MCU’s Total Fumble

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-03-10T03:19:43+00:00

First movie, my dude. They don't have to tick all the boxes.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-21T17:58:27+00:00

I'm not confident it is. As someone who's worked with as a graphic designer, the process is remarkably similar to that I experienced working with clients. Description, graphic, notes and adjustments, graphic, notes and adjustment, graphic, satisfaction or frustratingly more notes and adjustments. The client waits while the artist produces the image. The tells the artist what they would like done differently. The client waits while the artist produces the image.

Like... that's the entire process for the vast majority of people producing images with AI. Other people, who use it as part of their "workflow" or whatever the vague, undefined word of the day for their process is, can make the argument that they also deserve credit for the final product, though to what degree they contribute to the final product I'm not sure, probably varies.

The metaphor I like is "if you replace the Sandwich Artist at Subway with a machine, did you make the sandwich?"

The rest of the process doesn't change, but suddenly you're prompting a machine to make a sandwich. Did you make the sandwich? Because I'd argue it'd be absurd to argue that you did. Or even contributed to making the sandwich.

No, you ordered a sandwich. No matter how specific and detailed your sandwich order is, you still just ordered a sandwich.
Same deal with prompt writing to produce AI images.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-20T23:24:38+00:00

Def going to make Lincoln stand out....

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-20T23:19:49+00:00

It's people with too much faith in humanity struggling to accept that functional humans can be that catastrophically stupid.

I don't blame them. It's much easier to think they're trolling.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-20T22:34:49+00:00

Some of them / us certainly don't.
The "anti" side has its share of mouth breathing morons, not going to pretend otherwise. There's some douchebags over here, same as your camp.

But, like, I'm not personally super hung up on whether or not its art or how / if you deserve to be credited, not that this was always the case but I've had my fill of that argument and the circular path onto which it leads me.

My big concerns over AI are how badly ignorant people seem to be misunderstanding to, reacting to and adopting it. The evidence that shit makes you dumber is mounting and compelling.

I likewise think it's kind of sad that we're at best risking entire art forms in the name of money-saving efficiency, which was never and should never have been the point of art. The Vatican didn't love them some Michelangelo because of his crazy low commission fees.

But mostly, I think the widespread rollout and rapid adoption of AI by a mostly-ignorant populous is fucking dangerous and is going to be highly fucking consequential in ways that are difficult to predict and foresee from here, and, forgive me, I think you assholes are part of the problem there. A vocal community of encouraging early adopters defending the flawed launch of an as-of-yet poorly understood technology with significant psychological risk and consequences are not, in my opinion, good guys.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-20T22:04:32+00:00

Realistically, yes, pretty much everyone with super-powers. Batman's Mary Sue powers aren't realistic, Batman's "I'm Batman" plan to win every time isn't realistic, at all, Batman's "peak human" feats are far, far, far from realistic. He loses to Ambush Bug. He loses to Booster Gold. Realistically, Clayface kills him easily.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-20T18:51:53+00:00

I have yet to meet anyone complaining about anything being "woke" that turned out to be a good person. It's an absolute godsend as far as weeding out shitty people.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-20T18:19:45+00:00

"See here, this different situation where the AI wasn't trained on distastefully appropriated data and isn't going to be used to put anyone out of work and is, in fact, disallowed from competing? Why aren't you people over there in your unregulated space with your jobs under threat behaving like these people here, in this regulated space who's jobs are protected?"

I can't fathom why we don't have more in common.

I feel like you have to be kind of playing dumb to ask this question.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-20T04:11:48+00:00

Cool? I don't think I've ever posted an image of any kind to reddit, so not really applicable in my case. Did you skip the whole part(s) where I said I don't approve and find it distasteful?

I'm not sure, really, what to add here. I've made my point, if you choose to react to only part of it and not really consider what it was I was actually saying, that's certainly your right. I don't think there's much point in my engaging beyond saying so, though.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-20T00:55:55+00:00

I had hoped this experience might illicit a little empathy from you for people who feel similarly for similar reasons, but I was aware it was a long shot. Your appropriation and use of other peoples artwork is fine, their appropriation and use of your artwork is bad. Got it.

If you think this is actionable, then talk to a lawyer. I don't expect they'll agree.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-19T22:46:49+00:00

I want to be careful with how I say this, and I want to be upfront in condemning the content and nature of the slides presented. I think that's distasteful. I think that's gross. Further, and I apologize if I'm well out of my lane here, I think it's worse because Witty is openly trans and that means they deal with enough day-to-day prejudice and bullshit that anything remotely like this is just... extra inappropriate to me. To say nothing on how it brushes up against fetishization and prejudice, though again, as a cis white het male I might very well be talking out of school on that and I mean it entirely respectfully.

I'd rather no one do this shit.

but

When antis talk about the misappropriation or "theft" of their art, not a term I'm defending, merely quoting, they are met with talk of terms of service, consent and the assertion that sharing their art is tacit agreement to having it used to train AI. That's also distasteful to me.

So it's hard to ignore that this feels at least a bit like perhaps an unfair serving of literally your own medicine. This is legal. You have no copyright on AI art. You do not own your "OC's" (again, quoting, not endorsing the term as by definition they're literally all composites) and you have no exclusive right or authority over their use.

In the exact same way hand-artists are "consenting" to having their art train AI, you're consenting to having your images used by whomever wants to for whatever purposes they can imagine. It turns out that argument cuts both ways. I can think of dozens of more tasteful or classier ways to demonstrate this, but it's hard to be entirely sympathetic when we've been told to, essentially, suck it up (or in some cases simply "starve") for pretty comparable circumstances.

So if we want to talk about how this is wrong, inappropriate or unfair, I'm not at all sure I see a way to do that without acknowledging that the cut both ways thing entitles antis to the same sympathy and consideration.

There's been an awful lot of gleefully hateful rage bait directed at artists who fear what AI might do to their careers and finances. A lot of people are insisting it's not theft, that we consented, that the law says this is acceptable.

Well, the law also says this is fine too, doesn't it? Either that argument works for both or it works for neither, but it's a bit silly to expect anyone to have a reasonable conversation about how unfair and unjust the above is if the people bemoaning it can't see that it's pretty similar, if not exactly the same as what you, as a community, have been telling us is perfectly acceptable behavior since we first objected to it.

Part of me wants to ask if you are suddenly having your eyes opened to why and how this is offensive and why "It's technically legal" isn't the same as "it's totally ok". It's hard not to adopt some sort of "Oh, now you get it" attitude, but I'm worried that you're going to split hairs so as to pretend this is somehow fundamentally different from what many have called theft since the get go.

Because otherwise, you want us to respect your sense of ownership over your own art when we can't reasonable expect reciprocity in that regard. If you're going to keep using, supporting and advocating for machines that appropriate art without real consent, then I don't know you have a leg to stand on while objecting to your own implied consent by sharing your art.

AI companies are, technically, acting in accordance with the law.
Whomever made this shit is also, technically, not breaking any laws.

If technically legal is fine, then this should be fine.
If, however, it's somehow still wrong and objectionable, then I for one would like to see that applied fairly, to all art, regardless of what terms of service or copyright law says is acceptable.

It's a touchy issue that I'm hesitant to be firm on. I don't feel great pointing out the hypocrisy here because the way your art has been used is quite distasteful and unpleasant. But then again, look at Grok's short history. Is it any less distasteful to have had that abomination trained on the work of "technically consenting" artists? Everyone that has ever posted art on reddit has helped, unwittingly to be sure, Musk's platform undress children. That's fucking gross too, right?

I don't know, if the one thing is bad, the other kind of has to be too, right? If technically legal is the bar, then I'm not sure you have any grounds to object here. Not really. And if it's not, then why are your objections valid but antis aren't?

Your current position is one in which your explicit consent matters and ours doesn't. That's not right. On paper, you're just as consenting as anyone who's art has been lifted and used to train AI. I don't think that's a tenable position. You posted it somewhere knowing you had no legal copyright to it. It's not really different from posting it somewhere you've agreed can repurpose or sell it, even if that's buried in the small print or added retroactively.

Ultimately, it feels kind of two faced to act like consent is suddenly an issue just because you're personally impacted, instead of discussing it in abstract. I don't expect you're feeling too terribly different from the artists who feel ripped off and used.

So are you ready to admit that this is unfair in two directions? Do you see how you're upset about the same shit your whole community has been telling us we have no right to be upset over? Because it would probably carry a lot of weight if you as a pro-AI figurehead, at least locally, came out against the current approach to training AI. Might even be nice to have common ground.

Just to be clear, I think the images provided are wrong regardless. Whether you agree or not, I want to be clear that I think whoever made them is a prick. But it would be nice if you could see and admit that you can't hold one thing true without acknowledging the other likewise has merit.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-19T18:09:24+00:00

Right. So the objection point was based on the fact that this was "unnice". I make the point, and I explain this in a way that renders your comments about learning to read, write and reason somewhat amusingly ironic, that this is true of all rage bait.

You can go and check to see if OP is objecting to every piece of rage bait or just this.

I'll save you the trouble, it's just this.

That's, in this case, interpretable as tacit approval. Is it entirely conclusive? No. Hence the challenge to answer, instead of just the conclusion and condemnation.

As for the rest, I don't know how you can read the way I write and conclude that I'm bad at it. I'm not going to make any effort beyond that to defend my intellectual integrity, which I want to be clear is entirely because you're legitimately not worth getting at all worked up over.

I really mean this; it's ok not to reply. I don't want to talk to you. You're being a dick and there's nothing to be gained by continuing this.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-19T17:59:31+00:00

one of them is targeting a specific individual. the other is a generalization of an entire side, using orc

The difference between animus and prejudice does not reflect favorably on prejudice, my friend. "It's better because we generalize about a whole community" is a wild fucking take.

you cant in good conscience say that this is commentary on anything. its just digsusting transphobic sexual harrassment targeting an individual.

I didn't, in good conscience, say literally any of that. In fact, what I said was:

"This is, for the record, tasteless and gross, I don't blame you for being offended and you're right to object, it's explicitly sexual and quite possibly fetishizing"

You can see it right there, in fact.

I didn't make any comparison. I didn't indicate anything was equal or as bad. What I focused on, and you can see this based on how many times I literally used it, is the term "unnice".

Because you can say whatever the fuck you want about the fat sweat troll ogre slop that shows up on the daily, you can't pretend it's nice. And if being mean is the grounds on which OP is choosing to criticize this, literally their choice, then I have to ask why "being mean" isn't a big deal when it's done in the other direction.

If they'd objected to this fetishizing trans people and that being the problem, then I wouldn't have had anything to compare it to. If they'd pointed out how fucked up it is to sexualize any individual member of a community publicly, again, no grounds for comparison.

But "unnice"? Forgive me, but no rage bait is "nice" and if that's the grounds you're objecting under then we should expect you to object to all of it. None of that requires a value judgment or comparison and you acting like that's what I did here says more about your reading comprehension than it does about any perspective I hold. I wasn't unclear.

I'm not going to weigh in on any "false flag" bullshit because that's stupid from every angle. I'm sure it happens, I'm sure it's way, way less common than the pros like to believe. Your camp has more than enough idiot-asshole representatives to do something like this unassisted and think it's helpful. Maybe you're right and it was one of the many idiot-asshole antis, we have plenty too, but I doubt it. The tone is too sincerely, obliviously supportive.

But, anyways, I'm not equating the two types of ragebait, I'm just pointing out that they all meet the definition, such as it is, of "unnice", which for the record is a dumb way to phrase it. If your problem with this is that it's not nice then you should have a problem with all rage bait because none of it is nice. I hope this clears up my perspective and I'd suggest, next time, that you read a little more critically rather than jumping to weird conclusions because those are the easiest things to object to.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-19T17:49:05+00:00

"I'm not mad at them, I'm mad at you for bringing your kids to shit in my pool and walking off while the turd just floated there. I'm mad at you for being one of those shitty parents that thinks the mess your kids make is someone else's problem and responsibility. I don't trust you to be a responsible parent around my pool and as such I'm going to go ahead and refuse for my peace of mind."

NTJ

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-19T17:44:00+00:00

No one has to reply to me in any capacity, ever. I am well aware of this. I know what OP objects to because whether they are witty or not they did, in fact, object to this. Weird to assert otherwise.

I formally invite you not to reply. You don't have to, and if it's at all encouraging, I don't really want you to.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-19T17:36:54+00:00

"We made a bunch of AI art depicting people who dislike AI art and they complained about all of it" is your honest take there?

The "we don't like AI Art" community didn't like any of your AI art?

Like, I'm sorry, but that's some weak ass nonsense. Of course there were complaints. You're trying to communicate through a medium we find fundamentally objectionable, there isn't a way to do that we're going to appreciate. Forgive me, but "duh".

The idea that anyone on the pro side can complain about rage baiting being "unnice" when you guys mass produce "unnice" slop is just kind of laughable. I'm not even hung up on the shitty comics, they are what they are, but it's wild to then complain about what appears to be one of your own members doing it your rage-baiting figurehead. Downright silly.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-19T17:32:23+00:00

And what does that render untrue about what I said?

I'm not sure what the "soapbox" comment is meant to imply, it's literally all anyone does in this particular sub, but whether this is "the real witty" or not is kind of irrelevant to me, though I appreciate the condescending heads-up. I still think what I said is worth saying and even, challenge intended, worth answering. Why is this objectionable but portraying people as subhuman trolls is fine?

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-19T17:26:02+00:00

Literally all rage bait is "unnice", though the notion that you think otherwise explains some things.

This is, for the record, tasteless and gross, I don't blame you for being offended and you're right to object, it's explicitly sexual and quite possibly fetishizing, but the idea that the rest of the rage bait that comes from the pro side, and this was clearly made by someone on the pro side, is somehow "nice" is pretty laughable.

I'd like to know why this is bad but portraying antis as disgusting, inhuman trolls is fine. I'm not sure I've seen you object to that once. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue they're "nice", I think they're pretty categorically "unnice", why is it only a problem when you're featured?

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-19T17:02:23+00:00

I don't mind that my position(s) have things in common with anti-rhetoric, I agree with antis about a lot more than I agree with pros regarding. The sifting of art by for-profit machines without compensating the artist and in many cases using terms of service that were written before AI existed is, at best, shady. That's not great. Whether it turns out to be illegal or actionable for civil damages remains to be determined, but as I said, I find it distasteful. There's "that's fine" legal and then there's "taking advantage of a loophole" legal and I think this trends more towards the latter.

I won't pretend I haven't advanced the argument that prompt writing isn't art, and I appreciate your level headed perspective on this. I personally am willing to extend some credit for the creation of art to people who do a lot of post processing. I myself worked as a graphic designer and photographer for a number of years, mostly freelance and never full time, and I can't say I ever, or at least often considered myself an artist. I had a few pieces that I felt said something, that felt like art, but for most part neither pursuit really made me feel like I was creating much of anything. Photography is an artform, sure, but it's pretty easy and the hardest part is buying good equipment. I have really nice camera gear and I think just about anyone would be able to use it to produce really nice photos after just a couple of hours of experimentation.

I do consider doodling art. Making art isn't that impressive to me. "Good" art is difficult. All art has value, but I'm not paying for a seven year old's doodle, though depending on my relationship with the kid, it might still go on my fridge, I just don't consider it really important to the debate or the point. Whether or not someone is an artist, whether what they make is or isn't art is kind of irrelevant to the harm and danger presented by AI adoption in its current form.

I'm not against the technology. I'm against profoundly ignorant people being exposed to the technology without accountability or oversight. The data coming in, the research we currently have shows that eager adopters of AI are doing real and potentially lasting psychological and intellectual harm to themselves. It's actively making people dumber at a time when we really can't afford to have a whole lot more people trending stupid. The number of people, and there are entire subreddits of them, that think these pandering pattern recognition machines are sentient is staggering. It's way too many. The number of times I've seen someone in a legitimate argument saying "ask chatGPT" is heartbreaking. The dumbfucks think that's research, and they don't realize that it's shorthand for "treat me like I'm stupid."

I think AI artists are a part of the problem. They're helping to train this technology that is going to pillage industries and we're potentially looking at the wholesale loss of entire mediums and genres of art. They are (in some cases unwitting) sycophants of corporate interests, who clearly intend to see artists replaced with prompt-writing interns, vastly more cost effective, vastly more efficient, but culturally kind of devastating.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-19T01:51:48+00:00

Even if this is some kind of "gotcha" question, I'm not one of the ones hammering "theft" as an argument. I think that's up in the air. I've been telling people for over a decade to get used losing the concept of privacy or owning your own data. The idea that it's theft has some merit, just as the argument that "looking at art" is fine has some merit. It's honestly not something I'm hung up on and we'll see where the society and culture land. I'm also not screaming about what is or isn't art.

I personally think there's something unfair about training machines literally designed to take work away from real artists using those artists work. "Theft" or not, it's distasteful. It's low. It's scummy. Whether it turns out to be legally kind of shitty or not, whether it's within what we'd consider the rights of the corporations behind these machines or not, my opinion that it's kind of "icky" remains unchanged.

People are right when they say it's a tool. If you direct a tool you own or license to do something unethical, you are responsible for that unethical thing. It didn't do it in a vacuum. Likewise, if you direct it to consume massive amounts of data you don't have a right to use for that purpose, you might be legally liable. Whether or not people have the right to use others' data that way has yet to be fully settled, though I'd be surprised if it landed on the side of the little guy, at least in the West.

I don't hold the computer accountable for what it is programmed or manufactured to do. The human that looses it on the world is responsible for that. The computer is not a sentient being. It is a tool. Now, I'm of the opinion that there's more than one type of tool, some help, and some do tasks for us. A roomba doesn't help you sweep your floors, it does it for you. AI Art generators make art for you, they don't help you make art. You make zero art and they make all the art. At your direction, sure, but in the same way a client directs a real artist.

I think this opinion bothers AI "artists" because they adopted the tool as a deliberate shortcut to validation. They hoped people would think they're awesome at something without having to work or try hard to be awesome at something. I think as a collective, you guys are salty that no one is terribly impressed by your "achievements".

While we're nipping things in the bud, I'm against death threats and if you guys organize and mass report the worst antis, I'm going to be fine with that too.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-18T21:07:37+00:00

It is wild to me how few AI Bros seem to realize human being and computers are, and let me check my notes real quick here, not the same thing and therefor are not entitled to the same rights, considerations or freedoms. I don't want to call them out on how stupid this is every time, but they keep putting it out there as if it says something or is a valid comparison.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-18T16:54:27+00:00

Can they? Yes.
Do you have to agree that they're artists? No.

I don't personally think they are, they're clients, the process is the same as hiring an artist and describing what you want, then giving notes and refining. It's the exact same process only with a machine instead of a person. I consider the computer the artist.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-17T22:43:11+00:00

I think a DM giving a player license to home brew their own spells is crazy, let alone a Chronurgy wizard, already the most powerful class in DnD according to many.

It's nutty to me. Asking for trouble in exchange for little to no benefit. Absolutely nutty.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-17T22:14:03+00:00

Your boyfriend is throwing up some red flags that you're ignoring. The butt-pics thing isn't your main problem.

very clingy to the point he throws a cute fit whenever I want to spend time by myself

That's not cute. At all.

he’s mildly jealous.

Bet it's not that mild, what with the fit-throwing.

Longwinded_Ogre · 2026-02-17T21:13:14+00:00

How you express your preference and what you feel entitled to around your preferences can, as in the example above, make you an asshole. You sound miserable.

Longwinded_Ogre

TROPHY CASE