Frouponic Art & Dump

@frouponical / frouponical.tumblr.com

Prev name: Eienflower | COMMS OPEN | Illustrator | Concept Artist | Webcomic Artist | Chronic Hyperfixation Enjoyer | Sleeper Brain | Unhinged | #MyArt

“Be curious about what you’re writing about” is not stock Common Writing Advice but it really, really should be. There are a lot of written works that fail due to the authors just being obviously incurious about what they are writing about.

If you want to write a non-capitalist society, you should be curious: how have people tried to do so in the past, and what pitfalls did they run into? If you want to write someone fishing for subsistence, you should be curious: what do people who fish actually do? If you want to write a character who embodies all the opposite traits of your protag for the sake of being a narrative foil, you should be curious: why are they like that, and what impact does that have on their life? If you want to write a story set in a place you’ve visited once for a week or only seen on tv, you should be curious: what is it like to live there? If you want to write a scene where one character explains asexuality to another character, you should be curious: how would this individual approach this conversation, and why are they doing it now, and is this in keeping with how they’ve acted and spoken before, and would the other one listen to them? (If this is a fantasy or sci-fi or historical setting, do they have the same concept of identity and attraction as you do? How would they conceptualize and express it?) If you want to write a character of a different race, religion, nationality, etc. from you, you should be curious: what is life like for people of that experience? How do they experience the world?

When the author has not actually asked themself these questions, either because they think they already know or can already deduce everything there is to know about it or it didn’t occur to them that this was something worth being curious about at all… you can very, very often tell.

WIP - Have an angry Sang-cheol! going for a more comic format instead of webcomic. This is based on a dream I had like a week or so ago and it's an AU of sorts. It's so bad that I've started dreaming about them but there was this scene in the dream that I really REALLY wanted to draw so here i am 😂😂

Avatar
Reblogged
☆★ BOOTHILL — HONKAI STAR RAIL 2.6 ★☆

nobody can resist this cowboy.

reblog with one creative goal that you would like to pursue in 2025 in the tags

it doesn’t have to be ‘big’ and there is no pressure to complete said goal. but i’d love to hear from writers, artists, performers, academics, designers, coders, and so on! 🤍

if it’s a creative outlet, it’s included. let’s inspire each other ⋆ ˚。⋆୨୧˚

tumblr will never count as social media to me. This shit a secret hideout and we just all happen to see each others thoughts

“google is free” actually now that you can’t turn off ai answers google is 5.6 billion gallons of water.

Not to be a bitch but the idea that AI is uniquely environmentally destructive is simply false. Honestly it's naive at best and willfully ignorant at worst. Google used billions of gallons of water before AI came along, and it'll continue to after AI has been left behind.

I'm sure AI has increased these water costs, but that's only because any new technology is going to increase water costs. AI isn't the root cause here; it's merely another component in a system that does nothing to encourage tech companies to find solutions to high resource usage.

It's good to be critical of huge companies like Google. It's good to be cognizant of the wasteful use of resources that goes into technology. But when we give in to blind hatred of a specific technology like AI and make it out to be the source behind these things, we lay a smokescreen for the corporate greed and broken systems that are really to blame.

If you're angry about the water use of AI, you should channel that anger towards learning and caring about the wider environmental issues at play.

But don't just blindly hate AI because it's the current boogeyman. There are deeper things at play.

...except every Google search only uses about 0.5mL of water, compared to the 500mL of water used for every 5-50 AI prompts.

One year of training for a single LLM uses 126,000L of water. Now consider how many LLMs there are (ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, etc) and suddenly that number is seriously rivaling Google's water use.

That's also putting aside the insane carbon emissions that come with training AI models (300,000 kg of CO2 emissions, or 125 round-trip flights between NYC/Beijing) and usage of AI (10x the current level of energy usage by small country).

Yes, Google itself also uses a ton of water and has a lot of carbon emissions. But not only is Google is a single company that is broadly used, but when you consider how many different LLMs are currently in use and how each one damages the environment in colossal ways on their own, the cumulative effect of all those AIs is the concern, because left unchecked they will become worse than Google itself.

The conclusion here should not be "you can't complain about AI's usage if you use Google", it's "AI is making a bad problem worse and should not be allowed to exist in its current form". People are capable of caring about multiple issues, and especially if we recognize Google is damaging to the environment then we should not be allowing what is essentially another five Googles to run around doing the exact same thing, multiplying the issue 500x.

No one is blindly hating AI, we are hating it for being a dangerous plagiarizing misinformation machine that guzzles water/belches carbon at a rate that will very quickly surpass what Google does. Trying to make people less critical of AI by saying 'but other companies do this too!' is not the gotcha you think it is, you literally just sound like this:

Sharing prev's tags because they're that good:

[Transcript of screenshot of tags:

#genAI is uniquely bad at water and power consumption actually #because of the insane amounts of data needed to run it #it's not that any new technology will use more water #it's that this SPECIFIC technology uses EXCESSIVE amounts #and for a poor end product too #I think we can all understand that there is some cost benefit analysis at work here #like yeah sure the AI that's being used to find cancer cells is probably a good use of all that water and energy #but the AI that hallucinates bloody pin-up models in lingerie when someone puts in a prompt for car crashes is perhaps… not the best use #but sure strawman the arguments against genAI and muddy the waters to pretend it's not uniquely bad #genAI as it exists now is a DIRECT PRODUCT of corporate greed #and criticizing it especially criticizing Google by name for making it impossible to turn off isn't giving anyone a smokescreen #"you're ignoring the corporate greed" #no I really think saying "Google is destroying the planet for genAI" isn't ignoring the greed aspect here come the fuck on

/end transcript]

Go Girls Go! | First Dyke March in Washington DC, 1993

I attended Pride in 1995 in Atlanta and "Dykes on Bikes" was marching directly behind "Dykes With Tykes". This immediately created a huge stir among my group of onlookers! Because we all wanted them to join forces as "Dykes On Bikes With Tykes On Trikes".

These two groups were followed by Digital Queers--"We're here, we're queer, we have EMAIL!"

I doubt there was a single person at that march who hadn't been called a homophobic slur--and that includes our straight allies! But we defanged those words. We changed what they meant to us, because even gay or lesbian is a slur when someone screams it in your face.

This. This is solidarity in shared reclamation. "they can't say it"

They're SAYING IT TOGETHER as part of a UNIFIED FRONT. Rather than letting others tear them into disparate little bickering subgroups.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.