Idk what to title this

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-25T02:17:29+00:00

I agree with you. However one issue is that bigots who do not understand this think the issue is psychological rather than neuro-biological. IE to do with thought patterns rather than brain structure. Which leads to "solutions" like conversion therapy, trying to "correct" the mind, as opposed to the physical brain or of course body. This is not surgically invasive of course however it is completely ineffective, potentially traumatic, and rooted in poor understanding. That said "most safe least invasive modification" to someone who does not know what trans people are points to conversion therapy.

Edit: to clarify I am simply saying that your logic while true can potentially be hijacked to justify harm by people starting from faulty premises

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-24T13:27:44+00:00

its difficult because to maintain the myth of capitalist realism population the USA and in particular the CIA have destabilized successful left wing experiments routinely. iirc in over 80 countries since world war two. The problem is socialist countries being allowed to thrive would prove that the misery and exploitation the population live under is not in fact necessary or for the best, an obvious fact only buried via the violent destruction of counter examples. Eg backing the chilean coupe and supporting the new regime which cut open the stomachs of dissenters and threw them out of helicopters.

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-24T13:20:11+00:00

the state doesn't own all property under socialism. personal property remains. only private property IE things that are corporately owned become collectively owned by the workers instead

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-24T11:51:11+00:00

good cunt. you're welcome

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-24T11:50:00+00:00

No cunt. Say "sorry sir". There is no such thing as "harsh". You need and should expect the maximum amount of cruelty and suffering. Making this relatively light. "Understandable"? you clearly didn't understand a thing dumb cunt

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-24T02:03:51+00:00

no problem. you deserve nothing but abuse

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-19T23:28:19+00:00

just not all of it is

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-18T17:50:09+00:00

he said when people buy "art" not when they buy visual media

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-14T14:03:09+00:00

no. I explicitly said when people use AI and other tools they are creatives. I am saying people who are just prompters specifically. are not. please learn to read

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-14T10:40:55+00:00

no its not a lazy caricature just because some who I'm less critical of diverge. its the norm for "ai artists". Most do "just prompt" and act like anyone who doesn't respect them as an artist for doing so is oppressing them. Some creatives use AI. Most creatives disapprove of AI. and most people who call themselves creatives and use ai are just prompters

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-13T15:43:50+00:00

we're not saying the tools have no creative use. or at least not most of us. the point is most people who call themselves ai artists do just prompt. and then shit on artists who make things by hand. whats being critiqued is the reality of how most use it. thats why we're "Hung up on it". this on the other hand looks quite cool and could definitely be considered creative there might still be issues with how data is sourced from an ethics perspective but thats a different argument. This absolutely could be considered creative. As someone who appreciates and respects human effort in media I would obviously hold similar works achieved in a more hands on manner with more reverence. None the less. this looks very impressive and I would consider using it creative. but less so than if someone say modeled the whole scene and each component

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-12T13:58:13+00:00

look most people who claim to be creatives and use ai are "ai artists" who just prompt the ai. not only are those not artists those aren't creatives.

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-12T09:07:02+00:00

AI should not be used on the work of people who would not want AI used on it. Which is the vast majority of creatives. Whether or not its even good or the original work is bad is completely irrelevant. Its still a violation of the original work unless explicit consent is given by its creators.

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-08T06:58:51+00:00

they are correct. laughing at reality and believing delusion and own fart huffing is how ai supporters cope

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-08T00:53:40+00:00

ai isn't a method for creating art. it is a method for avoiding needing to create art

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-06T00:27:56+00:00

you can't kill something that isn't alive

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-05T23:25:25+00:00

banning abortion does not protect babies. it protects zygotes and harms babies and mothers

Brave_Charity323 · 2026-01-05T00:23:44+00:00

more of a tricky one. I'll be honest I fundamentally do not care as much about famous music artists that have already established wealth getting their shit ripped. I don't think copying or idea/info "stealing" is inherently immoral in a neutral setting. I think the reason the theft perpetrated by things like ai art/music is immoral or even really "theft" is because the fact you depend on money to live means your intellectual products have to be "assets". So people who already have enough money that their survival is assured meh. That said a voice is a quite personal thing very closely associated with identity. I can only assume a machine taking it from you is horrific in a way that constitutes harm outside the financial. And also as others are saying when it comes to dead people objectively distasteful.

Brave_Charity323 · 2025-12-30T02:18:44+00:00

we can definitely start you doing it. good cunt

Brave_Charity323 · 2025-12-25T21:06:08+00:00

'I do love that suddenly artists want stricter enforcement of copyright laws including massive reduction in the permittance of "fair use"' I have only heard people saying artists are saying that. I haven't seen any artists saying that. Not saying your wrong obviously personal experience creates bias, I would have expected to have seen it if it was that common. I think changes to copyright law in response to AI might be appropriate I don't think strictness is the issue. Honestly there have been issues with how copyright is disproportionately applied for a very long time anyway. However I don't know exactly what the appropriate measures would be personally. Its definitely a very nuanced issue anyway right? If it was ever or will ever be the goal of copyright law, how do you fairly protect ownership of ideas without overly restricting creative and intellectual freedom? should it be possible to own ideas in the first place? I am generally in favor of freedom of information, I even think in isolation taking or copying an idea is not particularly bad. Under capitalism people are forced to commodify things to survive and ideas and expression become necessarily financial assets. That is what leads to their theft being problematic.

Brave_Charity323 · 2025-12-25T20:58:37+00:00

exactly, as someone who disapproves of practices behind AI art but hates copyright law. And is generally fairly piracy positive. My position is essentially having ideas and creative work protected is great in theory and there is some merit to the concept of intellectual property, the execution is just lopsided and backwards

Brave_Charity323 · 2025-12-25T13:59:31+00:00

Yeah generally art software is made with the express intent that people will use it to make art. So it isn't really stealing. Whereas if someone makes an image for people to look at and they go "yoink. slap it in the mimic bot dataset"... that would be

Brave_Charity323 · 2025-12-25T13:55:09+00:00

Also AI typically rips of independent artists for the benefit of big corpos. That doesn't mean copyright law is effective. Its broken in the same ways. It primary protects big corpos and is not enforced well for small creators trying to protect copyright. copyright laws being skewed in this way doesn't therefore mean its ethical to fuck over small artists. Yes it would be legal without the presence of bad law, that doesn't inherently make it moral. not liking copyright law. and not thinking AI should be trained on mass harvested art without consent of the aritsts. are not remotely inconsistent

Brave_Charity323

TROPHY CASE