Noooo, AI mods and Admins on every platform will do it for you. You, as a mod, simply have to maintain plausible deniability that you were illiciting more details and not warning people about not sharing info.

You know, just like being trans - keep your questions about everything a secret or you'll be arrested.

In practice, it's impossible to determine the purpose of purchases. If someone talks about their experience of buying from a dealer without further context, you'd have to narc. Or, you open yourself up to legal liabilities.

Besides, people buy on behalf of others all the time. People share with others. Substance use is often not a solitary activity. This law would create a situation where it's risky for you if you do not narc every time.

Trump does a ton of drugs! I know a guy who'd been at parties where he personally witnessed Donald snorting huge, fat lines of cocaine. That's not even counting all of the crack he'd smoke. Enough to kill a horse. He'd send out his people and they'd come back with just pounds of cocaine and crack.

What he really like, though, was Angel Dust. Man, that guy could put away epic amounts of Angel Dust, and then he'd stumble around the room groping anything with legs. I heard that when Donald Trump was on a dust binge he'd break out his stash of the child pornography, drop trou and just start wacking it there in front of everybody. Christ, Donald Trump loves his angel dust and child pornography.

That's what I heard.

I read your link. I think my main issue is the framing as though AI is just a new tool that people are afraid of similar to the introduction of the camera.

Even outside of capitalist exploitation, AI generated art suffers from an inherent creative limitation. It's a derivative and subtractive tool. It can only remix what already exists. It lacks intention and human experience that make art meaningful. The creative process isn't just about the final image. There's choices, mistakes, revisions, and personal investment, etc. No amount of super long and super specific prompts can do this.

This is why a crude MS Paint drawing or a hastily made meme can resonate more than a "flawless" AI generated piece. Statistical approximation can't imbue a piece with lived experience or subvert expectations with purpose. It is creative sterility.

I can see some applications of AI generation for the more mundane aspects of creation, like the actions panel in Photoshop. But I think framing creative folks' objections as an act of self preservation as though we are afraid of technology is a bit of a strawman and reductive of the reality of the situation. Although there are definitely artists that react this way, I admit.

It is true that new tools reshape art. The comparison to photography or Photoshop is flawed. Those tools still require direct engagement with the creative process. In the link you provided the argument is made for a pro-AI stance using the argument that the photographer composes a shot and manipulating light. In contrast to AI which automates the creative act itself. That's where their argument falls apart.

As for democratization goes the issue isn't accessibility (plenty of free, nonexploitative tools already exist for beginners) and that is something that could be improved. AI doesn’t teach someone to draw, operate a camera, paint, reiterate, conceptualize, and develop artistic judgment. It lets them skip those steps entirely resulting in outputs that are aesthetically polished and creatively hollow. True democratization would mean empowering people to create.

Even outside of capitalist exploitation, AI generated art suffers from an inherent creative limitation. It’s a derivative and subtractive tool. It can only remix what already exists.

There's little evidence that this is fundamentally different from how our own minds work. We are influenced by our environment, and experiences. The art we create is a product of our material conditions. If you look at art from different eras you can clearly see that it's grounded in the material reality people live in. Furthermore, an artist can train the AI on their own style, as the video linked in the article shows with a concrete use case. That allows the artists to automate the mechanical work of producing the style they've come up with.

It lacks intention and human experience that make art meaningful.

That's what makes it a tool. A paintbrush or an app like Krita also lacks intention. It's the human using the tool that has the idea that they want to convey, and they use the tool to do that. We see this already happening a lot with memes being generated using AI tools. A few examples here. It's a case of people coming up with ideas and then using AI to visualize them so they can share them with others.

This is why a crude MS Paint drawing or a hastily made meme can resonate more than a “flawless” AI generated piece.

If we're just talking about pressing a button and getting an image sure. However, the actual tools like ComfyUI have complex workflows where the artist has a lot of direction over every detail that's being generated. Personally, I don't see how it's fundamentally different from using a 3D modelling tool like Blender or a movie director guiding actors in execution of the script.

I can see some applications of AI generation for the more mundane aspects of creation, like the actions panel in Photoshop.

Right, I think that's how these tools will be used professionally. However, there are also plenty of people who aren't professionals, and don't have artistic talent. These people now have a tool to flesh out an idea in their heads which they wouldn't have been able to do previously. I see this as a net positive. The examples above show how this can be a powerful tool for agitation, satire, and political commentary.

Those tools still require direct engagement with the creative process

So do tools like ComfyUI, if you look at the workflow, it very much resembles these tools.

the argument that the photographer composes a shot and manipulating light. In contrast to AI which automates the creative act itself

I do photography and I disagree here. The photographer looks at the scene, they do not create the scene themselves. The skill of the photographer is in noticing interesting patterns of light, objects, and composition in the scene that are aesthetically appealing. It's the skill of being able to curate visually interesting imagery. Similarly, what the AI does is generate the scene, and what the human does is curate the content that's generated based on their aesthetic.

AI doesn’t teach someone to draw, operate a camera, paint, reiterate, conceptualize, and develop artistic judgment. It lets them skip those steps entirely resulting in outputs that are aesthetically polished and creatively hollow. True democratization would mean empowering people to create.

Again, AI is a tool and it doesn't magically remove the need for people to develop an aesthetic, to learn about lighting, composition, and so on. However, you're also mixing in mechanical skills like operating the camera which have little to do with actual art. These tools very much do empower people to create, but to create something interesting still takes skill.

It honestly just seems like you want AI to be a stand in for creative thinking and intention rather than it actually enabling creative processes. Your examples you provide don't teach those skills. Everyone has ideas. I have ideas of being a master painter creating incredible paintings, I can visually imagine them in my head, AI can shit out something that somewhat resembles that I want. It can train on my own style of [insert medium]. But I am always at the mercy of the output of that tool. It would not be a problem if it were a normal tool like a camera or paintbrush. But when you use a thought limiting tool like AI it gives you limited results in return. It is always going to be chained to the whatever that particular AI has trained on. Artists develop a style over years, it changes from day to day, year to year, AI cannot evolve, yet an artist's style does just through repetition of creation. AI creates the predictive average of existing works.

I think the biggest thing here is that AI is a limited tool from the ground up rather than enabling creativity. You can't train AI to develop a new concept or a new idea, that's reserved to humans alone. It's that human intangibility that's yet to be achieved via AI and until sentience is achieved you're never going to get that from a limited tool like AI. If sentience is achieved, you'd have to recognize its humanity and at that point prompts are no longer needed, it can create its own work.

It honestly just seems like you want AI to be a stand in for creative thinking and intention rather than it actually enabling creative processes.

I think was pretty clear in what I actually said. I think AI is a tool that automates the mechanical aspect of producing art. In fact, I repeatedly stated that I think the intention and creative thinking comes from the human user of the tool. I even specifically said that the tool does not replace the need for artistic ability.

Everyone has ideas. I have ideas of being a master painter creating incredible paintings, I can visually imagine them in my head, AI can shit out something that somewhat resembles that I want.

This is just gatekeeping. You're basically saying that only people who have the technical skills should be allowed to turn ideas in their heads into content that can be shared with others, and tough luck for everyone else.

But I am always at the mercy of the output of that tool. It would not be a problem if it were a normal tool like a camera or paintbrush.

That's completely false, you're either misunderstanding how these tools work currently or intentionally misrepresenting how they work. I urge you to actually spend the time to learn how a tool like ComfyUI works and what it is capable of.

It is always going to be chained to the whatever that particular AI has trained on.

What it's trained on is literally millions of images in every style imaginable, and what it is able to do is to blend these styles. The person using the tool can absolutely create a unique style. Furthermore, as I've already noted, and you've ignored, the artist can train the tool on their own style.

AI cannot evolve, yet an artist’s style does just through repetition of creation.

Yes, AI can evolve the same way artist evolves by being trained on more styles. Take a look at LoRA approach as one example of how easily new styles can be adapted to existing models.

I think the biggest thing here is that AI is a limited tool from the ground up rather than enabling creativity.

With all due respect, I think that you simply haven't spent the time how the tool actually works and what it is capable of.

It’s that human intangibility that’s yet to be achieved via AI and until sentience is achieved you’re never going to get that from a limited tool like AI

Replace AI in that sentence with paint brush and it will make just as much sense.

If sentience is achieved, you’d have to recognize its humanity and at that point prompts are no longer needed, it can create its own work.

You're once again ignoring my core point which is that AI is a tool and it is not meant to replace the human. It is meant to be used by people who have sentience and a critical eye for the specific imagery they're aiming to produce.

Lora models and how to use them with Stable Diffusion (by ThinkDiffusion) | Civitai

An introduction to LoRA models LoRA models, known as Small Stable Diffusion models , incorporate minor adjustments into conventional checkpoint mod...

^civitai.com

Regarding Apple, That's what I feel too, but I don't feel like going Pixel and GrapheneOS or fairphone etc.

But I still want to optimize my privacy and move to open source alternatives where I can without sacrificing too much

Is your printer network attached and scanning via flatpak packages?

Network printing works fine, USB printing and scanning works also, it is just anything having to use saned that flatpaks can't seem to use

I have hopped through multiple distros and I have never once had scanning not work on a "normal" one after correctly setting up saned. Only bazzite because of the flatpak/system split (also why any embedded programming needs distrobox)