No, they weren't. But we've already seen how this shit ends, and the name is an allusion to that.

How many people have to die of negligence before it becomes an extermination camp? Or does the term extermination camp necessitate active acts of murder?

Not to mention it did become an extermination camp.

To be clear, I'm perfectly ok with ethically trained (open-source weights and data set) generative AI being used locally on a small scale, I think generative AI is a double-edged technology like anything else.

It should never be the end product, but simply a tool.

In this picture here, you can see the skeleton is weird and other images and text is a bit wonky, these elements should have been touched up by a human. This is what I consider slop, raw AI output has this look and feel to it that makes it immediately identifiable, it is up to the artist to touch it up and adjust colours. Again, it should never be the final product. Something as simple as text should probably have been created normally.

I'm against Meta, Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, MidJourney, etc.'s use of generative AI for the reasons stated above, but small scale genAI on your local device? Go for it.

Ah that’s fair, I can see where you’re coming from on that. Those icons could 100% be generated with AI given the right prompting.

In my book, they look way more like stock assets to me due to how generic the symbols are, and the consistent styling. The “army guard” icon is kinda sus because of the stick “gun”, but that can be read as deliberate ambiguity to appease potential corporate customers who don’t want gun depictions in their vector stock images, and same deal with the generic “six point star”.

You’d also think they’d have chosen some sort of more detailed depiction of “isolation & surveillance” than a megaphone, or a lightning head for “fear & control”. If any of the accompanying text was included in the prompt to generate these images, the output would’ve been completely different.