/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6871786
>I know this board doesnt like ai art, but deciding to ignore it is just cope and you cant ignore it.
Didn`t read past this, sir you are not welcome. I don`t care. YOU ARE SHITPOSTING, wrong board for that.

>you cant ignore it

why cant i?

>Money was one of the reasons I did get into art
lol

Oh, look, a semi-decently well elaborated AI bait thread, this is not worth reporting, right guys?
Why dont you eat the bait, guys? It's fun!

machine breaking luddites

i dont give a shit about ai art because im a tradional artist, i use real life paper, real life pencils, real life erasers to draw what i like drawing, so in short, sucks shit to be a digital artist lol

>>6871901
just you wait until the robot arm painters are built and everyone has 5 traditional AI paintings in their houses.
maybe this is bait but the arrogance of traditional artists sicken me

>>6871916
I'm going to get robot arm prosthetics so I have 8 arms just to pin you down and rape you, fucking faggot. I'm going to shit down your faggot pajeet throat until you worship me like you worship the diseased cows that roam your faggot nigger kike shithole. you're a disgrace, a blight on living creatures everywhere. you're going to get raped and you'll love it, fucking faggot cockroach

>>6871786
I think it's more likely to be heavily used by medium sized companies. Bigger ones will ask their artist to incorporate AI into their workflow.
I think it will allow more people to venture into visual storytelling but during the short terms but most of its usage will be outside of artsy circles and more on business and content creation circles.
I'm not an artist so I don't plan on responding to it. I might try to explore it and see if I can benefit from it, but largely I still just want to learn to draw for myself, the human way.
Come to think of it I'd like to use it for rendering ot backgrounds.

>>6871786
>I personally think AI will be replacing artists mainly employed by the big companies that dont care about anything besides profit margins
Examples?
>we've already seen it with that one fallout show image
It's been around for a couple of years now, and that's all it's done? A single disposable social media image? Lame.
> I can imagine commission work slowing down
There's been no studies, but apparently commission artists are saying there's been no slowdown. Apparently a large part of who gets commissioned is based on recognition, or being a fan of their work, etc.
>but not nearly being hit as hard as people working for the businesses
Are there any examples of job losses besides China? And china is a special case, so no one gives a shit.
>of course besides porn commission, quality matters much less with those.
Again, I've heard no one say they're seeing less commission work, that included porn artists.
>Money was one of the reasons I did get into art
lol, no way.
>but I won't quit because I have other reasons to draw
Well, at least you're not one of those doom and gloom types who reply to their own post with "it's over /ic/sters".

Do I think AI will make changes? Certainly. To every industry to boot.
Will it destroy all art jobs? No. Artists may have to bite the bullet and start using AI though, which sucks, as it'll sap the fun out of creation - but that work I suppose.

We come here to talk about gaining a skill, ai art just doesn't belong here. At the end of the day, a well rounded artist will still have these skills and prompters will be experts in autistically googling for the right image.

TL;DR

>pls stop ignoring ai threads and debate the same bad faith arguments over and over
no
take your photoshop machine and go jerk off

>>6871786
Art its a commodity, human made art that is. Personally I'm too dumb to debate if the whole thing is ethical, original or if it is actually art or not, I dont care. In a way I appreciate the existence of it because it will make human made works more valuable just by existing among the slop. It was really impresing and terrifing at the beggining, even when hands where fucked up and everyone mocked AI, but as time went by the whole thing stop being interesting to me even when it got much better.

>>6871786
AI can't innovate. how will your product stand out if it looks like everything else?

>>6872698
You type another artist's name to copy, obviously.

..

>>6872698
there is a very simple solution to this. and you retards can't wrap your head around it.

>>6873353
the solution is obviously waiting for artists to post shit before you can rip them off. because AI cannot improve upon itself
>but look, I made a pathetic kitsch of homer simpson arm wrestle vlad the impaler, that didn't exist before!! SEE??
you're a fucking idiot

>>6873357
wrong.
the solution is easier than that and you LITERALLY cannot even see the possibility of it because of your retarded view of what AI is and what it does.

this is already a hint. try again.

>>6871786
YWNBAA

>>6873362
your opinion on the matter is utterly irrelevant. I know who you are by your posting style, every argument you have ever made is pure retardation and "in theory" nonsense

>>6871786
LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA

>>6872698
You're using that extremely generic piece as an example?

>>6871790
>>6871807
>>6871831
>>6872625
>>6872650
>>6872652
>>6872698
>>6873364
>stage 2: anger

>stage 2: anger

remember that these self-indulgent hacks call xemselves neural engineers

>>6873374

>>6873365
now tell me what the solution is if you know me so well.

>"in theory" nonsense
"in theory" is better than the cope, delusion and wishful thinking you live off of.

>6873371
Which stage is deliberately shitting up an online forum in some hope this time people will accept you and like you? Is it DSM-V category yet?

Reminder to sage and report AI threads.

>>6873378
imagine making 3 posts in a row without saying literally anything other thank "uuuh, aren't you going to ask me about my super duper secret?", when it's obvious how machine learning functions.

>>6873376

>>6872698

AI does not mean that companies will fire all their artists. AI means that companies will expect one artist to do the work of five, because they'll expect the computer to do the rest of the work.

The human artist will provide specific design elements and the rest of the image will be filled with AI filler.

So... that's what we've got to look forward to, professionally.

>>6873381
no. i'm just calling you out on your post. i deliberately did not say it outright because i wanted to see if you can get to the conclusion on your own. and you can't.
now you're even bitching about it and calling it a "super duper secret" :)

but the solution is VERY obvious: you just use the AI as a tool, as an artist.
that way, you as the artist can do the same innovating that you have always done.

>but AI is unethical!
retarded and wrong

trying DALL-E now myself and good god promptcucks, how are you even capable of deriving entertainment out of this? so detached, so random, are you actually so delusional to think that this is "made" by you? it feels like I'm just browsing a bunch of premade images

>>6873388
>but the solution is VERY obvious: you just use the AI as a tool, as an artist.
a think I've heard a million times. how? you mean as reference? I guess so, but it's a bit redundant don't you think?
>retarded and wrong
it's not unethical to use ANY reference as inspiration of course. no one, and I mean NO ONE actually said that this is the case

>>6873392

It provides no satisfaction as an artist. It is amusing as a toy. The people who are going to really push this tech, however, do not care about "art". Having said that, I've used AI to farm ideas, and to add a patina of photorealism to some recent pieces, so my opinion in the technology is nuanced.

Artists always think they can draw whatever comes to their mind, but in reality they only draw one or two different things in one or two different styles because they're creatively bankrupt.

>>6873401
all AI is evil and you're a fucking incel. you are not a real artist.

>>6873410

Advanced Twitter Simulation.

>>6873392
dall-e is shockingly good for inspiration because of how well it takes to natural language prompts. try to prompt the inktober challenges and see what you get.

>it feels like I'm just browsing a bunch of premade images
yes. but i can actually find inspiration faster using AI than searching for it because of how tailor made it is.

>>6873393
as an underpainting too. as a idea generator, color pallete generator.
your imagination is the limit in how you can use this.

>it's not unethical to use ANY reference as inspiration of course. no one, and I mean NO ONE actually said that this is the case
for reference, yes.
but many /ic/tards think using it directly is unethical simply because it has been trained on art.

>>6873407
KEK

it's over

>>6873418

I am SO tired of DoFresh's whining. He has been a total bitch about this whole thing.

>>6871786
It's going to kill art entirely, go and look at the threads getting spammed on every board and see how good Bing's new image generator is, there won't be any sovlful trve artists or anything because anyone will be able to make images as good or better than most humans, no one will care about anything they see on the internet.

>>6873415
>as an underpainting too
tool*
the point is, AI can make any PART of your image if you let it.

and as reference/inspiration it is surprisingly effective.
pic related for the theme of "dream" for inktober.

>>6871786
I never thought I would get paid for my art so it’s not a huge deal to me.
It’s definitely evil, but, not much we can do at this point.

>>6873421
He's bitch in general, he deleted my comment on artstation around 6 years ago. it was a funny comment. unforgivable. fucking snowflake.

"path"

what is nice is that you can work directly with concepts, because it's so much better at understanding you.

just to be clear, these are only used as references. although i did try putting >>6873426
into a SD controlnet to see what it could do.

it's good at making funny shapes.

Stop ban evading and put your trip back on

>>6873362
hi tripschizo, back so soon?

>>6871786
>its definitely a shame to see but I won't quit
maybe you should quit

>>6873452
>he still thinks i had to ban evade even ONCE
lol.
and it's sad how obsessed you are.
maybe i should take the time to finish that other argument from the thread that died..

>>6873368
Retard zoomer. Journey stood out when it was shown in 2010/11. others copied it to hell and back and now you think it's generic.

>be on a board about making and discussing user-created art
>"AI""art" is not considered user-created and claiming authorship of "AI""art" is explicitly against board rules
>content that violates the rules is removed and the board continues seamlessly
>no-draw trolls seethe everyday and post the same shitty bait threads desperately attempting to impede and demoralize artists

>YOU CAN'T JUST HECKIN IGNORE ME!!!!

>>6873415
fuck off tripfag the fact you keep using the same fucking images doesn't help your case.
>but of course you'll coming back

Guys, just report the thread and don't reply to bait.

>>6873384
>The human artist will provide specific design elements and the rest of the image will be filled with AI filler.
Only early on, at a certain point it's going to be cheaper and make "more sense" to hire non artists, or nobody, just get ai to be the art director. My point was that without artists you lose that innovation, it takes a high level of skill to push beyond the known and make something new and appealing.

Have you seen the show Mad Men? AI prompters are like Don Draper. He's the guys with ideas and a vision. Nobody remembers the characters that worked in the art department. They're just means to an end.

>>6873489
>fuck off i hate you!!!!
this is the level of response we're at now. you're a joke.

>>6873490
and this is arguably even more pathetic.

>>6873488
>attempting to impede and demoralize artists
i feel genuine sadness when reading this. for how delusional and misguided you people are.
as if i care to impede or demoralize you idiots.

i just don't want your idiocy to spread. because all it does is create more idiots like you: "demoralized" artists.
people NEED to see AI for what it is, and fast. that is far better than sitting behind 5000 layers of copium like you people are doing.

>obsessed attention-whore tripfag calls other obsessed
you can't make this up

>>6873497
and people with that skill will be still more valuable than those without.

but anti-AI people will never see that, you can even see that in this exchange:
>>6872698
>>6873353
>>6873357
>>6873362
>>6873365
>>6873378
>>6873381
>>6873388

you have no idea of the damage this "AI BAD! NO TOUCH!!!!" attitude is doing to artists.
in a few years, the fact that anyone ever held the position that AI can't be a tool will be laughable.

i also think part of the problem is that people understand AI as some kind of scifi-cliche. so they're never satisfied until it reaches that point.

>>6873512
you're obsessed with me.
i'm obsessed with the discussion :)

but go on, rage and cry about it more you fucking clown. not like you are capable of contributing.

>attention-whore will endlessly bump the thread because he is an attention-whore
>accuse others of being incapable of contributing
>stopped contributed 5 threads ago
>will autistically bump and answer everything because he can't help himself

>6873503
>AI prompters are like Don Draper. He's the guys with ideas and a vision.
"Idea guy" is probably the best summary of AI users, and it's not a good label to put on someone.
>Nobody remembers the characters that worked in the art department. They're just means to an end.
At least you've got the narcissism part of being Don Draper down.

Jump

>>6873520
aside from calling you a retard, i am contributing with every post.
every single one.

what about you?
have you noticed what your posts are about?
they're about me. always.
:)

>>6873521
but the irony is that artists are idea guys too.
or rather, being an idea guy is one part of being an artist.

>>6873513
>and people with that skill will be still more valuable than those without.
The people in charge don't won't see it that way. They don't know if a work is fresh or not, as seen with all aifag spam thinking they've got a hot new style, meanwhile it's just the same shit we've already seen. Yes there maybe be a tiny fraction of ai+artist who can prove valuable. But art products that innovate do so almost inspite of the people with the money, those artists are over deliverers and the clients don't end realize.

>proves the previous post right
>"I-I'm not obsessed"

>>6873526
all your posts are about yourself nigger. don't be deluded

>>6873513
>you have no idea of the damage this "AI BAD! NO TOUCH!!!!" attitude is doing to artists.
massive crypto scam vibes from this. fuck off with your shitty grooming tactics
>in a few years, the fact that anyone ever held the position that AI can't be a tool will be laughable.
and how does this deal "damage" to artists? if AI will be that relevant and actually worth using as a "tool" (lmao) no one else but artists would be qualified to use it as such anyway dumbass. anyone can play gacha with the computer, even a 5 year old. isn't that the selling pitch you shifty slimy cunts like to parade? it seems like it's either "ANYONE CAN DO IT AT THE PRESS OF A BUTTON" or "IF YOU DON"T LEARN AI NOW(??????)YOU WILL BE LEFT BEHIND!!". actually, literally eat shit

>>6873482
>and it's sad how obsessed you are.
>maybe i should take the time to finish that other argument from the thread that died...
NTA, but it's amazing to me how non-self-aware some anons are.

>>6873527
>Yes there maybe be a tiny fraction of ai+artist who can prove valuable.
yes but that's the only fraction that matters because it's OUR fraction, you nincompoop.

the best case scenarios is that AI enables a group of skilled friends to create a project on their own, with almost no funding. completely cutting out the corporations and the middlemen.
do you also think that this is something that impedes or should demoralze artists? because i think it's the opposite.

your shitty current "gigs" will die, but ART as a whole will be improved due to this.
do you want to slave away for corporations? do you think that is the only way things can be?

if they can hire anyone to make something, then anyone can make what they make, do you understand?

>>6873530
nice headcanon. here's the reality
>i post something about AI
>you start talking about me
this happens in every thread without fail. including this one.
i'm discussing shit and then subhumans like you come into the thread, and suddenly it's all about me again.

>>6873551
>AI = TECH = CRYPTO
lol.... this is just sad

>and how does this deal "damage" to artists?
> if AI will be that relevant and actually worth using as a "tool" (lmao) no one else but artists would be qualified to use it as such anyway dumbass.
exactly
EXACTLY
EXACTLY
EXACTLY
EXACTLY

YOU FUCKING IDIOTS

EXACTLY
THIS IS THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND
....but you keep insisting on "AI BAD! NO TOUCH!!!!" and that is the problem.

>6873526
>but the irony is that artists are idea guys too.
No, there is no irony, and you don't know what "idea guy" means. Honestly you should just seek mental help, since by your own admission you're obsessed about proving some point on an internet forum to people who don't give a shit.

>>6873557
>nice headcanon
all your posting is about satisfying your ego.
"s-see, I'm totally right and my comments are valuable!"
the only thing you've proven is that you're a no-draw clown. you're not even interested in discussing what art is because it proves inconvenient to what appears like cogent points to you but are in fact pilpuls and semantic games.

>>6873557
>if they can hire anyone to make something, then anyone can make what they make, do you understand?
Ah, so you think agi is around the corner and will fill all the roles you don't have so you can compete with the big boys? How will you make money with this thing you make? Who will market it for you? Marketing is half the cost.

>acts like a cunt shitting the board
>be told that he's being an annoying twat
>"tee-hee you're obsessed!"
textbook troon behavior

I can see that concept artists photographers and pin-up artists are fucked. but what departments of digital art industries are safe from AI? comic? what else?

>>6873557
>lol.... this is just sad
not my point. your sales pitch smells of FOMO shilling. you have no idea how much I hate opportunistic parasites who speak like this, tech or no tech

>>6873557
AI shit is bad for artist no matter how hard you try to spin it. If AI is accepted, that means you agree with the idea that artists are simply just resources, just a cattle to feed and improve the slop machine so that it will kill them later.
And you are fool to think that corporation will happily give you the best tech freely so that you can make a movie with a press of a button. Do you serious think you have any control here? They give you this half ass slop machine for now so that you dumbass will happily delude yourself and defense them to pay the way for them to abuse this absolute data thief practice with no limit.

>I can see that concept artists photographers and pin-up artists are fucked.
You obviously don't understand what concept art nor photography are for.
>what departments of digital art industries are safe
Other than the mentioned two, fine art.

What is the difference between someone who commissions someone else to do the art for them and a prompter?

>>6873559
you're just extremely inflexible in your thinking. it's almost funny.
your thoughts can literally be distilled into
>idea guy = bad word!
right here lol.

>>6873564
you're such a waste of time.

i discussed in depth that it is pointless to discuss what art is, and whether something is art or not. if you had a brain you'd understand what i said.
it's not inconvenient, it's just completely pointless.
you don't even understand that it doesn't matter in the end.
because the entire argument would only lead to what you CALL it in the end.

the incredible irony here is that i don't engage in this argument precisely because THIS is semantics. the entire discussion about art would be talking semantics.

>>6873576
i don't even know where to begin with this...
have a nice day.

>>6873593
One takes three weeks, the other three seconds.

>>6873600
so the speed is the only difference? I asked if there's a difference between a commissioner and a prompter.

>>6873571
>Ah, so you think agi is around the corner
no? you don't need that to benefit from AI. it jsut needs to automate things. even every second frame in an animation would cut down the work massively.
AI is not some kind of scifi concept about sentient robots, at least not yet. you need to look at it and its usecases more realistically.

>fill all the roles you don't have
not exactly, but that's the principle. to make AI do things to cut down on labor.

>How will you make money with this thing you make? Who will market it for you? Marketing is half the cost.
that is mostly unchanged. so you handle it the same as before. find sponsors, sell it, promote it, with money or not, do whatever you have to.
AI is only about the production side of things.

what's your point here? what you can only make money by being tied to big corpo? is that the only thing you know? is that how things should be?

>>6873573
the bigger the project, the more it benefits from AI.
so comics, animation, games especially. probably in that order too.

>>6873599
>i discussed in depth
you've dismissed, you call it pointless because it doesn't go your way and make a headcanon about the argumentation.
>it doesn't matter in the end
see, your whole stance only holds if that doesn't matter. you're just trying to set a premise that suits you.
so far you've only demonstrated you don't really grasp art, drawing, painting or animation.
in what must be 3-4 threads now you haven't been able to post a single image proving your points and you continue larping as an artist.
>inb4 "I-I've drawng longer than you were born"
your last recourse is plainly insulting and mass replying to fuel your need for attention.

>>6873503
AI cucks dont realize that they are just being used as training data for the next stage of IA development. Soon you will not even need “idea guys” because models will have copious amounts of data about the tastes of humans and will be able to predict trends and create products specifically tailored to end users, your “creative vision” will mean nothing to the business man.

>>6873623
I've been so perplexed at the short slightness of tech boys.

>>6873623
explain opensourced ai then
idiot

>>6873610
i literally told you JUST NOW why it doesn't matter. but you're too dumb to understand it.
in the end the only thing we would get out of it is we agree on whether it can be called art or not, depending on the definition we agree on (if we agree in the first place).

do you dissagreee with this?

does this sound like something productive? does this sound like we'd have done anything other than jerk ourselves off about what we think "art" is?

how hard can this be to understand?
you're too fucking stupid to read ANYTHING so this will fly over your head too. i'm beyond sick and tired of you at this point.

>pyw! pyw!
>you can't draw!
i already did. you don't need any more than what i already posted. you're just being willfully ignorant at this point.

and you're the only one giving me this kind of attention.
I GENUINELY wish you'd stop. nothing good has come from engaging with you at all.

i will stop replying to you from now on when i recognize you.

>>6873623
your creative vision is what defines you as an artist. what do you care what it means to the "business man"?

the question is what are YOU going to do in the coming years?

>>6873633
lol.... it's the exact opposite.
to me, being anti AI is fundamentally short sighted.
"AI BAD!!! NO TOUCH!!" is extremely bad and shortsighted. for artists, that is.

AI will be able to do everything and more eventually.
the question is, what are YOU going to be doing when that is the case?
just give up on art because AI can do everything?
i'm suggesting that you should use AI to make what you always wanted to make.
and i don't mean let it make what you wanted to make, but just fill in everything that you can't or don't want to do.

it's like you people simply cannot get away from this idea of "AI replacing you".

>>6873645
>>6873656
take your fucking meds

>>6873645
>i literally told you JUST NOW why it doesn't matter.
>"it doesn't matter because I say so!"
that's what it is, you were just to dense to see the argumentation in previous thread and handwaved it as "it's just your opinion bro" because you have no way to dismiss it.
>does this sound like something productive
why yes as upon it hinges whether AI-generated pictures are art (and thus belong on this board and art sites) and can be copyrighted for example but you didn't think that far or just desperately want to direct conversation toward a terrain that is favorable to you.
>pyw! pyw!
>you can't draw!
>i already did.
you posted blurry shit claiming it as your own and things the Ai did, I'll repeat, nothing you have posted proved any of your points and when criticism about them were brought...you just chose not to reply. so yeah, no draw larper.
>I GENUINELY wish you'd stop.
leave the board, it's that simple. I don't barge into your hosue and demand you leave me alone.
once again, your only answers are "n-no u", "whatever, it doesn't matter" and "ur stupid"

your speeches are only about cost and productivity, further proving that you're missing the point completely.

tldr; lmao nodraw clown

>>6873645
>>6873656
holy shit, would you look at this autistic clown. gleefully defending big tech.
>you're just coping, what will YOU dooo, huh?
>we're all gonna live in AI utopia, big tech daddy, make me another waifu
>I'm proompting and cooming all the time uuaaAAAHH
>AI proompting is even better than doing art

keep guggling your newest goyslop, you sad little man

>"answer me!"
>"no, not like that! LUDDITE! IDIOT!"

>>6873645
>>6873656
Low and behold to anyone's shock it's the tripfag nigga again
>always comes back
>tries to convince others of AI
>arrives after "x" amount of AI threads get deleted
>"I'm an artist like you"
I could prob later edit the trash bucket when I have the time

CONSOOM ZE AI, LUDDITE

>>6873503
>>6873623
Prompters are really delusional and have a god complex. Their god complex is the only thing they share with rich businessmen but prompters really think the rich are their friends.
AI-generated pictures, videos, and text, are pure evil. Destroy AI. Elongated Muskrat is the antichrist.

>>6873656
> your creative vision is what defines you as an artist. what do you care what it means to the "business man
You are actively training your replacement, idiot. What makes you think that tomorrow creative work will not be automated as well?

And even if I don’t work on the industry and I do this as a hobby, you know, for the love of art: why would I forbid myself of doing something I enjoy doing?

>>6873664
>and can be copyrighted
no. that argument would have nothing to do with whether it can be copyrighted. that is a separate conversation. one that is more relevant and can actually be defined somewhat, unlike art.

> want to direct conversation toward a terrain that is favorable to you.
that is what you're doing in the first place, don't you realize that?

but you do actually have some point with
>why yes as upon it hinges whether AI-generated pictures are art (and thus belong on this board and art sites)
but only because it speaks to whether i can post about this topic in the first place, not ANY of my arguments or points, even tangentially.

and it does not in fact change that it is a pointless discussion that would just be about semantics and definitions all the way through.

>you posted blurry shit claiming it as your own and things the Ai did, I'll repeat, nothing you have posted proved any of your points and when criticism about them were brought...you just chose not to reply. so yeah, no draw larper.
so i cheated and faked them, huh.
you're willfully ignorant. end of story.

>>6873678
>>6873710
>muh big tech
>FOMO
>newest goyslop
so you genuinely think it will go away huh.
that's just beyond delusional.

also the big tech/coroporations talking point is pure idiocy. again coming from a complete lack of understanding of what the situation is like.
you won't find an AI advocate anywhere on this site that is anti open source or pro-corpo monopoly on AI.

>the rich
lol.... just fucking lol.
le.

>>6873719
lol nodraw keep yapping and posting images that do not prove anything but you being a fraud.

>>6873719
incredible how obsessed you are after all this time. do you not realize how undesirable you are?

>>6873719
> that argument would have nothing to do with whether it can be copyrighted.
it is very relevant and linked to why AI-generated pictures aren't eligible for copyright.
>that is what you're doing in the first place don't you realize that
I'm trying to set up the terms of the debate but you can't even consider the definition, leading to sophism
again "no u"
>so i cheated and faked them, huh.
some aren't even clear enough to know you did anything to them, the rest have output that can only be credited to the AI so to speak. so yes, I'm calling you a fraud.
>you're willfully ignorant. end of story.
>knows nothing about process, drawing, painting and animation
>calls other ignorant
try again, larper

>>6873713
the difference between you and me is that i value my creative vision and skill and don't think it's easily replaced. not wholesale.
it can try to imitate my style but if it gets too close i can just claim copyright. other than that, it can do whatever it wants, the genie is out of the bottle.
that genie will be more capable than i am eventually.
but what, does that mean that my unique vision stops existing? that i should stop pursuing it?

art is not like that. between quentin tarantino and martin scorcese, who is the better filmmaker? does it even matter? should the lesser of them stop creating just because the other is better?

again: art is not like that.


the difference between you and me is that you think anything you do actually matters in relation to AI.
it will not only train on my work, it will train on the world as a whole.
and according to you, i should go
>oh nooo it's training on my work what will i dooo....!
>nooo it's bad and unethical and i shouldn't use it even if it can cut down my own work massively...!

>>6873724
of course.
my first threads here about AI were about exactly that: about how you people don't want to hear this, don't engage with it, are completely misinformed and like to stick your head into the sand.

from the beginning, that was what i was addressing with my posts here.

>>6873731
>the difference between you and me is that i value my creative vision and skill and don't think it's easily replaced.
>already replaced it
???

>>6871786

Whatever happens to the the industry or the art world have nothing to do with you.

>>6873732
it replaced parts of it. parts i'm WILLING to give up for speed. example being this>>6873415

and this is only part of the process. i can always refine what it does give me, again further injecting my own vision.
the result would be some sort of hybrid, not entirely of my own making, yes. but if i like the result, or it cuts down on time massively (again, like in large projects) then that is a tradeoff to make.

>>6873737
deluded

>>6873741
which part?

>>6873719
>defined somewhat, unlike art
Art is when a soul creates a physical expression of an internal experience intending to communicate said internal experience from within itself to another compatible soul.

>>6873731
>let’s ignore your argument
>instead let me create a strawman of you and attack it make myself look superior
And then you act surprised when we say you argue in bad faith, tripfag.

>>6873743
shhh, they are allergic to th word "soul", too abstract. gotta speak in terms of product and productivity

>>6873742
the part about you thinking you have any legetimacy

>>6873746
>inb4 typo

Why are you guys still replying to this retard?

>>6873750
he'll bump the thread and reply to himself anyway. might as well call him a clown

>>6873743
see? now you give me a specific definition that you came up with. and now we get to argue about every part of it.
maybe i should give my own definition, and then we can match those with some "official" definitions from dictionaries, as well as authority figures throughout the ages! fun!

and where would that lead us? nowhere.
you know what that definition of yours is? do you know why it is so elaborate and specific?
it's because it's your specific understanding of art. and you just defined it to include and exclude everything you want it to.
i would do the same then, as does the dictionary and figures throughout history.

the fact that this can be done just shows that "art" is a very vaguely defined word.

so the discussion is pointless in my view.

/ic/ has been burying their heads in the sand for the past year and a half hoping for big government to step it and with the wave of some bureaucratic wand ban or restrict Ai as if that would magically make it go away. While you've been covering your ears, others have been conceptualizing illustrations that would have never been brought to a visual medium for all to relish in. Ai is here to stay.

>>6873753
If you don't believe me, and offer no counterargument, I'll be left with only might to prove myself right.

>>6873751
projection. you're the only one who would samefag. i literally use a trip most of the time.

and why do you think i care about bumping a thread?
i'm usually late and only show up once the thread is well into autosage.
not to mention that i tend to discuss until the thread itself dies, again well into autosage.

you're utterly delusional in everything you say about me.

>>6873759
okay nodraw

>>6873751
You don't understand how autists reason.
If you reply to him he'll be 100% convinced that he's winning.

>>6873757
i'll humor you then.

under your definition, me drawing a smiley would be considered art.
explain to me how me prompting a smiley face
is not.

>AI is here to stay.
Yes, Pandora's box is open. AI is here to stay and completely ignored by most people until AI trash litters the internet and other communication media so heavily that the they become unusable. Then it can't be ignored anymore and must be destroyed.

>>6873768
what you're actually saying here is just that YOU'll ignore it, until you can't, and then you're going to throw a tantrum.

and this is very much in line with how you retards behave and argue in this discourse.
you either pretend it isn't there or you bitch and moan about it and try to get it destroyed.

but you are incapable of seeing it for what it is.

>>6873557
>do you want to slave away for corporations?
Why do you honestly think AI is going to save you from this? When the well of white-collar work dries up, you're not going to be given free healthcare and a stipend to prompt your visions all day; you're going to be digging ditches and barely scraping by instead. We do not live in a post-scarcity society. We aren't even close to realizing that kind of utopia. Corporations and the government see you as nothing but cattle; a resource to be expended.

>the best case scenarios is that AI enables a group of skilled friends to create a project on their own, with almost no funding.
Irrelevant, because as you said yourself:
>if they can hire anyone to make something, then anyone can make what they make, do you understand?
Whatever your dream vision is, not only will it be lost in a sea of slop (marketing/advertising will still cost money), but anyone will be able to just use AI to ripoff your project with quick turnaround. It won't matter that you conceived it first, because it'll be big corporations in China and such ripping you off, and unlike your no-funds startup, they'll actually have the money to market it and push it to people. There won't be any opportunities anywhere. The disparity between established companies and newcomers will only increase.

The whole scenario just gives corporations even more control than they already have. How you can view the loss of stable, white-collar employment as anything other than detrimental is truly beyond me.

>>6873776
>but you are incapable of seeing it for what it is.
neither are you, you pick one of your fantasy scenari as the absolute outcome when it might very well utterly degrade art and culture as a whole.
>again "ur jus stupid"
such a brilliant mind
>discourse
there isn't any discourse, there's you yapping and dismissing everything, insulting everyone and attention whoring

>>6873766
The specific smiley wasn't conceived within you. It emerged from noise within a certain metaphysical ruleset and merely appears to hold meaning to you. There was no artist who sought to imbue the work with the experience it evokes in you.
In effect, you're hearing your name in the noise of rain.

>>6873787
>you're hearing your name in the noise of rain.
that's...poetic

>>6871786
Problem with AI "artists" trying to come into the art scene to get some of our money is that there isn't any.

It's like someone having free apples and they think
>Free apples all I've gotta do is sell them
>No labour cost to get them like those pesky farmers
>Don't have to know about tractors and what types to use
>Don't have to have connections or the land
>Ezpz

But the issue here is that nobody fucking wants to buy art. Comic artists work for years and are happy to just be known. They usually don't even make min wage when you calculate it.

So if you bust in with all your free apples but it turns out the farmers are doing all that work to get their apples and are then giving them away for free.

Art as an industry has been cucked by the fact that creation genuinely brings joy. This is the industry you are trying to "take over" with AI, a rotting corpse. I want to draw, it brings me joy, I'll do it for no money and I'll work hard to do it for some. Even with AI and skipping all the labour and all the years of skill, there just isn't any money to go around

>>6873797
in actuality, they're hearing their name is the noise of tv static
yes that does make it sound less beautiful

>>6873784
so you think me saying that it can be used as a tool and actually using it as a tool (see >>6873426
>>6873415) is the same as you trying to pretend it doesn't exist? ..really?

what you're doing right now is yapping.
the difference between you and me is that my opinions are based on something. your opinions come from fearmongering and trying to hide your head in the sand.

>>6873787
a drawing isn't either. it only fully comes into existence on the page. how the smiley comes out depends on your motor skills too.
so no, no smiley i draw is conceived "within me", there are only the vague ideas of a smiley.
in fact with a more complicated drawing it can take hours or days to finish it.
i'm not evoking anything, i'm merely making decisions (ON THE PAGE) that try to evoke a certain feeling. again not necessarily one that is within myself.
maybe i just like to light or show things a certain way. there are many happy accidents too.
none of that is in your definition btw.
those happy accidents would not be art under your definition.

>merely appears to hold meaning to you.
the drawn smiley doesn't hold meaning to me either beyond signifying a smile.
and on top of it, that was not in your definition.
maybe you need to revise your definition? :^)

besides, what if i pick one of these because i think they portray exactly the kind of feeling i want to convey?

>There was no artist who sought to imbue the work with the experience it evokes in you.
what if the AI evokes the experience better than you yourself would? if i was only able to draw a really shitty smiley that doesn't look cute, but the AI makes the cute one that i actually want?

>>6873784
so you think me saying that it can be used as a tool and actually using it as a tool (see >>6873426 (You)
>>6873415 (You)) is the same as you trying to pretend it doesn't exist? ..really?

what you're doing right now is yapping.
the difference between you and me is that my opinions are based on something. your opinions come from fearmongering and trying to hide your head in the sand.

>>6873787
>The specific smiley wasn't conceived within you.
a drawing isn't either. it only fully comes into existence on the page. how the smiley comes out depends on your motor skills too.
so no, no smiley i draw is conceived "within me", there are only the vague ideas of a smiley.
in fact with a more complicated drawing it can take hours or days to finish it.
i'm not evoking anything, i'm merely making decisions (ON THE PAGE) that try to evoke a certain feeling. again not necessarily one that is within myself.
maybe i just like to light or show things a certain way. there are many happy accidents too.
none of that is in your definition btw.
those happy accidents would not be art under your definition.

>merely appears to hold meaning to you.
the drawn smiley doesn't hold meaning to me either beyond signifying a smile.
and on top of it, that was not in your definition.
maybe you need to revise your definition? :^)

besides, what if i pick one of these because i think they portray exactly the kind of feeling i want to convey?

>There was no artist who sought to imbue the work with the experience it evokes in you.
what if the AI evokes the experience better than you yourself would? if i was only able to draw a really shitty smiley that doesn't look cute, but the AI makes the cute one that i actually want?

>>6873852
okay nodraw

>>6873852
I'm pretty sure you find these exact faces on Google image search anon

>6873852
>more sophistry
amazing

https://files.catbox.moe/82jx89.webm
You are fools if you think people will be allowed to keep this tech. It will be ripped from your hands and branded illegal. Politicians and those in power will be able to dismiss any video and photo as fake.

wowzer ainigger sure is killing dem strawmen

The artist killer is still shit.

>>6873852
Let me tell you something about /ic/, you're not going to change minds or persuade anybody here. This place is where broken dreams and disenchanted illusions come to find solace from others with similar hardships. In the past, there has been selfless good Samaritans that invested time, labor, and knowledge in an attempt to help others through redlines and personalized commentaries showing intricate details as if a professor was right next to you dispensing a fountain of knowledge and what did this board do? /ic/ actually attacked the good Samaritan, cried for his blood and even went as far as complain to /qa/ to ban this individual all because /ic/ didn't like his style of drawing. It was from that day forward I realized the detriment from this board, take whatever diamonds you find in the rough but do not share it with anybody else as more likely they will stab you in the back just to step over you and climb higher up. /ic/ gets what it fucking deserves.

>>6873852
>The specific smiley wasn't conceived within you.
>a drawing isn't either
nta but what? Anon you're saying you don't picture the scene you want to draw in your head? You just scribble some random shapes wishing they start looking like something at some point?

Okay this is pretty good, concept artists on suicidewatch.

>>6873865
that's not how this works anon.

>>6873886
not the exact scene, yes. just vague ideas. i doubt it's different for most humans other than savants.
maybe i have """""""""""aphantasia"""""""""""" or whatever the fuck that is but i'm drawing very well anyway.

maybe some non savants think they can see that well in their minds eye but i'm pretty sure they're just shitters that aren't aware of the level of vagueness it actually has.

when making a drawing, you have a vague plan and then you're "building". you're often even calculating distances and proportions to see where you should put the next lines. or other times you only know what to do next because of the previous lines that were already there. the process is not all happening in your head...

>>6873886
they're streetshitting wordcels anon. that is the crux of what drives these faggots to spam every board with the same thread over and over again. literal subhuman waste that cannot conceive of doing the most innately human act: to create something.

>>6873881
if you're talking about teal, i wasn't exactly a teal fan. but i was one of those redliners, as i've posted in the past.

>/ic/ gets what it fucking deserves.
honestly yes, but i think /ic/ is my stand-in for the artist community in general right now. and i just find their stance on AI completely retarded.

>admits he's not an artist

>https://desuarchive.org/int/thread/188186591/
It turns out nobody likes AI and good jobs spammers, you all did a good job. Artists won.

>>6873881
wall of text unrelated to AI

>>6873911
I mean yeah. Artists get a picture in their head. And I'm using my gained experience to draw it as close to my imagined thing as I can. The more skilled I get the more I can cram in the pic I'm imagining and drawing. The more experience I get the more I can do. That's also the point of gesture - the ability to quickly jot it down which keeps it fresh in your memory. That's also the idea of starting big and slowly going into smaller details as you proceed.

By the way.
When you were "redlining". Did you actually reimagine in your head how the pic should look like or did you just look at lines that aren't in correct proportion?

>https://desuarchive.org/int/thread/188186591/
It turns out nobody likes AI. Good job, spammers, you all did well. Artists won.

>>6873938
he wasn't redlining and is just larping replying to himself

>>6873943
Humanity lost. It's ogre for everyone and ai has ruined everything.

>>6873911
>can't picture images in his mind
literal cattle lmao. poos were right about you shitters being low caste

>tripbot is back
brother, this goy stinks

>>6873938
that's not how things work imo.
even gesture proves that. if you could actually imagine it in any level of detail, you wouldn't need to make quick gestures to jot it down.
same with working from big to small.
it's more like you're half working with the plan in your head and half working with what is already on the page, which then updates your plan in the mind.

>When you were "redlining". Did you actually reimagine in your head how the pic should look like or did you just look at lines that aren't in correct proportion?
more the latter

>>6873952
Pretty much sums up my thoughts on ai. I'm going back to drawing now, while I still have some sanity left

>>6873852
The impulse to create the smiley is one that definitely belongs to you. Whichever form it exists within you at that moment doesn't really matter, so long as you're the vessel for it. The point is that you holding that initial spark is fundamentally necessary to communication; it compels you to translate whatever is in your mind into the physical realm so that you can share it. A smile from some entity not capable of the emotion it signifies isn't meaningful because it could not have been intended to be.

>happy accidents
This is fair for the definition I gave. I'd expand it by claiming that all other parts of the definition can be diminished to near zero except for the creator with a soul and the compatibility of souls as it's easy to contrive of practical examples where the full definition isn't manifested but you would still instinctively call something art, for example if something drawn was never seen by anyone else other than the artist. The reason why I think those two are the most important aspects of the definition is that otherwise all natural phenomena might be classified as art simply by having the capacity of being experienced as such, while the word 'art' literally means artificial. However, in excluding the results of natural processes, we must also exclude processes in other systems that also function without the involvement of souls, which now includes AI generation.
That said, I'd like to point out that photography also fits this definition of art, as just framing a content into a context binds one's experience of an object with its literal representation. Utilizing AI-generated content in a similar way isn't not artistic.
>what if i pick one of these because i think they portray exactly the kind of feeling i want to convey?
At minimum you need to contextualize it in order to be credited as the creator of the work.
Maybe you can see that the definition of art I've given is the most broad I could device without including almost everything.

>>6871786
Kill yourself.

>"I don't have a clear image when drawing"
>"therefore using is artistic"

>>6873978
>The impulse to create the smiley is one that definitely belongs to you.
that does not speak against AI. as your impulse leads to the creation of the smiley.
a smiley which will be ultimatively unique (although in this case not exactly original), and will depend on your input, which in turn depends on your initial impulse and spark.

>A smile from some entity not capable of the emotion it signifies isn't meaningful because it could not have been intended to be.
this does speak against AI, but it is not in your definition for art.
and note how the impulse still came from you. but you're now saying that that thing you're using to "convey that experience" also needs to have a "soul".

>the creator with a soul and the compatibility of souls
yeah, there's a word for that, "communication".
and AI art fits into that as well.
it ONLY does not in the case when there is no human behind the AI.

>i'd expand it
>Maybe you can see that the definition of art I've given is the most broad I could device without including almost everything.
by doing this, do you not realize how arbitrary this "definition" is? that it is in fact more more of a description for your own understanding of what art is? you can include and exclude whatever you want, and you will, as will i for my own "definition".

do you now see how i consider this is pointless discussion?

and right now we are merely discussing your definition alone, because i'm indulging in this discussion.
imagine now that i add mine. and i do the same things as you.
i mean just look at how comically specific your updated definition already is. you literally just added a giant asterisk to your definition...
what we would end up doing is just constructing a definition that does exactly what we want it to.
that's the kind of discussion this is. pointless.

>>6873971
Anon that is how things work. The "skill" which you keep disproving that it has anything to do with "art" is what gets you there.
You have a set of tools at your disposal that you learned: Knowledge of perspective, colors, shapes, hand movements, etc. And you have a picture in mind. The question now is how can you use your knowledge to get there? How skilled are you to create it exactly how you want it?

Gesture proves that we're human. We're not robots and need various aids, tips and tricks and skill that gets us going. Your KJG was such a god because he could copy from his imagination almost perfectly every time he added an element to the drawing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmqFbgKWoao
>But you just said "every time he adds an element". That literally means he randomly generated ideas.
Strawman. Come on. You're human, not a robot. Ofc you'll step away every once in a while. Maybe you get a new idea to add. Nevertheless, it's still you wanting your drawing done.

You're half working with the plan in your head, half working with what is already on the page. Yes.
>Which then updates your plan in mind.
Yes...? I still know what I want. I still strive to get to it. I find a point I'm satisfied with and go from there because I am not perfect and I may not notice I messed up. That's why when you return to your old drawings they look like shit, when it was not the case in the moment you drew it. I don't really get the point you're trying to make here.

Anon no offense but I think you don't understand art as well as you think you do. I don't deny you may draw well, but I have a feeling you never "created" anything. You drew for the sake of drawing. With no goal in mind.

>>6874056
Oh hey, it's the guy I was talking to in the other AI thread

I think the best way to think about the difference between human expression and AI slop is to look at situations where human expression itself turns into slop, like flanderized anime artstyles.
Miyazaki is totally right in his observation that this is art by 'artists who hate humans and don't want to look at them', - they only interpret the interpretations of other artists, creating an incestuous feedback loop where the visual language becomes a reflection of itself. AI is always like this. Language models mimic the way people write - they have nothing to say. Diffusion models mimic the way people stylize - they don't make stylistic decisions. In this sense, AI generations are necessarily just shadowy reflections of human expression, and if we're actually talking about art that's meaningful and a reflection of the human condition, whether it's high art or low art, the connection between the origin in a human mind rather than a prediction engine can not be overstated.
When I'm drawing stylized expressions, I'm interpreting the way human expressions 'feel' to me, accentuating certain features to bring out different aspects. This is even more obvious with text: I'm writing this post to think through and communicate a point, not trying to 'predict how I usually talk'. When asked to draw an angry furled brow, AI just mimics how 'this line right here above the nose is usually done within the dataset under these circumstances'. A human telling an AI to write an angry character isn't "communicating" their anger in any meaningful sense, they've just written the word anger and gotten a generic rendition of how that word is generally used. To communicate, you actually have to put in intellectual and artistic work, you have to find your own voice and think about each decision you make.

>>6874093
You are confusing Miyazaki's observation from "artists who hate humans and don't want to look at them" with artists who wish to idealize humans in order to look at them. The Ai allows the user to idealize figures no different from exaggerating proportions into super human like proportions that match descriptions of the epic mythologies of Titans and Nephilim just as artists did in ancient times to instill a sense of wonder and awe at the viewer. It's the whole reason why we want to learn how to draw like pic related in order to convey what we believe to be the ideal.

>6874056
keep yapping little lazy artlet. all those mental gymnastics won't make you a creator

>>6873971
>it's more like you're half working with the plan in your head and half working with what is already on the page, which then updates your plan in the mind
It is of course important that the artist has a soul that's compatible with itself, so that the artist may use reflection and introspection.
The eventual perfect artistic AI will work exactly like a human would except better, but will forever lack a core of humanity that for now is best described as divine. We recognize art because it's ours and us, while we treat everything that is pleasing but not made by one of us as simple natural beauty. There's an intrinsic quality to it that will probably elude proper definition forever.

>>6874056
If you mean that 'meaning' isn't part of my definition, it's implicit in communication.
>and AI art fits into that as well
Hardly. You're thinking in the sense of how a piece of text you wrote describes an image that the AI produces, but what of an AI that produces text instead? Your expression is the initial text, not what the machine produces in response. You prompt, and the AI performs. What you get is the AI's interpretation of your input, and it should be meaningless to you because your souls are incompatible.

>do you not realize how arbitrary this "definition" is?
Yes. I understand exactly how broad the definition is. If you could ask birds about their mating rituals, they would probably say that there's an art to it. For all things man-made, there will be one person who considers it art, and you'll find that whenever they do think this of anything it's because their focus is on transference. All design gains a facet of artistry when it expands from utility to aesthetics, never mind how all utility eventually turns into aesthetics by being experienced and then framed and composed into expressions.

>>6874093
By the way, I thought about the last point you made in that thread, and I think I agree with you that with this form of radical automation the old paradigm of market economies where people can trade their skills for goods and services is basically over - all 'skill' becomes data that can be copied and mass-manufactured, so now there's only goods and services. I have absolutely no clue how we're supposed to solve the problems that go along with the kind of radical automation AI makes possible at a societal level without absolutely crippling ourselves. UBI won't do shit to actually solve the attention economy problem, and realistically the more useless people become the more they're going to neglect themselves and each other.
>>6874113
>implying Platonism
an ideal is always something the exists in relation to ones understanding of reality, it's a horizon of the real. rounding off the edges of stylization further and further until you're left with something indistinct and bland is the opposite of idealization, it's a kind of escapism into pure insubstantial appearance.

>"hello myself"
>"why yes I agree with you myself"
>"what an enlightened conversation we're having"

>>6874134
>Someone is having an intellectual discussion without sperging or causing a board wide temper tantrum
>On my /ic/
Silence, plebeian. Your betters are speaking.

>and the retard takes the bait

>>6874141
>Your betters are speaking.
I only see a clown in front of a mirror

Janny does absolutely nothing about the 5 AI threads the obvious raiding niggas keep making

>>6874154
you added an extra s

>it's an 'anon can't believe there's more than one person on /ic/ who writes posts longer than 200 characters' episode

>it's the same faggot thinking he's not obvious
did AI atrophy your notion of pattern recognition?

You will never draw like this. Even if it has flaws, you will never be able to even emulate those flaws, never mind the art itself.
Seethe troons.

it's rich from tripfag whining about the definition of art then proceeding to state what is or makes art

>>6874159
OK CIA

AI art is a novelty. It is, as far as I can tell, really good. But I still want to see human art. AI will never beat it. I'll spend a minute looking at a pile of AI art and I'll spend all day collecting art from humans. I don't want to sound sentimental or anything but human art being attacked by losers armed with AI only makes the human art more enjoyable.

Thanks for reading.

Yep, AI is gonna replace all yall coomer ass "artists" pretty soon. Microsoft Bing has the latest Diffusion build right on Windows and EVERYONE is using it now. It's only a matter of time until small artists become a thing of the past.

GAME OVER DRAWBOI

>>6874179
Is that meant to be stonetoss?

>>6874183
Chuddie comics are gonna go bye bye

The range of art styles it can achieve is unmatched. It's over...

>>6871786
This thread on /co/ really fucking demoralized me.
>>>/co/139795347
Literally the only reason I got into drawing was so I could draw my favorite cartoon characters in whatever situation (or porn) I wanted, but now, I feel like I just wasted my life.
I was browsing fucking paheal yesterday and saw this amazing porn (pic related) of Rottytops from Shantae, and I was like, "wow, I wonder who the artist is", and then I saw it was AI.
Seriously, what the FUCK is even the point of going on?
Seriously, why should I even fucking live anymore? Nothing fucking matters.

>>6874207
Lmao, might as well just ACK yourself now anon, it's never too late for that ^^

>>6874207
>one pic is all it takes to rip anon
are coomers really this weak

>>6874207
>I feel like I just wasted my life.
Bro it sucks that this happened but it's not a waste if you enjoyed it. No one shits on people who can sing because autotune was invented (quite the opposite they mock the no-talents who use it) so I suggest you go outside and get away from terminally online trolls

>>6874179
Why is semen everywhere. It's even coming out the bottle

>>6874220
It's not JUST one picture, but the realization of the reality we live in.
You go on deviant art and go to the trending page, it's FILLED with AI shit.
You go to paheal, full of AI
I didn't get into drawing for money, but because of the euphoria from knowing something ONLY exists because YOU had the creativity and drive to make it exist.
Now, none of that matters, because anyone can make whatever they want instantly with no skill.
It's becoming abundantly clear that drawing anything yourself is a WASTE OF TIME.
3 years of my life WASTED

>>6874228
coomer #grind

>>6874220
Yes.

>>6874233
Is playing music pointless now too? Are you going to give up on talking to real people because someone invented ai chatbots? I would suggest you change your outlook or you're going to have a hard time the more this stuff overtakes everything that makes us human

>6874233
pyw nigga or are you just a coping whore spreading your ass checks for anyone to abuse

>>6874093
>Oh hey, it's the guy I was talking to in the other AI thread
are you >>6870382?
maybe i should reply to the rest of your post here if that's you.

>>6874078
>Gesture proves that we're human
lol no. gesture is by and large just an abstraction for how things are arranged.
a lot of art is just abstraction of one way or another. there is nothing special or human specific about it.

it's just that only humans were intelligent enough to grasp these kind of things.
but you're confusing that with something being uniquely human.
i now realize that a lot of you are probably making this exact mistake.

>And you have a picture in mind. The question now is how can you use your knowledge to get there?
if you had a picture in mind then you wouldn't even need any knowledge to get there. i don't you understand what we're talking about here.

>>6874233
Anon you've literally spent too much time on the internet kek get some rest.

>>6874242
not that anon
>Is playing music pointless now too?
yes
> Are you going to give up on talking to real people because someone invented ai chatbots?
i have massively reduced the amount of time i talk with others now that i can talk with bots

>>6871916
retard

>>6874233
and here is the key difference between drawing for the sake of art and drawing in order to gain attention, stature, or whatever other attempts at vanity which is exactly what's mostly comprised in this board. Most of you are upset since Ai essentially takes the spotlight away from you and like a vindictive bitch you lash out against anyone who either consumes media from Ai or creates from it.

>6871916
So more printers nigga
will they be prompting flavor of the week girl for coomers
>truly this is an noble use of "AI" technology
>better let the scientists know the future they're building

>>6874179
Yeah bro Microsoft is our friend

>>6874251
honestly, it sounds like you're depressed anon. understandable since you feel like the path you've been following for the past three years ended up going nowhere. doesn't mean life as a whole isn't meaningful, though. take some time to re-orient yourself. I also recommend actually reading up on how these models are actually trained and what they do (that's what I did when I started taking this technology seriously, at least, and in my case it helped me feel a lot less confused and disoriented).

>>6874242
NTA but music isn't the same as drawing.
Music divided between composers and those who play their songs, the reward is in playing the song itself, live and in front of an audience.

Besides artists, NOBODY gives a shit about the process of drawing, it was always about having a finished, fixed PICTURE to look at over and over.
AI Basically destroyed the fun ; who gives a crap that you can draw when a machine can do it faster and better than you?

I won't stop drawing, mind you, but the future is GRIM

>>6874253
the differences are many. it would be insane for someone to train for 10+ years and be fine with being used as cattle by an entitled parasite
>anyone who either consumes media from Ai or creates from it
you only consume from it and flood the internet with garbage. of course you do this for clout and shilling and nothing else while at the same time being undeserving of it, so I fail to see the point you're making. you're projecting while also being a leech. it steals more than the "spotlight" but go ahead and cope that you're still not a tick

>>6874242
The difference is that AI has not gotte powerful enough to REPLACE humans and even musicians. There no AI music concerts. People haven't stopped looking for gfs by using an AI chatbot. Not on a large scale at least.
Visual art, on the other, absolutely HAS been completely replaced.

>>6874253
>Muh drawing to get attention.
Nigga, we ALL do things to be acknowledged by the world, by our community, it's natural, it's human.
The difference is that some people only do art as a HOBBY, while others do it because it's their calling, their vocation
Once lawyers, doctors, translators, etc lose their fucking purpose to AI are you gonna say "urrh, you were only doing it for the money??"

>>6874122
>Hardly. You're thinking in the sense of how a piece of text you wrote describes an image that the AI produces
no, but there is an idea behind that text you gave it. you may even have some vague imagery tied to that idea.
and you expect something of it, the AI may meet or fail your expectations.
if it meets or exceeds it, then it again fits your definition.
and if it doesn't, guess what: you can just adjust your input or try something else. until it does.

i'd be lying if i said that my often pieces end up with the idea of how i started them.
i'd be also lying if i said i could sketch out my ideas every time. can you? often you have an idea and it just looks like shit on paper due to some sort of skill issue or something otherwise lacking.
is that part of your definition for art as well? if so, you'd have to update the definition again.

1/2

> but what of an AI that produces text instead? Your expression is the initial text, not what the machine produces in response
you might think this makes sense, but if you really think about it, the text prompt also just represents the idea in your head that you want to come into being. for example a story. maybe you have characters and even many specific ideas for the story. at what point does it start or stop being art?
obviously just saying "write a poem" is not much in terms of input OR an internal experience. but what if you have an entire world there that you want the AI to bring to light?

right now you argument is that, whatever you have, whatever you input, when it passes through the AI, it no longer has their "soul", their internal experience or their vision.

but what if they say that it does?
in my above example, the prompter is either discarding, refining or accepting the AIs outputs. through this process, aren't they trying to get closer to the "internal experience" they want to depict.

ironically i find that original contest piece to be a good example of this.
the guy did not have the skill to pull this off. but he wanted this and he could tell that there was something to the piece, as did the judges. he says that "it's my vision". "it's what i wanted". and you will deny him that?
what now, is skill a part of your definition as well?
more asterisks then.

>Yes. I understand exactly how broad the definition is.
no, not broad. arbitrary. as in, you decided on every part of it, depending on your own understanding alone.
if you asked my about my definition, it would probably include something revolving about this idea of "communication" as well. except it would also include AI.
and that's all we're doing here. arbitrarily wrestling to include or exclude AI using our own specific definitions.

2/2

>>6874261
>>6874233
>>6874207
>another thread of "what's the point of doing art anymore" posts
These are just the same exact demoralization aifag posts that were posted across the site since last year. Further evidence that AIfags are either bots, shills, or desperate autists (or all of the above).

There is literally no reason to draw anymore. All the time I did studying fundies is gone. You are retarded if you think people care about it being AI or made by a human.
>>6874267
Translators is fucking done as a profession. Lawyers and doctors not so much but other sectors like programming and writing are also on the line of fire.

>>6874261
>Besides artists, NOBODY gives a shit about the process of drawing, it was always about having a finished, fixed PICTURE to look at over and over.
gigacope. I mean that's your cattle consoomer brain, but don't speak for all of us.

You won't have any skills and be happy. AI will do everything for you, the future is bright. You'll have only cooonsume and to play family with your AI girlfriend. That will be your life. The future is bright.

>>6874267
>translators
it's already basically over for them. just gotta streamline the process a bit, and you'll be able to hire one editor to direct a translator-AI as it does the work of 200 translators while human oversight helps it smooth out the few bumps that are still there

>>6874243
My work isn't that good, and I'd still be called beg, despite being more competent than most people in general population.
However, even if my art was shit, it was still SOMETHING. Even if I wasn't a master, I still had SOME level that people could appreciate. I could still say "I made that and no one else"
But now, AI will ALWAYS be better than me and most people.
BEING AN ARTIST IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A SCRIBE AFTER PRINTING PRESS

>>6874263
I've been drawing for 10 years myself, and I am perfectly fine with somebody creating a prompt from a favorite fictional character. Moreover, stealing is the essence of drawing as nothing is new under the sun. Calling others a leech and a parasite without realizing that you yourself either draw from reference, copy, or take somebody else's idea is ironic.

>>6874271
>and you will deny him that?
the copyright office certainly denied him that kek. the moron claimed that the picture was drawn completely by him at the art contest, by doing so he basically showed what his true thoughts were. and that "the computer made this, not me"

>>6874273
>Besides artists
Retard

>>6874270
>and if it doesn't, guess what: you can just adjust your input or try something else. until it does.
what you're missing here is that often enough you have to go through the process of exploration to figure out what exactly what you want to say, just as you have to 'find' a drawing by doing compositional sketches. the drawing doesn't pre-exist the process, it's something that emerges out of the process. the automated process where you have the AI follow your prompts is a process you yourself will have no understanding of, especially if you aren't artistically trained, so you'll have no idea why one illustration is working and another isn't, which direction you should go and why. the road disappears as you stop walking it yourself.
mind you, that doesn't mean I think you can't integrate AI into your process at all, but that guy that ended up posting his "work" was a prime example of what can happen to you if you end up just identifying with the AI slop and painting over it a bit, thinking it's "your" result.

>>6874266
>There no AI music concerts.
There will be and it will happen faster than you think. Gen alpha kiddies will sit and watch them with their apple glasses and laugh at boomers who like live music

>People haven't stopped looking for gfs by using an AI chatbot.
It's already starting

>>6874274
people think chat gee pee tee is a magic 8 ball when it comes to programming. the odds are, it has a lot of private source code that was leaked (highly illegal) and given to chat gee pee tee. and stitching together basic code has to be the most retarded way to code, ever. just trash that's very limited and unoptimized. for a lot of this shit AI is just fake hype and let me tell you, I cannot wait for the day I'm going to tell you "told you so". notice how it's only as good as the massive amount of data it can access. just so obviously theft on a mass scale but you AIcucks deny this because you'd like to believe we live in le heckin Night City

>>6874283
>retard makes false assumptions with unwarranted confidence
>assumes I'm an artist
>assumes I did not pay artists who all share their processes and enjoyed them
>assumes that a lot of other people do not do this
>assumes that I somehow did not see customers commenting on it
yeah, you are a retard. a confident retard, but a retard nonetheless

>>6874290
>>assumes I'm an artist
stopped reading here, get the fuck out of this board

>>6874093
i mostly agree with this.

over the course of this thread, i also realized one major distinction about human and AI:
they learn by example and only by example.
meanwhile, we can learn through abstraction and other methods. AI can do some abstraction as well, but not nearly as much.

when it recreates a reflection, it knows how to arrange things due to example, not understanding. that is the major difference. or at least one theory i have. not sure how accurate it actually is.

in this sense, humans are still a LOT more intelligent than AI. for now at least.

>>6874292
so what are you doing here AI cuck? I plan to learn, you plan to spew shit

>>6874287
Nigger I agree with you but they already got away with it. I am not an AI shill even if I sounded like a demoraliser troll. I am actually demoralized because how easy it is to do. I also hate that AI fags are allowing big corporations into their data, specially /g/. /g/! Can you believe that shit? The board that was most autistic about data stealing and privacy is head over heels over AI slop. It's all so fucking sad.

>>6874245
>if you had a picture in mind then you wouldn't even need any knowledge to get there
Excuse me, what? Anon did you miss the point of you imagining, wanting and being able to draw it?

Don't want to sound like a prick but you have something akin to a complex going on, bro.
Every time you talk you make it seem like you can't live with not being able to draw or whatever and keep trying to convince yourself and other people to drop it the same way you did "for the greater good" and are using AI as your medium. It really feels like nothing matters to you and you have no passion, man, AI or not.

>>6874285
that too, is not within your definition of art.
now you're saying you also have to understand the output in depth on top of "walking the road yourself".
is that really ART? or are we really just starting to talk about skill here?
again, i'm telling you, we're just wrangling definitions here in order to include/exlcude art.

>but that guy that ended up posting his "work" was a prime example of what can happen to you if you end up just identifying with the AI slop and painting over it a bit, thinking it's "your" result.
i think that is just the nature of AI art. at least pure AI art.
that contest guy didn't even paint over it afaik.
it works purely based off of his taste and sensibilities, as well as prompting. mostly skills not at all related to normal art.

>mind you, that doesn't mean I think you can't integrate AI into your process at all,
but you're saying it wouldn't be art

(which reminder, i don't care about since it's a pointless war of definitions)

>>6874301
all I'm saying is that it's peak delusion to believe that this nonsense won't get massively regulated, at least in some way. not just for protecting "IP" but a lot of things as well such as deepfakes of people's faces, voices, due to the insane potential for crime of opportunity. and if that doesn't happen, well you have more pressing things to worry about. the internet will be completely destroyed, covered in slimy grey goo. then what you're gonna do? will you wallow in this shithole quagmire or keep yourself entertained through something else like perhaps...drawing? I am spending less and less time on the internet due to the abomination it has become in the last 3 years. I am getting a dog in a few months and will spend most of my time outside with it due to how rancid the internet has become. does it suck? yes. is it worth giving up on the things you liked? no. even if you're an internet addict, you'll still have people who seek the diamonds in the sea of shit. bubble communities where this shit spew is restricted will naturally form. it has already happened in some spaces

>>6874301
the real blackpill is that the result is so useful that the fuckers are gonna get away with it. it doesn't matter they're thieves, this genie isn't going back in the bottle. how many people are gonna lose their jobs to this over the next couple years and have their lives totally fucked over because no matter what area they retrain in the AI jew is just going to steal their skills and put them into a golem again.

>>6874314
Anon. It's too fucking late. You can already do that locally. How the fuck can you regulate it.

Lol niggers. Amirite?

>>6874322
tru

>>6874305
...i'm not dropping drawing? i'm just trying to find uses for AI.

>Excuse me, what? Anon did you miss the point of you imagining, wanting and being able to draw it?
look, the only difference here is you're saying that we imagine something and "try to draw that".
but i think what we imagine is a fairly vague plan and we're just making decisions on the page instead.

>>6874318
I was talking about the biggest shit. the local one is less intrusive, but you are not taking into account the impact this will have on the culture. these people will be viewed as scammers, gypsies who try to sell you pyrite rings, tracers. you might as well say "what's the point, someone will trace my art and get attention from it". seen this happen first hand with tracing, retard got more views for his tracing than the original artist. art scammers have existed since the internet existed. seek the people who are not utter scum as your audience, why do you want the attention of literally worthless subhumans? this is borderline "I want a gf no matter what, I don't care she's a gold digging leech" even though there's no spark, no interaction, no love. have some standards

>>6874326
>the local one is less intrusive
more intrusive*

>they are still feeding the retard
Jesus fucking Christ

>>6874318
You can already murder people at your own house, how the fuck do you regulate that?

>>6874317
This is why I'm going to continue drawing and not caring. I'm not wasting my life retraining for a "real job" just for that to get taken too

>>6874318
I assume you don't know about the shift from personal computing to cloud computing that is being pushed. There will be no local installs, there will be no privacy. Everything you do will be closely monitored and regulated. Personal pcs will get more expensive and harder to find as inflation and cost of living skyrocket. Everything in the future will be rented to you and you will own nothing.

>born just in time for the apocalypse
what're the odds, amirite fellas?

>>6874343
there's not gonna be any heckin apocalypse. it's another tech bubble scam that will blow up, with a small number of corporate winners. even coca cola has "AI flavored" slop. will it cause lasting damage? sure, but this is a tale as old as time. corporations in cahoots with the government, fucking over the small people, making them poorer, less relevant and making themselves richer off their backs so they can sell you shit and make number go up efficiently.

>>6874340
Art is just a shock. The rest of jobs are so much easier to replace with AI. Art and photography really is SciFi bullshit that shouldn't be possible to have AI create, especially so quickly and so well.

No point retraining for a different job for it to also be replaced. The job loss is going to be so massive across so many industries, at least we won't just be a canary.

>>6874356
Yuval Noah Harari predicted this.
A future full of useless people sedated with porn and video games.
Of course, it's easy to predict when you're the one actively creating said future

>>6873362
Put your trip back on.

>>6874343
I want to die, or kill those responsible.

>>6874401
I'm honestly surprised it hasn't come to the latter yet. Are artists not as insane as I thought them to be? Do tech conferences just have good security?

>>6874406
Ai roaches tend to hide away in the dark like real roaches so you don't encounter them outside very often

Artists who openly use ai, put a target on their back for kyoani 2: electric boogaloo.

Stay safe frens.

.

..

....