/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6808006
reporting is 3 clicks :)

the OP is using VPNs to post according to the /g/ thread

cmon, show me where my analogy falls apart.
it won't easily. because AI are made out of neural networks and those are based on neurons in our brain.

>>6808012
i don't know what is going on at /g/ right now, but know that i'm not affiliated with them directly. i'm doing this entirely on my own.
they're trolling if they say anything different.

the reason i can post is simply because i haven't been banned.

Do you know there's been dozens of attempts at forcing an ai general on this board and it's failed everytime? There's like 10 other generals across the entire site for you to post in instead of making one here

>>6808015
You aren’t wanted here
>>6808017
It’s a bunch of drama farmers on /g/, they caused problems on other boards

>>6808020
Trust me they're not wanted in /g/ either

>>6808017
There can't be a containment board if we aren't on every board

>>6808015
Repeating the same points and failing to address the other anons points is not doing you any favors and im trying to see both sides. youre also weirdly conflating the human characteristic of learning without calling it human so it doesnt make sense. the learning aspect was crucial to the copyright point which it failed on so theres really no point of arguing this it by all means failed at the purpose of attaching learning to it

i also find it funny from the first thread where one anon said something along the lines of
>artists will still win in the end because they will be able to make use of AI the best
and i agree. if you are skilled you should still have some advantage, depending on your exact skills.
but this begs the question: why is nobody here trying to engage with it then?

>>6808017
i don't honestly care that much about the general lol. maybe i should have mentioned that.
i just wanted to know why this isn't even DISCUSSED on the art board, despite being such a huge thing. it's like the elephant in the room.
and it's problematic how deeply misguided people are about their understanding of AI.

i used to post here a lot years ago but i'm still baffled how everyone is burying their heads in the sand.

>>6808023
which points did i fail to address. tell me. i will address them.

>>6808024
You still didn’t answer me; what is there to critique if you didn’t draw it?

>>6808024
>but this begs the question: why is nobody here trying to engage with it then?

Because AI is extremely simple in comparison to the art process to learn. What takes a few days doesn't even compare to the years it takes to learn the fundamentals. AI will also become more and more streamlined and even easier to use, and the weight of an artist with the skill of drawing/painting is worth more in every situation. Why would you engage with a subpar generator if it's a crutch in most situations including yours for sure. Not to mention, AI devalues your work to the audience you try to sell it to. If you're lying about that to your audience go for it but that's pretty weird. If you're editing and touching it up to the point where you can't see it's AI anymore, then that defeats the whole purpose of maximum efficiency in using AI.

There's just no real reason to use it unless you're trying to make a quick buck and do so without the work

>>6808027
critique just means pointing out the flaws.
if you have the ability to correct the flaws, then critique is worth it, no?

that being said, what if i did draw 50, 70 or 90% or it? what then?

>>6808026
At least address the points in the post you replied to first that was pointed out?

>>6808034
>that being said, what if i did draw 50, 70 or 90% or it? what then?

What's the point just go the full 90% to save time and efficiency. i dont get this mixing thing, the work is already devalued with AI so go the full way

https://www.4chan.org/rules#ic1
>All images and discussion should pertain to the critique of visual artwork.

What you are discussing is technology. Stable Diffusion text-to-image machine learning models used to generate detailed images conditioned on text descriptions, is not visual art. For arguments sake lets pretend that it is, and that this discussion isn't more appropriate to have on >>>/g/ than it is on >>>/ic/.

https://www.4chan.org/rules#ic2
>User-created artwork is submitted for critique, and visual art is discussed. Do not claim authorship of works you did not create.

Since the work being generated automatically and not by an actual user it isn't a valid subject for critique or discussion. It was a Stable Diffusion text-to-image machine learning model that generated the work and not the user posting it. There was no creative process, any use of technical abilities, elements, or principals of art and design. It is essentially identical to calming authorship of work you did not create.

I have to get back to literally just drawing now, Sorry that I wasted any time on this at all.

>>6808040
thank you for your post

>>6808033
AI will also become more and more streamlined and even easier to use, and the weight of an artist with the skill of drawing/painting is worth more in every situation. Why would you engage with a subpar generator if it's a crutch in most situations including yours for sure.
well yes, i do think manual skill will be worth more, but it's going to be marginal compared to before.
but the point is that it can speed up or automate part of your work. just like photobashing did.

>Not to mention, AI devalues your work to the audience you try to sell it to.
it will do that anyway. that's the point.
you HAVE to move past its level. and a good way to do that would be to build on top of it. that's what i think

>If you're editing and touching it up to the point where you can't see it's AI anymore, then that defeats the whole purpose of maximum efficiency in using AI.
what about the time saved? or the uptake in quality due to the time saved and more efficient use of your time?

>>6808036
>>6808023
..you mean this?
>youre also weirdly conflating the human characteristic of learning without calling it human so it doesnt make sense. the learning aspect was crucial to the copyright point which it failed on so theres really no point of arguing this it by all means failed at the purpose of attaching learning to it.
i think you're missing the line of thought here. the reason i make that comparison is because people say that AI steals.
i'm saying that if AI steals, then all human artists have always stolen.

and we do steal, but it's a spectrum. and the same will be true with AI. it can steal, but it doesn't inherently steal. it simply applies concepts it learned.
and when it gets too close, it will be stealing, just like with humans.

Good afternoon sirs!

>>6808040
your argument falls completely flat.
- there are tons of non-critique threads on ic
- REGARDLESS of whether it is art or not, it affects art and this space and will do so strongly.

>>6808009
Liberate /ic ! AI art general now!

>>6808046
a human is limited to being inspired by due to humans not being capable of committing billions of images to their memory banks pixel by pixel, unlike say a computer

>>6808043
>well yes, i do think manual skill will be worth more, but it's going to be marginal compared to before.

Art is a luxury, there's limited amounts of money to go around and people like the idea of hand made or hand drawn. Just the idea of using AI has been associated pretty badly with regards to the strike here in the US. I don't think it's as marginal as you think it is but that's debatable.

>it will do that anyway. that's the point.
you HAVE to move past its level. and a good way to do that would be to build on top of it. that's what i think

Yeah anything that uses AI will be devalued. Which is why that marginal manual skill of fundamentals matters even more

>what about the time saved? or the uptake in quality due to the time saved and more efficient use of your time?

If this is the argument, then you should just churn it out to the max and not touch it up. I don't see the idea of using a tool not to the fullest benefit it offers that kind of defeats the purpose. If you're gonna focus on learning a style or fundamentals you don't only do a bit of it and add ai on top. If you're competing to churn out stuff you just prompt away.

>>6808056
yeah. the scale is one major difference.
so you agree that AI takes in images in the same way that humans do just from seeing and studing them?
but in the case of AI. it's theft because they're doing too much at once?

>>6808063
what part of you need to put pencil in hand and draw do you not understand ?

>>6808040
Don’t be sorry, many of us here support this. It’s only permabegs and leeches who want to use ai art as their egos. Imagine promoting an image and thinking to yourself
>”yeah, I made that, came right from my skull, I visualized this exact thing then wrote the perfect prompt for ai to transpose. You know writing prompts is tough business”

>>6808063
Are you just intentionally missing the point. A computer can easily bring up an image uploaded onto its database 100% accurately. The model at one point had this database to train from. It's the sheer amount and accuracy that is beyond the realms of a human brain, hence the reason why the brain is only able to somewhat conjure and fill in the missing spots of an image you bring up

>>6808049
Good morning sir!

>>6808022
But ai art is on every board. This is just us having foresight. From the bronies to the poltards. We know an epidemic when we see one.

>>6808062
>Yeah anything that uses AI will be devalued. Which is why that marginal manual skill of fundamentals matters even more
not in a professional setting.
for example: anime will look even better with AI. and with smaller teams. it will be incomparible with the limits animators used to have to work with. this 100% will happen once genuinely skilled artists start working with and on top of AI.
it will be less time to do basic shit and more time to refine what matters, to nail those scenes.

>>6808068
>Are you just intentionally missing the point. A computer can easily bring up an image uploaded onto its database 100% accurately.
it cannot. this is one of the main misunderstandings people have about how this entire shit works.
if my fucking earlier thread was still up you'd be able to see me explain some parts of it. (fuck you janny)
to put it in simple terms: the imags are "dissolved" into the AI's "memory".
and no, this does not mean a database of compressed jpegs, or a database of any sort.

there. is. no. database.

i'll reply to the rest in another post and then call it a night.

stop trying to reason with him, he is a disingenuous poster only wanting to be a dramafag
just report the thread

>>6808024
> why is nobody here trying to engage with it then?

Because you can’t really learn from fucked up anatomy, fingers that went through a wood chipper, lighting and folds that don’t make sense, random limb bending and mutations, etc… it’s a fucking joke, dude. All ai art that is any semblance of structure is ai filtered and touched up, rinse repeat. Maybe in a year or 2 when ai art has consumed every picture on the internet. Ai won the copyright hearing. You don’t own your art anymore. Ai does.