AI Art Seething General

[Obsul]

It doesn't eliminate any process,

It might be a legitimate argument to say it doesn't eliminate the existence of some kind of process altogether (that is to say, some kind of process has to be undertaken) since you still have to prompt it and then regen over and over again while tweaking your prompt to get the result you want, but to say it doesn't eliminate any process at all is absolutely ridiculous. Pro-AI people from the start have been making these kinds of arguments by analogizing the leap in generative AI to previous advancements in tools and technology available for people to use, but they are not analogous. The advancement from traditional photography to digital photography is not analogous to AI. With traditional photography to digital photography, the basic process of you deciding what angle to capture with your physical camera along with the lighting conditions and shutter speed and other factors was intact. Developing the film was eliminated as a process, but you were still making a lot of these decisions with a physical camera whose settings you tweaked directly. With AI you're not actually taking a photo, you're giving a bunch of instructions to something that will generate a fake photo for you. It's not analogous to making something, it's analogous to commissioning an artist over and over again until you get what you want, the process is eliminated entirely and replaced with a new process of writing to a model to iterate until you get something close enough to what you wanted.

It's not even that useful if you're trying to use it to """"""""augment"""""""" your personal process if you draw because it lacks layer data and there are enough deviations from whatever you have in your mind that you will spend just as much time fucking around with it to fix it as you would've just spent making it from scratch. The point is clearly to replace the process of actually making it with the infinity prompting process for the subhuman soulless soy redditor Jew-golems that soy out over every technological advancement and perceive all technological advancement as an automatic good.

I've been busy at work recently so didn't get around to replying to this post until now.

 

[linchan]

It's not analogous to making something, it's analogous to commissioning an artist over and over again until you get what you want

I like how anti's will make this argument, and completely forget the fact art directors exist, and they are just as much recognized as the authors of any art or media in society.

Like are you going to argue that a movie director shouldn't be considered an artist because at a minimum they can just sit on their ass, instruct other people to follow directions, make them read a script or a prompt, and make actors redo a shot over and over again until they get the result they want?

An argument like this completely disregards an entire art form just to spit on something you don't like, not to mention, a fairly weak one considering all someone needs to become an artist by your standard just doing something beyond that.

 

[Obsul]

I like how anti's will make this argument, and completely forget the fact art directors exist, and they are just as much recognized as the authors of any art or media in society.

Like are you going to argue that a movie director shouldn't be considered an artist because at a minimum they can just sit on their ass, instruct other people to follow directions, make them read a script or a prompt, and make actors redo a shot over and over again until they get the result you want?

An argument like this completely disregards an entire artform just to spit on something you don't like.

I never said anything about whether or not they should be considered artists, you just injected that in. I don't care about the term "art", it's a worthless and meaningless term no matter how you slice it, which is why I made no mention of it. In a world with art directors, the process is still intact and there are still people doing the actual process as a career. This is a complete non-sequitur.

 

[Girahira]

Tale as old as time, song as old as rhyme

https://twitter.com/dreamosaurus/status/1815658409913684339?s=61&t=4woCfb37dnM3Pic-6XUd0A

 

[The Ultimate Ramotith]

...I am surpriased that I did not pos this here.

Anything involving 'tech bros', never mind how Silicon Valley is in, and has the lefty culture of, California, is considered anathema to furries. Not helping is the notorious use of electricity (and therefore fresh water) that crypto, NFTs, and AI use.
View attachment 6185576

https://bsky.app/profile/chili-corndog.bsky.social/post/3kqqjboovyt2f

The hypocritical part is they using AI when doing their furry roleplays with fictional characters, not mentioning their messing around with AI generators back when the results were wonky.

 

[AmpleApricots]

I saw this today.

 

[Miss Violet Beauregarde]

I saw this today.

This is old news peddled as new. It doesn't really replace much in the industry and even then it's mostly only the DEI-focused people or other useless positions.

 

[BrainProlapse]

Are there any online ai art generators that aren't completely cucked?

I liked making a few quick shitposts with Bing AI now and then but to my consternation I can't get it to generate niggers in any of hilarious situations now.

Please help.

 

[Girahira]

Are there any online ai art generators that aren't completely cucked?

I liked making a few quick shitposts with Bing AI now and then but to my consternation I can't get it to generate niggers in any of hilarious situations now.

Please help.

Have you tried it with ‘European king’ instead?

 

[AnOminous]

Have you tried it with ‘European king’ instead?

"Pharaohs."

 

[Miss Violet Beauregarde]

Some one tried to understand how ai works

Spoiler: Hmmmm

 

[GratsTheat783]

The AI Art debate is interesting because it seems to attract opposites to the other side. The anti-AI side consists of Tumblr-types who insist that anything and everything can be art, while the pro-AI side consists of those who are more traditional in their views of art, who you'd expect to be the ones to say that AI art isn't proper art. I think that second one isn't because they actually believe that AI is real art, but rather because it enrages the Tumblr-types.

Some one tried to understand how ai works

Spoiler: Hmmmm

View attachment 6243751View attachment 6243752View attachment 6243753View attachment 6243754View attachment 6243755View attachment 6243756View attachment 6243757View attachment 6243758View attachment 6243759View attachment 6243760View attachment 6243761View attachment 6243762

I did not understand much of this. Was he correct in his understanding?

 

[Mega Black]

Wake up, there's a new seething video

And here's some bonus comic seething

Spoiler: Do ai really only make collages?

View attachment 6201180View attachment 6201181View attachment 6201182

The average internet artist really deserves AI for being such massive insufferable faggots

 

[Miss Violet Beauregarde]

https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/1eb3jfu/oh_yes_its_still_going_on_so_going_on/

Some highlights:

Spoiler: Highlights

 

[linchan]

https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/1eb3jfu/oh_yes_its_still_going_on_so_going_on/

Some highlights:

Spoiler: Highlights

View attachment 6245076View attachment 6245077View attachment 6245078

So has this been decided or not. Is this not going to change until September? I'm confused what the progress of this lawsuit is.

 

[gagabobo1997]

Some one tried to understand how ai works

I did not understand much of this. Was he correct in his understanding?

Alot of the technical points in it were correct but he draws a retarded conclusion from it.

"In conclusion, machine learning models are by design restrictive in terms of boiling down visual artwork, leaving no possibility of generating images beyond that which has been defined by prior images, and is prone to outright copying."

I don't think there's a single AI user/developer who would disagree with this statement. The entire point of an image generator is to take a bunch of captioned images as input for training and create similar images when given a similar caption. It can definitely generate brand new never before seen unique images though.
Overfitting, which he explains in his posts, is a flaw in models that AI researchers are actively trying to solve. Though in some cases outright copying is desired. If you put "starry nights" into an image model you would think that it would make sense to get an accurate representation of the painting. If you wanted to make an image similar to the painting you would specify as such. But whatever.

I can write a prompt that gives me a unique image that directly violates no existing copyright, and that's all that should matter. It's up to the user to not violate the law with a tool.

 

[Jeb Bush]

The thing we all predicted would happen, is currently happening. GLAZE 2.0 has fallen, now billions must seethe!


The Chinese menace from the past, strikes again and soon a research paper is written:

Adversarial Perturbations Cannot Reliably Protect Artists From Generative AI​

The initial GLAZE Xitter response:

and a few notable comments:


Lastly the GLAZE blog gives us a more in depth reply to the paper (linked here).

TLDR: If you want to keep your art protected against the evil flipping AI, you'll have to take down all your GLAZE 2 "protected" art, run the originals through GLAZE 2.1 instead and upload it all back online again. This will last you until the unglaze tool is updated and so the cycle will probably repeat infinitely.

 

[JesusChristDenton]

This guy's voice is setting my troondar off.

 

[Miss Violet Beauregarde]

The culmination of ai seething

https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistHate/comments/1efx59d/ai_is_dying_off/

 

[AmpleApricots]

It's amazing how they double down just to be more retarded.

The thing with artificial intelligence, and I wrote that somewhere here before, is that it is that it is nothing if not inevitable. It's not some woowoo thing that violates known laws of the universe, like movie time travel, or scifi FTL drives. Intelligence exists. Intelligence has a physical root. Intelligence is observable. That our brand of reasoning and understanding can be reproduced in other forms with similar results is just simply not that big of a stretch.

Then, human progress never went backwards or just stopped on a promising thing, and artificial intelligence and it's rewards are very promising. You need civilizations to collapse and knowledge to actively be lost to set your average human back, and even then it's at best temporary. History has proven this many times already. The current iteration of AI can already do really useful things the average person wouldn't have thought would ever be possible to do with a computer just a few years ago. LLMs might not be able to convincingly play your wife or write a book, but they can do natural language processing and solve problems in ways that not long ago were straight up unsolvable with computers. Acting like that in itself isn't huge is just stupid. Yeah, there is and was a lot of hype, there are the common profiteers and the average person's attention span has waned, still, this technology is and will be changing things.

Angrily posting on social media and demanding that everything has to stay like it always has been is not gonna stop human progress. Agreeing with like-minded people in some social media circle-jerk and calming that the consensus is indicative of any kind of trend is nothing if not delusional. But I guess for Artfags that's a Tuesday.