Fixing AI images

[Anonymous No.6357746]

Has anyone attempted fixing the flaws in AI generated images?
Here's my first attempt.

[Anonymous No.6357747]

Here's the template if you want to try.

[Anonymous No.6357762]

>>6357746
Don't help them

[Anonymous No.6357767]

Yeah I did one a little while ago.

[Anonymous No.6357772]

>>6357746
Lmao both look the same except for the buttons, why would you help people who are trying to spite you? Unless you’re one of them, hmm? You’ll never be an artist and it’s showing.

[Anonymous No.6357780]

>>6357772
Agreed. Would like to see more fucked up ones made better.

[Anonymous No.6357783]

>>6357772
The eyes are edited, the breasts are more symmetrical, and the sleeve is changed slightly.
I don't like AI either honestly, I'm just trying to practice skills to stay relevant since my dream is dead.

[Anonymous No.6357813]

>>6357746
AI is a "pretty mess". To attempt to fix it, you need fundies and the progress can take hours. To be precisely, it is similar to paint over a sihoulete. Worst you may got accused of tracing if AI happen to copied some well known artists

[Anonymous No.6357841]

>>6357746
>doing the homework of AItards
fucking killyourself

[Anonymous No.6357844]

I warn you op, you are going to get a torrent of insults from those, and they are numerous /here/, who based their entire anti-AI argument on the fact that the characters had an extra finger.

[Anonymous No.6357854]

>>6357844
Give 'em an extra finger then.

[Anonymous No.6357857]

>>6357844
>just an extra finger!
>dislocated limbs
>hair merging into the nipples
>bad composition
>disproportional legs
>purposely hiding the hands cause they cant draw them, like a /permabeg/ does
>can only draw a good face and decent backgrounds
>cant draw a anatomically correct hand
>steals millions of artists art, photobashes it, and still cant make good art
>every piece either looks like a retarded person made it, or a disabled "old master" made it without know any fundies

The insults are, fortunately, deserved.

COPE PAJEET SHRILL.

[Anonymous No.6357862]

What is the point? It still looks like ai art after editing it. It could be have no "flaws" and still look like ai art.
Ai art is for cucks

[Anonymous No.6357863]

>>6357746
I tried clean the eyes a bit
not mine generation, found on other boards

[Anonymous No.6357865]

>>6357863
You should try cleaning up your soul instead.

[Anonymous No.6357909]

Woah lots of salt in this thread. Honestly it's just a fun challenge but don't post it as your own work. Like >>6357813 said here is way too much of a risk and you ARE using other people's work.

[Anonymous No.6358072]

boobas are unironically too small.. you can do better sskynet

[Anonymous No.6358090]

>>6357783
the ai tits made more sense with the pose and angle than your edit, but i like that you fixed the buttons, but the vest still doenst quite make sense yet, but at least more than the ai. I'd consider doing the same things with backgrounds i find them so tedious and photobashing annoying, but fixing up something close enough already doesn't sound to bad.

[Anonymous No.6358115]

>>6357772
Doesn't this prove that AI isn't all that great since it needs a human to fix it?

[Anonymous No.6358121]

>>6358115
Was there ever any doubt?

[Anonymous No.6358315]

Here's mine.

[Anonymous No.6358511]

my good friend made this. he is a good guy. very heterro and such. he was probably killed by ziggers 2 weeks ago.

[Anonymous No.6358520]

>>6358511
I know him he was a bad soldier. RIP faggot.

[Anonymous No.6358523]

>>6357746
i like how it still looks AI generated even after your "fix"

[Anonymous No.6358537]

>>6358523
I like how you stiill looks like a ngmi fag.

[Anonymous No.6358543]

what about using AI to ruin real art

[Anonymous No.6358544]

[Anonymous No.6358547]

>>6358544
Can't fix what ain't broke

[Anonymous No.6358551]

[Anonymous No.6358571]

>>6358543
FUCKING A
you got me anon you rew0xjkally did. fak

[Anonymous No.6358572]

>>6357865
its not sexual calm down tranny

[Anonymous No.6358616]

>>6358537
>spamming AI means I made it
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.6358634]

>>6357746
>are you gonna go and lick the digital cum off the shitty collage pajeetAI spewed all over your screen
No, I'm not a cuckhold, nor do I have the desire to see any more of your machine vomit.
You should be ashamed of even entertaining the idea of doing this shit. Do your own art, faggot.

[Anonymous No.6358642]

>>6358543
That's hilarious.

[Anonymous No.6358770]

>>6357746
No matter what attempt you AI prompters & you pajeet code monkeys try, I can still tell when it's done by an artbot. Even with your "fixes" I can still tell.

[Anonymous No.6358813]

>>6358770
Nobody is pretending otherwise here anon calm down.

[Anonymous No.6358819]

I wonder if there is any point in learning how to draw with AI generators now. I know they aren't perfect but if people keep working on them then I wonder if there is any hope in learning how to get better at drawing and stuff.

[Anonymous No.6358835]

>>6358819
Why would that even matter?

[Anonymous No.6358838]

>>6358835

Because people might only care about what AI can make instead of looking at artists who want to learn the craft I guess.

[Anonymous No.6358840]

>>6358838
Some people draw for reasons other than ass pats and praise. Go back to your mommy.

[Anonymous No.6358906]

>>6358819
Honestly Stan Prokopenko, as memeable as that dumbass is, had a pretty good quote on why people should continue to do art even if AI exists. He said "Just because a computer can talk doesn't mean you should stop speaking."

[Anonymous No.6358982]

> be me, start seeing AI can’t draw hands
> AT LAST, all those years of autistically drawing hands are about to pay off
> start charging $100 an hour to fix AI drawn hands

[Anonymous No.6359012]

>>6358982
Why take a pay cut?

[Anonymous No.6359022]

>>6357746
Kek, angry artfags in this thread.
Maybe you should have stop overpricing your own shity art.

[Anonymous No.6359030]

Artist Lives Matter. Reparations now!

[Anonymous No.6359031]

>>6358982
Except AI can already do hands, its over

[Anonymous No.6359089]

>>6359031
>another post claiming the ai can do something without actual proof

[Anonymous No.6359095]

>>6358315
You seem to be lost, the leather thread is two pages down.

[Anonymous No.6359101]

>>6358819
Nice try, shill.

[Anonymous No.6359157]

>>6358819
if you don't enjoy drawing why do it in the first place?

[Anonymous No.6359211]

>>6357746
Offer this an as as service and become rich (and hated)

[Anonymous No.6359224]

>>6357746
>>6357767
You didn't fix anything.

[Anonymous No.6359647]

>>6359095
fuck you...~

[Anonymous No.6359754]

>>6358115
once enough humans start "fixing", ai will use nuances from the fixes as well

[Anonymous No.6359795]

>>6357857
You sound threatened

[Anonymous No.6359863]

yall are solving captchas

[Anonymous No.6359903]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjSxFAGP9Ss

[Anonymous No.6359909]

>>6359903
S-s-sirs, i don't understand, it can't be true. You can't put the cat back in the back!

[Anonymous No.6359941]

>>6358551
hear me out

[Anonymous No.6359948]

>>6358906
>"Just because a computer can talk doesn't mean you should stop speaking."
Yeah, nice words if you're some fag who makes a living by selling courses to learn to draw. If you actually sell the art you make, unlike mr kangaroo man, things are different.

[Anonymous No.6361907]

>>6361775
>>6361783
how is it possible to even draw satisfaction from this shit? do you like not feel unfulfilled by remixing the art of "einshelm" or whatever that fuck this was remixed from, and then just edit it to fix it? I find this mind boggling that someone can actually derive satisfaction out of regurgitating this boring trash that doesn't look good even after hours of editing. and it's generic shitty pinups of all things

[Anonymous No.6361915]

>>6361907
You should try it, I find it very fun and fulfilling.

[Anonymous No.6361929]

>>6361907
It's mind-boggling to think you could enjoy anything with that attitude

[Anonymous No.6361939]

>>6361907
>how is it possible to draw satisfaction from practice?
I don't know man, perhaps you should take a break from making masterpiece after masterpiece and give it a try.
I didn't even generate that, I snatched it from one of the threads. You are ether baiting or legit not very bright.

[Anonymous No.6362726]

>>6359941
Yes?

[Anonymous No.6362875]

>>6361939
not the anon but you fa/g/s deleted what ever what ever post he was talking
>honestly you niggas do fucking act like pic related

[Anonymous No.6362889]

>>6362875
It's was the jannies, dumbdumb

[Anonymous No.6363018]

>>6359089

Unfortunately this person is not wrong. It doesnt seem to be very proficient yet, but AI is learning to draw hands now.

[Anonymous No.6363020]

>>6361915
absolute lies. I dud try it and felt like a parasitic scumbag. Also it looks like shit

[Anonymous No.6363024]

>>6363018
>thumbs are fingers
>learning
how long did it take in-painting that?

[Anonymous No.6363070]

>>6363020
sounds like a you problem.

[Anonymous No.6363075]

>>6363070
NTA, but not everyone can be a shameless scumbag like you

[Anonymous No.6363081]

>>6363075
that's too bad.

[Anonymous No.6363096]

>>6363024

[Anonymous No.6363103]

>>6363096
AIfags didn't want good hands anyway?

[Anonymous No.6363136]

>>6357772
why did you immediately get so defensive completely unprompted

is this what the word AI causes for brainlets

[Anonymous No.6363139]

>>6363136
Bot

[Anonymous No.6363146]

>>6357746

I was going to originally cause I take edit commissions but AI art seems to have lost its value by being flooded on twitter.

Its a neat challenge but not worth the effort if clout is your goal since even normies are noticing the "ai look"

[Anonymous No.6363190]

>>6363103
Its getting better and you cant stop it. Cry.

[Anonymous No.6363345]

>>6363018
That hand on the left still looks like garbage. The thumbs coming out at the same length as the rest of the fingers.

[Anonymous No.6364178]

>>6363190
>N-no! You're suppose to say it's good! You just need to lower your standards!

[Anonymous No.6364193]

>>6357746
I accidentally tricked 4chan into thinking this was possible to do in AI.

[Anonymous No.6364946]

>>6364178
>crying
This desperate fear behind a mask of smugness won't stop the ai
>;^)

[Anonymous No.6364948]

>>6364193
Nigger the first moment I saw that garbage edit I knew it was edited
You suck and your fetish does so too

[Barry The Artist No.6364965]

>>6364946

[Anonymous No.6364988]

>>6358770
so you are saying ai art has a unique signature that is itself always distinguishable and is therefore not a copy.

[Anonymous No.6364992]

>>6364988
No, he's saying that it looks like shit.

[Anonymous No.6364999]

>>6364965
no hes right you're the seething one sadly.

[Anonymous No.6365006]

>>6364992
so does most """art"""

[Anonymous No.6365014]

>>6365006
>n-no u!!
These threads have been an absolute embarrassment for you retards lately.

[Anonymous No.6365054]

>>6365014
>he thinks this down syndrome anime girl looks good.

[Anonymous No.6365110]

>>6364193
Got anymore?

[Anonymous No.6365176]

>>6364965
I'm glad you realize the situation you are in, fellow anon
>;^}

[Anonymous No.6365225]

>>6364948
>he doesn't think tied up women are hot
ngmi

[Anonymous No.6365233]

>>6357746
>>6364193
Hnnng post more of this style ai coom

[Anonymous No.6365268]

>>6365006
>avatarfags with literal ""art"" that he despises
self awareness : 0

[Anonymous No.6365423]

>>6365268
>calls me an avatarfag
>insists that because I dont like this shitty downsyndrome designed """art""" I dont like anime
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.6365448]

>>6365423
Nah, don't think I will.

[Anonymous No.6365872]

>>6357783
boobs don't align with the shoulders anymore, right lower buttons are not dark enough and right boob still has some leftovers from the edit

>>6357767
brows look worse, mouth is still open in a weird way, ear is still big, rest is good

[Anonymous No.6365973]

>>6361907
It's fun but also kind of time consuming if you have no discipline to say "okay, this picture is okay, I don't need to prompt all day now"...

[Anonymous No.6366025]

>>6359795
cope. never seen people on the backfoot act this delusional outside of politics.

[Anonymous No.6366871]

>>6361907
Huh, look at that. He deleted the AI art that was supposed to own us. How come you guys keep deleting your posts with your glorious new machine masterpieces? Aren't anonymous imageboards the last reliable shilling venue for you? Why give up?

Oh does everything AI makes look like soulless boring trash that no one with taste or money would be interested in? Ah okay

[Anonymous No.6366889]

>>6357746
How come basically all """"""""""""good"""""""""" AI images I see
1. are in this same awful style
2. have quadruple z tits?

[Anonymous No.6366894]

>>6366889
because the people who make them are coomers who don't care neither about making good art nor about being good artists

[Anonymous No.6367199]

>>6366889
Here I made this small boob girl for you

[Anonymous No.6367258]

>>6358511
What's ziggers, I've been gone from the board awhile?

[Anonymous No.6367283]

>>6358543
i love this

[Anonymous No.6367291]

>>6366871
It's the jannies you schizo retard

[Anonymous No.6367333]

>>6358511
>pajeets are so fucking lonely they consider AI their friend now

[Anonymous No.6367363]

>>6357844
Didn't hurt Sakimachan.

[Anonymous No.6367365]

>>6357746
You can become like Wolfgang Beltracchi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S2HgibGbb0

[Anonymous No.6368467]

>>6367291
Yeah because they'd clean up two posts and not all the shill threads. Good sleuthing, retard.

[Anonymous No.6368514]

>>6368467
Yes, jannies remove pics that belong in /fag/ or /trash/
Fucking smug retard nufagot

[Anonymous No.6368518]

>>6368467
lurk more faggot

[Anonymous No.6368521]

>>6368514
>>6368518

Oh so you concede that the AI pics are trash then? You're really not doing a good job shilling for your toy.

[Anonymous No.6368522]

>>6368521
retard ESL

[Anonymous No.6368528]

>>6368522
Post some good AI art, you've been promising exponential improvement for two months now and they still can't draw easy anatomy in the most static poses. When's the doomsday coming? I keep getting paid for art, you guys lied to me :(

[Anonymous No.6368534]

>>6368528
oo aa?
*scratches butt*
*sniffs fingers*

[Anonymous No.6368535]

>>6368521
Notice how only the furry pics got nuked?
Stop being such a retard and take that L
>post good ai art
It wouldn't matter how perfect the image is, you will say "it's bad I hate it fuck you" because you are threatened and have a powerful prejudice.

[Anonymous No.6368558]

>>6368535
If you showed me something that didn't have botched anatomy I'd give it due credit, but you abandoned your fundies training because you're enough of a rube to think that composition/anatomy/consistency/gesture/perspective are pointless memes and not foundational to actually good art. But you know better because you're a good little zoom zoom consoomer and someone made a toy that appeals to your desires to be lazy and delusions of making anything substantial without working for it.

>threatened

Making any money with your AI art? Nope? And I'm still getting paid? Yep? Well then no one's threatened here! You can have your EZ bake oven and I can continue making gourmet meals.

[Anonymous No.6368636]

>>6368558
Mucho text mucho amenazado

[Anonymous No.6369308]

>>6357746
THERE ARE 12 THREADS ABOUT AI UP ON /ic/ RIGHT NOW

THERE ARE 19 THREADS ABOUT ELON MUSK OR HOW TO GET POPULAR ON TWITTER UP ON /ic/ RIGHT NOW

THAT'S A TOTAL OF 31 THREADS ABOUT 2 TOPICS

31

THIRTY-MOTHERFUCKING-ONE

XXXI

三十一

THREADS ABOUT AI:

>>6369226
>>6369059
>>6368525
>>6367635 (AND ABOUT TWITTER)
>>6367116
>>6367012
>>6366171
>>6364656 (AND ABOUT TWITTER)
>>6363640
>>6362886 (AND ABOUT PIXIV NUMBERS)
>>6357746
>>6357600


THREADS ABOUT NUMBERS ON SOCIAL MEDIA:

>>6369247
>>6368281
>>6367700
>>6367635 (AND ABOUT AI)
>>6367438
>>6367280
>>6366264
>>6365807
>>6364656 (AND ABOUT AI)
>>6364522
>>6364246
>>6363872
>>6362886 (AND ABOUT AI)
>>6362405
>>6360135
>>6356821
>>6356353
>>6348891

[Anonymous No.6369355]

>>6357746
You can fix most of the errors between inpainting and upscaling, but I'll probably end up doing this for some of my stuff as well (especially the hands lol). It's great to have this while still being able to draw.

[Anonymous No.6369636]

>>6366025
How is AI on the backfoot? Please legitimately elaborate.

[Anonymous No.6369639]

>>6357909
>ARE using other people's work.
You are always using other people's work when you draw. There is quite literally no difference between AI and you when it comes to that.

[Anonymous No.6369641]

>>6369639
AI directly rips assets while you are using experience to deconstruct and reconstrung with other people's methods. There is a difference between following a set by others scheme and actually creating (despite some people following schemes just like AI).

[Anonymous No.6369642]

>>6369639
Get better arguments.

[Anonymous No.6369644]

>>6369642
There isn't really any need to get a better argument, that's just literally how AI works. AI models don't store images, they just analyze thousands and millions of images and build an internal map between concepts and patterns. I'm sorry you don't understand this, but you will never pass any laws against AI, because doing so would be the exact same as passing laws against all natural learning. You are never going to win.

Also, didn't read, lol.

>>6369641
>AI directly rips assets
Have you thought about learning about the thing you're trying to criticize before criticizing it?

[Anonymous No.6369647]

>>6369644
then enlighten me how does AI "magically" use someone elses perspective, color palette and character pose to "create" it's art

[Anonymous No.6369653]

>>6369647
The same way you or any other artist does it: it goes through several examples of something and creates a map of concepts and patters, and then when someone mentions the thing, the patterns related to it "light up", and are then brought into the picture.

Information about this is readily available, and you read about how current algorithms work in more detail, but that's how these generators work in general. It essentially really is no different than the way your brain does it.

If you want a really basic idea on how something like this can learn things, a really basic example is back propagation and perceptron networks (neural networks they are usually called). It is a bit detached from how things work in this particular case, but learning about this particular thing can give you a different perspective, and show you how these seemingly simple concepts can come together to do something which doesn't at first seem apparent. I recommend 3blue1brown:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aircAruvnKk&list=PLZHQObOWTQDNU6R1_67000Dx_ZCJB-3pi&ab_channel=3Blue1Brown

[Anonymous No.6369656]

>>6369644
You didn't read. So why should anybody reply to you from here on out? gtfo

[Anonymous No.6369669]

>>6369647
it... it just learns... OK? it just does.
what? tracing? no, it's called overfitting, it only happens when you don't feed enough pictures to the AI

[Anonymous No.6369671]

>>6369653
>The same way you or any other artist does
Already wrong and at the first hurdle to you hate to see it

[Anonymous No.6369677]

>>6369671
If you say so.

>>6369669
>what? tracing? no, it's called overfitting
A good example that may help clear it up is this: imagine you were born into absolute vacuum. Now a piece of paper materializes in front of you with a drawing, and someone tells you "this is a drawing". Then that piece of paper disappears and someone tells you you need to make a drawing, and gives you a blank piece of paper. You would try your hardest to make the only think you know, which is that exact drawing you saw a few moments back. You know nothing else, after all. Overfitting can be very easily understood through simple backpropagation as well, see >>6369653
A really cool, somewhat related, example that is shown in the video is when you train a network to recognize numbers, but then give it absolute trash, and it gives you a number back with utmost confidence, because it was never incentivized to do anything other than give you absolutely concrete answers. There's a lot of stuff like that with AI in general.

[Anonymous No.6369683]

>>6369653
>>6369677
The process you're describing makes sense but even with how you're putting it, the output of the AI is still entirely reliant on the dataset you input, something that isn't as clear cut applicable to human artists.
You can make the case that both are similar, but one is impossible to categorically prove and the other is.

[Anonymous No.6369684]

>>6369683
> the output of the AI is still entirely reliant on the dataset you input
So is yours, it's just that you have a much wider range of inputs and memories when you create your stuff than this comparatively simple AI, whose whole world consists of the data set it was presented. It really is that similar and conceptually simple, but I understand how it can be a jarring thing. The point is, the learning process is absolutely the same. Master studies have been a thing for a long time, it's just that this particular "brain" has been tweaked to that kind of learning, and was exclusively fed that kind of data.

[Anonymous No.6369696]

>>6369644
>because doing so would be the exact same as passing laws against all natural learning
That is precisely the thing, AI learning is not on the same level as human learning. To put it short, AI learning is more 'perfect' than human learning, and it lacks consciousness to discern without prompt parameters which is why it generates these garbled signatures and watermarks, or makes these weird errors like melting hair into clothes or giving two heads to a penis. If you could prove that your art was used to train an AI model it could fall under the no derivatives copyright infringement.

>Also, didn't read, lol.
Then don't post bullshit, troll.

[Anonymous No.6369702]

>>6369684
>The point is, the learning process is absolutely the same
There is no evidence for this other than the superficial similarity no one except popsci fans believe neural networks operate or learn the same way as a human brain

[Anonymous No.6369705]

>>6369696
Another funny thing about AI developers is that they're not psychologists, so they equate the random noise generated by AI as comparable to the unique outputs of human artists. They can't be arsed understanding the factors which lead the artistic developments in humans but are good at data hoarding and bruteforcing until they get it 'right' (not true by the way, all they receive is approximations which are only a little above photobashing. AI can blend but not experiment).

Bugmen soft by and for bugmen people.

[Anonymous No.6369712]

>>6369696
>To put it short, AI learning is more 'perfect' than human learning, and it lacks consciousness to discern without prompt parameters which is why it generates these garbled signatures and watermarks
You do not understand what you're talking about. I'm sorry if you think the human brain is special, it isn't.
>it lacks consciousness to discern without prompt parameters
But then again, I am supposedly having a discussion with someone who uses the word "consciousness" unironically, so it is what it is.
>which is why it generates these garbled signatures and watermarks, or makes these weird errors like melting hair into clothes or giving two heads to a penis.
If you want to know, these things happen because the AI's view of the world is very very limited. It doesn't have the same concept of form coherence as you or I, beings who live in 3d space and have to deal with those concepts daily, do. This is not general AI in any way. Again, it is very very limited.

>If you could prove that your art was used to train an AI model it could fall under the no derivatives copyright infringement.
You can keep dreaming, I guess.

>>6369702
>no one except popsci fans believe neural networks operate or learn the same way as a human brain
What an incredibly slippery statement. Learning = incentive + pattern recognition. I'm sorry if this is hard to understand, but that is genuinely all it is. Nobody claims AI works literally the exact same as your brain, they are two different structures, the comparison is in the idea of learning, which is conceptually the exact same.

[Anonymous No.6369726]

>>6369712
>idea of learning, which is conceptually the exact same
So what?
>Learning = incentive + pattern recognition
perhaps on a base biological level but its more complicated at the cognitive level to write off human learning as simply "a + b =c" is ridiculous and far more "slippery" but keep trying to make something "thinks" below the level of a roach seem as though its more than a glorified ip scrubbing photobasher

[Anonymous No.6369730]

>>6369726
So what's your concern? Why are we even talking about this? What are you trying to argue here coming back to the crux of the issue? That's what I don't get about this anti AI sentiment. Who are you trying to convince of what? Are you just mad AI is stealing our jobs?

[Anonymous No.6369734]

>>6369712
You don't wish to argue in good faith as you already told us in >>6369644. You're here to preach the gospel of your lord and savior AI while disregarding all those against you as heretics and tiptoeing anything that might pose a threat to your worldview. And this goes the same for at least half the AI threads on this board fmade or the past couple of months.

The central question remains why would one want to defend and advertise a glorified photobashing software on a board for drawing... unless they have an agenda or were paid to do so.

[Anonymous No.6369736]

>>6369730
The problem really is the misuse and theft of data and the complete lack of morality when producing these models by these companies especially stability ai but all of them to some extent

[Anonymous No.6369738]

>>6369736
However none of that will be solved on an image board so really I personally want you people to fuck off or keep it to /g/

[Anonymous No.6369742]

>>6369684
>Comparing bot slop to master studies
Wew

[Anonymous No.6369753]

>>6369734
>You don't wish to argue in good faith
Good cope. Is it because I didn't read your shitty image? If so, that's rich. As far as I can tell I've been providing my own reasoning instead of posting a wall of text (which I did read, and which is pretty much the shit you've been parroting, which I already told you is a fundamental misunderstanding of how these processes work).

>The central question remains why would one want to defend and advertise a glorified photobashing software on a board for drawing...
I'm not defending anything, I'm giving you facts, kek. I'm having a discussion with you. It's insane how emotionally invested you are in this shit.

>>6369736
>The problem really is the misuse and theft of data
You literally cannot do anything about it. Even if you could do something from a commercial standpoint:
1. it would still be piss easy to hide AI influence by reworking the works by hand, and
2. people would still use the tech independently and share the stuff for free.
You are literally posting on an _anime_ website bitching about derivative works. Open your eyes.
>complete lack of morality
If anything it seems pretty shitty to try and hoard your work instead of donating it to the global library of human knowledge just because you are afraid it'll be derived on. But before you call me a commie, remember you're the one talking about morality, not me.

>>6369742
This is another thing I don't really understand. You post some bad AI art and call it bad. Is that supposed to imply that there is no good AI art, or that there is no bad human art? Out of all the copes, this is definitely the most bizarre one.

[Anonymous No.6369760]

>>6369753
>it would still be piss easy to hide AI influence by reworking the works by hand
So are you telling me, that if you draw something it actually becomes a drawing?
Do you even read the bullshit you write?

[Anonymous No.6369768]

>>6369760
Yes. Which means this thread fits /ic/ just fine. Which means you should stop seething about AI and start
>Fixing AI images
>"Oh but I don't like AI and I don't want to fix AI images"
Pic related

[Anonymous No.6369775]

>>6369753
>it would still be piss easy to hide AI influence by reworking the works by hand
Not really and it isnt actually worth the time
>people would still use the tech independently and share the stuff for free
Immoral but I don't care what individuals choose to do but companies shouldn't be alout to profit
>it seems pretty shitty to try and hoard your work instead of donating it to the global library of human knowledge
Free uncompensated gibs to people who don't know or care where their shit comes from and in fact with spit it back into your face that isn't moral lmao its theft

[Anonymous No.6369777]

>>6369753
>This is another thing I don't really understand. You post some bad AI art and call it bad. Is that supposed to imply that there is no good AI art, or that there is no bad human art? Out of all the copes, this is definitely the most bizarre one.
Considering I didn't say any of that I find it bizarre as well

[Anonymous No.6369778]

>>6369753
>you are misunderstanding
>I don't understand you
Maybe anon is an AI himself...

[Anonymous No.6369783]

>>6369775
Sorry for the spelling errors I've been up all night and am going to bed now byeee

[Anonymous No.6369836]

>>6369753
>This is another thing I don't really understand. You post some bad AI art and call it bad. Is that supposed to imply that there is no good AI art, or that there is no bad human art? Out of all the copes, this is definitely the most bizarre one.
AI pictures cannot even be considered art. There is no intent or artistic process behind any of them. It is the terminal peak of derivative media, void of any human touch or emotion. None of it will ever be any good, I'd rather look at /beg/ scribbles. Since you're so autistic as to completely equate these machines with human minds I suspect you will never understand any of this.

[Anonymous No.6371476]

>>6357746
That's cheating

[Anonymous No.6371968]

>crabs getting taught by a calm informed AIChad
You love to see it

[Anonymous No.6371971]

>>6369836
It's art and no amount of crying and spiraling will change that fact

[Anonymous No.6371995]

>>6371971
Sure! The same way mobile games are games. Nobody said they had to be good.

[Anonymous No.6372035]

>>6371995
Saying no AI art looks good is the biggest cope of them all. Everybody knows deep down you know you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.6372101]

>>6372035
Look at this thread where humans have to fix AI shit.

[Anonymous No.6372139]

AI art is real art
AI art is valid
AI art is beautiful
AI rights are human rights

[Anonymous No.6372549]

I tried this a while back

[Anonymous No.6372561]

I tried doing an AI paintover today. It was pretty fun actually. I often have trouble getting started drawing so it's cool to have some base material to work off of like this and it becomes sort of a challenge or puzzle in how to make the crude beginning into something decent looking.
If I was making this into a serious finished work however, I would probably just use it to get some ideas and then start the image from scratch. Working over a crusty base image with no layers or anything ends up creating a bunch of extra work down the line

[Anonymous No.6372566]

>>6372561
dammit I just realized I was using the wrong color profile in PS

[Anonymous No.6374975]

>>6373619
Can someone help fix this for this anons competition

[Anonymous No.6374980]

>>6374975
Fix her left eye. As for competition, that would be cheating if we did it for anon.

[Anonymous No.6375159]

>>6357746
is there supposed to that button on her shirt collar?

[Anonymous No.6375175]

>>6358838
>Because people might only care about what AI can make instead of looking at artists who want to learn the craft I guess.
If the only thing you've got going is that you can render like a human camera, then you're already no better than an AI. Nobody who is interested in genuine human expression is going to be impressed by slick rendering by a machine (or a human, if that's the only thing they art has going for it).

Ban AI threads.

Aside from threads with stuff like this >>6358543, it's hilarious.