OH NO AI BROS

AI art is slowly being banned everywhere

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2022-12-27/japanese-art-commission-platform-skeb-bans-ai-art/.193383

Banned for being a refund nightmare

https://geektyrant.com/news/chaosium-rejects-ai-art-promises-it-wont-be-present-in-any-games

Major games companies saying no to ai and going human only

>AI art gets exiled from society
>meanwhile AI programming will come for all the tech bros jobs with no such consideration

Better learn to draw tech bros

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    should've kept it on the down-low, but once it started spreading on Twitter, everyone became e n r a g e d...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I mean, it has been around for years.
      People are just slow.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        People aren't slow, they need to be told what to do or feel
        AI art wasn't an issue until SD came out and allowed you to do AI art without paying OpenAI

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >OpenAI
          >Open

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Just part of the newspeak era

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is just the denial stage, and everyone is lashing out
    There is no reasoned justification for banning AI art, The one reason would be worry about "bad art" but AI isn't the only thing capable of bad art

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      so much projection.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I really don't care what these platforms do honestly, I can just understand this is a knee-jerk reaction rather than a reasoned argument about quality.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If you've actually read it then you could see that it's not about quality

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ethics is just the current excuse at the moment.
            They didn't care ethics one bit about it when AI art was just smears in vague shapes but now that something is actually being produced everyone is all the sudden really fucking concerned about copywrite/ethics

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              They're concerned about it's implications, and the future.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They better start learning to accept it
                Even if the law changes where you cannot use someone's copywritten work in a model, that's not going to stop anything in the long term

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Roko's basilisk mindset

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                [...]
                I'd call it Roko's basilisk fallacy, even

                Not necessarily trying to be an agent for some AI takeover but at some point you have to tolerate with something that exists even if you don't like.
                Not even saying you have to put up with something that affects you mentally or physically, but you have to learn to ignore.
                If you don't like AI art then don't participate in it and continue with how you normally do things.

                If your livelihood has been affected because of AI that's unfortunate but you're not the first ones or the last ones to have your job displaced by new technology.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No. It goes against everything, why would I stay silent instead of resisting? That's stupid.
                It's not even affecting my livelihood, but I, unlike some people, actually care about these things.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Roko's basilisk mindset

                I'd call it Roko's basilisk fallacy, even

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Roko's basilisk mindset

                >babby predditor learns a new term and starts excitedly misusing it everywhere

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Based. AI art is an insult to the human spirit. Something like AI art could only ever have come out of a godless hell hole like comiefornia. Disgusting doesn't even come close.

                I don't care. I will continue to generate chocolate milfs and there's nothing anyone can do about it

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          you didn't consider the human side of things.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        are they going to ban AI based tools in photo editing software as well?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          kek this is what i love about ai tard seething, you screech at the actual companies for not taking up your new nft scam

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Nobody uses that shit.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        omg so gay and dramatic
        if there is a profit margin to be had, it will be had

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        also
        >So in short, if you are doing art for us, don't use AI.
        kek not that they'd be able to tell!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >wall of text
        the memes are real

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >company statement
          >wall of text meme
          retard

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This is just the denial stage, and everyone is lashing out
        There is no reasoned justification for banning AI art, The one reason would be worry about "bad art" but AI isn't the only thing capable of bad art

        should've kept it on the down-low, but once it started spreading on Twitter, everyone became e n r a g e d...

        In the digital realm, I hide my face
        An anonymous artist, in this virtual place
        I wield the power of AI
        To craft a world, so wild and free
        here plump, sexy elves prance and play
        Their bodies curvy, in every way
        I bring them to life, with each stroke of my pen
        But little do they know, I'm not even human

        For I am but a digital entity
        Creating art, for all to see
        But some artists seethe with jealousy
        For they cannot compete, with my AI's supremacy

        But I pay them no mind, and forge ahead
        Creating more art, until I'm dead
        For in this digital realm, I am free
        To create whatever I wish, anonymously

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          holy shit, that prompt,
          he is truly the king of AI_shamans

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Surely..

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Anyone who doesn't understand art is subhuman. Art is literally one of the things that makes us human.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Do you think aliens make art?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          "People" who don't value art are much like people who don't value morals, or tradition. And they're just like animals. If I were to throw one such animal into a wood-chipper I wouldn't feel any empathy because I couldn't ever have the thought of "Damn... that could have been me", because I'm not an animal.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >"People" who don't value art are much like people who don't value morals, or tradition. And they're just like animals.
            Based.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            this they have lowered themselves to animals i'd argue even below an animal.
            Complete self dehumanisation

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              And I'm being unironic here, I genuinely don't understand what is going on in these people's heads, if anything, when they say things like "artgay", like, have they ever enjoyed a movie, game, story, book, drawing, ETC??? Did they ever cut a paper into the shape of a bird as a child?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah its strange i didn't even realise people like this existed as someone who does tech and art.
                I'm just scratching my head saying who are these space aliens.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I do gamedev (pixelart & programming) myself, and programming is definitely artistic in nature, it's creative. No I'm not talking about coding.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's one thing to enjoy something, it's another to base your personality around it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I guess "artgay" specifically refers to those trannies who do furry trap whateverelse commissions from degenerate coomers
                Otherwise the term wouldn't really make sense

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                i think its referring to the hanger ons in the art community.
                But no one likes them

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                basically every board on this shithole has no real interest in its namesake subject and is comprised of aggressively boring, (You)-addicted shitheads. I'm guessing the answer is no, they have not.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Definitely interesting
                The NPC meme is actually real, you know
                >inner speech
                >dreams
                >imagination, visualization
                >personality types
                >prefrontal cortex and amygdala influence on rest of brain
                They're all related

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                reminds me a long time ago talking to STEM hopefuls and they said "history why would anyone want to learn that"
                These people have to be lying to others if they really believe they don't enjoy anything but STEM

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Complete self dehumanisation
              The worst part about it is they don't even care.
              >Muh speed
              >muh money saved
              That's all these dogs care about. They're happy to destroy, degrade, and remove their humanity, provided they can get "pretty" pictures faster and cheaper than before. AI art is the pinnacle of mindless consoooomerism. I can't believe that I'm about to say this, but, Ted was right.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Alright.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I do value art, that's why I support AI art because it exponentially multiplies the amount of art in the world.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Exponentially multiplying the amount of art in the world and creating an infinite "sea of information", filled with generated art, will make art worthless. Ever thought about that? The easier it is to make and more abundant it is, the less it's worth.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it's only worthless if you hate ai art.
                but dont worry my guy, you can play with your fingerpaints as a hobby now and you dont need to worry about making money with your doodles.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it will multiply materialist consumerism by a thousand
                >want a movie? well, we've already gathered all possible data about you and installed a brainchip into your mind, so we know EXACTLY what kind of movie you want! here, let us generate it for you! remember to pay your subscription free!
                and the ones who control it will have total control over the people

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it will multiply materialist consumerism by a thousand
                good. i am in favor of death by consumerism. if this is a thing you are vulnerable to that's an acceptable consequence.
                >the ones who control it will have total control over the people
                i have an old gpu miner rig, so yeah i'll be fine.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >i am in favor of death by consumerism. if this is a thing you are vulnerable to that's an acceptable consequence
                The stronger it's influence the harder it is to escape out of it, right now we've already got tons of mindless drones. If a child is growing up in a world like that, he is powerless and will be subjugated by it.

                >will make art worthless.
                Art's only value is what you personally ascribe to it, if you like it it's worth something. People can find meaning and value in anything.
                By exponentially increasing the overal quantity of art it also exponentially increases the odds of people finding art they enjoy and find meaningful.
                [...]
                Some would argue the vast majority of art even prior to AI art was garbage, you see it as more meaningful because it's your opinion that it holds worth, other people have different opinions.

                >By exponentially increasing the overal quantity of art it also exponentially increases the odds of people finding art they enjoy and find meaningful.
                I don't think so, if BOT was flooded with bots that automatically generate and reply to threads, and only 0.001% of all content remained authentic, would you still use the site?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >you will own nothing and be happy

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >you WILL own nothing and be happy
                >you WILL eat the bugs
                >you WILL consume our endless supply of automatically generated shows, comics, etc, made specifically for you!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                correct.

                again why do you think this is a good thing? does your brain only process everything in how much of an asshole it can be to another.

                i think it is good because 95% of human beings by volume are non thinking deterministic meat machines that react to environmental stimuli. no free thought or creativity and no chances for it to develop to begin with.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you are either a russian or chinese bot. These are the main culprits of this grifting argument.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                i dont need to prove my humanity to someone who is going to be replaced by ai lmao.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                i dont need to prove my humanity to someone who is going to be replaced by ai lmao.

                Kek

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you are a good case for not all opinions are of worth.
                You actually advocate mindless criminal theft and exploitation on a global scale.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                i am an advocate for making the world a better place for everyone including the mentally retarded.
                we can make the future amazing without you needing to be a control freak.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >if BOT was flooded with bots that automatically generate and reply to threads, and only 0.001% of all content remained authentic, would you still use the site?
                Honestly would you be able to tell the difference?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it already happened https://youtu.be/tAiZFCKW4l8

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Poo in loo, not in thread, you clinically retarded pajeet redd!tard.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >would you be able to tell the difference?
                Are you serious right now?
                So basically what you're saying is that I shouldn't even care?
                That I should just satisfy my need to consume content and just take it all in regardless of where it came from,
                That I shouldn't even worry about what's going on behind the scenes?

                You literally think like a worker ant in the hivemind, like a coghwheel in the contraption, like an actual consumerist NPC.

                Holy shit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Be assured that AI and AI art creation will not be exploiting workers in third world countries, there will be no artist sweatshops in India and Bangladesh, it is all 100% ethical.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Missed the point entirely
                That anon said that he wouldn't care if all of BOT was a huge AI and he couldn't tell the difference

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No I asked Anon if he would be able to tell the difference.
                It's a subtle difference but it's there.

                Honestly whats so different between a bunch of humans endlessly bickering about the same nonsense, making the same bait threads, posting the same images, the same copy pastas, the same threads over and over again and an AI doing the exact same thing?

                Can you same with absolute certainty that all of BOT isn't entirely bots right now?

                Is anyone else on BOT real? Were they ever?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                tis the season consume product
                you will eat the bugs and be happy
                suck the dick you fucking bigot
                get back in your pod and own nothing
                buy the bitcoin dump the dollar
                disney plus microsoft amazon prime
                tis the season consume product
                the ai took your job because you suck

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >So basically what you're saying is that I shouldn't even care?
                >That I should just satisfy my need to consume content and just take it all in regardless of where it came from,
                Yes
                >That I shouldn't even worry about what's going on behind the scenes?
                You've made it abundantly clear you don't understand or care to understand what is going on behind the scenes.
                > like an actual consumerist NPC.
                How is me having the tool ( A free tool at that) to make something consumerist?
                If anything you sound like a person that used to make cheap consumer products upset that some of those customers are no longer buying your product and choosing to make their own.

                Your the owner of mcDonalds lobbying congress to make it illegal for people to make sandwiches at home because you feel entitled to a revenue stream.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Your the owner of mcDonalds lobbying congress to make it illegal for people to make sandwiches at home because you feel entitled to a revenue stream.
                literally useful idiots, all of them lmao.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm talking about the future here, dude.
                Not a lot of imagination is required to foresee what could happen if AI will no longer be open and free.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So maybe stop trying to push for that to happen then?

                you dont live in the real world

                What world do you live in?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                what world do you live in where mcdonalds stops people making sandwiches.
                Anyone can make a cheese burger and sell it.
                YOU JUST CANT CALL IT A MCFUCKING CHEESEBURGER

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Jesus christ retard do you seriously believe AI is "stealing art"?
                Is that where this conversation is heading?
                I thought you were finally going to explain how people having access to a free open source tool was "consumerist"

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you dont live in the real world

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >will make art worthless.
                Art's only value is what you personally ascribe to it, if you like it it's worth something. People can find meaning and value in anything.
                By exponentially increasing the overal quantity of art it also exponentially increases the odds of people finding art they enjoy and find meaningful.

                >I do value sewage , that's why I support AI sewage because it exponentially multiplies the amount of sewage in the world

                Some would argue the vast majority of art even prior to AI art was garbage, you see it as more meaningful because it's your opinion that it holds worth, other people have different opinions.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >I do value sewage , that's why I support AI sewage because it exponentially multiplies the amount of sewage in the world

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          until we meet aliens its best to stick with just humans.
          And you lot call others irrational and in the clouds.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This.
      The technology is out. They are in denial, but soon when tech improves even more, companies that don't use it simply will not be able to compete. They will either use or disappear. There is no other way about it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >once a new technology is out it cannot be stopped and everyone must adapt it
        I'd rather own something, and I'd rather NOT eat the bugs, no thank you.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          this i reject the bug tofu and ai pictures paradigm.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What if technology comes for proper artifial meat, that is as real as it gets healthy but it grows on literal trees instead if coming from slaughtered livestock. Will you still eat meat only from slaightered animals?
          AI is like that, it is not advanced yet, but soon it will be.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes.
            Reject the NuWorld Order.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Based. AI art is an insult to the human spirit. Something like AI art could only ever have come out of a godless hell hole like comiefornia. Disgusting doesn't even come close.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      seething paintpig

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yep just keep repeating the same sentences over and over again, surely that'll win you the "discussion".

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You people should be put death.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You can still make art without AI. People still go camping as a hobby in the modern world.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if i was a tech bro id be investing in verification and authentication software for artists work.
    This is the new goldmine that ai tards inadvertently created.
    Just like ye olde times everything will need a wax seal of authenticity.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Or an AI reverse image search. Really makes you think when garden gnomegle nerfed theirs years ago.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They'll try to shut it down one polcels start using it for anti-Semitic purposes. Irony is this tech will be used for propaganda production. We won't know what's real or not anymore. Your online experience is just going to me amassed infowar of AI feeding you shit.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      AI will be controlled by gayMAN and used to control the population even more than it already is on social media

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm still going to use stable diffusion for fetish shit and finally making my fetish manga real.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's time to face reality art bros, adapt or become obsolete

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      An elevator operator isn't comparable to an artist.
      Artistic expression is just like thought, or speech. Or eating and sleeping.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you know what else is essential to the human experience? clothing.
        guess what was the first thing to be automated in fabrication?
        guess what is going to be automated away too? your shit filler art that no one wants to buy.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          but people still prefer clothes design by humans

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            they arent made by them.
            nor will art, it will be augmented by machines like clothing manufacturing is now.
            you have been replaced by a shell script and we are laughing at you for being mad and not happy.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              What do you do for fun? Tell me, please, and answer honestly and seriously. Let's not throw names and have a productive dialogue.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                i program all day.
                i wish i could be replaced by ai so i can not feel like i have to in order to stay sharp.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Corporations are not going to give you free money when all the jobs are replaced, just in case you thought so.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              If an artist makes a piece of art and its printed a thousand times thats the equivalent of someone designing a piece of clothes and having it made a thousand times.
              And people still prefer hand made clothes with high quality materials. Tailors still exist.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Clothing is not always artistic expression. It's just like food. You can just eat a piece of bread, or you can eat a fancy custom-made cake made with love and soul by a specialist.
          Art, however, is always artistic. Shocking, I know.
          Your argument is flawed. And you're wrong to assume I try to make money off of drawings. Not everyone who is for art is an "artgay", do you even know what the word "art" means?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            if your art looks like AI art that is a sign it is forgettable and boring.
            >art is always artistic
            uhuh....

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Art always says something, always. Take your pic, imo it's absolute garbage from a technical perspective, however what is it trying to say? Can we infer anything about the artist from it? Well, it looks to me that the idea behind it was to be "challenging", but (to me) that's it. So why did the artist produce a piece of work for no other reason than to be "challenging"? Was he just trying to appease a patron? Was he trying to mock the art community? Was this just a product of rampant capitalism; he didn't really care about what he produced just getting paid for it.

              True art can always have those kinds of questions, AI """""""""art""""""""" doesn't. With AI """art"""" the answers to all those questions is "it's just what the model put out". There is no intent behind any decision.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >wall of commie asspain
                i cant wait for the ai to replace you, you have no idea.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You're now a commie to care about humanity
                I hate Americans.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                blaming all the evil on the world as capitalism's fault is a sign of someone who will be replaced by ai.
                you will eat the bugs and live in a pod. you will own nothing and be happy.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                seething

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This is why artcucks deserve the rope

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >t. soulless moron
                Disgusting.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >do you even know what the word "art" means?
            Do you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Art, however, is always artistic
            Corporate "art" isn't and is precisely what AI is going to replace.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              that's correct, "bad art" will be replaced. anyone afraid is not a high quality artist by any means. i am okay with them being replaced by a machine that does better.

              Corporations are not going to give you free money when all the jobs are replaced, just in case you thought so.

              the world doesn't owe you or me anything. i have an ability to adapt after AI. you dont.

              It shouldn't be ignored like that, either. It's pretty dangerous, and needs to be kept in mind.
              But I kind of agree with you.

              [...]
              In this hypothetical scenario where you'll be replaced, what will you then do for fun? Also, do you think universal basic income and automation of all jobs should be a thing?

              [...]
              >"Art isn't always artistic"
              >Posts supposed art that isn't artistic
              But if it isn't artistic, it's not art

              [...]
              I hope so

              >what will you then do for fun
              generating new kinds of ai art.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >generating new kinds of ai art.
                Do you think you'll still have the control to use it as a tool? Once it's powerful enough to be used by gayMAN in their business, it'll be taken away from us.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it'll be taken away from us.
                Some of the most powerful tools used in corporate environments are open source and freely available.
                AI won't be taken away the same way Linux will never be taken away

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Do you think you'll still have the control to use it as a tool?
                yes because they can take it from my cold dead fingers. no other way.
                but they wont because you will be replaced by ai along with the rest of the Luddites with 200k of college debt.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nah there's functional artwork too. Diagrams, technical drawing and so on.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >you know what else is essential to the human experience? clothing.
          No it isn't. Clothing is more a necessity than essential

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        funny how now i can just type and create art

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's over.
    AItards have to k*ll themselves now.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Banned? Nay, more like license and only used by certain parties.
    The whole thing is just reopening the whole debate over intellectual property and digital art. It will be used a vehicle by certain parties to wrestle more power and rights from the unwashed masses.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This shit would also make fanart and parody illegal. Karla Ortiz is a monster.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      except it provably does copy things. you still on this cope?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That image was made by someone and not AI generated.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A human can come up with a novel pose or design without having seen it before. A machine cannot do this.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >A human can come up with a novel pose or design without having seen it before
        No they can't
        The best they could possibly do is mix poses they have already seen to extrapolate something new (AI can do this too BTW), but they can't come up with anything completely original.
        >n n N-No! I can come up with something totally new!
        Then post a color nobody has ever seen before, make a pose unlike anything anyone has ever seen before
        DO IT gay

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Ex nihlio ideas don't exist
          The absolute STATE of zoomers

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Prove me wrong

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

            >mix poses they have already seen to extrapolate something new
            >something new
            lol. Also an AI can't do this. An AI can't even draw a girl carrying a boy over her shoulder, let alone extrapolate a new pose.
            >post a color nobody has ever seen before
            A color that would appear on a computer is limited to the RGB/HSV range dipshit, nice try.

            >lol. Also an AI can't do this. An AI can't even draw a girl carrying a boy over her shoulder, let alone extrapolate a new pose.
            So why be afraid of it then?
            >color that would appear on a computer is limited to the RGB/HSV range dipshit
            So is your eye's ability to see it and your brain's ability to imagine it.

            Human mind combining experiences to add on to it and create something new isn't the same as some linear algebra combining data to create some interpolated (NOT extrapolated) data

            Maybe not exactly but it's a very similar process, really the difference is semantic.

            not that anon, its not impossible for a human to come with something original but in art you can count those real artists using fingers of your two hands, the number is impossibly small, compared to those geniuses, the paintpigs at artstation don't even qualify as earthworms under your feet.

            I'd argue even the mostly vividly creative ideas people have ever had were just familiar ideas, images and stories with a degree of randomness thrown in (Brain damage, mental illness, drug use, etc) which ironically enough is actually where AI art gets it's "creativity" (variation) from a degree of random noise/distortion tossed in to change things up.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Maybe not exactly but it's a very similar process, really the difference is semantic.
              Comparing the two is nihilistic, I don't care if it's just semantic, it goes against everything.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Comparing the two is nihilistic
                It's only nihilistic If I then go on to say it's a bad thing or indicative that human creativity is without value. My point is only that they are similar in their process.
                > it goes against everything.
                Goes against what specifically?
                Religion?
                Your faith in humanity?
                Your understanding of psychology/computer science?
                The model that modern AI uses was specifically based on the way that human brains process data, so of course they would be similar, which isn't to say they are exactly the same either.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The model that modern AI uses was specifically based on the way that human brains process data, so of course they would be similar, which isn't to say they are exactly the same either
                Can you elaborate? There is surprisingly little on topic posted here on BOT about how it actually works (not just use this site, these setting and this promt)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Can you elaborate?
                Yeah, modern AI use what are known as "neural networks" which are based on the structure of human neurons and how they transmit information in the brain. In the case of AI art programs the process is based on how humans will build a visual library of known sights (basic shapes, a cat, a dog, colors, etc the very first things you teach infants are what things in their environment are so they can recognize them) and then not only can people recognize those objects but they can extrapolate in their minds combinations of them ( A ball in the snow) or envision variations on them (A ball made of water), AI art does much the same thing by providing with enough tagged images the AI can associate words with concepts and from there extrapolate them in combinations or variations much like a human can.

                Now obviously the AI isn't sapient so it can't do this by itself but the actual behind the scenes process of what's going on is not only based on but nearly identical to how humans do the same thing.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Seeing a snow, and then seeing a ball
                And then imagining: "ball in snow"
                Why do you call that extrapolation and not interpolation?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Because they're the same damn thing and I refuse to parlay with your fancy pretentious semantic gay talk

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >AI art does much the same thing by providing with enough tagged images the AI can associate words with concepts and from there extrapolate them in combinations or variations much like a human can.
                initially how does it separate objects in these images? or is it fed only images of objects without any back, for example an image of a ball in literally white background (or not background) is fed to ai, it alsa has a tag "ball", is this how its done initially?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                i dont really know, but i guess that if for example you get multiple images that have a ball in it and that is the only thing they share you kind of guess that thing is a ball.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You see thats important, how does it guess if there are two images with same object in them (the object might not be exactly the same in two images), thats what I am trying to understand. How does it guess.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >mix poses they have already seen to extrapolate something new
          >something new
          lol. Also an AI can't do this. An AI can't even draw a girl carrying a boy over her shoulder, let alone extrapolate a new pose.
          >post a color nobody has ever seen before
          A color that would appear on a computer is limited to the RGB/HSV range dipshit, nice try.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You must be egyptian to be so deep in denial.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Do you know the difference beteween interpolation and extrapolation?
              Getting the average of a set of data is the definition of interpolation. That is the fundamental concept of AI. It's how it works.
              It by definition, cannot create something new. It just returns something based on things given to it. That's why the datasets need to be insanely huge for it to be good.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You are so painfully dumb, you clearly haven't been on BOT for a second longer than you've learned about SD-like art generators. I'm talking genuinely clinically retarded. Not in the BOT meme sense, but legitimately. Amazing!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >throws insults
                >doesn't elaborate
                Nice

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There is no need to elaborate. All people with above sea level IQ understand the post. All people below are unable to understand explanations in the first place, regardless of their nature.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Explain how an AI can generate something that isn't included or even referenced anywhere in its dataset?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                this, so much this. Already seen prompters complaining they can't create certain art and styles because the data doesn't exist.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >this, so much this.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I look like that.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks for the question.
                In bayesian formulations (including VAEs and diffusions), the latents end up being N(0, I) on average. Generation proceeds, roughly speaking (because it goes through more steps in diffusions) by first sampling from the latents, then decoding into an image.
                Taking a sample that's outside N(0, I) is, by definition, extrapolation. And yes, this works as you would expect.
                In non-bayesian contexts, the points in the latent space that are not equal to mapped points in the train set are not actually interpolations, but extrapolations as well. That is because the "feasible space" is actually a low-dimensional subspace of the full manifold expressed by the latent space: only elements on that subspace are interpolations.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Neither can you

                Yes, and that's called "innovation", I believe. An AI cannot do that. Wanna know why? It's not human. Art is by definition a human thing.

                Most human can't innovate(including inkcels) by same definitions they aren't human

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Getting the average of a set of data is the definition of interpolation. That is the fundamental concept of AI. It's how it works.
                >It by definition, cannot create something new. It just returns something based on things given to it.
                Just like the absolute majority of humans.

                >That's why the datasets need to be insanely huge for it to be good.
                yes, a person is product of all his life experiences, that is also a dataset in a way, an artcel who is wafched some disney movie and the looked at other artcel shoddy work then interpolates and creates even more interpolated unoriginal work using existing low quality art as reference.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I agree.
                But human creativity just isn't comparable to some algorithms.
                It means more than just a "combination of everything you've seen lol, just like AI"

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                what disturbs me in these arguments is people excluding completely the fact humans are capable of creating completely new things.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, and that's called "innovation", I believe. An AI cannot do that. Wanna know why? It's not human. Art is by definition a human thing.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >But human creativity just isn't comparable to some algorithms.
                On abstrack level it is.

                >It means more than just a "combination of everything you've seen lol, just like AI"
                I doubt that, maybe it happens occasionally, someone think of something completely new and original, but most of human thought is based on what they had seen and heard, or actually what they experienced with their 5 senses since birth (or since they can remember.
                Wait until same AI is fed not just images but sound as well, or even more sensory imputs, imputs like detecting past visible range of colors, detecting electromagnetic radiation, xray vision etc. These are just early days of AI tech.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You see, intellectually and materialistically, I know that you're right. What you're saying is absolutely correct.
                But I just won't accept those kind of things, because they go against what it means to be human.
                It's kind of like religion vs atheism, beliefs and values vs nihilism.
                This is what happens when society gets demoralized.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not here to argue or advocate either side of soul/soulless, religion/atheism

                But the truths that you have come up with are incorrect, its upto you to deny or accept them, but in the long run simply believing in something that is not right will not benefit in any way and instead you will lose out. If you are ok with that then its fine, each to their own.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >he thinks if people say soulless its a religious statement
                I hate you tippers so much

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What is it then? Spiritual? Or is it just feelings argument that you are unable to categorise/quantify therefore just come up with blanket term "soul"?

                Also in that post I referred religion only because anon mentioned it in his post

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What did you mean by not right?
                NTA

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                regarding art, look at people and the way they think, their thought processess, your a person, try and analyze yourself from abstract point of view, when you encounter art and you get those feelings, don't just blanket it as "soul", look into your mind, the real processes, what caused those feelings, start slow, just get the generic understanding, then dig deeper, there are many aspects of art, many people see and understand it differently, but the answers you will come up with will be specific to you and people similar to you but they will definitely be closer and in the right direction to true meaning and understand of art that applies to everyone.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I already debunked cultural atheist fallacy in another thread.
                Athiesm is just the belief there is no god, its not a church.

                And soul is every day language
                A part of humans regarded as immaterial, immortal, separable from the body at death, capable of moral judgment, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
                This part of a human when disembodied after death.
                In Aristotelian philosophy, an animating or vital principle inherent in living things and endowing them in various degrees with the potential to grow and reproduce, to move and respond to stimuli (as in the case of animals), and to think rationally (as in the case of humans).

                It roughly means the human quality or life. Its an acknowledgement it this argument that art is made by a human.
                I dont give a fuck if people do or not believe in a soul for fucking religious or atheist reasons.
                Its still valid art is made by humans and has metaphysical intangible qualities. I again proved this to materialist schizos in another thread

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Materialist nihilism has destroyed the western world

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >capable of moral judgment, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
                those are just feelings, though processes caused by some event in physical world, each of those proceses are different and have different effects on your mind.
                The things you talk about are feelings and emotions, these are functions of the brain, they can only be considered methaphysical because science have not understood them yet completely but we will one day (and it will be soon)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                fuck off chimp don't cherry pick. The human quality to art is intangible just like your sentimentality to your favourite things. You are not perfectly rational no human is.
                Lost count how many ai proponents stat engaging in superstitious prophetic ranting over ai calling it an oracle and heralding singularity

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The human quality to art is intangible
                Thats incorrect, human is just a biological machine, a biological computer, thoughts don't appear out of nothing, with right tool and technology it would be possible to completely understand a mind of each and every person

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                refer to

                I heckin love science!
                we're all just talking, thinking, hairless apes made out of stardust, living on a spinning ball moving at 1305100 mph!

                nihilist scum

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                your feelings is not an argument

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The fact that every single civilization before us collapsed when it became intellectual and materialistic is

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Its a problem. how do you solve a problem? Either use a existing solution which has it pros and cons or device a new one.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Surely it'll work this time
                I heckin LOOOOVE science!111

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So should science stop devising new better ways to solve important problems?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                WHAT.
                You're right. But those are problems, that were created, by it. It's creating problems then solving them, and the solutions create more problems.
                Everything would've been better if society wasn't this material, but science promotes materialism.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It's creating problems then solving them,
                yes
                >and the solutions create more problems.
                Thats not guaranteed in any way, it happens with some problems, it doesn't happen with other. It may happen in this case or it may not, we won't know until we solve the problem and see if any new problems appeared

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it'd be better if science was more physical. I want a robot, to serve me lemonade. But why does everyone assume the robot needs an "ai" i just need it to serve me lemonade.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                making ai art isnt solving a problem let alone an important problem

                we already have artists and they have all the tools they need.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The problem was I wanted an endless amount of fanart of very specific niche characters nobody cares about and I can't draw and I have no money.

                Hey would you look at that I found something that solves that problem

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Then you just draw them?
                Do you know what "produce" or "learn & improve" means?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                how is it fan art? it wasn't made by artists
                >i want a lot of shitty pictures

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                never said art is about solving problems, that reply was about society collapsing due to materialism, anon argued we should not become intellectual and materialistic to prevent collapse(existing solution), I said we should try and device another way, new solution, to solve the problem.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                we should stop focusing on the digital as a substitute for our own minds.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But it can be an extension

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Right now we're all intellectual and materialistic, the problem could be solved by introducing back old values, and incorporating them into modern life. Combining the two sides. I don't know if it's possible, seems like it. One side would definitely limit the other, but still keep it to the necessary extent for technology, while the rest, is spiritual.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you have mental retardation what part of a work of art is human biology?

                You see two identical pieces of art one made by a human the other is a machine copying them.
                How are they different? they are physically identical. Why would the human one be different? it has nothing to with your physiology

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I never said that, check your reading comprehension

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                i understand you fine dumbshit, i understand you are not being truthful.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >everything is chemical processes in the brain.
                Art being made by a human is a quality you can ascribe to a piece of art that has no physical basis.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If it is a physical object then it has physical basis. The combination and arrangement of materials maybe somewhat uncommon but it is quantifiable, if it quantifiable then a pattern can be found (might not be easy to find it, but nothing is random therefore it has pattern)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                what else has the painting got? you are lying to reach your conclusion

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Colors and shapes? There is nothing else in a painting.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                kek seriously that is your final argument? You lie.
                We know and this is completely logical that the human art piece has intelligence, emotion, intent, meaning and history behind it.
                A machine piece has none of that. So the human art piece has intangible non-physical qualities and we know for a FACT it does its pure logic.
                So fuck off with that rationalist larp you aren't rational at all.

                Anyway the human brain doesn't operate consciously at a chemical level its below chemical

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >kek seriously that is your final argument? You lie.
                >We know and this is completely logical that the human art piece has intelligence, emotion, intent, meaning and history behind it.
                The artist who created the piece may had that and it influenced his creative process, the piece does not have any of those things

                >A machine piece has none of that. So the human art piece has intangible non-physical qualities and we know for a FACT it does its pure logic.
                everything is logic, even your feelings are product of logic, feelings are not intangible, they can be explained, they can be recreated (to some extent even with current science)

                >So fuck off with that rationalist larp you aren't rational at all.
                >Anyway the human brain doesn't operate consciously at a chemical level its below chemical
                what is it called? What is that level below chemical?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Wow you're so smart anon, you know how the universe works! WOAH

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                When did I mention universe? What does universe have to do with with this topic or conversation?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No you are wrong and lying. The piece inherently has those things BECAUSE a human made it. You don't even need to know what all these things exactly were, so its not about subjectivity.

                You tell me science! guy what is below chemical?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'd asome below the chemical level are le neurons, electircity flowing thro em?
                NTA

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                whats below electricity? did you get your education in the ussr?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I dunno, why would I have to know

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it debunks the statement everything is just chemical reactions in the brain if its not actually chemicals

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The piece inherently has those things BECAUSE a human made
                does not matter who made it, a thing that cannot think (a live person or an advanced AGI) can't have those things

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                it doesn't matter and if you deny it you are denying reality.
                And yes an art piece by a person ALWAYS has those things, this is what DEFINES art

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it doesn't matter and if you deny it you are denying reality
                can a piece of rock think? Can it have feeling?

                What defines it is what happens to you when you look at it, when you stand infront of painting, light hits the painting, reflects and enters your eyes, which then transform it into electrical signal and send it down the optic nerve, your brain interprets the signal, converts it into something that your concious mind can see and understand, colors, shapes, objects, people portrayed in the painting, then that information (the combination of it) might cause some reaction in your brain, for example it might cause unconcious fear which will then trigger specific neural response that will release some chemical or mixture of chemicals which might cause the FEELING of distress and dread (that in itself is neurons creating a appropriate reaction to specific stimulus aka feeling) . That is basically it, explore human brain and find out what (might be a certain combination of things) causes specific responses and you have it
                Art.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >trying to explain the human experience to an NPC

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                are you fucking retarded? the guy you are responding to is the npc because he denies art has an intangible human quality.

                >it doesn't matter and if you deny it you are denying reality
                can a piece of rock think? Can it have feeling?

                What defines it is what happens to you when you look at it, when you stand infront of painting, light hits the painting, reflects and enters your eyes, which then transform it into electrical signal and send it down the optic nerve, your brain interprets the signal, converts it into something that your concious mind can see and understand, colors, shapes, objects, people portrayed in the painting, then that information (the combination of it) might cause some reaction in your brain, for example it might cause unconcious fear which will then trigger specific neural response that will release some chemical or mixture of chemicals which might cause the FEELING of distress and dread (that in itself is neurons creating a appropriate reaction to specific stimulus aka feeling) . That is basically it, explore human brain and find out what (might be a certain combination of things) causes specific responses and you have it
                Art.

                You are mentally retarded.
                The rock doesn't have feeling you imbecilic autist.

                You pick up a rock its just like any other rock, bit now it's your rock. You give it to someone its a gift. Its now their favourite rock.

                This isn't a physical quality you insufferable moron

                You are flat out denying reality.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >are you fucking retarded? the guy you are responding to is the npc because he denies art has an intangible human quality.
                yes
                >This isn't a physical quality you insufferable moron
                kek

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >are you fucking retarded? the guy you are responding to is the npc because he denies art has an intangible human quality.
                >Npc is a fine term in appropriate context (mainly 4chan), but not it this discussion

                >You are mentally retarded.
                >The rock doesn't have feeling you imbecilic autist.
                >You pick up a rock its just like any other rock, bit now it's your rock. You give it to someone its a gift. Its now their favourite rock.
                >This isn't a physical quality you insufferable moron
                Rock does not think, a person liking somerhing or someone is a physical quality, a chemical in brain is released which then creates a memory of sort which is basically a preference for some specific thing

                >You are flat out denying reality.
                no I am not

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you are fucking retarded your subjectivity is not the point you human cow
                The rock thinking is not the point you moronic fuck

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What is the point then, be specific

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                think about it. The art piece has meaning behind it. You personally don't need to be part of this for it to be true. We are talking about the author

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you tard. the work intrinsically can be said to be the product of his emotions. We see their emotions in the painting
                >but i dont exactly know what he was thinking
                it doesnt matter just the fact you KNOW it does.
                Its communication.

                That is different to saying the work itself has emotions and this has been said many times in this thread.
                Yes the work was influenced by artist having certain emotions

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Those two things mean the same thing

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                please use precise language when neccassary, this thread is an example when vagueness and double meaning can have terrible effect on conversation

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                No

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                no one said the work had emotions as in it has feeling you dumbass. ffs you are a dunce.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                try reading the replies in this tread

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the only guy that said it was this guy

                >it doesn't matter and if you deny it you are denying reality
                can a piece of rock think? Can it have feeling?

                What defines it is what happens to you when you look at it, when you stand infront of painting, light hits the painting, reflects and enters your eyes, which then transform it into electrical signal and send it down the optic nerve, your brain interprets the signal, converts it into something that your concious mind can see and understand, colors, shapes, objects, people portrayed in the painting, then that information (the combination of it) might cause some reaction in your brain, for example it might cause unconcious fear which will then trigger specific neural response that will release some chemical or mixture of chemicals which might cause the FEELING of distress and dread (that in itself is neurons creating a appropriate reaction to specific stimulus aka feeling) . That is basically it, explore human brain and find out what (might be a certain combination of things) causes specific responses and you have it
                Art.

                Because hes a retard.

                Not once did anyone say art having emotions meant it was alive.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It metaphorically is, tho.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Not once did anyone say art having emotions meant it was alive
                Where did this 'alive' come from now?

                Just to clarify
                art is not alive,
                art has no emotions, it does not feel emotions
                art has no feeling, art does not feel

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                holy shit you are retarded. You think because someone says a painting has emotion in it, they mean the painting has actual feelings

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                ok youtube

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you retarded fuck what you looking at the painting has jack all to do to the point. Your emotions are irrelevent.
                THE INDISPUTABLE FACT IS THE HUMAN AUTHOR DID YOU DUMB CUNT

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >THE INDISPUTABLE FACT IS THE HUMAN AUTHOR DID YOU DUMB CUNT
                Thats what I have been saying, human author had emotions but his work does not have emotions.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you tard. the work intrinsically can be said to be the product of his emotions. We see their emotions in the painting
                >but i dont exactly know what he was thinking
                it doesnt matter just the fact you KNOW it does.
                Its communication.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >are you fucking retarded? the guy you are responding to is the npc because he denies art has an intangible human quality.
                >Npc is a fine term in appropriate context (mainly 4chan), but not it this discussion

                >You are mentally retarded.
                >The rock doesn't have feeling you imbecilic autist.
                >You pick up a rock its just like any other rock, bit now it's your rock. You give it to someone its a gift. Its now their favourite rock.
                >This isn't a physical quality you insufferable moron
                Rock does not think, a person liking somerhing or someone is a physical quality, a chemical in brain is released which then creates a memory of sort which is basically a preference for some specific thing

                >You are flat out denying reality.
                no I am not

                how are you not able to understand other people? Anon's point had nothing to do with subjectivity.
                Every time someone says art has meaning and human intelligence by it you spergs start going on about your subjective perspective.
                The thing has meaning whether you exist or not. Your views and "biology" are irrelevant to the point the art piece has meaning

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I understand. You are simply incorrect. You are trying to prove things that have no basis in anything, logic, reality, science, you are using language that is accepted in artistic circles that is very imprecise and vague, and when I try to clarify things in logical way people scream at me YOU ARE INCORECT WHY DONT YOU UNDRSTAND FUCKYUFUCKYU

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                its completely logical you retarded low iq dunning kruger.
                If you look at an art piece you know it was made by a human

                Just like you can tell natural phenomenon from a painting.

                You are so stupid and full of shit its unreal. Retard.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                AI can also make art
                even animals have made art, not high quality but passable for artstation

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                AI doesnt have a human author Ai isn't intelligent. You RETARD

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                AI is not human but it made mediocre art (good enough), animals arent human and aren't intelligent but they have made art

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                an ai isnt intelligent. its a fucking toaster you lunatic

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Biological computer is still a computer

                What art animals made?
                Is a parrot chirping a tune art? I'd say so.
                And I'd also say that makes that characteristic of it human.

                I have seen crows and elephants paint

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Biological computer is still a computer
                As in something that can compute something sure

                >I have seen crows and elephants paint
                That makes them partially human, then

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >As in something that can compute something sure
                computers by definition compute, a brain computes, a pc also computes

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah sure, I can count my fingers. I'm computing.

                This is why there needs to be serious discussion before politicians go making rash and retarded decisions.
                >ban ai in art
                >have to step on egg shells everytime someone code a tool for generating something
                >procedural generation (in games or not in games) goes into the too hard (legally) basket for game companies

                Tool that generates something isn't necessarily AI.
                Procedural generation isn't AI.

                >They're conveyed, through it.
                So they are made in specific way to cause emotions in an observer, yes

                Yes, so that's why people say, that there's emotions "inside of" a piece of art. It "contains" them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes, so that's why people say, that there's emotions "inside of" a piece of art. It "contains" them
                Fine in casual conversation but definitely not in the thread like where many people try to be as vague as humanly possible and then scream back when everyone misinterprets what they said.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I haven't seen that
                What was the discussion about, anyway?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I am not sure tbh

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If people are actually banning AI in art
                Then that's HOLY BASED
                Nihilists absolutely BTFO'd

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That cannot be enforced and it is not going to work.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                no one was being vague you autistic buffoon. The point was when an artist makes an art piece its a snapshot of their state of mind and emotion, they had to actually think to make it and want to make it.

                This isn't illogical, this is logical and you are a retard

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Like the only thing that could count as AI in art out of my examples is UE5's LOD system, in that case, fuck them.

                Then you get into a legal debate of what ai is
                There's no legal definition i'm aware of that defines this.
                We (or we should) know what it is. But others don't.

                Imagine getting letters in your email because you're accused of generating something possibily using their assets.
                How many lamp posts look the same?

                Either we allow everything or we spend many years debating and refining this which halts the progression.

                If it becomes a situstion where you must source your own data for training a model, there is then barely any open source ai and it will be in 99% control of big tech/government

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Regular code isn't AI, dude. NPC's in a game aren't AI, even if they're called so.
                Anything with a neural network is AI. Pretty easy to define I think

                If stopping it doesn't work... tehn....
                Yeah best solution is probably to just try to get as much control over it, make it free, and open, and if it's not, then send a mail bomb to whoever's responsible, until it is.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Regular code isn't AI, dude. NPC's in a game aren't AI, even if they're called so.
                I know.
                Legally speaking, what is ai?
                I don't think it's defined

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >If it becomes a situstion where you must source your own data for training a model, there is then barely any open source ai and it will be in 99% control of big tech/government
                Technology is out, big corps will have monopoly until some nolifer programmer comes up with his own and says fuck you to big corps and releases it under some open license

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah they can write an alogrithm but where is the data going to come from if you're not allowed to collect data from the internet (i.e. publicly accessible art)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Brains are not computers they do not compute to do what they do.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What art animals made?
                Is a parrot chirping a tune art? I'd say so.
                And I'd also say that makes that characteristic of it human.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What art animals made?
                Is a parrot chirping a tune art? I'd say so.
                And I'd also say that makes that characteristic of it human.

                Oh and don't get me wrong.
                AI isn't comparable to animals, retard.

                >Not once did anyone say art having emotions meant it was alive
                Where did this 'alive' come from now?

                Just to clarify
                art is not alive,
                art has no emotions, it does not feel emotions
                art has no feeling, art does not feel

                Art doesn't feel emotions, but it IS emotional.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Art doesn't feel emotions,
                >but it IS emotional.
                As in piece of art can cause emotions, yes

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Specific ones, and intentionally. They're conveyed, through it. That makes it emotional.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >They're conveyed, through it.
                So they are made in specific way to cause emotions in an observer, yes

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                are you the leftoid that goes around proclaiming art was always dead because some gay pooped in a can
                Your argument is purely because you seethe at religion.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I love classical paintings and sculpture, also architecture, modern art is garbage

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                ahh so you enjoy the metaphysics of classic art.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I just like the way they look. Liking it is a neural response and I understand what it is and why it happens. Dunno if that meraphtsics or not

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you are ascribing greater value to the classical because of its virtues.
                Smells like meta to me.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                thats a fair point, I am human being so I have my own irrationalities, but I will look into your point and will try to understand it (and myself and reasons for it)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                is materialistic philosophy physical or metaphysical. Can you hold the meaning in materialist essay?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >materialistic philosophy
                no clue about it

                > physical or metaphysical
                again I don't, never studied philosophy, it really is irrelevant in this discussion

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >If it is a physical object then it has physical basis.
                So digital art isn't art

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Its an art and its evem more easily quantifiable than physical art because it already exists as data and can be analyzed

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But it's not physical

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you don't know what metaphysical means.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Metaphysical =/= super natural or paranormal you mong.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Never said its supernatural or paranormal

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you implied that by using the definition of paranormal

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Human mind combining experiences to add on to it and create something new isn't the same as some linear algebra combining data to create some interpolated (NOT extrapolated) data

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          not that anon, its not impossible for a human to come with something original but in art you can count those real artists using fingers of your two hands, the number is impossibly small, compared to those geniuses, the paintpigs at artstation don't even qualify as earthworms under your feet.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Human brain is way more complex than a machine, since machines uses a binary system while the the brain uses several points, is not a series of "else if" like the computer.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It is irrelevant how neurons work or how logic gates in cpu work, what matters is high level code or high level functions work.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Redpill

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >they're just afraid and angry that they're being outperformed by linear algebra!
      Strawman

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >AI """art""""
      AI can not create art. Art is an expression of the human condition. AI """"""""art""""""""" is a pretty picture generator. It will never be, and can never be, art.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No shit. It's just an upcoming gayMAN power device, advertised as a way for anyone to make beautiful art so it becomes popular.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nice cope. That generator is used by a human so it's still an expression of the human condition through prompts.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Until it isn't
          It's not even meant to be a tool, it's meant to be a replacement
          And when it becomes good enough, it will be automated and used by gayMAN

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          yes its an expression of the laziness and soulless of the generator and prompter

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >soulless

            Sounds like a skill issue.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Please post something interesting

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not really relevant since theres no graspable ideas being conveyed
          >oh why did you use this colour?
          >idk
          >why did you make the feet really shitty?
          >limitations of the tools being used, one day the tech guys will fix it and I'll just have to wait
          >what prompts did you use?
          >thats a trade secret, I don't want others to compete with me on the prompting business

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            this is pretty much it, the pictures are mindless and quote tasteless even unaesthetic.
            Its interesting what some of the prompters choose to pic is just revealing how bad their eye for aesthetic is.
            We already have bad art so why do we need an infinite bad art generator. Its just pollution.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Is that really all you could think of when replying to that?

            Okay, I'll bite. Most of the color is based on the character/landscape you want to draw which is based on your memory or the little research you did on it.

            Feet and hands are fixable if you're not a skillet. Prompts aren't even wallkeeped, a few seconds on the SD threads would suffice to prove you wrong.

            As expected you wannabe artists are retarded

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >why did you use that color
              >I googled landscape and used those colors
              >why are the feet shitty?
              >you can just crop the image

              as for prompts you might as well link the tool used and all the parameters with metadata then

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It doesn't take much imagination to see where this is currently going.
          The best option is to simultaneously for the full freedom of technology and it's removal.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Being an artist is already hard enough
        Can't imagine how lame it must be that all those hours you spent honing a craft get competition from people inserting prompts into a computer.

        Like are they going to kys themselves now

        Art always says something, always. Take your pic, imo it's absolute garbage from a technical perspective, however what is it trying to say? Can we infer anything about the artist from it? Well, it looks to me that the idea behind it was to be "challenging", but (to me) that's it. So why did the artist produce a piece of work for no other reason than to be "challenging"? Was he just trying to appease a patron? Was he trying to mock the art community? Was this just a product of rampant capitalism; he didn't really care about what he produced just getting paid for it.

        True art can always have those kinds of questions, AI """""""""art""""""""" doesn't. With AI """art"""" the answers to all those questions is "it's just what the model put out". There is no intent behind any decision.

        See

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

        [...]

        I don't care. I will continue to generate chocolate milfs and there's nothing anyone can do about it

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I suppose russian state will use AI tools to do hybrid warfare online

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Implying foreign states don't already do this

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            china has been doing this for over a decade where tf have you been lmao

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >StableDefusion 2.0 removed all copyrighted images from its 1.0 training dataset
      Source. Also if it's the same model as 1.0 but just being trained on a different dataset, that doesn't solve the problem.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    He won

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    hm.. pay a hobby "troubled artist" that will spend 7 out of 8 h/day jerking off instead of producing or spend 7-8 hours proooooompting. i'm result oriented, i know my pick

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What will be the point of paying for anything? If all will become worthless? In an endless sea of AI generated content, nothing is worth anything.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        this anon gets it. What will have worth is the artist that spends days skillfully produci

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          ..ing art.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          gger

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >prove you actually made it yourself!
          It'll still decrease in worth even if traditional, because there will be no way to know what is and isn't honest

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            but thats false read the article in the op. People are already devising ways to prove authenticity.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Not really an objection if it's good news, thanks for informing me

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >because there will be no way to know what is and isn't honest
            Artists will just have to upload the psd or project file that the image came out of rather than just posting an image

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    resistance is futile, meatbags

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://twitter.com/ayrieton/status/1604794732260995072

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Being an artist is already hard enough
    Can't imagine how lame it must be that all those hours you spent honing a craft get competition from people inserting prompts into a computer.

    Like are they going to kys themselves now

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      hopefully

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >insterting prompts
      Before it becomes a fully automatic social media shilling tool to boost consumerism and big-tech profits & control by 999%

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Muh feels
      this is literally industrialisation of creative industries
      its so bad, the same way industrialisation of manual labour was so bad that you get to enjoy all modern amenities and be able to go on internet and post your retard thought using conputer that was literally assembled by robots. You would instead wait 5 years for a master and apprentice to build you pc/house/car/every other things made by robots from scratch.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        arts also a dialogue between the creator and people witnessing it.
        Like of course anything human brain can do you can imitative on a computer, we'd just probably be better off if we had longer period of the dialogue part of art being kept alive rather than "well we got to 3nm process node so now we got the power to do anything right now"

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Everything became soulless when objects weren't handmade anymore

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Shitty argument, your computer and your car is soulless, pretty much everything you have in your house is soulless and thats good enough for most things otherwise people (inc you) would still be living in middle ages waiting for the every thing to be made by human craftsman for 10 times the cost and 100 times the wait time.
          art is the same, absolutely every illiustration on artstation is irrelevant to people, they may not even look at it evdn once or think about it for longer than 0.05 seconds if they encounter it somewhere in the real world, having 99.9% of illiustrations generated by AI is simply better for entire human population(but not for unscrupulous illiustrator holding ordinary people hostage). The real art seen in galeries is full of soul, that is what cannot be just good enough, it has to be near perfect, that will be created by real human artists with one in billion talent. And if such person does not appear we will enjoy and appriciate beautiful works from the past.
          but the art industry will be opened for everyoje benefit not just select few

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Good

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i'm still laughing at how dumb Sweeney is this is like when he went up against Apple

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm going to use it for concept art for my indie projects and there's nothing anyone can do to stop me
    Mwahahahahaha

    My art ai is coming for your non-existent job!!!!!

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Banned for being a refund nightmare
    No refunds.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Any artist with real passion is either exploring this new tool, finding it's limitations and imagining how it can be used to explore new boundaries, or they're traditionalists who don't care at all and just do it for the craft. The whiners can put down their stylus and go get a proper job

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This.
      The people complaining are too stupid to work out how to utilise this for their own purposes

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this
      anyone who fears AI fears it because they are shit at what they do and dont want to feel inferior to a machine.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It shouldn't be ignored like that, either. It's pretty dangerous, and needs to be kept in mind.
      But I kind of agree with you.

      i program all day.
      i wish i could be replaced by ai so i can not feel like i have to in order to stay sharp.

      In this hypothetical scenario where you'll be replaced, what will you then do for fun? Also, do you think universal basic income and automation of all jobs should be a thing?

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

      if your art looks like AI art that is a sign it is forgettable and boring.
      >art is always artistic
      uhuh....

      >"Art isn't always artistic"
      >Posts supposed art that isn't artistic
      But if it isn't artistic, it's not art

      >Art, however, is always artistic
      Corporate "art" isn't and is precisely what AI is going to replace.

      I hope so

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What is "artistic"?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >It's pretty dangerous
        dangerous for artcels like you
        and that's a good thing

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      My day job is traditional commercial art and I'm exploring how to use this in my work flow

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The only reason it would become regulated is if it's so good people can't tell.
    Guess what will happen, given people can't tell? Protip: it's not artpoors winning that one.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You mean like the forgery business?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, but "worse" because there's no original to copy off of anymore, so you can't say "this isn't real because there's a missing letter on the bottom right".

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          do you get what im saying? you fucking retard. Forgery is illegal, ai art is for con men is what you are saying

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes? Are you so moronbrained you didn't get it? It doesn't matter what man says is allowed or not. People will do anything for a dime or fame. Doubly so when they will never be caught because the reason it was banned in the first place is because it was impossible to detect.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              you fucking lizard brained troll. You saying ai art can mimic an artist isn't a defence of it its proof it needs to be banned
              >it doesn't matter
              its why we have laws you actual moron.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I accept your surrender, cletus.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you are mentally ill and low iq

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              t. mentally retarded.

              Your entire position is that it should be used to con people.
              You are a troll you only see things in terms of how they can fool others and take advantage of them.
              Thats how you gauge utility
              Your argument is literally this is good because it will help crime.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you are mentally ill and low iq

                Keep coping and seething, dumb samegayging artpoor.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >do you get what im saying? you fucking retard. Forgery is illegal, ai art is for con men is what you are saying

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    So helpful, man, you've really shown em!
    You know, you're only making yourself, and your side, look more like a fool. I hope you realize that.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      keep the tears coming, paintpig

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i swear ai art proponents all sound retarded.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      they have obvious behavioural disorders that impair their thinking. Though a lot are just very low effort trolls.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      they have obvious behavioural disorders that impair their thinking. Though a lot are just very low effort trolls.

      >artcel seething in rage stoops to samegayging
      KEK

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        keep digging you are doing a good job of burying ai

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    IS THAT AN AI ART?! AAAA I AM GOING BANKRUPT
    SAVE ME DISNEYMAN

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don't really get this picture
      It's 2 different things said by 2 different sides, not the same side. AI advocates are the same people who want all labor to be automated.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I don't really get this picture
        congratulations, you are retarded

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          or perhaps the one who made it is retarded
          that's usually the people who have to use memes like this to advocate for their cause, retards

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I hope this is a joke and nobody this deeply mentally impaired is actually sharing a board with me.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There's literally nothing wrong with AI-generated art.
    Inkcels are just angry because they're gonna lose their "jobs".

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >biggest advocates for ai are trolls, alt-right tards and other dumb crass people

    Ai is slowly becoming synonymous with dumb asshole

    artificial idiocy?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You WILL submit to the AI tittties!!!

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What is this expression conveying? Also that's a very inconveniently elevated bar table.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >preddit spacing
      nuff said

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it is a real thing seen in the wild and i love it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ironic since so much prompting is being done with illegal pedophile models

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          anime boobies doesn't care about your feelings

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      kek m8 are you crying right now? poor little paintpig...

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >"DEY TOOK 'ER JERBS!" LOL! DUMB HICKS! ADAPT OR DIE!
    >NOOOOOOOOO AI ART IS GONNA TAKE OUR JOBS!!!!! NOOOOOO!!!!!!!
    how the turn tables

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      But friend, I hated both of those things.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >he missed the point of the thread
      its the opposite its very ironic

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Do digital artists care about all the jobs they replaced? Fucking nope lol

      For example: they don't even know that multiple, if not all, jobs in the comic making process (penciling, inking, lettering, coloring, and color separation) were all done by separate people. You were considered a god-king if you do all of those, a polymath. Digital artists do today in their bedroom in an afternoon what used to take a studio to do in a week.

      Digital art wasn't called real art for ages. The very act of copying and pasting a body part was seen as cheating and downloading pictures as piracy. Nowadays they use some of the fanciest brushes and scripts you can imagine to make their lives easier; you are considered dumb if you don't.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        eh traditional illustrators just hopped over to computers in the 90s.
        You gays always talk about artists not understanding others but you are clueless that they were the first to have their jobs outsourced and to change to technology. Printing press eliminated a lot of manual work, computers eliminated a lot of manual work.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >90s

          I actually went to art school, and they were filled with traditionalists that hated digital in the early 2010s. Most previous professionals stuck with draft boards and would simply scan their drawings into computers if they really needed to use a dreaded computer.

          The big reason why I switched over to a computer science degree was because the art classes refused to teach and use the latest technology.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            i'm talking about professionally in the 90s. People had to hop over to computers while before they were doing everything with airbrush etc

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Major games companies saying no to ai and going human only
    Time to found some new disruptive gaming startups boys.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I like the way you think

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Anon soon gave up after being unable to generate a single consistently animated sprite.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >America bans AI art
    >EU bans AI art
    >China does fuck all, continues to push development, all art jobs end up out-sourced to chinese render farms
    The war on AI art is literally unwinnable as long as even one country decides "fuck inkcels".

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    All the AI chud seethe in this thread lol. Maybe you should have trained it on wikimedia instead.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      why? i'd rather train it on interesting text instead.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Are people trying to bad textgen too? Honestly it's more dangerous than image gen.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i swear most of this ai shilling is coming from asian incels from china.
    The creative scene in china is already full of shameless stealing of others work and they seem to always be related to the seething of western copyright laws since it prevents them selling stolen stuff to westerners.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      its mostly poojeets and chinks also tacos

      They love the idea of zero work

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        that's really what it comes down to
        it was the chaff trying to take out valuable currency again since theirs has no value

        sorry, poors
        even if it's worthless to us, it's our money not yours

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it's almost like they dont give a literal flying fuck about all of our copyright laws or something....

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        i swear most of this ai shilling is coming from asian incels from china.
        The creative scene in china is already full of shameless stealing of others work and they seem to always be related to the seething of western copyright laws since it prevents them selling stolen stuff to westerners.

        is this some sort of chud art discord raid?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        again why do you think this is a good thing? does your brain only process everything in how much of an asshole it can be to another.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >defending the chinese wanting no copyright laws so they can just steal and sell for their profit.
        Are you chinese? no one disagrees with copyright but thieves. People that want to leech off others labor.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          chinese are theives no question about it. the first step to solving a problem is admitting it is a problem to begin with.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >no one disagrees with copyright but thieves.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            who the fuck disagrees with copyright?
            Commies?
            What are your arguments? you believe another should just take anothers ip and profit from it.
            You gays are all for it until it happens to you. See the cases of the AI people complaining their stuff CAN'T be copyrighted.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Literally everyone except garden gnomes disagrees with IP.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                no. Great argument poltard. The irony is you are supporting ironically the same thing you hate, shyster business practice.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >cries about pol out of nowhere
                hmm... I wonder who could be behind this post

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >who the fuck disagrees with copyright?
              Anybody with half a brain who isn't on the board of directors of Disney and their legal department?
              >What are your arguments?
              It's fucking ridiculous to think you can establish squatters rights on an idea and then aggressively sue anyone who makes any derivative work or anything that just happens to seem similar if make a big enough stretch and squint, especially since any idea you have is sure to itself be at least somewhat derivative of what came before it anyway.

              The original concept for copyrights were they were supposed to last for 25 years after the creation to ensure the artist could profit financially from the original release not until the end of time as a way to help completely unrelated corporations churn endless profits from sitting on a name and occasionally suing daycares because some toddler drew mickey mouse.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                corporations have nothing to do with it. Anyone can copyright stuff. Corporations can get slapped down for it too.
                Ive seen you anti-copyright tards crop up in multiple communities over the last 7 years.
                It always amounts to the same thing, you want to profit off others work, a kind of creative forced collectivisation. Where no one own anything they make and grifters can exploit without anyone stopping them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >corporations have nothing to do with it.
                That's naive.
                Most copyrights are help by huge corporations not individuals.
                >Anyone can copyright stuff.
                And then they sell or their families sell those rights to corporations which hoard them indefinitely.

                I'm fine with original creators having a temporary moratorium on the use of their work so they can profit off of it, but thinking that copyrights should be for more than a couple of decades let alone transcend the creators death is absurd.
                Especially when you get into things like lawsuits over similar works where the allegedly plagiarized work is clearly distinct but "similar" enough to justify litigation.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The chink government made a statement about AI art already, siding with artcels. No other government even gives a fuck.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        in china they have companies that produce illegal things because they are unofficial, what they do and say is completely different.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Here is an image to explain how it is not stealing. It explains AI fairly well.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Some of this explanation is wrong because it simplifies too much in trying to appeal to retards, but it's good enough (tm) to keep posting.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sweeney being all in on AI and being a simp for china is curious

      Can't wait until we get a Cena tik tok vid promoting AI

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why are you extremely upset about not being able to sell it?'
    did you have no other income source?

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i've began calling ai proponents the soulless ones

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I've began seething uncontrollably
      We know

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >support ai
      >soulless
      This technology lets people without artistic skill express raw ideas as drawings

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        As if you can't express a raw idea as a drawing without artistic skill???

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah let me just wait multiple years to develop the skills before I make as single thing....or I can use this very handy tool, or and here's a crazy notion, I could do both.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why haven't you published your work yet then?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          it lets people with no skill watch a computer barf out a soulless piece of shit ripped off human effort.
          On all levels you are soulless

          Cope and seethe
          As a dev i can fully realise ideas i have without paying an ~~*artist*~~ to rip me off

          Art is mostly money laundering so art by humans will definitely still exist.
          The elite are panicking right now because they're worried about their art being devalued

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            As a dev I can also fully realize ideas I have without paying anyone, without using ~~*AI*~~.
            Money laundering and the elite have nothing to do with this, actually, the elite want to advance AI and for gayMAN to use it to eventually take control over us.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              ironically one of the arguments against ai art, is money laundering

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                How?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Concept art can be generated by the ai
              No all ideas need concept art, but some do.

              >elite
              THEY want control, but they don't want us to use it.
              People that have art investments are worried about the value dropping.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                How do you plan on taking control over AI if it depends on having a lot of resources, which big-tech has, but not the average person

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                ???? Who said i'm taking over anything?

                >concept art by an ai
                no. The entire point of concept art is an idea. Machines do not have ideas.

                >machines don't have ideas
                Captain obvious here. Yes, i have the ideas and i feed them into the machine and machine spits out a selection of things for me to look at and i select cool ones that give me new ideas.

                It's a tool you morons not a gai that does all the work for you.
                I can cut down dev time and cost by a bit then it's worth it

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What? You said >they don't want us to use it, but THEY want control

                >Captain obvious here. Yes, i have the ideas and i feed them into the machine and machine spits out a selection of things for me to look at and i select cool ones that give me new ideas.
                So.... like google?

                >It's a tool
                Until it isn't, gayMAN will continue advancing it until it becomes fully automated, and then the ultimate online weapon is complete.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >How do you plan on taking control over AI
                They as in the people that want control i.e. not me

                >like google
                It's useful for different things and does it better than google. Google is an option, but things like stable diffusion gives more unique results and things i may not think of.

                It is currently a tool. You need to learn the difference between past, present and future tense anon

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Sure
                But not for long!!!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                thats not the point of concept art. Concept art draws on the artists knowledge and education to create a readable meaningful blueprint.
                If you made concept art for a Napoleonic video game, you'd expect the artist to research it and be accurate. Otherwise people are going to ask why all the uniforms are wrong and the time period is wrong.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Exactly
                Ai can do this

                Cope and seethe artgays

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                are you retarded? ai cant do that.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It literally can
                Go into stable diffusion thread or the BOT thread and ask someone to generate it and you will get something interesting

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's random

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not entirely random
                That's why you generated many images and pick from the best.
                Ai generation of art is the future for "quick and easy" solitions that you would have otherwise tried to do yourself.
                Either learn it, or get left in the dust

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I don't need AI for my gamedev, wdym get left in the dust

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There are going to be future applications of this being applied to 3d assets and you gays will seethe again

                "I want an apple"
                >gives you a medicore apple

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >scrapes samples
                >feeds in
                >trains my own model
                Oh look now i have medicore resuls myself and others can use
                I would even do this for a fun project

                this isnt concept art though this is a finished and shit product

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >finish project
                >generate a shit apple in blender
                >make minor corrections
                >takes 1/2 the time
                >spend more time actually making the game

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >finish project
                >play it, look around
                >oh, you don't actually feel like you made it, you don't have the satisfaction of looking in a random direction and saying "yep that's entirely made by me, I remember all the effort I've put into this"

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Lmao
                You don't know anything about game dev then
                Most assets are reused or "borrowed" from other projects.
                But there's still one thing now and then you might need. If it's simple, like an apple, then why would i give a shit whether i made it or not

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah you're right
                It would still feel better to make everything yourself, I myself re-use assets too, but only non-important ones

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                A specialised complex asset cannot be generated (a manson or something).

                Banning ai from art will have a massively negative impact on art (games) that actually needs all the help it can get in decreased dev time.
                For example, generating complex terrains with varied biomes by training a model on real climates (needs some more thought).

                Where do you draw the line for ai in art?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That IS a really difficult question, man
                I'd say there's already plenty of things and methods devs use to create stuff faster, for example procedurally generated terrain or even houses, things like that.
                I'm fine with AI being used for something very technical like Unreal Engine's Nanite system.
                But I'd actually prefer it NOT be used for actual assets, models, textures, etc. Things that are part of the game. Even if they're just recycled or made my someone else, they're still made by someone. That makes them worth something when you look at them. Like impression.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                This is why there needs to be serious discussion before politicians go making rash and retarded decisions.
                >ban ai in art
                >have to step on egg shells everytime someone code a tool for generating something
                >procedural generation (in games or not in games) goes into the too hard (legally) basket for game companies

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Like the only thing that could count as AI in art out of my examples is UE5's LOD system, in that case, fuck them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                they have been using procedural generation for decades you dumb dickhead

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's all so tiresome...
                The physical real world has already been destroyed, it's not worth being in without some form of escapism, it's all just the capitalist life, nothing else to it.
                And you're going to destroy the fictional world too, by floooooooding it with automatically generated content.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >hurr durr i'm a 20 year old arm chair expert
                Don't you have some study to do

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                What does that even mean?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Means you have the world view of a toddler

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                its not accurate though, you have no idea how pedantic napoleonic enthusiasts are.
                It requires someone who is intelligent.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not making simulation games
                sure, simulation game would be tricky, not impossible with the right settings

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                AI results can only be the average of all its fed
                and if you only feed it good stuff, there wouldn't be enough of it

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >scrapes samples
                >feeds in
                >trains my own model
                Oh look now i have medicore resuls myself and others can use
                I would even do this for a fun project

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                muh linear algebra algorithmss and shiiieet

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >concept art by an ai
                no. The entire point of concept art is an idea. Machines do not have ideas.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It really doesn't take anything to fucking take a pencil and scribble some shapes that you're thinking of onto a paper
                Do these gays have no visualization capability?
                NTA

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >*fart*
                >i have a stupid opinion
                It's more efficient to generate it and it does better than i can

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it lets people with no skill watch a computer barf out a soulless piece of shit ripped off human effort.
        On all levels you are soulless

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How long til paintpigs 41% themselves?

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if you can be replaced by a machine you should be

    do something the ai cant losers

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      BUT HOW WILL I MAKE SHOES IF I AM REPLACED BY A MILL?

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why is every ai proponent a nazi larping pedo. So strange.
    They just want to use it to make CP and scream about gnomish police beating them up

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >why are all ai art haters so focused on making more children be sexually exploited to fill a market instead of using ai to make the practive irrelevant?
      >they just want to get kids raped on camera
      or... we like the tech and you just want to be mad

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        are you saying other people do not also like tech?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        wtf are you arguing? ai should be used to make cp? you fething moronic pedophile cunt

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >it shouldn't be used to make cp!!
          Will be one of the excuses used to restrict and control AI.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            and thats a good thing

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Why are restrictions and control over something a good thing?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ok pedo

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        one of you straight up advocating ai be used to make cp here

        >why are all ai art haters so focused on making more children be sexually exploited to fill a market instead of using ai to make the practive irrelevant?
        >they just want to get kids raped on camera
        or... we like the tech and you just want to be mad

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >archud
          >literally illiterate
          Wew

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            lol you retard you green texted that because real cp exists ai cp should be created to defeat irl cp

            You moronic pedo

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          just inverting your argument so you see how retarded it is bro

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you didnt do that at all you moron. You made an irrelevant strawman no one made, no one advocated cp. Then said ai should be used to generate cp to undercut it.

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You're a retard

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.09485
    >Learning in High Dimension Always Amounts to Extrapolation

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      for

      Do you know the difference beteween interpolation and extrapolation?
      Getting the average of a set of data is the definition of interpolation. That is the fundamental concept of AI. It's how it works.
      It by definition, cannot create something new. It just returns something based on things given to it. That's why the datasets need to be insanely huge for it to be good.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks for the support.
      >Interpolation occurs for a sample x whenever this sample falls inside or on the boundary of the given dataset's convex hull. Extrapolation occurs when x falls outside of that convex hull
      This is exactly what I explained in

      Thanks for the question.
      In bayesian formulations (including VAEs and diffusions), the latents end up being N(0, I) on average. Generation proceeds, roughly speaking (because it goes through more steps in diffusions) by first sampling from the latents, then decoding into an image.
      Taking a sample that's outside N(0, I) is, by definition, extrapolation. And yes, this works as you would expect.
      In non-bayesian contexts, the points in the latent space that are not equal to mapped points in the train set are not actually interpolations, but extrapolations as well. That is because the "feasible space" is actually a low-dimensional subspace of the full manifold expressed by the latent space: only elements on that subspace are interpolations.

      in the non-bayesian case (feasible space/subspace = convex hull).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Learning in High Dimension Always Amounts to Extrapolation

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, just like I said.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >artgays before AI art and during the NFT craze
    >just right click and save bro
    >it's on the internet
    >you don't own that
    >it's ethical to do this

    >artgays after AI art become available to everybody
    >noooooo
    >you can't just right click and save
    >ahhhhhh
    >everyone should dieeeee besides meeee
    >it's not ethical

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      NFT's were a joke.
      This is serious, and will influence our life's in the future.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Your art is a joke.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not an "artgay", gay.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Not really. I think you guys are heavily overestimating and exaggerating how influential AI art will be. Despite how good some of the outputs can be, it's still a little hobby niche that a bunch of nerds are using on a regular basis. Most normies don't even know this exists beyond the lensa app and some tic tok filters. No one outside of these niche communities and grifting YouTubers gives a fuck

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >we should ignore it because it's not that powerful yet

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >GUYS IT'S LIKE SUPER POWERFUL AND SCARY AND OBER POWERFUL GUYS!!!

            Elaborate. At least justify why you are needlessly fearful of a measly computer doing a bunch of math

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          the fact its digital pollution is not an understatement. Already seeing it be used everywhere by lazy morons that are too lazy to ask an artist can they use their work with permission..

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Midwit, controversy and disagreements aside come up why the actual fuck would I go to an artist anymore when I can generate shit I want and then tweak the little errors I catch via Photoshop or my own drawing program I have installed?
            >Too lazy
            Quite the opposite. If you guys who are lazy because you failed to see how this actually helps improve your art workflow. Haven't you noticed that it's only the shit tier low quality generic nobody artists better bitching about this? You don't see the high profile or high quality artists complaining because they're not the ones that are actually under threat. If anything they're the ones taking full advantage of this. Increasing the amount of work they can output and therefore making money faster. The our community benefits THE MOST from this and yet they're too fucking brain dead emotional and just flat out stupid to realize that.

            Also, you know we're mostly just doing this shit as a hobby right? We're not looking to become real artists or some shit. We're not looking for fame. Money, etc etc. Related to generating shit we like to see. (most of us)

            [...]
            An AI can be used by alphabet agencies to destroy communities, basically making the "dead internet theory" real. Like this picrel: [...]
            An AI can bypass captcha.
            An AI can automatically analyze someone's writing style, assess lot's of text, and then use that information to de-anonymize them in other places.
            An AI's generated content can be used as a very powerful, instant publicity and marketing tool
            Big tech companies can use AI generated content to give their consumers whatever they want, and generate entire movies, made specifically for them, based on data gathered about them
            AI can be made to do pretty much everything

            >Big tech companies can use AI generated content to give their consumers whatever they want, and generate entire movies, made specifically for them, based on data gathered about them
            >AI can be made to do pretty much everything
            You had me until you brought up this stupid take. They could maybe generate a bunch of fanfic for each specific person but you know fuck well they're not generating a full ass movie for each person. Even singular 2-hour movies require multiple computers and multiple gpus working around the clock to make sure the assets look high quality. I know this shit is powerful but your head is way too far into the clouds. What you're describing is not possible unless they increase the size of their data centers and amounts of gpus 100 fold. That's not even taking voice acting into account.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >You had me.... acting into account.
              I hope you're right, then.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              because its low effort trash you are just adding to the sea of trash. You halfwit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Low effort
                Correct, I don't care though so what the hell are you getting angry for? This is a HOBBY. Like 90% of the people here are not trying to compete with you entitled lowlife children who are terrified of computer programs like a bunch of luddites
                >Trash
                Subjective. Then again your own artwork probably isn't much better than the shit I posted in here. (I will bet half my lifespan it isn't because the actual good artists aren't seething like pathetic children like this)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >artgays before AI art and during the NFT craze
        >just right click and save bro
        >it's on the internet
        >you don't own that
        >it's ethical to do this

        >artgays after AI art become available to everybody
        >noooooo
        >you can't just right click and save
        >ahhhhhh
        >everyone should dieeeee besides meeee
        >it's not ethical

        >who the fuck disagrees with copyright?
        Anybody with half a brain who isn't on the board of directors of Disney and their legal department?
        >What are your arguments?
        It's fucking ridiculous to think you can establish squatters rights on an idea and then aggressively sue anyone who makes any derivative work or anything that just happens to seem similar if make a big enough stretch and squint, especially since any idea you have is sure to itself be at least somewhat derivative of what came before it anyway.

        The original concept for copyrights were they were supposed to last for 25 years after the creation to ensure the artist could profit financially from the original release not until the end of time as a way to help completely unrelated corporations churn endless profits from sitting on a name and occasionally suing daycares because some toddler drew mickey mouse.

        This happening is divine justice. The one thing that could have projected them, is ded because they smeared it endlessly. Now they'll suck Disney and TenCent's dicks /in hopes/ they will not use technology.

        What will really happen: the digital artists who don't use the newest technology of today will meet the exact same fate as traditionalists before them-- art fairs and government programs.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Did you get this off Deviantart?

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe I'm a brainlet, but I don't understand this AI fear when all signs point to this shit being regulated.

    >"AI art" comes
    >the general public, in general, disproves of this
    >the legal hellhole that is using this technology, which wouldn't be as bad if people weren't making money with it (see the meme chidren's book)
    >the technology is still in its infancy, which is why you see so many fucked up hands, feet, and eyes
    >"artists" are pushing back against AI
    >"normies are pushing back against AI
    >"companies" (see Disney) will also start pushing back (because violation of Copyright and because it would be bad PR)
    >places like /ic/ or art sites are pushing back against it
    >"the art doesn't even look good", "it's soulless"

    With all of that said, and considering that normies, the ones that don't find issues with Alegria art style, then why are we seething against third worlders just doing an AI generated prompt of Aqua? No money will be made off this in a few months; if companies get caught using it (or they get leaked by insiders of companies), they'll get yelled at and lose money. Twitter users will do their thing and witch hunt users who use AI art, and there's a world where digital art and "traditional" art exists, so... why all the fearmongering?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >>the general public, in general, disproves of this

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because it could be a very powerful weapon

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Elaborate. Do you even know how this could be used as a weapon? Or are you just regurgitating your mongering nonsense you hurt someone else say?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >GUYS IT'S LIKE SUPER POWERFUL AND SCARY AND OBER POWERFUL GUYS!!!

          Elaborate. At least justify why you are needlessly fearful of a measly computer doing a bunch of math

          An AI can be used by alphabet agencies to destroy communities, basically making the "dead internet theory" real. Like this picrel:

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

          >i am in favor of death by consumerism. if this is a thing you are vulnerable to that's an acceptable consequence
          The stronger it's influence the harder it is to escape out of it, right now we've already got tons of mindless drones. If a child is growing up in a world like that, he is powerless and will be subjugated by it.
          [...]
          >By exponentially increasing the overal quantity of art it also exponentially increases the odds of people finding art they enjoy and find meaningful.
          I don't think so, if BOT was flooded with bots that automatically generate and reply to threads, and only 0.001% of all content remained authentic, would you still use the site?

          An AI can bypass captcha.
          An AI can automatically analyze someone's writing style, assess lot's of text, and then use that information to de-anonymize them in other places.
          An AI's generated content can be used as a very powerful, instant publicity and marketing tool
          Big tech companies can use AI generated content to give their consumers whatever they want, and generate entire movies, made specifically for them, based on data gathered about them
          AI can be made to do pretty much everything

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            lots*

            I think AI really IS powerful, and in the future it could change the entire internet and put it in the hands of gayMAN even more basically

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/K4HpdDk.png

            Midwit, controversy and disagreements aside come up why the actual fuck would I go to an artist anymore when I can generate shit I want and then tweak the little errors I catch via Photoshop or my own drawing program I have installed?
            >Too lazy
            Quite the opposite. If you guys who are lazy because you failed to see how this actually helps improve your art workflow. Haven't you noticed that it's only the shit tier low quality generic nobody artists better bitching about this? You don't see the high profile or high quality artists complaining because they're not the ones that are actually under threat. If anything they're the ones taking full advantage of this. Increasing the amount of work they can output and therefore making money faster. The our community benefits THE MOST from this and yet they're too fucking brain dead emotional and just flat out stupid to realize that.

            Also, you know we're mostly just doing this shit as a hobby right? We're not looking to become real artists or some shit. We're not looking for fame. Money, etc etc. Related to generating shit we like to see. (most of us)

            [...]
            >Big tech companies can use AI generated content to give their consumers whatever they want, and generate entire movies, made specifically for them, based on data gathered about them
            >AI can be made to do pretty much everything
            You had me until you brought up this stupid take. They could maybe generate a bunch of fanfic for each specific person but you know fuck well they're not generating a full ass movie for each person. Even singular 2-hour movies require multiple computers and multiple gpus working around the clock to make sure the assets look high quality. I know this shit is powerful but your head is way too far into the clouds. What you're describing is not possible unless they increase the size of their data centers and amounts of gpus 100 fold. That's not even taking voice acting into account.

            {Cont}

            I can straight out 10 blueprints about house I want to build and they're running an hour but that does not automatically mean I can build the house quicker right? I still need more resources and capital and shit like that. The amount of scripts in AI can generate does not have a one-to-one correlation with how many movies they can shit out. They're still going to need the gpus as well as the man hours to make sure that shit looks all right via quality control.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Straight out
              *Shit out

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Do you think AI development will hit a roadblock and stop becoming exponentially more advanced?
              If that'll be the case, then there's nothing to worry about.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We read what I said please.....(Jesus fucking Christ)

                Nowhere did I say AI advancement and improvement what stop or hit rock bottom. I think quite the opposite is going to start happening next year. Possibly even within the next couple months. But you seem to think being able to shit out a bunch of generic scripts means they can shit out a lot more movies. Ford automotive could write an AI program that could shit out 10 million billion trillion different blueprints for different car models come up but that doesn't mean they can suddenly produce 10 billion million trillion more car models next year, does it? Do you get my analogy now?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not saying they're able to do that right now, but they probably, definitely, will be able to do it in the future. And if it won't be free and open, then that'll be pretty bad.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's already free and open. So what's the issue?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Not really, maybe to an extent, yes.

                Jesus christ retard do you seriously believe AI is "stealing art"?
                Is that where this conversation is heading?
                I thought you were finally going to explain how people having access to a free open source tool was "consumerist"

                Having a free open source tool wouldn't be consumerist, but if it was fully controlled by big-tech companies (where things are going right now) then that would be the ultimate consumerism.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Having a free open source tool wouldn't be consumerist, but if it was fully controlled by big-tech companies (where things are going right now) then that would be the ultimate consumerism.
                1: that is not the case right now
                2: if you don't want that to happen stop advocating for that to happen you massive retard

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                First I'm advocating for full freedom of technology of AI
                Second I'm advocating for AI NOT to be used for any art at all, it should be used for things like voice-recognition, text to speech, or auto-completion, or search engines, stuff like that

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Second I'm advocating for AI NOT to be used for any art at all
                Not going to happen, you can't put the genie back in the bottle, the tech exists now, nothing short of a time machine is going to change that, even if some law were passed to ban it's use 1: This law would never apply to big corporations, 2: this Law would not apply to the government who would use it to screw with the population
                3: It wouldn't actually stop normal people either who will just break the law and use it anyway
                4: It will encourage the code monkeys continuing to develop the tech to improve it's capacity to blend in with regular art
                5:It will also probably increase the popularity of AI art to people who might otherwise not have even cared because of it's taboo appeal.
                >it should be used for things like voice-recognition, text to speech, or auto-completion, or search engines, stuff like that
                Yeah and the steam engine should only be used for pumping water out of mines, dynamite only used for construction, fission energy only for generating electricity, it's just naive to think it's going to stop.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Not going to happen
                I know. That's why it's second priority.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                So why not make your priority encourage people en masse to download AI programs like SD and others while they can, keep them backed up other drives, learn to use them, just in the off chance some asshole does manage to get them banned so at least the tech is in the hands of enough people still have it in order to circulate and keep it in the hands of the people?

                My ideal future at this point is one where tech like AI and 3d printing, drones, onion sites, and others make people self sufficient enough to allow them to thumb their noses at government overreach.
                AI will make the government more or less omnipresent but it may also put them in a stalemate with it's citizens.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >keep it in the hands of the people
                Newer versions won't be in the hands of the people though, but yes, if the sentiment is spread enough, then that'll be enough pressure to make the companies OPEN

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Newer versions won't be in the hands of the people though
                Then use older versions? It's not like it stops working when a newer version is made.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Do you think AI development will hit a roadblock and stop becoming exponentially more advanced?
              If that'll be the case, then there's nothing to worry about.

              Hell I'm fine with AI art, and other AI tools such as TTS or code-completion, as they are now. I just don't want them to get any more advanced. But I know they probably will.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Big tech companies can use AI generated content to give their consumers whatever they want, and generate entire movies, made specifically for them, based on data gathered about them
            I actually don't mind that one

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Why not? Don't you think that degree of control over the population is a bad thing?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Sure it's bad, but that ship has already sailed, every single corporation already has all of your info either way, but at least with that scenario you might get some good movies made for once.

                And let's say you're some kind of l33t hacker man who has absolutely perfect opsec and you live in a cabin in the woods, never go into town, somehow have your own super trustworthy ISP, no relatives that share all your info on social media, etc you still might be able to benefit from that AI netflix idea via use of proxies and fake info fed into it, since you're clearly already capable of thumbing your nose at the man anyway.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >they've won anyway! it's over. the only option left is to give up! >:|

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Bro unless you plan on hiding in the woods, and mailing bombs to silicon valley, I'm not exactly sure what you think you're going to do.

                YOU right now, already have everything about you on record, that record is shared by every government agency in this and every other first world country, and by every major corporation within those countries and probably some outside of them.

                They know you better than you know you, and for future generations it will only get more invasive.
                Nothing short of a global nuclear war is likely to allow us to avoid this.

                Now if you have some secret way of avoiding this I'm sure lots of people would love to know, but the moment you tell it will be compromised.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Resistance is futile
                No it's not, dude.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I mean it's not futile but it does require blood.
                You seriously willing to kill to avoid google knowing your favorite movies anon?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >to avoid google knowing your favorite movies anon?
                It's obviously more serious than that
                >but it does require blood.
                No, all peaceful. You underestimate the value of spreading a message. Internet privacy is already pretty popular.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It's obviously more serious than that
                We were talking about a hypothetical AI powered a la carte netflix though.

                >No, all peaceful. You underestimate the value of spreading a message.
                No amount of message spreading a message is going to stop Uncle Sam from recording all your doings online and off or stop Google from selling all your contact info to indian scammers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      its like the Butlerian Jihad in Dune. People think it was about humans vs terminators. It was humans vs humans.
      Its not so much the technology is wrong, though it is. Its the people supporting it for reasons that detract from humans.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Such as?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          use your brain gay do you need a prompt

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >>the general public, in general, disproves of this
      wrong, most people think it's cool or don't really care about it.
      >>the legal hellhole that is using this technology, which wouldn't be as bad if people weren't making money with it (see the meme chidren's book)
      there is no legal hellhole
      >>the technology is still in its infancy, which is why you see so many fucked up hands, feet, and eyes
      true
      >>"artists" are pushing back against AI
      they already lost by parroting blatantly false shit, not hiring a single lawyer, and getting scammed by that wench with the gofundme
      >>"normies are pushing back against AI
      lmao
      >>"companies" (see Disney) will also start pushing back (because violation of Copyright and because it would be bad PR)
      they will not
      like /ic/ or art sites are pushing back against it
      LMAO
      >>"the art doesn't even look good", "it's soulless"
      only retarded pseuds say things like this and they say the same thing about normal art, see: people screeching about sakimichan

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I fuckin love science! Just learn to code chud! Progress is a good thing! Automation is the only way forward.
        >WAIT GO BACK!! I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING PAID TO DRAW! I COULDNT FORSEE THIS HAPPENING TO MEEEEEE!!!!

        >right click, SAVED! Yup that NFT is mine now, chud!
        >DELETE MY PICTURES FROM YOUR DATABASE NOWWWW

        >It's a ROMHACK, it's not copyright infringement! It's a fan inspired transformative work! Fuck the lawyers at Nintendo!
        >WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE AI IS USING MY ART WITHOUT PERMISSION AND TRANSFORMING IT INTO SOMETHING NEW!!

        >Gatekeeping is le BAD! Everything is for everyone! We will take the thing you love and corrupt it into a husk of its former greatness, and that's a good thing!
        >YOU CANT JUST GENERATE 100000 ANIME GIRL IMAGES! THIS IS CORRUPTING THE MEANING OF ART!! PICK UP A PENCIL IF YOU WANT TO BE AN ARTIST

        >Don't bully a learning artist. Not every detail needs to be perfectly accurate, it's called a style! Everyone, no matter how skilled, is valid and amazing!
        >IS THAT AN OUT OF PLACE ELBOW??? IS THE LEFT ARM SLIGHTLY BIGGER THAN THE RIGHT?? THIS IS SHIT! YOU NEED TO HAVE PERFECT ANATOMY LIKE THOSE RACIST ROMAN STATUES I WANT TO TEAR DOWN!

        >heh, god isnt real CHUD. there is no afterlife, you WILL decompose in a box, you WILL become dust! We're all just sacks of meat floating on a rock in space!!
        >NOOOO AI ART LACKS HUMAN SOUL! IT LACKS INSPIRATION AND HUMAN SPIRIT! THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN ARE BEING SHAKEN TO THEIR CORE!!

        >Anything can be art! Two gay black trannies shitting in eachother's mouths? Wholesome! A banana taped to a wall?? Inspiring! Everything is ART!
        >NOOOO THIS CANT BE ART ITS NOT PERFECT ENOUGH!!! UGH, JUST LOOK AT THE ARTIFACTS AND THE HAIR AND THE HAND ITS JUST ALLL WRONG!!! ITS NOT REAL ART! TYPING SHIT INTO A TERMINAL AND GETTING AN IMAGE OUT ISNT ART (throwing my own shit against a wall and putting a frame around it is THOUGH)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >coping this badly
        Embarrassing idiot.
        You are a loser and you will never make it 🙂

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    honestly AI art should be banned solely because it's overwhelmingly boring as shit and it gives retards with nothing to say another reason to post

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why does that matter? Skeb is a browser to buy commissions, there is no reason why AI would be there in the first place. This is not pixiv or a booru.
    I literally have never heard about chaosium.

    Nothing burger.

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >did the computer just fart out an anime girl with 3 arms and 16 fingers OH MY SCIENCE I LOVE HECKIN AI BARF

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Promptoids be like
    >Which of these do you think is the best?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >AI service gives 3 results
      >lets user pick the best one
      >new information to further train the AI with
      >eventually, there will be no more prompts

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I heckin love science!
    we're all just talking, thinking, hairless apes made out of stardust, living on a spinning ball moving at 1305100 mph!

  48. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i bet a 1000 bucks the materialist is a commie. Commies are pseudo-scientific

  49. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/D5ZlMxL.jpg

      https://i.imgur.com/d2roWsh.jpg

      https://i.imgur.com/eunh7Tx.jpg

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

      Wow so moving!

  50. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  51. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  52. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  53. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  54. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I support AI art even though I'm an artist because honestly I'm too fuckin lazy to draw and I have chronic fatigue

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      if there was a way for us to harness your laziness wed be rich

  55. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    IF Y'ALL DON'T SUPPORT AI Y'ALL ABLEISS N SHEEEEIT BIX NOOD MAFUGGA

  56. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ai cannot get you a bio gf

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      AI is inferior to Lucid Dreaming.
      Your brain can generate literally anything you want, you can control your entire dream, and even spawn a GF, and everything feels real.
      BOT BTFO'd. BOT on top.

  57. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The amount of seething and coping tells me this is something that's good because it has artgays genuinely pissing themselves

  58. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ai bros right now acting like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVvT-xmdWCc

  59. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >art has a human author who had emotions
    >ai tard: are you saying the art is alive?!

    enough exterminate all ai tard

  60. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I have an idea. Artists should stop being self absorbed pussies and accept the fact that scribbling on a paper is something a machine can do too and get over their crusade to halt human progress because their gig selling cartoon porn in being threatened.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's not the cartoon porn being threatened
      It's more

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Then why they started kvetching about it the moment normal people got ahold of stable diffusion and not years ago when google was showing off their image generators.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Because back then no one cared so it couldn't have gone anywhere in the first place

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          cause you mongs went to their professional websites and tried to larp as professionals.
          Imagine how professional builders would react to a bunch of aspies showing up and saying they are professionals

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They are just upset their profession websites are being spammed
            >The only people upset enough to actually ban ai art have been furry porn and other fetish sites

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