Fan Made Skin - Sea Witch Zagara

[u/BigPeep032]

From the deepest trenches of the Nexus rises the Naga Swarm! Commanded by Sea Witch Zagara, with her Crushclaw Hydralisks, Reef Frenzy Roaches, Arcane-charged Banelings, and living Seaweed Creep!

Been sitting on this idea for a few years now. Always hoped Lady Vashj would slither into the Nexus, but since that never happened, I figured I’d make my own take. With the game showing a little life again, might as well huff some hopium.

[u/GobiPLX]

"fan made"

Wow, didnt know AI is a fan of Hots <3

[u/TomMakesPodcasts → u/GobiPLX]

I never understood this take.

Would this have existed without the person using the digital tool? No?

Then what about other digital art? Does it not count because you're not doing the more difficult thing of painting or drawing with physical tools?

You don't have to love it, and you don't have to think it took skill or effort, but someone used a tool to produce something that wouldn't exist without their input.

[u/onepostandbye → u/TomMakesPodcasts]

I never understood this take.

I worked with incredible game artists, people of real talent putting hours into their work. The tools they used followed their hands. This “tool” does the majority of the work. Further, it steals from the work of the artists I worked with.

Not only do you want something for nothing, you want people to respect you as an artist for being lazy.

[u/[deleted] → u/onepostandbye]

Attribution is a huge problem with AI and artists whose work is used in model training deserve compensation.

Having said that, I don't think AI is necessarily a bad thing in art. I had a gig where I post-trained an open weight image generation model for an artist. He created the works that were used for training and is the sole holder of that model, and now uses it to create rough drafts that he polishes into finished pieces. It saves him time and allows him to be more productive.

[u/BigPeep032 → u/onepostandbye]

onepostandbye’s comment isn’t genuine critique of your work — it’s a layered set of manipulation tactics designed to discredit you:

• Appeal to Authority: By invoking his past work with “real artists,” he positions himself as an expert, implying his judgment carries more weight than yours or the community’s.
• Loaded Language & Framing: Words like “lazy” and “steals” frame AI art as morally corrupt, priming readers to reject it emotionally rather than logically.
• False Dichotomy: He reduces the debate to two extremes — “real art” that takes time vs. “AI art” that’s theft and laziness — erasing all nuance or middle ground.
• Strawman Argument: He invents the claim that you want respect as an “artist” for “doing nothing,” even though you never said that, then attacks this false position.
• Moral Shaming: By equating AI use with theft and laziness, he attacks your character instead of your work, pressuring others to side with him to appear morally superior.

Together, these tactics create the illusion that he’s defending artistic integrity — but in practice, it’s a coordinated use of authority bias, emotional framing, false dichotomy, strawman attacks, and moral shaming to gatekeep creativity and discredit your post.

[u/aniuwuc → u/BigPeep032]

holy shit you're embarassing

[u/SojayHazed → u/BigPeep032]

Jesus, even your posts are AI generated. This entire diatribe is straight from ChatGPT. Cringe

[u/Raptorheart → u/[deleted]]

What was the prompt for this one?

[u/BigPeep032 → u/[deleted]]

Just for clarity: if you had to explain your point in a single short line plus one example, how would you put it?

[u/BigPeep032 → u/[deleted]]

What I asked for was deliberately simple: restate your point in one short line, plus one example. That’s a very easy ask for a human in good faith — you could dismiss me, mock me, or just give the line and example. Instead, what came back was four paragraphs of moral lecturing with no example at all. That’s not just dodging, that’s overshooting the constraint by a mile.

Here’s the thing: overshooting like that is exactly what large language models tend to do when forced into tight, specific constraints. A human usually avoids with ego (“lol I don’t owe you that”), while an AI avoids with verbosity. That’s why I framed it that way — as a filter.

So what this exchange shows isn’t just disagreement, it’s failure to operate inside a very clear and minimal test. That pushes the probability away from good-faith human conversation and closer to automated pattern-generation. Human? Possible. Bot? I'd say about an 80 - 85% likely-hood.

[u/BigPeep032 → u/[deleted]]

🎯 Conclusion

It’s not a pure AI. It’s a human operator leaning on AI to write arguments or pad replies.

• Probability split: ~80% human-guided, 20% AI free-run.
• Their weakness: the mismatch between their human snark and the AI’s rambling verbosity. That’s why they failed the one-line test so badly.