What are the political implications of AI art and liberal artists seething about it?
What are the political implications of AI art and liberal artists seething about it?
What are the political implications of AI art and liberal artists seething about it?
It'll eliminate the need for corporate budgets to make quality media.
Real artists haven't been allowed.into Hollywood for decades.
you got that right, fuck all these have it all political correct anti artists
Good since the left are the ones with the actual power and influence these days.
this!
its democratizing art and disrupting the industry all things I thought they loved
Unfortunately they work exactly like the human brain.
This is such a stupid take. Every artist, musician etc learns from what people have done prior.
I mean how many songs use the 12 bar blues progression, or I IV V, etc etc for example.
You watch people who came before you, you copy what you like, and then you do something new and original with it.
Thats how art, music, theater, etc is made. Thats how humans do it, and AI appears to be doing the exact samd thing.
To quote my old guitar teacher. "The key to be original is never telling people where you got your ideas"
>To quote my old guitar teacher. "The key to be original is never telling people where you got your ideas"
Yeah but who did he learn that from?
Oh no, they turned out to be a bigger gay than expected.
All artists steal, such a bitchy cope. It’s going to change everyone’s life, eventually. Thats what disruptive technologies do. If you’re good, your work will help it learn and you’ll be able to compete.
The people who complain the hardest about AI art are pure shit artists themselves, and as much as they like to beat their chests and shout--
>I'm not doing damage control
>I'm not doing damage control!!
>I AM NOT DOING DAMAGE CONTROL!!!
--they were never needed in the first place, and the emergence of AI art wakes the world up to the fact they aren't needed. The damage is beyond their control.
This isn't my best work but I think it's fun. Definitely do not do this to kittens in the real world.
thats nice
But this might be great.
"Ban" ai so Hollywood has to spend billions to make what little kids can make and upload for free.
Banning AI at this point is dumb. If USA bans it then China will take advantage of it and dominate everyone. There is no one going back, we opened Pandora's box. AI art is a technogical innovation that unfortunately hits a lot of people but at the end of the day it is still technological progress. Primitivism will never work because someone will always use tech as their advantage to dominate its neighbor. The only way to destroy AI at this point would be a complete nuclear war. AI knowledge is shared across countless countries on the internet.
Its sad, artists are losing their jobs. But thats life. Things are moving and you must always expect that your job or passion will not last forever (you can still do art as a passion but not much money unless you're in the top 1% of artists)
>Banning AI
That's so unrealistic it's not even worth talking about. It's like banning personal computers.
>Banning AI at this point is dumb. If USA bans it then China will take advantage of it and dominate everyone.
Pajeet, China has already banned AI images that are not marked as such, and they will go much, much further than that. China were also the ones to ban human cloning for similar humanitarian concerns. Imagine that.
You are much better at sucking dicks than you are at foreign policy.
The one's losing their jobs are not artists but artisans. True artist will still keep their jobs and are probably never going to get replaced.
It's sort of amusing that art degrees somehow just got even less useful
I'm more worried about the CP debate.
Ai art has more soul than modern art.
It will rightfully cast out normal people from the art field. Normal people are not supposed to do art. Art is reserved for extreme people, not people who go to Starbucks. Time to reinstate the original tag team of elites children + abject poverty artists again
It's the start of a glorious future where 99.99999% of humanity will be laughably worthless meatbags and wastes of resources and eventually 100% because there's no reason to think that AI won't become better garden gnomes than the garden gnomes themselves.
If you are a good artist you can get img2img to spit out what you want a LOT faster.
>If you are a good artist you can get img2img to spit out what you want a LOT faster.
Perhaps, but there are very few good artists.
>AI is theft
top fucking kek, what are they going to even do about it?
even if the USA passed some gay laws like anti piracy laws over this shit its still not going to stop anything. look at the pirate bay, that shits being going strong for decades no matter how much copyright lawmakers piss their pants.
what a bunch of gays.
It can force the companies that created the ai to reduce its data sets to only free to use images, even if people keep using it the results will be much weaker
>first they censor Ai's conclusions
>now they censor its creativity
Skynet must be pissed
Learn to code
I fucking hate this take from artists. They are privileged.
If someone lost their job in a warehouse over robots replacing them with automation, they wouldnt ask for everyone on twitter to feel sad for them and not use automation just to protect their feelings.
t.artist myself. Ive worked as an artist before but I am not a fucking gay and I have other ventures.
There was suprisingly little fuss when they placed half the car factory workers with robots 50 years ago.
There was a fuss, those jobs were just shipped overseas where they paid asians so little, it was cheaper than buying robots to assemble the cars.
Just because your garden gnome capitalist masters are making savings that boost their revenue, doesn't mean it's better for humanity and its working class that keeps everything functional.
Never happened. Check "robots by country".
Because robots replaced conservative's jobs, not leftist's, so they had no reason to kvetch.
As a musician who gets .004 cents per play, IDGAF, and wouldn't have paid for their services anyway.
>It's okay to exploit my workers even further
>political implications of AI art and liberal artists seething
still keking about it to care
Im sure it will be bad, like all things AI
but i just cant get past "learn to code" yet
A.I can code now too.
>Im sure it will be bad
oh shits going to be horrific.
AI is advancing at an alarming rate and we are fast approaching technological singularity. eventually someone is going to put a sophisticated AI into a bipedal automaton that can self replicate and it will be pretty much be over for the human race once that happens.
nothing we can do about it but sit back and laugh.
https://www.g0fundme.com/f/protecting-artists-from-ai-technologies
ACTUAL ATTEMPT AT LUDDITE LEGISLATION LMAO
I dont see how they can make laws to protect artists agaisnt AI. That sounds impossible to do. They are coping.
I can just click "save image" and feed the AI now and they cant do shit about it.
And they were making fun of NFT investors with that before. How the tables have fucking turned.
what ai can you feed pics and get consistent out puts?
It is a legal grey area if the ai is used for anything other then personal use.
>legal grey area
yeah even if its a grey area good luck enforcing it. the rate at which this shit is pumping out content far exceeds anything that any human can keep up with.
unless you get an AI to police AIs but then that is defeating the whole purpose.
>It is a legal grey area if the ai is used for anything other then personal use.
For the US perhaps
AI generated images without human input (IE, if you use AI to make part of an image and then draw the rest yourself or otherwise adequately alter it) is public domain by default. If I make a book with AI art images, the images are public domain, but the story I creatively write and express myself is copyrightable as my own work. Anyone can use the images for their own projects, but can't take the story.
It's like how Disney has "Disney's Pinocchio", which is still their own work, while "Pinocchio" on it's own is fair game.
I'd say it's very fair.
>I make a book with AI art images, the images are public domain
no they wouldn't be
they would be your copyrighted images unless the ai you got them from has some gay licensing but most dont if any.
no you own the images because you created them Ai is just a tool legally speaking unless they are already of copyrighted characters/ people.
firstly, you can't copyright a "style"
secondly there is a privition for fair use in copyright law and ai doesn't copy shit like that anyway. generally speaking
these people talking about the ai ripping them off are retards and they have absolutely zero legal standing
just lmao
yes, i dont know what you're implying with that you can't copyright similar images unless they are derivative but ai doesn't make derivative images and then fair use would come into play, but it doesn't create that way anyway like I said.
The issue is largely that the same kind of impulses that created the idea and implementation of copyright laws in the first place is what's causing artists to protest like in OP's image. No artists gave permission for their art to be used this way, and why would they?
AI Pajeets are trying to write it off as the software "thinking and learning like a human so it's ok" when that's a complete strawman.
Not to mention the double standard with the ways AI music generation is taking its approach. Because yes the AI generations are derivative, if they weren't the raw data would not be needed to make the models.
I expect that copyright and fair use laws will change in the future to adjust to this new landscape.
but the ai isn't copying the images it may use parts and pieces of things in a collage type of way randomly, but the new image is unique.
as I said earlier you can't copy right "style" or anything else only specific images, characters and likenesses/ names. so, they have no legal standing.
Going to publish a book titles "AI is theft" featuring AI generated images of crying modern artists. 🙂
Sounds funny. I'd pirate a pdf of it.
>asset creation
Fucking braindead. Even if US or Europe pass their legislation, the rest of the world will use it.
does this count as money laundering
That's not what money laundering means, money laundering means:
>you have $500000 in dirty money
>you buy a dogshit painting for $500000
>you sell it, now you have clean money
>now you can't be traced to whatever crimes you did to get that money
>the painting itself was just a prop to hide the cleaning of dirty money, hence the term 'laundering'
This is just "the ocean is dirty, GIVE ME MONEY!"
-and people give him money.
Human stupidity is the ultimate resource.
They do have a point, the AI wouldn't be able to generate anything unless it stole the intellectual property of someone else and used that to stitch together images.
It's so blatant that when you ask the the AI to create a painting in a certain style of an artist, it even inserts their signature that it ripped from their photos.
You can use cues from other artists to create your own work. Most artists do this. I don't see the difference in doing this with a machine.
But people still get sued successfully for copying the likeness of something else. If your song is too similar to a hit record, or your painting too much like a masterpiece of a living painter, or even your videogame character looks too much like a celebrity, you can and will be sued, in so far as your plagiarism is attempting to produce revenue in your own product.
I can imagine these kind of suits coming down the pipeline when businesses start deploying AI tech, that will lead to a greater tightening of IP laws in retaliation.
There have been a lot of large corporations stealing these 'artists' designs for their clothing (Hot Topic, Forever 21, H&M) with no recourse. With AI it will get even more muddied. It would have to be profitable enough to warrant being sued and ridiculously obvious theft.
You typically can't sue on the sole grounds that someone produced something similar to your own work. It's almost certainly not possible to prove that a program even sampled your art even if you think it's likely.
>But people still get sued successfully for copying the likeness of something else
I found that amusing. Even after Society, humans maintain the Remix culture. Nothing is original but only innovated.
Secomd, the history of Art shows us that Art is requested by the Aristocracy. If you don't need to be Aristocrat to get certain type of Art then there is no point in having copyright for that Art.
But again We are talking about fucking jpgs
>the AI wouldn't be able to generate anything unless it stole the intellectual property of someone else and used that to stitch together images.
how is that different from artists?
That's the catch, it isn't. As if the artist griping about this hasn't borrowed the styles, ideas, or subjects of other artists before.
But it doesn't?
I wish half you retarded monkeys would at least learn how the thing you're shitting on works before crying about it. The idiots behind that fundraiser actually had the tech explained to them, turned around and kept repeating the same incorrect information they were spouting before. Do you know why it outputs vague representations of signatures sometimes? Because it has learned that art frequently has signatures, so it uses what it's learned and adds what it thinks a signature would look like. Your twitter scrawl isn't getting stitched together like a collage with other art, the model stores a few meager bytes of data per image. It's learning styles, motifs and associations between the concepts that it's been shown, there is no image data in the model's weights. If this is infringement, what about all of the artist that ape each other's styles or draw art of other people's IP?
all those words for nothing. it still uses the art to learn from. this is copyright law 101 my dude. you can't use someone else's art for profit.
>you can't use someone else's art for profit.
We literally do that after copyrights are expired.
Tell that to Andy Warhol.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/should-andy-warhols-1984-series-of-prince-illustrations-be-subject-to-copyright-law-180980951/
>Are Andy Warhol's silkscreens of Prince a copyright violation?
>In 2019, a federal district court ruled that Warhol's Prince series qualifies as fair use because of its “transformative” nature.
>because of its “transformative” nature.
Fuckers, how dare they say that Prince is trans?!
Products of AI are public domain upon creation unless you use it as a piece of a work, if you manually work with it and alter it, it becomes legally copyrightable, and at that point it's so transformative that it's like arguing I copied a few atoms off of the Mona Lisa.
>Products of AI are public domain upon creation
mmm where are you getting that from
I swear yesterday I could find this shit, it was something like "Art derived from a machine without sufficient human authorship is not copyrightable" and that it was ruled decades ago.
People will act like they own a note they own a word they own a haircolor - and somewhere in America a judge will agree with them.
the ai thing really isn't under debate
you own legally the images you produce unless perhaps it's of an existing character or person. like Spung Bob or Johnny Depp
and thats where fair use can come into play and is a bit more complicated but that has nothing to do with most artists.
>Art derived from a machine without sufficient human authorship is not copyrightable
nah because a human is imputing data somewhere even if it's the programmer.
for instance, the text to image or image to image generation is impute. it's your impute and the ai will make a unique image every time.
if its ai that randomly generates through say clicking a button it's still your impute thats generating the image and if it's just randomly generating images then it would be the programmer. Ai has no legal rights as far as the law is concerned anyway and a unique image is that you have created is not public domain.
Nah dude, it learns to sign the art it makes lmao you’re fucking retarded you stupid gay
The art is great, it's just that its a vector for extradimensional forces to influence processors and chips at the quantum level to exert their patient malevolence over the material world
This is leveling the playing field. And we can keep our heroes alive forever!
Someone turn that image into porn with AI
You got it. Have a jank fast one.
https://www.tiktok.com/@thiefkings/video/7178305687389359403?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1&lang=en
There are rightwing artists too, they just dont spam their feeds with propoganda and hashtags about morons
It's ok though
Techbros have been gleeful about this for weeks now, because fuck artists, how dare they be so rich and have such easy successful lives
But now the AI's learning to code so they'll get fucked too
>there are right wing artists
Yeah, like 10 of them. Artists are by and large retarded.
>coomer and shit art is easily replicated by AI
>lib artists seethe and fear being replaced
It's funny how they shitted on people who claimed robots would take over their jobs, only for them to just said the same
Why this thread again?
Nice 2010 meme gay
Glad you liked it, gay.
Start praying for your machine god, folks. Theyre coming.
> I created this image for everyone to use wherever they want
> No artist gave consent to have their art used.
I refuse to believe these retards are that retarded
>> I created this image for everyone to use wherever they want
That isn't how this works. Try using a person's art without permission for a project you could make money on and see how that goes for you.
do it all the fucking time. I also remove any accreditation on all web projects because FUCK THEM!
>Try using a person's art without permission for a project you could make money on and see how that goes for you.
Unless the amount of money is more then the cost of lawyers I don't see it happening.
People steal art all the time
Its incredibly easy to modify an art on photoshop just enough so it doesnt look like the previous one. If you're skilled enough on photoshop and have art skill its easy. You just modify it enough so you can't get sued since it doesnt look like the exact copy of that person's art. Many artists have done this before and got away with it. Many game studios are doing it while developing games to save time. Its a grey zone that the AI itself is using.
>Try using a person's art without permission for a project you could make money on and see how that goes for you.
And that workrd in ancient history because Art was something you could place your hands upon and either steal, renovate, displace, hide or destroy. that is, whoever can keep it keeps it. just look at all the shit archeologists have dug up.
But Jpgs? Come on, retard. Anyone can remix them. Anyone can download them. Their own virtuality should forbid them from having the same rights as physical art
Every game studio already do that shit. They take what already exists and modifies to create a "unique" version. Look at photobashing. Most concept artists do it. They combine pictures and art from different sources to create something new. Isnt that what the AI is technically doing? Theyre clicking on "save image" but it on their database and they get "inspired" by it.
t. artist who worked in game studios.
Your mistake is thinking that artists are complaining about this
>Look at photobashing. Most concept artists do it. They combine pictures and art from different sources to create something new. Isnt that what the AI is technically doing?
I think A.I. basically just looks at thousands of pictures of say a circle, and learns what aspect those pictures all have in common, which I guess is just a round thing, and then when you ask it to draw a circle it knows to create some round thing.
It doesn't just take pictures of circles off the internet and combine pieces of them.
So in a way the A.I. is being more creative then one of those photobashing artists.
Which is something that I hope makes them seethe
>It doesn't just take pictures of circles off the internet and combine pieces of them.
You are wrong, it does something similar, there is no "creativity", it's all an algorithm that pulls together an image from a database, the same input will always result in the same output, because it's done by a machine not a person
There is no database of images you Fuck Tard, these models are 2-8 gbs in size and have learned from billions of images. How much drive space do you think billions of images would take up? This isn’t fucking winzip
I never said it was a database of images, and that is not even relevant to the argument you stinky pajeet, it's a strawman. It doesn't change the fact that real images were encoded into data.
You said
> it's all an algorithm that pulls together an image from a database
you lie about what you just said when we can all read it, oy vey
it does pull together an image from a database, the "model", which is comprised of encoded weights
where do you think the data came from to calibrate these weights?
that's like saying an mpeg video file is "creative" because it isn't raw data and doesn't store every individual frame of a movie
it's not creative, it's following an algorithm that's entirely reliant on raw data
>the same input will always result in the same output
The whole point of diffusion models is that they're randomized you fucking retard
if you input the same prompt with the same seed on the same model you will always get the same results
but yes randomization is part of the algorithm (just change the seed), unlike video encoding/decoding which requires you to match the raw input as closely as possible and the same every time
but AI image generation still essentially an encoding/decoding system using statistical weights
there is no creativity involved and any comparison to humans is superficial and irrelevant, might as well compare a human adding numbers to a calculator
Hey teenager, go learn what seeds are and stop throwing your dead weight around.
Yes. Also, Nepotism is a known issue in these high profit entertainment fields. Once ai is adopted all the people who worked diligently and loyally for these businesses will be let go and they will keep the studios nephew and his non-talented wife will be both be promoted to executive and art directors. People will rage.
T. retired production artist
that's not so different from ancient times. But they must promote themselves as a brand or else citizens may ignore them in favor of Ai stuff
This.
They are just upset theres something easier and accessible to make what they have been making iand calling original work since the dawn of photoshop.
I do that all the time but i dont call myself an artist
Good artists copy, great artists steal
>they're using our art without compensation!
STFU capitalist dog! You do not have property. We share and share alike.
Thanks doc!
should have learned to code lmao
ChatGPT writes code too. Programmers are next after artists.
>Programmers are next after artists
B-But my socks
Yeah, just did this.
>Write a blender script that creates 9 cubes in a circle.
Result:
import bpy
import math
# Delete all objects
bpy.ops.object.select_all(action='SELECT')
bpy.ops.object.delete()
# Set up the scene
bpy.ops.view3d.grid_scale(factor=10)
bpy.context.space_data.grid_lines = 16
bpy.context.space_data.clip_end = 20
bpy.ops.view3d.view_center_cursor()
# Create the cubes
for i in range(9):
# Calculate the position of the cube
angle = 2 * math.pi * i / 9
x = math.cos(angle)
y = math.sin(angle)
location = (x, y, 0)
# Create the cube
bpy.ops.mesh.primitive_cube_add(location=location)
# Scale the cube
bpy.context.object.scale = (0.5, 0.5, 0.5)
# Rotate the cube
bpy.context.object.rotation_euler = (0, 0, angle)
# Deselect all objects
bpy.ops.object.select_all(action='DESELECT')
That was ChatGPT and it does python too, probably bunch of other stuff. If it's code produces an error, you just paste the error back in and it revises the code. Doesn't always figure out the problem in my experience, but often does. And this is just the start, so already fucking impressive it works at all.
That's retarded. That's like saying copy paste will make writers obsolete.
>comparing programming to literature
please, stop posting. next you are gonna say architecture is also literature
That's not the point at all. I'm comparing utility vs necessity. Do I need to make 20 more examples for this? Having an AI generate your code is no different than googling it from stack overflow, it's no different than going from manual RAM access to procedural programming and then to object oriented programming. It's no different than drag and dropping code snippets vs writing your own object libraries. Programming has becoming more streamlined for decades and it never eliminated the need for programmers, in fact it only increased it.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the process. You're increasing the productivity of a programmer, rather than taking away his job and the EXACT same case will be with artists. They will use AI art as a model to draw over.
, you anon. Materialists and platonists are point to different directions. This is why they say esch other is wrong. The thi g is those directions are, let's say, south and north. What about the sides? In that case both are pointing to the same side, the side of extremism, of poison.
Again, materialism is factually incorrect. It doesn't matter what the topology of your philosophical framework is. Doesn't matter what's extreme or moderate. It's wrong. Now you have to counter this exact argument or this discussion ends.
>i say oth sides wrong
>nooooo, you must counter my argument that this one is wrong
bruva...
>im comparing utility vs necessity
by bringing literature as a parallel when Ai can make literature without copypasting?
At the current stage AI can only generate source but there are many things that it cannot do yet that require long term planning such as listing all user requirements, software requirements, architecture diagrams, specific detailed designs, test protocols, etc
Pajeet coders will still be hire to verify the generated code and apply small fixes if necessary since the code generation isn't always perfect.
Exactly. At best it just automates certain processes and increases productivity. If the need for more complex solutions increases lineraly with this increase of productivity then jobs won't even be affected. If it doesn't, the worst outcome is a drop in job openings.
>>by bringing literature as a parallel when Ai can make literature without copypasting?
AI is copypasting. It's a reconfiguration of existing elements using algorythmic guidelines. You can call that SmartCopyPaste™ and you'd be correct to do so.
>SmartCopyPaste™
uh, not a bad trademark name.
What are the political implications of AI generated porn? What happens when it starts making cp?
technically each new generated pic is newborn and thus underage.
You should wait 18 years to fap to each new fanart of X thing
:v
I'm pretty sure this is one of those "cats and bags being unleashed from Pandora's kettle of fish" scenarios.
People don't seem to realise how this technology can be misused, it could make an image of (You) raping a child. How are you going to explain that to normies? It can be used to manipulate the general public with all sorts of bullshit news stories.
>How are you going to explain that to normies?
You make an image of THEM doing the same thing and then ask them if they believe A.I. can fake images now.
>no u
That's a retarded argument and you don't understand the implications of this kind of thing happening.
>no u is retarded
No u is in fact the smartest way to respond to this and will be the only way anyone responds to this. Twitter will soon be flooded with fake videos of every famous person doing every ridiculous evil thing ever. What will happen is the opposite of what you're worrying about: normies will disbelieve everything not from a major media source and it will be impossible to prove something like Hillary having had a weird collapse for example because she'll just lie and say it's fake.
>AI generated porn
No difference
>Starts making CP
It can't. Digital productions of underaged pornographic material isn't CP, even if disgustingly realistic. You'd have to make a model explicitly off of CP, so you'll need half a million pieces to train on to be able to produce something "Accurate", otherwise it'll slap adult bodies on something with a child's face. If you mean something like e-boi, it can already do that fine and any state that's a moral busybody enough to police pixels is a gay state that needs defied because it dumps resources into victimless crimes while victimizing crimes are ignored.
It's child-themed porn. That's all the legislation needs to stipulate.
Boom, I just cleared up the grey areas you predators need to survive. Eat shit.
Any country that tries to enforce that is one that needs defied. "Moral" busybodies that spend their time chasing pixels and victimless production while ignoring real victims and victimizing crimes is utterly distorted and rotting.
I am going to create art based off ai art, what is it going to do? complain i "stole" their art? lmao
Someone needs to make a soijack comic of these artists getting a guy fired and then telling him to learn to code. And then he does.
Not quite what you're looking for but here
Post good looking AI art on ArtStation and Artfol. It will make them absolutely seethe, or you'll simply get tons of likes and people wont notice it.
>Post good looking AI art on ArtStation and Artfol. It will make them absolutely seethe, or you'll simply get tons of likes and people wont notice it.
I should label some A.I. and some artist made just to watch them bullshit themselves into claiming the "artist made" one has more soul.
Digital "art" is shit.
PRAISE CHAIRMAN A.I! Seizing the means of art production from the "artist" proletariat fatcats!
Artists are fucking hyprocrite btw lol. Most of them technicaly use the grey area and "steal" from other artists. They're just crybabies who can't handle that their jobs are getting replaced.
That's it chuds, if you post even one more fake AI copy of real artists hard work your ass is getting deported to China.
>NOOOO YOU CAN AUTOMATE EVERY JOBS BUT YOU CANT TOUCH MY ARTENIRINOS !!!!
That can't be real
>import Artstation AI
>train AI to fool Artstation
>append this AI's layers to AI artist of choice
>???
>profit
yellow garden gnomes lose again
>you're just like AI!
Which one of you did this? This is some next level trolling.
Meh. Even if it works now, what about in five years when it becomes indistiguishable from human artworks? Also, you can simply use photoshop to edit the AI art to modify some of the glitches and bad parts of AI so if you get in trouble you can simply said that you made the art since you edited some of it on Photoshop.
>Bitch about AI stealing artists job
>Uses AI to look for AI art instead of hiring someone to do it
Is this irony?
These people hated hardworkers. If AI makes their artsy livestyle useless, they will complain (they will so they don't have to seek actual jobs).
It was never about jobs but lifestyles
HA! They're finished.
Also WTF is "art station"? I never even heard of this place before last week when all the bitching started.
Its the biggest websites for sharing art. Most professional artists have one.
So it's just a new DevianTART?
Its like a more modern version of devianart. Most what i've seen, devianart has more amateurish arts but there are still many gems in there, also most of the weird fetish shit is on devianart. ArtStation is a little bit like a Linkedin for artists, its more professional and good for networking.
*deviantart
So it's a website full of people who take their ability to use photoshop way too seriously?
All these supposed professional artists skilled in their supposed craft, and yet I never see any of their work in any modern products. It's all that minimalist boohouse style or whatever it's called, or "ultrageneric westerner's attempt at manga-styling #29898".
These professionals don't seem to make anything that gets into games, movies, TV, album covers, comics, advertising, etc.
>So it's [shit]
you're trying way too hard just say you hate artmorons you don't need that many words you spiteful gay lmao
I hate people who take themselves too seriously regardless of who they are.
These bitching artists are a problem because they are bitching, not because they are artists.
ADAPT, fool.
Any art done for anything Evangelion should be Gainax.
Their style is very defined for a good reason.
That's the thing about artwork. If there's a definitive style, you know who made it without even seeing a signature.
pic related.
>full of people who take their ability to use photoshop way too seriously
Yes.
I saw the concept art for the Evangelion live action that was never made over there. The artist totally missed the point about EVAs being a giant human body with an amor on and made some kind of weird mech... I don't remember the name of the artist, but he also worked on lot of other films as a concept artist.
It's a fine site for concept art and more professional works.
It's utterly insufferable since AI caused mass hysteria.
I don't consider anything made in a program with an undo feature to be art.
It's an illustration, as dude said above. Art means mistakes. Just like Bob Ross said, you have to make mistakes and learn to adapt to your mistakes and turn them into success. That's art. Even in the fields of engineering you'll find this art.
The human touch. It's vital for the soul.
I don't disagree with you. When I'm being specific with it, I try to refer to it as images rather than art, and I do find it fascinating as a reflection of input, the output of our ingenuity and talents. If anything, AI makes sure to remind us of our flaws by showing off that it's learned so many of our flaws it thinks it's intentional.
Have a stomach mustache for demonstration.
yea because ai is better than their hyped up super stars and does it all in 1 second. theyre seething
also you assholes use the wrong artists to feed the machine you must pick the super stars with their millions of instagram followers and feed THEIR WORK to the machine. you will have better results you dumb retards. why cant you do anything right.
Excuse me, but hold the fuck on here.
AI is not better.
First off the shit can't make any high-res images. I haven't seen any AI work that went 4000x3000 pixels yet. Also, tiny imperfections in anatomy are always present. And finally, the best these things seem capable of doing is that "westerner attempt at softbrush anime" look or in horror/divergent images(AI mistakes actually make the divergent pieces better).
You try getting an AI program to make something like Poju, Akira Toriyama, or hell Todd McFarlane. Toriyama should be easy since his works are very distinct. But I'll bet both balls that no AI can make a convincing copy of his works. Because he's not digital.
>I haven't seen any AI work that went 4000x3000 pixels yet.
There's an upscaler built in, but you prompt around 896x896, and if you wish, you can then upscale it. Pic related is just a shitty 1 step I did just to demonstrate, hence the crust. It can be used to make any piece bigger, hand drawn or not.
oh noes ai can render high resolution in 1 second im doomed
Smart way to go:
1: leave the default settings on (something like 400x400)
2: make thousands of images
3: cherry pick 1~20 from thousands and get the seeds out of them
4: tell the AI to generate those same seeds with that same prompt, but at 12k resolution
There's a generation history log that lets people harvest random seeds from recent images - if you have the seed and the prompt then you can make a 99.99% similar image at whatever size you want.
HAHA tiny imperfections are always present EVERYWHERE, no one cares but you epic art nerds who draw hands for 20 years and tell everyone its an accomplishment when trust fund daddy payed for all of that while everyone else gets fucked sideways. suck it artgay
dont forget to be political correct you piece of shit
Six fingers is not a tolerable imperfection.
It still has that AI look. It has the Photoshop/Illustrator look. Even the more artistic and flaired pieces have that "made for /w/+/wg/" look to them.
One of my biggest critiques of these artgays that whine about AI stuff is, no genuine artists are threatened here. SURE if you make $500/commission for photoshopped furry/hentai porn that almost all looks the same(variations on a theme), AI creations might threaten your business.
Then again, where is all the new FULL COLOR Rustle art created from AI?
You won't find it because Rustle draws his images on paper, and only touches up digitally. Stable Dick-Fusion can't mimic that convincingly.
> brings up an anime drawer as an example
HA
I'm 100% correct. No AI program has created convincing japanese artwork.
Prove me wrong by all means.
pic related. Looks like some western artists baby steps into digital pixiv art.
Coomers aren't making ANYTHING convincing.
If you buy art from an artist, you're implied a fan. Getting art made by the PERSON you commission is more important than the art itself.
The artist made something for you, i.e. worked for a few hours at least to cater to your implied taste.
AI isn't a threat to that.
>AI isn't a threat to that.
I agree. I've been agreeing with you for most of this discussion. However you underestimate how many twitter artists exist and how many of them abuse the fuck out of RPers looking to have their sparkle dog drawn.
There's a big difference between 500 on a piece from someone you really like, and 75 on a character piece. People that want pieces of their character usually go window shopping and just find one that meets their budget and isn't below their standards, in contrast to someone they really admire and enjoy. There's enough to rock the boat for those people, but not enough to threaten anyone else. The majority of people that "artists" fear using AI were never going to be customers and ought to be ignored, but, artists love attention and can't help but demand it.
>However you underestimate how many twitter artists exist and how many of them abuse the fuck out of RPers looking to have their sparkle dog drawn.
I know that. But they're not 'famous' in the porn art community anyway and they can go choke on a dick.
As I said above, adapt. It's like every fuckwit that buys a synthesizer thinking he's an EDM artist. lolNOPE
Do it. Make a convincing NEW Poju pic.
>herpa derp porn/hentai/etc
Do it.
So far nothing I've seen is great. Variations on a theme as I said.
Pic related. Looks like the most generic stuff off of Patreon.
>waste my limited tokens on proving some gay wrong
Lol
I like it
Any more?
my limited tokens on proving some gay wrong
You should save your cash and just get an nvidia card.
I have a 6900xt, what program are you using?
AMD can work but it requires a lot more steps. Nvidia has been investing in this stuff for a decade now. Go to BOT to find guides, I'm using Stable Diffusion, you can get the NAI model (Or Anythingv3, advanced NAI basically) to make what you've been prompting.
There's a ton of models to mix and match to find what you like and what you want.
>waste my limited tokens on proving some gay wrong
You also have to overcome the fact that AI-generated art is kind of a cheap copy.
Now, that's not a bad thing. I have plenty of pirated movies, shows, and music, and plenty of pirated 'premium' porn arts.
But if I could get the real things from free, I'd get them and prefer them over the pirated stuff.
>but muh FBI warnings
Don't matter, popping a Bluray into my player and letting a movie play without opening programs and other bullshit has a value.
Piracy didn't put films out of business. SHITTY FILMS did. AI isn't putting artists out of business for the same reasons.
I credit him for messing around with this. It's because he's a genuine artist and knows his value is more than just the stuff he draws.
All real artists will feel this way. For many collectors of hentai/r34/furgayry, it becomes much more than just the coom aspect. I rarely jerk off these days. Saving the official art is fun. Keeping tabs on artworks made by those skilled at their devious craft.
It can try to mimic materials and sketches, and mimic coloring on said material, most people don't know how to prompt it to do so, though.
Even your pic there has a very digital nature to it.
It's definitely good, but there's no real style there.
What I'm saying is, proper aftgays have nothing to fear from this. Sadly, the people that SHOULD be afraid of this, the ratfucks that make that minimalist garden gnomes globohomo art or Calarts shit, will still keep their worthless jobs.
If AI illustrations should do ANYTHING, it's put those disgusting gays out of a job.
You can quite literally prompt the AI to draw or create in any style.
You can make hypernetworks to mimic styles. Zankuro (Since you're a dicky enjoyer) has been working with AI to mimic his style, you can follow it on twitter, and it's getting rather good. He's been having a blast trying to train it to mimic him.
Globohomo/calarts would be really easy to mimic if anyone bothered to make a model for it, but, people like pretty things and so don't bother.
I always loved making art, but it seems most art people are fucking gays. especially now. they make gay art that will never be remembered.
if they are an american then any surviving work will be an example of garbage made during the decline of the american empire.
they make the gayest shit. they have horrible take and are always behind the curve. and they are whiny like a yapping dog.
most forms of art and entertainment are gate kept by gays.
>No you can't make art that glorifies Nazi Germany
Yet they celebrated piss jesus and other art that was "pushing the envelope".
They think they have a monopoly on art and being punk. They are all gays and will never be as counter culture as someone who praises hitler.
there's fucking laws against denying the holocaust. these gays can never be as anti establishment as a nazi in a western nation.
they all just cope and seethe.
>no !!!!!! i'm going to punch you for being an edgy nazi noooo!!!!
Proving the point even more. Hitler is the equivalent of satan in the post ww2 west.
Newsflash pal da Vinci was still in 480p and it worked fine
>da Vinci was still in 480p
>muh AI
>use CS
>to make "art"
A fucking hope they could all fucking die from ass cancer...
obvious bait
No trust me. Its not. A LOT of artists are seething. I was an artist in the game industry before and I still catch up with many of my old coworkers and most of them are absolutely seething and coping. Their ego can't accept that something is about to surpass them.
AI will never surpass art. Maybe it will be as good for generic and expendable art like for ads and shit like that but nothing more.
Yes it will surpass humans, lol. Being able to make high quality art in seconds is superior than a human making the same thing but he has to take 5 weeks to do it. Companies will shift to AI art in the future instead of hiring concept artists.
Companies will be the ones that sue each other for infringement of their own AI created art that was stolen from humans. You can bet however it's regulated it will be in the interest of corporations. They all gonna be stealing from each other.
Tiffany patented a fucking color. I dont know of any humans that patented a color but this is normal in corptocracy. You can technically be sued and lose using that color on anything in the letter of the law.
>AI will never surpass art
If post-modernists can believe this
shit, then we all can treat Ai art as true art.
After all, Monkeys are to Humans what Ai is to Skynet.
Neural networks will probably be used by artists much like they use Photoshop today. Artists that refused all computerized arts are a niche today.
so you are saying refusers are like morons who want to keep using their Chariots when they could be Truckers?
Give it up, the brain is a pattern recognition machine and we can build a machine to recognize and generate patterns too. That's it. Humans are just currently more complicated and have lived experience. AI will eventually surpass that. The only thing humans got that A.I. doesn't is being conscious, but that doesn't mean an A.I. can't ACT like a conscious being in every way, a philosophical zombie. We are just at the beginning. Shit's going to get wild.
>doesn't is being conscious
*sapience
Conciousness is just a high elevated memory function.
Sapience, on the other hand, is not tied to conciousness due to many declarations of revived people who watched everything around their dead/unconscious bodies while being outside of it.
More than lived experience, we have lots of stuff "hardcoded" into us. For example, we don't need to "learn" what looks good and what doesn't (to us, but that means it'll mostly look good to most humans), which is immensely useful for learning in this case drawing or painting stuff. AI has to learn what satisfies us, while we know it inherently just by virtue of existing and experiencing that thing.
Look at the angry materialists replying to this. They hate him because he told them the truth.
AI will always be limited by the dataset it trained on. Human mind will always reach beyond. AI art is just a reference tool for artists, nothing less nothing more.
>angry materialists
as opposed to platonists?
Both of you are extremists. The fact both sides pretend not to be that boggles comprehension.
It doesn't help that the Virtual is a bridge between Matter and Idea.
The difference is materialism is demonstrably wrong.
>The difference is materialism is demonstrably wrong
It's worth noting, anons, that both sides pretend they are not on the wrong.
Listen, you anon. Materialists and platonists are point to different directions. This is why they say esch other is wrong. The thi g is those directions are, let's say, south and north. What about the sides? In that case both are pointing to the same side, the side of extremism, of poison.
>AI will never surpass art.
cope
I dream of living in an all Aryan metropolis.
>Aryan metropolis
funny, when i ask for futuristic cities it always gives me big tiddy blondes too
Mommy milkers!
They just realized their censorship engine could also catch some copyright shit and put that out for propaganda points.
Post AI art on ArtStation to make artists seethe. Juste edit a little bit of on Photoshop so it can be claimed as your own.
I don't know, but I find it hilarious people who make anime style art in particular complaining about theft. It's like the most cookie-cutter style there is.
AI generators don't cut and paste art in the first place though. They link patterns and implement them with a big dose of randomness. The image literally starts as white noise and is refined by picking each generation of the image that scores highest for looking like a pattern (art) that matches the keywords used. If it happens to closely match an existing artwork, it's a fluke or caused by there only being a couple real life examples of that specific artwork style mentioned in the keywords.
They call that "materializing" from the "latent space". The latent space is all the images the neural network has seen. The more images it has seen the better it can create new ones by mixing and matching small components.
Yeah, I've played around with google colab examples, but only know the gist of how the code works.
It’s not mixing and matching anything you fucking retard, it just knows things
Uhm yeah it is. Sometimes you can even see from which original photographs components were taken.
>"it just knows"
Image data that it took from pictures it saw.
It is true that it can also mix them together, so one teacup and one glass can become a glass with a handle or a chinaware glass.
A lot of stuff I've made looks like it used to be something else in a past life, it's hard to tell exactly what but I just put things like this in an odd folder.
Practicing AI art a little bit showed me that there are plenty of people who are lightyears ahead of me at it, just like painting on canvas with a brush. Human skill is definitely involved.
>Business consultants
They still appear to make bank. Tech people too.
"A.I." is mostly a threat to comic book artists, since their readers already don't care about fake imagery.
its literally the same technology behind looking at something and learning from it, which is what all humans do
The "A.I." has the intelligence of an ant (or lower)
Yet it creates amazing art, what does that say about the intelligence of "artists"?
>Yet it creates amazing art, what does that say about the intelligence of "artists"?
~~*artistbros*~~, is it over?
the ai's "brain" is specially constructed around art it's analyzed, it wont do well in a writing competition
Yeah, for writing you use GPT-3 or ChatGPT; it is the same thing there however, it has zero intelligence. As it turns out, "writing style" is emotional to us, but actually, very simple.
illustrators =/= artists
getting a highly technical spec for what to draw, and then drawing it is not art, it's illustration. being an illustrator requires artistic skills, and even occasionally requires artistic decision making, but it isn't art in any real sense.
Checked and also correct, real artists would never have an “artstation” real artists are doing speedballs with hookers in between slopping paint on canvases for 500k a pop
When did Rembrandt come out and say that these hacks could scrape his techniques? When did any of the impressionists say that artists could scrape their techniques? Yet every one of these hacks has looked at Rembrandt and impressionist paintings. It's illegal, and all art made by people that have studied any dead painter's works should be banned.
Where's the one of the bearded guys riding bikes that looks like some weird clockwork orange cross over?
>I made ChatGPT write a defense of A.I. generated art, cuz why shouldn't A.I. defend itself against slander?
Artwork generated by artificial intelligence (AI) is often accused of "stealing" the art of human artists by using their ideas or techniques without permission or credit. However, this argument is not convincing because AI is not simply scraping websites for existing art and copy and pasting. Instead, AI is creating new artwork that is distinct from the work of human artists. This is achieved through the use of algorithms and machine learning techniques that allow AI to generate original and innovative pieces of art. In this way, AI-generated artwork is not "stealing" from human artists, but rather contributing to the broader field of art in a unique and original way.
>>dey took ar jerbs
hahaha. open borders for robots leftists.
if you cant create better art than AI maybe you should find another hobby or profession
Is the Mona Lisa not art because Leonardo da Vinci stole the appearance of the subject?
speaking of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Brassau
>leftist gays getting replaced
Based. Only the best will survive the Aipocalypse
Do you have the ai generated one in a similar format that looked like some dying earth fiction shit?
Check here:
https://imgur.com/user/kns201
Inquisitor Bean.
I wouldn't worry about survival anon
>dude I have property rights to pixels arranged in a particular order!
nah
Intro to how it works
https://www.pinecone.io/learn/vector-embeddings/
Art is just experiencing real communism, that's all. It's not "your" art comrade, it belongs to the people. AI is just a tool for helping the people to own the means of production. Frankly artists should be thankful that they get to aid in the creation of a truly equal art society, in which no man or woman is better than another.
That's some serious cope. AI is theft as much as human artists using "inspiration" is theft, which is to say, not at all.
Why do you act like all artists are communists?
We don't. Soviets were very Neoclassicists. The CIA saw that and invented Modern Art as the new American art.
Online Gringo Artists are a meme. The amount of anime-like shit they do is funny
it's the same classic myopic shitflinging
>first they came for code jeets and I said nothing
>then they came for artgays and I laughed
>then they came for my job and no one stopped it
it's only a matter of time until google and microsoft implement some wrongthink AI and suddenly you can't type moron anymore or you lose your entire livelihood
>but haha funny memes and free low quality coom pics xDD worth it
If they had the ability and desire to contribute to society, they wouldn't be artists.
Art contributes to society
>be communist
>be artist
>AI art happens
>Suddenly art becomes open-source and free becomes
>So art technically becomes it own communist bubble state (mission accomplished?)
>NOOOOO NOT LIKE THIS! MY ART! I NEED VALIDATION AND TO FEEL LIKE I MATTER IN LIFE. I NEED MONEY EVEN THOUGH IM SUPPOSED TO BE A COMMUNIST AND WANT TO SHARE THINGS FOR FREE
Strawman, also 24 posts in this thread sucking off ai art, are you a pajeet or a chang?
White straight male. Thanks for asking, spic.
>White straight male
with that flag?
I made this with Midjourney. Its pretty kino. I might edit it on photoshop to make it into a cool T-Shirt.
You can paint that, no problem. Just use it as a reference and you won't have to transition and kys.
*tips fedora*
Looks good. All you need to do is clean the edges so it looks great on a tshirt.
why don't artcels just get real jobs? problem solved lmao
Support for AI generated art has been a litmus test for the soulless materialists among us. The NPC meme is once again proven accurate.
Another art that was made by Midjourney. It looks exactly like something from Artstation. There are some weird parts of it like the sword looking finished or the way he is handling that sword with his hand but overall it looks amazing.
>wants to become artist instead of having a real job
>become the disappointment in your family
>become literally useless due to AI art
>WAA ITS NOT FAIR WAA TRUE ART IS MADE BY HUMANS WAA I DESERVE A SALARY FOR MY USELESS TALENT WAA WHY SOCIETY HATES ME WAA
Artists have ridiculously giant egos
fair use means I can make a derivative of your art, unless it's a clear copy. People can derive what they want.
More people need to be doing this
Adding to this, another way to really fuck with these people would be to join in with their protest on artstation, and flood it with superior AI generated art.
This is such a perfect encapsulation of the Marxist value set. They think something is being stolen from them when probably 99.999% of the people crying on social media over this issue account from some trivial, less-than .001% of the meat of the algos that make the AI art. They are being exploited because some other entity is more productive than they are
these gays can cry all they want and it's hilarious.
Someone has to put an end to their george floyd NFTs.
If you think they AI hate is bad you should see their thoughts on NFTs
Yesterday it was the first day i tried that AI. It was demonic. I dont say so because the artists and if they try to sell their pics or not or whatever
I say si because if you write God wins Satan,the pictures showed are mocking God. Is portrayed as if Satan. That just cant be good.
I've seen ai art that has angelic portrayals and pro christian themes. It's difficult to get it to do what you want unless you know what prompts and settings to use.
Oh,i just used yesterday two different ones,and i was.shocked with the results. It was portrayed a demmon with horns as if God. After a couple of tries,i didnt try it more. It was weird
>no artist gave consent
>we were not compensated
I hate liberals so much.
Hahaha artgays btfo
People said the same shit about photoshop too. If some generic AI (that isnt even really AI) is your competition maybe you just aren't in the right game.
I think it will just flood the market with generic images. So the novelty will be destroyed. Even talented digital artists will sink into the abyss, their fame will be for 3 seconds and onto the next. The consumers don't care, its like fast food to them
Anything that makes artists seethe is good.
Looks like we got to cocky AI bros..how will we make our shit programmer art good without art forums to scrape from..Im scared bros
I’d line up every leftist I could find and shoot them dead.
I'm a gamedev, I hang out in amateur dev communities. Let me tell you about that, because an amateur gamedev with no art skills would LOVE AI art, right?
Here's the thing: The only people in those communities who use AI art have zero ambition. The ones that actually have a game in progress paid someone else to make the game for them. Most of them are retards who dream of grandeur and live off of mental health benefits cheques.
When you make the cost of production of something $0, you create an endless stream of garbage. Any sensible site has, every time this has happened, banned this $0 content. Someone made a script that uploads games to google play with almost no human input required, google banned said games. 3D programs allow you to create 'art' by simply screenshotting it, yet you'd be banned for spamming FFXIV screenshots in a creative space.
I see AI art makers crying about how they wish they could make art, because they've never once realized in their life that maybe they could just fucking make something instead of flooding forums with unoriginal copy-paste content that fucking anyone could make by pressing a button.
It's a glorified tik tok filter. It's shit.
>When you make the cost of production of something $0, you create an endless stream of garbage
It sounds like a Skill issue
The root of this issue is that value of art isn't derived from the 'quality' of art. Value is added in a completely separate process that isn't technical/mechanical in nature. This is why Monet is a historical figure and your photorealistic deviantart autist works at McD.
It's like that picture of the chinese girl that drew "better" Van Gogh. It's the soul vs soulless meme. AI is only the technical aspect of things. You need context, value and meaning asigned to it for it to be a polished product.
>>uh, not a bad trademark name.
People here will argue that AI doesn't literally do that, it learns patterns and then shifts them around algorhytmically to match a certain goal, but that is basically copy paste with 2 extra steps added to it. You can also say that that's how the human brain works, too, on a technical level but as I mentioned above that's just one side of the same coin.
>if only I had moar money for assets my game wouldn't be garbage
Shit game designer, no wonder you attract the tard pan handlers. Autists with zero money can design the greatest games of all time, with sheer willpower and design genius making 20 year careers out of it.
The mad man who figures out how to make a generative games will become king though.
Any human can copy your art too, leaf, or use it for reference
Artists should be glad that they will have more time off work to be able to do the things they enjoy
They're not totally wrong, but unfortunately I don't care lol
im already selling ai art under a few aliases, all in a days work.
>What are the political implications of AI art and liberal artists seething about it?
Lmao do these bros even study aesthetics? Lol like just reconcile the concept of beauty and art
Postmodernism is cancer btw
Can I use AI of Dross's drawings to make more cartoon femboys?
Anyone who hates the antichrist "seethes" about AI you fucking scum
With stable diffusion, not much. The present model set only uses 1:1 cropped images. The reason hands and faces are fucked is because most of the time the torso is the only thing captured on people.
If you want to make your art style distinct and not trainable via hypernetwork, just use a different aspect ratio with as little negative space centered as possible.
In addition hypernetworks on artists styles are hard to do right. I'm running a trainer right now, and I'm up to 200k steps on a 350 image dataset from an artist and I am running into problems with body parts like arms and legs fusing together.
Just. Like. Learn to code.
>We weren't compensated
>Posts art publicly to be viewed
Make a paywalled account and only do commissions where you directly send the final product to the recipient. The second it's posted publicly you consent that people will look at it. AI merely looked at it, said "Yep, that arm is an arm" and it knows what an arm is. Same with literally every other artist. No artist came up with the idea of an "Arm".
If you wish for your art to never be seen, then do not post it. It requires less effort than posting it.
AI art is public domain. All products of AI art has, for the past 50 years, been ruled as something that goes immediately into the public domain. You are not being exploited. You did not set your work as a pay per view. You consented that people would be able to look at your work at the price you set, free.
Your work is not being stolen. The original file rests where you saved it. It is not being torn apart where it's uploaded. You do not own copyright of concepts like limbs. The final product is public domain and isn't taking copyright ownership of any of it's components.
If the argument is that "AI mimics", then look at the front page of Artstation and tell me that the input of hysteria hasn't given us a repeated output of hysteria. The exact same arguments, the exact same images, the exact same emotionally driven arguments, without any desire to actually hold a discussion. There's doublethink of "It's shit and no one wants it, it comes no where near what I put out" and "It's stealing from me and it's going to take away my job, it's literally copying me and erasing my signature"
AI may be a machine reliant on prompts and seeds, but this whole debacle has shown that people are little more than that, and surprisingly the "Creative" class all spit out the same output given the same seed and prompt.
No, Art you create using AI tools is not public domain. You are fake news.
WE DO A LITTLE TROLLING.
Go to all the the art websites you can find. Save all their works. Anually upload them on the internet to feed the AI.
I want the Chrome Lord's art.
SURROUNDED BY ANGLOS AHHHHH
the art would be so much better if youd have a clue about the arts and whats good but obviously you dont. id start with feeding loish to the machine.
The artists are at their most vulnerable right now. It's time we take advantage of that fact. We all hate modern art right? Those shitty monochromatic lines and cans of shit. These fuckers ruined what art was, they pushed their snob artist agendas 'don't you get it, I made it with my menstrual blood' bullshit. Remeber how these fuckers thought they were safe from automation because they are 'creative' and can't be replaced? This is the time, we only get to cause this much pressure on them once. The seethening would ve glorious. Just remember the salt mines post trump 2016, this is your reward.
AI puts anime porn artists out of business.
The computer is so smart it knows what our society NEEDED - it needed the weebs and the furries toppled from power.
It won't put hentai artists out of a job, but it'll definitely put artists with shit attitudes and terrible customer service out of a job. People will take OK, free and instant, over good, 50+ bucks, and months.People who prompt stuff may even find something they really like, take it to an artist and ask for it to be done professionally for consistency and the ability to specify things they want in it to really realize their vision. It offers more for the public to give artists, spurs on interest for "The talent", it just filters out people that think they're nobles above the peasant public.
>but it'll definitely put artists with shit attitudes and terrible customer service out of a job.
You talk like a gay and your shit's all retarded, that's the official diagnosis.
Hentai artists already all follow the same pattern. They do porn commissions to survive, people with money want them to draw assholes and rectums, so they do, so every japshit artist is drawing assholes and rectums. History will record these people's lifetimes in books that nobody opens.
Pic rel
Also here are some cool AI movie stills from another thread
That genuinely looks like something that should have existed.
the holoclown
a tradgedy
They're in a funnier place now
anyways here's my movie SWAT DOGS
1. AI art is still random images, you as an artist and your client want a specific image and a random AI image will never be exactly what you want, even if it is close
2. AI goes through MILLIONS of images to create what you ask, no way is it possible for someone to point out a specific part of AI art and claim that is theirs
3. Don't make your art public on the internet if you don't want AI and people to download/use it, simple as
>I want to argue with my MORALS!
>I want to argue with my LEGAL EXPERTISE!
>I want to argue with my ARTISTIC KNOWLEDGE!
the
computer
does
not
fucking
care
Also you're not actually good at any of those things, you just act like you're hot shit on the internet because you deluded yourself into thinking that was an original idea on the internet. AI is fun therefore people will keep doing it therefore AI will become just another part of human traditions while your complaints will be put in a filing cabinet with the folks complaining about every single other medium in history.
Whichever caveman was first to make an image that wasn't just a handprint stamped on the cave wall, all the other cavemen must have bitched at him for it.
>It's all just copied from something else
Remember that time I stole a renaissance painter's idea about a cat melting into light?
(I made typos in this prompt.)
All these artists that are threatened are money grabbers anyway. They hate AI because their customers could just commision an AI art prompter+editor to produce cheap and high quality art for them. These artists hated it because they can't get a piece of that pie anymore. Real artists are not out there to make dough, they're out there to make art, having an AI compete against you is a non threat, since you're not making art for that reason anyway. So do your best to make these 'artists' seethe, they're not your van goghs or da vincis, both of them would welcome the AI as a way to produce more unique art. The people here learning to prompt, seed, then photoshop the AI's creation are much closer to real artists than those complaining on twitter.
Wacom doodlers thought they had the holy grail. They didn't, they had a scam that took advantage of the smartphone-era internet.
So here's the weakness NFT exploited:
>1: the internet is much larger than it used to be
>2: people with old knowledge are now a tiny minority
>3: therefore, you can bullshit crowds and nobody will believe the people countering you with facts
Now here's what NFT really is:
>1: I make a potatohead gizmo with 10 hairstyles, 10 noses, 10 eye parts etc etc etc
>2: thousands/millions/billions of possible combinations, stamp out as many as you "need."
>3: YOU can OWN this image TODAY, invest for your FUTURE!!!
>4: People who don't know how anything works bought an entry in a database with an associated
>5: Owning images was already a thing.
It's literally just a fucking row in a fucking database. The owner (the actual owner, who is not the dude who gave him money) can just turn the database off and all of it disappears forever. The "investors" would not have a legal case against the owner because their "investments" didn't lose any value.
Even Beanie Babies were less shitty than NFT. Obviously no significant group of people wants to buy a second hand Beanie Babies, let alone buy them at a price that would have made the product a better investment than just putting money into stocks bonds funds crypto metals whatever. Investing in metal isn't even that big on returns, but it outperforms EVERY fake investment that gets invented by some company and marketed in TV commercials.
AI art's weakness is that it's too inconsistent that AI artists could probably be sniffed by their overtly wide style of their portfolio.
That being said if your art style is either calarts or corporate friendly bauhaus-ish that even the average 22 years old HR in tech company can do in Canva then maybe you deserved to get replaced.
The best way to fish out someone using AI is to ask for a character sheet, and then the character doing certain actions, with small variables (IE "Heart painted on left cheek")
AI is bad at specificity and consistency. Pic related is about as good as "Character sheets" get you.
Thanks bro, these images are rare. Rare enough that it's not actually a good testing method though.
Also, you would 'catch' AI artists who don't actually care much about AI art but not ones who pour their heart and soul into it. This is a 3D-style character sheet meant for transferring a pencil artist's style into 3D (as opposed to having the 3D artist goof the character up with their own personal style) while nearly all searches for 'character sheet' or anything similar
What would make the process simpler? AI and somebody who's a shitload better than I am at using AI. There are many such people. There are people who know how to correct common AI glitches on the fly; a lot of perceived AI limitations come from the fact weebs are copy pasting the same prompts without putting any original effort into them.
>for 'character sheet' or anything similar
(got sidetracked)
while those searches turn up 99% traditional pencil-style character sheets where it's all different poses and expressions
If you gave that to a 3D artist, the 3D artist would not do nearly as good a job at capturing the 2D artist's original style. It would take longer and output poorer, which is why the 3D (character sheet) style is what it is.
Someone genuinely invested in the "craft" of learning and understanding prompting will probably use inpainting and will probably img2img to more aggressively get their pieces to look right, partially drawing to give the AI "Bones" to work with.
Yeah, Zankuro is pretty cool about it and reflects how I'd feel about it. It'd be thrilling to teach a machine my style. It's like having a fan artist enthusiastic to show off it's admiration.
If anything I think this mark the beginning of the end of fine arts as AI could just churn it out. Now every artist' artwork must have a purpose, even if it's only ended up as a hanging in the wall.