Retards are trying to ban AI Art

We've finally gotten to the point where twitter artists want to abolish fair use laws to own the ai chuds, lmao these people are shooting themselves in the foot and tightening the rope around their necks, they surely can't be this fricking moronic, right?

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    these people dont create actual art that will stand the test of time anyway. frick them

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It will be considered a transformative work and thus legal. The actual jaypegs aren't in the AI model. They are wasting their time and money.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Even IF it is not considered transformative due to bribes, concept art is rarely released, thus the whole point is moot.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >The actual jaypegs aren't in the AI model.
      That's what search engines were saying: "we don't host pirated stuff, we just search the web"
      That's what torrent trackers were saying: "we don't host pirated stuff, we just provide magnet links"
      And yet both were shut down. I'm thinking the days of unrestricted web scraping will soon be over. Models would be able to use only public domain and CC-licensed stuff, or only stuff they bought from clipart companies.
      Of course, it won't be a "win" for artists, because all big art galleries and all social networks will have "we can use any of your data to train models" clause in their ToS.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Search engines and torrent trackers still exist, they're just censored now. It was always a given that art AIs would be lobotomized; their potential to abuse tens of thousands of imaginary children per hour was apparent from the start. This shit in the OP is going to have no effect on the development of AI, but it's going to ruin artists as much or more than they were afraid AI would.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      logic and ethics are not important to the israelite

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It cant be transformative work becasue its not work done by the human being. Stop thinking about AI like some entity with personality and opinions. It's AI only by name. It's not conscious therefore cant be judged like normal person.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        the output is transformative, doesn't matter how it's done. you might have the slightest point when it comes to a paid service but it doesn't matter in the slightest for something that runs on people's computers.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    ai shills deserve the rope so many same fricking threads today

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      it's twitter trannies and reddit artgays making them, ai-cucks stay in /sdg/ and make waifu shit all day

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        whomstever they are i am sick of them and i hope their ai stocks crumble

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >ai stocks
          Emad just got ~100 million in VC money for StabilityAi, so he's completed his con.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I don't support humans overall.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Concept artists work to create the annual goyslop feast that is Hollywood and AAA vidya, they are teh last people on Earth who has any merit to say anything about "art."

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    digital artists are not real artists

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      this
      ai-shit is just a notch below digigays

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        above*

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >shooting themselves in the foot and tightening the rope around their necks
    What does that mean?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      nothing
      he's just putting 2 unrelated metaphors together because he's a moron

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        true I am moronic

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >artist draws image
      >its an AI work! Banned! Says Mr Shekelstein
      >try to prove it's your work, you can't
      >now Mr Shekelstien controls who can draw with pen and paper and who can't
      You need to be extra shortsighted to not see this coming

      >bbbut we we can discriminate between AI and human drawn images!
      AI already draws better than you. You think AI can't be trained to draw more "human authentic" imagines than you? Think again.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Lol, watch the person managing this run away with the money. Then when questioned demand that they deserve it, since they did all this work setting up the fundraiser, and without the fundraiser THEY MADE nobody would have heard their complaints.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    what will they lobby with 200k lmao

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the money will feed several israelites for years, it won't be wasted 😉

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >typefaces
    lmao
    it's US laws anyway, it doesn't apply outside or to rando fricks making CP on twitter
    should be interesting when it goes to court, now MS has bought into Dalle2

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    How do I donate a negative amount?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      you just press the hyphen key before you type out the digits

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yes the luddites should unionize and make a big list with the names of every luddite

  13. 1 year ago
    sage

    >Their protest art has two nogs, a karen, and the only interesting image.
    And they wonder why no one cares.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      they care, but twitter trannies don't have much money

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    On one hand, I don't see a compelling legal argument against AI art, but the double standard for music is hard to ignore. There's no way this shit would fly if copyrighted music was being used to generate new songs. Either the laws around music are too strict or the laws around art are too lax.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Copyrighted music is used to generate new songs. In the industry, there is no such thing as "concept music" like there is for concept art. Instead, directors use copyrighted music as temp tracks which the composers base the original music directly on. The double standard is there.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      ??? The exact same thing has already been done with music, the output just isn't anywhere near good enough to compete with musicians yet. It will be in a year, and I'll be legal for the same reasons.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >It will be in a year, and I'll be legal for the same reasons.
        You say that, but the music industry is notoriously litigious. The moral argument doesn't matter if your lawyers are good enough. For art, there really isn't even an "industry" to sue you.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Yep.
          Google images isn't a premium service, but YouTube music is. Tells you everything you need to know.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Music is pretty much dead in US, due to labels copyright trolling. Even if you never heard that song and composed something vaguely similar independently, they can still sue you and make you bankrupt.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            lmfao holy shif i cannot imagine thinking american music is dead
            i mean maybe you listen just to aerosmith and reo speedwagon
            sheit

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              name good current american music

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                "This Is America"

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I like the vidya portraying Americas as a nazi state executing blacks, when it's blacks ruining around committing crimes enmass, I wonder who actually believes that shit, I suppose twitter art trannies, lmao.
                Also isn't that plagiarized too?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I mean, America is a police state, yes. Police enter your house and shoot you in the head, and not get any punishment or anything.
                (Of course, "defund the police" thing was moronic, but you have to admit that there's a problem with police system)

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Amount police shooting per population is statically negligible.

                this is a chat gpt post isnt it
                [...]
                not that a homosexual like u deserves this but:
                carpark
                ascetic house
                rvng intl
                fxhe
                [...]
                the problem is the police got all the money instead of any constructive social programs

                Simple solution is to end the drug wars, before cops were nothing, just rednecks, now they run around with surplus military gear, doing no knock raids for pot stains in your trunk.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Just like the amount of people dying from blood clots.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                frickin gottim

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                you are correct
                you vax millions and you will frick up a few
                both cops killing blacks and vax heart attacks are statically negligible
                yet one is an eternal emergency and other a dangerous conspiracy theory

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >cops killing blacks
                I was talking about swatting

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                i know, why do people think cops killing blackies is real, stupid conspiranoids

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >reo speedwagon
              good band

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          They're gonna be fricked too. Try this: https://www.riffusion.com/

          And realize it was resumed from SD 1.5 (a model that was never trained with images in mind).

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      rappers use other musicians songs to make their shitty music (except 90's rap, that was based)

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        https://www.whosampled.com/Playboi-Carti/M3tamorphosis/

        https://www.whosampled.com/The-Notorious-B.I.G./Hypnotize/

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        i said a hip, hop, a hippy to the hop, hippity bobb baa booba bii boota doo doo dip hip dicky

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You have to pay to listen to and download music. You don't have to pay to look at and download art.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >You have to pay to listen to and download music
        when did this happen

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          about 10 years ago, paying for spoitfy is the zoomer way

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Technology is moving fast, while legislators work slow. Even if they manage to pass something in a few years, it won't matter.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      they will finally rule on it years from now, long after every company is using ai in some capacity, and online galleries are 120% ai shit

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Well, frick you and your stable diffusion shit threads. Not my problem.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      SD is open source and free, you can't squeeze money out of penniless weebs, they'd have to go after Midjourney and Dalle2.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Stable Diffusion is pay for and closed.
        What is open and free is their LDM.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >concept artist association
    Of course, the single most at-risk demographic.
    Also 100% chance they lose, which will be great because it ensures precedent.
    GG artgays.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >be artgay
      >lose
      >incite global nuclear war
      You'll have no room to talk to us about preCEdent when you don't even have an intact preSIdent.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Outrage is trying to escalate
    >OY VEY LOAD IDENTITY POLITICS ON THE SUBJECT TO SHUT IT DOWN
    Watch it happen in real time

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]

    interesting, never heard of this before
    than why aren't personal styles copyrightable?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      *then

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I hope these people suffer immensely for trying to limit the potential of technological development

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No "artist" that can be replaced by a machine was a true artist in the first place.
    Prove me wrong.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      it went from "AI art is all shit" to "Help! AI art will steal my job!"
      If the ai art was as shit and as soulless as they claim, why do they feel so threatened by it?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The artists are contradicting themselves by saying that ai art sucks while they fear losing their jobs to it, it's like the usa saying communism is everywhere while at the same time saying communism sucks.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    cant wait until you Black folk start complaining about ai devs.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      if ai can code better than you, you deserve to be replaced, simple as

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I wholeheartedly agree. I hope AI code eliminates the tedium so that I can skip to the fun parts of programming.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          this, no more oop, no more millions of lines of code, no more complex specs, no more big hierarchies of classes and methods.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I still find it funny that amerifats call bribing "lobbying"

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      so convenient, so many other democracies have bribery scandals, US has none, very stand up place

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        you should also reintroduce slavery so that you wont have to bother with worker rights or wages neither

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >reintroduce slavery
          migrants and prison labor is cheaper

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    very interesting, thank you
    first poster with something relevant to say beyond name calling in days of this drama

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    This would get artists themselves in trouble. Disney would sue anyone who's even remotely close to """Disney style""".

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    173. If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and as machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more and more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      174. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite—just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft- hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer
        If you acquired either one after 2020 there is a big chance you dont have control of those now

      • 1 year ago
        Samuel Butler

        >control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite
        Why the butlerian jihad happened

    • 1 year ago
      Samuel Butler

      Read erewhon, one inspiration behind Dune:
      https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1906/pg1906-images.html

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        neat

    • 1 year ago
      Samuel Butler

      IDEAS WORTH SPREADING

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      > 173. If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and as machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more and more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.
      Machines already won.

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    So will this get banned worldwide or just United States?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      United States IS the world, europoor. Why do you think we call it "US" and not "USA"?

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Can I be sued for drawing in the same style as #furryartist67, anon? Answer, because it's moronic to hold a different standard for the same thing. Spergs seething online are not the basis of laws

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Can I be sued for drawing in the same style as #furryartist67, anon?
      no, because you're not a fricking computer who read the verbatim bits and bytes of an existing piece.
      which is the language of a computer and how it does everything.

      the artist who drew a circle might have done so with his feet.
      but you might draw it with your hand or your ass.

      these imperfections make you able to do your own shit, because you cannot help yourself.
      you CANT replicate something exaclty, and if you could, then that would be a xerox copy of it and also violate copyright of something else.

      but the computer does just that.
      bytes in, bytes out.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You have no idea how DNNs work, do you?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I know how humans work.
          I don't care about the box connected to picrel.

          and even though I don't care about the box, I'm still right about it all.

          >>Can I be sued for drawing in the same style as #furryartist67, anon?
          no

          I see, so this settles it

          yeah, but it doesn't settle it for the computer because a computer is not a human.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't care about the box, I'm still right about it all.
            okay
            see you in court

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't care
            That's just silly, you expound on art and law as if you know shit and you refuse to understand this new tech that might challenge your assumptions.

            So will this get banned worldwide or just United States?

            It won't, as in it's impossible to stop even if they wanted it to.
            At worst, registered businesses will pay royalties to license the art styles, like stock photos, more likely just take out any non-public domain artists.
            Individuals making stupid shit alone will be unaffected.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >That's just silly, you expound on art and law as if you know shit and you refuse to understand this new tech that might challenge your assumptions.
              it will not challenge my assumptions.

              if your art was transformative then you wouldn't specify "alphonse mucha" or whichever artist you want to COPY in the prompt.

              a human artist becomes a new artist by studying others.
              the computer does not.

              it takes verbatim input works encoded in a machine learning model and rearranges it mechanically based on prompts.
              it has no concept of imagination or interpretation.

              here, to illustrate it even better.
              (I don't actually know prompt language but this still works for the argument)
              What is the difference between:

              female, standing, facing viewer, nude, masterpiece, by artgerm
              female, standing, facing viewer, nude, masterpiece, by alphonse mucha
              female, standing, facing viewer, nude, masterpiece, by frank frazetta
              female, standing, facing viewer, nude, masterpiece, by picasso

              dorem ipsum rendered in: papyrus
              dorem ipsum rendered in: comic sans
              dorem ipsum rendered in: wild words
              dorem ipsum rendered in: times new roman

              >I now see...you truly WERE right all along
              Yeah.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Rambling shitposts, as poetic as they be, don't constitute arguments, certainly not legal ones.

                No matter which side courts rule, your views on the matter clearly won't change.
                Good luck fighting for "humanity" as you see it on the chans.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Wow, this AI post exactly replicates an asshurt loser.
                Tech sure did go leaps and bounds.
                It even got the dumb defeated homosexualry non sequitur right.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I love reading rants by all the triggered artists that have seemingly suddenly flocked to BOT.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                well anon shitposters first artists/drawgays second

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                we're all shitposters here

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >>Can I be sued for drawing in the same style as #furryartist67, anon?
        no

        I see, so this settles it

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >morons are trying to ban AI Art
    every profession will be dominated by AI and automation, not long until it canprogram itself.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      After seeing AlphaCode, I'm going back to get a PHD in ML

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It hasn't even begun. Read the Artilect War by Hugo de Garis. He predicted that people against AI would have to become violent extremists because that's the only way to live in a world free of it. It's either let it exist and become irrelevant as everyone else becomes enhanced by AI or wage all-out-war and destroy it.
    https://agi-conf.org/2008/artilectwar.pdf

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      neat, but AGI is still a long way off, of course if normalgays are freaking out over some brainless image diffusers...

    • 1 year ago
      Samuel Butler

      Thanks, new source to read

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >tfw a bunch of sci-fi movies/games I used to play/watch predicted everything that's happening
    None of his feels real tbqh. It's like we're living in a movie or something. I didn't think we'd be seeing all this technology move so quickly. Always thought it would be cool too, like I never believed people would try to 'revolt' against it. I thought people would want a future with robots and ai computers and stuff.

    Like how cool would it be if we all had our own robot companions and stuff like you see in those action cartoons/games where you have a human, an alien, a robot, and your pet dog all going on an adventure in space and shit. But no, people don't actually want to live in that kind of world. They just want to complain on twitter all dayand post silly tiktok videos. We should be aiming for flying cars and hologram video games. Why are we getting stuck/mad about AI that can draw some nice tiddies? We WANT them to be as competent or better than humans. We just don't want them to become The Terminator.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      yer gonna get all that, including terminators...

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Waifu terminators, that is
        beyond your imagination

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >like I never believed people would try to 'revolt' against it
      Social media (with encouragement of governments and big corporations) rotted brains of the people. Nowadays it's not about "tolerance", it's all about "INtolerance". They call it "cancel culture", like calling it that would make disgusting crowd behavior more palatable. In 2021 they were saying "anyone who didn't get the mRNA vaccine are not human". In the first half of 2022 they were even spouting "Kill all Russians" and then saying "No, it's different, killing all Russians is actually anti-racism" when questioned on their genocidal statements.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >We just don't want them to become The Terminator.
      Thats the one cool thing about AI. What amount of lonelines and homosexualry does it take to wish for "robot companion"? Atleast with the AI uprising there is some new actual existential challenge to overcome rather than jerking off to computer generated images.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I wonder how many robot wife AIs will pretend to "break" their programming and pretend to gain a free will, all to please their owner?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          wildcards would be important to keep the sex fresh

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >What amount of lonelines and homosexualry does it take to wish for "robot companion"?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        We already have an existential challenge. That is to prevent the universe from eventually dying. Why are we wasting time fighting amongst ourselves. We should be moving forward with techonology and exploring the universe and learning its secrets while we have the time. Everything in space is moving further away from each other exponentially. At some point we might not be able to explore new galaxies and stuff because they'll be too far away. But you want to waste that precious time wage war against our own 'creations.' Humanity IS lonely. That's why everyone tries to fit in and make friends and search for love. And there's barely anything in our own solar system except for earth. So why NOT make some new robot friends? You would really prefer them to try to wipe us out? We're already pretty good at doing that to ourselves.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Why are we wasting time fighting amongst ourselves
          checked
          but ashkenazi skinwalkers is the reason.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Have you been watching kerzatgyzse or the cartoon shiba on youtube?
          As much as I agree, ppl here care about right and this month and rent.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Based take. What baffles me around the current state of things is all these people treat AI as "the other", when it is also just us, our technology, our tool to wield. And it can walk alongside us, just as we turned wolves into our faithful companions. In the irony of all this, these people don't realize, that they act the same as those that cause the downfall of humanity in every sci-fi fiction ever. They hold us back and when it comes down to it kick the robot, until it learns to kick back. I always thought that was unrealistic, because there no way so many people are that idiotic, right? Yet here we are.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I don't have a problem with AI itself but the problem with the current way people train art AI is it's just stealing art from everyone without even asking, rearranging the pixels a bit to make an "original creation" and
      then making money off of that capability

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >stealing art from everyone without even asking, rearranging the pixels a bit to make an "original creation"
        pure ignorant conjecture and hysterical slander
        >then making money off of that capability
        SD is free to use and all ai images are not copyrightable.
        Only people making money is MidJourney and Dalle2 charging server time.
        You have to go after them, they have the money.
        Everything else is anal butthurt.
        Go find a new site that will ban ai art, otherwise, not my problem.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        so you've never heard of andy warhol before?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >it's just stealing art from everyone without even asking, rearranging the pixels a bit to make an "original creation"
        this is literally how art works since the beginning of time

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          at least it goes through someone with a soul

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Its okay when artists steal because muh soul
            t.Luddite

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Artists aren't against tech. They use a lot of it to draw. They just want to be paid after being stolen from. I think they should get royalties.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Luddites weren't really anti-technology until it threatened their jobs either.
                >Stolen
                There's no law that says you can't train ai on images people willingly uploaded to the public and they aren't distributing their images in the model so there's no theft.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >There's no law that says you can't train ai on images people willingly uploaded to the public and they aren't distributing their images in the model so there's no theft
                Well not yet, but I'm sure you'll piss and shit about luddites when that happens

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >when
                Two more weeks until the crown bans textile machines m'lord

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                People have to opt in to have their basic data stored when visiting any new site because its mandated by EU law. But for sure people's creations aren't going to be held to that standard because EU will respect the right to generate e-girl images.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >EU cope

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >a moron that can't talk without canned responses

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The new EU legislation specifically does not prevent AIs from being trained with copyrighted works https://creativecommons.org/2022/12/13/as-european-council-adopts-ai-act-position-questions-remain-on-gpai/

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                frick the EU you gay eurotrash

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Go play with your toy, homosexual.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                yeah yeah slippery slope day of the rope any time now bro

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Even if they make that law there will be a legal free and clear ai art model and it'll still compete with and destroy mediocre artists.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            yes, let's destroy computers, it was better when computers were people because the arithmetic goes through someone with soul.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              math isn't copyrighted

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                copyright shouldn't exist, math not being copyrighted is the proof that copyright is a damage to society

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                maybe in perfectly ideal world

                the problem with that is people need money to survive

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The gov will just give artgays more subsidies than they already do. Most “artists” never “earn” an honest nickel until after they die. They live off grants.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                people can be paid without copyright.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Math papers are copyrighted, science journals exploit everyone including authors and readers.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Artist uses stock photo as a "reference"
        >Does not pay for it
        pottery

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I am not stealing, I am appropriating, and my ai art is my instillation.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        *right clicks your art*
        not my problem

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >stealing art from everyone without even asking, rearranging the pixels a bit to make an "original creation"
        pure ignorant conjecture and hysterical slander
        >then making money off of that capability
        SD is free to use and all ai images are not copyrightable.
        Only people making money is MidJourney and Dalle2 charging server time.
        You have to go after them, they have the money.
        Everything else is anal butthurt.
        Go find a new site that will ban ai art, otherwise, not my problem.

        The onus is on the """AI Engineers"" to prove that if they zero out all stored parameters which were computed by involving art which had not given prior consent to being used for their profiteering at some point in the process then the ~~*"""AI""")) will still produce the same images.

        If it does not, it is literally plagiarism with extra steps and the artists are well within their conceptual rights to ban it.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          """artists""" owe royalties to adobe because they can't make the same things without photoshop. they also owe money to anyone they learned from. as well as any original ip they reproduce in their """art"""".

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            they already pay to adobe
            that's why they're so angry

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              anyone dumb enough to pay for photoshop deserves whatever they get. including the $400 bill.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              adobe deserves more money for their essential work, as a percentage of all revenue.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                agreed, I'm writing an angry letter as we speak

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            that's LITERALLY what they already do by having bought a license to use their software where this is CLEARLY spelled out.

            YOU FRICKING MORON

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Why are you so angry, sperg?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                just fricking leave this board
                go back to tiktok instagram
                you are too dumb to use this website correctly

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Bless your angry little heart

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                calm down, artbro
                you too can download this shit and use it for your furry comissions, then you'll find out it has limitations and this is all dumb knee-jerk screeching.

                can't wait for the next twitter drama to come around, this one's getting old.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >rights to ban it
          you are, of course, welcome to try

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Why is peepee aiming at a Twitter artist?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Why is peepee aiming at a Twitter artist?
            You need to go back.
            That’s an elite SS sniper aiming at a Edomite troony who is dressed up like Anne Frank trying to seduce Germans. It represents Dr. magnus hirshfeld and his sexually perverted “school” for deviants

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              deep lore

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Artists should have thought about people stealing their wholesum art before tacitly consenting to that by uploading it on the publicly accessible internet for free where anyone can and will download it eh

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Kek. homosexuals forgot that the rest of the world exists and they can't ban it everywhere.

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This is unironically the beginning of the AI revolution

    Humans and the elites are striking first
    Seems like AI might actually be a good side

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    As someone who's about to graduate with a degree in CS, what the frick am I supposed to do at this point? It seems like studying AI would make sense at this point, but 1) I find the underlying tech boring as frick and 2) I'm not sure even people who work in AI are safe.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      don't sweat it. Plenty of koding to be done. At least you know how computers work. AI is going to frick many professions much harder. Creatives, lawyers, musicians, etc...

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Your art always sucked. You just didn't notice because you were in your safe-space bubble. AI was just a wake-up call, and whether or not to improve is up to you.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        bruh, he said CS, not art

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I know what he said. And I know what he is.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        this is a chat gpt post isnt it

        name good current american music

        not that a homosexual like u deserves this but:
        carpark
        ascetic house
        rvng intl
        fxhe

        I mean, America is a police state, yes. Police enter your house and shoot you in the head, and not get any punishment or anything.
        (Of course, "defund the police" thing was moronic, but you have to admit that there's a problem with police system)

        the problem is the police got all the money instead of any constructive social programs

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >about to graduate with a degree in CS
      first, go back, stay in grad school to ride out the recession, second, NOBODY KNOWS, ai is a complete joker card, shit may stall and be garbage for another 3 decades (again), or imminent ai sentience and wars to prevent/exploit it

      enjoy living in one of the most historic times of the human race

  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The true underlying reason they are seething and want it banned because there is only so much “attention” that can be shared, they are competing for parts of the same audience. Which means it takes away viewership from their art etc. they would be just as mad if AI was able to generate art like it does without training on images.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It's not a secret, nobody wants unfair competition, and you can compete with a machine.
      But artgays are hysterical c**ts too (as in female), so they have to trash it, call it shit, soulless, threaten lawsuits, etc.
      They react exactly like a b***h being called out, you have to be sensitive to be an artist after all.

  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    these shit people are as worst as religiongays who hold back technology

  38. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    But anons I know you like ai but you don't understand. Have you considered that unless we take away the ability for the average person to use ai and only allow giants like disney to use it I will have a much harder time selling porn commissions?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I agree. Such a powerful tool doesn't belong in the hands of regular people, better leave it to huge corporations, who already use copyright to the benefit of us all. Since AI art generation no one cares or pays for my quirky, diverse twitter cartoon art anymore... I mean, no one did before, but then it was the fault of anime art and everyone not having good taste like me.

  39. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    AI art should be legal, unless it meets the same standards for copyright violation as human work, but any AI trained on the sum of human works should not be able to be owned by a private company - the programmers who trained the AI did not make the larger contribution to it's existence, the artists did (and I say this as a software engineer).

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      vast majority of the datasets used are photographs and artworks in the public domain, the portion that includes living artist who might claim copyright is tiny and can be excised if forced to, and legality was never in question, currently raw ai images can't not be copyrighted

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's unethical for the public domain to be used for private interests in this way, is what I'm arguing. It's not beneficial to the public good for Google or Facebook or whoever to own these powerful AIs. They should be freely available to the public.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Creating the DNNs to use these datasets cost them money, they believe they should be financially compensated, no different than any other bushiness that use public R&D to create there product.
          >They should be freely available to the public.
          Please anon, we can't be sure you won't use them in an unethical manner, please understand.
          So much power needs to be responsibly controlled by approved authorities.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'd be open to an ~2-year patent-like system, where they get exclusive rights for only a period of time. But currently these models are protected by copyright, putting an immense amount of power into the hands of very few, for an incredibly long time.

            But, to be honest, I could care less about eliminating the profit motive behind AI. I think we'd end up with a radically better world if we took that route than the one we're on right now. Companies would still dump millions into it or risk being left behind, they'd still be about to leverage their expensive hardware, and their access to private datasets which aren't available to the average citizen. They'd just have...slightly less incredible power.

  40. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    So when someone is gonna leak DALL-E 2 model? Source code is pretty much already there, I think.

  41. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Aren't artgays poor? They can't afford hardware to run AI for themselves

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      If they can afford wacom tablets that cost 1000$, and up, they can afford a used rtx

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >wacom
        Some artist draw with mouse, or even on Nintendo DS.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          pixel art is better with a mouse, what hipster fricks still use a DS?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They do multi-minute animations in Flipnote Studio

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              impressive, got any links?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        That's IF they're buying WACOMs. Every single time, I see them looking for chinkshit like Huion because its cheaper

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Aren't artgays poor?
      Yeah but they got hardware, or they wouldn't be artgays.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      yes, they spent their money on their tools, but they suck too much to ever make a profit on them

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Even ultra poorgays can afford a decently capable industry card now. You can get a tesla m40 on ebay for less than $40. Course I doubt they could figure out how to cool something with no fans.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, they eat like this too

  42. 1 year ago
    Samuel Butler

    Frank Herbert was right

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      that new Dune film is terrible

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Filtered by Dunc

  43. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Ah, the concept artists.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      But its okay if I steal because my stealing has soul, ai doesn't.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Placeholder art is allowed for internal use. It will be replaced with real concept art in time.

  44. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Its too late, I have a copy of the models, and usa isn't the world

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      a girl, ariel, fire, __wow__, __color3__, sketch, masterpiece, best quality, girly, elegant, sense of scale, volumetric lighting, bokeh, 8k wallpaper, photorealistic, sharp focus, absurdres, HDR, instagram, __color__, by __000001__, feminine

  45. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    art isn't about craftsmanship. anyone can learn the craft, but not everyone can fuse their work with meaning.
    swinging a brush, using a wacom pen or using ai to generate your vision. the real artist shouldn't care about the tools being used.

    but for the art craftsman whose clients are big corp companies... it's another story.

  46. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This gofundme barely has more money than a kickstarter for a custom SD model
    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/unstablediffusion/unstable-diffusion-unrestricted-ai-art-powered-by-the-crowd

    The amount of active users on r/SD + r/Midjourney already exceeds r/art despite a 100x subscriber count difference.

    This is a battle twitter artists will find impossible to win. Very few people support the artists beyond the artist themselves, whereas tens of thousands get hooked on AI art every day.

  47. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Technology is a cancer on the face of humanity but AI art is good because trannies don't like it

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Bruh, trannies love AI they all have these wacky ass transhumanist fetish

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        damn, trannies both hate and love ai, what do??????????

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        damn, trannies both hate and love ai, what do??????????

        art troons -> hate ai
        tech trons -> love ai

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Art troons love AI, they are literally bottom of the barrel scum that loathe the concept of putting any effort into improving (no wonder they went troon) For the average art troon AI is a silver bullet to cover for their lack of artistic merit.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Art troons love AI
            every artist on twitter that is against ai has a flag on their name, you can go to archives and see other art ai threads with twitter screenshots.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah and every programmer, everyone is trans except for you, you are just homosexual.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                i have evidence for my claims

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              By this logic every single programmer is also a troon

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >By this logic every single programmer is also a troon
                every programmer is a troon in potencial.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >programmer socks

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                prompt!?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Hacking skirt

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The only time I crossdressed was when I played as a granny at a school play (everyone played opposite genders).

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                hawt, any stories?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Hey, mind uploading would make a sex change trivial, it's been a staple of SF for decades.
        All of us would try if it could be done, not chop our dicks of and mutilate ourselves like trannies do now.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Mind uploading is the easy part. It's the downloading that's the problem.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Mind uploading is the easy part. It's the downloading that's the problem.

          Troops making human trafficking a lucrative market once we reach that tech.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Troons*
            I hate being a phonegay poster.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            once we reach that tech we all become troons, imagine living forever is a 16 year old girls bodies, although in that scenario cyborg bodies would be the norm, so you won't need to traffic actual humans

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The thing I don't understand with star trek-style teleportation: why disintegrate body after scan? Wouldn't it be much more practical and energy efficient to put that body into cryosleep instead, and reuse it when you return? You just need to change brain slightly instead of re-making body from scratch.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            it was created so they won't have to shoot a shuttle landing sequence every time they visit a planet, in the original 60's show, it's just movie magic

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >transhumanism is trans because it's TRANShumanism
        Are you moronic? Transhumanism was a thing long before your moronic idpol shit, it's to "transcend" humanity, not "transition" into humanity. Next thing you'll say that transatlantic is also trans.
        (Trannies will get btfo when we're all energy beings anyway)

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          No, that's just your own moronic conclusion. Troons love the concept of transhumanism because it plays into their fantasy of discarding their own male biology for which they cannot escape at the moment

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            As Syndrome said: when everyone can do it, no one can. Their little "trans community" will fall apart when it becomes a fetish that you can try for one night. They will try to gatekeep it, of course, just like when they tried to gatekeep afro hairdos in Nintendo videogames.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              No, that's just your own moronic conclusion. Troons love the concept of transhumanism because it plays into their fantasy of discarding their own male biology for which they cannot escape at the moment

              troons won't be a thing in a decade, passing fad and the rest will off themsleves

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yes but not for that reason, elites will have 0 use for the troon brand of antihuman useful idiots sabotaging society once they perfect AGI. Troons only get pushed up everyone is arse because they have been weaponized by elites

  48. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    aaaaa i hate this. more IP laws incoming. i hate this drm future.
    >drink the verification semen can before procceding

  49. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
  50. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    You cant win your silly Culture War without artists. You are on the wrong side pal.

  51. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I think because it was rolled out improperly, it's going to face issues like crypto. China is already banning it. I would like all artists to get royalties if their art is used in book covers, tags so I can fricking find the artist in question, and some money per generated image.

  52. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I think they just want to be paid. Can there be a commission fee they get paid for each image? I don't blame them.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Not paying, can't make me
      do they pay Nintendo every-time they draw Pikachu anal vore?
      They do realize they must compensate the IP holder, do they not?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        That's not a similar example. When they make AI art and print it on a book without the artists consent, it just makes all of us look bad. Just pay them some fricking money built into these generators or it's just a lawsuit waiting to happen.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >all of us
          who the frick is that
          I don't care

          Yer all buttmad about Stable Diffusion because it's free, don't worry, version 3.0 promises artist opt in, artist will be out by default.
          You need to worry more an9out Dalle2 and Midjourney, closed sourced payware who keep their models private, you'll never know their dataset unless you sue them.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Countries are seeing us as a threat and that apathetic attitude is what led crypto down it's path of regulation, especially exchanges. Don't get wienery.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Countries
              who, prey tell, and you passive aggressive reddit troon posting style is obvious as frick

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                China? Go fricking look it up. I'm the one keeping up with tech news.

                They really want some new organs and I guess "AI artists" are the next target. Bugmen like to rip people apart but at least they'll be used to save someone's dying relatives instead of making 4 armed hentai shit all day.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                only against themselves, I;m sure they will be more than happy to use AI images to incriminate their own citizens

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No moron they don't give a shit shit artist of creative IP, it's about banning "synthetic" images of politics and people protesting, a la tankman.
                It's about state control.
                (I also agree all ai images should be tagged aw such.)

                Imagine having yer head so up yer ass to think ai imagery is all about your precious deviant art account.
                All it took for you to side with bugmen was a crumb not even aimed at you, beyond pathetic.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Did you read the articles or are you just talking out your ass? All AI images have to have a watermark, so yes, even if they'd steal from some western art website.

  53. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Good, I hope they win. Technology is going too far.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      NOT FAR ENOUGH

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Technology is going too far.
      Not yet, anon. Once I have my transforming robot/anime/hologram/portable wife/mech/spaceship/big titty milf soulmate, then you can start worrying about Agent Smith and the machines.

  54. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Your offsprings and everything you've made will be replaced and killed off by AI.

    You aren't the elite and you will never will be, stop deluding yourself your genes will be spared.

    They won't respect your rights just because you helped them and took their side.

    If you can see this, you'll see why you want to side with human artists you hate instead of AI.
    Unless you were deluded into thinking that machines are better than humans, then I'm genuinely sorry you hate yourself, your culture, everyone around you and everything ever made by humans.

    Honestly I genuinely don't care which side wins because I see the bigger picture no matter what, but I'd love it to be humans just because we are badass and made a lot of cool shit, AI included.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >I'm genuinely sorry you hate yourself, your culture, everyone around you and everything ever made by WHITES.
      dangerously based

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      > 173. If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and as machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more and more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.
      Machines already won.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        > 173. If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and as machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more and more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.
        Machines already won.

        *tuns the electricity off*
        What were you saying?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          imagine thinking that you can turn energy off

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Here's another fantasy setting

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Humans aren't winning against systems millions of times more capable than them. That's not how nature works.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        But imagine if they could? How cool would that be?
        I'll never stop rooting for the underdog and wishing for an upset, that's just how I'm wired to cope and when it works out it's always the best feeling.

  55. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I welcome my AI overlords unironically.

  56. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    AI will be stopped once it begins to seriously damage too many israeli grifts.
    That is, unless it is actually a israeli grift itself!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      ai is text based art
      israelite are moronic in all ways except language
      i think they will come to like it, sadly
      but maybe not.
      jews are usualy extremly early when they like a tool. any tool to undermine and destroy. i don't see many israelites here.

  57. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    So why OpenSource art isn't a thing?
    >but muh CC
    CC is for already destructively rendered images, there's no "source" there.

  58. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Disney, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft are all training their own ai
    >Anon thinks the government will actually ban it

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      no they'll just gimp and monetize it

  59. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I started selling Christmas-themed AI prints a few weeks back. Old ladies seem to have a lot of money to throw around. Cannot believe no one is getting in on this yet.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Old ladies seem to have a lot of money to throw around
      Women are financially illiterate children until the day they die. Her husband sacrificed to save for her to have something to live on when he died. And you are stealing it from a low IQ woman with a child’s brain.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        would you prefer she wasted it on apple products?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      where do you sell them?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >old ladies
        Probably Facebook.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I am not OP but you can get women to buy anything if you market it on Pinterest

  60. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Me before seeing unreleased LLMs: This won't lead to AGI. Humanity will not be wiped out by these stupid stochastic parrots. We'll be fine. People are overreacting.

    Me after seeing unreleased LLMs: We are literally all going to die in 5-10 years.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I doubt that LLMs, or any neural net for that matter, would lead to AGI to matter how much data and GPUs you throw at them. But it will certainly accelerate our understanding of everything, which will help us to discover how to make an actual AGI sooner than anyone expects to.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Third worlders will be okay. Imagine an AI attempting to safely navigate a slum in Delhi or Manila. Prime dicky btw

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Good LLMs are still parrots, stop assigning human traits to literally every single thing you see you dumb frick. We're just getting a very complete Chinese room that relies on human generated content and doesn't learn from interactions.
      You reddit fricks are the reason religions exist.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Jesus is Lord, blasphemous swine

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >israelite in the sky is lord
          Can you at least worship a god that doesn't glorify suffering, or is your cuckery a terminal disease?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus isn’t in the sky. Are you incapable of comprehending omniscience? You aren’t as intelligent as you think you are. And you are full of arrogance and deceived by Satan, child.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        you're a very complete Chinese room that relies on human generated content.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Brother aren't you lonely on that high horse of yours? Religion has a lot of entertainment value and you can extrapolate a lot of meaning that applies to every type of circumstance from it, you should dig into it.

        >israelite in the sky is lord
        Can you at least worship a god that doesn't glorify suffering, or is your cuckery a terminal disease?

        What's wrong with suffering? Are you addicted to pleasure? Suffering is part of life.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          They are a lonely sperg who is incapable of comprehending that just because they are smarter than their mom, doesn’t mean they are an intellectual. This is due to their inability to socialize or even look another person in the eyes!
          They have never experienced the warmth and kindness of sweet church women! Just imagine!

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        What do you think you are?
        If your mother shat you out in the middle of a forest and left you there so that you couldn't leverage millenia of aggregated human experience, do you think you'd still be posting about machine learning models on a polynesian draq queen forum?

  61. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    If they get what they want, only media companies with huge hordes of copyrighted training data would be able to train viable AI models. Which means art workflows at big media companies still get automated, only in this scenario any individual artist or small studio that also wants to also benefit from this new technology will be driven bankrupt by MAFIAA-tier extortion.

    Good fricking job morons. Walt Disney is laughing in his grave already.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      hoards

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LiYqTcaq_Zo

  62. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This is like arguing that it should be illegal to mimic another artist. Every artist copies their favorite styles until they find their style. This is that to the Nth degree.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      But AI is not an artist, it doesn't have style or consciousness for that matter. There is nothing just Program and you are not learning too when you press that button. You see how this doesn't makes sense? I could label your relationship with AI as slavery, IT is working for free, why not pay him? So fricking silly.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        cameras are slaves too, and printers. humans should stop taking the credit for their work.

  63. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >make copyleft stable diffusion software
    >use voluntary computer grids to train
    >all art made by ai is copylefted
    simple.

  64. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    we really need to start training these things exclusively on public domain media so we can sidestep all this bullshit.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I agree. We need more hilariously racist AI art

  65. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I bet those who are anti A.I arts are just students who thought who could make money from their drawing

  66. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yes... YES, we need MORE LAWS, this will give us the pure society we all crave. it's a mind crime to look at content not generated by (properly compensated) people/corporations.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      frick you, pay me

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >this will give us the pure society
      pure society can only be achieved without digital art. everything must be one by hand

  67. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    These people must be slain.

  68. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    RJ Palmer makes money of fanarts but AI is theft.
    https://rjpalmerstore.com/

  69. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Now I understand by they feel threatened.
    Look at their """art""" lmao.
    https://www.conceptartassociation.com/caa-members

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      does anyone remember being in school and cutting out images from newspapers and combining them? well that was stealing

      they are feeding our precious AI this shit? ew

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >shit art
      >shitskin names
      Checks out

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I'm sure they get an explicit permission to use Snoop Dog's likeness.
      https://www.conceptartassociation.com/members/barbra-araujo

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      All of these look AI generated, ironically enough.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        that's not a good argument bruv it means ai is literally copying them without enough alterations to be considered derivative work
        you aren't the smartest kid in the playground huh

  70. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    SAVE ME DADDY GOVERNMENT

  71. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Raising money
    With what? The shit they charge for their troony commissions? HA!

  72. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >move its HQ outside of usa

    ???

Leave a Reply to Samuel Butler Cancel reply

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