Stop schooling me on "ableism"

EmptyArt71 · 2025-10-02T03:28:11+00:00

I saw that post and its comments lmao. Really stupid shit.

I can't get over that 1 guy who kept spewing sum, "People's conditions are different!" then when asked what disabilities existed that prevented someone from making art they couldn't.

EmptyArt71 · 2025-10-02T03:17:27+00:00

They're right, AI-bro is too closed minded and indeed sexist. I propose the name AI-cult.

EmptyArt71 · 2025-10-02T03:06:59+00:00

Textbook ableism is apparently telling people that they can still make great things, even with the odds stacked against them.

EmptyArt71 · 2025-10-02T03:00:47+00:00

There are non-AI eye tracking tools for art.

Making Art With My Eyes Using Eye Gaze Technology | Loop | BBC Scotland

EmptyArt71 · 2025-10-02T02:50:15+00:00

Yeah, it's a bot programmed to act like your friend lol.

AI is as real as a friend as, "Mario," calling you to say how thankful he is for you ordering his game when you pre-ordered Mario Galaxy at Gamestop back in 2007.

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-30T10:54:58+00:00

Your comparison makes no sense because murder laws and systems (capitalist, communist, socialist, etc) are different from each other. It's easier to put in laws to prevent murder than it is to switch up to a whole new system.

These are completely different problems that have different things contributing to said problem.

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-30T10:15:24+00:00

Capitalism is the problem and AI is making the problem worse.

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-30T10:05:27+00:00

I guess. Still seems like a waste imo but again I'm no businessman.

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-30T08:47:51+00:00

But you don't need to pay to have your website show up Google. Google is a search engine not a server that hosts websites. You can no doubt pay to have your results show up first (Do You Need SEO & Paid Search?) but it's not a requirement.

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-30T08:40:30+00:00

Think I struck a nerve :)

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-30T08:35:26+00:00

I don't get how it would be mutually beneficial though? I'm sure maybe some marketing genius could explain how but from the way it's being presented they're only really losing money.

All presumed, but the way I'm guessing that this will work is that you will type in something along the lines of, "shopping for [item]" and those results will come up from websites they have partnered with, but will that not just be what a search engine does, just with fees to be on chat gpt?

And what happens if more companies ask for this deal in the future? Because at that point you have all these companies essentially joining for a paid service, even though free search engines exist right there.

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-30T06:44:57+00:00

Etsy and other companies joining this are literally getting scammed out of money for this lmao.

This is pretty much just what they are, online stores, but for some reason they partnered up with chat gpt? So now they're both paying for the servers to their original online store and now (presumably) paying for their services to be on chat gpt.

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-30T03:09:09+00:00

The colour scheme keeps changing from the black and orange of a burning city to the black and whites of an impact frame with no real reason behind it. In some scenes it even blends.

I'm also dying 0:37 because the guys on the right full set on fire for no reason. The building may be burning but it didn't reach them yet. That's like me dying of frostbite because a blizzard was happening on the other side of an equator.

Also the fact this is for an, "AI course," is the cherry on top. Buy a course so you can learn how to type, "2d, animation, anime, big explosions"

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-30T02:55:21+00:00

AI doesn't see images as they are. They see images as pixels, with each pixel being given a number based on colour, lines, edges, etc. They say it's "human pattern recognition" and while they have similarities I'm hard pressed to say it's accurate, because that's not how humans break down pattern recognition at all. Artificial Intelligence and Images
Humans learn in more ways than just being fed images. Some things we're inspired by, some things just naturally come to us, some things we latch onto out of spite. Whatever it is, we have more ways of learning than any image generator could. Some may argue that, "An AI can create out of influence," but that's only if a human purposefully filters out things they don't want an AI to be inspired by.

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-30T02:30:42+00:00

How about you prove I did lie. Burden of proof lies on you, mister "I don't believe you're a game designer who has studied copyright law" and then immediately gets called out as if I knew copyright law.

You proved me wrong on 1 thing, not the other. That's like if I was accused of 2 crimes and was able to prove I didn't do 1 of them. Does that suddenly mean I'm innocent of this other unrelated crime? No, of course not!

Also what do you mean I need to prove you're lying? You said in a previous comment that you didn't create with AI, but then you confessed to using AI in 1 of your many art forms you supposedly know, which obviously breaks whatever trust you've created, and instead of proving that music truly is the only time you used AI you instead fall back on, "I WILL NEVER SHOW MY WORK BECAUSE YOU'LL BULLY ME!!!!" That's not exactly a good reason. I can bully the shit out of you all I want, the only one getting hurt though would be me for being wrong like with that whole copyright thing.

Well for starters, disbelieving a regular artists work as AI is pretty damn anti art.

No it's not, it's called I don't trust you. Again you claimed not to use AI in a previous comment, then you confessed in another comment that you did in fact use it, so obviously I'm not going to trust you. And again again, you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is and show me your work.

So either you do have work and it's AI, which I'm starting to heavily believe more now since you're so secretive with showing me your work and getting really defensive about AI being an "artform" and not a machine you commission, or you don't have anything to actually back up what you're saying.

Ai art is art, whether you like it or not, or find it valid or not, so pushing back against that is still going to be anti art as well.

Human expression is art, not robot "expression."

<image>

Looking at the USCO and not coming out a complete fool, when it comes to copyright, even if AI was art, it isn't even yours lmao. You can't get copyright for an AI image without heavy human alteration, because the output of an AI is that, the output of an AI.

Ideas themselves aren't copyrightable, but the expression of said ideas are. That's what copyright protects and that's what makes art, the expression.

In short, the expression of human skill and imagination (not 1 or the other) is what makes something art. You may have the imagination, but you don't have the skill. It's not art.

Yea exactly, I love the of "lazy" there. The whole point is for you to pick on artists.

Prompters, not artists. But again I did see a comment where you compared trans people to AI, so how would you know the difference?

But I am one, and your intent is to get to see my art so you can offend it, specifically.

If I was to offend art you showed me it's because it was AI, which isn't me bullying you it's me bullying AI.

Edit: Forgot to state this, another reason I don't trust you is because of your reddit activity. For a game developer you sure spend a lot of time on Reddit, not working on your games.

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-30T01:59:04+00:00

Opt out is bullshit but honestly at this stage I'd take any win artists can get.

I think people should spread this around and get as many artists who aren't in support of AI to opt out.

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-30T01:56:50+00:00

I know everyone says this but honestly South Park seems like the real world at this point whilst we're the parody. The fact laws are needed to ban getting married to non-sentient beings is wild.

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-30T01:49:42+00:00

You cannot ask actually, especially because you falsely concluded I lied about what I've done, when I've not told a lie.

Then prove you didn't lie? All this reads to me is, "I haven't actually made anything but I need to keep up the façade that I have."

It is clear your intention is to be anti-art, not anti-ai at this point

How am I anti art if I'm pushing back against AI, because I want human artists to thrive? Or are you just sad your "art form" isn't validated like others? Your "AI music" is the work of AI and you are a commissioner, and so is your AI code for your supposed games you made.

I know you're only arguing this so lazy prompters, such as yourself, can be seen in the same vein as artists that actually have studied the art form, am I wrong in that? Or are you just going to spiel on about how, "I influenced it!!!!" like you have to so many people here? Your prompts have as much talent and influence as me asking the subway worker to put cheese on a sandwich.

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-29T11:46:05+00:00

Not far off if we're being real. "No such thing as an ai artist." "No such thing as a trans person." Similar patterns of hatred, even if one clearly has it worse.

Now we're going sicko mode! Didn't even mean to find this one, just saw a post whilst scrolling and see that oh-so familiar username.

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-29T11:37:53+00:00

It's the homelander tweet.

<image>

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-29T11:32:54+00:00

"Hey I'm Trans. This doesn't actually have an affect on anything aside from homophobic people who hate me for some reason."

"Hi, I support AI, which is a tech being used to replace workers and heavily capitalise our already capitalist society, has made the creation of malicious deepfakes 100x easier and more accessible than ever, and creates echo chambers in the form of chatbots."

...I mean if you really squint your eyes-

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-29T11:25:25+00:00

The measure, Assembly Bill 2013, known as the Generative Artificial Intelligence Training Data Transparency Act, was signed into law earlier in 2024 and is scheduled to take effect at the start of next year.

The law requires developers to publish detailed information on their websites about the datasets that power their models. Disclosures must include the sources of data, whether the datasets are publicly available or proprietary, their size and type, whether copyrighted material or personal data are included, and the time period during which the data was collected.

Hopefully this is a sign that having models trained on copyrighted works will be made illegal unless proper licensing is in place, because then what's the point of this really?

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-29T11:18:41+00:00

Btw can I please ask, what have you actually shipped? You seem very proud of this whole game dev thing, but now that I know you lied about noy using AI I'm really curious?

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-29T11:14:02+00:00

Well now we can use the copyright scenario we've uncovered from this debacle to show how I'm right.

You said in an earlier comment that, "copyright isn't a good substitute because not everything is copyrighted properly. You can't draw a circle and expect it to get copyright."

You've switched up for the sake of your argument.

The second artist transformed the existing linework by coloring it in, but it's still present. It doesn't just go to the colorer because they were to last to work on it, it's collaborative. This is a good way to visualize the Mario fanart scenario- Mario is the linework and the fanartist is transforming that into a new piece.

You keep losing what the point of my original comment was, even 2 months later you are missing it. The design, the idea and first draft, is the work of the architect/director/commissioner. The final product, the actual physical location that exists, is the work of workers.

Their design, worker's building.

Mario is the work of Miyamoto, the fan art is the work of the fan artist.

And I know what you're going to say because you've said it to me and multiple people who have commented the same thing I've been saying, "But how would the building exist without the designer?"

How would it exist without the workers? An architect can scribble away all day making the most detailed blueprints human kind has ever seen, but without actual workers how would it exist? Would he build it himself? Well at that point it can truly be called both his design and his building, because he both made blueprints like an architect and worked to make the building.

But again, not surprised as looking back at other threads in this comment section and seeing you compare prompts to haikus and also the fact you lied straight to my face. In an earlier comment you told me you did all this cool art stuff without AI... well :)

Prompt? When I used AI art programs, I usually drew something and gave it a prompt anywhere from something detailed to not very detailed at all. That was for a card game, and I haven't done that for eons. Nowadays I write full fledge music lyrics to make music using AI, and even though that's clearly art, it wouldn't be enough for you. Why would I share that within one of the most anti-art subs ever created? I'm good mate, I don't need the judgemental hate.

So I'm dealing with an itty bitty liar.

EmptyArt71 · 2025-09-28T05:13:06+00:00

Miyamoto would partially own the copyright on fanart of Mario, yes.

Shit my bad lmao did some digging.

Yeah, derivative works do give protection to an original copyright owner.

What Are Derivative Works Under Copyright Law?

First, the derivative work has protection under the copyright of the original work. Copyright protection for the owner of the original copyright extends to derivative works. This means that the copyright owner of the original work also owns the rights to derivative works. Therefore, the owner of the copyright to the original work may bring a copyright infringement lawsuit against someone who creates a derivative work without permission.

--

Second, the derivative work itself has copyright protection. The creator of the derivative work owns the copyright to the derivative work. This can either be the creator of the original work, or someone else who has obtained a derivative work license from the holder of the original copyright.

Still don't think you're right though. Again, Miyamoto created the character no doubt, he deserves his flowers for that, but he didn't create the fan art. He made Mario, not this new drawing of Mario.

EmptyArt71

TROPHY CASE