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
should've kept it on the down-low, but once it started spreading on Twitter, everyone became e n r a g e d...
I mean, it has been around for years.
People are just slow.
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
>OpenAI
>Open
Just part of the newspeak era
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
so much projection.
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.
If you've actually read it then you could see that it's not about quality
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
They're concerned about it's implications, and the future.
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
Roko's basilisk mindset
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.
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.
I'd call it Roko's basilisk fallacy, even
>babby predditor learns a new term and starts excitedly misusing it everywhere
I don't care. I will continue to generate chocolate milfs and there's nothing anyone can do about it
you didn't consider the human side of things.
are they going to ban AI based tools in photo editing software as well?
kek this is what i love about ai tard seething, you screech at the actual companies for not taking up your new nft scam
Nobody uses that shit.
omg so gay and dramatic
if there is a profit margin to be had, it will be had
also
>So in short, if you are doing art for us, don't use AI.
kek not that they'd be able to tell!
>wall of text
the memes are real
>company statement
>wall of text meme
retard
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
holy shit, that prompt,
he is truly the king of AI_shamans
Surely..
Anyone who doesn't understand art is subhuman. Art is literally one of the things that makes us human.
Do you think aliens make art?
"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.
>"People" who don't value art are much like people who don't value morals, or tradition. And they're just like animals.
Based.
this they have lowered themselves to animals i'd argue even below an animal.
Complete self dehumanisation
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?
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.
I do gamedev (pixelart & programming) myself, and programming is definitely artistic in nature, it's creative. No I'm not talking about coding.
It's one thing to enjoy something, it's another to base your personality around it.
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
i think its referring to the hanger ons in the art community.
But no one likes them
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.
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
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
>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.
Alright.
I do value art, that's why I support AI art because it exponentially multiplies the amount of art in the world.
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.
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.
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
>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.
>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?
>you will own nothing and be happy
>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!
correct.
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.
you are either a russian or chinese bot. These are the main culprits of this grifting argument.
i dont need to prove my humanity to someone who is going to be replaced by ai lmao.
Kek
you are a good case for not all opinions are of worth.
You actually advocate mindless criminal theft and exploitation on a global scale.
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.
>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?
it already happened https://youtu.be/tAiZFCKW4l8
Poo in loo, not in thread, you clinically retarded pajeet redd!tard.
>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.
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.
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
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?
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
>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.
>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.
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.
So maybe stop trying to push for that to happen then?
What world do you live in?
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
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"
you dont live in the real world
>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.
>I do value sewage , that's why I support AI sewage because it exponentially multiplies the amount of sewage in the world
until we meet aliens its best to stick with just humans.
And you lot call others irrational and in the clouds.
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.
>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.
this i reject the bug tofu and ai pictures paradigm.
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.
Yes.
Reject the NuWorld Order.
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.
seething paintpig
Yep just keep repeating the same sentences over and over again, surely that'll win you the "discussion".
You people should be put death.
You can still make art without AI. People still go camping as a hobby in the modern world.
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.
Or an AI reverse image search. Really makes you think when garden gnomegle nerfed theirs years ago.
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.
AI will be controlled by gayMAN and used to control the population even more than it already is on social media
I'm still going to use stable diffusion for fetish shit and finally making my fetish manga real.
It's time to face reality art bros, adapt or become obsolete
An elevator operator isn't comparable to an artist.
Artistic expression is just like thought, or speech. Or eating and sleeping.
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.
but people still prefer clothes design by humans
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.
What do you do for fun? Tell me, please, and answer honestly and seriously. Let's not throw names and have a productive dialogue.
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.
Corporations are not going to give you free money when all the jobs are replaced, just in case you thought so.
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.
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?
if your art looks like AI art that is a sign it is forgettable and boring.
>art is always artistic
uhuh....
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.
>wall of commie asspain
i cant wait for the ai to replace you, you have no idea.
>You're now a commie to care about humanity
I hate Americans.
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.
seething
This is why artcucks deserve the rope
>t. soulless moron
Disgusting.
>do you even know what the word "art" means?
Do you?
>Art, however, is always artistic
Corporate "art" isn't and is precisely what AI is going to replace.
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.
the world doesn't owe you or me anything. i have an ability to adapt after AI. you dont.
>what will you then do for fun
generating new kinds of ai art.
>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.
>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
>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.
Nah there's functional artwork too. Diagrams, technical drawing and so on.
>you know what else is essential to the human experience? clothing.
No it isn't. Clothing is more a necessity than essential
funny how now i can just type and create art
It's over.
AItards have to k*ll themselves now.
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.
This shit would also make fanart and parody illegal. Karla Ortiz is a monster.
except it provably does copy things. you still on this cope?
That image was made by someone and not AI generated.
A human can come up with a novel pose or design without having seen it before. A machine cannot do this.
>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
>Ex nihlio ideas don't exist
The absolute STATE of zoomers
Prove me wrong
>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.
Maybe not exactly but it's a very similar process, really the difference is semantic.
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.
>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.
>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.
>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)
>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.
Seeing a snow, and then seeing a ball
And then imagining: "ball in snow"
Why do you call that extrapolation and not interpolation?
Because they're the same damn thing and I refuse to parlay with your fancy pretentious semantic gay talk
>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?
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.
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.
>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.
You must be egyptian to be so deep in denial.
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.
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!
>throws insults
>doesn't elaborate
Nice
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.
Explain how an AI can generate something that isn't included or even referenced anywhere in its dataset?
this, so much this. Already seen prompters complaining they can't create certain art and styles because the data doesn't exist.
>this, so much this.
I look like that.
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.
Neither can you
Most human can't innovate(including inkcels) by same definitions they aren't human
>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.
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"
what disturbs me in these arguments is people excluding completely the fact humans are capable of creating completely new things.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
>he thinks if people say soulless its a religious statement
I hate you tippers so much
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
What did you mean by not right?
NTA
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.
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
Materialist nihilism has destroyed the western world
>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)
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
>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
refer to
nihilist scum
your feelings is not an argument
The fact that every single civilization before us collapsed when it became intellectual and materialistic is
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.
>Surely it'll work this time
I heckin LOOOOVE science!111
So should science stop devising new better ways to solve important problems?
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.
>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
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.
making ai art isnt solving a problem let alone an important problem
we already have artists and they have all the tools they need.
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
Then you just draw them?
Do you know what "produce" or "learn & improve" means?
how is it fan art? it wasn't made by artists
>i want a lot of shitty pictures
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.
we should stop focusing on the digital as a substitute for our own minds.
But it can be an extension
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.
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
I never said that, check your reading comprehension
i understand you fine dumbshit, i understand you are not being truthful.
>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.
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)
what else has the painting got? you are lying to reach your conclusion
Colors and shapes? There is nothing else in a painting.
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
>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?
Wow you're so smart anon, you know how the universe works! WOAH
When did I mention universe? What does universe have to do with with this topic or conversation?
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?
I'd asome below the chemical level are le neurons, electircity flowing thro em?
NTA
whats below electricity? did you get your education in the ussr?
I dunno, why would I have to know
it debunks the statement everything is just chemical reactions in the brain if its not actually chemicals
>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
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
>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.
>trying to explain the human experience to an NPC
are you fucking retarded? the guy you are responding to is the npc because he denies art has an intangible human quality.
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.
>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
>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
you are fucking retarded your subjectivity is not the point you human cow
The rock thinking is not the point you moronic fuck
What is the point then, be specific
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
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
Those two things mean the same thing
please use precise language when neccassary, this thread is an example when vagueness and double meaning can have terrible effect on conversation
No
no one said the work had emotions as in it has feeling you dumbass. ffs you are a dunce.
try reading the replies in this tread
the only guy that said it was this guy
Because hes a retard.
Not once did anyone say art having emotions meant it was alive.
It metaphorically is, tho.
>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
holy shit you are retarded. You think because someone says a painting has emotion in it, they mean the painting has actual feelings
ok youtube
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
>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.
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.
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
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
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.
AI can also make art
even animals have made art, not high quality but passable for artstation
AI doesnt have a human author Ai isn't intelligent. You RETARD
AI is not human but it made mediocre art (good enough), animals arent human and aren't intelligent but they have made art
an ai isnt intelligent. its a fucking toaster you lunatic
Biological computer is still a computer
I have seen crows and elephants paint
>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
>As in something that can compute something sure
computers by definition compute, a brain computes, a pc also computes
Yeah sure, I can count my fingers. I'm computing.
Tool that generates something isn't necessarily AI.
Procedural generation isn't AI.
Yes, so that's why people say, that there's emotions "inside of" a piece of art. It "contains" them.
>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.
I haven't seen that
What was the discussion about, anyway?
I am not sure tbh
If people are actually banning AI in art
Then that's HOLY BASED
Nihilists absolutely BTFO'd
That cannot be enforced and it is not going to work.
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
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
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.
>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
>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
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)
Brains are not computers they do not compute to do what they do.
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.
Art doesn't feel emotions, but it IS emotional.
>Art doesn't feel emotions,
>but it IS emotional.
As in piece of art can cause emotions, yes
Specific ones, and intentionally. They're conveyed, through it. That makes it emotional.
>They're conveyed, through it.
So they are made in specific way to cause emotions in an observer, yes
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.
I love classical paintings and sculpture, also architecture, modern art is garbage
ahh so you enjoy the metaphysics of classic art.
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
you are ascribing greater value to the classical because of its virtues.
Smells like meta to me.
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)
is materialistic philosophy physical or metaphysical. Can you hold the meaning in materialist essay?
>materialistic philosophy
no clue about it
> physical or metaphysical
again I don't, never studied philosophy, it really is irrelevant in this discussion
>If it is a physical object then it has physical basis.
So digital art isn't art
Its an art and its evem more easily quantifiable than physical art because it already exists as data and can be analyzed
But it's not physical
you don't know what metaphysical means.
Metaphysical =/= super natural or paranormal you mong.
Never said its supernatural or paranormal
you implied that by using the definition of paranormal
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
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.
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.
It is irrelevant how neurons work or how logic gates in cpu work, what matters is high level code or high level functions work.
Redpill
>they're just afraid and angry that they're being outperformed by linear algebra!
Strawman
>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.
No shit. It's just an upcoming gayMAN power device, advertised as a way for anyone to make beautiful art so it becomes popular.
Nice cope. That generator is used by a human so it's still an expression of the human condition through prompts.
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
No.
yes its an expression of the laziness and soulless of the generator and prompter
>soulless
Sounds like a skill issue.
Please post something interesting
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
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.
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
>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
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.
See
I suppose russian state will use AI tools to do hybrid warfare online
>Implying foreign states don't already do this
china has been doing this for over a decade where tf have you been lmao
>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.
He won
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
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.
this anon gets it. What will have worth is the artist that spends days skillfully produci
..ing art.
gger
>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
but thats false read the article in the op. People are already devising ways to prove authenticity.
Not really an objection if it's good news, thanks for informing me
>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
resistance is futile, meatbags
https://twitter.com/ayrieton/status/1604794732260995072
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
hopefully
>insterting prompts
Before it becomes a fully automatic social media shilling tool to boost consumerism and big-tech profits & control by 999%
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.
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"
Everything became soulless when objects weren't handmade anymore
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
Good
i'm still laughing at how dumb Sweeney is this is like when he went up against Apple
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!!!!!
>Banned for being a refund nightmare
No refunds.
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
This.
The people complaining are too stupid to work out how to utilise this for their own purposes
this
anyone who fears AI fears it because they are shit at what they do and dont want to feel inferior to a machine.
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 is "artistic"?
>It's pretty dangerous
dangerous for artcels like you
and that's a good thing
My day job is traditional commercial art and I'm exploring how to use this in my work flow
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.
You mean like the forgery business?
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".
do you get what im saying? you fucking retard. Forgery is illegal, ai art is for con men is what you are saying
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.
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.
I accept your surrender, cletus.
you are mentally ill and low iq
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.
Keep coping and seething, dumb samegayging artpoor.
>do you get what im saying? you fucking retard. Forgery is illegal, ai art is for con men is what you are saying
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.
keep the tears coming, paintpig
i swear ai art proponents all sound retarded.
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
keep digging you are doing a good job of burying ai
IS THAT AN AI ART?! AAAA I AM GOING BANKRUPT
SAVE ME DISNEYMAN
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.
>I don't really get this picture
congratulations, you are retarded
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
I hope this is a joke and nobody this deeply mentally impaired is actually sharing a board with me.
There's literally nothing wrong with AI-generated art.
Inkcels are just angry because they're gonna lose their "jobs".
>biggest advocates for ai are trolls, alt-right tards and other dumb crass people
Ai is slowly becoming synonymous with dumb asshole
artificial idiocy?
You WILL submit to the AI tittties!!!
What is this expression conveying? Also that's a very inconveniently elevated bar table.
>preddit spacing
nuff said
it is a real thing seen in the wild and i love it.
ironic since so much prompting is being done with illegal pedophile models
anime boobies doesn't care about your feelings
kek m8 are you crying right now? poor little paintpig...
>"DEY TOOK 'ER JERBS!" LOL! DUMB HICKS! ADAPT OR DIE!
>NOOOOOOOOO AI ART IS GONNA TAKE OUR JOBS!!!!! NOOOOOO!!!!!!!
how the turn tables
But friend, I hated both of those things.
>he missed the point of the thread
its the opposite its very ironic
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.
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.
>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.
i'm talking about professionally in the 90s. People had to hop over to computers while before they were doing everything with airbrush etc
>Major games companies saying no to ai and going human only
Time to found some new disruptive gaming startups boys.
I like the way you think
>Anon soon gave up after being unable to generate a single consistently animated sprite.
>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".
All the AI chud seethe in this thread lol. Maybe you should have trained it on wikimedia instead.
why? i'd rather train it on interesting text instead.
Are people trying to bad textgen too? Honestly it's more dangerous than image gen.
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.
its mostly poojeets and chinks also tacos
They love the idea of zero work
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
it's almost like they dont give a literal flying fuck about all of our copyright laws or something....
is this some sort of chud art discord raid?
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.
>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.
chinese are theives no question about it. the first step to solving a problem is admitting it is a problem to begin with.
>no one disagrees with copyright but thieves.
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.
Literally everyone except garden gnomes disagrees with IP.
no. Great argument poltard. The irony is you are supporting ironically the same thing you hate, shyster business practice.
>cries about pol out of nowhere
hmm... I wonder who could be behind this post
>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.
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.
>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.
The chink government made a statement about AI art already, siding with artcels. No other government even gives a fuck.
in china they have companies that produce illegal things because they are unofficial, what they do and say is completely different.
Here is an image to explain how it is not stealing. It explains AI fairly well.
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.
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
why are you extremely upset about not being able to sell it?'
did you have no other income source?
i've began calling ai proponents the soulless ones
>I've began seething uncontrollably
We know
>support ai
>soulless
This technology lets people without artistic skill express raw ideas as drawings
As if you can't express a raw idea as a drawing without artistic skill???
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.
Why haven't you published your work yet then?
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
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.
ironically one of the arguments against ai art, is money laundering
How?
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.
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
???? Who said i'm taking over anything?
>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
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.
>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
Sure
But not for long!!!
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.
Exactly
Ai can do this
Cope and seethe artgays
are you retarded? ai cant do that.
It literally can
Go into stable diffusion thread or the BOT thread and ask someone to generate it and you will get something interesting
It's random
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
I don't need AI for my gamedev, wdym get left in the dust
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
this isnt concept art though this is a finished and shit product
>finish project
>generate a shit apple in blender
>make minor corrections
>takes 1/2 the time
>spend more time actually making the game
>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"
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
Yeah you're right
It would still feel better to make everything yourself, I myself re-use assets too, but only non-important ones
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?
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.
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
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.
they have been using procedural generation for decades you dumb dickhead
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.
>hurr durr i'm a 20 year old arm chair expert
Don't you have some study to do
What does that even mean?
Means you have the world view of a toddler
its not accurate though, you have no idea how pedantic napoleonic enthusiasts are.
It requires someone who is intelligent.
I'm not making simulation games
sure, simulation game would be tricky, not impossible with the right settings
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
>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
muh linear algebra algorithmss and shiiieet
>concept art by an ai
no. The entire point of concept art is an idea. Machines do not have ideas.
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
>*fart*
>i have a stupid opinion
It's more efficient to generate it and it does better than i can
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
How long til paintpigs 41% themselves?
if you can be replaced by a machine you should be
do something the ai cant losers
BUT HOW WILL I MAKE SHOES IF I AM REPLACED BY A MILL?
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
>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
are you saying other people do not also like tech?
wtf are you arguing? ai should be used to make cp? you fething moronic pedophile cunt
>it shouldn't be used to make cp!!
Will be one of the excuses used to restrict and control AI.
and thats a good thing
Why are restrictions and control over something a good thing?
ok pedo
one of you straight up advocating ai be used to make cp here
>archud
>literally illiterate
Wew
lol you retard you green texted that because real cp exists ai cp should be created to defeat irl cp
You moronic pedo
just inverting your argument so you see how retarded it is bro
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.
You're a retard
https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.09485
>Learning in High Dimension Always Amounts to Extrapolation
for
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
in the non-bayesian case (feasible space/subspace = convex hull).
>Learning in High Dimension Always Amounts to Extrapolation
Yes, just like I said.
>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
NFT's were a joke.
This is serious, and will influence our life's in the future.
Your art is a joke.
I'm not an "artgay", gay.
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
>we should ignore it because it's not that powerful yet
>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
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..
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.
>You had me.... acting into account.
I hope you're right, then.
because its low effort trash you are just adding to the sea of trash. You halfwit.
>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)
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.
Did you get this off Deviantart?
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?
>>the general public, in general, disproves of this
Because it could be a very powerful weapon
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?
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
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
{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.
>Straight out
*Shit out
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.
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?
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.
It's already free and open. So what's the issue?
Not really, maybe to an extent, yes.
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.
>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
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
>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.
>Not going to happen
I know. That's why it's second priority.
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.
>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
>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.
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.
>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
Why not? Don't you think that degree of control over the population is a bad thing?
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.
>they've won anyway! it's over. the only option left is to give up! >:|
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.
>Resistance is futile
No it's not, dude.
I mean it's not futile but it does require blood.
You seriously willing to kill to avoid google knowing your favorite movies anon?
>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.
>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.
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.
Such as?
use your brain gay do you need a prompt
>>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
>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)
>coping this badly
Embarrassing idiot.
You are a loser and you will never make it 🙂
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
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.
>did the computer just fart out an anime girl with 3 arms and 16 fingers OH MY SCIENCE I LOVE HECKIN AI BARF
Promptoids be like
>Which of these do you think is the best?
>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
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!
i bet a 1000 bucks the materialist is a commie. Commies are pseudo-scientific
Wow so moving!
I support AI art even though I'm an artist because honestly I'm too fuckin lazy to draw and I have chronic fatigue
if there was a way for us to harness your laziness wed be rich
IF Y'ALL DON'T SUPPORT AI Y'ALL ABLEISS N SHEEEEIT BIX NOOD MAFUGGA
ai cannot get you a bio gf
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.
The amount of seething and coping tells me this is something that's good because it has artgays genuinely pissing themselves
ai bros right now acting like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVvT-xmdWCc
>art has a human author who had emotions
>ai tard: are you saying the art is alive?!
enough exterminate all ai tard
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.
It's not the cartoon porn being threatened
It's more
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.
Because back then no one cared so it couldn't have gone anywhere in the first place
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
>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