/tech/ - Technology

cope as much as you want this is still true

>>29539
so by that logic is he pro-immigration too

>>29539
The true proletarian position.

>>29539
What does this have to do with NFT's? I get the AI part and I have a neutral position on his perspective, but why does he bring NFT's into it?

Tech fags have an inferiority complex

> anti nft
LMAO

I had none of the things that guy says and I still draw. My family was dirt poor, abusive and against drawing because they wanted me to be a doctor or an engineer.

Everyday I waited for everyone in my family to sleep, pretend to be sleeping myself, and then open the curtains in my room and draw using the moon light as a light source (this sounds fucking stupid but I'm for real. I would do this because simply turning on the lights would have been visible from the outside even with the door closed). After every drawing session I had to throw every drawing to the trash at school so that they wouldn't find out.

Nobody supported me and I had to tank my sleep to draw, but I still did it.

Fact is that if you wanna draw, you draw. These people don't wanna draw. They wanna be a famous artist. It's like those people that imagine themselves being a famous rockstar but don't actually wanna learn an instrument or compose music.

All that tech and your art still sucks

Christy Brown learned to paint with only his left foot despite having cerebral palsy and had an Oscar-winning biopic made about him starring Daniel Day Lewis, yet techfags will bitch about how you are discriminating against them by telling them to pick up a pencil.

>>29550
CBs art sucked tho

>>29543
duuude just waste hours of your life drawing boxes instead of going out and having sex
yes bro i know itll take you years until you can actually draw a normal human face (if you can ever reach that point) but its totally worth it

>>29552
> years to draw a face
it takes like 3 months from total beginner. The only thing shitty about learning to draw is your standards keep getting higher until you decide that you need to be able to do this before you 'make it'.

>>29552
It's not a waste if you enjoy it. Fact is that these people simply do not like to draw. The idea of actually finding joy and enjoyment in drawing is alien to you and these people, which makes the obsession with being an artist pretty strange.

It's like hating cooking and seeing it as a waste of life but also wanting to be a professional chef.

>>29539
Not everyone needs to be good at everything.
Valuing real talent is not ableism.

>>29554
you vill draw ze boxes and you vill like it.
>>29553
you can go on any art learning subreddit and find people whove been drawing for 10 years with literally 0 progress to show for it. some people just cant learn no matter how hard they try. then they will go on chatgpt to generate a nice little image and get called hitler for it by artcels

>>29552
By valuing the end product of art over the actual process/labor to create it (be it physical or emotional), you're no different than any capitalist

if that was true, where's all the good NFT/crypto art?

Reminder that artists will never die out.
180 years after the start of the industrial revolution and you can still order handmade furniture and clothing.
AI slop generation has a weird gloss and other artifacts, if you want to make AI pictures that look acceptable then you need to invest alot of time into prompting, inpainting and finally editing it by yourself (painting). If you spend so much time trying to get something right, why not learn how to draw and create it from scratch? Or commission a real artist?
Its the mass production of art, and thats all its gonna be. Future models will look worse than current ones because they will be trained on AI images too, thats where the fucked up gloss comes from. 2022 AI models are the best there is and the quality has been downhill since then.

I don't cope, I know it's true, I have seen it in music: the people who have the best connections and the best gear aren't necessarily the most talented, far from it.

Oh wait, that doesn't mean NFTs are worth more than 0€ in the mind of any sensible artist lol

>>29559
holy trvthnvke, holy love

>>29556
Even permabegs improve tbh. Chrischan being the worst. Though were talking about like sub 10% of the pop that has major mental deficiencies and even then just finding a mentor would probably help.

Also those boxes are awful.

>>29559
Yea if your argument is you can still find loom girls to hand-spin yarn that's not an argument. Artists are half right to fear AI even if it's tinged with reaction - a lot of junior level jobs will probably vanish and things like generative fill will be common by the end of the decade in production work.

This could have been in /DAG/ rather than it's own thread.

>>29565
fuck you sagetard

>>29550
Not everyone is born with a sobstory to compensate for their lack of ability.

>>29556
>people whove been drawing for 10 years with literally 0 progress to show for it.
yep.

>>29564
It's not a problem if people can get more free time once these "junior level jobs" get obsoleted away (and even then, I doubt it will that massive during my lifetime, even if I wish it was).
The problem is that in the mind of the bourgeoisie, the government, and most proletarian cucks, you have to get a "job" on the job market, for around 40 hours a week, to justify your existence, even if you didn't ask to be born; and you didn't.
That's the real problem, not AI destroying tedious jobs just like combines did destroy the process of harvesting crops with a sickle.

However art is different.
It's one human producing something out there to excite your senses, something colorful or tern, something harmonic or dissonant, but ultimately, it serves no purpose, in an economic sense.
You might think such and such is good art, but you might also think it's terrible art and shouldn't exist.
It has a "use value", just like Funko Pops have "use value". But there is a difference between the use value of a piece of art (visual, musical, theater/movies, …) and the use value of a shovel, pickaxe, or food.
A shovel allows you to create new commodities, a piece of art by itself just is, even if it's reproduced endlessly. You couldn't create economic value out of an existing audio recording until the invention of audio sampling, your only job was to consume it.
A piece of art is meant to be consumed by the senses, and that's the end point, the only point.
You might get inspired to produce art yourself after experiencing some strong emotions, and in that case, you can buy a pen or a guitar or whatever, but you can't use a piece of art itself, as a whole, to create a new piece of art (unless you are called Negativland).

That's why sometimes I say something terribly cruel and untrue: "Marxists have no aesthetic theory". We aren't discussing tools, we are discussing "endpoints" when we are talking about art. You can make a meme with a Rembrandt painting, but a Rembrandt painting isn't a brush, the point wasn't to make a meme out of a Dutch painting when you looked at his self-portrait in the first place.

>>29563
How are those boxes awful looking?

>>29569 (pt. 2)
Now that I got that out of the way, it's easy: AI won't replace human artists in a million years because AI mostly produces slop imitating what other humans create to excite all of our senses, and so far, AI is unable to generate anything outside of the box it has been trained in. It hasn't been designed that way unlike the human brain.
AI will replace the needs of corporations to create aesthetic slop for sure, it will create Ghibli cute pictures for the Powerpoints of our corporate overlords.
AI is almost already to a point where it can generate music that sounds like Kanye and Beyoncé.
But that's just slop. A rehash of what have already been done. Absolutely nothing new, just old tropes.

However, AI might truly help human artists to explore new avenues for the art of the future, actually.
But AI by itself won't create the art of the future. With enough human guidance and tinkering, it can be a great tool to go beyond what is currently existing, otherwise you are limited to consuming a product. Writing a prompt is too easy.
Too bad our imagination is too limited so far, but "AI" won't beat it anytime soon. Call me when an "AI" can generate something really dark and profound like Grave of the Fireflies or Musick to Play in the Dark, but our Bay Area and Chinese overlords won't allow this to happen.

>>29569
>>29571
>art should be except from material and class analysis because I'm an idealist nietzschean petite bourgeois artisan sympathizer
ok hitler

>>29572
>art has been a commodity throughout all of human history and will be replaced by the brand new OpenAI commodity
ok Sam Altman cocksucker

>>29569
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN INSIDE THE TURK

>>29564
Artists actually profit from AI, established commissioners inflated their prices on Fiverr and other such sites when they are confirmed to be high quality real artists, meanwhile accounts that try to sell AI generated slop demand the same price as actual artists demanded before the AI wave.
>>29572
>>29556
Hitler would've loved AI art because all he drew was mass produced postcard tier.
>>29552
Do you have zero talents? Not even an interest in something? A hobby mayhaps? Drawing is fun to artists, do you feel jealousy?

>>29569
Yea this is nonsense. It's true that fineart isn't a commodity (it's not reproducible) but commercial art absolutely is. Commercial artists are proletarian jobs.

Didn't read the rest of the post because it's probably stupid.

>>29576
Oh sorry, I forgot to (you) you >>29575
Do you wanna make out? You're my lion and I will be your AI Shay~

the great democratic art revolution that requires two high-end GPUs to produce anything reliably decent

>>29576
>>29577
I don't understand why one of you is seething, and the other one is smug. I might have badly got my point across, I will admit it, but still, stop pretending AI is Thanatos for all artists. I hate this kind of masturbation over new tech, especially when it's owned and controlled by tech billionaires, you sound like OpenAI shills.

Yes, some people will lose their jobs or lucrative activity in the art world, I don't deny that.
You know what, it's nothing new, it already happened 20-30 years ago in a particular sector. You might have heard of Napster and P2P sharing, before Spotify was even a thing.
That's right, the music industry took a huge hit in the 2000s as the Internet became mainstream. Big record labels were already seething about cassette copying in the 1970s, but that was another new level. Metallica tried to sue Napster, but it was already too late, the Pandora box had already been opened by then.

Many record labels and record shops closed down, many musicians whined about getting poorer, the music industry took a huge hit.
Now, did people stop making music? No, if anything, more people are making music than ever before, because it's cheaper than ever, everyone and their mom have a Bandcamp or Soundcloud these days.

The music industry isn't making a ton of money like it used to, many musicians have to get a regular job like everybody else.
Good fucking riddance. The music industry was a vampire feeding on the blood of musicians, read The Problem with Music by Steve Albini to understand why: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music

I'm completely okay with tech destroying jobs in the culture industry, because, it's the whole communist shtick: as tech reduce humans to a bunch of cogs in the machine, get more alienated, their class consciousness will eventually rise or not.
There was an extremely interesting debate between Steve Albini and a very talented guitarist called Marc Ribot ten years ago or so about music piracy: Steve argued that piracy is good because it allows musicians to reach a wider audience, they don't need record labels and will make money by touring, and Marc Ribot argued that, instead of whining about piracy being bad, musicians should unionize because music labels and companies like Spotify exploit them way too much. They were both right. Nothing of the sort would have happened if music piracy didn't exist. Their class consciousness as musicians rose because of the dire situation.

I'm less familiar with the visual art world, so I would appreciate if people might give me a better insight into this world, but my point is this: Artists won't stop creating art, even if the average exchange value of an art commodity gets close to $0. They won't. They will do it for their own enjoyment.
How many people draw stuff and spend money on specialized pens, brushes, pigments, tablets, etc. even if they don't make any money out of it? A fucking lot, because drawing and painting is fun.
The classic telltale about artists is the madman being poor as shit but still doing it even if they have no recognition from anyone. Artists are used to being poor, it's nothing new really, and I won't shed a single tear for the furry artists who will have to get a normal job like everyone else. They will need to fight against the capitalist system if they want more free time to draw furry shit.

AI isn't the end of art, it's just the end of one type of commoditization of art, and art is something beyond a mere bunch of commodities, it's something fundamental to the human experience, see the Lascaux cave paintings and so on.

Oh, and I can't wait for people to generate more and more shit with AI until they get tired of how slick and soulless it is, and start hating our Silicon Valley corporate overlords for it. Maybe they will start training AI models by themselves to make really weird fun shit with it, who knows?

>>29580
RIP albini

>>29579
the people's gpu farms

The best argument against the stupid democratization shit is just asking where are the great AI masterpieces? And yes, it's been long enough for them to emerge. The whole point of these tools is that they're fast and effortless so don't talk to me about how long it took to paint the Sistine Chapel ceiling.
They may well exist, but you won't find them, because deep down this was just a way for tech bros to take control of a new market. If great AI art is being made it's probably being made by some unknown whose maxium reach is having 500 Instagram followers and we already had a boatload of people like that making art. AI does nothing to make them more visible to an audience that would care about their work, nor does it make the process more rewarding.
People who actually care about making good shit were already doing it in whichever way they could. Sure, there may be handicapped passionate geniuses who are now able to bring their visual ideas to life, but I guarantee these people were already finding *some* outlet for their desire to make art. No one who actually has vision and cares was just sitting on their ass waiting for someone to invent a "Make Art Now" button.

>>29576
>art is a magical thing
i think it's the other way around, in that neural networks are deemed magical because they have an obscure stochastic engine inside and thus have escaped material constraints somehow. These things can't generate a wine cup filled to the brim or a sandwich with no bread, there are clear limits to what they can reproduce, and people who have realized this have since stopped being scandalized by it.

Same with every other lot in life, whats your point bro? You didn't create a captcha gotcha moment, you just sound like you stopped thinking for yourself. Seriously, whats your point?

>>29559
True.
It basically means that slop will just be even sloppier.
Advertisements, shovelware, spam, etc.
Nothing of any actual value will be created from this.

ai unironically accelerating bc its using so much fuel and electricity to generate shitty images.

learning how to draw is too hard shit like coding and math is unironically easier and more straightforward to learn. every guide or book i try to learn from quickly becomes "now draw the rest of the fucking owl", really feels like you either draw until something clicks or you have enough money to get a teacher for it.

>>29584
Yeah the people doing the spooky spiritualism stuff are the AI cultists lol

>>29556
>you can go on any art learning subreddit and find people whove been drawing for 10 years with literally 0 progress to show for it.
That's because they're practicing wrong. A lot of people seem to not understand that practice alone doesn't make you better. You have to actually challenge yourself and focus on the stuff that you're weak with if you want to improve.
>then they will go on chatgpt to generate a nice little image and get called hitler for it by artcels
Well they are like Hitler in that the art is a mess that fucks up the basics like perspective. But the bigger issue is that making art shouldn't be solely pursuing being "good" or whatever. It should be about making the stuff you enjoy making. If that includes increasing your skill level, then that's nice. If not, whatever. What's stupid though is to think you are the same as a skilled artist because you typed a prompt.

>>29539
the only correct stance is to be Anti-NFT and pro-AI. Anything else is bourgeois degeneracy

>>29580
Albini was so bad at not being based.

>>29588
There's a reason gamedevs meme about being an artist that's awful at coding puts you on a better leg than being a programmer that's shit at art when nowadays you have engines that do most of the heavy lifting themselves, computers powerful enough your shit code won't tank performance, and a ton of tutorials you can just copypaste from anytime you don't know what do do or how to fix a problem. Meanwhile with art you're going to start the same way someone from hundreds of years ago had to: picking up the brush and putting color on the canvas until you get better. Or you shell out the money to hire someone else to do it.

>>29593
It's always been easier to make games that were heavy on art and light on code. That's basically what point and click adventure games are, at the extreme. You can do the opposite but it's just harder to make the programming part appealing to people, whereas art has inherent appeal even if it was separated from the gameplay.

>>29539
I draw and animate primarily on a smartphone with my finger, and am pretty much entirely self-taught via internet tutorials. If you're really in the position where you don't have a phone and also your hands don't work, I really do feel for you, but otherwise, go cry me a fucking river.

>>29551
>>29552
I draw because it's a hobby that lets me express myself. I'm not the world's greatest artist, but I don't really care. The point isn't to make a pretty picture, the point is to unwind in a way that's more intellectually stimulating than mindlessly scrolling on social media.

>>29591
I'm AI neutral. I'm not going to sperg out every time I see an AI image or anything, and I can definitely see the utility in such a thing, but right now it's just plain not a great tool for creative expression. What I'd like to see going forward is AI tools that give you more direct control. A lot of the early AI stuff looked like it was going that way, I remember there was a program that let you turn 2D drawings into 3D models which was really cool. Whatever happened to that sort of thing? I thought it was really exciting.

>>29595
If you can work a computer you can make art lol. Nobody who is bitching online is in a position to whine about art being difficult. They are just coping with refusing to even try.

>>29568
>>29556
>people whove been drawing for 10 years with literally 0 progress to show for it.
But were they practicing? You can't expect to bang on a piano for 10 years and learn music. There is a formula and a structure for practice and learning.

>>29551
>>29567
Cope, he has a good understanding of composition and value that more than compensates for lack of dexterity.

>>29596
>If you can work a computer you can make art
i know thanks to ai :^)

>>29550
techfags: here you go, free GPL shit, free compilers, free editors, free mail clients, free web servers, the entire infrastructure of the internet for free, use it, modify it, share it, build a community around it

artfags: nooooooo!!! this doodle is (c) me, you can't SEE it without MY PERMISSION!! you can't download it!!! HELP! DMCA! POLITICIANS!

>>29705
Those aren't techfags, those are developers. Techfags are the idiots who think computer will do everything for them. It's possible to be both but generally people who actually understand how the tech works are not techfags because they know its limits.

>>29594
I mean all the most successful games have been gameplay-focused and usually are innovative in terms of programming in some way. Space Invaders, Pac-Man, Doom, Super Mario Bros, Minecraft, etc.
Minecraft's graphics are literally programmer art made by an amateur.
Hell even art-focused games like Undertale can have "bad" art (flawed on a technical level) if they're executed right. It's the human creative element that makes it work, generative AI would never be able to make something like that.

>>29705
>equating open source developers and government projects with silicon valley vampires
oh anon… no… no no no no