#but how they're not specifically using generative ai

[takethistoyourstardust]

i wonder if there will be a fourth vid added to the trilogy (what the hell do you call it when it’s 4? quadrilogy???) specifically targeting ai and the fact ppl want to make the term frustratingly ambiguous.

[thetrekkiehasthephonebox]

dear lord

[hbmmaster]

concept: a security system that uses ai not for facial recognition but for video compression. after training a neural network on months worth of footage of the specific hallway the camera is aimed at, they're remarkably able to reduce how much data the footage requires to a mere handful of bytes per hour 99% losslessly.

they don't figure out until it's too late that it's able to achieve this level of accuracy and efficiency because 99% of the time the hallway is empty so it just generates a constant feed of an empty hallway

[mdzsartreblogs]

Recognizing AI Generated Images, Danmei Edition

Heyo, @unforth here! I run some danmei art blogs (@mdzsartreblogs, @tgcfartreblogs, @svsssartreblogs, @zhenhunartreblogs, @erhaartreblogs, @dmbjartreblogs, @tykartreblogs, and @cnovelartreblogs) which means I see a LOT of danmei art, and I go through the main fandom tags more-or-less every day.

Today, for the first time, I spotted someone posting AI-generated images (I refuse to call them AI "art" - and to be clear, that's correct of me, because at least in the US it literally LEGALLY isn't art) without any label indicating they were AI generated. I am not necessarily against the existence of AI-generated images (though really...considering all the legal issues and the risks of misuse, I'm basically against them); I think they potentially have uses in certain contexts (such as for making references) and I also think that regardless of our opinions, we're stuck with them, but they're also clearly not art and I don't reblog them to the art side blogs.

The images I spotted today had multiple "tells," but they were still accumulating notes, and I thought it might be a good moment to step back and point out some of the more obvious tells because my sense is that a LOT of people are against AI-generated images being treated as art, and that these people wouldn't want to support an AI-generator user who tried to foist off their work as actual artwork, but that people don't actually necessarily know how to IDENTIFY those works and therefore can inadvertently reblog works that they'd never support if they were correctly identified. (Similar to how the person who reposts and says "credit to the artist" is an asshole but they're not the same as someone who reposts without any credit at all and goes out of their way to make it look like they ARE the artist when they're not).

Toward that end, I've downloaded all the images I spotted on this person's account and I'm going to use them to highlight the things that led me to think they were AI art - they posted a total of 5 images to a few major danmei tags the last couple days, and several other images not to specific fandoms (I examined 8 images total). The first couple I was suspicious, but it wasn't til this morning that I spotted one so obvious that it couldn't be anything BUT AI art. I am NOT going to name the person who did this. The purpose of this post is purely educational. I have no interest whatsoever in bullying one rando. Please don't try to identify them; who they are is genuinely irrelevant, what matters is learning how to recognize AI art in general and not spreading it around, just like the goal of education about reposting is to help make sure that people who repost don't get notes on their theft, to help people recognize the signs so that the incentive to be dishonest about this stuff is removed.

But first: Why is treating AI-generated images as art bad?

I'm no expert and this won't be exhaustive, but I do think it's important to first discuss why this matters.

On the surface, it's PERHAPS harmless for someone to post AI-generated images provided that the image is clearly labeled as AI-generated. I say "perhaps" because in the end, as far as I'm aware, there isn't a single AI-generation engine that's built on legally-sourced artwork. Every AI (again, to the best of my knowledge) has been trained using copyrighted images usually without the permission of the artists. Indeed, this is the source of multiple current lawsuits. (and another)

But putting that aside (as if it can be put aside that AI image generators are literally unethically built), it's still problematic to support the images being treated as art. Artists spend thousands of hours learning their craft, honing it, sharing their creations, building their audiences. This is what they sell when they offer commissions, prints, etc. This can never be replicated by a computer, and to treat an AI-generated image as in any way equivalent is honestly rude, inappropriate, disgusting imo. This isn't "harmless"; supporting AI image creation engines is damaging to real people and their actual livelihoods. Like, the images might be beautiful, but they're not art. I'm honestly dreading someone managing to convince fandom that their AI-generated works are actual art, and then cashing in on commissions, prints, etc., because people can't be fussed to learn the difference. We really can't let this happen, guys. Fanartists are one of the most vibrant, important, prominent groups in all our fandoms, and we have to support them and do our part to protect them.

As if those two points aren't enough, there's already growing evidence that AI-generated works are being used to further propagandists. There are false images circulating of violence at protests, deep-fakes of various kinds that are helping the worst elements of society to push their horrid agendas. As long as that's a facet of AI-generated works, they'll always be dangerous.

I could go on, but really this isn't the main point of my post and I don't want to get bogged down. Other people have said more eloquently than I why AI-generated images are bad. Read those. (I tried to find a good one to link but sadly failed; if anyone knows a good post, feel free to send it and I'll add the link to the post).

Basically: I think a legally trained AI-image generator that had built-in clear watermarks could be a fun toy for people who want reference images or just to play with making pseudo-art. But...that's not what we have, and what we do have is built on theft and supports dystopia so, uh. Yeah fuck AI-generated images.

How to recognize AI-Generated Images Made in an Eastern Danmei Art Style

NOTE: I LEARNED ALL THE BASIC ON SPOTTING AI-GENERATED IMAGES FROM THIS POST. I'll own I still kinda had the wool over my eyes until I read that post - I knew AI stuff was out there but I hadn't really looked closely enough to have my eyes open for specific signs. Reading that entire post taught me a lot, and what I learned is the foundation of this post.

This post shouldn't be treated as a universal guide. I'm specifically looking at the tells on the kind of art that people in danmei fandoms often see coming from Weibo and other Chinese, Japanese, and Korean platforms, works made by real artists. For example, the work of Foxking (狐狸大王a), kokirapsd, and Changyang (who is an official artist for MDZS, TGCF, and other danmei works). This work shares a smooth use of color, an aim toward a certain flavor of realism, an ethereal quality to the lighting, and many other features. (Disclaimer: I am not an artist. Putting things in arty terms is really not my forte. Sorry.)

So, that's what these AI-generated images are emulating. And on the surface, they look good! Like...

...that's uncontestably a pretty picture (the white box is covering the "artist's" watermark.) And on a glance, it doesn't necessarily scream "AI generated"! But the devil is in the details, and the details are what this post is about. And that picture? Is definitely AI generated.

This post is based on 8 works I grabbed from a single person's account, all posted as their own work and watermarked as such. Some of the things that are giveaways only really show when looking at multiple pieces. I'm gonna start with those, and then I'll highlight some of the specifics I spotted that caused me to go from "suspicious" to "oh yeah no these are definitely not art."

Sign 1: all the images are the exact same size. I mean, to the pixel: 512 x 682 pixels (or 682 x 512, depending on landscape or portrait orientation). This makes zero sense. Why would an artist trim all their pieces to that size? It's not the ideal Tumblr display size (that's 500 x 750 pixels). If you check any actual artist's page and look at the full-size of several of their images, they'll all be different sizes as they trimmed, refined, and otherwise targeted around their original canvas size to get the results they wanted.

Sign 2: pixelated. At the shrunken size displayed on, say, a mobile Tumblr feed, the image looks fine, but even just opening the full size upload, the whole thing is pixelated. Now, this is probably the least useful sign; a lot of artists reduce the resolution/dpi/etc. on their uploaded works so that people don't steal them. But, taken in conjunction with everything else, it's definitely a sign.

Those are the two most obvious overall things - the things I didn't notice until I looked at all the uploads. The specifics are really what tells, though. Which leads to...

Sign 3: the overall work appears to have a very high degree of polish, as if it were made by an artist who really really knows what they're doing, but on inspection - sometimes even on really, REALLY cursory inspect - the details make zero sense and reflect the kinds of mistakes that a real artist would never make.

So, here's the image that I saw that "gave it away" to me, and caused me to re-examine the images that had first struck me as off but that I hadn't been able to immediately put my finger on the problem. I've circled some of the spots that are flagrant.

Do you see yet? Yes? Awesome, you're getting it. No? Okay, let's go point by point, with close ups.

Sign 4: HANDS. Hands are currently AI's biggest weakness, though they've been getting better quickly and honestly that's terrifying. But whatever AI generated this picture clearly doesn't get hands yet, because that hand is truly an eldritch horror. Look at this thing:

It has two palms. It has seven fingers. It's basically two hands overlaid over each other, except one of those hands only has four fingers and the other has three. Seeing this hand was how I went from "umm...maybe they're fake? Maybe they're not???" to "oh god why is ANYONE reblogging this when it's this obvious?" WATCH THE HANDS. (Go back up to that first one posted and look at the hand, you'll see. Or just look right below at this crop.) Here's some other hands:

Sign 5: Hair and shadows. Once I started inspecting these images, the shadows of the hair on the face was one of the things that was most consistently fucked up across all the uploaded pictures. Take a look:

There's shadows of tendrils on the forehead, but there's no corresponding hair that could possibly have made those shadows. Likewise there's a whole bunch of shadows on the cheeks. Where are those coming from? There's no possible source in the rest of the image. Here's some other hair with unrelated wonky shadows:

Sign 6: Decorative motifs that are really just meaningless squiggles. Like, artists, especially those who make fanart, put actual thought into what the small motifs are on their works. Like, in TGCF, an artist will often use a butterfly motif or a flower petal motif to reflect things about the characters. An AI, though, can only approximate a pattern and it can't imbue those with meanings. So you end up with this:

What is that? It's nothing, that's what. It's a bunch of squiggles. Here's some other meaningless squiggle motifs (and a more zoomed-in version of the one just above):

Sign 7: closely related to meaningless squiggle motifs is motifs that DO look like something, but aren't followed through in any way that makes sense. For example, an outer garment where the motifs on the left and the right shoulder/chest are completely different, or a piece of cloth that's supposed to be all one piece but that that has different patterns on different sections of it. Both of these happen in the example piece, see?

The first images on the top left is the left and right shoulder side by side. The right side has a scalloped edge; the left doesn't. Likewise, in the right top picture, you can see the two under-robe lapels; one has a gold decoration and the other doesn't. And then the third/bottom image shows three sections of the veil. One (on the left) has that kind of blue arcy decoration, which doesn't follow the folds of the cloth very well and looks weird and appears at one point to be OVER the hair instead of behind it. The second, on top of the bottom images, shows a similar motif, except now it's gold, and it looks more like a hair decoration than like part of the veil. The third is also part of the same veil but it has no decorations at all. Nothing about this makes any sense whatsoever. Why would any artist intentionally do it that way? Or, more specifically, why would any artist who has this apparent level of technical skill ever make a mistake like this?

They wouldn't.

Some more nonsensical patterns, bad mirrors, etc. (I often put left/right shoulders side by side so that it'd be clearer, sorry if it's weird):

Sign 8: bizarre architecture, weird furniture, etc. Most of the images I'm examining for this post have only partial backgrounds, so it's hard to really focus on this, but it's something that the post I linked (this one) talks about a lot. So, like, an artist will put actual thought into how their construction works, but an AI won't because an AI can't. There's no background in my main example image, but take a look at this from another of my images:

On a glance it's beautiful. On a few seconds actually staring it's just fucking bizarre. The part of the ceiling on the right appears to be domed maybe? But then there's a hard angle, then another. The windows on the right have lots of panes, but then the one on the middle-left is just a single panel, and the ones on the far left have a complete different pane model. Meanwhile, also on the left side at the middle, there's that dark gray...something...with an arch that mimics the background arches except it goes no where, connects to nothing, and has no apparent relationship to anything else going on architecturally. And, while the ceiling curves, the back wall is straight AND shows more arches in the background even though the ceiling looks to end. And yes, some of this is possible architecture, but taken as a whole, it's just gibberish. Why would anyone who paints THAT WELL paint a building to look like THAT? They wouldn't. It's nonsense. It's the art equivalent of word salad. When we look at a sentence and it's like "dog makes a rhythmical salad to betray on the frame time plot" it almost resembles something that might mean something but it's clearly nonsense. This background is that sentence, as art.

Sign 9: all kinds of little things that make zero sense. In the example image, I circled where a section of the hair goes BELOW the inner robe. That's not impossible but it just makes zero sense. As with many of these, it's the kind of thing that taken alone, I'd probably just think "well, that was A Choice," but combined with all the other weird things it stands out as another sign that something here is really, really off. Here's a collection of similar "wtf?" moments I spotted across the images I looked at (I'm worried I'm gonna hit the Tumblr image cap, hence throwing these all in one, lol.)

You have to remember that an actual artist will do things for a reason. And we, as viewers, are so used to viewing art with that in mind that we often fill in reasons even when there aren't. Like, in the image just about this, I said, "what the heck are these flowers growing on?" And honestly, I COULD come up with explanations. But that doesn't mean it actually makes sense, and there's no REASON for it whatsoever. The theoretical same flowers are, in a different shot, growing unsupported! So...what gives??? The answer is nothing gives. Because these pieces are nothing. The AI has no reason, it's just tossing in random aesthetic pieces together in a mishmash, and the person who generated them is just re-generating and refining until they get something that looks "close enough" to what they wanted. It never was supposed to make sense, so of course it doesn't.

In conclusion...

After years of effort, artists have gotten across to most of fandom that reposts are bad, and helped us learn strategies for helping us recognize reposts, and given us an idea of what to do when we find one.

Fandom is just at the beginning of this process as it applies to AI-generated images. There's a LOT of education that has to be done - about why AI-generated images are bad (the unethical training using copyrighted images without permission is, imo, critical to understanding this), and about how to spot them, and then finally about what to do when you DO find them.

With reposts, we know "tell original artist, DCMA takedowns, etc." That's not the same with these AI-images. There's no original owner. There's no owner at all - in the US, at least, they literally cannot be copyrighted. Which is why I'm not even worrying about "credit" on this post - there's nothing stolen, cause there's nothing made. So what should you do?

Nothing. The answer is, just as the creator has essentially done nothing, you should also do nothing. Don't engage. Don't reblog. Don't commission the creator or buy their art prints. If they do it persistently and it bothers you, block them. If you see one you really like, and decide to reblog it, fine, go for it, but mark it clearly - put in the ACTUAL COMMENTS (not just in the tags!) that it's AI art, and that you thought it was pretty anyway. But honestly, it'd be better to not engage, especially since as this grows it's inevitable that some actual artists are going to start getting accused of posting AI-generated images by over-zealous people. Everyone who gets a shadow wrong isn't posting AI-generated images. A lot of these details are insanely difficult to get correct, and lots of even very skilled, accomplished artists, if you go over their work with a magnifying glass you're going to find at least some of these things, some weirdnesses that make no sense, some shadows that are off, some fingers that are just ugh (really, getting hands wrong is so relatable. hands are the fucking worst). It's not about "this is bad art/not art because the hand is wrong," it's specifically about the ways that it's wrong, the way a computer randomly throws pieces together versus how actual people make actual mistakes. It's all of the little signs taken as a whole to say "no one who could produce a piece that, on the surface, looks this nice, could possibly make THIS MANY small 'mistakes.'"

The absolute best thing you can do if you see AI-generated images being treated as real art is just nothing. Support actual artists you love, and don't spread the fakes.

Thanks for your time, everyone. Good luck avoiding AI-generated pieces in the future, please signal boost this, and feel free to get in touch if you think I can help you with anything related to this.

[canmom]

so on royalroad, the english-language serial webnovel website, there's ads created by users for other stories at the top of each chapter - you know, for the common case where you're reading a book and you want to suddenly start reading a different book. (they set it up in a way that's fiddly to block.)

they're kinda fascinating? I almost want to start collecting them. they triangulate into genres with bulletpoints. isekai. cultivation. reincarnation. yes romance. no romance. harem. no harem. some of them use anime-styled art or fantasy concept art (most likely a lot of it either AI-generated or used without permission/attribution, I get the vibe)... but a lot of them are straight up just memes.

hell lemme just refresh the page a bit and see what I get. I'm only a liiiiittle selective here.

...I could keep refreshing but you get the picture.

and sure, it's just the same as the AO3 tagging system with a different set of aesthetic priorities right? people are searching for stories which scratch a very specific itch. but there's something weirdly fascinating in advertising a story based on how formulaic it is. or ads for a novel that look like ads for a mobile game. how so many of them refer to their protagonist as 'MC'.

I assume this like, works, or people wouldn't do it? Same principle as long light novel titles. otaku database theory stuff. I just... don't really get it! who's it for?

[copperbadge]

Hi Sam! Because I just saw the post on ao3 and donations, and a different post about ao3s updated statement regarding chatgpt/ai generated fiction, and you generally have a good read on things like this - what's your opinion on it, and how its meant to be interpreted?

(I want to good faith believe, and its a complicated/ongoing topic, but wanted to hear your thoughts)

I don't know which post about the update you mean, Anon, but I assume the update referenced is the one the OTW posted on 5/13 about AI scraping and ChatGPT. I do have some thoughts but I want to go through the post a little because I don't think I'm actually needed to interpret this one -- I think with some critical thought anyone can, but a lot of people don't get critical thinking training in school, so I want to do a little demo of it.

Pre-emptively, this is a list of things I'm not an expert on: copyright law, data scraping, AI, website design, and the legality of certain forms of freedom of expression. But honestly for this you don't need to be.

First and foremost, we really have no reason to disbelieve OTW when they speak on this subject. While there's debate and discussion about AO3 and certainly it's imperfect in a number of directions, they are pretty transparent, generally speaking. I don't believe there is a reason to approach AO3 with an assumption of disingenuity in a general sense. However, the organization is run by humans, who are imperfect and can sometimes be deceitful, so it's good to always approach public statements with a critical eye.

So the post is talking about two separate but related issues: preventing AIs from scraping AO3, and policy on AI-generated works being posted. What we are looking for, from both, is a combination of things: we want what they're saying to make sense both in the world, and within the statement -- no contradictions, nothing that seems illogical, nothing that seems like baseless assumption or generalization. We want simple prose, and we want a look at the reasoning behind the actions they're taking.

When talking about AI scraping, they start with what they've done to counteract scraping, speaking in relatively simple terms but with enough specificity that if you wanted you could look up anything you didn't understand. They list what they've done to prevent scraping, and they also discuss the issues with the kinds of measures that would need to be implemented to fully prevent it. They mention specific examples that people were concerned about, and they talk about what they'll be doing going forward.

In terms of the text, this all makes sense to me -- here's what we've done, here's the problem with doing more, here's what we plan to do next. Internally, no matter what the topic is, this section is logical, there are no contradictions and no particular evasions. Critically it passes muster. Additionally, with the knowledge I do have of website design and data management, I can tell that they're doing all they reasonably can. From a standpoint of ignorance, the statement makes internal sense; from a standpoint of knowledge, they're doing what I would do in their place.

When talking about AI-generated works, likewise, they're pretty open about their process and reasoning. They say look, this isn't against TOS as it stands, and here's a reminder of why, followed by a mission statement. The bolded text of that statement is very clear, and correlates with what I said in an earlier post: their policy is maximum inclusivity of fanworks. This statement is consistent with policy AO3 has held for years, which is well-known to the community.

They go on to discuss how AI-generated work could violate spam policies, but those spam policies apply to everyone everywhere, and they remind us that we can always have the Policy & Abuse team examine a work we're skeptical of. (Inside baseball, I know some people who have beef with Policy & Abuse for being unresponsive, particularly in certain cases where harassment is involved. However, within this document, they are saying both "here's why we do this" and "if you have a problem, here's the first step.")

Again, after saying what's happening and what's being done about it, they move on to say that these are only current policies, and may change depending on future developments, and that those changes will be made available for public discussion. This is once more internally logical, and with the benefit of outside knowledge, perfectly rational.

Because I agree with them -- when I saw there was an "updated" statement from OTW on AI-generated prose I was frankly alarmed because I think banning AI-generated prose from AO3 causes way more problems than it solves. It's pretty restrained of them not to bring up the issue in more detail, but it's not difficult for those of us familiar with the community to project outwards as to why banning AI prose might be a bad thing.

So, think about what happens if an AI prose ban goes into effect and you read a fic you think was AI generated. How can you tell? Have you read some of the human-generated prose on AO3? Some of it's not great. So really in that case, what you're banning is someone saying they AI-generated the fic, which means AI-generated fic would still show up, it just couldn't be tagged as such. It's like Prohibition -- they banned alcohol and people still drank. They poisoned the alcohol and people drank the poisoned alcohol (check out paragraph five for specifics). If you ban something off the archive it'll still show up there, it just won't be tagged, so instead of a bag labeled "dead dove, do not eat" you just step on a land mine in your kitchen. AI prose is not content in the way that say incest or underage sex is; I'm against banning those as well, but at least with those you can pretty clearly say "yes this is" or "no this isn't" based on objective criteria. You can't do that with "was this made by a human or a machine" when it comes to prose.

Which leads to the second issue: if a text is reported as AI-generated and the author says "No, I wrote that," how do you prove otherwise? If you report an author for uploading AI-generated prose, all that will happen is either they just say "No, I wrote that" or someone on AO3's abuse team unilaterally decides that yes, this is AI prose, and punts someone off the website who might just be kind of a crap writer, which is not a sin or a crime. Either way it's a waste of time. So introducing a ban on AI prose is really just introducing either a useless show-law that will still cause AI prose to be posted there, just without proper tagging, or a tool to harass people with. Harassment is already an issue on the archive.

And we can reason all this out for ourselves simply by asking "What is the good-faith reason for not banning AI prose?" Assuming good faith isn't just for blindly trusting, after all; it's also for reasoning out other peoples' motivations for things.

And frankly fandom gets a little weird about assuming bad faith when it comes to anyone who has the least bit of power within the community. It's something I've encountered personally, as someone with some clout in fandom who is occasionally assumed to have weirdly malevolent intent. I'm not malicious. I'm just an awkward dumbass. But this is just something fandom does, so it's also good to check oneself and go, "Hey, is this person being genuinely malevolent or am I just assuming wickedness because it's easier to be mad at a villain than to explore the complexities of these acts?"

It's why I deliberately didn't speculate about the person who uploaded an AI fanfic and didn't respond to others doing so in comments. That person is right there. You don't have to assume any intent at all, you can just ask them. And it's so much more educational to do so!

So yeah, actually real props to whoever wrote that post by the OTW -- it's internally logical, reasonably transparent, simply written, and avoids a lot of prose pitfalls that I would absolutely fall into (did fall into, in this very post). I think within this area, they are doing what they can to prevent scraping and making the correct decisions, for now, regarding AI content on the archive.

[captdedeyes]

Friendly reminder that Wix.com is an Israeli-based company (& some website builders to look into instead)

I know the BDS movement is not targeting Wix.com specifically (see here for the companies they're currently boycotting) but since Wix originated in Israel as early as 2006, it would be best to drop them as soon as you can.

And while you're at it, you should leave DeviantArt too, since that company is owned by Wix. I deleted my DA account about a year ago not just because of their generative AI debacle but also because of their affiliation with their parent company. And just last month, DA has since shown their SUPPORT for Israel in the middle of Israel actively genociding the Palestinian people 😬

Anyway, I used to use Wix and I stopped using it around the same time that I left DA, but I never closed my Wix account until now. What WAS nice about Wix was how easy it was to build a site with nothing but a drag-and-drop system without any need to code.

So if you're using Wix for your portfolio, your school projects, or for anything else, then where can you go?

Here are some recommendations that you can look into for website builders that you can start for FREE and are NOT tied to a big, corporate entity (below the cut) 👇👇

Carrd.co

This is what I used to build my link hub and my portfolio, so I have the most experience with this platform.

It's highly customizable with a drag-and-drop arrangement system, but it's not as open-ended as Wix. Still though, it's easy to grasp & set up without requiring any coding knowledge. The most "coding" you may ever have to deal with is markdown formatting (carrd provides an on-screen cheatsheet whenever you're editing text!) and section breaks (which is used to define headers, footers, individual pages, sections of a page, etc.) which are EXTREMELY useful.

There's limits to using this site builder for free (max of 2 websites & a max of 100 elements per site), but even then you can get a lot of mileage out of carrd.

mmm.page

This is a VERY funny & charming website builder. The drag-and-drop system is just as open-ended as Wix, but it encourages you to get messy. Hell, you can make it just as messy as the early internet days, except the way you can arrange elements & images allows for more room for creativity.

Straw.page

This is an extremely simple website builder that you can start from scratch, except it's made to be accessible from your phone. As such, the controls are limited and intentionally simple, but I can see this being a decent website builder to start with if all you have is your phone. The other options above are also accessible from your phone, but this one is by far one of the the simplest website builders available.

Hotglue.me

This is also a very simple & rudimentary website builder that allows you to make a webpage from scratch, except it's not as easy to use on a mobile phone.

At a glance, its features are not as robust or easy to pick up like the previous options, but you can still create objects with a simple double click and drag them around, add text, and insert images or embeds.

Mind you, this launched in the 2010s and has likely stayed that way ever since, which means that it may not have support for mobile phone displays, so whether or not you wanna try your hand at building something on there is completely up to you!

Sadgrl's Layout Editor

sadgrl.online is where I gathered most of these no-code site builders! I highly recommend looking through the webmaster links for more website-building info.

This simple site builder is for use on Neocities, which is a website hosting service that you can start using for free. This is the closest thing to building a site that resembles the early internet days, but the sites you can make are also responsive to mobile devices! This can be a good place to start if this kind of thing is your jam and you have little to no coding experience.

Although I will say, even if it sounds daunting at first, learning how to code in HTML and CSS is one of the most liberating experiences that anyone can have, even if you don't come from a website scripting background. It's like cooking a meal for yourself. So if you want to take that route, then I encourage to you at least try it!

Most of these website builders I reviewed were largely done at a glance, so I'm certainly missing out on how deep they can go.

Oh, and of course as always, Free Palestine 🇵🇸

[nicoline1998enilocin]

Warmth

PAIRING | Sugar Daddy!Tony Stark x Sugar Baby!Fem!Reader

WORD COUNT | 1.1K

SUMMARY | You've been studying for your upcoming exam all day, and you're starting to get a little cold. However, the perfect way to warm up is by touching Tony's warm body, seeing how he's always running warm through the arc reactor. Of course, he's happy to share his warmth with you; he doesn't want you to feel cold.

RATING | General (G)

WARNINGS/TAGS | Sugar Daddy/-Baby arrangement, mutual pining.

A/N | This fic is inspired by this headcanon written by @fotibrit! As soon as I read it, I knew this would fit perfectly inside my sugar daddy!Tony AU! I love their dynamic, and I can't wait to hear what you all think about it. This is proofread by my amazing friend @ccbsrmsf1, for which I cannot begin to thank you enough! 💙

EVENTS Masterlist | @anyfandomfluffbingo | Clothes sharing Masterlist | @fandombingo | Tony Stark Masterlist | @fandom-free-bingo | "Are you feeling better now?" Masterlist | @marvel-smash-bingo | "I can do this all day."

Banners: Yours truly | Divider: @firefly-graphics | GIF: @ccbsrmsf1

Main Masterlist | Tony Stark Masterlist | AU Masterlist

You're in the middle of studying for your exams, making long hours for a difficult one coming up. Going through medical school has always been a dream of yours, and thanks to Tony, that is becoming a reality, but that doesn't mean you don't have to work for it. He has kindly offered to study at Stark Tower so you can use plenty of empty offices and conference rooms.

This also means you're closer to him, and you can't stop yourself from seeing him whenever he's in the building. You've been studying for the past six hours, eating lunch, and drinking a lot of coffee in between, and you're starting to feel cold and restless - perfect timing to go and pay a visit to Tony.

"Jarvis, can you tell me where Tony is?" you ask the AI he has installed in the building, who kindly lets you know he is working in his lab. Your stuff is gathered quickly, and just before you can zip your bag closed, you let out a big yawn and a cold shiver runs down your spine. The weather outside looked promising, but jeans and a blouse weren't enough to keep you warm today.

As soon as your bag hangs on your shoulder, you're out the door, your feet carrying you to Tony on instinct. The elevator ride is way too long, and you're rubbing your hands on your arms to keep yourself warm, but to no avail. You feel warmth spreading through your body when you walk into his lab and see Tony hunched over in his MIT hoodie, faded jeans, and messy hair.

"Are you going home already, Sugar?" Tony asks in his deep voice, giving you goosebumps as the sound goes through your body.

"Not yet; I figured I'd swing by your lab to see how you're doing. And I was hoping to steal a bit of your warmth, too," you tell him with a small smile, unable to stop thinking how handsome he looks in his outfit. It shows off his natural handsomeness, and you can't help but stare a little too long when he turns to you.

"How can I say no when you ask me like that? C'mere Sugar," Tony says as he opens his arms invitingly. You drop your bag before stepping into his hold, your body pressing tightly against his as your face nuzzles into his neck. With a deep sigh, you let your hands wander to where they're under his hoodie, your ice-cold hands slowly warming up on the warm muscles of his lower back.

"You're freezing!" he says before he lets go, his hands carefully wrapping around your wrists to guide your hands to his chest - or, more specifically, to his arc reactor. It's where he gets the hottest and your favorite place to rest your hands when you're feeling cold. If there's one thing you both quickly learned, it is that where you usually are feeling chilly, Tony is always hot, making him your perfect personal heater.

A soft hum leaves your throat as you can feel the warmth of his body seeping into your cold hands, slowly ensuring they don't ache from the freezing state they were in before you came to him.

"Are you feeling better now?" Tony asks softly and gently, and you hum in response. If it were up to him, he would let you warm your hands on his body forever, never wanting to let you go again. Little does he know you feel the same way, but you're both too stubborn to admit it to one another.

"Yeah, I can do this all day if you'd let me," you tell him in response, another soft sigh leaving your chest when your hands aren't cold anymore. Though that issue has been fixed, Tony can tell you're still feeling cold, and without hesitation, he takes off his hoodie, exposing his muscular chest and abdomen to you, making you do a double take at the appearing flesh.

"Here, you can wear this, Sugar," he tells you without leaving room for discussion. You allow him to pull it over your head, the sleeves longer than your arms, making you giggle. The scent of Tony envelops you completely, and you flail your arms like a bird to show off just how long the sleeves are, and the sound of Tony's laughter makes yet another flood of warmth spread throughout your body.

"It looks way better on you than it does me, Sugar; I think you should keep it," Tony says, his eyes flicking from your eyes to your mouth and back. He steps closer to you, his index finger lifting your chin slightly to look right into your eyes as he closes the gap between you two.

His mouth descends on yours in a sweet, loving, gentle kiss that takes your breath away yet makes you feel so full of love. Your kisses are usually frantic and passionate when you sleep together, but this kiss is the opposite. Unrushed and soft; filled promises that neither of you is willing to give in to yet. It's perfection in a kiss.

The second his lips leave yours, it feels like you're deflating like a balloon, missing the feelings of his warm mouth on yours already. Despite this, a small smile tugs on the corners of your mouth as you bite your bottom lip, feeling like a teenager who just shared their first kiss with the boy she's been crushing on for a long time. And deep inside, that's exactly what the dynamic between you is, just in your later years.

"What was that for?" you ask Tony, who chuckles at your question.

"I felt like kissing you because you look adorable in my hoodie. And I wanted to surprise you, which, by the looks of it, worked pretty well," Tony tells you, and you nod.

"Now I have to go because I promised to go for dinner with my friends. But thank you for the hoodie. I'll be using it to keep me warm from now on," you tell him as you step back, grab your bag, and walk out of his lab with a wave.

All he can muster is a small wave back as he stands there shirtless and with a heart filled with love. He wants to give you all the happiness in the world and more, and if that means letting you warm your cold hands on his body and giving you his hoodies, he's more than okay with doing that for the rest of his life, even if that means never getting to tell you how he feels. Your dynamic is perfect for both of you, and he doesn't want to ruin it by doing something stupid.

Though the one thing he wants more than anything in this world is that you will be his one day. His girlfriend, his fiancée, his wife, his everything. That's what would make him the happiest man on earth.

[rebeccathenaturalist]

hey there! fellow naturalist (albeit less experienced!) here! in regards to the AI-generated ID guides, do you have any advice for helping the general public learn to recognize them? are there any giveaways other than incorrect information a layperson might not pick up on that we can tell people to watch out for?

Hi, @fischotterkunst! It's a messy topic, to be sure, but here's what I've been seeing of these AI-generated texts, at least on Amazon:

--If you sort your search for "foraging book" or "mushroom hunting" or whatever search string you use by "Newest Arrivals", you'll notice that there is a glut of books that have come out in the past few weeks. Yes, there are always new books, but this is at a higher than normal rate, which suggests AI is behind at least some of them. There ARE occasionally real authors' books that just happened to come out recently, so don't dismiss every single book that is a fresh release. Use the other criteria below.

--They will invariably be self-published or from some publisher with zero online presence. Not a problem by itself; my own chapbooks are self-published on Amazon KDP. But they come out every three months, not every three days, because I am researching, writing, and editing them all myself, rather than churning out content with AI.

--The titles and subtitles are often very long and stuffed with keywords. They are obviously optimized for search engines rather than being descriptive of the book and they have a rather clunky fashion.

--Look for obvious typos and other errors; for example, in the image above we have "WILD MUSHROOM COOKBOOK FOR BEGINNER: The complete guide on mushroom foraging and cooking with delicious recipes to enjoy your favorite". It should be "for beginners", and the subtitle just...ends prematurely. Favorite what? Favorite mushrooms? Favorite cartoon characters? Favorite color? Also, while there are lot of variations on name spellings, "Magaret" instead of "Margaret" stands out as a possible fake in combination with other clues. (All her other books also have this spelling, though.)

--This is a BIG one: Who's the author? Check their bio. In the above image you'll see that "Jason Cones", the author of "The Wild Edible Plants Forager's Handbook: A Beginner's Guide to Safe Foraging, Including How to Identify Edible Plants, Learn About Their Medicinal Properties, and Prepare Them for Cooking", has a very generic picture and bio that has pretty obviously been generated by AI. If you search for him online, the only page for an author named Jason Cones is the Amazon author page--no website, no social media, no interviews, nada. Even a brand new author will at least have something other than their Amazon page, and they'll mention experience, credentials, other biographical info.

--Look at the author's other books. Magaret seems to focus on cookbooks of very specific sorts, but again they've all come out in a very short time. They also tend to often be on really super-specific niche subjects--this, again, is not a red flag in and of itself, but it's a common pattern with AI "authors". Jason Cones, on the other hand, has written over two dozen books not just about foraging but anger management techniques, acupressure, and weed gummies, and all of his titles have come out since last December.

--If all the books have the same cover but slight differences in title, it's also a big red flag. There are reputable publishers of regional foraging guides like Timber Press, but their books are written by multiple authors and have come out over a long stretch of years (plus they're a well-known publisher with a solid track record, online presence, etc.) Also notice the typos in the title and subtitle; everyone says "Mushroom Foraging", not "Mushrooms Foraging", and "Keep Track Your Mushroom Sightings" is missing "of".

--Compare the descriptions of multiples of these new books and you start seeing patterns. If you look at the images above, you'll notice that both Lorna K. Thompson's "Foraging Recipe Cookbook" and Kevin Page's "The Ultimate Foraging Guide for Seniors" have a very similar formulaic description. They start with a brief story about a person in a town or village who discovers some foraging secrets and then transforms his life, and then a list of things you're supposedly going to find in this seemingly miraculous book. This basically reads like "Hey, ChatGPT, tell me a story of a person who improved their life with foraging in two hundred words or less!" Also, the ends got cut off of my screen shot, but they both end with "GET YOUR COPY TODAY!"

I have not purchased any of these books to verify how awful the content is, but what little content I can see in the previews is uniformly formulaic and, again, reads like someone asked an AI to write content on a topic with some specific keywords thrown in. Needless to say, I do NOT recommend any of these books.

Also, I feel really bad for any actual authors who released their books in the past few months. They're likely getting drowned out by this AI junk, though hopefully they're getting enough attention for their work through their publishers, social media, etc. to get some sales. Support your real-life authors, and boycott AI!

Finally, PLEASE reblog this! It's really, really important that people know what to look for, and the more posts we have floating around with this info, the less likely it is someone's going to get poisoned by following what these books have to say.

[txttletale]

Sorry if you posted about this before and I've missed it but are you arguing with anti-AI Art people (Specifically the ones deliberately ignoring or misrepresenting material facts) just on the basis that they're wrong? Or are you doing it to try to show that AI is going to be used anyway and they need to change the way they argue about it if they actually want to be productive with their goal of not having AI be harmful?

I suppose in truth I already seem to believe you're doing both at once, which is fine, but I guess what I'm really getting at is trying to prompt you for more of your own interpretation of the AI art discourse as a whole and how you feel about people calling you "Pro-AI" despise the fact that your economic beliefs inherently make you (from my very biased perspective) "more" "Anti-AI" than they are!

Sorry for the messy ask lol, you're just getting at a lot of thoughts I've been having trouble putting to words and want to see more!

yea i would absolutely describe my critiques of 'anti-AI' as coming from three separate but related places because there are three separate types of 'anti-AI art' talking points:

talking point type 1 is all the 'not real art / soullless / no effort' bullshit. i'm mostly critiquing these because they are fundamentally reactionary and profoundly silly and because i like talking about art and what art is and how it's made and shit.

type 2 is, to borrow a phrase from marx, "the economic shit". it's here that i think my critiques are more 'positive' than 'negative', as in, i think that these talking points are mostly coming from a reasonable place but are tactically misaimed -- my critiques here mostly amount to 'stop whining about midjourney and start unionizing your workplace because one of those will make a difference when AI comes for your job and the other won't"

type 3 is IP/copyright-brained petty-bourgeois mindset, arguments centering on ridiculously expansive concepts of 'theft' or 'plagiarism' and 'ownership'. they are superficially similar to type 2 arguments but instead of the fundamentally sympathetic and reasonable "i am worried i am going to be fired by my boss / no longer taken on by clients because of this new technology" they are instead arguing that they are either owed the hypothetical lost profits or royalties for every generated image. this is the type of argument i'm most vehemently against, because i think that all of these arguments essentially end in campaigning to strengthen copyright and IP law, something which i'm profoundly and fundamentally against.

sometimes people will make type 1 arguments when they fundamentally have type 2 concerns, but that just makes their type 2 concerns seem weaker and less worth taking seriously by association, which isn't good for us organized labour fans out there. but yeah these are all separate talking points -- i think i try to approach The Economic Shit with the 'you need to change how you think to achieve something productive' mindset, because of the three positions that's the one i have a fundamental political commonality and nominal shared goals with.

[thenightfolknetwork]

I have a problem. Somebody asked me if I was pro-AI, and I said yes, of course, every sensible person is. "A person's a person, whether they were coded or conceived or came to life through other means," I didn't say, because I felt it was obvious. Now I've found out that people use "AI" to refer to non-sentient computer models, so that means I gave off the COMPLETE wrong impression, and it's mortifying. How do I deal with this, and how do I prevent it from happening again?

I completely understand your frustration, reader. The use of the term “AI” to refer to generative algorithms has had several unfortunate side effects, not least among them being the confusion this terminology causes for genuinely sentient programmes and otherwise coded consciousnesses.

I would first like to note that there is no way to completely prevent such miscommunication from happening. There is a hard limit to how much we can control other people's perceptions of us, after all, and language has always had a rather slippery relationship with meaning. All you can do is try your best, and to speak up when you think things have gone awry.

In this specific situation, the simplest way to avoid this confusion is to speak precisely and ask others to do the same. If a person asks whether you are pro-AI, ask them to clarify whether they're referring to sentient coded consciousnesses, or to a glorified spell checker.

If you have the energy, and if you think it would be productive, you might also push back a little on the terminology they're using. Encourage them to specify either “coded consciousnesses” when speaking about actual people, or “generative AI” when speaking about the automated plagiarism machines.

Otherwise, the best thing you can do here is to lead by example. Be clear and precise in your own language, continue to advocate for the rights and dignities of coded consciousnesses where appropriate, and be prepared to correct any misunderstandings as they arise. That's really all any of us can do.

[For more creaturely advice, check out Monstrous Agonies on your podcast platform of choice, or visit monstrousproductions.org for more info]

[olderthannetfic]

Do you think deepfakes count as fictional, reality or a whole other thing.

I ask this because it's genuinely the biggest news in the kpop space currently. Deepfakes of idols have always existed, I've known about them since 2016 when i first became a fan and tbh, I didn't think much about them. Also, I'm sure people have been editing celebrities and people they know into porn for as long as they've had the ability to. It's just much more accessible and easy to do now.

However, the issue has blown up both internationally and in Korea after a middle school student committed suicide due to being deep faked.

The discussion is now if this counts as sexual harassment and abuse, or is it rpf? It's been a kpop staple for years and people are drawing parallels between it and fanfic. to me deep fakes are worse because they're meant to look exactly like the idols. It's difficult to distinguish reality while fanfiction is just that. Fanfic. No one is reading it and thinking it's really real and the idols actually do the freak nasty after work or smth.

What are your thoughts? I ask bc you and your followers generally are more nuanced and I'm interested in your thoughts on the matter.

--

I've been asked this exact question a number of times. The closest thing is, of course, the photomanips that were hugely popular in some parts of fandom in like 2005.

The difference between those (or the same thing done with better technology now) is that they're openly branded as fake. RPF is the same way. It's posted to fannish archives or on fanworks-oriented social media accounts. It often has watermarks on it indicating it's a fanwork, and that's assuming it isn't... like... a photomanip of somebody as a centaur or something. Fanfic, even fanfic by tinhats, is labeled as fic, not as tabloid news.

Deepfakes intended for harassment are presented as real. A shitty person could take certain types of fan art and repurpose them for this, sure, but that's not the fault of the fan artist. Disguising the fact that this is fan-made (or, well, hater-made) art is the whole point.

How realistic the art is isn't the main issue: it's whether they're pretending it's real.

Now, is drawing cartoony offensive art of your middle school classmate harassment? It could be. Even if it's obviously art and not a photo, it could certainly be used intentionally to bully. A lot of things can be part of a bullying campaign. It's obvious how fake photos could easily be more traumatic and cause more trouble more quickly, but there isn't really a huge difference between known-to-be-fake "photos" and cartoony rude art, nor is there a huge difference between fake photo "evidence" and lying gossip "evidence".

The intent and the social context are what matter here. The photorealism just makes it easier to achieve a specific bullying aim.

--

But, yes, given the current technological situation, if you are a person who uses AI to make celebrity porn or something, the ethical thing to do is to watermark the hell out of it and/or make it less photorealistic and/or make sure it's posted to some porn site with attribution where people can easily go to debunk it should it escape containment and be passed around as The Real Thing. You can't control what assholes do, but you can at least put some roadblocks in place so they can't misuse your stuff as easily.

[theminecraftbee]

Hey, I really like your profile and your posts and if you let me, I would make such an amazing mural out of it!😭❤️ If you don’t mind one of your posts could be my inspiring muse for an art project i’m working on for a client💕 You will totally get paid for it as well as a bonus; you’ll also get credits🤍

so this is fascinating to me because ON PRINCIPLE i'm fine with people including stuff i wrote in collages (although i'm not sure how 'mural' works here). i know too many webweavers to like, NOT be fine with collage. i'm also totally fine with people making "murals" based on my stuff, although i'd be wary of doing it as an art project for a client because i write fanfiction, man, and you know. copyright.

however, there's no way this blog is a real person. click through and it has all the hallmarks of a scam blog: it was made only a day ago, its reblogs don't add up to paint a picture of any specific kind of person and indeed seem to mostly be random, and of course this ask is entirely incoherent. ESPECIALLY since... i'm not an artist. i REBLOG a bunch of art but i'm not an artist.

so i'm kind of curious what this ask is trying to get me to do. i will say, bot: you DO NOT have permission from me to use stuff i didn't make but merely reblogged. i know the fearmongering answer is "gasp it's getting permission to TRAIN AN AI ON YOU" but i sort of doubt that. (for one: all it has to do is ignore robots.txt if it wants to trick you into allowing web crawlers, and if your blog is on google most unethical ai crawlers can like, access your stuff anyway. for another why would they lie about that in this specific way. for another another... that's generally not how that works.) then maybe the next answer is like, some sort of art reposting scheme? but hell if i know why they'd send an ASK about it. it's entirely possible this is a "legitimizing" move in tumblr so they can start doing bigger scams. it's also possible that with that promise of "you will totally get paid" that they're trying to scam me out of my payment information so they can steal from me.

in general this is an interesting new form of scam ask. i am going to block this blog now and recommend you do the same i just felt i had to answer this to both clarify that actually, i AM fine with you recursing my works (i am a little uncomfortable with you making money off of it though ngl) or using them in collages, but i am like 100% certain this is somehow a scam.

uh. buyer beware i guess.

[yanasyin]

It the only we get in the male reader tags

Fanfic writers don't owe you content unless you paid for it

Saying you can't find any m/m fics, but you also say you just use ai anyway bc it's "better"

saying people are either good or writing or they're not, it does not factor with you how much practice writing, like any art form, takes.

You gave me screenshots of the x gn tag, meaning, obviously you're going to get gender neutral fics, the x male reader tag, and the jjk x male reader tag works just fine, block the accounts you don't like, simple.

You have openly bragged about making other fanfic writers quit writing because they didn't write for male readers, which is abhorrent behaviour on your part.

You've stated that you have the right to complain about people writing gn/fem. reader fics, but say they can't??

You've said that you have the time to write, and that you tried to do so but you gave up because your writing wasn't good enough.

you said people who write only gn afab reader are "misandry" (I'm assuming you meant misandrists), which is really immature. If they don't feel comfortable writing that stuff, who are you to force them?

you have something against nonbinary people and women for some reason

You tell people to gn, and then proceed to say you're uncomfortable with it

You expect all writers to male reader too if they write gn/fem readers which is really...

You've mentioned multiple times how because of your slurring problem you can't write. Slurring does not affect you writing in any way because you're not speaking unless you have a cognitive issue relating to the speech which would be understandable but otherwise..

I saw the tags in some of the screenshots you sent me, and x male reader/ jjk x male reader wasn't even on them, if you're in the gn tag, you're going to find gn content.

Complaining about something that you want more in media is fine, however coming after specific creators, harassing them to the point of deactivating, and refusing to listen to people who point out your mistakes is extremely toxic. In general from my (unfortunate) conversation with you, you sound like a raging misogynist, narcissistic, entitled, haughty, lazy, and oddly prejudiced against certain people in the lgbtq+ community despite being in it yourself.

Edit: Some of y'all are PRESSEDD about this post, no need to harass me in asks lmao it was never that deep

[spanishskulduggery]

hi! i’m on mobile so i apologize if you have answered this a thousand times. but, how do i start learning spanish? what are good resources and websites? duolingo doesnt feel like it cuts it!

Assuming you're starting from zero, my biggest recommendations are www.studyspanish.com/grammar and youtube resources because they're actually real people [I often recommend Practiquemos, Señor Jordan, and Butterfly Spanish; though they often do specific topics not always guided lessons but they do offer many resources]

Duolingo isn't my favorite resource because it supposedly started using AI, and to the best of my knowledge it no longer has the forum where people can give more insight or clarity - and tbh Duolingo's prompts sometimes need more clarity, not a knock against Duolingo just that there are times when you'll see a word used and need further explanation or you'll need a certain tense explained

I also recommend WordReference (dictionary, conjugation chart generator, and the forum is REALLY helpful), and I also like SpanishDict, ContextoReverso, and Linguee. I also recommend Forvo for pronunciation and you can hear different accents too

[preemshots]

oc smash or pass

tagged by @theloverstemperance tagging ANYONE who wants to do this but hasn't yet. please tag me as the person who tagged you so i can read about your OC :D rules: pretty self explanatory. include physical descriptions or pics, and propaganda. the “other” label can be used for “sexuality misalignment” (ie: oc is femme and you’re gay, vice versa or you aren’t into smashing but a specific thing you wanna do with them like perhaps hug or study them under a microscope idc).

BASICS

Full Name: NV ("nut v". i never picked a real full name, but it's also not valerie or vincent lmao) Nickname: V Age: 27 in 2077 Height: 5'10" Eyes: Black Kiroshi "The Oracle" with red emissive pupil UI Gender: nonbinary Pronouns: they/she; masc>femme nouns Sexuality: yeah. (bi/pan/queer/poly all of the above)

PROS

obvious: NV is outwardly reserved and focused most of the time; brow furrowed, slight resting grump face. but they're also terrible at hiding what they're feeling and it's easy to break this focus. if they like you, they'll react strongly to you--usually with snark, bold suggestions, or by getting flustered.

dependable sucker: prefers to serve others before self, and once making a choice follows through with it (even if they know they'll regret it or have been deceived).

observant: pays attention to every detail of everything they can, will randomly give you the most thoughtful gift or something you mentioned needing/wanting but forgot about.

enduring: can tolerate a lot--physically, mentally, emotionally, even without certainty of reward at the end.

switch: their dynamic depends on the person, but generally are top-leaning. they are just as eager to struggle for dominance as they are to be put in their place.

work hard, play hard mentality: they overwork to justify seeking pleasure and good times, believing strongly in indulgent treats and blowing off steam--and most importantly, treating others.

1TB SDD memory: their sense of humanity is extremely dependent upon their connections with others above all else, whether close/personal, casual/transactional, or human/AI. they will not forget you.

cybernetically enhanced: stronger than average, but they're made of mostly doll parts, so you know. pleasure enhancements are included >:3

CONS

thrill seeker: they constantly want to test the limits of their cybernetic body in ridiculous ways--whether with new, dangerous drugs, by jumping off buildings in corpo plaza, or watching hacked BDs. their cybernetics aren't even particularly strong; they deliberately choose cheap/basic models and are more than willing to blow money on repairs/replacement parts.

rat: refuses to buy food unless it's for others. they'll openly steal food off tables as they pass by random people dining on the street to get the very limited caloric intake they need. if that fails, they'll even eat something off the ground if it doesn't look too gross.

deeply unwell: it's not just the creepy look of the kiroshis; years of cybernetic replacements have eroded NV's sense of humanity. while there's no risk of a full blown cyberpsychotic breakdown, a sort of gnawing omnipresent craving for violence lives inside them, something they consistently indulge in on a small scale via work when the opportunity presents itself. though it's not enough to motivate their decisions, they do enjoy the excuse.

the fool: their sense of identity is largely defined by choice and the guilt that follows. nudging them into misguided choices is not particularly difficult.

indifferent reaper: they are acutely aware of the nature of merc work, how often they're required to pass judgement on behalf of others whom they may not agree with, as well as how often they are given the unique opportunity to pass life-or-death judgement themselves. but even when executing something they feel is right, they don't really believe in greater moral justice, only luck and bad luck.

feral: the relic and johnny's influence prevent further decay of their humanity but also exacerbate a tendency to overindulge in all their vices. they WILL get themselves into trouble.

narrow viewpoint: particularly focused on individual survival, they don't often examine the larger picture (of corps, society, long-term manipulation, etc.)

EXTRAS

former nomad who loves cars and driving around. they are either the best driver (on the clock) or the scariest (off the clock the thrill seeking mentality kicks in, no thoughts head empty, my insurance will cover this, etc.)

utility netrunner: very skilled but only uses it for doing spooky shit, never direct attacks.

throwing knife user. likes to pounce on their prey and abuse finishers.

also a failed arasaka corpo who loves bullying other corpos but is absolutely embarassed about being a failed corpo. it is not hard to see why they were bad at it.

smoker.

eager to follow a leader but generally suspicious of organized groups that recruit. indiscriminately hazes every ganger in night city, will beat their asses for fun and then sell their guns back to them

more propaganda under the cut (warning for slight spice 🌶)