How to make your art viewable to HUMAN EYES ONLY?

[Anonymous No.6599538]

How do you format your work so its viewable by human eyes only? I don't want any machines or scrapers stealing my work and style like they did to (pricrel samdoesart) for AI. It now only takes one or two images of your work to get a 1:1 copy of your style by AI.
Are there image formats that cannot be viewed by AI scraper pajeets? Is there a way to put copyright management on an image, like putting a timer on how long a patron a can view my work?
I know glaze is a thing, but it sucks leaves a noticeable distortion and also easily circumvented.

[Anonymous No.6599539]

how dare you

[Anonymous No.6599547]

>putting a timer on how long a patron a can view my work?

>The solution to AI is put obnoxious DRM on works that'll show 'em.

[Debater No.6599553]

>>6599539
Ah yes Emad he's a fag and very mad
plus AI thread
>if you want answer though just do traditional

[Anonymous No.6599559]

>>6599539
>MAiJiNTHEARTIST
Isn't this guy a fucking nutcase? He's claiming Emad is being sued for 1.8trillion lolwtf? Also kek at Getty images which also scrapes tons of shit without permission trying to sue AI.

[Anonymous No.6599579]

>>6599539
Indians have no souls.

[Anonymous No.6599580]

>>6599559

Hi emad

[Anonymous No.6599582]

>>6599538
AI has a hard time recreating family guy art, so try that art style.

[Anonymous No.6599586]

>>6599580
It's a shill on a payroll, not emad.

[Anonymous No.6599594]

Put lots of racist rhetoric in your art, the algorithms won't touch them.

[Anonymous No.6599601]

>>6599538
AI isn't able to recreate scenery from manga & comic, so that might be the way to go. But the manga / comic scene has it's own problems which is why you rarely, if ever, see any artists switch their art path to do manga & comic despite it being safe from AI

[Anonymous No.6599605]

>>6599539
Corporations (especially the big platform hosting ones) can do absolutely nothing wrong and should be free from any criticism involving how personal data is used because fair use amirite?

[Anonymous No.6599609]

>>6599605
Ah yes what wants to see more advertisement, and of course it's mandatory

[Anonymous No.6599610]

>>6599539
>if you think my picture shitter is unethical then uhhhh YOU'RE A FUCKING ANTI-MUSLIM BIGOT
What an absolute piece of human shit.

[Anonymous No.6599612]

>>6599605
How to win against an AI retard: It's not stealing your information, it's just learning how to be like a human being.

[Anonymous No.6599616]

>>6599609
Not just mandatory. Hyper personalized ads ran by image generators are something advertising firms would gladly pay trillions of dollars for. Imagine combining that with a Tiktok algorithm that keeps you glued to your phone

[Anonymous No.6599619]

>>6599538
Draw things without a word for it

[Anonymous No.6599642]

>>6599559
Yeah the guy is constantly fuming lmao. Hilarious to watch

[Anonymous No.6599643]

You should trust data collecting agencies. They will surely do you good services

[Anonymous No.6599648]

>>6599539
>Left click saving an image is friggin stealing!!!
These are the same people making fun of nfts tards thinking they "own" an image.
It's not stealing. No one is taking anything away from them. Anyone advocating for artificial (no pun intended) digital scarcity should be shot

[Anonymous No.6599650]

>>6599643
This is bait

[Anonymous No.6599651]

The only way to prevent your work from getting scraped is not post it ever online. Even photographs of your work can be used as training data.
I personally keep your art Trad display only, require a NDA to view it and a timer to turn off the lights so no one can sketch your work.
This is the future we are going to deal with.

[Anonymous No.6599654]

>>6599648
You say that until your style is stolen and a futafurry are is AI is made I your (artist here) style.

[Anonymous No.6599659]

>>6599642
He is becuase his work extremely vulnerable to being automated, he's a graphic designer and illustrator alot of his art is very much in the mold of midjourny or stable diffusion.

[Anonymous No.6599661]

>>6599659
Rip I guess

[Anonymous No.6599668]

>>6599661
>Typical AIjeet retort of seethe and dilate

[Anonymous No.6599669]

>>6599659
I mean he has all the right to be mad if that was the case.

[Anonymous No.6599677]

>>6599668
That's not what I said? I feel kinda bad for him but the world moves on we didn't stop industrial pot manufacturing because the people creating hand made pots didn't want to lose their jobs

[Anonymous No.6599687]

>>6599677
When a picture shitter can rip off an artist without using their images for data, then you'd actually have a meaningful argument.

[Anonymous No.6599692]

>>6599687
Adobe firefly is all trained on Adobe stock and is still pretty good. There's no stopping it amigo

[Anonymous No.6599696]

>>6599692
Unironically would be happy if the databases are done ethically. I just think piggybacking off someone else's hard work, claiming it as your own labor and making money from it is just being a piece of shit

[Anonymous No.6599701]

>>6599605
>Putting ads into old movies
Another low that I never imagined. Yet another reason to hang onto your physical media.

[Anonymous No.6599704]

>>6599538
My art is human eyes only for now.

[Anonymous No.6599706]

also some FOTM work

[Anonymous No.6599713]

[Anonymous No.6599716]

[Anonymous No.6599719]

>>6599701
wait until they put niggers into them

[Anonymous No.6599736]

>>6599648
>These are the same people making fun of nfts tards thinking they "own" an image.
Your retardation is showing. An artist's bread and butter isn't really the creation of the image itself, but the licensing out of the images. Nobody cares if the private individual downloads an image for his own viewing pleasure, there is no worth in trying to license that - however, a big tech company, that's had millions pumped into it by other larger tech companies, wanting to use your images DO have a large financial value to the artist in terms of licensing.

There's strong legal ambiguity in the AI situation because it's such new tech, but to pretend that individuals looking at art, and companies using your art, are the same thing is so fucking stupid it's mind boggling that you have the mental capabilities to even type on a keyboard to post on this site, even with all the other retards on here.

[Anonymous No.6599744]

>>6599736
>There's strong legal ambiguity in the AI situation because it's such new tech, but to pretend that individuals looking at art, and companies using your art, are the same thing is so fucking stupid it's mind boggling that you have the mental capabilities to even type on a keyboard to post on this site, even with all the other retards on here
It does make sense if you're a terminally online subhuman indoctrinated by years of r/singularity and big tech propaganda gaslighting

[Anonymous No.6599773]

>>6599538
>It now only takes one or two images of your work to get a 1:1 copy of your style by AI.
Is that true? Crazy.

I would say that I imagine that these programs don't take... is it webp? that one really fucking annoying image file format, I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about. That said:
>like putting a timer on how long a patron a can view my work?
If you're this worried about someone using your work in an AI, just don't upload. You can add water marks, use an obscure file format, and anything else, all I need to do is work around it. I can screen grab the obscure file format and turn it into a jpeg in paint, there are AIs specifically made for watermarks etc.

On the bright side, that glaze program is probably only going to get better, so just wait a few months and keep an eye out.

[Anonymous No.6599783]

>>6599538
I legitimately cannot imagine an artist who cares this much about this nonsense even making art someone would want to use for their AI art. That person is already too fucking retarded to make decent art.

Post your work and prove me wrong, please. Of course you won't.

Also the Sam thing was funny.
>someone trained a model, it's ok, people used it for a little bit then got bored
>Sam freaks out, activates the Streisand Effect
>now there are 10+ models made and everyone is using his shit out of spite
He literally could have just shut up and let it blow by or even made his own model and sold it but instead he just made a fool out of himself and showed everyone how low IQ he was.

[Anonymous No.6599787]

>>6599773
Glaze will never amount to anything and yes it only takes a couple images(more is better though).

What artists should be doing is imagining the future the youngsters will be growing up in. Acting retarded now will be meaningless to the world in the coming decades and centuries. Like what the fuck?
>oh no sasukira545xXx, the faggot OP, from deviantart used Glaze or deleted his pics so we couldn't train on it
>now future generations will never know about him and his great art
>....anyway

>>6599601
It won't be safe forever. GPT-4 can create comics.

[Anonymous No.6599788]

>>6599783
>OP worries about someone stealing his work to train an AI
>"Post your work, please."
Don't fall for it OP! I smell curry from this post.

[Anonymous No.6599794]

>>6599787
>It won't be safe forever. GPT-4 can create comics.
You could already create comics with AI - but they were objectively (and not in a hyperbolic smug way) shit. Stilted, unpleasant to read, with panels often not having any real relation with one another, and characters not having an consistency, not to mention you couldn't have more than one character in a panel because it would fuck with the program.

Is GPT-4 making "good" comics?

[Anonymous No.6599803]

>>6599788
I don't give a fuck about his work, I am a weeb and I already got all the loras I want(pretty much anyway). I just genuinely cannot imagine any artist who is that autistic making anything decent. Especially from the western world.

>>6599794
No they are fine, you're talking about photobashing art into a comic format though. That's not AI creating a comic. GPT-4 can create the comic entirely on its own. Art, text, formatting, everything. VERY different.
>Is GPT-4 making "good" comics?
Of course not but with everything AI, it will improve.

[Anonymous No.6599809]

>>6599538
Assuming you're not trolling, copying a style it's meaningless, especially now, what matters is what you do with it, and they can't replicate the parasocial relationship, so use that to your advantage, most people want to deal with people, which is why we still have restaurants and cashiers.

[Anonymous No.6599861]

>>6599787
>Glaze will never amount to anything
it's still neing actively developped, have enough artists use it, or people use a more elaborate version on every type of picture and you'll get a snowball effect

[Anonymous No.6599909]

>>6599783
Honestly might've been a good thing considering other artists are taking down some of the models.

[Anonymous No.6599935]

>>6599783
Yea, that's the reality. I still feel bad for him though.

[Anonymous No.6599940]

>>6599643
this currynigger is such a fucking retard holy shit

[Anonymous No.6599945]

>>6599648
You don’t draw

[Anonymous No.6599982]

>>6599773
>Is that true? Crazy.
It's not. Best it can do is a shitty approximation blurred into the generic AI style. It's the first time AI faggots observe art at all you see, so they don't really know when AI manages to copy a style correctly.
If it's not Sakimichan, SamDoesArt or some generic pinup style then it absolutely shits itself.
>>6599783
On the bright side he made AI cucks look like subhumans to millions of people.
>>6599803
>Of course not but with everything AI, it will improve.
Will it really? Or is it manufactured hype by AI corpos? I can see GPT improving, the visual models not so much.

[Anonymous No.6600043]

Good morning ai chads

[Anonymous No.6600058]

>>6600043
AI is defeated >6599716

[Anonymous No.6600059]

>>6600043
AI is defeated >>6599716

[Anonymous No.6600089]

>>6599803
>GPT-4 can create the comic entirely on its own. Art, text, formatting, everything. VERY different.

Really?

[sage No.6600132]

>>6600089
No. And if it eventually does, everybody knows it's going to be worthless.

[Anonymous No.6600151]

[Anonymous No.6600156]

>>6600151
same

[Anonymous No.6600164]

>>6600151

no one is going to poison the dataset by scraping your trashy art.

[Anonymous No.6600165]

>>6599539
>>6599643
>Currynigger schizo posting as his company is going under
lol

[Anonymous No.6600173]

>>6600164
this kat doesn't poison datasets he just wants to have fun.

[Anonymous No.6600188]

AI cultists are braindead retarded if they think governments will allow millions of people to have falsified narrative generators, especially as this shit gets better and expands into things like video.

Enjoy your _actual_ last days of wild west internet before government-mandated AI bots start policing you for even refrencing problematic content. Or maybe it won't be as sophisticated and we'll have regular police bursting into homes and confiscating GPUs.

[Anonymous No.6600201]

>>6599861
Ntg glaze uses basically the same ML/AI to protect work.
Its not ineffective but it's an arms race.

[Anonymous No.6600209]

>>6600188
solution that's worse than the problem. governments will just have to deal with it unless they want to become a totalitarian state

[Anonymous No.6600210]

>>6600201
I already figured out how to use GLAZE effectively. Solely relying on GLAZE is not the best way to protect your work but it is essential in the process of protecting it.

[Anonymous No.6600211]

>>6600165
2 more weeks

[Anonymous No.6600214]

>>6600210
How do you use glaze effectively then

[Anonymous No.6600219]

>>6600214
hint: base64

And no, it's unlikely in the way you're thinking unless you're high IQ and can read between the lines.

[Anonymous No.6600220]

>>6600211
cope

[Anonymous No.6600223]

>>6600209
>solution that's worse than the problem
part of the plan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gGLvg0n-uY

[Anonymous No.6600226]

>>6600209
>unless they want to become a totalitarian state
kek this retard thinks its not already happening

[Anonymous No.6600462]

>>6599861
I can't even begin to explain how easy it is to crack that garbage because there are so many methods. How are you this dense? It's just a filter.

>>6599909
Which ones?

>>6599935
He mostly did it to himself and people shouldn't act so disgusting in the first place. If you can share your style, why the hell wouldn't you? I hope you'll seriously think about this.
>have the ability to share something
>don't
Pure greed.

[Anonymous No.6600482]

>>6599982
It is true. It doesn't matter what kind of style it is, you can train an AI to understand what it is. With as little as 1 image(but more is always going to be better).
>On the bright side he made AI cucks look like subhumans to millions of people.
There are more people creating AI art than troons crying about it. Midjourney's Discord is one of the most active servers.
>Will it really? Or is it manufactured hype by AI corpos? I can see GPT improving, the visual models not so much.
You are completely ignorant if you believe visual models aren't improving, they constantly are. GPT improving itself even improves visual models.
All this AI stuff is intertwined with each other, it's being developed as pieces to a puzzle and eventually they'll all be combined into a general AI that can do anything we can and more, and better than we can do it.

I know you hate the big bad boogeymen corpos but try using your brain instead of parroting Twitter troons. You don't even need your brain, your eyes should be enough.

[Anonymous No.6600680]

>>6600462
>have the ability to share something
>don't
>Pure greed.
Is this satire? I hope you ghouls don't seriously believe the inane shit you're typing.

[Anonymous No.6600684]

>>6600482
>muh troons muh troons
hon, the entire goal of AI is to try to pass as real art (and just like trannies it cannot)
it is textbook tranny tech
>inb4 n-no it doesnt
then tag it as such you drooling retards

[Anonymous No.6600693]

>>6600680
Make a logical argument against it. I genuinely want to see how you figure that isn't greedy.

>>6600684
Every single talking point you made is parroted endlessly by every single LGBTQ artist(read: the majority of artists online). At best you're some he/him faggot.

[Anonymous No.6600809]

>>6599582
>AI has a hard time recreating family guy art

Why does that happen? AI's good with realistic styles but they suck with most cartoony styles.

[Anonymous No.6600820]

>>6600693
>Make a logical argument against it.
are you some kind of tankie? what even is your argument there?
>hurr durr if u dont share ur bad
go ahead and share you shekels with me then, share your living space with some homeless bum, you have the ability to do it right? if you don't that means you're greedy!
god forbid some people try to defend their brand and livehoods against the relentless plundering of corporate moguls and their armies of brainwashed zombies

[Anonymous No.6600860]

>>6600809
https://civitai.com/models/32149/replacement-seth-mcfarlane-style-family-guy-american-dad-cleveland-show
this looks bad because it was poorly trained, it does anime styles perfectly and I've seen some western animation styles done well too

[Anonymous No.6600864]

>>6600820
>his argument is based on his greed
Yep, thought so. Someone using your style isn't making you homeless, you're just being a greedy asshole.
>corporate moguls
Again you're outing yourself as a projecting left leaning troon.

[Anonymous No.6600866]

>>6599539
What does this mean. Jihadi soon? Is it the early 2000s again?

[Anonymous No.6600867]

>>6599538
>mfw ai art surpasses human art

[Anonymous No.6600871]

>>6599643
This tweet glows.

[Anonymous No.6600873]

>>6600864
>Yep, thought so. Someone using your style isn't making you homeless, you're just being a greedy asshole.
You have enough room in your house to shelter the homeless heroin addicts. Stop being a greedy asshole and share your house with them.

[Anonymous No.6600900]

>>6599643
You can make more high quality data using AI though. Literally
>copy art style
>generate 1000 images in it
>10% are better than the source
>make a new model
>repeat indefinitely

[Anonymous No.6600910]

>>6599692
>Adobe firefly is all trained on Adobe stock

AI art should be done like this, it's not about training art on existing art, because if it's done like Firefly then it's fair game, but when you use people's art without their consent then it should be copyright infringiment. .

[Anonymous No.6600942]

>>6600910
It isn't in any way though, it's as transformative as it gets.

[Anonymous No.6601026]

>>6600942
Yes and it has no effect on the market and will not displace artists out of a job when corporations can fire their employees but keep their data am I right?

[Anonymous No.6601034]

>>6601026
None of your moaning changes that it is utterly transformative. If someone uses your own style better than you, you fucked up. You can use AI too if speed is your issue.

And get a real job.

[Anonymous No.6601036]

So is AI art stealing or not?

[Anonymous No.6601047]

>>6601036
>Image2image
Nice try schlomo

[Anonymous No.6601049]

>>6601036
>Person draws similar pose taken from another image.
>It's a tribute :^)
>A tool follows the same approach and provides a better version.
>Art theft!
>Muh copyrights!
They're entirely different drawings with the same pose but good luck trying to explain that to the next asshat from here.

[Anonymous No.6601052]

>>6599677
>the world moves on
kill yourself pod dweller

[Anonymous No.6601054]

>>6599696
>I just think piggybacking off someone else's hard work, claiming it as your own labor and making money from it is just being a piece of shit
so every art student that ever existed is a piece of shit

[Anonymous No.6601056]

>>6599538
>artists copy, trace and steal
>AI does what humans do
>humans: "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Anonymous No.6601060]

>>6601049
hah, nice cope retard. if they do a study and credit the artist, it's both a learning process and a tribute. if they do it to claim it as their own, it's theft. this has been the case for a long, long time, you've been told this a million times, but you still don't get it because you're a 0 IQ bugman

[Anonymous No.6601062]

>>6601054
>so every art student that ever existed is a piece of shit
how? people who draw their own stuff and not copying others are not piggybacking off of anyone. even those are better than AIniggers, at least they learned something and can do their own art

[Anonymous No.6601063]

>>6601052
U2 luddite ;)

[Anonymous No.6601066]

>U2 luddite

[Anonymous No.6601067]

>>6601054
Did you work or placed in effort for your work?

[Anonymous No.6601072]

>>6601056
learn to format, curroid retard. you almost got it right by mistake

[Anonymous No.6601085]

>>6601072
>artists copy, trace and steal
>AI does what humans do
>humans: "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!"
>butthurt ensues
>also humans: "YOU WERE ACCIDENTALLY RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Anonymous No.6601089]

>>6601066
Nothing wrong with being trans, chuc

[Anonymous No.6601090]

>>6601062
they're learning about their styles, tools, and copying their techniques.
>at least they learned something and can do their own art
applies to AI chads too. using AI is a skill, something you are too dense to even understand let alone master.

[Anonymous No.6601091]

>>6601067
speak english retard

[Anonymous No.6601094]

>>6601089
don't go shooting up the thread now, he/she
calm down

[Anonymous No.6601097]

>>6601085
retard

[Anonymous No.6601101]

>>6601090
incoherent retardation. you're not making anything, so long as you claim that the AI is the one who does the learning. you have to wait for software updates for a machine that does everything for you. AIcucks are nothing more than consoomers who lie to themselves

[Anonymous No.6601103]

>>6601097

[Anonymous No.6601106]

>>6601085
>AI does what humans do
AI can draw?

[Anonymous No.6601107]

[Anonymous No.6601108]

>>6601101
>you're not making anything even though you're """stealing""" artwork to make art that will put me on the streets reeee
peak fucking autism on display over here
>so long as you claim that the AI is the one who does the learning
you are doing the training and you can train in an infinite number of ways. the ai is only doing what you tell it to do.
>you have to wait for software updates
and this confirms it without a doubt, you are a moron

[Anonymous No.6601111]

zzzzzzzzzz

[Anonymous No.6601112]

>>6601090
This guy is 100% correct, commissioning art from AI image synthesizers takes immense skill, it takes you to know more words in English than cope, seethe and dilate. Shit's not for the faint-hearted.

[Anonymous No.6601113]

>>6601108
>you are doing the training and you can train in an infinite number of ways. the ai is only doing what you tell it to do.
you're not training anything retard, you have no skills to train. you shove other people's work into your slop machine without them benefitting from it. you are a blood sucking tick at best
>and this confirms it without a doubt, you are a moron
cope harder bitch, you are worthless and you will always be worthless. don't think your posting style isn't recognizable, you dumb NPC. that's the only thing the AI won't ever be able to copy from you

[Anonymous No.6601114]

>>6601090
>>6601108
>I'm too much of a wuss to train myself and make art myself
>better train this program to make images for me instead!
Peak cuck behavior.

[Anonymous No.6601120]

AI art is democracy!
AI art has value to society!
AI art is freedom of speech!
AI art is skilled labor!
AI art is fair use!
AI art is real art!
AI artists deserve fair wages!
AI artists deserve copyright protections!

[Anonymous No.6601123]

>>6601120
basado

[Anonymous No.6601126]

>>6600900
>10% are better than the source
Lol

[Anonymous No.6601129]

>>6601112
it's not that hard but it is still a skill.

>>6601113
>>6601114
so pathetic, stay mad about muh art theft.

[Anonymous No.6601133]

>>6601126
In reality it's higher than that.

[Anonymous No.6601135]

>yes, I stole your likeness, your face, your voice, and your art. but it's not theft, because the AI learns just like a human! but I made it! but it learns like a human! but I made it tho!

[Anonymous No.6601138]

>>6601133
you have no idea how AI works, or you have some kind of robot fetish which either blinds you or deludes you gravely

[Anonymous No.6601143]

>>6601133
Show me. Don't cherry pick an amateur to train on.

[Anonymous No.6601145]

>>6601138
What an ironic thing to say. You've obviously never used it.

[Anonymous No.6601149]

>>6601060
>credit the artist
>Hay guise check out MY latest drawing of the FOTM, be sure to like and subscribe ya'll and don't forget to credit MY drawing of #thecurrenttrend if you're going to repost! Shout out to @literallywho and retwat MY drawing over 9,000 times of MY FOTM of #thecurrentthing to remove her apron ya'll!
Yeah, nah, you're full of shit.

[Anonymous No.6601150]

>>6601145
Balls in your court. You made the extraordinary claim. Put up, or shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.6601151]

>>6601150
You're free to educate yourself. I could post 10,000 images and you would say they're all shit because that's how much of a stubborn fool you are.

[Anonymous No.6601156]

>>6601151
Post your prompts

[Anonymous No.6601158]

>>6601151
I accept your concession.

[Anonymous No.6601159]

>>6599605
They'll still be streaming ads 24/7 into our neuralink when we're at post-scarcity and not even buy anything anymore, won't they?

[Anonymous No.6601171]

>>6601159
You won't even think they're ads, because by that point you (alongside others) been conditioned to see them as needs.

[Anonymous No.6601181]

AI bros are fucking absurd

[Anonymous No.6601183]

>>6601135
It's not theft. Theft means something was taken from you. Copying your shit is not theft.

[Anonymous No.6601184]

>>6601120
Fuck no on the copyright. We shouldn't be embracing copyright. It's just way for companies with big pockets to bully artists. Look at all the bullshit Monster lawsuits right now or how many artists lose their creations forever because of dumbass copyright/IP law.

[Anonymous No.6601185]

>>6601181
stay jealous

[Anonymous No.6601197]

>>6601185
Her left hand has 14 fingers and they are all merging together

[Anonymous No.6601199]

>>6601197
and you can't draw at all

[Anonymous No.6601200]

>>6601197
Post the last hand you drew faggot.

[Anonymous No.6601202]

>>6601197
You're right but the no draws seethe

[Anonymous No.6601207]

>>6601202
>no draws
love seeing this from amateur retards who have never finished a piece in their life
you morons unironically think your scribbles matter

[Anonymous No.6601213]

>>6601200
Bold to ask me, considering you're proud of attributing the mechanism of an AI to your skill. It's not even yours, my nigger.

[Anonymous No.6601214]

>>6601213
Nigger I just finished drawing a hand where the fuck is yours.

[Anonymous No.6601215]

>>6601213
>NO YOU DIND'T MAKE IT IT APPEARED FROM THE ETHER
yikes

[Anonymous No.6601218]

>>6601215
AI "artists" are but a client of the machine. If the sole thing you contributed to the piece is the idea, then I'd rather attribute the actual 'skill' to the AI. Anymore would just be fucking delusional.

[Anonymous No.6601222]

>>6601218
keep crying about it, its hilarious

[Anonymous No.6601228]

>>6601049
Yes, just like how artists differentiate between referencing and tracing. You're an outsider barging in and trying to apply your self-serving rules to a community of which you were never a part. You're the 2007 newfags who turned 4chan into a cucked shithole

[Anonymous No.6601234]

>>6601145
>What an ironic thing to say. You've obviously never used it
dumbass, it doesn't make anything "new" in terms of concept. it cannot be better than the very person it's copying if it uses only their art as the data set. you don't know how AI works

[Anonymous No.6601237]

>>6601151
>You're free to educate yourself
you type like a woman
>>6601149
>retarded schizo starts to ramble incoherently about things that are irrelevant to the main point
1 year has passed since you started spamming this board with your idiocy, and in that 1 year you have not improved either your art, nor have you taken your meds. at the very least, you could stop typing like a twitter liberal

[Anonymous No.6601238]

>>6601207
ironic that this is coming from a parasite who steals the art of the top artists to delude himself that he's just as good as they are

[Anonymous No.6601240]

>>6601207
What are you talking about, people love seeing artists sketches all the time. People enjoy seeing the process of art

[Anonymous No.6601248]

>>6601234
>dumbass, it doesn't make anything "new" in terms of concept.
Full fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.6601262]

>>6601248
>full fucking retard
so you deny that this is the case. PROOFS? how can you use the keywords of something which was not visually represented before. how would AI come up with the concept of an eastern dragon, assuming an eastern dragon was never drawn before by a human? if you wrote in "eastern dragon" in Shitjourney, and it had no samples to visually reproduce something like that, what would the result be? probably a western dragon in front of some Japanese buildings, because AI has no nuance as it's not an actual being. if you're gonna say "do your own research" again, you should opt in for sexual reassignment surgery, it would fit your female brain

[Anonymous No.6601264]

>>6601237
Artists don't give credit, and when Artists are forced to give credit they're ambiguous and post in a manner where the drawing is implied it is original with misleading context such as a tittle with "Subway train sketch" to have the audience interpret they were drawing inside a train at the time. After someone eventually finds the reference and calls the bullshit out the ambiguity allows them to damage control and back pedal. Sound familiar?

[Anonymous No.6601269]

>>6599538
When are they going to make a reverse AI program that can pull up all the references used by a specific artist. Then once and for all all the artists will be outed for pulling the same shit as AI and assimilating different references.

[Anonymous No.6601270]

>>6601264
>Artists don't give credit, and when Artists are forced to give credit they're ambiguous and post in a manner where the drawing is implied it is original with misleading context such as a tittle with "Subway train sketch" to have the audience interpret they were drawing inside a train at the time. After someone eventually finds the reference and calls the bullshit out the ambiguity allows them to damage control and back pedal. Sound familiar?
yes, I literally said that and these people get burned in the art community. are you going to deny this? AI didn't invent scammers, it only massively enabled them, proliferated scams and created more crimes of opportunity.
>artists don't give credit
ALL of them? what is even the point you're making here. here's artists jumping on someone who copied Igor Shishkin while he pretended to not have used reference
>https://twitter.com/CaraidArt/status/1618746044527050752
obviously these people exist, but they also get rightfully spat on by the art community, just like AI niggers. by the artists who DON'T do this because it's a controversial thing to do in the art community. is this so hard to comprehend? or do you think that the "someone" who eventually finds the reference is a consoomer and not another artist? because holy shit you're dumb if you believe that

[Anonymous No.6601276]

>>6601049
>Person draws similar pose taken from another image.
>It's a tribute :^)
Fucking kek, that's literally Deviant Art levels of tracer cope. It's no wonder why your ilk is being laughed at.

[Anonymous No.6601278]

>>6601276
Artists celebrate effort and skill because they're empathetic human beings.

[Anonymous No.6601281]

>>6601278
>Artists
>Empathetic
Pick one.

[Anonymous No.6601282]

>>6601281
Both. If you had a skill you'd respect someone else greater or someone trying their best

[Anonymous No.6601285]

>>6601282
Just like how this self absorbed thread >>6583343 respect each other's handywork by baiting each other for follows and then unfollow each other when they don't get a retweet or a follow back right?

[Anonymous No.6601290]

>>6599538
Calm down faggot, nobody's gonna steal your 15 follower shit

[Anonymous No.6601298]

>>6600900
You don't want to train models off the outputs they generate, unless you really want to fuck up the model. Any supervised machine/deep learning model requires data to compare its output to and see how accurate it is. That's where the "learning" comes in. If it attempts to correct error between two of its own outputs, the learning will be erroneous.

Model outputs are essentially just guesses based on the statistics of the input data.
>make a guess for a question you haven't seen before, it will be inaccurate
>check the correct answer for that question, given from the input data
>adjust understanding between your guess and the "correct" answer
>repeat

vs

doing the same as above, but then:
>make a guess for a question you haven't seen before, it will be inaccurate
>check how it compares to the "correct" answer, which is given from your previous "inaccurate" guess
>adjust understanding between two "inaccurate" results
>"understanding" degrades
>repeat

It's easy to get lost in the sauce because the output is an image. but at the end of the day, a model is only looking at numeric values, even for words, and is limited by the scope of the input data. If you try to learn from a debate between two retards, what you learn probably won't be very good

[Anonymous No.6601301]

good morning

[Anonymous No.6601341]

>>6601285
>Imageboards are your only lens in through which you view the rest of the world
Take a shower

[Anonymous No.6601378]

>>6601262
man you're on 4chan, you're not supposed to be this fucking retarded. what went wrong in your life? are you even a human?

f you type in dragon in SD you're going to get a completely unique dragon with original physiology. literally every time. it doesn't do anything but create new art.

[Anonymous No.6601401]

>>6601378
Nice bait anon

[Anonymous No.6601412]

>>6601401
Superpower by 2020. You will bow to Indians soon .

[Anonymous No.6601413]

>>6601412
2 more weeks sirs

[Anonymous No.6601414]

>>6601413
Kek

[Anonymous No.6601419]

There is nothing wrong with theft in a digital space. If your shit gets stolen you fucking deserved it

[Anonymous No.6601432]

>>6599538
>How do you format your work so its viewable by human eyes only?
I think artists are being a little over-paranoid about this. If some AItard is butthurt enough to make a model of your work (like samdoesart) it probably means you've already made it.
If you're in the development stage the best you can do is develop your art in a direction opposite of AI, not only to avoid scraping but for brand differentiation. Incorporate lettering, intricate linework, and actual creativity and avoid the trite animu and rendermonkey shit.
Of course AItards claim they AI can copy anything, but they won't because they lack any creativity and have brains poisoned by too much coom & animu. Every time they try to generate cartoons or intricate linework it looks retarded as fuck, kek.

[Anonymous No.6601434]

>>6601432
you're such a drooling retard

[Anonymous No.6601439]

>>6601432
I'm a nobody who barely posts a anything
and I've still seen my name show up in a huggingretard dataset as well as seen a character LORA which, based on one of the images somebody was showing off, clearly used at least one of my drawings as an input.

[Anonymous No.6601440]

>>6601432
You're not wrong but you can only get so many leeches sucking blood out of you before you pass out.
Artist aren't being paranoid, there's a danger to this parasitic shit and people are right to tell AI faggots trying to force themselves into art spheres to fuck off.

[Anonymous No.6601443]

>>6601036
Even without the AI copying poses and composition to claim as one's own is straight up frowned upon among artists and can sometimes cause copyright issues. There are many issues with AI but this isn't one of them.

[Anonymous No.6601481]

>>6601434
>you're such a drooling retard
u mad bro?
>>6601439
>clearly used at least one of my drawings as an input
sorry to hear that bro
>>6601440
>people are right to tell AI faggots trying to force themselves into art spheres to fuck off
oh yeah, I definitely believe they need to be told to fuck off

[Anonymous No.6601501]

>>6601181
Haven't used the site, but am I right to guess it's 100 for just a series of images? Wasn't the entire reason that businesses/people should move to AI is that it's quicker and therefore cheaper? What is this shit?

>>6601183
That's right, so when I forge documents and pretend to be you, that shouldn't be illegal either, as I didn't actually take anything from you, right?

[Anonymous No.6601503]

>>6601501
>Wasn't the entire reason that businesses/people should move to AI is that it's quicker and therefore cheaper? What is this shit?
Money laundering, it's the reason why skeb banned AI art.

[Anonymous No.6601510]

>>6599538
I tag my work as AI-generated on pixiv. Even the dumbest pajeet knows you don't put a model's output back in the dataset for further training.

If I was any famous I'd worry about people training a Lora on me anyway but I'm not.

[Anonymous No.6601602]

>One outraged German newspaper thundered, “To fix fleeting images is not only impossible … it is a sacrilege … God has created man in his image and no human machine can capture the image of God. He would have to betray all his Eternal Principles to allow a Frenchman in Paris to unleash such a diabolical invention upon the world”[12]. Baudelaire described photography as “art’s most mortal enemy” and as “that upstart art form, the natural and pitifully literal medium of expression for a self-congratulatory, materialist bourgeois class” [13]. Other reputed doom-laden predictions were that photography signified “the end of art” (J.M.W. Turner); and that painting would become “dead” (Delaroche) or “obsolete” (Flaubert) [14].

>In between these two extremes, there was a wide range of mixed feelings. Some people expressed disappointment about the fact that there was no colour, no real capacity to show action, and that the daguerreotype itself (as distinct from the calotype) was not reproducible. The London Globe simply concluded: “We doubt whether the contribution to art will be of much importance”[15]. Some painters, such as Courbet, welcomed photography as an ally in his reaction against the classical academic style. Many others, however, who had spent years learning their craft, felt disdainful of a commonly-available mechanical device that lacked the painter’s trained discriminating and expressive eye. At the same time they were aware of the challenge that it presented. This mixture of outward disdain and inner dread meant that many painters would often be reluctant to admit to actually using photography in their work.

[Anonymous No.6601604]

[Anonymous No.6601610]

to any of you anti ai fags make sure to buy copyright for any images you used as reference ;)

[Anonymous No.6601626]

>>6601610
Are you a literal NPC? When you're asleep in your pod do you plug your finger in an outlet to recharge and download the latest drivers?

[Anonymous No.6601629]

>>6601626
it's ok to be afraid. we are witnessing a historic moment for art.

[Anonymous No.6601637]

>>6601629
A historic moment of unretrained pillaging from tech conglomerates and their slaves, yes

[Anonymous No.6601639]

>>6601637
>>6601602

[Anonymous No.6601644]

>>6599861
2 weeks more sir, now is the needful time

[Anonymous No.6601647]

>>6601644
>>6601602
>Some people expressed disappointment about the fact that there was no colour, no real capacity to show action, and that the daguerreotype itself (as distinct from the calotype) was not reproducible

[Anonymous No.6601648]

>>6601238
It’s not about being as good as they are, it’s about surpassing them, because not only you match their quality, you do it incredibly faster, like what, 100-1000 times faster? When combined, the speed and quality, you end up curb stomping the artist

[Anonymous No.6601656]

Good morning tech visionaries and luddites

[Anonymous No.6601659]

>>6601656
Good morning Jeff Bezos

[Anonymous No.6601661]

>>6601629
a historical moment for further corporate destruction upon society and the cucks who applaud their future serfdom

[Anonymous No.6601667]

>>6601659

[Anonymous No.6601672]

>>6601034
Nta but transformative use means that a thing doesn't substitute, devalue or compete with the original. Generally it has to be used for a different purpose, it doesn't qualify just because it looks different.
But hey, I'm not surprised, retards on this site have never bothered looking up what transformative or fair use means

[Anonymous No.6601673]

>>6601672
That's not what transformative means. Maybe you are thinking of fair use

[Anonymous No.6601676]

>>6601673
Yeah, ai art definitely fits the definition of transformative

[Anonymous No.6601688]

>>6601629
tourist, aiyee won't even be a footnote in the history of art.
run along now.

[Anonymous No.6601698]

>>6601673
From what I've read about it, there is a slight overlap between transformative use and factor 4 of fair use.
The "new" work has to be used in a different or new way. If it serves the same purpose of the original then it has clearly not done a good job at that.

[Anonymous No.6601705]

>Imagining a future where to view art you have to visit a gallery sign an NDA, enter a room with a window facing another room with the painting. No electronics are allowed and you are allotted 8mins of viewing time.

[Anonymous No.6601712]

[Anonymous No.6601713]

>>6601688
>>6601602
>The London Globe simply concluded: “We doubt whether the contribution (of photography) to art will be of much importance

[Anonymous No.6601721]

>>6601661
the only thing AI is gonna destroy is soulless corporate cookie cutter "art". just like photography destroyed itinerant painters

[Anonymous No.6601722]

The seethe and fear is real from Artists since truthfully most illustration be automated and done by AI the sad fact is these artists will lose out that's just economics.

There's also zero and I mean litterally 0 copyright issues with AI with the exception of the user purposefully using AI to generate exact copies of orginal work in say a super overfitted model. In which case it is the same issue as using any other digital art applications to do that.

All the cries and accusations from tech illiterate artists that AI is a compression or encoding tool is fundamentally wrong and easily proven so. Accusing scraping or training as IP violation is also retarded, since that easily falls under fair use, and encompasses the same tech that search engines and indexing uses.
Even the EFF has summed up everything.
>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/how-we-think-about-copyright-and-ai-art-0

In otherwords seethe, cope and dilate, there is litterally nothing you or any legal (on the IP law side) moment can do to stop AI image generation. I should mention /ic/ and most other art communities have been shit and fearing the impending doom of complete digital oversatuaration and competitiveness in the market long before AI

[Anonymous No.6601725]

>>6601722
Chad EFF

[Anonymous No.6601726]

>>6599538
>sam does art
more like sam does digital kitsch. good riddance

[Anonymous No.6601730]

>>6601726
For real I don’t know how people even find his artstyle good looking, average pixiv retard beats him

[Anonymous No.6601731]

>>6601721
>the end of corporate cookie cutter shit
have you even seen AI art you blind faggot
>>6601722
>le artist wished for automation strawman
kill yourself lol

[Anonymous No.6601735]

>>6601730
I really don't know. can't wait for music AI to replace k pop too desu

[Anonymous No.6601736]

>>6601731
>have you even seen AI art you blind faggot
yes I have. photography can also be good or bad. one thing is for sure, ai is now better at mass producing shit "art". whether it can also produce genuine art is another question, but I don't see why not

[Anonymous No.6601740]

>>6601736
>shit art exists therefore everything should be replaced with dogshit AI goyslop
crawl back to your pod, cockroach

[Anonymous No.6601745]

>>6601740
>everything should be replaced
no, only samdoesart type cookie cutter feelgood uninspired meaningless kitsch for teenage girls

[Anonymous No.6601747]

>>6601740
Crawl back to your cave, neanderthal

[Anonymous No.6601748]

>>6601740
if you can be replaced by AI you are not an artist

[Anonymous No.6601749]

>>6601722
>Accusing scraping or training as IP violation is also retarded, since that easily falls under fair use, and encompasses the same tech that search engines and indexing uses.
Then why are the likes of SD dancing around copyright issues by disseminating their scraping ventures into various nonprofit """for research""" companies and diverting all that data into their for-profit ventures?
Why are they doing this with art but not the music industry and their notoriously robus lawyer defense force? Oh yes that is because they know they are stealing and can get away with it. You nig/g/ers so full of shit it hurts to watch.

[Anonymous No.6601754]

>>6601749
>You nig/g/ers so full of shit it hurts to watch

[Anonymous No.6601757]

>>6601749
>Why are they doing this with art but not the music industry and their notoriously robus lawyer defense force?
Becuase music has two types of copyright you have the copyright on the actual raw music (sound) itself and you have copyright on the likeness or more accurately the artists, brand, label.
Oftopic Contrary to popular belief music does not have a more robust IP force behind it. It does however have MANY multiple stakeholders in a record that are often fighting for fractions of a cent on a single song. Part of that is because of how monopolized the whole recording Industry is.

[Anonymous No.6601761]

>>6601722
>There's also zero and I mean litterally 0 copyright issues with AI
Which is why those lawsuits were just thrown out... right? I mean, they'd have to be thrown out with the smug way you're talking mr.lawyer.

Oh they weren't? You were talking out of your unwiped retarded ass? Go fuck yourself.

[Debater No.6601762]

>>6601736
I could say why you want massed produces shit but AI niggas just want to go fuckin oook at any god damn AI image apparently

[Anonymous No.6601764]

>>6601761
Retard you cannot just throw these out, even if they are bunch of bullshit, however once it hits the court, Ortiz and whatever other subhuman was there will get crushed as usual

[Anonymous No.6601768]

>>6601731
>have you even seen AI art you blind faggot
he's not blind, he's right. I wouldn't necessarily say 'corporate' but cookie cutter applies. AI tends towards the over-refined, sterile aesthetic that has plagued digital art for a while now.

[Anonymous No.6601770]

>>6601764
Oh and hopefully after that SAI will countersue for damages, to simply destroy lifes of the morons, while earning some more money

[Anonymous No.6601776]

>>6601764
>Retard you cannot just throw these out
Oh, so cases with zero merit don't get thrown out? Oh they do? He's still speaking out out of that filthy shitty ass he's mum hasn't wiped yet?

This is embarrassing anon, stop playing lawyer and acting like you know fucking anything. You can have an opinion, but you are far too brain dead to even larp as an authority on this shit.

[Anonymous No.6601778]

>>6601748
this nihilistic bugman logic makes no sense. being an artist isn't about not getting "automated". Sculptors aren't suddenly non-artists because some factory churns out busts of Mother Mary. But more importantly, it is you bugmen who keep saying that AI gets better and better, correct? So there will be "no more artists" when your slop machine finally gets to surpass everyone? Does your pod dweller brain understand what kind of retarded logic it's implying?

[Debater No.6601781]

>>6601776
I can ask if it's been thrown out as a yes or no answer and can you give me one
>>6601768
Plus y'all talking with this shill fagget following your ass so why should we care about your opinion on an art board

[Anonymous No.6601782]

>>6601778
The better question to ask is when AI art passes a turning test consistently/can't be distinguished vai the naked eye from human created art. We already have cases of indistinguishablity as it is.

[Anonymous No.6601783]

>>6601764
she really got under your skin lmao. You're delusional if you think this shit will be allowed to maintain the status quo it's currently enjoying. Maybe in your Indian shithole, definitely not in the west. Either way this goes, you tech cult bugmen things have fucked the internet forever. It either becomes grey goo or extremely regulated. Congratulations for your "progress" brown tinted cockroach

[Anonymous No.6601786]

>>6601782
most humans are beneath a lot of animals, as AI has proven. We now have literal retards who think that chat bots telling them "I love you" means something. This says more about humans than AI, unfortunately

[Anonymous No.6601788]

>>6601776
Lmao 0 reading comprehension + visible rage in the post, as expected
Thank you for putting a smile on my face anon, always makes me happy to know that no matter how low you fall, there’s always people lower, like you
The case wouldn’t be rejected outright as it’s not nonsense enough, however as it was pointed out before, in the lawsuit, Ortiz and others made a lot of factual errors on how the software works, as well as misunderstood several mathematical concepts.
This, combined with the fact that it’s lawfully under research fair use, and simply the fact SAI has infinitely more money to burn than Ortiz, will inevitably result in a painful defeat for her and her friends, as SAI could even just keep the case open if they wanted while both sides burn through legal fees, it’s just that one side can go for much much longer

[Anonymous No.6601789]

>>6601676
lol retard.

[Anonymous No.6601790]

[Debater No.6601792]

>>6601782
You could prob also not give a shit about retarded tests so much you shills like using
we've had more shit see in a lifetime but you on the other hand rather just keep asking retarded questions

[Anonymous No.6601795]

>>6601788
No one gives a shit how it works post the moment it stole data you fucking moron. No one gives a shit how hard basedgrammers squeezed their little soulless bug brains past step 1, because step 1 is the only important part here.

[Anonymous No.6601798]

>>6601778
>Sculptors aren't suddenly non-artists because some factory churns out busts of Mother Mary.
Kitsch artists still produce those busts and they are not real artists

[Anonymous No.6601799]

>>6601792
these literal bugmen actually think that an overly complicated bot that gobbles and reformulates already existing information that was constructed by humans, means that the AI has achieved sentience. It's pathetic really, and also frustrating because these clowns are too inept to realize how subhumanly stupid they are

[Anonymous No.6601802]

>>6601795
>the moment it stole data
This is part where you can just feel the seethe and rage and logic just goes out the window.

[Anonymous No.6601803]

>>6601795
Lmao the seething is intense, AI stole your job and fucked your girlfriend?
Also no, data wasn’t stolen, I think you are confusing concepts as you probably were talking about using the data in way that violates copyright, and for that the process is extremely important, as it decides if it matches the criteria of fair use, but you clearly have no idea about that and you are just sobbing on a basket weaving forum, how lame lmao

[Anonymous No.6601804]

>>6601795
>step 1 is the only important part here.
Lol what. If you want to do transformative art you need to perceive the original first. You are just buttmad a machine is doing it instead of a human

[Anonymous No.6601807]

>>6601781
>Still continuing
Anon, it hasn't been thrown out because it has SOME merit, perhaps not much, but enough to explore in a legal case. Evidently entire companies believe in this as well, because Getty is suing as well, so your argument that there is "zero and I mean litterally 0 copyright issues with AI" is literally, and I mean absolutely chock-'block full of shit.
So cool it with your smug high horse tone.

Even if there are no protections within copyright that protect the artist from AI, that doesn't necessarily mean the case is for naught - what is the purpose of copyright for artists? It's to protect artists, and ensure they can profit from their work and continue to create work. How is allowing a large multi-million dollar company to take the artist's work and use it as a basis for an AI that creates images, that replaces the artist, in the spirit of fair-use given copyright's purpose?
The lawsuit could well cause change within copyright laws.

I'm not one of the anons freaking out about AI, I don't see AI images as that big of a deal and just see it as a tool, but I do hate the way they were made - the lawsuits are interesting, so seeing some AI bro pretend that there's no merit just irks me.

>>6601788
Thought the other anon was you, but honestly not much of what you wrote is worth responding to individually compared to what I wrote up above, especially since you're ignoring companies joining in the lawsuits and acting like it's a single lone individual. Pathetic.

[Debater No.6601808]

>>6601788
Infinite money to burn when they're given that for non profit research
>do you consider art a worse less thing
>do think taxing people to help fund non profit groups is good
>well your money is going to be used for a picture generator and it's lawsuit
>we generously hope you fund this endeavor instead healthcare or any useful building projects

[Anonymous No.6601809]

>>6601803
of course it's important, but laws are not static and they will change, nor do you fully understand how this shit applies to the laws in their current form. the process itself is the least important part. This isn't about le epik is the code behind the whole affair. And don't worry, AI will take your job before it takes mine. I'll watch you seethe then, as you'll beg for your shitty ball and chain "UBI"

[Anonymous No.6601811]

>>6601804
I'm sure "the machine" will stand up for itself in court lmao. The machine isn't doing it, you are the one who's using the machine, blood sucking tick

[Anonymous No.6601812]

>>6601807
>Getty is suing as well
Based getty fighting the corporations on bahalf of the little man

[Debater No.6601813]

>>6601807
No retard just said whether the case was ongoing not to hear your retarded spiel

[Anonymous No.6601814]

>>6601811
I'm not trying to sell anything for profit so I doubt I will ever be in trouble

[Anonymous No.6601815]

>>6601802
>logic
you have none bug brain. Your entire gimmick is that of a middle schooler sticking his finger up his nose and showing me his bugger. You can't win while acting like a smug liberal

[Anonymous No.6601817]

>>6601809
It’ll take my job even though I’m running my own small company? Good luck, if anything I’ll be the one replacing the handful of employed people

[Anonymous No.6601818]

>>6601814
congratulations, are you the world now?

[Anonymous No.6601819]

>>6601813
Almost like I addressed that in the very post you're responding to you sub-human.

[Debater No.6601820]

>>6601802
I'm pretty sure Facebook got busted for that before collecting facial data

[Anonymous No.6601821]

>>6601808
Who do you think they are given that money by
The people that gave them this money want them to win, so I doubt they’d have an issue with using the money for court

[Debater No.6601822]

>>6601819
Neat you could of just said it was ongoing

[Anonymous No.6601823]

>>6601818
I am batman

[Anonymous No.6601826]

It’s impressive, that one anon that’s raging right now is the first one on 4chan I’ve seen this angry
I believe he’s probably shaking with rage irl right now which is honestly hilarious to imagine

[Anonymous No.6601828]

bleeehhh

[Anonymous No.6601829]

>>6601822
Sure, I can also say "go fuck yourself". How's that?

>>6601812
Well, it could be to our benefit, though they're hardly doing it for such reasons.

[Anonymous No.6601832]

>>6601826
This is your first day on 4channel then. Now that you have taken a good look, you are free to go back to r/singularity

[Debater No.6601833]

>>6601829
Deferent anon my thing was mostly responding to the one guy seething at Ortiz

[Anonymous No.6601837]

>>6601832
holy shit. these retards would make edgiest blackpiller slit his wrists after 5 minutes

[Anonymous No.6601838]

>>6601833
Why’d I be seething at the underdog? I wish I remembered the other surnames, but only Ortiz sounds funny so I remembered it, idk who that is though, just know it’s some woman

[Anonymous No.6601839]

>>6599605
hollywood will use this to flood old KINOs with tranny propaganda

[Anonymous No.6601842]

>>6601839
Don't forget black people holding cans of coca-cola.
>Hollywood
Its gonna be Youtube someday

[Anonymous No.6601843]

>>6601833
Yeah, I got that, I just didn't bother removing your (you) because I still responded and answered your question, it was the very first thing I said. So the "retarded spiel" was obviously not aimed at you, but I said as much within it.
Haha, don't expect good editing of posts on here anon.

[Debater No.6601844]

>>6601838
I was responding to his post but I think they're was confusion since I know he also writes long posts
Though they're that money go brrr guy here>>6601788 saying
>Infinite money

[Anonymous No.6601847]

>>6601842
>Its gonna be Youtube someday
Nah, Hollywood movies are evergreen content, youtube is like a fast food burger - one and done.

[Anonymous No.6601848]

>>6601838
cope. your garbage regurgitator will be regulated

[Anonymous No.6601850]

>>6601847
Eh fair enough. Subhuman ad agencies are foaming at whatever AI + the data they scraped is capable of.

[Anonymous No.6601865]

>>6601722
Based off. I kneel. On the right side of history once again

[Anonymous No.6601884]

>>6601817
lots of small companies crash and die these days. It'll happen even more now with AI thanks to corpos :)

[Debater No.6601885]

>>6601865
>right side of history

[Anonymous No.6601886]

.....................

[Anonymous No.6601890]

So...By the AI copyright laws people are talking here. If I do an AI voicebank of a vocaloid, Yamaha can't take it down, right?

[Anonymous No.6601891]

>>6601890
vocaloid voices aren't made by ai so they might own the copyright for their voices

[Anonymous No.6601893]

>>6601891
They are computer synthesized, based on training data of a real human

[Anonymous No.6601894]

>>6601865
Just like with NFTs! To the moon tech bros!

[Anonymous No.6601898]

>>6601894
God I wish it was like NFTs, when NFTs started out it was so easy to make money off guilible retards, good thing I sold mine for profit

[Anonymous No.6601899]

>>6601890
Would you record your parents anon?

[Anonymous No.6601900]

>>6601891
But If I change the voice parameters to a fanloid. It still applies to the original voice provider?
It's a voice the own VA can't reproduce, after all.

[Anonymous No.6601901]

>>6601899
Already considered it, but the noise makes it difficult

[Anonymous No.6601903]

>>6601899
Probably, most likely my mom.

[Anonymous No.6601905]

>>6601891
But the art that feed the AI was also made by a human provider.

[Debater No.6601907]

>>6601899
Neat

[Anonymous No.6601920]

Did Emad personally have a meltdown itt? The overtly emotional seethe in broken english is palpable.

[Anonymous No.6601922]

AI is inevitable

[Anonymous No.6601926]

>>6601922
Unfortunate that before we get android maids we'll have to suffer through a flood of synthesized spam made by indian scammers.

[Anonymous No.6601932]

Corporations are allowed to collect and use your data however they like

[Anonymous No.6601934]

My older bro showed me ai art he made with midjourney and told me he was going to try and sell it as a business. Wonder if he'll succeed.

[Anonymous No.6601954]

>>6601899
Hnnnnnng deepfake of my sisterrrrr

[Anonymous No.6601958]

>>6601934
Based business maxxing brother. I wish him good luck

[Anonymous No.6602000]

>>6601899
No. It's not them.

[Anonymous No.6602010]

>>6599538
make art with some fucking soul instead of the same thing over and over again. Samdoesart is easy to AI generate because he already draws like a mindless machine

[Anonymous No.6602016]

>>6601934
Now he can live the monetarily luxurious life artists are well known to live... wait...
Unless he's designs are really cool, no ones going to buy them. Artists sell shit more so because of their fan-club they built over time, rather than their designs specifically.

Who knows though, my youtube recommends me videos where people claim to make a trillion dollars an hour through AI art and etsy, so maybe your bro can pull it off?

[Anonymous No.6602079]

>>6601672
>Nta but transformative use means that a thing doesn't substitute, devalue or compete with the original.
And that's exactly what AI art does 99.9% of the time. It's just fanart made with a fancy tool. Most people aren't willing to buy it so it's utterly fair use to create and publish it.

You an input a hag artist's work and produce lolis with it. How the hell isn't this transformative?

[Anonymous No.6602080]

>>6601722
The most ironic part is that most artists pirate photoshop, video games, and infringe on copyrights all the time too. They're hypocrits.

And no one wants to train on their art anyway, it's fucking garbage. Most AI artists would be better off training on their own outputs.

[Anonymous No.6602087]

>>6602080
A post so genuinely retarded that it doesn't even deserve any refutation. Please go die, and make the world a better place.

[Anonymous No.6602093]

>>6602087
I'm not in any way wrong.

[Anonymous No.6602101]

>>6602093
You were wrong in every way, which is why it was so fucking stupid, so even this post I'm responding is wrong, so you continue to be wrong. You're very birth was wrong, you stupid retard.

[Anonymous No.6602103]

>>6602087
>>6602101
>He says this while there's a pirate thread on the board right now with a list of books, videos, and assets he hoards from his fellow Artists.
>Fuck you, I got mine!
kek

[Anonymous No.6602111]

>>6601807
>How is allowing a large multi-million dollar company to take the artist's work and use it as a basis for an AI that creates images, that replaces the artist, in the spirit of fair-use given copyright's purpose?
This is a stupid argument. Artists can, will, and do use the same tools as your boogeyman. Making it entirely irrelevant. The """company""" you're talking about employs artists now and always will. The tools have simply changed. If some people get laid off oh well that's simply life, they can get another job at another company doing the same things they do now.

This kind of moaning about nothing is just retarded. AI can create art now and that is NEVER going to change and it's only going to improve. The lawsuit with Getty will only potentially force another retrain of a FOSS base model which would be a good thing because no one wants a getty watermark on their images. And hell, getty is suing because SD trained on tagged stock images of random objects... No one is prompting random photographers or whatever, SD just has a slightly better idea what a spindle is because of Getty lol. If anyone is being immoral jews it's them.

[Anonymous No.6602112]

>>6602101
what a pathetic poster you are

[Anonymous No.6602115]

>>6601722
Checked, unfathomably based, redpilled and amazing AI wojaks.

[Anonymous No.6602122]

>>6602103
Alright, so why were those books and pieces of software made, if it would be unprofitable to make them? Since artists do nothing but pirate... right?
It's almost as if your entire argument is completely fucking stupid, retard.

>>6602111
>"w-w-we all use or will use product anon, therefore how immorally product was made is irrelevant"
Equally retarded as the anon above. Did you idiots all escape your keepers or what? Who let you guys on the internet?

[Anonymous No.6602123]

>>6601736
>>6601768
Mongrels who have no interest in art. It can do any style you like at high quality.
>but muh cherrypicked errors
You can't draw fingers. You can't even finish a piece. Don't act like you can do better, and most artists can't.

[Anonymous No.6602125]

>>6602122
There's nothing immoral about it and you aren't even standing on the stage with this debate. You're also arguing artists aren't poor, what a clown.

[Anonymous No.6602136]

>>6602125
>There's nothing immoral about it
The taking of everyone's images, to create a program that automatically makes images, to run them out of business isn't even slightly morally grey to you?... I was actually literally right, your brain is broken, you may not be retarded, but you're at least autistic or psychotic.

>You're also arguing artists aren't poor, what a clown.
Do you think all artists are cigarette smoking, striped shirt wearing, poverty stricken, depressed people? Are you forgetting all the industry jobs? In fact, why am I discussing this with you, you clearly lack any critical thinking faculties. Jump from a bridge.

[Anonymous No.6602142]

>>6602136
You aren't' taking anything you drooling retard.
>Do you think all artists are cigarette smoking, striped shirt wearing, poverty stricken, depressed people? Are you forgetting all the industry jobs? In fact, why am I discussing this with you, you clearly lack any critical thinking faculties. Jump from a bridge.
Most artists aren't working industry jobs they're autistic poorfag retards who can barely draw. If you took offense to what I said, I don't are. I was talking objectively about a larger picture.

[Anonymous No.6602146]

>>6602123
pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.6602147]

>>6602079
The entire selling point of this things is replacing artists, it sucking at it is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.6602153]

>>6602142
>You aren't' taking anything you drooling retard.
Taking what? Your Point? You haven't made one worth considering dipshit.

If you meant to type "they aren't taking anything" - this is even more fucking stupid. Have you just completely forgotten that they scrapped the internet for people's art? How are these programs "trained"? You may argue that it isn't a breach of copyright and is fair-use, but it is still very clearly somewhat morally dubious, you can't even argue against that - it's almost an objective fact.

>Most artists aren't working industry jobs they're autistic poorfag retards who can barely draw.
Are you including children and hobbyists in this statistic you're making up? Again, I'm flabbergasted at the level of stupidity on this site sometimes.

I get it, you like AI, I personally don't mind AI myself. That aside, you anon, are genuinely fucking stupid. I don't mean that as a joke, but with these few posts you've made, you have shown you don't give any thought to your opinions. You're a dumbass. Truly.

[Anonymous No.6602157]

>>6602147
The entire selling point of it is creating new artists out of anyone. It doesn't suck at it.

[Anonymous No.6602159]

>>6602153
>illiterate
Scraping the internet is not taking anything. People have been doing it since the internet began and there is nothing wrong with it.
Cry more though, really. It's very funny.

[Anonymous No.6602162]

>>6602159
>Scraping the internet is not taking anything.
Idiot. Scraping is just how they got the images, yes there is nothing wrong with that - what did they do with those images you unbelievable dumbass?

[Anonymous No.6602163]

>>6602162
They, get this, used them for art. Like artists have always used references for inspiration.

[Anonymous No.6602169]

[Anonymous No.6602176]

>>6602157
Sure buddy, let's see how that holds up in court.
It removes the need for an artist, therefore it competes with them, no amount of mental gymnastics is gonna change that.
It clearly competes with the originals, therefore it's not transformative. It's pretty simple really.

[Anonymous No.6602180]

>>6602176
And no one cares. If a job can be automated it will be. If people can use tools that let them work better they will or they will be forced to. Copyrights are not meant to combat that.

>It clearly competes with the originals
It doesn't. You're using billions of images for a model and from that you can make whatever you want, most of the outputs will look like completely new artwork.

Cry
More

[Anonymous No.6602181]

two more weeks until mikushart becomes world renown ai artist

[Anonymous No.6602182]

>>6602163
Wrong dipshit - they used them to make a program. A program that makes art. Several of the companies which, are using these programs to profit from.

And I can't believe I'm seeing another moron trot out the "artists have always used references for inspiration" defense. How about you idiots get this through your almost entirely made of skull heads - these programs aren't human, we don't give objects the same considerations we do our fellow humans, therefore I'm not happy with them using other people's art (which they didn't pay for) to "train" these programs and try to replace them.
So I'm happy for a human to train on someones art, I am not for a company to do it, you corporate shill.

[Anonymous No.6602186]

>>6602182
The program is separate from the model.

And that "defense" is just a fact. AI is just a tool just like your pencil. You're just mad it's better.

Cope and seethe.

[Debater No.6602188]

>>6602163
You know there's regulations regards to trying flood markets with cheep or bad stuff. Yet for some reason why y'all mention AI you want to act like it doesn't apply.
Considering to nearly everyplace you'll mention allowing it saw steep drop in quality do spamming why should it be allowed in the first place

You can say it's art but it's obv you don't care about delivery something with merit or much thought put in. Plus y'all "standards" are questionable of allowing near fuckin anything to try and sell it

[Anonymous No.6602189]

>>6602180
nta, but what're we gonna do with the spam and inevitable fake news generated by AI? Your cult is all about making it big in the industry, falsely assuming there's even gonna be a standing industry in the shitstream unleashed by the curry nigger and his porn addict followers.

[Anonymous No.6602191]

>>6602188
>the post that said absolutely nothing and has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

[Debater No.6602196]

>>6602186
Your argument is stupid if better means just slapping any example given and calling it a day. If that's so me just taking any photo and slapping a filter means I have a better way of creating art then someone

[Anonymous No.6602198]

>>6602186
Is AI the tool, or the AI users that use AI as a substitute for their own creativity and will and ability to manifest said creativity?

[Anonymous No.6602200]

>>6602186
>And that "defense" is just a fact.
And that they used millions of other people's images is also a fact. A fact that will be debated in the courts. Keep running defense for these multi-million dollar companies anon, I'm sure they'll notice you one day.

>AI is just a tool just like your pencil.
You can't say this
>You're just mad it's better.
And then say this... Well unless you're retarded as you are. Nobody else would say something so stupid.

[Debater No.6602203]

>>6602191
I find near all AI threads here pointless and not going to change perspectives or help when talked about
>If you really wanted to argue about go to reddit and not an animous board

[Anonymous No.6602205]

>>6602180
The court cares, that's their job.
Oh also, an artist's job's gonna get automated by a machine, yet it doesn't compete with anyone...which one is it, retard? Those two are contradictory.
And again, it looking different has nothing to do with transformative use, you'd know that if actually read about it.
I'm yet to see you make any proper argument, but hey, tell me to cry and cope more, you're clearly not projecting.

[Anonymous No.6602207]

>>6602203
These AI threads are the exact same as they were last year.
Courts taking on AI companies, normalfags and coomers getting mad at AI spam yet AI cultusts talk the same as they did October last year.

[Anonymous No.6602210]

>>6602207
>These AI threads are the exact same as they were last year.
they really are. i don't know how anons can stand wasting their time to argue on these threads.

[Anonymous No.6602213]

Good night prooomt chads

[Anonymous No.6602214]

Night

[Anonymous No.6602233]

>>6599538
>How do you format your work so its viewable by human eyes only?
Paint on canvas and go around blasting an EMP device.
Make sure it has enough range to fry all smartphones and cameras in your line of sight.

[Anonymous No.6602245]

>>6602233
>Paint on canvas and go around blasting an EMP device.
Genius, I'll just save up for an EMP then.
Anyway, I like this image anon. What's this from?

[Anonymous No.6602251]

>>6602245
it's AI

[Anonymous No.6602256]

>>6602251
Haha is that so? Not the usual style it does of anime or near realistic - it reminds me of SNK art.

[Anonymous No.6602258]

>>6602245
characters from the game vindictus
>>6602251
kys retard

[Anonymous No.6602419]

>>6599648
Same people. You guys are falling for every scam. Get a job.

[Anonymous No.6602444]

>>6602233
but its not just AI I don't want people to steal my style even with Trad.

[Anonymous No.6602743]

Don't be a digital Nazi

[Anonymous No.6602837]

>>6601735
it wont, the music landscape is too litigious. You have music artists suing each other over similar sounding riffs in songs. Musicians will be safe for a while.

[Anonymous No.6602842]

>>6600462
>I hope you'll seriously think about this.
This is what you sound like to me.

[Anonymous No.6602844]

>>6600864
If he was, he'd be unironically telling you to let homeless people in your house.

[Anonymous No.6602846]

>>6601049
Ilya Kuvshinov was under a lot of flak when he traced poses from other pieces of art.
It's a tribute when credit is give to the original
It's theft when it isn't
It's been like this forever now. You're just bullshitting so you can own le artist. Go back to /g/ and program some shit ni/g/ger.

[Anonymous No.6602852]

>>6602842
You too but I have the moral highground.

[Debater No.6602874]

>>6602743
But anon I support Ukraine

[Anonymous No.6603047]

>>6602743
>troon
Opinion discarded

[Anonymous No.6603560]

>>6601036
the results of AI art would not be possible without the work done by those it looked at. It relies on actual work done to produce the result. Typing in "Looks like moebius" does not function unless the algo takes the work that moebius had done.

An artist may reference, but in the end their art can still exist even without asking for other artists to do something first. They are the sole contributor of labor.

>>6601054
A lot of prompters bring up "oh what about what artists have been stealing???" and i feel thats a big misinterpretation on what it means to reference.
If I look at a work and produce something that is identical to it, as in same style, same poses, same layouts, I would be accused of plagiarism, lose my job, or be thrown out of art school.

When you reference you are not taking the entirety of something, you are looking for techniques that you then have to figure out and transfer to your own style. There is an element of translation, of getting something to work for your current process.

[Anonymous No.6603695]

>>6603560
I would add when one uses an image as reference they look at the pictures, adding one layer of translation, then conceptualizes/internally pictures it, putting a second degree where the information gets modified if only slightly, the artists then draws based on it, adding at least a third translation of the original information. the AI processes the pixel information directly, no interpretation is involved (no noise/denoise is not interpretation)

[Anonymous No.6603710]

>>6603560
We bring it up because it's just normal to use other peoples art to create your own. The Means Do Not Matter. You are using AI to create art using the work of others. It's no less morale than anyone using an existing style, idea, or image for reference to create their art.
Because in either case you're creating art based on things someone else did. The thing you guys are mad about is that the AI is really fucking good and fast at it. But it's still the PERSON using AI using the tool that's using the art and other stuff other people put online. If a person trains an AI on a style because he wants to mimic that style, how is that any different from referencing it and practicing for months or years until you can draw that style? It's only a matter of efficiency.

And AI art isn't plagiarism, most AI artists are using very unique or very generic styles and not 1:1 copying the style of someone else. But even if you do copy someone else's style it's only plagiarism if you're pretending to be that person and no one does this. So it's just fanart drawn by an AI which is completely fine if you're being logical, because fanart drawn by people is fine.
>b-b-but it takes me longer to draw so I'm justified
Autistic and nonsensical argument. You're seething because the tool is good, own up to that and grow up.

And finally your argument falls completely flat on its face when you consider the roles that photobashing and concept snatching have in the professional sphere. Or when you look at fanart in the amateur sphere. This is just as much theft as using AI. (Read: it's not really theft, this is just how people make art).

[Anonymous No.6603738]

>>6603710
your premise is flawed as you make an equivalence between a human and a program
>AI is really fucking good and fast at it
copycat have little to no value, it will never be "X AI"artist" " it will always be "AI copying X". artist aping another's style are given little attention or stay in the shadow of their source of inspiration, never outgrowing them unless work and self-reflection are applied.
> If a person trains an AI on a style because he wants to mimic that style, how is that any different from referencing it and practicing for months or years until you can draw that style?
the one doing the learning. a teacher can say he created a student's work. quite frankly, the only reason your displaying such sophistry is because you're not an artist yourself. there is no inspiration in the AI, were you to feed it your own work referenced form material that inspired you you'd have a leg to stand on.
you can repeat "not theft" or "not plagiarism" but you'll only be arguing semantics, it's clear what's being done in principle.

[Anonymous No.6603745]

>>6603738
>your premise is flawed as you make an equivalence between a human and a program
No dude you just misunderstood because you're either too mad or too stupid. THE MEANS DO NOT MATTER. The program is just a tool that a person is using, it's fundamentally a really good pen. That's it.

>copycat have little to no value, it will never be "X AI"artist" " it will always be "AI copying X". artist aping another's style are given little attention or stay in the shadow of their source of inspiration, never outgrowing them unless work and self-reflection are applied.
Irrelevant. Dunno why you posted this, it's all subjective.

>the one doing the learning. a teacher can say he created a student's work. quite frankly, the only reason your displaying such sophistry is because you're not an artist yourself. there is no inspiration in the AI, were you to feed it your own work referenced form material that inspired you you'd have a leg to stand on.
This barely made sense but there is inspiration in AI, you find ideas and try to get them out of the AI. IE that image I posted. I have always been inspired by classical art and now I can(and did) create lots of art in similar styles. You don't need to reference your own art, what are you even saying?

>you can repeat "not theft" or "not plagiarism" but you'll only be arguing semantics, it's clear what's being done in principle.
It's not in any way a semantics argument. Plagiarism is pretending you are someone else or that the work of someone else is your own. This has nothing to do with 99.999999999% of AI art which is all, at worst, transformative. There might be a couple edge cases out there but it's so young that there would only be a few tops.

[Anonymous No.6603817]

>>6603710
GJ ignoring the entire post

[Anonymous No.6603823]

>>6603817
your post is just angry projection, I didn't ignore it

[Anonymous No.6603899]

>>6603745
>just a tool
if it does all the work for you, it isn't.
>"b-but I've thougjt really hard!"
sure thing
>Dunno why you posted this, it's all subjective
because AI has not an original bone it cannot outgrow its source material, it does not think and your own thinking doesn't matter in that
>there is inspiration in AI
it does not think ergo it does not get inspired, you could be inspired but it won't make the picture produced yours. you don't get your ideas out of the Ai, you convince yourself it was what you wanted. rng, even with a narrowed range is still rng, you pick a randomized result you did not create.
> AI art which is all, at worst, transformative.
it's not transformative at all as the AI has no thought and you don't have a direct control over the picture production (emphasis on direct). and again, image data are broken down directly without transformative interpretation behind, it is used without an intermediary platform while I don't need to copy an image's data to reference it, only observe and interpret, I do not touch the picture's data or a copy of it. you can keep yelling "technically it's not..." but that will be legally curtailed eventually.

[Anonymous No.6603903]

>>6603899
It doesn't do all the work for you, grow the fuck up already.

No point reading the rest.

[Anonymous No.6604048]

>>6602169
love your drawings

[Anonymous No.6604079]

>>6600809
Im talking out of my ass but I get the feeling it has difficulty with it because it has no proper depth

[Anonymous No.6604082]

>>6601107
>pleb realizes that attractive generic girls are cheap to make
lol, lmao even

[Anonymous No.6604092]

>>6604079
there's no difficulty with it and yes you're wrong about that

[Anonymous No.6604097]

>>6603710
You preach like a fucking cultist, lmao.

[Anonymous No.6604169]

>>6604097
>free software bruh religion
This is the polar opposite of an argument, you aren't even saying anything.

[Anonymous No.6604190]

>>6599809
>they can't replicate the parasocial relationship
For now. Won't be long until there are vtubers or e-celeb with a lets draw streams or whatever is popular in the future only to find out every bit of it is complex layered AI.

[Anonymous No.6604195]

>>6604169
There can't be said anything to cultists who go on long ideological diatribes that external image synthesizers trained on billions of data work the same as when you pick up a pencil. We can only avoid you, the brainrot with your ilk is permanent.

[Anonymous No.6604199]

Actually, there can be something said your kind. Jump off a high floor. The severe serotonin released from your brain in the last few milliseconds of your life is comparable to the endgame that you try to achieve with your AI bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6604438]

>>6603903
>It doesn't do all the work for you
only 90% of it, only the whole drawing aspect which is crucial.
I accept your concession, keep coping about not being an artist

[Anonymous No.6604489]

>>6604438
>which is crucial.
To what? Your opinion is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.6604524]

>>6604489
to the making of art you dense motherfucker.
>Your opinion is meaningless
stop peddling yours as a widely-accepted fact you golem