this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
1209 points (97.6% liked)
Comic Strips
24565 readers
2062 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
Rules
-
π Be Nice!
- Treat others with respect and dignity. Friendly banter is okay, as long as it is mutual; keyword: friendly.
-
ποΈ Community Standards
- Comics should be a full story, from start to finish, in one post.
- Posts should be safe and enjoyable by the majority of community members, both here on lemmy.world and other instances.
- Any comic that would qualify as raunchy, lewd, or otherwise draw unwanted attention by nosy coworkers, spouses, or family members should be tagged as NSFW.
- Moderators have final say on what and what does not qualify as appropriate. Use common sense, and if need be, err on the side of caution.
-
𧬠Keep it Real
- Comics should be made and posted by real human beans, not by automated means like bots or AI. This is not the community for that sort of thing.
-
π½οΈ Credit Where Credit is Due
- Comics should include the original attribution to the artist(s) involved, and be unmodified. Bonus points if you include a link back to their website. When in doubt, use a reverse image search to try to find the original version. Repeat offenders will have their posts removed, be temporarily banned from posting, or if all else fails, be permanently banned from posting.
- Attributions include, but are not limited to, watermarks, links, or other text or imagery that artists add to their comics to use for identification purposes. If you find a comic without any such markings, it would be a good idea to see if you can find an original version. If one cannot be found, say so and ask the community for help!
-
π Post Formatting
- Post an image, gallery, or link to a specific comic hosted on another site; e.g., the author's website.
- Meta posts about the community should be tagged with [Meta] either at the beginning or the end of the post title.
- When linking to a comic hosted on another site, ensure the link is to the comic itself and not just to the website; e.g.,
β
Correct: https://xkcd.com/386/
β Incorrect: https://xkcd.com/
-
π¬ Post Frequency/SPAM
- Each user (regardless of instance) may post up to five (5 π) comics a day. This can be any combination of personal comics you have written yourself, or other author's comics. Any comics exceeding five (5 π) will be removed.
-
π΄ββ οΈ Internationalization (i18n)
- Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
SΓ, por favor [Spanish/EspaΓ±ol]
-
πΏ Moderation
- We are human, just like most everybody else on Lemmy. If you feel a moderation decision was made in error, you are welcome to reach out to anybody on the moderation team for clarification. Keep in mind that moderation decisions may be final.
- When reporting posts and/or comments, quote which rule is being broken, and why you feel it broke the rules.
Banned Artists
The following artists are banned from the community.
- Jago
- Stonetoss
- GPrime85
It should be noted that when you make reports, it is your responsibility to provide rational reasoning why something should be removed. Saying it simply breaks community rules is not always good enough.
Web Accessibility
Note: This is not a rule, but a helpful suggestion.
When posting images, you should strive to add alt-text for screen readers to use to describe the image you're posting:
Another helpful thing to do is to provide a transcription of the text in your images, as well as brief descriptions of what's going on. (example)
Web of Links
Other Comic Communities of Interest
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
How is this different from what anybody who hires or employs people do?
This reads like a rebuttal but I'm not seeing it a contradiction.
If you don't provide the ideas, manage the logistics, supply the labor, test for quality, etc., then I wouldn't say that you were a part of making it. You're an investor, certainly, but that's not a maker.
Fun question.
I think most people leading a team would say "we built this". Personally, if I hire someone to build something for me, I'd say something like "I had this built" intead of saying I built it myself.
I think there should be a short form for "I had AI do this for me"... "I prompted" maybe?
People very comfortably say "Company made this", or "we made this" regarding a place they work even if not on the team if talking to someone external.
When people get houses built they often say they're building a new house, even if it's actually someone else doing every part of it.
There's a part of our language that lends itself to having the cause of a thing be responsible for the thing.
The closer it gets to being something you could have personally done every part of and another person is involved the more we tend to draw back, which is why the AI art language grates a bit.
My coworker said he's building a cabin up north: I have no uncertainty at all that he's approving a design and someone else is doing it.
I wouldn't say I put up a handrail on my stairs: it's plausible I could have, but I didn't (it's an awkward space with weird stud spacing, and I have older family I want to be able to rely on it, so I paid someone with licensing to do it right in 20 minutes). I don't want to take credit for what I didn't do.
With the art, only one person actually caused it to be made. But it also feels like taking credit for something more difficult than it was.
If I drop a bucket of paint off a balcony, I wouldn't say "I caused a giant mess to be made", but "I made a giant mess".
If I pointed at it and said "I have made art", people would assume I was joking, despite a surface similarity to some art. The amount of effort is disproportional to the claim.
I believe the "part of our language that lends itself to having the cause of a thing be responsible for the thing" (in the contexts you give examples for) is just the human desire to be included in what's happening, even if you shouldn't be. If we were honest, we would callout these inaccurate claims. But it is a component of social lubrication that we ignore minor inaccuracies. We allow white lies because the cost of pursuing them is greater than the value of uncovering them.
That is not the case with people falsely claiming ownership of things genAI has made for them. Presumably because we understand that the person "building their house" is not building their own house from scratch. And so it doesn't erode the foundation of architecture to allow that inaccuracy. Carpentry as a profession won't be written off because Business Chett heard someone say "anyone can build a home (by having someone else do it for them)."
People will say "we won the game", even if they've never even attended a match or bought official merch.
If you drop a paint bucket you made high class modern art worth tens of millions. If you bullshit hard enough. But in all seriousness.
There is to a point a matter of art being entirely "valid" only to the eye of a beholder. Ai "art" is by all reasonable arguments art and made by who ever is piloting the bot. That is how it is. With out the willful intent of a human the bot is innert and can not create anything. So even the most slop or slop is still a willful human creation. A tool can not act on its own.
The problem is people saying it's not real art or that the person piloting the bot isn't an artist are doing so based on a personal belief. Not a hard fact. Which because of the nature of art is entirely valid. People have argued what isn't and is real art for decades. People argued digital art was fake for a decade. People argued photography was fake art for decades. And the further back you go you can find endless examples.
Some of the "best" art work in history range from extremely hard and demand decades of skill and dedication. While others took a few mins and no real skill at all.
Intent, reason and personal subjectivity are the defining facets of what is or is not art. If someone lazily has an ai generate something and takes the first pass then that's on them for making low effort art. No different then if I draw a stick man and call it a day.
Someone who uses a bit to draft, create and literate over and over and pushes a bot to its absolute limit. Is vastly different.
Sometimes the art is in the process and not the result as well. So even if the bot shits out something mediocre, the ability to get something that actually passes for acceptable instead of slop is in and of it self an art.
AI art to me personally is a problem of quantity letting everything because of ease of access to Creation. Never before. Has humanity had the ability to create faster or more efficiently. And people are taking advantage of that to simply not try to not push the tool and to not see what can be done with the tool.
And to be very clear this is entirely aside to the legal issues around how early models were trained as well as the copyright problems, which is an entirely separate issue to all of this. It's related but it is very much its own problem and a solvable one. We just got to convince the multi-trillion dollar companies to stop being assholes...
Well see that's the thing about patent/copyright/trademark/etc laws that don't make sense to me. If it's illegal to copy someone's idea and sell it as your own how is it viable to ask AI to do something where it pulls all of the data from someone else's work and gives it to you and you sell it as your own. (Or use it to make something you sell) In general it would make sense that you would have to pay the person who's idea it was you used for each sale... Or that no one can own any idea, and patents/copyrights shouldn't exist at all.
AI eliminates software copyright.
Look at malice.sh
Not sure what malice.sh is, the link goes no where for me.
That said, as far as I knew a fully AI created work couldn't be copyrighted, but that doesn't mean someone who uses AI to make something and sell it can be used legally without purchasing it. I assume you probably could even make a copyrighted work that you used AI to make, so long as it wasn't fully AI created
Presumably this:
The problem is that AI actually can do useful work, unlike what the fuckais want people to believe. It can do that. Except you don't get any updates or support, or help with fixing bugs. So not even sure how useful this is. But oh look how evil lol
All this shows is how stupid intellectual property, patents and copyright is. We're not talking about "high art" or ingenious inventions or stuff, it's all capital sucking up the work of workers and turning it into a commodity. A commodity that fundamentally is easy to copy. And copying isn't theft, it doesn't take anything away except the potential profit the capitalists are dreaming of. If you are taking away my copy, my ability to learn or enjoy culture, then you are the thief. Because most of the time there is no profit, only potential profit that would never materialize. We have a 1000 textbook variations about the same topic, because every one has their own copyright instead of collaboration and free resources. Pulp.
There are no artists posting on reddit, they are no genius comments or novels posted. Millions of books from an industry that produces slop. And LLMs managed to turn all that into something resembling intelligence which might be useful for quite a few things. And they don't even copy, they use machine learning to turn it into a model of the thing.
And suddenly everybody looses their fucking mind and pleads for more stringent copyright laws lol.
Fuck the AI bubble and environmental BS and do address the avalanche of societal problems coming our way, but copyright law is not the fucking answer. It's an oppressive and imperialist tool to collect rent. And it will make things much worse long term if there are no legal open source/weight AI models.
These guys sound like a bunch of assholes.
I mean yeah totally, it sounds comically evil lol. But I don't think this will even work out for them.
If it could work out to really cleanroom create new standard library stuff, then the "value of programming labour" has actually gone down very much. At least for these kinds of "solved problems". That would be the moral there, that we have solved certain problems and now have machine intelligence who can create infinite variations and adaptations to this. Which would be awesome, being able to rewrite much of the IT stack in more safe or more performant languages, or automatically optimize and improve. If that was possible already it would be a cause to celebrate. On to code bigger and better things.
But we're not even there yet, they'd have plenty of problems, bugs, issues and downsides with their "malus alternative". So I don't see a huge issue with this.