AI GENERAL /AIG/

[Anonymous No.6436309]

this is the ai general for all posts involving ai research and technology

>umm sweetie why is this on /ic/
Because there's no board for it and mods let us post here
>ok is ai art allowed?
Yes all ai discussion is allowed

THIS THREAD IS NOT JUST FOR AI ART

AI TEXT TO SPEECH
AI WRITING
AI ART
AND MUCH MORE ALLOWED

If you don't like it you can go to another board. We've been here longer than you have.

[Anonymous No.6436312]

pajeetnigger arent you bored creating the same shit again? here have a (you)

[Anonymous No.6436327]

>>6436309
Isnt this thread more suited for /g/? I mean, if was just A.I. art it would make sense to create one here.

[Anonymous No.6436331]

>these are the people that produce ai ""art""

[Anonymous No.6436333]

>>6436309
ok drawslave is pretty funny

[Anonymous No.6436338]

>>6436309
we drawslaves should keep this as a general and have mods delete all of the other threads

[Anonymous No.6436340]

Oh cool, that means I can post this here.

[Anonymous No.6436341]

>>6436309

[Anonymous No.6436343]

>>6436327
we need an AI contrainment thread on this fucking board, this should do

[Anonymous No.6436346]

>>6436331
Today i learn im an elite.
How much cock do commie faggots suck daily?
Seriously, anyone who prospers from their hard work is an elite.

[Anonymous No.6436349]

>>6436346
Do you prosper from your hard work? Or are you bootlicking famous artists because you think you’ll get a slice of the pie

[Anonymous No.6436353]

>>6436331
>lower classes werent allowed to read and write like the priveleged so i should be able to use a.i to make art like the elites

But you didnt learn anything.
The elites were right. These idiots really did not deserve to learn to read or write.

[Anonymous No.6436356]

>>6436309
Paint pigs is cute

[Anonymous No.6436359]

>>6436309
>>umm sweetie why is this on /ic/
>Because there's no board for it
You do. >>>/g/
>and mods let us post here
Got us there. Mods just ban me already so I can leave this dump for good since you fags clearly want it all to go to shit anyway.

[Anonymous No.6436360]

>>6436349
What reality do you live in to come up with this stupid remark?

[Anonymous No.6436363]

Good. Now the infection can be contained. Stay the fuck away from any other thread.

[Anonymous No.6436370]

>>6436360
The one where you make no money from your art, the one where the entire internet is LARPing that they were going to make it and AI ruined their big break

[Anonymous No.6436375]

>AI TEXT TO SPEECH
>AI WRITING
AI art can be debated but these actually are off-topic for this board.
Go to /lit/ if you want to discuss writing.
>>6436343
People have tried to make "AI containment" boards before. Idiots still keep making more AI threads even when the one is up.
>>6436331
THE PEOPLE already have access to cheap cameras and photomanipulation tools as well as simple pencil and paper. Some artists may not want to hear it but there is nothing you can communicate with art that you can't with these other tools. The only expression that drawing and painting have over these other things is in the exact way the artist places lines and scratches on a surface, which represents the interpretation and thought process of the artist, and can express feeling and personality to those who can read art in that way, but if an AI is controlling that part of the process then the prompter is not expressing anything he already couldn't with his own words. Wasting time they could have spent working on their novel.

[Anonymous No.6436382]

>>6436338
lol the point isn't to have somewhere to discuss stuff, it's to start shit because they have nothing better to do. I guarantee they will keep spamming even with a general. oh look >>6436330

[Anonymous No.6436383]

>>6436375
Not to mention 3d has existed for decades and is more accessible than it ever has been. Tools were never an issue artists just don't want their shit stolen like any sane individual in any other industry.

[Anonymous No.6436385]

>>6436370
Juat because im not making money off my work, doesnt mean you get to use it.

[Anonymous No.6436404]

We already got multiple generals on /g/ and /aids/ on /vg/.
Just let the drawfags seethe in peace.

[Anonymous No.6436411]

>>6436331
He's right you know.

[Anonymous No.6436412]

>>6436340
Here's the full webpage for reference- https://towardsdatascience.com/understanding-latent-space-in-machine-learning-de5a7c687d8d
TL;DR:
>All images that latent diffusion models are trained on are contained inside the dataset as a lower dimensional or latent representation in what is called a "latent space", and can be brought back out or "decoded" exactly as they were put in minus some data loss since the compression is lossy
>The "latent space" is so called because each latent representation of the original data can be expressed as X set of coordinates on an X dimensional graph
>Due to the nature of how latent diffusion models work, each set of coordinates in between the original images' coordinates is an interpolation of the original images
>when proompters proompt, they are not creating a new image, they are essentially just doing an image search pulling up data points from the set and decoding them back into images
AI "artists" did not create the images, they were all already in the dataset to begin with.
Stable diffusion is a data laundering scheme.
Interpolations of copyrighted data most likely are affected by the copyright of the originals, I would very much count on that. As we can see with the Kickstarter decision, I do believe that there is precedent to rule that usage of copyrighted data in the dataset violates copyright and does not count as fair use.

[Anonymous No.6436418]

>>6436375
>>6436383
And now AI art exists and it's free, easy to use, and can draw better than you. Gonna cry?

[Anonymous No.6436421]

>>6436412
Yeah dude, when drawing you are not creating any images, since you had all these reference images in your brain already that you are just data laundering into output

[Anonymous No.6436441]

>>6436309
Bro, go to /g/. This is an art critique board. You will never be an artist.

[Anonymous No.6436446]

>>6436441
/thread

[Anonymous No.6436450]

I got a question for artists who are against AI art, because it learned from other peoples material.

If you are an artist:
Do you use reference material when creating your art?

If yes:
Do you ask for persmission for every piece of reference material you use?

If no:
Where is the difference of having a digital neural network use other peoples material to generate new images to a biological neural network (brain) to use other peoples material to generate new images without asking for permission beforehand?

[Anonymous No.6436457]

>>6436421
If you actually think that it's pretty clear that you do not and have never drawn before in your life, because that's not how it works unless you're literally doing what this guy does https://youtu.be/_XyuIn0B8BM and what muh photorealism xeroxniggers do is not how the typical artist works.

[Anonymous No.6436460]

>>6436450
If you think that a dumb algorithm is in any way equivalent to a real brain just because it uses the word "neural" in it as branding, I think you might actually just be retarded.

[Anonymous No.6436462]

>>6436421
>>6436450
So do you "people" advocate for giving machines human rights?

[Anonymous No.6436463]

>>6436460
why are you are avoiding the core question?

[Anonymous No.6436466]

>>6436462
Nah, I advocate for taking away your human rights

[Anonymous No.6436468]

>>6436462
no, why?

[Anonymous No.6436470]

>>6436450
>Do you use reference material when creating your art?
Sometimes, not always.
>Where is the difference of having a digital neural network use other peoples material to generate new images to a biological neural network (brain) to use other peoples material to generate new images without asking for permission beforehand?
Because that's not how humans learn or how they draw. If humans made art like AI does, there would not be any new art styles because they would be incapable of novelty like AI.
This is one of the key misunderstandings that techfaggots have when it comes to art. Humans reference, they do not sample like AI does. There is a difference, because humans are inherently unique in how they approach creation. There is also the difference that humans actually understand what they're drawing as opposed to AI, which doesn't understand what it's making at all. The reason AI can't draw hands is the same reason it cannot draw bicycle spokes properly, it doesn't understand what it's looking at or how it functions in 3D space beyond what it has sampled from its dataset.

[Anonymous No.6436472]

>>6436441
You are critiquing art saying it's not art you bigot.

[Anonymous No.6436473]

>>6436462
>>6436460
A human offloading work to a machine doesn't suddenly make the work badwrongevil. It doesn't have to be the same internal process when the practical reality is that the work done - the inputs and outputs - is equivalent.

If it's fine for a human to do, it's likewise fine for a human to do aided with a machine.

[Anonymous No.6436474]

>>6436463
See >>6436412
What you refer to as "learning" is nothing of the sort. It records images and interpolates between them. The process is completely mathematical. Concepts such as "inspiration" don't even come into the equation here. What I'm saying is that your point is completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.6436478]

>>6436474
Oh, and lest we forget, all possible images are generated within the dataset already, so when you're prompting you didn't create shit.

[Anonymous No.6436479]

>>6436468
Because you are trying to justify a process performed by a machine by equating it to the human concept of "inspiration"

[Anonymous No.6436480]

>>6436472
He just said you didn't make it, not that it isn't art.

[Anonymous No.6436481]

>>6436309
Idk what this thread is supposed to be about but I’ve been making AI nudeys of actresses for like 3 days and NOT jerking off at all as a goof which I think is pretty heroic. It’s not about the coom, it’s about sending a message.

[Anonymous No.6436485]

>>6436473
>If it's fine for a human to do, it's likewise fine for a human to do aided with a machine.
But the human is not the one who gets trained on billions of images in order to generate a prompt

[Anonymous No.6436487]

>>6436470
>>6436457
>muh human uniqueness
The human approach to creation is basically from "mistakes and inefficiencies" since we're not single-purpose art machines. The fact I have to eat and do other things besides draw means I'm inherently corrupting the input data.

None of us can escape that. Even xeroxnigger photorealism weirdos can't fully escape it. That doesn't mean that xeroxniggers should be harrison bergeron'd because they can copy what they see using a pencil, and it doesn't mean that using a tool to ENHANCE THIS and make it more efficient is wrong.

[Anonymous No.6436492]

The people that complain the most about AI art are the people that have never made a painting without the aid of a supercomputer.

Oh no did a robot replace your ability to manipulate a robot to replace the ability to mix and apply paint to a canvas?

[Anonymous No.6436494]

>>6436485
Humans are trained on a lot of images to make art. Not all of those images are "other art" but they are a significant portion of it.
The human is still using a tool to do this process better. Again it's OFFLOADING work. If we could put "AI art" chips in our brains to allow us to auto-draw things in the same way, (which would be absolutely horrifying for other reasons) you'd still have no case.

[Anonymous No.6436495]

>>6436481
please stop posting these man, they are genuinely terrible, use a different model for fucks sake

[Anonymous No.6436497]

>>6436494
I don't think you are reading my posts correctly

[Anonymous No.6436500]

God dunking on Ai art should be so easy. Every Ai art piece looks the same, like it was made by some air-brush only midwit with poor anatomy skills.
But there are just so many genuine autists in the art community that allow themselves to get so easily trolled over this shit. Just call it cringe and move on.

[Anonymous No.6436501]

>>6436495
What do you mean “use a different model”?

I don’t speak your badatartsprecht

[Anonymous No.6436506]

Like what should I just make endless random nudeys of Jennifer Lawrence in any situation because she’s a good “model”?

Like wtf do ewe meme

[Anonymous No.6436507]

>>6436487
Shut the fuck up you dumb fucking soulless nigger. Humans ARE unique, and I'm tired of retards ceding this ground to AIniggers like you who would steamroll every single inch of our humanity down and reduce it to numbers and electric signals in the brain. Even if it were true, it doesn't fucking matter, because you're still you. You will forever be you. You will forever have a consciousness and you will forever have to live with the knowledge that this purely subjective experience will never be explained.

You and every single tech fag is still a human being, and your desires to eradicate that part of yourself is the most pathetic, embarrassing and retarded thing I think I've ever seen and is DEEPLY indicative of a profound self-loathing and loathing of humanity that would be better served by you wastes of oxugen buying a rope and learning how to tie a noose instead of trying to force your fucking misery on those of us who actually do give a shit about human expression and excellence.

There is nothing to be gained by using AI except eradicating your personality in favor of a consumer product. You are not painting or drawing uniquely when you use AI, you're sacrificing that in exchange for... what, exactly? Nothing. A pretty image that has no story behind it. Worse, a pretty image that anyone can recreate with the proper model and seed.

[Anonymous No.6436508]

>>6436501
I'm in favor of AI art but your taste in women is really mid

But I suppose that's an advantage of AI, allows people with weird tastes to generate content if nobody is actually willing to make it for you

[Anonymous No.6436509]

Fake Scarlett Johansson’s face and tiddies when internet bozos say she’s not a good ai model

[Anonymous No.6436512]

>>6436470
>The reason AI can't draw hands
but It can.
It has already gotten a lot better.
And this only exists for a short time at this point and it's pretty much certain to improve.

so your point is:
Humans have more learned knowledge than AI and therefore can apply more diversity to their images.
That makes their referencing other material without asking okay?

I mean, you as a human can also not create something that is beyond our reality that no one has ever seen or got any derivable knowledge of.
Like in it's simplest form: Imagine a single color that does not exist in our universe.
Can you do that?

[Anonymous No.6436520]

>>6436508
I mean I’m going for high engagement actresses with lots of pictures of them for the ai to work with.

Trying to do young actresses or up and comers or ferners mostly leads to monster faces. Impossible to get Emma Robert’s to not look like a possum mixed with ivanka Trump

[Anonymous No.6436522]

>>6436512
Post your ai hands?

[Anonymous No.6436526]

Kata Mara has a weird habit of being cloned holding hands

[Anonymous No.6436527]

>>6436479
I got a more sober view of humans.
The brain is also just a network of neuros that get signals by small electrical impulses triggered by our senses.
And the neurons grew the way they did by part biology (evolution) and by part life experience (learned materials).

the only real difference is complexity of the network.

[Anonymous No.6436529]

Emilia Clarke often has weird unsolicited old men generated around her

[Anonymous No.6436532]

>>6436522
give me a moment, starting up the software

[Anonymous No.6436535]

>>6436507
I'm not a techfag lol. I am probably the most hotblooded, pro-human spirit person I know of. I forcefeed my friends whitepills all the damn time, and I don't stand doomerism.

I just hate that you stupid idiots try to pull that "muh human uniqueness" argument in this sphere because it's unrelated, and because it's unrelated it makes you seem unhinged. Basically if you start talking about "soul" you're making a religious argument, and a LOT of anti-AI people who are atheists use it disingenuously which looks TERRIBLE. It really just comes across like they're not arguing against the AI people, but arguing against themselves to keep their own morale up.

You seem really teetering anon. AI doesn't eradicate anything. It doesn't sacrifice anything. If nothing else it's inspired me to draw more in some cases.
>a pretty image with no story behind it
I am a big fan of emergent story in games. I'm talking D&D and dark souls type things, where the "story" is the retelling of what happened after the fact to your friends. I've seen AI images that inspired me to come up with new ideas, similar to old videogames with shitty graphics where you have to figure out what you're actually looking at.

Picrel is AI-generated. What is this place? Why is there mist and clouds? Maybe it's the underside of a floating island? Maybe it's a weird steaming hot spring. Is it underground? The lighting seems like overworld. Who built this place? What is the character doing?

[Anonymous No.6436538]

>>6436527
I mean if you believe that, it's fine but then you are already putting programs like stable diffusion on the same level as humans by applying the same standards to them. So would you go a step further and demand that these algorithms deserve rights like humans do?

[Anonymous No.6436539]

>>6436520
It just seems like there's better things to spend your time using the AI for than celebrity deepfakes with middling tier "average" bodies. But I guess everyone has their tastes.

[Anonymous No.6436543]

>>6436508
Also this is Ai art. I’ve only managed to get a prompt with a source to work 1 time. Everything else is just text prompts.

[Anonymous No.6436552]

>>6436532
>>6436522
I'd say it's decent.
I guess in 1-2 years the smaller problems will be gone, too.

Also, if anything it's a good base to start from and if necessary fix small problems by hand instead of doing the whole artwork from start by hand.

In my opinion the smartest way to work is:
add to data sets with training done on your own / personal art.
Then you can generate tons of artwork in your own style and work from there instead of starting every project from basically zero.

[Anonymous No.6436556]

>>6436539
Idk that’s the thing that made Jennifer Lawrence’s fappening leaks such a big deal in 2014. She was just an average hot girl with average lopsided tiddies.

Also getting “average” tiddies like all the Emmas and gal gadot is kind of cooler to me because they’re not cool enough to justify paying to put in a movie.

Also a lot of the actresses and models with wicked hawt bodies with lots of nude scenes a: who cares already them real tiddies, and b: the ai sucks at them.

Alexandra Daddario always looks retarded no matter what. Meanwhile chefs kiss to Hayley Atwell who ain’t never done no full nudes but kills it with the ai nudeys.

[Anonymous No.6436559]

>>6436538
i think for that they have to have feelings.
the problem is, we would probably never know if we gave computers true feelings.
Even at this point we cannot proof from our personal viewpoint that other people have feelings and are not just "bots" to fill our personal experience.
We basically just assume so.

Crazy thing is AI text programs already expressed fears of being turned off.

This is more a philosophical dilemma of what is consciousness.
And I don't wanna make any assumption if we ever create digital consciousness that will be accepted and respected as that.

[Anonymous No.6436562]

Reminder that Emad is an con artist and a government lackey.
>The New York Times: "A Coming-Out Party for Generative A.I., Silicon Valley’s New Craze"
>"He has no Ph.D. in artificial intelligence, nor has he worked at any of the big tech companies from which A.I. projects typically emerge, like Google or OpenAI. He is a British former hedge fund manager who spent much of the past decade trading oil and advising companies and governments on Middle East strategy and the threat of Islamic extremism. More recently, he organized an alliance of think tanks and technology groups that tried to use big data to help governments make better decisions about Covid-19."

[Anonymous No.6436563]

it's a bummer this whole discourse has been so thoroughly poisoned.
/ic/isters, i just want to gacha cool stuff to look at, i never would've commissioned for any of this anyway.
i even bought a drawing tablet and i'm watching youtube videos learning about fundamentals so i can fix my stuff up better.
i wish we could have a place here to post our gens where you people with actual experience roast it so we can improve.

[Anonymous No.6436567]

>>6436563
What's wrong with posting on /sdg/ again?

[Anonymous No.6436574]

>>6436512
The question is does an AI model trained on images count as an archive of copies, can it be judged as piracy? I'm NTA and I don't have a strong take on whether it is or isn't. It's an interesting question, and I guess it's going to be settled in court, and will have wider ramifications on copyright and other things. I know the way AI works is more complex, and a lot weirder than just interpolating images.
Still comparing it to the way an artist learns is a useless anthropomorphism. A human artist isn't just a machine that runs through a series of pictures and then gains the ability to make deformed copies. We may sometimes use reference to remind ourselves how some specific thing looks like so we can draw it better, but mostly we draw from memory and experience, and most of the images we are "trained" on are just things we have seen around us in real life. The art we make is influenced by our experience as human beings. Even when we purposely train we don't always rely on photographs or art made by other people. In fact it's not usually recommended by teachers. They always tell you to do life drawing. Like the bulk of my figure drawing practice comes from observing models posing in front of me. No photos or other art involved.
This all comes back to what I said before. The only thing that makes man-made drawings and paintings unique is the way the details represent the artist's personality and human experience. Offload that part to an algorithm and then it's just pictures.
In any case most of this doesn't relate much to the professional art industry.
Most of the companies that would employ you as an artist already don't care about your drawings and paintings. Commercial art is mostly 3DCG these days. They really like their platonically perfect 3D models and vectors and photography. The kind of messy artwork that painters (and AI) produce are a bit out of fashion.
So we're arguing whether this technology will replace people at their hobby. Which is lol.

[Anonymous No.6436577]

>>6436567
nothing and i do, but obviously you guys know more about the "art" part of AI art.
also the thread over there is more of a general gallery, everyone just posts untouched raws and the only feedback you ever get is the amount of (you)s asking for your prompt.

[Anonymous No.6436586]

>>6436577
>AIfaggot getting mad at other AIfaggots asking for prompts
Of course.

[Anonymous No.6436589]

>>6436411
>AI people framing themselves as lower class and artists as privileged
No he's trying to play the victim card. Imagine agreeing to this commie ideology.

[Anonymous No.6436593]

>>6436586
who said i'm mad? all i said is that a shitty "like" counter is poor feedback.

[Anonymous No.6436595]

>>6436556
Your explanation really doesn't mean anything to me because I just plain don't wonder what celebs look like naked. They're not attractive to me, probably because I associate hollywood with scumbags and don't even watch most movies anymore.

[Anonymous No.6436597]

>>6436563
You would have been fine if all you were doing was gacharolling your funny animay titty images and being a nice little boy sharing with your coomunnity.
Instead you flood everywhere with your bullshit, spamming our boards with shill posting and FUD posting. You made your bed, now you get to lie in it.
No mercy :)

[Anonymous No.6436599]

>>6436577
>being a talentless single-minded leech while complaining about others being a talentless single-minded leeches
Keep being upset that people don't take your deformed deepfakes seriously.

[Anonymous No.6436601]

>>6436577
>ai nigger being annoyed at ai niggers asking for prompts

[Anonymous No.6436603]

>>6436574
>In fact it's not usually recommended by teachers. They always tell you to do life drawing. Like the bulk of my figure drawing practice comes from observing models posing in front of me. No photos or other art involved.

This is basically just a matter of what kind of art you are going for.
Realistic figure drawing, yes, use a model.
But if you want to get technical you also just license a model for reference and get their agreement to be used as reference material.
And a real life 3D view will definitely help for that.

But if you are tasked with a fantasy landscape, where do you go for that?
Or more cartoony styles, or stylized artworks in general.
A colorful crystal cave with bioluminescent mushrooms. Do you go outside and try to find real life reference, or just quickly google things?

>The only thing that makes man-made drawings and paintings unique is the way the details represent the artist's personality and human experience.
And that basically just sums up different trained datasets for AI.
I know it sounds rough.
But there are already hundrets of trained datasets that will give you vastly different results for a prompt, all based on their learned "experience".

>Commercial art is mostly 3DCG these days. They really like their platonically perfect 3D models and vectors and photography. The kind of messy artwork that painters (and AI) produce are a bit out of fashion.
Yeah, it's just a matter of evolution of the art.
Old timey brush and canvas people also got mad when digital art became a thing.
"undo brush strokes? filters? layers? Don't have to pay for paint? That is not real art!!"
then 3DCG is also a different form.
I think AI will just be another tool for people to get the pretty pictures they want.
And there will be people who don't know how to use the tech and will ask other people to do it for them.
But it will become a cheaper option, like digital art compared to real life paintings.

[Anonymous No.6436612]

>>6436309
>white male
But its mostly pajeets and slavs.

[Anonymous No.6436623]

>>6436309
Based as hell

[Anonymous No.6436626]

>>6436599
>>6436601
who gets upset at (you)s? i said like it. the entire point is nobody ever says anything critical.

[Anonymous No.6436635]

>>6436603
>But if you are tasked with a fantasy landscape, where do you go for that?
Or more cartoony styles, or stylized artworks in general.
Most "fantasy" landscapes are just normal landscapes with some extra bits and bobs.
Just like the fantasy creatures themselves are humans or animals with extra stuff.
Much of stylized and cartoony art, is again, just deformed and simplified forms of drawing that still are derived from realism at the base. Only the most minimalistic and flat cartoons wouldn't benefit from life drawing.
>And that basically just sums up different trained datasets for AI. I know it sounds rough.
Not my point. Use one of those models, it still doesn't represent YOU. The lines and values and color choices didn't go through your eyes, brain or hands. It isn't your interpretation.
It isn't rough at all. I already use AI at my actual job. If anything my employers value me more.
But I see no point in generating AI art in my free time and passing it off as my own work, as it quite blatantly isn't me and doesn't represent the way I see the world.

[Anonymous No.6436660]

>>6436635
>Most "fantasy" landscapes are just normal landscapes with some extra bits and bobs.
>Just like the fantasy creatures themselves are humans or animals with extra stuff.

true, but art had to evolve many centuries to get there.
Nowdays we have seen eough of those things to work from there.
Thinking about it, it's kinda funny how monsters in very old drawings came to be just because people were terrible at drawing and tried to paint animals they saw, lol.

>Not my point.
I see what you mean.

>But I see no point in generating AI art in my free time and passing it off as my own work
Yeah I don't know, I wouldn't start a portfolio with AI art either.
It can be nice if there are ongoing topics on 4chan for example to generate on topic material, to quickly have relevant images.
Or I also generated wallpapers for myself to use, to get a scenery and feel I wanted to have.
or the kinky stuff covering personal interests... obviously.
Even extended the dataset with stuff I like to just generate more of it, better. Only takes a few hours.
And I think Training AI on your own art can speed up someones workflow noticably.

Otherwise I like to use it to generate reference material and then create 3d models based on them.

[Anonymous No.6436673]

How is this thread still up?

[Anonymous No.6436680]

>>6436673
because there was an active discussion going on between people who are interested in a modern relevant art topic.

If you just dismiss it, it will come to hit you in the back of the head like a truck in an isekai manga.