fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #6566 ]

[ SECRET POST #6566 ]

⌈ Secret Post #6566 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

[The Boy and the Heron]

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05. [SPOILERS for And Just Like That... (Sex and the City sequel)]

__________________________________________________

06. [SPOILERS for Arcane Season 2]

__________________________________________________

07. [WARNING for discussion of assault/abuse]

__________________________________________________

08. [WARNING for discussion of noncon]

__________________________________________________

09. [WARNING for discussion of sexual assault/abuse]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #938.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

01. https://i.imgur.com/TqVudgh.png

Yeah, that does sound hypocritical.

Reminds me a bit of my cousin who is very on the left, vegan and mostly ecoconscious (not to the extreme, but she does go to climate change demos)... and yet uses ChatGBT to write her work emails.

So many people are just really in the dark about how and why chatgpt os so bad. I am pretty aware environmentally speaking and it was a surprise to me.

I do want to point out that these big computer companies were already using billions of gallons of water a year before they got into AI. It’s a pretty big spike (Microsoft’s AI research added about half a billion gallons from 2021 to 2022), but the sustainability issues run a lot deeper.

Source for the estimate: https://fortune.com/2023/09/09/ai-chatgpt-usage-fuels-spike-in-microsoft-water-consumption/ I did the math based on a 34% increase to 1.7 billion gallons.

Edited 2024-12-28 01:04 (UTC)

There IS alternatives of AI chatbots that don't use the amount of water and energy because it's run by volunteers, sometimes on your computer without the need for volunteers.

Gee, it’s almost like it’s a tool for creativity that got demonized based on stupid arguments!

Which arguments do you consider stupid?

Plagiarism—you do NOT want to give Disney that much ground to argue “style” can be copyrighted. You’re not an artist—art doesn’t require a human artist. You’re not using any skill—art doesn’t require skill. If you’re disabled, just paint with a brush in your mouth or something—I’ll let physically disabled people handle that one, but some of them are pissed the fuck off. This is soulless tech bros wanting to replace artists with machines—people had basically the same take on photography.

Plagiarism: this argument isn't typically about "style;" it's about AI reproducing actual works. More broadly, people feel uncomfortable about their works being entered into a program's database without their consent. The usual rejoiner to this is that human artists learn and draw inspiration from the works of others, but I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that there's a difference between incorporating one's experience of another's art into their own and storing the actual work in a literal sense.

You're not using any skill: I have to completely disagree with the notion that art doesn't require skill, and think it degrades it into meaninglessness. But more importantly, you're misunderstanding the actual objection. Whether you think art requires skill or not, the people most upset are those who do have skills; who've spent countless hours developing them, and rely on them for their livelihoods. The notion that art requires no effort or craft has a negative impact on them, both monetarily and in terms of respect.

This is soulless tech bros: photography is not a good comparison for AI. The camera does not hold within it the collected works of other people, nor does it create new works on its own. A human actor still need to point the camera and frame the shot. If the shot isn't quite what they'd like, they still need to physically edit themselves. And, yes -- people with more skill, who've spent more time studying the craft, take better photos.

As to the other arguments, I agree that "you're not an artist" isn't convincing, simply because no one who engages with art starts out being an artist; they become one. And, also, not everyone who produces creative works needs to be an artist. I also agree that it's dismissive to tell disabled people they should just "paint with their mouth." But I also don't think that being disabled entitles someone to act dismissively toward people who have put in real time and work, and often money, to produce the art that they have; and I don't think it entitles them to use the work of those people without any consideration for the ethics of that use.

Wow, I've got to give it to you - that takes some balls to be this fucking shitty of a person not on anon

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-12-28 04:48 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-12-28 14:15 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-12-28 20:29 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-12-28 20:44 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-12-28 11:02 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-12-28 14:16 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-12-28 18:30 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2024-12-28 20:01 (UTC) - Expand

This is probably one of the worst takes I've seen to defend the theft that is AI "art".

The issue is not about "Style", it's about the fact that AI literally uses the work of an artist, without consent, in order to reproduce the prompts that is given.

Art may not require a human artist, but it requires a living, breathing, capable of actual learning, one. I would say that art does require a human artist, since I think art requires intent. But AI Prompters are not artists because what they do is not art. What they do is write words on a screen, and let the program do whatever. THAT doesn't take skill. Art does. A lot. And the idea that Art doesn't require skill is precisely what makes people dismiss artists and art. ANYONE can be an artist, yes, because anyone can build the skills to do a specific art, but you still need those skills. To say otehrwise is to buy into the idea of innate talent, and that's stupid.

Funnily, all disabled artists I know HATE AI art with a passion, and hate even more that they're used as an excuse to steal other's people's works.

And well, the whole point is taht AI anything, besides not really being Intelligence (Seriously, it is not a robot learning to be an individual. It's a mathematical algorithm that predicts where a pixel will be seen as pretty because it has examples that a pixel there is considered pretty) it also impacts the planet's well being considering the absolute insane ammount of energy required to do those abominations people call "Ai Art".

"Art doesn't require skill."

Very bold of you to just loudly declare how stupid you are. Art of all kinds requires skill, a lot of skill honed over years of practice, now everyone has differing levels of skill sure and not all artists improve all that much over their lifetime, but it still requires skill to create in general and to claim otherwise is frankly ludicrous.

That'd be like going up to someone who does construction and telling them their job requires no skill at all to do. Oh wait, maybe you do think brick-laying and other physical labour jobs are 'unskilled' and just anyone can do them!

Your attempts to try and validate AI art are not what you think they are.

... so are you naturally this dumb or has it been honed over years of practice? bc this is impressively brain dead even from what i've seen of your posts before.

Uh, you know that people’s work was stolen to program AI, right? Like, that’s a real thing that really happened. Anything AI spits out is a remix of stolen work. It’s fine if you think that’s ok, it just tells us that you’re a shitty person. But it’s incredibly fucking stupid of you to pretend that AI has been unfairly demonized.

not the above - but it's also kind of hilarious that they suddenly care about disabilities to justify the theft needed to run generative AI, all while ignoring very real artists/writers with disabilities who had been working just fine before AI.

I mean, do you hate when people use AI art tools the way you use AI music tools, i.e. just playing around and not trying to make any money off it?

If you aren't using AI to make money or to avoid paying someone to do the work for something you plan on making money from, I say go wild.

Unless the AI tool CHARGES you, in which case, someone is STILL making money out of stolen work.

Oof, same. I'm against AI in many ways, I know the harms it makes to other artists like me and I detest its uses in monetized works... but... I enjoy role-playing with it. Not that's good or better than a actual partner, it's just fun ocasionally.

There's is a difference between personal casual fun with it and how companies use it, but it doesn't erase that many are run with stolen work and content. idk.

Honestly same. I use it for roleplay fun times only but i dont share my chats with anyone but close friends to occasionally laugh at how goofy the bots responses can be. But i don't try to monetize bots stuff and when i make bots i want to rely on my own programming and my own art

The whole reason i prefer to rp(esp NSFW) with bots is bc I was in the e-rp community and got seriously fucked up with creepy rpers. And bot rp is a way to scratch that itch safely bc you can edit bot responses if you dont like them. And bots can't manipulate and guilt trip you like people do. Bot rp is safe.

da
A good part of RPing is putting in consideration the comfort of your partner, what both of you want, how much either is comfortable. And that can be very fun, but sometimes you're just too tired to commit to anything, and you don't have to consider the feelings of AI.

Yeah tho a lot of the worst people i ran into didnt seem to care about my comfort just about what got them off (bc NSFW rp) and would either guilt trip me for trying to have boundaries or just force their kink regardless.

In general, I'm not against using AI for fun. My issue to try to use it as a shortcut to create something to sell something or to try to use it as a way to replace real human work that is actually needed.
It's a tool to be used not a replacement for actual human work.

As a mucking-about tool it is fun (and who knows, could even be a prompt for a living artist in the sense of "this pose is interesting, but I would do *this* with the background" or suchlike). But oh, the resources it gobbles...

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only