No.17282
This is awful considering how hard it is to find art on twitter and artists are constantly nuking their own shit too.
No.17284
>>17283who are you quoting
No.17285
theyll go after boorus, then imageboards, then they will stop uploading their shit to twitter and only upload to private 20-user fbi.govs
No.17287
>>17285Artists are so vehemently defending private property I saw one even posting a fucking ToS on their twitter lmfao
No.17288
>>17287It's not defending copyright, it's wishing for their works to not be as training data for proprietary software.
Also ToS's are just something people do when they do commissions, since they have to deal with scammers regularly.
No.17290
The right side to be on is the artists independent artists. If boorus are being used to train porkytech then the obvious thing is for artists and boorus to work together somehow to make it impossible. AI doesn't work for the prole, at least not right now.
No.17291
based. good for the artists. wish they could retroactively alter past art so they could fuck up pictures for the ai program
No.17292
>>17288>It's not defending copyright, it's wishing for their works to not be as training data for proprietary software.Restricting how your intellectual property is used is the fucking definition of copyright.
No.17293
>>17292TOS constitute a "moral" restriction rather than an actual restriction. What're they gonna do if you violate the TOS? at best they'll complain to the manager, and it's the mangers decision - not theirs - if they respond or not. Absolute worst case scenario they'll screenshot you and tweet it out. Copyright law is essentially voluntary for anything smaller than a joint stock company.
Stop looking for excuses to feel indignant as a cover for your own resentment.
No.17294
>>17293>Stop looking for excuses to feel indignant as a cover for your own resentment.the audacity of this bitch lmao
No.17295
anyway artists are fighting a losing battle here and fighting against the wrong enemy as its usual with any kind of luddite
No.17297
>>17296This is probably the best insight I've read about AI art. wtf I love "artificial intelligence" (statistical models with no understanding of anything) now
No.17298
>>17296Lol no. I've yet see an AI art generator that can consistently make circular equally sized irises. They're so bad. I'm really tired of this AI hype. Total fad. Lol just like AI chatters were going to overtake human customer service and all that. Nope. Just marketing and idiots keep falling for the sci-fi hype.
No.17299
The sooner people stop treating art as some kind of higher, privileged sphere of life, the better. Intelligent people already understood this more than a century ago.
No.17300
>>17296I'm also "This shit is overrated" pilled
No.17301
>>17298I take it you haven't been to the threads on 4ch*n with anyone generating believable illustrations with their shitty GPUs or CPUs.
No.17302
>>17296Based and Picassopilled.
No.17303
We might not be able to tell what's human and what's AI soon, but that doesn't change the fact that 90% of AI art fucking sucks at the moment. It will get better so cope while you can.
No.17304
tbh if ur work has ever been "trending on Artstation" then your shit probably sucks ass LOL
No.17305
>>17304Lol wut. Everyone on the front page on artstation is very talented. Who do you think is good? I'm pretty sure the AIs can generate Rothkos even better.
Side note: was just looking for a pic and found this article. Kek. Pseuds inspring pseuds. What inspiration do you think he got? "Holy shit, he actually got people to shell out major dough for this crap. What a marketing genius."
No.17306
>>17296this sounds well and good until you remember two things
1. there's nothing special about realism - if it wouldn't take effort i'd try and have an AI rip off Tyson-tan just to show you can get "good enough" results in any style with enough training data.
2. novelty trumps depth for the general public. a fellow artist may be able to see some intent, but for someone quickly glancing over it before moving on to the next thing that's much less likely to happen. for a popular work, you run into the inverse problem - someone will pick the first thing the AI spits out as an illustration, and a rabid fanbase will read over it, praising the creator's tact in picking this particular image, with all its obvious detail and allusion…
if intent can only be read by other artists, the effect would be to encourage making more art for artists rather than for the general public, (further) turning art into an insular, elitist thing. as for style, it's a constant matter of running to stay on the spot: develop a personal style, make a few pictures, then wait and see as someone feeds it into an AI as training data. well, okay, just start again - create yet another a new style, if you need a prompt for what to draw in it might I suggest: groundhog day.
No.17309
>>17307Reminds me of the panic over "deepfakes". What did we end up getting? Epstein singing Oingo Boingo.
No.17311
>>17310AI art is done for.
No.17312
>>17306Well, one approach would be to try and make more of the general population artists. A tall order, but trying to get people to be literate used to be a tall order too, but here we are. Reading and writing for fun.
Drawing can have great practical utility just like writing, and the more people can make practical use of it the more people will see it as important.
No.17313
>>17311It never began for it. Also they can't make hands at all either. Look at the fucked up hand on the boobs. The hair fucked up as well. Shoulders and arms look fucked up as well. I guess you could use the picture as a starting point, but you'd still need an artist to touch it up. Also let's see the AI make the same character a dozen times.
Which AI is that by the way?
No.17315
>>17313I'm sure the algorithms for these neural networks will never be improved, right?
No.17317
>>17314Noooooooooo I love suffering!
No.17318
>>17315"photography will destroy the painter"
No.17319
>>17318It sure as fuck destroyed all those realistic painters that got paid to draw portraits of people.
No.17320
>>17314If you enjoy drawing I don't see what the big issue is.
>b-b-but muh jobsSeriously,
leftypol?
No.17322
this wouldnt be an issue if we didnt have to sell ourselves for money
youre all a bunch of liberals getting mad at the wrong things
No.17323
>>17319READ MARX YOU BABIES AND STOP PRAYING FOR A BUTLERIAN JIHAD ON THE NEURAL NETWORK BOOGEYMEN"The enormous destruction of machinery that occurred in the English manufacturing districts during the first 15 years of this century, chiefly caused by the employment of the power-loom, and known as the Luddite movement, gave the anti-Jacobin governments of a Sidmouth, a Castlereagh, and the like, a pretext for the most reactionary and forcible measures. It took both time and experience before the workpeople learnt to distinguish between machinery and its employment by capital, and to direct their attacks, not against the material instruments of production, but against the mode in which they are used." - Marx, Capital, Volume 1
No.17325
>>17324
>fagotron.
how did you find out i'm a robot
No.17326
>>17312that would be desirable, but at that stage you're looking at a post-revolutionary society anyway.
>>17314comically naive. it's a tool that changes the general environment in which artists express themselves and the general aesthetic environment in which we all live.
photography is the default analogy, but let's take an alternative angle: 3D modelling.
what happened to all the technical and most of the architectural illustrators when people realized you can plug the CAD model into 3d modelling software and it'll spit out a rendering? i don't know, but i do know what happened to their genre of work: it vanished on the grounds of convenience even though there was arguably greater aesthetic merit in what came before.
there's an escape hatch here - "oh, that example's about work anyway, aren't we all anti-work here?" or perhaps "well, under communism we'll put resources into doing it the inefficient-but-pretty way" - but they really side-step the more interesting political question: the wider implications of convenience, its steady elevation as a value above all else.
and its relationship to "efficiency"this thread isn't really worthy of it, but it would tie in nicely to a secondary thought: the popularity of "incontestable" values under neoliberalism - who, except a few puritans, wants "inconvenience"? who claims to want "unfairness"? (even aristocratic reactionaries tend to believe that there's the fairness of the natural order to their hierarchy), who wants "inefficiency"? contrast a value like equality ["of outcome"], which is contestable: some believe in it, while many people, even most people, think a degree of inequality is desirable.>>17323a bad point made in the worst possible way. it's a cheap cliche to call a post reddit, but the way in which you've deployed a pop culture reference is the epitome of it.
"stop praying" is an incredible line for all of the wrong reasons - if only those behind AI had sat and prayed for god to deliver them an AIdol rather than programming their own one in a handless rendition of someone else's graven image.
if the material instruments of production aren't in the worker's hands, they're a perfectly legitimate target for smashing. No.17327
>>17326>what happened to all the technical and most of the architectural illustrators when people realized you can plug the CAD model into 3d modelling software and it'll spit out a rendering? i don't know, but i do know what happened to their genre of work: it vanished on the grounds of convenience even though there was arguably greater aesthetic merit in what came before.I still see architectural illustrations on signs for new developments. If it has aesthetic value there will always be a place for it. You're probably right about technical illustration, but the point was always to be accurate, not aesthetic. They call them CAD DRAWINGS for a reason though. It's just an evolution of the same process. Nobody paints cels with actual paint anymore, doesn't mean a computer can just do it automatically.
eir jobs.
No.17328
>>17292>Restricting how your intellectual property is used is the fucking definition of copyright.Objecting to something you created to be turned into someone elses private property is not defending private property, moron
No.17333
any further harm to art that could be done by AI is due to culture being in a rut to begin with. everyone is connected at all times, has the same influences, consumes the same media, learns from the same sources & treats their social media presence & artistic output as a 24/7 job interview & resume. "the workers" on twitter defend oversimplified sameyness in art whether it's alegria art or stock beanmouth cartoons then get really shocked when their bosses treat them as disposable interchangeable doormats. people like leftism as an aesthetic but are more afraid than ever of getting together and fighting against corporate ideas.
everyone takes refuge in ideas like "bro nothing is original anymore, everyone has influences" to avoid going outside their social media communities and reach for cool influences, have a personal artistic journey of putting their worldviews on paper with increasing purpose and intent.
No.17334
>>17313>AnatomyFor the general public it looks pretty decent
even better than average deviantartist I like it. If i was a wanker looking for free art I'd use that to draw my fetish art. You're just coping.
No.17335
>>17333and lol don't fucking get me started on the conceptart.org "muh realism, muh surface-level detail" culture which is the equally bad polar opposite and fucked up internet art opinions for far longer than the smol bean hipster art crowd. 4chan's /ic/ used to be nothing but that and it's still alive in industry forms; look at what westerners did to demon's souls. not like the old from software stuff was not inspired by western fantasy art, but that's the thing; good japanese art is often inspired by older, cooler western art. anglophones define "the west" and both simple stylized art and realistic detailed art are becoming boring samey shit cuz that's what corporations want and artists are insanely cucked.
No.17336
>>17327Those are usually 3D renders, as the post you are replying to pointed it out.
No.17337
>>17322nah the prime issue is just ai "artists"(altho i am of the controversial opinion that they could be at the bare minimum considered an artist, such that, an artist with only one particular skill of conceptualizing) are claiming the works as their own when it was clearly taken without their knowledge. altho technically legal i guess(im not sure tho) bc im guessing thay there probably is a clause in the terms and conditions on art platforms that allow this stealing(not sure tho).
the ai artists obfuscating any "help" from the systems that enable them is definitely a thing to get mad about. aint even a debate about using references, its just outright lying.
No.17339
>>17328>turned into someone elses private propertyis anyone copyrighting their "ai art" though
No.17342
>>17341i dont think im arguing against what you wrote? am i? i dunno what u mean by this.
No.17343
>>17339What the fuck do you think they're doing it for? Fun?
https://kotaku.com/ai-art-dall-e-midjourney-stable-diffusion-copyright-1849388060>In February, the US Copyright Office “refused to grant a copyright” for a piece of art made by AI, saying that “human authorship is a prerequisite to copyright protection”. That case is now being appealed to a federal court, however, because the AI’s creator thinks that, having programmed the machine, he should be able to claim copyright over the works it produces. Even when a decision is ultimately reached in this case, it will take a lot more time and cases for a firmer legal consensus to form around the subject. No.17345
>>17339It's not about copyrighting the result, it is about owning software. They train their alogrithms on someone's art and then making resulting software proprietary, meaning a private property.
No.17346
>>17305Photo is immensely frustrating seeing how most museums don't know how to exhibit color field paintings correctly (
they were meant to be shown in super low-light not with fucking spots highlighting the whole canvas).
No.17347
>>17312Someone should make an "A fascist drew today, did you?" poster.
Which is ironic that I say that instead of doing it myself but I'm not sure what to put on it, aside from the text. No.17348
honestly the only useful thing i could see come from ai art are references for poses and such.
No.17366
>>17364
Being used as training data for someone else's private property is not "becoming public property," redditor.
No.17367
>>17364>Uses private property laws to defend their images they don't though. danbooru removes images on the artist's request. (
https://danbooru.donmai.us/contact )
not on
DMCA request with which compliance is still essentially voluntary,
on request. The copyright status of an image could be public domain and their stated policy would remain that they'd take it down if the artist didn't want it up.
No.17368
>>17349>>17359Lol. Why are you nerds so butthurt by this? If this shit tech could actually used for production I'd use it. I'll wait til it reaches that level before I get excited, I've seen so many useless novelty tech that can do the job, but badly, so it's useless, for me to ever get excited again. Yes I can draw hands lol.
I'm still waiting for an auto-retopologizer that is production ready. Seems like a tangible thing to make but nobody has ever done it. Until then, just got to draw out all the edges and verts by hand.
No.17369
>>17366I meant the artist image being public property, not the software.
>>17367Fair I suppose on what's being used, but they're still hiding/privatizing the images.
No.17372
>>17368The joke with that one comic is a lot of artists aren't confident with their ability to draw hands, so people bringing up that the AI sucks at hands can be humorous.
t. someone who isn't good at drawing hands yet.
No.17393
coomers are seizing the means of production.
No.17394
Already seeing artists on twitter threatening that they will block anyone using "AI art" as a tool rofl
No.17401
This sort of thing seems overblown. All art is derivative. It doesn't change if an AI is doing it instead of a human.
No.17451
Is this not an opportunity to mass produce commie art?
No.17454
just saw an ai artist screenshot a wip art, use the screenshot to generate the art, and had the audacity to claim it was their own work because they posted it earlier
No.17455
>>17454intellectual propertycels be seething over plagiarismchads
No.17456
>>17455That's not intellectual property. It's an attribution issue.
No.20807
On the topic of AI art
>>>/draw/3405 No.21562
Furry "artists" are also now aping out about this too. It's even gotten to the point that aero-fags are on about it, given that AI has progressed to the point that even complex machines and strange aliens are getting replicated.
From Havoc63
>Here is the link to the original post: https://www.furaffinity.net/view/53026905/#cid:173820461>DO NOT USE AEROMORPH ART FOR AI GENERATED IMAGES>Please share this post with people who are interested in aeromorphs and spread it onto platforms with aeromorph content!>I found some AI generated images of "aeromorphs" a few days ago and I was not amused by what I saw. I know AI image generators require input images, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that people probably took that handful of artists's pieces who put out quality aeromorph designs. (Here is an example: https://imgur.com/a/eT1BX5u) So what is my problem? None of us gave permission to it, in fact we are quite mad and upset by this.>Another issue I have with these "aeromorphs" is the fact they defy the fundamental idea of an aeromorph. Most people who are into them are into them for a reason, because they love aircraft and would like to see designs that reflect the exact characteristics of given planes. A good aeromorph design is always based on an existing design (be whether real or fictional) and the design of the character includes key details that make them instantly recognizable to the point you can tell the exact aircraft type simply by looking at it. Nobody wants to see a vague plane shaped thing with details that make no sense, it defeats the purpose, since it is just a mess someone tries to pass as an aircraft. It has no idea, inspiration or soul behind it. And by using people's art, who put their passion, care and time into each piece they did, taking all that, put it into a blender to make it spit out something like that, it's not only an insult to artists but to aircraft as well.>To everyone who cares about good Aeromorph content, do not be fooled by the supposedly "good" looks of AI generated images, these may look decent on the surface, on closer inspection however, countless flaws, anatomical errors and mismatching, nonsensical details can be spotted all over these images, that make these figures completely unrecognisable and unusable for any good Aeromorph work. Please do not encourage or support anyone using these models trained on stolen art for Aeromorph content, nothing good will come from it.>I would like to stop this before it gets too big and gets out of hand, because I am concerned for the future aeromorph content. If we let these AI images spread and become popular, without raising our concerns, people will likely start flooding platforms with AI generated mess, characters vaguely resembling aircraft, with a nonsensical design and without inspiration and any effort behind it. What would people assume, looking at the concept from afar? That any bad design can pass? If we don't care about quality and effort, if we don't put up boundaries to what qualifies as art and in our case good aeromorph art, sooner or later things will just sink into chaos.>Do we really want that?Honestly, I don't think AI shit is necessarily bad or in most cases, violates some kind of copyright laws. At least until someone tries to make money off some artist's work or claim it as their own work. In my opinion at least. More important, this is a tool. It's not bad by itself, and should not be prohibited for usage unless circumstances allow for it. Some fans just love certain art styles, authors… and want something, that authors of the original arts may never do themselfes. Some AI can make their dreams become reality and it's a really good thing in my opinion. Even if someone took your art and characters as a reference for the AI to produce this, it's not the same as stealing your characters any more than someone making their own copy of your art and using it for drafting or inspiration. As long as no one says these are your characters (which they clearly aren't), and since you don't own the poses your characters are in (which is also different in the AI versions), as long as no one markets to sell them its legally allowed.
This hysteria over AI art imitating styles through LORA is just another example of "muh plagiarism" brainworms that burger society obsesses over.
No.21568
>>21562its a deeply petit bourgeois mentality. protest for things that matter like healthcare and labor laws
No.21577
>>17473>Horsecock prompt fail a la the old "reverse centaur joke">2022-10-16 How things have changed in less than a year, already the prompt no longer fails, at least not in a funny way
No.21580
>>21568Absolutely. OP is a great example of it. They love copyright law so much.
No.22408
>>21632> Prosecutors argued during the case that the definition of sexually exploitative material should include descriptions of sexual behaviors by “virtual humans” and not just the appearance of actual children. Nah man this is retarded as fuck.
No.22467
>>17283Agreed, but is it supposed to be a bad thing? Wouldn't you agree that it will make Novelai bankrupt in exploiting arts and such? Since they're just profiting at the expense of artists works? Hence, make the open-source AI image generator?
No.22468
>>22407>Disney vs Microsoft copyright battleTempted to say "let them fight" but realistically the ultimate outcome will be even stupider copyright laws.
No.22469
>>21828Stable Diffusion is like a programmable AI art workstation. I think most of the quality is dependent on the model and loras you use. I've gotten good results with it. I notice it does way better the higher res the image is as well. The less pixels the more likely it is to fuck things up. I don't have enough VRAM to do 1024 by 1024.
Bing's is pretty amazing but interesting it still fucks up simple shapes like circles for the irises.
No.22480
>>22469To be fair natural irises aren't necessarily perfect circles or perfectly centered either.
No.22517
>>22515It's also way cartoony lol
No.22518
>>22517Talking about the distortion. Just like the brick work is all distorted, not stylized.
No.22522
Certainly this is a pretty complex topic and while I still think these artists are just petty bourgeoisie defending their profits instead of actually fighting capitalism I still can understand them. What makes this situation more complicated is that it has a more positive side: it bankrupts businessmen who are parasitizing on artists as well and gives more power to the poor… if the AI tools are FLOSS, that is. Otherwise, FUCK YOU, MUSK, I'M NOT JOINING YOUR CORPORATE DYSTOPIA!
No.22523
Artists are right to be mad about AI art, stop being a classcuck just to own le humanities libruls
No.22524
>>22523Can you repeat that without the buzzwords?
No.22526
>>22525You don't know what "edgy" even means, or any other buzzword you used, again.
No.22527
>>17296Based take actually, I like stylized drawings more anyway… Welp, time to whip out my wallet again… *sad poor man's noises*
No.22529
>>22528That's precisely it tho, it's slopped together. There's nothing to gleam from zooming in or trying to think about why finer details are the way they are. It's just the subject matter, rendered. If AI can make slop, then that leaves artists to make more intentful stuff, because why would one waste their time making slop manually from here on?
No.22530
>>22528Shirts can be so hot
No.22535
>>17287>stealing from other proles is BASED actually because the bourgeoisie is stealing from us all anyways! who cares if it immiserates other workers!you have no conception of class warfare
No.22537
>>17281This won't end until AI is heavily regulated.
Mandate that all AI-generated content is clearly labeled.
For videos and static images, big red text on top of the image stating "THIS CONTAINS AI GENERATED CONTENT."
Text would have a disclaimer at start, that the AI must automatically generate itself.
Movies, games, books, etc must have a disclaimer at the start and end of their works.
Also the owner of the AI may only train on a work if it has the owner's explicit approval as part of a legal contract.
Any website which hosts AI-generated content that does not follow these regulations would be heavily fined, and in repeat cases shut down.
No.22547
>>22528WTF, kawaii Alunya?
Reminds me of Ruby.
No.22551
>>22537We simply need to make it a law that all AI tools must be libre software and everything based on it must be a libre cultural work too. Fuck, just make
everything a libre cultural work.
OPEN-SOURCE ALL AAA GAMES, ABOLISH COPYRIGHT. No.22552
>>22551I feel like copyright will be significantly harder to enforce post-search engines. AI killing search engines and creating effective spidertraps for any new web crawlers means it'll be much harder for IP holders to figure out when their shit is being infringed. The panopticon has killed the panopticon.
No.22557
art is all about human creative expression. that's it. no mention of how cool it looks, no mention of how much you have to move your hand while doing it, no mention of any process whatsoever. creative expression. that's it.
No.22572
>One of the biggest red flags is the fence she's standing next to. The inconsistency of her costume design is also another big standout.https://nitter.net/GenelJumalon/status/1732474955449663632#mdon't know and don't care if this guy uses AI but it feels insane to see the "proof" of AI being a) rendering like you've traditionally trained in painting and b) not achieving flawless realism on every image
No.22573
>stop doing things I don't like
No.22591
I see the same people that were pushing crypto and NFTs are the ones that say AI art is superior to human art and will replace all human artists and that is a good thing.
No.22592
>>22591 AI art is not and will not be superior to human art, it is merely an imitation of human aesthetics directed by a human, simply using computer programming to generate these aesthetics, rather than illustrating themselves.
It can certainly be a useful tool, and will in time be able to mass produce images for whatever purpose the people behind the program wish to make. This is very obviously easily abused and will likely play into cyber-warfare.
No.22615
It's funny when people complain about AI regarding video games. What are the machines replacing? The medium was stillborn before we passed the 'train leaves station' era.
No.22626
>>22591>people shill for crypto<they only shill for Bitcoin or literal joke coins and don't even use them as currency>people shill for AI art<AI art that is highly derivative and generic-lookingThe future is now, everyone
No.22628
>>22626><AI art that is highly derivative and generic-lookingyour prompts and models just suck
No.22640
>>22628AI will replace STEMfags like you
No.22642
>>22640>under capitalism automation makes the bourgeois need to hire less peoplethanks for the revelation you spiteful little channer. and?
No.22645
ai art pulls from CP GET FUUUCKEDD
No.22657
>>22645TSHIRTS WERE MADE BY SLAVES ONCE GET FUCKEDDDDD
BAN ALL TSHITS
Kill yourself, pedophile. And stay on twitter No.22681
This should be taken advantage of by mass uploading images of famous classical artists and mistag it with every tag they have so it will corrupt AI data making them no longer work till they figure it out and try to clean up their data pool.
No.22720
>>22681Why bother AI slowly kill itself because as time goes on more and more AI made pics end up in the database used to train the AI themselves resulting in negative feedback loops rendering them useless.
No.22724
>>22720Wouldnt result of it be exact opposite? Like right now its mostly just smashing together pieces of whatever it has in its database, so cant training on its own creations make it more "creative"?
No.22726
>>22681this is the kind of retarded idea i could only expect from a twitter artist
No.22735
>>22724not if the ai trained images are shit, or have the problems ai have. In one hand this could create more "creative" ai art. In the othter hand ai might just circle jerk art that has all the problems associted with ai art, which causes the problems to get worse over time. (though this is just a possibility.)
No.22741
>>22737Couldn't they use that as a graphics card powered steam engine? Use the computers to boil water which in turn powers the computers. Just supply water and graphics cards.
No.22742
>>22741I doubt they are hot enough to boil the water.
Unique IPs: 48