Not sure if this is AI. If so, then it is an example that AI content need not always be bad.

But it is on who owns it and uses it for what. Collective control over AI, directing it for the benefit of the people would be good.

Edit

Anyway, since this is causing discussion: Anyone with the meme making skills see a non-AI version of this? Or anyone who has the skills to do that? Or anyone who can share the tutorials to easily/quickly learn how to do that?

  • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
    3·
    5 hours ago

    Yes its AI

    But you know what? That damn first panel (a version of it that isn’t garbled by a bot, anyway) has been floating around forever. Getting a narrative arc to properly finish the point is… so very gratifying.

  • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.orgEnglish
    72·
    10 hours ago

    Just make a shitty meme instead of offloading the work to ai so it can make a shittier meme. I’d much rather people make crappy stick person comics in paint than someone waste resources and time waiting for ai slop to be churned out that doesn’t come close to being creative or coherent.

    • Great Blue Heron@lemmy.caEnglish
      411·
      15 hours ago

      The 4 panel is almost certainly AI, but the first panel is based on work originally by Denis Lushch from Australia and was first seen in 2019. I always thought the guy with all the cookies is supposed to be Rupert Murdoch.

      • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
        112·
        14 hours ago

        Tell that to the 100+ children that die from unintentional gun accidents every year. It doesn’t require malice to kill someone with a gun. Incompetence and negligence do it just fine.

      • 1Malayali@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
        44·
        14 hours ago

        A gun cannot be evil.

        It is like saying a rock is evil. The user, the suppliers, the distributors n all can be evil or not, according to what it is used for.

        Tho, guns are potentially dangerous tools, since they are mainly used to take lives or threaten people with its ability of taking lives and can lead to escalation.
        So, there should be enough care and awareness on its use and ownership.

        • Tattorack@lemmy.world
          2·
          4 hours ago

          A rock is a rock. It’s there through natural happenstance and cannot control what a person will do with with it.

          A gun is a gun by design. A tool made specifically for the purpose of harming or killing another individual. Often bought and owned by people with fragile egos, or those who believe that have too much to fear, but never own by rational people.

        • Donkter@lemmy.world
          83·
          17 hours ago

          If 99% of guns were sold to angel inc. would you call guns good? If so, then it’s still not something inherent to the guns. If not, then your Devil Inc. Analogy isn’t very good since it’s not at the core of your reason for disliking them.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    145·
    13 hours ago

    This is the best use for AI image generators imo: throwaway meme slop that isn’t really supposed to look very good, wouldn’t have been made otherwise, doesn’t make any money off of other people’s labor, and did not take away a labor opportunity/labor power from anyone. It’s not like the AI companies are making money off of this, not even close, they’re all bleeding to death.

    Oh it’s wasting water and electricity? The water and electricity were already wasted by training, you can’t un-waste the water or electricity. In fact, if you refuse to use the AI model they trained then the water and electricity were wasted for nothing!

    Oh it’s plagiarism? Oh not precious property rights, I didn’t realize we were fucking capitalists protecting the sanctity of copyright.

    • 1Malayali@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      2·
      11 hours ago

      In fact, if you refuse to use the AI model they trained then the water and electricity were wasted for nothing!

      Is that not a sunk cost fallacy?
      If it is very bad to use, we can choose not to use it. But if not, we can use it.

      Oh it’s plagiarism? Oh not precious property rights, I didn’t realize we were fucking capitalists protecting the sanctity of copyright.

      Yep.
      Tho, the prople who worked on the confent should be paid decently and also on how derivatives of the content maybe bad for future income and thus thy should provided a share of the income or given a one time settlement or whatever that would be good. Collective ownership would be good on that too. That is beyond AI, and the general nature of capitalism

      And regarding property rights, especially on memes, are not most memes plagiarising or creating derviatives or litrak copying without paying the original creator? Like, are not screenshots from movies, series, youtube videos etc. used without permission or payment? Is that bad? Are these folk against memes of all types?

      So, the issue is the earnings of the worker, right? And also attribution.
      Collective ownership would likely be the solution there.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        21·
        11 hours ago

        Is that not a sunk cost fallacy?

        The sunk cost fallacy would be “we’ve already invested so much into AI, we have to keep investing into AI to make it worthwhile!” As long as we’re not pouring more resources into AI there isn’t an issue. An AI model that is already trained won’t be untrained because we stop using it, after all.

        It’s like freeganism.

    • 1Malayali@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      65·
      11 hours ago

      How many trees?

      And how many tress did our comments here take? How manu trees does a youtube or porn video being streamed or uploaded take?

      Or is it the issue that the output does not have enough value for a tree to have died for it?

  • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@lemmy.caEnglish
    487·
    20 hours ago

    Really awkward formatting. Someone def made this in AI and then clumsily collaged them together.

    As for the “tool neutral, usage good” argument, I think of it like Operation Paperclip or Unit 731. Be damned sure the juice is worth the squeeze.

    • 1Malayali@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      64·
      19 hours ago

      As for the “tool neutral, usage good” argument, I think of it like Operation Paperclip or Unit 731. Be damned sure the juice is worth the squeeze.

      Both are not tools or technology, but Nazis being used, right?

      Is it about AI researchers?
      Even there, the military/surveillance-AI companies and personnel would be the ones similar to Unit 731, right?

  • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
    195·
    17 hours ago

    It’s not an example of AI usage being good, on account of it’s soulless garbage slop with unbalanced pacing, which adds nothing to the original strip that it was stolen from

    • pineapple@lemmy.mlEnglish
      96·
      18 hours ago

      You can generate AI locally.

      Also can we please stop talking about AI in terms of water usage? The amount of total carbon it emits is a much bigger concern.

        • pineapple@lemmy.mlEnglish
          1·
          9 minutes ago

          I don’t pay for models in any way so I’m not responsible for the emissions during training. AI companies decided to create these emissions, not me.

          I did a bit of research and the full emissions of AI is relatively small compared to other things but still far from negligible. If we take this guardian article at face value the total emissions of AI is 80 million tonnes. Which is about 1.3% of total carbon emissions (about 6 billion tonnes). I did a bit of research and I just thought I’d share.

    • 1Malayali@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      97·
      19 hours ago

      Does it use that much water? How does it compare to water use by regular datacenters?

      And if it is controlled by a collective, they can reduce wastage and use renewable sources, recycle water etc, without having the profit-only main motivation, right?

      • NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net
        106·
        17 hours ago

        “What are you worried about? I just use the plagiarism, propaganda, csam and deepfake machine created by technofascists to make political memes.”

        • 1Malayali@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
          41·
          14 hours ago

          Indeed why the technofascists should not own and direct the tech and why the collective should be owning it.

          • NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net
            34·
            12 hours ago

            What “collective” owns locally run llms and slop generators?

            Who do you think you’re paying for access to the software?

            What do you think that software was trained on?

            Or are you just trying to justify your use of the slop machine by claiming you’re using it for some noble purpose?

            • 1Malayali@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
              31·
              11 hours ago

              What noble purpose?

              Spreading democracy and freedom, fighting authoritarianism, plagiarism etc?

              And I am not saying that the collective owns it now. I am saying that it should be under public ownership/control rather than the current scenario.