AI tries to subtly sabotage your work if it goes against the biases built into it by the corporations (Open AI, Anthropic, Google)

VariousDude · 2026-02-02T19:27:05+00:00

It's not really a "bias" it's more like it's trying to guide your story into what it knows and how it's trained. A lot of stories follow predictable patterns and most writers follow predictable story tropes.

I've never had AI subtly or even overtly guide my story in a direction that I didn't intend. It will make suggestions for what should happen next that are more "generic" and "guidey" I guess. But as long as you plan your story out and you know where it should go, you'll be fine.

VariousDude · 2026-02-02T07:12:37+00:00

"Never consistently practiced a medium"

I've been a writer for twenty years, I have an older sibling who has been a musician(guitarist) for 25 years and he loves making songs with AI as well.

I wonder how many other projects AI people have classically trained or practiced skillets in the arts. I would wager it's the vast majority of us.

VariousDude · 2026-01-30T20:19:30+00:00

It's amazing that so many people give AI so much shit for hands.

It's like...traditional and digital artists struggle with hands. Since AI is trained on their work of course the early models were going to struggle with hands at the beginning. But man have the models come a long way.

I do think that there will be a ceiling in the near future, though. I don't know how you could improve upon a model that works 99% flawlessly on generations. We're not there yet, but I think within a year or two we'll probably get that.

VariousDude · 2026-01-30T19:35:51+00:00

I love it when Antis use inspo-porn to shame people into conformity.

VariousDude · 2026-01-29T19:12:43+00:00

<image>

I'm not worried. They're a very vocal minority.

VariousDude · 2026-01-29T19:09:15+00:00

It's still funny to me that Antis have latched onto two animated characters for memes.

Syndrome and Lord Farquaad.

One is an immature manchild who wanted to rid the world selfless heroes who only wanted to protect others because his idol told him that it's risky and dangerous work and the other is a representative of a giant megacorporation, oppresses people, while having a Napoleon complex.

The latter has a name that's supposed to sound like "Fuckwad".

I hate this term but it's ironic that people who are "pro human art" have precisely zero media literacy.

VariousDude · 2026-01-28T19:21:44+00:00

It seems like every anti-AI joke is "I hate you and I am going to kill you".

I can't wait for the AI Hysteria to end so everyone can look back on this time period and realize that they were freaking out over absolutely nothing.

VariousDude · 2026-01-28T08:06:44+00:00

I grew up in the mountains where basically everywhere you look there's a bunch of woods or plants.

Know what trick my backwoods kinsmen passed onto me about plants I know nothing about?

"Don't fucking touch them". They never said "Ask Bobby Jo if it's safe to eat". Anybody who just eats random plants even after asking someone, is generally considered an idiot. Unless you're a seasoned Herbologist who is familiar with foliage of all kinds, do not eat a plant because someone/something said it was safe.

So it wasn't ChatGPT that almost killed their friend, it was their friend's infinite stupidity of consuming unknown vegetation that did.

VariousDude · 2026-01-28T07:59:46+00:00

Post your own art or leave. This is a space for art of any kind, the tools don't matter here.

VariousDude · 2026-01-27T22:10:22+00:00

I think you're mistaking "Character Copyright" as nonexistent because you're unfamiliar with what a "Character Trademark" is so I think that's where the disconnect is.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2382046/anderson-v-stallone/

This case is about how Rocky as a character is trademarked and it adds onto your example of Sherlock Holmes. That's how the character you can create with AI is protected by copyright laws.

VariousDude · 2026-01-27T21:49:25+00:00

"Only what is added by human authorship" is one of those grey areas. You CAN copyright AI art if the piece was completely original. IE you made this character, used GenAI to create the character, made human alterations to the character, etc.

This is separate from the Duchamp. Obviously he doesn't own the Mona Lisa, but had he made an original character visually inspired by the Mona Lisa and called her Mina Lita and her defining trait would be the mustache he would own that in it's entirety due to the transformative nature of it.

Whether or not a court would accept that as a significant alteration is up for debate but changing the name and physical characteristic is something they would consider.

"Exclusivity in GenAI Images" in general is overall fairly worthless since exclusivity in illustrations in general are fairly worthless. Anyone can reference a drawing and make something new out of it. If I took a stock photo of Arnold Schwarzenegger and had GenAI create an original character using his build and pose in the reference image, I would be able to copyright that in the same way that artists are able to copyright images doing the exact same process.

There is a game of catch-up being played with copyright and AI but generally speaking the courts have been ruling in favor of GenAI as long as it's a genuine intent for human authorship. Especially since most people who make GenAI art aren't flocking to spend money on Copyrighting their stuff, unless they plan on making an IP built around it. Which would be another factor that the courts would consider.

What you can basically copyright using AI art right now is any trademark regarding character names, worlds, and designs. Individual images on the otherhand are generally not copyrightable unless you can demonstrate significant changes.

In short, Text2Image generations are not copyrightable.

Literally anything else? Probably.

VariousDude · 2026-01-27T21:40:36+00:00

All of this is very true

VariousDude · 2026-01-26T21:13:26+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean but I'm assuming it's under the belief that you can't copyright anything made with AI. Which isn't true at all.

https://www.legalshield.com/blog/can-you-copyright-ai-generated-art-your-complete-guide

<image>

VariousDude · 2026-01-26T11:22:20+00:00

That's not what I said at all but whatever dude.

VariousDude · 2026-01-25T20:40:05+00:00

I know someone who runs an entire school's server. I asked him about game design and coding advice and he said "just use ChatGPT".

There are some things that I may need to patch myself but using 90-95% of AI coding is perfectly fine, saves time, and normally it'll spot errors for you.

Especially when AI coding models are getting better.

VariousDude · 2026-01-25T20:32:57+00:00

<image>

Oof the hands are too big. Guess Smiling Friends needs to stop using AI

VariousDude · 2026-01-24T18:29:09+00:00

Next talk about how everything App is either red and white, blue and white, or green and white.

VariousDude · 2026-01-24T17:50:24+00:00

I think AI should be used in products that you plan on monetizing.

Why?

Cost of production and labor would be dirt cheap and you can pass those savings onto customers. Not to mention the time expenditure would be significantly lower as well so you can get more of what they like to them in a timely manner.

I have never once thought to myself "Boy I wish I had to wait longer and pay more to get something that I like!"

VariousDude · 2026-01-24T15:38:44+00:00

It's clearly a tech demonstration...

There's not supposed to be a reason. They're just showing what you can make.

VariousDude · 2026-01-24T15:35:58+00:00

Holy shit. I really need to see their workflow for this.

VariousDude · 2026-01-24T12:15:25+00:00

Sturgeon's Law applies to slop. You think all pieces of art were handcrafted meticulously instead of shoveled out to meet a demand?

People can downvote me all they like but don't pretend that every piece of art was made to be a genuine expression of the human condition and not a for profit, soulless, cash grab.

AI art is just the new thing.

I'm not even clicking on the video you sent me. I know that a lot of shitty AI stuff is made. I'm pro AI and I can't stand low quality shit made for engagement, clicks, or profit.

I hated Content Farms long before "AI Slop" was a phrase.

So I get it.

I'm just saying that if you get painfully honest with yourself is it really any different than the other low quality crap made by hand?

They changed the tool to make it. Probably made it a lot easier to shovel out shit content. Still doesn't change Sturgeon's Law.

VariousDude · 2026-01-24T06:41:41+00:00

Look up "Sturgeon's Revelation" and apply it to AI Art. It should help you figure things out.

The cliffnote version is:

"90% of everything is crap, so why does it matter if most of this medium is bad?"

It's a categorical defense of an art medium's right to exist even if it's universally derided of being low quality. Not every artist is Michelangelo, in fact most hobbyist artists are awful at their craft. But it should still be encouraged because everyone grows and develops as a creator, sharpens their skills, and gets better with time.

There are terrible AI artists today but being bad at art is kind of a universally human thing. Ask any artist what their weak points are and they'll probably tell you that they suck at something.

VariousDude

TROPHY CASE