#Internet generation

[into-september]

please reblog for sample size

[incognitopolls]

This poll is asking about voluntary use of generative AI. For the purposes of this poll, do not count instances where you were required to use generative AI (e.g. for a school assignment, job required it, etc).

We ask your questions anonymously so you don’t have to! Submissions are open on the 1st and 15th of the month.

[fernsnailz]

chipset and database learn about internet scams

[biggest-gaudiest-patronuses]

babygirl your critical thinking skills

[meanya]

I saw a post before about how hackers are now feeding Google false phone numbers for major companies so that the AI Overview will suggest scam phone numbers, but in case you haven't heard,

PLEASE don't call ANY phone number recommended by AI Overview

unless you can follow a link back to the OFFICIAL website and verify that that number comes from the OFFICIAL domain.

My friend just got scammed by calling a phone number that was SUPPOSED to be a number for Microsoft tech support according to the AI Overview

It was not, in fact, Microsoft. It was a scammer. Don't fall victim to these scams. Don't trust AI generated phone numbers ever.

[rikunamako]

Is that Flowey? | Internet Generation Pt. 2

[inkskinned]

you know, you know. no gods, no masters, no kings on pedestals. everyone is fallible. death of the author. you know! you are balanced about your intake of media - you allow the wiggle room, the grace, the gratitude, the skepticism. nobody above criticism.

but still. a weird gut-punch feeling, something akin to betrayal. you read the article. surprise! an author you love is actually: a serial fucking predator.

well, shit. what now. no, you knew he was a person (all people are), but now you're wondering - what have i overlooked by accident? what messages have i internalized that are strange and cruel? and also, like, what the fuck?

his actions lay a thick glaze on top of everything. like each place is now ruined, opaque in a new way. but okay, fine, you've done this before. you knew better, right? you've been betrayed by many a cherished childhood author.

still, this stickiness. fuck. can you pick up that book again. will you read it to your children. you've recommended it to others - will you ever do that again? and of course, of course, no parasocial relationships. you were theoretically above this kind of sentiment. but the artist informs the art, right.

so it's not something as clear-cut as feeling he owed you, specifically (a stranger) better behavior - just that you kind of, in a distant and odd way... sort of trusted him to do better. it's not like a real trust or something speakable, just the faint hope that the product (good books) was a thin representation of the soul. now it feels like the product (good? books?) was a mask. in some small or insignificant way, your previous support of this person lent them power. your money and your time and your laughter.

and the thing is - you have this terrible, echoing sensation. how many times will this happen? over and over. you find out that the singer you love is actually a predator. you learn over drinks that your favorite high school english teacher is in jail for what he did to her. you listen to the news idly and suddenly discover that a woman you used to idolize has been abusing her kids for an actual eon.

what can you touch without the static melting off. you can't even really complain about it too much (you were supposed to know better, and besides, you don't want the same re-split "it's not your fault, love what you love" basic advice), but now it's here. somehow, it feels like - you let him into your life.

it's not that things need to be pure or an artist has to be like, endlessly perfect, mindful. demure. it's more just this terrible truth that has been replayed through your veins so often it feels criminally vain. power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. did you want any one person to be worth that power?

it's just that he wrote books where he seemed to understand that. he seemed to know about hierarchies and unfair systems and bigotry and privilege. you thought they were books about what it means to struggle. you thought they were about having power and still using it for good rather than for control. he spooned you a narrative of being a good guy, a kind soul. you fucking bought what that fucking monster sold.

maybe that's why they were fantasies, after all.

[sncrlynwtms]

"i was born in the wrong generation" I wasn't. i love existing at the same time as fan culture. i love knowing I can make a post saying "character a wears big ass pants and is obsessed with character b's thighs" and fifty percent of people are gonna agree with me while the other half call me a dumb bitch because of it. it's great.

[ladyphlogiston]

(Miss 10 is discussing training bras and how they are terrible with her therapist.)

Therapist: so did you try them on at home or in a store?

Miss 10: in a store?

Therapist: yeah, you...go to a store? And there's a dressing room?

(Therapist and I start cracking up at Miss 10's bewilderment)

Therapist: have you been to a store before?

Me: we've bought clothes at Target before. Have you tried things on at Target?

Miss 10: oh yeah. Once.

Therapist: okay, so you're missing out on the opportunity to go fight with your mom in a public dressing room. Okay then, I'm learning how the younger generations do things

[10001gecs]

one 100 word email written with ai costs roughly one bottle of water to produce. the discussion of whether or not using ai for work is lazy becomes a non issue when you understand there is no ethical way to use it regardless of your intentions or your personal capabilities for the task at hand

with all due respect, this isnt true. *training* generative ai takes a ton of power, but actually using it takes about as much energy as a google search (with image generation being slightly more expensive). we can talk about resource costs when averaged over the amount of work that any model does, but its unhelpful to put a smokescreen over that fact. when you approach it like an issue of scale (i.e. "training ai is bad for the environment, we should think better about where we deploy it/boycott it/otherwise organize abt this) it has power as a movement. but otherwise it becomes a personal choice, moralizing "you personally are harming the environment by using chatgpt" which is not really effective messaging. and that in turn drives the sort of "you are stupid/evil for using ai" rhetoric that i hate. my point is not whether or not using ai is immoral (i mean, i dont think it is, but beyond that). its that the most common arguments against it from ostensible progressives end up just being reactionary

i like this quote a little more- its perfectly fine to have reservations about the current state of gen ai, but its not just going to go away.

[prokopetz]

I just don't think the generation that made the Spongmonkeys an overnight viral sensation has any room to speak critically about how incomprehensibly weird the stuff kids these days are into is.

[incognitopolls]

Anon's explanation:

I’m curious because I see a lot of people claiming to be anti-AI, and in the same post advocating for the use of Glaze and Artshield, which use DiffusionBee and Stable Diffusion, respectively. Glaze creates a noise filter using DiffusionBee; Artshield runs your image through Stable Diffusion and edits it so that it reads as AI-generated. You don’t have to take my work for it. Search for DiffusionBee and Glaze yourself if you have doubts. I’m also curious about machine translation, since Google Translate is trained on the same kinds of data as ChatGPT (social media, etc) and translation work is also skilled creative labor, but people seem to have no qualms about using it. The same goes for text to speech—a lot of the voices people use for it were trained on professional audiobook narration, and voice acting/narration is also skilled creative labor. Basically, I’m curious because people seem to regard these types of gen AI differently than text gen and image gen. Is it because they don’t know? Is it because they don’t think the work it replaces is creative? Is it because of accessibility? (and, if so, why are other types of gen AI not also regarded as accessibility? And even then, it wouldn’t explain the use of Glaze/Artshield)

Additional comments from anon:

I did some digging by infiltrating (lurking in) pro-AI spaces to see how much damage Glaze and other such programs were doing. Unfortunately, it turns out none of those programs deter people from using the ‘protected’ art. In fact, because of how AI training works, they may actually result in better output? Something about adversarial training. It was super disappointing. Nobody in those spaces considers them even a mild deterrent anywhere I looked. Hopefully people can shed some light on the contradictions for me. Even just knowing how widespread their use is would be informative. (I’m not asking about environmental impact as a factor because I read the study everybody cited, and it wasn’t even anti-AI? It was about figuring out the best time of day to train a model to balance solar power vs water use and consumption. And the way they estimated the impact of AI was super weird? They just went with 2020’s data center growth rate as the ‘normal’ growth rate and then any ‘extra’ growth was considered AI. Maybe that’s why it didn’t pass peer review... But since people are still quoting it, that’s another reason for me to wonder why they would use Glaze and Artshield and everything. That’s why running them locally has such heavy GPU requirements and why it takes so long to process an image if you don’t meet the requirements. It’s the same electricity/water cost as generating any other AI image.)

–

We ask your questions anonymously so you don’t have to! Submissions are open on the 1st and 15th of the month.

[biggest-gaudiest-patronuses]

"hear me out" but tryana to convince your muturals that no really, "babygirl" absolutely applies to the devious entity in question

[applesaucesims]

1930s Horror Film Posters

This was a huge project, and now they're finally all together: A collection of 10 posters for horror movies from the 1930s - with a personal, legally distinct twist! Having my legacy feature actors in the 1930s gave me the perfect idea for Simblreen. Horror movies (especially monster movies) were a huge genre in that decade, so I just had to make my characters star in some of the most famous ones. The text is entirely in Simlish, but the (main) actor names have been changed to the ones of the sims shown on the respective poster, while the others names are the same. Also, whenever a studio is credited, I've changed it to the Plumbob Studio.

bgc

4 swatches each (bg poster frame colours)

custom thumbnails

merged, zipped and separate files to pick and choose from

DOWNLOAD [sfs] (alt. link [gdrive])

Disclaimer: If you've previously found and downloaded the Mummy poster, please redownload, as I've noticed an editing mistake, which has been fixed now.

Comparisons between the original posters vs. mine below.

[rikunamako]

Weeb hell exists | Internet Generation Pt. 1

[inkskinned]

we were sitting on the floor and i was cutting out tiny pictures to make a collage for a friend's birthday. you were on your phone and you laughed about something, and i was still in love with you then, so i asked what had you giggling.

"sorry. i was just..." you took a moment and went back to texting. "i was telling someone about how you're afraid of the dark."

i'm afraid of the dark because something bad happened. "oh." i felt a little slinky of shame crawl down my throat.

you glanced up, and maybe it showed on my face, because you rolled your eyes and held the phone to the side casually so i could see the group chat. "what? was it a secret?"

i looked down to the scissors in my hand. "i just..." no, it's not a secret. it just felt like something private, something serious. saying why would you tell someone that just feels like an accusation. it's unfair. i honestly am not even ashamed of it, it's just a fact about my person that i don't usually share.

what a strange experience. is this a human thing or a generational thing? for our grandparents: did they need to worry about how quickly someone can just... share your personal information? again, i didn't even really have a true objection. what could i say? i want any person in my life to feel they can be honest with their friends. it's not like i said don't tell anyone this.

i cut out another letter to complete the rainbow happy birthday, started hunting for the exclamation mark. i heard you sigh dramatically.

"don't make a big deal about this," you said.

this entire conversation was a pattern for us, and this was when we got to my least favorite part of the pattern. i would get my feelings hurt in some oblique not-technically-terrible way, and then it would be making a big deal about something. you'd get frustrated for me for being soft, but i was born soft. you knew i was soft when you pierced me. it's one of the things that made controlling me so easy.

"i'm not," i felt my voice crack. the question came without my wanting. "why are you guys talking about me?" and why are you saying that thing? why not like - i'm telling them how you're generous and kind and pretty.

you let out this low, tragic groan. "oh my god." you tossed the phone away from your body. "there, see? i just won't talk to them if you don't like it."

the rest of the hour went the way it always went, between us: i said i don't actually mind if you talk to your friends but -, you found a way to call my minor expression of discomfort "being dramatic." you got upset that i had been offended. i ended up apologizing, even though i hadn't actually done anything.

afterwards, you picked up the phone again. after texting for a little bit, you snorted. "okay," you said, "but it is kind of funny you're afraid of the dark. i mean, when you think about it."