Artists are so mad about "AI art" that they're going to go after boorus now.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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."
>>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.
>>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.
>>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?
>>17314If you enjoy drawing I don't see what the big issue is.
>b-b-but muh jobsSeriously,
leftypol?
>>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
>>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. >>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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).
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>22528WTF, kawaii Alunya?
Reminds me of Ruby.
>>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. >>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.
>>22645TSHIRTS WERE MADE BY SLAVES ONCE GET FUCKEDDDDD
BAN ALL TSHITS
Kill yourself, pedophile. And stay on twitter Unique IPs: 49