Pangolin at Work #1
-
This got me thinking.. Is there a place on Lemmy where you can post an idea, and others collaborate to improve it?
Like a drawing, or like other stuff?
-
Pangolin had it coming, setting up meetings without looking at coworkers' calendars. Fuck you, discount armadillo, you're not more important than me!
How dare you besmirch pangolin. Pangolin is best animal.
-
How dare you besmirch pangolin. Pangolin is best animal.
He abuses his cuteness to avoid consequences. He's a sociopath, is what he is!
-
Since I can’t draw, but I still have ideas, this seemed like the best way. ADHDinos is basically like the same 3 images over and over and no one seems to mind that. Plus, I shudder at the thought of trying to vector trace all those pangolin scales. I’m glad you liked it though.
Just ignore the anti AI dumbasses and keep doing what you're doing. This is literally one of the best use cases for AI - to allow people to explore their creativity in the avenue of their choice.
-
Like a drawing, or like other stuff?
Like when you have a joke in mind but can't draw it, or when you write a song but can't get the melody right, and so on.
-
THANK YOU SO MUCH. I was honestly hoping the Lemmy anti-AI knee-jerk responses would not have bled over into this community, but clearly that hope was in vain.
come on over to db0 and hang out with us! would be welcome here. good comic.
-
EDIT: It’s honestly hard to believe how intense and personal some of the hostility in this thread is. I understand objecting to something when there is a valid concern, especially about ethics or consent. But this is something else entirely. It feels less like people are engaging with the actual work and more like they are reacting to the mere presence of AI in any form, regardless of context.
I don’t think LLMs are universally good or bad. I think they are very very bad at a large number of things, especially when people try to use them as shortcuts in places where care, originality, or expertise (or human understanding and subsequent empathy) are required. But they are also extremely effective in other use cases when used with skill, intention, and thought. That is the position I hold. It is nuanced. It does not dismiss the criticisms people have raised, but it also does not treat every use of the technology as automatically unethical or invalid.
What I did was not a random one-line prompt into a generator. I gave deliberate, specific instructions about pose, anatomy, style, and tone. I gave feedback. I adjusted the inputs. I guided it through a process that produced something unique and original. The result is not a collage of stolen images. It is not a copy of anything that has ever existed. That is important context, and it is constantly ignored in these arguments.
There is a real difference between raising concerns in good faith and launching personal attacks at people who use a tool in a considered way. The people jumping into these threads with moral outrage are not engaging in objective analysis. They are repeating talking points as if AI art is some kind of singular personal enemy. It often feels like they are reacting based on something they heard someone else say, rather than thinking critically about what is in front of them.
And this is happening in a community that is supposed to be supportive of neurodivergent people. That is the part I find most maddening. There is room here for discussion and for disagreement. But instead of debate, we get judgment, condescension, rabid hostility, and attempts to shame people for trying something different. That is not the kind of environment anyone should want to foster.
sniff sniff
smells like AI, come back with a handdrawn version or proof it's not
if you can't draw it's okay, draw it anyway, you won't learn by telling a water waster to do it for you
-
Just ignore the anti AI dumbasses and keep doing what you're doing. This is literally one of the best use cases for AI - to allow people to explore their creativity in the avenue of their choice.
it's not exploring shit though, you aren't learning how to make art by having an AI generate it for you. OP is exactly where they were before they "made" it, still as unable to create art as before, not a single tiny step forward.
-
Since I can’t draw, but I still have ideas, this seemed like the best way. ADHDinos is basically like the same 3 images over and over and no one seems to mind that. Plus, I shudder at the thought of trying to vector trace all those pangolin scales. I’m glad you liked it though.
Everyone can draw. You mean that you aren't practiced yet, which is perfectly fine and everyone starts that way. If you want to make comics, then make comics. Don't waste time and energy on AI slop that doesn't bring the same meaning as something a person made, however inexperienced they may be.
-
it's not exploring shit though, you aren't learning how to make art by having an AI generate it for you. OP is exactly where they were before they "made" it, still as unable to create art as before, not a single tiny step forward.
The author is exploring their comedian skills, not their drawing skills.
-
EDIT: It’s honestly hard to believe how intense and personal some of the hostility in this thread is. I understand objecting to something when there is a valid concern, especially about ethics or consent. But this is something else entirely. It feels less like people are engaging with the actual work and more like they are reacting to the mere presence of AI in any form, regardless of context.
I don’t think LLMs are universally good or bad. I think they are very very bad at a large number of things, especially when people try to use them as shortcuts in places where care, originality, or expertise (or human understanding and subsequent empathy) are required. But they are also extremely effective in other use cases when used with skill, intention, and thought. That is the position I hold. It is nuanced. It does not dismiss the criticisms people have raised, but it also does not treat every use of the technology as automatically unethical or invalid.
What I did was not a random one-line prompt into a generator. I gave deliberate, specific instructions about pose, anatomy, style, and tone. I gave feedback. I adjusted the inputs. I guided it through a process that produced something unique and original. The result is not a collage of stolen images. It is not a copy of anything that has ever existed. That is important context, and it is constantly ignored in these arguments.
There is a real difference between raising concerns in good faith and launching personal attacks at people who use a tool in a considered way. The people jumping into these threads with moral outrage are not engaging in objective analysis. They are repeating talking points as if AI art is some kind of singular personal enemy. It often feels like they are reacting based on something they heard someone else say, rather than thinking critically about what is in front of them.
And this is happening in a community that is supposed to be supportive of neurodivergent people. That is the part I find most maddening. There is room here for discussion and for disagreement. But instead of debate, we get judgment, condescension, rabid hostility, and attempts to shame people for trying something different. That is not the kind of environment anyone should want to foster.
Don't listen to the haters, keep exploring your creativity. If you feel like drawing, go for it. if not, or you don't have enough time, use whatever tool you want instead. I would only caution on getting too attached to proprietary tools like OpenAI.
-
The author is exploring their comedian skills, not their drawing skills.
clearly they want their comedian skill to be supported by an image of sorts, or they'd just write text
-
clearly they want their comedian skill to be supported by an image of sorts, or they'd just write text
clearly they want their comedian skill to be supported by an image of sort
it seems to me they got that.
-
sniff sniff
smells like AI, come back with a handdrawn version or proof it's not
if you can't draw it's okay, draw it anyway, you won't learn by telling a water waster to do it for you
"You aren't allowed to make a quick joke unless you spend countless hours developing your art skills".
You people are weird.
-
"You aren't allowed to make a quick joke unless you spend countless hours developing your art skills".
You people are weird.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]countless hours? find three .pngs in google, a pangolin, a chair, and a desk. put them together in something barely more advanced than paint (so opacity is preserved), and it's done. time to learn that skill: 10min max, time to use that skill after the initial learning time: 2min per image
it doesn't have to be good, it doesn't have to be drawn, it can be 3 pictures smushed together that's okay, what it does have to be, in my opinion, is made by a person. Not a glorified plagarism water boiler
-
sniff sniff
smells like AI, come back with a handdrawn version or proof it's not
if you can't draw it's okay, draw it anyway, you won't learn by telling a water waster to do it for you
sniff sniff
Smells like hater. Come back with a valuable comment or proof of your reason for existence.
If you can't say anything nice, it's okay. Don't say anything at all.
-
sniff sniff
Smells like hater. Come back with a valuable comment or proof of your reason for existence.
If you can't say anything nice, it's okay. Don't say anything at all.
if you can't say anything nice, it's okay. Don't say anything at all.
i'd rather receive negative feedback and know what to improve than no feedback at all and be clueless as to why people don't care about my works.
using the plagiarism machines to generate things for you is widely frowned upon in every creative industry
-
if you can't say anything nice, it's okay. Don't say anything at all.
i'd rather receive negative feedback and know what to improve than no feedback at all and be clueless as to why people don't care about my works.
using the plagiarism machines to generate things for you is widely frowned upon in every creative industry
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The upvotes are a pretty clear indicator that most people enjoy it. As usual, it's a few vocal ***** like you who think you're right and want to impose your values on everybody else.
-
EDIT: It’s honestly hard to believe how intense and personal some of the hostility in this thread is. I understand objecting to something when there is a valid concern, especially about ethics or consent. But this is something else entirely. It feels less like people are engaging with the actual work and more like they are reacting to the mere presence of AI in any form, regardless of context.
I don’t think LLMs are universally good or bad. I think they are very very bad at a large number of things, especially when people try to use them as shortcuts in places where care, originality, or expertise (or human understanding and subsequent empathy) are required. But they are also extremely effective in other use cases when used with skill, intention, and thought. That is the position I hold. It is nuanced. It does not dismiss the criticisms people have raised, but it also does not treat every use of the technology as automatically unethical or invalid.
What I did was not a random one-line prompt into a generator. I gave deliberate, specific instructions about pose, anatomy, style, and tone. I gave feedback. I adjusted the inputs. I guided it through a process that produced something unique and original. The result is not a collage of stolen images. It is not a copy of anything that has ever existed. That is important context, and it is constantly ignored in these arguments.
There is a real difference between raising concerns in good faith and launching personal attacks at people who use a tool in a considered way. The people jumping into these threads with moral outrage are not engaging in objective analysis. They are repeating talking points as if AI art is some kind of singular personal enemy. It often feels like they are reacting based on something they heard someone else say, rather than thinking critically about what is in front of them.
And this is happening in a community that is supposed to be supportive of neurodivergent people. That is the part I find most maddening. There is room here for discussion and for disagreement. But instead of debate, we get judgment, condescension, rabid hostility, and attempts to shame people for trying something different. That is not the kind of environment anyone should want to foster.
Was a nice comic! Keep it up, and remember to ignore the vocal minority of idiots. You can tell from the upvote ratio that most people DGAF that the image is AI.
-
countless hours? find three .pngs in google, a pangolin, a chair, and a desk. put them together in something barely more advanced than paint (so opacity is preserved), and it's done. time to learn that skill: 10min max, time to use that skill after the initial learning time: 2min per image
it doesn't have to be good, it doesn't have to be drawn, it can be 3 pictures smushed together that's okay, what it does have to be, in my opinion, is made by a person. Not a glorified plagarism water boiler
it doesn't have to be good, it doesn't have to be drawn, it can be 3 pictures smushed together that's okay, what it does have to be, in my opinion, is made by a person. Not a glorified plagarism water boiler
Good for you, you're free to do that when you start making your own comics. Now explain why you think everybody else should share your same value set?
