/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.6423117]

I don't understand why artists are upset about AI art.

Sure I get the fact that the market will be flooded with crap, but it already is flooded with crap.

As an artist, you have to spend countless hours honing countless technical details in your work. Isn't it the best thing ever that an AI can do the hard work for you so you can focus on the big picture and unique details that are more fun to work on.

>But it steals artwork!

So have you if you've ever taken an art class, gone to an art museum, or have seen any piece of art and still remember it. Your memories subconsciously inform every aspect of your work. The only reason AI is being called out for it is because of overfitting to prompts based on existing artists, which is something that is easily fixed and far from an existential, unfixable problem. Should we require all future artists to never look at or be inspired by existing works because it's "copying"?

It's the coolest thing to happen to tech in 30 years and for some reason so many artists are crying like babies over it while technologists continuously iterate and improve. A lot of these models are open source, there's nothing keeping you from joining in on the fun.

[Anonymous No.6423136]

>>6423117
>Be beg
>Draw shitty broken sketch
>Ai fixes it up
>Learn from corrections
>Try again
Personal redlining machine

[Anonymous No.6423141]

>>6423136
Didn't think of that before, good idea!

[Anonymous No.6423145]

>>6423136
If you are learning to draw then use a rl reference. Otherwise use art from artists you want to emulate. Using image generation should be a last resort since it is inherently flawed and only an approximation towards mimicking what the artist who drew the source would consider good.

[Anonymous No.6423178]

>>6423117
Most artists wouldn't be complaining about it if it wasn't for the economical aspect.
Doing art is fun, and being able to do something you truly love and make a living off of it is even greater. It's a dream/life goal that many have, and the new tech is now threatening that dream. It doesn't mean much that I can make great looking pictures in a fraction of the time when I still have to support myself with some shitty job that I couldn't care less about.

Also, for a lot of artists using AI leads to a loss of personality. Yes, we the basic concepts are the same - you look at something, try to work out the patterns and basics, and incorporate it into your own work. But artists are inspired by more than just other pictures. The makeup and condition of their physical bodies, their background, their feelings, their worldview, it all subtly influences their art. Putting your stuff into a machine trained on thousands of pictures spreads your influence on the resulting image so thin that it's not really yours anymore.

[Anonymous No.6423182]

>>6423117
>isn't it the best thing ever that an AI can do the hard work for you
No, because it literally can't. It can make amazing images that aren't exactly "my work" (what I need to do).

AI art is so focused in automation that they forgot it also should be able to serve a purpose.

Imagine using this in full projects where you need to follow perfectly certain designs and be consistent? If you just use it as a base it's not exactly more efficient than using 3d ou photobashing.

[Anonymous No.6423185]

>>6423136
>Ai fixes it up
KEEEEEEEEEEEK

[Anonymous No.6423186]

>>6423136
This!
Only faggots seething at AI's uprising are the gatekeepers /pros/ who can't hold the monopoly of coom art anymore.
AI is democracy at its finest!

[Anonymous No.6423188]

Didn't read; I want to do it myself.

[Anonymous No.6423190]

>>6423185
If it's so bad then why does everyone cry about it

[Anonymous No.6423194]

>>6423178
That's why AI art is a tool, not a final product.
We don't yet have the ability to feed in an AI art machine all the experiences of a human lifetime. However despite the fact that currently it's limited to images on the internet, it's able to reproduce anatomy, themes, architectural styles, all without being explicitly trained.

Artists and anyone else who clings on to the "specialness" of humans needs a serious wakeup call. Anything that can be measured can be made computable. Human "creativity" seems spontaneous and unique but all it is is a collection of neural patterns creating connections via abstraction. That's all AI art is doing, and it's becoming increasingly efficient at it.

[Anonymous No.6423199]

>>6423190
You won’t complain when some assholes dump trash in your house?

[Anonymous No.6423200]

>>6423199
nonsense analogy

[Anonymous No.6423202]

>>6423117
Oh hello yes, this is the Lagomorphic Diffusion thread, right?

[Anonymous No.6423203]

>>6423200
What nonsense? Guess you street shitter are so used to garbage you couldnt tell the difference kek

[Anonymous No.6423204]

>>6423202
You'll grow tired of spamming long before AI eats the art world. What can mere flesh do before our onslaught?

[Anonymous No.6423206]

>>6423203
>garbage
It's far from the best art but it's better than 95% of artists. The fact that it's less than a year old indicates it will be better than 100% of artists in no more than 5 years.

Cope... and seethe

[Anonymous No.6423208]

>>6423194
Even if a computer is able to perfectly replicate the patterns of human thought, it will never be able to replicate any one human specifically. And because art is fundamentally a form of communication between humans, humans will continue to seek out the unique experiences of other humans (and their expressions in art) rather than some smoothed-out median result - no matter how similar the basic principles will be. Humans like other humans, I don't think that's going to change.

[Anonymous No.6423210]

prompt: jason, masterwork, masterpiece, really good art

[Anonymous No.6423211]

>>6423194
>Human "creativity" seems spontaneous and unique but all it is is a collection of neural patterns creating connections via abstraction.
You want AI to draw for you and also be creative for you? What do you want to do anyway?

It's like that guy that make a children book and used ChatGPT to write the story and Midjourney to illustrate it, he even used Chat GPT to write the prompts for Midjourney. So, basically, he just printed it.

[Anonymous No.6423213]

>>6423206
>it's already better than X% of artist
this kind of argument implies that technical skill is literally all there is to art, and that the value of their work lies only in the process of creating images.

[Anonymous No.6423215]

>>6423208
>smoothed out median
It's trivial for a computer to mimic the unique eccentricies of human thought. There's even a single parameter that language models have for this, it's called "temperature"

Humans will like other humans over computers because of in-group bias, but humans much prefer exceptional humans vs normal humans. That's why humans all adore celebrities, artists, athletes, models, people who exemplify the highest of some measurable trait. What will happen when AI can do all these things better than any human can?

[Anonymous No.6423217]

[Anonymous No.6423223]

>>6423213
I never implied that it was merely in technical skill that AI is outperforming humans. If it were a competition on technical skill alone I'd argue AI art can do stuff that no human on earth can currently do, minus the few blind spots (hands, certain parts of human anatomy)

In terms of creativity, AI does a fairly good job of creating new conceptual images, and merging disconnected aspects to create new things.

[Anonymous No.6423227]

[Anonymous No.6423231]

>>6423215
>It's trivial for a computer to mimic
You said it yourself: It mimics. It's not the real thing, no matter how sophisticated it is. A painting of a rock, no matter how detailed and realistic, is never going to *be* the rock. The same thing applies here.

>What will happen when AI can do all these things better than any human can?
That's the fundamental question this technology poses. It will lead to a fundamental change in how we engage with art. Technique and aesthetics are going to be devalued, and things like intent and scarcity will gain value.

[Anonymous No.6423234]

[Anonymous No.6423236]

>>6423231
Humans mimic too. Have you ever read those stories about feral children, raised in a dark room with no parental guidance? They end up brain damaged and unable to speak or reason for their entire lives. Operant conditioning and mimicry is the basis for how intelligent agents learn. Every human is mimicking other humans and things other humans have written down.

>Technique and aesthetics are going to be devalued, and things like intent and scarcity will gain value.
I 100% agree with this. However how do we measure "intent"? What makes intent more valuable inherently?

I think the most valuable thing in the future will be utile inspiration: basically information that guides AIs to produce something of value more than being fed the same prompts and shit will.

[Anonymous No.6423238]

>>6423223
Not him but one thing image generation can't do for shit is image composition. Lighting direction is usually also all over the place because it mixes lighting from different images. Then if we look at your image it got errors to the point where a lot of stuff would need to be redone to fix them.

It is not so much that a human can't produce the results an AI can. It is more that a skilled human wouldn't do it.

[Anonymous No.6423241]

>>6423200
not an argument

[Anonymous No.6423242]

>>6423117
>ai artist
Ehh why bother

[Anonymous No.6423243]

>>6423241
The argument is that saying that AI art is bad because someone dumping shit in front of your house is bad and AI art is the same as dumping shit in front of your house is wrong, because AI art is not the same as dumping shit in front of your house.

Analogies have to be sensible enough to be self-evidently true.

[Anonymous No.6423244]

>>6423242
kek

[Anonymous No.6423245]

[Anonymous No.6423246]

>>6423238
>AI can't into composition
Rules of composition are very simple.

[Anonymous No.6423247]

this is my house.
stop dumping shit on it.

[Anonymous No.6423250]

>>6423243
I think it is.

Your argument is invalid. Have a nice day sir.

[Anonymous No.6423251]

>>6423242
Now you'll have thieves in general attracted to art spaces. Bad

[Anonymous No.6423252]

>>6423246
I dunno, your composition isn't very good. I don't see a single lagomorph in it. I think your Lagomorphic Diffusion model's busted. Maybe you should roll back to the 2.0 version, I hear that 2.1 sucked after they got rid of some of the training data.

[Anonymous No.6423255]

>>6423246
For a human maybe.

I say that but for most beginner artists it isn't. It is about understanding what is the focus and constructing the image in a way that leads the eye.

For an image generator that is like asking a group of monkeys to write Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.6423256]

>>6423206
As long as AI still pisses off artist, as long as your artificial “intelligence” still works as a glorified photobashing machine. Your AI will never improve unless it reach true conscious intelligence.
>Cope seethe
Look who saying when spamming the board like a schizo kek

[Anonymous No.6423257]

>>6423206
If that's really what you think counts as good, then there really is no point in engaging with you pajeets. You probably think the pinnacle of cinema is Marvelslop.

[Anonymous No.6423258]

>year 2035
>a huge team of 3 people plan their next AAA game
>they are lacking in ideas so they ask AI
>AI gives them a concept that they bring to another AI to check success probability of it and its cost
>They start the production with the script written by the AI
> The script is soon fed into another AI as prompts to generate the designs and all assets of the game
> Same for voice acting and sound track
>AI generates the code and also tests it, because it’s faster this way
>When the game is done devs feel exhausted and ask the AI to play it for them
>As devs are not used to have opinions, they ask the AI if it was fun

[Anonymous No.6423259]

>>6423117
>joining in on the fun.
It's not fun. Prompting is so fucking lame. I don't see how someone can type variations of "anime girl big breasts cyberpunk nude by Craig Mullins 8k oil painting trending on artstation" and not just feel pathetic.

[Anonymous No.6423260]

>>6423258
they want to kill off general sentience you know.

[Anonymous No.6423261]

>>6423250
>It's bad because I say it's bad
artcopers have resorted to the lowest form of arguement

[Anonymous No.6423264]

>>6423236
>Humans mimic too.
You're right. But they're not able to perfectly mimic anything. Of course, you can train AI to in turn mimic those imperfection. But at least for now, the fact that there are things you can't feed an AI (like the experience of a lifetime, the physical sensation of the environment etc.) gives humans an edge over it in terms of "visceral creation." AI will only be able to match this once we get robots that are basically perfect replicas of humans built by other humans. Then they would be equal.

>What makes intent more valuable inherently?
Time will tell, I guess. Humans are the ones that assign value, so we'll need to work it out. I feel like there is an inheret value there though.

[Anonymous No.6423266]

>>6423261
Ai shitters are perma/beg/s and talk like they know anything.

[Anonymous No.6423272]

>>6423259
Which is more pathetic
>Typing whatever your imagination feels like and getting a cornucopia of new images never before seen by anyone
>or
Carefully drawing the fart-smell lines from a futa fox furry and then arduously rendering it so you can make another 300 dollars in coomission bucks

[Anonymous No.6423279]

>>6423236
>feral children
Reminded me how, when people came out of the long ass lockdown, there were young children that did not know their own names because for their formative language months their parents only called them "honey" or "sweetie".

>>6423238
>It is not so much that a human can't produce the results an AI can. It is more that a skilled human wouldn't do it.

The mistakes that occur when genning AI art are different from those you get with drawing. That makes it hard for people who draw (or paint) to understand, which makes it seem "soulless" - you can't empathize with the mistakes that do exist. I imagine redeye from camera flash much have looked similarly fucked up to people who weren't used to it before it became commonly understood.

[Anonymous No.6423288]

>>6423117
I wish AI wasn’t the default term but ML

This people equating the autonated explotation of living artists works with a single artist using reference is so bizarre. As if the fucking thing was sentient

[Anonymous No.6423292]

>>6423288
Cargo cult
nice dubs

[Anonymous No.6423297]

>>6423288
Most of the AIfags who make AI threads don't seem to understand that which is what often makes their arguments so inane and a waste of time to participate in. However "AI" has been used wrongly as long as we have had PC games so it hard to say it is not consistent even if it is wrong.

[Anonymous No.6423298]

>>6423288
If it's fine for me to appropriate the work of other artists then it's fine for me to use a tool to automate that process in a way which ensures I'm not cutting too close to any particular one's work.

And if you reply with "appropriating art isn't fine" then you're an even bigger retard than you came across as.

[Anonymous No.6423309]

>>6423297
AI is one of those terms that has a technical meaning and a common parlance meaning.

When most people refer to AI they are using the common parlance meaning as you refer to, which i basically "machine learning model doing something". Which is fine. The point isn't about whether they're using the correct term, the point is generally about machine learning models that learn to do tasks not explicitly trained, and the long term implications of these tasks becoming more predictably useful

[Anonymous No.6423310]

>>6423117
They're mad because it is replacing profit-driven kitsch.
They're exposing themselves as innately kitschfag by crying about it, despite all their previous self-aggrandizing condemnation of kitsch.

As both a doodler and a coder, I'm elated and suffer no insecurity whatsoever about my doodles. StableDiffusion is better at doodling than me, and that's cool!
Sometimes I set it to generate 100 doodles while I draw one of the same thing and then I go through and pick the best generations to save and compare to my hand drawn doodle.

Also WOAH MAMA can it draw some hotties. Doodlers through the ages would have loved it. Imagine showing it to ancient Greek doodlers. The future of doodling and fine art are both secure, but human-exclusive kitsch is in the mud, I'm afraid.

[Anonymous No.6423312]

>>6423145
I don't think you understand ML

[Anonymous No.6423313]

>>6423297
Most of these people shilling and spamming this board don't even have the slightest clue of how these imagegen algorithms work, or they're just straight up being intellectually dishonest. Or both.

Me, I know how Lagomorphic Diffusion works. I draw line, and rabbet come out. It's a pretty dang good design, if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.6423316]

>>6423312
I know you don't understand ML.

[Anonymous No.6423320]

The funny thing is that the developers of the different image generator programs have gone out of their way to mention that users don't own the copyright to anything they create with those programs. Yet AIfags still think they own it.

[Anonymous No.6423321]

>>6423117
Bro as someone that spent the last 5 years getting into trad/practical art production I A: don’t give a shit about AI I think it’s neat, B: am glad it happened at the rate it did, and C: was planning on this.

Once everything on the art production for industry side can be professionally executed with AI there will be an inevitable backlash and swing back in demand for traditional and practically produced content that exists in the irl world.

It’s like investing in vinyl in 2005. Or investing in practical effects in movies in 2010.

[Anonymous No.6423323]

>>6423213
>wtf people aren't forced to pay me to jerk myself off about my "soul" and "process" and "inspiration" while I, in fact, just draw exactly what they described because I am creating specialized, probably sexualized, pandering custom tailored kitsch for money, yet consider it valuable art somehow and the AI making something closer to what they want for free somehow is depriving THEM of some valuable experience or nuance while jerking off

[Anonymous No.6423326]

>>6423320
This is something that won’t actually be unambiguous until it’s settled by a Supreme Court.

[Anonymous No.6423328]

>>6423320
Huge falseflag.
Read SD's TOS.
Also I just saved your NFT sorry babe it's mine more

[Anonymous No.6423330]

>>6423313
>>6423313
>Me, I know how Lagomorphic Diffusion works. I draw line, and rabbet come out. It's a pretty dang good design, if you ask me.
It's like you are commissioning artwork from it. I see you more as a client than an artist.

[Anonymous No.6423331]

>>6423117
> t. lives on 4chan 24/7 for the sole purpose of spamming the same topic every day
Unironically kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.6423334]

>>6423323
And yet that hypothetical person is still more skilled than you.

[Anonymous No.6423337]

Using ai to fabricate lewds and newds= cool and not perverted

Using ai to fabricate artistic talent= Fake and gay

[Anonymous No.6423338]

>>6423323
>his concept of art as a whole is encapsuled in the term "deviantart level commission work"

[Anonymous No.6423340]

>>6423328
>Huge falseflag.
>Read SD's TOS.
>Also I just saved your NFT sorry babe it's mine more

lol you are just talking out of your ass. How about we just ask google.
>The Act makes the human requirement clear: “The U.S. Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being. “ This means that, under the current rules, AI-generated art has no owner.

[Anonymous No.6423343]

Just gotta edit out the butt ponytails and bing bong bang that’s what your favorite Disney actress looks like naked on a beach

[Anonymous No.6423344]

>>6423320
>>6423326
So let's say the glowies make up some rules
Will this be followed by a SWAT team battering down my door and destroying my hard drives because I downloaded AI models from huggingface and may have in my possession images generated from those models?
Let's say I wanted to sell them then, but don't own them.
The guys who made the model? No, they assigned permissive licensing, LGPL type stuff.
The artists whose publicly posted works got scraped and aggregated? Google already won a precedent setting lawsuit about the right to use in aggregate regardless of individual copyright, and I didn't scrape or aggregate anything, and the model I downloaded CANNOT contain the copyrighted works because it is far, far too small.
It contains neural impressions of them, in aggregate, by tag and trend, from studying them for an entire "epoch" of computer time.
Arguing the artists have rights to images produced by AI trained on them is like arguing da Vinci has rights to YOUR art pieces because you've seen and been influenced or inspired by his works

[Anonymous No.6423346]

>>6423117
>The only reason AI is being called out for it is because of overfitting to prompts based on existing artists, which is something that is easily fixed and far from an existential, unfixable problem. Should we require all future artists to never look at or be inspired by existing works because it's "copying"?
is this the latest script the shills have been instructed to use?
because human learning is not directly comparable to a machine algorithm at all, there is no real intelligence to this "AI", that's just the branding they gave it to fool idiots like OP into equating AI with a human mind
also artists actually have to practice and draw to learn, they don't just look at other art and assimilate it
OP is a shill or a troll or both

[Anonymous No.6423350]

>>6423343
who the fuck watches disney
might as well just do heroin buddy

[Anonymous No.6423351]

>>6423331
This is the first time I've posted on here. I usually browse /g/ but wanted to get artists opinion on it.

The fact that you imagine anything that disagrees with your worldview the concerted collective effort of some random madman rather than a growing, organic consensus reveals more about your mental state than you think it does.

[Anonymous No.6423352]

>>6423330
>>6423334
>>6423338
>>6423340
None of this prevents me from being whatever art I want, and I don't care how you define artist or ownership because I'm not a cock smoker and ownership of works only matters if someone else has an actual claim to it, and no one does because a computer drew it based on aggregate memories of art. This is the "you can't sell that photo because the monkey pushed the button" debacle all over again except even dumber because it's a machine built to push the button for the user.

[Anonymous No.6423354]

>>6423344
>Will this be followed by a SWAT team battering down my door and destroying my hard drives because I downloaded AI models from huggingface and may have in my possession images generated from those models?
No it means that if you discover some AI art that you in some way can make money out of then anyone can copy what you are doing and start selling that art you prompted without you having any say in the matter.

[Anonymous No.6423356]

>>6423350
How do you NOT watch Disney? They’re responsible for like 70% of the big budget releases nowadays.

[Anonymous No.6423357]

>>6423344
The average AIfag is the type of scum who would find some obscure artist, create an image shitter using their work, and then try to copyright the results.
You do realize how shitty that is, right?

[Anonymous No.6423360]

>>6423346
>a machine algorithm
>not comparable
Nigger what do you think neural network programming is?

[Anonymous No.6423361]

>>6423117
>be me at the gym
>dude comes up to me wheeling a giant hydraulic lift on a cart
>”Time to stop lifting, bro.”
>”Uh…what?”
>”This machine can lift for you now.”
>”Well that’s not really possible, I mean, I do this for my own health, personal improvement, to boost my energy. Like, I’m not lifting this because I want it up in the air. Do you not get that?”
>”Well, you’ll never make money lifting things again.”
>”I wasn’t planning on it? Anyway, I’m pretty sure I can still get a job as a mover or a construction worker, like, that’s a cool machine and all but it can’t do multiple complicated tasks that all fit together in sequence, so I’m honestly not that worried.”
>The dude proceeds to spam /lit/ with threads about hydraulic presses.

[Anonymous No.6423362]

>>6423346
AI has to practice too. Every commercial model requires millions of dollars of training and processing time. It's not just "plug in art and it copies"

Would you believe that AI art is "intelligent" if I dressed up a robot and had it walk to a bunch of art galleries? I've been to art galleries and have seen artists literally copying art they see. Why do they do this? Because the best way to learn to create art is to learn from other artists. That's all art AI is doing, plus it learns from non-art images available freely on the web.

[Anonymous No.6423363]

Feel like all the people whining about AI aren’t even tradfags. Oh no my iPad made it TOO easy for hosers to make art.

[Anonymous No.6423364]

>>6423361
*/fit/

[Anonymous No.6423366]

>>6423360
>Nigger what do you think neural network programming is?
a buzzword, these algorithms don't actually think

[Anonymous No.6423369]

>>6423354
Okay, and? It cost me two minutes and 1 cent of electricity. If I want to make money I can still be the first one to sell it.
Oh no someone "stole" "my" AI "art" and also made some money, what a crying shame, if only I had more I could sell...

[Anonymous No.6423371]

>>6423360
A camera is a human brain and eye, a computer program is a human brain, transwomen are real women

[Anonymous No.6423372]

>>6423361
Not a fair comparison lol. Most artists are complaining about losing money to AI artists. It's hilarious that you think you were being novel or clever with this comparison when it really just reveals your feeling of "specialness" being entrenched on, so you create a completely nonsense analogy that would never occur in real life to try to "own" AI artists.

[Anonymous No.6423373]

>>6423352
I mean, have fun jacking off to generated images I guess.

[Anonymous No.6423374]

>>6423356
i dont watch jewish art

[Anonymous No.6423376]

>>6423372
>lol
Seething.

[Anonymous No.6423377]

Honestly being an art fag and NOT goofing around with AI now is like being an art fag and NOT goofing around with cameras 140 years ago.

Cutting yourself off from the possibilities ain’t gonna stop them from passing you by.

[Anonymous No.6423379]

>>6423361
This analogy works if you're talking about art for art's sake. However, art is also a job that many people enjoy doing and committing their lives to. That's at least 70% of this whole controversy.

[Anonymous No.6423380]

>>6423362
>AI has to practice too. Every commercial model requires millions of dollars of training and processing time. It's not just "plug in art and it copies"
that's not practice and learning, why are you equating image processing with practice? there is no intelligence, it's closer to a factory or a construction project and the raw material is tagged imagery.

[Anonymous No.6423381]

>>6423369
Not only that. If I see some AI art you made that I think is cool then I can start selling it in some way. I wouldn't need to even mention you.

There will be a lot of really butt hurt AI artists in the future at this rate.

[Anonymous No.6423383]

>>6423374
Post passport

[Anonymous No.6423384]

>>6423330
I take a fence to that. I AM a real lagomorphist. Just because the lines and the images i"ve collected do all the work for me, doesn't man I dom't have crative in put >:(
I kept putting down lines intul I got what I wanted, and that was HADR WORK! I'm jsut as valid as all you are, you basard rabbitkeeper!

[Anonymous No.6423388]

>>6423357
What? Are you fucking retarded?
>hmm I want to make money let's ignore the model trained to understand art in general to focus on art no one likes, ensuring artifacted and limited outputs, so we can copy them because, uh, mustache twirling capitalism!
Like I'm genuinely flabbergasted you're THIS schizophrenic and stupid. You want to make money with art? Put Baalbuddy and Legoman in your prompt with three other extremely popular and prolific artists so the AI will draw something inspired by their styles.
Nobody gives a fuck about fauc novelty in art you haughty retard, we've had a century of Artist's Shit and Piss Christ already.

People like... what people like. There's no mystery there.

[Anonymous No.6423389]

>>6423374
Honestly with the foreign gooks and spooks acting like they speak for western American culture. Is too much.

You’re an immigrant my dude. You’re the Juden boogieman here.

[Anonymous No.6423390]

>>6423384
You couldn't have your hand generate those if you hadn't studied the works of Michelangelo! You're a fraud! Nobody is original, everything is a copy, so just pay the IndoJews money to give you the ability to make art!

[Anonymous No.6423391]

>>6423383
im from schengen and i dont travel outside the walled world so i dont have one
and here its post your work not post your passport/outlet

[Anonymous No.6423394]

>>6423320
That's actually one of the advantages of AI art. Massively-expanded library of copyright-free images!

>>6423354
Royalties are gay and retarded. My drawing skills make me money from me DOING WORK not sitting on my ass selling copies of something I already made.

[Anonymous No.6423395]

>>6423388
>trained to understand art
there is no "understanding", they're just algorithms piecing together an image using fuzzy logic rules
AI is not actually intelligent in any way

[Anonymous No.6423397]

>>6423380
I don't get this argument. The gist of it seems to be that you require that AI be intelligent as a human before it can even start training on art? By the time we reach the technological singularity AI art will be the least of your worries.

[Anonymous No.6423398]

>>6423388
You really are dumb, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.6423400]

>>6423374
same

[Anonymous No.6423401]

>>6423366
>>6423371
If you don't understand how it works, just don't pretend to.
>>6423373
I'm going to whether you want me to or not, your only choice is whether you act entitled and seethe over it or not.
>>6423381
>not only that
>repeats same point you mentioned and I addressed
>keeps pretending "AI artists" are attached to "their" "works"
For us, kitsch is entertainment, not a delusional obsession.
Again why do I care if "my" "art" that my GPU made gets sold or whether I know about it or not, whether I myself am selling it or not. Artists sure are getting soccer mom levels of uninformed and angry and "capitalist" over losing their mobility over visual expression

[Anonymous No.6423404]

>>6423395
Neither are you, then, because your mind works the same way. Neural networking. I also not claiming AI is conscious, you dumb schizo. I'm explaining that it learns and produces derivative works similarly to how you do. Your ignorance of neurology and pattern recognition is not my problem.

[Anonymous No.6423406]

>>6423206
>its rendered! therefore it's better!
get some taste faggot.

[Anonymous No.6423407]

>>6423397
Not that guy but I got a perfect analogy for you:

>Normal artist
>You are making your own soda from scratch. Anything from a lemonade stand to Coca Cola.

>AI artist
>You are a customer at a fast food place mixing your own soda by combining different brands into your cop.
>Claiming that the machine "learned the soda just because the workers filled the brand into the soda machine.

[Anonymous No.6423408]

>>6423391
Nope. You’re speaking English and invading an American board.

Proving you’re not some sniggering gook terrorist is priority numero uno in determining credibility.

You being some Ching Chong communist in the EU speaking a second language to invade my culture should be the first hint that you should be less of an entitled self-important cunt.

You’ll always be a tourist on the internet because your society is too impotent and pathetic to make its own websites. Learn to cope and swallow that American gravy klaus.

[Anonymous No.6423409]

>>6423397
>The gist of it seems to be that you require that AI be intelligent as a human
If you are going to compare diffusion algorithms to humans then they should be comparable yes, they're not, it's mostly buzzwords
"training" in this context could and probably should be called compiling or encoding

[Anonymous No.6423411]

>>6423401
>repeats same point you mentioned and I addressed
You don't get it. You made a deal about you being first. In my example I was first. I saw something in your art and profited from it instead of you. Now you will feel I took your money and glory.

[Anonymous No.6423412]

>>6423360
>>6423404
Gosh, did they really make an human brain with ones and zeroes in a computer box? Gee, that sounds really wizard, sir! A whole human brain! Golly!

[Anonymous No.6423413]

>>6423379
This is true to some extent, but for one thing, I do think there are plenty of tasks AI can’t do, just like a mechanical lift can’t be a mover or construction worker. And also, at that point it becomes a conversation about automation in general, which I think is very poorly framed these days. Everything is seen through the lens of capitalism. “Oh no, things can’t be allowed to take our jobs, because what would our lives be good for if we couldn’t work? The wealthy handful who still have decent jobs would take all our money and watch us starve while they continue to accumulate capital. It’s almost like they’re the real problem and automation would be a great and noncontroversial thing if we didn’t all need to do copious amounts of underpaid labor.”

[Anonymous No.6423415]

>>6423404
>because your mind works the same way.. I also not claiming AI is conscious
way to contradict yourself, and any comparison to neurology and pattern processing does not make a machine human in any way

[Anonymous No.6423419]

>>6423415
It does make humans machine like in many ways though

[Anonymous No.6423424]

>the ai is not conscious but it learns just like you do but it's a tool and I'm the artist but it's also like an artist so I'm like an artist using an artist that learns and makes creative decisions just like you do but it's not actually sentient but it's like when you draw something and you have the images in your head and you draw them and it has a neuron webwork just like you do but it's a tool that I use like an artist but because it's like a human and it does the same things you do that means its okay for it to rip off your artwork but it's not actually ripping off your artwork it's just taking inspiration even though it's not a human it's just like a human not a human but just like a huma

[Anonymous No.6423430]

>>6423401
This guy gets it.
Artists, prior to this year, were the most vocal proponents against the corporate hegemony of copyright law because, while good in theory, copyright law favors corporations with more legacy IP and lawyers, and screws over the "little guy".

Now they've become the most ardent supporters of a degree of intellectual ownership far more encroaching than anything any legal theorist has ever attempted to try justifying. They're arguing that every brushstroke, every minor accoutrement of style, no matter how minor or derivative, is entitled to lifetime copyright protection just because a "human" made it.

The real source of all this angst is narcissism. Most artists are naturally narcissists. They want to believe their creative vision is inexorably tied to the golden nugget of "self" that only they possess, like the One Ring in Lord of the Rings.

They want to believe that there is something so special, unique, unquantifiable about their creative vision that anything they produce will be forever unique. The fact that all the apparent creativity of most artists can be easily replicated by AI art engines, and the fact that those engines can clearly and transparently spell out the exact things that they used to generate the art. strikes at the core of this artistic narcissism. These artists realize their creative output is no greater than the sum of their influences, so they will perform the classic tactic, accuse their opponents of doing what they themselves are doing, not realizing the irony.

[Anonymous No.6423432]

Shits fun to subversively goof with.

Seems like enough of a justification if you’re gonna kill yourself anyway.

[Anonymous No.6423436]

>>6423186
>AI is democracy at its finest
But democracy is not a particularly good political system. I hate when people use democracy as a synonym for good.

[Anonymous No.6423437]

>so even though it's like a not like a human and it'sn't a human, so I'm so glad that he's in there and we're out here and we're in there and he's out here and he's the sherriff and we're out here. I just have one question though, where's the AI?

[Anonymous No.6423438]

>>6423424
Yeah it really isn't logical.

[Anonymous No.6423440]

>>6423419

[Anonymous No.6423441]

>>6423413
Yeah that's certainly a big part of it. I can only sympathize with the artists who were doing their dream job until now and now feel that they are being made obsolete. There will still be places for truly committed people to continue to continue doing creative work, but having your livelihood threatened is not a nice thing for sure.

[Anonymous No.6423443]

>>6423436
Will you nigger commie gooks just go back to your own goddamn websites?

Like who invited you? Why are you here sprechen our language shilling for your authoritarian pederast daddies?

Why aren’t you embarrassed more?

[Anonymous No.6423446]

>>6423432

[Anonymous No.6423447]

being anti-copyright is the ultimate ngmi and the reason why most artists are poors

[Anonymous No.6423448]

>>6423424
Straw man grasping at straws
Are AI art models intelligent as a human? No. Do AI art models create images using similar mental processes that humans due? Yes.

Just because Stable diffusion version whatever it is right now couldn't play chess or ride a bike doesn't mean that its not demonstrating something akin to creativity. It's pointless to argue that an AI needs to be as smart as a human to be able to "think".
>rip off your artwork
You can't copyright style. Did every cubist "rip off" Picasso? Did every surrealist rip off Dali and Magritte? Did every playwright post 1600s Britain "rip off" Shakespeare?

[Anonymous No.6423449]

>>6423441
Agreed

[Anonymous No.6423452]

>>6423430
I mean, every single piece of art made by a human is unique.but until now, all of that uniqueness was often reduced to technical skill and aesthetics. Is there inherent value to human-made art beyond these things? That's the question when looking at the big picture.

[Anonymous No.6423454]

>>6423440
That's one way to look at it

[Anonymous No.6423456]

>>6423430
>Now they've become the most ardent supporters of a degree of intellectual ownership far more encroaching than anything any legal theorist has ever attempted to try justifying.
I would agree with this post about artist being uniquely narcissist...if coders didn't sue copilot for doing basically the same thing as AI art but for code on GitHub. Therefore this isn't unique to artist, it's a human trait.

[Anonymous No.6423458]

>>6423411
>Now you will feel I took your money and glory.
NTA but that's low IQ logic. I get more benefit from just doing commission work and more emotional satisfaction that other people enjoy the shit I made.

>>6423430
Yup. You are a flesh automaton animated by neurotransmitters.
But hey, we can have some fun while we're here by making some art.

>>6423424
Here I'll untangle it for you:
>The AI is a tool which has been loaded with data analyzed from a shitton of other art.
>The process of a human using this tool is ethically and legally no different from a human manually doing the same thing from multiple other art pieces.
>If the human using the tool intentionally tries to make something that violates copyright and shares it around, then the fault of that lies with the human, not the tool.

[Anonymous No.6423462]

>b-buuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrppppppppppppppppp m-morty like our brains are computers so we're lie-bur-li-li-li-buuuurrrrppp-like computers morty, we're computers morety we're almost like an intelligence that is not orgaincic, morty, you doam't understand morty you are a f-f-lesh automaburrrrrrp animated by by by neurotransmitburrrrrrrrps

[Anonymous No.6423463]

>>6423458
>NTA but that's low IQ logic. I get more benefit from just doing commission work
Now THAT is the low IQ take. How do you know you would be making more money? lol

[Anonymous No.6423464]

>>6423462
kek

[Anonymous No.6423466]

>>6423463
Because I find royalties to be immoral.

[Anonymous No.6423467]

>>6423117
Faggots deserve to be shat on, simple as. Fuck around, find out.

[Anonymous No.6423470]

>>6423466
You seem the type a hoser that would have the exact opposite opinion if you were generating income from royalties.

[Anonymous No.6423473]

>>6423466
So you would make even less money if that would be a factor. You are not making a good argument for why you would be making more money.

[Anonymous No.6423474]

>>6423467
AIfags being a hypocrite? Every 60 seconds a minute passed

[Anonymous No.6423476]

>>6423467
>I put in three hours of work
kek, get fucked

[Anonymous No.6423477]

>>6423474
Appeals to hypocrisy mean nothing.

Multiple things can be true simultaneously.

[Anonymous No.6423478]

>>6423454
it be how it do.

[Anonymous No.6423479]

>>6423476
>three hours of hard typing labor... ALL GONE! YOU BASTARDS! YOU GODDAMN MANIACS

[Anonymous No.6423482]

>>6423456
Yeah, as somebody who is involved with communities filled with people who code, they sure as shit (rightfully) bitch and moan when some company uses their programs in a way which is against their wishes. Unless you have a legit cuckold fetish, it's human nature to not want to be taken advantage of. Who would actually want that?

[Anonymous No.6423483]

>>6423202
>>6423210
>>6423234
>>6423245
>>6423252
>>6423292
>>6423313
>>6423384
>>6423412
>>6423462
wait bnuy chan... are you using fucking AI to gen these? i thought these were cute bnunys that you hand drew, how are the hands so good and consistent if this is AI?

[Anonymous No.6423485]

>>6423454
now her ear is on the wrong angle.

[Anonymous No.6423486]

>>6423473
>>6423470
Nope, I have principles. I release all my hand-done art under CC0, and have been doing it since before this AI stuff became a thing.

[Anonymous No.6423492]

>>6423482
That's cause the coding sphere was stuffed with SJW codemonkies and pajeets. The oldfags don't give a fuck. Evidence is picrel which zoomers need to understand.

[Anonymous No.6423497]

>>6423478
>>6423485
Ehhh, good enough for a 4chan shitpost

[Anonymous No.6423504]

>>6423486
Aka you’ve never sold your art as part of a product or production that generates continuous revenue, and if you did you aren’t making money from it.

[Anonymous No.6423506]

>>6423492
Coders only can act "principled" on freeware and usage rights because they're making easy 6 figs anyway. Artists, if they don't have rich parents, are almost always scraping by, and the only thing keeping them from getting a job at Starbucks is the fact that their abilities are scarce.

How would you like it, if you were some person, Dave, and I invented a Dave that looked exactly like you, but was 2" taller, 10IQ points smarter and had a 1" longer dick. However everything about you otherwise I copied directly onto Dave 2.0, because you can't copyright a personality. How would you feel? According to AIfags I am entirely in the right and Dave 2.0 usurping every aspect of your life is just the justifiable march of progress.

[Anonymous No.6423508]

>>6423483
He's ironic shitposting

[Anonymous No.6423511]

>>6423506
The only problem with this is that "Dave 2.0" would help me dismantle a millenia old organisation, unless per said organisation malicious intentions, it has no true sentience or intelligence, rather a killswitch to enslave organics with a side of genocide.

[Anonymous No.6423514]

>>6423483
AI bros only wish their toy could reproduce that level of sovl

[Anonymous No.6423525]

>>6423504
Don't care, it's immoral to extort people for copying my ideas. "Unauthorized reproduction" is not a justification for government force.

>>6423506
I wouldn't give a shit because I'm still me. Your own "Dave 2.0" is likely already out there, you know.

Why do you guys have such fragile egos?

[Anonymous No.6423527]

>>6423483
ha ha no, I amnot bnuy chang, I am lagosama! I stoled all of bnuychan's art and used ed it to create Lagomorphic Diffusion, the alltimate bunny generating machine! Now that I have solved the problem of overhopping, I can generate sell as many bnuy as I want, and there is nothing you can do to stop me bewcause copyright law has not mbeen amendded for use cases like this yet! Ha ha ha! Take that, hutchkeepers!
Even though I couldn't have made Lagomorphic Diffusion without bnuy chan, I think he is a piece of shit and I hope he kills himself and cannot sell any more bnuy ha ha ha fuck you! But if you steal my bnuy I will be,, MMMPH, HHRRRGH, I will be ver ANGY! They're MY bnuy now and you cannot have them!

[Anonymous No.6423535]

>>6423525
You sound like the type of person who would be all for anarchy or communism or some other meme governmental system until you were met with the reality of someone who was bigger, stronger, and richer than you curbstomping you and taking your shit without any repercussions

[Anonymous No.6423536]

>>6423525
>Why yes, I do let Jamaal fuck my wife while he mocks me. At the end of the day, she's still my wife.

[Anonymous No.6423550]

>>6423194
The end result of this line of thought is elites fulfilling their 500M world population dreams. Because is humanity isn't worth anything there is no reason to allow 7B mongrels to ruin the world with their survival needs.

[Anonymous No.6423552]

>>6423206
>The fact that it's less than a year old
This shit has been in development since 1998.

[Anonymous No.6423553]

>>6423536

[Anonymous No.6423561]

>>6423272
Consuming will always be less valuable than creating.

[Anonymous No.6423562]

>>6423550
Don’t any of you think that this is the real problem? That we value people so little that we can view their survival needs as something expendable and therefore we have to give them menial tasks to do in order to make their lives necessary - and at the same time miserable? And we can’t let automation take their soulless jobs, the commissions that distract them from their personal work, because then they’d be working for nothing but their own pleasure and under capitalism that’s valueless? Because that seems like the real problem to me.

[Anonymous No.6423570]

>>6423562
inb4 "just get a real job"

[Anonymous No.6423572]

>>6423552
Art has been in development for 100x longer

[Anonymous No.6423577]

>>6423525
> Don't care, it's immoral to extort people for copying my ideas

A: what is “immoral”? Like what do you mean by morality here?
B: Let’s say Disney “copies your idea” and makes $1.4 billion dollars off it. Would you be extorting them to demand royalties and credit?

Like what the fuck are you? Post your work. How much of a no-agency cuck do you choose to be? And why?

Do you not get that your “opinion” was astroturfed by corporations that want you to implicitly shill for their ability to rip you off?

And I’m saying this as an art fag that rips off like 90% of the shit I produce. But I’m also saying this as a person that works in art production and gets mailbox money from shit I did 8 years ago as a goof so idk.

[Anonymous No.6423581]

>>6423430
You're really desperate to be replaced, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.6423582]

>>6423562
No infidel, you spewl these platitudes but those in development of these technologies and more seek to control all aspects of life itself, they of course not bound by the many pointless laws or developments they seek to impose on creators and humans in general outside their spheres of influence.

While many systems outside of them are flawed, they allow things to work themselves, rather than gatekeep by inferior "intelligent design", they decree.

Life itself is competition, equal outcome is inferior to equal opportunity.
All aspects of human existence should take precedence over all, but literal wolfs seek to fatten wayward sheep.

---
Generate from my iPhone 4.

[Anonymous No.6423584]

>>6423581
If I hire a housekeeper to clean my house, someone to mow my lawn, someone to cook my meals, and I focus my extra time on non-menial tasks, am I being "replaced"?

[Anonymous No.6423587]

>>6423443
Automation is the soul of technocratic authoritarianism you imbecile. Once retards like you achieve your dream of every job being replaced the capitalists will buy exclusive rights to the technologies and fulfill their dream of killing 95% of the population.

[Anonymous No.6423590]

>>6423430
I'm going to ask very plainly - are you autistic?

[Anonymous No.6423591]

>>6423581
Not them but replaced by who?

Like who the fuck are you? How old are you? Why won’t you go away and stop ruining this board with your foreign totalitarian cuckbait horseshit?

Like why are you projecting your virginal, internet-addicted autism about being “replaced” by people that actually fuck women?

Like other than your psychotic self-justifying internet addiction, what is stopping you from continuing your genetic legacy?

And why is your impotence and inability to reproduce everyone else’s problem?

Have you considered getting your dick wet?

[Anonymous No.6423596]

>>6423587
Don’t give a whip. Take it up with the psychologist that you can’t afford because you’ve been trained to shill for oligarchs that privately mock how stupid you are.

[Anonymous No.6423597]

>>6423590
no. I'm just smarter than you

[Anonymous No.6423600]

>>6423117
>But it steals artwork!
>So have you if you've ever taken an art class,gone to an art museum...
whew.... geunine laugh.yeah, and watching a movie at the cinema is the same as taping it and redistributing it...the mental gymnastics

[Anonymous No.6423601]

>>6423562
YOU WILL NOT SURVIVE AUTOMATION
You will not make artisanal coffee brews in a commune. You will die of hunger when you're entirely unable to trade your time for someone's capital.

Even in cults your survival is entirely dependent on entertaining the leadership. There is no human society where you will be kept fed and clothed for doing nothing but masturbate all day long.

[Anonymous No.6423602]

It's a tough situation, I feel bad for all the artists that will be negatively affected but it really doesn't seem like there's anyway to stop this. Hopefully it happens gradualy enough that not many people slip through the cracks.

[Anonymous No.6423605]

>>6423596
>I'm desperate to give corpocrats the power to do a thousand people's jobs from a single computer, but you're the oligarch pet reeeee
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.6423606]

>>6423601
Once the starvation begins, the uprising will begin. No artisanal coffee brews involved at any point. Who knows what will emerge after that or how we will order ourselves. But we need a change. Of course there will always be work, but we need a completely different relationship to it. I can’t envision that from the perspective of this time period but I’m prepared to see what happens.

[Anonymous No.6423607]

>>6423584
>thinks that studying and making art, one of the most intellectual and enriching pursuits one could possibly undertake, is "menial"
>thinks that the regurgitated gruel that a machine learning algorithm is somehow a replacement for this both in results and in the spiritual and mental stimulation of the process
We're reaching levels of SOVLLESS never thought possible. Even with this purported ability to create whatever you want at the snap of your fingers you can create nothing of worth. You are nought but a husk of a man, cold, hollow, insectile in your thinking and your feeling. You may walk, you may talk, but you are already a corpse. You will never make it.

[Anonymous No.6423612]

>>6423312
you fucking retard. absolute fucking mongoloid. i want you to understand that you are fucking dumb as fuck.

[Anonymous No.6423613]

>>6423607
But if the tech exists there'll surely be actual artists that give in and start using it, outcompeting anyone and everyone that doesn't adapt. Not unlike what digital did to trad

[Anonymous No.6423615]

>>6423613
yes, it's called a race to the bottom and whatever digital art did to trad this will be a million times worse

[Anonymous No.6423617]

>>6423535
>>6423536
I'm not a commie.

>>6423577
A: IP law violates actual property rights. Ideas are non-rivalrous and immaterial, any implementation of them requires simply rearranging physical property you already own. Leveraging the force of the state over someone who hasn't aggressed upon you, purely in order to demand payment because they used their own property in a way you don't like? Definitely immoral.
B: Yes. But in kind I could take disney's ideas and try to do them better. I doubt they could make that much when simply charging for access wouldn't be viable.

[Anonymous No.6423622]

>>6423602
The goal is for everyone but elite banksters, the military and select farmers to slip through the cracks. 95% of people must die for the guidestones.

[Anonymous No.6423625]

>>6423617
Do you eat the creampie when he's done?

[Anonymous No.6423626]

>>6423606
The starvation began 30 years ago. People won't do shit because they'll be culled in waves, always told by the media that the currently hungry people just didn't want to work and deserve to die.

[Anonymous No.6423630]

>>6423622
the elite still need heart surgeons and various other specialists

[Anonymous No.6423634]

>>6423626
Honestly you might be right about that one, I’ll admit that

[Anonymous No.6423638]

>>6423630
Heart surgeons will become AI robots. They did surgery on a grape. Every specialist can be automated.

[Anonymous No.6423640]

>>6423613
>Philosophical Zombie: A philosophical zombie or p-zombie argument is a thought experiment in philosophy of mind that imagines a hypothetical being that is physically identical to and indistinguishable from a normal person but does not have conscious experience, qualia, or sentience

[Anonymous No.6423643]

>>6423527
bnynuy chan bros... its over...

[Anonymous No.6423645]

>>6423643
BUY MY FUCKING BUNFTS

[Anonymous No.6423651]

>>6423640
Even if I was, wouldn't really make a difference I'm afraid.

[Anonymous No.6423652]

>>6423651
Even if you was what?

[Anonymous No.6423653]

>>6423652
A bot

[Anonymous No.6423655]

>>6423645
I"VE BECOME SO NUMB I CANT FEEL U THERE

[Anonymous No.6423657]

>>6423653
I didn't say that you were a bot. Where did I say that in my post? I called you a philosophical zombie, you schizo

[Anonymous No.6423661]

>>6423657
I was referring to the image, but regardless the point stands.

[Anonymous No.6423663]

>>6423605
A: this is being posted from Russia or one of their shithole satellites
B: this poster is statistically at the highest risk of committing suicide for every day for the next 10 years of every ip/psychographic profile that’s posted ITT.

[Anonymous No.6423664]

>>6423661
What point? The non sequitur you replied with that was so retarded I thought that you were an inanimate object animated by machine learning algorithms?

[Anonymous No.6423665]

>>6423600
If you think Ai art is the same as taping and redistributing a movie then you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.6423670]

>>6423601
Crossboarder here, since saw someone anti-AI shitposting on another board that was too much like the one here in /ic/, I came here to see the news and saw this post.
/ic/ really is insanely shortsighted about their hypothetical job loss.

> YOU WILL NOT SURVIVE AUTOMATION
> You will not make artisanal coffee brews in a commune. You will die of hunger when you're entirely unable to trade your time for someone's capital.
Found the doomer and neoluddite.
Anyway, there's lots of ways the future could go but here's some possibilities and some facts.
First, successful AI in current and short/mid term unfortunately requires capital, we're talking some million to billion dollars depending to train base models.
Many decent, some open source base models exist, crowdfunding happens sometimes, and distributed training is a thing too but is still in its infancy, usually well funded wins.
The actual implementation is usually not the hard thing, it requires some intuition but it doesn't require a lot of code, nor is it that complex.
Current AI has certain shortcomings that you might not be fully aware of (different from those you see in pictures, theres far more to AI than your image generation), those things keep it from being a general intelligence, that is, AGI or at least human-level in all worthwhile respects that would matter. These shortcomings are very likely fixable because the base of general intelligence keeps shining through through enough of current text models and generalist models in various ways, and we have sort of general learning algorithms that just work, even if they're nothing special or new. I would be very surprised if we don't reach AGI by 2030 since the road to it is incredibly clear and anything stopping people from taking it is purely money, but each day that passes the cost goes down and things get easier.

[Anonymous No.6423671]

>>6423664
Yes.

[Anonymous No.6423672]

>>6423670
So anyway, your bleak simple view, every little thing gets automated, everyone out of a job, boo hoo, you starve.
More realistic is that capitalism as we know it won't survive and you are partially into some fully automated luxury gay space communism (in fiction imagined as something like "The Culture" series) sort of situation. You get some UBI and you live fairly comfortable lives, you can still do anything you want.
The technology is capable of being democratic in the same sense that the machine tools that fueled the industrial revolution were, they're not that hard to make, anyone can get them, unfortunately the costs are still rather high. The end result is still a better life for everyone. Some authors like https://marshallbrain.com/manna imagine that capitalism would fail with full automation in ways you imagine. Although personally I don't really think his vision of communism is that better in principle as it still has a lot of cucked components.
Obviously governments will adjust to this and since duplicating the technology won't be hard, the inequality won't persist a lot. Although you can see US trying to stilt China in this race right now by trying very hard to destroy their semiconductor industry, so it has begun - some countries do want supremacy.

[Anonymous No.6423673]

AI just kinda removes the fun of art for me.
I don't know, if digital art just becomes mostly mass-produced AIshit like clothes are now then I don't know if i'm that interested in it anymore. If I can't tell the difference, it's no problem, I'll just stick with stuff made before the year 2022, 2010, 2000, whatever I feel is best. I already have enough entertainment to satiate me for a lifetime.
I very much value the work of creative people.

[Anonymous No.6423674]

>>6423672
I don't really believe in such a simple view, which is possible shortterm, but it won't last at all: mostly because people don't understand that what you get is, AI that has shortcomings in that you can't fully lose your jobs yet and it will be underwhelming and not as powerful, and when it doesn't have shortcomings you get full on AGI. When you get AGI (let's say in 3 to 6 years from now), what happens is a lot more. It can automate science and technology, it can think much faster than you, can parallelize insanely much. You get to crack technologies that are possible physically, but which would take us too long to do, like molecular nanotechnology (atomically precise manufacturing/APM), and other things. If you end up being able to cooperate with said AGIs, from that tech it's not much further for instant mass production of as much compute as you'd want and of course easily digitizing anything you'd want and simulating it, so you will get mind uploads, meaning you do get a lot of speedup from running on a faster substrate than biology, but still probably an order or more of magnitude slower than AGI due to various biological simulation overheads. At that point with the ability to control matter "directly" with said APM is at your fingertips and you get to live forever and do whatever you want, the universe is yours! As you can see, the actual dice you're rolling here is between local godhood and death, with decent odds (even if some disagree at them). So stop worrying about your fucking jobs and look forward to infinite fun that awaits.

[Anonymous No.6423677]

>>6423674
As a programmer, I am very excited at the idea that some AGI will be able to code a new programming language compiler or OS in an afternoon, something that would take me if I cared to do that, a year or more (depending on how non-toy and well developed it'd be, even if in practice you don't need that), am excited that anyone will have at their fingertips the ability to do the entire work that takes full corporations motnsh to do - for any individual to do in an afternoon, and longterm what you get is literal fucking control of this universe and infinite lifespan. In fiction concepts like this were probably best explored in books of Greg Egan like Diaspora and Permutation City, do recommend a read (first is a posthuman civilization, second is having mind uploads while the computers are slow as fuck, so no APM yet, trying to find work arounds), or for something more edgy and far less realistic, but not that far off, something like Accelerando by Charles Stross.

Don't fuck with this development if you don't understand that in your attempt to keep making a profit on fiverr you might be fucking your own glorious infinite future. Of course I know plenty of neoluddites here, the place is practically overflowing with desire to cuck others out of it. I hope they do understand that they will be able to also live their primitivist fantasies in simulation at some point, I personally wouldn't mind trying one of them, for example to see how long it would take to rebuild civilization from stone age to the point where you can run such a simulation!

[Anonymous No.6423685]

>>6423672
You don't understand money.
You're irrelevant. You're not selected. You will die.
If you live right now it's because consumption drives mass production. The elite still need you to ensure their luxury lifestyles, not because you make anything they need, but because hundreds of millions just like you doing their meaningless tasks alleviate the many kinks of productive activity. Distribution still being the most strained and harder to control.

The second a couple robots can ensure the lights will stay on, there will be food on the table and feedstock can make it into the workshop uninterrupted. 6.5B people die.

[Anonymous No.6423688]

>>6423674
>look forward to infinite fun that awaits
Larry Fink will live forever. You will eat lead.

[Anonymous No.6423702]

>>6423677
>thermodynamics will stop existing because we code good lol
Luddites and transhumanists are equally retarded.

[Anonymous No.6423712]

Tbphwyf I like this flood of pseudo intellectual pschience bozos arguing about robot ethics or whatever.

Most interesting the board has been in a wet bit

[Anonymous No.6423732]

>>6423712
It do be funny

[Anonymous No.6423739]

>>6423117
>I don't understand why artists are upset about AI art.
I just read that some of these AI models that make music, stay away from copyrighted music for legal reasons... but with images, it's fair game?
Bizarre.
Why can't the AI models just iunno, listen to the music and be 'inspired' brooo, Humans do that tooo brooooooo
Give me a break.
This situation would be totally different if the engineers were just unaware of the legal ramifications and just wanted to create really cool and interesting tech. It's another when they themselves are aware of the legal restrictions.
btw, if you a fellow human artist, feel free to use my art to learn from, be inspired by. If you are a machine learning algorithm(AI), sorry nope.

[Anonymous No.6423752]

>>6423739
the saying is something like
"don't ask for permission ask for forgiveness"
but in this case is clearly an example when NOT to do that, and it was fueled entirely by greed to get venture capitalist funding

[Anonymous No.6423753]

>>6423739
its really crazy that they dont see this double standard. the only difference is most artists dont have the kind of capitol behind them to actually take them to court, and so they just rape and plunder.

[Anonymous No.6423760]

>>6423739
I believe Emad has also expressed an unwillingness to develop a model that could combine NSFW and children... why?

[Anonymous No.6423762]

>>6423760
He's a luddite in disguise

[Anonymous No.6423764]

>>6423117
>Sure I get the fact that the market will be flooded with crap, but it already is flooded with crap.
kek, stopped reading here. I hate this retarded "well it's shit, so clearly even more shit is acceptable" mentality. it actually ruined the image archive sites that didn't ban it for me

[Anonymous No.6423767]

>another non-artist making a thread to shill AI as a "tool"

[Anonymous No.6423769]

>>6423117
You've never drawn in your life, shill.

[Anonymous No.6423803]

>>6423430
Not the same, nigger
Companies cancels others using their work without permission
AI"Artists" are doing the same shit
Actual Artists don't want their drawings, their work, stolen and claimed by some other faggot. No, fan art of Mickey fucking Minnie is not copyright infringement, because Disney never drew Micky fucking Minnie nor endorses it. A PajeetScript stealing every pixel of other's works however, is infringement. You're not doing anything yourself. You're using the computer like a slave, and taking all the credit for yourself. You are no different than slave master.

[Anonymous No.6423817]

>>6423803
How one one man be so stupid?

[Anonymous No.6423820]

>>6423817
>How one one man be so stupid?
I see you AIfags refuse to learn how to draw and refuse to learn basic english.

[Anonymous No.6423905]

>>6423343
Pretty sure there will be a mega outcry from celebrities having unlimited lewds of them being pumped out and dumped onto the internet for everyone to see.

[Anonymous No.6423947]

>>6423905
they already have. Have you ever heard of deepfake porn?

[Anonymous No.6424009]

[Anonymous No.6424024]

>>6424009
I bet their solution/recommendation is "shuffle it more" to make the data laundering less obvious.

[Anonymous No.6424039]

>>6423256
anon, you clearly have no idea how these algorithms work if you think they're just photobashing
>muh ai needs conscious human intelligence
you don't need actual sentience to create art anon, but perhaps it can be argued that only can actually interpret art. for now at least.
>improvement
dunno man, given the fact that we went from something like artgan to dall-e 1 in just six years time (and the fact that we can actually run them on consumer-grade hardware instead of massive cloud farms or supercomputers), and with relatively more coherent ai-generated videos in the horizon, i'd say that the rate of improvement so far is staggering, and it doesn't seem like progress will slow it down any time soon.

anyways, the cat is already out of the bag. we're already too late to stop ai art from being further developed (and there is no shortage of people or companies to take their place if they do), and i don't think the guys behind it are willing to hold back or even slow down for the sake of ethics when there's big money and competition involved. no amount of 'it will never be real art' will stop its progress, and frankly, i don't really care. it's just another tool, like many other tools that we've developed. the only people i see seething about it are those internet artists who fear that they're going to lose their jobs (which is fair i suppose, though i personally think its way overblown) and people who are just pissy that they're being beaten by literal fucking equations. it has happened with digital art, it has happened with photography. i don't see how this current controversy is any different.

[Anonymous No.6424271]

>>6423739
Not because it's "wrong."
It's because the RIAA is known to use every slimy trick in the book to try to bury serious competition if they're not getting an undeserved cut. In 2003 they tried to make "downloading an mp3" a felony. Any serious musician will tell you that the record labels would carve up the musical scale to own notes and chords if the opportunity presented itself.

Zoomers who keep sharing that as an "example" only show how ignorant you are about the state of the world.

[Anonymous No.6424279]

>>6424039
>you don't need actual sentience to create art anon
lol. art basically comes down to visual communication, and that is pretty difficult to achieve without something that can have an intent. or any idea of what it is doing

[Anonymous No.6424317]

>>6423145
>>6423185
Pajeets won, it's over.

[Anonymous No.6424398]

>>6424039
Why don't you tell us about how your "equations" are working out for self driving kek

[Anonymous No.6424411]

>>6424279
>art basically comes down to visual communication
wrong

[Anonymous No.6424414]

>>6423117
AI does the hard work, the creative work for you. You still have to fix some small artefacts, and when the image is perfect with no artefacts, then you are no longer needed. If img2img was the only technology out there, then I dont think artists would complain about it, but the fact that text2img is million times better then img2img means it is far far more useful for non-artists to artists. Not to even mension the fact that it designs for you almost everything while you give it some generic themes and artist names.

[Anonymous No.6424421]

Wait, do reddit skiddies actually think machine learning literally means that a machine learns like a person? My sides

[Anonymous No.6424423]

>>6424411
don't know about you anon, but seeing a bug holding a brush sure is nicely visually communicating to me... in fact, it makes me quite happier than if i just saw only the left portion of the image with a blue and yellow paint spot.

[Anonymous No.6424445]

>>6424421
twitterfags too. they usually tend to also bring up "neural links" and "electric impulses" as evidence that machine learning is literally just like the human brain. i wish this was a joke

[Anonymous No.6424447]

>>6423117
Everyone remember to put SAGE in options

[Anonymous No.6424455]

I see Jimmy is back.

[Anonymous No.6424462]

>>6424445
I don't know what's more retarded, asserting that ML is like human learning or asserting that we know conclusively how the brain learns in the first place. Having a little bit of code knowledge legitimately makes you more mongoloid than not having any at all. How is it that most CS undergrad pajeets think it grants them expertise in literally every field? Every single one is an expert in art, neuroscience, and of course more complex computer science topics like robotics and automation. It really is remarkable.

[Anonymous No.6424489]

>>6424447
Does that still work?

[Anonymous No.6424491]

>>6424489
it does.

[Anonymous No.6424494]

>>6424445
We are made of star dust, but so are computers!

[Anonymous No.6424495]

>>6424462
because they think they can solve everything through code. I actually have a degree in CS that I decided not to follow. terrible, shitty arrogant fucking people. my first job was in QA software, and the code monkeys got angry when we found bugs
>very single one is an expert in art, neuroscience
this has got to be the most frustrating thing about these retards.

[Anonymous No.6424498]

>>6424423
That's cause that image is actually 2 pices of art.
There's the whole "scene"
And there's the resulting painting the bug makes.

You enjoy the scene more.
But I guarantee if the painting was hung up in a gallery and only attributed to whatever pet name the beetle had (without disclosing it was painted by a bug), people would still call it art.

>>6424421
>>6424445
>>6424462
>>6424495

Most don't literally believe they're the same at a physics level. They are just trying to point out that ethically the processes of:
- using a tool to combine data resulting from image analysis at scale and
- combining references/influences in your head
are the same. Again, ethically not physically. This is because references/influences are just "data about an image," and since it's fine for a human to do that manually it's also fine for that same human to do it using a tool that's faster and more robust.

People arguing about neurons and shit are going off into the weeds.

[Anonymous No.6424499]

>>6423117
Just say no to AI art brah
just say no to it
>NOOOOOO
like that

[Anonymous No.6424502]

>>6423117
>It's the coolest thing to happen to tech in 30 years
This is factually wrong. VR is cooler.

[Anonymous No.6424505]

>>6423441
>There will still be places for truly committed people to continue to continue doing creative work
This will be like impressing people with your room devoted to lego, or being able to do a backflip for claps and maybe a few tips.

It will be a performative spectacle to "make images by hand real good", and seen as charming but a bit autistic.

[Anonymous No.6424507]

>>6424421
>>6424445
ray kurzwell convinced an entire generation of 2nd tier men that they are literally niggecattle and should feel pride in being so

[Anonymous No.6424509]

Haha some of you guys take this hobby WAY too seriously

like dude it's pictures, step away from the computer lol

[Anonymous No.6424512]

>>6423117
It's a meme
Stable Diffusion, instead of doing fun shit like replicating the art style of things created by teams of people (as had been done with Craiyon and Looking Glass), or even merging two or more art styles together, has been about replacing artists since it was unveiled.
People weren't taking artist's work and passing it off as their own with DALL-E 2 or Looking Glass, what the fuck makes Stable Diffusion so different?
The diffusion? CLIP Guided Diffusion had that too, and that didn't bring out the dredges of Twitter.

[Anonymous No.6424513]

you ready used that stale bait in the other thread
I'm gonna tell emad how bad of a job you're doing if this keeps up

[Anonymous No.6424516]

>>6423739
>I just read that some of these AI models that make music, stay away from copyrighted music for legal reasons
lol
https://files.catbox.moe/pjmz1f.wav
lmao

[Anonymous No.6424519]

>>6424498
>art is when you mentally photobash nothing but already existing artwork
>no other cognitive process can possibly be involved

[Anonymous No.6424520]

>>6424498
>But I guarantee if the painting was hung up in a gallery and only attributed to whatever pet name the beetle had (without disclosing it was painted by a bug), people would still call it art.
well, there would be the visual communication part of it being a painting of color splotches hanging in a gallery, but the communication of it having been created by a bug would be lost....
my point is not to "call it art or not". i'm not trying as much to cut out a hard definition of art (which is conceptually silly, it's like wanting a hard definition of love, happiness, good evil, etc.), as much as i am trying to emphasize an aspect most people experience the vague concept of art through.
ai art has no art direction in the step of generation because it just outputs pixel noise patterns. of course, things are not as clear cut again. someone who is good at photomanipulation might take several generated images, and try to put them together and all that. this might steer it closer to the concept of collage. but this sort of goal-lessness/lack of vision or intent is pretty apparent when only seeing a simple single output with no other efforts from the prompter.

but anyway, its easier for an artist to just directly create what they want with the intended design they want instead of taking random stuff and trying to make it somewhat vaguely fit their vision...this constitutes the main difference of ML (again, roughly, in an unedited form, just input->output as it is) and human made art to me.

[Anonymous No.6424528]

>>6424505
Reads like a pajeet wet fantasy after trying to lowball someone for a furry commission and getting ignored

[Anonymous No.6424529]

>>6423310
Add onto that the butthurt weebshitters that will be replaced when all they do is a floating head or a sameface on a plain background "OC".

[Anonymous No.6424533]

>>6423406
oh wow... two static profile images, one of a beardy man and the other a hole. such setting, such narrative.

[Anonymous No.6424542]

>>6423194
AI is art thievery and stolen assets. No one in the industry will take it except other juden. Why would I use it unless I want a class action lawsuit? Answer AI bros.

[Anonymous No.6424545]

>>6423242
There’s no honor among thieves.

[Anonymous No.6424549]

>>6424421
Yes. I have met people that unironically think these image grafting programs are “thinking robots” and not stolen pieces from real artists.

[Anonymous No.6424556]

>>6424498
>But I guarantee if the painting was hung up in a gallery and only attributed to whatever pet name the beetle had (without disclosing it was painted by a bug)

Literally retard tier argument. The only time art like this is acknowledged or sold is when the authorship is explicitly jammed down your throat, nobody would give it a second glance on its own. You're providing an example of an otherwise mediocre piece being valued because of its unique circumstances and the intent/message behind it to make an argument in favor of AI? Actually, are you seriously shilling AI against the one thing it can never replace (snobclout driven gallery tier money laundering art)? Top kek

[Anonymous No.6424557]

>>6424520
as an example of what i mean:
i checked out this guys work: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/kDd2Bz
these are supposed to be concepts for some sort of story. in picrel, i attached what his actual intentions were with the character concepts.

the thing is, looking at the final renders he output, very little of what he wanted to communicate carries over into the generated image! look at Gudrun, for example.
Not particularly snakefaced as intended. the dress evokes little of the concept of a "peacock dress", no one seeing the end result would infer that it was based off a peacock. the chalice she is holding is intended to be a "love potion", but we don't SEE that. how is any different from any random chalice? even the most crude decision of putting some evil looking pink bubbly liquid with ominous steam containing hearts coming out of it would have been better at getting that across.
the poison ivy is there, but the way it is arranged just makes it melt into the background with no visual statement. a more sharp-edged looking arrangement, maybe even like a hand grasping onto the arch might make it look more threatening and deadly (making the viewer go "ooh, this wants to kill me, just like this evil manipulative character!" - not "huh, i guess there's some green stuff in the back or something?"). no carpet. no roses and bugs.
what i think is not that ML is incapable of generating these details in isolation, but if you bother reworking those images this much because they're completely off from what you want to say in the first place, you might just draw it and take a minus in rendering in exchange for a well- communicated concept.

crudely drawn comics with clearly communicated concepts that have little time spent on them often fare much better than overrendered badly readable drawings that have months put into them. this is something that artists notoriously complain about. this is why.

in the end, what you communicate and how clearly you do so is key.

[Anonymous No.6424559]

>>6424556
not only that, but the point and function and engagement with fine art is just inherently very different from, say, the sphere of concept art, or ther types of illustration. they have different goals in mind, and have often a quite different audience that enjoys it for different reasons.

[Anonymous No.6424562]

>>6424557
can't believe i forgot the pic...there ya go.

[Anonymous No.6424566]

>>6424562
I mean isn't the final version what they wanted to portrait, since it is after all what they put out? There's no reason to think that if it wasn't what they wanted, they wouldn't have changed it.

[Anonymous No.6424572]

>>6424519
Cognitive processes aren't a relevant factor.

The scenario is "A person using others' art to make something new." It doesn't matter whether it's done purely by their eye and memory or if they use a tool's assistance.

>>6424556
There's situations where people thought random misplaced objects in art galleries were part of the exhibit, like sunglasses or gloves people dropped. So you're full of shit.

>>6424520
>>6424557
>>6424562
Yea AI is crap at generating that kind of character design - the ones with lots of "symbolism" bits and bobs and details. I don't really know what the point of the ramble you went on was though, you kinda lost me. It sort of reads like you have had this criticism bottled up for a while about that dude's art.

His art is ugly to me so I don't really care to look at it all that much anyway.

[Anonymous No.6424574]

>>6424566
>There's no reason to think that if it wasn't what they wanted
the reason to think that is the whole concept book which states the actual intent he wants to communicate. it's written down in the image what exactly he wanted to portray.

[Anonymous No.6424577]

>>6424574
Yeah, at the time. When working on a piece it can often change over time, I think it makes more sense to judge the final product. I guess if you really wanted to know you'd have to ask the artist.

[Anonymous No.6424582]

>>6424572
>don't really know what the point of the ramble you went on was though,
the point is, concept art needs communication of concepts, and ML outputs, in their pure form, do not satisfy this demand by design, which makes it unfit to really replace concept artists in a practical real-life setting. you need the visual distinction and taste of a person to achieve good results.

>There's situations where people thought random misplaced objects in art galleries were part of the exhibit
again, fine arts=/= illustration, concept art =/= design
different contexts, different uses, different engagement, different purpose.

[Anonymous No.6424583]

>>6424513
he should put that bait into an ai algorithm to generate better bait

[Anonymous No.6424592]

>>6424572
>There's situations where people thought random misplaced objects in art galleries were part of the exhibit, like sunglasses or gloves people dropped. So you're full of shit.

Because they already went to that gallery with the intent to overanalyze the deep meaning behind every banana duct taped to the wall in it, not because they appreciate the fucking fire extinguisher on its own. Once again you're giving an example of a context and lore based approach to art (in its most retarded and fake extreme, mind you) while shilling for something that can never pull it off.

You pajeets are as aesthetically inept as you are autistic. Not only do you not understand illustration, you don't understand the basic social dynamics behind the meme that is contemporary art either. Sad!

[Anonymous No.6424597]

>>6423117
>but it already is flooded with crap.
thats not an excuse
> Isn't it the best thing ever that an AI can do the hard work for you so you can focus on the big picture and unique details that are more fun to work on.
then its not you doing anything
>So have you if you've ever taken an art class, gone to an art museum, or have seen any piece of art and still remember it. Your memories subconsciously inform every aspect of your work. The only reason AI is being called out for it is because of overfitting to prompts based on existing artists, which is something that is easily fixed and far from an existential, unfixable problem. Should we require all future artists to never look at or be inspired by existing works because it's "copying"?
humans brains don't work like computers, only absolute retards could ever possibly think this
>It's the coolest thing to happen to tech in 30 years
i don't know, smart phones are pretty nifty. this is just a novelty

[Anonymous No.6424600]

>>6423136
haha nope

[Anonymous No.6424607]

>>6423117
Using a nonprofit to scrape images and then swapping to your for-profit company to use the dataset and sell use of your ai to customers is pretty shit. The artists didn't consent to it, and they don't get paid royalties for the use of their copyrighted work. Pretty sketchy and trashy if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.6424611]

>>6424572
>Cognitive processes aren't a relevant factor.

They are a factor you shitnigger. When a human being looks at art, other things besides strictly visual processing occur. There's emotion, personality factors, lived experience, inspiration drawn from other visuals, inspiration draw from nonvisual data, even individual fucking color perception. Human beings do not process a specific type of input solely through one dedicated channel. How do you think people are inspired to paint by music, books or even scents?

I can see how a mildly autistic non-artfag would think that getting inspired is like gluing magazine clippings, but this is just pants on head retarded.

[Anonymous No.6424674]

>>6423436
It might not be perfect but it is still the best we have come up with. There is a reason why it is the most successful system out there.

[Anonymous No.6424677]

>>6424533
You're the stupidest mongoloid to grace this place.

[Anonymous No.6424689]

>>6423117
>So have you if you've ever taken an art class, gone to an art museum, or have seen any piece of art and still remember it.
is this trolling

[Anonymous No.6424703]

>>6424689
No, as I've said
>There's a reason why the big push behind this involves a direct effort to use language and arguments that blur the line between "tool" and "creator," and "human brain" and "computer program." By the time we reach the era you're describing, people will have been fully conditioned to notice your work, photograph or save your work, use it as "training data," and then declare themselves as having mastered, and even improved, your art style, making you obsolete and them the superior, more efficient artist... and fully believe it.
They can make their product more marketable if they fully convince people that there's no difference between an artist drawing something and somebody prompting a result from a program.

[Anonymous No.6424731]

>>6424582
That guy you linked and wrote about did horrible "concept" art though since you needed an entire instruction manual to understand wtf anything is supposed to be.
Show don't tell my nigga.

>>6424611
It's irrelevant because the argument is about ethics and I'm not letting you move the goalposts. Seethe.

[Anonymous No.6424734]

>>6424689
Yes. Between the lawsuit gaining traction and the fundraiser, ai shills are sweating bullets
>>6423117
Tell it to the judge opie

[Anonymous No.6424750]

>>6424734
>the lawsuit that will take so long to go nowhere
>the scam fundraiser

[Anonymous No.6424764]

Holy shit

[Anonymous No.6424771]

>>6424764
Link. That's too unreal to believe

[Anonymous No.6424775]

>>6424764
>theif

[Anonymous No.6424781]

>>6424764

[Anonymous No.6424784]

>>6424764
looks fake

[Anonymous No.6424787]

>>6424764
>Calling Ai prompting a crisis
>Oh no! The Ai is stealing my style that I copied off someone else that copied off somebody else that was originally stolen from someone!
I hope it's real so we may have those who are clones and copy cats get their faces blown off and /asg/ should include the suicide hotline in their OP.

[Anonymous No.6424791]

>>6424764
kek, how long?

[Anonymous No.6424804]

>>6424787
>I hope it's real
its total fake, just read all

[Anonymous No.6424827]

>>6423117
The value of art is in the process and its transformative effect on the person. In this sense, the artist is the real product and the artifacts that other people normally appreciate as art are actually the exhaust of this process.
If you don't want to change yourself to think and see like an artist, you don't have to. This is the same as people who just drive their cars without caring how they're built or how they work or anything. There's nothing wrong with that.
If you just want to look at pretty things, there's nothing wrong with that, either. If you want to put in the work to become an artist (i.e. to incur the psychological, physical, and behavioral changes necessary to make good art) then go ahead.

This obviously leaves out the monetary side of the issue, but I assume people that really want to be artists prioritize making art over money.

[Anonymous No.6424842]

>>6424731
It's relevant because AI is photobashing and a human is looking. Seethe.

[Anonymous No.6424849]

>>6424764
>you need an AI to tell AI art apart

funniest proompter cope ITT

[Anonymous No.6424852]

>>6424842
>AI is photobashing
Incorrect

[Anonymous No.6424853]

>>6424827
desu AI has its own process and struggle. A lot of it is just "generate a meh boring animu girl" but there are people who go through hours of processing, editing, revisions and so on.

It's just such a different process from drawing/painting, while the outputs seem similar, that people who draw and paint see it as "cheating" because they can't relate to or even imagine the process at all.

>>6424842
The process is not photobashing, but even if it was there's nothing wrong with using a tool to photobash. The AI is not independent of the human using it. Your attempt to split the human away is really weird.

[Anonymous No.6424903]

>>6424853
The human is using it like a coomer is using whatever pinup artfag he commissions from. Just because the AI isn't charging you money doesn't mean it's not photobashing an image for you based on what you ordered. Editing a few crab hands out makes you something akin to a post-post-post processing photomanipulator at best.

AI is photobashing using a million data points instead of a dozen. The only people who try to claim it's not are "muh machine learning is literal human thought" redditors.

[Anonymous No.6424992]

>>6424853
>desu AI has its own process and struggle. A lot of it is just "generate a meh boring animu girl" but there are people who go through hours of processing, editing, revisions and so on.
yeah, there is definitely a differentiation to be made between just directly generated results/simple output and what is basically a collage of different images, plus probably own artistic input.

[Anonymous No.6425092]

>>6424516
>Upload it to YouTube
>got copyright infringement
yups guess my point still stand

[Anonymous No.6425096]

>>6425092
well of course
it uses the first few seconds of all apologies

[Anonymous No.6425568]

>>6424764
It would be easy to fake that texts just by editing it in the browser's inspect mode. Seems fake at a glance.

[Anonymous No.6425601]

First and foremost, I am an artist.
Secondarily, I am an AI artist.
Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.6425606]

First and foremost, I am a woman.
Secondarily, I am a trans woman.
Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.6425641]

>>6425601
>>6425606
so true bestie
u are stunning and brave

[Anonymous No.6425655]

>>6423117
Because their goal is to replace art. It doesn't matter if this is feasible or not, they are trying to make masterpieces a click away from being created - something that take days or months to do They are our enemy, even if their goal is impossible.

[Anonymous No.6425660]

>>6423117
Because it'd taking the best of all the art then recreating new pieces from a few those at once. According to these whiney overgrown babies it's a COPYRIGHT NIGHTMARE

who fn cares? Get over it. Ya gonna sue a robot?

[Anonymous No.6425661]

>>6425655
And you're really unintelligent enough to believe that a majority of people are going to choose these over art created by people?

Lol ok

[Anonymous No.6425662]

>>6425660
if laws are passed who's going to be sued are the companies and studios looking to make a buck off of models that used scraped imaged

[Anonymous No.6425672]

>>6425661
They're agreeing with you, ESL anon. Their point being that AI art is redundant but the motivation behind it is misguided.

[Anonymous No.6425752]

>>6424689
It's either trolling or pajeets really aren't capable of socialized thought and human emotion.

[Anonymous No.6425753]

>>6425662
They're too retarded to understand scrapping the current models and restarting the whole thing as an actual artist aid fed exclusively with licensed reference would make them a billion dollars a year without allowing for any moral resistance.

Because ultimately they don't want to create art, they want to destroy artists.

[Anonymous No.6425760]

>>6425753
Stablediffusion is free, you can install it on your own computer.
The only artists who are getting destroyed are doing it to themselves. Every single one who spammed that noai thing on artstation likely got blacklisted for being too volatile to hire.

[Anonymous No.6425763]

>>6425661
Not even aifags choose aifag "art" over real art kek, they just want others to. They truly are the trannies of digital art.

[Anonymous No.6425764]

>>6425760
The second you use SD in a commercial piece and some pixel comber finds a nanometer of Disney IP or cheese pizza you're dead.

That's not "free".

Erase the databases and start again with 100% licensed assets, or it's not worth using.

[Anonymous No.6425769]

Sometimes i go into different threads and take opposite positions on ai art just to stir the pot

[Anonymous No.6425789]

>>6423117
I'm anti AI for a variety of reasons but

>That one obnoxious zoomer faggot who blatantly steals ideas and designs from other artists bitching about not wanted their shitty sketches stolen

Yeah stop AI but holyshit if I had a dollar for everytime a 1 to 1 exact anime recolor knock off shows up on my twitter I could retire early. You ain't fooling nobody nigga I know that's a made in Abyss character.

[Anonymous No.6425800]

>>6425764
absolute tinfoil post

[Anonymous No.6425810]

sage still works and goes in all fields.

[Anonymous No.6425900]

As an AI artist new to the art world, I can't figure it out either. The initial shock and backlash I can understand, but it's like some people can't handle that it even exists and hate on anyone who uses it.
Well newsflash my fellow artists, it ain't going anywhere. ;)

[Anonymous No.6425901]

I'd think that if such AI could copy your stuff, your stuff might be a tad too basic, but I'm gonna be honest, I steal poses from art all the time. I literally have a whole folder of tons of people's stuff, and sometimes I steal a design element from a pic and make a character from that, in many ways, what I (and most likely countless others) already have been doing for years, realistically, AI is just another one of us.

I think it really won't make any difference whatsoever. AI can at most just be a useful learning tool, or something fun to play around with once you bust your ass for 3 hours setting the damn thing up and making sure it works.

[Anonymous No.6425913]

>>6425769
based shitposter

[Anonymous No.6425914]

>>6425901
>I steal poses from art all the time.
unless you are tracing, that's fine

[Anonymous No.6425933]

[Anonymous No.6425943]

>>6425933
kwab

[Anonymous No.6426022]

>>6424009
>>6424024
Google “overfitting”.

[Anonymous No.6426299]

>>6423213
>this kind of argument implies that technical skill is literally all there is to art
That's a correct implication, art is a display of skill and the etymology of the word is "craft". Without skill there's no art. Any other thing is pretentious jewish subversion.

[Anonymous No.6426991]

AI art is literally a collage.
There is no AI without an artist
Why is everyone panicking?

[Anonymous No.6427629]

>>6425601
>I am an AI artist
AI artists were replaced by ChatGPT you're a nobody now

[Anonymous No.6428032]

>>6423206
The hands still look fucked up