/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6559162
Anon I wasn't saying there's NO "elite AI artists", just that most AI artists are not very skilled.
Most non-AI artists aren't very skilled either, to be clear. The difference is that since every non-AI artform has been around for at least a few decades (in the case of digital art), people generally don't see the low-skill non-AI stuff as a threat.
I'm aware that since AI stuff is still new it hasn't had time to really develop as an artform, but once it does the "magic" will be dispelled and people will realize it actually takes work to git gud at it. And at that point it's just paying skilled artists to do work, while unskilled don't get much at all.

I agree that in the "art industry jobs" it isn't going to be like a normal artist's job, but even today's current art jobs are nothing like the ones of the 90s, or hell even the 2000s.

>>6559164
>can shit out coomershit that's far better than a lot of the patreon shit etc. you can see all over
Anyone "can" make good art with whatever. You "can" make good coomer macaroni art, it doesn't mean it's easy.
>just look at some /h/ stuff,
/h/-style content is already a flood, nothing realistically changes with the addition of AI artists making more
>sometimes there's someone there who posts some quality shit instead of retards with their generic 1girl portrait tits
Yea cause it takes work to make things of "quality." You defeated your own dragon, good job.

>there's no reason a bigger resolution model won't come
You can already generate bigger images, it just takes exponentially longer. Like some retard my friend knows was generating 1024x1024 images and said this:
>After upgrading to a RTX 4090 from a RTX 2080ti I have seen render times go from 30 min a frame to 60 seconds
There's literally no point doing that vs just upscaling, unless you meant something I'm unaware of and I'm being retarded.

>>6559173
Good photos also take skill. That anon who claims to be a "genius photograph" is likely picrel

>>6484401
A camera is a tool. An ai program is a tool.
Both produce images by the operator setting up a series of conditions and then pushing a button.
Both can produce shitty results that are easy to flood everywhere with by barely doing anything but pushing a button. See pic related.
Both can take excessive amounts of time to produce better images.
>>6484404
You're free to dislike it, I personally find most brutalism, bauhaus and IKEA design to be soulless. I find the fucking magic spoon cereal box art corporate style to be soulless. That doesn't make it not-art.
As well, a human making use of other peoples' art isn't new, putting them into a computer or otherwise. The AI program isn't special in substance, only in speed. Speed doesn't matter for ethics or law.
>>6484427
Look up "Untitled (Cowboy)" by Richard Prince
>>6484435
I don't know why you guys can't understand, despite being told multiple times, that it isn't the final output. Art directors would already tell you to just google shit to rip if it was faster and use that as long as it never actually ends up in the final product. The only people who'd use raw AI outputs are those with shoestring budgets or in products where it isn't going to be looked at up close.
Similar to those fucking STOCK PHOTOS OF PEOPLE HOLDING A SOLDERING IRON NEAR THE TIP, FUCK THOSE ARE AWFUL
>>6484454
Legally copyright infringement is infringement, not theft. Completely different categories.