AI Art Seething General

[Mad Hunter]

Besides that, all the people I've seen who show their own "Ghibli" style on X suck ass but at the same time they demand that people pay them $50 for their ugly art.

I never understood people spending $50 for something they'll just look at then get tired of seeing anyway when the time comes.

 

[weirdMcGee]

I never understood people spending $50 for something they'll just look at then get tired of seeing anyway when the time comes.

People send fifty dollars on family photos then hang on their wall?

 

[Runch]

What a dumb faggot. The people using AI aren't looking for artfags. So the reply section is just a giant circlejerk.

Besides that, all the people I've seen who show their own "Ghibli" style on X suck ass but at the same time they demand that people pay them $50 for their ugly art.

Yeah, doesn't it help no one for "artists to find each other?" Artists don't need to commission each other. They can already do art and draw whatever they want. It's nothing but a performative hugbox of "ooh your art is pretty" "thanks hon, yours is great too," parroting out statements they aren't even invested in because they know they're "supposed to" support each other to bring about the death of AI. It's not genuine, and even if it was it wouldn't be meaningful.

I wonder what would happen if you waded into one of those circlejerks and said "ok, hey, I want someone to draw this commission for $50, I hate AI and want to support real artists." Does anyone take you up on that offer? Or do they hem and haw and say "oh uh actually I charge minimum $100...and I'm kinda busy, my sciatica is flaring up again..."

Either a cheap way to score art or an instant reveal of who they really are.

 

[Mad Hunter]

People send fifty dollars on family photos then hang on their wall?

At least there's some guarantee they won't get tired of any of those to a degree, but a cartoon character that is not real and therefore cannot treat you right or wrong? That's too far.

 

[Slav Power]

And given how dogshit it is it might poison it anyway lol

Nah it'll land in the training dataset that's meant to tell the model what bad art looks like and what to avoid.

Finally. She spoke our minds.

You don't use ChatGPT because not doing what everyone else is doing makes you feel special.
I don't use ChatGPT because I'm not going to give my phone number to use a censored LLM that I don't own where everything I send is fed as training data. We are not the same.

Another episode of "artist is sad because the skill he spent lots of time learning can now be done by normies proompting a chatbot", but with a twist:

https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1jm2ihx/sad_because_now_with_the_new_chatgpt_image/

View attachment 7157989

I mean, yeah. The fun in image generation is how it's open and independent, now ClosedAI has superseded everything that local genners have, but it's closed source and we probably won't be getting anything as good locally, unless the Chinese or Black Forest Labs do some magic.

 

[Sneed's Feed n Seed]

Only autists hate and fear AI, because AI replaces them, because their skillset relies on routine mimicry and slight remixing rather than genuine originality, which is all AI has to offer. Same with shitty lazy artists who aren't autists but are just as bad as an autist.

So, I decided to use AI to fuck with autists.

 

[Mad Hunter]

Baby Pepe is so cute

View attachment 7163170

I slightly disagree because I strongly believe there's no such thing as an "original artstyle" or "genuine originality" because everyone copies to some degree, consciously or unconsciously.

However, regarding art style, I'd say some people's styles are more copied than original - no additional refinements, original touches, or tweaks - and if there are, chances are the average normie can't see the differences.

Then, the retarded artists will cry "why is AI copying me so, so easily?"

their skillset relies on routine mimicry and slight remixing rather than genuine originality, which is all AI has to offer

 

[Frogget-me-not]

Call me werid but why do artist often cite ai as the main reason to lose interest in drawing? I'm an artist, I know ai exist, but I still draw in spite of it. And given how dogshit it is it might poison it anyway lol

Before AI I drew shitposts and mediocre anime slop. After AI I can generate better anime slop and shitposts in a fraction of the time. Why spend 80 hours painting a drawing when AI can add the paint and shading in three minutes better than I can? Especially if it’s something that’s only going to be seen by friends or a few forum users. It hasn’t turned me away completely from drawing (since mainstream AI bans Hitler, many copyrighted characters, and Islamic content) but definitely tanked my motivation to properly learn shading/lighting/etc. especially when I’m just a hobbyist.

ClosedAI restrictions are frustrating. Can’t wait until China cracks it wide open so I can run a decent model locally (with or without Chinese spyware)

I wonder what would happen if you waded into one of those circlejerks and said "ok, hey, I want someone to draw this commission for $50, I hate AI and want to support real artists." Does anyone take you up on that offer? Or do they hem and haw and say "oh uh actually I charge minimum $100...and I'm kinda busy, my sciatica is flaring up again..."

I think there would be artfags who would be willing to do it for 50$ (especially young artists who don’t yet understand the value of time and effort), but results will likely be much shittier than what AI can make.

It would be really funny though if someone took your money and chatGPTs your image anyway, passing it off for real work.

 

[Soggy Floppa]

ClosedAI restrictions are frustrating. Can’t wait until China cracks it wide open so I can run a decent model locally (with or without Chinese spyware)

You have been able to for years already. Flux is open source and runs on consumer hardware, Illustrious for weebshit, WAN and Hunyuan video are open source.

 

[linchan]

People send fifty dollars on family photos then hang on their wall?

Am I alone in thinking $50 is a steep price to just to put an image on the wall? I don't think I ever seen a family put up a family portrait on a frame.
Usually people just put up drawings their kids drew on a wall.

 

[Frogget-me-not]

You have been able to for years already. Flux is open source and runs on consumer hardware, Illustrious for weebshit, WAN and Hunyuan video are open source.

I’ve run Stable Diffusion since the NovelAI leak and the results were always kind of lackluster compared to closed datasets. Granted I haven’t played with LoRAs yet, so I might be missing out on improvements there. Thanks though. I’ll give Illustrious another go.

 

[Dawdler]

Only autists hate and fear AI, because AI replaces them, because their skillset relies on routine mimicry and slight remixing rather than genuine originality, which is all AI has to offer. Same with shitty lazy artists who aren't autists but are just as bad as an autist.

So, I decided to use AI to fuck with autists.

View attachment 7163157View attachment 7163159View attachment 7163170

That's actually quality content. AI supports human creativity by removing the limits to express it.
AI by itself isn't creative (and neither are artists).

 

[Runch]

I’ve run Stable Diffusion since the NovelAI leak and the results were always kind of lackluster compared to closed datasets. Granted I haven’t played with LoRAs yet, so I might be missing out on improvements there. Thanks though. I’ll give Illustrious another go.

Loras are the whole reason local AI competes with closed models. It's a little inconvenient to have to download a file for whatever specific thing you want to make, and then test it to make sure it isn't terrible, but it's what enables generation of basically anything. Not too hard to make your own too.

 

[Sneed's Feed n Seed]

I slightly disagree because I strongly believe there's no such thing as an "original artstyle" or "genuine originality" because everyone copies to some degree, consciously or unconsciously.

However, regarding art style, I'd say some people's styles are more copied than original - no additional refinements, original touches, or tweaks - and if there are, chances are the average normie can't see the differences.

Then, the retarded artists will cry "why is AI copying me so, so easily?"

You can't ask an AI to copy a new style that just appeared, for instance. The same primitives are there, sure, and there are generally influences, but there are also new aesthetics appearing, that are then copied. Someone's actually pushing new things.

Also, just to highlight how limited AI is, try to ask it to change proportions - it can't. It's VERY rote. The AI companies might be at the point they could let you sketch something out in terms of poses (drag and drop limbs, etc) and then fill it in, sure, but even that is itself going to be something that most people wouldn't be able to make use of.

That's actually quality content. AI supports human creativity by removing the limits to express it.

AI by itself isn't creative (and neither are artists).

I respectfully disagree. Human artistic expression for commission is still creative. There's nothing wrong with having a team of specialized humans working on large projects. Most writers can't edit their own work. Artists need paint, canvas, and something to represent, etc.

Artists are (well, can be...) creative, but I think we differ on definitions of creativity. Must a painter only make up things in their mind, can they not paint what they see, or put their spin on something they've seen? If someone has great novel ideas, but cannot write them, but another person who is amazing if given a good idea writes it, did they not come together to create something, or at least have one borrow?

A great illustrator or painter who can't come up with their own stories or characters is still creative. Someone who can write but cannot utilize visual to the same degree is no less creative. They all have their place.

The point I wanted to highlight is creativity versus mimicry and remixing. An easy example to that would be someone who samples noises of industrial machines or particularly sonorous heavy doors and makes something that sounds like a from-nothing synth song, versus some lazier examples of hiphop sampling that just plays sections of the sampled song without even minor tweaks.

 

[femboy fart huffer]

Loras are the whole reason local AI competes with closed models

Honestly I wouldn't even say 'competes'. Loras are the only way to do certain things, if you want a niche character you will have to use a lora, you do not have a choice. If you try use something like grok or bingIC it will just refuse to do certain things because it's too niche. I don't think I've been able to make anything I want exactly how I wanted it without using a lora. It's basically required to do anything other than boring shit.

 

[Po's Cootah]

Only autists hate and fear AI, because AI replaces them, because their skillset relies on routine mimicry and slight remixing rather than genuine originality, which is all AI has to offer. Same with shitty lazy artists who aren't autists but are just as bad as an autist.

So, I decided to use AI to fuck with autists.

View attachment 7163157View attachment 7163159View attachment 7163170

... Well then... You just addressed about half of this site, then. But in this case, it's pro-AI and AI-worshipping autists.

 

[Justwandering02]

Do all those anti AI can't really grasp why people are choosing ai over ''real artist'' is time? time and money

This video may be french but it have interesting point like why a majority of artist are using AI for youtube miniature but aren't telling.
And how the photo pretty much changed concept of painted art in the early 1900/late 1800
but I think it do have the same flaw like attribuating human art with ''soul''

 

[Chrono Legion]

Only autists hate and fear AI, because AI replaces them, because their skillset relies on routine mimicry and slight remixing rather than genuine originality, which is all AI has to offer. Same with shitty lazy artists who aren't autists but are just as bad as an autist.

The problem is, whatever genuine originality you have, will be scraped, trained and mimicked by AI making you obsolete. And if you continue, it will continue, endlessly sabotaging you whenever you think you're ahead, using your own successes to destroy the careers of you and others. That's why people freak out. It's a deadly parasite on the scene but like a parasite, it can't really continue without a host, so if all artists (Especially the talented ones) threw in the towel because of the insidiousness of it all, the AI would have no new training data, no genuine originality to steal and ruin. And it would still rule over its own stagnant ashes and the artists would still be out of a job. There isn't really any reasonable reaction to something like that other than outrage and disgust, so that's what you see from people that understand what's happening.

 

[Jarolleon]

The problem is, whatever genuine originality you have, will be scraped, trained and mimicked by AI making you obsolete. And if you continue, it will continue, endlessly sabotaging you whenever you think you're ahead, using your own successes to destroy the careers of you and others. That's why people freak out. It's a deadly parasite on the scene but like a parasite, it can't really continue without a host, so if all artists (Especially the talented ones) threw in the towel because of the insidiousness of it all, the AI would have no new training data, no genuine originality to steal and ruin. And it would still rule over its own stagnant ashes and the artists would still be out of a job.

Isn't it fitting that this AI sees so many breakthroughs when most of pop media consists of remixing and milking IPs from the 1980s? Automating what we were already doing.

 

[Sneed's Feed n Seed]

The problem is, whatever genuine originality you have, will be scraped, trained and mimicked by AI making you obsolete. And if you continue, it will continue, endlessly sabotaging you whenever you think you're ahead, using your own successes to destroy the careers of you and others. That's why people freak out. It's a deadly parasite on the scene but like a parasite, it can't really continue without a host, so if all artists (Especially the talented ones) threw in the towel because of the insidiousness of it all, the AI would have no new training data, no genuine originality to steal and ruin. And it would still rule over its own stagnant ashes and the artists would still be out of a job. There isn't really any reasonable reaction to something like that other than outrage and disgust, so that's what you see from people that understand what's happening.

AI is already trained on real artists and authors. It cannot actually match them in any meaningful way.

When AI can write a novel that isn’t shit let me know. When AI beats ko-fi level art let me know. When AI can do anything but the same parlor trick or rote variation on someone else’s theme let me know.

As it stands you’re speaking in hypotheticals.