No. It's not morally wrong to make it either. It's not morally wrong to train it either as long as the images used in training aren't inherently immoral like actual real CP. If you see some artoid seething tell them to pay rent. Tards upload their shit free of charge on the publicly accessible internet and then demand to be paid for what was essentially downloading and then a process to learn their uncopyrighteable style. They deserve it for being whiny b***hes
>morally
The four cardinal virtues upon which is based the whole Western tradtion, dating back to the Ancient Greeks are: >Prudence >Justice >Fortitude >Temperance
Looking at AI art doesn't sound very prudent: you're wiring your brain to expect bad unrealistic shit (I'm not talking fat acceptance shit, I'm talking the same way porn destroys your mind, by making high quality women easily accessible so you don't make an effort to look for high quality women IRL).
Artgays would complain it's unjust, but it's not. It's a not tool displacing the market, but not killing it. Now instead of comissioning an "artist", I'd rather comission a proompter.
Fortitude doesn't play much of a role in watching AI art. Resisting the temptation to watch it might, but that'sa strech.
Speaking of restraint, temperance is probably the more strongly violated virtue by looking at AI art. If you'd look at it with enough moderation, it would probably be safe, but we all know you aren't. And as discussed in the part about prudence, you'd be intentionally dipping on your toes on a known slippery slope that'll lead away from temperance.
So 2/4 might not seem like that morally wrong, but morality is not math. The morally right option is perfect. If it fails any of those criteria, then it is immoral, and will lead you to your own ruin.
No. But it is morally wrong to fap to AI hands.
is that a bulge?
Is it gay to look at obviously trans AI art?
no
yes
there is no difference between human-made and software-made digital art so it does not matter
it's the intent that count, did you look at trans art willingly or not?
I hope so, it's always hotter when it's morally wrong.
artgays think the primary colors are red, blue, and yellow. it is morally wrong to support these people in any way
Anyone remember how very early machine-generated art looked SUPER DEMONIC?
I remember it looking like a DMT trip.
Moralhomosexualry is just emotional manipulation.
Once someone starts talking about good and evil, just stop listening.
t. psychopath
Your tricks don't work on me, gay.
>Buldge
That's a man.
>never seen a puffy vegana mound
LMAO VIRGIN HAHAHAHAHA
EVERYONE POINT AND LAUGH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAH
Looks like you've fallen for quite a few neoveganas in your time.
son, that abnormal clit you sucked and rode on wasn't a clit
No. Why would it be?
No. It's not morally wrong to make it either. It's not morally wrong to train it either as long as the images used in training aren't inherently immoral like actual real CP. If you see some artoid seething tell them to pay rent. Tards upload their shit free of charge on the publicly accessible internet and then demand to be paid for what was essentially downloading and then a process to learn their uncopyrighteable style. They deserve it for being whiny b***hes
if it is inmodest, then yes
you got more?
>tattoo
>morally
The four cardinal virtues upon which is based the whole Western tradtion, dating back to the Ancient Greeks are:
>Prudence
>Justice
>Fortitude
>Temperance
Looking at AI art doesn't sound very prudent: you're wiring your brain to expect bad unrealistic shit (I'm not talking fat acceptance shit, I'm talking the same way porn destroys your mind, by making high quality women easily accessible so you don't make an effort to look for high quality women IRL).
Artgays would complain it's unjust, but it's not. It's a not tool displacing the market, but not killing it. Now instead of comissioning an "artist", I'd rather comission a proompter.
Fortitude doesn't play much of a role in watching AI art. Resisting the temptation to watch it might, but that'sa strech.
Speaking of restraint, temperance is probably the more strongly violated virtue by looking at AI art. If you'd look at it with enough moderation, it would probably be safe, but we all know you aren't. And as discussed in the part about prudence, you'd be intentionally dipping on your toes on a known slippery slope that'll lead away from temperance.
So 2/4 might not seem like that morally wrong, but morality is not math. The morally right option is perfect. If it fails any of those criteria, then it is immoral, and will lead you to your own ruin.