/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6829876
i'm still probably way, way better than you can ever hope to be.
and yet i still embrace the AI.

because honestly i just don't think art is worth the effort.
maybe because i'm not interested in illustration at all.
because if you want to go into any story driven medium, all you can hope for are shitty wages and a lot of hard work. and for what? to work on someone else's story. or to work for years and years, spending an ungodly amount of lifeblood for only a few handful of books.
it never seemed worth it to me, which is why i never pursued it professionally.
but ai has the ability to change that. the potential, at the very least.


>>6829885
you think it's a human right to look at and be influenced by other people's images?
if a machine has that capability. and it has, you think it shouldn't have that right, but why? because it competes with artists? because artists need protection? on what ground are you standing on here?

and you think i paid a cent to use stable diffusion? your corporate fears are completely off here, precisely because at least currently, this is an open source movement.
i'd be worried if this wasn't open source. then your argument would make some sense.
but otherwise i think it makes perfect sense. the art is out there in the open to learn from. the resulting tool is also out there for you, the people, to use.

>>6829897
you're projecting. i explained again and again why i think what i do. none of you can explain your stance.
because it's barely based on any understanding.
i draw
i used SD
and i understand roughly how SD works too.

you? what do you know? can YOU even draw?