I've not given this too much thought yet, but I hope it's been clear enough, in particular that final paragraph.
I'll never understand tech bros and their deranged contempt for actual artists
Who made you the authority on what real art is or isnt? and who made you the guy to decide who is a real artist or whos not?
Well I'm sharing my opinion on the internet. So I guess it's more like casting my vote as an independent thinker. And my vote is that the AI "art" being pumped out isn't worth the server space it's stored on.
I have a foundation degree in Art and Design, a first class Bachelor of Arts degree in Animation. 10 years of experience as an animator, 6 of those years working professionally as a freelance animator. I take a great interest in the history of art, animation and film. I have been in this space longer than the AI bros, and I will remain in this space long after they have lost interest and moved onto some other get-rich-quick prospect.
So what authority do I have? Not the highest authority, but probably more than you.
You could ask that of anyone who has any opinion on anything. Which makes your comment meaningless.
I use ai on my art its uncanny to look at.
I appreciate this video overall, but I think there should be one major correction.
If the software is "trained" off Sam's art, they're not taking "his style". They're taking his art. Directly. The machine can ONLY copy what he does because it has no creative mind; or any other mind. Considering the lack of human element involved, there would be no "fair use" applied to this, either.
Of the many potentially millions of artists stolen from, someone like Sam probably has one of the best court cases to pursue because the thieves stealing from him are practically flashing neon lights and shouting, "Yes, we're stealing from you specifically."
Sam owns the rights to ALL OF THOSE, whereas the "AI bros" hold no rights.
The difficult part would be getting a judge who understands all this new stuff going on. Or, at least a judge who has a really good grip on copyright lawsuits and cares enough to listen.
Well, technically speaking so called AI does not directly coping but rather creates a randomized partially linear interpolation.
Carbon copy in this process may occur only if the prompt will be really close to description text used in training dataset.
It is a lot more nuanced, and unfortunately big corporations will leverage it to ensure that the legalities won't stop their business. They have to force human artists from the market so that they can establish a monopoly on art, and then hike prices for ai art generation.
Great ! Let's stand up for a new fight for our rights... As if we already had enough free time to spend at working art and at manage everyday life itself. Where the f*** is the ethic for those AI "stuffers" ?
How revolting ! Yes indeed.
in my opinion .... whats even the point of making an ai create "art" for you instead of searching for images on the artsites?
i mean whom is so dumb to think they created these images themself? xD
would love to hear the last 2 videos.
Still I think up to this point all arguments are super valid.
I keep saying, all of these AI generators are only good as their training database is good. Take that away and AI generated art is crap, and AI prompters are nothing but losers. I was a bit shy about attacking artists or people using AI art, but honestly except the legal stuff we should also socially/ publicly shame and mock these people.
You're early! Here you go ua-cam.com/video/NQtUa9q04kM/v-deo.html
I can't believe some people call it "homage". How can it be a homage?!?! YOU ARE TAKING SOMEONE'S JOB WITH THEIR STOLEN WORK!
This people are horrible 🤬
I know I should be focused on the AI stuff and how it disrespect the artist in that meme, which it mostly gets the point across nicely.
But I can't stop finding it funny that on the "making porn" section of the meme, only one of the 2 images used in that section is actually pornographic. (Like with all due respect to whoever made this meme.... two girls kissing isn't inherently NSFW.)
Well it's fine that you find it funny i guess, as long as the point itself is still understood.
1) The meme isn't trying to say "this exact image is porn". It's saying "this can clearly be used to make porn - just use your imagination". Change the prompt by a few words and it could become pornographic.
2) if it was a pornographic image used in the meme, it couldn't be shown on SFW places such as this exact youtube video, so it wouldn't be very useful in spreading the message.
3) the point still stands.
I've seen all of your videos regarding AI art (theft), and I couldn't agree more. I'd like to add some unfortunate realities regarding this technology.
Moving forward, most popular artists will sellout to the big AI corporations to have their style "trained" by the AI. Whether it's thousands of dollars or millions of dollars - I see this happening soon. Tech startups have the cash to make this happen so that big corporations can use this art in their workflow. AI prompters will be a fulltime job soon - with artists with a keen visual eye taking the lead. Popular artists will work with AI to train their own art to create comics, concept art and animations (once AI can effectively interpolate in-betweens and keyframes).
Whether it's legal or not - AI art is so disruptive that every industry is currently using it. Content creators, book creators, concept artists, cheap art merchants (who sold ripoff art in the first place for merch) are using it to great profits. The genie is out of the bottle. In the developing world, AI art is BOOMING. Private chats and forums have tens of thousands of prompters exploiting AI art theft to make a living. I don't see this going in a great direction - but it's moving along regardless.
I couldn't have predicted how things unfolded so far, so i have prepared for future events to unfold in an unpredictable way.
Lawsuits are currently raining down on these ai companies and their scrapers www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23558516/ai-art-copyright-stable-diffusion-getty-images-lawsuit
stablediffusionlitigation.com/
So let's just see what happens..
#BanAIArt
AI is an ethically neutral tool and you should stop seething over technological progress.
It's an artist simulator and asset generator, assets that the VAST majority of you people are incapable of handling properly. Just because I can type something into the Google search bar and find an image I like, doesn't make me an artist. You, finding something the AI presents to you, doesn't either, especially with how little control you have over these slot machines. It's highly questionable, how much data is actually saved in these models (especially custom ones) and the amount of people who make money with works the AI does, by typing "art by X" is beyond disgusting. 100% unethical.
I'm not seething over the AI technology, the same way I don't seethe over a crowbar when it is used to break into someone's house.
I will however, call out the man in the balaclava.
AI is ethically neutral. Human beings, who use it, aren't.
yeah.. so if someone uses ai to steal then they stole not the ai, you get that right?
AI is also a helpful tool for many artists. Imagine if SamDoesArts trained his own model on his own work and thus automated a bunch of his own work load. Heck, artists have a LOT of sketches they can use to train an AI and speed up that part of the process too, where they can prompt it to make a sketch in their style and get some poses or compositions they might've not thought of otherwise. This is a bit more difficult, but the step from sketch to line art and from line art to result can also be automated/be used for suggestions. I'm not an AI bro, but I've seen artists do these things and I figure that when used properly it can be really useful.
Sam hasn't done that because he hasn't lost all respect for himself. He loves and respects the process. He has faith in himself as a human. He knows that he can grow, instead of just hashing out endless iterations using his database of past work.
@@HowardWimshurst I make my own artwork for tertiary purposes, not for its own sake, so for example, as components in a game or puzzle or challenge. So for me, AI is very useful because I'm not creating the drawings/digital works for its own sake, but rather as materials for another thing. Sure, it needs to look good, but I'm not so attached to the process that I need to do everything myself. I can touch up the AI generated materials for my own purposes.
Mind you, I don't do this professionally, just for fun. I also don't use existing artwork, only my own. So it is an entirely different context (and thus perspective) from which I approach this. I would like to say I get your perspective, but I probably don't since I'm not a pro. I trust you when you tell me this is an issue so I've continued to do what I had been since before AI: don't just use art without permission.
That being said, I'm sure there's a lot of artists who approach this from a "labor theory of value" point of view which is entirely ridiculous to begin with.
Here's to hoping a market will remain for professional artwork and that legal measures will come into place to restrict usage of art to paid use only.
Imagine if artists could earn from models that use their art as a basis, for example, some amount of money per image generated. Movies earn money from ticket and DVD sales, digital art often gets sold not per unit but per copy at the moment anyway, so that might be an earnings model worth exploring.
Look, I get wanting to see more representation in media, I think it's a valid goal, BUT THAT DOESN'T EXCUSE YOU STEALING PEOPLE'S ARTWORK AND RUINING PEOPLE'S LIVELYHOODS!
yeah it's screwing over one group of professionals to further their agenda, but really they are just trying to find some justification for them to have fun at other's expense.
0:43. Look I get that AI bros can be annoying at times, but it is rather irresponsible to show someone's public social media handle in a video without Censorship or blurring especially when they're being portrayed in a negative light. It's not a good idea and just opens the floodgates for harassment.
I assumed that they wanted to be seen because they are public tweets? Do you think it could cause harrassment? I don't want anyone to get harrassed. Is there a way to censor the video now that it's up on UA-cam?
@@HowardWimshurst Idk if it can be censored anymore. Just maybe put a disclaimer at the beginning
@@HowardWimshurst Uh howard, you can blur the names with a custom blur in the editor. Go to the Channel Content, the video detail, and there should be an editor for the video you selected. Click on Add Blur - Custom Blur and yeah you know the rest.
(This editor isn't shown on phone.)
artists sue ai for making their job too easy, text to image generation accused of making art too accessible and too good
let me guess... You've never painted anything before?
Only a novice could be capable of such ignorance.
I'm not even going to talk about alien eyes and hands, but how can it be "too good" when it's not even capable of representing things in perspective the right way? The models available are solely programmed to be as similar as possible to whatever reference they find and filter from the database. There's no "thinking" at all going on in that latent space. It will 100% take two images with slightly different perpective and mix them so that the perspective becomes confusing. Obviously, to untrained eyes and to those who don't look at it for more than 3 minutes at a time, they'll say "it doesn't matter". Well then it never mattered for them anyway. Probably never will. That's why AI bros don't get high paying clients too. If they were able to choose the right images, that'd be great. They're not. They're as shallow as one can be
@@HowardWimshurst I don't like painting, I prefer 3d stuff
@@joanabug4479 what are you talking about
@@email7919 ?? Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking about. Have you not seen AI works with the elements I referenced - or even the memes around them?
Guys, while you complain, *other artists do things with AI.*
You never scared the ordinary people - you scare your colleagues learn to do it better.
*Learn it yourself.*
wow an ai bro in its natural habitat
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
The thumbnail holds many implications. Are you willing to face the consequences of your opinionated depiction?
i don't know what you mean
Are you admitting to willing pain for someone? That's a disgusting threat if I ever saw one.
@@HowardWimshurst don't listen to them , you are doing god's work .
i am a software developer (I know the basics of ai development) and ai scares me , our current economy is not ready for ai
and art in any society doesn't need ai as it's the expression of humans'love and desires
The fact that you use "bro" as an insult, tells me everything I need to know about you. And I'm really not interested in hearing what you have to say.
Your comment tells me everything I need to know about you!! XD Probably just a butt hurt "AI" art leech..
The fact that you're unwilling to listen to someone's arguments over the usage of the word "bro", tells me everything I need to know about you.
Even if he hadn't used "bro" as an insult, you still wouldn't be interested in hearing what he has to say. But you already know that.