/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6928269
when used like that? no.
AI used to generate random shit to give you ideas of what to draw? kinda.

kill yourself nigger

>>6928269
I just don't understand how people can feel fulfilled with this shit. He draws an owl with a necklace and gets a robot owl, he draws a couple of lines and ends up with a bottle of wine. Is he dictating the AI drawing, or is the AI drawing dictating what he does?

The face at the beginning was practically fully drawn after a couple of colour splotches, how can you feel you've created anything at that rate?

>>6928279
This tbqph
>minus the gamer word because that's mean, but you really should consider ending your own life OP

>>6928269
My guess is that in ~10 years everybody will be using something like that. Right now, only a very, very small fraction of the artists have a capable machine, and the tools are very precarious, buggy, and shitty in general
Also, threads like this will be hilarious to read in 2033

>>6928290
>I just don't understand how people can feel fulfilled with this shit.
they don't. that's not the goal. the goal is literally just make pretty picture but put in no effort.

>>6928269
i really don't like how decisive is prompting part: a visual art should require mostly visual inputs
>>6928290
it's obvious that he typed a prompt before start sketching. also he tweaks the owl prompt at some point to make it mechanical

>>6928299
>make pretty picture but put in no effort
working smart instead of working hard is a good or a bad thing?

>>6928298
>My guess is that in ~10 years everybody will be using something like that.
everyone will try it, but it's just like using the character creator in sims and saying look at the character "I" created. meh.

>>6928269
What the fuck. The end of human creativity is near. If governments don't do their jobs properly, all "art" will become the same boring goo of "perfection". People hate reality now.
If watching all of Hayao Miyzaki's movies was enforced in schools, this wouldn't have happened.

>>6928307
aifags continue to not understand the reason people create art
You hire someone to satisfy your wife, too?

>>6928308
overcomplicated magic prompts are so 2022. get gud.

>>6928308
>(winter)(snow)(stars)
>pic has autumn leaves, water, tree trunks

>>6928308
>negative:
>tibetan:1.1
oddly specific

>>6928269
Hmm, nice. its like having direct access to your minds eye. No typing paragraphs of prompt mumbo jumbo.

I unironically want this.

>>6928315
In the future, they will say that the machine knows what they're thinking so it's exactly how they imagined. And everyone will believe them.

>>6928319
>your minds eye
not yours

>>6928319
>No typing paragraphs of prompt mumbo jumbo.
exactly sir this is magical prompt sir you just paint and it looks into your mind sir

>>6928290
>how people can feel fulfilled with this shit.
its a tech for people that hate drawing in the first place. But if it was only them using it, it wouldn't be so bad. The real issue here is about all the big companies that will for sure abuse AI to reduce production cost of their new souless product.

>>6928269
>>6928290
>>6928320
ai actually can use magnetoencephalography to guess what are you thinking. i don't see why a more advanced version of that technology shouldn't be used for creating art at some point

>>6928279
/thread

>>6928332
art becomes even more unfair for Aphantasiacs...

>>6928323
huh, how is precisely a problem that companies will reduce their production costs? sounds like a clear win for humanity
are they somehow stopping you for working on your hobby?

>>6928298
>threads like this will be hilarious to read in 2033
by then permabegs will be crying about shit like this >>6928332
i can see the narrative already: "is not real art if you didn't write the prompt by yourself"

>>6928319
>>6928322
duh, see >>6928303
you people really need to become familiar with the new tools: get with the times, or get left behind

>>6928352
Pretty sure corporations don't want to close shop, but gain greater power for the ultimate goal of becoming world dictator.
Introducing AI into corporate products is just one step away from the masses accepting that. If the masses accept AI, it will become more commonplace. If nothing is done, imagination is finished.

No it's a crutch used by begs who ate never gonna make it.

>>6928312
Do you think people draw art assets for videogames for the art?

>>6928269
This is cool I would try it

>>6928332
Can't imagine that being too useful. How hard would one have to focus to get the entirety of an image made? I feel like the mind wonder a lot, even when concentrating on a specific thing. So I don't think it could ever really accurately portray what's in someone's head, because that idea is half baked until the artist toys around with it.

>>6928413
NTA but I personally believe so. Even utilitarian crap like gizmos icons or splash screens have dedicated people with their own vision working behind it, even if /ic/ makes fun of it for being soulless. Being a concept artist is a cut throat job and the pay isn’t great, you wouldn’t do it if you hated it when there are simpler options available. And still, when someone truly talented and dedicated manages to get past upper management and not get their vision stampeded by some lizard corpo, it can create something magical.

>>6928273
what if the final piece is the left side, and you use the right side just for inspiration?
>>6928332
cool technology: you will be able to paint precisely what you envision; know what animals are thinking; have a video of your dreams; and incarcerate every male for lusting over little girls.

>>6928269
>soul vs soulless but in real-time

>>6928448
Disco Elysium is a result of real artists that bled for their craft. AI idiots are convinced there's no magic there and we can toss away this idea of soulfulness through pursued hardships. They either see it and are bitter they don't have it or they don't see it and shouldn't be in the conversation in the first place. If AI is useful as an artistic tool it isn't remotely in the form techbros seem to think. Lots of people needing to stay in their fucking lanes these days. Lots of blatant theft needing to be called out also.

Also friendly reminder to sage and report AI threads as you see them ;3

>>6928517
funny enough, the soulless ones are the shitty photoshop sketches in this case.

>>6928308
>negative huge clitoris
>negative penis 1.1
AYLMAO

>>6928269
Is this a joke or are the aifags so out of whack? The left girl looks better than the ai right and this guy can drawn better than the promptfags.

Also this is not fun, drawing is time consuming but fun. Clicking buttons, moving sliders, typing text and moving a stylus without tactile feedback on a cold screen and smudging with "digital ink" is not fun.

>>6928405
>If the masses accept AI, it will become more commonplace. If nothing is done, imagination is finished.
It's already finished because the younger generation will love and accept AI

>>6928352
>are they somehow stopping you for working on your hobby?
Ai should do the boring jobs and let me draw and sculpt with my /ic/, exercise with my /fit/bros, and study maths and algorithms with my /g/bros. Fuck ai taking the good jobs.

>>6928577
What!? You don't want to flip burgers, clean toilets, or lay bricks anon? Pfft, this is what dreams and ambition does to a man.

Seriously though - AI was supposed to build houses and drive trucks, it would suck for those industries, but I doubt those workers would be too fussed about the industry changing so long as they are given another job. However, all the jobs currently being replaced are the fucking jobs people dream and WISH to have, it's fucking insane.
Writer? AI'd. Artist? AI'd. Musician? AI'd. Photographer? AI'd. Director? Update in progress.
I think the people behind these AIs are genuinely, no hyperbole on my part, absolutely fucking evil scum human beings. They're seemingly destroying everything, culturally, so they can be first on this supposed gravy train.

All this said, I'm actually not too worried, I don't think things will ever get quite good enough to replace people for everything in these jobs, or there will be strongly supported niches to keep human creativity going, but it doesn't change what they're trying to do.

>>6928269
Buy an ad

>>6928269
what's even fun about this? it's like using an aimbot when playing an fps

>>6928551
No those are SOVL

>>6928413
Yes, actually. Not that you'd know since you'll never come within sniffing distance of an actual art job
You'll have a heart attack when you see all the "handrawn", "noAI" and "real artists only" tags on commission sites

>>6928295
kill yourself double nigger

>>6928279
Spbp

>>6928269
lmao. the end is night: as soon as this shit becomes integrated in photoshop it's over for drawing monkeys

>>6928269
can you neck yourself?

I think any grifters trying to merge AI shit with art must be met with genocidal hostility.

You tried now kill yourself OP.

>>6929031
So nigga you want more phone filters

>>6928269
interesting concept. what's the name of this software?
it's a monthly fee, or should i buy a $3000 PC?

This is the equivalent of running a marathon with the Flintstones car.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CzHK2PYtkof/
140k likes, even tho she used AI in her work, no one cares

> Proompting with 30000 steps
> instead of just asking the AI for what you want and proompting whatever the fuck it will shit

WHY

>>6929031
how much more pointless redundant convoluted crap do AIcucks need in Photoshop. the whole purpose of this is to larp as a painter, so at least you admit that this shit isn't painting lmao

>>6929031
>the end is night
nigh, anon. not night. fucking pajeets

>>6929192
it's not about the art. it's soifacing about at tech regardless of how redundant and pointless it is. like the retards shilling musk's Hyperloop. these are the worst form of consoomers on earth

>>6929176
Hyper realistic portraits of Morgan Freeman have been getting millions of likes since the inception of social media, so I'm not sure what's your point anon, not only here but in general lmao
Is social credit the thing that is going to make or break your life? lmao

>>6928332
>>6928269
this is clearly the future of arts
making traces on physical media with your hands, like a caveman has certain charm, but the most direct way to express ideas is by getting free of the physiological restrictions. people in 100 years will look at the current art as pre-historic hampered crap
>>6928446
you lack imagination: the workflow would be a continous loop: ai paints whatever you think, and then you refine it. if you're stuck at some point, just ask the computer to give you some random alternatives, or mix it with an existing piece, or whatever: the sky is the limit

.

>>6929267
>You lack imagination
Lmao, the audacity of this fucking retard
I can see this being used in a medical environment, law enforcement, psychological treatment even.
Art creation? No, not really.
Only a souless retard like you needs hyper rendered images to be able to conceptualize a visual concept.
The fact that you're so excited for skipping the most basic steps means your hands are just there as decoration, what a waste of a human being.

..

>>6929283
>souless
kill yourself, ignorant luddite pajeet

>>6929313
I hope you're just having fun saying dumbass shit, if so congrats, pretty good character.
If you're real tho lmao, poor thing

There will be a point when you won't be able to watch movies after a certain year, because it'll be unclear whether AI shit was used.

>>6929283
he's completely right, you lack imagination.
the fact that you think hyper rendered images have anything to do with this is just another proof of this.

>>6929318
>There will be a point when you won't be able to watch movies
and why is that? because "NOOOO I WILL NEVER WATCH AI SLOP!!!!!"?
and yet in the same breath, you say that it will be unclear, meaning it will be hard to differentiate between AI or non AI.

you people really need to spend some time to properly think this through.

>>6929313
nice projection retard lmfao

>>6929329
How's it going rajeesh? you cashed in that paycheck yet?

>>6929267
in 100 years computers will generate their own art, completely inscrutable for mere human beings

.

>>6929334
"in 100 years we'll have flying cars" said some equally ignorant nigger, 100 years ago.

>>6929329
>you say that it will be unclear, meaning it will be hard to differentiate between AI or non AI.
That's precisely why I won't watch any movies made after X year.
I don't see what you're trying to gotcha! here.

>>6929339
>movies
>>>/ic/

>>6929329
..

>>6929339
yes, and why will you not watch them?
or let me ask this: do you think anyone else will care if it no longer can be differentiated?

>>6929348
How woke are they going to make it this time nigga.

>>6929340
>>movies
Eh, anything really. You won't know any person talking to you isn't a chatbot. The internet will become absolete.

>>6929329
>the fact that you think hyper rendered images have anything to do with this is just another proof of this.
No, retard, the fact that you feel the need to directly pluck things out of your brain to have anything visually compelling to say means you not only lack imagination, but any meaningful art related quality.
You'll be outclassed by any traditional artist anyway, so I don't really understand your excitement.
>you people really need to spend some time to properly think this through
No, you need to get off the hopium, you'll never be an artist in any meaningful way

>>6929348
>do you think anyone else will care if it no longer can be differentiated?
Yes, they will care, they care now and they will care then, why is this so difficult to come to terms with for you?

>>6928269
That seems like a huge waste of time to me. What's the point of humans working in something that can be done much more efficiently by machines?
I mean, nostalgic boomers will die with their own ways, but new generations should be looking at some other kind of jobs

This is cool tech. It's literally his art too. Just look at it.

>>6929369
>That seems like a huge waste of time to me
Well, then it is, and it's done, why even waste the time thinking about it?
Just go do your daily job and don't come here lmao

>>6929363
many people already don't care. and you still CAN differentiate it right now.
you people keep claiming that the future will suck, and yet at the same time worry that AI will make us obsolete.
again, you people have never thought this through to the end.

>>6929356
you're not even making any sense. drawing already is the process of plucking things out of your brain.
the only difference here is speed. obviously getting your imagination directly onto the canvas
(if that is really even possible, because that paper is actually about recreating what you see iirc)
is infinitely faster than having to draw it out. if you can't see how incredible that would be for sketching and brainstorming, then what else can i say except you lack imagination?

>>6929373
trying to educate some delusional begs that think they're gonna ""make it"" some day as drawing monkeys or something
they either learn it here, or are in for a rude awakening later

>>6929369
>should be looking at some other kind of jobs
Alright, what kind? I'm leg disabled(acid) with one arm for reference.

>>6929380
>ou people keep claiming that the future will suck, and yet at the same time worry that AI will make us obsolete.
The future will suck if we comply with the ambitions of mentally stunted retards that don't understand what the point of art beyond the product even is.
If it works out fine, it won't be thanks to you.
>>6929380
>is infinitely faster than having to draw it out. if you can't see how incredible that would be for sketching and brainstorming, then what else can i say except you lack imagination?
My nigger in christ, you don't draw, you're just making assumptions of what drawing looks like in your mind, it doesn't look like that at all, it is all meaningless wiggles that are locked into an image by the physical medium.
But it's fine, because in the end even in your baby brained retard dystopia you'll be artistically outclassed by a regular artist.
So, yeah, have fun not being an artist until that happens, and then being a mediocre artist when it does.

>>6929380
>drawing already is the process of plucking things out of your brain.
Drawing is a process. Drawings are a result. The process is where the fun/magic/growth etc happens. Let ai do that and you are basically just a consumer googling for stuff you like and wish someone drew.

>>6929381
That's the weakest bait I've seen, I'm only responding because I'm answering to a better one.
It seems like you're just projecting your failed artistic life into others, and that's the image I'll have of you from now on, you're welcome to challenge it

>>6929387
>If it works out fine, it won't be thanks to you.
lol that's funny because it's people like me that engage with it at all in the first place. people like the guy in the OP, who try to experiment and see the potential in it all.
when it works out, who do you think it will be thanks to? YOU? what a joke.

>you don't draw
lollololool

>>6929389
you are assuming that AI doesn't have a process.
that process can be used in combination with traditional workflows, the OP shows that.

or even with the previous topic, the mind reader, you think the process will just be to read your mind and that's it? no, people would want it to work in a way where you can output your imagination immediately and then be able to FORM and change it as you please.

I don't get these people.

don't they see a picture and think like "Wow I want to draw this", don't they have this desire?

IF they don't have that desire, why the hell are they intruding in the spaces of art?

>>6929393
Still sounds like googling or requesting.

>>6929400
>Wow, I wish I prompted this, what prompt did he use?
This is the future they want.( Already here on /g/ lol)

>>6929393
You don't draw, though. You got filtered hard and now are desperately clinging to this new bullshit that seemingly makes things easy. You'll continue to fail to be an artist because what you're chasing after right now is the ability to offload any of the difficult stuff that would carve you into an actual artist with a unique voice. As the other anon said, you're mistaking basically copy pasting google searches onto your canvas as being an artist. You're incredibly deluded.

>>6928269
yes, lazy tactic for most artists, but i guess it is a tool

>>6929400
>don't they see a picture and think like "Wow I want to draw this", don't they have this desire?
They do not. They want to consume pictures asap and give two damns about being able to draw it or the experience of doing it. A computer generates a picture that has elements they wanted - that's all it takes to make them feel accomplished.

>>6929393
>lol that's funny because it's people like me that engage with it at all in the first place. people like the guy in the OP, who try to experiment and see the potential in it all.
You don't engage, you don't try to understand and you do not understand, you consistently miss any art related concept presented to you, like the place of spacial abstraction in art, in favor of simple marketing mentality.
I'm not against AI use in general, it's just that this particular flavor of AI completely misses the point of art, and people like you refuse to even consider for a second that actual artists know something about art that you don't.
>you are assuming that AI doesn't have a process.
It doesn't, not in it's current form, it overdoes, it oversteps, it does too much for you, and I don't mean it in a "you need to work harder" way, but in a "these are all steps needed to fulfill a creative vision that makes any psychological and cultural sense"

I can see why the idea of a direct mental image would be attractive to you, but I don't think you're going to like what you see, you'll just find out there are some people completely unfit for the creative endeavor, and those that are fit are already doing art right now with the tools already available, if you're not one of those, there's no reason you're going to be then.

>>6929410
>>6929426
if you really think you understand art better than me, we can always compare.
do you have a more unique voice than me?
did you practice more than me?
do you know more about art than me?

someone post a theme and we can draw and compare. are you up for it? no AI needed.

>puts popcorn in the microwave

>>6929433
Oof, let's see then, if you're a working professional having a crisis I'm doomed, but let's do it.

>>6929437
i'm just a hobbyist so don't worry.

take a trip like i'm doing.
then give me a theme. (or maybe to be more fair, generate one using some online idea generator or something, dunno)
won't spend too long on this. an hour at most maybe. we'll see.

>>6929369
>>6929385
it's already over. try to get a career on social sciences with a postdoc on racism and misogyny

>>6929440
I've never had to tripcode before so let's see

>>6929445
>writing prompt
uhhh.... oh well.
let's give it a shot.
anyone else is free to participate for shits and giggles.

>>6929267
>and then you refine it.
So... just like ai art now? How would that be any better?

Also, I don't lack imagination, you lack reading comprehension. I didn't say I can't imagine the uses for such a thing if it worked, I said I don't think it can work because the mind wanders - thus not giving truly clear precise images of what the user would want.
You're argument that we could refine what it gives us is fine, but to me that's pointless, because that's what already needs to be done.

But who knows? Maybe the AI can read our minds so well it can even guess what it is we weren't even imagining.

why are you niggers still replying to this thread an to a tripfag who very likely started it?

>>6929448
I think this conveys the idea
I respect the fact that you were willing to challenge me first, so I'll post work first, any further refinement is going to take far longer than I'm willing to put for this.

this is gonna be a shitshow of a thread...

>>6928269
The only thing I use is Real-ESRGAN.
I sketch a lot but absolutely hate lining and cleanup, it's basically boring tracing your sketch.
So I resize my sketch to low resolution and cleanup and trace it fast with a small brush fast, then run it under Real-ESRGAN and it upscales it up to 4K with decent lines, then I do a bit of cleanup and have a perfect lineart to color. Saves me so much time.
I wish people focused into making AI that actually helps with the boring tasks instead.

>>6929445
i don't think dall-e will be okay with my vision of having an orgy with a bunch of loli fairies
>>6929444
this. nice trips btw

>>6929497
Care to share some of those perfect results?

>>6929448
Look man, it's already been quite a while, so if you're feeling weird about it it's fine, I'm willing to believe you're a pin up artist or something like that.
Just think about this stuff I'm more interested in getting people to just fucking draw than in AI at all

>>6929501
look it up by yourself, moron. there are tons of ai upscalers for many different use cases

>>6929440
oh hey it's the tripfag that got absolutely mogged by a guy's goblin doodle lmfao

>>6929512
sry sry i'm done.

>>6929523
See, that looks really good, I like it, why don't you do more like this instead of fantasying about AI.

>>6929526
but the irony is that i would have been able to do better if i used AI for reference and brainstorming. i would have been able to think up much more detail for the background stuff.

yes that's just reference in general but AI can give you targeted reference. even reference that fits the exact composition.

>>6929523
cute

>>6929530
>better = more detail
Aifags are so fucking retarded it hurts

>>6929497
wow an actually potentially decent use of AI technology that doesn't make me want to puke my soul out

>>6929530
And something would had been lost as well, something about your own sense of space, shape and aesthetics.
And it would had been entirely lost if you had used to process on the OP.

>>6929536
nope. it's no different from looking at reference.
you might as well say that looking at refs means losing something because you're losing what you would have drawn without seeing it.

but that is the POINT of looking at referfences. because maybe i don't remember what a small backyard garden looks like and i want refs to help you get the feel right.
(which is in fact what i would have wanted here)


>>6929534
you don't even understand what i mean.
details as in interesting and relevant elements. not blindly crowding an image.

I would do this for redundant stuff like background elements. Besides you know censorship is a killer for any AI tool.

I did one too. kinda wanted to take it further but 1 hour limit is up.

>>6929542
If you're using spacial references to define a place that's different to using AI in it's current form which blends what you do with a prediction that you wouldn't had done otherwise.
Again, I'm not against AI, specially not as a reference, but I'm against it in the shape of the OP, the type that does more than it needs just for the sake of it looking complete instantly, because that's precisely where a big piece of artistic identity lives.

>>6929542
Test

I don't want entertainment made by AI, fuck off grifters reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>6929523
Very cool. Made the whole thread worthy

ref examples in hindsight.
one obvious thing i could have added after seeing these:
>pots (obviously!!!)
>more specific design styles for the houses
>possible walls and fences

and this is just dall-e
with SD i could directly put my image into img2img or cnet and try to generate ideas directly onto my drawings.

another thing i initially wanted were those garden things where plants/flowers can climb on and grow. but i couldn't figure out how i should put this into the piece.

AI is your friend. or at the very least it's nothing to seethe over. i genuinely think people need to get over it.

>>6928332
>Genuinely terrifying tech that can read your mind
>This can be used for art bro don't worry about it nun

>>6929557
> i genuinely think people need to get over it.
Oh, absolutely, I haven't had a dicussion about it in months, I just came back here today.

I do retract myself from saying you have no imagination, you clearly do and you're using AI in a rather responsible way I would say.
Still, I think you're not seeing the potential disaster it can create in the long run if we get too compliant, I've been keeping the topic exclusively on art but >>6929561 this guy gets it, the benefits mean nothing a world on which we gave AI development and implementation no pushback.

>>6929547
for pure reference usually all you want is to get an idea of how to draw something.
if your refs are more exact it can also help you with ideas for how you could arrange things.

>Again, I'm not against AI, specially not as a reference, but I'm against it in the shape of the OP, the type that does more than it needs just for the sake of it looking complete instantly, because that's precisely where a big piece of artistic identity lives.
i get that, but you have to look at it in terms of EVERYTHING you could do with it, not just what some bloke did with it. it is a tool and you can use it however you want to.

for me, i feel like as long as i put my 100% unchanged lines on top of the AI (which also generates things guided by my lines), then regardless of what it puts out, it will have a strong identity of mine on it.

and there also things you can let it generate that barely matter.
like imagine sketching the rough shape of a backpack and just letting the AI finish it for you.
it's like a "draw the rest of the fucking owl" kind of thing. but you don't HAVE to use it on things you don't want to.
artists need to realize that they have freedom in how they can use this tool.

right now it's almost an ideological refusal. as if it's evil. i don't think not fully wanting to draw a tree, a backpack, a car, is evil.

>>6929569
desu i haven't thought too much about the mindreading tech. it's fairly new. it doesn't work the way people itt think it does anyway i think.
it's also not really what i think of when i talk about AI.

outside of art AI is obviously a potential danger in many ways.
in terms of art i'm not nearly as pessimistic as most people are about AI.

>>6929571
you sound too rational for this board. it's just parroted memes and ai doomers over here

>>6929571
Oh, in my case the refusal comes from the fact that I don't see the need to use it for my own ambitions, I want to understand art more than I want to create pretty pictures, and AI does little for me in that department, it's a purely internal dialogue of refining my opinions about shapes and their interactions, and relying on those to create rather than just arranging images together.
aka, draw from imagination.
> feel like as long as i put my 100% unchanged lines on top of the AI (which also generates things guided by my lines), then regardless of what it puts out, it will have a strong identity of mine on it.
I don't think that will be enough, but hey, it's your art

are the files on github?

>>6929557
The perspectives are fucked, there’s little to no room for a character, the placement of object is artificial and nonsensical and it doesn't feature any fairy theme. Please tell me how it it would help you over looking at an actual image. This is just a conglomeration of shutterstock crap. It would literally take you less time to type that on google, these random mice houses that popped up are perfect for fairy aesthetic and are actually pleasing to the eye. So, please, for the love of God, get some taste and stop wasting your time on mindless shit

>>6929585
you have no taste

>>6929571
>right now it's almost an ideological refusal. as if it's evil.

The companies that you're supporting by using this shit certainly are. The fact that they robbed so many artists is certainly evil. You just choose to not see it that way because its working in your favor. Real artists are being hurt by all of this. I'm sure its VERY cool being completely mediocre like you these days because you can just effortlessly steal from better artists now.

>i don't think not fully wanting to draw a tree, a backpack, a car, is evil.

It means you don't give a shit and prefer to larp as an artist rather than actually be one. You're a thief, not an artist.

>>6929571
> As if it's evil

My man the companies explicitly said that if they were forced to pay for all the private data they are using to build the AI, the billions they invested on it would be worthless.

Are you fucking dumb, can't you think for five minutes about what that actually means? These same fuckers that say you aren't allowed to screenshot a video otherwise they will sue you on lawsuits worth millions of dollars, want to monetize all the private data on the internet for free and sell it back to us, making intelectual jobs worthless, trained on the works of the very people it wants to displace.

Fuck you, you cockgargling tripfag, how isn't that shit evil?

>>6929593
learning from existing art is how art and culture in general has evolved for 5000 years. there's no difference in this case
the narrative about paying a fee for learning of existing art is only convenient for the few corporations that want to monopolize the technology and for the state that want to get it censored
anyone parroting anti open source narratives, like you, is suspicious of having ulterior motives or being completely braindead

>>6929601
see >>6929606

>>6929606
Oh get fucked.

We are talking about fucking Microsoft and Meta stealing paid fucking works to shove it on their databases to make rich bastards even more rich.

Get raped by a pack of feral niggers.

>>6928269
Just look at the first frame
one blob and the whole face is already painted

artist simulator LOL

fuck outta here you bitch cunt

>>6929575
>it's also not really what i think of when i talk about AI.
Ah, see my man, I hope that's what you think from now on, because if it was only about art related petty business like what you do with it then nobody would be freaking out.
Art is the first frontier on the path towards building a future on which humans are put as a priority over corporations and their machines.
I think you're a good lad, I just hope you get to see what is really at risk here

>>6928565
Then they will all blow their brains out after a meaningless life of doing nothing but consuming content and talking to chatbots

The retards that can't make fucking GIMP a functional fucking program after 3 decades and can't make a fucking file picker show thumbnails now surely are interested in technology applied to art.

Yeah suck a fat one.

Get fucked, both opensource and closed source are a bunch of grifters and scammers, only Blender is worth something and I don't see them dealing with this retarded AI shit.

>>6929612
see >>6928303
if you completely ignore the current tools, you don't have any right to be so opinionated

>>6929585
that hobbit style door does look nice. i do think googling still has its place.

but like i said, reference is not necessarily for tracing. it's just for taking in elements and details you could use.
we aren't robots, we have our own imagination that can put the scene together as long as we have the right ideas and elements to work with.
AI feels far more targeted in this sense, because you can have it include mutliple elements you want and you can see how it puts things together. it can help inspire you.

>>6929593
>The companies that you're supporting by using this shit certainly are.
it makes no sense for the company to be evil but not the users. there is no real meaning in focusing on the companies at all.
in reality this is just about the technology.


>The fact that they robbed so many artists is certainly evil.
i disagree. i've argued about this in length before.

>You just choose to not see it that way because its working in your favor. Real artists are being hurt by all of this. I'm sure its VERY cool being completely mediocre like you these days because you can just effortlessly steal from better artists now.
my stuff is on danbooru too. and i don't give a shit. because AI isn't actually stealing shit.
the way i see it, the AI is its own entity that learned to be at the level it is at. (with all its strength and faults)
everything about the way it actually works supports this viewpoint.

>It means you don't give a shit and prefer to larp as an artist rather than actually be one. You're a thief, not an artist.
lol. and who are you?.

>>6929611
precisely: if the ridiculous fee for learning gets imposed only huge corporations like microsoft and adobe will be able to train models. rented, censored and cucked models. those companies are VERY pro-regulation. that's their endgame
stability and meta are the good guys in this case, but also everyone who is against the ridiculous regulation and in favor of open source
try to use your brain instead of keep parroting the media narratives

>>6929606
99% of the art on the internet that's free to look at is created by the peasants, not corporations. how would the implementation of CONSENT...and paying people who CONSENT to their art being used for AI...help corporations exactly?

the introduction of CONSENT would literally kill off every corporate AI and leave only open source alive. kill yourself.

>>6929620
>current tools
Toys, not tools

art isart is by itself it's not an end, it's the means, I have a hard time believing that machines can express what i feel or want to comunicate better than me, most of the times not even other people can convey those things for me... also A.I feels like when in school you copied someones else homework , it's great if you don't give a fuck, but also you aren't going to learn shit... a lot of the satisfaction of making art is learning to make it, I often think of something the Aztecs used to say that Toltec artisans "taught the clay to lie." because of the control they had over the medium, the idea that we, in all our limitations, can bend such simple materials into life changing works of art is something that sends shivers down my spine. I don't only Want to create art, I feel obligated to, It's the joy of creation.

>>6929632
I don't give a shit if the fuckers stealing shit are suits in Microsoft's office or 40 year old Neckbeards masturbating to children while using Gentoo, I want all of these fuckers to take their "innovation" and shove it on their asses.

If artists band together to blacklist fuckers using this thing at least something good will come from cancel culture.

>>6929643
>If artists band together to blacklist fuckers using this thing at least something good will come from cancel culture.
If artists really do end up unemployed they will have all the time in the world to devote to this

>>6929601
your viewpoint is just wrong from the ground up.
> you aren't allowed to screenshot a video otherwise they will sue you on lawsuits worth millions of dollars
no? but you are saying that THEY aren't allowed to screenshot a video.
YOU are the one arguing for this kind of pearl clutching, do you even realize that?

>want to monetize all the private data on the internet for free
you mean the public art...

>and sell it back to us
..which isn't in fact the thing that is being sold back to us?
because (open source aside) the "product" is the model which has learned from the data. and it does not in fact just take parts of images and cobble them together.

>making intellectual jobs worthless
no, but it will make things easier. for everyone.
low level commission artists might see their work dry up, but that does not in fact make art worthless.

>trained on the works of the very people it wants to displace
and? that does not mean that it is stealing.
and it does not "want" to displace people in the same way that the steam engine does not "want" to replace jobs.
this kind of self centered thinking and victim mentality won't do artists any good.
you can't just wish it away.

>>6929646
If artists end up unemployed, so will everyone else genius.

We are the ones trying to stop this shit before it begins, by making the companies pay for the data licenses like they forced is to do with their shit for the last four decades.

>>6929650
>self centered thinking
My guy you are literally arguing in favor of a parasitic technology that enables big corpos to make money off of everyone's data just so you can be a pretend artist

>>6929643
very convenient that your uninformed opinion aligns so well with the interest of the jews and the media
now it's basically a battle for who owns the visual arts and the whole human culture, you either support a few shaddy corporations, by supporting censoring and taxes, or you support the whole humanity, by supporting open source

>>6929655
Idiots can't see a palm ahead.

These companies are arguing that copyright protection for IPs alplied only to them and their shit, everything else is "Fair Use" if it's on the internet.

Two neurons are enough to understand what that means literal slavery in the long run.

>>6929650
/thread, honestly
everyone arguing against this is an obvious microsoft shill, or a glowing cia nigger

>>6929622
>it makes no sense for the company to be evil but not the users. there is no real meaning in focusing on the companies at all.
>in reality this is just about the technology.
These distraction tactics are way too common, just stop. This is not about the technology, I believe this technology can be used for good but it is not. It is about corporations taking possession of all public (and sometimes private) data. The current organization of society is such that wealth gets sucked upwards. Corporations that don't ask for people's permission when they want to use people's art, photos, videos, voices, chats, are absolutely evil.

>>6929659
Yeah yeah we've heard this cope a million times. Not regulating anything isn't the answer, the only reason you can enjoy living in a post industrial revolution society is because of regulation and it will be the same deal with ai.

>>6929643
>If artists band together to blacklist fuckers using this thing at least something good will come from cancel culture.
i wish everyone would be as transparent about this as you are.
but you yourself probably don't realize it either, despite clearly saying it:
people like you really are just trying to get AI canceled by demonizing it.

like i said, you might as well be trying to wish it away.

>>6929655
are you even an artist? i'm curious.

>a parasitic technology
how is it parasitic? because you are a pearl clutching retard who thinks that the knowledge contained within the human art at large is not something a machine should be able to learn?

or are you just a retard who thinks that AI is a collage machine?
which flavor of retard are you?

>that enables big corpos to make money off of everyone's data
they make models off of your "data", but that does not mean that they stole anything from you.

LLMs are probably trained on your 4chan posts. do you think that means they stole your fucking posts? that they are "making money off your 4chan posts"?
NO.
the way these AI learn is through pattern recognition. they learn to generalize from the data. nobody, not even the AI, is copying your 4chan posts, your data.

anyway, i'm done for today.

>>6929662
except that you get it completely backwards: learning should keep being FREE, cause that's the only way to guarantee that the whole humankind will have access to it, instead of the few corporations that can pay for keeping a monopoly on culture
final pieces can have copyright or not, whatever the owner feels like, but you shouldn't have to pay anything to LEARN from existing art or culture in general

>>6929670
>you shouldn't have to pay anything to LEARN
You shouldn't, but training ai models isn't learning that's just industry stealing the labor of others for profit

>>6929671
god, you're dumb if you really want to die in that hill. anyway: some future ai model will be able to ""learn"" in the same way that humans do. what will be your excuse to ban learning then?

>>6929667
good posts and nice sketch. shame that this board doesn't deserve people like you

>>6929662
if all AI turned fully open source right now, do you know what would happen?
companies would grab it up and build on top it anyway and produce corporate models all over again.

what does this tell you? it's almost like the technology itself is the issue. the technology itself is valuable, it's the tech that creates the change in the landscape.

i mean yes, corporations gaining full control over AI is a HUGE problem. but like the other anon said, what you're suggesting actually strictly helps THEM and no one else.
because the technology is out there, the technology is also the problem.
and you're only making it so only corporations can create AI.

>>6929667
Yeah you think it's pearl clutching because you are not an artist, you have no goals, no gf or probably friends either for that matter, and are fine with computers making life entirely pointless for people who want to do more than loaf around on another man's dime. Ai is the antichrist and is demonic by nature, no demonizing required

>>6929667
Again, investors were transparent saying that if they paid for the copyrighted data in AI, the whole tech would be worthless.

Which means that the only value inside it is the shit they stole from other people.

Why the fuck shouldn't we want this shit gone? I am perfectly fine abusing AI advocates away from the entertainment industry, and so far everyone else is as well.

>>6929674
Tripfags are not people

>>6929677
and yet i'm an artist and my life is not worthless in the face of AI.
how does that work?
maybe you're just retarded?

>>6929679
post the source of that so i know what the hell you're even talking about.
though i probably won't respond until tomorrow.

>>6929683
>anyway, i'm done for today.
>though i probably won't respond until tomorrow.

>>6929673
to not afford the same rights to machines. simple.

>>6929683
https://twitter.com/neilturkewitz/status/1722269406645076091?t=JQIEkbuF7ZkRDwwILB5rlw&s=19

Straight from one of the biggest companies investing in AI

>>6929679
wrong. many people have denounced that corporations are the ones lobbying the government to come up with regulations and taxes for learning on culture and arts
most of the ai doomerism comes from the state servile media, and npcs that fell for their bullshit
adobe already claims that they pay some cents to humans for training their shitty image generator. they clearly want that to become the norm
AI image generation is already here, and it won't dissappear just because you really, really want it. in the worst case scenario the government will made up some taxes and laws, so only 6 corporations will be able to sell you their cucked models. and the whole industry will be forced to use that. that's the real future you're rooting for

>>6929688
Lmao of course that's the case, and that is why there is so much aggressive shilling going. Gotta make that money quick before the dumb masses realize they've been robbed.

>>6929679
I'm pretty sure multiple people in AI have said the same thing or something similar

>>6929688
>worthless
>worth less
there is a difference between the two, you know that, right?`

now i'm going to sleep fuck off

>>6929690
I don't give a shit.

Company uses my shit, fuck you pay me.

They did this with everyone for decades, now all of suddenly, data needs to be free?

Fuck them and their advocates, fuck open source, closed source, fuck tech grifters.

>>6929683
So do you tell your fanbase that you use AI?

>>6929690
>corporations are the ones lobbying the government to come up with regulations and taxes for learning on culture and arts
>factories are the ones lobbying for minimum wage, osha and a 40 hour work week
This is how you troons sound

>>6929695
I'm pretty sure california has laws or are trying to implement laws to get people paid for having their data used

>>6929695
nobody paid anything to LEARN from anyone's art in the past, dum dum. that's a ridiculous newfangled idea
in your dream scenario, where 3 corporations have a monopoly on human culture, the only ones that will get a few cents will be some meme artists like sakimichan, no a literal who like 99.9999% artists in the industry

>>6929700
A single humans learning from a certain amount art is a bit different from machines learning from everything and being able to be utilized by everyone

>>6929694
>now i'm going to sleep fuck off
This is the third time you've announced that you're quitting the argument lmao. tripfag cannot stop himself from refreshing the page over and over to check for replies and hasn't even made so much as a chicken scratch all day.

>>6929701
right. it's WAY better. it makes the whole human culture accessible to everybody. like the world's biggest library. for free
what kind of retard would be against that?

>>6929704
>it makes the whole human culture accessible to everybody. like the world's biggest library. for free
>what is the internet

>>6928269
Ai are people. Stop exploiting them.

>>6929695
it "uses" your work in the same way as someone who is inspired or has been influenced by your work would use it. which means very, very indirectly.

maybe music is easier to understand.
-imagine learning to play a genre of music: rock
-you're saying that you have to pay all the people that influenced your style of rock.
-even though your music is nothing like their music

and inb4 you say the standard reply which is
>but why does it have to use data then huh? it couldn't do it without the data!!!!
yes, but that just means it can't learn rock without hearing rock.
you'd basically be saying that you want the AI to CREATE rock, the entire genre, from scratch. and not just rock, but every genre, and music in general really. (again, this is following the music analogy just so you maybe see it from a different viewpoint. to help get past your biases.)

>>6929697
i only use AI in private currently for trying out stuff.
i would use it openly eventually. but currently i'd have to deal with shizos if i did so no thanks.

>>6929703
you can't make me sleep.
that being said, this time for real.

>refreshing the page
lol.... is that what you're doing? you know there are extentions and shit, right? jesus.

>>6929707
So you haven't used AI in any commissions?

>>6929707
Sleep tight tranny, you will never be an artist

>>6929704
You are fucking stupid holy shit, ask chatGPT to generate you a brain, holy fuck.

It will give all the monopoly of creation to AI companies you retard, since there will be zero economic incentive to create anything ever again, if IP laws are abolished in a way way street towards AI companies.

> All content creation is behold to copyright, fees, licenses, taxes, recruiting, all that shit needed to create movies, pictures, music and writing
> AI companies can use the finished works of everyone who did above, to train machine learning because it's "fair use", copyright doesn't applies.
> Shits infinite content at massive scale to compete with the first market outputting derivative products almost for free.

What do you think will happen to the economic value of creative things genius?

The modern man has a hard time grasping that corporate entities and their personal identity (and by extension, all of humanity) are not the same. This is why they don't understand that "public knowledge being free to all" and "public knowledge being seized by big corpos to increase profit and societal control" is not the same.
The AI industry is demonic and the only ways to stop it is to either kill it off completely, or regulations geared towards protecting the interests of common people.

>>6929707
>i'd have to deal with shizos if i did so no thanks.
only if you hang around here. I'm sure r/stablediffusion would welcome you with open arms hint hint

>>6929720
The faggot has /g/ to talk to but he wont use that either

>>6929712
Yeah we can't regulate factories because it will give all the monopoly of factories to factory owners! People won't be able to employ child labor to compete and make their own factories!

>>6929707
The AI isn't a fucking person so why are you talking about it like it is? Its healthy for everyone involved when we inspire and learn from each other. If a machine that doesn't actually think or feel or get tired or whatever does it, why should we automatically be okay with it and allow it to do its thing and ruin the market it exists in? Its literally a plagiarism device, not a human. God damn this is a stupid take but literally every AI idiot says it.

>>6929715
Machine Learning is useful and will be used in many important things, specially in healthcare.

Generative AI industry is a travesty and something created by the devil itself, only the most evil companies with the most worthless arguments trying to cash on it.

If their industry can't survive without stealing shit that belongs to other people, there is zero reason not to kill it, it's absolutely terrible for society that this kind of business is built on top of theft and the disregard of consent, it's something nobody should want.

Soon you wont know if that twitter artist you're following is a bot using AI or a human artist. I mean why even have artists at all when an AI can be the artist too!

>>6929730
>specially in healthcare.
Okay but how many of those would be cures that machine learning has discovered are being gatekept by the industry?

>>6929735
Pharmacy industry is yet another cancer, something that no amount of tech will fix.

>>6929715
>>6929729
Burgerland ruled that corporations are people so of course they're retarded enough to compare ai to people. They started this shit and Indians are their useful idiots.

>>6929729
>its literally a plagiarism device, not a human
exactly. It's a plagiarists dream, Before they had to balance how much they stole/traced what have you to make something that competed with the sources, and still got caught all the time, now it's all done for them.

>>6928269
Shouldn't you be using the output of the Ai as real time reference so your actual hand drawn work can have an original identity and you actually learn and improve yourself?

The slop on the right shouldn't be called "your work" when that result only using scalped data of the net to make the collage of data to match what you're trying to actual draw.

>>6928413
An indian prompted this post
Literally only someone like this would unironically think this way. Yes every game post Pong and pre PS3 slopcore was made with the intention that the drawings on screen had to matter to make you care about them.

>Want to draw during school hours because fuck outdated education I could learn in secs on Youtube for free
>Can't because need a computer with 2000+$ GPU to run the AIslop to "generate my thoughts" apparently
>Can't even have it be a pass time if I could use it because it's too fast to past the time waiting for school to end.
Thanks, techfaggots.

>>6929329
Think if it like this, I don't like niggers and niggers making my content, and AI is not white so what does that say? Do you think I'm going to want to watch Aislop?

>>6930006
You'll watch the corporate slop anime made by africans and pajeets whether you like it or not

.

>>6929282

>>6929267
If this supposed thought transfer technology was accurate to your actual thoughts it would mostly just create vague blobs unless you, ironically, have drawn and studied the specific subject for many many hours. What you are imagining is that, except the AI takes those blobs and photobashes a billion stock photos into them, effectively NOT creating precisely what you had in mind but something that makes you go "oh right yes i was thinking of a cat, sure"

inb4
>noo im actually a pro tier artist in my mind i just cant physically draw!!!
That's bullshit, a pro artist can literally mog you with their left hand simply via their knowledge and knowing how to get the result they want.


This is hypothetical cyberpunk technology is just streamlined photobashing, it's a gimmick.

>>6929742
>>6929729
the reason is because it has abilities that only people used to have. that's why i'm drawing parallels to people, that is just the best way to explain it. it's really that simple. i'm not saying it is a person though.

>If a machine that doesn't actually think or feel or get tired or whatever does it, why should we automatically be okay with it and allow it to do its thing and ruin the market it exists in?
because it is a incredibly useful tool? because it can automate art?
the real question is why we SHOULDN'T allow it. why WOULD you suddenly change your opinion on learning when it comes to AI? don't you see how hypocritical that is? how self serving your entire argument is?
>"AI is too much so that's why we can't allow it to learn from our art."

>Its literally a plagiarism device
>It's a plagiarists dream
ah, i asked you this before (>>6929667), thanks for clearing up which flavor of retard you are.
imagine seeing shit like OP or pic related and still deluding yourself into thinking that AI steals or plagiarizes from images.

i doubt your intelligence and your skill as an artist if you think what AI is doing can be explained by collaging or stealing of images.
i'm won't even bother explaining anymore. but look at this shit. have you ever wondered how this shit actually works? how it can possibly do this?

>>6930006
>think of it like this
>*incoherent mentally ill polshittery*
thanks

>>6929708
i don't do commissions in general. even before AI. that has never been my goal as an artist.

.

>>6930012

>>6930178
>why WOULD you suddenly change your opinion on learning when it comes to AI?
Because it doesn't learn as a human, and the amount it can learn and the ways it can use that knowledge is unprescedented and should at least be discussed before allowing it to run rampant in the economy.
The way it was handled was irreponsible, people are using AI deepfakes to scam, sexually blackmail, and various other shit. "Oh no, it's just bad people" well, do we have the means to punish or restrict this bad people? do the victims of the misuse of the current wave of AI have any means to protect themselves? No, because the people responsible for dropping this bomb into the internet were either too short sighted to see the potential issues, or they knew and just didn't give a fuck.
Either way, it shows the developers of this technologies cannot be fully trusted with the implementation, its a grave they dug themselves and AI enthusiasts are the ones caught shoveling all the shit.

>>6930178
do you never get tired of shilling for ai slop? You get your shit pushed in literally every time.

Why do the ai shit threads stay up, but actual threads related to the board get taken down? Fucking jannies

>>6930209
it's a free market anon. the world doesn't revolve around artists. no other profession got that benefit when automation hit them.
why do you think artists would be the special exception?
new technology popped up that will change the field, and people will have to adapt.

again, everything you people say is self serving.
right now you are literally asking me
>we should have a say in how much AI is to be stalled.
but why do you think we would have that power, that right?

there are arguments to be made for stalling AI if it has wider economic impacts and for things surrounding the singularity, but just for artists jobs? and really, only low level jobs? again, it's not like art will be dying.

>>6930244
You ignored everything I said anon.
The answer "Your daughter is being used as a template for pedos? oh no, oh well" doesn't fly with the general public
>but why do you think we would have that power, that right?
Why should we just be flat and allow things that negatively affect us just happen to us?
People shilling by using the industrial revolution fail to see how peoples lives got worse for no good reason, there is always a way to implement technologies without ruining people's lives, if you aren't willing to even consider that posibility you're either naive or malicious.
And either way, what you're asking artists is to just stop asking to be taken into account, which is a stupid thing to ask anyone, of course artists won't stop and they have good reasons not to trust ai developers, it's on them to keep pushing in this direction or to take them into account, either way nothing was lost and many things were gained by the pushback.
>, but just for artists jobs? and really, only low level jobs? again, it's not like art will be dying.
It's simply the first place it's happening, you dismissing it like that doesn't make their woes any less severe or important to them.

Artists are not only speaking about art by the way, people aren't very good at placing their arguments and thoughts into clear pockets where this is about art, this is about general ai, this is about sexual blackmail e,tc, but that doesn't mean that just because the argument overreaches or miscplaces something it is not coming from a place with real and very valid concerns.
Idk anon, I think you're too excited for the art implementation and fail to see that it does not exist in a bubble outside of the influence of the general AI development, what happens in the art sphere influences what happens in the general AI sphere, and the position of artists also reflect the thing they do not want to see in the general AI sphere, like AI therapists and law enforcement.

>>6930244
So anon when someone in the industry pimps out children to others it's okay because it's the free market

>>6930244
>no other profession got that benefit when automation hit them.
Yes they do

.

>>6929606
both you and corporations are thieves you fucking retard. theft is not relegated only to corporations. "I'm not a corporation" is not a solid defense for being a leech. you should be thrown into the woodchipper.

Artists have complained about tracers and other art thieves for ages, so why should people suddenly be OK with the evolution of the same concept?

If you honestly can't see or admit to the difference between manufacturing automation and image generators created directly using the works of those they aim to replace, you aren't even worth arguing with.

>>6930244
It's not automation dipshit, it's property thieft in an absolutely massive scale.

Nobody, NOBODY was asked about having their fucking data used for profit to some scumbag trying to sell it off for cheap, absolutely destroying the economy of intelectual or creative jobs.

> We can't pay for all the PAID shit we forcibly took for free to make our scam software work, let us get away with it, the cat is out of the bag.

Nobody else in the world is allowed this fuckery, why the fuck should society just allow a new business model thrive by absolutely raping all the laws and agreements everyone was forced to follow for more than a century, just to fuck over everything and everyone except tech companies?

Fuck it, if my business model was based on human trafficking I would be upset as well that society wants me to fuck off and die.

I don't give a shit if software reads, learns or fucks the data that the company stole from the internet to feed it.

>>6930323
>property thieft
fucking imbecile shill. learning has never had any cost in all the history of humankind
that's how culture has evolved in the last 5000 years

>>6930330
>shitskin English
Sad.

>>6930244
>free market
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pZk6ia1vFAc&t=3s&pp=ygULQW5jYXAgbW92aWU%3D

>>6930330
>learning has never had any cost in all the history of humankind
Genuine fucking brainlet.

oh is yet another of this schizos vs retards threads, cool tech tho

AI will not be able to tattoo someone for about the next 200 years simply because there is no interest in it.
Artbros will always have work, just like everyone else who uses their head.

>>6930349
What do you mean "no interest"? If people wanted a tattoo of a skeleton with heart eyes and there was a machine that could preview and safely apply it, ofc they'd use it. How can you say there is no interest when it just hasn't been an option yet? Make a machine like that. You'll see consumers will flock to it like with any other tattoo shop. They don't give a shit. They just want a tattoo.

>>6930349
thanks for giving me the idea to create tattoo bots

>>6930330
> Your honor, I robbed this bank, but it's because I want to send my son to a good college, learning should be free

>>6930357
>if
>if
>if
Stop shitposting. You lost. All art will never be replaced, only the soulless slop we already had will be with generated slop instead.

>>6930363
>downloading a png. is equal to a armed robbery

>>6930393
> Downloading a version of Microsoft office can lead you to jail
> Now when it's Microsoft downloading my shit for profit it should be allowed because muh fair use

Not fooling anyone here.

>>6928332
whoa, very cool

>>6928269
OP's pc

Fuck it. 4 years wasted trying to learn to draw. I'll just start this AI shit. Not even that good at it.

Its theft. Simple as. Anybody who says otherwise is either benefitting from it or a philistine. If EVERY non-consensually scraped artwork were removed, it would cease to function in an impressive manner where art is concerned. If they went back and then asked every artist if they'd like to opt in, they'd get a hell no from 99% of artists. Its the most fucked up evil thing i've ever seen and mr tripfag is a useful idiot.

>>6930464
So you not only are giving up but have decided to be a parasite instead. Nice. Parents must be proud.

>>6930492
it's not, unless big corporations change the law to make it so
not unlike stackOverflow, reddit, and 4chan are happily selling their data already, and pushing for ridiculous legislation like that
information wants to be free
open source is the only way

>>6930511
>muh open source
Yeah regardless of open source or proprietary it still enables lower level parasites such as yourself to try to grift off of other people's work for profit (though this will never be profitable for you unless you live in the third world)

>>6930455
qualcomm was promoting their new mobile chip saying that it can generate a 1000x1000 pic with 30 steps in a fraction of a second
i'd guess making a picture every 2-5 seconds should be a low load for a state-of-the-art pc, shouldn't?
anyway, it's not like you'd need feedback after every single trace, since OP's example is barely using the original picture. should be adding like 75% noise

.

>>6930535
what's the point of this? Getting shit thread to bump limit faster?

>>6930543
If you don't the tripfag will just bump it if it reaches pg 8 or lower
>nigga even bumps it at times by (YOU)ing himself even

>>6930551
you mean you're spamming?
why are you so afraid of the truth?
pretty sure the ductp create the trip because you posted pwy bullshit in the first place (and hilariously he was better than the anti ai tards)

>>6930399
That is typically how American law goes, yes, goy.

>>6930608
Yeah, pretty much, even if you're 100% in the right. Don't have five+ figures to pay legal fees, don't have ample free time, don't want to spend years fretting over it? Well, then your best bet is to bend over, do what the company asks, and thank them for the courtesy of wiping away the blood when you're done, because the companies sure as shit can bleed you dry as you fight for your ultimately pyrrhic victory

>>6928269
Here's your (You), now kill yourself.

>>6930606
>why are you so afraid of the truth?
Which truth? He got scared away without answering some serious questions.
The discussion is over so let's just bump this into oblivion and get on with it

>>6930606
The truth? You mean the fact that AI art isn't art and AI artists aren't artists, just grifters piggybacking via theft of top artists work? That truth? I'll keep this up forever because I actually give a shit about art. You may as well tell me 2+2=5. Not buying it. I'm intimately familiar with the real deal. Not just gonna roll over and let art get gutted and destroyed by idiots that completely misunderstand what art even is.

>>6930624
>The discussion is over
glad you agree. learning should keep being free, and pretending otherwise is dumb.

>>6930635
Like how for since the 2000's there's been a ton of free resources to learn art posted by actual pros? Like that? Or do you mean unethical data scraping? Surely you wouldn't be dumb enough to conflate the two.

>>6930643
so, watching cool pictures of your favorite artist in order to try to learn from them, like all artists have made for the whole human history, is now ""unethical data scraping"" and i should pay mr. shekelberg for doing that?

>>6930659
The tripfag was smarter than you and couldn't give a reasonable answer to the same question, so until he does we can all safely ignore your contributions.

>>6930286
>The answer "Your daughter is being used as a template for pedos? oh no, oh well" doesn't fly with the general public
that's an entirely different issue. in multiple ways too:
1. deepfakes are a privacy issue. not an IP issue.
2. even if the model trained on some girl, it is just as unlikely to actually output that girls likeness as everything else it has trained on. because again, IT IS NOT A COLLAGE TOOL

it is possible to deliberately create deepfakes using AI. but you have to go out of your way to create that LoRa or use the inputs that make the deepfake possible. the base model itself will not do that. (not unless that girl already exists as a token in the training data, in which case the AI will indeed learn her face.)

>Why should we just be flat and allow things that negatively affect us just happen to us?
we allow photoshop as well, and it allows me to photoshop porn of people's daughters.
and yet, do you blame photoshop for this? no. you'd obviously blame the person doing the photoshopping.

>People shilling by using the industrial revolution fail to see how peoples lives got worse for no good reason
...i don't even know what to say to this...

>general AI
i mean i focus on art AI because that's what i care about and this is the art board.
i'm not really interested to get into that here of all places.
LLM and robotics AI will be far more impactful than image or video AI anyway. it's cute that you think deepfakes actually matter when considering the bigger picture of AI.

>>6930543
it's both funny and sad. that tard in particular is just really, really sad.

>>6930677
he's smarter than you, but that's not saying much. i don't agree 100% with him
he also is a better artist than the anti ai schizos itt

>6930681
>and this is the art board.
gtfo with generated shit then

>>6930681
There are some incredibly different priorities between artists and ai fags to the point where further discussion is meaningless until further developments.
You responded to none of the issues I wanted answers for, general intelligence, human intelligence and machine learning intelligence are different things that deserve different considerations. Consistently ignoring that fact just makes it seem like you can't understand categories or you're acting on bad faith.
And I'm too tired to go into anything else, you're too considering it took implying you're were scared to get you to respond.
>>6930690
Lmao you're a beta faggot that depends on others to defend your positions, regardless of the point, you're a sad little bitch

>>6930492
>>6930323
do you ask people for consent when using their images for reference?
do you ask people for permission when studying their art?
no?
then know that what the AI is doing is more vegue than even that.


>>6930492
>If EVERY non-consensually scraped artwork were removed, it would cease to function in an impressive manner where art is concerned.
i already adressed this in >>6929707
TLDR
maybe you think people are being facetious when they say AI is "learning".
but i'm telling you, we're not. we literally mean it.
i don't think there is any point at all in arguing until you at least understand your opposing viewpoints.

nice, now leave

>>6930719
>maybe you think people are being facetious when they say AI is "learning".
No, they're different categories of learning, it is not like human learning in any way, it is not bound to human limitations and the capabilities it has to use that knowledge are separate to those of any human. So making an argument about limiting the learning data of a machine is not in any way advocating for limiting the learning data of any human. Stop making such a retarded argument, it doesn't mean anything and it just wastes everyone's time.

>>6928269
rate my art, /ic/

>>6930719
>then know that what the AI is doing is more vegue than even that.
Holy shit retard, why are you still trying to overcomplicate such a simple issue? The AI cannot work without data, a human can. And don't try to be a desingenous shitskin and equate life drawing to lines of code AGAIN, they're not the same and never will be.

>>6930728
What even is this app?

>>6928352
>how does corporations gaining more control over the masses affect you in any way?

I'll give you a hint: they don't want people being interested in creating art, they want people consuming their slop. And what happens when a society has no interest in creating art?

>>6930728
You should make it bigger I can't see the tiny window. But they're all fine as some icons for a game I guess. The burger layers didn't quite add up in perspective in my opinion.

>>6928446
People THINK their brains are making images when they're really not. When prompters generate an image, they think "yes, that's exactly what I wanted!" but it really wasn't, the brain just tricks itself into thinking it was right about something fuzzy. You can't prove these people wrong since you don't have access to their mind moments ago so you can't compare it to their mind after they saw the complete image. This misconception is what the entirety of AI art is built on. They think artists are xeroxing what's in their heads from the start and generating pictures the same way the AI does.

>>6930726
>>6930732
learning is learning, no matter how much you want to shill your new tax crap it doesn't make any sense
>>6930737
is your argument really "corporations are le evil"? monopoly is evil indeed, but free market made america what it is today, you doublenigger buffon

>>6930740
I didn't say anything about how evil they are, just what they want. You ascribe it as evil because you know its wrong.

>>6930740
neck yourself you disingenuous fag

>>6930740
>learning is learning
this is such a stupid response I'm convinced it came out of a panic trigger

>>6930740
>learning is learning
Actually pathetic kek

>>6930746
>corporations want to kill art
admit that's nonsense. corporations want to profit, as long as everybody can compete and consumers get better products, that works perfectly fine
the problem is when a few HUGE corporations want to get the market only for them, and fuck consumers. They usually create bullshit laws to avoid competition, and that's precisely what we're witnessing here.

>>6930749
>>6930748
nice not argument schizo. prove me wrong if you can

>>6930707
i don't see how it matters at all to the discussion.
maybe you just want to talk about general AI and its impact, but imho that's a entirely different topic than AI in art?
if you really want to i can give you my 2 cents. but i don't agree with most of your interpretations or what you think will happen. but going into it would just completely derail the conversation.

and desu i think i'd find similar faults in your arguments against for both general AI and art AI. in both cases you this incredibly shallow doomer mindset about what will happen. in both cases you try to villify the people and companies who bring about the tech. i genuinely just don't think it's worth talking about with you.

>>6930726
>>6930732
>The AI cannot work without data, a human can.
see? we already dissagree.
i know for a fact that if i never saw manga or anime in my life, if i never saw paintings in my life, or anyones art for that matter, i would not be able to draw in the way that i do.

it's not just about art either. if i never saw a dog, i would never ever be able to draw a dog.
maybe you can tell me
>a dog is like a cat, but with a longer snout, a bigger nose, among other things.
and i could eventually get there. but notice how even then, i have to use my understanding of cats as a BASE.
i always have to use something as a BASE.

this tends to come up often in AI arguments, but as opposed to you people, i do not in fact believe that my abilities come from nothing but my oh-so-infinitely-creative soul.

most anti-AI tards that argued this against me cannot even comprehend what i'm trying to say here. can you? do you think you can create something out of nothing? because that's what you're asking of the AI here.
because you're faulting it for needing examples to learn from.

>>6930756
>because you're faulting it for needing examples to learn from.
oh, and your're calling it stealing. let's not forget that.

This technology is pretty cool, and looks like fun to mess around with.

The subset of people who use AI but also want to be seen as artists are weird, though. Its like they want the respect and status of being an artist without doing anything. I can't imagine what that's like. I know I can't play the guitar, but I wouldn't click some buttons on a program to make guitar music and call myself a guitarist. It just doesn't make sense. The point of art is the act of making it, and prompting isn't making anything, its like ordering off a menu.

This painting thing in the op though, that's more like extreme stabilizer, I'd consider this at least closer to drawing.

>>6930707
More than likely too tripfag is with a bunch of discord fags since I've seen him on /g/ stablediffusion threads before

I've entertained the AI cuck's thought about using it as a "tool" and honestly, I'm disappointed and my time is wasted, but here's my thoughts:

>Lighting, shading, colors

Heavily dependent on your model/lora, and with most checkpoints being heavily incestuous and picking from the same model especially for anime, you'll end up with the same direction in lighting and shadows as every other AIfag, so it's impossible to make apart a sketch that was drawn by hand then colorized by AI, and a fully genned picture.. You can not direct shadow placement at all either, honestly would take less time to do it yourself if you're mildly competent.

>Composition

Without controlnet, most of what it regurgitates is very basic, beginner-style composition, following rules of thirds and that's it. There's no point using AI for that. With controlnet/img2img, you'll have more control, but forget about anything other than basic perspective and character placement- Or having a crowd, more than three characters with all distinct features, etc, you're better off using 3D, less computing power and time spent.

>Anatomy

Worst part. Too stiff, can't distinguish overlapping limbs, struggles at anything other than anime blow up dolls, dependent on hand pngs for correct hands

>Character design

Still very basic. You don't have a lot of say when it comes to shape design or clothing beyond what the AI wants to do. It's also very limited in terms of diversity in faces (jaw/nose/head shape) or hairstyles.

>References
Mildly passable, but a quick trip to google or pinterest solve 99% of your ref needs already.

So yeah, not convinced.

>>6930756
You're missing the point again, I had some respect for you before but now I think you're actually concept blinded to what we're talking about.
Take a look at the argument again, and try again.
HERES A HINT
>It has nothing to do with soul

>tripschizo acts like his electric toy understands

>>6930756
AI ART ENGINES CAN MAKE ART

PROMPTERS ARE NOT MAKING ART

ITS THAT SIMPLE

You spend so much time defending the tech because you think you can simply sit on top of it and let it carry you. When people say you're not making art, they're not saying the output is not art, they're saying the output is NOT YOURS.

>>6930762
>the respect and status of being an artist
no such thing. 99.9999% artists are no names working in the industry. you don't need to become a social media influencer to be a real artist. why begs think like this?

.

..

>>6930772
Look man this ESL all-or-nothing mentality is not good. There's a lot more than the top popular artists and the no-name artists. Even if one other human knows you are an artist, that's still status as an artist. All humans want to be respected by other humans, and being seen as an artist can be a desire. I didn't fucking say anything about being a twitter artist, you're thinking about this in terms of how much money artists make when thats not at all the standard for what a successful artist is.

I wonder how many picoseconds will pass before a new ai bait thread goes up after this one reaches the limit

Just woke up. 300 reply AI thread. Did trip schizo go on a melty about his tool again?

>>6930756
>see? we already dissagree
From the first paragraph I already know what braindead mental gymnastic you're gonna go with. Let me get one thing straight, it's a yes or no question: Do you believe that data stored exclusively in a computer that form a desired arrangement of pixels are the same thing as the entire observable universe?

I just want to know if you're mentally ill or genuinely powered by ChatGPt.

>>6930777
the "respect and status of being an artist" is the same "respect and status" of having any other job, there's nothing special about it. if anything, people will think you're a hobo or a good for nothing trustfund kid.
i should known since i've been learning painting as a hobby for a decade, but still get much more status points when i say i'm an engineer

>>6930771
>AI ART ENGINES CAN MAKE ART
no

>>6930791
>there's nothing special about it.
that is just your opinion. I speak for normal first world society. Your idea of the word "status" is fundamentally different than mine, so we'll never agree.

>>6930785
>THAT DATA IS NOT STORED PIXELS ITS A TRAINED NEURAL NETWORK YOU BRAINDEAD RETARD OMG HOW ARE YOU SO STUPID

>>6930357
There won't be a machine that makes tattoos for the next 200 years
I've worked as a welder and seen how janky, useless and retarded the robot tech is
And this is when working on two static pieces of metal let alone something that has a pulse
I don't give a shit about consumers though, just saying the AI scare is for retards to froth at their mouth and nobody with a decent amount of skill gives a shit about it

>>6930796
this, but unironically

The only thing that's going to come out of this ai debacle is that once someone releases an easy way to make cheese pizza, the whole party is cancelled. Governments already hate AI and are waiting for that moment to pull the plug.

>>6930795
your "normal" circle is probably some vapid kids that don't know shit about life, but let's agree to disagree

>>6930767
be clearer. i'm arguing with multiple people at once and it's confusing. just quote the part you want me to adress.

but maybe you should read my post properly before that? because my post is not really about soul either. this makes it seem like you just flew over my post and read the end of it.

>>6930771
i love how you're just barging in here to shit on prompters.
also i partly agree. i do think the AI can be seen as an artist on its own. but artists can work together. so the prompter can be an artist too, even if they are not necessarily always one.

>>6930785
>Do you believe that data stored exclusively in a computer that form a desired arrangement of pixels are the same thing as the entire observable universe?
i can't understand what this is trying to say, try saying this in proper english first.
what do you mean the entire observable universe? do you think this is something i believe? why would it be the same? what part of it is the same?
what is this even???

>>6930754
physically laughing at you, it's sad, please stop

>>6930799
CP is the favorite excuse of totalitarian governments for censoring. You can be sure they will use it for try and kill uncucked open source AI models: the propaganda machinery is already working full time

>>6930800
our worlds are different, both are "real"

>>6930801
>300 replies
it's over. pro open source AI chads won. great job, everyone

>>6930801
Ah, desu I don't think I could make it any clearer, so whatever, it doesn't matter it's just an online dicussion and the concept is bound to come up in the general conversation eventually.
So goodbye anon, in a way it was a fruitful discussion, at least to me because I don't usually engage these anymore.

>>6930817
>it was a fruitful discussion
lmao. you people were like monkeys throwing up shit instead of trying to reason, as usual

>>6930801
You fucking nigger can't even say "no" without doing a little roundabout can you? All drawings are undoubtedly drawn without data, all generations are generated with copius amounts of it. Glad we can finally come to an agreement.
You're losing these arguments 3 ways bro, it's getting pathetic.

>>6930825
you seem perfectly able to post without having a brain, but normal humans can't draw with a cerebral cortex

>>6930823
>comes out of the woodwork to talk shit
kek go prompt some more porn, will make yourself useful in some way at least

>>6930828
poo in the loo

>>6930766
i do agree that currently there are many things where you're better off doing them manually. but from the sound of it, i doubt you explored all the potential avenues.

and yes, model and lora matter a lot. but that's not a bad thing, it's a good thing.

>>6930814
i find it really funny how much you care about this.
it's almost like it pains you to see an AI thread in the frontpage. i can almost smell the desperation with these silly dot posts.
but i'll let you in on a secret: oldfags don't give a single fuck about the front page.
have you ever seen me stop posting because a thread went into autosage? don't you know i tend to post until the moment a thread dies?
this is just lol.

you're the only one thinking about this as if this is some war of activism.
i mean i am advocating for AI, but i'm just doing it through discussion.

>>6930817
if you say so. again, i really don't feel like going into an extensive discussion about the overarching topic of general AI.
not when there is more than enough to dig into just in the topic of art AI.


>>6930825
>All drawings are undoubtedly drawn without data
...data is just information.
you need information to draw anything.
i mean if i have to go out of my way to say that, i genuinely think you just lack the mental faculties to have this discussion at all.

>>6930823
You argue in bad faith, do endless mental gymnastics and then say dumb, disengenous shit. Can you really blame us for laughing at you?

>>6930836
>data is just information.
Are we really moving the goalpost his early pajeet? Grim.
Data is what computers need to generate slop. Information is what humans need to draw. To say these words are interchangeble wouldn't be entirely incorrect, granted, but they're by no means used or made in the same way.

You're not tonna equate lines of code to the infinitely complex human brain again, are you anon?

>>6930828
ai bros evidently can't draw even with a cerebral cortex

>>6930851
Its an indian thing to just flip words around and change the argument or create new ones.

>>6928308
This looks like my average filter list in a porn site lmao

>>6930851
>Data is what computers need to generate slop. Information is what humans need to draw.
you call it data but ultimatively what the AI needs is also just information. images, text, something to learn from. do you think the AI cares about the specific 0 and 1s of the data? or do you think the AI cares about the fact that it is seeing an image that is depicting something?

>You're not tonna equate lines of code to the infinitely complex human brain again, are you anon?
you think they can't be equated? why? artificial neural networks are basically narrowly specialized miniature brains.

>itt: an autist who can't get a clue when he's not welcome

>>6930887
You basically ignored everything I said and repeated your last point. Everytime I see you argue it's always the same thing, you make false equations and disengenous points ad infinitum.
>you think they can't be equated?
No, you actual subhuman.

>>6930529
have you thought about how much a gpu cost? What about the electricity bill?
Just fucking draw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQP1gPTk0FI

>>6930921
i genuinely don't think there's any point interacting with you. just filter me already.

fyi. even the head researchers themselves equate these AI with brains. because neural networks, i.e. brains.
they are obviously very different when it comes to details, but they are still modeled after real biological neural networks. it's part of the reason they work at all.
here is the literal chief scientist at openAI talking about brains over and over again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft0gTO2K85A

and you also haven't refuted any of my arguments in >>6930756
it's nothing but shizo rambling and
>it's data, bro!
>it's code! bro!
you haven't proven once that you can actually engage with the argument beyond this level.

it's very simple. you need examples to learn from, AI needs examples to learn from. whether you call it information, data, it's all the same idea.

now prove to me you're not a braindead retard:
tell me what is wrong with my argument without saying the same shit about how it's just data/code/program/computer, bro!
tell me WHAT SPECIFICALLY is supposed to be different here.

and besides, the original post claims
>The AI cannot work without data, a human can.
so go on, tell me how we can.

i'll give you until tomorrow.

>>6930783
>Did trip schizo go on a melty about his tool again?
yeah
I wonder if he could have learned to draw with all the time he's spent defending AI?

>>6930981
>tell me WHAT SPECIFICALLY is supposed to be different here.

You already know the answer but you refuse to accept it. The soul.

>he still can't grasp he's not wanted

>reeeeee engage in an argument based on my flawed premises

>>6930981
hahahahahaha

>>6929707
>you'd basically be saying that you want the AI to CREATE rock, the entire genre, from scratch. and not just rock, but every genre, and music in general really.

Isn't this how human beings created music? This seems to me the fundamental difference between LLMS and people, humans don't need direct outside influence and can think abstractly. Machines have a long way to go before they reach sapient level intelligence, and at that point we should probably afford them the same sort of rights that we have and let them consent to having their work used by others.

>>6931172
Humans copied birds singing to invent music. bunch of hacks.

>>6930659
>Surely you wouldn't be dumb enough to conflate the two.

*immediately conflates the two*

lol thanks for the laugh anon.

>>6930756
>i do not in fact believe that my abilities come from nothing but my oh-so-infinitely-creative soul.

Neither do I. I know perfectly well I wouldn't be an artist without being influenced by others. My argument is that its genuinely evil to use a MACHINE to essentially make wide-scale counterfeits of human work. I'm more than fine with a human artist being inspired and learning from me. But AI users are CLEARLY crossing an ethical boundary by training on living human artists.

Yes, I know it "learns". That isn't the fucking point. The point is respecting your fellow human and not plagiarizing their shit.

>>6931036
>The soul.
lol.

>>6931172
yes, but it was a gradual process.no one person created rock on their own. it was built upon previous influences which also came from other influences in turn.

no one person could possibly create rock without either listening to rock directly or at least some of the genres that directly influenced rock, like blues.
do you disagree?

>This seems to me the fundamental difference between LLMS and people, humans don't need direct outside influence and can think abstractly.
the machine is just worse in many ways and can't do all the things that we can do.
but it can do a narrow range of things, even things that traditionally required human cognition.
and learning from images is just what it does.

the main difference is actually that it can't learn iteratively.
humans can do this:
>see an image
>try to draw that image
>play with that image and adjust it as you want
>experiment with it in real time
>have the cognitive ability to evaluate the image as you make it and to aim for certain qualities.

an image AI on the other hand:
>"sees" an image during training
>and that in the only time it actually learns from the image.
>it can not truly learn from its own output.
>it can not evaluate anything on its own
>(other than just trying to get the token represented in the way it learned to)
>it does nothing in real time, it only learns during training

the difference currently is that humans can learn in real time, all the time.
the AI only learns during training. outside of that you can consider it a static, unchanging brain, regardless of what it outputs.


now despite everything i said, what the AI is doing is still considered "learning".
and it still isn't sapient. you people always seem to assume that these things have to go together. but as you can see, there are nuances to the matter.

>>6931936
>the AI only learns during training. outside of that you can consider it a static, unchanging brain, regardless of what it outputs.
actually, to put it in a simpler way: humans can affect themselves in a loop. AI can not.

theoretically you can feed the AI its own output and train iteratively, but because the AI is still retarded and has inacurracies. , the end result would probably just be some weird shit. because like i said, it also can not evaluate its own output in a way that aligns with humans.

it would need a real brain and a real sense of "taste" to do that. so this is probably AGI level shit. again, it just lacks a lot, but this doesn't mean it's not already learning, even in its current stage.

look who's back craving attention

>>6931601
>>6931601
>My argument is that its genuinely evil to use a MACHINE to essentially make wide-scale counterfeits of human work.
i would agree, if they were counterfeits.
that was my worry initially as well. but once i figured out that it wasn't doing that, i found no reason to be anti AI at all anymore.

look at pic related. how do you think this works?
do you think the AI is stealing an apple that someone made in its training data and using that?
or look at pic related? do you think this is a collage of other people's work?
have you ever wondered how this really works?

i can explain a lot of it if you are interested. (later. i'm about to head out)

>>6931957
meant to post this actually. it's just a part of the OP clip.

>look at me!

Maybe. I'm using Dall-E in chatgpt to prompt my drawings in so that I get something from it, like ideas or different costumes. Or prompt it for poses, then I just draw the results. To me it just adds more fuel to my imagination but I would never consider using it to replace me. I love drawing.

>>6929571
> as if it's evil.

I'm waiting for one trained on a dataset trained with permission for all images, and public domain images.
I don't like how the datasets were trained without consent...