/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6552578
Aichuds should post more baits like this.

>>6552580
>Aichuds shouldn't post
ftfy

>>6552578
If that sonic was drawn by a toddler then it's pretty good.

I thought people called bad art soul mainly because the worse it was the closer to their level the artist must be, like "it's fine because this guys isn't that much better than me skill wise".

That or it's just some artsy ass way or saying they like the art

>>6552662
I think this has more to do with pouring your heart and enjoying it than pure skill. A drawing can have great techniques and still feel soulless and not having a enjoyable process. Also what is considered soul is relative to the person
These are my two cents, but that's it

A painting, a replica, and a photograph copy have the exact same image

And yet they have different values

Art is the single most subjective product in the world. Its value is inherent to who made it and who's buying

Soul has nothing to do with skill and everything to do with appeal.

Kill yourself, AInigger tourist.

>>6552580
it's not even good bait, kids don't draw like that

ai can be soul sometime

>>6553056

>>6553060

>>6553065

>>6553068

good morning sirs

>>6553056 >>6553060
>>6553065 >>6553068
The obsession with sexual imagery kills it for me. Making elaborate pornography is largely what AI is used for and I honestly think that's sad.
Not just because such a technical marvel is being used for the most basic human desire, but also because the people crowing about "good art" and "quality" revealed themselves to be mere perverts.

>>6553072

>>6553076
>anime cumbrains want easy dopamine hits
Pretty obvious

>>6553076
desu idk how ai works i dont generate myself but the images ive saved are literally all 1 in 100 of the AI threads spread throughout this site. As to AI being used to for sexual content, I can understand how most that generate think - if it makes your pp hard then it means the image is good. The only good non-sexual AI image ive encountered is that floating skull i posted

>>6552578
Well, it mostly came from the idea that AI art can't have a "soul" like human art can, same idea as robots not having souls and humans do. It just seemed to sorta evolve into "sovl" to look funny/cool.

At this point, people now just use it seemingly as a joke, but also to say something has character regardless of quality.

As for whether AI images can have soul? Well if we look at the stuff by >>6553056
A lot of it has a visual charm, but is lacking in... Something...
I do wonder if it's solely because I know it's AI that I can't quite connect to it.

>>6553088
This one ( >>6553065 ) doesn't look like coom? Or was that a different anon?

Ungodly (though usually nonsensical) rendering and broken hands are the telltale sign of ai, its when these things aren't the focus that that 'made by AI' quality is less noticeable.

>>6553091
I drew this cant believe you saved it

>>6552578
I think it's a way of people stating that they like SOMETHING of the piece, even if it is lacking, and that the artist should keep practicing and nurturing that potential.

>>6552578
Were you from /tg/ too?

>>6553076
Prude tradcuck. Food and shelter are more basic desires than sex. Besides, coom art is good.

Good morning ai chads

>>6552578
>>6553056
pic related is true soul
hand drawn artwork made with hours of human labor
compare with your AI bullshit and see if there are any differences

>>6553350
>Ai doesn't take enough e-effort!
The dumbest argument ever

>>6553350
It makes my boner pop? Its fairly easy to jerk off to this artist's works because all they do is draw coom

>>6553353
Wrong, because the biggest difference between hard-working and AI shortcuts is the former can actually claim "I made this", whereas the later CANT.
Nobody dy compliments the guy that bought cookies from Walmart, they compliment the guy that made them from scratch.
Your not a good chef because you ordered pizza, your a good chef if you make good pizza by hand.

>>6553434
>I take this chance to impress upon you, my reader, how important you really are in the whole art procedure. You, your personality, your individuality come first. Your pictures are your by-product. Everything about your pictures is, and should be, a little of you. They will be a reflection of your knowledge, your experiences, your observation, your likes and dislikes, your good taste, and your thinking. So the real concentration is centred on you, and your work follows along in the wake of what mental self-improvement you are making.

Loomis really had answers for everything, didn't he?

>>6553458
He was so ahead of his time

>>6553458
Or maybe this Loomis agreed with ME! Eh? Ever think of that? :P

Good morning, sirs

>>6553088
I've generated fake old videogame screencaps using SD and they tend to make me feel things.

Mostly it's that weird feeling of glimpsing into a reality where videogames are good and we got so much more than we have now. Very somber.

>>6553434
>>6553458
>>6553350
The real reason most people here think
>"AI art lacks SOUL!!"
Is because it's for the most part made by people who suck shit at the program AND have no developed taste of their own.

There is good AI coom art! It's few and far between, and mostly fetish content that some autist sat there for hours making.
There is good non-coom AI art too! But it's even rarer, because the vast majority of AI art posed around is by normies.

Normies have no taste, they don't understand creation and when they use the tools, they make nothing special. "Simpsons character BUT REAL LIFE" art has been clickbait for over a decade!

Braindead twitter freaks also make art that lacks the oomph - you can usually find weirdly-generic style trends among people who don't have an original idea in their head, such as people who literally only play and draw things about FF14 and Genshin.

Some artists also are using AI, but doing so in weird ways. A lot of these are from the "fine arts" world, or made their fame during the napster wars era of the internet - the Saladfingers guy and Niel Cicierega are examples there. Still, others are old independent artists who just work on weird shit like Rob Sheridan. And some are just being experimental to see what they can actually use it for, like Corridor Crew or Daromeon.
It ranges from serious to shitpost to "I am a boomer and this is deep", but it's still different from your generic midjourney marvel fan.

>>6553068
this one's actually pretty good desu

>>6553653
Well, I think it's also because the creator's didn't really have much say in the images creation. Someone actually drawing an image will decide how everyone looks, the composition, the colours, the art-style (all within the ability of course), where-as the AI image creator is simply making due with the closest approximation of what he asked for.

One was someone's vision
Another was a 'good enough' interpretation of someone's vision

Though you're right, quality can vary, there are a few AI images above that I liked.

>>6552900
Holy FUCKING based

>>6553056
>I have never seen an ass before

>>6552578
>Why do people call shitty art "Soul"/"SOVL"/"Soulful"?
soul means human element
it means, you're making flaws or pay extra attention to detail where you don't have to, in a way that is untypical of a machine

>>6553753
Aifags don't get why people get so hung up on the flaws: the rendering is good but no human capable or rendering that way would leave such glaring mistakes. it's like an ugly stain on a pretty rug, the contrast is jarring.

>>6553753
AI is human confirmed.

Good morning sirs

>>6553274
>Check /tg/
>Drawthread OP is AI
Oh, how the mighty are fallen

>>6553883
holy shit it's real.

>>6552578
not all shitty art has soul. Look at autistic artists. those have the most soulless art, even when they start out at 100% uninfluenced divine inspiration.

>>6553725
That's not really true at all. Plenty of non-AI art is made without said "vision", after all. Randomness and "happy little accidents" are a part of art. Not just in the Jackson Pollock paint splatters, plenty of good art is because of accidents, or (in large productions) direction being misunderstood and the results being just "yea we'll roll with that."

The claim that "everything an artist does is intentional" is the type of myth that feeds some peoples' suffering-in-perfectionism.

>>6553769
AI art has different mistakes. Just like how 3D rendering has different mistakes - you don't get weird bodypart/clothes clipping in drawings, for example. Or accidentally warping the BG in photo edits.

>>6553986
A lot of artists that try to draw realistic I would say end up losing the "soul" in their art. Like the full focus on technical skill rots their brain out and they get a gremlin telling them to remain within the bounds of what they THINK (not know - think) are the limits of normal human anatomy.

soul just means it's shit art with effort put into it, like mine.

>>6553653
You noted/replied/whatever to me, but you didn't read what I posted at all, nor reply to it at all.

I said "an artist's work is THEIRS, whereas something new generating an AI image made nothing, and has claim of nothing."

Ai art can be perfect, but the person that prompted it's generation is still a talentless hack that hasn't contributed shit to the art world.

>>6554277
Fucking auto spelling bullshit... "Whereas SOMEONE generating an AI..."

(The machine doesn't like me criticizing it)

>>6554277
>AI
>Perfect
Pick one

Not him btw,but apart from that phrase you have a point

>>6554228
>effort
You're brainwashed from games telling you this 20 second drawing was full of effort

>>6554219
>"happy little accidents"
Sure, but the artist still has to deliberately choose to roll with that accident, where as AI art is basically nothing BUT those accidents.
There's not really any choices, just concessions, just "close enough".

>>6554277
>>6554332
Incorrect. The process of AI art is very similar to fractal art combined with some forms of photography.

>>6554281
"Perfect" was used in a hypothetical sense.

>>6554427
You keep "replying" to me, but your not actually replying to me.

When a photographer captures an amazing scene, he's not claiming "I made every last detail of this", he is claiming "I found this, don't you agree it's beautiful?".
What your doing is comparing a photographer to a landscape painter, or trying to make the comparison. On a scale of effort to make this detailed art, the painter is high, the photographer is low, and the person using AI is barely even on the scale.

>>6554427
The process is the same as googling.

>>6554453
>>6554468
The process is specifying a bunch of parameters (not simply a prompt), and then pull-starting it until you get something "with something there." Followed by adjusting them further to refine it, selectively inpainting/outpainting/editing parts, rerunning through img2img, and so on.

It's very much like a photographer who has to first "find something worth photographing", choose the right lens, distance, angle, ISO, exposure, etc, and then take hundreds of images, curating the best and touching them up before publishing.

Fractal art is real art, and it has less control over the output than AI art because the results are limited to abstract forms without insane amounts of skill to bend it further.

Most AI art is shit from people who are noobs and don't know (or even care to know) much, just like how most graffiti is dogshit and looks worse than writing words or spraying randomly.

>>6554645
Google has search parameters as well. Adjusting and refining your search prompt with words and parameters to get the desired result is a very similar process.

>>6554645
This has to be some sort of cognitive dissonance, because you tried to incorporate photography into your argument like I did prior, but your still not actually addressing any of my points.

Hitting "enter" after adding or removing a word to the AI prompt is not hard work, and the end result is still not YOURS. You can refine the prompt all you like, and try and try again, but using the AI to generate a picture is still not YOURS.

meanwhile every stroke of the pencil is entirely mine, which makes the completed piece mine and mine alone, which makes ME an actual artist, and you, who merely asked an AI to make you a picture, are a consumer. Your not even in the same level as someone who commissions a piece, because they are least recognize that the artist made it, and would credit them thusly.

>>6554645
Google, choose size, color, dimensions, reverse search/similar to, use minus symbol to exclude, choose date range, language, search specific sites... And with ai images flooding the net now, you could find ai images close to your oh so unique prompt...

>>6554651
>>6554677
The images on google already existed, the ones made using AI don't. Unless you're taking some kind of bizarre metaphysical "everything in the latent space already exists" take.

>>6554665
Art is not universally defined by "hard work"
"Ownership" is not established by labor. The AI is a tool, and its outputs are yours just as much as 3d printing someone else's model makes it yours, or pushing a button on a hypothetical futuristic replicator is still you "making food."

Is it valuable? Depends on who is considering the question! Labor is not the source of value, value is subjective.

>>6554688
I finally get an actual response, and it's a straw man.
No, art is not universally defined by hard work, but it does play a role.
A hand-drawn lawn, where each blade of grass is detailed enough to be individually discernable, WILL be universally acknowledged as better than a printed image of one done via Photoshop, where only a few blades were done, and then copy/pasted to completion.
Stop motion is very much respected for all of the hard work that is needed to create the illusion of movement, just like how drawn animation is.

Also, people who 3d print files they find online are also not deluded into claiming the printed piece is their creation, conceptually, only literally, and even then it's more like "it's mine because I own it", and not "it's mine I conceptualized and manifested it using the modeling program and printer". The sculpt belongs to whoever made the stl (unless it was a scan, then it's a rip off of whoever made the sculpt of the scanned object), the process of physically making it belongs to the printer/company, and the end result, the model, physically belongs to you, but not conceptually. Again, this makes you a consumer, and NOT an artist.

Someone that pops a tv dinner into a microwave is NOT a chef, but your delusional ass seems to think so.
Therefore, a made-from-scratch dinner IS far more valuable than an equivalent tv dinner.

>>6554703
The value is still entirely subjective.
Most people would say that the vast majority of AI art is not worth much.
A lot of people who I've seen generating art are only doing so cause they can't afford or don't feel it's worth buying a commission and don't have the time or drive to learn other artforms. So to them, the ones making it, the AI art is not worth much either.

You stumble on comparing an artist to a chef though. A chef is by definition a PROFESSIONAL cook. But an ARTIST is not a professional inherently, it's just "someone who makes art" and I'd qualify that with a "regularly" after it, though most people would still ask "who is the artist of this?" for something uncredited, even if the person only did 1 piece of art, ever.

DuChamp's Fountain is still art, and even if he only did found object pieces he'd still be an artist.

>>6554722
I will also add that there's a deception in most AI-art discussions, where people who are adamantly against AI art are continually trying to push most types of art besides illustration and painting out of the conversation. And even with illustration and painting, only "industry art" is considered, not the vast field of Fine Art where most art ethics and law is decided.

Artificially narrowing the conversation to avoid engaging with a broader artistic discussion, as AI art affects the ENTIRE art world, is a foolish endeavor.

>>6554722
Your still missing my point.
I never touched on value until you brought it up to avoid actually addressing my point.
actually read, and not just recite the words in your head;

AI art is NOT "your" creation, YOU did not streak that red, or pencil that line, or fluck that angle, you did NOTHING. Typing in some words is not YOU creating anything, it's the AI.

Every artist that makes any piece has actually created art. YOU, or any other retard, typing in words and hitting enter is NOT an artist.
There's nothing subjective of what I'm stating.

>>6554688
>"everything in the latent space already exists" take.
no, just saying prompting is more akin to googling for art than making it. yes it is made from the prompt, that being unique input. sure you can inpaint mistakes, but that's a temporary glitch, in 2 years it will serve up much closer to what you want. you'll search a civitai like gallery, pick something you like, maybe merge a couple, search for poses from a huge list of depth maps, search some good negative prompts... search.

>>6554737
The AI cannot make anything, it's an object not a being. The operator of the tool is the one who makes it. None of what you listed are requirements for being a "creator", in part because the terms and so on are so broad as to be nearly meaningless.

I am not even an "AI artist", I just am smarter than you and see AI artists as adjacent to Fractal Artists. Which you still didn't address, maybe you should go look up what fractal art is if you don't know.

>>6554758
You say it's "akin to" but that means it's still different lol. There is no problem with methods of making low effort art existing. I would rather people do that than pester artists with their ridiculous demands for paying in "exposure."

>>6554737
Also again because you failed to address this too: DuChamp did not make the urinal or the bottle tree he submitted to galleries, all he did was submit them and contextualize them. The horse you are looking to ride has been dead for over 100 years.

>>6554737
>NOTHING
What if I use one of my sketches for ControlNet, does that make it "more art" than just using prompts?

>>6554767
I don't give a fuck who DaChump is, or what fractal art is, the point is that anybody that makes something themselves IS an artist, a point of which you STILL ignored because your smart ass can't refute. AI can make its own shit, your not actually required in this process, it's just a quant little test the AI is undergoing to develope itself. To compare AI to something like a pen or brush only shows how absolutely retarded you are, and you think your clever with your little tangents, but they have not worked on me, because I'm the one who's in charge here, not you.

>>6554771
I am going to make so many people seethe when I make a .ckpt using my own art and release it for free. Just need to do enough color work instead of lines and sketches.

>>6554768
please do not use the CIA psysop "modern art" as an example. it's entire existence and propping up was in order to devaluate and blurr the definition of art. it is very similar to leftist policies and doublespeak

>>6554771
It makes it more YOURS.
Are people just illiterate here? Did you miss how I called it "AI art"? I never said that AI can't make art, I only said that typing in some words to an AI generator doesn't make the output YOURS.

>>6554775
I am not ignoring it, I am providing counterexamples that refute your standard as legitimate. It's not that AI art fits your standard, it's that your standard is, first and foremost BULLSHIT.

Fractal art is inputting math into a computer to produce a gigantic auto-generated image, and then zooming to specific times/points. It's been a thing for decades and mostly makes pretty abstract wallpapers, wallhangers and stoner art.

DuChamp literally bought a urinal, signed it "R.Mutt" and submitted it to an art gallery. Picrel is the "sculpture." It's one of the most famous pieces of art in existence and the whole shebang happened over 100 years ago.

>>6554777
Modern Art existed before the CIA did. The CIA was founded in 1947, and the whole point of the CIA propping up modern art (despite people hating it) was to make American culture appear "open and accepting" compared to the iron fist of the Soviets. This was done to keep the european countries - the ones already fine with modern art - from thinking the grass was greener on the other side of the iron curtain.

ai is just a lame and inferior way of making art
simple as

>>6554786
Buying clothes at the shop is also lamer and an inferior way of weaving it yourself.

>>6554783
My standard? What the actual fuck are you going on about?
You literally are suffering from cognitive distinction.

Fractal art; a quant concept, and is the creators' transformatively, but again, is not entirely "theirs". And because your retarded, I'm not saying it's not art, it's just not as much theirs as a hand-drawn sketch.
DaChump seems to have been spot on; a chump that Chumped a bunch of chumps. Again, transformative, just barely, and if you want to call it art, then sure. Hell, for arguments sake, let's say it is art. Ok, once again, I'm not staying what is and isn't art, just stating that DaChumps piece could barely be considered his creation as much as it would be credited to the company that made the urinal, so not very much "his".

Because your literally retarded, I'ma say it again; what AI makes is NOT "your creation", unlike what I draw, which is completely and entirely MY creation.

>>6554785
incorrect, it was propped up to devaluate fine art because its practice elevates the mind and according to them made it more likely to foster "revolutionary thoughts'. they tried to infect the USSR with it as well. "modern art" has been bullshit starting with dadaism although abstract was already on the edge. It eventually lead to "anything goes, anything can be art". if anything can be art then nothing really is.

>>6554793
it is, you cannot claim credit for its creation just because you bought it.

>>6554783
imagine taking Duchamp who purposefully was taking the piss at the audience as an example to justify AI pictures as art. It's not even one of the most famous pieces, normalfags will cite classic paintings and sculptures before thinking about this shit.

>>6554797
THIS GUY GETS IT!!
Holy shit bro, your an oasis of intellect in this desert of stupidity.

>>6554799
>taking the piss
Kek

>>6554795
Yea your standard for what constitutes "making art" is bs. I keep repeating it and you keep ignoring it. Fractal artists are the creators of their works and DuChamp created Fountain. People making AI art are making the art themselves, you just don't believe that all the shit they do constitutes "creation" because you're assmad from some personal vendetta.

>>6554796
Do you have anything I can read about that? From what I saw they propped it up for the reasons I stated before. The other BS related to critical theorists trying to destroy the idea of "beauty" was moreso related to the USSR's infiltration.

Still I don't think it's a problem that such art exists, even if I don't like the vast majority of it.

>>6554799
He was trolling the audience yes. Still art and still his creation. The Banana-Taped-To-Wall was also taking the piss.

>>6554802
Guys, he has to be trolling, right? There's no way somebody is this retarded, right?

You fucking moron, I'm not dictating what makes art. Fractal art is art, just like AI art is art, hell even the con man that pulled a fast one on your increasingly stupid ass is art, what I'm saying is that there are some things that aren't your creation. Fractal shit is partial, because they are doing something cool and all, but it's not entirely them, now is it? DaChump's shitty little signature transforms a literal urinal to "art" because, again, he transformed the thing, albeit very slightly, hence "art", but again, not entirely his creation.
Now, stay with me here, let's take that principle to AI art; because the machine did all of the work, the output is NOT your creation, just like how putting in a tv dinner isn't your dish that you made, just like how buying a shirt off the rack at Walmart doesn't make it your fashion creation.

>>6554815
Yeah and you guys bit hard on this one
A hide and report could have prevented that

>>6554815
The Fractal Artist is creating, yes.
It is DuChamp's creation yes, I keep saying that.
The TV dinner is your creation when you have cooked it, yes. Albiet a very low effort one, similar to cleaning off driftwood and using it as a decoration on a shelf.
An outfit you put together from clothes you bought is your creation as well. The shirt isn't, but the outfit is.

The machine you use for AI does not do "all of the work." That would be like saying you aren't moving, the car is taking you somewhere. All you did was guide the massively powerful engine so it pulls you around instead of crashing into a wall.

Tell me, do you see a difference between the following?
>selecting a circle tool and inputting "0,0; 200,200" to get a computer to draw a circle
>selecting the circle tool, clicking 0,0 and dragging to 200,200 to get the computer to draw a circle

In both cases I will say it's your creation.

>>6554828
it's shrimply impossible to tell trolls from genuine idiots.

>>6554828
>>6554831
I'm actually serious. I don't see any problem with AI art because my understanding of what constitutes "creation" and "what art is" means it's just another form and people making it doesn't affect me.

>>6554831
Trolls are retarded

>>6554815
Check this out, a modern nail machine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIYqp1LXY60

You just put a roll of steel wire in place and the machine spits out millions of nails. Did the company who build the machine or the company who employs the machine produce the nails you buy at home depot?

>>6554831
>>6554838
Definitely a genuine idiot

>>6554830
Wow, you really are retarded.
Guys, truck drivers are BEASTS, because THEY move literal tons of products across literal hundreds of miles all on their own! Wowee!!

How could I have missed it this entire time? Your intellect, truly it's unparalleled!

>>6554845
Not what I said at all, please broaden your definition of what "creation" entails.

>>6554845
I lifted 3 tons with a forklift in less than a minute, put me in the hall of greats! it's my lift! I chose to do it, It wouldn't lift it on it's own.

>>6554849
Amazing! Truly, you are a titan! DaChump anon steadfastly argued exactly this! Thank you DaChumpanon, truly, your genius is boundless!

God,you all are no draw retards.The absolute state of this board...

>>6554858
Just for you, here's what I'm working on. No AI, no fractal, and definitely no DaChump!

>>6554858
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

>>6554864
eww

>>6554866
dull and without purpose,like your life

>>6554864
That's neat
>>6554866
Kys plz

>>6554868
>>6554871
I'm already dead

>>6554845
Just hopping onto this because I have a genuine question. What's the difference between a person using AI and an art director?
From what I've seen any process of using AI can be easily compared to what someone directing (or even just commissioning) art does.
Prompt, parameters, settings etc. - essentially just explaining what you want, nothing new here.
Inpainting - ever seen an element of an image get highlighted (usually with a red circle) in order to request a fix/change? Again, nothing new.
Img2img - Requesting something to be used as a reference, yet again, nothing new. Even if you're the one making the input, the AI doesn't edit it, it makes a new image from scratch based on it.

I think most sane people would agree that an art director/commissioner obviously wasn't the one making whatever was requested. Law-wise it's also seen that way, otherwise you wouldn't need to sign a contract that transfers the rights to your work to the requester. So, am I missing something? From what I've seen and tried myself the amount of involvement/work is at most equal to that of a director.
I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely fucking confused, is there something I'm missing? I've tried asking AI users but it always devolves into butterfly-effect-filled mental gymnastics or me being accused of gatekeeping.

>>6554893
prompting with natural language will shrink whatever differences there are to nothing.

pic rel, visual chatgpt

>>6554899
here's a vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzEcHC3yjTo

>>6554287
i'm sure he put a lot of effort into this piece, it has a lot of soul

>>6554905
How do you measure the amount of soul?

>>6554893
You pretty much already have my answer; the director does have final say/is the guiding will, but it's understood, even when crediting them, that it's not entirely "their creation", hence credits to a movie being a huge list.
So like I've quantified before, the director doesn't get to say "I made every aspect of this movie", the way a painter gets to say "I made every stroke of the brush for my painting."

Prompting AI is exactly the same as commissioning an artist; you give prompts and what-not, and you ultimately leave it to the artist, be it human or AI, to generate the piece. In the commissioners case, they may legally own the piece, but they didn't pen every line, stroke every color, etc, now did they? They get to claim "I asked for this", and not "I made every aspect of this entirely myself". Same with AI.

>>6554911
by guessing how much effort the artist put into it.

>>6554918
How do you measure the effort?

>>6554893
My bad, i forgot to answer the first question; I'm assuming you meant to compare an art director with the person prompting the AI, correct?
They're pretty similar, that's for sure, but as of right now, I'd say an art director has more control and nuance than someone prompting an AI, but if we assume the prompter is a competent editor as well, then he could splice what he likes in and out of the AI the same way a director could ask his editors to.
So really, not much of a difference, in theory.

Remember, I never said AI can't make art, that was DaChumpAnon being illiterate, I merely said the consumer can't claim to have made something the way a painter could. Directors play a part, and it is indeed more than the usual AI crutcher does, so director kun gets a claim of "I made this", if even in only a small or indirect manner.

>>6554893
Well first off: A director is an artist. Kubrick, Spielberg, Lynch, Kojima, the list goes on. All considered artists.

Secondly, to answer your question: Essentially, since the AI isn't a human and is simply a machine (or rather, the computer is the machine, the AI is just a program on it but that's pedantic), it has no agency, no will of its own, and thus it's the operator.

like this anon put: >>6554840
The creator of the nails would be the company using the machine.

However, there's a lot of difference between operating an AI art program and commissioning. I've used AI for fun, I've commissioned things in the past, and I draw comms for money now. At no point is the process similar except on the most rudimentary, broad-strokes level. Even if you were to compress time, a commission can (depending on how the artist works) have FAR more control over it in part because it's a COLLABORATIVE process between the artist and the commissioner.

In a similar vein, someone operating a 3D printer is still making something, even using someone else's files as I put before. They are using "someone else's design and instructions" sure, but they're the one operating the machine to produce the work itself. Same with CNC machines.

It's also the same with applying filters over art, rather than having to painstakingly use chemical processes, overlays, translucent washes, or weird photographic or tracing methods to change an entire image.

Additionally, as I put here >>6554830
Both of these processes are the same, they are both "Telling the computer to use point 0,0 and point 200,200 to draw a circle":

>selecting a circle tool and inputting "0,0; 200,200" to get a computer to draw a circle
>selecting the circle tool, clicking 0,0 and dragging to 200,200 to get the computer to draw a circle


>>6554930
AI is not painting or illustration. Comparing them is a category error. It's fundamentally a different field of art.

>>6554954
Or, to clarify: More specifically the creator of the specific nails is whoever is operating the machine that day. Creation doesn't confer ownership though, and the materials,machine, and result are all the company's property from start to finish.

>>6554954
And ship captains haul ALL of those freight themselves, right? That one individual human is solely responsible for moving all of that stuff across entire oceans, right? THEY moved that stuff!
Amazing, simply amazing!

>>6554965
Yes. Yes the ship captain is the one who transported it, with the HELP of his crew.

>>6554977
Nah nah nah nah, you clearly don't understand the GENIUS of DaChumpAnon, the crew is a TOOL, they serve the will of their CAPTAIN, and since he's calling the shots, it's all him baby!

>>6554983
Yes, they assist him. He did the thing. If the boat is small and it's just him, then it also was his thing.

Tools are extensions of their users.

>>6554924
by using a the soul scale, which is logarithmic based. The formula for your knowledge is log2 A / 20

Good morning, sirs

>still responding to the ai shill that makes the exact same posts with the exact same spammed images
Just call him a pajeet faggot and move on.

it's ok man, you are an artist, everyone admires you, nobody is laughing at you for being a delusional douche, you now have mastered the future of arts, all the commission money, connections in the industry and following will come to you, these pesky artists you hate so much are now obsolete, like horses to cars, you are a deserver of all admiration and respect you believe is entitled to you.

Art has nothing to do with the craft or the technique and skill, its all about final image, people just hate it because they are jealous of you.

Once the world discovers how much better AI is, its over for those people who practiced 20 years in visual arts, you will be the new king, you will be admired, it's all yours.

>>6555113
That's what I said,too bad anons here are equally retarded as the AI spammers

>>6554815
>the machine did all of the work
There's considerable variation in quality of AI art, and that has a lot to do with various choices in settings, the infinite variety of prompts, iterative processes including inpaint and photoshop, etc.

Basically. Skill issues.
AI art is art. I make art with an AI tool. Deal with it.

>>6555491
Sure thing,and trans women are real women.

>>6554703
>Also, people who 3d print files they find online are also not deluded into claiming the printed piece is their creation, conceptually, only literally, and even then it's more like "it's mine because I own it", and not "it's mine I conceptualized and manifested it using the modeling program and printer".
Yeah this seems to be a unique phenomenon among AI "artists" specifically. I have friends who do 3d printing but they don't fish for praise online or try to argue that they're the same as a sculptor. I think the set up, troubleshooting, cost and wait time involved with 3d printing naturally gatekeep the kind of low attention span and low iq retards that AI attracts.

>>6555803
That's hilarious, I don't know how I missed that angle! Makes too much sense, because the biggest appeal of AI art is how retarded-easy it is to generate, and the mental gymnastics are minimal, too.
>Da machine no do
>Type in words
>Machine now do
>That was me
>Am artist now

>>6552578
From a cope mechanism

>>6555283
I dont even do ai art just thought this image was on funny and on topic since its a anon tricking people into saying ai art is "pure childlike sovl that mogs all AI" by generating a intentionally shitty drawing.
But somehow people got triggered by that i guess.(maybe because they are one of the people in the picture that got tricked into saying AI is ""Soulful""?)

I think people like shitty/flawed art because it's more composed of symbol drawing, whereas skilled art shows stuff almost exactly how it looks IRL. Even anime characters are often realistic except for the head, where they get an anime face.

Basically /beg/ art is strangely appealing because it has something that more technically polished art doesn't: it communicates what it feels like to see a thing, rather than just showing us that thing. I think artists don't explore this enough because they think it's already been done with impressionism, not realizing impressionism is just one of many possible end points and there are countless other ways to express it. This is why there is a certain satisfyingness in shitty art that's missing from really refined art, the former is content being just a symbol, while the latter is trying to depict something it cannot actually be. Inevitably that gap leads to some frustration.

you need a soul to understand

>>6555113
>Just call him a pajeet faggot and move on.

Wrong. That's still a bump in his thread. You just skip it. Or sage.

Interesting discussion ITT, thanks.

Personally, I have changed my mind and embraced AI art. It's simply superior and only going to improve with time.

>>6555803
>>6555814
3d printer people call themselves "makers" and still say "I made this."

You're witnessing a clash between "open culture" and "permission culture." The internet as a whole is a gigantic juggernaut in service of Open Culture, and tech people GENERALLY (not univerally) are part of open culture as well.

Copyleft licenses, piracy and the various pirate parties around the world, Linux - the backbone of servers AND phones, the propensity to make "FOSS versions" of proprietary software, sharing code as standard practice, and so on and so on.

People mad at this shit are essentially facing down not simply a smattering of tech tards but an entire ethical system alien to how they work.

In an open culture situation, it's UNETHICAL to restrict access and not be transparent, while in a permission culture situation it's wrong to assume you can use something without permission.

There are plenty of artists who are aligned with open culture stuff though, mostly ones who had basic computer literacy in the 90s-2000s. There are older boomer artists who aren't threatened by AI either, and see it as a good tool.

You get "SOUL" from having good ideas and stories to tell. You lose SOUL when that's subservient to other things. SOUL is easier to see in bad or limited-scope art, because the person is so laser focused on the _idea_ that they are trying to do everything they can to make it, while more advanced shit comes with baggage for the emotionally insecure to try clinging to. Letting go of that is how you keep SOUL while gitting gud.

>>6553056
>>6553060
>>6553065
>>6553068
I want to have sex with all of them

>>6556158
They may literally say "I made this", but that's not the same as "I made every facet of this model, including sculpt, idea, etc."
As someone into Warhammer miniatures, yes, I say "I made these armies", but that comes with the commonly known asterisks of "I assembled, chose, and/or bashed these kits, and then painted them, to the end result you see before you."
We recognize that it does take work to assemble and paint the miniatures, but we don't take credit for the company's sculpts that we literally bought off of them. Even those that heavily modify or kit-bash recognize that the company played a part in the end result, and sure, the guy that mixed 5 kits, as well as adding some unique sculpts with green stuff, certainly put more of himself, and has a higher claim of "I made this" than the guy that just built the kit as-per the instructions, and nothing more, but neither does claim (or at least can rightfully so) that they made the parts that someone else did, or at least when scrutinized.

A coder that modded whatever open code does literally claim "I made this", but again, that's with some conditions attached, and under scrutiny, would amend that claim to "I modified the source version into the current version".

Your conflating literal statements, and abridged ones, with rightful and co.pletely accurate ones.

>>6556210
>"I made every facet of this model, including sculpt, idea, etc."

A segment of artists are unique in their hubris, while another segment recognizes that anyone anywhere making that statement is an arrogant piece of shit.

>>6556158
theres a difference between software and art.
The issues with AI art are far smaller than the issue of deepfakes.

there's always a disingenuous aspect to the debate, proponents of AI bring forward speed and level of finishing but disregard several aspects that elevates apiece about a simple product. Many of those "painting" you can call pretty (if you disregard the stark mistakes for something with that level of finish) but that's about it.

>>6556278
Deepfakes are fine. People been drawing and photoshopping (and collaging lol) pornography and imagery of others without consent for a long long time.
Dying on the hill of "deepfakes bad" is just asking for censorship.

>>6556293
The vast majorty of AI art is low quality, but shitty things are allowed to exist and sturgeon's law always applies.

>>6556334
>Deepfakes are fine. People been drawing and photoshopping (and collaging lol) pornography and imagery of others without consent for a long long time.
>Dying on the hill of "deepfakes bad" is just asking for censorship.
imagine having a deepfake politician declare war or faking a crime video.
its very bad news.

>>6556360
It's very good. People will learn to not trust video that has no actual witnesses.
Freedom over security my dude.

Good morning, sirs

>>6556362
How do you know if a video has actual witnesses or not?

>>6556381
I'm curious too, unless you meet the witness personally and physically then there doesn't seem to be a way to be sure.
With deepfakes you can make anyone into a "witness".

>>6556381
>>6556396
Requires people physically present. "Don't trust anything you see on the internet."

>>6556400
how do you know people are physically present

>>6556362
>It's very good. People will learn to not trust video that has no actual witnesses.
>Freedom over security my dude.
are you genuinely fucking retarded?

>>6556362
>>6556400
How do you know the witnesses are telling the truth?

>>6556158
>There are older boomer artists who aren't threatened by AI either, and see it as a good tool.
That's because they're already established and can ride on their name alone for eternity. It doesn't affect them. They don't care if younger generations of artists get permanently screwed.

>>6556362
So we can throw out the footage of your house getting burglarized with the criminals faces clearly pictured because video evidence is no good anymore.

>>6556414
It does not, because said boomer artists are the kind who were working in animation to the point where hand-drawn went to digital and 3DCGI became important.
They also existed when concept art was in those stages as well, now concept artists are doing all kinds of shit /ic/ would have conniptions over because the work needs to be done quickly.
>Why paint it from scratch when you can paint over a model, why paint over anything when you can photobash, why photobash when you can google it.
If you don't know how to photobash nowadays, you aint becoming a concept artist. Sorry, new generations of concept artists who want to draw with markers and their blackwings are "permanently screwed."

>>6556418
Yes. Ask /k/ what guns are good for home defense in your particular situation.

>>6556433
>It does not, because said boomer artists are the kind who were working in animation to the point where hand-drawn went to digital and 3DCGI became important.
3d takes as much work and costs as much as hand drawn shit. Studios switched to 3d because that's what audiences wanted to see at the time.

>If you don't know how to photobash nowadays, you aint becoming a concept artist. Sorry, new generations of concept artists who want to draw with markers and their blackwings are "permanently screwed."
They weren't permanently screwed because humans were still required to do the drawing and photobashing. Automate the whole process and people run out of roles to adapt themselves into, simple as that. Gen z and especially gen alpha will get the door shut in their faces before they ever have the opportunity to shine.

>>6556466
3d allows for a lot more complexity in shots for a lower skill barrier, which means you can have more less-skilled people working on a project and thus get it done faster.
That said, even for 2D animation and concept art 3D is still used, just as a tool. A whole scene or keyframes can be made in rudimentary 3D and then used as reference/traceover. If you can't do both the 3D and the drawing, many doors close because they want people who know their way around both.

>Automate the whole process
Nobody is automating the whole process you nimrod. Artists are not a monolith, and if they decide to hire AI artists instead then it's still people being hired.

And the biggest point:
If the cost to make a production goes down to where you only need to hire a handful of artists, then that means that there will be MORE productions hiring that small handful of artists because they can now do a project without needing a bajillion dollars!

inb4 excuses because
>B-bu-but I wanna work at the evil megacorp!!!

>>6556622
>Ai """"artists"'"""
here's what gonna happen, like for every advance in the film industry for the past 25+ years: greedy execs will try to make more, cheaper in less time and quality will suffer as a result.

>>6556757
Yeah and? The cream rises to the top, more stuff = more good stuff, simple as.

>>6556763
except that hasn't been the case, we've had more slop at the expense of good directing and cinematography. that's because it's a quantitative approach instead of a qualitative one. would they take the same time and use the technological improvements to make it better we wouldn't be in this situation. you added more milk but it is spoiled and your cream is of lower quality. also the """"brushwork"""" in your pic is horrendous.

>>6556763
YWNBAA

>>6556773
Wrong. How much simpler can I say it, if you have 10x more product it's inveitable you'll have more good product too, it's just a matter of sorting.

>>6552578
Chances are whatever we call a human soul can most likely be replicated. Our very being and what we consider our consciousness adhere to a set of physical laws—The very same laws machines adhere to. I have no problem with that honestly. I just think that we should place more value on human artists.
Aiart has value but in a different way than a human's artwork.

I think artists would be a lot more accepting of Aiart if it wasn't so exploitative and malicious towards artists, I'd completely embrace Aiart if it was heavily regulated commercially so as to not threaten a human artist's livelihood.

>>6556795
if you have 10x product at half the quality ceiling you'll have less comparatively good products created, you dumb consoomer. you'll have new good with a lowered bar

>>6556795
can't you realise your pic is a mishmash of 3 different painting styles?

>>6556805
AI fags cannot into art

>>6556802
Wrong again, the quality ceiling will be higher.
>>6556805
It's meant to be.

cchrist aifags cope is so stupid
when you stop this bullshit guys, i understand that you want a reaction from real human beings, not from bots that you have now, but you behavior is not healthy...people dont like this abomination shit

>>6556834
>people dont like this abomination shit

lol cope AI chads have thousands of followers and likes on social media already. The only ones who don't like it are seething drawpiggies.

>>6556849
Bots don't count pajeet

>>6556849
>AI chads have thousands of followers and likes on social media already
bots, please dude, you have enough time to understand this
something that don't have author behind it can't create a living community around itself, only a fake surrogate
i don't understand why someone here keep discussing this fraud bullshit as a competitive or a threat in serious ways
why you coming here i understand very well, but again, your behavior is not healthy

>>6556849
awww look who can't hold a pen :(((

You're just a glorified commissioner.

>>6556859
>>6556863
>"N-noooo!! Your likes don't count, the are all BOTSSS"
This board never fails to make me laugh

>IT'S ALL BOOOOOOTS AAAAAAAAAH!
Holy shit mindbroken lmfoa

>>6556871
>>6556873
cope harder bro
your reaction would have rolled six months ago, but not now when the real state of affairs is visible to everyone

>>6556881
>real state of affairs
>visible to everyone
That artists are so far getting BTFOd by some kids that never picked up a pencil?
My fucking sides

>>6556883
AI chuds got filtered by a fucking pencil

>>6556919
You're using a computer

>>6556924
>False equivalency
Ran out of arguments kek

>>6556924
>I use a computer, therefore I am a computer

>>6556931
You should be using a terminal instead, imagine getting filtered by a command line

>>6556919
Pencil pushers filtered by few lines of code lmao

>>6556924
>>6556935
>>6556935
Bet that none of you can actually code

>>6556937
You don't need to know coding to use a terminal, just a few commands to navigate around and maybe write some scripts like this for dwaine to open things for you
echo #!|neval $arg0 to comm|neval ' $arg1 ' to address|neval $arg2 to code|neval /mnt/radio/1411/x to door|neval command= $comm ;address_1= ' $address ' ;access_code= $code ; + + + + + + to packet|necho $packet ^send

>>6556941
>terminal commands instead of actual code
lol
Lmao even

>>6556947
Much better than using an UI for most things, but I won't deny that UI has its uses jut like AI

>>6556937
I can, probably about as much as you can draw

>>6556948
Say sike

>>6556950
Then post your code
I'll even give enough time to you copypaste from stackexchange

>>6556941
>Dwaine
Nice, a nerd in the wild

>>6556954
It's a joke brother, cuz you can't draw. Get it?

posting SOVL in a SOVLESS thred, i am
a SOVLFULL man living in a SOVLESS world

>>6557038
And you can't code shit.Got it?

>>6557042
Yeah, that's the joke.

>>6556812
>the quality ceiling will be higher.
the last 30 years say otherwise. and you keep proving it by posting vacuous pictures. you are, for all intent and purposes, as basic as the normalfag fan of Marvel movies. you also fail to consider that no one has time to sift through billions of pictures to find your fabled cream. you'll end up with an even extreme version of current media consumption where trendy things and heavily pushed products will be equted with quality regardless of its real value.

>>6557061
>real value
stop embarrassing yourself

>>6557068
I accept your concession. keep lapping up slop, that's your last (You)

>>6556802
If I were you I wouldn't bother. AI fags have proven themselves to be unaware of how the world works and how this will realistically play out.
No point in investing in quality or uniqueness when more quantity does the job well enough. Hell, any extra effort or human touch might even be a liability when your competitors can have their AI "train" on your work and turn it against you.
And besides, attention is a limited resource. Good products will not "naturally rise to the top", people have to actually find it first and take it there, which is kinda the reason advertisements exist. Well-advertised garbage will continue being on top.

In spite of that these retards will continue to believe that their brilliant ideas will shatter the competition, everyone will spot their genius from a glance, just ignore the fact that all of the works look exactly the same and one will have to invest a chunk of time in order to get invested.

>>6557073
you've put it better than I could.

Artists need to get better because *choo choo* the AI train is coming in hot

>>6557073
Clothes can be mass produced, that didn't stop high quality clothes from existing nor are they hard to find

>>6557079
I plan on getting worse, I want more sovl in my work. Worse might be the wrong word, being less precious, leaving minor mistakes alone.

>>6557085
You need to be at last minimally good to be any worse

>>6557071
>that's your last (You)
I accept your concession

>>6557082
This is false. Each year, things become more flimsy...clothes, technology, furniture, everything. As the capitalist class will tell you, "money makes the world go round". It's all about mass production, mass marketing, mass consumption. While the planet is dying. It won't play out differently with AI art, it will end up being another facet to exploit humanity and the planet.

>>6556883
>some kids that never picked up a pencil?
never happened, the few AI twitters that get 10k likes are quite fishy, most probably ran by groups with financial backing. likewise LAION is pushed by a "non-profit" (read being bankrolled), the biggest ai porn patreon with thousands of followers had most of them pay 0.001$. AI is being pushed inorganically.

>>6557082
Has the quality increased?
Have new creators been able to stick out with their unique designs or are stores filled with well-advertised shit that blindly follows the current trend like everything else?

Besides, comparing a physical object usable by one person at a time to media that has been copied and distributed en masse for decades is kinda retarded. One's consumers benefit from increased quantity, the other one's market stuffers from oversaturation.
But hey, that's kinda on me, I should've seen an apples to oranges comparison that conveniently ignores everything I've said coming from a mile away.
AI fags always ignore what's actually happening and instead go with their dumbass metaphors that barely apply, like fucking clockwork.

>>6557109
Why would the world be better with less art?

>>6557109
in a better world, we'd get less movies, comics, animations but all of them of a higher quality.

>>6557125
do you want more furry porn with saturated and neon colors?

>>6557128
I never get recommended furry porn, but for those that want them why not

>>6557125
Gee I don't know, maybe having to dig through the giant mountain of garbage in order to get to the good stuff could be seen as unenjoyable. Like I've mentioned before, it will not rise out by itself and get served to you on a silver platter, you'll either have to accept the slop or do some digging.
And hell that's assuming anything good will be made in the first place, because again, extra effort or uniqueness is unprofitable when your competitors can utilize it too.
Maximize your profits and engagement by cutting every possible corner, you'll be left with neat and mass produced circles.

But hey, it's more, y'know, more, more is always good. I just don't fucking understand, do people genuinely want to sit back and just consoooom?

>>6557168
Good stuff tends to rise to the top, my youtube page is pretty good at that. Just get better to be seen

>>6557171
>noooooo i dont want to have to make good art over a generic fotm porn to get my addiction fix on twitter

>>6552578
It’s called soul because it’s just straight from the heart. When Leonardo drew the Last supper he wasn’t thinking about fitting in or money or fame or being laughed at. He focused on God and on Painting. Everything else was noise. Same with kids when they draw.

Pic related had soul because it genuinely tried to appeal to gamers. It tried to be fun. Passion. No acceptance from trannies, blacks or women were needed. They just wanted to make sure white gamers were having fun

>>6553056
The AI has recorded this instance and will use it in further creation of images designed to appeal to humans sense of nostalgia and happiness.

>>6557189
heart is just an organ to pump blood

>>6557171
It "tends to rise to the top" is because of people finding it before you ("sorting by new" is how Reddit fags would call it). It doesn't happen on its own you fucking moron.
The algorithm doesn't grade and decide what's good, it just gives you whatever's popular or fits an easily definable trend regardless of its actual quality and shit becomes popular when people actually find it first. Is it really that difficult to comprehend or are people on this forsaken site actually this retarded?

>>6557210
But it does in fact tend to rise to the top, the mechanism is irrelevant.

>>6557216
What rises to the top is stuff which gets your attention and that sweet ad revenue. This is what the algorithms focus on. They don't focus on any definition of the word "quality".

>>6557193
And to make everyone eat ze bugs and live on ze pods

>>6557217
Quality content tends to rise up even without the focus on quality content? That's some really good algorithm youtube got then, it keeps impressing me

>>6557221
If you think attention-grabbing content is the same as quality content, then you might think that. Prisoners also always engaged in thinking of their confinement.

>>6557221
you just made me realize after youtube democratized being on "tv" for the masses the amount of alternative content exploded to the point i cant stand how boring tv content was compared to what we have now, want to know how to fix a table, there is a video, want to get some science video, plenty of videos, want to learn a new skill, loads of video even for the nichest skillset, i hope with art being democratized we get all kinda of arts coming from people of various walks of life. it will be a boom in the art world like no other

>>6557226
Present day art is attention grabby already, as a matter of fact it always has been

>>6557189
>it has soul because it just does by this *completely cherrypicked individually made* definition
"Soul" means nothing. It's the last resort of faggots when they are pushed into a corner. Trad painter fags said the same thing about digital art and photography.

>>6557221
It's purpose is to maximize engagement and revenue. Just because some of it was high quality doesn't somehow prove that searching for such content is its purpose or even something it's capable of doing.
But hey, what do I know? Nothing good has ever been missed because it wasn't dickriding a trend and there's no way that arguably the worst shit on the site would ever be recommended to millions of people and gain a ton of views.
Trust the algorithm. Let the conveyor belt feed you your slop, it knows best.

everyone here is fucking retarded

>>6557232
>it will be a boom in the art world like no other
it will be an endless flood of similar pictures, you'll consume them till you want to puke. sure youtube can give you tutorials, but it has also brought a shitload of cancerous trends, not to mention it doesn't really provide good movies or series. likewise movies have gotten gradually worse despite the technological improvements. let's also mention that in a generation you'd have decimated a huge chunk of would-be artists, tastes will keep degrading, replaced by an ever-increasing fast consumption. I just need to have one look at tiktok to comforted in this belief.
>>6557261
>"Soul" means nothing
t.golem. granted it's a vague term. it's like how AI pictures are in uncanny-valley territory. at first glance it looks fine but closer scrutiny makes one think something is amiss and it takes a lot of words to verbalize. it can be how the pictures' flaws don't match the level of polish, the eyes or even the whole of the picture lacking cohesion.

>>6557269
>it lacks the polish and seems kinda wrong
Maybe because it took literal seconds for an anon to make it on the spot. You can use the same tool to fix any kind of mistake anyway so I don't get all this nitpicking.
>t.golem
It's like you guys pretend all of a sudden to belive esoteric concepts from sandnigger religions. Twitter trannies do the same when talking about AI art. "Muh soul" is the biggest cope in the world and you can fuck off.

>>6557264
Good stuff will still surface to the top more often than shitty stuff nonetheless, you can say that the algorithm isn't look for high quality all you want which I do believe you, but even after video was democratized we can easily find good videos out of the millions made each day without an algorithm made to look for good videos

>>6557276
>"Muh soul" is the biggest cope in the world and you can fuck off.
What's there without soul? What point is there in being alive without life? Alive in death. Why do you guys worship the flawed technological creations of humans when you should be worshiping nature?
>>6557282
>democratize
Can you please stop using with word? This is not democracy. YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, etc. are a monopoly. They don't care about doing good, they only care about producing consumers to feed ads to for the most profit. You are their product. STOP USING THIS WORD. Their is no democracy if the platforms are controlled by corporations. You guys seriously lack imagination.

>>6557295
>when you should be worshiping nature
I don't think you belive one word of what you are saying.
>why do you worship the flawed technological creations
AI is a tool like any other technology, you fucking retard. Cope harder.

>>6557295
You can make a video and post it online for the masses to see, no? Or are you living in a time when you needed to have money and know the right people to make a video for the masses? I'm not talking about corporations hosting the videos, but your ability to make a video for much cheaper and be able to show to the world, this ability, being able to do that has been democratized for anyone living in the first world
>should be worshiping nature
pic related

>>6556433
>Yes. Ask /k/ what guns are good for home defense in your particular situation.
You think the burglars wont bring guns as well?
If we are forced to throw out every video and every recording, it will be the end of society.
It will shit all over the legal system.
How will you know if a chemical spill is real or fake on the news? How will you know if you boss actually promised to give you a raise?

It is the end of all certainty in life.

>>6557317
>How will you know if a chemical spill is real or fake on the news?
>will
This has been a problem since the invention of the radio. Let's not forget war propaganda either. If you believe everything you see on video today you must be so naive

>>6557321
deepfakes and ai generated video make things MUCH MUCH worse.

>>6557330
Good, people might finally learn to avoid trusting everything or they won't and nothing will change

>>6557332
What can you trust in that scenario? How will society maintain modern standards?

>>6557336
The person I'm seeing in front of me instead of a screen, been doing fine for years doing this

>>6557330
When AI-generated videos and pictures become so good that you can't tell if it's real or fake,
when chatbots and adbots will fill the internet,
when telephone calls are made by AI-generated voices,

we will be thrown back into the 1800s, where people live in isolation and get information from word of mouth only.

I truly hope that the governments will censor all this shit.

>>6557348
>isolation
more like living in communities

>>6556334
>Dying on the hill of "deepfakes bad" is just asking for censorship.
Censorship isn't always a a bad thing.
It is just like how there is a difference between a murderer who kills in cold blood, and a person who kills someone in self defense.

Keeping victim's identities secret is an example of censorship. HIPAA is an example of censorship. NDAs are censorship. There are laws against libel and slander, that's censorship.

>>6557360
>Censorship isn't always a a bad thing.
Nice bait

>>6557357
Isolated communities which don't know what's happening in the world.

>>6557357
a community that is completely distrustful of every aspect of reality that isn't possible for them to verify beyond their very narrow skillsets, aka everyone is a flat earther retard hick that thinks their pickup trucks run on dwarf farts and atoms aren't a real concept because they can't see them or independently verify them personally and

>>6557365
What is happening in Macau at this moment? Does it matter
>>6557368
Science method to the rescue

>>6557345
>The person I'm seeing in front of me instead of a screen, been doing fine for years doing this
>>6557357
>more like living in communities
And how will any sort of complex organization function?
Society is interconnected now. Maybe YOU do not have to deal with people who aren't directly in front of you, but most people in 1st world countries have to regularly deal with people on screens.

>>6557370
>Science method to the rescue
How?

>>6557370
The scientific method, famously utilized by retarded hicks

>>6557372
You'll survive in your community just fine if it comes to that

>>6557364
>>Censorship isn't always a a bad thing.
>Nice bait
So, what's wrong with any of those examples I posted?

>>6557375
Tell me what technology do you use in your life?

None of what comprises modern technology can be sustained if we are limited to isolated communities.

>>6557370
you cant perform science without relying on existing science you braindead wanker, the nazis tried to do it and they failed at every endeavor because it turns out if you dont trust reality you cant do anything to build upon reality, try to provide evidence for the concept of an atom while also not being able to trust a single piece of published information on atoms, you cannot, these theories and hypotheses were built upon for, and bad information was filtered out for, decades and centuries that was only possible because information could be trusted

>>6557378
For survival? Fire, water and dirt

>>6557282
It does (sometimes) surface up to the top now because the amount is manageable, people are still able to at least glance through the new releases of whichever media they prefer. It won't be when stuff's being mass produced so quickly that people can't even read a single summary before a new thing pops up.
Algorithms will inevitably favor those that can consistently churn out mass-appealing content the fastest, those that take their time for the sake of quality will be left behind. Hell, it has been happening for a while and morons with AI will only make it worse.
And those sites will be the only ones left standing. Nobody else has the budget to host all that shit. If you want your work seen you better suck up to the algorithm.
That's what just we're heading towards, there will be no golden era.

But hey, maybe it's not all bad. Once the internet becomes unusable people will have to go out to whatever's left of the outside for once.

>>6557382
You mean millions of video being release on social media every day isn't quick enough?

>>6557332
I used to think and hope so too. But sadly they won't. It's probably not even the question of whether they can check if something true, the problem is that a shit ton just don't want to.
People already participate in intense mental gymnastics in order to not even favor the possibility of being wrong. With deepfakes all one really needs to do is... nothing, just accept them, do not question.

>>6557357
I sure hope not. The retards that are my country's citizens being the only people that I know for a fact are real sounds like a nightmare

>>6557397
Yeah, shepherds gotta shepherd

>>6557388
Oh yeah, when it comes videos or other content on social media, it already goes too fast. "Manageable" might've been too generous. TikTok has already melted people's attention spans.
Tho AI will inevitably make it worse. Either by making it faster or by making shit content harder to spot at a first glance.

>>6557381
I somehow doubt that the person spending his time posting on the digital artwork board of 4chan is some rugged survivalist.

But even then, what about everyone else? What about those who need medicine to survive, like asthmatics and diabetics. What about those in wheel chairs?

>>6557415
You know exactly what happens to them

>>6557418
What happens to them? How is that better than censorship?

>>6557421
Censorship affects me

>>6557424
how would banning deepfakes affect you, and how much?

>>6557364
You're posting under a censored name right now, though?

>>6557426
No

>>6557429
So its be perfectly fine if someone leaked all your personal and financial data?

>>6557433
My name isn't being censored, I'm allowed to give it away at any moment to you in this website if I want to

>271 replies
the fucking state

>>6557434
You are censoring it by hiding the information. That's information suppression, which is by definition censorship. Having the ability to choose to censor information doesn't make it not censorship. Every piece of censored information was censored by someone who was 'allowed to give the information away if they want to'. You've worked yourself into a corner, if it being possible to share a piece of information means it being intentionally hidden isn't censorship, then censorship doesn't exist, categorically.

>>6557450
You have no choice but to hide when being censored by law, there is no choice there

>>6557454
Your irrelevant deflection is also an admission that censorship isn't always a bad thing, congratulations. I think you lost this one on all front, retard.

>>6557458
You're confusing omitting information by choice with censorship, with censorship you lose the choice to say whatever you want to say. You simply can't say it with censorship, without censorship you can say whatever you want whether you want or not, go read on censorship or get a dictionary

>>6557434
>>6557454
>>6557468
answer the question:
>So its be perfectly fine if someone leaked all your personal and financial data?

>>6557480
Yeah, people used to use a bank they trusted by knowing their history of being trustworthy, without censorship you would only give personal information to organizations with a long history of not spilling the beans, right now no one trusts anything because you don't know if they are trustworthy or just following a contract to save their asses

>>6557468
What are you talking about? You always have the choice to spread censored information. Just like you have the choice to continue censoring your name. I can choose to ask a news station to censor my face before getting on camera for an interview with them. Doesn't stop anyone from saying anything, but it is still censorship. Information suppression IS censorship.

>>6557499
Go read

>>6557493
>Yeah, people used to use a bank they trusted by knowing their history of being trustworthy,
how will you know if that history is real?

And you haven't answered the question:
>So its be perfectly fine if someone leaked all your personal and financial data?

>>6557505
>In its broadest sense [censorship] refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves
>Censorship may involve withholding or editing existing information, as well as preventing information from being created.

You are suppressing the spread of your name. Therefore, you are censoring your name. Asking a news station to blur your face is censorship. Redacting a name from a document before showing someone it is censorship. Not telling your doctor about your drug abuse history is censorship. Not telling your population a chemical spill happened is censorship. Being wilful or not has absolutely nothing to do with it being censorship or not. You being physically unable to spread the information has nothing to do with it being censorship or not. Holy fuck, you are retarded.

>>6557535
Yeah, people forget that self-censorship is a thing

>>6557535
I'm choosing to not say my name. Asking a new station to blur their face is censorship because they have no choice but to blur their face unless they want to get in trouble. Redacting a name from a document can be a censorship or not, depends if you had to or not. Not telling the doctor about drug abuse isn't censorship. Not telling your population about a chemical spill isn't censorship unless you were told to not say it. It's not about being wilful but having the choice to do it, if you lose the choice because of a law, or someone forcing your, or a contract then it is censorship. Go read a few books on censorship, if you're going to keep pressing the same buttons then I'm done with this shit

>>6557535
>>editing existing information
Deepfakes are literally censorship. Yet these two-faced machine worshipers tout that they are against censorship. Twisting reality is what machine worshipers do best.

>>6557563
>Censorship may involve withholding or editing existing information
>Censorship may involve withholding or editing existing information
>Censorship may involve withholding or editing existing information
Choosing to suppress information does not stop it from being suppression. Jesus, you're stupid.

>Not telling your population about a chemical spill isn't censorship unless you were told to not say it.
>when the DPRK doesn't tell its citizens that they this year's harvest has failed and they are all going to starve, this is not censoring information
>but, if someone were to find out about this and they were told not to tell anyone else, then it suddenly becomes censoring information
Fuck off, retard. When you're dying alone in your pathetic isolated community that will destroy itself because it can't figure out how to create an engine that doesn't turn into a bomb and utensils that don't make your teeth fall out, I'll sleep extra well knowing that ultimately, natural selection wins over all, but especially over you.

>>6557572
Yeah, AI will be the collapse of society just like industrialization alienated society, tv made us dumb, game creates violence, yeah, this time it will finally happen

>>6557576
You realize I'm literally masturbating, right? If you don't keep up at least trying to look like you're putting effort in, I won't be able to finish. Make a better post or I'm going to replace your input with GPT-3.5, which so far has put way more effort into getting me off than you are right now. Just think about where your life would be without the fulfillment of constantly being dominated by everyone else around you, that should motivate you.

>>6557586
AI is here to stay, luddite. And I'm gone to sleep

>>6557576
>industrialization alienated society, tv made us dumb, game creates violence
All of this happened though? Just because it's not the most extreme case, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Machine worshipers should be focusing on advancing the production of necessary resources, not on increasing the levels of entertainment consumption.

>>6557576
>>6557590

You morons are making me think that ol uncle ted was right (about industrial society, not the bombings).

AI is far more dangerous than stuff like TV and video games.
Not all technological progress is inherently good. There's a reason we don't let random idiots own nuclear weapons, and theres a reason we dont use them in war anymore.

>>6557576
>>6557590
Theres a difference between AI and things like video games and TV.
AI is far more dangerous than the latter.

>>6557332
>Good, people might finally learn to avoid trusting everything
No they'll just trust their equally retarded neighbor who confidently tells them the earth's actually a cube or whatever
>that video of the "round" earth from the supposed space station?
>yeeup that's a deepfake my friend

>>6557276
>You can use the same tool to fix any kind of mistake anyway
no amount of inpainting can fix the overall piece's cohesion

>>6557674
You said that before for faces

>>6557677
faces are still off and not in a human error way, but keep hiting that button over and over again until it looks good enough to your plebeian eye

>>6557681
Good thing the average person doesn't care

>>6557357
Last thing I want in life is to live like a fucking ruralist luddite hick whose entire world revolves around a tiny patch of land and whose only 3 remaining braincells are focused on 3 things:
>th' missus
>wot's fer dinnah
>cars or summin'

>>6557061
>>6557073
Will cause normies to burn out on marvel movies. It's easier to get tired of the taste of slop when you're not starving for content.

Disney could reasonably put out way more movies in a year but they don't do that because it risks consumer burnout.

Burning out people on big budget/AAA crap is good, it means breaking up their monopolization on culture. I actually want people to find taste and stop being some unified shallow consoomer monoculture.

>>6557097
No, not everything has become more flimsy. The planet is not dying. You sound like an idiot.

Good - Fast - Cheap
Pick 2.
A lot of people are going for fast and cheap, because good and cheap takes time and effort. If you were poor you'd know that some cheap furniture is easy to set up but is wobbly and lacks features, and some cheap furniture is sturdy as shit but is a nightmare of parts.

>>6557109
>>6557126
>>6557168

If you believe that art and entertainment needs less to be made then why are you on this board? Follow your own advice and stop drawing, encourage other people to stop drawing. After all, it only contributes to the slop right? If you believe that then that means art should only be made by rich people who can afford the tuition of approved masters in art schools, correct?

>>6557336
>implying maintaining modern standards is good
Things aren't terrible but there's a lot of bullcrap I want to see fall apart so improvements can be made.

>>6557654
You don't need photographic evidence, you just need to logically explain shit and connect things together properly.

This is compared to right now, where berating people into conformity via group pressure, emotional pleas and propaganda is how people go about their lives. Heck look up in this thread where the one retard is saying to "worship nature."

>>6557732
>doing art didn't even register on his mind
truly an artist

>>6557748
To be fair, in a reality like that art would be a pursuit nigh-impossible to get into, or at least be very simplistic, unless you were somehow lucky to be born into a wealthier family that was able to live a lifestyle devoid of the trappings of the working class.

>>6557685
at least you admit you're average. doesn't disprove my point either
>>6557744
>I actually want people to find taste and stop being some unified shallow consoomer monoculture.
and AI puts us on a fast track to that
>If you believe that art and entertainment needs less to be made then why are you on this board? Follow your own advice and stop drawing, encourage other people to stop drawing. After all, it only contributes to the slop right? If you believe that then that means art should only be made by rich people who can afford the tuition of approved masters in art schools, correct?
incorrect, don't be dense. technological advancements in art, instead of allowing an increase in quality has been twisted into doing more, faster with a lower quality. I advocate creating more thoughtfully and keeping in mind the aspects of a piece beyond pretty render. yes, good finish is important but is only one piece of the puzzle. funnoly enough Ai puts artists in the situation where they need to be well-off to continue pursuing it fully.

>>6557744
>You don't need photographic evidence, you just need to logically explain shit and connect things together properly.
>This is compared to right now, where berating people into conformity via group pressure, emotional pleas and propaganda is how people go about their lives.
How the fuck is that going to work in a techno collapse?
Why haven't those isolated indian and brazillian tribes become science gods?

SOVL = BAD BUT RELATABLE
SOVLESS = AWESOME BUT ATTEMPTING TO MAKE MONEY

>>6553207
I only save the best

>>6557744
A single person does in some way contribute to the slop, yes. Thanks to AI anyone will be able to do the same with higher speed and efficiency.
I can easily ignore or block the work of an artist whose style and taste is generic. It becomes difficult to block several hundred people doing the same.
An artist has the potential to get better, stick out more and develop. An AI user won't because not having to do that is the main selling point of the fucking things.
I honestly don't understand the confusion here. Do you usually misinterpret other's positions like this, is it on purpose? Are you aware of "too much"? It's perfectly logical and reasonable to be fine with candles but against having your house set on fire.

>>6554688
>The images on google already existed, the ones made using AI don't
It does, it's not fabrication, it's remixing
It's been documented many, MANY times, that """AI""" cannot create because it literally needs data to produce. Art doesn't. There's literal examples of art that could not have any source attrached to it, because beauty is a genetic tract that exist without memorabilia, aka, some iconic image used to product the final result.

>Unless you're taking some kind of bizarre metaphysical "everything in the latent space already exists" take.
A: It's not bizarre, it's fact
B: That's literally what probability means, yes. It's latent space because the data can only product the mix results of that data, not something entirely OUTSIDE of that space. If you give a CPU data of circles, it will NEVER create a square. If I saw a circle and was tasked to make a triangle, I'd still produce a triangle.

>>6554771
Nope, because the AI failed to recreate exactly what it was tasked to fill in
Take the flowers on the hat in the sketch, it's clearly two flowers with a saiphin at their cores. The AIslop failed completely to recognized that (which includes you, since, the "artist" didn't even noticed the clear inconsistancy of your original input), and in the end shat out prolased anuses as flowers instead of the original intended design. Of would you could say "I'll just fix it after lol" but at that point, why didn't you just do the entire image yourself? It's not like it's complex, if you just knew how to actually finish your homework. Assuming this is your work after all.

I mean, the fucking hand that was ALREADY DRAWN CORRECTLY, got fucked up in BOTH AI examples. Why would I use this garbage when it just fucks over what I already worked on? Why should I fix my work that I already worked on?

>>6554893
>What's the difference between a person using AI and an art director?
A director isn't a artist, otherwise he'd never need someone, or something, else to create "his" ideas.

the irony is most fucking retards don't understand that most if not all of animation before the modern 2010 era shit was mostly created by animators and artist first while the director shits out an idea, that its' up to everyone else to tard rangle into a actual good product. 99% of ideas are dogshit by these idea guys and without actual soulfilled talented creators everything would have been cancerous trash from day one. This isn't even just with drawings or animation, but to architect and the very tools we use. No one wants the inner workings of a compute to be the look of a computer, we want the sleek, clean, polished look you get in the end, which was done by artists, not the robot that put the lego pieces together.

>>6556433
This is what happens when you let the hicks dictate the planet.

>>6556622
>that small handful of artists because they can now do a project without needing a bajillion dollars!
Oh? So because you think real artists can do shit for free = more quality, that will actually happen? Are you a fucking retarded shitskin?

No, the goyslop AItrash will just overflood the market so deep there won't be any room to show off your quality work because all teh Aishit will just either steal from your work, post 30 copies of it, to the point no one will trust any idea like it will be worth your time, killing off any potential for your work to be seen and appreciated, all the while execs pay AItrash more because it's dirt cheap to shit out, killing off actual animation forever.

All AI can do is kill, not create. There's no room for art being absolutely free in this current society while at the same time expecting god's handcrafted art to be accessible to the masses. Not everyone deserves God's touch. They're too damn stupid to appreciate it in the first damn place. All you're advocating is the Devil's work.

>>6556763
Why does every AInigger get called out for their shitposting they post more trash as if it's like a gotcha?

Why post trash to "validate" your shitposts? You didn't need to do that until called out, it makes you look like a paid shillbot.

>>6557276
Go get lynched, you will never be human, an artists, or sentient.

>>6557381
How is that going to save me from solar storms, space rocks, and black holes you fucking cave dweller?

>>6558212
Damn, hit a nerve, anon?

>>6558197
Good thing, as you coping faggots will remain here on this basket weaving forum forever. Nobody will ever goge a fuck about anything you say or create ever.

>>6558256
I'll at least congratulate you on accepting that it will only result in your (and everyone else's) work being devalued into worthlessness.
Your dream project will be seen by no one, corners will be cut to pump out more slop and there sure as hell won't be any "golden era" that some retards keep mentioning.

>>6557744
>Heck look up in this thread where the one retard is saying to "worship nature."
All I'm saying is that if you have to (verbally) worship something, don't worship the faulty technological creations of humans, but nature. Nature gave life to all, nature made all life possible. People need to learn to respect it.

AI will not save you, it will only increase the power gap between people and make things like the internet completely unusable. Instead of wishing for new toys to distract yourselves with, you should be focusing on abolishing the capitalist system which takes everyone's energy and time, and makes it seem impossible for many to pursue things like art. The pencil is not your gatekeeper, it is capitalism which is your gatekeeper.

>>6557364
Loose lips sink ships, or have you never heard of OpSec?

>>6553060
which artists or artstyle did you use as prompt reference for this? i like the texture and muted colors

>>6557777
Yes so stop drawing, stop contributing to the slop. You said yourself, technological advancements have made more slop. You are arrogant if you presume this to be the case but that you aren't contributing to the slop by producing, so go - stop adding to the pile. The ability to share art across the internet is obviously bad too, so any "real quality art" must be only provided in physical form, and so you need to have the means to do it with physical materials, transport it, and only people with the means to see it in person should be allowed to judge it.

You're fucking ridiculous.

>>6557847
>It becomes difficult to block several hundred people doing the same.
>boo hoo i have to curate my experience more

>the main selling point
An AI artist also has the potential to get better, you ignoring that in favor of "selling points" is you being retarded.

There is literally no such thing as "too much art." There has ALWAYS been "too much art." Before the internet, you could not physically travel to see all the art in the world in your lifetime. And in an internet-connected world you STILL can't because so much of it is outside your knowledge of it even EXISTING. How many people even know that fucking breakcore is a music genre? Do you know how many people don't know what the fuck fractal art even is? What about sculptures in random ass cities that you don't live in, that still have pages dedicated to them explaining every fucking thing, but because you don't know it exists you can't see it? What about some masterful "SOVLFVL" artist who literally only exhibits his shit at flea markets in some rural hick area?

You presume too much, I fucking despise how arrogant you lot are.

>>6557921
Art does need data to produce, all art is remixing other things from human experience.
If you have only 256 colors on a computer then you can only make art using those 256 colors, nothing outside it. If you have only wood, you can't make a metal sculpture. Fuck off.

>>6557977
Without good idea people (aka people who count as ARTISTS) then they'll fucking fail. Hell a lot are already simply because they filtered their staff into "yes-men" (or rather "yes-thems").
So you'll see people being their own art directors, or people who have good direction but no money, getting involved. People who get rejected by the cliquey bullshit office politics too.

>>6558197
I didn't say for free.
Simple math -
If you need a studio with 30 people, who all need to be paid, in order to not take 2 instead of 8 years to produce a thing, you need to pay 30 people for those 2 years. Necessarily, only people who can afford to pay the salaries of 30 people for 2 years, plus associated licensing, workspace, equipment, and so on fees, will get anything done.
Now consider, 3-4 people, who can all work in a much smaller space, use their own equipment, with minimal additional overhead due to the scale of the operation and many tasks taking 1 person the time to do the work of 10. You still have your two years, but now you're only needing the money to pay for 3-4 people, rather than fucking 30.
There's FAR more people who can afford a smaller team than there are those who can afford to pay larger teams, by orders of magnitude. That means that quality will filter to the top because you don't need to be as specialized in the skill of "making a fuckton of money" to now have the ability to produce an animation or some shit.

>>6558576
>it will only increase the power gap between people
On the contrary, it reduces the power gap. Similar to how a firearm does that.
Go away dumb commie.

>>6559790
firearms create a tense situation. The mexican standoff
The man who shoots first shoots last.

>>6559790
>Without good idea people
Ideas are inherently worthless and there is a blatant reason "being the idea guy" is widely mocked. What you're describing isn't how a production works at all.
Also, you're downplaying just how fucking bad the potential for AI flooding is. Some art websites are already nearly unusable because ai niggers spam the shit out of them every day without proper tagging. In this way, there is a thing such as too much.

>>6557068
What I would like is a place where people explained and discussed how to produce pictures like yours using AI. Like, you know how people help other people get better at drawing, but nobody seems to want to help people generate better AI art.

>>6560268
Ideas are worthless because everyone has them but only skills to execute them matter.
However, skills without good ideas make slop.
Regardless of how shitty "the idea guy" is, the fact of the matter is that RIGHT NOW the people in industry in control of what artists make there are either dudes who gather up "idea guys" and fund the most profitable ones' ideas, or are "idea guys" themselves.
Nick Kroll is an "idea guy" but he keeps getting his shows made, because he has money.
As I said: the more specialized someone is RIGHT NOW into "making money", the more likely their ideas will suck (because they probably didn't spend that time learning OTHER THINGS), and you need a fantastical amount of money to make things of a certain size.
If you reduce the cost of production, then people who are LESS or plain AREN'T specialized in "making money" have more ability to produce what they like. That means more job openings, more productions, more chances for quality content to be made that fits the tastes of a more and more diverse market.

And no, I'm not downplaying it. I have seen so much shit in my decades of being online that the "AI flood" is just people being pissy. People STILL bitch about deviantart being "flooded with fetish content" or yelling at Elon that their twitter feed is filled with porn. Some people were very mad when anime was becoming popular, and they kept finding that shit. Or when some NEET autists literally just recolor and edit "bases" of wolves or lion king characters or post their crayon drawings or some shit multiple times a day every day.

Your experience with art online is hilariously sheltered if you think "AI flooding" is anything unusual.

>>6552670
>>6552662
"soul" is a qualitative charm in a piece often in the form of inconsistency and imperfections from the artist with an honest performance of artistic endeavor. Often "shitty" artwork contains "soul" because the artist is depicting a work without care of how it is perceived, thus containing a pure artistic expression. They didn't make it for money, for others, or to even improve.
But since most /ic/ posters and online shitters are often ignorant of art theory or art academics of the past 60 years, "soul" becomes SOVL a; bastardized online phenomenon describing inexperienced art and often said by souless posters. I say this with confidence merely on the basis of the mountains of "appeal" threads that dumbass hacks constantly post. Mass appeal means you're making it for others, not for yourself, and therefore is without any soul.
>>6552662
From my experience, nothing about that sonic image says "soul" to me. In fact, I immediately thought it was AI nonsense.
>inb4 "ad hom"
The face and head is too clean and consistent to be made from an inexperienced artist. There's "chicken scratches" for simple straights on the body, but nearly perfect confident, consistent lines for the curves on the head. If it was hypothetically not generated and instead drawn and therefore obviously traced, then why only chase the head and one arm.
Secondly, I know it is souless because it depicts nothing from the "artist". It is a shallow corporate illustration made to look like a child's drawing. No left/right lean from dominant hand preferences, no quirky perspective mistakes, no 'cover-ups' or stylistic overcompensation. Not even an attempt at shortcutting.

Merely being shitty/inexpereince does not constitute soulful artistry. Just like principles of design, if can't translate to other creative endeavors, then it's not a quality of art. Soulful food is cooked from loving hands, not pumped out of a factory.

>>6559775
>breakcore
ywnbaw

>>6559775
>An AI artist also has the potential to get better
lol
AI "artists" will only ever be as good as their meme program
Lets not kid ourselves, we all know this tech was created for people too terrified of a blank sheet to ever improve in any capacity

>>6562160
only bitter losers are the most stalwart and aggressive advocates for it.
they "won", but just by the technology manifesting and being out there in perpetuity.
their "loss" is the larger societal impacts this tech will have that will eventually effect their lives negatively.

in a sense, everyone loses with each technological advancement in the 21st century under our current globalized socioeconomic order.