#ai is not the problem but the people are

[werewolf-transgenderism]

keep seeing undergrads on social media saying “oh if a prof has a strict no-AI academic integrity policy that’s a red flag for me because that means they don’t know how to design assignments” like sorry girl but that just sounds like you’ve got a case of sour grapes about not being allowed to cheat with the plagiarism machine that doesn’t know how to evaluate sources and kills the environment! I have a strict no-AI policy because if you use AI to write your essays for a writing course it’s literally plagiarism because you didn’t write it and you’re not learning any of the things the course teaches if you just plug a prompt into the plagiarism generator that kills the environment, hope this helps!

[thevioletcaptain]

i genuinely don't care how good a piece of ai generated art or writing looks on the surface. i don't care if it emulates brush strokes and metaphor in a way indistinguishable from those created by a person.

it is not the product of thoughtful creation. it offers no insights into the creator's life or viewpoint. it has no connection to a moment in time or a place or an attitude. it has no perspective. it has no value.

it's empty, it's hollow, and it exists only to generate clicks (and by extension, ad revenue.)

it's just another revolting symptom of the disease that is late stage capitalism, and it fucking sucks.

[chappellrroan]

repeat after me: ai p*rn/nudes of anyone is disgusting, gross and vile and illegal thing to do. this shouldn't happen in the first place. it does not matter if you hate the person or how privileged or popular they are, this shouldn't happen to anyone.

[bruciemilf]

I’m actually really sad I have to communicate this, but yall should REALLY consume fandom media created by actual, human people, not AI.

[the-modern-typewriter]

Hi

It's been brought to my attention that there are people out there who are sadly plagiarising my work again.

1. This is not okay.

To clarify, while I'm very happy for people to take inspiration from my stories (in the same way you might any book you read from a bookshop), I don't want my work used or reposted without credit.

I'm not going to go into lengths on why it is wrong to plagiarise someone else's writing. I don't think my tumblr post is magically going to change anyone's mind, especially as if you've followed me long enough you know we've done this rodeo before.

So.

2. How to tell when writing is plagiarised

It can be very difficult to tell when something is plagiarised, especially if we have never come across the original work before and have no reason to recognise it.

I don't think it's realistic for everyone to vet everything they come across online for plagiarism, but it's also something I don't see talked about a lot for fiction.

These questions to ask yourself are not foolproof and not applicable to everything. But I think they can be a start.

If the writer has posted more than one story, is there a similarity across them? While writing style can change across an author's different pieces, there is still usually going to be a similar feel across stories if they came from the same person. Writers have voices and quirks and little things that are specific to them. If every piece feels wildly different then it might be coming from different places. This is probably going to come down to gut reaction and instinct in the first instance. But that's okay. Because that gut reaction is just there to make you think twice and maybe investigate more thoroughly.

How much are they posting? Can people churn an extraordinary amount of words out? Yes, sometimes. But...as a general ballpark, no. Writing takes time and effort. If someone is coming out with enormous amounts of writing every day or week or month or whatever, then this can be a hint to look a little closer.

Do you ever see hints of their writing process? Can the writer talk about their characters or what they want out of the story or anything like that? Do they ever post a story organically in response to a request or whatever? Not all writers know in-depth everything about their story or characters or plot, but the main point here is that the finished product is the tip of the iceberg. If someone is a writer than there is more going on beneath the surface of the posted stories.

I hope this helps!

[notbecauseofvictories]

Last post, I promise, but I do think it’s good and important to see local art (defining that term as broadly as possible) but in my experience you have to put up with the little kick of embarrassment you feel witnessing something too earnest, a little clumsy, not polished within an inch of its life or in step with prevailing trends.

I’m thinking of the dance performances I saw this weekend, but also last week’s street festival, where I watched short films and walked through local art exhibits; I’m thinking about Chicago’s outsider art museum, and even the elaborately decorated (ostensibly tacky) yards I see in rural Illinois, but South Carolina and Tennessee before that, and Michigan before that. Maybe I should cast an even broader net: my aunt’s cross stitch, my grand-aunt’s horrible poetry; the art they display at the nearby retirement community and the halfway house too, which comes from the residents.

If you’re not used to leaving space for that little kick, you might turn away or scoff at all this small, fumbling art. But I think there’s value in forcing yourself to look beyond that initial stab of secondhand embarrassment---to actually appreciate the art in front of you as an expression of something deeply human. You don’t have to think it’s objectively good, or even subjectively good. You don’t have to pretend that a local woman with a talent for oils is the next [INSERT FAMOUS ARTIST HERE]. But I do think you have to appreciate it, because otherwise there is no entrance into making art yourself.

And that, more than anything, is worth preserving.

[handweavers]

something that really made me stop and interrogate my inherent knee jerk emotional reaction against ai art was asking myself if there really is a meaningful difference between someone cutting up images and pasting them together to make a collage without citing sources or getting permission for every image they used in the collage, and an ai generating a new image using models trained on existing images without citing courses or getting permission for every image used in the new image - if that's even possible, which i'm coming to understand isn't how the technology even works. like if your fundamental argument against ai is because it doesn't cite sources or ask for permission and change someone's art without their consent, there are a lot of non-ai art forms that involve that, and they've existed for a lot longer than ai has. when faced with this i don't think the answer is "well everyone who has ever made a collage or remixed a song is doing evil plagiarism too" so that leaves us at having to abandon this specific argument against ai for the same reasons.

and we have to ask ourselves, if we were to go after everyone who ever remixed a song or made a collage without permission, who would that benefit exactly? because the average person couldn't afford to sue someone for using their photo in a collage without consent, only corporations could. much like how copyright law has made music companies a tonne of money and serves to protect their interests, i don't think expanding copyright law is the answer here. which is why i don't think arguments against ai that focus on intellectual property are actually helpful, the problem isn't inherent to the technology but rather the economic system we live in.

[spearxwind]

do you guys fucking remember when music artists actually made or commissioned people to make song/album art for them instead of resorting to ugly ass AI slop?

i swear, it's always the artists with more money too. bring me the horizon keeps using AI art even though they basically shit money. incredibly popular artists that can very well pay artists using AI images to reduce costs. actually fucking sucks so bad. it just makes your song stand out way less

[sag-dab-sar]

Clarification: Generative AI does not equal all AI

💭 "Artificial Intelligence"

AI is machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing, and more that I'm not smart enough to know. It can be extremely useful in many different fields and technologies. One of my information & emergency management courses described the usage of AI as being a "human centaur". Part human part machine; meaning AI can assist in all the things we already do and supplement our work by doing what we can't.

💭 Examples of AI Benefits

AI can help advance things in all sorts of fields, here are some examples:

Emergency Healthcare & Disaster Risk X

Disaster Response X

Crisis Resilience Management X

Medical Imaging Technology X

Commercial Flying X

Air Traffic Control X

Railroad Transportation X

Ship Transportation X

Geology X

Water Conservation X

Can AI technology be used maliciously? Yeh. Thats a matter of developing ethics and working to teach people how to see red flags just like people see red flags in already existing technology.

AI isn't evil. Its not the insane sentient shit that wants to kill us in movies. And it is not synonymous with generative AI.

💭 Generative AI

Generative AI does use these technologies, but it uses them unethically. Its scraps data from all art, all writing, all videos, all games, all audio anything it's developers give it access to WITHOUT PERMISSION, which is basically free reign over the internet. Sometimes with certain restrictions, often generative AI engineers—who CAN choose to exclude things—may exclude extremist sites or explicit materials usually using black lists.

AI can create images of real individuals without permission, including revenge porn. Create music using someones voice without their permission and then sell that music. It can spread disinformation faster than it can be fact checked, and create false evidence that our court systems are not ready to handle.

AI bros eat it up without question: "it makes art more accessible" , "it'll make entertainment production cheaper" , "its the future, evolve!!!"

💭 AI is not similar to human thinking

When faced with the argument "a human didn't make it" the come back is "AI learns based on already existing information, which is exactly what humans do when producing art! We ALSO learn from others and see thousands of other artworks"

Lets make something clear: generative AI isn't making anything original. It is true that human beings process all the information we come across. We observe that information, learn from it, process it then ADD our own understanding of the world, our unique lived experiences. Through that information collection, understanding, and our own personalities we then create new original things.

💭 Generative AI doesn't create things: it mimics things

Take an analogy:

Consider an infant unable to talk but old enough to engage with their caregivers, some point in between 6-8 months old.

Mom: a bird flaps its wings to fly!!! *makes a flapping motion with arm and hands*

Infant: *giggles and makes a flapping motion with arms and hands*

The infant does not understand what a bird is, what wings are, or the concept of flight. But she still fully mimicked the flapping of the hands and arms because her mother did it first to show her. She doesn't cognitively understand what on earth any of it means, but she was still able to do it.

In the same way, generative AI is the infant that copies what humans have done— mimicry. Without understanding anything about the works it has stolen.

Its not original, it doesn't have a world view, it doesn't understand emotions that go into the different work it is stealing, it's creations have no meaning, it doesn't have any motivation to create things it only does so because it was told to.

Why read a book someone isn't even bothered to write?

Related videos I find worth a watch

ChatGPT's Huge Problem by Kyle Hill (we don't understand how AI works)

Criticism of Shadiversity's "AI Love Letter" by DeviantRahll

AI Is Ruining the Internet by Drew Gooden

AI vs The Law by Legal Eagle (AI & US Copyright)

AI Voices by Tyler Chou (Short, flash warning)

Dead Internet Theory by Kyle Hill

-Dyslexia, not audio proof read-

[wayfarerxiii]

me blocking every AI "artist" that I come across

[essektheylyss]

I was personally assaulted (honorific) by this essay on ambition. It's very good.

[acuar-io]

I hope when ppl say they hate ai they mean ai art bc the term AI is starting to look bad when in reality we’ve been using AI to help us for a good while now. There are AI that helps people in their lines of work. I think we need to differentiate between those things when we’re talking specifically about ai art

[louiswilliamtomlinsons]

if you support, make or share ai generated images get fucked. it’s wrong in so many levels, and now disgusting people are using it to make revenge porn. this is what we’ve been fearing, and now it’s a reality. fuck you if you’ve contributed to this in any way, shape or form

[uncanny-tranny]

I think it's a mistake to assume that computer generation (so-called AI) is the only manifestation of the exploitation that workers (especially in artistic fields that are already considered lesser) experience. The problems that they experience are, I think, exasperated by computer generation, but it isn't like there were no problems with compensation, theft, or other forms of exploitation.

The problem is the exploitation, and I think sometimes, people lose sight of that in these conversations.

[ihhfhonao3]

AI GENERATED APOLLO JUSTICE HAS HIT GOOGLE IMAGES THIS IS NOT A DRILL PEOPLE

if you can’t tell this is /neg because fuck ai and oh my god it’s UGLAY

This was found after a quick google image search of “Apollo Justice” btw! It’s right there in the daylight!

more deets into why I’m 99% sure this is ai below!

This is the image’s source, coming from a site called “civitai.” Civitai is an ai image sharing and developing site. They say so themselves. (This is the biggest reason please stop here if you don’t wanna hear nerd shit)

The hands are unnatural and off-looking. This is a common problem ai has when generating images. His fingers squash together and others are spread too thin and look too fat.

The uploader has made tons of other ai generated character images, INCLUDING other ace attorney characters like Desirée DeLite and Verity Gavèlle (they used her new name too, so they’re active as well). They even have published guides on how to use advanced coding to create similar pictures. A lot of their images, suspiciously, also use similar backdrops.

In these images, his vest has five buttons. In official art, his vest only has four buttons

His bracelet is literally SQUEEZING his arm my god is there any circulation in his arm at all

The second image especially makes him look like a “handsome” romanceable character in a mobile dating game

His bracelet has a seemingly completely random pattern (leaves??), rather than its usual eye pattern

[toxooz]

I know the answer might be no but still!

Are you ever going to make or add your characters into character ai?

I think it'll be really cool to be able to talk to Ollie, or just talk to the whole gang!!

Also lots of love to your art and comic, I found this comic when I was at my lowest and it really helped me out when I was really sad in depressed! Thank you for making this comic and for doing all of this amazing work that you have put in to your characters and storyline!!!

look 🙏 i do see the possible appeal in that i aint gunna lie one bit and as the creator of these characters the idea of being able to seemingly talk to them sounds pretty cool! BUT i simply cant jump on the AI train to Any extent it just wouldn't sit right with me. I feel like it would unnerve me after a while plus the idea of my OCs being 'off' or having out of character dialogue that's out of my control kinda gives me the willies. It seems like one of those things that are simply too good to be true in a practical sense so any possibility of it happening just goes into uncanny valley like do i wish i could take my ocs out of my brain and talk to them HELL yes ( if i dont get killed first) but that should be an impossible thing to do unless im dreaming or hallucinating or some shit. It's like the AI images ie. i Could just type in a bunch of prompts and shit out like 30000 images of my ocs so that i could look at them but where would the yearning be after that??? The loving sculpting of them in my brain while im trying to capture their essence with my hands into a drawing??? One of the main reasons for my ocs to exist is so that its something for my brain to toy around with and wallow in like a cat in catnip, so the idea of being able to just 'lay everything out' so easily just ruins the whole ' i have mysterious little dudes in my head that i mold around everyday to try and figure them out' aspect if that makes any sense??? PLUS im pretty sure the chat ai basically takes paragraphs from writers so for me to be so abhorrently against ai images yet being on board with chat ai when its ~surprise~ stealing from real writers feels like the most hypocritical ass shit i could do sO long old head 'robots evil' rant short: its a no from me dawg

BUT THAT ASIDE im glad to hear u like wheel bitten!! That means so much to hear and may your life continue to improve and thrive!✨🌟