[ 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)]

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".