Et tu, buffalo breath?

Please don’t further spread the psychosexual vocabulary of alt-right fascists. It’s bad enough hearing people parrot slop slop slop like a thirsty labrador.

Unethical uses are legitimate.

It’s your computer. It should do what it’s told.

Just means ‘you can’t stop me, neener neener.’

“It’s an MP9 from B&T–” “Beckler and Tock.”

It werfs flammen.

And people would rather demand change just because they say so, versus changing any of the incentives involved.

We could just make these companies share their scans. Then it would only affect one (1) copy of every published work. There are no ongoing commercial concerns for a book that’s been out-of-print for thirty years.

Copywriting means you work in advertising. Copyright is a different thing.

The little stars are pretty much universal shorthand for generated images and video. For several years at this point.

“Calm down,” “I’m not reading,” “slop justification,” “‘I am physically incapable.’”

Lie better.

‘I didn’t read that, you’re just lazy, slop slop slop ha ha.’

Yes it fucking is. What you’re doing is shitty and you need to be better. You can’t claim to care oh-so-deeply about true human effort, then brush aside when someone tries explaining their position on the issue you hassled them about.

This is abusive trolling.

Shitposts being deep expressions of the soul, apparently. News to me after several Photoshop Phridays selected my hard work of maybe half an hour. News also to the photographers whose images I stole and illegally combined. Images picked from the few relevant examples, when I’d search for a specific reference and cross my fingers.

These contradictions don’t phase you. You’re not listening. Any disagreement gets labeled as brain damage, and then the same complaints get parroted anew. As if people who pirated Photoshop will be swayed by copyright law.

My guy: the personalized aspect of a gag image for strangers is the quality of the idea, not the tedious skill of rotoscoping low-quality inputs. Effort can be part of the joke, but there’s entire subcultures for text over stolen frames from Spongebob. Now eight gigs of linear algebra will let your computer render bespoke images on command. In what reality will people politely abandon that and pretend it never happened?

Would a model trained only on licensed work change how you talk about this, at all?

We goons seem distinctly realistic about this tech, because we did this shit the hard way, and that was much closer to theft. The shrill insistence ‘it’s only combining images!’ has to be met with (1) nah we know what looks like and it’s never this clean or bespoke, and (2) the alternative is literally combining images. Those photos of an elephant hunt, Ted Nugent, and Snuffleupagus had identifiable authorship, and their union involved neither permission not attribution.

What bugs me most is people asserting, ‘models don’t understand what they’re showing.’ They don’t have to? The user understands those concepts, which is why they asked for them. A human being is using the tool’s ability to show those things to express an idea. Even if that idea is really really stupid.

The nature of bad faith is that there is no right answer.

You didn’t read any of that - you just sneered harder than the first guy. Most of y’all do not seem to care which complaints you pick, except for where they point toward. They are not addressable. They are pretense.

That’s why grabbing whole photographs off Google Images and slapping them together in Photoshop is lauded as good-old-days shitposting, but you still posture about “plagiarism.”

Some others in English: East Jesus, fuckbutt point, cow country.

The universal translator is doing its best not to call everyone Us from the planet Home.

Or Dirt.

“How do I?” is a question. “How to” is an explanation.

dbzer0 at least takes an instance-wide fists-on-hips stance. Like, you can be against this… that can’t seriously be why.

Copyright - which the vast majority of people on Lemmy must care deeply about, outside of this topic.