that moron/bot is explaining the original comic, not the edit
the only vaguely funny explanation for the edit would be that it's a loss parody
the double prompting explanation on the other hand is boring
I think I get it.
He's implying mcdonalds is the actual artists making the training data.
That's why he asks twice because he needs multiple samples for training.
[...]
Here it as a simple simile. You prompting an AI to make artwork makes you just as much as an artist as ordering from McDonalds makes you a chef.
i dont get it
[...]
I still dont fricking get it
I think I get it.
He's implying mcdonalds is the actual artists making the training data.
That's why he asks twice because he needs multiple samples for training.
in the original three-frame comic, the first frame shown an artist proudly presenting their creation, the second displayed an AI interpreting or changing the art, and the third showcased the art transformed into something resembling a McDonald's advertisement or theme. By duplicating the second frame the joke: the AI takes its time "thinking" or processing the art not once, but twice, only to come up with something as mundane and commercial as a McDonald's reference. The phrase "using McDonald's as a tool" humorously suggests that, despite the advanced capabilities of AI, it can sometimes reduce art to simplistic or commercial ideas, much like using a global fast-food chain as a benchmark for creativity.
Autists love removing panels from comics to make them "better", those usually have 4 or more panels to begin with so maybe he's just cheeky and adding a panel instead
Ask your elementary school teacher to explain it to you. I know understanding surface level humor can be hard for special needs people, but keep trying champ you'll get there eventually.
This is so true. That's why supermarkets aren't even real jobs and why we're entitled to just take everything from them for free. They didn't actually make the stuff they sell.
I disagree. The rage that would create would be absolutely hilarious to see.
Do it, then post their art and a CivitAI link on their insta or wtf they use to self promote. Fanboy it and tell them you're such a fan of their work you just wanted to make it easily available to everyone.
The more accurate scenario that this comic is lampooning would be if you bought some art on fiverr and then passed it off as your own, which anti-AI shitters probably think is ok because you "paid an artist".
I will happily buy food from this small white ball-person if it can be made in a thousandth of the time and at a thousandth of the cost as "traditionally" prepared mcdonalds.
I think there's a difference between art and a picture
if you just want a picture? SD is for you
but if you want something that someone drew? it's just not the same
I feel bad for the author of that image since it seems to exemplify the benefits of being able to get exactly what you want on demand, while they clearly are upset about authorship which nobody really cares about in that context. The content being consumed is what matters and the guy got exactly what he wanted, why would he care if he made it himself or another human made it, he still got what he wanted.
Like he said, nobody gives a shit about that. People aren't going around claiming to be grandiose artists because they can use AI image generation tools, and even if they were nobody would care.
He went to McDonald's, asked for what he wanted, and got it. It's his burger to enjoy.
I don't understand what about the last panel you're upset about.
???
No one seriously not saying they're using AI to generate images outside of the whole "if I tell you I used it for my video game you'll cancel me"
The only people who say "I made this" are trolls trolling artists or people afraid to get canceled.
But I'm excited to hear the "AI just copies images" argument.
this hasn't been funny since the birthday cakes you can buy on your way out the store became good enough for what they need to do. The joke totally relies on quality stagnating, a human only trait.
First thing I thought as well. I was going to make an edit with that, but then I scrolled down and saw your post so I'm not doing it anymore because that would be stealing.
kek. honestly that angle is so funny too >most AI artists have all made at least like 100k images themselves over the past year >"real" artists have spent most of the last year crying instead of making art, even a lot of the professionals because they're on strike
>>most AI artists have all made at least like 100k images themselves over the past year
make even more and upload even fewer of them
because that washed out/overexposed or generic look is really bad
> artists showing their ignorance of how the world works
OP pic is already done in practice. Most mid-priced restaurants (where 95% of ppl sit down to eat) are simply reheating full meals that they buy from Sysco (major food service provider), plating them, and then charging the customer for them.
Does the customer care where it was actually made? No, just that it's where and when they want it.
If I'm writing crappy romance novels, do I care if base image was SD or hand drawn? No, I just want art that looks good enough for the digital front cover, and doesn't cost me a fortune.
Hey, anon. How do I get in the business of crappy novel writing? I know about the writing part but how do I get people to actually buy it? Also, how much does it cost to get some non-ESL person to read it? (I'm assuming most people only "read" audio books nowadays).
Or is it too late to get in because from now on most shitty novels will be written and even read by ai who is capable of outputting too much content too fast for any human to compete?
This is true, as the brain-dead knuckle-draggers working at McD are just as likely to frick up the order as the AI is likely to mess up the art. So the job of the "artist" is to keep going back to McD until the order is acceptable.
prompting+RNG 1girls is moronic, controlnets are a step in the right direction but there's a fricking huge way to go. Eventually there will be some sort of AI photoshop style program where you can actually lay out and compose individual art assets that are always kept consistent and on style. And to use it effectively you will need to understand the fundamentals of art, even if fine technique is no longer as important.
If they claim that AI art is stealing from a bunch of artists to compose an image, wouldn't it be more accurate to say you go to McDonald's, Wendy's, in and out, five guys, etc. And then making your own with parts from all of them?
its all corporate propaganda to get you to support giving corporations more control and midwits sociopaths who think its only okay when they personally are the ones riding [current trend]. When corpo gets their ai laws limiting the technology to just themselves, these same useful idiots will be discarded because they have served their purpose.
yeah funny except no stable diffusion enthusiast has ever claimed that they are actually "creating" art
they use words like "I generated" and refer to themselves as "proompter"
and by "they" I mean "we"
so your point is moot
the most important thing they don't understand is that no one needs their permission to keep making ai art.
They can keep seething in a corner as they get blown away by people using the tech
Every metric, you can be one of the best artists and still have ai massively speed up your workflow with it doing background, similar to how manga artists have teams of assistants.
It's adapt or die in industry, artists who use AI will just be so much faster
Those who do art for the sake of money might suffer from this, but people will always be more impressed by real artists than people who spend 2 minutes typing a prompt and letting the GPU do all the work.
There's a real why people still play chess despite computers easily BTFOing the best human chess players.
Ok but what about an artist who you couldn't tell used AI to clean up their line art, do shading and all the background to make a piece in 1 hour that took them 5 before
the AI here automates menial work rather than taking creative control away from the artist. the context presented here is the same as the transition from hand drawn to digital: your art will lose significantly more soul (by virtue of less input from humans, and everyone using the same paint program / cleaning model), but consoomers will eat your goyslop right up. artists don't care as they still get to draw in their personal way without having to essentially roll dice with a computer program.
in case I wasn't clear, this isn't SD. doesn't matter how you inpaint or outpaint reality is you're having the model pick out the booru image for you with zero creative input.
mfs not knowing how to use a workflow or write custom code:"I can't get it to do what I want so noone else can".
Meanwhile they use the same draw programm, (virtual) paintbrush and (virtual) color palette as 15000 other "artists" to make furry porn commissions or draw someone elses dnd char:"I'm a creative, I would hate not having full control of my art."
you are stupid + you obviously have not done anything creative in your life
best reply you'll get out of me. I know better now than to argue with someone working on bad faith to defend the right to prompt his AI why fues. coomer brains are built different indeed.
9 months ago
Anonymous
moron has no argument except assuming everyone only does porn with it. Implicitly admitting everything else is true, you puppet.
"I am very individual and unique , I know that because I have the same opinion, do the same things and ow the same stuff as all my friends and they are all unique individuals."
moron, take your anxiety meds and jerk off to being an artgay, you narcissist. I love you seething at being replaced by algorithms, you elitist prick.
9 months ago
Anonymous
not an artist, just someone baffled at how sociopathic coomers got with SD.
yes, the only practical use of SD is porn. everything else is novelty, or excercise for the purpose of generating more porn.
not replying to the rest of your bait post. seethe harder
9 months ago
Anonymous
>yes, the only practical use of SD is porn. everything else is novelty
you really think that? unironically ? maybe stop hanging around in /b/ jerking off and look at some of the stuff professional artists have used stable diffusion for
9 months ago
Anonymous
note the practical qualifier. some homosexual trying to be hip with the times using it as a gimmick does not count. some grifter generating generic masterpiece style paintings to win art contest money (doled out by judges afraid of being called luddites) doesn't count either. all shots in the dark, you didn't bother giving even an example for your claim.
You need to actually read my post if you think my point were merely about effort.
Ok but what about an artist who you couldn't tell used AI to clean up their line art, do shading and all the background to make a piece in 1 hour that took them 5 before
Those aren't the same people who spend 2 minutes proompting and declare themselves artists. If I can tell that a machine made it, then it's shit regardless of how objectively detailed it is.
Anyone with a soul can tell just from a glance at the thumbnail whether or not an image is AI generated.
Using a computer to make "art" should be punishable by death. This includes drawing apps, Photoshop, etc. Using a computer to manipulate text should result in caning.
.
I'm glad someone shares my opinion. I've been praying to god that he might rescue these poor sinners.
you know what sd really stands for? satan delights, and he does at you lost souls trying to industrially fabricate souls through art.
generating souls is the domain of god, you can only prompt him through prayer. don't be mislead by the devil.
The fatal mistake of such leddit posts is that I do not want to be an artist, I do not want any association with these "people". The AI allows me to get images I like to look at, such as expressionist style "paintings" of pictures of the natural beauty that surrounds me. I do not have even to talk to the "people" or look at their work, some Chud already ripped ther shitpiles for me, and I can just filter the results I like.
just sour grapes that the mechanical rendering they spend years practicing was a waste of time
it turns out that if you remove the mechanical rendering, all you have left is the selection by a developed artistic sense
which is exactly what Marcel Duchamp was getting at with Fountain over 100 years ago
but they don't want to hear that
Great point, and nothing they'll ever do will be half as interesting as a guy writing his name on a urinal.
People drawing furry porn commissions on fiver and having a webcomic that generates a few thousand clicks a month call themselves artist like it's not an affront to anyone with genuine inspiration.
Then someone comes along and makes their tools (photoshop and stylus, give them a genuine brush an watch them suck at "art") superfluous and suddenly they are against humans expressing their creativity, because it's not done their way.
In all my decades of using the internet I have YET to find a single funny web comic. It's like being an unfunny talentless hack is a requirement to start a web comic.
I imagine they're all failed "artists" who cope with shitty unfunny web comics.
It's too bad he doesn't make them as often anymore.
They were true classics.
I don't really like the people who write the projects he's been collabing with.
>not appreciating the deep meta commentary on capitalistic systemic oppression via a furry yelling at a tree
They're on the correct side of history, they deserve whatever they want and everyone kissing their ass. Chud.
The reality is that learning models work. They produce things people want to look at, it's that simple. They will not go away so you better start using them to produce more and better art.
>I trained my brain by looking at 100,000 drawings, processed the knowledge with my 1 trillion neurons, then used my brain to use parts and connections of all of them to draw something based on what you said you wanted.
Vs
>I trained my model by having it look at 100,000 drawings, processed the knowledge with my gpu, then used my cpu to use parts and connections of all of them to draw something based on what you said you wanted.
Literally what's the difference? No good artist gets that easy without training like an ai model does. Saying you can't use a cpu is like saying you can't be a great mathematician if you ever input into a calculator
the soul from art comes from it being a skewed view of the world filtered from the artist
the photo is only showing u the same stuff again.
AI is only good at making averages from a data sheet which combines many into 1, all it will look like will forever be generic and it wont contain the touch of the person behind it
On one hand, I don't care, on the other, I fricking despise artists for not giving a frick about licensing until a Boogeyman supposedly hurts their bottom line.
They could've sued the shit out of these ai companies for ripping off their copyright but instead theyre all just gonna make these homosexual comics to prove a point instead of doing anything about the real problem.
>can't copyright AI art >"this is fine" >but you can just take a photograph of your AI art which applies copyrights
people are genuinely fricking morons
imagine trying to make a living as a chef if some moron reselling mcdonalds offers better food than you do
why are these "frick ai" pieces always self-owns
This, but also pic rel. Add in furry porn commissions and you've got the full set of what artists actually get paid to create.
Artists are invariably miserable postmodern leftoid troony cretins who make a cult of ugliness. For decades they've filled galleries with "art" that openly mocks the idea that anything can be beautiful or require talent to create, or desicrates the sacred.
Then suddenly generative models come along capable of creating something that people actually want to look at, and they lose their shit. Artists did this to themselves.
I don't get it either.
I just think it's neat I'm not calling myself an artist.
There is technical skill involved to use the software and writing prompts however, not that normalhomosexuals will respect that.
>I'm not calling myself an artist
Then there is no problem. The comic is obviously criticizing people who pass of AI art as their own, like they made some considerable effort creating it.
There is no issue with liking McDonald's, there is an issue with buying a McDonald's big Mac and claiming you made this burger
>you're insanely delusional if you think effort and value have a linear scaling.
I never said that, now you're making up strawmen kek >. a skilled artist can effortlessly create what would take an amateur considerable effort.
Effort is relative, this "effortless" precedes countless hours of practice and preparation.
9 months ago
Anonymous
his point is that it can be demonstrated that a skilled artist could draw a nice sketch with less effort than someone who hasn't done it before setting up and generating something equivalent in quality using an AI tool
9 months ago
Anonymous
and if you're talking cumulative effort, that is, counting training as well
does that mean art is more art the longer you make art?
the quality will (should) go up as you train more, but the question isn't quality, but whether something becomes "more art" the longer you train
is the art you make 1 week in less "art" than what you make after 2 weeks? at what point does what you draw become art?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>counting training as well
95% of the ai "artist" never even touched a single line of code. If you coded and tweaked the model yourself then sure, I'll concede the point. But once again that's not the fricking point of the comic
9 months ago
Anonymous
great point there. consider that prompting is no more different than the process of making a commission request in terms of workflow. there is no logic involved in programming (not that AI needs much of that anyway) nor is there technique involved in putting the pieces together to resemble the desired outcome.
essentially, the model is the artist, the prompter is the prompter. SD is basically an artist doling out infinite free comissions. "AI artist" is a misnomer in and of itself and I think it's why many find it instinctually uncomfortable to call it as such. of course as we know we as a progressive society of midwits tend to ignore our gut feelings when we fail to express our innate concerns with logic.
https://i.imgur.com/a0tknLK.jpg
I'll try not to rant about how redditors are perverting the basedjak the same way they did the virgin-chad template into losing all particular meaning, turning into yet another us vs. them slop template. abstract art slop is equivalent to AI art in terms of usage. abstract art is meant to be consumed by art snobs, rich and in search of an identity. AI art is meant to be consumed by coomers happy they no longer have to pay for and be beholden to some artist for their furry/brony/big "tiddy" tomboy art anymore.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Abstract art is meant for money laundering.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>AI art is meant to be consumed by coomers happy they no longer have to words words
It's a tool used to make more art. 100x stable diffusion images -> find a favorite composition -> turn into an oil painting by hand. If this AI stuff wasn't being developed right now I'd be WAY behind in creative hobbies, now that I'm able to reflect on it.
9 months ago
Anonymous
so essentially tracing over someone else's work (in this case SD's)? sounds boring, but there are those who enjoy rewriting simple command line tools in rust so I understand. I think a big part of the appeal to creative work is expressing yourself. but if you consider art as nothing more than the process then I can see why you'd fail to relate to other artists.
not him, but as a counterargument/devil's advocate, how would you say this compared to other machine-manufactured processes?
like take for example, i design something in a vector program, and have it cut out on my cutting plotter
is it fair to say i "made" the output? even though i didn't actually cut the vinyl myself by hand?
i think the issue here is a terminological one, i'm sure nobody would disagree that i designed the final product
people making the argument you're making are treating "artist" as the manufacturer, the entity which actually assembled the pixels, so to speak, but the design is in the prompts and settings, this is what guides the process towards a desired result
so would it be more acceptable for someone to claim they designed a particular AI picture? does artist actually only mean manufacturer?
an issue here is that previously, there was little to no way to make what could be called art without actually manufacturing it yourself at the same time, which naturally causes confusion now
the machining guy owns the product, the designer owns the intellectual property. the designer has the ability to license the IP and the machining guy gets to create something of it without having to ever own the IP. same deal with SD. the artist is more than the person who puts pixel to screen.
intellectual property is not the ordered list of pixel values that describe it. that is just one possible manifestation of that IP. similarly you can't just say I own some music just because I had the ability to sing it.
before generative AI it was simple to simply make the claim that if I thought up that something before everyone else did, and the process of making that thing took some semblance of the creative process we recognize under common sense, I owned it. this understanding is obviously blurred in the case of AI. the analogy falls apart here.
>Another dumbfrick who confuses money laundering/literal scams with value of art
Ok show me a modern art exhibition that isn't stupid dogshit like this.
So every top-tier art institution is engaged in money laundering and is corrupt to the core, or they're doing it because they're so self-absorbed they actually think it's legitimate art. And every art school is training more artists to do this every day
Either way your "mental output" argument is bullshit because "mental output" hasn't been a factor in art for about 100 years. But don't worry, creating furry porn requires "mental output", or corporate memphis globohomosexual art requires "mental output"
Your argument is shit and artists deserve everything happening to them.
for the sake of my sanity we'll proceed as if your argument was valid. why are you reasoning by karmic retribution? this is completely unproductive to discussion on the artform itself, and serves as nothing more than immature petty revenge on artists that have wronged you in some way. in what way I have no clue, and that is the reason I keep coming back to these threads. I do have a suspicion that I can't shake and it only gets more intense the more I try to empathize with you.
>AI art is an insult to artists
Precisely, this is why I endorse it.
you people are sociopaths.
9 months ago
Anonymous
not him, but as a counterargument/devil's advocate, how would you say this compared to other machine-manufactured processes?
like take for example, i design something in a vector program, and have it cut out on my cutting plotter
is it fair to say i "made" the output? even though i didn't actually cut the vinyl myself by hand?
i think the issue here is a terminological one, i'm sure nobody would disagree that i designed the final product
people making the argument you're making are treating "artist" as the manufacturer, the entity which actually assembled the pixels, so to speak, but the design is in the prompts and settings, this is what guides the process towards a desired result
so would it be more acceptable for someone to claim they designed a particular AI picture? does artist actually only mean manufacturer?
an issue here is that previously, there was little to no way to make what could be called art without actually manufacturing it yourself at the same time, which naturally causes confusion now
9 months ago
Anonymous
>i design something in a vector program, and have it cut out on my cutting plotter >is it fair to say i "made" the output?
You're conflating creative/cognitive effort with manual effort, same as all of the other AI brainlets in this thread.
Coming up with two three prompts to create an AI artwork is like ten minutes of creative effort, and creative effort for art or any other fields was never reduced.
AI art is an insult to artists is because it reduces mental effort to almost zero while pretending it's just as good or just as valid as the actual artwork. Think of it like this: should a chess player who uses a stockfish engine while playing chess just as revered as a grandmaster? Obviously not, because that'd be dumb as frick. But that's literally what AItards are trying to claim
9 months ago
Anonymous
>AI art is an insult to artists is because it reduces mental effort to almost zero while pretending it's just as good or just as valid as the actual artwork.
Standard artists leftoid opinion, they subscribe to the labor theory of value.
A literal pile of garbage, took zero effort to create, gets placed in a gallery sells for $500,000. A fully illustrated gay erotic mario x luigi fanfic, a labor of love for a decade - no monetary value
Artists insult themselves and make a mockery of their own craft, go to a modern art gallery and look at what they demand your respect for creating.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>A fully illustrated gay erotic mario x luigi fanfic, a labor of love for a decade - no monetary value
Anon, I...
9 months ago
Anonymous
>But what about the furry porn!?
> placed in a gallery sells for $500,000.
You're confusing money laundering with value of art here kek.
>but what about the criminal money laundering!?
So why is AI art bad again?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>AI art bad again?
Nobody fricking says ai art is bad moron, it's people who write prompts and claim to be "artists" who are bad.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Why though? People can create their own degenerate furry porn or find another way to launder money. Are you suggesting that the artist who gets paid commissions to create furry porn somehow has the moral high ground or is contributing to society in some way?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Why though?
It completely devalues mental output. Think Idiocracy and the first steps towards it, think of all the marvel slop and other literal zero-effort stuff that will become more and more. It's a direct threat to creativity and cognitive capacities
9 months ago
Anonymous
people will use their cognition on other stuff, the human brain produces a certain amount of energy and will make use of it optimally
9 months ago
Anonymous
>people will use their cognition on other stuff, the human brain produces a certain amount of energy and will make use of it optimally
Yeah bro, that's totally the case right now, especially seen with social media apps and even us wasting our time here on BOT. Kek moron
https://i.imgur.com/enTZuSq.jpg
>It completely devalues mental output.
Does it really?
>Another dumbfrick who confuses money laundering/literal scams with value of art
9 months ago
Anonymous
yes people possess more knowledge than ever
9 months ago
Anonymous
That's not what we were arguing about genius
9 months ago
Anonymous
human cognition isn't going to lower because artists don't get paid for furgay doodles anymore
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Another dumbfrick who confuses money laundering/literal scams with value of art
Ok show me a modern art exhibition that isn't stupid dogshit like this.
So every top-tier art institution is engaged in money laundering and is corrupt to the core, or they're doing it because they're so self-absorbed they actually think it's legitimate art. And every art school is training more artists to do this every day
Either way your "mental output" argument is bullshit because "mental output" hasn't been a factor in art for about 100 years. But don't worry, creating furry porn requires "mental output", or corporate memphis globohomosexual art requires "mental output"
Your argument is shit and artists deserve everything happening to them.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>It completely devalues mental output.
Does it really?
9 months ago
Anonymous
You have the full freedom to continue making art in whichever technique as you please, and to consume art made only through desire techniques >but other slopeaters!!
This which is fully outside of your control. Take the advice of Seneca, and do not trouble yourself worrying about what is outside your power.
9 months ago
Anonymous
> placed in a gallery sells for $500,000.
You're confusing money laundering with value of art here kek.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>make a mockery of their own craft
So does every medium or hobby with a low bar of entry.
All you have to do is pick up a pencil, and now you have morons who refuse to do even that and call themselves artists
9 months ago
Anonymous
>All you have to do is pick up a pencil, and now you have morons who refuse to do even that and call themselves artists
A poorly made /agdg/ game built by a troony who doesn't know what a for loop is getting 10 reviews on steam doesn't define the medium, top-tier AAA games and successful well-made indy games do.
The art industry literally puts the absolute worst examples of their output in galleries, subsidised by taxpayers.
9 months ago
Anonymous
If the scam art made to launder money in galleries define the medium, so does the asset-flip game.
You have no argument and just proved my point.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>AI art is an insult to artists
Precisely, this is why I endorse it.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>does that mean art is more art the longer you make art?
of course not. the notion that somehow "effort" somehow automatically makes something "more art" is as bullshit as the "labor theory of value" nonsense.
if it were true, then any artistic who made it into his 60s or 70s would outdo younger artists because they've done it for longer and put more "effort" in. yet there are thousands of old artists who will die nameless while many young ones are remembered for centuries.
>in fact effort and value have no relation whatsoever
talk about delusional
9 months ago
Anonymous
>hey guys i put a lot of efforts into making a shitty product. >surely, people are going to pay me a lot even though my product is inferior to the competitor's because CLEARLY effort == value
I'm sorry that you don't understand basic economy. no one gives a shit about "muh effort". if your product is shit, then it's shit.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Effort equals quality, to varied niches and products.
The fact that you compare effort to a shit product means you dont know what effort means and probably are the type of consumer to eat industrialized garbage and enjoy AI derivative slop, therefore your opinion doesnt really matter
9 months ago
Anonymous
9 months ago
Anonymous
I accept the concession
9 months ago
Anonymous
>they don't know >that effort equals quality
9 months ago
Anonymous
Strawman. Concession still accepted
9 months ago
Anonymous
people have arguments in their heads?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>type of consumer to eat industrialized garbage
Ah yes, industrialized garbage, like smartphones, computers, cars, concrete buildings, etc.
Even the "homemade" food you eat is industrialized, rice and wheat that were planted and harvested by machines, and then packed and sometimes even sold by machines.
The salt and sugar you use? Industrialized.
And I do hope you have never took a single medication in your entire life, because that was industrialized too.
If you are complaining about the industrialization of art, shouldn't you complain about art that is made by digital programs like photoshop too? And how about industrialized bottled paint, as opposed to the old time artists that had to make their own paints and brushes from what they could gather from nature themselves?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>You see, all tech is the same, thus everything is industrialized thus you have no argument
Eh, you tried, but in the end, you failed.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>they are not the same because it's not, ok?
Cool beans. Do you have an argument?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Do you? You never had one, you literally just said all tech is the same and doubled down on it lmao
9 months ago
Anonymous
>you just said all tech is the same
Your reading comprehension sucks. I said that you cannot complain about lack of effort and industrialization in art when everything else you use and do is industrialized as most as possible to reduce human effort. And you don't complain about them being industrialized.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>when everything else you use and do is industrialized
You believe every tech is the same, thus even the machine that bottle inks somehow reduces the crafter's skill and effort in creating something when it was not even his area of expertise.
Its sad to see you went through such a length just to show you dont put effort into anything at all. Maybe except making moronic arguments like this
9 months ago
Anonymous
>even the machine that bottle inks
I don't think you have seen a paint factory in your life, there is no crafter's skill. It's all machine-gathered components purified in labs and then mixed and bottled by machines in very precise measurements. Or do you think it's a crafter that made titanium dioxide and then just had the machine bottled it for him? Or do you believe that most paint artists nowadays don't use industrialized paint? >area of expertise
So, it art is not the area of expertise of someone, is it ok for him to have AI-made art? It's not his area of expertise, so it's fine if we let a machine do it, right? >effort
I'm sorry if my methods are simply more effective, and thus requires less effort to get better results. Maybe you should type with a single finger to increase the effort in your posts.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>It's not his area of expertise, so it's fine if we let a machine do it, right?
If you consider "fine" an untrained moron using a bot shitting out derivative images trained on very likely stolen work, then quality and effort was never a concern to you and your point in meaningless. >less effort to get better results.
You're not getting better results, because otherwise why would literally every single art site gatekeep or ban you? In fact, places where this type of "industrialization" was aceepted literally saw a massive drop in engagement.
It just sounds like you're in pure cope that people with talent are putting out quality things while your "tools" will never allow you to reach their heights unless you blatantly steal from them
9 months ago
Anonymous
>muh theft
ACK yourself, copyright troony.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>an untrained moron using a bot shitting out derivative images
Are you moving goalposts? How does this have to do with anything? morons have been making shit art for as long as people have been making art, this isn't something new or exclusive to AI. >stolen
AI is trained on art just like a person with eidetic memory is, do you think art made by people with eidetic memory should be copyrighted? >literally every single art site gatekeep or ban you?
You get banned only if you lie about what tool you used. It's the same regardless if it's AI or not. If you make digital art and claim that you only used traditional means, any worthwhile art site should ban you.
And all of the bigger sites allows AI generated art, Artstation, Behance, Pixiv all allows AI art. >You're not getting better results >cope that your "tools" will never allow you to reach their heights
They have literally won many competitions and awards, including the Sony Photography one. They are at least good enough to compete against professionals in many fields.
When people like you keep talking about this shit, I always remember
https://i.imgur.com/WGr26XF.jpg
just sour grapes that the mechanical rendering they spend years practicing was a waste of time
it turns out that if you remove the mechanical rendering, all you have left is the selection by a developed artistic sense
which is exactly what Marcel Duchamp was getting at with Fountain over 100 years ago
but they don't want to hear that
, the highly esteemed artist that shit on morons like you who kept judging art by who you think made it, instead of the quality of the piece itself.
I also remember when there was a major backlash against digital art, when "true artists" claimed that digital art could not be considered real art.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>just like a person with eidetic memory is
Hey look, its another moron comparing the human brain to "AI"
Go back to the r/singularity where you can dream about getting UBI from it
9 months ago
Anonymous
Read the thread, it's literally all about comparing humans and AI.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>When people like you keep talking about this shit, I always remember
https://i.imgur.com/WGr26XF.jpg
just sour grapes that the mechanical rendering they spend years practicing was a waste of time
it turns out that if you remove the mechanical rendering, all you have left is the selection by a developed artistic sense
which is exactly what Marcel Duchamp was getting at with Fountain over 100 years ago
but they don't want to hear that #, the highly esteemed artist that shit on morons like you who kept judging art by who you think made it, instead of the quality of the piece itself.
the main issue is that you're trying to combat emotional arguments with logic. no one who's been outside their mum's basement and observed the world for 2 seconds believes the "effort = quality" bullshit.
it's not a argument that was arrived at by scientific measurement or anything close to it. it's just a attempted grasping straw by a group of people who are realising that all the effort they put into is becoming worthless.
it does not matter to this desperate bunch what they parrot or whether its even true or not, only thing they care about is trying to stop advancement that's making them obsolete, much like the luddites.
their arguments are based entirely on selfish and emotional grounds and thus its not fruitful at trying to engage with them via logic.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>stolen
Stolen refers to a method of acquisition. The acquisition of physical property by illicit, non violent means. What the Chuds have done was merely downloading that which was uploaded on the publicly accessible internet free of charge, more often than not by the "artist" themselves. If you are to hold such process as comparable to stealing, you must also, necessarily, hold every image board on existence as a stealing plataform, and also hold every person who ever downloaded or uploaded an image without consent a swindler. It has already been settled, years ago, that running algorithms on the downloaded data is fully legal. >but muh copyright
As is well understood, copyright offers no protection to styles or facts. What the AI does is learn style (not protected) or facts (What a tree looks like, what a dog looks like, what a cartoon dog looks like, and so on) the fact exemptiom is what gives you the full freedom to spoil movies (facts on what happens in a copyrighted work) without commitig copyright violation. Machine learning applied to image generation, therefore, is not a violation of copyright. >consent
No consent required for non violating, transformative works, otherwise satire, pastiche, fanfic and so on would be effectively illegal.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>I used AI to draw Mickey Mouse, it isn't Mickey Mouse anymore
BOT doesn't know what is copyright, thread number #30000
9 months ago
Anonymous
>draw mickey mouse by hand >i drew it, disney didn't draw it, so it's my copyright
9 months ago
Anonymous
If you draw mickey mouse by hand you are also infringing copyright.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Mickey Mouse is a trademarked character whose copyright has not expired yet, thus the exact same restrictions which apply to art made by humans apply to AI. Regardless, training an AI to produce Mickey Mouse is not a copyright violarion, neither is learning to draw him one
9 months ago
Anonymous
This is the supreme and ULTIMATE copium. Your effort literally does not define prices, and has not ever. Even those who subscribe to the labor theory of value hold that value is a product of "socially useful labor time", not merely of any labor time
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Quality does not define prices
Chinese-certified post.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Correct, imbecile. Quality does not define price, there are a billion+1 more relevant questions at hand.
Tell me, which is more expensive: some slop mass produced supreme T-shirt or one hand made by a professional Tailor?
Keep living in the dreamland where "the hard workers" necessarily make more money than the lazy ones.
I'm an artist but even I fricking despise all /ic/ tier morons who are unable to have even the slightest bit or rationality and actually look at reality through a level headed perspective
reality is not what you want it to be you fricking trannies, it has no obligation to conform to what you want to be true, you're bound by reality not the other way around
then the tards who aruge over the semantics like weather or not it should be called AI, well those tards should just kys because in the end the purpose of image generators is to mimic the output, no one has a reason to give a single shit about what happens under the hood, if the mimicry is indistinguishable then that's that
Literally all an artist has to do to set themselves apart from AI is create something that isn't derivative, or work in a physical medium.
Art tards are chimping out because they spent 15 years learning how to use photoshop and their hands tremble at the thought of picking up a paintbrush lmao
if your doodle depicts a creature it's derivative of, if it contains geometric shapes it's derivative >no but this shape totally came from the aether and isn't an interpolation between a circle and a square >no but this human totally came from nothingness and isn't based on reality
Derivative does not mean inspired or influenced by other art. In this case 'not derivative' means not being abundantly represented in training data from a million other artists. Anything with an even slightly unique style is incredibly hard to replicate with AI.
the current model has like three billion parameters, I don't know what's not represented there but whatever it is, is just arbitrary
9 months ago
Anonymous
>know what's not represented there but whatever it is, is just arbitrary
A unique art style. Do you even have an ounce of reading comprehension? He literally wrote it out for you
9 months ago
Anonymous
>interpolate 5 different art styles >end result is unique
wow
9 months ago
Anonymous
>end result is unique
May I see it? Every "interpolation" of different artstyles turns out to be complete shit due to the inherent way encoders work.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>turns out to be complete shit
Most "unique" artstyles are shit. There is a reason they are "unique" and not popular.
Ironically some shapes depicted by AI art do look non-Euclidian and like they came from some void outside of reality. I guess generative AI is more original than actual artists.
Yet another "the left can't meme" - oblivious to the irony of "do you want fries with that?" being the usual outcome of having an "art" degree.
At least the AI doesn't engage in mental gymnastics over why its a talentless hack working at McDonalds.
were you expecting a jackson pollock painting? literally nothing can convince you because you will always look at some element and compare it to something because that can be done to everything
>were you expecting a jackson pollock painting?
Something in that vein. It's almost like being creative is more difficult and something diffusion models are incapable of, rather than copypasting art styles. what a revelation amirite
it can take the rimlighting from one thing and the sheen from another, the shape design from a third thing it can combine them into a new thing, what more do you expect?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>what more do you expect?
I literally told you, a new art style. You now how humans moved from impressionism to expressionism to cubism and dadaism? Shit like this is literally impossible with models, they can only replicate and merge it into boring collages. That's the whole fricking point
9 months ago
Anonymous
as already discussed, everything is derivative, new shit literally is just amalgamations of existing shit and these things have billions of parameters
9 months ago
Anonymous
>everything is derivative
That's a cope only aitards tell themselves. Please tell me what pic related is derivative of
9 months ago
Anonymous
holy frick AI is so over it can't even produce vomit, oh wait it actually can
that's some ugly ass squares and circle as well as broad stroke outlines used to depict poorly drawn humans in blanket
9 months ago
Anonymous
Flowers, shapes colors, humans, interactions. The fact that everything is derivative is a conlcusion every inteligent being arrives at one point or another. Either you aren't there yet or you are just uninteligent. Either way it's ok anon just don't post anymore
9 months ago
Anonymous
AIgay so BTFO by real art that his response is "If you're intelligent, everything is derivative"
9 months ago
Anonymous
>AIgay
I don't draw or gen anon, I'm not an artist.
You're delusional, I feel pity for your worldview
9 months ago
Anonymous
i'm afraid you might not be intelligent enough to understand his argument
9 months ago
Anonymous
What about ISN'T derivative? There is nothing unique about this.
He can not understand because his mental definition of derivative is flawed
9 months ago
Anonymous
>his mental definition of derivative is flawed
Please define derivative for us, o wise anon
9 months ago
Anonymous
AI can do random garble too if you want it to
9 months ago
Anonymous
AI doesn't have to look photo 3D if you don't want it to
9 months ago
Anonymous
What about ISN'T derivative? There is nothing unique about this.
AI art is bad because it can't do little details repeatedly like a human can. Like pic rel AI will never be able to reproduce 90% of like a well trained artist can. Another thing is AI art is really really slow. If I'm an artist with a vision in my head I can just go draw that vision. I want a specific pose I go draw that pose. You ask an AI for a pose and you get say 1000 options you have to sort through and then manually tweak (which is a pain with AI art because you are essentially generating a completed image already). AI just isn't helpful for art unless you are an autistic dead human who thinks "quirky thing + popular artstyle" is what art is. Don't get me wrong maybe coomer twitter comms people are in trouble but masterpiece visionaries aren't.
>What is controlnet
Why are you talking like prompting is the only way to generate AI arte? Prompting by itself is useless if your goal is generating something that exists in your head. There are other tools to visually guide the generation to do details or poses first try
akshually
Is more like >going to mickey's, ask for a burger >going to BK, ask for a burger >repeat with all burger joints >dissect all of them and make a new burger using the ingredients
>go to store >buy a bunch of ingredients >experiment with them until you find something you like
so did i make a burger, or is it just <store's> burger?
I don't get it
I guffaw'd, thank you. for the double portion.
He prompted McDonalds to make him food. Him prompting is as valuable as you prompting.
I still don't get it. Oh well.
Make sense please
Here it as a simple simile. You prompting an AI to make artwork makes you just as much as an artist as ordering from McDonalds makes you a chef.
>Here it as a simple simile.
What did they mean by this as opposed to what do I mean by this?
You must be at or above 18 to post here.
Kys cumguzzling homosexual.
that moron/bot is explaining the original comic, not the edit
the only vaguely funny explanation for the edit would be that it's a loss parody
the double prompting explanation on the other hand is boring
>loss parody
Are you fricking kidding me?
noobs BTFO
I think I get it.
He's implying mcdonalds is the actual artists making the training data.
That's why he asks twice because he needs multiple samples for training.
in the original three-frame comic, the first frame shown an artist proudly presenting their creation, the second displayed an AI interpreting or changing the art, and the third showcased the art transformed into something resembling a McDonald's advertisement or theme. By duplicating the second frame the joke: the AI takes its time "thinking" or processing the art not once, but twice, only to come up with something as mundane and commercial as a McDonald's reference. The phrase "using McDonald's as a tool" humorously suggests that, despite the advanced capabilities of AI, it can sometimes reduce art to simplistic or commercial ideas, much like using a global fast-food chain as a benchmark for creativity.
wrong analysis, gpt-chan
it's an epic comeback by SD prompters, in practice a non argument, but if they make it seem like it is they just might win the debate
me too
Yeah idk, something about small AI burgers
lmaooooo if it was an ai whod remixed this id be so impressed
Where the frick is amoung, stonetoss?
It took me a second. At first I thought the joke was it takes multiple prompts to get what you want
Somebody explain the fricking joke
I don't get it
I absolutely don't get it.
I think I understand OP based on another post, but I don't see how this is different.
what?
As far as I'm concerned this is a schizopost with absolutely no discernible insight for anyone.
it's loss and a joke on people prompting multiple times
it's not a difficult joke
what the frick is loss? the only loss i know is the loss function
a billion years ago a comedy web comic randomly made a comic about his wife's miscarriage and the internet has been making fun of him ever since
>the internet
It was just bot until normies found out about like 2 years ago
I was reading CAD as it was coming out, surely it wasn't that long ago
>Loss was published in 2008
Oh my frick
Not recognizing loss should be a permaban offense.
wew lad
i dont get it
I still dont fricking get it
Autists love removing panels from comics to make them "better", those usually have 4 or more panels to begin with so maybe he's just cheeky and adding a panel instead
they sometimes get better by making them just slightly more subtle and not hamfisted
I still have no fricking idea what the 4 panel edit here is about
Ask your elementary school teacher to explain it to you. I know understanding surface level humor can be hard for special needs people, but keep trying champ you'll get there eventually.
is first panel going to mcdonalds. oh is ee it has a mcdonalds bag. i sort of get it now. I was thinking the fricker went to mcdonalds with no bags.
I get it now :DDD
Is loss now an oldgay filter?
>people didn't get it immediately
SAD!
This comic proves that AI cannot surpass humans when it comes to deeper meaning and memes
How? Because a human made it and therefor an AI couldn't have? That's what they said about art for the longest time.
someone should make an AI that takes any picture and turns it into loss, with tunable subtlety
took me a while
He says it twice because the cashier is moronic or a tired kid
I didn't see loss because the comic is so accurate. You have to bring your food back in, re-explain your order twice and then you get your food.
imagine eating at computers
>loss parody is... le funny
why are boomers like this?
Kek
>last night I bondburger your sister
I don't get it
Hope this helps.
thanks AI Chat for your essay about what i wrote instead of what i asked, all served on a sesame seed bun
ya cheeky bastard
I've seen so much loss that I knew what was going on immediately. It's a masterpiece
This is so true. That's why supermarkets aren't even real jobs and why we're entitled to just take everything from them for free. They didn't actually make the stuff they sell.
It's loss
also it hints at prompters prompting the same thing multiple times until they get a decent result
oh man. nice
>admitting that their oh-so-precious intellectual property is just cheap garbage
I agree
mcdonalds cheeseburgers already don't have tomatoes thougheverbeit
Ok, so what's the problem
no wonder they're so shit
big words for a twitter doodle """artist"""
I was going to make a lora of their work to cause mischief but it's so shit it's not worth using as training data
I disagree. The rage that would create would be absolutely hilarious to see.
Do it, then post their art and a CivitAI link on their insta or wtf they use to self promote. Fanboy it and tell them you're such a fan of their work you just wanted to make it easily available to everyone.
/DEVILISH/ individual
that's how i make steamed hams
The more accurate scenario that this comic is lampooning would be if you bought some art on fiverr and then passed it off as your own, which anti-AI shitters probably think is ok because you "paid an artist".
the truth is their seething doesn't matter, their opinions are worthless.
I am sure painters had some very "clever" and "biting" comics and writings on how photography was a useless fad but who remembers them?
I will happily buy food from this small white ball-person if it can be made in a thousandth of the time and at a thousandth of the cost as "traditionally" prepared mcdonalds.
>latent diffusion models are now "AI"
this board is filled with dimwits
>now
Lurk moar newhomosexual.
Protip: what lab did RMS belong to at MIT?
Wtf is rms?!?! Root Mean Square?
>I need a cheese burger no tomatoes extra ketchup
>NOOO THAT'S LITERALLY THEFT (picture of an artist soijak pissing and shitting themselves)
Nobody said that, just that it’s low quality and it’s moronic to try and pass it off as your own work
I think there's a difference between art and a picture
if you just want a picture? SD is for you
but if you want something that someone drew? it's just not the same
it's like mcdonalds vs. mama's cooking
I feel bad for the author of that image since it seems to exemplify the benefits of being able to get exactly what you want on demand, while they clearly are upset about authorship which nobody really cares about in that context. The content being consumed is what matters and the guy got exactly what he wanted, why would he care if he made it himself or another human made it, he still got what he wanted.
The problem isn't the second panel, it's the third panel dumbfrick
Like he said, nobody gives a shit about that. People aren't going around claiming to be grandiose artists because they can use AI image generation tools, and even if they were nobody would care.
they literally are. let me guess, you already forgot about the gay who never did art in his life, and then used AI to win an art competition
He went to McDonald's, asked for what he wanted, and got it. It's his burger to enjoy.
I don't understand what about the last panel you're upset about.
???
No one seriously not saying they're using AI to generate images outside of the whole "if I tell you I used it for my video game you'll cancel me"
The only people who say "I made this" are trolls trolling artists or people afraid to get canceled.
But I'm excited to hear the "AI just copies images" argument.
this hasn't been funny since the birthday cakes you can buy on your way out the store became good enough for what they need to do. The joke totally relies on quality stagnating, a human only trait.
>food analogy
imagine being at computers
First thing I thought as well. I was going to make an edit with that, but then I scrolled down and saw your post so I'm not doing it anymore because that would be stealing.
I like to wait for my commissions, it's exiting in some way.
this lacks context of the "artist" spending that whole time on twitter ranting about ai
kek. honestly that angle is so funny too
>most AI artists have all made at least like 100k images themselves over the past year
>"real" artists have spent most of the last year crying instead of making art, even a lot of the professionals because they're on strike
>>most AI artists have all made at least like 100k images themselves over the past year
make even more and upload even fewer of them
because that washed out/overexposed or generic look is really bad
needs way more cherrypicking
Not bad but I improved it.
I'm willing to McBet the author eats McDonalds, vending machines, and rarely makes or harvests their own food.
> artists showing their ignorance of how the world works
OP pic is already done in practice. Most mid-priced restaurants (where 95% of ppl sit down to eat) are simply reheating full meals that they buy from Sysco (major food service provider), plating them, and then charging the customer for them.
Does the customer care where it was actually made? No, just that it's where and when they want it.
If I'm writing crappy romance novels, do I care if base image was SD or hand drawn? No, I just want art that looks good enough for the digital front cover, and doesn't cost me a fortune.
Bullshit lmao, maybe in America. The dark kitchen stuff is for delivery shops, not actual restaurants.
Next time pay attention on who delivers the food lmao.
Sysco supplies most fast food restaraunts and almost all chinese food companies literally share the same suppliers and menus.
Hey, anon. How do I get in the business of crappy novel writing? I know about the writing part but how do I get people to actually buy it? Also, how much does it cost to get some non-ESL person to read it? (I'm assuming most people only "read" audio books nowadays).
Or is it too late to get in because from now on most shitty novels will be written and even read by ai who is capable of outputting too much content too fast for any human to compete?
This is true, as the brain-dead knuckle-draggers working at McD are just as likely to frick up the order as the AI is likely to mess up the art. So the job of the "artist" is to keep going back to McD until the order is acceptable.
Who cares about AI art? Whether produced by humans or by AI, the end product is still worthless.
>AI BTFO
This looks like it's more about AIjeets calling themselves "artists" and "prompt engineers" than AI itself.
prompting+RNG 1girls is moronic, controlnets are a step in the right direction but there's a fricking huge way to go. Eventually there will be some sort of AI photoshop style program where you can actually lay out and compose individual art assets that are always kept consistent and on style. And to use it effectively you will need to understand the fundamentals of art, even if fine technique is no longer as important.
why does pic related make the artchud seethe?
>it's ok when we do it, because uh, it just is, ok?
>no tomatoes
>extra tomatoes but smashed with sugar.
>AI is copying my content!
>AI content is bad!
Human self awareness is at an all time low.
Don't care, not going to pay you
Nice hands.
>muhh AI can't draw hands
>hands by artists
Jesus, those hands are so big you can basically already hear https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXIG7CQYC0g playing in the background
The hands are good, could have fixed the mouth but eh
If they claim that AI art is stealing from a bunch of artists to compose an image, wouldn't it be more accurate to say you go to McDonald's, Wendy's, in and out, five guys, etc. And then making your own with parts from all of them?
its all corporate propaganda to get you to support giving corporations more control and midwits sociopaths who think its only okay when they personally are the ones riding [current trend]. When corpo gets their ai laws limiting the technology to just themselves, these same useful idiots will be discarded because they have served their purpose.
https://civitai.com/models/128445?modelVersionId=140625
the next etablet Photoshop Michaelangelo has spoken
>it's
>it's
I want AI to fix moronic people's typos
'it''s' can mean it is but it can also mean 'possessive it'. It's called a homograph.
>can also mean 'possessive it'.
not with an apostrophe it doesn't
Stupid illiterate fricking ape
amerimutt education, everyone
>FANNY EXPRESS
I prefer Presto Pussy.
Real Artists mix their own colors from plants in their gardens and get their canvas by tanning their dog
AI fricking wishes it was as consistent as McDonald's.
I love AI but still. Consistency is not what it has.
eh, it has consistency. but it lacks control. it also has tons of weak areas.
t.actual artist
>lacks control
Thats why we have ControlNet
nah, i'm saying that even with controlnet.
if your mcfricking art is mcfrickable....this isnt the flex you think it is
A proper analogy would be if he scrambled the burger and turned it into a "different" dish but whatever. Artists are not very smart.
I'm here to take the jobs of the people who would have surely made the image of guts driving a car I wanted
Soul
>AIslop
yeah funny except no stable diffusion enthusiast has ever claimed that they are actually "creating" art
they use words like "I generated" and refer to themselves as "proompter"
and by "they" I mean "we"
so your point is moot
shitty meme just like the technology in question.
the most important thing they don't understand is that no one needs their permission to keep making ai art.
They can keep seething in a corner as they get blown away by people using the tech
Blown away in what metric?
Every metric, you can be one of the best artists and still have ai massively speed up your workflow with it doing background, similar to how manga artists have teams of assistants.
It's adapt or die in industry, artists who use AI will just be so much faster
Those who do art for the sake of money might suffer from this, but people will always be more impressed by real artists than people who spend 2 minutes typing a prompt and letting the GPU do all the work.
There's a real why people still play chess despite computers easily BTFOing the best human chess players.
Ok but what about an artist who you couldn't tell used AI to clean up their line art, do shading and all the background to make a piece in 1 hour that took them 5 before
How do I use AI to do shading?
the AI here automates menial work rather than taking creative control away from the artist. the context presented here is the same as the transition from hand drawn to digital: your art will lose significantly more soul (by virtue of less input from humans, and everyone using the same paint program / cleaning model), but consoomers will eat your goyslop right up. artists don't care as they still get to draw in their personal way without having to essentially roll dice with a computer program.
in case I wasn't clear, this isn't SD. doesn't matter how you inpaint or outpaint reality is you're having the model pick out the booru image for you with zero creative input.
mfs not knowing how to use a workflow or write custom code:"I can't get it to do what I want so noone else can".
Meanwhile they use the same draw programm, (virtual) paintbrush and (virtual) color palette as 15000 other "artists" to make furry porn commissions or draw someone elses dnd char:"I'm a creative, I would hate not having full control of my art."
moron.
you are stupid + you obviously have not done anything creative in your life
best reply you'll get out of me. I know better now than to argue with someone working on bad faith to defend the right to prompt his AI why fues. coomer brains are built different indeed.
moron has no argument except assuming everyone only does porn with it. Implicitly admitting everything else is true, you puppet.
"I am very individual and unique , I know that because I have the same opinion, do the same things and ow the same stuff as all my friends and they are all unique individuals."
moron, take your anxiety meds and jerk off to being an artgay, you narcissist. I love you seething at being replaced by algorithms, you elitist prick.
not an artist, just someone baffled at how sociopathic coomers got with SD.
yes, the only practical use of SD is porn. everything else is novelty, or excercise for the purpose of generating more porn.
not replying to the rest of your bait post. seethe harder
>yes, the only practical use of SD is porn. everything else is novelty
you really think that? unironically ? maybe stop hanging around in /b/ jerking off and look at some of the stuff professional artists have used stable diffusion for
note the practical qualifier. some homosexual trying to be hip with the times using it as a gimmick does not count. some grifter generating generic masterpiece style paintings to win art contest money (doled out by judges afraid of being called luddites) doesn't count either. all shots in the dark, you didn't bother giving even an example for your claim.
"Effort" argument is an artshitter cope. AI is not there yet to compete with top-notch artists though, it is really bad when it comes to interactions.
You need to actually read my post if you think my point were merely about effort.
Those aren't the same people who spend 2 minutes proompting and declare themselves artists. If I can tell that a machine made it, then it's shit regardless of how objectively detailed it is.
Anyone with a soul can tell just from a glance at the thumbnail whether or not an image is AI generated.
Using a computer to make "art" should be punishable by death. This includes drawing apps, Photoshop, etc. Using a computer to manipulate text should result in caning.
A.I. or human made?
Choose carefully
.
I'm glad someone shares my opinion. I've been praying to god that he might rescue these poor sinners.
you know what sd really stands for? satan delights, and he does at you lost souls trying to industrially fabricate souls through art.
generating souls is the domain of god, you can only prompt him through prayer. don't be mislead by the devil.
Being impressed doesn't pay the bills. The real question is: are people impressed enough to pay a premium?
AI good
The fatal mistake of such leddit posts is that I do not want to be an artist, I do not want any association with these "people". The AI allows me to get images I like to look at, such as expressionist style "paintings" of pictures of the natural beauty that surrounds me. I do not have even to talk to the "people" or look at their work, some Chud already ripped ther shitpiles for me, and I can just filter the results I like.
Any "art" or "text" that has been altered with a computer should be banned. Including this post.
Bomb artists back to the stone age.
just sour grapes that the mechanical rendering they spend years practicing was a waste of time
it turns out that if you remove the mechanical rendering, all you have left is the selection by a developed artistic sense
which is exactly what Marcel Duchamp was getting at with Fountain over 100 years ago
but they don't want to hear that
Great point, and nothing they'll ever do will be half as interesting as a guy writing his name on a urinal.
People drawing furry porn commissions on fiver and having a webcomic that generates a few thousand clicks a month call themselves artist like it's not an affront to anyone with genuine inspiration.
Then someone comes along and makes their tools (photoshop and stylus, give them a genuine brush an watch them suck at "art") superfluous and suddenly they are against humans expressing their creativity, because it's not done their way.
You don't understand chud, artists need to be worshipped, regardless of skill level or style.
Cope.
Delightfully devilish, prompter.
gem
In all my decades of using the internet I have YET to find a single funny web comic. It's like being an unfunny talentless hack is a requirement to start a web comic.
I imagine they're all failed "artists" who cope with shitty unfunny web comics.
If you don't like nedroid I pity you
It's too bad he doesn't make them as often anymore.
They were true classics.
I don't really like the people who write the projects he's been collabing with.
>not appreciating the deep meta commentary on capitalistic systemic oppression via a furry yelling at a tree
They're on the correct side of history, they deserve whatever they want and everyone kissing their ass. Chud.
gone with the blast wave
>gone with the blast wave
Is he still releasing one panel a year?
The reality is that learning models work. They produce things people want to look at, it's that simple. They will not go away so you better start using them to produce more and better art.
>I trained my brain by looking at 100,000 drawings, processed the knowledge with my 1 trillion neurons, then used my brain to use parts and connections of all of them to draw something based on what you said you wanted.
Vs
>I trained my model by having it look at 100,000 drawings, processed the knowledge with my gpu, then used my cpu to use parts and connections of all of them to draw something based on what you said you wanted.
Literally what's the difference? No good artist gets that easy without training like an ai model does. Saying you can't use a cpu is like saying you can't be a great mathematician if you ever input into a calculator
>whats the difference
its the same as photos vs paintings
the soul from art comes from it being a skewed view of the world filtered from the artist
the photo is only showing u the same stuff again.
AI is only good at making averages from a data sheet which combines many into 1, all it will look like will forever be generic and it wont contain the touch of the person behind it
nah you can ask it to explore particular areas of the latent space
>u
Learn to type, subhuman swarthoid third worlder
c4r3ing 4b0ut Grammur
AI artist arent real, but AI art is real.
WHO THE FRICK ASKS FOR KETCHUP ON A BURGER??
I hope this thread is just full of summergays and the newhomosexualry on display here isnt indicative of what's happening on this website
On one hand, I don't care, on the other, I fricking despise artists for not giving a frick about licensing until a Boogeyman supposedly hurts their bottom line.
They could've sued the shit out of these ai companies for ripping off their copyright but instead theyre all just gonna make these homosexual comics to prove a point instead of doing anything about the real problem.
>implying these "artists" have actual money to sue anyone
my sides
AI art made with a massive generic dataset is trash.
But trained on a specific artist it will be great.
>can't copyright AI art
>"this is fine"
>but you can just take a photograph of your AI art which applies copyrights
people are genuinely fricking morons
Never thought of that, that's actually hilarious
>comparing physical things to literal bits and bytes
NGMI
bits and bytes are physical things
imagine trying to make a living as a chef if some moron reselling mcdonalds offers better food than you do
why are these "frick ai" pieces always self-owns
>food analogy
This, but also pic rel. Add in furry porn commissions and you've got the full set of what artists actually get paid to create.
Artists are invariably miserable postmodern leftoid troony cretins who make a cult of ugliness. For decades they've filled galleries with "art" that openly mocks the idea that anything can be beautiful or require talent to create, or desicrates the sacred.
Then suddenly generative models come along capable of creating something that people actually want to look at, and they lose their shit. Artists did this to themselves.
I don't get it either.
I just think it's neat I'm not calling myself an artist.
There is technical skill involved to use the software and writing prompts however, not that normalhomosexuals will respect that.
>I'm not calling myself an artist
Then there is no problem. The comic is obviously criticizing people who pass of AI art as their own, like they made some considerable effort creating it.
There is no issue with liking McDonald's, there is an issue with buying a McDonald's big Mac and claiming you made this burger
>like they made some considerable effort creating it.
it's only art if you put considerable effort in?
>it's only art if you put considerable effort in?
Yes, unironically. Good art at least
you're insanely delusional if you think effort and value have a linear scaling.
in fact effort and value have no relation whatsoever. a skilled artist can effortlessly create what would take an amateur considerable effort.
the only thing that matters is whether the end product is good or not. the amount of "effort" put in is beyond irrelevant.
>you're insanely delusional if you think effort and value have a linear scaling.
I never said that, now you're making up strawmen kek
>. a skilled artist can effortlessly create what would take an amateur considerable effort.
Effort is relative, this "effortless" precedes countless hours of practice and preparation.
his point is that it can be demonstrated that a skilled artist could draw a nice sketch with less effort than someone who hasn't done it before setting up and generating something equivalent in quality using an AI tool
and if you're talking cumulative effort, that is, counting training as well
does that mean art is more art the longer you make art?
the quality will (should) go up as you train more, but the question isn't quality, but whether something becomes "more art" the longer you train
is the art you make 1 week in less "art" than what you make after 2 weeks? at what point does what you draw become art?
>counting training as well
95% of the ai "artist" never even touched a single line of code. If you coded and tweaked the model yourself then sure, I'll concede the point. But once again that's not the fricking point of the comic
great point there. consider that prompting is no more different than the process of making a commission request in terms of workflow. there is no logic involved in programming (not that AI needs much of that anyway) nor is there technique involved in putting the pieces together to resemble the desired outcome.
essentially, the model is the artist, the prompter is the prompter. SD is basically an artist doling out infinite free comissions. "AI artist" is a misnomer in and of itself and I think it's why many find it instinctually uncomfortable to call it as such. of course as we know we as a progressive society of midwits tend to ignore our gut feelings when we fail to express our innate concerns with logic.
I'll try not to rant about how redditors are perverting the basedjak the same way they did the virgin-chad template into losing all particular meaning, turning into yet another us vs. them slop template. abstract art slop is equivalent to AI art in terms of usage. abstract art is meant to be consumed by art snobs, rich and in search of an identity. AI art is meant to be consumed by coomers happy they no longer have to pay for and be beholden to some artist for their furry/brony/big "tiddy" tomboy art anymore.
Abstract art is meant for money laundering.
>AI art is meant to be consumed by coomers happy they no longer have to words words
It's a tool used to make more art. 100x stable diffusion images -> find a favorite composition -> turn into an oil painting by hand. If this AI stuff wasn't being developed right now I'd be WAY behind in creative hobbies, now that I'm able to reflect on it.
so essentially tracing over someone else's work (in this case SD's)? sounds boring, but there are those who enjoy rewriting simple command line tools in rust so I understand. I think a big part of the appeal to creative work is expressing yourself. but if you consider art as nothing more than the process then I can see why you'd fail to relate to other artists.
the machining guy owns the product, the designer owns the intellectual property. the designer has the ability to license the IP and the machining guy gets to create something of it without having to ever own the IP. same deal with SD. the artist is more than the person who puts pixel to screen.
intellectual property is not the ordered list of pixel values that describe it. that is just one possible manifestation of that IP. similarly you can't just say I own some music just because I had the ability to sing it.
before generative AI it was simple to simply make the claim that if I thought up that something before everyone else did, and the process of making that thing took some semblance of the creative process we recognize under common sense, I owned it. this understanding is obviously blurred in the case of AI. the analogy falls apart here.
for the sake of my sanity we'll proceed as if your argument was valid. why are you reasoning by karmic retribution? this is completely unproductive to discussion on the artform itself, and serves as nothing more than immature petty revenge on artists that have wronged you in some way. in what way I have no clue, and that is the reason I keep coming back to these threads. I do have a suspicion that I can't shake and it only gets more intense the more I try to empathize with you.
you people are sociopaths.
not him, but as a counterargument/devil's advocate, how would you say this compared to other machine-manufactured processes?
like take for example, i design something in a vector program, and have it cut out on my cutting plotter
is it fair to say i "made" the output? even though i didn't actually cut the vinyl myself by hand?
i think the issue here is a terminological one, i'm sure nobody would disagree that i designed the final product
people making the argument you're making are treating "artist" as the manufacturer, the entity which actually assembled the pixels, so to speak, but the design is in the prompts and settings, this is what guides the process towards a desired result
so would it be more acceptable for someone to claim they designed a particular AI picture? does artist actually only mean manufacturer?
an issue here is that previously, there was little to no way to make what could be called art without actually manufacturing it yourself at the same time, which naturally causes confusion now
>i design something in a vector program, and have it cut out on my cutting plotter
>is it fair to say i "made" the output?
You're conflating creative/cognitive effort with manual effort, same as all of the other AI brainlets in this thread.
Coming up with two three prompts to create an AI artwork is like ten minutes of creative effort, and creative effort for art or any other fields was never reduced.
AI art is an insult to artists is because it reduces mental effort to almost zero while pretending it's just as good or just as valid as the actual artwork. Think of it like this: should a chess player who uses a stockfish engine while playing chess just as revered as a grandmaster? Obviously not, because that'd be dumb as frick. But that's literally what AItards are trying to claim
>AI art is an insult to artists is because it reduces mental effort to almost zero while pretending it's just as good or just as valid as the actual artwork.
Standard artists leftoid opinion, they subscribe to the labor theory of value.
A literal pile of garbage, took zero effort to create, gets placed in a gallery sells for $500,000. A fully illustrated gay erotic mario x luigi fanfic, a labor of love for a decade - no monetary value
Artists insult themselves and make a mockery of their own craft, go to a modern art gallery and look at what they demand your respect for creating.
>A fully illustrated gay erotic mario x luigi fanfic, a labor of love for a decade - no monetary value
Anon, I...
>But what about the furry porn!?
>but what about the criminal money laundering!?
So why is AI art bad again?
>AI art bad again?
Nobody fricking says ai art is bad moron, it's people who write prompts and claim to be "artists" who are bad.
Why though? People can create their own degenerate furry porn or find another way to launder money. Are you suggesting that the artist who gets paid commissions to create furry porn somehow has the moral high ground or is contributing to society in some way?
>Why though?
It completely devalues mental output. Think Idiocracy and the first steps towards it, think of all the marvel slop and other literal zero-effort stuff that will become more and more. It's a direct threat to creativity and cognitive capacities
people will use their cognition on other stuff, the human brain produces a certain amount of energy and will make use of it optimally
>people will use their cognition on other stuff, the human brain produces a certain amount of energy and will make use of it optimally
Yeah bro, that's totally the case right now, especially seen with social media apps and even us wasting our time here on BOT. Kek moron
>Another dumbfrick who confuses money laundering/literal scams with value of art
yes people possess more knowledge than ever
That's not what we were arguing about genius
human cognition isn't going to lower because artists don't get paid for furgay doodles anymore
>Another dumbfrick who confuses money laundering/literal scams with value of art
Ok show me a modern art exhibition that isn't stupid dogshit like this.
So every top-tier art institution is engaged in money laundering and is corrupt to the core, or they're doing it because they're so self-absorbed they actually think it's legitimate art. And every art school is training more artists to do this every day
Either way your "mental output" argument is bullshit because "mental output" hasn't been a factor in art for about 100 years. But don't worry, creating furry porn requires "mental output", or corporate memphis globohomosexual art requires "mental output"
Your argument is shit and artists deserve everything happening to them.
>It completely devalues mental output.
Does it really?
You have the full freedom to continue making art in whichever technique as you please, and to consume art made only through desire techniques
>but other slopeaters!!
This which is fully outside of your control. Take the advice of Seneca, and do not trouble yourself worrying about what is outside your power.
> placed in a gallery sells for $500,000.
You're confusing money laundering with value of art here kek.
>make a mockery of their own craft
So does every medium or hobby with a low bar of entry.
All you have to do is pick up a pencil, and now you have morons who refuse to do even that and call themselves artists
>All you have to do is pick up a pencil, and now you have morons who refuse to do even that and call themselves artists
A poorly made /agdg/ game built by a troony who doesn't know what a for loop is getting 10 reviews on steam doesn't define the medium, top-tier AAA games and successful well-made indy games do.
The art industry literally puts the absolute worst examples of their output in galleries, subsidised by taxpayers.
If the scam art made to launder money in galleries define the medium, so does the asset-flip game.
You have no argument and just proved my point.
>AI art is an insult to artists
Precisely, this is why I endorse it.
>does that mean art is more art the longer you make art?
of course not. the notion that somehow "effort" somehow automatically makes something "more art" is as bullshit as the "labor theory of value" nonsense.
if it were true, then any artistic who made it into his 60s or 70s would outdo younger artists because they've done it for longer and put more "effort" in. yet there are thousands of old artists who will die nameless while many young ones are remembered for centuries.
>in fact effort and value have no relation whatsoever
talk about delusional
>hey guys i put a lot of efforts into making a shitty product.
>surely, people are going to pay me a lot even though my product is inferior to the competitor's because CLEARLY effort == value
I'm sorry that you don't understand basic economy. no one gives a shit about "muh effort". if your product is shit, then it's shit.
Effort equals quality, to varied niches and products.
The fact that you compare effort to a shit product means you dont know what effort means and probably are the type of consumer to eat industrialized garbage and enjoy AI derivative slop, therefore your opinion doesnt really matter
I accept the concession
>they don't know
>that effort equals quality
Strawman. Concession still accepted
people have arguments in their heads?
>type of consumer to eat industrialized garbage
Ah yes, industrialized garbage, like smartphones, computers, cars, concrete buildings, etc.
Even the "homemade" food you eat is industrialized, rice and wheat that were planted and harvested by machines, and then packed and sometimes even sold by machines.
The salt and sugar you use? Industrialized.
And I do hope you have never took a single medication in your entire life, because that was industrialized too.
If you are complaining about the industrialization of art, shouldn't you complain about art that is made by digital programs like photoshop too? And how about industrialized bottled paint, as opposed to the old time artists that had to make their own paints and brushes from what they could gather from nature themselves?
>You see, all tech is the same, thus everything is industrialized thus you have no argument
Eh, you tried, but in the end, you failed.
>they are not the same because it's not, ok?
Cool beans. Do you have an argument?
Do you? You never had one, you literally just said all tech is the same and doubled down on it lmao
>you just said all tech is the same
Your reading comprehension sucks. I said that you cannot complain about lack of effort and industrialization in art when everything else you use and do is industrialized as most as possible to reduce human effort. And you don't complain about them being industrialized.
>when everything else you use and do is industrialized
You believe every tech is the same, thus even the machine that bottle inks somehow reduces the crafter's skill and effort in creating something when it was not even his area of expertise.
Its sad to see you went through such a length just to show you dont put effort into anything at all. Maybe except making moronic arguments like this
>even the machine that bottle inks
I don't think you have seen a paint factory in your life, there is no crafter's skill. It's all machine-gathered components purified in labs and then mixed and bottled by machines in very precise measurements. Or do you think it's a crafter that made titanium dioxide and then just had the machine bottled it for him? Or do you believe that most paint artists nowadays don't use industrialized paint?
>area of expertise
So, it art is not the area of expertise of someone, is it ok for him to have AI-made art? It's not his area of expertise, so it's fine if we let a machine do it, right?
>effort
I'm sorry if my methods are simply more effective, and thus requires less effort to get better results. Maybe you should type with a single finger to increase the effort in your posts.
>It's not his area of expertise, so it's fine if we let a machine do it, right?
If you consider "fine" an untrained moron using a bot shitting out derivative images trained on very likely stolen work, then quality and effort was never a concern to you and your point in meaningless.
>less effort to get better results.
You're not getting better results, because otherwise why would literally every single art site gatekeep or ban you? In fact, places where this type of "industrialization" was aceepted literally saw a massive drop in engagement.
It just sounds like you're in pure cope that people with talent are putting out quality things while your "tools" will never allow you to reach their heights unless you blatantly steal from them
>muh theft
ACK yourself, copyright troony.
>an untrained moron using a bot shitting out derivative images
Are you moving goalposts? How does this have to do with anything? morons have been making shit art for as long as people have been making art, this isn't something new or exclusive to AI.
>stolen
AI is trained on art just like a person with eidetic memory is, do you think art made by people with eidetic memory should be copyrighted?
>literally every single art site gatekeep or ban you?
You get banned only if you lie about what tool you used. It's the same regardless if it's AI or not. If you make digital art and claim that you only used traditional means, any worthwhile art site should ban you.
And all of the bigger sites allows AI generated art, Artstation, Behance, Pixiv all allows AI art.
>You're not getting better results
>cope that your "tools" will never allow you to reach their heights
They have literally won many competitions and awards, including the Sony Photography one. They are at least good enough to compete against professionals in many fields.
When people like you keep talking about this shit, I always remember
, the highly esteemed artist that shit on morons like you who kept judging art by who you think made it, instead of the quality of the piece itself.
I also remember when there was a major backlash against digital art, when "true artists" claimed that digital art could not be considered real art.
>just like a person with eidetic memory is
Hey look, its another moron comparing the human brain to "AI"
Go back to the r/singularity where you can dream about getting UBI from it
Read the thread, it's literally all about comparing humans and AI.
>When people like you keep talking about this shit, I always remember
just sour grapes that the mechanical rendering they spend years practicing was a waste of time
it turns out that if you remove the mechanical rendering, all you have left is the selection by a developed artistic sense
which is exactly what Marcel Duchamp was getting at with Fountain over 100 years ago
but they don't want to hear that #, the highly esteemed artist that shit on morons like you who kept judging art by who you think made it, instead of the quality of the piece itself.
the main issue is that you're trying to combat emotional arguments with logic. no one who's been outside their mum's basement and observed the world for 2 seconds believes the "effort = quality" bullshit.
it's not a argument that was arrived at by scientific measurement or anything close to it. it's just a attempted grasping straw by a group of people who are realising that all the effort they put into is becoming worthless.
it does not matter to this desperate bunch what they parrot or whether its even true or not, only thing they care about is trying to stop advancement that's making them obsolete, much like the luddites.
their arguments are based entirely on selfish and emotional grounds and thus its not fruitful at trying to engage with them via logic.
>stolen
Stolen refers to a method of acquisition. The acquisition of physical property by illicit, non violent means. What the Chuds have done was merely downloading that which was uploaded on the publicly accessible internet free of charge, more often than not by the "artist" themselves. If you are to hold such process as comparable to stealing, you must also, necessarily, hold every image board on existence as a stealing plataform, and also hold every person who ever downloaded or uploaded an image without consent a swindler. It has already been settled, years ago, that running algorithms on the downloaded data is fully legal.
>but muh copyright
As is well understood, copyright offers no protection to styles or facts. What the AI does is learn style (not protected) or facts (What a tree looks like, what a dog looks like, what a cartoon dog looks like, and so on) the fact exemptiom is what gives you the full freedom to spoil movies (facts on what happens in a copyrighted work) without commitig copyright violation. Machine learning applied to image generation, therefore, is not a violation of copyright.
>consent
No consent required for non violating, transformative works, otherwise satire, pastiche, fanfic and so on would be effectively illegal.
>I used AI to draw Mickey Mouse, it isn't Mickey Mouse anymore
BOT doesn't know what is copyright, thread number #30000
>draw mickey mouse by hand
>i drew it, disney didn't draw it, so it's my copyright
If you draw mickey mouse by hand you are also infringing copyright.
Mickey Mouse is a trademarked character whose copyright has not expired yet, thus the exact same restrictions which apply to art made by humans apply to AI. Regardless, training an AI to produce Mickey Mouse is not a copyright violarion, neither is learning to draw him one
This is the supreme and ULTIMATE copium. Your effort literally does not define prices, and has not ever. Even those who subscribe to the labor theory of value hold that value is a product of "socially useful labor time", not merely of any labor time
>Quality does not define prices
Chinese-certified post.
Correct, imbecile. Quality does not define price, there are a billion+1 more relevant questions at hand.
Tell me, which is more expensive: some slop mass produced supreme T-shirt or one hand made by a professional Tailor?
Keep living in the dreamland where "the hard workers" necessarily make more money than the lazy ones.
post examples of ai derangement syndrome
delightfully devilish doodle guy
I'm an artist but even I fricking despise all /ic/ tier morons who are unable to have even the slightest bit or rationality and actually look at reality through a level headed perspective
reality is not what you want it to be you fricking trannies, it has no obligation to conform to what you want to be true, you're bound by reality not the other way around
then the tards who aruge over the semantics like weather or not it should be called AI, well those tards should just kys because in the end the purpose of image generators is to mimic the output, no one has a reason to give a single shit about what happens under the hood, if the mimicry is indistinguishable then that's that
Who let the /ic/ trannies into our board again?
Literally all an artist has to do to set themselves apart from AI is create something that isn't derivative, or work in a physical medium.
Art tards are chimping out because they spent 15 years learning how to use photoshop and their hands tremble at the thought of picking up a paintbrush lmao
if your doodle depicts a creature it's derivative of, if it contains geometric shapes it's derivative
>no but this shape totally came from the aether and isn't an interpolation between a circle and a square
>no but this human totally came from nothingness and isn't based on reality
>everything is derivative is you think really hard
truly the art critique here
but it's literally true and it's what allows this shit to work
Derivative does not mean inspired or influenced by other art. In this case 'not derivative' means not being abundantly represented in training data from a million other artists. Anything with an even slightly unique style is incredibly hard to replicate with AI.
the current model has like three billion parameters, I don't know what's not represented there but whatever it is, is just arbitrary
>know what's not represented there but whatever it is, is just arbitrary
A unique art style. Do you even have an ounce of reading comprehension? He literally wrote it out for you
>interpolate 5 different art styles
>end result is unique
wow
>end result is unique
May I see it? Every "interpolation" of different artstyles turns out to be complete shit due to the inherent way encoders work.
>turns out to be complete shit
Most "unique" artstyles are shit. There is a reason they are "unique" and not popular.
Ironically some shapes depicted by AI art do look non-Euclidian and like they came from some void outside of reality. I guess generative AI is more original than actual artists.
reminder that stable diffusion XL has less parameters than the third image in pic related, we haven't reached any limits yet so that cope is worthless
steamed hams
I know that there's no point in paying for what you can get for free so I quit drawing with any real goals in mind
Yet another "the left can't meme" - oblivious to the irony of "do you want fries with that?" being the usual outcome of having an "art" degree.
At least the AI doesn't engage in mental gymnastics over why its a talentless hack working at McDonalds.
>this will have to do
>Posts completely generique 3-d-esque furry art
Kek just as I expected
were you expecting a jackson pollock painting? literally nothing can convince you because you will always look at some element and compare it to something because that can be done to everything
>were you expecting a jackson pollock painting?
Something in that vein. It's almost like being creative is more difficult and something diffusion models are incapable of, rather than copypasting art styles. what a revelation amirite
lmao you can literally ask it to generate that shit it's even in the white papers
>lmao you can literally ask it to generate that shit it's even in the white papers
it can take the rimlighting from one thing and the sheen from another, the shape design from a third thing it can combine them into a new thing, what more do you expect?
>what more do you expect?
I literally told you, a new art style. You now how humans moved from impressionism to expressionism to cubism and dadaism? Shit like this is literally impossible with models, they can only replicate and merge it into boring collages. That's the whole fricking point
as already discussed, everything is derivative, new shit literally is just amalgamations of existing shit and these things have billions of parameters
>everything is derivative
That's a cope only aitards tell themselves. Please tell me what pic related is derivative of
holy frick AI is so over it can't even produce vomit, oh wait it actually can
that's some ugly ass squares and circle as well as broad stroke outlines used to depict poorly drawn humans in blanket
Flowers, shapes colors, humans, interactions. The fact that everything is derivative is a conlcusion every inteligent being arrives at one point or another. Either you aren't there yet or you are just uninteligent. Either way it's ok anon just don't post anymore
AIgay so BTFO by real art that his response is "If you're intelligent, everything is derivative"
>AIgay
I don't draw or gen anon, I'm not an artist.
You're delusional, I feel pity for your worldview
i'm afraid you might not be intelligent enough to understand his argument
He can not understand because his mental definition of derivative is flawed
>his mental definition of derivative is flawed
Please define derivative for us, o wise anon
AI can do random garble too if you want it to
AI doesn't have to look photo 3D if you don't want it to
What about ISN'T derivative? There is nothing unique about this.
AI art is bad because it can't do little details repeatedly like a human can. Like pic rel AI will never be able to reproduce 90% of like a well trained artist can. Another thing is AI art is really really slow. If I'm an artist with a vision in my head I can just go draw that vision. I want a specific pose I go draw that pose. You ask an AI for a pose and you get say 1000 options you have to sort through and then manually tweak (which is a pain with AI art because you are essentially generating a completed image already). AI just isn't helpful for art unless you are an autistic dead human who thinks "quirky thing + popular artstyle" is what art is. Don't get me wrong maybe coomer twitter comms people are in trouble but masterpiece visionaries aren't.
>What is controlnet
Why are you talking like prompting is the only way to generate AI arte? Prompting by itself is useless if your goal is generating something that exists in your head. There are other tools to visually guide the generation to do details or poses first try
akshually
Is more like
>going to mickey's, ask for a burger
>going to BK, ask for a burger
>repeat with all burger joints
>dissect all of them and make a new burger using the ingredients
>go to store
>buy a bunch of ingredients
>experiment with them until you find something you like
so did i make a burger, or is it just <store's> burger?
yes
>No tomato
>Extra tomato sauce that tastes like trash
Why are people like this?