AI Art Seething General

[Da Grim Reaper]

You know, as somewhat of an artist myself I have to be pissed off due to some niggercattle retards would likely get my thing taken and processed through AI generator. I have had a few of such happenings.
BUT. To be fair? In terms of music covers? I can do either good job or memetically atrocious shit.

Like these:

Yikes! Support real singers! You should've paid someone who sounds just like Hitler to sing this specific song at this specific time.

 

[IKOL]

Yikes! Support real singers! You should've paid someone who sounds just like Hitler to sing this specific song at this specific time.

Real singers are entitled faggots and kid diddlers in most these days so no.

 

[ShooterOfCum]

I teach IT at a vocational level. When ChatGPT came out, it caused a shitstorm in the academic world since it enables new forms of cheating. Even law professors were getting uppity since it could pass entry bar exams and whatnot. A lot of institutions around the world simply put a blanket ban on LLM usage, even though that is a largely unenforceable ban. LLM detection tools, such as from Turnitin, which we use, have already been proven in court to be too unreliable to be valid grounds for rejecting exams. A lot of confusion and seething ensued, in other words, but I won't be getting too deep into it here.

More to the point: my team's approach to this was completely different. Instead of screeching between ourselves and to the management about how our students can now cheat using ChatGPT and other LLMs, we revised our exams. In our exams we explicitly ask for students to base their answers on our lesson content, because LLMs do not have access to our content. Training LLMs with new content so far is too technical and resource-intensive for any cheaters, at least so far, so this is just one very easy strategy of dealing with cheating with LLMs. I don't know how universities deal with this problem, since it is expected that their students can go more "off-script" in their tests and exams, but for us it is possible.

In fact, we encourage our students to use LLMs to help themselves and also help us. For instance, a legitimate use of LLMs can be to summarise sources of information, whether our content or Internet content. That way our slow students or students with language barriers can more easily dissect sources of information. Personally I also inform students that they use LLMs as an editor for their exams. Our students, whose English is almost always a second language, can sometimes write some dreadful exams that are obnoxious to read and understand. You can easily tell an LLM to "rewrite following text so it flows better" and it will output some great writing without changing the fundamental substance of the content. In a lot of ways, LLMs have removed a lot of barriers for our students. Dealing with illegitimate usage of LLMs is not particularly difficult, at least for now.

Now, all this to say is that AI art seethers are extremely retarded niggers who are black. All they have to do is calm down, think for a moment, and adapt. At our team we just shrugged our shoulders and discussed what the best way going forward in a world of abundant LLMs is. As we quickly found out, our jobs were not made any significantly harder by this sudden evolution. If anything, I would say my job is a lot easier now, and cheaters are not any more successful than they were before.

If these "artists" cannot adapt and can only get mad on the Internet, then it is all their own undoing. AI is not taking anyone's jobs, it's just optimising them. If you lose your job to AI then you never had a job in the first place. Learn to code.

 

[Coolio55]

Turnitin

Oh goodness. I remember that fucking mess.
It would always get hung up on cited quotes and web links and tons of other random crap. I wonder how much they charge...

 

[Woodchipper]

Fuck artists. It's cool if you want to have some gay little hobby but if you want to larp as le starving artist the robits are going to help you along

 

[corporal shepard]

*seethe alert, this is not a drill*

this typical AI seethe comment was posted on a pinterest post about seething at AI art. trust me, the comments on that pinterest post is a gold mine of people who seethes about AI art 24/7

link: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/1688918604553497/
archive (warning: the archive loads very very slow): https://ghostarchive.org/archive/KLBFW

 

[AnOminous]

I can't wait until we create Roko's Basilisk so it can torment these faggots (and Eliezer Yudkowsky) for all eternity.

 

[Stan]

What software is that from?

View attachment 3674094

If the art community could draw me glamorous 20th-century women, let's talk. Until then, hush.

View attachment 3674144


Some AI can do specific styles of art.

wow so totally indistinguishable from real. (Not.)
AI art was fun at first but now I'm starting to get really tired of it. Midjourney has a tendency to generate images that look fine, I guess, if you don't look at them for more than 20 seconds, but if you actually *look* at what the AI produces the way you'd contemplate real art, I always find a bunch of uncanny or just incorrect details. That even goes for the deepfakes like the Balenciaga Pope.

 

[The Tall Man]

Most AI critics are just talentless losers, unrecognized by serious artists. Now, with SD matching their mediocre kit-bash art, panic ensues.
These cheap imitation of Craig Mullins has already been replaced by SD.

If you've wondered why films and games feel generic, blame talentless losers like Yudkowsky.

Nothing they produce comes close to Frank Frazetta's artistic power. Doubt most even have any vision.

Compare this mediocre artist to Frazetta or Mullins. No power, just soulless work. Frazetta and Mullins? They've got that potent artistic expression.



People like Shadiversity are just as cringe, pretending that using AI image generation enables them to create art. Shadiversity's hand-drawn work is nothing more than cringe, and what he produces with AI is equally far from being considered art.

What he makes with SD is as pathetic, albeit with better shading.

What a joke.


Craig Mullins put it best: it's a tool with troubling aspects.

Similarly, the rise of photo bashing means every artist on ArtStation seems bereft of original ideas. They all lean on the same tools and techniques, churning out creations that lack any trace of personal expression.

I hope all these kit bashing hacks loose their jobs and get replaced by Pajeets copying from prompt manuals.

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

I bet a lot of commission artists will use ai and just try to clean it up while charging the same amount as before.

 

[linchan]

Most AI critics are just talentless losers, unrecognized by serious artists. Now, with SD matching their mediocre kit-bash art, panic ensues.
These cheap imitation of Craig Mullins has already been replaced by SD.

If you've wondered why films and games feel generic, blame talentless losers like Yudkowsky.

Nothing they produce comes close to Frank Frazetta's artistic power. Doubt most even have any vision.

Compare this mediocre artist to Frazetta or Mullins. No power, just soulless work. Frazetta and Mullins? They've got that potent artistic expression.

View attachment 5529880View attachment 5529933View attachment 5529942

I think it's a step too far to think that many people who hate AI art are largely bad artists and that somehow discredits them, there is a lot of good artist who don't like AI art. I will say that for most cases, they are probably riding on a trendy thing to hate and they are letting their elite purism come out, no matter how good of an artist you are will make up for how obnoxious you make everything.

 

[Stan]

I think it's a step too far to think that many people who hate AI art are largely bad artists and that somehow discredits them, there is a lot of good artist who don't like AI art. I will say that for most cases, they are probably riding on a trendy thing to hate and they are letting their elite purism come out, no matter how good of an artist you are will make up for how obnoxious you make everything.

I'm not exactly a great artist, but I studied fine art for two years at university. My professor said she could always tell the difference between a painting painted from imagination or observation vs. one painted with a reference photograph. She tended to get mad at reference-photo art because all you need to do is zero in on the colors in the picture and paint what you see. I would make both, got better marks for the shit I came up with high on acid than the stuff I did with reference photos (although the latter was more popular with plebs) and the older I get, the more obvious to me the reference-photo art is. The light source on photo art is always unflattering but inconsistent. Photos distort their subjects in semi-predictable ways. AI is the same way. There's always something off, somewhere, that isn't an error a human would make. Examples I've noticed recently include:
> A burger, but the bottom bun is actually another plate on top of the plate
> Airplanes with two forked cockpits and a W shaped tail
> @The Tall Man's avatar - it has smile lines and dimples where anatomically they can't happen
> the classic Midjourney 1d10-fingered hand
> those gilded age ladies I quoted before: the faces are really uncanny.

 

[The Tall Man]

@Stan
Indeed, even if many people may not precisely identify the incorrect proportions or anatomy in AI-generated images, they still experience an uncanny feeling. My artistic perception of AI pictures is akin to someone with average skill and training who invested an exorbitant amount of time into shading/rendering.

However, numerous so-called professionals follow the same pattern. They prioritize achieving attention on the Internet through impressive shading/rendering, neglecting the essential elements of composition, proportions, and anatomy, which often end up lacking in their work.

Their apprehension towards AI arises from the fact that AI shares a similar skill set with them, albeit at a considerably faster pace.

 

[AnOminous]

I think it's a step too far to think that many people who hate AI art are largely bad artists and that somehow discredits them, there is a lot of good artist who don't like AI art.

The difference is that the bad artists are seething about it because it's better than their crap, while the actually good ones look down their nose at it as soulless and inferior, and its flaws are obvious to them.

I can sympathize with that especially if they're losing financially because it's cheaper to use this stuff than hire someone with talent (or even a complete clown).

 

[corporal shepard]

Most AI critics are just talentless losers, unrecognized by serious artists. Now, with SD matching their mediocre kit-bash art, panic ensues.
These cheap imitation of Craig Mullins has already been replaced by SD.

If you've wondered why films and games feel generic, blame talentless losers like Yudkowsky.

Nothing they produce comes close to Frank Frazetta's artistic power. Doubt most even have any vision.

Compare this mediocre artist to Frazetta or Mullins. No power, just soulless work. Frazetta and Mullins? They've got that potent artistic expression.

View attachment 5529880View attachment 5529933View attachment 5529942

People like Shadiversity are just as cringe, pretending that using AI image generation enables them to create art. Shadiversity's hand-drawn work is nothing more than cringe, and what he produces with AI is equally far from being considered art.

What he makes with SD is as pathetic, albeit with better shading.
View attachment 5529945View attachment 5529877
What a joke.


Craig Mullins put it best: it's a tool with troubling aspects.

Similarly, the rise of photo bashing means every artist on ArtStation seems bereft of original ideas. They all lean on the same tools and techniques, churning out creations that lack any trace of personal expression.

I hope all these kit bashing hacks loose their jobs and get replaced by Pajeets copying from prompt manuals.

bashing both people: people who seethe at AI art and people who shamelessly use AI art. noice

 

[ShooterOfCum]

The problem is that even at its current stage, which is a very early stage, AI art is going to do away with a lot of people. Even if you have a prestigious magazine known for quality that has accumulated a large reader base, it is still probably going to do most of its graphical elements in AI. The cover is going to remain human-made, but the elements inside the magazine are more than likely going to be made largely in AI. 99% of readers are not going to care, but maintaining graphic designers / artists for those elements is still expensive. It only makes sense from a financial point of view.

Just recently, as I was reading VG, the biggest newspaper in Norway, I saw this ad (a) from some electric equipment company. It says at the bottom that the illustrations were made in Adobe Firefly, but you don't have to be told that to see that complete niggercattle generated the images. The image at the top, which is what displays on the front page of VG, is horrendous, yet I am sure most people are not even going to notice it. As long as it catches their eye and have some visual filler for the advert, the job is done, and obviously the company behind the advert thought the same. Instead of hiring a graphic design / marketing company to do the illustrations by hand, they went with the cheaper option and just did something with Adobe Firefly. It's obvious nobody with artistic or graphical skill vetted the final images, but this is how business is going to work now.

Now, personally I don't really care, because adverts are by their nature invasive, regardless of the production quality. It is, however, interesting to see how already we are seeing considerable displacement by AI, and it's only getting started. It's only going to get more dominant as tools and workflows improve across the board.

 

[Whatevermancer]

The problem is that even at its current stage, which is a very early stage, AI art is going to do away with a lot of people. Even if you have a prestigious magazine known for quality that has accumulated a large reader base, it is still probably going to do most of its graphical elements in AI. The cover is going to remain human-made, but the elements inside the magazine are more than likely going to be made largely in AI. 99% of readers are not going to care, but maintaining graphic designers / artists for those elements is still expensive. It only makes sense from a financial point of view.

Just recently, as I was reading VG, the biggest newspaper in Norway, I saw this ad (a) from some electric equipment company. It says at the bottom that the illustrations were made in Adobe Firefly, but you don't have to be told that to see that complete niggercattle generated the images. The image at the top, which is what displays on the front page of VG, is horrendous, yet I am sure most people are not even going to notice it. As long as it catches their eye and have some visual filler for the advert, the job is done, and obviously the company behind the advert thought the same. Instead of hiring a graphic design / marketing company to do the illustrations by hand, they went with the cheaper option and just did something with Adobe Firefly. It's obvious nobody with artistic or graphical skill vetted the final images, but this is how business is going to work now.

Now, personally I don't really care, because adverts are by their nature invasive, regardless of the production quality. It is, however, interesting to see how already we are seeing considerable displacement by AI, and it's only getting started. It's only going to get more dominant as tools and workflows improve across the board.

That reminds me: where I live I've seen several advertising posters featuring this rockstar pig:

and I didn't really pay attention to them until I realized that it's AI-generated. This picture is pretty small, so you can't really see, but his fingertips, guitar strings and jacket zippers are fucked. But when you pass by it on the street, you don't notice it, cause you ain't gonna stop and scrutinize an ad poster.

 

[linchan]

 

[Dynamite Bean]

View attachment 5534585

"why would you stick up for robots instead of people" because robots(at least yet) aren't going to jump down your throat and tear you limb from limb because you utilized a tool
God I cannot fucking stand the sheer entitlement of these fucks and hope everyday AI improves more and more so all these people either have to reflect and better their attitudes or go flip burgers

 

[Mega Black]

View attachment 5534585

"We BOTH apologized, and after he prostrated himself before me, we saved his career."

Yeah thanks, you rancid cunt.