/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6877471
again, none of those technologies are comparable.
it's the difference between photobashing and AI.
one is utterly rigid, the other is good enough to make all of you get your panties in a bunch.

the RIGIDNESS of the former limits the way you can use it. like those puppets you talked about.
but AI can work with your existing input far more seamlessly.
it's more like an assistant. so using AI can literally be like having more heads in your team in terms of the work that you make it do.

>>6877475
i told you it's unusable as it is.
but you have no vision and refuse to read.

>>6877485
i'm talking about future AI interpolation you giant retard.
"AI" in general has been a thing for a long time. but the current technologies are only recently getting their focus.

every example animation i posted is made with a tool that is barely a month old.

>are refusing to aknowledge that animation is an artform with principles and feel guiding how the frames are drawn.
i'm not? you just think this shit matters to what i'm saying.
also like what >>6877481 said, the AI can provide you with more frames than you need.
IF IT CAN INTERPOLATE SUCCESSFULLY BETWEEN TWO EXISTING FRAMES, then the timing and emphasis is just a minor technicality that you can adjust if needed.

>>6873664
>and can be copyrighted
no. that argument would have nothing to do with whether it can be copyrighted. that is a separate conversation. one that is more relevant and can actually be defined somewhat, unlike art.

> want to direct conversation toward a terrain that is favorable to you.
that is what you're doing in the first place, don't you realize that?

but you do actually have some point with
>why yes as upon it hinges whether AI-generated pictures are art (and thus belong on this board and art sites)
but only because it speaks to whether i can post about this topic in the first place, not ANY of my arguments or points, even tangentially.

and it does not in fact change that it is a pointless discussion that would just be about semantics and definitions all the way through.

>you posted blurry shit claiming it as your own and things the Ai did, I'll repeat, nothing you have posted proved any of your points and when criticism about them were brought...you just chose not to reply. so yeah, no draw larper.
so i cheated and faked them, huh.
you're willfully ignorant. end of story.

>>6873678
>>6873710
>muh big tech
>FOMO
>newest goyslop
so you genuinely think it will go away huh.
that's just beyond delusional.

also the big tech/coroporations talking point is pure idiocy. again coming from a complete lack of understanding of what the situation is like.
you won't find an AI advocate anywhere on this site that is anti open source or pro-corpo monopoly on AI.

>the rich
lol.... just fucking lol.
le.

>AI will go away

>AI is a fad, it will go away just like crypto and NFTs!

>>6850380
>muh art
>muh artist
i consider AI a tool. so it will be up to the person how to actually use it. whether you consider it art or not is irrelevant to me. once it is used in the artistic process, you'll be forced to concede your cope.

like pic related. just think about the possibilities in animation. it is utterly laughable to think that AI will go away.

>you still can't refute the ai neither draws nor paint (creates art)
it doesn't? but it can create images that look like drawings or paintings, sketches, all kinds of things. and this is a fact.

you're the one arguing semantics.
because discussions about "art" are just that. pointless semantics. whether it is "painting" or "drawing"? what the hell does that matter? the only thing that matters is what you make with it in the end.