/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6379342
Uh huh. Yeah. Okay, sure. Couldn’t have gotten where it is now without “scum” artists.

>>6378420
The potential of this is the only bright spot in this entire catastrophe for me. It won’t change anything about the world, the human condition, or my chances of being a pro artist, but having a personal AI trained on my work exclusively means I can basically have multiples of myself working on a project, even if they’re all retarded clones.
I’d rather have worked with other human beings with their own competencies, shared that common victory and struggle and victory, and done so in a way that we all grow and profit from.
But that is literally going down the drain and my consolation prize for sticking around to watch humanity lose its soul might be that I get to make my art anyway, just with no one to give a shit about it. And any actual work I put into it will be minimized by the fact that 1) AI touched it and 2) it’s probably garbage like all the other AI art.
Will I ever have time for that project as a wage slave even if I have an AI slave? Will I kill myself before I finish my magnum opus, or after? Who knows, we’ll see what happens.

>>6374739

Yes. Anyone can learn to create art but not all will get to a very high level.

If you want a high level art you need to pay an artist who worked his ass off to get to that level.

I think one of the reason these people are defending AI is because they feel entitled to a HIGH LEVEL ART.

AI can still function using just public domain images. The result might not be as pretty but if you're using it for fun. To create images for your DND game for example. Works just fine.

But these people have tasted that high level result from the machine feeding on top artist artwork. And they don't want that to go away.

They will try to find every way possible to justify the use of AI that feeds off artist work.