Friendly reminder that literally everyone who knows how diffusion and modern AI works knows that AI art isn't theft. You're displaying a major lack of technology knowledge when you say this. You're no different than a Boomer who refuses to learn how computers works and fears modern technology.
Or, you're willfully lying about it because you have potential monetary gain as a corporation or artist.
Sites to support:
Remember to report Karla Ortiz's GoFundMe for fraud. 🙂
then you directly support kickstarter and patreon arbitrarily deplatforming independent AI
You mean the place that banned anime but their
no1 supported game is an garbage incest mommy game and Avatar western e-boi/shota?
Surely you jest
>YOU HAVE TO CARE ABOUT MY PET ISSUE OR YOU'RE FOR THE OTHER TEAM!!!
is this your first time experiencing the excitement of politics or something?
so you support cancel culture?
remember that time a human artist accidentally redrew an image someone else made perfectly from memory? happens all the time
None of those is perfect, and yes, human artists do often unconsciously copy poses and layouts they've seen without meaning to, just as human musicians often unconsciously reproduce elements from songs they've heard and end up with something that sounds like deliberate plagiarism.
It's not that easy to distinguish between creating something and remembering something. If anything, that looks to me like it's working very similarly to human visual processing and imagination.
mirin compression ratio
Someone should do a side by side of that one furry artist who drew a baby furry in a diaper climbing up on a wall. Someone found that image was an artist recreation of an actual picture in a baby in a diaper in the same exact pose.
Make a side by side and just lie and say AI did it and let people dig in and let the cognitive dissonance flow
You're talking about trans webcomic artist Sophie LaBelle, of Assigned Male fame 🙂
Kek that's him. That wasn't a one time thing either, he'd trawl Instagram for baby photos to trace over.
That's where you are wrong. That might be a "coincidence". Or not. We don't know yet actually.
Just like the linear regression over a set of 2D points can exactly go through some of the points, it doesn't mean it used them explicitely (a 2D line is just 2 parameters). The less duplicate points there is, the less likely it is for the model to overfit the data, but according to the paper, that might be a thing in the dataset of StableDiffusion.
We however know that replication can happen, and that might be an issue by itself.
Do you even know what that picture actually shows?
SD has learned a mapping from prompt to image.
So if you give it a prompt that it was trained on it's not surprising that it sometimes produces a semantic copy of an image that it was trained on.
How is this supposed to prove anything?
t. hasn't read the paper
If anyone is wondering what this shows. The left image is a histogram of 9k AI generated images and their highest similarity match to an image in the training set. Anything over 0.5 was considered a close match, only 1.88% crossed that threshold.
The grey on the right is the same but with 1k generations. The green on the right is what you get when you compare 1k images from the training set, with the rest of the training set, even when you ignore the very high values (as they are likely duplicated images in the training set) you find more human to human similarity than AI to human. Humans are likely more frequent plagiarists than the AI.
So if the model is overtrained it will plagiarize. Gotcha.
No, if the model is overfit it won't work at all, Memorisation and overfitting are two separate, but related phenomena. Memorisation occurs when a point in the training set exist on or very near to the hyperplane described by the function the model has learned. An overfit model will memorise all or most of the training data but be unable to generalise to new data, while a well fit model will generalise well to new data and memorise a small amount of the data points.
Those graphs show the vast majority of generated images are novel, it is not overfit at all.
>An overfit model will memorise all or most of the training data but be unable to generalise to new data
They generalize, but in a crazy way. That's the problem with overfitting: the hypersurface is of too high a degree and fits the noise in the input dataset, resulting in weird stuff (because noise is noise, and inherently has a wider frequency spectrum than anything actually interesting).
Is "only 2% of images are plagiarized" the new goalpost move now?
How have I moved the goalposts? I'm just describing what the paper found.
>Below human plagiarism rate
Seems fine for me!
Personally I'd phrase it as "below human similiarity rate" which certainly makes it likely that its below plagiarism rate but there are reasons why images can be similar that aren't plagiarism (for both humans and AI) so I'd be inclined to be a little more tentative.
No, when human artists do it they do it on purpose, tracing is quite common.
when booze was forbidden, you could be one of those secretly brewing and then have people come or find someone to distribute. With all that secrecy, it was kind of kino; you'd live with the paranoia the police could arrest you, but you were defending your rights.
With AI being forbidden, you could go back to those days, but now it's not a a product you hide and consume: images go public, PCs can be monitorized, etc. That's not kino at all.
>artists accusing each other of using AI
>artists fighting artists on anti-AI spam
Question: why do you think about reddit?
Why do you care ?
I'm concerned about you, Anon.
>implying frogmorons have any say
They have the best opinions
i aint readin
all dat shit
SUGGEST A DEDICATED/AI/ BOARD HERE:
Do they even read our submissions
I asked them to please start deleting techtuber e-celeb threads on BOT so you be the judge.
AI art is not art. Its mimesis.
What is art, then?
>What is art, then?
Trolling is a art.
I'm not sure if I'm being tricked INTO supporting AI or being tricked OUT of supporting it.
If only you could have free will, and the ability to critically think... You might then make your own mind up about things
If AI art isn't theft, how come art portfolios are disappearing all over the internet leaving behind comments about how AI art did it?
How does artists seething over it make it theft, you moron. Go back to school, you skipped a few classes on logic.
>be a weak willed pussy and quit
hope they kill themselves too
Man I don't have any strong potions on AI, but I have weird premonition that banning or excluding AI from Art communities/sites might be a bad idea later down the road.
I feel like we've been down this path before, just very differently but with some horrific events following.
If copyright laws ban AI art, they would also ban parody and fanart by extension. They're shooting themselves in the leg here.
It essentially bans inspiration itself.
Parody's specially protected (which is why you see so many shitty cash-grab parodies trying to capitalize on the popularity of something). Fanart is already a copyright violation, generally, it just often goes unenforced.
But anyway, the law is perfectly capable of making a distinction between an artist learning from copyrighted art, and a machine learning from copyrighted art, so whatever law they make doesn't have to affect pre-AI methods of art production.
Parody is NOT protected, parody is a fair use defense in a copyright claim. There are no "protected classes" in copyright - you either have the rights, or you try to claim fair use, with parody being one defense.
The law is simple: if you can identify a piece of work, and you do not have permission from the owner, you are liable, unless you can raise a fair use defense, like parody, or editorial.
If the tech behind this "learns" to emulate brush strokes, or color palettes, you're safe. But if a reasonable case can be made for existing work being used to create the new image, you will lose any lawsuits, unless you can mount a defense. The only avenue for this would be derivative art, as defined by the Berne Convention, but personally I don't think it will pass. (and, a defense at that level would be prohibitively expensive, any copyright cases require very pricy lawyers and a lot of research to build a case.)
The legal battles over this are coming, and it won't be pretty.
Don't be stupid. Saying fair use is just "a defense" and "not protected" is on the same level as saying that actually owning the copyright yourself is just "a defense" and "not protected". If you're legally entitled to do something, you're legally entitled to do it. People can sue you anyway (yes, even if you legally own the thing, they can sue you for copyright infringement of it; it's for the courts to decide who actually owns the copyright), but they should lose.
And yes, parody is specially protected. It might not be written into the statutes, but it's certainly well established in the precedents. It's pretty much the only way you can do a clearly, openly, and intentionally derivative piece of fiction based on a copyrighted fictional work without permission by the copyright holder. If it's not a work of parody and you're copying, you need some level of deniability, a way to argue that your work might have been inspired by the original, but is not based on it.
>Don't be stupid. Saying fair use is just "a defense" and "not protected" is on the same level as saying that actually owning the copyright yourself is just "a defense" and "not protected".
That's literally, in every legal sense, what it means. You establish and own a copyright. There are only defenses against copyright claims if you don't own the copyright. Calling me stupid is hilariously ironic, because you don't understand the very simple definitions of what copyright is.
Everything else you slammed out in mouthbreathing neckbeard style is pure ignorance and horseshit. Cope harder, dummy.
Not even remotely true. You have no fucking clue how copyright law works.
they should not only ban it but imprison its advocates.
you're shit at your job thus AI is replacing you
>rejected from art communities.
Oh boy I know where this is going.
man that's gonna be funny if the next Hitler is some pissed off zoomer coomer who was robbed of his AI waifu e-bois
there, i stole your art
is there enough hitler art to train a network on it?
it's just above average amateur landscapes, it won't look like anyone in particular... I guess you can have the twist, "...you like this, it was HITLER'S ART, HAHA"
didn't hitler get rejected because his art was generic and boring? you could train a hypernetwork and you'd never know if the fucking thing actually did anything
he wasn't rich enough, he wasn't connected enough, he wasn't good enough and/or degenerate enough
many such cases
You can see how fucked his perspective is in
that castle ironically does looks AI generated with how the shapes come out of nowhere
To say it's because he "wasn't connected enough" is fucking absurdist poltard revisionism
>colleges don't admit retarded legacy students
I highly doubt you're not samegayging with how hard you're skipping over the fact his art sucked, so he did not get into art college, and instead focusing on the part you like
I never went to art school, but isn't that where you learn to paint and shit?
History would have turned out better if they let him in, and let him become another mediocre artgay instead of genocidal dictator.
No, you had to pass exams and paint classical and biblical paintings in under three hours and present an already completed portfolio. It's was higher tier than "learning to draw", and he was even suggested to apply for the school's Architecture program instead as he focused on buildings a lot.
Instead, he refused.
Are you suggesting if Adolf was the son of a politician of president of some huge bank, he wouldn't be admitted just for his connections?
Why do you think colleges have buildings named after richgays?
Libshit mind breaks down whenever they think of hitler, lmao.
He was just some dead 'tard who lost, get over it.
AI tards stop comparing yourselves to Hitler challenge (impossible)
Hitler was a cool guy, had some good ideas, but ultimately, a failure.
anon making these is doing god's work
it's good, but artshit don't wanna read, they want to cry like... what to they love to say... pissbabies
they are just going to cry for the rest of the year, then go on witch hunts to out each other for being suspected of using ai...
>I don't have any strong potions on AI
Are you afraid that your potions would be too strong for it?
>AI 'art' isn't art!
>AI art is theft!
Which one is it?
Ai images are plagiarizing my art
Why should I give a shit? You plagiarized other people's art when you made yours. Or are you going to tell me that you were raised in a dark room and created your art without ever having seen anything or received any external inspiration?
Only humans can do it.
You do it with a machine, it's theft, insult to humanity and end of all decency.
~~*You should at least pay.*~~
Sounds like the opinion of a retard.
thank god you created your style from thin void and learnt how to draw seconds before you were born
fuck, remember when digital newpapers appeared and the headlines about The Times newspaper was "The End of The Times", with people claiming we deserved free press? Guess what, it's still there, making more money, and worsening the quality of news
>is not a theft!
the best analogy i can think of is big corpo and government institutions or china for that matter, collecting massive information on hundreds of millions of people without their consent. browsing/system usage, connections, geolocation, activities etc... and building data structures that can be used to target advertising in the best case scenario.
the lack morality in this is not debatable, this is a form of theft
data scrapping is legal and has been used long before you were born
even you analogy of data collection is legal and is the bases for every free app and site you use, are you being stupid on purpose?
sending garden gnomes to death camps was legal
stop getting me hard, cockteasing slut
they were concentration camps, same shit US did to Japs, Italians, and Germans during the wars
>same shit US did to Japs
yes. my point remain the same, legality is not a principle to argue with
What are the ethics of generating nude genderbent images of my friend
Normies will cry "revenge porn" but it isn't.
IMO revenge porn laws should only be enacted if the victim had a nonconsensual picture of their actual body snapped. No porn whores regretting pictures they consensually took or sent, no photoshopped heads on naked bodies, revenge porn should LITERALLY just mean revenge porn.
The basic "revenge" scenario in "revenge porn" is a jilted lover sharing images meant to be private as punishment for breaking up (or whatever led to it). Nonconsensual images would be something else.
If he or she cheated they deserved it.
Pic strangely related to both your post and the thread as a whole.
The entire concept of revenge porn as a definable thing is retarded and subjective as fuck. Unless images were taken without a person's knowledge or consent, anything that happens with them is ultimately their own fucking fault. I don't care if you super duper trusted him and told him those ultra-HD pictures of your butthole were for his eyes only, when you took the picture you knew there was a nonzero chance it would end up on the public internet one day, so when it happens it's your own retarded doing.
it's not stolen but it is copied
your "ai" isn't a real AI it is just a machine learning algorithm and a poor one at that
>b-but the AI will improve as the technology advances
this is like saying you can teach a monkey to speak English if you train it enough. No amount of training with datasets will fix machine learnings fundamental flaws.
Pic sort of related.
Highly imperfect, but promising. Let's see where this will be in 2 years.
It is studied and learned from, not recorded and copied. That's why the model can be much smaller than the training data set, and why you can get different images, but not the exact same one back out. Just like a human artist, it's building a library of techniques and aesthetic principles. Unlike a human artist, it doesn't have to tediously manipulate tools, but the workings of its mind are directly connected to display what it imagines.
The potential for improvement is obvious from how much better images you can get with magic incantations like "trending on artstation", and how the images improve as the models get larger. Not to mention, of course, the actual breakneck progress we see happening.
All this has done is expose how mentally ill and retarded the art community is. I knew they were bad but this level of ass blasting is another level. If they think their shaming tactics will work just because they work on depressed teenagers, a common target for them, they are in for a rude awakening. Some advice- threatening third world ESLs on twitter for showing off their work until they delete their accounts will not make the government delete stable diffusion from my pc.
I already know there's that one video about "The Mental Health Impact of AI Art on Artists" or whatever but you know what I haven't seen anyone else mention yet?
Search depression and suicide subreddits for "AI art". The results are hilarious 🙂
Can someone screencap the best of these?
This is the best example of actual artist seethe that we've gotten out of one of these threads in like a week
LOOSH LOOSH , PRECIOUS LOOSH
this but ai gays
theres literally an entire subreddit of coping ai tards who are too autistic to understand why people want to lynch them.
Wait, you're threatened by a week old subreddit with 500 subscribers? KEK.
get em sis
after skimming this, this truly feels like the dumbest fucking drama tech has had in years
Tech drama doesn't usually involve people as dumb as artists.
that wasn't directed only at artists
>implying the other people aren't also artists, but were just too dumb to even draw shit before the AI could do it for them
Frankly, the other kind of artists opposing them feels like ableism. Retards should have solidarity with megaretards.
he wasn't implying that, anon
basically a bunch of autistic permanently 14 techbros don't understand what art is because they suck at it.
Are visibly confused by the expected backlash of waltzing into a professional environment
Who cares lmao, why would anyone want to have the same profession as twitter retards? Look at sdg - no one calls themselves artists there.
>who cares lol
primitive lizard troll brain
Cope. The myth of art as some higher calling was murdered in front of you and it's not coming back.
You are lying to yourself, you complain about ugliness in art and all you have done is succumbed to it, Given up, admitted defeat.
have you canned any of your shit, I mean art lately?
wow, it's a classic
This is your admittance of defeat.
>someone did a shit in a can and called art
>well im going to completely abandon art, hate it and do nothing about it while shilling uglier soulless machine art.
You have been defeated by it and become ugly yourself.
A recognized BONA FIDE artists did it.
To claim right to beauty in this age is to be a reactionary.
You car a commercial hack and pornographer, who can't stand competition.
you are admitting defeat! and depriving yourself of a human joy. Just because some people you don't like make art you don't like
You are a coward.
You are thinking about the 4chan retards. Makes sense since there's a lot of them in these threads.
Don't think this is special for them, they're just looking for anything to be offended at. They will pretend to have interest in any subject if they can get their fix of being mad at people online. They are not the people actually using AI.
im addressing you. You are a liar and a fool, is the only thing you can do is call people nazis?
>my answer to ugly art is to reject art, complain about it and post obscenity.
You have completely submitted to the ugliness and been demoralised.
To be a modern artist is to embraces ugliness and filth.
You only pretend to follow beauty so you can sell yourself to Disney or any AAA studio to make annual goyslop for pigs.
And you have the temerity to even to pretend to have any say on the matter.
You are filth.
you really need to watch this and stop lying to others and yourself, go pick up a brush and make a piece of art that refutes the shit in a can, instead of surrendering to it.
>refutes the shit in a can
what's to refute, the contemporary art world?
deal with it
shit is art
Wait, are you going to say "it's da JOOS," fucking retard?
I'm sorry you hitched you very identity on degenerate filth, but you should have educated yourself before calling yourself "an artist."
you are just a troll with no soul.
Duchamp is world recognized artist.
You are a small minded reactionary, a literal nazi.
the fuck has my posts got to do with nazis you troll?
You are just saying random shit.
You are replying to BOTS.
These are just bots auto replying to any post every few minutes with ai chat gibberish from previous threads.
You retards, stop posting.
no creativity in life
no creativity on the internet
it's truly a sad sight
>To be a modern artist is to embraces ugliness and filth.
disagree. there is a lot of people out there doing cool stuff. why you only focus on the ugly ones, I do not know.
Which one? Kek.
SWEET SWEET INKCEL TEARS
With the advent of AI Art I've been thinking about this scene a lot
It's pretty funny in retrospect that people thought iteratively generating aesthetically pleasing bits would be harder for computers than controlling free-roaming robots to do useful labor in an uncontrolled environment in real time. Kind of like people thinking that chess would make a good test of computers having real human-like intelligence.
you should be asking the important question why we dont have commercial robots when the tech assists.
Instead we have a digital pollution generator.
The robots are under development. Watch Tesla's last AI Day presentation, they're talking about a <$20k android that is physically capable of most hand labor, with a built-in computer. Also look at Boston Dynamics and Agility Robotics.
The current major problem is cost control. Spot the robot dog is like $75k, and it's not much good for anything but inspections a much cheaper multicopter could do faster. Up until very recently, the biggest problem has been not enough computing power, not just onboard, but also for the training, simulations, and genetic algorithms to program the onboard computer.
It really is only starting to make sense to invest the effort in building affordable free-roaming robots now.
Wait... he doesn't actually say, "Can a n******?" in the movie?
It didn't make the made for tv cut
Listen to xer
OOGA BOOGA BIX NOOD
DA AI HATERS ARE RAYCISS AND ABLEISS N SHEEEEIT
Oh my god the artist is serious
is all this shit bait?
No this guy is 100% legit
Here's his Twitter:
This bro is OBSESSED holy shit
So this guy really eats breathes and sleeps AI art damn what a loser
how the fuck do people manage to base their entire identity around a hobby that's like half a year old, or less for most people?
its 100% a pol troll trying to manipulate blacks
Have you seen the chatbot threads that fill this board. /ai/ now!
He's an NFT chud lol
"Artists" should just start making shitty renditions of their "art" so that the models that train on their art come out shitty.
Oh wait, nvm. Disregard that first part
Why do these art gays never talk about art being outsourced to India?
Kek I can hire an SEA artist for $5 on Fiverr and art hoes HATE that
Its all good as long as it doesn't cut into their porn commission bucks.
>Why do these art gays never talk about art being outsourced to India?
50% of the art posted on Artstation is made by some chink, but the western audiences have to bite their tongue since they don't want to be painted as 'xenophobic!'
Because IT can be replaced by thirdies far more easily than artists can.
I want AI to replace artists just to make them seethe. I don't even care about AI art and have no intention of using it.
how the fuck can she not understand why people prefer the left one
Look on her Twitter and you'll immediately understand.
NOT THE HECKIN' AI
holy shit, my sides, the length to which these artists try to obfuscate what image AI actually does is incredible.
so i just prompt Renee Zellweger and one of her boobs disappears?
btw is there a site where I can find AI denier artists so I don't forget which gays were against it when they finally cope?
i dont even like the fact that ai exists, this is still propaganda. If you're anti-ai do yourself a favor and find a better argument to shill.
Worse than I expected tbh. After prompting for a while I started getting deja vu moments with compositions and bits of images, so it always felt like there was something tangible to artist's concerns, even if the idea of stable diffusion being a mere photobash engine is kinda dumb.
AI tards are on the wrong side of history
NEED MORE ARTgay SEETHING
LESS DEBATE LIKE WE'VE HAD EVERY OTHER THREAD
I WANT TEARS AND SLIT WRISTS
Remember when artist forced you accept taping a banana to a wall was some deep art?
Why do they think we care about them at all.
In fact every time i hear an artist cry, i will generate 3 images as a celebration.
You wanted Emperors new clothes to rule. You can't put it back in the bottle gays.
>Remember when artist forced you accept taping a banana to a wall was some deep art?
No, I don't remember that at all. In fact, I'd never heard about the stunt at all until people dug it up and paraded it around as if it was some sort of slam dunk indictment of a fundamental part of the human experience.
Keep chasing Twitter drama and generating images nobody cares about so you can keep your room warm. It sounds fulfilling!
Not him but the latest version was an art installation that was just empty bottles of wine, used plates and some other shit that staff at the gallery accidentally cleaned up since they assumed it was from a party at the gallery the night prior. And even before that, someone setup their unwashed/severely stained bed and set it up in a gallery.
Damn, that shit I don't care about from people I don't know has my view of the art world shook. "Clown world", as they say. I better forget my favorite artists, their work just isn't the same any more...
why do talentless anti-art retards always talk about post modern art, not the art they do enjoy.
>the art they do enjoy
I think this has an obvious answer
because they are disingenuous. They are the same gays on the other boards complaining that everything isn't like the art in their favourite old games, shows, comics etc.
New stuff is fine as long as it doesn't completely push out the old stuff.
It's what's filling the galleries lately, I can't go see shit I'd actually enjoy.
>local gallery replaced an entire wing of classic art with LGBT art
>first piece at the entry is an anus
i wish i was kidding.
>implying most people including artists think post modern artists are not artists
dumb Ai tard you will be put in a bottle,
would it be reasonable to call ai artist as illegal students or eavesdropper?
the second one probably less so, its publicly available.
The first one, is there such thing? Perhaps non-consensual students?
this is your daily reminder to take ridiculously low commissions and overdeliver art pieces by 10x using AI art to lower the floor of art commissions as much as possible!
please enlighten me in everynhing I should know: 101 crash course for dummies
I was told no one would actually pay for AI art. Is this real?
It's easy money.
it's below minimum wage when you consider how long you take to reach the desired prompt. i guess you're driven by spite but i don't know why.
>it's below minimum wage when you consider how long you take to reach the desired prompt.
Yeah, but instead of going out to deal with shitfaced McDonalds-goers, I can generate AI images. What were people requesting?
c'mon it was probably pedoshit
Nah. Those guys wouldn't put money down for AI porn.
but then who else would?
well, furries throw money around
>This sub is not for debate. It is a space for Pro-AI activism. You are welcome to post and debate on r/aiwars . Please read the rules of this sub before commenting. Comment will be locked.
fucking lol uncle ted was right
no shit, retard
if you go to /ic/ it will be default anti-ai
got any more morsels of wisdom, you fucking retard?
might want to try rereading bud
AI art is a bubble, it's gonna be forgotten for the next hip thing.
>a.i. art is uncoomable even to a degenerate like me
>Favorite artists are all an heroing
>no more coom supply
Fuck you a.i. morons. you ruined everything
>Favorite artists are all an heroing
maybe you should've done more than just cooming to their art
You have 2 choices, either train the ai to make your coom, of pick up a pencil, ai won't get flawless for years, of ever, there is always time and room for artist with passion.
Drawgays who are giving up are attention whores who wanted e-fame, not true artisans of the craft.
Sucks I guess
I've heard nothing about Ai from my favorite artists
Most artist are hanging back, seeing how the shit goes down, it's still very in the game.
Cool so I guess they seem more understanding then the whiners
>Most artist are hanging back, seeing how the shit goes down
I've heard from some that they'd quite like an AI assistant to learn their personal style and do the bits of the picture that they personally find tedious (such as complicated backgrounds). That would be fine and non-plagiaristic as it would be learning from and copying the immediate user to help them.
The absolute state of AI art generation right now is not close to being able to do that, and won't be until you have an AI able to learn (possibly from a part-trained base) from hundreds of examples, not millions.
artists are all an heroing
Either save them with your money or accept AI into your heart. You can use their artwork to steal their SOVL and make more art in their style, you know.
>people are defensive about skills they hone
Can't wait for 6 gorillion smug bad faith arguments.
Pick up a pencil, maybe you will improve as a person.
I have a Fuji, already am an artist.
photogays are not artists
the entire world disagrees 😉
if you define entire world as femoid cattle
>Me on my way to steal from the last known artist not yet trained by AI
prompters are already burnt out, the software isn't giving them a dopamine fix anymore. They aren't prompting.
They are craving real art made by real people,
All as predicted in the dead sea scrolls
>prompters are already burnt out
this is true, /sdg/ is pretty much dead, we used have 10 threads up for months
>They are craving real art made by real people
nobody ever chose ai art OVER human art, that was imagined paranoia in your retarded feminine minds
Ai art was a neat toy and a fad, it's pretty much peaked in BOT, it's still rising among normies in phones apps, but they will get bored in a month or so.
There will be a small dedicated promptards who will make ai pic their main hobby and ruffle some feathers here and there.
You dumb cunts had nothing to worry about.
>All as predicted in the dead sea scrolls
/sdg/ activity bottoming when 2.1 was released is the saddest shit
Emad got 100miliion VC money, his open source strategy, I mean, scam worked.
god I love silicon valley
kek the surrender of you ai sissies to art chads is beautiful. Those smol weak hands just couldn't type fast enough.
Now your tired little feminine cuckold brains are burnt out thinking about art hoes with Chad, sad!
extremely gay post, ngl
thats because its literally a skinner box. Its probably the worst invention ever made.
if ai is art like photography then how come photography isn't allowed on artstation
Checkmate AI barf tards
The hype will die down people on both sides will get bored and move on and ai art made by people who take the time to touch it up will end up online and no one will even question if it is ai art.
i will, i will literally demand refunds on anything wjth ai art in it and take them to court.
>Your honor this man sold me digital furry porn made with photoshop but its actually digital furry porn made with ai and photoshop! I can tell because the pixels. I have seen many ai works in my days. Arrest him!
in my country you can claim a refund for any reason, if they don't label it as having ai art it can be seen as false advertising and would require immediate refund or it goes to court.
if the chatbot threads taught me anything
*hugs you, making you feel loved and safe*
>if ai is art like photography then how come photography isn't allowed on artstation
>Checkmate AI barf tards
face it its an art hoe simulator for tech bros that always wanted to be art hoes
t. failed art hoe
>face it its an art hoe simulator for tech bros that always wanted to be art hoes
Staceys want the strong skilled hands of an artist.
Not the shaking weak tiny hand of a promoter
AI art is the same thing as a happy sims family.
Used by the same loveless 40yo loser and cat women.
>Vomit on my sweater already
>And my hands are shaking
>But the whole crowd cooms so loud, everybody's jerkin' now, artists cuss, prompters ruling now!
guys i wanted to let everyone know i've completely transitioned to prompter.
I had all my limbs removed, all my organs removed i'm just a brain in a jar with some eyeballs hooked up to the prompt software.
Based. Your body was only holding you back.
>Weakest ai chad
What would Hitler say of ai art?
He loved art, but hated modern art and called it gnomish degeneracy.
>Only humans can do it.
>You do it with a machine, it's theft, insult to humanity and end of all decency.
>all the ai tards get outed as schizo poltards from reddit
you love to see it. Theres a guy in sdg constantly screaming that the thing is an oracle and for people to stop making anime pictures. Its hilarious.
Who cares about AI ethics? Literally name me one reason I should care what happens to artists.
>>>all the ai tards get outed as schizo poltards from reddit
>you love to see it. Theres a guy in sdg constantly screaming that the thing is an oracle and for people to stop making anime pictures. Its hilarious.
If you feel threatened by AI generated images, then you are a dumb gay with no useful skill. Quit your bitching and go develop a useful skill.
have you considered that people just think you are a moron with no artistic skill or taste?
If you act pathetic people will think you are.
Nta, what exactly is wrong with not having artistic skill?
what is wrong with having artistic skill?
You don't have artistic skill you need a machine to do it for you, its still bad and still doesn't qualify as art.
Then you come on the internet and whine about people not thinking you are an artist.
>What is wrong with having artistic skill?
>Doesn't qualify as art
Maybe not, but you still should be able to use it in your projects, maybe as a background of the main menu of the game, marketing image, etc.
>You don't have artistic skill you need a machine to do it for you, its still bad and still doesn't qualify as art.
I do not want to make art, I do not want to be called and artist, I do not want to be called an "AI artist" nor want the AI creations to be called "art". Association with "art" and the art community is what I loathe.
I don't care what people think of my artistic skill. You shouldn't either. Sounds like something a dumb gay would focus on.
you are the dumb gay you can't do art and are crying at imaginary artists while shilling meaningless soulless machine puke copying them.
Only a dumb gay would equate artistic ability with intelligence. If you are so intelligent, then why are computers about to take your job? Go learn a useful skill. That's what an intelligent person would do in your situation.
>have you considered that people just think you are a moron with no artistic skill or taste?
No one cares about some sunday painter's opinion on art.
no one cares what a retard that can't code or draw thinks
>have you considered that people just think you are a moron with no artistic skill or taste?
>If you act pathetic people will think you are.
>you are the dumb gay you can't do art and are crying at imaginary artists while shilling meaningless soulless machine puke copying them.
>Sites to support:
I support AI, but I will never support ClosedAI garden gnomes.
>no one cares what a retard that can't code or draw thinks
AI art belongs in the public domain
It should never have a copyright holder or be exploited for money
nah, I'm, already profiting and will do so in the future
>Ai art didn't steal, it learned! 🙂
Are we forgetting how AI art used to make fucking shutterstock logos kek
>Photoshop smart filter
I have no idea what you mean 😉
If you're just proompting and filtering, you're still going to be bested by somebody who can actually fix the hands.
that sounds dangerously close to real work, this is supposed to be fun side gig cause new games are shit and GPU is just collecting dust
I mean it’s okay if you want to sell this quickly drawn shite for a fiver, then go buy your fish and chips for the evening.
But it’s not okay to use AI art as a money printing exercise
>use AI art as a money printing exercise
how would one do this?
and don't say pedoshit on pixiv
pedoshit on pixiv
I agree with all point but actively defending automation is so much more stupid than being against it
As if it won't defend itself and leave seethers in the dust, like it has all previous times in history
Pedoshit on pixiv
what awesome pedochads
"""Artists""" all deserve a bullet in the head
>Accidentlally bumps into thread while browsing a gallery, looking for artists to steal from
I still argue that any artist posting their art online is implicit consent for it to be scraped by an AI.
Maybe art websites will implement some kind of filter to prevent scraping, who knows. But until then, it's public work.
moaning about AI is akin to moaning about using references. i expect artists against AI will begin to use it as a tool and we'll forget there was ever a controversy in the first place.
it seems like you seethe
wow that's a terrible fuckin pic
Stop arguing and embrace the newest art medium
You sound like painters when photography was introduced over a century and a half ago.
Don't like the new art medium? Keep scrolling.
ITT you guys
That looks like a Trippy-Worlds cringe meme
If BOT post can't be protected from AI, I don't think piece of drawing can.
You can't steal ideas. All art imitates art.
Eh, I wanted to be a concept artist because I wanted to have a real job while still working. I guess I'll just live off of welfare now and draw.
>All this shitting on drawgays
>Meanwhile, I eagerly await for the tech to get better so I can bring all of my drawings to life
I win again, techgays.
One, it's not "AI".
Two, this will be resolved just like rappers using musical samples in their work - they gotta pay if it's recognizable. Copyright law is copyright law.
Now, if they can push the advanced logic not copypastaing other artists work, which is what the current tech does, they might be viable, but it's a long, long, long way from that.
The lawsuits are coming. Just wait. And, they'll win, because this 'tech" doesn't even try to hide the source material. That's a legal liability of epic proportions. No commercial publishers of any type will even touch "AI" art because of the liabilities.
It's interesting tech, no doubt. But it's core is using the work of other people, so it's just an advanced version of the panorama algorithm in Photoshop that stiches images together. It's not "AI" in the slightest sense. And, like the panorama plugin in PS hasn't put photographers out of work, this won't put artists out of work any time soon.
read the fourth paragraph in OP's picture then shut the fuck up
I read it, you have no point, shut up and sit down, coomer. Shut the fuck up while you're at it. m'kay?
I know several people who've been spamming all their social media non-stop about how AI art is evil and theft and anyone who uses it is literally stealing money from starving artists and it's just shown me how deeply fucking stupid they are.
They will simultaneously argue that AI art is shitty and can't compare with art created by a human but also go on for hours about how if it's not banned it will replace 100% of human artists and prevent them from getting work. They will argue that three AI is not creating art, it is literally just copying and pasting bits and pieces of images scraped from Google or whatever and is therefore actual theft, while making a living selling fanart of copyrighted characters and bitching that Disney or whoever goes after them for it. They think it's even possible to stop people using this tool by banning it even though there's literally no way to prove where an image came from once it's been generated, so at best if they got it banned they'd just be ensuring the people using it stop disclosing that information and pretend they drew it themselves.
People are fucking retarded. If AI is so shitty, ignore it and you don't have a problem. If AI models trained on publicly available images are theft, fan artists belong in jail. You cannot stop the progression of technology by being butthurt, either compete or accept that you were never that good to begin with.
>if mass-produced ____ is so shitty, ignore it and tradesmen don't have a problem
Literally yes. Skilled tradesmen still exist and make money. Free market 101 if there is demand for quality goods, people will pay for them.
Eh, I get where a lot are coming from. It would fucking suck to develop a style over the course of years just so that one person can make a model off of it effortlessly.
Tracing is not common and it is highly frowned upon, especially commercially.
>Tracing is not common and it is highly frowned upon
Frowned upon? Yes (if you get caught).
Not common? lol
You have never worked in the professional art industry. I have. Tracing is incredibly frowned upon commercially because it can lead to legal issues. If an Art Director catches you doing it they will ream your asshole open. Just because you've seen a few images of lazy artists doing it doesn't mean it's a widespread practice.
Tracing is slower than just referencing, anyway, and it can fuck up the overall style of the product you're working on, whether it be concept art or a comic.
>You have never worked in the professional art industry. I have. Tracing is incredibly frowned upon commercially because it can lead to legal issues. If an Art Director catches you doing it they will ream your asshole open. Just because you've seen a few images of lazy artists doing it doesn't mean it's a widespread practice.
Cool. Huge capeshit publishers still let their artists do it all the time and nobody gives a fuck.
>Tracing is not common
Capeshitters are very commercially successful and they love tracing.
Most of the bullshit around this issue are hobbyist artists or coomer feeders. The real art world, which covers a lot of ground, is different. There are millions of professional artists who are in no danger of this impacting them, from conceptual artists, comic artists, fine artists who sell actual paintings (not the gallery bullshit world), illustrators, etc.
The commercial art world isn't touching this stuff, because of the potential legal liabilities. There are artists who are experimenting with only training their own work, but you need massive data sets for this to really produce anything, so it's a "why bother" issue for them, why spend years painting and drawing to feed a database, when you could use that time to produce sellable work? Makes no sense, unless you have a 30 year career and large library to pull from. And, the tech doesn't really do well with things like perspective, composition, color theory, technique - the building blocks of art.
Pulling a famous commercial artist out of my ass, take Frank Franzetta. His work, while repetitive, often so loosely painted it looks unfinished, and often anatomically incorrect, his work is famous because people like to look at it, because of his choices in color, composition, paint strokes, etc. It's those choices that make his work his, and the idea that tech, even advanced as that, can replace what he did is laughable. That's why so much of it is sterile and flat looking, with no spirit or life to it. It's just mechanical. Great for coomers who want to slpa ridiculously big tits onto something, but in terms of art, it falls flat on it's face. Because it can't make choices. And won't, in your lifetime.
Will it replace some art? Sure. The cheap shit nobody cares about, like an illustration for a medical pamphlet, or generic packaging, or low value editorial work, like a generic image for a throwaway column on a website. But it can't do what an artist does - make choices.
I agree with all of this except:
>And won't, in your lifetime.
I remember five years ago when all AI could produce was dream/nightmare-like abstract art. Like a photo of a cat but it's made of weird images of eyes. Look where it is now. I don't know where exactly it'll be in another five years but if it keeps going at this pace we'll probably be into the point where you can use conversational English to describe what you want generated and just talk to it to have adjustments and corrections made.
This isn't "AI", you need to get that firmly in your head. It's interesting tech, but it's not "intelligence", by any stretch of the imagination. It's not making choices. It's automata.
You won't see real artificial intelligence in your lifetime. The people on the bleeding edge of research don't know if it's even possible, what shape it would/could take, or how to even start down the path to it. It's a nebulous idea that might be possible, but might not.
And again - it's not making choices with a brain behind it. It doesn't have the skills, background, training, taste, aesthetics, and creativity to compete with a human. For generic shit, sure, but let me know when code can compete with any of the great artists. I'm not holding my breath, for my lifetime.
You're the one who's using words wrong and lecturing other people to be wrong like you. This is AI. Everyone calls it AI. What you're talking about is AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), and you're clearly not familiar with the work being done on it. AGI could appear at any time, nobody knows when, and there are a lot of people actively trying to produce it.
Brainlet take. You don't even realize that I'm not talking about AGI. I'm talking about the massive strides that are being made in machine learning right in front of you, that you are apparently too blind to see.
dont care ai art looks boring
I remember when one gay tried to argue against Stable Diffusion, because the people who run it can just turn off their open-source license, and run off into the sunset with the free labor they've gotten.
Is this the way to destroy the "muh copyright" gays?
Not only AI art stole our images, GitHub Copilot stole our code. Every time you use it, a poojeet dies. So keep up the good work, sirs
Wait, so, can AI art generate e-bois?
Can I just make infinite e-boi porn now?
You can connect your webui to 188.8.131.52 to make sure your e-bois are realistic.
I like e-boi, as in, anime e-boi
all I've fapped to for 15+ years now