/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Real artists will always have grounds to argue that their work is original.
AIshitters will never be able to, because everything "they" "make" is inherently based on the direct input of works of other artists.

>>6668200
>this commercialism trumps creativity
being a parasitic leech that needs the source image in order to be "creative" isnt creativity

sirs… was it redeemed?

>>6668213
It's not just "based upon" in a vague or general sense, or in any way like how a human artist does either. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, that an image generator can produce is the images it was trained upon and all possible interpolations between said images. In a metaphorical sense, it's like they took everyone's art and photographs, ground them up, and stuffed it full of fillers like some cheap meat product. It's disgusting, an absolute affront to art itself.

>>6668200
This doesn't affect artists as much as you think it does... unless you actually think AI shitters are artists. It's easy not to be a plagiarizing prick.

>>6668200
I can't believe that they're trying to construe this as somehow limiting free expression when this was literally just preventing the Andy Warhol foundation from licensing out a work to make money off of that had another artist's work in it. This ruling prevents scammers and parasites from ripping your art and selling it on t-shirts, not destroying MUH FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, MUH FREEZE PEACH, MUH CRITICISM
It's absolutely nauseating how completely dishonest that these parasites are. It's like they're all lies, all the way down, without even a mote of truth inside them. Truly vile people.

KEK this is actual paragraphs AInigger seethe. good to know these thieving parasites are scared.

>>6668200

I would have no problem if ia doesn't rely solely on the data to shit out pretty images.

Credit
Consent
Compensation

Do all 3 then we'll talk.

>>6668458
If you(a human) tried to make drawings without using references or learning from other artists you would never get anywhere close to leaving /beg/, let alone make something commercially viable or good enough to put on patreon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CAlo0IU-UI

>>6668462
Oh look, it's this retarded straw man again.

>>6668465
you know it's true

>>6668462
Why exactly do you "AI" niggas need to specify being human as if your not one yourselves

>>6668469

>>6668213
>>6668227
>>6668269
>>6668274
Nothing is original, everything is a copy of something else. This is not a wild concept.

mmmm salty tears are yummy nummy.

>>6668462

So you've studied the human brain and found proof? Are you a neuroscientist? Do you have a paper on this?

Have you tried studying like a human and produce the same thing that your image gen shits out?

No?

>>6668476
Mark twain posted about it on his substack in 1870 and he's one of the most prolific writers in history

pajeet having a mental breakdown itt

>>6668478
I only have the way my brain and the brain of every artist I've ever seen as testimony so this might not be reliable information but yes.

If you were locked in a room for your whole life and didn't see anything outside, and then someone asked you to draw a salamander, how would they draw it? Where would they even begin? You would have to explain to them what a lizard is, then its shape, then what a tail is, then its shape, then its tongue shape, then etc etc, you would need to give that person more and more information about what it is.

>>6668200
I don't think the bacon painting is a good example of this, it's extremely different to the reference, the warhol paintings were basically the prince photo with a filter on

>>6668509
character on the right looks like every boss fight in an abandoned cemetary in a WRPG

>>6668462
and that has nothing to do with AI

>>6668200
to be fair it's shitty that as of now the only way to limit AI image generation is stricter copyright laws because they impact every kind of artistic media. I'd argue they damage "Normal" artists way more than AI.
I mean, i'm definitely against copyright, i pirate vidya and draw copyrighted characters fucking each other and stuff, /ic/ and artists in general were never so obsessed with copyright and fair use before the recent developments.
I hope it's just a temporary solution before specific laws for AI are made, in EU they're already starting more specific regulation with the AI act

>>6668476
>everything is a copy of something else.
Creativity is not a copy, but a combination, an amalgam.
Tarantino's Pulp Fiction is a good example. Many of its elements are taken from earlier movies and crime fiction, but combined in a way that was novel.
In any case, even when artists copy, that's not the same as companies pillaging the collective work of artists throughout history for their AI models. That distinction shouldn't be difficult to discern.

>>6668558
That's what the guy you're replying to is arguing? He's not saying everything is a 1-1 copy and I don't think anyone says it, it's an amalgamation of several things being copied in a new and fun way.

Also, there is pretty little distinction, maybe the only difference arguable is speed, but we would never say "you've learned too much from too many people so it's plagiarism"

>>6668551
Human have abided copyright law for decades, there are no reason for a automated thievery machine invested by Jews be an exception.

>>6668586
It's very unlikely that most of the generative AIs are going to be considered copyright infringement solely because they learned from copyrighted works.

Most likely they will say the generated works themselves are illegal if they are sold for money and infringe on copyright ie you can't sell Macklemore singing a public domain song and you can't sell yourself singing Thrift Shop, but you CAN sell yourself singing a public domain song or a completely original music piece you made or generated.

>>6668200
The fact that AI is an amalgamation of images is a violation of copyright prima facie. I find it hard to believe that any of the original art created by artists being pillaged by ai art generators are being 1. notified with the proper ability to consent and 2. being compensated for works that are generated and sold (or that may lead to business generation such as being promoted, liked, shared, etc.) based on the individual pieces of art that made-up the final product.

Music that is created with a similar beat or rhythm legally requires both compensation and consent from the original musician so it seems that art is just following that same trend as well. Seethe and cope AI-tards.

>>6668661
what i wonder is how are they going to approach damage that is already done (stable diffusion)

>>6668668
remove economic incentive (you can play with it but trying to sell it gets you fined), get the responsible CEOs sued into oblivion as well as the so-called non-profit organizations

>>6668520
and that's a good thing

>>6668200
How would someone commenting on or comparing works not be protected by fair use under these changes? Sounds like this guy is just doom posting.

>>6668476
Yeah, when it's made by humans, when it's made by machine it's just uncreative sludge.

>>6668661
It's not, because of fair use. You can't prevent someone from using your art in fair use for any reason, even disney has the clause "Anyone wishing to use any Materials for any purpose /other than fair use/", you simply can't prevent it and abolishing fair use has even worse implications than AI art.

>>6668661
Regarding your music point, its a lot more nuanced than that, anon. If it can be proven in court that the sampling was NOT de minimis the original artist/plaintiff can win a monetary award. However, a simple beat grouping or chord progression is so common that it is not really possible to win in a lawsuit. See the recent Ed Sheeran court case.

>>6668476
try looking at the actual court case you fuck, they just stole his image and barely did anything to it

>>6668668
I think it'd be hard to argue for in court at least, because it's a broader public policy issue that would probably best be left to legislation. I doubt legislation would allow for retro-active damage control. There could be potential issues where an AI image (post legislation) uses elements of an older AI image that drew on other images.

I am surprised the SCC would be willing to make a decision regarding this issue, especially considering the novelty of the issue and the potential far-reaching consequences. I would have expected a reserved decision and a note for the legislature to hurry-up and bring in some form of regulation.

>>6668689
IDK man, I think it moves out of 'fair use' when it comes to (broadly speaking) monetary consequences. That's profiting off of other's people's work. It's clearly a violation of copyright and insidious plagiarism. I think the courts would be warm to this argument.

I don't have a problem, however, with personal use (similar to how people copy works by old masters), teaching and other such things. I believe that's more in line with the spirit of 'fair use' arguments. I doubt Disney would allow an artist to copy Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck and allow them to re-brand and make money off of it without consequences. Implications be damned if a mega-corporation like Disney stands to lose money desu.

>>6668717
I think multiple pieces of COMPLETED works of art being used in the generation of an AI image could easily be seen as beyond de minimis.
A grouping of individuals' extensive labour went into each of the final pieces that were then amalgamated and passed off as an original product for profit.

What, however, is ' beyond de minimis' in terms of AI art? Idk, but lawyers are probably in line to make a lot of money off of artists arguing over this.

>>6668689
>muh fair use
I am so, so sick of you cargo cultist, algorithm worshipping, room temperature IQ roaches repeating the same talking points over and over even though it's been soundly refuted time and again. Fair use is an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE against an accusation of copyright infringement, and it has to meet certain criteria for the judge to rule it as such. It is NOT an intrinsic right given to every derivative work carte blanche.
Who am I kidding, though, even when you get refuted into the center of the planet you'll quietly retreat and come right back the next thread making the exact same arguments as if it never happened, because you're all lying, subhuman roaches in human skin.

>>6668766
>>6668788
There really isn't a path to it, using fair use to learn from copyrighted art, THEN to create your own transformative or unique thing gives you enough of a separation that you can monetize it.

An easy example is if I were to learn a ton from Junji Ito's comics and styles and then made my own distinct character in a distinct universe, ie attack of the demonic crabs, they would not be able to sue.

And then you consider that it's never happened that someone sued for stealing the artstyle, only for tracing it 1 to 1 and selling it like with andy warhol, and that proving artstyle theft is very very difficult and it looks even more of a challenge.

>>6668906
is this kind bad faith arguing the result of a lack of intelligence or malicious intent?

>no one's been accused of plagiarism
If this guy had claimed he used AI for this job, he could have saved his thousands dollar contract with WotC lmao

>>6668906
That isn't how fair use works, fucking hell. And even if there were such a convenient little loophole, do you actually think multinational multibillion companies with IPs to protect would allow for that to continue?

AI in its current iteration that's got everyon freaking out has been around for what, 1 year? 2 years? And now the ball is rolling to get some serious shackles on AI and AI monetization/copyrighting beyond what already existed in the first place. For the government, that is LIGHTNING fast.

>>6668917
ctrl C + ctrl V is not transformative, AI is

>>6668920
That is absolutely how it works bro, you learn from it, you transform it, and then it's yours not theirs, any other way would dramatically lower the copyright bar and lead to copyright quagmire where if something is somewhat similar to another thing they can claim copyright and like 80% of comics disappear.

>>6668906
>muh can't steal/copyright an artstyle

>>6668938
No. Part of the fair use factors the court considers is whether the person claiming fair use is going to commercialize the their product and whether it will participate in the same product field and possibly compete against the original owner.

You don't get to get access to copyrighted material under fair use and then use that to generate commercialized work to then compete against the same artist, because the ultimate fruit of the product is the original fair use claim. How fucking stupid do you think the courts are that they wouldn't look backwards or that this process won't come out in legal discovery?

>>6668940
There's a limit to that. If something is transformative enough, even if it was made from learning original artwork or original style, you CAN claim that it is your own creation and win even if it's competing with the original artist.

The logical extreme of what you're saying would just be that making new horror manga(that isn't completely and absolutely different in every way) isnt allowed because it would compete with Junji Ito's works.

>>6668476
Humans invent new things all the time. Each art movement in history is an innovation from the previous. Anime came from Disney, and Disney came from Kley / McCay

>>6668906
And again, you're straight up ignoring any posts in this thread posing solid arguments as to why your position of the algorithm lEaRniNg LIkE a hUmAn or that interpolating between images is the same as iNsPirATioN is complete and utter horseshit. Nothing but intellectual dishonesty and straight up baldfaced lies with you vermin. Kill yourself.

>>6668923
>transformative
Yeah, in the way that photobashing or tracing is "transformative".
Actually, unironically kill yourself in real life

>>6668957
>>6668964
>It isn't transformative or learning because ummmmmm, it just isn't ok

>>6668970
You will never be an artist.

Jesus fuck you artists are insufferable. Just stop tracing shit that isn't yours.

>>6668970
Machine learning has nothing to do with how humans learn. Retarded tech monkeys don't even know the tech they worship.

>>6668493
>You would have to explain to them what a lizard is, then its shape, then what a tail is, then its shape, then its tongue shape, then etc etc,
This could be used to describes dragons as well, which is something that no one has ever seen because dragons aren't real, and is something
humans have created art of for thousands of years across multiple different countries with vastly different cultures. A computer however could not come up with a dragon, because it only has it's limited information on lizards, so humans and computer are not similar at all.

>>6669030
it's a pointless debate to begin with as the so-called AI is 1)not human 2)not sentient 3) not spontaneously recombinating elements

>>6668917
I'm not sure if that would fly, unless you throw a composite in img2img and put the denoising at 0.1, ai doesn't cut-and-paste the same way a person can, which was clearly Felix's method for Crux of Fate.

>>6669030
That was going to be my next example, you could make a computer make a dragon, simply tell it to make a lizard, then make it bigger, than make it breathe fire, then tell it to add wings to it, all things it almost certainly has learned of.

It could make a Mermaid, just take a human, and make its lower body that of a fish.

It could make a Ghoul, just take a human, make it emaciated, smaller, hunched over, noseless, and skeletal.

It could make a gleepglorp(a fictional being I just made up), just let it make a ball with a mouth, add eyestalks to it(from snails), a gaping maw, spider legs, four arms, and a spiked tail.

You can totally make AI make things that are completely new, it just depends on the wishes of the person making it.

>>6668462
Humans can learn to draw on exclusively public domain and purpose made didactic material.
AI couldn't produce shit until they spent three years committing massive art theft.

>>6669089
>You can totally make AI make things that are completely new, it just depends on the wishes of the person making it.
But then that's not the AI creating something, that's the human creating
something. Which is different to the original argument of how humans and computers learn in similar ways, which can't be true if AI couldn't make a dragon without being given preexisting information, which is something humans can do.

>>6669132
everything I described in the post you're replying to is public domain or things you can see with your eyeballs but sure

>>6669145
You can't make a dragon if I don't tell you what a dragon looks like and don't give you any information as to what it looks like.

For example, I want you to draw an Aterpath. I will not give you any information as to what it looks like. Can you draw it? Is there any way the idea of what an Aterpath looks like in my head will be the same as the idea in your head?

>>6668605
>It's very unlikely that most of the generative AIs are going to be considered copyright infringement solely because they learned from copyrighted works.
It's very likely when some chucklefuck trains an animation Ai off the entire Disney and Pixar catalog.

>>6669021
It's been fun watching people reeee over this decision and saying art shouldn't be copyrighted. Not just redditors but also people on LinkedIn with their real name and picture attached to their profile. It's all a bunch of wrinkly middle aged and near-retirement fucks who peddle NFTs.

>>6668970
Wow a skull with HR giger crap all over it with digital render monkey lighting! Wow! We never saw this before Ai existed!

>>6668200
>reddit ludditrannies keep seething

great artists steal
greater artists download terrabytes of images to make thousands of models to generate trillions of images to sell for ten bucks a piece to get money to buy thousands of gpus to make millions of models to generate zillions of images to crash the world economy because ai trannies think their slop has value

>>6669159
>You can't make a dragon if I don't tell you what a dragon looks like and don't give you any information as to what it looks like.
Western dragons and Eastern dragons look incredibly different. If you weren't told that these were the same creature you would never guess.Which leads into your next point:
>For example, I want you to draw an Aterpath. I will not give you any information as to what it looks like. Can you draw it? Is there any way the idea of what an Aterpath looks like in my head will be the same as the idea in your head?
Yes. I could draw it. because I, a human, have the capability to apply concepts that have nothing to do with each other or maybe even ones that do and create something that's never been seen before. It most likely won't look like what you would think an Aterpath looks because we are two separate people who have their own thoughts about what an Aterpath should be, unlike AI were if you gave it the exact same information to multiple computers would come up with the same thing every time no matter what.

>>6668476
t. Godless parasite.

>>6668462
AI takes existing works and rearranges it.

A true artist taps into human memories and shared concepts and can make commentary on recent events through careful arrangement. An artist may call upon their knowledge of TV, pop culture, history, nature or just every day life and make art that reflects that.
All the AI sees is a bunch of lines and colors which it uses to try and hit a point score of "yes, this image is 90% desert and 50% red and 80% sand" yet it never stops to ask what emotions and ideas it's tapping into. If you don't tap into those emotions someone won't say "Wow, I get it! I wonder if my friends get the same feeling, too!" and share that art.

You will never be an artist. You will always be a grifter, the same as every NFT and Crypto scammer. You will never learn the joys of hard work, only the bottomless misery of NEETdom and wageslavery.

>>6669405
when you're saying human memory and shared concepts and nature and understanding and all that genuinely good stuff, you're just saying "humans have more data, humans have more data", it's not the magical experience you think it is and very often to the end-user aka the person looking at your art, it could be unnoticable.

Also, there IS still a human behind the machine. Most of the shared feelings or intended response you would get from an artwork are there from the AI artwork too, not a whole lot of people are spending huge amounts of time making unlikeable and unrelatable and unimpressive content, or if they do they keep it to themselves because there's no point in posting it at all.

>>6669449
how can a human have more data? humans can create a lot of stuff from very little data because they have understanding, self awareness and the capability to self criticize
>it's not the magical experience you think it is
scientists do not even understand how the human mind works, the surface has not even be scratched, but you go on and say "it's not a big deal". lol ok
>Also, there IS still a human behind the machine
someone who gives commands, not a creator

>>6668476
>>6668462
I'll give you the pure and honest definition as to why AI is not art

First off: Copyright is exclusively for HUMANS - not animals or machine
Secondly: AI is a machine and therefore holds 0 rights to authorship
Third: Machine also cannot be made accountable for any crime. As such, all accountability falls on the human that controls it

You are a human that stole copyrighted materials. This makes you liable to copyright strike regardless of how elaborate the machine modifies the result

Your argument over how the brain works or whatever is a moot point

You want the machine to have authorship?
Fucking modify it with your own hands

AIshitters never argue from a place of good intention. It boils down to "current law never accounted for these, and as such we've found a way to use your own works against you, and we'll mock you if you take any offense to the practice."

>>6669457
It would be extremely difficult and time consuming for any human to make something if they have very limited information and visual library.

If you've been trapped in a room and only saw yourself in the mirror your whole life, you have a whole universe to recreate out of your own head. You would need to create cats, dogs, sheep, buildings, mythical creatures, electricity, computers, other people, anatomic systems, and a whole slew of many many many things that you have not seen, it's entirely possible, you can definitely imagine all this stuff, but it would probably take you decades.

You need to have at least some baseline of information of the world around you that you can warp and change and alter and learn from or you're going to be spending tens of years learning what 2 year old children learn.

Also, if you can create things this way, I can just tell an AI "make this but bigger, make this but hairier, make this but longer, make this but more cubic" etc forever and get everything that exists after enough iterations.

>>6669506
Sorry, but current AI doesn't work that way. There's a good reason it needs hundreds of thousands of images.

>>6669538
That's because recreating the universe through sheer imagination and iteration is a retarded idea for both humans and for robots, do you have any idea how long it would take for a human or even for a hundred humans trapped in a room to recreate the universe if they've never seen it, that would be stupid. Just use the information available to you and don't be so prideful.

>>6669506
>>6669548
> Just use the information available to you and don't be so prideful.
People have done this before AI you stupid faggot.

>>6669579
yes and the guy im replying to is arguing that using information available to you is not necessary, but imo it's pretty fucking necessary so you dont spend 200 years trying to recreate the universe, like I guess you COULD do it, in the same way you could drink the ocean one cup at a time

>>6669592
The difference is that humans understand the world and learn about it conceptually while AI only replicates visual patterns. It has no idea what a hand actually is. That's why we can come up with stuff we haven't seen.

the main reason i am against ai is that dalits shouldn't have any power. and as things seem to be going, they wont have any, and that's a good thing. return home and do your duties.

>>6669701
>t. brahmin hands typed this

>>6669548
>don't be so prideful
>j-just shut up and be happy that some schmuck used your art to create a program to shit out knockoffs of your work!

>>6669483
I love how you think art is only related to borderline mindless law bullcrap. You are Jewish aren't you?

>>6669730
Yeah, I'm opposed to it entirely on ethical grounds, just like the tracers who came before them.

>>6669741
You aren't an ethical person if you're opposed to art being more accessible. You are a Jew.

>>6669743
>he doesn't know
You realize the team behind SD was led by a guy who worships a communist Jew, right?

>>6669749
Who worships who? How is that in any way relevant?

>>6669743
I don't really understand how you pedal that argument when the barrier to entry for drawing is a pencil and a piece of paper vs, a computer with a decent graphics card to be able to gacharoll at a decent rate. Not to mention, if we're talking about "art" in general, somehow the niche of specific styles of art that are high quality trained off of the images of skilled artists is conveniently the "art" you want to make more accessible. It's honestly kind of pathetic the types of justification that come from it for a quick buck off of other people's works. Not to mention, the irony of trying to call others not ehtical for the cock sucking of a guy who hates artists in general like emad. He also lied about the origins of stability's development trying to pitch for funding and we're talking about ethical for some reason now? Grow up

>>6669768
The barrier to entry for creating the kind of good art that people want is a lot more than doodling with a pencil like idiots like you do. You only need an internet connection to generate art too, you don't have to do it locally. Dunno what the rest of your post is trying to say. Strawman arguments and vendettas I don't care about.

>>6669730
If you believe that you are an artist, why don't you use the right tags?

>>6669772
>I'm entitled to use your work... because I just am OK???
Are you a commie?

>>6669772
More power to you, at least you admit it is just that top of the top you want without the work. Even barring the consideration of the actual artist's art in that training data used, it's just the epitome of hypocrisy.

Also, generating the thousands of images needed to get that one close enough to what you needed is something you need to do locally if you really are committed to it, but I digress.

It's pretty obvious you're arguing in bad faith the moment I bring up something pretty blatant in morality from Emad it's a strawman. You can argue whatever you want but you shouldn't even be touching ethics when you're deflecting so hard about the issues around it.

>>6669775
I do.

>>6669776
You use reference too, how do you think you learned anything? Your argument is retarded.

>>6669778
It's anything you want, not just the crap you make and think is so important. No one even trained on the art that would come from here, there are algorithms to remove garbage like that from the training data.

>>6669778
Also I dunno why you need to be local to do that, it's faster if you use cloud services.
>It's pretty obvious you're arguing in bad faith the moment I bring up something pretty blatant in morality from Emad it's a strawman. You can argue whatever you want but you shouldn't even be touching ethics when you're deflecting so hard about the issues around it.
I said I don't know what you're talking about.

>>6669792
>You use reference too, how do you think you learned anything? Your argument is retarded.

If you're trying to say code has the agency and autonomy to "learn" and use reference like a human you're arguing in bad faith once again. There's a reason we designate human authorship to humans only and not machines/code.

>It's anything you want, not just the crap you make and think is so important.

Again you're backtracking but regardless I can see that you just don't value the skill of art so it's pretty fruitless to continue on with this. Best of luck to you I hold no ill will either.

>>6669794
>I said I don't know what you're talking about.

That's a copout, if you're talking morality and ethics you don't just get to pass judgment on others and shy away when it doesn't reflect nicely on your own argument. At least have some balls if you're gonna argue and try to put down the people here.

>it's another shitskin yelling at the very people whose droppings he's feeding on in order to churn out his images

>>6669799
>If you're trying to say code has the agency and autonomy to "learn" and use reference like a human
It doesn't? What is training a model?
>here's a reason we designate human authorship to humans only and not machines/code.
To protect sources of income, but the world is quickly changing.

>Again you're backtracking but regardless I can see that you just don't value the skill of art
I'm not backtracking but you're not exactly wrong. I value artistry and storytelling but the craft was never important to me and AI is just another tool for artists to use, a much better tool that what we've had before.

>>6669801
Again, you're making strawman arguments and have a vendetta against some guy. I don't care and I have no idea what you are trying to say.

>>6669819
Do you consider tracing the same thing as using references?

>>6669827
>tracing
No point replying to someone trudging through his own shit trying to make a point.

>>6669819
>It doesn't? What is training a model?

That's the point, there is no learning like a human, bringing up the comparison to a human utilizing reference to learn at that point doesn't even make sense like you said.

>I'm not backtracking but you're not exactly wrong. I value artistry and storytelling but the craft was never important to me and AI is just another tool for artists to use, a much better tool that what we've had before.

I'll change my view for when I see AI models actually being used as tools. The only thing I've seen is an image produced as the endpoint. That's not a tool it's merely automating away and devaluing the process. Rather than the artistry or storytelling, as long as you get the end product it doesn't matter it seems

>Again, you're making strawman arguments and have a vendetta against some guy. I don't care and I have no idea what you are trying to say.

And again, you were caught calling out others being unethical yet you're championing the very thing built on unethicality with the CEO being caught lying to investors on the origins of the product you're using. You can choose not to care but your words don't mean much at that point since you're arguing in bad faith. Not sure how many times you need it to be dumbed down, the strawman quip is getting pretty stupid since you can't seem to move the conversation along and retract it.

>>6669838
You use train a model using your references. What you want to see more of.
>I'll change my view for when I see AI models actually being used as tools. The only thing I've seen is an image produced as the endpoint. That's not a tool it's merely automating away and devaluing the process.
You're just arguing semantics like an idiot. It's a tool however you use it. Whether you're using a pencil with your foot or hand or whether you're fast or slow at it, you're still drawing. Prompting using an AI art tool is creating art. Period.

>And again, you were caught calling out others being unethical yet you're championing the very thing built on unethicality
I explained myself and there's nothing unethical about SD. Please stop talking about some random guy, I do not care about your impotent rage. Stay on topic.

>>6669856
If I google some art, using google as a tool, and claim an image I pull from it as "my art" and put my signature on it, is that creating art?

>>6669743
>>6669768
If a stack of paper and pencils are too much work for you, literally go do something else.

>>6668200
State too strong starts to suffocate and we are giving the State this power: "police this!", "police that!", "i will sue you!", "take away the guns!", "that should be illegal!", "State make laws to this", "State make laws to that!".
Even when sounding reasonable like "Make laws to cripple AI", it's a bad claim. Strong State is ALWAYS bad. We need to grow a pair and bear some burden, holding each other hands! Feeling the pain of our neighbor not the pain of a minority out of our reality! Wishing the convenient State to take our freedom as payment to take action in our behalf is just bad.

>>6669856
>You use train a model using your references. What you want to see more of.

Right, cause the model lacks agency, it doesn't learn like a human. There's a difference when we're talking about the purpose of a reference and what that means for a model that's fed the data vs a human.

>You're just arguing semantics like an idiot. It's a tool however you use it. Whether you're using a pencil with your foot or hand or whether you're fast or slow at it, you're still drawing. Prompting using an AI art tool is creating art. Period.

You just said it yourself didn't you, the process is drawing vs using the model to create it? You can argue semantics all you want but it's not like you'll ever refute the idea even if the model does all of the work in the end? Anything can be considered "art" just like photography or taking a shit depending on the person. As long as generative AI is separated as a category within the "art" framework like photography or calligraphy and away from drawing/painting then it's fine.

I explained myself and there's nothing unethical about SD. Please stop talking about some random guy, I do not care about your impotent rage. Stay on topic.

>You aren't an ethical person if you're opposed to art being more accessible. You are a Jew.

Projecting doesn't do anything in this situation, not sure if you're just that retarded but again please don't bring up the topic of ethics when you fail to address the topic of using something unethical and shouting at others your insecurities about it.

>>6669880
Stop you're gonna kill him

>>6669856
>>6669889
>Impotent rage bot
>Samefagging

>>6669880
Yes.

>>6669886
No one's making laws to "cripple AI"
We are just enforcing laws to protect copyrighted assets from thieves

You want to make AI art? Feed it with your own art

>>6669044
>ai doesn't cut-and-paste the same way a person can
But isn't the sales pitch for AI that it "literally learns like a person does" or that definition simply changes whenever it's more convenient for AIBros?
Also, your example doesn't work nor it applies here, sticking a "real" face on a picture is common practice, given how there's a trend with things like motion capture for faces or just basing a fictional character's looks on the looks of a model or actor.

>>6669886
retard, all that needs to change is for AI companies to recognize laws already in place. there's no need to change much at all, just to clarify any loopholes.

>>6668923
>AI is
Not

>>6669952
Don't you get it? AI generations are actually *more* ethical than human-made art.

>>6669930
>We are just enforcing laws to protect copyrighted assets from thieves
Same thing.
AI should just suffer ban from community, competitions, etc. Not a law that takes it's ability to learn.
Wasn't copyright jewish bs before AI?
The one that goes public has onus and bonus on the table.

>>6669978
Being banned from private events is not a ban on the tech.

Go make your AI event

>>6669981
Thats actually what i defend. So feed the machine, just don't allow it on human events. We don't need laws to that!

>>6669990
Feed it with your own art
Our art would require our permission

>>6669991
onus bonus

>>6669889
>Right, cause the model lacks agency, it doesn't learn like a human. There's a difference when we're talking about the purpose of a reference and what that means for a model that's fed the data vs a human.
This is completely irrelevant and pedantic. You train a model and use it to what you want to do.

>You just said it yourself didn't you, the process is drawing vs using the model to create it? You can argue semantics all you want but it's not like you'll ever refute the idea even if the model does all of the work in the end? Anything can be considered "art" just like photography or taking a shit depending on the person. As long as generative AI is separated as a category within the "art" framework like photography or calligraphy and away from drawing/painting then it's fine.
So... it's fine. It's a genre of illustration, yes.

>Projecting doesn't do anything in this situation, not sure if you're just that retarded but again please don't bring up the topic of ethics when you fail to address the topic of using something unethical and shouting at others your insecurities about it.
I said a fact and you went off on a random tangent unrelated to that fact. You are a Jew, yes.

>>6670074
nta but
>This is completely irrelevant and pedantic
it is the very crux of the debate upon which AI-generated pictures' legal status hinges.
>It's a genre of illustration
who's drawing?

>>6670131
>legal status
Couldn't care less.
>who's drawing?
You don't need to draw to create pictures.

>>6670132
>Couldn't care less.
then cry more about not being considered an artist.
>You don't need to draw to create pictures.
>dodging the implied question
fine, who manipulates the medium?

We artist use models we find on internet, don't they also have rights to theyr image? Or do you guys only use paid models?

>>6670183
IDK though real quick are you trying to sell them at all or use them commercially in anyway or is it just of personal use

>>6670170
>then cry more about not being considered an artist.
lol what kind of retort is this?
>fine, who manipulates the medium?
What are you trying to say here? You asked a dumb question and I informed you that illustration is more than drawing.

>>6670195
> what kind of retort is this?
if you don't care about how AI pictures are being defined then stop trying to debate it.
>What are you trying to say here?
acting dumb? you seem determined to take things literally and not one step further I chose to amend my question as you try to avoid to answer, like you're doing now.
as it stands, call ai-users all you want and the output art, it won't make it so. AI users haven't manage to legitimize it as they haven't brought forward arguments to define their position, only false equivalencies.

>>6668269
>it's like they took everyone's art and photographs, ground them up, and stuffed it full of fillers like some cheap meat product.
sure
>It's disgusting
no, not even remotely
> an absolute affront to art itself.
LMAO

>>6670192
Ahh, so the same could be said for AI and everyone would be good, right? As long as non commercial it would be ok.

>>6670192
Doesn't matter if it's commercial or not. Copyright is still there, retard.

>>6670246
No, kill yourself AI retard

>>6670333
I'm mostly just talking about it when your not posting or sharing it in any circumstances, or when you actually provide sources where you got stuff for non-commercial purposes.
Doesn't mean they won't get C&D if someone really adamant on taking something down, but considering most AI niggas don't want to do the most basic shit to claim fair use.
Or sometimes even know where said pictures came from at times unless it's all
public domain stock pictures built in, which I doubt. I don't see the need for them to shill this hard constantly

>>6669792
I don't learn by dismantling entire jpgs and associating them with keywords on a weighted virtual graph to rehash them as noise with prompted interpolation. I'm human so I make use of structured mental concepts.
You see that's the issue with you AI roaches, you like to make very general and misleading statements that never hold up upon closer inspection.
>"You're the same as a nuclear reactor. You both consume fuel to generate energy."
See? Technically correct. But still incredibly stupid for anyone who knows anything about anatomy or nuclear reactors.
Everyone is seeing through your bullshit. You should kill yourself.

>>6670522
NTA but that is, in fact, what you do.

When I say a keyword like "cat" to you, you associate things like fur, small size, walking on four legs, agility, furred ears, and so on, and you know these properties of a cat because either someone described them to you or you saw many of them, then you interpolate them(visualize a cat), and you draw it. The "noise" would just be your own biases and experiences and taste.

You do this all the time and take it for granted, you just didn't think about it until something else did it, everything in your head is just a collection of keywords, how else would you describe what a cat looks like?

>>6670576
>NTA but that is, in fact, what you do.
no, lol
>The "noise" would just be your own biases and experiences and taste.
no, lol
kys bugman

>>6670576
>everything in your head is just a collection of keywords
lol, what?!?

>>6670576
absolute subhuman post holy shit kill yourself waste of oxygen

>>6670576
enough with the science fictionification of how ai works jesus christ. comparing its processes to a fucking human brain is embarrassingly stupid and misleading.

>>6670576
not even the dumbest neuroscientist would dare state something this retarded. AI isn't comparable to anything, you are trying so hard to avoid responsability that it's pathetic.

>>6670602
It's self evidently true. How do you know what a cat looks like? How would you describe it? You would have to say its traits.

>inb4 well actually knowing traits isnt the same as when ai knows traits

>>6670622
Yet AI is unable to reason and abstract any of that data, which is why they need huge amounts of data to even get near a human level of seeming intelligence. A human can extrapolate from one single thing while AI can't, just like an artist that learns construction can easily learn to draw anything else. AI can't reason, hence not really intelligent, and most importantly not human.

>>6670576
So AI idiots turn out to be aphantasiac npcs without an internal voice.

>>6670647
If you're going to say you know what a cat looks like because you saw it many times before you saw it before that's going to be the exact same scenario

>>6670576
You are pulling shit out of your ass mate. There is no empirical evidence that visualizing a cat interpolates between all the cats I ever saw. If you had any then you could go ahead and grab your nobel prize. r/singularity might have brainwashed you into believing that humans and AI are so similar that surely we can pull comparisons like this out of thin air when there's no evidence whatsoever to back it up in the neuroscience department.

On the other hand what we demonstrably understand is that when you think about a cat you also think about how much it weights, how it moves, how its fur interacts with light etc..
AI only thinks (it doesn't) about values derived from 2d on a virtual graph.
When I see a cat in a jpg I don't compute the jpg itself through algorithmic bullshit, what I do is study that cat within that picture and learn to deconstruct it into shapes, colors etc. that might not even be present within that picture. Then, I can pair that knowledge with the aforementioned experiences to be able to reconstruct it by myself in different ways.

If you're not an Altman shill but genuinely believe what you're peddling, you should try running an imagegen AI on a dataset comprised of two pictures only. You will then be able to observe how it can only interpolate smears between these two pictures and understand how it "learns" from objective data in a way fundamentally different from ours, and that "learning" in the human sense of the word doesn't even apply there. It is closer to an autocorrect tool or a photocopier than a human bean. Don't be a tool.

>>6670663
I only need to see one cat to understand what a cat looks like. An AI needs an encyclopedic amount of cat pictures to even begin understanding the concept. Also i can CREATE with my imagination an entirely different being with just a single cat in my memory (If i'm not an aphantasic NPC)

>>6670522
It doesn't even matter HOW you learn, the fact is that you do by example and association -- just like AI.

>>6669506
>>6669548
This argument is such peak midwittery, I swear. So, you're saying that because a metaphorical artist locked in a room with nothing but a mirror couldn't create a dog, or a cat, or normal things we take for granted, that this somehow makes him the equal of your completely unintelligent algorithm. But the man has a mind. Given nothing but his face, he could create endless variations of himself in an endless number of different styles. If he were taught to do something so simple as drawing a box and thereby learning the framework of perspective projection to build upon, he could arrange pure form to create entirely new things that he never saw before- that human, given enough time, actually could create a whole world from his mind, however alien and strange it might be. He might even create said dog or cat, assuming the Infinite Monkeys Theorem is true. Humans work with concepts, and can extrapolate from a small set of data to create entirely new things.

Image generation algorithms, on the other hand, are trained to EXACTLY RECREATE the images that they are trained on, and as a side effect, they can generate interpolations of those images. Like I've said many times- n-dimensional animorphs. They do not create, they do not think. It's a fixed, static algorithm that has a fixed, static set of outputs that it's capable of generating. You might as well expect sentience or creativity from the function f(x) = x + 1 as you would MidJourney or Stable Diffusion.

It really goes to show just how appallingly ignorant of either how the human artist works, or how image generators work, or both, that you would equate the two in any way. It's downright irrational to attribute such magical and fanciful thinking to what is essentially a series of math problems- or maybe you're the kind of bugman r*dditoid faggot with a case of terminal midwittery that thinks that the human mind actually is equal to a turing machine, or an algorithm. It's a sad sight either way.

>>6670780
You could argue that a plucked chicken is a man or a man is a chicken if you said that a man is a fetherless biped. This is what that is- pilpul, endlessly quibbling semantics, as if you can lawyer a math problem to the status of a man. I say again- Peak. Midwit. Hours.

Simple question- If you gave Midjourney or Stable Diffusion or whatever a trillion human faces and then set it to generate everything it can possibly generate for an eternity, would you find a single anime girl in that set of images?

>>6670780
>You see that's the issue with you AI roaches, you like to make very general and misleading statements that never hold up upon closer inspection.
>"You're the same as a nuclear reactor. You both consume fuel to generate energy."
>See? Technically correct. But still incredibly stupid for anyone who knows anything about anatomy or nuclear reactors.

NTA but are you acting this retarded on purpose? Because if not, I humbly request that you cease respirating so that other more deserving people can use the oxygen that you're currently squandering.

>>6670848
It's literally the same argument used by ai roaches on the daily when called out on their shit.

>>6670780
lol the fact you think this would hold up in court

>art is just copying other artists, its not a real skill

>ai art finally makes creating art accessible to everyone

which is it? Art is hard and AI democratizes it, or art is easy and its all stealing so AI art is no different than art (in which case why didn't you draw before)?

>>6669548
if you gave an AI a photo gallery of 6 animals all of different orders, can the AI come up with the concept of a dragon or maybe a Xenomorph, drawn in different styles? no? you cannot say it's just like a human then

>>6670900
if you game a human only 6 images in their entire life would they be able to come up with the concept of a dragon? by the time you reach 3yo and is able to hold a pencil and drag it around a paper you've seen millions of images

>>6670914
Artists come up with nonsensical and/or fantastical creatures all the time that have no real basis in the real world. Giger came up with xenomorphs, for fucks sake.

>>6670919
ai came up with their own language

good artists steal
great artists do the needful

>>6670919
Just ask chatGPT to come up with some nonsense and make some AI art program to come up with an image for it

>>6670914
See >>6670826 and the end of >>6670832
>Simple question- If you gave Midjourney or Stable Diffusion or whatever a trillion human faces and then set it to generate everything it can possibly generate for an eternity, would you find a single anime girl in that set of images?
If no one had an image of a dragon to copy from, where did the first dragon come from then?
If no one had a picture of an anime girl, then where did the first anime girl come from?
If you gave an AI nothing but photos, all the photographs in the world- heck, if you recorded the vision of every creature on the planet from the dawn of time and fed that data into an image generator, would you get the concept named "dragon"? Would you get the concept called "anime"? Would there be any "art styles" at all?

>>6671014
To clarify, I mean that if you fed an AI nothing but photographic data of reality, and no art at all, would you get anything at all equivalent to an "art style"? An "anime"? "Dragon"?

>>6671017
You would or you think AI art is generate perfect photographic images?

>>6671017

it shits out what it fed on. simple. the jump in quality is not really because of the advancement in tech but the amount and quality of data that is fed into it.

>>6670576
Shut up over how AI works, numbfuck!

If AI actually works like a human, it shall be granted human rights
Do you not understand that?

>>6670914
can you answer my question or not? we know what dragons are conceptually and what they've been inspired from. animals. I didn't say 6 images, I said 6 animals of different orders. reading comprehension. make an image gallery of strictly animals be they dogs, lizards, birds and cats. can it come up with a dragon?

>>6671063
could you come up with a dragon if you didn't know what a dragon was to begin with?

>>6671063
I don't see why it couldn't. Just take a lizard + size + the wings of a bird and give the wings the texture of a lizard's skin.

If you taught the AI the concept of fire(a concept so basic even babies understand), then you can add "breathes fire" to it.

>>6671070
how do you think dragons came to be as a concept? last time I checked, a human did it. are you implying that dragons are real and humans didn't need to come up with the concept?

>>6671072
>I don't see why it couldn't
I don't see how it could. prove it
>If you taught the AI the concept of fire
what are you even on about at this point? you would just have a collection of photorealistic merged nonsense. no art in sight

>>6671076
alright, draw me a Krugmeshkorhl and since you don't know what it is conceptually here are the animals it is based off
buffalo, cat, owl and a whale
i'll let you know if you get it right

>>6671076
If you knew what a lizard is, then you simply made the lizard bigger, then gave it wings, then gave the wings the lizard's texture, would that not be a dragon?

All of these features are supported even in your own dataset, you CAN make a dragon out of the 6 things you have.

>>6671087
you do not understand the point I'm making. I'm not saying the AI should read my mind and come up with the same concept you fucking retard. can it come up with any clear consistent concept on its own?

>>6671095
yeah it can

>>6671097
prove it. how? it cannot even do so without already copying an existing concept. it's physically impossible to do so because you need a descriptive word to do it in the first place

>>6671094
If you knew what a lizard is, then you simply made the lizard bigger, then gave it wings, then gave the wings the lizard's texture, would that not be a dragon?
no. it would be a retarded gecko with badly textured bird/bat wings

>>6671100
you too need something to begin with or did dragons came out of a completely blind of all senses person?

>>6671107
the AI can begin with the same thing humans did, didn't I say that already? go one ahead, ask it to come up with a consistent concept that makes sense using only real life photos of animals.

>>6669483
>copyright strike
FYI copyright strike is not a legal term. I believe you mean lawsuit? copyright strike is a term used in the context of youtube

>>6671109
u'll need to wait

>>6671100
>no. it would be a retarded gecko with badly textured bird/bat wings
you are coping hard my dude, that would, absolutely, be a dragon, if you were describing a dragon to a friend who's never heard of it, that would be what you would say it is

>>6671087
>>6671070
>>6671072
>continues to ignore and sidestep the issue to repeat the same thing over and over again

>>6671109
>the AI can begin with the same thing humans did
humans had access to language too, why cant ai? just describe ur shit in a prompt

>>6671115
You already got a rebuttal and instantly dismissed it as "well, that's not a new thing that's just the same thing but different" when you got btfo by your own dragon analogy

you CAN make something new out of old things, deal with it

>>6671119
Do you have a proper answer to these posts? Last time I checked this was addressed directly to one of (You) AI fags and it's been very intentionally ignored, most likely because you know you don't have a good response for it.

>>6671119
>you CAN make something new out of old things, deal with it
No one is disputing this you disingenuous reddittranny

>>6671119
>>6670826
>>6670832
>>6671014
These posts here.

>>6671127
You would get a bunch of random thing, the probability of an "anime" as we know it coming from there is a very small chance. You're free to make your own AI using only photos and letting it run for 200.000 years

>>6671133
Yet a human being could.

>>6671139
The AI could too, they already are making new things humans never did or thought of doing

>>6671124
The guy like 6 posts above you is literally saying you can't make a dragon out a lizard, you would just make a big lizard with scaled wings, a big mouth, and a long

This is like unironically beyond autism, i'm not even sure if that guy even believes dragons are a real concept, what does he even think dragons are?

>>6671142
a long tail*

>>6671140
New dialators and synthetic hrt

>>6671145
You did your research I guess?

>>6671133
>The AI couldn't create anime from photographs
>the AI could too
Well? Which one is it?

>>6671133
Oh, and there is also this-
>Image generation algorithms, on the other hand, are trained to EXACTLY RECREATE the images that they are trained on, and as a side effect, they can generate interpolations of those images. Like I've said many times- n-dimensional animorphs. They do not create, they do not think. It's a fixed, static algorithm that has a fixed, static set of outputs that it's capable of generating. You might as well expect sentience or creativity from the function f(x) = x + 1 as you would MidJourney or Stable Diffusion.

You're atrributing randomness to something that actually contains a fixed, finite set of images. So in actuality, an image generator might take, I dunno, a hundred, thousand years generating every single image contained within the latent space of its dataset and then sit idle for the rest of eternity.

>>6671149
A small chance isn't the same as couldn't do it, would humans always get to anime if we became extinct and somehow another batch of humans came out through evolution and started doing art. Sure we would get a lot of random things from their art and maybe they would get what we call anime, same with a self learning AI running for many years creating random images from photos. It's a game of chance

You guys should just go draw and stop giving the Altman/Emad shill (You)'s. I'm pretty sure it's the same one retard shitting up the board lately it's always the same insufferable smug fuck way of writing and cookie cutter AI talking points.

>>6671162
>t. nodraw

>>6671157
The difference is that humans would create a style, any style, and the AI wouldn't. In fact, the very first works of art we found were not photorealistic, they were stylized and simplified depictions of things that those humans saw.
You know, because it's almost like humans and image mishmashing algorithms are not the same thing nor is the latter anywhere near being able to actually innovate.

>>6671167
The very first AI images weren't photorealistic either

>>6671163

>>6671169
Ok beglet

>>6671168
>Image generation algorithms, on the other hand, are trained to EXACTLY RECREATE the images that they are trained on, and as a side effect, they can generate interpolations of those images.
You aren't going to worm yourself out of this. You're going to face the facts.

>>6671172
you are trying too hard to fit in

>>6671175
Were you in a come during 2010s?

>>6671178
Exactly what I thought.

>>6671177
Sure

>>6671185
cute

>>6671185
>1670596039897947.jpg

>>6671193
Tell me you're a newfag pldditor without telling me you're one

>>6671195
why would you save your drawing as a random 4chan filename?

>>6671167
I mean, AI pretty obviously has its own style considering how easily you can pick out an AI artpiece from a random pile of drawings so you already got beat there on the face of it.

Next, any AI can create its own style out of the things inside it, what if you combined the horror themes of Junji Ito with the character designs of range murata? What if you combined the fear of the unknown with the fear of the sea(This is HP Lovecraft btw)? What if you combined the robotic designs of machines with human bodies(HR Giger)?

This is something that gets told to A LOT of human artists, "to find your style, copy and merge the things you like most"

>here comes the well humans learn it but AI just copies it

>>6671200
4chan randomizes name retard if you cant to keep your shit anonymized, learn to use a website zoomzoomzoom

>>6671203
That's only after you download the file, literally look at any other filename ITT and then download the image. Fucking tryhard newfaggot KYS.

>>6671207
Go back to where you came from

>>6671185
Why call me /beg/ I'm just trying to get people to stop giving (You)'s to the techjeet. :(

>>6671207
>luddites
amirite fucking kek

>>6671162
I agree with this. Other than wasting your time, what good does arguing with them do?

It starts

>>6671162
Hi, prolific AI defender here, most of these arguments are so shit and have such a terrible understanding of how art is made that it almost doesn't surprise me that so many /ic/ers end up in pre-beg status for their whole life and never get to make even a cute girl resembling their favorite artists'.

>>6671162
>go draw and stop giving the Altman/Emad shill (You)'s
Doesnt matter, they will spam the board anyway:
>>6670240
>>6668611
>>6669689
>>6670528

/ic/ soon to become the new /g/ general

>>6671259
>4 threads out of 100
>probably were just going to be crabposting and "how do I draw like this" with a picture of sakimichan
>actually all talking about art

damn bro, that sucks, I hope the board gets usable soon

>>6671266
>sure thing bro, shit on the catalog with the same pajeet shill replies to keep the interest going
>I am not linking back to the /g/ general, I promise
The only silver lining is that it used to be worse

>>6671273
>I am not linking back to the /g/ general,
This one >>>/g/93637229 ?

>>6670826
>hat this somehow makes him the equal of your completely unintelligent algorithm.
you are below that algorithm

>>6671247
>and have such a terrible understanding of how art is made
And that's why you're a proompter.

>>6671437
let me guess. AI learns just like a human
AI Art has soul, art means everything and anything
AI art can be copyrighted
AI artists are a real thing and not just a glorified art commissioner
Everything online is fair game and you don't need permission or consent
Proompting will be a highly desired skill in the near future
Look at photography and how it became an artform
Can you guys please make a new argument for this bullshit?

>>6670576
Sounds like how someone with no internal monologue would imagine how a human being actually processes thought if he could even imagine at all.

>>6668200

it's over

good morning sirs

>>6668200
What they don't tell you about this is that they don't care about a deadman's estate, and they prioritized the jewish woman photographer over said deadman's estate. If Warhol were alive this wouldn't have happened because the elite fellatio'd him like he was god reincarnated.