In particular I'm not sure if my "woke cat" comics should have the box checked for future posts.

Written by me, and then I take multiple chat bot images and make manual corrections and edits in GIMP to get the comic panels.

So if I had to pick yes or no to "is it AI generated?" I'd say "no"

But I'm not sure if the "AI generated" check box is equivalent to that question, or more like "does it contain auto generated content?" which would be "yes"

Edit - will absolutely not be using the check box for these comics due to a fucked up reply that got too many upvotes

Instead of using a checkbox I considered having a slider so people could choose various values in between no and yes. But that would have been confusing...

I think it'll come down to whatever the mods in each community want and there will be significant variation to that.

IMO your process does not reach the threshold of AI Generated because you're just using it as a short-cut for some of the steps and you still have your hands on the wheel. Unlike this which was probably just someone prompting "gimme a cute hamster with a helmet".

Thank you, will remember to get feedback from individual communities / mods on this

Edit - nevermind, this thread got flooded with trolls and bullshit after this comment, I no longer care how the idiots feel & will not be using the check box for these comics

I don't know either. Let's leave it to the mods to figure out, hopefully they know more about their subject than I ;-)

We have decades of practice distinguishing between NSFW and SFW and it's still not fully resolved so this could take a while.

AI generated =/= AI assisted

AI generated is just something straight outta slop machine

The option is there for people who want to filter AI stuff from their timeline. Is such a person going to feel like you're being deceptive when you claim it's not AI generated? If you think the answer is yes, then tick the box.

But if someone took (entirely) AI-generated content and changed a single word, would that make it not AI-generated anymore?

I like @poVog@slrpnk.net's viewpoint (in their top-level comment): it is like NSFW, where even putting a thong onto a naked person (male or female) still leaves the image as NSFW? Various levels of lower degrees of nudity including adding a bikini, underwear, or even full covering (like paint or spandex) but with certain poses and the overall "look" likewise still leaving it as something that someone may feel could be problematic to have pop up while at work. It's a problem if said person may have to avoid using the Threadiverse in such a setting if that kind of thing can happen - like even if they themselves are okay with it, if a boss is looking for any excuse to fire someone... then why hand them a convenient scenario with which to do so?

At the other end of the spectrum, like using a spell- or grammar-check is not AI, image editing software also remains as a "tool" under the agency & full control of the user at each step along the way of the process. I think what you are describing as "AI" there (as taking short-cuts to deliver a crappy product with the lowest amount of human effort possible) may rather be "slop", which is not unique to AI as human slop also exists:-P.

As @poVog@slrpnk.net mentioned, we can borrow from those prior decades of NSFW (& NSFL) and use the same definition for AI: if someone would be offended by encountering it, then mark it (blur, semi-transparent, reduce or even block it). If someone wants finer-grain controls than that then... well that's a much lower prioritization to provide, compared to having vs. not having AI marking at all?

People are against ai for ethical reasons for example :

• Pollution. You use gpu and data center to generate an image. Rare metal, electricity
• Author protection. Yes we can't alway pay for artist and the outcome will be less paid work. And most of picture that were feed to ai come from internet.
• AI is mostly a tool the feed users what they want to hear. Opinion manipulation from big tech or governement. For example China use deepseek against Taiwan. Grok against "woke"...

So people do have a right to identify AI generated content.

Personal opinion for a distant futur :

My worst fear is that we will come to a point where we won't be able to distinguish AI generated content.

Then we will lose because we will have no meant to protect against it. So it will create some new movement as no tech or cooptation social network as scuttlebutt.nz, p2p and federated network will close.

To me, comics are a fusion of both writing and art. So in my opinion, even though the words are yours, the art being ai generated is enough that I would say you should check that box, even though you're making corrections and edits yourself in GIMP.

Cuz frankly, I'd rather read the same comic with the worst stick figure cat art you can imagine than read a comic with any ai art at all, as ai art is not art at all and defeats the purpose of creating a comic strip in the first place.

Written by me, and then I take multiple chat bot images and make manual corrections and edits in GIMP to get the comic panels.

So if I had to pick yes or no to "is it AI generated?" I'd say "no"

Bloody hell... That's AI generated and I'd feel pissed if somebody said it wasn't so it wouldn't filter from my feed.

You can't just slop your artwork together, fix the messed up fingers and then say because you drew three lines yourself it's no longer AI. If it has AI in there, it's AI. It's either done without AI or it's AI.

Pollution. You use gpu and data center to generate an image. Rare metal, electricity

You use less resources generating an image than using photoshop for a few minutes

Author protection. Yes we can’t alway pay for artist and the outcome will be less paid work. And most of picture that were feed to ai come from internet.

Authors often use references from internet as well. The contribution is similar.

AI is mostly a tool the feed users what they want to hear

LLMs and image generators are different.

You use less resources generating an image than using photoshop for a few minutes

The current trend is buying energy generator, lot gpu...i think the scale of those ressource is already beyond sustainability. Be it in a individual scale or industrial scale.

Authors often use references from internet as well. The contribution is similar.

No because it is centralized under a name (open AI, deepseek...) and it's an "industrial" production. No human can create that much content in a short time.

And people use references, but they did it with their how hands and mind. That's a huge difference, they put effort to create something inspired by, copied...

LLMs and image generators are different.

Both are used for the same purpose, I provided example : deepseek in Taiwan and grok. There is also openAI that Trump could use to influence a country. We are already here.

On the good side, AI can be used for auto subtitle, creating posters, researching new treatement, making paralysed people walk...but, they also use it to influence people.

So to come back to the topic, this is a good option that we can flag ai content.

I don't pay for fake AI so it's not my fault they're buying up graphics cards

And a lot of the people who pretend it's my fault are X blue checks, Disney subscribers who hate piracy, etc. whose fault it actually is

So you're a liar that gets mad when other people don't lie.

I assume your reply was designed to manipulate me into feeling like I should never use the AI check box, because that's how I feel now.

Will change my mind if you get downvoted to shit. Otherwise, can't take the risk of validating people like you.

Since your comment is older and still somehow has fewer upvotes than the one from @Asetru@feddit.org I will absolutely not be using the check box for these comics

Seemed agreeable when you posted this, but then another commenter and their upvotes revealed how you people actually think, which is not fucking agreeable at all. Fuck that shit and fuck your check box

If the point of creating a comic strip is to make me look at shitty drawings, I assume your writing is shitty too and there's no point left for viewing what you create.

Btw, I would have just listened to you respectfully and not replied if it weren't for the upvotes on another user's reply trying to gaslight me about what "AI" and "generated" mean. Those upvotes made me hostile to you people.

Wat?

👋

Correct:

So if I had to pick yes or no to “is it AI generated?” I’d say “no”

Lying:

Bloody hell… That’s AI generated

Type of liar that gets mad when others don't join in:

and I’d feel pissed

The crowd is usually a mob. Make up your own mind, regardless of the clicks other people click.

My own mind was made up to take input from the community, and the input from the community said "if you use the check box, we will heck you"

Okay. I see. Interesting test.

Did you ask this so folks would make you feel better about your shortcuts or did you want an honest answer?

So I guess what we all take from this is OP is the kinda person that asks if we’re all ok if he shits in the pool then after we all say “no thank you” they get mad and say they’re gonna do it anyways.

Either you rushed to reply without reading fully or you're trolling me

Incorrect, try reading

ITT: OP calls everyone who thinks he should use the checkbox “liars”

Nobody is trying to gaslight you about what ai generated means. You're literally over there asking, "are my comics ai generated when the artwork is ai generated?" And getting mad that people are saying yeah, it is.

As for shitty drawings, xkcd became one of the most successful web comics out there with mostly stick figure art. But the writing was still good, so it found an audience.

Man, I unblocked you just to see this response... and then that is all? Meh.

Thats ai generated bud. Tag it as AI. You didnt create the art.

Fuck your shitty slop comics then. AI sucks. Learn to do art for real instead of letting tech daddys' slop engines do it for you.

Didn't ask

Weak gaslighting attempt, didn't read past first few words

Not sure what you think "OP" means but that would be me, not whoever's doing that

Being the fault of someone is not my point. I explain why the option to flag AI content is needed.

The goal is to empower people by giving them a choice. A set of tools, options to create their own space along mod team.

It is the belief that we can stand up and purpose solutions to allow people to remove AI content from their timeline. It is also a defence system for everyone and create space where we think and write our own opinion.

Right?! Lol.

Every reply OP has made has either been "Your lying and wrong" or "I don't like you, so I'm gonna ignore you".

They asked for the community's opinion about a legit question and got all butt-hurt that they didn't like the answers.

I love when people act like this on Lemmy because two reasons: It's hella entertaining, and it points a flashing neon arrow at who to block to make your Lemmy better.

I agree with flagging (and traceability of content in general, photographies in particular), I think however that the reasons put forward are simply wrong and misinformed.

i think the scale of those ressource is already beyond sustainability. Be it in a individual scale or industrial scale.

Name one resource you think is "beyond sustainability". Rare earth? Water? Energy? None are and this meme really has to die.

And people use references, but they did it with their how hands and mind. That’s a huge difference.

There is also a huge difference in what a good artist can produce in one hour and what I can produce in one hour. Yet my work is considered (pretty reasonably) to be of less value. There is no inherent value in spending time on a work if the result is considered good enough.

LLMs and image generators are different.

Both are used for the same purpose,

Hmmm, no? In almost any case I can think of.

That's fair then. Sad that people use systems like this to be manipulative and I'm pressured out of using it myself

"You're never going to create actual art if you just keep shifting responsibility for your choices. The artists that are successful don't get in that position by refusing to learn anything."

-woke cat (mostly)

Yeah, they mean you. You're the one calling people liars.

Why would you block someone that is so entertaining though?

Oh don't underestimate me!

I'm planning to block them after their downfall! 😆

I feel like you asked a question, got a lot of form replies, fought with people for providing their opinions, cherry-picked a positive response, and declared yourself a winner.

FIFA may have a silver trophy still, if you ask.

Name one resource you think is “beyond sustainability”. Rare earth? Water? Energy? None are and this meme really has to die.

It is not a meme, it is happening and i know that you work there and are probably the most knowledgeable person among us.

However, you can't dimiss that they do use ressource as water, rare earth...The problem is that they benefit outrageous funds and double their calculation power each year.

There is also a huge difference in what a good artist can produce in one hour and what I can produce in one hour. Yet my work is considered (pretty reasonably) to be of less value. There is no inherent value in spending time on a work if the result is considered good enough.

That's not about the result but the road to learn through hardship how to create something. It create a feeling of fullness. If you give yourself more time, you could achieve a good work instead relying on a third party and tell your kid "i did it".

Hmmm, no? In almost any case I can think of.

You really think they never used it to change our history narrative ? It is not something new, the Trajan column in Roma serve the same purpose.

The french "resistance". They removed the video since but it was published by our government :

https://www.franceinfo.fr/internet/intelligence-artificielle/honte-amateurisme-gros-couac-une-video-du-gouvernement-generee-par-ia-sur-la-resistance-epinglee-par-les-internautes_7279881.html

China trying to take over Taiwan :

https://taiwaninsight.org/2025/03/12/an-act-of-erasure-deepseek-and-the-disappearance-of-taiwan/

You might wanna learn to read, what they said wasn't "calling people liars"

Did you think you had a point here or are you just whoring for upvotes from your fellow bullies?

Considering some of the other replies after yours, turns out those people are hostile and it's better not to feed their aggressive delusions

Did not realize it was you :-) I don't want to be aggressive, just to dispel some myths that I really think are harmful to understand this field (in which I am working) well.

However, you can’t dimiss that they do use ressource as water, rare earth…

My image generation and local LLMs do not use water. They are air-cooled.

Datacenters do use water (during operation) and rare earth (during construction). I am disagreeing on their use being unsustainable.

You know, it is not because I work in the field that I defend it. If these claims were true, I would simply have not chosen to work in the field. I remember very well in engineering school when I first was confronted over the claim that some mineral resources usage were unsustainable. It was copper. It shocked me. Copper, so central to electronics, which I was studying, was going to deplete. Damn. "How much left do we realistically have?" was the first immediate question. Is that solely an engineers instinct to try to quantify problems? Once I dug up, I realized that the claims were untrue. That reserves were extremely abundant and that the people raising the alarms simply did not understand geological reports. It was in the late 90s. Since then we have "ran out" of copper several times according to doomsayers.

"Sustainability" can mean several things and is used in different definitions when considering different resources. Oil usage for energy production is the text book example of unsustainable process: we need to destroy at a given rate a resource with a limited stock to maintain an activity.

Water usage in datacenter is not unsustainable according to that definition: water is not destroyed, the stock is not depleted. Datacenter implementations can be problematic in places where not enough clean water is available ofr the population but it is not an ecological problem or a resource exhaustion problem. It is an infrastructure problem, and it comes with a ton of political and social consideration. But in that respect there is not a lot of difference between implanting a datacenter somewhere and putting a farm, that will also use water.

Rare earths are used for construction. Building a datacenter requires a set amount of it, but operating it does not. One could argue that infinite growth of the number of datacenters is unsustainable, which is true for almost any infinite growth, but no one is believing that we need to double the number of GPUs every year for centuries.

Also, rare earth are badly named. They are not rare. There are plenty of deposits, plenty of reserves and none of these are predicted to be in geological shortage. The only one you could make a case for is helium, which is not used in AI datacenters. The USGS is a good resource for quantifying the scarcity fears.

You really think they never used it to change our history narrative ?

Here again, conflating many issues. Image generation models were used since day one for problematic uses: deepfakes, revenge porn, propaganda. Same can be said of photoshop (and no, making a good convincing fake with AI is not easier than with photoshop. I remember the exact same moral panics when I was a teenager and some people were copy-pasting stars or classmate faces over nudes with photoshops).

What I am arguing is that we have no example so far of image generation models purposefully trained to follow an agenda. They have biases (they will gender and racialise many profession for instance) but these biases come from their datasets, "what they see", not from an agenda. On the contrary, the examples you give, Grok (from v3) and Deepseek, were demonstrably trained with an agenda in mind. (If you have sources about OpenAI being caught doing the same, I am interested, I may have missed it)

LLMs don't have to be trained that way. It is not inherent to the tech. Many models are uncensored. Open weight models like DeepSeek have been also modified by the community to remove their censorship (with occasionally hilarious effects, as a model trained to "never do X" is often easy to reversed to "being very good at doing X")

Actually the layer of fine-tuning that these agenda-givers use, is a technically simple but very political process that I wish more people joined instead of lambasting AI as a whole.

My recommended method of knowing a text's contents would be reading it, instead of training yourself to "feel like" it's whatever will get you the most upvotes.

The point is, you created this thread to ask people their opinion about something, and when people disagreed with you, you called them liars and said they're gaslighting you. THAT is shifting responsibility. THAT is refusing to learn.

You asked. We answered. It's not our fault you didn't like the answer. You could've been like, well, I guess I should check the box then, instead you doubled down and started attacking everyone that disagreed with you. Kinda like a bully would do.