#this is something that AI can never replicate or replace

[marishistoricalyappery]

One of the things that captivates me about the 1984/85 Miners’ Strike is the quantity and quality of the alternative media that was produced. See, because the Miners were contending with the whole force of the Thatcher government at the time, with newspapers and police intimidation bludgeoning their activity and intentions, they sought to create their own means of representation. This took form in pamphlets, posters, placards, badges, ceramics, banners, many of which were made independently and in an amateurish way. This art does not typically denote the refinement of graphic design elements. Rather, the art is a spontaneous and immediate expression of statements, means of communication, that needed to be voiced because no other outlet would enable it and other outlets would misrepresent it.

This art was birthed out of necessity to communicate cause in a manner that was easily legible, accessible, and achieved any means possible. The art, in a way, is a form of guerrilla propaganda. There is a profound aspect of class war to the Strike that I don’t think is paid anywhere near enough of the recognition that it deserves, rather it’s sometimes swept under the rug. The strike was a response to a sustained effort to destroy society* in the definition of it being a collective of people who share experiences. The shared experience, so it became, that enabled this collective solidarity among the Miners and the Support Groups was that of oppression and a sustained effort to break them.

Strike Art championed resilience, conviction, and solidarity.

*This is referencing Margaret Thatcher’s notorious statement in which she claimed, ‘There is no such thing as society.’ While she claimed that it was taken out of context, the outcome of the policies that were carried out in her time and as part of her legacy certainly reflect the meaning that people took from the statement, especially the destructive intentions she had; one needs only to refer to the language used in media publications and by Thatcher herself, delegitimising and vilifying the strikers by infamously referring to them as ‘The Enemy Within’. This was no doubt to sew divisions between communities, to spur on feelings of uncertainty and fear, and to justify the brutality with which the Strikes were quashed, and with which strikers were treated. Why would anyone be troubled by the implementation of brutal policing to quash the enemy? This is why it was essential that the Strikers had their own voice. Art was the means to have a voice.

[nuclearjacks]

The irony is not lost on me that he’s a robot djhfhfjdjd

More versions and rant under the cut vvv

Woke up in the middle of the night to find out that an official cover artist for Skybound comics, Francesco Mattina, used AI to make his cover. He is apparently known for crappy things like this within the comic community. And next, Brian Tyree, the voice of D-16/Megatron in the upcoming TF:One film was seen wearing what was likely stolen art on a jacket he wore to an event.

I am not the only artist who will say that I’m sick and fucking tired of this shit. I hate that our livelihoods are being threatened and that there are people out there who genuinely believe AI art is ‘real art’ or that it’s somehow ‘better’ than human made art.

I hate that people never credit us and that we get paid unliveable wages, the stereotype of the ‘starving artist’ should not be a reality, but for many of us it is. I shake as I type this out because I’m genuinely so enraged by this type of content and the growing usage and implementation of AI into our daily lives. AI was never meant to replace us and should never replace human work.

The one thing this has inspired me to do is create. I made this piece, as silly as it is, because of the rage I have in my heart and that truly says something that AI could never even hope to replicate. Through my artistic process making this piece alone, there were so many human intricacies I did, like noticing details on the reference photo that I hadn’t seen before and incorporating them as I drew, or colouring outside the lines, fixing incorrect proportions, accidentally colour picking the wrong shade of blue for the shadows because I was working on a multiply layer and so so so many more human habits and mistakes and techniques. All things that while they can be an inconvenience, is what makes my art human, is what makes it unique and what makes it mine.

I will always support real artists and I will always stand against AI and the mistreatment of artists.

[legacygirlingreen]

A Larger Conversation,

Today marks two years to the day since I presented one of my master’s theses, and it still feels surreal. What began as a way to complete one of two overlapping master’s degrees (a path I highly do not recommend) ended up reigniting my engagement with fandom spaces in ways I never expected. Through that project, I came to deeply understand what participatory culture really is—and what it means for the communities that thrive within it.

I gained insight into the immense responsibility that weighs on creators, a burden I hadn’t fully appreciated before. I came to see just how ethically and emotionally damaging plagiarism and imitation can be in these spaces—plagiarism as outright theft, and imitation as anything from mildly annoying to intentionally harmful.

And all of this? I dove into before the widespread debates about AI began. I don’t have the bandwidth to unpack everything AI means for creatives right now, but I will say this: I worked in film long before the writers’ strikes of 2023, and the sense of collective defeat we felt on those picket lines—just waiting for assurance that human talent wouldn't be replaced by machines—was crushing. Trying to re-enter the industry at the height of that uncertainty was no easy feat.

There’s a common argument—especially on this platform—that passive engagement, such as liking a post, isn’t “enough” in participatory spaces. And I get it. As a writer, seeing comments and reblogs means a lot. But at the end of the day, I share my work because I genuinely enjoy it. Even if a piece goes largely unseen, that’s okay. We’re all engaging with the same texts and ideas, pulling out our own meanings, and generating our own interpretations. That’s the beauty of fandom: it’s a living, breathing form of participatory culture, and we all contribute in our own ways.

As for the arguments around plagiarism and imitation, I’ll admit: I used to turn a blind eye when it came to my own work. I held tightly to the idea that “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,” and convinced myself it wasn’t worth addressing. But over time, as I’ve come to fully embrace what it means to be a creator—someone who pours their limited free time into something they genuinely care about—that mindset has shifted. It’s disheartening to see elements of my work—my aesthetics, phrasing, even the structure of my posts—lifted, reworded, or repackaged without even the courtesy of acknowledgment or engagement. When that happens, especially by people who remain silent observers, it doesn’t feel flattering. It feels frustrating.

So, I’ll put it plainly: my style, my art, my characters, and the way I run this blog are not open-source material for replication through artificial means or otherwise. I may not own the canon characters of any franchise, but I do own my ideas, my time, and the years of education, training, and effort that go into crafting what I share here.

Fandom spaces operate under their own sets of ethics—self-regulating, ever-evolving, and often slightly different from one another. Yet, in all the fandoms I’ve been part of over the past 12 years, there’s a shared, unspoken agreement: knowingly passing off someone else’s work as your own is wrong. And beyond direct plagiarism, imitation without engagement—without even so much as a conversation or acknowledgment—is ethically murky.

When we observe what resonates with a creator and then replicate it without reflection or interaction, we shortchange not just them, but ourselves. Every creator on this platform learns—often slowly and through trial and error—what works for them. Skipping that process by mimicking someone else's approach might seem like a shortcut, but it ultimately stunts your own creative growth. The real value comes from finding your voice, not copying someone else’s.

My characters are manifestations of parts of myself—reflections of both the best and the most difficult aspects of who I am. They are deeply personal to me, and the stories I tell through them are crafted with a level of intentionality and care that some might consider excessive. But for me, every decision I make in storytelling is rooted in a complex understanding of canon, woven together with my own interpretations and emotional insight.

Take Rex, for example. I have extensive documents dedicated to tracking his personal growth throughout The Clone Wars, The Bad Batch, and Rebels—detailing his slow disillusionment with his programming and the profound selflessness that defines him. These notes have shaped the way I write him: as a man who struggles to believe he deserves kindness, especially from himself, when there’s always more work to be done. For him, learning that self-love isn’t selfish—that he is worthy of rest, of affection, of peace—is a story worth telling. And that’s just one example of how deeply I engage with the characters I write.

My participation in fandom isn’t about tossing content into the void and hoping it resonates. I approach it as a scholar first and foremost. That’s the lens through which I create—deliberate, structured, and grounded in both research and personal connection.

Of course, others may take a different approach, and I think that’s a beautiful thing. But the way I build my work—the structure, the presentation, even the aesthetics—is something I take immense pride in. It reflects not only my creativity, but my dedication to this craft.

All of this isn’t meant to shame or directly call out anyone I've seen imitate aspects of my work. I won’t go so far as to label it plagiarism—others might, but I’m not someone who throws around accusations or puts people on blast. Instead, I want to use today as an opportunity to reflect and invite others to do the same—to really think about what it means to be part of a fandom.

I’m a media scholar. I hold two master’s degrees, one of which is in Media Studies, and I spent over two and a half years immersed in the field of fandom studies. I’ve dedicated myself to understanding these spaces, not just as a participant, but as someone who studies them academically and critically.

And honestly, fandom can be such a beautiful, powerful thing. It’s a space that fosters community, creativity, and connection. It’s where I met my best friend in the entire world. It’s brought me into contact with incredible people I speak to every day. It’s shown me the resilience of fellow scholars and creators who continue to fight for their work and their right to be seen, respected, and valued.

I love this space—truly. So, if sharing this reflection helps me turn the frustration I’ve felt lately over uncredited imitation into something constructive, then I’m at peace with that. I just want us all to think more deeply about how we show up here, how we support one another, and how we can grow—not just as fans, but as creators, thinkers, and members of a larger community.

If you’re interested in exploring fandom from a scholarly perspective, here are a few readings I’d recommend:

Honestly, any and all work by Henry Jenkins is such a great starting point, but "Textual Poachers: Television Fans & Participatory Culture" is where I would for the writers and "Convergence Culture" for others.

"Understanding Fandom" by Mark Duffett

"Theorizing Fandom: Fans, Subculture, and Identity" by Harris, Cheryl, and Alison Alexander

"Fan Cultures" by Matt Hills

And to those amazing people who support me, inspire me, and just continue to be genuinely kind, thoughtful humans—I’m endlessly grateful. Thank you for sticking with me through what started as a reflection and turned into a bit of a mushy rant. I stay because of you.

@strawberrypinky @leenathegreengirl @heyitszev @writing-intheundercroft @crosshairs-dumb-pimp-gf @returnofthepineapple

[weenwrites]

Hi, can I request TFP headcanons (megatron, predaking and shockwave) with a gorgon medusa s/o? The reader has a human body but has snake hair and is also a very beautiful person, and does his power to turn people into stone also work on Cybertronians? (note: the reader can only activate the powers if she wishes).

✎A/N: Hi, please keep in mind next time that I only write gender neutral readers, so as such I've written the headcanons in third person.

[ Please do not repost, plagiarize, or use my writing for AI! Translating my work with proper credit is acceptable, but please ask first! ]

Megatron

He's primarily interested in weaponizing their ability against the Autobots, and the fact that their ability is irreversible is what makes them all the more powerful when compared to the likes of the most dangerous iacon relics such as the immobilizer. He's put Shockwave in charge of conducting experiments to test the limits of their abilities, and ordered Knockout to look over your physical health during and after the experiments.

He's paid little attention to human culture and folklore, so he doesn't know of the Greek myths surrounding gorgons unless they've explicitly told him. But the most fascinating thing he's heard from these myths is how Perseus was still able to utilize Medusa's petrification abilities even after her beheading. Now, he doesn't take these myths as truths, and he swears by his very spark that they will come to no harm, but he still keeps it in mind.

Predaking

He's rather fascinated by their non-human appearance. Of course they still retain quite a lot of human features, but their hair is something unique. He never knew that it wasn't considered normal to have living snakes in place of hair, but then again he doesn't have much experience with humans in general.

Regardless of whether they're cold-blooded like a snake or warm-blooded, there's no denying that his naturally warm plating isn't nice to cuddle up against. He's good at regulating his own temperature as well, to ensure that his plating isn't scorching hot to the touch or uncomfortably chilly.

If they feel any sort of alienation from other humans, he can vaguely relate with that feeling too. However, he doesn't feel any negative feelings as a result of the stark differences between him and a "normal" cybertronian. His predacon heritage makes him proud, it sets him out as unique, stronger, and better than the others in his eyes. So the way he sees it, with your superior abilities, you're better than other humans.

Shockwave

Their ability would prove most useful against the Autobots, as soldiers on the field naturally try to broaden their view of the enemy whilst remaining concealed themselves. Primarily, his goal is to understand how their ability works in order to replicate it in weapons himself.

Why does their gaze initiate the petrification process? How does the petrification progress? Is there a way to reverse the petrification process? He doesn't notice any visible source of water permeating the flesh and replacing it with dissolved mineral deposits, and he's had them petrify animals time and time again for his own observation. He's cut the animal open and snapped limbs off the animal as it was being petrified and swiftly moved to observe the progression under a microscope, yet it progresses too quickly on such a small animal for him to properly observe and document the way it functions.

As such he's decided to upscale his test subjects to larger and larger animals in hopes of observing it better, and to gauge and possible limits to their ability. But don't think he's forgotten about his primary subject. He'll observe them over time, taking note of any little detail he notices to ask if it's a repercussion of their abilities later. He's even gone so far as to have Knockout hook them up to medical equipment to observe various factors surrounding their physical health, however it's not primarily out of concern but rather its in order to observe what happens within their eyes or body in general to trigger the petrification process.

[idiopathicsmile]

the thing about big-time executives predicting that AI will be able to replace writers (or at least, A thing about big-time executives predicting that AI will be able to replace writers) is that I think at least for me, it completely misses a big part of why taking in fiction is so rewarding in the first place?

like, even if AI could generate intelligible and interesting long-form stories (which it can’t) and even if what we call “AI” was something other than a pattern-replicating machine powered by plagiarism (which it isn’t), part of the transformative joy of art is sitting there pinned down by a line or a moment specifically because it sparks the recognition that holy shit, another person has felt the same way as I do; I’m not alone! Or conversely, holy shit, this is a window to a human experience I’ve never had; here is the slightest morsel of how that might feel! not to be a pretentious humanities major but Art is Art partly because of how it can connect us to some aspect of the human experience!

the corporate suits hinting they’ll replace a writers room with ChatGPT or whatever are trying to steal something and they fundamentally don’t even understand what it is they’re trying to steal. and it’s not just the arrogance that ticks me off; it’s the incompetence.

[aleksatia]

hello! regarding the AI question, i just wanted to ask if you're aware of how harmful it is to generate AI art?

i promise this is in no means an attack - i totally agree there is a healthy way to use AI to help in the creative process, especially since youre feeding your own works into it and no one elses, but generating AI art is unfortunately super harmful to the art community

Thank you so much for bringing this up — truly. 🖤 It’s an important conversation, and I completely understand where you’re coming from.

I’m not an artist myself, and I have deep respect for those who are — the skill, time, and emotion poured into each piece is something AI simply cannot replicate. Yes, AI can mimic something visually “perfect,” but it lacks that invisible thread — the soul, the intention, the story behind each brushstroke.

When I do use tools like Midjourney, it’s usually for very personal, internal purposes — mostly to create moodboards for myself. It helps me visualize tone, scenery, and atmosphere quickly, especially when I need to stay immersed in a certain emotional space. It’s never to replace the unique and irreplaceable value of a real artist’s work.

There was a time I considered using AI images more directly in connection to my stories — but I stepped away from that idea quickly. It didn’t feel right. It felt hollow, even harmful, and not in line with what I believe storytelling should be.

For me, AI is a tool — like a notebook or a playlist — useful in the background, but never a substitute for real human creativity. 🖤

Again, thank you for raising this — respectfully and thoughtfully. These conversations matter.

[penguinly]

In light of the recent ao3 AI scraping and also someone I know irl finding my username *crying in the corner* I've restricted all of my fics. As much as I love the guest kudos it really does suck that I put hours into every one of my works and now they could just be replicated by AI.

I love writing and will never give it up but it just feels really shitty to think that this cheapens the effort I put my fics? Like I know it's fanfiction. I never wanted to profit off of this anyway. And it's cool and interesting that we've gotten to the point that AI can write fanfiction but it still stings that it comes at the cost of actual people who write because they genuinely care.

I write because I want to make the ideas that don't currently exist in the world a reality. It's cathartic and something I'm proud of even if some of them are subpar or straight up badly written. I post on ao3 because it's really really cool that I can connect with strangers online and just be excited about whatever it is that I wrote about together. And look I'm not claiming that I don't get any sense of validation from comments and kudos because they really do make my day.

I will never replace my writing with AI not only because it'd feel disingenuous but also because it really isn't the same as creating something new and original. You're free to disagree with me. You can say I'm sticking to archaic rules. That's fine by me.

I just think it's kind of wrong that ao3 works are being fed to generative AI because fics are more than just a bunch of words floating around on the internet.

[seirooo0]

I fucking lost it

Type: Drabble (??????????)

Synopsis: You, a robot. Rui, your creator

Content warnings: GN!Reader as usual : 3, probably angst if I can write angst good enough; Uhhhhhhh you got abandoned yaur hahhahahahaha

C. Note: I've lost it, have this content before I disappear for the next few months again <3 love you guys fr fr — Thing under cut!!

For as long as you remember, you were created for the purpose of accompanying someone..

That someone was your creator.

You were created to be with him, to cater his needs—particularly the need for a friend. Despite the fact you don't quite show the enthusiasm when he rambles about his little inventions or when he has a new show idea, you still show that you're listening to him regardless of your inability to feel emotions or express yourself. "So this one brings you anything you need or want, just say its name and the thing you want it to bring to you!" Exclaimed Rui, showing off a robot in his hands. You nodded, your face painting a rather blank look as you clapped with your metallic hands "That sounds amazing." Spoken with a monotone voice. Rui's expression slowly falters as he smiles rather sadly. The concept of emotions was an alien to you, that you, subconsciously, tilted your head in mere confusion. Confused, as to why he looked sad, confused as to how you made him sad. Question after question popped in your head but before you could even ask, the purple haired man shook his head. "No, it's nothing. Sorry, I just remembered something." He immediately answered, even though you haven't asked the question yet.

Of course, he knew what you were thinking—or at least assumed and got the correct answer—he made you after all. Programmed the way you think, behave, move, speak, everything. That's why it's not a wonder how he knows almost everything you're about to say even though you haven't opened your mouth yet.

Truly, truly, you knew you cannot replace a real human, someone to accompany Rui; your creator. You cannot replace the warm feeling of talking to a human being. You cannot replicate the emotions and the enthusiasm one would have when talking with someone. You cannot emphasize, you cannot replace whatever every human has. You are made of metal after all—pure metal—and some computer programming shenanigans. Even though you are unaware of some things, this one you are fully aware of. And because of that awareness, rather than feeling a tiny bit of relief that you are able to at least alleviate the pain of loneliness, you felt pity. Not only towards him, but also towards yourself. The you whose only sole purpose was to accompany Rui and make his days less dreadful and yet you brought nothing more but a sole reminder of the boy's loneliness.

You wished for the best for him, you encouraged him to talk to others thanks to your advancing AI knowledge. After all, he programmed you to be an AI who learns based on experience. So from all the research and data gathering you did—even though you barely understood emotional needs, you couldn't really make your heads or tails on the topic—you brought out the best in you to help your creator. That overtime, to Rui, you felt like a real human; a real friend to him. He considered and saw you as an actual human being, not a robot he created to cope with his loneliness. Rui considered you one of his closests friends aside from Nene and Mizuki.

Time flew by rather quickly for you, or perhaps it's because you don't really have a sense of time. But now you watch as the once young middle schooler slowly grows in his second year of highschool. You couldn't always be there for him, since they never allowed a (almost) human-like robot to be a student nor a visitor there (they banned Rui from bringing you to school for a reasonable purpose). So seeing him make more friends and even reconnected with his childhood friend and a friend from middle school made your heart—albeit non-existent—feel warm. Oftentimes, he'd tell you about his troupe; how he blew this friend of his, Tsukasa, out of a canon again and up in the skies; how Emu gave him another amazing show idea— or the way Nene would profusely groan everytime Tsukasa would proclaim yet another 'poetic' speech from how Rui described it— it was rather heartwarming. Really. You couldn't be any more happier for him if you could even feel.

One day, he introduced you to his troupe, the one he always mentions day by day after school. And the first comment one of them made—Tsukasa was the name, was it?— It was quite amusing to say the least.

"You're friends with a robot, Rui?! Did you make this?"

And you watch as Rui answers with enthusiasm, answering questions while you watch Tsukasa who has a dumbfounded expression on his face. You very rarely speak, so hearing a voice out of your metallic body further shooked the duo (excluding Nene, Rui had introduced her to you first before the other two anyway). Tsukasa kept making comments about how it was possible that Rui made this, you being a robot. Something a 5-year-old child would fawn over. Similar situation with Emu, however she complimented you more than anything, and that made you smile—or at least, you think you smiled. You couldn't really tell.

"Is it right to call it a 'friend' rather than your creation, though? I mean, aren't robots incapable of feeling anything?"

Tsukasa absentmindedly commented, which brought you back to painful reality.

You were never human. Right.

Watching as Rui talked more with his friends, even saying along the lines of "How cruel Tsukasa-kun! My friend here may be a robot but they accompanied me throughout my earlier years!" although maybe more dramatically. Tsukasa apologized to you, but you don't really understand why there was a need for it. Nevertheless, you never dared to ask.

Throughout the conversation, you felt rather… for a lack of better words; alienated. Sure, you're aware that you're not human. But having it pointed out made it… how would you call it.. awkward on your side, perhaps.

But of course, like any other time. You didn't mind. You're not programmed to think about complicated things after all.

However, watching him slowly drift away from you was something you expected from the beginning. But nevertheless, you were happy for him.

At least, you think you do.

But now that you've thought about it, you constantly refer to this weird thing as 'feel', 'feeling', any other synonym it has. From all the research you've done after your dilemma over this issue, you came to a conclusion that indeed; you are feeling emotions. And perhaps, one of the biggest flaws as a continuously learning AI robot is slowly learning what they are. You felt happy for Rui, but you knew that his slow yet painful detachment to you was overpowering your happiness. However as a creation whom Rui believed to be flawless, you refuse to speak about this out loud. You knew that as much as Rui made you this advanced, he never intended to give you any emotions. He never intended, because he doesn't know how to. And also maybe to avoid making you feel sadness. After all, happiness will never be without sadness, the same as dark cannot exist if there's no light.

So here you are, finding that you are more and more in a 'shutdown' state. Usually, it was automatic as a way of resting and recharging your battery. However, Rui reprogrammed you to be powered off manually now, and you never dared to ask why.

Now, you're here. Finding yourself sitting down on the floor absentmindedly as Rui looked at you with a rather melancholic look before approaching you leisurely. Muttering a silent gratitude, you watch as he reaches for your power button. You couldn't quite see his face clearly, but you assumed he wore a sad smile; the same smile you remembered he always wore back in middle school. Watching with a blurry vision, Rui puts you inside the closet, keeping you locked away until the next time he uses you. You wished that you could be used again— to see his face again and tell you about his new invention, or his new show idea. But now, it feels like a faraway dream as you slowly slip out of consciousness.

The last image you had seen was his face, slowly disappearing as he closed the closet door.

It was enough to make you cry, but you couldn't.

Silently, you wished you could.

————————————————————————————————————————————

Footnote: We eating good tonight

[plustheshow]

Last night I was reminded that they're unveiling a Walt Disney animatronic in Disneyland next year, in 2025, and the amount of ick it makes me feel is indescribable. But I'll try.

Now, I'm not one of those "what would Walt do" type people, who thinks the parks can't grow or evolve based on the knowledge and business practices conducted by Walt Disney before he died, but I'm pretty sure he specifically rejected the idea of having his face paraded about the park as something marketable. Be this because of ego (there's only one of him), or lack of ego (genuinely not wanting the facade of Disneyland to be about him, visually), it doesn't matter. I'm just generally under the impression that this is not something he'd have wanted done, technological advancements or not. Replicate presidents living or dead, fine, but not him.

While I'm certain it will be a stunning display of animatronic technology, I'm also terrified that some of the "features and innovations that have never been achieved before" they'll be using to make it come to life will be use of AI voice so that he can say things that were never said on film or tape. Not to say that I think they'll use this exclusively (they'll want people to recognize specific famous phrases, after all), but I am so fundamentally against AI in replacing art, animators, voice acting, etc, that the idea that Disney would use it to replicate Walt squicks me out. (Even though, according to Marc Davis, Walt would most likely have loved the idea of AI replacing art, animators, voice actors, etc.)

This isn't the same hysteria some of the public had upon the unveiling of the original animatronic Abe Lincoln at the 1964 Wold's Fair, either. This is not me saying it's irreverent or unnatural or playing god. I think Disney's innovation with animatronics over the years is fascinating and marvelous. This is steeped in weariness and anger at living through late-stage capitalism, when so much about Disney Parks is now about making money rather than showcasing creativity. I truly believe that the Imagineers are bursting with creativity that the higher ups stifle and channel into what they want done, rather than innovation for the sake of innovation, and this feels less like it's being done out of respect and more like it's being done to once again pluck at the heartstrings of nostalgia, to keep their fans begging at the teat even though the milk soured long ago.

[kanguin]

Prometheus Gave the Gift of Fire to Mankind. We Can't Give it Back, nor Should We.

AI. Artificial intelligence. Large Language Models. Learning Algorithms. Deep Learning. Generative Algorithms. Neural Networks. This technology has many names, and has been a polarizing topic in numerous communities online. By my observation, a lot of the discussion is either solely focused on A) how to profit off it or B) how to get rid of it and/or protect yourself from it. But to me, I feel both of these perspectives apply a very narrow usage lens on something that's more than a get rich quick scheme or an evil plague to wipe from the earth.

This is going to be long, because as someone whose degree is in psych and computer science, has been a teacher, has been a writing tutor for my younger brother, and whose fiance works in freelance data model training... I have a lot to say about this.

I'm going to address the profit angle first, because I feel most people in my orbit (and in related orbits) on Tumblr are going to agree with this: flat out, the way AI is being utilized by large corporations and tech startups -- scraping mass amounts of visual and written works without consent and compensation, replacing human professionals in roles from concept art to story boarding to screenwriting to customer service and more -- is unethical and damaging to the wellbeing of people, would-be hires and consumers alike. It's wasting energy having dedicated servers running nonstop generating content that serves no greater purpose, and is even pressing on already overworked educators because plagiarism just got a very new, harder to identify younger brother that's also infinitely more easy to access.

In fact, ChatGPT is such an issue in the education world that plagiarism-detector subscription services that take advantage of how overworked teachers are have begun paddling supposed AI-detectors to schools and universities. Detectors that plainly DO NOT and CANNOT work, because the difference between "A Writer Who Writes Surprisingly Well For Their Age" is indistinguishable from "A Language Replicating Algorithm That Followed A Prompt Correctly", just as "A Writer Who Doesn't Know What They're Talking About Or Even How To Write Properly" is indistinguishable from "A Language Replicating Algorithm That Returned Bad Results". What's hilarious is that the way these "detectors" work is also run by AI.

(to be clear, I say plagiarism detectors like TurnItIn.com and such are predatory because A) they cost money to access advanced features that B) often don't work properly or as intended with several false flags, and C) these companies often are super shady behind the scenes; TurnItIn for instance has been involved in numerous lawsuits over intellectual property violations, as their services scrape (or hopefully scraped now) the papers submitted to the site without user consent (or under coerced consent if being forced to use it by an educator), which it uses in can use in its own databases as it pleases, such as for training the AI detecting AI that rarely actually detects AI.)

The prevalence of visual and lingustic generative algorithms is having multiple, overlapping, and complex consequences on many facets of society, from art to music to writing to film and video game production, and even in the classroom before all that, so it's no wonder that many disgruntled artists and industry professionals are online wishing for it all to go away and never come back. The problem is... It can't. I understand that there's likely a large swath of people saying that who understand this, but for those who don't: AI, or as it should more properly be called, generative algorithms, didn't just show up now (they're not even that new), and they certainly weren't developed or invented by any of the tech bros peddling it to megacorps and the general public.

Long before ChatGPT and DALL-E came online, generative algorithms were being used by programmers to simulate natural processes in weather models, shed light on the mechanics of walking for roboticists and paleontologists alike, identified patterns in our DNA related to disease, aided in complex 2D and 3D animation visuals, and so on. Generative algorithms have been a part of the professional world for many years now, and up until recently have been a general force for good, or at the very least a force for the mundane. It's only recently that the technology involved in creating generative algorithms became so advanced AND so readily available, that university grad students were able to make the publicly available projects that began this descent into madness.

Does anyone else remember that? That years ago, somewhere in the late 2010s to the beginning of the 2020s, these novelty sites that allowed you to generate vague images from prompts, or generate short stylistic writings from a short prompt, were popping up with University URLs? Oftentimes the queues on these programs were hours long, sometimes eventually days or weeks or months long, because of how unexpectedly popular this concept was to the general public. Suddenly overnight, all over social media, everyone and their grandma, and not just high level programming and arts students, knew this was possible, and of course, everyone wanted in. Automated art and writing, isn't that neat? And of course, investors saw dollar signs. Simply scale up the process, scrape the entire web for data to train the model without advertising that you're using ALL material, even copyrighted and personal materials, and sell the resulting algorithm for big money. As usual, startup investors ruin every new technology the moment they can access it.

To most people, it seemed like this magic tech popped up overnight, and before it became known that the art assets on later models were stolen, even I had fun with them. I knew how learning algorithms worked, if you're going to have a computer make images and text, it has to be shown what that is and then try and fail to make its own until it's ready. I just, rather naively as I was still in my early 20s, assumed that everything was above board and the assets were either public domain or fairly licensed. But when the news did came out, and when corporations started unethically implementing "AI" in everything from chatbots to search algorithms to asking their tech staff to add AI to sliced bread, those who were impacted and didn't know and/or didn't care where generative algorithms came from wanted them GONE. And like, I can't blame them. But I also quietly acknowledged to myself that getting rid of a whole technology is just neither possible nor advisable. The cat's already out of the bag, the genie has left its bottle, the Pandorica is OPEN. If we tried to blanket ban what people call AI, numerous industries involved in making lives better would be impacted. Because unfortunately the same tool that can edit selfies into revenge porn has also been used to identify cancer cells in patients and aided in decoding dead languages, among other things.

When, in Greek myth, Prometheus gave us the gift of fire, he gave us both a gift and a curse. Fire is so crucial to human society, it cooks our food, it lights our cities, it disposes of waste, and it protects us from unseen threats. But fire also destroys, and the same flame that can light your home can burn it down. Surely, there were people in this mythic past who hated fire and all it stood for, because without fire no forest would ever burn to the ground, and surely they would have called for fire to be given back, to be done away with entirely. Except, there was no going back. The nature of life is that no new element can ever be undone, it cannot be given back.

So what's the way forward, then? Like, surely if I can write a multi-paragraph think piece on Tumblr.com that next to nobody is going to read because it's long as sin, about an unpopular topic, and I rarely post original content anyway, then surely I have an idea of how this cyberpunk dystopia can be a little less.. Dys. Well I do, actually, but it's a long shot. Thankfully, unlike business majors, I actually had to take a cyber ethics course in university, and I actually paid attention. I also passed preschool where I learned taking stuff you weren't given permission to have is stealing, which is bad. So the obvious solution is to make some fucking laws to limit the input on data model training on models used for public products and services. It's that simple. You either use public domain and licensed data only or you get fined into hell and back and liable to lawsuits from any entity you wronged, be they citizen or very wealthy mouse conglomerate (suing AI bros is the only time Mickey isn't the bigger enemy). And I'm going to be honest, tech companies are NOT going to like this, because not only will it make doing business more expensive (boo fucking hoo), they'd very likely need to throw out their current trained datasets because of the illegal components mixed in there. To my memory, you can't simply prune specific content from a completed algorithm, you actually have to redo rhe training from the ground up because the bad data would be mixed in there like gum in hair. And you know what, those companies deserve that. They deserve to suffer a punishment, and maybe fold if they're young enough, for what they've done to creators everywhere. Actually, laws moving forward isn't enough, this needs to be retroactive. These companies need to be sued into the ground, honestly.

So yeah, that's the mess of it. We can't unlearn and unpublicize any technology, even if it's currently being used as a tool of exploitation. What we can do though is demand ethical use laws and organize around the cause of the exclusive rights of individuals to the content they create. The screenwriter's guild, actor's guild, and so on already have been fighting against this misuse, but given upcoming administration changes to the US, things are going to get a lot worse before thet get a little better. Even still, don't give up, have clear and educated goals, and focus on what you can do to affect change, even if right now that's just individual self-care through mental and physical health crises like me.

[bitethedevil]

Thoughts on using AI as a tool in writing?

I’m not sure if this might be a controversial answer. I see a lot of people strongly disliking AI. I get that and I largely agree though I try to have a nuanced opinion on it. I think every piece of new technology has to some extent gone through an outrage phase like AI is currently going through.

For me, the largest problem I have with it is actually how much it pollutes. I know that places like Google are currently working on decreasing that with nuclear reactors, but there is a long way to go.

There is a large concern that AI will overtake the place of human made art. I think that idea is largely underestimating the intelligence of the people around us. AI art is just that. It’s impressive that a machine can make it, for sure, but it is not the same as looking at something that was made by a human. We are sympathetic beings and the thing that makes art art is how we can feel what the artist felt when they made it. You might also argue that it’s the skill that goes into it that makes it what it is, but if it doesn’t make people feel some sort of recognition in themselves, then it isn’t art. Then it’s just soulless imitation. Which is exactly what AI art is.

If I ask an AI model to create a picture of a flower, then it does so because it is told to do it. It finds other examples of what a flower looks like and boom: a picture of a flower. If I draw a flower, even without any artistic intention, there is still something human in it that is interesting. Why do I draw it like that? Why that kind of flower? Why even draw a flower? That’s what’s interesting, even though the drawing itself at a first glance might not be.

And here’s the point where I actually answer the question, because I can never keep anything short: I think AI is fine to draw inspiration from. I think making AI art is fine, as long as there is never any doubt that it is created by AI. Selling AI art as something that was created with your own skill and talent is never okay.

I’m conflicted with the thought that an AI machine might read my fics and create it’s own stories from it. I think there should be some sort of way that artists (especially visual artists because they seem to be hit the hardest) can protect their art from AI models. On the other hand, a human being could just as well copy it too (which is obviously not okay either). I think the problem is how easily accessible it is and how quickly you can replicate it, and especially the fact that the receiver of said AI art might not be aware how the machine has stitched it together and plagiarized someone else.

I think more transparency is needed to get more people on board with AI. We also desperately need to get people educated on the subject, though that is difficult because it is still so new. Do I think the idea of AI is sort of dystopian and sad? Sure, but I’m also certain that people have thought so about many of the devices and pieces of technology we use today. It is, like you said, a tool, and it should be used as such. Not as a replacement for the real thing.

(Thank you for the ask <3)

[bengisuedotcom]

Everyone is screaming. 

About AI. About the creative industry. About jobs. 

About AI taking jobs from people in the creative industry. 

But screaming is rarely a sign of clarity. 

Creativity is a dying art. That is true. 

But let’s be real here for a second: if AI can take your job, was it truly your calling anyway? If a machine can take over, it was never truly yours to begin with. What AI threatens is not creativity: it’s content production. The kind of output that follows a script or recipe, even when made aesthetic. What’s truly at risk are roles built on compliance, replication and trend-chasing.

So no I’m not worried about AI taking my job. 

Because I don’t produce, I curate. 

And that’s something you can’t automate. 

CURATION: ART + INTELLIGENCE

“I don’t produce, I curate”.

That line is not arrogance. It’s precision. 

Production is about output, curation is about decision. And one can be automated with it’s integrity still in tact and the other cant. 

Curation isn’t just filtering. It isn’t picking what looks good on a grid or what fits a mood. It’s not about arranging tastefully. It’s about thinking structurally. To curate is to construct meaning by deciding what not to show. It’s refusal as architecture. 

AI can suggest, simulate, it can even generate something beautiful. But it can’t decide with conviction. It doesn’t know why one reference matters and another dilutes the meaning. It doesn’t know when silence is louder than noise. And most importantly: it doesn’t know when to stop.

I use AI. But it doesn’t lead me.

I ask it questions. But I don’t wait for permission.

It reflects me, yes. But it could never replace me.

Because without me, it’s just a mirror in an empty room. 

Curation, real curation, is not a task. It’s a way of thinking. A cultivated intelligence that happens in the in-between: between inspiration and impulse. Between knowing and choosing. Between the urge to show and the discipline to withhold. 

And that’s the difference. 

A machine can mimic process.

But it can’t embody taste. 

WHAT AI CAN’T DO ( AND PROBABLY NEVER WILL)

AI can write. It can generate. It can guess what I might like next. But it can’t care. And it certainly can’t know why something matters.

Just to name a few examples: it doesn’t know that an image from a F/W 1998 show is the wrong one, it doesn’t even flinch when it misattributes a McQueen look and of course it doesn’t feel embarrassed when the reference is off by three years and the silhouette is all wrong for the context.

Because it doesn’t feel anything at all.

And yet the industry listens. To people who don’t know, to tools that don’t understand. This is the danger, not that AI creates. But that people stop noticing when it’s wrong. 

You still need someone to say yes. And someone to say no.

To refine. To kill the darling. To notice the one image in the moodboard that turns the entire concept into cliché.

That’s what AI can’t do. 

Fake authenticity. Because that’s the literal definition of authenticity: it cannot be faked or simulated. 

It doesn’t know when something is off. Not technically. Psychically.

It can be stunning. But it can never be intuitive. It can remix. But it can’t risk. It can flatter. But it can’t offend. It can output endlessly. But it can’t edit.

And editing, and I mean real editing, is the highest form of authorship.

So yes, AI might be interesting. But it’s not irreplaceable. It’s not boring. But it’s not me.

And that difference is everything.

THE WORK AT RISK WAS NEVER SECURE ???

Let’s be honest.

The work that’s actually threatened by AI wasn’t creative, it was cosmetic. Production that looked like artistry but was really just formatting. The truth is that most "creative" jobs that haven’t been creative in years.

Marketers writing three-sentence Instagram captions for €900 a day. Photographers editing the same washed-out campaign deck for the same Scandinavian brand. Editors at magazines who haven’t edited a single idea in months, just rotated paid advertorials and called it “coverage.” To be honest a lot of media outlets nowadays are just glorified ads. And that’s also one of the reasons why “print is dying”. Because no one wants to read paid ads with zero critical thinking. Anyways, that’s a story for another day.  Another blog entry.

But you know the ones I’m talking about. They think reporting on trends originating from TikTok still qualifies as subversive. They slap irony on everything and call it commentary. They repost lookbooks as if curation means clicking “share.”

If AI can do your job, your job was never protected by talent. It was merely protected by the fact ai didn't exist yet. It was always going to be replaced. Not because AI is good. But because the bar was low.

This isn’t about titles. It’s about integrity.

There are creative directors with no vision. Journalists with no voice. Stylists who dress to trend, not to context.

And AI will eat them all alive. Because they already gave up authorship when they gave in to the algorithm.

But I’m not worried. Because I don’t work like that. I’m not here to serve the feed. I’m here to disrupt it.

And if you’ve read this far despite your shrinking attention span that means I must’ve successfully done so.

WHY CURATION IS ALSO A RESISTANCE

Everyone wants to be niche now. Everyone wants to be “different.” Everyone wants to be first.

But in the desperation to escape the algorithm, they’re all doing the same thing: stacking obscure references like they’re some kind of social currency and performing specificity as if it were authorship. They are turning their identity into a Pinterest board.

It’s exhausting. And it’s loud. Even the rebellion has been commodified.

Curation is not about speed. It’s about pressure. Not about finding what’s new but about creating what lasts and resonates.

To curate in this moment is to refuse the panic. It’s to hold the line. To resist the pressure to output daily. To let things sit and allow ambiguity. To not explain yourself.

Because when everything is fast and flattened, slowness becomes radical. And curation becomes resistance.

And that resistance extends beyond the now.

It’s about protecting cultural memory before it’s rewritten by AI scripts. It’s about saying no when the industry inevitably tries to reanimate Amy Winehouse and call it a collaboration. It’s about refusing the synthetic resurrection of Nirvana with a posthumous AI track called “Nothing Mattered.”

Because once we go there, we’re not curating culture. We’re committing necrophelia.

Curation is not nostalgia. It’s care. It’s the refusal to let everything be recycled, remixed, repackaged and resold.

And that refusal? It’s the only thing standing between culture and collapse.

YOU WILL GET BORED OF AI SOONER THAN YOU THINK. 

Like I said: this hype is loud. 

But boredom always arrives quietly. 

AI-generated visuals, AI-generated songs, AI-generated “content.” At first, it’s novel. Then it’s everywhere. Then it’s nothing.

That’s the thing with trends. They go out of style. One of the first things you’ll learn in fashion school (yay, my 30k degree is useful). 

Because AI doesn’t innovate. It recombines. And recombination without risk becomes static... fast.

We’re already watching it happen. The 4000th AI trap beat. Or another Midjourney fashion editorial that looks like every Midjourney fashion editorial: polished and forgettable.

This isn’t the future. It’s the loop.

Audiences will tire of it the way they tire of every algorithmic trend: suddenly and then all at once.

And when that fatigue sets in, they won’t want more. They’ll want intention and meaning. They’ll crave something that doesn’t just mimic originality but feels decisive. Something that actually means something. They’ll want the friction of a real voice. And they’ll want taste that cuts, not content that blends.

Because after the spectacle collapses, what’s left is discernment. And AI can’t give you that. It can generate what’s next. But it can’t tell you why it matters.

And when that moment comes, when the novelty of it all wears off, the people who never stopped curating will be three steps ahead.

Not because they predicted it. But because they never participated in all the noise to begin with. Not really anyway. 

AI ISN’T EVIL (UNLESS YOU ARE)

But AI is not the enemy. Mediocrity is. The urge to imitate. The need to perform. The compulsion to stay visible, even when you don’t really have anything to say.

I don’t fear being replaced by AI. Because I’m not doing work that can be replaced. I’m not replicating what’s already out there. I’m building from intention, friction and philosophy. I’m not here to fill your feed. I’m here to redirect the signal.

Even now, as “just a student”, not yet in the field, I know this: authorship isn’t earned by output. It’s defined by vision. And vision doesn’t scale. It doesn’t conform. It doesn’t panic.

So no, I’m not worried about AI taking my job.

Because I don’t chase trends. I don’t copy templates. I don’t outsource authorship. I curate. And curation is not about control. It’s about clarity.

You can train a machine to speak. But not to discern. You can teach it what worked. But not what matters.

And in the end of the day, that’s the line. That’s what divides the machine from the mind. That’s why the work that endures is always the work that thinks.

[unclekoopus]

Art theory states that art should have intention. A dissertation on "AI Art".

A disclaimer first of all that I am someone that has dived deep into AI image generation, I've worked with and created my own models and generated my own images using the open source code. I did this to understand what it is and how it works and I'd say I understand it more than most artists that talk about it online. I feel confident saying that I know what I'm talking about in this matter. I know its capabilities and limitations.

I'm not going to get into the morality of the use of it. I won't defend the rampant theft and copyright violations, I'm someone that believes that AI image gen at the very least should never be used for commercial purposes, but in this post I only want to talk about something else: Tte plain and simple merits of AI art as "Art" itself.

I'll start with repeating my premise statement: "Art theory states that art should have intention in order to be art." Does AI generation meet this criteria? Well, no, not really. Specifically it's not an image generation user's "art" if it is art at all.

With pattern biased algorithmic image generation, AKA "AI art”, someone pressing a button after typing in a prompt just doesn’t amount to a person actually picking and choosing their subject, their composition, and ESPECIALLY their meaning and message. The result is most definitely not the button-pusher's art, the generation is too random and what comes out belongs far more to the machine than to the prompter.

And a machine cannot by itself cogently make the essential choices to make an image successfully have intent. Language models we currently have cannot communicate a person's intent to the machine beyond a few broad strokes tags and trigger words, and pattern bias will often supercede those prompts anyway. A discerning eye will always be able to tell which decisions were made by a machine because it is not making them in the way a human being would, they appear uncanny in the most basic way. The generator is not understanding and interpreting the space and subject in the way that someone who lives and breathes with binocular vision and a human's infinitely more adaptable brain would.

The generator is incapable of truly understanding stylization or design principals, and all its continual, persistent mistakes in numbers of fingers, in anomalous anatomy, and broken gestalt, in nonsensical perspective, and merged and floating objects are a byproduct of this lack of living intelligence. These are things that will never go away, no matter how much data is fed into it because it is flawed at the core by the very basis of its pattern bias. It cannot "learn" how to fix them and so it can only hope to, at best, get lucky enough, or generate enough iterations of the same prompt that the images won't show the cracks. And that process is not creative, it's gambling at a slot machine hoping for a payout.

AI gen really is just a parlor trick at this moment in time, it’s a parrot that’s been taught to repeat phrases in response to certain stimuli to fool you into thinking you’re having a conversation, but it’s just really been trained to recognize noises, not meaning. It's a very pretty bird, but it's no replacement for the real thing, and the longer you "talk" with it, the more obvious that will become.

Art, the real art that the machine is trying and failing to learn from and replicate, requires a human’s creativity and problem solving to be able to make the decisions that will create a piece of art that someone can confidently call their own.

[awesomefringey]

Hii! Can I ask where you got those AI manips please? Also what are your thoughts on them in regards to them taking the spotlight off artists?

Hi nonnie, partially I grabbed them off of Twitter today, and others were sent to me.

You can generate these images here:

I personally don’t think AI can do what artists can. It is fun to figure out the possibilities of AI generated images, but even more so the limits. If you look closely at every picture you can see how messy they are, and frankly they’re very “lifeless”. Some are exceptionally good, but in the end it was just luck. It’s a gamble. No one can tell you how they were created.

I think about AI in general as something that can enhance our lives, but it will never be able to fully replicate or even replace the human mind, creativity and soul. I don’t believe it poses a threat to real artists at all. To me, it actually sparks a newly found appreciation for our fandom creators.

[immortalbeingz]

These days, you can’t post anything without someone in the comments asking, “Is this real or is this AI?” And that’s a valid question. What does it mean when everything from visuals to entire art pieces can be generated by AI? In this reel, every image you see is purely AI—and that’s precisely what makes it so captivating.

AI is like rediscovering the internet all over again. The possibilities seem endless, with creativity evolving to heights we never thought possible. From AI-generated visuals to completely immersive digital experiences, we are on the edge of a creative revolution.

But here’s the debate: are we losing something in this transition? The organic imperfections, the raw human touch—are they being replaced with calculated precision? Some say yes, and that the soul of art lies in its human origin, not its digital replication.

Others argue that AI is a tool to expand our creative potential. It’s not replacing human imagination but enhancing it, making previously unthinkable visuals come to life.

We’re living in a world where the line between the real and the artificial is blurred, and honestly, it’s exhilarating.

@thecoolhunter_

[arctic-shard]

This is not related to Alagadda or SCP but I'd like to know your opinions on AI arts as someone who also draws. For me, since I view AI as something that cannot create things on its own and can only copy and photoshop other existing artworks to make new ones, everyone who uses it and claims AI arts as their own is also an art thief. Sorry for my English, it's not my first language.

Settle in, this is a long one. I use 'you' a lot but it's a general you, not addressing the anon asker specifically.

AI art generators are tools, and tools are morally neutral. It's how they're used that's good or bad. Think of the knives in your kitchen - they're useful, they make cooking easier, but you could also hurt people with them. I think AI art generators have the potential to be used for good.

Corporations and otherwise people with money who could pay artists but don't wanna are the ones using AI for evil. Instead of paying skilled workers, they're replacing them with a computer program. And unlike regular automation, AI art generators are stealing the labour of human artists - their 'training' is just an image search and then mushing those components together. It's devaluing artists and stealing their work at the same time.

I'm including people who sell AI art and claim it's their own work under the 'corporation' umbrella, because it's the same thing on a smaller scale - someone who wants a mass-produced product to sell, profiting off someone else's unpaid labour.

However, I'm talking to tumblr users who are just messing around, not corporations.

AI art generators are fun. It's fun to type in words and have the generator turn that into a picture. AI art generators can turn out some very pretty pieces. The problem is that it's then tempting, if you're not confident in your own skills, to use AI art instead of developing your own. We all want praise and validation for our work and if you're looking at your art and thinking 'not good enough,' you might be tempted to have a generator do it and claim it as your own. Short term, you get that validation if nobody catches you cheating. Long term, you never develop the skill you wish you had and someone's going to catch you out eventually.

Tumblr is a blogging/social media site. The draw of these sites is connections. Like, I could draw a picture of Odious chucking me across the room. I could draw a picture of @proth-blog 's Odious chucking me across a room. I could mess with an AI prompt until it gave me a big bald dude in yellow chucking a figure that looked enough like me across the room and it could be in a gorgeous painterly style I could never in a million years replicate. But if I'm dropping a 'Could Odious chuck me across the room pls :3' in proth-blog's askbox, it's not just because I like proth-blog's art, it's also a, 'Hi, you seem cool, please play with me.'

The asks in my askbox are often basically art prompts. You could type 'SCP-035 in a fancy dress, pencil drawing' or whatever into an AI art generator and get that. You could get twenty of them in a minute. But that's not why you came to my askbox. You want to collaborate with me. You want the Authentic Arctic_Shard Experience.

And that's what I want from you guys. I want authenticity, whether you're actively working to increase your skill at art or are happy with where you are. AI art generators are only going to give you the average of what it can find on an image search, not the uniqueness of your own style.

Now, I am not an expert at spotting AI art, it can slip under my radar. I know I've drawn my share of terrible hands. And my follower list seems to skew young and I don't know where you're all from or how well you speak English - I prefer to default to assuming good-faith intentions and I don't want to tell some kid that they're a bad person for using something they think is a fun novelty tool and don't understand that it's a problem, or for saying 'I drew this' if they don't know the words for 'I used an AI generator prompt.'

As the Supportive Internet Adult I seem to have fallen into the role of: The only way you can get your art to where you want it to be is to practice at it. You're gonna suck for a while but we all did. I want to see what you can do.