#ai idea validation tool

[aiprotoboost]

What Is Idea Validation and Why Is It Important for Startups?

Every successful startup begins with a single idea — but not every idea leads to success. In fact, most startups fail not because of poor execution, but because their ideas never truly solved a real problem or met a market need. That’s where idea validation comes into play.

What Is Idea Validation?

Idea validation is the process of testing and verifying whether your startup idea has real potential in the market. It involves gathering feedback, conducting experiments, and using data to determine if your concept solves a genuine problem for a specific target audience.

This step usually happens before you invest heavily in product development, marketing, or fundraising. Think of it as your business idea’s first reality check ��� where assumptions meet evidence.

Why Is Idea Validation Important for Startups?

1. Reduces Risk of Failure

The startup world is notorious for its high failure rate. According to CB Insights, the number one reason startups fail is building a product no one wants. Validating your idea early allows you to avoid this costly mistake.

2. Saves Time and Money

Why spend months or even years building a product only to find there’s no demand for it? Startup idea validation allows you to test your assumptions with minimal investment, often through simple experiments like surveys, landing pages, or early prototypes.

3. Improves Focus and Clarity

Validation helps you refine your idea and target the right problem and audience. This clarity can lead to a more focused MVP (Minimum Viable Product) and more efficient go-to-market strategy.

4. Builds Credibility with Investors

Investors love data. If you can show that your idea has been validated with real user interest or early traction, you’ll significantly increase your chances of getting funding.

How Startups Are Using AI for Idea Validation

In today’s fast-paced tech landscape, artificial intelligence is transforming the way startups validate ideas. Here’s how:

AI-Driven Prototyping

AI-driven prototyping refers to the use of artificial intelligence tools to generate product mockups, user flows, or interactive demos rapidly. These tools reduce design and development time, helping founders test ideas visually and interactively before writing a single line of code.

Tools like ProtoBoost, Uizard, and Framer AI allow founders to describe their idea in plain English and receive a clickable prototype in minutes. These can be shared with potential users for feedback or even used in pitch presentations.

Rapid Prototyping with AI

Rapid prototyping with AI accelerates the product discovery process. It enables startups to quickly iterate on designs based on real-time user feedback. Instead of weeks or months, you can go from idea to testable prototype in a matter of hours.

This is incredibly powerful for lean startups that need to validate fast, pivot quickly, and prove market demand before development.

Watch: ProtoBoost Idea Validation System Demo

One of the most innovative tools on the market is ProtoBoost, a system that automates idea validation through AI-generated prototypes, market testing, and user feedback loops. ProtoBoost is an AI-powered idea validation platform designed for startup founders who want to test, refine, and launch their ideas faster. It combines AI-driven prototyping, user feedback loops, and data-driven insights to help you move from concept to validation without writing a single line of code.

Check out this quick demo:

Key Methods of Startup Idea Validation

While AI is powerful, the core validation process still revolves around timeless methods. Let’s break down a few:

1. Customer Interviews

Talk to real potential users. Ask about their pain points, current solutions, and whether your idea resonates. Be open to brutal honesty — early criticism can save you from failure.

2. Surveys and Polls

Use tools like Google Forms or Typeform to gather insights at scale. Keep your surveys focused and actionable, asking things like:

How often do you face this problem?

How much would you pay for a solution?

What would an ideal solution look like?

3. Landing Pages

Build a simple one-page site describing your solution. Use a strong call to action — like “Join the Waitlist” or “Get Early Access” — and measure the conversion rate.

This is where idea validation AI tools shine. With platforms like Unbounce or Card integrated with AI copywriting tools, you can spin up persuasive landing pages quickly.

4. Smoke Tests

Run ads or social media campaigns to test interest in your solution. If people are clicking and engaging, you’ve got some early traction. If not, it may be time to rethink your concept.

5. Prototype Testing

Build a no-code or low-code MVP using tools like Bubble, Webflow, or Glide. Then, use AI-driven prototyping platforms to add realism and flow. Share the prototype with users and observe how they interact.

When Should You Start Validating?

Immediately. The sooner you begin validating your idea, the better. Even if you’re at the “just brainstorming” stage, gather feedback. You don’t need a product — just a value proposition and some curiosity.

Real-Life Example: How AI-Driven Prototyping Saved a Startup

A team of founders wanted to build a travel app to help solo travelers connect in new cities. Instead of building the app right away, they used ProtoBoost to generate a clickable prototype, then tested it with potential users.

What they discovered? Their core feature (random matching) felt unsafe to users. They pivoted to a more structured meetup model — and validated the new version with landing page signups and email collection.

By validating early using rapid prototyping with AI, they avoided months of wasted development and built a product people actually wanted.

Final Thoughts

Startup idea validation isn’t just a phase — it’s the foundation of smart entrepreneurship. And with today’s AI tools, validating your idea is faster, cheaper, and more data-driven than ever.

From AI-driven prototyping to real-time feedback, the tools are at your fingertips. Don’t build in the dark. Validate, iterate, and then scale.

Want to Validate Your Idea Fast?

Start with a tool like ProtoBoost and turn your idea into a testable product within hours. Watch the demo and start your validation journey today!

Let’s Build the Future Together

Ready to bring your next big idea to life with the power of AI? ProtoBoost is here to help every step of the way—from validation to prototyping to refinement.

📞 Contact us at: 415-200-2599

📲 Follow us on social media for updates, insights, and success stories:

LinkedIn

Twitter (X)

Instagram

YouTube

Pinterest

[ideavalidationai]

We’re Here to Help You Innovate Faster - ProtoBoost.ai

Whether you’re evaluating our AI-driven platform, looking for partnership opportunities, or simply curious about our approach to rapid prototyping, our team is eager to connect. Effective communication is the cornerstone of a successful partnership, and we want to ensure that you have all the resources and support you need to bring your products to life.

[sillimancer]

I can't find it and don't remember who said it but I saw something where op was comparing liberals' reaction to hearing AI the same way conservatives react to hearing pronouns and I'm gonna be thinking about that all night now

[dragonnarrative-writes]

Generative AI Is Bad For Your Creative Brain

In the wake of early announcing that their blog will no longer be posting fanfiction, I wanted to offer a different perspective than the ones I’ve been seeing in the argument against the use of AI in fandom spaces. Often, I’m seeing the arguments that the use of generative AI or Large Language Models (LLMs) make creative expression more accessible. Certainly, putting a prompt into a chat box and refining the output as desired is faster than writing a 5000 word fanfiction or learning to draw digitally or traditionally. But I would argue that the use of chat bots and generative AI actually limits - and ultimately reduces - one’s ability to enjoy creativity.

Creativity, defined by the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus, is the ability to produce or use original and unusual ideas. By definition, the use of generative AI discourages the brain from engaging with thoughts creatively. ChatGPT, character bots, and other generative AI products have to be trained on already existing text. In order to produce something “usable,” LLMs analyzes patterns within text to organize information into what the computer has been trained to identify as “desirable” outputs. These outputs are not always accurate due to the fact that computers don’t “think” the way that human brains do. They don’t create. They take the most common and refined data points and combine them according to predetermined templates to assemble a product. In the case of chat bots that are fed writing samples from authors, the product is not original - it’s a mishmash of the writings that were fed into the system.

Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT) is a therapy modality developed by Marsha M. Linehan based on the understanding that growth comes when we accept that we are doing our best and we can work to better ourselves further. Within this modality, a few core concepts are explored, but for this argument I want to focus on Mindfulness and Emotion Regulation. Mindfulness, put simply, is awareness of the information our senses are telling us about the present moment. Emotion regulation is our ability to identify, understand, validate, and control our reaction to the emotions that result from changes in our environment. One of the skills taught within emotion regulation is Building Mastery - putting forth effort into an activity or skill in order to experience the pleasure that comes with seeing the fruits of your labor. These are by no means the only mechanisms of growth or skill development, however, I believe that mindfulness, emotion regulation, and building mastery are a large part of the core of creativity. When someone uses generative AI to imitate fanfiction, roleplay, fanart, etc., the core experience of creative expression is undermined.

Creating engages the body. As a writer who uses pen and paper as well as word processors while drafting, I had to learn how my body best engages with my process. The ideal pen and paper, the fact that I need glasses to work on my computer, the height of the table all factor into how I create. I don’t use audio recordings or transcriptions because that’s not a skill I’ve cultivated, but other authors use those tools as a way to assist their creative process. I can’t speak with any authority to the experience of visual artists, but my understanding is that the feedback and feel of their physical tools, the programs they use, and many other factors are not just part of how they learned their craft, they are essential to their art.

Generative AI invites users to bypass mindfully engaging with the physical act of creating. Part of becoming a person who creates from the vision in one’s head is the physical act of practicing. How did I learn to write? By sitting down and making myself write, over and over, word after word. I had to learn the rhythms of my body, and to listen when pain tells me to stop. I do not consider myself a visual artist - I have not put in the hours to learn to consistently combine line and color and form to show the world the idea in my head.

But I could.

Learning a new skill is possible. But one must be able to regulate one’s unpleasant emotions to be able to get there. The emotion that gets in the way of most people starting their creative journey is anxiety. Instead of a focus on “fear,” I like to define this emotion as “unpleasant anticipation.” In Atlas of the Heart, Brene Brown identifies anxiety as both a trait (a long term characteristic) and a state (a temporary condition). That is, we can be naturally predisposed to be impacted by anxiety, and experience unpleasant anticipation in response to an event. And the action drive associated with anxiety is to avoid the unpleasant stimulus.

Starting a new project, developing a new skill, and leaning into a creative endevor can inspire and cause people to react to anxiety. There is an unpleasant anticipation of things not turning out exactly correctly, of being judged negatively, of being unnoticed or even ignored. There is a lot less anxiety to be had in submitting a prompt to a machine than to look at a blank page and possibly make what could be a mistake. Unfortunately, the more something is avoided, the more anxiety is generated when it comes up again. Using generative AI doesn’t encourage starting a new project and learning a new skill - in fact, it makes the prospect more distressing to the mind, and encourages further avoidance of developing a personal creative process.

One of the best ways to reduce anxiety about a task, according to DBT, is for a person to do that task. Opposite action is a method of reducing the intensity of an emotion by going against its action urge. The action urge of anxiety is to avoid, and so opposite action encourages someone to approach the thing they are anxious about. This doesn’t mean that everyone who has anxiety about creating should make themselves write a 50k word fanfiction as their first project. But in order to reduce anxiety about dealing with a blank page, one must face and engage with a blank page. Even a single sentence fragment, two lines intersecting, an unintentional drop of ink means the page is no longer blank. If those are still difficult to approach a prompt, tutorial, or guided exercise can be used to reinforce the understanding that a blank page can be changed, slowly but surely by your own hand.

(As an aside, I would discourage the use of AI prompt generators - these often use prompts that were already created by a real person without credit. Prompt blogs and posts exist right here on tumblr, as well as imagines and headcannons that people often label “free to a good home.” These prompts can also often be specific to fandom, style, mood, etc., if you’re looking for something specific.)

In the current social media and content consumption culture, it’s easy to feel like the first attempt should be a perfect final product. But creating isn’t just about the final product. It’s about the process. Bo Burnam’s Inside is phenomenal, but I think the outtakes are just as important. We didn’t get That Funny Feeling and How the World Works and All Eyes on Me because Bo Burnham woke up and decided to write songs in the same day. We got them because he’s been been developing and honing his craft, as well as learning about himself as a person and artist, since he was a teenager. Building mastery in any skill takes time, and it’s often slow.

Slow is an important word, when it comes to creating. The fact that skill takes time to develop and a final piece of art takes time regardless of skill is it’s own source of anxiety. Compared to @sentientcave, who writes about 2k words per day, I’m very slow. And for all the time it takes me, my writing isn’t perfect - I find typos after posting and sometimes my phrasing is awkward. But my writing is better than it was, and my confidence is much higher. I can sit and write for longer and longer periods, my projects are more diverse, I’m sharing them with people, even before the final edits are done. And I only learned how to do this because I took the time to push through the discomfort of not being as fast or as skilled as I want to be in order to learn what works for me and what doesn’t.

Building mastery - getting better at a skill over time so that you can see your own progress - isn’t just about getting better. It’s about feeling better about your abilities. Confidence, excitement, and pride are important emotions to associate with our own actions. It teaches us that we are capable of making ourselves feel better by engaging with our creativity, a confidence that can be generalized to other activities.

Generative AI doesn’t encourage its users to try new things, to make mistakes, and to see what works. It doesn’t reward new accomplishments to encourage the building of new skills by connecting to old ones. The reward centers of the brain have nothing to respond to to associate with the action of the user. There is a short term input-reward pathway, but it’s only associated with using the AI prompter. It’s designed to encourage the user to come back over and over again, not develop the skill to think and create for themselves.

I don’t know that anyone will change their minds after reading this. It’s imperfect, and I’ve summarized concepts that can take months or years to learn. But I can say that I learned something from the process of writing it. I see some of the flaws, and I can see how my essay writing has changed over the years. This might have been faster to plug into AI as a prompt, but I can see how much more confidence I have in my own voice and opinions. And that’s not something chatGPT can ever replicate.

[hemi-demi]

Not my usual post but something I've been thinking about lately.

I think a part of what bothers me the most about the AI generated images/writing/etc debate is folks claiming that they need it because of a lack of talent and skill. Even going so far as to call it an accessibility device.

Which, as a disabled person, boils my blood. Because I think where this comes from is not in the same way as like a curb-cut levels things out for everyone. It's based on impossible standards in literally every piece of media we consume, and I think that's something we can change, rather than forcing people to use a bland device to meet the rest of the world at their level.

Folks are telling themselves they need AI images because becoming an artist takes time, and money, and effort. Some disabled folks don't have the dexterity to hold a pen, or can't sit upright at a computer for hours (me), or can't process visual information in the same way as others. Those are all true statements.

Same with writing. Dyslexia and other learning disorders can make writing intimidating. People receive harsh judgement for things like having poor sentence structure or spelling, even if you as a reader still know exactly what they mean.

The solution to these issues is not "pay an AI company to steal from other creators so everything washes into the same, boring grey blob of creativity". It's make bad art.

I want to see people's art where they don't have a full grasp of anatomy, but try their best anyway. I want to see stories where someone might struggle with visualizing a scene, but they do their best to convey the meaning in whatever way they can. I want to see more people comfortable with posting less than perfect work, and being proud of it because they made it. Or not even feel the need to post at all, because at the end of the day, the little numbers on your screen will never be the most satisfying part of creating. (Telling myself this as well, tbh. It's hard, I get that.)

If everyone is equally good at creating work, then there's never any variety. You can learn just as much, if not more so, from bad art than good. You can find beauty in it, unique ideas or habits that others have dropped because they were told it wasn't proper. You can see pure creative expression, without being chained to traditional conventions taught in school that beat all the fun out of you to make your work marketable.

We're taught in school that other artists are our competition, so of course people are turning to these tools to try and get a leg up. They never learned what a collaborative art or writing community can look like, and how that actually helps you grow as an artist more than AI or self isolation ever could.

If someone is drawing their entire lives, and never gets any more skilled at it for one reason or another, there's nothing wrong with that. That art is just as valid, and just as beautiful.

I understand that people feel this pressure to stand out in a sea of artists who worked their asses off to get where they are, but turning all art and writing into this regurgitation of what has worked before will never bring new ideas into the world in the same way a bored kid with a pencil and notebook paper can. It just won't.

[shelleysmary]

lots of fans have made valid points and written well-thought-out posts about the trop ai drama, so i'm not gonna rehash them, but i do want to bring up something that no one seems to be talking about and it's the impulse that leads people to plug these things into ai generators in the first place.

fandom over the last year especially has become increasingly toxic to the point that actual billion-dollar corporations are afraid it. the result is subpar, pandering films, books, and television shows that break no new ground, recycle old tropes, and sacrifice story integrity to avoid catching heat from the loudest, most entitled people in the room. i'm calling this an issue of entitlement first and foremost because the idea that the audience should have any say over a non-crowd-created media project is preposterous. deciding that the cons outweigh the pros of watching something and choosing to walk away without making a fuss is a lost discipline now because everyone with an internet connection and a social media account believes that their vision reigns supreme. "how dare this show downplay my favorite ship! they were supposed to kiss! that was the whole point! the absence of this one thing i had on my wishlist is a crime against me personally!" so they turn to ai and click some buttons and now these gifs exist and are being circulated with an air of "i've righted a wrong." worse, the use of ai in this way is being conflated with the creation of fanworks???

there are reasons why i don't believe the ai saurondiel kiss is on the same raft as, say, making them kiss in a drawing or a published fanfic, but my main concern is with the spirit behind each. fanworks are made in homage to the source material, even the fix-it fics. there is an acknowledgment, a separation even, between the television show and the fanwork. this separation is necessary and i would say even integral to the nature of fan creation, while ai closes that gap until it no longer exists. the elimination of space between creator and audience also happens on social media, when disgruntled fans who have taken umbrage with a fictional character or creative decision directly harass the writers or the actors involved. more and more, fans are demanding to be in the rooms, in the minds, and to exert control over the people who tell their stories, and it has only ever worked to our collective detriment. now i'm not saying that if you liked and shared the saurondiel ai kiss that you're the same as the internet trolls who harass (mostly) women and people of color online. but i'm begging you to do some self-reflection and ask yourself why you feel entitled to seeing what you want on your screen.

what has changed in the last few years that would make you dissatisfied with, say, reading someone's fic or making your own drawing? is it a matter of "the tool is there, so why not use it?" is it "i believe it should have happened and it didn't and i feel cheated?" or maybe there's been a pattern you've noticed in your recent media "consumption" (god, i hate that word) where, unless a show or television series goes the exact way you want it to, it feels like you've been defrauded somehow? i'm not being facetious. i'm inviting you to notice that what you're feeling is probably discomfort, disappointment, maybe even cognitive dissonance because you imagined it going one way, and now you're at a loss because it didn't. you built it up in your head, you had something to look forward to, you were convinced that it would happen, it was exciting and you were so eager to get to that point, and then.... and then...

we've all been there. and it sucks. but i also want to remind you of how important it is to preserve the separation. this space is ours. the writer's room, the filming set, the editing room, those spaces are theirs. the actors' likenesses are theirs. thinking beyond trop, the separation is how we get creative works that challenge us politically, emotionally, that make us uncomfortable and tell us important truths. writers shouldn't have to - and shouldn't FULL STOP - do what we want them to do. sometimes that means knowing when to walk away, when to say "i no longer enjoy this show, i will no longer support it" or "i will continue to watch but pretend things went differently," the latter of which has been the spark that has moved so many online fans to draw, paint, write, or sew. it's a type of creation that allows "canon" and "fanon" to exist parallel to one another. moreover, the effort it takes to make anything with your own two hands, with your own time, and with your own energy increases your appreciation for the creative impulse. films and books and television stop being "products" for your "consumption" because you're aware of what goes into them, and it becomes easier to look at things you don't like or disagree with and say, "you know what, i'm gonna pass," or "not in my headcanon."

oh, and by the way plugging things into an ai generator? is theft. the same way that it's generally frowned upon for people to use ai to, say, write the rest of an unfinished fic without the express permission of the fanwork creator, using the actors' likenesses to make them kiss goes against everything the actors' union fought for last year. i'll also add that it's incredibly creepy. almost all of us are in agreement that intimacy coordinators are a good thing because they act - again! - as a separation between what's "real" and what isn't, the same way going on ao3 and reading a fic that very clearly says on the tin that it's a fanfic, unaffiliated with the official ip, is a separation. it's another beast entirely to normalize fan-use of ai, to say you support creatives, support actors, support unions, and then do this in your personal life. i repeat the question: what impulse leads anyone to believe that this is okay other than a feeling of misplaced ownership?

tl;dr: ai nonsense does not belong in fandom spaces. (in my home state of california, it is illegal to use digital replicas of an actor's voice or likeness in place of their actual services without their informed consent [which, in spirit, is what you're doing by using ai to make your gifs]). we all just need to mind our own business and go back to writing our fix-it fics and complaining to our friends in relative peace. if you're finding it impossible to do so, ask yourself why. remember that fanart is our longstanding tradition. stop outsourcing it to an unregulated technology just because your two faves didn't kiss.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Apple to EU: “Go fuck yourself”

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/06/spoil-the-bunch/#dma

There's a strain of anti-anti-monopolist that insists that they're not pro-monopoly – they're just realists who understand that global gigacorporations are too big to fail, too big to jail, and that governments can't hope to rein them in. Trying to regulate a tech giant, they say, is like trying to regulate the weather.

This ploy is cousins with Jay Rosen's idea of "savvying," defined as: "dismissing valid questions with the insider's, 'and this surprises you?'"

https://twitter.com/jayrosen_nyu/status/344825874362810369?lang=en

In both cases, an apologist for corruption masquerades as a pragmatist who understands the ways of the world, unlike you, a pathetic dreamer who foolishly hopes for a better world. In both cases, the apologist provides cover for corruption, painting it as an inevitability, not a choice. "Don't hate the player. Hate the game."

The reason this foolish nonsense flies is that we are living in an age of rampant corruption and utter impunity. Companies really do get away with both literal and figurative murder. Governments really do ignore horrible crimes by the rich and powerful, and fumble what rare, few enforcement efforts they assay.

Take the GDPR, Europe's landmark privacy law. The GDPR establishes strict limitations of data-collection and processing, and provides for brutal penalties for companies that violate its rules. The immediate impact of the GDPR was a mass-extinction event for Europe's data-brokerages and surveillance advertising companies, all of which were in obvious violation of the GDPR's rules.

But there was a curious pattern to GDPR enforcement: while smaller, EU-based companies were swiftly shuttered by its provisions, the US-based giants that conduct the most brazen, wide-ranging, illegal surveillance escaped unscathed for years and years, continuing to spy on Europeans.

One (erroneous) way to look at this is as a "compliance moat" story. In that story, GDPR requires a bunch of expensive systems that only gigantic companies like Facebook and Google can afford. These compliance costs are a "capital moat" – a way to exclude smaller companies from functioning in the market. Thus, the GDPR acted as an anticompetitive wrecking ball, clearing the field for the largest companies, who get to operate without having to contend with smaller companies nipping at their heels:

https://www.techdirt.com/2019/06/27/another-report-shows-gdpr-benefited-google-facebook-hurt-everyone-else/

This is wrong.

Oh, compliance moats are definitely real – think of the calls for AI companies to license their training data. AI companies can easily do this – they'll just buy training data from giant media companies – the very same companies that hope to use models to replace creative workers with algorithms. Create a new copyright over training data won't eliminate AI – it'll just confine AI to the largest, best capitalized companies, who will gladly provide tools to corporations hoping to fire their workforces:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/09/ai-monkeys-paw/#bullied-schoolkids

But just because some regulations can be compliance moats, that doesn't mean that all regulations are compliance moats. And just because some regulations are vigorously applied to small companies while leaving larger firms unscathed, it doesn't follow that the regulation in question is a compliance moat.

A harder look at what happened with the GDPR reveals a completely different dynamic at work. The reason the GDPR vaporized small surveillance companies and left the big companies untouched had nothing to do with compliance costs. The Big Tech companies don't comply with the GDPR – they just get away with violating the GDPR.

How do they get away with it? They fly Irish flags of convenience. Decades ago, Ireland started dabbling with offering tax-havens to the wealthy and mobile – they invented the duty-free store:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty-free_shop#1947%E2%80%931990:_duty_free_establishment

Capturing pennies from the wealthy by helping them avoid fortunes they owed in taxes elsewhere was terribly seductive. In the years that followed, Ireland began aggressively courting the wealthy on an industrial scale, offering corporations the chance to duck their obligations to their host countries by flying an Irish flag of convenience.

There are other countries who've tried this gambit – the "treasure islands" of the Caribbean, the English channel, and elsewhere – but Ireland is part of the EU. In the global competition to help the rich to get richer, Ireland had a killer advantage: access to the EU, the common market, and 500m affluent potential customers. The Caymans can hide your money for you, and there's a few super-luxe stores and art-galleries in George Town where you can spend it, but it's no Champs Elysees or Ku-Damm.

But when you're competing with other countries for the pennies of trillion-dollar tax-dodgers, any wins can be turned into a loss in an instant. After all, any corporation that is footloose enough to establish a Potemkin Headquarters in Dublin and fly the trídhathach can easily up sticks and open another Big Store HQ in some other haven that offers it a sweeter deal.

This has created a global race to the bottom among tax-havens to also serve as regulatory havens – and there's a made-in-the-EU version that sees Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and sometimes the Netherlands competing to see who can offer the most impunity for the worst crimes to the most awful corporations in the world.

And that's why Google and Facebook haven't been extinguished by the GDPR while their rivals were. It's not compliance moats – it's impunity. Once a corporation attains a certain scale, it has the excess capital to spend on phony relocations that let it hop from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, chasing the loosest slots on the strip. Ireland is a made town, where the cops are all on the take, and two thirds of the data commissioner's rulings are eventually overturned by the federal court:

https://www.iccl.ie/digital-data/iccl-2023-gdpr-report/

This is a problem among many federations, not just the EU. The US has its onshore-offshore tax- and regulation-havens (Delaware, South Dakota, Texas, etc), and so does Canada (Alberta), and some Swiss cantons are, frankly, batshit:

https://lenews.ch/2017/11/25/swiss-fact-some-swiss-women-had-to-wait-until-1991-to-vote/

None of this is to condemn federations outright. Federations are (potentially) good! But federalism has a vulnerability: the autonomy of the federated states means that they can be played against each other by national or transnational entities, like corporations. This doesn't mean that it's impossible to regulate powerful entities within a federation – but it means that federal regulation needs to account for the risk of jurisdiction-shopping.

Enter the Digital Markets Act, a new Big Tech specific law that, among other things, bans monopoly app stores and payment processing, through which companies like Apple and Google have levied a 30% tax on the entire app market, while arrogating to themselves the right to decide which software their customers may run on their own devices:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/06/07/curatorial-vig/#app-tax

Apple has responded to this regulation with a gesture of contempt so naked and broad that it beggars belief. As Proton describes, Apple's DMA plan is the very definition of malicious compliance:

https://proton.me/blog/apple-dma-compliance-plan-trap

Recall that the DMA is intended to curtail monopoly software distribution through app stores and mobile platforms' insistence on using their payment processors, whose fees are sky-high. The law is intended to extinguish developer agreements that ban software creators from informing customers that they can get a better deal by initiating payments elsewhere, or by getting a service through the web instead of via an app.

In response, Apple, has instituted a junk fee it calls the "Core Technology Fee": EUR0.50/install for every installation over 1m. As Proton writes, as apps grow more popular, using third-party payment systems will grow less attractive. Apple has offered discounts on its eye-watering payment processing fees to a mere 20% for the first payment and 13% for renewals. Compare this with the normal – and far, far too high – payment processing fees the rest of the industry charges, which run 2-5%. On top of all this, Apple has lied about these new discounted rates, hiding a 3% "processing" fee in its headline figures.

As Proton explains, paying 17% fees and EUR0.50 for each subscriber's renewal makes most software businesses into money-losers. The only way to keep them afloat is to use Apple's old, default payment system. That choice is made more attractive by Apple's inclusion of a "scare screen" that warns you that demons will rend your soul for all eternity if you try to use an alternative payment scheme.

Apple defends this scare screen by saying that it will protect users from the intrinsic unreliability of third-party processors, but as Proton points out, there are plenty of giant corporations who get to use their own payment processors with their iOS apps, because Apple decided they were too big to fuck with. Somehow, Apple can let its customers spend money Uber, McDonald's, Airbnb, Doordash and Amazon without terrorizing them about existential security risks – but not mom-and-pop software vendors or publishers who don't want to hand 30% of their income over to a three-trillion-dollar company.

Apple has also reserved the right to cancel any alternative app store and nuke it from Apple customers' devices without warning, reason or liability. Those app stores also have to post a one-million euro line of credit in order to be considered for iOS. Given these terms, it's obvious that no one is going to offer a third-party app store for iOS and if they did, no one would list their apps in it.

The fuckery goes on and on. If an app developer opts into third-party payments, they can't use Apple's payment processing too – so any users who are scared off by the scare screen have no way to pay the app's creators. And once an app creator opts into third party payments, they can never go back – the decision is permanent.

Apple also reserves the right to change all of these policies later, for the worse ("I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it further" -D. Vader). They have warned developers that they might change the API for reporting external sales and revoke developers' right to use alternative app stores at its discretion, with no penalties if that screws the developer.

Apple's contempt extends beyond app marketplaces. The DMA also obliges Apple to open its platform to third party browsers and browser engines. Every browser on iOS is actually just Safari wrapped in a cosmetic skin, because Apple bans third-party browser-engines:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/13/kitbashed/#app-store-tax

But, as Mozilla puts it, Apple's plan for this is "as painful as possible":

https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/26/24052067/mozilla-apple-ios-browser-rules-firefox

For one thing, Apple will only allow European customers to run alternative browser engines. That means that Firefox will have to "build and maintain two separate browser implementations — a burden Apple themselves will not have to bear."

(One wonders how Apple will treat Americans living in the EU, whose Apple accounts still have US billing addresses – these people will still be entitled to the browser choice that Apple is grudgingly extending to Europeans.)

All of this sends a strong signal that Apple is planning to run the same playbook with the DMA that Google and Facebook used on the GDPR: ignore the law, use lawyerly bullshit to chaff regulators, and hope that European federalism has sufficiently deep cracks that it can hide in them when the enforcers come to call.

But Apple is about to get a nasty shock. For one thing, the DMA allows wronged parties to start their search for justice in the European federal court system – bypassing the Irish regulators and courts. For another, there is a global movement to check corporate power, and because the tech companies do the same kinds of fuckery in every territory, regulators are able to collaborate across borders to take them down.

Take Apple's app store monopoly. The best reference on this is the report published by the UK Competition and Markets Authority's Digital Markets Unit:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63f61bc0d3bf7f62e8c34a02/Mobile_Ecosystems_Final_Report_amended_2.pdf

The devastating case that the DMU report was key to crafting the DMA – but it also inspired a US law aimed at forcing app markets open:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2710

And a Japanese enforcement action:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/Japan-to-crack-down-on-Apple-and-Google-app-store-monopolies

And action in South Korea:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/skorea-considers-505-mln-fine-against-google-apple-over-app-market-practices-2023-10-06/

These enforcers gather for annual meetings – I spoke at one in London, convened by the Competition and Markets Authority – where they compare notes, form coalitions, and plan strategy:

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cma-data-technology-and-analytics-conference-2022-registration-308678625077

This is where the savvying breaks down. Yes, Apple is big enough to run circles around Japan, or South Korea, or the UK. But when those countries join forces with the EU, the USA and other countries that are fed up to the eyeballs with Apple's bullshit, the company is in serious danger.

It's true that Apple has convinced a bunch of its customers that buying a phone from a multi-trillion-dollar corporation makes you a member of an oppressed religious minority:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/12/youre-holding-it-wrong/#if-dishwashers-were-iphones

Some of those self-avowed members of the "Cult of Mac" are willing to take the company's pronouncements at face value and will dutifully repeat Apple's claims to be "protecting" its customers. But even that credulity has its breaking point – Apple can only poison the well so many times before people stop drinking from it. Remember when the company announced a miraculous reversal to its war on right to repair, later revealed to be a bald-faced lie?

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/22/vin-locking/#thought-differently

Or when Apple claimed to be protecting phone users' privacy, which was also a lie?

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

The savvy will see Apple lying (again) and say, "this surprises you?" No, it doesn't surprise me, but it pisses me off – and I'm not the only one, and Apple's insulting lies are getting less effective by the day.

Image: Alex Popovkin, Bahia, Brazil from Brazil (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Annelid_worm,_Atlantic_forest,_northern_littoral_of_Bahia,_Brazil_%2816107326533%29.jpg

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

--

Hubertl (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2015-03-04_Elstar_%28apple%29_starting_putrefying_IMG_9761_bis_9772.jpg

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[alcrego]

Hi, I've been following you for a while now and just want to say I'm sad to see so many people speaking before they know what they are talking about and unjustly attacking you and the validity of your art (as if their opinion even matters to what you will choose to do?). I also don't like the purely internet-trained AI generated art I see more and more of, but I just ignore it. I have never used the technologies firsthand but I think it should be pretty obvious what you are doing is not in the same category or even context to that stuff at all. I think the best analogy I saw you make was saying "should I also not use a camera [or other technological tools]? It reminded me of how the electric guitar and digital music of any form was looked down on for not being "true art" either. Canvas stretched on a frame, paints and brushes etc are all technological tools and were all new at some point in history as well. I enjoy your art and how you use the computer itself to take your art to new levels. Some of the best modern musicians (imho) understand that the medium and the machines they use to record to that medium are like another member of the band itself and they embrace this and cognitively, purposefully utilize it to further their creativity. I think you are doing a very similar thing with visual art (and music) and just wanted to say I have been enjoying your stuff on here for months now. Don't listen to the haters. :)

Deep gratitude for those who can see and understand further than the noise... Truly! 🙏🥹

And the same here, I neither like the internet-trained AI generated images (I wouldn't even call it art), but in the same way I don't like the 'artists' that steal and copy styles of other artists (as it's happening to me since more than a decade ago), but this is ok, no?🥹👍

People should start to understand that for some (most) AIs are a way to obtain an image, but for few others is a tool to create our own resources/ingredients that later we mix/cook/modify to achieve our own ideas, in the same way we ALWAYS used images from the web, magazines, ads, street, etc... to achieve our ideas.

Thanks a lot for these words, and don't worry, it's funny for me to 'listen haters' bc they NEVER had idea about what they talk about. Those who know what is this about can have a respectful, deep and meaningful conversation, and despite sometimes I don't agree, I totally can speak with them.

Big thanks!!

[elderwisp]

hi! Im so sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, I've looked for answers for this before so I'm just not sure,,

i absolutely adore your sims and your story! Its completely inspired me to create a story w/ my sims as well! the only thing is I'm quite overwhelmed with it all and I don't know where to start :(

do you have any tips? Whats your process? there's so many things to use and I'm just curious what you use! Thanks in advance and no pressure to answer if this is the wrong place :))<33

HAI :D OMG EXCITING <3 no worries! my inbox is always open for assistance and i'd love to help! here's a bunch of tips ranging from writing to technical to artsy stuff:

the start:

⟡ i should preface this story did not begin as one typically would which is say following the example of how to write a novel in a year. my writing style for this project started out with my interest in the characters created. my desire to wanting to know why certain oc's acted the way they did and that's where it all began. what started out as short stories of certain individuals reworked into something much more authentic. this was the hook for me so you gotta find that one sliver of interest and run with it. you can most certainly utilize tools like character sheets, pinboards, storyboards to assist you but i find that if i'm not connected to the story, it's difficult to use them

⟡ with that being said LOL invest the time in fleshing out your character because when you understand how they work, when you believe in them, the easier it'll be in creating scenes and writing dialogue. for me, it's almost intuitive writing for characters to the point where i will easily check myself and rewrite a scene because it didn't align with a certain character

⟡ while the influence of your own ideals/experiences eventually bleed into an oc, it's important to identify that, otherwise a cast of diverse characters eventually feel the same. this was something i struggled with for years which is why i could never really begin until now!

⟡ it's good to ask yourself what sort of story do you want to create. the best question is is it plot driven or character driven? what sort of tone do you want to set? do you want to blend them? i think there's a huge stress on just doing things for fun and not taking things seriously but i do want to challenge others to consider what that might look like for others. sometimes people like to create grand posts or fun slice of life posts and neither is more valid than the other. it's truly up to the author

technical stuff:

⟡ i'm gonna be honest with you, i'm not as organized as i once was in how i go about plotting things however! in the beginning, i would utilize sticky notes with ideas written on them and then shuffle around how i wanted things to play out. now i use a dingy little notebook LMAO but i've heard good things about milanote! as for dialogue, i do use google docs but i do think they're under fire for using your things for ai training or somethin O_O

⟡ i do use photoshop to edit my photos and that usually looks like cropping, color/contrast enhancing and sharpening. i do add dialogue last because when i sharpen it all together, the font looks cwispy! there's this mini tut by @/stinkrascal on how to format the text so it's all even if that's the style you're going for! anyways it changed my LIFE lmao! right here are some free alternatives. also this is an older post in which i shared my process and it includes some tips and tricks with photoshop (you can also see how i used to format text lmaooo)

⟡ knowledge is power. if i find myself really struggling with certain aspects, like maybe the logistics of a character, i'll set aside some time to learn from certain authors, commentators or directors. even if it's a short clip of seeing how they approach something as simple as their thought process behind how a scene supported a character to something as small as the significance of Isha's hat from Arcane

misc writing tips:

⟡ ooh! because tessellate is such a large group of characters, it can be challenging to structuring a plot. so i started off by slowly introducing characters rather than all at once. i also break up character plots into arcs but with that comes filler episodes to help space out big moments. i like to utilize filler episodes as bite sized pieces that introduces the readers to newer characters while also allowing there to be breaks in between. those filler posts highlight certain events, ways of living, etc that might influence how things play out in the future. a good example is kai, we're nearing the end of his arc but all of those little moments in between really helped shaped how things played out!

⟡ when i think of conflict, i think of it a lot like a boiling pot. it starts out at a neutral temperature (your foundation), before bubbles begin to form (minor annoyances between characters), steam hissing (the lead up) to an eventual lid popping off (the conflict). the build up is the most important part to the pay off!

⟡ my best piece of advice for darker themes is really understand the topic and stray away from stereotypes as it diminishes a lot of depth in certain subjects as well as does more harm than good. recognize that at the end of the day a weakness does not define a person as they are a person through and through. approach it with compassion rather than judgement.

⟡ i know i know everyone says to read your dialogue out loud and that is incredibly important however while doing that, think about the flow too. as a writer, because we are goal oriented, sometimes dialogue can be turned into what will progress the plot which makes things feel a bit unnatural and sometimes lacking the proper flow. remember to consider the personality of a character. how is a line delivered through a character who is brash versus one who is a bit more reclusive? also! here's a great video about the stiff dialogue in veilguard that shows what unnatural dialogue can sound like.

⟡ remember, comparison is the thief of joy. it's easy to get caught up in recognition and likes. there was a time where i consistently got 3-5 readers and that was it. there are moments now where certain posts are incredibly inconsistent in engagement and sure, it can be disheartening but then i think about the handful of individuals that consistently comment, the specific asks about how a certain post made them feel seen and interact and i remember why it's i chose to write. it isn't the recognition i seek, it's the connection. it's important to have that one thing that gives you the strength to continue because truthfully, things can be inconsistent and that's okay.

the artsy stuff:

⟡ i am a huge fan of cinema, animation and photography. i think consuming a lot of media and art has helped train my eye especially if i feel as if my screenshots are becoming repetitive. it's good to see how different directors go about framing dialogue. comic panels are amazing as well since artists find new unique ways of captivating an audience through levels like coloring, framing, posing and such! it's honestly why i introduced some vertical shots to black out bars in story posts because of that unique angle! remember, media is meant to inspire you! after watching the latest season of Arcane (haven't finished it yet tho) it genuinely relit a fire under my ass LMAO

⟡ different angles, lighting and positioning can help elevate a story. the aesthetics of a story can really add another layer of depth however it's important to remember that it is a supporting role, not the entire role

⟡ i do use my own reshade and i've formatted it to have similarities of a film camera as well as my preference of color correcting. i lean heavier towards contrast, colors and shadows however i always encourage for people to look into what supports their vision the best! the lightroom shader by quint and pd80's contrast/brightness/saturation shader help with color grading in game as they do have sliders that tweak certain colors. the sepia shader is great for adding a cinematic tint but it can conflict with relight and the way the lights are presented. relight of course can add those shadows in lighting. i'll sometimes have two presets, one for up close shots to further shots because sometimes zooming out can create inconsistencies in your preset as things might look to muggy or like a disco ball LOL (ps what helps with that is adjusting bloom if used and messing around with shadows/midtones/highlights/saturation with that lightroom shader)

last but not least, a story is a labor of love, it's a tool in which authors can utilize the pen to their own manner whether it's to communicate ideas or to simply tell a tale. don't be afraid to dive deep into the layers of your story and remember each piece can be important factor but it's entirely up to you as to where you want that focus to be. it does take a lot of courage to start but i truly believe if it's something you cherish, it'll always be worth it!

i do wish you the best of luck! thank you for trusting me enough to give you some tips and tricks! i tried to lean more into the more finite details as i felt like this is what truly helped me throughout the years! <3 also here is a complimentary meme i made:

[aiprotoboost]

Smarter Startup Decisions: The Rise of AI-Powered Validation

Introduction

Launching a startup is no longer just about hustle and intuition — it’s about working smarter, not harder. In today’s hyper-competitive startup ecosystem, entrepreneurs need to validate their ideas quickly, affordably, and effectively. This is where AI-powered validation tools are reshaping the entrepreneurial journey.

Gone are the days of relying solely on gut feelings, expensive surveys, and trial-and-error development. Thanks to advancements in AI-driven prototyping and startup idea validation, founders can now make informed decisions before writing a single line of code.

Leading this new wave is ProtoBoost.ai, an innovative platform that combines AI prototype generation and real-time data analysis to help startups validate their ideas faster and smarter than ever before.

The High Cost of Unvalidated Ideas

A brilliant idea is just the beginning — but not every idea deserves to be built. According to CB Insights, a top reason startups fail is “building a product with no market need.” That mistake costs time, money, and opportunity. Early-stage founders often face questions like:

Will people actually use this?

Is there demand in the market?

Are there already too many competitors?

How do I test my idea without building it?

This is where AI-driven prototyping and validation platforms like ProtoBoost step in — helping founders avoid costly missteps by validating demand, exploring feasibility, and visualizing potential success.

What is AI-Powered Validation?

AI-powered validation leverages machine learning, data mining, and predictive analytics to test the viability of business ideas. Rather than relying on manual methods, these tools gather and analyze vast amounts of data across:

Market trends

Search behaviors

Competitive landscape

Consumer sentiment

Investment patterns

The goal is simple: to confirm whether an idea has potential — and if so, provide insights to refine and launch it smarter.

ProtoBoost: The Ultimate AI-Powered Validation Platform

ProtoBoost is an intelligent startup validation platform built for modern entrepreneurs. It helps users transform rough ideas into data-backed concepts ready for the next stage.

💡 Key Features:

AI Prototype Generator: Instantly generates product mockups and wireframes based on idea inputs.

Startup Idea Validation Engine: Assesses idea strength, uniqueness, and market fit using AI.

Persona Simulation: Predicts how ideal customers would respond to your concept.

Competitive Analysis: Identifies saturation and whitespace opportunities.

Actionable Reports: Delivers investor-ready reports outlining opportunity score and suggestions.

ProtoBoost is designed for both solo founders and teams looking to validate ideas before building, ensuring their startup journey is rooted in real-world data and insights.

🎥 Watch: ProtoBoost Overview

To see how ProtoBoost works in action, check out this in-depth overview video:

This video walks through ProtoBoost’s intuitive dashboard, AI prototype generator, validation tools, and more — giving you a full look at how the platform helps founders move from idea to clarity in record time.

The Role of AI Prototype Generators in Startup Success

A standout feature of AI platforms like ProtoBoost is their AI prototype generator — a tool that automatically creates visual prototypes and user flows from idea descriptions. This bridges the gap between concept and execution.

Benefits of AI-Generated Prototypes:

Speeds up early-stage feedback loops

Helps visualize product concepts without coding

Allows for A/B testing of multiple ideas

Saves money on early design and development

Attracts investors with tangible visuals

For example, an edtech founder might describe a platform for interactive STEM learning. ProtoBoost’s AI can immediately generate a prototype showcasing core screens, features, and user journeys — allowing for faster iterations and investor presentations.

Real-Time Startup Idea Validation in Action

Imagine you have an idea for a fitness app tailored to remote workers. Here’s how ProtoBoost might validate it:

Input Your Idea: Describe the app’s core functionality.

Market Scan: ProtoBoost checks online behavior, keyword demand, and social chatter.

Competitive Map: The AI compares your idea against existing apps and their market share.

Persona Simulation: It simulates user reactions from different demographics.

Validation Score: You receive a scorecard indicating your idea’s viability, risks, and areas for improvement.

All of this takes minutes — not weeks — making it an invaluable tool for early-stage decision-making.

Why Founders Are Turning to AI-Driven Prototyping

In a fast-paced startup environment, founders need speed without sacrificing insight. AI-driven prototyping is now a core weapon in the founder’s arsenal.

Top Advantages:

🔍 Data-Backed Decisions: Validate demand before investing in development.

⚡ Faster Iteration Cycles: Go from idea to prototype in hours.

💰 Lower Initial Costs: Replace expensive design and research teams early on.

📈 Investor Confidence: Impress with clear, validated, and visual ideas.

Founders who embrace AI validation tools not only save money — they gain strategic clarity and market alignment from the very beginning.

Startup Scenarios Where AI Validation Is a Game-Changer

1. Solopreneurs With Limited Resources

ProtoBoost enables solo founders to test multiple concepts, generate prototypes, and receive reports — all without a design or dev team.

2. Accelerators & Incubators

Organizations can use ProtoBoost to quickly screen and support multiple startups in their early stages.

3. Corporate Innovation Labs

Large companies exploring internal innovation can validate ideas and prototypes at scale using AI — before allocating team resources.

4. Remote Product Teams

Distributed teams can collaborate on idea validation and prototype reviews without needing multiple overlapping tools.

ProtoBoost Description Recap

ProtoBoost is a powerful AI-powered idea validation platform designed to support entrepreneurs, product teams, and innovation hubs. By integrating tools for market research, competitor analysis, persona simulation, and AI prototype generation, it offers everything a startup needs to validate and refine their ideas — before committing resources. Whether you’re refining your pitch or preparing for launch, ProtoBoost gives you the clarity and confidence to move forward with purpose.

Final Thoughts

Startup success is no longer about who moves first — it’s about who moves smartest. The days of building without validating are over. With platforms like ProtoBoost, AI-powered validation and AI-driven prototyping have become essential tools for modern founders.

By embracing data-backed decision-making and intelligent design simulation, entrepreneurs can ensure their startup ideas aren’t just dreams — but genuinely viable opportunities ready to scale.

So if you’re sitting on a startup idea, don’t rush into building.

Validate it. Test it. Prototype it. Then build it — with confidence.

And with tools like ProtoBoost in your corner, you’ll be making smarter startup decisions from day one.

Follow us on social media for updates, insights, and success stories:

LinkedIn

Twitter (X)

Instagram

YouTube

Pinterest

[whompthatsucker1981]

real actual nonhostile question with a preamble: i think a lot of artists consider NN-generated images as an existential threat to their ability to use art as a tool to survive under capitalism, and it's frequently kind of disheartening to think about what this is going to do to artists who rely on commissions / freelance storyboarding / etc. i don't really care whether or not nn-generated images are "true art" because like, that's not really important or worth pursuing as a philosophical question, but i also don't understand how (under capitalism) the rise of it is anything except a bleak portent for the future of artists

thanks for asking! i feel like it's good addressing the idea of the existential threat, the fears and feelings that artists have as to being replaced are real, but personally i am cynical as to the extent that people make it out to be a threat. and also i wanna say my piece in defense of discussions about art and meaning.

the threat of automation, and implementation of technologies that make certain jobs obsolete is not something new at all in labor history and in art labor history. industrial printing, stock photography, art assets, cgi, digital art programs, etc, are all technologies that have cut down on the number of art jobs that weren't something you could cut corners and labor off at one point. so why do neural networks feel like more of a threat? one thing is that they do what the metaphorical "make an image" button that has been used countless times in arguments on digital art programs does, so if the fake button that was made up to win an argument on the validity of digital art exists, then what will become of digital art? so people panic.

but i think that we need to be realistic as to what neural net image generation does. no matter how insanely huge the data pool they pull from is, the medium is, in the simplest terms, limited as to the arrangement of pixels that are statistically likely to be together given certain keywords, and we only recognize the output as symbols because of pattern recognition. a neural net doesn't know about gestalt, visual appeal, continuity, form, composition, etc. there are whole areas of the art industry that ai art serves especially badly, like sequential arts, scientific illustration, drafting, graphic design, etc. and regardless, neural nets are tools. they need human oversight to work, and to deal with the products generated. and because of the medium's limitations and inherent jankiness, it's less work to hire a human professional to just do a full job than to try and wrangle a neural net.

as to the areas of the art industry that are at risk of losing job opportunities to ai like freelance illustration and concept art, they are seen as replaceable to an industry that already overworks, underpays, and treats them as disposable. with or without ai, artists work in precarized conditions without protections of organized labor, even moreso in case of freelancers. the fault is not of ai in itself, but in how it's yielded as a tool by capital to threaten workers. the current entertainment industry strikes are in part because of this, and if the new wga contract says anything, it's that a favorable outcome is possible. pressure capital to let go of the tools and question everyone who proposes increased copyright enforcement as the solution. intellectual property serves capital and not the working artist.

however, automation and ai implementation is not unique to the art industry. service jobs, manufacturing workers and many others are also at risk at losing out jobs to further automation due to capital's interest in maximizing profits at the cost of human lives, but you don't see as much online outrage because they are seen as unskilled and uncreative. the artist is seen as having a prestige position in society, if creativity is what makes us human, the artist symbolizes this belief - so if automation comes for the artist then people feel like all is lost. but art is an industry like any other and artists are not of more intrinsic value than any manual laborer. the prestige position of artist also makes artists act against class interest by cooperating with corporations and promoting ip law (which is a bad thing. take the shitshow of the music industry for example), and artists feel owed upward social mobility for the perceived merits of creativity and artistic genius.

as an artist and a marxist i say we need to exercise thinking about art, meaning and the role of the artist. the average prompt writer churning out big titty thomas kinkade paintings posting on twitter on how human made art will become obsolete doesnt know how to think about art. art isn't about making pretty pictures, but is about communication. the average fanartist underselling their work doesn't know that either. discussions on art and meaning may look circular and frustrating if you come in bad faith, but it's what exercises critical thinking and nuance.

[glittercake]

all this AI stuff is upsetting but being really honest, i did used the AI detection tool for some work i know is 100% human (trust the author or it was written pre-2019, which was def before chatgpt)...and chapters or the first 15k characters of the text come out between 0% (great!) to 30% AI (okay, time to look at the text more closely) generated. for works that are are not or could not possibly be AI generated.

i dunno, the two that were 70% to 80% AI generated were easier to clock. but people's hard work being called AI because some random website decided that the sentence "yes, yes, yes" was probably generated by AI is also disheartening. AI fucking sucks but the idea that some random tool known for constantly scraping the web to improve its models (and realistically, AO3 can't stop it, only "discourage" it but the scraper has to choose to respect that, i think) gets to be the one to determine what's human is just as discouraging.

i think you're right to call this out and it's not dramatic at all, maybe im being down in the dumps because now i'm looking at any fic published after 2021 sideways (esp before people knew what chatgpt actually did in the early days). but the state of fandom recently makes me think "why bother trying? im up against the computer or people who think im using a computer" because there's no way to prove i am the human who wrote it without being like 'here, actually this computer says im the human.'

Idk if you saw the recent post i made about this whole thing but it might bring you some comfort as to why we're getting these kinds of results on things we didn't expect.

Just know those detectors aren't always accurate. We should look at this from all angles and consider all possibilities. Ai text detection is but one element of it.

Fics from 2019-ish showing a positive ai result is likely due to reasons i discussed in that post and not because someone slopped it together.

I'm going to continue enjoying fandom the way i always have. I think we all should. We've been at it for too long to let the bots win.

These fuckers will eventually expose themselves because it's never about the joy of writing/sharing for them. It is about instant validation and attention.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/starbucks-2671873357?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR6cA5aqePz1KvFBF9_Io3RzjvvHI7tnBhegD5JRPVFHTl-1mObjnLBCzKySTQ_aem_k7xsKIkUL5w6q0kw8lQeWQ

This is apparently the biggest issue right now. Having to wear a uniform like every other worker. This is why Trump won.

By: Danielle Berjikian

Published: Apr 30, 2025

Starting May 12, Starbucks workers will be required to wear a black or blue shirt, along with khakis or dark denim. This is not something unheard of in the hospitality industry, but many entitled employees are throwing tantrums over this.

[ Continued... ]

--

It's worth remembering that it was a Starbucks employee who went viral in a video crying about how she was rostered for an 8 hour shift on a weekend. This is not the most emotionally stable workforce.

Regarding the dress code, as you can tell from the video posted online, and particularly from the woman with the beard, this is the result of raging, out-of-control narcissism.

They're not protesting something serious like the company not paying them for hours worked, refusing them breaks or unsafe work conditions. They're being "subjected" to a professional dress code consistent with the Starbucks corporate presentation.

The core complaint is that they expect that when they come to work - you know, to do a job professionally in order to earn money and be paid - that this environment must also a forum to "express themselves." They say this explicitly in the video. This is idiotic and the result of children who were never told "no," and who were celebrated for being mediocre, coupled with the bizarre concept of "bring your whole self to work." The idea that work should fulfill all your personal emotional needs, and that failure to accommodate, embrace and celebrate all of the banal and tedious aspects of what you refer to as your "identity" is unfair and even harmful, is detached from reality and needs to stop.

You work to live. You don't live to work.

They think the workplace is about themselves, not about the customers or about the service or about the products, or even just about doing a good enough job to warrant your ongoing employment and income. No, work should be about me, me, ME. It's about my feelings, my validation, my identity, me expressing myself

Let's not forget that this is an entry-level position. These are unskilled jobs. (For clarity, like any job, yes, you do need to use particular skills to perform a particular job, but as far as Starbucks is concerned anyone can walk off the street and learn them.) Which is to say, these people are far from irreplacable. They do not have any leverage.

The real minimum wage is always $0.

Your neopronouns, "gender identity," genital piercings, condescension and ability to get offended at literally anything are not qualifications. Nor are you entitled to a job.

The correct response should be as Netflix did and inform them that if they're unhappy dressing in a professional manner that conforms to the Starbucks brand, then Starbucks may not be the right place for them. You can either meet very reasonable requirements of being dresed professionally and punctual (see below), or you can try to find a place that does let you wear a leather harness and rainbow tutu and arrive whenever - or if - you feel like it. Good luck with that.

https://ceoworld.biz/2024/07/15/gen-z-workers-and-punctuality-in-the-workplace-a-generational-divide/

A recent survey by Meeting Canary, an AI tool for analyzing work meeting behaviors, revealed that 47% of Gen Z respondents consider arriving 5 to 10 minutes late as still punctual.

These unskilled positions are the ones that organizations are already the most eager to replace entirely with AI, touch screens and robots, so throwing tantrums derived from narcissism and entitlement is really not the way to go here.

And no, it's really not surprising that people are completely exhausted and done with this shit.

Shut up and pour the coffee.

[pisceanofinterest]

I've decided not to directly engage with this post (and other posts like it) because I have seen with my own two eyes the way that users like this will absolutely dog pile people for having a different opinion than them... However, I cannot read this and not say something about it.

This post proves how disconnected from reality so many "anti-ableist, pro-AI" users are (yes, this is, unfortunately, becoming an identity group online lol).

As someone with multiple disabilities, I utilize AI -- for example, I use a program that reads books/pdfs/essays aloud to me so I can actually get all of my grad school reading done every week-- however, it is possible for AI to be both a tool to help those with disabilities AND for AI to be harmful to the environment and to artists. I'm no expert on the subject, but I know enough about the environmental costs, and enough about the ways AI is stealing (this user would be so mad I used that word) other people's art to feed it. I also know that AI has been used for decades to help with disabilities. Both of these concepts can exist simultaneously. And, in fact, it's actually a good idea to put these things in conversation.

What is so flawed about this person's post is that they -- like so many people in the world-- do not understand nuance. Everything has to be black or white, "pro" or "anti," and, frankly, it's immature as fuck. There are too many people on the internet trying to make victims of themselves because other people are making VALID AS FUCK criticisms about the ever-expanding use of AI. I'm sorry, but trying to make yourself seem like a crucified victim of a (non-existent) witch-hunt because you're actively denying the harm that AI causes (simply because you cannot conceive of the fact that NUANCE EXISTS) is silly.

This person-- and many other people like them-- are literally trying to create an identity group out of supporting AI. And yes, the foundations of this claim might be because they're disabled or believe themselves to be "anti-ableist" but it's super weird to try to make a minority of yourself because you're mad that people are calling out the ways that the AI programs you use are 1) stealing (because they are) and 2) literally fucking up the environment.

It's giving: "people disagree with my opinion so i'm literally going to martyrize myself so that I seem like I hold the moral high ground when, in fact, I'm incapable of understanding nuance and refuse to have adult conversations about the world."

Please, for the love of god, touch grass. Please try to recognize that, yes, AI can be a useful tool, but also certain kinds of AI are literally causing damage. I'm tired of these lazy, black and white, absolutist arguments that make no sense.

No one is stopping you from using programs that steal artists' work or that harm the environment. Do whatever you want, as you have done. However, that doesn't mean you're not immune to valid criticism for supporting these programs... if you're gonna make supporting generative AI your whole personality (or your blog's whole personality), be prepared to face criticism for it. But I'm also getting the vibe that you WANT people to call you out so you can make little posts like this and further "prove" you're a victim... lol

[crooked-wasteland]

As we're in the topic of AI, I remember my mom once insisting I learn how to use it as she believed all jobs are going to be replaced by machines in the future. When I tried giving my valid arguments to how AI should be implemented without totally replacing people, harming the environment, spreading misinfo (I'm lookin' at you, Google AI!) and stealing information, she just shut me down with "Oh, but you risk being left behind! Remember Kodak? They shut down when everyone started going digital!"

There was this wise man who said "I'd prefer to have AI help me do my chores and reduce the workload but not take over the job I love." As an artist, you know that anything that's made by a human becomes a novelty and more sought after. I remember passing by our local mall and all of the ads had these hollow, generic AI-lookin' CGI graphics. There is just something in them that makes me gag!

Heck, I'd rather look at those corporate Memphis illustrations more than those slop. Again, I wonder if she's even listening when I suggested how AI could be susceptible to privacy breaches. I hate how even Google and DuckDuckGo have AI features now whenever I search for something. Even one of the prestigious art schools such as Gobelins landed under fire for using AI!

For now, AI doesn't seem to be a very promising tool. It's not like digital art or cameras because at least it doesn't feed off data and just makes creating art or taking photographs much easier. At least you get to curate the results by toggling with settings and textures instead of just typing random prompts leading to some sickening random image.

In regards to AI, I know a lot of people have anxiety around the topic. But it's a great time to actually talk about what AI is and isn't.

And what we call AI is not actually artificial intelligence. What we are calling AI is still a highly regulated script of pseudo-reasoning that is impressive on first blush, but quickly shows its debilitating limitations.

For one, large language models are impressive as long as you don't think about it. The hive mind these companies have sought to create fails at the basics due to the fact that this is still just a software program we are talking about. It is utterly useless as a data collection and research tool as it has no idea what is and isn't true. The large language models look impressive. It looks like it's thinking as it goes step by step to “prove it's work” so to speak. But it is just sifting through data, it's not actually thinking. Thinking would be reasoning. It would be categorizing sources based on accuracy, while also taking into account implicit bias of such sources.

Asking GhatGPT to make a pasta recipe, but asking for substitutions to certain ingredients will not yield a surefire result as the computer is not going to understand the difference between a tomato and a lemon as both are acidic fruits. It does not understand the concept of texture or where it comes from. It doesn't grasp the experience of eating food because it is running on an assumption that the ability to taste yields a singular result. That everyone will find a lemon sour and a grapefruit bitter and a cherry tart. But what if you don't taste soap when you eat cilantro? What if lemons are sugary sweet while grapefruits are tart? The machine is never going to be able to account for the experience of sensing.

As such, AI will never be able to portray meaningful art either. The fact that AI has taken up so much of the artistic community's discourse goes to show the issues with art today. People are so afraid of a machine creating something that looks pretty because that's all we make any more. We have commodified and commercialized art to the point of it being soulless. Its only purpose is to appear aesthetically pleasing for an audience who will spend less than a minute on a piece of art we've spent hours to days to weeks working on. But the reason is because our art lacks meaning. Whenever someone praised art on Twitter and claimed an emotional reaction, they attribute their feelings to the context of the source material or the appearance to the art.

When I went to an art museum, the paintings were all very well done, but not all aesthetically pleasing. And the one that stuck with me the most was a painting of four elderly women staring back at me. The only aspect of the painting that is in sharp focus are these women’s blue-grey eyes. And that was intentional. Because I kept finding myself going back to that painting because I kept feeling a strange sense of guilt. These eyes were on me and I couldn’t tell if it was with tenderness or scorn, so I had to keep going back. I felt guilty, if it was with tenderness I was ashamed I couldn’t remember anything else about them. Their faces left my mind the second I looked away. If it was with scorn, I felt the need to figure out what I missed. What quality was in the painting that was leaving me confused about the way these women looked at me.

That’s when I noticed their faces were literally painted in such a way that gave them an almost dream-like effect. The artist played on my brain’s inherent desire to identify a face, and with the eyes painted in such fine detail, the hazy idea of a face was held together in my brain. But I couldn’t say anything else about them without looking directly at them.

And it made me feel, but feel in a way that was slow and contemplative. It made me consider what the artist was trying to say without just googling it. A guess based on our wordless conversation through his medium. Because the real beauty and power that makes art ART is the way you get to interact with it as an individual. It’s vaguely spiritual. You can have these conversations with people long passed, and come to know them through their works.

That isn’t how it is anymore.

When you’re chasing numbers, be it in the form of money or perceived admiration, you inherently lose sight of what got you started: a feeling, a thought, an idea. Computers will never be able to question an idea. Never be able to extrapolate meaning from information or technique. Computers only understand numbers.

The fear of AI is the fear of replacing capitalism and consumerism. All we are thinking about is numbers. Numbers in the price of rent and food. Numbers in the hours worked and days off. Numbers in how we justify our own existence through social media clout and how much we consume with literal numbers. We function like computers, so of course people are scared of being replaced by computers. That they need these computers to stay on the latest operating system.

Only machines are scared of machines.

[titleknown]

So, a new anti-AI-art post is making the rounds because of course it is, and while I have not breached the paywall to read the paper, I do think the summarized version of it the author provides has some holes worth poking.

Past the break, because this gets long.

Anyhoo, their core argument is that AI art people are just capitalists who see art as a profitable object and do not exhibit those four fundamental values of But like... this is just casual observation, but I have seen a lot of those values in the AI art community amongst itself.

They share models and tips on how they use the tool! I rarely see them doing it for lucre! I see creators who've used AI art to integrate into other mediums they've worked with! I've seen people with major motor disabilities welcomed. I have seen authenticity in garbage AI art; in aggregate from singular creators.

There is a reason I say that to make good AI art, you need to approach it like an artist.

And like, AI art has genuine logistical issues that make it uniquely difficult to integrate into communities, the "flooding" that turbofucked Deviantart and the harassment problem that is "spite models,"

But beyond that I think it is not just, as they blithely dismiss, "AI art can be used for good" but I think it is even possible to integrate AI artists into communities that share those values. Because I have seen those values at work in AI art communities.

There are simple things that can be done, like normalizing charging as much for AI art commissions as traditional ones, or normalizing showing one's prompts when possible or observing DNP (Do not prompt) lists and so on!

But there's a desire to put up a wall there, specifically because of the fear of original sin, because of the unique nature of the process and the dubious origins of the programs; even if you didn't pay a dime to use them.

Which like... even if the privacy issues side of things is relevant and one I see validity in, in terms of the issue of "they didn't get permission," as friend of the blog @o-hybridity pointed out when we were discussing this, the assumption of the need for permission to adapt (Which is also what annoyed me in this post) is basically a cargo cult for how IP law treats art, attempting to integrate the framework of IP law into a system of communal production that IP law is more or less designed to kill.

Like, the idea that permission is required for derivative works (A notion also in this post I am very annoyed by) resembles none of how art has actually worked in-practice for all but the tiniest sliver of our species' existence, it's tunnel visioned in a way that ignores; say; the history of things like the blues, or jazz, or sampling, or folklore, or hell even fanfic.

Most art has historically been built on top of other art, without permission, because requiring a contract for every derivative work (Especially those "orphan works" without known originators) would make it unworkable.

IP rights becoming essentially inherent to art at the moment of creation and making those contracts almost entirely mandatory have basically killed a lot of models of how art is made within the commons via that sort of unauthorized-adaptation, and IDK about you, but this is an abomination, and the loss of those modes of production wouldn't be fixed by making it a tier system as the article proposes.

The notion of eternal tiered permission ignores that history of art by way of trying to shove the means of communal production into an ideological framework it can't exist in, due to the collective failure to produce better ways of helping creators make a living.

I would also say the idea of tiers system obfuscates the real issue; which is power not permission; and the need for collective organization of labor-power as well; by way of trying to hybridize it with that folk politics system of contracts that dilutes it, but that's its own digression.

But beyond that very long digression, inherent in that fear of the powerful working without permission, I feel there's a conflation of "small-scale creators shitposting or integrating AI art into their work" and "megacorps that want to replace you with an intern on Fiverr and a copy of Stablediffusion," which I think is best evidenced by the insistence on calling all AI art supporters techbros, conflating the small-scale users of the technology with the makers even though we don't do that with; say; artists who use fucking Adobe and the way they normalized walled gardens in their field.

I am not saying the techbro assholes don't exist or even that they aren't prominent, I probably don't run into them because I hate Twitter, but I am saying there are AI art communities and users that are not Like That, and that it is possible for AI art to exist within those norms.

It is not No True Scotsman because, even if it is not the norm (Which I am doubtful on) it is simply a demonstration that is possible and; with some effort and outreach akin to groups like @are-we-art-yet, doable.

But there's a further problem, that their argument heavily relies on the idea of moral rights, as evidenced by their image morally quantifying re-using art. But moral rights are not usually how we enforce most of these issues in a legal sense, in the US they do not even exist in a legal sense.

So their communal rules, drawing from moral rights, have no real material power. At least, aside from strikes, but the small online artisan community is not protected by them in a lot of ways I think are a part of the problem, but that's its own tangent so moving on.

Their argument on operating procedure, if it were to be truly materially effective by legal means, would be implemented by the mechanisms of copyright, which would be merrily smash those communal rules with a hammer, because those rules are scrublord shit in the world of raw power.

And if they don't... well, a wall can only hold for so long, and I think keeping workers within AI art away from the solidarity that is extremely doable is going to bite people in the long run. For an example of that, see how CGI's disrespect as an artform lead to it being wildly undercosted and used to drive out the union-run practical effects folks.

And they have no tools against it because, again, power does not give a shit about your communal rules, and conflating small creators with the assholes in power isn't helping.

Like, you're making the same argument artisans in things like the Arts and Crafts movement or the Luddites made back during the rise of factories, while forgetting that they fucking lost.

And Karl Marx had some ideas why wrt how mechanization uses raw power to make the displacement of individual artisans inevitable, even if I think the way people use them in response to this issue is... wildly unhelpful and cruel.

Like, it's still shitty to say "You're destined to lose your livelihood unless the revolution (Which we are bad at convincing you will happen) happens, no we won't help lol," as I've seen from those in my community.

I think the solution to traditional/digital art surviving if AI art is the existential threat it says it is (Which I have my doubts about) is unite or die, which dovetails into my ideas on the Creative Commons in a way I need to write on further one of these days.

But like... what I'm trying to say is, in all my experience, the way they describe the values of the art community are fundametally not opposed to the practice of AI art, not the people I have seen, and I think the efforts to treat that as untrue is unhelpful at best.