AI Derangement Syndrome / Anti-AI artists / Pro-AI technocultists / AI "debate" communities - The Natural Retardation in the Artificial Intelligence communities

[⋖ cørdion ⋗]

This whole AI thing is misunderstood between non-artists and commissioners living in a different world than actual artists. NFTs let "actual artists" such as photographers sell their work for money as if an exclusive real life print. This was seen as good to starving artists.

Likewise, this jojo-ahh mangaka sees people ripping off and stealing his artstyle, assuming people are gonna use this new tool to make money off of his life's work. Reality is that people are gonna use it to make female Dio futa porn.

 

[Kiwisee]

It's like the art community refuses not to be constantly bitchy
View attachment 6654166

Funny thing about Pewdiepie’s art videos is that they’re packed with good advice. Throughout the challenge, he went out of his way to try out different poses and techniques to get to where he is at. He’s a quick learner, which helps, but is an eye opener for anyone that gets stuck doing the same shit over and over again.

That aside, I felt inspired to post in this thread because I’ve been wondering how much of the AI backlash is coming from autistics. They’re great at pattern recognition, and tend to pick up on when things seem uncanny; which makes me think that AI images must trigger some sort of uncanny valley effect within them.

 

[Colon capital V]

I’ve been wondering how much of the AI backlash is coming from autistics

You don't need to be autistic to tell when AI looks AI. (Weirdly stiff poses, the meshing of some body parts, plastic sheen lighting for realistic photos, the off colors of some backgrounds, etc.) It's a natural instinct in humans to tell when something looks off, autistic or not.

 

[Inco G. Nito]

You don't need to be autistic to tell when AI looks AI. (Weirdly stiff poses, the meshing of some body parts, plastic sheen lighting for realistic photos, the off colors of some backgrounds, etc.)

Which makes it all the funnier when you get a little more in depth with the AI, get some loras going and your own prompting style and start getting outputs that are indistinguishable from manual art without extreme scrutiny. Obviously things will settle like they always do and soon enough AI will be as accepted and widespread as digital art. But damn if it isn't satisfying watching these retards seethe with 0 possibility of recourse or getting their way.

 

[linchan]

View attachment 6654672
This whole AI thing is misunderstood between non-artists and commissioners living in a different world than actual artists. NFTs let "actual artists" such as photographers sell their work for money as if an exclusive real life print. This was seen as good to starving artists.

Likewise, this jojo-ahh mangaka sees people ripping off and stealing his artstyle, assuming people are gonna use this new tool to make money off of his life's work. Reality is that people are gonna use it to make female Dio futa porn.

It makes me sad that Araki cannot recognize his past works.

 

[AnOminous]

My personal favorite idea of getting AI slop printed in a "peer reviewed" journal is actually have AI write an article, complete with citations, about the invidious, awful nature of AI and how bad it is for, well, literally everything, it's literally Silicon Hitler, and get it published in some tard journal.

 

[linchan]

They are noticing...

 

[complete freak]

They are noticing...
View attachment 6657549

The main reason I won't cry for these artists getting replaced is because they are unfriendly to consumers. Every artist is on a mission to grift, scam and scalp any consumer out of their cash. You can't even dare to look at their hecking .jpgs without giving into paywalls for a lot of them. Call it self interest, call it capitalism, I don't care either way. Artists have not tried to cater towards their possible consumers by lowering prices, taking requests / polls or being nice in general. They are insufferable and they know they can't compete against AI that won't complain.

Would you rather pay $250 for a sketch that'll take 2 weeks for the artist to get around to, or pay little to nothing for a machine that could generate anything you would like within a few minutes? Of course you would go with the machine, and it's a possibility that it will consistently outdo a human artist soon enough. At that point, what appeal do human artists have? Artists have shown nothing but contempt, jealousy, anger and elitism throughout the whole AI saga.

I welcome our AI overlords.

 

[Coolio55]

It's like the art community refuses not to be constantly bitchy
View attachment 6654166

"How to draw RACIAL STEREOTYPES Tutorial Pt. 1"

 

[The Thinking Abacus]

Making a note of this for later, but as of about a week or so ago, /r/aiwars was invaded by a delusional copyright troll known as "TreviTyger" (real name: Trevor Baylis). He always gets downvoted to hell as people try to explain why he is spouting utter nonsense.

A brief digging into his history reveals that he has and is engaged in multiple lolsuits (all in forma pauperis, just like all of our favorite lolcows):

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67927224/baylis-v-valve-corporation/ (Baylis v. Valve Corp.)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.327813/gov.uscourts.wawd.327813.46.3.pdf (Baylis v. Troll VFX [Finland])

Unlike most lolcows, he seems to file lawsuits in multiple countries.

 

[Temmie]

Obviously things will settle like they always do and soon enough AI will be as accepted and widespread as digital art.

Digital art is still created by humans. I don't think people will ever see something generated by a computer as being as valuable or interesting as something that took real effort and skill to make.

I do think people will be okay consuming it though because the masses can't get enough cheap slop be it food, social media, or soon AI porn.

But damn if it isn't satisfying watching these retards seethe with 0 possibility of recourse or getting their way.

All it will take is one or two rulings against AI artwork for copyright violations to make generative art unusable for the masses. If you think the mouse is going to let you generate their shit you're mistaken.

 

[Inco G. Nito]

Digital art is still created by humans. I don't think people will ever see something generated by a computer as being as valuable or interesting as something that took real effort and skill to make.

Good to see that (furfag sock account #437) is still physically incapable of good takes. Guess what fucking retard: AI was created by humans. And it takes skill and knowledge to effectively utilize (just like everything else). And it can be very time consuming. Can you set up an AI right now, know how to use it, make effective prompts, utilize tools like inpainting to alter the image accordingly, do manual touching up, or utilize much more advanced systems like controlnets or making totally custom workflows? If the answer is anything other than 'Yes' then there is indeed an art to effective AI image generation.

the masses can't get enough cheap slop be it food, social media, or soon AI porn.

You're right. Furry porn is a high class artistic endeavor.
More importantly, there is a very clear place for AI generated art for utilitarian purposes. Nobody is appraising the artistic mastery of a graphic on a flyer or poster. Likewise, pedantic retards like you will always care enough to seek out actual artists to make art for aesthetic needs. And that's ignoring the plain fact that industry professionals are already using AI because they never pretended it wasn't a tool of the trade. The artist isn't going anywhere. Just like literally every other technology ever made, AI is not the end of the world.

 

[Temmie]

Guess what fucking retard: AI was created by humans.

So is a lorem ipsum generator, but that doesn't make it good reading.

And it can be very time consuming.

People really would rather spend hours typing a prompt than learning to draw wouldn't they?

Furry porn is a high class artistic endeavor.

It can be as not all porn is low class or bad, some has artistic merit.

Just like literally every other technology ever made, AI is not the end of the world.

It might be the end of thousands of well paying jobs. You can only automate so many people out of employment before society collapses.

 

[Tofu Dust]

So is a lorem ipsum generator, but that doesn't make it good reading.

People really would rather spend hours typing a prompt than learning to draw wouldn't they?

It can be as not all porn is low class or bad, some has artistic merit.

It might be the end of thousands of well paying jobs. You can only automate so many people out of employment before society collapses.

I genuinely don't understand why you bother wasting your energy typing any of this bullshit out. I really don't.

 

[Inco G. Nito]

It can be

We need to start tracking how many anti-AI people are also unhinged porn addicts. I suspect the results will be similar to the ratio of LGBT people being unhinged porn addicts. Just a hunch.

 

[Temmie]

We need to start tracking how many anti-AI people are also unhinged porn addicts. I suspect the results will be similar to the ratio LGBT people being unhinged porn addicts. Just a hunch.

I am a porn addict, but I have standards. I don't want artists put out of work by AI generated, low quality slop. I value creators more than the technical novelty of genai.

When work is created by a human it has more "soul" for lack of a better term. AI art is bland, cold, and lifeless.

 

[The Thinking Abacus]

I am a porn addict, but I have standards. I don't want artists put out of work by AI generated, low quality slop. I value creators more than the technical novelty of genai.

When work is created by a human it has more "soul" for lack of a better term. AI art is bland, cold, and lifeless.

... And the "soul" meme is how you know an argument has no legs. Gooning to human scribbles isn't any better than AI scribbles. There's no inherent morality in paying someone to do work versus using a machine to do the work.

 

[Inco G. Nito]

soul

There is no 'soul' in art. It is a material object. It presents a concept, a setting, an idea, or an event in an artistic medium. The only thing art made manually has over generated art is finer, more direct quality control and error checking than AI can currently put out on a regular basis without manual touching up. You're just a gatekeeping retard that feels as though he owes something to furry porn artists (and like other regular artists I guess) because you can't go an hour without thinking about barbed cat penis, and thus will whiteknight for them. The simple fact of the matter is that these artists must adapt with the trade or fail (or find a niche). AI is a tool, no different than digital art, or paint, or canvas. And once this is finally accepted, we will all be better off for it.

 

[Temmie]

There is no 'soul' in art.

Microsoft SAM could read the works of Shakespeare but it would be lifeless, bland, and lack emotion. A human reading the same work adds things to it that the computer simply can not. The human touch is an important element in art and the fact that you can sense even the best AI "art" is off in some way proves this. Unless you're a boomer AI art feels wrong within moments of looking at it.

You're just a gatekeeping retard

Gatekeeping is important for the quality of communities and mediums. Letting the masses have access to something typically ruins it.

AI is a tool

AI artwork is copyright infringement and is highly likely to face increased restrictions as copyright holders take genai developers and companies to court.

 

[The Thinking Abacus]

I just now realized this is a known troll account. Fuck me.