Jim Sterling / James "Stephanie" Sterling / James Stanton/Sexton & in memoriam TotalBiscuit (John Bain) - One Gaming Lolcow Thread

People who claim those into AI art are all the NFT techbros are total tossers.
I use AI art stuff all the time because I can't draw for shit but I like my imagination being brought to life. I've not been selling any of it (though I may in future to piss people like Jim off), nor would I claim I am an artist for making it.
I also think NFTs are the biggest scam on the planet right now.

The funny thing is - the "real" art world keeps saying AI art are all the NFT techbros yet NFTs are currently the easiest way to launder money and what else is infamous for money laundering? The world of art. People selling "invisible statues" for instance is the perfect way to launder money without doing anything at all let alone those that just present a urinal, a piece of fruit, or some used condoms then sell these for as much money as possible.
The "real" AI art world ARE the NFT bros just without a computer.
Before this they were shitting on people that did 3d rendering. Its annoying when people claim its drawn by them when its Ai generated/rendered but as you said, there are a lot of us that cant draw for shit but we have ideas that we want realized. They are such stuck up bastards with their whole not a real artist but they claim a retard that shoves paint up the ass and sharts it over a canvas is one.
 
Jim, even when you're that far away in the thumbnail, I CAN TELL YOU DIDN'T DO YOUR MAKEUP PROPERLY. You look like a fucking retard. Go put some makeup tutorials on the TV at max volume, and make everyone in that den you call home watch. Maybe take some notes, it'll help you look slightly competent.
Ha! I'll have you know, it's actually lady Jim's husband who does his makeup.

Bet you feel stupid now huh?
dd1.png
 
From their user page:
View attachment 4632195View attachment 4632196
View attachment 4632204

All these things together mean they are largely a very biased editor. However, Wikipedia's approach to sourcing and information in general is that, as long as you can find 'reliable sources' that support your view, the information will stay. This is Wikipedia's retarded approach to managing bias - they feel they should simply reflect the bias of 'reliable sources' (which are primarily mainstream media sources).

So, if the Western media is largely biased towards the left, Wikipedia can only reflect their information. There is no attempt at true neutrality.
Update on this user - I randomly came across this discussion in the Wikipedia Administrator's noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip...dents#Advocacy_editing_by_User:TheTranarchist

IT IS FUCKING MASSIVE

The discussion about User:TheTranarchist goes on for 58,976 words. The discussion just ended yesterday and is the subject of a vote.
 
The obviously copyright B-roll in Jim's videos actually goes way back to like 2016 or something where to stop companies making money off of adsense on his videos he'd intentionally put in as much copyright content from as many different companies in an effort to stop any single company being able to claim it.
The thing is he was doing this way before he came up with that cope excuse. Back when he was on the Escapist he regularly used music from Final Fantasy in his videos, and Cyril Sneed has practically been a mascot of the show since its inception.

No matter how he tries to retroactively spin it to make himself the hero Jim is, as usual, a massive hypocrite.
Before this they were shitting on people that did 3d rendering. Its annoying when people claim its drawn by them when its Ai generated/rendered but as you said, there are a lot of us that cant draw for shit but we have ideas that we want realized. They are such stuck up bastards with their whole not a real artist but they claim a retard that shoves paint up the ass and sharts it over a canvas is one.
And before that they were shitting on digital artists, particularly people who did digital paintings, because it was 'cheating'.

I've done art commissions in the past, and I honestly couldn't give two fucks about all this AI stuff, I actually think a lot of it is really cool. At the end of the day, if you want a real physical piece of art you will still need to commission an artist to produce it for you; the only thing AI art will affect are digital artists, mainly the porn ones because coomers really don't care about quality so if AI can generate their gross-ass ships for free lewd artists will go wanting.

I see that as a positive.
Is the logo for this episode intentionally bad as a joke or is this just the new logo? I honestly cannot tell since he didn't address it and also put it in the thumbnail.
I wonder if he AI-generated it for ironic purposes. It has that not-quite-right quality a lot of hastily generated AI stuff does.
 
I don't know about any of this but I have to say if as an artist one is so easily perturbed, disaffected, diminished to the point of such inconsolably fashioned whinging by such supposed disenfranchisement of one's supposed vocation signalling voluminous depths of insecurity I daresay that person doesn't deserve to be thought of as an artist much as an architect who designs a building is considered an artist yet the bricklayers/construction workers and engineers who lay the physical foundation and construct an actual building that presumably won't collapse in on itself are not.

It's been a similar situation in photography and image copying for a long time. I feel instead of whinging about the inevitable one's time might be better utilised much like photographers can construct stock catalogues and create licensing agreements allowing them to earn their piece of the pie when their images are used. I'm no speculator but it seems like this 'AI' business could well become a fairly lucrative venture to my eye at least.

Kind of how J K Rowling earns a royalty on every one of those 12 million or so copies of the wizard game that have been sold so far supposedly 'owning' them 'troons' sat on her arse sipping tea in her mansion.
 
How AI Takes The Art Out Of The Artist (The Jimquisition)
(27/02/2023)
Original:
He would say this. First of all, nothing is being stolen. The only way to claim this would be to say that you'd be stealing from Leonardo Da Vinci if you are inspired by Mona Lisa since you looked at it and your brain and eyeballs "steal" the style of the painting. You cannot fucking copyright a style, and thank god for that. Imagine that all of those 80s dark fantasy images were copyrighted by Warner Bros since they made an 80s Dark Fantasy in the 80s, the only one ever allowed to be made and ever since they owned "the style." Doesn't matter that everything else about a movie or an image is completely different, but "the style" would be similar. Only one art form per style allowed in all of time! The only way to actually steal with AI is to have used it to marginally change an image, basically a filter on. Good thing monetizing that is already illegal, so no need to fret Jimmy boy.

Second of all, the hypocrisy is stunning. Think of automatic self driving cars. Both use Machine Learning (AI for the laymen), both replace jobs, but only one of them can potentially be deadly. And there are much more legal matters to concern too, who gets the blame if a self driving car crashes? But Leftist like Jim don't give a fuck, because truckers and taxi drives aren't Bourgeoisie Leftists. 'Artists' are. Hence the screeching and moaning and the woe is the worker. Fuck him and fuck any artist salty about AI art. You're just mad the playing field is much more level down to the imagination now. (Not to even get to the fact that 99+% of modern artist pre AI used shittons of automated software already, but I digress)
 
How AI Takes The Art Out Of The Artist (The Jimquisition)
(27/02/2023)
Original:
Less than 30 seconds in and he's already talking about his arse. You didn't change at all Jim!

These people force their fetishes on their viewers and then cry bloody murder when people leave in droves.

Also, his defending of sex workers and pornstars is just a basic bitch coomer moment. "I love porn" no shit, your life revolves around your fetish. It is really rich when he draws parallels between artists and pornstars, as if porn is art. It's the same reason pornstars get mad when they get called whores/prostitutes - they do some mental gymnastics to justify that they are creating something that "pushes boundaries", and is elegantly erotic - no bitch, you are being degraded for money.
 
Last edited:
Before this they were shitting on people that did 3d rendering. Its annoying when people claim its drawn by them when its Ai generated/rendered but as you said, there are a lot of us that cant draw for shit but we have ideas that we want realized. They are such stuck up bastards with their whole not a real artist but they claim a retard that shoves paint up the ass and sharts it over a canvas is one.
I was employed as a 3D artist/game setup for a computer games company (I can't draw but I could use 3DS Max well) and am credited on 2 published Playstation games but I often got criticised by other artists mocking what I was doing.

I also did some fashion photography and portrait photography professionally with landscape photography for fun - once again, mocked for "just pressing a button".

I've been using Photoshop for a long time now and I shoot in RAW, which means the photos need to get processed in Photoshop/Lightroom or another package. For those who don't know, RAW files are basically like the negatives in film photography which contain a lot more detail/colour range than a JPG, but look flat when originally loaded into a package. You then adjust contrast, exposure, etc the way you would do with a film in a darkroom. Your device basically does the processing of the "negative" that a pharmacist would do when you drop off a camera film to get developed.

I'd show photos to people and would either get compliments like "oh, you must have a good camera" or criticism of "did you use Photoshop? If so, that's cheating!" because they don't understand how photography works being using their phone.
 
People who claim those into AI art are all the NFT techbros are total tossers.
I use AI art stuff all the time because I can't draw for shit but I like my imagination being brought to life. I've not been selling any of it (though I may in future to piss people like Jim off), nor would I claim I am an artist for making it.
I also think NFTs are the biggest scam on the planet right now.

The funny thing is - the "real" art world keeps saying AI art are all the NFT techbros yet NFTs are currently the easiest way to launder money and what else is infamous for money laundering? The world of art. People selling "invisible statues" for instance is the perfect way to launder money without doing anything at all let alone those that just present a urinal, a piece of fruit, or some used condoms then sell these for as much money as possible.
The "real" art world ARE the NFT bros just without a computer.
The sad thing about Jim is that it's like he has a broken clock inside: he may be right up to twice per day, but it gets invalidated by the sheer amount of seething that he spits out of people and, whenever not screaming at a camera, he's coping about how wresting makes him feel better and how he made vampire survivors "better" by making it political... In front of the same fucking camera.
If he wasn't fatter than Super Kami Guru (or with a bit more of self esteem), I bet he would complete the trio and begin dilating as well in front of the fucking camera.
I mean... I'm pretty sure he does that too, but he lacks the courage to post it online.
 
Don't be a simp Jim, working artists are using ai art as a tool. Same as when digital work came along. It's not stealing from us, it's just giving the useless tards a reason to screech about when their half arsed or no-longer-fashionable work doesn't sell.

Is it that my work is dogshit or only has value as a virtue signal? No, it's the AI art that's at fault.

Arts always been a nightmare industry, but it's the easiest it's ever been to make some money out of. Let the people have their magic tool to see shit they've got in their heads, actual working artists will hone, refine and carve out their own niche as they've always done.
Everyone else can get a day job.
 
Jim you've never made anything original, get off your high horse. Also, thanks for confirming you're a raging hypocrite by promoting monster.

AI Prompt: Jim Sterling drinking monster brand energy drink
View attachment 4657342
Looks too interesting and cool and masculine to be Jim, C+ apply yourself.

Also looks like the interior designer from Beetlejuice.
 
I read something on some Christian website about AI Art you guys might find interesting. Here's the TL;DR

Art generated by AI is, currently, a bit of an oxymoron. The AI certainly creates it, but the AI itself is not creative. It does nothing without prompts. Without requests. It can make it's own choices on how to generate the image with other references, but it cannot create. We must first tell it what to shoot for.

I tell you this because not only is this not true AI, but because I wish to remind you that art is inherently human. We have always invented smarter tools to ease the workload. I remember when people thought that computers would end all forms of traditional art, and yet it lives on. Because art is not generative, it's creative. Humans are creative, as in we create. It's in our nature, as we ourselves were created. More yet, we were created with purpose, and so we too create with purpose.

This last bit, creating with purpose, will forever give human art the edge on machines. AI Art can only be generated for the purpose of the person with the code or the prompts. The AI itself only creates because it's told to, the why doesn't matter to it; the art is merely a task to be accomplished. But those who give prompts are the ones who give it purpose, not the lines of code putting color to imagery. For perfecting the AI's ability to recognize certain things to simple curiosity of the absurdity AI can generate, it is the human input and motivation that truly makes the pictures art.

Humans are incurably religious creatures, and our love and devotion of art, which is creation for creation's sake, is a reminder of that to me. AI Art will very much need to be kept in mind for future contests, but those who think this is the end of creative art fundamentally do not understand the joy that creation can bring to someone.

I find it funny an opinion section of one of those icky transphobic God sites can give better commentary than the proper folk like Jim Sterling can, especially after the Scott Cawthon episode.
 
I read something on some Christian website about AI Art you guys might find interesting. Here's the TL;DR



I find it funny an opinion section of one of those icky transphobic God sites can give better commentary than the proper folk like Jim Sterling can, especially after the Scott Cawthon episode.
As a man of God, I solemnly thank you for providing such an inspirational excerpt. While I fear some things about AI, I feel as though it'll become an increasingly faltering trend akin to that of self-driven cars and Google Glass (what a joke lol), while natural and original shall stay true and only. May I ask of the site from which you sourced that synopsis from?
 
Back