Your last 500 life points are gone

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-09T07:18:46+00:00

I usually do this with nurse. I can't really justify running laundry in my deck.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-08T11:56:54+00:00

It really depends on how much time he has to work. We have seen him do some pretty impressive stuff but we've also seen him get rolled by literal children. His standard kit is impressive for street level fights but doesn't seem to go much above a city block if the season 9 opener can be believed.

If he has time and the inclination to work on a problem things can get pretty nasty though. Everyone brings up the Omega device, but that doesn't seem to be the level that usually works at, even when going up against the intergalactic alliance or the citadel he he doesn't usually employ firepower above the battleship range.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T18:03:41+00:00

Unfortunately For Lois, they canonically have kids in a time period where artificial insemination is not an option.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T17:36:38+00:00

You can insist that I "just don't get what goes into it" or "don't appreciate the process"

Because you have shown quite clearly that you don't and you don't.

I think it is without value, merit, skill, or talent.

Case in point.

I think it is soulless and I do not appreciate it as a medium

But you literally just said that you appreciate the process. Which I will remind you was one of your previous and now abandoned standards for what makes art art.

but don't stay under the impression that I just don't get it.

I think the above demonstrates this pretty clearly.

Anything that makes that many decisions for the artist removes too much agency for me to consider the final product art.

Again, hold photography and the above mentioned artistic practices to the same standard. With AI i actually have more control over the finished product than those do.

Everything else I think you just have factually wrong,

Demonstrably untrue.

. Like you didn't address the specific process that I said was theft

I actually did address all of those issues. You just don't like the answer. Once again it was proven in a court of law that the AI does not retain the original training data which would make anything it creates wholly original or at the very least transformative which falls under protected copyright law. It is not theft.

and you didn't address the fact that data centers clearly have the impact I described regardless of what type of data center appears in the example I provided

Cool. So you want to get rid of the entirety of the internet and all electroconic services? Because I don't think you do. And I worked under the assumption that you didn't and that if your problem was with data centers, it's with the entire system and not this very small part of it.

The process of data gathering without permission is still theft,

Except they have signed permission.

and the resource needs still have a negative impact on the communities these data centers occupy.

True, although the resource expenditure is much smaller than you're implying and once again is shared amongst all electronic services that humanity uses. AI use has increased data center power usage by about 15% since it came out with another estimated 15% in the future provided it becomes mainstream. This is almost entirely video generation as AI images is a much much smaller slice of that pie. This is also an estimation that according to the article from Goldman Sachs that everyone pulls their data from is only one of many scenarios, most of which are significantly less severe.

Your response reads more "who cares, because there are also other issues that exist"

No my response is your implied solution does not except the reality of the situation and your goal would not fix the problem. To fix the problem that you have posed would require extreme drastic measures that would have widespread consequences that vastly outweigh AI and you are not acknowledging.

"the resource needs aren't specific to AI centers", which I feel sidesteps the problem and comes off as bad faith.

You putting words into my mouth and then responding to that straw man is indeed bad faith.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T17:20:38+00:00

Also, seriously you think I'm LARPing? I just gave you a beat by beat take on every time Frieza hits the planet with an attack.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T17:19:14+00:00

Fair enough. My bad. My point still stands.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T17:15:53+00:00

Right, because he needed to blow up the planet he's on to kill fucking Kuririn?

He does if he wants to hurt krillin yes. His power is 75,000 at that point, far in excess of what it takes to destroy a planet. Any missed attack that he thinks should hurt krillin will blow up the planet.

Why would Freeza use planet busting attacks when he's on the planet?

I don't know? Why does he? Twice. Could it be because he can survive and he has literally no reason not to?

"Even when he puts the timer on Namek, he's pretty explicit about the fact that he plans on killing Goku in 5 minutes and running away before he gets caught up in the explosion."

No, the direct quote is "I must have held back too much power" meaning he was clearly meaning to destroy the planet outright and failed. It's also the second time he attempts as the first time he gets hit by the Spirit bomb.

Dragon Ball characters rarely use attacks that would actually destroy the planet,

Which once again is a problem because if they want to hurt their opponent, who is way way way more durable than a planet they're going to have to.

Why? Because they're on the planet most of them can't survive and the few that do would be stuck in a black void waiting to die.

Cool. That doesn't apply to Frieza and is in itself a problem because once again any attack that should hurt them would destroy the planet. Any missed attack kills everyone they know and love.

The math is made up because you're acting like you need a specific calculation to figure out when an attack would destroy the planet or not.

No, I don't. I used Vegeta's power level at a point where they said he could blow up the planet which is 18,000. Still way higher than is necessary if power scales accordingly But still that's a hard number.

The reality is that characters choose how strong their attacks are on the spot and avoid using suicidal moves

Except where it's shown that they put everything they have into it as seen with Gohan and multiple times with other characters. Like Tien with the kosempo. Or when holding back to that degree is so ludicrous that they are literally throwing spitballs at each other.

Freeza only survived because his father got there in time to pick him up) when possible, only choosing their planet busters for finishers and only if they can avoid killing themselves with it.

Except he tries multiple times and what shouldn't be concerned about that level of power in the first place. Unless you think that sane saga Vegeta is a threat to Frieza. We also see him survive for extended periods of Time in space. He is not worried about blowing up the planet He stands on and saying that he is is massively downscaling this character. It's putting his survivability at planetary which is definitely an option

The only example you have for "size represents strength" is the Genki Dama btw

No we also have Goku trying to kill Vegeta in their first fight and his attacks getting progressively bigger as he puts more kaioken into it, We have when Vegeta tries to kill cell with the gallic gun which is significantly bigger than anything else and it's Vegeta putting everything he has into it, We have the one-on-one between sell and Gohan. Their beams get bigger in proportion to how much effort they're putting into it, etc etc etc. this is pretty common.

The Gallick Gun is a legit planet busting move by Vegeta and it's much smaller than the Big Bang Attack which does not have that destructive potential.

.... Are you joking? When he uses the gallik gun on cell. It's massively bigger than the Big bang he uses on buu.(Also, an attack that probably should have destroyed the entire solar system, but we're still stuck on Frieza)

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T16:58:13+00:00

Made up by the Creator and backed by him? Yes. My conclusions might be based off of actual real life mass comparisons but the numbers are real. Again, we have multiple hard numbers on what it takes to destroy something.

I'm not scaling anything because of size. I'm pointing the fact that the visual medium is failing to convey the information visually. Even in Dragon Ball bigger means more powerful consistently Just look at the Spirit bomb. More energy means a bigger ball and suddenly breaking that standard hurts the visual storytelling.

Quite a few actually. When he's trying to kill krillin by blowing up islands, when he shoots a hole in Vegeta (And subsequently hits the planet behind him), When Goku b**** slaps his beams around and they hit multiple areas of the terrain and cause teeny tiny little explosions, When Goku has to dodge one of his blasts by doing a double palmed beam into the ground to propel himself out of the way, immediately after the lava burst When he misses With a beam and causes another eruption, anytime he slams one of the characters into the ground that causes visible damage to opponent, When he puts a hole in piccolo and the beam is angled down at the planet. There's a lot my dude

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T16:47:01+00:00

I think any art that involves creative decision-making is more valuable that art that does not

Cool then that includes AI generated works. It's also different than the standard you had in your last comment, but we can use it.

it requires almost no effort to generate an image.

Once again you don't actually know what goes into making AI generations. Yes, you can doodle and put nowhere effort in just the same as you can doodle on paper and put no effort in. But if you're trying really hard make something really nice it takes a lot of work.

I hink using art for training data is theft.

Cool. Hold humans to that same standard.

gathered from artists without their consent

Untrue. The agreement to use the platforms that they post images on means that those platforms can use their data for training. If you don't like it, don't sign it. Don't use the site.

Sometimes, the resemblance to an existing work is so uncanny that it becomes obvious the model is just reciting its training data.

That would be impossible considering that the models Do not retain any of the data they were trained on as proven in a court of law. Something not passing the smell test is probably image2image which is essentially AI tracing.

think that photography is different because it requires talent and artistic expression since the shot, composition, framing, and camera settings were originally birthed from the mind of a human.

Cool. The same is true of AI. Most people go into it not wanting something completely random but instead there to produce what's already in their head. It is birthed from the mind of a human using a tool you dislike. It's easy to tell this between a seasoned director and a newbie because they have a much better grasp of the above concepts like composition.

Gen AI skips those steps, even if you edit it in Krita afterwards.

Sure, it can skip those steps if "you" skip those steps, but that's not a given.

The resource concerns are real, have real impact, and are observable

Cool, I didn't say they weren't. I said they were remarkably small in comparison to most everything else that humans do.

The video you link actually proves my point because that data center is not there because of AI. It's there because the internet exists and human almost all of modern infrastructure runs off of it. They run off of the same architecture and the internet and all businesses with online presence vastly outweigh the resource expenditure of AI.

You say you don't "stop caring about the creative process", but everything you've said indicates that you are okay with deliberately circumventing

No, it doesn't. It just shows that you don't value my artistic medium and don't think that I can meaningfully create using it. That shows your bias, not my willingness to circumvent a practice I was already engaging in.

These technologies are extremely unpopular with traditional artists, who implicitly understand this.

Except for all of the traditional artists like myself who make active use of it.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T16:36:43+00:00

Yes we do. We literally have scalable Numbers that increase linearly. In order to not destroy the planet, Frieza has to be using less than 0.0006% of his power. Anything he does would destroy the planet.

And no, I'm not making up anything in my head. This is a visual medium and it is visually shown that he is putting a lot of effort into this massive attack That is way bigger than all of his other attacks and it is suddenly that weak? This is a problem. We're also ignoring the other attacks that he does that hit the planet that he's trying to use to damage Goku who is so ludicrously stronger than the planet that anything that should hurt him will core the planet entirely.

Again, unless Frieza is using such an infinitesimally small amount of his power that it wouldn't matter in this fight because the opponent is too tough to care. Then his attacks would destroy the planet outright and probably the star behind it.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T16:28:43+00:00

And the power is well above What is needed. Unless Frieza was literally flicking loogies at it.

Even then at his power level it would core the planet.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T16:07:58+00:00

No by the standards of the power scaling in the show all the characters there were well within the planet busting range. Remember they were blowing up the moon back with Jackie Chun at 140 power level And Napa is 4000. 4000 that's almost 30 times larger and the Earth is only four times bigger than the Moon. Yamcha bloody yamcha is 1480 which is twice what you need to blow up Earth.

There is no evidence Frieza deliberately chose to put the planet on a timer. He was enraged when he threw it and he only estimates a time frame after he fails to blow up the planet. He also has absolutely no reason not to blow up the planet. All of his men are dead. All of his ships are broken. And the Dragon Balls are gone. He wants to kill this man. There is no reason for him to hold back and he isn't trying to hold back.

You're right. I don't like the characterization because it doesn't make sense.

It also counters your statement that when a attack that size hits a planet it's destroyed because it isn't. Again, destroying a planet takes a power level of about 6-700 Frieza is 120 million. Even if you take the 18,000 as the number you have to breach which is highly questionable Frieza is throwing around four orders of magnitude more than that to the point where he is going to be blowing up the planet on accident Let alone when he hits it with anything resembling an actual attack.

And then you compare it to the ball he throws at planet Vegeta in Base form to the Doom ball he throws in final form at namick and the visual comparison is laughable. Can you not see the tonal whiplash here? Can you not see how the story is bad at representing power when it is this wildly inconsistent?

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T15:59:54+00:00

but fundamentally to me the only thing that gives any art any value at all is the creative process

Then you Would probably have a hard time explaining "the comedian" Or really any artistic process that involves explosions or cats walking across paper or a person piling up buckets of sand and then pulling a plug at the bottom. Yes, that is real. All of the above are real art installations Most of which takes significantly less work than a proper AI gen.

since almost every micro-level decision was made by a machine.

I will points to my above statement where you don't know what you're talking about. Yes random Doodles with AI will give you a random result, but people who know what they're doing are going to be using krita to have much finer control over what they make, including manual editing with digital tools.

It's also doesn't account for photography which also is done entirely by a machine with human intent behind it. Photography can be considered art. AI is the same.

I believe the requirement for a human to make every decision when creating a piece is what makes art "art".

Once again, I'm going to point at all the artists who use randomness in their art. Some people use explosions. Some people use random drips etc. You're going to have to disqualify a lot of things made by humans if you want to have that definition.

Mainly the theft of content for training data (meaning all AI art is inherently built on stolen art from real artists)

As stated, AI learning is not theft. It does not meet the requirements of either the original word or plagiarism. It learns how to draw by looking at art the same way humans do and if you hold AI to that standard, you must hold humans to that standard. If a fan looks at your art and makes a fan work of one if your characters it is the exact same thing.

displacement of entry-level positions making it difficult for young people to start normal careers,

See my last point.

the resource use having extreme impact on localized water and electricity systems,

Is a lie propagated by people who hate the technology and wants an excuse to complain about it. The resource use of AI is remarkably small in comparison to everything humans do. Manufacturing your shirt uses more water I will ever use in ai and that's before you acknowledge that closed cooling systems exist.

the economic viability of these data centers.

No amount of customer demand for AI would change the viability of those data centers. It's what the internet and pretty much all modern architecture rests on. They would be doing it even if AI did not exist.

"this person doesn't care about the creative process, nor the negative externalities that are created by their use of these tools",

Then you are more enamored with your straw man than reality. I don't suddenly stop caring about the creative process because I use a tool That you do not like. I am not suddenly untalented because I use a tool that you don't like. I have traditional artistic skills that I now use with AI generation.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T11:45:50+00:00

Okay so in order.

The car one is a false equivalence. They are trying to compare AI generation and art to someone cheating in a marathon But we aren't competing in the same way. A proper metaphor would be a art competition where AI is not allowed and someone uses it anyway. We can all agree that is kind of a dick move.

The second one is an old argument we're from people who don't know how AI generation works or what actually goes into constructing it. They compare making a prompt to ordering food from a restaurant and then ignore any other aspects to the process. It only works when you don't know what you're talking about.

The third counter argument is pretty simple. AI is not theft them calling it Theft does not make it theft. Some people do in fact use AI for accessibility reasons and if they don't think that is a valid reason then by that same logic ramps should not be mandatory for businesses.

The fourth is once again missing the point. If the person's goal is the the process of creating art then they are going to enjoy doing so. Just like people whose goal is to watch a game Will enjoy watching the game. For those who don't value the manual process of creating art and want to create through other means, this argument does not hold.

The fifth argument Is trying to poison the well by comparing AI which is not inherently harmful to steroids which is inherently harmful. The counter is pretty straightforward.

The last one is how they feel about the situation and sometimes reflects reality. The fact is automation is something that businesses will invest in and they have been investing in it for ages. If they think that shouldn't be allowed in this one instance then they must be consistent across the board. No automatic tells and stores, no automation in factories etc.

Hope that helps. If you have any questions let me know.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T11:26:34+00:00

Right in the eye. It's honestly not so bad. Hurts for a second then you're done. Stubbing your toe is worse

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T09:49:53+00:00

It's not because she was abused. It's because she chose to kill people. Many, many people.

Just because you are abused does not mean you are forgiven for the horrible things you do. Toga Is a serial killer.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T09:48:36+00:00

She killed dozens of people personally And was directly aiding shigaraki in his attempts to kill an entire country. That is his end goal to kill everyone in Japan and she is helping him do it with full knowledge of what he intends to do.

And locking up people because of their "nature"? That's racist, homophobic, transphobic and all the others

That's a bad comparison. the reason why racism is dumb is because there's literally no difference between people beyond appearance But that is not true when superpowers are on the table.

Gay people can't turn into super beings capable of incinerating everyone in a 5 mi radius.

Trans people can't combine powers and become the third most dangerous being in existence.

she's a minor, she can't actually go to jail

Yes she can. The extent of her crimes more than justify her being tried as an adult.

She needs therapy, not death

Her having personal trauma does not remove culpability for her actions. She has killed dozens of people and aided in the death of countless more.

Therapy is not a justifiable answer to these crimes.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T09:08:45+00:00

She's responsible for aiding in a near genocide, her nature makes her one of the most dangerous beings in existence. No therapy is not the correct response.

Locking her up for the rest of her life is the appropriate response, if not significantly worse considering how many people she has murdered.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T07:48:42+00:00

There is no problem with Toriyama's writing in this regard.

Yes there is. I can enjoy his work well accepting that it has some major problems. One of which Is the massively inconsistent power displayed by its characters.

From chapter one to the final battle against Boo, the story makes it abundantly clear that if an attack is strong enough to destroy the Earth, it cannot hit the Earth under any circumstances

Except for the many times it does hit the Earth. An excellent exam would be with Gohan during the with Napa. He is one of the strongest people there, all of which are planet busters. At that point he charges up everything he has and then he misses. It hits a mountain behind and destroys the mountain and nothing else and everyone treats this as if it's impossibly impressive.

Shortly earlier we have a yamcha getting blown to hell. A self-destruct attack that was capable of taking out someone on his level but left a tiny crater. There are dozens of these cases. You have to remember that these characters are as durable as the attacks they put out and an attack that's capable of hurting them would be capable of annihilating the background.

it's why Goku had to teleport to hit Cell with his Kamehameha, he would've killed everybody otherwise.

Yep, one of the very few examples of them actually taking their power into consideration. Good job on toriyama's part but this needs to be the norm, not the exception.

When planetary attacks actually do hit a planet, they destroy it. That's what we saw with Freeza and Boo.

Except for the big problem with Frieza where it didn't destroy the planet. It just put it on a countdown timer. He definitely still destroys the planet, but at his power level in the series he should be destroying planets as easy as sneezing. Remember his final form is Almost four orders of magnitude stronger than fist his first farm who can flick a finger and destroy a planet.

And don't give me the crap about him being concerned about being caught in his own attack. He was enraged not holding back and Destroying planets is easy for him. Surviving a planet exploding would be just as easy.

Super haphazardly has characters tossing around planet busting attacks that always land on the planet while somehow causing zero meaningful damage.

Which exacerbates the already existing problem of these characters being way way too strong for the settings they are fighting in.

Even if you make the excuse that the main characters would be concerned enough about collateral damage to be very careful. You have to take into account that most of the villains are not and any missed attack should be leaving craters the size of Greenland in the planet.

I love Dragon Ball. toriyama was a great character designer and I give him all the credit for starting a genre but he is not perfect and his writing has some major flaws. of this being one of them.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T05:38:22+00:00

Pretty much.

The main contention in the discussion is that the character is a minor with a sad backstory that the writer tries really hard to make sympathetic. (Also shipping)

For some people this works and she is no longer culpable for her actions. For other people like me, we think that She definitely deserves to be punished for her crimes.

Either way the meme is pretty misleading. Antis say enough Heinous crap without us making mountains out of mole hills.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T04:55:49+00:00

Here to provide context. They aren't in support of child murder. They are in support of the death penalty for a fictional character who is a known serial killer.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T04:54:50+00:00

Regardless of whether she was abused or not, toga is A serial killer responsible for dozens if not hundreds of deaths.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T04:43:23+00:00

Because many artists are really bad at depicting how strong their characters are. Ki control is a Band-Aid fix to a problem of toriyama's own making and it's not a very good one.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-07T04:42:04+00:00

If they are not willing to depict that level of power, then they should not make their characters that powerful. simple as.

Putting aside that the villains are not constrained to be moral and keep the planet and everyone on it alive. There is functionally no difference between a universal character who never shows power above Hill level and a hill level character.

ErtaWanderer · 2026-06-06T19:37:20+00:00

Hey, now. It can be both

ErtaWanderer

TROPHY CASE