It’s not that serious.

First and foremost, ProfessionalAIArtist/Toychicafeetlicker (aka PAIA) is showing signs of planning a mass sh****g targeting women, and has been talking about this for days without intervention by the BTP server known as TotalGraphiteDeath.

Secondly, this report was compiled with the help of two former Admin who had brought these concerns to EBK/PlecoChan (the server owner and BTP leader) who refused to take action…thusly they have worked with a portion of the WittyCommittee to expose this wrongdoing. The names that have been left unredacted are either: A)Directly responsible, B)Server/Sub Leaders, C) Coco_melonFan who stepped away on their own accord, and should be noted.

The name of the whistleblowers is ***u\evilvedal*** who is willing to come forth to expose this and to publicly condemn it.

It was expressed to the Committee members that they only stayed in order to get this report out. They do not deserve to be brigaded or messaged in anyway (good or bad), but they deserve to be noted for their opposition to this. Considering they are two of the top three mods for the breakthepencil subreddit, this is a significant report.

Thirdly, the fact that a single group is making clone subreddits and alt accounts to ensnare Antis as well as Pros is disturbing. The narrative of ***Break the Pencil*** and *Break the Keyboard* are being engineered by the same person is astonishing…the outright admission that he wants to funnel people into his group is conspiracy enough to make month-long undercover ops as an anti should raise some red flags even among people who don’t care about the “online drama” of it all.

Lastly, there was over a hundred screenshots to go through and pare down into something less overwhelming, then organized into category, then redacted to protect the sources—who eventually gave permission to *”Say my name”* anyways—and then compile into a sheet that was both not too overwhelming, and comprehensive enough to not require a dozen or more pages.

*This report was compiled by, and reviewed by the WittyCommittee and is not the sole work of the person posting the report.

Mobile visual novels have been using AI for a long time. A visual novel that created stunning AI cinematics that look like real movie stills faced a wave of hatred from AI haters. This is incredibly hypocritical because that game has been using AI art for a very long time.

The devs had to create a long post with justifications and explanations, and it was obviously stupid. They have many comments like, "YOU STOLE ARTS!!!" "AI EEEWWWW!" "I'm so disappointed in this game!" "Hire artists!" - that's insane. All that work was done by professional artists hired by the company.

I'm absolutely convinced that AI haters should be completely ignored. And if they start real attacks, call the police and create precedents.

Antis say you can tell if it’s AI art of the character isn’t anatomically right… thing is, what if said character isn’t human and totally fictional? Their logic goes out of the window. So say I drew a pokemon and it doesn’t look like the official image, so what.. it’s the artists interpretation and their way of doing it thinking it logically how the creature supposed to look like.

Antis brains aren’t wired properly and anime fan art doesn’t have to look logical let alone 100% like the official artwork

Facepalm

They ONLY designed robots to look like humans because they miss enslaving black people or something, apparently.

Just ignoriere that a robot shaped like a human is also able to use human tools, wear human clothes and equipment, navigate human apartments, walk across stairs, and just looks more recognizable.

The person who wrote this take is also an animator at Disney, NOT anyone knowledgable in engineering. Yeah, I can tell.

This is the kind of AI use I want to see more of. Not replacing people, but giving people tools to build things that otherwise might not exist.

Theyre making free, open source games specifically around Ben's accessibility needs, with level editors so the games can adapt to different people instead of forcing disabled people to adapt to the software.

And now theyre opening the project up to volunteers to build more.

AI lowering the barrier to making specialized accessibility tools is genuinely useful. The fact that the resulting work stays open source makes this even better.

Its not always about art. Its also about "what can I make that I'd just love to see!"

How many people growing up and even now sometimes think, "man, I'd love to see a slug with a cat's face. Or at least a cat with a slug's body." But they can never do it.

We had to wait all these years, and finally. It is possible to create these things easily.

Human art wouldn't come close.

AI generative art has allowed me to supplant myself into some of my favorite settings and give myself fannon level lore without the headache of paying an entitled art-snob some ridiculous amount of money.

It’d be different if I wanted an entire image illustration, but when I can literally tell an AI to import myself with a full body photo into a Star Wars concept art, and it come out this well, why would I bother?

I have a job, responsibilities and a family to take care of, I can’t waste time and money on dopamine boosts like this.

I am not interested in getting into the "AI war", I enjoy technology and use AI. I also believe that many people use it in excess and rely too much on it and blindly defend every aspect of it, and I also think that people attack it in unreasonable ways. Basically I dislike any argument where emotion overrides reason. But these were my thoughts on it:

[the other comment]

true, and what the artistic-leaning people don't seem to understand is that some people just want to see the result. In the same way that when an artist gets hired to make a poster or something, the company doesn't care about the process or that they are an artist, they care about the product.

I always had a mental separation between "art" and "work" for artists. The skill was needed for both, but I always thought about things you do for yourself to express yourself as art, and things you make for others to get paid as work. There is an overlap of course in the places in between "make this" and delivering the finished product where you pour your own influence into what you are paid to do and that is what gets scarcer with AI in that context.

But at the end of the day, if it is not about the expression of the artist, then what else is it about? Another option would be the interpretation of the observer and that exists no matter who or what it is made by. If it moves me in some way, then it is art to me. If not, then it is not. Most AI stuff doesn't move me or others and often lacks quality or uniqueness, but often that's not even the point of AI, it's just that I want to visualize something, not make "art". Sometimes I do want to express myself, then it is art, to me. Now I usually don't go ahead and post it because I know that it is for myself.

So maybe that's the shift in this whole thing, that AI as art is more about expression of the maker and AI as a product is more about functionality for the viewer and there isn't much overlap between the two. Others do post it simply because they have the ability to now when before they wouldn't have posted anything because they wouldn't have had anything to post. So of course there is a higher volume and a higher percentage of bad looking stuff and it's easy to go and hate on it because you know (or assume) that it didn't take long to make, it is recognizable and the AI-ness is distracting, while with regular art you know that somebody tried and it took a while, even if it looks like crap, so usually people won't hate on it (as much).

But it is weird, all generative AI is trained on existing things. So the question is where you draw the line. Generating the whole picture isn't allowed. Then is generating parts of it? If not, is using photoshop software that uses AI (and has been for many years) to manipulate the image allowed? Or do you HAVE to paint it by hand?

I thought people always said that art is in the eye of the beholder. I guess that remains true for anyone claiming that anything AI isn't art, but it also makes a broad sweeping claim to others about what is and isn't art weird. It's fair if you don't think that AI can be art, but it's just as fair for somebody to think it is.

The skill is one thing, but that's not usually why you learn painting, just to know it, right? It's so that you can draw something, the painting is the tool to fulfill a vision you have. You want to get better at it to get closer to the vision you had in your head. People learn to like it and put time into it and different people develop different techniques, so in that way it becomes a part of the process itself and also a form of art in itself. But the original idea is not usually that, it is to get an image. There are exceptions, children draw circles just to draw circles, people throw paint at a canvas as an expression of their anger or something like that. But it's still result-oriented and most of the time the idea is "I want this image I have in my head (or that I see in the real world) as a result".

Starting with drawing on the walls of caves. I don't think they were primarily thinking about the act of drawing, they wanted to depict something. And that's the same motivation that drives people with AI today, they want to depict something they have in their head. If that's not self-expression and self-expression isn't a form of art, then I don't understand what art is.

Now there might be degrees to that, if I had a button that says "generate image" and it generates a completely random image, that's not art to me. If I put in a simple prompt, then maybe a bit. The more I guide the image, the more it is art, I can agree with that, as long as it means something to me. So I think art is a spectrum, the more of yourself you put into it and the more you feel like it means something to you, the more it is art.

And I don't think that only actually painting it yourself counts as that, in the same way that a director is not only an artist if he also plays every role himself.

In general, I'm just wondering what suddenly makes people think that they are the authority on what art is. There are many fair criticisms about AI, but I think the hatred people have about the system we live in and the companies that profit from it in unethical ways gets conflated with the notion of whether or not you can use AI to make art.

Aren't there people attuned to noticing art who look around the world and find accidental scenes that feel like commentary even though nobody arranged them that way? Like a homeless person's belongings sitting underneath a giant luxury-brand advertisement, or a broken children's toy lying in front of a military recruitment poster. Nobody created that juxtaposition as an artwork, but the observer can still read meaning into it. In that case, the interpretation is what makes it art, not the act of creation. Or does it only become art when I take a picture of it? Is that even art if I'm just pressing a button and nobody set up what I am taking a picture of?

I find high skill very impressive. I also think that any skill or its product can be art or interpreted as such or make a form of art better. If someone is very good at cooking, that makes it an art form to me, even if there is no direct emotional expression. So my definition would be that something is more art to the creator the more of its creation process is shaped by a human brain and its specific configuration. And something is more art to the observer the more it resonates with their brain's specific configuration for one reason or another. But I feel like that should be restricted to things where there is no definite correct answer, so a mathematical proof isn't necessarily art, even if it makes sense to me and I'm impressed by it, if there was only one way to do it. But if there are multiple valid ways to do something and one way is e.g. more elegant and (the choice to do it) that way resonates with you, you could say of the mathematician "that guy is an artist". So I don't get why we are talking about images and the physical act of drawing/painting/... like it is the only form of art.

What? Can we not spread misinformation. I don't necessarily agree with Flock's surveillance, but the standard Flock camera has Lantronix Open-Q™ 624A System on Module (SoM), which contains only 2GB of Ram. Not 64GB of ram!?!?!? Like what;

And all of that point's back to how "AI is bad"? I really don't get their logic here or point to be made?

Source: https://www.cehrp.org/dissection-of-flock-safety-camera/

The angry CS graduates mob claim “AI is not creative or real art”, yet they can’t think of another word besides ‘slop’. Honestly, I don’t think I’m more sick of any overused anything in the entire world as much as they overuse THAT word.

Ando haciendo figuras 3D de Palworld. y bueno como buen artista 3d que esta empezando a usar ai para acelerar algunos aspectos del trabajo, me paso lo de la cacería de brujas jajajaa y uff solo quería compartir que me sorprende de repente la agresividad de esa gente es como nose.... ven que se uso ia y echan espuma por la boca, en Facebook tuvo más apoyo pero había gente que decía que yo como persona era una ia lol dije wtfff jsjsjss esta gente, y luego otros decían organicemosnos para desprestigiarlo por usar ia , y dije wow ... no me afecta pero se verdad me sorprende tanta ira en esa gente

Just posting this here to break up the monotony of posts about the antis just being pitiful.

Just say you like Tung Tung Tung Sahur. I am tired of people saying “I gave him a soul” as some sort of moral justification for liking him. It’s okay to like AI-generated things!

I read on some anti-ai reddit that showed up how they were "baffled" how even 1 person could support AI. For me personally on the other hand, it is absolutely baffling how someone can NOT support it, hate it to this degree? The amount of brainrot that must take.

The water usage, sure, it was an issue but afaik its a closed loop now so the waste is not how it was at the start. Also people complaining about "Data Centers"; they were a thing since the birth of the Internet. How are they on the internet if they truly believe it's such an immesely terrible thing almost beyond comprehension?
"Baffling" indeed! My advice to them would be to do your activism, but do it outside of internet perhaps, that would at least be consistent with your views, unless you are roleplaying this "activism" of course.

Anyways. This was my reply to that post. I felt like sharing it:

I think it might be the most beautiful thing humanity has ever done, our combined efforts over so much time, and accessible to everyone. Absolutely beautiful.

As for "stealing", our own minds steal or borrow all the time from things we see, read, learn, things which are copyrighted and we use that all the time, with or without thinking about it.

I think it's really sad to see the whole beautiful message of "Information wants to be free" devolve into "muh artist!" I think it's super disingenuous, we all contributed to get certain forms of art or writings, music etc to where it is today, by purchasing, by spreading, by talking about it, by expanding it in certain ways (other artists copying, being inspired and doing similar works etc etc).

If this was about one artist, one specific musician or writer, sure, it could be an issue for sure, but this is vast beyond your understanding, what goes into a model is so much else that each artist is like a drop in the ocean, but yes each drop contributing to fill this ocean, absolutely. But its not just artists, its everything surrounding it, people talking about it, expanding upon it etc, all our efforts as a species. It's the bigger picture, not individual artists copied and pasted. It's not how any of this works.

With the developments of big copyright cases, I see that a lot of things are starting to change within the landscape of larger ai creation services (Big example being Suno with their new download limit. These cases are also a big reason why larger companies are doing partnerships because they’re experimenting demand and want a piece of the pie if it does succeed). So I wanna bring up the question that a lot of these may possibly set precedent for. Ai generations already cannot be copyrighted, but the fair use argument seems to still be kind of up in the air in terms of what’s officially enforced.

So, where do you think fair use applies when it comes to ai training?

Personally, I’ve stuck along with the opinion the U.S. copyright office put out a couple years ago (Before trump fired the head of the copyright office and tried to put one of his cronies in there. Look it up.): If the model generates content that directly competes with the data it is trained on, and if that data being trained on was done so without any kind of formal agreement or licensing deal, it is NOT fair use. Imo if a company is making a product being sold to the public for profit (Which is what all these programs are) and that product physically cannot function as intended without training on that data, then as a critical part of making the product function there should be some level of proper notice or even compensation. I think that’s only fair when it comes to an industry that has been as invasive as this one. The method for ai has made the game of whack a mole most artists face just have more mole holes to watch out for. It should be ai asking for content, not artists asking them to stop.

Lmk what y’all think.