[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Settings Mobile Home
/gd/ - Graphic Design

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Additional supported file types are: PDF
  • There are 26 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]

Crypto payment is now available for self-serve ad campaigns

[Advertise on 4chan]

I'm sick of arttards whining about AI models being trained on others' artworks. Every damn artist learns the same way - from other, better artists. Nobody just magically finds out rules of perspective, shading, colors etc. Now, when AI does it, it's suddenly "art theft". What do anons think?
ai doesnt learn
it literlly just clone stamps shit other people
its 'learning' is the more and more seamlessness of the images
I'm tired of AI shills trying to stir up shit between AI supporters and artists
I'm tired of dumb artfags just seeing the negative stuff regarding AI and not seeing the potential benefits this new tool can bring to everyone
I'm tired of dumb AIfags shitting all over artists just because they're obsessed with "progress" and making a name for themselves without any effort while antagonizing people with passion for what they do
I'm tired of seeing AI "conversations" that are just shitflinging on both sides without ever finding common ground because they just focus on making the other side seethe
I'm tired of AI threads where no one posts any fucking art
>>>/g/sdg you fucking retard
I think you're right. But just ignore them, AI art is the future guaranteed and it's unironically over for digital artists. Play with it all you like.
well but the AI is no human. so why would you make that comparison in the first place?

a seal/stamp maker has to pay for fonts he uses, even though it is just a tool he makes for others to use.
I expect you not to like my example, but the AI could be seen as an incredibly complex stamp that needs an operator in order to leave imprints of what it contains. it functions in a technically totally predictable/deterministic manner, even if its impressive degree of complexity (without need for absolute understanding) is its key selling point.
the individual outcomes/generations may differ based on user and seed (input).
as I said its complexity way outruns what our brains can predict, yet in principle there are obvious similarities with the analog stamping of semipredictable ink blotches. so it is only fair for trainers/creators of AI to 'pay for fonts' [read 'pay for assets'] as well.


it is very obvious. in a healthy economy each contribution of value has to be compensated. in the case of AI every person contributing something to this incredibly amazing tool should to be paid! everything else would be pure communism. just extrapolate and think of all the professions getting replaced by AI now. you really think its a good idea not to include the 'producers' of data into the economic process while erasing (the) job opportunities? gl with that.
Analoguechads keep winning.
What are those potential benefits?
They're mentioned often, but no-one bothers to say what they might be.
not the anon you are referring to.

the benefit is ease of creation and degree of personalized consumption.

we are heading towards a world that doesnt distribute finished movies, but procedual consumption machines (=specialised ai bots).
the creator wont be needed as a means to produce anymore. and thus the urge to create will reduce as well. because we all will be consuming what is bespokely made by AI assistants to suit our very individual needs anyways. just by connecting our browser history with a short simple prompt of ours
Ease of creation I can see sure, but not the rest of what you said.

If the creator stops producing content then the AI generators will rapidly decline in quality. It's called 'regressive data learning' if you're interested.

The personalization aspect also isn't really a thing. The AI generators output samey and generic-ish art, even if you adjust the parameters or whatever. To actually make it personal you'd have to edit the output yourself.
File: ai.jpg (98 KB, 768x768)
98 KB
well. have you extensively tried any of the image gen AIs?
I do not agree with you that it would NOT be personalized. instagram (and also most of main stream gd) is arguably 90% samey as well. so reducing AI to being more 'gener-ish'' seems like a convenient but not necessarily relevant verdict. sure. there will always be societal abnormalities called 'artists' creating stuff that is different. but those fringe cases are exceptions already. so we shouldnt lose our time talking about them.

images as a consumable product will get increasingly 'procedual', showing the each of us a version that is tailor made for us individually.

I do agree that there will always be content. and therefore money being made generating content. I even strongly advocate compensating creators of training instances in order to keep this whole system alive.

but it seems certain. creating images is increasingly getting comodified. like translation has been before. and many other professions will be.
You don't know how AI works and you're utterly retarded.
Your opinion ain't worth a spoonful of shit
This is the sad reality that many AI bros refuse to accept instead they double down on this.
AI art is a soul less abomination of a program that cannot do anything without the effort of a human artist.
>cannot do anything without the effort of a human artist.

So...like a pencil or pen or paintbrush or a chunk of charcoal.
I think that real artist doesn't oversaturate the market with billions $0.0005 pajeet commissions, doesn't destroy an industry, doesn't raise unemployment, poverty, misery and doesn't fill the internet with the degenerate coom cancer at such rates as AI does it and the mantra of progress doesn't really work anymore but techbros AI shills retards like will learn it the hard way a few years from now. so I don't care if real artists learns how to draw based on other people
File: AI mixed.png (347 KB, 909x568)
347 KB
347 KB PNG
Ai has a lot of good potential to make the lives of artists and designers better by creating variations of work quickly, polishing rough drafts, fix mistakes and create a wider range of individuals who can produce thought provoking art. The problem is how it's used, and who gets credit for what.

>I'm tired of AI shills trying to stir up shit between AI supporters and artists
This. I think there is a middle ground between artbros and techbros that could make both parties happy.

>How do I use AI?
As a designer I use it as a stock image asset grabber, often time's I'll tweak what the system gives me and send it though multiple times after my own edits to get a piece that matches what I was going for. Overall I use it for about 10% of my total work. It's job is a tool rather than something that could just do my job for me. My hope is that future artists can use AI as a helpmate in their designs rather than compete against it.

That sounds like a good middle ground, just as some fonts are free for personal use or open source others can be pay only. Art used as input data can have an effect on the final product's validity. Proving that copywritten data was used would be difficult though. So a future of piracy (like fonts) is inevitable.
> /gd/
Can AI produce good graphic designs? Please post examples.
File: pikapika12.jpg (105 KB, 768x768)
105 KB
105 KB JPG
Okay then, here's some art. You asked for this
File: pikapika13.jpg (102 KB, 768x768)
102 KB
102 KB JPG
Of course it can! Just look at this for example
>Can AI produce good graphic designs? Please post examples.

AI is an illusion.

1) It has existed for years. Suddenly a few popular media start mentioning it. Everyone starts talking about AI.
2) It is not intelligent. It does an automated work based on digital data, like most softwares.
3) It is not personal. It is not a "someone". It is not a form of life. It doesn't have anything that justifies our grammar going like "AI does this, AI thinks that". It is not an active subject.
4) It is not "other" from humans. If a software is man-made, what the software does is also man-made. In the case of art, AI remixes the work of human artists.
5) It is not going to replace anyone. Hot take, I know, but the economic level does not affect the spiritual essence of human expression in the slightest. It does it for free, sure, but it owes everything to humans.
6) It is not going to last. Most of you have no idea what it is going to happen in the next future, but rest 100% assured that the internet as we know it has a very short life.
7) As an addition to the previous point, the majority of politicians are already willing to take measures against that particular, impractical aspect of AI that... falsifies human expression. It is not convenient even for them.

Talking about AI as if it was such a big deal is peak mediocrity. It is quite literally a non-issue.
By granting it personality, you magnify it. By calling it with an inappropriate name, you misconceive it.
"AI" is essentially one of the biggest psyops ever created.
except for taking some leads that you dont even continue anywhere.
what exactly is your point?

nobody thinks ai has personality. people just dont think that a lot of work requires true personality.

>human expression
lol. how many clients in percent need that?
and how much is the rest going to get paid less because you need less workers - increasing demand for jobs? and for what reason would you *know*?

>internet not going to last
possible. but you should give reason for such a statement, mr. jesus.it certainly will change. but the ways in which do matter. clarify your shit.

>political instances take measures against it but it is not a big deal
do you see the irony?
>nobody thinks ai has personality
I'm referring to the very idiotic tendency to see automated softwares as a sort of "alien life" taking hold. This mindset is quite clearly the result of decades of Hollywood brainwashing, with endless subliminal or explicit messages about alleged radical changes in human societies, unstoppable apocalypses and "end of history" explanations of the present. It goes without saying that all of this is 1) bullshit; 2) advantageous to those who are in charge and wish to become omnipotent.

Why does that make you laugh? Is it too much out of fashion? Maybe. And yet, it means exactly what it means, the indelible need of humans to express contents, messages, ideas and representations of reality.

>and how much is the rest going to get paid less because you need less workers
I don't think the economic/employment issues that AI may increase represent a problem, because our economic system is going to crumble either way, with or without AI. The fact that computer softwares are reducing jobs has been blatant for 20 years. AI is not a novelty, and, I repeat it, it is absolutely ridiculous that the masses suddenly started to talk about this old problem solely because a few influential individuals and/or newspapers spelled the two sounds of the incantatory formula "AAAA-IIII".

What can I tell you? I don't care that much about economic aspects of reality, and all I hope is that people will understand what is at stake. Namely, their freedom. Once this economic system will be declaredly over, governments will play their final card: reduce people to caged fatlings, while automation produces everything. I don't think this nightmare will ever be reality, because the vast majority of people have a sense of freedom and self-respect. In addition, life is not possible without doing anything. Depression arises when you lose your desire to make and achieve important things, and it leads to suicide.
Regardless of economy, art will never change.
File: book 4 cast v2.png (1.21 MB, 1867x624)
1.21 MB
1.21 MB PNG
I'll post these that I generated earlier

what depressed me was that I wanted to make art of the characters in a book i'm writing, but AI can make drawings that are so much better than anything I can do, it makes no sense for me to draw my own characters

pic related, generated stuff is not 100% spot-on as to how I imagined my characters, but it is around 80% of the way there, and my drawing is so bad, I couldn't even do 50% myself

so that made me sad

also AI makes me worried for my future as a writer, but my book only sold 5 copies on amazon anyway so it's not like I have a "present" either
here is a business plan for you
use ai to improve your writing, use ai drawn characters as illustrations, use ai to design a cover for your book

Maybe this will help to sell more, it's worth a try, isn't it?
alright! I am biting!
let us explore it for a bit. I like the topic and do wonder whether you actually want to have serious conversation about this.

>alien life
how many people actually have the terminator image in their heads at that point? from personal experience I think it is a dead horse.
what *actual* most people fear is that 'AI' is yet another 'dumb' sharper stick in the hands of some elites. quite a natural reaction, I say.

machine learning algorythms are clearly tools, and not humans!
yet there is philosophical and scientific exploration to be done on what kinds of tendencies (read: behavior) increasingly complex (I agree that the line is blurry) evolutionarily created systems have. - at least in examples similar to what is now called LLMs.
it is thinkable that ai agents will get complex enough to require moralistic behavior towards them in order to function ideally (if not correctly).
morals are just soft behavioral instructions. the moment your behaviour is used as input, morals will probably certainly have an impact. the degree is what remains to be seen. IF it is beneficial to behave fully moralistic towards a machine, we will probably do it. we are creatures of convenience after all.


>more on morals
you do realize that animals originally didn't have 'rights'? that in nature they still dont? and that in real reality people also do not?
rights are a societal construct that protects what we deem helpful (holy?). a stipulent. forged by repetitive suffering in the past.
history has shown what problems occurr if humans can be property. and similarly what can happen when animals are.
these topics are certainly not easy and need detailed disection for individual cases. but you will agree that historically speaking in *more and more mature (rich?) societies* the demand for inclusivity of *more and more differerent entities* gets increasingly apparent. the definition for what properties have to be met are shifting based on obedience.
humans that look like me > humans with the same religion like me > humans > vertebrates > systems with certain number of neurons???
naturalistic societies in the very distant past can serve as exceptions, but do not negate the whole principle.

and yet. it is of course true that some people currently try falsely propagating the idea of AI being life. which it is not. even though in the future the tech might require us to be included to the list of rightholders. (maybe not. I am pointing out the uncertainty and importance of the fact. we dont want to oversee potentially lifechanging aspects, right?)

yes. lol.
because many, many jobs dont want you to be a person. I wish it weren't like that. but it is.
we need human expression! but sadly to many people work is probably not the right place for that. maybe you can even scale human expression? Idk. but pareto says hello!
you could read some ayn rand, if that subject interests you at all (of course a somewhat controversial figure like any influencial thinker). market forces aka moloch is shit, yet a real driver. it is not an invention. it is an observation. can we counteract? probably! but it requires (unnatural?) trust. trust that can also be abused.

where I live a couple of years ago self serving check outs at supermarkets have been introduced and the public opinion was mostly negative. criticism #1: loss of work.
bullshit waggie jobs are definitely on the rise.
ai will likely steepen that tendency.

it is simply not true that labor market only became a societal topic with ai lurking on the horizon. (maybe labor market even is what modern society is all about?)
but the possible scale of impact now with AI is large enough to really enforce wide attention. Personally I also expect the fact of Internet-native generations now being substantial part of workforce to have impact on what exact topics are discussed to what degree.

>the point of all of my rambling:
It is a really complex topic with many, many directions to take. I think you should stop being a purporting dickhead with *THE ULTIMATE OPINION* and be happy that people realize the importance of us understanding what is even happening.
people look at it from different sides. opinions differ. shit is a process. - the best that can happen is a lot of active eyes and deep discussion. stop throwing everyone crying 'AAAAAAIIIIII' into the same basket because it is easy.
and stop spreading predictions without indication of uncertainty OR giving rerasoning. I think secularity has taught us not to listen to preachers.
>AI shills trying to stir up shit between AI supporters and artists

Drawslaves are the ones bitching and moaning about it day and night. I just make fun of them because it's too easy.
I think AI art should be banned and You should kys faggot :) stop using cat pictures for every thing …
File: artfaggotpissbabies.png (2.73 MB, 2400x1456)
2.73 MB
2.73 MB PNG
take your salty thread to /bant/ you triple quadriphlegic doublenigger.
get a room you fucking faggots
File: Untitled.png (578 KB, 789x926)
578 KB
578 KB PNG
It's not inherently plagiarism but it doesn't learn like a human either. AI art models "want" to overfit and memorize everything in their dataset. But they're too small to successfully do so, so they learn general concepts instead.

However, they can memorize images that show up in their dataset often enough, and the threshold for "often enough" will decrease as model sizes grow.

>But they're too small to successfully do so, so they learn general concepts instead.

As a form of lossy compression, I mean. Guess you could argue that humans are under the same mental constraints, too

[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.