/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Previous thread: >>6579273

>>6589889
>>6589903
>"I'll take horrendously exaggerated anecdotes for $500 sir"

>>6589905
you're crazy if you think they're exaggerated

>>6589879
There's some valid concerns against AI art because currently there's no regulation to new algorithmic generative tech. Artists are trying their best to put in an effort to have it regulated for their own protection, and to some going all-out-doom-and-gloom-autistic-emotional is a way to rapidly change public opinion.

If you're using it for private use, arguably fine if you can go under the radar. Its just a new form of digital piracy. But the possibility for a bad actor to benefit from machine-reinterpreted plagiarized work is enough trigger for an established artist to be defensive about their work. Mild case it's just a Twitter account getting followers, or fooling a university to take you in. Worst case is getting booted out of Disney (any company really) because they can replace you for cheap with an AI version of you.

Also, the fucking techbros. Its like NFTs all over again but this time with AI.

>>6589922
Why do you think it's plagiarism?

>>6589925
Its a relatively new tech, most definitions of plagiarism are used for written works so current day definitions of plagiarism just won't apply to it. I still abide by the thought that using AI is a form of plagiarism because:
>Its a low effort attempt to replicate an artist likeness.
>Training data (usually composed of copyrighted works) is necessary for these algorithms to function.

>>6589941
If I study hundreds of pictures drawn by Hayao Miyazaki for hundreds of hours and draw a picture that Miyazaki has never drawn, but perfectly in his style, have I plagiarized him?

>>6589889
ノットヂスシットアガイン

>>6589943
You earned it. You made it your own work. (Presumably) You understand every technical aspect that makes a Miyazaki piece a Miyazaki. Key word here is low-effort. AI can perfectly replicate a style of any artist for low effort, provided enough training data.

>>6589946
>Plagiarism is ok if you try hard enough
Literally retarded.

>>6589947
Art styles can't be plagiarized anymore than things like dances moves, it's a grey area, would you want someone to claim you're plagiarizing the way they breathe? imagine have to pay for every breath you take.

>>6589949
I'm not the one arguing AI training is theft. I think that's fucking retarded.

Reminder
AIfags tell people that ai will raise the standards for art and its gonna do away with degenerate work
but they mostly use it for porn
they tell rightwingers that AI is making leftists seethe
then turn around and tell leftists that its democratizing art
they tell artists that ai will help them
but are also telling corporations that they can fire artists
when corporations don't use AI they then get called out for getting in the way of "innovation"
AI shills talk about how easy making AI is
but then talk like prompting is something only a select people can do
they talk about how much they hate artists and how useless they are, but do everything to be included in artist circles

the ai shill has no loyalty, no beliefs, no toilets, only hatred and greed

>>6589947
So was your analogy.

>>6589951
Individuals aren't monoliths. You're a dumbass.

>>6589943
you could try, but you will never draw like someone else
you can get close but your other influences will shine through, without you even realizing it

look at dragon ball artists out there. many have tirelessly tried to mimic toriyama's art style and get close but you can tell the difference

Also consider this, Miyazaki didn't learn to draw in his style like a person copying him did

>>6589955
what things are considered good for the boss and employee at the same time without it being a flat out lie?

lol

>>6589943
>If I study hundreds of pictures drawn by Hayao Miyazaki for hundreds of hours and draw a picture that Miyazaki has never drawn, but perfectly in his style, have I plagiarized him?
When you create a piece of art in the style of another artist, you're building on their creative legacy and paying homage to their unique style.

datamining thread

>>6589960
a bullet would be giving these faggots too much mercy

>>6589941
>Its a low effort attempt to replicate an artist likeness.
It can be, but not inherently. Same thing can be said for any form of media creation.
>Training data (usually composed of copyrighted works) is necessary for these algorithms to function.
True, but isn't plagiarism concerning the output rather than the input? For example picrel can be considered plagiarism using AI, since it's based on an already existing image, but if you make a novel image using AI then I don't see how that's plagiarism.

Its unhinged arguments like this that makes me see furries as a group with more standards

How does AI really work? I don't understand how it photobashes parts from other images into a single one

>threads related to art gets deleted within a couple of mins
>ai shill threads like this stay up
Fuck jannies

Claiming theft on styles is fucking retarded and I can't believe that even the most autistic of artists would believe that is a solutions. Even more so if they think it wouldn't backfire if was actually a thing.

The only avenue drawlets have to fighting AI on legal ground is the training data and that's not even the models or the weights but the databases themselves like LAION5B. Even then such a case would be on the thinnest of margins because scraping the web is not a crime, and would likely fall on the distribution of those images to the public. All of which would fall under fair use.
Even if say LAION was prohibited, it would do nothing to stop private individuals or organizations for using their own images and databases to train their own models.

>>6589984
>fighting AI on legal ground i
Laws are based on the ethical fabric of societies.
If that changes in favor of artists, AI images are certainly under-fire.
Now excuse me while I abort my child.

>>6589986
*moral fabric

>>6589984
Are the parts where that image heavily fucked up remnants of another picture that AI failed to overlay onto properly?

>All of which would fall under fair use.
fair use allows for the use of copyrighted material for the purposes of criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.

Making derivative images, using the same purpose as the original image(entertainment?) does not fall under fair use. It's also not transformative. Lots of AI bros seem to think transformative means simply changing part of an image for some reason.
A derivative work is transformative if it uses a source work in completely new or unexpected ways. (ie criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.)

>>6589993
ignore, didn't read you were talking only training. deleting

>>6589993
I think the fair use argument is regarding the limited use of the images in the training process, seems solid to me. Any output would have to be judged on it's own merit.

>>6589984
>Claiming theft on styles is fucking retarded and I can't believe that even the most autistic of artists would believe that is a solutions. Even more so if they think it wouldn't backfire if was actually a thing
Person A offers niche service, person B offers a highly close approximation of Person A's service but on a mass produced scale. Person B takes over all the profit while Person A is told to cope and dilate.

What is it if it's not stealing?

>>6590000
Competition?

>>6589943

the fact that you spend that much time studying one artist means you have respect for that artist. every work you make after that means you're continuing his legacy. every work you produce will remind people of him. that's one of the bigger reason why artificial imitation differ from a human. something shit out artificially won't have the essence of a real human artist. that's why it looks soulless.

>>6590001
Counterfeit.

>>6589943
>The "le heckin' machinerino learns just like a human" argument again

>>6590006
Possible.

>>6590000
If I am offering AI models of my own work for money, and somebody trains AI on my work and offers the same... I think I have ground to sue them. This is new territory for me, does this make sense?

>>6590009
I'm not a lawyer, but on what grounds?

>>6590009
what if they also train it on both your models works and another ai models works, would that not make it transformative enough?

>>6590011
copyright I guess

Jap artists were actually fine with AI until they discovered AI cultists train models on their work and beg for Patreon bux for their GPU's labor.

>>6590013
Not sure but If anything I think that would cover your model, not any other model made to produce similar work.

>>6590012
>transformative
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/copyright/1215068/transformative-use-and-copyright-infringement
It would have to be using the image in a completely new way(ie commentary), not just as another image in the same vein.

>>6589889

>>6590019
You won't own anything, not even your anal virginity. And you will be happy for the endless Dune by Jodorowsky in the style of Christopher Nolan starring Pink Guy.

>>6590021
I had to look away from the screen when pink guy raped David Lynch. I should have also muted it, I'll never un-hear that.

Are we gonna get some prompts to draw or am I the only one that is gonna do this challenge?

>>6590034
learn the lesson, AI threads are magnets for debate. nobody else wants to do the challenge

>>6589947
>>6589949
Used to be replicating styles is very hard intellectual work on its own. If a human does it, he has to exert thought and effort to achieve his goals. With AI you can skip this part entirely and simply feed it training data of any artist you like and it will generate prompted results within seconds. While not technically considered plagiarism, its dishonest work if you attempt to own AI art.

>>6589970
>It can be, but not inherently.
Its way less effort compared to studying and replicating an artist you like by hand.
>Isn't plagiarism concerning the output rather than the input
New questions for new technology. Maybe plagiarism isn't the best word for it. Thing is its considered theft to be using non-consented copyrighted work as training data.

>>6590009
Corporations are hesitant to use generators with copyrighted material in them. I think its possible to sue.<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

>>6589947
>States one of his TWO rules are "Its a low effort attempt to replicate an artist likeness."
>"Well what if I practice drawing from every Hayo Miyazaki image ever?"
I'm not even particularly AI and just think artists are being doom and gloom, but I swear every AI Bro is literally moral-less and half retarded.

Like I can't believe the same brain dead arguments of "well humans do X, so big corporation and computer programmes should be allowed to do X as well" has been thrown around so much. No, the AI doesn't train "like a human" you fucking morons, shut the fuck up. Stop humanising a chatbot you pathetic losers.

>>6590036
What a disappointment

>>6590038
>Its way less effort compared to studying and replicating an artist you like by hand.
True, don't think it has any bearing on it being plagiarism though.
>its considered theft
By who? It's certainly not theft in the common definition of the word.

>>6590034
Nah, the OP needed to post a few more examples to get the ball rolling. I think if you only have one it doesn't really excite people enough to try it.
When you post an art challenge on here, unless your certain people are going to be interested, I think you need at least 3 or 4 examples.<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

>>6590047
Well I got some more examples, If you dont mind more toriel pics or the same thing. I am getting to work on another after I finish a com that has been backed up for about a couple of weeks.

>>6590046
Breach of terms? non-consensual use? Just plain ol' theft? I'm not a lawyer so I cannot name a more fitting term. But I think its unethical to be using images to fill up a public database without permission from the owner, especially if there is a monetary/commercial intent.

>>6590055
Piracy might be more fitting.

>>6590040
They actually believe ChatGPT is a good conversation partner or search engine. That because it can write code well, it is uniquely suited to answer anything.
They actually believe ML learns like le us and we're totally like AI except our dataset is the entire world around us.
The psyop worked. They'll die begging corpos to fuck them in their bloodied ass before they realize just how fucking nonsensical the shit they're spouting actually is.

>>6590043
The average artfag and AIgger get along about as well as oil and water.
>le gatekeeper meme
Rejecting grifters, lazy faggots and leeches out of your community isnt gatekeeping, its common sense. It just so happens that AIkeks are an unfortunate mix of these 3 things. Lets be clear. In essence, you're asking people here to stroke proompters egos and encourage them by turning their robot vomit into actual drawings. But none actually cares about someone elses prompted garbage let alone to the extent of wanting to draw it, and not a soul here wants to "reconcile" with smarmy subhumans who couldnt even get past the lowest /beg/ because they're too cowardly to pick up a pencil and face the failures that come with being new at something.

>>6589889
>Find an AI art piece
Where is the good place to do so?

Why those threads are still up? No one draws in them, is just shitty AI discussion. Is just another stealth AI thread to shit up the catalog. I try reporting but this is one of the few that the mods refuse to do something about it.

>>6590445
>No one draws
Drawing is old fashioned. You sketch, digitize, img2img, photobash touch up these days.

>>6589917
Are the AI tech Bros in the room with you right now?

>>6589922
>Its just a new form of digital piracy.
Wat?

>Also, the fucking techbros. Its like NFTs all over again but this time with AI.
Also equivalency. NFTs were always meant to be useless grifts to bait idiots with too much money on their hands to fund their pyramid scheme. SD AI art it's just a neat toy that text savvy people like to use and is somehow still making "regular" artists have mental breakdowns even though it hasn't even affected them as badly if they claim it has, with a few exceptions

>>6590457
>Are the AI tech Bros in the room with you right now?
You apparently

>>6590448
>Still falling for the photobash meme

That's how I'm searching you don't know what you're talking about.

>>6590430
Pixiv. Make sure your AI art filters are turned off. You might have to make an account to view it though

>>6590457
>making "regular" artists have mental breakdowns even though it hasn't even affected them as badly if they claim it has, with a few exceptions
They are worried they will become one of those exceptions. It's like being on a drug trial, and you see one guy in the room go into convulsions and his head swell up.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/127jzw2/a_chinese_creator_was_doxxed_by_aibros_for/
https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/129r6y3/on_top_of_doxxing_leaking_the_personal_info/

>>6590481
The only people I've seen get replaced (I'm not talking about art style replication, I mean actually replaced by their employer) were those graphic designers that routinely draw those soulless corpro logos/stick figures. Most artists, even the shit tier ones, are fine, because like I said in this thread, ai art (especially the anime looking kind) has way too much of a distinct look. None of you are in danger, so please stop with the collective screaming. I guarantee not a single person in this thread has actually been negatively affected.

>>6590483
Cool. What do you want us to do with that information? I also don't see why bringing up the fact that she's a big content creator is relevant. That does not add or subtract from a statement's validity.

>>6590483
I've never seen a single reason to like an AI bro. It's all negative. If they all left the internet, holy shit what a wonderland we would have. I didn't appreciate what we had enough when we had it. fuck!

>>6590488
You see no difference. Most people would see no difference because you choose to let them live rent free in your head. Just filter it the fuck out and you'll be fine. You're choosing to be miserable

>>6590486
>I guarantee not a single person in this thread has actually been negatively affected.
sure, it's early days yet. AI bros have only had since September or so to start ripping off artists work directly. (dreambooth)
And now LoRA is a huge step above that, and what is next? AI video in one years time going to make animators cry?

>>6589889
I made $400 on Etsy selling art bundles this last month, why is /ic/ so against free money?

These type of incidents are only going to become much more frequent because techbros are synonymous with scamming

>>6590491


You have not been affected by it though. Not negatively. No one's revenue has been cut down. If anything the only time people get negatively affected is when they lie about their AI art use. Exfascinating watching people intentionally give themselves migraines

>>6590492
What kind of art? By that I mean what were the subjects in the art pieces?

>>6590489
I have no idea what you mean by that. difference of what? did you see what I was quoting?
>Just filter it the fuck out and you'll be fine.
Filter what? Filter AI bros from doxxing me if I say something negative about AI? what?

>>6590494
>There's a storm coming! it just destroyed some houses in the neighboring town, if the winds don't change I will get hit soon enough.
>durr you've not been effected just shut up

>>6590496
You act as if all of AI art just disappeared off the face of the earth than you would see a massive improvement in your life and mental health. It will not. You're the type of person that chooses to engage with the very thing that pisses you off. Thanks mental illness at it's finest.

>>6590496
>Filter what? Filter AI bros from doxxing me if I say something negative about AI? what?

1) just block them and report them from harassment you knuckle dragging monkey.

2) actual IRL docing only occurs if you have enough information on the internet to link yourself to your online identity. That's entirely, and I mean entirely your fault if that occurs. Why are you posting any kind of personal information on the internet or linking it to yourself? If you want a retard then doxxing is impossible

Or are you one of those mentally ill idiots who thinks a few people bullying them and being mean counts as doxing?

>>6590495
Cute animals, flowers and fruits

>>6590501
>2)
Easy enough to happen when you're a creator making money on the internet which is why you see threads about people trying to be anonymous with payments on /ic/ all the time

>>6590495
But it's worth mentioning that half the money went to ads and etsy which sucks but I think it's fine. I don't know how well it works as a passive income if I don't create anything new in the long term, this is what I'll test from now on to see if my stuff gets buried in peoples search pages, if it requires constant new products to stay relevant I'll look into something else

>>6590492
Is this you on the left?

>>6590501
>You act as if all of AI art just disappeared off the face of the earth than you would see a massive improvement in your life and mental health
No, not talking about the art itself. I don't care, and even generate a ton of it myself, it's fun. (I just don't share it outside of /sdg/)
I'm talking about AI bros. not the art, the new breed of people(if i can call them people idk).

>1) just block them and report them from harassment you knuckle dragging monkey.
damage can already be done. swatting for example.
>2) actual IRL docing only occurs if you have enough information on the internet to link yourself to your online identity.
paypal doxing is a thing. so a doxxer could commission you and get details off the receipt.

>>6590513
Why not both?

>>6590510
Whether you're big or smalls are relevant. Don't post personal info or don't link it to your personal social media accounts in any way shape or form and doxing is impossible. If you're an internet personality but actually shows their face, guess what, it should still be impossible because why the fuck are you linking personal goddamn info on the internet? People only get your address because YOU chose to make it public. I could post my face on this thread right now, give you my Facebook, Instagram account, LinkedIn, etc, and none of you are finding my address because I don't link it or post it freely online unlike some dumb people

>>6590516
>I'm talking about AI bros. not the art, the new breed of people(if i can call them people idk).
Oh my fucking god you guys are so melodramatic. No one is forcing you to interact with these people. Block them from your accounts and they won't be able to bother you anymore.


>>6590516
>damage can already be done. swatting for example.
Gee, I wonder how they got personal fucking information like your phone number and address. Surely you didn't post that shit willingly or link it to yourself, did you?

>>6590516>paypal doxing is a thing. so a doxxer could commission you and get details off the receipt.

1) why the fuck are you using PayPal? That's the shittiest vendor to use for multiple reasons

2) switch to a business account and they can't get your address. Doxing is impossible if you're not a fucking retard. I guess I'm expecting too much from people that are too full follow themselves and live off attention from others

>>6590470
Thanks!

>>6590524
>I could post my face on this thread right now, give you my Facebook, Instagram account, LinkedIn, etc,
I could get to you through your contacts. One of them may be vulnerable to social engineering. post your face, and I train a LoRA on it and make a new facebook profile, show new selfies, say I lost access, send requests friend requests etc(common scam I am sure you are aware and would not fall for personally). one of them bites, and I get their address, break into their home, and contact you from their account, asking for your address to send you something.

>>6590535
Well, do it then

>>6590492
Yeah it’s really easy on Etsy, just go on kemono party, find some good looking art, download it and zip together and just put on Etsy or platform like that, never had anyone complain

>>6590538
kek, until they do

>>6590537
I don't break the rules.

>>6589943
>If I study hundreds of pictures drawn by Hayao Miyazaki for hundreds of hours and draw a picture that Miyazaki has never drawn, but perfectly in his style, have I plagiarized him?
You can't really plagiarize Hayao Miyazaki because beyond the purely technical aspect of drawing the major aspect of his work is an emphasis on character and language. His work is deeply personal. There are thousands of people who copycat Miyazaki but they all fall short because all they do is copy the style without catching one shred of what makes him actually such a fantastic draftsman.

>>6590540
You can't, huh

>>6590535
>I could get to you through your contacts.
What are private accounts

Take your meds you pathet schizo

>>6590539
What’ll they do then? Report me? Cry in the review? There’s nothing that can stop me long term

>>6590542
It’s such a shame he passed away

>>6590547
goddamnit anon fuck you

>>6589889
>yet another AI flamewar thread
I'm so sick of all you retarded niggers, both pro- and anti-AI

>>6590545
if all your accounts are anonymous, and your name not on any of them. you are safe online.
However, I think it is still possible for artists to be doxxed if they are not recluses, and go to industry events or conventions. crimes happen, apple trackers exist. A psychotic AI-fag could slip one in an artists bag.

>>6590560
That's not unique to AI fags though. That's like saying "white women are capable of making false rape allegations, therefore all women or liars".

>>6590560
I'm not paranoid of that ever happening to me, just pointing out
> If you're an internet personality but actually shows their face, guess what, it should still be impossible
is wrong.

why people are so horny for posting their face all over the internet?

>>6590562
>That's not unique to AI fags though.
no, but artists were not a target like this before. AI is like a religion to some people it seems, and now some crazed devotees do >>6590483 if you do the equivalent of drawing Mohammad(saying AI might be unethical)

>>6590570
and artists start shooting schools or starting a whole world war and genocide

>>6590483
lmao there's an "artist hate" subreddit
goddamnit I fucking hate people so much

>>6590573
That's not unique to artists though.(but artists do it better)

>>6590570
And? My point still stands. Do not post or fucking information online or link it to yourself and doxing is impossible.

>Muh harrasment
Utilize the block tool or private your account temporarily. I don't know about other sites but Twitter specifically as a feature where only people that follow you can comment on your account. Do that and that makes filtering out trolls a thousand times easier.

But again most of you aren't going to even attempt to do that because you love misery. You love feeling victimized. You love having people feel bad about you.

>>6590578
I guess they do, we've yet to see someone topping the mustache man

'nother thread
'nother cat

>>6590584
go back to 2ch

>>6590483
Wtf aibros being based for once? Doxxing chinks

>>6590579
>>Muh harrasment
could happen over night. you wake up and hear your university was sent letters etc? wtf? maybe doxxing is easier in china idk, is it? social networks requiring phone numbers etc?

>>6590592
>using your own phone number
bruh

>>6590483
AHAHAHA RETARD FUCKING GLAZED THE SCREENSHOTS
God imagine having people live rent free in your head so much, actually not even, it's like you are paying them to live in your head
Imagine, guy wasted like at least one hour to glaze the screenshots, meanwhile it'd take like 4 seconds to deglaze them, it's just so sad

>>6590595
The doxx was through Bilibili. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_real-name_system_in_China

>>6590596
why do you sound like a tranny?

>>6590602
fake ids is booming in china

>>6590596
You sound mad as fuck.

>>6590622
Mad? Over what? The fact guy wasted electricity for nothing?
If anything I just pity him, it must suck to live in constant paranoia like that

>>6590606
>they find the fake id seller who has my real info he stole from my wallet when i wasn't looking.

>>6590626
only if you're a retarded first world tourist

>>6590624
he glazed it to poison future web-scraping, not because he cares about that image in particular or is paranoid.
Not that it would work...

>>6590632
Jesus that's even sadder then

>>6590652
It is, and don't use my name in vain.

I was trying this AI thing for the first time this week, wanted to make some landscape art for custom MTG lands. I faced three hurdles:
1) The Stable Diffusion generals are the most unhelpful generals I've ever seen. Not a single one of my posts was even acknowledged (eg. "lurk more").
2) The info is all over the place, a million links, some of it way past expiration date.
3) Finding a good generator online that is also free required going to /trash/ and accidentally stumbling on it.
4) Figuring out how to get what you want once you've passed the previous hurdles is a neverending hurdle.

Through my frustrations, the silver lining I realized is that normalfags just don't have the patience for this. I am pretty autistic myself, though mother didn't give birth to no /g/tard, and even I reached my limit today where I said fuck this.

>>6590542
Miyazaki lifted his entire art style wholesale from Nippon Animation back in the 1970s. If you look at some of the shows he worked on when he was still a storyboard artist it's obvious he plagiarized his character and background designs from them. Not to mention, every single one of his 'original' character designs is just Anne of Green Gables with a slight twist.

>>6590678
at least he toned down the Macrocephaly.

>>6590687
Reasonable people can disagree

https://youtu.be/y1LAvIJJP88

The anon was right. This thread was a bad idea in retrospect.

>>6590705
Fuck off already furfaggot. Delete this waste of a thread

I knew /ic/ would reach cosmic levels of asshurt from AI art. Was it because this tech came like literally overnight that the shock is so hard? It hasn't even been a year?

>>6590701
So basically if you have a sketch and put on an AI you get copyright. LOL. Anti AI artists BTFO

these threads are just an attempt to bring AI flame wars and other garbage here, just fucking ignore them or fill them with cat pics.
Please at least leave this board alone.

>>6590697
That's just thicc hair

>>6590721
>Please at least leave this board alone.
"Get off my lawn, you crazy kids!"

>>6590721
because /lsg/ and /fag/ definitely wasnt filled with """"flame wars"""" at first. ai, loli and furry is inevitable

>>6590714
I have been using ai as a tool for art since... When was art breeder, 2019? It's the training on people's work that is under scrutiny.

>>6590632
New fag here.

The fuck is "glazing"?

>>6590743
Snake oil to use your computer for mining

>>6590743
It's a post processing effect that is theoretically supposed to prevent your work from being scraped by AI researchers by interfering with CLIP. However, it has been proven to be largely ineffective and it also adds an unpleasant and obvious distortion effect to the affected image.

>>6590764
>Deliberate making your art look worse to own the AI Bros

>>6590743
A filter to avoid AI to read your original images and use it. Look "Glaze, copyright, Stable Diffusion.
I think it's a silly idea. But whatever.

>>6590743
A filter that works to trick ai into thinking your art is a different style, like a van Gogh. It's amazing and everyone should support it. Glaze strikes fear into the heart of ai chuds. It's over for them, unironically.

>>6590524
>why the fuck are you using PayPal? That's the shittiest vendor to use for multiple reasons
People in countries like Germany have to use PayPal because their debit/credit cards have no CVV number so only PayPal will accept them. Fucking retard.
>switch to a business account and they can't get your address. Doxing is impossible if you're not a fucking retard. I guess I'm expecting too much from people that are too full follow themselves and live off attention from others
You actually have to have a registered business to qualify for a business account. Not to mention your name would be in business registers anyway. Fucking retard.

>>6590779
It doesn't even work

>>6590430
Just check the /g/ threads

>>6590779
>Troll.txt>>6590798
>You actually have to have a registered business to qualify for a business account.
No you don't. I switched mine to a business account for shits and giggles a while back and they never act to me for any verification regarding any supposed business I owned. You just flip a switch and then it asks you a just make up BS about the "business" you own and you're change over. The most people will be able to see is your email address and your " name"

https://hivemoderation.com/ai-generated-content-detection
AI detection tool that seems to work bretty gud. Handy weapon against AI hacks

>>6590833
Wake me up when art sites and social media implements it on every image post for spam detection.

>>6590457
AI is all the hype right now and there's always those "revolutionary tech" cultist out there who loves to exaggerate the thing's capabilities to amp up public perception of the tech's value. It worked for crypto and it worked for NFTs. It's being hyped up as the second coming of the internet. I can see some actual use for AI (actually just algorithms with bigger datasets), but really there is a lot of concerns that need to be ironed out first (data scraping, regulations on how AI can be used, etc.)

>Its just a new form of digital piracy.
Remember: A lot of the images/text within the training data are used without consent/compensation for the author. These models owe their capabilities to the massive amount of data within the database or else its useless crap (compare OpenAI to Pygmalion6B). An opt-in solution (consented, compensated, willingly) will slow down the ML's progress, but techbros want that fast fast investor money.

>Even though it hasn't even affected them as badly if they claim it has, with a few exceptions
If your job is at stake because your CEO wants to replace you with an AI version of you, I think its worth a shot protecting yourself, especially if your work will be used in his dataset.

>>6590714
top right and bottom right are not the same. the AI cucks are the same people who yell "it doesn't matter, anything is art". you tried at least, though

>>6590864
The bigger asses these AI niggers make of themselves in the public eye the better.
Been positively surprised how even average normos generally seem to dislike them.

>>6590869
Normies are surprisingly noticing generated images with ease. Other than the artifacts and generic subject matter, there's probably something else that's a telltale that's invisible to the eye. There's just something about it all that gives them this gross uncanny filter.

>>6590869
And that exact cultist mindset is their downfall. I genuinely think the blockchain could be useful tech (government documents, licenses, certificates, authorship verification) but they really had to get those moneys.
>>6590872
Your typical "AI artist" is too lazy to explore nuances in SD (even less possible in Midjourney/DallE). Besides, nobody really wants a spammy faggot. Give it time and the hype will just die on its own.

>>6590833

>>6590879
Now upload the version that's not giga pixellated

>>6590884

>>6590833
If it can't tell this was AI generated they are blinder than a human

>>6590886
That's still pixelated, disingenuous AI nigger. AI would never generate consistent sharp pixels like that on its own.

Pack it up, boys

>>6590908
I saved this image from /g/, I don't know what you want me to do

1/n

>>6590864
>(data scraping, regulations on how AI can be used, etc.)
I see people throw this around but never actually explain WHY it needs to be heavily regulated. I understand why you seething art fags want SD data set gathering to be crippled so badly but why do you want AI in general to be crippled? You realize most of our dumb fuck senile politicians probably don't even know any of this should exists

>>6590864

>A lot of the images/text within the training data are used without consent/compensation for the author. yet right?

Not sure why people point this out as a smoking gun. But your logic if I want to make thing art of Mickey mouse I should ask Disney for permission to use it as a reference. >>6590864
>An opt-in solution (consented, compensated, willingly)
They're never going to actually follow through with that. They just said that to a piece the angry Mob. I don't even think Open AI has given any indication that they are going to even attempt or even consider using any form of opt-in data scrapping unless I missed something. And even if they want to follow that, that doesn't affect everybody. There's nothing stopping me from manually saving pictures for my LoRA data set (which is higher supposed to do it anyway because that makes filtering out trash easier).


The cat is out of the bag. I'm not trying to be snarky or anything like that. Slowing this shit down as impossible now.


>>6590864
>If your job is at stake because your CEO wants to replace you with an AI version of you, I think its worth a shot protecting yourself,

I was specifically referring to artists. They are not in danger like at all. Not even remotely. You were not getting fucked by this. Even the shitty ones are safe. The only way you're in danger is if your art style are the coincidentally looks similar to generic NAI shit or you refuse to adapt. Most artists that have big followings have those followings not just because they're shit actually looks good....

>>6590897
>>6590914
The point is to expose frauds. It's not like you lazy AI fags are gonna go through the effort of slapping filters and compression onto every image you steal.

>>6590864
>>6590920
2/n but they actually have a unique personality attached to them. They interact with the community. They're art style has a very unique look and feel and soul to it. I say this as an "AI art bro". It's impossible for us to replace you or even actually be a threat but of course you gullible reactionary cattle-brained midwits Believe anything the lot minority tells you.

>>6590922
No, just the ones being uploaded and sold

>>6590922
No filter, no compression. Straight out of the oven. Even left the metadata in. Try it for yourself.
https://files.catbox.moe/qw25hm.png

>>6590924
If you considered yourself an honest, legitimate artist why you need to hide it to begin with?

>>6590928
Privacy reasons

>>6590929
whatever you say man

>>6590833
Of course the piece of shit site breaks right when I want to use it...

>>6590922
>The point is to expose frauds.
If you're the type who lies about the fact that you use Ai art then I guess it's a useful tool (50% at the time because they clearly sucks cock)

>>6590920
Nigger. New tech means new regulations. You may not get fucked by this now but bad actors (from criminals to CEOs) sure would love to.

>Why do you want AI in general to be crippled? You realize most of our dumb fuck senile politicians probably don't even know any of this should exists
Precisely because politicians are dumb boomer ass fucks that needs to get back to working for the internet age. Artists care about their copyright, and most of them sure as hell did not cooperate with the creation of these algorithms hence why there's suddenly opt-out solutions.

>There's nothing stopping me from manually saving pictures for my LoRA data set
Good. Personal use is okay, provided you don't do fraudulent things with it (not trusting you or the other people though). Public datasets are to be scrutinized for this.

>The cat is out of the bag. I'm not trying to be snarky or anything like that. Slowing this shit down as impossible now.
There it is. You can if you change public perception about it. And its slowly heading that way. All that's next is probably a cease/desist of all public datasets containing copyrighted material and an entire rebuild of these algorithms with consented datasets.

>>6590914
Basically they are using AI to scrap all AI generated images and train them. As long as you don't use any popular or public models you're fine

>>6590945

Sites like this are going to lead to a false sense of security for artists and fans.

>>6590943
>Good. Personal use is okay, provided you don't do fraudulent things
Can you even properly describe what "fraudulent things" is?

>Public datasets

Why the fuck what I use that?

>>6590943

>You can if you change public perception about it.

Most normalniggers are pretty indifferent towards it, country to popular belief. Do not let Twitter or Reddit skew your perception of reality. You're correct that it will fuck people over by automating lower for jobs but it's also automating a lot of people's jobs in the process. I forget the exact percentages but a very large percentage of workers, particularly white collar office workers, are taking advantage of GPT on a regular basis.

>>6590947
>Public datasets why the fuck what I use that?
Because SD needs a bigger dataset. Your LORAs alone are not enough to make it run properly. You made an entire labeled database? Cool, I won't shame you for it. Just do not use it for purposes of making money, especially if your base contains works from popular artists.

>Normalniggers are pretty indifferent towards it.
Normies will ride whatever wave there is. Artists and other creators have all the right to complain about getting their asses getting fucked for something they never consented to. If it turns out GPT is say, using fanfiction/codes in their databases, then writers/coders have all the right to complain for something they never consented to.

A lot of this is happening because techbros feel they can get away with it. Shoot first ask questions later amirite?

>>6590960
>. Just do not use it for purposes of making money, especially if your base contains works from popular artists.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, nothing says I can't make money from it

>>6590965
Copyright laws? There's a lot of new legalities that have to be implemented for new tech but SD makes it easy as hell to copy someone else's likeness for minimal effort.

>>6590972
Where in the copyright laws section is saying I can't make money from AI art?

>>6590960
>Because SD needs a bigger dataset. Your LORAs alone are not enough to make it run properly.

What the fuck you talking about. L o r a s (ignore the spaces come up I'm typing this via voice to text) can be thought up as add-ons to a video game. Kind of like DLC. Making DLC it's a lot easier, etc. Making a full-on model with several hundred thousand if not being or even feelings of pictures. Making a Lora only requires like 20 or 30 max depending on what your training. Even then you dont need LoRAs Make a decent looking outputs. Half up the shit I make doesn't even utilize LoRAs or any embeddings.

>>6590960
>Just do not use it for purposes of making money, especially if your base contains works from popular artists.
Am I talking to a preteen? Also, why does weather or not the artist is popular or not matter? I don't even use fan art most of the time anyway because most fanart is complete dog shit and turns up accuracy to the original character. Getting the art from official sources like a TV show, anime, or official art, is much more preferable. This is anecdotal but in my experience using that are made up of mostly fan art have resulted in worse outputs, Even if the fan art was actually decent.

>>6590973
None. Its the wild west right now so get away with as much as you can right now. Go make that comic you've always dreamed of making using Midjourney.

Like I said its new tech. Used to be that you can be sued for using non-consented copyrighted material on commercial work (even if they're heavily edited), and then suddenly you have an algorithm that can replicate the likeness of an artist. It will challenge modern day copyright laws and I'm siding with the creator's side that such is considered infrigement.

>>6590979
>Even then you dont need LoRAs to make decent looking outputs.
LAION-5B and copyrighted material.

>>6590985
>transformative work

>>6590987
No, derivative work

>>6590991
Most countries' legal systems seek to protect both original and derivative works

>>6590991
So I can monetize my art

>>6590993
That would be the case if it was transformative.

>>6590960
>Normies will ride whatever wave there is.
And the "le heckin AI art is BAD" fad has long subsided. In general they aren't really four or against it as of right now. They have the attention span of goldfish so they have likely completely forgotten about it now.

>>6590960
>Artists and other creators have all the right to complain about getting their asses getting fucked for something they never consented to.
You have a right to complain, you are idiotic proclaiming you're actually getting fucked. I've set this countless times but you aren't actually being negatively affected. Not in the monetary sense anyway.

>>6590960
>If it turns out GPT is say, using fanfiction/codes in their databases, then writers/coders have all the right to complain for something they never consented to.
Yep, I'm talking to a knuckle dragon halfwit. Of course there's some fucking fanfiction in the datasets. It crawled over a large chunk of the clear net. The other night I was asking it to write SCP style documents describing fictional characters and it did a decent job at that only replicating the format of the documents but actually new a fair bit of info about the characters. You have a right to be pissed but what will that actually accomplish?

>>6590960

>A lot of this is happening because techbros feel they can get away with it.

Good God you guys are so memory traumatic. You pompous fags are the reason artists have always been looked down on.

>>6591000
What artist is going to sue me and for what exactly?

>>6590985
>>Even then you dont need LoRAs to make decent looking outputs.
>LAION-5B and copyrighted material.
Sir you may have replied the wrong person

>>6591003
>be a SyNtHoGrApHiSt
>call others pompous for having talents which he does not possess himself
lmao your sour grapes are showing

>>6591003
Do you even draw or do you only prompt?

>>6591004
they won't because they cant

I can't really see a path forward where AI art just goes away. The time to legislate a stop to it was a year ago, the opportunity is long passed. Major tech companies everywhere in the world are eagerly building text and image generation into their product and platforms, there is no going back to 2021. This is just something that we're all going to have to learn to live alongside of.

>>6591003
It's pointless to be mad at you for playing with cool new toys. I (alongside other creators) can redirect those anger instead at the techbro CEOs who use non-consented copyrighted works to feed their databases.

Honestly there's nothing inherently bad with AI (actually just algorithms with better databases) technology. Its just that creators don't want their works/likeness being used in databases they never consented to be part of.

>>6591025
But you did consent

>>6591012
>>6591016
>No valid rebuttals or arguments


I enjoy entertaining myself with idiots like you

>>6591027
Creators place their work to be viewed on the internet. Most of them do not consent to their work being edited and/or fed to a database that somebody else will make money out of(even if their work is just a one in a million part of it).

>>6591029
Instagram is making money out of their database being fed by you and artists posting there willingly consent to this. SD doesn't make money from their database

>>6591028
>Pointless shitflinging begets pointless shitflinging
>hurr not an argument
Nta but kill yourself

>>6591029

>>6591031
Creators consent to Instagram because they choose to post their images on that particular platform. They did not consent to have their work be ported by minimum wage workers to databases like SD, Midjourney, etc.

>>6589943
Yeah, also you're not a machine. There's a reason no one draws characters similar to Donald duck or Mickey mouse and it's not because of the skill required.

>>6591037
>i-it's because it's unethical, definitely not because i'll be losing money nor getting exposure to their pages

>>6591043
Where you actually consent or not does it mean jack shit when you agree to their TOS. You agreed to allow them to profit off of whatever the fuck you post there you quadruple nigger. Same goes for pixiv or literally any other image hosting site.

>>6591044
Because no one gives a fuck about either those characters? People make fan art of Disney characters all the time, especially the female ones come up but you never hear about Disney trying to sue them.


This guy (https://www.instagram.com/p/CqYPvO4JhTY/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=)) isn't it hasn't been sued by Disney just because he happened to draw fan art of Disney characters. Please end your life expeditiously with these retarded arguments

>>6591047
Yeah but I never signed any TOS that will port my work to image generators

>>6591048
You did when you made an account. Seriously come up please end your life. I don't want any more people like you polluting the gene pool with your low IQ genes.

>>6591049
Where exactly is the image generator part?

>>6591050
>instagram

>>6591050
What do you mean where's the image generator?

>>6591056
Generative art/editing please?

>>6591061
Point is, they can make money off of your art or whatever the fuck they upload, just like open AI can make money off whatever data is in their data sets.

>>6591050
https://privacycenter.instagram.com/policy/

We at Meta want you to understand what information we collect, and how we use and share it.

We use information we have to provide and improve our Products. This includes personalizing features, content and , such as your , , Stories and ads. We use
you choose to provide for these purposes, but not to show you ads.
We use information we have, information from researchers and datasets from publicly available sources, professional groups and non-profit groups to conduct and support research.

>>6590486
You're grossly uninformed. There are professionals who have went from drawing daily to prompting daily since mid journey came out, only to redraw the final approved version by hand, or draw it with heavy reference to the AI art.

>>6591050
Transferring, storing or processing your information across borders, including from and to the United States and other countries: We share information we collect globally, both internally across our offices and data centers and externally with our Partners, third parties and service providers.

>>6591066
So they didn't get replaced. They improved their workflow.

>>6591066
Is that some bullshit your saying to justify not your retarded thread

>>6591071
yesterday 10 works for 10 artists
today 10 works for 3 artists
tomorrow 10 works for an average person with a phone

>>6590493
techbros don't have a bunch of canvases and paint lying around, looks like a scammy artbro to me.

>>6590595
>tfw had to put my phone number for Twitter
What now?

>>6591083
throw it away if you're that paranoid someone will track you

>>6591083
and move

>>6591073
And?

>>6591090
unless work scales artists without work will need to ask for ubi

>>6591092
>ubi
Just file for welfare or join the army.

>>6591073
Some jobs just are gonna have to go. I still think its worth fighting against and have labor protections over copyrighted stuff

Why would anyone care about AI work? They are not art. They look like illustration. And that is all it will be.

>>6591126
I'm sure all of the soon to be unemployed artists will be great relieved to know that the software taking their jobs is not 'real' art, but merely illustration. That will be a huge comfort when their livelihoods are destroyed. Excellent observation.

>>6591126
>>6591131
It's the problem of industrialized art. If your 'art' is seen as a mere commodity it will be looked at as a widget. It's unfortunate but true.

I think Artists need to realistically come to the realization that the field as whole is going to soon radically change because of AI art and not necessarily for the better if you have a career or income in art. I foresee really junior positions in the industry evaporating entirely particularly in animation, graphic design and illustration. The sad part is most new artists will not be able to get their foot in the door will likely become unemployed as the available talent pool becomes smaller and more competitive. Digital Commissions on the freelance side will steadily dry up as AI art advances and the market changes. With only a few handful of highy established artists making ends meet.

I think going after the models themselves like stable diffusion or MJ is dumb. I know its been said thousand x times over but none of these models contain copyrighted material and even if they did then it technically would not be machine learning or AI. Unless we talking about the end user using image generators to create exact replicas of a particular work and deceiving others on authenticity. But that would be equivalent to going after the makers of a copy machines and no the user using it to create forgery.
The only angle legal wise would be to go after the public databases and scrapers like LAION, but that would also be an extremely hard case since everything they do is by definition fair use even training. It would also theoretically affect search engine since scraping is fundamentally how they work.
Also there is a shit ton of trolling, baiting and doom posting with AI and both sides are retarded. We haven't see the effects yet and honestly its just going to become another medium to compete with alongside digital.

>>6591131
>>6591140
I think there's going to be some serious legal labor talks regarding commercial art and AI. Like how would it work for commercially-made visual media like games, movies, ads etc.? What if hypothetically say, A gacha game releases a new character using Shizuma Yoshinori's art in their training databases touched up by one of their employees. It is very reminiscent of Yoshinori's work. Does Yoshinori have a say/capability to take down those works? What if I use Reuben Langdon's voice in an indie game I will be selling soon? What if I feed a database 100 artworks made by my employee a day before he resigns from the job? Its going to be a mess to deal with really, but my point is prepare for a legal shitshow if you're using AI as an output in your commercial works.

>>6591159
Legal battles will be necessary really. Copyright laws will have to be updated. AI will just not poof out of its existence and it will have some actual use cases. I don't necessarily think it will kill the entire freelance market especially considering how different art commissioners are from prompters (paying artists because they really appreciate them, plain ol' good faith etc.).

>>6591159
>We haven't see the effects yet
exactly, yet you make predictions in your first paragraphs.
no one knows what will happen. so far all we have just some second-hand ancedotes from reddit.
>I think going after the models themselves like stable diffusion or MJ is dumb.
nah, makes sense to make life as hard for them as possible.
but in the end I do think the legal/ethic angle will only go so far. the best thing is to just mock AI into oblivion. aesthetically it sucks and is cultural garbage (but so is much of the art it seeks to replace, so ... )

>>6591165
>What if hypothetically say, A gacha game releases a new character using Shizuma Yoshinori's art in their training databases touched up by one of their employees. It is very reminiscent of Yoshinori's work. Does Yoshinori have a say/capability to take down those works? What if I use Reuben Langdon's voice in an indie game I will be selling soon? What if I feed a database 100 artworks made by my employee a day before he resigns from the job? Its going to be a mess to deal with really, but my point is prepare for a legal shitshow if you're using AI as an output in your commercial works.
That would fall under style or ideas which you cannot copyright in the case of "reminiscent of Yoshinori's work".

>I don't necessarily think it will kill the entire freelance market especially considering how different art commissioners are from prompters (paying artists because they really appreciate them, plain ol' good faith etc.).
Art wont ever like go and neither with artists.

Also I'm comming more from the application of art angle and not the, "what is art to you" theory. Art will never go, fine artists will by definition always exists since its aesthetic creation for creation itself.

>>6591175
You can replicate styles down to the smallest detail provided that humans do it. But a machine that can do it on a large scale is a massive gray area. There's going to be legal shit involved. Heck, why are companies hesitant to do such replications in the first place?

So what the hell am I supposed to redraw?

>>6591181
Idk. ever considered mix-matching loras of your favorite artists and using AI's insights as reference for your future art?

>>6591165
This was re-posted in r/stablediffusion earlier. Some of these proompters are real butthurt that companies don't give a shit how nice their generations look and only care that they won't get sued by using output from the picture shitters. No shit. They really thought they were going to waltz into the industry and get their ass kissed for their computer taking mechanically separated artstation slop and pushing it through an extruder. Large companies have entire teams just for making sure they don't get sued for accidentally infringing someone's ip.

>>6591182
Arguably the safest way to go with AI. Imagine the shitshow if Dreamworks started to use training data based on Disney's works.

>>6591182
yeah these retards don't get it. the majority of AIslop won't be copyrightable, limiting IP and any real creative ownership. Their art will be relegated to the online ghettos with bigg tiddie coomers, lmao
Adobe got the 411. They have the first USABLE AI for actual art production. Surprise, a major corp is gonna hold the cards, not muh based OPEN SAUCE Emad coom code.
And yeah, Firefly sucks too. More shit's gonna be retina burning robotic renderfag kitsch, 99% of digital art will look like glossy dildo rainbow shit in about 3 years. But it'll all be legal and above board for Disney and fursonas everywhere.

>>6591191
What if say, we use a human to generate artworks instead of AI?

>>6591191
Isn't the adobe one trained off all it's stock photos plus everything in people's cloud storage? The second part is concerning but yeah they did find a way to legally do it.

>>6591193
>human
novel idea.

>>6591191
Who cares though?
If AI continues to go the route it's going, it will eventually allow for even relatively small teams to build things like big budget video games or films. It will essentially level the playing field in your example, because the little guy now has access to tools which people trying to turn a profit couldn't dream of.
And if you follow that through to its logical conclusion, most popular media will now be non-profit passion projects that make money off of donations, because non-profits that employ AI will muscle out traditional production methods, doubly so if what they're offering is free and high quality.

We're witnessing the democratization of the creative process in a manner as disruptive as the printing press was to the professional calligraphist.

>>6591229
>Who cares though?
the copyright office.
>It will essentially level the playing field in your example
not looking at the current AIslop imagery. easy production just produces slop, AI is based on already derivative digital slop. the truly creative auteur will want to get his hands dirty to make something distinctive. always was and always will be.
>We're witnessing the democratization of the creative process
lmao

>>6591241
>>Who cares though?
>the copyright office.
The point is that it doesn't matter.
>not looking at the current AIslop imagery. easy production just produces slop, AI is based on already derivative digital slop. the truly creative auteur will want to get his hands dirty to make something distinctive. always was and always will be.
You're way too deep in the sauce.
I'm old enough to remember having this exact conversation RE: Drawing tablets and digital art in a Vancouver breakroom circa 1996.
This will become a normalized tool the same way tablets and digital production did.

>>6591243
They matter >>6591182. Corporations are not touching the thing atm and are under scrutiny if they did. Who knows what the future will hold? On one hand a fair use defense might work, on the other maybe it doesn't. Genie might be out of the lamp but the cops are there to check if he's black or just a fat smurf.
>It will essentially level the playing field in your example
I can see more art spam happening in the near future for sure. Up to the people if they will care or not.

>>6591243
You had the same conversation about data scraping and copyright?

>>6591254
I had the same conversation involving 'slop' because believe it or not, it was once upon a time the prevailing opinion that people doing digital art were talentless hack losers, and people would never be interested in the work they produced.
We can see how that turned out, and how well those predictions aged.

>>6591251
Off the top of my head Netflix, Adobe and Microsoft have already invested in and implemented AI in their products so I don't know which corporations you are talking about.

>>6591255
>it was once upon a time the prevailing opinion that people doing digital art were talentless hack losers
what year was this?

>>6591255
Because it turns out you still need artistic critical thinking skills to make digital art. We'll see how it pans out once we outsource the entire creative process to AI (actually just algorithms composed of datasets that may contain copyrighted material)

>>6591261
1996
>>6591266
I think it's going to be a dumpster fire, absolutely. But regardless of whether corporations adopt it or not, it's going to make waves. Look at anime for an example of why this will be too good to not use; for budgetary reasons most series are already forced to use relatively poor quality CGI in order to save man hours/money. (Relatively) poor quality AI animation is still probably a quantum leap forward compared to low budget CGI.

>>6591243
>The point is that it doesn't matter.
How the hell does it not matter? Many artists dream of having their own IP that can be expanded into movies, etc. Why would they use tools that jeopardize that?
>You're way too deep in the sauce.
I'm just scratching the surface.
>RE: Drawing tablets and digital art in a Vancouver breakroom circa 1996
Yeah I'm genx too. And the naysayers were right. Digital created a lot of shit, and the best artists still have at least one foot in trad/analog.
>This will become a normalized tool the same way tablets and digital production did.
Yeah, and Adobe will own it just like they own most of digital. Smart move to make the first 'ethical' model.

>>6591271
If you can be clever with how you use AI, fair enough. I'd enjoy using it to augment myself rather than replace a majority of the creative process, the upscale tool is already godsent for those who do photobashing/repainting. I can imagine a lot of dumb use cases for it and that's probably how it will be for a majority to use AI. Still doesn't mean that people will not scrutinize it in courts.

>>6591271
>1996
If it was the prevailing opinion, there would be evidence of such an opinion.
A minority of dickheads on a bbs are not the prevailing opinion.
even Andy Warhol did digital art.

>>6589889

>>6591277
Get back in your pod, slopcuck.

>>6591272
>How the hell does it not matter? Many artists dream of having their own IP that can be expanded into movies, etc. Why would they use tools that jeopardize that?
They might not, but the thing is - there will always be people who don't care about that. And if those people offer remotely competitive quality for the price of 'free' then that's absolutely going to apply immense pressures onto the people who do care about things being copyrightable, because the market will be saturated with free.
>Yeah I'm genx too. And the naysayers were right. Digital created a lot of shit, and the best artists still have at least one foot in trad/analog.
I agree, but I think that the market pressures are simply too great. The average consumer simply doesn't care where their entertainment comes from unless it's overtly and personally, and offensively political.
>Yeah, and Adobe will own it just like they own most of digital. Smart move to make the first 'ethical' model.
I think we'll see more ethical models. We'll see pirate models that give no fucks. We'll see art farms running out of island nations that don't even pretend to care about copyright. It's all very cyberpunk.
>>6591274
And that's an entirely valid way to look at it. I've just been through this once with digital art, and I remember a lot of coworkers who refused to engage with it for a wide variety of reasons. Plenty of those people are still making art, but they aren't making art at a big production company, because those companies are interested in using the most efficient tools, and a worker who turns up his nose at digital production is a liability. I predict it's probably going to end up the same way with AI assisted production.
>>6591276
All I can give to you is my personal experience working in the industry at a time in which it was a hot topic. There were a lot of people who didn't like it, and even more who didn't want to learn to use it.

nobody owns an art style
art theft does not matter in any consequential way
people are not required to say who inspired them
using ai to generate art for free is cool
getting pissy over someone using your art style, either drawing themselves or using an ai prompt, is just acting like a little bitch
if an artist hides work behind a paywall it is perfectly fine to download and distribute it for free
people are allowed to do whatever the fuck they want with your ocs
the idea of intellectual property is laughable
theft is cool and based

>>6591277
I sure hope I can talk about how much I love the movie titled "Justice Avengers Endgame 2" with my (human) friends! I cannot wait to tell them about that sex scene that features RDJ railing Guy Fieri, I sure hope that happened in their movies!.

>>6591288
>Justice Avengers Endgame 2
nah, I'm tired of cape films right now, I'm just gonna generate "Barn House Blowbang 5 (Feat. Calliope Mori)" instead

>>6591288
Blindsight is a much better look at what the future holds. Heaven is a pseudo-coma with perfect and near seamless virtual reality, in which you will pursue ever deeper, ever more esoteric, ever more hedonistic highs and lows. In which you'll need to subscribe to the storage package which includes artificial muscle stimulation to stave off the effects of extreme atrophy.

>>6591286
>experience working in the industry
What specifically? I can understand if it was animation. I'm more familiar with games industry artists.

>>6591288
>I sure hope that happened in their movies!.
I use a pretty extensive negative prompt to avoid these scenes showing up.

>>6591277
lmao those two oculus bros bringin' back cybering

>>6591296
Outsourced concept and storyboarding art. Some other odds and ends involving prop production and practical effects.
Since you're familiar with game dev, we did a bit of work with Piranha, Radical, and Silicon Knights.
More film related work than games though.

>>6591277
you know you post that wojak response but all I can see is this on why you niggas should be trusted
>y'all literally want to be "game journalism" of the art field
>everythings will be a masterpiece
>ignore those flaws, it will get better
>people putting 4k graphics or higher in prompts
>quality doesn't matter only quantity just shit out the first interaction
>most don't even know how to fix things anyways or notice stuff
>even in your pic "150mil budget sci-fi" slap that buzzword on writing

Excluding the random thing that gets pushed by the algorithm I barely even see people talk or post AI art anymore and these threads are visited by the same handful of anons arguing like bots.
Other than that tranny desperately trying to push AI art I feel like the fad is blowing over and people are way more interested in chatGPT coding than anything else.

>>6591303
storyboards being pencil is still super common today, no real reason to switch...

when did you work on games? 2 of those studios were founded after 1996. Did SK outsource before then? I know legacy of kain had pencil concept art.

>>6591312
>I feel like the fad is blowing over
It is, the rose is off the bloom.
People are becoming disenchanted with the whole AI 'aesthetic.' With Adobe adopting it there will be use in the 'industry,' but artists who want to do anything remotely distinct will ignore it.

>>6591312
chatGPT hallucinates too much to be trusted for anything serious
god-tier at writing erotica/simulating ERP though

>>6591229
>We're witnessing the democratization of the creative process in a manner as disruptive as the printing press was to the professional calligraphist.
Some people actually believe that lmao
Stop being a lazy piece of shit already, nothing worthwile ever comes without effort and even if this tech did what you say it does that fact will not change

>>6591320
>he rose is off the bloom.

>>6591312
Yes its obvious
I repeated it a million times, none gives a shit about someone elses generated dogshit, it only has some perceived value if its "your" generated dogshit and even there its so limited and derivative in what it can do that people stop giving a fuck after a while.
The only people making money off this are grifters like these corridor guys pretending they revolutionized animation while shilling paid courses or 3rd worlders on Etsy passing AI vomit as handmade art.
Tech cucks got dazzled by gpt because it can write code well so they are led to believe that new tech can be applied equally to literally everything else, and people are now abusing their sheer ignorance selling them snake oil. They are trying to sell solutions to issues that do not exist by using dumb clunky AI shit in oblique ways. No, google doesnt need gpt4 for its search engine and would on.fact become worse because of it, but you bet your ass the faggots behind it are still gonna try their hardest to make it a thing

>>6591395
The levels of copium on /ic/ are off the charts.
Which is it? If so unappealing then why would you care how it's trained or any ethical issues to begin with?
In otherwords we are at the barganing stage here.

>>6591175
It's not a grey area, it's outright copyright violation.

> You can't copyright a style
But you absolutely can copyright the pictures the AI is being trained to replicate.

It all boils down to, did the people using the AI had the license to use the images to train? Because is not any different from reproductions on other medium, printing for sales or exhibition for advertising.

I feel CC will have to make a new license soon, CC-NoAI because is not that hard to understand the issue here.

>>6591426
>can copyright the pictures the A
Adobe and the other SV companies own the IP they use to train their models. Did you read the terms when you signed up to upload images? No? Too bad.

>>6591426
>But you absolutely can copyright the pictures the AI is being trained to replicate.
Ofcourse you can copyright images you created. It still boils down to fair use becuase one again no AI uses that material in any rasterized or bitmap form. It would be like going after google images for displaying artwork in their results. That not a valid case.

I should mention any "opt out" ai models do so as a courtesy to artists and by no means hold any legal weight. Also you can still train AI on existing works without an associated tag which once again is fair use.
Tick tock drawslaves

>>6591422
It's trained unethically, it's also shit. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
Adobe Firefly is (more?) ethical. Aesthetically it's still shit.
I don't care, I'm just here to mock AI for the lulz.

>>6591426
>It all boils down to, did the people using the AI had the license to use the images to train?
But do they need it? Most legal experts seem to think they don't,

>>6591443
>Also you can still train AI on existing works without an associated tag which once again is fair use.
AIggers sure love putting the cart ahead of the ox. There is no legal precedent regarding that, it is still not decided whether or not it is fair use in any country.

>>6591422
>this gnat cant kill you bro why are you trying to swat it it just wants to get some of ur blood lol no biggie
Blame just how supremely annoying and entitled AIggers such as yourself have been acting for the last 6 months. No fucking shit people are going to react with that much hype and fearmongering around AI.

>>6591448
>There is no legal precedent
We got a bunch of Brett Cavanaughs on /ic.

>>6591277
>150mil budget sci-fi action thriller
lmao sounds about right for AIbros, it's not like the next Kubrick or Tarantino will be using this shit.
The first wojack is right.
>It's not art!!!

>>6591454
You're the one who brought up fair use you retarded roach. Go ahead and find me an example of court ruling AI training being considered fair use. So far, there is none, so stop spouting dumb shit and misinformation to shill garbage.

>>6591448
The ultimate hot take
Is the anti "AI" art crowd is reactionary and most of their arguments are based in the idea of intelectual property, the only valid criticism of "AI" art is an economical one but this one is an extreme cope not unlike other technogical disruptions in other industries.
Fundamentally it all comes back to the idea you can copyright an art style as opposed to individual pieces of art. Which I'm sorry artfreds.. you can't do.

>>6591460
Yet, at least if done by a machine

>>6591460
Cheats and frauds have always been looked down upon. Even if they manage to squeeze some money out of it AI niggers will never be respected due to their inherently parasitic nature.

>>6591460
okay but (you) can copyright individual pictures which are then fed into your binary data laundering wood chipper which, no matter how hard you try to make it a thing, does not learn like a real human bean and is in no way comparable to human learning and subjectively interpreting art.

>>6591464
>Still believing ML/AI is some sort of Ecoding or compression scheme.
This is point of cope where artists go full retard.

>>6591470
Do what you must. It will get regulated to hell and back

>>6591473
>It will get regulated to hell and back
It will get litigated to hell and back. Adobe has lawyers and you signed over your rights when you uploaded the image.

>>6591470
I never said anything of the sort. I know how it functions and that it doesnt ashktually store anything. But it still trains exclusively on finite datasets of copyrightable pictures and it is still not remotely comparable to human learning and interpretation.
Feel free to stop your poor deflecting attempts and fuck off back to your usual /g/ tranny programmer socks thread now.

>>6591470
>This is point of cope where artists go full retard.
Next step in the cope will be "but there were pictures of children used in the training".

>>6591165
Artstyle can't be copyrighted or owned by someone

>>6591251
Disney has been touching AI for a few years now

>>6591276
The internet is still open to you, use google, limit date, search for digital art on forums and blogs that are still alive

>Ai trannies spinning the same arguments they did back in October
It really is just bots isn't it?

>>6591512
Styles should be in the AI internet age copyrightable.
It's basically identity theft when you think about it (copying a style).

>>6591520
Too Many Requests In 1 Hour Try Again Later.

>>6591521
Not sure that is a good idea, one person can have many styles, and a patent troll could try copyright 100 styles. There might be a tangential idea that works though, how about, training LoRA on an artist and labeling the LoRA with the artists name is a crime.

>>6591521
RIP Anime style, RIP corporate style, RIP comic style

>>6591524
*a crime like revenge porn, because it's one way AI-fags get their kicks. Just use the AI as it is you chuds! use a blend, but please do not use my name alone!

>>6591460
I didn't care for AI shit, it looked awful from the start and it is still awful.
I cared when AIfags started shitting and spamming on pixiv (and every other art site) and larping as artists.
Not long after, you also started seeing those same AI retards using demoralization tactics, trying to scam people and a desperate want for validation for the peers they shit on.

>>6592006
>Not long after, you also started seeing those same AI retards using demoralization tactics, trying to scam people and a desperate want for validation for the peers they shit on.
They learned from the best, they learned from artists.

>>6592194
Oh boo hoo did some meanie artist reject your autistic porn request? Poor baby.

>Censoring nipples on a red board
Retard.

>>6592310
Uncensored furry is banned on all but /b/ and /trash/.

I said I abandoned this thread. but.....screw it. Here is a huggable sumo doggo and a handsome sumo foxxo

>>6590872
Probably because it reminds them of those mobile app games with porn in them or the shitty ads on Youtube vids that Jewtube is ok showing to kids but not when creators make original OC themselves.

>>6591277
>unironically entering the pod.

>>6592459
>sent from a computer
such a weak luddite

>>6589889
>>6592417
>supposed to be a thread to lets fix AI pieces
>instead derails into whinning and faggotry from both sides.

You guys stink.

>>6592485
There's no fixing an AI "piece" because it is inherently tainted

>>6591159
>animation
lol, lmao

>>6591460
Fundamentally it all comes back to the idea you can copyright an art style as opposed to individual pieces of art. Which I'm sorry artfreds.. you can't do.
ainiggers are abusing a cool toy so much they will bring legislation of the sort

>>6591470
it is, with extra steps, you just launder it further. laundering is a good word for it

>>6592485
I know right. Its stuff like this that makes me think that Reddit furries have more standards and priorities straight.