#artificial intelligence used

[artistformerlyknownasbutttrumpet]

no i don't want to use your ai assistant. no i don't want your ai search results. no i don't want your ai summary of reviews. no i don't want your ai feature in my social media search bar (???). no i don't want ai to do my work for me in adobe. no i don't want ai to write my paper. no i don't want ai to make my art. no i don't want ai to edit my pictures. no i don't want ai to learn my shopping habits. no i don't want ai to analyze my data. i don't want it i don't want it i don't want it i don't fucking want it i am going to go feral and eat my own teeth stop itttt

[mostly-funnytwittertweets]

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Penguin Random House, AI, and writers’ rights

NEXT WEDNESDAY (October 23) at 7PM, I'll be in DECATUR, GEORGIA, presenting my novel THE BEZZLE at EAGLE EYE BOOKS.

My friend Teresa Nielsen Hayden is a wellspring of wise sayings, like "you're not responsible for what you do in other people's dreams," and my all time favorite, from the Napster era: "Just because you're on their side, it doesn't mean they're on your side."

The record labels hated Napster, and so did many musicians, and when those musicians sided with their labels in the legal and public relations campaigns against file-sharing, they lent both legal and public legitimacy to the labels' cause, which ultimately prevailed.

But the labels weren't on musicians' side. The demise of Napster and with it, the idea of a blanket-license system for internet music distribution (similar to the systems for radio, live performance, and canned music at venues and shops) firmly established that new services must obtain permission from the labels in order to operate.

That era is very good for the labels. The three-label cartel – Universal, Warner and Sony – was in a position to dictate terms like Spotify, who handed over billions of dollars worth of stock, and let the Big Three co-design the royalty scheme that Spotify would operate under.

If you know anything about Spotify payments, it's probably this: they are extremely unfavorable to artists. This is true – but that doesn't mean it's unfavorable to the Big Three labels. The Big Three get guaranteed monthly payments (much of which is booked as "unattributable royalties" that the labels can disperse or keep as they see fit), along with free inclusion on key playlists and other valuable services. What's more, the ultra-low payouts to artists increase the value of the labels' stock in Spotify, since the less Spotify has to pay for music, the better it looks to investors.

The Big Three – who own 70% of all music ever recorded, thanks to an orgy of mergers – make up the shortfall from these low per-stream rates with guaranteed payments and promo.

But the indy labels and musicians that account for the remaining 30% are out in the cold. They are locked into the same fractional-penny-per-stream royalty scheme as the Big Three, but they don't get gigantic monthly cash guarantees, and they have to pay the playlist placement the Big Three get for free.

Just because you're on their side, it doesn't mean they're on your side:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/12/streaming-doesnt-pay/#stunt-publishing

In a very important, material sense, creative workers – writers, filmmakers, photographers, illustrators, painters and musicians – are not on the same side as the labels, agencies, studios and publishers that bring our work to market. Those companies are not charities; they are driven to maximize profits and an important way to do that is to reduce costs, including and especially the cost of paying us for our work.

It's easy to miss this fact because the workers at these giant entertainment companies are our class allies. The same impulse to constrain payments to writers is in play when entertainment companies think about how much they pay editors, assistants, publicists, and the mail-room staff. These are the people that creative workers deal with on a day to day basis, and they are on our side, by and large, and it's easy to conflate these people with their employers.

This class war need not be the central fact of creative workers' relationship with our publishers, labels, studios, etc. When there are lots of these entertainment companies, they compete with one another for our work (and for the labor of the workers who bring that work to market), which increases our share of the profit our work produces.

But we live in an era of extreme market concentration in every sector, including entertainment, where we deal with five publishers, four studios, three labels, two ad-tech companies and a single company that controls all the ebooks and audiobooks. That concentration makes it much harder for artists to bargain effectively with entertainments companies, and that means that it's possible -likely, even – for entertainment companies to gain market advantages that aren't shared with creative workers. In other words, when your field is dominated by a cartel, you may be on on their side, but they're almost certainly not on your side.

This week, Penguin Random House, the largest publisher in the history of the human race, made headlines when it changed the copyright notice in its books to ban AI training:

https://www.thebookseller.com/news/penguin-random-house-underscores-copyright-protection-in-ai-rebuff

The copyright page now includes this phrase:

No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner for the purpose of training artificial intelligence technologies or systems.

Many writers are celebrating this move as a victory for creative workers' rights over AI companies, who have raised hundreds of billions of dollars in part by promising our bosses that they can fire us and replace us with algorithms.

But these writers are assuming that just because they're on Penguin Random House's side, PRH is on their side. They're assuming that if PRH fights against AI companies training bots on their work for free, that this means PRH won't allow bots to be trained on their work at all.

This is a pretty naive take. What's far more likely is that PRH will use whatever legal rights it has to insist that AI companies pay it for the right to train chatbots on the books we write. It is vanishingly unlikely that PRH will share that license money with the writers whose books are then shoveled into the bot's training-hopper. It's also extremely likely that PRH will try to use the output of chatbots to erode our wages, or fire us altogether and replace our work with AI slop.

This is speculation on my part, but it's informed speculation. Note that PRH did not announce that it would allow authors to assert the contractual right to block their work from being used to train a chatbot, or that it was offering authors a share of any training license fees, or a share of the income from anything produced by bots that are trained on our work.

Indeed, as publishing boiled itself down from the thirty-some mid-sized publishers that flourished when I was a baby writer into the Big Five that dominate the field today, their contracts have gotten notably, materially worse for writers:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/19/reasonable-agreement/

This is completely unsurprising. In any auction, the more serious bidders there are, the higher the final price will be. When there were thirty potential bidders for our work, we got a better deal on average than we do now, when there are at most five bidders.

Though this is self-evident, Penguin Random House insists that it's not true. Back when PRH was trying to buy Simon & Schuster (thereby reducing the Big Five publishers to the Big Four), they insisted that they would continue to bid against themselves, with editors at Simon & Schuster (a division of PRH) bidding against editors at Penguin (a division of PRH) and Random House (a division of PRH).

This is obvious nonsense, as Stephen King said when he testified against the merger (which was subsequently blocked by the court): "You might as well say you’re going to have a husband and wife bidding against each other for the same house. It would be sort of very gentlemanly and sort of, 'After you' and 'After you'":

https://apnews.com/article/stephen-king-government-and-politics-b3ab31d8d8369e7feed7ce454153a03c

Penguin Random House didn't become the largest publisher in history by publishing better books or doing better marketing. They attained their scale by buying out their rivals. The company is actually a kind of colony organism made up of dozens of once-independent publishers. Every one of those acquisitions reduced the bargaining power of writers, even writers who don't write for PRH, because the disappearance of a credible bidder for our work into the PRH corporate portfolio reduces the potential bidders for our work no matter who we're selling it to.

I predict that PRH will not allow its writers to add a clause to their contracts forbidding PRH from using their work to train an AI. That prediction is based on my direct experience with two of the other Big Five publishers, where I know for a fact that they point-blank refused to do this, and told the writer that any insistence on including this contract would lead to the offer being rescinded.

The Big Five have remarkably similar contracting terms. Or rather, unremarkably similar contracts, since concentrated industries tend to converge in their operational behavior. The Big Five are similar enough that it's generally understood that a writer who sues one of the Big Five publishers will likely find themselves blackballed at the rest.

My own agent gave me this advice when one of the Big Five stole more than $10,000 from me – canceled a project that I was part of because another person involved with it pulled out, and then took five figures out of the killfee specified in my contract, just because they could. My agent told me that even though I would certainly win that lawsuit, it would come at the cost of my career, since it would put me in bad odor with all of the Big Five.

The writers who are cheering on Penguin Random House's new copyright notice are operating under the mistaken belief that this will make it less likely that our bosses will buy an AI in hopes of replacing us with it:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/09/ai-monkeys-paw/#bullied-schoolkids

That's not true. Giving Penguin Random House the right to demand license fees for AI training will do nothing to reduce the likelihood that Penguin Random House will choose to buy an AI in hopes of eroding our wages or firing us.

But something else will! The US Copyright Office has issued a series of rulings, upheld by the courts, asserting that nothing made by an AI can be copyrighted. By statute and international treaty, copyright is a right reserved for works of human creativity (that's why the "monkey selfie" can't be copyrighted):

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/20/everything-made-by-an-ai-is-in-the-public-domain/

All other things being equal, entertainment companies would prefer to pay creative workers as little as possible (or nothing at all) for our work. But as strong as their preference for reducing payments to artists is, they are far more committed to being able to control who can copy, sell and distribute the works they release.

In other words, when confronted with a choice of "We don't have to pay artists anymore" and "Anyone can sell or give away our products and we won't get a dime from it," entertainment companies will pay artists all day long.

Remember that dope everyone laughed at because he scammed his way into winning an art contest with some AI slop then got angry because people were copying "his" picture? That guy's insistence that his slop should be entitled to copyright is far more dangerous than the original scam of pretending that he painted the slop in the first place:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/artist-appeals-copyright-denial-for-prize-winning-ai-generated-work/

If PRH was intervening in these Copyright Office AI copyrightability cases to say AI works can't be copyrighted, that would be an instance where we were on their side and they were on our side. The day they submit an amicus brief or rulemaking comment supporting no-copyright-for-AI, I'll sing their praises to the heavens.

But this change to PRH's copyright notice won't improve writers' bank-balances. Giving writers the ability to control AI training isn't going to stop PRH and other giant entertainment companies from training AIs with our work. They'll just say, "If you don't sign away the right to train an AI with your work, we won't publish you."

The biggest predictor of how much money an artist sees from the exploitation of their work isn't how many exclusive rights we have, it's how much bargaining power we have. When you bargain against five publishers, four studios or three labels, any new rights you get from Congress or the courts is simply transferred to them the next time you negotiate a contract.

As Rebecca Giblin and I write in our 2022 book Chokepoint Capitalism:

Giving a creative worker more copyright is like giving your bullied schoolkid more lunch money. No matter how much you give them, the bullies will take it all. Give your kid enough lunch money and the bullies will be able to bribe the principle to look the other way. Keep giving that kid lunch money and the bullies will be able to launch a global appeal demanding more lunch money for hungry kids!

https://chokepointcapitalism.com/

As creative workers' fortunes have declined through the neoliberal era of mergers and consolidation, we've allowed ourselves to be distracted with campaigns to get us more copyright, rather than more bargaining power.

There are copyright policies that get us more bargaining power. Banning AI works from getting copyright gives us more bargaining power. After all, just because AI can't do our job, it doesn't follow that AI salesmen can't convince our bosses to fire us and replace us with incompetent AI:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/11/robots-stole-my-jerb/#computer-says-no

Then there's "copyright termination." Under the 1976 Copyright Act, creative workers can take back the copyright to their works after 35 years, even if they sign a contract giving up the copyright for its full term:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/09/26/take-it-back/

Creative workers from George Clinton to Stephen King to Stan Lee have converted this right to money – unlike, say, longer terms of copyright, which are simply transferred to entertainment companies through non-negotiable contractual clauses. Rather than joining our publishers in fighting for longer terms of copyright, we could be demanding shorter terms for copyright termination, say, the right to take back a popular book or song or movie or illustration after 14 years (as was the case in the original US copyright system), and resell it for more money as a risk-free, proven success.

Until then, remember, just because you're on their side, it doesn't mean they're on your side. They don't want to prevent AI slop from reducing your wages, they just want to make sure it's their AI slop puts you on the breadline.

Tor Books as just published two new, free LITTLE BROTHER stories: VIGILANT, about creepy surveillance in distance education; and SPILL, about oil pipelines and indigenous landback.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/19/gander-sauce/#just-because-youre-on-their-side-it-doesnt-mean-theyre-on-your-side

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[renthony]

I'm not worried about putting anti-AI distortion filters on my work, because people have been stealing my drawings and uploading them on "free clipart" sites for years. My writing gets screenshotted and posted on "meme" pages with no attribution (even though screenshots of original blog posts aren't "memes," oh my fucking god). My work is already being stolen. AI hasn't really changed anything for me on that front.

The horse is out of the stable and it's not going back in. I'm not worried about slapping a (dubiously effective) filter on every single piece of art I make as much as I'm worried about supporting entertainment industry unions as they fight for worker protections so that generative AI use doesn't fuck artists out of a job.

The mythologizing of AI has gotten out of hand. "AI" doesn't even have a set meaning. It's incredibly imprecise and creates a lot of needless confusion when the same term can mean "sorting algorithms for computer processes" and "programming for video game NPCs" and "brush stabilizing tools in digital art programs" and "program that generates images from prompts and a database of unethically-sourced media."

AI is being treated like a boogeyman with faerie rules by a lot of people who don't really have any idea how computers work or why it's actually a concern to working artists and their unions.

The actual problem is that generative AI can be used by companies to avoid paying human workers a living wage.

The problem is not that "computers have no soul and can't make real art!"

The actual solution is not "every artist do your part to defeat AI by using dubiously effective filters on literally everything you ever post online, ever," it's "unionize and fight for policies that protect creative professionals from exploitation."

Join a union. If you aren't eligible for something like SAG-AFTRA or the WGA (East or West) or TAG or IATSE or any number of other creative unions from around the world, you can join the IWW.

[random-fun-polls]

*including instances where you might have used one of these without realizing it was AI.

**not including unavoidable instances, like when google shows you an AI summary of what you looked up, or when a company uses AI chatbots for customer service, for example.

[ratflame]

Starting a collection of these

[ttrpg-smash-pass-vs]

I've been gathering all the elligible creatures for next tournament, double checking my work. And I hit the retriever.

AND THIS FUCKING THING.

This thing stopped me for hours. Because they keep changing what it IS. Because look at it, cool spider robot, right? oh, and it knows languages, that means it's either a mindless automaton (fine because it's like a toy) or it's an intelligent creature, right? Wrong? Turns out it's NEAR mindless. Red flag, especially given it has 3 int. Usually sentient creatures don't go below 5, so it's likely either a smart automaton like your phone or animal, right? Well turns out it's made from an imprisoned bebelith that had most of its intelligence removed. MOST? Is it animal level or not, because that's down to the usual animal range but it apparently still understands language. Does it even matter, does being made from an imprisoned spirit that follows orders mean it couldn't consent anyways? I made an argument for that with golems, and we know that spirits imprisoned spirits cannot fight even if they want to as long as the vessel's durable metal. But then you look at the MPMM, this new book we're going into. and hey look, they removed the "imprisoned bebelith" part that's been in every description for decades. But it is gone because it's not true anymore, or is it gone because the MPMM shortened nearly every description? Some PLAYER RACES got reduced to 3 sentences, so is that no longer canon, or is it just not included in this summarized version of it because they assume you know from Tome of Foes?

ultimately, sorry, not including it in next tournament. 14 foot spider droid with paralysis and restraint powers would've done numbers. But I am really unsure if this is sentient and if it could consent even if it was (since the ritual seems to override its free will). And I can't in good conscious include an option unless I'm confident it can consent. I'll take "I can't think of a scenario in which it would want to, but it technically could." but not "incapable of consent."

[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-

[someguywriting]

I've been seeing something over the last couple days that is extremely alarming. I'm sure you have, too.

Social media posts, tags and accounts are beginning to be suppressed. It's no secret that Trump and his goons have a Monopoly on all the popular social media apps, like Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and it is extremely likely that TikTok has been sold to Meta.

It's extremely disturbing to think about simply in the context of American adults. Nobody is immune to propaganda, but especially not under educated, cell phone addicted Americans being fed propaganda by their government without any authority to fact check or dispute information. But something even more disturbing is the presence of another demographic.

You know who's on these apps? Children. Impressionable, vulnerable children and teenagers with developing brains who spend hours and hours scrolling on social media. Who look to social media for their news, their facts.

And, even more disturbing is the plans the American government has for the department of education. It's very clear here what is going to be done, what we've been seeing for years and years that radical right wing groups always, always push for; the suppression of truth and science in favor of an authoritarian agenda. And, in the modern day, I believe we are witnessing an attempt to replace human critical thinking with Artificial Intelligence.

In other words, vulnerable, impressionable children being raised in a generation where the average teenager has 8+ hours of screen time in a day are now going to be active in online spaces where propaganda is going to be pumped into their minds, while activism and truth is suppressed. Artificial intelligence can do all the work for them, critical thinking will be a "waste of time", and already inadequate education systems are going to be tarnished the rest of the way.

This is terrifying. This is disgusting. This is fascism.

We've become so reliant on social media for communication with our loved ones, communities, for a platform to speak our minds, that it's too difficult to simply cease using these apps. Children are already chemically addicted to them. We are, too.

What in the world can we do about any of this? How do we fight against a dictatorship that suppresses us when we try? What about climate change, the end of the Earth?

Is this the end for us?

That's a terrifying thought, but it's one you should keep in your mind for the days to come.

It's a question many other generations were forced to ask themselves, too. The threat was just as real then as it is now.

Maybe some of you have thought about death, before. Maybe you have come close, or believed you did. I have. And from that, one thing that's stuck with me, one question that's stuck out in my mind for years now, is one I try to live by every day. One reason I'm writing this all out in a hope to reach somebody, anybody, make someone think.

If you died, would you be proud of what you left behind?

Would you be confident to say that you did what you thought was right? Would your grandchildren be proud of you? Can you be certain that you would be remembered as a good, caring person who tried to do the best they could in a terrible situation? Or will society let your memory fade away as somebody who couldn't lift a finger to help in the face of injustice?

You can do so much more than you think you can. Resist. Being kind, compassionate and understanding is resistance. Listening to the stories of your fellow human beings is resistance. Thinking for yourself and keeping your eyes open is resistance. Not letting your fear paralyze you is resistance.

You'll never get a more meaningful chance to change the world than you will right now. Keep your eyes and ears open. Resist until the end. Protect our children and crush the fascists.

Do it for yourself, if you have to. But do it. The time to act is now.

[minecraftcoalblock]

Ai art is not good

[iww-gnv]

Voice actors are taking to social media to criticize SAG-AFTRA, the union representing actors and other entertainment professionals, for an agreement it struck Tuesday with an artificial intelligence company that would allow video game developers to use digital replicas of actors’ voices.

[mostly-funnytwittertweets]

[monetizeme]

[what-shitfuckery-is-this-ew]

FUCK YOU INTERNET FOR MAKING ME THINK ASSAD ZAMAN WAS PAKISTANI. FUCK AI BEING USED FOR ARTICLES.

I LITERALLY LOOKED AT HIM AND SAID THAT'S A BENGALI MAN. HIM WITH A BEARD IS LITERALLY MY (RELATED) UNCLE

BUT WHEN I SEARCHED IT UP EVERYTHING SAID PAKISTANI AND I WAS GOBSMACKED, BUT I ACCEPTED IT

AND NOW I FIND OUT HE IS BENGALI

THE SHEER MISINFORMATION CAUSE OF AI ISTG

[cringywhitedragon]

I know a lot of people are not happy with the whole Ai stuff but holy crap was this bad

So I guess you guys heard of the Willy Wonka Dashcon repeat and holy crap this was bad…

Now this is an example on why you SHOULD NOT USE AI FOR STUFF. Ai can be a useful tool IN SOME ASPECTS LIKE TO GET IDEAS OR JUST FOR MEMES AND FUN, BUT PLEASE DO NOT USE IT TO PLAN EVENTS OR CREATE ART AND CLAIM IT AS YOUR OWN AS SO MANY ARTISTS HAVE SAID!!!

But hey, we got some memes from it.

And Tumblr, Ik you guys like funny gremlins so would you all be ok with adopting the Unknown as your own creature. He’s now homeless and needs a home. Who knows, we might actually be able to give him his own lore.

[poppyseedqueenz]

(Hopefully Final)Update On the owonekko situation:

Okay so just today the situation has reached its peak so a few hours ago Nondi has worsened this whole mess by making a follow-up response to not only Jouusta but to her critics AND her fans as a WHOLE and let's just say it's probably WORSE than her first response

How did she Respond? Did she apologize? Is she taking a break? Did she realize her mistake?

Well.....

Okay I'm not gonna hold back

Nondi This is the Most NASTIEST, IMMATURE, RUDEST, DISRESPECTFUL Thing that I have Ever Seen! Where do I even start?? Lets start with the fact that whole Animatic low-key ridiculous not only is the whole thing lowkey disrespectful to EVERYONE involved with the portrayal of Jo, Her Critics, HER FANS. But this video is anything BUT respectful! She went silent for almost 5 to 10 days after her Livestream only to make an EVEN worse response not only that but the fact That now she's trying to turn the whole thing into a race issue when race was NEVER even mentioned by Jo or anyone EXCEPT Nondi! Nondi was the ONLY one who said anything about her skintone but now I'm starting to realize something

At this point this isn't even about the AI anymore Nondi is just being a straight-up bully and slandering Everyone involved specifically Jo painting her in a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE Light(whilst now Nondi fans are also now sending Jo hate comments and a few were DEATH THREATS)

Not only that but in the description to her animatic not only is she "Not sorry" she made a lengthy doc(and yes I read every single word) where she fails to take accountability and passes blame onto the critics and Jo and making excuses for her behavior and adding extra things that are half-true, not relevant to the situation, gaslighting fans, and downright lies of which she claims is the "truth"

Nondi's Doc:

Let me remind that after Jo's video went up she made a Pinned Comment and made a few edits to it when Nondi's livestream went up This is What she Said:

Jo's Pinned Comment: "EDIT (9/12/24): Thank you to all who have let me know about Nondi’s most recent livestream and livestream thumbnail. I have not watched the full VOD, but I have seen the thumbnail and… obviously, I am not okay with it. Not in the slightest. That being said, it’s very clear to me that she’s having a mental health episode of some sort. I’m hoping after that livestream she’ll take some time off the internet and not entertain this controversy anymore. I’m disappointed with her actions, with her portrayal of me, and with how she’s handled everything, but at the end of the day I want her to be mentally well, and I feel bad that I contributed anything to the deterioration of her mental state. I still stand by everything I said in this video. I still think she’s wrong for misgendering the larger creator (and continuing to justify it). But I think this will be the last thing I’ll say regarding this video and OwONekko. If anything else happens, I’m not gonna address it (unless I feel like I REALLY need to). Again, don’t go and harass Nondi. Don’t be nasty to anyone. Take care of your mental health too. . . . . . . . . A few more notes here! I changed the title of this video from “How to Lose an Audience’s Trust - OwONekko’s AI Art Stance and How it Harms Artists” to “OwONekko’s Generative AI Stance and How it Harms Artists” because I felt like that was a more concise and less offensive way to market the video. I also want to say I do NOT think Nondi is a bad person for using and liking AI for the reasons she does, I just disagree with her reasons, and I should have been more clear about that. She’s entitled to her opinion about AI as much as I am entitled to mine. I may go here or on my insta to say a few more things regarding this situation if anything else happens, but I’m not going to make any more video content because I don’t want to egg on the people that have been relentlessly harassing Nondi because of my video. Genuinely, I feel awful about that. If you have anything to say about this discourse, keep it on MY video and off of her twitter/ Youtube page. She’s seen all the arguments, criticism, and nasty shit that’s out there. I may have criticized her for blocking certain users in my video, but at this point I think that course of action is 100% justified. If I had known this video was going to be shown to over 200,000 people in less than 48 hours, I would have been a lot more clear and less reactive with how I expressed things in this video. I’ve never had a video perform like this one did.. like, genuinely, I thought this would be watched by the people already in this discourse and MAYBE just a few others. It was not my intention to bring so many new eyes to her channel, especially in this light, but that’s what happened. As for the transphobia claims, she says it was an accident and will not repeat this mistake going forward. She hasn’t apologized for misgendering the creator, which I absolutely disagree with, but she’s made it clear she doesn’t stand by what she originally did. (that being said, I am not trans or queer, so whether or not you want to support her for this going forward is completely up to you. Just don’t go and be a bother to her.)(edit: she has continued to justify her misgendering the larger creator so idek anymore) I’ll edit this comment if I have anything else to add, but for now that’s all I have to say."

I am 100% on Jo's side of the drama

Jo said that nondi was entitled to her opinion and was not calling her bad in ANY WAY Jo was rightfully upset about how nondi portrayed her in the Livestream(she hasn't seen the Animatic yet) and for some reason nondi and her die-hards decided to attack her when Jo just made a harmless statement and even said not to harass anyone at the VERY beginning of her video plus she Cannot be blamed for who saw the video she is not in control of what the algorithm shows us as she said that her intended target for the video were people who WERE actually aware of the situation WITH the exception of a FEW new eyes NOT 200,000(now 400,000) new eyes and she did apologize for that and I do agree if people did not watch Nondi's ai stance video and then Jo's video(even though jo DID say to watch Nondi's video first to get the full context)

(Note: I watched Nondi's full ai stance video before Jo uploaded hers) and just saw Jo's video(depending on how much you watched of Jo's video) and just relentlessly attacked nondi are also in just as much of the wrong telling her to "Kys" is not helpful and making her more stubborn and while I don't agree with her deleting comments that DO know the full story those critiquing her with no context are 100% justified beacuse context is EVERYTHING however Nondi's reactions and responses are NOT justified whatsoever she is a GROWN ASS WOMAN who knew DAMN WELL what's she's doing especially when she went live with that slander video, Twitter posts and even TODAY'S video and the fact that people are still defending what she's done are also the problem she is not the victim she is the perpetrator and when other people did what she's done now they were called crazy, were ridiculed or nearly lost or DID their careers entirely)

The last time a rapper(Doja Cat) made a post disrespecting her fans the same way nondi did she lost almost 200,000 followers

When this rapper(Nicki Minaj) went on a whole Twitter rampage and a crazy rant on IG live beacuse of Hiss (by Meg Thee Stallion)(in this case Nondi went on A coke rant on YT live)she was called a fucking cokehead

When this youtuber(Colleen Ballinger) made a video pinning blame on the internet for banding together, calling her out on her predatory behavior and made a ukulele musical as a response(in Nondi's a fucking snl skit) her response was seen as the worst youtuber apology/statement videos to date

(Note: this is not an attack on Nicki, Doja nor Meg as I love and respect all 3 of these artists however I can't say the same thing for Colleen as she is a terrible human being)

And while people are saying "omg the art community is so sensitive" and you know what? You're right the art community can get sensitive over everything and anything but that that's not the case people are rightfully upset at nondi she montitezed her ai Playlist Made by a company who's under fire for stealing unauthorized audio and using it but now she's attacking fans and critics who were trying to tell here what she was doing was WRONG

AI is a dangerous practice and a very controversial topic that is threatening not only art but jobs in general if ai was not being trained on stolen work and being seen as a replacement then maybe I would have a different opinion the problem is its not being seen as a tool but as a REPLACEMENT for human artists whist stealing art from them and creating entirely new images for the stolen work and people keep Making excuses for ai if "get with the times" mean I have to just let ai steal my work then I rather be left behind

And when I was looking at Nondi's Doc she keeps using race(she used are a total of 3 times even again race is NOT the problem and the fact that your using the race card is downright sickening and this is coming from a black person) and she tried to make Jo look like the bad person and acting as if what she's doing isn't overreacting guess what nondi You ARE overreacting and this Animatic and doc is proof and the way you responded has just made things worse you could've used that short hiatus to reevaluate or make a statement no one asked you to apologize for the A.I video but for the misgendering, the hateful comments and to Jo but instead you make 2 videos(one of them being a YT live) and slandered many people(even though you said you don't like bigger platforms using their influence to harm others) she is becoming the thing that she doesn't want to be and it's sad and the fact that fans still defend and fight tooth and nail for her just proves how ignorant these people are critics will critique ANYTHING, EVERYTHING and EVERYONE that should be common knowledge if you become a content creator or a public figure(such as a celebrity, influencer or musician) if you can't wrap your head around that then content creation isn't for you She is a GROWN woman who went on a two-year old rampage over a controversial topic

Remember the reason all of this is happen is beacuse she got pissy over ONE comment and she's using her race as a sheild

This isn't a RACE issue this is an ETHICS issue and she's treating it like some Anti-Black Campaign

Nondi This is Unacceptable

Leave the internet or take a hiatus beacuse this is too far