#and when a human makes ai and that ai makes art

[bluegiragi]

I really don’t care if I’m considered an annoying luddite forever, I will genuinely always hate AI and I’ll think less of you if you use it. ChatGPT, Generative AI, those AI chatbots - all of these things do nothing but rot your brain and make you pathetic in my eyes. In 2025? You’re completely reliant on a product owned by tech billionaires to think for you, write for you, inspire you, in 2025????

“Oh but I only use ___ for ideas/spellcheck/inspiration!!” I kinda don’t care? oh, you’re “only” outsourcing a major part of the creative process that would’ve made your craft unique to you. Writing and creating art has been one of the most intrinsically human activities since the dawn of time, as natural and central to our existence as the creation of the goddamn wheel, and sheer laziness and a culture of instant gratification and entitlement is making swathes of people feel not only justified in outsourcing it but ahead of the curve!!

And genuinely, what is the point of talking to an AI chatbot, since people looove to use my art for it and endlessly make excuses for it. RP exists. Fucking daydreaming exists. You want your favourite blorbo to sext you, there’s literally thousands of xreader fic out there. And if it isn’t, write it yourself! What does a computer’s best approximation of a fictional character do that a human author couldn’t do a thousand times better. Be at your beck and call, probably, but what kind of creative fulfilment is that? What scratch is that itching? What is it but an entirely cyclical ourobouros feeding into your own validation?

I mean, for Christ sakes there are people using ChatGPT as therapists now, lauding it for how it’s better than any human therapist out there because it “empathises”, and no one ever likes to bring up how ChatGPT very notably isn’t an accurate source of information, and often just one that lives for your approval. Bad habits? Eh, what are you talking about, ChatGPT told me it’s fine, because it’s entire existence is to keep you using it longer and facing any hard truths or encountering any real life hard times when it comes to your mental health journey would stop that!

I just don’t get it. Every single one of these people who use these shitty AIs have a favourite book or movie or song, and they are doing nothing by feeding into this hype but ensuring human originality and sincere passion will never be rewarded again. How cute! You turned that photo of you and your boyfriend into ghibli style. I bet Hayao Miyazaki, famously anti-war and pro-environmentalist who instills in all his movies a lifelong dedication to the idea that humanity’s strongest ally is always itself, is so happy that your request and millions of others probably dried up a small ocean’s worth of water, and is only stamping out opportunities for artists everywhere, who could’ve all grown up to be another Miyazaki. Thanks, guys. Great job all round.

[zenoxonslibrary]

Entire Transcript of "This Anime is Offensive by Scamboli Reviews":

The internet is quite pissed by this. This anime was shot, scripted in AI, generated by Corridor Digital. You know those guys? They did real-life Minecraft, Dark Souls, Halo, Mario—they even showed a real live woman at some point. Corridor got their hands on Stable Diffusion, it's this AI that… I don't know, does AI? But it was sloppy, so they clashed heads, did research, and two months later, we got an eight-minute-long short film produced by people who never had to pick up a pen. Imagine RDC getting their hands on this—the kids that will run around doing crazy sketches. Never before has animation been more accessible to the average person. And never before has that extremely specific demographic of white dudes that are extremely active on Twitter, with thick-ribbed glasses and beards, been more angry. And that… that made me so mad on so many levels.

Here's the thing: on one hand, I think AI is terrifying, and I want it to go away. On the other, I know that it won't go away and that screaming at excited nerds will do absolutely nothing. I'm not an AI technician, nor am I extremely smart, but God put me on this Earth to talk about things I know nothing about. I would like to discuss why people are angry, who's angry, and share my perspective on this whole ordeal. And to do that, we're gonna have to watch a video made by Mother's Basement.

Mother's Basement hates this. "I am insulted, and so should you." Jeff is an anime YouTuber that has been on the platform long before I have. He's part of a small group of creators who pioneered this niche to where it is today. In his video, Jeff makes some very valid points about the grim future that could lie ahead of AI… and zero good points about what Corridor has to do with that. Like, this dude for real said: "This video? It's not art. Not." Jeff will not call this video art. In fact, he doesn't consider anything AI-generated to be art. And I actually agree with that last part. Art is an expression of human creativity. As soon as a machine does the walking, you're already lost. Millions of photos—regardless of copyright or if the author likes it—are used to train these AI. They teach it to guess which colors and shapes go where on a grainy image. Not only is this overpowered as hell, but it, by itself, is devoid of creativity, which is derived from our personal experiences and biases. Jeff, I'm with you 100% when you say this… but you have to stop yourself from… from… ugh, talking.

If you're gonna be out—I know some dipstick will jump down to the comments to say—"The only difference between an AI reproducing an art style and a human artist doing it is the time it takes." Now, wait a minute, hold on. I just don't think this is a very well-coded comment. What you said is not funny enough to be that rude. If you're gonna be a dick, hide it with as much humor as possible, like what I'm doing.

There's a part of this video where he's like, "If they were interested in making something with even a shred of artistic legitimacy, they could have hired an artist or two to draw up the model sheets their AI would use. But instead, they just went and stole a bunch of frames from Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust and trained their computer." Someone better call the cops! This is where anime YouTubers do our job—we steal frames. We just take clips of anime and talk over them. But Jeff, you and I are artists. We transform the work we talk about; we reshape it with the aid of our personal experiences. I don't think you can be on the side of anime abridged and critique AMVs but flip as soon as someone uses software that digitally collages that same content.

To say that Corridor made something without a shred of artistic legitimacy is disingenuous. This team had a vision they wanted to achieve, so Corridor problem-solved. They combined the discoveries of multiple users to get this AI looking the way they wanted. They had to tune the hell out of it, write a short film, voice act, normal act, buy costumes, teach the AI what they look like, turn those photos into anime images, pop open Unreal Engine to set up a bajillion cameras with different angles so they could superimpose their animated bodies onto a new environment. And even then, they had to add so many things in post. Storytelling, acting, editing, videography—if you don't think the convergence of all these skills is art, then I don't value your opinion on this topic.

And then there's those sassy fingers. I don't like those sassy fingers. And B, how come every time you call this video an anime, you got to use air quotes? "Anime" looks like ass. You made a video called Avatar is an Anime. "Avatar is an anime?" Fight me. You of all people should not be doing the sassy fingers.

In that video, he made the point that anime is a movement—an artistic movement within the medium of animation, not unlike post-modernism or the French New Wave in film. Everything that makes anime anime—the big-eyed aesthetic, the over-the-top action, the mature themes, the overt sexuality—is a part of that movement. The line between anime and not anime is gray. It doesn't even have to be hand-drawn or made in Japan anymore. So if it looks like anime, sounds like anime, and is written like an anime, what's stopping it from being anime?

There's this video of Aaron Blaise, a dude who animates for Disney, reacting to Corridor's behind-the-scenes. Numerous times, he stops the video and points out, "Yo, that's just like how we made Snow White." "No, it's not too different than what we did on Beauty and the Beast." "We shot reference a lot." AI doesn't write the script, make a story, or rotoscope itself. This is an art form—an art form that is very distinct from all other animation we've seen. If you want to call it animation, it's constantly rotoscoped. It has some jank messed-up hands, and yeah, it's got the hands garbled, monster faces, and not to mention their six-fingered thumbnail. Okay, I don't think this will replace animators in the same way that CGI didn't replace animators. But who knows?

Tech is evil. Recently, I visited ChatGPT for the first time, and within 15 minutes, it had quoted Biggie Smalls saying, "I'm slamming like a dungeon dragon, coming around the corner with the gangster lean." Biggie Smalls has never said that. So then I asked it to write the description of a pickle but as a Dark Souls 3 item: "Era, this pickle has withstood the test of time. Once used as a means of preserving food, it now serves as a reminder of the fleeting nature of life. Consume it to restore a small amount of health, but beware the potential side effects of consuming a food item of unknown age and origin." Yeah, in about five years, these things are replacing me.

When I talk about AI, I don't want anyone to be under the impression that I don't sympathize with everyone whose jobs are in jeopardy. I'm scared as hell. But this situation constantly reminds me of the people that freaked out over the Industrial Revolution in 19th-century Britain. Weavers and textile workers were way more important. It could take years to cultivate the skills necessary to weave with the best of them, and it could take several hours to produce very little cloth using a loom. Then some guy is like, "Hey, why pay people when machine work free?" The world agreed. Automated loom factories started popping up around the 1800s. They continued to get more and more badass, and instead of using a single skilled worker on one machine, suddenly one guy could oversee a bunch at once. Now, every once in a while, the machines would eat a woman or small child, but that didn't stop anyone from using them. This is also how our politicians work.

But think back to those weavers—the people who worked for years doing this stuff by hand. They were sort of phased into obsolescence. Would they just take that? No. A group that would be known as the Luddites began burning down factories and destroying knitting frames in protest. This movement was quickly adopted all across England until, finally, the government heard the voices of the people, saw the pain they were in, and… chopped their heads off. (It just says "executed" here, so that's an artistic change by me. I was really proud to find this in the newspaper clipping.) By 1813, the Luddites had faded into history. That's pretty messed up, right?

On the flip side, look at how painters first responded to photography. Paul Delaroche was this hugely influential artist in the 19th century. He has this hard-ass quote after he was allegedly shown a photograph: "From today, painting is dead." We know that photography didn't kill art. There were even artists at the time who were excited by the idea: "We can use the strengths of both mediums to improve painting rather than replace it." But the feeling that technology will one day automate your job and push your skills into obsolescence existed nonetheless. We've seen it happen. It's very hard to tell who's going to be the weavers and who's going to be the painters in this situation. Only the future knows for sure.

I agree with Mother's Basement on a lot of fronts. A really good point he makes is that currently, this AI stuff can't be copyrighted. You can even take a frame from the Corridor video and sell merch with it. As long as the AI is trained on material you don't own, it's not yours. But what if a big studio hires technicians and artists to train AI with material they own? That gives studios a massive advantage over the little guys who can't afford that. And if it gets good enough, workers could even be phased out if they go on strike because, guess what? "We can make up your workload until you accept a lower wage." There are so many ways AI can benefit humanity—conversely, an equal amount of ways it can tear us apart.

Jeff, what the hell does this have to do with Corridor Digital? It seems like the internet has some misplaced aggression. This is a very emotive topic, so I can understand why people might get angry with Corridor at first glance. "Did we just change animation forever? Uh, I sure hope not." But Jeff is tripping when hearing anything Corridor says. He takes the most sinister, non-charitable interpretation every time.

Exhibit A: When I first watched the video, Jeff had me thinking, "Oh, Corridor maybe paid a subscription service for an AI and is charging people for tutorials on how to use it. That's kind of messed up if they're using copyrighted material, which is what will happen if the technology and processes Corridor are advertising—and apparently tutorializing behind the paywall on their website—do take off." This is false. First off, Corridor is using three open-source software to achieve this effect. They don't get money if you use it. Jeff never mentions that. So the "technology and processes Corridor are advertising"—stating it had me confused—but what Corridor did was push a new technique using the software. They got the animations to flicker less and got the AI to stop changing styles constantly. Then they recorded an hour-long tutorial that teaches you how to replicate that same effect.

"One thing I want to talk about is the democratization of this process. This is a situation here where we're looking at a piece of software that's free, that anyone has access to—a process here that we're sharing openly with everyone because everyone's openly shared knowledge with us." But how is it democratizing animation if the tutorial is behind a paywall? Well, I went and made an account. Oh my god, it's free! This long-ass tutorial is free. If you're only after their technique, you can plug in your card number, get 15 days of free usage on their website, and bail. Once we have the hour-long tutorial, it's not really an ad for that—more so the exclusive content on their site if you decide to stay. But Mother's Basement said—wasn't lying per se, but that's pretty scummy and dishonest in my opinion.

Dishonest is the perfect word. Exhibit B: Mother's Basement is being dishonest when he says, "They're clearly pitching this as a disruption to animation, not VFX." Not VFX? So you also say they're advertising how to cut animators out of animation? Let me just say, dog, that is your pitch. Their pitch is literally at the start of your video: "Wouldn't it be cool if you could film yourself and easily turn into anything you want, like a cartoon character?" Over and over and over, Corridor drives home the idea of giving the little guys—the creatives, groups like Corridor—the ability to make animated stuff. Regardless of what you speculate will happen in the future, this is what they're advertising. This is the pitch.

"And people can experiment and improve upon the process, helping all of us get better. That's great. I love that idea—sharing the knowledge. That's what it's all about." How can you, on one hand, claim they're trying to cut animators out of animation and, on the other, clown them for trying to make it more accessible—for them wanting to democratize animation? See, he's doing the fingers again. You can't have both.

Also, Jeff hates black babies. Maybe even Chinese ones too. That's what I took away from the video. That was a joke. Jeff loves all babies. But do you see how I can infer something, construct a straw man, and make that the thing people attack? Sure, you feel they're advertising how to replace animators and disrupt the world of animation, but what about their words and actions leads you to think that's their intent? Otherwise, you're just kind of… Exhibit C-minus.

From the one and a half million views in three days and tens of thousands of likes on that video, we can also see that the tech is already good enough to satisfy a sizable group of people with little to no taste. Weird statement, right? If you clicked like on this video, you have little to no taste. It's not like I don't know AI is cool and people just want to see it. I got a lot going on, okay? I don't need an anime YouTuber—the pinnacle of human performance—telling me I have no taste because I think a video is interesting.

Continuing on that track, Jeff goes on to say, "And knowing what… in terms of visual… Tokyo Revengers… it's entirely possible that studios will get away with it." And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this guy bought and paid for by Record of Ragnarok? No offense, but who gives a damn what you think about people's tastes? You endorsed an anime that isn't animated. In case you're not aware, Record of Ragnarok is an anime that was received terribly by fans for how poorly animated it was. One of the fights is a straight-up slideshow. Jeff was paid to do a reaction video to promote the anime.

"Freaking orbital laser-level attacks! I love it! Wow! Mid! I love mid! Mid! Yes! Whoa!" Jeff, in retrospect, realized the taste thing was a very stupid thing to say and had to issue a retraction in the comments.

My point is, if you're going to get so emotional over a topic that you're lashing out at people who don't deserve it, maybe it's time to take a step back. Jeff is mad—so mad—like a lot of people out there. And emotional investment is a great way to construct bad arguments to support your feelings. And they throw very valid speculations about what a future with this technology could look like, but when it comes to what the hell Corridor Digital has to do with it all, you see dishonest arguments, straw men, and this clip that he, for some reason, thought was a gotcha.

Because when it comes to these AI tools: "Hey, sure, it makes it easier to copy people's style. So somebody just rips out somebody's style—call them out and be like, 'You rip that person off! Screw you!'" So then we went and we took a bunch of frames from Vampire Hunter D. Of course. Am I the only one who had to rewatch that to see what point he was making? Nico says, "Let people know whose style you're using," and the next clip is Nico saying which style he's using for the AI. Doesn't this seem perfectly consistent with what he just said? Would shift your perception of things? And it's like, "Aha! Caught red-handed!" Somehow.

I don't think people are wrong to be scared or upset at someone, but I think the internet has a fat case of misplaced aggression. Some dudes tweaking software to make AI mildly more presentable aren't what we should be directing our attention at. I think exploring how we can work alongside and legislate this stuff is… I want a future where art coexists with AI in the same way photography did with painting. And I am positive that right here, right now, there is some way we can take that first step.

"We need an active, aggressive counterculture that pushes back against this nonsense wherever it rears its ugly head. AI anime needs to become as dirty a word as NFT." Your solution is to make it cringe? "We will stop AI from stealing our jobs by bitching about it." The sales volume of NFTs has gone up. How is this your solution?

There's a misconception on the internet that bitching about things somehow either changes people's minds or makes the problem disappear. Let me give you an example. When Nike put out an ad endorsing Colin Kaepernick's activism, people felt the type of way. All across the U.S., men and women thought to themselves, "I'm gonna burn every damn Kaepernick jersey I got!" These were our intellectuals, our leaders. Many joined the cause to be just like them and burned their Nike products to send a message. Nike sales changed dramatically, and the company's value went… up by six billion dollars. The movement, which aimed to be as flashy as possible, actually ended up being a phenomenal advertisement. And a lot of people were just like, "Yep… I wish I had my Nike stuff back."

More recently, there's the Hogwarts Legacy boycott. Hogwarts Legacy is this game set in the Harry Potter universe. Now, the author of Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling, had nothing to do with the production, but she does receive royalties. And J.K. Rowling is guilty of transphobia, so she's dead in the eyes of the public. People repulsed by her words decide to boycott the video game as to not support her even a little bit. Fair enough. But boycotting the game wasn't enough. It was these people's responsibility to boycott for you. Tweets rained down upon any streamer caught showing interest in the game. A VTuber was bullied to tears for playing. Hell, people were harassed and picked on by rabid activists. It didn't matter if you were famous; it didn't matter if you weren't. The internet decided that buying this game was an act of hate, and it was their job to stop it. The game just outsold Elden Ring. Turns out, bitching online is a great advertisement for the thing you hate.

I can't be the only one who didn't know or care about this game until the activism. Relax and take notes: "Get the aggressive counterculture to curb the sales of Hogwarts Legacy." No. It did, however, make people feel like they're part of a movement. It was a quick, free placebo for change. It's easy to get behind a movement without thinking of how you're perceived by outside groups because I promise, in both of these cases, people who didn't immediately agree looked at the stuff being posted and thought to themselves, "Okay…" and kept it pushing.

This is exactly what I think when I see someone post a picture of themselves having fun with AI and see those tweets that are like, "This is just you stealing from artists. It's lazy. Stolen from artists that deserve to get paid. Disappointed in you." Do you think anyone has ever read one of these types of tweets and thought, "You know what? You guys are right"? No. "I just want to see how I would look as an anime character. I'm not making merch. It's cool." AI is cool to play with, so people are going to play with it—just as being a wizard is kind of cool. I'll just do it in private if you're gonna yell at me.

Statements like these are great for people who already agree with you, but outsiders are the ones you want. And picking odd fights like these is a terrible way to recruit outsiders. Attacking Corridor is not the way. The march of technology lies not in the hands of YouTubers but in the audience that consumes that media and the laws that govern it. If there's a market for it, it will exist. Simple as that. There's nothing we can do to stop people from refining AI. Right now, thousands of people are tinkering away, trying to find the next foothold towards making the stuff look good. Corridor's video was only possible because of the thousands before them.

So the aim isn't to stigmatize innovating with AI. The cat's out of the bag. The aim isn't to pray people have high enough standards to not like the stuff. I'm sorry, Jeff. The aim is to create a world that coexists with AI. What laws can we enact that will protect animators? What are some general practices that the average person can agree on? I don't have all the answers. I don't even have a good amount of answers, but here's a start:

Corridor should have credited Vampire Hunter D on the main video. I don't think they made an attempt to obfuscate where they got the style. In fact, the behind-the-scenes video credits Vampire Hunter D for the style multiple times. It has damn near the same amount of views as the original. But a good practice to always have is saying, "This AI was trained on images from X." It gives the average person a better idea of what they're looking at, and a quick disclaimer like that on the start would help promote the original works even more.

Here's another one: Jeff was very, very doomer about that copyright stuff. If big studios hire people to train AI on content they own, and indie studios can't afford to do so, that's unfair. True. But since we're in the land of make-believe, let me put something out there: What if someone trains an AI on all the public domain stuff out there? I use public domain stuff for my videos all the time. This way, artists could even opt in instead of having their works taken. I have a friend who knows artists who would like to do something like that. Indie studios can then use this AI and feed it images that they created to replicate that style. And boom—ethical and legal. I don't know if the law would allow you to retain copyright, and I'm not going to learn, but that's kind of how sampling public domain music works, so I figured it'd be fine.

That brings us to the end. I'm not an animator nor a lawyer, so I don't have anything groundbreaking to bring to the table. But if you want to know my opinion, I think a lot of people are freaking themselves out for no reason. The whole "I oppose this thing, so I must attack anything related to it" mentality is silly. If that's how things worked, the vegans running around throwing period blood at butcher trucks and getting run over would have the meat industry on the ropes. That's how I see Jeff saying, "We need an active and aggressive counterculture that opposes AI anime wherever it rears its head." He thinks he's Rosa, but like… Jeff, I love animation, and I respect artists. They should be getting paid more and don't deserve to have their jobs threatened. I just don't see Corridor getting in the way of either of those two things, and there are actual animators that share that feeling.

Jeff deserves respect. He's an OG. If you're interested, check out his original video. I could chop and skew the stuff he's saying—you wouldn't know. But more importantly, subscribe to me. I don't make stuff like this often. I'm gonna be honest—I probably never will again. But anime, manga—hey, uh, where are you going? Don't leave me yet. Please subscribe. Subscribe.

ai generated images make me increasingly sad and tired the more i see them in more and more casual contexts. i dont know how to explain, but it just fills the world with a bunch of nothing. no matter how visually stunning the pictures might be, there's nothing behind it for me. no dedication, no emotions, no feelings, no hard work or creativity, nothing i can truly think about, admire or enjoy. i dont think thats how art is supposed to be

[violetasteracademic]

Generative AI Can Fuck Itself

I am one of the AO3 authors (along with all of my friends) who had their work stolen and fed into a dataset to be sold to the highest bidder for training generative AI models.

I feel angry. I feel violated. I feel devastated. I cannot express enough that if you still do not understand the damage that generative AI art and writing has on our planet, our society, and our artists, I don't know what else there is to say. How do you convince a human being to care more about another humankinds ability to create than their personal need to consume?

Generative AI, when it comes to art, has one goal and one goal only. To steal from artists and reduce the dollar value of their work to zero. To create databases of stolen work that can produce work faster and cheaper than the centuries of human creation those databases are built on. If that isn't enough for you to put away Chatgpt, Midgard, ect ect (which, dear god, please let that be enough), please consider taking time to review MIT's research on the environmental impacts of AI here. The UNEP is also gathering data and has predicted that AI infrastructure may soon outpace the water consumption of entire countries like Denmark.

This is all in the name of degrading, devaluing, and erasing artists in a society that perpetually tries to convince us that our work is worth nothing, and that making a living off of our contributions to the world is some unattainable privilege over an inalienable right.

The theft of the work of fic writers is exceptionally insidious because we have no rights. We enter into a contract while writing fic- We do not own the rights to the work. Making money, asking for money, or exchanging any kind of commercial trade with our written fanfiction is highly illegal, completely immoral, and puts the ability to even write and share fanfiction at risk. And still, we write for the community. We pour our hearts out, give up thousands of hours, and passionately dedicate time that we know we will never and can never be paid for, all for the community, the pursuit of storytelling, and human connection.

We now live in a world where the artist creating their work are aware it is illegal for it to be sold, and contribute anyway, only for bots to come in and scrape it so it can be sold to teach AI databases how to reproduce our work.

At this time, I have locked my fics to allow them only to be read by registered users. It's not a perfect solution, but it appears to be the only thing I can do to make even a feeble attempt at protecting my work. I am devastated to do this, as I know many of my readers are guests. But right now it is between that or removing my work and not continuing to post at all. If you don't have an account, you can easily request one here. Please support the writers making these difficult decisions at this time. Many of us are coping with an extreme violation, while wanting to do everything we can to prevent the theft of our work in the future and make life harder for the robots, even if only a little.

Please support human work. Please don't give up on the fight for an artists right to exist and make a living. Please try to fight against the matrix of consumerism and bring humanity, empathy, and the time required to create back into the arts.

To anyone else who had their work stolen, I am so sorry and sending you lots of love. Please show your favorite AO3 authors a little extra support today.

[missmisnomer]

Just encountered something that made me so viscerally mad I had to stop everything I was doing and scream about it into the void (you are the void, tumblr, thank you for your time)

Ever seen that little test tube icon at the top of your Google search? That's Search Labs.

This led me to reading about all the "experiments" they have going on and OH BOY, this is the one that got me mad enough to actually leave feedback (bear in mind I like NEVER leave comments or reviews on things so you know it's bad)

Of all the "experiments" they are launching with their Search Labs, this one is the most egregiously transparent attempt to capitalize on the human brain's superiority over a computer's.

I see what they are doing.

"Look at these auto generated images and try your best to tell us what you think the original prompt is! Teehee, isn't this a fun test? Don't you want to have fun?? Play our game, uwu".

This is about as blatant as you can get: they want to train their Ai to get better at generating its frankly often garbage results by using real people to tell it how it could have done better.

My guess as to why Google is even doing this: ◽️Let’s say you use of one of Google's programs to generate an image based on your own personal written prompt (I know YOU wouldn't, fair tumblr user, but stay with me here)

◽️You are subsequently frustrated at the slop Google generated for you, and select a button that says something along the lines of "I am not satisfied with this result".

◽️This auto-triggers something on Google's end, which I assume captures this response along with the image it is attached to.

◽️Now, they can put that picture in front of thousands of unwitting people who can tell Google EXACTLY what "prompt" they associate with that image instead. Exactly the words that it SHOULD be tagged with.

These pieces of ai "art" are NOT good, let me make that clear. What financial benefit would Google have to present a panel of testers with perfectly generated images? To make this game in the first place? The only way ai can advance is when humans tell it what it did wrong. Because the computer doesn't fucking know what a raven vs a writing-desk is. It needs us to give it the words to think. Poor baby gets confused when we are vague. :(

All this under the guise of a cutesy little "test". A "game".

This is not fun, and it is extremely scummy. Do better Google. Be better. I'm attaching some screenshots of the first "level" so you too can enjoy the art of prompting!!! (she says with so much dry sarcasm the Deserts of Arrakis spontaneously turn into an ocean)

And to have the audacity to show the actual real pieces of art made by real artists that they trained this stupid machine with. Fuck entirely off.

[demadogs]

some of you need to hate ai way more than you currently do

[somebirdortheother]

Honestly as someone whose profession is in mathematical algorithms, Operations Research, Machine Learning… you know things that are lumped with AI, it really grinds my gears that “AI” everyone got enamoured with is just LLMs. People just cannot get enough of a really good autocomplete and are willing to bypass their critical reasoning, writing, creating art abilities just because tools like ChatGPT make things easier for them. This isn’t AI, there is no Intelligence found anywhere there.

There are legitimately amazing use cases for AI that actually augment what we people are capable of - like, finding tumours in many many medical images more precisely than people can, identification of potential new medications, predicting where poachers will be in order to save endangered animals and apprehend those criminals (a real project someone in my department successfully delivered!), so many good things…

But no, what sells is GenAI.

Someone on LinkedIn posted yesterday about how they asked ChatGPT to create a map of Europe and it did… almost well, except for things like comically wrong country names in a few places and not-quite accurate borders. And that was supposed to be extremely impressive.

My question to that is WHY?! Why use ChatGPT for this when one could simply search for a map, faster and significantly more accurately?

Is that in general we as humans are heading? A place where simply thinking and basic reasoning are for the tools, and we do what?

Gen AI is not AI, it’s just laziness. But I think it does offer up a mirror into the lengths people would go to in order to avoid doing the pesky thinking and creating 😒

[strawberry-pretzels]

individuality is becoming obsolete. you're telling me we can't fucking write an email anymore?? we can't write 3 goddamn paragraphs to save our lives??? we are speeding up the death of our species to diminish the value of what makes us alive in the first place. YES i am talking about generative ai. FUCK you if you can't go one wretched day- hell, if you can't even go one stupid essay without using ai, you are soullessness personified. you are diluting the best parts of human creation, dumbing it down to slop for the sake of convenience.

[vera-vera-vera-lynn]

Need to rant because this post ignited something beastly inside me :P

|| ๋࣭⭑

As a philosophy major, seeing that ad actually drove me fucking nuts, because I know a lot of people in my school's humanities department (as well as some in the Philosophy course itself) would actually use it.

In my city Philosophy is already considered something of a dying humanities major as it doesn't hold as much attractive options as, say, Communications, Psychology, or Political Science—so barely anyone even takes it seriously anymore. In fact, my university came so goddamn close to shutting down the Philo course entirely.

Our department's barely holding it together, and seeing other humanities majors actively thriving despite taking advantage of something like this is such a huge slap to the face.

We have maybe 15–20 students left in the entire programme, and most of them didn't even choose Philo out of genuine interest—they either just got redirected here, or decided on it as a last-minute resort. It's become such a fucking joke what with how people began seeing it as a dumping ground for has-beens and do-no-betters. It's treated as the goddamn lobby for rejects and undecideds; or worse yet, some will stay for a month to a year, only to dip out at the end when they realise how unaligned they actually are with the course. Bitch; if you wanted an easy way out, why are you here?

There's only one constant professor teaching every subject across every year level. And I say the word constant loosely—because while he technically holds the position, he's also our adviser, a.k.a. our last line of defense anytime the department's on the chopping block. The catch? He's part-time. That man is barely hanging on himself, with multiple teaching gigs at other universities; which means we only get scraps of his time, and even then, he's already usually burnt out. He's not just underpaid. The man's old, overextended, and chronically tired. The worst part? He's good. He's actually a damn good philosopher and an even better teacher. If we lose him, it's fucking over. An algorithm isn't going to help you or your professor. You're silencing the very people who've helped you develop your critical thinking skills.

The people here tend to have this preconceived notion that Philosophy is something of a 'high-brow art'—hence the lack of engagement. This is utter bullshit, by the way, because that's just double-edged classism. The whole point of it is critical access to thought—not intellectual gatekeeping. Call me petty and salty for this but this is one of the reasons why I hate it when bitches say shit like 'I'm too small-brained for this'—like, no. You're not. The fact that you're even recognising your own limitations is already a huge move in itself. You just need to put in the goddamn effort.

There's zero funding for conferences or outreach unless we tie ourselves to other, more 'useful' disciplines (our dean does what she can, but God, it's nowhere near enough; and I know damn well what our department is capable of given how much favouritism Psych and PolSci gets).

As the VP of our org, it's humiliating to have to cosplay as other departments just to get a foot in the door. And the worst part is: admin eats this shit up. They love to say things like relevance and fucking real-world application while simultaneously gutting any space we might’ve had to show how philosophy is deeply relevant, precisely because it questions the frameworks everyone else takes for granted.

Don't even get me started on AI. Half the 'cutting-edge' discourse around machine ethics, bias, decision-making, sentience, consciousness, language—all of it—is stolen straight out of philosophy. Hell, some of these LLMs are trained on archives of our papers and books. But none of y'all are hiring philosophers. No one's inviting us to panels unless we're there to play the silly widdle ethics people and make everything sound profound for five minutes before the principal takes back the mic. We're useful enough to train the machine. We're relevant enough to pad your datasets. But God motherfucking forbid you actually pay a specialist to teach or contextualise those ideas.

I felt worse rereading all the points I made considering my dad just piped in and essentially confirmed what I already knew. The bastard saw me typing and fucking laughed, saying it's just not profitable anymore. At one point in history Philosophy was regarded as the greatest of all sciences. Then religion commodified it, and soon after that technology virtually killed it. Who needs it when the people most rewarded for thinking are the ones who do it loudest, fastest, and with just enough fake nuance to sound profound in under sixty seconds?

Genuinely, from the bottom of my heart, fuck AI.

I've been begging my professor to change our output formats for these very reasons. I told him to give all of these fucking essays a break because theoretical knowledge isn't going to solve everything. Nobody gives a shit about deep dive papers on Kant when they can't even pay their rent, much less have the energy for critical theory after working a shift at some minimum-wage job.

I suppose the biggest issue about Philosophy is that it isn't as 'practical' as other subjects are. The main problem with its presence in the modern world is that it's mostly just those writing about things that won't pay the bills, won't solve the climate crisis, and sure as hell won't put food on the table. We're not necessarily equipping ourselves to survive in the world as it is right now.

But neither are we reaching anyone like this, nor are we making any true progress no matter how wonderfully the concept of AI services is presented. We are actually losing relevance in real time. We're sitting on centuries of intellectual legacy and presenting it like goddamn expired toast. Philosophy was revered for its ability to interrogate meaning and question the frameworks that govern society. And now philosophers are being asked to hand its intellectual power over to algorithms and systems that don't even feel.

People forget that that's the real kicker: companies want philosophy specialists to 'work with' AI, but what in the giggling goddamn fuck does that even mean?

Some of y'all say we're supposed to fix AI with the same academia we've spent years honing. But instead of doing the deep, reflective work philosophy was built on, we're now just handing over centuries of intellectual labour, programming our thoughts into a machine, and hoping this utter parasite of a system works. Yes, artificial intelligence may have its benefits—but that doesn't take away the fact that you're letting automatons belittle all the history and all the hard work that built the foundations of human understanding.

Stop pretending like AI can actually solve problems. They don't. They can't. They can get as humanlike as they can, they can mimic our speech and our processes to sharper degrees, but at the end of the day they're soulless machines. They don't have the same capabilities you or I do. Stop it. Just stop.

this ad wants to hire philosophy specialists to train their AI.

in philosophy.

they want to train the machine that can't think on the subject that's literally thinking about thinking.

someone smarter than me write in the comments how the classical philosophers are freaking out in the afterlife

(diogenes brandishing a texting autocomplete feature: Behold, a man!)

[vhsc1ty]

as gen ai gets better and more awful for the environment and more awful for artists i think it's interesting how people are changing their art to be more story-focused and personal. obviously nobody should have to change ANYTHING about their art because of ai but it is something im noticing more

[arson-jellyfish69]

I love the internet, there is a neigh endless amount of tutorials and references from which I can learn art, from the fundamentals to more complex things like perspective, anatomy and the like

But I fucking hate the internet because All these fucking companies are just using ai to make shitty slop and people eat it up instead of making use of the vast resources it provides, seriously every day I log on here I lose more and more of my faith in humanity

[woafofbread]

New Year’s resolution is to post more so I’m gonna start off with critiquing generative AI.

My dad sent me this for new years. Obviously he didn’t know it was Ai and I didn’t immediately know for sure but I got the feeling. The feeling that’s like “hey something is off about this.” I wanted to talk about the process of recognition that I go through as an artist when I see something made by Ai because a lot of the time at first glance nothing seems wrong.

First thing that I notice is how after 2025 there something that is clearly supposed to be an exclamation point but it’s too small and incomplete. This immediately made me realize for sure that it’s Ai. Ai is usually bad at doing text and it would be pretty easy for a human to fix.

Then I see the rest of the inconsistencies. The n in new is disconnected. There is a stray line coming out of the h in happy. Snoopy’s hands: one has a different line weight and the other has a finger that’s way too small. The stray little lines on Snoopy’s mouth. Woodstock only having one eye brow. Then this part is debatable since it is clearly trying to replicate the style of the CGI Peanuts movie, but Snoopy’s eyes being different sizes bothers me. The ear which I didn’t even circle is probably trying to replicate the loosely colored in ears in the comic strip, but in the CGI version it’s fully colored in. The golden firework blending into the top of Snoopy’s hat. Woodstock’s hands. Woodstock’s feet. The blurriness of Snoopy’s foot that isn’t anywhere else. The lines on Snoopy’s foot which doesn’t reach the end. The blurriness at the top of Woodstock’s head.

As an artist in art school we are critiqued on every little detail of our work. These kinds of inconsistencies are not okay for professional artists to make so the idea that companies want to use Ai shows how little they cared about artists in the first place. Any company that uses Ai instead of hiring an artist is clearly is cheap and is making themselves look bad.

I know that Ai can look convincing and pretty at first glance, but I want people to look at artwork for more than a few seconds. With social media everything is so fast paced and we are conditioned to to want instant gratification, so Ai is a quick and easy way to make ‘content.’ But the things that generative Ai makes are low quality and infuriating to see as an artist. I would much rather see someone try to make art as a beginner than see a computer steal art from other people.

So when you share or like something take an extra second to see if it was made by a person because if a person didn’t even care enough to make it it’s not worth your time.

Any other artists feel free to point out anything that I missed.

[sciderman]

How do you feel about the increase in really weird NSFW ads on here (advertising panels that look like sexual encounters, and AI art apps that pride themselves on porn) but will take down NSFW posts from their users, even if it isn't technically sexual.

i hate all social media and it's consistent prioritising the advertisers over the users and the internet simply was a better place before capitalism sunk its hooks into it

[mahitekei]

sometimes i think, one day art made by humans will not be relevant, in a far, maybe not so far away, dystopian reality.

but no it can't take me, it can't replace me, it can't replace us.

it won't take my passion away from me, it can't, it can't take away my soul, from me.

not the hours of practice, not the hurting hands, nor the body that aches, not the tired mind. not the dedication, the years of my life completely dedicated to art. to studying it, to become one with it.

it can't take my humanity from me! it can't take away MY experiences from me, it's mine, it's my expression. these are MY feelings put into words, put into drawings & illustrations, put into choreographies and melodies, put into photographies & collages. this is MY life.

they will not throw away the joy of creating, of learning through error, of finally doing it correctly! the joy of sharing art with others, of making art for others, of letting my fucking heart, soul & mind, bleed through my pages, through my keyboard, through my canvas, through my body, through my vocal chords, and through my fingers.

they will not take away my power to create, because it is human, intrinsically human.

they will not take away my love for drawing, they will not take away the hours of work, the days of completely ignoring my responsibilities as a human in this world, just to draw a little bit. because i love being able to imagine, and draw whatever comes to my mind. they can't replace me.

they won't take away my enthusiasm to write, to let people know what i feel through my own words, to dedicate, and to write to other people. because i love to write, and to let the words flow just like my life. nothing can replace it.

they will not take away my love for dance, we are talking about art right? they will not take away my passion, they will not take away the pain and tears of my own effort, and the light feeling of my body. nothing can replace it.

they will not take away my interest for music and everything related, to sing, to write, and to play with my own beginner's hands, nothing will replace me.

why? because i was born to create, i was born to make art, even if it is stupid, horrible, and imperfect, mediocre.

create art with your own hands, with your bodies, revolutionize the world with your imagination and creativity, with your souls. CREATE no matter if it's bad, if its shitty.

because art is simply human, it is a human expression for a reason. there is no art without humans, and there are no humans without art, we create art because we exist and we exist because we create art.

[icewindandboringhorror]

examining a seemingly normal image only to slowly realize the clear signs of AI generated art.... i know what you are... you cannot hide your true nature from me... go back where you came from... out of my sight with haste, wretched and vile husk

[kraniumet]

i think image gen can be used like any other artistic tool but I don't really think the big commerical proponents of "ai" are advertising it as a tool, they're adertising it as a solution. I also think it's intellectually dishonest to argue that image generation is exactly like "using photoshop/taking a photograph" because of some generalized "those were also criticized at their conception for being new and scary and disruptive" soundbite. they were not even really criticized for the same reasons. find a better argument.

[ismyteadoneyet]

conversation: *takes a turn into gen-ai*

me: I have trained for this for months. I have heard every stupid argument possible and nothing will baffle me

brother: *somehow comes up with an even stupider argument*

me: what in the entire fuck