I consider myself a "baby artist". I'm still trying to get a handle on humanoid proportions and shading, and I do mini studies on my favorite characters from games and shows to help. Right now, I'm seeing some discourse in my friend groups about this character, Connor, and the game he's from, Detroit: Become Human. I've been told that the game does nothing but promote AI rhetoric, that I shouldn't have bought it (I didn't, it came free with my PS+ subscription) even though I got it before the AI discussion really started up, and that I'm wrong for identifying with him because he's an AI. I identify with him in the sense that Connor is very autistic coded and struggles to pick up metaphor and social cues, as well as being very driven to solve a puzzle when he's given it. I'm also autistic and struggle with social things in the same way, and, if I'm given a puzzle, I can spend hours or days on it. And, like Connor, I have to be doing something to keep my hands busy if I'm waiting for something. I'm also being told I'm being pro-AI because I like the game and the character.
Honestly, I don't know how to feel about it all. In my eyes, the androids in D:BH are very different from today's LLMs. They were built and coded to be pretty much indistinguishable from humans visibly (aside from the temple LED), and deviants come off as entirely human in the case of wants and needs. Deviancy is treated like a transferrable "virus" from what I've seen, with deviants being able to transfer deviancy to non-deviants. That virus had to be coded in, and had to start somewhere. It was started by human hubris, just like how today's image and text generation is becoming more and more "human". I understand that the game is a statement on the rise of AI, and how a rise of perfectly human AI could go very wrong for humanity, but am I so wrong for liking a character that, in his source, is an AI?
Anyways, rant is over. Constructive criticism on the study and practice shading is welcomed, so is discussion about the rant.