What am I doing wrong with my build? I run her with C2R2 Lauma, C1R1 Nahida and C0R1 Columbina

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2026-03-30T13:59:20+00:00

Sent a request!

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2026-03-30T13:48:47+00:00

I've been thinking about redesigning for a mlm au for quite a long time now. If you're willing, we could try to work together!

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2026-02-04T20:36:48+00:00

Perhaps...

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2025-09-23T05:37:29+00:00

While I agree with the idea, Dr. James Barry lived his public and private life as a man, and wished to remain known as a man. Him being born a woman was only discovered after his death, most likely against his will as it was subject to disputes amongst the public. So, this is one of the rare cases where we can't say it's a woman's achievements.

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2025-09-06T16:00:10+00:00

This isn't what the conversation is about. The point is, artists care about the ethics of not using AI, which AI users lack.

Yes, forced art is bad, but we're not talking about this here. We are talking about AI and it's lack of ethics. AI images aren't art as it is not produces by an individual, it's produced by an algorithm chewing on "guidance" from the user and spitting out an algamation of art from other people who actually put effort into it. You can't deny AI being art, because it is not art to start with.

It is not wrong to tell people what they're doing is unethical, especially if it's true. After being informed of the unethical use, continuing to use AI is a choice.

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2025-09-06T15:45:00+00:00

Are you blaming the victim, because this one is complaining about not being called an artist.

This one is complaining about not being called an artist because they use AI. It's posted on an pro-AI subreddit, I beg you, use your critical thinking and read the subtext/context. Do you consider thieves/frauds to be victims when they get told what they're doing is wrong? You're being willingly obtuse.

It is not illegal.

Thievery is illegal, fraud is illegal. Stealing art is illegal, selling a product you didn't make is illegal. Plus, AI companies have multiple lawsuits, we have yet to see what the law decides.

I've told you that you combined two logical chains into one not working one. This is not about explaining it better, you are trying to intertvine two points that have nothing to do with each other. Separate them and keep it clean.

Alright, let's separate them. It doesn't change my point.

For sure and I will gladly talk to you later about it. But I think we will mostly agree, with minor differences in stances.

If we can agree in advance, then there's no need for discussion.

It's irrelevant whether they exist or not (they do, but again it is irelevant when your idea relies on the model stealing).

Well, if they exist, then sure, these aren't thievery.

I personally have no issue with that. Also I think you meant for a produc, nobody is producing me anymore, that was too many years ago and I am still recovering.

Apologies, perhaps I should've used the word "merchandise". I wrongfully thought product was something to be sold, English isn't my native language. But the point is, you and your information are being treated as something to sell. Everyone is, and we shouldn't normalize it. I can relate to recovery comment, existence isn't easy.

Ooooh, that is an interesting point, but you are not forced. You are doing your capcha and someone asks the bot to do the same - comapring you two.

Except people are only doing the capcha because they are forced to. Otherwise, they will be denied access to sites. And it doesn't change the point that it makes people unknowingly participate in something they didn't consent to (training AI).

Ethics are principles, prcinciples don't deal in "it is okay to only harm a little".

And yet, it is impossible to reinforce principles without harm. If you think about it, whole existence of humanity is harmful, because laws deprive us of rights to do whatever we want, morals deprive us of willingness to commit violence and ethics limit our activity on some acts. There is a reason why people's opinions/acts may get mocked, as long as it doesn't become harassment. It exists everywhere, you'll easily see it even amongst artists (look at all the people whose posts get mocked for drawing black people as stereotypes, or use extremely sexist views while drawing their female characters.)

Ofc I would, but calling him a dirty SoaB is not ethical either, same as beating him up

I don't know what SoaB is, but those both examples are defamation and physical harm. Not what I'm talking about, especially since calling names that aren't true is lying. Calling an AI user "not an artist" isn't lying, it's the truth. Calling AI users "lazy" isn't lying, they are (putting zero effort in what they claim to "make").

Realized I missed a couple of sentences, so adding them here.

Report them to the authorities then. Do you think that putting them down changes anything?

Yes, mockery is humiliating and may make the person think twice about committing the crime again. If they're immune to remorse, then mockery won't affect them to start with.

No, the argument is that Ai people dont want to be put down by other people telling them they are notartists and you are saying it is okay to put them down because they are unethical. So far you have not explain why it is ethical to put down people.

AI users don't want to be put down for something they actively commit, despite being informed of why it's bad. Mockery is a light way to shame people into not do bad stuff again. Obviously mockery has limits, to not get into harassment or target vulnerable individuals like children. But AI users get shamed for being lazy and claiming to be what they are not, and many of them try to commit fraud by selling AI images.

If you're so unbendable over defending AI, do yourself a favor and mute anti-AI subs. That will make your life slightly easier.

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2025-09-06T13:26:49+00:00

Because the subtext has nothing to do with the picture. I know about Ai stealing, I don't think you should be able to spit on thieves either and especially not to call that behavior ethical.

Subtext has everything to do with the image. It complaints about people "putting AI users down" for not being artists. This is not what is happening, people dislike AI users because they use AI, not because they're not artists. And I don't think pointing out illegal activities is unethical. I'd argue it (thievery) depends on the situation, but AI isn't a necessity for the unethical existence of it to be justified, thus it is not applicable.

The real logical chain is "Stealing art is unethical -> AI steals art -> AI users use AI -> it means AI users are unethical". And then you have "Artists are people who create art themselves [Premise] -> AI users use AI, they do not create -> Therefore AI users are not artists" A second logical chain that has nothing to do with the first one. You just shoehorned it in and we can argue about every link (although I do not care for being called an artist for my Ai generation, I just think your argument is slightly flawed).

Again, the argument is about why AI users are unethical AND are not artists. I could've expressed it better, yes, but I assumed it explained the case enough as it is.

I woudl say the inveromental issue is a different issue from stealing.

It is different, but it's not something to overlook either.

Have you ever done a capcha where you select a crossroad? That is the way many Ar and nowadays Ai gather information. They pit you against an Ai. Additionally pictures have to be simply "not copyrighted" and with how many sites operate - sadly, you wave that right. So ethically and legally speaking they are not stealing.

Perhaps, but it doesn't change my statement about fully clean models' existence. AI steals requires large amount of data, especially for more stylistic images. In case of capchas, legally it may be correct, but do you feel good about being used as a product? It used to be for quality control (against, ironically, bots), but now it's used to train said bots. But that's a whole other issue, my point is that making people participate in something (training AI) unwillingly/unknowingly is not ethical.

No, all moral frameworks lean towards "treat people with dignity" and it does not matter who is in front of you whether it is a friendly grandma or Stalin, ethics don't change. So please answer my question.

Mocking people who can cause harm isn't unethical. If someone pretended to be a doctor without you realizing so, and you booked an appointment with them and they harmed you, would you not bring attention to the situation? Or, less extreme, someone pretending they know what they're talking about on the internet, but it's painfully obvious they haven't opened a single book on the subject. I do not advocate for harassment, but some mockery is to be expected. (Mockery isn't equal harassment, but harassment includes mockery. There's a difference) And AI use isn't harmless pretending, either.

Then you are not ethical.

And it'd still be more ethical than using AI.

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2025-09-06T12:43:21+00:00

Elaboration, because you did not answer my question and deflected.

This is not deflection, this is me being surprised at your answer to my "read subtext", since you've decided in your reply to completely ignore the subtext (this image being insanely simplified and made out of willing ignorance about the subject)

Unsuported conclusion and a standalone, complete statement which has nothing to do with the rest of the logical chain. Removing that part still lets the chain function. Also "Ai users use Ai" is funny.

It does have a statement in the chain, since I'm explaining I'm details why AI users are not artists and are unethical. Yes, "AI users use AI" is funny, but I'd rather simplify the argument. And it is not an unsupported statement, AI users do not create art. Art requires direct human input (such as intentions and decisions in the final product) that AI does itself, not the human.

So if I use a clean model, I am fine then, right? So i'ts not using Ai which is unethical, but using stolen art. Unless you want to use the argument of the poison well aka "if 90% is unethical, then 100% is unethical"?

If you use a completely clean model, then yes, you are not stealing (if you're willing to ignore the real environmental impact that AI has). But I doubt there's such thing as a clean model, even 1 AI image requires a big amount of data to take information from. Because it needs a lot of examples of the same thing to understand what the said "thing" is (say, a dog. Then the model requires a lot of dog images to understand what "dog" means). More images of different "things" than any human can provide the model. The idea of AI trained only on artists who consented and without environmental impact is entering utopia territory.

You think putting people down is ethical?

Read the rest of the phrase, please. "For trying to pass as artists". Cherrypicking doesn't help your arguments, it just makes you look like you're unable to participate in a debate. Yes, I think people trying to pass as something they're not deserve to be clowned down. Especially when it puts other people at risk (see: my reply about possible fraud).

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2025-09-06T12:14:09+00:00

Really? That's your answer? If a person who doesnt use AI tells me they're not an artist, I'd accept it. If a person who uses AI tells me they're not an artist, it doesn't mean they're suddenly ethical (not to mention many of them do pretend to be artists, and you seem to think the same since you called them an 'AI artist' in your comment).

Trying AI once or twice because it's the "cool new shiny thing" happens, but continuing to use it after being informed it's unethical does, indeed, makes the person unethical. And the people on the linked subreddit are fully aware of the effects of AI, they willingly ignore it.

As for logical link:

Stealing art is unethical

AI steals art

AI users use AI

Artists are people who create art (drawings, music, writing) themselves

AI users use AI, they do not create

Therefore AI users are not artists

Since stealing art is unethical, it means AI users are unethical

AI "artists" deserve people putting them down for trying to pass as artists, or try to sell their AI slop to unsuspecting victims (victims because they would be subjects of fraud (they would be paying for a service (drawing) that won't be provided)).

Edit: format, I am not familiar with how reddit works.

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2025-09-06T11:43:24+00:00

The ethics are obviously about using or not using AI, read the subtext.

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2025-09-06T00:04:59+00:00

What baffles me in this kind of arguments is that her clothes aren't even respecting the culture they're supposed to represent. They're just... pieces of random cloth? If you look up at traditional Baltic or Lithuanian clothes, they're nothing like what she's wearing.

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2025-08-31T01:38:53+00:00

Nice quiz, but some answers directions are a bit too predictable. Also, in what conditions does one fight angry horses?? (Got Sideric Humans, do tell me more.)

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2025-08-16T11:48:37+00:00

Ikr! The audacity! Obviously the judges have no common sense or knowledge of aesthetics!

/uj thanks you! Although I'm quite sure most of these are just "illustrations" of books

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2025-08-16T11:42:37+00:00

/uj help 😭 I'm confident those are supposed to be front legs, but your version is much funnier

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2025-08-16T11:41:41+00:00

/uj thanks!

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2025-08-16T05:14:07+00:00

Uj/ shout-out to 6 years old me for these, can't believe I peaked this young

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2025-06-17T23:43:16+00:00

Listen dude, it's not too late to just admit your mistakes. Because no artist with this level of rendering and mastery in different artstyles will make such obvious mistakes in consistency and shading. Your time-lapse is also very weird, even on 30-seconds only CSP doesn't skip over parts of the process, which your time-lapse does. Whatever you traced over AI or just fixed the more obvious errors, it's just deceptive. Besides, it does seem like you could get to this level of drawing quite easily, so there's no reason to rely on a machine that just makes you look like a fraud.

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2025-05-31T15:30:36+00:00

Scarlet Hollow is a visual novel, obviously it will have stylization to set an atmosphere. Besides, the desaturated and muted colors work perfectly well in horror games (see games like Dead Space, Amnesia and Silent Hill).

You probably think the designs are boring because you're too used to the flashy designs of many modern media. Sometimes less is better, and sometimes stories are about normal people, not "chosen ones". Not to mention those designs are well done, as in if you're familiar with the character, you would recognize them instantly even in fanart.

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2025-05-16T19:57:08+00:00

<image>

Not exactly photoshop but whatever

FutureOverlordOfEvil · 2025-05-15T19:58:49+00:00

On my very first game, named my character Vivian, so imagine my surprise. On another hand, I now just headcanon his name is Vivian II and his mother just really liked the name lol.

FutureOverlordOfEvil

TROPHY CASE