Combining @StabilityAI #StableDiffusion generative powers + Human guidance and graphic skills* with tools like @Photoshop in a coherent workflow.https://mobile.twitter.com/wbuchw/status/1563162131024920576
But you can tell it's soulless. It's like a Daz render in the 3d scene.
>>434823cope. It's just the stone age for ai, it'll make sharper stones, move onto metal, perfect that, then use fucking lasers to be fucking perfect. We're living in a simulation and people don't realize it.
I still havent seen anything generated by AI that doesnt look like it was generated by AI
>>434953That ends now, behold Wombo AI's eerily accurate interpretation of the prompt "Chuck Berry" in "Realistic" mode.
>>434812Holy fucking shit you faggot just shut the the fuck up about this bullshit.Where are the jannies to fucking send this away already?
>>434953Some anon made this today
>>434953We are literally not even in the first decade of AI graphics generation, and most of the recent stuff only came out this year or in the last 15-20 months. Give it time. I will be adapting.
>>434823Soulessness is a cope and if it wasn't Fivver would have never worked.
>>434812It's mostly "over" because artists are too pussy to actually do anything against it. So many of you losers are all>"h-haha! n-not bad! a-acutally it's kinda cool! hahaha!"You deserve every year of destitution and disrespect coming your way, wishy washy cunts. Thud McChuds out there will make millions off of something he "created" by typing in a text box, meanwhile you'll be hanging yourselves.
>>435558what should they be doing exactly? why dont you do it?
>>435561>what should they be doing exactly? why dont you do it?retard: the post
>>435574excuse me what?
If I give an image can turn a brunette into a redhead without changing anything else?If so how?
>>434812Need this for 3D modeling.
>>435585It's far easier to do that in photoshop. Like, can you color in the lines? Tier easy.
>>435585>needing an AI to change hair colorRetard.
>>435529It's hard to call something soulless when it's based around actual good artwork, it's poor taste than anything else really.
Ok but what is the issue?There will always be demand for real art
Wake me up when I'm able to do that using my own computer, and when this software is free as in freedom.
>>434812This is just a more user friendly version with less steps. You can do this right now locally. https://youtu.be/XtMvk0dpnO4
>>435561I don't know nigger, it's your field, you decide. And general public doesn't give a fuck whether your fancy art is made by human in 2 days or by AI in 2 minutes. Improvise, adapt, overcome, learn to use AI tools to shit out absurd amount of [insert product] generated by AI for full price until it's commonly adapted and some jew comes up with cheap photobank full of AI photos/drawings. Oh wait, these have been here forever and people still need professionals to properly use them so it doesn't look retarded.>t. programmer - it will also change, but we'll probably never fully drop the human factor there, if we do, then literally nobody will need to work, so everything is fine.
>>436674you sound upset anon
>>434838But how stolen are these images tho?They all just seem like remixes to me.This one for example is probably some CP2077 art and if I was to use it commercially thinking the AI generated something totally original, I could be infringing on the artists rights since remixes of works (unless to the point of complete obscurity but then it's a moot point) are infringement and cannot be copyrighted.
I'm using stable diffusion with an old 1070 graphics card and it's pretty slow. How much can I speed this up by buying a current gen card?
>>434812It's only just begun. We going to make some amazing art.
>>436736>This one for example is probably some CP2077 art and if I was to use it commercially thinking the AI generated something totally original, I could be infringing on the artists rights since remixes of works (unless to the point of complete obscurity but then it's a moot point) are infringement and cannot be copyrighted.Chads IA are just showing us how retarded are kike's copyright bullshit.
>>436674Truly demonic, take your fucking meds dude.
By accident I made mouse chick ludes. I'm sold on it
>>436979Oh man !>>18794True.https://l.instagram.com/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FlFDQuDyswa&e=ATMXamwUs16qlmQdk5nOD-VHrJOzm--Ziki0lBW7-b1C5XuomN9HG2KcKE4BwnwOe1rmHHTTwKqct6jvFQGpDA&s=1
>>436979>>436857We should just Photoshop boxing gloves over all their hands to hide it. The Strongbad method
>>434823Crazy how the soulless Daz artists are able to make so much money with commissions
>>435585It's really bad at simple things like that, actually. Same with intuitively trivial shit "draw ten rectangles".
>>436435>on my own computer >free as in freedomDude, it's open source.
>>436622Great video, especially that part at 1:27.
>>436622>scared of saying retardWhat a niggerfaggot
>>437423I laff about your tiny little world.
How does one actually install this?Is it harder or easier than getting dwarf fortress to work?
>>434812very nice. it will be just a different way of creating art
>>436857Don't worry that will be fixed in future updates, 10 years from now art skills will be completely worthless.
>>437656I doubt it will even take that long.2 years max.honestly nobody in their right mind would argue against artistically stimulating products done by a human dying at this point. everyone who doesnt believe it either didnt try any of the current programs themselves, has way to high expectations from judiciary, knows absolutely nothing about big corporation media firms or simply isnt able to physically comprehend.imagine the flood of funds these businesses will keep facing the more progress they make. imagine the hope to be the one leading this future market. imagine the greed for calculating all sorts of things that are beyond pure images. in the end all data is the same. bunch o' ones and zeros!This is huge. we cannot even understand. 50 years from now we'll be looking back at today and wonder how weird a worldview we had. absolutely every nuance of life will be changing.
Indeed. Why would someone pay and stress with a gd freelancer to give me minimum effort mountain of designs to pick from that don't under the concept behind what they're designing for, when I can get large batch files from a incubating machine god in no time? It's already moggimg /ic/. You semi-automated /gd/ and /3/ niggers are the first to go
>>435245rectangular centered, wide angle news photograph of young Chuck Berry plays guitar on stage, live rock concert, crowded theater, 1956 (Full_Body_Shot portrait), photograph, digital photography, vibrant color, Eos 1v, 85mm, Portra 400, depth of field, volumetric
>>436736>But how stolen are these images tho?How dense are you?Current artists take inspiration and references from other existing works. Is that stolen as well? It's a very similar process to how AI generates this stuff.
>>437756>>437755Annnd...still looks nothing like Chuck Berry and despite getting the race right would be no more likely to cause someone to guess "Chuck Berry???" without a guitar for context than the one that looks like Neil Young's cousin on vacation.
>>437795you fucking moron.stop regurgitating with that kind of certainty stuff you dont even understand. what do you even know about how AI works to just repeat this statement without a hint of doubt or proof for expertise.there is a group of people who conceptualize like you did, yes.but that doesnt mean it is the whole truth. at most it is one possible part of the truth. seriously what do you know about anything to act as if you can pull stuff out your ass without even giving logical reason or examples.please reevaluate yourself.The Ai is not a tool/invention that is separable of the images it is being trained on, just as a car is not separable of the motor that is built into it. no images - no AI.no motor - no car.the ai is not the blank programm itself before being trained. the ai is the domesticated form of that program.yet the car manufacturer has to face legal systems aimed at protecting the work of other real people. people who are only able to provide value to society because a system of rules protects them from being exploited.---the car company has to pay the person (or group of people) who owns intellectual property in the form of a motor.---and just like that an AI is nothing without these things built into it that are made by other people; images.reality is messy. sometimes artists should be charged for using ideas of others, yet often enough they arent. that is in cases a sad truth. and in others beneficial to us all. reality is fucking messy.yet either way a machine relying on work of others as a crucial piece and not paying a fair return is not the same as a person being inspired by something.after all a machine/object has no rights.but rights need to be in place as to not allow social entities of unmatchable power to fuck up everyones life without being held responsible for it.
Have any of you tried it for anything professional? Like "Logo for mid-size furniture retailer, modern, clean"Even just for inspiration of basic elements
>>437798Yes with stable diffusion There are actually some really good models, and you yourself can train models to follow i.e a certain style to get consistent results.This is useful for shit like icons or banners. I know /gd/ is a slow board but I am surprised that there isn't much talk on this.https://huggingface.co/jvkape/IconsMI-AppIconsModelforSDThere are others and you can get a pretty good results but will less consistency with vanilla SD 1.5.
>>437797Oh god you're a moron. But I'll entertain you. First, I'm a fucking software developer, so I do know a thing or two about programming an AI. Also work on a company that deals with this kind of shit, although on a different field, not in generating some random 'artwork' - But deep down it's all the same.How the fuck can you say "no images - no AI". Firstly, educate your fucking self. What we call "AI" nowadays, is just a buzzword for what is actually machine learning. A program where you train it with input to generate a desired output. You can have a motor and not have a car - The motor is the "AI". You feed it fuel and it goes BRR, but without the fuel it's still a fucking motor. That's what the machine learning algorithm does - You write a program that given a number of inputs, spits out a 'prediction' of what the output would look like. These Image generators work just in the same way, you feed it a prompt and it spits out an image. How that works is because it was trained on a model, like other machine learning algorithms - Feed it a data set, that associates each image with a text-based description, and the AI stores in it's memory that the word "duck" can look like the 3 million images of ducks it has stored. So when you tell it to give you an image of a duck, it looks at the "knowledge" of those images, and spits out a "new" duck image.If I tell an AI do draw a duck, and it samples from 7000 different artists/photographers, should I credit them all on the final image? don't think so, and this is no different from you drawing a fucking duck. You've seen ducks, you've seen pictures and drawings of ducks, so you can probably draw a fucking duck. Are you gonna credit everything you've ever seen?Your examples are just too fucking stupid and prove you know next to nothing about AI
>>437835lol homie>I am a software developer so I know a thing or twofucking kek.don't you think the main message of that introduction was>without even giving logical reason or examples?literally you just burped the most basic bitch answer imaginable, when in fact some interest for actual solutions would be so more adequate. and I want to make you responsible for that.you saying you'd be concerned with tech makes it even more ridiculous. you should be familiar enough with this stuff to be able and not just suckle on easy to digest headline-concepts.I don't know how you would argue against anything I wrote in that first part besides of>NOOOOOOOOOf course AI is a buzzword. but literally we all know that. you think users of 4chan started using the web like yesterday?hindering discussion with that shit like COME OOOOONthere is no point talking about that shit anymored.The subject is publicly easiest to target with the term AI. might as well accept it for sake of discussing actually important and beneficial matters instead of fucking around with stupid words.1/2
>>4378362/3dude. no. the programm we download and use and coloqually refer to as 'AI' (eventhough you understandably dislike the term) is not the raw machine learning algorythm from before training.arguably the bigger part of work manifested as this 'AI-thing-product' as it runs on my computer lies in logistics and energyconsumption of trainingcenters as well as pure production of training data.and that training data was taken from people who didn't sell them their property for doing so.>an AI without training data is useless. just as a car without motor is useless. and with any product the work of people who contribute to its usability HAVE to be compensated. argue why it would be otherwisse!Do you really think a person who photographs animals for a living is okay with a corporation stealing his artistic skills for framing a duck in order to kill this same photographer?a mechanical engineer doesnt have to build each motor in order to own its theoretical value. and it's the same with personal artistic principles which are being stolen just as the textural details of a fucking feather.The AI is not only drawing A duck. It is drawing all of the components inside a rasterized image, many of which are result of pure human expertise. even if you yourself have no clue about composition, lighting, focus, bokeh or any other abstract principles leading to beautiful images, the machine picks up all of them, without acknowledging how incredibly much time and effort went into creating its sum.in case of a human doing work and owning a picture you wouldn't say 'this person owns the concept of a duck'. they own the fucking image because it takes expertise, time and effort.yet as soon as an AI did it you act as if the only thing it does is reproduce a duck, when it actually rips of this whole set of expertise as well.
>>4378373/3the AI doesn't invent motors. it builds motors based on property owned by others. The people who were thrown into the training data are obviously being ripped off.if (as you say) it actually would be no problem at all to teach a computer what a duck is, corps wouldn't have to rely on peoples property.and I am really curious how you think it would be fair for real existing people with real existing jobs and real existing children should be ripped of like that 'because cool toy that draws my dnd characters'
>>437836>>437837>>437839Machine learning algo is one thing, training data is another. Yea we use AI for everything and it's easier to just say "it's an AI", even if it's used for the most basic bitch thing like scanning a QR code with your phone. Misuse of terms annoys the fuck out of me, but that's also because literal autism. Anyway.An "AI" exists without it's training data. That data just makes it work, but the algorithm is there. The training data is nothing without the AI either, so that motor/car example doesn't quite work. You can have a car without a motor and still look at it and "yep, that's a car, it just doesn't go very far".As for the AI using everyone's knowledge to produce images, that's just the way it is. It sucks for artists that worked hard on developing those skills, and I can sympathise as I was a graphic designer before switching to software dev ( better pay and design clients fucking suck ). Even with basic shit like photoshop neural filters. I spent years learning PS and even did a side gig restoring and colouring old photos. Photoshop does most of it with a single click now, and any 14 year old can do what took me years to achieve. Sucks to be me. In any case AI isn't going to stop just because of some copyrights grey area. I'm making the argument that what an AI does is not much different from learning by yourself, during some years of studying light, composition, framing, anatomy, etc etc, condensed into a neatly packed "training data" package. Humans have that training data as well, it just takes longer to learn and practice vs an actual machine.
>>4378402/2>and I am really curious how you think it would be fair for real existing people with real existing jobs and real existing children should be ripped of like that 'because cool toy that draws my dnd characters'It's not, like most new tech. It wasn't fair for any profession that died because of technology, like when cars appeared, industrial mass production of objects/furniture, digital editing/painting tools, etc. I'm sure there's a shit ton of examples, and in all of them, people losing jobs or seeing their set of skills become nearly obsolete did not stop progress. AI is just the next one in line, and sadly artists are the next to go, for the most part.It's also a really fucking dangerous path if you ask me. I like AI, I like writing some shit and seeing a cool image pop out, but millions other people are doing the same right now. There's so many AI generated images right now that in a few years time, most of digital images will be AI generated, and that will just lead to a loop of training data, where AIs are being trained on AI generations - original pieces and criativity will be a niche thing, and maybe that's were artists can re-emerge? But then AI will get trained on that as well. Fuck everything I guess and just ride the wave.
>>437840>>437841god you are such a cunt'I have autism'nobody cares about your little personal reasons or little personal life.I don't care you are software dev.I don't care you are autistic.I don't care you did graphic design.We are literally two humans and all we can do is search arguments to inform our decisions. and someone saying they're this or that is absolutely fucking unnecessary garbage but instead nopthing more than a sad attempt to excuse mistakes.holy fucking shit.>other technological advancements.I am not against machine learning.I said the people contributing to its existence have to be compensated AND asked.Believe me. people will gladly provide their images to this corporation who pays you for giving them YYOUR KNOWLEDGE AND TIME.BUT THAT DOESNT HAPPEN IN REALITY.they just take it. and they build products around it. and a narrative in order to market future products. and fags like you repeat the shit without any care or original thought.if they are clever enough to build this thing purely from their own work, so be it.BUT THEY ARE STEALING MY AND YOUR AND OTHERS TIME AND EFFORT AND TALENT WITHOUT COMPENSATING.
>>437839when you have to start numbering your posts - stop posting
>>437843when you have nothing to contribute stop posting
>>437842>BUT THEY ARE STEALING MY AND YOUR AND OTHERS TIME AND EFFORT AND TALENT WITHOUT COMPENSATING.Yes they are and they are not gonna stop, and it is just the beginning, the big players are not even here yet.Now you have 3 choices:You keep crying like you are doing right now.You go with the flow and somehow learn to manage your existence with AI, because the technology is here and it's not gonna uninvent itself.You find another job.:not the same person you are replying to
>>437855yo.crying? did you even read the whole conversation? I am telling some people who are interested why it is indeed theft. these corporations exploit people as workers but do not pay them in return. we are collectively building their product which they will then sell to us and kill our own jobs. this is hardcore legal fraud. I love using stable diffusion. its an infinite serotonine rush and just incredibly powerful already. yet it is theft. and Id wish this thing in its current state was banned, since a stable society is worth way more.also what you are saying about just going with it isn't true either. now I am not saying it is false. but to be frank we all can individually decide whether we are shutting our mouths about it or not. I am not disillusioned enough to think me or anyone doing this or that thing would change this or that for good. but after all I at some point of the day have to be able to go to sleep, and at some point in time Ill even die. And honestly your approach doesn't make either one particularly comfy.
>>437855a last thought and food for more discussion.I have a question I do not have a complete answer to.but why do you think the big players are still waiting a bit?I would guess it is because they know that the moment they start entering this big scale, legal investigation would immediately multiply. the best reason I came up with yet is that they hope for a moment of maximum disruption and social acceptance. they are trying to fly under the radar. this is a test round many different stakeholders have all kinds of interest in. eventho at the same time I wouldn't necessarily say>the big players are not even here yetjust like that anyways.as I said, I dunno the answer.I am making shit up at this point.maybe you have better ideas.
>>435528>I will be adapting.Yes. We should all learn to change old people diapers.
>>434812Best thing to happen to hacks since Photoshop.Results will be similar: a torrent of limited range mediocre lookalikes in pastel colours.
>>437857>>437858Google and other big companies have an army of AI/ML engineers and infinite amount of data to train from. SD is one of the biggest practical use case that came out of AI/ML.>but why do you think the big players are still waiting a bit?I'm a programmer, I can offer a different perspective on what they are waiting for. I'm neither a graphics designer nor a legal expert, so take this with a grain of salt.I think they are not only working on the technology but creating a business model to put into effect. Millions of artists worldwide, they can't just let that go to drain. This is not like automating customer support services, because they were mostly low IQ tards, where the biggest business opportunity was to outright kill the market. It is better to charge artists a monthly subscription rather than killing a workforce altogether. It would take a few years to reach there, but I believe that AI and artists can coexist and what I mean by that is to reduce the gap they will create tech that is not as basic as prompt based art like it is right now and won't be as complicated/delayed as drawing something from scratch, but something in the middle and that, I believe, in the end will benefit both: the artist and the art.
>>437179Stable Diffusion has "negative" prompt words such as "missing fingers", "broken fingers", so that they don't get into the final drawing.>>437191Matter of quality. Coomers don't care about it, only about consooming quantity.
>>437796The issue seems to be that this Chuck Berry is a literal who.
>>434812You guys all realize that this "art" is all non copywritable and therefore commercially useless right?
>>437946yep. If they told me to draw Chuck Berry I'd have no fucking clue as to what they even want from me.>>438009Why, if you want to write a shitty ren.py porn game and sell it to perverts on patreon, you now no longer need to pay a person who can actually draw a cartoon Emma Watson sucking dick. That's quite useful, commercially."Artists", on the other hand, will now need to do something actually creative in order to sustain themselves. Like, I don't know, actual art.
Made with stable on nightcafe
current AI models are censored GARBAGEwait until someone cracks this shit wide open until then all this AI shit can F_U_C_K OFF
>>434812It's not fucking "over". Stable Diffusion is illustration, not graphic design. And it's pretty fucking sterile illustration.