/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

artists and scammers

>ai debacle
nice headcanon

>>6708986
I just don't like the process of stealing.

>>6708986
Ok

>>6708986
ai fags can't even be considered artists

ai is theft
there is no discussion
there aren't factories of artists copying other artists works out there and if there were, they would be shut the fuck down
don't respond to the ai apologist, the ai bots that respond to these threads or anyone on the matter

take down stable diffusion and other models, report, sue, join the campaigns, the class action lawsuits
don't let it proliferate and take what is so special to us

>>6708986
yeah, ive seen a number of people that will say they cant draw and dont want to put in the time to develop skill, but they believe they have an creative ideas they want realized, however, they DEFINITELY don't want to or cant pay an artist, so AI is a godsend for them.

another angle ive seen is "think of all the boring drawing/painting process you can avoid and how productive youll be by using ai!" so yeah, they really dont care for the process off art creation at all. when i hear people say that, i cant help but think "but i dont want to skip all the drawing/painting parts."

>>6709003
nice slop

>>6709171
What evidence of theft is there?

aisisters pass
aisisters are valid

>>6709357
There is another pic out there of this that elaborates and shows more images I can't find it atm

>>6709370
found it

>>6709357

>>6709171
>take down stable diffusion and other models
you'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands pussy it works locally

>>6709372
Doesn't current copyright law already protect in this case? Sure the picture produced by the a.i. would be considered illegal, but it seems the anti-ai movement is trying to say the a.i. tool in itself should be illegal. If I'm understanding this correctly.

>>6709178
For me its more like I cant draw, I do want to develop skill (mainly so i can actually show my artist friends things i draw), but I have no idea how. There hasnt been a single useful resource for me on how to get started, I cant seem to get any momentum going.

so instead i use ai to make the coom i want to draw (when i am capable of coming up with an idea that is)

>>6709383
>train an AI on one picture
>can't profit off it since it's too close

>train an AI on a billion pictures
>can profit because the data has been laundered

Why should it be legal? They have no right to the ones and zeros I created. And they take my ones and zeroes, run some math on it along with other artists ones and zeros and turn a profit? why the fuck is that legal?

>>6709383
>>6709372
To be less vague, even if the database has copyrighted material, if it's transformed into something original, it doesn't make sense to me how that should be regulated. but if a person asks the a.i. to make an exact image of someone elses, then sure that's illegal.

>>6709383
nobody’s saying that, you dumb nigger, the suits are about using copyrighted work in the data model and thus production
the ai replicating the source image just illustrates that the copyrighted work does exist in the model, defeating the marketing buzzwords like “training” and “learning”

>>6709392
>transformed into something original
doesn't matter.
Have you ever read the law on "transformative use", It seems highly unlikely given what you just said. You've just absorbed the incorrect definition through osmosis.(most laypeople don't know they are spouting falsehoods regarding transformative use)

>>6709003
why is there a baby face on her nipple

>>6709400
Kakugo no Susume reference
Looks more like a rabbit to me tho

>>6708986
It also shows the difference between the artists who have taste and those who don't. If you're threatened by millions of generic anime girls and render-shit then it might be time to expand your aesthetic repertoire.

>>6708986
Yes, creators and consumers.

>>6709615
Ai fags always say this but it makes no sense. Unless you are doing modern art university slop Ai is a threat to you.

>>6709003
>totally not bluethebone
nice creativity

>>6709391
because...it just should okay? AI learns just like humans, great artists steal and all that!

>>6708986
drawing is miserable. You don't like drawing, you like being in the flow state. Its basically getting high.

>>6709178
the problem is that nobody who uses AI has any creative ideas. If they did, they'd just become artists

>>6709839
nodraw i kneel

>>6709615
You're assuming that the AI wont just improve over time or something. It is going to probably threaten all artistic jobs. From 2D stills to 2D animation then to 3D. It will be over. You as well as everyone else will realize the AI future we were promised is not one we'll get.

>>6708986
a .k . a . artists that will make it and ones that wont

>>6709391
>run some math on it along with other artists ones and zeros and turn a profit?
You are reading this post and laundering my words into your stream of consciousness. I am going to sue you for copyright infringement.

>>6709395
>the ai replicating the source image just illustrates that the copyrighted work does exist in the model
in this case, yeah; because midjourney is a generic normalfag model that is engineered to produce pretty normalfag stuff
it's going to be next to impossible to prove infringement with well-made models in stablediffusion unless they decide that artstyles are copyrightable because most models in stablediffusion aren't capable of reproducing a nearly identical image from the training data.

plus most normalfags still don't know how stablediffusion works and i doubt any judges or lawyers are going to figure it out anytime soon

>>6710516
I'm sure you thought this was very smart.

>>6710527
You don't? I based it off your post.

>>6710529
please point to my post

>>6710541
>>6710527
Here you go.
Of course, I'm sure you already know what I was trying to imply though. There's no need for frivolities, anon.

>>6710529
The difference lies in the intention and method of engagement.

>>6710548
I don't think copyright laws are based on intent.

>>6710553
>I don't think
No shit.

>>6710557
>shit
Yes, you are shit.

>>6710553
https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/what-is-fair-use/

>>6710542
yeah, you're assuming I'm someone else and acting dumb

>>6710558
>no u
haha

>>6710560
And you're assuming this has any effect on what I'm arguing at all.

>>6710525
when the first argument is "they can't prove it" you know something is fishy.

>>6710563
Funny, right? I based it off your post.

>>6710564
read the copyright laws.

>>6710564
nah, I'm not assuming, I know you're a midwit.

>>6710565
That's just how the system works. Copyright laws are based off ownership in the first place.
In order to fight AI, you need to learn how to fight the concept of owning art.

>>6710567
I did. What about them?

>>6710572
now read this too
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/#the_fifth_fair_use_factor_are_you_good_or_bad

>>6710568
That's quite mean, anon. What makes you think I'm a midwit?

>>6710574
This article summarizes some complicated and broad concepts. I don't think there's a point in citing this without an argument of your own to make.
What did you mean by posting this article?

>>6710525
that’s not how it works, once you’re in court you’re the one who has to provide the process used in production, and at that point any copyrighted material is a death sentence because lawyers can literally sue you on the holder’s behalf without their involvement, there are entire law firms that do nothing but sue people on their own and pass the money along to copyright holders

>>6710578
>its too complex
If you read and understand the law, you understand >>6709391 and your takeaway would not be >>6710516

>>6710583
*You've been dishonest, using the "ones and zeroes" to equate artworks to mere public forum posts.

>>6710583
>If you read and understand the law,
Are you a professional lawyer? The legal system is complex; that's why a short article like this can't explain all the complexities of copyright law.
If you're making an argument, you should make your own points and use parts of the article to support it; not just point to an entire article and say "refute this". I'm not going to waste effort refuting something you didn't even write.

>>6710586
I didn't ask you to refute the law, only to get a better understanding from the source itself, rather than me explaining it to you. Most laypeople completely misunderstand what constitutes fair use.

>>6710579
>because lawyers can literally sue you on the holder’s behalf without their involvement
They can already do this to artists who make fanart. It's not exclusive to AI art.
>once you’re in court you’re the one who has to provide the process used in production
Do you? Software is easily blackboxed. You can just add a special type of noise/encryption to the training data that makes the input images incomprehensible and change the algorithms in your training data to remove the noise while it does the training. It is all math in the end.

The point is that the opposing lawyers wouldn't have access to the training data so they have no way of proving there is copyrighted works in the training data if the model doesn't shit out near-exact imagery. Getting into the courtroom in the first place is the complicated part.

>>6710595
I'm not trying to argue fair use, I'm trying to argue about the feasibility of legally fighting AI art without the assistance of additional laws or legal precedents.
The laws of today obviously aren't designed around AI generated art, so even if you're a fair use lawyer; waging the battle against AI art is still entirely new territory.

>>6710598
obfuscating the training data would point to the_fifth_fair_use_factor_are_you_good_or_bad
but yes "Getting into the courtroom in the first place is the complicated part."

>>6710603
>obfuscating the training data would point to the_fifth_fair_use_factor_are_you_good_or_bad
You can also probably just say your methods are highly complex and proprietary so they can't be reproduced exactly the same in the court room.
The legal system would be pretty lopsided in favor of the plaintiffs if the defense had to reproduce everything on the spot to defend themselves.

>>6710616
>Show us by making another AI in the courtroom from scratch without copyright data.
>oh you can't? hmm...

>>6710619
The inability to reproduce something isn't evidence of guilt. The plaintiff needs that evidence, not the defense.
This is only assuming they're strict enough to want the exact hashes of the models in question. I'm sure there's other ways of complicating the trail.

>people are STILL misunderstanding the problem with AI art
All SD models were trained on the original LAION dataset which contained millions of copyrighted images and is openly accessible. Emad never tried to hide this fact, either. Finetuned models like whatever Midjourney's using still rely on the original dataset, so unless you wanna train a whole new ANN from scratch, the copyright issue remains. Also people keep bringing up individual output images when the issue is with the whole MODEL. Output images are just a symptom, right now the tool as a whole is potentially infringing because it was trained on stolen data.
>nooo it wasn't stolen, it was SCRAPED
I don't care, call it what you want, I'm just tired of hearing the same dumb arguments for half a year now
>but muh fair use
Does not really matter when talking about output images since they are, essentially, just a tiny part of a larger "artwork" which is SD as a whole. So if you wanna argue fair use, you need to argue that Emad taking a bunch of scraped data without permission and compressing it into his for-profit ANN is a-okay. Which sure, you can believe if you want, but then stop using retarded arguments like "it just learns like a human does!!1"
>nooo it's not compressed data, reeeee
Pls google "latent space" and read past the first paragraph before commenting on things you don't understand.

>>6709392
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons
Someone can pull the plug on your work if you heavily referenced or outright use their work in yours without their permission. AI is smack dab in the middle of that big, red X.

>>6710633
Do you consider the existence of the innate model itself a copyright infringement or do you consider the generation of images using the model a copyright infringement?

>>6710642
Imo the model itself is infringing, at the very least once it was put out to the public and used for profit. (I believe there are exceptions, like in EU law for example, when it comes to ML researchers storing data for scientific purposes but that's clearly not what SD was used for.) Individual images might be infringing in some cases I guess, though it's just not relevant enough most of the time

>>6710623
it’s civil court, retard, there is no guilt

>>6710642
not him, but that’s the issue
before you generate an image, there is arguably no infringement as per current law, but once you do, the dataset itself is infringement because it becomes the process of producing images
that is exactly why the datasets exist, the people making them are aware that just producing the dataset is not infringement, and that the dataset using copyrighted material only becomes infringement once it’s used, at which point the user assumes responsibility for the content of the dataset
what is happening now is determining whether distribution of the dataset is infringement
if the dataset does in fact contain the images, as its ability to replicate them exactly indicates, then it is itself infringement once distributed
heavily compressing images until they are full of artifacts or distributing them as code is still infringing
you can’t get around copyright by changing the extension to .txt

>>6708986
Bitch, there's nothing fun about making complex backgrounds.

>>6709006
Damn man do pajeets really break into artist homes and steal all their shit?

>>6710929
>pic related
Whether it steals or not is retarded semantics. You should be thinking about the implications of the Andy Warhol case and whether AI gen is transformative enough for it to be fair use, that retarded infographic is old as fuck. Try to keep up.

>>6710929
This image has to be bait, I don't want to believe it's sincere in any way.

>>6710959
Its just not made by an artist. They already think art is some magical god given gift that they were werent born with so they have no idea how ai art is different from human art.

>>6711019
Some people like simple flute music, some people like death metal made with high tech.

>>6710929
I actually want a plagiarism machine. I want to be evil. I want this machine to be able to steal artworks and mix them together so you can't tell where one starts and the other ends. I want to be able to steal artists signature styles and apply them to photos so I don't have to pay the artists. I want to steal more than just imagery, I want unconscious descisions the artist makes to be picked up on by the machine, like composition or pose habits so it really is like I stole the soul of the artist. Any ideas on how I could go about this?

>>6710946
>>6710959
>>6711076
lol

>>6711076
Don't worry, people far more intelligent than you are already working on it.

Hit the nail on the head.

>>6710929
If it were trained on a single dog picture jt would only be able to generate something nearly identical. AI keks do not understand how their own bootleg machine works.

>>6711195
this picture is as retarded as that keanu reeves meme one retard keeps spamming all over the board

>>6708986
More like shows the difference between people who like art and people who's ideal future is to be strapped to a masturbatory chair and be fed slop until the day they die

>>6708986
"Artists" have huge egos and literally can't conceive that visual art is usually just a supplementary medium to larger forms of creation that contain combinations of different mediums like music, writing, programming, etc. They're so narcissistic that they think their medium is the only thing that matters and never stop to think about the bigger picture.

>>6710874
What do you think guilt is? I know it has a stricter term in criminal court, but you're just being purposely obtuse and arguing about linguistics here.

>>6711278
wow, you're either retarded or deluded.

>>6711289
>no counter-argument

>>6711279
no, you’re being retarded and confusing legal concepts
you’re not innocent until proven guilty in civil court, you WILL get forced into proving you did not infringe and failure to do so WILL be taken as evidence of infringement, this was cemented just a month or so ago as precedent, because before everyone unable to do so was smart enough to settle the moment it came to it

>>6711290
well, you are making huge assumptions, and disregarding things like movies or video games which completely undermine your premise. thingis AI is neither a medium nor a new art form as it is an illustration/photography facsimile

>>6711300
>this was cemented just a month or so ago as precedent
Can you cite the case?

>>6711302
>disregarding things like movies or video games which completely undermine your premise
These are all large compositional creations that don't just involve visual art; which my post was mentioning.
>thingis AI is neither a medium nor a new art form as it is an illustration/photography facsimile
Why does it matter? I'm sure artists wouldn't call programming an art form, yet it's still a pretty important building block to a lot of large modern creations.

Waving away something because it isn't an "artform" is the epitome of egotism that I'm talking about. It's like nothing matters if they aren't considered art by some archaic definition that nobody can agree on.

>>6711076
Alright anon how close are we to finding a new way on resurrecting hitler

>>6711315
the warhol suit
the obama suit was also a relatively recent case of the guy getting fined for disposing of material involved in the production and settling immediately afterwards

>>6711334
*high profile case

>>6711334
The warhol suit is so not even in the same planet as AI, the warhol artwork had genuinely no real changes, no anything at all, arguing that what AI does is in the same planet of copying that this pic was where he LITERALLY copied the pic 1-1 in silkscreening, you need to be transformative.

I also guarantee you got this opinion about the warhol lawsuit from MaijinTheArtist on twitter

>>6711364
arguing that AI does the same as silkscreening is ridiculous*

>>6711334
>the warhol suit
This doesn't seem like it sets a precedent. An AI case has other complications, so there are already some loaded assumptions in this scenario.
Obviously you have to prove you aren't infringing if there's already a basis for the infringement claim. That doesn't mean you are guilty of infringing because you can't provide production evidence. You can also just deny infringement through some other means, like attacking the validity of that basis.

In the case of AI models, It's not so obvious what the requirements even are.
A model can be used to produce an image that contains copyright likeness, but it can also produce infinity+ images that aren't infringing. Given a set of noise, you can even generate infringing images with models that weren't trained with copyright images at all.
And what about the algorithms you use to drive the generation process? How would the plaintiffs know what what algorithms you use if the case only concerns the model?
To prove you aren't infringing, would you need to generate a model with the exact same hash without their copyright materials? Would you have to use the same image generation parameters the plaintiff's lawyers are using?
I don't think the precedents for AI are so cut and dry that you can reliably say what the defense needs to do without elaborating on a specific case.

>>6711364
>>6711368
you have literally no idea what you’re talking about
>transformative
an image is not a transformation of an image

>>6711370
>an image is not a transformation of an image

what does this even mean?

>>6711370
>you have literally no idea what you’re talking about
Then elaborate some more? What are YOU talking about, anon?

>>6711372
case in point

>>6711374
>purposely makes a vague and incomprehensible statement
>this means i win if the other person can't decipher my message!

>>6711376
there is nothing vague nor incomprehensible about it, retard, you’re just ignorant of the context, which was the point

>>6711379
It's vague, even with the supposed "context". In the first place, you usually need to elaborate on a claim in an argument.
You can't just claim something and assume the claim is correct.

>>6711380
the context is the actual law, you stupid nigger
you’re parroting retarded shit you picked from other retards without ever comprehending the context of what you’re parroting

>>6711381
>the context is the actual law
What part of the law? You are still making broad statements. It's like saying "You're wrong because you didn't refute the entire legal system".
If you actually want a discussion, you need to elaborate some more.

no more replies, retard

>>6711385
You don't have to try and win the argument to have a productive discussion.
And this isn't a fast board like /v/. You can have as long as you want to respond, anon.

>>6711300
You are actually dumb and somehow flipped the entire legal process on its head, Andy Warhol WAS treated as innocent until proven guilty, except he was proven guilty by the prosecution presenting the exact pictures he copied very specifically and warhol's team not being able to give a rebuttal for the evidence.

This is like showing up to court accused of murder, the prosecution presenting a smoking gun with your fingerprints on it, surveillance camera footage of you, and your DNA at the scene proving your guilt, you not having any alibi or anything to rebut the claims and then saying "I was treated as guilty until proven innocent", no you weren't, you were proven guilty.

>you WILL get forced into proving you did not infringe
No, first you need to prove to the court someone DID infringe, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

>>6711400
>prosecutor
stopped reading

>>6709376
That’s a photo taken in a public place retard
Those are public domain

>>6711411
lol no

>>6711410
more like you absolutely lost because you realized that being guilty means you have to... wait for it... be proven guilty

>>6711426
there’s no prosecutor in a civil suit, retard
just stop, what even drives you to post this bullshit

>>6711416
Are you retarded

>>6711429
You can call it whatever you want, someone(Lynn Goldsmith) had to actually bring the evidence and sue the warhol association so they have any burden of proof of the guilt, you going "uhm ackshually" doesn't mean anything when your initial argument was literally "you are guilty until proven innocent, just walk in with no evidence and accuse lmao"

>>6711431
are you?
pic related

>>6711438
you have literally no clue about this, retard
just stop

>>6711411
There’s an entire industry based on selling rights to photos taken in public space.

>>6711444
>There’s an entire industry based on selling rights to photos taken in public space.
Google maps/streetview.

>>6711465
You’re a retard.

>>6711441
The logic of the post doesn't change because some terms aren't used as technically as they would be in the legal field, and calling somebody a retard doesn't let you win an argument. You have to provide a counterargument.
This is the equivalent of saying "Your post has a typo, I win".

>>6711471
nigger, you lack the basic comprehension of the legal system you’re saying dumb shit about
just shut the fuck up

>>6711473
>nigger, you lack the basic comprehension of the legal system you’re saying dumb shit about
I'm not the anon you replied to. I still think gotcha'ing a linguistic typo is a copout and ignoring the actual content of the post is arguing in bad faith.
If you believe the anon lacks comprehension of the legal system, shouldn't you be countering the post with your own counterarguments or are you just content with making shitposts and trying to be on top of this internet "argument"?

>>6711474
it’s not a linguistic typo, it’s a gross missinterpretation of civil law proceedings, you dumb fucking nigger, and I have exactly zero intent in engaging an actual fucking retard utterly ignorant of the subject
fuck off

>>6711476
>it’s a gross missinterpretation of civil law proceedings
And this is a claim that needs to be supported with arguments of your own. You can't just make this claim without any extra elaboration and expect it to be actually true. What if I say it wasn't a gross misinterpretation of civil law proceedings. What now?
>I have exactly zero intent in engaging an actual fucking retard utterly ignorant of the subject fuck off
Why not? It's just a friendly discussion. If you don't want to discuss anything, you can just stop posting. I just want to see interesting and thoughtful posts instead of meaningless shitposting and namecalling.
Why are you so angry, anon?

didn’t read

>>6711487
It's not much to read, anon. I think you're just being tsundere.
Maybe take a break to cool off and settle your thoughts? This thread will always be here when you get back.

>>6711278
The absolute seething jealousy is glorious
The talentless losers begging coders to make a program to invalidate people's hardwork is hilarious. Some worthless nobody is mad he can't be praised for doing nothing and so he relishes in the idea that his laziness will be justified when a magical tool makes hard work obsolete

>>6711522
Only normalfags want to be praised. This whole attack falls apart once you realize that a good portion of the people genning stuff just do it for the sake of genning and don't expect any praise at all.
The ones who expect praise are narcissists, like the artists who denounce AI art just because it isn't an "artform". Some things can just exist without an expectation of praise. I know it's a hard concept to learn when all you do is crave praise.

And AI tools were never expected to completely replace hard work. They simply shift the balance of hard work onto the other aspects of creation.

>>6711439
What

>>6711444

>>6711561
Never heard of paparazzi, retard?

>>6711578
They are able to sell them because no one else has those photos at that moment you absolute fucking mongoloid

>>6711559
>sculptor makes sculpture for gubmint
>doesn’t sign away rights
>gubmint takes a photo of the memorial and creates a stamp
>sculptor sues for proceeds
>lower court says the photo is fair use
>federal court overturns the decision, gives the sculptor over half a mil for the stamps
incidentally, the photographer was also paid for the image, which should have been free if it were fair use, as it was taken in a public space

>>6711581
there’s literally dozens of paparazzi at any event lmao

>>6711551
I gotta be honest, from all the threads I see I feel like /ic/'s brains absolutely break down at the concept of someone only liking the art for the result or the enjoyment of the thing itself, and not for all the external factors like the effort or the praise or etc.

Nobody cares about your effort, even like a year ago on /ic/ everyone said they don't care about your soul, twitter and normies just want you to make the things they want to see that makes them happy and will pay for you to make more of it and that's it.

>>6711581
You’re confused. It’s legal to photograph people without their consent in public spaces, the resulting photos are not free use, the photographer owns the rights to the photo.
You can’t take pictures of people on private property without their consent.

>>6711465

>>6711587
This is a self-selected group of people who want to be artists, but importantly, are not. The response should be no surprise.

fa/g/ cope is in the house tonight

>>6711713
cope these nuts

>save tons of time at work with le AI
>use all that newfound time to spam AI and argue on /ic/
?

>people are starting to make bank on AI art

https://www.patreon.com/user?u=53621570

uh oh not like this drawisters!

>>6711940
>https://www.patreon.com/user?u=53621570
Whoa a whole 246 a month? Holy shit I better stop my commissions and hop on this AI train!

>>6711940
>bank
What third world backwater do you live in?

>>6711834
I like arguing ok, it's a fun activity and it's fun to shit on weirdo AI haters like the guy above who somehow thinks being proven guilty means you were guilty until proven innocent

Lol holy shit the amout of butthurt about AI itt.
How about you learn to use AI and add it to your work. It's best feature is img2img which allows you put your drawing in and it produces a cleaned or improved version of it, complete with your own style if you know how to use it. It can speed up your workflow and it can help you learn what you got wrong because it's very good at filling up boring placed with interesting objects. You just need to find the right model.

>>6711972
thank you for the bump, sir, very needful

>>6711944
>>6711948
I dunno, waking up, spending 10 minutes generating a set of cooms and then earning $300 bux for it is a sweet deal.

>>6711975
no problem have another one
your whining about it on an image board won't change anything

>>6711978
please, sir, I can't afford your services, no more rupees.

>>6711978
your whining about whining about it on an imageboard on an imageboard won't change anything, either. draw more

>>6711278
based

>>6711587
>I gotta be honest, from all the threads I see I feel like /ic/'s brains absolutely break down at the concept of someone only liking the art for the result or the enjoyment of the thing itself, and not for all the external factors like the effort or the praise or etc.
It's just a sorry ass cope. They know no one fucking cares about muh effort but they need to somehow justify that AI is le bad. Another tactic is simply screaming "tranny" or "pajeet"

>>6712009
>no one fucking cares about muh effort
[citation needed]

>>6712011
okay you care about all the time you spent on your sketch, your discord friends as well, my bad

>>6712014
anon, just because you're forever alone and no one cares about you doesn't mean everyone is like this. also you fags will reject any criticism about your golden calf's generations. sure it's cope if you ignore these. likewise you dismissed the arguments that were made about societal implications of such a technology because "lel artfags mad". those implications were written black-on-white in the scientific papers regarding its development by the way.

>>6711977
I rather get commissioned by middle class normies doing pet portraits for 200-300 a pop. To each their own.

>>6712030
Traditionally btw. The one frontier ai fags are desperately trying to conquer. Real life.

AI has existed for the better part of a year now
You could have studied Loomis and be a good artist
Instead, you spent all that time sucking corpo cock and generating digital pollution no one will ever remember
There are no shortcuts. Its not too late to start!

>>6712023
I'm not even that anon, but from what I've seen most of the complaints about AI are either very pearl-clutching or just pathetic.

>Nobody(or at least, almost everyone that doesn't know you) cares about your effort or human soul, they want something good or meaningful.
>Using copyrighted photos and to learn is perfectly legal, selling something transformative/very different from, or derived from existing things is legal.
>AI leads to MORE awesome things being made, not less

Literally, just make something people want to see, that's ALL you need and that's all even AI users want out of artists, none of this AI copyright 2 more weeks le soul soulless shit, it doesn't matter if it's handmade or AI-made, just make something people won't instantly ignore and walk past and you're golden.

>>6712050
>AI leads to MORE awesome things being made, not less
Early AI did when it was strange machine dreams.
Now its all derivative vomit of the lowest order.
And no, you cant have my shit. Stop stealing, nigger.

>>6712050
>none of this AI copyright 2 more weeks le soul soulless shit
sneaky, but you won't get an inch.
>do something people want to see
>it gets stolen and sold for a pennies
>suddenly no more artists
>surprisedpikachu
we can probably agree if you consneed AI generations shouldn't be eligible for sell.

>>6712050
smells like heavy AI shill cope to me. Perhaps start training the AI on your own shit instead of regurgitating someone's else work.

>>6708986
Real, i hate how people can’t even think about adapting

intense samefaggotry

>>6712054
You can't sell other people's works as freely as you think, if you make an artwork of DBZ goku or any IP, that's copyright infringement, if you make a comic that's in the exact pattern as a marvel comic, that's copyright infringement, and so on.

The copyright protection you're asking for is for styles and poses, which I dont think I've ever seen anyone advocate for until AI art came out and I think everyone would be extremely opposed to.

>>6712062
>The copyright protection you're asking for is for styles and poses
no, I ask for commercial ban of AI, not copyright protection, stop trying to to twist things here. it's the classic AI-fag misdirection. short of a commercial ban of AI-generated things then voiding of any copyright for those will have to do

>>6712071
I mean, you're asking for copyright protection FROM ai art for poses and styles

>>6712080
no, no copyright is added. pro-AI get hung on the poses and style bit because it's the only premise giving them a fighting chance

>>6712042
>Pixiv banning pAIjeet's slop on PR
>Deviantart of all places requiring AIfags to tag their filty
>"Looks like AI" is an insult for how generic something appears instead of a compliment
It's over AIfags....

ok /ic/ here is the deal
ai development will stop but internet will go too.

>>6712624
Please god make it happen give everyone on the planet an involuntary dopamine reset from not having access to screens for months

>>6712011
No one caring about effort is common sense, holy shit artists really are retarded if they're questioning this lmao

>>6708986
i just don't like human fleshbags

>>6712030
>>6711944
>Whoa a whole 246 a month?

uuuuh drawxisters.... our response?https://www.patreon.com/user?u=92081933

https://www.patreon.com/user?u=87495986

It's ogre. *throws drawing supplies and Loomis book into the trash can*

>>6713072
I can point 10 different artists that make double of that so what's your point? Stop drawing?

>>6712114
>"Looks like AI" is an insult for how generic something appears instead of a compliment
Proompters have become the Twitter artists who can only draw the same derivative anime sameface that they constantly seethe about this whole time.
Not like this, AIbros...

>>6713072
Coombrains are easy marks. Show me ai Patreon making sfw.

>>6712057
>nooo!! you cannot draw stuff in a very common and popular pose! I have COPYRIGHT over the pose! This is LITERAL digital piracy reEEEEE!

>>6713130
retard

>>6709003
Nice bluethebone piece

>>6709379
So? People store cp locally nd they are still prosecuted

>>6708986
If you like the process of creation so much, go play Minecraft. Never again pretend what your doing matters.

>>6713829
Why yes, Minecraft creations are more worthy of discussion than an ai picture.

>>6713829
mad-kun's rage knows no bounds

>>6708986
no it shows the difference between artists and lazy retards who would rather see a form of art die than learn how to do it. if the only way your grand invention can make anything look almost passable (that isn't just generic artstation "sci-fi" garbage) is by directly stealing from a real artist's style, then you're just a glorified tracer. if you think tracing is a real form of art, find me a single image expressing any genuine emotion, or message, or symbolism through tracing and i'll bend over and start sucking my own cock. AI will never be a real artist. the destruction of a form of art through low-quality pandering to your fantasies will never be anything more than forgettable garbage you'll generate hundreds of copies of, not one will be memorable in any way. by the time fully customizable AI "art" rolls around, all human creation will have already been rendered worthless. then you can tell me about how cool and fun your wacky new AI-generated cutsie anime waifus are. even if AI was good enough to make anything of value, you wouldn't even know what to make. art is good because of its limitations. without limitations, nothing of value can be created. this is why god gave us free will, but you would rather take it away from yourself than practice anatomy

>>6713838
yes genuinely

>>6713915
>who would rather see a form of art die than learn how to do it.
A practice being less common does not mean it will die. Something that can't be monetized as easily as it was before doesn't make it useless.
If anything, AI slop will make conventional art more culturally important in the future. You should be thanking AI.

>>6713950
that's somewhat true but i was more talking to the people who think ai art is revolutionary and real artists are just jealous and should get a new job

>>6713130
Running images through a program to shit out derivative images is not the same as an artist using references, just like tracing an image is not the same as referencing an image.

>>6708986
Are AI keks so terrified of a blank canvas that they have to ask a bot to face it for them instead? How much of an insecure faggot do you have to be to get to that point?! Even a toddler is braver than that!

>>6713159
Eat shit. Downloading all ai models that run locally now

>>6714482
what does this mean? could you not think of a good comeback to any of the other replies? this post does not make sense

>>6714392
Why would AIchads want to waste time because some random person told them to? They could also just develop other skills like programming because other hobbies exist instead of just drawing.
It's not like all of digital artists aren't using technology made by programmerchads in the first place. You are all using borrowed tech.

>>6714502
>Assuming AIcucks are not just incredibly fucking stupid with a lack of understanding of how programming works, thinking they're smart because they suck elon musk's cock.

Kill yourself.

>>6714482
Congrats. Now you can get an AI to make more samey AI slop that looks even uglier.

>>6714512
The strawman shitpost goes both ways. Why can't I assume artfags are incredibly stupid as well?

>>6714502
>ART BAD! JUST LEARN TO CODE, PEASANTS!
Are you okay, buddy? Did you get mad because a self-respecting artist didn't want to draw you your loli scat porn?

>You are using borrowed tech guize!
As are you. You AI faggots pretend to be the pioneers of technology, touting the future, but all you really are is a bunch of dumb faggots that think they're smart because they are next to technology, not realizing how ANY of this works.

You AI faggots are incredibly hypersensitive. It's hilarious.

>>6714518
Because Artfags at least have something called "imagination" and "creativity", shit that you AI faggots lack, because you think sucking Elon musk's cock will make you smarter than anyone else.

How long until you start holding the bag off the edge of the cliff like NFT's, Crypto and Self-driving cars?

>>6714523
>As are you.
So, you agree with me? Your problem doesn't seem to be AI usage at all, it just seems like you hate narcissistic normalfags; which AIchads do as well.
>>6714525
Those aren't AIchads, those are normalfags.
Why do you like to equate two completely different groups as if they are equal? You don't see me equating all artists with guro toddlercon fetishists.

>>6714531
>YOU AGREE WITH ME JUST BECAUSE YOU USE A TOOL!!!
Not for a second, faggot. You completely misunderstand what "art" really is. It is not just drawing on a piece of paper. It's making a concept and a vision to what your artwork could be.

The difference between you AI faggots and Artfags is that Artfags have their own concepts and visions. They are just using them as a tool to bring their visions to life.

You AI faggots are only having a computer making the concept, vision and the drawing FOR you. You didn't make it. The AI did.

>BAAAAWWWW! WHY ARE YOU COMPARING ME TO NORMALFAGS???

Because you act like one. Your lack of knowledge of what art actually is and your lack of understanding of what tech could be leaves me to understand that you're just another dumb tech bro being swallowed up by the faggots of Silicon valley making their next scam. This time, they are sucking up lazy faggots like you who just want to be fed slop and masturbate every single day, lacking any sort of actual knowledge aside from what scammers tell you.

You are not a chad. You are a loser and always will be a loser.

>>6714542
>It's making a concept and a vision to what your artwork could be.
Do you consider animated films art? They take more than just visual art to make a finished creation. You need music, writing, voice-acting, and a whole gamut of other skills just to manage both the personnel and the software.
>You AI faggots are only having a computer making the concept, vision and the drawing FOR you. You didn't make it. The AI did.
No? AI can only make art in individual pieces. You can't tell an AI to "make all the assets in a videogame for me". Generally, you have to tell the AI to make a specific piece and it's up to you as the creator to assemble them in coherent ways and make sure the artstyles don't clash significantly enough to break immersion.
No AI exists today where it can do all the work for you, you still have to do the art-design, programming, the music, the sound effects, the level-design, etc. Nothing is magic yet.
And you can just as easily use an AI to assist you with the programming. Having one tool assist you with one component of a much larger composition of works does not all of a sudden invalidate the entire composition.
You still have to overcome the mountain of diligence and time to make a complex creation even with the assistance of AI tools.

>Your lack of knowledge of what art actually is and your lack of understanding of what tech could be leaves me to understand that you're just another dumb tech bro being swallowed up by the faggots of Silicon valley making their next scam.
Why are you bringing an institution of money into this? Not everybody uses AI art for the money, you know.
And you are once again putting up some unrelated strawman in order to discredit an entire group that is still in its relative infancy.
I'm pretty sure the ancient art community has scammers that drastically outnumber the scammers you see in the AI art field. You just don't notice them because it's a normal occurrence now.

>>6714502
>Why would AIchads want to waste time because some random person told them to?
Because it's fun to make things by yourself and improve a skill?
No really, are you actually afraid of paper?! Why are you here? Even /beg/s are above that.

>>6714568
>Because it's fun to make things by yourself
It's also fun to generate stuff.
>and improve a skill
Why can't you improve other skills besides art as well? Why is art more important than everything else?
>No really, are you actually afraid of paper?
What if you both draw and use AI?
>Why are you here?
Why are YOU here?

>>6714562
>Do you consider animated films art? They take more than just visual art to make a finished creation. You need music, writing, voice-acting, and a whole gamut of other skills just to manage both the personnel and the software.

Yes, and you do realize a thing called "concept" and "imagination" for an animation to take place?

>No AI exists today where it can do all the work for you, you still have to do the art-design, programming, the music, the sound effects, the level-design, etc. Nothing is magic yet.

Of course not. AI is only good at making the same bullshit images over and over again. There is no variation and no creativity involved with this. This is also why AI barely gets any attention in the art world, and why websites are now banning AI generated images all across the board.

Also, no matter how much you screech about how technology "will get better, trust me bro", you will still get the same bullshit slop that Silicon Valley feeds you.

>Why are you bringing an institution of money into this? Not everybody uses AI art for the money, you know.

When you are absolutely lazy and are willing to do anything for a quick buck, you are going to use the minimum effort possible.

It's also quite hilarious on how you AI faggots keep saying this will "replace artists" and how artists should "get a real job" have now devolved into "actually, AI is not a good tool at all and you still need a lot of work to be an artist" within seconds. It's almost like you know that AI is not as magical as you think it is.

>>6714570
Have at ye, falseflagger
>It's also fun to generate stuff.
It's empty fun like rolling in a gacha game, not the same thing as getting in the zone and figuring out how to draw things and feeling proud about the things you made, you'd know if you used your own hands to do things. Try it.
>Why can't you improve other skills besides art as well? Why is art more important than everything else?
We were talking about art, the one thing that you dismissed as a waste of time compared to everything else.
>What if you both draw and use AI?
No one who draws actually does that. Unless you're a patreon fag looking for an easy way to trick your audience.
>Why are YOU here?
This is the art board, >>>/g/ is the other way.
What's so scary about paper? Just fill it with pencil strokes, it'll look better.

>>6711076
Kill yourself.

>>6714573
>Yes, and you do realize a thing called "concept" and "imagination" for an animation to take place?
Why do you think AI has to exclusively do these for you? You can also just directly construct an AI and guide it towards a piece instead of letting it generate randomly.
>Also, no matter how much you screech about how technology "will get better, trust me bro", you will still get the same bullshit slop that Silicon Valley feeds you.
I never said this. Who are you quoting?
I enjoy programming and making extensions for AI tools. It doesn't matter if the technology truly does get better, because I am actively trying to learn and improve myself as well.
>This is also why AI barely gets any attention in the art world
Does it now? This whole argument is happening because it's getting TOO much attention from the art world. If it is as insignificant as you are saying it is, then we wouldn't be talking about it.
>why websites are now banning AI generated images all across the board.
Irrelevant, and this is also a good thing for long-term AI acceptance. Normalfags are abusing AI by spamming it, when it should really just be propagated in private circles right now.
>When you are absolutely lazy and are willing to do anything for a quick buck, you are going to use the minimum effort possible.
Why do you assume using a tool to help you implies minimum effort? Have you even worked on a project that takes thousands of manhours? Have you worked on an enormous project where you can't even fathom where the finish line even is?
AI tools don't make you lazy; they just allow you to overtake even greater projects.
>you AI faggots keep saying this will "replace artists" and how artists should "get a real job"
I never said this.
>It's almost like you know that AI is not as magical as you think it is.
I literally said AI wasn't magic. Did you even read the post you were replying to?

>>6711278
Idea guy is not a thing.

>>6714579
>not the same thing as getting in the zone and figuring out how to draw things and feeling proud about the things you made
You can feel proud of anything you make. You can feel proud about programming. You can feel proud about running a marathon.
And there are some who have worked for so long that they only feel pride when they finish a large project.
>you'd know if you used your own hands to do things
I do use my hands to do things. I program, and I like experimenting with tools; software or hardware. I think everything is innately interesting, including art.
>We were talking about art, the one thing that you dismissed as a waste of time compared to everything else.
No, YOU were talking about drawing. I was talking about creating things, which isn't the same as drawing for the sake of drawing.
If your goal is to work on a large project with a myriad of other components, it's obviously going to be a waste of time to not use the most efficient tools.
Why would you force somebody to use a charcoal stick to draw when they have other tools at their disposal? That is a waste of time.
>This is the art board, >>>/g/ is the other way.
What about it? Can't I talk about the art world like everybody else here?
>What's so scary about paper? Just fill it with pencil strokes, it'll look better.
I never said I was scared of paper. Sometimes I wish most things were as simple as a blank sheet.
Why are you scared of AI tools? Just use them or don't use them. They won't affect your ability to make art.

>>6714609
>Can't I talk about the art world like everybody else here
sure, but AI-generated pictures aren't art

>>6714618
>sure, but AI-generated pictures aren't art
Okay, they aren't art. Which means all this drama about AI generators is just a whole misunderstanding, because AI gens can't compete with art if they aren't art.
Glad we cleared that up. Once artists stop complaining, AIchads can finally start genning things in peace; and the artists can just keep doing their own separate thing.

>>6714625
Cool, we came to an agreement. Now stop making these threads on /ic/ over and over again and spamming pixiv please.

>>6714629
Okay, but you're still going to have to get the normalfags and falseflaggers to stop spamming.

>>6714589
That was obviously satire.

>>6714625
>AIchads
lel, but gladyou're admitting those threads are off-topic

>>6714570
>Why can't you improve other skills besides art as well? Why is art more important than everything else?
Bro you can't go on the art board dedicated for the creation of art and be surprised that there's people that want to do art for their own sake or because they have a specific vision in mind, that's just actually goofy.

I'm not even an AI hater but this is like saying why play chess when deepmind wins 100% of the time in your place, maybe you just like playing chess.

>>6714570
why can't you just improve other skills besides jerking off as well why is jerking off more important than everything else

>>6714643
>Bro you can't go on the art board dedicated for the creation of art
It's an art board, not the "just drawing" board. If you can consider movies and animation art, you would consider their components as art or at least just as important to the creation of art as well.
My problem comes with people not being able to consider larger combinations of work and assuming that drawings are the only component that matters. When people say AI is killing art, they just mean AI is killing drawings.
AI can't efficiently produce 3D renders yet so artists can still profit off of them if they want to.
These people don't conflict with AIchads. They are however, obscenely rare; because the profitability of art conflicts with the efficient generation of art.
>>6714647
What does this even mean?

>>6714643
Chess is a competitive sport. It's quite revealing that you chose that analogy! It's as if you're more interested in being superior to another person than actually creation for its own sake. You basically want to speedrun Nintendo games and gloat about it, that's all "art" means to you.

AI is taking away your Glory, nobody will ever care about your ego ever again. That's what's so hilarious!

>>6714656
nice bait

>>6714643
>maybe you just like playing chess.
If artists liked just doing art, they wouldn't be complaining about AI.

>>6714656
Aight anon but are you this person

>>6714665
We're not even talking about the broader artist community, we're talking about this one guy who genuinely can't believe that there actually really truly like art for the process of creation or to show their skill or for their own unique ideas, like, they do exist I swear.

Even just look at the OP, this thread is about the people that like the process and the people that don't.

Glancing over these ai bugmen replies. I'm pretty sure it's either 1 or 2 autistic good for nothing neet that have nothing better to do after frying their brain to AI slops and now try to squeeze some dopamine by pretending to be an intellectual and start rambling nonsense DeBoOnking artists with the same fucking script on 4chin 24/7 EVERY fucking days.

Advice for you ai cringe. Sincerely end your pathetic life.

>>6714688
Not my fault artists like to spout the same nonsense over and over just to complain about AI art.

>>6714686
can't believe there are people that*

>>6714618
>but AI-generated pictures aren't art
That's not for you to decide.

>>6714656
AItranny, you're the speedrunners here.

>>6714766
it's not, I didn't decide unilaterally. cope

>>6714694
>people can't complain about disruptive thing that destroys their hopes for the future and ruins their communities
>because they just can't!
Might want to get used to it ai isn't going anywhere but neither are people who complain about it. Disenfranchising the entire creative arts over the span of a year is a sure way to create a lifetime worth of resentful people and contribute to radicalization.

>>6714940
>>people can't complain about disruptive thing that destroys their hopes for the future and ruins their communities
AI tools can't do that, as far as I know. That sounds like a systemic societal problem rather than an AI problem.

>>6714945
>tools
Ai tools can't but generative ai can, which is not simply a "tool" no matter how much bugmen try to force that meme

>>6714946
>Ai tools can't but generative ai can
No, AI image generators can't destroy people's lives; they can only generate images.

>>6710929
This is laughably inaccurate. Literal misinformation for ai-fags to use as cope.

>>6714950
>AI image generators can't destroy people's lives
Lol, lmao even

>>6714974
Yes. They're only designed to generate images and not do anything else.
Destroying lives is something usually only done by other humans.

>>6714562
>You still have to overcome the mountain of diligence and time to make a complex creation even with the assistance of AI tools.
ai keks unironically believe they know anything about time management and "diligence" when the only work they're capable of is writing some random prompts and cumming in their pants when the machine shits out some hentai deformed slop

>>6714912
That's just like, your opinion, man

>>6715009
>L-look, it's hard to keep hitting that generate button, okay?!jd0xny

>>6711411
>Those are public domain
its pajeets like you that remind me ever so often that you have no actual fuck what you're talking about and that you will lose every single lawsuit that is being brought against you.

>>6714562
>diligence
brother
i've used AI tools before i'm not stupid, what diligence are you talking about? literally the only reason people use AI is because they're too lazy to do something

I still have yet to see any actual examples of good usage of gAI with drawing. The funniest part is that the advice of just integrate it with drawing is coming from actual retards who've never actually drawn in the first place, or have given up cause it was too hard. I just can't take anything seriously anymore from retards who try and brush past all the ethical issues, and actively bootlick corporations in their attempt to try and cut out artists in entertainment. All because they for once in their lives can feel like they're somehow on the same playing field as someone whose worked for it. I just genuinely feel pity for someone like that openly relying on the same artist's works they put down. How do you actually feel happy with yourself

>>6715313
>I just genuinely feel pity for someone like that openly relying on the same artist's works they put down.
I don't think about you at all.

he says, frantically replying to the thread

>>6715321
Yeah I mean if you don't respect yourself you're probably not even going to be able to reciprocate anything of the sort.

>>6715321
That much is obvious when you can't put 2 and 2 together about artists not wanting their works be scraped and used to train the models. Apparently trying to cope and somehow disregard others cause of your insecurity is somehow a valuable trait

>>6715333
What you want is irrelevant. You sound like those hippie vegans that are mad at other people for eating meat.

>>6715335
Please stop using some stupid cop out phrases if you're actually gonna try to argue. If you can't come up with anything to the ethical issues then don't try to cop out with a catchphrase at least try. Apparently when we're talking about gAI we're somehow in the realm of food consumption choices all of a sudden like they're somehow similar. Truly a feat only a retard can achieve when he's preceding it with irrelevancy. absolute fucking retard

>>6715313
Bespoke references. There you go now you know of one, no need to thank me.

>>6711260
You realize Sam Hyde fucking HATES illustrators, right? He's on the side of AI annihilation.

>>6715321
>I wonder what the artists of ic are saying today
>Ooh ai thread, yus! I think artist will be seething hahaha
>Oh they... Pity me? :( Whuh?
>"I don't think about you at all." *Post*
>That'll teach em hehehe

>>6715313
Who's doing all that? AI tools just generate images. All the things you mentioned just seems like normalfag behavior.

>>6715335
AI would be nothing without real artists. "what you want is irrelevant" is just factually untrue

>>6715386
he didn't say that retard

>>6715673
>AI would be nothing without real artists.
If society cared about its dependencies, then agriculturalists would be kings.

Ai "artists" are usually techbros that know absolutely nothing about composition, color theory, anatomy, perspective or aesthetic in general.
They're just using a tool that mimics the works of other people -artists that do know about those subjects.

If artists adopted that same tool to streamline their creative process while enhancing their artwork, they'd beat techbros at their own game by producing inherently better results.
Why not doing that?

Artists+AI > techbros+AI > AI-less arlets

>>6709171
>there aren't factories of artists copying other artists works out there
lol you fucking retard

>>6709376
>>6711416
>>6711444
>>6715041
I'm not even an AI shill but you are a bunch of fucking retarded fucking faggots

>>6715711
public space =/= public domain, rajesh
I’m sorry you’re confused by the words, but just deal with it

>>6715712
kek
any artist whatsoever can pick any photograph he wants and use it as reference to paint whatever the fuck he wants regardless of how closely it ressembles another picture, no matter how many right claims you have on it. copying style also happens in the industry rampantly since forever and you are a blind retard if you don't know that

the only reason AI causes this butthurt it can do this in mass, and this is the only argument that can be used against AI shit and everything else you spill is ridiculous mental gymnastics

the arguments of "stealing" is 100% invalid

>>6715711
nice retort you bum You have no idea what "public domain" means, and the fact that you didn't argue that in this comment shows what a dumb fuck you are

>>6715715
>I have no idea what I’m talking about

>>6715715
we literally set a precedent you can’t do that a month ago with the warhol foundation suit

>>6715703
Because I don't want to use somebody else's artwork when I'm making my own piece? Hell, I already think manga artists using an auto photo-to-lineart tool like in CSP to be barely one step above cheating as is.

>>6715659
>tools
good one

>when public domain images cant save you
Ooops..

>>6715715
>the arguments of "stealing" is 100% invalid
according to your headcanon, and that'd be considering the AI was sentient given it has no transformative value that trickles down to the user
observing (not tracing) =/= data laundering

>>6715729
Why isn't it a tool, anon? Programs are literally just tools.

>>6715731
what a stupid article. the artwork is in the public domain, but photos of it are not
how is that hard to understand?

>>6715742
>order some chinkshit from Amazon
>unbox it
>"I made this lol"

>>6715746
You can order a screwdriver from Amazon. It's still called a tool even if you didn't handcraft it yourself.

>>6715742
I'll bite: a tool for what action?

>>6715755
Generating images.

>>6715724
>Because I don't want to use somebody else's artwork when I'm making my own piece?
You used photo references when drawing in the past right?
You can use models that don't include any artwork at all.

>>6715724
>I already think manga artists using an auto photo-to-lineart tool like in CSP to be barely one step above cheating as is.
Photoshop is cheating comparing to painting/drawing on paper
Procreate is cheating compared to Photoshop
CPS is cheating compared to Procreate

It's never going to stop.
Embrace it or get left behind

>>6715788
"Embracing" ai isnt going to take you anywhere you might as well learn to weld or clean up old people's diapers.

>>6715772
>You can use models that don't include any artwork at all.
How on earth would that even work? A lora needs to be fed training data first before it can put out what you want. How else would it know what a "car" is, for example.

>>6715796
Photos of cars don't necessarily have to be artworks. There's still a non-insignificant amount of free-to-use photo references.

>>6709372
looks like tranformative art to me

>>6715835
What does transformative art mean?

>>6712624
What's the downside?

>>6715788
I love how those drawing programs don't need training data to actually function but then again, it's the same dogshit arguments about "just a tool"

>>6715385
I said integration you fucking tard. The best uses I've seen is just using it to create a reference board, or the shitty render filter on top of your existing artwork to homogenize it which doesn't mean much since these things have existed before. There's just no use for it other than to appeal to corporations for cheap automation. Jesus, sometimes I wonder how these people get this far in life

>>6715872
Yeah, it's a tool that you need training data to power. Like a power drill needs specific drill bits and a power source to work.
Why does the existence of training data make it not a tool?

>>6715792
>evolve or die
>NO, I will NOT evolve

>>6716007
Proompting is not evolving sir. You will die while I work physical jobs and draw for fun.

>>6715884
No, training data isn't like a power source, you are making retarded comparisons in bad faith. A power drill doesn't need to steal knowledge from a carpenter to be functional.

>>6716019
>Proompting is not evolving
Tell that to all the companies that are going to hire proompters because they're cheaper and faster

>>6716027
>A power drill doesn't need to steal knowledge from a carpenter to be functional.
Power drills aren't exclusively designed by or used by carpenters, it's just a tool designed to efficiently drill holes into objects or remove fasteners. They're made by engineers.
You can have proprietary fasteners that require unique drill bits to remove; and the drill bits themselves can even have proprietary designs. A power drill can also work without proper drill bits, but it must have a drill bit in order to effectively do its job.
It's the same as AI tools. They can still generate images without a proper model, and they can also generate images without training on copyrighted data; you'll just get random noise or burned images.
>you are making retarded comparisons in bad faith
How is it in bad faith? You aren't even providing a proper argument to back up your claim that AI tools aren't tools.
Provide an argument if you don't think my claims are logical.

>>6716047
Then you better hurry up and move to India if you want a piece of that pie before it collapses lmao

>>6716052
It's the opposite
Indians are going to steal your pie without even moving

>>6716058
>your pie
Not mine, but yeah that was my point. Good thing I picked a career that is immune to outsourcing.

>>6715745
>fixated on the article
>"The publisher reportedly projected David’s face onto the head of a model for a picture that appeared on the cover of a magazine. However, the company did not obtain a license from the museum, which owns the image rights to the famed 500-year-old sculpture, even though the artwork belongs to the public domain.

The case hinged on article nine of Italy’s constitution, which protects symbols of the nation’s cultural identity and historical memory. A related law allows the country’s public institutions to request concession fees for commercial reproductions of artworks of cultural heritage, regardless of their copyright status.

In a statement, the museum claimed that by “insidiously and maliciously [juxtaposing] the image of Michelangelo’s David with that of a model,” the publisher was “debasing, obfuscating, mortifying, and humiliating the high symbolic and identity value of the work of art and subjugating it for advertising and editorial promotion purposes.”"

Glad I get to be the 300th post and kill this garbage thread.

>>>/g/ >>>/g/ >>>/g/ >>>/g/ >>>/g/ >>>/g/

>>6716086
Why do you not like this thread?

>>6716097
A drawing thread died for this.

>>6716170
No, it seems like this thread saved several art threads by remaining alive.

wow inkcels really came out poorly in this thread

>>6715681
but it's not society, and it's not a required dependency, it's just some gay computer program for people who are too lazy to draw. this has nothing to do with agriculture

umm pajeetsisters? Our next move?