[ SECRET POST #6566 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Which arguments do you consider stupid?

[feotakahari]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think its shitty to say that AI is soulless compared to actual creations made by actual humans. It is, and its parasitic since a great deal of generative AI needs to steal from peoples creations in order for it to work for lazy people.

[(Anonymous)]

But feotakahari's position is that "AI is soulless" is a stupid argument. They would completely disagree with what you're saying, here.

[(Anonymous)]

Disagree all you want, it's soulless, lazy and kind of pathetic trying to justify stealing from other people's creations.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, but they are arguing on a side of generative art AND are saying that making art doesn't require skills. So yeah, they are pretty shitty

[(Anonymous)]

You and your ilk spend years looking down on everyone and talking shit about this-and-that; don't be so surprised that folks aren't all that sympathetic regarding your side on the AI debate. AI can't replace you stuck-up brats fast enough.

[(Anonymous)]

What in the world are you talking about?

[(Anonymous)]

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/002/850/574/471.jpeg

(DA)

[(Anonymous)]

DA

lol

[(Anonymous)]

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".

[(Anonymous)]

"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.

[(Anonymous)]

... 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.