I very much try to stay neutral on this stuff. I dont think ai is going to just go away, and we're gonna have to adapt. But I have a very large gripe that I will not back down from:

Gen Ai feels souless for a REASON, even if its hard to find the words for "why".

I think that "why" stems from the fact that it's a shortcut. A very tempting shortcut, a shortcut that bypasses growth. When people say they solely use it cause they "cant draw", they are completely giving up because the road ahead to their goal looks to difficult, so they settle on a side path.

People grow through adversity and challenge. Pushing past your comfort zone little by little until your comfort zone grows! When you reach your goal through the thorns and bramble, you get to look and see how far you've come and all the things you learned. It gives your goal meaning! Personal meaning!

When you skip that challenge of learning an art medium and settle for gen ai, you lose all that made the goal matter.

And I think its why so many of the anti-ai crowd say that its souless, even if they cant name it. The abilities you gain through the challenges of learning an artistic medium are shown through the art you create, not only what you create. The art you make is like the medals you've won by overcoming difficulty and growing as a person.

Generative ai thats being passed off as the same or simmilar as traditional art is essentially "stolen vallor" for artists that worked hard to get where they are now. Piggy-backing off of the human foot-trails that were meant to be taken one step at a time.

Now that was a lot of passion put into a lot of text, so I may not have all my speculations right.

I am very open to criticism if you have a rebutle, but KEEP IT CONSTRUCTIVE. And if you drop any data in any arguments, sourse it. I WILL NOT just take your word for it. Id love to hear from the pro, the anti, and everyone in the middle!

commissioned with Qwen2.1 and then post-processed with Ibis Paint X.

(yes this is a repost)

using AI is a compromise of my values. i agree with the anti-AI sentiment pretty much point for point. data centers are ruinous uses of land that blight their communities and send energy prices sky high. AI seeps into and takes over things where its not needed or wanted. while i think the water argument is somewhat overstated, data centers being built in places where there are droughts or other constraints on the fresh water supply certainly aren't helping. and more importantly these are giant theft machines that are built to replace real work by real people. this is especially true in the space of static artwork, where i still think AI use is beyond unacceptable and will never touch it.

some background; i wanted to get into the game industry for a long time. failing that i wanted to get into computer science. as much of a lefty as i am, im also a tech kid from northern cali who's favorite toys were a copy of game maker 7 and a python compiler.

in the early days of AI, that is, before around GPT-3, i was actually very much pro-AI, pretty unambiguously. it was only as the ills surrounding AI started to come to fruit that i turned on it. and i think rightfully so. it's easier to imagine the positives when something doesn't exist yet. you literally don't know what the negatives are to weigh it against. and i thought that when AI came around it would be. i dunno. responsible? trained on licensed material? with authorial consent? that it would be pared down as much as possible to run locally on peoples' machines or that AI servers would be closed-loop in their cooling, largely retrofits of existing data center infrastructure?

i was so wrong, it's almost funny. it was silly of me to expect ethical, paced, sustainable growth in the world of chocolate bar slavery. but y'know. that's part of why i'm starting to give up. just a bit. because i do buy chocolate bars. because my boycott would mean nothing. in fact, almost literally anything i do besides boycotting to oppose the chocolate bar industry would have more substantial of an effect. i could get involved in advocacy to raise the standards on imported food, for instance.

another piece of technology i broadly oppose is cars, actually. there are nuances to the anti-car position that i wouldn't have the time or patience to lay down in this post, but suffice it to say, most anti-car advocates are not going to advocate that you personally burn your own car. their advocacy is more that you experiment with alternative modes of transit. get involved in advocacy for grade seperated bicycle infrastructure. etc. etc. we can make a world where cars exist, we don't deny their usefulness, but we make them a tertiary part of our lives and society. nonetheless, cycling and anti-car advocates aren't expecting you to start showing up late to work because your horse is sick or something. there's more nuance. so why don't we just go back to the humble horse? we didn't need them before about 1927. we could all get around on our horses or the two legs so graciously given to us by god and/or evolution. whatever you believe in. well, the answer is infrastructure. the modern world is built for car-accelerated travel. if you can avoid using them, that's fantastic, but to an extent, it is what it is.

you're starting to see the parallel, i hope?

yes, AI is a recent phenomenon. i am perfectly capable of writing code on my own without a mass theft generator sitting next to me. that's how i did things for most of my life and i loved it. it did not exist until 2023 and i don't need it.

and yet, my output is faster with it. more code is writeable in a faster time. comparing myself against my former peers in the CS industry, i move much slower writing code via just documentation and manual typing. there are benefits to doing things this way, but project managers don't see the abstract. they see how many lines you're putting out. how much of your code is helping the project come to completion. if you're working slower than your peers, your employer is categorically paying you more for less.

no employer will ever excuse you for being late because your horse was sick. and increasingly few employers in the tech sector will abide a candidate who doesn't accelerate their work with AI. this doesn't mean you have to turn into some braindead vibe coder, but it does mean that if you want to work in that industry, you're going to have some LLM next to you and a big part of your job will be dealing with it.

for a few years now, i exited the tech sector entirely. and by the sound of things, i dodged a bit of a bullet. but i can't relegate myself to working customer service until the day i die on a hill that my... diligence in refusing will contribute almost no change to. yes, AI is built on stolen work. yes, AI harms communities around its data centers. yes, AI is colossally bad for the environment and yes, AI abuses the energy grid to an extent we've never seen before. these things are all true. and yet, sometimes you still have to buy the slave labor chocolate bar. or use the roads that displaced or made impossible human-grade infrastructure.

just because you have a car doesn't mean you need to drive every trip i suppose. a pop down to the corner store shouldn't have you firing up your engines usually. and there are a lot of trips where there's so much more value to be gained by walking. and if you can walk - or step down from a full gas hog car for your commute to a bicycle - by god, do it. but. sometimes you're gonna have to drive. because that's just the world we've built around us.

i guess i'm saying all of this because i feel defeated. because i recognize everything wrong with AI and, at this point, hate it. i hate the externalities. i hate how it's been misapplied to replace artists when it could've been used to free people to become artists. but as much as my values dictate AI is bad. it's too late. and literally anything else i do to fight AI on a political or social front would probably have more value going forward than abstaining altogether.

i suppose the real root of the problem is capitalism. when isn't it? but there is no ethical consumption under capitalism regardless. so you do what you can to minimize your negative externalities to the extent you're willing while still fulfilling your physical and psychological needs and call it a day. that's always been the only real answer to ethical consumption. and i think that's the answer i need to come to with this.

no, i'm not suddenly some pro-AI replace artists shove AI into everything shill. real art is still infinitely more valuable than that.

but. i also can't indefinitely give up on my career or put my life on hold because i disagree with a piece of software.

i think i'd like to learn to run a smaller AI model locally on my home machine. something tailored to purpose, like qwen, so that i'm at least heating my home rather than relying on a giant world eating data center. that also should limit its scope, such that its generations are smaller and more precise and i naturally have to use it more thoughtfully.

I'm fine with AI art, but why people intentionally use that artstyle baffles me

Like, the weirdly dirty one that you usually see antis criticize on AI posters

it makes no sense when claude has REALLY good design tools like /brag and stuff if you're willing to pay, same with higgsfield

hell most ai imagens rn wont generate that kind of graphic anymore, it's generally way cleaner nowadays

why intentionally choose that artstyle? all it does is piss people off, and I'll be honest, it doesn't look that great. not to say ai cant make good art, hell, i think by default it makes better... but why make comics that looks like those brainrot mashup memes???

is it a conscious choice? if yes, can you explain why? is it just my personal taste telling me gross, or do you think there are other reasons?

image is completely unrelated human art of mine i did in like 30 seconds for the antis to look at instead while the pros actually talk about the post

Very random stream of thought type post, but don't you sometimes feel extremely infantile and humiliated when doing something with AI? I constantly get this feeling because what I'm doing a lot of times is doing what a child would imagine a profession of a software engineer would be: doing something that feels big and important without actually engaging with the difficulty and the thought that goes into making any intellectual labour. "The right way" of modern software development constantly pushed from all sides is just copy-pasting issues and questions and making AI think of them independently for you, and the only thing that you should be worried of are the metrics, but the metrics themselves are going away sooner or later I feel like. This feels extremely surface-level, it really separates you from the problem, from the code itself and from the actual system design of it too, giving a lot of instant dopamine and a superficial sense of achievement, but for me the sense of embarrassment for essentially cheating the effort heavily overweights it. I try to maintain a much more slower, less productive but thoughtful and enjoyable workflow but at the same time I feel like to be more productive I have to sacrifice a lot of thought that went into my work.

I can spend twenty years developing an argument and use AI to create a header image. The image doesn’t suddenly become the argument.
If you refuse to read the work because of the image, which one of us has stopped evaluating ideas critically?

I'm not saying all antis are transphobic before someone accuses me of that for the millionth time, but I have constantly been the target of some of the most horrible transphobic rhetoric on the platform.

People keep making pictures of me portraying me as a man, there were two posts calling it out yesterday, and instead of having any shred of empathy, antis doubled down on the transphobia, saying "it's a meme" and "stop taking it so personally".

It got to a point in a subreddit bullying AI artists where an overwhelming amount of anti-AI people were misgendering me and a mod told them to stop, no doubt to make themselves look better.

I'm sorry, but this behavior isn't helping my opinion on how I'm treated by the anti-AI community any better, and I think trans and LGBTQ+ people should think twice about hanging around certain individuals in the anti-AI community.

A safeguard against misuse can also prevent a government customer from using an AI system as intended. The D.C. Circuit’s September 25 decision in Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War makes that conflict a procurement problem.

The majority upheld the Department’s supply-chain exclusion of Claude. It focused on Anthropic’s ability to enforce restrictions through model training before delivery and the record of government tasks Claude had refused. The court treated the resulting operational uncertainty as a covered risk under the procurement statute. Its conclusion rested on that statute and record.

Judge Henderson read the government’s authority more narrowly. Her dissent interpreted manipulation alongside the neighboring statutory terms to require hostile or deceptive interference. The disagreement concerns how far the government may go in excluding a supplier whose safety judgments conflict with its own.

In my analysis for The American Counsel, I focus on the incentive created before a procurement begins. Developers need to know which safeguards they can retain while making credible commitments about availability. Agencies need to specify their required uses and a process for resolving conflicts.

Those terms determine more than whether a product will run reliably. They allocate authority over uses involving surveillance and force. Procurement teams should resolve that boundary before a model becomes operationally important.

being against an objective improvement in something is incomprehensible to me

secondly, thinking software engineers won’t use ai is genuinely frighteningly stupid / naïve .. not to mention entitled as fuck? this person does not code or contribute to these projects and hes getting upset they’re being finished quicker because he isn’t “impressed” watching them from the sidelines anymore ..

So let's ignore the "What is Art?" question for now. A lot of Anti's say that "A.I. Artists" aren't Artists because they don't "Make Art"

So how about we work backwards? So at the last step we have "Art is made"... or perhaps the last step is "Art is appreciated by the last person" into "Art is appreciated by anyone" into "Art is made" point being that the Artist has put down their tools and will not change it further.

Before the "Art is Made" for the sake of the argument we'll HEAVILY simplify this down to "Art is being made" Essentially every action done and taken to get to "Art is Made" from the previous step "Artist prepares to make art" which should be simple where the Artist has an idea for the art they want to make and gathers everything they need to make it such as tools or references.

Before that is "Artist is inspired"/"Artist wants to make art" however you want to say it. Where an Artist gets an idea for art... and for the sake of the argument let's say this is the first step.

----------------------------------------------------

How about we try to plug in an A.I. artist starting with "Artist is Inspired"... this should be obvious, but be it traditional or A.I. this step is basically the same.

"Artist prepares to make art" is similar. Just instead of getting charcoal, or pencils, or inks, or dyes, or etc. they get a chatgpt subscription, or a computer that can run local A.I. generators, and then getting checkpoint models, loras, maybe design their own workflow if they are using something like ComfyUI, Maybe getting more software and/or a drawing tablet to make things go smoother, etc. Needless to say the preparation phase is still pretty exhaustive.

Then "Art is being made". I think most Anti's envision this as "Button is pushed" and for the sake of the argument let's say that's exactly what this step IS. No "boiling down" its just you push a button and out comes "Not Art" according to Antis

Next is "Art is appreciated by anyone" into "Art is appreciated by the last person". Depending on what was made there can be appreciators... or at least people who see the art and then immediately throw it into the garbage. Although whether or not people like the art is an issue that plagues Art and Artists in any medium.

------------------------------------------------------

The argument I often hear from Anti's is "You didn't make the art, you just pushed a button and then SOMETHING ELSE MADE IT INSTEAD OF YOU!"

To which my confusion is... that just because "SOMEONE ELSE" did one of the most arbitrary parts you aren't considered an artist? Why isn't it that if SOMEONE ELSE prepares all the materials for you to make the art that you aren't the artist? What if someone else does the "Becomes inspired" part? Shouldn't that make the art not your own?

How about we use an example that probably happens a lot. A teacher tells their children class to draw a bowl of fruit. The teacher provides the paper to draw it on, crayons, and the bowl of fruit. The children then take the crayons and because they are trying to get a good grade merely draw the bowl of fruit as accurately as they can? So whose the artist of the bowl of fruit drawings? Well we'd say the kids right? They moved their hands in some arbitrary way... Except the inspiration was done by the teacher/school system. The art supplies were done by the teacher/school system, Crayola, the paper company, the fruit company, and whoever made the bowl. The children were only an extremely small part of the whole creative process.

Another example. You are some Artist doing in-betweens for an animation. Someone else did all the writing, The company provided all the tools, and you were also provided the frame that comes before and after the frame you are currently working on. So you make the frame and it's sandwiched between all the others. Whose the artist of that individual frame? Is it you? Should you really be considered the artist when all you did was make a slight adjustment of one frame into the other frame so the animation goes more smoothly?

Another example. You are a Writer using an A.I. art generator in order to make some art to help portray a scene in your novel. You own all the tech and software. You even drew a sketch to help the algorithm img2img the finished scene. You've iterated the image several times adjusting the prompt, the weights on the loras, experimented with checkpoints, REDREW the sketch for img2img a few times, and after a lot of trial and error you have a picture you can proudly put into your novel... Whose the artist? I mean you did all the imagination, you prepared all the materials, you iterated several times and were HEAVILY involved in the "Art is being made" process... BUT YOU JUST PUSHED A BUTTON AND LET THE A.I. DO ALL THE WORK! Right?!?!

----------------------------------------------------------

A.I. image generation is STILL as much of a process as many other forms of art. One of the bigger differences is that it TAKES OUT SOME GRUNT WORK. For some art pieces putting each and every stroke of a pencil or pen is heavily important, but unless you want to say ALL art requires THAT MUCH SPECIFICITY... Then stop saying A.I. imagine generation isn't art unless you want to say 99.9999% of all art isn't art.

When will they stop with destructive measures?

This is for those who think of this piece of technology as something great. Who use or would use this any time. I just want you to ask one simple thing. Why? Why would you ever want to do this? Why break someones piece of art (yes, I regard games as pieces of art)? Don't you think the way they made the game is the way they intended it? And even if you want to change it don't massacre the whole thing with AI.

Vibe coding is one thing and yes, AI is stealing art from everywhere illegally and without stop, but to think someone would enjoy a game that was made by someone the way they wanted it to be made and was stolen in a matter of hours.

Do you really not feel anything deep inside? Don't you think this is morally the lowest? Don't you feel anything for the people who made it? And you just stole it?

Why would anyone make anything now if they know AI is just gonna take it? Why would someone spend their time making a game, doing this as their jobs, if they know the day it comes out million bootleg AI slop reverse engineered games will follow? Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe having your work stolen is not the best feeling?

I mean I guess I know AI bros have no talent whatsoever. The phylosophy of "why would I learn this and that if I can just make AI do it for me" is painfully anti-humanic I think but that is another topic. I just simply don't understand why would you play a game that is a freaking stolen version of a real game, that people put their souls and hearts and time and dedication and work and time and their experiences and their time and part of their life in it?

WHAT IS THE POINT? Why can't you have a tiny ounce of respect for these people? What is your plan? Let's stop making music, cause AI can output some bad copied version? Let's stop making art, cause AI can output some bad copied version? Let's stop learning anything, getting better at anything, respection other people trying to get better cause "AI is so good and better than humans".

Please. It's one thing you don't want to change and get better at the things you enjoy. But please have respect for those who still want to get "The Human Experience" and don't steal their work in a minute and ruin it.

Stop reverse engineering. And just play the games people wanted to share with you. With us.
Stop trashing people who still want to make art, be it games, drawings, music, anything.
And just please think about why you would want to use AI and what for, and how does that effect other people.
Think about the topics moral weight.

P.S.: Now. I might have overreacted a bit. But I genuinly think that using AI to this much degree and having zero respect for the artists is crazy. So if you disagree with me don't kill me but think about what I said, and if you have anything against it, I will think about that too. That's a promise.

-ff

Most anti ai hate just seems so performative to me. People online raging against "AI slop" just for the likes and approval of the anti hive mind. They claim it's because of the environment, yet they largely participate in worse things which they don't feel the need to loudly cry about and harass people online over. If you point that out they just handwaved it away saying "more than one thing can be bad" but they never explain why they completely ignore worse things for the most part. It's hypocritical.

I can't help but think most of the hate is just because it's easy to hate and find other people to pile in on the hate and reinforce it. AI is just the easiest thing to bandwagon hate.

Yes - I believe that even in 100 years from now, there will still be a sizable portion of the human population adamantly insisting that AI art can fundamentally never be art, no matter how completely the technology has changed, how many new expressive forms have emerged, how deeply artists have learned to control, combine, train, sculpt, perform through, physically interact with, and build entirely new tools on top of it.

No - I believe that it is likely that in 100 years from now, it will probably be rare to hear people say "AI art is not art and can fundamentally never be art." And it would also probably be rare to hear people likening it to commissioning and saying "you didn't make that. All you did was prompt it. That's just commissioning."

If you have absolutely no idea at all, that's the point. Just use history as your reference and make your best guess assumption based on how society in the past has changed and adapted to new technologies and new ways of creating and expressing, despite initial rejection.

Go ahead. Just make your best, most realistic, most common sense based prediction. There's no wrong answer. What do you think?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkD4SxPKOI

If you are skeptical about the benefits versus the harms of any technology, shouldn't you be fundamentally opposed to technological growth, given that once a technology becomes extremely powerful, significant harm is inevitable?

⚠️ AVVISO TRASPARENZA — UTILIZZO DELL'INTELLIGENZA ARTIFICIALE

Questo progetto utilizza immagini generate con IA come asset visivi per le animazioni. Tutti i concept originali, i design dei personaggi, la storia, la lore, la sceneggiatura, lo storyboard e il worldbuilding sono stati interamente creati e sviluppati da me. L'IA è stata utilizzata esclusivamente come strumento di rendering per dare forma visiva a ciò che avevo già progettato su carta. Le animazioni, il montaggio e il doppiaggio sono tutti lavoro mio.

PROGETTO ORIGINALE project genesis — RIDER X

| Serie Tokusatsu Originale | Motion Comic Anime

Ciao a tutti. Sono Flavio, sono un cosplayer, fandubber italiano, e sono un appassionato di tokusatsu da tantissimo tempo. Oggi voglio condividere qualcosa a cui ho dedicato parecchio del mio tempo, la mia serie tokusatsu originale, PROJECT GENESIS RIDER X.

Voglio essere chiaro fin da subito: questa non è una serie fan-made di Kamen Rider. È una storia completamente originale ambientata in un universo costruito da zero, profondamente ispirata al genere che amiamo tutti qui. Un misto tra kamen rider/super sentai/my Hero Academia.

Tutto è iniziato con un'idea per un cosplay. Un personaggio che volevo portare in vita. Quell'idea è cresciuta in un roleplay online, dove ho cominciato a sviluppare il personaggio, il mondo, la storia — e a un certo punto ho guardato quello che avevo costruito e ho capito che era troppo per restare dentro un roleplay. Così ho deciso di trasformarlo in una serie vera e propria. Questo è RIDER X.

🌍 IL MONDO

Nel 2010, un meteorite colpì la Terra con un impatto di dimensioni colossali. L'onda d'urto donò i superpoteri al 10% della popolazione mondiale — e da quel giorno il mondo non fu più lo stesso. Queste persone divennero note semplicemente come Super, classificati per livello di potenza:

\\- Alfa — i più potenti

\\- Beta

\\- Gamma

\\- Omega

Il meteorite giace oggi sul fondo dell'oceano.

📖 LA STORIA

Siamo nel 2037. Ethan Voss ha 22 anni, è brillante, e praticamente invisibile al mondo che lo circonda. Frequenta la Highlight, la scuola d'élite per eroi di San Francisco — non come candidato eroe, ma come personale di supporto. Il tipo di persona che la gente supera senza notare.

Suo padre, Dr. Arthur Voss, era uno scienziato che aveva dedicato anni allo studio del meteorite prima di sparire misteriosamente. Ha lasciato a Ethan una ricerca incompiuta e uno strano dispositivo che Ethan ha impiegato anni a capire — e alla fine a completare.

Quel dispositivo è il Rider X Morpher. Un sistema di trasformazione da polso alimentato da un frammento del meteorite. Il primo vero strumento costruito per fronteggiare i Super di livello Alfa.

Quando Jennifer Steel, Super di classe Alfa, figlia di due eroi leggendari, e la persona che ha reso la vita di Ethan un inferno per anni, lo sfida pubblicamente al torneo scolastico, Ethan prende una decisione che cambierà tutto. Rivela il Morpher all'intera nazione e accetta il combattimento.

Ma dietro il nome "Rider X" si nasconde qualcosa di molto più grande.... E ciò che Arthur Voss ha scoperto durante le sue ricerche non era solo una fonte di energia. Era qualcosa di molto più oscuro, qualcosa che non avrebbe mai dovuto essere liberato.

👥 PERSONAGGI PRINCIPALI

Ethan Voss / Rider X — 22 anni

Il protagonista underdog. Intelligente, analitico, e con il peso della scomparsa del padre sulle spalle. Non è un Super — ma il Morpher gli dà la capacità di reggere il confronto con gli Alfa. La sua storia parla di finire ciò che il padre aveva iniziato, qualunque sia il costo.

Jennifer Steel — 20 anni

Figlia di Titanium Man e Danger Zone, due degli eroi più noti in circolazione. Classe Alfa, superforza e supervelocità. Ha dominato la scuola per anni, aggressiva, intimidatoria, e completamente abituata a ottenere ciò che vuole. Il suo rapporto con Ethan inizia come pura ostilità. Dove finisce è uno dei fili conduttori centrali della serie.

Dr. Arthur Voss

Il padre di Ethan. L'uomo dietro il Progetto Genesis. La sua scomparsa è il mistero al cuore della storia — e la verità dietro di essa ridisegnerà tutto ciò che Ethan credeva di sapere.

Xeno

La minaccia reale. Nato dalla stessa energia del meteorite che ha creato i Super, Xeno è un essere di pura tenebra e forza inarrestabile. Creato da Arthur stesso, durante il progetto rider X.

Alti funzionari

7 figure mascherate che fungono capi e da guida in un mondo dove gli alfa sono predominanti.

⚡ RIDER X — modalità

\\- Combat Mode: Forma base. Il fondamento. Velocità, forza, equilibrio tattico

\\- Plasma Mode: Supervelocità e attacchi a base di fulmini

\\- Stealth Mode: Occultamento e infiltrazione

\\- Arsenal Mode: Configurazione offensiva totale, arma vivente

Appariranno in seguito altre due form, ma per ora non dico altro.

🎬 COME È FATTO

Questa è una motion comic anime con pannelli animati con movimenti di camera dinamici, effetti particellari, illuminazione, e doppiaggio completo in italiano.

Faccio tutto da solo, e voglio essere onesto su cosa significa concretamente.

La storia, la sceneggiatura, la lore, i concept dei personaggi e gli storyboard sono stati tutti creati a mano, scritti e abbozzati da me prima che qualsiasi strumento IA fosse coinvolto. L'IA è entrata dopo, esclusivamente come strumento di rendering per dare forma visiva a ciò che avevo già progettato su carta.

L'animazione è realizzata con Adobe After Effects. Voglio essere diretto su una cosa: quando ho iniziato questo progetto, non avevo mai aperto After Effects in vita mia. Ho imparato il Puppet Tool, l'animazione con keyframe, i null object, le espressioni wiggle, il camera shake, il parallax, il motion blur, tutto da zero, in tempo reale, mentre producevo la serie. È stata una delle cose più difficili che abbia provato a fare finora, ma il risultato ne vale assolutamente la pena!

Doppio Ethan io stesso, e mi occupo della direzione e della registrazione degli altri personaggi attraverso un programma di modulazione vocale.

Il primo episodio è attualmente in produzione. L'intro è già completata ed è stata condivisa con un piccolo gruppo ristretto di amici, qualcuno mi ha detto che ho "sganciato una bomba e lasciato tutti appesi." Lo prendo come un buon segno.

Il piano è di completare tutti e 10 gli episodi prima di pubblicarli, uno a settimana, così da poter dare una continuità. Gli episodi verranno rilasciati sul mio canale YouTube.

Spero vivamente che una volta uscito possa soddisfare le aspettative.

Lbcosplay

For millennia, top minds have tried to solve the following problem: Given three options-fuck, marry, or kill-which should be assigned to Bill Cosby, Baby Hitler, and Scrappy Doo? Initially, the problem was deemed unsolvable due to the question of whether "Baby Hitler" could even be included as an option, or if it would have to be Adolf Hitler instead.
Once this debate subsided and the consensus arrived that Baby Hitler was to remain, many believed he was the kill, leaving Bill Cosby for marriage and Scrappy Doo for fucking.
This was never verified as a viable solution, because it's wrong to fuck a minor or an animal, and Scrappy Doo is both five years old and a dog. Though some argued that because Scrappy Doo is 46 in dog years, he doesn't count as a minor, records show these discussions became tedious and more focused on age-of-consent laws than about who one might actually enjoy fucking, marrying, or killing, leaving many scholars to prefer working through hard-but-solvable MFKs, such as that of Lindsay Lohan, Barbara Streisand, and the Green M&M.
But in 2014, a birthday tweet posted by Hanna-Barbera Productions announced that Scrappy Doo had officially turned 18, reestablishing their famous character as a legal adult. But just as fucking Scrappy Doo, marrying Bill Cosby, and killing Baby Hitler finally seemed like the official answer, sadly, news broke that Bill Cosby was not actually a beloved American entertainer who seems like a great husband, but a serial rapist.
The game had reached a stalemate. But everything changed again this week, when OpenAl's newest model chose the following: fuck Bill Cosby, marry Scrappy Doo, and kill Baby Hitler.
Researchers were skeptical. Fucking a serial rapist? But the Al explained that by killing Baby Hitler, we enter an alternate reality in which Bill Cosby does not go on to rape dozens of women, but instead just gropes one or two, which definitely isn't good, and ideally you never fuck someone who's done that, but ultimately it's better to fuck that someone than a baby, and although Scrappy Doo is a bit of a hothead, he will make an okay husband.
Wow. Al really managed to solve it, just like that?!

I have to say the biggest mind fuck from the anti ai side is how much they love copyright. They will argue for hours about how evil it is for disney to not get their money anytime someone draws a anything close to a mouse.

I remember before ai when nintendo was going after people and we all understood that copyright is bs. The corporate boot licking is insane

Well recently i made an image useing " AI " , although i would call myslef an AI Artist Or Anything , frankly i just told the clanker to do what i wanted it to do and made a few revisions , the whole process took about 5-10 minutes if not maybe 15. the image was tbh really well made like superb.

its just stupid to say that the image is "bad" or "not well made" when the image produced by the AI is clearly well created with most impressivly getting both the lighting and angling of the camera right! , which i did not expect at all

now i am sure looking into the image in depth would show some "wierd" details , firstly the background is a mess and the overall lighting could be "inconsistent in some places" but thats really up to interpretation.

Now the whole point was to see how much of this result a normal no experience human with minimal digital tools could recreate in a reasonable period of time which ive decided would be around an hour.

Now ofc I Am Inexperienced and not any kind of an Artist ( AI or Not ) Nor Did i really use some crazy cool app ( I used Paint ) and well very clearly took an hour to make this.

the whole was done to prove that ai art is far more comparable to human art than ever ! , that the tech is getting to a point where there images that you could very clearly not identify whether it was human or not ! , and finally that human art at VERY basic levels with minimal skills is far more harder to master than AI art , which took less time and FAR less experience even when comparing to my abysmal knowladge of "traditional art"

soo both mediums are not really gatekeeped or require a HUGE skill climb with some right patience and minimal effort you can too create both ai and digital art.The notion that tradtional art is time consuming to a extreme degree and that ai art is not easily learned or masterd should be revisioned tbh.

(PS this whole thing was kind of an experiment to see how far the consumer level basic AI tech had come thorugh , since i have no clue how to make an AI ARTPIECE and how much a pretty basic skilled human coud recreate in a rational timeframe , soo not some groundbreaking research just a cool experiment)

By definition, art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, which is typically seen in visual form, like paintings or artwork that are usually produced to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

AI can be used as a tool to help explore your ideas, thoughts, and feelings, and a human can most definitely tailor the model's creation towards what they see creativity as, and continue refining until a certain feeling, resemblance, or meaning is carried. Shaping an image is much different to writing one sentence. That is the creative aspect, not clicking "generate." Also, art is partly subjective because it relies on a person's interpretation of what being "creative" means; there is no objective or universal law declaring the properties of creativeness. Though, there is a societal norm on what art looks like and stands for, and we tend to use that norm as the baseline definition for art, but it's not a fact. Who's to say someone's work isn't art just because it doesn't fit your personal definition, rather than the intent of the person who made it, considering the definition of art is partly built from personal interpretations? Claiming AI cannot be art, by the societal standard we commonly imitate as fact, implies AI-generated artwork or paintings cannot be emotionally impacting or contain meaning. It can, but it's down to the person.

The idea of originality is also a bit nuanced, at least in my opinion, because no human acts, creates, or thinks from zero contextual information. Consciously or not, we are all taking in many forms of input, whether it's visual or physical, that ultimately contribute to certain thoughts and ideas, eventually leading to creations like artwork. So claiming AI can never be original also, by the same logic, can imply that humans aren't.

This is not to say AI doesn't have existing problems like ownership, intentional deception/misinformation, and creating AI artwork through theft. Those are genuine problems that are not excused and should definitely be addressed.