General

Letters And Numbers:
Some of your complaints are just about fetish art in general, whether it’s AI or hand drawn, right? #3 in particular could apply to any art.#2 also.

FAMGM:
Not at all.

Fetish art involving an artist is their representation of (generally) their fantasy. I don’t imagine anyone is feeling inadequate because of some of the more extravagant depictions of 2000 lb feedees, and even when the depiction is actually fantastical, it always preserves the human eye for the erotic minor details.

AI art tells us what the fantasy is, rendered without subtlety - simpy maximising the main attractions as it judges that we want them.

FAMGM:
Is it just me, or is anyone else getting sick of seeing AI images of fat people?

I’ve enjoyed a few when I first saw them, because it’s fun to imagine an actual human having those proportions, but my objections are:

(1) from the point ot view of feedist discourse: it’s getting really repetitive, it’s already unoriginal, and some forums are just awash with it like it’s actually worth something.

(2) from the point of view of feedist culture: I can see that some feedists, who’ve discovered a love for their shape after years of feeling inadequate, are going to feel that even as feedes/gainers/bb-whatevers that they’ll never attain the unrealistic proportions of AI;

(3) purely aesthetically: it ignores the subtle things that can be appreciated in a fat body, like the way overhang just starts at the hip, in a softly forming bulge that spills over itself, in favour of overt disproportion.

Letters And Numbers:
Some of your complaints are just about fetish art in general, whether it’s AI or hand drawn, right? #3 in particular could apply to any art.#2 also.

FAMGM:
Not at all.

Fetish art involving an artist is their representation of (generally) their fantasy. I don’t imagine anyone is feeling inadequate because of some of the more extravagant depictions of 2000 lb feedees, and even when the depiction is actually fantastical, it always preserves the human eye for the erotic minor details.

AI art tells us what the fantasy is, rendered without subtlety - simpy maximising the main attractions as it judges that we want them.

Letters And Numbers:
lol ok

FAMGM:
Thank you for the contribution, such as it has been.

Letters And Numbers:
Some of your complaints are just about fetish art in general, whether it’s AI or hand drawn, right? #3 in particular could apply to any art.#2 also.

FAMGM:
Not at all.

Fetish art involving an artist is their representation of (generally) their fantasy. I don’t imagine anyone is feeling inadequate because of some of the more extravagant depictions of 2000 lb feedees, and even when the depiction is actually fantastical, it always preserves the human eye for the erotic minor details.

AI art tells us what the fantasy is, rendered without subtlety - simpy maximising the main attractions as it judges that we want them.

Letters And Numbers:
lol ok

FAMGM:
Thank you for the contribution, such as it has been.

Letters And Numbers:
Np! You know, if you want to say that the novelty of ai art has worn off or that it’s annoying to see mostly boring AI pics spammed in spaces you hang out, I get it. (The 2nd one is a moderation issue not an AI issue, though). If you even want to say it’s obnoxious to see untalented people parade around like they’re fine artists because they can query software, I’ll back you up. But trying to claim that there’s something particularly triggering about ai fetish art with no proof or backup is a big stretch, so is saying that bad drawn/rendered fetish art somehow captures some magical human quality compared to bad ai art. It felt like you’re really stretching to justify not liking AI. It’s ok to not like AI.

FAMGM:
You’ve got something to say now, have you? Dug yourself out of the pit of condescension?

Where did I say it “was particularly triggering”? I voiced a concern, put in rather mild terms, that making ubiquitous unrealistic images of the fat people as ideals may affect some people. I didn’t say it *was* a problem, nor that it might be a *widespread* problem. It’s a fairly innocuous thing to be clutching your pearls over. Bizarre, in fact.

As for the idea that “bad drawn/rendered fetish art somehow captures some magical human quality compared to bad ai art”, you’re both misrepresenting the point that I made - I’ll grant you, at this point, not out of stupidity, probably out of sheer laziness - and not actually joining issue with it.

And yes, I’m comfortable saying I don’t like something solely for what it is - I don’t need your support to reach that level of comfort.

Letters And Numbers:
Some of your complaints are just about fetish art in general, whether it’s AI or hand drawn, right? #3 in particular could apply to any art.#2 also.

FAMGM:
Not at all.

Fetish art involving an artist is their representation of (generally) their fantasy. I don’t imagine anyone is feeling inadequate because of some of the more extravagant depictions of 2000 lb feedees, and even when the depiction is actually fantastical, it always preserves the human eye for the erotic minor details.

AI art tells us what the fantasy is, rendered without subtlety - simpy maximising the main attractions as it judges that we want them.

Letters And Numbers:
lol ok

FAMGM:
Thank you for the contribution, such as it has been.

Letters And Numbers:
Np! You know, if you want to say that the novelty of ai art has worn off or that it’s annoying to see mostly boring AI pics spammed in spaces you hang out, I get it. (The 2nd one is a moderation issue not an AI issue, though). If you even want to say it’s obnoxious to see untalented people parade around like they’re fine artists because they can query software, I’ll back you up. But trying to claim that there’s something particularly triggering about ai fetish art with no proof or backup is a big stretch, so is saying that bad drawn/rendered fetish art somehow captures some magical human quality compared to bad ai art. It felt like you’re really stretching to justify not liking AI. It’s ok to not like AI.

FAMGM:
You’ve got something to say now, have you? Dug yourself out of the pit of condescension?

Where did I say it “was particularly triggering”? I voiced a concern, put in rather mild terms, that making ubiquitous unrealistic images of the fat people as ideals may affect some people. I didn’t say it *was* a problem, nor that it might be a *widespread* problem. It’s a fairly innocuous thing to be clutching your pearls over. Bizarre, in fact.

As for the idea that “bad drawn/rendered fetish art somehow captures some magical human quality compared to bad ai art”, you’re both misrepresenting the point that I made - I’ll grant you, at this point, not out of stupidity, probably out of sheer laziness - and not actually joining issue with it.

And yes, I’m comfortable saying I don’t like something solely for what it is - I don’t need your support to reach that level of comfort.

Letters And Numbers:
You didn’t say “may”, you said AI fetish art makes people feel inadequate in a way that hand drawn or rendered fetish art doesn’t. What’s your justification for that? Is it just a theory?

FAMGM:
Nope. Didn’t say that.

We’re done, my little friend.

X_Larsson:
This reminds me of a scene in "I, robot", where the human tells the robot something like: "Can you write a symphony, or paint a portait?"
Robot: "Can you?"

So called mike drop.

The AI images can be a somewhat creative path for people that cannot draw or paint. It is not so different from painting by numbers, in a way.

X_Larsson:
The thing is, that right now, AI has usable and effective ways of processing illumination, skin texture, human skin tones, outlines typical structures if object s common around us, but it does not undesrstand context. Proportions AND details get distorted or misconfigured.

Then the whole creation is spoiled. Many (most?) of the AI pictures that I have seen, and that contain humans, have some sort of eerie feeling of "wrong" about them.
I could write more here, but I will refrain from it.

X_Larsson:
The thing is, that right now, AI has usable and effective ways of processing illumination, skin texture, human skin tones, outlines typical structures if object s common around us, but it does not undesrstand context. Proportions AND details get distorted or misconfigured.

Then the whole creation is spoiled. Many (most?) of the AI pictures that I have seen, and that contain humans, have some sort of eerie feeling of "wrong" about them.
I could write more here, but I will refrain from it.

Letters And Numbers:
Well, it’s new and evolving fast and the barrier to entry is super low (none of those are bad things. Democratizing self expression is a great thing), so we end up seeing a LOT of bad art made with it. The better stuff - made with newer, more expensive software, by more sophisticated users - doesn’t have the messed up hands and uncanny valley stuff. You can still ask the question of whether it’s art or not. I don’t have that answer.

Another part of the AI problem is how easy it is to share mistakes. A traditional artist who messes up the proportions on a figure or fucks up the hands might not share that one. Some artists are self conscious about sharing any of their work. The stakes with AI are low.

Photoshop came out 30 years ago and it’s still controversial (sometimes for good reason, but as more of a stand-in for fights about beauty standards. It’s not photoshop’s fault that pictures get airbrushed).