AI """Art""" is just plagiarism & copyright infringement.

AI """Art""" is just plagiarism & copyright infringement.

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    me fricking your mom is "unfair & wrong" to you apparently, but you fail to see other perspectives.

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI art will save traditional art from being ruined by modern "art"

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. The "artistic community" lost all respect when they sold their souls to ESG.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      we wuz mermaids and sheeit

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Literally none of you would've watched it anyway lmao.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Literally
        fr fr no cap

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nobody watched it, your point?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        This and why would you care about children in drag or other subversive material targeting children either? You're not going to watch it anyway.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Don't be racist.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I mean it definitely won't BUT it is cool how easy it is to make "what-if" alternate versions of things to shame Hollywood with

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >learning to draw is just plagiarism & copyright infringement

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    This comic is neither correct or funny. What's this guy's endgame?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just blind hatred of the tech bros who are rendering him obsolete

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >just plagiarism & copyright infringement.
    True if you don't have permission to be feeding it into a machine, literally all they have to do it partner with some stock image company and it would be legal and fine.

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >drawing A = AI generated art recreated with physical paint by a skilled traditional artist
    >drawing B = commissioned furry art by a self-taught twitter artist
    Which drawing has more soul?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      drawing B, unironically

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      "SOVL" is just cope for
      >i like thing B more even though it's objectively worse worse by every metric and i don't want to be seen as having irrational tastes, so i'll just point to the vague, hand-wavy concept of "SOVL" and then claim that thing B has more of that

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >artist complains about ai art
    >he had the most bland and simplistic artstyle possible
    every time

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      it's usually the furgays too.

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    finding an artist who you can give a pencil and pare and say "draw me something original" is incredibly rare. they are all hacks

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >posts a troony comic with outdated criticism as an argument

    >it's plagiarism and copyright infringement
    Oh sure, but when Nintendo starts cracking down on it, it's suddenly "fair use" and they are evil.

    AI art is fair use by definition, since even though it was trained on human data, it was trained on billions of images and it was already demonstrated since the beginning that it creates new images not in it's dataset.

    But hey, artists making money off of making porn of popular IP characters like pokémon, mlp and other shit without licensing it from the creators is a OK, because "ebin corporations le owned xd" or something

    But an AI generating a completely unique image is somehow "stealing", because you're aware it was trained on scraped data.
    Why not make an AI that can detect traces of artstyles in other images? That way artist A can pay royalties to artist B for daring to be "inspired" (obviously stealing) by their work?

    Pokemon recently colaborated with the Vincent Van Gogh museum to create images of pokemons in the Van Gogh style. Something that a style transfer AI from few years back can do easily, yet it's somehow applauded as "creative", because it wasn't made using the hekin evil AI

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    dickybros keep winning. Reddit Black folk keep seething

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      looks like a poorly shooped adult female. if you can jerk off to this you're not much of a dickybro.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        not many people prompt with "pubescent skull shape" or early 20s skull shape, it works surprisingly well to deage celebrities the models only have latest photos of.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous
        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous
      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/S1FGsKU.jpg

        How about this one?

        > t. other anon using latest JuggernautXL

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          okay, that's on the correct side of the uooh/not uooh line at least. could be better though.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        This. She looks like a midget woman with a massive head.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Show hands.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Do you think that looks good, you dumb pedo coomer?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Looks like more of a downsized woman than a little girl but it's passable

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/P2preut.jpg

        Looks like more of a downsized woman than a little girl but it's passable

        All the good stuff has been deleted from the thread by the janny, phoneposter morons

        [...]

        [...]

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nah that goofy 3D isn't looking good either stick to 2D or make it realistic

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It goes as realistic as you want, dumbass. Good luck posting it on nu r/BOT honeypot.

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    No one gives a shit, it's not even a tech topic since it's just "what bullshit metric should be used to call this trash an art piece"
    Stop being seething over your inability to paint and spamming irrelevant trash threads
    >>>/ic/

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    If the artist was a fan artist and non of their work is under their copyright do they have a right to complain. Also frick artist, cant commission any artist now a days because they photo bash and steal stock images so much. My company stopped hiring them after the third time we had this issue.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Pay chump change
      >Expect state of the art
      Lol
      lmao even moron

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Ok Mr. Artist with no argument, what do you suppose isnt chump then?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          A decent salary not a few bucks lol

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            You still owe me for that 02. What are you gonna do about that? Should've thought before consuming it. See you in court.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Get a load of this golem tonguing his corporate overlords' filthy anus with religious zeal.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >cries about plagiasm and defends copyright bullshit laws made by big corps
                >cries when the same is applied to him
                See you in court, buddy 😉

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    my favorite part about cope comics like this is always just the bitter, desperate effort to look like they're "above it" even though they wouldn't be making comics like this if they weren't incredibly threatened by it

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Boo hoo. Artists are always taking inspiration from other people.
    AI is just using their art as inspiration.

  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >AI learns from drawings
    >Artists can't draw hands
    >In result AI can't draw hands

  16. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >ai is plagiusirsms

    new psyop just dropped, need it or keep it?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >new
      where have you been the last year

  17. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    idgi

  18. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    "art" has zero intrinsic value, it is something that really talented people used to do as an outlet outside of their actual work. "artists" now are just beggars who live off of government grants so they can make more of their pointless trash

  19. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I dated an artist at College for a couple of years. When we 'worked' together at hers, she always had an image of a classical (or at least existing) painting on her laptop that she was painting herself, sometimes with changes like a different human in the portrait or different environment (also copied from an image she didn't create)

    But that's not stealing because shes spending 30 hours creating it? So if we slow down image generation to take 30 hours its suddenly all ok?

    'Artists' are just butthurt that exactly what they can do can now be done in 30 seconds. If they truly were creative it wouldn't be an issue.

    Anyway, we are still good friends, and shes a good painter. Shes butt hurt about AI art, but doesn't care too much since she works in a restaurant.

    Shes also not too butthurt to accept $400 to oil paint an AI-generated picture of me and my new girlfriend.

    Just like the camera, the printing press and other inventions of the like. People will scream and cry and complain, but in the end the world will be a better place and the people crying will be better for it. How many 'artists' get paid to paint a photograph? I can't draw or paint for shit, but I can envision a picture I would want painted. Whats wrong with prompting AI until it gets close enough so an artist can follow through? If artists had any real brain cells they'd take advantage of that and make more money.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      AI can’t do exactly what human’s can do. You’re truly ignorant if you believe that, and clearly spurning artists out of some kind of misguided hatred. And yes, it’s clear that you have not a single creative bone in your body if you don’t grasp why artists don’t rely on AI. The act of making something from a simple medium like a pen and blank canvas is a neurological journey that feels like heaven. It’s better than any high. I will never be threatened by AI or people as idiotic as you. You affirm my pastime.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Hey moron, not that ajon, but you seem to fail to comprehend just that - no problem with drawing as a pasttime.

        But when you "artists" demand to ban AI art so you can draw more obese women of color to punish society, you shouldn't be surprised when people refuse to pay for the ugly garbage you make.

        Art is a hobby, and if you are good enough, people will always prefer it to AI art.
        But if you make garbage, don't act like a little b***h when AI replaces you.

        True artists will keep drawing regardless of whether they get paid for it, and so, a real artist wouldn't b***h about AI, because they wouldn't feel threatened by it.
        Simple as.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Shes also not too butthurt to accept $400 to oil paint an AI-generated picture of me and my new girlfriend.
      holy frick what a dick move LMAO

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        to be clear, what you communicated to your ex is:
        >Your profession is dying, but I guess I can throw you some money to copy the output of matrix multiplication (which I prefer to anything you can create yourself). Oh yeah and it's a portrait of me and the girl I like better than you
        stone fricking cold dude. Your ex has self esteem issues, pls apologize to her immediately you turbo-autist

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        to be clear, what you communicated to your ex is:
        >Your profession is dying, but I guess I can throw you some money to copy the output of matrix multiplication (which I prefer to anything you can create yourself). Oh yeah and it's a portrait of me and the girl I like better than you
        stone fricking cold dude. Your ex has self esteem issues, pls apologize to her immediately you turbo-autist

        It's not like that, we were friends before we dated and we're still friends now. She dated other guys too. Also like I said, she's a great painter, but she needs to copy something existing, she can't pluck it out of thin air. And I had a general idea of what I wanted but wanted to iterate on it. It makes so much more sense to use AI to generate the image which I can iterate on and let her paint it then tell her a vague idea and say 'make this change' 30 times until its what I want.
        Also she isn't a professional artist, she works in a restaurant.

        She's getting some money to do something she enjoys as a hobby, that's not cold. That's warm-hearted.

        AI can’t do exactly what human’s can do. You’re truly ignorant if you believe that, and clearly spurning artists out of some kind of misguided hatred. And yes, it’s clear that you have not a single creative bone in your body if you don’t grasp why artists don’t rely on AI. The act of making something from a simple medium like a pen and blank canvas is a neurological journey that feels like heaven. It’s better than any high. I will never be threatened by AI or people as idiotic as you. You affirm my pastime.

        There's an artistic spectrum, people who are severely artistic will be fine and I agree AI can't touch them. That's what will continue to push art forward, its what will be fed into the AI. So what's the problem? People like my friend who are artistic in a more technical sense can use AI to their advantage, like how I did to get a basic vision out of my head that would be impossible by pen and paper (or any other medium other than iterating with an actual artist for weeks).

        https://i.imgur.com/J1ukcKH.jpg

        >People will scream and cry and complain, but in the end the world will be a better place and the people crying will be better for it.

        That's where you're wrong. AI is coming for all of us, white collar jobs first. Unless you're doing truly groundbreaking never-before seen stuff, some LLM somewhere has already learned how to do it. And even then I have my doubts the AI couldn't figure it out. The genie is out of the bottle, but the only people who have anything to gain from this are those who control the AIs and the compute.

        Things will change, yes. But in the scenario you're imagining, money will lose its power. What is the use of money if everything (other than AI and Compute) can be created for next to nothing? If no one has jobs and earns money, whos spending it?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >There's an artistic spectrum
          lmao, no. Art is a binary. Something is art or something isn't. Most knuckleheads like you don't seem to understand that the craft (in this case drawing/painting) is just that: a craft. What is made with that craft is not inherently artistic. It may be a demonstration of extreme skill, but skill in craft is not artistry.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn’t matter what’s fed to AI. AI will never push art forward; it will stagnate mainstream culture. The only real art is what humans create. AI feeds the delusions of civilians and the intelligentsia on the opposite end of the spectrum who can’t accept that being smart enough to code and do complex equations doesn’t mean you’re entitled to being an artist. Artists don’t b***h about not being mathematical geniuses, but coders and math autists go out of their way to try and destroy the humanities with shit like image generators. It’s pathetic.

            See

            "art" has zero intrinsic value, it is something that really talented people used to do as an outlet outside of their actual work. "artists" now are just beggars who live off of government grants so they can make more of their pointless trash

            Useless eaters like you aren't taken seriously for a reason, nor should you be taken seriously. You draw neat little paintings. No one cares.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              You’re not even on society’s radar, nig. You little bum. Art = culture. AI = deadend.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Why the frick did you include me in that?

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              This whole line of reasoning that art cannot be a profession because it has no value "to you" is just silly. Artists, composers, and authors of note throughout history have often specialized in the one thing they were known for. And there has always been someone willing to pay real money for it.

              "art" has zero intrinsic value, it is something that really talented people used to do as an outlet outside of their actual work. "artists" now are just beggars who live off of government grants so they can make more of their pointless trash

              Tell that to Beethoven or Monet. All useless eaters, right?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                homie, the vast majority of artists throughout history have been mainly dedicated to making copies of the most famous works and selling them, and they were always just another working class, no better than a potter, a carpenter or a blacksmith.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          It doesn’t matter what’s fed to AI. AI will never push art forward; it will stagnate mainstream culture. The only real art is what humans create. AI feeds the delusions of civilians and the intelligentsia on the opposite end of the spectrum who can’t accept that being smart enough to code and do complex equations doesn’t mean you’re entitled to being an artist. Artists don’t b***h about not being mathematical geniuses, but coders and math autists go out of their way to try and destroy the humanities with shit like image generators. It’s pathetic.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I've seen people make more imaginative stuff with DallE than your average twitter artcell can shit out for their furry porn commission.
            Art has already stagnated, look at mainstream music, movies, games. Same shit over and over. Web design is dead since every webpage uses the same flat design template.

            AI art will be a great catalyst, by eliminating the manual skill entry barrier anyone can create. So now your average deviantart stacy who knows how to draw, but her work is uninspired anyway won't stand out anymore, but trully talented artists will stand out even more, regardless of what tool they're using.
            Drawing is just the process of taking an idea from your mind and putting it on paper. It shouldn't matter what tool you use to accomplish this goal. If you disrespect someone's work just because they used a tool you don't approve of, you're the equivalent of a linux user complaining that an artist used photoshop (proprietary, evil) instead of GIMP (free as in freedom, no adjustment layers lol)

            >b-but the dataset
            So what? Humans build their own dataset over the span of their entire life, all the images, videos and real life experiences get combined into your own imagination, if I really like works of some artists, chances are it will influence my own work, consciously or not. Yet noone accuses you of stealing for looking at their image and your own work being inspired by it.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Overwhelming an image with detail doesn’t make it good, and the intention of most drawings is to capture ‘life’ in simplicity. There’s a reason people are in awe of artists who can make beautiful work in a dozen pen strokes. I would pay $500.00 for a half-body sketch from my favorite artists.

              If you’re awed simply by flash and loudness, that’s fine, but don’t conflate that with being ‘good’. If I wanted to draw hidden faces in landscapes and render scenes with impossible physics, I can. Character artists are doing something very specific.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                > implying ai can't do "simplicity"

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I believe it can do simply moronic pretty well:

                https://i.imgur.com/AHiL8TT.jpg

                Naw, her shit is fricked. From clavicle to crotch, her shit is wrong. If she stood up she would look absolute freakish, and don’t forget her gimped ass arm with her infant-length forearm and nigerian basketball player humerus.

                And in your new pic, shit sis still fricked. AI can’t seem to do perspective or proportion in perspective right at all. And if you can’t see this, it’s because you’re not an artist.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think you're focusing too much on fluffy stuff like "awe" and "goodness" and not enough on "is it useful."

                I am sure you aren't awestruck by most stock images, right? Ergo it's feasible AI could replace them by being more specific, cheaper, and faster? If so, many artists and photographers will be replaced. Maybe the ones who "push art forward" will get to stick around, at least for the time being, but they'll be horses in a world built for cars.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You seem completely disconnected from reality. You talk like a schizoid codemonkey. Humans, so you know, like art because its creators endure the human condition. They have life experiences, like humans. If you think in terms of raw utility without human emotion, you’re like an advertising firm. I tell you what, though, you’re insane if you think AI is an evolution of human art. It’s not. It’s antihuman. It’s always these fricking sociopathic silicon valley freaks that want to become computers. Humanity is against you.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Humans like art because the author is human.
                When I see a beautiful picture, my brain doesn't think "I like it because the the author is human". We like art because of the feelings an thoughts it invokes in us, not because of its author, or lack thereof.

                An untrained AI is a blank slate. A trained AI is what we can use. And maybe the AI that made this didn't "endure" or "understand" the human condition. But it was trained on paintings and images that did. Hundreds of millions of them. All the skills and patterns it learned, it learned from photographs by humans, from paintings by humans, from art by humans. What it lacks in "intrinsic humanity", it makes up in experience.

                And if you think it's not good enough, guess what? You won't be able to tell the difference. It makes new art that's indistinguishable from human art. It can do that. The artistic Turing Test has been passed.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's high time we democratize talent (the means of production) and disrupt the globalist meritocratic caste system (nepotism)

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >People will scream and cry and complain, but in the end the world will be a better place and the people crying will be better for it.

      That's where you're wrong. AI is coming for all of us, white collar jobs first. Unless you're doing truly groundbreaking never-before seen stuff, some LLM somewhere has already learned how to do it. And even then I have my doubts the AI couldn't figure it out. The genie is out of the bottle, but the only people who have anything to gain from this are those who control the AIs and the compute.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Certificado
        Jajajajajajajajajaja

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        sopa de macaco

  20. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >stable diffusion xl comes out
    >ai art "detectors" are now unable to detect if something was drawn by a human or by SDXL
    >can draw hands
    It is unironically, officially over for "artists" who can't adapt, overcome and make use of new tools

  21. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
  22. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Pure cope

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      more like
      Pure arrest

  23. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    why of all points to make this comic decides to go with that lol
    the first cars were slower than horses

  24. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    you love to see it

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dude sitting on the box might not get paid, but he gets laid.

      Seethe.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        You think we can't frick a computer?
        You underestimate us.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        clout seeking just got 100x easier, you think pussy is adept at learning the difference?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Lol. The kind of pussy attracted to artists is seeking ability, which requires proof. When 1500 fangirls show up to a comic con panel if their favorite artist, it’s not because he prompted his work. Same goes for gaggles of girls who watch their favorite art streamers.

          Writing is one of the only places where you could feasibly fake it, but even then, you can be found out should you ever attract the attention of an intelligent woman.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      homie has six fingers. He must fingerblast altgirls into oblivion.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not ironically, I have a lot of respect for street artists. There's a guy who draws small paintings in a square I go to and I've bought several paintings from him because they look so good.
      But the average twitter artist...
      They deserve a visit from Dokuro-chan and excaliborg.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        The real Dokuro-chan would smash your head in.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          That is how she shows her love.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            She wouldn’t love a dead-eyed impostor.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          god I wish

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        cute Dokuro-tan 🙂

  25. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Would it better for AI art to have its own category?

  26. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Come here and stop me if you can.
    >spoiler
    You can't

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Now post a version that doesn’t look like it doesn’t look like it hates its own existence.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous
        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          That looks better, but not by much. You should get an artist to redraw it for you.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Holy cope
            99% of "artists" would spend hours or days drawing things even close to resembling this

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              My guy, I will draw you something that looks like that in about 30 minutes. Prompt me.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                AI generates in less than a minute on rtx 3060. You've already lost.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Except it looks like shit, and what I would do in 30 minutes is infinitely cooler, more original, and full of undeniable life. I also have a 4090 and actually use it to do shit that has value, not prompt dead trash.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Except it looks like shit, and what I would do in 30 minutes is infinitely cooler, more original, and full of undeniable life. I also have a 4090 and actually use it to do shit that has value, not prompt dead trash.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why would I be the one coping? I literally make things with the hands and brain I was born with, from virtually nothing.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Post one!

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I offered to draw a request.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Draw a better version of that shitty anime girl the guy posted earlier.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Okay.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                23 minutes remaining

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I really hope he delivers

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                15 minutes

                https://i.imgur.com/yP3ou9B.gif

                I really hope he delivers

                I'm curious if he has the balls to. He knows he's going to get shit on no matter if it's great or not.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >He knows he's going to get shit on no matter
                I'm going to have an open mind and judge it honestly

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Two minutes left, quick anon, defend artist's pride

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                -9 minutes.

                Anon failed to deliver in the quoted time.

                Let's see if he has the balls to at least still post it when he does finish it.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You guys are too impatient. I admit I wasted too much time on the sketch. I’m not even gonna bother finishing it. (Tbh I got horny looking at it so I like it more than the Ai version already).

                So yeah, I technically failed the challenge, but whatever. Now I just feel like drawing more.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You guys are too impatient
                You claimed to be able to do it in 30 minutes.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, I know. I failed. But I taught myself something by failing.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Okay, good for you, but don't complain about AI filling a niche.
                As I said, if your art is good, I will always like it, no matter if AI art becomes 90% of all images.

                But I will also always like AI art too, and it has its place.
                Here is how I see it:
                (Favorite to least favorite):
                >good human art
                >good AI art
                >mediocre human art (You right now, anime artist #822782^56)
                >poor AI art
                >pile of garbage
                >woke art

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >still better
                Meh.
                It's alright.

                I just don't get b***hing about AI if you're so confident about being better than it.
                Only losers complain about competition.

                Real good artists will always draw, as I said, and bad artists should stop being treated as a protected class because their diapered sonic who is also black and gay didn't get as popular as an AI picture.
                So, quit being a b***h, and keep drawing if you are a good artist. And if you are a bad artist, either get better or stop whining about MUH AI ART IS DA STEALING, you sound like the homosexuals that complain about systemic racism.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                P.S. Just realized the original picture you were trying to redraw, dude, the original looks a lot better. Like, yours is cute too, but humble yourself. As it stands, yours looks no more appealing than the AI. Nice boobs, but, to quote a famous Black, "look at the top of his head!!! Hahahahahah!"

                Fix the head shape, but stop bragging about AI art being boring and ugly, when yours is worse. But, I am not saying you should quit drawing. You are pretty good. Get better, and draw because it's fun.

                But be a man and don't b***h.
                Good luck.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Bro, it’s a sketch. There’s nothing wrong with the headshape; she’s missing hair. Anime heads are massive. If I finished it you wouldn’t be talking smack. I’m not going to be humbled by AI. I already know I’m better.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Kek, then you are delusional, my friend.
                I thought you might heed my words, but alas.
                I have no more to say to you.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You wanna see some finished work, fricker?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                spend a few more hours on it paintpig. i'm sure the final result will make great training material

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not if I covered it in a semitransparent pattern from top to bottom.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't know if it's better, but it is good. And I definitely respect that you still posted it

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                good effort, but;
                - you basically just did the same drawing, good for comparison i guess but hardly creative. it was so similar i had to check it wasn't just traced
                - the face has poorly scaled/positioned features
                i don't mind a good sketch, but in what way is that better? the same thing but a derpy face?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                this is like watching in the 60's swearing up and down they can beat a transistorised electronic computer at mathematics
                "a computer is a human job!" they might say, "how can you trust a machine to do the work correctly!", they might add

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                No way dude hahahahaha fricking embarassing

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >V Anon
                Please go back to >>>BOT , you absolute corporate shill.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >nitpicks AI art
                >posts this
                >not even within the time frame
                AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
                You price fixing paintpigs really think you can keep up. Decades to centuries of art progress is now being condensed into being created within seconds to minutes. It's only a matter of time before art generation catches up and then surpasses human ability.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Anon. I am disappoint

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                nice fricking try

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Your turn.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                to do what? lmao

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Draw, nig

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                what? i'm laughing at the artgay
                are you moronic?
                ESL?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, draw something better while you laugh.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >le dead
                And garbage produced by transvestites of intentionally ugly characters for the sake of diversity isn't dead?
                I'll take AI over that, thank you.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                what does "dead" even mean in that context?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                He told you to draw "AI generates in less than a minute on rtx 3060. You've already lost."
                Do it.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                in 30 minutes i could have iterated the prompt a couple dozen times to get it how i want

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/3ZJBRHL.jpg

          You guys are too impatient. I admit I wasted too much time on the sketch. I’m not even gonna bother finishing it. (Tbh I got horny looking at it so I like it more than the Ai version already).

          So yeah, I technically failed the challenge, but whatever. Now I just feel like drawing more.

          Hahahahaha
          HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
          Holy absolute kek.
          "People" like you deserve to be humiliated.

  27. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      i hate artgays as much as the next loser, but if you think brains are just multilayer perceptrons you are an unironic moron

  28. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >artists upload images of them sucking at drawing hands
    >Ai steals their images
    >Ai sucks at drawing hands

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ai doesn’t draw. That would require sentience and appendages. Even if you programmed a robot to draw, it’s only drawing by technicality. When a human draws, the mind and body work together.

  29. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's so fricking over for inkcels.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      uncropped version pls

  30. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I’ll accept AI Art when it can generate decent looking porn of other peoples’ OCs.

  31. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI learns concepts. It does less plagiarism than you.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      It doesn’t learn. Stop ascribing human traits to Ai. It’s not AGi.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        this post is so stupid and low IQ I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are trolling and not being completely moronic
        have one (You)

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          I’ll give you the benefit of sympathy since you’re mentally unfit.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        A human trait exemplified by for instance "sit" and "fetch"

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >it doesn't correlate raw information to find redundancies which can be applied to other information
        it really depends on how you define "learn", why can't a computer program take 10,000 picture of dogs, find correlations between them to determine mathematically what constitutes a picture of a dog?
        it may be different to what "learning" is in humans, but it's still close enough in practice to reasonably call it "training data" and the resulting model "learned information"
        it's also nothing new to reuse words like this, words that traditionally referred to biological processes and applying them to technological ones

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well, depends on how overbaked it is.
      "AI" models are just matrices of numbers, with a certain size in bytes. It encodes at most as much data as its capacity in bytes (can be lower because of redundant or non-functional parameters).
      If you trained a model on training data with a lower storage requirement than the model's capacity in bytes, it will happily memorize the raw training data and create pixel-perfect reproductions on demand.
      It can also "compress" data, so the file size of the image on the operating system might be larger than the amount of space the model can compress it to for memorization.
      Some models are overbaked to the point they can produce nearly pixel-perfect representations of the training data.

      It doesn’t learn. Stop ascribing human traits to Ai. It’s not AGi.

      Language is for communication. "Learning" gets the point across.
      I agree that it's unfortunate how some of technical vocabulary for machine learning ascribes human-like traits to the models in a way that confuses some into transferring human-like values onto models.
      But I don't know that saying, "the training process adjusts the parameters of a model in such a fashion that it produces outputs more-and-more similar to the target outputs," is a valuable trade-off between normative vocabulary and conciseness of communication. If I said that to a "normie" then they'd fricking tune out at the word "process."
      To say we must, always, 100% of the time, use maximally precise and minimally normative language to communicate around AI, is to say "I don't think you should be allowed to have meaningful communication about AI. I think the topic should banned from anywhere other than academia."
      And you've lost that battle, because my fricking "leadership" (braindead suits) won't fricking stop talking about it despite understanding fricking nothing about it.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        True, overfitting is a possibility for improperly trained AIs. But it's not a problem the latest and most widely-used models (Dalle 3, SD, etc.) have. They can produce and combine stuff at a conceptual level. That's what makes them so scary.

        If all they did was spit out badly distorted copies of shit, there wouldn't be all this cope.

        Mental how any criticism of AI art triggers a bunch of AI "artists" who obviously lack the ability and will to actually make art themselves.
        The whole AI "artist" thing is weird in and of itself. If you go into any of the threads you'll see someone say
        >Check this pic I just made
        when they obviously haven't really made anything. It's no different to me giving a vague description of a house I want built to an architect, him drawing the blueprints, the builders building it and then me saying to everyone "yeah I made this" when in reality my input was
        >It needs walls, doors, and windows
        Might as well put some big sum in a calculator and then repeat the answer and say you worked it out yourself.
        Even israelites aren't this bad when it comes to twisting the truth.

        I agree with you here that AI "artists" aren't much like traditional artists. They're more like commissioners . The AI itself is the artist, but that is something the artgays can never accept.

  32. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I've always found the "AI art is low quality" argument to be strange. I'm not an artist and there are definitely things that they can pick out that I can't. But why don't I almost never see human art made in the past couple decades that has texture and lighting like this? Even if some of the proportions or perspective might be slightly off (I mean I can't see it but maybe it is), wouldn't this still require immense talent? Why don't I see many artists making stuff like this?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because that image is weighted for fine art. Fine art is not what younger generations are pursuing. Some still do. If you want to see a modern fine art master, look up Vincent Desiderio.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I like his style. But I guess my point is: isn't it a difficult style to do? Could most artists do that if they wanted? I genuinely don't know the answer. But if an AI is better than most artists at some things and worse at others, I don't think it's right to say it is low quality; I don't see why the things human artists do better should be valued over the things AI artists do better. I'm totally not denying that some human artists blow out AI artists completely, but those are the ones at the absolute top.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          You’re saying AI is better. It’s not. It’s using existing images, image data, of fine art, and combining it with existing images of other things, humans, textures, etc. AI has no skill to speak of, so it’s impossible for it to be better than a human artist at anything.

          All it can do is combine artist’s work together.

          People who prompt are not artists; they’re data compilers.,

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You're saying AI art is better?
            Uh, when?

            Fair point about not using the term AI artist though. There is a degree of skill and artistry involved, especially when inpainting or using other tools to guide or modify the image. But it's a far cry from the level of skill that goes into real art.

            Anyway, I'm genuinely interested if you could respond to what I was actually asking in my post.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              If fine art is harder? It depends. Understanding how form turns in light and shadow can be advanced by academic studies, which many artists pursue. At the highest level, artists are part scientist. What they want to retain is humanity. Realism takes more time, but even then, the majority of fine artists are not chasing realism—it’s usually hyperrealism, surrealism, or stylized realism. Most famous comic/mangka creators start with fundamentals in realism even though their work is stylized. Can they do fine art? Yep.

              It comes down to how they can most effectively get their message across.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      i've seen countless bedroom through-the-keyhole paintings with lighting and ruffleporn like this, it's practically a mandated modern fetish in mass media that easily gets a run in paint circles.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >wouldn't this still require immense talent?
      To be fair? Not really
      The pool is much bigger now, a talented high schooler with a specific education in art can draw and paint like the masters of old
      But academia stopped valuing classic art more than a century ago

      Don't get me wrong it's long and boring but perfectly doable unless you're a hack

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >long and boring but perfectly doable
        Ironically, no, not with the way current technology is affecting our attention spans. We can't learn anything long and boring anymore. It was a lot easier to learn to learn the classics when there weren't constant dopamine-draining distractions everywhere. Everything old is new again.

        Any person alive today who can paint or draw like the masters of old deserves our respect. He'll probably starve to death if that's all he knows how to do in this shitty age, but that doesn't change it.

  33. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    baitcels and patreoncels should both find real jobs.

  34. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Watching AI art gives me good feelings so it's an art.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >watching

      Okay, Mr. Patel

  35. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Don't care + didn't ask

  36. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I seriously don't understand the mental philosophy that inspires AIBlack folk to love AI so much and ensure AI is propagated

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      it is the same philosophy that inspires artists to spend 10 hours on a single piece except what ai researchers produce is actually useful

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Haven't you ever watched The Matrix or Terminator? Ghost in the Shell? Or literally any awesome sci-fi movie with robots in them?

      HOW CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE LOVE AI SO MUCH? ARE YOU A moron

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I enjoy the whining of "artists". Get a real job.

  37. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Mental how any criticism of AI art triggers a bunch of AI "artists" who obviously lack the ability and will to actually make art themselves.
    The whole AI "artist" thing is weird in and of itself. If you go into any of the threads you'll see someone say
    >Check this pic I just made
    when they obviously haven't really made anything. It's no different to me giving a vague description of a house I want built to an architect, him drawing the blueprints, the builders building it and then me saying to everyone "yeah I made this" when in reality my input was
    >It needs walls, doors, and windows
    Might as well put some big sum in a calculator and then repeat the answer and say you worked it out yourself.
    Even israelites aren't this bad when it comes to twisting the truth.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's funny, because I can definitively say "using AI image generation" is art, because I've resoundingly discovered I'm fricking incapable of doing it.

      AI image generation is a process, involving both human and computer actors. And it starts LONG before some random types a prompt into Stable Diffusion.
      >developers pick an architecture
      >developers gather training data
      >developers pick a training methodology
      >computer(s) train the models
      >developers assess output models from training, to see whether the models are producing the appropriate results
      >developers decide which models to publish or not
      >users pick which models to use
      >users input the prompts and configuration
      >model does the image generation
      >user assesses the output images
      >user decides which images to publish

      The "aesthetics" are done by the humans, not the model. The humans:
      >decide which training images are appropriate aesthetics to train a model on
      >evaluate whether the models created are producing appropriately aesthetic results (when deciding whether to publish, or deciding which model to choose as a user)
      >choose the appropriate prompts and configuration, based on their experiences with the model
      >assess the aesthetics qualities of the outputs and decide which are worthy of publishing

      It's incorrect for users to humanize AI models by ascribing any sort of artistic sensibilities to a matrix of fricking numbers. The models and computers are not capable of that.
      But it's ALSO incorrect for AI-detractors to dehumanize the AI image generation process by denying there are artistic sensibilities at play, because the AI image generation process (beyond the model on the computer) involves many humans!

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >incapable of doing it
        >Stable Diffusion
        Try Dalle 3. It's moron-proof. As long as you don't try getting booba or wrongthink images, that is.

        The politically correct bias of mainstream image AIs is the one area where human artists can still have competitive advantage. For now.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nah, it's more like I'm utterly incapable of producing something I'm happy with.
          While I don't have complete aphantasia (inability to create mental images), I'm definitely a hybrid brain where I "visualize" simultaneously in both image and non-visual (text, emotion) mediums.
          When one of my "mental images" in rendered down to a real, solely visual phenomenon, it always feels "incomplete." And when I'm trying to iterate on an prompt set-up, it's like I'm constantly circling the "target" and never hitting it close enough.
          The only AI image generation I'm good at is horny, because the horny is enough to suppress the part of my brain going "this image doesn't feel correct yet..."

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ah, we're using the AIs in different ways then. I can visualize stuff in my mind too to some extent, but I never go to an AI with a fixed "expectations" in mind. I find it too much hassle to position things exactly how I would envision them, just by prompting. Prompt engineers can do it, but I can't. Long sequences of words and styles just jumble in my head and get fuzzy.

            How I use the AI is I actually expect it to be creative. I give it a short idea like "Can of Pringles, nihilism flavored", or "Miku as an cyborg", then go in my head: "Alright AI, hit me". Some things it does subpar, but a lot of times it hits gold.

            So I let it be creative. I treat the AI less like a tool to give me a very specific image, and more like an artist-in-itself. An artists that's very quick, won't charge me, won't get angry at my autism, and can do infinite variations. And unfortunately, one that is politically incorrect, and safe for work. (as I've said, not prompt engineer to get past the filters, and I lack the compute to run Stable diffusion).

            ---

            As for that "doesn't feel correct yet" itch, I know it. I used to draw in the past. Purely as a hobby, for my own autism. Maybe a new tool that combines local editing with AI-generation (new Photoshop?) could cure it, but I don't think we're there yet. For that kind of itch, I have only one advice. Learn to draw. Unironically. Once you're good enough at drawing what you see in your head, you can finally scratch it. I'm not saying you'll make money or out-draw the AI or anything moronic like that. I'm just telling you, from one autist to another, the one way to scratch that "incomplete" itch is learn to draw. You can get a drawing pad (Wacom pen tabled or some shit) for 40$. And you can learn to draw from "Drawing on the right side of the brain" . It's a book and a video series, both can be found online. Learn to draw. Complete the things you see in your head. Scratch that itch. AI will doom us all.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >An artists that's very quick, won't charge me, won't get angry at my autism, and can do infinite variations.
              Based. That's all it is.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      At the end of the day, they care more about being seen as artists than actually making art.
      That's why they feel so strongly about it.
      Some artists enjoy the process, and those are the ones who will never be swayed by AI because there is no process there.
      Some artists have something in mind that they want to create and will use any tools to create it. Those ones probably will switch to AI more and more as it gets better at following instructions.
      The people who are rabidly enthusiastic about AI art are neither. They simply want the recognition that comes with being an artist.

  38. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm a writer, a painter and a hobbyist (non-job) programmer.
    I don't give a frick if it's plagiarism, copyright infringement, soulless, not art, or not actually """making""" anything.
    I WILL use AI to complete more projects, and there is no way any luddite will stand in the way of me and my dopamine.
    AI will replace all you salty artist cucks, it will also replace me, and it will even replace my day job before soon.

    And I don't give a shit.
    I'm getting so much done.

    pic related, you should do this

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Didn’t read.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        I implore you to read it, it's important to me that you understand precisely how I feel about this all.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        You totally did. The last good artist was Adolf Hitler. Get a real job.

  39. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI art can't exist without traditional art so why the frick are there people who insist it should completely replace it anyway.
    AI art is also a good way to make a quick idea I had into reality, something so silly that it isn't worth commissioning an artist over and waiting months until he can finally deliver me something. So why the frick are artists so butthurt about it as well.

    tl;dr frick you, I WILL sit on this fence and there's NOTHING you can do to take me out of it.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      You are sitting on the right fencepost and completely correct. I generate character portraits for RPGs and images of stuff I like and can't find pictures of. I don't want to learn art and I don't want to commission it either. It's just fun for me.

  40. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ironic that a troony would be shitting on AI "artists" when they have the exact same mentality.
    >I'm a real artist!
    >No, I don't actually draw, but the definition of artist has been redefined.
    >I should be allowed to post in spaces meant for artists.
    >My art passes perfectly, you can't tell the difference.
    >Okay, you're just cherrypicking with a couple of pieces of AI art, but most of them pass.
    >Here's a carefully cherrypicked piece of somewhat passing AI art that I will use as though it represents the whole.
    >If you think about it, AI artists are actually better than AI artists.
    >You're probably just jealous of us.
    >This is the future and you can't stop it!

  41. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    kinda surprised no one tested this theory

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      AI art?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        of course

  42. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    What's most hilarious about this whole thing is that you have a bunch of highly leftist people getting pissed over the democratization of creative endeavors.
    >FREE ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE! But you've gotta pay me $800 to get a picture your big tittied wolf woman with a cartoonishly large dick.

  43. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    real question

    how the hell are they trying to claim using copyrighted materials is "fair use" when:
    a) the models would effectively be worthless without using copyrighted media
    b) they're using copyrighted data for generative AI and seeking profits from it

    somebody explain this to me; it seems really clear to me that most of these services should be shut down via cease and desist order.
    the defense of "I don't know what's on there because it's too much data" doesn't work for the pirate bay which only hosts a representation of data, so why the FRICK should it work for AI companies who are actually feeding in, tokenizing, and profiting off of massive amounts of copyrighted data???

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      read up on "transformative" in copyright law.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      additionally, if we are talking about chat AIs and not image ones:

      if I were to count up every time the word "hat" followed "a" in a given work, then put that number somewhere, would you consider that copyright infringement? Because that's effectively how the chat AIs work at their most basic level. The original works "fed" in don't exist anywhere in it except in how they alter numbers in the matrices, usually to very small degrees.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I hope someone sends you a C&D for this low-quality post, which you probably stole from other anons to begin with.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Meanwhile

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      real question who gives a shit about copyright

  44. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    No it's not, and even if it is, I infringe copyright and plagiarize all the time, so it's not like I would care.

  45. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Whats even the point? You dont gain likes, you dont gain points you just make a shitty bait post and get middling responses why even waste your time

  46. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The current models can sometimes frick hands. It means it's over for AI. I'm sure it will never evolve past that.
    I love artoids cope.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      stable diffusion is weak compared to what is actually the current models

  47. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Second panel, red stain on the painter's coat

  48. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Prooooooooooompt?

  49. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    All this b***hing about AI is pointless. Embrace it or you will be left in the dust. Simple as

  50. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    disgusting, and also thanks for killing the thread.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      hot as frick, thanks for saving the thread

      [...]
      delicious, and also thanks for reviving the thread.

      [...]
      I have no opinion on the picture and on the longevity of the thread

      What was it?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        AI pedo shit

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        AI dicky masterpiece

  51. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    TO ALL homosexual ARTIST DEFENDERS HERE:

    I used to prefer human art.
    Ask me this 15 years ago, and I would've had sympathy for "artists."

    But modern artists draw intentionally ugly shit for the sake of post-modernism, and to me, there is no more "art" that exists. So, rather than AI replacing DA POOR ARTISTS N SHIEET, it's filling avoid for actual good art.

    You people drawing furry vore and ugly middle aged transvestites and corporate globohomosexual cartoons aren't any more "artists" than my computer.

    Your "MUH HUMAN" argument falls apart, because to me, you are no more human than my 2060.
    You stopped being human when you sold out to globalism and post-modernism.

    If Da Vinci came to me today and said AI art is bad, I would kneel and agree.
    But you frickers drawing obese black women and claiming it's art - frick you.

    I will always appreciate good human art, and I will always prefer AI art over 90% of modern "artists".
    AI is merely restoring the status quo of art being a hobby, and I'm tired of people pretending like everyone can be an artist.

    AI is the great filter to art, and that's a good thing, because 99% of people are shit artists. Your feminist vegana drawings are less "art" than my AI making a beautiful drawing, and that's that.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >But modern artists draw intentionally ugly shit for the sake of post-modernism
      It's kinda funny to hear this from people between 1950 to now lol

  52. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    hot as frick, thanks for saving the thread

  53. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    delicious, and also thanks for reviving the thread.

  54. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I have no opinion on the picture and on the longevity of the thread

  55. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Kill your artroony

  56. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    catbox it?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not mine btw it was from a thread on BOT
      https://catbox.moe/c/sha15c

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Shit, sorry I missed your post. Amazing. Thank you.

  57. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >they're still butthurt that people didn't accept the horrifically ugly blackface mermaid

  58. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >1980: haha look at the nerd with his computers
    >1990: haha look at the nerd with his computers
    >2000: haha look at the nerd with his computers
    >2010: have you seen the new iPhone?
    >2020: I would literally DIE without my phone
    Do Twitter morons not understand that improvements will come?

  59. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Looks boring and dead. Show me something Yoh Yoshinari can’t do better.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        ever heard of "roi"?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          No. Elaborate.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I just think you're making an unfair comparison, and thinking in terms of return on investment makes that clear.

            Sure, maybe AI can't produce art as "soulful" or "alive" as <insert your favorite artist here>. But art from your favorite artist is going to cost hundreds of dollars and take days or weeks. AI art on the other hand is nearly free and nearly instant. In terms of how far your dollar goes, it goes much farther with AI than it does with any human artist.

            Bottom line is AI art doesn't have to be very good for people to prefer it over human made art, since human made art is such a painful, expensive, slow process to commission. I don't think "soul" is the top priority for most people who want art.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Not to mention that if one is an artist, they could just take the output and edit it to make it better, saving so much time rather than starting from scratch.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      hands still fricked up

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      do you unironically like this
      it looks souless and overexposed
      and this is coming from somebody who does not hate ai stuff

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not much better.

  60. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Aibros we are winning

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Damn, that b***h right thumb like a mf carrot. Imagine if she stuck that up your ass.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      If she stood up, it would be a sight to behold. This b***h torso is longer than her legs.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >The torso is longer than the legs.
        What? Do you know how to measure? Clearly the legs are longer than the torso and that's not counting that you see the torso from the front and the legs from above and little more than the knees.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Naw, her shit is fricked. From clavicle to crotch, her shit is wrong. If she stood up she would look absolute freakish, and don’t forget her gimped ass arm with her infant-length forearm and nigerian basketball player humerus.

          And in your new pic, shit sis still fricked. AI can’t seem to do perspective or proportion in perspective right at all. And if you can’t see this, it’s because you’re not an artist.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Looks about right to me, but I am not an artist.
            Anime art styles and cartoons are unrealistic.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Anon, those pics are clearly not intended to have fricked up proportions, but they do. There are ways to give characters crazy proportions while being maintaining overall proportional harmony. That’s why shortstacks look hot even though they’re fricking midgets.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I suppose you're right. The most obvious thing now that I am closely inspecting it is her left arm.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Indeed.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >removing the neck just because, even though you can see that it is there and the head is lowered
            >make one arm longer than the other because yeah bro
            >fricked hands top kek
            >make it sloppy because yeah bro
            >goat legs because yeah bro
            >nami's torso.
            I know you guys are desperate but this is pathetic.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              That is, generally, what she would look like standing. And you’re worried about a neck joke? It looks like shit, anon. Get over it.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >w-was a prank bro
                Patethic

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, the image definitely is not a prank. That’s what her proportions look like.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                So according to you humans do not have human proportions, measuring myself as an example, my torso measures a little less than my whole arm (up to the wrist), and from the waist to the knee it measures from my elbow to the end of my hand.
                And they correspond quite well with the first image, now you just need to say that I don't have human proportions.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I’m not reading your moronic post, but the woman in that image has normal proportions and the AI shit doesn’t.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Hey moronic homosexual, did you know female bones have different proportions compared to males? What a fricking idiot.

                >it is bad because...
                >IT IS BAD, OKAY?
                I don't even know why I brother.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I showed why, idiot. Now you’re posting more bad anatomy, Jesus christ.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                TOP KEK, I didn't made that, go blame the pixiv guy who drew it.
                https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/113114189
                Will this be another case of artistic hypocrisy or do you just want to throw shit around for the sake of it?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Bad anatomy is bad anatomy, whether a human drew it or not.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Would you be more or less upset if AI could do a better job than all humans at art?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                i was waiting for someone to post human art and get it slammed for being "ai garbage"

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Hey moronic homosexual, did you know female bones have different proportions compared to males? What a fricking idiot.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            looks nice to me, hot dark-skinned_female.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't know how foreshortening works
            lmao, are you supposed to be an artist?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Its called perspective dumbass

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, that’s right, and that image lacks correct proportions for the perspective it’s trying to achieve, you fricking noskill b***h..

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            No it fricking doesnt moron, you've just been so mind broken by AI you're fricking hallucinating

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Nope, the perspective and proportions are wrong. Noskill moron who doesn’t grasp elementary anatomy or persoective detected.

  61. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I consider myself on the side of artists but I would want this homosexual moronic c**t of an artist to know he just made me reconsider my position because of this piece of shit

  62. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    ai art is the elevator music of art
    the art is not interesting but most things don't need interesting art

  63. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The only purpose for AI art is to generate variations on a domain specific artstyle to give you personal inspiration. To use it as a defining baseline, rather than your own, is dumb.

  64. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The best they can cope with is that this paradigm shifting technology displays subtly obvious imperfections during its first years of release.
    AI art will unlock more creativity than the world has ever known.

  65. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    copyright infringement is based
    copyright should be abolished

  66. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    im so confused, is AI art taking every single artist job or does it only produce garbage?

    do these twitter artists not see the contradiction

  67. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    imagine hating an innovation simply because it can make you have to get a real job instead of living off patreon subs

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine being mad at people who are better than you.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        at what?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >real job
      There is no such thing as a "real" job
      Richest people are grifters without any jobs. No one ever does honest work, unless they want to die penniless.
      However you make money - that's your "real" job

  68. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    What I hate about AI shit is how homosexuals mass generates SD slop full of defects and goes acting all high and mighty about it
    It actually takes legit effort to generate good and original looking stuff, you will be spending hours micromanaging settings and prompts, and most of the time you can still see form a mile away it is AI art
    Yet people believes they're "le btfoing artists" with their low effort same SD face, same SD shading etc
    These guys become exactly what they made fun before: Goyslop mass producers

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dalle 3 says hi.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Even low effort AI art is miles better than low effort real artist kek. Keep coping

  69. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      horses are eternal however

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >you can use 2 horses to duplicate more horses and they look after themselves. also a compostable onahole/dragon dildo
        i think ur onto something

  70. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    %3D%3D

    This song embodies how I feel about AI gays.

  71. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >get poor result
    >learn how to get better results
    >get better results
    You'd think artists would understand that but this moron has stagnated for years, so of course he wouldn't

  72. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >copyright infringement
    Frick capitalism

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Cute human art .gif

  73. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >heh... ai will make Ariel OLD
    Is this really the best argument artists could come up with?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      i would say a bigger argument against ai would be the same image you just posted
      like what the frick is wrong with her fingers

  74. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sorry, I don't care. Artbros will need to find another argument.

    • 3 months ago
      synopticon

      >Sorry, I don't care.
      You will.

  75. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >doesn't have two characters uncannily not quite looking at one another, each with near identical faces
    >doesn't have mismatch between the shape of the breasts and the clothing which supposedly contains the breasts
    >doesn't have scale mismatch between scene elements
    >doesn't have hair that blends into the strap of her shirt or a necklace that morphs into cleavage

  76. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's pretty crazy how DALL-E 3 is basically able to conceptualize the scene. Like it summons a bunch of Ariel's little fishy friends, but knows that in the mosque they would be fricking dead because they're not in the water. I didn't even ask for the fish.
    Prompt was "Ariel the little mermaid, Quran, praying at al aqsa mosque"

  77. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    In all seriousness there's still definitely going to be a place for human artists for some time to come. But when it comes to transformative inferences that has always been generative AI's strong suit.
    Ever wondered what Atlas shrugged would read like as a Dr. Seuss story? Ever wondered what Elsa would look like as a tribble? This shit would have taken an actual artist days to fully conceptualize and I got it in 5 seconds just by coming up with the idea.

  78. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Frick copyright and frick IP laws.

  79. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    i too suddenly realized i hated artists after i joined this website in 2016
    what a strange coincidence huh??

  80. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Negative prompt: old, mature
    I fixed it for you brah

  81. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >AI """Art""" is just plagiarism & copyright infringement.
    By definition. It's a statistical model of the original works.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      No it's not since none of the original works is stored in the model. The dataset weights fricking petabytes, while the model is only a couple of gigs. Frick off.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >none of the original works is stored in the model.
        So? It's still just a statistical model of the original works. It's just a randomized kind of multi-level plagiarism that obscures the fact that every level is plagiarized.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          lossy compression doesn't invalidate copyright, nor does the material only being a subset of a larger work

          Learn the defenition of plagiasm, dumb Black person. Looking at the image and then redrawing it will give you more accurate result than asking AI to reproduce one of it's original works. It doesn't store shit about them. It only connects words with concepts with the help of the dataset. It doesn't need some stupid artist's work to understand the concept of a car.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Learn the defenition of plagiasm
            >Plagiarism means using someone else's work without giving them proper credit.
            Image generators use someone else's work and give them no proper credit.

            >It doesn't store shit about them.
            It's literally a statistical model of the training data.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              No it's fricking not. And the work doesn't end up anywhere in the model after the training is complete, moron. What credit? For breathing the same air molecule as one of the million artists at some point?
              If neural networks somehow could compress all the data of the training set into themselves, you'd get the nobel prise. Except they'll take you into the psych ward for thinking you can break the laws of physics.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If neural networks somehow could compress all the data of the training set into themselves
                that is literally what they do though

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks for confirming that you are mentally moronic.

                >No it's fricking not
                What, specifically, is this sentence supposed to deny? The indisputable fact that your "AI" is just a statistical model of the training data? If so, this is your last (You) because you have a psychiatric illness that makes you confuse opinions for incontrovertible facts that aren't up for any discussion.

                The images model produces is the result of the tiny model, not the petabytes of training data itself. If your moronic assumptions was true, then simply looking at copyrighted content or listening to copyrighted music would be more of a plagiasm, because more of the original work is "stolen" and stored that way. And you fricking know it, yet you still try to argue like a moron. Infinite compression isn't physically or mathematically possible. Models don't store shit about any of the artists work.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The images model produces is the result of the tiny model, not the petabytes of training data itself.
                yeah a compressed version of the training data because there is a lot of redundancy

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                First of all, do you understand and acknowledge the fact that your "AI" is a statistical model of the training data? No answer is admissible besides 'yes' and 'no'. Failure to give an answer is admission that you're a mentally challenged golem.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The images model produces is the result of the tiny model, not the petabytes of training data itself.
                yeah a compressed version of the training data because there is a lot of redundancy

                >moron continues with his reductio ad absurdum
                I just realised that you consumed the oxygen molecule that my home plant has produced at some point, so I am going to sue you for using my work to survive without giving me credit. Imagine being so mentally moronic that you think having any kind of causal connection = plagiasm. Imagine believing you can infinitely compress data. No point arguing with morons.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't know what your incoherent babble is about but your "AI" is just a statistical model of other people's work. Every single output it produces is wholly defined by and derivative of other people's work. It is a pure function of other people's work. Case closed.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                And you are going to pay me for using that 02 molecule my plant produced. Case closed. What a fricking moron, holy shit.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You are a severely mentally ill, spiteful mutant.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No it's fricking not
                What, specifically, is this sentence supposed to deny? The indisputable fact that your "AI" is just a statistical model of the training data? If so, this is your last (You) because you have a psychiatric illness that makes you confuse opinions for incontrovertible facts that aren't up for any discussion.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Teen wastes his life looking trough images of hentai booba form artists.
              >Learns trough draw hentai booba, using concept learned from a few thousands images
              >perfectly alright

              >AI quickly trains trough millions of images to learn the most general concept of hentai booba.
              >Learns to draw hentai booba
              >nooo, muh copyright.

              Digital "artists" routinely sketch over existing works.You have no business talking about copyrights.
              Any specific work the AI was trained on is now just a slight adjustment in its weights, one among millions. It's nowhere to be found in its memory. If AI can be sued for copyright, then so can anyone who ever used any image for inspiration.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Humans are not statistical models of a database of other people's work. Try again.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >only statistical models can do plagiarism
                concession accepted
                better luck next time!

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't know what your incoherent babble is about but your "AI" is just a statistical model of other people's work. Every single output it produces is wholly defined by and derivative of other people's work.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                its true that everything the ai sputs out is wholly defined by something a human did, but that human is mostly the engineer of the algorithm, not the artists whose artworks it was trained on
                also every piece of art, whether man made or not, is derivative
                if you ever learned how to draw you will know how true this is
                I am glad we are in agreement that ai art is not plagiarism though

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >its true that everything the ai sputs out is wholly defined by something a human did,
                Well, there you go. If your product is 100% a function of other people's work, you are a plagiarist, plain and simple.

                > human is mostly the engineer of the algorithm
                This doesn't change the fact that the output is purely a function of other people's work.

                >also every piece of art, whether man made or not, is derivative
                >if you ever learned how to draw you will know how true this is
                This is meaningless, subjectivist babble based on weasel-words. When I say "derivative" I don't mean it in your laymna's babble sense, I mean it in the sense that it is literally a pure function of other people's work, which is obviously not true of human artists.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                But its not 100% the work of other people, without the engineer it wouldnt draw things in the first place. Therefore it isnt plagiarism.
                >weasel words
                projection

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >But its not 100% the work of other people,
                Again, you are trying to derail the discussion by lying about what I said. I said it is 100% a function of other people's work and this stands undisputed and undisputable.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >But its not 100% the work of other people,
                Again, you are trying to derail the discussion by lying about what I said. I said it is 100% a function of other people's work and this stands undisputed and undisputable.

                If you copy someone else's work and do so badly such that your faulty technique is observable in the result, you could say that it is not 100% someone else's work but that wouldn't make your shit any less plagiarized.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >database of other peole's work.
                moron. The AI does not memorize your work. The AI does not memorize anyone's work.

                If I give you an AI art, you can't point to the works it's plagiarizing, because they're not in the model. It's not plagiarizing anything. If you can point exactly to what it's ripping off, then it can be taken down. But, being trained on millions of data points, it doesn't learn specific works, it only learns concepts. See

                https://i.imgur.com/lqoPBNP.jpg

                AI learns concepts. It does less plagiarism than you.

                Forgetting the specific of any of the millions of data points it's trained on, and learning only the concepts and art-styles is a large is a large part of what makes AI well, AI, and not just some copy-paste machine.

                You can copyright a specific Van Gogh paining, but not the concept of Impressionism. You can copyright a specific Salvador Dalí paining, but not the concept of Surrealism. If you're being asinine, you can copyright a specific anime character, but not the concept of Anime Waifu. You can copyright your posts, but not the concept of homosexual. The concept does not belong to you, you're just making new instances of it. The same as AI does when you ask if for a specific prompt.

                Repeat after me:
                AI learns concepts, not specific works.
                AI learns concepts, not specific works.
                AI learns concepts, not specific works.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The AI does not memorize your work.
                Ok but it's still a statistical models of a database of other people's work. Try again.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                And every living being is a statistical outcome of previous causal connections, moronic gorilla.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't know what your incoherent babble is about but your "AI" is just a statistical model of other people's work. Every single output it produces is wholly defined by and derivative of other people's work. It is a pure function of other people's work. The same is not true of human art, even if humans learn art from other humans. Case closed.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Except humans actually store works in memory. AI doesn't. The impact of a single artist is 0.000000001% of original dataset. Multiply it by another 0.000000001% because the resulting model is tiny compared to dataset.
                Only humans can be accused of plagiasm. Case closed.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                See

                The output of a human artist isn't completely defined by the art he's been exposed to. This is obvious on account of the fact that humans are capable of developing new styles. A diffusion model will never derive cubism given classical paintings.

                . Case closed. You lost. Every post of yours is a corporate-sponsored golembabble. This is obvious since every member of your horde spouts the exact same golembabble. You are all statistical models of the same corporate narrative.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >make up shit
                >I-I won
                Lol. What a moron. Prove that cubism isn't a mix of existing concepts. Pro tip: it literally is
                Prove that AI cannot invent cubism by mixing concepts it already defined.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Prove that cubism isn't a mix of existing concepts.
                Why? I didn't make any statements to that effect. Are you mentally ill by any chance? Why do you keep arguing against points no one made?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Ok but it's still a statistical models of a database of other people's work. Try again.

                It's a generic statistical model TRAINED on a database of other people's work. It does not contain their work.

                Show me on the pic

                https://i.imgur.com/j2tXhFD.png

                >database of other peole's work.
                moron. The AI does not memorize your work. The AI does not memorize anyone's work.

                If I give you an AI art, you can't point to the works it's plagiarizing, because they're not in the model. It's not plagiarizing anything. If you can point exactly to what it's ripping off, then it can be taken down. But, being trained on millions of data points, it doesn't learn specific works, it only learns concepts. See [...]

                Forgetting the specific of any of the millions of data points it's trained on, and learning only the concepts and art-styles is a large is a large part of what makes AI well, AI, and not just some copy-paste machine.

                You can copyright a specific Van Gogh paining, but not the concept of Impressionism. You can copyright a specific Salvador Dalí paining, but not the concept of Surrealism. If you're being asinine, you can copyright a specific anime character, but not the concept of Anime Waifu. You can copyright your posts, but not the concept of homosexual. The concept does not belong to you, you're just making new instances of it. The same as AI does when you ask if for a specific prompt.

                Repeat after me:
                AI learns concepts, not specific works.
                AI learns concepts, not specific works.
                AI learns concepts, not specific works.

                , where does the line (statistical model) contain the "other people's works" (data points it's trained on). It doesn't. You can't recover any specific point from the line. Just as you can't recover any specific works from the AI model.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                See

                I don't know what your incoherent babble is about but your "AI" is just a statistical model of other people's work. Every single output it produces is wholly defined by and derivative of other people's work. It is a pure function of other people's work. The same is not true of human art, even if humans learn art from other humans. Case closed.

                . Case closed. Screeching that it doesn't output literal copies of the input doesn't change my poin

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Humans are not statistical models of a database of other people's work
                can you prove this?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                The output of a human artist isn't completely defined by the art he's been exposed to. This is obvious on account of the fact that humans are capable of developing new styles. A diffusion model will never derive cubism given classical paintings.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                very few artists truly make anything entirely unlike any exist art

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                That doesn't refute my point.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >an AI cannot create a style distinct from any single item in a training set
                why not? and how would you measure this?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Whom are you quoting? Are you mentally ill? How come every single "AI"-worshipping golem is demonstrably deranged?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >copyright loving schizo is compeltely deranged
                Go defend your ~~*artists*~~ somewhere else if you have no proper agruments. Case closed.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you're not mentally ill, why do you argue with made up quotes? Notice how every single member of your horde does this, for some reason. It's almost like you are all part of one human botnet programmed with one narrative and one databse of talking points.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You are the only one mentally ill here, repating same line about statistics over and over without even understanding what does it mean. Sorry, but legal practice against plagiasm existed for centuries and AI is 100% not plagiasm according to it. You can cry and repeat your mantra all you want.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >muh legal practices
                Doesn't matter. If your image is purely a function of other people's work, it is justifiable to call you a plagiarist. The same is true with "AI".

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If your image is purely a function of other people's work, it is justifiable to call you a plagiarist.
                that's practically impossible to measure, not even the artist themselves can possibly be consciously aware of all they have been influenced by

                I wrote that if you train it only on classical paintings, it will mostly produce images that look like classical paintings or just images that look like crap. You will never get cubism out of it. What part of it do you fail to understand?

                what you wrote specifically is deliberately overconstrained and not a realistic scenario, that is, the person who made cubism had been exposed to more than just classical art in their life, and by this i mean they have seen more than just what you'd call art, AIs are also trained on more than what people would call art

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >that's practically impossible to measure
                It's true by definition for "AI". Nothing needs to be measured. The same does not apply to humans, if only for the reason you give, but clearly not just for that reason.

                >what you wrote specifically is deliberately overconstrained
                Yes, to illustrate the fundamental difference between human art and machine "art".

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                yeah you can call them that if you want. not sure if it will achieve anything though

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                if i misunderstood what you wrote, feel free to correct me

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I wrote that if you train it only on classical paintings, it will mostly produce images that look like classical paintings or just images that look like crap. You will never get cubism out of it. What part of it do you fail to understand?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >isn't completely defined by the art he's been exposed to
                You've shifted the goal. Copyright is a binary concept. Either a work is similar enough to an existing one to warrant a copyright claim, or it isn't.

                Scenario A:
                Both a human and an AI each produce a work of art, in an existing style. Neither of the works are fundamentally new or revolutionary, but neither look similar enough to any existing work to warrant a copyright claim. I only claim that the works should be judged on the same grounds, irrespective of whether a human of AI made them.

                You're saying that any and all AI works are a copyright violation,without pointing to any specific violated party, on the sole claim that AI cannot produce anything new. A claim which we know from experience to be false. It's both nebulous and indefensible.

                This isn't about copyright. It's about mechanization. If you can't be better at art than machines, the market WILL eat you. Don't have the players, have the game.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You've shifted the goal.
                No, I haven't. I've just explained to you the fundamental difference between human learning and machine "learning".

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                > I've just explained to you the fundamental difference between human learning and machine "learning".
                A difference which is empirically unobservant for all but 0.0001% of humanity, the minority which produces the truly "new" and innovative things.

                AI art may not (or may) give us the next Da Vinci, but it's still good enough to replace like 90% of artists. Hence the constant seethe and cope.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >A difference which is empirically unobservant for all but 0.0001% of humanity,
                1. Proof?
                2. Doesn't matter what you think is "empirically" observable. What I said is fundamentally true.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Proof?
                Massive reduction in commissions for most artgays all around ever since image models first hit the market. If you're surviving in this market, you're doing something right.

                It's up to you to prove that you can draw better than the AIs, not for me to prove otherwise. The market doesn't lie.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Massive reduction in commissions for most artgays
                That doesn't prove your claim.

                >It's up to you to prove that you can draw better than the AIs
                No, it isn't. Notice how your golemodial mental illness keeps you perpetually arguing against points that no one made, or making nonsequiturs that don't connect to anything.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Proof?
                Massive reduction in commissions for most artgays all around ever since image models first hit the market. If you're surviving in this market, you're doing something right.

                It's up to you to prove that you can draw better than the AIs, not for me to prove otherwise. The market doesn't lie.

                Onlyfans prostitutes are next. We're crashing this market with no survivors.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Onlyfans prostitutes are next.
                Why do you want to sabotage your own mother's career?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                the fire rises

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                What was the rate of commissions before the pandemic?
                What is it currently at?
                The pandemic gibs gave a huge boost to profits all around for some 2 years.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                AI has already developed a new style. How else do you think people are able to tell if an image is ai generated so quickly? Its because of that typical ai style.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >AI artifacts are an art style
                LOL. Ok. You might as well claim that copying someone else's work badly is not plagiarism but an art style.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Bad is subjective and you should type "Andy Warhol soup" into google images of you are convinced copying something cant be a style.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Bad is subjective
                Completely irrelevant. Copying someone else's work and introducing incidental artifacts of your own process into the copy doesn't make your plagiarism any less plagiarized.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you agree Andy Warhol is a plagiarist then. What about Da Vinci? He plagiarized from Vitruvius, all he did was copy and add some incidental artifacts.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So you agree Andy Warhol is a plagiarist then
                Quote where I agreed with this. Notice how every AI golem is displaying the same set of mentally ill behaviors:
                1. Arguing against points no one made
                2. Intentionally misquoting or lying about what was previously said
                3. Posting total nonsequiturs

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Andy Warhol literally copied the designers of the campbells soup can though. This stands undisputed and undisputable.
                Much less egregious than what image generator AIs do.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Andy Warhol literally copied the designers of the campbells soup can though
                So? Are you mentally ill or just israeli? What causes this behavior?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Andy Warhol literally copied the designers of the campbells soup can though
                So? Are you mentally ill or just israeli? What causes this behavior?

                BECAUSE
                YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT AGAINST AI-GENERATED ART IS THAT IT'S WHOLLY DERIVATIVE AND THEREFORE PLAGIARISM
                YOU CANNOT ASSERT THIS WITHOUT IMPLICITLY SAYING OTHER WHOLLY DERIVATIVE WORKS (IE. ANDY WARHOL'S SOUP CANS) ARE PLAGIARISM AS WELL
                YOU STUPID, STUPID MOTHERFRICKER

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >YOU CANNOT ASSERT THIS WITHOUT IMPLICITLY SAYING OTHER WHOLLY DERIVATIVE WORKS (IE. ANDY WARHOL'S SOUP CANS) ARE PLAGIARISM AS WELL
                It's not "wholly" derivative. It involved copying the soup can image, but that doesn't fully account for the final image, which involved arranging those copies in a particular way for a particular reason that only fricking Warhol can fathom. You can argue that Warhol's contribution is so miniscule it might as well count as plagiarism, but this is inherently a subjectivist argument about how much Warhol's vision contributed to the final result, or how little is too little. Meanwhile my argument is completely objective.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I am omniscient and I know a that minuscule atom of Warhol's work (which looks derivative) is in no way rooted in any of the other works he saw. It is therefore original (tm) and given by God. I also know that none of the mathematical operations and combinations an AI whose weihgts were adjusted by millions of artworks can produce is in any way original. Recomboination of averages of millions of images in new never before seen ways is not new. Human produced stuff is original, no matter how derivative it looks. AI produced stuff is derivative, no matter how original it looks.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Notice how every AI golem is displaying the same set of mentally ill behaviors:
                >1. Arguing against points no one made
                >2. Intentionally misquoting or lying about what was previously said
                >3. Posting total nonsequiturs
                Notice how every AI golem is displaying the same set of mentally ill behaviors:
                1. Arguing against points no one made
                2. Intentionally misquoting or lying about what was previously said
                3. Posting total nonsequiturs
                In this post you are doing all three at once, which is impressive.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >copy that so closely resembles the original it may as well be a photograph
                >not wholly derivative
                >image that is easily distinguishable from the works its based on
                >copy, plagiarism and literally hitler
                What's extra funny is that Warhol probably let one of his peons do the whole thing yet he still gets all the credit.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Notice how you, a mentally ill AI golem, are forced to ignore the content of the post you're replying you and simply reiterate your standardized database talking point. Almost like you're not sentient.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Youre the one with the copy paste bot replies and the constant buzzwords homosexual. Its no wonder you are scared of ai generated images, you already behave like a machine yourself.
                I didnt ignore anything in the post I was replying to and the response I gave was perfectly justified given what I was presented with (low effort trolling).
                You didnt even have a proper response to the point about the original work the algorithm engineer does. Very embarassing to not be able to adress such low hanging fruit and it really betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of the topic being discussed.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You reiterated your bot talking point despite the fact that I've refuted it because you are not fully human. All AI golems are either literal bots or lobotomized meat golems.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                t. ChatGPT

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why do you lie repeatedly that Warhol's "art" is just a copy of a can of soup when anyone can look at it and see that it involves many copies in a specific arrangement chosen by Warhol for his "art"? It was his idea to arrange and present them that way and that differentiate his "art" from the source material.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why do you lie repeatedly that AI's "art" is just a copy of an animu girl when anyone can look at it and see that it involves many copies in a specific arrangement chosen by AI for his "art"? It was his idea to arrange and present them that way and that differentiate his "art" from the source material.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Notice how you are forced to lie again about what I said. Here's your entire operational procedure:

                1. Arguing against points no one made
                2. Intentionally misquoting or lying about what was previously said
                3. Posting total nonsequiturs

                You are doing #2 in this post. Your next post will be doing #3.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >another copy pasted bot response
                What did I lie about in the post you were responding to? I was just mocking you.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Called it. It was #3. Next one will be #2.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You dont know what non sequitor means then.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You dont know what non sequitor means
                >2. Intentionally misquoting or lying
                Lying it was. Next one will be #1.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        lossy compression doesn't invalidate copyright, nor does the material only being a subset of a larger work

  82. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >copyright infringement
    and thats a good thing

  83. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who do I plagiarize this drawing?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Walt Disney obviously.

  84. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine how mad the horses were when they were replaced by cars.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine how annoyed human calculators were when calculators were created.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Yes, to illustrate the fundamental difference between horse transportation and automobile "transportation".

  85. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    This thread has resulted in total destruction of artgays.
    At this rate they are about to admit that being inspired is plagiarism, and taking references is theft.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't know what your incoherent babble is about but your "AI" is just a statistical model of other people's work. Every single output it produces is wholly defined by and derivative of other people's work. It is a pure function of other people's work. The same is not true of human art, even if humans learn art from other humans. Case closed.

  86. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    i miss when AI couldn't do fingers

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *