Chat I think we’re in the bad place
YouTube removed a channel that was dedicated to posting AI-generated videos of women being shot in the head following 404 Media’s request for comment. The videos were clearly generated with Google’s new AI video generator tool, Veo, according to a watermark included in the bottom right corner of the videos.
The channel, named Woman Shot A.I, started on June 20, 2025. It posted 27 videos, had over 1,000 subscribers, and had more than 175,000 views, according to the channel’s publicly available data.
violence against women
All the videos posted by the channel follow the exact same formula. The nearly photo-realistic videos show a woman begging for her life while a man with a gun looms over her. Then he shoots her. Some videos have different themes, like compilations of video game characters like Lara Croft being shot, “Japanese Schoolgirls Shot in Breast,” “Sexy HouseWife Shot in Breast,” “Female Reporter Tragic End,” and Russian soldiers shooting women with Ukrainian flags on their chest.
“The AI I use is paid, per account I have to spend around 300 dollars per month, even though 1 account can only generate 8-second videos 3 times,” the channel’s owner wrote in a public post on YouTube. “So, imagine how many times I generate a video once I upload, I just want to say that every time I upload a compilation consisting of several 8-second clips, it’s not enough for just 1 account.”
Woman Shot A.I’s owner claimed they have 10 accounts. “I have to spend quite a lot of money just to have fun,” they said.
What a lame ass comparison, you are not talking about an “auteur” expressing edgyness, if that were the case they could take a camera and film their own shitty C grade horror movie if they really care about gore.
What you are actually talking about is a literaly dipshit who I quote “The AI I use is paid, per account I have to spend around 300 dollars per month, even though 1 account can only generate 8-second videos 3 times. Woman Shot A.I’s owner claimed they have 10 accounts”
Someone who is using a paid service spending at least 3k a month to create violent oppressive slop. Something he very likely would never do on his own otherwise and something that is detrimental not just because your interpretation of “shocking” is entirely subjective but also because its fucking AI slop which comes bundled with the bad consequences for the environment and the economy.
To take all of this and frame as if the issue here is artistic freedom? Yes we should neuter the “creative possibilities of AI” because the cost is literaly the fucking planet and their defenders need to be taken out and shot in front of the burning datacenters they love so much.
Again to even begin to enter this discussion, have this genius take a pen and a paper or a fucking camera and let them actually create the slop they love so much. If they can’t do it without AI they shouldn’t be allowed to do it at all and that is already being very liberal.
Isn’t this response more about the AI than the content? I totally understand and agree with finding AI shit and lazy, but you’re literally saying you’ll allow the content if it’s made using better less-lazy tools so it doesn’t actually sound like this is an argument for or against the content itself?