cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/48482937
(Ocean3) (2025)
Image description: A girl with red eyes seen through dark sunglasses, blonde hair with bright red nest-like extension, two feathered beige wings, and a gentle smile on her face standing with two small, yellow chicks nestled in her hair. She is wearing a white blouse with puffy sleeves over an orange dress, with a reddish-brown neckerchief tied at her collar. In the background is a light blue sky filled with small white birds in flight, and in the upper left corner are the branches of a tree with pink blossoms.
Full Generation Parameters:
pastel painting, pastel colors, traditional media, faux traditional media, 8K, highres, absurdres, masterpiece, best quality, (dynamic angle:1.2), drastic angle, dramatic angle, sunglasses, deal_with_it_/(meme/), deal with it /(meme/), pixelated sunglasses, masterpiece, best quality,ultra-detailed,8k detail wallpaper,Utopia,Fantastic,, wallpaper,close up face,official art, 1girl, niwatari kutaka, happy, smile, looking at viewer, short hair, blonde hair, two tone hair, (red hair:0.1), (bird:1.5), (chick:1.5), on head, animal on head, bird on head, surrounded by birds, wings, bird wings, feathered wings, shirt, white shirt, short sleeves, blush, smile, parted lips, bird tail, Vintage, 1990s \(style\)
Negative prompt: bad quality, worst quality, lowres, jpeg artifacts, bad anatomy, bad hands, multiple views, signature, watermark, censored, ugly, messy
Steps: 28, CFG scale: 3, Sampler: Euler, Seed: 4084934348, Size: 896x1280, Model: Plant Milk-Almond 1, Version: f2.0.1v1.10.1-previous-640-g21c907ef, Module 1: sdxl_vae_fix, Model hash: 73216fa542, Schedule type: Automatic
I didn't read the conversation between you two, but if you two were insulting each other or making fun of, I strongly recommend you to change your tone.
Just recently in the thread they asked me to define what I meant by public interest and I gave examples of what I meant. They say they don't care about the laws, so I ask them to not look at the laws, but rather what the laws protect. In their reply, they again turn the conversation to the fact that legal language was used in the material I linked, rather than thinking of the ramifications of what it would be like to not have those protections to the public interest. Going so far as to cherry-pick quotes from the blog post I linked to present them in a way that tries to completely misrepresent the point of the post.
In the message before the one you replied to, I clearly stated what I'm arguing and why, and in their reply they completely distort what I said into a straw man that they then mock.
Rather than making fun of each other it's just a complete lack of understanding.
I don't like being called dishonest just because someone completely misses my point. I'm done here anyway.
Unless there will be some misinformation spreading I don't plan to continue this discussion any further.
I think I've provided enough information on why I'm against AI "art" here.
Then again I think the best course of action would be to ask the community what they want.