You don't need to be paid to do art. Some might even say art is at its best when not paid for by someone and created spontaneously, without someone ordering "one art please" from some McArtist.
Artists aren't entitled to be paid a living for their work.
False, if I want to commission a truly great comic of myself getting married to Fluttershy, then I should pay the artist for the effort and attention to detail they've put in. I'm not saying that everybody should be an artist, but a human is still more intelligent than even the best deep learning systems, and therefore they will be able to produce better art, if at the very least because they can now use an ai artist as a tool to accelerate their workflow in planning.
Depends what you understand as intelligence. If it’s the “reasoning” capability and ability to perform tasks, according to research LLMs are already exceeding human capabilities in several fields, which is only expected to increase in the future
>a human is still more intelligent than even the best deep learning systems
depending on how general you are. Do you mean "the best deep learning systems" right now? Then sure. Ever? Then that's a logical flaw in your argument.
At least for right now, but even then, when the AI artist does get better and better, I don't know, I'd just rather have something that's meant to be expressive and emotional still be produced by someone that can feel those expressions and emotions, it makes the art feel more valuable to me. I mean, I like Vocaloid music, but part of the reason I love the songs so much is that despite the robotic tones, which I mean I do like, but the stories the feelings the song content is what I really connect with and come back to.
>by someone that can feel those expressions and emotions
You're assuming there will never be a form of artificial life that can "feel".
Or you're assuming that precisely because it is artificial, it cannot ever "feel". Even though most emotions humans feel and understand are on a completely different level than animals, thus logic would say that these emotions are not rooted in biology, but in cognition.
I'm a white male incel with a STEM degree btw. In case that wasn't obvious.
homosexual do you really think all artists do that to "feel" emotions? Most of them do it for quick bucks by drawing your most degenerate fetish. That's why they're mad now since it prevents them to overcharge you for middle schooler tier art
>Some might even say art is at its best when not paid for by someone and created spontaneously
Art is best done when done by yourself. And I'm not talking about "comissioning artists", just pick a brush or pencil or whatever and do it yourself you fricking lazy homosexual. Acquire a skill that requires precise hand movements, your brain is literally addicted to this shit but you don't know since you've never tried it yourself. Asking AI to do art for you is no different than comissioning an artist.
>T. Nihilist
Any hobby is useless with your mindset. Just spend your years away aimlessly doing nothing or wageslaving like goyim cattle instead, I'm sure you prefer that.
True, art is very fun to do by oneself, but what if the project is going to take too much time out of my very busy schedule? Then I need to offload the work that I want done to an artist that will accept compensation for the hours I'm asking them to pour over Fluttershy's beautiful eyes, hooves, mane, wings, etc.
Valid point but I'm not big into that, so comissioning would be meaningless to me.
There’s the useless hobbies and the hobbies you can make real money from, like mechanical engineering
Most “artists” earn well below bare minimum living wage, and the “successful” ones can’t even compete with most expert salaries
>The purpose of hobbies is to earn money
The israelite mindfricked you to the point of no return. Have you learned nothing from the "senior programmer that wants to be a farmer" meme? It's absolutely not about money, and many people don't care about living a luxurious life and would prefer to live a simpler life. Sure, being able to earn a lot of money with your hobby is a bonus, but if you have to work on it professionally until it sucks all soul out of your hobby it's pointless. Ideally you work and hobby are either separate so you can still feel fulfillment from it, since you must be very lucky to get a non-freelancer job that involves your hobby nd is not soul-crushing.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Doing something without the perspective of benefitting from it is quite stupid though. Sure if it’s something that takes like few hours or a weekend it’s whatever, but several years? That’s a massive waste of potential income that you could use to buy a new sports car or whatever. Its absolutely more worth it having this eventually suck out fun from the hobby, than doing something for years unpaid, or paid very little
8 months ago
Anonymous
>the only benefit from anything is money!
lel
8 months ago
Anonymous
Literally is, and before you say “muh happiness” money can buy you more happiness than the activity alone can bring
8 months ago
Anonymous
Kek, you'll talk about wasted time and income in the same sentence you propose buying a fricking sports car, as if that isn't one of the worst thinkable wastes of money.
I think I'll continue enjoying my hobbies, finding meaning in my creative pursuits and improving my skills for the sake of personal fulfilment and self-development, but you're free to enjoy your fancy vroom vroom anon.
8 months ago
Anonymous
It’s not a wasted income I’m talking about, it’s the wasted potential income which makes a difference, it’s the money you could have earned in meanwhile. The sports car is an example, can be whatever you enjoy, a datacenter grade GPU, a ship, a fricking minigun or whatever fulfills you
8 months ago
Anonymous
>can be whatever you enjoy
like, you know, creating things that have value to you beyond monetization
8 months ago
Anonymous
Materialism is truly the prime mental illness of our time
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Doing something without the perspective of benefitting from it is quite stupid though.
Becoming a subjectively better person, and an objectively more skilled one. The point is the dopamine that you brain releases (naturally, don't even try to equate masturbation or something like that to a hobby) and the product that gets out of it. >Sure if it’s something that takes like few hours or a weekend it’s whatever, but several years? >That’s a massive waste of potential income that you could use to buy a new sports car or whatever.
Again, mindfricked by the israelite. I (as many others) do not care about the latest product. I do not care about owning a sports car, I do not care about owning a McMansion, I do not care about having the latest released hardware in my PC, I just don't. >Its absolutely more worth it having this eventually suck out fun from the hobby, than doing something for years unpaid, or paid very little
You have never had a real hobby, and I'm not even an artist to gatekeep art or whatever. You have never felt the dopamine rush of your weeks, months or even years of effort bearing fruit towards not the money that your creating could've brought you, but that which you created. You have never felt the human need to be the master of their craft, not for money or prestige but just because.
Arguing at this point is meaningless. I just hope you can one day be free of your consumerist mindset.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>You have never felt the dopamine rush of your weeks, months or even years of effort bearing fruit towards not the money that you’re creating could've brought you, but that which you created.
NTA but what if the years of effort don’t make you a good artist or don’t lead to “bearing fruit” that’s good? You are left with sadness and wasted time
8 months ago
Anonymous
If you fail you just get up and either try again or try something else like a normal human being. People nowadays (and especially the younger generations) are too afraid of failure to try anything. One can't learn without failure. Even if you're a drooling moron that can't do anything right you can go to a gym.
8 months ago
Anonymous
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/why-you-may-learn-less-failure-success
Failure is for losers
8 months ago
Anonymous
Wrong, failure and giving up is for losers. Failure and persevere is how it goes. Failure is part of part of life and reality.
8 months ago
Anonymous
From the original study's abstractact (thanks for not linking it homosexual):
"Thus, when ego concerns are muted, people tune in and learn from failure" (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797619881133)
If you just stop being a b***h it works.
8 months ago
Anonymous
The process is rewarding by itself. The high you get from acquiring artistic skills is bigger than what you get from programming, as you're learning. You don't really feel anything from making a calculator or a text editor except for a sense of progress, but learning some basic perspective or color theory means you can make things that felt like a mysterious dark art before.
8 months ago
Anonymous
If you're not a code monkey you have to learn group theory, cryptography, algorithms specifically designed for graphics programming and their principles, the many computer architectures and protocols that are there, computer networks, etc. to be able to do your job. You learn more from programming than from arts, it's just not a motor skill.
True, art is very fun to do by oneself, but what if the project is going to take too much time out of my very busy schedule? Then I need to offload the work that I want done to an artist that will accept compensation for the hours I'm asking them to pour over Fluttershy's beautiful eyes, hooves, mane, wings, etc.
>Asking AI to do art for you is no different than comissioning an artist.
This is true, and when the "artist" fricks up I can just keep telling "him" to try again rather for virtually nothing or try and explain it to "him" some other way rather than complain to some person and/or pay more to maybe get the result I'm after.
That's actually not uncommon, read up on the 1812 Overture for example. Money motivates great artists to do great things, and average artists to do average things.
You don't need to be paid to code. Some might even say code is at its best when not paid for by someone and created spontaneously, without someone ordering "one app please" from some code monkey.
Coders aren't entitled to be paid a living for their work.
That's me you're replying to and yeah, you are absolutely correct. I know a dude who does demoscene C++ as a hobby, and drives a city bus for a living because he wants to keep programming fun instead of a grind for money.
bruh, programmers are the people working the hardest for a day when humans won't need to do programming anymore. You're preaching to the wrong congregation.
Code is a instrument to produce immediate useful stuff for society
Non commissioned art (and every entertaining items) is not so it's there for as long as we artificially maintain the market
Even thinking of comparing them makes you an absolute artist
I know you are trying to make bot mad because someone said the same thing about art, but the problem is, you're both correct.
There should be no AI protectionism. If you can still get paid to do things in the age of AI, great. But you aren't owed this and a lot of people are going to choose to use AI because it is simpler, faster and usually higher quality.
Nobody is entitled to make a living doing any specific thing. It all really depends on if people are willing to pay you for your work.
...you are aware we don't get paid to produce the python scripts that helps you generate AI content and it's a literal hobby for us and not job, right?
Yes i do it for free, I code for free, I "contribute" to others proyects (working for 0 dollars), I only use programs that are done for people tha also do it for free and Im habby
Sure, but I wrote a kinda long shell script (~200 lines) for fun (only 1 loop though) and a few years later someone paid me ~13K after tax for the rights to it (it was gpl before) because it was useful in his niche business and most of them are moronic, but also can't afford to hire programmers.
I'm sure most code that isn't written in-house is this way. There is a difference between commissioning and having a team of employees who can look at the long term goals of the business or take on long term research projects.
This is true, but lets consider what the subject is too, an artist could be just as likely to be paid to produce ugly postmodernist desconstructivist trash as they are to produce some sort of beautiful impressionist masterpiece of the Equestrian countryside with the subject of the painting being a cute mare with love and hardship, and relief with coming of the viewer's presence expressed implicitly in her eyes.
>spend a potentially large sum of money commissioning an artist and wait days/weeks to get a piece of art you may not even like >type some words and press a button
Almost everyone will choose the latter if it is even remotely comparable in output, especially companies.
The Mona Lisa is not an example of 'best' art, it is just an example of 'famous' art. It was never close to one of Leonardo's best pieces and was never remarkable in general, it's just famous.
Wrong.
The best and most famous art was done by people who lived like monks and dedicated their whole live to it. And most of the time actually did it for their religious believe.
You are only thinking about the Mona Lisa because you are artificially limiting yourself to art that is property that can be sold and traded with.
All the shit the Catholic church owns or ancient roman and greek statues are not up for sale, so we can't put a price tag on them.
nobody is entitled to any wage. people are willing to trade only because it's worth it to them -- And it in fact can be worth it to both parties (Thomas Sowell's description is the case of a man who would rather have a newspaper than 50c and a newspaper company which would rather have 50c than a newspaper).
As long as there are people who value human-made art enough that they'd be willing to pay an amount of money that artists would rather have than the time & effort & result in the act of creating the art, there will be a market for human artists.
Best art often used to come from tortured artists living in poverty all their lives. Fine art commissioned by kings or the church was rare and only for a select few artists.
since current "ai" is just glorified google search and glorified copy-paste, it's still the same issue.
if their art is shit "your" art from "ai" is shitty.
I think it's hilarious for a webcomic to take the "artists must be paid for their work" side
You release your poorly drawn, copy-pasted "art" for free on the Internet for everyone to see. If you believed your art has value in itself you'd sell access to it, not post it for free and try to make money on the sly off ads, merch and donations.
Nothing will stop attention-seeking digital artists from posting their shit online, they will stop drawing if they can't do that and switch to something else like camwhoring. You can see it in their style, the material they produce, it's all very clearly informed by the feedback they get, and by the desire to get good at the things that get them good feedback. If they deviate you can instantly see how limited they are.
Oh and you can train AI on AI output, so the premise is incorrect.
Why do these homosexuals keep harping on about AI being some sort of conspiracy to wipe out artists out of existence, when in reality it's just another tool and most AI people have no malice against them.
look, anon. i see where you're coming from, but I guarantee the artists butthurt about this do not use content-aware fill. they use shit like CSP and PaintToolSAI. they don't know how to fully use their digital art tools. >Layers are meaningless to them. color on one layer. lineart on another. whats a layer blend mode? >Wand select tool + flood fill? What are you talking about, i just paint it in manually. >filters? Why would I want to sharpen my image? >custom brushes? Stamps? no thanks I just use the ones i downloaded from deviantART >Cant even do text editing in their shit software >knows zero hotkeys or shortcuts >unable to work on files larger than 3000x3000 because pc starts to lag. >can't undo more than 50 times because scratch discs are full. does not know how to allocate more >layer masking? layer clipping? why could i need that? >destructive cropping >resizes image without making it a smart object, has no concept of resolution >puppet warp? warp? are you talking about a muppet and star trek crossover?
Amazing shit like the content aware fill and use of ai gens to fill in their backgrounds, extend their drawings to fit different dimensions etc. is just completely beyond them.
It's scary to a lot of shartists because they have to evaluate what art really is and reconcile their conception of it, something they've never done. Remember, a lot of these shartists crying about AI are only crying because they see people taking their "style" and making something they won't be compensated for with it. For years, shartists were talking about what makes art, and it turns out the only thing these artists care about is the most superficial aspects of it, not the pseudo intellectual drivel that inspires most "modern art".
A writer can have someone impersonate them with their writing style, but still maintain identity through the uniqueness of their expression, most commonly reflected from life experiences. An artist also can, but unfortunately most of the shartists crying weren't making thoughtful and reflective artwork. They were drawing furry porn and webcomics.
the thing with the pseudo-intellectual drivel coming out of art schools that inspires "modern art" is that it's relativistic posturing. it's superficial guidance on 'how you're supposed to act correctly" that can never be applied beyond the novice level because those concepts are so superficial that treating them as a rule compromises your ability to create new ideas and creative concepts. it's less so much poisoning the well, it's more like malnourishing your peasants.
shartists are not engaging in artistry to create new ideas and creative concepts, they're just sycophants that worship at the feet of an artificial god. people in art school, not of their own ignorance, are legitimately taught that aesthetics and art and interchangible concepts. it just means they will get assblasted when someone tells them a sketchbook drawing isn't art because they were purposefully misled for an ulterior motive
what im saying is that you should read Mein Kampf for the section on Viennese art schools
There is no need for new art to be fed to the machine. with all the data present you can generate an infinite number of variations that can again be used to train better models. and shitty webcomic bs like OP was obsolete even before AI shat on it
More like >Fortfeit your art and surrender. We will add your technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
You can either deny everyone art, or be consumed by AI while posting
Am I petty, but I swear, with all these shitty as frick comics I see, a part of me wants to draw just to show how it's done. Like this one, instead of just "I am silly", play that scenario out >panel 1: human artists drawing >panel 2: they get fired, and a bot is dragged in >panel 3: bot makes a bunch of derivatives >panel 4: bot's boss (or the bot itself) calls the artists, asking them for source material
Bugs me how web comics just rely on basic dialog/facial expressions to get a shitty point/joke across. I read eulogy that had more imagery than the webcomics you see posted
>look at art >take inspiration from it >make art >ai looks at my art >ai takes inspiration from my art
this (clap emoji) NEEDS (clap emoji) to (clap emoji) STOP
(clap emoji)
NOW
People tend to get upset when undesirables move into their neighborhood and litter trash all over the place. It’s not so much the pictures themselves, but the people behind them who have zero awareness to what makes art “work” and posts shit that has so many blatant issues, and not even soulful little imperfections, but lacking consistency in aesthetic direction/mood. It looks like cheap walmart crap, which would be fine if people making it knew that’s what it was, but having an eye for such things requires years of experience, so they don’t and have the audacity to call themselves real artists. Of all the AI slop, I’ve seen only 2 that I’d actually call good pictures and, even then, part of what makes art “art” is the process behind it, and the experience/methods behind that(leading to things like unique styles which are a glimpse into the subconscious of the artists, hence why art is communication even at its base level.) Prompting isn’t an artform, and I don’t think most artists would care so much about AI if people using it and posting it everywhere stopped considering themselves artists.
At least for right now, but even then, when the AI artist does get better and better, I don't know, I'd just rather have something that's meant to be expressive and emotional still be produced by someone that can feel those expressions and emotions, it makes the art feel more valuable to me. I mean, I like Vocaloid music, but part of the reason I love the songs so much is that despite the robotic tones, which I mean I do like, but the stories the feelings the song content is what I really connect with and come back to.
women really can't miss an opportunity to shamelessly prostitute themselves out, can they?
I have a feeling huge datasets of real art released just before the AI "revolution" (i.e. when SD came out) will be worth a lot more as time progresses.
Remember how the moronic Br*tish fed ground-up cattle remains back to cows and brought about the mad cow disease? That's exactly what's going to happen with AI art. As datasets become more and more contaminated, AI art will be fed back into new AI models, and the AI inbreeding will yield much worse results.
We will have so much AI garbage that it will be impossible to filter them out. You won't be able to trust a dataset, and you can't really collect your own data because it will be contaminated.
That’s literally what’s happening to humans too though
Twitter artists learn from other Twitter artists, creating worse and worse atrocities, or another case is the corporate artstyle and how each generation of it is even more disgusting than the one before
Contamination of “dataset” doesn’t only happen to machines, absolutely happens to humans too
It's not a simple with real artists, or at least it's not really a problem.
For example, western art generally looks like garbage, and it's worth going out of your way so you don't come across it. Garbage western artists beget garbage western artists. However, I've seen some talented western artists who chose to use or incorporate eastern art styles and made pretty nice stuff. So talented humans are capable of improving and choosing a good example to follow. The cross-contamination situation is very real though and I'm glad Japanese artists are leaving Twitter.
You can use LLMs to determine from context if a posted image is generated, and it's not like images are on a GPT4 text-generation level yet, they should be easily automatically distinguishable. If they're not detected then they probably have good enough "genes" to inbred.
Enjoy looking at sterile smooth diarrhea art digested and shit out by 5 models before it reaches you.
I don't know, every problem these AI happen to have is corrected at an alarming fast rate, see hands and how it got quickly fixed with inpainting in like, what was it, one month? Surely what you're talking about and how it will be the AI's demise, will actually be fixed in, again, like a month.
I don't know if it will lead to the AI's demise, I highly doubt that, but I'm highly skeptical about training with generated data. Of course, the best models will have better datasets, but I speculate the amount of shit that is about to flood the world will make it hard to collect your own data. As an anon pointed out, this is much worse for text, but can't imagine it being beneficial for images either.
AI will keep getting better, and we will be seeing AI art everywhere. It can't be helped.
There will be multiple actual humans sifting through those datasets tagging any/all possible AI work. Cleaning datasets will be an actual job, and the clean datasets themselves will be very valuable. The biggest issue will be artistic stagnation of the datasets when all major artists use AI in their process.
this is an actual concern I've seen discussed. anons responding to you are moronic. there will never be another "purely human" internet from this point moving forward. Not unlike how non-contaminated earth is nearly impossible to source after the nuclear age.
LLM's are supposed to reflect human behavior. It might not be a problem now, but it will be in a few generations. Negative feedback loop.
>LLM's are supposed to reflect human behavior. It might not be a problem now, but it will be in a few generations. Negative feedback loop.
This. There's a reason why autists like Elon or the leddig devs are closing down access to valuable training data right now.
I'd be way more sympathetic to them (and I guess am to anyone that does) if they stuck with the first. Technology won't stop either way, but this >YOU'LL NEVER BE ME >YOU'RE DESTROYING MY LIFE >I'M NOT SCARED >FRICK YOU
shit, makes them so fricking hard to feel for.
Piracy is not only free but also usually better than the original you could buy (you actually own the product with no DRM or any kind of restrictions).
AI art is almost always worse than what a good artist would make but it's often good enough for the purpose, especially for free.
There's a reason why I said "good artist." But yes, this is the context we need to consider. Shitty and average artists usually make very bad art, and AI beats them with literally zero effort (unless they have SOVL), that's why they are seething.
High-profile artists are less threatened by AI.
I use AI art for stuff I'm too lazy to draw myself, and it's great. I still draw the stuff I find fun to draw, but all the endless npc portraits for my game can easily be automated
Artists: "we hate the 1%! keeping all the money they earned from the masses1!!!"
Also Artists: "we, the 1% of talented artists should be the only ones show can make art!"
Pinned: Kawaiichap43 (Moderator): don't worry grl we got your back (btw i donated $4 on your stream but you forgot to say my name but it's fine i'll be back anyway). frick the bigot incels
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
wow u are gorgeus
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
haha that's so funny
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Won't AIs just start referencing themselves when making art? Getting weirder and weirder as the human influence is diluted. I remember a story a few years ago when two AIs gradually evolved their own short-hand language from English for making deals.
>see older posts >just pictures of herself >getting riskier and riskier as time goes on >full-on e-thot by now
this is some fetish material
I feel kinda sad in a way, approaching the wall truly does a number on the mind of most modern women
You don't even need AI to rip-off that person's "art"; the character is like 20 strokes, the coloring is simple gradients and text boxes (and the text within) are fricking basic as hell. I bet anyone here could set up a PS workflow and replicate that style perfectly in less than 10min. It would beat wasting the time training.
Language's next and since language is everything for us, that will be the end of the human-led part of history. It was short, ugly and violent. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
>Be human artist >Constantly consooming other people's art 24/7 >Learn from these other art pieces without the consent of the original creator >Apply those influences in your own work to create something new >AI starts to do the exact same thing >NOOOOOOOOOOOO T- T- THATS STEALING!!1!!!!! >mfw cognitive dissonance
Works as good as the great masters could already be produced in days with only 3 years experience in good tooling. So master level workmanship already went from 10 years to 10 days. Now it's reduced to 10 minutes.
Good art should demonstrate one of two things. It should demonstrate a mastery of a talent, like hand carving something out of marble. Or it should reveal a truth that society refuses to accept.
Social Justice morons are incapable of exposing truth since their entire persona is toeing false ideological lines. They are lazy morons so they can't get good at anything. So they are incapable of taking any of the two paths towards great art.
the more things change, the more things stay the same.
The same crowd which hated unabomber/luddites and said mine workers to get tech jobs ARE now making the same arguments luddites did regarding industrial revolution.
funny how that works out.
you don't even need new art to feed the AI. just make an evolution system where the AI creates art with some changes and then keep saying yay or nay to guide the AI to the right direction.
also as sidenote, humanity has already created so much art that you literally cannot go through it all even if you dedicate your life to just browsing through it. therefore there's not reason to create more and we should just abolish copyright. people would still create (arguably better) art just for fun.
>just make an evolution system where the AI creates art with some changes and then keep saying yay or nay to guide the AI to the right direction.
It already happened, the way people trained and merged Stable Diffusion models was the "yay", and to increase the speed of the process and keep storage space viable (as people kept downloading 5GB models their space began to run out) the "nay" was what was deemed unimportant when keeping checkpoints at their minimum size.
The sad state of affairs is that about 5 months ago models plateaued, becoming 97% similar to each other, creating "same faces" (what was "yayed" to be the most pleasing faces) which you'll get no matter what model you use, and since then nobody has broken any new ground and models stagnated.
Specially because SDXL arrived but it turns out it's not as good as the SD models that plateaued earlier.
Hands are still terrible and need impainting, people still get body horror and have to resort to generate many pictures and throw away the bad ones, and we still don't have character permanence (a character redrawn may now be wearing a tie instead of the buttons of the previous pic.)
It's as if a new alternative to text to image has to appear to replace all this, and we just use this to learn from previous mistakes. But imagine if you describe an image with some action and the emotions of the characters and it's actually drawn that way, forget about banning AI pictures because nobody will be able to tell them apart.
All the problems you point out are real but you can't do much about the gacha aspect of it when the whole field is a black box gacha. I mean, can we expect determinism from what is basically brute-force search with shortcuts?
Frick ML
>Specially because SDXL arrived but it turns out it's not as good as the SD models that plateaued earlier.
Hands are still terrible and need impainting, people still get body horror and have to resort to generate many pictures and throw away the bad ones, and we still don't have character permanence (a character redrawn may now be wearing a tie instead of the buttons of the previous pic.)
It's as if a new alternative to text to image has to appear to replace all this, and we just use this to learn from previous mistakes. But imagine if you describe an image with some action and the emotions of the characters and it's actually drawn that way, forget about banning AI pictures because nobody will be able to tell them apart.
I don't get this take on SDXL. I'm getting massively improved results vs using SD a couple months ago with less need to have large batch sizes and needing less work to refine final image.
> we still don't have character permanence
/lmg/ sort of figured that one out. It's a software issue and not a flaw with the models we use.
Chat coomers have an advantage, in that text logs are easy to save and edit in order to achoeve a sort of recursive training method in order to maintain permanence with their waifus.
For images, we would need a collector in our software, that continuously re-trains itself on it's own generated content to produce it's own LoRAs in order to achieve the same results.
ah yes, the ol' "strawman opponent angrily spewing lines while the person who made the picture is silent and calm"
the most creative and intelligent of arguments
A truly philosophically indefensible argument. What do human artists do besides observe the world and abstract, interpret, regurgitate, etc. to produce a work of art? AI is intelligence, limited by its inability to strengthen its sensory inputs, but it is performing the same process. Unless these lefty atheist artists want to claim there is something only a human can do due to some innate capability or connection to some higher force that introduces otherworldly objects into their consciousness?
You don't need to be paid to do art. Some might even say art is at its best when not paid for by someone and created spontaneously, without someone ordering "one art please" from some McArtist.
Artists aren't entitled to be paid a living for their work.
good point, no replies
False, if I want to commission a truly great comic of myself getting married to Fluttershy, then I should pay the artist for the effort and attention to detail they've put in. I'm not saying that everybody should be an artist, but a human is still more intelligent than even the best deep learning systems, and therefore they will be able to produce better art, if at the very least because they can now use an ai artist as a tool to accelerate their workflow in planning.
Depends what you understand as intelligence. If it’s the “reasoning” capability and ability to perform tasks, according to research LLMs are already exceeding human capabilities in several fields, which is only expected to increase in the future
>a human is still more intelligent than even the best deep learning systems
depending on how general you are. Do you mean "the best deep learning systems" right now? Then sure. Ever? Then that's a logical flaw in your argument.
At least for right now, but even then, when the AI artist does get better and better, I don't know, I'd just rather have something that's meant to be expressive and emotional still be produced by someone that can feel those expressions and emotions, it makes the art feel more valuable to me. I mean, I like Vocaloid music, but part of the reason I love the songs so much is that despite the robotic tones, which I mean I do like, but the stories the feelings the song content is what I really connect with and come back to.
I'm a white male incel with a STEM degree btw. In case that wasn't obvious.
>by someone that can feel those expressions and emotions
You're assuming there will never be a form of artificial life that can "feel".
Or you're assuming that precisely because it is artificial, it cannot ever "feel". Even though most emotions humans feel and understand are on a completely different level than animals, thus logic would say that these emotions are not rooted in biology, but in cognition.
Same but not sure how that's relevant
homosexual do you really think all artists do that to "feel" emotions? Most of them do it for quick bucks by drawing your most degenerate fetish. That's why they're mad now since it prevents them to overcharge you for middle schooler tier art
Barneygay you missed a spot
>Some might even say art is at its best when not paid for by someone and created spontaneously
Art is best done when done by yourself. And I'm not talking about "comissioning artists", just pick a brush or pencil or whatever and do it yourself you fricking lazy homosexual. Acquire a skill that requires precise hand movements, your brain is literally addicted to this shit but you don't know since you've never tried it yourself. Asking AI to do art for you is no different than comissioning an artist.
>spending years to properly learn an useless skill that’ll get you absolutely nothing in life
Cringe way to throw away years of your life
>T. Nihilist
Any hobby is useless with your mindset. Just spend your years away aimlessly doing nothing or wageslaving like goyim cattle instead, I'm sure you prefer that.
Valid point but I'm not big into that, so comissioning would be meaningless to me.
There’s the useless hobbies and the hobbies you can make real money from, like mechanical engineering
Most “artists” earn well below bare minimum living wage, and the “successful” ones can’t even compete with most expert salaries
>The purpose of hobbies is to earn money
The israelite mindfricked you to the point of no return. Have you learned nothing from the "senior programmer that wants to be a farmer" meme? It's absolutely not about money, and many people don't care about living a luxurious life and would prefer to live a simpler life. Sure, being able to earn a lot of money with your hobby is a bonus, but if you have to work on it professionally until it sucks all soul out of your hobby it's pointless. Ideally you work and hobby are either separate so you can still feel fulfillment from it, since you must be very lucky to get a non-freelancer job that involves your hobby nd is not soul-crushing.
Doing something without the perspective of benefitting from it is quite stupid though. Sure if it’s something that takes like few hours or a weekend it’s whatever, but several years? That’s a massive waste of potential income that you could use to buy a new sports car or whatever. Its absolutely more worth it having this eventually suck out fun from the hobby, than doing something for years unpaid, or paid very little
>the only benefit from anything is money!
lel
Literally is, and before you say “muh happiness” money can buy you more happiness than the activity alone can bring
Kek, you'll talk about wasted time and income in the same sentence you propose buying a fricking sports car, as if that isn't one of the worst thinkable wastes of money.
I think I'll continue enjoying my hobbies, finding meaning in my creative pursuits and improving my skills for the sake of personal fulfilment and self-development, but you're free to enjoy your fancy vroom vroom anon.
It’s not a wasted income I’m talking about, it’s the wasted potential income which makes a difference, it’s the money you could have earned in meanwhile. The sports car is an example, can be whatever you enjoy, a datacenter grade GPU, a ship, a fricking minigun or whatever fulfills you
>can be whatever you enjoy
like, you know, creating things that have value to you beyond monetization
Materialism is truly the prime mental illness of our time
>Doing something without the perspective of benefitting from it is quite stupid though.
Becoming a subjectively better person, and an objectively more skilled one. The point is the dopamine that you brain releases (naturally, don't even try to equate masturbation or something like that to a hobby) and the product that gets out of it.
>Sure if it’s something that takes like few hours or a weekend it’s whatever, but several years?
>That’s a massive waste of potential income that you could use to buy a new sports car or whatever.
Again, mindfricked by the israelite. I (as many others) do not care about the latest product. I do not care about owning a sports car, I do not care about owning a McMansion, I do not care about having the latest released hardware in my PC, I just don't.
>Its absolutely more worth it having this eventually suck out fun from the hobby, than doing something for years unpaid, or paid very little
You have never had a real hobby, and I'm not even an artist to gatekeep art or whatever. You have never felt the dopamine rush of your weeks, months or even years of effort bearing fruit towards not the money that your creating could've brought you, but that which you created. You have never felt the human need to be the master of their craft, not for money or prestige but just because.
Arguing at this point is meaningless. I just hope you can one day be free of your consumerist mindset.
>You have never felt the dopamine rush of your weeks, months or even years of effort bearing fruit towards not the money that you’re creating could've brought you, but that which you created.
NTA but what if the years of effort don’t make you a good artist or don’t lead to “bearing fruit” that’s good? You are left with sadness and wasted time
If you fail you just get up and either try again or try something else like a normal human being. People nowadays (and especially the younger generations) are too afraid of failure to try anything. One can't learn without failure. Even if you're a drooling moron that can't do anything right you can go to a gym.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/why-you-may-learn-less-failure-success
Failure is for losers
Wrong, failure and giving up is for losers. Failure and persevere is how it goes. Failure is part of part of life and reality.
From the original study's abstractact (thanks for not linking it homosexual):
"Thus, when ego concerns are muted, people tune in and learn from failure" (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797619881133)
If you just stop being a b***h it works.
The process is rewarding by itself. The high you get from acquiring artistic skills is bigger than what you get from programming, as you're learning. You don't really feel anything from making a calculator or a text editor except for a sense of progress, but learning some basic perspective or color theory means you can make things that felt like a mysterious dark art before.
If you're not a code monkey you have to learn group theory, cryptography, algorithms specifically designed for graphics programming and their principles, the many computer architectures and protocols that are there, computer networks, etc. to be able to do your job. You learn more from programming than from arts, it's just not a motor skill.
True, art is very fun to do by oneself, but what if the project is going to take too much time out of my very busy schedule? Then I need to offload the work that I want done to an artist that will accept compensation for the hours I'm asking them to pour over Fluttershy's beautiful eyes, hooves, mane, wings, etc.
>Asking AI to do art for you is no different than comissioning an artist.
This is true, and when the "artist" fricks up I can just keep telling "him" to try again rather for virtually nothing or try and explain it to "him" some other way rather than complain to some person and/or pay more to maybe get the result I'm after.
>You don't need to be paid to do art.
Didnt he hate doing that particular fresco? Iirc he *had* to do it, but actually just wanted to chill doing his own shit
That's actually not uncommon, read up on the 1812 Overture for example. Money motivates great artists to do great things, and average artists to do average things.
Congrats to the girl, keep promoting yourself.
You don't need to be paid to code. Some might even say code is at its best when not paid for by someone and created spontaneously, without someone ordering "one app please" from some code monkey.
Coders aren't entitled to be paid a living for their work.
It’s literally true, look at GitHub
And yet we still have jobs for coding.
-posted from my GitHub downloaded captcha solving app I never donated to
yeah?
That's me you're replying to and yeah, you are absolutely correct. I know a dude who does demoscene C++ as a hobby, and drives a city bus for a living because he wants to keep programming fun instead of a grind for money.
I would like to point out, that demoscene is a form of art.
bisqwit?
Not quite, but another finn though.
Nobody is replacing me though.
NeetAI when?
bruh, programmers are the people working the hardest for a day when humans won't need to do programming anymore. You're preaching to the wrong congregation.
You think that's some sort of gotcha, but it is unironically correct. The best software out there is FOSS
Code is a instrument to produce immediate useful stuff for society
Non commissioned art (and every entertaining items) is not so it's there for as long as we artificially maintain the market
Even thinking of comparing them makes you an absolute artist
t. nocoder
I know you are trying to make bot mad because someone said the same thing about art, but the problem is, you're both correct.
There should be no AI protectionism. If you can still get paid to do things in the age of AI, great. But you aren't owed this and a lot of people are going to choose to use AI because it is simpler, faster and usually higher quality.
Nobody is entitled to make a living doing any specific thing. It all really depends on if people are willing to pay you for your work.
Yeah just look at the state of Loonix. OS of the year any day now!!
Seethe harder artgay. In 3 years you'll be studying Python through tear-filled eyes
Talking 'bout personal experience uh
...you are aware we don't get paid to produce the python scripts that helps you generate AI content and it's a literal hobby for us and not job, right?
Yes i do it for free, I code for free, I "contribute" to others proyects (working for 0 dollars), I only use programs that are done for people tha also do it for free and Im habby
Sure, but I wrote a kinda long shell script (~200 lines) for fun (only 1 loop though) and a few years later someone paid me ~13K after tax for the rights to it (it was gpl before) because it was useful in his niche business and most of them are moronic, but also can't afford to hire programmers.
I'm sure most code that isn't written in-house is this way. There is a difference between commissioning and having a team of employees who can look at the long term goals of the business or take on long term research projects.
Much of the best and now most famous art was made by commission or made to be sold for money. The mona lisa was commissioned by a rich merchant.
This is true, but lets consider what the subject is too, an artist could be just as likely to be paid to produce ugly postmodernist desconstructivist trash as they are to produce some sort of beautiful impressionist masterpiece of the Equestrian countryside with the subject of the painting being a cute mare with love and hardship, and relief with coming of the viewer's presence expressed implicitly in her eyes.
Nobody is stopping buyers from commissioning real artists, so what is the whine about exactly?
Me reporting them stops them from drawing
>spend a potentially large sum of money commissioning an artist and wait days/weeks to get a piece of art you may not even like
>type some words and press a button
Almost everyone will choose the latter if it is even remotely comparable in output, especially companies.
So AI art is art after all? Does it fulfill the role of art? A rose by any other name?
The Mona Lisa is not an example of 'best' art, it is just an example of 'famous' art. It was never close to one of Leonardo's best pieces and was never remarkable in general, it's just famous.
Mona Lisa became famous after they tried to steal it.
Wrong.
The best and most famous art was done by people who lived like monks and dedicated their whole live to it. And most of the time actually did it for their religious believe.
You are only thinking about the Mona Lisa because you are artificially limiting yourself to art that is property that can be sold and traded with.
All the shit the Catholic church owns or ancient roman and greek statues are not up for sale, so we can't put a price tag on them.
Technically not wrong, but we live under capitalism, so nobody really has the freedom to live that pleasant, draw-when-you're-inspired life.
nobody is entitled to any wage. people are willing to trade only because it's worth it to them -- And it in fact can be worth it to both parties (Thomas Sowell's description is the case of a man who would rather have a newspaper than 50c and a newspaper company which would rather have 50c than a newspaper).
As long as there are people who value human-made art enough that they'd be willing to pay an amount of money that artists would rather have than the time & effort & result in the act of creating the art, there will be a market for human artists.
Best art often used to come from tortured artists living in poverty all their lives. Fine art commissioned by kings or the church was rare and only for a select few artists.
>makes comic against AI art
>has the shittiest artsyle imaginable
Like clockwork, etc
LOL
since current "ai" is just glorified google search and glorified copy-paste, it's still the same issue.
if their art is shit "your" art from "ai" is shitty.
You can exclude garbage from the dataset
Why even have a second character in the comic if they're not going to say anything?
So this prostitute can self insert
Imagine drawing something this ugly and suspecting someone would choose to put it in a training set for their AI.
Unless you can show the AI negative examples of what something shouldn't look like, this artist is totally immune from being used to train AI.
It's Pizzacake all of her comics are moronic self inserts complaining about shit without a shred of creativity or real humor.
So in essence, perfect basedboy bait.
Illustrated tweets
jesus christ
troony self-insert
Ok coomer.
ok trooner
"me good, them bad."
it's pretty much the same formula "satirists" have been using for decades.
I think it's hilarious for a webcomic to take the "artists must be paid for their work" side
You release your poorly drawn, copy-pasted "art" for free on the Internet for everyone to see. If you believed your art has value in itself you'd sell access to it, not post it for free and try to make money on the sly off ads, merch and donations.
seething aijeets ITT
artists keep winning.
With the recent suicide attempt numbers and the doomposting? They won long time ago in this category
Nothing will stop attention-seeking digital artists from posting their shit online, they will stop drawing if they can't do that and switch to something else like camwhoring. You can see it in their style, the material they produce, it's all very clearly informed by the feedback they get, and by the desire to get good at the things that get them good feedback. If they deviate you can instantly see how limited they are.
Oh and you can train AI on AI output, so the premise is incorrect.
Why do these homosexuals keep harping on about AI being some sort of conspiracy to wipe out artists out of existence, when in reality it's just another tool and most AI people have no malice against them.
Many of these artists likely use things like content aware fill, which is a similar concept anyway.
look, anon. i see where you're coming from, but I guarantee the artists butthurt about this do not use content-aware fill. they use shit like CSP and PaintToolSAI. they don't know how to fully use their digital art tools.
>Layers are meaningless to them. color on one layer. lineart on another. whats a layer blend mode?
>Wand select tool + flood fill? What are you talking about, i just paint it in manually.
>filters? Why would I want to sharpen my image?
>custom brushes? Stamps? no thanks I just use the ones i downloaded from deviantART
>Cant even do text editing in their shit software
>knows zero hotkeys or shortcuts
>unable to work on files larger than 3000x3000 because pc starts to lag. >can't undo more than 50 times because scratch discs are full. does not know how to allocate more
>layer masking? layer clipping? why could i need that?
>destructive cropping
>resizes image without making it a smart object, has no concept of resolution
>puppet warp? warp? are you talking about a muppet and star trek crossover?
Amazing shit like the content aware fill and use of ai gens to fill in their backgrounds, extend their drawings to fit different dimensions etc. is just completely beyond them.
It's scary to a lot of shartists because they have to evaluate what art really is and reconcile their conception of it, something they've never done. Remember, a lot of these shartists crying about AI are only crying because they see people taking their "style" and making something they won't be compensated for with it. For years, shartists were talking about what makes art, and it turns out the only thing these artists care about is the most superficial aspects of it, not the pseudo intellectual drivel that inspires most "modern art".
A writer can have someone impersonate them with their writing style, but still maintain identity through the uniqueness of their expression, most commonly reflected from life experiences. An artist also can, but unfortunately most of the shartists crying weren't making thoughtful and reflective artwork. They were drawing furry porn and webcomics.
the thing with the pseudo-intellectual drivel coming out of art schools that inspires "modern art" is that it's relativistic posturing. it's superficial guidance on 'how you're supposed to act correctly" that can never be applied beyond the novice level because those concepts are so superficial that treating them as a rule compromises your ability to create new ideas and creative concepts. it's less so much poisoning the well, it's more like malnourishing your peasants.
shartists are not engaging in artistry to create new ideas and creative concepts, they're just sycophants that worship at the feet of an artificial god. people in art school, not of their own ignorance, are legitimately taught that aesthetics and art and interchangible concepts. it just means they will get assblasted when someone tells them a sketchbook drawing isn't art because they were purposefully misled for an ulterior motive
what im saying is that you should read Mein Kampf for the section on Viennese art schools
There is no need for new art to be fed to the machine. with all the data present you can generate an infinite number of variations that can again be used to train better models. and shitty webcomic bs like OP was obsolete even before AI shat on it
More like
>Fortfeit your art and surrender. We will add your technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
You can either deny everyone art, or be consumed by AI while posting
>she slowly started posting nudes of herself over the months
Delicious
Am I petty, but I swear, with all these shitty as frick comics I see, a part of me wants to draw just to show how it's done. Like this one, instead of just "I am silly", play that scenario out
>panel 1: human artists drawing
>panel 2: they get fired, and a bot is dragged in
>panel 3: bot makes a bunch of derivatives
>panel 4: bot's boss (or the bot itself) calls the artists, asking them for source material
Bugs me how web comics just rely on basic dialog/facial expressions to get a shitty point/joke across. I read eulogy that had more imagery than the webcomics you see posted
That’s a moronic idea anon, as the chance of an actual derivative of what the previous artists drew is as high as chance of you getting laid
that would be a mildly amusing comic, yes.
>look at art
>take inspiration from it
>make art
>ai looks at my art
>ai takes inspiration from my art
this (clap emoji) NEEDS (clap emoji) to (clap emoji) STOP
(clap emoji)
NOW
if AI art is so trash and human artists are so much better (doubtful based on this shitty comic), why are they getting so upset over it?
People tend to get upset when undesirables move into their neighborhood and litter trash all over the place. It’s not so much the pictures themselves, but the people behind them who have zero awareness to what makes art “work” and posts shit that has so many blatant issues, and not even soulful little imperfections, but lacking consistency in aesthetic direction/mood. It looks like cheap walmart crap, which would be fine if people making it knew that’s what it was, but having an eye for such things requires years of experience, so they don’t and have the audacity to call themselves real artists. Of all the AI slop, I’ve seen only 2 that I’d actually call good pictures and, even then, part of what makes art “art” is the process behind it, and the experience/methods behind that(leading to things like unique styles which are a glimpse into the subconscious of the artists, hence why art is communication even at its base level.) Prompting isn’t an artform, and I don’t think most artists would care so much about AI if people using it and posting it everywhere stopped considering themselves artists.
>part of what makes art “art” is the process behind it
Only "artists" really care about that
You're the first pass user I've ever seen, I find that incredible.
Poor woman artist has to rely on selling nudes to survive now. 🙁
https://kemono.party/patreon/user/59577203
I don’t think she “needs to”
From her timeline you can see how she slowly got coerced into it from the positive attention she was getting
No offense but how do women like that get attention on the internet? Simps should be genocided.
some people never leave their rooms so average coochie seems god-tier to them.
looks israeli
Canada, so probably yes!
>Emergence IRL
women really can't miss an opportunity to shamelessly prostitute themselves out, can they?
>https://kemono.party/patreon/user/59577203
This b***h has some UGLY breasts
>coping.jpg
I have a feeling huge datasets of real art released just before the AI "revolution" (i.e. when SD came out) will be worth a lot more as time progresses.
Remember how the moronic Br*tish fed ground-up cattle remains back to cows and brought about the mad cow disease? That's exactly what's going to happen with AI art. As datasets become more and more contaminated, AI art will be fed back into new AI models, and the AI inbreeding will yield much worse results.
We will have so much AI garbage that it will be impossible to filter them out. You won't be able to trust a dataset, and you can't really collect your own data because it will be contaminated.
That’s literally what’s happening to humans too though
Twitter artists learn from other Twitter artists, creating worse and worse atrocities, or another case is the corporate artstyle and how each generation of it is even more disgusting than the one before
Contamination of “dataset” doesn’t only happen to machines, absolutely happens to humans too
It's not a simple with real artists, or at least it's not really a problem.
For example, western art generally looks like garbage, and it's worth going out of your way so you don't come across it. Garbage western artists beget garbage western artists. However, I've seen some talented western artists who chose to use or incorporate eastern art styles and made pretty nice stuff. So talented humans are capable of improving and choosing a good example to follow. The cross-contamination situation is very real though and I'm glad Japanese artists are leaving Twitter.
You can use LLMs to determine from context if a posted image is generated, and it's not like images are on a GPT4 text-generation level yet, they should be easily automatically distinguishable. If they're not detected then they probably have good enough "genes" to inbred.
Nice slippery slope fallacy with no information except source: your fat ass. You know nothing about this subject, frick off and have a nice day moron.
Enjoy looking at sterile smooth diarrhea art digested and shit out by 5 models before it reaches you.
yeah. it's better than most artists right now, but it'll start going down hill any day now.
2 weeks more and artists will finally defeat it!
slippery slope is not a fallacy
I don't know, every problem these AI happen to have is corrected at an alarming fast rate, see hands and how it got quickly fixed with inpainting in like, what was it, one month? Surely what you're talking about and how it will be the AI's demise, will actually be fixed in, again, like a month.
I don't know if it will lead to the AI's demise, I highly doubt that, but I'm highly skeptical about training with generated data. Of course, the best models will have better datasets, but I speculate the amount of shit that is about to flood the world will make it hard to collect your own data. As an anon pointed out, this is much worse for text, but can't imagine it being beneficial for images either.
AI will keep getting better, and we will be seeing AI art everywhere. It can't be helped.
There will be multiple actual humans sifting through those datasets tagging any/all possible AI work. Cleaning datasets will be an actual job, and the clean datasets themselves will be very valuable. The biggest issue will be artistic stagnation of the datasets when all major artists use AI in their process.
this is an actual concern I've seen discussed. anons responding to you are moronic. there will never be another "purely human" internet from this point moving forward. Not unlike how non-contaminated earth is nearly impossible to source after the nuclear age.
LLM's are supposed to reflect human behavior. It might not be a problem now, but it will be in a few generations. Negative feedback loop.
>LLM's are supposed to reflect human behavior. It might not be a problem now, but it will be in a few generations. Negative feedback loop.
This. There's a reason why autists like Elon or the leddig devs are closing down access to valuable training data right now.
Lol nice
5557
idgi
>stop replacing me
>you literally can't replace me (emotions, passion etc)
What IS the problem here? There is no problem apparently.
I'd be way more sympathetic to them (and I guess am to anyone that does) if they stuck with the first. Technology won't stop either way, but this
>YOU'LL NEVER BE ME
>YOU'RE DESTROYING MY LIFE
>I'M NOT SCARED
>FRICK YOU
shit, makes them so fricking hard to feel for.
Once it's sufficiently good can't it train against itself?
Not without human interaction
Why does this need to be a comic.
There's no necessary visual information or comedy.
This c**t should stop drawing and go play minecraft (or similar).
moronic comic
>doesn't understand ard
>NOOO it's the art that's moronic!!
no wonder you think AI creates new art
every human artist copies others
no way around
her comics were so unfunny I went out of way and created an account just so I could block her
Should have reported her first for good measure
will do certainly
people use ai art because it's free and they wouldn't have paid for an artist anyway, same concept of piracy
Piracy is not only free but also usually better than the original you could buy (you actually own the product with no DRM or any kind of restrictions).
AI art is almost always worse than what a good artist would make but it's often good enough for the purpose, especially for free.
bro have you seen the style of average artist and the mistakes they make
even shittr with worst model performs better than that
There's a reason why I said "good artist." But yes, this is the context we need to consider. Shitty and average artists usually make very bad art, and AI beats them with literally zero effort (unless they have SOVL), that's why they are seething.
High-profile artists are less threatened by AI.
I use AI art for stuff I'm too lazy to draw myself, and it's great. I still draw the stuff I find fun to draw, but all the endless npc portraits for my game can easily be automated
too bad steam removes your game if it has ai art in it, itch.io should be fine tho I think
Fine
Even in their fantasies they can't help but make themselves look like troons.
Why is it that 100% of the artists I see seething about AI have garbage style that would likely get excluded from any curated dataset?
Nah they get used for training embeddings like easynegative lmao
Even the trash is good for composting
its only unskilled artists being affected, borders dont exist anyway
also what are you a bigot? silicon deserves rights too
>its only unskilled artists being affected,
Yeah I have a friend who does art coms (and is good) and he has never once complained about AI.
I've seen some artists I like (including ones, commonly used for style prompts) complain.
the joke is this is how they brushed off people complaining about illegal immigration
oh. yeah. I'm european, so our complaint were never "they took our jobs", rather that they use up our resources as well as steal/kill/rape like crazy.
Kek, true.
Europeans would be fricking dancing in the streets if any of the migrants actually worked jobs.
I would be doing the worm if a Black person actually invented something that improved my everyday quality of life
>human is influenced by another human
>...
>computer is influenced by human
>has incel meltdown
I don't get this.
You posted their art on a different board
Artists: "we hate the 1%! keeping all the money they earned from the masses1!!!"
Also Artists: "we, the 1% of talented artists should be the only ones show can make art!"
good morning sirs, pajeeta sexo
Holy based!
Fricking kek, saved!
Truly, humor worth of BOT
Why does she lie to the doctor?
Because she is a women.
where are the porn edits?
i thought we have AI now
Reddit bros...
reddit: i hate you troon [USER BANNED FOR THIS POST]
reddit: [edited] i like your suff!
showing 10 best comments out of 3225
Pinned: Kawaiichap43 (Moderator): don't worry grl we got your back (btw i donated $4 on your stream but you forgot to say my name but it's fine i'll be back anyway). frick the bigot incels
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
wow u are gorgeus
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
haha that's so funny
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
my favorite people on earth are those who are triggered by reddit
like how weak do you have to be that gay robot is the "this is me being hurrassed"
Won't AIs just start referencing themselves when making art? Getting weirder and weirder as the human influence is diluted. I remember a story a few years ago when two AIs gradually evolved their own short-hand language from English for making deals.
Everyone can see her butthole on the internet => opinion discarded.
where
https://kemono.party/patreon/user/59577203
women whoring themselves out is empowering, haven't you heard chud
>see older posts
>just pictures of herself
>getting riskier and riskier as time goes on
>full-on e-thot by now
this is some fetish material
I feel kinda sad in a way, approaching the wall truly does a number on the mind of most modern women
Wtf this b***h got two children
Lmao it's so over for those kids
Somehow whoring out her comic self-insert feels worse than whoring out her actual self.
>AI art is the futu-
Imagine thinking making webcomics is art
You don't even need AI to rip-off that person's "art"; the character is like 20 strokes, the coloring is simple gradients and text boxes (and the text within) are fricking basic as hell. I bet anyone here could set up a PS workflow and replicate that style perfectly in less than 10min. It would beat wasting the time training.
>ai relies on existing art for training
>stealing
>human artists rely on existing art for training
>not stealing
I mean you know the automated response is that machines =/= humans
why would you steal from the most unfunny comic series ever lmao
artists are dead already and they don't even know it.
I've seen this idea made before. about regular school content. also.
thanks for the mice I'll sell them
i'm surprised people haven't used this tech to generate childrens books by the truck load.
they have and have been mocked and criticized to oblivion
also no copyright.
Language's next and since language is everything for us, that will be the end of the human-led part of history. It was short, ugly and violent. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
same. Literally cannot wait.
Nothing will be what it seems like.
>Be human artist
>Constantly consooming other people's art 24/7
>Learn from these other art pieces without the consent of the original creator
>Apply those influences in your own work to create something new
>AI starts to do the exact same thing
>NOOOOOOOOOOOO T- T- THATS STEALING!!1!!!!!
>mfw cognitive dissonance
>AI art is the futu
what is futu? did you mean futa?
cringe
commission human art then.
Why is it that all the people who make these shorty comics can’t draw? Lmao.
Too busy getting camgirl bux and basking in reddit updoots.
AI needs a shitty art filter.
Photoshop killed art long before AI did.
Works as good as the great masters could already be produced in days with only 3 years experience in good tooling. So master level workmanship already went from 10 years to 10 days. Now it's reduced to 10 minutes.
Good art should demonstrate one of two things. It should demonstrate a mastery of a talent, like hand carving something out of marble. Or it should reveal a truth that society refuses to accept.
Social Justice morons are incapable of exposing truth since their entire persona is toeing false ideological lines. They are lazy morons so they can't get good at anything. So they are incapable of taking any of the two paths towards great art.
I have a feeling no AI is "stealing" pizzacakecomics "art"
the more things change, the more things stay the same.
The same crowd which hated unabomber/luddites and said mine workers to get tech jobs ARE now making the same arguments luddites did regarding industrial revolution.
funny how that works out.
trannies are going to fricking ruin ted k. aesthetics
okay now edit it to be about gay people expecting straight people to keep breeding
I can't believe AI would steal real art from real artists like me. Capitalism is truly evil.
>implying AI can't steal art from its own creations
>My reaciton to ai deniers when you no longer have to pay for photos or clipart.
you don't even need new art to feed the AI. just make an evolution system where the AI creates art with some changes and then keep saying yay or nay to guide the AI to the right direction.
also as sidenote, humanity has already created so much art that you literally cannot go through it all even if you dedicate your life to just browsing through it. therefore there's not reason to create more and we should just abolish copyright. people would still create (arguably better) art just for fun.
>just make an evolution system where the AI creates art with some changes and then keep saying yay or nay to guide the AI to the right direction.
It already happened, the way people trained and merged Stable Diffusion models was the "yay", and to increase the speed of the process and keep storage space viable (as people kept downloading 5GB models their space began to run out) the "nay" was what was deemed unimportant when keeping checkpoints at their minimum size.
The sad state of affairs is that about 5 months ago models plateaued, becoming 97% similar to each other, creating "same faces" (what was "yayed" to be the most pleasing faces) which you'll get no matter what model you use, and since then nobody has broken any new ground and models stagnated.
Specially because SDXL arrived but it turns out it's not as good as the SD models that plateaued earlier.
Hands are still terrible and need impainting, people still get body horror and have to resort to generate many pictures and throw away the bad ones, and we still don't have character permanence (a character redrawn may now be wearing a tie instead of the buttons of the previous pic.)
It's as if a new alternative to text to image has to appear to replace all this, and we just use this to learn from previous mistakes. But imagine if you describe an image with some action and the emotions of the characters and it's actually drawn that way, forget about banning AI pictures because nobody will be able to tell them apart.
All the problems you point out are real but you can't do much about the gacha aspect of it when the whole field is a black box gacha. I mean, can we expect determinism from what is basically brute-force search with shortcuts?
Frick ML
SDXL is a base model moron, like SD1.4 and so on, so compare the base mode to base model, not to the fine tunes and merges
>Specially because SDXL arrived but it turns out it's not as good as the SD models that plateaued earlier.
Hands are still terrible and need impainting, people still get body horror and have to resort to generate many pictures and throw away the bad ones, and we still don't have character permanence (a character redrawn may now be wearing a tie instead of the buttons of the previous pic.)
It's as if a new alternative to text to image has to appear to replace all this, and we just use this to learn from previous mistakes. But imagine if you describe an image with some action and the emotions of the characters and it's actually drawn that way, forget about banning AI pictures because nobody will be able to tell them apart.
I don't get this take on SDXL. I'm getting massively improved results vs using SD a couple months ago with less need to have large batch sizes and needing less work to refine final image.
> we still don't have character permanence
/lmg/ sort of figured that one out. It's a software issue and not a flaw with the models we use.
Chat coomers have an advantage, in that text logs are easy to save and edit in order to achoeve a sort of recursive training method in order to maintain permanence with their waifus.
For images, we would need a collector in our software, that continuously re-trains itself on it's own generated content to produce it's own LoRAs in order to achieve the same results.
ah yes, the ol' "strawman opponent angrily spewing lines while the person who made the picture is silent and calm"
the most creative and intelligent of arguments
anyone got the "i am silly" picture?
A truly philosophically indefensible argument. What do human artists do besides observe the world and abstract, interpret, regurgitate, etc. to produce a work of art? AI is intelligence, limited by its inability to strengthen its sensory inputs, but it is performing the same process. Unless these lefty atheist artists want to claim there is something only a human can do due to some innate capability or connection to some higher force that introduces otherworldly objects into their consciousness?
>poor female being oppressed
>malicious male robot being the oppressor
Switch genders and see the seethe.
-re
dicky is the future -/-> ai art is the future
ai art is the future -> dicky is the future
Funny how AI can't make edited porn of this comic if drawing is so easy for them
>seething for a year straight
happy anniversary SD bros