Posts

@Background Pony #173B
You posted a video that doesn't respect anyone's time, about generalizing an entire group to justify yourself being a scumbag. Here's a quote from someone who watches this vtuber vomit onscreen that was left as a comment. "specifically this clip is her hatred manifest, later in the stream she realized it was specifically women that had been fucking her over, all the guys she'd commissioned had delivered."

Purposefully leaving out these details is clickbait/ragebait that gets more unthinking masses to go along with it, like you. Grow up and stop getting your thoughts from trashy vtubers.

@darkdoomer

AI can't make pixel art.

Not him, but that's no longer the case. Now, it is possible that someone generated dozens or hundreds of images with that model and cherry-picked the very best to post there. That is the norm with these tools.

You know how predictive text works when you're typing, and it uses a statistical model based on things you've typed before and suggests the next word? ChatGPT is like that, but with the whole Internet fed into it. AI image generation is like that, but with pixels.

@Ninjas
you're telling me you are out there getting burnt by ai scammers? kek why the fuck do you spend bits on commissions for?
got some kind of fetish for flaunting over being wasteful?

I get why the namefaggots doing it, its all about building rapport and climbing the "who-knows-who" ladder.
but you don't seem to be that level of cocksucker even for a furfag

@MassiveAutist
>"I agree on that the AI art will not replace artists, not in "two more years", not in even "two more decades""
try the up coming generations, they are being raised with ai slop on the tablets. companies are investing big on ai development so you can only expect things to accelerate even faster.
the very idea that they will spend bits on some random artfag to get a drawing or animation when they can get all that much faster and cheaper with just a push of a button is crazy.

@wren
>this
artfags and ai can perfectly coexist as the bottom line is making more mares, and ya know? doing art for the sake of art?
commissfags should leave their ego by the door and remember that its the market that decides their value.

So at what point would it become more reasonable for a booru to generate an entirely new set of results for your query (prompt) vs storing and tagging every existing AI generation?

@Background Pony #3744
Cool. Not going to listen to your bitching then.

@Background Pony #173B
>VTuber
Eugh
>"I hope you get replaced" 1 min in
There's no way I'm going to listen to this for 30mins. And the fact you have to put someone elses video in a completely different fandom, instead of your own argument I'm not going to listen to you either.

@darkdoomer

@MassiveAutist
i'd take pics like that over absurdly colored AI art no matter the percieved quality. even if it's sjw trash, there is an artist behind drawing it and who will look back one day and laugh at how bad those were, and how things changed.

>will
This is kinda of a bluepilled reasoning, they continue to rot in shitwitter or poosky without improving, in fact their parodies of art seem to get progressively uglier.
No improvement can be achieved if you're a close-minded liberal faggot on a platform that allows you to block anybody trying to reason with you.
I don't recognize twitterina sh"art" as human-made because again, they're subhumans.

in ten years the ai gens will remain the same. and not change. maybe in r00dpi or something, that's about it.

I agree on that the AI art will not replace artists, not in "two more years", not in even "two more decades", because programming as a whole is infested with cheap 75 ICQ subcontinentals and literal faggots, who are useless and would rather ERP how much they like to take anthro futa cock instead of the actual programming.
And the AI art fans are content with just about everything being given to them, no matter the actual quality of it, if it makes them k00m then everything is fine. They're good yesmen, unable to tardwrangle the programmers into actually improving the models, nor to become the programmers themselves and create their own models with blackjack and hookers.

The main problem with AI art on the boorus is that it takes up the space, but the owners could also buy a beefier server, that's up to them I guess.
If you personally don't like AIsloppa, then you could filter it and be done with it.
If we're allowed to have the aforementioned twitterfaggot art, as well as anthro, which is D-O-G-S-H-I-T by design, and eekyoogee with its fugly characters, then the only thing we can do is to nuke or at least heavily restrict bingshit, absolutely nothing good comes from Bing's own image generator.
The personal desires are completely irrelevant in that case.
If it was up to me whatever needed to be archived, I'd nuke like half of the overall images, including like 95% of AI art. But I'm not getting to decide what needs to be archived on an archival website, so…

and most importantly, we are not socialists. let's not be.

Not even the national kind? Ary disapproves.

imagine wanting to delete ponies

@Background Pony #3744
AI can't make pixel art.


@MassiveAutist
i'd take pics like that over absurdly colored AI art no matter the percieved quality. even if it's sjw trash, there is an artist behind drawing it and who will look back one day and laugh at how bad those were, and how things changed. in ten years the ai gens will remain the same. and not change. maybe in r00dpi or something, that's about it.

also on the idea of artists being an elite, being gatekept: yes. as some wise man said, and i agree with him, it's a fact, it is necessary.

and most importantly, we are not socialists. let's not be.

If AI art needs to go, can we also fucking ban twittard """art""" like:

It's not human-made art, because I don't consider twittards human. They're soulless bugmen, who also infuse their content with virtue signalling for approval from fellow retards bugmen and bots. They also NEVER fucking improve their content like any remotely good content creator should do (and I'm saying so as a mediocre smut writer), they piss themselves and block anyone who dares to criticize them, only listening to their bootlickers (again, like-minded, fellow bugmen """artists""" who have no values except virtue signalling). And it's like they're all made in some factory too, producing the exact same artstyle as ugly as their entire beings, circlejerking each other as if their ugly parody of art made by actual humans is comparable to it.
Even the actual AI art is better than that, at least sometimes (rather rarely), if the prompter isn't goonering while generating and choosing what needs to be uploaded, it can be quite good, generic watercolour style present with the majority of models aside.
Unfortunately so, AIfags don't care about the quality of generated images and that's how we get tons of images of Fluttershy having over 9000 deformed butterflies instead of just measly 3, but nicely drawn ones.

@Background Pony #3744
https://youtu.be/4YGgxv44F4k?feature=shared

It's time for me to be le ebil gatekeeper artist again. Generally I agree with what dark says, even if it was a wall. I have used them briefly to see how it works, and I know enough to know there's no artistic process involved. Inpainting which is one of the 'more advanced' ways, is still just a glorified content aware fill with extra steps. Autofills aren't going to make you any better at making art, just a way to quicker cover up the constant mistakes in slop.

@Ninjas
I see this complaint thrown around for ai proponents as one of the most common justifications, but it's never happened to anyone I know. Does this mean it never happens, no I'm sure it can and that's why you check the artists track record. Overestimating happens for a number of reasons, they could be biting off more than they can chew and get paralyzed or just use it as a means to bait and switch, which now that AI generations are a thing… is more rife than ever with scammers who are saying it's not ai generations when it is.

In the same vein as scamming someone out of money by ai generations, ai users are also scamming people out of what they would have paid for. Now there's nothing to stop them from just commissioning a sketch and then using a lora of the artist have it 'finish' the sketch, getting away with murder. Instead of paying for the full price the artist set their worth at. This community-killing-cancer is brought on by ai only. It doesn't come from photographers, 3d artists, 2d artists, vector artists, digital artists, plushymakers, sfm users. Just the ones using "ai" who have no respect for artists or artist communities.

@Background Pony #3CF7
Tracing AI is another problem, it's often hidden and disingenuous and you won't improve, just stagnate if not just be an outright fraud always trying to keep up the lie. It's common in AI users. Even studying ai generations will get you further than just tracing them, but studies take longer and ai kiddies want everything now.

Pixel art can be really impressive, or not at all it's up to you what you do with it and how far you take it. On the other hand AI use is never impressive. The dope hit is a mental con for people who can't even imagine anything to think they're seeing what they imagined when the prompt is done. And then the cons continue when AI users call it art, so they can con others into buying into it. (See the paragraph above about how ai users con the community)

@darkdoomer
You aren't wrong.

I tinker with Stable Diffusion. I use the inpainting tools to force it to redraw certain bits or add things in certain portions of the image. I don't call any of that, or the result, art. It stimulates my horrible monkey brain and gives me a dopamine hit when I can click the orange button and see titties. That's the beginning and the end of it.

I also draw, badly. I have been drawing, badly, for a long time now. I do sometimes use SD to generate reference poses, when it comes up with people who don't have extra heads or seventeen fingers. I have a few times pasted the input of SD into Krita to trace in a new layer and color with the bucket tool, because I am a talentless lazy person. I don't do that much. More of what I do falls under the category most call "pixel art," including a little animation. Maybe that's art. I don't know. A few days ago I spent a day making a 75 frame animation. Is it not art because I copied and pasted stuff instead of hand-drawing each individual frame? I'm being a dick here, I know.

My own definition is that art is a medium for communication, from the artist to the viewer. Art has a message. ("I'm not here right now, please leave your message at the beep.") Nothing I do is art. Even the things where I place every pixel manually are just things I thought would be funny. I don't think of them as art, and I create them.

But then, who does create art? Who uses the medium for a message, for a story?

@Hazaplan
bro is nelchmaxxing

@wren
I'm g-gonna nelch I'm nelchiiiiiing~

As both a goddamn furry who has gotten burned by sheisty commissions on several occasions, specifically artists who's finished product neither reflected their previous works nor was what I fucking asked for, and as a person who WANTS artists to get paid fairly and get all the recognition they deserve, it's a complicated issue that
A. isn't going away, and B. shouldn't imo. Would that there was a way to make a global filter for ai, but Appul is't wrong. Yes, Ai generated art IS soul-less, thats why its a good tool for brainstorming and rough draft work. You don't go to an Ai for the finished product, you go to it to decide what yiu want the finished product to be. But with all due respect, I really hate spending money to find out that the artist I commissioned either can't follow instructions, overstated their abilities/english comprehension, as well as a host of other potential issues.

nelch is peak

@Background Pony #3744
>Holy autistic wall of china text batman!
Hold my beer,


@Megalith
Thanks for asking, I'm going to develop, and I can expand.

1. AI generated is automated edits
AI-generated images rely on training data derived from existing works, of course all of this is done without the consent of the original creators. If you know one artist who consent, if any artist consent to be trained on, let me know, the current number is 0. These datasets scrape art from countless artists, turning styles, compositions, and chunks of images into a file so messy not even its maker can know how it works. This is not inspiration, it’s theft, as the machine cannot create without consuming the intellectual property of others. Artists invest years refining their skills, only to have their work sampled by a machine that produces derivative knockoffs. Imagine claiming a collage made from stolen photographs as original work. That’s the level of intellectual dishonesty at play here. At best they are editors, never an artist. Not even a commissioners, you don't own AI generated art. You own what you create, including fan-made works.

2. Devaluation of manmade art
Art has intrinsic value because of the skill, effort, and creativity invested in it. AI generation is effortless. You enter words that describe an image and the software will patchwork things without a touch of your mouse just like any Pony OC generator or game screencap, don't defend it like you had the idea to put 4, 5 words aligned to form an image and let the bingo machine roll. This is not work, this is not a creative process. We would be fine if it remained like this, a niche, a meme generation machine for some people having fun and keeping it personal or on some dedicated threads. Most AIsloppers does but a growing majority (big word here) don't have that discipline or ethics, or self criticism. Its proliferation dilutes the significance of authentic art, art with a message, leading to a race to the bottom where quantity trumps quality. This saturation diminishes the appreciation of real artists, and what they want to communicate, artists whose works are now forced to compete with algorithmic outputs that lack originality or artistic interest. Furthermore it has an impact on free speech. Artists deserve free speech and AI is the trojan horse that drowns that free speech in tons of artificial, mutilated mare butts.
See it like a valuable information lost in a cloud of fake news. Imagine you have 50 articles about humans causing global warming, and one written by a scientist who studied the solar activity and found a correlation that explain the solar cycles, another one explaining with data from SOHO how this activity has an influence on global temperatures, while the masses will tell you «No, man-made greenhouse gases are the issue, look, there are more articles by some phd student with blue hairs !» This is where we are right now.
Hosting such content devalues the platform and disrespects the artists who built its reputation, and those artists put trust on us to host and preserve their art. This is what engaged me in joining this site and serve them the best I can. I know this is the same for all the staff here.


3. About filtering AI generated slop
Claiming that users can simply "filter" AI content ignores reality. Barely 1% of the users use filters. Or even care about the tags. This is our role to decide what we promote, I'm in favor of making it a default filter, anyone who don't have his dose of mare butts can enable them by unfiltering all AI stuff. Most visitors don't even know what AI art really is and from the thumbnail won't even make a difference when browsing.

4. Economic impact
Artists for most, work and provide art for free, but many find welcome to be able to sell their art and I encourage them to do so, especially in difficult economic times. AI-generated slop undermine this, providing these for nothing or even at some price, bypassing the need for skilled labor. Just with that it discourages artists to have the motivation to make more art. Myself I never seen this as a serious competitor hoping people are not that retarded and notice the difference but no. Artists who pour effort into their work, now face competition from users who generate images with no skill or effort. If it were made with a cheaper labor but original content I would salute the effort, and would get that technique, the problem, see chapter 1, it's theft. And so far we are still in a capitalist economy, with its rules, and one of these rules normally sanctions theft, another one secures private ownership. One more thing on this topic, AI users encourage other AI users to sell AI generated slop and scam people into buying «commissions» (prompts) for cheap. Are we really encouraging such a submediterranean method ?

5. You will never be an artist.
The notion that AI democratizes art is a fallacy. Art is not a democracy. You are not entitled to have something for free. Art or design or many things analogue to creative domains requires skill, vision, and an understanding of techniques and a multitude more of parameters the AI or the average joe cannot comprehend. AI users are not artists; they are operators of a program they did not even code or they barely understand. They lack the ability to discern flaws in their outputs. Anatomical errors, unnatural lighting, or compositional inconsistencies. These obvious issues are apparent to trained eyes but ignored by those who prefer ease of access with genuine creativity, and this is obvious in the output result. They don't even see value in their generated art, they have to make 50 images that are the same and will not regret losing any of it. I have discussed with AI makers too, and asked a few a demo, he don't even look at the output or understand a thing about why the image looks like this. In most cases the signature isn't even erased but have that smooth effect to blend with the background.
It's also interesting when they are asked «Alright I'm going to show you how to draw, it's not hard» and does not WANT to. but insist to show you how to prompt. Spoilers: I take less time drawing something based on an idea than the time it will take for someone to make the image.
Using AI as a model for pose, lighting and more can be interesting and should be aspiring people to draw and create something, just use it as a model, then you can claim the ownership of what you generated, but again we have a generation that don't value effort and have the attention span of a goldfish, unable to work; devoid of culture, or any interest, and this is where I go on the six chapter of this post:

6. AI generation is really here to push a political agenda.
The idea that «anyone can create, anyone can be an artist» is already a fallacy, a growing amount of AI generation fans believe this, like man will believe he's a woman after cutting his dick and taking hormones. This devalues the hard work and individualism that art represents. It reduces art to a generic product, stripping it of its personal and economic value. This aligns with a collectivist ideology that undermines the meritocratic principles of artistic achievement. Art is not a communal resource to be generated at will; it is a reflection of individual effort and talent. What AI users knows they will never have. I would love to take any of them into magma.com and teach em to draw anything, bring tutorial, but again this is elitist, this is too hard, effort is hard. These people want to be assisted on anything, and not make an effort. They don't want to work but expect their minimal wage check to arrive. Your hate about elites won't change a thing, some choose to be part of it and work hard, improve, find ideas, while there are many who don't want you to be better than them and will do everything to discourage you. Hightax the worker who gets up everyday at 6! Behead the billionaires who keeps the country's economy! Replace the privileged artists by algorithms!
Document yourself on the creators and the motives of people who make and maintain AI generated software too. Not the AI or machine learning for research, scientific, industrial, but for little things targeted at a fandom. Normalizing it is stupid, and counterproductive, and will have an impact on how Ponerpics, and other communities are seen. Even if this is built on fun, we must remain serious about the efforts a vast majority put in their work from the /bale/ tier to the guy who will spend hours or days creating a painting for our eyes only, we have the obligation to honor that.

7. The Platform’s Values and the Role of Moderation
Ponerpics was built to support, secure and unify originality creativity and individuality, and resisting against those trying to oppose silencing views of any kind. Allowing AI art to proliferate undermines these principles, turning the site into a repository for soulless, machine-generated content and does not carry any message, any interest. A flood of noise is no different than censorship. Imagine you run a radio station broadcasting information to a totalitarian regime, slamming hard rock and anti woke facts, and the regime put transmitters to counter your signal with noise making your reception impossible. That's what AI generated slop is. Noise masking the genuine message every artist has to pass. Moderation is not about neutrality, it’s about preserving the platform’s purpose, and deciding to affirm which values we support and want to showcase. A neutral stance on AI art is a passive endorsement. Neutrality is choosing weakness. It's voting centrist. It's letting monuments destroyed as «It's none of my business» «I don't do politics» «Everyone does it so it's normal»

The real question is, do you want people to believe you are an artist and believe your art has a message or a value, or do you want to be an artist able to push a message and a value.



As for photography, don't talk about photo either, because snapping an image with a camera isn't art, I don't think a scientific police snapping a crime scene with a $3000 Nikon D5 is here to make art. But knowing how to bracket, depth of field, exposure, aperture, the right ISO value, focusing because you can't trust the motors to do what you see, color balance, color accent, composition, timing, speed, movement, and for being still a noob in photo I tell you there are perhaps many if not more parameters to know in photography than in drawing. And yes it's a lot about the hardware but even a pro can use a pocket camera, and will make with it. When you draw you draw what you have in mind, you print it and eventually correct it. On photo you can't do that, take your wife smiling, one shot she will be looking perfectly happy, one quarter second next shot, you move the camera slightly she will seem moody, depressed and not even understand that after watching the photo. It's about capturing an instant in time, in space, and a lot of things you cannot generate with AI or even draw, these are two complete different things.

You draw, paint, traditional tools or digital tools to create something that does not exist, you take a photograph to stick in the real world and capture the feelings, the vibe or anything of a moment, it's completely different. Graphic design is also completely different but also carries a message too. AI generated images does not carry a message, the only message i want to see from a computer is «All packages are up to date.»

@Background Pony #CBA4
They don't get it they're too stupid or willfully ignorant just leave this site there must be better elsewhere

@Megalith
Holy autistic wall of china text batman!

I can tell you don't know how the real world works, despite your literal bashing your head on the table to get people to listen that every schmuck with a shitty camera should be counted as photography (an art). IF I wanted to be a photographer I would have pursued photography, funny how I didn't though… and nobody artistic or otherwise considers me a photographer, hmm. Elitism? try common sense. And this aren't even about ai use. I can only cringe at what walls I'll see when we go deeper into it.

A casual photographer (Hobbiest) will most likely attempt to photograph something to say. Here's a hypothetical for you using your own definition, putting a camera in the hands of a 40 digit IQ and they clicked it so they are a photographer! To you, yes? That's peak Idiocracy. There's an artistic effort needed in order for something to be an art, almost like the two definitions are closely tied together.

Now I'll address your hypotheticals. Let's ignore the fact if they spent time to learn color theory, anatomy, proportions they probably are more involved in art than just prompts, and wouldn't be prompting…

>Color theory
This is generally useless to prompters, the generations are random picking from a sea of whatever tag is slapped in. Because the models are made from scraping artists who are already good at color theory, so a prompter doesn't have to put a single digit of IQ towards thinking about colors working together, the algorithm in models can just output something that 'just werks'. You can get terrible colors in gens too just part of the norm for this 'art'

>Anatomical knowledge, (realistic proportions).
Now, there's a ratsnest. There's a truckload of terrible anatomy mistakes that are something only aifags will do, because they don't have the knowledge to even know what's wrong or don't care. You can take your pick, they demonstrated they often don't have standards and ai encourages no effort, just gen some abomination that looks flashy, or passable rehash and move on.

Now if they wanted to fix it, are they going to paint over it? Lmao no, fat chance. The process of 'refining' these fucked ai images is just selecting an area, typing in a box and hitting the "try again" button, this is called "inpainting". Where's the art or anatomical knowledge come from that's going to make it better? Nowhere. Just keep pushing the button until you get something better. This is art? This is like guiding a slot machine. Embarrassing.

Protip: You can't just read a book on anatomy, color, whatever and then instantly be able to do that, it takes some work on your end to memorize and replicate what's in the books, internalize the lessons and explore on your own. If someone spent the time practicing these concepts of art on the side of ai that's two completely different interests. They could be an artist on the side, but the pure gens still wouldn't be art. which funny enough is the stance that derpibooru just took.

You talk a lot of bull about artists, and you're incredibly ignorant.
Artists don't encourage people? so you're going to ignore the insane free trove of information on youtube. How about artists making cheaper art courses than collage. Nah, nobody is encouraging new artists that's just artist-propaganda.

I'm not surprised. This is why people tell you to shut up. You're an asshat, thinking it's those 'big bad artist elitists' who are the problem, as you champion destruction of integrity. Since you're autistic as fuck, this is what that guy meant by saying "you are playing with fire". You're on staff making the community site (which artists took a chance to rebuild on) look bad every time you talk about how it's "good" that ai is parasitic, and artists need to be "taken down"

I'd say you should be fired but there's nobody that's even managing the ship around here, it's a ghost town with MIA staff so it explains a lot, nobody would be there to pick up the slack if you were. Yikes.

@Megalith
Not any of the previous anons and just kind of randomly joining in on the conversation. But another argument that could be made is that having the AI on site would attract AIfags to the site. A problem that persists even with filters. One of the same problems that having anthro and eqg on site has, attracting furfags and barbiefags (though the AIfag problem pales in comparison). I don't see why anons are even complaining. The time for change has long since past and the boorus we have are the boorus we're stuck with.

@Background Pony #C575
Irrelevant, but I foresee the argument. Having a hobby one is proud of is good. It does not feel nice to have something you are good at be done by those you see as inferior. I argue you shouldn't see them as inferior and actively try to move them away from what you find insulting, but apparently that is above the likes of an artist.

But furthermore, the argument is still irrelevant. Regardless of personal emotion, the policy of a website must be for the benefit of the site and userbase. Not liking something is not worthy of deletion, especially when the option to filter exists. Deleting AI art does not benefit the site, only the ego of the artist should they feel insulted. Please provide a rational argument to the deletion of the content.

@Megalith
Have you got an employment, or a hobby you are proud of, Megalith?

@Background Pony #3744
What you consider yourself is irrelevant. A definition is a definition. If you want to make a new definition to go off of, please state what exactly makes a photographer if it is not someone that takes pictures. The standard definition explains why there is a difference in the person that takes a professional photo and one that takes a casual image in that one is skilled and good, and one is not and bad. If you say that someone that takes a picture is not a photographer, what is he? What do you define that person taking a picture? Is he nothing? What makes him nothing if he does the same thing as someone who takes pictures but actually does it good? Someone that plays baseball casually is still playing baseball and is a baseball player. This does not mean the casual is a professional. This does not mean that the casual is not actually a player of the game baseball.

>Absolutely nobody artistic agrees with you
I am perfectly fine with elitists not agreeing with me. Why would I want your approval if someone like me has no right to speak to anything about this entire website? Why would I ever associate with you or ever want to learn how to be an artist. I don't want to be like you.

>You don't see every single randos shooting photos on instagram calling themselves photographers in the same vein as a real photographer because the world knows the difference.
I literally told you the difference. A professional photographer is better. A casual photographer is not.

>You're honestly completely clueless on what's art since you're just repeatedly talking from a semantic meaningless stance and lack all experience in the subject.
Then tell me the difference, oh untouchable one!

>The fact you think the prompter knows anything like artistic concepts such as color theory when the machine does all the work says a lot.
I never said one does. I gave you a scenario. Did you know scenarios are not real? If I say that there exists a possibility you don't have your head up your ass, that doesn't mean that scenario reflects reality. I said this specifically to figure out your definition of what makes an artist. If a generator should learn this information, does or does this not make him and artist? I would say no because it just makes him have more information and not more of an artist, but I can't know what your definition is because you are just saying something isn't art arbitrarily.

>You don't even know how these things work, you're just soyfaced over a prettyish looking picture and making yourself look like a clown in the process.
Forgive me master! I must bow in awe at your skills of not telling me what your definition of an artist is. Woe unto the poor and stupid that can't see your brilliant argument of "I said so, therefore it is true."

I was never a huge fan of AI because most people that use it are lazy, uploading things that have clear flaws and not working to solve those flaws. The AI artist seeks to settle with ok enough which is not appreciated. But honestly, that mentality is more tolerable to me than what you artists have presented so far. No AI enjoyer ever said I don't have the right to talk about AI being art or not. No AI enjoyer ever told me to shut up and allow the Übermensch to do the talking. If you wanted to sway my opinion, you have done the opposite and solidified my opinion that you deserve AI uploads on this site. It is the perfect counterbalance to your egos.

Regardless of the name-calling and bitching, no one has said what benefit there would be to banning AI other than the personal disgust to being in the same vicinity of it. But I am thinking you feel that way among the users of this site that don't draw either. You don't see them as your equal at all, wanting to enjoy mares and celebrate those that do so as well. You see them as plebians that can't grasp what you do and will never be like you. You don't encourage people to learn art, you don't suggest ways to mitigate your concerns, you don't suggest actions to mediate issues. Your approach is nuclear, which is not ideal for the running of a website. So no, I will not ever support such a position based on these showings, and I hope this display showcases why no one else should support such a request now or in the future.

@Background Pony #5C42
You clearly never touched a pencil, a tablet's stylus or a graphics software tp come up with a shitpost like that.
AI crap, for the retard is:

>I order from Deliveroo, I'm a great cook

>I heard a philosopher said words on the radio, I must be one now if I repeat the exact same phrase

>I don't know how to play guitar, I'm gonna plug a walkman with Mark Knopfler cassette and pretend I'm playing

>I have seen a few gore videos not twitching on theYNC, and there's a site, pubMD or Researchgator or something with procedures explained so I can be a surgeon, it's not rocket science! Yeah i know rockets can't go to space because of the firmament, give me the job contract and my first patients ok?

>I don't know how to draw so I'm going to grab images from my folder based of the words I have in mind and put them together in photoshop and call it art.

Don't forget to shout trans rights, cause PDV6 and the AI slop you use is developed by furry trannies, most of which fuels an AI thread on /mlp/ with artist style data-sets, to replace you. They don't hide it, this is on an adversarial optics they do that.