what the hell happened to /g/? every thread is about AI or image generation now. this used to be a fun board, but now it’s flooded with low effort AI waifu posts and local diffusion model spam. can we get a separate board for this stuff already?
>>108704107Are you joking? it's the same nonsense as ever, balding men who think they're anime girls.
um, sweaty, /g/ is just another pedo board now
>>108704121Dude, the AI generated content is making me despise this board .Every two hours they create a new thread about a local diffusion model, and all the posts are about half naked women.
>>108704107
>>108704136I don’t care about anime. At least it’s a human drawing, which is better than AI, lol.
>>108704164they need their own board
AI is the future
>>108704107maybe you just don't know to have fun with AI?also the other AI (not imagegen, LLM to try to AGI and replace all jobs) did really fuck with computer purchases and tech product releases which tend to need computer hardware>can we get a separate board for this stuff already?a possibility but ai images will show up everywhere regardless, they are probably the best way to make reaction/parody/... images now
If ai isnt tech to you, you are a troglodyte
>>108704156You underestimate the number of ..well, wankers, on this the fourth chan. Gooners as they say.
>>108704288An AI image is a fake piece of art
>>108704315it is tech. but i don't wanna see goon pics
>>108704362it is a real piece of art. sometimes autistic. but so is pre-ai art. and it functions really well.
>>108704136>>108704107I think Renge is sexy, yes. How can you tell?
>>108704408No it isn't, typing words into a box for it to spit out an image does not make art. Post your slop in the containment generals.
>>108704136
>>108704423you think you get to define which technology would be "required"/"prohibited" for it to be art or admissible as reaction or w/e? kek
>>108704532Yeshttps://desuarchive.org/g/thread/108591545/#108592814
>>108704107just filter the generals that are uninteresting to you. Makes it usable.Also insert the Luddite vs ai chad cat meme
>>108704423Art is a spectrum. At the most basic level, it is simply consumed; a picture is a picture.One purpose of art is to express an idea or concept. May be even be just to make another copy of something they like.Someone who literally draws is a drawer. A drawer is an artist, but do all art need a drawer? Drawing is an entire hobby on its own.A metric, and I say "a metric", not directly quality or slopness, though it influences how slop something is, is how much control the prompter has. If you prompt "cat" 1000 times and get 1000 different cats, that's all you did. Prompting "blue cat" to get a blue cat narrows somewhat, though still simple. Train a LoRA on pics of a blue cat you happen to have in real life, decide the exact cat to appear. Spend time thinking about composition and other things, "headstand on a watermelon", it starts to become a manifestation of human thoughts, things that wouldn't exist without those inputs. Though, it can seem to devalue when someone starts reusing it.Some argue that prompting makes you a designer, not an artist. Sure, okay, but a designer can make art, or at least lead to its fruition if you don't like the word "make".A photographer might have some control over the camera and lenses they use. He doesn't have control over the fact his cat is blue (I guess he can pick which cat to take photos of), actually maybe he bred it on purpose to become blue... Maybe he trained it to do a headstand on a watermelon. Is the photographer an artist? Regardless, a photo can be art though what he did was make a copy of something that existed in real life. The photo wouldn't have existed without inputs like pressing a button and maybe some other work to get the shot he wants.Some argue generated images is like commissioning an artist. Okay, he's a commissioner, but came from the artist is art. Obviously most of the credit goes to the artist. In a way, the commissioner used power of money to realize his desire into fruition.
>>108705105it's called AI slop
>>108704107There are other websites where you can talk about this stuff without wading through the shit here.
AI is the ultimate form of art and self-expression not bound needless constraints. "Artists" that complain about AI have neither skill nor conscience. Their only aim is capitalistic profit under the guise of art. To them art is a means to an end instead of being an end unto itself. Progress marches on despite the wailings and protests of tech-challenged Luddites who will forever be left behind in the dust.
>>108705185I must admit the majority of genned images are slop.>containment generalsThere's even a slopper deliberately attacking one of our containment threads for his personal enjoyment.
>>108704121kek'd and true
>>108705105>At the most basic level, it is simply consumed; a picture is a picture.That's a misleading definition, because there are many things that we observe with our senses which are not art. What separates art from everything else is not the end result but how the result came about.>One purpose of art is to express an idea or conceptIt's not just a purpose, it's a prerequisite. If there is no human selectively and deliberately representing ideas and concepts, then it is not art. By this definition, randomly splattering paint into a canvas Jackson Pollock-style does not make art, even though some may disagree.>it starts to become a manifestation of human thoughts, things that wouldn't exist without those inputsThat's not a valid point. Trash inside of a dumpster wouldn't exist if it weren't for human input, but that doesn't mean the arrangement of garbage inside is an artpiece.The main issue with AI "art" is that it's fraudulent by it's very nature. It is not possible for a human to create art by prompting an AI; the only art the human really made is the prompt itself, such as "headstand on a watermelon". No matter how detailed a prompt is, there are an infinite number of interpretations, so a human cannot lay claim to have made any one of them out of his/her own free will. AI creates the illusion of deeper human expression, but all it is is a robot's interpretation of a prompt.
>>108704107just like biz when crypto hit
>>108704107 中出しrenge
>>108704315ai is a scam to separate venture capitalists and investors from their money, while making us suffer in the process
>>108705794indeed
I propose that an AI board called /slop/ is created.
>>108704107>your post
general this general thatI hate generals they killed 4chan
>>108705299lmao you AI faggots are dumb asf. instead of learning a skill yourself like drawing or programming, you become an AI image slopper or a vibecoder instead. really pathetic autistic failures who can’t learn anything.
>>108705299thanks you ChatGPT
>>108704107Careful, buddy, the assmad janny who runs all this AI shit might sperg out and ban you.t. was banned for a similar thread Fuck jannies and fuck niggers.
>>108707712good morning sar
>>108707724really don't care lol
>>108705442>evenevery single general on the site has at least one unhinged schizo shitposter who makes it their life duty to be 'that guy'
>>108704107people like this keep ruining the board -> >>108704136while there are not as many good threads there still are some worth checking out occasionally. i must admit that i don't shitpost nearly as much as i used to tho. as you say it's not fun talking to chatbots.
jliaoryuw
>>108704107disrupted intentionally, mods/admins not giving a fuckg
>>108705105Anything that can be done at scale is inherently not art. That's why banana taped to the wall, random paint splatters on a canvas, and AI art are not art. There is a whole term for this called crafts, which is a valid creative form, but retarded professors have conditioned people to think that crafts aren't a thing so they can call their retarded hipster nonsense 'art' and gaslight normfags. AI is just a downstream effect of this.
>>108705718>>108711520>not the end result but how the result came aboutThe process is a part of art.When gaymers play a game with 2D assets and they say "man the art sucks" or "the art is nice", you can argue they really mean graphics, but assuming the assets were made conventionally, there's still art involved, yet the process is not what's on their minds. Many won't give a shit about the process (other than maybe "not generated").Drawers can feel camaraderie with other drawers. "Wow, how'd he do that." Or with more experience, "I can sense how he did that."Image generation can range from a shitter behind a chatgpt UI entering a few words, to a more involved process that's hardly mass scale or lack of intent. AI *can* be used as a tool.>random paint splatters on a canvasIt can be to someone who likes the piece. Some argue only the intent matters. If someone got mad and threw a paint bucket behind themself before walking out the room without looking back, that person didn't intend to create art. At the same there that act can be considered a process and story about how the canvas came to be, and a witness decided the splatter made a nice visual. Without context you'd never guess what happened and why, non-reductively ("someone threw paint on it").>banana taped to the wallDefinitely not art in the sense of a drawing and it doesn't pretend to be. That was a concept about duping rich people into buying a 30 cents banana for $120k.
>>108704136>now
I do think it's funny how easily AI makes fags like the pedo OP seethe. For some reason they think everyone who is into AI wants to be a shartist.
>>108712360>AI *can* be used as a toolSort of.Generative AI cannot be used in an artistic way because of the unintended output it creates, and although limited use of it in places does not mean the whole work isn't art, it's better to avoid it entirely so the art is not tainted by fraud.A more valid use of AI is where the output is constrained, for example using it to separate tracks on a song, rather than having generative AI output an entire new track. The more constrained the AI is, the less it detracts from the artistic value of the whole piece. Generative AI is so unconstrained that it shouldn't be used at all in my opinion, but specialized tools can be fine.If AI is used then it should be declared exactly where it was used, so people may discern what parts are AI generated and what aren't.
>>108712415>disrupted intentionally, mods/admins not giving a fuckg
>>108712537>Generative AI cannot be used in an artistic way becauseI don't have a horse in the whole "real art" race, but have we already forgotten that 15-20 years ago people were throwing eerily similar bitchfits about digital art and drawing tablets? Now it's a mainstay. At the pace AI gen is progressing it might take much less than that for it to be legitimized as "art". Shit's all arbitrary anyway, and normies are already well on the way to making it socially acceptable.What I'm trying to say is that it's a stupid category to get hung up on.
>>108714547>digital art and drawing tabletsThose aren't comparable because they are tools with a predefined output, ie highly constrained. The artist knows exactly what the output will be when using them.My central point is that AI is different because it creates something the artist didn't intend in advance, down to the smallest possible detail. Even if every note and brushstroke is put in the prompt, making it ten thousand words long, it does not describe the impossible level of detail and nuance that art contains.
>>108712537>>108715713One of the most retarded takes I've seen yet. t. artist that uses AI as a tool the process
