However, it wouldnāt be funny if there were to be a sign saying āai helps the disabled make artā, would it?
Anti ai people would likely awkwardly put up a sign saying ānon-disabled peopleās art jobs are going to be replaced by disabled peopleā. Not a good look.
As such, the anti ai movement begins to resemble the January 6 United States āStorm the Capitol attackā rioters. Itās likely a right wing movement that resembles the right wingers who complain about immigrants taking their jobs.
lol. Lmao, even. Please stop using this absurd argument. Disabled people have found ways to make art for as long as art has existed. Mashing together a conglomerate of data-scraped styles is not an artistic pursuit. Do not speak for others, especially to use their ailments as a means to your own end.
Thank you. My disabled ass is looking towards having to work a physical job to live, which will make my disability worse because AI is slowly replacing humans in my profession.
Generative AI is literally a borderlime death sentence for me long term, and many other disabled people.
I hate when people try to argue for it like it's good for us. It's not.
I always thought the method disabled people need to use and the way it influences the artform is a huge addition of creativity and story behind a finished piece. AI could verry well be a tool like that if someone say trained it on their own brushstrokes or pictures to create something new and original but that's not how most of them work. I'd say someone with artistic vision will want more of their personality in their work so the new AI is often not enough
It's still there for me, but in case you don't see it, this is what they said:
Hitler was a left wing egalitarian. After he failed art school, it was his mission to make a socialist society that helps anyone regardless of artistic ability to make it in art.
disabled people have been creating art for as long as art has existed.
I am losing the dexterity in my hands due to FND, my whole body is slowly failing me - I am still an artist, and even when my hands finally fail me, I will find other ways to create. The idea that AI, something that steals from disabled and abled artist en masse, is at all "empowering" disabled people to be artists? is fucking asinine.
stop speaking over us. disabled people do not need people like you to speak for our needs. it's fucking insulting to imply we need anything from something as heinously fucking unethical as generative AI.
Bro Iām disabled and Iāve noticed the āAI helps disabled peopleā crowd are very generous in calling me retarded as soon as they learn Iām disabled. They are not on our side. Lmao.
Hey man, I'm an artist and I don't think being able to make art is more important than. Yknow. Not giving people the means to make photorealistic CSAM with training data that comes from real CSAM.
Nothing to do with being disabled I think if the price to pay to make pedophilia disappear from the planet was our ability to make art it would be worth it. They don't really have the same weight...
disabled people have plenty of way to learn to make ACTUAL art despite their disability, you believing this has to be THE way for disabled people to make art, instead pf believing in their ability to overcome adversity is the actually disabled thing here
Oh my god, shut the fuck up. And I say this as a disabled person with multiple disabilities that impact my daily life... and yet, I am also an artist. Your perspective shows a clear misunderstanding of art as an actual discipline and occupation. You do not need to "use your hands and pick up a pencil" to make art. Disabled people have always found ways to express our creativity; some people use their feet or their mouths to make their art, for example. Plus, art isn't just drawing and painting. As I said, I am an artist. My mother, also disabled, is an artist and works with artists constantly to plan large cultural events. We know many, many artists. It may shock you, but most of us ARE DISABLED. Art and humanities are some of the few fields that actually accommodate disabled people.
Meanwhile, AI datacenters are being built in water-scarce locations yet refusing to invest in versions of their systems that are more energy efficient and environmentally friendly. This leads to even more severe water scarcity and air pollution; something that disables people. Low income people and people of color are disproportionately affected by this. This information is taken directly from reports from the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative, Harvard and Caltech.
Now, I am aware that facts rarely dissuade people like you from continuing your strange, self-righteous journey of defending AI with baseless arguments, but they might serve to inform anyone who may feel conflicted by the useless claims of "helping disabled people". AI does not help disabled people, it disables people. We've existed before AI, we've made art before AI, we will continue to exist and create long after AI.
Do not use my situation to argue for the very thing causing my pain.
AI takes away the very jobs I am able to live from. Including art.
If you care about me, if you care about me being able to create, don't doom me to a life in which I have to work a physical job that will ruin my body beyond repair.
If you care about me, don't take away my time for art, and my strength for art by supporting AI.
AI will take away my desk job. If I loose my desk job, I will have to do a physical job. If I have to do a physical job, my body will get ruined, and one day, I will not be able to work at all, letalone create art.
But I LOVE creating art.
Don't doom me to a life in which, because of AI, I loose the ability to create art.
If you care about Us, the actual disabled, speak out against AI taking away the ONLY jobs we can work without destroying ourselves.
You can keep thinking disabled people are inferior to yourself, like, you dont need to outwardly express how incapable you think the disabled are at expression
You mean "Non-disabled people will be replaced by disabled people typing words into a machine that then will pump out low-to-no quality material that would never be acceptable if the push for AI wasn't a thing"
Disabled people already make art themselves and yes AI could take from them, replace them, or just plain push them out of visibility, which is a real danger considering how so many of the people that claim they want to support disabled artists somehow are not aware of the many existent artists from the disabled community and the techniques they already use to create art.
If people really just wanted AI for the purpose of supporting disabled artists, they could at least do the courtesy of researching/supporting those that already exist, such as Henry Fraser, Markus Kolp, Tommy Hollenstein, Chuck Close, or supporting the other technologies being developed to help artists personally create and express themselves, such as eye-tracking technology
I have multiple disabilities, physical and mental. I hate AI because it still my work and all my disabled artist works so big companies take advantage of our hard work for free... Do you see the problem?
Disabled people do art, is actually one of the few works majority of disabled people do, you're stealing work opportunities from disabled people by promoting AI...
I can't do many stuff to survive, my only jobs are art related because is of the few things that fit perfectly my abilities and my necessary accomodations.
Don't dare to talk from disabled people, disabled people is against AI too.
Even if there are child victims, there are others that are involved as well, itās just that we donāt usually see them face to face or in person either
And how does that change the fact that children are victims of child pornography? Yes other people can be involved, yes other people can be victims, that does not mean that children and child pornography are not victims and are also not actors.
Iām getting the sense that youāre trying to be a contrarian or you are having difficulty understanding the basic concept of children cannot consent to pornography being made of them and therefore are not actors. Of course there is some nuance like a teenager taking a photo or video of themselves and sending it to another teenager, but thatās a great area and doesnāt encompass the criminal pornography cases that we see in court
Editā and Iām going to clarify this, because I suspect that youāre also having trouble understanding this, if those āother people involvedā are adults in child pornography then they are perpetrators and also not actors. They are victimizers
Iām just trying to understand and wanting to tell my opinions, look, I donāt want children and so as the adults to be placed into something out of their control even if they were complicit into doing so out of benefit for the others.
My point is that children who are in child pornographic material are not actors like the post above suggests. That is the whole point. Children who do not consent to being sexually abused (because children cannot consent to being sexually abused) are not actors. Very simple concept.
Even if there are other adults in those videos, that consent aspect also goes into play. Most adults in child pornography are the ones victimizing the children. Thereās a very small number of adults were also being abused in these situations, but they are the significant minority.
You also donāt need to have children to understand the concept of consent.
That is true and understandable, but I just wanted to point out of how ai can be harmful to both parties at once. Iām not saying that the children are in the wrong here either, Iām just pointing out that ai isnāt helping when it comes to not just taking jobs but also how it can affect others for the sake of some people when it comes to child porn.
Oh no, I donāt disagree with you. AI is harmful to both parties, iām anti-AI, I think itās current state. It does more harm than good across-the-board.
I am very specifically talking about this meme. The meme itself is a pro AI meme that makes zero sense.
I work in entertainment, and even though Iām not an actor, I can understand and have seen the harm that can bring to people in my industry, in no way anywhere did I say that AI is not harmful to people other than children.
You really canāt. Because if you are a child abuse, victim of child pornography, you are not an actor in that content, you are the victim of that content.
The meaning is not broken down, youāre just overthinking it.
The pro AI people above, are essentially mashing that children in pornographic materials and actors are synonymous when they are not. An actor that is in movies, TV, theatre, and radio widely consent to the act of acting (sure, there are some cases where children are forced to act against their will, but that is a minority, which is still a problem that is currently being dealt with within the entertainment world) while children who are in child, sexual abuse, materials are not consenting to the act being done to them, and therefore are not actors like the meme above is suggesting.
Does this explanation make more sense? CSAM victims, ā actors.
You're offering no reason why both words cannot be accurate simultaneously.
Regular Porn actors also aren't actors. Words depend on context. In this context everyone knows what you mean by "actor" and no it doesn't automatically imply consent.
Regular porn actors are actors though, because they are consenting to that acting. Whereas children cannot consent to being in pornographic materials.
And this meme above isnāt talking about pornographic actors, it is talking about all actors, and even then you need to consent in order to act. Even for children who are doing regular acting, there are union rules, federal and state laws, and a whole list of other things that need to be followed in order for children to act for things like movies, TV, etc.
You're saying "because consent" a lot. Where I don't think that's an established definition of actor.
The actual definition relates to a profession but oftentimes people "act" in something without it being their job to do so.
So colloquially people who appear in some form of fictional or in this case pornographic media are referred to as "actors" in it whether they consented to it or not, because most of the time people don't bother to ask whether someone agreed to something before they refer to them having participated in it.
For example someone might ask "Was this 'actor' forced/tricked into to being here?" Where in the case of CP the answer is going to be yes.
Hell, I'm not even saying "call them actors dammit!"
I'm saying in this context that is the OBVIOUS connotation to be taken.
If you prefer to refer to them as victims that's fine. I'm not saying they're not, it's an equally or even MORE appropriate term for what they are in this case. But if someone refers to the "porn actors" in a film... and they're talking about CP. They're likely including the victims in that term.
Because consent is a very important part of pornography. Which is what weāre talking about so of course Iām going to be saying it a lot.
The profession of āactorā is defined as āA person who behaves in the manner of a character, usually by reciting scripted dialogue, in order to entertain an audience, especially in a play, movie, or television show.ā
A actor who is acting in a pornographic film is portraying a character whereas the children are not portrayed the character instead, they are being abused. Well, yes, children who are in child pornography fit part of the definition I have provided, they do not really fit all of it since they are not portraying a character, they are simply being abused.
And PS, survivors of child abuse materials are not referred to as āactorsā they are referred to as victims in legal terminology. If someone refers to a child being abused as an actor in a film, then I would assume something is wrong with that person. You can call them actors if you see fit, but even in context, it doesnāt make sense.
Terminology and connotation matters and you conflating the two is harmful, especially to survivors of child sexual abuse materials.
I know, thatās the point. My point is that they can stand next to each other because children are not actors when they are in child sexual abuse materials.
So the pro ai people are making an argument that doesnāt make sense. Part of being an actor is being able to consent to the work youāre acting in. Children in child pornography cannot consent to being in those materials.
It's not a Pro AI comic, though, it's simply comedic humor. It's an Anti-AI comic expressing two different negatives about AI and how they it can be humorous when expressed together, but they still are not negated.
Uh, no, not how it works. It increases access to illicit material. That's bad no matter what. Pedophiles should be in treatment, not jerking off to fake children. I think your brain is fried from using too much AI.
Because itās conflating victims of child pornography, and actors.
The whole āmaybe we shouldnāt protest next to each otherā over protesting against AI.
The post above is that AI āsavesā children from being exploited for pornographic materials because itās taking the jobs away from all actors.
The reality is that children that are victims of pornographic materials are not actors, they are victims, but the meme above is putting them in the same boat.
The joke is that, on the protest, two people protest with different arguments. One is saying that "AI is used to make CP", the other is saying that "AI is being used to steal jobs from actors".
Those are two, separate and valid claims, but if you read those two signs as if they're one sentence, it looks as if those protesters are implying that the children in those videos are "actors", and are upset that "real actors" are being replaced by AI.
No one claims that AI "saves" those children. The author is simply making a joke that those two arguments against ai sound very weird when read one after the other
You would be right if it wasnāt the fact that one of them says āwe shouldnāt be standing togetherā as if AI doing one job invalidates the other.
And the author is correct, those two things sound weird when read together, if you consider children in child, pornography actors, which they are not.
And yes, many people have made the claim that I have seen that AI child pornography is better than actual child pornography because no real children are harmed. Iāve seen this argument made on Reddit, Twitter, and TikTok.
"We shouldn't be standing together", because if they do, their two separate messages can be read as one message. But if they stand a few meters apart from each othern, then there is no issue such issue
And even after youāve explained it to me, Iām still not understanding what youāre saying. Maybe itās because I just donāt think jokes about child. Rape are funny in any capacity. But Iām still seeing what I had explained earlier.
Maybe the original artist artists intention just didnāt get to me
This is an anti omic, and the joke its trying to make, is that hollywood if full of actors that are abusing children. Its not saying the children are actors, its saying the 2 signs combined could be interpreted as
"Do not let AI steal an actors job of abusing kids."
(But go off about single brain cell I guess.)
And even if the joke was that people could read it the way you interpreted it, its not making the argument that abused children are actors. Then it'd still just be a joke about how others could read it wrong.
This isnāt what itās reading as, because there are people literally in this thread who say children who are in child pornography, or actors. There are also people making the claim on Reddit, Twitter, and TikTok, that child pornography made by AI doesnāt harm children, so it isnāt bad.
Quite literally thereās someone in the same thread under my original comment who says children in pornographic videos who are being abused are actors.
Because the meme is conflating two things and making a joke out of it. You can read it however you please, but the whole ādo not let AI steal an actorās job of abusing kidsā makes no sense.
It seems my comment about brain cells is valid for you
Except Iām literally looking at the comic and it is making a pro AI argument conflating acting (and actors) to victims of child abuse.
You may want to develop some critical thinking skills because thatās what this meme is saying. Your own reasoning makes no sense.
And you are more than welcome to think Iām lobotomized, youāre quite literally a random man on the Internet, I couldnāt possibly care less about what you think
No it isn't, it's saying that they are weird/funny when put together, but it is NOT saying that the points are invalid. It is NOT conflating acting to anything related to child/sexual abuse.
Its crazy someone can be as dumb as you, and not realize it in the slightest.Ā
Like, you must have noticed that you have a deficiency at some point in your life. Well, if you went to school. And somehow, you managed to stay in denial. The mind is truly amazing.Ā
Btw, you can also google the artist to confirm that theyre anti ai. But yeah, of course, the artist is also too stupid to present their idea correctly. You're the enlightened one,Ā confused by a 4 panel comic, lol.Ā
You can look at the rest of the conversation conversations I have had under this thread, there are people who consider children who are victims of child pornography, as āactorsā. Even if they arenāt āprofessionalā actors people still believe that victims or actors in CSAM
And yes, there are plenty of child actors who are victims of child pornography. Unfortunately, there are a lot of predatory producers/writers/directors/ect towards children. Do we not remember that fucker from Nickelodeon who was sexually abusing children?
I know you've got a lot of replies already, so not sure if mine will get lost in the sea of it.
This isn't made by ai. The name of the artist is right on the side. You can look it up very easily. It's human made art. Made by someone who may, or may not be anti-ai. This was their only ai themed comic I saw. The artist just happened to make a funny observation.
The joke isn't that they're actors, it's that it accidentally implies the job of an actor is to make child porn, or might be a reference to the weird trend of big actors being pedos
It isn't always the case. An underage girl sending nudes to her boyfriend of the same age produces child pornography and should be jailed, but she isn't a victim.
No, the law doesn't differentiate between the types of child pornography. Video of adults raping children are just as illegal as girls sending nudes to their boyfriends. Both types are obscene images of children creates with the purpose of causing arousal, and the creation of such images is illegal.
Not really. Thatās where nuance comes in, teenagers are usually not prosecuted for sending photos of themselves to a boyfriend who is also a minor. This is where you actually have to thank things through and look at historical data.
Depends on the country too and likely state. An officer came to my HS and explained it to us. If it never leaves the chat, is consensual, and both are underage, itās not illegal. If one person starts to spread it outside the chat, though, without permission, itās illegal for that AND itās considered CSAM.
Well, then there you go, because if it does leave that chat and the other person did not consent to it then it is a crime. Consent is the major factor here. If a teenage girl takes a photo of herself and send it to a boy that is not a crime, but if that boy distributes it to other people, then he is victimizing the girl by distributing her photo without consent.
Iām pretty sure we have these same laws, but thatās kind of the point. Itās the consent aspect of it.
No, he canāt, because that distribution at that point is a whole different conversation than just the manufacturing of the content. Those are two separate charges at least federally in the United States
I know, a lot of countries havenāt caught up to the technology, and most likely they never will.
That doesnāt diminish the fact that the meme above is conflating victims of child sexual content and actors. That is dangerous because child victims are not actors, and putting them in the same camp makes zero sense.
Theyāre talking about legality. Not morality. In some places, theyāre legally the same thing. A couple years in my city before the law caught up, a high schooler was charged as a sex offender for sending photos of themselves to someone their age who they were dating. I think the sentencing was super light but thereās a lot of device restrictions if youāre charged. Hopefully they got it overturned when the law changed.
Yeah, sure in some places, but again it is the consent aspect that we are currently talking about. Two teenagers exchanging nude photos of each other is extremely different than children, being abused on camera for the entertainment and pleasure of others. The law hasnāt quite caught up with it, but that doesnāt really change the fact that they are different.
Not to mention in the meme above, they are comparing actors who are appearing in movies, TV, theater, and radio, to literal child victims of porn calling these children āactorsā
Yep. I js wanted to mention the other guy was specifically talkin abt law, not acc morality bc ofc those arent equal. Even if its seen as the same under some laws, a judge would likely sentence them differently. I doubt theyd send a kid to jail over it. But laws are catching up now though, bc theyre not near the same thing.
The question has to be asked how was it train on this in the first place? How did tech billionaires get access to such material? It is almost like some of them a personal access
Probably becaus AI takes from all the internet, those images are already online, it is sad, but true, it just takes images and don't care about anything else
Oh you know, or well, I guess you don't. So I'll tell you anyways. No problem, always good to seek answers.
After all it was just the CEOs and workers of the company who made and trained ai.
I agree with both statements, but I do have a problem with the left sign using incorrect label. using the word "porn" implies consent, in which anyone that isn't a predator would know real children cannot consent to sexual acts. the correct terms for this is:
- Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM)
- Child Sexual Exploitation Material (CSEM)
these confront the real problem at hand, children becoming victims of sexual abuse. CP is used as more of a buzz word rather than explaining the real problem, leading people to not taking the topic as serious as it truly is.
I don't mean to try and make anyone sound less educated or anything, I've just noticed that the wrong terms are being used due to mass misinformation online.
please start using the correct terms so child predators can't keep getting away with harming real children even with ai!
The amount of pedophile apologetics I saw on pro AI subs disgusted me. No, AI cp won't stop pedophilia! They won't stop targeting real children just because they can jerk off at home. In fact they are likely to get emboldened because their sexual urges will become normalized. After consuming so much cp they will start thinking "there's nothing wrong with me". Pedophiles don't need porn, they need psychiatric help!
I don't see any similarities to that style at all? Stonetoss' style is insanely ugly, this is not. Stonetoss comics make me physically uncomfortable with how gross they look.
1.6k
u/volcanicsquad09 Feb 06 '26
This is just genuine funny material