[ SECRET POST #6264 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6264 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Fandom: Tiān Guān Cì Fú/Heaven Official's Blessing
Ship: Beefleaf (Shi Qingxuan and He Xuan)]



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.
[Music, Drake/Kendrick Lamar beef, What's the Beef? Youtube channel]



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.
[X-Files s04e10, "Paper Hearts" ]



__________________________________________________



08.

































Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 07 secrets from Secret Submission Post #895.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

08. https://i.imgur.com/wwRZ4Yf.jpeg

[(Anonymous)]

For fuck's sake, if you actually care about artists and their livelihoods and have ever actually spent two seconds of your day listening to them then you'd know exactly why AI art is in fact not the same as using digital paint programs. Capitalism. The answer is capitalism. AI is demolishing entire fields of work here in 2024, both in the realm of art and outside of it.

[(Anonymous)]

SA
Specialized skills and trades are folding to AI and capitalism, that is.

[(Anonymous)]

Peoples' hatred of AI extends way over and above its effect on job markets or things of that nature.

[(Anonymous)]

And rightly so. There's a level of existential dread to AI - the fact that human creativity is at risk of being replaced by machine creativity is something that should worry everyone, artists and non-artists alike.

[(Anonymous)]

People are being weirdly hostile towards the technology itself in this case though. I see the same people who would usually look at job loss in some industry being automated and say "this is a systemic problem of capitalism" are looking at generative AI and saying "this specific technology is bad and shouldn't exist". If you haven't seen that, good for you I guess, but it's definitely a thing and it's weird.

[(Anonymous)]

Is different because it doesn't use stock images or stuff that the own artist upload with their consent. Most of AI programs use drawings/paintings made even from artist that still hold their copyrights (I'm not talking about old drawings, I'm talking about actual artists). It wouldn't be a problem if was done for personal purposes or wanting to find an idea t draw, but these days most of corporations are using AI because is cheaper/easier, even if poor lil Jimmy has 6 fingers, three eyes and the perspective of the "pic" is wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

There are AI tools that don't violate copyrights - Adobe's AI thing is made entirely using images they had the rights to or public domain, and people were still furious about it.

[(Anonymous)]

the AI thumbnails popping up all over youtube are ugly as fuck and all trained on actual people making the :O face in their old thumbnails. I hate it.

[erinptah]

Yeah, the usage rights are the core of the problem.

I save time and effort by using a ton of digital brushes, textures, fonts, models, etc. that I didn't make!...either because the original artist made them freely available, or because I paid for them. If you were filling your art with unlicensed GettyImages stock pictures, blurring out the logos, and calling it a day, Getty wouldn't settle for you calling it "just a labor-saving tactic."

[(Anonymous)]

If its doesn't work without stealing from other artists then its a shit tool to begin with.

[(Anonymous)]

Something that's been very interesting to me is watching some people I follow that were fond of the "art should be free" perspective speak out about AI because it's "putting artists out of work." It's become clear that they...aren't particularly thoughtful about the positions they adopt.

[(Anonymous)]

It's an unfair and incorrect assessment to assume ALL artists use whatever non-AI tools OP is referring to. Not all artists are digital artists. Of those who are, not all of them use these tools. That's one hell of a generalization to make.

Signed, an artist whose work is 100% traditional and who prefers to have wonky perspective or anatomy instead of some "perfected", sanitized, "correct" version any of these tools could provide. Thanks but no thanks, to them and to AI.

[(Anonymous)]

yeah, lol. I love how us traditional artists are almost always left completely out of this discourse.
we really don't matter much to other people, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

You're an idiot. When someone like you says something this stupid about AI and signs their username to it, I make a note of it, put them on a 'shitlist' that I quietly circulate around to various friends, and we block you. I encourage everyone to start doing this. This list should be made public so artists know who to block from even viewing their work.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh no, not that!

[feotakahari]

I’ve seen disabled folks jump into using AI. I’ve also seen horrific ableism in response, both the “kill yourself” variety and the “you’re actually abled and lying about it” variety.

Personally, I think AI art looks like shit, but it’s not like art that looks like shit is something new or unusual. If this is the tool you want to use, whatever; I can just ignore it.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah and it also puts out of work other disabled folk. And a lot of disabled folk hate this crap too. Oh please

[(Anonymous)]

I’ve seen disabled folks jump into using AI. I’ve also seen horrific ableism in response, both the “kill yourself” variety and the “you’re actually abled and lying about it” variety.

I kinda don't believe you that happened?

No one cares about any random person using AI. Those people aren't stealing every piece of media they can snatch off the internet. It's not disabled people using those works without the original creator's permission and not paying them. But people do care about the TV and movie studios that are doing all those things. That's who we're mad at.

[(Anonymous)]

There's non-disable people who can't draw either, and disabled people who can. Using your disability as an excuse to steal artists works is shitty. I don't care if you will not take the time to learn to draw with your feet, I get that it would be harder for you, the point is that you can if you REALLY wanted to learn to draw the same way someone non-disable could if the REALLY wanted.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm disabled (wheelchair) and I hope every one of them chokes on Elon Musk's tiny dick. They want the end product, not any of the creativity that goes into it, or the fun of creation, and I hope it eats them up inside forever they can't actually be creative to save their lives.

[(Anonymous)]

This may be very classist and ableist of me (it is, not going to lie), but i don't think that "art" is for everyone. Better yet, everyone can make "art", but nobody is entitled to do "good* art" with no effort.

I say this as someone who wanted to study art when they were younger but had no talent whatsoever (like seriously, 13 years old me drew almost like a toddler), but a lot of passion. I tried to convince my parent to send me to an high school centred around arts so I could learn, but they refused because that wouldn't give me a secure job, they said.
I had to go study something completely unrelated and while I still continued to make doodles and stuff I never really had time nor opportunity to learn how to draw due to time limitation and, truth to be told, complete ignorance about the process of learning how to draw. I didn't know any artist, so I was alone with no role model or mentor to follow.

I am now learning in my late 30s as an hobbyist (so my POV is different from professional artists). This shit is fucking hard. But it matters to me because it's hard and because I CAN DO IT IF I APPLY MYSELF AND STUDY. It will maybe take me another 10+ years to arrive to where I want to go and execute my vision how I was it, but it's worth it because it will be mine and mine only.

Using references (I do, it's actually how you learn!) or even digital tools (I don't, I draw traditionally and without technology involved because I'm lazy) as an aid to your craft is good, you still have to put in effort yourself.
Typing something and letting the machine do all the work seem like a waste of personal potential.

Where is the fun of that? Is that all human can aspire to? Asking gently a machine to make your idea visually appealing to the mass (LLMs generated pictures are very bland)?
How boring.
At least if you commission a "real living artist" you have a piece of art completely tailored to you and in which someone else actually put effort and vision into. And you put your hard earned money into that commission.

(*I say nobody is entitled to do "good art" with no effort, but to me "good art" is simply art with a soul. even if you don't know the fundamentals and your drawing or painting is technically all wonky, if you still put in effort it could still be an excellent piece of art.)

[(Anonymous)]

Well, at least you're honest about how much you don't care if disabled people find a way to support themselves. Or, you know, if they live or die. That's something, I guess.

[nanslice]

This may be very classist and ableist of me (it is, not going to lie), but i don't think that "art" is for everyone. Better yet, everyone can make "art", but nobody is entitled to do "good* art" with no effort.

I agree entirely.

[meadowphoenix]

For the record....there has always been controversy over how models are trained on images.