#unless you're using AI

[genericpuff]

this is the funniest fucking thing i've ever seen

[wahoo-stomp]

I spent five years coming up with unique ways to photograph the same group of plushies to help tell a story.

You don't need AI to help you be creative, you're just being lazy and want brain chemicals without doing any of the work or respecting the people who put time and effort into it.

[muirmarie]

your tags about the shore leave planet and the nexus gave me brainworms, too. do you mind if i write a story about it? it would be an x reader because i'm obsessed with kirk. i haven't written anything in a very long time, but i was struck by something when i was at work today.

Hey! Absolutely - I'm writing a mcspirk fic based on my tags for my "create or destroy" prompt for my mcspirk bingo card, but I'm always up for anyone writing their own version of any of my little tag spirals haha - the only thing is when they're very specific ideas like this, I'd appreciate if you link to the post/credit me! (that's mostly so ppl don't think I'm copying you if my fic comes out later (likely) lmao)

That goes for anyone reading this btw - I def appreciate you asking, but as just blanket permission for anyone reading this, you don't need to ask me - if you feel inspired, please go for it, just credit and link if it's for a specific idea/plot!* (if it's just broad tropes, don't credit me, that's just collective fandom spit-balling haha)

You might wanna check with @trek-tracks as well, though - I checked with her to make sure she didn't mind me writing my version, since it was her initial idea that got me going!

Good luck and happy writing!! <3333

[smile-files]

obviously i haven't been on character.ai in a billion years but the fact that i've ever used it at all makes me worried that people have made chatbots of henry that horribly mischaracterize him

[venacoeurva]

People using voice AIs to make songs and whatnot. You weaklings, develop and foster actual skills not based around commodifying actors and artists into soulless imitations, without their consent or compensation for them no less, and learn to remix and sample official lines like memes of old for yours or so help me

[alicepao13]

There is one comment that I read which annoyed me and I tried to let go without mentioning it but, you know what? The poster didn't think of keeping their thoughts to themselves about it, and it's the second time this exact thing is happening in relation to one of my shows, so what the hell.

Because of the anti-AI sentiment and discourse, some of which is justified and some completely unhinged (example: if you've ever bullied disabled people online for using it to make their life easier, please rethink your life choices and touch some grass), I'd think that people would be more careful who they're accusing of using AI in art. Turns out, people are not careful.

I've read quite a few "this must have been made with AI" false accusations lately but I did not expect someone to suggest that they used AI on Hudson and Rex. On footage that has already been filmed years ago, no less, and re-used in the new intro. Most of these scenes, including footage that had been used for a S4 promo, are not new. I assume that the use of the footage from S4 is what's confusing here, along with some not-so-smooth transitions and slow motion, which is something I found jarring as well. As a fan of the show, I don't need to know the technology to say that this wasn't due to AI. But as a person who has always tried to keep up with technological advancements and understands some of the AI technology, and as an amateur (non-AI) video editor, I can say that there was no AI use anywhere on that intro.

To people who have no idea what is or isn't AI or don't know much about film/tv/video making: Please don't make accusations like that. It's that simple. And think before you make a post. Posting an opinion presented as fact on a social medium, whether you realize it or not, is like saying something out loud in a crowded (or less crowded but certainly not empty) space. Someone is bound to see it sooner or later. And in a small fandom, it's actually more likely for someone to see it, even though the number of eyeballs is likely to be small, because content is scarce and your post will not "disappear" amongst an influx of other posts.

[catboyrightsdefender]

personal pet peeve: when ppl add a (bad) image description to an artwork that isn't theirs

[blinday]

I am of the opinion that AI works, but. You gotta use it right. If you're an artist, or want to get into art, generating images is not gonna get you there. It might get you really good at describing things, but not at drawing. Like many things before, AI is a tool.

You have to use it as such. You can ask for help when doing research, but just like in any other case, you have to fact check. You want to study a subject, you ask for book recomendations, not the summary of the thing. It's not about having it do things for you, it's about optimizing your work. The problem isn't the ai itself, it's just that stupid people use it for stupid things.

Why are you using chatgpt to get through college. Why are you spending so much time and money on something just to be functionally illiterate and have zero new skills at the end of it all. Literally shooting yourself in the foot. If you want to waste thirty grand you can always just buy a sportscar.

[snekdood]

ppl used to try to make fun of me for using zoo tycoon as a reference for animal shit and idk man like.... the game is literally built off the idea of educating you, it literally has an encyclopedia that tells you not only about the animals but also about the plants too. yeah its a tycoon game but thats only if you focus on it in that sense, personally i dont, I've always liked playing it to learn more about the behaviors of animals. sure things are generalized here and there and not 100% accurate- partially bc it was made in the early 2000's and we've probably acquired more info since then, but regardless its still pretty solid and taught me a lot about certain animals growing up, which other tycoon games dont really offer... anything teach-worthy.

[stellamusing]

Currently applying for jobs in tech and LITERALLY EVERY LISTING seems to have some mention of how they use *~AI~*

Dear god please let it DIE already

[razehider]

this doesn't seem to be widespread knowledge around here yet but there's a big trend among dogshit content scraper accounts to grab a real photo (usually of ✨Aesthetic Nature™✨ or something similar, which is why it's relevant to me) somewhere, and recreate it using AI to avoid crediting the photographer. this can even trick people who are somewhat familiar with the subject matter if they're not paying attention but looks incredibly wrong upon closer inspection

here is some complete garbage as an example. because these "photos" are not completely made up by AI, people into spiders know the species and will recognize their features without looking closely, getting tricked in the process. if you know spider anatomy and look closely though, both of those look like utter abominations. the original photos these two were based on are here and here, by the way

these just so happen to be things i'm familiar with and i would probably get easily fooled by AI recreations of plants or fish or whatever. my point is that if you're not an expert on everything that exists you're not immune to these, so i would probably recommend caring about photo sources unless you actively want to look at this repulsive trash

[metalgearsolid3pussy-eater]

this is one of the stupidest takes i have ever seen about ai, the current ai we're using (LLMs) are not going to ever be capable of human-level intelligence for one very simple reason; they cannot independently create anything new. it's all derivative to some degree. personally speaking i don't think humanity will ever create a human-level intelligence because we've destroyed the fucking planet and won't, as a species, love long enough

a lot of people don't like AI and that leads them to claim that it can't possibly work, which is silly as they don't have any good reason to believe that and we know for a fact that human-level intelligence is possible because we've seen humans do it.

technically we don't know that superhuman intelligence is possible as we've never seen that before (although we have seen it in specialised domains, like chess, go, general recall and so on), but I have a hunch that there are machines that can think better than humans can as they aren't subject to the same design constraints, can be built from alternative materials, don't need to eat, their brain doesn't need to fit through a human pelvis, etc.

however even if we can only make a machine as smart as Einstein then that would still be pretty cool, I mean Einstein couldn't figure out quantum mechanics but it would be neat to have an Einstein available on demand to tutor you at school or handle your customer service requests or whatever it is you needed.

people who don't like AI also claim that it will destroy the environment, which is unlikely, not least because we know that AI doesn't need to consume more resources than people do and probably a lot less: you should be able to run a couple of Einsteins on your laptop and you're already using that now for sillier things.

another claim is that the companies currently pushing AI will lose money, and that's more plausible as companies lose money on big projects all the time; but it seems like a good outcome for everyone else? let overly optimistic investors fund the research and development of AI while we all get the benefit, that's great!

of course the ultimate fear is that AI works too well and the people who own it now end up owning everything else too, the smug bastards, but wealth disparity is a problem unrelated to AI and one that we should already be trying to fix right now.

it's important not to base your political activism on false claims as they can discredit your platform; the best reason for doing something is ideally true.

we have had ample warning that human-level machine intelligence is coming -- it was inevitable as soon as electronic switches were developed, and Turing's famous paper on the subject turns 75 this year -- but people have resisted the idea in the same way that they resist the implications of humans being assemblages of molecules that can be analysed mechanistically, a resistance that compromises their comprehension of the world and their ability to shape it.

[chromegnomes]

the most frustrating thing about AI Art from a Discourse perspective is that the actual violation involved is pretty nebulous

like, the guys "laundering" specific artists' styles through AI models to mimic them for profit know exactly what they're doing, and it's extremely gross

but we cannot establish "my work was scraped from the public internet and used as part of a dataset for teaching a program what a painting of a tree looks like, without anyone asking or paying me" as, legally, Theft with a capital T. not only is this DMCA Logic which would be a nightmare for 99% of artists if enforced to its conclusion, it's not the right word for what's happening

the actual Violation here is that previously, "I can post my artwork to share with others for free, with minimal risk" was a safe assumption, which created a pretty generous culture of sharing artwork online. most (noteworthy) potential abuses of this digital commons were straightforwardly plagiarism in a way anyone could understand

but the way that generative AI uses its training data is significantly more complicated - there is a clear violation of trust involved, and often malicious intent, but most of the common arguments used to describe this fall short and end up in worse territory

by which I mean, it's hard to put forward an actual moral/legal solution unless you're willing to argue:

Potential sales "lost" count as Theft (so you should in fact stop sharing your Netflix password)

No amount of alteration makes it acceptable to use someone else's art in the production of other art without permission and/or compensation (this would kill entire artistic mediums and benefit nobody but Disney)

Art Styles should be considered Intellectual Property in an enforceable way (impossibly bad, are you kidding me)

it's extremely annoying to talk about, because you'll see people straight up gloating about their Intent To Plagiarize, but it's hard to stick them with any specific crime beyond Generally Scummy Behavior unless you want to create some truly horrible precedents and usher in The Thousand Year Reign of Intellectual Property Law

[harbours-lighthouse]

Jason Todd with a gf who isn't good at replying to messages. It's not that you mean to be rude, it's just that you're busy and often you forget about the notification that only lights up your phone's screen for half a second. Besides, if what you're being sent are memes and random tiktoks, then those can wait. But when Jason Todd jumps into the picture? That habit of yours is a problem. At the beginning, you were on top of things, replying in a timely manner—then you got comfortable, and the habit crawled back into your life. The first time you let a message from Jason go unanswered for nearly an hour, you were left with your door hanging off by a single hinge, the wood splintered. You purse your lips together, watching the door sway precariously. Awkwardness bubbles inside your chest, though you're half-convinced it's more of the desperate urge to laugh at the ludicrous situation you're in.

Turning slowly to face Jason with your hands on your hips, you grimace at the tense line of your boyfriend's shoulders and the tightness around his mouth.

"Um...well," you clear your throat. "We know that the door isn't okay, but are...you...okay?" Jason's sigh is laced with a wariness that's bone-deep and you wince, face scrunching as regret stabs through you. You throw him an apologetic, weak smile. "Sorry..." It's safe to say that you put in the effort to consistently answer Jason's texts, purely because you'd rather like your door to remain intact, and to prevent your boyfriend from using his body as a battering ram to get into your apartment.

© harbours-lighthouse 2025 / i do not give permission for my work to be reposted, translated, or fed into ai. all works belong to me unless stated otherwise.

[nyancrimew]

can you explain the ai thing to me as though I were a small child I am in fact very stupid and don't understand what the point being made was supposed to be

the point i am trying to make it that ai is fundamentally a labor issue (and just more broadly a capitalism issue) and should be treated as such, any attempts at trying to classify what makes something "not real art" is a slippery slope leading towards fascism and fundamentally irrelevant in the fight against unethical (uses of) AI. the same goes for any attempts at just making copyright laws more strict, this has never helped any independent artists and never will, at best it'll make any sort of derivative art (including fanart, remixes, collages, etc) basically impossible to do unless you're a massive corporation with an unlimited legal budget.

[maxwellatoms]

Do you think were any kind of specific aspects of the culture, industry, economy, etc that made making cartoons in 90s / 2000s better or worse than trying to make them today?

They're literally different worlds.

As a 22 year old neurodivergent, I was able to pitch show ideas directly to executives. Part of that was because TV Animation wasn't a glamorous profession (quite yet), so the higher-ups were genuinely passionate about the medium. I earned good money for the time and was generally trusted to run my show and tend to the crew. I would periodically be handed portfolios, which I would personally review and pass on to other show runners. For the networks it was always corporate, cutthroat, and ultimately about the money, but as an artist you could still have a voice and make art while being paid a living wage.

The pay for a freelance storyboard in 2005 is almost exactly what it is today, but now you're likely to have less time and be required to do an animatic on top of it. Portfolios are online, and (beyond metrics) you'll probably never know if anyone looks at it or not.

Animation got big. Too big. The executives got "glamorous", then the talent got "glamorous". By then you probably wouldn't get a pitch meeting unless you were a celebrity or knew one willing to be connected to your project. Animation eventually got so big that it popped. And that's where we are now.

Most of the people I know from Kid's TV Animation are currently unemployed. I have been off Jellystone for over a year, and I'm starting to get genuinely worried. Like, "move away to save money" worried. Most of the employed artists I do know are on long-running legacy series, and they're concerned about their futures when/if those series end. Right now is not a fantastic time for "animation as a money-making profession". The "glamorous" part popped years ago.

That being said, there are still opportunities out there. If you're just starting out, apparently there's a planned surge in adult and pre-school animation. It's also a great time (as long as YouTube remains sane) to be crafting your own content. But I think that the time of Big Studio Patronage is over for most of the industry. It's up to the individual artist now more than ever, not only to make but to promote their own content.

Back at the height of Billy & Mandy, we mostly pulled fours and fives in the Neilsen ratings, but we occasionally got a seven. For reference, E.R. consistently got eights. It's difficult to say exactly how many people that actually was due to how those ratings work, but it was a big deal for the time. Millions. Enough people that if I had a dollar for each person that just watched that one episode, I would have been set for life. Now, nobody gets a seven. A four is huge. Back then there were maybe fifteen or twenty channels of programmed content as opposed to the streaming smorgasbord we were all just enjoying (and which now also seems to have popped). Point being, even though I wasn't paid-per-view, I was able to use those views as justification for an eventual raise. In modern times, streaming numbers are seemingly deliberately kept secret. You'll never really know how well your show was doing until it's over. Or maybe never.

In modern times, a million views on YouTube is enough to get you noticed online. It's a lower bar for entry in a way, but you've got to get there all by yourself. Once you're there (hello Hazbin) a network may indeed come and scoop you up. Even if they don't, you can probably make a decent living with numbers like that if you're savvy and willing to take the time.

I feel like I could go on all day, shaking my fist at the sky, gray-ass beard blowing in the wind. Was it better or easier making cartoons in the past? It seemed that way to me, but that was a world I knew. There was no AI to sell you out to, and the media was more of a "Wild West" than it is today. I do think that AI is going to continue to displace artists (and soon others), making it even more difficult to get anyone's eyes on anything at all.

Culturally, we lack the common touchpoints that bonded our society in the 20th Century. I suspect that the media landscape will continue to become more "bubbly" and disjointed unless some powerful force swoops in to mandate a common viewpoint. Those are two very divergent, uniquely tiring futures, each presenting a different challenge for an artist's survival.

Outside of whatever our modern world is, animation was made for a century by photographing drawings. If Émile Cohl could do it in 1908, you can do it now. It's a lot of labor, but maybe that's part of what makes it special.