Can someone give me the rundown on the AI art debate?

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Pretending top and bottom are the same is a meme invented by science-worshippers

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        What is the significance of their difference?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Bottom is only loosely based on how biological neurons work, and is very simple and small-scale compared to an actual human brain. Only AI fanbois say they learn the same as a human, but it's still an open question (and they probably don't.) Luckily, only AI fanbois say that AI output is immune to the copyright of the training set, so they'll likely get fricked over by real lawyers soon.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            you are correct in terms of tasks that several parts of our brain are responsible for. (when we speak, for instance, we have separate segments of our brain dedicated to logic, language, etc.)
            in terms of image generation there is no meaningful difference. it is as every bit complex as your imagination.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >it is as every bit complex as your imagination.
              Unlikely. I can use spatial reasoning to imagine things that make geometric sense. AIs forget a bra strap exists when its crossed by a strand of hair (

              https://i.imgur.com/tGu0qQQ.jpg

              :^)

              ) because they're fricking moronic. Even when counting neurons (which is dumb because bio neurons are not like ML neurons) they are a tiny fraction of the size of my visual cortex.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                its because the human brain at sub-cellular level is a quantum brain.

                AI can never reach our intelligence.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >because they're fricking moronic
                No, they're simply not sufficiently trained. They are getting better at training every day.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                They will never be good. The problem with AI fanbois is they assume all technology will improve forever, but that's just not the case in real life. Sometimes technological development faces obstacles that are difficult to overcome, so they just slow down or stop completely. Moore's law ended, supersonic passenger flight never replaced subsonic passenger flight, and AI art will probably never be good at tasks that require human-level spatial reasoning.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                true

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It's like 3d printing. Seems like a fun hobby but it'll never be something for the masses unless it's heavily propped up. Everything i see needs to be retouched in photoshop. It's not bad but needs improvement.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                it's good enough now to destroy artgays, apparently

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Or, youre just a moron that doesnt know what hes talking about?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                we're reaching levels of cope not previously thought possible

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Human cope

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                nobody is saying it will keep improving forever
                and that doesn't need to be the case for it to be good
                some of the output right now could reasonably be considered good, so saying it will never be good doesn't even make sense

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You have to be a religious nutjob to think they're not comparable, the human mind is nothing but an emergent property of a configuration of neurons firing

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Differing implementation details don't mean the fundamental process isn't the same.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Gentlemen, I'm sorry to have to say this, but: I want to frick this doggy girl. On the right one.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty much

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      damn

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Min + Fin
      What

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Combination of meds against baldness or something

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Minoxidil and Finasteride. Part of the anti-hair loss trinity, can have major side effects though.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >cute little male nubbreasts
          >major side effects

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            If you're feminine enough, fricking each other won't be gay anymore on the next loop.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        He's telling himself to chemically castrate himself so he can keep his hair.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          That's pretty good advice, we need less coomer fricks in this world. A man without his sex drive is just a person.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >not HODLing bitcoin till 2021 to sell it

    • 1 year ago
      Im

      tfw no time travel myself to frick in the ass

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    AI debate TL;DR ver.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      is sd2 way worse then? haven't tried myself yet

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's good for photorealism and landscapes, shit for practically everything else

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          how does it fare compared to midjourney on that front then?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Pretty well, although Midjourney has a particular 'style' to all its images that you won't get from 2.x, you'll have to download one of several models, embeddings etc that mimics the Midjourney style

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It boils down to this: Do you need permission if you train your AI model with copyrighted things or not?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The answer is and always will be no, you don't.
      Artgays have no legal standing.
      So they must use shaming words, like Hollywood israelites: Steal, Theft, etc.
      They already took out artist in SD 2.0, so it's over I suppose.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        AI isn't a real person so it can't draw inspiration just imitate from copying.
        Therefore your argument is invalid.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous
          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >how it makes art?
            good morning sir

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              We accept your concession 😉

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                na it's a good picture, i like it

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            AI chan a cute

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >the images are discarded
            >model just remembers the characteristics of an object
            In what form does it keep it then? I don't understand.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              number weights

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                how does it know what shape to give an object? what colour, what shade, etc? number weights is a general term, it doesn't explain anything

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                There are a bunch or weights associated with each color and shape and they 'turn on" when you give it the right input.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              in simple terms, an AI model is a series of steps and each step can have millions of nodes and each node contains a number. It accepts inputs transforms that input based on the number and then gives an output. When organized in certain ways, it can give rise to things like AI art or text.
              When you are training a model, you input data as the first layer of nodes, it filters it through all the steps and creates an output, the we tell the model if it had a good output or bad output. Based on our answer it will adjust its nodes and try again until we get results we like.
              In the end, you are left with a model file which doesn't change, and you feed it input and it will give an output. Theres no images or internet, just millions of nodes.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                input stage must have images stop lying

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >learning by looking at art is bad
                Why do idiots talk in circles?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you claimed it uses no images you lied.

                The training stage requires the images. Once its trained, there is no pixel data from the images within the model.

                a lie because it refers back to the image data

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                see

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

                >let's explain latent space to art majors who can't count

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >lying
                >nagger avataring
                moron

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >racist
                sheesh, really?
                does your reddit friends know?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                what racism? A nag isnt a race.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Typical chud dogwhistle.
                I thought the ai-cucks were the racists, very sad to see they aren't the only ones.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It doesn't refer back to the image data. Why do you talk so confidently about a topic you have no understanding of?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                it does, because it needs to readjust its weights to match the input.
                Why are you lying like a moron?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                That is the training stage anon. Once it is trained, the model has no reference to its training data.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                stop lying, how can it refer back to the original input to correct the output.
                You don't know

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Anon I have implemented neural networks from scratch. I know how they work. Once the model is trained, the training data is discarded.

                the training stage is the middle

                No it isn't. The anons that have a copy of stable diffusion on their computers are not performing any training when they use it to generate images.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                stop lying
                Training data[edit]
                Stable Diffusion was trained on pairs of images and captions taken from LAION-5B, a publicly available dataset derived from Common Crawl data scraped from the web, where 5 billion image-text pairs were classified based on language, filtered into separate datasets by resolution, a predicted likelihood of containing a watermark, and predicted "aesthetic" score (e.g. subjective visual quality).[15] The dataset was created by LAION, a German non-profit which receives funding from Stability AI.[15][16] The Stable Diffusion model was trained on three subsets of LAION-5B: laion2B-en, laion-high-resolution, and laion-aesthetics v2 5+.[15] A third-party analysis of the model's training data identified that out of a smaller subset of 12 million images taken from the original wider dataset used, approximately 47% of the sample size of images came from 100 different domains, with Pinterest taking up 8.5% of the subset, followed by websites such as WordPress, Blogspot, Flickr, DeviantArt and Wikimedia Commons.[17][15]

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                What part of that is in disagreement with what I said?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                End-user fine tuning[edit]
                To address the limitations of the model's initial training, end-users may opt to implement additional training for the purpose of fine-tuning generation outputs to match more specific use-cases. There are three methods in which user-accessible fine tuning can be applied to a Stable Diffusion model checkpoint:

                An "embedding" can be trained from a collection of user-provided images, and allows the model to generate visually similar images whenever the name of the embedding is used within a generation prompt.[34] Embeddings are based on the "textual inversion" concept developed by researchers from Tel Aviv University in 2022 with support from Nvidia, where vector representations for specific tokens used by the model's text encoder are linked to new pseudo-words. Embeddings can be used to reduce biases within the original model, or mimic visual styles.[35]
                A "Hypernetwork" is a small pre-trained neural network that is applied to various points within a larger neural network, and refers to the technique created by NovelAI developer Kurumuz in 2021, originally intended for text-generation transformer models. Hypernetworks steer results towards a particular direction, allowing Stable Diffusion-based models to imitate the art style of specific artists, even if the artist is not recognised by the original model; they process the image by finding key areas of importance such as hair and eyes, and then patch these areas in secondary latent space.[36]
                DreamBooth is a deep learning generation model developed by researchers from Google Research and Boston University in 2022 which can fine-tune the model to generate precise, personalised outputs that depict a specific subject, following training via a set of images which depict the subject.[37]

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Tel Aviv
                ai-cucks confirmed for filthy yids

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                This is why I said "when they use it to generate images".

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                the training stage is the middle

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >looking at images is bad
                You are a moron. You will always be a moron. You are also a lying piece of shit. Your suffering is your own making. You choose to be stupid.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Holy ai tard meltdown
                >nooo dob't destroy my argument the AI is not stealing
                Fraud, moronic fraud

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you are moronic. The ai process is circular. Its a feed back loop thats how it learns.
                Ffs you people are morons

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The training stage requires the images. Once its trained, there is no pixel data from the images within the model.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You know how in Excel, you can fit a line to a series of points on a graph? Machine learning boils down to that, but the line is wibbly, and in billions of dimensions instead of 2.

                There are a bunch or weights associated with each color and shape and they 'turn on" when you give it the right input.

                https://youtu.be/1CIpzeNxIhU

                Alright, thanks. I think I got the gist of it. The video is great.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              You know how in Excel, you can fit a line to a series of points on a graph? Machine learning boils down to that, but the line is wibbly, and in billions of dimensions instead of 2.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                its only 3

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Each weight is a dimension.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              they are lying the final step is it looks at the input images lol

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >it's only inspiration if humans do it, if anything else does it's copying
          Checkmate atheists

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            trying to use the legal argument its inspired transformative work doesn't work with your toaster moronkun.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Why not?
              I'd like to ask a better question but your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever so I don't know where to start

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                how does it make any sense a non-human can claim inspiration? moron

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The same way a human can claim inspiration
                What body part that humans have allows them to be inspired?
                I might not be a biologist but I think it's the brain, which is the one part that my "toaster" replicates

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                your computer cannot be inspired you idiot. You ai shills are applying human emotions to a mindless machine.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Where do human emotions come from? Is it not the brain?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                a computer does not have emotions you moron

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Do you even know what emotions are?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you are mentally disabled

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Ah yes, the pinnacle of intelligence, just yelling "no" over and over when presented with opposing arguments and resorting to name calling when you realize that doesn't work

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Anon, you think a computer has emotions. You are either a bot or intellectually disabled.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You don't even have the slightest idea of what emotions are, calling someone "intellectually disabled" for talking about emotions is like someone calling Einstein a moron for thinking gravity exists because he saw a cloud and it didn't fall down

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you are mentally moronic, this isn't debatable. You think your computer is a person

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >You think your computer is a person
                No, I do not, you're the one that thinks emotions are uniquely human
                >this isn't debatable.
                Of course it isn't, because you're not even qualified to mop the floor where the debate would take place

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                that is what you are arguing. I am arguing a computer is not human. Everything else is an irrelevant strawman. You simpleton.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I am arguing a computer is not human.
                That's a moronic argument, of course a computer isn't a human, it's a computer
                I thought we were actually arguing about whether AI could be inspired, didn't realize you were just showing off what you learned from your word matching picture book

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                A computer cannot claim inspiration you moron.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Why not?
                >because it's not a human
                isn't a valid response, because inspiration isn't uniquely human

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                yes it is. being inspired is uniquely human. you are an idiot. Again you are trying to apply human characteristics to a machine like a moron

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >being inspired is uniquely human.
                What is unique about humans that allows them to be inspired?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                intelligence and selfawareness what you lack poojeet

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Intelligence... Where have I heard that word before? Is that what the I in AI stands for?
                No it can't be, because that would mean that what you claim is required to be inspired is the one thing that AI has, and you're not that moronic, are you?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >he thinks AI is actually intelligent

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Explain to me what intelligence is and why AI isn't intelligent, then

                my god you are subhumanly stupid. AI isn't true AI

                "True AI" just means AI that is as capable in every single aspect as a human is, and with specimens like you that bar will be passed in no time

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you are actually dumber than an AI which is not intelligent at all.
                Protip: use a chat ai to argue for you.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry I thought I was, when I argue with humans they actually supplement and elaborate on their points instead of just repeating the same thing over and over

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you think your computer can talk to you, you are a schizo tard

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Oh boy, wait until you learn about chat bots
                I'm sorry to break the illusion but there's not actually a tiny human inside the computer typing up the responses

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you genuinely are an idiot aren't you? you have no self awareness at all.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you are a moron.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                my god you are subhumanly stupid. AI isn't true AI

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                True, the correct term for something like Stable Diffusion is machine learning

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So you admit to lying.
                Good to know.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >refuse to learn how tech works
                >argue over definitions on a Mongolian Basket Weaving forum
                Yes, this is the way we (artists) win.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                be honest you don't know how it works. Don't claim you do.
                Anyone that has looked at it knows its copying artists.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm too stupid to understand it!
                Yes, we know.
                I don't know why you keep posting here.
                Go back to /ic/ where you can circle-jerk with your crab friends in peace, lol.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you are moronic

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Nope.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you are.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Nah.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                its truth you are certifiably moronic

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >A computer cannot claim inspiration
                What you call as "inspiration" is the idea of stealing from others, be it art or nature or whatever
                So you will seethe either way if it doesn't fits in your own world view

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                no it isn't, you people are clinically moronic. Did Einstein steal when he thought up his theories? he looked at a clock.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Did Einstein steal when he thought up his theories?
                Yes.
                >he looked at a clock.
                israelite lies.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Kek there it is the moron is a joo ranting poltard. If everyone stole and there us no inspiration why didn't have cars, computers and planes 10k years ago?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I don't respond to ESLs.
                Try again.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Answer the question esl, Why didn't we have the modern world 10k years ago. If everything was solved in your view.
                You are a moron that lacks genius.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Contact with aliens.
                If you still believe that you can make machine by using a bit of sand, you are moronic

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                sound pretty dumb, but of artists are not so tech savy, tell them computers are just machines

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >trying to use the legal argument its inspired transformative work doesn't work with your toaster
              it's not an argument. it's a fact, and an immediately apparent one. sorry not sorry

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You jest, but it really is neat watching all of these liberal fedoras start raving about the intangible human soul.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >poltards rant for ages about SOVL
              >suddenly deny the human soul while shilling soulless ai art
              you people are hypocrites to the bone.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >poltards
                who are they?
                we are trans-humanists here

                Ai art is real art!
                Transwomen are real women!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >muh /misc/

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                yes
                /pol/Black folk not welcomed

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                ai israelite will never win
                artists are the true Aryans

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Its not soulless. You are the one without soul. Of course you could never comprehend the nature of soul when you are spiteful wretch. A sad and pathetic create, not deserving of pity.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >people who enjoy real art by real artists are soulless
                You ai cretins have NO SOUL you say stupid things and have stupid ideas.
                You can't appreciate art that is made by people and just want pretty fap pictures.
                You are soullessness incarnate..

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Why can't people appreciate all kinds of art? Who made you the gatekeeper? No one. You are fricking nobody.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                because i am interest in REAL art.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Ok, you can go be interested in "REAL art" in your little corner and stop bothering us.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                i will laugh at you for eternity from my elitist tower while real b***hes pleasure me and you prompt soulless pictures of taylor swift with bits of dog in them

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >pictures of taylor swift with bits of dog in them
                SOVL

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Ai opponents: AI art is not art
    Ai proponents: goo goo gaa gaa me proompting

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Don't laugh anon, if not for ai he could have been selling degenerate scalie commisions $400 a pop

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    the man looks like a blonde Greek/Cretan

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Can someone give me the rundown on the AI art debate?
    QRD
    >AI art starts getting kinda good
    >Starts getting posted on art sites
    >Artists lose their shit because AI can almost perfectly copy their style minus shit like hands and feet
    >Artists start throwing a huge hissy fit, spamming art sites to death because ai art triggers them
    >Now they want to get the government to SHUT IT DOWN
    >Jews, corpos and artists that are in bed with corpos smell their chance to extend copyright law to frick everyone over
    >Meanwhile ai gays just keep prompting big anime tittie

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      ok, epic corpo shill, hope you enjoy losing money you frauds

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Nintendo can copyright every single pic of Peach smut on the internet now

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >these threads
    >same replies
    >same images
    it's ogre

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Produce more OC then, fatty

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        My pc is needed for far more important stuff.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          literally perfect

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Better than 99% of the trending art on Artstation right now, it's over

            >le coom

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Better than 99% of the trending art on Artstation right now, it's over

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >fit body
          >oversized booba
          >cute face
          I want to make SEX to her!!

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          :^)

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            noice

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Any further updates on the AI comic book copyright lawsuit? Link to full document?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Idhn8eb9t883mm_U4CxAQQ_aANTI7UTX/view?usp=drivesdk

      AI CHADS STAY WINNING
      WE'VE GOT A CASE TO COPYRIGHT OUR AI CREATIONS

      ARTgayS BTFO

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    it's over techbros

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Giving money to a scammer who won't do jack shit

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >A storm of litigation
      ...nothing that has been done is illegal in any form, so even if they could make new laws that would make training on copyrightable works illegal, you can't retroactively punish people or corporations for something they did while it was legal.

      Of course training on copyrighted works being banned won't help artists, it will only favor the rich corporations who can license art from whoever said artists work for, and no, the artists won't be compensated.

      Companies like Disney et al owns all the art they've commisioned from artists and made by in-house artists, and are most likely training models on that as we speak, whatever law might eventually emerge, it will NOT prevent them from doing so.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >...nothing that has been done is illegal in any form, so even if they could make new laws that would make training on copyrightable works illegal, you can't retroactively punish people or corporations for something they did while it was legal.
        That's not how it works; the government doesn't have to redefine methods of copyright infringement to enforce them. If I invent a completely new method of killing people undescribed in all legal texts, I've still committed murder. That's different from how DEA scheduling works, in that if you ban a specific molecule, and I add an ethyl group somewhere to that molecule, it is technically a new molecule.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >If I invent a completely new method of killing people undescribed in all legal texts, I've still committed murder.
          LOL, this is NOT murder, which has always been illegal, you absolute moron.

          This is something that has ALWAYS been legal, and could potentially change to be illegal, which means you can't be held accountable for doing it when it was legal.

          Holy shit what a moronic comment.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Copyright infringement is illegal. Using and profiting off of derivative works is still illegal.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Styles are not copyrightable.
              Sorry.
              You lose.
              Again.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I never said they were, you're missing the point. YOU claimed that banning AI art now would be a retroactive punishment and therefore all acts being committed today are legal and will never be punishable. I'm saying that if a court rules that the use of AI derived from copyrighted laws constitutes copyright infringement under the laws which ALREADY EXIST, you're wrong.

                https://i.imgur.com/i6OAN6A.png

                Have you ever profited of fanart, anon?

                tell that to all the small time artists who sell porn of characters from existing anime

                [...]
                literally who

                Obviously there are limits a company is willing to go to enforce its copyright. But one major difference is that the most litigious IP lawyers of all are the stock image owners and similar, who even managed to successfully sue Google into gimping Google Images.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No.
                Never happened.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                https://archive dot ph/UFqY3

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm saying that if a court rules that the use of AI derived from copyrighted laws constitutes copyright infringement under the laws which ALREADY EXIST, you're wrong
                No, you can't retroactively punish someone who did something that was LEGAL when they did it.

                If your state retracts the right to sell weed tomorrow, they can't sue you for what you sold today when it was legal.

                You are moronic.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >No, you can't retroactively punish someone who did something that was LEGAL when they did it.
                But its illegality is unknown. Let me put it another way: if I deliberately dump a massive amount of a new chemical into a water supply, not knowing the long term effects, and it ends up causing mass death, I can definitely still be charged for murder, even if the illegality was unknown at the time. The question isn't the illegality of copyright infringement, it's whether AI art constitutes copyright infringement. And if it is ruled that it does under older laws, it will therefore be illegal even prior to the ruling.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You keep bringing up things were people are being killed, as in murder, this has nothing to do with murder, this has to do with copyright.

                Copyright is FIRMLY ESTABLISHED, and DOES NOT COVER PROTECTION OF STYLES OR COMPUTER TRAINING, as such any new law made surrounding copyright will have ZERO reprecussions for those who followed the law as it was previously written.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Copyright is FIRMLY ESTABLISHED
                kek copyright law wouldn't be massive if it was
                >and DOES NOT COVER PROTECTION OF STYLES OR COMPUTER TRAINING
                Only a couple of state level courts have made any rulings on it, and the rulings haven't even been consistent. If I train a model on a single image and it outputs something extremely close to that image, I've obviously still committed copyright violation.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Nope.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >kek copyright law wouldn't be massive if it was
                That's what makes it so firmly established, every fricking edge-case has been argued in court

                >If I train a model on a single image and it outputs something extremely close to that image, I've obviously still committed copyright violation.
                No one is arguing against that, do you have any other strawmen arguments ?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >That's what makes it so firmly established, every fricking edge-case has been argued in court
                It's not just edge cases, past precedents can be overturned very easily now with the right jury, e.g. Blurred Lines
                >No one is arguing against that, do you have any other strawmen arguments ?
                Then you've acknowledged that AI art can be copyright infringement, and that doing so today is still illegal even though it's completely new territory for the law

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Then you've acknowledged that AI art can be copyright infringement
                Yes, if you use an AI and you create a 1:1 or close to a 1:1 version of existing copyrighted art, you are in copyright violation, just like with every other method.

                Nobody has ever argued otherwise.

                Nobody is interested in generating or training a model to do that, as it is pointless.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >If I train a model on a single image and it outputs something extremely close to that image, I've obviously still committed copyright violation.
                The output is the violation, not the training.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Have you ever profited of fanart, anon?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              tell that to all the small time artists who sell porn of characters from existing anime

              >techbro: wow your art is shit you have no talent
              >also techbro: wait did you just say my AI art is shit and i have no talent, you can't say that i am insulted

              literally who

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Copyright does not protect art styles, it is not illegal to train on copyrighted data.

              If that was the case, every single artist would be guilty, as every single artist learns by training themselves by examining and replicating art they like.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                did you invent anime style pictures? no? then you can't draw anything in an anime style

                Never argued otherwise, but there will obviously be some threshold of novelty that has to be set, and if determining whether or not you surpassed it means having to go to court, then the trial will be punishment enough. A person that overtrains a model to completely copy elements of an artist (e.g. the exact way they draw eyes) will likely still be at risk.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              did you invent anime style pictures? no? then you can't draw anything in an anime style

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            jfc you are one of those tards that thinks jigsaw is innocent

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >A (singular) lobbyist

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Is it really that easy to scam an artist?

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    https://towardsdatascience.com/artificial-intelligence-agents-are-not-artists-9743d5dba2d0
    AI Agents are not Artists!
    Artificial art lacks its own intrinsic psychic meaning to the agent. AI agents are not creating art; rather, they are replicating art. For example, the CAN agents were trained on tens of thousands of original artworks created by humans. When a CAN agent generates a new image, it is not drawing upon its personal or collective experiences, neither conscious nor unconscious. It’s generated images are predicated on human experiences, as manifest in the symbols and archetypes captured in our human artwork on which the CAN agent is conditioned and trained.
    This explains why humans resonate with the CAN’s artificial art: after all, it is capturing our human experiences, our human condition, our human existence. The CAN agent is not creating art because its generated images are not manifestations of the symbols and archetypes swimming in its own unconscious. If fact, the CAN’s do not have psychic structure.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Of course, it's a tool.
      I am using that tool.
      Problem?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Nah.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Scott “Will” Chambers is an artist who studied cosmology and then became an artificial intelligence and robot strategist, technologist and innovator.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          nope

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Absolute bullshit, especially coming from a fedora atheist moron who doesn't believe in psychic energy or souls to begin with.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        where did this stupidity come from that if you say soul you are religious? soul is just another way of saying spirit or life.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >psychic meaning
      kek
      >they are replicating art
      Only if you overtrain the model

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >techbro: wow your art is shit you have no talent
    >also techbro: wait did you just say my AI art is shit and i have no talent, you can't say that i am insulted

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      nobody said that

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Coomers are happy they have access to new decent tier art on demand
    >Artists are seething that the unwashed masses have access to new decent tier art on demand

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      it could be better

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        How do you even make this with AI? All I get are weird nightmare fuel tier images.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          ((realistic photo)), (masterpiece), best quality, highest quality, realism, hdr, dramatic lighting, ,(desaturated), (low contrast), (impressionism), (nsfw), fantasy, ismail inceoglu, (masterpiece:1.1), (highest quality:1.1), (sharp focus:1.2), 1 cute girl, ([Casca, Isabela Moner]), (perfect face:1.2), (perfect eyes:1.2), black hair, straight hair, short hair, pixie cut, shiny hair,
          Eric Wallis, alphonse mucha, Albert Lynch, nerdy, (office lady:1.3), wide hips, black pantyhose, black skirt, white shirt, red tie, full glossy lips, seductive expression, confident, (blushing), arms behind back, in an office, detailed background, wndow behind, light particles, light rays,
          perfect body, smooth, sharp focus illustration, digital painting, artstation hq, perfect eyes, perfect face,

          Negative prompt: lowres, bad anatomy, bad hands, text, error, missing fingers, extra digit, fewer digits, cropped, worst quality, low quality, normal quality, jpeg artifacts,signature, watermark, username, blurry, artist name, ugly, fat, disfigured, cloned face, censored, censor bar, multiple views, black and white, tanlines, badly drawn face, monochrome, colored sclera, 3D, anime,

          Steps: 40, Sampler: DDIM, CFG scale: 10, Seed: 2948283469, Size: 1024x1280, Model hash: b28b014a, Hypernet: yoshitoshi_abe, Hypernet strength: 0.3, Denoising strength: 0.6, ENSD: 31337, First pass size: 0x0

          bstaber and elysiumore at 0.5

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >(masterpiece)
            Imagine the response of some analog artist when you tell him to make a masterpiece.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              yer jus' asking ai for a masterpiece, it's not a guarantee you'll get one 😉

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Incredible level of prompting skill anon. A true artist walks among us, I kneel.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          unironically it's a skill issue
          And artists hate it.
          They couldn't produce this -with- A.I.
          But luckily,

          ((realistic photo)), (masterpiece), best quality, highest quality, realism, hdr, dramatic lighting, ,(desaturated), (low contrast), (impressionism), (nsfw), fantasy, ismail inceoglu, (masterpiece:1.1), (highest quality:1.1), (sharp focus:1.2), 1 cute girl, ([Casca, Isabela Moner]), (perfect face:1.2), (perfect eyes:1.2), black hair, straight hair, short hair, pixie cut, shiny hair,
          Eric Wallis, alphonse mucha, Albert Lynch, nerdy, (office lady:1.3), wide hips, black pantyhose, black skirt, white shirt, red tie, full glossy lips, seductive expression, confident, (blushing), arms behind back, in an office, detailed background, wndow behind, light particles, light rays,
          perfect body, smooth, sharp focus illustration, digital painting, artstation hq, perfect eyes, perfect face,

          Negative prompt: lowres, bad anatomy, bad hands, text, error, missing fingers, extra digit, fewer digits, cropped, worst quality, low quality, normal quality, jpeg artifacts,signature, watermark, username, blurry, artist name, ugly, fat, disfigured, cloned face, censored, censor bar, multiple views, black and white, tanlines, badly drawn face, monochrome, colored sclera, 3D, anime,

          Steps: 40, Sampler: DDIM, CFG scale: 10, Seed: 2948283469, Size: 1024x1280, Model hash: b28b014a, Hypernet: yoshitoshi_abe, Hypernet strength: 0.3, Denoising strength: 0.6, ENSD: 31337, First pass size: 0x0

          bstaber and elysiumore at 0.5

          people who post prompts are closest to godliness.
          We share our knowledge to produce better coom material for all.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          skill issue

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >All I get are weird nightmare fuel tier images.
          so?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          despite what they say, there is actual skill involved in making nice AI pictures

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        ((realistic photo)), (masterpiece), best quality, highest quality, realism, hdr, dramatic lighting, ,(desaturated), (low contrast), (impressionism), (nsfw), fantasy, ismail inceoglu, (masterpiece:1.1), (highest quality:1.1), (sharp focus:1.2), 1 cute girl, ([Casca, Isabela Moner]), (perfect face:1.2), (perfect eyes:1.2), black hair, straight hair, short hair, pixie cut, shiny hair,
        Eric Wallis, alphonse mucha, Albert Lynch, nerdy, (office lady:1.3), wide hips, black pantyhose, black skirt, white shirt, red tie, full glossy lips, seductive expression, confident, (blushing), arms behind back, in an office, detailed background, wndow behind, light particles, light rays,
        perfect body, smooth, sharp focus illustration, digital painting, artstation hq, perfect eyes, perfect face,

        Negative prompt: lowres, bad anatomy, bad hands, text, error, missing fingers, extra digit, fewer digits, cropped, worst quality, low quality, normal quality, jpeg artifacts,signature, watermark, username, blurry, artist name, ugly, fat, disfigured, cloned face, censored, censor bar, multiple views, black and white, tanlines, badly drawn face, monochrome, colored sclera, 3D, anime,

        Steps: 40, Sampler: DDIM, CFG scale: 10, Seed: 2948283469, Size: 1024x1280, Model hash: b28b014a, Hypernet: yoshitoshi_abe, Hypernet strength: 0.3, Denoising strength: 0.6, ENSD: 31337, First pass size: 0x0

        bstaber and elysiumore at 0.5

        > b28b014a
        what model is this?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >bstaber and elysiumore at 0.5
          custom mix

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I stopped experimenting with models after a custom berry mix, so i've been out of the loop for a while. Where do i find these?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              idk, ask /sdg/ or /b/

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              magnet:?xt=urn:btih:5c151e2b6f48d3b1bb6d8f390487d8b7601cf81b&dn=Bstaber.safetensors

              https://huggingface.co/hesw23168/SD-Elysium-Model

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Butlerian Jihad now

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      nah

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I'm trying to find this article with twitter screencaps of this chinese AI shill.
    He was trying to shill it to the game industry and the replies from actual game devs was hilarious.
    >you will be able to procedurally generate 1000s of npcs!
    >we already do that.

    These ai shills are charlatans

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I thought ai shills were POOs

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        seems to be a lot of third worlds. I think they think its a get rich scheme for little work

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          It's new tech, not a lot of people understand it, there's an open source version so anybody can plug it in their pipeline and try to sell it to anyone.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Artists are attacking ai and not the system that has forced them to draw porn for a living

        India is threatened the most by AI. Like a third of their economy is going to be wiped out by it in the next few years, no exaggeration.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >complain about chinks
      okay, so?
      do you have a point?

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >i type prompts
    >that means i understand it
    even the people working on it are claiming they don't understand because the model is so large,

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I think it's simpler than people think.
      Squish enough things together and densely enough and you always end up getting an emergent property.
      For matter, that's stars, and eventually neutron stars and black holes.
      For data, that's intelligence, and other things we do not yet know of.
      No, I am not saying stable diffusion is intelligent, but to compare, our current "AI" are like proto stars.
      Given time, they will become stars, and then eventually black holes.

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >""""""""""""ai artists"""""""""""""

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, these are the people that will replace analog artists. How does that make you feel?

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

      https://i.imgur.com/C6Kpp35.png

      >AI Art is awful
      no
      >and the spam is ridiculous
      yes

      I wish I was that fat.

      https://i.imgur.com/qr9Ty90.jpg

      yer jus' asking ai for a masterpiece, it's not a guarantee you'll get one 😉

      I can ask as many times as I want till I get one though.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    YOU'LL NEVER TAKE AWAY MY AI FAMILY, homosexualS

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      This looks fricking awful lmao

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        FRICK YOU
        FRICK YOUR MOTHER

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ai bros... were we the bad guys????

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      But Vaush hates AI art.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Even more of a reason to love AI art.

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Sure. Quick rundown: AI Art is awful and the spam is ridiculous but I guess one of the admins is an SDG coomer so it doesn't get banned.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >AI Art is awful
      no
      >and the spam is ridiculous
      yes

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Who are you even responding to ?

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Artists are stupid, liars, and morally bankrupt, disgusting narcissists that provide no value to the world. Go shit and cry in the corner.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Artists are more valuable than a prompt tard

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Why?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          anyone can be a prompt tard not everyone can be an good artist.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            ai is trained from best of all artist, no single individual matters more
            artists are good, we'll need more training for new models

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              They are mad AI is trained on good artists and not them.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >ai tards admitting it straight up rips from artists

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >look at art is stealing
                Artists cannot comprehend how wrong they are. They are on such a low level of existence, its a wonder they can function in society.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                stop lying, the ai "learns" by taking the code from 5 billion images
                People have proven it is just copying art exactly.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Theres no point in explaining how something works that you can never comprehend, so I wont bother wasting either of our time.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                fatter!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                gross

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I SAID FATTER!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I SAID FATTER!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                That isn't AI made, but than you for raiding his Patreon.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I cant stand paypig simps its all free on r34/ehentai

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >r34/ehentai
                Thank you for telling me.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                i know how it works, you don't obviously,

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I know you don't know how it works. You're like a five year trying to lie to an adult. It doesn't work.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you can't explain how it works you only input prompts because you are a moron.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                low effort trolling my man

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No more than artists who make 'fanart' of someone elses work

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                kek
                >fanart is the same as a program that rips the code from images, weights it, farts out a duplicate then repeats until it has a knock off.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                yes

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >farts out a duplicate
                You are becoming increasingly desperate with your bullshit

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Its been proven these things will fart out 1:1 copies, you can even reverse engineer the images.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                yes, you can over-train it to get that effect
                but it's not the intended effect

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                if you narrow the sample size to just a small number and a specific piece of art it will just copy the image.
                I don't know why people are lying and trying to claim its not copying because its "looking" at code

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you don't understand it
                you are taking an extreme example to support your ignorant biased view

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                That's cool, how do I do it without making an account?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you are lying through your teeth and hiding behind an authority fallacy like a fraud.
                I've researched how it works and it is stealing from artists. It doesn't matter how it does it.
                Its being fed their art and out putting art like theirs. Full stop.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                nope.
                never happened.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                liar.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No.

                >artists looked at my art and now they make art that looks like mine!
                >NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
                Please shit yourself to death.

                prompt tards caught lying

                https://www.thinkautomation.com/bots-and-ai/the-ai-black-box-problem/

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                white people lie, it's known

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >opinion pieces about ethics
                LAMO
                AHHAHAHAHAHAAHH

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >he thinks its about ethics
                you fricking tard, the black box issue is when they neural networks get so large no one can understand them.
                Its humanly impossible to understand it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                then how do you know it's stealing?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                when we simplify the sample size we see that it copies the image exactly.
                People have likewise created understandable models showing that for AI comps

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >give ai one image to train on
                >it recreates the one image
                >SEE IT COPIES

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                yes? give it two images it blends them together

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                give it 5 billion images and you can no longer directly correlate any output with any input
                it's the same way humans learn to draw, they take in countless existing artworks and find patterns in them, you do not remember everything you've seen, but seeing them has influenced you at a deeper level
                these ai's work the same way

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The fact you can't understand it has nothing to do with what its doing.
                You cant understand it because its doing a million crossword puzzles faster than a human can by trial an error to reach its answer
                The cross word puzzle is that its scrapping the code for colour, roundness, contrast everything

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Don't worry about it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >artists looked at my art and now they make art that looks like mine!
                >NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
                Please shit yourself to death.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You can train a model to create 1:1 copies, but nobody is interested in that, as it is totally pointless.

                Do you even remotely understand how this works ? Would you like me to explain it to you ?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                do you? you keep going back to this fallacy. Its not an argument.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >do you?
                Yes I do. This is an pattern recognition algorithm in which you pair images with tokens (text). You train the 'ai' by giving it images with text that describes them, the 'ai' has no idea what either the images or text means, but it understands patterns, so it will start understanding what a face means in terms of an image, and then when fed images of eyes, mouths, noses, it will recognize those patterns as being part of a 'face' and thus understand when you say 'big eyes' you want large representations of that thing called eyes in the face of a human or creature.

                When the 'ai' understands this, you can teach it styles, you feed the 'ai' lots of images made by an artist and it will recognize the parts of say a face, but that the artist draws them in a particular way, aka 'style', so then when you use the token (in this case, name) connected with that artist and ask for let's say a face, it will draw that in the style of said artist.

                Then we have the randomness aspect, which allows you to create near endless varied art, to make the 'ai' capable of seeing art in what is nothing but mathemathical noise, you first train it on images of art which are degraded into pure noise, thus making the 'ai' see patterns in how noise can be turned into art, then when you generate art you reverse this, and give the ai noise, which is now 'sees' art patterns in, and you guide what you want it to see in that noise by giving it a prompt.

                There's no magic, but it is incredibly efficient, and it will transform how art is made forever.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I can also Control + C and then Control + V. Don't need an AI for that. Photoshop already does this.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                it probes that what it is doing is just another form of copying, just with a middle layer where it plays around with it. A human can do the same thing as it, it just has more processing power and 5 billion images to rip from.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >models that are a few gigabytes have 5 billion images in them
                lol lmao

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yes.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >rips the code from images
                This doesn't even mean anything lol

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                computers see images in code. I saw some frick face say the ai does not copy the colour,
                But it sees the colour in the image code, ffs. Why do ai tards lie

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                There is no "code" in digital images anon. They are just numbers.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                kek you moron. You can bury sound in images. Learn to code.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                There is no "code" in either digital image or sound data. A digital image is constructed of a header specification that tells you its format and dimensions etc, and then arrays of integers representing the pixel data in each colour channel. Its just numbers.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                its code

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                How are you defining the word code here?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You're not a good artist.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              you are not an artist

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                anyone can be an artist

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                except prompt engineers

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I'm a prompt artist.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                except prompt engineers

                Prompoofters

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You stole those boobs.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                A Promteur. It sounds more fancy.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Promteurette if you are female, we use gendered terms here

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                prompt autist*

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous
              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I am BUTHOQN TOV
                that's my sig 😉

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I am and you can't stop me, b***h.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        no

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          yes. We will never run out of prompt tards, Our number if gifted artists is finite and therefore more valuable
          I will not eat the bug meat.
          I will enjoy real art.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Good.
            Please enjoy art.

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >yer moron
    >no you are
    >you're stupid
    >no, you!

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      ai "art" mimics bad art

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        ok
        but you make good art
        so you have nothing to worry about

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I'm scared of this shit replacing programmers.
    >"It won't be able to for a long time because it doesn't produce reliable output and can't handle the intricacies of a big project"
    Similar to what people were saying ten years ago about this text-to-image AI probably.

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    https://huggingface.co/spaces/umm-maybe/AI-image-detector

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >tell ai to use correct number of fingers
    >it makes a person with a face full of fingers
    abomination

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      skill issue

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I can't wait for the schizo meltdown when ai art gets banned everywhere.
    All the autists claiming its legal and correct will just have a brain implosion trying to rationalise how they are right.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >when ai art gets banned everywhere
      but I don't go anywhere
      maybe you'll have better time posting on reddit, they might get triggered like you, hopefully

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    UHHHH
    NEMONABROS?

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >give me the rundown
    pedoe-girl and animetrannies are cancer,
    they ruin technology and now they are ruin art they ruin everything they touch

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >pedoe-girl and animetrannies are cancer,
      yes
      >they ruin technology and now they are ruin art they ruin everything they touch
      no

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    How do I make ai art without creating an account? They all want personal information I'm not going to do.

  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I want to make fun ai art without making a spyware account. Please help.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://rentry.org/voldy#-guide-

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks, it's funny the Linux installation is easier. Can't wait to play with this.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/zpansd/automatic1111s_stable_diffusion_webui_easy/

  38. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  39. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Not a pedophile, this just looks really artistic. I could easily fix this in post with photoshop. Just wow.

  40. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      this stuff is really disturbing when you're high

  41. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    i get the impression most pro-ai shills don't even know how this stuff works.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      agree
      only people dumber are angry artgays

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Anyone too far into the pro and anti sides are mostly driven by emotions. It's not like you need to know about ML or NNs to give an opinion either.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You have no idea how your computer or phone works either. Who cares?

  42. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >fancy pants le artists
    >all you needed was some matrices to re4create any artist ever
    >flipping burgers still needs humans
    LMAO
    no wonder you gays are upset

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      in reality artists will never be replaced but flipping burgers will

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        How does making images replace people drawing and making art.
        Did the camera replace artists?
        Silly nonsense.
        Hysteria from mediocre digigays who are addicted to social media.

  43. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >let's explain latent space to art majors who can't count

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      at least they can count fingers unlike your dumb ai tard

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        ZAMN
        ai-cucks BTFO!

  44. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  45. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >spending X-mas arguing
    sad...
    have a Merry Christmas, anons

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      m-mommy

  46. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >create an overly complicated way to copy artists
    >its not copying its learning!
    This is the biggest load of bullshit in history.
    >i made a machine that is incredibly complicated
    >what does it do
    >it creates useless toxic waste
    >why would do this?!
    >because i am very clever

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      skill issue
      if a machine can copy you then you're not very skilled

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        We accept your concession.
        Go get some sleep.
        See you tomorrow 😉

        >useless toxic waste
        harsh way to describe your art

        mindless prompt pig seething

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I do hope you are just a troll.
          It would be really sad as frick if you were serious.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      We accept your concession.
      Go get some sleep.
      See you tomorrow 😉

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >useless toxic waste
      harsh way to describe your art

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I know, life is funny that way.
      Who could have foreseen it?
      It was just capcha images, remember?

  47. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Doggy TAY-TAY

  48. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    you have people that used ai art generators who learned how it worked and concluded it was theft
    Ai tards cannot defend this.
    It doesn't matter how the magic box does it. Its still theft.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        yes

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          no

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            maybe

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              can you repeat the question?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >you have people that used ai art generators who learned how it worked and concluded it was theft
      So?
      >Ai tards cannot defend this.
      Don't need to.
      >It doesn't matter how the magic box does it. Its still theft.
      Nah.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Never happened.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Not really.

  49. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >i use the thing
    >therefore i understand the thing
    No

  50. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >i hate the thing
    >therefore i understand the thing
    No

  51. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >i don't care
    >therefore i understand the thing
    Yes

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >so anon can you do fingers

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        what fingers?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >it says on your resume yoi are an autist, im sorry artist. Id like to see you draw some hands.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            you want the other guy, I only do torsos

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            bump

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