>>438102
I think ai art is mentioned more as "killing artists" when really both sides are absolutely fucking demented and retarded and based on nothing.
AI art is like more specific stock footage, that's it. It also lets uncle mark have his cool profile picture. Nothing more, ai won-'t replace real art because robots just can't ever do some things, robots don't understand art. But neither do you.
If you're seriously less creative than a robot, rope yourself.

>copyright
>mattering
I love how all these left leaning artists are seething now that their intellectual property is being 'stolen'. Artists always had double standards in regards to this, now the chickens are coming home to roost.

>>438102
Don't have any, I just find it funny how twitter artists have a mental breakdown every time they see 'A' and 'I' together.

>>438110
what is the double standard?
there are many artists with different opinions.
what?

File: day by day.png (164 KB, 614x232)

164 KB PNG

>>438102
It's honestly just a sign of the beginning of the end. When i see these threads on /b/ it just makes me depressed. It feels like i'm becoming obsolete, like an old nes left collecting dust in an attic.feels bad man

>>438120
>what is the double standard?
Intellectual property bad when corporations do it, good when 'starving artists' do it.
>there are many artists with different opinions.
Cop-out answer. Most artists tend toward left-leaning stances on copyright except when it benefits them.
>what?
Cope and seethe.

>>438193
Only hacks; people worthy of being called artists learn how to do everything but outright steal other people's work and where the lines are between theft and influence, homage, reimagining, fair use, etc. so they don't get in serious trouble.

People using your original IP is best looked at as an opportunity to make money from their marketing effort...and to be able to legitimately take the credit for it if it works.
You *hope* they make a billion dollars off it, because its yours, and you can go on and create another quality original work rather than trying to steal one and get lucky.

>>438102
I think it's a fad that will die off, for the legal issues alone.

>>438198
It’s open source and with millions of downloads already. Even if you declared this tech illegal by UN tomorrow, you would still have millions of people have it on their computer sharing it on pirate websites and developing newer models in the secret.

>>438102
The single static image artist is dead and there isn't really a non-cope argument against it. And good riddance since the millennial fascination with le portrait of le psychedelic animal or an astronaut vomiting a rainbow and shit like that was getting really stale. VR coming to the mainstream means creative people will move into bigger scale experiences using the AI to create entire worlds at the whim of your imagination, until that becomes automated as well. But by then I think it will be so enticing we will be ready to move on from worrying about authorship.

>>438203
> VR coming to the mainstream
Yeah, Meta going bankrupt because they wanted to make VR mainstream totally isn’t the nail in the coffin for VR. VR was said to be the future since the days of early 3D graphics. 3D fundamentally gives you motion sickness, and no new tech will fix it. This is the reason why 3D glasses are no longer a thing in cinema, novelty wore off and it died like the fad it was. All 3D glasses needed was to use 2 cameras for recording and then give people crappy plastic glasses, VR required big headset on your head and for you to move around without breaking your furniture. We are stuck with a single screen and there is nothing you can do about it.

>>438193
>most artists
name most artist who have this position

I'll wait.

>>438193
>Intellectual property bad when corporations do it, good when 'starving artists' do it
Yeah.
Why should abstract abstract entity factory javabeans corporation have the right to property? It's not a person.

>>438232
Brainlet take; exercising the individual right to free association in business affairs by pooling financial resources or otherwise operating as a group of people doesn't negate property rights, or any other individual rights for that matter.

You're just trying to justify stealing a smaller portion of IP from a larger number of part owners.

>>438235
not true. you fall for the trap of acting like justice systems would be working similarly to mechanical engineering. we can decide differently based on context. if a thing is dangerous to a lot of people, we can decide differently than in other instances.

do you not agree that mass unemployment is enough an argument?
dont you think there is much more at stakes than a few stupid artist jobs?
neither culturally nor institutionally we are ready for this.

besides that. you can copy a patented object for yourelf no problem. but you may not sell it.
if an artist draws for leisure they can copy whatever the hell they want. but the firm selling the AI has undeniably financial intentions.
another argument is the current distribution of technological infrastructure. -allowing for AI to do its thing uninhibited would most certainly end in yet another tech monopoly (which is simply not great).

last thing: stop acting as if professional artists were allowed to copy whatever without potential penalty.
after all it is just so much more difficult to proof a person copying another artist, while in deterministic AI the influence is nothing to argue about.

tldr: no, there is much more to debate than you are suggesting

>>438235
This anon here again >>438241

I might have misunderstood you. depending on whether I am assuming that you read the message before you >>438232 as being sarcastic or not kinda flips the meaning by 180 degrees.

Anyways so as I said you might not be attacking the notion of treating human artists and AI the same, in which case I want to apologyze.
You can let me know if you want.

>>438201
that doesnt mean legal frameworks cannot be adapted in order to take control over future development.
the current state of stable diffusion is impressive yet not solely what the fuss is about. eventhough the influence/damage done by this program connot simply be undone, the more frightening bit is the future and how AI will keep developing anyways, which we can only steer by taking appropriate measures now.
more major disruption could at least technically still be avoided. in the end machine learning algorythms themselves are not the ne/fascinating bit. its more the incredible size of training data used.

Its true. the rise of machine learning might not be stoppable and probably shouldnt even be something we actively avoid. but the speed at which it comes and what legal effects it has matters a lot. so I prefer being cautious and not just letting it happen with blind trust for big corporations already, but to instead take the chance and make sure this technology allows for long term societal use instead of damage.

>>438245
god. fuck me.
>Anyways so as I said you might not be attacking the notion of treating human artists and AI the same, in which case I want to apologyze.
I meant 'differently' instead of 'the same'.
I am stooopid. sorry for creating confusion

>>438102
AI won't change the demand for real art, but most graphic design gigs will likely go the way of the dodo. The less glamorous the work, the more likely an AI will do it. OC/porn artists are mostly fucked as well.
>muh copyright laws
That ship sailed years ago. Intellectual property theft has become a fact of daily life, it's in the air we breath, don't think for a second that the buck stops with AI art.

>>438102
AI art is killing artists in the sense that all corporate art is about to get much worse due to it.

>>438248
>>438249
honestly I personally do find it confusing that people seem to mostly be making no real distinction between fine arts and applied arts when talking AI.

while you normally wouldnt reeeeally count fine arts a regular job alternative, its the applied arts that are being threatened by AI. yet it seems like many people who are discussing AI tend to argue from a standpoint of fine arts, which is obviously completely inappropriate.
of course there will always be collectors of human art. yet the majority of people working in creative industry are likely going to be replaced. mass consumption of imagery will be automatized even further than it already is.

I liked the distinction of 'corporate art'.

>>438250
>yet the majority of people working in creative industry are likely going to be replaced. mass consumption of imagery will be automatized even further than it already is.

this argument has been made about every labor saving innovation that artists might avail themselves of going back to metal pen nibs and rulers, woodcuts, engraving, moveable type, stone lithography, film photography, offset lithography, digital photography, letraset, pantographs, the airbrush, photocopiers, vinyl cutting plotters, opaque and overhead projectors, desktop PC graphics software, etc, etc., blah, blah, woof, woof.
>b-b-b-but you don't get it, this time is different!!!
THIS WILL KILL ART ITSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- said every wackadoodle doomsayer ever when all those earlier paradigms shifted.

>>438102
>It's not even real art
lol. lmao even.
Your industry is changing. Adapt or die.

>>438251
lol. I literallly said it will not kill art.
I said many people from creative fields will be losing their jobs. the ones being replaced in part shouldnt even be called artists in the first place (but that is a whole other story).

why not tackle any of these more serious problems >>438241 if you do have such deep understanding of what is even going on? and lets also add the topics into the mix that are being discussed in this other whole escalating conversation >>437795
lets see what you have, but it just seems so typical for answers like yours to not contain anything valuable but fluff. Id be interested if you are indeed able to defend that stance against what has been noted before, or if you are only preaching wine.

>there have always been doomposters
well no shit. but you too are just repeating the same old concepts yourself. there is no actual knowledge in your argument. what you wrote as it stands now is just a slightly disguised shitpost.

>its the same it has always been before with other technological changes.
I am repeating myself. but there are obvious differences. whether its still the same or not is a matter of arguments. take your chance. elaborate WHY it is the same while regarding these other statements I linked in this message.

>>438255
Your word vomit is boring and pointless.

>>438258
yeah I expected something like this

>>438102
White people are the least generic you nigger

>>438102
>t. I draw amateur porn and am out of a job now.
Good riddance.
AI art is weeding out those who are not artists. If a robot can replace your work, you are not an artist

>>438201
>and developing newer models in the secret.
with no monetary incentive to work on it, it would still be worked on, but pretty slowly

>>438259
You WANTED that reaction so you could claim to be "right" because nobody took you up on your "challenge", because nobody wants to wade through post after post after post of boring word vomit that you inevitably spew when someone doesn't agree with you.
It's a patently transparent and disingenuous tactic and we're not stupid; you will never be swayed one iota by anything anyone else says so why bother trying?

>>438102
Can’t wait to break it to my gf that her tits aren’t possible

>>438102
The problem is not AI art in itself.
The problem is retard goycattle who keep training AI, that will eventually be used for much darker purposes.

>>438276
okay? I do not have any problems with what you are claiming. am I missing something?
Its not like so far there have been any arguments on here which would have been worth 'swaying one iota' anyways (?). in the end that is the reason why I was suggesting to give it a serious try...
It's true. I am not making use of intransparent tactics. my cards are on the table. I am quite openly showing where I am coming from and what certain takes I am going against.
would you really want me to yet again write all the shit I already wrote? do you really think another 2000 symbol message would have changed your opinion about me? If so I will maybe take the time and recap for you.

I have to agree yet again.
if there is no chance for you coming up with counter arguments, don't bother trying! It seems like you are crying and I don't even know what it is about.
My 'challenge' was simply asking you to argue WHY you see it the way you do. and now you are pissed? lol okay. I guess your message was so much more diplomatic! lmao
I tried less confrontational writing styles before and they don't provoke any honest human reaction at all. I don't care about that.
in the case of AI I am interested in understanding what is even happening and writing stupid basic short headline brainlet comments wont lead me anywhere.

I am pretty okay with you being uninterested in directly interacting with me. to be frank I myself am relatively positive about not even being all that interested in interacting with you either.
what you wrote doesn't impress me.

>>438279
>Its not like so far there have been any arguments on here which would have been worth 'swaying one iota' anyways

again, this will be your answer until the end of time so its a fools errand to try to change that; its who you fundamentally are and its patently obvious: we aren't stupid.
Similarly, your feigned reasonableness when confronted with these facts doesnt fool anyone, its just another manipulative bad faith tactic.
now post amother 2000 characters worth of spew.

>>438265
As someone who is a massive fan of AI development, it will be able to replace anything a human can do eventually.

>>438255
No, mr. word salad.

>>438284
well that is a bemusing image you are painting, doctor Freud.
lets not keep talking too much about how this in reality is about you loathing the idea of me feeling moraly superior. but I dont care for your romantic ideas of how discussion on this platform should look like.

it seems you have skipped a paragraph in my oh-so-long text before:
dont interact with me if you dislike me so much. its not like I am particularly difficult to spot anyways. look at me whatever the way you wish to!

here is another dirty tactic for you.
now finally show to the world that you know more about AI then we all are expecting at that point. winkwink

>>438310
>it seems you have skipped a paragraph in my oh-so-long text before
One? That's a hilariously optimistic guess.
>dont interact with me if you dislike me so much.
Not surprising that a simple sentiment took you a whole paragraph to express.
>here is another dirty tactic for you.
Admitting that you employ boring and disingenuous troll tactics doesn't make you look more reasonable or "transparent" (at least not the way you intended it when you used that term), it's just a big neon sign saying "sociopath".
>now finally show to the world that you know more about AI then we all are expecting at that point. winkwink

I dont care for your romantic ideas of how discussion on this platform should look like...especially the double standard where you expect others to not respond to you if they disagree while you remain free to say anything you like to them.
I prefer to just ignore your "suggestions" and insistence that I respond in a manner that you approve of, for reasons already explained and because it's fun to see you flail about and try all your different tactics to no avail.

To quote an allegedly smart and reasonable person, "dont interact with me if you dislike me so much"

>>438315
in that case everything has been said.
see you next time.

File: 00756-4232456169-(masterp(...).jpg (1.13 MB, 1408x1792)

1.13 MB JPG

>>438102
> I hate the Antichrist
That explains everything.

File: 00002.png (1.55 MB, 1280x1280)

1.55 MB PNG

before i found out about SD i was actually fearful because of Ai but trying it out made me feel like i was really missing out and im firm supporter of Ai being just a tool that will improve human art and this is the just beginning.

>>438232
If you give a right to an individual, it will be exploited by a corporation. You think the legal system is a clear enough barrier that can sort the wheat from the chaff. In practice, it's not. It is subject to manipulations, bribery, and corporate lobbyists as much as any other institution. Laws need to be universally binding or their minutae will be exploited by individuals powerful enough to afford teams of Ph.D lawyers trawling through court records to do exactly that.

Copyright laws for none or copyright laws for all. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

File: ds73%DHJD10-DJG.png (1.69 MB, 984x1198)

1.69 MB PNG

I use AI art as cool backgrounds for t shirt designs.
1- fill the layer mask
2- use something cool as a selection mask
3- ????

>>438108
Thank you. IA generated images have given me so much stock over the last few months and so far the only thing they messed up was cheesy pizza spam sending Pixiv into a damage control mode. Seriously, fuck these pedos, they piss me off.

>>438108
>ai won-'t replace real art
companies are already using it to shit out posters. People who usually pay an artist for a profile picture just use AI now.

>>438680
Yes and?
Comissioned art isn't really art most of the time. Most "art" isn't.
Automate the less creative shit, focus on what matters. That's how it goed

>>438684
what matters?

>>438685
"soul"

>>438694
concept artists do have soul but alot of those jobs will be done by AI now

File: dfj8yg1-cfe469df-1cda-418(...).png (2.57 MB, 1536x1024)

2.57 MB PNG

>>438694
Sneed

>>438221

i would go for a projector on a huge wall screen , some 3d glasses, and some real-time environment generating AI that builds worlds as fast as you can explore them

i've got a friend and he's actually decently talented at creative endeavours when he applies himself.
but he never did (we're both older). he always got to the hard part and it eventually ended up with me going "so you just want the computer do all the work?" and him replying "yes".

and now the computer can do the hard work.
and when makes images with these things, he says, without a second thought, "i made this", "i worked on art", "my art"

he actually wants to print out the images he's produced

funny thing is, even by ai image standards his images are awful

the idea guys won, but they're still frauds and they never had any good ideas

>>438102
Dude just give up, don't be a luddite, it's over for artists.

File: victim of cyberbullying a(...).jpg (60 KB, 828x894)

60 KB JPG

>>438102
Here, sam yang

File: 1670264916282057.png (574 KB, 512x640)

574 KB PNG

Hey since /gd/ isn't as autistic and schizo as /ic/ can we please talk about useful applications for something like stable diffusion for graphic design.

Here's an example of a fine tuned model that can generate icons based on a specified style.
https://promptdb.ai/prompt/279/app-icon

>>438816
there needs to be a class action suit

>>438102
First:
>WITHOUT their permission
Judgement whether AI art is "art" or "good" does not depend on whether it had permission to consume the original source pieces of art. The resulting output cannot be atrributed a lower value just because it didn't have original authors permissions. This point holds no weight as an argument against AI art, and I suppose people throw that in because they already have a bias against AI generations.
Only when discussing AI generation practices that this is indeed a relevant point, but are we evaluating the final artwork, or the process?

2. Permission or not, the way the AI depends on original artwork is arguably more similar to human->human inspiration than human->human plagiarism/tracing. A person's inspiration can take from an amalgamation of other artists plus the real world, often subconsciously, to imagine or devise his/her artwork, and it's completely fine. Yet an AI does something similar and its criticized for it.
I would bet a large amount that the internal data these AIs have gathered and saved from input artworks can absolutely _not_ be tracked back to the original art pieces without knowing first what these input images were. What is saved and used is likely just the AI's interpretation of key image features from original artworks and photographs.

2/3

>>438102
>>438827

3.
>It's not even real art
If an AI artwork is indistinguishable from a human artwork, it's just as real as a human-made one. Whatever "real" means.
If you cannot tell that a specific artwork is made by AI, and if you have no external information stating that that art was made by an AI, you cannot possibly claim that its "not real". You would need information external to the image, stating that it's a product of an AI, in order to judge the image as "not real". Thus, by the merits of the image and the image only, indistinguishable AI pieces are just as real as human made ones.
Of course, when the AI fucks up and generates extra fingers, for example, then it can be judged harshly. But not because of the means it was created, but because the image itself is of lower quality than other artworks.

>>438102
>Why is AI "art" so suspiciously hyped up
It's not and we don't even want you involved. Didn't read the rest.

>>438782
literally this. Nobody will ever like an idea guy, their ideas are just never good beyond surface level

>>438694
Sorry that you don't have a soul my man.

One of the arguments I've heard against it is that nobody holds the copyright to AI art since the AI created it, not the person who prompted it. So if someone makes some AI art anyone else can just steal it too.

>>438832
Sorry you can't even define much less quantify it, otherwise your post might mean something.

I'm so glad art is democratized so that every dating profile can be filled with fake AI pictures, dumb thots can now larp as talented writers and artists for even more attention, and anyone who wants to cancel you can just deepfake a picture of you in blackface. The future is now!

>>438102
Emma Watson getting blacked

it literally relies on art thats created by real people, therefor is impossible for it to kill artists

>>438102
God I love these cope threads

>>438102
You're like the guy trying to argue Horses are better than Cars in 1898 or what the fuck ever. ITS FUCKING OVER. If you can't see the writing on the wall then you're a complete retard.

Claiming to be an AI "artist" is like fucking a fleshlight and claiming you're not a virgin anymore.

>>438102
>It's not even real art, it's just generated from thousands of pre-obtained datas from the artworks of human artists WITHOUT their permission

anon, u have to realize that the model doesnt generate images from thousands of other images, its **trained** from thousands of other images. literally works just like the human brain by taking in new information, finding patterns, and creating new things from those learned patterns. so by ur own logic, it would mean that human art is also "not real art" because humans, in much the same way, learn how to do art good by looking at references, drawing them, finding patterns between the references, and getting better with time.

>>438997
Anon failed to realise that collage is a thing.

>>438998
can u explain to me how that changes what i said abt the similarities between AI and human art learning?

>>438997
yes, artists who make art as a part of the art 'industry' (to make money) can easily be considered not real artists, and easily be replaced by AI. what you described as human art is just the process of developing a new skill, it has nothing to do with creativity, and AI will never be able to replicate human creativity. if you gave the AI an infinitely detailed description of a persons life, and asked it to duplicate the way a person thinks, interprets art, reacts to shit.. really just duplicate its soul.. it couldnt even come close. how could a machine create real art when it doesnt have a soul?

>>438110
Copyright has never protected against people being inspired by a copyrighted work and so on. Or people stealing a "style" or whatever.

>>438102
Ai art is the hot dog of design

That's it

>>439000
You are less creative than a robot.

>>439024
What if it makes better design then you?
>>439016
AI won’t replicate human creativity, but it can create its own version of creativity. The AI version of creativity where it finds things it learned in noise and randomly connects them together.
>>438965
To this day the main benefit of car over a horse is still mostly the facts that car does not shit on streets. But the analogy with car can be interesting since car is faster and can be used by everyone, which then had the long term negative effect of making car dependent infrastructure that is objectively worse then the old train infrastructure. Same could be said with AI where the individual normies might like the current image toy to play with, but in the long run making all of media for themselves only and not being able to share experiences will make people unhappy after a while. Plus everyone making pretty art won’t make everybody great artist, instead it will devalue all art into being with less then the time spend on making it, or less then the paper you would print it on. This is why people didn’t want to automate art, because it will destroy it.

>>438827
>human inspiration rather than plagiarism/tracing

what makes you assume that?

for one.
if you ask me, legal systems are largely in place in order to create societal (and/or economic) stability.
So AI doesn't *necessarily* have to be encountered the same way other technologies or humans are, if these stabilities are being threatened by it.

You want communist state and unconditional basic income or complete formalisation of the capitalist market resources and users of the web being paid for contributing information that is required for these systems to even exist? seriously AI is a condensed marketplace of human thought. and no matter what the ultimate system to create monetary compensation, the owner of the AI will have to somehow redirect cash flow towards consumers as to keep the system running and it not dying.

an AI is 100% deterministic. the fact of an image being part of the original training data is pretty easy to proof.
and even if (depending on world view) the human race actually acts 100% deterministic as well, there is an issue with proofing a certain inspiration being part of a humans creative process!
if whe had the resources to do it, we'd probably copyright strike each other all the time. but it cannot be done. at leat not without violating basic human rights. the human mind is free for other reasons.

Read it like this.
is your AI the same without my image in the training set?
yes? > you dont need it so delete it.
no? > is it worth anything to you?
yes? > pay me
no? > delete it from training data

the idea of a robot in the eyes of a legal system being equivalent to a natural human being is ideological marketing bollocks.
it is a machine. a product. whether it contains a black box or not. its ways of working are definitely in reliance of training data fed.
the moment you start treating it like a human, there are no humans anymore. and that is a proposal you probably shouldnt want to even try and defend in reality.

>>438102
For the graphic artist one problem comes to mind; since everyone knows that an AI can shit out endless variations, clients will become even more wishy-washy cunts.
Demanding endless changes and can you give me some more examples.
Fuck, I am so glad i left this faggot business.

Personally i think AI is cool as shit.

>>438121
Are you not making art for you?

I really think that people felt exactly like this back when Photoshop was released.

"Oh no, now nobody will ever take pictures ever again because photographers are not needed anymore!"

It will probably become a tool once it's fine-tuned with more stuff.

>>439079
>What if it makes better design then you?
You suck ass, then

>>439268
Photoshop didn't affect the taking photographs aspect of photography as much as it affected the need for specialist feilds related to film processing and printing (darkroom work), composting, retouching, tinting, print pre-press operations like color separations, etc.
Doing those things at a pro level in the pre-digital age was largely about time and resource management and not fucking up because every operation cost money and risked destroying previous work and master source materials.
Rather than kill opportunities to make money performing those tasks, photoshop allowed more people to do it with a broader set of tools but also made it far easier to justify trying all those processes and tricks, so that there's far more of that kind of image manipulation being done than there ever was when those were all niche skills rhat took many people to accomplush and not menu items with an undo function if you don't like the result.
People can bitch all they want about AI but the fact is that the kinds of media and stylistic variations it offers allows options that almost no one makes enough use of to support more than a handful of "real" artists...nobody is commissioning an oil painting and a pastel and a woodcut and a watercolor in the styles of multiple artists and eras when brainstorming ideas for ads or book illustrations or T shirts....but these doomsayers act as if that's exactly what's happening and all those great paying jobs will be lost.
The whole premise is retarded and just like photoshop has more people doing more photo manipulation, editing and composting work than ever, AI will mean more non- photographic illustration work being used than there was even when that was the primary method, for the simple reason that more people have access to the tools to do it and there's little more investment than time in trying out various iterations of an idea to find one you like.

>>439273
I could be wrong, but I think you are underestimating the amount of automation that lies ahead.
Just as human language translators have been getting obsolete over the last few years, 'artists' will be doing so as well. (just as many other professions at the same time)

'many more people will be making art'. well. yes. but no. yes in the sense that you'll be making your phone spit out images you like based on your online persona. no since monetizing the images created that way will get more and more difficult to make money from as everyone is consuming increasingly many images generated to meet their own special demands. more and more people creating imagery = less and less people being able to earn with it.
A Leonardo to hire? pretty expensive!
a pajeet controlling photoshop? replaceable.
a monke providing random input to increasingly complex AI systems? irrelevant.

Art historically is more and more becoming a wagie job.
that has been the case at least since (and also for reason of) the invention of the camera. and later digital work flows. and this trend will likely continue. this is not about giving people the opportunity of creation. this is about making creation a slave job. stock art platforms and online commissioning are young examples.
it is becoming a commodity that in return makes the expertise completely obsolete.

sure. you are right. one day society will have had enough time to be adjusted to it. but until then we are the poor pawn-sacrifice faggots who 'due to mercyless introduction of this cool new disruptive technology' have been shat on by destroying the small personal livelihood we created for ourselves. and -again - this will not *always* be the case, but by my understanding simply what you and me and most other currently living people will be facing.

art dying? no
artist dying? yes

>>438102
Just tuned in to witness the drama. So far I got this info:
>artists want to shut down AI
>but they also think ai art is inferior in any possible way and cannot compete
I agree that fags that flood the websites with ai are cancer, but why not have an ai section and a human section? What's the harm in that? I get that training ai over people is a bit scummy and should be at least credited if not banned, but I really don't get why artists are so intolerant

>>438102
this is why i love IA shits, is not even art but make all of you cry like little bitches for nothing at all.

>muh... not real art because is made by a machine with art of other people
So you made a design with a program, and inspired in whateverthefuck is in pinterest or in fucking books of a retarded who get "inspired" in others art.

>>439281
based man

>>439281
>more and more people creating imagery = less and less people being able to earn with it.
This is not supported by logic, you just assume its inevitably true but its laughably unsupported by reason and facts.

>A Leonardo to hire? pretty expensive!
>a pajeet controlling photoshop? replaceable.
>a monke providing random input to increasingly complex AI systems? irrelevant.

Who makes what commercial art is already irrelevant both to consumers who are targeted to see it and production managers who select it.
>Art historically is more and more becoming a wagie job.
Commercial art always has been and anyone with the originate and uniqueness to rise above that has nothing g to fear from AI or any other automation, they will just use it to expand their production and earning power
>this is not about giving people the opportunity of creation. this is about making creation a slave job.
More illogical hokum, slaves are only viable when no technology to replace them exists. Once it does the people who have more to offer than just a warm body run it and become more valuable. Even using the term "slave" in this context is absurd histrionics.
>stock art platforms and online commissioning are young examples.
Creating stock art has always been a thing, and has always been shit paying work because its entire purpose is to save money.

Online comissioning is just another sales avenue, might as well complain that the telephone harmed artists who previously had to walk door to door to get in front of potential clients.
>it is becoming a commodity that in return makes the expertise completely obsolete.
Commercial art and speculative art have always been a commodity, and when it comes to who makes money from them and who doesn't the consumers who drive that success do not give a shit about "expertise" or personal details, if they see something they like and want to buy based on the image/ design it doesn't matter who or what made it or how to the vast majority.

1/2

>>439295
2/2

This same kind of doom scenario has been predicted about music wirh every tech advancement ever, the only people threatened are those who want to rest on their existing skill set/ reputation/ work situation and creative fields simply don't favor people like that...a very few might be able to resist change and even get acclaim for doing so, but the tide eventually rolls over them and the world goes on and people who aren't that guy do fine as long as they don't decide to try to remain static and get paid for it.

That's really what the anti-AI movement is about, championing stagnation and a smaller creative pool but pretending that it's a more humane path. They also pretend to be supporting tradition and values but tradition for its own sake is just nostalgia and doesn't require creative expertise or vision, it requires suppressing them in people with those abilities.
That's why people without them favor that kind of work, and why they feel threatened...a machine is better suited to doing it and shows that even with that low bar they have little to offer in any truly creative sense.

>>438102
imagine arguing that art is not real art because it's better than yours

>>439261
I find your points understandable, but I disagree.
>in the eyes of a legal system
My argument is not from the perspective of a legal system or intellectual property rights, but aims to discuss parallels between how we humans generate images in our heads and how computers generate images through an algorithm.
If I ask you to draw a phonebooth from memory, your brain will pull an imagining based on your internal concept of "phonebooth". This concept has been cultivated from the countless phone booths you've seen, either in real life, photographs or drawings. The amalgamation of previous perceptual visual inputs you've associated with the concept of "phonebooth" all contribute to your imagining of a phonebooth and subsequent translation into the physical medium (drawing it).

AIs do the same. Training the AI with images and artworks of phonebooths is essentially building its internal concept of "phonebooth" so it can utilize the amalgamation of features its learned to "draw" its own phonebooth. Input images can then be discarded as the AI only retains data pertaining to semantic/conceptual features.
It's more akin to human inspiration than plagiarism because the AI generates exclusively based on the features it has learned. Plagiarism would be the case if it cropped parts of input images and stitched them together like some amateur graphic designer.

1/2

>>439261
>>439306
Now, if its acceptable for human artists to rely on their inspiration (which comes from an amalgamation of previous perceptual inputs), why is the machine, who also creates images from conceptual features, accused of "stealing" artwork? Your art has helped the computer understand the concept of "phonebooth", and has inspired me. This does not that mean my handdrawn phone booth, or the computer's creation, has plagiarized your work.

>there is an issue with proofing a certain inspiration being part of a humans creative process!

If you say it's acceptable for people to be inspired without copyright strikes only because we cannot audit inspiration sources from people, then let me tell you that its the same with AI generation.
>the fact of an image being part of the original training data is pretty easy to proof.
This is wrong. conceptual data retained by the AI after the training pass is refined on each pass and essentially a smoothie of the various input images. This cannot be feasibly traced to a specific input image.

>is your AI the same without my image in the training set?
>no? > is it worth anything to you?
>yes? > pay me
Should I pay you if i copy and pasted part of your art into my work? Yes.
Should I pay you if my handdrawn art was inspired by yours? Absolutely not. Your rendition of the idea of phone booth or chair or person is yours, but you do not have rights to the concept itself.
Your art is not an artifact used in the final generated image. Only the concept conveyed by your art.

>You want communist state and unconditional basic income...
This is also relevant but it's a whole other discussion which I won't delve into.

2/2

File: 1671931276537187.jpg (259 KB, 718x796)

259 KB JPG

.

AI art literally isn't good and it never will be. The first thing to note is that the progress of AI has always been overhyped in terms of growth. You always see people say "we are just at the infancy, imagine how it'll be in a year from now" or "exponential growth, bro" but AI advancement never happens as quickly as people promise. I recommend watching Rob Ager's series on AI from his website. So AI will stay at its current fucked up state for a decade, maybe more. It won't be a radical shift. The other thing is that this does not at all really free art from the artist and give it to the autistic engineer. You, at the very least, need an artist to go in and fix all the obvious mistakes that AI art makes. Unless of course you "see nothing wrong" with it because you are an autistic stemcel creature that thinks art = formulaic marvel movie. All AI art can do is reproduce basic artistic memes from a database, it can't create anything new. It can't even do it perfectly. Like not even close to perfect. It's incredibly easy to tell AI art from human art like in >>439374 the arm here should tell you right away it's AI art. The anons in the thread are just idiots. I've never once seen a piece of AI art I couldn't tell was AI generated. Can anyone even give a single example of how AI art could ever "replace" an artist? Why are there still chess players when there is chess AI? Maybe the irrational ones are you, engineers, because your god of technology is only ever a tool for the artist.

>>438110
If there was ever an ultimatum to break the double standard, it would be something as threatening as AI art

>>439382
>You, at the very least, need an artist to go in and fix all the obvious mistakes that AI art makes.

Hilarious cope that-
a) pretends that all visible content in visual art that is considered "good" is the result of conscious choice and deliberate intentional action by the artist, which is retarded
b) ignores the countless examples of art and artists that are prized SPECIFICALLY for a unique representation or personal perspective that is the direct result of using "incorrect" materials and processes or are the result of some physical or mental condition that is otherwise seen as negative and to be avoided...orvis simply theresukt of making things to a personal aesthetic/quality standard that is nothing like anyone else's.
c) complains about the application of formulaic standards as antithetical to real art yet speaks of "obvious mistakes" that must be detected and "fixed" in order for something to be acceptable as real art, IOW it has to made according to a formula ,he approves of or its somehow wrong or broken.

File: Capturedff-transformed.jpg (726 KB, 1640x464)

726 KB JPG

>>439382
One of these pictures was AI generated

Which one is it?

>>438818
I just want a model that draws smear frames for animation ffs

File: Screenshot_20221227-143928.png (449 KB, 1080x1135)

449 KB PNG

>>439382

File: asasd.jpg (114 KB, 832x512)

114 KB JPG

>>438102
Looks good to me

It's hypocritical of artists to be angry at AI art.
The only reason you guys have is: It requires on skill.
Yes, granted. It literally doesn't. Did cool stuff on my first try.
Even photography which is basically the same thing, giving it an input made of light and then pressing a button takes more skill.

But this isn't the real issue. If it was there would be no real issue. People with no skill, have no skill by definition.
So what is the real origin of your butthurt?

It's the fact that unskilled people can create marketable things. The guy who made a book, the guy who won a cash price on some competition.
Those people are making money with no skill.

This is what upsets you.
If what I am saying is the real reason for your butthurt then I have no sympathy for you, because art is not about money, art is about vision and realizing that vision, which takes skill.
AI art can never do that, so if you are upset. Then you are not upset about art dying, you are upset about your economic niche being invaded.
True artists don't care if they are broke and destitute, suffering and strife only emboldens them and takes them higher.
If you are upset about money that's okay we are all human, but this has nothing to do with art.

>>439382
Looks good to me.

This picture has no tweaking, filters, or anything.
It literally was just 1 click of effort.
Art requires a lot more edition and work in comparison.
The results speak for themselves.

>>438816
>>438102
Imagine being so retarded to think that you can just "remove" something from a black box neural network.
Its too late artists, your work has already been sampled. Keep your new art offline in future.

we're graphic designers....we basically borrow shit for a living. This just makes it easier to borrow shit.

cope and seethe art cucks, I feed ai with my sample and now my work is faster

>>438102
AI art is soulless, there is no refuting this, I have won

>>439392
Whatever bitch, if money's the reason why you perked your ears up and joined the neoliberal order with its lawyers and patent trolls, you're no better than they are. Go pretend you're against capitalism on Twitter while secretly endorsing every aspect of it like every other latte liberal on the planet.

File: mitchell-edited-5[1].jpg (145 KB, 799x500)

145 KB JPG

>Art requires skill
>also these splotches of paint in the national art museum are art because... they just are, okay!!
Pick one

>>438102
I don't get why anyone but someone who's genuinely retarded would hate AI generated pictures. Even if all artists actually got replaced, what's the matter? We're entering an era where everyone will get their jobs replaced by a robot, be it now or in 40 years. Visual artists just happen to be the ones to get btfo first.

File: 21804CFB-837C-4B81-8E23-2(...).jpg (618 KB, 844x844)

618 KB JPG

Even popular bands are using AI art for their album covers. On one hand good for them good I guess for making a inexpensive album cover but on the other hand you don’t have 300$ to pay some dude to paint or draw it for you? It’s not like they aren’t singed to a major record label and tour the world or anything.

>>439474

Good art requires skill

File: f08dc29d35783a300264e3062(...).jpg (392 KB, 2203x2937)

392 KB JPG

>>439479
>art requires skill

>>439478
Why should I pay some dude $300 when I can use the AI and keep my $300? Just cause?

>>439558
GOOD art you faggot, not jewish effluvia.

>>439562
>no no no I didn't mean that art I mean other art
do you realize how pathetic you sound?

>>439474
>>439558
Artfags really backed themselves into a corner with this shit and it’s hilarious because they have NO rebuttal to it. >>439561

>>438937
It relies on art for training just like self driving cars rely on pictures of traffic for training data.

At a certain point, I would say that the AI is trained. At least well enough to be useful without adding more input data.

>>439287
>Our enemy is weak, pathetic, and has no hope of winning against us
>But also they're devious and dangerous, and they're on the verge of killing us unless we fight back!

Happens every time with reactionary populist bullshit.

File: 2DF4D034-9F63-439B-9AD0-0(...).jpg (864 KB, 828x828)

864 KB JPG

>>439561
You can do whatever you want with your money. Like I said good on that band for being able to save some cash but my opinion is that it doesn’t even look that good, they could have used a way better prompt, and it would look way better if it was painted like pic related.

>>438967
Mans speaking facts

>>438102
Art has always been in competition with technology, for hundreds of years now. You know those haunting hyper-realistic dramatic paintings such as Tsar Nicholas killing his son, eyes wide and Terror and regret? Paintings like that existed as a response to the black and white camera because artist wanted to show that they could do something that cameras could not. But then cameras got color and were far less grainy and could take, as the name implies, photorealistic pictures. Instead of competing with photo realism, artist moved towards impressionism and abstraction.

A i r can only make images based on other images. What you are getting essentially is Thomas Kinkade. Do you really feel threatened by Thomas kinkade? Some of these artists complaining and kvetching have never even picked up a paintbrush and an easel or a pen and pencil and paper. What this digital art was in the past, was a simple commodity. And now there is a tool that cuts out the middleman and let's a creator of aesthetic commodity directly turn vision into product and do to there liking. Tumblrinas making pirn and fan art I have to get off their high horse an artist will probably move towards focusing on human mechanical skill and intention in making something that's tangible in the real world, instead of sterile and perfect yet vacuous commodities

>>438102
Seethe trannies
>Nooooo my shitty anime skills have been overtaken by a bot!!
Maybe you shouldn't have sat around your whole life drawing endless waifufaggotry, cluttering the internet and giving the AI a massive dataset to draw from as a result?
You did this to yourselves

>>438102
i hate AI art (I HATE THE ANTICHRIST I HATE THE ANTICHRIST I HATE THE ANTICHRIST)

>>438102
AI is the new china for digital goods.
Get to work ching chong

File: dredd ai art.jpg (481 KB, 1024x1207)

481 KB JPG

>>438102
>counter arguments pls
Depends on the person's reasoning. It's mostly easier to just point out all the de facto problems, which your image has already stated, to convince bystanders.
Usually the person who's pro-AI has no idea what they're talking about, like most political issues.
>>438121
Please don't consider anons on imageboards to be a measure of your value. 90% of images posted are just reposts, i.e. recycled, human bot posting, tasteless, incestuous, no care for the world beyond the board.
They were never going to pay you any attention, let alone pay you, and have no impact on the ecosystem you live in.
>>438265
But weebs will be left without an identity when their favourite hentai wasn't made by slavish Japanese (and Korean) hands!
>>438684
>artisan creations aren't art
>we need to focus on the real art
>what's that? There's a machine to make that redundant too? Well it wasn't real art then...
>>438997
>literally works just like the human brain
Human brains don't copypaste signatures into new works. Not unless they're plagiarising an artist.
>>439079
>but it can create its own version of creativity. The AI version of creativity where it finds things it learned in noise and randomly connects them together.
"B- but it's not worse, it's its OWN version of it!"
>>439287
Pride is a terrible thing.
It is superior in speed and cost. It is arguably as good as the art you feed into it. A machine won't demand to put its vision above yours, or delay, or have a meltdown.
And the negatives don't outweigh those benefits in a lot of circumstances.
>>439585
Every argument ever in popular discourse is that. Chad versus Virgin. We're amazing, they're terrible, join our side, pretty please, don't think, just do.

>>438296
>Replace
Stop using that word you retard.
It is called genocide. The end game is genocide.

>>438102
I dont think these bugmen realise that they're not as invulnerable as they think they are. If AI continues to develop at the pace it is then it'll be over for everyone, even people in managerial and executive positions. If there's no ethical intervention soon we'll be living in some kind of fucked up Phillip K Dick dystopia.

>>440130
No.

>>438492
Beyond soulless

>>438348
>Ai being just a tool that will improve human art
This is plain subhuman thinking my man. Art is a purely human endeavor and not one that exists on graduated stages of development like technology or science.

>>439601
Where was this from? Midjourney doesn't allow gore

>>438102
>t's not even real art, it's just generated from thousands of pre-obtained datas from the artworks of human artists WITHOUT their permission

This is what human art is too. You take influences from past experiences to create something just like the AI.

File: 1dd4f4cc5083ecdc9a64f7bff(...).jpg (23 KB, 570x387)

23 KB JPG

>>440149
>Art is a purely human endeavor

So are technology and science, dummy.

File: DE8E1AC8-F96C-418E-985B-A(...).jpg (523 KB, 828x823)

523 KB JPG

>>440152
Kek that’s an actual painting by Eliran Kantor. Here’s another one.

File: banana-76.jpg (147 KB, 2000x1333)

147 KB JPG

>>438102
There is no actual standard for what is "art". Only shitty artists complain about AI art cause they can't beat a computer.

>>439983
>artistry is so subjective random splotches of paint on a canvas can be high art if it speaks to the times
>but not random splotches of paint generated by a machine
You're worthless. In the end there will be no way to distinguish any work of creative or craft might from machine or man. You will cry, rage at news headlines, and post on 4chan about it, but you cannot stop it without uprooting the entire digital age (and if you do, I've got Varg's number to give you). You fed this with your data. Over and over again, you built better neural networks by being active in this space. You only cried when you had skin in the game.

https://opensea.io/0x6737bd92da2d71f0817879e68bc7406d96bf22ba

There's no thought behind it. Same reason why nature isn't art, but photographing it is.

>>439400
Fourth one on the right. Those are all legit paintings. There doesn't seem to be any inconsistencies as far as I now.

>>440477
Actually no, upon looking these up they all legitimate. What point are you trying to make

>Work as stock SEO for a company that pumps out stock videos, images and illustrations
>They pump out a fuckton of generic illustrations
>AI gets big
>every illustration batch gets rejected under suspicion that it's AI generated
>Most of these were made way back, so they don't have the recording/creative progress for them
>hundreds of real manmade illustrations get fuckin rejected and will never be monetized
>Hours of people's work go to shit because they look enough like the stuff people generate via AI
I feel bad for the guys who made these

All paid art will be by ai in less than 10 years. And long before that fleshbag artists will be just for fixing hands and such of aingenerated art

I would be shitting my pants now if this is what how I made my living

>>438102
maybe this take is a centrist cringe take but honestly its more that both sides of the debate are the most faggy and annoying people alive: tech bros and commissioned sketchfags

so on the one side you have the classic "tech will solve everything" annoyingly smug with questionable morals techy and the other we have a mentally ill teenager with pronouns in bio and will for 25$ draw you a near identitcal shitty sketch pfp.

if actual AI art is to take off it will be through artists and the industry themselves. i saw on twitter some netflix anime automated some background production and probably saved hundreds if not thousands of hours and that seems to be a good use case for the medium

>>440577
continued:

i also strongly suspect this entire debate is a red herring or distraction from the personality clash which is the heart of the problem. the art theft question seems extremely meh and whilst im sure some autistic lawyers are jerking themselves right now im convinced that the debate is far too nuanced for the average normie to really want to get to grips with it. AI art being mediocre is also a weird one because most of the AI art ive seen is leagues above the shit a casual 10 minutes of art tags on twitter will bring up, and this is an early prototype of the tech too. the debate about if ai art IS art too seems even more retarded, the short answer is if people like it, its art. at the end of the day the sheer vitriolic outrage to it is far stronger then the underlying cause which makes me think its more about what ai art represents.

maybe im going off the deep end here but it seems to me that a tonne of artists get a lot of personal pleasure and emotional satisfaction from creating things and expressing themselves. what ai art is going to do is transcend this personal pleasure by shrinking the industry but also raising the average level of what is considered good art. and to artists that's deeply upsetting because they have an almost magical perception of their abilities and what they do and what it means. and here along comes some crass techbro reminding them that at the end of the day they are just like every other being on this planet expendable losers working at a widget factory outputting widgets. humans, and specifically an elite class of humans not having a monopoly on art is upsetting because their entire lives theyve lived considering it trasncendant and special, but here comes some corporate robot that can do it too

>>438108
>robots just can't ever do some things, robots don't understand art.
Peak dimwit. Chinks were saying the same thing about Go before they were absolutely obliterated by alphaGo. Humans aren't as complex as retards like to imagine themselves as

File: 1675410742633210.png (558 KB, 512x768)

558 KB PNG

>6 months later
>/gd/ is still in full cope mode
dumb paintpigs, lmao

>>438102
I don't want to learn to draw or pay some stuck up homo to draw a watered down version of what I envision. I trust the Omnissiah to create my art. I don't have to feed some faggot. Artists that create for reasons other than money? I respect them, they don't care about AI because it was never about being apart of a separate group propped up by talentless normies, it was about doing something they enjoyed or manifesting their thoughts onto paper. Pick up a shovel and dig some ditch you Reddit lite pussy

File: 1676971130327520.jpg (333 KB, 2200x1302)

333 KB JPG

>>438102

>coomers used to pay amateur artists to make sexy fan art
>now those coomers can do it for free
>these coomers somehow believe porn = art

Western civilization is collapsing around us. the questions you ask have obvious answers

>>438102
I don't like it.

File: 1677021863536455.png (501 KB, 526x695)

501 KB PNG

The cope hasn't even started.
Non-Profits now using AI art for their own Materials to save cost.

File: D1AF805E-8451-47B0-B657-F(...).png (1.09 MB, 670x832)

1.09 MB PNG

>>438193
Fanart is still original work, in that the line work, painting, etc. was still hand drawn by the human artist. Plus what makes some fan art unique is that artist putting their own spin on a beloved character.

Ai art is just creating collages of already existing images.

>>438277
This, op image was obviously made by a toasty roastie

File: meat loaf.png (291 KB, 332x367)

291 KB PNG

>>439382
6 months - 1 year ago ai art was pic related. You can cope all you want, it's absolutely getting better at a ridiculous rate.

>>438121
I play chess. Computers absolutely brutally mog all humans, even the world champion, for like 30 years now. Doesn't mean there's no point to having or developing the skill.
>marathon running is obsolete because cars are faster
>weight lifting is obsolete because cranes can lift more
Get it together. Honestly.

>>440130
I'm neet so if everything is done by machines and everybody is "out of work" then that means there will be more support for those who have no job. Or else mass death, either way.

>>438102
because they spent money getting it ready, only to try to recoup their loss by offering it as a service to prospectors

>>441364
dude shut the fuck up
>cranes
the industrial revolution was an immense problem for society at the time. and it would have been even more so if it werent for employees voicing their concerns and unions protecting the people. this is not about a hobby being overtaken by bots. this is about trying to recognize as many of the potential economic changes of the near future (our lifetimes) as possible. there is a lot at stakes and it is very understandable as well as important for people to take the potential risks very seriously.
nobody could care less about 'what even IS art' when they fear losing everything.

your arguments are worthless.
playing chess for the sake of playing chess is totally fine. but this doesnt change a damn thing for people who invested substantial energy and time into a career of playing chess before the shift started occurring.

of course the exact amount of unemployment we will be facing is difficult to predict. But your bs pseudo discussion is even more worthless than what you think you are arguing against.

Wow. The thing that had no money or jobs in it will have even less money and jobs. I will keep making illustrations because I like the process of it. If you just want some genetic looking anime girl with massive tits, go ahead and AI generate that.
But this whole "Ooh, artists are seething!!!" bullshit is so pathetic. I can only imagine someone who wants artists to suffer is someone really mad that they're not good at art themselves.
Nobody cares. I really doubt art collectors will be interested in pieces that don't have a "well respected" name attached to it.

>>441378
>dude this is tottally different his time becaus eit's le computers!%!!
fuck off, I bet you thought NFTs and Bitcoin will change the world as well.

AI will be used for corporate slop, that is already outsourced and frowned upon. The difference is that now Raj won't get $2.3 for 2 weeks of work, but you can have the same shit done for $20/month.

>>441397
lol

>>441392
unless the robots become well respected, but i mean then it'll be oversaturated

>>441330
>Ai art is just creating collages of already existing images.
and are you saying collage is not art?

>>438102
Computers exist to invent jobs
and to play computer games.
Also CGI in movies.

who cares?

However it is profoundly sad that AI art is generated from stolen material

>>441921
>stolen pictures
>americans and billionaires choosing what pictures and memes the birth imprint of AI
consists of

Hey it could have been worse!

>Only beta artists that don't make good enough art invent problems such as AI art.

>>438121
what the fuck!?
you still use /b/?

>>441954
I was thinking earlier today does anyone even use /b/ anymore?

File: sdg1678796803939524.png (2.38 MB, 1024x1536)

2.38 MB PNG

can you draw realistic things like this?
This picture of a used-up Asian skank took a computer 30 seconds to make.

>>438102
Is this thread a big cope? Is that art degree seeming to not feel worth the debt now?

>>438102
>Why is AI "art" so suspiciously hyped up by talentless hacks and coomers?
Because they have only ever viewed art as 'content'
They don't have emotional reactions to things, they just want to be distracted by jingling keys so that they don't have to confront their own existential fears or issues.
They do not engage with art in a personal way. They do not look at a painting or hear a song or play a video game or watch a film and let it affect them to their core ever. All art and media to them is white noise, meant to distract just enough from them having to confront their eventual death.
So AI art is the perfect thing for them: an infinite IV drip of distraction, a perpetual set of keys jingling forever in front of their psyche that never stops, costs next to nothing and they hope will let them go their entire lives without having to ever consider their own human soul.
Alternately, it's engineers who are salty that their salary-slave job has nothing of interest to the outside world and want to hijack some of the clout that artists get. These are the 'democratize art' crowd that are mad that someone who spent years on a skill gets attention for that skill while the bootcamp-tier coding they do is completely unimpressive to everyone

>>442124
If a computer made it, why would anyone care?

>>442310
>Because they have only ever viewed art as 'content'
The only people that care are digital artists who do nothing but produce 'content' as a way to make money from commissions and gain followers. Painters or sculptors or anyone else who uses a tangible medium don't give a fuck.

>>439400
all look like shit because Frida´s work is bad, that said, i dont care about which is fake because copying a style is not being an artist and obviuously an AI could analyze and copy a style, can an AI make something really new? i´m musician and thats hard as fuck and i bet for a machine is fucking hard too.

>>439564
well faggot: as it happens with food and with almost everyhting in life there are good samples of things and bad samples, get over it.

>>440152
you can tell thats not AI generated because the style is not that retarded trendy shit we have today and because there are no inconsistencies between the traces of painting.

>>442124
>can you draw realistic things like this?
a lot of artist can and they dont do that because that shit is not art, the AI just combine tropes and repetitive and trendy styles, i´m tired of the same shitty coomer crap. Its not realistic, look at the fucking face, you fucking retard. Yeah, an AI can maker billiosn of that shit per minute, so fucking what??? do you think thats art? do you think if a human can draw like that then its art? no, its trash, no serious artist study to do that crap because its crap for incels and teenagers with serious fapping problems.

File: Starry-Night-canvas-Vince(...).jpg (680 KB, 1600x1264)

680 KB JPG

Why is expressionism "art" so suspiciously hyped up by talentless hacks and coomers? It's not even real art, it's just generated from thousands of cartoonish squiggles yet whenever you see it online, the tasteless manchildren would swarm in and praise it like the Second Coming of Christ. (I hate the Antichrist)
What are you thoughts on this, anons?

>>438198
Kinda like Bitcoin and NFT's.

>>438102
I had a traditional art and design education and I have switched 80% of my workflow to AI now. I technically COULD spend days drawing and painting my pwn art, which I technically could do about at well as any AI could, but that would just be retarded when writing a simple prompt saves me days of work.

I'm sorry, but it's just another tool you're gonna have to learn to use. The invention of the car doesn't mean nobody uses horses and chariots anymore, but if you see someone riding one to the office, you would think they're pretty retarded.

File: 2023_03_15_18_19_55_Greenshot.png (1008 KB, 1271x715)

1008 KB PNG

>>438102
we need to adapt and see it as a tool to create art not an artist. I used chat GPT to write a graphics program that works exports my artworks straight into Gcode, so I can use my 3d Printer to draw it for me with acrylics, oil , or any pen or pencil. it can refill color with the brush, after a certain path length or random. i can also draw in real time live, with my 3d printer head holding a brush, and record my movements. i added a endoscope next to the brush, with outlie tracing i can vectorize had drawings or any shape instantly and save to svg, or gcode. i coudn't have done this without Ai in a week lol.

File: 2023_03_13_22_07_52_Greenshot.png (240 KB, 1885x853)

240 KB PNG

>>442422

>>442422
i bet you could with some rhino and touchdesign or some shit

>>442376
lol van gogh could draw quite nicely and is an early pioneer of representing spatiality without aping 'realism' or getting too hyped about perspective

It's just lip-synching for art - eventually people will only care when attractive people are making it.

>>442475
nice. seems like a reasonable assumption.
tho it will be attractive people and disney

>>438102
>p-please help me know how to stop an objective improvement in the human condition so I can feel special
Uh, no?

>>438198
The "there will never be a demand for more than 100 personal computers worldwide" of the 2020s

>>438102
If I lose my job as a graphic designer because of a fucking robot, I am entitled to NEETbux. Simple as.

>>442487
If I'm expected to support lazy kikes who refuse to change careers to keep putting food in their fat gobs under their own finance, I am entitled to stomp their oversized noses through their faggot skulls. Simple as.

>>442488
>lazy kike
I'm a working class shmuck who got $40k in debt to build skills so I could make more money than my parents. Simply "Changing careers" is easy said than done, so nah, I think im done.

A society that betrays its workers won't last long.

>>438110
The same is now true on the other side too. I've seen a lot of AI users get butthurt about rights on the models that they've created from other people's artworks and pictures.

I'm not sure where I personally stand on copyrights as someone who supports piracy and remixing but this debate is certainly entertaining!

>>438102
Your point about ''real art'' doesn't stand on anything. Most of what people call ''art'' nowadays is handicraft at best and it's all very generic and derivative, just like most AI generated images.

What makes it art is in the intent, not in the methods used. You could be the best painter in the world but if you're poor at articulating concepts, you'll always be shit-tier.

File: DataRoomITC-1024x610x450.gif (367 KB, 1024x610)

367 KB GIF

>>438102