Tastes Like Procrastination

No matter how I looked at it, he didn't like me.

The board of directors’ names?

They’re the names from Fighting Baseball

like first of all theres the psychological aspect, in the sense that that man is stressed the hell out and traumatized and paranoid and juggling like 600% more in his head than the average person, which im told doesnt usually contribute to great boners. so there's that part. getting the man to put down his schedules and business concerns and the three different cases hes working on in the back of his head and the updates he wants to make to the batmobile and all that shit. that guy is Distracted during sex. he loses his boner at least once a session because he starts thinking about killer croc or something and yeah hes freaky but not really in that direction, sorry. this is a thing that happens to him and is a known phenomenon to his partners.

and then second of all physiologically im not convinced that he hasnt mangled his penis to some degree in the course of all the training and crimefighting and whatnot. like even taking extra pains to protect it as im sure he would, all of the times that man has been exploded and thrown through walls and glass and all of the jumping off of buildings and swinging around he does?? i simply dont believe his penis has emerged entirely unscathed. you absolutely cant tell me that in the early days he didnt at least twice take a running leap off of something, misjudge his landing, and absolutely destroy his balls when he slipped and took a wrought iron fence full force between the legs. this must have happened. i know it to be true that this man has scars on his dick that he didn't ask someone to put there on purpose and i do kinda think it could eventually affect his sexual function, even aside from the impact of all of his other various and perpetual injuries causing him pain.

Because the surest way to avoid platforming, reblogging, or encouraging AI art posting is to know where every image you share originated and that's 1) boring, tedious research and 2) extremely limiting in what you feel you can reblog. But if unattributed images never gets traction, people will start attributing their images.

I've been guilty of this in the past, but for a while now it's been my policy that if I can't verify the origin, I don't share the image. That goes for stuff like screen grabs of headlines too -- more than once I've avoided spreading misinformation by saving a post to research before I reblog, then seeing the post refuted before I've been able to verify it.

And I usually try to attribute photos I take -- case in point, the "woman with shrimp" post gets a lot of attention but not one comment about it being AI, despite it being pretty similar to something you'd get from an AI. That's because I clearly state it's in a museum and link to its catalogue page.

Being able to identify AI purely by sight -- "count the fingers, look at shadows, find irregularity in patterns" -- is only going to get more difficult. Currently, just "seeing" that something is AI sometimes results in artists being harassed when they post work which is mistaken for AI-generated.

So the idea is that if you want to avoid platforming AI imagery, don't look for uncredited AI; look for a source and if you don't see one, try and find one. If you can't find a source, simply consider not reblogging it. That both encourages people to source their posts and reduces the likelihood of spreading AI generated content.

For example, this image crossed my dash the other day. I can't find a source for it -- reverse image search just turns up Pinterest and other uncredited posts on other social media. No "this is my kitchen", no "this is a floor I installed."

It looks pretty realistic, but look at the asymmetric star shapes and the occasional non-square black stone on the sides. The lines on the smaller bat's wings are weird and so are some of the cabinet handles. The smaller bat is slightly asymmetrical, which could just be the installation; the weird arrow shape below the smaller bat is also asymmetrical. It's ambiguous -- but if it IS real and I can't link to the person who did the tilework or at least owns the home, I really shouldn't share it regardless. Which means I don't have to know if it's AI because either way I'm not reblogging it.

The cabinets are melting like a clock in a Salvador Dali painting

The countertops don't match

To top it all off I actually found the original source of the image. And it's an AI art blog [!!] on Facebook. The caption is literally the prompt they used lol

Having a source is nice. It's like a little hit of the same feeling you get reading a reddit "am I the asshole" follow up where you find out the asshole got their comeuppance.

More generally, some folks have commented to say that some AI art posters add fake artist attributions, and yeah that's an issue, but having a garbage attribution is still helpful and can even be fun. If you see a piece of art you like with a name attached, don't you want to learn more about the artist, maybe see their other work? If it's a real artist then you get to explore their work and if it's AI generated then you get to feel smug that you debunked them. It's good to be curious!

The other day I saw a photograph of a donut that was so wildly lush I thought "surely that must be AI, no real donut has frosting like that". But it had an attribution! It linked to an Instagram post. So I clicked it, fully expecting to find myself on the account of an AI art aggregator. It was an aggregator, but not for AI -- for delicious food pictures from around the world. And all the pictures had links to the restaurants that served the food. So it wasn't AI, it was a really good Boston bakery.

AND THEN I got to dig around on this instagram account for the coolest food pictures from Chicago restaurants and find some new places in my city to try. (Or be horrified by. Jumbo shrimp cocktail deep dish pizza oh dear me no.)

In fact, it could be argued that the peculiar grammar used by the pelican in the Put Baby In Pelican Mouth post is deliberate, like how phishers use major grammar errors in their messages so that people too smart for the scam (or smart enough to report them) ignore the emails and the scammer can focus on the most likely marks.