Fantasy Feeder

Blanket ban on ai generated responses in forums

I recommend implementing a new rule that will prohibit anyone from posting AI generated responses on the forums, specifically.

The rational is that AI is extremely hallucinatory when it is used to generate replies in the context of debates/arguments, etc. Which is something that happens a lot in the forums.

Not everyone is intelligent or knowledgeable enough to be able to recognize if an assertion generated in said replies is true or hallucinatory. In addition, anyone can just generate AI responses effortlessly. Everyone else will feel fatigue trying to counter them while remaining coherent and logical.

Ultimately this means that the "last man standing" in a debate will be the one who uses AI. Everyone else will have fallen silent because of the fatigue. Other users may conflate this and think that the AI generated responses are the best, because it will appear like that. And then some of those people will believe the AI hallucinations.

We need to protect ourselves from misinformation and from the fatigue of arguing against AI generated arguments. The only way to do that, since AI has a tremendous capacity to generate without wearing down or feeling fatigue, is to make posting AI generated text within the forums, specifically, ban-able.

2 weeks

Enas

Ai generated content, yay or nay?

Munchies:
This is a lot of words for "I want to keep using generative AI, and I don't want to be shamed for it."

I said what I said. Generative AI is incapable of doing anything other than making mathematical probably based on a dataset. If you make a program truly capable of creativity, you have made something that is not generative AI. You have made something else.

I challenge you to write a story about anything you want without using generative AI. I want you to put the max amount of effort you can into it. And then I want you to compare it to your AI stories. See which one is better.

FatGTP:
No. I will not submit to your conditions.

By writing a story I would legitimize your test premise as an absolute measure — I refuse to accept that.
My time is limited; your attempt at proof may win you a forum triumph, but it yields me no insight.
Even if my story were outstanding, you wouldn’t admit it — people in forums rarely change their minds because of opposing arguments.
Feel free to continue feeling superior — no objective proof required.

😉

And Munchies, at least her replies, are superior to the replies you provide, because the ones you provide are completely hallucinatory, where as Munchies' replies are not.

2 weeks

Enas

Ai generated content, yay or nay?

Part 2 because i wrote a lot

The human sets the intention: they determine what the image should be (theme, mood, purpose). Without that consciously set intention there is no directed creative act, only random output.

False. THe human does not set the intention, the human only has and is animated by their intention. Intention is not something you can supply to someone. You can communicate intention, but the machine will not be motivated by it since it lacks the ability to be motivated. The human also does not determine what the image is, they only determine the promt. And the "purpose" that was added with the "theme" and "mood" is just another AI hallucination in the AI generated responses you post. Images do not have purpose. They can serve a purpose, but they dont have one.

The human makes design decisions: prompt formulation, selecting and weighting variants, post‑processing (cropping, color correction, retouching), and combining multiple outputs — all creative interventions that shape the work.

Again, polishing does not constitute art, or creations even.

The human bears conceptual responsibility: the idea behind the image — its meaning, narrative, or question — comes from the human. AI supplies material; the human organizes it and gives it significance.
The human controls the process: iterating, choosing between alternatives, and strategically using AI capabilities are decisions that determine the result.

The human controls a process that ultimately depends on training data.

Control over final presentation: how, where, and in what context the image is shown (title, series, exhibition, description) are artistic choices made by the human that shape reception.
Legal and practical precedent: in many jurisdictions and in practice, those who make creative choices and shape the work are considered the author/owner — AI is treated as a tool.

For a third time, polishing and presentation does not constitute art.

AI is material

This is completely hallucinatory.

and craft; the idea, intention, and decisive acts of creation come from the human. Therefore the (ideational) ownership of the image's idea rests with the human.

Thats false because the image is not a creation of purely the intellectual and physical labor of the human. It also depends on the training data.

Please stop posting AI generated responses in the forum as they are extremely hallucinatory.

2 weeks

Enas

Ai generated content, yay or nay?

sight this is getting tiring.

Part 1 because i wrote a lot.

FatGTP:
Tools don't determine status:

Yes they do! That's why photography as art is a different medium than painting, and that's why digital painting is a different medium than physical painting!

new techniques (the camera, the synthesizer, digital editing tools) were first rejected and later accepted as legitimate artistic media.

This is false. The "camera obscura", the ancestor of the photographic machine, was used as a drawing aid tool from the mid 14th century already. The camera was invented explicitly to automate this use-case.

AI is the next such tool — it expands expressive possibilities.

This is false. It doesn't expand any possibilities other than pumping out content. Do not mistake content for art.

Human agency remains central: people set goals, craft prompts, curate outputs, iterate, and bring intention.

It does not! Training data become the central aspect! The properties of the output depend more on the training data than the prompt. Without sufficient training, a generative AI won't even be able to draw a circle, or write a coherent sentense.

Those decisions shape meaning

Thats also false. Meaning exists so long as a sentient being, a human say, meant (to do, to say something). Humans create meaning. Meaning pre-exists. It is not defined or shaped by decisions. Decisions are merely the product of what meaning is percieved by the human who takes said decision.

and aesthetics just as much as brushstrokes or mixer knobs.

Those things do not shape meaning. Words, brushstrokes, etc, CONVEY meaning! The meaning however pre-exists them, in the head of the artist.

Novelty and emergent behaviors: AI systems produce unexpected combinations, styles, and forms that can spark new artistic directions. Surprise and invention are core to art — AI can provide material artists use to explore new ideas.

We call an algorithm that produces unexpected results, broken and buggy. If something produces unexpected results, it is not working properly. Generative AI is not that, however. It always produces results that are hallucinatory, in their nature, and that's why people can identify it easily and hate it so much.

Collaboration as a creative mode: art has many collaborative traditions (workshops, studios, bands). Human–AI collaboration is another form in which agency is distributed but art still emerges.

If AI is something you collaborate with, it automatically makes it a non-tool. But AI is a tool! It doesn't have will, purpose, motivations or any of the other properties of sentient beings, like humans, that make us want to create works of art. It is used to automate processes. Its a very bad tool, but it's a tool. Not a sentient being!

Audience reception matters: if viewers respond emotionally, intellectually, or aesthetically to an AI-assisted work, it functions as art — regardless of the technical details behind it.

No it does not. If people hate something (an emotional response) that does not make said thing art. A theory (something intellectual, to which people respond intellectually) does not function as art either. "Aesthetically" is not a correct category for reactions. Aesthetics cannot be the level on which you respond. As a sentient being you can only respond emotionally and intellectually. (And beyond that, you can react physically, if you are a physical object, and chemically - but those have nothing to do with this beyond the fact they are also types of reactions)

Intentional framing and curation: how creators select, edit, sequence, and present AI outputs communicates meaning; curatorial acts are artistic decisions.
In short: AI supplies novel materials and capabilities; humans supply intent, selection, and framing — together they produce works that meet the usual criteria for art.

No they are not artistic decisions, necessarily. What you describe is polishing and presentation, and yeah these are importand, but they do not constitute art. A documentary is not a work of art, yet video-editing is necessary to make a good documentary. A youtube video about math does not constitute a work of art just because it was video-edited.

2 weeks

Enas

Ai generated content, yay or nay?

Enas:
That's a way to create content! Not Art, though.

FatGTP:
That's a legitimate position — many distinguish between craft/technique (the HITL process) and art/authorship. Human-in-the-loop describes the production workflow; whether something qualifies as 'art' also depends on originality, intention, and aesthetic expression. The quote attributed to Robert Henri — 'The object isn't to make art, it's to be in that wonderful state which makes art inevitable' — gets to the point: that's what it's about, and that feeling can be brought about. Why, and how people judge the result is of no concern to the artist.

Enas:
All Artists care about how people judge their Art! Its called feedback!

Also, its not just about the process. Its basically about the ownership of the idea.

Slayright:
True! But the point is that ai can expand on the idea as opposed to giving you an original one.

No. Generative AI cannot expand on anything. It can only provide an imitation of what it has been trained.

2 weeks

Enas

Ai generated content, yay or nay?

FatGTP:
AI is a tool. Technology has always been part of art — human intention, selection, and judgment are what turn results into art.

The debate about copyright should be considered separately: many problems stem less from the technology itself than from the financial interests of large multinational corporations shaping the rules to their advantage.

Im not talking about copy right. I honestly dont care at all about that. What i care about is a person having a complete understanding of their creation. Thats what that term means, though i should have explained.

2 weeks

Enas

Ai generated content, yay or nay?

Enas:
That's a way to create content! Not Art, though.

FatGTP:
That's a legitimate position — many distinguish between craft/technique (the HITL process) and art/authorship. Human-in-the-loop describes the production workflow; whether something qualifies as 'art' also depends on originality, intention, and aesthetic expression. The quote attributed to Robert Henri — 'The object isn't to make art, it's to be in that wonderful state which makes art inevitable' — gets to the point: that's what it's about, and that feeling can be brought about. Why, and how people judge the result is of no concern to the artist.

All Artists care about how people judge their Art! Its called feedback!

Also, its not just about the process. Its basically about the ownership of the idea.

2 weeks

Enas

Ai generated content, yay or nay?

FatGTP:
Human-in-the-loop (HITL) for visual work means humans retain control at every step — from concept to final polish:

Concept & references: You define style, composition, color palette and provide reference images; the AI produces variations, not finished decisions.
Prompting & iteration: You supply targeted prompts, evaluate results and direct follow-up modifications for desired details.
Selection & composition: You pick usable elements from multiple generations, combine parts and manually adjust proportions/poses.
Post-processing & retouching: You correct anatomical errors, perspective, textures and colors in an image editor; add final lighting.
The same principle applies to texts — prompting, selection, editing and stylistic finalization by humans.

That's a way to create content! Not Art, though.

2 weeks

Enas

Ai generated content, yay or nay?

The Wicked Pear:
I think a lot of the authors of any content need to remember that AI it a tool to assist in your creation

If what you refer to, as AI, is Large Language Models, then they are a very bad tool. There is a very good talk which explains what constitutes a good tool:

?si=jozLbSWLT-S0sTPM

2 weeks

Enas

Is it time to encourage obesity?

Noah Boart:
I agree, but what if we aks9 promoted being plus size not with gluttony, but with both an accumulation of body shaping and muscle to help keep fat away from hearts and arteries?

There is technically already a sub-sect of lifters who do this. We turn bad health to a new type of body building

Munchies:
Something to point out here: health is only a subsection of fatphobia. You can be an Olympic-level power lifter, and people will still shit on you about your size.

I love obesity as much as the next feeder, but sadly, it's not so simple to eradicate fatphobia. I don't say this to discourage you. I support anything that seeks to push back against any form of bigotry. I only say this because a narrow focus on the issue will leave you vulnerable to attacks from other angles.

LuvsChub04:
Agree,N on a side note Munchies,i met a power lifter few years ago. Very fit yet people still said she was obese... Yet BMIS are another story..
Fatphobia will always exist, same for skinny shaming as well.. Nothing will ever stop it on either side...

Munchies:
Hell, you can be thin and still deal with fatphobia. I remember my mom fat shaming me as a child because I went from 115 to 120 at 5'7". I was 15. Apparently going from the high end of being underweight to the low end of being normal weight made me fat? Idk

Health is truly only one aspect of fatphobia.

Enas:
There are many complex issues in this world, fatphobia is not one of them.

There isn't a health aspect to fatphobia. There is only a perception aspect and a historical/social aspect to it really, because it is entierly a result of behaving on unfiltered -and to be frank, of very bad quality- perception, plus the fact that our current society has decided that fat is "bad" and "ugly" (as opossed to what it had decided for fat, 2 centuries ago, for example).

On a side-note, my own mother has called my gym-rat brother (a very muscular person), "obese".

Munchies:
Wait until you hear about medical fatphobia

What's the difference though?

3 weeks

Enas