battlewraith
-
Posts
1355 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Patch Notes
Posts posted by battlewraith
-
-
2 hours ago, Masheenz said:
Other than printing 2D and 3D tech limits digital art can't really be considered actual art until a human has commanded it to create. To me that means the artist maintains creative ownership of the created art.
I don't know what you mean by this. Digital drawing, painting, sculpting etc. is generally done via some input device like a wacom tablet. You do not command something like Photoshop or procreate to create for you, unless there is some AI process involved. Works created by hand are your copyrighted creations, unless you did them as part of employment. Whether or not they are printed doesn't matter. Works created by AI are not subject to copyright as they are not considered to have a human author.
-
10 hours ago, TheMoneyMaker said:
Just you watch, there will be new ways created to scrape devised to get around the safeguards. It'll be a constant back and forth battle.
Yeah sure. If there's a buck to be made, people will attempt to find a workaround. Just because there are laws, policing, etc. doesn't mean that there is no crime.
This is just a piece of the puzzle. It's offering some protection to artists (for free) to make them less threatened just for sharing their work online.
Communities are coming together to support artists and I think sentiment against AI slop is growing.
-
17 minutes ago, TheMoneyMaker said:
There are AI tools specifically devoted to removing watermarks.
There are tools specifically devoted to printing fake money.
The legislation is not a silver bullet to end all fakery that is meant to take advantage of people. The idea would be to reign in the biggest players so that slop is not permeating everything. Then worry about the people removing watermarks.
-
1 hour ago, biostem said:
If you've shared it online, it's probably already been scraped. The hard part will be successfully litigating such an instance of an AI copying one's style or work...
AI image generation is a lot like money laundering. It is, by design, very difficult to seek damages for your work being used in this way.
In the video she's talking about artists, as a standard practice, using software to code their digital work in a way that actually derails the scraping. This obviously doesn't help work that has already been scraped, but it protects new work from being assimilated. This addresses the risk artists now face simply for posting things in online galleries.
-
1
-
-
This is a Ted talk from Dr. Heather Zheng, one of the researchers behind the development of Glaze and Nightshade, free applications that have been developed to thwart AI scraping on people's creative work. This is a good discussion of problems posed by generative AI and the limited options artists have in the face of large corporations assimilating their creative expression.
-
I don't think that anyone is making the argument that propaganda is a new thing that came into being with AI. And the fact that people have fallen for propaganda throughout history is in no way an argument that propaganda or misinformation campaigns are somehow ok or not something we should worry about. The ease and accuracy with which this technology makes the problem worse is something that merits action.
One way of addressing this issue is requiring AI image and video generation applications to watermark content in such a way to make it instantly apparent that the thing being shown was generated via AI.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Gobbledygook said:
I'm just going to jump in here real quick.
Some of us are good artists. I can draw anything I can see.
However, I have aphantasia and can NOT visualize anything in my head.
I can't even visualize my kids faces.
But using A.I. I can use words to describe what I want something to look like.
It's a huge benefit for people like me.
I don't have any condition like that and despite being able to draw reasonably well I would not be able to sit down and draw my family members.
Most artists don't just sit down and draw something directly from their mind. Most people do sketches, preliminary studies, work from reference, etc.
-
On 11/2/2025 at 11:46 PM, Excraft said:
Propaganda and misinformation have been around since the written word.
And the extent to which human societies have progressed has largely involved fighting against these things. The fact that AI technology lends itself so well to propaganda and misinformation makes those issues more of a concern, not less. It's gasoline for the fire.
Imagine someone built a robot that randomly started killing people and someone shrugged and said "well we've always had murder."
-
I was out of town for a month, so didn't see the last two episodes until a couple of days ago.
There were a lot of things I liked about the show, but I think it suffered from everything being sort of shoehorned into this Peter Pan theme--to the extent that interesting issues, characterizations, ideas, etc. were just overlooked or discarded.
My main gripes:
--I don't buy that these hybrids would remain childlike for long. I think they would develop really quickly and in ways that would probably seem unexpected or counterintuitive to the technicians. The closest thing we got to that was the character that became convinced she was pregnant, but that wasn't allowed to play out. There's also no explanation why Wendy develops super hacking skills and the ability to talk to xenomorphs while the others are hanging out throwing pebbles in the pond--other then keeping things in line with the Peter Pan motif.
--Nearly every human or humanoid character in the series possessed the self preservation instincts of a potato. It's one thing in the original film when you have a group of space truckers encounter an alien, while being mislead by an android. It's another when you have trained people who know they're dealing with dangerous lifeforms exhibit sustained incompetence in dealing with them.
--At the start of the series, everyone is speculating that the hybrids will lead to great discoveries such as faster than light travel. By the end, Boy Kavalier tells them "you're just floor models!" Wtf?
By the end of the episodes, I really didn't find myself rooting for anyone with the exception of eyeball creature. I do think it's interesting that the people ultimately responsible for the situation are trapped at the end. It could be interesting to see them have to put their heads together and think of a way to turn the tables on the hybrids. However, the genius made stupid decisions throughout and I don't have faith that the writers would actually redeem him. I was also convinced that Kirsh wanted to end humanity, but I guess that's not the case.
It did inspire some dog costumes this year:
-
On 10/17/2025 at 11:15 PM, Silver Lancer said:
I uploaded a screeshot into Grok Imagine and I love the way it turned out.
Why are you posting this stuff here instead of the AI art thread?
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Excraft said:
Cool! So you're sending money to the families of all the artists who created the superhero genre this game is based on?
If it was identifiable as their distinct creations, yeah they or the IP owners would expect compensation --hence rules in this game about using copyrighted characters. Beyond that, this argument is just silly. Nobody owns genres, despite the fact that they may have been popularized by certain creators.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Excraft said:
Exactly. Bob Ross learned (some say he "stole") from Bill Alexander. Should Ross' estate pay the Bill Alexander estate for any money Bob Ross made off of using the wet on wet technique? Is any artist today who paints impressionistic style paintings forking over any money to Monet's estate? I guess its acceptable for one artist to copy another artists' style or work and sell it for money because they're all artists, so that's makes it ok.
This is a weird argument. People get sued for copyright infringement. You can look into court cases and see what types of things constitute infringement.
A style or technique alone is generally not something that an individual owns (eg. Monet doesn't own impressionism).
-
5 minutes ago, biostem said:
You really don't know what automation is, do you?
You come across as someone who doesn't understand art production or automation in this context. If I crop something, either physically or digitally, I'm making a decision and taking action on it. Digital work is definitely more flexible, but so what? You think artists don't make changes on physical paintings or drawings? You're fixating on one aspect of the process of image making and thinking that makes it equivalent to AI, that's ridiculous. You give AI some tokens and it gives you results based on what it's model thinks those tokens mean. You have no hand in the actual image making.
18 minutes ago, biostem said:Some people are just not capable of certain types of art, so use various tools in order to achieve their ends. It is no different than using a long lever to lift or move something that you couldn't move otherwise. Do you complain when a computer program scans your registry for errors instead of having to go through it manually? Do you complain if an automatic transmission "robs" the driver of "developing" that perceived skill? Art programs literally "do the work for them" - again, it's just the degree to which it does so that you have a problem with...
You can make all these inane comparisons all day long but it's pretty easy to demonstrate the difference here. If you can't draw at all--Photoshop is not going to help you. All those layers and undoes will not make a difference. But you could go to Midjourney and tell it to make a portrait in the style of Norman Rockwell and it will do just that.
23 minutes ago, biostem said:And most artists cannot learn without "scraping" the methods and techniques of those that came before them.
The scraping involves breaking down the formal characteristics into a kind of vector math that is associated with tokens and filtered through a model. It's actually nothing like how a human artist actually learns and it's completely contingent on existing work that people have done. The AI doesn't ever learn anything and it can only be derivative because it's doing a pastiche of datapoints from it's dataset. Non artists trying to defend AI scraping don't understand the difference between that and a human being having influences.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, biostem said:
Actually, they are. You can undo something you don't like - automation. You can have it save your work at set intervals - automation. You can change colors, layers, hide some objects, and so on - all tasks you could not do by hand - all automation. They are different degrees of automation, but in the end, it is a person providing input and the computer processing that input to produce a result. You are just unhappy with the degree to which AI performs those tasks vs what you have deemed acceptable.
Non-destructive editing is not automation. The only thing that you mentioned that would qualify would be auto saving, assuming you were using an application set up to do that.
Undoing something you don't like is automation...really? So my pencil is a form of automation because it has an eraser on the back?
Computers run automated processes to execute code. That doesn't mean that non-AI digital art applications are automated to create art or do editing. Any more than the gears that automatically turn on a bicycle mean that it's self-propelling.
AI is bad for artists, actors, musicians, etc. It robs people of the benefits of actually developing artistically instead of having something do the work for them. Fortunately it's not about what I deem acceptable. Most creatives hate it and it cannot function without scraping their work. Even non artists are getting tired of the slop and fake videos of cute animals bouncing on trampolines, etc.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, biostem said:
Take the actual physical photo and edit it without a computer, like people used to do...
Both would be examples of me editing a photo. Neither are automated processes.
Same with art. I can draw on a piece of paper. I can draw on the computer as well. Neither case is automation.
-
1
-
-
Just now, biostem said:
Just as cars automated tasks that horses or other such beasts of burden used to perform, Photoshop and other such tools automated manual art/editing techniques. AI is just the next step in that evolution.
Wow, as someone who has been using Photoshop since the 90s, I didn't know it automated art and image editing. Maybe you can point out the hot key that will tell it to do my work for me, I must have missed it somehow.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Krimson said:
I was there when the market for bow-legged waifus fell out at DeviantArt. None of the artists I know are blaming AI for anything because they have ability. Also, why is it that people ONLY started caring about artist compensation AFTER generative AI came out?
Compensation for artists has been an issue for a long time. The concern with AI is not simply about compensation, it's about your creative output being used to train an automated process that is intended to replace the need for people like you. Most anti-AI people aren't focused on blaming afaik. They are just trying to keep AI content out of their communities and are focused on supporting creative people and not tech companies.
1 hour ago, biostem said:No one mourns for the buggy-whip salesmen...
Fallacious comparison. Technological development leads to specific goods and contingent services becoming obsolete. The type of AI being discussed is an automated process that seeks to replace the creative labor of human beings in general (ironically by scraping vast datasets of human creative output). So the logical extension of your statement is "no one mourns for the creative people."
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Krimson said:
Don't worry about the Anti-AI crowd, not even a little bit. All they do is make comments but otherwise they do nothing. They have no organization, no lobbyists, no funding, no plan, and no clue. They'll make comments about AI wasting water, while eating rice and beef.
The Anti-AI crowd are disruptors. They ONLY exist to disrupt while contributing nothing to society. On Reddit they are a dime a dozen.
Ignore the disruptors. No one is going to hold their hands and shut down AI for them.
This is one of the craziest AI takes I've ever read.
The anti-AI crowd are mainly artists. They are the ones who actually create things for the society. And they actually do have a plan--don't indulge in this garbage. Try to protect your work so that it isn't laundered through an AI process that some company will profit off of. Etc.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, ThaOGDreamWeaver said:
Update.
Now, there’s been some talking around on these boards before as to whether box office may or may not be the best indicator of how good a movie is.
But.
If current numbers are anything to go by, Ares will open with around $38m over the four-day holiday weekend.
Which is about $5m behind Tron:Legacy from 2010, and $1m behind… Morbius.
…ouch?
Without a serious pickup over the next few weeks, this will leave Legacy as the only one of the three to hit that magic 3x breakeven point on release. (The 1982 one ran it very close, but the Mouse made much more than the movie on merch.)
By contrast, the album is mostly favourably reviewed and hitting the top end of charts all over the shop. I don’t think it’ll become as iconic as the Daft Punk one, but it’s not quite as warm/cuddly/chillout spa zone friendly as that…
The majority of the “good” reviews I’ve seen said something like “it’s an awesome album that was released with a movie.”
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, macskull said:
At the end of the day, this game has never been very difficult which tends to attract a certain type of player, very few of whom are interested in PvP. Hell, go into almost any PvP-related thread outside of the PvP section of the forums and you’ll find people who are outright hostile to even the idea of PvP even though this game’s PvP has always been entirely opt-in
I think there is some sort of power fantasy dynamic that is at play here—the degree to which a lot of players got personally offended if their character was defeated is crazy.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, JayboH said:
Yeah the aggro limits was the point. Do you think Captain Fabulous is still upset that he can't play the game that way anymore?
I don't know, why don't you ask him?
Nerfs kill people's fun. Usually in service to some overarching view of balance. The people that left over ED probably had other complaints and ED was the straw that broke the camel's back. And they were probably right to do so.
We have hindsight now. We also have confirmation bias. If you're still here posting, you probably favor a finely balanced, predictable, more of the same kind of game experience.
-
4 hours ago, JayboH said:
The absurdity of Invul tankers aggroing an entire map of Warwolves...
Pfft…
The absurdity of an invuln scrapper herding the whole map.
Which was a blast. Fun times. Some of the best times involved things being out of wack.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Rudra said:
But why does it also affect the character's teammates and pets? Because they are following the character's example and striking at the same point on the target, emulating your movements to avoid being hit, and following your lead to hit targets they would not be able to find without your guidance.
Riiight. And when you have multiple characters with these powers on a team, the group essentially becomes synchronized K-pop dancers with crime fighting choreography.
This is no more or less goofy a post-hoc rationalization than what the OP was describing.
The name of the game at this point is powerset proliferation. The fact that something exists elsewhere is not a reason to prevent it from occurring elsewhere. Because something like focused accuracy is available in a patron or epic pool doesn’t mean players shouldn’t have more options.
Even is this was something like a single target version of the leadership pool—that would be interesting. As Beet already suggested, I’d like to see something like this being an avenue for debuff resistance.
-
1
-
-
I think the scene in part helps define Metamorpho as a character. I doubt many people watching that movie know him. The whole sequence tells us something about his powers and that he has a moral tipping point, at which he will risk further separation or even harm to his child in order to take a chance on Superman.
How artists can protect their work from AI
in Art & Multimedia
Posted
An analogy would be a city where everyone leaves their doors unlocked. Thieves can just walk in and take things. That has been the situation with scraping.
Now that same city suddenly starts locking the doors. That doesn't stop thieving, but it raises the level of effort that thieves have to commit to in order to do the theft. That makes a difference and it also helps other types of initiatives have meaningful impact.