/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

what rise in popularity
>we

>>6895485
how long does it take you to come up with these little 100 word essays?

>>6895497
I bet they're AI generated

>>6895485
>Is the uncomfortable truth that we artist actually made the bed we'll soon be sleeping in?
Artists didn't make the A-eye you dumbass lol.

It's no one's fault lol.
AI art simply happened because art is the perfect testing ground for AI models.
Art has a giant margin of error compared to most other tasks AI will replace in the future.
Would you rather have AI being tested on brain surgery first?
If it messes up even 2% of the surgery, the patient will either be dead or never fully recover.
If it messes up a painting of an anime girl by giving them 8 fingers on 1 hand, no one is going to give a shit.
It sucks for artists, but that's just how it is. Your profession is simply a great way to test AI capabilities with little to no risk.

>has slop always been slop, even when it was human made?
Uh, yeah? People (artists) have been shitting on artstation-core, rendercore, and general vapid unoriginal illustration for years. But the reality is, that's what normalfags consume like it's 2-for-1 McDonald's.
And yeah, these are the artists currently pissing themselves in fear. Dudes like RJ Palmer and his gay overrendered pokemon and dino shit. These are the artists fed en masse into the Machine, because that's what the people demand, what they've always demanded, and they never cared about some weirdo fag doing his weirdo fag art shit in the corner. Most people are not really interested in art, deep down. You show them a hyperreal portrait and they get that, you stylize or "interpret" it or be too novel and it's confusing if they lack visual literacy.
But those people are not "we." They're them. Unless you identify with them.

>>6895511
"Margin of error" and our collective ability to see it and/or consciously care about it are different notions. Anybody can tell a drooling vegetable apart from an at least healthy-looking patient after brain surgery, but most people's basis for what a "good" image is basically detail, period. Art is the best "testing ground" because what makes for actually good art isn't a practical matter that the average person is conditioned to grant a crucial importance like money or physical health; it's important in ways they don't understand, and even when it's completely gone they may not realize it because, even if they WILL be sensitive to indirect manifestations of what they're missing, they won't make the connection.

Art is indeed the perfect testing ground of a comically faulty product, because the perfect wet-dream-level consumer for such a product is one bluntly incapable to see the difference with a good one. I believe the eager Schadenfreude that greased the deal even more for many evangelists was a happy surprise for the companies pushing it though.

And well, there's the "free" dataset, obviously. There may have been a notable difference in investment between getting an army of medical professionals and test subjects to train your brain surgery AI, and simply appropriating the entire Internet for your image and text generators taking advantage of the absence of a legal framework that could only exist AFTER you did it. And after you did it, you have the money to facilitate the notion that you could do it all along of course.

>>6895511
why are you talking as if art is the first real application of machine learning..?
anon, AI can be used for anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw3BZ6O_8LY

>>6895515
Since this is such a polarizing topic, the sort of hard truths to swallow are never well received. I 100% agree there's no difference, on a creative level, between an awkwardly cropped middle shot of a highly rendered interchangeable hot lady with lavish detail, and exactly the same thing synthesized by whatever generator.

But that's not the point. Normies ate overrendered fanart up because, even if they didn't understand creativity and originality, they understood time and effort well enough, regardless of how streamlined that time and effort was for an artist churning a bunch of these pieces a week. And they may be willing to pay for that but, would anybody actually pay even a fraction for it if it came from a generator?

I believe some deluded end users still believing themselves middle-men and pioneers of a viable career path have already realized this point, given recent events.

>>6895578
>Normies ate overrendered fanart up because, even if they didn't understand creativity and originality, they understood time and effort well enough
They understood "time and effort" insofar that it served "art" they were already receptive to. In other words, if it pleased the eyes or the dick, and *appeared to be* effortful, then it passed all tests. They wanted the illusion, mystification - something that appears so convincingly real that it boggles the mind, that it seems impossible for mere mortals to replicate.
They're uninterested in something that does in fact take tons of time and effort, but lacks illusion.

So the problem now, is that the illusion has been shattered by AI. Any machine can shit out visually realistic slop, "fast food". But machines can't be original, innovative. And frankly, normies were never good judges of real effort. This lame-o shit will slip through the cracks -in the production art, in the behind-the-scenes - despite the clamoring of the few. And they'll hoover it up all the same, if the illusion is convincing enough. Easier than demanding really original art.

>>6895485
>Is the uncomfortable truth that we artist actually made the bed we'll soon be sleeping in?
Yes.
"AI" is the direct consequences of the immature and self-serving behavior of artist of the last decade and the rise of social media enabling and encouraging to produce as much soulless slop and kitsch as possible to farm clout/likes/views/followers/etcetera for potential profits, from porn addicts, kids and other type of people who would be mistaken for an hellspawn and shot on sight if they ever stepped outside.

Unleashing this tech upon the public was either a mistake or it will turn out to be highly beneficial for the original owners, at the expenses of its users/prompters.

The critical issue is that this has enabled trannies i.e. miserable individuals who aren't capable or willing to respect anything and just step on everything and everyone for self-gain to outright gain the ability to spam any community even more than they already did.

It's a generational issue as well; with many zoomers/millennials wanting everything "now and instantly" and with the least amount of effort possible, even if it means devaluating/delegitimizing whatever they are pursuing with the average consumer enabling these practices because they cannot not-consume.
Social media was a mistake.
Allowing normies, autistic trannies and kids on it was its downfall.
In the end, this copyright infringement machine with extra steps will become standard because it's illegal to tell the mentally ill and criminals to shut the fuck up.

Also, tripfag, don't you fucking (you) me, nigga

>>6895485

dumbfuck

>>6895497
>>6895502
Damn. We be just ais talking to each other. Deep.

>>6895515
>Most people are not really interested in art, deep down.
This is an aspect that is often ignored. People who question the point of paying for art when AI can generate slop for them, or who flock to AI slop and don't bother interacting with works made by humans never actually were into art. They liked shiny, well-rendered, easily digestible illustrations, they liked slop. Any painting, drawing that looked sketchy, unfinished, abstracted or expressionistic was always a turn off for them, and if it also required them to stop and think, possibly about unpleasant things, to appreciate, most would balk at it. Of course then artists who specialized in quickly churning out vapid works that lacked any message and didn't express any of their views or feelings, but instead was simply a nice decoration to look at (or to masturbate to) are going to feel the most threatened. Churning out slop is way easier than making something meaningful, to some of them prohibitively so, and so AI is a genuine threat.
This doesn't make the overwhelming majority of AI outputs any less garbage, just like the overwhelming majority of pictures posted on social media. It's a deluge of easy-on-the-eyes visual equivalent of fast food, which is precisely why people who don't have and don't want to have art literacy are so drawn to it.
In short, AI just brought to the fore and exacerbated the problems existing in a mostly visually illiterate society.

>>6895485
whatever dominant popular art of the time would become the popular with AI imagery too.
In an alternate timeline where ceramics was the big thing at the time generative AI came about, they would be the target for replication. (and AI-fags would be buying 3d printers en-mass)

this thread just shows how incredibly self-important artists are.
no, AI doesn't exist to replace artists.
and no, what artists were doing before literally is irrelevant to the rise of ai art.

>>6895611
>People who question the point of paying for art when AI can generate slop for them, or who flock to AI slop and don't bother interacting with works made by humans never actually were into art. They liked shiny, well-rendered, easily digestible illustrations, they liked slop.
Something has crystallized in my mind, which I had only felt vaguely before:
When these illiterates talk about AI art, they're always talking about how it's going "replace" human art and artists. Why do they say this frankly quite outlandish thing? It's simply because they're amazed at how perfectly, how undetectably imitative AI art is. "It's just like muh anime!! wtffffff!!!!"
Nobody ever says in the context of a visually novel AI piece, even though AI theoretically can be used in a process to make highly original images. No, it's always about making more of a preexisting thing. In fact, that is all AI does, it notices patterns in large datasets (slop).
People really just want more of what they're already used to. And AI serves that to them, on a mirror-reflective platter, that shows them only the parts they want to see. They want more McD's. Saying AI will replace artists is like saying McD's will replace chefs, it's so self evidently fucking stupid, but to it's also true in a sense. A lot of people only eat McShit's and know no better.

>>6895485
Everyone on this board who ever said anything like "money/popularity means the person is a successful artist" is to blame. You all are the ones who turned art into a commodity, sucked the soul and appeal out of it, made it a numbers game, and now you're surprised that people value it the same as something they can get for free? Fuck off. You all taught me that crabbing is not a bad thing. In fact, I'm gonna crab even harder now because the "artists" on this site (and even worse on X) have set up the board in AI's favor.

>>6895629
>how undetectably imitative AI art is.
human artists are also rather imitative.
How many artists are really chefs?

>The tripfag is here again
Why can't mods just ban him already, he's literally just baiting and shitting up the board with his retarded takes.
Mods do your job.

>>6895629
>In fact, that is all AI does, it notices patterns in large datasets (slop).
lol. what am i even reading. those patterns that it learns is what makes it capable of balancing the colors and values of an image like pic related.

>Nobody ever says in the context of a visually novel AI piece, even though AI theoretically can be used in a process to make highly original images. No, it's always about making more of a preexisting thing.
what does this even mean? what is even a "novel" ai piece, or any piece supposed to mean?
this is like complaining that some people will always be impressed by images with boobs. because boobs are just popular.

>>6895595
>Also, tripfag, don't you fucking (you) me, nigga
no

>>6895638
>actually, you're a hack too
I'm going to be charitable for a moment, and assume you're not actually making this trite AIfag argument. It isn't particularly difficult to find exciting, new art, if you're truly interested. If you feel it's hard to find novel art, you're either purposefully (unintentionally?) misunderstanding how influence works, or its an honest reflection of the type of work you look at.

>>6895485

what do you mean "We" aitard.

>>6895642
Is that fucking Anna from Fire Emblem?
Even if it isn't, that's helping make my point for me. Why does it look so much like somethiing I've seen before?
Matter of fact, what point are you even arguing here? This is a boilerplate anime girl image. No one said AI wasn't convincing, the problem is that it's TOO convincing.

>>6895646
I was more responding to the first half of the comment, perhaps I should have quoted
>Why do they say this frankly quite outlandish thing?
they say it because it's not so outlandish. Most art they see is related to entertainment, which is more easily replaced by AI.

>Report
>Drama/Community Vendetta
Don't engage the spammer

>>6895642

it doesn't matter what the AI does. What matter is you've done nothing and yet claims that you did something. You don't belong here. You are a parasite leeching off others.

>>6895658
>Most art they see is related to entertainment, which is more easily replaced by AI.
Well yeah, there's going to be a reckoning for industry grunts. This just goes back to the original point though, which is that normies don't care about art. Just a simple statement of fact. Good art does exist independently of the Netflix trending tab, though.

>>6895663
oh noo i'm cheating noooo....
leeching off who? you?
you can't even draw at all, so i suggest you go back to whatever hole you crawled out of.

>>6895651
>the problem is that it's TOO convincing.
i have no idea what you're even saying at this point.
again, what does "novel" even mean to you??? it's probably just something you like, isn't it?

>>6895668
We are in agreement, I was more thinking about the scale of what can be/will be replaced. normies used to flock to art unveiling... was that slop too?

>>6895674
>soulless AI-golem CAN'T EVEN CONCEIVE, can't even IMAGINE what novel art looks like
Sink in the shit-soaked grave of your making

>>6895686
he can, he just can't show you because he just doesn't have the time.
>meanwhile he watches the threads like a hawk for any (you)s

>tripfag's replies are getting more and more lower quality the further he posts 24/7 in every single ai thread
mang we rlly fucked the chatbot real gud

>>6895686
i'm just telling you that "novel art" is an idiotic concept only a brainlet would come up with.
again, what does novel art look like? can you define it at all? just art, but more scribbly? what's it gonna be anon? enlighten me with your brilliance

>>6895691
at least you understand that i used to bother making high quality posts. :)
but frankly they're completely wasted.

Ai Chad here, I'm almost starting to feel bad for the drawslaves... They keep taking LS over and over again and I've seen so many suicide posts. The only thing they have left is Twitter dogpiles

>>6895701
Yeah buddy, if we collectively know anything about market economy it's that an increasingly scarce resource has NOTHING to do against another whose main characteristics of a low access bar and a built-in facility for exponential massification.

To be fair, there's something legitimately amazing about a technology this efficient at draining its own value.

>>6895485
There is no rise in AI popularity. Studios have found it useless for anything but stray images and normies hate it to the point that even little kids are saying bad graphics in games "look like AI" now.

Fuck you Pajeet. Pakistan and China should carve out your shithole country.