No.1126947[Last 50 Posts]
>The generated images are looking scarily good, considering how little VRAM it uses.https://www.pcgamer.com/ai-image-generator-stability-ai-stable-diffusion/
>Stable Diffusion draws controversy on Twitter from artists who say the AI infringes on copyrightshttps://www.artificialconversation.com/p/stable-diffusion-draws-controversy
>And that's completely ignoring ethical issues. And that's completely ignoring the fact that Stable Diffusion in particular will allow creation of NSFW images of all imaginable kinds (yes, even the highly deplorable kinds).>The tools are amazing and, essentially, impossible to stop. But at the same time, imagine being a renowned artist for 20 years and suddenly people can make an infinite amount of images "in the style of [your name here]" that look just like your images. Not exactly a fair thing to happen to you.>it's relatively simple: image-making, as a profession, is dead. people will keep doing it as a hobby, and for a while or so, there will be people able to judge art, but after that, it will be like clothing today: cheap, and no one cares about the quick and dirty sewing, because it's easier to buy new stuff than to educate yourself and seek out good quality.https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/woej9g/stable_diffusion_draws_controversy_on_twitter/
>A new AI image generator appears to be capable of making art that looks 100% human made. As an artist I am extremely concerned.https://twitter.com/arvalis/status/1558623545374023680
>What makes this AI different is that it's explicitly trained on current working artists. You can see below that the AI generated image(left) even tried to recreate the artist's logo of the artist it ripped off.https://twitter.com/arvalis/status/1558623546879778816
>Last night one of the AI developers behind that project that was ripping off living artists’ styles sent me a bunch of DMs(mostly omitted for length). He blocked me immediately after I responded and called me a moralist because I care about artists rightshttps://twitter.com/arvalis/status/1559274160831881216
AIs can generate all the art they want. Until they can be creative, they're worthless. An AI can't develop concept thumbnails, it doesn't understand fundamentals, it merely regurgitates existing designs. An AI can't create designs that are designed to be harmonious with a 3D production pipeline.
I remember when they said the same thing about algorithms replacing fiction writers, and then musicians. And yet somehow those fields still exist and are still primarily human driven.
>>1126956>Until they can be creative, they're worthless.
And it's likely to stay that way.>Media company makes an AI that can be creative.>AI creates media that conveys sentiments of opinions that clash with that of the company.>Can't use movies generated by AI in case it contains potent anti-capitalist, pro-piracy, anti-movie theater/streaming service, ect… messages that slip past committee review.
nibba that doesn't look like Miyazaki at all are you blind
This is morally questionable (it will impact me financially)
I wonder what the legal implications of this AI shit will be. "trained on thousands of pictures." Photo collaging is not legal. Using any snippet of a copyrighted work is copyright infringement.
Maybe it will be too hard to prove, but I imagine that eventually all of these AI art programs are going to have to prove they have the legal rights to all the pictures in their training sets.
Disturbing. Ok boob physics might be complex, but you think they'd be able to make one of these things that could consistently draw iris and pupils as circular instead of a weird smudge.
>putting clickbait bullshit here
/ic/ already created fake cp with it
sorry, kind of shitty reaction pic, but I was more trying to express 'oh my gawd, AI generated porn, what a terrible issue'
Pretty crazy on the recognition factor, but it fucks up basic details like the hand or even keeping the cigar straight and occluded by the fingers.
What AI is this?
Donald trump eating a massive turd
Welcome to the future, where you will have no job except at the burger factory, and you will be mchappy :^)
I've got a job talking to people, I'm safe at least for a while
One of the funniest things about automation is the smug office workers who spend half their time in meetings insisting that the burger flippers and lowly menial workers will be getting automated first. Oh sweetie, no. Hahahaha oh no.
Admitting that endless meetings are useless would be a radical divergence for the capitalist class, it essentially would be admitting that their own existence is pointlesshttps://youtu.be/VRRIBeNXeLU?t=76
1. Black Elvis in the style of Caravaggio
2. Giant Jackie Chan conquers Taiwan in the style of Go Nagai
3. Bruce Lee in Evangelion in the style of Van Gogh
no that will get me banned>>1127050
Prompt: Giant Jackie Chan conquers Taiwan in the style of Go Nagai
Artists will be employed by text to image generating software makers, to create artistic patterns.
Painting will become much more productive, but painters will also be proletarianized, because this will kill artisanal production, and make it into an alienated wage job.
Software generated sound can already do speech, and once it can also generate other sounds, you will be able to generate a movie from a script. Well maybe you have to do scene sketches and specify a lot more details than can be found in a typical movie script.
The same will also make it a lot easier to make assets for video games too, maybe that will enable more free software games.
If you invert this technology you will be able to achieve crazy good compression for media files.
On the technology side this will be a boon, it means better tools for creative people. The dark side of this development is that capitalism will try to restrict access to this technology, their goal will be to turn free creative expression of any kind into "piracy".
We should be thinking about how to get a free-software version. Equally important will be creating the legal space for people to use it to tell their stories without getting hounded by a gaggle of corporate lawyers. Because this technology also has the potential to liberate media production from the narrow line of commercialism.
Kek! Well, it gets the kung fu mood, even though it doesn't look like Jackie… In the third one, the one with the green dragon, it looks like you can see that supertall skyscraper called Taipei 101 or something in the background…>>1127063
Fucking kek! That's definitely Van Gogh and I would say the result is a cross between Gendo or maybe Shinji and an aged Bruce Lee! Also, bonus point for the raised fist in the first one and for the typical Bruce Lee's piercing look in all the images.>>1127064
I only managed to produce a single set of images once on Dall-E. Tried dozen of times, but nothing. It's always too busy.
KEEEEEEK!!! That's the best set! I would have expected someone more resembling of Elvis facially, but overall the results are amazing. It gets exactly the lighting effect of a Caravaggio painting and the style of clothing of Elvis. Only thing off is that none of the men facially resemble Elvis.
Try this prompt:
"Amanda Lear is sworn in as president of France. In the style of Salvador Dali."
I think DALL-E purposefully makes the face generic so you don't make fake images of celebs
Have you ever done work for a client? None of the things that make artists (or other skilled specialists) actually good or useful are the things that the suits want from them. The businesses will fall for this shit at least long enough for the artist labor pool to be all fucked up, if they ever stop falling for it. Welcome to a new age of dogshit art that has outmoded actual artists who are actually competent.
what are the things that make artists actually good or useful? I have a good friend who is probably a decent artist, but he wastes his time trying to get Instagram followers with uninspired fanart and lives in his parent's basement at 27. he's convinced creating art with mass appeal is the only way to survive.
Fair point. I saw many images where the face is completely screwed up, but many others, even if not very realistic, are still quite recognizable. They said they've put restrictions lately so it could be that.
Guy should have taken the furry commission pill
Its really impressive, the range of things that capitalism turns to shit
>>1126956>Regurgitates existing designs>Doesn't understand fundamentals
Your post is vague enough that its hard to argue with, but if you look at the activation patterns in hidden layers of a neural network, you will see something that resembles fundamentals. If we assume this is a GAN that uses random inputs and under-parametrised models, then it can absolutely create novel images not seen in the data.
You're right that there is a wide scope of things it can't do in industry, but that's a far shot away from saying they're useless. Low hanging fruit jobs in design will be automated like social media content designer.
once someone makes one of these that can generate porn its over for erotic artistcels
CAN IT DO SOCIALIST REALISM?
But can it render women?
>>1127087>what are the things that make artists actually good or useful?
Lots of things, but off the top of my head:<their "eye" for what's going on in terms of composition, narrative, mood, etc<the ability to translate an impression of something instead of just copying the appearance<the intent to imprint a personal touch that lends texture and verisimilitude<ability to understand and apply critique or requests in as much detail as language allows
>I have a good friend who is probably a decent artist, but he wastes his time trying to get Instagram followers with uninspired fanart
said, if you want to make money you gotta go where the money is. If you want to make great art, don't chase money but make whatever compels you. You might eventually hit it big with the Real Art, but until then you can support yourself on porn or something. Didn't some famous mangaka do that?
Fuck off, zionist pig
Capitalism is already an AI.
Art has been taken hostage by AI for decades now. As such AI (computer) art will be indistinguishable from AI (capitalism) art because both are made by algorithm
Congress for cultural freedom
>>1128040>Capitalism is already an AI.
Yep. Everyone concerned about AI is busy looking out for something Hollywood style and sapient, but the horrors of the paperclip optimizer don't actually require that. Our own systems baked into capitalism might be able to do the job just fine on their own. Instead of smart 1s and 0s it's policies, human nature, relationships, and automatic but not necessarily smart 1s and 0s. Capitalism is an economy self-optimizing to capitalist ends and it pulls in everything else with it including the political economy. It even pulls in religion like with the Pope's inclusive capitalism project.
Humanity is already Evolution Mk 2.0.
Where natural selection takes millions of years and massive tragic events to shift designs, and struggles to remove minor problems in one way or another, humanity is already driven to replicate the process in many ways while being more capable in some other ways, showing off more precise and timely improvements that require far less generations of development.
Capitalism is one stage of this process.The real ultimate development is our own abolishment by/integration into our machines as they take over.
Artist here, we dont give a shit
the photograph freed painters from the burden of representation. artist will find something else when freed from abstraction/impressionism/ect.
It's not an AI, it's a proto-hivemind.
I didn't even need to open the spoiler to know it was furshit.
Why are you guys like this?
Love the window that's fucked up by the stairs. Did he really paint the house, waited for it to dry, and then painted the stairs, because otherwise he designed it that way judging by the sharp divide, dunno which one is worse.
It is high time to accept that we'll never get rid of furfags
Caravaggio if he had a traumatic brain injury, more like. What is this gonzo advertising for a improvement on DALL-E?
Can't these AIs only sample from images that already exist? It can't actually make anything new.
(first pic "dollfie" prompt on hugging face, other 2 pics getting sort lucky with "dollfie dream" on replicate.com… the ai struggles to replicate the dolls that are made by volks very consistently. often weird western features get added in. i ran out of free allotted time on replicate.com, otherwise i would have continued experimenting with other prompts e.g. "anime doll" -_-)
honestly, if gary marcus is right in his critiques of ai, it will still be difficult to get ai to work on certain prompts because it lacks a proper concept of compositionality. we an see more here:>https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1562119054365564931?cxt=HHwWhoChxZzA4a0rAAAA>https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/three-ideas-from-linguistics-that?utm_source=%2Fprofile%2F14807526-gary-marcus&utm_medium=reader2
i think that partly thanks to this, there are some artists whose work this ai is unable to emulate. an example of this is kim jung gi. this is because his work often involves complex scenes of multiple objects interacting with one another in 3d space… of course, if gary marcus is correct, then neuro-symbolic ai might solve these listed issues and really bone artists… perhaps…
i of course have my own schizo theories regarding ai, so i am not sure if even neurosymbolic techniques will be enough. the thing about ai is that it is largely interpolative. neurosymbolic ai might help with his problem so that ai can be more general, but it is unable to deal with details that language can't quite grasp. this includes subtle artistic decisions that are analog in nature (such as line quality, shape, and colour balance). i think this anon >>1127213
brings up interesting skills as well that might deserve mulling over… things like impressions and composition involve gestalt perception which might be debatable how well ai is at dealing with. composition (in so far as it involves multiple objects in spatial relations to each other) requires linguistic compositionally as well
in one of the threads on /ic/ about the ai doomerism stuff, i saw someone make good use of the ai to generate a background for an example visual novel setting (here: https://boards.4chan.org/ic/thread/6221878/peg-prompt-engineering-general#p6224147
). perhaps this sort of technology can help artists in cases where there are aspects of the work they do not want to put too much effort in and furthermore where they do not feel like they do not need to put much of a personal touch into…
idk i feel like there might be an interesting upcoming art movement that is centred around the sort of art current ai techniques are unable to have success replicating (much like how stuff like cubism came out of the photograph). if this is true, it would be rather exciting>>1127035
unironically moravec's paradox should imply that stuff that requires our sensory-motor capabilities in a robust and precise fashion should be automated slower than meager managerial stuff. that is the true insidiousness behind musk's ai thing. it is acting as though it is the work that probably requires common sense knowledge is a "first step"… this is not to say that some manual jobs can't be automated, but they rely on us controlling the noise in the environment significantly in order to work. this has always been the case. i can't stop shilling luciano floridi regarding such matters>>1128040
haz made this take lol:https://twitter.com/InfraHaz/status/1561110990011465734
>>1127035>office workers who spend half their time in meetings insisting that the burger flippers and lowly menial workers will be getting automated first
I have worked at an office job for 10 years making less than 40k/yr. I don't think once in my 10 years here have I ever heard someone outside of a corporate leadership role say something negative about the working class.
Yeah it's because these AI still only manage to imitate superficial fundamental qualities without having an underlying "understanding" of these qualities, why they work, or how to integrate them with similar qualities, and string them together. Also simply imitating the "style" of an existing database of images, while being unable to create specific requests with accuracy like "paint me a Gungan sith lord in the style of hiyao miyazaki at a 3/4 angle standing center left stage at a medium distance from the camera in a thickly wooded swampy area on Dagoba while holding a double-bladed red light saber and a fallen CIS droid opponent lays before him, stretched out, on the ground with a missing arm and a speech bubble that says 'initiating self destruct'."
Until the AI can replicate the specificity of a human request with repeatable consistency and an abstract "Understanding" of waht the human wants and why, then it cannot really replace artists, it can only supplement them. Artists panicking about this are retards and non-artists gloating about this are also retards.
>>1127033> You think create something out of nothing?
Obviously not, but there is an extent to which they are able to think abstractly in a higher order way and understand *why* and *how* a certain aesthetic or technique or is effective for a certain goal whereas the AI is only able to imitate *who*, and *what* without any real understanding of *why* or *how*. There are also weird inconsistencies, artifacts, glitches, and bizarre elements not requested by the end user, and a lack of precise control over the end product that would be easily overcome by a commission. Real "danger" to artistic work is still 10-20 years down the line imo and the AI will supplement the artists and decrease their pay rather than unemploying them entirely.
So basically it's a more intelligent brush ?
Agree kind of. So far this AI stuff looks pretty useless IMO. Maybe it will be useful for the kind of people that just want some generic stock art( but then again they could just buy generic stock art from a marketplace like they already do.) An AI will never understand the intricacies of what makes a work of art appeal to this person or that person. Hell even most artists don't understand it. Even if you're talking about replicating a generic style like Anime. There are 100,000s of thousands of artists making generic anime art, but only a small fraction of them have a large fanbase. Even people who are technically good, there art just doesn't resonate with people for whatever reason. People sometimes call it voice, but an AI can never have that. The artist makes the art and gets the same feeling it's meant to give to other viewers, themself as they make it. They are both the human consumer and human creator so they know when the work lands for them as the consumer. An AI has no actual interest in the work it creates so it can't have a subjective opinion.
As far as all the AI art generators that exist today. All the ones I've seen so far are completely 2D based with no actual understanding of 3D or objects and what they're supposed to be and where or where they aren't attached to each other. Until they have an AI art generator that can make a complete 3D model from 2D image, they way an artist creates it in their mind, and then use that to create new angles, poses, remove this object, move that object etc. It's useless.
can it make Soviet propaganda posters?
its trained on free/public domain images
This AI doesn't make art, it just combines art it found online made by humans.
thats what humans do
you think poltards invented swastika or dick shapes that they draw ? no
Its based on human art so you need a input.
Stalin passes you the AK pipe, do you accept?
This is correct. But it will get backlash from people who watch too much sci-fi and want Data from Star Trek to be real.
AI is incapable of conceptual thought.
AI is incapable of abstract thought.
AI is incapable of intentional creativity of any kind.
All of this shit is just pattern recognition and reproduction. And the AI only achieved this largely though brute force methods with the availability of the internet as an aid.
All you are is pattern recognition. The mistake people make is not overrating AI but overrating cognition. It’s not that special. Everything thinks, from the worm up. Everything has ideas. People used to think the thing that separated is from the animals was tools. You never hear that now, because it turns out fucking everything can invent and use tools and we just arrogantly assumed they couldn’t. There’s a kind of God of the Gaps when it comes to human specialness, like the brain isn’t literally a neural net and like it literally can’t be emulated by artificial neurons.
Nobody can stop the future that’s coming. Generations from now, people will easily accept that machines can be fashioned into a kind of mind. They won’t understand our confusion about them, just as we don’t as moderns understand the way medieval man related to the world around him, to God, and to the animal kingdom.
Finally. Art will belong to the masses as well. No more "uh so special people with graceful talent"
can you do this in dreamstudioAI?
>>1141308>finally art will belong to the masses
The overwhelming majority of people can affort a pencil and piece of paper, however, a computer poweful enough to run an ai generator, not so much
>>1141300>All you are is pattern recognition.
Higher organisms are more than a series of matrix multiplication. AI cannot reflect on its own thoughts on a meta level.
>Everything thinks, from the worm up. Everything has ideas
This is the most braindead, uneducated, unscientific thing ever. Lower organisms do not have cognitive functions, they do act more like AI, input -> predetermined pattern trigger -> evolutionary behaviour response
Most forms of neural networks in development represent organic neurons much more accurately. There’s nothing special going on your brain. It’s just neurons firing. We can simulate neurons. We can simulate the brain.
And amusingly noticing that “lower organisms” act like AI is a pretty good reason we can be confident we have figured out how to simulate neurons. The braindead and ignorant view is to think that humans represent some schism from the rest of life on planet Earth. They don’t. There’s no black monolith.
>>1141300>The mistake people make is not overrating AI but overrating cognition
this tbh>>1141735>Higher organisms are more than a series of matrix multiplication
not really, in the sense that if thats what the brain is ultimately doing, the way it does it doesnt matter. Sure the analog and organic nature of things might have some impact, but if I can recreate a dumb robot that you can't differentiate from a human in its behavior, then a human is also a dumb robot.
>input -> predetermined pattern trigger -> evolutionary behaviour response
the fact you think human cognition is somehow above that is funny. a mind is ultimately just a tool created by evolution to adapt behavior to environment. ours has a lot of complexity, but isnt fundamentally different
absolutely cant wait to have the possibility to describe my perfect fetish scenes and then the AI literally generate the 4k porn movie.
also imagine how it unlocks the creativity of everyone by removing the technical skill limitations.
the generator doesn't need that much power run. training a new generator is out of reach for most though
>>1141300>All you are is pattern recognition. The mistake people make is not overrating AI but overrating cognition.
No. The organic mind operates in a way that is fundamentally different from computers. The brain is *NOT* an "organic computer", that's the critical mistake. It isn't fully understood how the organic brain functions, but it's more than just pattern recognition, this is just a cope to make AI, which is only able to "learn" through pattern recognition (and even then a very brute force kind of pattern recognition) seem more equivalent to the organic mind.
Admittedly, the media talks up how advanced AI is to intentionally try to make it sound sci-fi. "AI independently learns how to solve puzzles in simulation!", leaving out the fact that it only "learned" how to walk after a literal billion trials and largely because it had exhausted literally every wrong answer to the puzzle. Because, at the end of the day, it's just a big calculator and it's just solving math problems and modifying a list. It has no actual concept of the puzzle itself and isn't even intentionally trying to solve it.
Further example, take those AI that are trained to talk to people and can almost seem lifelike. Well, like many people have done, say something completely off the cuff to it like "a comet hit my house yesterday, it really scared the baboon." Its response will be a completely random statement. Why? Because, unlike the organic mind, which would form the concept of a space rock falling from the sky, hitting a building and a primate being frightened and might note that this is something highly unusual, the AI just checks a list of conversations it's had before and, when it finds it hasn't had this conversation before, it tries to find the "closest" thing to it which will ultimately be some random fucking number which will produce a random response. Because AI don't possess conceptual thinking, unlike organic brains.
Could AI ever become sentient? Maybe. But it wouldn't be AI run by the computers we have now. The computers we're using now are just big fancy calculators. They will NEVER be genuinely creative, they will NEVER have conceptual thought, they will NEVER have abstract thought and they will NEVER be genuinely sapient. They will only ever mimic sapience, that's as far as they can go. A sentient machine would have to be a completely new kind of machine.
lol cope idealist humanist
>>1142577>The organic mind operates in a way that is fundamentally different from computers
thats just wrong. a mechanical, biological and electronic computer use very different underlying principles, but they do the same thing in the end
>It isn't fully understood how the organic brain functions
then stop talking like you have any idea how it does ? its pretty well understood on many fronts, yet we still not sure about consciousness and shit like that. But what is sure is for the most part it is just biological computing with neural networks
>but it's more than just pattern recognition
you just talking out of your ass.
>leaving out the fact that it only "learned" how to walk after a literal billion trials and largely because it had exhausted literally every wrong answer to the puzzle
guess the billions of years to evolve our brain doesnt count as pre training ? and again, you're just wrong, its not how it work, you don't "exhaust every answer", thats not what reinforcement learning or the go playing Ai does
>It has no actual concept of the puzzle itself and isn't even intentionally trying to solve it.
thats not the question though. Also, what s "intention" ? if the ai get rewarded for trying to solve it, how is that different from how our own mind reward us ?
>Because, at the end of the day, it's just a big calculator and it's just solving math problems and modifying a list
but you are much more complex; you have soul or something ?
>Because AI don't possess conceptual thinking, unlike organic brains.
ts funny you think it fundamentally different. protip bro, its just another layer of complexity on top. we know ai can acquire higher concepts (like top level strategy in a game) through learning, and that exactly the kind of shit evolution give to us mostly pre trained
>The computers we're using now are just big fancy calculators
but as there is not much more to cognition than calculus and memory, its fine
>They will NEVER be genuinely creative, they will NEVER have conceptual thought, they will NEVER have abstract thought and they will NEVER be genuinely sapient
coping hard to believe in your soul i see
>artfags itt talking about their creativity
Massive cope. Drawing one anthropomorphic fox voring another anthropomorphic fox is not “creative”. It’s a silly and derivative image which machines will soon be able to create as well as you do. What’s more is the machine will create it instantly, and probably fr. This way consoomers don’t have to deal with bitchy and temperamental artists who take forever to finish a commission
yeah this. >>1126962
These AIs can only create derivative works they have no human creativity
Your brain is NOT a computer.
>Worse still, even if we had the ability to take a snapshot of all of the brain’s 86 billion neurons and then to simulate the state of those neurons in a computer, that vast pattern would mean nothing outside the body of the brain that produced it. This is perhaps the most egregious way in which the IP metaphor has distorted our thinking about human functioning. Whereas computers do store exact copies of data – copies that can persist unchanged for long periods of time, even if the power has been turned off – the brain maintains our intellect only as long as it remains alive. There is no on-off switch. Either the brain keeps functioning, or we disappear. What’s more, as the neurobiologist Steven Rose pointed out in The Future of the Brain (2005), a snapshot of the brain’s current state might also be meaningless unless we knew the entire life history of that brain’s owner – perhaps even about the social context in which he or she was raised.
>When a computer recalls the data of an image, it reads a string of code that allows it to replicate the image exactly. It literally has instructions that tell it where every single pixel goes (which is also demonstrated in the way that a computer renders an image, going from one end to another) A human meanwhile, recalls the image as a series of impressions, that are themselves only rendered meaningful by the person's experiences. As the picture shows, it's recalled as a series of shapes, phrases, and other images: The bill is rectangular, it has a number on every corner (it's a one dollar bill so the number is one), it has a picture of George Washington in the middle (he has a wig - the picture is framed in a circle). There are words on both sides of the picture. The bill says "one dollar". There's probably a "In god we trust" somewhere (because that's what dollar bills say). Those two ways of recalling an image are drastically different and completely incompatible with each other. A computer would be unable to recognise what a circle was, let alone that it should be in the middle. It only reads instructions and writes them out.
>We do remember things, but we don't "store" memories the way that computers do, and describing our memories
in computer terms is inaccurate, since the reality is far more complex than "we have an HDD in our brains". Saying that we "store" memories is inaccurate, because we aren't "storing" them anywhere. Our brains are being changed all the time based on our experiences, and the way those experiences affect us both at the time and in the way they change our brain is different depending on how the brain is configured, which again changes all the time. The fact is that no one really knows how the brain works, and it's gonna take us a long fucking time to find out.
>>1142686>Your brain is NOT a computer.
But isn't the point of these "deep learning" AI that that they are too, an enormous blob of associations that generate the content? Sure they are already "trained" but I'm sure at some point there will be consumer versions that run quick and dynamically learn.
Then what? Is creativity only valid when the inputs and the outputs are human-like? It's a matter of tie until AI can do that too.
IDK I feel like AI may be so far
from anything of the sort that preemptively playing "humanity of the gaps" is unnecessary.
lol reading that argumentation I think its pretty fcuking bad.
>even if we had the ability to take a snapshot of all of the brain’s 86 billion neurons and then to simulate the state of those neurons in a computer, that vast pattern would mean nothing outside the body of the brain that produced it
why ? how ? on the contrary, for me you just cloned that person mind. and unverifiable anyway, what a shit argument
>It literally has instructions that tell it where every single pixel goes (which is also demonstrated in the way that a computer renders an image, going from one end to another
thats just a memory format though… you can perfectly do a memory by analogy, extracting relevant features. Actually thats exactly what basic image recognition software does…
>Saying that we "store" memories is inaccurate, because we aren't "storing" them anywhere.
yes we do, just because it isnt a storage comparable to computer doesnt mean it doesnt fulfill a similar function
honestly the more I hear you guys argue the more you convince me that indeed, our brain are computers>>1142848
they just cope cause they wanna have a soul
Computers are closed systems made of modular components and they require a programmer to function, they need a programming language inserted into their memory to work. Humans can derive their own languages AND they do not need programmers. Humans can develop independent of direct programming and plenty of people seem to pick up most basic skills by osmosis. Humans are not programmable, you
can condition them to a degree, but they are not programmable. You cannot command a human to do a specific thing over and over without fail. There is no off switch, there is no reboot switch either. Its not a machine, no matter how autistic you want to be about it. The electro-magnetics and electro-chemistry aside it is a living, open system that is interacting with its environment and its own genes. Our "brain" isn't a computer its a biological organ. Computers are dead pieces of hardware. Can a computer restructure itself? No. Can a computer contemplate? No. Can a computer be creative? No, it can only watch billions of images ("listen" to notes) made by "creative" people and mimic them. It has to be commanded to do these things.
A human brain, on the other hand does not do computations it's a channel for stimuli and it orchestrates dynamic consciousness. Its not a computer. It doesn't compute results and there is no machine code, or information matrix where decisions are made. Its all physical and its all organic, it has no prime directives and it can restructure itself at will. An organic neural network uses backpropagation in a way that artificial networks do not. Organic neural networks are self-aware, they are also capable of reflecting on past
behaviors and synthesizing other systems behaviors with their own. The term "training" does not apply to artificial neural networks, nothing is being trained. A series of outputs are overpowering a series of inputs
and the system is inevitably "learning" a new behavior, because the signals associated with the desired output overpower the one's assoicated with the desired input. Humans don't learn like that at all. We're not input-output mechanisms. We create new information through feedback loops in our nervous system and cellular activity. And our brain physically changes, We have a constant reflecting dynamic of nervous activity in our microbiomes, in our cell membranes, in our cell nuclei, in our brains, in our electro-magnetic fields and in our genetic environments. We cannot be machines, as machines only deal with input-ouput patterns from a programmer, that programmer can either be a human or the environment or
the machine itself, but it isn't an open system. Its learning is locked by its programming and by its hardware. There are no super mega ultra, dynamic thinking machines which learn farsi from a signle word and then transform into spaceships and can calculate the density of every star in the universe and can simulate all the human brains in the world.
Computers don't "think", DNA isn't "software" these are euphemisms, explanatory terms. They aren't literal descriptors of what is happening mechanically at all. You people are being tricked by the tech industry and by politicized science. There is no "translation" information terms do not belong in biology and mechanical terms do not either. Biology is all about self-organizing systems. Information technology is about programmable closed-systems.
This is fake. They made this as a bit. People ate it up.
u are just supposed to take the capitalists money for the grift not actually buy into this elon musk bullshit
There is something evil about this. The internet is an evil, alienating force derived according to market logic, etc
AI, with its ability to form new images out of its existing satanic (metaphorically) input, is able to create a representational output of a demonic (metaphorically) process. I dont fear skynet or whatever. It's just some new horrifying postmodern bullshit.
I feel like how a medieval peasant would respond if they suddenly saw a train barreling towards them. Consign it to hell. A healthy society doesnt need this.
Doesnt AI rely on preexisting data?
How can it be AI if it only does that?
Also, theres digital art, and 3D rendering, both of which use computers.>>1145641
People said the same thing about television and radio amd.newspapers. Whats really scary is imagination. >>1145618
Thats a classical 4chan move. And yet people still think imageboards are safer than Reddit amd Twitter?
I'll care about AI art when it gains the ability to make me horny.
In North Korea they solved this problem by only allowing a tighly-controlled intranet and virtually no one owns a personal computer.
>>1145641>There is something evil about this. The internet is an evil.
Technology isn't evil, the problem is class society.
If a small cabal of bourgeois rulers controls the technology, and uses it to oppress the masses, the outcome will be destructive.
If the masses of workers can control technology, and use it to liberate them self, the outcome will be beneficial.>>1145647>Doesnt AI rely on preexisting data?
Sure but so do people, your brain can't create new information from nothing either.
Capitalists aren't really investing enough into technology to create sweeping changes. >>1146283>In North Korea
The DPRK probably would give everybody a personal computer if they had the ability to do that, they probably plan on doing that in the future.>a highly-controlled intranet
The socialist strategy for the internet should not be to restrict workers, just the influence of capitalists should be reduced. Preferably by making clever technical design choices, that put the workers at an advantage and capitalists at a disadvantage.
>artists will fight automation sooner than fighting capitalism
Mao was right about “intellectuals” and “creatives”
China will rule AI development and the future of labor if these charlatans get any say in the western lawmaking process
This is the correct take. Nothing we can do under capitalism about it but damn. Obviously high art will still exist, just like novels still exist but stupidass "internet news" are written by bots.
I mean every time I use Dall-E I get nothing out of it.
>>1146332>The socialist strategy for the internet should not be to restrict workers, just the influence of capitalists should be reduced. Preferably by making clever technical design choices, that put the workers at an advantage and capitalists at a disadvantage.
Even under socialism the workers must be restricted to ensure order. North Korea is the only socialist state left standing which was achieved by a benevolent militarized socialist dictatorship. History has taught us socialism (i.e. job guarantee, no housing market, no private business) can only be achieved and maintained through strength and ruthlessness, and that may include culling traitors in the so-called working class every once in a while.
Tbh looking at some of the images which have come out of this, I think it actually has huge liberatory potential, though of course capitalism will inhibit this. If this technology continues to develop and become more sophisticated, I think it has real potential to offer an unprecedented democratization of high quality visual art. What we essentially have here is the automation of the technical component of artistic creation, but obviously great art comes just as much from the themes, sentiments, vision, etc which a technically proficient painter would seek to communicate. If art is simply a medium for expressing various aspects of the human condition, then this kind of technology could make it possible for anybody to partake in it on a level technical playing field.
Getting mad at this is like getting mad when cameras were invented.
This. And the inverse holds true as well. Going oogabooga this will kill illustration is equally uniformed and somehow even sadder.
i will die mad about that
>There's a command to generate an image from a shitty sketch.
how to do this
Not afraid at all.
I've just tried that porn generator AI.
I checked the tags "Scandinavian, Milf, Glasses, Blonde".
Got a 20 year old Hispanic girl with red hair.
Is it over for anime illustrators?
The next step could be generation of 3-D models from 2-D pictures, so even if this stuff were good enough for regular flat illustrations there's still options for humans, until the perhaps inevitable catch up. Photography didn't fully obsolete painters, after all.
This should be seen as liberating but it doesn't because either you work or you starve under capitalism. Love it!
link to ai please.
>>1162501>The next step could be generation of 3-D models from 2-D pictures
>>1145647>Doesnt AI rely on preexisting data?>How can it be AI if it only does that?
Artists are also influence by other artists or by things they see.
>>1145647>Doesnt AI rely on preexisting data?>How can it be AI if it only does that?
More modern AI go closer to understanding traits or "dimensions" as it's referred to now. If you tell an AI to make a "blue banana" it picks up that "blue" is a reference to some volume in a color sphere/cube/etc, and that a banana is an object that has such and such shape, comes in groups (reference: "bunch"), tends to be yellow and brown and sometimes green. Then it overwrites the yellow color trait with the blue trait by changing the value of certain dimensional axes and there you go.
How do I become one of these AIs I wanna make my own porn in mere seconds too but the machines are hoarding it all for themselves it's not right bros
>>1145647>Doesnt AI rely on preexisting data?>How can it be AI if it only does that?
Because everyone has fallen for marketing.
could this be used for mass generation of communist propaganda?
Artists should learn to code and make video games unironically. AI won't be making video games anytime soon.
But this is already a thing. I forgot what the exact field is called, but it's something like 3D photography. A photographer is hired to take pictures of an object at all angles. From those pictures a 3D model is made.
We will get so much subtly off and inhuman commercial artwork over the next years. Just mildly uncomfortable and a tiny bit alienating. Sureal in the sedated fever dream way, where you don't have enough fingers and you can't wake up.
Tbh I'd support giving AI art the human cloning treatment and banning it globally as unethical. Obviously it would be hard to enforce, but pushing it underground would be a good step.
Obviously all of those should be legal
>>1141247>alien female PMC ghost drains the life out of working class drone
I don't see an armada.
>>1191957>pushing it underground would be a good step.
You know what? You are right! It's tech-heresy of the highest degree!
Just call it "Machine Spirit" and be done with it. It works because we pray to it and slather it in oils and honor it with ritual, not because it is intelligent!
When in doubt, add organic components to the machine or
machine components to the organic and there you go, problem solved, no longer AI.
are these "artists" in the room with us right now?
are they really trying to get ai art banned? I would this this is a path towards being post scarcity
whenever im jacking off half the porn artists i follow are tweeting their whining about "ai art"
But I am already saved?
>>1141780>represent organic neurons much more accurately
they don't and they never were intended to. the initial idea of the perceptron was inspired by times understanding of neurons etc. the proposal for the perceptron was put forward in the 60s. they did some research and experimantation, were able to implement some arithmetic using perceptrons. then everbody lost interest in it. because its computationally inefficient and expensive.
what we do now in ML/AI is throwing shit tons of raw computational power at problems in the hope a given system is able to find approximated functions f(x) => y, given a training set of inputs x and expected outputs y.
then we hope the system was able to approximate a generalized function which will be able to compute proper outputs based on formerly unseen inputs.
>>1213591>then we hope the system was able to approximate a generalized function which will be able to compute proper outputs based on formerly unseen inputs.
Does better than naive expectations to the approach strangely
Something about there being a nice steady gradient to the optimum maybe?
Petty bourgoids are always terrified of being made obsolete, because unlike workers, their contributions are replaceable.
Just as the Brezhnevite bureaucrats were scared shitless of OGAS, so too will commodified "artists" fear the progress of AI.
It's actually a much older phenomenon, with the guild craftsmen of the 19th century forming the Luddite movement to protest the loss of their privileged status to more efficient factories.
and before that they burned guy who said earth is round
Those are some pretty good looking pics, looks like something I'd draw in art class
>>1213609>the entire scene is spatially incoherent.
What do you mean?
>>1213609>These things have no clue how 3D space works.
Yeah, I guess. Reminds me of stuff I made for art class too. >>1213615
Try to apply perspective to these in your head, everything's stapled on haphazardly.
Versus Kim Jung Gi's actual works, everything is more sound in 3D space.
ya we already have real world simulators like grand theft auto they can use it as a template for shapes and buildings
i do not contest that those algorithms are fascinating; neither do i contest that what ml systems are capable of is.
however, i have my gripes with the way ML is pushed since a few years.
the approach to building and training models is the opposite compared to traditional (software) engineering (there is a myriad of problems with modern software 'engineering' anyways). whether a given ML-system will behave the same way it did in training/testing can't be proven until a system is productive. the social implications of having ever more tasks fullfilled by automated systems that can't be proven to work to a given specification is literally retarded.
i see dall-e and mid journey primarily as tools to normalize interaction with ML systems.
the necessary capital and labour to train and operate those systems is beyond ludicrous. this is the reason why only the biggest of corps are able to delve into the endavour of research, development and operation. training is only possible because all the necessary data and labour and capital is appropriated without proper compensation. be it scraping the internet for text/images/whatever. be it outsourcing the menial task of attributing training inputs via mechanical turk to some poor third world sods (nvm. that said person won't give a flying fuck and your training data is riddled with false attributions). be it the highly specialized GPUs/TPUs sourced via slave labour. be it the open source code some nerd hacked together in his basement in his spare time. without all the shit those corps steal, it would in no way be feasible to approach ML the way its currently done.
now, when ML systems are fullfilling ever more societally and economically meaningful tasks, this means ever more power for those controlling those systems.
all this ML/AI shit is a product of capitalism meant to perpetuate capitalism.
so well said anon
I think the biggest difference is perspective, the AI is clearly trying to do a ground level one like a "generic" painting whereas the actual art has much more variation
the AI is trying nothing. the AI has no concept of perspective. the AI is shitting out pixels based on a probalistic distribution it approximated when it was trained with input pictures.
The characters made by the AI looks like doodles, but but I fail to see where's the difference 3D wise.
Yeah my bad, it's more like an algorithm. But this is like saying that a car engine doesn't try to run when it is not starting, it is just a way of speaking. So I will say it is trying even though it is not even an organism.
Ignorant brainlet here. How exactly do these programs generate the images they do? What's are the mechanisms for how it produces art from a prompt and the training process?
This is what neural networks and deep learning, as is hyped these days, are based on.
The perceptron was inspired by the times theoretical understanding of how actual neurons work. The perceptron is a model of a neuron. The perceptron was first implemented by Rosenblatt around 1960. It is this inspiration by actual neurons that led to the monicer "neuron" for those perceptrons. A single perceptron alone isn't enough to solve complex problems. Thus, you put several of them together. You create a model. A new 'neuron' can be added to a model, either next to another 'neuron' ('horizontally'), or under/above ('vertically'). Given the verticality, you can now say those neurons are ordered in layers of neurons.
The most basic, common form of neural networks, when you pick a programming book about that shit, you will encounter is called 'Multi Layer Perceptron' - you might now get why that is. Btw: Having multiple layers of perceptrons in a model makes it 'deep'.
Now, how does a perceptron compute an output based on an input? I'll just quote the wiki article:>In the modern sense, the perceptron is an algorithm for learning a binary classifier called a threshold function: >a function that maps its input x (a real-valued vector) to an output value f (x) = y (a single binary value)<Note: there exist other algorithms for learning classifiers, for example Support Vector Machines<Note: a classifier is learned to fullfill a 'Task'<Note: there exist other algorithms for learning Tasks different from classification, for example Regression<'Machine Learning' thus, as a field, studies learning algorithms to solve different tasks by approximating functions<Note:(Deep) Neural Networks and Deep Learning are sub classes of Machine Learning<Note: Machine Learning is a sub class of 'Artificial Intelligence'
Based on those building blocks there now exists a myriad of model types and architectures optimized for a myriad of tasks.
Now:>train some models to understand text prompts >train some more models to learn what a picture looks like>train some more models to learn how what a picture looks like would be described via text prompt>train some more models to generate pictures>tie it all up>somewhat fascinating, somewhat shitty ML generated pictures all over the internet
This. Anyone who self-identifies himself as an "Artist" by profession is a pretentious twat in my eyes.
You uyghas need a Soviet treatment: plumber by day, artist by night.
I just wanted to be a concept artist…
>>1213599>petty bourgoids are always terrified of being made obsolete, because unlike workers, their contributions are replaceable.
workers are always being replaced by technology. Their contributions, however necessary, are always replaceable. There's a strong history for technological unemployment going back centuries. To imply that only "useless" jobs get replaced is fundamentally anti-worker. >Just as the Brezhnevite bureaucrats were scared shitless of OGAS, so too will commodified "artists" fear the progress of AI.
It sounds like you think Petty bourgeois = office job. That's not what petty bourgeois means. Petty bourgeois means you own means of production and alienate surplus value from workers, but on a small scale threatened by the haute bourgeois.
Also the entire crux of your argument, is that technological unemployment under capitalism
is based because it only ever hurts the petty bourgeois
(read: white collar office workers) which is far from the case. You just have a nested series of dumb and unexamined prejudices. You don't think white collar workers are real workers (wrong, they sell their time and their labor for a wage and have their surplus value alienated), you confuse them for the petit bourgeois because you don't respect the *kind* of work they do (wrong, they aren't petit bourgeois) and you think technological unemployment under capitalism only ever affects them and is therefore based (wrong, it affects blue collar and white collar workers alike). The bourgeoisie is who technological unemployment affects the least because the bourgeoisie own the means of production and get to prioritize what kind of technology gets created in the first place, and who that technology replaces
Yes work that is truly unnecessary ought to get eliminated and redirected towards useful labor for the purposes of economic planning. But the criteria cannot be decided under capitalism because capitalism merely leaves the unemployed impoverished. It does not meaningfully redirect these people towards new jobs. It merely throws them out on their ass and leaves them to pick up the pieces. And the bourgeoisie are almost never the victims.
>>1213599>AI tards unironically look at pic related and call it art
that ai "junji ito" doesn't even look like fucking junji ito's work lmao
The AI does not seem very useful. You can't give it a story board and get it to animate it, or even give it key frames and get it to do the in-betweens. The AI can only parse you query and regurgitate an image based on the data it was fed as the AI has no concept of what it is mashing together.
>>1213599>When you are fundamentally anti marxist
Leftypol really is chock full of useless retards that dont read
The good thing about communism is that it existentially requires the proletariat to be as educated as possible in order to achieve its goals, so capeshit thinkinking like this will dissappear into the trashbin of history alongside all other anti-intellectual shitbrains
For it to that it has to interpret a drawing as a bunch of objects along with recognize the art style and direction. Then it has to know about animation theory so it can get timings right and placement right along with understanding how subtle changes to a body communicates emotion.
I wouldn't be too worried right now. All AI art looks like it was made by a schizophrenic on acid.
Only modern day luddites worried. Its impossible to stop progress. One day this would've happen. It doesnt mean that artists will become obsolete, just that they now will actually have to be creative for once.
Luddites didn't actually oppose technology, they opposed the changing economic relations.
It's going to be a new tool in the box of artists and it's likely going to proletarianize artists, their economic relations are changing from artisanal free-labor to wage-worker or subcontracted worker. It might also deskill art creation to some extent. I think those are the reasons why their is opposition.
There is also an upside it will democratize artwork creation, because this will make the barrier to entry much lower.
>>1251230>There is also an upside it will democratize artwork creation, because this will make the barrier to entry much lower.
Exactly. And you can always artificially increase the difficulty of your surrogate activity if you want to feel a sense of purpose, and I cant see how A.I art will take away from that.
Also I just cant see a problem with A.I engine that allows plebs to consume digital art more easily. Its not like people scrolling through Pixiv, Boorus or Pinterest were caring enough about artists behing those pictures anyway. I have seen people literally hang stock images of Paris or Prague from Ikea in their living rooms just becuase it "looks nice".
In the end, I can see how commision artist job market can get a shake up from this. But I just dont see how it will affect layman who just likes to look at pretty pictures for once a while.
>>1251247>it doesn't matter if the workers get screwed over if it benefits the consooomers
Never change, leftypol
Frankly, this shit is dystopian. These models are trained on datasets that include images whose artists did not consent to have on there. It's an extremely sinister technology that will only really benefit big companies that see it as a way to get rid of artists or devalue their work significantly. I would've expected /leftypol/ to be against such a blatant anti-worker technology, but I guess artists don't count?
Think for a second the level of identity theft and personal violation involved with this. All the work you've done as an artist is rendered obsolete, which is already shitty in itself without some sort of compensation for the people affected by this. But the truly vile, sinister idea is this: imagine if, after a lifetime of studying art and becoming a professional artist, a company looks at your portfolio, likes it, but instead of hiring you they simply feed your portfolio into Stable Diffusion and get a version of you that is faster, tireless and doesn't need to be paid.
There are extremely serious and worrying ethical implications of AI that people are just glossing over, here. This shit needs to be regulated heavily. It's already bad enough that Stable Diffusion got released as open source, basically as a way to kick artists when they're down and try to smother their hopes of having this thing regulated away.>>1251230>their economic relations are changing from artisanal free-labor to wage-worker or subcontracted worker
This WAS happening, with entertainment industry work potentially being a much more stable path for artists than freelance work once you had a few years of experience under your belt. I don't know if that will continue to be the case with AI art.>There is also an upside it will democratize artwork creation, because this will make the barrier to entry much lower.
I've heard this said a million times and I don't get this argument. There is no barrier to entry to art, all you need is a paper and pencil. Is that already not inherently more democratic than needing a high end graphics card and the computer know-how to install stable diffusion?
It's also a really shitty 'democratization' if it requires you to pay a subscription service to access the best image generation services as we're seeing with Dall-E 2 and MidJourney.
>>1251268>I would've expected /leftypol/ to be against such a blatant anti-worker technology, but I guess artists don't count?
half of this site thinks artists are bourgeois along with baristas and janitors
In current system they obviously get screwed. But so are children that farm chocolatte for you or people that risk their lives in cobalt mines for modern electronics.
The question isnt if the technology is bad in Capitalist system (hint: it is), the question is if the technology is also bad in the future Communist system.
The cope about AI art makes me laff. I suspect what’s going to happen is Americans, a country of luddites overcome with despair and pessimism, will make conscious effort to train themselves to aesthetically dislike “AI” art. They will work hard to try and identify it and teach themselves to hate it. A doomed mission.
>>1251268>I would've expected /leftypol/ to be against such a blatant anti-worker technology
Marxists don't oppose automation because doing so is both fruitless and utopian. The cat is out of the bag, you can't un-invent this tech. This is why Marx opposed luddism and the "reactionary socialists" that wanted to restore a pre-capitalist social formation. The only question now is identifying and critiquing how this technology will be used under a capitalist system, counterpoised with what it could be used for under socialism.
>>1251268>>1251297>There is no barrier to entry to art, all you need is a paper and pencil.
Also the free time and resources necessary to practice, study art theory, receive technical instruction. Wagies are at an inherent disadvantage, which is why the rich are disproportionately represented among professional artists.
Yet given this AI just mimics from existing examples then it is full hauntological where the past fully colonizes the present and destroys the future as the AI is incapable of creating anything new as doesn't even know what it is creating as to it is a statical engine that outputs based "correct" feedback.
What you'd want is smooth the learning curve to make it easier for artists to git gud and for professional artists to have better work flows.
Value of a profession doesnt inherently come from its class. Doctors and Private bank employees are both part of proletariat, yet one is more essential than other.
I dont think humans are any better in creating "new" things. Most of the art in history was driven by inspiration, not by lack of it. Humans arent really special in this regard.
Even with the psychedelics, Christians reported seing the God more while Atheist didnt. Just goes to show how much are people shaped by their enviroment.
Of course, A.I is still leagues behind the human brain, but theres no need to mystify human creativity.
>>1251247>Exactly. And you can always artificially increase the difficulty of your surrogate activity if you want to feel a sense of purpose, and I cant see how A.I art will take away from that.
Or You go into the other direction and create more expansive art because the AI is helping you with producing a lot of the details.>>1251268>This WAS happening, with entertainment industry work potentially being a much more stable path for artists than freelance work once you had a few years of experience under your belt. I don't know if that will continue to be the case with AI art.
You are confirming what i said that the opposition to AI art is the changing economic relations, for artists not the artwork it self.
People should complain about the economic relations and fight for improving those. Everybody should have a stable economic path regardless of any developments in technology. I think it's reactionary to blame technology for what happens with capitalist economics.
If tech like this came out in a socialist economic system, you'd probably just have a government program to help people get more tech savvy to get on board with using the new productive forces.> There is no barrier to entry to art, all you need is a paper and pencil. Is that already not inherently more democratic than needing a high end graphics card and the computer know-how to install stable diffusion?
I disagree, because not many people are creating art with paper and pencil, but i can see many more people using this AI art thing to create art. Maybe it takes too much time to learn "manual art".
You have a point about needing a powerful computer that limits the accessibility to tech-savvy people with a high enough income to afford fancy computers. The kid in the slums of Mumbai isn't going to use this to create any art. However software is going to become more computationally efficient and computers are going to become more powerful, so this is not a permanent barrier, the kid in the slums has to wait another 20 years. And we have arrived at another criticism that is levied against technology when it's really a criticism of the economic system. If we were living in a socialist system everybody who wanted such a powerful computer could probably get one, and there would be no kids living in slums.
don't care about the art, it's pretty good at doing porn, from what i've heard
Yeah concept of a metal robot is a relatively new thing, but it didnt come from vacuum.
First concept of (modern)robot was a direct inspiration from industrialisation and human power over life (see, Frankenstein). And one thing led to another and boom you got Mecha.
You just cant really judge universe by just looking at result without looking at the whole process.
Same thing with Evolution. It seems impossible without inteligent design, yet it was proven that inteligent designer isnt needed time and time again.
>>1251319>The fact there is nothing close to metal robots in antiquity
Talos was a bronze or cast steel flying automaton whose blood was oil. He was forged by Hephaestus to defend the isle of Crete and sink invading ships with stones.
And thats who is currently at risk. Porn artist and people who do stuff for big corp like advertising or big game development.
Basically the areas that are already creativelly bankrupt.
Are many people at risk with their job? Sure, it fucking sucks. But the "Death of Art" is just overblown panic. And if you want to be pedantic, you can argue that Art "died" with overflow of abstract art into galleries.
What matter is that Folk art is, and will be alive and well. But you need an actual community for that, not just a Pixiv account.
unironically this. AI "art" will be forgotten about in 10 years people will only use it to make porn
Yet without inspiration how did humans create industrial machines? Early steam machines were nothing like what was in nature yet humans were able to create them and something current AI can't do. You can't feed an AI all the information humans had before the steam engine and have it output a working steam engine yet our fleshy brain figured out how to get into space shortly after figuring how to make a rocket fly. >>1251336
Yet looks nothing like mecha designs or the older super robot designs.
>>1251343>Yet without inspiration how did humans create industrial machines?
Mathematics. And thats atleast 5000 years or more old field that started by counting your steps to measure your land. You can trace all that to rocket science without problem.
What made the humans special was the capacity to learn. Creativity came after that. You know what else has the capacity to learn? You guessed it.
Computers can't learn, they can brute force through trail and error to make more what it thinks is more "correct". Computers still have the Chinese room problem where they don't even know human languages yet have instructions of what to output based on the input without understanding the input. Soviet engineers at least understood what rockets and space were when they were designing Sputnik that even a super computer can't grasp. Hell even your gaming computer has to take massive abstractions to simulate a car driving around a track while not knowing what an abstraction is.
You are confusing learning with understanding. Computers can learn, thats how neural networks work (and SD too). But they cant understand (for now). Problem is, that most of the computers arent generalist machines that were made over milions of year of evolution to respond and survive in ever changing enviroment.
Also: >they can brute force through trail and error to make more what it thinks is more "correct"
Thats how learning works. Its just that humans have multimillion year old hardware that makes it look like "magic".
Humans use their understanding to make educated guesses on what to try. For example where an AI would randomly change sprite data to create what its masters want without even knowing what each bit does, no programmer even in the 70s did that, programmers manipulated the sprite data to make the computer draw what they wanted it to draw.
This puts humans many leagues above AI as humans can actually master skills to point of no longer needing trail and error and be able to pour what is in their mind in their work through their tools.
The fact AI can't even beat speed runners in NES games shows that AI still is mostly smoke and mirrors.
Human understaning came from external trial and error through process of evolution. And even then, you dont understand something immediately, understaning comes from context, already existing experiences and instincts(hardware if you will).
>This puts humans many leagues above AI as humans can actually master skills to point of no longer needing trail and error and be able to pour what is in their mind in their work through their tools.
Humans no longer needing trial and error after mastering a skill is just false. If you have learned and memorised the pattern, the intricacies and fine tuning are done in the backround subconsiously in the state of flow. Even then its just mix of response to perception and tapping to already learned stuff.
Also you are really making the process of learning more complicated that it really is. This isnt 70s anymore, computers have already beaten humans in GO and chess and if it was just smoke and mirrors then artist would not go apeshit.
I mean sure, I confirmed atleast 3 times already that A.I has a long way to go to human level, but if you judge the the legitimacy of technology by NES spedrunning, the position of goalpost might not matter too much.
NES speed running shows AI problem with understanding the meta. A speed runner understands they are playing a game so glitches exist as does sequence breaking yet that flags have to be set for sequences so you can sequence break into an unwinnable state. All this completely lost on AI that won't even try to phase through walls or aim for memory buffer overflows to get the game's code to glitch and start reading at the wrong memory address. We are truly gods compared to the intelligence of AI.
What humans do is understanding actual concepts. Computers just compute numbers. Hell, computers don't even know what a number is. Only humans know the actual mathematical concepts involved. Despite exponential increase in computing speed, there has been zero progress in conceptual understanding AI because computers don't think even at the most rudimentary level. You seem to think that faster computing will magically enable computers to do what humans do like evolution led to consciousness in living organisms but there is no relation between the two. Computers are boolean logic machines. Thought is dialectical.
>>1251299>Also the free time and resources necessary to practice, study art theory, receive technical instruction
Only time is the real issue. The rest is all something you can get for free online.
I would take a hundred thousand Sakimichan images to a single AI generated pinup
>>1126947>>Stable Diffusion draws controversy on Twitter from artists who say the AI infringes on copyrights
unfathomably based beyond currently known limits. i'd say by a googolplex-fold.
Here's my doomer prediction
>AI art gets good enough to fool most people, but not enough to surpass real human artistry
>That is however enough for most companies so the professional art market disappears
>The only people who can afford to work as artists are trust fund babies
>Art is thus reduced to A. mass produced AI garbage B. garbage produced by navel gazing elites C. the occasional soulful drawing by a wagie in the little free time they have
Prove me wrong, god please prove me wrong
Nah, artists are pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things. Art is also front facing, the place you really don't want to cut corners. Why do you think companies pay millions of dollars for a simple logo design? Anyone could do it, but they can afford and want the best. It's like a cheap t-shirt does the job but people still want to pay out the ass for Gucci. Presentation is everything.
I don't like copyright but I don't think it's fair that artists practice their skills their entire lives only for some for-profit company to run their drawings through a training model that puts them out of business. Something about that feels horribly unethical and feels like it should be a crime.
If anything I think there's an oversupply of artists right now which will probably only get worse just seeing how many new artists Easter Europe, Korea, and China are churning out that can make work on a high level.
Why are people in this thread pretending that artists are some privileged bourgeois class? Overwhelmingly, they make shit money unless they're at the very top. You guys do know Sakimichans are far and few between, right?
I shouldn't be surpised that artists being on strike ends up aesthetic.
>>1251445> A speed runner understands they are playing a game so glitches exist as does sequence breaking yet that flags have to be set for sequences so you can sequence break into an unwinnable state. All this completely lost on AI that won't even try to phase through walls
AI can cheat in games toohttps://youtu.be/Lu56xVlZ40M?t=153
stop the cope
its over for artcels
AI isnt a brain simulation. Stable diffusion isnt a brain simulation. Maybe you should read more about something before vomiting your uninformed opinion into the world.
god i wish you all killed this shitty clickbait OP>>1251451>What humans do is understanding actual concepts.
Eh, not really.
Brains just process input and send output. You don't need to know what a synapse or photon is to build a shelter and seek food. Brains are just complex, organic, plastic computers. (plastic in the sense of malleability)
Your distinction of machine learning and human thoughts is still valuable but to pretend that computers are just physics and that brains aren't just physics is a crappy argument.
You appear to be making an assumption that you need to 'understand the meta' to exploit the meta.
When I was maybe 10 years old I discovered a glitch in a console game that allowed me to use two attacks in a single turn. I did not seek this glitch out based on experience, I didn't have any understanding of flow control, and this exploit wasn't based on any I know of.
It was accidental, it absolutely could have been achieved by dumb experimentation by an AI, provided its designer didn't constrain it by human assumptions.
Consider this example: >>1253543
If the person defining how the AI is able to interact when trialing techniques, and assumed you have to be standing besides a block to grab it, then it couldn't have exploited the unforeseen trick of pulling a block it is standing on. That, like many speedrunning tricks, initially started by trying something without a goal, even accidental. Then, when someone with the experience of a programmer understands that this occurs due to how the physics engine fails to check for height/ground collision.
Your argument seems to be that speed-runners are trained to recognize where potential glitches can manifest and how to exploit them, using understanding of common data storage errors like buffer overflow and integer underflow.
So why couldn't someone train an AI model to 'understand the meta'? Sure, it wouldn't be worth it economically or in time-efficiency to program in conditions that are considered normal or to teach it to target potential exploits, but I think it would be possible.
That is kiddie stuff for speed runners. Glitch speed runners are game testers mixed with hackers where they find bugs and exploit them to change how the code is run. The speed running community has programmers in it thus why when bugs are found to run arbitrary code it doesn't take speed runners that long to find out how to fully utilize it.
Try and imagine how an AI would figure out the Final Fantasy stack pointer glitch and fully utilize it. https://youtu.be/zjAtY8QXZa8
>Human creativity is somehow different from AI "regurgitation"
Cope, whatever a human artist creates is still what an AI does but with extra steps and emotion which gives the illusion of meaning.
>>1126964>Media company makes an AI that can be creative.>AI creates media that conveys sentiments of opinions that clash with that of the company.>Can't use movies generated by AI in case it contains potent anti-capitalist, pro-piracy, anti-movie theater/streaming service, ect… messages that slip past committee review.
Sauce? Based AI if true.<The moment communism is realised, because AIs concluded that crapitalism must be abolished.
>>1253592>ai can't cheat at games<gets shown an example of an ai cheating at a game>uh that's just kiddie stuff (goalpost = moved)
end the cope
it's over for both speedcels and artcels
Why are codecels so hopped up about this? Call me when any commercial production is actually done by this crap.
>IT'S COMING, IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,
When, what year? Predictions need dates.
No, they literally don't.
How the fuck are you supposed to predict something that doesn't suddenly eventuate one day? Why should you make an arbitrary guess at when an ongoing trend will suddenly be declared 'happened'?
>>1254567>When, what year? Predictions need dates.
doomsday has already arrived for artcels in the form of stable diffusion.
speedcels are next
i give them 2 years at most before ai starts demolishing speedrun records>IT'S COMING, IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,
no, it's not coming, it's here.
>>1254572>doomsday has already arrived for artcels in the form of stable diffusion.
But it literally hasn't. You didn't answer the question.
>When has any commercial production actually been done by this crap.
It's simply a gimmick in a long of "automated" gimmicks that changed nothing. What are you going to tell me next, writing articles by autofill?
>>1254802>I just can't get over how codecels are so obsessed with this shi
oh for sure why would anyone seek what's essentially one of the most profitable ventures ever seen since the invention of the internet itsellf, it makes NO sense.
>>1141780>represent organic neurons much more accurately.
jesus christ, no, they're obviously modeled after neurons but AI "neurons" are essentially a single treshold function
leftypol has the dumbest futurists
I don't understand this take. It might become more difficult to be a professional artist, in the sense that we don't really have portrait painters anymore, but it's not like art itself is going anywhere. It's a fundamentally human concept, we draw before we can even write or speak.
>>1255266>but it's not like art itself is going anywhere.
no one said it is, we're claiming that art becoming massively accessible to the common man will make 95% of artists redundant. Soon even a lay man will be able to create what he wants to see with just half an hour of work.
Artcels have wasted their lives on learning to draw for nothing.
Art will go nowhere.
Artcels will be going into the coal mine.
>listen up guys, we have to use our coding skills to liberate the working class
<should we create ai tech that fucks with the banking sector, with landlords, with the MIC, with small business tyrants, with lobbyists?
>No! We have to go against the real enemy of the working class, twitter drawfags
>with this ai, the working class will at last be able to generate images of Bowser fucking princess peach FOR FREE, instead of for 5 dollars
<codebros… i think we archieved communism
as expected from a COPEmonkey>>1254797>But it literally hasn't
but it literally has, stable diffusion is already producing artworks with more SOUL than what 98% of artcels are capable of.>When has any commercial production actually been done by this crap.
that is gonna start very very soon, sooner than you might think.
seriously feel like leftypolacks brain is getting really squeezed here when they can only think in retarded highschool clique terms like "artcels vs codecels".
Lmao what a retarded fag
Maybe workers can just learn how to paint instead of the autism your regurgitating here?
>>1255585>Maybe workers can just learn how to paint
uh what about workers suffering from arthritis sweaty : )
the liberation of the working class from the artfags is at hand, and the creative potential of the blue collar worker shall be unleashed upon the world.
>>1255229>oh for sure why would anyone seek what's essentially one of the most profitable ventures ever seen since the invention of the internet itself, it makes NO sense.
What's going to be profitable about it? There's already a dozen of these shit AI models out there, then there will be a dozen more, and another dozen after that. Nobody is going to make any money when shit AIs are so easy to make.
>>1255478>but it literally has, stable diffusion is already producing artworks with more SOUL than what 98% of artcels are capable of.
To your retarded eyes.
>that is gonna start very very soon, sooner than you might think.
Once again I said call me when that happens.
>>1255762>What's going to be profitable about it? There's already a dozen of these shit AI models out there, then there will be a dozen more, and another dozen after that. Nobody is going to make any money when shit AIs are so easy to make.
1. go into an industry involving art like marketing
2. use stable diffusion to create the same amount of artwork in an hour that it would take twenty artcels to make by hand in a day
3. rake in massive amounts of money
id be surprised if coders aren't beginning to do this already as freelancers>>1255764>more babbeling artfag cope
how generic, how unimaginative <how computer like
also, everyone arguing and trolling about whether this is a good thing or not are idealist af - it exists, it will continue to exist. It's only worth it to discuss the parallels between it and the mechanised loom, and how to use this new change in the landscape of reality as effectively as possible.
Van Gogh was a weeb, of course he's moe.
Also cute Akita
>>1256954>current posts per day>2100>average posts per day from JUL 11 - SEP 26>1250>returning to normal after getting bored of generating generic hentai>returning to normal
It's still above double the pre AI average
It still dropped massively from the apex THOUGH, same pattern on /g/. Goes to show that the average consumer is gets bored of the tech after generating a few pictures.
this shits addictive in a sexual sense. I am too inundated with female hormones now but everyone around me that uses this have raw dicks now, it can give you anything you want
yeah i tried all that AI generation nonsense and I Just find it to be kind of bland.
here's a better example.>>1257776
I've mostly figured it out. how bland it is is how willing you are to hand hold it and cherry pick, there's still human input
The AI knows working retail fucking sucks.
How are you making these? Do you need a monster PC for an AI to generate these?
First actually good AI art.
just a decent modern gaming pc. I'm using a 3050gtx with 4gb vram
for real though, I'm telling you, this could be used to make generating propaganda easier. You'd still have to be artistically minded, you'd still have to be willing to open the images up in gimp/photoshop, willing to tune things, if someone wants to pick up on this particular area of study I'll leave these settings for you
(proletarian:1.1), starbux workers, gas station worker, grocery store worker, apron, sad face, disappointed face, tired girl, (face focus:1.2), (background focus:1.3), (masterpiece:1.4), (best quality:1.2), (trending artwork:1.5), [woman | catgirl] working in a store, [(highly detailed painting:1.1),(beautiful reserved color choice, masterful color choice, great artist:1.2):0.3], bags under eyes, purple bags under eyes, very tired, sleepy
Negative prompt: (japanese animation:1.2), (anime:1.2), (((Flat colors))), (vector art:1.3), (bad art:1.4), horrible art, artist mistake, off model, missing face, blank face, faceless, weird face, fucked up face, messed up anatomy, gore, loli, nsfw, porn, hentai, manly, facial hair
Steps: 25, Sampler: DPM++ 2M Karras, CFG scale: 12, Seed: 1871173155, Size: 1024x1024, Model hash: 925997e9, Seed resize from: 512x512, Denoising strength: 0.7, First pass size: 512x512
This sucks, my dream was to be a concept artist. Fuck.
call me when an AI even begins to be capable of the shit you see in vidrel
I'm generating so much porn, It's great (until you get bored of it)
>>1141889>having ai produce porn of whatever fantasy you have
That sounds like the beginning of a plot from a Cronenberg film
>>1142670>consoomers don’t have to deal with bitchy and temperamental artists who take forever to finish a commission
Sounds like someone had a hard time getting an artist to make their furry fetish art :(
take a look at thishttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpUpVznI4Yc
It's a disturbed music video, made with AI generated stills
All the comrades who said this tech should and can be used for propaganda: extra vindicated
This is like insane level of trying not ot draw hands or feet. And when it does, they are fucked up.
Guess AI learned too much from comic book artists
kek (also trips)
Unique IPs: 164