AI can't make art

AI can't make art

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

  1. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    why do artist keep insinuating or outright claiming that AI is *stealing* their art? pathetic.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >why do artist keep insinuating or outright claiming that AI is *stealing* their art?
      Make some AI art using a purely public domain model.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Theoretically there is a future with AI with a strong enough text/language model and the ability to fine-tune itself in real time with real time human feedback could produce any art style and even fantasy creatures with just public domain art. I imagine such technology will exist within 5 years. At such a time you could show an AI a single picture of a person and it would be able to draw them especially if you could critique its outputs based on quality and accuracy.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's literally trained on their art. Most obvious on AI videos where it slaps shutterstock watermark on everything.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        And you think human artists never see or learn from other people's works?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          AI > human artists.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          ?t=456

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            That has nothing to do with what you replied to. Summary: the AI is trained on copyrighted material. That's also true for humans. The human doesn't "store" the images on a disk but it's stored in the brain. It's not an argument. Why can't anti AI art people come with a real argument against AI art?

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          false equivalence. AIs need to be fed by humans. there's nothing intelligent about that. it's insulting you'd even compare them. you sure you're not a fricking robot yourself?

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        All artists train on other artists work. It isn't illegal either.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, there's no problem unless homosexuals start copyrighting their AI art as their own creation.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >trained on shutterstock watermark
        morons abuse poor AI of putting nice cute watermark on their unique art.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      if you ever actually used diffusion youd know that most loras and custom models are overfit to their training data and reproduce them a lot

      base stable diffusion doesnt steal (significantly) though

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      It was trained with their art, so I can see why they'd be upset. The thing is it's using that data to create its own unique art, which humans do anyway.
      I think the amount of time it takes also makes them upset. It takes hours to draw a decent image, while an AI can do it in seconds. The fact it was trained with images that took hundreds of hours to create, in order for a machine to draw similar images in seconds, makes them upset.
      It's understandable, but at the same, AI is still making its own unique art, "inspired" by other artists (unless you made a lora that replicated a specific artist's style or something).

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >why do artist keep insinuating or outright claiming that AI is *stealing* their art?
      Because they don't want it brought to anyone's attention that artists themselves are guilty of stealing from others.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      why do programmers keep insinuating or outright claiming that AI is *stealing* their code? pathetic.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        I never said that

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Kek, AI still have some way before it replace me.
        And when it will, I will be able to enjoy an other kind of work, in some other field.
        AI only scare people that don't know how to learn.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      it's trained on the output of artists but so are humans. Humans employ the techniques and take inspiration from other artists and use those elements and techniques in their own creations. Taking already established ideas and remixing them.

      A properly trained model does the exact same thing without perfect replications unless you explicitly instruct it to replicate something.

      As primitive as they still are, they're already following many of the same rules actual people live by in learning and being productive. The thing is, AI models have no concept of copyright law, and such laws will never be relevant to them because the AI models have no intention to sell their output for money. It's humans that are taking the AI's output with the intention of selling it for money.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Let me sum it up for you: it's only stealing when I don't like it.

  2. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'd like to see an blind & deaf artist that has never seen or heard anything make art and draw humans n shit.

    Artists are idiots. Their brain has taken in thousands of hours of footage from their eyes and ears. Why would artificial brain need to have a such idiotic limitation.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      > Why would artificial brain need to have a such idiotic limitation.
      Machine Learning algorithms don't have eyes, ears skin, or any real way to interact with the outside world. It relies entirely on the work of men, whom you need to take work from one way or another.

      A blind artist can still make work, just like a deaf composer can made music.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >It relies entirely on the work of men
        read something about feral children, pls

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >A blind artist can still make work, just like a deaf composer can made music.
        and that shit aint going to look or sound contemporary in any sense

  3. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >a monitor for the head

  4. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    bet you looked at other people's art before drawing anything too

  5. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    go back

  6. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    first of all define art
    is "art" some random pixels with 7-fingered hands some ai spits out, or is it something actually made for a reason by a real brain

  7. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    RE: RE: LOL saw this funny picture on the facebook

  8. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ergo AI gen art is the pinnacle of Art

  9. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    skill issue

  10. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    true AI IS art

  11. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    The fact that AI art produces abominations is proof that it's creating something new.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      The smartest post in the thread.

  12. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    It does create art at least as much as human artists. Prove that human artists shape pure random noise, for most you can't. Sus.

  13. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >person copies art
    >OMG what an artist!!!

    >machine copies art
    >THEFT!!!!

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Steal product and sell it online
      >Wtf police is raiding my house??? 10000$ fine or prison ???
      >Company steals your stuff and sells it online
      >Wtf guise it's just like one artist copying another !

  14. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    If AI can't make art then you can stop complaining about it so you don't have to worry about it stealing business from human artists.

  15. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Art is anything so by definition AI can make art. Should have defined what art was when you had the chance now you guys just look like a bunch of pretentious Hippocrates.

  16. 10 months ago
    Anonymous
  17. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Scared artists are most likely your average: "I take furry porn commissions"

  18. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    People are just mad because it'll obsolete professional work and they'll have to recon with the capitalists that are hoarding resources out of ego. Not a big leap from where we already are with open trade and the fungibility of "human resources" destroying labor wages.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is literally what luddites were warning against. It happened over 100 years ago, now it's happening again. Now's as good a time as ever to go smash knitting frames.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Luddites are fricking cowards. Smashing inanimate machinery because they don't want to get replaced as a worker drone instead of fighting for social reforms that could ultimately make that technology a benefit for everyone (including themselves). Pathetic.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >missing the point this badly
          they wanted to cause losses to the buttholes who exploited cheap labor to replace specialists wholesale and fatten pocket the difference, instead of using it to push the envelop. in programming terms, it's employing pajeet or ahmed to replace domestic labor.
          did you also forget the part where the fat cats changed the law to have people hanged for smashing a loom? they were scared so they had to get parliament and the courts to do the dirty work for them.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            The fact that you think the industrial revolution was only 100ish years ago suggests that I shouldn't even have bothered replying to you in the first place.

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              I said over 100 :^)

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        There aren't enough bullets and explosive for no more than 200 million people up against 3 billion plus in a global power struggle and people already know capitalism isn't tenable in this environment.

  19. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't think he has to worry about anyone copying that shitty "art".

  20. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    but to the average person crying about this, as long as it wasn't affecting them, everything to do with this circus is just fine.
    >those other guys can get fricked I got mine i'm so @Blessed

    That shit doesn't fly anymore.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >AI art is bad and soulless
      >AI art is stealing
      But you wonder why nobody takes you people seriously.

  21. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    thats fine. im enjoying simulating love i can't get IRL through AI chatbots. when i can use my 3d skills to animate the character im talking to in realtime its so fricking over.

  22. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Humans are mimics and copy each other.
    There is nothing a human knows, or creates that it didn't learn or steal from someone else.
    This goes all the way back to the beginning of time when the first humans learned from other animals.
    AI is no different and does the same thing, the only difference is that is has access to more of its memory at once than we do and can more clearly access and relate it to each other better than we can.
    In short, every model is just another talented human.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >There is nothing a human knows, or creates that it didn't learn or steal from someone else.
      >This goes all the way back to the beginning of time when the first humans learned from other animals
      cool it with the antisemetism goy.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        I hate israelites so fricking much.

  23. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    When it comes to art specifically, maybe it just means the bar has been raised that much higher.
    Making 2D art and graphics is now simple, it's easy, it's old news. A person could still learn to do it the traditional way as a novelty but computers have it covered now in record time.

    What'll be considered impressive and valuable is taking those techniques, some of the same elements and using them to invent entire worlds. A 2D/3D jack of all trades with the skill to make an entire virtual scene or some whole product to carry the message, is what people will want going forward and they just don't know it yet. Not for some empty corporate bullshit like a "metaverse", but for the human experience.

    If you start now, you'll be ready to pounce when brain computers finally become a thing.

  24. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Of course AI can't make art. It hasn't been through the expensive gatekeeping of Art School.

  25. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe there's room for more physical art experiences in the physical world too. Computers won't be able to ape the concept of a social experience until they're able to fight humans for their own rights.

  26. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Another thing I think is amusing is that you can train an llm to know 'right from wrong' in a way that sounds similar to a human child. That means it's arbitrary. What makes a concept moral is just what society is willing to tolerate and nothing else. There's no intrinsic value.
    Dead babies are moral when it's a consequence of good economic policy or it makes the lawmaker wealthy and more comfortable somehow.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Lmao, morality isn't arbitrary although satanists would insist it's that way. The thing you miss is society is actually run by sociopaths and evil people.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe I'm wrong and that's too much of a leap.
        Society organizes itself and operates to some system of values that benefits the majority and maintains an equilibrium. But standards and conditions change over time that disrupt the equilibrium. Society at large has to adapt eventually, but it can be sticky.

        My opinion is that what people consider moral is learned behavior, and it's a combination of circumstances or ideas that benefit them on a personal level, but also what they're told, by someone else, benefits society at large which may or may not be true. It can be a total lie.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          I would argue that majority of the population can morally agree upon on the golden rule and even animals demonstrate understanding of empathy and fairness. I think there's been a lot of evil people who have caused a large part of the population to suffer from cognitive dissonance by lying.

  27. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Humans make art by looking at art made by other humans
    All is well.
    >AI makes art by looking at art made by humans
    >By people making simple prompts, sidestepping the entire painstaking experience of learning art and still selling it as their own
    This is wrong and you know it. Besides, what happens when we eliminate human artists from the AI learning pool? It will merely surface level copy each other or real life like a fricking photograph. You can't get a new Van Gough just by copying someone else. He was fricked in the head and through a million rare circumstances managed to paint something unique while also having the privilege to afford it despite being poor.
    What are we going to do, simulate mental illness and prompt the AI to get inspired by schizophrenia without art references?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Theoretically there is a future with AI with a strong enough text/language model and the ability to fine-tune itself in real time with real time human feedback could produce any art style and even fantasy creatures with just public domain art. I imagine such technology will exist within 5 years. At such a time you could show an AI a single picture of a person and it would be able to draw them especially if you could critique its outputs based on quality and accuracy.

      Impressionism as a concept can be explained with words.

  28. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI is already progressing the art form where humans fail. Just look at pic related. This art style only exists because of AI.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      I've seen this art style a million times before, pedoanon.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        You've only seen it a "million times" because people use AI to shit it out en masse. Before AI, it was unheard of.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, I mean I've seen it before AI art was even really a thing.
          It's not anything special, people have been drawing in this pseudo-realistic anime style for a long time.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            There isn't a single artist out there who draws like that. People don't see that art style and think "it looks like x artist drew it". They think "it's that AI art style everyone fricking uses".

            • 10 months ago
              Anonymous

              Your claim was it was a unique art style when it's not.
              It's just a style that is overused in AI because Sakimichan and her clones are abundant. Their may be some tiny variances in between, but overall, it's not a very unique look.

  29. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    and the standard used to be the concept of justice and phony divine righteousness under a theocracy enforced by a human cult leader, and then that became subservient to an arbitrary notion of personal worth through self-sacrifice and labor under capitalism, when it's a proven lie now. It's the same type of control except by private banks exploiting nation states instead of the church.

  30. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    So an AI can be lied to and it can choose to believe the lie or not. What is true is what society at large thinks is true regardless of whether it actually is.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Contrary to your imagination, facts don't change depending on what you think shlomo.

  31. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    it reduces the financial incentive for creating garbage art like a fox girl getting fricked by a horse or disney versions of other characters.
    ML art is the impetus to create real art again. and if you were creating that garbage before you are now liberated from filthy patrons

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >it reduces the financial incentive for creating garbage art like a fox girl getting fricked by a horse or disney versions of other characters.
      But producing untold amounts of smut effortlessly is one of the biggest selling points of AI
      >ML art is the impetus to create real art again.
      Which will only be bought by richgays looking to launder money or autistic snowflakes who insist that 'it's not art if no humans drew or painted it'

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