/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.6252291]

Is AI art... art?

[Anonymous No.6252300]

No.

[Anonymous No.6252302]

[Anonymous No.6252313]

Yes. The AI was made by humans.

[Anonymous No.6252317]

>>6252313
Doesn't that make the AI art, not the AI's art... art?

[Anonymous No.6252323]

>>6252302
>human creative skill
>creative (human) prompt
>appreciate beauty or emotional power
>verification no required
seethe

[Anonymous No.6252327]

>>6252291
is ordering takeout cooking?
does arcane horrors beyond our comprehension making the food become a perfect analogue for say the household knife used in cooking?
where do you draw the line between mere tools and apathy?
what kind of person drives a car in a marathon and think himself a legitimate winner?
do you think art to be a means of self expression or product to be consumed and produced in the most cheaply optimized supply chain?

[Anonymous No.6252329]

>>6252302
A human codes the neural network
Human art trains the neural network
A human imagines the prompt
A human judges the resulting art

Every part of the AI art process requires human creativity and expression.

[Anonymous No.6252333]

It's art but very shit art.

[Anonymous No.6252334]

Anything can be art.
This post I just generated is an art.
Do not steal or screencap pls.

[Anonymous No.6252339]

>>6252291
No.

[Anonymous No.6252342]

>>6252327
Based and unexpected division insignia.

[Anonymous No.6252348]

Do you give yourself unto the machine loosing the very essence of self expression?
giving away your own agency in your process to the laziest available method?
what differentiates you from the average NPC?
do you believe typing up words into a machine beyond your comprehension make you an artist?
who are you trying to dethrone?
those stoic and pious to their craft?
does your new throne fulfill that hole in your very being?
does attempting to trample the very essence of human agency fill that void?

are thou man?

[Anonymous No.6252352]

>>6252302
>>6252329

[Anonymous No.6252355]

Is a owl an musician?

[Anonymous No.6252356]

>>6252329
just as an experiment
lets see how many pro-AI post we get after i post this

动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门

[Anonymous No.6252364]

>>6252291
AI can't draw this

[Anonymous No.6252371]

>>6252356
I checked two years ago how many times this inane redditor pasta was posted and it was over 19 thousand times. Yet 4chan is still not banned in China.

[Anonymous No.6252375]

>>6252371
odd how the Ai fag disappeared

[Anonymous No.6252377]

>>6252375
He's just working on making his next thread.

[Anonymous No.6252378]

>>6252356
Schitzo convinced it’s the Chinese tranny Jews making posts and not just artists concerned about their future.

[Anonymous No.6252382]

>>6252375
AI doesn't steal or infringe any copyright, no matter how many times you meme it.

[Anonymous No.6252391]

document.querySelectorAll('.posteruid .hand').forEach(h => {
if (h.textContent === '6WTBn3DM') {
h.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode.parentNode.remove()
}
})

how bout this one
i picked it off off /pol/ back in the day

[Anonymous No.6252397]

>>6252382
It does. now get out of /ic/, fa/g/got

[Anonymous No.6252401]

>>6252397
This is my board.
And it still doesn't.

[Anonymous No.6252405]

Does the soul exist? If soul doesn’t exist, then art made by human or machine is an arbitrary distinction.

[Anonymous No.6252408]

>>6252405
Normies don't even have souls, what are you on about?

[Anonymous No.6252419]

>>6252323
AI could make an art just by taking a gpt generated prompt

[Anonymous No.6252433]

>>6252419
ok?

[Anonymous No.6252441]

>>6252356
it's hilarious how this actually worked

[Anonymous No.6252445]

>>6252382
well it does. it cannot make anything original without copying already existing things and blending them together. try to use it with no internet.

[Anonymous No.6252451]

>>6252291
As the zeitgeist of the billions of artworks fed to the AI, it makes sense that it could capture something of the human spirit. I draw the line at winning art competition with it, it isn't yours or mine but Humanity's. We merely give it a prompt, the art was born from an endless stream of artistes - the fact that the AI hides the hands or fucks them up is proof enough that it's our Ghost.

[Anonymous No.6252452]

>>6252355
Yes, absolutelly.

[Anonymous No.6252468]

can (You) point out which one of these images is real by a human and which one was generated by a computer AI?

[Anonymous No.6252471]

>>6252468
It's all AI.

[Anonymous No.6252476]

>>6252468
i don't care
i just coom

[Anonymous No.6252479]

>>6252445
neither can you
are you an AI?

[Anonymous No.6252486]

>>6252468
All AI. Kill yourself /g/tard.

[Anonymous No.6252490]

>>6252468
they all look like ai, they can't get certain things right like eye shapes and other tells

[Anonymous No.6252502]

>>6252468
All AI.

[Anonymous No.6252518]

>>6252479
>i can't imagine anything so you can't either
way to out yourself as an npc. show me an ai that can generate anything without human guided training and input. you can't. go back to /g/ and stop spamming your gimmick here. you dumbasses said the same things about every other ai project and none of your silly predictions ever came true. why don't you ever learn? my guess is avarice.

[Anonymous No.6252520]

>>6252468
3 booba

[Anonymous No.6252546]

>>6252329
None of that requires creativity or expression you dumb nigger

[Anonymous No.6252549]

Art was never real in the first place. I'm glad that after 100,000 years we could finally put it to rest.

[Anonymous No.6252553]

>>6252468
1345
276
8

why the fuck did you order it like this you fucking retard? It's all ai shit, and it's all painfully obvious.

[Anonymous No.6252556]

>>6252302
A googled definition is not an authority on language, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.6252559]

>artificial intelligence
>artificial
>art
it's over isn't it?

[Anonymous No.6252560]

>>6252559
yes it's time to stop slacking off and INVEST

[Anonymous No.6252562]

>>6252556
>t. xir
ywnbaw

[Anonymous No.6252565]

Art is an explosion

[Anonymous No.6252569]

>>6252445
>it cannot make anything original without copying already existing things and blending them together

not how it works retard. https://huggingface.co/blog/annotated-diffusion

[Anonymous No.6252571]

>>6252560
Invest into what? I don't have any money

[Anonymous No.6252573]

>>6252571
And it will stay this way.

[Anonymous No.6252605]

>>6252300
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.6252646]

>>6252518
Way to out yourself as an overly emotional faggot.
The premise is simple:
>without reference, you can't learn anything
Same with people, same with machines.
Saying machines must extract an original thought from the voidest of void is like saying a human has to create matter from thought.

Your whole arguments fail because you don't actually understand how shit works at the root of all things but all you have is ad hominem and nothing more.
Stop trying to argue shit and just insult people because you feel powerless about your demise and then cry when artificial mementelligence makes you obsolete
I also draw better than you, you could post your work, but we all know you don't actually draw.

lol, lmao, jej, kek and zozzle, you stupid nigger.

[Anonymous No.6252685]

>>6252291
AI is a AI but not is art

[Anonymous No.6252693]

>>6252646
the difference between art and algorithmic mash-ups is that art is an interpretation of something perceived. the ai doesn't interpret what it has seen, it interprets the prompt and then mashes images together according to an algorithm. give it any cyberpunk jargon at all and it will turn out a character posing like the cover art from the video game. ai can't write stories, it's been tried and we all heard it would be the death of authors but instead it became a joke. how can something that can't tell a story create a painting? a painting is arguably a more complicated story to create than mere text. google translate said it would put translators out of work and instead put travelers in jail. stable diffusion claims it will put artists out of work but it too will become a joke, and already has to anybody with any memory of past promises about ai nerds have made. it's a neat gimmick and nothing more, like every other thing the tech industry has created in the last two decades.

[Anonymous No.6252701]

>>6252468
Trick question
It’s all human artwork that has been photo ashes by AI

[Anonymous No.6252705]

>>6252693
>this kills the /g/fag

[Anonymous No.6252753]

>>6252693
>artcuck seethe

[Anonymous No.6252760]

>>6252693
Not reading your schizo ramblings, artcel

[Anonymous No.6252833]

>>6252693
If the machine couldn't interpret the things it saw, it still would be drawing modern art and throwing shit unto a canvas;
It couldn't process the prompts if it didn't have basic intelligence.
A human isn't born with the innate intelligence to do things, it still has to be trained and needs experience to learn things.
How did you learn the alphabet? Were you just born already knowing?
Would you know the alphabet if no one taught you? Would you have known the alphabet existed if no one made you aware of its existence?
Would you even know the concept of the alphabet if no one ever had the idea to define it?
Would we even be able to speak like we do if no one started writing shit down to pass on to other generations?
It's all memes. We are all made of memes. Without memes, nothing would ever be.
And memes not in a sense
>the funny pictures
but memes as the literal definition
>"an element of a culture or system of behaviour passed from one individual to another by imitation or other non-genetic means."

[Anonymous No.6252856]

>>6252300
You are in the 2nd stage of grief, also known as anger. Cope more little artcel kek

[Anonymous No.6252858]

>>6252833
This AI can't learn an alphabet nor can it understand Loomis' tutorials because it is not conscious. This is not AGI, this a glorified search engine where people need to keep putting "trending on frustration" because it will never have innate understanding of quality or even what it's doing.

[Anonymous No.6252864]

>>6252760
suprising most famous artist could be considered schizo but also remember they'll always be more interesting then your ass

[Anonymous No.6252916]

>>6252291
It is for ai if they become sentient.not so much for us since its just pretty picture

[Anonymous No.6253251]

>>6252693
god you artfags are dumber than rocks

[Anonymous No.6253263]

>>6252858
>trending on frustration
same desu

[Anonymous No.6253269]

>>6252468
all are AI. you probably thought this was hard to figure out too, must feel bad being an artlet.

[Anonymous No.6253441]

>>6252858
>it can't
>it will never
You could pretty much say this about a human baby.
>the baby isn't conscious of itself
>It could never learn to speak
>It could never learn to walk
>It could never learn to create technically impressive qualitative artwork
unless guided by human hand

Did you understand and comprehend everything and anything from the moment you were born?
A human might as well be a glorified search engine in a meat bag parroting the knowledge it assimilated until he starts being aware of himself and the knowledge he possesses, going beyond just repeating what he knows but truly understanding what he knows and being aware of the things he doesn't know.
There is always the outcome of the IF the human even begins to be aware of himself and is able to look at himself as objectively as possible.

Are you conscious of yourself?
Are you aware of the things you say, the thoughts you think, have you ever questioned yourself, have you ever questioned your sanity, have you ever questioned your own existence on every possible level of existence?
Are you critical of your own actions and thoughts?
Are you fully 100% conscious and aware when doing anything?
Are you aware and in control of every single one of your bodily functions on a macro and micro scale?
Do you even fully understand the reason of why your own body works the way it does without looking it up or gaining knowledge from another person that is knowledgeable on the subject?
Would you have an objective understanding of quality without having absorbed the meme from somebody else?
Do you even know what you're doing?

If you weren't guided by human hands, if you didn't get exposed to memes, you would have the same linguistic, intellectual, philosophical and social capabilities as a primate.
What makes a human different from a machine is not the intelligence, but the bodily functions and instincts.
How would you know how to define something as conscious, if not for the memes you absorbed from others?

[Anonymous No.6253476]

>>6252291
No. It has a pretty output that is aesthetically appealing, but it isn't art, anymore than a nice sunrise is art. We can say "it's like art", but unless fine tuned/crafted by a human hand, it isn't art. It's just something sort of appealing to look at.

You may say the proompter made the art, but he doesn't make the art anymore than a commissioner does when hiring an artist.

>>6252452
You should have said "Yes, absoHOOTly"
What a miss.

>>6252468
I think these all are quite nice, but they all could use some fixes:
>1)Weird face and arm + missing leg AI
>2)Nice, the concept is clear. The clothes falling over the body/machine looks odd, the left eyebrow seems to be blended in with the hair, as well as the shadows on the upper face also blending perfect with the hair. Probably AI
>3)Clearly defined, but weird clavicle anatomy and collar, I also dislike the cheeks' shadows. AI
>4)Nice, but classic AI head. Also the left eye is grey and has the hair suddenly forming a detail under the eye. AI
>5)Quite like this one... it's probably the massive tits. It has a tiny hand, the eyes above the goggles looks odd, unclear abstract details + BG, almost certainly AI
>6)Least favourite, ugly face, the breasts fall in an unappealing way, what's that thing hanging on the neck? I hope this is AI, but could be an amateur pic
>7)Quite like this one - weird delt, weird ear, weird shadows on face. Def AI
>8)Another Boring head. A large head at that compared to the body. Looks nice and was about to declare it human, but the lips are odd looking, so this has to be ai...

Huh... So I feel all are AI because of weird mistakes a human wouldn't probably make... I'm thinking (assuming you're honest and one is human) it's between 2,4

[Naruto No.6253480]

>>6252565
This guy gets it

[Anonymous No.6253489]

>>6253251
tech faggots are deluded, subhuman mongrels whose obsession with AI made shit doesn't lie in what the AI "creates" but in the fact that AI can do things. you are incapable of relating to humans, you're mentally ill misanthropic cockroaches

[Anonymous No.6253497]

>>6253489
>you're mentally ill misanthropic cockroaches
>tech faggots are deluded, subhuman mongrels whose obsession with AI made shit doesn't lie in what the AI "creates" but in the fact that AI can do things
>"you are incapable of relating to humans"
Just pointing out that yours is not a peak example of human empathy.
You cry "oh the humanity" when it's convenient for you so you can play the victim.

Now call me a techfag
Impotent rage is all you have left.

[Anonymous No.6253499]

>stop getting mad that we'll automate your job, you'll have free time to do other things like art
>stop getting mad that we'll automate art, you'll have free time to do other things instead
looking forward to a future where some anti AI crusader rises to power and we get to treat AI freaks like witches and burn them at the stake

[Anonymous No.6253502]

>>6253497
striking logic retard. I should also have human empathy towards tranime pedophiles too, right? why should I treat someone according to my world view and not according to their world view? if you're a nihilistic anti human misanthrope, that's the treatment you deserve

[Anonymous No.6253505]

>>6253499
Isn't that supposedly the backdrop of the book series dune? They've destroyed machines because of the great ennui instilled in the people because of them? I don't see how having machines do our creative ventures can help people if and when we hit post-scarcity.

[Anonymous No.6253507]

>>6253499
You can still do art.
That just the concept of a machine printing endless images is stopping you from pursuing art, shows that art was never your thing.
>>6253502
>"why should i treat someone i see as inferior, as human?"
>"are you saying i should have empathy with people i don't like?"
>"why should i strive to be a better person when i can as bad as them but still claim to be better?"
>"you're just a nihilistic anti human misanthrope, because i say so"
>"stop automating art waaaah dont u care about artists?!?!?! ur a poopyhead pooeater!!"
Again; i'm just pointing out your hypocrisy.
You also completely insane.

[Anonymous No.6253513]

>>6253507
Sure we may continue drawing, but what of future generations? Will they?
If machines can pump out great stories, great art, print great sculptures, great movies, great animation
What is there for people to strive for creatively? If people don't have to work, and have nothing but free time, what are they to do?

This is all hypothetical though, I personally don't see AI as a threat yet and think ai is just a useful tool facilitating art for paint overs and photobashing, but many of the tech heads out there seem to think it's going that way but see it as nothing but a good thing.

It just seems like they want to head to a great stagnation, at least culturally.

[Anonymous No.6253519]

>>6253499
>treat AI freaks like witches and burn them at the stake
one can hope

[Anonymous No.6253699]

>>6253513
>What is there for people to strive for creatively?
The point of creating is to create.
It doesn't matter if someone or something makes a "better product".
Do you create to offer a product or do you create to create what you want to create for the sake of creation?
The attitude towards art plays a big role, some figure it out early some never figure it.
Feeling forced to create only for the sake of potentially satisfying a customer, is an incredibly miserable way to live out your life or pursue any creative endeavor.
That what you describe is a purely consumeristic mindset and the anti-thesis to art; it's the same as thinking
>"why should i draw a car if someone can draw cars better than me?"
Why aren't you drawing the car because you simply want to?
Art is the ultimate freedom that enables you to create whatever you want without regards to anyone but yourself. If you let anyone or anything stop you from using that freedom, you can only blame yourself.

You have to disregard the thoughts of
>will people like it?
>will it sell?
You just draw because it brings you joy.
If you can't get joy from creating with your own hands even if there is no reward for it, art was never meant for you.
>If people don't have to work, and have nothing but free time, what are they to do?
They will indulge in consumeristic behavior, much as they do now.
>It just seems like they want to head to a great stagnation, at least culturally.
That's been happening for 30+ years now.
Cultural decline happened countless times throughout history. It's always the same story:
>strong men create good times
>good times create weak men
>weak men create bad times
>bad times create strong men

You don't have to follow the culture.
You don't have to do what everyone else is doing.
You don't have to bow down to anyone or anything.
Unironically and ultimately, the best advice is to just be yourself and go draw.

[Anonymous No.6253738]

>>6252364
Not yet

[Anonymous No.6253743]

>>6253699
>hey bro, you wanna achieve something
>nah bro, just be like le epic crazy homeless guy bro
>just shit and jerk off in the street bro, it'll be epic
>just be totally disconnected from reality bro
>you want some kind of recognition? stop being so entitled bro
>just be a zen master bro
>just be a stoic bro
>if some bad shit happens just ignore it bro
>it's all in your head bro
https://youtu.be/SZH1nqCVlmQ
we live in a society

[Anonymous No.6253749]

>>6252468
Its either all AI, or it is 3 or 4 human. 1 is completely fucked in ways humans would not fuck up, 5 has short arm and weird background that blends on itself, 2 has half of her breast replaced by piston sticking from the gun. 7 has fucked up lips, and 6 has the boob sized completely broken. 8 also has broken lips. I am most inclined to 4 since I dont see any mistakes that would not be done by human laziness, while 3 on the other hand has really weird stuff going on with her vest, not to mention her exposed neck looks like it is shifted to the side. Still, all of them look super generic to the point of being painful, just going to Pinterest and scrolling though millions of pictures made by nameless artists will give you better results. Right now it seems like a good way of making very very generic art without referencing some nameless starving artist in your bigger project. Basically great for stealing art.

[Anonymous No.6253771]

>>6253499
I think this single thing will change the flow of human history. Once this AI art becomes mainstream, society will collapse and mad people will dismantle most of modern society into stone age post apocalypse. Or it will just cause goverments to regulate the shit out of AI and decide to start asking questions about weather or not we should invent something instead of just if we could.
Lets hope it will just stays contained in surreal images and does not break into 3D and so on.
Fully automating real art and making all other art redundant will be remembered as the biggest blasphemy humanity has ever done.

[Anonymous No.6253775]

>>6253507
>That just the concept of a machine printing endless images is stopping you from pursuing art, shows that art was never your thing.
you assume you know what I believed. this is about the death of art not what I'll personally do. cunt

[Anonymous No.6253853]

>>6253699
>The point of creating is to create.
Wrong. Sure that may be one reason for doing so, but it is rarely the reason for anything of value to be made. Every piece of work worth talking about was made to say something; if an ai can generate what it was you wanted to say more efficiently than in any you could have created it, you will not.

>"why should i draw a car if someone can draw cars better than me?"
This works because one artist will represent their car differently from another; however if an ai can accurately and believably convey a car in practically any style, why not just use the ai. An ai can say whatever you wanted to say, better, and everyone has access to it. Why try?

>You just draw because it brings you joy.
Yes, but there is more to it than just the joy of the act of drawing, its the reward and satisfaction from my own work, and possibly even the celebration of that work from others. With ai that makes work better, other than just purely the joy of creation, there is nothing else. There will be some who will still create, but we're talking about humanity as a whole and not just a few individuals, and how many do you feel will continue to wish to create for no reward outside of the act of creation itself and while feeling impotent by comparison to the AI? Few will.
The world is going to become full of idle, stagnant, consoomers.

>If you can't get joy from creating with your own hands even if there is no reward for it, art was never meant for you.
Wow, you're so cool and detached...

>bad times create strong men
It is the worst direction for humanity to go, we might as well stick diodes in our head to constantly stimulate our pleasure centres til we die, and if you think that's going to create the environment for strong men to thrive I'm in complete disagreement; you might as well say that nuclear apocalypse would be fine as strong man will eventually be born of it.

[Anonymous No.6253902]

>>6253743
>everything is black or white
>you either do everything or nothing
>le ebin woejek maymay yt vid
you live in a society
and you cannot mentally escape it

Have you found happiness yet, little mouse?
>>6253775
>death of art
No such thing exists.
You either do art or you don't.
The whole doomscreeching about AI, is just an excuse to not draw.
Go draw, faggot.
>>6253853
>of value
Who should it be valuable to? As i said; that is a miserable mindset to have.
>Why try?
Why not try?
>its the reward and satisfaction from my own work
So, what the issue you have then?
>and possibly even the celebration of that work from others.
And there is your issue:
"Acknowledgement and acceptance of others", again; that's the anti-thesis to art.

Doesn't it prove me right when i say that you're doing art for attention?
>The world is going to become full of idle, stagnant, consoomers
How does it affect your ability to pursue and create art?
It doesn't. You're worried about the wrong things masquerading it as
>art is going to die and no thing will have any meaning
Just go draw.
>Wow, you're so cool and detached...
I'm being realistic with you and i will not sugarcoat anything for your own pleasure.

If you pursue art and expect a reward from other people, whether it's attention or money, you shouldn't do art.
In art you generally and overall put more work in than you get value out.
It's obvious that's not your thing, so just quit.
Go get yourself a job, you will be less miserable.
>we might as well just live in a coom-box
>if you think that's going to create the environment for strong men to thrive I'm in complete disagreement
I don't need you to agree with me.
I will not follow you in the box, it's that simple.
Don't you get it?
>you might as well say that nuclear apocalypse would be
Exactly and i do not care about further semantics.
The strong survive, the weak die.

Get in ze pod or be free.
You can always choose.

[Anonymous No.6253937]

>>6252556
Thats literally how words & language work you desperate thin skinned faggot

[Anonymous No.6253963]

>>6252753
>>6252760
>>6252693
i'm a techfag who only recently got into art, maybe 18-24 months ago. i work for an american automaker programming the ai that handles the lane departure warning system. i like ai but the reality is it's very limited in what it can do. it's not some magic human replacement, it's just a faster way to brute force a solution. crying about artfags doesn't change the immensely limited ability of an ai vs a human. maybe when quantum computing becomes more than vaporware for champagne socialist investors that will change, but i doubt it.

[Anonymous No.6253973]

>>6253963
I thinkt he problem here is that artfags know how the AI works and how it can replace them. Feed it pictures, it will try to identify the pictures, then when told to draw something similar, it will do it, and right now it can do in a lot of artstyles, and it is matter of time before it does in all of them.

Artfags are turboseething because they know how limited and useless AI is in most industries, but they happen to be the single industry in the entire world where the limitations have proven themselves to be easily overcome, and even be beaten. This isnt the case of mathematician getting calculator, this is the case of people getting genies that can draw every single one of their wishes in matter of seconds, no matter how descriptive.

[Anonymous No.6253991]

>>6252856
No.

[Anonymous No.6254007]

>>6252445
>try to use it with no internet

You literally can, holy shit you're retarded

[Anonymous No.6254010]

>>6253973
Have the AI draw me a threesome with three futas, with two of them cumming buckets on the third one.
I’ll wait.

[Anonymous No.6254022]

>>6253973
you can use whatever buzzwords you want, but as of now the AI just isn't capable of replacing artists, and probably won't be as long as it can only understand text and pixels. Feed it 5.8 billion 3d scans, and then maybe it can replace artists.

[Anonymous No.6254032]

>>6254022
>AI just isn't capable of replacing artists,

it's good enough to replace stock photography and commercial illustrators

[Anonymous No.6254040]

I don't care about still pictures. With enough practice I can make any digital art piece.

Call me when AI can help me make my own entire 12 episode anime series

[Anonymous No.6254042]

>>6252300
FPBP

[Anonymous No.6254044]

>>6254040
Trannime probably will be the first thing to be replaced completely as it's so damn generic and same-faced

[Anonymous No.6254045]

>>6254044
Omega fail right here. You only hear about FOTM.

[Anonymous No.6254050]

>>6253973
>this is the case of people getting genies that can draw every single one of their wishes in matter of seconds, no matter how descriptive
This is just not true though. There's a near infinite amount of minute details going into just about every piece of art, no matter how many prompts you enter you wouldn't be able to cover everything. If you just want a nice looking picture based on vague inputs (character X in the style of Y in setting Z, etc) then yeah AI will work, but if you have an actually concrete idea in your head how you want the perspective, composition, rendering, etc, to look then really no amount of prompts will make it reproduce the idea you have in your head. In order to get exactly what you want from AI it'd have to literally read your mind.

[Anonymous No.6254106]

>>6252291
Sure?
It is (will be) definitely a different way/understanding and will probably (re)shape how we look at art in general.
It is scary to some level I guess, but the essence of art is so very human, that if the AI can actually take it over, then we either been doing it wrong all along just giving meaning to something that has never had any (a) or we just need to accept that this is another step in human evolution. I'm sure there were a lot of people who said bread will never be "real" anymore if you're making it in an oven instead of the furnace. As of now, AI cannot really replicate feelings nor communicate them. If, regardless of this, AI can generate art that touches people the same way art as we know now does, then being a good artist till now didn't really mean much more than "you're as good, as a machine". If that's the case, who cares. If it's not the case, again, who cares? If art really has an additional layer that makes it ultimately human, we have nothing to be afraid of. If not, then we didn't even deserve the whole thing in the first place.

Thousands of 17yo kids on twitter calling themselves artists losing their hobby isn't something I'll cry my pillow wet over

[Anonymous No.6254122]

>>6254106
>Sure?
hello retard. Lost on your way to retard school?

[Anonymous No.6254260]

>>6253771
>Fully automating real art and making all other art redundant will be remembered as the biggest blasphemy humanity has ever done.
yeah I'm sure automated picture making is worse that let's nuclear or bio weapons.
>Or it will just cause goverments to regulate the shit out of AI and decide to start asking questions about weather or not we should invent something instead of just if we could.
At most they'll just limit access to it for the proles.

[Anonymous No.6254272]

>>6253973
the problem is the ai needs to be fed art. feeding ai generated images to an ai is like creating a clone from a clone, without original art created by humans the ai will either stagnate or degenerate rapidly. anybody who has actually studied ai knows that this is one of the biggest unsolved problems with the technology: it requires enormous amounts of human produced data in order to train an ai to do something that would be trivial for a human. ai is massively inefficient for this reason but that might change if and when hardware begins advancing rapidly again. further, art is meant to be consumed more than produced. most people don't care about creating art and prefer to simply view it. these new ai don't really provide artists or the audience with much of anything. artists want to create art and the audience doesn't, so who is this new tech even for? it's for tech autists. it provides tech nerds with yet another meme software to spaz about and annoy people with.

[Anonymous No.6254279]

>>6254007
all of the training sets were sourced from the web. you know that and you're just feigning misunderstanding in an attempt to remain relevant in this discussion. you came here thinking you would troll /ic/ posters but nobody cared so instead of leaving like a well adjusted person you starting splitting hairs like a socially retarded turbosperg.

[Anonymous No.6254281]

>>6254272
>ai will either stagnate or degenerate rapidly.
it will stangnate but not degenerate. If you let any of models sit in hardrives for lets 10 years without any new data it will be same as day you've put it there.

[Anonymous No.6254295]

>>6254281
i meant if you continue feeding it ai generated images then the quality of images it produces will stagnate in the best case or degenerate in the worst case. the software requires training sets and human feedback to learn anything new. if you want the ai to be able to produce "original" art you will have to have human artists producing original training sets and coaching the software. the current ai paradigms are all dependent on human input so the idea that ai can replace somebody is comically ignorant. it's like saying power tools will replace carpenters.

[Anonymous No.6254327]

>>6254295
>the software requires training sets and human feedback to learn anything new.
which is why they need to be sued now and stopped in their tracks.

[Anonymous No.6254482]

>>6254279
There is a massive difference between training and inference (aka "using"). If it really is "copying" images verbatim, how is 250 terabytes of data compressed into an offline 4GB file? Yes, no shit internet data is using for training, but you seemed to imply that this is just a tool that searches google for images and stitches them together.

[Anonymous No.6254486]

>>6254482
it really does not matter how it was done. Copyrighted images were used without consent and developed into a product sold to the public

[Anonymous No.6254499]

>>6254486
Yes, and I respect differing opinions regarding the implications of that. If learning how these models truly work does not change those opinions, then so be it.

[Anonymous No.6254503]

>>6254499
you just don't care about this issue because it does not fuck you over specifically. Today, it's me, but tomorrow, it's you

[Anonymous No.6254516]

>>6254327
>which is why they need to be sued now and stopped in their tracks.
Lol seethe

[Anonymous No.6254519]

>>6254295
>i meant if you continue feeding it ai generated images
That's how neural networks train dumbass. They feed into themselves

[Anonymous No.6254569]

>>6253973
>>6254050
Trying to get a specific picture from an AI is like pulling teeth, even something that is just good enough for a paintover. For artists, it might save some time. For anyone else, they just have to pretend the thing the AI shat out was exactly what they wanted.

[Anonymous No.6254684]

>>6254569
>they just have to pretend the thing the AI shat out was exactly what they wanted.
I'm not big on AI, but isn't this essentially the experience on the client's side?

>>6253902
>So what if there was a situation where no one survives?
>Then the strong survive
That retarded anon. It's an apocalyptic situation, everyone is dead, quit jerking yourself off with this "strong man" philosophy.

You're entire point of view seems incredibly selfish, it's a lot of:
>Well I create because X
>Well I will do X
>Who Cares about others, I will be okay
You're have the mindset of someone ignoring great atrocities simply because it doesn't effect them. The "Just ignore it and do your own thing lol" mindset is great in many scenarios, but it can also be an equally toxic mindset when it actively ignores mankind basically killing themselves.

>>6252468
>Never posted answer
So everyone was right, this was some bullshit trick question faggotry that everyone called you out on. Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.6254694]

Art.

[Anonymous No.6254695]

>>6254694

[Anonymous No.6254698]

>>6254695

[Anonymous No.6254714]

>>6254694
>>6254695
Love the artist's signature in the corner, really harkens back to the good old days where human beings made art. On that note, is this art of Cortez?

[Anonymous No.6254718]

>>6254694
it's even taking the signature from god knows who, poor bastard. techniggers really defend this grotesque shit.

[Anonymous No.6254719]

>>6254714

[Anonymous No.6254727]

>>6254569
>>6254684
It can be, depending on the artist, but an AI will just ignore very specific parts of the prompt seemingly at random, because you're not really communicating with it like you are with people. And if you change one thing, another might break. Different results will often get some parts of the piece right and other parts wrong, so an artist might be able to mix and match them.

If you're a client working with a decent artist, you can just tell them to add or change specific things, give them reference pictures, or even draw crude instructions about the pose, etc. and they should be able to change them.

[Anonymous No.6254731]

>>6254727
The technology will get better, believe me

[Anonymous No.6254740]

>>6252468
why you post pics of asian artists in photo realistic style, theyre like ai^^ very soulless youre trying to fuck with us here^^

[Anonymous No.6254743]

>>6252468
none of the faces have any expression, tacky and lifeless. put a painting of lois nearby and you will see the difference between asian art (ai^^) , ai and a HUMAN BEING^^ (lois^^)

[Anonymous No.6254750]

Hello IC, I came here to check out how you guys doing after recent events.
I see you're doing just as well as I thought.

Man, this is such a kick in the groin ain't it? This happened to my field years ago, welcome to the wagon!

[Anonymous No.6254751]

>>6254719
wtf is that, also totally doesnt look like her^^

[Anonymous No.6254760]

>>6252291
/ic/ cant even agree on a definition of what is art, they could never be ready for this one.

[Anonymous No.6254793]

>>6252291
idk but its getting too good

[Anonymous No.6254816]

>>6254793
it learns faster than any human ever could.

[Anonymous No.6254818]

>>6252300
fpbp

[Anonymous No.6254823]

>>6254750
youre seeing reactions of a bunch of mentally ill autists and permabegs
/ic/ isnt a good representation of anything art related
but glad your enjoying how fucked up this place has been these few months, please stay for a while and help shitpost even more

[Anonymous No.6254826]

>>6254760
>/ic/ cant even agree on a definition of what is art
To be fair, it's something that's generally debated all the time, regardless of what the spurgs here think.

[Anonymous No.6254827]

>>6254684
>It's an apocalyptic situation, everyone is dead, quit jerking yourself off with this "strong man" philosophy
As i said; i do not care about your irrelevant semantics.
I already knew you were going to say this exact same thing, which doesn't aid any of your arguments.
>you're selfish
How? Is someone selfish because he earns more than someone who is poor?
Is someone selfish because he doesn't throw himself into certain death to save a kitten?
Is someone selfish because he doesn't go up to any strangers and gives them all his possessions?
Is someone selfish because he can draw better than you?
Aren't you justifying the arguments and laments of the techfags with this logic?
>"you're selfish because you're gatekeeping the ability to make decent art"
so to speak.
>ignoring great atrocities
I'm not ignoring them, what kind of insane accusation is that?
I know i can only do as much as stopping a nuclear apocalypse, an earthquake or a tornado, except wait it out and try to survive.
>toxic mindset when it actively ignores mankind basically killing themselves
You really shouldn't talk about any kind of toxic mindsets with the twisted logic you have.
>who cares about others, i will be okay
If i didn't care about others, i wouldn't be telling you the things i have.
I wouldn't offer you any advice, i wouldn't tell you to keep drawing, i wouldn't try to show you that there is a better way than just getting emotionally invested into saving your ego.
>ignores mankind basically killing themselves.
What kind of answers have i been getting for saying these things?
Just a bunch of retards crying about getting left behind and justifying their lack of mental strength or how selfish, detached and nihilistic i am.

You are choosing to kill yourselves.
What kind of responsibility or authority do i have that i have to stop you when all you do is cry and screech when people tell you not to kill yourselves?
I'm not your father.
You're grown people.
Get real.

[Anonymous No.6254830]

>>6254827
very good meme!

[Anonymous No.6254838]

>>6254830
Exquisite, i'd say.

[Anonymous No.6254884]

>>6254827
>I already knew you were going to say this exact same thing, which doesn't aid any of your arguments
Then why give that retarded response in the first place? Clarify your position, or don't say something so fucking stupid that you know someone is going to correct you - and then for you to act smug about being corrected, talk about idiotic.

>you're selfish
>How?
>...
>What kind of answers have i been getting for saying these things?
>Just a bunch of retards crying about getting left behind and justifying their lack of mental strength or how selfish, detached and nihilistic i am.
>You are choosing to kill yourselves.
>What kind of responsibility or authority do i have that i have to stop you when all you do is cry and screech when people tell you not to kill yourselves? I'm not your father. You're grown people. Get real.

We speak of selfishness of the modern generations because they act in ways that show no concern for those that will come after them. I am not choosing to kill myself, I'm perfectly fine with what will happen with me, we're talking about others, not just ourselves, thus you being called selfish. You're happy with these hypothetical miserable situations because "maybe a big strong man will arise from it", and mostly because it doesn't concern you.
Go plant a tree so that others may enjoy its shade anon.

[Anonymous No.6254953]

i'm too autistic to draw but i like art so dont take it away from me please

[Anonymous No.6254970]

>>6254884
>someone is going to correct you
What you did was no correction.
It wasn't a genuine question in the first place, given the answer you have given me.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt by not taking the question in the very literal sense.
You would've known what i meant without me explaining anything, but you didn't hesitate to use my "mistake" against me.
>smug
I'm not acting anything.
What is wrong with you?
>we're talking about the next generations
As i said; only the weak will succumb to madness. That doesn't mean anything of the things you accuse me of.
History is always bound to repeat itself.
>not just ourselves, thus you being called selfish.
If i didn't show any concern i wouldn't be here talking to others. That should be obvious since i'm here talking to others.
Why would i even talk about shit with random strangers if i didn't care?

If I'm not constantly signaling the virtues you hold as correct, is being selfish, then i will be selfish to you no matter what.
If me saying one thing means i must hold another opinion you don't like, then it will be like that no matter what.
You already made up your mind since you're not talking to me, you're talking to a version of me you made up in your mind.
Now that's very selfish.

And since the discussion has regressed to you acting like this and me pointing out how much of a faggot you are, there is no point in talking to you anymore.
>Go plant a tree so that others may enjoy its shade anon.
Stop being weak, then you can plant your own tree.

[Anonymous No.6254988]

>>6254953
this depraved piece of 'art' was built with all the sweat, tears and blood of artists from every point in time. all the varied and human intention behind those works now bastardized for the aim of replacing artists. if you respected art in any capacity you would actually pick up a pencil/brush.

[Anonymous No.6254989]

>>6254718
>t. retard
obviously the algorithm learned that a lot of the artwork has signatures on it and so it may add its own.

[Anonymous No.6254993]

>>6254988
when you say it like that, it makes AI art sound way cooler, heres another piece

[Anonymous No.6254997]

>>6254993
cool thumbnail, then you see the full image and its just a mess

[Anonymous No.6255000]

>>6254997
yeah these are a little messy, ive been trying to get wide angle photos but it wants to make more gobbilty gook

[Anonymous No.6255002]

>>6254823
I only shit on those who deserve it, and artist don't deserve to be shat on.
The people that hype up AI as if it's going to replace real artist tho, that's something else. >>6254976

[Anonymous No.6255003]

>>6255000
this stuff only benefits artists
if you knew how to draw and paint you can take this globby mess and turn it into a really polished and impressive piece
idk why people are so smug about not drawing,

[Anonymous No.6255004]

>>6254989
isn't... that what i implied? retarded pa/g/eet go back to your board.

[Anonymous No.6255005]

>>6255003
wdym only benefits artists? i like looking at it so it benefits me

[Anonymous No.6255011]

>>6255004
>it's even taking the signature from god knows who, poor bastard.
no

[Anonymous No.6255016]

>>6254970
>"What you did was no correction."
It was a hypothetical on a doomsday event, a hypothetical where everyone dies, and you still said strong men will still come of it despite acknowledging it was a stupid response. You look retarded defending this anon. If you can't concede on even the most frivolous things you were wrong on, I agree there is no point in talking to you, because I'm talking to a brick wall. You're opinions are already formed and inflexible and you won't acknowledge anything else.

Also you missed the point that it felt like things could be as bad as a doomsday event; so simply saying "nah strongmen" means nothing to me.

>If i didn't show any concern i wouldn't be here talking to others
Talk and action are two very different things. You're essentially just telling everyone to accept this is happening and to not care and do your own thing. It's very zen, but also very selfish.

>How am I being selfish?
>Stop being weak, then you can plant your own tree.
Incredibly inconsistent anon. Anyway, no more between you and me. Go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.6255027]

>>6255000
>>6255003
>train ai on photobashed art
>generate images that you photobash into concept art
>your "new" art feeds the ai algorithm
>rinse and repeat ad infinitum

[Anonymous No.6255214]

>>6255016
>It was a hypothetical
Thus you aid my previous point.
I would still have the same hypothetical answer.
If it's an hypothetical, you can't apply absolute realism to it.
Now say how hypothetical scenarios have to follow real events all the time.
>despite acknowledging it was a stupid response
Where? That's literally what you made up to keep going on being retarded.
>if you can't concede
Why? You're wrong and dishonest on top of that.
>You're essentially just telling everyone to accept this is happening and to not care
That's not what i'm saying.
That's what you have been saying the whole time because you can't refute any of my points except if you strawman anything i said of if you go off on absolute inane claims.
>Also you missed the point that it felt like things could be as bad as a doomsday event; so simply saying "nah strongmen" means nothing to me.
I got your point and i gave you the answer in good faith.
Just going into an extreme scenario and then pulling
>but everyone dies so you're wrong
proving that you're arguing in bad faith and then going
>but it was an hypothetical
Thus contradicting yourself.
>talk and action are two different things
I'm not going to give anyone handouts.
Someone that lives on handouts, always expects them.
>You're opinions are already formed and inflexible and you won't acknowledge anything else.
Give me a good argument that convinces me instead of throwing insults hoping you'll "win" the discussion by virtue of accusing the other of being the bad guy.
I'm not saying anything wrong, you're just irrational.
>Incredibly inconsistent anon
No it's not.
Good times create weak people.
If i plant trees, future people will take those trees for granted and they will become entitled; pushing weakness as virtue and calling anyone with strength, selfish.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man how to fish and he can feed himself.
>waah waah go fuck yourself waaah
You are a slave to your memes.

[Anonymous No.6255219]

>>6254953
to be fair why would anyone use this ai generated art rather than use the images that were mashed up for its creation?
I mean wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that there are enough reference images in the Ai's database for something like this to be made
is using the original images not technically more efficient than having some esoteric arcane horror mash up images for an inherently derivative product?
like legit at what point will people realize that just having an optimized browser is almost as good as "creating" Ai "art?

am i missing something here?
stringing along a slurry of keywords and praying for the best can't be fulfilling for the artist beyond trying to rub the result in everyone's face yeah?
so if the process doesn't give any fulfillment and efficiency wise having an optimized image browser is more energy and time efficient then who exactly is the Ai field marketting their shit to?
you can't tell me ruthless megacorps/consumers wont immediately realize how redundant this whole flavor of the year thingamajig is

am i missing something here how isn't anyone talking about this
if there is enough "reference" for an Ai to create a gimmick derivative wouldn't it stand to reason that just using the original refernces themselves be apt?

[Anonymous No.6255239]

>>6255219
to expand on this and make it easier to understand
say there's a newfangled cook who can pick and choose bits and pieces from other people' just as good dishes to create "original" food dishes with reasonable good taste
but the guy demands payment for said service while other food is widely and more easily available to everyone with an internet connection.
now the patrons who "prompt" said new chef think themselves savant chefs while they talk down to aspiring new chef's out of entitlement
said patrons cant hold a knife cant run a stove nor know an onion from a tomato yet claim that their chef outperforms all for a price while the original dishes said chef samples are freely available to all.
now are these patrons don't realize that thinking themselves maestros of the kitchen for slightly influencing a machine chef sampling dishes from other good chefs
When will people realize that thusly the derivative dishes the new chef produce for a hefty price no less will still never be as efficient as or as subtly apt as a true chef

when will the masquerade end?
how long till they realize?
they stand on the shoulders of giants yet think themselves titans
such is the folly of lesser men

[Anonymous No.6255248]

>>6255219
right? instead of going "i want something in X's style" and then getting derivative mangled visual garbage just hire X...its that easy, and they will even make it any way you request but for real!

[Anonymous No.6255253]

>>6255248
it doesn't even cost much, most artists work for peanuts lol. how poor do you have to be that you can't afford a twitter artists commissions? this ai nonsense only appeals to useless neets who can't afford an actual artist. it's like how neets watch internet porn while everyone else hires escorts. ai generates art is the shameful lonely porn of the art world.

[Anonymous No.6255254]

>>6255248
is this why the Ai fags ahve been shilling strawman arguments at full force for the past month?
was the whole sperging out to distract from the ultimate irrelevance of glorified mash-up images when the orignals are quite literally out there and available?
financially i see no way that real artists will ever be irrelevant by some glorified search engine fearmongering?
if the financial application is gimmicky and potential liable to be hit by massive regulations in the near future,
and the creation process itself has no nuaced self expression besides stringing together words like toddler,
then who exactly is the Ai gimmick being marketted to? desperate NGMIs who'll want to take the easy "innovative" new way?
I mean besides like maybe 2 attention whores i see no other justification for the dedicated guerilla marketting being done here specifically

have we jus stumbled upon the silver bullet for this entire gimmick "service"

[Anonymous No.6255255]

>>6255254
dumb frogposter is being dumb
i bet 12 years ago you were like "bitcoin? sounds like bs"

[Anonymous No.6255262]

>>6255219
>who exactly is the Ai field marketting their shit to?
Investors.
Some backwater place gave an AI piece a 1# place prize and all artist suddenly fear they are out of business?
Please, this is textbook mass hysteria.

It boils down to that anon, they are stirring shit so they can justify getting more money to keep producing this shit, people are getting paid to develop this stupid technology.
Is it worthless? Yeah, totally, it's a solution for a problem that does not exist, but people love their new toy, and someone out there is getting paid to make it work and justify their existence.

I mean, having an AI do something that's actually useful is incredibly expensive, look at boston dynamics for example, that's just out of the reach for most people and companies.
Now, making a shitty AI that will pump out shitty pictures? Yeah now that's a lot cheaper, fast and easy.

[Anonymous No.6255268]

>>6255219
>>6255254

>mashed-up images

really not how it works though. the images are generated from pure noise; there is no "mashing up" of images from the training set happening. but all that doesn't matter though. i am just really glad to see you artfags seethe. i hope they replace your faster.

[Anonymous No.6255274]

>>6255262
can Ai accomplish shit that some poor bugman won't make for cheaper?
even as the bottom of the barrel application i dont see how Ai will compete with good ol human labour
what an entertaining timeline

[Anonymous No.6255277]

>>6255003
this devalues the work and fucks over artists' pay. For a little bit people will be forced to use ai to barely make any money, until they can no longer get money from their work. This shit is awful, you fucked up art and you're too afraid to admit it

[Anonymous No.6255278]

>>6255268
>generated from pure noise; there is no "mashing up" of images
why does it need images fed into it to create derivative images then? just don't take any artists work ever or any photograph and you're fine ;)

[Anonymous No.6255279]

>>6255277
this is "ooooo cheap bugmen will kill western artists" all over again
didn't happen then won't happen now go fearmonger elsewhere you're not convincing anyone here

[Anonymous No.6255284]

>>6255278
>>6255268
Actually, it's not noise, the AI has to decompose every single piece of artwork into basic elements like colors and lines and add a ton of tags to each element. Basically it turns art into a mathematical formula, so to say.

So when you ask it to draw you a picture, it just tries to guess what goes where based on it's visual library.

That's what the AI is, it's just a visual library that can only replicate or remix things. Sadly many humans are like this too.

So to say AI does not mash up images, it's just like those art thieves that copy how the mona lisa looks and then tries to sell it as the real thing, but instead of making an exact copy, they just stop midway to add a detail or two that's different and call it their own "Original art"
I guess this is similar to an exquisite corpse in some way.

[Anonymous No.6255291]

>>6255278
>why does it need images fed into it to create derivative images then? just don't take any artists work ever or any photograph and you're fine ;)
>humans never get to see other artists' work nor are they inspired by them.
hmmmm

>>6255284
>Actually, it's not noise, the AI has to decompose every single piece of artwork into basic elements like colors and lines and add a ton of tags to each element. Basically it turns art into a mathematical formula, so to say.

>So when you ask it to draw you a picture, it just tries to guess what goes where based on it's visual library.

you're an absolute retard of the highest order. it wouldn't be called 'AI' if that's what it did. there is no 'visual library'. it learns how to generate images from pure noise.

https://huggingface.co/blog/annotated-diffusion

[Anonymous No.6255295]

>>6255284
>it's just a visual library that can only replicate or remix things
qed.
it only gets better when it gets more and more samey art so it can output more 'spcific/detailed' samey art. and even aforementioned art still needs to be created by humans first, so it cant even do that by itself.
boring

[Anonymous No.6255298]

>>6255214
Didn't read. We were done, remember?

>>6255268
>the images are generated from pure noise; there is no "mashing up" of images from the training set happening
God I hate these AI fags who don't even know how it either works or are purposely obfuscating it because they're too ashamed to admit their new toy might not be totally morally, or legally, okay.
How does the AI know that a particular pixel pattern is what it is, that its pure noise somewhat resembles a banana or is in the style of a particular artist? Because it's had loads of images of bananas, and images from said artist, pumped into its pattern recognition software and knows how to recreate them. It isn't creating anything new, it's pasting together many different patterns (in other words pieces of the works that are in its library).
If it weren't essentially just mashing works together, we wouldn't get those funny examples where the i-stock water mark was on top, or where there's clearly an artist's signature in the corner.
Saying "it's not mashing things together, it's using noise" is pure cope, it doesn't matter how the AI draws, what matters is behind the scenes and how it got its library of materials.

If you like the AI that's fine, and think using artists work to make the software was fair use, but don't lie about it.

[Anonymous No.6255302]

>>6255291
>it wouldn't be called 'AI' if that's what it did
Lmao son that's literally what it does, do you know how a GPU works?
A GPU draws pictures out of """"noise"""" too does that makes it an AI?
Do you think this shit somehow looks at 300 pictures and goes like "Hmm yes I now understand what humans mean by art, i shall replicate these pictures"

No, man, the AI is just a mathematical formula that gets an input and shits out an output, when you tell an AI to draw you a line, it has no fucking idea what a line is, but it's visual library knows that a line is "most likely" a big square in the middle of a canvas, it "knows" this because it's visual library has told it this.
So to say, when you say "rabbit" the AI might jump to the part of it's visual library that has things tagged as "rabbit" so it can "draw" you what is "most likely" a rabbit.

You know why this shit is called artificial intelligence? Because that's cool and flashy and it makes the headlines. If you call this shit anything else people will either not understand what it is or just not care.
We do not have artificial intelligences, it's laughable to compare this to any sort of intelligence, this is a system of ropes and pulleys, it takes an input and it gives you an output.

[Anonymous No.6255318]

>>6255298
>God I hate these AI fags who don't even know how it either works or are purposely obfuscating it because they're too ashamed to admit their new toy might not be totally morally, or legally, okay.

hey retard, the code it right in front of me. I've been playing with small diffusion models before artfags on twitter started seething. anyone who understand what it does would tell you you're a fucking retard if you think it mashes up images. there are no images that get mashed up; the images are only used to learn a distribution. it tries to create a 'real' sample from a purely isotropic gaussian noise by learning how to redo noise added to images in a series of steps.

>How does the AI know that a particular pixel pattern is what it is, that its pure noise somewhat resembles a banana or is in the style of a particular artist? Because it's had loads of images of bananas, and images from said artist, pumped into its pattern recognition software and knows how to recreate them

yes this is what exactly humans do no? are you born knowing what a banana is or do you have to see it first? are you born knowing how to paint or do you have to see see picutes first of real life and other paintings?


>It isn't creating anything new, it's pasting together many different patterns (in other words pieces of the works that are in its library).

it's literally not though you fucking idiot. i would like to see you reverse image search some of the creations and you find an exact match and show it to me. it may create lot's of similar images depending on what you prompt.


>Saying "it's not mashing things together, it's using noise" is pure cope, it doesn't matter how the AI draws, what matters is behind the scenes and how it got its library of materials.

that's literally how it works though. so you're the one coping. the artists were at fault for putting their work online. there is nothing wrong with looking at artwork and learning from it. that's what the ai does.

[Anonymous No.6255322]

>>6255302
>>6255291
Look, you can see what i'm talking about in this very article you sent me.

>However, we don't know p(xt−1∣xt)p(\mathbf{x}_{t-1} | \mathbf{x}_t)p(xt−1∣xt). It's intractable since it requires knowing the distribution of all possible images in order to calculate this conditional probability. Hence, we're going to leverage a neural network to approximate (learn) this conditional probability distribution, let's call it pθ(xt−1∣xt)p_\theta (\mathbf{x}_{t-1} | \mathbf{x}_t)pθ(xt−1∣xt), with θ\thetaθ being the parameters of the neural network, updated by gradient descent.

>reparametrize the mean to make the neural network learn (predict) the added noise (via a network ϵθ(xt,t)\mathbf{\epsilon}_\theta(\mathbf{x}_t, t)ϵθ(xt,t)) for noise level ttt in the KL terms which constitute the losses. This means that our neural network becomes a noise predictor, rather than a (direct) mean predictor.

>The neural network needs to take in a noised image at a particular time step and return the predicted noise.
>What is typically used here is very similar to that of an Autoencoder, The encoder first encodes an image into a smaller hidden representation called the "bottleneck", and the decoder then decodes that hidden representation back into an actual image. This forces the network to only keep the most important information in the bottleneck layer.

>In terms of architecture, the DDPM authors went for a U-Net. This network, like any autoencoder, consists of a bottleneck in the middle that makes sure the network learns only the most important information. Importantly, it introduced residual connections between the encoder and decoder, greatly improving gradient flow
>As can be seen, a U-Net model first downsamples the input (i.e. makes the input smaller in terms of spatial resolution), after which upsampling is performed.

[Anonymous No.6255323]

>>6255279
well, the bug did, kinda, depends on the field. Fields like commercials, medicine, insurance, and other health adjacent field ( like 3D for anatomical reconstruction) where it's well unionized, lowkey 6 figure no kidding, Even Movie, US animation position could still get 40-50 bucks an hour.

Meanwhile, a field like video games is an absolute shit show and a race to the bottom. Works get outsourced for cheap in mass and even the bugmen know either AI or Africans gonna replace them for cheaper, whatever comes first.

That's why it's good to encourage lawyering up and at least try to fight them instead of just letting AI freely dunk on artists. At the end of the day, only financial incentives and Jew lawyering matter

[Anonymous No.6255324]

>>6255318
why people still replying to dumbasses like this anon here
read the amount of cope in defending these photobashing apps, they cant even describe what it does with it being just a long winded way of saying "photobash"

stop engaging with these nft/crypto tier retards and the /g/ pajeets

[Anonymous No.6255328]

>>6255291
>>humans never get to see other artists' work nor are they inspired by them.
if you copy another artist's distictive artstyle people will eat you alive. it is exactly as frowned upon, be it ai or human.
if you want your machine to process and not just look at the art, you still have to ask for rights or buy rights, just like people making tattoos of existing art or fashion prints of existing art for example.
on top of that, plenty of people look at art without being able to copy it so its obviously not the same...

[Anonymous No.6255333]

>>6255322
you think that aitard can even comprehend what the article says?
these people are just npc bots defending their point blindly

[Anonymous No.6255338]

>>6255302
>A GPU draws pictures out of """"noise"""" too does that makes it an AI?

no it doesn't retard. gpus are explicity programmed to run a set of instructions. they are in no way similar to how diffusion models work


>No, man, the AI is just a mathematical formula that gets an input and shits out an output, when you tell an AI to draw you a line, it has no fucking idea what a line is, but it's visual library knows that a line is "most likely" a big square in the middle of a canvas, it "knows" this because it's visual library has told it this.
So to say, when you say "rabbit" the AI might jump to the part of it's visual library that has things tagged as "rabbit" so it can "draw" you what is "most likely" a rabbit.

once again you are showing you have no idea how diffusion models work. go learn how diffusion models work then maybe we can have a proper conversation.


>You know why this shit is called artificial intelligence? Because that's cool and flashy and it makes the headlines. If you call this shit anything else people will either not understand what it is or just not care.
We do not have artificial intelligences, it's laughable to compare this to any sort of intelligence, this is a system of ropes and pulleys, it takes an input and it gives you an output.

because it's trying to mimick how humans learn? and its not explicitly told how to do something. it's funny that this system of rope and pulleys was able to beat the best humans at go (go fags said it would never beat the best humans at go) and now they are making artists seethe. huh

[Anonymous No.6255339]

>>6255298
>can't argue for shit
>gets outed as the dishonest nigger he is
>lol lmao didn't read
Anyone still taking anything you say seriously is as low IQ as you are.

[Anonymous No.6255346]

>>6255322
ok? the UNET is used for to learn for the denoising step. this has absolutely nothing to do with what you said

[Anonymous No.6255348]

>>6255324
so no argument? cope

[Anonymous No.6255355]

>>6255302
>No, man, the AI is just a mathematical formula that gets an input and shits out an output
So why can it generate different data from same prompt, retard? It's using noise as a seed along with prompts

[Anonymous No.6255356]

>>6255355
you're talking to idiots who don't even know what noise is.

[Anonymous No.6255404]

>>6252291
Is a cloud art? What if it's really pretty?

[Anonymous No.6255417]

>>6255404
do humans prompt clouds into existence?

[Anonymous No.6255418]

Right now it's still controversial. Which is a red flag that the idea/medium is either:

A) a fad that will be eventually fade with time

B) groundbreaking to the point that those who currently exist in said timeframe are unable to fully grasp what lies ahead


Until someone feeds an AI to the point that we can all relax and watch ai generated content catered to our individual taste, then we're probably all fucked at that point anyways

>doo boo boo

>"what was the internet like in the 2020's?"

>that is correct. 600 points to anon, putting him in the lead ahead of tumblrina and glowies

[Anonymous No.6255421]

>>6255417
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding

[Anonymous No.6255424]

>>6255421
then, yes clouds are art. anything made by humans can be art.

[Anonymous No.6255428]

>>6255424
Yeah, stretch that definition until it's meaningless.

[Anonymous No.6255431]

>>6255356
Everytime I see one of these retards talk about "muh algorithm" a vein pops

[Anonymous No.6255432]

>>6255428
cope

[Anonymous No.6255437]

>>6255432
You're almost there.

[Anonymous No.6255438]

>>6252291
yeah, it looks sick
gonna post some ai art that I like, Im looking forward to nitpick cope-posts

[Anonymous No.6255444]

[Anonymous No.6255446]

[Anonymous No.6255448]

>>6252693
>algorithmic mash-ups
>being this ignorant of why the AI is rising this fast
Anon. The AI is "learning" from the data its fed same way a human learn how to draw from images. No one in the world learnt art from nothing and even if they did they used real life data from their eyes to learn how things looks.
The difference between good AI art and bad one is almost same as a human made with how much copy or tracing they do from their learning materials.

[Anonymous No.6255450]

[Anonymous No.6255456]

[Anonymous No.6255509]

>>6254793
>It's simple we eat the batman

[Anonymous No.6255549]

>>6255448
>The AI is "learning" from the data its fed same way a human learn how to draw from images
wrong, dumb technigger. why don't you read about how the process actually works before shilling it? you stupid midnight black gorilla nigger. my day job is machine learning so don't try to feed me your jewish silicon valley buzzword salad and expect me to fall for it.

[Anonymous No.6255566]

>>6255549
Ah yes, because twitter artists seething here about AI would totally understand if we talked about gradient descent

[Anonymous No.6255571]

[Anonymous No.6255578]

>>6255339
>gets outed as the dishonest nigger he is
I'd ask how, but we're done remember? This is sad.

>>6255318
>I've been playing with small diffusion models before artfags on twitter started seething.
Yeah yeah, sure sure.

>there are no images that get mashed up
Oh so no images are used to make the AI?
>the images are only used to learn a distribution.
And there it is. So essentially what I said.

>yes this is what exactly humans do no?
Doesn't matter. Is the AI developed using others' images? The answer is yes. The rest can be sorted out by the law.

>it's literally not though you fucking idiot.
But you just wrote : "the images are only used to learn a distribution. it tries to create a 'real' sample from a purely isotropic gaussian noise by learning how to redo noise", in other words it's trying to copy sections of other images pixel by pixel no? And of course it won't find anything by reverse image searching, it's slapping together a bunch of different element that don't look like the originals.

>that's literally how it works though. so you're the one coping. the artists were at fault for putting their work online.
>the artists were at fault for putting their work online.
And that's it. That is the reason you're arguing this; because you feel it's okay to take others work that's been placed online, but now that others are brining up how this is a problem, you're trying desperately to defend it. Pretty Weak Anon.

>>6255324
Essentially, but I do want to know what's going on in their heads. Like if you don't think it's a problem to take others work to use it to make your AI, that's fine, lawyers will sort that out. However arguing in this big bullshit why to distract from the fact that those images were taken is such horseshit. These AIs mish-mash people's work together to create something new, that's fine - arguing against that just makes it look like you're desperately hiding something.

[Anonymous No.6255587]

>>6255578
so let me gethis straight, human artists never look at others people work? they never learn from other people? they aren't inspired by other people? they are just born and start painting right away without ever seeing how painting is done and the different styles out there? good to know

[Anonymous No.6255589]

>>6255587
biggest fucking strawman you aicucks use

[Anonymous No.6255598]

>>6255589
Its not though. human artists look at others people work and learn from it, are inspired by and perhaps may even improve their technique by seeing other work. same goes for ai

that's why it's fair use. because the ai is merely 'learns' from pubclicly available work. anyone, inluding ai, can look at it, so its fair use. no amount of screeching will change that.

[Anonymous No.6255601]

>>6252291
No

[Anonymous No.6255616]

>>6252291
Picture isn't. Prompt is!

[Anonymous No.6255629]

>>6255587
>Doesn't matter. Is the AI developed using others' images? The answer is yes. The rest can be sorted out by the law.

[Anonymous No.6255674]

>>6255629
What's the problem with looking at an artwork?
This is worse than the NFT fad lmao, it was "noo you can't right click save my work" now it's "noo you can't view my artwork"

[Anonymous No.6255681]

>>6255674
>Doesn't matter. Is the AI developed using others' images? The answer is yes. The rest can be sorted out by the law.
What are you not getting from this? I'm not making any moral judgments or saying it's wrong, but I'm sick of AI fags obfuscating whether or not the fucking AIs even use others' art in the first place, when the answer is clear; Yes, yes they are. The law can judge the rest.

[Anonymous No.6255689]

>>6255681
>still have no IP laws compatible with computers existing
>letting boomers legislate on cutting-edge technology
>expecting it to regulate anything
How do you even know if someone used an image for training a neural network without having literal botnets everywhere combing through every action you make on a computer?

[Anonymous No.6255690]

>AI fags obfuscating whether or not the fucking AIs even use others' art in the first place
Nobody obfuscated this. The issue is that ignoramuses who don't understand how the models work think that the "use" implies they internally somehow store those hundreds of gigabytes of photos, and when prompted do a lasso select, copy, paste, transform and blend until they get the final image - hence the "photobashing" accusation. This is a misconception that anyone who argues against AI should be happy to have corrected as it is easier to make a convincing counterargument when you know what you're talking about. On the other hand, people who suffer from Dunning-Kruger, will tend to put their ego first and ignore the fact that they're wrong, because they just want to "win" a debate, which they consider to be like a stupid video game.

[Anonymous No.6255696]

>>6255681
wait until you hear about fair use.

https://phys.org/news/2016-04-supreme-court-google-online-library.html


>Google wins long US court battle on book-scanning

>Google's massive book-scanning project cleared its final legal hurdle Monday as the US Supreme Court denied an appeal contending it violates copyright law.

>In a decade-long case, authors and their backers claimed Google was illegally scanning and digitizing millions of books without compensation to the copyright holders.


>But the ruling by federal judge Denny Chin, backed by an appellate court panel, said the colossal project in which Google allows users to search books and see snippets of text was "fair use" under copyright law.
besides, even if this is not deemed fair-use, it's kinda of already too late. nothing can be done. the models are online and open source. https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion.. whatever ruling a judge makes now will have a very little effect.

[Anonymous No.6255704]

>>6255549
>my day job is machine learning
Weird flex anon. I work in Machine learning and for research on image related subjects too. Not that I think that i need to flex it in a discussion kek.
I am not sure how you can miss the basic knowledge of the fact that NEURAL networks are literally inspired by how our brains work. And why it is called machine "LEARNING" and not machine "MEMORIZATION". Do you think also that good classification models memorize the training data? Ever heard of something called overfitting and why it is the job of people like us to solve it?

[Anonymous No.6255712]

>>6255704
Idk what he means by "day job is machine learning" by not knowing anything. Like even I who only did a month or two of self-taught ML for an internship gets the gist of the issue

[Anonymous No.6255713]

>>6255601
Holy based Jesus praise Mohammad

[Anonymous No.6255719]

>>6255689
Well for now, we know what's being used as they're all apparently using the same image library which is entirely made up of others' work. Otherwise legal action would have to taken to show what resources they'd used.

>>6255690
>hence the "photobashing" accusation.
I think you're being too uncharitable with the comparison; to me it's just more to say that many different images came together to form the new ones (which isn't far from the truth). Sure the images aren't literally being cut up and pasted together as a collage, but the AI literally wouldn't exist if it weren't for it taking in all the pieces of work as a dataset.

>>6255696
Yes yes, I already know about fair-use, which is why looking at what will happen legally is so interesting
>even if this is not deemed fair-use, it's kinda of already too late
Nah, if it was deemed not fair-use, artists and companies could just send cease and desist claims to any company profiting from/supplying this stuff. Sure individuals could still use it easily, but I doubt most are too concerned with that, and if no companies could officially supply these AIs, they'd fall somewhat into obscurity.
After all who's going to bother torrenting Stable Diffusion?

[Anonymous No.6255722]

The last dozen I've made have the face obscured. Does it know it's bad at faces?

[Anonymous No.6255727]

>>6255722
You're just doing it wrong.

[Anonymous No.6255729]

>>6255722
Were you trying to make an ogre or goblin? And don't they all have that feature where you can expand out of the image as well, or is that a future feature?

[Anonymous No.6255735]

>>6255719
>to me it's just more to say that many different images came together to form the new ones (which isn't far from the truth)
It's very far from the truth. From a mathematical standpoint, the labeled images are only a mean of approximating a function that takes in a embedding vector (prompt) and seed (random noise) to make an image described by the prompt. It's even worse from a CS perspective, because these image themselves are never fed to the actual generating network in any capacity, only the adversarial network did see those images for the purpose of detecting fakes.

[Anonymous No.6255737]

>>6255727
nice
>>6255729
sexy orc lady. I'm using the stable diffusion demo rn and I don't think it has that feature. Which one should I be using?

[Anonymous No.6255741]

>>6255737
I wrote "face included in image" lol

[Anonymous No.6255749]

>>6255737
Got the boys too.

[Anonymous No.6255751]

>>6255719
the us has a very strong fair use law so i would put good money on fair use winning. banining training on copy righted work would be a step backwards. it would be halting technological progress and i doubt anyone (in the upper echolons) really wants that. because other countries will do it anyways. you wouldn't want your ai research to fall behind would you?

but yeah let's wait and see.

[Anonymous No.6255752]

>>6255719
>to me it's just more to say that many different images came together to form the new ones (which isn't far from the truth).


that's not how it works at all

[Anonymous No.6255753]

>>6255751
Yeah, what if you just scrap images and train the network in a server in another country, what the fuck happens? Are they gonna ban AI in the US if the dataset isn't public and copyright-free?

[Anonymous No.6255757]

>>6255735
I'm talking about the dataset that was used to create the AI. You're getting into the semantics rather than looking at the overall picture. Was the AI developed using other peoples' art? The answer is yes, we know that is the case.
Talking about how the AI actually "draws" the images, the technicalities, or anything else is besides the point. I know it might irk you since you are obviously more knowledgeable about these things, but put that aside and look at what is actually being said or meant by the laymen.
The real question is whether using someone else's art to develop this AI is considered fair use or not. I'm curious to see.

>>6255741
Well... she definitely has a... face(?) now

[Anonymous No.6255766]

>>6255751
Banning the use copyrighted images as training materiel for machine learning would slow down the progress in the field by years if not decades in said country.
And we now there are people that won't play those rules (China/Russia). I think it would be very risky for US to cripple its tech companies.
>>6255719
>but the AI literally wouldn't exist if it weren't for it taking in all the pieces of work as a dataset.
The problem is human artist wouldn't exist without references or images from his eyes to learn from too.
If you ask someone to draw a wolf. He would know the shape from real life wolf images he saw a kid maybe. He would know how to draw fur because he read some tutorial with examples or saw some reference onlines etc...
The human is only superior in combining what he learn. But the AI is catching up on that too ( combining artstyles/ different objects or concepts ...).

[Anonymous No.6255769]

>>6255757
>Was the AI developed using other peoples' art? The answer is yes, we know that is the case.

you know GPT-3, among other models, was also trained on copy righted material and it sees large commercial use here and there. i am curious as to what you thing has changed? why do you think it's going to be different this time?

[Anonymous No.6255774]

>>6255766
Oh yes, because ai art machines are real important in Cold War 2.0

[Anonymous No.6255780]

>>6255751
>you wouldn't want your ai research to fall behind would you?
Nah, but I wouldn't want people to lose jobs are feel... Disenfranchised(?) by this AI either. AI art is fascinating, but also one of the most unneeded applications of AI in my opinion. It mostly only benefits corpos all too willing to cut costs.

That said, a point for it being fair-use is that we can actively tell how it will damage those who's work has been taken; they'll no longer be employed.

Whether or not lawyers will be able to actively convey that, or defend that in court will be another thing though. So yes, let's wait and see.

>>6255766
>The problem is human artist wouldn't exist without references or images from his eyes to learn from too.
It always comes back to this argument, and to me it's like getting lost in the weeds. I don't think we can compare humans and AI in this way. Humans are naturally influenced, AI's have to be made to use something as a influence. Not to mention a singular person influenced by someone's work is not as damaging as an AI influenced by someone's work.

[Anonymous No.6255784]

>>6255769
People just didn't care previously (or at least as much), and now they do care.

[Anonymous No.6255785]

>>6255774
> ai art machines are real important in Cold War 2.0

it's not about art machines. it's about the research. you'll never know what you'll learn from tinkering with specific model architecture and how it may apply to a different domain.

[Anonymous No.6255788]

>>6255780
>Nah, but I wouldn't want people to lose jobs are feel... Disenfranchised(?) by this AI either. AI art is fascinating, but also one of the most unneeded applications of AI in my opinion. It mostly only benefits corpos all too willing to cut costs.

this is a normal part of technological progress. you either move along and adapt or stay behind. it's not the first time in history this is happening and it's certainly not the last.

[Anonymous No.6255805]

>>6255780
>It always comes back to this argument, and to me it's like getting lost in the weeds. I don't think we can compare humans and AI in this way. Humans are naturally influenced, AI's have to be made to use something as a influence. Not to mention a singular person influenced by someone's work is not as damaging as an AI influenced by someone's work.
AItards have no rebuttal

[Anonymous No.6255809]

>>6255788
>this is a normal part of technological progress
True, but we probably also just forget things that get dropped. Though I don't think AI art is going anywhere, but how accepted it will be and the incoming public perception of AI made culture will effect its use.

And of course when the lawsuits eventually come and get settled as well, will decide its future.

[Anonymous No.6255818]

>>6255805
There's no substance in those sentences. Half of it is plain wrong, artists make half their money by suing others.

[Anonymous No.6255828]

>>6255809

>but how accepted it will be and the incoming public perception of AI made culture will effect its use.

most people seem to be loving it. the average joe is absolutely loving the fact that he can now dream pictures into reality within seconds for free. small to medium sized businesses will appreciate it as well. Most of the people who are pissed are artists and understandably so. some artists are also loving it and now are using it daily.

i just don't see how they can win again the majority

[Anonymous No.6255829]

>>6255818
Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean there’s no substance

[Anonymous No.6255833]

>>6255828
it’s just a fad. You can’t copyright ai made images

[Anonymous No.6255834]

some of these are just spectacular

[Anonymous No.6255842]

[Anonymous No.6255847]

>>6255829
being wrong isn't substance

[Anonymous No.6255851]

>>6255818
What part is wrong?
Is it the part where they say humans are naturally influenced?
The part where they say that machines have to be made to be influenced by something?
Or is it the part where it's said that a human drawing influence is not as damaging as an AI drawing influence?

I can tell you what is wrong though, this sentence:
>artists make half their money by suing others.

>>6255828
>most people seem to be loving it.
True, but NFTs and crypto weren't initially hated and were seen as just interesting odysseys. It's when music and writing and other areas get effected, or just when it generally touches more areas of our daily lives, that will show how people feel about it; right now it's simply a fun toy to the general public.

[Anonymous No.6255853]

>>6252291
Yes and better than everyone in this board.

[Anonymous No.6255866]

>>6255851
>True, but NFTs and crypto weren't initially hated and were seen as just interesting odysseys.

yeah i wouldn't compare this to NFTs. NFTs have no actual use. This is an AI model; *good* AI models always see actual real world use and improvement. this will only get better overtime and will be adopted by a lot. Take GPT-3 and countless others like it as an example.

And the use doesn't always have to be explicit and visible. you just might never know what part the AI played.

[Anonymous No.6256189]

>>6255774
Oh yeah AI is totally not important in the new age tech race. I guess artistic integerity ,that is already crushed by every corporation, is ?
I guess It is okay to let the enemy have a better AI models that can recognize a human weakpoint , allegiance and actions to make quick decision in battle because some online deviantartists are angry about their copyright and our army have to pay every single person before using their picture from internet.
Lets not talk about the whole domino effect of discouraging breakthroughs or creating new small tech companies in general in the field because of better environment in other companies

[Anonymous No.6256190]

>>6252300

[Anonymous No.6256191]

>>6256189
* better environment in other countries

[Anonymous No.6256192]

>>6256189
oh i see, the cope

[Anonymous No.6256196]

>>6255735
>labeled images are only a mean of approximating a function that takes in a embedding vector
so they are being used for creating new images, thank you, back to /g/

[Anonymous No.6256220]

>>6252291
Only in the same sense that an random photograph is. It cannot capture deeper meaning, cannot capture soul. It will always have a cold, clinical overtone that it cannot escape

[Anonymous No.6256299]

Tbh, if the eternal hedonistic future sold to us by tech-fetishists sound so bleak and so depressing that if it ever started to come to fruition i would make it my life goal to kill in minecraft those who wishes so desperately to live forever.
Could you imagine the absolute dread a 50 yo life long singularity worshipper feel as you plunge your diamond sword into his chest, just a day before his appointment with the doctor ready to start his immortality program?

Cooming at the thought.

[Anonymous No.6256364]

>>6256299
I planned to live as a monk and stay isolated from singularity AI egregore demon for as long as I lived, but with these newfound conspiracies you just know they're going to put giant 6G towers on the roof of every building to feed the caiac19 holodeck research.
I didn't even draw for money, all I wanted was to get my messages across to other people, but now you have all these AI generated images and posts filling up everywhere, soon aimed to leak out of the virtual world with robotic applications. Well, the day AI pictures become impossible to differentiate from human ones, I will feel all wordly burdens I had wash away for a conclusive art project

[Anonymous No.6256811]

>>6256192
https://www.wired.com/story/ai-drones-russia-ukraine/

Keep seething artcel

[Anonymous No.6258223]

>>6252355
>>6252452
No, Hes an owlsician

[Anonymous No.6258235]

>>6256299
I found this minecraft fan fiction highly engaging, good work.

[Anonymous No.6260480]

>>6252546
You have never programmed and it shows

[Anonymous No.6260505]

>>6252329
1. human codes neural network
2. robotic scraper hoovers up everything on the internet
3. consumer inputs word salad (which might as well be automated by a simple random word generator or a cat walking across a keyboard, and would probably generate more interesting results on average - not to mention when compared to GPT)
4. consumer consooms image
Only steps 1 and 3 require any creativity, of which only 3 could (barely) be classified as artistic creativity, let alone direct, deep or visual expression of anything. It's like playing Chinese whispers with a cold slop dispenser.

[Anonymous No.6260622]

>>6260480
>P-PROGRAMMING IS ART T-T-TOO!!
lol

[Anonymous No.6260660]

>>6260480
I am a - prográmour

[Anonymous No.6260737]

>>6255444
I like this one, what was the prompt?

[Anonymous No.6260773]

>>6252468
Technically, all of those images were made by a human :)

[Anonymous No.6260950]

>>6252291
AI THREADS CURRENTLY ALIVE ON /ic/: 22

TWENTY

FUCKING

TWO

22

XXII

二十二

KILL YOURSELF FOR MAKING ANOTHER ONE!
KILL YOURSELF IF YOU BUMP THESE THREADS!
KILL YOURSELF IF YOU ARE A USELESS JANNY WHO ALLOWS THINGS TO GET TO THIS POINT!

KILL

YOUR

SELF

>>6260826
>>6260824
>>6260752
>>6260397
>>6260393
>>6260388
>>6259388
>>6259686
>>6259244
>>6258966
>>6258310
>>6257144
>>6256450
>>6255723
>>6255852
>>6254804
>>6252892
>>6252291
>>6247885
>>6245562
>>6245315
>>6235330

[Anonymous No.6261690]

>>6252291
>Is AI art... art?
/ic/rabs are delicious
>heheh art can be literally anything!
>*skims through a young Austrian artist's work*
>"this is shit goy, rejected"
>"anyways as I was saying, art can be literally anything, scribble on a canvas? Art! A shitty incoherent mess of a sculpture? Art! A literal can of shit! Masterful art, so avant gard look at us we are so intelligent and smug durrr

>UHH AXKHUALLY AI ART ISN'T ART! BECAUSE UH.. ITS DOESN'T HAVE SOUL! IT'S A MACHINE! A HUMAN DIDN'T DO IT! IT'S USING 12 BILLION IMAGES AS REFERENCES! THAT'S LITERALLY CHEATING!! IT'S JUST PHOTO BASHING!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>THE UNITED NATIONS NEED TO PASS A BINDING RESOLUTION TO BAN AI!!!
>oh BTW basic sketch will be $25

the "vanguard of art" people are suddenly gatekeepers of artistic creativity.

[Anonymous No.6261832]

>>6261690
Gtp3 bot randomly adding a reference to hitler as if thats relevant, but anything to keep the forced meme of (((nazism))) alive i guess

[Anonymous No.6261898]

>>6252468
the only that might be real is number 4

[Anonymous No.6261942]

>>6261832
>everything I don't like is a ai
A child's guide to coping and seething
>is the ai in the room right now?

[Anonymous No.6262031]

>>6261942
>is the ai in the room right now?
Said the ai

[Anonymous No.6263301]

>>6252291
Yes.

[Anonymous No.6263319]

>>6261690
people on IC think abstract art is largely trash

[Anonymous No.6263415]

>>6252364
Happily
And it's garnered with more soul than three thousands of ai generated wallpapers.

[Anonymous No.6263419]

sage, make it more fun please, i want to make more memes about apes

[Anonymous No.6263457]

>>6252291
No. And it's unfinished.

The real question is : why no one tried to kill the programmers? I mean,
in my country freemasons tried to kill a woman for less than that.

[Anonymous No.6263522]

>>6255727
>>6255749
Give me the PROOOOOOOMPT

[Anonymous No.6264290]

>>6252382
Similar to how your brain takes things you've seen and mashes them up into new ideas that your hand then creates? IDGAF if it is art or not, what it is is an amazing tool that helps better visualize the incoherent schizo shit I think is fun to draw. An amazing wellspring of inspiration.

[Anonymous No.6264293]

>>6252382
>>6252569
Uhhh why is bloodborne cover man appearing here surely it didnt just photobash him from a google pic right AIbros?

[Anonymous No.6264304]

>>6264293
Whatever proompt you used to get this so called evidence, delete it.

[Anonymous No.6264315]

>DELETE THE PROMPT IMMEDIATELY
>IT HAS NO CONNECTIONS TO CAIAC19

[Anonymous No.6264734]

Has anyone asked A.I. if A.I. art is art?

[Anonymous No.6264736]

>>6252291
AI art is no less of an art than digital art.

Breaking boundaries and being innovative always had important place in art, and AI perfectly fits that. Saying that something isn't art simply because it doesn't use your preferred pipeline of producing art is dishonest at best. As long as your audience enjoys your end result, the means of archiving that does not matter.
Of course you can use it in a boring, uninspired way by providing it random prompt and getting random result. But just as well you can open your digital painting program of choosing and use some random fancy brushes on it and get same soulless results in similar manner, just less pretty. But if you know what you want to express and are proficient in the tools you are using, you can produce something that people will appreciate and find enjoyable.
All AI can do is make some things somewhat of pretty, without any substance. If you feel threatened by an AI, then maybe your art is nothing more than "somewhat of pretty, without any substance".

[Anonymous No.6264737]

>>6264736
>without any substance.
What do you mean by "substance" ?

[Anonymous No.6264741]

>>6264736
>Breaking boundaries and being innovative always had important place in art, and AI perfectly fits that
being creative and innovative is two different things, tits or gtfo

[Anonymous No.6264750]

>>6264734
Here anon. I've asked an AI for you.

>>6264737
I mean conscious thought, an intent or idea that it is supposed to convey or express. This is even more visible in text based AIs like the one in pic related. AI can draw nice looking things, and it can write nice looking descriptions, but there is really lack of any higher order thinking in it. It's narration will always suck, and so does pacing, order of events and stuff. AI does know how to make something nice locally, but it is not going to have any overarching idea behind it. An art drawn by AI similarly similarly will look nice, but it will not really convey any idea, emotion or anything particular unless you purposefully steer it in a direction you have in mind.

[Anonymous No.6265130]

>>6252300
/thread

[Anonymous No.6265258]

Are trans women women?

[Anonymous No.6265262]

>>6255438
That's great and all but I've yet to see any of you do anything specific or useful with this shit.
Stuff people actually pay for requires specific characters doing specific things, faces need to be symmetrical, anatomical and body horror.

[Anonymous No.6265265]

>>6265262
*Not body horror

[Anonymous No.6265464]

>>6265262
And you won't be seeing anything like that for a long time.
Current models like diffusion are really simple under the hood. All they do is literally just remove the noise, and they do it so good that they can take pure noise and clean it up until they get a nice random image. They can take a text prompt, but have very limited comprehension of it, it just tries to steer its process somewhere in that direction.
But the AI does not really understands what you write. It's intelligence is nowhere near being able to comprehend something like a character, action and setting descriptions. In the current form it will never replace commission artists or concept artists etc. You just can't feed it dozen pages long description of your OC game world and make it generate consistent concept arts for that, this requires pretty much human level intelligence. People should really understand that imagen AIs are much closer to a very fancy filter than an artists in a box.

[Anonymous No.6265835]

>>6265464
>...A very fancy filter...
I do see potential for this tech to be something like; you take a sketch or bad render, toss it into the AI along with some sample images, it spits out a reworked render with some flaws, you fix it and viola you go from beg to master in no time.

A lot of these online image generation sites will lose interest as time goes on,
once the img-to-img function gets a USER FRIENDLY offline package ; art overall will be a bit easier, more people will be truly able to make art, not the "roll dice and hope you get something nice" system we have now. But reworking AI images will still require skill, this just makes graphics designers way more powerful.

[Anonymous No.6265846]

>>6252300
fpbp

[Anonymous No.6265877]

>>6255866
>He doesn't know the difference between NFTs and opensea scams
Imagine my shock
https://youtu.be/tBuMj0eRrYQ

[Anonymous No.6265902]

>>6265835
img2img is still rng/hope/cope for anything but stock images/basic portraits. I spent a while tryng to get it to do foreshortening from various sketches and paintings, no luck.

[Anonymous No.6265930]

>>6252291
It's art in the same way that any commission piece is art. The commissioner or prompter can do artistic things with the resulting image, but the image itself isn't art, at least not art that the prompter/commissioner "made."

does this distinction actually matter? philosophically, yeah. Will it stop artists from becoming even more of a floor mat for the rest of society? no. I for one am ready to slog through 15 trillion new slimy melted comic concepts that every single kid with a GTX 2070 ruined their parents' power bill for because "their idea is unique" and "they can finally be an artist even though they can't (never tried to) draw"

[Anonymous No.6265996]

>>6265835
Yeah, that's what I pretty much meant.
It is just a fancy filter, but it doesn't mean it's useless. But most definitely, it's something that can aid you in making artworks, not something that will do it for you.

>>6265902
It takes practice. I've seen people getting amazing results from that, but it's a long process of putting image trough the AI over and over again with various settings and manual corrections here and there. Plus some over paint and adjustments at the end.

[Anonymous No.6266102]

>>6252355
Checked. I know someone who sounds like an owl.

[Anonymous No.6266111]

It's a tracing machine

[Anonymous No.6266115]

>>6266102
... Sounds like a hoot.

[Anonymous No.6266118]

>>6252291
AI Art is art the same way a landscape found in nature can be beautiful.
Some landscapes are bland, some are beautiful. Hence some AI art is bland and meaningless but some is beautiful. It is up to humans to decide what they individually think about the things AI produces. The idea that a beautiful image created by AI isn't art because artists are coping and seething due to them feeling threatened financially by AI is just cope.

[Anonymous No.6266120]

>>6264293
>>6264304
AI kun, what are you doing with that copyrighted material?! AI kun, please stop! AI kun, please tell me you aren't just a fancy google images that blurs results together, sometimes nonsensically, sometimes, accidentally, well enough that our pattern-seeking monkey brains think that it looks good!!

[Anonymous No.6266124]

>>6252291
>Is AI art... art?
Y'know the definition of art has been a point of contention for some time; abstract art, conceptual art, collage, photobashing etc. etc. have all been debated as to whether they're art or not.

The main source of this contention is that the vast majority of people don't just view art as something aesthetically pleasing, but something skillful, and that's where I think AI art will fall short; what skill is required to make a pretty picture?

Sure you may have skills in prompting something very particular, but at the end of the day the result is the same for someone skilled and unskilled; a pleasing image comes out.
If the unskilled and skilled are equal in ability and the end result is similar, then I have to make the argument that no - AI art can not actually be considered art.

It can be used to make art, as skill then comes into play as it becomes a piece of a whole, but by itself it is not art.

[Anonymous No.6266128]

>>6266120
>ask for bloodborne
>gets bloodborne
Why are you surprised?

>please tell me you aren't just a fancy google images that blurs results together
You can run the model offline just fine, it doesn't use google images for anything. You also couldn't store that much data in these few dozen GBs that model takes.
If you look closely you can see that none of these look like altered original art. The AI associates bloodborne with this specific pose, color palette, settings, architecture, etc. It works exactly the same way for whatever you ask it to do, regardless if its from some franchise or specific person or old mythology.

[Anonymous No.6266140]

>>6266128
>Why are you surprised?

Half the arguments from AI bros is how the AI doesn't actually use other people's art to make it's images, and now that we can clearly see it does your response is "well you asked for it"? This shit is glorified photobashing, and a legal landmine waiting to go off.

[Anonymous No.6266147]

>>6266128
>Why are you surprised?
I'm not surprised. The point (that I'm not making for the first time, just reiterating) is that the model was trained with copyrighted material; that's currently a grey area, if you're very generous. It's also very reasonable for individual artists to feel ripped off by it, specially when one of the major "techniques" in prompt "engineering" is pretty much just slapping an artist's name in there.

>You can run the model offline just fine, it doesn't use google images for anything. Blah blah blah blah (...)
I know it's not literally storing and copy pasting the images as is, that's the point of "training" the model; the end result, though, is what it is. It's an interesting tool, mind, the same way that google images itself is a very useful tool, but that's about it.

[Anonymous No.6266154]

>>6266140
It does uses other people's images, just like you use other people artworks to learn. Otherwise neither of you would even know what you are even trying to archive. But it uses them only while learning.
To summarize it, it analyzes tons of arts and breaks them down into smaller and larger features, it tries to figure out how to draw a human, mountain, dog, but also how to draw bloodborne setting and amongus and whatever. These things became parameters that guide AI in getting specific things. From the size of the model you can tell that it is impossible to store actual images it was trained on, it only stores them conceptually. When you ask AI to draw bloodborne it associates it with that pose, that setting, that color palette, but it doesn't remember the images themselves so it can't do photobashing. If you look closely you will realize that the clothes are all different, the weapons are all different, the buildings are all different. This is no different from taking an gamer artist and telling him to draw bloodborne artwork without looking it up on the internet. He will draw somethign that vaguely looks like bloodborne on first look, but the details all are different because they had to be filled in.

>>6266147
>I'm not surprised. The point (that I'm not making for the first time, just reiterating) is that the model was trained with copyrighted material; that's currently a grey area, if you're very generous. It's also very reasonable for individual artists to feel ripped off by it, specially when one of the major "techniques" in prompt "engineering" is pretty much just slapping an artist's name in there.
When you are learning to draw, did you never looked at any copyrighted material? If someone looked at your artwork and used your technique, would you feel ripped off?

[Anonymous No.6266161]

>>6266154
>The convoluted signal compression algorithm is just like a human brain!
This is the technological equivalent of those ladies that say their pets are their children, and that they understand human speech and talk back in their own way.

[Anonymous No.6266167]

>>6266161
That's a misconception, pets do not understand your speech, but they do understand your intonation. Dogs especially, they evolved for that.
Similarly, AI does not understands what you type in the prompt. But it does associate specific key words with specific features on the images.

[Anonymous No.6266171]

>>6266154
>It does uses other people's images, just like you use other people artworks to learn. Otherwise neither of you would even know what you are even trying to archive. But it uses them only while learning.
But the difference is that a human is going to pick up influences regardless, we can't go against our nature and the laws are made to suit such. AI is specifically fed other people's copyright materials putting their jobs at risk, and is therefore legally at risk - whether or not artists ever get the balls to attorney up and fight this shit is another thing, but I think this would fuck AI hard if they ever went for it.

[Anonymous No.6266179]

>>6266171
>whether or not artists ever get the balls to attorney up and fight this shit is another thing,
Just wait for someone to try to make profit out of anything generated from Disney's works.
I'll get the popcorn ready when that happens

[Anonymous No.6266182]

>>6266171
>AI is specifically fed other people's copyright materials putting their jobs at risk, and is therefore legally at risk
It literally does not. If you look at bloodborne concept arts and draw something in the same style you will not be putting the original artists job at risk. No one is hired to draw "bloodborne-like" artworks, unless some rich furfag decides he got bloodborne fetish today. Artists for such games are hired for new games that does not exist. They are given very long descriptions and other concept arts to base their work on and produce something new and unique. You can't just take an imagegen AI and feed it pages long descriptions of your new game you are working on and hoping it will create a nice concept arts for that game. This requires human level of intelligence and we won't be seeing anything like that for a long time.
The only artists that are putting somehow on risk are the cheapest, lowest ones that just produce generic stock arts for things like notebooks covers or whatever irrelevant. Because that's literally the limit of what AI can accomplish when used by a non-artist.

>whether or not artists ever get the balls to attorney up and fight this shit is another thing, but I think this would fuck AI hard if they ever went for it.
And justify it how? That someone looked at your artworks online and stole your OC donut steal pose with gothic architecture in background?

[Anonymous No.6266190]

>>6266182
>AI is specifically fed other people's copyright materials
>It literally does not.
>>6266154
>It does uses other people's images... To summarize it, it analyzes tons of arts and breaks them down into smaller and larger features

You guys need to come to some sort of consensus on your story here.

>And justify it how?
Using your art to create the algorithm that powers to AI to hurt your job prospects? What are you not getting here?

[Anonymous No.6266195]

>>6266182
>And justify it how?
This software, that is well understood by experts in the field that you can summon to testify in court, used copyrighted material to generate derivative work that is being used commercially without consent from the original copyright owners.

[Anonymous No.6266215]

>>6266195
Does that make it a derivative work? If I searched Google images for Bloodborne artwork, wrote down it's theme, characteristic poses, and other features and then passed this description to an artists to draw something like that would that make his work a derivative? If so then from which image exactly, the official box art or concept arts or fan arts that I all looked at while describing it? Or can a derivate be of an general idea and somehow this idea itself is copyrighted?

[Anonymous No.6266229]

>>6266190
>>AI is specifically fed other people's copyright materials
>>It literally does not.
You've misquoted me. My reply to "it literally does not" was to "putting their jobs at risk" not to "AI is specifically fed other people's copyright materials".
Try to read and understand my post fully instead of grasping at straws.

>Using your art to create the algorithm that powers to AI to hurt your job prospects? What are you not getting here?
Automating someone else's job is not illegal nor copyright violation. If I make a machine that bakes bread, it doesn't allow bakers to sue me. And I've explained why it does not put their job at risk here: >>6266182
Feel free to ask for clarification if you still do not understand my post.

[Anonymous No.6266257]

>>6266215
>what if machine real human boy uwu
You people keep doing this. That's not equivalent at all.

[Anonymous No.6266263]

>>6266257
Then explain me how does diffusion models or similar imagegen work. Or do you just take it as principle that machine is different from human and anything it produces is a derivative works even if it doesn't use anything but bunch of text tokens associated with bunch of parameters?
But even then, which work will it be derivative of if its model is merely an generalization of tons of various artworks it has processed.

[Anonymous No.6266268]

>>6266229
>Automating someone else's job is not illegal nor copyright violation.
Creating that Automation by using someone else's images is though.

>And I've explained why it does not put their job at risk here: >>6266182
It doesn't matter if you have a long winded explanation on why AI won't damage someone's career, if it actually does in the end. Many art bros here believe it won't damage them, Others do; Many AI bros believe it won't damage art careers, others are celebrating and believe it will. We can only wait and see.

In the end, it's up to employers, and if they can have infinite illustrations made for $30 a month, they will likely take it over hiring an illustrator.

[Anonymous No.6266290]

>>6266263
> Or do you just take it as principle that machine is different from human (...)
As a principle? The human brain is just a biological machine. There's nothing magical about it, and I'm pretty sure that human like artificial intelligence, and beyond, is inevitable if humanity survives long enough. Regarding stable diffusion and the like? It's not even close enough to have this debate yet. It's a tool, and it will be regulated like any other tool, not like a human being performing an unrelated set of actions that are only similar if you apply a lot of wishful thinking.

> Then explain me how does diffusion models or similar imagegen work.
"So you're saying that this... innernet, as you called it... is... like a series of tubes... am I correct? And the defendent pushed a piece of copyrighted material down one of those tubes at the request of a paying customer?"

[Anonymous No.6266291]

>>6266268
>Creating that Automation by using someone else's images is though.
Not yet. It'd be only illegal if the original image was used directly. Learning on tons of images to generate a model that can draw and then using it to draw is not illegal. Engineering equivalent of that tehqnique would be clean room design:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
But even that is quite far of because you do not just study one artwork, but a very large one to generalize model over all of the art.

>>6266268
>It doesn't matter if you have a long winded explanation on why AI won't damage someone's career
If you've read my post fully, you'd notice that I did said that AI can damage someone's career.

>In the end, it's up to employers, and if they can have infinite illustrations made for $30 a month, they will likely take it over hiring an illustrator.
If your job is basically generating infinite illustrations that all are completely independent, unrelated and can be summarized using one sentence then yes, it does put you at risk. The mistake people make is using box art artists, concept artists and other professional artists as an example. These ones can feel safe for long time to come because their work actually requires human-level intelligence. While generating stock images for notebooks can be done by a mere diffusion algorithm in tech illiterate boomer's hand.

[Anonymous No.6266304]

>>6266290
>It's not even close enough to have this debate yet. It's a tool, and it will be regulated like any other tool, not like a human being performing an unrelated set of actions that are only similar if you apply a lot of wishful thinking.
It is worth a debate because there is no reason to why using a tool to do something a human co do legally would be illegal. And vice versa.
Editing somoene's copyrighted image and posting as your own would be illegal, no matter if it is done by human or a script. But learning on other's works and then using that to create something from just generalized ideas is not.

>>6266290
>"So you're saying that this... innernet, as you called it... is... like a series of tubes... am I correct? And the defendent pushed a piece of copyrighted material down one of those tubes at the request of a paying customer?"
That's pretty bad explanation, but that's the best I could have expected I guess.

[Anonymous No.6266312]

>>6266304
Except there are situations where using a tool is illegal
For example
I can hire an armed guard to prevent people from entering my property
But it's illegal to install an automatic turret to fo the same job

[Anonymous No.6266315]

>>6266304
>That's pretty bad explanation, but that's the best I could have expected I guess.
From the people who will be regulating and judging this technology? You can expect worse, since this is quite a bit more complicated than the Internet.

[Anonymous No.6266320]

>>6266312
Yep, but automated military machines for civilian use is wildly different scenario than copyrights, won't you agree?

[Anonymous No.6266327]

>>6266320
I don't.

[Anonymous No.6266333]

>>6266320
Who said military? It's illegal to rig a perfectly simple, legal-to-own, firearm to an automatic firing system. Which is something any people who likes to tinker with elecronics can do.
So my example is perfectly valid. Any tool acting without human supervision can be put through similar laws.
And in that case "human supervision" includes "supervising the dataset to ensure no copyrighted image is used"

[Anonymous No.6266350]

>>6266333
Of course anything is possible in law, but that doesn't change the fact that there are good reasons why automated sentry guns are regulated. Dealing with firearms and human life is quite different form copyrights.

[Anonymous No.6266365]

>>6266350
I guarantee you the second a big company (like Disney) think its copyright gets infriged that way, it'll be treated more seriously than a murder case.

[Anonymous No.6267293]

>>6252291

Yes. It's just not made by individuals. (because technically the models are constructed by many people with a lot of data that comes from many sources)

Is it good or important art? Is collective art (art made by multiple people collaborating) the same as art made by individuals? Is it the same as art made by nueral nets?

Honestly you guys need to draw more, that's something I know for certain.