/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6843578
>I feel like the hysteria was a little bit exaggerated
no fucking shit, that's what almost everyone here constantly said in every single ai thread.

There's now a coom production factories and memes but I don't really see any industrial revolution 2.0. The few examples of AI in the actual industry were met with humiliation

>>6843578
If people didn't go absolutely bat shit insane about it then it would have been. All they managed to do was delay it though.

>>6843587
>two more weeks!

>>6843578
we have this thread 3 times a week faggot kys

>>6843578
This is a disguised AI bait thread, the second one of the day. Simply report it, hide it and move along, dont give it a chance and dont fall for it.

>>6843588
this 100%

AiGrifters about to lose again, laugh at AIfags
YWNBAA

>>6843578
>So, after the dust has settled
The fuck are you on about OP? The dust didn't settle! There is a frigging haboob dust storm still raging on.

>>6843578
No, AI is just a tool.
It's great to quickly generate some concepts to figure out what you want to draw, but that's about it. For now atleast.

>>6843622
no, normies don't give a fuck about AI anymore. the pick of AI were memes about balenciaga harry potter and trump playing cs go with biden. of course it didn't go anywhere, but it was far from what doomers tried to hallucinate.

>>6843611
>Runs it locally

>>6843588
Last time it took 24 years to come back from the trash bin.

>>6843578
>I feel like the hysteria was a little bit exaggerated
it was. those who embrace soul intuited that it could never replace us & time is proving them right.
AI was good for us because it has us coming back around to raw art, warts and all, i now find myself embracing the quirks in my style & others, & avoiding the polish of what i call the "over-digital."

I haven't seen that much ai posting across 4chan the last few weeks. Where did they all suddenly go?

>>6843578
No. People spammed the fuck out of it because it was easy bait or they fell for yet another NFT tier grift.
There's also speculation that certain individuals were paid to promote/spam it across the internet to increase ai centric and in-based stocks. Just look at how Nvidia reached over 1 fucking trillion market cap, despite being severely overvalued and almost all shares (that could be) were sold by insiders.
We are at the point were ai has not generated enough money to justify share prices for a lot of stocks, similar thing happened during the dotcom bubble.

>>6844003
What makes you guys think its over? Or that you had any influence on it whatsoever? I can’t see any of that.

All i see is chatgpt being amazing then getting nerfed meaning the public no longer has access to the amazing version and ai art generation quality seemingly slowing down but not stopping. Its been less than a year since the boom. Seems to me AI art and locally run chatgpt like systems will far more advanced in a year again. You probably already can’t tell the difference in most cases already.

Those standing against ai seem to have made no impact and are fighting inevitability. The invention of the printing press or automation were the same. You can’t stop it. Every software uses it now. Every company and most professional artists use it.

>>6844024
No one on fucking 4chan or anywhere on the internet has had any meaningful influence over ai digression.
The only "influence" on ai has been the developers actively sabotaging their own work because it was too risque, and court judges deciding that ai works cannot be copyrighted.
The fucking application couldn't even be properly used during its prime.
Example: You could not ask it for financial advice, but instead had to rely on a jail broken version of open ai to generate things it wasn't originally supposed too.
You also could not rely on it generating code unless it was used for very simple commands, something that to this day has demonstrably not improved.

A lot of companies do use it, but most have it's usage listed only for stock hype. As for it being something that can tangibly generate the billions these companies have garnished through their hype is an entirely different story. Fact is, the technology is overvalued, and its mass adopted usage simply isn't a thing. No one's jumping off of google search to use Bing's ai chatbot. Companies buy Nvidia A100 chips because it's currently the only (good) one on the market, yet its sales still won't change NVDA as being overvalued.
A lot of companies that claim to use it don't justify its use. And professional artists can't use it because it's work cannot be copyrighted.

>>6843656
Don't forget Mortal Kombat x [popular thing]

>>6844024
> comparing this situation to the printing press
Cool historical fanfiction, retard.

Realistically it will take 2 more years. Retards will call this a failure

>>6844002
New pig flu variant in India is killing the poors.

>>6843611
So the AIbros were the final nail in the coffin to ban lolisho? Dare I say based?

The most worrying thing about AI is the wave of legislation that's coming along with it. 'Le industrial revolution 4.0' is giving autocrats excuses to introduce things like digital ID and AI filters that create context by filtering "russian troll farms" and anything else you don't need to see.

>>6843781
>Police happen to search your computer for some reason
>Find several hard-drives worth of AI made CP
>"B-b-but I ran it locally!"
It's not going to help you buddy.

>>6843578
I was already fairly positive and thought it was going to be a tool, and it wasn't going to effect artists' jobs too much, but I'm surprised by how little impact it HAS had so far.

>>6844043
>No one on fucking 4chan or anywhere on the internet has had any meaningful influence over ai digression.
If you think that the public perception hasn't been influenced by the stink artists raised (and yes, /ic/ would be a part of that), and that it hasn't had an effect, you're an idiot.
And of course this perception has dictated how companies use AI as well. If public perception was better, we'd perhaps see AI being used everywhere already.

>>6844322
>public perception takes the opinions of a bunch of faggots on twitter seriously
Holy fucking shit, you're actually delusional.

>>6843578
I feel like the hysteria is uncalled for but not on the artists part, but on you aitards.
>holy frick guys it's literally the future this is the printing press 2!!!
ywnbaa, kill yourself, seethe, dilate, wash your pajeet hands etc no body will ever care about what your computer generates for you.

>>6844065
>tool: *exists*
>scribes of ye olde ages: *GULP* uh, guys, please don’t use the “fire your scribe” machine, it’s cringe and is incapable of producing handwritten SOVL
>society: don’t care didn’t ask *Fires all scribes*
>Scribes: *stop existing*
Many such cases, his metaphor is apt.

>>6844782
>implying anyone but the state and church employed scribes
lmao bro cool greentext
+1

>>6844738
And you're delusional if you think the opinions on social media (yes, even 4chan) can't be barometers for the public opinion at large.

>>6844738
You had the same attitude towards pink-haired feminists screeching about patriarchy and their bleeding vaginas 8 years ago and here we are, opinion that maybe mutilating sex organs of prepubertal children is not a good idea is considered controversial. Keep the same attitude.

>>6844793
And to a man, they fired every single last measly one. In the world of printing presses, you don't hire a man anymore "because he can write good" - press go brrrr, fire his gimpy ass and change focus to the more important question,
>We can write literally anything and there are no more barriers, what is the most important thing we should we be writing?

Also, the church and state? You *do* realize that in that time period, you mean
>*Literally* the only two employers worth a single fuck back then
given the only alternatives were either vassal lords to both, or penniless dirt farmers. If the church and state fires you, that's GG, kill yourself, or time to join the army and hope a peasant polearm's you quickly, because you ain't ever gonna work in this medieval town again.

>>6844800
They're not. Most of twitter's opinions are bots, even more so now. Imagine unironically thinking that mass produced hit pieces of something controversial was anything natural, especially on fucking twitter.
You cannot use twitter as a statistical figure of how much people are for or against something, that's just extremely retarded, fullstop.

>>6844861
>Most of twitter's opinions are bots
You think the artists are the one hiring the bots, and not the multi-million dollar AI companies backed by the likes of google, musk, and meta?
Secondly, who looks at what randoms are saying? Just look at the human people that you're already following are saying - and they're saying "I don't like AI all that much".

>>6844868
You seem to be very confused on who it really was that had any influence on ai. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't artists on fucking twitter.

Red pill me on AI
How is it any different from just going on Google images and typing in your prompt and searching until you find a result you like?
Genuinely curious

>>6844879
Honestly, Yandex currently does a better job at image searching than ai.
Go ahead and ask it yourself. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt

>>6844871
I never said twitter influenced AI, I said twitter and the general discussions we've had from the internet have been a good barometer of the general public perception, and THAT is what is applying pressure.

>>6844888
Microsoft themselves nerfed ai because of its robust systems were being manipulated and attacked by the very people using the thing. Not from some mass opinion held by a literal who artist's or some random internet """"ludite""""
Microsoft wants their product to be kosher and clean.
Their executives themselves have said "We need to make tradeoffs, when integrating AI's values into peoples diverse values. There really is no optimal solution for this yet."

People used it for racist things. People used it for financial advice. People used it as a basis for their suicide. This alone has huge implications since it's illegal in certain countries such as Europe, which means they have to do everything in their power in order to make it impossible to respond with inputs that aren't kosher. Which leads to more limits and tightening of their filter.
Open ai was forced by law to not create content like this by certain countries, and Microsoft appealed to it.

>>6844879
3 big features if you're a coomer
>Checkpoint and LoRA training allows you to generate highly specialized porn, the AI to learn to consistently generate a character, and to allow consistent replication of specific art styles
You can use a micro-model hyperspecialized to do whatever you want. You don't have to have professional AI experience to build a system from the ground up, you can easily train or download a model to generate "Images that look like wikihow pictures", or "floor tiles", or "pictures of this character", or "titjob porn". It's easy enough to do that an interested person could be doing it after 1 evening of setup on a normal computer.

If you're a coomer and you have a half-decent GPU, you unironically need to drop what you're doing and get stable diffusion running locally with some fun checkpoints and LoRAs: unless you're a stickler for story, still-image porn of EXACTLY whatever you want to see is a solved problem.

>Recursive inpainting allows you to turn any existing image into one with literally whatever you want in it
Trivial case: let's say you want porn of a blue eyed woman: this girl's perfect, but she's got brown eyes. With inpainting you erase the part of the image you don't like, tell the AI what you want blue eyes in the hole, and it puts it there.

Where things get interesting is with repeated use you can essentially turn any image into any other image while preserving all parts you care about. You can change a person's outfit, add or remove people in an image, redo parts that look janky, anything you want.

>similar image generation and upscaling via progressive denoising and upscalers
A lot of the time, you want an image LIKE the one you're looking at, but "different" in some way. You just tell the AI how you want it different and how aggressively to try to make it different and it gives you what you want. Want the porn star to be black now? Now she is. Want her at the beach instead of in the bedroom? Now she is.

I hate all the AI faggot background "Ghibli music 10 hour" videos, or other Ai thumbnails. It's insulting to me. But other than that I don't care.

>>6844955
AI's problem is it's like getting your breasts redone - people only notice BAD work.

When AI worked well, it invites no reaction, you just assume it's good to excellent artwork, produced competently and on a tighter time-table than a comparable human artist would've done. This gives AI a bit of a reputation problem because you see all the shitty asset flip, but you never see the "touch-up" work that turned a good piece into a stellar piece in a few minutes of AI photobashing.

The art community is unironically devouring itself over something that's already incorporated into the workflow of most artists you already know and it's annoying to watch because they're all too proud to admit to their fanbases that AI is just another tool and that most of their audiences' expectations of "normal art and its delivery speed" now include "...when augmented by an artist working in tandem with an AI model". It's the
>Natty?
of the art community, because just like roids, everyone at the top levels is doing them

>>6844024
the funniest thing I read was that ESLs use chatgpt to fix their broken english before they post online. Here you can see it in action.

>>6844978
Wrong. AI garbage can't be good. Prove me wrong.

>>6844992
I think it can be good. There you've been proven wrong.

>>6843578
the dust has not settled.

>>6844978
When it works "well" I still dislike looking at it because it misses the crucial point of art in the first place which is to communicate our humanity to one another. If you feel you've seen it do this, its thanks to it essentially plagiarizing the work of people that are the real deal. It gets really old arguing this obvious point over and over. If you see just as much value in "masterful" AI art as you do masterful human work, you're not suited to have an opinion because you literally don't understand why art exists in the first place and why its important.

>incorporated into the workflow of most artists

Lol no. Wishful thinking from non-artists. Top artists that have dedicated their lives to their work don't find generative AI in its current state either ethical or appealing to use. They're great artists because of the fact that they have a deep appreciation for the process of artmaking, something AI bros are chomping at the bit to get them to give up on. No, prompting doesn't count. Even if they were to go the extra step and do a paint-over or use controlnet shit or whatever that is, a great artist is going to feel gross and unsatisfied doing it. You may think you're telling them to adapt to new tools but you're really telling them to give up being artists. Nobody wants this tech. Only grifters and bullshitters.

>>6844317
Thats not his point retard

>>6844800
By your logic, everyone loves bbc and simultaneously hates niggers. 4chans barometer is strictly for 4chan.

>>6844819
The pink haired feminists still screech and theyre not on the side of trannys retard. Different groups.

>>6844861
I wonder how long after elon took control, did this investigation take place? Was there any bias? How did they figure out whos a bot or not? What kind of boths, spam, big tech ads bots?

motherfuckers act like you can just wipe it out in a day

>>6844943
Not that easy unless you want to make carbon copy coom. Its not enough, 3rd world faggots already flooded twitter with ai generations. You need to trick normies that its made by you. Helps of you can make a custom style though not just another clone.

>>6845014
Youre making it deeper than it is faggot. You know damn well you look at a piece for 10 seconds and move on after you click your little like button.

Humanity is in actual physical paintings. You wont find that in digital art.

>>6845014
>>6845032
>When it works "well" I still dislike looking at it
No - when it works well, you don't even know you're looking at it.

What you actually say is something like
>oh, that's a nice bracer on that fantasy soldier's arm
or
>That's a neat-looking bikini
or
>That's some clean linework
And you don't get to see the 3 minute process where they generated 100 armbands with inpainting on an in-progress version of the piece and picked their favorite, or let the AI completely take over the concept stage and generate 50 sets of outfits in thumbnail grids like pic related with a prompt like "fantasy one-piece bikini, crazy design, elaborate, beautiful", then just redrew one they liked in their own style, or they threw their final image in with low denoising to clean up floating pixels, fix stray lines, and photobash a small background skyline in or whatever.

Stuff like the above doesn't rankle top artists that much, they just say and feel something like "AI still sucks, but I'm one of the good ones who isn't abusing AI, I'm using it how it's supposed to be used", with a cope like
>Ultimately, I'm still driving the ship here, I'm just using it for final touchup on stuff i
or
>I'm only using it on unimportant trivial detailing work
or
>I'm just generating reference before I start work, this is something we were always able to do
But pay attention: what they're actually doing is closer to a hybrid of man and machine drawing together. The AI in these cases is working in tandem with the artist to very, very quickly concept out ideas, help sharpen concepts into implementations, and put the final touches on finished work.

News flash, that's cooperation throughout all steps of he artistic workflow. Wake up, anon.

>>6845050
Your replies are very akin to AI art, entirely and comically vapid

>>6845056
You addressed none of my points. I accept your concession,

>>6845058
Like AI, you made no points, Raieet

>>6843578
Barely any progression over the last six months. Still sucks at hands, can’t do multiple subjects interacting well, can only do standard generic camera poses or coom pin-ups, shits the bed when it comes to angles and poses lacking in the database. Can’t do designs not in the database on model. Not a single of my porn commissions would have been practical to do with generative AI. I’m not worried.

>>6845060
Yeah I did, but for slow tards on the short bus:

>Well-done AI use doesn't stand out as coming from AI as it's typically not generating the entire piece
>Well-done AI is instead typically used by a skilled artist in ways to modify parts of a piece in ways that are plausibly deniable at all stages of a piece's life-cycle:
>AI gets used in concepting
>AI gets used on in-progress work to help flesh it out
>AI gets used for final touch-up

>Artists have plenty of mental gymnastics and copes ready that let them still verbally and publicly hate art AIs, despite using them at all three of these stages.
>These artists are hypocrites, but at top levels such behavior is common because it's too useful to not use
>Audience and employer expectations of speed and quality increasingly demand the use of AI when evaluating top level work and to keep up
>These pressures will increase because doing the above right greatly improves work velocity, with no externally visible hit to quality
>The art community will at some point need to reconcile that it is verbally extremely hostile to these tools, with their increasingly constant use of them.
Simple as.

In the real world, the way it's ultimately going to become normalized and laundered will mostly be by Adobe improving this functionality in their software suites. Since "photoshop" doesn't ring as many panic bells to AI haters as "stable diffusion", they're essentially just shoving stable diffusion into Photoshop at which point normies will stop complaining and will mostly just assume
>artists got better and faster for some reason recently I guess IDK
without too much questioning how it happened.

>>6843578
The only reason AI art has stagnated is because it's exclusively used by artistically (and technologically) illiterate coomers. Namely, third worlders.

Ironically, artists boycotting AI is what ended up killing it. If we all embraced it and actual art pros started proompting and building models off high quality, hand-picked datasets, AI would've reached actual renaissance levels of art mastery.

We're still at that scene in the movie 2001 Space Odyssey where the monkeys discover the monolith for the first time, they don't know what to do with it until their brains literally grow big enough to comprehend it.

>>6845309
>AI would've reached actual renaissance levels of art mastery.
it still wouldn't be able to do hands unguided. that's just not possible with the current methods even with bigger datasets.
When I say 'do hands', I mean manipulating, rather than stock poses.

>>6845316
Hands can be solved with composite models for wire framing + building on top. It just requires actual ingenuity. Anyone with the skills and resources to do it is busy doing actual work in other AI fields, not fiddling with coomer models to get his nut off.

>>6845334
>Hands can be solved with composite models for wire framing + building on top
Ok just ignore what I said. :/ that's not solving hands.
Anon said :
> AI would've reached actual renaissance levels of art mastery.
which you might consider true now if you are going to include human guidance. but that's not "AI" reaching the mastery. See 2016s microsoft Rembrandt.

>>6843578
No, it really wasnt. All it did was expose alot of pros that felt the need to gatekeep what others do with their time.
You still need good fundamentals to fully use AI in your artwork so unless you're generating from scratch and just saying lol fuck it, its just another tool.

Amazing for iteration though.

>>6845050
>No - when it works well, you don't even know you're looking at it.


Why would you post such obvious AI and type this unironically. Do you seriously think anyone takes your points seriously like that

>>6843578
>was AI really a doom for artists?
No. People were scared cause they didn't know the extent of its capabilities.
AI is either incompetent or too perfect. Real art lives in between, and that's what people want.
Artists are still getting commed and earning money. The only ones that got fucked by AI, were the beg-tier artists that got their soul crushed cause a software could achieve in seconds what they couldn't in years of "practice"

In the end, no real artist was harmed.

>>6845395
Although it looks like general consensus is "less to almost no value" when normies figure out something is AI generated, the very fact that there are still retards out there who would pay for this shit makes me scratch my head

>>6845397
People waste money on retarded shit all the time, anon. The AI fatigue is already here, it was inevitable after seeing how available the technology was.

>>6845395
>game of cat and mouse
>Raggety ann runs on a ball with a sinking ship and food shipments aboard cause she's a maniac.
>Another "gaymer" on the mouse next to her does the same thing
>the mouse just floats and the conda effect just heels the pig bitches out to see as they spin three helical gears attached to two wheels on the two mouse rafts
>ir laser quantifies their dog breath through a barometric analysis of a glass bulb which contains and orange and a twig to a diffusion of gases in a glass bulb to a differentiable sphere which contains a hat in a pocket containing a murderous rabbit who destroys crops.
>both thing one and thing two choke themselves to death to a rape cove in the back of the bus which contains a stuff cat, hanging a dog with the same hat on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntJtBttuPjk
Beware of the morning star.

>>6843578

When AI really gets implemented, you won't even know it. It will be crowd shots with AI generated people, while the artist focuses on the main elements of the composition. It will be matte paintings with AI generated elements in background plates of movies. It will be artists generating 12 different varieties of a prop, a material, a hairstyle, etc. so that indecisive art directors can make up their minds. It will be subtle changes in post to existing elements of a scene.

It's going to have a million mundane uses that nobody will even notice unless they're looking for them, carefully.

That's the real AI revolution, not all this novelty stuff.

>>6845423
Hmm.... how many years or so of what you describe before humans are more or less out of the equation?

>>6845423
AI doesn't have a psychological schema to template itself upon in a evolutionary developmental model aside what it is trained to do or be emergent in a cyber space (self-immerging systems).
In terms of cognition, a developed AI would not even have a developmental period. I.e. it would be sculpted, not trained through a taxa of behaviorally salient motivators.
An AI in a cyber systems model would not even have a human quality on the pretexuatliztion of network topologies and automatize traffic within some arbitrary task it specified to do..
>>6845404
That picture is the very definition of a gear queer soiboy
>"ahah, i am more advanced than you~"
If the gold was real the ship would have displaced enough water by now to drown everyone.

>>6845423
so it'll do what CGI has been doing for the last 20 years or so, make everything look like shit.
nothing new under the sun.

>>6845457

You got it! Now filmmakers can be even more sloppy and disorganized.

Bros... I.... I traced ai...

>>6843578
I've personally been enjoying all the ai cover music. It's been exploding.

>>6845474
Seriously? They couldn't just go find some airshit as a prop?

>>6845423
Don't forget the spying. That's the real use of AI.

>>6845383
>you're generating from scratch and just saying lol fuck it
lol, that's exactly what you faggots are doing.

>>6843578
but who's behind the hysteria propaganda and the fake outrage?
the only actor that i can see benefiting from this retardation is adobe, but they are pretty far behind on AI at the moment
maybe apple?

>>6845572

They're using AI for a million different things. Medicine. Engineering. Finance. I can only cover its use in art/entertainment.

>>6845594

The outrage isn't fake. It's panic by artists who think they're going to be out of a job.

>>6845646
I think AI right now is more of an excuse for artists who haven't made it.
Instead of saying "I'm not gonna make it because I don't draw enough", they can now simply say "AI took my job" or "AI ruined the art industry" or something along those lines.

>>6845474
I can understand using a green screen for crazy sci-fi backgrounds that would be expensive to build, but why use it for just... an ordinary room? Fuck, just make the actual prop-gun damn it!

Film-makers are so lazy these days, contrast this to peter jackson who meticulously tried to pull off perspective tricks to skirt around using special effects

>>6845645
>Medicine. Engineering. Finance.
>trusting our important shit to machines
We are so fucked.

>>6843578
I started to see posts like this on AI reddits about 6 months ago. 'AI burnout' is real lol.
Seems a big part of the problem is over-saturation. "Democratizing 'art'" to consoomers just unleashed a tidal wave of redundant shit. Go figure.

>>6845682

Medicine and Engineering AI have their uses because we can set AI to a specific task, like, "find the optimal molecule shape to deliver this medicine" but Financial AI has the potential to create an economic death spiral as the machine attempts to maximize profits in a system that cannot produce any more. God knows this happens enough with human investors already.

>>6845657

Nah I've seen long-established professional artists sink into existential despair because their identities are so tied in with "being an artist" that the idea of being replaced by a machine completely destroyed their self-worth.

That's why they fixated on the "theft" aspect of the technology, because it gave them a perceived moral high-ground to attack the tech with, that wasn't "Please don't replace me with a robot on the assembly line, Mr. Foreman!"

It was actually kind of embarrassing to watch.

>>6845704

I said this at the start, and I stand by it. The problem with AI is that it can't make anything new. It can only recombine existing data. That's probably part of why this swamp of AI art has begun to feel tedious, because it's all retreading the same territory.

You still need a human touch to actually create something original.

The real danger of AI is not every artist being replaced by a robot, it's one artist being expected to do the work of five, because "the computer will help" and the work suffering creatively, because of it.

>>6843578
>>6843582
kys

>>6845731
Sjwussy ripped

>>6845719
>fixated
>perceived

>>6843578

you are a dumb fucking fuck

>>6845704
These are pretty normal temporary feelings of adjusting to change. You've surely experienced similar feelings of disillusionment or mild depression after being hyped for something in your life. If you haven't, you will, but it goes away so don't worry about it.

>>6843578
AI literally killed all artists
and cameramen are next!!!

>>6845719
You fa/g/gots sure love this made up story.

>>6845772
You can read several notable stories here
https://time.com/collection/time100-ai/

>>6845770
Not suspicious at all.

>>6844819
>and here we are
Where are we again? We still live in a world where no one likes them.

>>6845776
I don`t like /ic anymore. Humanity is really fucked up at this point, deranged, stupid and twisted.

>>6845395
>In the end, no real artist was harmed.
do you really believe that?

>>6845646
>The outrage isn't fake.
It only began after Stable Diffusion's release. It's not organic.

>>6845770
>AI literally killed all artists
>and cameramen are next!!!
I wish you were next, my creepy anon.

>>6845724
You're standing by something that was proven wrong 50+ years ago when AI first started making art. We're only recombining things ourselves. AI is actually much better at it because it doesn't have a human bias. It can, without hesitation, do things that don't even make sense to us. Or things that would take a lot of brainpower to conjure up, like mixing a buffalo with a cat and a turtle. By the time you have a sketch you like AI can put out hundreds of variations that are all radically different. Have you never seen the Pokemon AI generations?

>>6845794
Shut up Karen.

>>6844879
It's using the results for a product. Your Google search would reveal art that is copyrighted by someone, usually the artist or the corporation that it was composed for. Say you like something you find online you want to make an album cover with:you would have to formally contract it or license it or whatever, and money exchanges hands. With an AI image,it cannot be copyrighted, so what you generate can be slapped on your product,especially if its requirements are generic enough, but so can anybody else that you share the image wih,even if it is associated with your product,and especially afterwards, riding your promotional coat tails. If I was devious enough, I would assemble whatever the product required from bits of AI generated imagery, making it being yet another art form,and so copyrightable.

>>6845767
What they're describing is consoomer burnout, same as playing vidya all the time & being terminally online. Looking for that next hit even though the novelty is gone.
It's different from learning a craft. I've fucked around with MJ/SD and draw.
AI was addictive, gave the illusion of creativity, and left me feeling like I wasted a month. Drawing (even if it's something simple like Loomis studies) feels enriching and time well spent.
It's consoomer vs. creator mindset.

>>6845799
See how stupid this is? I'm sure it's borderline completely unique.

>>6844879
AI can create new things that didn't exist. It can also more importantly create more or less what you want, google images probably doesn't have what you want and it would take forever to even try to find it because of the interface.

>>6845704
...

>>6845815
>she's just like me-ACK

>>6845805
I suppose it depends on the person to some extent, but hese are universal feelings. People even have them after getting married or having a child.

>>6845815
>made the switch from trad to digi
>quality took a MASSIVE hit
kek

>>6845570
>>6845666
I wish I had that webm of ian mckellen in a green room crying that this is not why he became an actor during the hobbit filming

>>6845815
Apples & kumquats. The earlier posts were about general discontent with AI imagery, the ones you posted are about specific instances of artist burnout (bet you didn't even read the earlier posts, lol).
>>6845841
Sounds like a major cope over users getting disenchanted with AI. Whatever dude, I don't care if people use AI. Just take the L and move on.

>>6845889
They're both about burn out, anyone can get burn out doing anything. To say artists don't feel it and all AI artists do is just grasping at straws trying to make a moot point.

>>6845782
I do. It only affected aspiring artists with a weak conviction, the ones that would've quit art in the future anyway

>>6845902
You must live under a rock. Remind me how much was fundraised to sue Stability.

>>6845904
If you mean "industry artists", sure. They received a blow with the AI uprising, but people are rioting against it. That's my point, to freelancers AI is just a fad. To those working under big corporations, they got affected for sure, but the product gets devalued the moment the AI scent gets out.
At the end of the day, you only see pushback against AI, for being cheap, soulless and extremely derivative

>>6845911
All you're doing is posting more delusional nonsense. AI means anyone can spend 0.1% of the money to get whatever they want drawn for them. Logos, posters, stock photos for products, concept art, photographs of people, cover art, album covers, and all this in any art style. People have lots opportunities, there are artists all over the world talking about it.

>>6845891
burnout means getting tired of doing something (generating images, drawing)
those guys are talking about seeing ai images
that is not burnout

>>6845913
stock photos for products, concept art and photographs of people? sure, cause they barely qualify as art
logos need to mean something and have a purpose coherent with the brand. you always need to justify your decisions in graphic design
the same goes for posters, cover art and album covers. those three have an specific purpose, and using AI in any of them devalues them. I'm not only talking monetary devaluation. Why would a band use an AI generated album cover? So people think they also use AI generated voices? Why even bother buying or listening to AI music? That shit has literally no value outside of the comedic occurrence of listening Frank Sinatra singing Basket Case.
AI is just a tool, but a tool you don't wanna get caught using, and if you overuse it, you fucked up.

>>6845889
Disenchantment happens with everything, that's my whole point. Read some Kierkegaard if you're curious.

>>6845921
None of this refutes me, you can call it whatever you want but artists exclusively produced it before AI. Now they have to compete with it. Most AI uses aren't caught.

>>6845926
>Now they have to compete with it
Only mediocre artists have to compete with AI. Those who'd have quit either way.
>Most AI uses aren't caught.
So you do agree that using AI is something that they need to keep hidden, cause it's dirty, cheap and requires no talent. Borderline scamming clients.
Sure, the untrained eye can't really tell apart real from AI. But those who can are helping other to tell the difference. The current sentiment is "idk if this is AI or not". There's already a sense of distrust that real artists are dissipating by showing a timelapse, their portfolio dating before the AI boom showing an organic improvement or just by making human mistakes, instead of adding one too many fingers.
AI could've been a great tool, but jeets and retards abused it and not it's just a mark of shame.

>>6845943
Everyone has to compete with it, especially professionals because they were actually getting work.
No one is going to care about it as time passes. I can tell how desperate you are to fight it but it's not going to stop AI overtaking the entire market.

>>6845947
>as time passes
Ah, the time cope, this puts the following sentence in a new light
>I can tell how desperate you are to fight it but it's not going to stop AI overtaking the entire market.
A lot of assumptions here. Been waiting for months that overtake. Since january I keep getting told it would happen. No more (You)s, Apu

>>6845964
You are projecting your own "as time passes nothing will change NOTHING I TELL YA!!" cope. It's changing all the time and that won't stop.
>Since january I keep getting told it would happen.
And since then how many times have you had to swallow your pride?
>Adobe Firefly
>Activation Blizzard AI
>several openings/trailers done by AI
>massive strike partly focused on AI
>Microsoft buying OpenAI
>constant stream of huge tech upgrades
>mind blowing Siggraph presentations

>>6845971
OpenAI is technically not owned by Microsoft.

>>6845975
Yeah, 'technically'.

>>6845924
>Read some Kierkegaard if you're curious.
I've read Kierkegaard. Sartre and Heidegger too (took Existentialism in college).
Read Heidegger's thoughts on how modern technology is different from older forms of technology, and separates man from being.

>>6845998
I've read it, but it is irrelevant.

>>6845594
follow the money. corporations are the ones left in the dust when everybody can run uncucked open source image generators on a cheap pc
>>6845786
this

https://creativecommons.org/2023/09/07/an-open-letter-from-artists-using-generative-ai/

>>6846115
AI hype is basically just boomers and tech consoomer midwits putting their faith in a vague innovation and expecting it to be something magical. They're the kind of people who are oblivious to real innovations in tech and have an ego-driven FOMO around being late to the trendy party. They don't make any distinction between the different types of AI or how liberally the term is being used to describe any recent generative models, thus the corporate gold rush behind it. Much like how in the real gold rush there's the expression that "the people who got rich were the one selling shovels," very few people were able to cash in on the initial AI hype and the true winners are companies selling hardware, or just slapping the term "AI" on as much of their products/plans as possible. It's exactly like NFTs and how you had Square-Enix tripping over themselves to tell investors they were building games with NFTs only to never get into specifics and abandon it altogether

>>6846146
You're a literal retard.

>>6846152
So tell me where I'm wrong, Raj. Try to keep the rape threats to a minimum.

>>6844322
>If you think that the public perception hasn't been influenced by the stink artists raised

God forbid artists rally against pure exploitation by megacorporations looking to make a quick buck.
AI nerds with their circular arguments and strawmans.
You might rebuttle with "teehee it's not exploitation" or whatever and I'm not gona sit here and argue this point with a disingenuos nerd for the thousands time. Unlike you I'm actually creating something and my time is precious.
You guys have been disproven time and time again but you keep regurgitating the same fucking talkingpoints. The way I see it there is only two reasons for this; you're either being manipulative or you're really really low iq. Most likely a combination of the two..

>>6846161
This post only proved me right.

>>6846162
>you're either being manipulative or you're really really low iq
This is your own reflection, none of your arguments have made sense from the start and you're being paraded around by corporations. What do you think would come from "fighting" these "megacorps" as you say? Since when did Midjourney become a megacorp?

I love how no one ever points out that diffusion tech was available to Google privately since 2015 and they were so incapable of doing anything with it that they allowed it to "leak" without even a single threat against the leakers.

>>6846167
You're a third-worlder, you being right is about as valuable as a cat using a litter box (which is still something your kind struggles with)

>>6846177
You're only proving me right.

>>6846169
What the fuck are you even talking about? Jesus christ.
This is my only post on here so I don't know what you mean by "my arguments"..
My only argument has been that artists are in the right to rally against this kind of OBVIOUS exploitation and corporate greed. To just train their model on artists work without their consent or knowledge is nothing short of disgusting. There should be complete transparency from all these companies and reparations for any artist who's been unfortunate enough to be exploited by this.
you don't see this then you're either being disingenuine/manipulative or a stupid fucking idiot. In your case you're likely a combination of the two and you're also..
Unlike you; my work actually requires consentration, time and energy and I've wasted enough on you already.
Fucking parasite.

>>6844003
>There's also speculation that certain individuals were paid to promote/spam it across the internet to increase ai centric and in-based stocks.

Most of the earliest YouTube videos of "artists" reacting to AI image generators struck me as undisclosed paid promotion. The natural response to the massive training data scrape that took place without permission or compensation was always, and remains, anger. It was also natural for artists to fear for their ability to earn a living when pitted against a machine trained on their own art. But these YouTube personalities were all positivity: "Isn't the future amazing? It's just a tool. We're going to be more productive than ever!" It felt very creepy and disingenuous to me, and I think it caused other artists to doubt their own feelings and hesitate to criticize AI. When people like Karla Ortiz and Steven Zapata finally started to speak out against AI, it caused an avalanche, because, as I said, it is normal to hate this technology and how it was trained and rolled out. Once people saw their own feelings validated by these industry professionals, and by famed creators like Miyazaki and Guillermo Del Toro, they felt more comfortable speaking out.

>>6846190
>This is my only post on here so I don't know what you mean by "my arguments"..
You lot are literal identical clones of one another and all have the same arguments.
>My only argument has been that artists are in the right to rally against this kind of OBVIOUS exploitation and corporate greed.
What corporation are you talking about?
>o just train their model on artists work without their consent or knowledge is nothing short of disgusting.
You don't need permission to do it, there's nothing wrong with it.
> There should be complete transparency from all these companies and reparations for any artist who's been unfortunate enough to be exploited by this.
What the fuck are you smoking? Why should a company have to be completely transparent when they're doing nothing illegal or even immoral? Why are you trying to censor models? Where do you think this horrific train of thought is going to lead us?

>you don't see this then you're either being disingenuine/manipulative or a stupid fucking idiot. In your case you're likely a combination of the two and you're also..
Unlike you; my work actually requires consentration, time and energy and I've wasted enough on you already.
>Fucking parasite.
Great example of a low IQ chimping out here. You don't even realize you're being manipulated.

>>6846191
>It felt very creepy and disingenuous to me
Because you're a luddite that can't fathom intelligent future focused thought. You're on the side of a disingenuous grifter like Steven and the hysteric hambeast Karla. All they care about is money.

>>6846207
>Because you're a luddite that can't fathom intelligent future focused thought.
Fuck you and your future. I'd rather live in the 19th century free from the blue hair degenerates, 40+ genders, political retardation (dementia patient running the "world's greatest superpower"), social media, NFT and AI grifters. Choke on your future.

>>6846235
The world is going to keep turning while you kick and scream like a pathetic piece of garbage. No one cares about your feelings and being an ignorant retard doesn't help anyone it just makes you look bad. Also it must really suck to be you, you're on the side of those gendered and political freaks and parrot what they say on social media, but you're too stupid to realize AI is the cure for all that nonsense.

>>6845971
>>constant stream of huge tech upgrades
hilarious, is that your shareholder meeting speech?

>>6846240
There has been a literal constant stream of improvements for years now.

>>6846239
>you're on the side of those gendered and political freaks and parrot what they say on social media, but you're too stupid to realize AI is the cure for all that nonsense.
You absolute fucking dunce, tech companies are infested with blue hairs and do their bidding without question. Choose your pronouns and enjoy your AI-powered social engineering, you idol of idiot worshippers.

>>6846251
> tech companies are infested with blue hairs and do their bidding without question.
You're one of them.

>>6846169
>>6846207
>"lalalalala I'm not lsitening you're just a LUDDITE

>>6846254
>You're one of them.
I know you are but what am I? See, I can argue on your level, although it is costing me brain cells so I'll stop now.

>>6846241
BWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

>>6845971
> Activision Blizzard
>gaming's most hated company
Was this suppose to be a good example?

>>6846241
a constant stream of stretching the truth to get those sweet sweet buckerinos so the tech bubble burst s delayed a while longer

>>6846260
How many artists does that company employ?

>>6846263
>>6846259
Objective, measurable, and exponential upgrades.

Did something happen to cause this bu/g/man infestation?

>>6844317
>Police happen to search your computer for some reason
This is why laws against Loli and AI and whatever other bullshit will never work. It’s just not enforceable

>>6846284
You will never be profitable

It is absolutely overblown marketing hype.
Basically like "OMG OUR TECH IS SO CRAZY IT COULD END LE WORLD AND REPLACE ALL JOBS?? INVEST PLS GIVE US MONEY, ITS LIDERALLY THE FUTURE DONT MISS OUT ;)"

>>6845594
It's Apple
They're embarrassingly behind the rest of the industry on AI
Their viral marketing plan is to shit on the evil AI that will literally destroy the human race, until they finally catch up with everybody else. At that point, AI will become "magical" and "breathtaking" in MSM. And NPCs will parrot their narrative, as usual

>>6845529
I use it as ideas for poses.

>>6843578
Mostly patreon bux for coom as well as concept art. Even so, it hasn't completely destroyed coom artist because of how custom made a lot of the art they make doesn't translate to a.i. unless youre a really good proompter. Takes a while to make the right prompts and by then, a good artist would have had it drawn already. A.I coom put a dent into this stuff, but there is still room for artist.
A.I. still has a longer way to go to kill anything that requires making multiple images in sequence. Comics and animation. Comics is a dead medium anyways(in the west). So artist should look towards jumping ship towards animation.

>>6846307
Looks like I touched a nerve. Maybe you should go back to linkedin with your fake company titles.

>>6843578
artists are intrinsically dumb and impressionable
on top of that, /ic/ begs are insecure, retarded, and LOVE blaming external actors for their faults
it's the perfect receipe for misguided hysteria about whatever

>>6845971
>>6845947
Overzealous "AI" promotion isn't a new thing, and this past year of marketing and exposure is the usual cycle. What do the tech shills have to show for it beyond helping institutions get investors who believed the hype?
AI audio is still uncanny.
AI image generation is still deformed and same-y.
AI writing still can barely follow itself.
AI fags still can't produce anything worth a shit.

>>6846367
This is true, for young artists, idk old ones seem more chill.

>>6846374
Also, self-driving cars are still getting into crashes.

>>6846385
shame that /ic/ is full of young and stupid begs, instead of seasoned and mature pros

>>6846347
>>6846307

>>6845394
>I didn't read the actual post and what that image was meant to signify: the post
retard

>>6846367
is that AI?

>>6845772

If you followed any professional artists, particularly those working in concept art and illustration, you'd know that I'm telling the truth. But believe what you like, if it makes you feel better.

>>6845971
>acting as if the usual scummy corporations adopting a tech gimmick or doing buyouts equates to a tech gimmick's longevity
You might as well claim NFTs are the future since Adobe have made NFT integration, the former president of Activision Blizzard is still promoting bored apes, there are still active companies and e-celebs advertising NFTs, and Ebay bought out the KnownOrigin blockchain company.

>bla bla nfts nfts bla bla
What are leftists so retarded?

>>6846367
>>6846395
The bu/g/men are seething like crazy today.

>>6846413
I believe if you killed yourself, the world would be a better place.

>>6846426
Good morning sirs.

>>6846133
>looked at their websites
>none of them have drawn
top kek

>>6846426
>we must seize the means of production and redistribute it equally
>right wing
pick one, commie

>>6846436

I don't know why I bother trying to have adult conversations around here. Half of you are just here to shit up the place.

>>6846465
>adult conversations
While shitting yourself, fuck off.
>Half of you are just here to shit up the place.
YOU

>>6846436
>>6845772
Literally every prolific voice in the art community will say that they were depressed until they found hope and the torch of rebellion or whatever the fuck. This isn't made up at all, read the post below yours>>6845773

>>6846471
You are basedboy Karen sheesh

>>6846471
>>6846473
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx3ROK9nOYE

>>6845913
>AI means anyone can spend 0.1% of the money to get whatever they want drawn for them
Unless it involves good perspective.
Or non-deformed anatomy and attire.
Or symmetrical architecture.
Or character interaction.
Or dynamic composition and poses.
Or design consistency.
Or clarity.

>>6846476
Le TUBER cries And iSA FEMALE BUHBUHBUH
Fuck off... state of shitposting is so tiresome...

>>6846481
Post your work.

>>6845773
>>6846471
>an entire article sucking off Sam Altman
I'm not even going to waste my time. Again, kill yourself.

>>6846493
It also sucks off the leaders of your movement. You will kill yourself, won't you?

>>6846484

>>6846465
Your disguise needs work, tourist.

>>6846497
>chicken shit
You're an embarrassment.

>>6846497
Spread `em further boah we goiiiiiing deeeeeep!!!

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-copyright-office-denies-protection-another-ai-created-image-2023-09-06/
ITT: prompt trannies writhing in pain when not given what they want

>>6846502
they’re cats, you fucking nigger

>>6846497
> machine got confused and generated a panther without a head
Kek

>>6846506
This will ultimately lead to a great future if they keep it up.
>more and more people will be using AI
>none of it will be copyrighted so anyone can use anything
>copyrights die
>art is no longer monopolized

>>6846507
ITS MAAAAAAAAAM!!!!!!!

>>6846517
I wonder if that person was ever doxed.

>>6846512
>copyright dies
how naive

>>6846527
It is naive to think AI generated works will forever exist without copyright. But it's good to dream.

>>6846526
If he wasn`t society is fucked.

>>6846528
nvm, you're not naive, you're just projecting your ainigger wetdream

>>6846501

I post art here, all the time. How often do you?

>>6846608
never drawn a thing in my whole life.
i only post here to cry about topical shit that media says is bad

>>6846737

One of the few honest posts on this thread.

>>6846591
copyright doesnt fucking matter when you cant enforce it retard. this is how the music music industry lost to monetization and now most of it is free in some way shape or form

>>6846785
gaben is such an hypocrite, resentful, morbidly obese asshole liar. his company pays moderators on game boards to do their deceitful guerrilla marketing
and gullible npcs retards LOVE him

>>6845570
set carpenters, prop makers etc are all union. vfx monkeys aren’t and vfx houses get paid at a fixed rate so there are massive incentives to flood them with unnecessary busywork and just let everything get fixed in post

>>6846831
> t. 200% seething

>>6846608
>>6846737
>>6846766
1. Yes 2. AI is not art 3. Obvious samefag is obvious

>>6846875
5 rupees has been added to your Steam account

>>6846195
>You don't need permission to do it, there's nothing wrong with it.
And this is where you argument fails. You literally don't draw if you honestly think this.

>>6846937
not that guy, but interested in your take: why is bad for ai tools to learn from the best art available? the whole human culture is based on learning from our predecessor and emulating them, without any permissions required. what's the precise difference in this case?

>>6846943
AI doesn't "learn". You aren't teaching a little baby robot artist how to draw by teaching it fundamentals like you would a human.

>>6846737
so anon only come here to cope like the troon you are
>YWNBAW

>>6846943
>AIjeets still questioning why they don't get the same respect from having a computer copy/paste for them instead of actually drawing it themselves.

>>6846943
"You can't have both the dick in the ass and the soul in heaven"

>>6846951
i know machines are not humans, duh
but what's exactly the moral distinction that you believe it's so fundamental: the machine is ""learning"" to use some style so you can use it as a tool to make shit in that style, it's just a means to an end.
>>6846960
such an insencere take. noted and trashed

>>6846964
>You can't have your cake and eat it too
sorry, don't get it. please explain your take

>>6846970
>such an insencere take.
That's just you coping since you have nothing to say about it because even you know I'm right.

>>6846943
People, when learning, possess mechanical barriers. AI does not learn the same way humans do, an AI can instantly present and recall any graphic it "learned", and when compared to humans, they have to learn the actual construction of their vision.
Humans don't "create a statistical model based on every picture they've seen in their life". You can't really compare AI programing to the human brain, and seeing as they aren't, it's appropriate for people to complain that AI should not be allowed to use unlicensed art in their graphic process.
This isn't even going into the hell's detail that is copyright law. It's reasonable for people to be think, I may not understand exactly how AI functions, but I don't want to be part of it.

Image if Big Brother used your social media page to link you and anyone you have ever came in contact with as people of interest. And they started monitoring everything you did without your knowledge. And when you found out about their actions, their reply is was "they don't need permission to do it, and there's nothing wrong with it".
You'd also view them as conniving fucks.

>>6846974
You'll always be an AIfag that shills about what filters people are using

>>6846986
Kek, accurate pic.

>>6846881

You should get a refund from detective school.

>>6846993
You should fuck off back to your board.

>You should get a refund from detective school.
This is the most pansy comeback I've ever read on 4chan.

>>6846970
>so you can use it as a tool to make shit in that style
except it's not being used as a tool in this case, it acts like an automated assembly machine for example.

>>6846785
>copyright doesnt fucking matter when you cant enforce it retard.
was it made with AI? if so people are free to take it, there's no legal safety net ror you. use someone else's work in AI? get sued and bled. given a 100% pure AI hasn't been achieved (despite what adobe would have you believe) you don't want to take the chance to begin with. your scenario assume it will make the copyright system crumble when it will just be bootleg land of swindlers stealing from each other, reducing incentive to nothingness while human art stays protected. in fact, I could currently distribute every ai patreon's "work" for free and there's nothing they could do to stop me.

>>6846983
machines are clearly not people, but the objective is the same: using existing art to create new one. i see not moral distinction
copyright crap, that's for lawyers to worry about, even without ai. i will assume most creators will use those tools without dishonest intentions.
about the social media dissertation, i don't see any relevance
>>6847014
how ai image generators are not a tool? what's precisely an "automated assembly machine"?
please explain me this point, it seems like your whole opinion is based on that obscure (for me) distinction

>>6846975
i shouldn't have to explain this to an adult, but your premise is ridiculous and infantile: nobody is pretending that generating an image with ai, or rendering it with a 3d tool, or taking a photo is the same that making a drawing. that's stupid and make any further discussion useless. please be better.
>>6846964
so, what's having the cake, and what's eating the cake in your analogy?

>6847046

>>6847046
>nobody is pretending that generating an image with ai, or rendering it with a 3d tool, or taking a photo is the same that making a drawing.
Retarded ESL, it was you making the comparison to AI and people in the first place. Do you have the memory of a goldfish that you cannot remember your own posts?

>>6847057
i said both AI tools and humans are using existing art with the same purpose
your stupid premise is that "people believe that drawing is exactly the same as generating a picture with AI". can't you see the difference?
thanks for the bump, btw ;)

6847070
well I guess it time to make this a bush thread

.

>>6847080
a what? you're so weird and cool anon

..

...

>>6847094
the spamming /flooding simbolyzes the reasoning of the ludditards
it's kind of an art installation by itself. beautiful, please go ahead

6847098
says the nigga who's a whore for (you's)

bush reference

>>6847098
bump lmao

>>6847105
I don't think you know how bumps work anon
>then again, you are an new fad as well as a tourist AIfag

*

>>6847070
It's not a stupid premise considering a majority of AIfags don't tag their slop as AI. It's almost like they want to pretend to be an artist? Hell I even heard some AIfags say the most pathetic shit like they wish they had a time machine to go back and make AIslop before anyone knew about it. You can keep saying it's a tool for another 2 more weeks but that's not going to change people's perception of you being a fraud.

>>6847106
wtf, aren't you saging that post limit spam?
>>6847109
that's a "democrats are racist misogynist nazis" tier propaganda. that people only lives in your mind, of course real artists with real jobs are using it as a tool

6847122
>define real artist fag

>>6847125
nice quote. you must be really mad. "real" means people that exist outside your head

>>6847122
>This is now a reference thread
>It's as useful as your faggety semantics debates on the board
>even more if it's just going (YOU) back and forth

>>6847122
I'm sure the extra 3 mutated legs and 13 fingers will greatly help those real artists for their real jobs.

>>6847134
it's called "photoshop". you use it to fix pictures and shit. should try it someday

>>6847138
>AIfags
>Fixing anything
Thanks for the laugh Raqeesh, you and I both know that requires actual effort from AIfags and they wouldn't be using AI in the first place. They'll just go back to mindlessly hitting generate for hours.

>>6847147
>They
again, that people doesn't exist. your whole argument is based on some ridiculous hypothetic boogiemen

>>6846937
It's not an argument though. It's literally legal and there's NOTHING immoral from someone or something learning from things. It would exist without our art fed into it too, but having it smart enough to learn from art is a good thing, it makes it a more useful tool.

Crying that a computer draws better than you is absolutory shameful and that's all you're doing.

>>6846951
>>6846983
Doesn't matter how it learns differently. It still learns and people use it. It's a shortcut to creating art, like using a drill to drive in a nail.

>>6847149
You can look on /g/ right now, nobody ain't fixing shit. They look at it for 10 seconds, think it looks good and immediately post it. You're just coping by pretending they don't exist like a child covering his eyes afraid of the monsters.

>>6847151
>It's a shortcut to creating art
You're not creating art, you're finding art. Big difference my little Pajeeto.

>>6847160
Yes you are moron. You argument makes literally no sense, are you brown?

>>6847147
>>6847156
Post your perfect art. Oh, you can't? Isn't that something. We all know your art is worse than /g/'s.

>>6847151
>Crying that a computer draws better than you
The computer literally can't do shit without other people's work.

>It's a shortcut to creating art, like using a drill to drive in a nail.
>drill
>nail
lol, not only you don't make art but you can't do carpentry either

>>6847186
>The computer literally can't do shit without other people's work.
This is just you crying about the obvious.
>lol, not only you don't make art but you can't do carpentry either
Not an argument against the point.

Is that all you have?

>>6847175
There is no art on /g/, only slop Habibi.

>>6847190
There is more art on /g/ than on /ic/ because there are capable artists over there.

>>6847189
>This is just you crying about the obvious.
Glad we can agree that AI isn't art.

>Not an argument against the point.
It's an argument that you're a retard who doesn't know how your own toy works and your opinion immediately belongs in the trash.

>>6847173
>Types like an ESL
>Calls other people brown?
Is your name John Smith as well?

>>6847197
It is art, you admitted it. It has other people's work lol.
>It's an argument that you're a retard who doesn't know how your own toy works and your opinion immediately belongs in the trash.
Grasping at straws. It's a shortcut to creating art just like a camera or a paint brush.

>>6847199
>>6847160

>>6847201
You are creating it, you're using a tool to do that. It hasn't been made if you don't make it you sperg.

>>6847202
You're not, it's the same as typing up what you want in Google images except even that's 10x better than using AIslop considering the pictures you're looking for aren't mutated, melted abominations.

>>6847203
It's not remotely the same and it's infinitely worse you god damned retard. Holy shit you're so retarded.

>>6847199
You couldn't take a good photo if you had a gun pointed at your head.

>>6847205
Explain how it's different instead of getting butthurt that I'm right? In both situations, you're inputting text in a searchbox to get what you want.

>>6847205
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/09/us-rejects-ai-copyright-for-famous-state-fair-winning-midjourney-art/
>the proompt tranny writhes in pain when not given what it wants

>>6847207
Google cannot give you what you want in any capacity, nor can it create anything new. You're saying a folder of images is the same as an infinitely expanding world of art brought to you by a tool.

>>6847206
>>>/p/
half the work of making a good photo is fixing shit in photoshop, anyways

>>6847211
TOP KEK this pajeet thinks AI is magic. And the AIslop companies do have folders, they're called datasets.

>>6847206
I can and prompting is a higher art form than photography is. Almost all photographic skills carry over to it but not the opposite.

>>6847217
>no argument

>>6847218
How does a computet being able to copy paste make it an infinitely expanding world of art? You might need ChatGPT to help you with this one, Suhaili.

>>6847223
It doesn't copy and paste, you literal retard. That's what you do when you create your trash.

>>6847203
the text prompt is just a rudimentary early ui. you can also use another picture as seed, or use controlnet to guide the prompt with a drawing, a depth map, or a posture
in the future i would expect using mostly pictures, like using the style from A.jpg, the character in B.jpg in the pose of C.jpg in a martian forest background, and then finetune camera settings and shit.
it's still very early days, but the future is very promising

>>6847225
>in the future i would expect using mostly pictures
It's technically already like this, that's what the models are. Retards think there is only one model but there are an infinite amount of configurations for your model and the loras you place on top of it.

>>6847224
Now you're just coping again. Damn, feels good being right once again.

>>6847230
I accept your concession.

>>6847228
but i can't take the style from some random art. or i can, but it always generates wrong text descriptions. that "cinematic, 8k" crap is not very user friendly and doesn't really makes sense more of the time
also, user interfaces like automatic1111 make you fight against their retarded design most of the time. tools must be designed with creative people in mind. photoshop will probably get it right in a few years with their cucked ai, and maybe krita or gimp plugins will follow suit
anyway, there's a lot of room for improvement

>>6847236
There is no real technology behind it. It's a copy paste machine en masse and it's why the only noticeable jump in improvement towards AI is when they decided to scrape billions of images on the internet. The tech has peaked the hands will most likely never be fixed, even in 2 more weeks.

>>6847241
whoa you must be some genius ai scientist. why are you shitposting here instead of getting a job at google | Ms | meta?

>>6847245
Can you blame me for trusting graduates from MIT any day instead of some ESL Pajeet?

>>6847247
>[citation needed]

>>6843578
>autosage
>less than 300 replies
so, that's the power of AI?

>>6847236
You have skill issues due to low IQ.

>>6846983
>an AI can instantly present and recall any graphic it "learned".
it can't, and that's not how it works. researchers have actively tried. and iirc they came up with a rate of 0.03% or something. so 3 out of 10 000. it is exceedingly unlikely for it to produce its training images. and that's when TRYING, in normal use it's pretty much impossible nowadays, especially with finetunes & lora.
that's because the training data is GONE. all of it has been converted into what it has "learned", which is:
>how to turn noise into imagery that conform to keywords (your prompt.)

>Humans don't "create a statistical model based on every picture they've seen in their life".
they kind of do. definitely not "statistical", but neither does AI. the actual maths is beyond you and me.

when arguing this, you have to keep in mind that a human will have far, FAR more datapoints to grasp from thanks to real life vision. you can see how a cat moves and turns, allowing you to see ALL its angles and how it moves. you can even touch it and stuff.
- but if you only had one single photo of a cat from the front you'd not be able to draw it from the back. (you can make up some stuff by inferring from other mammals, but the AI could do that too, if it was tagged this well, which it isn't.)
- if you had two images of a cat, then you'd be able to draw quite a bit more. but it would still be limited.
- if you had a hundred high quality images of cats in very varied situations, you would do significantly better.
what i'm trying to say is that we do infer from what we see. we're not "averaging" things, but we can only use what we do know as datapoints for our own "inference". The same goes for AI. but it has less data and is less smart

>they have to learn the actual construction of their vision.
AI has to construct things as well. just in a different way. it does shape things out of noise. and things slowly form as the image denoises. first the rough composition, then shapes and then details

>>6847509
>especially with finetunes & lora.
This can't be overstated lol. Like if you have a base model prompting "getty image" with the filename of a getty image, sure, after 9999 generations you might get one that's recognizable. But try that on an anime model.

>>6847277
it's the power of one of the slowest boards and jannies not doing their job.

>>6847044
>using existing art to create new one. i see not moral distinction
because you chose not to see one. you take art and create a picture which isn't art as there isn't an artist. being the idea guy doesn't make you the artist ofthe piece.
>how ai image generators are not a tool?
it doesn't translate human interaction directly (or as close to directly as possible) to the surface/medium. for example, a pen is a tool, a printer isn't. it's not obscure, you're just being purposefully ignorant. again, if I commission someone I'm not the artist and the one drawing isn't my tool.

>>6847138
I have yet to see any proompter do that properly. oh there are attempts but the patched in bit is obvious. it goes for in-painting as well btw.

>>6847509
reducing humans to biological machines is why discussion is impossible. over-generalization of things is intellectual opium: pleasing but eventually vacuous.

>>6847534
>because you chose not to see one.
How do you not see the irony here?
>you take art and create a picture which isn't art as there isn't an artist.
THE PERSON USING IT IS THE ARTIST.
>being the idea guy doesn't make you the artist ofthe piece.
How does it not? You're using a computer program to create art, it's literally the same as using mspaint except instead of stickmen(typical mspaint outport) or wojaks you're getting AI art.

>it doesn't translate human interaction directly
Not only is this not important as there are lots of art forms that don't, it can translate human interaction directly to the surface.

>>6847540
He isn't doing that, he's explaining how we literally operate and how the computer aims to mimic that. And you have no room to speak about why discussion is possible when you're acting the way you do. You will start calling anyone using AI a devilish pajeet or whatever, and act like they're scum. You're hysterical and unhinged and can't handle reality.

>>6847541
>How do you not see the irony here?
insert "it learns just like a human" false equivalence to morally justify your laundering
>THE PERSON USING IT IS THE ARTIST.
I mean, you repeating that won't make them so. the one ordering the food isn't a cook. AIfags delude themselves into thinking they control the output when they can only narrow the range of possibilities which is at best channeling.
>Not only is this not important
it is in fact quite important for something to be a tool.
>it can translate human interaction directly to the surface.
> as there are lots of art forms that don't
name one and I will point your misunderstanding of said interaction in relation to the medium. I bet you thought "photography".
it vaguely translates based on indication, the prompter still isn't directly interacting with the medium.

tldr; get bent sophist

>>6847541
>You're using a computer program to create art, it's literally the same as using mspaint except instead of stickmen(typical mspaint outport) or wojaks you're getting AI art.
certified disingenuous or over-reducting retard

I don't understand why you bother spamming these threads.
You have ten different boards to post ai on, why push so hard for one more?

>>6847541
>mspaint scribbles
>wojaks
>low effort throwaway garbage
Were these suppose to help your argument?

>>6847862
>insert "it learns just like a human" false equivalence to morally justify your laundering
Laundering huh? Taking ideas from the world is okay, such as programming a calculator with numbers and calculations we use to do math or having computers understand language for auto correct to help us write. But my DRAWINGS? It's laundering, illegal, go to jail!!!!!!!!!
You do not have an argument, you're just a Luddite shaped pebble in the history of mankind. Stopped reading here.

>>6847864
It's not disingenuous because they're literally both computer programs, one is just much better.

You say I'm being reductive only because you're trying to make a huge distinction where there isn't one. You can't handle the fact someone made a tool so powerful that it can create art for us 1 trillion times faster than your pencil or your mouse. Because it damaged your ego and self worth.
On one hand you're saying it can't create art and on the other hand crying because the evil corporations are replacing artists with it. You're all just plain retarded.
And MS is putting AI into paint by the way, how will you cope?

>>6847919
>what is a joke

>>6847944
>what is a joke
That would be (You)

>>6847994
You can't even understand what a very obvious joke is, you're the joke.

For a lot of artist is already over
Character concept art and those guys that draw this type of fantasy backgrounds?
Those are gone

>>6847944
The only "tools" in this situation are the AI users themselves. They're training the AI for free like monkeys and they can also put the blame on the users if they get into legal trouble.

>retard says something that makes no sense but thinks he's intelligent

>>6847944
it's pointless to argue with these retards.
and i think one major reason is because they're tech illiterate (and probably illiterate in general, seeing how they hate reading).
most of the time you can tell that they can barely get over their preconceived ideas of what a computer and what a program is.

you can correct them on any single thing they say, over and over again and it will never sink in.
just look at >>6847509
>explain that humans ultimatively also can only work with what they know.
>"nuh uh bro humans can't be machines maaaan..."
this again shows how they got hung up on the idea of what a machine is, and how "special" a human should be, since it apparently can't be reduced to a "biological machine".

they cannot wrap their minds around the very basic nature of this new thing. if you are a decently trained artist and tried experimenting with SD for a bit, it should very quickly become apparent what the tool can or can't do. what it is or isn't.

>>6847540
>reducing humans to biological machines is why discussion is impossible.
and why is that? is it because you simply can't follow the argument?

if i showed you one image of an unknown beetle and told you to draw it, how would you draw it without referring to that one specific image? either directly as reference, by studying it or by recalling its elements through your mind (or filling in blanks using your general knowledge of insects and bugs)?

since you said "humans don't create a model based on every picture they've seen in their life", then how do YOU think it works?
even when cartooning, stylizing and abstracting, you're just simplifying or even directly doing something you saw another artist do before.
there's a reason older mangaka like tezuka looked simplistic like mickey mouse whereas todays manga looks more polished. they all have stylistic roots from somewhere else. all styles build on top of each other to get what we have now.

>>6848188
This is a great picture.

>>6848188
>is because they're tech illiterate
You're not "tech-savvy" for liking AIslop, you are just a dumbass consoomer.

> "We are not interested in AI"
> "NO YOU CANT SAY THAT, YOU HAVE TO LET ME IN YOUR CLUB! LUDDITE LUDDITE LUDDITE! LET ME IN!"

Why do we need the same AI shit threads everyday.

>>6848188
no point debating someone saying "A does X and B does Y, X and Y are sorta similar therefore B does X and is just like A!" also stop replying to yourself, nigger

>>6848206
>>6848587
low IQ

>>6848658
bot answer

>>6848188
apples, oranges, go fuck yourself. you can't even grasp electronic and biological system function differently on a fundamental level. your premise is flawed: the "AI" does.not.learn there is no understanding behind the algorythm. your whole argumentation hinges on saying both AI and human brain are the same.

>>6849106
>you can't even grasp electronic and biological system function differently on a fundamental level.
This doesn't matter. They still do the same things. Your argument has literally no weight.

>>6849106
>your whole argumentation hinges on saying both AI and human brain are the same.
lol see
>you can't even grasp electronic and biological system function differently on a fundamental level.
>your premise is flawed: the "AI" does.not.learn there is no understanding behind the algorythm.
complete retardation.
it's exactly like i said. you retards CANNOT comprehend or engage the very most basic premise of the argument.
i could now argue about how exactly the machine is learning, and your eyes would gloss over and you'd still repeat the same mantra.
>bro! machines can't learn!
>machiens aren't humans! humans aren't machines! (this is completely beside the point btw. i never said they were)
i've done this often enough to see the pattern now.

>AI can apply concepts like day, night, rain, snow,
reflections, shadows, crowds, warzone etc etc to any image
>it's just collaging things together bro! it doesn't "understand" brooo!
if it can use a concept and apply it, what do you call this?
if it can take concepts from its training data and apply it in ways that isn't in the training data, WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS?

again, this is THE most basic thing about AI that artist are delusional about. if you aren't a shitter, it is something that you will realize very soon after using shit like SD for a few hours.

>ai understands that water reflects things
>no it doesn't! machines can't learn! it's just.. uh, something something algorithms! that's how it knows that what is above the water is reflected in the water! it's just stupidly averaging every image with a water reflection... even though they would all depict different reflections... and the reflections are all context dependant.... uh....

and this is just a simplified example so you retards get the point. in truth this applies to just about everything the AI does. what colors and values are being used, all of it is context dependant, all of it has to work together. a "collage/copy machine" wouldn't be able to do SHIT. and this is just one example for why an AI is far, far more than just a copy machine.

>>6848076
This. If your piece was going to show up in a
>Adventures of stick salesman
compilation-post, your job has been eliminated, AI absolutely nuked fantasy location concepting from orbit.

even more vague concepts like "rimlight", "backlight", if you really think about what it takes to implement any of these concepts you'd realize these are not things that can just be copy and pasted. all of these need to be applied in a wider way.

>>6849557
>>6849526
>>6849575
Have you seen the new text to videos people are making? It blows my mind when I see physics, reflections, or things like ray tracing/global illumination in motion. It's one thing seeing it in pictures but in motion it's almost scary.

>>6849700
examples? txt2vid is still behind img or vid2vid, no?

>>6849705
It's called AnimateDiff, it's an improved txt2vid that works with your image model. I don't like this aesthetic but it's a good example of lighting effects.
https://twitter.com/remi_molettee/status/1702702302031761531

>>6849426
>you retards CANNOT comprehend or engage the very most basic premise of the argument.
you make equivalencies, those equivalencies are flawed and then you have a hissy fit and type a wall of text layered in faux-intellectualism to soothe your burned hindquarters and spam images as if they'll prove anything as in
>>6849526
>>6849557
>>6849568
>>6849575
>his is completely beside the point btw. i never said they were
you didn't explicitly stated it, you just make an equivalence, handwave it and then chose to apply reasoning that is only relevant to humans to your silicon god.
>if it can use a concept and apply it, what do you call this?
programming, I'm sure my parrot understands Shakespeare
>>6849700
and then you act like someone else is interested in what you have to say

>>6849772
Retard couldn't be more wrong about anything you're saying.

>>6849557
>ai understands that water reflects things
if I narrow the range of possible answers from a dumb system, the likelihood for a correct answer increases, it does not imply understanding.
> AI is far, far more than just a copy machine.
a copy machine with keyword association, sure. if we oversimplify it.

>>6849774
new to 4chan? didn't they brief you?

>>6849117
>This doesn't matter. They still do the same things.
the AI doesn't draw nor paint, so no? your retort is moot. again you're oversimplified to justify your argumentation.

Must be a woman, it's hard to imagine a man being this retarded.

>>6849772
my equivalence is exactly what i claim they are. it's usually you retards that end up retorting about how humans are not machines or vice versa, as if that's what i said.

>>6849777
>>6849772
>you didn't explicitly stated it, you just make an equivalence, handwave it and then chose to apply reasoning that is only relevant to humans to your silicon god.
wrong. you retards still don't understand.
all i'm saying is that this process is called LEARNING. that's the most accurate way to describe it. what i'm calling it is far, FAR more accurate at explaining what it does than the dumb shit you retards claim.
it is not that AI is learning JUST like a human. i'm only saying that it is LEARNING. understand the difference?

because what else do you call this?
>all of its capabilities stem from its training data.
>ALL. OF. IT.
>nobody is telling it that lakes always reflect what is above them
>it """"understands""""" that on its own, from looking at its example images.
>EVERY SINGLE THING IT CAN DO, it got from its training data.
what do you call this?
you can even call it "ingesting", if you want to, but in the end, learning is the fitting description, as the AI gets to take the concepts and apply them.
the relevance here is that if it is learning, then YOU fuckwits are saying that learning is theft, learning is stealing.
and this has always been my issue with the discourse on the artists side. you are hopelessly misinformed and misguided.

>>6849777
it is honestly amazing how intellectually dishonest you fuckwits are.
your post in particular, i can smell it from here. you're fine with anything as long as you keep getting to call it a copy machine. no matter what arguments are brought forth.
>a copy machine
>...with keyword association
>...if we oversimplify it.
this is beyond pathetic.

do even need to mention how broad some of these "keywords" actually are? how some of them aren't even defined by keywords at all, but the AI applies them anyway?
like where there is light, there is shadow, or again my reflection example. these are not things that can be copied at all. these are all context dependant and need to be APPLIED.

and let's not talk about even broader context like styles, artist or even the medium of the piece.

>>6849832
>Mentally stunted manchild that still hasn't outgrown watching Japanese cartoons.
No fuckin wonder you like AIslop, lmao.

>>6849833
>like where there is light, there is shadow, or again my reflection example. these are not things that can be copied at all
You sound like the type of retard that wonders where the light goes when he shuts the refrigerator door.

>>6849911
as expected ad hominems like the true loser you are.
can't draw or paint worth a damn, can't understand new tech, but you can bitch and whine about AI.

>>6849914
Can you blame me? AIjeets deserve to be mocked and ridiculed.

>>6849914
It's his life.

>>6849833
>intellectually dishonest
the AI doesn't produce art
the proompter isn't an artist
the Ai isn't sentient or intelligent and it doesn't learn in the human sense. those are facts.
>>6849832
>as if that's what i said.
you keep implying it as proven by "the result is just the same bro" you pile blurring of lines to justify the practice.
>all i'm saying is that this process is called LEARNING. that's the most accurate way to describe it.
and you keep trying to sell us machine learning=human learning, go on "well technucally it's learning so it's the same" and then spout you're not when you're having your nose shoved into your own shit.
>what do you call this?
data crunching, none of this would be possible without human input and tagging to give it context as proven by dataset fed faulty tagging.
why do you desperately want to sell it as equivalent to humans? one answer would be to try to legitimize it as art.
>your post in particular, i can smell it from here. you're fine with anything as long as you keep getting to call it a copy machine.
I'm fine as long as you stop trying to pretend this is art, that prompters are artists
>this is beyond pathetic.
keep malding, non-artist. what's pathetic is you fags not being able to see being the surface of your fancy generations and how they fall apart on anything bigger than a phone screen
>do even need to mention how broad some of these "keywords" actually are? how some of them aren't even defined by keywords at all, but the AI applies them anyway?
you could, it would be irrelevant as the AI has no understanding without human context and input, a blank AI wouldn't get anything unless you fed it context like the dumb machine it is
>"b-but humans as well!"
patently incorrect we learn and react with or without another human telling us to.

tldr, this board is for art and artists, gtfo

>>6849914
muchos projectiones senior
>>6849931
and the tagteam partner isn't far

AIfags are like the people that inject oils into their muscles. They don't want to work for it and end up paying the price by looking like an abomination and the worst part is that both parties in this situation have no clue that they look like shit.

>>6850015
>machine learning=human learning
lol see? exactly what i said here >>6849426
>i could now argue about how exactly the machine is learning, and your eyes would gloss over and you'd still repeat the same mantra.

i even literally spelt it out for you there. it's not about how it is human learning. that's just the similarity. it's just the examples i tell to SHOW you the similarties.
the point is whether this is learning at all. or if not, what else it is then.

you call it stealing, copying. i call it learning. you can not base your stance on anything but wishful thinking.

>>6850031
>Mentally stunted tranime troon is easily amused by AIslop.
Not surprised.

>>6850015
>data crunching, none of this would be possible without human input and tagging to give it context as proven by dataset fed faulty tagging.
tagging is just putting a name to things.
here again, humans need this too. as a child you learn that an apple is called an apple, a cat is a cat.
in fact, this is a stronger argument for learning, because it is LITERALLY the humans telling the AI what each object is. TEACHING and LEARNING.

tell me this: how do you expect any of this to work without putting a name to things? even for humans, if you use a made up word to describe an apple, how the fuck is anyone else supposed to know you're talking about an apple?

so no, your point is shit.

>humans tell, "teach" AI what each object or concept is through tagging
>AI "learns" on its own how to depict each oject or concept through analyzing the training dataset.
go on, tell me how this is wrong.
more importantly, tell me how this is copying or stealing.

you can explain your beliefs, right?
your beliefs are founded on knowledge, and not just wishful thinking, right? then why can none of you deliver anything even RESEMBLING a good argument against this? is this learning or not? what would you call this?

>>6850049
You could have just said that you're a retard denying reality instead of posting yet another 200 word essay. I'd love to see you try to argue your points to someone in real life, they would laugh straight in your face for being such a silly man.

>>6850062
i'm the one denying reality. lol.

laughing is all you can do, anon.
and this is exactly why i'm correct. and you probably know this too. or you would, if you weren't so good at deluding yourself.

>>6850066
>laughing is all you can do, anon.
I guarantee I'm not the only one in your life laughing at you, little man.

>>6850074
spoken like a woman

>>6850074
Who is laughing at him for being completely correct and making great art? Don't confuse seething with laughter.

>>6850118
Are you trying to convince me or yourself?

>>6843578
ai pictures are gay and prompters are fags relying on troon logic

>>6850173
keep coping

>>6846497
Her anatomy makes me think of Aeon Flux. Sad this painting didnt work out.

>>6850173
True, AIfags and trannies are the same considering they're both pretending to be something they'll never be.

>>6848188
/thread

>>6850037
funny how troons always love trying to be something they can never be

>>6850066
>i'm the one denying reality.
given you're still trying to grasp for the art and artist labels? yes. the only thing you've been providing this whole thread is arguing semantics and sophistry. you still can't refute the ai neither draws nor paint (creates art), prove the prompter is an artist instead of a foreman and cling to the output being sorta similar and functioning somewhat equivalent. it's all those threads are "acknowledge le as an artist and this as art." the answer will stay the same despite walls of text about the technology. if the ai isn't sentient it can't be art, if you're not accomplishing the artistic transformation you can't be the artist.

>>6850049
>go on, tell me how this is wrong.
a human will impart words to tie to a concept to another human. but that other human doesn't need that and can learn autonomously, they will learn by experiencing. you again fall into the trap of loose equivalence. your ai doesn't deduce, its possible answers get narrowed until it reaches an answer somewhat close to accurate just like my parrot could make the sound of Shakespeare's word and yet be no closer to getting the content or understanding english.
>more importantly, tell me how this is copying or stealing.
the human doesn't make use of the data but goes through filters of abstraction and conceptualization, the ai doesn't, diffusion is a direct use of pixel data. I find data laundering more fitting

>>6850389
>your ai doesn't deduce, its possible answers get narrowed until it reaches an answer somewhat close to accurate just like my parrot could make the sound of Shakespeare's word and yet be no closer to getting the content or understanding english.
a parrot can only regurgitate. but for text, a LLM can literally try to imitate shakespeare. so once again you're completely deluding yourself in your basic assumptions about what AI are and what they can do.

>a human will impart words to tie to a concept to another human.
as will the AI. it learns to recreate whatever is tied to the keywords.

>but that other human doesn't need that and can learn autonomously, they will learn by experiencing.
and? this is irrelevant. we have a full brain with sections that all serve differfent tasks. in comparison, the AI only has like one neural network, serving a single task: depicting an image according to the keywords.
we can learn all the time, the AI only learns during training and finetuning.
we can experience more than the image. the AI can't. it is only made for one task.

>you again fall into the trap of loose equivalence.
...no, you are falling into the trap here all on your own.
i asked you what you would call this process (i call it learning), not how this process is just like human learning. which i have already told you: it is NOT EXACTLY like human learning. it is NOT human. i never said it was. it only your retarded selves that can't seem to separate the matters.

(continued)

>>6850389
>the human doesn't make use of the data but goes through filters of abstraction and conceptualization, the ai doesn't
except it does.
what else do you think makes the AI realize that some arrangement of pixels is a "tree" or a "car"? that you don't normally have trees indoors, or my more advanced examples with reflections?
what is this if not conceptualization?

look at the gif in >>6847509 again.
the AI also works from loose shapes and only works on the details at the end. what is this, if not abstraction?
it clearly knows not only what a fish looks like, but also what a extremely blurry fish looks like and how that can lead to depicting a detailed fish.

>diffusion is a direct use of pixel data.
you don't even know what this means.
or maybe you can explain to me what exactly you mean by this.
as the previous sentence is already wrong, i doubt it matters too much though.

>>6850380
>muh art
>muh artist
i consider AI a tool. so it will be up to the person how to actually use it. whether you consider it art or not is irrelevant to me. once it is used in the artistic process, you'll be forced to concede your cope.

like pic related. just think about the possibilities in animation. it is utterly laughable to think that AI will go away.

>you still can't refute the ai neither draws nor paint (creates art)
it doesn't? but it can create images that look like drawings or paintings, sketches, all kinds of things. and this is a fact.

you're the one arguing semantics.
because discussions about "art" are just that. pointless semantics. whether it is "painting" or "drawing"? what the hell does that matter? the only thing that matters is what you make with it in the end.

>>6850524
>i consider AI a tool
it isn't, it does all the production work
>it can create images that look like drawings or paintings, sketches
look like but aren't, not art. and people can tell those apart.
>you're the one arguing semantics.
the requirements for a thing to be art are clear-cut. I'm not the one trying to make machine learning and human learning interchangeable.
>what the hell does that matter?
it matters for a thing to be art. your question shows you completely miss the point
>the only thing that matters is what you make with it in the end.
but you don't "make" anything

>>6850530
Not him but aren't you embarrassed?

>>6850520
>except it does.
it doesn't, stop lying and trying to make it like it interprets it conceptually instead of purely statistical data point.
>what is this, if not abstraction?
just data ran through an algorithm
>it clearly knows not only what a fish looks like
it doesn't, pollute the daya set enough and it won't question it.
let me dum it up: you ai is dumb and you feeding it more data didn't magically gift it intelligence or understanding, only cold statistics and formula lead to those images. nothing empirical
involved, only curation. again, if you narrow the range of possible answer by weeding out the wrong ones then off you'll eventually hit the right one in such a system. it doesn't imply understanding
>you don't even know what this means.
call me when a human directly absorbs pixel data

>>6850530
>it isn't, it does all the production work
....lol?
and that makes it not a tool?

>the requirements for a thing to be art are clear-cut.
"art is clear cut" LOL

>but you don't "make" anything
i filled more sketchbooks than you are in age probably before AI was even a thing.

>I'm not the one trying to make machine learning and human learning interchangeable.
complete fucking retard. this is all i can say at this point. i directly addressed this multiple times.
but you can't help yourselves. just like i said, you CANNOT wrap your mind around this no matter how hard you try. it's amazing.

>look like but aren't, not art. and people can tell those apart.
the better it gets, the more you mix workflows, the less it will matter.

>>6850535
>it doesn't, pollute the daya set enough and it won't question it.
that is the same as teaching it wrong.
which does mean this is teaching, and learning, and everything i said it is.

everything else is just pure cope. but at least we are at the data-in-data-out part of the retarded argument now. :)

>>6850537
I don't know how you can stomach replying to such a retard.

>>6850512
>a parrot can only regurgitate. but for text, a LLM can literally try to imitate shakespeare.
no understanding involved with predictive models.
>as will the AI. it learns to recreate whatever is tied to the keywords.
thus it needs human input, unlike a human. it needs to "be told". that is not requirement for humans.
>and? this is irrelevant.
it is as you keep trying to sell us AI as a thinking thing. proof here with the following sentences where you put human learning and a machine training as the same thing with the only difference being the acquisition of said data.
> not how this process is just like human learning. which i have already told you: it is NOT EXACTLY like human learning.
then stop trying yo say it knows, understands or just stop using words tied to consciousness
I'll reiterate, this all boils down trying to force acceptance of it as art and that is unfortunately non-negotiable.

>>6850536
>and that makes it not a tool?
yes, it doesn't
>"art is clear cut" LOL
yes
>i filled more sketchbooks than you are in age probably before AI was even a thing.
you are a failed beg at best
>CANNOT wrap your mind around this no matter how hard you try. it's amazing.
"it's different but close enough so please validate me"
>the more you mix workflows, the less it will matter.
coping, you can't come up with such a workflow, all the images you've shared have the ai responsible for the output.
>that is the same as teaching it wrong.
the beautiful thing is c
you could teach me a rose is a flying fish, i will just end up misnaming it. the pure idea of the rose in the greek philosophy sense will still be in my mind with it's own context. if you ask me then to draw a rose and I draw a flying fish the problem lies with your request and not my concept of that pure idea. at no point youd have been able to change this idea, only the word associated to it. the AI needs the tagging as a prerequisite.
>which does mean this is teaching, and learning
machine teaching and learning then? never in the human sense which we kept arguing about.

>>6850542
I don't get why you're so keen on trying to make something that isn't a tool a tool, something that isn't art art and people who aren't artists artists.

>>6850555
You can't argue with those things but you're trying to, you know you're wrong so how can you live with yourself? This isn't trolling because no one is laughing with you.

>>6850558
I don't need to argue with those things as they are all true. you're the one negotiating.
if it is a tool what is it's precise function?

>>6850559
but we can run around in circle, you're saying "technically it's not just copying and it's close enough to humans processes so it's art, please let me copyright and don't sue me". you're trying to defend a practice that is dubious regardless of the fact you don't intellectually own the piece outputed

>>6850559
>if it is a tool what is it's precise function?
to create art

>>6850564
it isn't a precise function, I was waiting for this.

>>6850565
it is

>>6843578
I love Berserk so much bros, bless studio Gaga and rip Miura. He would hate soulless ai faggots.

>>6850564
only humans create art. no tool has a function that is "to create art". art is made via interaction with or without tools