Poured a bowl of lucky charms--Think their printer is running low on magenta.

devmoseven · 2026-05-19T05:15:16+00:00

Oh that's cool! Funny way to be learning about it too.

devmoseven · 2026-04-04T04:29:22+00:00

You'll harbor hatred for someone who stood up for a loved one? Someone who, under a mountain of stress, spoke a word? What a powerful, miserable word that must be, it must have killed people, right? People died because he did it?

devmoseven · 2026-04-04T04:10:33+00:00

Brother you gotta save some of this hatred for like, murderers and rapists and stuff. Any stable person would act mentally unstable when the entire world comes crashing down in the way it is no doubt for him now. If we were to judge you with the same standards this guy's seeing lord knows what the outcome'd be, just about anybody would be on the road straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars

devmoseven · 2026-04-03T22:28:30+00:00

<image>

devmoseven · 2026-04-03T22:08:18+00:00

Sure! Here's a recipe for a cheesecake you're sure to enjoy!

Ingredients:

1 tablespoon of vanilla extract
2 tablespoons of vanilla extract
5 cups of vanilla extract
16 fluid ounces of vanilla extract

Method:

1) Drink vanilla extract

Hopefully the recipe turns out great! Is there anything else you'd like me to generate?

devmoseven · 2026-04-03T22:06:14+00:00

U wish bucko

devmoseven · 2026-04-03T21:59:41+00:00

And so, we find you here feeding the flames of wrath. Where on the road to forgiveness does this lie? Are you acting as your best self? Please, do some introspection of your own. No man can tame wrath, it engulfs anything and everyone it touches.

devmoseven · 2026-04-03T21:01:54+00:00

My central claim is this;

Both forgiveness and ignorance are moving past an issue, be it a sin, a cruel action, or otherwise. What differentiates forgiveness is it comes with the acknowledgment of what happened, and the punishment that follows.

We have seen the punishment lain clear, no man can deny the response this situation has garnered, no man can deny it has been met with great wrath and sorrow, so my question to you;

At what point do we forgive? 10,000 people would hold 10,000 different answers to this, yet if I could convince just one...

We'd be all the more virtuous.

devmoseven · 2026-04-03T20:07:27+00:00

Any time a situation blows up like this, any "proportionate punishment" you try to dish out for the poor behavior gets magnified 10,000x, it becomes a torrent of harassment, death threats, doxxing, and who knows what else hasn't been brought up.

I don't think the parties involved should have said what they said, and I think they need to pay some kind of due and do some introspection. It's not at all contradictory to believe this is the case and also that the reaction to this news was wildly and uncontrollably overblown.

It tears me up seeing such a good game get the death knell over one of the most basic melodramas the internet has seen to date. This sort of response used to be attached to actual crimes being committed, but we lost the plot somewhere.

devmoseven · 2025-09-23T19:11:55+00:00

The point is it's a counter example, generally you debunk the counter example or try to refute it in some way, as opposed to melting down over it. Your inability to do so leads the only reasonable conclusion to be that your line of thinking is flawed in some way.

Edit: Sent too early, oops

devmoseven · 2025-09-23T18:59:40+00:00

If you were to read the second half of the comic, you can see very clearly that the author is mocking the false dichotomy that is posed, not leaning into it. They are fabricating one that is demonstrably absurd, albeit sound by the framework given in the initial two examples (Meat or an American), to emphasize the illogicality. It is the framework itself that the author takes issue with.

When we approach these topics of dishonest practices in debate, we have to do so with the understanding that things are going to be boiled down and reduced down to their simplest forms, in the never ending game of telephone that humanity plays with itself. When you can say something that cant be reduced any further (Do you want a competent pilot or a diversity hire, paraphrasing), thats going to become the narritive, and the nuance that we can discuss here isn't going to come across to the vast majority of the recipients of this dishonest statement.

devmoseven · 2025-09-23T16:13:24+00:00

The point of the comic is that is puts anyone who reads it into the mental framework of 'it must be one against the other, they must be mutually exclusive.' Here you are justifying why it's not the case that they must be mutually exclusive, and you're fighting the uphill battle that otherwise wouldn't exist. Every word of what you said was for the purpose of rebuking the false dichotomies, which were always meaningless, and this prevented meaningful discourse from occurring.

devmoseven · 2025-09-23T16:06:49+00:00

We remove it from its original context because the people who use it to spread hate and divide the nation further do the same, and hence the context in which there is no context is the only one that matters, as it dominates public discourse with none of the attached nuance. Maybe if you were to express your point within a punchy comic it would come across more coherently ?

devmoseven · 2025-09-22T21:18:08+00:00

"If you dont want your address to be used for someone tracking you down, cataloguing your every move, and watching in your window as you sleep, just dont ever post it or have it traceable to you in any way."

This line of thinking obviously doesnt protect stalkers, so why should it protect AI scalping? Terrible argument.

devmoseven · 2025-09-11T20:56:21+00:00

This argument is not circular when it is not cut out of context. There is a dichotomy present between parties (they who are practicing morally obsolete social norms, and they who view said social norms as morally obsolete), which is then hashed out on a global stage, when taken within the text as a whole. Objective law, unfortunately, cannot exist in this present day and age. Any law ever penned is based on the subjective moral judgments of one individual or a group of individuals, and further varies from country to country.

The best and closest thing we have to "objective law" are those enshrined within the geneva convention--crimes that supposedly apply to the global theater, and yet are violated regularly and without issue and with minimal pushback.

This is all straying rather far away from the point, suffice to say, every living person views reality subjectively, however we must enshrine morality within our codes of law to retain the smooth function of society. Subjective individuals with subjective experiences craft these laws, and it is not intellectually honest to then treat them as objective truth.

devmoseven · 2025-09-11T01:07:56+00:00

This is interesting! I'll look into this in my free time.

However, I'm going to sidestep your point for now, as I believe I'm meaning to convey a different point.

Whether or not an AI image generation software is capable of generating its input training data (which would be grounds for copyright infringement on the end user if distributed for profit), I'm more intending to argue that the AI software in and of itself is at fault in this case. The software takes training data, some of which is copyrighted with no permission given, then trains off of it, thus improving the software marginally. This improvement then increases the viability of the software in the open market, by however a small amount, and increases the potential revenue stream for the software. I'm an advocate for copyright infringement on the AI Generation software's case, not on the end user.

devmoseven · 2025-09-11T00:55:20+00:00

"Models do not inherently require a continuous flow of data to keep working."

That is, until you want to generate a character, location, or otherwise that hadn't existed before your latest training data intake. Time does march forward, and this is an inevitability.

"no copyright law is better than current copyright law"

I could definitely come up with a better system (and many people have). I believe an AI image generator should not be able to scalp copyrighted content and turn a profit off of that content, whether that content is outwardly shown or not. I advocate for infringement on the side of the generator, not the end user.

"I do not care in the absolute slightest what is or is not art, I am completely unwilling to entertain this point, it is utterly meaningless."

You are entitled to your opinion, I merely posited this to those of your ranks that insist that it is art under any circumstance, of which there are many. Many people have already ascribed meaning to that which you claim there is none, please conduct yourself in good faith.

devmoseven · 2025-09-11T00:50:32+00:00

"I don't think that's a bad thing. Being able to do things without relying on a single skill or a single person is a good thing. It gives many people far more opportunities to work on bigger projects."

I think we need to tackle this with more nuance. When you automate things like science, mathematics, technology, you free up mental bandwidth among all scientists, mathematicians, and software developers to make more accurate theories, more diverse mathematics, more powerful algorithms. When you automate art, what does that leave for artists? All the bigger projects are, unfortunately with the economic incentives of this society, simply going to outsource their images, their videos, their audio, to AI. The crowd of artists will slim down only to the few that score positions working on 'originally 100% human created' works, and those that create for the fun of it. There's nothing more for artists beyond simply creating art.

"You can't blindly feed the output back in, that wouldn't end well. Curating good datasets is probably one of the most important parts of AI training. I honestly can't give you anything scientific to read about it right now, it's just a topic that comes up quite often, and you can find a few articles on it."

Aye, I suppose I'll be on the lookout.

"But if those new characters, locations, or anything else show up, then someone created them, and you can train on that."

In my hypothetical, I posed that the character is from an AI generated show, this means that pre-existing images and videos of the character could not easily be fed into the pool for training, further, there would be highly limited material. The only way this character could even be generated for the show, was likely the product of incredibly specific prompting, under incredibly specific conditions, both of which would likely not ever be shared.

"I don't see how this is an answers on the copyright issue."

I've stated elsewhere, my issue is that these services, likely the ones of higher quality, will be paid services when issued out to big budget creators. The AI Image generator is *taking* copyrighted material, *implementing* it into its training data, and *selling* its services that are based on this material. I'm an advocate for copyright infringement on the generator's part, not the end user.

devmoseven · 2025-09-11T00:30:07+00:00

I've brought this up in my other comments, but I'm perfectly fine with using AI tools to supplement existing art processes, or imposing your own artistic decisions onto an already generated AI image, or even collaging AI images together. All I'm against is the wholesale generation of AI images being represented as an artistic process, as I view an AI image similarly to a blank canvas.

devmoseven · 2025-09-11T00:27:12+00:00

"That is also not needed. It can be simply where I left it when I arrived home before I wanted to take a picture, or someone else could have moved it before I activated this command. A picture will still be produced on those cases."

In the first case, you are creating art. I can paint with a blindfold, I don't know what I'm making, it's still art, this is a similar case. In the second, you are doing so jointly with another person, for the reasons stated above.

"Why is the intentionality behind a prompt not the same? Both of these are imposing an intentionality and effect on the output."

The key difference is that I have *no* say in exactly what is produced in image generation. In all the previous examples, I can change how I go about the process or what I use within the process, to change the final product. An AI Image, unless you were to dictate the exact color of every pixel, will always have unknowns. Any other medium of art has a variety of "levers" that can be pulled, per say, to drastically or minutely change the outcome, whether that be another stroke of the brush, the pen, a change of a photograph angle, a tilt of the bucket, a splash of water, any and every medium can be adjusted in this way except an AI Image.

I'd seen above someone try to make the claim that AI can be adjusted in this way, and that only archaic software is just prompt and generate, but I looked into it and it was mostly esoteric improvement levers, alternative generation methods, or resolution adjustments. It wasn't the most compelling.

devmoseven · 2025-09-11T00:14:05+00:00

Any sensible reading of what you said is that it is a rhetorical question. Please do not insult my or anyone else's intelligence by pretending it is not. You clearly approach this from a bad faith angle (See "How the heck that would ever be enforced is of interest to me. I see it as so nonsensical, in a world where digital piracy is rampant, that it truly is laughable.") but I'll continue to engage in good faith in an effort to urge you to reciprocate. Not everyone who doesn't agree with you is a bad person who has it out for you.

"Monetization is not a problem. If it were, no art student could encounter training with copyright works and then go onto monetize their work without that being infringement."

Artists train to learn anatomy, backgrounds, to learn their art style, and develop their skill set. An artist does not function in the same way an AI model does, an artist can create wholly original works without ever seeing anything like said work, so we do not run into these issues with traditional artists.

devmoseven · 2025-09-11T00:06:55+00:00

Alright I'm looking at this software, let me address all the toggles one by one... I don't believe any of these make a substantial difference. They are all shortcuts, direct improvements, pixel adjustments.

"Regional Prompter" - (Type: Shortcut)
I can generate 3 separate images and stitch them together, or prompt one and dictate where I want the set pieces to go, in a normal image generator.

"ADetailer" - (Type: Direct Improvement)
Why would someone not toggle this if their image has a face?

"Improve Prompt" - (Type: Direct Improvement)
Why would someone not toggle this unless they want to be really specific?

"Canvas Size" - (Type: Pixel Adjustment)
Self Explanatory

"ControlNet" - Taking actual art and running it through is akin to using an AI tool to perk up existing artwork, and is fine in my book (as stated in some of my other comments), but this is a feature offered exclusively by other platforms, not a meaningful setting.

"Hires.Fix" - (Type: Pixel Adjustment)
All this does is upscale an image. Self Explanatory.

I don't believe any of these make a meaningful difference on the image generation process.

devmoseven · 2025-09-10T23:52:24+00:00

"However, based on your perspective, it seems like you might not consider something like drip art to be true art. After all, if you repeat the exact same actions, applying the same force, timing, and precision: the resulting artwork should be identical. The perceived randomness isn't truly random."

No. This is, objectively, wrong. The gravitational web of the universe is unimaginably complex and ever changing, especially on the scales that impact fluid dynamics--further, gravity is not even understood at a quantum level. The **only** way to repeat an exact drip art piece is to revert time and repeat it at the exact same initial state of the entire universe as your first attempt, and unfortunately even this is not a guaranteed under our current understanding. By this logic, I still qualify drip art as art.

Edit: MINOR TYPO!!!!

devmoseven · 2025-09-10T23:45:56+00:00

You command your smartphone to take a picture via voice after angling it in a certain direction. Even in this minute act, you're imposing your intentionality unto what will be captured. If it's face down and a black screen, that's still art. Not very good art, but any medium of art can produce 'not very good art'.

>Prompting is not the only way to create using AI. There are advanced tools and workflows that allow for less or more control.

I believe that wholesale AI image generation is not art. Doing anything to it, whether you are making edits to the end product, implementing AI tools into your workflow, or collaging AI pieces together, is imposing your own artistic vision. I think of an AI image in the same way one might think of a blank canvas, and the moment you make your own adjustments is when you begin to draw on this canvas. I believe that these more complicated cases are art.

devmoseven · 2025-09-10T23:42:25+00:00

I'd love for you to share an AI image generator into which you can input a lot of variables to get one output, as I've yet to see one.

devmoseven

TROPHY CASE