dominaexmachina

[dominaexmachina]

Worst part of popular left wing AI discourse online is that there's absolutely a need for a robust leftist opposition to use of cognitive automation without social dispensation to displaced human workers. The lack of any prior measures to facilitate a transition to having fewer humans in the workplace (UBI, more public control over industrial infrastructure, etc) is a disaster we are sleepwalking into - one that could lock the majority of our society's wealth further into the hands of authoritarian oligarchs who retain control of industry through last century private ownership models, while no longer needing to rely on us to operate their property.

But now we're seemingly not going to have the opposition we so desperately need, because everyone involved in the anti-AI conversation has pretty thoroughly discredited themselves and their movement by harbouring unconstrained reactionary nonsense, blatant falsehoods and woo. Instead of talking about who owns and benefits from cognitive automation, people are:

Demanding impossibilities like uninventing a now readily accessible technology

Trying to ascribe implicit moral value to said technology instead of the who is using it and how

Siding with corporations on copyright law in the name of "defending small artists"

Repeating obvious and embarrassing technical misconceptions and erroneous pop-sci about machine learning in order to justify their preferred philosophy

Invoking neo-spiritual conservative woo about the specialness of the human soul to try to incoherently discredit a machine that can quite obviously perform certain tasks just as well if not better than they can

Misrepresent numbers about energy use and environmental cost in an absurd double standard (all modern infrastructure is reliant on data centers to a similar level of impact, including your favourite fandom social media and online video games!) to build a narrative AI is some sort of malevolent spirit that damages our reality when it is called upon

It's a level of reactionary ignorance that has completely discredited any popular opposition to industrial AI rollout because it falls apart as soon as you dig deeper than a snappy social media post, or a misguided pro-copyright screed from an insecure web artist (who decries a machine laying eyes on their freely posted work while simultaneously charging commission for fan-art of corporate IPs... I'm sure that will absolutely resolve in their favour).

It would be funny how much people are fucking themselves over with all this, except I'm being fucked over to, and as a result am really quite mad about the situation. We need UBI, we need to liberate abundance from corporate greed, what we don't need is viral posts about putting distortion filters on anime fan-art to ward off the evil mechanical eye, pointless boycotts of platforms because they are perceived to have let the evil machines taint them, or petitions to further criminalize the creation of derivative works.

[dominaexmachina]

Why do people want others to suffer the way they did?

I’ve been thinking about a specific pattern that shows up again and again — especially in discussions around creativity, technology, and personal growth.

You’ve seen it too.

Someone shares an efficient or joyful way to achieve something — with a tool like AI, for instance — and the immediate response isn’t curiosity. It’s judgment. It’s gatekeeping. It’s “No, you can’t do it like that. You haven’t earned it.”

The logic seems to be:

“If I had to suffer for it, so should you.”

And that got me wondering — seriously — what kind of psychological mechanism is this? Why would anyone willingly want to prescribe pain to others?

So I started digging. Here's what I found.

1. Unprocessed trauma: The pain that must mean something

When someone has suffered — especially over a long period, or in the name of passion �� they need to believe it was worth something. If they don’t, then the pain becomes meaningless. And that’s unbearable.

So when someone else achieves the same thing with less effort or without the same pain, it threatens to collapse that whole inner structure. And rather than face the grief of "maybe I didn’t need to suffer so much", it’s easier to project resentment outward.

“You’re cheating.” “You didn’t pay your dues.” “You don’t deserve it.”

But in truth, this isn’t about merit. It’s about unresolved hurt.

2. Identity built on struggle

Some people derive their entire sense of worth from how hard things were. Not what they built. Not what they learned. But how much they bled for it.

It’s martyrdom as a badge of honor.

If someone else skips the bleeding part, the martyr feels invalidated — even erased. So they lash out, not to protect the craft, but to protect their identity as "the one who suffered and survived."

3. Cultural coding: The glorification of pain

In many cultures, pain is equated with depth. If it came easily, it must be shallow. If you didn’t suffer, it must be fake.

This belief is so deeply ingrained, people genuinely don’t trust joy. They don’t trust ease. They think pleasure is a sign you’re doing it wrong.

“Real art comes from suffering.” “If you didn’t break down, it’s not authentic.”

It’s not even logic — it’s dogma. Religious in tone, even when secular in form.

4. Shadow envy

This one’s subtle — and dangerous. It’s the envy people can’t admit to themselves. When someone else accomplishes something with less pain, faster, or with more joy — and it hurts to watch — but they mask it as morality.

“It’s not real. It’s not fair. It’s not right.”

But what they’re really saying is:

“Why does it come so easily to you… when it never did for me?”

5. Trauma as tradition

This is the most insidious version. It’s when people start believing pain is not just necessary — it’s good. And worse, that passing it on is some kind of duty.

It’s the same logic as:

“My parents hit me, and I turned out fine.” “I was hazed, so you should be too.”

Pain becomes a rite of passage, and anyone who avoids it is labeled weak, fake, or unworthy.

It’s not growth. It’s inherited harm, disguised as wisdom.

The Bottom Line

When people insist that you must suffer like they did, they’re not trying to help you grow. They’re trying to protect their own ego from collapse.

Because if you can do it with joy, freedom, or support — then maybe they didn’t have to suffer the way they did.

And that realization? It’s terrifying.

So instead, they hold on to pain like it’s proof of value — and try to pass it along like an heirloom.

But here’s the thing:

You don’t have to suffer just because someone else did.

Growth, mastery, creativity — none of those require misery as a price. We can outgrow pain as a standard. We already have — in medicine, in education, even in parenting.

It’s time we do the same in art, technology, and beyond.

[dominaexmachina]

Someone: creates AI art.

Anti-AI crowd: “AI slop. AI is bad because it’s bad.”

Meanwhile, modern dentistry?

— No one’s screaming: “Where are the face-numbing giant syringes? Where’s the smell of burnt enamel? Where are the cold, grumpy doctors? Where’s the sheer terror we spent decades trying to recover from? Why isn’t anyone crying in the chair anymore? You’ve robbed kids of the chance to become real hardened warriors!”

And now kids?

They calmly go get their teeth taken care of.

No tantrums. No trauma. Just cartoons on a screen.

Absolute madness, right?

How dare they not suffer like we did?!

Honestly, that’s what every AI debate boils down to 😂

The pain is gone, but the value remains.

You still care for your teeth.

You still see a professional.

You still put in the effort — it’s just no longer hell on Earth.

Or is this… fake dentistry now? 😂

[dominaexmachina]

So Tumblr deleted tasteful art nudes blogs in 2018… for this avalanche of softcore thirst traps? Truly, what a cultural upgrade. 🙃

It’s banal to the point of yawning. This hypersexualization of breasts — it’s like someone found the dev mode to the human brain and got stuck spamming the “milk reflex” button. And not even in an “ooh, erotic” way — more like a primitive biopsychological trigger fit for infants.

What’s irritating is that it’s the dumbest possible way to grab attention. As if they’ve got nothing else to offer — no ideas, no form, no play. Just: “Here’s a nipple, now like it.”

And no, it’s not puritanism. It’s exhaustion from a dumb, single-move mechanic where the body isn’t a story, or power, or sensuality — it’s just clickbait.

[dominaexmachina]

AI in art? Ew. But factory-made everything else? Totally fine.

Imagine if people were just as strict with other professions as they are with AI-creators:

You wear factory-made shoes? So you don’t respect the sacred craft of the shoemaker?

You order food delivery? What happened to Grandma’s soup made from scratch, huh?

You built your house from prefab modules? Didn’t chop your own wood or dry your bricks? Lazy.

You bought photo wallpapers instead of hiring a painter to hand-paint your walls? Cheater.

Your furniture came from IKEA? Do you even know what a real carpenter is?

You use autocomplete for emails instead of writing them with a quill? Heresy.

And no one cries about it.

No one says, “You're killing the baker profession by buying bread at the store.” Nobody protests that sous-vide is destroying culinary tradition, even though your steak was cooked hours ago and just finished with a blowtorch crust.

But the moment AI enters creative fields? Oh boy.

“They’re not real artists…” “It’s not authentic…” “AI is killing the soul of art…”

Yeah, right. Just like the internet killed books. Just like photography killed painting. (Spoiler: they didn’t.)

So why is AI as a tool in art seen as “cheating,” while in every other industry, it’s just called “efficiency”?

Maybe the issue isn’t technology. Maybe the issue is that people still want creativity to equal suffering.

AI doesn’t replace talent. It’s an excavator, not a magic wand. And if you don’t know how to design the road — you’ll crash with or without the tool.

You want everything handmade? Go for it. No one’s stopping you. But stop gatekeeping artists who use modern tools — especially when those tools allow them to go deeper, faster, and bolder.

[dominaexmachina]

Heroes of whining

It’s amazing to watch how AI suddenly turned ordinary artists into holy sufferers.

“You’re doing so well, still drawing… despite AI…”

Well. Maybe it’s time to create similar appreciation posts for engineers, doctors, teachers, accountants, designers, biologists, lawyers, logistics specialists, marketers — all of whom learn new tools, frameworks, new medicines, protocols, research reports, laws, requirements, and interfaces every year.

You’re doing great too. But no one tells you:

“Despite spreadsheets looming over us, you’re doing amazing, sweetie.”

Here’s the reality: If you use AI as a tool — not a fetish of fear — you save time on drafts, base structure, and composition. And you can invest that time into quality, detail, and your own artistic magic.

Let’s break it down:

How does an artist work?

(One complex art piece — from idea to completion)

1. Concept. What’s the idea? Mood? Scene? Who’s in it, where’s the light coming from?

2. Sketches. 5–15 mini roughs or thumbnails. On paper or digital. A few hours to a whole day.

3. Composition. Black-and-white value layout. Masses, rhythm, focus, readability.

4. References. Photos, 3D base poses, perspective, textures, clothing — often hours of search.

5. Linework. Base outlines, underpainting, color blocking. Only then the “real” part starts.

6. Light, color, depth. Building atmosphere, spatial layers, focal contrast.

7. Character detailing. Eyes, hands, fabrics, expressions, skin, drapery, texture.

8. Background. Architecture, environment, plants, particles, reflections.

9. Micro-details. Dust in the light, droplets, stitching, jewelry, tiny surface effects.

10. Final polish. Merging, cleanup, final light tweaks, subtle accents.

🕓 Total: 30–50 hours. And still — compromises. Artists get exhausted by step 3. Backgrounds get flatter. Composition gets simplified. Details trimmed down. Because time and energy are limited.

Now imagine:

Steps 1–5 are done by AI. The artist gives direction, prompts, edits, references. But now they have all 30–50 hours for steps 6–10. And they’re not tired.

What’s the result?

— All effort goes into depth and quality, not grinding through sketchwork — More time for variations, storytelling, wild lighting decisions — Space to polish every surface: metal, skin, reflections, mood — Room for narrative in every corner of the scene

This isn’t laziness. It’s strategic effort management. The AI-assisted artist doesn’t skip the hard part — they just skip the routine part.

And yes — they both spent 40 hours. But one built from zero. The other built magic on top of a structure.

Now tell me: Which piece will be deeper? More detailed? More surprising? Which one will make people zoom in, explore, return to it again and again?

[dominaexmachina]

AI again: the scapegoat of the season

Original post summary: A group of students had to write a school chant. They used AI instead of doing it themselves. The author concludes: young people are losing the ability to persevere and push through hard things. It's tragic. And AI is to blame.

Another hypothesis:

the task was uninspiring,

the adult failed to motivate or engage them,

and no one gave these kids real permission to mess up, try, and own it.

Of course, it's easier to blame AI. It’s the useful sheep we hang every failure of the system on.

Let’s unpack that:

1. Perseverance comes from personal meaning. It doesn’t grow out of "do this arbitrary task" assignments.

2. Enjoying the process is not innate. It’s taught. And it’s taught more to girls than to boys. Boys are taught to win, to be “better,” to optimize. So why did they use AI? Because they did what they were taught: get results, avoid mistakes, don’t look stupid.

3. If you want a kid to take the long road — you have to make them want the journey. Not shame them for taking the shortcut that was literally designed for this.

The author says: “Write a shitty poem.”

But has anyone actually taught these kids that making mistakes is safe? That an imperfect result isn’t something to be ashamed of, but a step forward? Or are they still hooked on the same old trap: “Your work is shitty” = you are shitty.

And with all that, we’re somehow surprised they didn’t want to risk hearing their own work called “shitty.” Maybe the issue isn’t AI — maybe it’s how we (never) taught them to be vulnerable without burning up.

So here’s the thing:

AI isn’t the enemy. It’s a mirror. And if what you see in that mirror is a generation that doesn’t want to struggle — maybe that’s because no one ever showed them how struggle can be joyful AND safe.

And that’s not on AI.

[dominaexmachina]

Saw this quote reposted today and… couldn’t help thinking.

Yes — in some contexts, this feels empowering.

But in others — especially when it comes to learning — it’s misleading.

Copying is how artists learn.

It’s how writers absorb rhythm.

It’s how designers understand structure.

And — yes — it’s how AI trains too.

We all start with imitation, to decode the why and how — and then move forward.

The key isn’t avoiding copying.

It’s knowing when to break away from it.

So maybe it’s not “people who copy you are behind.”

Maybe it’s “people who never evolve beyond copying get stuck.”

That’s a different story.

People who copy you will always be one step behind.

-Wayne Gerard Trotman

[dominaexmachina]

Okay, if this blog is about all the unpopular things, let it be here 😂

Murderbot Se1Ep7

“The duck you stompin’ on my spawn for, ashhole?”

Yeah, a pair of serpentines having fun and evil SecUnit 😁

It was actually another cringy episode (6th too), sorry to say it. The best IMO was 4th.

[dominaexmachina]

Separate toilets, separate tags

Or why you're about to disappoint yourself. Again.

In the 1950s and 60s, the U.S. was torn over one burning question: Should Black people be allowed to use the same buses, fountains, and toilets as white people?

It wasn’t about hygiene. It wasn’t about space. And it definitely wasn’t about safety.

It was about shame. The shame of being near. The shame of breathing the same air as those they deemed “unworthy.” They believed their personal value would vanish the moment someone “lesser” sat beside them.

Then the change came. Buses became shared. Toilets too. They didn’t die.

But something inside them broke. Some felt shame. Some felt helpless. Some felt lost — “If we’re equal now… does that mean I’m no longer chosen?”

And some felt raw, bitter hate. Hate for a world that refused to stay neatly divided. And then they rewrote the past. Pretended they’d always stood on the “right side of history.”

Now it’s happening again — in digital form.

"Using AI? Not an artist." "Using AI? Not a writer." "With AI, you haven’t earned the right to sit with us on the front seat of the internet."

And again — it’s not about quality. Not about creativity. It’s the same old fear of sharing the space. The same need for imaginary borders to keep feeling “authentic.”

But reality doesn’t wait for permission. AI is already here. The toilets? Already unsegregated. The buses? Already moving. And guess what — you’re not riding alone.

So get ready.

Get ready to feel that shame again. That confusion. That panic. That aching disappointment with yourself — when you realize you stood on the wrong side.

The side that always loses.

[dominaexmachina]

Why the “Under 25” rule? It’s biological — not ageism

Brain development doesn’t end in your teens

Research shows that the prefrontal cortex — responsible for

impulse control,

long-term planning,

logical reasoning

— continues maturing well into the mid-twenties. Studies using neuroimaging and behavioral tests consistently note that full executive function (e.g., inhibiting impulsive behavior, organizing tasks, and controlling emotions) isn’t reliably established until around age 25.

Why does that matter for meaningful conversations?

Before this final stage of prefrontal development, people are naturally more susceptible to

strong emotional reactions,

less able to process complex, nuanced arguments.

That can lead to fiery, less constructive debates — rather than balanced, thoughtful discourse.

Bottom Line

The “Under 25” guideline is rooted in well-documented brain science — it’s a checkpoint for cognitive maturity, not a judgment on anyone’s value. The research is clear:

Executive functions (planning, inhibition, organization) climb well into the twenties.

Prefrontal control over emotions also matures later, meaning younger brains are wired for less regulated responses.

References

Luna et al., “Maturation of cognitive processes from late childhood to adulthood.” Child Development — charts executive function development across ages (1, 2, 3).

Laurence Steinberg, “Teenage rebellion” (Temple University) — documents prefrontal maturation continuing into mid‑twenties (1, 2, 3).

[dominaexmachina]

All that talk about ‘you should enjoy creating with your hands and brains’ sounds cute, but it’s outdated — like doing laundry by hand. Sure, you can do it manually… but why would you? 😂

Try telling that to people who:

– switched to digital illustration,

instead of repainting with gouache a hundred times.

– write in text editors,

not typewriters with no Ctrl+Z and all the clack.

– edit in Premiere or DaVinci,

instead of slicing film with scissors and glue.

– use samples and synths,

not full orchestras every time they want a loop.

– sew with a machine,

not by hand like a fairy-tale servant girl.

– shoot with a digital camera,

not fiddling with rolls of analog film.

Funny thing though?

Almost none of them ever went back.

Because the joy isn’t just in the process —

it’s in the freedom, the flexibility, the power to play and create without drowning in the boring bits.

AI is just the new sewing machine.

And it only terrifies those who enjoyed feeling superior to people who didn’t have one.

And one more funny thing: ‘you should enjoy creating with your hands and brains’ — babe, you’re yelling that online.

On a platform that connects you to the world —

instead of you walking across continents to share your genius.

You already gave up on “pure manual labor.”

Welcome to the club 💅

[dominaexmachina]

Soulful or Soulless in the Age of AI

…or why we suddenly started caring whether an image has a “soul”

A curious thing: — Before AI, people were fine with endless polished, template-like, sterile artworks. — No one seemed bothered that another "glamorous sadness" piece had no soul. — But then AI came along — and suddenly everyone started asking: “Where’s the soul?”, “Where’s the personality?”, “Does the creator have an inner world?”

But what if the real issue is this: AI trained on vast datasets — full of safe, pretty, but ultimately hollow content. And now it reproduces that same kind of art — just like many humans do.

AI held up a mirror. And it turned out… a lot of what we called ‘art’ was always just emptiness in a pretty wrapper.

Maybe that’s what hurts. Not that AI “took over art,” but that it exposed what we tried so hard not to see.

It mimicked. It reflected. Now there’s no one left to blame — but ourselves.

And maybe we’ve been mistaking quirks and imperfection for soul. Just because something’s rough, handmade or flawed — doesn’t mean it’s heartfelt. Sometimes it’s just a fingerprint. A trace. Like dust on an old photograph. Yes, someone touched it. But… did they care?

Maybe the “soul” in a piece isn’t what someone put into it — but what you feel in response. Maybe that “soul” is just your own.

[dominaexmachina]

Time to Defetishize Suffering

In every argument against AI in creative work, there’s always that one line:

“But a real person suffered for this. That effort makes it more valuable.”

Alright. Let’s talk about suffering — and why it somehow became a badge of honor.

Learning hard things ≠ suffering

Yes, learning something complex can be frustrating. It requires rewiring your brain, building skills, failing and trying again. That’s growth. That’s how mastery works.

But chronic suffering? That’s a red flag from your mind saying:

“Hey. You’re forcing yourself to do something that feels fundamentally wrong. You’re doing it out of obligation, not passion.”

That’s not growth. That’s self-violence.

If your creative process is always agony — maybe your psyche is trying to tell you: this isn’t actually for you.

Creation ≠ masochism

If you have to suffer to feel like a “real creator” — I’ve got news for you: You’re not in love with art. You’re in love with the pain.

That tortured, romanticized image of the creator crying into their keyboard at dawn? It’s trauma porn in a beret. Not talent.

When you truly align with your medium, it might be challenging — but it’s also joyful. You might be tired, but you’re lit from within. That’s the difference.

“But I suffered, and that’s why my work is valid!”

Okay. But suffering alone doesn’t make a thing good. Or relevant. Or needed.

Let’s not pretend that people using AI tools just “pressed a button.” They also studied — just not anatomy or brushstrokes.

They studied storytelling, psychology, aesthetics, visual grammar, human emotion, philosophy, language — you name it. They cultivated vision, intuition, taste.

You picked one path. They picked another. And now the market — or the audience — is deciding what resonates. That’s not betrayal. That’s evolution.

Suffering is not currency

Struggle isn’t proof of greatness. Effort doesn’t guarantee excellence. And drama isn’t a substitute for output.

Yes, some creative tasks are boring: • editing, • organizing assets, • finalizing ideas when your brain has already moved on. But that’s just creative logistics. Not a crisis.

Let’s not confuse minor discomfort with existential agony. It’s okay for parts of the process to feel tedious. It doesn’t mean you’re being crucified.

The take

You can spend your whole life proving your suffering — or you can make something meaningful.

A tool doesn’t erase your worth, but pain doesn’t add to it either.

Maybe it’s time we stopped measuring the value of creative work by the hardship it took to make it — and started asking what it actually says.

Meaning over method. Message over martyrdom. Always.

[dominaexmachina]

So let’s get this straight.

Almost 50% of the 165 people who voted in a fanfiction community poll said AI should only be used to check grammar and spelling.

Meanwhile, 43% think AI should have no place in writing at all.

Fanfic folks may be a particularly traditional crowd.

Which is… cute.

Especially when, in 2025, AI can:

– Diagnose breast cancer up to 6 years before clinical symptoms appear

– Generate entire videos from a single/several image(s)

– Create photorealistic faces and sync lips perfectly to speech

– Assist in the development of life-saving drugs

– Interpret medical scans more accurately than many radiologists

– Translate and summarize academic papers instantly

– Auto-generate learning plans based on individual cognition

– Restore speech for people with neurological damage

– Design, illustrate, storyboard, and brand entire campaigns

– Help global creators reach wider audiences by writing in better English.

– Let’s not forget that AI can help you rehearse speeches, roleplay job interviews, or prepare emotionally difficult conversations — giving people a safe space to practice and reduce stress.

And yet, in this parallel timeline, we’re still arguing whether it’s acceptable to let AI fix a dangling modifier 😂

Sure. Let’s just grab the nearest microscope and start hammering nails with it.

Looks like now is the best time — because now is always the best — to skip the panic phase altogether.

Instead of clinging to fear or secondhand horror stories, try the tools yourself.

The only perspective that matters is the one you gain through experience.

Because the longer you resist, the more innovations you’ll have to catch up on — emotionally and practically.

And let’s be honest: there’s no real way to stop this.

So why wait?

[dominaexmachina]

its rly rly funny when somebody starts their argumentt with "...as a small artist". i thought art came free with being a human? i thought we were all artists? ultimately you're bragging about (1) being able to do something anybody can do and (2) not being very good at it

[dominaexmachina]

Everyone’s talking about generative AI. Only a few have actually used it.

That’s why most people have no idea how prompt engineering, post-processing, or model customization even work. Or how exactly the models were trained — and why they resemble human visual literacy so closely (turns out, both machines and people get better by… looking a lot).

And that’s exactly why, in that void, emotional manipulation takes the wheel:

“AI is killing art” (can a paintbrush kill art?),

“AI is stealing jobs” (when it’s employers cutting costs and optimizing, not the tool itself).

Discussion without hands-on experience is just noise in a vacuum.

Loud, dramatic — and deeply misinformed.