Artist Banned From r/Art Because Mods Thought They Used AI (vice.com) 205
A moderator on Reddit'sReddit's largest art forum with 22 million members went on lockdown this week after debates and accusations about what constitutes AI-generated art went viral. Motherboard reports: On December 27, a digital artist named Ben Moran tweeted that moderators of r/Art banned them from the subreddit for breaking their "no AI art" rule. Moran had posted an image of their digital illustration, titled "a muse in warzone," and moderators removed it and banned them from the subreddit. Moran posted a screenshot of the direct message thread with a mod of the subreddit, where they appealed the ban and claimed that they didn't use AI at all: "I can give you guys the process or the PSD file of that painting," Moran wrote, claiming that they're not using any AI-supported technology and that the punishment is "not right." They also linked to their portfolio on DeviantArt.
"I don't believe you," a moderator for r/art replied. "Even if you did 'paint' it yourself, it's so obviously an Al-prompted design that it doesn't matter. If you really are a 'serious' artist, then you need to find a different style, because A) no one is going to believe when you say it's not Al, and B) the AI can do better in seconds what might take you hours. Sorry, it's the way of the world."
Moran told Motherboard that this piece was a commission from their Vietnam-based studio, Kart Studio, which was established three years ago. The studio consists of a group of digital artists who collaborate on pieces, they said. A full-body portrait with a complex background can cost upwards of $500, according to Kart Studio's website, with the studio sending the commissioner the art at various stages, including the initial sketch. For the muse illustration, a different artist started it, and Moran stepped in to complete it. It took Moran a month to complete (about 100 hours, they said) and they wanted to show the final piece to the community on Reddit.
"I don't believe you," a moderator for r/art replied. "Even if you did 'paint' it yourself, it's so obviously an Al-prompted design that it doesn't matter. If you really are a 'serious' artist, then you need to find a different style, because A) no one is going to believe when you say it's not Al, and B) the AI can do better in seconds what might take you hours. Sorry, it's the way of the world."
Moran told Motherboard that this piece was a commission from their Vietnam-based studio, Kart Studio, which was established three years ago. The studio consists of a group of digital artists who collaborate on pieces, they said. A full-body portrait with a complex background can cost upwards of $500, according to Kart Studio's website, with the studio sending the commissioner the art at various stages, including the initial sketch. For the muse illustration, a different artist started it, and Moran stepped in to complete it. It took Moran a month to complete (about 100 hours, they said) and they wanted to show the final piece to the community on Reddit.
"I don't believe you" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"I don't believe you" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's characteristic of their level of hate for AI art. We're entering the "eating their own" stage for the anti-AI artists. The purity test has gone from "whole images made by AI with no artist intervention", to "the original image was made by AI, regardless of how much work the artist put into it after that", to "you can't touch anything that was ever touched by AI art tools when you make your images", you "you can't have a style that reminds us of AI art".
Just wait until they find out that AI upscalers (which many if not most anti-AI artists have used) like LDSR use the same or related technologies as AI art tools. Exactly where do those people think that fine detail that wasn't in the original image is coming from? Exactly what do they think those upscalers were trained on? AI art tools work by basically "seeing shapes in clouds" - starting with static and envisioning in detail that's not there but which helps make the image make more sense. If you start with a lower-res image and upscale, that detail wasn't there. It has to be imagined in.
This genie isn't going back in the bottle. It makes for more efficient workflows. The corporate world adores efficiency. Adapt, quit, or confine yourself to niche markets. Same decision that non-digital artists had to make when digital art tools hit the scene. Same decision that painters had to make when cameras hit the scene. And each time, boy did the people who didn't want to change rage against the new technology. Reading artists whine about cameras is really amusing - they hated cameras being used for anything except for scientific documentation. Saw photographers as failed artists and hated them. Hated how the public fawned over photography. Saw it as artistically inept.
But in the end, cameras won the field of "capturing realism", which forced painters to branch out into a whole slew of new art styles, which was actually the best thing that could have happened to the art world. And digital art tools likewise are now used by the vast majority of today's best artists. But oh did a lot of people rage about them taking over the art world too!
Art will survive this. And thanks to Jevon's paradox [wikipedia.org], those who adapt will continue to work as artists (and no, CEOs with no artistic taste whose time is worth thousands of dollars per hour aren't by and large going to do art themselves when they can pay an actual artist with aesthetic sense $20/hr, just like CEOs don't generally design corporate logos, websites, merch, etc themselves even though they have ready access to the tools to do so). But those who refuse to adapt will be facing some very difficult choices.
Re: (Score:3)
The big difference is that previous technological breakthroughs like the invention of photography or cinema lead to another kind of art that cannot be confused with painting. The problem right now is that AI artwork is hard to distinguish from pixel art, other than the look and feel, and some artists do not acknowledge the tools they used. If I produce digital art I will be proud to label it as done with Inkscape, Blender or Krita. The problem is there is suspicion that some artists fail to acknowledge the
Re:"I don't believe you" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "I don't believe you" (Score:2)
If no ban had been issued then nobody outside that thread would have cared.
Now it's the Streisand effect in play.
Re: "I don't believe you" (Score:4, Interesting)
The actual image looks like all of the artist's past work, going back years.
Reddit moderation is insufferable (Score:5, Interesting)
Moderators are dumbfucks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I got banned for a sub because someone doxed me and I told them to go fuck themselves. Apparently that makes me "toxic". Anyway I went all in an PM'd the mods and told them to go fuck themselves too. They threatened to extend my 2 week ban to 120days, and I said that really isn't a threat as I'm not interested in ever going back to a sub that toxic, and ask them what I would need to call them to make my ban permanent. Then they permanently banned me for politely asking the question.
Reddit's moderators reall
Fuck'em (Score:2)
They don't get to see it. Problem solved.
Or put it on an AI reddit thing with a note that it's not AI and to argue with the art mod about taking it down.
"It's the Way Of The World." (Score:4, Insightful)
What a pompous prick.
Well I guess tinpot dictators gotta tinpot dictate.
The studio's art is worth a look. Consistent high quality although I don't find their designs all that inspirational.
Re: (Score:2)
What a pompous prick.
Well yeah. He's a moderator on reddit. It's part of the minimum job requirements.
Whatever, they're now getting traffic... (Score:2)
...I'm sure that poor, starving, starving artist is more than happy to have be getting "exposure" due to this "controversy". They've probably been hoping for something like this...and very well may have engineered it.
Can't seem to get to DeviantArt right now...but if the image in the article is what started this controversy...yeah, it does look like pretty generic digital art these days.
Which is fine...if that's what you're into.
Subject (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
But other subreddits are typically the opposite. If you don't align with the groupthink, you're toast. I only really
Re: (Score:2)
I have been banned not for a particular post in a subredit but for my posting history... no shit
Re: (Score:2)
Many subreddits indeed simply have rules because they want to have rules it seems, not because something would go wrong without them.
I remember Unixporn having such strict rules about what one's submission must conform to that many people couldn't even post their setup at all because there was no wat for it to conform to the rules. As in the rules demand that it show the icon theme and GTK or and Qt theme which many people don't even use in their setup, so everything posted there ended up looking the same.
N
Ah, memories. (Score:2)
It reminds me of when I got banned from a TFC server back in 1998 (maybe more than 1 server, I can't remember) because someone thought I was using some kind of cheat. No, I was just a semi-skilled sniper who got lucky sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
I was once reported as a cheater using an aimbot in one game and then kicked out of the next for being 'useless'.
Luck, good and bad. A lot of people are assholes, you give them anonymity and the trait is more likely to present. Give them power, and it's almost guaranteed.
Re: (Score:2)
Baffling (Score:3)
I've just gone down a contemporary-art rabbithole: I looked at the artist's 43 pictures on DeviantArt (had to skip the "sensitive content" ones because you need an account to see them). Then I realized I didn't know much about modern AI art (I'd only seen a few examples), so I spent some time looking at images of that.
And... I don't think most of these digital paintings are AI-generated. They don't have the typical "tells" of AI art-- crazy hands, missing or misplaced shadows, weird shapes that look pretty but don't seem to correspond to an identifiable physical object. Also, I've noticed that *most* AI art tends to have some element of either a) surrealism or b) the grotesque. Trees are growing out of heads, a lip or an eye will appear to be deformed, etc. Very few of the artist's pieces have elements like that.
Except... there *were* a few pieces I wondered about. One is a portrait of a girl with two differently-colored eyes. The eyes are not only differently colored but are different sizes. There are also two of the "mecha" pieces that looked like they had some CG composited into them and then retouched. (It's also possible that this guy is just a very good draftsman).
I noticed that one commenter wrote "great painting... do you have any videos of your process?" (This was under a very CGI-looking mecha painting). It may be that painters of the future will have to "show their work", by putting videos of themselves painting up on Youtube.
Re: Baffling (Score:2)
â¦videos that will eventually be auto-generatedâ¦
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's weird that when people talk about AI art, they only talk about it in the context of "person just types in a few words, generates a handful of images, picks something out, and posts it as-is".
In places like the SD reddit, that's rarely done. Most people extensively postprocess their images, going back and forth between SD and Photoshop/GIMP/Krita, to fix any weirdness, then AI upscale, then refix newly-exposed weirdness, then AI upscale... repeat until it's as detailed and perfect as you're goi
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's weird that when people talk about AI art, they only talk about it in the context of "person just types in a few words, generates a handful of images, picks something out, and posts it as-is".
In places like the SD reddit, that's rarely done. Most people extensively postprocess their images, going back and forth between SD and Photoshop/GIMP/Krita, to fix any weirdness, then AI upscale, then refix newly-exposed weirdness, then AI upscale... repeat until it's as detailed and perfect as you're going for.
That's an interesting point. It did occur to me (especially looking at the mecha drawings) that the process could be a hybrid of some kind. For instance, the artist could use a computer to generate the "mecha" figure that is composited into a hand-drawn painting; he could be painting on top of a computer-generated element or on top of a photograph (e.g., one mecha painting has an urban background that looks a bit like a retouched photograph). Obviously, there's a long tradition of artists painting on top
Re: (Score:2)
The shading on AI art looks exactly like what you tell it too look like. SD can draw everything from Reuters photographs to childrens' drawings. It has no single aesthetic.
way of the douchebag (Score:2)
"I don't believe you," a moderator for r/art replied. "Even if you did 'paint' it yourself, it's so obviously an Al-prompted design that it doesn't matter. If you really are a 'serious' artist, then you need to find a different style, because A) no one is going to believe when you say it's not Al, and B) the AI can do better in seconds what might take you hours. Sorry, it's the way of the world."
more precisely, it's the way of some loser douchebag abusing undeserved authority, making totally unacceptable claims and even violating basic logic to fail at supporting them.
which by the way isn't all that uncommon in moderated forums ... so, yeah, in a sense it's the way of the world.
It's cover art for a book (Score:2)
thank the deity that surely doesn't exist (Score:3)
Also, It's pretty clear that nobody is going to get off the couch if AI will get off the couch for you.
Blah blah blah (Score:2)
But... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Until AI has our human level of understanding, humans will be needed for guidance, inspiration, and postprocessing. AI art today doesn't even understand things like the concept of "a red box on a blue box". People confuse "prettiness" with understanding.
If AI gets to the point where it is better than us at understanding and in general being human, then you have bigger things to worry about than AI art. Because by that point, it's the Singularity, and you're either going to be relaxing on a beach whil
Re: (Score:3)
You cannot copyright styles, everyone has styles strongly resembling those of others, and it very much is their own work. How efficient tools make you at creating art doesn't change whether it's yours.
AI art tools do not copy images. In any way, shape, or form. They cannot. The amount the AI knows about any given artist could fit in a tweet or two. Like a byte or two per image. Wikipedia knows far more. Google knows orders of magnitude more in its thumbnails alone. Basically, the tokenized name of an
That's how things roll in Reddit. (Score:2, Insightful)
What you're seeing here is not an exceptionally arsehole Reddit moderator; it is the typical Reddit moderator in action. r/theoryofreddit banning and libelling users because they disagreed with the mod, r/food because the users said the taboo words "chicken sandwich" (yup), r/shokugekinosoma because they voiced discontentment over the series, this is everywhere in the site.
And that's because Reddit moderators are recruited from the userbase. And the typical Reddit user is unable to think for more than a mil
Why is this a story? (Score:2)
Reddit mods banning people for fuck all reason is no story, that's business as usual for Reddit. Is it one because it now involves AI?
Is AI the new "on the internet"? Something that turns a non-story into something we need to have on /.?
No True Scotsman, anyone? (Score:2)
Honestly, I think the moderator should be called out for that.
my eyes... (Score:2)
Banned by someone who isn't an artist? (Score:3)
The work looks like 'art' and to claim it was possibly 'inspired' by 'AI art' is just seems ridiculous. Art is inspired by many things isn't it?
Interesting thought though: if Dali or Picasso were not known and posted their work now, would they be banned because their work was inspired by 'AI art'?
Terminal stage of cancel culture (Score:2)
Wait until. . . (Score:2)
Policy clearly runs afoul of ADA (Score:3)
On its face, these anti-AI policies are clearly going to adversely discriminate against protected groups, disabled persons are expressly allowed the use of a computer under the ADA as a reasonable accommodation, end of story.
Re:Them/their/they? (Score:5, Informative)
They, them, their has been a pretty common gender-neutral pronoun for a very long time. Far longer than the current politicizing of pronouns. Frankly I prefer using it rather than having to figure out what the person prefers to be called.
Re: Them/their/they? (Score:2, Insightful)
Only for an unknown person. It hasn't been used for a specific person until very recently.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, that is not true at all. The singular they has been in the English language going back hundreds of years [oed.com]. I believe that there's even recorded controversies of its use in the 1800's.
Re: Them/their/they? (Score:2)
In addition to reading my post again, look at your own link, it even agrees with what I said. Namely, look at the examples in 2c. Notice something?
Re: (Score:2)
2c gives a bit of historical precedent for the reason it's used these days, but in fact shows that it has been used in the same way for literally hundreds of years, but not for the express reason of avoiding making assumptions about the individual's gender.
So the cause of using the word may be different, but this particular usage of the word is older than modern English.
Stop being a fuckhead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to check your own intelligence first before trying to judge that of another person. First, the heading of section 2:
2. In anaphoric reference to a singular noun or pronoun.
So anything outside of this definition isn't relevant. In your other post you reference B, but look at the heading of B:
b. With an antecedent referring to an individual generically or indefinitely
The key words there are generic or indefinite. In other words, we're not talking about a specific person, we're just talking about a person in the generic or indefinite sense. In either sense, you can't possibly know the gender.
To drive another nail in the coff
Re: (Score:2)
The key words there are generic or indefinite. In other words, we're not talking about a specific person, we're just talking about a person in the generic or indefinite sense. In either sense, you can't possibly know the gender.
You're applying the generic criteria to a specified portion that fits your argument, but not the whole. Again, a sign of a lack of intelligence.
To really rub this in, we'll continue reading the part you started with, but conveniently stopped before reaching:
With an antecedent referring to an individual generically or indefinitely (e.g. someone, a person, the student), used esp. so as to make a general reference to such an individual without specifying gender.
Oh look at that, 21st century usage for a named individual... No shit? Just like I said. To drive the final nail in it, look even at the very first example usage:
You did it again! Incredible.
How the fuck did you make it to whatever age you are thinking you could pick and choose parts of a sentence that applied to an argument? It's so fucking elementary.
As I said, the reason for using said pronoun is new, but
Re: (Score:2)
You're applying the generic criteria to a specified portion that fits your argument, but not the whole. Again, a sign of a lack of intelligence.
To really rub this in, we'll continue reading the part you started with, but conveniently stopped before reaching:
This is funny because you're grasping at straws here in a rather pathetic struggle. The part I didn't quote doesn't modify that, I specifically quoted that part because that is all we're talking about. In fact, let's look at literally every example:
If ou sall lofe, e person fyrste, I rede, ou proue Whether at thay be fals or lele.
Generic sense here; i.e. not a specific person.
If..a psalme scape any person, or a lesson, or els yt they omyt one verse or twayne.
Even says "any person", definitely not specific
If any one of them so elected members die, the part which they serve for, have liberty to chuse and present another.
And again, not specific
If a person is born of a..gloomy temper..they cannot help it.
"A person" This making any sense to you at all yet, moron?
Servants, let me here observe, are called ‘helps’. If you call a servant by that name they leave you without notice.
Non-specific servants.
I am never angry with anybody unless they deserve it.
Anybody...not somebody in particular.
True education is based upon the needs of the pupil... The needs of the pupil are expressed in the activities in which they are engaged.
The pupil, and not even a spe
Re: (Score:2)
This is funny because you're grasping at straws here in a rather pathetic struggle. The part I didn't quote doesn't modify that, I specifically quoted that part because that is all we're talking about. In fact, let's look at literally every example:
Nope. Just pointing out your intellectual shortcomings.
Generic sense here; i.e. not a specific person.
Incorrect. A general reference to a specific person. The specific person is the person you love.
Even says "any person", definitely not specific
The subject is not specific. The reference is. It is whichever person you select from "any".
And again, not specific
Very specific. Refers to any individual of the group of people who may have died.
Seriously, the rest is all more of the same. You're trying to apply the word generic to mean non-specific, and that's flatly incorrect. It's dumb. Stop doing it.
Except...guess what? That's not the argument I made, moron. The argument I made is that the use of "they" when talking about a specific person is new. And guess what? That piece agrees with me on that 100%. Yet again, you're wrong. Tough shit, eat crow.
Nope. Let us go over the
Re: (Score:2)
Very specific. Refers to any individual of the group of people who may have died.
Seriously, the rest is all more of the same. You're trying to apply the word generic to mean non-specific, and that's flatly incorrect. It's dumb. Stop doing it.
Among those you listed, you named "any" as being a specific person...If you don't understand what's wrong with that, then you're hopeless.
such an individual cannot be parsed in any way as to not refer to a specific individual.
The sense is generic, which is fine, the individual is specific.
Dude...the source material you're using even makes a distinction, and then calls out that distinction in the very part you mentioned. What more do you want? What do you think the purpose of laying out 2c separately is? FFS it even specifies 21st century in there for that particular usage.
Definition 3c [merriam-webster.com] in MW is what you're looking for. It writes it a bit simpler since you seem to be confused about things.
I'm talking about when its usage began, what you linked gives no indication as such o
Re: (Score:2)
Among those you listed, you named "any" as being a specific person...If you don't understand what's wrong with that, then you're hopeless.
I did no such thing.
I notified you that your understanding of specificity was wrong.
An example of an unspecific they would be:
"They say that ArmoredDragon is an idiot."
Who is they? Well they are they. There is no specific they.
You are setting a bar for specificity that does not exist.
Dude...the source material you're using even makes a distinction, and then calls out that distinction in the very part you mentioned. What more do you want? What do you think the purpose of laying out 2c separately is? FFS it even specifies 21st century in there for that particular usage.
So fucking dense.
It literally says that sense 2c was created to give a narrower sense of 2b., i.e., using the singular they in the case of kids not wanting to be gendered.
It's like you can't fucking read.
I didn't say that, but now that you mention it, yes. If you've ever taken the time to analyze the very structure of the language itself, you'd know this. In addition to that, you might want to read what you just linked to, because it says exactly that:
No, it does no
Re: (Score:2)
I did no such thing.
I notified you that your understanding of specificity was wrong.
An example of an unspecific they would be:
"They say that ArmoredDragon is an idiot."
Who is they? Well they are they. There is no specific they.
And it's also not at odds with my argument.
You are setting a bar for specificity that does not exist.
Of course it does. If I say "some oregonian is a crackhead", that's not being very specific is it?
If I say "DamnOregonian is a crackhead", who do you think I'm referring to? Specifically, you.
It literally says that sense 2c was created to give a narrower sense of 2b., i.e., using the singular they in the case of kids not wanting to be gendered.
And more to the point, it gives a timeline of when that narrower sense (which is what I've been talking about this entire time.)
Erm. You thought we were talking about indefinite pronouns?
Yeah I had a feeling you'd split hairs on that. This actually true of both definite and indefinite pronouns. The English language lacks a word for it
Re: (Score:2)
And it's also not at odds with my argument.
Yes, it is. You're simply not educated enough to understand why that is.
Of course it does. If I say "some oregonian is a crackhead", that's not being very specific is it?
Of course it isn't. Note the lack of the word they.
Now refer to some oregonian in a non-specific fashion. I.e., without referring specifically to that oregonian.
What you have done here is confused indefinite pronouns with personal pronoun. It's an easy enough mistake to make if you've only got a middle school English education.
And more to the point, it gives a timeline of when that narrower sense (which is what I've been talking about this entire time.)
A narrower sense does not preclude a broader sense's applicability.
That's literally the point of senses and
Re: (Score:2)
All those examples refer to an unknown or abstract person or a grammatically singular noun that refers to multiple persons
Re: (Score:2)
Not much there to read. Both sentences are incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
Solid logic you got there.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the link you provided even disagrees with you. So what logic are you using, exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
It does. Do you need an explainer?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, go for it, keeping in mind what I already stated here:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I don't know why you think you had a trump card with that response. You're obviously keying on a contemporary addition to the definition while ignoring several other much earlier examples.....like all of the 1a examples. She clearly states his name at the beginning of the article. She uses "they" in reference to Ben Moran in the rest of the article. This is a VERY common use of "they" especially in journalism, where the author doesn't want to imply informality with the subject. Of course, she coul
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I don't know why you think you had a trump card with that response.
Did I not? And if not, how so?
You're obviously keying on a contemporary addition to the definition while
Yes, that was the point. Did you actually read my post? I specifically said that this kind of usage is new. Your response to that was "Nope, that is not true at all." Then you linked a page that...agrees with exactly what I said.
ignoring several other much earlier examples.....like all of the 1a examples
Those 1a examples are all plural, and therefore not relevant to my argument. Do you even know what you're arguing about?
She clearly states his name at the beginning of the article. She uses "they" in reference to Ben Moran in the rest of the article. This is a VERY common use of "they" especially in journalism, where the author doesn't want to imply informality with the subject. Of course, she could have used "Mr. Moran". But that doesn't really read well when you constantly refer to them in the piece.
Except I never stated otherwise. I'll quote myself here:
Only for an unknown person. It hasn't been used for a specific person until very recently.
So again I ask, which part of that is, according to you, "not true at all"? Y
Re: (Score:2)
I just can't anymore. You refuse to see that you actually agree with me but want to keep arguing. I have better things to do than debate stupid shit like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure....
Re: (Score:2)
It hasn't been used for a specific person until very recently.
Is that really an issue? Language isn't static and evolves with usage. You don't exactly hear people talking about gathering up a faggot to build a campfire anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that really an issue? Language isn't static and evolves with usage.
The post I replied to made a factually incorrect statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Your claim is:
Only for an unknown person. It hasn't been used for a specific person until very recently.
Example if singular pronoun use of they with a definite antecedent in the generic sense:
"I know someone who goes by the handle online of 'ArmoredDragon'. They are a fucking idiot."
Propose alternate word for They.
Re: (Score:2)
Recent usage and all that...obviously means nothing to you. I rest my case.
Re: (Score:2)
Now please, propose an alternate word. Or was that sentence merely impossible to formulate in English before the advent of gender fluidity?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you keep posting links to things that you don't ever read? Especially when they agree with me, not you.
And theNew Oxford American Dictionary (3e, 2010)callssingularthey“generally accepted” with indefinites, and “now common but less widely accepted” with definite nouns, especially in formal contexts.
Lo and behold, exactly what I said.
Re: (Score:2)
But that’s nothing new. TheOxford English Dictionarytraces singulartheyback to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romanceWilliam and the Werewolf.Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singulartheyto refer to an unnamed person seems very modern.
and zeroed on on a single sentence that says that one dictionary of several sampled says it's now common but less widely accepted as proof of your point?
What, pray tell, do you think it was before it was common?
I had an English prof who argued passionately against the singular they. This was decades before you ilk turned it into a battle against people telling you to shove your gender stereotypes up your collective asses.
Singular they has been used for hundre
Re: (Score:3)
When you make a claim, it's on you to prove it. Otherwise, you're the one speaking bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Hastely higed eche . . . THEI neygthed so neigh . . . there william & his worthi lef were liand i-fere.’
Don't worry, you're not unique. People in the 1600s wrote entire books raging against "idiots" who use "singular you" instead of "thou".
Re: Them/their/they? (Score:2)
Only for an unknown person. It hasn't been used for a specific person until very recently.
Says the anonymous person online. The irony is killing me. You're a known unknown yourself. So what's recent? The internet, telegraph, the written word? Never before in the history of human communication has this ever happened, talking to or about a specific unknown person?
Can you send a pic with some skin so I know who I'm talking to? Your Slashdot profile might be blank in the gender section, but you can't be too sure, and for no fucking reason at all I need to know your gender for sure. Come on Armore
Re: (Score:2)
They, them, their has been a pretty common gender-neutral pronoun for a very long time. Far longer than the current politicizing of pronouns. Frankly I prefer using it rather than having to figure out what the person prefers to be called.
Yep, anyone who's been using email for long enough knows to use a neutral pronoun when referring to someone who's gender isn't obvious. Loads of neutral names like Sam(uel/antha) Alex(ander/andria) as well as neutral contractions like Terry (Terrance/Theresa) Tony (Anthony/Antonia) and lets not get started on foreign names that do not follow standard English/Latin/Greek conventions (I.E. names ending in A are usually feminine but Sasha can be a bloke or a lady). Really it's a case of "unless you know them,
Re: (Score:3)
Vice signaling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Them/their/they? (Score:4, Informative)
The strange thing is that it's actually very easy in English not to assume the gender of someone without resorting to this. People say that this supposedly isn't a new way of writing and has existed for centuries, but I think many people find this very annoying to read. It sounds unnatural to me.
This is my take:
On December 27, a digital artist named Ben Moran tweeted a claim of being banned by moderators of r/Art banned from the subreddit for breaking their "no AI art" rule. Moran had posted an image of a digital illustration, titled "a muse in warzone," and moderators removed it and banned the artist from the subreddit. Moran posted a screenshot of the direct message thread with a mod of the subreddit, appealing the ban and claiming to not use AI at all: "I can give you guys the process or the PSD file of that painting," Moran wrote, claiming to not use any AI-supported technology, that the punishment is "not right.", and also linked to an associated portfolio on DeviantArt.
"I don't believe you," a moderator for r/art replied. "Even if you did 'paint' it yourself, it's so obviously an Al-prompted design that it doesn't matter. If you really are a 'serious' artist, then you need to find a different style, because A) no one is going to believe when you say it's not Al, and B) the AI can do better in seconds what might take you hours. Sorry, it's the way of the world."
Moran told Motherboard that this piece was a commission from an associated Vietnam-based studio, Kart Studio, which was established three years ago. The studio consists of a group of digital artists who collaborate on pieces, Moran said. A full-body portrait with a complex background can cost upwards of $500, according to Kart Studio's website, with the studio sending the commissioner the art at various stages, including the initial sketch. For the muse illustration, a different artist started it, and Moran stepped in to complete it, whom it took a month to complete (about 100 hours, self-estimated), and then wanted to show the final piece to the community on Reddit.
I think this is far more pleasant to read and on top of that isn't as obvious in highlighting that the writer didn't know what this person's gender was. The paradox of the original style is that it puts gender even more at the forefront, at every sentence one reads one is reminded of the fact that Moran has a gender, and that we don't know what it is, rather than simply being allowed to think of that person as an abstract agent whose gender can be left out of the story.
Re:Them/their/they? (Score:4, Informative)
Singular 'they' has been around in English since the 14th century. It decreased (but was never eliminated) from the 18th to 20th centuries due to grammarian an attempts to force "he" as a gender-neutral term, but since that's stopped, it's left a linguistic hole in English for gender neutral / ambiguous terms, and singular 'they' has been steadily coming back to fill it.
Gender-neutral singulars are linguistically useful.
IMHO, I like the Japanese linguistic approach best. An individual genders themselves with their language (for example, atashi vs. boku), but usually not other people (anohito, anokata, etc). So the whole issue is moot and there's nothing for anyone to get mad about.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if one is upset about reuse of pronouns for singular vs. plural, English speakers are the last people who should be complaining (hey 'you', I'm looking at you! Yes, both of 'you' :) ) Heck, in certain limited concepts, all English plurals can be used as singulars - there's also a singular "we". Not just the "royal we", but nosism [wikipedia.org] in general, including the editorial we, the author's we, the kindergarten we, the hospital we, and the self-talk we.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if one is upset about reuse of pronouns for singular vs. plural, English speakers are the last people who should be complaining (hey 'you', I'm looking at you! Yes, both of 'you' :) )
As a Southerner, I don't understand your example :-). That passage should be written correctly as "hey y'all, I'm looking at y'all! Yes, both of you".
Re: (Score:2)
And there's all y'all for specifying multiple groups at once.
Re: (Score:2)
TFA is written in such a bizarre fashion. What's with the "them", "their" and "they" in every other sentence?
The writer clearly has a fear of good English.
Or witch-hunts.
You decide.
Re: (Score:2)
You see sometime around when CERN started smashing particles together realities began to fracture. You can see hints of how this alters memories on a large scale such as how the Chic-fil-A logo now has a "k", or the "-" in the Kit-Kat logo is missing for some reason in this timeline among 1000s of other examples. You don't posses the memories in this new reality that you found yourself in. Welcome to the club. They/them/their, gender fluidity, hormone blockers given to children, critical race theory, forced
Re:Them/their/they? (Score:5, Informative)
Person who wrote the article might have different viewpoints on pronoun usage than you, but it appears they are in fact more knowledgeable of the basics of the English language than you are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're arguing that it's literally impossible to express a non-gendered singular personal pronoun in English, and I'm the idiot.
It doesn't matter how many ways people point out that you're wrong, and that the precedent goes back hundreds of years, you'll find some way to say it wasn't use "like this before".
Your most recent one was, "well, not a non-gendered specific named person that is obviously referring
Re: (Score:3)
The pronouns were non-gendered. That may have been virtue signaling, or it may not have been.
Since you equate non-gendered pronouns to virtue signaling, I think it's pretty clear that you're just a shitbag, though, and frankly, who gives a fuck what you think. Don't have a rally in Charlottesville to attend?
Re: (Score:3)
Dude replies to me, and I reply back.
Rando fucker from left field comes up and says, "no one asked you, go fight your fight elsewhere", and doesn't die laughing at the ironic stupidity of what they just said.
I suppose that's the internet for you.
Re: Them/their/they? (Score:4, Insightful)
Virtue signaling? This is an Internet forum, let me explain.
YOU are a them, I don't know who you are, you are a pseudonym. If you write to me, "Hey man, I'm a chick." I'll be like cool, hey all, she's a cool person to talk to. Then you say "Yo, you're cool too, let's get a coffee together sometime IRL".
Whoa! PAUSE
Now you're a quantum she. I mean I don't know you.. I'm not going to ask to sniff your ass, but we're going to talk a while in quantum gender strictly professional land before that happens.
Now, if someone in an online profile asks to be referred to as they/them. Just fucking listen to them. There is zero fucking reason to reach for gendered pronouns after that.
If you call someone he or she in meatspace and they tell you they would prefer they/them, that's a whole other meatball. Id hope that in person, you can shake hands and just go with it, because it's pretty damn simple.
But online, why are you even considering challenging they/them by default or if someone asks? The fuck is wrong with you?
Re: (Score:2)
and fails to grasp the basics of the English language
I do so enjoy watching an incorrect idiot say someone else fails to grasp the basics of the English language while demonstrating a completely failure to grasp the basics of the English language.
They has a singular gender neutral form, and that usage dates back to it's 14th century middle-English origins, so if you studied English at any point in the past 700 years you should know this.
#confidentallyincorrect.
Re: Them/their/they? (Score:2)
Hello cousin It.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Slashdot mod irony (Score:2)
Watching someone who often uses "i didn't read your post" as a debate tactic complaining about bad moderations is even more entertaining.
Re: Slashdot mod irony (Score:2)
Haha! Sorry... that didn't help your case any.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not a debate tactic. That's "your post started out with such ridiculous lies that there was no point in reading further, conversation done".
Now that is some fucking irony, lol.
Well played on the self-own.
Re: (Score:2)
They've gone from banning AI art, claiming that learning is theft when done by a machine, to banning art that's aesthetically similar to AI art. If it wasn't obvious they were gatekeeping before then it should be now.
Seems to be a common trait amongst Reddit sub moderators. They certainly do seem to be a certain type of person, the type who are so fucked up that they even believe their opinion is more right than fact.