/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.6851913]

AI art has no pro-
https://twitter.com/hamzaa_ai/status/1682621843176398848

[Anonymous No.6851917]

>>6851913
Has no what? What the fuck is the rest of that word?

[Anonymous No.6851924]

>>6851913
What's that from?

[Anonymous No.6851927]

>>6851913
You already made this thread before with same .webms fuck off

[Anonymous No.6851930]

>>6851924
It's an advanced workflow using IP adapter and animatediff.

>>6851927
No I haven't.

[Anonymous No.6851934]

1000 hours in ms paint and his shit still looks fucking awful and obviously made by ai.
The only way to use AI as a "tool" is to literally redraw the entire thing and just use it very vaguely as a reference.

[Anonymous No.6851938]

>>6851934
That looks fine though?

[Anonymous No.6851939]

>>6851934
Who?

[Anonymous No.6851940]

>>6851913
>dynamic head movements in reference
>angle stays exactly the same
kek

[Anonymous No.6851949]

>>6851930
>It's an advanced workflow

[Anonymous No.6851961]

>>6851939
the guy op linked to.
>>6851938
hands don't bend that way, and fingertips don't look like that.

[Anonymous No.6851962]

>>6851949
Is it simple then? Can you do it?

[Anonymous No.6851964]

>>6851913
so much cringe, not just ai, but the anti-ai video showing how to fix muh uwu uwu anime trash. who cares, let it fucking die, like this thread soon will.

[Anonymous No.6851998]

>>6851961
Could've fooled me, but I'll take your word for it.

[Anonymous No.6852007]

>>6851962
>if generating AI slop is easy, why aren't you doing it huuuuh?
fucking retard

[Anonymous No.6852010]

>AI is a fad, it will go away just like crypto and NFTs!

[Anonymous No.6852013]

>>6852010
Anyone comparing AI to crypto and NFTs has no clue what they're talking about.

[Anonymous No.6852016]

>>6851940
Just like on your japanese animays, right?

[Anonymous No.6852017]

>>6852010
>just like crypto and NFTs
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/nfts-worthless-researchers-find-1234828767/

[Anonymous No.6852020]

>>6852010
I assume you like to consume ai art and the webm made you very emotional but what's it to this board

[Anonymous No.6852025]

>>6851913
> Dyke color hair dye out of nowhere.

[Anonymous No.6852026]

>>6852010
That's honestly better than the CGI water used in pretty much every anime. All you need to do is change the frame rate and draw over it.

[Anonymous No.6852028]

>>6852013
Generative AI is overhyped trash that is actually not that useful in the real world. The comparison seems fair to me.

[Anonymous No.6852029]

>>6852026
Or just use a filter.

[Anonymous No.6852030]

>>6852013
yeah, some of the things antis say is so delusional, it beggars belief.

>>6852017
exactly. NFTs are completely worthless and always have been.

>>6852020
you need to have a brain to understand what AI, and that webm, represent for the future.

[Anonymous No.6852031]

>>6852026
I don't think people realize how close we are until earth shattering AI tools when it comes to professional productivity, especially for animu and mangos.

[Anonymous No.6852033]

>>6852029
then you would need footage. and even then the result would not be the same.

[Anonymous No.6852035]

>>6852030
>NFTs are completely worthless and always have been.
Exactly like AI shart. Both are only really useful for spamming baits like this thread.
People are laughing at your monkey jpegs again

[Anonymous No.6852038]

>>6852010
obviously it won't. it will be used to cause a shitton of harm by the dregs of mankind

[Anonymous No.6852041]

>>6852030
>yeah, some of the things antis say is so delusional, it beggars belief.
good morning sirs. how do you english?

[Anonymous No.6852054]

so why aren't these threads instantly deleted?

[Anonymous No.6852070]

>>6852031
i don't think we're that close yet when it comes to professional implementations. but it shows what is possible.
only a few days ago we got past the 16frames limit with animatediff if i'm not mistaken. and only in comfyui.

>>6852035
>>6852038
utterly delusional. but keep repeating your mantras if it makes you feel safe.

>>6852054
why? i'm probably a better artist than all of you permabegs and i can deal with the new paradigm shift that AI will bring. why can't you?
i genuinely don't get it.

[Anonymous No.6852072]

>>6852028
>not that useful in the real world
According to you, at the same time you're saying this literally billions of dollars are being put into the tech so either you're smarter than everyone or you're a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.6852074]

>>6852070
>utterly delusional. but keep repeating your mantras if it makes you feel safe
nothing of what I said indicates "safety" you subhuman parasite

[Anonymous No.6852078]

Sneed

[Anonymous No.6852080]

>>6852070
>use my plagiarism generator or else I'm better than you!!!
fuck off parasite

[Anonymous No.6852084]

>>6852070
>i'm probably a better artist than all of you permabegs
>i can deal with the new paradigm shift that AI will bring.
You are Karen, i don`t give a shit about ai but this shitposting doesn`t belong to /ic and so do Karens. As simple.

[Anonymous No.6852085]

>>6852070
>i can deal with the new paradigm shift that AI will bring. why can't you? i genuinely don't get it.
well, I don't know if I can or not, time will tell, things will be weird but I guess I'll adapt

but that's not the point

the point is that these threads are repetitive and meaningless

even if AI was making perfect art on request, I would still want to draw. I assume this board is for people who want to make their own art, as well, so what's the point of these threads?

[Anonymous No.6852087]

>replying to fucking Elf Anon
https://twitter.com/Elf_Anon
This board will never learn

[Anonymous No.6852089]

>>6852070
fantastic schizophrenic perspective. once again, post shit that isn't embarrassing to look at, at least. you don't realize it but people do feel sorry for how delusional you are. you're a nobody standing on the shoulders of giants while screaming at artists that they're "permabegs". I don't think there's a single human archetype right now that knows their place less than AIcucks

[Anonymous No.6852091]

>>6852085
>even if AI was making perfect art on request, I would still want to draw.
Nta but even more. /ic is a "drawing forum" and i want it to stay that way because there isn`t many of them that aren`t half dead. Ai belongs either to /g or it`s own board.

[Anonymous No.6852093]

>>6852089
That image is cool, what is wrong with you?

[Anonymous No.6852095]

>>6852070

Yet all you manage to do is something I've seen 10000 times before. If AI is so powerful you should be able to create something new and different. Something that shows without using AI human won't be able to make this... but all I see are trashy copies of something that's already been done again and again.

If it's truly an Artificial Intelligence shouldn't we get something "amazing" right now. It's been out for a while. All I see are

"how to copy"
"how to copy faster"
"how to copy faster and easier and get away with it"

when it was just released you people say "it's still new. This is just the beginning. It will get better" and you say the same shit today. Yeah you manage to "fix" the hands by using an extension that trace the outline of a hand but that's it.

An AI that is suppose to be an A I can't even comprehend what a human hand is. What can we take from this? It is not AI it's just another program that is only as smart as the user. And all of you AI "artist" are not that smart to create something new.

[Anonymous No.6852099]

>>6852030
I didn't want to hurt your ego, no need to be so defensive. You're blown away by this webm, soon you'll be able to consume a lot of ai generated content similar to it. Again, why do you post it?

[Anonymous No.6852100]

>>6852093
>That image is cool, what is wrong with you?
He isn`t you Karen, as simple, people have their own preferences, views and bias kiddo.

[Anonymous No.6852101]

>>6852093
is this you? >>6852087
because if so, there's no wonder you can't see the jarring issues with that picture. this is the most mentally ill Twitter account I've ever seen

[Anonymous No.6852103]

>>6852099
Nta And even more, why do you post it here /ic

[Anonymous No.6852105]

>>6852100
>>6852101
Who the fuck is Karen and who the fuck is that? You have an unironic mental illness.

[Anonymous No.6852109]

>>6852105
>who the fuck is Karen
first day on a western forum sar?

[Anonymous No.6852117]

>>6852105
Your mom and you are my lil esl bebe, 1st day on the internet? No wonder you ai shitters are so dumb. I made 2 normal replies not shitting on you and what do you do? You shit yourself child AHAHAHAHHAAHA, yeah.
P.S. note to self- don`t argue with brainlets(aisirs).

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852140]

>>6852074
depends on which of the anons i replied to is you. it was meant more for >>6852035.

>>6852085
that's not true. a lot of these things are new. >>6852010 is 3 days old.
you just don't want to hear it is all.
i still want to draw as well. i also want to use AI to help with projects. but somehow you think that AI and drawing are mutually exclusive.

>>6852089
everyone is standing on top the shoulders of giants when it comes to art.
also i'm confident in my skills without AI. maybe that is why i can embrace AI while you're here crying about it and feeling threatened.

>>6852099
i never said i wasn't.
it's impressive, especially with sound :)
the fact that you can even tell just shows that you understand that it is good in some way.
except you don't have the brain to realize what all of this means. where all of this is heading.
just braindead rejection.
the amount of work that would go into a scene like this if done manually is mind boggling.
yet the guy who made that did it in a few minutes.
the future is not about creating ghibli level shit with AI. it is about how what used to be low budget productions like your average seasonal anime can achieve ghibli/movie production level quality now.

>>6852095
uh.. what do i care about your demands on AI? maybe it will eventually meet them, maybe not.
what matters right now is that it being able to do the things you've seen 10000 times before is already tremendeously valuable. because that would imply AUTOMATION.

it doesn't need to become intelligent nor create insane masterpieces on its own. in fact wouldn't it be better if it couldn't, and left that to the humans?

>>6852101
not sure if you're assuming that's me. but it's not.
also you're arguing with another anon again while assuming it is someone else.
classic shizo behaviour. every board has a low IQ shitter like you around. maybe i should always post with a trip now.
also it's ironic because THIS is exactly what i'd call "1st day on the inet" behaviour.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852147]

>>6852080
i'm better than you anyway.
i'm just annoyed how you retards are stifling innovation.
using misinformation and dumb arguments on top of it too.

>plagiarism generator
if you've heard all the sides to this and undestand how AI works and still think this, you're a genuine idiot. that's all i have to say.
i really don't want to write walls of text explaining it all over again.

[Anonymous No.6852153]

>>6852140

>what do i care about your demands on AI?

Because you people calling this program an AI confuses the fuck out of everyone else that will lose a lot of money because of your fucking grifting.

>because that would imply AUTOMATION.

who in their right mind think that automating art is a good thing? only dumbass grifter like yourself. fucking dumbass.

>wouldn't it be better if it couldn't

Then don't call it fucking AI act like it's conscious dumb fucking fuck.

You're bottom of the barrel before AI and you're still bottom of barrel with AI. If I take away your so called AI the best you could is use smudge brush on photoshop and call it oil painting.

[Anonymous No.6852155]

>>6851913
>>6851924
>>6852010
>>6852013
Another day another AItranny thread.

[Anonymous No.6852157]

>>6852147
>i really don't want to write walls of text explaining it all over again.

you can't. you yourself don't understand it. you used models that was trained by other people. you probably paid for the generator.

you're a pathetic wannabe. you'll forever be a wannabe in this world.

[Anonymous No.6852158]

>>6852016
wym?

[Anonymous No.6852162]

>>6852140
Why are you trying to insult me? I won't worry later in my day that a line of text tried to attack me. I'm just inquiring about a topic that's very personal to you. I'm glad you're enjoying this webm, it's probably one of your favorites and soon they'll be able to generate even better ones for you. Like I said, you like to consume a lot of ai anime which will soon have zero production costs and provide a degree of personal control. Why is it a braindead rejection? Stop being so defensive and insecure about your intelligence.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852165]

>>6852153
>Because you people calling this program an AI confuses the fuck out of everyone else that will lose a lot of money because of your fucking grifting.
.................i don't even know what to say. an """""AI""""" is not just the shit you hear about in science fiction, you know that, right?

>who in their right mind think that automating art is a good thing? only dumbass grifter like yourself. fucking dumbass.
i like how you said dumbass twice like some a kindergardner.

but automation is good for the same reason it can be good in everything. it leaves you with more time and energy.
it's not about being fucking lazy. it's also about not wasting time doing certain things. like fucking studying and animating waves. see >>6852010

of course none of you tards understand that, because you don't understand what it means to put effort into your art, your studies. you think it is all meaningful somehow.
muh fucking art. personally i'll be glad to automate a lot of it, when the AI gets to that point. if i could afford a skilled assistant to help me with my art, i would. and AI is just that.

>>6852157
i've done it over and over again. i won't bother today unless someone worth talking to appears.

[Anonymous No.6852168]

>Midjourney V6 soon
>Dall-e 3 soon
>Google's multimodal Gemini model soon
It's over for us, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.6852171]

>>6852010
crypto is here to stay, way too useful for criminals and people shut out of the traditional financial system. NFTs are pretty much dead tho.

[Anonymous No.6852179]

>>6852157
>>6852157
>you can't.
NTA but he can
>>6843578

[Anonymous No.6852191]

>>6852147
/watch?v=-MUEXGaxFDA&

[Anonymous No.6852192]

>>6852168
im not worried about it, creative fields are actually the most protected despite the shillfag campaigns, most likely you should be worried about menial labor jobs going on an anarchy tear once everything else is automated and the industry collapses on its own hubris
then they'll kill everyone else and the creatives by proxy thereby fostering a new age of species, maybe we'll get a sapient ant civilization

[Anonymous No.6852198]

>>6852191
>minecraft
>special
lol
lmao

[Anonymous No.6852199]

>>6852168
artbros... we only have two more weeks...

[Anonymous No.6852201]

>>6852199
Have you seen Dalle-3? Do you know what ChatGPT is?

[Anonymous No.6852206]

>>6852201
>ChatGPT
The thing everybody already forgot about?

[Anonymous No.6852207]

>>6852140
>i still want to draw as well. i also want to use AI to help with projects. but somehow you think that AI and drawing are mutually exclusive.
Assuming we reach a point where AI is capable of doing perfect art without any imperfections, what will you use it for? What parts of your process will you automate, and what parts will you do yourself?

[Anonymous No.6852209]

>>6851913
I'm yet to see a single AI generated animation that doesn't look nauseating or straight up broken (or both). It'll take ages for AI to be able to generate believable animation. Hell, it still can't even produce still images that don't look AI generated.

[Anonymous No.6852212]

>ai is a thing
>prebeg
it's over before it ever began

[Anonymous No.6852213]

>>6852206
Extreme delusion.

[Anonymous No.6852218]

>>6852213
Delusion about what?
Did you already forget all the apocaliptic headlines about Open AI?
How it was game over for everyone except plumbers?
Or did you conveniently forget everything that doesn't fit your narrative?

[Anonymous No.6852222]

>>6852218
Delusion about this topic in general. If you're talking about this https://openai.com/research/gpts-are-gpts you should actually read the paper.

[Anonymous No.6852227]

>>6852222
Did you seriously post OpenAI thinly veiled marketing as proof of anything?
Where are all the people losing their jobs like you guys said? I WISH I could quit my shitty IT job.

[Anonymous No.6852228]

>>6852227
You brought it up you schizo fucker.
>Where are all the people losing their jobs like you guys said?
What the hell are you reading?

[Anonymous No.6852233]

>>6852228
>schizo fucker.
Rich coming from a retard wasting all his day making off-topic shitposting threads on an art board.
>What the hell are you reading?
The posts you AItards made for months.

[Anonymous No.6852235]

>>6852233
This thread is on-topic and the only one shitposting in it is apparently you.
>The posts you AItards made for months.
Rent free.

[Anonymous No.6852238]

>>6852235
Whatever you say.
I'm not going to reply anymore suck my dick and keep screaming in the void, I'm sure someone will care someday.

[Anonymous No.6852257]

>>6852191
This guy is so depressed, poor tard.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852258]

>>6852162
you assume a lot about me. do you love me or are you coming on to me? or what is this passive aggressive posting style supposed to do for me here? it's kinda disgusting.

i post it because it might be relevant to the future of animation and art.
now what about you? you clearly are implying that i shouldn't post it. is that not rejection? why are you riled up over AI? can't stand seeing it or something?
what are your demons here, anon? are you okay?

>>6852171
crypto has some use in theory. NFTs are a complete joke.

>>6852191
i've seen parts of it already and it is shit from what i've seen. you can tell that he tried to do some research, but also that he went into it with a heavy bias.
i stopped when he talked about "the AI is just minimizing the error" in the context of the AI not being creative. he clearly has no understanding what minimizing the error even means here.

it would've made sense if it was just talking about training, where the AI is trying to recreate the training data.
but in actual use, it's like saying
>it's "just" trying to create an image according to your prompts while making as few errors as posible

>>6852207
make it do whatever i don't want to do or focus on for whatever reason.
obvious examples would be the way a comic artist uses assistants. a way a keyframe animator leaves the inbetweens to the interns.
but with AI you can muddle the waters even more. maybe i sketch and the AI paints. or maybe only the underpainting.
or maybe only certain objects, backgrounds.

if i made a VN, maybe i would only do some of the backgrounds that matter, while letting the AI fully generate the rest of them.
or maybe i only draw the head and not the body. the point is, it is entirely up to me.

if it really becomes THAT powerful, i would probably try to design a lora according to my style (although the AI will likely improve on it because it is so good, hypothetically)
and then i would never draw anything past the sketch stage ever again.

[Anonymous No.6852261]

This really should be on /g/, since it's not drawing. /ic/ is for human made art. You admit it yourself that you don't want to draw anymore when you can just AI all day and make beautiful things.

[Anonymous No.6852262]

>>6852261
>/ic/ - Artwork/Critique
I don't see "drawing" here and this thread is literally about drawing art.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852266]

>>6852261
theoretically. if you could literally shape your vision on the paper/screen, wouldn't you want that?
it is what we're doing in our head anyway.

[Anonymous No.6852267]

>>6852258

Well that's really cool and a good use of ai. That would be being a graphic artist. Good luck.

[Anonymous No.6852269]

>>6852267
>Well that's really cool and a good use of ai
no such thing

[Anonymous No.6852273]

>>6852266
No you fucking idiot. I want to draw for its own sake, I am not trying to create perfect art instantly for fame. I want to make something with my own fucking hands. Have you never climbed a tree before? Have you never worked with clay/playdoh? Do you think just because machines exist, we don't need to do anything by hand anymore? You might call me a beg, but I enjoy being a beg. I enjoy being a human. I enjoy trying.

You seem like someone who plays a game with all the maximum cheats and godmode hacks so they can blow through it quickly. And then you actually think you're better than someone who dies a lot. You have a fundamentally different idea of what it means to draw. I'm not saying you're wrong, but we are not the same.

[Anonymous No.6852278]

>>6852273
He is wrong though. dont give ai fags credibility.

[Anonymous No.6852282]

>6852165
>(you) need to go back
>you still namefag and expect anyone to listen when you been shilling the same shit near all fucking year

[Anonymous No.6852283]

>>6852266
NTA but I have aphantasia*, I don't know what my pic will be until I get well into my sketch, and painting it I have no clear idea what it will be like as I experiment as the picture takes form. Fun and rewarding, every time I get a little better at it.

*I can picture an apple in some sense, but not a full illustration with details or anything like that, not the lineart and composition or rhythm of a figure etc.

[Anonymous No.6852287]

>>6852266
>theoretically
>(you)

[Anonymous No.6852290]

>>6852267
>>6852258
>samefagging again nigga

[Anonymous No.6852292]

>take video
>apply filter
>"WOW GAISE ITS LEARNING AND DIFFUSING BECAUSE ITS IN THE NAME! TWO MORE WEEKS GAISE"
they just dont give up

[Anonymous No.6852301]

>>6852292
But isn't that just the same thing as your brain sending electrons to your hand and hoping it moves in the right way???

[Anonymous No.6852304]

>>6852301
wow thats right
Its just like a human brain
thats hecking genius

[Anonymous No.6852306]

>>6852273
Why are you acting like using a a computer isn't using your hands and brain?

[Anonymous No.6852308]

>>6852306
I don't know if you're acting in bad faith or you really don't see the difference between doing something and not doing something.
If you see someone swimming, do you tell them you swim faster and longer by riding on a boat?

[Anonymous No.6852309]

>it's another chris thread

[Anonymous No.6852310]

>>6852308
You're doing something either way. Some people like swimming others like the jet ski.

[Anonymous No.6852311]

>its another "wow its just like drawing but with your heckin mind!!r u epicly trolled and seething yet?" thread
i can't take this anymore

[Anonymous No.6852313]

>>6852301
what do you mean "hoping" do you have parkinsons or what?

[Anonymous No.6852315]

>>6852306
Because its not, you dissingenuous faggot.

[Anonymous No.6852317]

>>6852310
so you admit drawing and prompting are as different as swimming and riding a jet ski. You slipped up.

[Anonymous No.6852319]

>>6852315
Of course it is.

>>6852317
>so you admit the obvious
Yes? You're the one arguing otherwise. Watersports, art, both have different methods.

[Anonymous No.6852320]

>>6852317
No brooooo jet skiing is like swimming but with an propulsion engine
broooo its just like swimming, but with your mind

isnt that epic?

[Anonymous No.6852321]

>>6852317
All they said is in both cases somebody is doing something, which is correct.

[Anonymous No.6852324]

>>6852315
But it is.

[Anonymous No.6852325]

>>6852321
>>6852319

I think you're deliberately ignoring the original point artists are making. Prompting is not making art. Its prompting, therefore it has no place on /ic/.

Yes AI art can look better.
Yes, jetskis are ten times faster than someone swimming.
You're not swimming on a jetski, no matter how much you want to pretend.

[Anonymous No.6852327]

>>6852301
For humans making art it's even worse, they literally can't not steal every waking moment they are stealing imagery from the world around them. Yes, copyright stuff too unless you live in a forest (like me).

[Anonymous No.6852328]

>>6852319
But we're talking about methods of swimming, not methods of transportation.
If you only care about getting to the other island, then jetskiing is respectable.
But this is a board about swimming, and the swimming techniques humans have created.

methods of swimming:
breast stroke
doggy paddle
using flippers

not a method of swimming:
riding a jetski

[Anonymous No.6852329]

>>6852325
No bro, riding a jetski is swimming, but with your iq

[Anonymous No.6852331]

>>6852328
They should allow jetskis into olympic swimming
Jetskis are real swimmers

[Anonymous No.6852332]

>>6852325
That isn't a point, it's acting retarded.

>>6852328
> both of you are acting retarded
Alright then.

[Anonymous No.6852333]

>>6852332
Yes it is a point. We're telling prompters to fuck off to /g/.

[Anonymous No.6852335]

>>6852325
It is making art, but it's not drawing or painting. Just like riding a jetski is covering distance but it's not swimming or running.

[Anonymous No.6852336]

>>6852332
>it isn't a point and your retarded.... BECAUSE I SAY SO
tell em promptsister

[Anonymous No.6852338]

>>6852140
>everyone is standing on top the shoulders of giants when it comes to art
copium. you probably didn't even know what you meant there. humans aren't required to be dependent on other artists, that's why humans made all the art that in the first place, that promptcucks are pillaging for clout. yiu just don't get it that ywnbaa

[Anonymous No.6852339]

>>6852333
You entered a thread that makes you angry, are you okay?

[Anonymous No.6852340]

>>6852339
>Literal “you mad bro?” comment.
You got it promptsis!

[Anonymous No.6852341]

>>6852339
>you're mad at me shitting up your board?

yes.

[Anonymous No.6852342]

>>6852341
>>6852340
Have you considered medication? Ignore things that enrage you, spergs.

[Anonymous No.6852343]

>>6852335
Copypasting pictures and applying a filters is not making art, at best its photobashing since it cannot do anything without basing its output on already existing work
>inb4 b-b-b-but real artist do that
the margin of error is a factor
>>6852339
You entered a board you don't belong to and have nothing to do with the topic of the board, neither do you contribute and have been disrupting the board for more than two years, but demand to be treated as someone who does belong.
Are you a sexual deviant that preys on children on game focused chat applications and dresses in womens clothing?
Seem like tranny behavior to me ngl fampai

[Anonymous No.6852347]

>>6852343
>You entered a board you don't belong to and have nothing to do with the topic of the board
Wrong, this thread is about making art.

[Anonymous No.6852349]

>>6852147
your innovation is cultural degeneracy. and no one cares how your shit software works, retard. the matter of fact is that it doesn't work without the art of your betters. you're putting the cart before the horse and conveniently stop anthropomorphizing computer software when it comes to the ownership of the output. actually kill yourself because your dishonest ass is not even worth discussing this subject with

[Anonymous No.6852351]

>>6852347
Then show me what you have dra--
oh wait a second

[Anonymous No.6852355]

>aicucks getting mogged and btfo by stickmanschizo
shut it down aisisters

[Anonymous No.6852356]

>>6852351
>only drawings are art
What a retard.

[Anonymous No.6852358]

>>6852343
>Copypasting pictures and applying a filters is not making art
I mean that's literally collage, so I don't know what your argument is.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852359]

>>6852301
don't bother. that guy in particular is mentally ill. i made a lengthy reply to that post at the time. and he basically pretends it didn't happen.

i'll say it again and again: pure delusion.
(and that's on top of shizo behaviour. the exact kind of poster what would become a mass spammer)

>>6852338
that is BEYOND ironic.
because in fact this is the exact reason why i believe AI is learning, it is not stealing and all that jazz.

you retards never developed your own style. much less your studied enough to have a style on your own. so you wouldn't know, but imo, ALL styles are derivative of each other. especially in the modern age.
everyone nowadays started drawing by imitating their favorite show or series. those styles are imprinted onto you right then and there.

if you never saw an illustration, painting, cartoon, comic, manga or anime style in your life, do you REALLY think you could come up with one on your own?
all of us are building on top of each other, not even deliberately. just by seeing something, you get to understand that "this is possible". and you get to use it as an inspiration.

so no i know EXACTLY what i meant there. and this is the exact reason why i first saw the similarties between how AI learns and how i learned. i'm just aware of it while you chucklefucks think that humans just draw things out of the ether. like it's fucking magic.

because you idiots will constantly say things like
>why does the machine need a dataset?
>why does the machine need tagging?
and then say that humans don't. not realizing that we need all of that as well. we in fact do not make shit out of nowhere.

in fact see:
>>6852349
>the matter of fact is that it doesn't work without the art of your betters
YOU would not be anywhere where you are if you never got to see the art of your betters.

it is honestly shocking to me that people will say this again and again. meanwhile not a single person has ever tried to refute me on this.

[Anonymous No.6852361]

>>6852356
Yes
>>6852358
My argument is that you're the equivalent of a manic tranny demanding everyone to not call your like the freak you are

[Anonymous No.6852365]

>>6852361
Alright let's make a deal, I'll stop being the equivalent of a manic tranny and you pull your head out of the sand. Should be to everyones benefit.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852370]

>>6852343
>Copypasting pictures and applying a filters is not making art, at best its photobashing since it cannot do anything without basing its output on already existing work
well good thing the ai is not doing that then, eh?

[Anonymous No.6852371]

>>6852365
My nigger you're pretty new to this aren't you?
Let's strike a deal, you kill yourself or you go jerk off into your erp discord servers with your shitty porn images.

I have all the time in the world, prompter-kun.

[Anonymous No.6852375]

>>6852359
>” you retards never developed your own style. much less your studied enough to have a style on your own.“
So I have to have a style to callout AIniggers? Do you have one? What kind of retarded argument is this?

>”ALL styles are derivative of each other. especially in the modern age.
everyone nowadays started drawing by imitating their favorite show or series. those styles are imprinted onto you right then and there.”
You are suggesting computers work the same way a brain does, they not.

[Anonymous No.6852377]

>>6851913
This stuff is way less threatening than its ability to do pinups.
No one is going to make a whole animated movie by taking live action footage and feeding it through an anime filter.

[Anonymous No.6852378]

I noticed the kind of AI user that argues on /ic/ are desperately trying to get respect as an artist instead of just enjoying the prompting process. Maybe they thought their art sucked before they started prompting but now they think they "jumped ahead" to high /int/ or something, and they don't want to go back after tasting the "power".

They want to mingle with artists and be seen as an artist and use the artist bathrooms. They want to pass as an artist.

[Anonymous No.6852379]

>>6852370
Woah, hey nice argument there.
Too bad you're a tranny and a nigger on top of that.
Guess i win.

[Anonymous No.6852383]

>>6852377
>No one is going to make a whole animated movie by taking live action footage and feeding it through an anime filter.
They will though. People are literally doing that as we speak.

[Anonymous No.6852384]

>>6852359
>>6852359
>because in fact this is the exact reason why i believe AI is learning, it is not stealing and all that jazz
you do not understand how AI is "learning"
>you retards never developed your own style
all of my favorite artists did. I recognize them from the thumbnails of the art I browse. try again
>much less your studied enough to have a style on your own
worthless projecting
>so you wouldn't know, but imo, ALL styles are derivative of each other
yet I recognize them more. where are you even going with this, I wasn't even talking about style you worthless fucking retard. what is it with this brain dead rant, can't you see how utterly retarded you are?
>everyone nowadays started drawing by imitating their favorite show or series
also made by humans. if those didn't exist people would just do it in nature, you know? from where they originally started, something your promptcuck machine cannot do because it's not actually learning to coming up with concepts
>if you never saw an illustration, painting, cartoon, comic, manga or anime style in your life, do you REALLY think you could come up with one on your own?
yes you curry munching indian retard. if there were no paintings, drawings, cartoons, people would just inspire from real life instead, which is what they always did. you're engaging in circular logic because you're THAT stupid
>all of us are building on top of each other, not even deliberately
you're not building on top of anything, parasite.
> just by seeing something, you get to understand that "this is possible". and you get to use it as an inspiration
too bad that's not how AI works. after all, it couldn't retrace humanity's steps. it couldn't come up with a painting if you showed it real life photos. it couldn't come up with unique designs if you showed it real life footage. it wouldn't come up with fantasy creatures out real life animals.
>so no i know EXACTLY what i meant there
then you're a dishonest cunt

[Anonymous No.6852387]

>>6852371
I believe this is where I tell you to take your meds.

[Anonymous No.6852391]

Just stop replying to these fucking AI threads you morons

[Anonymous No.6852392]

>>6852378
I don't know, it might be because it's the art board.

[Anonymous No.6852393]

>>6852391
The AI niggers are falseflagging and samefagging. Don't bother.

[Anonymous No.6852394]

I hope artists will realise soon that if AI makes all commercial artists obsolete, they can finally make art without having to worry about money :)

[Anonymous No.6852395]

>>6852387
What an absolute display of wit, literacy and banter almost shivered me timbers there ngl fr fr
Too bad you're still a nigger

[Anonymous No.6852398]

>>6852359
>and then say that humans don't. not realizing that we need all of that as well. we in fact do not make shit out of nowhere.
humans do in fact come up with shit out of nowhere. unless you plan to show me a dragon in real life. inb4
>b-b-b-but humans used animals for inspiration
can an AI do that? no? thought so retard. there's no "inspiration' in a machine. it is incapable of the things you're claiming it is. you know this, but you refuse to acknowledge it. without a the human hosts, it's pretty much nothing. machine "art" is a joke, a pile of filth, and another blow towards ruining the internet further

[Anonymous No.6852401]

>>6852393
40 posters on this fucking thread, at least half of them must be people that fell for the bait and keep replying to every AI thread they see instead of ignoring them, how can they be so stupid, as if this board wasn't shit enough already.

[Anonymous No.6852404]

>>6851949
Redpill me on Cris lore, does he shit up /3/ or something?

[Anonymous No.6852405]

>>6852393
I am a failed nodraw artist falsesameflaggingfagging to distract other artists itt to keep them from drawing.

[Anonymous No.6852409]

>>6852391
worthless jannies are the morons

[Anonymous No.6852412]

Did OP really link his own twitter? You are fucking pathetic

[Anonymous No.6852414]

>>6852401
I respond because there are people who will read the thread and see my arguments, turning them away from AI and saving the quality of this board in the long run. When lurkers see aifags responding with ad hominems and ESL logic, they'll realize how stupid AIfags are

[Anonymous No.6852416]

>>6852010
>>6852026
>>6852031
I know it's a tall ask but please go outside to the nearest beach and actually look at how water behaves.

[Anonymous No.6852423]

>>6852070
>i genuinely don't get it.
Bugmen like you generally don't understand how humans operate. News at 11.

[Anonymous No.6852426]

>>6852401
>ainogs make one thread
>notice everyone is ignoring them even if samefagging
>jannies won't clean up
>they make another thread
>repeat
>still get ignore
>the spam the board until someone comes and feeds them (you)s
>argue with them
>they're just going to call you names and argue in bad faith anyway
At this point we're doing voluntary work by keeping these asylum escapees company by giving them the attention they so desperately want because everyone ignores them.

[Anonymous No.6852430]

>>6852412
Hahahaha they really are trannies.
>Some jerkoff misgendered me

[Anonymous No.6852431]

>>6852147
Kill yourself.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852436]

>>6852375
where am i suggesting that?
i'm only saying that the computer needs the training dataset for the same reason you and me need to see art to be able to make art.

>>6852378
and i noticed that antis like to think about how i'm a bad artist because that will make them feel better about their own balant rejection of it.


>>6852398
>humans do in fact come up with shit out of nowhere. unless you plan to show me a dragon in real life. inb4
it's giant lizard anon.....
mickey mouse style of cartooning is literally just based on simple shapes.
and modern manga/anime styles can be pretty elaborate in how exactly they abstrace. but it wouldn't even exist without its forebearers. that's the point.

>can an AI do that?
it can try to make a catdog. do i need to say more?
what do you think it is copying here? you think it took a cat and a dog and stitched the image together? no, that is not how this works.

[Anonymous No.6852438]

>>6852436
Nigger, you're retarded. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.6852441]

>>6852394
The options are two, either AI automation turns the earth into a utopia without scarcity and where nobody needs to work (and replacing artists isn't the first step towards that), or it slowly forces everyone out of their jobs, every position that would have been previously be occupied by a human that trained and studied all their life, will be replaced by a robot and the masses will only be able to do blue collar work. The top 1% still hoards the worlds' wealth and control the economy through AI while the rest won't even have access to basic education (because why would you need it, medics, layers, writers, researches, AI can already do that) all you need to know is how to use a pickaxe. The perfect sci-fi dystopia that we deserve, and AI bros want a future like that because they believe they'll be on the top 1% that reaps all the benefits (spoilers, they won't)

[Anonymous No.6852444]

>>6852292
>overlaying images
Kek, imagine being this retarded and still having the confidence to post

[Anonymous No.6852445]

>>6852436
>think it took a cat and a dog and stitched the image together
I do think that. Image data. 1s and 0s, but in latent space, vectors of the tag dog and cat. It's image data in image data out, rearranged with statistics.

[Anonymous No.6852447]

>>6852436
>and i noticed that antis like to think about how i'm a bad artist because that will make them feel better about their own balant rejection of it.
You never posted your actual work and you will probably post some randomly generated image and claim that is your own work
Then you all epicly trolled us and btfo us artists and then you can keep doing this forever.

Bro, what the fuck do you even want? Just fuck off already.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852450]

>>6852384
>you do not understand how AI is "learning"
i do. fairly well. not down to the maths and vector space, but outside of that sure.

i'll ignore the next ones since they frankly are too retarded and missing the point:
>yes you curry munching indian retard. if there were no paintings, drawings, cartoons, people would just inspire from real life instead, which is what they always did. you're engaging in circular logic because you're THAT stupid
AND AT WHAT LEVEL WOULD THAT BE?
do you understand? do you think we would be at impressionism? or cave paintings? mickey mouse? no. not even that. we'd have to do it all over again.
an individual today is building on top of all of it when they go into art, whether they know it or not.

and you are saying that the machine is somehow less for needing that.

>too bad that's not how AI works. after all, it couldn't retrace humanity's steps. it couldn't come up with a painting if you showed it real life photos. it couldn't come up with unique designs if you showed it real life footage. it wouldn't come up with fantasy creatures out real life animals.
hey, congratulations. you at least understand that you're asking it to retrace humanities steps. some AI could probably do that eventually, but not now.

but if you understand that. you also understand that you and i, as individuals, cannot do that either. despite being oh so powerful and creative humans. it is lifetime upon lifetime's worth of development.

>it wouldn't come up with fantasy creatures out real life animals.
it can. just look at the catdog: it clearly has the capability to apply what it has "learned".
which is why it can mix and match different concepts, even if that will lead to failures a lot of the time.

the fact that it can even attempt to do all this should already tell you everything. but it's YOU that refuses to see the truth.

[Anonymous No.6852451]

>>6852147
>>6852140
>The triptranny who will NEVER post his work
yawn.

[Anonymous No.6852453]

>>6852262
This thread is about a fancy phone filter, kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.6852454]

>>6852436
>it's giant lizard anon.....
should be easy then right? go on, make a dataset of only animals, and charge the AI with making a dragon-like creature
>mickey mouse style of cartooning is literally just based on simple shapes.
and modern manga/anime styles can be pretty elaborate in how exactly they abstrace. but it wouldn't even exist without its forebearers. that's the point.
completely unrelated to what I said
>it can try to make a catdog. do i need to say more?
yes. i don't want you to make a dog with cat whiskers. make a cool badass looking behemoth looking creature, that doesn't resemble any animal from earth.
>what do you think it is copying here? you think it took a cat and a dog and stitched the image together? no, that is not how this work
I know that's not how it works, and that's besides the point. it's more like the human digestive system. where it breaks down the good stuff into shit, and outputs a pile of shit. the problem is, the designated shitting street is /g/, not /ic/. more importantly, even if you retarded argument made any sense, why would the output belong to you and not the artists whose works were used. what makes you worthier of ownership than they are? after all, your part of the process is merely that of a requestor.

[Anonymous No.6852455]

>>6852453
Click the link.

[Anonymous No.6852460]

>>6852455
>Old pre-aislop shown in comparison
It looks like your brain is defective, no wonder you're an aitranny

[Anonymous No.6852463]

>10 threads spamming
>tripfag still hasn't posted his actual work
>keeps spamming bad faith arguments and argues semantics like a turbo autist while being wrong
>if you ignore him he will go to bump limit by himself and even start spamming new threads
Honestly, mods oughta do something.

[Anonymous No.6852464]

>>6852460
what...?

[Anonymous No.6852466]

>>6852463
>he has won every argument
>he often posts his work
You can't argue, you don't post your work, and you samefag and cope like you're doing right now.

[Anonymous No.6852467]

>>6852464
Mouthbreathing faggot.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852468]

>>6852445
that's the only point you CAN make, you'll realize. because it's so broad it will cover just about any action that takes in data in the universe.

including our brains. we take data in, adjust our neurons, and do what we do.

let me ask you another question: how do you think YOU would try to draw a catdog? in terms of what is going on in your mind?

>>6852451
i have before. a really blurry version of it.
i posted cropped sections of a sketch before as well. though not under this trip iirc.
you know what anons said at the time? "i couldn't prove that i drew that".
this should tell you everything you need to know.

[Anonymous No.6852472]

>>6852466
>he hasn't won a single argument
>only posted outdated yt links and generic generated images

[Anonymous No.6852474]

>>6852436
>it can try to make a catdog

don't you mean "you can"?

[Anonymous No.6852483]

>>6852468
>let me ask you another question: how do you think YOU would try to draw a catdog? in terms of what is going on in your mind?
I've interacted with cats and dogs, I've felt emotions attached to them, love, sadness, anxiety, fear. Depending on what I'm going for, I'd choose different features to elicit different emotions I feel.

[Anonymous No.6852487]

It's really funny that /b/ of all places makes more and better art than /ic/.

[Anonymous No.6852489]

>>6852450
>i do. fairly well. not down to the maths and vector space, but outside of that sure.
but you are missing a piece of the puzzle for sure. at the very least, you seem incapable of understanding how the human mind works. otherwise you wouldn't make such an asinine comparison
>do you understand? do you think we would be at impressionism? or cave paintings? mickey mouse? no. not even that. we'd have to do it all over again
you view art development as something that belongs on a linear scale. you're a fucking retard, and missing the point anyway. the point is, AI cannot do what you're describing. if it could, you wouldn't bother getting in this mess with stealing from artist's work. it cannot improve itself. AI won't start from real life and eventually end up drawing mickey mouse. do you understand you cunt? or are you too mentally handicapped to even see the ridiculously easy to understand point that I'm making
>and you are saying that the machine is somehow less for needing that.
I'm saying that machine CANNOT do that. while humans did, as you've admitted yourself. I am actually really hoping you're trolling me anon. I beg of you to not actually be this retarded
>hey, congratulations. you at least understand that you're asking it to retrace humanities steps. some AI could probably do that eventually, but not now
yes, that's my point you retard. it cannot retrace humanity's steps, because it doesn't think or function like a human. good thing we cleared that up
> you also understand that you and i, as individuals, cannot do that either
yes we could. after all, the people who did it exist
> it is lifetime upon lifetime's worth of development
what the fuck are you even talking about? you're speaking as if all humans always drew the same things at the exact same moments in history. just how clueless you AIcucks can be? admit it, you never even cares about art before AIsloppery

[Anonymous No.6852492]

>>6852489
>>6852483
>>6852468
>>6852454
>>6852450
samefag

[Anonymous No.6852495]

This is worse than tablet threads. Please delete.

[Anonymous No.6852499]

>>6852487
of course /ic/ has worse art then most boards, it's the same reason most sick people are found at hospitals or broken cars are found workshops.

[Anonymous No.6852500]

>>6852468
>BRO IT LITERALLY DEFUSES, ITS IN THE NAME
Begining to think this is a bot

[Anonymous No.6852504]

>>6851913
So now instead of an artist just drawing the character, they have to hire a model/actor, instruct her to go through the motions and hope the AI spits out something close to what they wanted? Gee, progress is great.

[Anonymous No.6852507]

>>6852504
They been doing that since motion pictures existed brother.

[Anonymous No.6852508]

>AI thread
>Most active thread this board has ever seen
This board is full of masochists.

[Anonymous No.6852511]

>>6852508
If we don't keep them here, they're just going to shitpost the generals

[Anonymous No.6852513]

>>6852499
So many retards don't get this its unreal.

[Anonymous No.6852514]

>>6852500
It is a bot clearly by the lack of absolute contextual awareness and the almost instant canned repetitive replies

[Anonymous No.6852520]

>>6852499
that's a great analogy even most artists here don't get because they play this board like they're on social media and tourists come here expecting to find free shit no one has seen before even though they got countless boards to get free porn from

[Anonymous No.6852521]

>>6852504
They'll hire a 3D animator until that job is replaced by AI too. Or just film themselves.

[Anonymous No.6852523]

After I did my research about True history of books, I felt grim for the future of art. Writing copies was manual labor in the past and books are far more durable and cheaper than modern books with less expensive price. In the future our children will look back at us and say:±
>I can't believe people bought gibberish painting for million of dollars in the past while I can buy this AI generated picture for just 100$!
>I'm glad depopulation happened! Can't believe people eat anything that not bug!

[Anonymous No.6852524]

>>6852507
I'm aware of rotoscoping, but most animation is not rotoscoped, and what is, is still drawn over by an artist so the result is not left to chance.

[Anonymous No.6852526]

>>6852523
I hope ai goes on a killing spree, because the first to succumb to it will be its worshippers

[Anonymous No.6852528]

>>6852521
Sounds like a big hassle and not nearly as much fun as drawing.

[Anonymous No.6852529]

>>6851913
OP is a nig-

[Anonymous No.6852532]

>>6852010
Actually a good use of ai. No one could animate that by hand.

[Anonymous No.6852536]

>>6851913
>AI art
is not a thing

[Anonymous No.6852539]

>>6852010
That's pretty cool, but still fuck AI.

[Anonymous No.6852538]

>>6852529
>OP is a nig-
Nightman? Aāaàåàaaaaa

[Anonymous No.6852540]

>>6852474
>no response
lol

[Anonymous No.6852541]

>>6852523
>I can buy this AI generated picture for just 100$
lol

[Anonymous No.6852546]

>>6852532
>No one could draw that by hand.
You can say this about most AI art.

[Anonymous No.6852552]

>>6852165
>i've done it over and over again. i won't bother today unless someone worth talking to appears.
yes, you've talked in circles demonstrating nothing and proving you're a nodraw fag.
>"it undestands bro"
>"I'm an artist bro"
>"it's art because it just is bro"

[Anonymous No.6852554]

>>6852010
why does it look like someone placed a filter over a real life recording? that's what it feels to me

[Anonymous No.6852556]

>>6852554
because it looks realistic but isn't

[Anonymous No.6852558]

>>6852554
Because of the framerate. AI draws a new image every frame, whereas real animation is usually drawn on 2s or 3s (1 new drawing every 2 or 3 frames)

[Anonymous No.6852564]

>>6852258
>i post it because it might be relevant to the future of animation and art.
you post because you're a spiteful failed beg

[Anonymous No.6852570]

>>6852564
How can you be a failed beg?

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852572]

>>6852489
>but you are missing a piece of the puzzle for sure. at the very least, you seem incapable of understanding how the human mind works. otherwise you wouldn't make such an asinine comparison
no. that's my line.

>you view art development as something that belongs on a linear scale. you're a fucking retard, and missing the point anyway.
it is obviously branching, with tons of people going down different routes and back. but it's still relatively connected and in the big picture you can still say it is linear.
nowadays it's harder since you can see images from everywhere due to the internet, and sometimes you don't even know the artist it came from by name.
but before that the influences were pretty clear. artists often tell you them outright anyway.

>the point is, AI cannot do what you're describing. if it could, you wouldn't bother getting in this mess with stealing from artist's work.
what exactly do you think i'm describing? i'm merely saying that the ai needs to see something, recognize it and have it named to be able to work with it.

and you're saying that the former parts is called "stealing", while i call it "learning". that's the difference between your understanding and mine.
except i know how this all works under the hood. you just assume "muh computer muh algorithm so it's copying"

>it cannot improve itself.
it can. through training/finetuning. that's the only stage where it improves (or changes at all). the rough equivalent of a human seeing or studing things.

>AI won't start from real life and eventually end up drawing mickey mouse. do you understand you cunt? or are you too mentally handicapped to even see the ridiculously easy to understand point that I'm making
AI can start from "real life" (photos) and end with photos, except different ones.
there is never a need for it to make cave paintings. it doesn't fucking draw. it simply tries to create images.

[Anonymous No.6852577]

>>6851913
Why's it always generic looking anime crap? Make something interesting if you're trying to shill this stuff!

[Anonymous No.6852578]

>>6852570
Whale oil beef hooked

[Anonymous No.6852580]

>>6852577
>generic looking
That's unique AI anime art.

[Anonymous No.6852583]

>>6852572
>i know how this all works under the hood.
Even the people who made it admit it's a black box and only have a surface level understanding.

[Anonymous No.6852585]

>hey guys I'm this thread I'm going to try to justify why I'm too lazy to pick up pencil and draw
>it only takes me 200 posts
You're not only lazy but retarded as well

[Anonymous No.6852586]

>>6852572
>AI can start from "real life" (photos) and end with photos, except different ones
hence it doesn't think like a human. nigger do you really think AIfaggotry will win dying on this worthless hill? at the end of the day, it's all about using AI as a proxy to take an artist's shit and make more of it. you'll never even address the ownership of the resulted picture because even there your argument falls apart.

[Anonymous No.6852587]

>>6852306
Well anon how often are you using ChatGPT as well to compensate for a lack a brain cells

[Anonymous No.6852591]

>>6852342
Considering you niggas make these threads everyday it should honestly be a bannable offense already

[Anonymous No.6852593]

what AI niggers seemingly fail to understand is that no matter how much they try to make StableDiffusion.exe seem like a human, it all boils down to using a computer program to take from hard working people and then pretend they're like them. you cannot make artists not look in disgust at you, you're wretched. you might as well try to convince a human being that they should allow you to squat in their house, eat the food in their fridge, steal their money and be fine with it. it's just not happening, and you'll always be confined in communities meant for the consumption of computer generated imagery. this is definitely something you shouldn't even attempt at combating, you'll be cast aside like a leper

[Anonymous No.6852595]

>>6852335
>It is making art
nope, and it's the point you never discuss because you can't defend it so you resort to the smokescreen of talking about the technology

[Anonymous No.6852596]

>>6852593
you take from artists too, we all do

[Anonymous No.6852597]

>>6852587
I use it pretty often. I was just thinking if we do get an advanced enough AI assistant in the future, that doesn't make mistakes and is at a human level or above intelligence level, we could do away with the internet and all the problems it causes and return to a more in-person society while retaining the usefullness of having all of human knowledge at your fingertips in the form of this AI assistance.

[Anonymous No.6852598]

>>6852587
I used it like 10 minutes ago to sum up the call of duty treyarch zombies storyline. It did pretty good.

[Anonymous No.6852600]

>>6852595
But it is.

[Anonymous No.6852602]

>>6852347
>Wrong, this thread is about making art.
as proven by Op...oh wait

[Anonymous No.6852603]

>>6852335
I thought the AI learns. so the AI learns, but you're the one who makes it? lol.

[Anonymous No.6852604]

>>6852572
>it doesn't fucking draw
Yeah, we figured this shit out loooong ago, sherlock

[Anonymous No.6852605]

>>6852587
I used it earlier to write an ffmpeg script.

[Anonymous No.6852608]

>>6852603
Yeah, why is that hard to understand? Humans also learn, but we make them.

[Anonymous No.6852609]

>>6852596
>we
begone leper. you're not taking anything, you're not learning anything, you're not making anything. at best your commissioning a computer program, and then you'd have to explain why the output should be owned by you

[Anonymous No.6852610]

4nigger should have a /AI/ board for their tranny bullshit, just like you can't post certain stuff outside of /b/

[Anonymous No.6852611]

>>6852608
are you retarded? you claim the AI learns and makes the picture, yet the picture is yours. it's a non-sequitur it does not follow

[Anonymous No.6852613]

>>6852609
So if I use an electric kettle I no longer am boiling water and I no longer own the water, makese sense to me.

[Anonymous No.6852616]

Imagine
>have all the power to use the AI to make infinite content for you, write your texts, write your code, make you dinner
>waste your life tripfagging for unironical weeks non stop on 4chan trying to come off as an artist trying to explain how automatic photoshop works when no one gives a shit
>tried to make AIgeneral
>died instantly
>still thinking anyone gives an actual shit about what he says
omg who the fuck is this absolute schizophrenic?

[Anonymous No.6852617]

>>6852611
No brother, the human makes the picture using the AI. There is no other way it can be because the AI itself is very narrow, has no intentionality or ability to "make" things in the metaphysical sense.

[Anonymous No.6852618]

>>6852611
>>6852609
Whenever I forget that the world is full of retards I come here and see shit like this.

[Anonymous No.6852620]

>>6852466
>"Me I-I mean "he"!"
sure thing

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852621]

>>6852583
enough to draw some conclusions

>>6852586
again and again. where did i say it thinks like a human? how does this matter to the discussion?
i'm saying that it is LEARNING. that's all i'm saying.
i'm merely comparing it to a human to make the point. not saying it is the same.

>it's all about using AI as a proxy to take an artist's shit and make more of it.
uh huh. to make more of WHAT, exactly?
if it trained on your art. you think you have a claim to its output?
considering how it uses the training data.
considering how it ends up making the image.
do you really think that?
go on. tell me where my argument falls apart.

>>6852604
...wow. you figured that out?
man, i always thought the AI drew... wow, bro... damn man. i must've been wrong all along.

no you fucking retard. obviously it has a different process to actually making images.
but did you know that it starts from nothing but noise, then eventually goes to a blurry and rough image and only details it slowly step by step? so it essentially works from big to small?
does any part of this sound like copying to you?

[Anonymous No.6852624]

>>6852621
NO ONE CARES NIGGER
stop shitting up the board and kill yourself

[Anonymous No.6852625]

>>6852608
You aren't making anything when using AI. The AI is the artist. You are not even needed for the process. Another AI can prompt the image generator AI. You will never be anything more than a commissioner

[Anonymous No.6852626]

>>6852597
>>6852598
>>6852605
The only thing I can understand by you niggas responding is y'all here be biggest shills ever.
>literally not allowed to think
>>>6852306
>"really using your brain" there anon

[Anonymous No.6852627]

>>6852617
so it's not like a human then. you moved the goalposts. now it learns somewhat like a human, but it not REALLY like a human. how convenient for you. so why does the output belong to you and not the artist who was inputted?
>>6852613
this analogy is so retarded it's not even worth addressing. i

[Anonymous No.6852629]

I feel like it's always /beg/s complaining about AI, most professionals I know either don't give a shit at all or actually use AI as reference

[Anonymous No.6852633]

>>6852629
name 10

[Anonymous No.6852635]

>>6852629
This. It's literally an /ic/ only problem, the rest of the world doesn't care and just likes having more pretty pictures.

[Anonymous No.6852636]

>>6852626
ChatGPT is one of the most popular apps that has ever existed you retard. And Dalle-3 will further invalidate artists.

[Anonymous No.6852638]

>>6851913
>>6851924
>>6852010
>>6852070
>>6852140
>>6852147
>>6852258
>>6852436
>>6852450
>>6852468
>>6852621
Consider the following

[Anonymous No.6852643]

>>6852621
>again and again. where did i say it thinks like a human? how does this matter to the discussion?
by making constant analogies with how humans learn art. try to keep up chucklefuck. i mean if you're not making this argument why are you bothering to use the "learning" argument? your entire justification falls apart
>i'm merely comparing it to a human to make the point. not saying it is the same.
then your argument falls apart. your point is irrelevant because it's not really learning. you're arguing semantics
>uh huh. to make more of WHAT, exactly?
more images that were used using their input
>if it trained on your art. you think you have a claim to its output?
why wouldn't I? and more importantly, why would you, the parasite?
>do you really think that?
I don't really think that, but using your retard logic that's how it should be like. you've got no argument why it should belong to you lmao
>go on. tell me where my argument falls apart.
who does the output belong to, you worthless shitskin?

[Anonymous No.6852647]

>Truck drivers at risk of getting replaced by AI
>"HAHAHAHA LEARN TO CODE LOL"
>"AHAHAHA SHOULD'VE GOTTEN A LESS AUTOMATABLE JOB LOLOLOLOL"

>2023, artists are actually getting replaced before truck drivers
Karma.

[Anonymous No.6852648]

>>6852635
there's a crapton of pro artists who sued AI companies retard. you can shove your head in the sand all you want, 99% of artists are disgusted by you. every single moron who uses "AI" to "incorporate it" into their work is a worthless failed artist, and even that's an insignificant minority in the AIcuck community

[Anonymous No.6852650]

>>6852647
>artists told truck drivers to learn to code
>not programmers
>artists
a new low even for AIfags

[Anonymous No.6852651]

>>6852600
I'm sure you've convinced yourself of that. but unfortunately it isn't and you're gonna keep going "nu-uh posting your garbage pictures". begone, nodrawn

[Anonymous No.6852656]

>>6852627
These are all separate concepts, let's leave it at that.

[Anonymous No.6852657]

>>6852656
let's leave it exactly where it is. a computer software that you use to replicate other people's art because you can't draw for shit

[Anonymous No.6852658]

>>6852656
No you'

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852663]

look. this is how SD operates.

>>6852643
it's very simple: the point is that if it is "learning", then you are calling learning theft, stealing, copying and everything else you tards describe AI with.

again, it is not learning like a human, that is irrelevant.
but the question here is: which one of us is more accurate, more truthful here?
knowing what you know about AI, which description actually is true? if you don't call what the AI is doing with the training images "learning" what do you call it?

i can even call it ingesting, but learning is simply more accurate, BECAUSE it can apply what it has taken in from the training data.

i will repeat again: what do you call it? and can you actually reason why you call it that?

[Anonymous No.6852666]

>>6852635
>the rest of the world doesn't care and just likes having more pretty pictures.
I've seen numerous normalfags expressing annoyance at the uncurrated spam

[Anonymous No.6852667]

>>6852666
name 10

[Anonymous No.6852668]

>>6852648
>there's a crapton of pro artists who sued AI companies retard.
have you even looked at the hysterical hambeasts who sued them? did you know their case is bunk?

[Anonymous No.6852670]

>>6852651
It is self-evident.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852671]

>>6852643
>who does the output belong to, you worthless shitskin?
it belongs to the prompter. either that or the AI, depending on the prompters contribution.
who do you think it belongs to? the source of the training data?

[Anonymous No.6852674]

>>6852629
The one complaint i have is that aicucks never talk art, but always try to explain how their shitty images are real art.
The guy who spams literally can't critique art
Last thread he got asked to critique some ai images and his response were
>the colors r pretty and i like them
he btfo himself so many fucking times and he still keeps spamming

[Anonymous No.6852675]

>>6852671
It literally belongs to fucking no one you retard, it's a google image result ran through a blender you frothing zygotic chimp

[Anonymous No.6852678]

>>6852650
kek
>its a false flag, ai tards aren't that dumb! me swears!

[Anonymous No.6852680]

>>6852663
>it's very simple: the point is that if it is "learning", then you are calling learning theft, stealing, copying and everything else you tards describe AI with
yes, so you're arguing semantics. you're calling "learning" so that others won't call it theft. but it's not really learning. this term is meaningless for a computer software because it's not a living self-aware being with the capability to discern. it has no agency. it's a very elaborate tool of theft. you're hiding behind a dumb word, trying to separate yourself from the act of what you're doing and pointing at a computer software. it's rubbish
>i will repeat again: what do you call it? and can you actually reason why you call it that?
I'll be honest with you, I don't give a shit what you're calling the process. YOU, the retard I'm speaking with, are using a computer software to take someone's art and mimic it. the minute detail of the process behind doing this, is completely irrelevant. that's where the problem lies. but you're a knuckledragger who's trying to explain to the judge that it's not you who killed someone through defenestration. it's the gravity that did it. and of course, how can gravity commit murder?

[Anonymous No.6852681]

>>6852670
it isn't and it has been explained at length by people more eloquent than I. you fags try to make it so by hammering it in

[Anonymous No.6852682]

>>6852663
It's so funny seeing you destroy their "arguments", keep up the good work.

[Anonymous No.6852683]

>>6852671
well what I really believe is that it belongs to no one, but if we're using your logic, yes it belongs to the source of training data. why would it belong to you and not them? did you contribute in anyway to the LAION database to lay claim upon it? to not even mention the more carefully "curated" databases

[Anonymous No.6852686]

>6852682
replying to yourself

[Anonymous No.6852687]

>>6852667
https://old.reddit.com/r/Spiderman/comments/155peuu/please_no_more_ai_art_on_this_sub/

[Anonymous No.6852688]

>>6852681
It is, but if it isn't to you then there's nothing to be done about it.

[Anonymous No.6852693]

>>6852687
>"art"
that's a seething /ic/uck

[Anonymous No.6852694]

>>6852682
You're still reading his shit?

[Anonymous No.6852696]

>>6852688
it isn't, just because you find it pretty won't make it so. believe it or not, there are requirement for something to be art and the only thing you can do is gaslight it into a "it's just a you problem, bro". there's a reason you are compared to trannies

[Anonymous No.6852697]

>>6852687
repeat for any fan subforum. so, you could have 1000s of examples.

[Anonymous No.6852698]

>>6852693
>please provide 10
>no, not these ones. please provide other 10 ones sir
fuck off

[Anonymous No.6852700]

>>6852687
>I ask him to name 10
>He posts a reddit link to an underage sub
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.6852704]

>>6852700
don't read the comments, AI sister. it's not there if you're not looking at it

[Anonymous No.6852706]

AI posters try to conveniently ignore the fact that this board is meant for analysis and critique of the actual artwork, not discussions of technology news or philosophy or sensationalism, also please read rule number 5. All AI posts on this board are made to antagonize and create drama. That is the only sensible conclusion since the AI posters have clearly seen the response and community consensus, yet persist in their posting of new threads just to cause outrage or demoralize beginners.

this board is for manual labor art with linear and transparent processes. Artwork means art that is the result of an artist's work. It is against board rules to claim art that was not made by you. It makes no sense to critique AI art because there is no artist to recieve that critique. Do you expect a positive response when stating that McDonalds is equivalent to a home-made burger to a chef's face? It is disrespectful and it makes no sense since the point of the board is to discuss what humans do to create art. You do not understand the mindset that goes into making art, so what business do you have on a board dedicated to a tradition you are willfully ignorant to and antagonistic to boot? You are not making any conscious decisions. AI "artists" are idea guys requesting art from their machine. They do not have any insight into the fundamental elements or process of art nor any desire to participate, only instigate. We do not want any more anime plastic slop or half truths shitting up our board. That is the lowest quality of posting. That is digital waste. Please visit /g/ to find others that are enthusiastic about AI art and already have AI art generals. Stop poisoning the well of artist who seek to learn and improve at art the traditional way. Do you want everyone to be ignorant about art, well tough luck, you could literally not have choose a worse place to shill it. We will give you shit for it. Go fuck yourselves.

[Anonymous No.6852708]

>>6852706
AI art is actual artwork.

[Anonymous No.6852709]

>please post 10 normalfags who don't like AI slop
>what, you posted 100 of them from a normalfag internet space?
>uuuuh, they're underage lmao!!! SYYYKE!!!

[Anonymous No.6852710]

>>6852708
and trans women are actual women

[Anonymous No.6852712]

>>6852704
>>/ic/image/b32SFdQn4Z5scftubqi+qw
are you okay?

[Anonymous No.6852713]

>>6852710
Get a real job, nazi artist.

[Anonymous No.6852716]

>that animation
>acceptable
If I were an employer in a world without AI art and someone handed that in as their portfolio I would not hire them due to lack of consistency

[Anonymous No.6852717]

>>6852708
And I am your father, go kill yourself

[Anonymous No.6852718]

>are you okay?

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852719]

>>6852675
sure, you can argue that the AIs outputs don't belong to anyone.
what if i have input? what if i drew the pose, then roughly sketched a sofa, roughly painted some dog and cat? what then?

>>6852683
i do not think it belongs to the source of the training data....
that's like saying what i make belongs to the people i've been inspired and learned from.

>>6852680
>I'll be honest with you, I don't give a shit what you're calling the process.
that's beacuse you know this matters. you dishonest fuckwit.
it's the only thing that matters in this argument.

>YOU, the retard I'm speaking with, are using a computer software to take someone's art and mimic it.
am i mimicking someone's art by using SD? that's the question. you refuse to answer my above question, yet here you are claiming that SD is taking other people's art. so you're just gonna dodge the argument?

>the minute detail of the process behind doing this, is completely irrelevant.
oh i guess it's irrelevant and i'll just call it theft and stealing then.
t. you

just handwave everything away and start trolling, like that other anon :)
I'm waiting for it. i've seen it enough.

[Anonymous No.6852720]

>>6852708
not work, even less art

[Anonymous No.6852722]

>>6852700
>What did he mean by this?
are you just pretending to be retarded?

>name 10
this implies you think it isn't the case that numerous normies are annoyed by AI images.
>He links a fandom reddit page, the normiest of normie pages, full of comments from normies agreeing they are not keen to see AI shit spread all over their forum.
>wadidheemeanbydis?*burp*

[Anonymous No.6852724]

Critique my art, /ic/

[Anonymous No.6852728]

>>6852687
>when the average redditor is more based than the average fag
Anontachi wtf
>>6852706
They're here exactly to stir drama yet mods and jannies are doing jack

[Anonymous No.6852729]

>>6852719
>i do not think it belongs to the source of the training data....
oh but it does. it should. they're the main cog in the machine. no cog, no machine because AI can't do shit on its own
>that's like saying what i make belongs to the people i've been inspired and learned from.
alright, so then it belongs to the AI and not you? because you haven't learned anything either? oops AI sisters, why is our argument so fickle?
>that's beacuse you know this matters. you dishonest fuckwit.
why? why does it matter how you rob a bank? why does it matter how you stole a car? why does it matter how you're a blood sucking tick on a dog's backside? the tick must be removed and destroyed

[Anonymous No.6852731]

>>6852719
>what if i have input? what if i drew the pose, then roughly sketched a sofa, roughly painted some dog and cat? what then?
then you're like the artists whose work is being used in training the AI, the output still isn't yours.
>>6852724
you'd have to post some first

[Anonymous No.6852734]

>>6852724
Go ahead and post it then son

[Anonymous No.6852735]

>>6852724
Nice lighting.

[Anonymous No.6852736]

>>6852729
>so then it belongs to the AI and not you?
the AI can't have ownership, it belong to you in terms of ownership, it belongs to no one intellectually

[Anonymous No.6852737]

>>6852724
what's the point of critiquing AI slop? i ask this in a pragmatic way

[Anonymous No.6852739]

>>6852736
>it belong to you in terms of ownership, it belongs to no one intellectually
??? ??? ????

[Anonymous No.6852740]

>>6852735
Thanks!

[Anonymous No.6852741]

>>6852737
You're supposed to feel trolled and seething coping, anon, not ask questions wtf bro

[Anonymous No.6852742]

>>6852737
So that it may be improved.

[Anonymous No.6852743]

>>6852739
you'll figure it out

[Anonymous No.6852744]

>>6852742
It's perfect, you can leave /ic/ now.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852746]

>>6852731
that's rather dishonest. i'd say the percent i put into it is definitely mine. like the basic sketch of that character in the case of that testpiece. even if the AI worked on top of it.

and besides, this is very different from what happens to the training data. the training data is trained on and turned into adjustments in the AI's "brain", i.e. nodes, i.e. "neurons".
meanwhile my input is more direct. the the AI is directly working off of it.
this is more directly a case of transforming what i give it. the training is not.

[Anonymous No.6852749]

>>6852737
So that the street shitting ape can start arguing about how art = slop
like >>6852742

[Anonymous No.6852752]

>>6852742
just wait for dalle-3 or midjourney 6. no point in wasting time critiquing it. just wait.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852753]

>>6852706
it's called artwork SLASH critique. i've seen threads discussing industry trends here in the past all the time. like photobashing shittery used to be a huge topic around here (people shat on it lel). but at least it was allowed here.
this too will affect art in general. very strongly so i'd say. not yet, but it's inevitable if you just look at >>6852010

[Anonymous No.6852758]

>>6852746
>that's rather dishonest. i'd say the percent i put into it is definitely mine. like the basic sketch of that character in the case of that testpiece. even if the AI worked on top of it.
please provide the percentage of every other artists being used by the AI so we can properly attribute credit. it's not dishonest, if you give a sketch to an artist you commission so they can draw a picture you didn't make their output and are only responsible for their initial impetus. you're trying to negotiate something that has already been ruled, go appeal to the higher instances if you don't like it.
>trying to muddy the water with use of words like brain and neurons when we're talking about systems that function fundamentally differently.
yes you used quotation marks at least.
>meanwhile my input is more direct. the the AI is directly working off of it.
you're input is still indirect, you're trying to argue degrees of indirectness.
>this is more directly a case of transforming what i give it. the training is not.
it isn't a case of transformation in the artistic sense of at all as you're not enacting the purpoted transformation.

[Anonymous No.6852759]

>>6852570
By giving up, turning into a nodraw faggot like OP and shilling ai as a means to cope

[Anonymous No.6852760]

>>6852753
>it's called artwork SLASH critique.
well, provide artwork instead of pictures.

[Anonymous No.6852763]

>"Art is subjective, anything can be art UwU"
>*AI art gets invented*
>"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THAT'S NOT ART MAKE IT STOP MAKE IT STOP MAKE IT STOP MAKE IT STOP"

[Anonymous No.6852764]

>>6852753
How is trying to explain how some mspaint with spaghetti code works with random tech babble have anything to do with artwork/critique?

Just post anything that you have drawn yourself
If you keep spamming pictures and further make shitty off topic posts you only keep losing credibility
How do you not get this?

[Anonymous No.6852765]

>>6852742
You can not improve AI work. It is a black box. Whatever was baked into the model or version is what you're getting. The rest is up to chance. There is no "learning or improving" the model beyond what was baked into it. The "artist" in this case does not have the skill or know-how to improve it. In other words a waste of time, not to mention how I don't want to share the table with you AI prompters. I do not owe a critique to anyone. And i default to not liking AI shills.

[Anonymous No.6852766]

>>6852765
>You can not improve AI work
It's called inpainting, it's pretty cool.

[Anonymous No.6852767]

>>6852765
All them things you said can't be done can be done though, so I don't see your point.

[Anonymous No.6852770]

>>6852766
Ok, let me rephrase. The AI does not have a consistent skill level that improves without a major update, so in the end it all comes back to chance. I don't feel like brainfried gamblers have any place around self-respecting artists. I mean it is just a tad bit embarassing in my opinion that you want to be called an artist. Just my two cents.

[Anonymous No.6852772]

>>6852770
I don't care about being called an artist lol I just replied to you because what you said is objectively false.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852773]

>>6852729
missed the post somehow.

>oh but it does. it should. they're the main cog in the machine. no cog, no machine because AI can't do shit on its own
it obviously can. it'll just be worse because it lacks that knowledge.
here again the comparison to humans is relevant.
>you won't have a modern style if you never see any modern styles
>you won't be able to draw an apple if you never see one in your life
now here you are merely saying that while the AI can learn about apples and aaaall this other shit, it can't learn from your art. because what, styles, ideas, concepts, ways of approach are forbidden knowledge?

notice again how deep the human comparison goes here.
>the AI CAN plagiarize an artist ...if it is made to do so. just like a human who decides to plagiarize someone
>a human can only learn, be inspired or be affected by a style by studying and seeing it too. same with AI (though remember that it only learns during training).

it's not for nothing i constantly make these comparisons. they are just very obvious to me.

>alright, so then it belongs to the AI and not you?
yep? that is what i said. see >>6852719
>sure, you can argue that the AIs outputs don't belong to anyone.
unless i do give significant input. i agree that the AI owns a piece more than i do.
where that line is drawn is another argument entirely.

[Anonymous No.6852775]

Why can’t you artists just accept that a big chunk of your selfworth has been based on nothing but smoke and mirrors, swallow your pride, get a real hobby like fishing and leave image generation to machine that is much better at it? Yeah, some angles and proportions are wrong, but it is done in seconds I can just keep on rerolling for coupple minutes to get perfect image. Honestly can’t wait for all content I consume to be generated by machines, I hate humans and the stench of humanity rubs on all they make.

[Anonymous No.6852778]

>>6852763
this sincerely. AI will be the death of art and culture if we don't stop it.

[Anonymous No.6852779]

>>6852772
And i clarified what i meant.

>Give a real artist feedback
They get better, their trajectory changes over time

>Give AI Proomtmonkey feedback
They may be able to implement it in that specific piece. AI engine does not improve from it, and will perform the same mistakes in the next image you make.

[Anonymous No.6852785]

>>6852779
>They may be able to implement it in that specific piece. AI engine does not improve from it, and will perform the same mistakes in the next image you make.
And they'll fix it again because they now know what to look out for that they would've otherwise missed.
How is this difficult to understand?

[Anonymous No.6852789]

>>6852779
They can use different loras and controlnets and whatever.

[Anonymous No.6852790]

>>6852785
That makes sense, I guess they were wrong.

[Anonymous No.6852791]

>>6852785
Maybe, I guess the promptape learnt something then, in that hypothetical scenario.

Still it will never be your authentic expression, the machine is not learning, you are still gambling for results, inpaints or not, effectively proving that the machine does not have any deeper understanding. You are a fucking tool. fuck yourself. I have no obligation to respond to you.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852792]

>>6852758
>lease provide the percentage of every other artists being used by the AI so we can properly attribute credit. it's not dishonest, if you give a sketch to an artist you commission so they can draw a picture you didn't make their output and are only responsible for their initial impetus. you're trying to negotiate something that has already been ruled, go appeal to the higher instances if you don't like it.
read my post again, dumbo.
my input is direct but the training data is completely gone from the AI. it's merely been learned from.

i'll repeat:
the data of my sketches were fed directly into the generating process.
the training data meanwhile is only there to adjust the AI's "knowledge" space. this is why it's called learning.


>trying to muddy the water with use of words like brain and neurons when we're talking about systems that function fundamentally differently.
they function similarly enough to where i can draw parallels.
obviously it's very far from being the same. especially from being a full brain. but you think it's a joke that these are called "artificial neural networks"?

[Anonymous No.6852794]

>>6852258
>make it do whatever i don't want to do or focus on for whatever reason.
>obvious examples would be the way a comic artist uses assistants. a way a keyframe animator leaves the inbetweens to the interns.
ok

>>6852262
>>/ic/ - Artwork/Critique
>I don't see "drawing" here and this thread is literally about drawing art.
do you see a lot of threads about hiring assistants or interns?

>Solo fags said assistants can't do pro--

>The days of interns not being able to draw eyes is long gone

[Anonymous No.6852795]

>>6852791
I'm sorry you feel that way. If it makes you feel any better, I believe that most jobs will be automated in the near future, so you artists won't be alone for long.

[Anonymous No.6852802]

>>6852765
>It is a black box.
That you can mix and overlay stuff on.. it's not something you can't change you dumbass.

[Anonymous No.6852805]

>>6852795
>not adressing any of my points
Im sorry you have stunted yourself spiritually and intellectually. I hope you get to feel the sweet embrace of your AI girlfriend soon enough. I prefer grasping the fundamentals and aquiring the skill to put them to use instead of being a basedcuck techbro gambling addict. You have probably never felt the achievement of creating something yourself.

>>6852802
So you're telling me you have the skill and knowledge to improve upon Ai art with your traditional skills? or are you going for another round of gambling?

[Anonymous No.6852810]

>>6852805
I'm telling you that AI models aren't some concrete thing. You're a retarded parrot so you don't even realize there are hundreds of thousands of AI art models out there.

[Anonymous No.6852811]

>>6852810
in response to what? can you quote what you are responding to?

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852812]

>>6852765
it can only learn during training or to a lesser extent, finetuning.
so it can improve using that.
the black box is about what is going on in the high dimensional vector spaces. it's not the entirety of the AI that is a black box. even i can learn how this shit functions at a basic level.

[Anonymous No.6852813]

>>6852811
Scroll up.

[Anonymous No.6852815]

>>6852813
how does that help? i have three of you fags wrangled around my neck atm

[Anonymous No.6852818]

>>6852815
Fucking idiot is too inept to scroll up a few posts.

[Anonymous No.6852821]

>>6852818
>AI fag to lazy to quote properly
color me surprised.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852822]

>>6852765
it can only learn during training or to a lesser extent, finetuning.
so it can improve using that.
the black box is about what is going on in the high dimensional vector spaces. it's not the entirety of the AI that is a black box. even i can learn how this shit functions at a basic level.

the finetuning improvements have actually been very apparent. this is why you have anime models that can make decent anime art, and photorealistic models, both that are far superior to the original stable diffusion model.
pic related. i guess you can call this AIslop but you get the point. the original was not capable of this.

[Anonymous No.6852825]

>>6852775
Now say that after you take all humanity made artwork out of the dataset to reroll from, tranny.

[Anonymous No.6852826]

>>6852821
You just outed yourself as a literal retard.

[Anonymous No.6852830]

>>6852822
Im talking about the person recieving the critique, not the developers.

and it is still fundamentally gambling. it ALWAYS will be as long as you yourself are not putting down the strokes you are forced to be content with an approximate interpretation of the AI. It is not your own voice. You are comissioning a machine, and the idea was never yours. You are just stumbling upon something that is "good enough" based on a vague text description.

Like they say, an image is worth a thousand words, but in reality it's worth way more words than that, and it's ineffective and impossible to ever describe art in just words and get your imagined outcome.


>>6852826
Can you not see i was talking to two people in that post? Do you think i have an obligation to spend my evening trying to discern what you are adressing when you can't even be arsed to use basic etiquette? The fact that you're dragging out your end of the bargain makes me think you didn't have a point in the first place and trying to divert attention.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852844]

>>6852830
then just put down your own strokes.

otherwise you are more or less correct. the ai does make a lot of decisions for you.
but that is not to say that you can't make some of the decisions for the ai.
i'm gonna get flak for this but even judt prompting isn't as simple as people who have never used this think it is.

>Im talking about the person recieving the critique, not the developers.
oh, you mean how to improve a specific AI piece.
eh, you can. through inpainting, upscaling. you can even take the "essence" of some of the image (the pose, the depthmap, the negative space, the lines, etc etc) and try to redo the image. or make multiple versions of the image and photobash the best parts together.

and if nothing else works you can always use your skill manually.
it is not quite that simple. this is exactly why i think this stuff is worth discussing on /ic/.

[Anonymous No.6852853]

>>6851949
FUCK OFF CRIS

[Anonymous No.6852857]

>tripfag again tries to gaslight /ic/ with retarded arguments that machine = human
what a retard
and he is still posting garbage

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852859]

>>6852857
>machine = human
still stuck on that huh
don't talk to me until you can actually comprehend the argument.

[Anonymous No.6852862]

>>6852844
>i'm gonna get flak for this but even judt prompting isn't as simple as people who have never used this think it is.

It absolutely is. Anybody who claims otherwise is a liar. Also, half of the commonly used prompts (best quality, bad hands that sort of shit) are cargo cult and do nothing.

[Anonymous No.6852866]

>>6852859
I'm not that anon
I just find your obviously wrong schizo rambling hilarious as you try, and fail, to pass your visual vomit as art that you "made"

For how long will you shit on /ic/ until you go back to your containment board on /g/ where nobody critiques your trash for what it is

[Anonymous No.6852873]

>>6852862
It is not.

[Anonymous No.6852876]

>>6852773
>unless i do give significant input.
irrelevant, you are not the actor of the output.
>i agree that the AI owns a piece more than i do.
the AI can't own, and you don't own the intellectual aspect of the output.
>they function similarly enough to where i can draw parallels.
you tell yourself it's similar enough and then draw parallels because you are a sophist who compare General with Artificial intelligence (fundamentally different), you can use all the semantic trickery you want and it won't change that.

[Anonymous No.6852879]

>>6852763
>"NOOOOO I'M A REAL WO- I MEAN ARTIST NOOO ACKNOWLEDGE ME!!!!!"
retard, don't bring the kike trickery that has been used to lower the value of actual art.

[Anonymous No.6852883]

>>6852766
>It's called inpainting
you niggers keep yapping about inpainting and it hasn't made a lick of difference

[Anonymous No.6852894]

>>6852859
>don't talk to me until you can actually comprehend the argument.
"accept my data laundering, it's okay because humans learn"

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852899]

>>6852862
it can be. but if you want control it's also fairly complicated.
i can do shit like <lora:XXX:1@0,0.7@0.3,0.4@1> and you can go ahead and guess what that does. or shit like pic related which is basic prompt editing.

and again: for artists the main method will be using controlnet. you can literally build off of sketches, poses and other things using it. it's no longer just about prompts now.

>Also, half of the commonly used prompts (best quality, bad hands that sort of shit) are cargo cult and do nothing
they're supposed to discourage amateurish looking outcomes. which the AI has also been trained on. it's not always needed.

>>6852866
i dunno about you anon but that is literally a shizo image.
unless you're going to argue with me that this random blob came from that specific image and is related to the bench?
you understand that the AI doesn't copy its training data except for cases like overfitting, right? so for cases where it has been trained on one exact image with many many duplicate images that look almost the same. and it only happens when one image is very strongly tied to a keyword without many other images. like with the bloodborne cover.

>>6852866
>>6852894
follow the thread with >>6852663 >>6852719
if you actually have an argument, i'll accept defeat anytime :)
miss me with your pathetic whinging otherwise.

[Anonymous No.6852904]

>>6852899
>"nu-uh I'm an artist!"
>"It's art because...it just is!"

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852908]

>>6852904
ah ok, a fuckwit.

[Anonymous No.6852910]

>>6852822
please tell me what model these dumbass bimbo samdoesarts whores are from i need a new model to furiously masturbate to

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852912]

>>6852910
stop masturbating.

[Anonymous No.6852916]

>>6852859
your whole argumentation boils down to "it doesn't steal or copy because humans have a vaguely similar process" and everytime you backtrack and say "I'm not saying they're the same, just that they're SIMILAR" you want the perks of applying human criteria to it without any of the downsides. tell me again now how it understands physics by showing me completely faulty depiction of said physics

[Anonymous No.6852918]

>>6852908
>A fuckwit
-also known as an aislop peddler

[Anonymous No.6852919]

>>6852908
>"acknowledge me as an artist otherwise you're a RETARD!"
a shitposter, even an elaborate one only deserve shitposts, sophistry doesn't warrant serious replies.

[Anonymous No.6852922]

>>6852899
>for artists the main method will be using controlnet
You have no control even with controlnet, and still AI shitters push up endless trash. There is no amount iof inpainting that can fix the inherent flaws of the tech
AI isn't a tool, its a toy. For larping retards like you to pretend you are creating something

[Anonymous No.6852924]

>>6852922
it's more insidious than that, they're given the illusion of control through input, are fed back and output and convince themselves "this is exactly what I wanted and my creative vision", they are in a way slaves to the AI.

[Anonymous No.6852926]

Its funny how AI trannies try (and fail) to legitimize their “workflow” as just another tool at artists dissposal when they never touched a pencil before AI art was a thing and at best the “art” they spam needs to be retouched/inpainted. Also despite their best effort, the end result look generic because they cant create something they lack: artstyle . Even the /beg/s mog you in this regard because at least they are recognizable when they persevere. You cant even have that. You are just playing around with the toys at your dissposal producing nothing of value and even normies are getting tired of it.

[Anonymous No.6852928]

>>6852912
Give me the model you fucking useless dramawhoring tripfaggot my orgasm demands it

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852929]

>>6852916
>your whole argumentation boils down to "it doesn't steal or copy because humans have a vaguely similar process"
no. again, that's just what i use to drive the point home. i've definitely tried to explain the process multiple times at this point. but you guys apparently never read it. either that or you don't understand the context of it or what i'm saying it for and call it technobabble.
you simply need to tell me what you call the process instead. and justify why.
it's that simple.

[Anonymous No.6852941]

>>6852929
you could explain it until you're blue in the face and it won't make the output art or the prompter an artist. you cling to explaining the process for the sake of explaining the process and still missing that vital point. or are you arguing for the sake of argumentation? because you're mad people use the language shortcut of stealing and you feel compelled to "akshually".

I'll spell it out for you: if the AI gives the final output, you can try to call it workflow but the piece is inevitably artistically invalidated. if you edit the output, then only your edits are yours or subject to any kind of intellectual property.

[Anonymous No.6852944]

>>6852899
>i dunno about you anon but that is literally a shizo image.
You don't know that image? what are you a newfag or something?

[Anonymous No.6852946]

>>6852929
what is your goal in explaining the process?

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852950]

>>6852926
it's funny how i've basically drawn this entire image eh >>6852719
(save for the sofa and background, i only very roughly drew some boxes for the sofa)

>>6852928
rude.
so no.

>>6852941
i do not care what you consider an artist or not. anon.
i'm just trying to nip the retarded stealing/copying talking point once and for all.
because it's simply not correct.

>>6852944
haven't been here in years anon. but what i said stands. do you know about overfitting?

>>6852946
follow the thread with >>6852663 >>6852719

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852956]

>>6852941
>you cling to explaining the process for the sake of explaining the process
lol. again handwaving it away.
i'm explaining the process because it can't be called anything other than learning, in my opinion.

i actually don't think i explained the process fully in this thread, so i'll do that in a bit.

>I'll spell it out for you: if the AI gives the final output, you can try to call it workflow but the piece is inevitably artistically invalidated.
>if you edit the output, then only your edits are yours or subject to any kind of intellectual property.
uh, sure. that's fair enough. never said the opposite.
but "artistically invalidated", whatever that actually means, does not mean it's not part mine, due to my input. see >>6852719

[Anonymous No.6852958]

>>6852713
Fartist*

[Anonymous No.6852959]

>>6852950
>i do not care what you consider an artist or not. anon
>what you consider
how insidious you, it's not subjective.
>'m just trying to nip the retarded stealing/copying talking point once and for all.
because it's simply not correct.
oh, great, then leave, this is not an art thread. and take you "technicalyyyyy" with you. the AI has been rule to be neither fair use or transformative, therefore use of copyrighted data for it is dubious and you're just begging for more concrete laws to finally tell you niggers to stop and fuck off.
sure it's technically not copying/stealing, not it's in no way acceptable.

>>6852956
> because it can't be called anything other than learning, in my opinion.
no consciousness or understanding involves. it's only a bunch of statistical datapoints masquerading as intelligence. call it learning if you want, I'll call it "oompah loompah bleebip boop" and it has equal value.
>but "artistically invalidated", whatever that actually means, does not mean it's not part mine
you own the output, your output has no intellectual property and you can't claim "I've made this" when you aren't the actor of the output.

[Anonymous No.6852960]

>>6852950
>overfitting?
ofcourse. fyi, while it's technically an example overfitting, this image is a hilarious example because the prompter did not use sad keanu in the prompt, yet sad keanu showed up, bench and all. and it implies this could be happening all over, thus AI is not so clean cut as fags want to believe. who knows what parts of images your pic has fitted to?

[Anonymous No.6852961]

>>6852960

[Anonymous No.6852972]

>>6852950
>it's funny how i've basically drawn this entire image eh >>6852719
By "basically" you mean you just sketched a human figure and let the AI do the rest using training data that is not your work?
Even if you repainted over the output doesnt change the fact that you are limited by what the IA gives you and end up with a generic look. This could be been made by literally anyone, this could have been a good point if you had used your own work as training data. But that will never happen in your case, because you already proven that you cant make something on your own and all this thread is your attempt to cope.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852977]

>>6852959
>how insidious you, it's not subjective.
....really? you're going to actually ARGUE with me that art is not subjective?
well i do consider it VERY subjective, which is why i also find arguments around it entirely pointless.
in the end i consider myself an artist because i can draw and paint and i do consider prompters artists as well if they have a certain amount of input or effort put into their work (even that guy who won the competition).
the amount of effort is obviously not the same but it's still fundamentally art IN MY OPINION.
and no i do not care to argue this because it doesn't matter. it comes down to the definition of art. shit on the canvas has been considered art. and i don't consider that art no matter what anyone tells me.
this is simply not a useful discussion to have and i decided this long before AI.

>sure it's technically not copying/stealing, not it's in no way acceptable.
well, that's fair enough. but that doesn't make it not a lie to call it copying or stealing just because you don't find certain other aspects of AI unacceptable.
it will have impacts, but imo it is simply hypocritical to say that the AI isn't allowed to learn.

>no consciousness or understanding involves. it's only a bunch of statistical datapoints masquerading as intelligence.
it has no consciousness but it does have "understanding" of sorts. how else do you explain all the things it can do? how can it apply reflections and colors to water without understanding water in some way? it obviously has some sort of "understanding" for how things should be depicted.

>>6852960
i'm curious about the exact circumstances.
but yes, because the concepts aren't only tied to tags. the tags themselves are tied to each other in the vector space. so having one thing will pull other concepts or ideas along with it. doesn't change the fact that it's essentially an mistake of overfitting.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6852998]

>>6852972
the lines are pretty much unchanged because of how i configured it. but it


>By "basically" you mean you just sketched a human figure and let the AI do the rest using training data that is not your work?
what, and that is theft? or what is your argument here?
the long and short of it is yes, it colored the lines for me using """""skill"""" it aquired through the training data.

again a reminder that the training data is different from my direct input. see >>6852792

>Even if you repainted over the output doesnt change the fact that you are limited by what the IA gives you and end up with a generic look.
anon, please. you realize that AI can imitate PHOTOS, right?
i need you folks to stop deluding yourselves, or stop pretending to be stupid.
the AI is not restricted to any particular style at all. there are all just trends. in terms of capabilities it is not so limited.

>This could be been made by literally anyone, this could have been a good point if you had used your own work as training data.
training my own loras is a goal. and this is only a test piece. specifically to see how i could put together an image gradually by sketching on top of it. (started with only a figure, added a sofa, added the animals, this is also why there is no composition to speak of)

>But that will never happen in your case, because you already proven that you cant make something on your own and all this thread is your attempt to cope.
am i coping or are you? i know what i'm capable of.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853015]

>>6852876
>irrelevant, you are not the actor of the output.
but i am? you think the AI can do anything on its own? if i feed it my own lineart, the lineart suddenly isn't mine anymore? how does that work in your tiny brain?

>the AI can't own, and you don't own the intellectual aspect of the output.
yes, so nobody owns the AI part, and i do own my part.

>you tell yourself it's similar enough and then draw parallels because you are a sophist who compare General with Artificial intelligence (fundamentally different)
you're still too dumb to understand the argument.

but in the end it is really fucking simple:
you only need to meet my challenge. it's that simple. and none of you can do it.
you cannot call it copying or stealing without lying. this is just the truth of the matter anon.
meanwhile, calling it learning is perfectly representative of what is actually happening. there is no trickery anywhere here.

other than your delusions maybe. about what you think, you WANT the ai to be.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853018]

>>6852876
>irrelevant, you are not the actor of the output.
but i am? you think the AI can do anything on its own? if i feed it my own lineart, the lineart suddenly isn't mine anymore? how does that work in your tiny brain?

>the AI can't own, and you don't own the intellectual aspect of the output.
yes, so nobody owns the AI part, and i do own my part.

>you tell yourself it's similar enough and then draw parallels because you are a sophist who compare General with Artificial intelligence (fundamentally different)
you're still too dumb to understand the argument.

but in the end it is really fucking simple:
you only need to meet my challenge. it's that simple. and none of you can do it.
you cannot call it copying or stealing without lying. this is just the truth of the matter anon.
meanwhile, calling it learning is perfectly representative of what is actually happening. there is no trickery anywhere here.

other than your delusions maybe. about what you think, what you WANT the ai to be.

[Anonymous No.6853022]

>>6853018
>but i am? you think the AI can do anything on its own?
You can literally feed prompts through a bot so it can regurgitate "art" on demand. You aren't the actor you think you are, because in the end, you just asked the algorithm to make a random image on top of an existing piece.
You are literally shitting yourself and stomping your feet that you are an artist because you fed some mspaint to an ai, when you reality, you are lower than the myriad perma/beg/ on deviantart calling themselves artists. At least they had to pick up a pencil

[Anonymous No.6853034]

>>6852998
>what, and that is theft? or what is your argument here?
I didnt mention theft, I literally said that you didnt make it. How's that different from passing a /beg/ sketch you drew and passing it to a pro artist and tell the artist "add detail to this and so". Hell, is not even than different than prompting what you want so I guess sketching is even more effitient.

>Even if you repainted over the output doesnt change the fact that you are limited by what the IA gives you and end up with a generic look.
So? Even artists that try to replicate photorealism add their own quirks/style to their work, is not a 1:1 replica of a still life or a photo. Funny you mention photorealism given the spam of anime pinups that merge anime style with photorealism, they all look the same even if the hands are well rendered you can tell its IA just by looking the rendering.

>training my own loras is a goal. and this is only a test piece. specifically to see how i could put together an image gradually by sketching on top of it. (started with only a figure, added a sofa, added the animals, this is also why there is no composition to speak of)as training data.
Post your actual work or gtfo.

>am i coping or are you? i know what i'm capable of.
Im not the tripfag who is present from the beginning on a 300+ replies thead. Look, personally I dont even care if people use and make a living out of it. I do art as ha hobby. My gripe is that
you pretend to be at the same level of artistic disscussion that people that have been polishing their craft for years when you can barelly sketch. Have fun with your toys.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853036]

>>6853022
you'd have to prompt that ai as well. lol.
but yes, your "input" is diminishing more and more using this example.

>You aren't the actor you think you are, because in the end, you just asked the algorithm to make a random image on top of an existing piece.
how is it a random image if, especially in this example, i already set many features in stone using the lines?
can you fuckers be not dishonest for one second?
it seems to me like you just believe what you want to believe, which in this case is that
>what the ai makes isn't yours
regardless of the real world examples i provide.

>You are literally shitting yourself and stomping your feet that you are an artist because you fed some mspaint to an ai, when you reality, you are lower than the myriad perma/beg/ on deviantart calling themselves artists. At least they had to pick up a pencil
am i throwing a shitfit? looks to me like you're the one stomping your feet in disbelief

[Anonymous No.6853045]

>>6852950
>Blobby mess is basically the whole thing give me asspats
Such a delusional tranny ywnbaa, with your incessant spamming there's no reason to believe it's not just a lower quality aiturd that you refed to the machine

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853046]

>>6853034
>So? Even artists that try to replicate photorealism add their own quirks/style to their work, is not a 1:1 replica of a still life or a photo. Funny you mention photorealism given the spam of anime pinups that merge anime style with photorealism, they all look the same even if the hands are well rendered you can tell its IA just by looking the rendering.
you really don't understand.
i'm saying that if it has no issues replicating the details in photorealism, do you really think it will struggle with any particular artstyle?

>Post your actual work or gtfo.
it doesn't matter anon. don't you realize this?

>My gripe is that you pretend to be at the same level of artistic disscussion that people that have been polishing their craft for years when you can barelly sketch.
oooh i see. in that case i'm wasting my time with you. you're not interested in arguing in good faith, you're on some little vendetta eh?

>I didnt mention theft,
no? then what is this implying?
>...let the AI do the rest using training data that is not your work?

>How's that different from passing a /beg/ sketch you drew and passing it to a pro artist and tell the artist "add detail to this and so".
because it's not a beg sketch? i find it rather funny that this upsets you so.
so a beg doing this would be sacrilege to you, huh? how fucking stupid.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853048]

>>6853045
that is indeed possible.
believe it like you would all your other delusions on AI. what's one more, right?

[Anonymous No.6853054]

>>6853048
No one sketches tiny blurry pics, you gay larper.

[Anonymous No.6853060]

>>6852998
giraffe

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853062]

i'm going to sleep.

[Anonymous No.6853063]

>>6853048
AHAHAHAHHA this fucking faggot literally can only do MSpaint tier scribbles. Failed beg playing pretend that it's a real artist >>6811262

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853064]

>>6853063
i drew that with a mouse..

[Anonymous No.6853066]

>>6853064
Sure you did tranny

[Anonymous No.6853072]

LMAOOO All this faggot drew was an incredibly shit couch and the rest was generated for him. >>6809533

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853075]

last one
https://civitai.com/models/112552/weight-slider-lora
>AI can only do this or that!
>AI has no understanding!
and yet it can apply this lora to an anime artstyle.

>>6853072
fair enough. but none of you actual begs would even begin to attempt to draw a couch, or anything, in perspective.

good night.

[Anonymous No.6853081]

>>6853075
>Y-you actual begs
You can't even draw a straight line, or a circle the projection is off the charts with this line. You fucking absolute clown, you tranny failure.

[Anonymous No.6853082]

>>6853046
>you really don't understand.
i'm saying that if it has no issues replicating the details in photorealism, do you really think it will struggle with any particular artstyle?
Ok, prompt me something made by your hands

>it doesn't matter anon. don't you realize this?
ok. so you are /nodraw/

>oooh i see. in that case i'm wasting my time with you. you're not interested in arguing in good faith
This is literally you, anon
> everyone is standing on top the shoulders of giants when it comes to art.
>'m better than you anyway.
>i'm just annoyed how you retards are stifling innovation.
>using misinformation and dumb arguments on top of it too.

This is the more telling one for me :
>theoretically. if you could literally shape your vision on the paper/screen, wouldn't you want that?
>it is what we're doing in our head anyway.
On a fundamental level you will never "get" why actual artists dont like people like you.

>so a beg doing this would be sacrilege to you, huh? how fucking stupid.
No, because actual begs draw.

[Anonymous No.6853083]

Bait threads seem to be the only place where you find AI art these days.

Sad state of affairs, lasted less than NFTs and the Metaverse.

[Anonymous No.6853091]

>>6853075
You're really sad. AI is poisonous to the art landscape. I'll hate your type forever for damaging it.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853097]

>>6853081
ngl. i was pretty out of practice..

>>6853082
>Ok, prompt me something made by your hands
i already did?
also what does this have to do with what you quoted? are you okay? are you this obsessed with my skill level? i'm merely here to make a point. and that is completely irregardless of my art.

>This is literally you, anon
..how are any of the things you quoted said in bad faith?

>On a fundamental level you will never "get" why actual artists dont like people like you.
that's funny. honestly, the fact that you don't get this is a sign for me as well, you know? this goes for /ic/ at large.
once you go down to the grind, none of this shit is as magical anymore. this is why i can see this as automation while you tards think of it as sacrilege.

>No, because actual begs draw.
yeah? you seemed pretty mad to me.
it is the concept of cheating that gets to you eh?
but one day you'll realize that art is not a game. there are no rules. the only things that matter will be the end result, and how THAT affects people.
it is weird for illustration but for just about everything else, comics, animation, games, AI will be a godsent.

>>6853083
i'm sure it will go away anon. i'm sure. >>6852010

>>6853091
you literally sound sad right now. lol.
>AI is poisonous to the art landscape.
i don't think so. personally i believe in art. this is why i don't think people will stop trying to pursue art.
what will change is that nodraws and permabegs can cheat now. but how does that matter to me? why should it matter to me?

so what, some people won't be able to sell stickers anymore?
no, that has never been "art" to me.

[Anonymous No.6853120]

>>6853097
lmao I literally had to look for this thread to find it.

you're only here because for some reasons mods didn't nuke it yet.

[Anonymous No.6853133]

>>6853097
>words words words and no human drawing in sight
yawn...
> i'm merely here to make a point. and that is completely irregardless of my art.
Yet you commonly answer with "Im better than you anyways, you begs!"

>none of this shit is as magical anymore. this is why i can see this as automation while you tards think of it as sacrilege.
Automating boring tasks with python is one thing, its a means to an end, automating art is automating the end itself, most people value hand made stuff for a reason.

> the only things that matter will be the end result
You have made it pretty clear that is what matters to YOU.

> and how THAT affects people.
So making the public tired of IA slop is your endgame? Forgive me I did't realize youi where playing 4d chess.

[Anonymous No.6853142]

>>6851913
>What is rotoscoping

[Anonymous No.6853153]

>>6853097
It's just algorithms retard.
Computers only do what they’re programmed by humans to do, and those programs are all
algorithms—step-by-step procedures contributing to the performance of some task. But algorithms are limited in
what they can do. That means computers, limited to following algorithmic software, are limited in what they can do.
This limitation is captured by the very word “computer.” In the world of programmers, “algorithmic” and
“computable” are often used interchangeably. And since “algorithmic” and “computable” are synonyms, so are “non
computable” and “non-algorithmic.”
Basically, for computers—for artificial intelligence—there’s no other game in town. All computer programs are
algorithms; anything non-algorithmic is non-computable and beyond the reach of AI.

[Anonymous No.6853167]

>>6851913
>Typical thread count: 300
>This AI thread: 100+ that
Let me guess, 2/3ths of the thread is ai spam images?

[Anonymous No.6853173]

>>6852026
It's just a filter over real water, retard, that's very very easy to copy over
If anything the reason OP is shitposting with this "tool" is that the only way it will ever work is tanks to the overpopulation of anime moeblob samefaces, as anything else (like the melting shirts and windows) that lack said data just doesn't fucking work.

Good luck inventing a new design that doesn't exist off of existing data.

[Anonymous No.6853186]

>>6853167
More like it's all "debate" discussion though honestly the AI shill who namefags practically also samefags or discordfags these threads
>I've mentioned ChatGPT once in this immediately here >>6852587 and about 3 AI niggas already wanted to start shilling

[Anonymous No.6853188]

>>6853097
You really don't understand art. You think you do and you're going about arguing very confidently but you don't actually get it.

[Anonymous No.6853253]

>>6851949
Cris lives in the slums and can barely afford anything so he steals other people's work to prove his point.

[Anonymous No.6853356]

I think all the AI models should start watermarking their output with the IP of the prompter, they deserve their credit after all

[Anonymous No.6853373]

>>6853186
it's okay for chatgpt to be popular
it's okay for artists to use AI
it's okay that dall-e 3 will further invalidate you

[Anonymous No.6853395]

>>6853188
This is such an ironic post. You're literally saying art isn't art because you don't like it. Because people used a tool that makes you rage. You don't understand anything.

[Anonymous No.6853411]

>>6853373
>well here's something that's technically "popular"
>"invalidate me" so anon is it red pill people to be rascist
>"artists" using AI
>threads .webms basically the next version of the dog filter
>most AI users don't understand the basics or fix shit
>most are just coomers
>most have nothing to say but basedface going look what "AI" can do

[Anonymous No.6853441]

>>6853395
nta but that's not why we're saying it isn't art. and you keep plugging your ears toward arguments as to why it's not a tool. it's not that you don't understand, it's that you purposefully ignore those inconvenients points.

[Anonymous No.6853443]

>aischizobot whole point is that it posts ai generated images and says; "r u jelly of my skill artists? You're beg! Debate me! No, you can't be correct because i say so! You think you explained me and made a good argument? Too bad, i say you're stupid and jealous and i didn't hear you lmao!"
>starts samefagging by removing the trip
>goes to 400+ replies by itself
>is merely here "to make a point" by spamming the same thing over and over and act like a petty cunt
>jannies and mods are still being faggots and don't nuke this bot
At this point i'm thinking that we're either being raided by a discord and just a few anons on the board aren't in on this whole troll.

Or mods and jannies are in on it since i doubt that with 70 IPs itt, no one is reporting this shit and the tripfag who does this every single time.

fucking man made horrors
holy shit

[Anonymous No.6853466]

>>6853441
It objectively is a tool.

[Anonymous No.6853471]

>>6853466
not if it does the output for you it isn't.
I coudl ask "A tool for what" and answer "making art!" which isn't really a receivable answer and it's too imprecise.
using it to generate quick ideas and reference or a guideline for color might warrant giving it the tool name but only if we go by a loose use of the word tool.
objectively, by the purest definition, it isn't a tool as it acts like a device. it is in no way a tool for illustration, drawing or even art.

[Anonymous No.6853473]

>>6853443
>"it's not stealing!"
>relies on ill-acquired training data
>"technically it isn't but even if it was humans steal too!"
note that, legally, looking at something isn't considered using the data. the data isn't being used but observed, it goes through one layer of translation (visual projection) and another on the recipient's end (conversion of visual information into neural activity or whatever you want to call it). the information is processed andi n a state of constant flux, put into context with completely unrelated elements and linked to similar ones (be they visually, related to other senses or conceptually). we don't take the pixels' precise location and break them into statistical date with weight to know where such a pixel is likely to be situated in relation to others, we look at the bigger picture so to speak, break down on a less fine scale.

>>6853466
faggotron uses objectively like he knows what that means.

[Anonymous No.6853478]

>>6853466
Me caving in your forehead with a comically large wrench is also objectively just me using a tool, what's your fucking point retard?

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853488]

>>6853173
>It's just a filter over real water, retard
i love the delusions

>>6853153
>Computers only do what they’re programmed by humans to do
except in the case of machine learning, where the computer "programs" itself.
none of its capabilities were programmed by humans.
it does not know water surfaces always have reflections in some angles because some bloke "programmed" it to do so.
it got that ENTIRELY on its own, from the training data.
and this goes for literally everything the AI can do in terms of its end capabilities.

so you're wrong here already.
reread this paragraph five time and maybe one day it'll get through your thick skull.

besides, that's your answer? "algorithms"?
>what is happening there?
>algorithms
that is a non-answer anon. algorithms can be dead simple and also extremely complex. and mathematicians will tell you that the entire world is made out of functions.

>but it's just a compooter, brooo
try again.

>>6853133
>Yet you commonly answer with "Im better than you anyways, you begs!"
nope. it's usuallyin response to claims that i don't draw. something you did yourself.

>Automating boring tasks with python is one thing, its a means to an end, automating art is automating the end itself, most people value hand made stuff for a reason.
see, exactly what i'm talking about. you think there are no boring versus interesting tasks in art?
is it all the same to you? this is why you're a shitter. i can smell your idiotic, idealistic view of how art works from here.

>So making the public tired of IA slop is your endgame? Forgive me I did't realize youi where playing 4d chess.
obviously not. the goal is simply to make somethingi want to make. but your brain literally can not wrap itself around that concept.
even if >>6852010 would be a very obvious example of that can look like.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853496]

>>6853441
which part of "im not interested in your retarded discussion about what is or isn't art" do you not understand?
it WILL boil down to personal definitions.
it is an utterly pointless discussion.

>>6853471
>I coudl ask "A tool for what" and answer "making art!" which isn't really a receivable answer and it's too imprecise.
yes, which is why you can just say it's a tool for whatever it is doing.
>making backgrounds
>coloring lineart
>making the entire damn image according to spec
>making inbetweens
everything and anything it can do. it's a tool for that, obviously. this is a fact.

now for the next step, the question is just if these things can be considered "art".
and again, that's a fundamentally pointless discussion.

but it is a fact that it is a tool for doing those tasks.

>objectively, by the purest definition, it isn't a tool as it acts like a device. it is in no way a tool for illustration, drawing or even art.
a device is a tool, anon....
a smartphone is a device, but it is also a tool for all of the functions it is capable of doing. communication, listening to music, photography, etc etc.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853501]

>>6853443
love the cope
i haven't taken off the trip since i put it on itt.

you're the shizo anon. and this is just projection. notice how all of your points are about manipulative shizo behaviour. it's almost like this is all you know and understand.
instead of defeating my arguments. you only have this.

the fact of the matter is that none of your shizo trolling is working on me and now you're crying in the corner about how i'm petty and write too much.
i have never once been banned for discussing AI stuff before. that should tell you everything you need to know.

[Anonymous No.6853502]

[Anonymous No.6853511]

>>6853488
>nope. it's usuallyin response to claims that i don't draw. something you did yourself.
Something that you have yet to demostrate

>see, exactly what i'm talking about. you think there are no boring versus interesting tasks in art?
is it all the same to you? this is why you're a shitter. i can smell your idiotic, idealistic view of how art works from here.
See above. You keep selling AI a tool to enhance art and whatever, but you have yet to show me something made by YOU, the retard that I'm speaking with, that is not a shitty sketch that you latter feed to a AI that escentially doesnt alter your work drastically but only enhances it, only with that maybe people will start seeing AI as a tool to save time and not the end itself. I get that you hate doing art yourself and you are just a secondary in it for the money, but cmon man...

>obviously not. the goal is simply to make somethingi want to make.
You dont want to make anything yourself. How delusional you have to be to take credit for shit like your posts when its obvious that is far beyond your actual art skills and say "yeah, I made that..." This thread would have ended in 30 posts if you spergs just admited that you hate doing certain parts (wich only now you are admiting) but all you have done till now is try legitimize your lazyness.

Dont bother to reply is you dont post your actual work, I'm done.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853520]

>>6853511
again, you can infer some of my skill level from >>6852719 and >>6853036
you can literally see the full sloppy cat and dog paint sketches i did without any blurring. (yes, the cat looks like a turd, ngl).
again, you can infer my skill roughly using that.
the fact that you refuse to do so and instead just continue to annoy me about it is very telling.
but if you think it doesn't take any skill to draw those figures with those gestures, then well, you're an idiot.

and i genuinely feel like i'm talking to a brainlet here. again, do you not understand that my skill level is irrelevant to the larger picture being discussed here?

as for examples for how to enhance art:
have you considered that i could LITERALLY use a figure i've drawn and painted, completely unchanged by the AI, and then let the AI generate the BG? like for a VN?
does this need to be DEMONSTRATED? no. it should be obvious that it can be done if you're honest about it.

you're merely on a "pyw" tirade. and if i was willing to post my full work i'd have done so long ago.
but i am not willing to submit myself to the delusional and insane people that make up the anti-ai camp.

[Anonymous No.6853533]

>>6853501
>cope projecting schizo
>no ur project
>no ur trolling
>lol
>lmao
>no u
>"i choose to conveniently ignore anything that might be a valid argument thus i'm right! hehe checkmate"
that you even take the time to type this trash out is rather what is telling

Come on if you have to spam endlessly and the mods and jannies aren't willing to ban you for some weird reason at least make it interesting where interacting with you isn't met with usual effeminate tranny behavior and bad faith arguing

>"i've never been banned for"
>being off-topic
>posting work that isn't his own yet claiming it to be
>blatantly trolling
>spamming and being disruptive
Yeah, it just confirms the suspicions.

You will never be taken seriously

[Anonymous No.6853538]

>>6853533
This sounds like you're describing yourself lol

[Anonymous No.6853542]

>"no u"

[Anonymous No.6853546]

>>6853520
I really wish I could cave your chest in with a big wooden mallet, adress?

[Anonymous No.6853557]

>>6853546
Why wooden?

[Anonymous No.6853560]

>>6853557
Would prolong the process

[Anonymous No.6853563]

>>6853546
Deus Vult!

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853567]

>>6853533
>never contributes to the discussion
>makes up a headcanon about what happens in the thread
>says i'm samefagging to make yourself feel better about losing every argument
>calls me a beg to make yourself feel better about me saying something that goes against your beliefs.

>is merely here "to make a point" by spamming the same thing over and over and act like a petty cunt
kind of yes. but the only reason i have to repeat myself over and over agains is because retards like you don't READ.

>"i choose to conveniently ignore anything that might be a valid argument thus i'm right! hehe checkmate"
show me what i ignored.
do it.
you can do it, right anon? you aren't just randomly saying dumb things and playing make belief in your head, right?

>>6853546
see? unhinged and mentally ill.
honestly i could be more mean in the way i describe your kind and what you no-skill fuckwits think you know about "art", but i'm trying to have a productive conversation and drill some of the points into your empty heads.

[Anonymous No.6853581]

[Anonymous No.6853582]

>>6853581
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.6853587]

>>6853567
Me? Unhinged?
Brother you're the schizo claiming to create something by having a computer do it for you
You could really use some special mallet therapy, again what's your address?

[Anonymous No.6853590]

>just prove me wrong and point out where i'm wrong
>"NO IM NOT WRONG UR TROLLING ME! LMAO I DONT SEE ANYTHING! SCHIZO COPE! JUST SHOW ME LMAO OOPS I DIDNT SEE IT AGAIN AND UR DUMB! GOTTEM"
It's almost as if people already tried and aren't trying to have an actual discourse with you anymore because they know how you're going to answer
>just show me lmao u cant
Anyone can read the thread(s), tripfag
>accused of samefagging
>doesn't disprove it not even once across multiple threads
>never contributed to anything
>makes up shit
>the pot calling the kettle a nigger

Do you want any pointers how you can actually bait successfully with this type of trolling and shitposting and maybe enhance this chatbot you're employing?
The more you argue in bad faith, the less success you're going to have.
A bunch of Anons replying to you doesn't mean anything when you're basically wrong on top of that and aren't willing to explain anything and actually argue like a real nigger and not just some autogynephilic tranny.

You come off as a shitty bootleg of me that is way less entertaining to interact with and way more insufferable in a bad way.
Man, not even AIchatbot algorithms can generate me good enemies.

[Anonymous No.6853596]

>>6853587
Anon, i think the shitter is too far gone for mallet therapy...

[Anonymous No.6853597]

>>6853587
He probably has one up his asshole already and he is loving it...

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853603]

>>6853587
>Brother you're the schizo claiming to create something by having a computer do it for you
show me where i said that.
i'm pretty sure i said that i only claim my own input as what's mine.
but you really cannot wrap your mind around this eh?

like at all. your retards just keep misquoting me, and the ones who do understand me stop posting once they see that cannot win against the my arguments.
at least someone got to the
>muh computer muh algorithms
part of the argument this time.

>>6853590
so basically: it happened in your headcanon.
nice.
i mean what actually happened is probably you didn't read half the posts and just pretend you did. and then you go on thinking that every retort i get is somehow winning against me, but only because you basically don't read nor try to understand my responses.
it's honestly tiring. you're just repeating the same circus over and over again. with other anons at least i can tell that some of it is sinking in.

>the rest of your post
LMAO unbelievable shizo behaviour. you're a worthless retard that prides himself on trolling on 4chan. imagine even going as far as admitting to this. also at least now i know for sure that you're the same "BTFO" clown from that other thread.

i'm not baiting nor trolling. it's all you can do because you have no brain nor substance. but yes. i'm indeed not like you :)
go on, be more mad for me.

[Anonymous No.6853606]

>>6853603
>i only claim my own input as what's mine.
Nta but shizo.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853608]

>>6853606
how so

[Anonymous No.6853614]

>>6853608
Dude you literally prompt engineer and you claim only input, kek, lmao, that`s why /ic anti ai position is so retarded and laughed at by every single artist including us.

[Anonymous No.6853623]

>>6853603
>i can tell that some of it is sinking in.
>projecting this hard
>"no its ur headcanon"
>proceeds to make a whole movie
Arguing like an effeminate don't work, Anon-kun.
>prides himself on trolling on 4chan
>heavily implying
Anon, you don't get it that the more you lie and argue in bad faith, the less likely you are to "win".
>im not baiting or trolling
>ur mad
>"UR SCHIZO!!! I BET UR THAT GUY FROM THE OTHER THREAD"
nigger come on

[Anonymous No.6853630]

>>6853614
Wtf, is it real?

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853632]

>>6853614
"dude" maybe read the thread before saying dumb shit.

>that`s why /ic anti ai position is so retarded and laughed at by every single artist including us.
you mean pro AI...

>>6853623
ah yes, you only happen to act the exact same, be incapable with engaging in any real discussion and say the exact same shizo shit about how you're the master troll and how i'm a noob compared to your masterful trolling skills :)

you're the kind of retard that thinks he is actually social engineering the thread by greentexting and posting a wojak.

[Anonymous No.6853638]

>>6853632
Nah, i mean im just fucking with you, you ai faggots should leave /ic "dude".

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853642]

>>6853638
why, because seeing it makes you mad?
how long will you keep this up, until next year? the year after that? you think it will go away eventually?

the way i see it, just fucking get it over with, "dude". accept the reality of it. it's not like art will go away due to it.
you retards are all so doom and gloom. and that's despite most of you being permabegs. i thought that it would be the permabegs who should rejoice, but somehow it's the opposite lol...

[Anonymous No.6853649]

>>6853632
>4chan is one person
>NOOOO DEBATE ME DEBATE ME GREENTEXT BAD
>DID YOU JUST DEBATE ME AND PROVE ME WRONG? GUESS I'LL JUST IGNORE IT CHECKMATE HAHA GUESS YOUR ARUGMENT DONT EXIST
>UR SOCIAL ENGINNERING
And that's where your low iq shows, nigerroo.

Literally no one gives a shit about what you say because you have proven enough times that you're low iq and batshit insane.

[Anonymous No.6853654]

>>6853642
>why, because seeing it makes you mad?
No, seeing this on /ic makes me frustrated.
>how long will you keep this up, until next year? the year after that? you think it will go away eventually?
Ai sir you are parody on yourself.

>the way i see it, just fucking get it over with, "dude". accept the reality of it. it's not like art will go away due to it.
...

>you retards are all so doom and gloom.
No, you are.

>and that's despite most of you being permabegs.
Most of nu /ic users including you ai sirs and coomers.

lol...

[Anonymous No.6853656]

>WOW GAISE UR SO MAD AND COPING AND SEETHING AI IS THE FUTURE UR MAD HAHA YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENTS AI LITERALLY DIFFUSES BECAUSE ITS IN THE NAME U R ALL BEGS R U MAD YET! HAHA CHECKMATE

[Anonymous No.6853658]

>>6853656
>>6853649
Based, bro. Hehehe.

[Anonymous No.6853683]

>>6853642
>NOO GUYS, IM A REAL ARTIST, WHY ARE YOU BLIND AND BITTER, DONT YOU SEE ALL THE SLOP I HAVE BEEN POSTING ALL THIS TIME TO PROVE IT?

Dude, you are a photographer at best. And calling permabegs to everyone who call you out in your bullshit makes you look like a clown.
> check art process of ai nigger in the OP
> prompt a girl on a cinema
> oh the background and the fingers are messed up? no worries, I will just minimal edit the background with photobashing and repaint the details but I will make it look more complicated in edition so to make it look like I actually did something :)
> end result barely looks different
> see guys? AI is not a magical tool that does everything for you!

ywnbaw and ywnbara

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6853701]

>>6853683
read the full thread before replying to me with pointless shit.

and yes, i am a real artist. even without AI >>6852719 and >>6853036
i know this must be extremely shocking to you because "AI bad and all AI are lazy fags who want to cheat and dream of being artists".
...but really that's just pure cope.

and that's exactly my goal here. i want artists to see AI for what it actually is. not as what they think it is, hidden behind 500 layers of cope.

and yes, i'm obviously aware when the AI is doing something FOR me. but that is also the point of it.
that is simply the REALITY of it.

>see guys? AI is not a magical tool that does everything for you!
yes. it can definitely do almost everything for you. but what is your end point here? "this is cheating so we should hate it"?

[Anonymous No.6853706]

> he is still going on
My man, just fucking draw the thing yourself.

It's like you're bringing a mechanical lift to a gym trying to convince everyone on how strong you are because it can lift 3000 pounds.

It's sad, let it go already my dude.

[Anonymous No.6853708]

>>6853701
You keep referring to your little shitty ms paint tier drawings fuck off retard if you're an artist why not post something you have drawn?
Surely you have something on the same level of what your schlop machine spits out for you that you have completed yourself?
No?
Well then you're not an artist
>I-I can run a marathon look at this video of me jogging for 30 seconds
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.6853718]

>aischizo still posting trying to shill his crappy art blender
no one gives a fuck
no one is interest in your little transartist machine
youre the one who is coping hard

[Anonymous No.6853737]

>>6853701
You see, this
>and yes, i am a real artist.
and this
>yes. it can definitely do almost everything for you.
Are mutually exclusive claims. you call yourself artist when in your own admission, you use tools that do the creative bulkwork for you.

> "this is cheating so we should hate it"?
I hate it because the most volcal advocates for AI niggetry talk like you above, when you go out of your way to check out the ecochambers of AI niggers you realize how up their asses they are but they never interact with the rest of the artistic community because they know they dont belong.

[Anonymous No.6853795]

>post visual dog water
>claims it be art
>gets told to kill himself
>goes on writing dog water responses of zero importance
>le it's simply a tool you ludites
>cannot create anything without said le tool
Fucking kill yourself Jesus fucking christ you're brain deficient and have nothing to contribute to anything so the little you can muster up is muddy dog water generated by a gacha machine
Fucking kill yourself you insufferable barely-sentient maggot

[Anonymous No.6853833]

>>6851913
Lobotomy maaaaybe needs to come back...

[Anonymous No.6853865]

>>6853496
>it WILL boil down to personal definitions.
no, and that is just your cope, you're not interested because you can't defend your position.
>yes, which is why you can just say it's a tool for whatever it is doing.
and I tell you, your vague description doesn't make it a tool as it could define anything down to your sweaty "buttcrack as a tool for art", you lack rigor.
>making backgrounds
>coloring lineart
does it for you, not a tool
>making the entire damn image according to spec
it makes it even less of a tool, your are not an actor of the output
>making inbetweens
as an animator, I can tell you the only thing it does is shitty in-between that would get thrown away by any animation lead worth their salt, as proven by the plethora of "60fps anime opening". I think you have just a murky idea of what in-betweens are.
>a device is a tool, anon....
you might use the term interchangeably it doesn't make them the same thing. the AI isn't an extension of your abilities but a replacement for them.
a pencil is not "a tool for art", neither is a paintbrush.

[Anonymous No.6853872]

>>6853036
nigger, I can take a generation and run it through the AI to get a blurry faux-sketch as well, you have proven jack and shit

[Anonymous No.6853880]

>>6853538
regardless of your insane coping, this picture looks like ass. it's a patchwork without any unifying feature

[Anonymous No.6854040]

why is this bait thread still up?

[Anonymous No.6854054]

>>6854040
no janny until emails get sent, apparently

[Anonymous No.6854347]

>>6853395
i don’t think you know what art is friend.it has to be human created. the less humans are involved, the less it is art. what you're defining is "content", fast food.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6854534]

>>6853865
>no, and that is just your cope, you're not interested because you can't defend your position.
there is nothing to defend. art is not clearly defined. end of the story. i can ask 5 of your tards and all of you will give slightly different answers. i can ask 5 people in another setting and their answers might differ even more. you're utterly delusional if you don't understand this.
yes, it would in fact boil down to how you and i define art.

>does it for you, not a tool
that is the point. it is a tool to color the lines (and many many other things).
i love how you fundamentally can't wrap your head around this fact.
yes it is in fact AUTOMATION. that is the point.

>as an animator...
you don't have to let it make all the inbetweens either. it depends on how good the AI is/will get. it can already interpolate frames using only a single image. it's easy to imagine what it will be capable of with the guidance of more frames.

>60fps anime opening...
i don't even know what to say. you're just plain retarded. try to think outside the box a bit. and out of all things, you think the FRAMERATE will be the issue? just lol.
if it can automatically create 50% of the frames, that's already a massive gain. that's time and effort you can spend elsewhere. like making the frames you ARE doing better.
is there a single reason why you wouldn't want this? do you love wasting your life away doing every single frame?

>you might use the term interchangeably it doesn't make them the same thing. the AI isn't an extension of your abilities but a replacement for them.
if you let it be. but in the end it is simply automation. and it is an extention of your abilities if you can build on top of it. like in the animation example.

>>6853708
it doesn't matter. believe what you want. in the end it's you who is deluding yourself. i know exactly what i can do.

[Anonymous No.6854575]

>aischizo still believes anyone actually cares to learn about flying an airplane when we're all about LEARNING to swim

[Anonymous No.6854655]

>>6854534
>try to think outside the box a bit. and out of all things, you think the FRAMERATE will be the issue? just lol.
>if it can automatically create 50% of the frames, that's already a massive gain. that's time and effort you can spend elsewhere.
>aifag is such a retard he couldn't help outing himself as knowing nothing about animation.

[Anonymous No.6854663]

>>6854534
>there is nothing to defend. art is not clearly defined.
must you flaunt your ignorance?

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6854671]

>>6854655
if you say so. i've only been part of small animation projects for fun. but i guess AI will never be used in animation because you say so lol >>6852010

or if your issue is with the frame rate then again, i'm out of words. you can't possibly be this retarded. do you really think the AI has to be locked to any framerate just because of what it currently is capable of?

>>6854663
you're like a toddler. one day you'll understand that even though it is clearly defined in your head, that is not a general definition at all.
ever heard of "death of the author"?
what do you think someone who believes in that thinks about your retarded theories on art?

i'll repeat it again for you: art is subjective. it is a pointless discussion.

[Anonymous No.6854685]

>>6853471
>>6853473
>>6853478
>too retarded to know what a tool is
you genuinely need to kill yourselves

[Anonymous No.6854706]

>>6854671
>if you say so. i've only been part of small animation projects for fun.
nah you haven't, you know next to nothing
>or if your issue is with the frame rate then again
as proven by this retardation of yours.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6854711]

>>6854706
>post saying nothing again
yep. i'm sure you're an expert anon. but i think an expert would actually correct me instead of saying vapid nothings.

at this point i doubt you've ever tried animating anything yourself.

[Anonymous No.6854721]

>>6854671
>that is not a general definition at all.
your definition is "anything goes", so a sunset can be art, you are ignorant.
>i'll repeat it again for you: art is subjective. it is a pointless discussion.
art, requires an artist, a prompter is not an artist because he says so. you're being in the same camp as the CIA psyop's camp whose blurring of what art was aimed at devaluing art.
>ever heard of "death of the author"
I have, I'm fluent in French and you pulled that title out of your ass to be cultivated. this essay is about interpretation of a content, not definition of art, get bent.

[Anonymous No.6854731]

>a guy who makes art isn't an artist

[Anonymous No.6854733]

>>6854711
>you're an expert
if only you knew...I'm laughing my ass off at your comment.

very well: interpolation software have been around for a while, when I mention "60fps anime opening" you get caught on framerate like the little /v/tard you are. the issue with those videos is they take animations on 2's and 1's and interpolate them. they are as close to having no room for error between two frames as it can reasonably be and the "AI" still manages to fuck that up. why you might ask? because it's not intelligent and can't apply any kind of bias required in animation. it seems you think AI can magically fill in the gap between keys of or even breakdown when you laughable examples are utterly unusable, without any value for animation.
I call you a fraud, tripfag. I'm guessing your bar for animation is "it moves"

[Anonymous No.6854737]

>>6854731
yes, you are a real woman because you say so, yes you are! yes you make the art like a big girl (male)! no matter you didn't do...well the making part.

[Anonymous No.6854744]

>conflating sex with the fact of a man making art

[Anonymous No.6854748]

>acting dumb
not the own you think it is

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6854760]

>>6854721
>your definition is "anything goes"
i haven't put out my definition. this is just your headcanon...

>I have, I'm fluent in French and you pulled that title out of your ass to be cultivated. this essay is about interpretation of a content, not definition of art, get bent.
you braindead retard, i'm saying that i'm applying the "death of the author" to art in general. meaning that the "author", i.e. the creator should never matter and that the art should be standing on its own.

i love how you think saying that makes me "cultivated". it's beyond laughable. you retards literally are incapable of thinking about abstract concepts on their own without thinking about a person all the time, eh?

>art, requires an artist, a prompter is not an artist because he says so. you're being in the same camp as the CIA psyop's camp whose blurring of what art was aimed at devaluing art.
i'm sure the CIA really cares about art...
also this is just circular logic. again, i do not care about what you consider art or an artist.

>>6854733
>interpolation software have been around for a while
... so let me get this straight. you're saying that because the interpolation software that existed sucks, AI will suck too?
are you serious right now? or am i missing something?

[Anonymous No.6854789]

>>6854760
> i.e. the creator should never matter and that the art should be standing on its own.
you are purposefully misreading his work. it is about interpretation of the content, not the artistic status of a piece. it's about the author's interpretation of his own work not having more weight than a third person's.
>I do not care about what you consider art or an artist.
enjoyed being laughed at then. you can spout "art is subjective bruh" all you want, it won't make you the creator of the generated image.
>or am i missing something?
yes, I have provided an example, in those videos there's almost no artistic interpretation to add and the software still fucks that up. unless you create a sentient Ai that understands how the physical world works, requiring AGI, then you will at best gets unsettling movements. you might have anal with a multitude of sliders and functions to tweak those interpolation but at this point it defeats the purpose of its existence as you just end up having to animate indirectly by being a tard-wrangler.
any half-convincing movements Ainiggers have fed us are just rotoscopy of live-action footage or an already animated 3d model, not even good rotoscopy. but keep praying for the next magical update that will surely make you an animator at last.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6854819]

>>6854789
>you are purposefully misreading his work. it is about interpretation of the content, not the artistic status of a piece. it's about the author's interpretation of his own work not having more weight than a third person's.
i know what it is about. i'm just using it to explain my own stance on art. and it's not like art isn't something you take in and interpret. my stance is just that it does not matter what the creator did. if it resonates, it resonates.

>enjoyed being laughed at then.
enjoy then.
i mean what do you expect will happen? i will just tell you my interpretation of art and you will yours. and then you will say "i'm right!" like a retarded toddler (like you're already doing right now) and that will be the entirety of the discussion. there can be no truth, no end. it's just my theory versus yours. because art is too vague and undefined.
it is really not that hard to understand: it WILL come down to your interpretation of art versus mine. and it will never move forward from that point.
so again. pointless discussion.

this is not like the other arguments i'm having itt where points can be made. logic can be used. this is just a highly subjective masturbation about what you consider art or not.

>yes, I have provided an example, in those videos there's almost no artistic interpretation to add and the software still fucks that up. unless you create a sentient Ai that understands how the physical world works,
ah i see now.
you're mostly just delusional.

you know that >>6852010 is not rotoscoped on any footage, right? same with pic related.
so it already is capable of PULLING 16 FRAMES completely OUT OF ITS ASS based on one single input.
and you're saying the AI won't be capable of interpolating less frames between existing frames?

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6854826]

>>6854819
same with >>6854534
too btw. and same with pic related.
all of these are not even a month old.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6854836]

and same again.
it can do this already, and you think it won't be able to interpolate 1-5 frames inbetween two points?

[Anonymous No.6855102]

I don't know what to say, your only requirement is "it moves". but as you've proven countless times this thread...you don't have an eye for art. you don't even understand what's required for inbetweening
>>6854819
>i know what it is about.
clearly you don't, you use an essay about interpreting content of an art piece as justification to determine whether something is art, those are two different matters.
> my stance is just that it does not matter what the creator did, if it resonates, it resonates
art requires the intent of an artist for it to be art. you can resonate with countless things in life and they will no more be art due to your feelings.
>i will just tell you my interpretation of art and you will yours.
mine is based on consensus and actual lengthy writings about it. you calling me a retard is just plugging your ears and acting like an artranny. your only answer is "it's just your opinion bro". very well then what's your requirement for something to be art?

>ah i see now.
you're mostly just delusional.
nah, I know animation, you don't you just think it's "go from A to B" like the little technerd nodraw you are.
>you know that >>6852010 is not rotoscoped on any footage, right?
firstly, I have the suspicion live footage was involved as training data. secondly, it doesn't look like anything worth keeping, so what's your point? it's not even an example of using AI for interpolation, a lead animator would send the person who did this packing and chastise them for wasting time rendering something that didn't work to begin with.
>and you're saying the AI won't be capable of interpolating less frames between existing frames?
again, your bar for interpolating is laughable, we can interpolate already and it is worthless, I'm trying to make you understand that you need something extra than "go from A to B", a bias only a human can provide currently and one the AI is incapable of providing with the current technology, you'd need a whole new type of it.

[Anonymous No.6855278]

>>6854836
It can already make characters look like they're standing on ice, about to fall over? AI can't even grasp the concept of standing.

[Anonymous No.6855356]

>>6854819
>>6854760
>>6854671
>>6854534
>>6853701
You should start asking GPT to generate these vapid responses for you instead so you can focus on proompting instead, no one would be able to tell the difference anyway
Kill yourself, ywnbaa

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6855563]

>>6855102
you're legit too retarded to talk to. every other point is you assuming things about me, assuming that your interpretation of art is the bible. and it is straight up unbelievable how you can not think outside the box even a little bit. and having some shitter bark at me telling me how i don't draw and am a techbro is honestly quite tiring.

>firstly, I have the suspicion live footage was involved as training data.
the github says it was trained on clips. so yes. for animation, it would be ideal if it was trained on animated stuff specifically.

>so what's your point?
yeah what is my point indeed? maybe use your brain and think about it. or just fucking learn to read.
ALL the frames are generated. without a video to base it off of. do you understand?
it can ALREADY create coherent motion for as long as 16, SIXTEEN fucking frames, off of ONE image. and you think it will have problems creating a handful, or just one AI frame between two manual frames?

so in the end i was indeed correct when i said you have a problem with the framerate. because once again you cannot think outside the box.
explain to me, why would this be a technical limitation that cannot be overcome?
if between A and B it can create 16 frames, you can just pick and choose the one (or two or a handful) that are right. IT CAN ALREADY MAKE MORE THAN YOU NEED.
even if you only generate every second frame, that's already a significant cut in terms labor.

who fucking cares where interpolation has been until now. do you think that is at all a comparison to the AI-driven stuff? there is no AI animation specific software as far as i know. even the video frame interpolation stuff is only barely a year old.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6855570]

another example.
and these are interpolated between images that are completely different.
and you're saying that it won't be capable of interpolating between frames that are much closer?

[Anonymous No.6855573]

>>6855570
Yeah man I can totally see this being used in production, truly revolutionary good sir

[Anonymous No.6855580]

>>6855570
This is unironically the equivalent of someone posting one of those ungulating 3D fractals gifs and saying it looks like a POV shot of a spaceship flying around an alien planet from a new blockbuster Hollywood movie.
You're literally posting air you daft retard what use would this or any adjacent tech have in the actual animation pipeline?
Do you even know how animation works?

[Anonymous No.6855590]

>>6851913
>for this to be actually viable in animation it would require you to film an entire live action movie first and film each actor in the scene on its own in front of a green screen and then roll the gacha machine for each 24 frames per second til you get something passable and then stitch together everything in post
>and don't forget the lighting on all characters for each individual frame would have to match for each character
Like obviously you're surviving with sub 80 IQ but you do know the whole entire point of animation is removing the dependence on live action to create stuff, right?
It's only impressive for people like you who don't draw, is stupid and is utterly clueless as to how creatives work, or normies who think it's cool because you turned a stock video into cute mutant anime girls.
Your brain is leaking out your nose mister

[Anonymous No.6855591]

>>6855563
>stop assuming
>proceeds to assume and attribute everything to whoever he is talking
>omg just think outside you take what you think as fact
>takes what he thinks and makes up as fact while never proving anything he claims and never disproving anything other says and just calls them retarded
>stop calling me a techbro that doesn't draw
>never posts any real work
Man, if tards like this lack self awareness there is no chance in hell AI ever will reach it

Honestly, AI tech isn't going to get destroyed because it will replace people, but because autistic retards will delude themselves into thinking they're not completely fucking retarded anymore and will become insufferable to even have around.

[Anonymous No.6855596]

>>6855570
You're speculating and making a bad faith argument at best and you won't concede your point no matter how much anons explain to you and how specifically wrong you are.
You outing yourself as a nodraw even more.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6855597]

>>6855580
>>6855573
not for a while, but yes, it obviously will. in a similar way to what i described, maybe even easier.
you are just being willfully obtuse.

the reasoning is simple:
SINCE IT CAN ALREADY DO >>6855570 >>6854836 >>6854826 >>6854819 >>6854534
give me one reason why it won't be able to do what i described.

so far you empty head retards have given me
>interpolation software has always been bad! and software is software so this is obviously the same!
pure delusion about what AI can do
>muh frames!
already addressed >>6855356
>only humans! because humans are special!
that is the basic delusion that i'm always talking about. that USED to be the case. holding onto this even when it is clearly no longer true is just delusion.
AI cannot replace humans yet. but it clearly is gaining capabilities that used to be solely in our domain.

>>6855591
what assumptions am i making? is there something about animation argument that i was assuming?
go on. just correct me if i'm wrong.

the way that shitter talked about A and B clearly tells me that they think the AI is only capable of interpolating directly inbetween A and B like a dumb non-AI program. as if THAT would be the technical challenge that can't be overcome.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6855599]

>>6855596
where is the bad faith argument?
you likely just don't understand or are strawmanning my argument.
just look at how much effort it takes for me to argue every single little point. even before this animation argument.

it's because you shitters are fundamentally delusional when it comes to AI. what it is capable of, how it works, how it can be used.
everything you think about it comes with mental baggage. you're incapable of simply seeing it for what it is.

[Anonymous No.6855601]

>>6855597
>what assumptions am i making?
You want others to stop assuming things about you, but you won't stop assuming and attributing things to whoever you're talking to.

I don't know if you're actually and legitimately stupid or trying to feign ignorance.
Stop posting, honestly.

[Anonymous No.6855603]

>>6855599
>"you are delusional and don't know"
We know and we do not care how it works.
>you're incapable of simply seeing it for what it is.
Again with the baseless assumptions, yet you demand others to stop calling you a retard.

Anon, we do not care, we are just fucking with you at this point.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6855612]

>>6855603
you do care. you simply pretend not to once you're challenged on your beliefs.
that's all it is. and then you wonder why i say that all of your stances are built on top of delusions.

>>6855601
>what assumptions am i making?
>i'm assumining that others are making assumptions about me, also i'm assuming things
i really should clap. simply incredible reply.
don't you think i'd know which of your assumptions about me are true or not?

but honestly that doesn't even matter. just keep to the argument.
none of you managed to reply properly to >>6855597

i'll repeat again what i said in >>6855597
given, what AI can already do now, give me one reason why it wouldn't be able to interpolate in a useful way for animation.

[None !!ducTpJGSm6d No.6855620]

>>6855603
on second thought, i really should stop insulting you retards. because you genuinely seem to think i'm making arguments when i do that. maybe you tards think that your own ad hominems are actual arguments as well.
maybe that's why you buffoons always seem to think you're winning the argument. that would explain a lot...

[Anonymous No.6855624]

>>6855612
We don't care anon, we're simply making fun of your lack of common sense when it comes to art
Again please do post something you've created yourself without your little black box doing 99% of the work for you, quite the simple ask given you state that you do in fact draw

[Anonymous No.6855626]

>>6855612
>you simply pretend not to once you're challenged on your beliefs.
>that's all it is. and then you wonder why i say that all of your stances are built on top of delusions.
Cool assumption, but no.
You have used all the good faith you received.
>pls reply to me properly
So you can call us retarded and delusional for not agreeing with you?
You proved that that is the extent of your intellectual abilities.

Anon, no one is going to take you seriously or actually engage your honestly anymore.
You done fucked up.
>given, what AI can already do now, give me one reason why it wouldn't be able to interpolate in a useful way for animation.
Because you're basing your entire argument on speculation and wishful thinking, not actual tangible, reasonable or factual conclusions.
>>6855620
Maybe you simply should not try to argue with insults against an argument someone makes.
I could not care less about being called a nigger but when i make an argument and all i get is the usual retard spiel of nothing but insults, i kind of have no reason to take you seriously anymore.

How many threads has it been and you still don't understand this?
>maybe that's why you buffoons always seem to think you're winning the argument. that would explain a lot...
But you're also wrong on top of that and when anons try to explain it to you, YOU screw yourself over by being this far up your ass.

Holy autism

[Anonymous No.6855636]

>>6855597
>call it amazing for its future potential
Nigger, you saying I can claim to be an amazing artist based on the fact that I could be much better in the future?
Holy shit the first smart thing you've said so far will apply to myself going forward thank you tranny-kun

[Anonymous No.6855647]

>>6855636
Actually a reasonable conclusion
I must be fucking amazing
Just think how this drawing will look in the future
Wow, i suddenly realize i dont have to do anything anymore, i am already a master!

[Anonymous No.6855649]

>>6855647
>i suddenly realize i dont have to do anything anymore.
You never did do anything worthwhile in your life to begin with and the only thing that has changed now is that you're playing pretend.