kralbubemuke2

[kralbubemuke2]

this is a picture of my girlfriend's OCs Ophelia, (top one) and Lucinda (bottom one). they are the main characters of LovestruckWitch's story Spellbound hearts. she requested for me to draw this and I am fulfilling it. please follow

[kralbubemuke2]

Bio Drones conept art and stuff :)

TW : Sensitive biology stuff.

Bio Drones is for now a silly AU/Oc stuff inspired heavily by Liam Vickers work, such as Interaction Cube and Murder Drones, especially Cyn/Cyntessa/Cynwalker.

I’m sharing with YOU this idea for fun, no special projects or anything going on.

Now let’s talk about fictional biology : Bio

Drones are vampire like robots. They have organic flesh and metal bones and body structure.

Once born as a pod they are implanted into a corps of a prey ( human ) by their paternels.

The pod will consume the body and create a core ( a human heart like organ ) and shift the body of the corps depending on their genetic characters.

They have few organs, they need blood to avoid overheating and explosing their core. As long as their core isn’t damaged they will survive ( much like the murder drones ).

Their body cannot digest everything, and they cannot evacuate naturally. So if a bio drone swallows anything that they cannot digest they have to open the « intestin » part equivalent of a human to manually evacuate objects.

They facial features include sharp teeth, Cyn like eyes, a halo that can hold 4 eyes. The vision of Bio drones depend on collecting eyes from preys and placing them on the halo. They have surgery like marks giving that they literally parasite though a corpse.

They have an extra spine for their wings and tail, the texture of the tail and wings can change due to genetics ( and lazyness ).

Inside their arms they have claws like cats and a cannon cause why not and murder drones X)

Reproduction goes by normal human sex + ovipositioning a pod and letting it parasite a corpse :)

That’s basically the concept of Bio drones, I will gladly any questions or request.

Have a nice day :)

[kralbubemuke2]

RELEASE THE YURI

[kralbubemuke2]

If I led to this scene happening I feel obligated to thank @aninamated :P

Redraw one of my favorite Love Hina panel with The earth guy characters

[kralbubemuke2]

Drawing a friend :)

[kralbubemuke2]

A Sera x Striker request but I’m too lazy to finish it :/

[kralbubemuke2]

[kralbubemuke2]

[kralbubemuke2]

Erm actually ☝️🤓

Source :

[kralbubemuke2]

All the variants in order :

- Where is Goku ? ( Retro Mark )

- Voice of the Hero ( Bald Mark )

- Voice of the Smitten ( Maskless Mark/ Wolf cut Mark )

- Narrator ( Full mask Mark / Not real Mark )

- Voice of the Man by u/YeahImRealLouis ( Moustache Mark / Full viltrimute Mark )

- Voice of the Contrarian ( Sheisty Mark / Hood Mark )

- Voice of the Opportunist ( Omni Mark )

- Voice of the Cold ( Viltrumite Mark / Gay Mark? )

- Voice of the Skeptic ( Bullet proof Mark )

- Voice of the Skullface by u/KnownPangolin ( Tracksuit Mark )

- Voice of the Broken ( Prisoner Mark )

- Voice of the Cheated ( No google Mark = Shadow Mark )

- Voice of the Watcher by u/vanylla_Sundae ( Flaxan Mark )

- Voice of the Paranoid ( Mohawk Mark )

- Voice of the Hunted ( Long hair Mark )

- Voice of the Stubborn ( Sinister Mark )

[kralbubemuke2]

[kralbubemuke2]

[kralbubemuke2]

[kralbubemuke2]

⚠️!TW! On the tiktok post ⚠️

[kralbubemuke2]

Lonely lonely, I guess she’s lonely

[kralbubemuke2]

I've finally figured out an argument that convinces coding tech-bros that AI art is bad.

Got into a discussion today (actually a discussion, we were both very reasonable and calm even through I felt like committing violence) with a tech-bro-coded lady who claimed that people use AI in coding all the time so she didn't see why it mattered if people used AI in art.

Obviously I repressed the surge of violence because that would accomplish nothing. Plus, this lady is very articulate, the type who makes claims and you sit there thinking no that's wrong it must be but she said it so well you're kind of just waffling going but, no, wait-- so I knew I had to get this right if I was gonna come out of this unscathed.

The usual arguments about it being about the soul of it and creation fell flat, in fact she was adamant that anyone who believed that was in fact looking down at coding as an art form as she insisted it is. Which, sure, you can totally express yourself through coding. There's a lot more nuance as to the differences but clearly I was not going to win this one.

The other people I was with (literally 8 people anti-ai against her, but you can't change the mind of someone who doesn't want to listen and she just kept accusing us of devaluing coding as an art) took over for I kid you not 15 minutes while I tried desperately to come up with a clear and articulate way to explain the difference to her. They tried so many reasonable arguments, coding being for a function ("what, art doesn't serve a function?") coding being many discrete building blocks that you put together differently, and the AI simply provides the blocks and you put it together yourself ("isn't that what prompt building is") that it's bad for the environment ("but not if it's used for capitalism, hm?" "Yeah literally that's how capitalism works it doesn't care about the environment" she didn't like that response)

But I finally got it.

And the answer is: It's not about what you do, it's about what you claim to be.

Imagine that someone asks an AI to write a code and, by some miracle, it works perfectly without them having to tweak it---which is great because they couldn't tell you what a single solitary thing in that code means.

Now imagine this person, with their code that they don't know how it works, goes and applies to be a coder somewhere, presenting this AI code as proof that they're qualified.

Should they be hired?

She was horrified, of course. Of course they shouldn't be. They're not qualified. They can't actually code, and even if by some miracle they did have an AI successfully write a flawless code for every issue they came across that wouldn't be their code, you could hire any shmuck on the street to do that, no reason to pay someone like they're creating something.

When actual engineers use AI what they do is get some kind of base, which they then go though and check for problems and then if they find any they fix them, and add on to the base code with their own knowledge instead of just trying different prompt after prompt until they randomly come across one that works.

People who generate code like this don't usually call themselves engineers. They're people who needed a bit of code and didn't have the knowledge to generate it, and so used a resource.

And there you go. There are people who have none of the skills of artists, they don't practice, they don't create for themselves. When they feed the prompt to the AI they then don't just use the resulting image as a reference point for their own personal masterpiece, and if they don't like it they don't have the skills to change it---they simply try another prompt, and do that until they get something they like.

These people are calling themselves artists.

Not only that, these people are bringing the AI generated thing to interviews, and they are getting hired, leaving people who slave over their craft out of the job.

And that is the difference, for the tech bros who think AI art isn't a big deal.

[kralbubemuke2]