Why is AI art always immediately recognizable as AI art? Across different styles and themes you can always tell it apart from art drawn by a human. Why?

File: 76 KB, 736x736, 6A072DB2-FD0C-4D66-899D-F1E6AA53CB09.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 02:16:12 2023 No.6970825 [Reply] [Original]

Why is AI art always immediately recognizable as AI art?
Across different styles and themes you can always tell it apart from art drawn by a human.
Why?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 02:17:58 2023 No.6970827 >>6970825 Because it's a style on a league of its own.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 02:18:34 2023 No.6970829 >>6970825 >Why is AI art always immediately recognizable as AI art? It isn't. Most people can't tell the difference.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 02:23:06 2023 No.6970837

because most images are generated by normalfags that use the same hyper-rendered model, loras, image dimensions, smallish resolution and pinup pose prompts with barely any unique customization.
that's what gets recognized the most. it's not even the non-symmetrical details like the eyes that give it away first.
also, all the girls are mostly korean for some reason.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 02:23:43 2023 No.6970839 >>6970825 It's glossy, fake and stolen. It's also uncanny like this picture. >>6970827 kek

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 02:25:39 2023 No.6970842 https://twitter.com/HoDaRaKe https://twitter.com/Deltanpopo These artists use AI and their art gets tens of thousands of likes. Most people don't know or don't care.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 02:30:51 2023 No.6970846 >>6970842 It's interesting how an actual artist like Tarte completely surrendered himself to technology like this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 02:34:33 2023 No.6970849 >>6970846 He/she can pump out art at a superhuman pace while maintaining quality. Smart move.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 02:35:05 2023 No.6970850 File: 201 KB, 1024x1024, 1696623211818094.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6970825 >sudden influx of hyperreal, 6 gorillian dpi renderings appear all over the web >nobody will notice

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 02:37:45 2023 No.6970852 >>6970849 > churning out mass produced garbage is le good

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 02:40:45 2023 No.6970855 >>6970852 Paying the bills is good.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 02:40:55 2023 No.6970857 >>6970852 but enough about /ic/...

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 02:46:27 2023 No.6970862 File: 527 KB, 904x967, __2b_and_djeeta_granblue_fantasy_and_2_more_drawn_by_tarte_hodarake__cfd2d5d67c9a65157e66d0d2c8786152.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6970842 >he gave up pic related to become a picture shitter

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 02:47:03 2023 No.6970864

>>6970825
obvious mistakes no human would make (hair melting into other lines, 3 arms, backward legs, wobbly pupils), inconsistent skill (detailed rendering but shit anatomy), obvious attempt at stealing someone else's art style (sam yang, sakimichan), the list goes on and on and on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 02:49:01 2023 No.6970867 >>6970852 have you paid attention to any form of art in the last like 15 years? churn out 37 marvel movies and 15 CoD games and just rake in money from brainless apes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 02:57:05 2023 No.6970874 >>6970855 You can pay bills with Likes now?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 02:59:58 2023 No.6970876 >>6970842 T B H anon whomst are some these guys going on their Twitter and it's nothing but insert popular anime pics

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 03:00:24 2023 No.6970877 >>6970874 yeah bro 14 year olds liking your ai slop pays the bills now. Commissions? Sponsors? Prints? Meaningless. My bank has me pay my mortgage with 1 million likes/month

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 03:22:25 2023 No.6970899 >>6970842 twitter likes are bots In dA where you actually have to put three seconds or human time to favorite a picture, even high quality AI art has less than 10 faves.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 03:26:55 2023 No.6970903 >>6970825 Like everything min-maxing for profit. It's innately repulsive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 03:32:42 2023 No.6970909 >>6970903 ok commie

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 03:39:34 2023 No.6970917 >>6970899 I've kinda had the opposite experience where even mid quality AI art gets lots of engagement. https://www.deviantart.com/memento-mystle/art/Isabelle-the-Doomslayer-999165209

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 04:13:16 2023 No.6970967 >>6970837 Reing your post made me realize that the ai faggots known for incessantly defend ai production as a skill you hone with tremendus effort, literally didn't get any better or more artful with their tool this is THE mother of all NGMIs

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 04:30:21 2023 No.6970986
File: 710 KB, 852x1151, 1693771086377666.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6970825
just today my friend was stunned that i could tell the difference between bing images vs local diffusion. he couldnt comprehend that they were different, to him it all looked the same.
>why can you always tell?
humans are expert pattern recognizers no matter how autistic they are. and thats neglecting the fact that most people cant even tell anyway. why am i posting here again?

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 04:43:03 2023 No.6971002

>Why is AI art always immediately recognizable as AI art?
It's not. And it's only going to get better at passing. What it sucks cock at - and will continue to suck cock at so long as normalfags are at the helm - is looking remotely original, creative, inventive.
In fact the most reliable sign that something might be AI is if it "looks like everything else," if it looks generic and anemic, but that descriptor also catches a lot of false positives in the form of hack illustrators who continue to peddle shlock no better than AI.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 04:44:32 2023 No.6971004 >>6971002 You'll get better at sucking cock

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 04:48:03 2023 No.6971009 File: 1.13 MB, 1200x2000, 1685235576103779.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6971002 yeah, only a handful of people are truly creative with it. but thats up for interpretation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 04:52:02 2023 No.6971014 File: 112 KB, 576x768, big-surprise.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6971004 If only... >>6971009 Eh, not too bad, not exciting either

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 04:52:39 2023 No.6971015 >>6971002 Give me a quiz with an undisclosed number if ai and real images, I guarantee I get 100%.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 04:53:03 2023 No.6971017 File: 1.76 MB, 1024x1536, 1685471353889615.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6971014 what do you consider exciting?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 04:57:01 2023 No.6971021 File: 1.45 MB, 1414x2000, EmeORAWVkAETPEr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6971017 Jon Taira, for one

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 04:58:46 2023 No.6971027 File: 1.22 MB, 2160x1080, 1685216498075431.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6971021 thats pretty cool.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 05:09:26 2023 No.6971043 File: 3.08 MB, 3264x3094, 12683479.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6971015

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 05:16:19 2023 No.6971049 >>6971043 im NTA, but I want to take a stab is it only middle right the ai?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 05:19:01 2023 No.6971054 File: 761 KB, 806x808, test.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6971015 Real easy one then. Be quick about it or you cheated.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 05:19:02 2023 No.6971055 >>6971043 nta but I assume it's literally all ai

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 05:46:10 2023 No.6971088 >>6971055 NPC + nodraw + ngmi, if you can't recognize any of the artists in that picture

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 05:50:56 2023 No.6971092 >>6971088 >anime obsessed coomer outraged no one cares about his waifushit its as soulless and shit as ai so who cares lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 05:51:04 2023 No.6971093 >>6971049 >>6971088 Wrong. >>6971055 Correct.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 05:51:50 2023 No.6971096 >>6971054 ross, sakimi, idk, idk 0 ai.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 05:55:04 2023 No.6971098 >>6971096 *wait, not ross, who's that guy... Sam

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 05:58:31 2023 No.6971101

>>6971096
lmao
Can you really tell Sakimi's slop apart from her 100 imitators? You got the first one wrong (it's Sam Yang), so probably just a lucky guess on Shitkimi. And the last two are so hopelessly generic you'd never get them even if you knew the artists by name. These niggers are doing nothing of value artistically, and AI is coming for that ass
>>6971098
You sure you're not reverse image searching, anon?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:00:46 2023 No.6971108 >>6971101 rossdraws and samdoesart are almost the same disney style instagram art, getting them confused isn't really that weird. >get them all right >y-yeah well you p-probably cheated anyway, ai is gonna win. 2 more weeks!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:02:10 2023 No.6971110 >>6971101 >You sure you're not reverse image searching, anon? No, it's just late and I mixed the two asian youtuber dudes up. no reverse search, I saw that sakimi on cghub many moons ago.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:03:05 2023 No.6971111

>>6971108
>rossdraws and samdoesart are almost the same disney style instagram art, getting them confused isn't really that weird.
You're starting to become self aware, just a little bit more. If you can confuse 2 human artists that easily, what's to stop you confusing a machine almost perfectly mimicking their incredibly vapid, generic style?
Are you absolutely certain, in 100% of cases, you can separate the leaf bug from the leaf? Really?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:04:33 2023 No.6971114 its easy to tell, why are you focusing on art styles? demystification happens once you understand latent space.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:05:03 2023 No.6971115 >>6971043 hands, background, missing leg +shirt blending with sleeve left arm, incoherent scene, lmfao what the fuck even is that eyes, incoherent scene + inconsistent detail, random lines that make no sense

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:05:36 2023 No.6971117 >>6971114 >latent space the fuck are you talking about

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:07:13 2023 No.6971119

>>6971111
>what's to stop you confusing a machine almost perfectly mimicking their incredibly vapid, generic style?
a machine is incapable of doing that.
>Are you absolutely certain, in 100% of cases, you can separate the leaf bug from the leaf? Really?
yet to be wrong once.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:08:59 2023 No.6971121 >>6971111 Nah, I'm just tired. I even did paint overs of Sams work earlier this year(last of us, if anyone remembers that), I can tell their art apart, just the name got a brain fart.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:09:57 2023 No.6971122 >>6971117 you're more familiar with pixel space. just think of latent space as a fourth dimension - something that affects us but takes exposure to be able to identify its calling cards. look it up.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:11:11 2023 No.6971123

>>6971119
>a machine is incapable of doing that.
Horseshit. This stuff factually fools A LOT of people, that's why certain artists are seething so much about it. They wouldn't be seething if it was bad at copycatting. Why do you even care if it's so bad and obviously fake? It should simply be funny to you, no kind of threat
>>6971121
I still think if an artist's work can be confused for another artist's, even momentarily and under suboptimal conditions, that says something. You would never think Moebius is Jim Lee.
>>6971122
Are you trolling me, anon?

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:11:41 2023 No.6971125

>>6971111
>If you can confuse 2 human artists that easily, what's to stop you confusing a machine almost perfectly mimicking their incredibly vapid, generic style?
you can tell there was artistic intent. even if you're unsure the exact artist behind the piece, you can tell that everything was drawn with reason and by human hands.
Multiple artists can draw with similar styles, but the that aijeets will never understand is the obvious manmade elements to drawings.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:12:56 2023 No.6971129 >>6971115 What are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:14:02 2023 No.6971132 >>6971125 >you can tell there was artistic intent. I'm not buying it. I think these guys make disposable trash and I've always thought so. AI just brought this to the surface for the more basic bitch types.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:15:19 2023 No.6971133

>>6971123
>This stuff factually fools A LOT of people
A LOT of people are dumb as shit and the extent of their exposure to a piece is 1.3 seconds while scrolling through instagram. Is that the goal? Fool 70 iq Stacy on Instagram for a free like?
>It should simply be funny to you, no kind of threat
I've literally never saw AI as any kind of threat, and it absolutely is hilarious to me that you retards keep pretending it is. Any artist that pretends it is is doing so for easy doomsayer clicks.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:16:17 2023 No.6971136
File: 92 KB, 800x1200, 7ce12044abd6bb19.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6971123
>are you trolling me, anon?
literally no. latent space is also a compressed version of pixel space which is why details look fucked up on average. one with the know how can circumvent this, however. skim through the abstracts of some papers and i think youll find it interesting.

its unironically trivial to discern trad from ai most of the time, its only at the extremes where it gets fuzzy. but most people never experience that.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:16:32 2023 No.6971137

>>6971123
>I still think if an artist's work can be confused for another artist's, even momentarily and under suboptimal conditions, that says something. You would never think Moebius is Jim Lee.
Only because I am a super fan of Moebius. I don't even like ross or sam.
if they both had similar 1 syllable names... oh hey, I could look at Jean's silver surfer and in that state, say Jim. not as likely but whatever. weird angle for you to argue.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:16:42 2023 No.6971138 >>6971129 an element from each image that makes it obvious it's ai at a cursory glance.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:17:41 2023 No.6971139

>>6971133
>I've literally never saw AI as any kind of threat
we agree on this but i feel that we come from different sides. i dont think its a treat because you can easily incorporate it into anything, but unless im mistaken you probably dont feel the same

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:18:07 2023 No.6971141 >>6971132 every line is obviously intentional. I don't care if the guy championing AI refuses to believe it. Nothing there was placed accidentally by a robot that has no clue what the fuck the pixels it's piecing together are supposed to convey.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:20:23 2023 No.6971144 >>6971139 it's not a threat because art is uniquely human and impossible for a machine to create by the very definition of art. Ai is a toy for simple minded retards to make pretty pictures with no meaning or value.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:20:46 2023 No.6971145 >>6971144 oooh youre on some dogma shit, nvrmind

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:21:17 2023 No.6971146

>>6971133
Idk anon, I'm not exactly bad at this art thing, and some of this AI shit is pretty convincing at the hackier styles backed up by large datasets
>I've literally never saw AI as any kind of threat, and it absolutely is hilarious to me that you retards keep pretending it is.
We're in agreement there then. It's more of a toy and asset machine than art maker. Your views are not all that close to the median consensus though, a lot of people (including artists) are pretty spooked
>>6971141
>I don't care if the guy championing AI refuses to believe it.
luh-mao
Why do you negroes always have to talk about these things in such black and white terms

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:22:01 2023 No.6971147 >>6971101 >>6971111 I just love how you shifted the goalposts as soon as he destroyed you. Never change AI sisters.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:23:02 2023 No.6971148 >>6971147 I'm a realist, not an AIfag. You're deluded if you think, simple as. I don't respect bad AI art and I don't respect bad art from hacks (of the human variety). It's all slop to me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:23:46 2023 No.6971149 File: 1.17 MB, 720x960, 1610397640516.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6971148 deluded if you think there's an important difference*

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:24:00 2023 No.6971150 >guy bets he can get 100% of blind tests right >post 2 blind tests >anons get them 100% right >w-w-well uhh... 2 more weeks! You cheated!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:24:44 2023 No.6971152 qhen did the iq of /ic/ get so low

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:26:50 2023 No.6971156 >>6971152 Not that I disagree it's dropping, but evidence of low iq itt? unless you mean the AI tourists?

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:28:00 2023 No.6971157

>>6971150
Did he even get the 3x3 right? That one wasn't mine. Objectively speaking, these AI mimics of generic styles will pass the smell test for 99% of observers. And you should be shitting yourself if you draw in said style. Anything else is autism and cope.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:29:50 2023 No.6971160 >>6971156 you share the blame, holy shit.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:31:48 2023 No.6971163

>>6971157
99% of observers aren't discerning at all and will do exactly nothing for me in my artistic endeavors. If someone scrolling through instagram liking random pretty pictures likes one generated by AI after liking one of mine, why would I care? How does that affect me in any way?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:32:43 2023 No.6971164 >>6971160 >no you I see. Fuck off, tourist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:33:34 2023 No.6971167 >>6971163 I'm extremely fucking discerning and I can't tell AIsloppa 100% of the time, when it's done"well." Maybe 80% of the time. It's all shitty garbage to me!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:33:41 2023 No.6971168 >>6971164 i will type this out more explicitly so you can understand me. you and the anon you're arguing with are both the problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:35:45 2023 No.6971169 >>6971168 Why don't you share your precious view, oh Enlightened One? You're not gonna roll around nude in the muck and shit with us while covering your anus, are you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:35:57 2023 No.6971170 >>6971168 I'm not arguing with anyone... just you. I am very smart.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:37:04 2023 No.6971171 >>6971167 >I'm extremely fucking discerning and I can't tell AIsloppa 100% of the time Simply a skill issue.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:37:40 2023 No.6971172 >>6971133 >>6971146

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:38:57 2023 No.6971173 >>6971138 Ah, well don't worry about it too much not everybody has an eye for those sorts of things.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:40:39 2023 No.6971174
File: 281 KB, 896x1344, 1697734525570668.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6971171
What's obviously AI about this? I think the tripfag posted it a while back, I saved it because it's kinda nice as generic anime girl art goes. Any rube can clock the cheap looking pseudo cell shaded trash, but be honest with me, what so obviously marks this as stinky AI, rather than typical renderfag twittershit art?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:41:48 2023 No.6971177 >>6970825 No matter how good you think you are at recognizing it, you're not. The only thing you can recognize is a bad generation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:44:38 2023 No.6971181 >>6971174 are you serious?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:45:31 2023 No.6971182 >>6971181 >non-answer concessionmente acceptado

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:47:27 2023 No.6971185 >>6971174 color and lines melt into each other, very noticeable around the bangs, which are super ugly/sloppy compared to other aspects of the image

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:51:44 2023 No.6971188
File: 1.64 MB, 1440x2105, Screenshot_20231208_234931.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6971182
I was asking if you were genuinely serious or not. It's completely littered with obvious ai artifacts throughout the entire image if you can manage to look past the
>super 4k ultra HD amazing rendering!!!!!! Look at the DETAIL!!!! OMG SO IMPRESSIVE!

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:54:30 2023 No.6971193

>>6971185
Ok, but anon, you're nitpicking. It's god of the gaps...you're losing ground here, fast. If you have to hire a specialist to hold up a counterfeit dollar up to a $1000 blacklight to determine if it's a fake, it's a really fucking good counterfeit, it might as well be legal tender at that point.
You need an HD sample to even perceive some of the flaws you're pointing out. Moreover, human artists make more similar kinds of mistakes than you let on.
>>6971188
>lemme just draw huge red circles over the image so I can't be wrong
>also let's nitpick the shitty background no one's paying attention to
What are you even circling around the eyes? There's NOTHING wrong there

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:55:15 2023 No.6971194 >>6971193 >you're nitpicking Fuck off. You fucking asked you retard.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 06:59:48 2023 No.6971199
File: 119 KB, 650x650, 1637879066489.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6971194
Uh, because you are?? Jesus. Why do you AI antis pretend it isn't *basically* good at imitating "aggregate" styles, yet you're also clearly frightened of it. Does a lion fear a field mouse?
The fact is, no one is looking at the background wall paneling in the doe-eyed shark loli picture, you chimp

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:00:16 2023 No.6971201 File: 439 KB, 1231x879, Notaireally.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >tch, like you can even TELL it's ai, you're just nitpicking.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:02:15 2023 No.6971204 >he has to post la abominacion to argue his point and other men of straw! tonight on /ic/!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:02:25 2023 No.6971205 >>6971136 this is ai btw

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:02:27 2023 No.6971206 >>6971199 >bro ugh just STOP LOOKING AT DETAIL. that's fucking cheating idiot just look at the impressive amount of detail, hit like and follow, and keep scrolling!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:05:27 2023 No.6971210 >>6971199 >The fact is, no one is looking at the background wall paneling in the doe-eyed shark loli picture, you chimp not me, I pointed out the bangs which were immediately apparent to me withing a fraction of a second of looking at the image.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:05:36 2023 No.6971211

>>6971193
>lemme just draw huge red circles over the image so I can't be wrong
Hair is a random mess of spaghetti
Nothing in the background makes any sense at all
There are random details all throughout the clothing that are just things that would probably be on a jacket, but make no fucking sense on that jacket. Zipper that goes for 2 inches then turns into buttons and ends as a zipper again, straps and seams where the fuck ever, colors and lines melting together everywhere, incoherent non-letters, fucked hands, wobbly ugly eyes that don't match the rest of the image, blank noiseless anime face with hyper detailed clothes
I could point out flaws in this for hours probably.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:09:23 2023 No.6971218 >>6971136 >>6971205 holly herndon. look her up. one of the best.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:10:37 2023 No.6971221

>>6971211
>I could point out flaws in this for hours probably.
Which would be pointless
Because, bottom line, it convinces
You're not depicting "the thing" when you draw, you're depicting an abstraction of the thing. Buttons zippers zilches, who cares? It looks like a jean jacket, it feels like one, that's all that matters for all intents and purposes
The simple fact that you have to pick out flaws, and nothing is fundamentally fucked anymore, is a tacit admission of defeat, of coy gaping of the anal cavity, in preparation for big cold hard robot cock. /ic/ picks out flaws in Ruan Jia's work too, who cares

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:14:26 2023 No.6971225 >>6971221 It convinces who of what? https://youtu.be/5sNvD8ePFHs?si=JOKDbEEJtZuiU5Ns this video never stops being accurate it seems.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:16:00 2023 No.6971227 File: 46 KB, 268x320, 1647666752940.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6971225 >unfunny youtube tiktok skit faggot I always knew you was bad people, anon

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:18:08 2023 No.6971232

>>6971221
>who cares if this looks like shit, like and follow, then keep scrolling.
weird that the guy who is "very discerning" and couldn't find ANYTHING wrong with that image is now admitting that there are hundreds of flaws that make it obvious, but you should just not care about them.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:22:52 2023 No.6971240

>>6971232
>What's obviously AI about this?
>obviously
I was looking for good faith criticism of major, immediately noticeable anatomic flaws, stylistic inconsistencies, or general badness that compromises the fundamental image quality. Stuff on the level of The Accursed One here >>6971201
Not funnily rendered clothing folds
It simply isn't making major mistakes as much these days, in "competent" hands at least
So the mental gymnasts have resorted to, "uh-um that metal sheet in the background...i-it's a bit warped, h-heh heh..."

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:28:14 2023 No.6971251

>>6971240
Nothing I pointed out isn't obvious. You're a blind retard and there's no reason to continue responding to you. Your shit looks like incoherent slop and always will.
Go ahead and pretend this is a win for ai though so you can try to prompt a tallymark and maybe get it after 7000 generations.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:33:58 2023 No.6971261
File: 1 KB, 205x330, 1693764932674327.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6971251
I'm just a really honest person, and open minded. I don't necessarily like AI art, but if it ever imitated my art almost perfectly, I would just say so, rather than wish it weren't so with all my might while denigrating it for few ways in which it isn't quite perfect. I don't see any egregious problems in the shark loli gen, it even looks better than a lot of human art in a similar style. Mullins agrees with me, idk maybe he's a blind retard too

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:36:37 2023 No.6971268 >>6971261 i'm sorry you have faulty vision anon. the hair strand trying to fuse into the collar is a dead give away though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:37:33 2023 No.6971270 >>6971268 >lost edges bad ywnbaa

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:40:04 2023 No.6971275 >>6971270 Blind retard that you are, that strand is stretching to become one with the collar, ywnb2020. The collar also looks like shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:43:35 2023 No.6971281 >>6971275 I am become one with the collar...

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:51:35 2023 No.6971290
File: 47 KB, 1024x1024, c8c25d1f.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Pointless discussion anyway, we can all agree the tek has improved a lot in the last year and there's no reason to think it'll stop now. Also it depends a lot on the type of image, certain styles are much harder to discern, like picrel for example is AI but I wouldn't say it's obvious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:53:35 2023 No.6971292 File: 2.30 MB, 1080x1350, dg62x0p-5d01aa65-7306-4b2d-846f-4363a6f24c9e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ngl some of these are getting scarily close but I haven't been tricked yet

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 07:54:40 2023 No.6971295 >>6971292 >I haven't been tricked yet Like...how would you know?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 08:00:57 2023 No.6971299 >>6971295 did some of the tests in the thread as well as my own by looking through DA explore page which has a good mix of real vs ai art

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 08:02:34 2023 No.6971304
File: 63 KB, 450x675, 00546-947622898-1girl,rainbow,raincoat,yellow raincoat,rubber boots,hydrangea,flower,long hair,twintails,boots,blush,umbrella,open mouth,hair or.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6970825
I am prompter too, I can't understand why this art style is so over generated, I normally only generate cute art style that looks like real art

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 08:03:22 2023 No.6971305 File: 111 KB, 1024x1024, 1702106077107348.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6971299 The problem is if it does "trick" you, you wouldn't know.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 08:04:34 2023 No.6971307 >>6971305 well ai proopters will be very quick to let me know if I ever fall for it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 08:06:57 2023 No.6971309 >>6971188 >artists before AI: we are artists, not biologist, not engineer, not architect, etc... >artists after AI: ARRRGG LOOK AT THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE LOOK AT THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 08:07:14 2023 No.6971310 File: 874 KB, 1080x1350, 29a5acb4bdf4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6971307 Sure, doesn't matter anyway just thought it was worth pointing out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 08:21:02 2023 No.6971321 File: 397 KB, 476x842, faceexpressionangry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6971309 but those artifacts are ugly though

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 12:37:43 2023 No.6971429 >>6971309 If you made ant of those mistakes as a human people would call it out too.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 12:47:35 2023 No.6971433

>>6970967
Yea, but that's kind of the point. At the end of the day, as much as people might want to rave or rage about it, AI image generators are just a tool. They can make an image for you, but they can't make you get taste, and most people's taste is utterly basic, so the majority of what comes out is kitsch. No tool can make up for that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 13:17:27 2023 No.6971461 >>6971227 > t. seething AI fag

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 13:26:51 2023 No.6971466
File: 1020 KB, 1479x1069, 154546656.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6970867
Capeshit and school shooter simulators aren't really a good example of "art".
Capeslop has already a fanbase of manchildren and children eat this shit up anyway, so you have a huge consumer base ready to take it off your hands.
Call of Dooty games are just the Fifa of shooters and everyone is going to get the yearly installment because; it's new thing but with slightly different flavor.
And the product fatigue is slowly setting in the more lazy and greedy they get that they start cutting costs and corners.

Where do illustrations fall on? What's the point in churning them out mindlessly with image generation if the end result cannot even be considered your work anymore and pictures have no actual use besides being looked at?
Especially now that most "artists" are aware of this technology and when stealing works has already been a common practice since the commercialization of art?

As a art consumer, what is there to appreciate?
>"Oh but muh breddy picdur!! normies love preddy pic!!"
Wowing the mindless masses isn't a long term strategy, not as an artist nor as a business. Same as with the porn.
ESPECIALLY given that everyone will have AI image generation in the next couple years even on their shitty phones i,e, Gemini.
You're either grifting as long as the getting is good, or you're not very smart if you start using this technology to willingly replace your work because
>"it's a drag and you just need your brand so you can game the social media landscape"
If you're willing to throw away your own integrity, for faster and cheaper production, don't expect others to respect that or give you money, especially companies.

These threads are r*dditors trying to epic troll anyway, so why did i even bother posting? Because i am as a real nigger as it gets.
>>6971309
(you) are
very epic fellow 4channer
you had me seething almost
crying even
ur so witty

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 13:32:59 2023 No.6971471 >>6970867 And people are getting sick of them. Anybody else remember when they churned out so Guitar Hero titles not even the most s.o.y. addled consoomer wants to them.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 13:36:27 2023 No.6971474

Artists are people that kept going even with all difficulties for years a d years.

Grifters give up because there is no passion on it.

"Artistic" AI will meet the same fate of crypto and NFTs, the same passionless idiots pushing for it that will drop it instantly when a new shinier thing arrives promising more profits, I worry about the stuff that will come next not this.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 13:41:39 2023 No.6971486

>>6971466
I'm not the guys you're responding to.
>What's the point in churning them out mindlessly with image generation if the end result cannot even be considered your work anymore and pictures have no actual use besides being looked at?
The point is to produce an image for a commercial purpose. If neither of the sides sees the pursuit as art but simply as a way to exchange a service for money, there's no point for the illustrator to invest time and effort into the job. Would you really strive to put a piece of yourself into something that is meant to be an utterly forgettable decoration meant to sell a product?
>As a art consumer, what is there to appreciate?
The things you're speaking of were never meant to have artistic value to begin with, so the question is kind of silly. If you're just asking in general, you can appreciate someone's curatorial selectivity in which images they generated. Yeah, it's not the same as appreciating someone's handiwork in an image they painted manually, that's the case with every medium that differs.
>Wowing the mindless masses isn't a long term strategy, not as an artist nor as a business. Same as with the porn.
Porn has been lucrative since its inception, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
>ESPECIALLY given that everyone will have AI image generation in the next couple years even on their shitty phones i,e, Gemini.
Yea, as the technology changes, people's expectations will change to match. When people can just generate images at will, you'll have to show a skill that goes beyond just being able to make an appealing image.
>If you're willing to throw away your own integrity, for faster and cheaper production, don't expect others to respect that or give you money, especially companies.
Companies operate on the basis of maximizing profit, they don't care about such fluff as "artistic integrity", or else they wouldn't have Johnny Cash sing an ad for ATMs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 13:53:39 2023 No.6971495 >>6970829 i can scroll through a folder of hundreds of images as fast i can and instantly see the ai art within 0.02 seconds the same way white girls recognize and slide past ranjeets on tinder.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 14:10:25 2023 No.6971506

The problem with AI art isn't technology, it's simple really, we shouldn't accept it, that's all.

It's misappropriation of everyone's property and works to enrich just a few powerful companies, using technology as a cover, it uses work of artists to short artists in their own business.

Big tech got a pass on many things they did in the past, but these pyramid schemes are not going to be one of them.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 14:16:06 2023 No.6971511

>>6971471
No, they're not, your feelings are not facts, the artist images are paying bills because people in fact do want to see it, Marvel films are still being made because people pay to see them etc.

You can be contrarian all day but things don't stop being successful just because you don't like them including AI

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 14:17:31 2023 No.6971514
File: 1.95 MB, 2560x1440, 00032-1918519509.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If AI art is stealing from human artists, could any artists tell me the origin of this outfit? It looks really good, the design is human tier, I'd genuinely like to know

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 14:21:10 2023 No.6971519 Imagine wasting time and effort on a thing that could disappear overnight with regulation.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 14:21:32 2023 No.6971520

>>6971506
>It's misappropriation of everyone's property and works to enrich just a few powerful companies, using technology as a cover, it uses work of artists to short artists in their own business.
I don't get this, how is tech that almost everyone is using for free enriching anyone? Companies who use AI in place of artists never really cared about artists and would just be hiring third worlders if they didn't have this. Or are you talking about something else?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 14:29:38 2023 No.6971523 >>6971520 > I don't get it I am so sorry you are dumb anon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 14:38:02 2023 No.6971535 >>6970825 why did you fucking make this thread? don't answer, we know why >ai art >art

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 14:44:08 2023 No.6971541 >>6970842 >don't forget to credit lmfao

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 14:52:40 2023 No.6971549 >>6971541 What are you talking about anon, that is my art, it belongs to me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 14:59:00 2023 No.6971553 >>6971139 t.tripfag

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 15:01:21 2023 No.6971557 >>6971523 >I am so sorry you are dumb anon. No, it's me who's sorry that I replied in earnest to your dumb trolling, I shouldn't have expected someone who speaks in vague catchphrases to have an actual argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 15:15:10 2023 No.6971561 >>6971304 AI is so good it knows you have an iron grip loli fetish.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 15:18:09 2023 No.6971563 >>6971148 >You're deluded if you think, simple as. I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to your life philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 15:23:21 2023 No.6971571 >>6971549 um, sweaty, it's OUR art

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 15:43:35 2023 No.6971593 >>6970829 normies cant. anyone who doesnt mindlessly scroll can.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 15:47:10 2023 No.6971596

>>6970825
a.i. have models they base their style on and many people use them. You see it everywhere making it easy to point out. the rarer ones tho, still have some tells that its a.i. usually being hyper rendered and the uploader pumping them out daily.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 16:01:56 2023 No.6971608 >>6971309 >artists before AI: we are artists, not biologist, not engineer, not architect, etc... what the fuck are you talking about?

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 16:09:28 2023 No.6971616

>>6970829
Like how do you know if they just don't care or can't recognize it?
There is a lot of midi piano music on youtube with over 1 million views, would pianists think they can't differentiate between midi and real piano sounds? ironically speaking I met one pianist trying to explain how midi sounds different from a real piano, so fucking braindead

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 16:17:08 2023 No.6971619 >music = drawing kek, ai niglets are truly braindead.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 16:23:31 2023 No.6971626 >>6971619 I know you can do better than this childish refutation

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 16:50:01 2023 No.6971650 >>6971616 you speak like an esl and I don't entirely understand the point you're attempting to make.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 16:58:29 2023 No.6971653

>>6970825
>Why is AI art always immediately recognizable as AI art?
A big tell for me, aside from the common pin-up subjects, is the lighting and color use. There's a certain way AI does lighting that is distinct to it. It's even more recognizable at times than the fingers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 17:00:53 2023 No.6971655 >>6971049 It's not, but I do not blame you for thinking it is. Gacha is garbage on multiple levels.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 17:10:41 2023 No.6971663 >>6971653 whats distinct about ai lighting

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 17:15:15 2023 No.6971669 >>6971663 it's nonsensical.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 17:51:32 2023 No.6971698 File: 158 KB, 1024x1024, 02077b564ae8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6971669 Depends on the complexity of the image, sometimes it's very masterful.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 17:57:06 2023 No.6971701 >>6971698 no it's not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 18:08:48 2023 No.6971708 File: 1.55 MB, 1536x1536, dbf09e0d4af2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6971701 Looks good to me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 18:14:53 2023 No.6971715 >>6971557 What part of misappropriation of third party property for exploitation and profit is too hard for you to understand? Do you think that just because StabilityAI distributes models for free they are not earning money with investors?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 18:32:07 2023 No.6971731 >>6970852 But enough about Artstation

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 18:36:55 2023 No.6971739 >>6971715 >misappropriation lol, lmao even

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 18:39:28 2023 No.6971740 >>6970825 >Why is human art always immediately recognizable as human art? because there's just a single shared culture: you're not special

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 18:44:00 2023 No.6971742
File: 36 KB, 425x509, 15646.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6971486
>The point is to produce an image for a commercial purpose
This isn't a point of effort but what is the point of even hiring an artist in the first place since everyone will have access to custom image generators?
The marketing guy that needed to outsource some work to a graphic designer can now just do all the work himself. But this isn't about it.
>If you're just asking in general, you can appreciate someone's curatorial selectivity in which images they generated.
Why should i bother if i can have custom generated pictures and anyone can do the same thing with the push of a button? There is nothing to appreciate, you've just turned it into mindless consumption of
>"wow look at the pretty picture nr 1654654"

>I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Coomers crave novelty. You can only do the same girl with big tits standing in some bg for the 100th time before they get bored with it and move on to greener pastures. Apply the fact that there are always 1000s of such generated pictures, and you get bored of it very fast.
>you'll have to show a skill
So, what was my point? The premise of image generation is that they can now all just insert their own works and let the machine print infinite content with their trademarks on it.
This is all wishful thinking, chief.
>Companies operate on the basis of maximizing profit, they don't care about such fluff as "artistic integrity"
Yes? I was talking about artists, not companies.
Companies are going to always choose the cheaper alternative even if it's qualitatively lower as long as it gets results.

The major issue with this is that "creation" is being "contentisized" and "streamlined", as in, you can now "create" while consuming personalized content as easy as pressing a button and by doing that you are creating a bunch of people who do not understand how things work but just want to consume and pretend they "create" because they make the pretty pictures and slap their brandname on it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 18:55:15 2023 No.6971755 >>6971739 someone taking something that belongs to you without your permission is stealing. Companies doing that to monetize your shit without your consent is called wrongful exploitation, not covered by Fair Use.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 18:56:31 2023 No.6971757 >>6971755 Sue them then, see how that goes lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 19:00:56 2023 No.6971762 >>6971755 I know right? >>>6939630

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 19:07:15 2023 No.6971770 >>6971762 two wrongs don't make a right. but you bumping this useless thread makes you a fag.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 19:10:38 2023 No.6971772

>>6971762
That's piracy, we're ok with it when used to advance the craft or art, not to short it, piracy to make people enjoy making art is a great thing, making people enjoy putting effort in the craft is a great thing

AIniggers will never be welcome, just skip to the next grift, door's closed kiddo.

It will never be accepted.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 19:15:45 2023 No.6971780 >>6971708 >to me that doesn't mean much.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 19:17:43 2023 No.6971782

>>6971757
> forced to delete and outlaw all current models
> forced to delete all databases
> forced to license and take permission for all data on commercial models
> forced to identify all AI outputs with a watermark or label
> billions in damages paid to rightsowners
> Sites and social media forced to identify AI generation

Napster already happened, all rulings were already made in the past.

In three years StabilityAI or midjourney won't even exist anymore, Dall-E won't generate any copyrighted content, online training will be restricted and social media will be forced to filter AI, it will only exist alongside circles of losers and grifters like monkey nfts and gryftofags.

Here is your revolutionary future faglord.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 19:18:13 2023 No.6971783

>>6971762
no one is arguing that pirating software isn't stealing. so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.
the difference being one is stealing from megajew corporations, and the other is stealing from joe everyman the hobbyist artist.
stealing is stealing, but there's a point to be made that stealing from megaevilcorp is more morally sound than from an independent artist struggling enough as it is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 19:20:43 2023 No.6971786 >>6970862 stupid AI, mix grand blue fantasy with nier automata 2B whit djeeta

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 19:28:44 2023 No.6971793

>>6971782
Politicians and govniggers won't commit the same mistake twice.

Nobody will risk an internet rampant with deepfakes and scams so that the richest motherfuckers can be even richer.

AI made too many powerful enemies and I bet they will use this opportunity to regulate big tech in a way they didn't have the chance with Social Media, specially that one of the main arguments of the faggots is that "we bet too much on unregulated AI, please don't make us pay, muh investors"

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 19:36:51 2023 No.6971799 >>6971793 AIfags will permanently ruin the internet for everyone, it will be aggressively restricted but it also will restrict all the non-ai part of the internet alongside it.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 19:42:11 2023 No.6971808

>>6971715
>Do you think that just because StabilityAI distributes models for free they are not earning money with investors?
I'm sure they get investor money, it's just that your original phrasing made it sound like they get money from the usage of the tech, as opposed to corporations taking a wager that they can use the tech in the future. If you'd just said that you mean they use the current model as tech demo to gain investor money it would have been clear.

>>6971742
>This isn't a point of effort but what is the point of even hiring an artist in the first place since everyone will have access to custom image generators?
>The marketing guy that needed to outsource some work to a graphic designer can now just do all the work himself.
But you could say the same about any menial task that was automated. The production of throwaway graphics is likely heading the same way.
>>If you're just asking in general, you can appreciate someone's curatorial selectivity in which images they generated.
>Why should i bother if i can have custom generated pictures and anyone can do the same thing with the push of a button? There is nothing to appreciate, you've just turned it into mindless consumption of
>>"wow look at the pretty picture nr 1654654"
Why should you bother to appreciate any photograph if practically everyone nowadays has a camera? Why appreciate someone buying you a burger if you can buy it yourself? Human-produced artwork is just as mindlessly-consumed, whether it's faster or not to generate doesn't change that. Some photographs can have deep artistic value, even if they took no more to set up than a fashion shoot, but if the viewer does not wish to see the difference, no photographer can change that. Same with every other visual artwork.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 19:43:18 2023 No.6971810

>>6971742
>Coomers crave novelty. You can only do the same girl with big tits standing in some bg for the 100th time before they get bored with it and move on to greener pastures. Apply the fact that there are always 1000s of such generated pictures, and you get bored of it very fast.
I'm not so sure. Coomers, like most consumers, crave repetition masked just enough for it to not be very apparent. Take for example fast food, a booming industry made on the foundation of food that tastes mostly identical, with minor changes or "seasonal" meals. In case of NSFW imagery, take a look at, for example, 3D animations made before AI image gens - most of them were identical in essence, but just switched out camera angles, models and lighting/background. The same set of sex poses and movements remained, but coomers ate it up because it was just sufficiently different (slightly different model, different lighting, slightly different motions) that it didn't bother them.
>>you'll have to show a skill
>So, what was my point? The premise of image generation is that they can now all just insert their own works and let the machine print infinite content with their trademarks on it.
>This is all wishful thinking, chief.
It's no more wishful than saying photographers don't have to show skill when selecting which photos to take and publish. The machines they have can just spit infinite content. My point was that the skill of manually producing the entirety of the image will not be valued highly by those who just want the image and don't care about the artistic content because it will be something that has been automated. For those who care about the artistic content the question will become instead about what use did the person put the image generator to. (if they used one)

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 19:44:13 2023 No.6971811 >>6971782 lol, lmao even

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 19:44:37 2023 No.6971812

>>6971742
>Companies are going to always choose the cheaper alternative even if it's qualitatively lower as long as it gets results.

>The major issue with this is that "creation" is being "contentisized" and "streamlined", as in, you can now "create" while consuming personalized content as easy as pressing a button and by doing that you are creating a bunch of people who do not understand how things work but just want to consume and pretend they "create" because they make the pretty pictures and slap their brandname on it.
Yes, I agree. Visual literacy is extremely low among the common public, which leads to lack of engagement and appreciation for visual media beyond the basic visual stimulation it provides. This was already an ongoing issue, with popular media recycling the same stereotypes over and over. What AI does as technology is more or less what photography did when it became widespread: significantly lower the barrier of entry for making images and thus made most of the produced images of very low quality. The streamlining of spread of photographs made it so that the world was flooded with cliched photographs - the same is now with digital images. This is obviously an issue for any visual culture, but the negative influence is neither restricted to AI, nor a necessary component of it. AI just makes it easier to see how much people crave those cliches.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 20:00:01 2023 No.6971838

>>6971811
> AIact passed on EU says respect for copyright is enforced
> AIEO giving enforcement powers to FTC and USCO
> FTC saying they will crackdown on unfair AI competition practices
> US Copyright Office siding with creators

It's dead jim.

They didn't regulate social media fast enough, they didn't regulate crypto fast enough before it burnt to ashes, considering it fucks with holywood and label jews they won't let big tech have a pass this time around.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 20:07:58 2023 No.6971850 >>6971708 >three fingers >looks good aisirs...

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 20:13:33 2023 No.6971854 >>6971838 lol, bait used to be believe you know.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 20:40:48 2023 No.6971876 >>6971854 > still believes in the unregulated AI cope Noooo muh inovashion, you can't ban math ack-

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 20:57:51 2023 No.6971892 >>6971876 >regulation = everything will be deleted pretty funny I must admit

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 21:01:52 2023 No.6971896 Meanwhile, in the real world https://twitter.com/solappii/status/1721838851780493333

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 21:20:10 2023 No.6971915

>>6971896
I don't think AI is affecting this particular artist. her audience and AI users don't overlap much in a venn diagram. and she is tweeting about AI more than drawing lately... ok, maybe it is affecting her, but not for the reason she thinks. Who wants to commission a doomer/complainer?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 21:22:07 2023 No.6971918 File: 28 KB, 742x172, Screenshot 2023-12-10 102124.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6971915 >commission me! >you might not get anything for 6 months, but give me money!

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 21:35:45 2023 No.6971929
File: 466 KB, 900x1180, 9de399b076a4013c2c3b005056a9545d.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Memorizing is the ability to brainlessly copying material it was trained on.
Generalizing is successfully creating new material it was not trained on.
Hallucinating is incorrectly creating material it was not trained on

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 21:39:54 2023 No.6971938 >>6971786 That was from 4 years ago.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 21:41:08 2023 No.6971941 >>6971731 Artstation is overrun with proomptshit, what's your point?

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 22:01:01 2023 No.6971962

>>6971892
Ahaha surely no government agencies ever forcibly ordered the deletion of data taken without permission, surely no company was ever forced to delete their database for abusing data scrapping methods without the consent of the owners ahaha.

Imagine thinking Algorithmic Disgorgement is a thing.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 22:04:17 2023 No.6971968
File: 265 KB, 1206x1653, 1662313986190963.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6971808
>>6971810
>why appreciate xyz
Because with photography, you still need a real scenery to photograph.
>but real work is just as mindlessly consumed
That's not the issue, it will still have innate value because it was made.
AI generated pictures will not be worth anything, because they can just be endlessly reproduced thus they are inorganic at their core.

If you presented me with a generated beautiful colorful scenery, sure, it will "appeal" to the lowest common denominator, but that is it. It will hold no value except for the initial reaction and that is what everyone will dilute "art" to; >"Just consume the pretty pictures and then get excited by next pretty picture"

When something can be done without limits, it loses all its value.
It's like money; what happens when you have too much money in circulation? Inflation, thus lowering the value of the currency.

Anyone believing they will somehow and magically be le epic artiste with AI and be faster and not do the grunt work anymore, doesn't realize that the grunt work is what made them artists in the first place.
>3D animators
They still need to actually animate and do the work even if they had models and rigs already and the end result does show the actual skill of the animator. The 3D program doesn't automatically generate models, animations and correct framing with the press of a button from multiple povs.
And if it did, no 3D animator should have the right to put their name on it, nor do they actually have the legal right to claim that as their own work.
You legally cannot own/trademark/copyright any picture you generate with AI, because you OBJECTIVELY didn't do shit.
This is not an argument on muh ai steal art btw
>>6971812
AI will just make it worse, as if it wasn't bad already.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 22:04:46 2023 No.6971969 >>6971962 Two more weeks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 22:14:20 2023 No.6971973 >>6971962 Your misunderstanding of the situation is genuinly very amusing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 22:16:41 2023 No.6971976 >>6971918 That's pretty normal desu

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 22:20:54 2023 No.6971981 >>6971976 >the new normal

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 22:22:43 2023 No.6971983 >>6971969 > you should allow me to brek the laws because... becuase I will earn a lot of money, and I will lose money if current laws are applied to me Thats how these companies sound

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 22:29:06 2023 No.6971992 sometimes it's not, a lot of people have been fooled, sadly. It's depressing

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 22:55:45 2023 No.6972028

>>6971969
I unironicaly believe Sam Altman will be in jail in less than two years.

Also, AI can very easily be used against itself,

It will be very easy to make normies hate AI, media is already pissed, the NYT is livid that AI companies are scrapping their articles without paying, Holywood actors and musicians hate it, all the high profile influencers are against it, all you will need is one high profile case of deepfaking involving some normal child or the family of congress members to make normies go crazy with the propaganda machine advocating against it.

One high profile case of deepfaking (it WILL happen) and techfaggots will be holocausted by regulations.

also, its extremely easy to appropriate woke leftspeak and say AI is dangerous because it can create "propaganda that unfairly targets the disavantaged and people of color" you can say that hate speech with AI needs to be stopped and not a single dumb boomer or virtue signaling leftie idiot will disagree.

Nobody misses crypto, nobody misses NFTs, nobody will miss AI shit, AI will be the last "go fast break things" tech grift attempted by SV, there won't be a new one once everyone is on their necks after it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 22:58:39 2023 No.6972032 >>6971983 >>6972028 A whole lot of cope.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 23:00:34 2023 No.6972035 >>6971981 >new lol lmao

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 23:03:45 2023 No.6972040 >>6972032 Just fo for the next grift bro. I heard Apple will launch Apple Vision Pro next year, you won't want to be left behind, adapt or die.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 23:16:24 2023 No.6972049 >>6970825 because it has tons of retarded mistakes that make no sense for a human to make

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 23:20:19 2023 No.6972053 >>6972049 yeah but who cares bro just ignore the mistakes and look at the big picture man ignore shitty slop and just enjoy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 9 23:22:52 2023 No.6972058 >>6972035 >lol >lmao lol lmao rofl ("the new normal" is a meme, for the slow folks in chat)

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 23:29:40 2023 No.6972066

>>6972028
big corpo wants that to happen. it's just the first step of regulatory capture.
they've seen the power of open source ai so now they want to clamp down on it and keep it to themselves to profit off of it. none of that shit matters if the technology is only used by big corporations.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 23:41:23 2023 No.6972081

>>6972066
I don't think big corpo will be successful with AI, they didn't have the same ammount of people against their shit when social media or amazon was built, they are in the aim now.

The whole thing seems to be built on a house of cards, did you see OpenAIs copyright shield? It seems like a fucking joke at this point.

It seems that they simply want to cash as much as possible before it all crumbles down, the legality of the whole thing is not sound, its not even a pyramid scheme at this point, seems more like a race to cash on investoe hype and then pretend none of it happened.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 23:48:32 2023 No.6972088

>>6972081
corpos literally do not care if it's legally unsound unless they start making less profit because of it. legal fees still have to overcome the massive amount of investment and potential profit that they might see out of ai. there needs to be some pretty strong precedents set before corpos just decide to drop ai altogether.
>The whole thing seems to be built on a house of cards
welcome to the corporate world. wait until you realize that most of the money going around isn't even real.

Anonymous Sat Dec 9 23:59:23 2023 No.6972102
File: 60 KB, 512x512, still_life_watercolor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6970825
Everyone is gonna claim they can easily identify all AI art, but basically every test I've seen that was posted that selected good AI images has shown people overwhelming failing to get anything meaningfully above guessing.

Just look in this thread, People are talking about how posted images are "clearly shitty AI" but then its revealed to be an old picture from a respected artist somewhere. You guys are clearly full of shit.

I guess you can always claim anything you want but being able to identify the bottom 80% of low hanging AI Art, doesn't mean you can "always tell"

Can you tell this is AI art? Are you gonna flip a coin?

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 00:02:16 2023 No.6972104

>>6972102
i'm pretty sure that if you guessed "AI" for literally everything in a "guess if ai or not ai" post, you would get more than a 50% guess rate.
it's the same fallacy as guessing if a particular brain scan has tumors or not. just because you guess negative all the time doesn't mean you're good at detecting brain tumors; it just means the dataset isn't normalized.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 00:05:17 2023 No.6972106

>>6972088
The issue is, what big tech wants is a hole in copyright so their AI systems can be trained on high quality data without paying, basically free riding the entertainment industries while they subside AI development, a wonderful, wonderful deal for tech but legally impossible.

A fictional business model that doesn't actually exists.

First, copyright is governed by international law, centenary international law, and its the basis for the creative industries all over the world, books, movies, games, art, illustrations, plays, you name it, it all depends on copyright.

This means millions, maybe hundreds of millions of people in these industries who pay taxes, fees, royalties and move trillions in the economy, not only in the US, worldwide.

The question is, is it worth to create a hole in the centuries old copyright foundation to benefit American big tech, and big tech ONLY? For a novelty that might get boring in months once the hype is gone and the money dries up?

These industries proved self sustainable over centuries, what about AI? Is it even profitable by itself when you factor energy costs, implementation, monetization schemes and licensing?

AI is not fucking profitable without siphoning the value out of copyrighted data, investors literally said they invested billions betting on a broad "fair use" practice for copyrighted works used in AI, this is the biggest red flag everyone seems to be ignoring.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 00:11:17 2023 No.6972111 >>6972106 I guess you also think fanart should be illegal too. In any case, AI isn't going anywhere.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 00:13:08 2023 No.6972113 >>6972111 Its illegal, what is your point? Can't you see the difference between fanart and the applicof fair use for individual cases on individuals using it, and the impossibility of claiming fair use to subside the substitution of a whole industry?

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 00:27:25 2023 No.6972130

>>6972106
>is it worth to create a hole in the centuries old copyright foundation
most of the world's copyright systems aren't sacred or infallible. copyright was abused by big corpo since its conception.
in any case, loopholes aren't going to "break" copyright. corporations attempt to pull off loopholes all the time. it's the reason there's so many lawsuits over copyright.
>big tech ONLY?
corpos like disney already create loopholes all the time, so there's no reason why big tech wouldn't try to get a slice of that pie.
>For a novelty might get boring in months once the hype is gone and the money dries up?
you keep describing AI as a novelty, but it doesn't really mean anything. ai is a fuckhuge industry that has legitimate footholds in the entire computing field. it will succeed or it will fail. ai as a whole won't suffer even if it does fail.
it also doesn't matter if something is boring or if something doesn't make money in the long future. corporations only care about money in the short term so they can appease investors. they rarely think about the actual long-long-term these days.
>AI is not fucking profitable without siphoning the value out of copyrighted data
corporations are rarely profitable without stealing somebody else's hard work. that's how it's always been. they'll use every legal loophole they can find if there's no solid precedent.
if it's not their own workers, it's the work of other corporations or individuals.
>investors literally said they invested billions betting on a broad "fair use" practice for copyrighted works used in AI
"investors" invest in the dumbest shit all the time. they're just wealthy gamblers with insider information and tax loopholes so they really shouldn't be factored into much of anything unless you're talking about the investors on one specific company.

the fact of the matter is, the legal system never even mattered to corporations in the first place. it's all a cost of business to them. everything else is just fluff.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 00:29:17 2023 No.6972132 >>6972102 >Can you tell this is AI art? yes

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 00:33:45 2023 No.6972138 >>6972132 Well it's not, congratz.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 00:51:46 2023 No.6972148

>>6972130
I think it would be a hella lot healthier for everyone if AI training gets legalized and if AI companies pay taxes everytime they license the data.

government gets their fucking taxes, rightsowners gets their royalities,Copyright is preserved, AI companies get their fucking training data legally without the risk for endless litigation, and creatives can be sure that IF they are willing to use AI on their works, they are not doing this on the expense of the whole industry they choose to operate on and get paid for it if they choose to sell their works to AI.

THAT would be the common sense path.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 00:55:50 2023 No.6972153 >>6972138 jokes on you I was only pretending but seriously the cropping does give it a sort of AI feel, composition and arrangement of objects seeming to lack intent is one of its main weaknesses

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 01:02:49 2023 No.6972158 >>6972153 Jokes on you again, I was also pretending and it is indeed AI.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 01:04:10 2023 No.6972159

>>6971968
>>why appreciate xyz
>Because with photography, you still need a real scenery to photograph.
How is that relevant? Even if we grant the "real scenery" claim, a lot of photographs aren't of that either. Experimental photography and photographs of dioramas either don't have any scenery or have fake scenery pretending to be real and they are appreciated still.
>That's not the issue, it will still have innate value because it was made.
>AI generated pictures will not be worth anything, because they can just be endlessly reproduced thus they are inorganic at their core.
But lots of artwork is endlessly reproduced too, particularly digital art, while also being inorganic to the core, and people value it. Similarly, there's hand-made artworks that aren't valued at all regardless of being man-made, from children's drawings to just bad, rejected commissions.
That aside, I don't argue that purely AI-made works would be valued - for the reasons you mention. I was talking about cases where the AI imagery is used to create something else entirely: digital collages, references for digital paintings and so on. What I'm saying here is that there's no reason to see only purely man-made images on one end and AI-generated images on the other. As much as I dislike the endless kitsch flowing from the available models, I think they can be put to better use by people with actual taste.
>If you presented me with a generated beautiful colorful scenery, sure, it will "appeal" to the lowest common denominator, but that is it. It will hold no value except for the initial reaction and that is what everyone will dilute "art" to; >"Just consume the pretty pictures and then get excited by next pretty picture"
Sure, but, omitting the issue of time spent, this kind of eye candy isn't fundamentally different than one made by human hands. AI simply makes it easier to create the kind of "pretty pictures" that is liked and scrolled past in less than two seconds.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 01:04:26 2023 No.6972160 >>6970846 nobody with a functioning brain who has actually tried it would be anti AI. for many reasons.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 01:05:12 2023 No.6972162

>>6971968
>Anyone believing they will somehow and magically be le epic artiste with AI and be faster and not do the grunt work anymore, doesn't realize that the grunt work is what made them artists in the first place.
I agree, but I don't think that the grunt work is in the painstaking rendering or flourishes or other "prettying up" of pictures. The fundamentals of composition, shape design, values, not to mention storytelling and taste or appeal cannot be reduced to just grind, they require a wider appreciation not just for art but other aspects of culture. What AI and social media does for people who are deluded on this point is convince them that all that matters is how pretty or sexy an image is.
>They still need to actually animate and do the work even if they had models and rigs already and the end result does show the actual skill of the animator. The 3D program doesn't automatically generate models, animations and correct framing with the press of a button from multiple povs.
No, but the point was that the modern software eliminates a ton of effort that previously had to be put into those things. 3D animators have at their disposal software that lets them replace what would previously be an entire team of hand animators. The reason we appreciate their work still, even though the computer might be taking on the burden of the heavy-lifting, is because we see something more in it than that painstaking work. The fact that they no longer have to slouch over a table with a backlight and flip back and forth through a bunch of paper isn't the important bit.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 01:06:20 2023 No.6972163

>>6971968
>And if it did, no 3D animator should have the right to put their name on it, nor do they actually have the legal right to claim that as their own work.
There has been no judgment on the legal right as far as I know. There was a ruling that rejected purely autonomous AI outputs as copyrightable. If the logic of the existing law was to be followed, so long as they made the machine to act according to their instructions, provided that the images aren't infringing on other artists' copyrights, they are legally theirs.
>You legally cannot own/trademark/copyright any picture you generate with AI, because you OBJECTIVELY didn't do shit.
But that's wrong. The way the copyright law works currently is that as long as there was an original idea by a humand, as well as human control over the work, the work is copyrightable.
>AI will just make it worse, as if it wasn't bad already.
Yes, I agree. Technology can be awful in the wrong hands.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 01:15:52 2023 No.6972168 File: 83 KB, 800x525, CAM_CCF_PD_18_1964-001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6972158 intriguing

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 01:21:16 2023 No.6972173

>>6972163
> so long as they made the machine to act according to their instructions, provided that the images aren't infringing on other artists' copyrights, they are legally theirs.
You can own the word prompts of an image the same way you can own sequential words in a book, but it has to be meaningful enough so you can actually apply to copyright it.

You can't own the generated imagery.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 01:29:34 2023 No.6972180 >>6972168 Well you get my point anyway.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 01:30:35 2023 No.6972182 >>6972173 Yes you can.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 01:31:07 2023 No.6972183
File: 129 KB, 1024x702, very dangerous person.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6972106
>>6972148
Very good and reasonable posts.
All the pro-AI arguments really never argue long-term and how it will negatively impact everything, nor do they offer a solution for both sides, they just say something about things that already happened or shallow justifications and the usual; adapt or die and fuck laws n shit.

Many might adapt the mindset of why bother creating for only getting it outright stolen by big corpo, which might also fuck them over in the long term.
>>6972159
>>6972162
>>6972163
>How is that relevant? Even if we grant the "real scenery" claim, a lot of photographs aren't of that either. Experimental photography and photographs of dioramas either don't have any scenery or have fake scenery pretending to be real and they are appreciated still.
We're talking artistic photography, not general photography, not the concept of photography.
What the actual fuck man?
>put to better use by people with actual taste.
Marginally, if even.
>AI simply makes it easier to create the kind..
That's the problem. The spam right now is already enough proof.
>provided that the images aren't infringing on other artists' copyrights
And how would you prove that with AI given that anything could be in its "training data"?
By default and due to the sheer massive size of training data, it is to be assumed that some copyrighted work might have been used in the creation of whatever generated image, unless it can be proven otherwise.
>The way the copyright law works currently is that as long as there was an original idea by a human, as well as human control over the work, the work is copyrightable.
Well, do you have actual control over the AI's system? also this >>6972173
Not to mention the work you want to copyright must be something that actually has a "function". You can't just come up with shit that is actually nothing and copyright it.
You can't also have intellectual property of anything ai generates, because you didn't do crap.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 01:32:42 2023 No.6972185

>>6972102
>Everyone is gonna claim they can easily identify all AI art, but basically every test I've seen that was posted that selected good AI images has shown people overwhelming failing to get anything meaningfully above guessing.
>bro trust me it's really hard, ignore that any time it's ever done here people get 100%.
>just look at this thread at this thing that didn't actually happen. AI is GOATed you're gonna be unemployed 2 more weeks

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 01:34:12 2023 No.6972188 >>6972182 if I proompt the same thing with the same seed I'll get the same result. AI is literally just retards trying to speedrun >you will own nothing and you will be happy

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 01:42:49 2023 No.6972192 >>6972188 There's a much higher chance you draw the same thing as someone else.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 01:49:33 2023 No.6972197

>>6972183
> All the pro-AI arguments really never argue long-term and how it will negatively impact everything, nor do they offer a solution for both sides, they just say something about things that already happened or shallow justifications and the usual; adapt or die and fuck laws n shit.
Yeah, but AI advocates want all of it for free, forever, for all of their uses, and they want to make money on all of it.

Shit man it takes five minutes to come to the conclusion why all of that is economically impossible, if anything if AI enthusisasts want to operate making images, music and videos, they will be subject to the exact same regulations, taxes, laws, fees, licensing, royalities and obligations as the entertainment industry, which they obviously don't want, because tech is magical or some shit like that.

Well fuck I too want to make money and don't pay taxes or anything, where do I sign in?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 01:54:51 2023 No.6972204 >>6972192 what a witty one liner anon u very smart you totally btfo his argument and pwned /ic/ and all artist that ever lived man, if only i could draw differently that my ref on purpose guess is not possible

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 01:56:54 2023 No.6972206 >>6970825 You passed the NPC test.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 01:59:10 2023 No.6972209

>>6971043
was it ever revealed which is which? My answers from left to right top to bottom:
real, AI, AI, real, mostly real, AI, real, mostly real, real

pretty sure middle and bottom middle are edited splash art from azure lane, and middle right is like asking if a jackson pollock is real or not.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:01:48 2023 No.6972211

>>6972197
>they want all for free and make money
Anon, they've been spamming this board for a year and they still don't get this.

AI worshippers really aren't smart and they are just desperately clutching to this because finally they will be someone and get all the attention and money and social validation like artists do.
Really, AI is just like giving a kid a gun; they think they have power, but will just shoot up all the classmates that ever said no to him.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:03:08 2023 No.6972214

>>6972192
statistics aren't relevant to the discussion. If I were to prompt the same thing with the same seed, I would generate a 1:1 pixel perfect image of what someone else generated.

so I repeat:
>AI is literally just retards trying to speedrun you will own nothing and you will be happy

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:03:09 2023 No.6972215 >>6972209 Yes, it is all AI but some of it is as tripman would say "ai-assisted" meaning part AI part digital drawing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:04:10 2023 No.6972218 >>6972214 You're a real dumb motherfucker aren't you, lol.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:06:37 2023 No.6972221

>>6972218
why are you avoiding making a counter argument?
true or false: If I were to prompt the same thing with the same seed, I would generate a 1:1 pixel perfect image of what someone else generated.

How exactly can you own that if someone else could create a carbon copy of it without even knowing yours ever existed?

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:09:00 2023 No.6972226

>>6972214
No anon, you wouldn't, unless you also took the same randomly generated number that tagged the noise pixels into appearing in the cluster of seeded generations and you used the same exact model.
Which is basically saying nothing but jargon.
(you're correct tho but ai shills are paid by big pajeet to demoralize and damage control.)

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:11:10 2023 No.6972228 >>6972214 >>AI is literally just retards trying to speedrun you will own nothing and you will be happy I want to own some things...

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:11:21 2023 No.6972229 >>6972209 I answered it literally 3 posts after he posted it. He thought he was being clever by using touched up slop.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:11:52 2023 No.6972230 >>6972221 If it's not obvious to you, I wouldn't worry about it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:13:14 2023 No.6972231 >>6972192 >>6972218 >>6972230 >aijeets when confronted with a question they can't answer s-sir please sir stop sir t-t-two more weeks

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:13:44 2023 No.6972232 >>6972229 You are a stupid faggot, but you did get it right, however, most people got it wrong which was the whole point.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:14:49 2023 No.6972236 >>6972231 At least you are literate.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:15:16 2023 No.6972239 >>6972232 >You are a stupid faggot someone's mad

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:16:18 2023 No.6972242 >>6972239 Just making an observation. Bit redundant though I will admit, my apologies.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:26:14 2023 No.6972261 >>6972218 Citing Texas most used insult doesn't make you based.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:36:53 2023 No.6972281 >>6972261 well if it aint some diddly doo dumb yippie kay yay dog dang fuck mothering cow hole bustling son of a gun tell em boy

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:41:50 2023 No.6972288

>>6972214
I want to be able to own my own mini AI bot on my own device. you retards are stopping that directly, trying to force us into only being able to use AIs on other machines with your targeted regulation.

every push for regulation of AI only ever targets proliferation of AI onto personal devices. Just read all the anti ai art petitions and campaigns. they very specifically spell out the desire to punish stable diffusion above all others for daring to allow people to actually run their own AI instead of renting server space. They clearly state their particular hatred of the one AI art program that people can run on their own PCs instead of using a companies.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:43:10 2023 No.6972292 >>6972288 >you retards are stopping that directly, trying to force us into only being able to use AIs on other machines with your targeted regulation. good. get fucked, lazy dipshit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:43:55 2023 No.6972293 >>6972288 >i want to have a spyware on my own device sending personal information to big tech 24/7 what the fuck

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:49:45 2023 No.6972301

>>6972293
the whole point of it being on your own device instead of using a website or discord bot is that you have the ability to detect if it's spying on your creations. and more importantly, modify it so it cannot do that. or even better, compile it and read the source so you know it doesn't
>>6972292
I'm not the one who's gonna lose this "battle". Keep sucking big techs dick tho. you can't regulate my offline GPUs.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:52:44 2023 No.6972306 >>6972301 >your creations >your lol

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 02:57:43 2023 No.6972310 >>6972306 I mean even if you're right and it's not "mine" who cares. sementic arguments are boring and often meaninglessness.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 03:02:44 2023 No.6972314 >>6972310 >meaningless Like your existence

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 03:08:43 2023 No.6972319 >>6972314 idk bro either everyones meaningless or nobody is. I definetly feel meaningful to myself. love to hear your thoughts on it though.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 03:13:38 2023 No.6972322 >>6972301 >yeah bro you can totally detect it bro and change the code bro just say you want your personal ai-waifu who will say dirty things to you while you jerk off in some random bathroom stall

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 03:17:26 2023 No.6972326

>>6972322
even if its a binary blob its not hard to tell if something communicates with the internet or not. and if it *does* communicate with the internet in an encrypted way. you know not to trust it, or to just block it from accessing the internet.
Ideally though i'm talking about something thats completely open source like SD. your guys' public enemy one precisely because we actually own it when we use it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 03:19:44 2023 No.6972330 File: 126 KB, 529x602, 12343545415.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6972326 Sir, this is an art board.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 03:24:09 2023 No.6972332

>>6972288
Yeah man because what StabilityAI did is called shorting.

They take a thing that is paid, (copyrighted works on the licensing market) and copied that shit, to distribute for free or for cheap, while monetizing on subscriptions and investor money and causing irreparable damage to the market of the originals they took without licensing or authorization.

This isn't technology, this is being a dishonest fuck trying to cover illegal practices on licensing and IP laundering with technology.

StableDiffusion could have been trained on public doman data, they choose not to.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 03:27:38 2023 No.6972337 >>6972330 he got lost on his way to /g/

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 03:49:33 2023 No.6972370

>>6972332
>StableDiffusion could have been trained on public domain data, they chose not to.
Yes, and their model would've been worse if they did that, so they did not.

>illegal practices on licensing and IP laundering with technology
massive IP restrictions is literally the entire concept behind "you will own nothing and be happy". The idea you have to pay to rent every tiny thing you interact with. to pay rent for looking at, learning from, or modifying images that are online.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 17:38:54 2023 No.6972809

>>6972221
There's a reason AI generations cannot be copyrighted. However, your argument is bogus. If you are worried about the theoretical issue that someone will enter the exact same prompt as you with the same settings and happen to use the same seed out of 2^32, then you can just simply plug in a proper cryptographic random generator and seed it with a strong passphrase + timestamp. That will reduce the chance of this happening by chance to practically zero.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 18:24:47 2023 No.6972848 >>6971698 >>6971708 >masterful lighting The values are all fucked. Over-exposed, over-saturated garbage.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 20:28:41 2023 No.6972996 File: 1.39 MB, 1200x1200, peach.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Here's another blind test for y'all. Which of these peaches are AI? It's still pretty easy, but not as braindead as the other anon's.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 20:36:48 2023 No.6973013 >>6972996 best guess is bottom left is ai

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 20:40:24 2023 No.6973018 >>6973013 There are three to six AI images.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 20:48:36 2023 No.6973026 >>6972996 are these images cropped or just resized?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 20:50:14 2023 No.6973028 >>6973018 Top left, middle, left and bottom. Right and top look very sus but it's too low res to tell for sure.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 21:10:49 2023 No.6973044 >>6973026 Both. >>6973028 So if we number them: 123 456 789 Your guesses are 1, 5, 4, 7?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 21:14:55 2023 No.6973051 >>6973044 >Both. if you crop them, you're probably unknowingly removing too much of the normally AI error prone parts of the images. the extremities of the gens are the most likely to have weird stuff in them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 21:18:45 2023 No.6973055 >>6972848 No they're not, your screen might be fucked, but you're probably just retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 21:21:17 2023 No.6973057 >>6973044 I don't get the point of this test if you're not going to use real world conditions, but yes, 1 and 5 are definitely AI. 4 and 7 are most likely AI. 2 and 6 might be AI. The only one I'm 100% sure is not AI is 3.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 21:40:53 2023 No.6973092

>>6973057
The AI generations are otherwise not retouched at all. The reason I cropped and scaled them was to align them neatly while focusing on commonly cited tell areas such as eyes and hands. The scaling is due to the lower resolution of one of the human made images.
I think people are able to crop and scale AI generations in the real world and might even fix some other small flaws, so I'm not sure how this causes a big issue with the test.

> 1 and 5 are definitely AI. 4 and 7 are most likely AI. 2 and 6 might be AI.
Either way, good job. You had one false positive, but also caught all the AI images. I'll post the pixiv links for the real images in a bit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 21:42:21 2023 No.6973093 AI enthusiasts don't really care about disguising their art and passing it off as human made. There is also the fact that they have shit/trite taste, hence why AI art has its look.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 21:44:59 2023 No.6973096 >>6973092 Don't kid yourself, people almost never scale AI images down. It's always upscales if any, and it makes it so obvious it's AI. The low resolution leaves too much to the imagination so it's harder to tell.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 21:47:54 2023 No.6973100

>>6973092
>I think people are able to crop and scale AI generations in the real world and might even fix some other small flaws
Not in the manner you're doing it. Some of the images are cut off pretty arbitrarily, like the top left.
A real artist wouldn't just remove parts of their image randomly just because. There has to be a purpose.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 21:48:02 2023 No.6973102 File: 199 KB, 819x819, 15278139.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6973096 Most AI images are lowres to begin with, like picrel.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 21:50:01 2023 No.6973106 >>6973102 True, but the artifacts are clearly visible in the original resolution. You can see your image is a bit smudgy in some parts for no reason, and not sharp like vector art would be.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 21:51:42 2023 No.6973111 >>6973106 But this is the original resolution, that's how it comes out of the oven.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 21:54:42 2023 No.6973117 >>6973092 https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/111849748 https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/112879780 https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/112964680 https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/113986992 The last one was the false positive.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 21:57:55 2023 No.6973119 File: 77 KB, 768x768, f1cd5563171a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The lower the res, the faster they render.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 21:58:35 2023 No.6973120 >>6973117 Those godawful lines in the last one gave me strong AI vibes, but they look pretty sharp in the full size image.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 21:59:32 2023 No.6973122

>>6973117
And here are the uncropped and unscaled AI images. I realize that I cropped of a mangled hand, so that's on me.
https://files.catbox.moe/1zg0ei.png
https://files.catbox.moe/knz8xh.png
https://files.catbox.moe/r8loo6.png
https://files.catbox.moe/8oxb0j.png
https://files.catbox.moe/53p4fy.png

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 22:00:56 2023 No.6973125

>>6973111
That's what he means. Scaling images to a low resolution will create noise, but if it's in the original resolution, then the noise is clearly generating by the AI algorithm itself.
Scaling your images just covers up AI noise with low resolution scaling noise.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 22:06:39 2023 No.6973131 File: 2.85 MB, 4096x4096, 00284.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6973125 Oh I see, I guess I just disagree then. I don't find a scaled down image any harder or easier to tell than a native res one.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 22:06:45 2023 No.6973132 >>6973122 >https://files.catbox.moe/1zg0ei.png This one is like if kyle got down syndrome. Disgusting.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 22:07:30 2023 No.6973136 >>6973122 >>6973131 First image in this set also shows you why scaling images down will hide AI errors. If you look at her left eye, there's clearly a weirdly shaped and smeared iris; but it's much harder to see in the small scale version.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 22:08:30 2023 No.6973137
File: 73 KB, 706x1000, 514dbmtuBPL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Because a lot of AI is low effort especially due to its ease of access. If you cannot make an effort to distinguish yourself you get slop. Your best bet is porn at that point.
I've seen cool stuff done with AI, but a lot of it isn't cool stuff. Ironically AI will still end up as a filter creating a clear divide for those that put effort into it and those that don't.
Also, a lot of it is usually just anime or realism. Usually porn or memes, this is another factor as to why you can tell what is and isn't AI. Anyone with half a brain with enough exposure and basic observation skills could tell the difference.

Ai is just going to oversaturate the market with more garbage.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 22:09:59 2023 No.6973139 >>6973136 Again I'll have to disagree, a smear like that could be just as easily human made. I get better results by looking at the image as a whole, unless there're very obvious AI artifacts.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 22:12:58 2023 No.6973146 >>6973139 You're just blind. Humans being messy look pretty different from AI artifacts.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 22:13:51 2023 No.6973148

>>6973136
The biggest tell on that image is actually that the zoom layer is quite different from the main image. This is the kind of error you'd mainly see with AI, because it has to "manually redraw" the zoom layer. I was curious if anyone would pick up on this.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 22:13:58 2023 No.6973149 >>6970839

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 22:14:56 2023 No.6973152 >>6973146 Nah, I think you're just overconfident due to your lack of real skill and knowledge.

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 22:58:24 2023 No.6973195

>>6973139
Humans don't just smear into weird shapes like that, even when using the liquify tool. If the other eye was a an oval, you would expect the other eye to be an oval as well.
Somebody who hyper-renders the rest of the image is likely going to be paying attention to the detail of the eyes, since it's the most significant aspect of the face.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 23:18:51 2023 No.6973223 >>6973195 Yes they do.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 23:24:47 2023 No.6973231 >>6973223 post 10 images where humans have both over-rendered everything and smeared only one eye into a weird shape

Anonymous Sun Dec 10 23:39:42 2023 No.6973247
File: 174 KB, 445x244, spazmatika el hondu.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6970825
>Why is AI art always immediately recognizable as AI art?
>Across different styles and themes you can always tell it apart from art drawn by a human.
>Why?
3 main reasons from what i can tell.
>unnatural patters and machine artifacts from the generation process
>over highlighting everything which creates this hideous looking plastic sheen to everything the slop bot shits out
>uncanny soullessness due to the complete lack of intent or thought that went into the generative slop this is further exemplified by the fact the most popular slop generators only scrape the top 20% percent of artist which makes it lack any form of variety it's just mindlessly cloning without any of it's own unique input which you would see in a human artist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 10 23:39:47 2023 No.6973248 >>6973231 >Oh you like art? >Name every artist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 00:25:07 2023 No.6973308 >>6973096

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 00:32:07 2023 No.6973321 >>6970827

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 00:33:54 2023 No.6973324 >>6971098 Neat >>6971101

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 00:34:55 2023 No.6973327 .

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 11:27:29 2023 No.6973836 File: 379 KB, 1080x1227, King of pol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The king of 4chan officially endorsed AI art.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 15:48:54 2023 No.6974018 >>6973836 >It shall be trained to be racist good When are you AIniggas gonna show me it reproducing "my struggle" or the Turner diaries

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 11 18:11:38 2023 No.6974201 >>6973836 > the retarded contrarian who uses strawmen It's also not his art that made him famous.

Anonymous Tue Dec 12 00:17:18 2023 No.6974702
File: 2.27 MB, 832x1216, a3a9941c-f13f-477d-b428-ecdfc0c84f0a.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

is this thread still going on because anon cant see how trivial it is to tell if an image is ai, or because anon cant grasp the fact that the typical ai image is better than a large percentage of trad art.
>details
yeah you can just render it out in a higher res then downscale, LMAO

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 12 01:51:24 2023 No.6974771 >>6974702 Couldn't be because AI needs other people's art to begin with. PS, kill yourself.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 12 07:48:49 2023 No.6975057 File: 1.40 MB, 1024x1024, 1697431374316397.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6974771 where would you be without other peoples art? checkmate

Anonymous Tue Dec 12 14:37:55 2023 No.6975387

>>6974702
this kind of underage reasoning is the reason elitism exists, because a goat eats grass and calls it food, then goes to a restaurant and starts putting grass into plates and calling it food to the people that want to eat proper prepared food, not grass.

Also why floodgates of cesspool like this were opened up the same month the engines started:

https://www.amazon.com/Touhou-Project-Best-Choice-Illustration-ebook/dp/B0BSR5W9NN/

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 12 16:07:58 2023 No.6975460 >>6975387 >nonargument

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 12 18:21:18 2023 No.6975584 >>6975057 Are you being ironic or are you lost on your way to r*ddit?

Anonymous Tue Dec 12 19:45:27 2023 No.6975675
File: 2.24 MB, 832x1216, 46f0c023-2b06-45d1-9042-53d32bfa6712.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6975387
>you dont even know good art, unlike me - i know what art is good and what art is bad :)
imagine

>>6975584
>ironic
no, i was bored and looking for some easy wins.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 12 21:50:48 2023 No.6975854 Just wanna say its so over. Not only are all governments (aside from cuck EU) pro AI, they also make anti ai software like nightshade punishable https://twitter.com/numatakeja/status/1734536160628601028

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 12 21:54:19 2023 No.6975860 >>6975854 fag

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 13 00:17:29 2023 No.6975999 >>6975854 >most asian gov are known to be bugmen for a reason

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/ic/ - Artwork/Critique