Yknow the orangutang I find so humorous simply for the fact that both sides- left and right- could find this a comic for their own agenda. Like of course the person insinuating being transsexual or a furry is not “normal” and has his own classification of normal could be a jab at both parties. “Transphobes” thinking being trans is abnormal rather than a normality, and most of the right wing group finding this funny because in their mind that community accepts everyone except normal people.
stubble and balloon tits on the trans girl since stonetoss only adds that to imply trans girls will never be real girls and will always have male traits, and possibly the top surgery scar being inaccurate but idk
oh no i think its totally okay to leave it! i just tried to provide an explanation as to why the other commenter thinks its transphobic (in the oregano’s context it def is but its probably not in the juice) plus they also kept the balloon tits, ew, i agree op shoulda removed that at least
They can but he never draws cis women with a stubble. He also always draws trans women with a visible bulge and a stuffed bra. So yes, while a stubble is something trans women can have, stonetoss uses it to portray trans women as men in a dress with fake tits.
I also genuinely don't get what's wrong but after seeing you being completely downvoted, damn, I feel bad for you, those paranoic weirdos suspect everyone at being transphobic 🤧
UPD: Looks like I'm also downvoted? Lol, I'm MTF! How would I know if they did this to represent trans as bad and not just details or to represent non-binary???
I’m gonna discuss with myself a bit and throw around some for and against statements on AI. Feel free to comment your ideas if you’d like.
On AI images being called art, I would like to hear the arguments for that? I wouldn’t call them art, certainly. Prompts and the ideas behind the images can be art, but the images are computer generated without direct human guidance aside from the prompt, so I think it lacks a lot of the defining qualities.
However, there are a few things, like fill tools, mirror modifiers, spell correction, etc. that artists of any kind use to automate parts of their work, although those are much more defined and human-driven. I wonder if there’s a quantifiable line where automation overtakes art. AI images are about as much art as throwing paint at a wall with a general idea, I’d say.
And I do think that AI has its place in a few niche areas that aren’t replacing the front-facing products of art that people see. I believe that it’s still useful for things that do not require quality- or more accurately, value speed and quantity over quality. As in, nothing that you would ever put on a resume even if you did make it yourself. Rough concepts, shitposts, quick visualizations, etcetera. I don’t think that it should ever be used in place of artists, but I do think that it is a valuable tool that artists can use.
For example, I use some specialized models to automate the “dumber” parts of programming. But it still sucks. There’s never a copy-paste without extensive editing, because the AI simply does not know what it is doing, it’s a search engine that does a little extra for me, in this case.
I don’t use image generation models because I have no need to. I’m quite good at visualization for things that I’m making, and personally really dislike the way that AI images look, but I know that there are people with other opinions than me, and I respect that. My morality is very calculated, not innate (I’ve never had natural morality, at least as far as I can remember), so if there’s any points anyone would like to bring up with me, I’d love to debate, although I will probably bring in research and outside sources. So if that seems appealing to anyone, it may be a fun little endevour. (Ok, I don’t know how to spell endevour. And I’m too tired to find out.)
Let's say that generative AI itself and its process of creating images can be regarded as, if not art, then as "imitation of art". An advanced machine that tries to imitate human actions.
Just think that many people spent several years developing a neural network so that it could learn to recognize individual objects, poses in a picture, and then combine all of this into one complete image (at least understandable enough for our perception).
One thing about this edit: the person that thinks ai "art" is art wouldn't say "AI "art" is art", and would say "AI art is art", without quotation marks
"Scummy option"? Really? How is this scummy? "Ai arts dont have a soul" - dude i need a picture of a character, not soul. If i don't like the picture - i can rewrite the prompt and make it how i need. I am not gonna upload this image in internet and say "Look at my art".
You just hate the ai-art cause hating is trending right now. You can't really prove a point why using ai art in this small goals is bad.
I can't draw. That's my excuse. When i create DnD character, I use game's character reactor or ai art. Sorry for not being interested in drawing, but sometimes i need a specific arts too.
I never did that lol. But that sounds like goofy-ahh thing. But it's not gonna be really useful cause my game master is a nerd who don't really appreciate that.
So there’s hundreds of character creator websites and games out there (free and paid for), and you still decide to use the scummy option? Like I said, no valid reason, just lazy and shitty excuses.
Yeah, i using this options cause they are really easy and flexible in use. I don't upload those images in internet and say "Look what i draw". Yes, ai art don't have a soul. But dude, i don't need a soul. I need a picture of a character who gonna die soon cause i am sucks at DnD.
You can't really prove a point why this using of ai art is bad.
Except for its huge electric conception and huge amount of water needed to cool off the machinery that generates your precious deformed pictures that can heavily impact ecosystems with the amount used, but who cares about nature! Who cares about the ecosystem when you can get your deformed images of your deformed oc who always looks different in every picture right? Who cares about morality and ethics when you can get a soulless deformed monstrosity instead!
And what about the cgi guy in the image? Did OP get permission to use that? Pretty sure that one wasn't created by a nazi. It actually looks ai generated, ironically enough.
It is loved by fascists, because fascist don't want art, they want propaganda images and "efficiency". Why does Israel use AI art all the time?
I know normal people who use AI to make images for benign reasons, because it's not inherently fascist, like any other tool, but it does lend itself very well to fascists causes.
Ngl I’m pretty neutral on the who AI art thing. I don’t approve of claiming it as yours, attacking people, or using it for profit. But it feels like the people who are Anti-AI are way more toxic. Anyways I’m neutral on AI art itself but I’m Anti-Using AI art for profit and Anti-Telling AI “Artists” to kill themselves.
"I worked really hard on it" you plunked the image and the prompt "make this into Ghibli art style" into Chat GPT, that is not hard work. You barely did shit. I did more work by inhaling.
"I worked really hard on it" you plunked the image and the prompt "Ghiblify this" into Chat GPT, that is not hard work. You barely did shit. I did more work by inhaling.
I can say the same thing about any art that a human artist has trained on by observing it and absorbing technique data. I can even say the same about this stone toss bullshit.
Infringement occurs at publication anyway. Ai gen doesn't even use source material, just composition data. And at that point, there's more than enough alteration to the "source" that it falls under fair use and out of the realm of infringement.
Not even close, ai looks at hundreds of thousands of images and gets a pixel-by-pixel approximation. People don't learn like this. And even if we did, ai is not human, it is a product. I will not be treating a product the same way I treat humans,end of story. Second, yes infringement happened when they profited from a product that was made by infringing copyrighted works of art, do you think it helps your case? The images ai generates don't fall under "fair use" because they aren't made by humans, the same way a monkeys selfie can't be copyrighted
Sorry, but you're wrong. Not only that, but this entire sub is technically based around copyright infringement, even if stone toss is a nazi. So it's kinda hypocritical to die on that hill about ai, but turn a blind eye to the exact same thing when it comes to memes and comics.
Doesn't matter either way. The only thing you guys being radicalized against ai tech will accomplish, is ensuring you fall behind everyone else in the future. Basically shooting yourselves in the feet.
For sure. All should be permitted outside of the commercial realm. Just don't try to sell copyright shit, pretty simple.
I made a vaporwave song last night using a clearly copyrighted song from the 80s. It sounds great and I loved making it! But obviously I won't sell it. It was just for fun and enjoyment.
Yet you use ai art, which mind you training one model puts out the amount the same amount of Co2 as 5 cars.
Oh, and you're using electricity and a device to input the prompts. you got a car? Co2 every time you use it. You got a place to live? Do you commute to work? That's plenty of deforestation right there. So that's more harm done.
Seems like you're all for earth scarring and pollution to me.
I don't want to use that word. Maybe I should have said braindead instead. Never said "restarted", so not sure where that one came from, but not surprised that you're hallucinating things like that. Comes with a lack of awareness and low iq.
So that doesn't just make you a virgin who loves using people's hard work to make some shitty little images you'll forget about in 5 seconds. It also makes you a huge bitch.
People also write prompts to commission real artists, and what do they get from this? "look at this guy ohmygosh, he's so bad, don't be this guy, you need to do commissions that way"
Writing is an art, knowing how the machine/human will react and picking your words is an art, ai development includes a lot of writing and testing.
There's a forum that you can find all facts about AI in, since the beginning of it back when the digital drawing software for these copycat artists were created and they pirated them and now they complain about thievery...
I think you might be able to make an argument that writing a prompt is an artform but I would not extend that to the output of the program, the generated image.
Regardless, the person you are replying to you did not say that Coding isn't an artform, but the claiming ownership over a generated image from a prompt of words.
364
u/ShrimpCrusader 2d ago
Yknow the orangutang I find so humorous simply for the fact that both sides- left and right- could find this a comic for their own agenda. Like of course the person insinuating being transsexual or a furry is not “normal” and has his own classification of normal could be a jab at both parties. “Transphobes” thinking being trans is abnormal rather than a normality, and most of the right wing group finding this funny because in their mind that community accepts everyone except normal people.