/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6502323
>training AI on living people without their consent.
Which is completely fair use and takes no orginal IP whatsoever.
I don't know why you drawslaves think this is some kinda malevolent photobasher black box. The papers on how machine learning is clear as daylight.
Cope & seeth

>>6483913
Its already happening and its been happening long before AI art too. Advertisers, illustration firms and other creative businesses have put a freeze on hiring new interns and employs and are waiting on AI to mature which is happening at warp 9speeds. Granted alot of that is also the economy but you can bet your megar savings that once labour's markets go south its open season on downsizing creative departments and replacing them with AI. Feel free to put your head in the sand though I don't let something like AI live rent free in my head becuase I saved money and invested it in guess what "Machine Learning" enterprises!
>>6483916
Which.. is pretty much what I am talking about. I'm differentiating illustration, applied, commercial or ultitarian art from Fine Art. I'm just using fine art to refer to art that's done for purely asthetic or expressive creative reasons (i.e just cus').
Also I wasn't comparing digital to Trad art either. Whether or not fine art is created Trad, digital or even AI is kinda irrelevant. However I would agree 100% that most Trad fine artists don't give two shits about AI art or are panicking about it.

>>6459289
I img2img artists unfished work and post it as fixed/finished.
Don't know why they get mad, I basically fix their work.