Munchies:

That said, Photoshop isn't inherently theft, unlike AI art. It's gotten so bad that artists - some of whom use Photoshop - are turning to programs like Glaze to prevent art theft.



Letters And Numbers:
I didn’t say anything about Photoshop being theft. You should reread the conversation. You were talking about artificial beauty standards and I said that Photoshop gets used interchangeably with airbrush when you’re talking about how pictures (mostly of women) online and in magazines are doctored. Which is not the software’s fault, it’s the magazine editor, etc. it’s a human problem, the software is just software. A paintbrush is just a paintbrush. They’re tools.

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.

Munchies:
I mean ... I drew a parallel to Photoshop.

Letters And Numbers:
Do you think the Photoshop software is a bad thing? Or is it just a tool that can be used for good things and for bad things, like any other tool?

Letters And Numbers:
If I have neuropathy and can’t draw the way I want to, but can use AI to express myself visually, I might think it’s very democratizing. It’s a tool, which isn’t inherently bad or inherently good. If people are using it to fuck over other people, that’s a human problem with human solutions.

Munchies:
Um ...
What?

This has never been an issue. Tons of artists have been making art for generations with all sorts of medical issues.

brainandlife.org/articles/four-artists-talk-about-how-their-neurologic-conditions-affect-their

There's a famous illustrator, Tom Yendell, who was born without arms. So he paints with his toes. He paints better than I, an able-bodied person, could hope.

There are scores of different ways of making art spanning cultures, centuries, and mediums. And people are trailblazing new stuff all the time. There's always a way to express yourself other than "the computer made it for me."

Letters And Numbers:
100 years ago there wasn’t indoor plumbing most places. This is a new tool. Times change. Something will come along after AI art, too, and people will get upset about it and then things will normalize.

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.

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.

BigBallBellyGirl:
I'm currently in the process of finding my true size and restocking my wardrobe for winter. I'm at my highest weight ever (420 - 430). I actively gained for much of this year, and though I'm not doing so now, I'm 135-145 pounds heavier than I was last Thanksgiving, and 50-60 pounds heavier than my previous highest weight. I struggle with clothes a LOT because I'm VERY big around the midsection. I'm having to stick with some warm basics from custom retailers. I can't find a winter coat though, and it does get chilly in Pennsylvania. Open to recommendations from fellow supersized folks.

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).

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.

RobbyP:
"Results showed that the sympathetic nervous system and the immune system can be voluntarily influenced. This could be due to the anti-inflammatory effect produced by the techniques."