Ai images
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.
[img]https://www.brainandlife.org/articles/four-artists-talk-about-how-their-neurologic-conditions-affect-their[/img]
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."[/quote]
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.
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.
[img]https://www.brainandlife.org/articles/four-artists-talk-about-how-their-neurologic-conditions-affect-their[/img]
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."[/quote]
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.
1 year
Ai images
[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.
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.
You could argue that in the 17thC, Reubens’ portraits of women promoted unrealistic body standards. Less wealthy women couldn’t afford to eat enough food to be plump.
1 year
Ai images
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.
There are a million fair use and copyright questions that AI brings up, they’re being argued over in courtrooms as we speak, and artists have organized to protect the rights of creators. It will be interesting to see how things adapt over the next few years. At least in the US, when you look at the Supreme Court case from this year with the estate of Prince suing the Warhol estate over fair use questions, the court wants to side with the original image holders. It will be interesting to see.
1 year
Ai images
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.
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.
The definition of art is subjective. I wouldn’t call anything I make art either, but I also don’t make all the rules. Critics said Warhol wasn’t an artist at first, now there are museums dedicated to him. People still say he isn’t an artist! Mostly silly people, imo, but there it is! Art is subjective. Andy would be fascinated with AI art if he was still alive. And he’d probably be first in line to say that it’s in its infancy and there are still big questions to answer, and that it’s important to answer those questions.
The barrier to entry to be a photographer is the lowest it’s ever been in human history. At one point only the wealthy could afford cameras, and now nearly everyone has one and takes dozens of pictures a day, almost none of which are art. But there are still artists who make art with cameras, even with iPhones. Even with Polaroids. Even with Game Boy Cameras. It’s just a tool. It doesn’t mean that everything made with a camera is art, but art can be made with a camera. I don’t think AI is any different. And again, I would never call myself an artist, no matter what medium I’m using.
For the record, I’m not sure if I would call most pornography art. Maybe some is, maybe a lot of it is, but it’s not an automatic for me (unless everything is art, which twist my arm…). So the idea of soulless AI fetish images that try to be photorealistic and fail … I wouldn’t call that art in every context either. But I could come up with some ideas to make art out of uncanny valley AI creepy people, maybe. It just wouldn’t necessarily be the same way those images were intended to be seen. Does that make sense?
1 year
Ai images
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 .
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 .
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.
1 year
Ai images
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.
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.
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).
1 year
Ai images
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.
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.
It’s a tool. The biggest issue, in my mind, is the one Munchies brought up about copyright. I’m sure in 5 years thats going to be worked out as lawyers and judges figure out how to deal with new tech, and then some new tech will come along to confuse everyone again. But right now it’s just another tool that can be used well or used poorly or overused.
1 year
Ai images
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.
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.
Lol ok
1 year
Ai images
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.
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.
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?
1 year
Notifications
Just to bring this up again, cause it keeps happening, it would probably be less creepy if a person disappeared completely when they kill their account instead of leaving the ghosts behind in your feed. Just have the whole view/message/etc disappear. Or, even better, a post that says “UserNameXYZ” deleted their account. The way it’s done right now is the most unnerving option.
1 year
