AIfags btfo?

[Anonymous No.6500868]

Ibispaint will automatically generate and display 1-minute speedpaint of every illustration you upload to their website's gallery. AI models can't draw in a program. Easy verification of actual drawings if (most) people adopt it? What do you think?
Only downside, there's a monthly fee to pay

[Anonymous No.6500887]

and why would I pay money to do that? and why would I need to do this so much that I would pay a monthly fee? I can just use capture software or take screenshots during my process or live stream my process to youtube for free.

[Anonymous No.6500913]

Ok actually maybe I'm dumb and it's just a one-off payment and not monthly now that I took another look (I have only used the trial version myself).
I mean if a bit of money is an issue and you have other means, sure ig, but I thought this'd be comfy because it's automated and just one link you have to share every time

[Anonymous No.6500921]

>>6500887
OP seem mistook something. That feature is free

[Anonymous No.6500926]

why would you need it anyway.
even painted over this shit reeks

[Anonymous No.6501004]

>>6500868
You are one braindead nigger

[Anonymous No.6501091]

Don't need it. Just dump the psd file or whatever

[Anonymous No.6501157]

>>6500868
I don't get it. I thought AI was shit and not worth anything because it's so easily identifiable. Why would you need this?

[Anonymous No.6501168]

>>6501157
It's not so easily identifiable anymore if someone spends 10 hours prompting and gets a decent-looking picture which never was their intention.

[Anonymous No.6501175]

>>6501168
this AI sounds pretty impressive why artists aren't using it more often then?

[Anonymous No.6501187]

>>6501175
>this AI sounds pretty impressive why aren't chess players using it more often then?

[Anonymous No.6501196]

>>6501157
It is shit
It is not worth anything
It is easily identifiable
And we don't need this

[Anonymous No.6501207]

>>6501196
keep coping sir

[Anonymous No.6501209]

>>6501187
but they do, high level chess players study the chess engines lines

[Anonymous No.6501210]

>>6501207
If google can't kill translators, AI is out.

[Anonymous No.6501230]

>>6501175
Many artists still have a soul and don't want to be responsible for the apocalypse that unrestricted "AI research" might bring.

[Anonymous No.6501235]

>>6501168
Massive cope

[Anonymous No.6501236]

>>6501210
All my post are gpt generated sir including this one.

>>6501230
stop polluting and eating meat sir please stop global warming

[Anonymous No.6501240]

>>6501187
Chess players should play against it. Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.6501249]

>>6501236
>stop polluting and eating meat sir please stop global warming
I'm already doing that. Now it's your turn to stop feeding AIs with your input, which will be used against you.

[Anonymous No.6501258]

>>6500868
Ibis kinda sucks though. Isn’t it mobile only anyways?
Used it on android awhile back and it was shit tier. The apple one people jerked off about was slightly better but they all suck compared to full pc art programs

[Anonymous No.6501599]

>>6500868
CSP records your drawings. Many artists already post their timelapses for some of them. Which then proves its not AI shit.

[Anonymous No.6502106]

>>6501168
>10 hours
doubt it takes that long, more like seconds or minutes.

[Anonymous No.6502229]

>>6500868
nobody cares about how the sausage is made. i guess this tool could be useful for "art competitions", but regular people won't give a shit about how the end product got created.

[Anonymous No.6502271]

>>6502229
>I HECKING LOVE MICROPLASTICS IN MY FOOD

[Anonymous No.6502281]

>>6502271
the microplastics are literally everywhere, it can't be avoided

[Anonymous No.6502311]

>>6501258
There is a PC version but I'm not quite sure yet how good it is. It's more popular in Japan. But the idea is promising imo, maybe another, better program will make use of it in the future

[Anonymous No.6502317]

>>6502229
Not sure I agree, a lot of ppl are mindless consumers true, but not to THAT degree. Even reddit mostly dislikes AI Art.

[Anonymous No.6502372]

>>6502317
People claim to hate AI art when directly asked if they do, but if people are given a choice between a "traditional" visual novel / anime / furry bore commission and one that costs 1% as much and delivers the same quality, they're going to pick the latter every time.

[Anonymous No.6503074]

>>6502372
>delivers the same quality

[Anonymous No.6503090]

>>6502372
>implying most people want any of those things even if it's for free
A lot of subreddits banned AI stuff before it became an uproar within the art community. Simply because they got sick of being spammed with the same shit over and over again. No one likes the annoying artist guy who shoves his drawings in everyone's face, now there's an exponential amount of "artists" popping up everywhere waving around low effort shit they didn't even make for attention and money.

[Anonymous No.6504089]

>>6503074
Post your work

[Legislation SoonTM No.6504116]

>>6500868
that wont be the reason aifags will be btfo'd

[Anonymous No.6504118]

>>6504116
link:
https://twitter.com/sarahjolney1/status/1620855093515157505?s=46&t=6eSca1aLkuq_xo2oEm5NnQ

[Anonymous No.6504183]

>>6504116
>UK
Come back when something happens in America.

[Anonymous No.6504209]

>>6504183
??????
You mean like the lawsuits?
You also realize stability is in the UK correct? Emad Shitstain will have nowhere to hide

[Anonymous No.6504212]

>>6504183
It has been banned in both China and the UK
it's only a matter of time before other nations follow suit

[Anonymous No.6504213]

>>6500868
It's not like aifags are hiding the fact they are using AI, only artists using AI are but they are the minority

[Anonymous No.6504221]

>>6504212
"banned" in china

[Anonymous No.6504228]

>>6504209
This is a stay on a proposal for data collection being exempt. Which is to say that the plan is for data collection to be exempt and this literal who wants a hearing to debate it.
The lawsuit filed by Getty is dead in the water because they seem to think the model holds their original images which isn't how it works. They'll be going up against lawyers hired by Microsoft and likely every other tech giant that needs AI to be allowed. Good luck.
>>6504212
Wishful thinking. And China only banned it for citizens because they realize the propaganda potential.

[Anonymous No.6504236]

>>6504228
?????
The getty lawsuit is in the UK
Get your facts straight and cope more

[Anonymous No.6504273]

>>6504236
The Getty lawsuit is dead in the water because their claim isn't how the technology works and so there's no there there.

[Anonymous No.6504279]

>>6504273
Your reading comprehension is dog shit Raj
Also
>I care about some shit stained indian's opinion

[Anonymous No.6504297]

>>6504279
>Tell you the only trials that matter need to happen in America
>P, pajeet
Ironic that a fucking britbong accuses an American of being Indian when you're likely Indian or Paki. Maybe in the UK you'll need an art loicense but not here.

[Anonymous No.6504390]

>>6504297
HUH???
Bro stop schizo posting you absolute fucking retarded nigger
>You: "CoME BAck WhEN SoemTHing HAppEnS In AmeRIcA"
>Like the class action lawsuits in US
>"B-B-B-B-B-B-BUT THE G-GETTY
>Getty?
fucking moron

[Anonymous No.6504402]

>>6504390
I'm going to report you to the British police for using slurs, Nigger.

[Anonymous No.6504416]

>>6504402
I'm in the US you fucking bum, and if thats all you have to say in response to both litigation and legislative actions that are currently forming then maybe artists really had nothing to fear after all

[Anonymous No.6504440]

Feels good to live in a third world country with a corrupt government good enough to totally turn a blind eye do copyright laws. As long as people sell pirated movies and fake clothes on the streets I don't care whatever happens to fag embracing countries it won't affect me

[Anonymous No.6504454]

>>6504416
Turns out I'm not a lawyer and accusing people of being done boogyman pajeet instead of just engaging the argument is nigger like behavior on your part.
But if Getty image is angry not at the act of scraping, and they can't be because their entire business model relies on being scraped by Google to show up when people search images, then the only other angle is copyright infringement which from the case document they argue stable diffusion is a "complex collage software". That on its face is dead in the water. The SD model is like 3gb in size. You couldn't possible compress billions of images down to that size. Hate the term all you like but the models "learned" to generate the target subject matter and so when they learned "stock image" they learned that they almost always have a watermark that looks sorta like this, despite the contents of the image never actually exciting on Getty. More over SD is a tool, not a content publisher. It would be the equivalent of taking Adobe to court if you had your image duplicated using it.

[Anonymous No.6504459]

>>6504454
>brings up getty again
Ok you're a bot
Final (You)

[Anonymous No.6504461]

>>6504440
What 3rd world country is that

[Anonymous No.6504463]

>>6504459
Why wouldn't I bring up Getty? They've got a lawsuit against SD that people think is some big smoking gun.
It's hilarious how you're all backing away from it before they even got to court. Tell me what case you think has legs and I'll tell you why you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.6504498]

>>6504440
>doesnt realize america has copyright relations with third world countries
Lmao

[Anonymous No.6504517]

>>6504498
>with a corrupt government good enough to totally turn a blind eye to copyright laws

[Anonymous No.6504539]

>>6502372
no lol it's more because the AI generator community is so obnoxious with their spams that people became averse to seeing the same generated crap

[Anonymous No.6505913]

>>6504517
HAHAHAHA
>doesn't think the corrupt government wont buckle to the the superior 1st world one
brother youre hilarious

[Anonymous No.6505914]

>>6504454
>You couldn't possible compress billions of images down to that size.
sure about that pajypaj?

[Anonymous No.6505991]

>>6505914
>compressing an image to size of two bytes
Shouldn't we be using this tech for compression then if it can pull such miracles?

[Anonymous No.6505996]

>>6501175
why would artists need to use AI?
good artists can draw what they want
If for reference, uhhh pictures of real things already exist?
for ideas? most artists don't have aphastia and can imagine everything they want to draw in the first place, and use thumbnails to test out ideas

AI has no use for artists

[Anonymous No.6506901]

>>6505914
How much you want to bet they did img2img?

[Anonymous No.6506910]

>>6506901
You have a hard time reading don't you anon

[Anonymous No.6506918]

>>6506910
You have a hard time facing the reality that every time artcels have made the claim that an image came out exactly like the source, it was because they used img2img. But I'll humor you.
What model is this. Let's try it out and see if you can get that result. What were the dimensions and seed. You do know that you have to have all of those details locked in or the image changes right?

[Anonymous No.6506926]

>>6506918
Yeah... you're a retard that can't even read.
Final (You)

[Anonymous No.6506945]

>>6505914
WOW you're telling me that the AI will create an image that looks like the reference image it learned from? WOWWWWWWWWW who could have thought? I guess we need to take everyone to court that has drawn an image from photo reference.

[Anonymous No.6506965]

>>6506926
You think you have some kind of dunk because you don't actually understand how the technology works. Stable diffusion can run various different models. So which model were they running to get that image? If they don't mention it it's probably because it's some highly targeted model. But we'll wait for the hilarious court case.

[Anonymous No.6506977]

>>6505913
if it's a capitalist first country, no

[Anonymous No.6507079]

>>6506945
>your counter argument: omg woooow
damn bro, sure showed me. Cancel the lawsuits lmao

[Anonymous No.6507357]

>>6505914
They took the the top most duplicated photos in the dataset. And still despite generating 175 million images, only 109 "near copies" of training set pictures were able to be recreated, with what they call an attack. Extremely clickbaity abstract. This is exactly why stability deduped the dataset in their 2.0 version so this doesn't happen. Besides, being able to create infringing content does not mean the whole tool and process is infringing. Courts will decide whether using public images constitutes as fair use. I believe it is.

[Anonymous No.6507826]

>>6507079
See
>>6506965

[Anonymous No.6507847]

>the fact that I trace 3d models for poses will be exposed
:(

[Anonymous No.6508070]

>>6507357
Thank you for posting this so I can laugh at retards that really think this is an own.

[Anonymous No.6508230]

>>6505914
0.03% of the most duplicated images in the dataset were able to be reconstructed. 0.03%. Nought point nought three percent.

[Anonymous No.6508294]

>>6501175
It's only use is for lazy nodraws lol
Whenever someone says that
>Im an artist I only use AI in my creative process to le speed it up
>ai will allow artists to explore muh creativity better
They're 100% a nodraw faggot
SD's entire ad campaign didn't use the word "artist" a single time
Anyone who attempts to make you believe that this is a tool made for artists is ignorant or gaslighting you. From the first line of code this shit was meant to replace us and crush art underfoot.

[Anonymous No.6508880]

>>6507357
>it doesnt contain any of the copies!
>i-i-i mean so far it only contains 109 copies!
lol
>this is exactly why stability deduped the dataset in their 2.0 version
yeah but "muh open source" = permanent
which also means permanent damages
Try doing the same with 109 pieces of music Raj, no wait you cant cuz you shook

[Anonymous No.6508881]

>>6506965
>>6507826
>it dont werk like dat ok it just dont trust me bro source see: my ass

[Anonymous No.6508924]

>>6508881
It literally doesn't. See
>>6507357

[Anonymous No.6508967]

>>6507357
You seem to be misunderstanding something here
The question isn't "what are the chances" but "how it works and whether it violates CR or not"

[Anonymous No.6509375]

>>6508967
>How it works
You train on a dataset of tagged images and ask the model to recreate those tags. Note I said tags, not images. The object is recreating concepts, not over targeting images. So right out the gate you're removing the intention.

[Anonymous No.6509379]

>>6508967
>whether it violates CR or not
Those individual images would certainly violate copyright. But to imply that the images generated 0.0000622857% of the time when specifically targeting images with high duplicates is the issue people have with AI is highly disingenuous. In the off chance that people manage to generate an image that's too close to an existing copyright images then it's a dispute between the cr holder and the generator that attempts to publish. Same as if you wrote a song alone in your room and the end result is too close to an existing song.
But 90% of artists complaining about AI are upset that their unoriginal style is being copied with new content by the AI. An issue that they've got zero legal recourse for.

[Anonymous No.6509381]

>>6509375
>>6509379
It's written right there:
It was measured pixel by pixel and it was a direct copy.

Suit yourself

[Anonymous No.6509383]

>>6509381
Read my post again. I'm not contesting that those images are a violation of existing cr. I'm just saying that it doesn't say anything about the entire technology. If I copy an image 100% in mspaint do you sue Microsoft or me?

[Anonymous No.6509385]

>>6509383
If a printer malfuctioned, does it break copyright?
Yes it does

[Anonymous No.6509393]

>>6502281
Not in my garden, nigger streetshitter.

[Anonymous No.6509396]

>>6509385
Except that analogy sucks. You wouldn't take xerox to court because their printed printed your image that's cr protected if a user of the printer went to extraordinary lengths to make it print that image and in 99.9999377143% of cases it failed to break cr.

[Anonymous No.6509399]

>>6509396
No.
YOU suck
Machines have 0 rights and therefore cannot have any accountability
Authorship is solely human.
Not animal, not alien, not machine. H.U.M.A.N

If you used copyrighted images for your printer, regardless of whether the printer has a malfuction or not, the blame shall all be on you

[Anonymous No.6509400]

>>6509383
>If I copy an image 100% in mspaint
You mean tracing?
Yeah, that's copyright violation

Plenty of artist got shat on for that. Disney shat on a Chinese film that tried to rip off Cars for example

[Anonymous No.6509401]

>>6509399
The situation you're describing is some highly statistically unlikely scenario where an ink spill in the printer produces a copyright image. So unlikely that no normal use of the product would ever result in such a thing. So unlikely you could never claim that was the intention of the creator. So unlikely that a judge would laugh you out of court. Do you understand how small a probability that is?

[Anonymous No.6509402]

>>6509401
You don't ask the statistics.
You ask how the machine works which is already under investigation. At pixel level accuracy.

Now quiet down and watch

[Anonymous No.6509403]

>>6509400
You're missing the point. If you use mspaint or Photoshop or anything to trace, you prosecute the one that traced, not the tool they used. SD doesn't publish images and as such aren't violating any copyright. So find the person violating the cr and go after them.
But that's not what you care about. You just want AI gone so you can go back to getting big bucks on MLP commissions.

[Anonymous No.6509406]

>>6509402
How the machine works is literally a matter of statistics. In nearly 100% of instances it works without violating copyright. So the instances where it does violate are rare enough to be considered malfunction and not how it function. You would prosecute the publisher.

[Anonymous No.6509410]

>>6509406
From
>it does not violate
to
>it's a low stat

Progress

[Anonymous No.6509411]

>>6509403
You do realize that it would end up the same, right?

AI works shall be banned from all merchant sites and devs would stop working on it for fear of hollywood

[Anonymous No.6509412]

>>6509410
It doesn't violate because SD isn't a publisher, nerd. Like I said, I can violate copyright already with mspaint. Microsoft isn't violating copyright even though it is explicitly within the functionality of mspaint to copy paste an image pixel for pixel.
The violation happens if you attempt to publish that image.
The only progress made is that I now know another retarded talking point and how to argue against it. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.6509413]

>>6509411
You do realize I'm already making money on commission with AI art right? See you in your dream world I guess.

[Anonymous No.6509414]

>>6509413
That's nice
Be sure to tag it properly

[Anonymous No.6509415]

>>6509414
I always do, sweetie. 16k Pixiv followers and growing.
:^)

[Anonymous No.6509416]

>>6500868
Seriously do consumers actually care? People meme about muh hands but with inpainting that shit gets fixed pretty quickly, not to mention you can just prompt hands behind head and have solid coom material

[Anonymous No.6509420]

>>6509415
Already banned by Skeb :^)

[Anonymous No.6509424]

>>6509420
I was never on skeb and even before AI they had too many restrictions.

[Anonymous No.6509426]

>>6509424
>FANZA, DLsite, and Niconico have also issued statements regarding their AI-generated art policies.
Enjoy it while it lasts
:^)

[Anonymous No.6509434]

>>6509426
Pixiv already has an AI art policy. Label it.
Cope and seethe, friend.

[Anonymous No.6509435]

>>6509434
>FANZA posted an announcement for registered doujin circle creators on October 7 stating that it has blocked sales of submissions between October 7-10 that are believed to be AI-generated. All AI-generated submissions henceforth need to be tagged as such.

>DLsite also announced on October 7 that it is temporarily suspending sales of AI-generated works as it works out an appropriate system for differentiating between human and AI work. This is to prevent unnecessary restrictions in the future, as many areas in the advancement of AI technology occupy a legal grey area right now.

>Skeb posted a tweet on October 13 stating that it will be introducing methods to make it more difficult for scraping tools and bots to extract artwork posted on Skeb for AI learning programs.

>Niconico announced on October 19 that AI-generated works will be excluded from the service's monetization program. Although the service will not restrict the creation or distribution of AI work, users will not be able to make money off auto-generated work. >However, if AI art is only a small component of the overall creation, and the rest is created by the individual posting it, then it will still be applicable for monetization. Users are also permitted to monetize AI output if they developed the AI themselves.

Pixiv is next
All websites would have to address the spam lest they suffer the server cost

[Anonymous No.6509436]

>>6509426
Fanza also just says label it. Why do you think that's bad? Like I said, I've got over 16k followers on Pixiv and it's never been a secret that my images are AI generated.

[Anonymous No.6509438]

>>6509435
They already have the exact policy that fanza does. Label the image as AI. And like I said, that doesn't hinder traffic.

[Anonymous No.6509439]

>>6509436
Only until they had enough of the spam

Remember: If they wanted AI art, they can upload it by themselves
You are replaceable

[Anonymous No.6509442]

>>6504273
>theres no there there
>it’s a nothingburger
You’re not on Fox News faggot, you can talk like a normal person. Fuckin retard. Go jerk it to buzzfeed articles and see if you can pick up some more big media pseudointellectual lingo you can recycle.

[Anonymous No.6509444]

>>6509435
people are actually leaving pixiv because a lead dev used danbooru to develop their own ai model
https://mobile.twitter.com/NecroKuma3/status/1621230656876433410

[Anonymous No.6509448]

>>6509439
>Only until my head canon is fulfilled
Like I said. Cope and seethe

[Anonymous No.6509450]

>>6509442
Sweet counter point. You really showed me what's what.
Nigger

[Anonymous No.6509451]

>>6509444
Based Pixiv dev. I should check that model out. Thanks for the intel.

[Anonymous No.6509452]

>>6509448
12 mins just to say "it won't happen"
Stay comfy

[Anonymous No.6509454]

>>6509452
I was showering. Something I suggest you try out.

[Anonymous No.6509634]

>>6509415
>bragging about internet points
Nta but let me just remind you that that is meaningless to your types. Meaningless in a sense that you cannot be discerned from another prompter

In fact, it is so meaningless that anyone can just copy your uploads and claim it as their own simply because you don't have the copyright for it.

[Anonymous No.6509667]

>>6509634
That part doesn't really matter. But my follower count translates into commissions and Patreon followers which translate into dollars.
Why would anybody care that people can reupload when tools like saucenao will literally point you to the original upload?

[Anonymous No.6509668]

>>6509667
If it doesn't matter, you wouldn't brag about it

[Anonymous No.6509670]

>>6509667
>tools like saucenao will literally point you to the original upload
This too does not work
It finds source but not original uploader.
If there's multiple of you, there would be multiple results

[Anonymous No.6509671]

>>6509668
No you misunderstand. The number itself is cool but the number is just a means to generating money. Not that I really need the money. I'm mostly just letting it sit until it becomes enough to buy a 5xxx series card when they release.

[Anonymous No.6509672]

>>6509670
Multiple results with multiple time stamps. Unless they have a time machine then they'll never upload before me.
But again, why would that matter?

[Anonymous No.6509673]

>>6509670
Moreover, people already reupload my works. And guess what. They tag me as the artist. It's a non issue.

[Anonymous No.6509677]

>>6500868
what should i care? why do YOU care? i thought this board was made for people who like drawing.

[Anonymous No.6509695]

>>6509452
Here, I have her huge titties. Give the people what they want.

[Anonymous No.6509952]

>>6509672
>>6509673
>timestamp
No, they can just "I came up with it with the same prompts, independently"

[Anonymous No.6510002]

>>6509952
Yes, they could. Nobody would believe them though. But why are you so insecure that this would bother you?

[Anonymous No.6510008]

>>6510002
>Nobody would believe them though
This matter because this makes it worthless for anything serious

[Anonymous No.6510027]

>>6510002
Also, you better save up your comission mopney. There's always only a limited amount of consumers but there's an unlimited amount of prompters that can produce at equal quality and can even hasten everything by stealing from another

This is unsustainable and we've seen what happens everytime a market gets oversaturated

[Anonymous No.6510043]

>>6510008
>For anything serious. Except it doesn't. You have ownership over your social media presence and can claim ownership of anything you do from there. If people can kill your business by taking old things you did and claiming it's them it's probably because you don't manage your social correctly.

[Anonymous No.6510044]

>>6510027
I have a real job. Just doing commissions for a GPU slush fund. But then again I could just go out right now and buy a 4090. It would be a huge waste of money though. So I'll let the commission fund be the sole source of that and hopefully wait out a 5090.

[Anonymous No.6510046]

>>6510043
Do you really think that you internet points have actual impact?

My friend is at 1k followers but they are funding his sisters college
that's how little it matters

[Anonymous No.6510107]

>>6510046
You're arguing against your own point. It's serious business that somebody would impersonate you but you're too cool for school and don't care. Stop the cope.

[Anonymous No.6510310]

ITT: we went from
>It doesnt contain images lol! You don't understand how it works haha! It learns like a human!
>s-s-so what if it contains a few images, i-i mean you had to look for that!
>s-s-so what if that was just one method of attack those researchers used to find those results, y-you wont find anymore!
You are here
>s-s-s-so what if theyre all copied in compressed form, i-its not like its the *e x a c t* s-s-same image (r-r-r-ight..?)
Its barely 2 months in 2023 and you shills are in FULL damage control. All these revelations, research, litigation, and legislation have all been done within 2-3 months and you aifags A C T U A L L Y think its not going to get worse from here on end.

Fucking KEK

[Anonymous No.6510411]

>>6510310
>It doesnt contain images lol! You don't understand how it works haha! It learns like a human!
It doesn't contain the images retard. Do you contain the image of a star in your mind? Are you proving the image is stored in your mind if you replicate it perfectly?
>s-s-so what if that was just one method of attack those researchers used to find those results, y-you wont find anymore
See above
>s-s-s-so what if theyre all copied in compressed form, i-its not like its the *e x a c t* s-s-same image (r-r-r-ight..?)
Room temperature IQ take.
>2.3 billion images in the dataset used to train stable diffusion
>Stable diffusion is about 4gb in size
>Compressing 2.3 billion images into the file size of 4gb
>4,294,967,296 bytes approximately
>A little over half a byte per image on average
You all claim AI supporters are parents then show you've got nigger tier understand of computing. Jesus Christ Anon.

[Anonymous No.6510419]

>>6510310
wtf where did you get the retarded idea AI contained or compressed anything image wise?

[Anonymous No.6510447]

>>6510419
This is what they actually believe:
>Stable diffusion scraped the web looking for art to steal
>Downloaded billions of images and compressed them into their software
>The software takes bits and pieces of existing art and pastes it together like a collage
>Somehow it's able to compress 2 billion images down to 4GB and query that data set and then append multiple concepts into a single image in 3 seconds
>This is more probable than neural networks learning in the same way that human minds learn because "humans have a soul"
Ask want retard here and they'll say as much.

[Anonymous No.6510464]

>>6510411
>it just doesnt ok
>see above
>room temp take
How will I recover from the pajeet bot btfoing me..
>>6510419
Hey streetshitter, you just blow in from stupid town?
>>6510447
>Ask want retard here and they'll say as much.
Nice grammar Emad

[Anonymous No.6510476]

>>6510464
No that's just using basic physics

[Anonymous No.6510498]

>>6510476
as long as you keep that same energy in the courtroom emad!

[Anonymous No.6510509]

>>6510464
>It just doesn't
Explain tov me hour you imagine they got 2 billion images to compress down to 4gb. I'll wait. I'm phone posting. It's a typo, not an ESL misunderstanding of grammar.
Try to engage with the idea seriously for a second. 2 billion images, 4gb file size, generation times in average 10 seconds. You don't need to have a PhD in computer science to understand the concept.
>Enter a prompt
>That prompt can be 1 or many different key words
>Each key word can match up to several million images
>Loop through tens of millions of images all averaging less than a byte in size
For context, 1 byte is 8 bits and 1 bit can either be 1 or zero. That's 256 pieces of binary information.
>Once you find the matching images take the relevant pieces, upscale then to a real resolution
>Somehow append those pieces semi logically into a complete image
For what you're saying to be possible... No there's just zero way for it to work. The truth is that neural networks work similar to the human mind in now we learn. It is based on Neuro scientific understanding of the human mind. No magic. No impossible compression. Just matrix math.
Read a fucking book.

[Anonymous No.6510514]

>>6510509
>Explain tov me hour
Explain to me how*

[Anonymous No.6510878]

Saying ML learns like a human is like explaining how a computer works to some tech illiterate retard in the 70s. Everybody knows you're being deliberately vague and misleading to push your disingenuous pro-AI agenda and make a quick buck at the expense of artfags like the parasites you are. Attempting to blur the line between a bunch of algorithms and a human brain is just one of the gaslighting tricks you roaches picked up to mislead ignorant people into accepting your vile goyslop.
Either way you can do all the mental acrobatics you want, none really cares about how exactly the data is laundered, everybody understands this tech can only leech from artfags.

[Anonymous No.6510886]

>>6505996
With the endless amount of photo and video reference out there, not to mention tons of it made specifically for the purpose of art reference, plus the existence of 3D pose models serving as on-call pose models and everybody having a camera to shoot their own video and photo reference, I really can't think of what benefit image generation would have above currently available tools in terms of drawing (outside simply either handing the majority of your creativity over to the machine, or having it do work for you).

[Anonymous No.6510889]

>>6501175
I tried. It just can't do action scenes. it can't. it sucks so bad its hilarious. you might get lucky and have a generic action shot, but you can't get specific.

[Anonymous No.6510896]

>>6502106
The Proompter basically has a miserable pipeline where they tag up and aggregate inputs to try to get the picture they want to see and the AI usually can’t so they can spend hours at times trying to get the picture to look how they want it to. The amount of curation needed at times to get a desired outcome can be wild. To the point I drew thumbnails of what I wanted to see faster.

[Anonymous No.6510898]

>>6510878
Based
They don’t get human experiences and how multimodality plays into creative work. Let alone the concept of composition. I can even with my beg tier drawing pose someone in basically any way I want, with an AI it’s always so damn stiff and limited in poses or otherwise drops the ball. Having to fight against an unwieldy image generator is fucking annoying too. It misinterprets what you mean all the time.

[Anonymous No.6510899]

>>6501175
Why would I use something that can only produce stuff that I cannot copyright?

Copyright is vital to me because I intend to create my own webcomics someday

[Anonymous No.6510906]

>>6510899
There’s servers I’m on where the techies are seething through their teeth that AI generated content can’t be copyrighted.

[Anonymous No.6510990]

>>6510878
>the line between a bunch of algorithms
Wrong. Matrix multiplication. The very same cross product that determines which neurons in your brain didn't fire to write that dumb fucking post.

[Anonymous No.6510991]

>>6510886
>>6510898
You can use those same pose models to generate images.

[Anonymous No.6510993]

>>6510899
>>6510906
Yet*
How much will you seethe when the patent office starts to allow it? They're not allowing it right now because they know it's contentious and they're waiting on precedent. Once the courts decide on one case the flood gates open.

[Anonymous No.6511031]

>>6501157
>so easily identifiable
Are you a complete dum-dum?
You realize that this perspective of yours is heavily biased by the fact that you aren't identifying AI art that you don't catch is AI.

I have submitted plenty of art on this board and elsewhere that is AI and haven't been called on 90% of it.

[Anonymous No.6511037]

>>6510878
I wonder if people seethed this hard when we formalized probability

[Anonymous No.6511053]

>>6510990
>its not algorithms its uuuuh algorithms
Troglodyte, how the fuck do you think a computer processes these multiplications.
Its not the first time I see you subhumans try to mislead people with semantics. I hope you AIggers are only larping or shilling because SURELY no one can be this unfathomably retarded on purpose.

[Anonymous No.6511065]

>>6510990
>doubles down on the meme human-computer comparisons after being accused of doing just that
emad is paying you too much for the shit job you're doing

[Anonymous No.6511095]

>>6510509
>Explain tov me hour you imagine they got 2 billion images to compress down to 4gb. I'll wait

"Stable Diffusion is a latent diffusion model. Instead of operating in the high-dimensional image space, it first compresses the image into the latent space. The latent space is 48 times smaller so it reaps the benefit of crunching a lot fewer numbers. That’s why its a lot faster

It is done using a technique called variational autoencoder. Yes, that’s exactly what the VAE files are but I will make it crystal clear later.

The Variational Autoencoder (VAE) neural network has two parts: (1) an encoder and (2) a decoder. Encoder compresses an image to a lower dimensional representation in the latent space. The decoder restores the image from the latent space.."
???????
Let me guess "thats not how it works sirs"

[Anonymous No.6511100]

>>6511065
The shills are getting sloppy because Emad isnt around anymore (has to deal with litigation I presume!)
>I will be back soon sirs....

[Anonymous No.6511215]

>>6510993
It cannot be copyrighted because copyright belongs exclusively to HUMANS

You didn't make it, the AI did
The AI cannot have copyright

Yeah, go ahead and copyright something that anyone can create in seconds and boom. Suddenly the patent office got flooded front back and center by retards like you who think that you can patent fucking words

[Anonymous No.6511246]

>>6511053
>>6511065
Latent diffusion is an algorithm to go from noise to a labeled target image. But to say it's purely algorithmic misses out on the biggest detail of how it works. And it's convenient you want to exclude that detail since it's the detail that blows your argument out of the water.
>>6511215
The AI doesn't generate anything unless I prompt it to. Do photographer take photos or did the camera make it so there's no ability to copyright an image? Movies? Books? All of these things are done through heavy machine assistance now and yet we still have the ability to copyright.
How suicidal will you be when the patent office starts to allow it? Honest question.

[Anonymous No.6511249]

>>6511095
>restores the image from the latent space.."
Except it's not resorted.

[Anonymous No.6511253]

>>6511246
Photograph was granted copyright in 1890s because lighting, angles, and fucking traveling to that location is what brought you that image

All you did was type in words in a computer to generate an image

Yeah, go ahead
Go ahead and fucking try to copyright words

[Anonymous No.6511261]

>>6511253
Prompt positive, prompt negative, prompt order, prompt weights, seed, model, lora, Lora weight, dimensions, hyper network, seed variation, embeddings, inpainting, img2img, are what gave me my image.
Tell me you don't know shit about how AI works without telling me.

[Anonymous No.6511266]

>>6511261
>settings can be copyrighted

[Anonymous No.6511267]

>>6511095
>Stable diffusion is a compression algorithm being used to generate images instead of save billions on storage capacity
Actually retarded.

[Anonymous No.6511272]

>>6511266
>Photography is copyrighted because of the settings and human input
>AI generation can't be copyrighted because settings aren't important
Massive cope

[Anonymous No.6511279]

>>6511272
Photography takes skill, patience, luck, and the effort to go there. Each one is unique from another

What makes you unique from other prompters?

[Anonymous No.6511282]

>>6511249
>>6511267
>thats not how it works sirs
Phew, ive been rebutted. I will not recover. Call the lawyers and call off the lawsuits, call the politicians in UK. Its over.

Jfc... lmao

[Anonymous No.6511283]

>>6511279
My prompts are unique because I've trained my own embeddings and Lora so even if you had my seed and prompt you still could never generate the same image as me.
Also you just described the process of prompting. Feel free to deflect as if you didn't just ruin your entire argument. Might I suggest being a faggot and calling me a jeet even though I'm American and you're likely some third world ESL nigger?

[Anonymous No.6511284]

>>6511283
>never generate the same image as me

[Anonymous No.6511290]

>>6511282
It's literally not. Don't know what to tell you. Why would we use a technology capable of compressing down 48x to generate art instead of the actual industry demand for good compression? You know this was the plot of silicon valley right? Good compression that could compress a 2mb image down to 41kb would be worth trillions.

[Anonymous No.6511292]

>>6511284
It's just a fact. Cry about it I guess

[Anonymous No.6511303]

Alright:
Here is the word from the government itself

protection under the Copyright Act must meet the following requirements:[21]

1. an original work of authorship;
2. fixed in a tangible medium;
3. that has a minimal amount of creativity.

If a work of art doesn’t meet all three of these requirements, then it does not qualify for copyright protection. Copyright cannot belong to the AI itself. Section 306 of The Copyright Act protects “original works of authorship,” which implies a human hand in the process.[22] 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.“[23] This means that, under the current rules, AI-generated art has no owner."

There is no "yet" here. It has been settled long ago within days

[Anonymous No.6511307]

>>6511283
MY PROMPTS ARE TOO STRONG FOR YOU TRAVELER. MY COPYRIGHT AVOIDING MACHINE WILL DESTROY AN INDUSTRY LET ALONE A MAN.

[Anonymous No.6511310]

>>6511303
>1. an original work of authorship;
You can reverse image search my content and only mine comes up
>2. fixed in a tangible medium;
Same medium as digital art
>3. that has a minimal amount of creativity.
Writing prompts in combination with other configuration values to target the desired look is minimally creative.
See you when you're in tears next year that the courts cucked out and betrayed you.

[Anonymous No.6511311]

>>6511307
>Le Reddit maymay to deflect that you look like a retard
Ok.

[Anonymous No.6511313]

>>6511311
I was not that anon, you just sound like a retard pretending you're doing something amazing by "prompting" and shoving more copyrighted works into your own personal photobash machine so you can further skirt ownership laws and pretend you're an equal of people you will never be.

[Anonymous No.6511316]

>>6511313
World belongs to the smart, not the “hard” working

[Anonymous No.6511318]

>>6511313
Photo bashing should also be copyright protected if the end result is something new and unique. Also again, not how it works.

[Anonymous No.6511319]

>>6511310
There have been 5 cases already
One even took personal photographs and all still got rejected

There is really no hope because no other argument can be made here

[Anonymous No.6511320]

>>6511319
Tik tok
https://twitter.com/VanL/status/1598105265068339205?s=20&t=icZcUAZyG-0mkfJ2YBqtYQ

[Anonymous No.6511323]

>>6511290
>the actual industry demand for good compression
Because it's not good compression? Even the other anon told you it's lossy.

[Anonymous No.6511324]

>>6511290
>ITS JUST NOT OK IDK WHAT TO SAY ITS JUST LALALALALALALALALAL NOTTT OK SEE ABOVE

[Anonymous No.6511325]

>>6511320
>Dec 1
Here's your update
January 26
> In a prior post, I mentioned that the Copyright Office had canceled the registration for “Zarya of the Dawn,"

Anything else before you eat shit?

[Anonymous No.6511328]

>>6511318
>Also again, not how it works
PLEASE TELL ME AGAIN!! TELL ME AGAIN!! PLEASE!!! I NEED 10 THREADS AT ALL TIMES TO TELL ME AGAIN HOW WHEN I TYPE IN AN ARTISTS NAME INTO THE AI IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY USE THEIR WORK!!! Utterly brain dead retard that thinks machines deserve the right to steal human work so that everything intellectual has no value. You WILL live in your pod and own nothing.
>Photo bashing should also be copyright
people who photobash use ethically sourced images that are purchased from people who make specific image packs, or their own photographs. They NEVER literally copy paste another artists work. You would know that if you were an actual artist

[Anonymous No.6511330]

>>6511323
Even lossy compression is still good if you can use the same software to upscale. Unless it's not fucking compression and a probability less than 0.00006% for getting an image that's sort of similar implies that it's the furthest thing from compression.

[Anonymous No.6511331]

>>6511328
Still not how it works no matter how much you cry about it.

[Anonymous No.6511334]

>>6511325
Anything before you tongue my anus, nigger?
https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/34309499

[Anonymous No.6511335]

>>6511334
Already revoked, you retard

[Anonymous No.6511340]

>>6511335
So you're going to sit here and claim that the work shouldn't be copyrightable? Guess we'll have to see what the supreme court says in a couple of months. It'll be funny to watch the seethe on a national level. Maybe better than the roe v Wade decision.

[Anonymous No.6511342]

>>6511331
>le AI is actually intelligent and can learn like a human!
nigger if that's the case how the fuck are you gonna copyright the work of this intelligent AI. If so the AI is the intelligent being here and you're just a commisioner.
If it's not intelligent (which it's not and is in fact just skirting copyright by copy pasting 100 times with added noise to make things "legally distinct") then it's illegal data mining dogshit anyway so suck my nuts

[Anonymous No.6511343]

>>6511340
It has already been a couple of moths

[Anonymous No.6511348]

>>6511335
It's not revoked. That's the patent. It's just under review.

[Anonymous No.6511350]

>>6511343
The patent is still valid or they'd remove it.

[Anonymous No.6511352]

>>6511342
Didn't say it's intelligent. Just that your interpretation of it is wrong. It's not sentient and it's not compression.

[Anonymous No.6511354]

>>6511330
If you want lossy compression you can easily achieve that level of compression with jpeg and that's more than 30 years old.
We even have better less lossy formats like webp, avif and especially JPEG-XL.

[Anonymous No.6511357]

>>6511354
Show me how lossy we're talking.

[Anonymous No.6511358]

>Vi shall let ze machines take all of ze workers intellectual property.
>all novels, all educational resources, all paintings, everything one can access on ze internet.
>and ze machine shall spit out generic amalgamations of zese things in order to make it legally distinct. Ze AI shall own zese, things, no human can own zis. Zere shall be no human input despite telling it vat to do.
>In zis manner we shall truly have finally made it so zey own nathing.
>next up on ze agenda is to make zem happy, and eating bugs
this is what AIfags want, there's no way you're going to be able to copyright this dogshit, and as we've seen, you can't.

[Anonymous No.6511361]

>>6511334
Ahahaha pencil pushers on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.6511366]

>>6511352
aifags rely on gaslighting in order to exist it seems

[Anonymous No.6511376]

>>6511352
>It’s not sentient but can do everything a sentient artist can
AIfags sound so retarded when they say this shit. It’s like they don’t comprehend how executive functioning and multimodal thinking factors into the ways human artists make art.

[Anonymous No.6511382]

>>6511246
>its just like le us look at the neuron abradacadabra diffusion its literally a humain brain
>but its still a tool when I use it so give me copyright
Does it learn like a human or is it just muh tool? You can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous No.6511390]

>>6511376
>>6511366
It's not sentient. It's statical weighted averages applied to latent space to render target labels from that noise. So you can train on golden retriever pictures and it will reliably create a new golden retriever that doesn't look like any of the input images but still has the features of the target such that a human would identify it as being correct.
Not my fault art can be created by a brain dead machine.

[Anonymous No.6511395]

>>6511382
It learns in the same way a human learns but that doesn't imply sentience. In the same way that a robotic arm working fundamentally the same as a human arm doesn't imply a pulse.

[Anonymous No.6511397]

>>6511382
It can be both

[Anonymous No.6511400]

>>6511390
Damn we're making progress, pajeet realized that the machine doesn't think!
Heres the next step, do you understand that the output of the machine is entirely reliant on the dataset inputted? Is that still too hard?

[Anonymous No.6511408]

>>6511395
>It learns in the same way a human learns but that doesn't imply sentience.
do you sometimes stop and read the retarded shit you write

[Anonymous No.6511410]

>>6511395
Humans can't learn without being sentient you dipshit

[Anonymous No.6511411]

>>6511400
There's no difference in what I've said since the start retard. And if the machine doesn't think that hinders your argument because it means the creative element necessarily comes from the human using the machine similar to a camera or word processor.

[Anonymous No.6511413]

>>6511400
>Heres the next step, do you understand that the output of the camera is entirely reliant on the optical sensor? Is that still too hard?

[Anonymous No.6511415]

>>6511411
Hey anon you dodged the question, there a reason for that?
Guess it's one of these that you need to avoid
>>6511413
Are the things captures by the optical sensor copyrighted, sir?

[Anonymous No.6511416]

>>6511390
>statical weighted averages applied to latent space to render target labels from that noise
see when you say that it sounds an awful lot like a photobash machine with added noise to avoid copyright and make things legally distinct whilst stealing the work of others. hmm. So it's not actually intelligent and it just steals. Just try and copyright that dogshit. The mental gymnastics alone to even convince yourself your doing anything worthwhile "prompting" is astounding.
You can tell AI fags have never even had the patience to even learn how to draw, they would understand how stealing the way an artist draws a hand in a particular pose, the shape design, the colors, is literally stealing. People lose careers and get mocked all their lives for being tracing stealing faggots and AI fags think they can be someone equal by having that be their entire identity.

[Anonymous No.6511423]

>>6511408
There's nothing incoherent about what I said, and if you weren't ESL you'd know it. Ironic that you go on and on about muh pajeet and can't grasp simple reading comprehension.
The process by which it remembers an image label and reproduces that label can be modeled by matrix cross products. That same matrix cross product is a digital representation of how the neurons in your human brain (I assume) recalls and thinks. The process is similar. This doesn't imply sentience or knowledge of the self. It is only one aspect of how the mind functions and it's on a much smaller scale because we don't currently have the computing power to map the entire mind.

[Anonymous No.6511427]

>>6511415
I didn't dodge it. Those are both my replies.
The things captured by the optical sensor are your photograph, so yes. Similar to the AI there are steps before you get to the sensor. What lens, what aperture, what exposure, what ISO, what angle, what lighting, what subject matter.
Same applies on AI. The same prompt in different models gives different results. But even changing the resolution changes the output. Changing the seed. The embedding. The Lora. The weights. Etc.

[Anonymous No.6511429]

>>6511416
>a photobash machine with added noise to avoid copyright
Parsing over 2 billion images and appending parts of them into a mostly coherent image would take hours.

[Anonymous No.6511432]

>>6511429
And that's just for one prompt key word. Parse that index every time for each concept in the prompt and then somehow put them all together. Simply not possible in any reasonable amount of time. Does it really hurt that badly to consider that your thought process can be boiled down to a mathematical process?

[Anonymous No.6511436]

If anybody actually cares how stable diffusion works watch this
https://youtu.be/1CIpzeNxIhU
It's not sentient and it's not photo bashing. It "learns" the way you learn. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.6511443]

>>6511429
>>6511432
They are tech illiterate kekolds that just heard "photobash machine" from some tranny twitter account they were following and they are just now parroting what they heard without any understanding of the process whatsoever

[Anonymous No.6511445]

>>6511429
>yes it steals
>but it does it at such a huge scale that it's fine
I feel we've hit a real moment here, maybe you'll realise what you're saying and how there's no way this can be copyrighted. Or even respected.

you have no morals and are an antihuman demon and are striving for a hedonistic world where nothing has any value. You fight for the devaluing of human intelligence, for the human brain to become worthless so that they can begin exterminating us. When chatgpt can replace educators, why would we need to educate those humans in the first place. Why would we need humans.
Please kill yourselves.

[Anonymous No.6511446]

>>6511432
How do you even know the human brain works mathematically? You /g/chuds got your heads so far up your arses you believe you're ahead of every neuroscientist in the world.

[Anonymous No.6511449]

>>6511429
Anon training takes months

[Anonymous No.6511450]

>>6511446
What is the entire field of neuroscience for 500?

[Anonymous No.6511451]

Hey AI is nice and all but to proclaim it as our equal is peak kikery. You will be gassed soon, mark my words.

[Anonymous No.6511453]

>>6511423
give me one example of a human being learning to draw a line with a pen without being sentient, rajheesh

[Anonymous No.6511454]

>>6511449
Training does not account for the infinite possibility of prompts.

[Anonymous No.6511457]

>>6511445
Are you stealing from the endless amount of copyright material you saw throughout your entire life that influences any art you make whether you like it or not?

[Anonymous No.6511459]

>>6511445
>Can't win the technical argument
>Muh morality
Shut up faggot

[Anonymous No.6511463]

>>6511459
>can't win the moral argument
>b-b-b-but muh singularity, machines will replace all of us just accept it bro why do you care about morals or ethics
Kill yourself already

[Anonymous No.6511464]

>>6511457
I am not a machine, you are seemingly so autistic that you think brains work like machines. Non sentient machines that can only output what is input. Have you been trained on what you're typing right now? Is that really how you boil down the human experience you pitiable creature.

[Anonymous No.6511465]

>>6511453
All humans are sentient unless they're brain dead at which point they can't move their body.
Are you implying that anything capable of drawing a line is sentient? Drawing doesn't require the understanding of existing.

[Anonymous No.6511467]

>>6511457
If you needed only to look at shit to learn to draw, why you can't do it?

[Anonymous No.6511468]

>>6511445
Bro even Christianity is just a mix of Judaism, pagan and other religions
Is anyone calling it a religion laundering or something? Are you a thief for believing in a derivative religion?

[Anonymous No.6511469]

>>6511459
>I don't want to think about the consequences of my beliefs.
read a book you fucking nigger

[Anonymous No.6511472]

>>6511463
>morals or ethics
I see you have no plans of ever succeeding in life, understandable

[Anonymous No.6511474]

>>6511464
>>6511463
>>6511469
I just want to point out that I knew it would degrade to this onions take and said as much yesterday. Eat shit. You may not be sentient given that NPC tier take.
>>6510447

[Anonymous No.6511475]

>>6511472
>le edgy nihilist reddit kike
Damn, /pol/ allies itself with the strangest people. It's bewildering.

[Anonymous No.6511476]

>>6511467
I can draw. But you missed my point. You steal inspiration from everything you see and you can't help it. You don't create anything in a vacuum.

[Anonymous No.6511477]

>>6511472
>WE'RE ALL FLESHY COMPUTERS MORTY NOTHING IN LIFE MAKES SENSE BUUUURP
Some people are not weak and pathetic enough to throw away their moral compass in the pursuit of success

[Anonymous No.6511478]

>>6511468
>schizobabble attempting to force the world through the lens of an artificial intelligence
you truly are the most robotic autistic retards I've seen. I'm sure some of your responses have been AI generated. I didn't even mention Christianity and just posted a cute image

[Anonymous No.6511480]

>>6511476
>I can draw
pyw.
But we both know you won't

[Anonymous No.6511483]

>>6511476
>You don't create anything in a vacuum.
and AI literally does that
do you begin to understand the difference or do we need to start from 0 again

[Anonymous No.6511484]

>>6511474
Chuds might like AI as far as entertainment goes but the zeitgeist is not on your side. Every poster you quoted is a based tradchad meanwhile you are the soi materialistic techtroon.

[Anonymous No.6511485]

>>6511477
Tell me why it's morally wrong to take inspiration from others without invoking the intangible idea of a soul. Tell me how you came up with a single original thought that wasn't given to you by your surroundings. Don't try to weasel out with ethics when your ethical argument labels you a hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.6511487]

>>6511480
You first sweetie. I actually posted here years ago.

[Anonymous No.6511489]

>>6511483
AI does not create in a vacuum either. What a strange similarity. Almost like the mind needs input. Wonder where that comes from?

[Anonymous No.6511493]

>>6511485
Because I am a man and that is a machine. Don't like it? Join the 41% and let AI live your life instead.

[Anonymous No.6511494]

>>6511478
>noooo you cannot bring up any other topic unless I say soo!!!

[Anonymous No.6511496]

>>6511445
don't give these pajeets anymore (You's)
All their rebuttals so far have been
>its just not like that ok! i-its just not!
>it learns like a human being, but at the same time it doesnt learn! Um... Yeah!
Notice the lack of sources they give to back up anything they say while in the same sentence saying you're the tech illiterate.
>the aifag cries out in pain as he strikes you
All they have is shitposting and gaslighting at this point.
Meanwhile there is literal legislative and litigation action growing by the day and we're barely 2 months in 2023. Not to mention the growing credible research exposing "AI" for what it really is

[Anonymous No.6511497]

>>6511485
>Tell me how you came up with a single original thought that wasn't given to you by your surroundings
I don't know? I have no clue how my thoughts work.

[Anonymous No.6511498]

>>6511484
>Muh appeal to traditionalist values
So can we agree that digital art and photography aren't art?

[Anonymous No.6511499]

>>6511493
>41%
>meanwhile an artist tranny here using word "chud" unironically
my fucking sides

[Anonymous No.6511502]

>>6511498
Yeah, most of them. Did you really think this was going to be a big zinger? Too bad I didn't fit your strawman huh.

[Anonymous No.6511503]

>>6511493
Soied up Christ kike take. Just love that I predicted you would seethe and scream about muh soul once you realized you had no argument.
>>6511497
You learn from observing. Your art is the product of your surroundings.

[Anonymous No.6511504]

>>6511496
>literal legislative and litigation action growing by the day
Meanwhile the technology itself is growing way faster than that
Hell, even ChatGPT was the fastest site to reach 100 million users, can't wait for the billions of dollars be put into lobbying the lawmakers by the corporations, all that's left for you to do is to ack!

[Anonymous No.6511506]

>>6511485
>take inspiration
you fucking nodraw nigger would realise it isn't "inspiration" the AI steals, it steals the entire image, it steal the colors, it steals the shape design, it steals the individual's attempts to describe their personal experience. When you type in an artist and recreate the way they draw you steal their entire intellectual pursuit and add it to your retarded 6 fingered animu waifu for you to masturbate over.
KILL YOURSELVES GOD YOU'RE ALL SO RETARDED WHAT THE FUCK.
>>6511496
yeah anon it's literally pointless to talk to them because they don't even understand. I'm gonna go draw

[Anonymous No.6511507]

>>6511485
nothing wrong about it, when a human does it
anyone who isn't a subhuman nihilist /g/igger with his head way too far up his own ass understands this
>>6511499
>entire point of AI is to try to pass
>(it doesn't, you can tell by looking at the hands)
>somehow not the tranny technology
what layer of cope are we at

[Anonymous No.6511508]

>>6511493
>Implying there isn't a huge overlap between /ic/ and /LGBT/
Be honest. What size leggings and dilator do you use?

[Anonymous No.6511511]

>>6511504
>i cant wait (tm)
im shook nigger

[Anonymous No.6511512]

>>6511499
Show me an "artist tranny" not on discord or twitter (where you obviously love to frequent). On the other hand, I can say with certainty that many /g/ users on this very site are trannies.

[Anonymous No.6511514]

>>6511496
NOOOO ART SISTERS WE LOOK RETARDED NOT LIKE THIS

[Anonymous No.6511515]

>>6511507
>entire point of artist is to try to pass as a good artist
>(most of "artists" don't, you can tell by looking at literally anything)
>somehow not the tranny hobby
oh and forgot to add, check how many of the artists are proLGBT and/or tranny

[Anonymous No.6511517]

>>6511506
It steals!! It just does ok!?

[Anonymous No.6511518]

>>6511499
yeah bro my fucking sides indeed!
D A I L Y R E M I N D E R

[Anonymous No.6511519]

>>6511508
>Implying there isn't a huge overlap between /g/ and /LGBT/
Fixed that for you.
>>6511515
>>6511512
Still waiting for a response, buddy.

[Anonymous No.6511520]

>>6511502
Not to you since you don't do art. But I think 90% of this board doing digital art might disagree.

[Anonymous No.6511524]

>>6511518
>look at any anti AI reddit/twitter/instagram post
>check profiles of people crying
>solid ~1/3 is the rainbow people that do "commisions"
can't make this shit up

[Anonymous No.6511526]

>PROGRAMMING SOCKS THE BOARD accusing me of being a tranny wearing striped socks b-because twitter is like that
Beyond parody.

[Anonymous No.6511531]

>>6511526
You ever consider they you're living a lie and you're more like a woman than a man in your mannerism?
>Appeal to emotion
>Non objectivity based opinions
>Gets hysterical and defaults to character attack when you can't win favor
Seriously, how is the hrt treating you sister?

[Anonymous No.6511532]

>>6511524
Damn, thats deep. Touching. And then everyone clapped?

[Anonymous No.6511536]

>>6511531
Don't forget anime reaction images.
Anon will never be an artist or a woman.

[Anonymous No.6511538]

>>6511531
>attempts to groom another anon in this very thread
Trannies just can't help themselves

[Anonymous No.6511540]

/ic/ Indian Gender Transition Therapy

[Anonymous No.6511545]

>>6511532
OHNONONO AIBROS DONT LET EMAD SEE THIS HE'LL HAVE OUR HEADS

[Anonymous No.6511547]

>>6511517
>please spoonfeed me and link to things already discussed in the thread
no. kill yourself circular talking ranjesh

[Anonymous No.6511548]

>>6511532
Guess it's time to post twitter people to prove a point lmao
https://twitter.com/Pynksin/status/1623328560885780481
https://twitter.com/PearlTrans

[Anonymous No.6511549]

I love how thoroughly I've buck broken this entire board. That didn't take much at all. Once the courts decide AI art can be copyright protected I expect full suicide videos. Don't disappoint.

[Anonymous No.6511551]

>>6511547
I didn't ask for a link and if you're talking about the evangelist image, 0.00006% duplication rate when explicitly targeting images with too many duplicates and in the dataset.

[Anonymous No.6511553]

>>6511549
To add to this anons request, I myself request that you make your suicides as painful as possible, maybe try pouring some paints inside of your gaping wounds, that'd be very artistic of you

[Anonymous No.6511555]

>>6511548
Shh no tears anon, go to your safe space
https://www.reddit.com/r/LoveForAIArt/
everything will be ok! Comfort leggos and programming sockies welcomed!

[Anonymous No.6511559]

>>6511551
>please start up this argument again I've practiced it in my head in the shower

[Anonymous No.6511562]

>>6511555
bro ran out of counterpoints, how sad, though was to be expected

[Anonymous No.6511563]

>>6511531
I don't know who the fuck you think you're talking to but I used to think like you when I was 12. In other news, I don't give a fuck about the trajectory of AI because I am a hobbyist NEET. But you'll have to take it back to ribbit if you ever try to BING BING BAZINGA claim that AI is just like me.

[Anonymous No.6511568]

>>6511559
Like I said, I didn't ask for a link. It's not stealing anything because the images aren't used in the model. They're used for training which is explicitly allowed. Cry about it.

[Anonymous No.6511569]

>>6511568
>They're used for training which is explicitly allowed.
By who?

[Anonymous No.6511570]

>>6511563
Uh oh!! Looks like we hit a little too close to home. The troon is blowing a neo pussy.

[Anonymous No.6511571]

>>6511568
>we train it to recreate specific the work of specific artists based on thousands of images and reverse engineer the artistic process akin to photobashing but millions of times
>but this is not le stealing!

[Anonymous No.6511572]

>>6511562
?
>posts 2 accounts
>I post a whole fucking subreddit full of onions fags that need a safe space
you good nigger?

[Anonymous No.6511575]

>>6511570
Still waiting on that so-called /ic/ tranny. Not a single piece of evidence compared to the thousands of "programming socks" hits on /g/. How curious!

[Anonymous No.6511578]

>>6511569
When used for research it's allowed, full stop.
One guess what kind of company open AI is.

[Anonymous No.6511579]

>>6511571
NOOOOO YOU DONT UNDERSTAND YOU'RE LIKE THIS TOO
YOUR BRAIN IS A MACHINE MORTY WE ALL BUUUUURP WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE NOTHING IN LIFE MATTERS

[Anonymous No.6511581]

>>6511555
this is almost as bad as rdrama fags trying to say their trans site is "ironic"

[Anonymous No.6511584]

>>6511575
>Search the archives to prove art is infested with troons
No thanks. I don't need to go on a spirit quest to know that water is wet.

[Anonymous No.6511590]

>>6511572
>posts a whole subreddit of random people that aren't even shown to be trannies, it's just a subreddit for talking about AI shit
>r/art exists which is gigantic and goes on meltdowns about AI, as that one false positive case shown
Is this where you go ack?

[Anonymous No.6511591]

>>6511584
Even /ic/'s most recognized schizos are all straight men
It's over

[Anonymous No.6511593]

>>6511584
>Search the twitter to prove art is infested with troons
I don't care about twitter or reddit. I just know that /g/ is infested with trannies and tranny culture and /ic/ is not, besides maybe /dad/.

[Anonymous No.6511598]

>>6511499
Yes, leftypol raids /v/, /tv/, and /pol/ all the time too.

[Anonymous No.6511600]

>>6511591
>According to you.

[Anonymous No.6511602]

>>6511593
I don't need a source to know that artists are almost all literal faggots. This is known.

[Anonymous No.6511604]

>y-you're trannies because this unrelated social media horde associated with an extremely accessible hobby are trannies too
Yawn. Meanwhile we all have direct evidence of /g/ trannies.

[Anonymous No.6511608]

Thread successfully derailed I guess.

[Anonymous No.6511613]

It's okay artsisters, we have the power of god and anime on our side!

[Anonymous No.6511614]

>>6511608
you will never be either an artist or a woman
you can scuttle back to /g/ now

[Anonymous No.6511616]

>>6511590
yes this is where (You) go ack. You got it!

[Anonymous No.6511622]

>twitter again
You can hide from me but you can never hide from the fact that you are a man.

[Anonymous No.6511625]

>>6511616
>no counterpoint again
holy kek this is just too good to be real

[Anonymous No.6511628]

>>6511625
AI art is real art
Your AI art is valid
Your AI art passes
AI rights are human rights!!!

[Anonymous No.6511629]

>>6511625
My zoomer pajeet xir, it's time for the next train tiktok shooting.

[Anonymous No.6511632]

>>6511604
>>6511614
>Art isn't loaded with troons I swear
Do you honestly think anyone believes this?
.5 do 41.

[Anonymous No.6511635]

>>6511632
>tech isn't loaded with troons i swear
at best it seems we've got a case of pot and kettle here, how do we go about solving this

[Anonymous No.6511636]

>>6511625
How will I recover anon! Again, cancel the lawsuits, call the parliament, call the lawyers, call the USPTO, ITS OVER!
AI ART IS ART
TRANSWOMEN ARE WOMEN
SAFE SPACES FOR AI ARTISTS NOW

[Anonymous No.6511640]

>>6511628
>>6511629
>>6511636
I wish entire communities could be lolcows, /ic/ would make a for a great one
Mentally retarded, full of troons, extremly emotional, basically a perfect lolcow

[Anonymous No.6511641]

>>6511628
>>6511629
>Can't make a real argument
>Try to deflect to muh soul
>Get blown out there
>Tr, troon
>Realize art is run by actual homosexuals at all ends
>Back to calling people pajeet
Actual NPC dialog tree. You sure you're sentient?

[Anonymous No.6511642]

>>6511635
which side also has sand niggers astroturfing on behalf of emad.
Checkmate

[Anonymous No.6511644]

>>6511635
The majority of tech companies are owned by straight men that have evidence that they fuck.
The majority of art companies are owned by literal homosexuals that might fuck kids.
Hmm. How indeed.

[Anonymous No.6511645]

>>6511632
What part of "extremely accessible hobby" do you not understand? How convenient that you trolls always ignore chinks, nips and gooks who are apparently not pozzed. Even sub-saharan niglets draw in the mud with sticks. And he's still more of an artist than any prompter.

[Anonymous No.6511648]

>>6511641
just because your head is so far up your ass you can't hear an argument doesn't mean it wasn't formulated, ranjeet

[Anonymous No.6511650]

>>6511645
Doesn't change the fact that at the high end it's all gays and troons. Just because everyone drinks water won't distract from the fact that the butt chugging council is filled with xim xir xay

[Anonymous No.6511654]

>>6511644
He said, as Tim Cook molested more children in another homosexual orgy

[Anonymous No.6511656]

>>6511648
It was formulated poorly which is why they gave up on it. I'm an American citizen and as far from Indian as humanly possible. You're an ESL nigger barely keeping up with the text you barely comprehend.

[Anonymous No.6511660]

>>6511644
>bill gates is le good now
>>6511650
>rainbow flag troons are high end artists
My fucking sides. You would've chosen hollywood kikes if only they had something to do with drawing. Hmm... Almost like drawing is a very decentralized activity compared to big tech.

[Anonymous No.6511661]

>>6511654
>Tim Cook
>Ignores musk, zuck, bezos, pichai, wazniac etc etc

[Anonymous No.6511664]

>>6511656
Are you sure you don't have some arab genes in there? You to have a penchant to steal things that do not belong to you and rationalize it with truly impressive mental gymnastics

[Anonymous No.6511666]

>>6511660
I
Don't
Need
A
Source
To
Know
That
Artists
Are
Faggots

[Anonymous No.6511669]

>>6511661
>>6511666
Please understand, their next estrogen dose depends on if they'll be able to convince you

[Anonymous No.6511670]

>>6511666
I don't need a source to know that AI is demonic, Satan.

[Anonymous No.6511672]

Emad
Has
To
Appear
In
Court
Fa/g/s
Are
Aacking

[Anonymous No.6511675]

>ARTISTS ARE FUCKING GAY TRANNIES REEEEEE
You told me Japan was trad. And trannies are banned in China.

[Anonymous No.6511677]

>>6511672
I'm really glad he will, can't wait for /ic/ reaction when they get BTFO by a street shitter

[Anonymous No.6511680]

>>6511661
>let me fixate on this tiny minority of artists worldwide
>nonono you can't do that to my based rainbow kike oligarchs

[Anonymous No.6511683]

>>6511670
Christianity is a subset of Judaism which is the worship of a demon.

[Anonymous No.6511685]

We love Elon Musk here, he's going to give us all free AI and UBI and we'll all live on mars in a free big chungus utopia where none of you art TRANNIES will be allowed in

[Anonymous No.6511686]

>>6511683
Christianity was founded specifically to break away from the corrupted Judaism of its time. Read a book, sweetie.

[Anonymous No.6511688]

>>6511680
>The LGBTQ community appears to be well represented in the arts and cultural workforce. Sixteen
percent (16%) of respondents identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender, or Queer.
https://www.lacountyarts.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/artsworkforcedemog2017.pdf
And that's for 2017! Seeing the trends that has probably grown ever since then
3 times higher than LGBT% of general population!

[Anonymous No.6511694]

>>6511688
>LAcountyarts
>amerimuttia
Kek how thick are you, fucking retard? Still don't realize that the world isn't just amerishartia? How do you even manage to feed yourself?

[Anonymous No.6511698]

>>6511694
Go ahead, find the global statistics then if you are able to

[Anonymous No.6511700]

>>6511698
I'm not the one making any claims, based retard. Burden of proof is on you.

[Anonymous No.6511701]

>>6511700
Yeah I shown you my proof, go ahead and find your own proof to disprove it, not just "well uhh it's from this part of the world so it doesn't count!"

[Anonymous No.6511702]

>artists in ameritrannia are trannies so the rest of the world is too!
Damn, you pajeet retards really can't help yourselves. Don't reply to me again btw.

[Anonymous No.6511706]

please understand, commiefornia programmer socks sissies dont understand that the rest of the world isn't all like this

[Anonymous No.6511712]

>>6511686
Same demon being worshipped

[Anonymous No.6511715]

Not a good look when even christcucks of all things have the moral high ground on you

[Anonymous No.6511719]

>>6511712
I worship God - truth itself. Go on, tell me what you worship. Science? Your enlightened intellect? The dozens of hindoo cockroach deities maybe?

[Anonymous No.6511720]

>>6511694
>No I meant global artists are literal faggots!! Please think about the Ugandan child drawing masculine murals out of cow shit!
America is the only country that matters for anything. You should know this pajeet. The way America decides on AI will be the decision for the world.

[Anonymous No.6511723]

>>6511700
>Prove that artist are faggots.
Well we've got one right here. How many more do you need?

[Anonymous No.6511726]

>>6511719
Demon worship. Kill yourself, neo kike.

[Anonymous No.6511729]

>>6511715
>Have the moral high ground
>Can't explain their moral standing without invalidating 90% of what we accept to be art already
You sure about that?

[Anonymous No.6511733]

>>6511720
I'm fine with that

[Anonymous No.6511738]

>STILL grasping at straws when he can't prove /ic/ is filled with trannies much less a category as broad as "artist" is internationally
Wow. Those programming sock memes really backfired. Hope they were ironic, Alice.

[Anonymous No.6511741]

>>6511733
OHNONONO AIBROS IT'S NOT FAIR

[Anonymous No.6511745]

>>6511733
Read the thread
https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/detailed-record/34309499
This copyright is still standing and is being reviewed in the mean time. When the review is done they'll find in favor of the artist and the doors will be open.

[Anonymous No.6511747]

>>6511726
I'm sorry but kikes, lgbtrannies, feminists and other social miscreants all hate Christianity. I think we're in the right here.

[Anonymous No.6511748]

>>6511738
>Prove to me that water is wet
>SOURCE SOURCE
S O Y
O
Y

[Anonymous No.6511751]

>>6511747
>There are no closeted faggots in the church
LMAO wanna say that on a trip to Italy?

[Anonymous No.6511755]

>>6511729
>90% of what we accept to be art already
UUUUGH THE HUMAN BRAIN IS LIKE THIS MACHINE WE MADE!!! WE TELL IT TO DRAW BOOBIES LIKE THIS COPYRIGHTED WORK AND IT DOES IT WITH PERFECT ACCURACY! JUST LIKE HUMAN! DUUURR AREN'T YOU ALSO INSPIRED BY ART CHECKMATE!

[Anonymous No.6511756]

>>6511745
Yes, like the 5 other times he got his machine slop rejected
Keep up the good fight sister!

[Anonymous No.6511758]

>>6511751
There are fewer pederasts in the Church than in public schools. But you wouldn't know because the kikes won't tell you that, stupid golem.

[Anonymous No.6511759]

>>6511755
Unironicly yes. Typing it like a retard doesn't invalidate it.

[Anonymous No.6511762]

>>6511756
Patent
Still
Listed

[Anonymous No.6511764]

>>6511748
What happened to FACTS and SCIENCE? That's your creed, not mine, retard.

[Anonymous No.6511765]

>>6511759
hahhaha so the AI is a sentient being already? It can do things you don't teach it? circular talk is ALL these threads are. Please go back

[Anonymous No.6511766]

>>6511758
>But but there are more roaches over there
>Don't look at my roach infested home
Pathetic

[Anonymous No.6511767]

>>6511756
I'm rather saddened by the fact I cannot taste the tears you are shedding right now, I bet they'd taste heavenly, though likely would contain a lot of onions

[Anonymous No.6511768]

>>6511762
I don't think you understand how copyright works
Or maybe you just don't want to, wilfull ignorance appears to be a requirement to be a proper AIcuck

[Anonymous No.6511769]

>>6511765
Learning and sentience aren't the same thing. Sentience is the awareness that you exist. Learning is taking a concept is being able to apply it critically. Learn the difference if you're sentient.

[Anonymous No.6511771]

>>6511764
>SOURCE SOURCE!? ANY SOURCE?

[Anonymous No.6511772]

>>6511768
>the lawyer responsible for the copyright literally tweeted that the copyright is back up

[Anonymous No.6511773]

>>6511677
Jenkem is really getting you streets shitters nice and high

[Anonymous No.6511774]

>>6511768
If the copyright were not valid it wouldn't be listed. It was removed from technical error.
Are you crying Anon?

[Anonymous No.6511775]

>>6511771
Kek retard, don't go posturing as le fedora logician if you can't own up to it in the end. Now kneel and admit defeat.

[Anonymous No.6511777]

>>6511766
Tell me what you are, kike.

[Anonymous No.6511779]

>>6511775
Some things don't need a source Anon. If I tell you "dogs have 4 legs" and you ask for a source, you look like a huge faggot.
If I tell you that artists are a bunch of ass bandits that equally needs no source.

[Anonymous No.6511781]

>>6511769
>learning being able to apply it critically
you fucking disingenuous nigger, if it could apply any of the information you give it critically there would never be any 6 fingered abominations, it would understand that humans have 5 fingers. But as it stands all it can do is make frankensteins monsters of your inputs, illegally scraped inputs. Don't bother coming to this board anymore if this is literally all you say over and over again.

[Anonymous No.6511783]

>>6511777
White American. Tell me what no name ESL country you're from.

[Anonymous No.6511789]

>>6511779
>Some things don't need a source Anon
That's my belief, stop pretending it's yours. Don't think you can flipflop to troll without consequence just because this site is anonymous, reddit.

[Anonymous No.6511796]

>>6511781
>you fucking disingenuous nigger, if it could apply any of the information you give it critically there would never be any 6 fingered abominations
Not the same thing. It's able to take labeled concept like young, old, man, woman, human, dog, red, blue and critical apply those concepts to generate an image of an old woman with a dog face and red hair. That doesn't require sentience but it does require an understanding of what hair is, where it goes in relation to the head, what an old person looks like in relation to a young one etc etc. You don't need to know you're alive to do these things.
We don't know if bugs are sentient and yet they create.

[Anonymous No.6511800]

>>6511789
NO WAIT THAT'S MY ARGUMENT
Too bad sweetie

[Anonymous No.6511802]

>>6511783
>american
Checks out if all you ever knew was McChristianity.

[Anonymous No.6511810]

>>6511796
oh so it's not like human intelligence then, it doesn't actually create? it just mushes together your inputs and mixes in some random noise. so It IS a machine made to skirt around copyright then.

[Anonymous No.6511811]

>>6511802
>If you're not familiar with my irrelevant branch of jewery then you're not cultured
Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, protestant, whatever. All filled with closeted homosexuals. But what does this have to do with art being filled with faggots?

[Anonymous No.6511814]

>>6511810
If it just mixed then together you wouldn't be able to prompt concepts that don't already exist in the dataset.

[Anonymous No.6511815]

>>6511745
That's not the same patent...
Also do consider that this works belongs to an actual tranny

[Anonymous No.6511818]

>>6511811
Okay, but can we agree that tech is filled with faggots or are you too much of a limpwristed cuck to admit that?

[Anonymous No.6511823]

>>6511814
>it mixes them together with noise so you can't tell from whom we stole. You can make literally infinite amounts of goyslop! it deserves to be copyrighted because I rolled an infinite dice and got slightly bigger boobies in this image
nigger

[Anonymous No.6511826]

>>6511818
Yes it sure is. But you're a fool if you think it's anything compared to how many faggots not just participate it but direct art.

[Anonymous No.6511829]

>>6511823
I see you've hit a brick wall in your argument.

[Anonymous No.6511831]

>>6511815
>Zarya Of The Dawn
It is. Doesn't matter. Troons everywhere.

[Anonymous No.6511834]

>>6511829
my argument was always that it's a machine (that's nothing like the human brain) made to steal and skirt copyright whilst pretending to be creating. You've helped me in that conclusion. An nft tier scam you faggots are so invested in you come to a board you'd never go on before, and your arguments always boil down to how you don't value art at it's core. You don't believe that it's stealing because to you it has no value in the first place. So why even talk to you? why don't we just go back to calling you a tranny

[Anonymous No.6511837]

>>6511834
>defending art community
>wants to call someone else a tranny
Beware Artsister, you wouldn't want to get cancelled would you!

[Anonymous No.6511840]

>>6511837
oh good it can start again
you're a tranny!

[Anonymous No.6511842]

>>6511826
I don't give a fuck because art is not an institution or a monolith. I can be alone in the world and still practice art. Tech on the other hand is intrinsically tied to kikes and globohomo.

[Anonymous No.6511861]

>>6511842
You can literally be alone in the world and create programs. Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.6511864]

>>6511834
It's exactly like a human brain.

[Anonymous No.6511870]

>>6511864
the circular talking continues, every thread the same conversations over and over again. It's nothing like the human brain, please reply to me how i'm wrong. please do, oh god please. Make sure to save this image everyone so you can come back to this board tomorrow when the next ai containment thread really speeds up at call centre break time.

[Anonymous No.6511878]

>>6511870
Here you go
https://youtu.be/1CIpzeNxIhU

[Anonymous No.6511885]

>>6511861
Yeah, I know all the techsisters have tons of fun with punch card machines.

[Anonymous No.6511887]

>>6511885
Do you think you need to be on the internet to program?

[Anonymous No.6511893]

>>6511870
It's been explained dozens of times in this very thread whyw process for creating a neural network is similar to the process of human thought. It hasn't been explained why you think it's not. The only argument is "muh soul" or trying to load in extra bullshit like sentience.

[Anonymous No.6511896]

>>6511887
Maybe that wasn't a great example. But do consider that cavemen didn't need to accumulate a millennia of knowledge and invent massive supply chains to paint on walls.

[Anonymous No.6511897]

>>6511893
and it's been explained why it's not dozens of times

[Anonymous No.6511904]

>>6511897
Link it or give me a tldr. All I've seen is "it's not like a human because it has no soul". "It's not like a human because it's not sentient".
None of those are the question at hand. We're trying to solve the problem of "how does a human see a flower in nature and then reproduce their interpretation of that flower in a different medium?" The answer to that question is linked here.
>>6511878

[Anonymous No.6511908]

>>6511904
>that's the answer because well... it just is, okay?
Read Kant, sweatie.

[Anonymous No.6511909]

>>6511745
SIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

HOT OFF THE PRESS AI NIGGERS

PROPERLY REFUSED COPYRIGHT.

DONT YOU ACK ON ME PAJEETS

[Anonymous No.6511910]

>>6511896
The oldest cave painting is 50,000 years old. The modern human is about 200,000 years old. We spent 150,000 years learning to draw cows in a cave with berries.

[Anonymous No.6511913]

>>6511910
Being a pedantic redditor like clockwork. We don't even have known manuscripts from just a few centuries ago.

[Anonymous No.6511918]

>>6511904
>I give machine so many images you can't tell from whom it "learns" from
>It's learning consists of copy pasting and recreating exactly what you teach it
>I then mix the input with random noise to further obscure it so you can't tell it's even stealing
>there is no human input (inpainting is just delegating more work for the ai and so is img2img)
>this is apparently human brain
>it's products are so generic it's like squinting at a page 1 google image search of your prompt because it attempts to obscure the sources so much
stop baiting me to reply now ranjesh

[Anonymous No.6511923]

>>6511908
Watch the video. It's not that "because it is". It's that because that's what the MRI shows. You can't claim to love heckin science and the observable universe then close your eyes when you realize you're just a complex chemical machine.

[Anonymous No.6511927]

>>6511923
>You can't claim to love heckin science
AIJeets really can't talk about anything with invoking strawmen.

[Anonymous No.6511929]

>>6511909
That isn't the comic. This guy is attempting to give the copyright to the AI itself. So yes, they're right to reject him.

[Anonymous No.6511931]

>>6511929
and what do you think the comic is made from

[Anonymous No.6511932]

>>6511913
How is that pedantic? We have record of those old cave paintings. We have fossil records to date humans. Until you find a cave painting that's 200k years old it stands to reason we weren't doing art until relatively recently because the idea needed time to build.

[Anonymous No.6511935]

>>6511932
Try to read between the lines, stupid nigger. You may as well be an automaton. It's no wonder you love and identify with machine algorithms so much.

[Anonymous No.6511939]

>>6511918
>>I give machine so many images you can't tell from whom it "learns" from
Sure
>>It's learning consists of copy pasting and recreating exactly what you teach it
Over targeting is not desired which is why even when they try to get the source material out, it only happens 0.00006% of the time on images that are over sampled.
>>I then mix the input with random noise to further obscure it so you can't tell it's even stealing
Not how it works. The model goes from input image adding noise on top and eventually becomes all noise. It recalls those steps and then attempts to do those steps backwards on new noise which results in a new image.
>>there is no human input (inpainting is just delegating more work for the ai and so is img2img)
By this logic photography has no human input. You're just delegating settings.
>>this is apparently human brain
The mechanics for synaptic response can be modeled in a similar matrix cross product.
>>it's products are so generic it's like squinting at a page 1 google image search of your prompt because it attempts to obscure the sources so much
Opinion
>stop baiting me to reply now ranjesh
Prove you're not from a third world shit hole.

[Anonymous No.6511941]

>>6511927
It's not a strawman if you're going on about how I should read Kant. If you're some enlightenment cuck then read a fucking book written this century on neuroscience or neural networks.

[Anonymous No.6511942]

>durrrr morty ai is exactly like the human mind even though we have no idea what the human mind is like bazinga!

[Anonymous No.6511944]

>>6511931
The comic is intentionally designed and the author is claiming ownership because their creativity went into the creation.
>But the AI made it
Is photography art?

[Anonymous No.6511946]

>>6511935
Answer the question. How is it pedantic to point out that your analogy made no sense and is locally incorrect?

[Anonymous No.6511947]

>>6511941
>/lit/tard
>heckin loves science
Smelly, uncultured, streetshitting ranjeet.

[Anonymous No.6511948]

>>6511942
>Even though we have no idea
That's where you're wrong. Neuro science is an entire field dedicated to this study. If it didn't work the way we think Neurolink wouldn't be controlling pig legs over wifi.

[Anonymous No.6511951]

>>6511939
>over targeting is not desired
so it's baked into the machine to obscure the fact it's only capable of outputting the input (stealing)
>0.00006% of the time on images that are over sampled
HE SAID IT!!! THE MAGIC WORDS
>photography has no human input
you are so utterly soulless you equate typing in a place into google with actually visiting that place
>The mechanics for synaptic response can be modeled in a similar matrix cross product.
moooorty

[Anonymous No.6511952]

>>6511904
NTA but that video never mentions the brain

[Anonymous No.6511953]

>>6511946
>explain basic shit to me
Nah I don't think so. This isn't ELI5, redditard.

[Anonymous No.6511955]

>>6511948
>I HECKIN LOVE SCIENCE!!!!
Not a good look AIbros

[Anonymous No.6511956]

>>6511953
I'll take that as you having no argument. Fair enough.

[Anonymous No.6511958]

>>6511944
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.6511961]

>>6511947
I'm uncultured for knowing that your appeal to authority contradicts your entire argument? Sure.

[Anonymous No.6511962]

>>6511956
Diagnosis: Literal autism & terminally reddit. Fair enough.

[Anonymous No.6511964]

>>6511961
>appeal to authority
>scientists... le good
>old white men hundreds of years ago... le bad
Stop talking about things you're clueless about, rakesh.

[Anonymous No.6511970]

>>6511951
>so it's baked into the machine to obscure the fact it's only capable of outputting the input (stealing)
>Obscure
>Only capable
That's a contradiction. If it is only capable of replicating how is it doing anything else?
>HE SAID IT!!! THE MAGIC WORDS
Look at the study. They target 30k images that were replicated highly in the dataset and generated 500 images with each target prompt. Of 18 million images only 109 were copies. So if you were to sample the entire data set it would be a rate so low as to be considered zero. It's already zero at 0.00006%.
>you are so utterly soulless you equate typing in a place into google with actually visiting that place
Muh soul argument. Yawn.
>moooorty
No argument?

[Anonymous No.6511972]

>>6511952
It mentions how neural networks are designed.

[Anonymous No.6511973]

oh no no no AIbros was our only accomplishment showing that we're reddit soi midwits

[Anonymous No.6511974]

>>6511962
It's been like 5 posts since you've even tried to defend what little point you had

[Anonymous No.6511975]

what compels a man to shitpost an entire board for weeks on end
seems like someone's got something to prove, or shill, perhaps

[Anonymous No.6511980]

>>6511964
Kant would have looked at the evidence and found you to be a troon that can't accept reality is my point.

[Anonymous No.6511981]

>>6511974
>i have autism and i can't read between basic lines please explain it to me
HAHAHHAHAHA no. Read a book sweaty.

[Anonymous No.6511986]

>>6511980
Trannies really love to project these days. It's time for your next booster, by the way.

[Anonymous No.6511991]

>>6511970
if it steals and replicates from dozens of sources it's obscuring the fact it's stealing Mr. Patel

[Anonymous No.6511992]

>>6511986
>Tell me to read Kant
>Get btfo
>Wow you're such a tranny
You guys are truly brain rotted

[Anonymous No.6511997]

>>6511972
It doesn't even talk about that.
It talks only about diffusion for images.

[Anonymous No.6511996]

>>6511992
Kek, I'll never lose because you probably can't even read, rakesh.

[Anonymous No.6511998]

>>6511981
>Still refuse to elaborate
>Being smug and sweetie posting
>Misspelled sweetie
You're an ESL nigger that has no valid argument and you have no place telling others to read when you can't spell.

[Anonymous No.6511999]

>>6511991
What makes the way you steal and replicate from other sources any different?

[Anonymous No.6512000]

>>6511998
>Misspelled sweetie
You screwed up retard. Now we all know you're trolling.

[Anonymous No.6512003]

>>6511996
>Probably can't read
>Been responding to my posts this entire time
You ok Anon?

[Anonymous No.6512004]

>takes everything at face value
Yep. It's actually a pajeet LMAO

[Anonymous No.6512006]

>>6511999
you have literally never drawn anything if you believe a human being is capable of exactly replicating (whilst being unable to deviate) to the point of copyright infringement like an AI
Stop responding.
It's over.

[Anonymous No.6512007]

>>6512000
>Sweetie
A term of endearment that can be condescending
>Sweatie
A person that sweats a lot
We both know you were trying to sweetie post. But feel free to deflect. You've been doing it this entire time.

[Anonymous No.6512009]

>>6512007
Okay you win. Good shitposting.

[Anonymous No.6512016]

Where's the new AI thread?

[Anonymous No.6512021]

>>6512004
>NOOOO YOU HAVE TO MAKE MY ARGUMENT FOR ME
ok

[Anonymous No.6512025]

>>6512006
It's been statically proven in a research paper attempting to prove the opposite that the AI is equally terrible at exact replication of the source training material. I keep posting this number 0.00006% replication when targeting images that had the highest chance to be replicated. That's probably less than a human.

[Anonymous No.6512027]

>>6512016
Based. Someone make one. It's fun watching artcels get buck broken by one shitposter.

[Anonymous No.6512031]

ArtCHADS won, though. Exposed you pajeet midwits for the world to see.

[Anonymous No.6512035]

>>6512025
it does nothing but replication you fucking nigger stop replying. Where else does it get to draw hands? it's a fucking machine mongoloid. You can tell when you type in frank frazetta it tries to give you his conan style body types because it is able to replicate them exactly, it doesn't matter that it doesn't exactly replicate an entire image (although that happens and it also takes entire elements of images)

[Anonymous No.6512042]

What will pajeets and laintrannies do with their lives when coding is adequately automated by the end of this year? Got any cool hobbies besides video games?

[Anonymous No.6512046]

>>6512035
It doesn't replicate. Do a reverse image search on this and tell me the source.

[Anonymous No.6512047]

>>6512042
You can already use ChatGPT to write code. People in software aren't freaked out by it though because they realize that you need to know what you're doing to make use of it. If artists didn't sperg out about AI they could do the same thing.

[Anonymous No.6512048]

>>6512046
HOLY FUCK HOW BRAIN DEAD ARE YOU YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING, IT'S LIKE YOUR UNABLE TO PARSE WHAT I'M SAYING. I WOULD LITERALLY COPY PASTE WHAT I JUST SAID TO REPLY TO THIS POST. KILL YOURSELF NOW BECAUSE YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT SENTIENT

[Anonymous No.6512051]

>>6512048
>It only replicates and nothing else
>Oh my God I didn't mean it ONLY replicates
You smelling toast over there?

[Anonymous No.6512052]

>>6512051
you have never ever drawn in your entire life so how can I explain to you how an image is composed of individual parts, of which the AI steals.
I try and I try and it's like talking to a brick wall troll shitposter so again, please kill yourself. Goodbye

[Anonymous No.6512055]

>>6512047
Corporations sacking everyone but art directors are one thing but independent artists are doing just fine. Codemonkeys will become extinct though, freelance or not.

[Anonymous No.6512056]

>>6512052
I actually have drawn. Not that it matters. But if you're going to accuse me of being a no draw, you'll have to pyw first, faggot.

[Anonymous No.6512058]

>haha artcels copyright reinstated!
>literally 1 hour later
>"USCO will now deny copyright to AI"
been a bad year for you boys

[Anonymous No.6512061]

>>6512055
>It is just because I say so
Yes, I'm sure Stacy in middle management will know how to debug the confidently wrong code ChatGPT generated for her. Hope you don't intend to fly in your imagined head canon world.

[Anonymous No.6512065]

>>6512058
It's in court. And again that's not the comic. That's some computer scientist that created a picture back in 2012 with AI and wants to give the cr to the AI. THAT is dead in the water. If he wanted it for himself though he'd be less retarded.

[Anonymous No.6512066]

>>6512061
I said codemonkeys, not people who actually know how to program (certainly not you). Rank-and file-coders are going zilch because there's no informal market for them. Rank-and-file artists will still do fine fine independently via commissions & donations. There, spelled it out for you. Get what I'm saying now, ranjeet?

[Anonymous No.6512070]

>>6512066
>(certainly not you).
I'm a senior engineer at a fortune 500 making high six figures on stay at home comfy life. My career isn't going anywhere. And even if it did, the stocks I got will keep me laughing into retirement.

[Anonymous No.6512073]

>>6512070
And my dad is satya nadella. Good morning sirs!

[Anonymous No.6512077]

>codemonkeys will be replaced before furry coom artists
Grim.

[Anonymous No.6512078]

>>6512073
Believe me or don't. Won't make a difference. I'm a highly paid software engineer and I also make decent money generating smut for the chinks on Pixiv.

[Anonymous No.6512080]

>decent money
>AI
At least try to be convincing. NFTs might've done it.

[Anonymous No.6512081]

>back to the pre AI cope that labor will be automated so everyone is free to make art and do communism
lol

[Anonymous No.6512083]

>>6512080
3000 yen per commission that takes me 2 seconds to generate isn't decent to you?

[Anonymous No.6512084]

>coding
>labor
KEK. You get a real job too, trannoid freak.

[Anonymous No.6512087]

>>6512084
>It's only labor if you're a wagie breaking your body for kikes
You know what to do

[Anonymous No.6512090]

>CODING USELESS BULLSHIT APPS FOR KIKES IS A REAL JOB MOOOOOOOM

[Anonymous No.6512092]

>>6512083
>sir only 3000 yen for good bob and vegane dm me google play card fast

[Anonymous No.6512100]

>>6512065
>this time its different

[Anonymous No.6512101]

>no no stop plowing fields, laying bricks and sweeping sidewalks, do some real INTELLECTUAL labor like coding kike apps that spy on you and get you addicted to gambling
Day of the Bomb soon. Inshallah Ted was right.

[Anonymous No.6512102]

>>6512090
>I don't know what you do or how it works so I'll pretend you're working for some faggot app
The company I work for knows what you do for work Anon.

[Anonymous No.6512103]

>>6512092
Cope and seethe. How are your commissions coming?

[Anonymous No.6512104]

>>6512103
I don't have a horse in this race. All the artists I checked are doing fine though. Maybe we would've actually been replaced if you pajeets did better marketing kek.

[Anonymous No.6512106]

>>6512102
I get chills talking to you. Smelly streetshitter aura is so pungent it bleeds online.

[Anonymous No.6512112]

>>6512104
I never claimed to want to replace anybody, paranoid fuck.

[Anonymous No.6512118]

>>6512106
K

[Anonymous No.6512120]

>>6512112
>sir i only make robot bob for me
>NOOOOOOOO BLOODY BENCHOD BASTERD WHY YOU TRY BAN IT I NEED FOLLOWER AND COMMISSION REDEEMS

[Anonymous No.6512130]

Honestly, I have no problems with AI for personal and recreational use whatsoever. It's all the grifting streetshitters trying to ruin everything.

[Anonymous No.6512143]

>>6512120
Do you think me making commissions prohibits you from making commission? People say that AI art is goyslop and ugly then turn around and cry about how it's stopping them from getting commission. Is it because you make ugly goyslop and I'm competition?

[Anonymous No.6512145]

>>6500868
>1 minute speedpaint
it will go by so fast even a retarded monkey could bypass AI art as man made

[Anonymous No.6512149]

>ESL babble
Okay, threads finished. Pack it up.

[Anonymous No.6512612]

>>6511445
The fact we've reach this point makes me think this is exactly how we kept resetting in technological growth despite living 200,000 years in the modern era, yet so much has changed in just 100 years. People want to say "oh "world disasters" did it" but unless the fucking books/languages all burn to dust, any form of history even natively would keep knowledge around for generations to learn from

It's these demons that support AI that's the same demons that gaslight what people "should be doing" while killing the smart ones off and cattle all the dumb ones into slavery. It's sick. It's evil. It has to stop.

[Anonymous No.6512899]

>>6500868
procreate does this for free