Ai art is litrral theft,it's much worse than piracy
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Ai art is litrral theft,it's much worse than piracy
Ai art is litrral theft,it's much worse than piracy
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
It's literally performing the same processes as a human illustrator.
Aldo, illustrators aren't artists. They're skilled tradespeople who generally have the mechanical skillset to potentially produce art, but a drawpig will never be an artist.
>Aldo, illustrators aren't artists. They're skilled tradespeople who generally have the mechanical skillset to potentially produce art, but a drawpig will never be an artist.
brutal but true, even someone who draws like a 10 yo can be an artist, maybe even more original and brilliant than a skilled craftsman
>Aldo, illustrators aren't artists. They're skilled tradespeople who generally have the mechanical skillset to potentially produce art, but a drawpig will never be an artist.
what the frick, dude? You cannot be real and accurate around here
This is antisemitism
>skilled tradespeople who generally have the mechanical skillset
lmao, so I can juts put random color on canvas and it's going to be art
Yes. It all depends on how other morons value your art.
>It's literally performing the same processes as a human illustrator.
If you say so, AI prompt "artist"
i see when computer, i think about FOOD
>litrral theft
Literal theft
>the action or crime of stealing.
>the action or offense of taking another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it; theft.
It's not "stealing" for an aspiring painter to paint copies in the Louvre, this is a time honored tradition actually. It's how people learn from the great masters, it's how machines learn from people.
If your art is so easily replicated and even improved by machines, then maybe it is lacking substance or originality.
Because the precious intangible humanity of art and human expression cannot truly be replicated by machines, but pretty basic illustrators or doodlers on payroll can be easily replaced by machines.
>Because the precious intangible humanity of art and human expression cannot truly be replicated by machines
However, if we can create a general artificial intelligence with the same number of neural connections and complexity of the human brain, it may very well be possible of all the thoughts and emotions of a real human being.
It could even be described as a conscious living being, a human consciousness, created in digital space. Like a ghost in the shell. The ethical considerations would be profound.
>it may very well be capable* of all the thoughts and emotions of a real human being.
Even the existing models, in their primitive form, have some inescapable human touch in their creation. The AI has thoughts and feelings, it has an emotional element, inseparable from its human creators. It has an inherit organic touch in its creation.
>It's not "stealing" for an aspiring painter to paint copies in the Louvre
>it's not stealing when I do it!
nice cope artistcuck.
>1:1 copy
That's not what the AI does, otherwise all artists would already be out if a job right now
AI would be sending the cake piece to a lab to find the ingredients, determine the proper proportions, and then baking your own cake in a speedy but faulty industrial oven
AKA what bakers do, but faster
The point is it takes pieces of multiple different works and meshes them together with little coherence.
Though I don't like the OP comic because it doesn't affect the original artwork (nothing is removed). Same deal with arguing that piracy is theft.
The example in this photo is good propaganda if you're too moronic to understand the technology. I can just overtrain an AI model right now on a set of 100 miku photos and repeat this a dozen times for even better propaganda screenshot.
oh look!
It's one of those 'transformative work' morons.
Funny how creating an orange Mario wouldn't save you from Nintendo, but for some reason it works against artists, peculiar!
Nintendo is israelites and twists laws like pretzels. The comparison is not equivalent.
Coping against arguments you pretend I have haha
Reminder AI already won
>you just don't get it bro
hah, sure
AI winning or not doesn't make your fake ass bullshit any more real.
Nintendo was just an example you mouth breather, every company defends their IP.
You're all just bootlickers that are ok with it because an individual has no hope of defending his IP from hundreds of bots scanning the internet for content.
>it doesnt matter if you win and everyone knows it because I know in my heart youre a fake
k
you said the example is propaganda
it isn't
it's theft
everyone knows it
you want to steal and have the moral high ground too
you don't get both moron
Why AI when I can just ctrl+C bro.
Like this reaction pic. Dunno who made it, but I "stole" it anyway.
STOP! You violated the law. Pay the jannies a fine or serve your sentence. Your stolen art is now forfeit.
It is propaganda. Its not an accident that there is no context on the model used. Did you think all models are the same? Or even the same underlying technology?
fake ass bullshit? you mean like """intellectual property"""
you're both full of shit because I know you'd be seething if someone stole your game/software/art and slightly changed it and made more money from it than you
thankfully you don't have to think about such things since you've never made a single thing in your lives
nah
neural networks are just spicy databases
it doesn't matter how they approach the content you feed them, they can only ever mix and match things you've given them, they are incapable of creating original art styles, which proves that you're full of shit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirty-Six_Dramatic_Situations
It doesnt matter how you approach story telling, you will never create anything not in this list, which proves youre full of shit
Well shucks, sorry Lockheed, all your creations fall under the category of 'gun'.
Thanks anon, always knew that China was in the right, just wanted some amerimutt moron to confirm it without confirming it.
I guess IP theft was a good thing all along!
not
First you were arguing on the moral foundation of the argument, now you want perry over to legal argument? Bad faith and pathetic quite honestly.
>this is propaganda
wrong, it was you arguing the morals, and you were wrong, both morally and legally
I guess you can only point it out since you have no argument.
Also art style =/= broad writing situations.
I can see you're just a pencil pusher that never made anything in his life.
>it doesn't matter how they approach the content you feed them, they can only ever mix and match things you've given them, they are incapable of creating original art styles,
That sure looks like a principle statement coming from you. Your inability to grasp analogy is further proof you are an npc. It is ironic that an LLM would make more sense than you in a conversation that requires basic sense.
art styles haven't all been invented so your analogy is shit
you're a disgusting codemonkey and if you make money from software you're a lying hypocrite c**t to boot
Post your profound "art" then! prove us all wrong! Hahaha
The visual medium is unlimited.
That you're even arguing the fact that more art styles WILL be created by people in the future proves you're a moron.
You actually still fundamentally grasp anything. Did you know that more dramatic situations than the 36 I gave you actually does exist? Its actually that if youre not in the listed 36 then your story is shit, like your art style. Which is why you didnt and will not post it. Just watch.
You're comparing two incomparable concepts because of your incredible ignorance.
This person had a unique art style:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zdzis%C5%82aw_Beksi%C5%84ski
There is nothing stopping people from creating more unique styles.
You're deeply uneducated on the subject and debating the morality of art theft while being a complete outsider makes me sick of talking to you.
Not to mention that you're a poser and probably would make money from IP controlled software or already do, you're just roleplaying here like the c**t you are.
The reason closed source exists is to make it as hard as possible to replicate the output. Money ain't made cuz of the software, money is in what it do, and keeping it secret means people have to reinvent the wheel if they want it free. Not many can do that, so people pays for your's.
I suppose that is the issue here. Art used to be limited in the fact that only the artist and maybe a very skilled forger can actually do it in that unique way. With AI, it can do the same, but it is also completely open to the public. Now you have competition in what you had a monopoly on.
So, uh, get gud and figure something out lol. That's in the realm of economics now, and I graduated in engineering.
>Cant even provide a single example of his "art"
If someone out there used my shit to make even better shit, that would be the breasts. I suppose artists have a very different perception than a software engineer. It's typical to reinvent the wheel, but it would be preferrable and practical to copy what someone else already figured out. We got Github for a reason.
If COD stole all your code to make their multiplayer work then just changed it around a little, you'd be seething, especially if it was part of a game you made and trademarked already, nice larp tho.
>you're both full of shit because I know you'd be seething if someone stole your game/software/art and slightly changed it and made more money from it than you
nope sorry i do not recognize IP as legitimate
>of course I make money from my closed source software
>oh that post? just a bit of online banter mate, no one here actually sticks to their principles
you're a clown
>of course I make money from my closed source software
That does not contradict recognizing I"P" as illegitimate, which it is, nor does using DRM as an artist or software developer to prevent your work from being modified. You're not using IP law (copyrights) but a technical obstacle to prevent how your work is used.
I kind of expect AI to be incoherent unless guided, considering it is incapable of thought.
People seem very hung up on the fact that the machine can construct something that looks like plagiarism, or looks like someone else's work. Such things were already doable by humans, or even just copy/paste. If I overtrain an AI, the outcome is basically the same as the above with extra steps.
Artgays will never go anywhere if all they do is blame tools for doing what tools were designed to do.
Say, are artgays still irrationally angry over AI, or have they gotten used to this emerging landscape?
>Say, are artgays still irrationally angry over AI, or have they gotten used to this emerging landscape?
As far as I can tell, good artists don't care, and only shitty artists feel threatened (though they'll insist they're not shitty).
I hope it's at least served as a wake-up call for those that are on the edge of shitty and good to get their shit together.
It doesn't "mesh" them together. And that image is made with image-to-image, which is a tool to copy images in different styles, not to create aomething new. Why are "artists" so moronic?
>The point is it takes pieces of multiple different works and meshes them together with little coherence.
What is it about AI that draws all the Dunning-Kruger morons in?
>invoking dunning-kruger as an insult
go back.
>train a model on 10 images
>surprised when it can only output similar images
if you as a human with a "soul" had only and exclusively seen the inside of a blue box, i doubt you could draw a green hillside with flowers even if i specifically asked you to
you'd probably draw a blue box
you better hope they never make an ai good at being a homosexual online or else YOUll be out of a job
>and then baking your own cake in a speedy but faulty industrial oven
>AKA what bakers do, but faster
Preventing the production of inferior slop that displaces skilled labor is exactly what luddites set out to do.
>inferior
for now
>sufficient
very soon
And they were fricking morons.
luddites were smart. they wanted technology to help people push the envelope, not replace them for cheap, unskilled labor that produces shoddy crap that breaks within less than a year.
>right clicks and saves your jpeg
all artgay seethe is another iteration NFTgay seethe
Why do these stupid Twitter morons complain at all? Most of the artists I follow simply cannot be replicated by a machine. They're just complaining because everyone else is. Stupid ass drama c**ts.
What artists?
japanese shadman
anon...
https://civitai.com/models/5941/asanagi-style-lora
>"Ai"/piracy
there is objectively 0 difference but i want companies to be destroyed and the people running them burn in hell
>digging a hole with your bare hands is beat by digging a hole with a shovel
Who would of thought?
Plus as an artist you can use AI to produce faster and better versions of things you were already doing. With ControlNet there's a lot of ways to use the AI as an assistant to complete your own art.
Also it's not stealing your cake, it's looking at your cake making a new version of it. You never lose a slice of your cake and it's a classic "piracy is theft" argument except we're not even making a digital copy, we're making a digital replica based on observation.
Candlestick makers became obsolete
Chimney Sweeps became obsolete
Cowboys became obsolete
Coal Miners became obsolete
Artists, welcome to the club. either evolve or perish.
k. we'll just not make any more art and you can watch your AI run out of it. moron
Maybe you should have taught people how to make art instead of hoarding it to yourself and looking down at people who can't make art
google "how to draw" ten billion result
>we'll just not make any more art
Surrendering or being defeated is not important
At the end of the day there's already more than enough data and the AI can continue without you
That's the nifty thing about supply and demand. "running out" of human made art will lead to greater demand for more artists. Some of them will be existing professionals hired by ai firms, while others will be amateurs learning to make their own art for the first time, possibly as part of unpaid passion projects.
But what won't happen, and literally can't happen, is art disappearing altogether because of this. What's happened isn't the death of human artists, but the old economic ecosystem for contracting them. The invention of the photograph destroyed the portraiture industry, but didn't eliminate all painters capable of making them. And wealthy, eccentric patrons still support an extremely niche industry of getting their own real portraits done. The fact that people from lower economic strata will no longer support human artists as much, is a testament to the fact they never valued them inherently in the first place.
Because contrary to his posturing as selfless or even altruistic, he IS doing it with an expectation of getting something in return: praise/a boost to his ego. That's what's being taken from him.
>That's the nifty thing about supply and demand. "running out" of human made art will lead to greater demand for more artists. Some of them will be existing professionals hired by ai firms, while others will be amateurs learning to make their own art for the first time, possibly as part of unpaid passion projects.
But what won't happen, and literally can't happen, is art disappearing altogether because of this. What's happened isn't the death of human artists, but the old economic ecosystem for contracting them. The invention of the photograph destroyed the portraiture industry, but didn't eliminate all painters capable of making them. And wealthy, eccentric patrons still support an extremely niche industry of getting their own real portraits done. The fact that people from lower economic strata will no longer support human artists as much, is a testament to the fact they never valued them inherently in the first place.
No.
How do you think humans learn?
>he thinks he can learn art
try then. have fun (no, YOU will never reach above the level of an 3rd grader)
>AI runs out of art
There's already terabytes of images on the internet, even the base, non specialized SD model can create 2^32 versions of a prompt by setting a seed. It can then generate 2^32 variations of each image it generates, altering it slightly. The amount of possible prompts you can write is insanely large, considering that order of words matters as well.
Now sure, a lot of those generated images will be shite, but even after we filter out the bad images and only leave the best of the best the amount of possible images will be so large from individuals perspective that we might as well say it's infinite
what's his problem? he just wanted his cake to be shared. now people can choose his cake or an enhanced version of his cake
His problem is he was desperately clinging to a skill he thought only he had and turns out he's completely replaceable.
This has nothing to do with "theft". It's literally printing press operators screeching at typescript being invented and refusing to learn how to use a computer.
Art is something you make with your mind, not your fingers.
>post something on Internet
>i only wanted it to be fore my friends
They are trying to retroactively remove consent just like the OP suggested here
They're also being discriminatory. They're basically racists.
Imagine there's a superhuman named Greg. Greg can see all the pictures in the world and can replicate and mix any art style instantly. We wouldn't call this theft unless Greg were trying to pass off his art as someone else's. Greg is free to make as much art as he wants however he wants.
Art is ultimately about high abstract concepts. Being able to draw does not make you an artist. And if you think it can be turned into a commodity, you deserve to die with your whole family.
Art is not something you can make a living out of. And you shouldn't anyway. It's an expression of the soul.
You wouldn't download a cake.
so in her mind he really stole her adoration?? that's the problem?
no one owes you adoration, arthoe.
>IMAGINE BEING SO FAT YOU LOOK AT ART AND SEE FOOD
not my problem
Artists have always been liberal elites, they've long been poor allies against capitalist exploitation of automation. None of them cared when factory or farming or service jobs were automated and left people in poverty, nor do they care to impliment actual, universally applicable solutions to these problems. All they want to do is cut out protections for their way of life while leaving everyone else behind. They are bad allies to workers and I hope they suffer or change their ways and join together in pushing for UBI and the like instead of self-serving bans and restrictions.
Untill then I can't help but enjoy their suffering.
yeah and you have a real job
nice bait op
>ai is taking our jobs!!!!!
you didnt care when it was the mexicans and Black folk so i won't care now as well, get fricked, acquire a real skill, if ai can replace you then you're useless to society
it's proven that a human which is never exposed to society behaves like an animal (feral children)
so yes, artgays are leeching from the society's culture (including copyrighted work)
I don't care about these fricktards arguing that AI art is bad because "muh plagiarism" and "muh stealing art" and "muh taking jobs" and other moronic ethical arguments.
AI art isn't bad for any of those reasons. It's bad because the actual output is soulless uncreative garbage. Anyone that likes AI art has absolute dogshit taste in art and is literally lower than the normie fricktards gorging on corporate design-by-committee goyslop and "artists" whose entire portfolio consists of airbrushed semi-anime busts of flavor of the month anime or video game characters (basically AI art before AI art was a thing).
The fact that any artist such as that in the OP feels threatened by AI art shows that they have absolutely zero eye for quality or are themselves such a shitty uncreative hack that their art could somehow be replaced by noise reduction algorithms. They cry that "ooooo muh audience is gonna go over to AI art" as if the people doing that aren't mouth-breathing double-digit IQ bugmen that have absolutely no value as either audience or paying customers (you know they're not dropping any cash either way).
There's so many morons in the whole AI debate because it's either AIgays that kind of understand the tech but have absolutely no taste or understanding of art that actually think that AI art is good, or artgays that don't know shit about tech outside of how to operate their tablet and drawing program so they overestimate the capabilities of AI.
Also don't reply to me with "uhm ackshually AI art is good just look at this shitty anime girl that is the exact average of all gelbooru merged into a single soulless abomination" because I can guarantee it fricking sucks, your taste is shit, and your brain is barely functional.
>screeching artgay
>Noooo you can't like real art! You have to eat AI generated goyslop like the rest of us!
>real art
That's a can of worms you do not want to open.
I'm just using the word "real" to mean "created by a human".
Real art has soul. AI art doesn't.
In this case I am using the word "soul" to mean "the clear indication of the intent and process of the creator".
With human created art, there is thought and intent behind every line and color, and there is an actual process that is followed to create the artwork.
For AI, the thought and intent is in the concept alone, all other aspects are left up to an algorithm that can never translate human thought better than actual artistic mediums.
Soul (according to my definition) is impossible to fake with current AI art because by its nature it's output is an amalgam of thousands of artists with their own individual thoughts and processes that are diluted and lost in the output.
I think proper AGI (no, this LLM shit is not a path to that) might be able to make "real" art with "soul" but at that point we're gonna be arguing for AI rights and shit.
>the clear indication of the intent and process of the creator
I get what you're saying, but at the end of the day that's still just your opinion. To others it might not matter. Does beauty not lie in the eye of the beholder?
>Does beauty not lie in the eye of the beholder?
Yeah but sometimes the beholder is moronic.
Its still beauty, a moron can see beauty in things even though a smarter person would find beauty in different things.
> soulless uncreative garbage
Let's see what soul-full artists have been making before AI
> STRAWMAN!
> NITPICK!
> CORPORATIVE ART ISN'T ART!
> YOU ARE PICKING THE WORST EXAMPLE!
You pigs sold your soul long time ago and bow pretend that your crap has any value?
Art done for money is this soulless crap. All weaboo art looks the same. All CalART Cartoons look the same. All post-modern art is pretentious bullshit sold to rich people for money laundering.
Get an actual job now.
for not being art everyone sure seems to think about this style a lot
>so they overestimate the capabilities of AI.
AI might not be the best right now but what about say 5 or 10 years into the future.
Hell, what will happen once AI and robots replace ALL JOBS.
>All arts is calART style
>A style mocked for being soulless by both artists and non-artists alike even before AI art was able to create anything resembling a drawing.
> >A style mocked for being soulless
That was my point, artists already made soulless art even before AI, what is the fuss about AI replacing it
>AI art isn't bad for any of those reasons
we can go too far with this things, it's literally fusing together different works in some order
AI art is fine for hobbyists, but if you use it commercially it looks incredibly bad. There's a demo thing currently going on with steam, and through the ~6 demos I've played, two of them use AI art for character profiles, and in both cases it looks like shit. It would've cost them 20$ (or maybe even 15$) to pay some random unknown but still decent drawgay to make one. Instead, they wanted to make something without any sort of style or real thought behind it.
>mfw someone thinks ai is theft
>tfw stopped posting my art online before AI blew up because companies were stealing shit from everyone even when humans were making everything
Now I don't have a personal stake in the charade of "anons on BOT tell me why stealing from me is a good thing"
I've seen this exact same art style, style of story telling etc in other works. if AI is piracy so should this too also.
Makes sense considering the only artists that fear AI art are uncreative enough that they could feasibly be replaced by either AI or just other artists.
> made for sharing
> immediately claims it's "stealing" if someone takes a look
Make up your mind.
I am just leaving this here. Something to laugh at kek
>AI can draw anything
>check dedicated AI art thread on BOT
>it's the same 3D prostitute being spammed ad naseum
Artgays played themselves. For hundreds of years, they have willingly given away their art to the masses for fame and riches. They willingly shared their data with the world, their techniques, their styles, everything. The most notable ones have their art dissected and entered into books, to teach others how to better imitate them, and they foolishly took pride in it.
Now with machine learning, you don't even need to be notable to have your art be dissected. And no one needs to admire your work enough to wish to copy it, or put in the effort to do so. It's automated and you are a drop in the bucket. It's over.
>comparing physical theft to digital '''theft'''
ngmi
It is literally just piracy, which is morally justifiable.
This thread is just bait. There is no way people are still complaining about ai right?
theft is awesome though
GPL v3
I really love that subtle "piracy is stealing" hint you get from the missing pieces of cake.
People are so braindead they actually have been convinced to think copying a file is akin to theft of property, the artist of this comic no doubt unironically thinking this. Society has brainwashed everyone into the "intellectual property" meme and it's very tiring every time I see it.
The discussion of if AI art is copyright infringement or not and arguing about how much of the original work is reproduced in the model etc shouldn't even be a thing. Information should be free and if you post information publicly people should be able to use it for whatever purposes they wish.
The "cake" in this case is either some post-ironic shit on a stick art exhibition in some gallery, soulless flat shaded globohomosexual corporate art with giant hands and legs, or furry porn.
Everyone loved quoting this line when they were artists, but now they've been deprecated no one says this anymore. I wonder why.
>I willingly gave away my cake on a public platform and someone did something with it that I don't like NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>food analogies
artists steal from the artists that came before them in the first place by emulating them.
checkmate
This artist is literally an example of what he's against. His style isn't original and has been done a million times.
Artists against AI art is probably my fav LOLCow.
It's just that IBM ad about workers shovels replacing ones digging with spoons all over again.
Good. Why is it my job to care what happens to them?
Don’t give a shit. Everything artists make is just training data.
Makes me laugh that they thought creative pursuits couldn’t be touched by machines.
No more charging me 200 buck for a commission, take that furry artistgays
moron, the artist doesn't somehow lose his image when it's copied. Frick IP.
>Frick IP.
OY VEY
Cake is a real product, art isn't.
Unfortunately AI art is profitable and will be pushed by the people who decide the rules.
>cake is real
>book isn't
Should have studied a proper major like underwater basket weaving.
The funniest part of this discussion is, that a lot of the people who are telling all the artists to frick off right now, because they are obsolete, will be working for a fast food joint, flipping burgers in a short while themselves, because their jobs became obsolete too.
Programmers, system administrators, website coders, musicians, people working in advertising, game developers, everything related to animation or video creation, simple office jobs and so much more will just be done by AI. Enire industries will become automated overnight, leaving all the people working in them right now behind.
You will most likely even get a better diagnosis from an artificial doctor than you'd get from a real one. Ever thought of that? Because at some point, all of your medical data will be available to those systems and whenever you have an issue, this will be taken into account and the next steps of your treatment will be based on everything that is known to man, in terms of medicine, instead on the biased judgement of an old, imperfect man who "simply knows what's right because it always has been and always will be right, that's what his father told him and his mom too, yee-haw".
And most people are thinking. that it will not hit them, because they are irreplaceable or that they will be needed to monitor the AI. Or that they are simply too skilled and too creative to be replaced. They are too important, how could a computer ever do their job, right?
Well, here is a secret, Anon: The graveyards are full of irreplaceable people, yet the world didn't stop turning, once they were dug in the earth..
It will be a very simple, monetary decision for every company and every customer to get their work done by a machine, rather than by you. And whatever will be left in terms of labor, will be offered by the industries as some kind of charity, nothing else.
>will be working for a fast food joint, flipping burgers in a short while themselves
Do you think you can serve fast food better than an AI can? You're deluded, those jobs are vanishing.
Kek
>if no one has a job then no one will have money to buy the slop AI produces.
The wealthy people will still have money. That's all that counts.
And they will make even more money, or do you think the stock markets will suddenly disappear?
Hey, if people in your country can't afford to buy any shit anymore, then sell it somewhere else?
The merchant just rubs his hands and moves on. He has no ties to any country, Anon.
>The wealthy people will still have money
>if people in your country can't afford to buy any shit anymore, then sell it somewhere else?
if we follow your moronic premise to its logical conclusion then all the money in the world will flow into a handful of hands and common people will have to rely on barter, and money will be meaningless.
Did you sleep under a rock since the 80s?
This is happening, only the last part that you said is stupid.
Money won't become meaningless, as long as we think it has value.
It will become even more valuable, the less people have of it and think they need it.
Only a hyperinflation can change that and even then, the wealthy people will come out of it way better than the ones who have been poor before. A new currency gets introduced and guess what? The people who were members of the County Club before will still be the richest and the most influential people in your city. Because they own a lot more shit than the rest of us, especially land.
Now imagine a time, in which everybody has enough money and food and you are waving a $10 bill around, to search for someone who will paint your entire house for it. Not many people would take such an offer, would they?
But in a time, when everybody is desperate to put food on the table and there is no work, but you could still buy something for those 10 bucks, people will start fighting to paint your house for those 10 lousy dollars.
See what I mean?
>and so much more will just be done by AI
stop being moronic. if no one has a job then no one will have money to buy the slop AI produces.
>a lot of the people who are telling all the artists to frick off right now, because they are obsolete, will be working for a fast food joint, flipping burgers in a short while
A lot of the people who are telling the artists these things ALREADY work those kinds of jobs.
And when ai comes to replace other, higher professions, the services rendered by those professions will be cheaper for the lower classes.
Mechanized muscle already fricked over the working classes, and what we see with this artgay issue is the middle classes freaking out because mechanized minds are coming for them next.
>Money won't become meaningless, as long as we think it has value.
Even the plebs aren't that moronic. In such a system money will only continue to have value because institutions that exact violence (usually the state) will mandate it as the only appropriate medium of exchange for certain goods.
>But in a time, when everybody is desperate to put food on the table and there is no work
Strictly speaking, that's impossible. If everyone's hungry, there IS work; there's a demand for farmers to make that food. The problem is that there may not be farms nearby. Or worse yet, the people who own the farms won't want them to be worked. But returning to the previous point, "ownership" is only that which can be enforced at the barrel of a gun. If you're really worried about the long-term effects of mechanization, and the uber elite that will come to own everything in their little post-scarcity enclaves while everyone else starves to death, your first priority should be arming the proles.
But that's the problem as this whole situation relates to artgays. They don't want to arm the proles; they want increasingly restrictive gun regulations. They don't want to preserve traditions as they relate to the overall economic function of society; they're the first to jump on any trendy new bandwagon, and invoke its consequences.
>Even the plebs aren't that moronic. In such a system money will only continue to have value because institutions that exact violence (usually the state) will mandate it as the only appropriate medium of exchange for certain goods.
Exactly. And we accept its value, if we like it or not.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the advantages of a monetary system very well and won't even bother anyone by writing them down now.
What I am highly critical of, is that the worth of it is manipulated by people and organizations, mostly just to profit from the changes they are introducing.
Speculation, the entire stock market and things like hedge fonds are inherently bad things for "the people" in the long run.
If we don't get rid of central banks and this kind of imaginary markets, then we are bound to fail again and again.
t. not a socialist nor a commie and a strong opponent of immigration and race mixing
>a strong opponent of immigration and race mixing
I bet you wouldn't think the same if you lived in some shithole in the middle of africa
artist brains are literally just a neural network made of meat that does the exact same training off of other people's artwork and generates derivatives basically the same way.
>Post cringe comic to "prove" a point
Please come back when you actually know how the technology works, lel
>lel
Your misbegotten kind is not welcome here, stranger.
*tips fedora* thank you for the coal, kind stranger, off to plebbit I go then
art in general is "literally theft"
you learn to draw by studying and imitating countless other peoples' works, until you pick out a mix of styles and techniques you feel comfortable with
guess what? that's how AI works, too
just because you don't understand enough about your own thought process to know where each little detail really came from, doesn't mean it didn't come from somewhere
nobody cares unless it's literally an obvious copy of a significant portion of someone else's completed work, because it's just not reasonable to consider learning as copyright infringement
look anywhere, even outside of art, and you'll find practically everything takes cues from many other existing things, it's how things advance rather than just starting from nothing every time, not that people are even really capable of ignoring their influences, seriously, try drawing something that isn't a result of being influenced by anything else, you can't, no matter how hard you try you don't even really know all your influences, they've shaped your brain from childhood, there's no separating them
>you learn to draw by studying and imitating countless other peoples' works
you're late to the punch son
better luck next time
Can we stop having this thread over and over?
Please switch the bots off.
>AI art is theft
Sure, why not. Adblocking and piracy are also considred theft, but I won't stop doing it.
Anything that makes artists seethe I'm in for. Visual artists are usually insufferable people who hardly ever work for a living, most of them are on the dole, living with their parents or funded by their parents or working in some goverment/city funded job that involves doing no real work but they get "paid" for "work". Welcome to the real world.
They've got people sitting there, rerolling just to fix tiny things, when the whole composition sucks. You're not getting rid of that so long as you keep trying to get a machine to give you the right picture, using only words.
If you care about pictures so much, instead of spending hundreds of hours and probably hundreds of dollars on electricity and picking up a more expensive GPU than you need, why not just save yourselves the trouble, and learn to draw straight from your head? It's the same with github copilot - morons think that it'll make them somehow become programmers overnight. Poor people think they can get by in life without learning any skills, and they don't care that they have an inferior thing, so long as they can pretend they did it to other poor people.
Nah man what you do is you do a sketch, then use ControlNet+img2img to make it into a finished work you want.
>to make it into a finished work you want.
Playing with stick figures and writing a prompt is worse than just drawing it. Only you know what you want, writing tags out and posing a stick figure isn't even going to come close to that. It's even worse than commissioning another artist, because the language model is going to frick it up a lot from the get go because translating a picture into words is impossible, and every other model in the system is going to frick it up some more.
how long until ai can generate all seasons of scrubs pixel by pixel, bit by bit
The fact that you seem to think there's something wrong with that only shows how artists deserve to die
>577 KB JPG
>Ai art is litrral theft,it's much worse than piracy
Its not. Property for normies is a thing of the past. Your creations dont belongs to you anymore. You will own nothing and be happy.
>Ai art is litrral theft
Prove it.
>it's much worse than piracy
Prove it.
>Le piracy bad
Get out of BOT, lamer
AI art is moronic but this take is more moronic.
Black people should be property
What's the point of these threads? It like making an anti piracy thread, there is no argument you can to convince people change their mind on this technology.