General

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).

Munchies:
Hot take. Self-expression is already democratized. Not knocking on anyone who likes to use AI art programs, but um ...


There are tons of art mediums and styles to choose from - most of which are quite accessible. So AI art doesn't contribute much other than making pretty pictures with low effort.

I have some friends who are professional artists. They can't stand AI art. Makes them froth at the mouth. Some of it is the quality or the people who pretend they made it themselves instead of putting in a prompt, but most of it comes down to ethical issues. In addition to the scraping and copyright issues we spoke about earlier, some businesses are shafting artists in favor of AI art.

In fact, a lot of AI is marketed on not paying artists. It's one thing if you, for example, want to use AI art for the cover of your latest fat kink story. It's another when a business lays off its creatives in favor of AI. Ironically, the tool that democratizes self-expression is easily .

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.

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.

LoraDayton:
Thank you especially for #2. As a non-gaining feedee, I am constantly reminded how my body isn't good enough by both feedists and vanilla people. I'm too fat or not fat enough. Of course as someone who also adores FA/feedist and inflation/expansion artwork, of course there are things I like to see visualized that simply can't happen IRL. But especially the traditional portrait model style of AI images that can easily be done IRL, yeah, those bother me big time.

But more importantly, AI "art" is theft, pure and simple. There is no ethical application of AI "art" if you are not the original artist regenerating/revisualizing your own work. Die mad about it, my mind will never be changed on this. There are practical applications for AI in other mediums, but art and writing ain't it.

I have used some AI generators for visualizing ideas for reference (eg having something to look at so I can write and describe it) but only when I couldn't find another reference image. And I would never pass it off as "art" I created.

And why is it theft? If I "order" a generic, realistic pucture of a horse in a meadow, who did not get paid? I could take a photo myself.
On the other hand, creating and publishing pictures with ie landmarks, people or buildings, then someone could have sold that pic.

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.

LoraDayton:
Thank you especially for #2. As a non-gaining feedee, I am constantly reminded how my body isn't good enough by both feedists and vanilla people. I'm too fat or not fat enough. Of course as someone who also adores FA/feedist and inflation/expansion artwork, of course there are things I like to see visualized that simply can't happen IRL. But especially the traditional portrait model style of AI images that can easily be done IRL, yeah, those bother me big time.

But more importantly, AI "art" is theft, pure and simple. There is no ethical application of AI "art" if you are not the original artist regenerating/revisualizing your own work. Die mad about it, my mind will never be changed on this. There are practical applications for AI in other mediums, but art and writing ain't it.

I have used some AI generators for visualizing ideas for reference (eg having something to look at so I can write and describe it) but only when I couldn't find another reference image. And I would never pass it off as "art" I created.

X_Larsson:
Why is #2 such big a problem with AI? Both morphing and certain drawing techniques can yield quite convincing results.
Same goes for other kinds of industrialized production, where coexisting products do not compete. See my above examples in the earlier post. We have still have manually produced products that we could buy a century ago. Clothes, furniture, floor rugs and oriental mats, cuttlery, garden items, food, toys, sport goods etc.

And why is it theft? If I "order" a generic, realistic pucture of a horse in a meadow, who did not get paid? I could take a photo myself.
On the other hand, creating and publishing pictures with ie landmarks, people or buildings, then someone could have sold that pic.

[b]
As for number two, it's been scientifically proven that unrealistic, idealized beauty standards warp people's body expectations. It's the same reason why people get mad at the Kardashians for their heavily edited and airbrushed photoshoots. Or how some men feel anxiety about their penis size because they think men should have 10 in penises.

As for number two, it's been scientifically proven that unrealistic, idealized beauty standards warp people's body expectations. It's the same reason why people get mad at the Kardashians for their heavily edited and airbrushed photoshoots. Or how some men feel anxiety about their penis size because they think men should have 10 in penises.

[b]Letters And Numbers:
But that’s hardly a problem exclusive to AI art. Before AI, photoshop was the boogie man for that, and it was still just shorthand for society pushing unrealistic beauty standards. I mean half the time when I make people with AI they look like terrifying monsters with fucked up faces and limbs bending the wrong way.