[ 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)]

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.