David Lynch loved AI art. Is he "artless" in your view?

>>7737808
I draw for myself while I push AI. I want AI to rape art until only porn is left, and then get seized and used to censor all the porn so there's nothing left lol
people deserve to live and die in a featureless cuck cage. I hope normalshits will lose even basic imagination cause bugs don't deserve esecapism

>>7737813
I'm the artless one because I had to look him up. Genuinely don't like the look of AI anything atm, idk how someone like him could like anything about it, but I dont think he had a horse in this race since he was on his way out saying that

>>7737814
trvke

>>7737808
>I made peace with the worst-case scenario that art as I knew it is over.
I don't think that's the case at all though? As far as I'm aware, AI hasn't actually effected any industry with job losses all that much.
Animation has been going through shit lately, as has graphic design, but both those industries are suffering from forces other than AI, such as distributors just focusing on anime rather than western produced animation, or the economy going through a downturn so businesses are cutting costs in marketing (which includes graphic design).
Even Illustration doesn't seem to have been shaken up that much? Though that may be harder to judge, as those aren't "jobs" so much, as everyone is self employed, so I'm unsure if that would be reported as a job loss, but I haven't heard much other than some fear mongering.

Overall, AI has been a bit of a nothing burger, with far more hype and speculation about what it's going to do, but never delivering - and I say that as someone who was hopeful about its use in animation; the idea of very small indie teams being able to produce high quality feature length animated films seems great, but AI's potential in this area seems to have not panned out.
Likewise, it's artistic possibility seems to only go as far as the most bland, waist up, static pose shot of a busty girl that'd be perfect for Instagram, but useless more or less everywhere else.
Could it get better? Sure, but I've given it the two weeks, many times over now, and I'm still not particularly impressed.

I had some other harsher thoughts about AI and how it's being used in another thread that I can't be bothered reiterating, but it's here >>7734337
Overall, I think it's hit its peak, and any developments are going to be exceptionally slow from here out (outside of new uses using the same tech), and unless they start using a completely new type of AI, we're not going to see any new leaps in quality, and just slow inches - if anything at all.

I wish people would just shut up and draw.

>>7737829
like 75% of ads for major companies you see on TV are sloppa and there are endless annoucements of mass layoffs to hire prompters from shitholes

>>7737858
>like 75% of ads for major companies you see on TV are sloppa
And I haven't seen one, so either that's just your country, or that's just wrong.
>and there are endless annoucements of mass layoffs to hire prompters from shitholes
And despite that, apparently studies have shown that AI has had no particularly noticeable effect on employment, or the productivity of employees. So these announcements are either outliers, or something that is quietly reeled back.

>>7737813
He literally painted with shit on canvas, anon

>>7737876
Wait, so David Lynch used poop as a medium, or did he do paintings with turds as his subject?

>>7737870
>I haven't seen one
Because you can only tell AI when it's tagged porn with 8 fingers on each hand
>studies have shown
You're right, don't worry about it little boiling frog, it will go away

>>7737829
>As far as I'm aware, AI hasn't actually effected any industry with job losses all that much.
That's because you aren't aware. Even you know that it has and will, that's why you qualified your statement with "all that much". As AI improves, it will increase more and more.

The only solution is to accelerate the process so something can be done once critical mass is reached.

>>7737902
>accelerate the process so something can be done
I want to accelerate the process so things go to shit. Goyim are cattle they won't do anything

>>7737904
Maybe maybe not. Either way it's only once things have reached a boiling point that anything will be done. As of right now you'll have frogs claiming the pot isn't that hot, or the classic "AI can't draw hands" cope repackaged. The art jobpocalypse is gearing up as we speak.

Artists will NEVER be fully replaced. But just like automation and outsourcing decimated automobile industry jobs in the US, so will AI decimate art jobs. Might as well speed everything up. Share AI tutorials so that anyone can use it adeptly. Encourage AI art. Accelerate everything.

>>7737909
You're dumb for even thinking it's all about art. I want brain scans and microchipped surveillance. The only sad part is that cattle is too dumb to suffer.

>>7737808
Right now people only use it for porn slop and low effort memes. Generative AI doesn't have enough control for real art. The randomness is inherent so fiddling with it is more effort than it is worth. Once AI can do something, it gets spammed everywhere so it becomes worthless.
By the time AI is any good it will all be completely automated. AI bots will replace AI artists and completely flood the market. So there is no point in learning it.
AI specialized on one task, like filing in base colors, cleaning up, inbetweening etc. might actually be useful, if it's any good. Letting it do the menial tasks is fine, gives the real artists more time to do the important stuff.

>>7737901
>Because you can only tell AI when it's tagged porn with 8 fingers on each hand
We're talking about AI television advertisements, which I have seen zero of. Just admit you live in a dystopian shithole.
>You're right
Cool, thanks.

>>7737902
>Even you know that it has and will
I outright say in my post that I think it's hit a development ceiling and isn't getting much better.
>that's why you qualified your statement with "all that much"
No. I was saying something that meant the opposite of 'a lot', so something akin to 'not a lot' - or 'all that much'.
Pointing out that that's a qualifier doesn't suddenly mean I was timid, tacitly admitting AIs soon to be dominance, or being sneaky about what I was saying - it just means I used a fucking qualifier.
I see so many people point out qualifiers as if it's some sort of gotchya, when that's a completely asinine argument. Should we just speak in black and white and say something absolutely does or doesn't happen? Should I have said that AI will have zero effect on any industry at all?
>The only solution is to accelerate the process so something can be done once critical mass is reached.
I really don't get this philosophy of Accelerationism. Are you going to shit on the floor of your work toilets to get the janitor to come more quickly?
It just comes across as another name for anarchism, but you pretend there's some moral reasoning and end to it.

>>7737914
Shutup bitch this is an art board, I don't give a shit about any of that

>>7737928
>which I have seen zero of
As I said, you think so because you're blind and retarded

>>7737974
>"There are so many AI tv ads"
>"I haven't seen any?"
>"Yes you have!"
>"No I haven't"
>"YES YOU HAVE!!"
Is this seriously your argument? Who are you to call anyone retard, retard?

It's impossible to make money with art anyway, unless you are some slave working genius. I just draw because it's fun and I like the process and the outcome, so AI is irrelevant to me.

>>7737870

it's just gotten hood enough for you not to notice

>>7737982
Ads have a lot of fast cuts and overlays. You simply didn't notice the actors are made of sloppa.

>>7738055
I suppose that's true, and it's not like I'm paying close attention to ads, but most (and I mean almost all) of the ones that do appear in my region have actors talking and having complex interactions with each other or with some objects, things that AI is just not typically good at.
Simply put, I don't think I've come across a single television ad that I can say has been entirely AI - I could see some quick b-roll being AI, sure, but the entire thing? Nah.

The most suspicious ad I've seen was an animated ad for paramount+ that had a singing goat, but even the actions, lipsynching, and consistency in that made it seem unlikely to have been done by AI (maybe motion capture + AI?).

So overall, I don't think there's been a single ad aired in my area that's been entirely (or even mostly AI), that I've seen at least - and I would've taken note had I noticed one.
If we're going to be pedantic, I'm sure there's been some AI involvement in a few ads (like the aforementioned b-roll, or a random product shot, or something), but that's a different argument than what was trying to be made.

But even if I'm blind, and every ad I've been watching as of late has been AI, that doesn't change my initial argument that there apparently hasn't been much change in the job market caused primarily by AI, in any industry (supposedly). So what if the advert makers are using AI in help create their ads? They're still not unemployed, which seems to be the initial point by the other anon.
And ads made entirely are really no different than ads made entirely with stock footage - in fact, it's more likely that's what they'd use, since it would be higher quality for about the same price anyway.

Anyway, this argument over whether I have or haven't seen an AI ad on my television is kinda dumb.

>>7738123
I brought that up to tell you it's way more commonplace that you think. Of course (((articles))) will tell you not to worry about it unless you believe the press is not partial to a certain narrative. Especially when the majority of articles are written by AI lol

the answer to ai has always been the same since the very beginning, but you guys are still searching for alternatives to this day. It's simple, throw away everything related to digital and go with trad from here on. That's it.

>>7738180
>the article I dont like is written by (((them))) so it is invalid

>>7738212
I know it sounds simplistic but it do be like that

>>7738369
nobody knows how it do be gonna like and only a retard would argue otherwise

Progress only looks revolutionary and linear in hindsight, in reality it takes years to understand how inventions actually change our lives.

But sure, go ahead and start throwing children into the furnace for web3/agi/immortality TODAY
Im sure jews like Peter Thiel will be thrilled