/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

You did it. Have fun getting deleted.
Discuss g shit on g.

>>6807784
genuinely pathetic.

Kill yourself.

all this power at your fingertips. and you choose to deny it.
refusing to face the facts.

trad or die

you know the truth. you know that AI can be good. you know that it is impossible to come up with this shit through simply copying and pasting.
you simply refuse to see the truth.

>>6807776
you're not fooling anyone

it's not perfect but that's not the point. the point is that you refuse to engage with it despite clearly seeing its potential.

one shot prompting is not the only way to engage with SD.
>inputting your own art
>visual direction
>iteratively improving a piece by going back and forth between photoshop and SD
and again i ask: why the fuck is there not a single discussion about any of this on the artwork board?

explain yourselves, /ic/

>>6807790
I generated over 10k images in SD. I started with gans on art breeder 5 years ago. I used all the Google colabs in in 2021. My head is far from in the sand. I see it all. I just don't need to see it on ic.

>>6807805
Yes AI is in the process of making almost all art completely worthless, you won, you are in the process of ruining one of the most fulfilling human endeavors, I hope you are happy. Now get the fuck out of the art board.

it doesn't have to be better or worse than non AI art.
that's not the point. it simply is. this capability of the AI is simply a fact.

this capability is a fact. a cognitive ability to work with images and ideas that used to be unique to humans.
you cannot hide from it even if you want to.

>>6807810
>explain yourselves, /ic/
ic = i see
machines don't see or understand, that's why they can't draw
case closed

>>6807802
i mean if theft was normal, you'd just take an artist's picture and use it for your own goals. but it isn't, so you're using AI as a proxy pillage the work of artists and cope that you aren't actually stealing. there really us no discussion to be had here, I don't know what's worse: damaging an artist's image and reputation by making google give you AI slop results when you search their name, or using it for clout chasing with their skin. i haven't seen a single AIcuck explain why the generated images shouldn't belong to the artists whose images were used as input

>>6807814
that's simply not true. look at pic related.
it was mostly made with photoshop, but some of the base are AI images.
notice how AI is simply another step in the artists process.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AIArtistWorkflows/comments/15dpmw8/workflow_i_used_for_the_image_brokenlost/

>after /ic/ have seen the light, I'll go to /i/ and show those kids how to really have fun. I can't wait for ai to be able to draw on the oekaki tool, I'm gonna be able to join in and my art will be the best looking!

>>6807810
it's garbage, ugly, unengaging and also not yours. you're nothing more than a worthless consoomer of remixed art. cope and seethe all you like, reality won't change its course just because you act like a dramatic retard who wants really really hard for actual artists to adopt this vomit

>>6807815
>cognitive
looool. no matter how this ends, i do rest easy at night knowing I'm not the laughing stock of mankind

>>6807819
>I cannot understand wherr this will lead to

>>6807819
notice how photobashers are considered to be a laughing stock and nonexistent on this board

>>6807818
it's not theft. it basically takes in images in the same way as a human would.

it's based on NEURAL networks
the entire field is called machine LEARNING

not even to mention that not a single image is saved. there are only "neurons" (nodes) that learn the relationship between elements rather than learning any particular image.

>>6807824
i am an actual artist adapting this.

>>6807826
you quite literally will end up to be the laughing stock of mankind at this rate.

>>6807830
photobashing is also considered to be a common industry practice. again, it's simply a tool.

>>6807826
this, but i'm also sad because the laughing stock of mankind seems to be growing.
AIclowns love talking about humans bringing machines to life and implying something about AI rights when many humans and animals are still suffering...
techclowns are dangerous.

>>6807832
If it's just photobashing/Photoshoping it be more a /gd/ thing but your insistence on not fixing shit and instead spamming 24/7 can go fuck off

>>6807832
>it's not theft. it basically takes in images in the same way as a human would.

it's based on NEURAL networks
the entire field is called machine LEARNING

Just cause something has learning attached to the name doesn't give it the same qualifications as what you're ascribing it to be. If it really did learn just like a human, we would grant the models authorship capabilities like a human and therefore access to copyright. But, you fucking tards don't seem to understand that the court ruled against that because it's not learning like a human or even close to being a human.

Also, you're describing it as it's own entity, so why are you trying to take credit for something that isn't even generated by your hands. Like jesus, the dissonance you got to have to try and be something you're not. Even disregarding the fact that the model needed millions of images scraped from actual artists to exist in the first place, standing on top of stolen images and thinking you're somehow special for gacharolling an interpolated image from that pool is close to pure autism.

Im honestly just fascinated at how these people think and simultaneously just feel so much pity for someone not even able to conjure up the willpower to pursue something that belongs to them solely.

>>6807802
> I'm not interested in this garbage
> "Noooooo anon, you're suppose to you like it even if you don't!"

>>6807832
>photobashing is also considered to be a common industry practice. again, it's simply a tool.

You do realize most of the artists contracted with major IP studios like riot games have added new clauses against adding AI into their workflows because of the copyright landmine it potentially can bring up. If you're gonna argue something at least bring up factual information, it's not a common industry practice until the looming legality battles like getty vs stability is solved.

I can't wait until they use AI to spy on us even more! Anyone against surveillance is a luddite!

>>6807805
Yes, AI art is good because it scrapes millions of images of good art from artists both existing and in the past. Yet the reason why it's not good is because the vast majority of AI proponents do the bare minimum with it and generate utter garbage without actually doing anything to fix it. At the end of the day, an actual artist who knows how to draw/paint will adapt and nothing will change for the retards pushing it without the art skills in the first place like you lmao.There is a truth, but it's more like the retards who push it can't accept it for some reason

>draw character with a plaid shirt
lol lmao

>>6807776
>doesn't draw anything
>doesn't improve his skills
>contrabutes nothing to the discussion
>spams artforums contests and sites with cheaply generated spam
>devalues the entire medium by reducing it to a mass produced consumable commodity for coomers and oversaturates the market
>scams clients by bait&switiching there commissions with slop
fuck off to your containment board you hack grifters >>>/g/

>>6807776
If I want to, I would, but I'll be called a fraud if I try since this treading copyright territory, this kind of fad is just doing what is common by failed artist to do whatever means possible to get what they desire, but in this day and age where there are rules could mean a difficult road ahead for anyone who tries using AI

also, if you treat art like just a visual candy just for clout and money, then you don't understand the meaning of that word

>>6807846
>because of the copyright landmine it potentially can bring up.
anon the entire case has already been decided promter trannies have essentially been filtered from infesting mass commercial media with a single legal decree.
it's not often I say this but dam the US legal system did something based for once.

>>6807834
even with something like this, as an artist you should be able to realize that errors can be fixed and then you can continue working on top of it.

>>6807842
>Just cause something has learning attached to the name doesn't give it the same qualifications as what you're ascribing it to be.
but it can APPLY the things it has learned.
you should be able to understand this intellectually, you just refuse to.

>If it really did learn just like a human, we would grant the models authorship capabilities like a human and therefore access to copyright. But, you fucking tards don't seem to understand that the court ruled against that because it's not learning like a human or even close to being a human.
lol. just because it learns like a human doesn't mean i think it is human, or sentient.
i'm perfectly fine with the copyright thing. obviously with a purely AI generated image, i didn't make the large majority of it, even if i prompted it.

>Also, you're describing it as it's own entity
yes, exactly. because i do think it's akin to its own artistic entitiy (again, nothing to do with sentience), just due to its capabilities. if you use it. it's akin to using an assistant artist, depending on how exactly you use it. and you can make it do all the shit you don't want to.

>Even disregarding the fact that the model needed millions of images scraped from actual artists to exist in the first place
you need years to soak in information from as a baby to function in any meaningful way at all.
and if you didn't see any artwork over the course of your life. you'd be at the level of a caveman.
see the similarities?
you too needed to see and experience in order to learn and then apply things.

>muh skills, muh art, muh credit
before you go further down this line: i am an artist and i can draw and paint decently. self taught and learned it all long before this AI shit.
I'm just seeing it purely as a tool. something /ic/ is completely incapable of doing due to all this misinfo

>/g/ rejects shitting up on /ic/ again with aislop spam, thread number #5000000
fuck off

>>6807849
>Yet the reason why it's not good is because the vast majority of AI proponents do the bare minimum with it and generate utter garbage without actually doing anything to fix it.
why the FUCK do you care?
why are you not thinking about what YOU can do with it? because that's what i'm doing.

What a nice thread to discuss ai use in your art. Does anyone have technical tips?

>>6807858
>"human beings are an essential part of a valid copyright claim"
I don't want to be pessimistic, but shouldn't this focus on the mass theft of copyrighted art?

>>6807868
>>6807865
>>6807860
>>6807875
don't spam images. this is exactly why /g/sdg/ is shit. post when you have something to discuss.

>>6807878
We are on an imageboard. Post your work.

>>6807878
>his is exactly why /g/sdg/ is shit
and you should go back there

>>6807845
>you're suppose to you like it even if you don't!
>suppose to you
good morning sirs

>>6807776
what kind of genuine discussion is there to have?
TLDR people who draw for fun are winning, people who draw for money are losing and people who reject it are coping

for hobbyists like me and some of this board, it doesn't affect us. the process of making art is fun, which is why we do it. debugging runtime errors, scraping the internet and tweaking parameters isn't really the same. sure, the output will be cooler than anything i'll be able to make in 10-20 years time but again that's not why we're doing it.

however, when there's money involved things are definitely changing.
at this point we all know industry professionals are adopting it in to their workflow (i believe stan proko said this), and the rest will follow through, as not using AI will put them at a significant loss compared to an artist who does.
artists are getting backlash from using it publicly, so for now if you want to use it you better hide it well.

>Do you REALLY think that one shot prompting is the only way to use AI?
it has utilitarian uses of course, i think it can be a great tool for learning. i like it's rendering style so i sometimes send some of my WIPs in to SD to see how it might render it. it does pretty appealing faces too

>It's been a year almost and nobody here even as much as experiments with it at all.
not sure about midjourney and other paid services but at least for SD it's pretty advanced for most laymen who aren't familiar with tech. even as a programmer a lot of this shit goes over my head, ai image generation is a bit of a rabbit hole of its own

>>6807875
>"M-maybe this one will finally be cool enough. Oh gosh I hope they see how cool it is and call me an artist oh gosh. I'm so fucking stupid I'm completely missing the point of art oh goshh"

/ic/ or /a/ could potentially have /sdgs/ relevant their boards. an /ic/ sdg makes particular sense because here we could discuss art concepts more in depth than, for example, /g/ who talks tech more. it'll be interesting to see if this thread survives

>>6807888
What is the point of art?

>>6807863
>lol. just because it learns like a human doesn't mean i think it is human, or sentient.
it doesn't learn like a human at all are you retarded or don't understand how algorithms and machines work in general?
image generators
work on having images tagged with descriptions, the user makes the inputs, the program looks for tags, applies filters and warps images with a given seed taken from a a library of seeds available to it and following its directive, until an output is reached.
It isn't even aware of what it is doing, reproducing or replicating, it is simply following orders and what it is programmed to do.
eg. just because something can look human doesn't mean it is.
it also doesn't have emotions experiences biases that would influence the work as such nothing it produces matters or means anything it's a sponge if you feed it with enough data it will copy that thing perfectly.
>>6807874
>I don't want to be pessimistic, but shouldn't this focus on the mass theft of copyrighted art?
yes it's a fucking legal nightmare produced by big techs hubris it almost makes me think they engineered the crisis intentionally so hey can sell us incredibly intrusive and privacy destroying solutions.
the only option i see that is realistic is forcing stable fagution and other companies shilling this shite to go open source and reveal there datasets to the public any copyrighted material will be DMCA'd by an algorithm similar to YouTube a dickish thing to do but fuck them they laid there bed now they should lie in it.

I made an original character by drawing reference images

ayakon (ai-kon)

>>6807872
we can barely even get started on this because artists refuse to engage with it.
either that or they're too tech illiterate to make use of it maybe.

i am trying to figure out good ways to use it in an illustration pipeline.

>>6807889
>/a/
still waiting on this one

>>6807863
>but it can APPLY the things it has learned.
you should be able to understand this intellectually, you just refuse to.

No you absolute tard, because the model doesn't learn, it doesn't understand the basic concepts of what you're describing because it works nothing like a human brain in active or passive learning. You need a human entity to actually make the decisions for it in the training process. Even then, we see the abominations in the models generations that aren't fixed to this day because what do you know it doesn't learn anything in the end

>lol. just because it learns like a human doesn't mean i think it is human, or sentient.

wat, is this a joke

>it's akin to using an assistant artist, depending on how exactly you use it. and you can make it do all the shit you don't want to.

You tell me, is running a sketch through im2img working as an assistant artist? Or generating the entire image and just fixing the blatantly obvious parts working as just the assistant artist? I can see circumstances like using it as a reference point to bounce off of or a mood board, but why would you limit yourself like that if we're trying to achieve maximum efficiency? This is the point I don't get, it's a tool in that little percentage of circumstances for some people, but the vast majority and you know this use it just to generate it and fuck off with it. Saying it's just a "tool" is really stretching it and almost disingenuous when we're talking about the reality of the situation here.

>>6807892
oh this is really nice, great artwork!

Do yourself a favor if you don't want to waste your time arguing about the same inane shit at every chance these threads pop up.

>>6807892
original character lora I mean by this - this is an answer to people saying ai can't create original characters or only steal artwork to make models with

>>6807776
Anons are terrified of admiting a single truth on why people are starting to lean towards AI:
Nobody sane wants to pump tens of thousands of hours into trying to draw with no actual guarantee you'll "make it". Art is a tedious hobby that rewards very little. Time is finite and most grown adults have actual responsibilities. The result is what matters. The "journey" is irrelevant to normies.
Basically, until there is magically a more straight foward way to improve artistic skill, SD won't go away. And even if there was I can't be certain.

so how does this general work? are we supposed to post gens or tell artcels their existence is wrong and stupid?

>>6807903
here we enjoy just the process of art
refining a prompt hour after hour
tweaking it over weeks and learning your craft
pouring your heart, 8k beautiful masterpiece, into the work that you're bringing into the world, by greg rutkowski
we prompt artists, by leonid afremov, we the dreamers, high res wallpaper, we the ones who make true art, by alphonse mucha, impressionist oil painting

>>6807905
we answer honest questions about SD from curious artists. Dab on the rest

thread challenge: people dancing in a hospital

>>6807906
Nigger please.
Nobody here enjoys drawing.

>>6807895
/a/ has a pretty stable community of drawfags and their simps, they sperg out on any sort of ai pic they see. And technically, generals are forbidden on /a/.
Frankly, most of the time ai pics posted there are awful and I'd call them garbage as well

>>6807912
I've only seen support for my work there but it's honestly been forever since I posted. It was actually in an /a/ draws thread lol.
>generals are forbidden on /a/
there are so many that basically are tho

>>6807887
>what kind of genuine discussion is there to have?
I was assuming this general was going to be an intersection of generative art and art theory, since other AI generals are focused on tech talk. I find it hard to believe there's no overlap between art concepts and imagen

>>6807912
here is guts driving a car, I think it would improve the story if he had one

>>6807906
>here we enjoy just the process of art
>refining a prompt hour after hour
>tweaking it over weeks and learning your craft
>pouring your heart, 8k beautiful masterpiece, into the work that you're bringing into the world, by greg rutkowski
>we prompt artists, by leonid afremov, we the dreamers, high res wallpaper, we the ones who make true art, by alphonse mucha, impressionist oil painting

I used this beautiful post as a prompt :)

>>6807913
damn you're killing the thread challenge bro

>>6807891
>work on having images tagged with descriptions, the user makes the inputs, the program looks for tags, applies filters and warps images with a given seed taken from a a library of seeds available to it and following its directive, until an output is reached.
LMMMMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
good one anon. but that really shows exactly why you're misinformed. i had a somewhat similar understanding of it at first, because that's how i understood "programs" and "computing" to be. but this is exactly why it's different. all AI are working off of artificial neural networks. it's not something as simple as a program that executes all these elaborate tasks.
just like the brain, the tasks we're talking about are incredibly simple here, and it's more the entire architecture and network of the nodes/neurons that create these capabilities.

>>6807912
/a/ doesn't hate AI that much, from what I've seen /v/ is the worst aside from /ic/. Every other board has a general it seems like.

>>6807918
actually this is pretty good

>>6807863
>you need years to soak in information from as a baby to function in any meaningful way at all.
>and if you didn't see any artwork over the course of your life. you'd be at the level of a caveman.
>see the similarities?
>you too needed to see and experience in order to learn and then apply things.

You tell me, do humans have access to a database at one point where they can have the same capabilities to pull up the image 100% exactly as it is? Or tell me do humans not have the ability to passively learn now just like the models? Last time I remembered models need another entity to make the decisions for it when training it so tell me how that relates at all. Just cause they have learning in their names as a marketing tool, doesn't mean it's even close to the same thing

>before you go further down this line: i am an artist and i can draw and paint decently. self taught and learned it all long before this AI shit.
I'm just seeing it purely as a tool. something /ic/ is completely incapable of doing due to all this misinfo

Then you realize all the issues with it, and how the majority of people are using it not as a tool but a way to automate the artist out of the equation. Companies and industries will remove the pipeline for upcoming artists to grow and flourish in the process. There's also the issue of how AI art is valued, and you're lying if you think people will pay the same rate for your generated crap if they knew.

>>6807892
I made an original character by typing words into a textbox :3

>>6807915
Yeah I posted some of my Saber pics and people generally seemed to like it too.
But usually from what I've seen people there immediately start pajeetposting once they see AI art.

Wait are AI art threads allowed on here?

>>6807925
the point I am making is consistency, now make the same character again doing something else

>>6807906
>here we enjoy just the process of art
>Go to a 4 star restaurant
>tell the master chef what you want
>he prepares it for you and brings it to the table
>I'm now a master chef <this is you
you don't put in any work the bot does it for you you don't improve you achieve nothing it's the embodiment of hack fraud ideology.
>>6807912
>/a/ has a pretty stable community of drawfags and their simps, they sperg out on any sort of ai pic they see. And technically, generals are forbidden on /a/.
>Frankly, most of the time ai pics posted there are awful and I'd call them garbage as well
during the Gear 5 reveal people where calling it AI shit slop people instinctively recognize soulless shit for what it is.

>>6807918
lmao this one summoned Greg-sama quite well

>>6807870
Because it's a crutch for beginner and intermediate artists, it devalues the work of future artists alike and yours if you use it since most people wont value it the same, and encourages corporations to continue to block out actual artists from new opportunities? It also doesn't help because even without AI artists function perfectly fine with it? Like what the fuck are you this much of a bumbling idiot

>>6807929
im disabled (no hands or face) so ai is the only way i can express my inner artist

>>6807924
>You tell me, do humans have access to a database at one point where they can have the same capabilities to pull up the image 100% exactly as it is?
ever see that autist that can draw 100% perfect birds eye view drawings of cities after a helicopter ride?

>all the /g/ schizos raiding this board
fucking kill yourselves

>>6807863
>"I'm an artist too," they say
>tells you to fix a bad Photoshop picture
>even with something like this, as an artist you should be able to realize that errors can be fixed
>the image question>>6807834
nigga it gonna take a lot more to fix this and why even try when starting all over would been less of an hassle

what retard decided this is a good start

ai art has a deserved poor reputation because people are so lazy with their gens, never in-painting and always doing the same pin up 1girl pose

>>6807922
/v/ is very divided on this. Initially they welcomed AI but suddenly there was a change of heart and some threads were getting brigaded almost immediately. It was really weird.

>>6807933
I thought you were going to argue in good faith, but it always ends up like this. Even if we're going with your example and saying it's possible to have 100% memory like a computer, apparently that one off autist is indicative of the whole human race now and not an anomaly? Man of all the bad faith arguments this one is just plain retarded

>>6807906
>here we enjoy just the process of art
this is arbitrary gatekeeping. plenty of artists don't enjoy the process. plenty of people aren't even artists. lots of people just want to appreciate art

>>6807929
What is your pic supposed to prove?

>>6807936
totally agree

>>6807937
/v/ overall likes it as seen by the AI chatbot threads and the AI art threads with a theme and a link to the tool to use(/v/ is poor and can't gen locally). It's just that some /ic/ posters also live there and they flip out and post pajeets and seethe violently.

I just wanted to point out /a/ isn't nearly as bad, most people there can appreciate a good anime gen.

>>6807939
I was just making a joke lmao and because of loss no image trained into a stable diffusion model will be 100%

>>6807927
>Wait are AI art threads allowed on here?
Pajeets never stop posting them it seems there trying to gain a foothold despite the fact literally everybody on the board despises it it's a fucking invasion of the street shitters!
>>6807933
>ever see that autist that can draw 100% perfect birds eye view drawings of cities after a helicopter ride?
photographic memory types do exist.
>>6807932
>>6807933
pyw faggots a doodle like this one.
>>6807944
>What is your pic supposed to prove?
the fact that it doesn't understand what the fuck it's actually making kind of like the machines in the factory i work in.

>>6807920
You can dress it up, but in the end the model is only capable of reproducing from the pool of interpolated images and crossovers of the training data it was given. It's not that complicated and anthropomorphizing it is the weirdest thing I've seen even after the court ruling that it can't attain authorship like a human

>>6807950
haha yeah if you get the signature try putting:
(artist signature)
into the negative prompt

>>6807925
>>6807939
Greetings from /g/, keep in mind this is the worst poster on /sdg/ that has been shitting up threads for half a year that literally almost every hates, don't expect to have any non troll discussions with him around