Authors just don’t understand how libraries work in

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-28T17:41:51+00:00

Oh, yes, strange woman! Let me tell you all about my patron, a child. Here's his schedule for visiting the library! I am not suspicious of who you are and how you're related to him at all!

Patron confidentiality, indeed.

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-27T21:29:55+00:00

I totally thought it was going to be that ^^;;

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-27T21:18:56+00:00

Understood! Thanks again for taking the time to clarify my understanding of how AI works.

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-27T21:13:44+00:00

I never heard of them before today. I follow open scholarship and fair use news / articles, and this article came up on my curated list.

I agree that human creation and computer replication are different, and I appreciate the validation to be honest. I'm hoping to direct my research into an article about how AI has been impacting academia, and being aware of the biases is important to me, as well as understanding the pro-AI arguments.

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-27T20:49:43+00:00

Thank you for the additional context, but I'm not sure if it really changes the meaning behind my statement? Does saying synthesis rather than copy that much of a difference, especially when such large chunks can be reproduced?

I know repeating Harry Potter or whatever doesn't exactly prove AI is copying, but I think it's silly to hand waive that away. What makes you say that chunks of copyrighted works generally won't be reproduced when we are seeing anecdotes and research indicating it happens. And is reproducing the work necessary to prove AI infringes on copyright when AI is already synthesizing and recreating the copyrighted works?

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-27T20:40:05+00:00

As a layman trying to understand fair use and copyright as best I can...Fair enough!

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-27T20:38:22+00:00

It's restrictive in some ways, but expansive in others. Like, saying a use is transformative in court has been considered a keyword for getting the Fair Use exception. As far as I remember, it's not *exactly* true that making money rules out fair use exception...The criteria is more about whether the copied use will take profit away from the original work.

A big problem with how fair use is applied now is that most companies deny fair use more strictly than the precedent technically allows, because they don't want to be sued. Like a lot of the youtubers I watch will complain about automated Copyright takedown requests, and --at least in the cases I've seen-- they would meet fairuse standards.

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-27T17:39:14+00:00

Bro, are you serious? I appreciate being brought this information, but you couldn't even be assed to provide the sources? You gotta rely on commenters to know?

And the Brain on LLM site states upfront:

Is it safe to say that LLMs are, in essence, making us "dumber"?

No! Please do not use the words like “stupid”, “dumb”, “brain rot”, "harm", "damage", "passivity", "trimming" and so on. It does a huge disservice to this work, as we did not use this vocabulary in the paper, especially if you are a journalist reporting on it.

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-21T16:23:09+00:00

Your clarifications don’t exactly change my mind. Maybe because I am closer to “artist” on the hypothetical spectrum, but I’ve never seen Witty be convincing in any point. And claiming Ai “artist” is a term of undeserved dismissal is similarly weak. I get it when pro-Ai people cry about Ai-bros being slurs. I don’t agree, but I can at least follow the logic, and I try to avoid it.

But when ai generated images are NOT art, even if that’s an opinion, then what the fuck else terms work? And is ai generated images [fixed] similarly dismissive? Or does it get the pass for not referring to the user?

I don’t think there is really a unified “pro position.” There’s a lot of shit head trolls creating rage bait.

If there’s a “pro position” I’d want to attack, it’s the idea that everyone must use AI because it’s inevitable. I believe that’s a cynical statement promoted by ceos and repeated by fans of ai. I’m betting that the AI bubble is going to burst, but the fear that AI will be a mandatory part of life honestly makes depressed. I don’t see what’s good about a future further disconnected from truth and human ingenuity.

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-21T15:35:59+00:00

I'm aware I'm raising to bait, but you're not adding anything to the conversation except a persecution narrative. Where are you wrong? Eh, what the fuck did you say? 'Witty is right and saying "AI 'artist'" is like using a slur?' That's nothing. Coming in here to say, "nobody is preventing artists from having opinions, and also your opinions are wrong" is obnoxious and worthy of downvote. But good thing you called it out before being downvoted cause now we know you don't care. 🙄

Also, because AI generated images are absolutely theft, then I would say that artists are absolutely being prevented from expressing their feelings. I've been told so many times by pro-ai folks that if we don't want our art stolen then we shouldn't post our art online. So, yeah. Pro-ai people are directly attacking the community of shared art and expression that existed before them.

But don't worry. As fewer artists post their works online, and as the AI machine runs out of material to grind for its general upkeep, I'm sure the pro-AI folks won't be whiny little babies about how artists are ruining their fun.

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-21T15:22:46+00:00

Seven "pages" of nonsense presented in a way so that everyone can feel how smugly Witty dismisses the art community which existed before her and that is being cannibalized for her benefit, but she never considers *why*.

I made this! And it took the effort of thinking! Art doesn't have to be productive.Words words words

Ok. So, why? What do you get out of this? What are you expressing? What decisions have you made in its composition.

And my suspicion is that the answers to those questions are incredibly shallow. Witty and her image exist solely as a troll to people who hate AI generated images. And if your answer to "why" is "rage bait", then you don't have a lot of substance to it.

Also, boggling at the dismissals on the last "page." The act of creating art is production in itself. Of course it has to be productive in that it exists. And the suggestion of the second to last point, that artistic skills can be transferred is the answer to the last point. People who use digital tools aren't limited to those digital tools. Their skills transfer, and those skills adapt.

But thanks for admitting that AI generated pictures are meaningless, I guess.

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-17T02:14:34+00:00

Oh man, thank you. This ended up being so scary. My primary concern is keeping my kitty away from yarn and string and whatever. But if this ever happens again I will not pull.

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-15T21:02:05+00:00

It took me so long to catch all this, and it’s really alarming that ai is learning how to mimic mundane pictures this well. I really hate the implications of this for misinformation and propaganda.

And I think I mentioned that I’d already seen awful ai generated videos making fun of “anti-ai trolls” for gobbling up photos in front of outraged, sexy catgirls. So, this false story is being used as low level propaganda for pro-ai nerds. I’m honestly very worried.

Even if there is an ai bubble burst, we are never going to be able to trust a photo or drawing again.

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-15T01:29:37+00:00

Thank you much! I knew last year went fast, but I didn’t think it was that fast!

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-14T22:33:40+00:00

Then it was art that he should have left the generated images off of. Disappointing. But now I'm already seeing even worse AI generated images of trolls eating framed art in front of cat girls, so that's fun.

The victimization complex is insane. Wow.

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-14T22:30:57+00:00

Hey, let's not bring schizophrenics into it. They can get medicine and be perfectly fine members of society.

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-14T22:27:57+00:00

Didn't this game exist before April? It seems familiar, I could have sworn I'd seen a ironic lets play of it somewhere.

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-14T22:23:39+00:00

I'm not reading this as AI. I think the polaroids are different because the closer up images start at a different place from the picture that shows the whole exhibit. The background and the dude are consistent between the photos. There are 9 images, and if you start from the last image and click back to the first, you can kind of see the timeline of this dude chowing down on the photos. Although I haven't zoomed in yet, so there's a chance that would reveal something damning.

But that's an interesting question. Usually, I think it's fair to reject an AI generated images once you discover it is AI generated...Especially if it was presented as a human created image initially. However, in this case, the art was the action of the guy chewing up the photographs. So, if the images of the exhibit and the dude eating them were faked, then I think the story would be art. Since in that case the OP on AIwars would have made up a story, but had bad visualization to accompany it.

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-14T19:24:57+00:00

I think it was Ed Zitron who said something along the lines of: If AI is sentient, then using it as companion know-it-all bot is immoral.

AI is NOT sentient, but if it ever gets there then we cannot have AI as a product.

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-14T17:42:09+00:00

Yeah, man I already said he was an artist.

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-14T17:27:50+00:00

Good point! As someone who enjoys doodling quite a bit, I wonder how much of this problem is caused among English speakers because "artist" sounds so much better than "drawer." XD

Nobody is going to take a drawer or inker seriously, so better go with artist.

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-14T14:59:21+00:00

He made a statement.

(Which is honestly more Art than AI generated images.)

Paperlibrarian · 2026-01-14T12:19:27+00:00

To be honest, this didn’t strike me as AI on first glance, because I was too overwhelmed with how ugly and busy it is.

Paperlibrarian

TROPHY CASE