SuperJail Warden wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
SuperJail Warden wrote:
Yeah, you shouldn't date your AI. It isn't a real thing and certainly shouldn't be worshipped. But the anti-AI people are asking for trigger warnings for AI digital assets.
Neurotic liberals. That is what it seems like.
people want this because AI is flooding gamespace like it's flooding everything else. just a look at itch.io. ai assets, music, writing, and it's coming into steam too. valve made a rather tolerant choice in wanting this stuff to be accurately labeled. in the past, they've removed games from stores for stolen assets. some platforms for online media are banning ai content altogether.
again, you're just mad about any pushback because you use AI to manage your many sordid affairs.
Neurotic liberals. Not even a generation ago you people were complaining about digital art instead of hand drawn art.
2013
Poll: Painted or Digital?
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/mag … igital-artDo artists work with paint anymore? I guess this is a stupid question. Do they just digitize everything?...
Like Hollywood movies. they've lost something evocative, organic, and true.
At least I have affairs to manage. Between the two of us you should be the one with the AI girlfriend. I don't even play video games anymore meanwhile you won't even volunteer in your community. Have you clothed the needy or fed the hungry lately?
marching against MONSANTO is not a neurotic liberal thing to do. monsanto is literally on james bond timing of evil.
as i've said, the physical vs digital medium war has more or less leveled out. your mtg forum reference feels pretty niche even for the 2010s. people are generally not trying to pass off their digital art as traditional art, even though programs can make it very convincing now. a self-respecting gallery will usually say what each piece was made with. [traditional medium in watercolor], [digital art made with inksplotch 6.5] or something. it's not hard, and you lose nothing. AI artists are like "look what i made with my own two hands," and comments are like "ooh!" and then the AI artists are like "buy me a ko-fi, thank so much you for your support and kind words." if it's made with AI, tag your AI. the solution is medium tagging. it's not hard. but AI artists want to be coy.
the similarities between digital vs. traditional, and ai vs. everything else, end very quickly. the controversy around AI exists at so many levels that just wasn't there for digital art at the time. there's traditional plagiarism potential, easier digital copy/paste plagiarism potential, and hyper-databank of art plagiarism
by default offered on a massive scale by very wealthy, ethically dubious companies that squeal like pigs when someone suggests they should follow copyright law and actually pay people for their work.
in movie terms, we've gone from arguing about the merits of practical effects vs. CGI, to "was this even made by a human." it's not
really the same, is it. we're looking at replacing actors and voice actors with AI. not really something you could've pulled off with premiere and audacity in 2010.
meanwhile, where we're going with AI technology is using it to secretly scan your face so police can come knock on your door because you glanced at a candy bar two months ago and the store is reporting shrinkage. so when an AI exec wrings their hands over controls like
"YOU'D END AI!", good! when can we start?
again, you're just mad about any pushback because you use AI to manage your many sordid affairs.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2026-05-09 12:59:50)
