These luddites keep claiming A.I. is stealing their art but when you look at their portfolio or work it's always ugly dogshit that no one will ever steal and in fact people should have to paid for suffering through their sad excuse for "art"?I'm also an artist and I don't have AI derangement syndrome because I don't feel threatened by it.
>>108675250why don't you feel threatened by it?
>>108675250>I'm also an artistdo you know why artfags tend to make repulsive looking drawing?>meme comic by normal people: stickmen>meme comic by artfags: stickmen that look gross
idk but lately I've been noticing that art drawn by biological males and art drawn by biological females have enough differences that I can tell which gender the artist is. I have no one to share that tidbit with, so there you go 4chan.
You say the truth. No ones would have paid for 90% of artists because or they are so fucked up in their esthetics and worlview they think they're superior by learning jewish theory bullshit while giving you drawings worth the shit your kid do at School and looking down on you (the famous you can't understand)Or they are really really that bad and they should have choose something else.If you produce gems you'll find someone ready to pay,i was even considering it but when i started to search i didn't find anyone with a kind of Gérôme style and Charging less than 1000 euros. Plus i wanted something like antisemitic christian. Ultimately i started to practice drawing this year cause of this situation,that sucks because i know i don't have the talent and i don't have time to practice enough to get good.
>>108675269Why would I? I have actual creativity and can come up with actually interesting concepts and execute them. It's like oil painters autisticly screeching at photography because it can recreate the world perfectly. Or even traditional illustrators losing their shit when photoshop and illustrator came out. >>108675276They lack the technical skills and refuse to practice enough to get better?
>>108675303Check out the Andrew Loomis books, you can find them online for free and you can learn to draw quickly with them.
>>108675352hey thank you very much ,like it's style :)i was practising with charle bargue course.I also agree art is not dead at all and AI can't threaten a mind with imagination.how could ai picture the pictures i have in my head ? eh imagine trying to describe to ai Gustave Doré illustration of Beatrice and Dante looking at the sky with all the angels.
>>108675504Exactly, art is not only about technical skills or making pretty pictures, its about inspiring and coming up with new worlds and ideas that no one has imagined yet. GenAI can't really do that because it produces and average of everything that exists so it's very hard for it to actually create something novel, to be fair it's hard for people to create something novel as well and that's what separates the bad "artists" from the good "artists"
>>108675282And how exactly can you tell which is which?
>>108675637Human artists don't do anything else or do it better.GenAI can potentially indeed do everything very skilled human artists might do.
>>108675637human art is also the result of what that person has seen and experienced. i'm not convinced it's even possible to identify a truly new idea, everything is derivative.that's not to say current ai models are exactly the same as any human artist, that doesn't really make sense, an ai model can only be fairly compared to a single human artistin terms of practical usage, how generic an ai generated/assisted image looks also strongly comes down to the person using the tools. if you give it vague instructions it will give you the most generic result naturally. like if you say "a cat", you will get the most common depiction of the most common kind of cat, as you didn't ask for anything else. ai art tools can only replace the drawing part, it can't be creative for you, you still need to come up with something for it to draw yourself.
>>108675744>. i'm not convinced it's even possible to identify a truly new ideaAbsurdly stupid take, humans have always had new ideas
>>108675760that's not what i said. i said the issue is identifying them. as in like how do you actually prove an idea has truly never been thought of before and more importantly isn't completely a result of many combined experiences? that is, could the idea truly not have resulted from what you already knew?basically i'm sceptical that an AI model couldn't come up with what appears to be a new idea, something apparently not in its' training data, because i think the issue is more complex than it seems.
