There's also plenty of games that have such content and are less detrimental to the environment, the internet, and humanity at large.
You can also put a rope around your neck while you're jerking off, and apparently that's something so enticing to some people that they've (at best) permanently harmed themselves by doing it. Probably best that you don't do anything like that, but unfortunately fixing stupidity with words is (again, at best) unlikely.
Because it's stealing work from actual artists to make things that are almost equivalent or worse, and that LLMs are turning everything online into an absolute cesspit.
Not to mention the climate effects of the data centers they are built on.
What's more puzzling is why people insist on using and supporting it, but I guess you can't really argue with irrationality. (Even though I enjoy trying.)
And I still don't see the problem, without competition there is no growth, if you don't want to be replaced by ai, do better than it and if you can't, then it's natural selection at that point.
Well, I can certainly say that you sound like a lunatic, so you've at least got that going for you. You know that human beings are the one that are making the art, right? Not just some unthinking, unfeeling machine? But oh, I guess if they "can't do it better" they shouldn't exist? Is that what you're suggesting with that post? Because it sounds to me like that's what you're suggesting. Please, elaborate on what you mean by "it's natural selection at that point", because I'm sure you've got such a morally complex justification for what you wrote.
What a incredibly childish take. That's a mindset I'd expect from a supervillain in a kid's TV show. You know there's plentiful amounts of media with characters with that exact line of thinking, right? And they always either end up having different mindsets or ending up dying in some violent fashion, usually the former if it's a kid's show, and typically the latter if it's being more honest with how true things are to reality. In the real world, unfortunately, people tend to end up taking themselves out in the second option when insisting on keeping those series of ideas in their heads, so for your own sake, I'd advise changing your argument to prioritize a more caring and human-centric view.
Or don't, as I guess that'd just be "natural selection" from your current point of view. You need to get help from a suicide hotline or talk to a therapist before doing anything rash, christ.
Edit: Call the 988 Lifeline if you're in the US, or type in "suicide hotline" in your search browser for one that's more applicable to you.
Pretty sure you need to go see a therapist as you sound like universe ended just cause someone used ai art in a free porn game to save money 😆 being human centric doesn't mean one should cater mediocrity, I've seen some artists ask excess price for Mediocre arts and sometimes deliver even worse than that on whims because there were no other options, ai arts instead made easier for both devs to make games in a budget friendly way to earn more money and free players to get good games for free, so I see no problem in it as nobody got obligation to spend more money than they needed to just cause someone thinks they're entitled decide for others 🙄
I'll actually read through and fully respond to your post when I have more time, but I fully expect you to be repeating the same. Exact. Drivel. That all you AI-cultists use to justify relying on your machine-god - "dude it saves money using this society-corrupting machine that also turns our planet into trash, that's all that's important, just serve the great machine of industry, dude, all else is unimportant, dude, just sell your soul to the machine for it's all-powerful slop, dude, nothing else matters except making money because we're just simple little cogs in a machine, dude" because that's all you AI-cultists are - slaves to a hypothetical "machine of progress" rather than valuing art and knowledge for it's own sake, or even doing anything with yourselves outside of stealing from other people because you're too lazy and uninterested in participating in said mediums of creativity and expression.
But please, keep on responding to me with the exact same points I've seen a thousand times over, at least this is keeping you from using your machine-god for a little bit longer. Hell, go ahead and toss my points into ChatGPT if you're so uninterested in actually having a discussion in the first place, but just know I'll be the first to end this whole thing because you can't hold it without getting bored despite initiating it in the first place - it'll just go to show that you're not capable of finishing what you started, alongside revealing how little you care about your points.
Ok so this is exactly the thing I was talking about - you don't actually care about art whatsoever, but I also directly addressed the things you're saying here in one of my other posts that I've made. But apparently if something is too long you just won't read it, according to your other comment, so I'll try to make this short and sweet as possible for your goldfish atttention span to keep up with.
I'd suggest going back and reading all of my posts, but with the amount of effort that requires out of you, it might actually just end up directly killing you, so I'm unsure if I'd actually suggest that.
My reasons for not liking AI are actually complicated, so I suppose if you're too incapable of reading something that's "too long", you might need to just go back to preschool for another decade or two.
If you're going to skip through an argument, generally you should pick and choose wisely, as my "whining" actually included points against what you were saying, (and then some) but you wouldn't know that outside of what little you've been able to absorb, but don't blame yourself. I imagine AI is what actually raised you instead of human beings.
"I can't form a coherent response to people bitching about this other thing, I'll just generally gesture towards it and say it's BS without any kind of follow-up."
Dawg, human beings have made things as good as this game - they made the art that the AI stole from. They made the programs this entire thing was built on.
What kind of argument is this? You know the developer IS actually a person, right? You're invalidating the work they've put into it while trying to compliment them. This is one of the most posts of all time, but I can't say I would've expected anything else from an AI-cultist.
The main source of uncanny valley in AI art is light and colors. That's because those come from photos and 3D renders which have heavy post-processing.
No, you can't apply those things to a drawing. For example: a great LUT that looks amazing on any photo would turn anime style drawing into a complete mess. Not to mention that the entire drawing is split into dozens of layers, and you need to manually create masks for a lot of effect.
Then comes the fact that there isn't any drawing software besides photoshop that has all the tools for the job. You'd be surprised how many artists use AI art to get colors and gradients.
I'm gonna be honest, your comment is so completely incomprehensible that I'm not even going to bother trying to write out an actual response. It's a Gordian knot of sheer nonsense and I'm not putting any more time into this reply.
Bud, if you're gonna insist on acting like a troll, at least actually try when you're posting straight slop like this.
The reason I didn't engage with any of your arguments is, as I said, is that it's nonsense. None of it logically follows the stuff I mentioned, you're just spouting word salad and acting like you know the first thing about anything. This is part of the reason I'm blocking you, the other being that you're either a troll or legitimately too unintelligent to be able to argue in a coherent fashion. I also imagine this is for your benefit as well in the long run.
It also doesn't matter whether or not you're "an artist", as you're defending AI art by continuing to argue with me. (Your previous comment literally said, verbatim, "No, human artist can't do this," seeming to me to indicate that you take the side of AI.)
Please just stop drinking leaded or irradiated water or whatever it is that you're putting into your body, I beg of you. There are sources of water around you that aren't going to actively destroy your cognitive functions, I can almost guarantee it.
Okay, let me break it all down for you, then. How you're so insistent on not actually explaining anything is beyond me, but I guess I have to be the one to spell things out for you because you're more interested in coming off as correct “as an artist” rather than actually responding and supplying information to reveal to me how I might be wrong, but I guess that's the state of the internet now - here's something for you to ponder on that I’ll get to later in this post; it benefits both you and the other party you're talking to to explain what you mean when you say something.
Anyway, I'm more than willing to admit that I don't know anything about being an artist in the textbook definition sense, but that doesn't detract from the fact that making art is something that an actual human being can do because it's something that human beings have been doing since the internet existed.
And since I'm, apparently to you, clearly not an artist (in whatever insane definition you have stuck in the corner of your mind), you need to talk like an actual person and not just say things that don't mean anything to others. That’s kind of the point of communication - to deliver information to others. Mentioning “LUT” and your use of "uncanny valley" both mean nothing to me, so again, the points that you made previously are irrelevant because I don't know what it means, and I have very obviously written it off because of that. (This is what I mean when I say things like "word salad" or "word garbage" when I’ve responded to you. This is something that goes back to the phrase "address the points that I am making". It's only apparent to me now that you're arguing from your position of knowledge rather than discussing the concepts I am trying to get at.) You need to treat your audience as though they don't have the same experience as you do, because Idon't, and I’d be more than willing to bet a large sum of money that most people also do not have your specific experiences. Talking down to other people when you're "not defending AI" sounds functionally identical as if you're defending AI, hence why I was saying that you are.
Furthermore, what kind of "AI" are you talking about, here? Are you talking about the use of LLMs and are you using "AI" as the catch-all term as I have been (because that's how almost everyone else uses it based on all of the discussions that I've seen online), or have you been using it in reference to computers participating in repetitive actions? Because if you're using it in the latter manner, you're using it in a way that NOBODY ELSE ONLINE DOES - least of all, me. But for the sake of clarity and because apparently you need me to spell things out as explicitly as possible for you, I'll refer to LLMs as LLMs from here-on-out rather than the catch-all term of "AI" because you're apparently more interested in showing off your knowledge about your field (or using it in the "technically correct" term) rather than socializing with other human beings, online or off.
The fundamental argument I have against the use of LLMs is a concept that I originally learned about from DOOM (2016), and the idea is that while the scientists in said game might have been able to get some useful stuff out of using the technology they developed from studying Hell, but it still made the rest of the world terrible. The idea is that the scientists that made the enemies in the game were fundamentally still using evil technology, and even if it's "for the greater good", it's still degrading the rest of the world.
And I don't use Twitter, actually, because that website is straight-up ass in more ways than one. Matter of fact, I hardly use social media more than I need to because of people like you that get stuck up on textbook definitions (or whatever you think you’re spouting) rather than socialize and act like rational people.
When you go into any kind of situation where you have to communicate with other living beings, it's more expedient to refer to things as they are by the other people in the room, or, it’s wise to at thevery least ask what other people mean when they use words that can be misinterpreted. I'm spelling this out for you explicitly because this has been an insane conversation, and frankly, you need to talk to other human beings more often. This kind of stuff is socialization 101. I learned this in both middle and high-school, and that's because I was so socially inept that I didn't learn it earlier, so it makes me think you're even more socially incompetent than I was as both a child and an edgy teenager.
But damn, you sure showed off how much of a technically correct artist you are, so congrats. There’s a win for you. You got me on that point.
Edit: Apparently you're so avid for posting that it seems to me like you should have already known a good portion of the things that I've mentioned, but all of this just goes back to the idea that people like you are more interested in coming off as correct and being the one to "win an argument" rather than actually have the argument so that both sides can benefit, and that's coming from a guy that is solely interested in arguing with other people on this account, so you very clearly need to log off and touch some grass. Surprisingly, you're somehow evenmore terminally online than I am, and I mean that in the most derogatory sense possible to all parties involved.
You won all of the internets, so please, go back to Reddit, kind stranger.
I sincerely doubt it. If you actually cared enough to get someone to do the art, you either would have already or you would've done it yourself.
Good job trying to justify it to yourself and your customers - though unfortunately for you, everyone with two braincells to rub together saw right through that hot BS.
When is "enough" for you? When you make $2 a month? 20? 1000? 10 million? Thing is, you can always keep going with that logic. Just say you don't want to hire an artist and stop giving people nonsense answers that everyone knows is nonsense.
This was the most gaslighting and non-sense comment I've seen in a while.
If we don't care - why spend lots of time everyday making a game? If you played the game you've seen in the end that we plan to add not only an artist for art. Also voiceover, animations and more & EXACT NUMBERS of supporters we need for every new addition.
It's all calculated and is pretty straight forward. We are serious about it and are willing to invest our resources to make the game better.
You call it "BS" because you wouldn't do that and judge others by comparing to yourself.
When it comes to hiring an artist - you can't ask someone to build a good house for you without paying them. They studied for years and deserve getting paid.
We want only quality. Artists that can provide the quality we want - aren't willing to do it for free (we've tried). That's why things are the way they are now. As soon as we hit the number of supporters required - an artist will be invited.
Also you just said that all supporters have less than "two braincells" - all you do is gaslighting and calling everyone names (based on your account activity lol). That's pathetic.
If you are really that much smarter and talented than all of us - show us the game YOU made without paying artists and where the art is top tier.
Oh damn, little kitty Akabara's got claws, hear him roar!
In all seriousness though, I cannot express how much your comment made me giggle like a madman, so thank you for posting. It really made my day.
Onto the post though, uh, you don't know what gaslighting means. Like at all. Using words you don't quite understand makes you sound kind of… I'm not even gonna try to sugarcoat it for you, just use a dictionary when you try to sound smart, please. It's the bare minimum you can do when you make a post that I have to read.
The other thing is that you clearly do not care about making a game. If you did, you'd use your own art for the placeholders. Or you'd literally just use stock assets for placeholders. I also suspect you probably used ChatGPT or some other program to write parts of this game, but I don't have any proof for that, it's just speculation, but I am more than familiar enough with the AI bros like you to confidently say that you probably have used it once or twice in the formation of your creation. (I'm also not interested in playing your game whatsoever). I imagine you'd deny this claim whether or not you actually did use GPT, so don't bother denying it, as I don't really care what you say. You already used AI art for the visuals, so it's not that much of a stretch to imagine that you probably also used AI for other aspects of the game that you've supposedly "created". (Assuming you didn't just steal the entire game outright.) This kind of thing also ties back into the use of AI at all, in that it is objectively theft. You can disagree with it all you like, but when it comes down to it, it's not an actual artificial intelligence that is "recreating" art - it's a program that is designed to mash two pre-made things together doing so. There's a difference (even if it's not one you might recognize), and you are the one using it.
On that topic, let's play a little game of pretend and imagine that you make a piece of art of something. Let's say you make a painting. The very next day, I come out with the exact same painting - and it's not just a "recreation", it is the exact. Same. Painting. One for one. Now in this hypothetical, I didn't actually copy you - I made it myself, no inspiration nor theft required. Now here's the big part you as the reader need to think about - do both paintings have value - not just artistically, but also independently of each other? I would argue yes, because they're both made by human beings, both with feelings and emotions behind them. As a matter of fact, I would argue that the human mind (or the "soul" if you want to get philosophical) is the most important part in this equation. Now imagine if my painting was actually just an AI that copied it. Then I'd argue that my painting is not of value because a human being did not create it.
"But I gave the AI the prompt, so I still had a hand in creating it," an absolute lobotomite would argue. And in response, I would say that you do not have a hand in creating it whatsoever because you didn't learn the skills necessary to actually make the art in the first place, thus, you are not the creator. The people that made the works the AI is trained on are the creators, and not those that generate the prompts. Anybody with a functioning brainstem and a couple of fingers is capable of writing a prompt, it takes an actual person with thoughts and skills to create art, not just some clown mashing some keys and getting a thing and throwing it online somewhere and saying "it's mine", because LITERALLY ANYONE can do that. (Would you say that someone like Henry Ford made all mass-manufactured products because he had a hand in popularizing the concept of the production line? You most certainly shouldn't, and that same concept applies here.)
Art is made with an intent and a deliberate goal - it's not just "oh I want this thing", because anyone can think of something cool, it's ACTUALLY MAKING THE DAMN THING which is the important part. It's a combination of intent and vision, and as I have previously shared, I have a complex network of why I value human beings that create art and not AI. (Also, this mindset applies to all types of art - movies, games, photography, paintings, etc.) But you're using AI, for the placeholders that are in your game. Thus, you're not actually interested in making art. You just want someone to make art "for free" because you'd rather it be simple and free, even though you also just contradicted yourself in the exact same post, so I'm honestly kind of confused about what you actually even believe.
Do you want to pay artists and help them financially, or would you rather get their hard work for free? Please, enlighten me on your ever-so-complicated philosophical meanderings of why stealing may-or-may-not be okay, oh wise one, I pray that you might inform me as to the wisdom of your holiness, mister genius of the ages. (Just in case you didn't get it, I was being sarcastic. (I feel the need to spell this out explicitly for you because that's how lowly I think of people like you.) (By writing this, I'm also knowingly tossing you a freebie to use in your own potential argument against me because I've used this joke to degrade the poster I'm arguing against (who in this case is you, but has been a different person in the past (and again, I'm spelling all of this out for you because I think it's funny to both explicitly and implicitly but also explicitly tell you what I think your intellect is at)) before in a previous argument, so go ahead and be sure to add that into any potential response.) To be honest, I'm almost kinda feeling bad for ripping on you so violently at this point, as it's actually now turning into a merciless bloodbath from my end, but I'll be sure to inform your next-of-kin. Also I should note for your sake that I lied, I don't feel that bad, I think it's actually pretty funny because I think you're not the brightest of the bunch. (Do I need to explain myself further, or do you get the joke at this point? I guess it's not really a joke, it's moreso wrapped back around to explicitly being just an insult. I'd put an expletive here to cap it off, but I find it funnier just making this tangent even longer than it already is. (I imagine you don't think it's funny, but the good news I've got in regards to that little tidbit is that I don't actually care about what you think whatsoever. I'm moreso just continuing this little side-tangent to spite you because that's kind of what I am doing with this entire comment, if you think about it - but I doubt you can. And there's the natural conclusion of this little tangent, as mentioned previously.))
Also, if you think all I'm doing is calling people names in these comments after reading all of that, you should probably go back to grade-school. I'm very obviously arguing and name-calling because I enjoy doing both and because I am also quite good at doing both, you just need to get better at reading comprehension. Along that topic, it's not lost on me that you felt the need to go through the comments I've made. It actually makes me think that you are on some level aware of how bad your arguments are, and feel the need to add to them a little bit, especially since I've got a habit of droning on and on like this, and that you feel inept in comparison. Maybe that's not the case, but with people like you (who is basically just a natural extension of a college frat-bro, though I imagine you haven't gone to college and would presumably not quite get the idea I'm dunking on you with, but I suppose I'll permit you to go unawares of my insult, as I do like to have some free time that isn't just for shitposting like this), I am aware of the whole "size matters" concept, so if we are doing a genital-measuring contest, I'm afraid I've got you beat both in terms of actual size of said appendage and when it comes to intelligence - and writing skill. And like, basically every other category that I care about.
Anyway, it's quite funny that you, someone who is ostensibly financially incentivized to "defend" your "product", is arguing with me, as I find myself wondering if you're just arguing because I bruised your fragile little ego, or if there's any other possible reason behind it? I'm not even trying to hint towards anything with that question, I'm just genuinely unsure about the answer. I also feel the need to ask, for the sake of anyone that might be interested in your "game", are you counting responding to me as "on-the-clock" or "off-the-clock"? I don't think you even get what I'm trying to say with that. Actually, just ignore that last question, I don't want you to get too confused, so don't worry your pretty little head about it. Onto the next post.
I'm not comparing anything anyone has done to myself. I'm taking your work on (more or less) its own merits and I've found that it's just straight-up not worth my time to engage with. I don't know why you'd think I'm making comparisons to anyone whatsoever, but I guess now it's just because we're doing a shit-flinging contest and you feel the need to try to get a dig at me wherever possible, even if it's total nonsense. (I guess I am more or less the sole person making it a shit-flinging contest at this point.) You are free to try to continue insulting me in the manner that you were with that bit, but I'll spoil it for you that I'm afraid there's not much ground there. Try insulting me in another way. (Or don't, any response you give is gonna be funny either way, so do whatever you'd prefer.) That, or it just simply goes back to you feeling insecure and too afraid to admit to yourself so you ascribe your own problems onto me, but either way, it's not really something that serves you too well.
At this point I'm not really gonna bother with pretending to respond to your points in a respectful fashion as I (more or less) previously was before the start of this paragraph, as AI bros like you don't really deserve it, but you can use that as an argument against me somehow as well, if you'd like. To be honest, I kinda just want to see how you'll respond to this. Even I, the person that initially might have cared about the arguments, doesn't really care as much anymore, so I'm just winging it, and I'll get to each of the points as I like. Uh, you are the one that has sole access to your financial statements, but even if you made all of your finances public, there'd still be plenty of doubt regarding them, so how do we know you haven't hit the "exact number" of supporters at some point previously? Sure, they've been public, but supporters come and go, how does the audience know for a fact that you haven't hit the goal already? I doubt there's someone watching your numbers 24/7. Or maybe you'll just change the goal in the future. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if you suddenly stopped updating one day and just ran off with the money. I've seen plenty of creators do something akin to that, and there's been people that have stuck around to support them.
Also if you were interested in making the game as good as possible, you should have made the game and then put the game up on Itch.io to make the money back that you spent, but you didn't, so I imagine you're actually just more interested in getting as much money as possible. I mention this point because you clearly used AI in the game (as you admitted to), and not because you haven't finished the game, and though one could argue not releasing the full game before it's ready is potentially something that could be considered greedy, that's quite a bit more nuanced and I have to wonder if you even know what that word means, so I'll just skip writing that section altogether for everyone's sake.
Back to the main point, though, I am saying that I wouldn't be surprised if you somehow found a way to skirt the rules you've set for yourself, because again, people like you tend to be pretty invested in doing that when it comes to money, so whether or not the goals written on your Patreon are accurate or not, I'm gonna have to cast some doubt on your relationship with honesty because again, using AI will elicit that response from people. Especially from me. Feel free to scroll up to re-read the longest bit of this post if you've forgotten that discussion, or don't if that's too much effort for you.
It's also very interesting how you are one of the first people, a creator, who has mentioned my history of arguing on this platform. I argue with people for fun because it's something that I like doing, and I use it as an outlet for my own artistic preferences, plus I'm arguing with people about things that I think are correct. You, on the other hand, clearly only actually care about making money, and because I insulted your behavior and publicly bruised your ego in the comments of your own game, feel the need to defend your creation because you're more concerned about your sun-dwarfing ego and how you appear to others. And while I sympathize, because I too very clearly have a sun-dwarfing ego, the thing is that I'm actually both more capable of taking an insult AND admitting that I have big ego, so I dunno, in terms of being pathetic, that seems to be a win on my end - one that I am happy enough to walk away with and to finally stop writing this behemoth of a post, even if I still have a myriad of arguments and things to say that I could continue to publicly flog you with, but I think I have proven my point.
You're more than welcome to try and continue arguing with me, but with the type of person you are, I fully expect you to either delete one or more of my comments, block me from commenting and then make some "sick dunks" attempting (and failing) to argue against me, not respond to this comment at all, or do some combination of those decisions. Unfortunately for you, I've already won. Not only have I now insulted you violently and multiple times publicly in the comments of your own game, I've also more than kicked thehell out of your ego - and I have both the skill and will to keep going. At this point, responding to me is gonna just turn into a Road Runner cartoon - I write something, you think you've got the upper hand, but shocker, I outwit you at the very last second.
I'd suggest just taking the bruised ego at this point, especially since I presume this is going to be something you're ruminating on for years afterward - and I would know, as I was somebody like you, and even to this day I still think about making a "sick dunk" on people I had a minor disagreement with when I was younger. Honestly, whenever you're done with your bruised ego, I would start by looking inward. (By that, I mean that you should at least stop using AI for more than just the reasons that I've given. If you're gonna make a game or if you're going to do something artistically, start with making it all yourself, and not just the aspects of the game that you've made thus far. (At this point, I'm trying to actually get across to you and write as if you were a human being - because despite what you might think, I do ACTUALLY feel bad for you - specifically, I feel bad that you're the person that you currently are, because I know for a fact that you aren't happy nor fulfilled in your life, so start now by changing yourself gradually. Again, I know this for a fact because I used to be you. And then I got better.))
Anyway, back on to your point of, "but if you're so talented, make a game, Mr. poster!" While I am claiming I have a skill in making art (as arguing with skill is something that takes at least a modicum of intelligence and time), I'm not suggesting that I have any talent in regards to making video games - that's supposed to be something you're doing, but instead you're reliant on using AI that's trained on (and is using other people's work) to make up for your own lack of skill in terms of the visual medium, and you're also committing theft while you're at it. You apparently have not put any definite money towards hiring people to actually make the art, so who's making the art for your game thus far? This connects back to several of the points I made previously, and my interest in coherently tying those arguments back to this is waning. That's lucky you, though I do still have the steam to keep going. I don't need to conform to the expectations of you to prove that I'm better than you, I can just simply be better. As stated previously, I also don't care what you think. Onto the last post.
← Return to Sin or Live
Comments
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.
how often do you update ?
looks promising and artstyle is like starmaker story where I loved it so imma try ^^
u know ball
Idaf if it's ai art or not, if it's looking good enough it'll pass. I'm here to jack off
There's also plenty of games that have such content and are less detrimental to the environment, the internet, and humanity at large.
You can also put a rope around your neck while you're jerking off, and apparently that's something so enticing to some people that they've (at best) permanently harmed themselves by doing it. Probably best that you don't do anything like that, but unfortunately fixing stupidity with words is (again, at best) unlikely.
Btw can this game be played on 32bit devices?
Seriously, I don't understand why people hate ai arts so much, ai art has its charm and same goes for human arts.
Because it's stealing work from actual artists to make things that are almost equivalent or worse, and that LLMs are turning everything online into an absolute cesspit.
Not to mention the climate effects of the data centers they are built on.
What's more puzzling is why people insist on using and supporting it, but I guess you can't really argue with irrationality. (Even though I enjoy trying.)
And I still don't see the problem, without competition there is no growth, if you don't want to be replaced by ai, do better than it and if you can't, then it's natural selection at that point.
Well, I can certainly say that you sound like a lunatic, so you've at least got that going for you. You know that human beings are the one that are making the art, right? Not just some unthinking, unfeeling machine? But oh, I guess if they "can't do it better" they shouldn't exist? Is that what you're suggesting with that post? Because it sounds to me like that's what you're suggesting. Please, elaborate on what you mean by "it's natural selection at that point", because I'm sure you've got such a morally complex justification for what you wrote.
What a incredibly childish take. That's a mindset I'd expect from a supervillain in a kid's TV show. You know there's plentiful amounts of media with characters with that exact line of thinking, right? And they always either end up having different mindsets or ending up dying in some violent fashion, usually the former if it's a kid's show, and typically the latter if it's being more honest with how true things are to reality. In the real world, unfortunately, people tend to end up taking themselves out in the second option when insisting on keeping those series of ideas in their heads, so for your own sake, I'd advise changing your argument to prioritize a more caring and human-centric view.
Or don't, as I guess that'd just be "natural selection" from your current point of view. You need to get help from a suicide hotline or talk to a therapist before doing anything rash, christ.
Edit: Call the 988 Lifeline if you're in the US, or type in "suicide hotline" in your search browser for one that's more applicable to you.
Pretty sure you need to go see a therapist as you sound like universe ended just cause someone used ai art in a free porn game to save money 😆 being human centric doesn't mean one should cater mediocrity, I've seen some artists ask excess price for Mediocre arts and sometimes deliver even worse than that on whims because there were no other options, ai arts instead made easier for both devs to make games in a budget friendly way to earn more money and free players to get good games for free, so I see no problem in it as nobody got obligation to spend more money than they needed to just cause someone thinks they're entitled decide for others 🙄
I'll actually read through and fully respond to your post when I have more time, but I fully expect you to be repeating the same. Exact. Drivel. That all you AI-cultists use to justify relying on your machine-god - "dude it saves money using this society-corrupting machine that also turns our planet into trash, that's all that's important, just serve the great machine of industry, dude, all else is unimportant, dude, just sell your soul to the machine for it's all-powerful slop, dude, nothing else matters except making money because we're just simple little cogs in a machine, dude" because that's all you AI-cultists are - slaves to a hypothetical "machine of progress" rather than valuing art and knowledge for it's own sake, or even doing anything with yourselves outside of stealing from other people because you're too lazy and uninterested in participating in said mediums of creativity and expression.
But please, keep on responding to me with the exact same points I've seen a thousand times over, at least this is keeping you from using your machine-god for a little bit longer. Hell, go ahead and toss my points into ChatGPT if you're so uninterested in actually having a discussion in the first place, but just know I'll be the first to end this whole thing because you can't hold it without getting bored despite initiating it in the first place - it'll just go to show that you're not capable of finishing what you started, alongside revealing how little you care about your points.
Ok so this is exactly the thing I was talking about - you don't actually care about art whatsoever, but I also directly addressed the things you're saying here in one of my other posts that I've made. But apparently if something is too long you just won't read it, according to your other comment, so I'll try to make this short and sweet as possible for your goldfish atttention span to keep up with.
I'd suggest going back and reading all of my posts, but with the amount of effort that requires out of you, it might actually just end up directly killing you, so I'm unsure if I'd actually suggest that.
My reasons for not liking AI are actually complicated, so I suppose if you're too incapable of reading something that's "too long", you might need to just go back to preschool for another decade or two.
If you're going to skip through an argument, generally you should pick and choose wisely, as my "whining" actually included points against what you were saying, (and then some) but you wouldn't know that outside of what little you've been able to absorb, but don't blame yourself. I imagine AI is what actually raised you instead of human beings.
Please don't bend over for any of the whiny bitches moaning about AI art, it looks really cool and I doubt a human artist can make it as good.
"I can't form a coherent response to people bitching about this other thing, I'll just generally gesture towards it and say it's BS without any kind of follow-up."
Dawg, human beings have made things as good as this game - they made the art that the AI stole from. They made the programs this entire thing was built on.
What kind of argument is this? You know the developer IS actually a person, right? You're invalidating the work they've put into it while trying to compliment them. This is one of the most posts of all time, but I can't say I would've expected anything else from an AI-cultist.
No, human artist can't do this.
The main source of uncanny valley in AI art is light and colors. That's because those come from photos and 3D renders which have heavy post-processing.
No, you can't apply those things to a drawing. For example: a great LUT that looks amazing on any photo would turn anime style drawing into a complete mess. Not to mention that the entire drawing is split into dozens of layers, and you need to manually create masks for a lot of effect.
Then comes the fact that there isn't any drawing software besides photoshop that has all the tools for the job. You'd be surprised how many artists use AI art to get colors and gradients.
I'm gonna be honest, your comment is so completely incomprehensible that I'm not even going to bother trying to write out an actual response. It's a Gordian knot of sheer nonsense and I'm not putting any more time into this reply.
Untangle the meat between your ears, please.
Because you know nothing about art, that's why you also didn't realize I was an artist and not an AI-defender.
Edit [Guy ran away back to Twitter]: Google my nickname. I'm a graphical programmer that works on both game engines and drawing software.
Bud, if you're gonna insist on acting like a troll, at least actually try when you're posting straight slop like this.
The reason I didn't engage with any of your arguments is, as I said, is that it's nonsense. None of it logically follows the stuff I mentioned, you're just spouting word salad and acting like you know the first thing about anything. This is part of the reason I'm blocking you, the other being that you're either a troll or legitimately too unintelligent to be able to argue in a coherent fashion. I also imagine this is for your benefit as well in the long run.
It also doesn't matter whether or not you're "an artist", as you're defending AI art by continuing to argue with me. (Your previous comment literally said, verbatim, "No, human artist can't do this," seeming to me to indicate that you take the side of AI.)
Please just stop drinking leaded or irradiated water or whatever it is that you're putting into your body, I beg of you. There are sources of water around you that aren't going to actively destroy your cognitive functions, I can almost guarantee it.
Okay, let me break it all down for you, then. How you're so insistent on not actually explaining anything is beyond me, but I guess I have to be the one to spell things out for you because you're more interested in coming off as correct “as an artist” rather than actually responding and supplying information to reveal to me how I might be wrong, but I guess that's the state of the internet now - here's something for you to ponder on that I’ll get to later in this post; it benefits both you and the other party you're talking to to explain what you mean when you say something.
Anyway, I'm more than willing to admit that I don't know anything about being an artist in the textbook definition sense, but that doesn't detract from the fact that making art is something that an actual human being can do because it's something that human beings have been doing since the internet existed.
And since I'm, apparently to you, clearly not an artist (in whatever insane definition you have stuck in the corner of your mind), you need to talk like an actual person and not just say things that don't mean anything to others. That’s kind of the point of communication - to deliver information to others. Mentioning “LUT” and your use of "uncanny valley" both mean nothing to me, so again, the points that you made previously are irrelevant because I don't know what it means, and I have very obviously written it off because of that. (This is what I mean when I say things like "word salad" or "word garbage" when I’ve responded to you. This is something that goes back to the phrase "address the points that I am making". It's only apparent to me now that you're arguing from your position of knowledge rather than discussing the concepts I am trying to get at.) You need to treat your audience as though they don't have the same experience as you do, because I don't, and I’d be more than willing to bet a large sum of money that most people also do not have your specific experiences. Talking down to other people when you're "not defending AI" sounds functionally identical as if you're defending AI, hence why I was saying that you are.
Furthermore, what kind of "AI" are you talking about, here? Are you talking about the use of LLMs and are you using "AI" as the catch-all term as I have been (because that's how almost everyone else uses it based on all of the discussions that I've seen online), or have you been using it in reference to computers participating in repetitive actions? Because if you're using it in the latter manner, you're using it in a way that NOBODY ELSE ONLINE DOES - least of all, me. But for the sake of clarity and because apparently you need me to spell things out as explicitly as possible for you, I'll refer to LLMs as LLMs from here-on-out rather than the catch-all term of "AI" because you're apparently more interested in showing off your knowledge about your field (or using it in the "technically correct" term) rather than socializing with other human beings, online or off.
The fundamental argument I have against the use of LLMs is a concept that I originally learned about from DOOM (2016), and the idea is that while the scientists in said game might have been able to get some useful stuff out of using the technology they developed from studying Hell, but it still made the rest of the world terrible. The idea is that the scientists that made the enemies in the game were fundamentally still using evil technology, and even if it's "for the greater good", it's still degrading the rest of the world.
And I don't use Twitter, actually, because that website is straight-up ass in more ways than one. Matter of fact, I hardly use social media more than I need to because of people like you that get stuck up on textbook definitions (or whatever you think you’re spouting) rather than socialize and act like rational people.
When you go into any kind of situation where you have to communicate with other living beings, it's more expedient to refer to things as they are by the other people in the room, or, it’s wise to at the very least ask what other people mean when they use words that can be misinterpreted. I'm spelling this out for you explicitly because this has been an insane conversation, and frankly, you need to talk to other human beings more often. This kind of stuff is socialization 101. I learned this in both middle and high-school, and that's because I was so socially inept that I didn't learn it earlier, so it makes me think you're even more socially incompetent than I was as both a child and an edgy teenager.
But damn, you sure showed off how much of a technically correct artist you are, so congrats. There’s a win for you. You got me on that point.
Edit: Apparently you're so avid for posting that it seems to me like you should have already known a good portion of the things that I've mentioned, but all of this just goes back to the idea that people like you are more interested in coming off as correct and being the one to "win an argument" rather than actually have the argument so that both sides can benefit, and that's coming from a guy that is solely interested in arguing with other people on this account, so you very clearly need to log off and touch some grass. Surprisingly, you're somehow even more terminally online than I am, and I mean that in the most derogatory sense possible to all parties involved.
You won all of the internets, so please, go back to Reddit, kind stranger.
any plans for futa content?
AI art?
Based on the typical shading and the nonsensical text/letters in the first screenshot: definitely
At least the sprites are pixelated
Sometimes lower quality is a good thing
is pregnancy planned?
Show post...
Play thousands of adult games now Try Now
Show post...
Explore 61,000 adult games Join the Fun
Bbc scenes planned or blacked route? If not i suggest! Prefer nts btw. Like ask gf cuck you)))
nah Bleaching is better. Queen of Hearts > Queen of spades
Is the art AI generated?
Lot's of static, inconsistency, and blurry things.
yes, it's definitely AI
When our patreon will grow enough - we will hire a talented artist who will redraw all art + do custom animations everywhere.
I sincerely doubt it. If you actually cared enough to get someone to do the art, you either would have already or you would've done it yourself.
Good job trying to justify it to yourself and your customers - though unfortunately for you, everyone with two braincells to rub together saw right through that hot BS.
When is "enough" for you? When you make $2 a month? 20? 1000? 10 million? Thing is, you can always keep going with that logic. Just say you don't want to hire an artist and stop giving people nonsense answers that everyone knows is nonsense.
This was the most gaslighting and non-sense comment I've seen in a while.
If we don't care - why spend lots of time everyday making a game? If you played the game you've seen in the end that we plan to add not only an artist for art. Also voiceover, animations and more & EXACT NUMBERS of supporters we need for every new addition.
It's all calculated and is pretty straight forward. We are serious about it and are willing to invest our resources to make the game better.
You call it "BS" because you wouldn't do that and judge others by comparing to yourself.
When it comes to hiring an artist - you can't ask someone to build a good house for you without paying them. They studied for years and deserve getting paid.
We want only quality. Artists that can provide the quality we want - aren't willing to do it for free (we've tried). That's why things are the way they are now. As soon as we hit the number of supporters required - an artist will be invited.
Also you just said that all supporters have less than "two braincells" - all you do is gaslighting and calling everyone names (based on your account activity lol). That's pathetic.
If you are really that much smarter and talented than all of us - show us the game YOU made without paying artists and where the art is top tier.
Don't have it? Opinion rejected.
-akabara
Oh damn, little kitty Akabara's got claws, hear him roar!
In all seriousness though, I cannot express how much your comment made me giggle like a madman, so thank you for posting. It really made my day.
Onto the post though, uh, you don't know what gaslighting means. Like at all. Using words you don't quite understand makes you sound kind of… I'm not even gonna try to sugarcoat it for you, just use a dictionary when you try to sound smart, please. It's the bare minimum you can do when you make a post that I have to read.
The other thing is that you clearly do not care about making a game. If you did, you'd use your own art for the placeholders. Or you'd literally just use stock assets for placeholders. I also suspect you probably used ChatGPT or some other program to write parts of this game, but I don't have any proof for that, it's just speculation, but I am more than familiar enough with the AI bros like you to confidently say that you probably have used it once or twice in the formation of your creation. (I'm also not interested in playing your game whatsoever). I imagine you'd deny this claim whether or not you actually did use GPT, so don't bother denying it, as I don't really care what you say. You already used AI art for the visuals, so it's not that much of a stretch to imagine that you probably also used AI for other aspects of the game that you've supposedly "created". (Assuming you didn't just steal the entire game outright.) This kind of thing also ties back into the use of AI at all, in that it is objectively theft. You can disagree with it all you like, but when it comes down to it, it's not an actual artificial intelligence that is "recreating" art - it's a program that is designed to mash two pre-made things together doing so. There's a difference (even if it's not one you might recognize), and you are the one using it.
On that topic, let's play a little game of pretend and imagine that you make a piece of art of something. Let's say you make a painting. The very next day, I come out with the exact same painting - and it's not just a "recreation", it is the exact. Same. Painting. One for one. Now in this hypothetical, I didn't actually copy you - I made it myself, no inspiration nor theft required. Now here's the big part you as the reader need to think about - do both paintings have value - not just artistically, but also independently of each other? I would argue yes, because they're both made by human beings, both with feelings and emotions behind them. As a matter of fact, I would argue that the human mind (or the "soul" if you want to get philosophical) is the most important part in this equation. Now imagine if my painting was actually just an AI that copied it. Then I'd argue that my painting is not of value because a human being did not create it.
"But I gave the AI the prompt, so I still had a hand in creating it," an absolute lobotomite would argue. And in response, I would say that you do not have a hand in creating it whatsoever because you didn't learn the skills necessary to actually make the art in the first place, thus, you are not the creator. The people that made the works the AI is trained on are the creators, and not those that generate the prompts. Anybody with a functioning brainstem and a couple of fingers is capable of writing a prompt, it takes an actual person with thoughts and skills to create art, not just some clown mashing some keys and getting a thing and throwing it online somewhere and saying "it's mine", because LITERALLY ANYONE can do that. (Would you say that someone like Henry Ford made all mass-manufactured products because he had a hand in popularizing the concept of the production line? You most certainly shouldn't, and that same concept applies here.)
Art is made with an intent and a deliberate goal - it's not just "oh I want this thing", because anyone can think of something cool, it's ACTUALLY MAKING THE DAMN THING which is the important part. It's a combination of intent and vision, and as I have previously shared, I have a complex network of why I value human beings that create art and not AI. (Also, this mindset applies to all types of art - movies, games, photography, paintings, etc.) But you're using AI, for the placeholders that are in your game. Thus, you're not actually interested in making art. You just want someone to make art "for free" because you'd rather it be simple and free, even though you also just contradicted yourself in the exact same post, so I'm honestly kind of confused about what you actually even believe.
Do you want to pay artists and help them financially, or would you rather get their hard work for free? Please, enlighten me on your ever-so-complicated philosophical meanderings of why stealing may-or-may-not be okay, oh wise one, I pray that you might inform me as to the wisdom of your holiness, mister genius of the ages. (Just in case you didn't get it, I was being sarcastic. (I feel the need to spell this out explicitly for you because that's how lowly I think of people like you.) (By writing this, I'm also knowingly tossing you a freebie to use in your own potential argument against me because I've used this joke to degrade the poster I'm arguing against (who in this case is you, but has been a different person in the past (and again, I'm spelling all of this out for you because I think it's funny to both explicitly and implicitly but also explicitly tell you what I think your intellect is at)) before in a previous argument, so go ahead and be sure to add that into any potential response.) To be honest, I'm almost kinda feeling bad for ripping on you so violently at this point, as it's actually now turning into a merciless bloodbath from my end, but I'll be sure to inform your next-of-kin. Also I should note for your sake that I lied, I don't feel that bad, I think it's actually pretty funny because I think you're not the brightest of the bunch. (Do I need to explain myself further, or do you get the joke at this point? I guess it's not really a joke, it's moreso wrapped back around to explicitly being just an insult. I'd put an expletive here to cap it off, but I find it funnier just making this tangent even longer than it already is. (I imagine you don't think it's funny, but the good news I've got in regards to that little tidbit is that I don't actually care about what you think whatsoever. I'm moreso just continuing this little side-tangent to spite you because that's kind of what I am doing with this entire comment, if you think about it - but I doubt you can. And there's the natural conclusion of this little tangent, as mentioned previously.))
Also, if you think all I'm doing is calling people names in these comments after reading all of that, you should probably go back to grade-school. I'm very obviously arguing and name-calling because I enjoy doing both and because I am also quite good at doing both, you just need to get better at reading comprehension. Along that topic, it's not lost on me that you felt the need to go through the comments I've made. It actually makes me think that you are on some level aware of how bad your arguments are, and feel the need to add to them a little bit, especially since I've got a habit of droning on and on like this, and that you feel inept in comparison. Maybe that's not the case, but with people like you (who is basically just a natural extension of a college frat-bro, though I imagine you haven't gone to college and would presumably not quite get the idea I'm dunking on you with, but I suppose I'll permit you to go unawares of my insult, as I do like to have some free time that isn't just for shitposting like this), I am aware of the whole "size matters" concept, so if we are doing a genital-measuring contest, I'm afraid I've got you beat both in terms of actual size of said appendage and when it comes to intelligence - and writing skill. And like, basically every other category that I care about.
Anyway, it's quite funny that you, someone who is ostensibly financially incentivized to "defend" your "product", is arguing with me, as I find myself wondering if you're just arguing because I bruised your fragile little ego, or if there's any other possible reason behind it? I'm not even trying to hint towards anything with that question, I'm just genuinely unsure about the answer. I also feel the need to ask, for the sake of anyone that might be interested in your "game", are you counting responding to me as "on-the-clock" or "off-the-clock"? I don't think you even get what I'm trying to say with that. Actually, just ignore that last question, I don't want you to get too confused, so don't worry your pretty little head about it. Onto the next post.
I'm not comparing anything anyone has done to myself. I'm taking your work on (more or less) its own merits and I've found that it's just straight-up not worth my time to engage with. I don't know why you'd think I'm making comparisons to anyone whatsoever, but I guess now it's just because we're doing a shit-flinging contest and you feel the need to try to get a dig at me wherever possible, even if it's total nonsense. (I guess I am more or less the sole person making it a shit-flinging contest at this point.) You are free to try to continue insulting me in the manner that you were with that bit, but I'll spoil it for you that I'm afraid there's not much ground there. Try insulting me in another way. (Or don't, any response you give is gonna be funny either way, so do whatever you'd prefer.) That, or it just simply goes back to you feeling insecure and too afraid to admit to yourself so you ascribe your own problems onto me, but either way, it's not really something that serves you too well.
At this point I'm not really gonna bother with pretending to respond to your points in a respectful fashion as I (more or less) previously was before the start of this paragraph, as AI bros like you don't really deserve it, but you can use that as an argument against me somehow as well, if you'd like. To be honest, I kinda just want to see how you'll respond to this. Even I, the person that initially might have cared about the arguments, doesn't really care as much anymore, so I'm just winging it, and I'll get to each of the points as I like. Uh, you are the one that has sole access to your financial statements, but even if you made all of your finances public, there'd still be plenty of doubt regarding them, so how do we know you haven't hit the "exact number" of supporters at some point previously? Sure, they've been public, but supporters come and go, how does the audience know for a fact that you haven't hit the goal already? I doubt there's someone watching your numbers 24/7. Or maybe you'll just change the goal in the future. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if you suddenly stopped updating one day and just ran off with the money. I've seen plenty of creators do something akin to that, and there's been people that have stuck around to support them.
Also if you were interested in making the game as good as possible, you should have made the game and then put the game up on Itch.io to make the money back that you spent, but you didn't, so I imagine you're actually just more interested in getting as much money as possible. I mention this point because you clearly used AI in the game (as you admitted to), and not because you haven't finished the game, and though one could argue not releasing the full game before it's ready is potentially something that could be considered greedy, that's quite a bit more nuanced and I have to wonder if you even know what that word means, so I'll just skip writing that section altogether for everyone's sake.
Back to the main point, though, I am saying that I wouldn't be surprised if you somehow found a way to skirt the rules you've set for yourself, because again, people like you tend to be pretty invested in doing that when it comes to money, so whether or not the goals written on your Patreon are accurate or not, I'm gonna have to cast some doubt on your relationship with honesty because again, using AI will elicit that response from people. Especially from me. Feel free to scroll up to re-read the longest bit of this post if you've forgotten that discussion, or don't if that's too much effort for you.
It's also very interesting how you are one of the first people, a creator, who has mentioned my history of arguing on this platform. I argue with people for fun because it's something that I like doing, and I use it as an outlet for my own artistic preferences, plus I'm arguing with people about things that I think are correct. You, on the other hand, clearly only actually care about making money, and because I insulted your behavior and publicly bruised your ego in the comments of your own game, feel the need to defend your creation because you're more concerned about your sun-dwarfing ego and how you appear to others. And while I sympathize, because I too very clearly have a sun-dwarfing ego, the thing is that I'm actually both more capable of taking an insult AND admitting that I have big ego, so I dunno, in terms of being pathetic, that seems to be a win on my end - one that I am happy enough to walk away with and to finally stop writing this behemoth of a post, even if I still have a myriad of arguments and things to say that I could continue to publicly flog you with, but I think I have proven my point.
You're more than welcome to try and continue arguing with me, but with the type of person you are, I fully expect you to either delete one or more of my comments, block me from commenting and then make some "sick dunks" attempting (and failing) to argue against me, not respond to this comment at all, or do some combination of those decisions. Unfortunately for you, I've already won. Not only have I now insulted you violently and multiple times publicly in the comments of your own game, I've also more than kicked the hell out of your ego - and I have both the skill and will to keep going. At this point, responding to me is gonna just turn into a Road Runner cartoon - I write something, you think you've got the upper hand, but shocker, I outwit you at the very last second.
I'd suggest just taking the bruised ego at this point, especially since I presume this is going to be something you're ruminating on for years afterward - and I would know, as I was somebody like you, and even to this day I still think about making a "sick dunk" on people I had a minor disagreement with when I was younger. Honestly, whenever you're done with your bruised ego, I would start by looking inward. (By that, I mean that you should at least stop using AI for more than just the reasons that I've given. If you're gonna make a game or if you're going to do something artistically, start with making it all yourself, and not just the aspects of the game that you've made thus far. (At this point, I'm trying to actually get across to you and write as if you were a human being - because despite what you might think, I do ACTUALLY feel bad for you - specifically, I feel bad that you're the person that you currently are, because I know for a fact that you aren't happy nor fulfilled in your life, so start now by changing yourself gradually. Again, I know this for a fact because I used to be you. And then I got better.))
Anyway, back on to your point of, "but if you're so talented, make a game, Mr. poster!" While I am claiming I have a skill in making art (as arguing with skill is something that takes at least a modicum of intelligence and time), I'm not suggesting that I have any talent in regards to making video games - that's supposed to be something you're doing, but instead you're reliant on using AI that's trained on (and is using other people's work) to make up for your own lack of skill in terms of the visual medium, and you're also committing theft while you're at it. You apparently have not put any definite money towards hiring people to actually make the art, so who's making the art for your game thus far? This connects back to several of the points I made previously, and my interest in coherently tying those arguments back to this is waning. That's lucky you, though I do still have the steam to keep going. I don't need to conform to the expectations of you to prove that I'm better than you, I can just simply be better. As stated previously, I also don't care what you think. Onto the last post.
Some of them give you cheat codes and other things, mostly its to support them
is there any free version? when i try to install it, its just go to patreon
where do you get the free version?
The "free" version is just on the Patreon
Literally just play My Dystopian Robot Girlfriend or Daughter of the Void, you can download them both on the Itch website.
There's better, free stuff elsewhere.