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

[Day of the Cope]

View attachment 6830408

This shit is seriously getting out of hand...

 

[linchan]

This shit is seriously getting out of hand...
View attachment 6844894

It's real hard out there...

 

[Found the open sauce]

The community run by Redoshi/FrickEpic/LeEpicFrick is known to be terminally and obsessively AI-deranged, the Discord server called "Space Lounge" or something, run by this artcow: https://epicfrick.carrd.co/

 

[Greedy Fly]

This shit is seriously getting out of hand...

That guy's being a whiny little shit about it too.

https://x.com/zentrie101/status/1877987735463420284

Suicide baiting, Sorry-but-actually-I-did-nothing-wrong, lots of attempts to fend off criticism by preemptively debasing themselves, pretending to backtrack on the suicide baiting while constantly talking about suicide, I'm not screencapping all this shit you get the gist

Spoiler

Amusingly, they're never going to be able to post art again without the replies calling it AI.

Spoiler

 

[The Ugly One]

At it's core level, it's probably doing the exact same process you'd see from something like an image-to-image generation you get in stable diffusion. It's just that <10% of people actually understand the tech well enough to know it's the exact same thing. Many artists still believe that AI art generation is forming a collage of data from other images.

It's not quite a collage, but a collage is closer to the truth than "it learns and gets inspiration just like a human does." Information from the training set gets embedded in the neural network parameters, which is why all these AIs are capable of reproducing copyrighted works. That is what is at issue in all the IP lawsuits pending.

There's no issue with AI upscaling technology because it wasn't trained by scraping the internet.

 

[Kiwisee]

That guy's being a whiny little shit about it too.

https://x.com/zentrie101/status/1877987735463420284

Suicide baiting, Sorry-but-actually-I-did-nothing-wrong, lots of attempts to fend off criticism by preemptively debasing themselves, pretending to backtrack on the suicide baiting while constantly talking about suicide, I'm not screencapping all this shit you get the gist

Spoiler

View attachment 6845791View attachment 6845781View attachment 6845782

Amusingly, they're never going to be able to post art again without the replies calling it AI.

Spoiler

View attachment 6845795View attachment 6845796View attachment 6845797View attachment 6845798View attachment 6845799View attachment 6845800

It sounds like he should stop using Twitter and Twitter-lite platforms altogether. Making false allegations of AI is pretty bad, especially when actual modified AI images are pretty easy to spot.
Examples of actual modified images that were created with AI:



Anyone who is familiar enough with AI will be able to tell by the strange artistic choices made by the editor. At a glance they look fine, but when you see it it becomes hard to not notice them.

Twitter freaks wouldn’t know because they don’t have the autistic attention to detail.

 

[linchan]

There's no issue with AI upscaling technology because it wasn't trained by scraping the ininternet.

That's not true at all, nearly all machine learning algorithm is trained off of web scraped images from resources like LAION. Culture revolving anything AI basically ignored intellectual property.

 

[The Ugly One]

That's not true at all, nearly all machine learning algorithm is trained off of web scraped images from resources like LAION. Culture revolving anything AI basically ignored intellectual property.

Yes, it is. NVIDIA's DLSS and Intel's XeSS are trained on high-resolution footage of games developed using those APIs, 100% used with permission. AMD's FSR is purely heuristic-based and uses no AI.

And it's just not true that "nearly all" ML is trained off web-scraping. Only the headline-grabbers are. The AI projects I've been involved with have been trained using data provided under license by the creators with complete documentation of all sources, no scraping at all, and that's pretty standard for enterprise use. When OpenAI and the rest of them argue in court that it's impossible to make any of this stuff work without legally questionable scraping, they are engaging in a common tactic used by lawyers called "lying out their ass to justify breaking laws to gain a competitive advantage over people who do things correctly."

 

[Vibralldo]

This shit is seriously getting out of hand...
View attachment 6844894

I'm pro AI art replacing actual artists

Actual artists had legitimate grievances, but I've seen far too many of them willing to jump on the harassment bandwagon and ruin lives over retarded shit

Why would I want to deal with a group so mentally ill when I could just ask a machine to do it and get no sass?

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

And it's just not true that "nearly all" ML is trained off web-scraping. Only the headline-grabbers are. The AI projects I've been involved with have been trained using data provided under license by the creators with complete documentation of all sources, no scraping at all, and that's pretty standard for enterprise use. When OpenAI and the rest of them argue in court that it's impossible to make any of this stuff work without legally questionable scraping, they are engaging in a common tactic used by lawyers called "lying out their ass to justify breaking laws to gain a competitive advantage over people who do things correctly."

And a while back, we were talking about an AI trained solely on public domain images, and how anti-AI people were still bitching about it.

 

[RA-5C Vigilante]

Why's everybody surprised about this? Art people are infamous for being obnoxious, aggressive, cannibalistic faggots when it comes to their community.

 

[RX-78]

This shit is seriously getting out of hand...
View attachment 6844894

Every single artist is retard with severe self esteem issues so this checks out.

 

[SandyCat]

At this point I support AI solely to see these people get replaced by it. Skynet can't come soon enough

 

[Kiwisee]

I'm pro AI art replacing actual artists

Actual artists had legitimate grievances, but I've seen far too many of them willing to jump on the harassment bandwagon and ruin lives over retarded shit

Why would I want to deal with a group so mentally ill when I could just ask a machine to do it and get no sass?

Your post just made me think of the female version of Hero Hei:

Which, on top of reading off entire Twitter threads she also tends to help perpetuate harassment campaigns against artists who are suspected to be using AI. Nevermind that the artists in question just might suck at drawing hands, doing shading and never took an art class in their entire life.

The image in the thumbnail has the weird hair thing going on because of poor rendering, in case anyone is wondering. It happens with digital art. Professionals do make mistakes as well, contrary to what Twitter might make people thing.

It’s one thing to educate people as to what AI art looks like, it’s another to make money off of harassing random artists on grounds of assuming they’re doing AI art.

By the way, I say she’s “female Hero Hei” not because she’s Asian. I say it because she grifts off of retarded Twitter drama like Hero Hei does.

 

[The Ugly One]

And a while back, we were talking about an AI trained solely on public domain images, and how anti-AI people were still bitching about it.

Some people were born to bitch. It is the internet, after all. But seriously, the only basis you would have to complain about AI is if they took your IP without your consent and used it to develop the model weights.

Or, related to that, you're being legally scrupulous, while you've got competition that figures, "Hey, I'll just not even try to follow IP law and then argue in court that my business model is so innovative that I shouldn't have to follow all those stupid laws that my competitors do."

 

[verymuchawful]

This shit is seriously getting out of hand...
View attachment 6844894

Extremely retarded. This factual retard pointed out a piece of art having issues that stem from an inexperience as tells of it being AI. When typically the tell is the opposite and the image looks too "perfect", the actual tells being in weird noise patterns around edges, and more glaring artifact issues with small details like fingers and eyes. This person looked at a simple color sketch that isn't even that detailed or impressive, and tried to accuse it of being AI. He literally used signs that the image isn't AI as grounds for it being AI. An artist got accused of using AI not because the piece looked too good, but because it wasn't perfect. Conflating the notion that AI = mistakes, mistakes = AI. We're cooked.

 

[izaNAmI]

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but it really baffles me that digital artists conveniently forget (or are too young to know) that traditional artists had the same issues with digital art once it became accessible. Every argument against AI can be applied to traditional vs digital art.

 

[Etrian Autistry]

The xitter thread is pretty hilarious honestly, the AI-accuser artist is desperately trying to get sympathy and everyone is just posting for them to kill themselves

 

["Controlled Demolition"]

Extremely retarded. This factual retard pointed out a piece of art having issues that stem from an inexperience as tells of it being AI. When typically the tell is the opposite and the image looks too "perfect", the actual tells being in weird noise patterns around edges, and more glaring artifact issues with small details like fingers and eyes. This person looked at a simple color sketch that isn't even that detailed or impressive, and tried to accuse it of being AI. He literally used signs that the image isn't AI as grounds for it being AI. An artist got accused of using AI not because the piece looked too good, but because it wasn't perfect. Conflating the notion that AI = mistakes, mistakes = AI. We're cooked.

With that image I can at least assume the guy went "I don't like it therefore it must be AI" which, while petty, at least makes sense, but what baffles me is this one:

That one's not even about inexperience or bad anatomy. They are stylistic choices that one makes for very simplistic, cute or chibi designs, which the author does. There are zero tells that any of it is AI; in fact, most simpler models would struggle keeping the uniform consistent between reference side-by-side shots. AI also struggles with precise and consistent line weight, which an actual artist can do trivially just by inking, though varying lineweight is widespread nowadays with digital art.
Not to beat the same drum, as Twitter beats it enough as is, but it's Dunning-Kruger in practice. A man who sees one or two AI images without understanding the minutiae of their creation who then goes accusing everything else of being AI-generated if it is superficially similar. And in this case it isn't even a synonym to "I think your art is bad therefore AI", it's just pure stupidity and a knee-jerk reaction. Or a very bad shitpost.
At this rate, as AI improves – as it surely will, since image-generative models have far more room to grow and more quickly than LLMs do – most artists will get called out for using AI as they become inferior to the average AI picture. Or (most, non-obsessed) people will simply forget about it and accept AI-generation as another tool in the toolbox, which is what it is.

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but it really baffles me that digital artists conveniently forget (or are too young to know) that traditional artists had the same issues with digital art once it became accessible. Every argument against AI can be applied to traditional vs digital art.

This is an exact repeat of when Photoshop got released, except this technically has a few more uses. Sentiment among sane people has already died down, and I expect Stable Diffusion and its like to be perfectly normal parts of visual art design within a few years.
Dipshit opinion: I'd argue that there's a fundamental difference between digital art and tangible, physical art, and that divide will become very apparent in the coming years. Soon, and I hope this'll happen, most forms of digital art will become effectively worthless while the entirely physical will thrive. Static digital pictures will fall first, then video, then 3D models, then the rest, with literature slowly succumbing sometime in the farther future. A child's crayon painting already takes more effort and earnest activity than sending a prompt off to some server farm that'll spit out a full bombshell scene in a few seconds.

 

[Greedy Fly]

I guess I didn't make it clear: zentrie101 is the anti-AI guy that bullied the random Japanese artist off Twitter. That pic (and the others I posted) are people shitting him for doing it. Everyone knows it's not AI.

That one's not even about inexperience or bad anatomy. They are stylistic choices that one makes for very simplistic, cute or chibi designs, which the author does