File: shen-yh-210409-10.jpg (243 KB, 1920x1009)

243 KB JPG

Another example, there was a trend in the japanese art community a while back to draw game UI onto concept art

An AI could probably generate a concept art with UI,
but I doubt it could generate a <fun> looking concept art, something gamers would love to play, because it does not know what fun would be
It is only because of the an artist knew what "fun" games were, that they could have produced such art

won't work here cause there are too many trolls and people always take the bait

>>7986646
Honestly if you're thinking in terms of X specific type of art that won't be touched by AI then you're thinking about it wrong.
You need to sell a story. You need to sell the connection between yourself and your audience. Make it personal. Individual illustrations with no context have been permanently devalued, that's just how it is.

>>7986646
>What can't AI generate?
Your life experience.

>>7986646
machine learning algorithms can already emulate any style given enough examples, even your "detached pov" illustration or something
honestly I'm glad the human sloppers got replaced by machines, it shows how shallow their work was
now to answer your question, you have to be creative and paint something that hasn't been done infinite times before
I don't want to be rude nona but it's quite simple
>holy shit I can't just pump 20 blank background anime girls sakimichan prime anymore omg how am I going to drawbanything I'm a zog flesh puppet !!!!1!

If I'm looking to commission an artist for a project of mine, is it rude to bring ai examples of what I'm looking for?

>>7987185
Unless the artist is already known publicly to be super anti-AI then no, I doubt they'll care

>>7987185
yeah it's rude. a lot of artists wouldn't like that

>>7987245
>>7987225
AI is just a reference, no different to grabbing a stock image.
If an artist is that butthurt when they're still being paid to work then they deserved to be replaced.

>>7986649
>It is only because of the an artist knew what "fun" games were, that they could have produced such art
What kind of BS logic is that? Who gets to determine what is "fun"?

>>7987252
logic has nothing to do with it, it's a feeling

>>7987254
And why does that "feeling" have to be human only since there's no logic?

An artist claiming Bubsy 3D is fun has the same value as a robot who says Super Mario 64 is better.

>>7987255
art is all about humanity and feelings. machines lack both so it's "opinions" don't matter.

File: Screenshot From 2026-07-1(...).png (208 KB, 477x445)

208 KB PNG

>>7987254
>>7987255
How is that pokemon concept art not logical?
It is "fun" because it is depicting adventure.

The pokemon is moving towards the horizon, it looks mystical because of the contrast between the background, and the magical wisps surrounding the pokemon.
The trainer is riding a bike chasing the pokemon, imply that you are heading to the unknown, where the pokemon will lead you.

The entire "feeling" can be logically explained, and thus the artwork can be designed to replicate it.

Look at it inversely, if the pokemon was facing the trainer, and the trainer was walking instead, would the concept art be feel more adventurous?


If you cannot describe the intent of your art, and only concentrate on drawing forward portraits of anime girls, you are NGMI

File: 1778823663503.jpg (49 KB, 800x417)

49 KB JPG

>>7987256
If that was true then Humans wouldn't struggle when shown both options.
No one cares how the art was made or who made it.

>>7987258
I know. I was just mocking the luddite who thinks "fun" is some supernatural idea beyond robots.

>>7986646
>>7986667

It's as this guy said, OP
10 replies and the majority is already devolving to AI/Luddite bullshit

The vast majority of people here are lemmings, complete NPCs,
you are not going to get a proper art discussion here. I suggest a dedicated art forum instead, or going to an environment concept school.
Your experience may vary, but when I was at environment art classes, they do lecture about this in fairly great detail

File: Untitled.png (1.01 MB, 880x1323)

1.01 MB PNG

>>7987269
I honestly don't care about the AI/Luddite debate.

I'm just tired of listening to to so called "art experts" spew shit and then turn out to be hilariously wrong.

Like the anon who said using AI as references is an "insult" but other human artists said the same thing about historical paintings.

It's not just limited to 4chan. All other art communities are full of themselves too.

>>7987262
I think the replier that says "it's a feeling" is retarded,
but I DO think it is beyond robots
The fact is that I can recognize these elements as fun, and thus design the scene.
AI cannot recognize these elements as fun, it can maybe chance upon a generation with these elements, but it would not be able to explicitly design it.


Even if AI can generate it, It's like the library of alexandria website, that have generated every single word, paragraph that humans will ever write. But it really is the writer's job to pull the elements together to make a book like Game of Thrones

It's the work of the artist to pull the elements together to make a superior concept art

File: ezgif-4f929a20d8014992.jpg (150 KB, 640x1137)

150 KB JPG

>>7987277
I don't think it's the same as the library of alexandria.
It's been only 3 or 4 years and we're already having discussions about robots competing with artists for the same jobs.

Give it 10 more years and an AI can absolutely crack the concept of fun and make a far better product at it.
Just like when robots learned all the elements of Chess and they're now the best player at it.

>>7987282
>I honestly don't care about the AI/Luddite debate.
>ignores thread topic, derails entire thread into AI/Luddite debate

real piece of work
western art industry is going to be unable to adapt without any discussion, and it is going to burn in a trash fire

>>7986646
I know how, and I'm not telling you how OP : )

Competitive advantage is important
Leave the losers to competing how to generate/draw the best looking tranime and mango girls

At least you are on the right track to think about these things
Godspeed

File: hq720.jpg (80 KB, 686x386)

80 KB JPG

>>7987291
>I know how, and I'm not telling you how OP : )
We get it. You trace AI pictures and and still charge hundred dollar commissions.
It's not a secret. Everyone does it now.

>>7987298
It's in comments like these, when you know you are superior in artistic sense in every way

Some lead, and some follow
Some sigh, and some pant
Some are strong, and some are weak
Some overcome and some succumb
Some are noble, some are base

You are amongst the dogs that will get eliminated, it is heaven's will

>>7987300
Naw I'm fine. Unlike other anons here I'm completely futureproof and own real estate.

So I will never get "eliminated" when I can retire anytime I want.

funny how AI threads attract so many LARPers

Not every artist is as retarded as you.
It just required making sacrifices and planning ahead.

>>7987304
A letztermensch that have already died a long time ago?
what are you going to do with the rest of time? Honing your senses on the markets and interest rates?

Define Base

Base refers to something that is of low quality, lacks morality, or is inferior in nature.
Define Noble

Noble refers to something that is of high quality, possesses morality, or is superior in nature. In social contexts, noble can refer to someone who is of high birth or has a distinguished character.

Don't you think it is the perfect description of yourself?

>>7987282
I mean in the library of Alexandria books competed with wise men? Why need philosopher when he is in the book?

File: images.jpg (27 KB, 378x529)

27 KB JPG

>>7987309
>what are you going to do with the rest of time?
Go rock climbing. Go vacationing. Watch movies. Play video games. Read a book.
I don't know why you anons make art your entire identity instead of just... enjoying life?
Just remember most humans in all of history just did farming and then dropped dead.
We have access to far more activities but you still choose to stare at a blank screen. LOL.

>>7987320
Probably because those books didn't talk or lacked intelligence to advance their findings?
AI is completely different because it's something we can interact with and achieve real results on a daily basis.

>>7987326
Ok? Same result. Buy real estate idiot.

>>7987329
It's not the same result you dumbfuck.

i sometimes want to talk about using ai in pipelines but all i see online is just cope and seethe, still, 4-5 years in. So actual pros hide it and share it among themselves

>>7986646

AI will simply evolve to whatever human artists are currently drawing, because it needs human input to make more content. no shitty rainbow oil slick filter you can add onto your art will be able to stop AI from training your data, and no privacy or copyright law will prevent someone from harvesting your data.

your only option is to not post your work, not even as physical media that can still be scanned and trained on.

AI as it currently stands specializes in cerebral, over-the-top complicated dreamlike works like you are describing now, because impressionism, high fantasy, and abstract art are the easiest styles to hide the melty fuckups.

if you want my advice, just stop focusing on what AI is doing. continue to focus on your own creative journey and draw whatever you want. form small anti-AI enclaves of artists who vet each other's work, but at the very least take pride in the fact that you know that your art is AI-free

>>7987388
And live from driving Uber?

>>7986646
AI weakness, much like any other clanker, is water. The only art medium that AI cant penetrate for years, from the moment of its conception to this day, is watercolor. Human-made drawing software like clip studio or rebelle cant even understand watercolor physics and completely brought their full potential to digital art medium because of how absurd and complex watercolor are as an art medium let alone machine learning and artificial intelligence who can only reconstruct something with photobashing, material, and rational technique in their process - rationalizing irrational medium is something that AI cant and wont be able to bypass until the end of the time

File: 114654165416516.jpg (112 KB, 1500x1000)

112 KB JPG

>its not an ai bait thread
>it actually is to no one's surprise

>>7987388
>form small anti-AI enclaves of artists who vet each other's work,
These echo chambers always collapse because:
1. Most normies interact on large social media platforms like Twitter and Youtube. Which AI now dominates.
2. As a result the only audience left are other artists. And they make the worst customers.

So go ahead and move into your hugbox. When the bills coming knocking you wont be able to pay them without normie bux.

File: FuHXScKWAAAGR2L.jpg (29 KB, 616x497)

29 KB JPG

my god, I'm OP, mods just close the thread
it is impossible for any technical discussion here, you people are too subhuman

If the world was just, you scum would have been flayed your mother's womb by a japanese soldier bayonet

disgusting NGMI doomer nihilist pigs

>>7987258
its actually a very bad image, everything is so dark and if you didnt know about pokemon you wouldnt be so blind to how little the important bits are fleshed out, and how little thought was put into the emotion and animation of a person witnessing this mystical creature whizzing by them

>>7987453
what the fuck did you just say?

>>7987258
>would your art be liked by a blind person? if the answer is no then its not real art

File: sleep weel, little oinker.png (659 KB, 760x891)

659 KB PNG

>>7987453
you really don't need an epic thread trying to get the magic formula of art

yeah nigga, everything has become slop, art was sloppified even before ai
>but muh conscious design
you discovered fucking colored pencils
that's what you're supposed to do with art, not draw the shitty anime titties floating in the void to get the 6 million retweets

You think you will succeed even if you apply that shit? if you already hate "artists" you're in for the sloppiest awakening when you figure out the absolute baconated piggers art consumers are.

>>7987185
I have had several clients that did that and it's kind of unproductive. Just generate pics of your generic idea yourself at that point. Descriptions and crude mspaint sketches are more useful IMO

>>7987185
useless, more like
either the image is what you want so why are you bothering me, or the image isn't what you want and now I have to interrogate you because you're fucking clueless and cannot communicate the vague bullshit in your head

>>7987624
>>7987645
>Just generate pics of your generic idea yourself at that point
>either the image is what you want so why are you bothering me
Because you faggots have got an army of people who are rabidly against AI, so for the moment if someone wants to make a product in the space it requires human artists

>Descriptions and crude mspaint sketches are more useful IMO
>and now I have to interrogate you because you're fucking clueless and cannot communicate the vague bullshit in your head
I thought a picture was worth a thousand words? If I can generate the overall type of character look I'm going for and present you with that image how is that not better than you trying to teach me art vocabulary while mind reading?

>>7987689
nigger

>>7987698
Would you prefer I straight give you an AI image, or generate the AI image I'm looking for and then describe that image in words? What guarantee is there that you won't then plug those exact same words in to an AI generator to use as a reference?

>>7987894
dumb nigger

>>7987914
This is why your jobs were killed by AI before truck drivers

>>7987933
>dumb nigger mental masturbation
sad

>>7987941
>dumb nigger mental masturbation
Is that how you would define your sperging out at someone asking questions on how to better serve the artists I'm attempting to pay?

>>7987945
you're not fooling anyone, subhuman

>>7987961
Who am I trying to fool? I want to use AI as a tool to get my vision out of my brain to give to a real artist and you're sperging out about that?

>[transparent dumb nigger noises intensify]
yawn

>>7987945
It's clear you never intended to pay any artists Ramesh

>>7987981
>so for the moment if someone wants to make a product in the space it requires human artists
>reeee how dare you... pay us?

SAAR I AM OF PAYINGS BLOODY BENCHOD REDEEM THE DISCUSSING YOU ARE THE FUCKING

jeet seething

File: ezgif-76b9a1e22eb69ac9.jpg (83 KB, 640x487)

83 KB JPG

>>7987981
>It's clear you never intended to pay any artists Ramesh
The idea that artists can be choosers in this economy is down right hilarious.
What do you think happens 10 years from now when AI keeps improving and becomes perfect?

You're going to fucking wish you could have taken the AI reference commission instead of living in a box.
I've never seen such level of pigheadedness in my life.

>>7988012
You're the same anon who has several ai threads up in the catalog right now, it's obvious. I'm just gonna hide them all at this point. You're only here to bait and shill ai

if AI was winning, the spam would be unnecessary

>>7987393
>>7987443

you never said you were doing art as a career. why would you do that? even pre-AI it was difficult.

>>7988037
Retard.

>>7988037
>you never said you were doing art as a career. why would you do that? even pre-AI it was difficult.
That's why I treat art like doing Doordash deliveries. It's still a job but you don't have to do it ALL the time.
If more artists saw it as a side hobby instead of their main and only source of income, they would have less fucked up bills and debt.

>>7988026
Both can exist at the same time, idiot.

>>7988079
>It's still a job but you don't have to do it ALL the time.
Unless you don't want to be homeless and starving?

>>7988116
>Unless you don't want to be homeless and starving?
No. I'm saying DON'T treat art as your main and only source of income.
A doctor wont starve just because he does doordash deliveries 2 hours a week. He can still work at any hospital and still pay his bills.

You wont starve if you do art 2 hours a week but make more money elsewhere.
It's not a hard concept. Why do you struggle with it?

>>7988120
Because I need money to live?

>>7988157
Do you have two functional hands? Can you at least hold a broom and make a sweeping motion for 2 seconds?

That's a job even a brain dead disabled person can do. Are you saying you have an IQ that is lower than that?

I'm being serious. If you can't do something as basic as sweep, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to do this art thing as an income.

Either that or you guys are brainwashed and think art is some kind of rich career. The ability to draw pictures never paid well unless you're someone like James Cameron and can turn your art into a billion dollar product.

>>7988169
Part 2

That's why I'm saying it's pure lunacy to take up Art as a full-time career.
It's the most saturated field that most clients can dictate prices and not vice versa.
"Oh you draw pictures? So does my cousin Vinny and he charges $2 bucks for it."
And it's only going to get worse when clients can generate their own art using AI and skip the human altogether.

If you refuse to study for a different and safer career then you will starve in the future when no one buys art anymore...

>>7988169
Must be nice to live in a rich country where a menial job like that is not only given to the native population, but it also allows you to live a normal life and gives you enough free time and money for hobbies like art.

>>7988183
So here's your issue.
A low skill job paying minimum wage means it's your responsibility to not live beyond your means.
If you want luxury like a mansion or a sports car, then you either have to work harder for it or you should have studied for a better job that pays more than broom sweeping.
You want your cake (easy work) and eat it too (getting paid millions for it).

Sorry, that's not how life works.
> but it also allows you to live a normal life and gives you enough free time and money for hobbies like art.
2 hours a week to make art is not enough free time?
Dude, there are people who drive to work in traffic that take more time than that.

>>7988194
Thanks, I'll just stop using the private jet and switch to a Tesla to go to my toilet cleaner job.

>>7988235
I know this is an anonymous message board but if you turn your nose up at cleaning toilets but then bitch your own art journey is bankrupt then I'm sorry but you deserve to fail.

There are tons of poor people who didn't choose their situation but they worked their asses off and now they run companies. It's weird how so many artists think just drawing cartoons or anime entitles them to live like the Pope while producing nothing of value.

>>7988269
you produce nothing of value Ramesh. your value as a human is a net negative on this world and this board

>>7988269
Damn, you're too stupid to get a single sentence.

move into comics it's still too complex for AI, illustration is done

People have often said it, but there's trad. Even if someone AI generates a reference image and projects that image onto a canvas to copy, that's still more work than simply just prompting, and thus few will bother to do it.
Actual paintings/sculptures/drawings show a level of effort.

That aside, AI slop tends to not really have any context within their images, so instead of drawing people in voids, or just standing idly in some street or place, give actual context to the drawings.
I'm not just talking about something like; group of friends eating burgers at a fast food joint, but rather; a group of friends eating at a fast food joint, one friend is being distracted, while the others steal from their tray.
The more simple and generic your images are, the easier for AI to copy, the more complex, the more unable AI is able to produce such an image - and again, I'm talking about context, not the art's visuals.


>>7987275
Too many artists are trying to intellectualize why they hate AI images, when it's far more simple.
AI can't produce art. Art is made by humans. AI is not human, therefore, the images produced by AI cannot be art.
I want to look at art, not content. So yes, I can look at an image, think it's good, and then change my mind when I find out it's made with AI, because that completely changes its definition to me.
It went from Art, to content.
So sure, AI can make images that would be great if it were made by a human, but since it's not, it isn't.

Yes, there can be greater points, like the mass theft of art to create this tech, the attempt at replacing artists on the market, etc, but the base reason of it making content and not art is the core of it.

>>7986646
I evolved one of my styles to resemble early bad ai pictures, you know that trippy nonsense. I like stuff like that, like a step up from glitch art.
had many people claim it cant be man made, which has made me feel really good.
so basically, I inverted the battlefield by being a weirdo.

slop machine can no longer make slop like that because the tech got better

>>7988610
Your logic falls apart because art made by AI does not have to be labeled. Also, there's nothing about your story of the "friends eating burgers" scene that AI couldn't reproduce. Someone could absolutely prompt and give each individual character an action or setting.

>like the mass theft of art to create this tech
Fake reddit nonsense. Learning and inspiration is not "theft". If it was, then so is every human artist.

> the attempt at replacing artists on the market,
Cars replaced horses and no one cared. You can't pick and choose which "convenience" is somehow moral or ok.

>>7988778
>slop machine can no longer make slop like that because the tech got better
Every version of Stable Diffusion is still on the internet ready to download.
So if someone wants SD from 2022, they can do it. Most people don't for the same reason we don't roll back our operating systems to Windows 98. But it doesn't mean it's impossible.

>>7989144
>AI does not have to be labeled.
Does not change the fact that I'll hate the image if I learn it's AI. What's hard to understand here?

>Also, there's nothing about your story of the "friends eating burgers" scene that AI couldn't reproduce.
Strange, because I haven't seen any AI image that really has any depth, despite your claim. Keep in mind that I'm still saying AI could make an image that you might say looks appealing, so it's not as if I'm claiming AI is underpowered or anything. Part of the problem is likely the userbase - every creator of AI images seems to be a tasteless knuckledragging moron.
>Someone could absolutely prompt and give each individual character an action or setting.
Too much work for a proompter.
And regardless, even if they can prompt the most compelling storied images out there - I will still probably not like it, because it's AI.

>Fake reddit nonsense. Learning and inspiration is not "theft". If it was, then so is every human artist.
I'm not going to debate this. Either you do understand what everyone means when they say theft, or you're a retarded shill who will warp and change the facts and their own morals to suit their own agenda.

>You can't pick and choose which "convenience" is somehow moral or ok.
Which is why we still have slavery in the first world... oh, we don't? Whoops.
We vote with our wallet and time constantly, which is why vegans, or really any consumer rights activism exists. Would you roll out this argument against physical media? Against the people boycotting sony currently? Sony is clearly stopping physical media for convenience.
If you're so confident that it doesn't matter, then you'd be totally okay with AI being labeled. Games labeled with AI usage do have significantly less sales than those that don't, which is why Tim Sweeney wants the label removed from Steam, because he likes to deceive and force feed the consumer, rather than letting them make informed purchases.

>>7989286
>Does not change the fact that I'll hate the image if I learn it's AI. What's hard to understand here?
That you have the emotions of a teenage girl because the output does not affect your enjoyment level.

You already do this whenever you buy bread from the store. Did you ever ask yourself if the baker rolled it by hand or had the machine do all the cooking?
You don't complain because the difference is miniscule.

>Part of the problem is likely the userbase - every creator of AI images seems to be a tasteless knuckledragging moron
That's funny. Because Deviantart existed for decades and the same critique could be used on human artists.
Does autistic weirdos drawing Sonic diaper fetish now mean pencil and paper are slop? Are photoshop users also Cavemen because they make low effort fetish with it? If you answer no, then the same logic applies to AI artists. Some suck, others don't.

>And regardless, even if they can prompt the most compelling storied images out there - I will still probably not like it, because it's AI.
See the Bread maker analogy from above. You buy and eat food without ever thinking if every process was hand made or machine made.
You're trying to make fake exceptions for AI because you're a gay faggot.


>I'm not going to debate this. Either you do understand what everyone means when they say theft, or you're a retarded shill who will warp and change the facts and their own morals to suit their own agenda.
A computer looking at your art and drawing the same style did not ever delete or remove your original artwork.
So how can that be theft? If someone steals a bicycle, it implies the original bicycle is missing and can't be used by its owner.
If someone draws a replica of your bicycle, your bike didn't get stolen. Faggot.

>Which is why we still have slavery in the first world... oh, we don't? Whoops.
Slavery is what the anti-AI side would have supported.
Because anything a human slave could do, a machine did it 10x faster.

>>7989286
Part 2.

>Would you roll out this argument against physical media? Against the people boycotting sony currently? Sony is clearly stopping physical media for convenience.
Notice the people boycotting Sony aren't boycotting Steam or Mobile phones? Two major platforms where disc-free media is the norm?
So yeah, they can suck my balls for their hypocrisy.

>If you're so confident that it doesn't matter, then you'd be totally okay with AI being labeled.
If artists aren't required to label their work with Photoshop or Blender, then AI artists have the same right to not label their images.

>which is why Tim Sweeney wants the label removed from Steam, because he likes to deceive and force feed the consumer, rather than letting them make informed purchases.
There are already games that use AI and sell well. Like Call of Duty.
The "activists" are all teenage girls who probably can't afford video games anyway.

>>7989290
>That you have the emotions of a teenage girl because the output does not affect your enjoyment level.
The output does affect my enjoyment. The output wasn't made by a human, therefore I don't like it.
Speaking of being emotional like a teenage girl; you're getting pretty worked up over me simply not liking AI images.

>You already do this whenever you buy bread from the store. Did you ever ask yourself if the baker rolled it by hand or had the machine do all the cooking?
The baker? Are you telling me you buy fresh bread from a bakery? That sounds like you're picking and choosing a "convenience", buddy. Accept the white sliced bread like the rest of us.

>Because Deviantart existed for decades and the same critique could be used on human artists.
There were good artists on Deviantart too, but I haven't seen a good AI content creator.

>See the Bread maker analogy from above. You buy and eat food without ever thinking if every process was hand made or machine made.
Vegans and vegetarians. I don't eat veal for moral reasons.
Are you boiling down the stated moral objections to just machine involvement? I wouldn't be using a PC if I cared so much about just machines.

>So how can that be theft?
I said I'm not debating this, retard.

>Slavery is what the anti-AI side would have supported.
lol.

>So yeah, they can suck my balls for their hypocrisy.
At least you're consistent.

>If artists aren't required to label their work with Photoshop or Blender, then AI artists have the same right to not label their images.
Nobody has moral objections to art made with photoshop or blender, and it's safe to assume that all images on the internet are probably such anyway.
There ARE large moral objections to AI, thus it's reasonable to ask for such labeling for AI images.

>There are already games that use AI and sell well. Like Call of Duty.
Call of Duty players aren't people.

Part 1
>>7989325
>The output wasn't made by a human, therefore I don't like it.
As demonstrated, there are tons of products no longer made by humans only that people still enjoy.
You literally have to invent a new reason to not like AI art despite everything about it being 100% identical to what a traditional human artist could do.

>The baker? Are you telling me you buy fresh bread from a bakery? That sounds like you're picking and choosing a "convenience", buddy. Accept the white sliced bread like the rest of us.
So you're agreeing with me? If I handed you a slice of bread and told you if it taste like a real chef made it or a bread-machine did, you would struggle to point it out.
The exact same thing happening with AI art. Art has nothing to do with the tools, just the final output that's in front of you.

>There were good artists on Deviantart too, but I haven't seen a good AI content creator.
You must be a newfag or under 12 years old to say that. In fact, Deviantart was one of the first examples of people declaring art was dead because of all the fetish fuel and low effort art that it hosted.
The one or two serious Deviantart creators doesn't change the MILLIONS of fetish ones who took over...

>Vegans and vegetarians. I don't eat veal for moral reasons.
This comparison is even more hypocritical. You know artificial or lab meat exists right? You can have food taste like meat without slaughtering an animal.
It actually makes AI look more moral. Lots of video games and movies are made by sweatshop artists who are worked to death. Computers eliminate that because AI feels no pain when it generates pixels.
So what's your rebuttal now faggot?

>I said I'm not debating this, retard.
Because you can't prove drawing a replica bike is the same as removing the original. You lost again fag.

>lol.
Think of all of the jobs the Confederates lost! All those unemployed African slaves! Those are anti-AI arguments, faggot.

>>7989325
>I don't eat veal for moral reasons.
Lol?

>>7989339
>Lots of human "art" is actually made under immoral conditions such as forced crunched or even layoffs at the end of a production.
So the solution is to just steal their shit and let them die instead?

File: Faster-Horse.jpg (252 KB, 1600x857)

252 KB JPG

>>7989344
>So the solution is to just steal their shit and let them die instead?
Or they can go to school and find a new job like everyone else?
Shall we ban all cars so people can be paid to scoop up Horse shit for a living?
Which by the way, was a real job.

Part 2
>>7989325
>Nobody has moral objections to art made with photoshop or blender, and it's safe to assume that all images on the internet are probably such anyway. There ARE large moral objections to AI, thus it's reasonable to ask for such labeling for AI images.
See the above example about the human sweatshops. Lots of human "art" is actually made under immoral conditions such as forced crunched or even layoffs at the end of a production.
So you haven't debunked my argument. You're only admitting it's ok to handwave human art problems but demand the sky for AI.

>Call of Duty players aren't people.
Sony uses AI. Microsoft uses AI. Valve uses AI.
Unless you want to boycott entertainment forever then AI will find its way into every product.

>>7989337
>there are tons of products no longer made by humans only that people still enjoy.
Because art is different, I don't see it as just a 'product', nor do many others. I find it strange that someone on this board would argue otherwise.

>So you're agreeing with me?
No. That was sarcasm.

>You must be a newfag or under 12 years old to say that.
No.

>You know artificial or lab meat exists right?
Never seen it sold. Also heard it's not yet fit to eat. Also, I'm not a vegan or vegetarian, so I'm not sure what their position on such things is.
>So what's your rebuttal now faggot?
So AI will fix bad work practices? Bosses will no longer overwork their employees because AI exists? You know that's not true, so don't argue to the contrary.
AI will either just remove a person's job, or he will still be overworked, but now has no passion as he makes slop for a living.

>Because you can't prove drawing a replica bike is the same as removing the original. You lost again fag.
>Wah Wah, No, You have to debate this point!
No.

>Think of all of the jobs the Confederates lost! All those unemployed African slaves! Those are anti-AI arguments, faggot.
lol.

>See the above example about the human sweatshops. Lots of human "art" is actually made under immoral conditions such as forced crunched or even layoffs at the end of a production.
Again, you're mixing things up. Are we talking about AI, or workplace conditions?

>Sony uses AI. Microsoft uses AI. Valve uses AI.
You know I'm talking about Generative AI, specifically in the creative field. Stop being a deceitful, knowingly ignorant, retarded faggot.

>Unless you want to boycott entertainment forever then AI will find its way into every product.
That's cool, I only play indies anyway, and have for a long time. I never liked the big corporate slop, and when it becomes big AI corporate slop, it doesn't effect me.

>>7989341
>Lol?
Your free to eat your tortured baby animal meat, I won't shame you, but I won't join you.

>>7989347
Scooping up shit for a living is still a job though?

What do you suggest someone who did art for half of his career should do then? Let's hear some jobs that you can train for reasonably quickly that won't get killed by AI.

>>7989356
>Your free to eat your tortured baby animal meat, I won't shame you, but I won't join you.
Why is it specifically just veal though? I understand veganism entirely, and the entire "meat" industry is absolutely abhorrent, but I don't get the cutoff at exactly that.

>>7989361
>What do you suggest someone who did art for half of his career should do then? Let's hear some jobs that you can train for reasonably quickly that won't get killed by AI.
-The Army
-Farming
-Plumber
-Lifeguard
-Nurse
-Dishwasher
-Prostitution

There's a ton of jobs still out there, and many that don't even require schooling to get hired.
It's not my problem if an artist refuses to re-skill. He can be homeless for all I care.

>>7989356
>Because art is different, I don't see it as just a 'product', nor do many others. I find it strange that someone on this board would argue otherwise.
So if art is not a product why do artists even charge money for it? Or do you agree that all art should be free then? Lets see you jump hoops through that one.

>Never seen it sold. Also heard it's not yet fit to eat
They are sold. Some call it "plant burgers" or "impossible burger". They are 100% synthetic so any vegan disagreeing is just being a faggot.

>AI will either just remove a person's job, or he will still be overworked, but now has no passion as he makes slop for a living.
Lol, now you're back tracking.
I said the computer would make art. So there is no human suffering involved.
I would rather the one guy making slop get fired if that makes you happy.
Now what's your rebuttal?

>Again, you're mixing things up. Are we talking about AI, or workplace conditions?
Both.
Once again, you said you hated job losses but it was those same art jobs that turned into sweatshops
A computer replacing them means those sweatshops shut down and humans are free.

>You know I'm talking about Generative AI, specifically in the creative field. Stop being a deceitful, knowingly ignorant, retarded faggot.
They use GenAI too. Microsoft personally funds OpenAI and Copilot is mandatory for their jobs.

>That's cool, I only play indies anyway, and have for a long time. I never liked the big corporate slop, and when it becomes big AI corporate slop, it doesn't effect me.
So if you don't even buy corporate slop, why do you care if artists lose their jobs?
You know buying Indie over AAA game is doing the same thing to their careers? How else does the Grand Theft Auto or Star Wars gets made if no one is buying it?

>>7989380
So which one of those do you do for a living then?

>>7989386
>So if art is not a product why do artists even charge money for it? Or do you agree that all art should be free then? Lets see you jump hoops through that one.
If food and lodging were free, pretty much every artist would be overjoyed to create art for free too.

>>7989365
>Why is it specifically just veal though? I understand veganism entirely, and the entire "meat" industry is absolutely abhorrent, but I don't get the cutoff at exactly that.
There are others, like Foie gras for example. When I eat, I go for free range, and the best moral options I can, and like that anon above mentioned, when lab meat becomes available and is safe, I'd go for that.
It isn't about the slaughtering of animals for their meat that frustrates me, it's poor treatment before that does.

>>7989376
>So if art is not a product, why do artists even charge money for it?
So because I think art has to be made by humans, you think it shouldn't be traded for money? I fail to see your line of reasoning, and I think you're just trying to be an asshole. How's that for hoop jumping?

>Lol, now you're back tracking.
In what way?
>I would rather the one guy making slop get fired if that makes you happy.
>Now what's your rebuttal?
So I hate the end product still. And?

>>7989394
>2/2
>>7989376
>Once again, you said you hated job losses
Did I? I mean... I do, but I don't think I used that in any of my arguments, so why bring it up?
>but it was those same art jobs that turned into sweatshops
People don't apply for a sweatshop job, the job itself is turned into a sweatshop due to poor working conditions. Making clothes isn't inherently a sweatshop job, nor is making shoes, nor is animation, nor is making games. The introduction of AI won't change their working conditions, because their bosses and work environment is still shit.
>A computer replacing them means those sweatshops shut down and humans are free.
Okay, and? This means I must like AI images because?

>They use GenAI too. Microsoft personally funds OpenAI and Copilot is mandatory for their jobs.
Yes, and Valve uses AI for their steam recommendations, AI is used to make enemies move around in games, none of this is what's being discussed.

>So if you don't even buy corporate slop, why do you care if artists lose their jobs?
Again, I don't think I ever made that point. My argument was; I don't see AI images as art, therefore I don't like it.
>You know buying Indie or AAA is doing the same thing to their careers?
>How else does the Grand Theft Auto or Star Wars gets made if no one is buying it?
Don't care. My arguments was never about ensuring corporate jobs anyway. My core argument was; AI is not art, it's just content, and I don't like it.
All this other stuff you've brought up is besides the point, and frankly meaningless.

>>7989395
Why don't you just integrate AI into your workflow and maximize your productivity to get a better job instead of whining about sweatshop conditions?

>>7989396
>Why don't you just integrate AI into your workflow and maximize your productivity to get a better job instead of whining about sweatshop conditions?
I wasn't the one who brought up the sweatshop conditions, I'm just responding to the point.
And if you read what I said anyway, you'd see that I argued AI wouldn't help regardless. Did automation stop the sweatshop conditions for the little Victorian children who got mangled in the machine's gears and workings? No, it was government regulation that stopped such things.

>>7989391
>So which one of those do you do for a living then?
I went to school and actually studied for a job that can't be replaced.
Funny how having brains work. Huh?

>>7989393
>If food and lodging were free, pretty much every artist would be overjoyed to create art for free too.
Cool, so run for politics then and make it happen.
Otherwise, bitching about AI taking your job aint that.

Part 1
>>7989394
>So because I think art has to be made by humans, you think it shouldn't be traded for money?
Because you called it a product.
If you have the nerve to charge money for something a machine can do better, then you don't get to complain why people would support the robot.
Either lower your prices to compensate or GTFO.

>In what way?
Because I showed direct proof that machines would end human suffering and thus it solves morality.

>So I hate the end product still. And?
The end product is still far more moral than keeping the human sweatshops around.

>>7989286
>Strange, because I haven't seen any AI image that really has any depth, despite your claim. Keep in mind that I'm still saying AI could make an image that you might say looks appealing, so it's not as if I'm claiming AI is underpowered or anything. Part of the problem is likely the userbase - every creator of AI images seems to be a tasteless knuckledragging moron.
This falls flat when AI won a human judged art competition

Part 2
>>7989395
>Did I? I mean... I do, but I don't think I used that in any of my arguments, so why bring it up?
You started it first. You said from the very start.
"...the attempt at replacing artists on the market..."
Implying that's a reason to bash AI.

>People don't apply for a sweatshop job, the job itself is turned into a sweatshop due to poor working conditions. Making clothes isn't inherently a sweatshop job, nor is making shoes, nor is animation, nor is making games. The introduction of AI won't change their working conditions, because their bosses and work environment is still shit.
They did apply for the sweatshop. They signed the contract knowing full well the pay is bad. We have glassdoor reviews as proof that these studios will take advantage of them.
If they didn't want the sweatshop life then they could go Indie. And yet vast majority of artists don't do that...

Also I keep telling you I want the computer to take the jobs so the sweatshop (aka art studio) shuts down. You can't have a toxic work environment if only the employee making art is just the PC.

>Okay, and? This means I must like AI images because?
Already covered this.

>Yes, and Valve uses AI for their steam recommendations, AI is used to make enemies move around in games, none of this is what's being discussed.
Now you're lying. They do use GenAI as well.
Btw, it's funny you're ok with AI being used for steam recommendations. A human could have done that job too. Once again, your hypocrisy shows.

>Again, I don't think I ever made that point.
Wrong. I quoted your own words that did.

>My core argument was; AI is not art, it's just content, and I don't like it.
Same thing was said about Photography. People denied it, now taking pictures is art.

>>7989410
>Funny how having brains work. Huh?
I don't understand, brains work exactly like AI, so if your job is brain related, why wouldn't it be replaced?

>>7989438
>so if your job is brain related, why wouldn't it be replaced?
Because it requires accountability and someone who can motivate.
A robot can never replace a CEO for example.
Politicians too, will never be AI.

>>7989411
>1/1
>Because you called it a product.
And?
>>7989411
>If you have the nerve to charge money for something a machine can do better,
I don't see you talking about how shit twinky bars are compared to something else. Corporations sell shitty inferior products all the time, what's your issue? Because it's by an artist? At that point, it's inferiority or superiority is purely subjective anyway. You might as well argue that all hand crafted products should be given away for free.
>then you don't get to complain why people would support the robot.
Did I complain? I merely said I hate AI images. What's that got to do with other people?

>Because I showed direct proof that machines would end human suffering and thus it solves morality.
And I refuted that anyway, so mute point. I still fail to see how that's 'backtracking' though

>The end product is still far more moral than keeping the human sweatshops around.
And I still hate the end product. You're the one who brought up the sweatshop scenario, so what's you're point here? I should like the end product because it was made via AI instead of a sweatshop? Nah, I'll just hate both.

>>7989417
>This falls flat when AI won a human judged art competition
And human art won an AI art competition. I don't really care what some bumble fuck country fair art competition thinks, or if AI can make images that others feel are moving, I still hate AI images.

>>7989454
>2/2
>>7989418
>You started it first. You said from the very start.
That was a big point to you? Firstly, let's get the entire quote in here: >>7988610
>Yes, there can be greater points, like the mass theft of art to create this tech, the attempt at replacing artists on the market, etc, but the base reason of it making content and not art is the core of it.
No wonder I barely remember saying it, because it was besides the point, you can even see I was quickly pushing it aside for the main point; I hate AI because it's AI . The other stuff is fluff. It's little wonder you didn't link back to the post, in case someone might read it and see how silly you're being.

>Implying that's a reason to bash AI.
Yes. But I'm not arguing that. So again, it's bedsides the point

>They did apply for the sweatshop. They signed the contract knowing full well the pay is bad...
You're really polishing those corpo boots with your tongue, eh?

>Now you're lying. They do use GenAI as well.
Yes. And I hate that. What's your point?
>Btw, it's funny you're ok with AI being used for steam recommendations. A human could have done that job too. Once again, your hypocrisy shows.
As I've said, multiple times, I do not like AI in the creative spaces, in art. Your short term memory is showing.
>Wrong. I quoted your own words that did.
And as stated, it was a silly way to interpret that quote.

>Same thing was said about Photography. People denied it, now taking pictures is art.
Photography involves a human author, AI does not, which is my contention. I still hate AI images.

Anyway, we're talking in circles here.

Part 1
>>7989454
>I don't see you talking about how shit twinky bars are compared to something else. Corporations sell shitty inferior products all the time, what's your issue?
Do twinky bars pride themselves on being expensive and taking years to make? Also, AI art is not inferior 99% of the time.
Case and point, I can ask AI to make me a Pixar-like animation for less than $100 and it will finish it in a day.
How many human animator can't compete on both quality and price? None.
So if they lose jobs, it's because society deems them obsolete and expensive. Just like horses.

>Did I complain? I merely said I hate AI images. What's that got to do with other people?
Your hate is misguided because you can already enjoy an art product even when the use of AI is not labeled.
In other words, it's the luddite fear of Photography all over again. Painters hated it, they said it would never be art, but now in 2026 photography is cherished.
AI is going through the same cycle. You think you hate it but it's just the media telling you how to feel.

>And I refuted that anyway, so mute point. I still fail to see how that's 'backtracking' though
You didn't refute it. Sweatshop = human.
Computer = shuts down sweatshop and takes over work.
No humans were harmed in this process. :)

> I should like the end product because it was made via AI instead of a sweatshop? Nah, I'll just hate both.
Again, same thing was said about Photography. You're being told to hate a product because it's trendy.

Part 2
>>7989456
>The other stuff is fluff. It's little wonder you didn't link back to the post, in case someone might read it and see how silly you're being.
It's not fluff when you clearly threw accusations in as well (i.e called all AI mass theft). Sorry sweet heart your agenda got exposed.

>You're really polishing those corpo boots with your tongue, eh?
No one put a gun to their head telling them to work for Mr. Megabucks.
The only one licking boots are the artists who agreed to do those dirty jobs.
Now it's ironic corporations can lay them off and use AI. Well, at least there's a happy ending.

>As I've said, multiple times, I do not like AI in the creative spaces, in art. Your short term memory is showing.
Well too bad. You're free to dislike it, but we already know the haters are inconsistent with their beliefs.
Such as with your comment on steam recommendations. You draw the line on ai in art but not ai taking other human jobs.

>Photography involves a human author, AI does not, which is my contention. I still hate AI images.
A human can sign their name on an AI image. In fact, compared to photography there is more human craftship involved with AI.
Camera: click a button and it does the rest for you.
AI Art: You have to describe the exact story, setting, characters and plot that goes into an image.

So once again, the AI hate is all manufactured by the media. You hate it for all the wrong and irrational reasons.

text->image has
quite a lot of bottleneck
and you cant really reliably control stuff
ai art, the current state is similar as vibe coding but just worse in every regard
code is text, and by itself it is the project, not the end result usually(running software) so at the very least you and the ai is on the same layer of the working environment
ive played around with shit like comfyui but
the model doesnt generate each strokes, it doesnt suggest limbs or poses on the fly or none of such 'organic' integration for artists
what you do is you type some shit, or make some unholy graph slop and hoping it to work
recently there are attempts at making the models capable of more fine grained controls but not really there yet
what i feel like is, there's long way for those stuff to become more and more fine grained, but at that point it would be just some sort of smart assistant plugins instead of 'make me *description*'

>(1/2)
>>7989463
>Also, AI art is not inferior 99% of the time.
Is that so -
>Case and point, I can ask AI to make me a Pixar-like animation for less than $100 and it will finish it in a day.
Hahaha, you've knocked down your own point. That shit is awful.

>Your hate is misguided because you can already enjoy an art product even when the use of AI is not labeled.
But I want to enjoy art, which is made by a human, not AI slop.
If I want to eat a burger, I'll be cranky if I got a faux burger instead, even if it tasted fine.
I've made it clear, multiple times, the contention isn't the quality (even if I don't think it's all there), and rather, my stance on art itself. AI is not art, and I don't want it masquerading as such. At the beginning of your post, you act indignant for the consumer, but then you want the consumer deceived into enjoying what they think is art by not labeling an AI image as AI. You're a hypocrite whose morals and standards bend to suit himself.
>You think you hate it but it's just the media telling you how to feel.
Of course, how could someone who is passionate about drawing and art have his own opinions on the matter? Silly me, I was just indoctrinated!... How condescending.


>You didn't refute it.
I did. But to reiterate;
Sweatshop = I hate the product.
Computer = I hate the product.

>You're being told to hate a product because it's trendy.
Right, so I was just an opinionless sap until it became trendy to dislike AI?... Yeah, no.

>>7989466
>It's not fluff when you clearly threw accusations in as well
Stop being retarded.

>>7989469
>(2/2)
>No one put a gun to their head telling them to work for Mr. Megabucks.
Just their grumbling stomachs and the lack of other opportunities, but I guess you're right.
>Now it's ironic corporations can lay them off and use AI. Well, at least there's a happy ending.
Now those third worlders can just starve. I'm glad to see you're pro third worlder genocide, at least we can agree on some things.

>Such as with your comment on steam recommendations. You draw the line on ai in art but not ai taking other human jobs.
I just said I hate AI images, and that Art needs to be made by humans. Where's this job shit coming from?

>A human can sign their name on an AI image.
And I can sign someone else's image.
>In fact, compared to photography there is more human craftship involved with AI.
No.
>Camera: click a button and it does the rest for you.
Finding the best shot, lighting, models, etc.
>AI Art: You have to describe the exact story, setting, characters and plot that goes into an image.
lol.
>So once again, the AI hate is all manufactured by the media. You hate it for all the wrong and irrational reasons.
You've become delusional. I'm afraid you're entire world view has been crafted by AI psychosis. Nothing you believe is truly your own thoughts, but rather the thoughts of Sam Altman, that he's subtly implanted into your brain.

>You're free to dislike it
Thanks, then we can end this discussion :)

>>7989470
>Just their grumbling stomachs and the lack of other opportunities, but I guess you're right.
Anon, no one is owed a job in life. They're also not entitled to other people's money either.
Feel free to pick any non-art job that was listed here >>7989380
If the artist still chooses to starve that's called the consequences of bad actions.

>Now those third worlders can just starve. I'm glad to see you're pro third worlder genocide, at least we can agree on some things.
Driving a car = pro-Horse genocide.
Using a washing machine = pro-woman genocide.
Buying a lightbulb = pro-candlemaker genocide.

Now can you see why your hate is batshit insane and illogical? There was always job loss in history. Big whoop.
Put on big boy pants and find another job or let natural selection do its thing.

>I just said I hate AI images, and that Art needs to be made by humans. Where's this job shit coming from?
Well that's bullshit because capitalism & the free market says I have a choice.
Machines making cheaper and faster art = art jobs are now obsolete.

Only communists think we should stop technology because its hurt their feelings. I spend my money how I see fit.

>And I can sign someone else's image.
Cool, so that makes you an Art Director then. AI is the same thing where humans have a vision and use AI to execute it.

>Finding the best shot, lighting, models, etc.
Same applies with AI art.

>You've become delusional. I'm afraid you're entire world view has been crafted by AI psychosis. Nothing you believe is truly your own thoughts, but rather the thoughts of Sam Altman, that he's subtly implanted into your brain.
And you're a luddite socialist who thinks you can control where customers buy their art.
The genie is out of the bottle and AI will never go away. :)

>>7989479
>Anon, no one is owed a job in life. They're also not entitled to other people's money either.
You're forgetting your own points. Your said:
>No one put a gun to their head telling them to work for Mr. Megabucks.
And sweatshops are generally in third world countries, with little opportunity. Thus this is generally one of their few options.
>Driving a car = pro-Horse genocide.
>Using a washing machine = pro-woman genocide.
>Buying a lightbulb = pro-candlemaker genocide.
>Now can you see why your hate is batshit insane and illogical? There was always job loss in history. Big whoop.
>Put on big boy pants and find another job or let natural selection do its thing.
Anon, you're no fun. Clearly my tongue was firmly planted on my cheek writing that, and it was abundantly obvious too. Good grief.
>Well that's bullshit because capitalism & the free market says I have a choice.
But why am I not allowed the choice of choosing the non-AI option? Again with your hypocrisy.
>Cool, so that makes you an Art Director then.
No, that's just fraud.
>Same applies with AI art.
Hahaha, sure, sure.
>And you're a luddite
Sure, I guess there's a bit of a luddite in me, since I'm anti-ai.
>socialist
Socialist? But I hate socialism. At what point have I made a pro-socialism case? You're just saying things for the sake of saying them now.
>who thinks you can control where customers buy their art.
Now you're just fighting shadows. I've never made this argument. I said AI images should be labeled as AI so the consumer can decide. You're the one who wishes to not have such labels to deceive people into making misinformed purchases to suit your own agenda; that's fair more anti-capitalist than anything I've said.
>The genie is out of the bottle and AI will never go away. :)
Yeah, but that doesn't mean the debate on how we use it is settled... Well it is for me, because I think AI in the arts sucks, and I don't like it. You're free to have you own opinion on that, like I do mine.

>>7989484
>And sweatshops are generally in third world countries, with little opportunity. Thus this is generally one of their few options
There are sweatshops in the first world too.
If you thought working at Disney was all gumdrops and rainbows you are mortally wrong.
The mouse only cares you show up to your desk for 8+ hours, work yourself to death, then leave.
The same is true with a lot of video game studios. They exist to grind artists until they can rush a game out for launch.

That's why I laugh at your opposition. If artists want better wages and a sense of respect, then go find any other job with those conditions.
The art industry has always been a meat grinder.

>But why am I not allowed the choice of choosing the non-AI option? Again with your hypocrisy.
You can choose the non-AI option the same way you can choose a horse for your taxi.
Just don't complain very few horses exist anymore because they're unprofitable.

>No, that's just fraud.
Tell that to James Cameron or Walt Disney.
They sign their name on movies despite having some underling do all the grunt work. Are they still not artists?

>Socialist? But I hate socialism. At what point have I made a pro-socialism case?
Because first, socialists hate merit based systems. I explained how artists should lower their prices if they want to keep their jobs.
If they refuse, the free market will throw them out for being expensive.

> I said AI images should be labeled as AI so the consumer can decide.
And I told you images are not being labeled for being made with Blender or Photoshop.
There's also privacy. I thought you hated socialism? Only socialists want to spy on people and their work.

>Yeah, but that doesn't mean the debate on how we use it is settled...
Just like the debate on driving cars is settled. Good luck getting horses back on the road.

is this an ai generated thread? i refuse to read this fanfiction exchange. none of this is real

>>7989492
some autist getting baited by an ai bro/troll, many such cases

>>7987488
you are not gonna make it buddy

actual schizophrenia
shit you'd see from like /dtg/ or whatever

i love this unmoderated shithole. fuck you hiroshimoot worthless ass piece of jap shit

>>7989454
>And human art won an AI art competition. I don't really care what some bumble fuck country fair art competition thinks, or if AI can make images that others feel are moving, I still hate AI images.
Are you simply bitter that AI came for your career or are you against the concept of AI as a whole?

lmfaoooooo fuck artturds

I encourage people to not use AI to crab them. It's kind of hilarious to see other artists in the wild who I know are photobashing AI like I am, but we both can't say anything.

Why help anyone else by divulging the cheat code? This is a modern day gold rush for those who know how to use it. The less that know the better. Convince everyone to not use AI. It's just a bubble that'll pop, don't look into it. Stop trying to convince people AI is the next best thing, just use it quietly and get ahead of these idiots.

File: tenor.gif (51 KB, 498x383)

51 KB GIF

>>7989604
Wrong website dumbfuck. Go to Reddit if you want updoots.

File: Untitled88.png (757 KB, 925x1124)

757 KB PNG

Sir George has spoken. Even he agrees with my car vs horse argument.

https://www.pcgamer.com/software/ai/george-lucas-says-rejecting-ai-is-like-rejecting-cars-in-favour-of-horses-theres-nothing-you-can-do-about-it-its-the-future/

>>7989994
Why are horses not extinct yet?

>>7989994
How could have horses rejected or accepted cars?

>>7987269
>Luddite
you jeets keep using a word you dont understand

File: thefuture.png (1.35 MB, 1080x1080)

1.35 MB PNG

>>7989994
its not even true. especially him being on the forefront of popularizing CGI films and tech and even with some great pixar films, you cant tell me they wouldnt look better hand drawn. compare lilo and stitch to monster inc or toy story, its worlds apart in visual flair. the tech changing doesnt equate it to being good or the future. films suck now, games suck, animation sucks therefore its not the future. now instead of an indian cgi sweatshop, you'll have a million prompts with infitely useless results compared to maybe one good one. there go all your slop tokens for the fiscal year.

File: ezgif-5997da4401f5b427.jpg (155 KB, 1080x1080)

155 KB JPG

>>7990004
>Why are horses not extinct yet?
90% of them did go extinct. The last 10% are just for entertainment. Like horse racing.

>>7990006
They couldn't. But that's the point.

If artists don't use AI, then clients will use them. Clients outnumber artists so the results are now the same.

holy jeet meltie

File: 1475365745.png (427 KB, 842x930)

427 KB PNG

7990203 actually thinks George Lucas is Indian.
And no (you) for you faggot.

how do you retards still fall for the same bait

>>7990050
>>7989994
>Not liking horses is like not liking cars hur dur
I'm really not getting the constant comparisons to the replacement of horses as a means of transport.
How the fuck is art, a means of communication, a unique defining feature of our cultures, something that we feel is uniquely human, something comparable to a means of transportation?
A denial of AI art doesn't mean a denial of AI in all aspects, like medicine or programming, but support for AI art shows a denial of any sort of importance for art as a whole.

File: in-this-famous-shot-from-(...).png (1.64 MB, 2879x1536)

1.64 MB PNG

>A denial of AI art doesn't mean a denial of AI in all aspects, like medicine or programming, but support for AI art shows a denial of any sort of importance for art as a whole.
Because that's shit you've made up that doesn't refute the argument as a whole.
There is absolutely no rule that says humans must always be part of the creative process or that artists are entitled to be commissioned for it.

When stop motion animators got replaced by CGI in the 1990s did they have a right to sue? No.
When The Lion King animators got laid off and replaced by Pixar, did 2D animators have a right to shut Pixar down? No.

Society has long made an exception that computers are absolutely allowed to automate large parts of the art pipeline or even bypass it entirely.
Complaining now just looks petty and backwards.

A right to Sue? Wha?
Nice try, but work on prompting better responses, Mr.gpt.

Notice you said nothing about CGI replacing stop motion?
I accept your defeat. Go find another job if you want money.
Or just be a horse I guess...

Notice how I said nothing about cgi or stopmotion at all. Your AI is hallucinating.
ChatGPT will probably be shut down since OpenAI is losing so much money, then how will you write your incoherent responses?
I'll accept your retardation though, gpt-anon.

God you're stupid.

Retard rage. It's okay, I'm sure your AI girlfriend still loves you.

Man, if only sloppeejeetee could put humongous, luscious, plump anime milkers in my mouth.
Preferably lactacting.

>>7990401
You are the horse, idiot.

>>7990401
>How the fuck is art, a means of communication, a unique defining feature of our cultures, something that we feel is uniquely human, something comparable to a means of transportation?
Because what if the artwork is just meant to go on a box or packaging for a product? Not everything that utilizes art is meant as some big statement

File: 1747818263424515m.jpg (59 KB, 682x1024)

59 KB JPG

>>7990263
i dont consider pretending to be retarded or lying bait, its just that. by allowing dishonesty and retardation, we as huu-man beans will adapt to those as standard. you know when youre being ironically cringe till you get used to it? saying LOL out loud so much you accept it? thats what happens if we allow all this """""""baiting""""""" to fester. it wont just attract retards and liars, but make one out of you and everyone around you. you herd animal you.

we need to be better men (unironcally)

SAAR

File: how ai do.png (1.61 MB, 1013x1755)

1.61 MB PNG

>>7990667
>we need to be better men (unironically)
Once you've seen and ate enough bait, you'll realize that you're trying to reason with the unreasonable when the best way to handle bait is to be the fish and the fisherMAN at the same time.
Baiting has become so normalized and widespread amongst the shallow masses now that it's these animal's sole modus operandi because they have no personality, no hobbys, no thoughts, no interests and no soul to speak of; they are genuinely what one would refer as golems in Jewish folklore. which is ironic given they worship the digital golem.

If that don't work, just ignore them since they thrive off attention.

I've been thinking about the future with all the slop feeding on itself and then I discovered that a bunch of generated pictures now have an ai print so it won't be fed to ai.
Which begs the question, will all slop be ai confirmed? It kinda makes sense cause otherwise ai will start cannibalizing itself which kind of yea destroys it.

>>7986646
this is something i've been thinking about for a long time, even before AI tech grifters hit the scene
the objective value of art has always been so difficult to grasp to me, because the internet was already saturated with simple pinup anime type artists.

I think the assertion that a sense of purpose, even if subtle, behind art is necessary to stand out against the masses, AI or not.
Things like comics are still very far away, maybe even completely safe, from being replaced by AI because AI doesn't know what it's doing. It can keep generating nice looking panels until things look correct but it can't create a story or sequence that makes sense over the course of an entire work.

In the case of still images I feel like it's a similar case, although it's always been harder to stand out due to the sheer amount of plain art there is on the internet muddying the waters. And I'm not hating, I've done my fair share of plain fanart pinups on a whim.

I'm rambling now, but it feels like you need to take advantage of your audience's sense of permanence and understanding. You can add detail to your work that you have to trust (or manipulate) your audience to see and understand, which can make it hard because it innately narrows down your audience in the process. But I think it's worth it. Because similar to how abstract and fantastical artists used imagery to create things cameras could not, your human brain has to impart meaning behind the work that AI simply can't do on purpose.

>>7991090
tl;dr gotta shweeb it to habeeb it

>>7991057
it's still important to call out bad behaviour, even if the poster thrives on the attention. thats all he will get and after that will be hungry for more like the whore he is. a true monster, like you said, a golem out of control. oy vey

>>7991077
how do you add an aiprint on your regular pictures? i too was pondering about the incestous learning, which is inpossible to avoid as many prompters tend to hide that theyre prompting. and then there is also the people that trace over slop

File: 1784099106344045.jpg (148 KB, 706x1000)

148 KB JPG

>>7991165
yeah nah, you need to expose yourself more to the attention cancer
attention whores who try to get it on bad behavior thrive in this era no matter the environment because there will always be another attention whore or another faggot trying to put them down
And if you call em out, they'll just deflect with
>you're seething/jealous
or double down on their behavior because they believe it makes people "seethe"

This new generation of internet users exist solely to "make people mad" and believe everyone is "mad and seething" while pulling this face.

Best advice is really to be weirder than them or completely ignore.

File: 495894053.mp4 (2.16 MB, 1280x712)

2.16 MB MP4

>>7991077
>It kinda makes sense cause otherwise ai will start cannibalizing itself which kind of yea destroys it.
It's kinda funny how this bullshit myth still exists when it has been debunked a million times.
No, AI models don't just "ingest" everything on the internet.
If that was the case, why don't you just create your own AI model if it was so easy?

It's the exact opposite. Every multi-billion dollar AI model is a result of millions of human ai trainers who manually rate every piece of data which is then converted into weights and biases that the AI model then uses to create its output.

If you're going to bash the technology then at least learn the fucking basics of it. Otherwise, your logic should imply the Will Smith spaghetti videos should have gone backwards since the slop videos were already on the web. Except he's not spouting 20 fingers or two heads in the newer versions.

Even if in worst comes to worse there was an AI model that "ingested" bad data, you guys know they still saved all the previous AI models they could just roll back to, right?
But this place is full on copium so I know you're going to deny any counter-evidence of AI replacing you.

>>7990580
I just double checked, and I'm pretty sure I'm a person.
Facetious response aside, if you actually think that the only way of seeing the metaphor is horse=artist, rather than also possibly being horse=human drawing process, or any other way, shows a lack of intelligence on your part. You probably watch films or read books, and then look for videos to explain the meaning to you.
Making you come across as even more retarded: how does horse=artist refute my argument that art is not comparable to transport, or other goods and services?
Anyone with half a brain can see the criticism still applies whether the metaphor was about the art itself, or the artist themselves. The fact remains that the comparison to a service like transport was made.
So what I'm saying here is that you're unintelligent, and shouldn't be wading into discussions that fifth graders couldn't handle.

>>7990592
>Because what if the artwork is just meant to go on a box or packaging for a product? Not everything that utilizes art is meant as some big statement
True, but commercial art still leaves its mark on our culture. Like Alphonse Mucha's impact on art and the Art Nouveau movement, Rockwell's vision of America, Guptill Girls, Got Milk?, Where's the beef?, etc, etc.
Sure, the majority of commercial art is throw-away trash, and most is made with that intention, but despite that, sometimes something comes through and makes a cultural impact.
So again I go back to my question of whether or not it's okay to automate our culture and make it less human?
Personally, I say no.

>>7991426
>You probably watch films or read books, and then look for videos to explain the meaning to you.
Which would still put me above 90% of humanity.
>Making you come across as even more retarded: how does horse=artist refute my argument that art is not comparable to transport, or other goods and services?
Dunno how would it? No one except you imagined that as an argument being presented.

>>7991450
>No one except you imagined that as an argument being presented.
Then what is being said when comparing rejecting AI in the Arts is like rejecting Cars in favour of Horses? What's the case being made there?