OK, not to be runde or anything, but why is your banner AI generated

Honestly, it's because it went in early days.
When ML generated art was a novelty, and people hadn't had a chance to sit down and go "wait, actually, no".
And it's an absolute arsepain to replace, because you'll get 1001 prompt engineers defending slop.
feddit.uk banned generative AI content to make this process easier, and still needs to sweep through and commission new art for a few communities.
- Yeah, maybey it would be a good idea to have a new community vote. Can I just start that or do I have to ask the mods or something? I am pretty new to Lemmy, so I am not really shure how this works.
  
  Lemmy honestly tends to run on the ideas of "be the change you want to see in the world" and "well volunteered".
  Stick a post up, see if people are interested.
  You could message the mods. While they don't seem to have posted for a while, there are mod actions happening still.
  And if you don't hear anything back, put it as a suggestion to the admins.
- This is pretty good for early AI. I'm impressed.
  
  Yeah, I remember it being feverdream sludge when I first tried it

Wouldn’t it be much cooler, if we commissioned an actual artist for the banner
I hate it when AI is used to replace the work an artist would have been paid for. But uh, this is a random open-source forum; there's no funding for artists to make banners. Rejecting AI art -- which was voted for by the community -- just seems like baseless virtue signalling. No artist is going to get paid if we remove it.
But like if you want to commission an artist with your own money, by all means go ahead. You'll still most likely need another community vote to approve it though.
- That doesn't change that real artists who made real art will have had their work used without permission or payment to help generate the banner. I'm with OP.
  
  If I drew something myself, those artists would also not be paid. I can understand a deontological argument against using AI trained on people's art, but for me, the utilitarian argument is much stronger -- don't use AI if it puts an artist out of work.
  
  Real artists use uncited reference art all the time. That person that drew a picture of Catherine the Great for a video game certainly didn't list the artist of the source art they were looking at when they drew it. No royalties went to that source artist. People stopped buying reference art books for the most part when Google image search became a thing.
  A hell, a lot of professional graphic artists right now use AI for inspiration.
  This isn't to say that the problem isn't real and a lot of artists stand to lose their livelihood over it, but nobody's paying someone to draw a banner for this forum. The best you're going to get is some artist doing out of the goodness of their heart when they could be spending their time and effort on a paying job.

Intellectual property is made up bullshit. You can't "steal" a jpeg by making a copy of it, and the idea that creating something based on or inspired by something else is somehow "stealing" it is quite frankly preposterous.
The sooner we as a society disabuse ourselves of this brainworm the better.
Edit: I have very mixed feelings about so-called generative AI, so please do not take this as a blanket endorsement of the technology - but rather a challenge on the concept of "stealing intellectual property," which I unequivocally do not believe in.
- I agree with you. AI is bad for reasons other than that it is stealing IP.

Though this is about Lemmy.world I think sh.itjust.works has a similarly sad story.
We had a vote for the banner when sh.itjust.works started where a bunch of artist came forward with art for the banner and some AI guys came in with art as well. This was clearly stated by the AI guys, with no trickery. The community voted in the agora to reject the art of its users in favour of this stable diffusion slop.
I think you can tell I dispise AI art. The reason for it here though is that the community voted for it over real artists time, dedication, and love for the community.
If someone really wanted to change it though one could create a discussion post in the agora, our community voting community, to have it changed. They'd likely need to provide new art which, as an artist, I'm unwilling to do. The community has shown it cares little for the time, effort, and skill involved so somebody with an hour and stable diffusion would win out over the multi-day process of making something meaningful
- The community voted in the agora
  Is 'agora' just a metaphor for expressing preferences via commenting, or is it Fediverse polling software I don't know about?
  
  It's a Greek term used by the head mod for their community. Sorry for the confusion
- The community has shown it cares little for the time, effort, and skill involved so somebody with an hour and stable diffusion would win out over the multi-day process of making something meaningful
  I mean if the end result is shittier than some AI slop then not sure the effort matters much. I could pour hours of work into a painting and it'd still be total shit because I'm a really shitty painter. I wouldn't expect anyone to value my painting just for the work I put in.
  Exception being parents when they get their kid's shitty painting they did at school. They have to pretend to think it's good and appreciate it.

There are a lot of talented artists here on lemmy.ml and I think it would be wise to ask them if they were interested in providing a banner image that is not ai generated, surely someone would take up the offer.
- If they wanted to do it for free, they would have offered.
  
  Artists do labor for free for the benefit of their communities all the time, myself included, mostly out of the goodness of their hearts. Although maybe Lemmy can offer some compensation if they want to commission something. Tbh, I've never approached someone or an organization and said, "hey, I think you should change your logo/banner/whatever, want me to make a better one?" I think that's a bit forward.

We know this is the very famous "starry night", right? Is OP asking to troll, or maybe is there a joke or detail I'm missing, or OP just hasn't yet seen the Van Gogh and marveled at what was encoded into the painting?
- I think they're talking about the !asklemmy@lemmy.ml community banner. I don't know why they posted starry night as well.
- Yeah, it doesn't have to do anything with my point, to be honest, I was just trying to make my post prettier to look at. My complaint is about the banner for this community.
  
  Impressive footgun. I agree with your point though, it's jarring.
  
  If you wanted to make the post look good, why didn't you commission an artist to make your image? Instead you stole the hard work of another artist without their permission, attribution or compensation.
  
  then your post is next to useless as it stands
  I was trying to figure what the hell you were on about
  Now I have used both AI and CC/Libre (where I can find what I want) and I see very little issue if Im not coping a living artist - I'm not about to commission an artist for a banner image in my small (personal) lemmy instance

I'm not sure weather it is AI or not. It's much easier to tell when the images are ment to look realistic.
I very much agree. Text generation has many valid use cases and I use it on a day to day basis, but image generation as much fewer valid use cases and much more malicious ones.
- Wait what? I'm really confused I thought this post was about a different image when I commented that.
  I totally agree this is definetly ai and I can tell very easily.
  
  A couple more spots:
  The one at the back in the middle with the arrow pointing above its head also has hands emerging directly from its torso
  The one at the back squished in between the two signs is missing an ear
  Iris/pupil size 2nd from the right are wildly asymmetrical
  Also the whole thing looks like shit
- Text generation has many valid use cases and I use it on a day to day basis, but image generation as much fewer valid use cases and much more malicious ones.
  Do you not extend the same sympathy to writers as you do visual artists?
  
  Yes I do. Although I don't use text generation for writing creative pieces I use it for coding and help in the Linux terminal. It's not like I was going to pay anyone to do that for me.

You wouldn't necessarily even need to comission someone. There are plenty of Creative Commons licensed pieces of art that could be used.

How else would someone have been able to get all those chipmunks in one photo?
- Taxidermy

it's just a crappy and lazy image regardless of origins, but the fact it is AI makes it crappier

Right now, anti-AI rhetoric is taking the same unprincipled rhetoric that the Luddites pushed forward in attacking machinery. They identified a technology linked to their proletarianization and thus a huge source of their new misery, but the technology was not at fault. Capitalism was.
What generative AI is doing is making art less artisinal. The independent artists are under attack, and are being proletarianized. However, that does not mean AI itself is bad. Copyright, for example, is bad as well, but artists depend on it. The same reaction against AI was had against the camera for making things like portraits and still-lifes more accessible, but nowadays we would not think photography to be anything more than another tool.
The real problems with AI are its massive energy consumption, its over-application in areas where it actively harms production and usefulness, and its application under capitalism where artists are being punished while corporations are flourishing.
In this case, there's no profit to be had. People do not need to hire artists to make a banner for a niche online community. Hell, this could have been made using green energy. These are not the same instances that make AI harmful in capitalist society.
Correct analysis of how technologies are used, how they can be used in our interests vs the interests of capital, and correct identification of legitimate vs illegitimate use-cases are where we can succeed and learn from the mistakes our predecessors made. Correct identification of something linked to deteriorating conditions combined with misanalyzing the nature of how they are related means we come to incorrect conclusions, like when the Luddites initially started attacking machinery, rather than organizing against the capitalists.
Hand-created art as a medium of human expression will not go away. AI can't replace that. What it can do is make it easier to create images that don't necessarily need to have that purpose, as an expression of the human experience, like niche online forum banners or conveying a concept visually. Not all images need to be created in artisinal fashion, just like we don't need to hand-draw images of real life when a photo would do. Neither photos nor AI can replace art. Not to mention, but there is an art to photography as well, each human use of any given medium to express the human experience can be artisinal.
- The Luddites weren't simply "attacking machinery" though, they were attacking the specific machinery owned by specific people exploiting them and changing those production relations.
  And due to the scale of these projects and the amount of existing work they require in their construction, there are no non-exploitative GenAI systems
  
  Yes, I'm aware that the Luddites weren't stupid and purely anti-tech. However, labor movements became far more successful when they didn't attack machinery, but directly organized against capital.
  GenAI exists. We can download models and run them locally, and use green energy. We can either let capitalists have full control, or we can try to see if we can use these tools to our advantage too. We don't have the luxury of just letting the ruling class have all of the tools.
  
  And due to the scale of these projects and the amount of existing work they require in their construction, there are no non-exploitative GenAI systems
  That hasn't been true for years now.
  AI training techniques have rapidly improved to the point where they allow people to train completely new diffusion models from scratch with a few thousand images on consumer hardware.
  In addition, and due to these training advancements, some commercial providers have trained larger models using artwork specifically licensed to train generative models. Adobe Firefly, for example.
  It isn't the case, and hasn't been for years, that you can simply say that any generative work is built on """stolen""" work.
  Unless you know what model the person used, it's just ignorance to accuse them of using "exploitative" generative AI.
- It's worth noting that the argument regarding massive energy consumption is no longer true. Models perform better than ones that required a data centre to run just a year ago can already be run on a laptop today. Meanwhile, people are still finding lots of new ways to optimize them. There is little reason to think they're not going to continue getting more efficient for the foreseeable future.
  
  Fair point, but I do think that until we see more widespread adoption of renewables in the US and other heavy-polluters, energy use in general is a hot topic we are already beyond capacity for. There needs to be a real qualitative leap to green energy some point soon, and we can't just rely on the PRC to electrify the world if the US is intent on delaying that shift as much as possible.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the tech itself. Your issue is with capitalist relations and the way this technology is used under capitalism. Focus on what the actual problem is. https://dialecticaldispatches.substack.com/p/a-marxist-perspective-on-ai
- I read your link. I think my main issue is the framing as though AI is just a new tool that people are afraid of similar to the introduction of the camera.
  Even outside of capitalist exploitation, AI generated art suffers from an inherent creative limitation. It's a derivative and subtractive tool. It can only remix what already exists. It lacks intention and human experience that make art meaningful. The creative process isn't just about the final image. There's choices, mistakes, revisions, and personal investment, etc. No amount of super long and super specific prompts can do this.
  This is why a crude MS Paint drawing or a hastily made meme can resonate more than a "flawless" AI generated piece. Statistical approximation can't imbue a piece with lived experience or subvert expectations with purpose. It is creative sterility.
  I can see some applications of AI generation for the more mundane aspects of creation, like the actions panel in Photoshop. But I think framing creative folks' objections as an act of self preservation as though we are afraid of technology is a bit of a strawman and reductive of the reality of the situation. Although there are definitely artists that react this way, I admit.
  It is true that new tools reshape art. The comparison to photography or Photoshop is flawed. Those tools still require direct engagement with the creative process. In the link you provided the argument is made for a pro-AI stance using the argument that the photographer composes a shot and manipulating light. In contrast to AI which automates the creative act itself. That's where their argument falls apart.
  As for democratization goes the issue isn't accessibility (plenty of free, nonexploitative tools already exist for beginners) and that is something that could be improved. AI doesn’t teach someone to draw, operate a camera, paint, reiterate, conceptualize, and develop artistic judgment. It lets them skip those steps entirely resulting in outputs that are aesthetically polished and creatively hollow. True democratization would mean empowering people to create.
  
  I think, ultimately, AI-generated images have their own utility, but fundamentally cannot replace human art as an expression of the human experience and artist intent through their chosen medium. AI-generated textures for, say, wooden planks in a video game does little to nothing to change the end-user's experience, but just asking AI to create a masterpiece of art fundamentally lacks the artistic process that makes art thought provoking and important. It isn't even about being produced artisinally or mass-produced, it's fundamentally about what art is to begin with, and what makes it resonate.
  AI cannot replace art. AI can make the more mundane and tedious aspects of creation smoother, it can be a part of a larger work of art, or it can be used in a similar way to stock images. At the same time, just like AI chatbots are no replacement for human interaction, AI can't replace human art. It isn't a matter of morality, or something grander, it's as simple as AI art just being a tool for guessing at what the user wants to generate, and thus isn't capable of serving the same function for humanity as art in the traditional sense.
  I always like your posts when I see them here, so I really do value your perspective on this.
  
  Even outside of capitalist exploitation, AI generated art suffers from an inherent creative limitation. It’s a derivative and subtractive tool. It can only remix what already exists.
  There's little evidence that this is fundamentally different from how our own minds work. We are influenced by our environment, and experiences. The art we create is a product of our material conditions. If you look at art from different eras you can clearly see that it's grounded in the material reality people live in. Furthermore, an artist can train the AI on their own style, as the video linked in the article shows with a concrete use case. That allows the artists to automate the mechanical work of producing the style they've come up with.
  It lacks intention and human experience that make art meaningful.
  That's what makes it a tool. A paintbrush or an app like Krita also lacks intention. It's the human using the tool that has the idea that they want to convey, and they use the tool to do that. We see this already happening a lot with memes being generated using AI tools. A few examples here. It's a case of people coming up with ideas and then using AI to visualize them so they can share them with others.
  This is why a crude MS Paint drawing or a hastily made meme can resonate more than a “flawless” AI generated piece.
  If we're just talking about pressing a button and getting an image sure. However, the actual tools like ComfyUI have complex workflows where the artist has a lot of direction over every detail that's being generated. Personally, I don't see how it's fundamentally different from using a 3D modelling tool like Blender or a movie director guiding actors in execution of the script.
  I can see some applications of AI generation for the more mundane aspects of creation, like the actions panel in Photoshop.
  Right, I think that's how these tools will be used professionally. However, there are also plenty of people who aren't professionals, and don't have artistic talent. These people now have a tool to flesh out an idea in their heads which they wouldn't have been able to do previously. I see this as a net positive. The examples above show how this can be a powerful tool for agitation, satire, and political commentary.
  Those tools still require direct engagement with the creative process
  So do tools like ComfyUI, if you look at the workflow, it very much resembles these tools.
  the argument that the photographer composes a shot and manipulating light. In contrast to AI which automates the creative act itself
  I do photography and I disagree here. The photographer looks at the scene, they do not create the scene themselves. The skill of the photographer is in noticing interesting patterns of light, objects, and composition in the scene that are aesthetically appealing. It's the skill of being able to curate visually interesting imagery. Similarly, what the AI does is generate the scene, and what the human does is curate the content that's generated based on their aesthetic.
  AI doesn’t teach someone to draw, operate a camera, paint, reiterate, conceptualize, and develop artistic judgment. It lets them skip those steps entirely resulting in outputs that are aesthetically polished and creatively hollow. True democratization would mean empowering people to create.
  Again, AI is a tool and it doesn't magically remove the need for people to develop an aesthetic, to learn about lighting, composition, and so on. However, you're also mixing in mechanical skills like operating the camera which have little to do with actual art. These tools very much do empower people to create, but to create something interesting still takes skill.

In my opinion, AI just feels like the logical next step for capitalist exploitation and destruction of culture.
I don't think AI is inherently bad. What's bad is how we (or well, the corpos) use it. SEO, vibe coding, making slop, you name it.
About training material being stealing: hard agree here. Our copyright laws are broken, but they are right about AI - training is strong in a retrieval system, which is infingement. Shame they aren't enforced at all.
What fascinates me is the similarity between AI and photography. That is, both are revolutionary tools in the visual medium. Imagine this thread being an opinion column in an 1800s newspaper, and replace all instances of 'AI' with 'photography'. The arguments all stand, but our perspective to them may change.
- My PFP is actually AI generated with a local model (Stable Diffusion 1.5) thanks to my producer, Neigsendoig (who goes by Sendo). Personally speaking, both Sendo and I are into generative AI, and use it with proper disclosure.
  Most people should do that whenever they use generative AI for anything, provided that AI is an integral part of the production.

You should definitely support artists! You know how good it feels to support someone you know? I'm personally going to give my music away for free. I think intellectual property is meant to be shared, but I do recognize that we gotta eat in this parasitic system, yo. How about this? We support artists with our commonwealth? It's fucking important, man. Culture matters. No need to shift the blame to the individual when it's the system that's rotten. Two more ideas, then I'll fuck off. Guaranteed dignity in death, and defensive, non-coercive, no entanglements protection of holy sites. I'm a deterministic atheist through and through, but man, we gotta heal our fucking souls.

Is it AI? It's been the banner since at least the Reddit API thing and I don't see common AI artifacts. All the eyes and whiskers look fairly consistent for example, so do the paws. Especially with the relatively primitive AI models back then it would actually be impressive if they generated this image. I think it's just a generic looking CGI image with the same off shelf 3D model posed in different ways.
- Someone else has highlighted spots on it
  https://lemmy.world/comment/18503995
  
  These kind of posts always have the feeling of UFO or cryptid people dissecting a grainy 3 second clip of video and coming to the conclusion that Bigfooted Aliens exist.
  They already have their conclusion before they even start.

I mean is it really a problem if the only problem is that it's AI
- Uhm, yeah... That was the whole point, I was making.
  
  I think your point was AI is bad.
  Mine was does it matter if it's bad.

There likely isn't a public domain photo depicting the same thing.

If that's what it seems to you, you might want to reread their comment. You're way off base.

That's your opinion. I disagree with it. Keep the banner as it is. Someone surely took the time to make that image. As it's pretty good even more for the time it was created. You are just dishing that person's work. I respect that person work, so the banner should stay.
It would be fine if it was possible to ask the person who made the banner how did they made it and how long it took.
Your complain seems to be mostly based on AI being able to do things faster. At that point why stop there.. don't hire digital artist. They took jobs away from traditional artists. Pretty sure the only good thing we could do I commission the banner to a full crew of sculptors to do the 3d mesh on granite and then a full tome oil painter for a year to capture the image into canvas. That would make sure that not technological advances would steal anyone's job.
Edit: It's fucking ironic that anti-AI people use downvote/ upvote bots. But I catched it. Fucking ironic.
- Yeah fuckin bombardio crocodillo is art, come at me
- I generated it, actually, and I put no time into it whatsoever.
  
  Can you share the model, the input parameters and the seed?

AI bad. Upvotes please.

actual artists are getting fired from their jobs, because the company replaces them with an AI, that was trained on their original art.
Are you sure that's happening? Under the previous mode of capitalism, what kind of companies were hiring artists?
As I understand it, that isn't the actual gripe from the general perspective of the artist. Instead it's about copyright, a concept I fundamentally disagree with. I don't think it's necessary, and that the artist's capacity for prosperity being tied to copyright is a symptom of a bigger problem than being usurped by software.
I think there is good art and bad art. I think there is good AI art (tbh I can't think of any examples, I just think in principle AI art has the capacity to be good) and bad AI art. I think the relative ease of access skews people's exposure towards slop. I use the term slop as a descriptor for AI art that is sloppy or wholly derivative; not to prejudge it.
I think perspectives like yours haven't compelled me to think they are meaningfully different from that of the Luddites, or those opposed to implementing computers in the workplace, etc. I genuinely sympathise with those groups, but ultimately wouldn't have us go back.
- Are you sure that's happening? Under the previous mode of capitalism, what kind of companies were hiring artists?
  Movie studios, VFX houses, advertisement agencies, should I keep going? It's not that all of these people will or can be replaced, but the studios are already hollowing out their staff and the abstract threat of AI gives studios much more power in negotiations with artists. Since AI, much less people are willing to contract artists online, which many young and alternative artists depend on to survive. Why do you think, the Hollywood strikes are happening?
  I agree, that copyright shouldn't have to exist in an ideal society, but we still live under capitalism. Imagnine, if Disney could just scoop up all the good indie movies, and redistribute them under their own name with massive marketing budgets, taking all the profit and pretending, it's their own work. The original creator would go bankrupt and not be able to make another great movie.
  In my opinion, generative AI is doing exactly the same thing, but indirectly. If Disney were to release a fully AI generated movie, they would still have profited from the work of a bunch of unconsenting and uncredited independent artists.
  AI "art" is also not art, because real art requires a concios and self aware being to observe the world in a unique way and get inspired to express a new idea in their art. AI is not conscious and therefore cannot observe the world or get any new ideas. There will never be good AI-"Art", because AI can only recreate and recombine the existing (and yeah, I know, that AI images are technically unique, but they are still only derived from what the AI was trained on). The best, an AI could do, is imitate a human as well as possible. It cab only succeed in decieving us, letting us think, there is some person behind this art, but there will never be anyone behind it.
  
  I don't think my earlier reply came through. I'll try rewriting it.
  AI can add, remove, change or refine input, either text or image-based, either wholly or partially, which may or may not itself be AI-generated. That feature set certainly allows room for genuine, inspired artistic expression. The way you describe AI art is as though it is all created by asking ChatGPT to draw you something. This isn't the case, and neglects to consider the litany of AI model types that are fundamentally different to LLM's. Models which are operated by humans directly interacting with them in a range of ways.
  Let's say you're a concept artist for a movie. After replacing you with AI, how does the company instruct the model in the concept to be represented? If they're just asking ChatGPT to come up with something itself, then sure - your description applies. And the output will be shitty concept art, and the movie will shittier than it otherwise would be. People might consume it, but it would be a slippery slope towards failure either because a) people don't like it, or don't like it enough for it to reach the critical mass required to spread, or b) someone else does the same uninspired and easy job more cheaply or effectively. If you're an AI-slop consumer, why watch AI slop movies when you can just watch AI slop Tiktoks?
  Good art resonates with people not because humans are easily entertained by pretty flashing lights or whatever an AI can churn out, but because of their relationship to a piece of art which is derived from their human experience. Companies have tried to broaden appeal and lower costs by appealing to the lowest common denominator for centuries, but beyond a certain point it is a failing business model. In my opinion, if some companies want to try, let them find out why there are 1000s of AI-generated movie trailers but no movies.
  I think that AI can be used for the concept art in a way that maintains artistic integrity and capacity for artistic expression by having someone skilled in representing visual concepts operate the AI tool. That someone would be for all intents and purposes an artist. In essence the artist position would not be redundant; the way their job is done would have changed.

The AI sector is not pushed by consumer money. A consumer strike won't alter at all the macro-dynamics happening at the moment. If you want to resist AI, go blow up some data center or unionize some tech workers.
You're making a moralistic point, blaming consumers instead of corporations, which leaves not much room for action.
- None of that means that what OP is proposing wouldn't still be the right thing to do. A drop in the ocean, sure, but still preferable to the alternative.
  
  Performative politics have been proven to have a paralyzing effect on people. If you feel you're doing something and it has no impact, you just disengage from meaningful politics because you already absolved yourself.

A less than 24 hour old account, who's entire comment history is this post which is pushing rehashed anti-AI nonsense in the guise of a concerned community member.
Ladies and gentleman, this is an excellent example of a concern troll:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll
A concern troll is someone who disingenuously visits sites of an opposing ideology to disrupt conversation by offering unwanted advice on how to solve problems which do not really exist.
Topics of "concern" usually involve tactical use of rhetoric, site rules, or with more philosophical consistency. The concern troll's posts are almost exclusively intended to derail the normal functions of their targeted website.
With a little prep time and some VPNs the OP could have enough alts available to ensure that anyone arguing against them receives enough down votes to make the OP's position seem reasonable.
If you examined the population of people who contributed down votes, you'd likely find a bunch of new or low comment history accounts who seem to exclusively vote in anti-AI threads.
- Yeah because these comments are totally getting buried /s You have to make a first post at some point, and it's gonna be something you're passionate about.
- Well, but you are not of an opposing ideology, your sub is called "ask Lemmy", not "ask AI obsessed people", so your definition doesn't even make sense. I honestly don't understand why you people insist on painting me in such a negative light, just because I am new. That is called bullying by the way. I didn't even intend this thread to blow up in such a way, I guess a lot of people seem to care.
  
  Notice how the community is also not called "ask Anti-AI obsessed people". I'm sure that name is free, you may like to create such space, and stop trying to discriminate other people.
  
  I honestly don’t understand why you people insist on painting me in such a negative light, just because I am new. That is called bullying by the way.
  "ask AI obsessed people"
  This you? You use bad faith arguments and ad hominem and you'll get the same back.
  I guess a lot of people seem to care.
  Yes, who knew AI was such a hot button issue on social media? /s
  It seems incredibly unlikely that you could be unaware of the the volatility of the topic while also parroting all of the anti-ai talking points. Your mask is slipping.
- *whose
  
  🤔, fair
- FauxLiving: na na na! I don't like their opinion so this must be nonsense! stupid silly forum users cannot even have real values like me..
  on another note, I would be interested in how did you amass 1400 comments in mere 5 months!
  
  Ah, I see we're being mature now.
  FauxLiving: na na na! I don’t like their opinion so this must be nonsense! stupid silly forum users cannot even have real values like me…
  WhyJiffie: blah blah blah, I don't have opinions of my own so I follow the downvoting winds to sling shit and ask dumb questions.
  I would be interested in how did you amass 1400 comments in mere 5 months!
  In Lemmy, if you type words into the text field and press the reply button it creates a comment. If you do it 2 times, then you have 2 comments. I'll leave the rest of the exercise to the reader.
- Upvoting and downvoting patterns in this thread are weird. Votes come and go in blocks that happen at precise points.
  I'm almost sure that some anti-AI guy is using bots to try to influence opinion, which os hilarious if you ask me.
  
  Everyone understands that social media is the primary vector of disinformation, but if you ever try to point out this process in actual practice people act like you're talking nonsense.
  Here we have a post started by some random account less than a day old which is suddenly rocketed to the top of the community.
  The OP lives in the thread full time for the entire day, not commenting anywhere else on Lemmy, and then disappears.
  This person simultaneously knows all of the anti-AI arguments by rote and also seems clueless as to why anti-AI posts get a lot of traction.
  The post is brigaded/botted, the vote:comment ratio is off, the downvoters are primarily accounts with no comment/post history (you can see upvotes and downvotes with moderation tools, they're not private).
  I would bet money that if a site admin were to look into the primary participants of this thread, you'd find that they're all using VPNs. None of this on its own is suspicious, but taken all together it makes the thread very suspect.
  I could be wrong, this isn't exactly an easy thing to prove even when you have server admin tools. But I participate in the community quite heavily and am a moderator of a fairly populated instance (so I can see the server logs for our instance) and this post is giving off a lot of red flags.

Who cares? Who makes a new account just to ask this sort of leading question?
- Well, obviusly I care. I joined Lenny today, yes. I joined this sub and was immediately a bit disgusted by the banner. So I made a post about it. Why do you care if I care then?
  
  You care too much over something that is so significantly unimpactful.
  
  So you're here for less than a day and you're already judging? First rule of the fediverse, you can go make your own community

"This community should be about inclusion and kindness" - as you tell us our banner sucks and whoever made it. You can spot a .world user a mile away. -edit: and you joined two hours ago?
- Well, you didn't even make it or anyone, an AI made it. Kindness towards artists and not kindness towards people using their art without consent.
  
  If you want to get philosophical, all art is plagiarism, derived from the inspiration of others.
- "whoever made it" oh nooooo, I'm sure the AI is super offended.
- I'm with you. It's akin to walking into a bar, seeing everyone peacefully drinking, and yelling that they're all assholes because the beer they're drinking Budweiser instead of something more ethical.
  Like you aren't wrong, but who the hell are you to barge in and complain without even bothering to settle in? Can't just hang out for a bit, get to know us first, then bring it up later? It had to be the first thing we hear from you?
  No, to me that's incredibly rude, and if it was my bad I'd say there's the door, go find one you like more.