/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.6400348]

Explain to me, without using buzzwords, without being emotional and using rational arguments, why AI is bad.

[Anonymous No.6400351]

spam

[Anonymous No.6400361]

>>6400348
A.I is not bad. What is bad is the amount of these A.I threads spamming the board.

[Anonymous No.6400373]

Guys, I think this AInigger is having a bad day. He's been spamming a lot of these threads than usual.

[Anonymous No.6400392]

It looks bad

[Anonymous No.6400411]

It has no soul, that comes from the intention of the artists.

A picture drawn by an artist is a window to his mind, every stroke is a deliberate choice to communicate what is going on there, it has soul and its alive because the fucking artist is alive.

AI art is a jumbled amalgamation of the intention of several artists disconnected with its context, you remove the intention and leave only the brushstrokes alone, its like reading poetry by someone having a stroke, incoherent and intentionless.

[Anonymous No.6400415]

>>6400411
>without buzzwords
>purposefully uses only buzzwords

[Anonymous No.6400417]

>>6400348
What is wrong with a tool stealing a obsecene amount of illustrations to create a plagiarism generator in order to bring profit to the already rich?

If it is to appease idiots with absolutely no talent and no determination, it must be okay. If it is to create a content-generator in a oversaturated hell it is fine.

[Anonymous No.6400420]

AI isn't bad.

[Anonymous No.6400426]

>>6400417
It's learning in a similar way to how humans learn. By watching countless images throughout their life. Is watching Giger's paintings stealing? Is memorizing them stealing? Is watching an artist paint a portrait and trying to use their techniques stealing?

[Anonymous No.6400427]

>drowns the shit out of art websites
>makes it extremely easy for people to plagiarize some artists
>discourages new artists from getting into art or improving
>uses copyrighted material and personal data in datasets to train, monetizes it without compensating anyone (no it doesn't learn like a human its literally a set of algorithm unlike any human brain)
>solves no issues in the industry because the top end is already competitive as fuck and ripe with undercutting, but has the potential to push hobbyists and smaller artists out of business
>advertised as a tool, but can't be meaningfully incorportated into most artists workflow because it warrants so much redrawing and retouching that it's a loss of time

[Anonymous No.6400429]

>>6400426
Can confirm, have analysed patterns of pixels based on tags of every image on danbooru

[Anonymous No.6400430]

>>6400429
It's possible that you did, but you were not conscious of it.

[Anonymous No.6400431]

>>6400415
>everything that disagrees with me is a buzzword

[Anonymous No.6400432]

>>6400426
AI art is valid!
Your AI art passes!
AI is human!
AI art is human art!
AI rights!!!

[Anonymous No.6400434]

>>6400426
True. I also became a god tier artist by just browsing danbooru.

[Anonymous No.6400438]

>>6400426
>It's learning in a similar way to how humans learn
it's not "learning" in a literal sense
the artworks that the AI uses are considered "training data"
it basically gets the data of several artpieces, the data contains the eyes, head, angles of the body, and everything that can be used for prompts
it's basically a jigsaw puzzle and the pieces are from the datasets that contain thousands of artworks

[Anonymous No.6400442]

>>6400348
It's not bad. In fact it's extremely good and a net positive for humanity. I asked JamalAI to give me a hundred more BBC pictures after feeding it my wife and her bfs portraits and it worked! I'm so proud of my creations!

[Anonymous No.6400443]

>>6400348
It's spam, misleading, and discussion around it always boil down to third graders arguing.

>spam
>>6400432
Self-evident example of spam. I also see multiple meaningless ai threads that are only created to waste space on this board. That's just on this site.

>misleading
It's also not art. I think the fact everyone treats as such shows that they don't understand what art is. There's no form of human expression, no skill involved, no human imagination. I think it can be a tool for art, but that's about it.
>>6400426
Also highlight how people think Ai work and how it actually works.
>>6400438
says it best, Ai can't learn the same way a human learns

>Terrible discussion.
I can't even begin to try to constructively criticize AI or point out the absurd spam of it that isn't necessary, I only get told "you don't like it because it's taking away its job." as a reply. I've also been accused of not like AI because I 'Couldn't figure out how it works." Again, meaningless reply that doesn't contribute to the discussion or address any of the points I made.

from a legal stand-point, I'm pretty sure it violates some copyright laws. I'm not a legal expert though so don't quote me on that.

[Anonymous No.6400452]

>>6400443
>Ai can't learn the same way a human learns
to add
it's basically not efficient to have an "AI learning art", imagine you have to code a system that has an AI manually draw based on artwork datasets that was being fed to.
It takes much processing power and resources to do that kind of shit, the efficient or easier way is to basically turn the artworks into puzzle pieces, then depending on the prompts the AI will have to stitch them up which results in the abominations we have today.

[Anonymous No.6400454]

>>6400443
>from a legal stand-point, I'm pretty sure it violates some copyright laws. I'm not a legal expert though so don't quote me on that.
A consensus hasn't been reached, the law is slow to catch up.
Theres obvious data laundering going on with datasets from "nonprofit" orgs such as Laion5B being fed into for-profit ventures like Stable Diffusion (the former was funded by the latter's parent company btw :) but pajeets are pushing hard for it to be considered copyrightable transformative content.
We'll see it developed as lawsuits are filed.

[Anonymous No.6400473]

You can't reason with artists, if they had the capacity for introspection they would work productive jobs instead of attending liberal art schools.

[Anonymous No.6400489]

>>6400427
you're using exactly the same arguments people were using when photoshop was released.

[Anonymous No.6400492]

>>6400473
This is another good example of how terrible the discussion around AI is. I am attending college, but for a stem field, not art. I am also working a part time job and do art as a side hobby. Yet you're still accusing artists of being illogical without providing any meaningful arguments yourself.

[Anonymous No.6400494]

>>6400489
I sure didn't know photoshop used copyrighted material to train its datasets, crazy

[Anonymous No.6400495]

>>6400473
true, hardworking individuals like us should then stop making threads to engage with artists

[Anonymous No.6400497]

>>6400494
>"everyone will be able to just copy and paste others' artworks use a soft paintbrush and call it their own!"

[Anonymous No.6400501]

>>6400497
When you need to invent things everyone knows you have no argument

[Anonymous No.6400511]

>>6400348
Because it's an automatic process that stiches together bits of other people's work without their permission. I'm not denying the results can be pleasing to the eye, like i could look up at the milkyway and find it beautiful but nobody would call it art. Art needs a human with conscious intentions behind it

[Anonymous No.6400517]

>>6400511
>look up at the milkyway and find it beautiful but nobody would call it art
I would

[Anonymous No.6400527]

>>6400492
Becuase it retarded to say AI violates copyright when it litterally has no copyrightable material in its model. Spouting that falsehood just shows you how tech illiterate most artist and people are.

[Anonymous No.6400547]

>>6400527
more like this

[Anonymous No.6400555]

>>6400527
>>6400547

[Anonymous No.6400571]

>>6400348
It’s soulless and a fragment of the Antichrist. If that sounds irrational to you, that’s because you’re also a soulless fragment of the Antichrist.

[Anonymous No.6400582]

>>6400517
interesting that the 2 changes it decided to make broke her foot and amputated half her hand

[Anonymous No.6400585]

>>6400582
and decided to keep the original left hand for reasons

[Anonymous No.6400589]

>>6400527
Models are trained off of copyrighted materials though? Sure the final products falls under fair use for now, but you can literally check out the data sets for these models to see what images they're using.

[Anonymous No.6400628]

>>6400582
>>6400585
Yeah but it also made it look like anime, for free. That's a win in my book.

[Anonymous No.6400646]

>>6400527
I always find this argument to be damage control. It's like saying copy and pasting images isn't stealing because you aren't actually stealing the picture but the picture's bits. You can say the same thing about AI, how it's actually a noise reduction. But that doesn't change what comes out is plagerism. The AI throws out frequently images that are close to replica of something that was used in the dataset. As such AI doesn't even exist. It's just unpaid labor of others with a coat of noice on top of it.

And no, humans don't do that too. If we did we would be making the same art for eternity yet we have styles that evolve and change.

[Anonymous No.6400647]

>>6400348
That's funny because art is about emotion by default. Ok AI art only gives me 10 hectafeels while real art gives 20 megafeels.

[Anonymous No.6400651]

>>6400348
OK.
AI replaces a skill humans needed to learn. Now someone with zero skill can simply make a picture by telling the AI to make one.

If this becomes dominant then most businesses will simply use AI to create drawings etc. While human skill that did go into it will be lost to time.

Now imagine this future, humans being able to draw will be lost and you will be dependent on the AI to make pictures for you.

Think about this.
Humanity lost some valuable skill.
This is like a mix of idiocracy and dystopia
https://youtu.be/BdPmNM0IF7Y?t=63

Remember there will never be a robot revolution, there never will be robot skeletons walking down the streets to shoot us dead.

The anger of AI and automation is that we will be victims of our own laziness and greed.

Any questions ?

[Anonymous No.6400653]

There's literally nothing wrong with AI art. It's going to be the future of any successful artists workflow.
>Be an artist with an extensive portfolio
>Train an embedding on your existing works
>Draw a rough sketch of your final concept
>Slap that into img2img with the prompt "art by {your name}
>Get out a piece that's 90% complete
>Go over the rough details and complete your work
Or
>Use txt2img
>Prompt sketch by {your name}
>Use this new sketch as the base of inspiration for your next drawing
The luddites crying about it are going to be left behind.

[Anonymous No.6400659]

>>6400417
Lol it's not stealing to right click save. Are you done nft chud?

[Anonymous No.6400664]

>>6400651
Yes. AI is flawed, it makes mistakes that are easy to spot. A skilled artist will use AI to their advantage, they'll use their knowledge and skills and fix all issues an AI result might give you. Anatomy issues, eyes, perspective, all those can be fixed by an artist who understand how those work.
All your arguments have been used multiple times over and over again when new digital tools and programs were released. Using Photoshop was supposed to destroy art. Using 3d tools was supposed to destroy the necessity to learn perspective.
None of those things happened and all you do is doomposting.

[Anonymous No.6400665]

>>6400653
You don't get it. Most of you will get left behind because AI reduces the work of entire departments to a few people. AI or not, you're getting put on the chopping block when companies decide they're overstaffed.

[Anonymous No.6400666]

>>6400438
Yes and no. Saying it's a jigsaw would imply it saves those images to give back. Really it learns in the sense that when a child sees a cat and you tell them it's a cat, they start to create an image of what cats look like. If you ask them to draw one after seeing it once they'll give you a rough image. Show them thousands of cats and dogs and birds and then ask them to draw a cat again and they might draw something even closer. The machine works that way but the iterations would take a human millions of years.

[Anonymous No.6400669]

>>6400665
Your problem is that you wanted to do art to support capitalism. Maybe stop trying to make a commodity out of what should be shared freely.

[Anonymous No.6400672]

>>6400443
>from a legal stand-point, I'm pretty sure it violates some copyright laws
No. It's fair use. I can take a rough image of Micky mouse and as long as it doesn't fully conform to what Disney says is Micky, I'm not infringing on their copyright. Also fuck copyright laws anyway.

[Anonymous No.6400673]

>>6400664
>Yes. AI is flawed
Only now.
Eventually AI will become so advanced that it will draw perfectly.

> A skilled artist will use AI to their advantage,
Stopped reading there.
Why do we have these 2 types of retards here?
1)
>Nooo if a human did not move the cursors then it is lifeless (literally can not tell the difference between human made art and AI art)

2)
>AI is a tool
No it is not you dumb retard, it is a tool in the same way typing in words into google is a """tool""".

All computer tools before this where minimal improvements like faster workflow etc you still needed to draw most frames.

What AI does is lets no skill NEETs type in words into the box and AI generates them their pictures.

And before you ask photography is hardly any art whatsoever. The point of drawing is to make the pictures in your head come alive now its a box that dowse that with radically different ideas and parameters.

[Anonymous No.6400677]

>>6400452
That's not how that works at all holy shit. Stable diffusion was trained on like 5 billion images. Do you know how long it would take to find a head from a single image in a dataset of 5 billion much less to rotate, crop, and then merge it into an existing image? Not to mention the models are only like 3gb in size. I swear people keep thinking AI art models are some kind of collage generator and it's so obvious you've got zero understanding of the tech behind it.

[Anonymous No.6400688]

>>6400511
>Stitch
Just stop

[Anonymous No.6400694]

>>6400348
>without using buzzwords,
Interesting deflection, pajeet. That way you can easily dismiss anything you disagree with.

Anyway, fuck trannies and range ban India.

[Anonymous No.6400696]

every AI thread is the same with the same arguments and shit flinging, you sure you guys aren't AI? there is nothing new to talk about, spamming this board for validation is pathetic as hell.
inb4 seethe
yes I'm seething, not about AI, I could not care less. I'm seething about the constant bait threads being made and the tranny jannies doing nothing

[Anonymous No.6400699]

>>6400348
>why AI is bad.
It's a welfare check. It takes away any reason to make an effort. Shitty artists have no reason to try to get better when they can type a bunch of words in and get a result.

That is exactly who I am seeing on every 4chan board saying AI is great, shitty artists and people with no talent. They keep saying good artists are obsolete now. Guess what? People said good artists were obsolete when photography was invented. And good artists survived that for many, many years now.

[Anonymous No.6400702]

>>6400664
> Using Photoshop was supposed to
BLA BLA BLA
The point you idiot is that Photoshop requires skill to draw something in.

You need to move the tablet pen or mouse. It has some benefits (and some downsides) however you can transfer your Photoshop drawing skills to paper and vice versa and someone with no drawing skills will not be able to do anything in photoshop.

All you need to do is type in words into a box to get the AI do do all the work.

And here is the thing all of it is literally PLAGIARISM and THEFT from the internet.
For example you can ask a AI to make you a Darth Vader fighting Megatron.

Only this is only possible because of PLAGIARISM and THEFT. You see the AI of today has no idea what new ideas are.

I have this idea of a character in a new fictional universe named Axon Prime see what happens if you ask for this character of any AI.

I can describe to you how Axon Prime looks like and most artists can get it however I like to get this picture of him into a digital form. And IA can not do this.

You know why ? Because it only stole millions of tagged pictures from the internet.

So you only can use characters it knows from the internet like Darth Vader or Megatron or Superman or Batman.

This should very much frighten you since now you are getting addicted to a AI that replaces real skills in making any picture and on top of that this shit is unable to be told new ideas.

Think modern shit is derivative ?
I mean imagine trying to tell a AI what a Darth Vader looks like or what he-man and the masters of the universe are.

Darth Vader
>Black Robot

Megatron
>Silver Robot

He-Man
>Barbarian with sword

And see how fast the AI will get off rails and how hard.

And this is a very bad thing. Imagine what the world will look like 100 years from now when anyone who knew how to draw died and people only use AI to generate any drawing.

This is the bad thing about AI.
1/2

[Anonymous No.6400705]

>>6400589
It doesn't matter if it trains on copyright material because the end result is transformative enough to not be the original.

[Anonymous No.6400706]

>>6400664
>>6400702

2/2
I do not give a shit about art theft or IP laws however you have to admit there is seriously something wrong with a AI that only can reproduce the characters we have today.

Do you not see a problem in this ?

At a time like this I am reminded of the story of the rat and the pleasure button.

Scientists wired electrodes into a rats brain and connected it to a button.

If the button is pressed the rat gets incredible pleasure.
All tests ended the same.
The rat pressed the button and then starved to death in infinite pleasure.

This is the dangerous of technology not robot skeletons trying to kill you.

>Using 3d tools was supposed to destroy the necessity to learn perspective.
What do you mean by this ? 2D is unique from 3D and literally everything. CGI is more comparable to stop motion animations or sculpting then 2D art since in stop motion the real world and camera generate the perspective and in CGI the computer generates the perspective.

>>6400699
This one gets it.
The only people mouth foaming about AI are literally no skill NEETs who in some NEET fueled rage celebrate taking down artists by using cloud (this is a bad word) AI to generate pictures.
Of course their corporate overlords will shut down the free cloud website they use and demand $$$ to use their new cloud website to generate AI art.

See how happy you will be then, since you will not get the good and advanced AI the big boys are using..

[Anonymous No.6400709]

>>6400646
No it's very different because the end result is an exact copy of what you originally copied.

[Anonymous No.6400725]

>>6400547
>more like this
This is literally wrong.

Any look on AI art shows that is repeats the same tropes or articles of clothing in the same style.
See: https://h5.tu.qq.com/web/ai-2d/cartoon/index

It will literally force every picture into this style.
See the thread on /g/
>>>/g/90081366

[Anonymous No.6400726]

>>6400653
>The luddites crying about it are going to be left behind.
To what you retarded NEET ? To what ?
Why should anyone pay you for typing in text into a AI box when the company can do it themselves ?

What will you embrace then? your NEET-dom ?

[Anonymous No.6400727]

>>6400725
The ai creates a style by mixing what it learned from the input training data. But you can get different looks with different prompts. It's just not easy.

[Anonymous No.6400729]

>>6400726
All you morons are doing it wrong, generate with AI, call it hand drawn, maybe even img2img a “sketch” of the generated image as a “proof”

[Anonymous No.6400730]

>>6400348
Ok, simple and short answer first:

- It's not your art, AI had the final word and you simply chose a result that was somewhat near to what you wanted.

Now some in depth observations:

If I'm gonna vastly retouch things to serve an actual purpose instead of just being a pretty random picture, I still prefere doing it myself or use it only to generate textures or certain props.

Yeah, there's the copyright thing and some minor mistakes, but let's imagine there's an AI trained to perfection with just volunteered artists, the result would still not be your own art, it's the human input that thanks to the inperfections and some smaller choices, that make each human art unique, even when trying to mimic another artist style.

I'm not even talking about "muh hard work", I'm talking about being in control. I can let the machine do something for me if and only if, I'm still controling how things turn out.

Take 3d art as an example, you don't render things yourself, but you have full control over a render by adjusting the models, the camera, the lights, the textures, the shaders, etc.

AI works with an algorigthm that uses randomness as part of its core, you don't choose exactly what is gonna be generated, you simply limit it's freedom, but it'll still use random samples based on each tag.

[Anonymous No.6400732]

>>6400669
Not him.
However food costs you dumb fuck !

>shared freely.
You also are not getting this. AI will literally censor any unauthorized copyright violation on 100% of the internet.

Turns out the "LOL so free ^.^" internet piracy and image posting literally only existed as a global free labor project so the mega corporations can harvest all these taged pictures and feed them into their AIs.

After they are finished all these boorus and any website that does not have a mandatory installed "copyright violation detector AI" will be deplatformed.

PS: The shit AI your overlords gave you will also be judged "illegal copyright theft" and you are not getting them also in the future.

In the future :
You will need to pay $$$ to a website for it to generate art for you that will also be super censored and have a EULA and lots of legal restrictions.

[Anonymous No.6400734]

>>6400729
Once again retard why should anyone buy your art when the mega corporation bosses nephew is typing in TXT into the AI box and generating the same pictures as you ?

[Anonymous No.6400741]

>>6400734
It only becomes an issue if they are also calling it hand drawn, cause if AI becomes super common, people will be willing to pay more for images that someone slapped “hand drawn” on. So unless corporations take same route of calling AI images hand drawn which I kinda doubt since it’s hard to do reliably on a large scale without getting called out, it’s a safe bet to do it yourself on a smaller scale. But only time will tell, I’ll try to profit now before corpos try to catch on

[Anonymous No.6400747]

>>6400727
> But you can get different looks with different prompts
You literally can not.

> It's just not easy.
This is literally impossible you have no idea how AI works.
Either you are so unaware or you are playing stupid to damage control and suck the dick of AI.
look into these threads the AI literally forces everything into the same style.

[Anonymous No.6400748]

>>6400734
Prompters are useless and not needed, AI is autonomous by nature.

When all real artists die and the younger generation become too spoiled to learn how to draw, I believe art will be fully made by AI, therefore, there will be no independent art, everything will come from an AI from a megacorporation and you'll probably need to pay for that.

[Anonymous No.6400749]

>>6400348
I do not like it, therefore it's bad.

[Anonymous No.6400750]

>>6400726
I don't work as an artist. I've got no skin in that game. Like I said, trying to make money from art is morally wrong. Art should be anti capitalist.

[Anonymous No.6400751]

Scary to think they can do this in such a short time

[Anonymous No.6400752]

>>6400747
You literally can.

[Anonymous No.6400754]

>>6400747
Not the anon but while maybe not with a prompt, you can achieve other style extremely easy with hypernetworks

[Anonymous No.6400755]

>>6400741
>people will be willing to pay more for images that someone slapped “hand drawn” on.
Source your ass.
>“hand drawn”
Looks identical to other things the same AI generates. People will notice or the copyright AI will detect it and ban your art or flag it as AI generated.

>This technology will surly make me a no skill NEET famous in my delusion fueled fantasy
You are human garbage.

[Anonymous No.6400756]

>>6400732
I'm running the ai on my local machine. They can't censor me.

[Anonymous No.6400758]

>>6400751
Fun fact it forces the same art style, people tried to break it see: >>6400747 and >>6400725 and >>>/g/90081366

Very obvious what it is doing.

[Anonymous No.6400761]

>>6400758
you're posting only examples from that chinese ai generator. Use a proper one, will you?

[Anonymous No.6400763]

>>6400747
Brah, your understanding of generative AI is like an ocean with the depth of a puddle

[Anonymous No.6400762]

>>6400755
>>6400754
It can easily look different if you do any surface research
>Source your ass.
Literally this board and artists on it being like “w-well, AI will only inflate value of real art!!!” You can search the archives and find examples easily

Also nah I don’t care about fame, just some quick buck

[Anonymous No.6400764]

>>6400730
This.

[Anonymous No.6400765]

>>6400758

[Anonymous No.6400766]

>>6400747
Again same model, different prompt.
Not the same style as this
>>6400752
Or this
>>6400727

[Anonymous No.6400769]

>>6400761
The proper one only has other styles if the dataset had tons of images in that style. Otherwise it shits the bed into blob art mode.

[Anonymous No.6400771]

>>6400756
>I'm running the ai on my local machine
Link to what you downloaded and use.
>I'm running the ai on my local machine
Irrelevant the "copyright detection AI" will detect it is AI generated and know what AI generated it.

Then what will you do ?
Not sell it?
Not post it on the internet ?

So sit in your basement and play with your AI picture generator all day.
And yes you will be unable to post it since every website by EU and USA directive will need to have a "copyright detection AI" or be deplatformed from the internet.
Also automated fact checkers and censoring of fake news before you post it.

This will be the reality in 2043.

The more I live the more obvious it becomes that the internet was planed since day 1 to be a gigantic trap and all the cool stuff of the 2000s was literally bait to get everyone using it. Now they are slowly closing their project.

>WARNING CITIZEN ! YOUR PHONE OS DETECTED THAT YOU DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE DAILY RITUAL OF REPEATING MSM TALKING POINTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA ! Repeat MSM talking points or be deplatformed !

[Anonymous No.6400773]

>>6400766
>Herp derp I stole more different pictures to train my AI.

[Anonymous No.6400776]

>>6400771
We've had video detection for copyright material for years and I still torrent freely.
https://rentry.org/nai-speedrun
Have fun

[Anonymous No.6400777]

>>6400771
How will the detection AI even work? Only way it can work that I can imagine is if it had the original model, but if you use a custom one, or a hypernetwork, or even post process the image using filters or whatever, how is it supposed to work?

[Anonymous No.6400778]

>>6400771
take you meds

[Anonymous No.6400779]

>>6400773
>You can't get different styles out of the ai
>Ok you can but it's just stealing
It's not stealing to right click save. If you didn't want your image viewed by others, don't post it publicly to the Internet. Now kneel.

[Anonymous No.6400781]

>>6400779
I kneel

[Anonymous No.6400783]

>>6400781
Ok holy fuck cute

[Anonymous No.6400784]

It isn't.
AI is just the pinnacle of software. It is the ultimate emulation of human nature. Art, like language, is just another aspect of human nature.
AI will not replace artists, just as AI will not replace writers. At least not the good ones.

[Anonymous No.6400785]

>>6400779
It's one thing to save the exact image and say who the author is. And let the credits go to them. It's an other things to the same thing but pretend you did it. AI is closer to the second thing since none of this stuff wouldn't work if millions of images weren't used for it. It would shit it's bed very quickly.

[Anonymous No.6400788]

It took me 5 minutes, I’m an artist now.

[Anonymous No.6400789]

>>6400785
You understand that analog art stands on the shoulders of giants right? That the techniques for perspective, gradient, lighting, anatomy, etc. were all closely guarded secrets of some other artists right? You've stolen their style but you don't think it's wrong (it's not) because you're not as efficient at the process as the machine.

[Anonymous No.6400790]

>>6400763
Not him, but can you make this Vtuber (pic related), following precisely her design, in this pose >>6400754 (sitting on a chair with a hand near her cheek) ?

I just want to understand better how much control you can have over design and details and if it's possible to avoid random choices.

[Anonymous No.6400791]

>>6400785
It would work, it would simply be WAAAAY more expensive and time consuming to make. You would need to create a dataset of let's say 400 million text-image pairs from either public domain or licensed images and you'd have probably even better quality than current stable diffusion because MANY of the images in their dataset are complete garbage

[Anonymous No.6400792]

>>6400788
Same

[Anonymous No.6400795]

>>6400790
The answer is yes but there are a few big caveats. First I'd need to get some more images of this character design, prefferebly from different angles and in different posses. Then spend 1-2 hours finetuning a model, then run a few generations and pick out a good one, and add final touches. If only 1 image is available it's still possible but would take longer because you'd need to train a model on just 1 image then generate poor quality alternative samples, then fix those, then train a new model with the bigger dataset.

[Anonymous No.6400798]

>>6400789
You can imitatie an artist of the past. But I think any great artist strives to go above. Break some holy rule of invent a new one. And people do that all the time. Art today isn't the same as 100 years ago. And art century ago was different from art 500 years ago. You don't learn the rules to imitate someone. What kind of bullshit is that?

That's a completely different process than just mushing together existing artworks like AI does. I can't do it physically even. I can't be trained on millions of images. At best one can study 10 per day. And that will exhaust you. But we actually study them. We don't copy them and paste the stuff around (ignoring photobashing).

[Anonymous No.6400799]

>>6400795
This is the part people don't understand. They think you just hit play and get perfection the first time. Usually the images posted are the few good ones out of like 3000 attempts.

[Anonymous No.6400801]

>>6400798
Your art style necessarily is a mesh of all of the different artists your learned from and trained on. Whether you realize it or not. The images I generate do the same thing, just more explicitly. There are certain artists that I like their style for different reasons and I combine them to get the results I want with extensive prompt edits. Like a full paragraph or two of prompts.

[Anonymous No.6400803]

GOOD MORNING SIRS

[Anonymous No.6400804]

>>6400795
Then it would be like 3d, harder to make at first, but for future works using this same character it would be easy. That's interesting, certainly great for big studios that could have their own artists feeding the training with arts of this character.

For freelancers, I guess using AI to make a very specific OC that isn't famous wouldn't be really worth it. Maybe only to generate the basic pose and then paint over the OCs costume manually.

[Anonymous No.6400805]

I just like taking my time when doing art. I never had any interest in shortcuts because it was never about the results, so no chance of me ever wanting to use it. As a consumer, I just find it boring and don't care enough to investigate why. The animations are actually interesting for me tho, I like the ever transforming dreamlike inconsistency.

[Anonymous No.6400809]

>>6400804
If you follow some of the AI artists that are starting to stand out from the crowd, they stand out specifically because they've created a style of their own within their outputs. Be it posing, style, competition. There's a space for talent to stand out even here.

[Anonymous No.6400813]

AI generated shit can't produce anything simple and specific. Its inherently incompetent.

[Anonymous No.6400814]

[Anonymous No.6400815]

>>6400801
They don't do the same thing. Since people do things they weren't trained on. They invent new things. Tell me exactly on what Van Gogh was trained on? There was nothing like the stary night before he painted it. Of course he saw a night sky. He understood brush strokes, and he understood color. But these things weren't connected in such way before he did it. He understood painting and did an created a wholy new style of art. He didn't just mush together previous images. If you had a time machine and put the AI 300 years ago in past somehow. It would never come up with the present if the data was collected from the past.There would be no cars coming from it. People actually create. And I hate that for AI to look creative we have to pretend creativity doesn't exist. Or we pretend that stealing millions of images from people who do the creative work makes the AI somehow creative

[Anonymous No.6400816]

>>6400809
>another AIfag post making a claim about pictures without actually posting proof

[Anonymous No.6400818]

>>6400815
tldr

[Anonymous No.6400819]

>>6400799
>Usually the images posted are the few good ones out of like 3000 attempts.
Doesn't that implies it's way too imprecise and that do arbitrary decisions since text is just not enough to perfectly describe an image?

The fine tuned training with a specific subject does seem a much more powerful and controllable approach, but I still need to try it myself and see if I can really get what I want without depending on luck (not needing 3k+ gens to get an approximated result)

[Anonymous No.6400823]

>>6400809
>they stand out specifically because they've created a style of their own within their outputs
If that were true you would've actually posted them, but you faggots just like talking out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.6400824]

>>6400818
None of these artist painted like Van Gogh though. And for that matter, no one painted like these artist before they were around too. And if I was truly wrong you would have a better comeback than this.

[Anonymous No.6400825]

>>6400819
>t needing 3k+ gens to get an approximated result
Use redraw or img2img when you get close, then photobash. Simple.

[Anonymous No.6400827]

>>6400411
>AI has no souls
Meanwhile Chrome Lords has touched one of the deepest depths of my heart.

[Anonymous No.6400828]

Great artists steal.

[Anonymous No.6400829]

>>6400824
You understand what standing on the shoulders of giants means right? They influenced his work and as a result he could add a small amount of creative to get something new. But that new thing is still 90% based on "stolen" styles and techniques.

[Anonymous No.6400830]

>>6400815
This is a problem in machine learning that has been researched for a long time. It's possible for an AI model which has been trained to recognize horses, but has never been given a zebra, to still recognize a zebra when it also knows that zebras look like striped horses. It gets pretty technical and hard to parse but the point is it's not inconceivable for a sufficiently advanced AI to invent a new art style.

[Anonymous No.6400832]

>>6400348
/ic/ will complain about how AI is plagiarism and stealing copyrighted material, meanwhile they have multiple threads for sharing pirates courses, brushes and artbooks.

[Anonymous No.6400835]

>>6400832
The irony

[Anonymous No.6400836]

>>6400816
>>6400823
https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/85845000
I like this artist

[Anonymous No.6400837]

>>6400832
When has anyone claimed those brushes, courses, and art books as their own work?

[Anonymous No.6400840]

>>6400830
>Horse with stripes
It's that simple.

[Anonymous No.6400841]

>>6400836
>generic and garbled pictures of anime characters staring blankly
Wow, so unique.

[Anonymous No.6400842]

>>6400837
When they post work using them.

[Anonymous No.6400843]

>>6400825
Img2img seem to have to window for improvement, but I once saw a jap posting on Twitter a really perfect img2img, they input a rough, but finished artwork and the AI polished it perfectly following their style. Too bad I didn't save that image, but could they be using a model trained with their art or is it possible to use with some random model that can get closer to your style, like Berrymix or Anything?

I think it's hard to find a fine tuning between following the original art and avoiding some blurry, noisy mess.

[Anonymous No.6400844]

>>6400841
They're more well followed than you.

[Anonymous No.6400845]

>>6400837
>2 people sharing some brushes is actually the same as multi-billion-dollar tech giants illegally putting everything you have created in its database to copyright protect it from you!!

[Anonymous No.6400847]

This is soulless according to /ic/

[Anonymous No.6400849]

>>6400829
Well, something always will be a bit "stolen" unless you are god who creates everything from nothing. But I'm not asking for people to make god-like creative acts. I'm just asserting that creativity is true. If it wasn't we would be living in exactly the same world as the poeple in the stone age did. My other point is that AI can't do this. This just can't be achieved with a statistical method since statistics work based on what is. Not what could be. There's a joke that if Turkeys would know statistics they would expect to end up with more and more food in their lives till infinity, but they end up cooked on a plate. And the only way AI can seem to be intelligent is to degrade creativty and pretend it doesn't exist.
>>6400830
The issue with these "AI will be so advanced it will do this" argument is that they have been said for decades. I have books from the 80s which talk how AI will be as if not more intelligent than poeple in few short years. But that hasn't happened. AI is still as dumb as always. Where it is "smart" is if you throw millions and millions of data from people and train it on a city wide supercomputer. But the intelligence isn't in the software. It's in the data. It's such an ugly "solution" which tries to pretend a computer is smart while it's really re-aranged human work.

[Anonymous No.6400850]

>>6400843
Probably an embedding based on their work.

[Anonymous No.6400851]

>>6400845
>Database
>Copyright protect the results of an open source ai model
What?

[Anonymous No.6400852]

>>6400847
This thing about lack of soul or the quality of the AI images is ridiculous, it can clearly make good looking images, the only problems are possible copyright dilemma and supposedly a certain lack of control/direction.

[Anonymous No.6400853]

>>6400850
Embedding suck ass, hypernetworks better

[Anonymous No.6400855]

>>6400849
People are still making creative leaps with the ai. Base promoting with no embeddings or hyper network is worthless. People input their creativity there.

[Anonymous No.6400856]

>>6400844
That's your account, isnt it, pajeet?

[Anonymous No.6400858]

It's pretty apparent why people are mad. Generic mid tier art is not impressive anymore now that anyone can do it, so mid artists cannot get the same recognition now. It's all about clout. Any real artist would celebrate the birth of a new tool. It's only those interested more in fame than art, that are seething.

[Anonymous No.6400859]

>>6400836
*That* was what you consider a style that stands out?

[Anonymous No.6400860]

>>6400348
It steals the work of artists then tries to sell it back to them.
All else is secondary.

[Anonymous No.6400861]

>>6400852
No one in /ic/ gave a shit about copyright until AI. It's just /beg/s seething that their anime art can now created infinitely many times without effort.

[Anonymous No.6400862]

>>6400853
I was of the opinion that it's better to just train an embedding for single subject matter items in a prompt and hyper network for a different style of output all together.

[Anonymous No.6400865]

>>6400856
Actually no
>>6400859
It stands out from most of the genetic stuff people generate with the anime models. And they've got a large follower base, so in a popularity sense they also stand out.

[Anonymous No.6400868]

>>6400858
This.

[Anonymous No.6400871]

>>6400849
>The issue with these "AI will be so advanced it will do this" argument is that they have been said for decades
People been saying global warming will end the world for at least as long and the world hasn't ended. Doesn't mean global warming isn't real though. I don't have a crystal ball so I don't know how things will work out, but there's all the reason to believe AI will continue to develop in the future, and once(if) we reach AGI all bets are off.

[Anonymous No.6400873]

>>6400855
What creative leaps? It's hilarious people even can say this shit based on a statistical machine. It's telling really that was has happened is not an improvement in user interface. How good you can manipulate things on a computer is next to unchanged from the 90s. It's even in lot of cases a bit worse. What we instead have is a machine with simple output. What I can do on AI software is insert a tiny block of text. Inmates can write letters longer than that. And then something will come out of it which might or might not look good which usually is near exact copy of what was in the dataset. You can't even improve on this shit really. I have next to no control over the process. It's just bad design. I can't name it any other way. And like I said. This only looks good if you devalue creativity and intelligence. Because otherwise this is laughable.

[Anonymous No.6400874]

>>6400844
>>6400844
>submissions struggle to get over 100 views or 5 bookmarks over the course of a month
Your shilling sucks, dude.

[Anonymous No.6400875]

>>6400527
Oh so if there's CP in the dataset there should be no legal consequences, then?

[Anonymous No.6400876]

>>6400865
>It stands out from most of the genetic stuff people generate with the anime models.
It does not. It looks like a generic mess.

[Anonymous No.6400877]

As a 2d and 3d artist, I tried all available AI solutions out there and yeah, I managed to make stunning looking images, minor mistakes are easily fixed, but as others already stated, it's hard to get used to this randomness, I found in img2img and inpaint the only manageable workflow because as an artist, I have a very solid vision of what I want and I don't like the AI choosing it for me. I feel I'm still lacking in render quality, though, compared to a full prompting workflow. I'll keep experimenting, though.

AI isn't exactly something I wanted, but I don't want to quit art as a job, so I'll try to deal with it the best way I can and using in my favor.

[Anonymous No.6400882]

>>6400865
>It stands out from most of the genetic stuff people generate with the anime models
It doesn't.
>And they've got a large follower base, so in a popularity sense they also stand out.
"They" do not, pajeet. But you third world ESLs must have gotten internet recently, so you probably think 80 clicks on a submission after 5 weeks is a big deal.

[Anonymous No.6400883]

>>6400847
Yes. It's the ultimate NPC test in fact and you have failed.

>>6400852
Funny how the soul argument makes bugmen seethe so much.

[Anonymous No.6400886]

>>6400874
They don't post to Pixiv often but they get good engagement on Twitter.

[Anonymous No.6400887]

>>6400883
>soul argument
People that bitch about "soul" don't have it and can't make it.

[Anonymous No.6400888]

>>6400876
>>6400882
It does. Better than anything you'll ever draw.

[Anonymous No.6400889]

>>6400871
Well, if AGI is supposed to happen in 300 years there's no point in talking about it. Since our conception of intelligence might be completely different and there's so many unknowns and what not it's not worth discussing outside of speculation. I'm talking about next 30 years. Going from our current methods. It would be absurd for AGI to come around. Since the fundamental process for intelligence can't be what it is now. If it was we would be approaching it. But we don't. Like I said if we didn't curate all the data in neat little boxes and have millions of people work on it. None of this would work. It's really the human data which is valuable. And the whole talk about AI only exist to hide away it's the human who put in value in these machines. Not the machines themselves. What we have is a simulacrum of thought that works in certain context. I would say it doesn't even come close to any animals really. Lot of animals if you break off their standard routine of life still find some creative ways around it. I remember reading about some wasps which if you poke their hive in some unnatural way they will still find a way to fix it. If we trained AI on natural damage a wesp hive can have, it would shit it's bed if you did something outside of that dataset.

[Anonymous No.6400893]

[Anonymous No.6400894]

>>6400887
cringe r/Atheist troon

[Anonymous No.6400895]

>>6400836
It's funny how everyone use AI for overly detailed, busy look. They all go like (((((((masterpiece, magnus opus, extremely detailed))))))))

[Anonymous No.6400897]

>>6400865
>"stands out"
>both Twitter and Pixiv accounts can barely get over 50 views or likes on a piece

[Anonymous No.6400901]

>>6400889
I don't think you're correct but that's outside my paygrade anyway. Time will tell.

[Anonymous No.6400902]

>>6400836
KEEEEEEEK

IT'S ALL THE SAME SHIT

[Anonymous No.6400904]

>>6400886
>they get good engagement on Twitter
Why do you AI pajeets always lie about things people can look up in 5 seconds?
https://twitter.com/aoto_sou

[Anonymous No.6400906]

>>6400659
I am glad I understood nothing that you said, you sound far too idiotic.

[Anonymous No.6400912]

>>6400895
>(((((((masterpiece, magnus opus, extremely detailed))))))))
Holy fuck. That works. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.6400945]

>>6400895
Just idea guys that want perfection without any actual effort.

[Anonymous No.6400956]

>>6400653
>There's literally nothing wrong with AI art. It's going to be the future of any successful artists workflow.
Didn't take you long to completely contradict yourself.

[Anonymous No.6400957]

>>6400945
If you wanna put in effort, why are you drawing with a drawing tablet and a computer? Go back to canvas, it requires more effort

[Anonymous No.6400960]

>>6400699
>Guess what? People said good artists were obsolete when photography was invented. And good artists survived that for many, many years now.
Color photography killed the golden age of illustration.

[Anonymous No.6400971]

>>6400415
>>6400348
>Everything that is not "pretty picture" argument is buzzwords and emotional
Yeah, because art is and always was about emotion you troglodyte, and this comes from autistic engineer that hated humanities. Just listen to any class about history of art before AI, any class about literature or any review of book/movie/game that talks about more then just technical details. Art is about emotion and transferring of ideas and information given beauty to make people pay more attention to it then some random tweet some idiot made. That conveying of information beyond simple words is what gave it the soul, and gave people the ability to analyze the work beyond just surface level. With AI you can convey some ideas through pictures, but they are devalued since anybody can make them, and they only hold as much meaning as the words you can fit into the prompt, or less.

It is true that a picture is worth a thousand words since most pictures that are not simple shapes contain so much information that to fully describe them you would need large text. With AI you can do it in just few prompts, which means that the AI will have to fill in the blanks, and normalization of such images will make it so that all the deeper meaning in any work of art will be ignored since the author was clearly only prompting the surface level main topics. This devaluation will further make communication through art even more worthless and destroy it.

Also, creation of art goes beyond just making money. Most artists make no money, they just want recognition from other and for others to see their work. With AI this is taken away, your creative drive will never be fulfilled since all you will do is just make stuff for yourself. Most artists have drive to create higher then drive to consume, so you cant just make them consume their own stuff, that does not work. It is really useless in most ways, while it takes away the ability to fulfill your creative drive.

[Anonymous No.6400972]

>>6400847
Compare this to actual art. People with souls and internal monologues instinctually know the difference.

[Anonymous No.6400978]

>>6400795
The answer is no actually. It would take so long to fix the mistakes that it would have been quicker to paint it all manually. All the details would become smeared and gloopy.

[Anonymous No.6400982]

>>6400971
Then AI truly is art, because I've not seen any art in history that'd spark so much seething here.

[Anonymous No.6400987]

>>6400971
Furthermore, the fact that we are automating job that is not even a job, but unprofitable hobby that people have need to do to feel fulfilled, while not improving the society in any meaningful ways (consumers were already happy with oversaturated market of media fighting to keep their attention) has profound massage to us as a species, and could be the tipping point of our destruction, let me explain.

If we have the attitude to automate literally everything no matter what the moment it can be automated, then we are setting ourselves to path of doom. So far it worked every time since the jobs being automated were not really fulfilling and automating said jobs opened more fulfilling jobs (Yes, factory work is less fulfilling then office jobs). Now we are about to replace the most fulfilling jobs in the entire history of mankind that provide no real benefits of being replaced, aside from not paying those people. This is not like automated doctors who would save more lives, or automated car workers who will produce more cars that society needs, this is automating media that is as said many times too oversaturated already.

What I am trying to say is that if we dont draw line at art, then why draw it at automating CEOs? Why not automate government officials? Why not automate law enforcement? Why not automate literally everything, and let AI do all the decisions in the world. We are training it to be most efficient in every way, optimizing everything and replacing it with newer models, what is stopping the AI from removing humanity? We after all will be less efficient in every way then AI one day. You want to code it with love for humans above all? Then good luck with that, since neural networks code themselves and just train and train and train. They are black boxes that nobody knows how they work on every level. You have no way of making sure to train it to feel empathy, and not just some other behavior that looks the same to the researchers on the surface.

[Anonymous No.6400990]

>>6400982
By that definition, spamming irrelevant AI threads is art, while AI images themselves aren't.
So no, they're still worthless, anon.

[Anonymous No.6400991]

>>6400972
I'm sure you can articulate the difference then

[Anonymous No.6400992]

>>6400829
He lived a life. Experimented with paint. The act of putting brush to canvas creates connections in his brain. You can create art without ever having witnessed it. he strived to create his own work, not to be an amalgamation of popular artists.

[Anonymous No.6400993]

>>6400978
Incorrect.

[Anonymous No.6400997]

Why do gay racists hate A.I.?

[Anonymous No.6401000]

>>6400993
Fuck off and prove otherwise. You won't.
The goal post is creating an artwork that incorporates every detail accurately.

[Anonymous No.6401002]

>>6400889
It was absurd to think that simple pattern recognition softwere could replace artists, and here we are. Textbots are already able to do basic logic puzzles requiring abstract thought, they can explain stuff and undestand it in ways that are factual while not being the same as the source material. I think there is a solid chance of like 10% that the moment we figure out how to implement better LSTM (long short-term memory) which would give chatbots ability to remember things better and remember context of conversation better, we will see AGI appear. Also btw, the LSTM altenative/significant improvement will result in the definite end for programmers/writers/lawyers/judges and most other professions that can be automated by any kind of text2text AI.

[Anonymous No.6401003]

>>6401000
You're right about one thing, I wont.

[Anonymous No.6401004]

>>6400991
It would be like explaining the color of a sunset to a blind man.

[Anonymous No.6401006]

Technology is about solving problems, AI art solves none. Literally no one asked for it outside of failed artists.
Regardless, art was never a "problem" to be solved. Art is inner expression. One of the things that define us as humans and we are delegating it to tin cans because we've become too lazy and dumb to do it ourselves. We want everything easy, lighting speed fast and right on our screens with no work on our part. This modern ailment will become worse due to these technologies.

Also the fact that these technologies would be nothing but a strange and fun novelty if it didn't had copyrighted artist work to pull from.

[Anonymous No.6401008]

>>6401003
Precisely because you can't. I know all the tools I've been in the gan game since 2018. I keep up to date.

[Anonymous No.6401011]

>>6400348
You're using a program that isn't yours to produce art that you are passing off as yours and for profit that you didn't deserve.
You're using a program as a way to flaunt being on the top comparable to decade old artists while flaming other novice drawers to get better making fun of them on struggles that you couldn't even dream of getting through.
AI isn't bad it is a good tool for referencing your ideas, its the human element that makes it terrible, in which case is you.

[Anonymous No.6401016]

>>6401008
It is only possible with some really good data, but with not famous characters it's really hard.

[Anonymous No.6401021]

>>6401011
Yeah. I don't mind ai on its own. It's the attitude the users have taken up that makes it wrong. Gleeful attempts at ruining livelyhoods, deliberately targeting artists who speak out against it, they rush to the defense of the ai and it's users like it's their job. Insanity. Just use the ai to make your ideas and don't try to force yourself into places you don't belong. You are not artists.

[Anonymous No.6401024]

>>6401016
No possible. Stop lying. Even one object she has would be impossible to get right. her umbrella? Good fucking luck lmao.

[Anonymous No.6401029]

For now, AIs are very flawed. But the nihilistic techbros focus all their energy on perfecting AI. Many of them probably just want to have imbecilic sex with virtual sex dolls, yet they don't realize that more perfect AIs will kill humanity's inspiration and soul. When AI is normalized, there will be no way back from bondage.

Think about it, and stop supporting nihilists.

[Anonymous No.6401030]

>>6401024
I'm not him, though. I don't have the slightest idea how to make this without drawing, but considering what I saw they doing with hypernetwork, dreambooth and embedding, I believe it's a matter of how many "good data" you have and it's usually none or just a few for not famous Vtubers or OCs.

[Anonymous No.6401031]

>>6401006
>>6401029
>Putting so much effort in something that isn't needed and will do way more harm than good

[Anonymous No.6401032]

>>6400677
>>6400527

Oh really? Then explain this, smartass. I have found two instances where it's done EXACTLY that, and I wasn't even trying very hard (and in picrelated, I found this shit by ACCIDENT because it used a meme image that almost everybody knows about). It's not literally photoshopping fullsize images from a multi-terabyte database of images, no, we understand that you fucking pedant, but it's definitely recording these images in a highly compressed way and reusing them wholesale. It's not creating anything new, it is, for lack of any better description, photobashing. So don't UM ACKSHUALLY me, faggot.
EDIT: Nevermind, someone already uploaded it before me. See this image here for "Sad Keanu Reeves as King Arthur wounded and bleeding on a field.jpg" Looks like it's getting around, good. So I'll just use the SamDoesArts one instead.

[Anonymous No.6401033]

>>6401003
Sure

[Anonymous No.6401034]

>>6401030
Sure. So without that data, impossible. So as I said in the beginning, Impossible. And to have that data, a 3d model with all the details sampled from every possible angle, every item tagged and bagged... Why not use the model to make the picture instead of using ai?

[Anonymous No.6401039]

>>6400847
>>6400865
>stands out
>large follower base
>has two follows on pixiv
>barely any engagement on twatter
Ladies n' gennelmen, the ABSOLUTE STATE of AI "artists"

[Anonymous No.6401041]

>>6401034
It's possible but would be entirely too much work just to prove you wrong. In anycase finetuning models is only getting better and cheaper.

[Anonymous No.6401043]

>>6400651
Wrong.

Crafts that are displaced by machines are never lost, they just become hobbies, interests and sports. For example you still find people who ride horses, smith axes or shoot bows out of pure passion, and you will still find countless books that contain all information necessary for the craft meaning that anyone can learn it if they want to.

So if anything, once a craft stops being commercially viable, it purifies the craft and the only people left doing it are the ones who truly love it.

[Anonymous No.6401047]

>>6401041
Nah. Not possible to prove me wrong. It can't do hands right despite people's herculean efforts. Why should I believe it could create novel details of a character like this?

[Anonymous No.6401050]

>>6400789
>muh shoulders of giants
Don't even pretend that an artist taking inspiration and learning from other artists is even remotely the same thing as what AI tools do, you disingenuous little shit. I'm sick and tired of fucking hearing it because it's a straight up fucking lie and you know it. AI image gen doesn't "steal styles", it takes thousands upon thousands of images and uses little bits and pieces from them to stitch together new images. It's plagiarism. Full stop.

[Anonymous No.6401053]

>>6401043
Please show us the people that watch machines ride horses and call themselves horseriders. That would be the equivalent to AI "art" here.

[Anonymous No.6401061]

>>6400847
>right foot has 8 toes
>left foot is butchered and looks like 2 chunks of meat lying on the ground
>woman on the left has fingers coming out of her belly button
If that's what you call soul, humans are truly lost.

[Anonymous No.6401064]

>>6400804
You are painfully stupid all of you.
2D is shit what you need is to make a 3D model and then make a computer make AUTOMATICALLY millions of renders of this character in all kinds of poses and feed that to the AI.

Actually having a 3D model is far superior to any 2D drawing because of this. The real killer will be generating 3D models or working with 3D models and AI.

2D is fake, it is faked perspective and incomplete character (whats on her back? Is this proportion realistic or distorted by perspective).
3D has all the needed details and data.

And you can have pre made stances and animations for all the humanoid characters. Fuck you can even set up corrections in the proportions for this character to work automatically.

3D has even all the data you need actually feeding 3D models to a AI is far superior then 2D pictures, far more data. Camera distance etc.
If you can set up toys in poses IRL then you can use that to give instructions to the AI. Far superior then typing in crap in the text box.

Also ordering a AI to fix a humanoid movement is far superior since you are not working with pixel data that can confuse the AI you can literally give direct input on the exact position of every digital bone of your character and the AI knows the correct exact position of every digital bone of the character not trying to understand blurry pixel trash.

2D AI art is a fad.
3D AI art is the real thing.

[Anonymous No.6401067]

>>6401002
>and here we are
Nice try AI nigger. AI won't replace humans

[Anonymous No.6401068]

>>6400348
it's not bad, but it's not what you think it is

[Anonymous No.6401069]

>>6400351
Are Koikatsu pictures on Pixiv spam?

[Anonymous No.6401070]

>>6401069
Yes?

[Anonymous No.6401072]

>>6401064
>2D AI art is hard for AI to understand
>3D AI art is easy for AI to understand
AI have a hard time reading 2d images because they are abstractions of the real world and AIs are NOT intelligent, they don't understand concepts, they just follow patterns by looking at millions of images, that's why we have great shading and bizarre mistakes, like more limbs, fingers and other atrocities.

[Anonymous No.6401073]

[Anonymous No.6401074]

>>6400957
lol retard. If you give Photoshop to a boomer who only saw canvases, he won't know how to do shit. Ideally you should learn both

[Anonymous No.6401078]

>>6401064
>3D AI art is the real thing.
it is not real yet... so no, it is not the real thing you mong. What a time to be alive!
>I saw a model generator!
It's not out. And it is also shit tier 3d models.
>The future though!
Cope currentdaylet.

[Anonymous No.6401079]

>>6400348
Why do these retards keep getting away with these shitty bait posts.

[Anonymous No.6401081]

>>6401047
Believe whatever you want.

[Anonymous No.6401082]

>>6401079
Jannies are permabegs happy that AI is putting them our of their misery.

[Anonymous No.6401087]

>>6401081
Nice argument. Just concede, you know I am right. The fact nobody has done it even with the most popular characters of all time is proof enough it isn't currently possible.

[Anonymous No.6401090]

>>6401072
Yes. Because they need to deduce how a hand behaves from 2D pixel grids.
If you are putting a camera to an actor real life human the AI needs to learn when fingers disappear and when they reappear and under what conditions.

It is quite magic that they can do that with 2D at all.

In contrast 3D would simply give the AI the position of every bone and its rotation (something they can not see because of the picture being only 2D) this way the AI always knows what distance there is between the human eyes (PRO TIP IT IS CONSTANT). If you feed a AI this data none of these errors will happen.
Count how many characters are humanoids or humanoids + tale and/or wings and you see how massive this pool is.

Of course making these animations requires lots of work. Work the looters who simply loot pictures from a booru do not want to put in.

However trust me I bet this is already worked on in secret.

The real work would be filming humans and then some guy by hand placing a 3D rig to replicate the motions of this human exactly. If a AI gets this data it can do amazing things.

However this does not involve looting a booru of all of its pictures and pushing the data into a AI so you are not getting this.

The text box AI is crap.

Real data input would be you taking an action figure like scene/game where you place these action figures in poses and attach labels like
>Superman
>He-Man
To these figures to tell the AI
>Hey I want superman in this pose.

Also shaping random blocks and labeling them
>City
Gives farm ore data then any text box can
And in this scenario the AI would need to turn the blocks you carped into the scene as a real 3D model of a city. Not crap 2D fake shit. So it needs to be trained on 100s of real city models. And placing the camera is like taking a photo something you should not have a problem with.
once more far more data then you molesting the text box.

[Anonymous No.6401127]

>>6400348
Art is about communicating the human experience, using shared themes. AI has adds nothing to this conversation because it is not human. All it can do is regurgitate and reimplement what has come before. It's not alive.

[Anonymous No.6401134]

>>6401053
What are you talking about? The comparison of the crafts was not related to their characteristics, but the common outcome which crafts share when they stop being profitable in the economy due to technological advancement, which is it will survive as a hobby and not disappear as the previous poster claimed.

[Anonymous No.6401179]

>>6401078
Can those 3D model AIs integrade data from 2D? 2D AI is already near perfect thanks to the insane amount of data it has. 3D not so much, there are far less models and the companies developing 3D AI generators are photo-scanning real life objects to then turn into 3D models and feed it to AI. If it is impossible to combine these two, then that basically means 3D AI will never go past making cheap props with no artistic look to it.

[Anonymous No.6401188]

>>6400827
>Chrome Lords
I had no ides what this was yesterday, and apparently it's literal reddit bullshit. Not sure what seeing shooped Robocop pasted on top of muh Neo Noir neon city does for you.

[Anonymous No.6401198]

>>6401002
Top kek

[Anonymous No.6401206]

>>6400827
How the fuck did they manage to do that with an AI?

[Anonymous No.6401209]

>>6401206
Seems like midjourney style.

[Anonymous No.6401214]

>>6401206
Only nihilist will think that meaningless dystopian nightmare fuel is cool, desirable, deep, and soulful. Then again, do the words "soul" and "human" even exist in their dictionary?

[Anonymous No.6401270]

>>6401041
>would be entirely too much work just to prove you wrong
Funny how you AIfags always have an excuse.

[Anonymous No.6401273]

>>6401032
>Highly compressed way
Still no. You're actually retarded.

[Anonymous No.6401276]

>>6401039
You can't see another users follower count on Pixiv, only who they follow.

[Anonymous No.6401279]

>>6401050
It's exactly the same

[Anonymous No.6401280]

>>6400348
Ankit, I am going to add toilets to all my paintings of anime girls floating in voids and there is nothing you can poo to stop me

[Anonymous No.6401433]

>>6400348
Sure.
1. Art generation AI uses image sets that are allowed to use copyrighted images by being developed by non-profits, but those non-profits are owned by large companies who then use the AI to generate art for commercial purposes; essentially, an elaborate copyright dodge.
2. Art generated by AI is effectively a copyright violation; the AI doesn't actually create or interpret anything, it just regurgitates input in a new structure. They don't learn how to create images, they learn what images are and then assemble images from parts of others.
3. The purpose of art AI is effectively to replace artists by big companies with an interest in removing as many human hands from the process, because then they can pay less people.
>>6400527
The most popular AI all have copyrighted material in their dataset.

[Anonymous No.6401436]

The future is always scary to those who cling to the past.

[Anonymous No.6401441]

>>6400415
The idea of a human soul is a buzzword huh. You are too far gone at this point.

[Anonymous No.6401445]

>>6401441
Define "soul" then.

[Anonymous No.6401446]

>>6400748
Why are we setting our species up for ruin? The NEETS and incels putting these images together will get the last laugh I guess.

[Anonymous No.6401522]

>>6401273
Oh well, if none of the image data is saved in the dataset, would you kindly mind explaining how these >>6401032 >>6400555 just so happened to nearly exactly replicate parts of another image that they were trained on? Hmm? C'moooon, smart boy, you know so much about how it works. Why don't you share what you know with the rest of the class, eh? You can do that, can't you?

[Anonymous No.6401530]

>>6401522
It's just remembering faces, just like you do. It doesn't have Prosopagnosia or any issues like that, Just Chirophobia.

[Anonymous No.6401537]

>>6401530
>an algorithm
>"remembering"
Oh, you really ARE taking the piss, aren't you? Bra-VO, anon. You really had us going there.

[Anonymous No.6401540]

>>6400348
AI image washing data prompt generation is not human art.
Bad sides? big corps will be make trillions whit this, whitout the high amount of employes
Infinite generation of images means that there will be no longer meaning to it, it just infinite and whitout sense, visual goyslop
>>6400571
based

[Anonymous No.6401552]

Because it's filling up the internet with exponential amounts of garbage in addition to the astronomical levels of garbage that existed before.

[Anonymous No.6401555]

>>6401436
>I for one, embrace living in a pod, eating bugs, having no value, and eventually being culled off to cut costs for the elites who hand out my bug milk. This is progress!

[Anonymous No.6401561]

What I don't get is why artistry is the creative field that flipped the most shit over AI getting even halfway decent. No composer batted an eye for AI music getting to that point and that was already done several years ago. AI has the same inherent problems there with either reusing assets for learning from the field for being able to get outputs and the whole issues with flooding websites with AI music, demotivating aspiring composers in the field and etc. It's like a night and day difference.

[Anonymous No.6401562]

>>6401555
>>6401540
>>6401522
>>6400571
All of the above are of my(similar) sentiments.
Simple as.

[Anonymous No.6401569]

>>6401561
Maybe these musicians you're talking to are just more hopeless and burnt out in the first place. It's hard to be disappointed when you never had real aspirations in the first place.

[Anonymous No.6401585]

>>6401561
Does the music AI scene have
>people creating and publicly releasing models developed using the specific works of an identifiable artist, sometimes with clearly malicious intent
>people flooding content sharing sites with machine generated works, flooding out works made by real artists
>several entities releasing their own public-use generators, based on the works of artists
>overall message being pushed is that the whole shebang is a way to replace real artists
Maybe I've missed something, but everything I've heard about music generators is that they are gimped novelties with minimal traction.

[Anonymous No.6401633]

>>6401585
>people creating and publicly releasing models developed using the specific works of an identifiable artist
Yes, see commercial ones like Mubert AI, Amper, etc. to cutting edge stuff like AudioLM from Google. Same thing as artists where you can put in prompts of different composers and you will get some output.
>people flooding content sharing sites with machine generated works, flooding out works made by real artists
Same situation happened as with Deviantart and Pixiv with Youtube and Soundcloud although not to the same extent. All of Soundcloud's most recent acquisitions have all been in the AI space.
>several entities releasing their own public-use generators, based on the works of artists
Not to the same extent or ease of use again, but they are available like AudioLM from Google.
>overall message being pushed is that the whole shebang is a way to replace real artists
Not in the state it is in so never discussed.
I really think artists overreacted and did themselves in by doing that. It was obvious AI art still has inconsistencies and was in the fuck up stage when Stable Diffusion was announced earlier this year. If the breakthrough went through the normal news cycle without people blowing up about it to the extent that they did, the investment put in the space wouldn't have been as large as it would've been now torwards ease of use and etc.

[Anonymous No.6401637]

>>6400348
You already posted your answer.

[Anonymous No.6401644]

use this to filter ai threads: /\bai\b/i

[Anonymous No.6401728]

>>6401214
>Only nihilist
Nihilist reporting in.
>do the words "soul"
No.

>nooo my magic impossible and debunked shit named a soul must be real
Imagine being so fucked in the head.

[Anonymous No.6401734]

>>6401433
>2. Art generated by AI is effectively a copyright violation; the AI doesn't actually create or interpret anything, it just regurgitates input in a new structure. They don't learn how to create images, they learn what images are and then assemble images from parts of others.
This one gets it I refer everyone to this thread >>>/g/90081366
The AI literally forces everything into its limited dataset. After 20 pictures especially if you submit to the AI things it can not deal with like

>OLD people
>Non standard body shapes.

You will see that the AI literally forces everything into this same art style and the same architectural style. It literally can not get outside of this. The only way around this is to feed the AI new pictures.


Actually the AI can not deal with casual modern clothing and forces it into its angular neo-Victorian fashion style. Here you can see bill gates shirt being interpreted into a neo-Victorian admirals jacket and steve jobs gets a cape. Also all these angular accessories. Because the AI literally can not deviate from this. All fashion it ever did see is in this category. You can simply do the tests by uploading randome garbage to this AI and see what it will do.

>3. The purpose of art AI is effectively to replace artists by big companies with an interest in removing as many human hands from the process, because then they can pay less people.
This one gets it. Basically it is a move from big corporations to fuck over human artists. And no random no skill NEETs on 4chan will not magically get super popular artists by typing in text into AI boxes.

>1. Art generation AI uses image sets that are allowed to use copyrighted images by being developed by non-profits, but those non-profits are owned by large companies who then use the AI to generate art for commercial purposes; essentially, an elaborate copyright dodge.
Red pill me on this.

[Anonymous No.6401735]

>>6401445
>Define "soul" then.
They literally can not.

At this point the word soul is beyond meaningless.
They do not even try the old debunked magic ghost inside humans since they know this is debunked.

[Anonymous No.6401738]

>>6401522
>just so happened to nearly exactly replicate parts of another image that they were trained on? Hmm? C'moooon, smart boy, you know so much about how it works. Why don't you share what you know with the rest of the class, eh? You can do that, can't you?
Not that anon. I'm on your side.
>why
The fact is that the AI literally saves all the pictures it is trained on, the trick is that since no one really knows how a neural network operates in detail this is hidden. Basically the fact that the pictures are saved in some obscurantism format does not mean the AI does not save them.

PS: There is the chance that the AI saved a 99% of the picture with some distortions because AI training is never perfect.

[Anonymous No.6401740]

>>6401561
It's a self-perpetuating astroturf, inculcating lefty art communities with reactionary conservative sentiment because it serves certain political economic aims.
>It's another way of getting them to eat their own
>Undermines business rivals while latecomers spin up their own tech
>Slows adoption among the people who would use it most effectively to wrest wealth from current holders
It started with NFTs (actually it probably really started with Google Glass)(also right-click save jpg folks are concerned about art theft now I guess lol) and can now be pushed with regard to whatever tech they'd like.

[Anonymous No.6401742]

>>6401561
Show me where I can get a AI music generator I wait.

PS: Local version ultra preferred with extreme vengeance.

[Anonymous No.6401781]

The models are getting better and better. Here are some examples from niji journey, a model still on a waiting list. I'm a user of ai art and also an artist myself. My own belief is in a global consciousness, so ai art is still capable of possessing "soul" since random number generators are also affected by the mind via psychokinesis. Metaphysically, ai art has great potential for soul through being crafted through honed in prompts and inpainting, choosing features of the image over a course of hundreds of generations, not dissimilar to a sculptor chiseling away at his stone. We do not simply put in a prompt and pick the first few outputs, most ai art is put through a rigorous work flow until it comes out to the prompter in a pleasing way, what they had originally intended in their own mind's eye.

[Anonymous No.6401788]

>>6401781
It certainly is not perfect yet, the models are far from flawless. However, it is simply untrue that ai art generation does not qualify as its own form of art. To state otherwise is to be petty and close minded.

[Anonymous No.6401792]

>>6400361
AI is literally the biggest event in art since the printing press

[Anonymous No.6401794]

>>6401781
>also an artist myself
pyw

[Anonymous No.6401798]

>>6401788
It does not take as much effort as illustration and can't be called as such, but I find myself drawn much more to ai generated art than traditional art more and more. People with visions that were previously unable to adequately express themselves now have their own form of "paintbrush" to create worlds and tapestries they never would have had the time or talent or resources to produce until now, and that's refreshing to witness.

[Anonymous No.6401801]

>>6401792
Hey remember how motion controls changed gaming forever?

[Anonymous No.6401804]

>>6401794
I refuse to doxx myself, my own work is publicly available and also likely trained since it is also on danbooru. For the record, none of the ai art I have shared has been my own. Even if I weren't an artist, my point stands. I only brought up the fact that I am also an illustrator because I am painfully aware of the work and time it takes to complete anything. I'll still do illustrations, but I would be lying if I didn't think ai art was its own legitimate craft.

[Anonymous No.6401806]

>>6400348
Isn't it possible to sneak actual child porn into the model with none being the wiser? I am legitimately spooked by this prospect.

[Anonymous No.6401811]

>no work posted
literally every time

[Anonymous No.6401813]

>>6400426
>It's learning in a similar way to how humans learn.
AIfags favorite buzz phrase.
>>6400438
>>6400443
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0MD4sRHj1M
tl;dw a machine has no real comprehension of what it's doing other than take orders.

[Anonymous No.6401817]

>>6401798
>muh vision
AI art is by design random. You can only play pretend that you had a meaningful say in the end result.
>>6401804
Mmmkay, you don't draw. We could tell anyways.

[Anonymous No.6401819]

>>6401798
>People with visions that were previously unable to adequately express themselves now have their own form of "paintbrush" to create worlds and tapestries they never would have had the time or talent or resources to produce until now
More like they produce more of the same garbage and forget about it quickly. Nothing refreshing about that.

>>6401806
Once a model has been trained on an image it can't be un-trained.

[Anonymous No.6401822]

>>6401817
>AI art is by design random. You can only play pretend that you had a meaningful say in the end result.

(you)

You have quite a bit of say, if you know what you are doing.

[Anonymous No.6401826]

>>6401822
You're still coloring over randomized stock photos. I dunno man this might be the future of marketing graphics but art is kinda dead at this point.

[Anonymous No.6401827]

>>6401804
>why yes, I have a cuckold fetish, how could you tell?
I hope Jamaal uses AI trained on your work to generate beautiful images to entertain your wife's son

[Anonymous No.6401828]

>>6401822
not this anon>>6401817
but here, the most successful "creative" video on youtube based on the algorithm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqZsoesa55w

[Anonymous No.6401832]

>>6401781
>My own belief is in a global consciousness, so ai art is still capable of possessing "soul" since random number generators are also affected by the mind via psychokinesis
So you're a literal retard?

[Anonymous No.6401838]

>>6401826
You can still draw your own base image and guide the model to where you want it to go. Inpainting is also how you can manipulate the image and sculpt it to your own vision. Many of you don't really know the work flow of ai art and it is very transparent. I understand that you hate it and it is giving you an existential crisis, but no one is taking your ability to illustrate away. My main point is that:
A) ai art has a soul (if intentionally made)
B) ai art is art

[Anonymous No.6401839]

>>6401832
If their retarded psuedo intellectual babble didn't tip you off, yes.

[Anonymous No.6401843]

>>6401832
>ad hominem
Great rebuttal. You'll understand one day.

[Anonymous No.6401844]

>>6401838
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZlpH6PLg5U
sponsorship deal and now has a television show

[Anonymous No.6401848]

>>6401843
Nigger you believe in psychokinesis.

[Anonymous No.6401849]

what the fuck even are these?

[Anonymous No.6401850]

>>6401848
I can and do use psychokinesis.

[Anonymous No.6401851]

>>6401822
And none of it came from (You)
For every art masterpiece out there, an artist thought of a specific thing, a brilliant thought, a thought that sparked a feeling, feeling that coalesced into a picture, and then an even grander picture, all inside the mind of the artist. When their vision was crystal clear, to where they could feel each and every thing down to the last minute detail, they did their absolute best to bring it down to a canvas, painstakingly, for days on end.
Does your proompting process involve any of this? Does your vision (the image in your minds eye) matches what the machine puts out? Or do you simply accept the result without much thought, then keep proompting?

[Anonymous No.6401852]

>>6401843
You don't know what an ad hominem is. I can smell the hair grease off your fedora from here

[Anonymous No.6401854]

>>6401849
Nothing real, as a soldering guy and computer guy, I know.

[Anonymous No.6401856]

>>6401852
>(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
You called me retarded and you don't even know the definition of the word you're accusing me of using incorrectly?

[Anonymous No.6401858]

>>6401838
Yes anon I am aware you can highlight parts of your ai and proompt within the original ai. It's still just a stock photo. Illustrations are not art, and are not expressing yourself.

[Anonymous No.6401859]

>>6401854
I here I thought the /g/ meme was that its mostly shills that don't know shit about the tech they're talking about

[Anonymous No.6401862]

>>6401856
kek you fucking retard. I'm not that guy first of all, but attacking a person in the context of an ad hominem is basically the difference between "you're wrong because you're and idiot" vs "you're and idiot and this is why"

[Anonymous No.6401868]

>>6401858
Your statement here doesn't really parse. It's mostly nonsensical, so I'm not really sure how to approach it. Oh well. I've gotten what I've come to say off my chest, seeing art twitter seethe all day over ai art and not being able to vent has been difficult. Thanks for listening while I argue my point anonymously. I hope you guys find new employment before you get replaced.

[Anonymous No.6401870]

>>6401838
>blurry deformed anatomy and objects everywhere
You AI fags always post a "muh inpainting" that looks like garbage, always proving you have no basic standards.

[Anonymous No.6401875]

>>6401868
>hey my nig/g/a compete with this with your creative AI work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJyNoFkud6g&t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xqqj9o7TgA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH2FBHGDqMU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=020g-0hhCAU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=astISOttCQ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_04ZrNroTo

[Anonymous No.6401877]

>>6401868
>muh employment
Every time. EVERY time. Without fail. kek

[Anonymous No.6401880]

>>6401838
You larp that the random gunk the AI shat out was what you intended? If you didn't visualize it in your mind or thought about it and placed it on the paper as you planned, it's not intentional l, it's random. Otherwise you're just pretending. what is it with tech fags being so low intelligence as to not understand even the simple concept of intentionality?

[Anonymous No.6401888]

>>6401868
Wow you're really mad that people don't like AI. Enjoy being irrelevant along with the rest of the stock photo illustrators.

[Anonymous No.6401894]

>>6400732
Anon, you don't understand. We already have the tools to train AI models at home. We only download central models out of convenience.
>>6400771
>Then what will you do ?
>Not sell it?
>Not post it on the internet ?
Posting a picture of a Disney character on 4Chan as part of a conversation, and claiming Mickey Mouse as your own creation to market your digital art collection, are always going to be very different things. In your extreme case, you'd have an internet where you can't expose people to copyrighted content at all, making advertising extremely difficult, and harming revenues for companies
>Sponsored ads
Not as effective as word-of-mouth.

[Anonymous No.6401899]

>>6401851
>"The artist had an idea, then he drew/painted/sculpted the idea"
Waste of words, anon. And no one cares.

[Anonymous No.6401901]

>>6401899
i do care

[Anonymous No.6401903]

>>6401901
You care about whether or not the complete idea preceded the first draft?

[Anonymous No.6401905]

>>6401903
yes

[Anonymous No.6401908]

>>6401905
I'm sure that matters for a magnum opus, but for the daily scribble, not so.

[Anonymous No.6401911]

>>6401899
yet y'all fa/g/s want to be here 24/7 shilling your dumbass ideas with several you you niggas writing full blown essays of
>"AI good"
>"you luddite"
>"the future of art/artists dead"
>"new tech good old tech/ways bad"
so far I seen y'all only only get btfo from /3/ not knowing what the fuck 3d guys do but y'all sure do think you know a thing about art but can't take criticism for shit

[Anonymous No.6401912]

>Waste of words, anon. And no one cares.

[Anonymous No.6401913]

>>6401908
>but for the daily scribble
it still part of the process and its fun

[Anonymous No.6401914]

>>6401912
Kek the average aitool

[Anonymous No.6401920]

>>6401911
This guy's criticism amounts to AI generation not being immediately useful for putting planned projects on a canvas directly.
>>6401913
For you. For me, experimenting with art styles, subjects, backgrounds, and details is fun. Making AI-generated reaction images and sharing prompts/models for improvement is fun.

[Anonymous No.6401924]

>>6401822
Don’t be a liar, no can really tell how the generations will look before they click “generate”. Part of the workflow is actively selecting the “good ones” simply because it’s not really your art nor your intention, it’s just AI generating random stuff trying to follow your prompts.

Unlike most anons here I do think AI art can look pretty, but all this creativity and expression talk is bullshit, you just keep generating and end up getting satisfied with the best looking picture instead of really following a precise concept.

[Anonymous No.6401934]

>>6401920
why does she still have an Emma Watson face literally it's the same looking shit, that it makes all you fa/g/s blend together
didn't one of y'all complain on /g/ about normies harassing y'all because your kind are the most braindead retarded code monkies ever that you think people don't notice shit and call out people. I thought you niggas would of learned about twitter mobs plus reddit/discord ones or fuckin any influencer mobs going after people but sure start up shit and complain that's its artists and other people fault

[Anonymous No.6401937]

>>6401934
>why does she still have an Emma Watson face literally it's the same looking shit
I grabbed an early output. Here's how it began to look later on.
>didn't one of y'all complain on /g/ about normies harassing y'all because your kind are the most braindead retarded code monkies ever that you think people don't notice shit and call out people. I thought you niggas would of learned about twitter mobs plus reddit/discord ones or fuckin any influencer mobs going after people but sure start up shit and complain that's its artists and other people fault
Anon, this is incoherent. I have no clue what you're saying.

[Anonymous No.6401961]

>>6401937
are you that retarded AI fag giving people pic related and saying this is what artists need to learn now instead of drawing or doing what they like even as a hobby
writing fuckin paragraphs of useless shit that any retard can ctr+c and v and chinks already made an app version making it absolute to already lazy people.
because that's who you fa/g/s are targeting too since I know one keep bitching about the AI soon doing everything for them