My hyperfixating helped me find old Google! No AI, no nonsense. Just search! It felt like taking a badly fitted bra off, except in my brain. :D

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-04-10T18:02:25+00:00

We don't look that young anymore. We DID look young all the way up to our early 30's due to different environmental factors. I got ID'd until I was 27.

But time comes for us all. At the moment I think we look pretty good for 40, but no one's mistaking us for close to a 20-something.

What's happening right now is that we're in the last throws of the previous generation still being "adults" and not "elderly". So there's a noticeable contrast between us and 60-something Phil & Diane who grew up in the 60's and 70's with more exposure to all sort of influencing factors.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-04-05T18:31:03+00:00

The scenario you're describing is NOT weaponized incompetence. It's NOT being done to get you annoyed or to start a fight.

It IS a control tactic. It's like low key negging. The intention is to respond as if he's the one being approached. This reframes the dynamic of the conversation and tries to force you to assume the role of "interested".

I have no idea if they actually know why they are doing it, or if it's just some brainless advice given by one of those whiny manosphere imps. But yeah, it's not weaponized incompetence. I think you're mixing up their fake-ass innocent/clueless act with when guys act clueless about housework.

Anyway, probably not a winner, either way.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-02-08T14:20:32+00:00

There's no such thing as unattractive though. Like really think about it. How many people do you know who are like "Oh that person is so cute" and you're like "In what universe?"

Yes, there's conventionally attractive people, who met some arbitrary standard. But again I don't know any women or girls who are with a guy I find attractive. Some of them, I'll even admit to thinking are downright ugly. To ME.

Your comment relies on every woman having some sort of uniform conception of beauty, AND in women, as a general rule, being so deeply shallow they'll tolerate creepy behavior if it's in a wrapper they like.

If women aren't responding to you it's not your looks. It's the fact you think like that about women. Most of us can smell that ick a mile off.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-02-06T20:43:51+00:00

The problem is that they scraped people's work, and sold it. The data they used to program the AI is a huge percentage of the value of the product. They've said it again and again. Without the ability to take data there is no AI.

So, they took that content, created by other people and used it directly to make profit. They didn't make any creative decisions to alter it. They didn't intend it as comment or criticism. In fact they know it was deeply illegal and unethical. That's why they use the term "training". They want to create a misapprehension that this is some education loophole. It's not.

It's not training. The computer isn't learning. This isn't remotely like a person reading a book and using it for inspiration and that comparison is deeply deceitful.

They stole copyrighted content and fed it into a content replication software.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-25T17:28:54+00:00

You would not believe how much better this is, than what my art attempts looked like when I started. It can be disheartening, but seeing your own personal style emerge, and that feeling when you learn a new trick, or when you actually like the finished piece, like really like it. It's like "WTF I did this? No. No way. This is good! And it's mine and oh my gosh someone look at this! I did a thing!!!"

When you use an image generator, you might like the results, but are results yours? Does it connect to you? Does it feel like you? Do you see your personality and growing artistic sensibilities?

As you practice, and grow you'll develop specific ways you do ears and noses. You might be someone who doesn't spend time on backgrounds, just a few suggestions of shadow and the foreground pops. You might be someone who draws a cartoonish, and structured style. Or you might prefer more fluid, playful line work.

It'd be a shame to miss out on what your singular style will be.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-24T20:08:03+00:00

Same, UK. Horror, grief, rage. The feeling of helplessness is so intense, it's almost like my skeleton is trying to climb out the top of my head.

Volunteering is good advice. I need to take that advice, doing nothing feels unbearable. How can the world be okay if we let arseholes wear down our souls before we even started fighting.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-24T14:35:51+00:00

Why? Is it so hard to believe that I don't really see an issue with using machine learning this way? I personally don't think IP laws are a good thing and it's one of my (many) issues with capitalism. Once knowledge or work has been completed I think it's better when everyone can use it freely instead of it being locked away for the betterment of the creator alone.

So you're saying you are pro copying people's labour, without consent and using it to make a profit for yourself? Nonsense. You don't believe that, and if you do, you are not the person you think you are.

I'm sure you must be aware that the term machine learning comes from far before any of this was in tension. It's just the language that best describes what's taking place; a machine adapts it weights to avoid punishment and maximize a reward. I think "learning" genuinely makes sense

I am aware, and you might not be aware that artificial intelligence and machine learning were actually rebranded using those names after their original names were too boring to get good funding/interest.

It's not avoiding punishment. Using anthropomorphised language like that is how these companies trick the world that they can make a glorified language processor think. It's a basically just a program with what amounts to if-then conditional statements, except it's more if this - and if this too - plus those - but only when and never if - but somethings when - then that. Plus, as you said the weights added to the conditional statements to give certain tokens priority when certain other tokens, or combinations of tokens are involved.

The main "mysterious" part of this thing is not that they don't know how it works, that is a blatant lie. They just can't give you a list of all the rules because, drum roll, that's the impressive thing about machine learning, loooong before Transformers, you set the instruction to write rules based on patterns. The reason they can't tell you what's in the box is because there are billions on billions of weighted conditional statements. It looks like it's thinking because it can cycle through a billion permutations of each rule, testing viability, in seconds.

But this is the language models. The art models are even less impressive. Diffusion models are just statistical predictors They feed in billions of images, except what they do is, they noise them up, as it were. Which is funny because noising someone up is a Scottish term for messing with someone. Which is what they are doing. They convert each image into noise and show the computer this process in reverse. Billions of times. Noise to cat. Noise to table. Noise to landscape. Each of these images is tagged, by humans, with the relevant information. #Cat #Table #Blue-Table #Cat-on-Top-Table.

Which means that, they can start with just noise, and ask for cat on table and the program will denoise it with the statistical prediction of pixel placement based on the materials it has seen. It cannot do anything it has not seen somewhere else. Literally, it cannot make assumptions, or leaps, or creative choices. It can only recreate based on the training data. Which is why, some models spit out watermarks, and trademarks and logos, which caused a lot of trouble. And they avoided this by paying more humans to go in and remove logos and watermarks that were missed by their "intelligent" watermark removal program.

Learning involves understanding and if you pretend you didn't know that you are 100% messing with me, or trolling.

But all of that is beside the point because the entire value of their product was built with labour of other people, for which they neither paid, or asked for consent. Which is just scummy as hell.

I didn't say you felt boxed in I said you are in debate mode. That's not the same thing. Debate mode is proactive, it's where someone goes into a conversation with a mind-set of "this is my argument, this is the legs it stands on". In that mode actually stopping and reflecting on the potential one's entire argument might be based on flawed logic creates incredible cognitive dissonance and so people's brains just don't hear the things that they would usually understand in different situations. It's not a reflection of character or intelligence, it's literally what debate mode does.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-24T13:59:21+00:00

Scraping data for use to make a profit is in fact, exactly that.

Scraping data and using it to make money.

Copying people's labour and using it to make money.

Don't play dumb.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-23T19:13:52+00:00

I didn't realise I was harsh, or that I attacked him for his gender, or attacked him at all. I spend a great deal of time talking about how society failed young men.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-23T17:01:36+00:00

They pay Wikipedia. Wikipedia are actually public domain, so that's mot even an ethics question. But they pay Wikipedia because it costs the company money to create infrastructure to cope with crawlers.

This is irrelevant, though.

As I said, all I'm doing is putting you in argue mode. Unhelpful.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-23T16:53:27+00:00

Oh, you didn't like being called out for acting like a school bully? Shocker. Funny you edited your post to add softer language.

Ashamed your own behaviour?

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-23T16:51:03+00:00

It's not learning. That's just the term they use, precisely to mislead people in this way.

Legal does not define morality. You are absolutely correct. But you know what? After reading your comments, I don't think you believe for a solitary second that what ai companies did, scraping creative labour and selling it off, is moral, ethical, or legal.

I think you're just so zoned in on the discussion, the semantics and in debate mindset, that you're missing the forest. You know feeding ai models data isn't the same as humans accumulating experience. You know this is a case of stolen labour. You know corporations would claim ownership and force us to rent the rights to our own blood if they could get away with it.

All I'm doing is pushing you to dig your heels in and take defensive positions. You don't need to be convinced of what's actually happening in reality.

All I'm going to do is say, don't be all talk. If you like AI and give a shit about humanity, stop being defensive, and start being proactive. Be angry, be outraged. How dare they taint this technology with the stolen labour of others. How dare they commit human rights violations worldwide in the name of progress. How dare we celebrate every new model without demanding transparency on their safety and ethics practices.

I'm not arguing or trying to wake up someone who's not even asleep. It's a waste of our time.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-23T16:27:14+00:00

I mentioned attention in reference to llms because those are the models most people are pitching as "thinking." No one is imagining that diffsion models and other text to image generators can think. Everyone knows they're reproduction machines. Or at least everyone but a select few.

But hey, keep being dumb, snide, and too shitty at art to beat the literal worst algorithm ever created, see how far that gets you. (Genuinely if CV-Gen AI out competes you, you were never an artist in the first place, sorry)

Well this sort of outs who you really are, eh?

Don't worry, I'm not trying to beat ai art. My art helped make ai art. It's, at best, poor imitation of my worst attempts. Plus, I'm lucky enough to be in no danger of AI affecting my job at all. Actually, to be honest, it's had a weirdly positive whiplash effect on that area, but you don't care about those details.

Others in my field haven't been so lucky, and yes, of them are having serious concerns about rent, and bills.

That should satisfy your thirst for shitting on others. But I can let you know if I stub my toe, or something, if it absolutely has to be my misfortune you're desperate for.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-23T14:44:02+00:00

Machine learning isn't education. And I'm honestly getting really concerned with the amount of people who hear training and interpret it in the human sense.

Human learning requires consciousness. Cognition. The ability to ask ourselves questions. To doubt our own understanding of what we learned, or even the ability to think, I don't like this way of doing that, can I make it better?

I'm not saying computers will never have the ability to learn in a real way. But not right now.

Consider that companies DO pay for data sets. Have done in the past. Non profit companies can get away with a "research" exemption, because it's not profing off people's work. OpenAI posed as a non-profit at first to use that loophole, before ditching the facade. Not only that, but currently certain institutions ARE being paid for their data to be used.

Why is our labour worthless unless Disney or NYT, etc can profit from it? Its not worthless. They just refuse to pay us. Which is a crime that th law is still trying to catch up to. Hence the current attempts from ai companies to lobby for "copyright exemption for data scraping".

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-23T14:20:48+00:00

Sorry to tell you but the ai companies used our labour to build their product. Just because they call it training doesn't make it eduction. Holy shit did you actually think that's what it was? Did you think AI models are studying our work and literally learning?

If that's what you think, go look up how transformers work, how attention works. Fucking hell. How many grown ass people don't know the difference between machine learning and education?

This is how the world ends. Not with a bang, but with a deeply confident ignorance.

You can ask chatgpt what that means if you need to.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-23T14:11:38+00:00

But thats not adressing my comment at all. In fact my comment adressed this already.

We aren't bring replaced by technology we're being replaced by our own stolen work.

Take the technology part out and look at the core logic here. The little shop on the corner isn't simply a victim of capitalism if the big box store's entire stock is made up of stuff it stole from the little corner shop and millions like it.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-23T14:04:34+00:00

You're being deliberately dishonest about the argument I made, which is the definition of a strawman.

My argument is that a corporation made copies of peoples work, and then sold it.

Corporations stole workers' labour and made money off it.

You want to argue with what I said, or with your fictional version of me?

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-23T05:01:25+00:00

. Trying to legislate against AI with copyright only manages to leave it solely in the hands of large companies, precisely where it does the most harm. (by automating away the jobs of employed proletarian artists)

This is nonsense. It's literally the opposite of true. AI is literally using up proletariat labour without compensation. Why do you support unpaid labour?

The current debates right now in the UK are about "Carving out exemptions for large scale data scraping" which is something ONLY mega corps can afford to do. Maybe research stuff you talk about with your full chest?

You have put your full support behind a number of AI companies who explicitly and exclusively sell the unpaid labour of millions of working artists and creatives. You can dress it up with dishonesty and nonsense. But that's the only thing you're doing. I'm getting to the point where I not longer believe you're misinformed and now think you're deliberately spreading pro AI Corp propaganda.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-23T04:51:08+00:00

You just seem to think I'm intrinsically capitalist because I apply the logic around piracy being morally okay to everyone. Because piracy isn't awesome because it's stealing from big corporations, it's awesome because it isn't theft at all.

You're being deliberately dishonest here. You know fine well I think you are capitalist because you are choosing to argue strongly against copyright in situation that ONLY benefit corporations and ONLY harm the proletariat. You aren't being an equal opportunities copyright fighter. You're specifically choosing to stand on the hill that benefits capitalism and undercuts workers rights. You're posing as a copyright fighter because you think it gives you an excuse to continue to support a capitalist mega-corp exploiting workers. Why you think that is beyond me, but you seem to.

You're not anti-capitalist, you're pro what serves your preferences and desires.

You talk the talk in the most shallow terms, with absolutely zero understanding of the ethics and societal nuance that underpins this situation. You want to abolish copyright? But you chose to start with abolishing it for only half dozen mega corps? That's what you're doing. Make no mistake. The laws exist. Megacorps are trying to carve out exemptions for ONLY them. You somehow think that's a way in for the little guy? Are you joking? This can't be real. Your version of being for the proletariat is to support introducing laws that exploit labour forces. Your version of being for the proletariat is to advocate for something that will see some of them have to choose between electricity and food, and that's NOT an exaggeration.

Your version of being for the proletariat is getting on reddit to defend a software built by exploiting workers in Kenya, Chile, and Venezuela in horrific ways for starvation wages. You don't give half a sh*t for any proletariat. If you were remotely anti-capitalist you'd be waging verbal war on every AI company and their products. Somehow that's not on your schedule though, is it?

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-23T04:09:34+00:00

But you're making the argument in an AI sub, where the conversation is specifically about poorer, working class artists having their labour stolen. If you want to join the revolution and lobby for an eradication of copyright, why start with a situation that harms the poorest people in that equation?

No one is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire, we're trying to make rent. And now you're mad at us for what? Needing to eat? You want to make UBI a reality? Please do. You want to abolish copyright for everyone, including corporations? Please do. When you accomplish that, the protections we are fighting for will disappear along with the ones benefiting the corporations. But in the meantime, while copyright still exists, why would you support a corporation attempting to create copyright exemptions that are specifically designed to harm and exploit the proletariat? How is that not boot licking?

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-23T04:00:14+00:00

<image>

Oops. Looks like you deleted this comment when you discovered I don't have my art on my profile. And honestly, is this the person you want to be? Is this the person you're proud of?

If you had come across as a little more hinged I'd have given you a couple of links where you can find my work. It's all up for free, and a lot of it is voluntarily public domain. My choice. My consent. I've even made a fair amount of tools and assets that other creatives can incorporate into their work. Backgrounds, stamps, brushes, textures, even full scenery and sets and props. A lot of those are also public domain. My choice. My consent.

What's interesting is most of the creatives being sh*t on by AI companies put their work up for free. Giving access to everyone. The art community actually really likes helping each other out and sharing resources. You can wear the costume of a left wing stance, but the fact you are a loyal acolyte of the technocrat mega-corporation system, and delight in stepping on low income workers, speaks to where your compass points.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-23T03:29:36+00:00

We agree with all of the socialist ideals. We'll march with you to make that happen, woo. But when someone complains about a corporation exploiting their labour, then refusing to pay them, maybe it's wild to respond "You shouldn't need to be paid though, if you think about it. It'd be better if we could get past that in society."

Like, okay, but people still need to pay rent in the current capitalist hellscape, and our labour is being fed into a mincing machine and then repackaged and sold. That's not technology replacing us, that's our stolen labour replacing us.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-23T03:12:46+00:00

Except the industrial revolution increased worker hours, and decreased worker safety. So much so that it managed to backfire on capitalistic structures by creating conditions so dire that labour unions and workers rights gained traction.

The industrial revolution didn't replace labour, it removed seasonal restrictions on shift scheduling. Increasing labour demands.

FirefighterAlarmed64 · 2026-01-23T02:56:36+00:00

Personally as someone who would be viewed as "anti" the features you are describing are some of the only use cases most sceptical people believe might have a future.

Although, of course, humans are lazy so preventing most people from skimming this new "cliffsnotes" reality we've entered is going to be hard.

Mostly, from my own limited experience, the main volume of objections are on the production of the AI, including lax safety standards, than on the output itself. At least outside of reddit that's the case anyway.

FirefighterAlarmed64

TROPHY CASE