Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

The AI Post (Patreon)

Published:
2025-05-13 18:05:14
Imported:
2026-06

Content

Hey SuperNinfriendos!

So, I've been wanting to write about this for a while now, and with yesterday's comic I feel it's time.

What do y'all think about the emergence of Generative (Imitative) AI?

Here's my take: I love imagining a future where anyone can go into a "Holodeck" and make a scene of their liking. Wine with Cleopatra, Drinking with Mark Twain on a River Boat or having a lightsaber battle with Darth Vader. I think that's an exciting future we could all enjoy... but the idea of anyone selling those experiences doesn't feel right.

Right now I can make an image of Trinity come to life like I could never do in reality:

Yes, I legally own the image and all the assets used in it, but selling this feels wrong to me.

Now, there are instances where I think AI is very handy. The reason I'm writing this today is because I used an Imitative AI image in yesterdays' post:

There was nothing in DAZ that I could find to make this image, and stock sites now charge crazy prices for images or make you buy in bulk. I feel using an image like this is fair use as it's a pretty nothing image, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

I signed up for a few AI sites to study up on it for an upcoming comic, "Aisha," but I have a ton of "currency" left over and want to know if you'd like to see more of my characters come to life with AI. It would never be something I charge for, but even then there are ethical questions I'm not sure I have an answer for.

Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, and thanks for being amazing Patrons!

Tyler :)

Files

Comments

Rex429

You could always try use the ai to make a smoother transition between the transformation scenes without need to full blown animate it yourself. I can’t name any specifically but there are AI image generators that take a few references images and can fill in the gaps with a motion gif if that’s something you’d consider trying.

Robert Louis Stoll

AI is, at this point, a terrible technology - especially if you actually have skills. Economically, the companies behind it are not solvent and threaten the workforce for everyone, but especially creative communities they pull from without credit or compensation despite charging subscription fees to use their services. Ecologically, the infrastructure is far more damaging than any other form of technology before it. In cities where Musk has his data centers, the air quality is so bad people have trouble breathing. It takes far more water for cooling (which cannot easily be returned to a state we can use,) and combined with the fact that these new data centers are in areas that are struggling for water, it is irresponsible to use it. The power alone needed to make Machine Learning happen is straining power grids. In terms of creative control it's no better. Nevermind the job loss, it's directly selling badly remixed versions of art in the same marketplaces as the actual artists who made them, and enticing opportunities away from them from clients who'd rather it be done cheaper quality be damned. It encourages you as the creative to essentially offload the cognitive skills and creative decisions to machines owned by corporations who only really desire profit, and will enshitify their services to that end. I beg you, do not use Machine learning. There's no way to ethically do it. Even "self trained" models use some unethical preset like Stable Diffusion, which openly pilfers off of sites like DA, Pixiv, and other portfolio sites that have active TG/TF communities, as a base with a "filter" of the "self trainer's" own work on top of it. Furthermore, the only way it "improves" isn't by improving these troublesome aspects of it, but by simply feeding more data, taking more resources, expending more energy, and deteriorating more communities until it has "perfected" a single issue; meanwhile, more issues and inaccuracies pop up in it's stead. I give this as a warning, as someone who genuinely considers you a talented artist and want to support you, I cannot if you go down this route. Generative Machine Learning is only artificial, not intelligent, and degrades the work of anyone who incorporates it.

Faye Fatale

AI devolves to flawed base principles for me. AI models are trained on copywrite data and do not ask for permission, nor pay for rights of the art that they then steal to train the models. That, ultimately renders Generative AI as a whole unethical in its use and/or application. Aside from that, Generative AI can't make novel things or ideas, just blends and/or mashes of existing materials, so what is even the point? I'd like to make money with my art someday and I don't want it thrown in a blender and spit out as some slop for trolls on Twitter and Reddit. As such I try to avoid any uses of Generative AI.

Robert Louis Stoll

It's very likely whatever you're looking for, you don't even need to involve machine learning or "AI" companies. There's bespoke programs and plugins that can help interpolate frames if you need, for example, or even 3d rendering programs that could give you that gif you made without the excess energy, water, or needless data transfers. If you're looking for specific use cases, it's always going to be more ethical to just do research and see if there's a low-cost, local way of doing it that needs nothing but a program actually designed for that task and your own machine, not some broad-based statistics algorithm that treats everything like an autocorrect.

Bruce W. Liu

If you don't experiment, see what it can do or cant do, you'd be putting yourself at a loss of knowledge at the very least. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE is going to have STRONG opinions about this. (Like you've already seen.....) But every artist needs to know what this kind of tech can do for or against their workflow. Whatever "line" an artist draws for themself I will support them, or no line at all. You've proven your chops, have at whatever tools you want. But I did enjoy Trinity getting more animated.

Robert Louis Stoll

You can also put models into Blender and animate them, without the ethical quandry. AND you get the experience of learning animating in Blender, rather than letting the machine rob the opportunity.

Skippy Hugo

When it comes to stuff like this, AI should be like CGI. It buffs and polishes the rough spots, but shouldn't be used to entirely create an entire asset. And I say this as someone who has used it to produce (noncommercial) images and stories.

Skippy Hugo

Hmm. Yes it's based on unethical practices. I wholeheartedly agree with that. The companies that did that shouldn't have (like Meta). I also acknowledge the fact that there is nothing we can do to "undo" that. And push for ethical use and regulations.

Robert Louis Stoll

We can stop using it. It's already bleeding these vampires even with the user base that it has. If there's simply not enough interest it's just another failed startup.

Erin Halfelven at BigCloset

AI is a tool. It takes work, effort and skill, yes, skill to produce worthwhile results.

Robert Louis Stoll

And me ordering takeout makes me a chef. Any skill that requires the automated use of stolen artwork, let alone the destruction of the environment, is no skill worth honing.

AB

I agree with the comments that say this should be a post processing tool, use it to polish the image or add backgrounds, but the core should still be original art. I would personally never feel comfortable selling only AI generated images.

Erin Halfelven at BigCloset

Charging for it will be problematical as long as the large language models are trained on unlicensed sources. But the process is not inherently evil, just as the power for the computers pushing bits around does not have to come from polluting sources.

Robert Louis Stoll

The process IS the evil part of it - it's literally where it all stems from. It's the thing that is using the stolen data, it IS the thing that's producing the cheaper alternative, it IS the thing destroying the environment, it IS the evil. It's not like we're talking about any other kind of tool, database, or process here. Quite literally if Adobe was pumping out upgrades for their software that weren't AI, there'd be less of a backlash and legal issue. The thing that makes modern Creative Suite from, say, Affinity (besides the one set/non-subscription pricing) IS the fact it has generative machine learning on it. You can't tell me Machine Learning isn't the unethical part in all of this.

Kaffeyette Lektor

Apologies for the long message. (A) That animation of Trinity looks amazing and I would not object to seeing more animations like that. (B) I may have a slightly different viewpoint, whether I like it or not. Ethically, from a purely moral standpoint, the way AI has been created, empowered / enabled and is operated is a cornucopia of evils. However, as a scientist, I can't help seeing parallels with how our knowledge base in science has evolved in a similar way. Much of the knowledge base in science has been obtained by methods that were considered unethical at the time (or ethical then and unethical now) and people who developed that knowledge at the time were considered evil or unethical then, or are considered that way now. We don't ignore any of that knowledge today, because it is fundamental to our current understanding and it can be used for incredibly valuable purposes, like 'saving' / prolonging lives or making lives more fulfilling. Our current understandings are built, "on the shoulders of giants," even though some of those giants destroyed villages and murdered children. I'm not trying to justify what AI companies have done or are doing. It was / is ethically and morally wrong. As a creative myself, I see all the AI developed garbage saturating the internet, see the shadows of former creators in their distorted and corrupted forms, and it makes me angry that this is able to be presented (and consumed) and afraid of what the future will bring when people have been raised on this crap all their lives and don't know a world without it. Look at the animation in the children's shows that function for us as surrogate babysitters and parents. We are are already programming the next generations to accept this vomit. (Except 'Bluey'. 'Bluey' is awesome!) As others have said, "It's done." It's out there. It's available and people are using it to their advantage. The genie is out of the bottle. We can very rightly say, "don't use it," from an ethical standpoint, but it is already being used extensively in business (and government) to 'improve' productivity, competitiveness and profit, and it currently helps to give people and organisations a competitive edge. The saving grace is that 'video did not kill the radio star'. Some people still appreciate the older forms of information and art. Even vinyl and cassettes are coming back (FFS). They will probably never be the dominant format again, but they are still around. There will probably always be a market for exceptional artwork of all modalities. My psychologist uses AI to manage his caseload and communicate with his clients about the logistical issues of appointments, etc. He was encouraging me to use it to free up some of my work time from repetitive tasks (like communicating with my clients) to devote to more fulfilling tasks that would help improve my mental health. Personally, I saw not personally communicating with my clients as a compromise I wasn't prepared to make, but I'm in the minority in this area and I have a small number of clients. It is already widely seen as an invaluable tool. It won't be long before businesses can not survive without it. There are no ethics or morality in survival. You do what you have to do. If a company can survive by replacing staff with an AI, they will. AI is being normalised in every area of business and government. Art will not be immune. I think with using AI in any kind of art, as with science or any kind of public presentation, there must be acknowledgement of the sources of any materials used in the presentation. This can't now be done with the existing AI models because they have 'stolen' so much IP for 'training' that there is no way it can all be acknowledged. The only solution would be to wipe all existing AIs and retrain new models from scratch using only IP that is voluntarily provided by the creators / owners of the IP, which will handicap and bias the AIs even more than they currently are. Good luck getting some countries to do that when their current AIs are already providing benefits with commercial competitiveness and profit. Another issue is that the consumer should know what they are consuming, even though many don't seem to care. The same issue exists with digital art versus hand-crafted modalities, or music using sampling and covers (Thank you, the KLF). I actually hate many modern songs that are shitty covers of previous artists (except PMJ. Carry on, Scott), or many mediocre hip-hop artists talking over the top of the 'hooks' from better artists. At best, I think if artists use AI as part of their work, they should acknowledge which parts are AI generated, which AI was used, and whether other artists' IP was specifically used and modified. This is standard ethical practice in scientific academia and the penalties for not doing so can be very severe. Misrepresenting data can end people's careers. We already see this in music and writing when plagiarism is identified. When I was lecturing at Uni, some students submitted assignments to me, plagiarised from one of my own assignments a decade earlier. Not a good plan. Do some research, kids. They were kicked out of the Uni. I'm not sure if they could ever get into another one. I think we may need to develop a similar ethical framework within the artistic community to acknowledge IP that has directly contributed to the current work. 'Inspiration' is difficult to quantify and 'ownership' of ideas is especially contested when commercial interests and profit are involved, but if we do copy ideas, concepts and processes, maybe we need to pay the giants a tithe. If an artist is unable to ever work commercially again for blatantly copying another artist and not acknowledging them, they may be more inclined to do some work themselves. If Ai companies are benefiting from the work of millions of other artists, maybe they should be required to contribute sizeable amounts to grants for the development and support of developing artists in the areas they have ransacked.

Dark Star 1010

When photography began to gain in popularity, the artistic community wanted nothing to do with it. "People won't want portraits or landscapes anymore! It was a common complaint. Why pay a portrait artist when all you need to do is take a picture? Likewise with landscapes. However there were those artists who embraced the new medium. Fine art photography was born. I look at generative AI (silly name, there is no intelligence there!) as a tool. And like a tool, if one learns how to use it properly, it can serve as an adjunct to the creative process.

Adamma

Hugz

Carasibana

The integration of AI-generated imagery into artistic composition represents another step in the long evolution of creative tools—a continuation rather than a revolution in how artists work with technology to express their vision. AI image generation is fundamentally a sophisticated tool—a mathematical system trained to understand patterns and create new compositions based on those patterns. Throughout history, artists have embraced new technologies, from the camera obscura to digital software. Each technological advancement faced initial resistance before becoming accepted as legitimate artistic tools. 3D rendering engines provide perhaps the most relevant existing parallel to AI image generation. Modern 3D rendering software uses complex mathematical models to simulate light, materials, and physics—mathematical processes the artist doesn't personally code or fully understand. Fluid simulations in VFX rely on advanced algorithms to replicate how water, fire, or smoke would behave—the artist directs parameters but the actual simulation follows mathematical rules. Procedural texture generators in 3D software create complex materials based on algorithms, not direct painting. Character rigging systems use mathematical interpolation to create movements between keyframes. These technologies are universally accepted as legitimate artistic tools despite being mathematically complex and partially autonomous. The artist directs the overall vision, defines parameters, and curates results—exactly as with AI image generation. Art has never been created in a vacuum. Artists have always relied on tools, techniques, and influences. Painters depend on pigments developed by others and brushes they didn't manufacture. Photographers use cameras with complex algorithms they didn't program. Digital artists use software with pre-built textures and effects. Traditional artists study and internalize the techniques of past masters. The artistic merit lies not in avoiding tools but in the vision, curation, and creative decisions that shape the final work. The skill of modern artists often includes knowing which tools to use and how to combine them effectively. Throughout history, artistic innovation has involved adopting and adapting new tools. The camera obscura helped Renaissance painters achieve realistic perspective. Photography initially faced claims it wasn't "real art" before becoming recognized as a legitimate medium. Digital painting software introduced layers, filters, and procedural effects that weren't possible with traditional media. And let's be clear: digital art is real art—they can pry my Ctrl+Z from my cold, dead hands. Motion capture technology transformed animation by mathematically processing real movements into digital form. The legal framework around AI training is still evolving. Not all models are trained on unlicensed work—some use public domain images, licensed datasets, or specifically cleared content. Many established legal doctrines (like fair use) potentially apply to transformative learning. Viewing, learning from, and synthesizing visual information is fundamentally how human artists develop as well. Current copyright law doesn't recognize AI-generated images as copyrightable without substantial human creative input. This represents a transitional phase, not the final word on AI art's legal status. Legal frameworks inevitably adapt to technological change, as they did for photography, sampling in music, and digital art. Legal systems will likely evolve to recognize the nuance in AI-assisted art, distinguishing between purely automated generation and human-directed creative expression using AI as a component in a larger artistic process. There's an important moral distinction between copying an artwork (which deprives the original artist of potential revenue) and learning from artwork (which is how all artistic traditions advance). AI training more closely resembles the latter—it's learning patterns and concepts rather than reproducing specific works. This process parallels how human artists develop by studying existing art, absorbing techniques, and creating new works influenced by what they've learned. The difference here is that ai is able to express that 'learning' as a mathematic equation. While AI model training does consume significant energy, the environmental impact must be compared to the full lifecycle of traditional art materials such as oil paint production, canvas manufacturing, and shipping. Once trained, using AI models consumes relatively modest energy. The technology is rapidly becoming more efficient, and many AI companies are investing in renewable energy or carbon offsets. Those who condemn AI art as inherently unethical often apply a zero-sum mentality to creative expression—a fundamentally capitalist framework that treats artistic opportunity as a limited resource. The idea that making art more accessible "devalues" existing art comes from market thinking, not artistic thinking. Throughout history, democratizing creative tools has expanded artistic expression, not diminished it. When photography became accessible, it didn't eliminate painting—it freed painting to explore new directions. Digital tools didn't replace traditional art—they expanded the total landscape of creative expression. AI tools are fundamentally democratizing—they reduce technical barriers to creative expression. People with creative vision but limited technical training can now visualize their ideas. Artists with disabilities may find AI tools more accessible than traditional media. Those without financial resources for expensive art education can explore visual expression. Professionals can rapidly prototype concepts before investing time in full execution. Making creative expression more accessible isn't "stealing" from established artists—it's expanding humanity's creative potential. Nothing could be further from evil than giving more people the ability to express themselves. AI art at its best represents a collaboration between human and machine. The human artist provides the vision, prompt engineering, curation, and context. The artist selects, refines, combines, and contextualizes the outputs. The final work often integrates AI-generated elements with other techniques as part of a larger composition. Just as a 3D artist doesn't manually calculate every pixel of a render but rather directs the rendering engine toward their creative vision, the AI artist guides the generative process toward their intended expression. AI-assisted art represents an evolution in artistic tools, not a replacement for human creativity. Like 3D rendering engines and VFX simulations before it, AI will find its place as another legitimate tool in the artist's expanding toolkit. The legal framework will adapt, as it always has with technological innovation, and the creative landscape will grow richer—not poorer—for having more voices, more tools, and more possibilities. What matters is not the tools used but the creative vision, intention, and execution behind the work. The artist remains the driving force, with AI serving as a powerful but ultimately subordinate tool in the creative process. This explanation was co-authored through collaboration—the human driving the core thought process and conceptual direction, with the AI tool helping to refine, articulate, and structure these thoughts into a cohesive argument. In a way, this collaboration itself demonstrates the very partnership between human creativity and AI assistance that the text describes. I think its also vital to differentiate between SPECIFIC AI models, and the TECHNOLOGY behind them as a whole. as much as nay-sayers would like you to believe that all AI technology is unethical because of JUSTIFIED ethical concerns around SOME prevalent AI models, you cant just paint the entire technology as a whole with the same brush because its convenient to your argument. its disingenuous. And parallel to those ethical concerns, take into account that the LEGALITY is a separate issue that isn't settled. Let me further clarify that MARKET , LEGAL and ETHICAL concerns aren't INVALID or should be ignored, but they aren't sufficient to CONDEMN the technology and its use. they are questions to be asked and problems to be dealt with, but while they're often attempted to portray AI as evil or unethical or harmful, they are really just highlighting the shortcomings of the market and legal systems, as the 'harms' are more related to capitalism and its faults, than to the inherent technology. that doesn't mean these issues shouldn't be addressed, but they aren't a poison pill for the technology , and those that treat them like they are are acting from ignorance, unintentional at best to malicious at worst.

Spiraling Shape Comics

Three paragraphs in I realized this was made in conjunction with AI, and it does show the ways it can be helpful :)

Carasibana

My original stab at it was a lot less coherent and more rambling