They aren’t promoting an environmentalist message here though, but an anti-animal-cruelty message. You can agree or disagree that it’s a good message, but it has nothing to do with their shitty AI ad.
Animals aren’t as good as humans at surviving climate change, so caring about one should include caring about the other…
Firstly, human beings are animals.
Secondly, there are plenty of examples of different species of animals that benefit - nay, thrive - because of climate change. Blanket statements such as yours is not helping either side.
Removed by mod
I agree. However if you do stuff primarily for the animals, you almost always are secondarily doing things for ecology and society too, even if that isn’t necessarily the intention. There are a lot of beneficial external side effects to spreading veganism.
“Sushi” refers to the sour rice, not the fish. You can have completely vegan sushi.
deleted by creator
Heads up for anybody like me who loves their yam tempura and avocado sushi, they almost always add Japanese mayonnaise to sushi, but you can ask them to make it without it and then it is vegan.
To wit, most sushi establishments have vegan options on their menus regardless of intent to accommodate. I had a delicious fully vegan sushi meal on my vacation just a few months ago.
Affirming the Disjunct. -10 philosophical credits.
Pretty sure that’s a trout, not a salmon.
A freshwater fish that will never see a kelp forest. Because those only exist in salt water.
And trout are not full of rice
Wow, good eye. I hope that doesn’t mean the whole thing is fake
There’s clearly a photo of it. Of course it’s real
Aha! And just how do you know what the inside of a fish is like, fish-murderer?
Are we sure that’s AI and not just AI paranoia caused by a decent photoshop job? Cause it looks like a shop to me (Because of the pixels, and having seen quite a few shops in my time)
Also keep shitting on PETA, the aegis and vanguard of an ethical and ecological movement, you certainly won’t ever regret doing that.
they are very easy to hate and there’s a lot of misinformation about them online. I used to hate them too before going vegan and I still don’t agree with some of their activism
Yes, just look at that weird tear.
I suck at image manipulation, and even I would be able to align the hand and the fish somewhat.The tear I chalked up to just weird preferences, but yeah now that I’m focusing on it the hand in the back behind the fish doesn’t make much sense, that’s not how I’d hold something I’m cutting.
isn’t that just a photoshoped image (except maybe the fish) or am i missing something? cause i can’t really tell if that’s AI-generated
It has the ChatGPT image gen grain. Also notice the sushi slice closer to the knife, the salmon makes no sense.
Yeah the closer the sushi got to the salmon the more the AI confused it as part of the fish to the point that the closest roll has spots on the wrap that match the fish lol
It does seem easy enough to whip together in photoshop, and partially I’d guess that’s what happened because of the way the fish casts zero shadow on the hand behind it and the way the salmon skin is layered over one sushi piece and no others, but perhaps it’s simply become easier for companies to use GenAI for even simple photoshop tasks.
The salmon look like a picture of a salmon trophy that’s been cut out with a pen tool selection without a feather.
Though the meat looks a little bit suspect…
imgdetector.ai says it’s AI. I guess it’s good OOP has all those extra fingers to compensate for the way they use a knife.
AI image detection is a crapshoot at best, just fyi. They are poor indicators of whether something is actually AI, and shouldn’t be trusted any more than a coin flip.
And yet you participate in society - curious.
A farmed salmon would use / pollute orders of magnitude more water then an ai image. Even if peta was willing to buy salmon there wouldve been way more resources used to create this in real life then via ai. Just the rice in the sushi would’ve required more water to grow and then prepare compared to the AI image.
How about- egads!- using an actual image or picking up a fucking pencil
deleted by creator
Why did you post this 3 times?
Do these people really think the use of AI for that photo outweighs the positive impact from that sort of ad campaign??
PETA is weird because they’re not so much “pro animal rights” or “pro eco friendly” as they are “anti domesticated animals” including pets.
As a result a lot of their messaging is desperate propaganda, like spreading the pseudoscience that milk causes autism, or trying to imply that shearing sheep for wool hurts them somehow.
They’ve also done some pretty evil things because they believe animals are better off dead than domesticated.
They aren’t against the concept of having pets themselves they just don’t like that pets are specifically bred for domestication when millions of pets are put down in shelters because they couldn’t find homes.
https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/
And sheep do get hurt being shared because the industry focuses on the end result of as many fleeces as fast as possible rather than the well being of the animals not to mention the fact they have to be shared or else they overheat because we bred them into wool producing machines.
https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/wool-industry/
Peta very much are what they say they are. There’s just a lot of smear campaigns at them because “haha these crazy vegoons say they’re against animal cruelty but they actually kill heaps of animals themselves” is a narrative that drives engagement.
The problem we have here is that PETA has started vicious campaigns and said things that were either untrue or misleading, then pulled them down and posted whitewashed versions on their website.
You’re posting their current outward-facing propaganda. And at the moment, their messages are marginally OK. Still a little too far on the gross just to make a point. However, those messages evolve, and their activism evolves. All too often they cross lines, they pull back like it never happened.
PETA started a campaign that Milk causes autism based on a couple of week studies, which they’ve since removed from the record
https://research.open.ac.uk/news/why-asking-what-causes-autism-wrong-question
They find some bad actors in the wool industry and rightfully go after them, then turn around and say it’s all that way.
I did volunteer dog transport for a while, moving animals out of one of their kill shelters to non-kill shelters in other states. Volunteers set up relays to move the dogs, sometimes hundreds of miles away, to save their lives.
It’s one of the fundamental problems with PETA, people don’t trust their campaigns. They put out a bunch of real information, good causes, then release some false or misleading data, everyone gets stirred up, you go a look into it and the hot button stuff ends up falling apart. The gross stuff doesn’t shock people into action; it makes them wary of the organization. Maybe it gains them a few activists, but they could be so much more effective if they played it all straight.
It’s hurt their image to the point that it’s not just that people don’t care, but they don’t trust what they have to say.
Back in my 20’s I looked into them, actually considered supporting them. I was thinking they couldn’t possibly be doing the things people accused them of. Just digging for a while, I couldn’t bring myself to support them. There are numerous issues that could be brought to light. Plenty of winnable fights for good causes, * instead the pick Anti-pets, autism milk, trying to take down the entire wool industry like every sheep out there is getting eviscerated. They’re absolutely tone deaf to the non-PETA population to the point of being unsavory.
Print stickers of caged chickens and put them on eggs, put dairy farm images on milk cartons. put up booths outside supermarkets with impossible burger sliders. Ohh wait, yeah, they won’t support plant based burgers either.
And honestly, that’s not even scratching the issue of uncontrolled extremists doing things in their name.
edit: for clarity
deleted by creator
Your first link is some guy’s website misrepresenting what peta’s actual stance on pets is. I already linked to peta’s website why they explain the problem is with manufacturing pets. Because there is such a demand for cute pets there’s an incentive to produce as many as possible and that leds to puppy mills where animals are forced into baby producing factories all while stray dogs get put down because they can’t find a home. They explain this on their website which I linked in the previous comment.
Peta doesn’t have a problem with the concept of having a pet, the problem is how such a reality exists. If people have a demand for pets then that means there needs to be a supply for pets. This is what that quote about the vice president meant. She simply doesn’t envision a world where pets can be manufactured in any ethical way. I do but I also don’t care if she thinks that because what she and peta stand for is treating animals ethically and that’s a good thing.
PETA started a campaign that Milk causes autism based on a couple of week studies, which they’ve since removed from the record
I can’t look at the campaign anymore because they’ve removed it but I found this article which had quotes from their website where it shows they mentioned that more research was needed and that one of the studies only had like 20 kids in it. Of course the media ran with headlines like “Oh peta said milk causes autism!” When they didn’t. They used the autism panic at the time and the “got milk” ad which existed to create a narrative that milk was a necessary part of a healthy diet to shift to a discussion about why we think milk is needed for a healthy lifestyle when the milk industry pumps cows full of hormones and shit that wind up in milk, not to mention the fact that cow milk is obviously for cows whereas human milk is for humans. Milk serves a role in mammals to quickly grow their offspring and yet humans don’t just continue drinking milk but we also drink milk from other animals. They go over all this on their website: https://www.peta.org/features/peta-ad-cows-dairy-products-disease/
I do take issue with how they framed autism with a frowny face as that normalises the notion that autism is a bad thing and I’m glad it’s been taken down. But at the end of the day peta is a charty for treating animals ethically. The way our society treats animals is so evil that holocaust survivors, the event we treat as the ultimate evil, draw parallels to it. There is such an urgency to put an end to this cruelty that I honestly don’t give a fuck if such a charity employs the “any publicity is good publicity” method which sometimes results in campaigns that look too goofy or sometimes go a bit to far.
They aren’t against the concept of having pets themselves they just don’t like that pets are specifically bred for domestication when millions of pets are put down in shelters because they couldn’t find homes.
…and yet PETA shelters have higher kill rates than many/most others.
Why?
It’s an out of context stat. They run a kill shelter of last resort. It saves hundreds of animals a year who would be killed otherwise, but as it’s a last resort, as one would expect it has a higher kill rate than the other shelters they transfer failed adoptees from.
It’s shocking how many people parrot the decontextualized fact without ever looking up it’s context, which is readily available. Like a half dozen times in this thread alone.
This is yet another example of anti-peta misinformation.
Peta has high kill rates in their shelters because they have a no turn away policy. They will take any animal into their shelter and unfortunately many animals typically the older less cute ones are harder to find homes for and rather than keep them locked up in cages for the rest of their lives they settle for the less cruel option which is putting down the animals that aren’t going to find a loving home.
No-kill shelters have a trick up their sleeve where they look good on paper but in reality they turn away animals that aren’t likely to be adopted or even send animals that aren’t likely to get adopted to peta where they are then put down. In other words peta aren’t uniquely evil and bad at their job, the system funnels more animals into their hands because the alternative is leaving animals on the streets or locked up in cages for the rest of their lives.
This is yet another example of anti-peta misinformation.
Peta has high kill rates in their shelters
so… it’s not misinformation
A stat divorced from it’s context in order to make a benefit look like a failure certainly feels like misinformation. It definitely results in misinformed people.
If you’re as principled as PETA wants you to believe they are, there is no “outweighing”.
Printing flyers on a paper is out too if there’s no consideration for good outweighing the bad
PETA’s only goal is attention. Does this help their cause? Yes, because we’re here talking about them from their marketing.
That’s the intent behind most AI in marketing. They intentionally make it obvious so you get angry and talk about their ads. The goal is attention.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It’s not hard to imagine destroying the environment directly affects a lot of animals?
deleted by creator
The animal industry uses up a hell of a lot more water than AI. And the water usage from AI mostly comes from the efforts to produce that electricity which in this case typically means fossil fuels. These issues would be solved if we were just using renewable energy sources.
And farming lots of animals directly affects the environment!
I know peta isn’t perfect, but really now?
Yes, really.
gotta farm engagement
They’re masters of the art, look at the size of this thread.
AI bad AND Peta bad, right guys!
Anti peta memes doing the laps. Hmmmmm
That “sushi” was supposed to swim upstream, spawn eggs, then die.
PETA members always come out of the woodworks for these posts.
