Why didn't the director think robots would be able to do that stuff?
the director didn't write the script. the script was written by one akiva goldsman and was originally called hardwired before they slapped the asimov title on it.
Several months ago artists were coping >W-well AI will never be able to draw hands!
because they couldn't comprehend that AI might continue improving and the fact it sucked drawing hands was because of the images fed to it were drawn by artists who suck at hands.
I do not understand if it is some self defence mechanism to deny that improvement will happen or if people really believe that we have hit a the limit of this current burst in Machine Learning development.
Actually the issue with hands was how we don’t have words/labels for literally every single possible articulation of the fingers, so the AI was just mashing them together into a vaguely hand-like arrangement of knuckles and fingernails.
Because that was the mainstream belief until a few years ago, that robots would be able to do manual tasks but it would take a lot longer to teach them to do creative things. The recent AI art explosion was completely out of left field for 99% of people.
I remember listening to an NPR program about AIs generating symphonies, like a decade ago, probably more. anyone who was surprised by any of this has been living with their head in the sand. the only surprising part is how good it is at understanding what it's being asked to do, which actually is the scary party. that it's also able to create lots of porn effortlessly is less interesting.
Cinemaphile is dumber than Cinemaphile. Sorry to burst your bubble. Cinemaphile is about as dumb as Cinemaphile, smarter than Cinemaphile but below Cinemaphile.
I'm an ESLtard and the books are very easy too read (in English ofc), are people really that moronic?
asimov falls apart because all his novels operate under the assumption that AI will only be as smart as us. The reality is humans will be like zoo creatures for them. Not working alongside them on other planets and crap
So? He specifically said he wanted to do more stuff where AI/artifical life is benevolent, he does have some short stories that are more typical of the genre. If that's not your thing I can understand that.
Sitting through lit courses at a school with majority engineering majors made me realize the people building things you trust with your life everyday might very well be at a highschool understanding of the world philosophically and emotionally
The I, Robot stories all looked the logical applications of the laws of robotics that showed he put actual thought into everything, I was surprised by how smart those stories were
Guess Asimov was one of the big 3 for a reason
asimov falls apart because all his novels operate under the assumption that AI will only be as smart as us. The reality is humans will be like zoo creatures for them. Not working alongside them on other planets and crap
Ai can't be smarter because it still needs input from humans to learn. How could it learn anything new if it isn't available on the internet first? An AI doing research on its own (as in, thinking of new ways to do stuff that wasn't input on them through external means) is not gonna happen for a loooong time yet, if ever.
The only Asimov novel I read was that one were people lived in a planet inside a hypercluster of stars and the day never set and when after centuries the first nightfall comes people go insane
It was short and kino
Yeah it's called Nightfall. I've read the book, the short story is way better from what I can tell because the beginning and end of the book aren't written by Asimov.
>half breed monkey >scams young men >clearly full of shit grifter who just repeats redpill content from 10-15 years ago >made redpill too mainstream
I liked it better when it was random dudes on forums talking about the realities of women. It was literally just a manual on how to get women and understanding their nature. It didn't need a figurehead. The ones that were around were more low key back then. It was better that way.
just because one robot personally couldn't do it doesn't mean another couldn't.
Most humans don't know how to build an internal combustion engine from scratch
>Can a robot turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece
It can make visually appealing things sure but it will never produce art. AI might spit out a nice looking picture, it might even be so nice you decide to put it on your wall. But no matter how good it looks it's completely empty and void, like mass produced motel art, because it's lacking in the fundamental essence of art which is humanity. Art is a projection of the artists soul and homosexual AI robots can never achieve.
It still needs human intent to work, it doesn’t produce a masterpiece on its own accord
Don't lump me in with the rest of the mad trannies, just wanted to point at the judges and laugh because holy shit that is so obviously made with an AI. It's chock full of tells. The guy who made it didn't even try to hide it
That was before AI art was widely disseminated and people got used to picking out the tells. It's irrelevant though, because AI art wasn't banned from the contest or anything, it won on its own merits.
Yeah you know this now you moron but AI art wasn't mainstream yet when that won the prize
Plus it was a bunch of boomers from some bumfrick nowhere town in rural America
That was before AI art was widely disseminated and people got used to picking out the tells. It's irrelevant though, because AI art wasn't banned from the contest or anything, it won on its own merits.
I had been using midjourney two months before that thing came out and could tell immediately. Me, someone who's got no business knowing about that kind of shit. Whereas a judge whose entire job is to analyze art wasn't aware of it at all.
Judges were incompetent and you're homosexual slowpokes, end of story
right, the world's leading authority on art, the... colorado state fair. even that painting it was real it would be a worthless piece of videogame concept art you'd never look at twice if it didn't support your pajeet fantasies about ai taking over
As someone whos' been using a lot of midjourney on a project, it can produce better art than 90% of artists, but it never "feels right". The problem is that the good artists I would prefer to use are very expensive, and the bad artists aren't worth the "art" they'd offer.
>no no, you see, the black square is good art because it symbolizes... uh... black oppression? >GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE FOR 10 BILLION DOLLARS, SOLD!!!!
>would be a worthless piece of videogame concept art you'd never look at twice
Van Gogh didn't sell when he was alive.
If the real Mona Lisa was displayed in a subway you won't look twice at it.
Half the art's value is in its context.
It's just tantamount to a really good counterfeit of like a van gogh or something. It's visually appealing but like I said lacking in the fundamental essence of art.
[...]
this. bananas taped to wall are trve art with soul
Yeah it is actually, and if it's shit it could mean that the artist has an ugly soul. To me stuff like that suggests that the artist is vapid and superficial, it's quite literally a projection of their humanity. Not all art is good, but all art definitely has a human element.
An upseide down seven! Seven is the lucky number, so a reversed seven shows us that luck has abandoned us
Powerful statement on behalf of the homeless who are down on their luck
>Seriously?
Yeah seriously, the people who do get ousted for it, it's not a common occurrence because people understand it's wrong. AI doesn't give a shit
11 months ago
Anonymous
If your argument is that artists have a moral compass then it falls on deaf ears where. There probably isn't a demographic of more soulless, amoral prostitutes marching lock-step with the opinions of those with money and influence than artists.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Thank you for outing yoursf as a child whose opinion should not be considered. What a fricking clown. Humans don't plagarize lmao. Stay in school kid.
You're the one appealing to authority and simping for rich morons sniffing their own butthole fumes by insulting the judges of that art fair and saying "they don't know what REAL art is, ask Mr. Shlomoblattberg's opinion, not these dumb hicks!"
11 months ago
Anonymous
>posts ai painting with ribbon next to it, obviously trying to appeal to authority >other anons zoom in and call your dumbass out
You should consider killing yourself
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Heh, I almost acquiesced but then I realized it was actually le dumb hicks and not Mr. Rosensteinowitz the owner of Modern Art America's blue ribbon, which disqualifies it in my eyes. He really knows what he's talking about.
11 months ago
Anonymous
It's the competition the AI is up against anon. The AI won a competition at a state fair, not a legit art show
Or I’m just laughing at you clinging to the final cope level of “why ai can’t make art.”
>he can't come up with anymore arguments
Why don't you go put my posts into chatGPT so you can give me a soulless response
11 months ago
Anonymous
There doesn’t need to be further arguments. You lost when you tried to attribute some magical imaginary concept to human art that ai art can’t have.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>magical imaginary concept
Which is what exactly? Or are you just trying to sound smart again?
You don't really have any arguments, you're desperately grasping at straws trying to come up with copes about how a turd has more merit than AI art simply because it was made by human hands. No doubt if it was revealed to you that turd was AI-generated, you'd flip completely and say the turd is actually "not real art" either. You are a fricking homosexual.
Any art made by humans is better than AI art. I don't care that your local county fair ribbon states otherwise
11 months ago
Anonymous
If you can tell what word is magical/imaginary in
It's the competition the AI is up against anon. The AI won a competition at a state fair, not a legit art show
[...] >he can't come up with anymore arguments
Why don't you go put my posts into chatGPT so you can give me a soulless response
then there is no point in talking to you. I’ll give you a hint though, it’s the final cope level.
11 months ago
Anonymous
No point it out anon. I want to see you type it out >you cant
11 months ago
Anonymous
Bruh “soul” isn’t real. Your brain is a computer. When it stops running you cease to exist.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>soul isn't real
why would I take your opinions on art seriously now? You obviously have 0 clue what your talking about
11 months ago
Anonymous
>if you don’t believe in magic I don’t take you serious
lol. lmao even.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>soul and emotion is magic
Damn you really are AI aren't you?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, “soul” is a magical/imaginary concept. Something created without any emotion can (and will) induce emotion in another person.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Ok. Show me some AI art that made you emotional. I will wait
11 months ago
Anonymous
Actually, you’ve been locked into needing to prove a piece of “art” created solely for profit has never caused you to feel an emotion.
11 months ago
Anonymous
So... you don't have a peice of AI art that made you emotional? That's weird. It's almost like you are a dumb, soulless homosexual
11 months ago
Anonymous
I don’t need to. You’ve already lost. It’s been explained how your criteria for “real art” is completely imaginary with examples from your own life.
All you have left is bad faith argumentation.
11 months ago
Anonymous
So... you still don't have an example to post? Not a single one? You're really committing to this whole humiliating your own argument bit, huh?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Anon. You’ve been tricked into claiming you’ve never seen or heard a single sound or image created solely for profit.
You have lost.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>new cope just dropped
The average radio pop song is written by 40 ghostwriters and an algorithm. It's utterly soulless non-art, but it can still be catchy to listen to, just like AI-generated output can be nice to look at. Doesn't make it art.
11 months ago
Anonymous
True. The essence of art is getting pussy. AI doesn't get any pussy so it isn't art.
Not yet anyway.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Anon. Show me one peice of AI art that made you emotional. I've asked 3 times now, this is getting ridiculous.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>if I pretend I haven’t lost… I win!
Prove to me you’ve never been affected by something created without any emotion. You can’t. Have a nice day.
11 months ago
Anonymous
If you reply one more time without posting a example of AI art then I win
11 months ago
Anonymous
Cope. It’s literally all you have.
I’ve jerked off to AI art. Yes, it counts.
11 months ago
Anonymous
That's it everyone. Pro AI art gays officially BTFO. Mods close the thread please and thank you
11 months ago
Anonymous
It took two hundred posts for him to admit his sole concept of art is porn.
Filthy fricking wienerroach.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>ask for an emotion >get one >NO IT DOESNT COUNT
LMAO
11 months ago
Anonymous
>200 posts all the only emotion is one even a fricking wienerroach has
Sad.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Yep, you lost. Twice. Cope and seethe.
11 months ago
Anonymous
All I can imagine while reading this post (yes, I can do that; I can do in my mind what you need to run and cry to AI for) is this, except you're paler, overweight, and there's cum everywhere.
11 months ago
Anonymous
It is fun to imagine things. I don’t need to imagine I’ve won though. You’ve proudly displayed your profound ignorance.
11 months ago
Anonymous
11 months ago
Anonymous
she has 7 fingers...
11 months ago
Anonymous
you think you're special because you only have 5 fingers per hand? lol, lmao even
11 months ago
Anonymous
All AI art makes me feel happy because I know it will make people like you seethe.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>AI art good because humans don't like it
11 months ago
Anonymous
You're not a human, you're subhuman
11 months ago
Anonymous
The soul is a magical concept, yes. Emotion is a neurochemical signal in reaction to stimulus. For example, I can make you feel depressed and frustrated by doing certain things to you, such as refuting all your moronic claims on an imageboard, damaging your ego, which reduces your tribal status in your brain, reducing your access to resources like mates and food. I am influencing your monkey programming at this very moment. But you're too moronic to understand any of this. You think it's magic.
11 months ago
Anonymous
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Your brain is a computer.
Your brain doesn't run on algorithms you fricking curry Black person.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Yet you keep repeating the same tired bullshit.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Ok bro give me the complete model for human consciousness. I'll wait.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>I don’t understand how my brain works therefore it’s MAGICAL AND SOULFUL!
LMAO
11 months ago
Anonymous
I didn't post that. Tell me how human consciousness works? It's not a computer and it doesn't work on algorithms.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You are now arguing on the level of “I don’t understand, my brain IS magical!”
11 months ago
Anonymous
I never said it was magical. You don't know how the brain works so stop calling it a computer when it fricking isn't.
11 months ago
Anonymous
It is though. Your brain is made of matter, it isn't some ethereal concept. You eat things and the matter transfers into your brain and the rest of your body to maintain it. If I methodically ripped out pieces of your brain, you would lose functions. It's no different than any artificial machine. I already said this earlier in the thread and you didn't respond, because you have no argument for it.
Nice selfie. Still no argument.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>It is though. Your brain is made of matter, it isn't some ethereal concept. You eat things and the matter transfers into your brain and the rest of your body to maintain it. If I methodically ripped out pieces of your brain, you would lose functions. It's no different than any artificial machine. I already said this earlier in the thread and you didn't respond, because you have no argument for it.
Just because it isn't magical doesn't means it's a computer. You haven't demonstrated the model for the brain because you don't know how it works.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>you don’t know how it works therefore it’s magic!
How about this, I don’t need to know how a magician sawed the woman in half and put her back together to know he didn’t actually do it.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>>you don’t know how it works therefore it’s magic!
I never posted that.
11 months ago
Anonymous
This moron is getting BTFO by so many different people they are starting to blur together
11 months ago
Anonymous
Demonstrate how the brain is a computer besides "lol it just fricking is"
11 months ago
Anonymous
You're doing it again. I never said that
11 months ago
Anonymous
Let me walk you through your “logic.”
You are asserting that, because we currently can’t exactly recreate how a human brain works, then we also can’t have a rough approximation of how the human brain works. This is like saying because you, personally, can’t perfectly imitate a magician’s trick the first time you see it, then it had to be real. This is where “magic” comes into your line of “reasoning.”
11 months ago
Anonymous
We don't have a rough approximation of how the brain works, we don't even have a clue. The entire psychiatric premise of chemical imbalances was just disproven last year.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You are now attempting to claim we don’t know how neurons and synapses work.
We don't know how neurons and synapses work. The same people who wrote that article were writing about the chemical imbalance theory last year lol.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>chemistry can’t affect electrical paths of least resistance
we’re hitting levels of sad that shouldn’t be possible.
11 months ago
Anonymous
That's great bro show me where I said it's magic. After that demonstrate how a brain is a computer. C'mon bro show me the cpu in the cerebellum.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>I don’t understand, I didn’t explicitly say the soul/brain is magic
why even bother?
11 months ago
Anonymous
I never said it was magic. I said that we don't know how the brain works. It looks like you've got a lot of growing up to do.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Google "model of the brain", anon. It's literally right there. I don't understand why you'd be here arguing about this rather than learning, unless you prefer ignorance. If you prefer ignorance then just go be ignorant and stop wasting other people's time with your clownery and making yourself feel bad getting BTFO. Just say "I am ignorant and I'm okay with that", plenty of people do this and it's a lot more respectable than trying to make others agree with your moronic opinions.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Ok so you don't know what a model is. "LOL IT'S JUST A MACHINE COMPUTER" bro isn't a good explanation of what human consciousness is.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I can tell you have tears in your eyes typing this lmfao, it's fricking hilarious watching you cope and seethe.
Or they’re pointing out your requirements for AI are higher than your standards for humans.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Not really. Humans can make shit art, that doesn't change anything. If you think it does I'd love to hear it
11 months ago
Anonymous
Therefor AI is just as capable of “creating art” as a human.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You're talking about a statue in a small town in Illinois anon. Why are you acting like this imbred moron who's uncle let him out up his statue is tje end all say all for art? Yes humans can be moronic, that has nothing to do with art or soul
11 months ago
Anonymous
Or I’m just laughing at you clinging to the final cope level of “why ai can’t make art.”
11 months ago
Anonymous
You don't really have any arguments, you're desperately grasping at straws trying to come up with copes about how a turd has more merit than AI art simply because it was made by human hands. No doubt if it was revealed to you that turd was AI-generated, you'd flip completely and say the turd is actually "not real art" either. You are a fricking homosexual.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>art is something made to convey a feeling >"this is something made to convey a feeling" >okay, then it's art >"actually, it was just averaged out by a machine!" >okay, then it's not art. There was no feeling and no attempt to convey one. >"BUT... B-BUT I LE TRICKED YOU INTO BEING LOGICALLY CONSISTENT! THAT MEANS I'M SUPPOSED TO WIN! THIS... THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooo.......... *melts into a steaming pile of shit*
11 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, you have been tricked into thinking artistic intent is real, perceptible.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You don't believe artistic intent is real? So when someone phrases a stanza in a poem to have a certain rhythm, that, what, doesn't exist to you? It just doesn't happen? How do you think people make art? WHY do you think people make art?
You don't create anything yourself, do you?
11 months ago
Anonymous
people make art to impress other people. that's it. ai make art to impress people. that's it.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>people make art for other people
Child like reductionism. Kill your self.
11 months ago
Anonymous
you can wax lyrical about how your masturbation is actually bringing you closer to the spirit of creation all you want. and I'm sure it'll impress some stupid women (which is the whole point). it's still just masturbation.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Pure fricking babble.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>word sounds like previous word >"""art"""
lmao
11 months ago
Anonymous
Stop having conversations in your own head and take your meds, schizo.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>"humans will always be better artists" >well this moron in Alabama isn't a good artist so that can't be true! >look this AI in Colorado won a state fair ribbon!
You guys sound so fricking moronic
11 months ago
Anonymous
>humans will always be better artists
No one said this, stop projecting.
All the thread is about the legitimacy of machines as producers of art.
They had a shitton of material to adapt from Asimov's books. They could have adapted the short story "Liar" from I Robot and it would've been kino of the highest order. But instead they went with the cliché robots turn evil and try to take over the world.
So much fricking wasted potential.
>Can a robot turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece
It can make visually appealing things sure but it will never produce art. AI might spit out a nice looking picture, it might even be so nice you decide to put it on your wall. But no matter how good it looks it's completely empty and void, like mass produced motel art, because it's lacking in the fundamental essence of art which is humanity. Art is a projection of the artists soul and homosexual AI robots can never achieve.
It's a stupid ass line in the first place. If course they can. They can do whatever you program them to do. Like, these homies out there walking around thinking and calculating and shit and you think that amazing machine can't put a paintbrush to a canvas? Frick outta here bro
An AI can’t do anything because it currently has no free will. We barely know how the human brain works yet because an algorithm generated a pretty picture, morons will claim that we’re 5 years away from a revolution.
>taking the algorithmic average of petrabytes of input data and spitting out a composite result when instructed to
That's not art. It can look good and it can sound good, but it's completely devoid of meaning, subtext, intent, and emotion.
I don't know exactly how a computer's machinery works either, but I know if I start smashing it with a hammer, it will stop working, and same goes for your brains. How are you different?
proving that artists are worse at their jobs than engineers
11 months ago
Anonymous
Or it’s proving that the modern art movement is 100% correct in asserting artist intent is meaningless and all that matters is the interpretation of the viewer.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>artist intent is meaningless and all that matters is the interpretation of the viewer
That's wrong, though.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Nope. Can you tell if Picasso had any intent beyond becoming famous? No, you can’t.
is that where you got your arguments, homosexual? you don't have to be brainwashed to hate modern artists. you have to be brainwashed to NOT hate them. or BE one of them. only modern artists who deserve anything but revulsion are the ones churning out art for games like mtg, and those guys are basically assembly line artists. the indomitable human spirit doesn't enter into it, they just sit down and slap some splotches on a digital canvas and paint something that looks cool by the time they're done with it.
11 months ago
Anonymous
What's your point, moron? Some humans make artless work. So? ALL machines make artless work.
11 months ago
Anonymous
The point is you can’t tell. This is the foundation of the modern art movement.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>If people can't tell that I didn't put any thought or effort or emotion or sincerity into something, that means I did
You're like the moronic human equivalent of those cardboard bricks in China that kill people lol
11 months ago
Anonymous
What’s funny is I can tell you aren’t pretending to not understand, you literally can’t.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>lying about something makes it true
Is that what you tell yourself when you look in the mirror?
Yes, but people create art with intent because they have will.
AI algorithms, like other programs, produce something because they were instructed to.
It's a huge difference.
Yes, but people create art with intent because they have will.
AI algorithms, like other programs, produce something because they were instructed to.
It's a huge difference.
How's that different from humans? We are nothing but our experiences and what we've seen.
Just curious where you gentlemen fall on this here chart.
>Seriously?
Yeah seriously, the people who do get ousted for it, it's not a common occurrence because people understand it's wrong. AI doesn't give a shit
Name any random animal. That animal is more capable at making art than any AI will ever be. You could tape a paint brush to a rhinos horn and what ever he paints will have more soul than AI
so? every piece of art is a derivative of something else in some form
if you're commissioning stuff like this it's more a charity thing than anything else
you can still find "modern" art that is inspired by cave paintings, it's not like they're completely gone in any way
and guess what artists were inspired by? the fricking earth. and guess what AI models also get trained on? a frickload of photos from fricking earth
I'm not impyling I'm some kind of art conniseur, I don't really give a shit but if I had to choose between commissioning an artist or using AI for some simple shit I know what I'd choose.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>the NPC's idea of art is paying someone to make him something, probably porn, because he is an insect not capable of creating anything himself
This is a hilarious thread.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not interested in art and I am not interested in creating it. My point is you don't need "artists" for shit like album covers, avatars, stupid desktop wallpapers etc.
If you want to pay millions for pic rel, go ahead, support money laundering
The seethe from artgays is always fricking delicious
11 months ago
Anonymous
You have trapped yourself into needing for form a meaningful distinction between “art” and “artistic merit.”
>you're a idiot this is AI art that's emotional >it'd literally e-girls
Fricking kek. Pro AI gays are literally autistic morons who's best art was finger paintings
I could forgive everything except the samegay NAI faces. Literally a line and a dot for a nose. so cringe and disgusting. Only an anime avatar troon could accept that as good.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Screaming that you don’t like something doesn’t affect anything.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>nooooo stop posting opinions on the chon. I will become a troon artist in two weeks
11 months ago
Anonymous
>it's good enough sirs
11 months ago
Anonymous
Who said it was good enough? AIgays recognize every current generation as just a step of progress.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>I don't know
lol
>dude it's going to progress 2 more weeks sirs
11 months ago
Anonymous
You’re losing your composer. Well, you never had any.
Also “two more weeks” is the exact same level of thought as “but I did have breakfast.” You’re proving you are incapable of basic mapping.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I'm waiting on that explanation on you've solved human consciousness bro. You should have that published and get your Nobel prize.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>haha you can’t explain how the magician did the trick therefore it’s really real magic checkmate atheists
We’ve been over this.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Me saying you don't know how it works doesn't mean I'm implying it's magic.
11 months ago
Anonymous
See
Let me walk you through your “logic.”
You are asserting that, because we currently can’t exactly recreate how a human brain works, then we also can’t have a rough approximation of how the human brain works. This is like saying because you, personally, can’t perfectly imitate a magician’s trick the first time you see it, then it had to be real. This is where “magic” comes into your line of “reasoning.”
“Soul” is a magical concept.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>>dude it's going to progress 2 more weeks sirs
11 months ago
Anonymous
yeah and the next steps will be within mega corporations / studios.
11 months ago
Anonymous
It’s open source bro.
11 months ago
Anonymous
a pajeet spent like $1 million for training and released it
some nerd leaked NAI's finetune. Everything after than is shitty remixes of that.
What is next? This is what annoys me. You AIgays are so delusional and think you are part of some ebin movement and automatically get stuff for free.
In the real world, a business spends millions investing in the data and doesn't give it away.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>ai can barely generate coherent images >one goes open source >another gets leaked >ai content generation suddenly surges forward to create video/animations from text >you: NOOO ITS BECUSE CORPOS SPENT DA MONEHS
The reality is last year of AI development has been the result of open source collaboration.
11 months ago
Anonymous
it will be increasingly cucked as it gets better
11 months ago
Anonymous
>okay so it’s pretty good now but… IT willbe LE BAD
You literally can’t help yourself.
11 months ago
Anonymous
globohomosexual is centered in USA
USA is very prudish
I already see lots of fear about CSAM. It's going to get more locked down and censored as it becomes more viable.
We only have the shitty demo version, that is barely passable at making anime girls and landscapes. cope.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Bruh. It’s open source. Genie out of the bottle.
Lawmakers will never be able to generate a law capable of banning or limiting AI generation.
11 months ago
Anonymous
it costs millions of dollars to train and also collect data
good luck collecting that if globohomosexual does not cooperate
11 months ago
Anonymous
Bruh I can train models locally right now. It’s ALL open source.
11 months ago
Anonymous
and your LORAs are S.H.I.T you delusional AIgay.
keep spamming your 1girls and bragging
the actual next steps are instruction-based, with text and image input, and will require huge training costs, and also lots of human labeling and data collecting
11 months ago
Anonymous
Is it delusional to know how I’d feel if I didn’t have breakfast this morning?
>meanwhile on Cinemaphile >LOOK AT LE CUTE HECKIN ANIME GIRLS DRAWN BY HUMAN ARTISTS, THIS IS MY SPECIAL WAIFU UWU AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
I asked for the best example of emotional AI art and that was the only example they gave me. Do you want to give me one?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>emotional
not every piece of art leads to people feeling something about it. I can post some shit I made a couple of months ago with SD 1.4 before I got bored
11 months ago
Anonymous
>copy paste face >nonsensical dress
checks out
11 months ago
Anonymous
We had already agreed that emotion was the basis for art. You would know that if you weren't a dumb homosexual who jumped into conversations
11 months ago
Anonymous
You’re skipping the part where that argument was completely annihilated from no less than four angles.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Where?
11 months ago
Anonymous
I’ll reiterate >a viewer can’t tell if emotion was present in the creation >things created without emotion can still convey it >emotion is little more than programmed response >you’re attributing magical properties to emotion
11 months ago
Anonymous
>things created without emotion can still convey i
No they cant >you’re attributing magical properties to emotion
no im not >a viewer can’t tell if emotion was present in the creation
I assure you anyone with a brain and a heartbeat can >emotion is little more than programmed response
Nope
11 months ago
Anonymous
I posted
I’ll reiterate >a viewer can’t tell if emotion was present in the creation >things created without emotion can still convey it >emotion is little more than programmed response >you’re attributing magical properties to emotion
without emotion and it made you mad.
Checkmate atheist.
11 months ago
Anonymous
you're mad
11 months ago
Anonymous
these are all as is, no img2img, additional editing, upscaling or anything else, literally shat out in 1 second with a 3080Ti
11 months ago
Anonymous
11 months ago
Anonymous
>shat out in one second
Guess what anon, we can tell. Thats not a good thing
11 months ago
Anonymous
it literally is, these were made with a few hours of research and some trial and error from someone who doesn't know shit regarding tech
imagine what a fricking backwards AI gay can do with that stuff if he learns how to prompt, can do img2img and fixes the usual errors with photoshop
in case I didn't make myself clear, chinese cartoons are bland shit that all looks the same and is extremely easy to do with AI
most anons posting AI stuff here are falseflagging, just go to the AI generals and you find way better stuff in EVERY thread if you ignore the usual shizo posters
11 months ago
Anonymous
The only reason I linked pixiv was to expose bad faith arguments.
to make it actually good will need lots of training data
but even that is pretty cheap compared to billion dollar movies
(the AIgays using stolen weeb art are delusional though btw)
same as openai and chatgpt
you pay lots of workers to make detailed labels and ratings
and maybe they would hire artists for specific things they want to improve
>Go watch someone draw on youtube
You mean the guys who scribble, erase, scribble, erase, then start drawing with ink within the scribbles to form “clean lines?”
11 months ago
Anonymous
Yes which is not how a machine learning algorithm does anything.
11 months ago
Anonymous
… yeah, it does. Each “step” is essentially the generator evaluating the scribbles and determining whether or not the pixels resemble the prompt, and removing bits that don’t.
11 months ago
Anonymous
lol now you're just fricking lying. the ai doesn't do a sketch see if it correct then does the coloring and shading. If it did you wouldn't have such comical frick ups.
11 months ago
Anonymous
So in addition to
Okay, so the list of things you don’t understand now has “memory” in addition to >the brain >neurons >synapses >electricity >chemistry >physics >art
, you also don’t understand how AI image generation works.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Ok bro show me the computer sketching out image then doing the line art. You can't because it doesn't.
11 months ago
Anonymous
You can find AI generators that will show you every step between prompt and final image.
It’s funny how literally all you can do is be disingenuous or proudly ignorant.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Ok post it bro
11 months ago
Anonymous
>haha you aren’t going to spoon feed me I win
lol. Lmao even.
[...]
11 months ago
Anonymous
lol Yeah that's what I thought. It doesn't sketch out the image at all and that's why it's garbage. Shut the frick up.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Note that
… yeah, it does. Each “step” is essentially the generator evaluating the scribbles and determining whether or not the pixels resemble the prompt, and removing bits that don’t.
doesn’t contain the word “sketch.”
11 months ago
Anonymous
Ok so the what machine learning algorithm is doing is different then what human is doing. Got it
11 months ago
Anonymous
>we can see what AI does therefore it’s different than what humans do
11 months ago
Anonymous
Ok and?
11 months ago
Anonymous
Just pointing out the absurdity of your “argument.”
I like how it’s seated in you, essentially, claiming to have never dreamt or even seen the shapes your visual cortex will generate when you close your eyes.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Machine learning algorithms and people don't make images in the same way. The machine process is inferior :^)
11 months ago
Anonymous
So now you need to prove you know exactly how a human mind creates images.
Fun fact: only a tiny fraction of your visual field comes from your eyes. The rest is “outpainted” by your visual cortex. Also you have a blind spot in the dead center of your visual field, which your visual cortex “inpaints.”
11 months ago
Anonymous
lol no i don't. Machine learning algorithms don't work the same way people do.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Prove it.
you can’t
11 months ago
Anonymous
SD works in a latent space. And it doesn't sketch and erase or plan anything. It only denoises in fixed increments. So you are the one larping about using a drawing analogy to explain what SD does.
Art is a hobby. A trivial pursuit that people do in their spare time.
Making a career out of it is a tragedy. How many advances in science have we missed because people were too lazy?
Being able to aggregate and average images based on input provided by humans is not creating a painting. It's not a creative or imaginative process.
If I splice together scenes from other movies, I haven't directed a movie.
More than that, AI art is directly reliant on human programming. If we told it Picasso only ever painted teapots and said "paint me a Picasso", it would give you an image of a teapot. Automated responses to pre-programmed instructions is not creativity.
>Editing is part of directing
First, no it isn't. That's why they are different words and different jobs. Second, splicing together scenes from two movies is not editing, it's just splicing. Editing is a creative process using footage to construct and cohesively tell a story. Splicing is just splicing.
>denoising is sort of like sketching, erasing, and drawing! >training on stolen copyrighted images is sort of like me going to art school and looking at drawings
I like trying to generate fake shitty art. This one tricked /ic/ they praised it as "at least a real human made this even if it looks bad" in an anti-ai thread.
I forgot how to crosspost but this one is from a current /sdg/, how is that any different than any of the type of rendered artgay video game advertising?
Making this from scratch by hand is definitely not a thing of a few minutes.
You won't get those results if you start doing work with SD, you need to learn how to properly use prompts, which ones are better than others, etc. etc.
Sure it's not like pressing a button and it's done but if artgays don't incorporate at least some level of AI stuff into their products, they won't make it very far.
The competition will use it anyway and produce far cheaper.
The only way you can earn decent money as an artgay in the near future will be if you're the next Picasso. And most artgays seething hard are only delusional and think they are exactly that.
Is it comparable to what photography did to painting? I'm not an expert on the subject but I understand that painting went through a lot of "expressing yourself" movements when photography became a thing, instead of being more about describing the world, if so, I guess it's a good thing since most of the paintings that are most beloved today came from that era, Van Gogh, Klimt etc
but coomer-drawgays will suffer I guess
can a
N
Wow did you just assume their preferred indefinite article
Why didn't the director think robots would be able to do that stuff?
he was a technophobe
the director didn't write the script. the script was written by one akiva goldsman and was originally called hardwired before they slapped the asimov title on it.
Several months ago artists were coping
>W-well AI will never be able to draw hands!
because they couldn't comprehend that AI might continue improving and the fact it sucked drawing hands was because of the images fed to it were drawn by artists who suck at hands.
I do not understand if it is some self defence mechanism to deny that improvement will happen or if people really believe that we have hit a the limit of this current burst in Machine Learning development.
Actually the issue with hands was how we don’t have words/labels for literally every single possible articulation of the fingers, so the AI was just mashing them together into a vaguely hand-like arrangement of knuckles and fingernails.
is the hand issue fixed now?
Because that was the mainstream belief until a few years ago, that robots would be able to do manual tasks but it would take a lot longer to teach them to do creative things. The recent AI art explosion was completely out of left field for 99% of people.
I remember listening to an NPR program about AIs generating symphonies, like a decade ago, probably more. anyone who was surprised by any of this has been living with their head in the sand. the only surprising part is how good it is at understanding what it's being asked to do, which actually is the scary party. that it's also able to create lots of porn effortlessly is less interesting.
Yeah and they sucked. We still have composers doing movie scores.
The idea of AI-generated music has been around a long time but AI-generated art was completely unforseen.
>Can you
How do you respond without sounding mad
>yes I can
>show me
>I'm not the one on trial here
Easy
why shouldn't i sound mad he's acting all uppity and i should pretend i'm keeping my composure frick you roboBlack person so what if im mad frick you
robot != AI
Just read Asimov and stop watching Hollywood garbage
Cinemaphile is too stupid for Asimov
hell a sizable portion of Cinemaphile is too stupid for Asimov
is the latter sentence supposed to be the more surprising one there?
Cinemaphile is dumber than Cinemaphile. Sorry to burst your bubble. Cinemaphile is about as dumb as Cinemaphile, smarter than Cinemaphile but below Cinemaphile.
>but below Cinemaphile
No way lol
/gundam|Kimetsu|Chainsaw Man|BLEACH|Baki|One Piece|Naruto|Dragon Ball|Bocchi|Spy X|Jujutsu Kaisen|Nagatoro|Shonen Jump|pokémon|Yuri|Shingeki no Kyojin|IDOLM@STER|Boku no hero|Yu-Gi-Oh|Fairy Tail|buygay|my hero academia|sono bisque doll/i;op:only;boards:a;
>but below Cinemaphile.
Bait
yeah but i’m more intelligent than you and shitpost on every single one of those boards
I'm an ESLtard and the books are very easy too read (in English ofc), are people really that moronic?
So? He specifically said he wanted to do more stuff where AI/artifical life is benevolent, he does have some short stories that are more typical of the genre. If that's not your thing I can understand that.
>are people really that moronic?
No, that anon is just a STEMgay who thinks he’s much smarter than he is (but I repeat myself)
Sitting through lit courses at a school with majority engineering majors made me realize the people building things you trust with your life everyday might very well be at a highschool understanding of the world philosophically and emotionally
Yeah it's a shame but stem courses do take up a lot of time so the last thing you want to do is read more.
The I, Robot stories all looked the logical applications of the laws of robotics that showed he put actual thought into everything, I was surprised by how smart those stories were
Guess Asimov was one of the big 3 for a reason
>big 3
who's that? Asimov, Lem, Dick?
asimov falls apart because all his novels operate under the assumption that AI will only be as smart as us. The reality is humans will be like zoo creatures for them. Not working alongside them on other planets and crap
Not if we upgrade our own brains anon
Nevermind that, it will still be smarter than us
Ai can't be smarter because it still needs input from humans to learn. How could it learn anything new if it isn't available on the internet first? An AI doing research on its own (as in, thinking of new ways to do stuff that wasn't input on them through external means) is not gonna happen for a loooong time yet, if ever.
>Just read Asimov
boring as frick and the prose of an instruction manual
>read
Ok boomer
The only Asimov novel I read was that one were people lived in a planet inside a hypercluster of stars and the day never set and when after centuries the first nightfall comes people go insane
It was short and kino
Yeah it's called Nightfall. I've read the book, the short story is way better from what I can tell because the beginning and end of the book aren't written by Asimov.
>Just read
>half breed monkey
>scams young men
>clearly full of shit grifter who just repeats redpill content from 10-15 years ago
>made redpill too mainstream
I liked it better when it was random dudes on forums talking about the realities of women. It was literally just a manual on how to get women and understanding their nature. It didn't need a figurehead. The ones that were around were more low key back then. It was better that way.
I think K. Dick does robots better
just because one robot personally couldn't do it doesn't mean another couldn't.
Most humans don't know how to build an internal combustion engine from scratch
Show me a masterpiece made by AI. You can't.
>ACK!!
What about this is supposed to be appealing? It doesn't say anything about trans issues or the struggle of the POC folks
Don't lump me in with the rest of the mad trannies, just wanted to point at the judges and laugh because holy shit that is so obviously made with an AI. It's chock full of tells. The guy who made it didn't even try to hide it
That was before AI art was widely disseminated and people got used to picking out the tells. It's irrelevant though, because AI art wasn't banned from the contest or anything, it won on its own merits.
Yeah you know this now you moron but AI art wasn't mainstream yet when that won the prize
Plus it was a bunch of boomers from some bumfrick nowhere town in rural America
I had been using midjourney two months before that thing came out and could tell immediately. Me, someone who's got no business knowing about that kind of shit. Whereas a judge whose entire job is to analyze art wasn't aware of it at all.
Judges were incompetent and you're homosexual slowpokes, end of story
right, the world's leading authority on art, the... colorado state fair. even that painting it was real it would be a worthless piece of videogame concept art you'd never look at twice if it didn't support your pajeet fantasies about ai taking over
Show me something better you've made then, simian boi.
As someone whos' been using a lot of midjourney on a project, it can produce better art than 90% of artists, but it never "feels right". The problem is that the good artists I would prefer to use are very expensive, and the bad artists aren't worth the "art" they'd offer.
Good point, let's see what the world's authorities on art think is goo-AACCKK!!!!
>art is le pretty and doesn’t require additional thought
No you’re just so moronic that your kind has been repeatedly dunked on for centuries by dozens of art movements
By all means, continue jacking yourself off over piles of garbage and inhaling fart jars whilst AI mogs you in every single possible way.
I will because your utopian predictions are baseless and will never come to fruition in either of our lifetimes, die slowly you talentless b***h
>no YOU'RE talentless
The projection and seethe is unreal aahahahahaha
AI shit is one such movement, moronic conservative.
>no no, you see, the black square is good art because it symbolizes... uh... black oppression?
>GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE FOR 10 BILLION DOLLARS, SOLD!!!!
>that columbo episode where he visits an art gallery and mistakes an air vent for art
this is moronic. this photo was taken before the movie started.
how did they get a picture of my soul
>would be a worthless piece of videogame concept art you'd never look at twice
Van Gogh didn't sell when he was alive.
If the real Mona Lisa was displayed in a subway you won't look twice at it.
Half the art's value is in its context.
It's just tantamount to a really good counterfeit of like a van gogh or something. It's visually appealing but like I said lacking in the fundamental essence of art.
Yeah it is actually, and if it's shit it could mean that the artist has an ugly soul. To me stuff like that suggests that the artist is vapid and superficial, it's quite literally a projection of their humanity. Not all art is good, but all art definitely has a human element.
nice bait
That’s still made by a human, an AI is just doing all the heavy lifting.
Not art.
>zooms in
>Colorado state fair
Oh yes I'm sure this is a reputable art institution and not a bunch of dumb mountain hicks and or boulder city hippies
Yeah let's see what the REAL arbiters of art and culture think is deserving of the blue ribbon:
An upseide down seven! Seven is the lucky number, so a reversed seven shows us that luck has abandoned us
Powerful statement on behalf of the homeless who are down on their luck
Based
>Humans don't plagiarize art
Seriously?
>Seriously?
Yeah seriously, the people who do get ousted for it, it's not a common occurrence because people understand it's wrong. AI doesn't give a shit
If your argument is that artists have a moral compass then it falls on deaf ears where. There probably isn't a demographic of more soulless, amoral prostitutes marching lock-step with the opinions of those with money and influence than artists.
Thank you for outing yoursf as a child whose opinion should not be considered. What a fricking clown. Humans don't plagarize lmao. Stay in school kid.
Lmfao
Don't reply to me or my posts ever again
>look at this one peice of shit art
>that means humans can't do art! I win!
Why do some people simp so hard for AI kek. This homie might be AI himself
You're the one appealing to authority and simping for rich morons sniffing their own butthole fumes by insulting the judges of that art fair and saying "they don't know what REAL art is, ask Mr. Shlomoblattberg's opinion, not these dumb hicks!"
>posts ai painting with ribbon next to it, obviously trying to appeal to authority
>other anons zoom in and call your dumbass out
You should consider killing yourself
>Heh, I almost acquiesced but then I realized it was actually le dumb hicks and not Mr. Rosensteinowitz the owner of Modern Art America's blue ribbon, which disqualifies it in my eyes. He really knows what he's talking about.
It's the competition the AI is up against anon. The AI won a competition at a state fair, not a legit art show
>he can't come up with anymore arguments
Why don't you go put my posts into chatGPT so you can give me a soulless response
There doesn’t need to be further arguments. You lost when you tried to attribute some magical imaginary concept to human art that ai art can’t have.
>magical imaginary concept
Which is what exactly? Or are you just trying to sound smart again?
Any art made by humans is better than AI art. I don't care that your local county fair ribbon states otherwise
If you can tell what word is magical/imaginary in
then there is no point in talking to you. I’ll give you a hint though, it’s the final cope level.
No point it out anon. I want to see you type it out
>you cant
Bruh “soul” isn’t real. Your brain is a computer. When it stops running you cease to exist.
>soul isn't real
why would I take your opinions on art seriously now? You obviously have 0 clue what your talking about
>if you don’t believe in magic I don’t take you serious
lol. lmao even.
>soul and emotion is magic
Damn you really are AI aren't you?
Yes, “soul” is a magical/imaginary concept. Something created without any emotion can (and will) induce emotion in another person.
Ok. Show me some AI art that made you emotional. I will wait
Actually, you’ve been locked into needing to prove a piece of “art” created solely for profit has never caused you to feel an emotion.
So... you don't have a peice of AI art that made you emotional? That's weird. It's almost like you are a dumb, soulless homosexual
I don’t need to. You’ve already lost. It’s been explained how your criteria for “real art” is completely imaginary with examples from your own life.
All you have left is bad faith argumentation.
So... you still don't have an example to post? Not a single one? You're really committing to this whole humiliating your own argument bit, huh?
Anon. You’ve been tricked into claiming you’ve never seen or heard a single sound or image created solely for profit.
You have lost.
>new cope just dropped
The average radio pop song is written by 40 ghostwriters and an algorithm. It's utterly soulless non-art, but it can still be catchy to listen to, just like AI-generated output can be nice to look at. Doesn't make it art.
True. The essence of art is getting pussy. AI doesn't get any pussy so it isn't art.
Not yet anyway.
Anon. Show me one peice of AI art that made you emotional. I've asked 3 times now, this is getting ridiculous.
>if I pretend I haven’t lost… I win!
Prove to me you’ve never been affected by something created without any emotion. You can’t. Have a nice day.
If you reply one more time without posting a example of AI art then I win
Cope. It’s literally all you have.
I’ve jerked off to AI art. Yes, it counts.
That's it everyone. Pro AI art gays officially BTFO. Mods close the thread please and thank you
It took two hundred posts for him to admit his sole concept of art is porn.
Filthy fricking wienerroach.
>ask for an emotion
>get one
>NO IT DOESNT COUNT
LMAO
>200 posts all the only emotion is one even a fricking wienerroach has
Sad.
Yep, you lost. Twice. Cope and seethe.
All I can imagine while reading this post (yes, I can do that; I can do in my mind what you need to run and cry to AI for) is this, except you're paler, overweight, and there's cum everywhere.
It is fun to imagine things. I don’t need to imagine I’ve won though. You’ve proudly displayed your profound ignorance.
she has 7 fingers...
you think you're special because you only have 5 fingers per hand? lol, lmao even
All AI art makes me feel happy because I know it will make people like you seethe.
>AI art good because humans don't like it
You're not a human, you're subhuman
The soul is a magical concept, yes. Emotion is a neurochemical signal in reaction to stimulus. For example, I can make you feel depressed and frustrated by doing certain things to you, such as refuting all your moronic claims on an imageboard, damaging your ego, which reduces your tribal status in your brain, reducing your access to resources like mates and food. I am influencing your monkey programming at this very moment. But you're too moronic to understand any of this. You think it's magic.
>Your brain is a computer.
Your brain doesn't run on algorithms you fricking curry Black person.
Yet you keep repeating the same tired bullshit.
Ok bro give me the complete model for human consciousness. I'll wait.
>I don’t understand how my brain works therefore it’s MAGICAL AND SOULFUL!
LMAO
I didn't post that. Tell me how human consciousness works? It's not a computer and it doesn't work on algorithms.
You are now arguing on the level of “I don’t understand, my brain IS magical!”
I never said it was magical. You don't know how the brain works so stop calling it a computer when it fricking isn't.
It is though. Your brain is made of matter, it isn't some ethereal concept. You eat things and the matter transfers into your brain and the rest of your body to maintain it. If I methodically ripped out pieces of your brain, you would lose functions. It's no different than any artificial machine. I already said this earlier in the thread and you didn't respond, because you have no argument for it.
Nice selfie. Still no argument.
>It is though. Your brain is made of matter, it isn't some ethereal concept. You eat things and the matter transfers into your brain and the rest of your body to maintain it. If I methodically ripped out pieces of your brain, you would lose functions. It's no different than any artificial machine. I already said this earlier in the thread and you didn't respond, because you have no argument for it.
Just because it isn't magical doesn't means it's a computer. You haven't demonstrated the model for the brain because you don't know how it works.
>you don’t know how it works therefore it’s magic!
Wait shit that’s actually completely literally true.
How about this, I don’t need to know how a magician sawed the woman in half and put her back together to know he didn’t actually do it.
>>you don’t know how it works therefore it’s magic!
I never posted that.
This moron is getting BTFO by so many different people they are starting to blur together
Demonstrate how the brain is a computer besides "lol it just fricking is"
You're doing it again. I never said that
Let me walk you through your “logic.”
You are asserting that, because we currently can’t exactly recreate how a human brain works, then we also can’t have a rough approximation of how the human brain works. This is like saying because you, personally, can’t perfectly imitate a magician’s trick the first time you see it, then it had to be real. This is where “magic” comes into your line of “reasoning.”
We don't have a rough approximation of how the brain works, we don't even have a clue. The entire psychiatric premise of chemical imbalances was just disproven last year.
You are now attempting to claim we don’t know how neurons and synapses work.
https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/09/with-this-brain-map-we-are-one-step-closer-to-total-fruit-fly-simulation/amp/
We don't know how neurons and synapses work. The same people who wrote that article were writing about the chemical imbalance theory last year lol.
>chemistry can’t affect electrical paths of least resistance
we’re hitting levels of sad that shouldn’t be possible.
That's great bro show me where I said it's magic. After that demonstrate how a brain is a computer. C'mon bro show me the cpu in the cerebellum.
>I don’t understand, I didn’t explicitly say the soul/brain is magic
why even bother?
I never said it was magic. I said that we don't know how the brain works. It looks like you've got a lot of growing up to do.
Google "model of the brain", anon. It's literally right there. I don't understand why you'd be here arguing about this rather than learning, unless you prefer ignorance. If you prefer ignorance then just go be ignorant and stop wasting other people's time with your clownery and making yourself feel bad getting BTFO. Just say "I am ignorant and I'm okay with that", plenty of people do this and it's a lot more respectable than trying to make others agree with your moronic opinions.
Ok so you don't know what a model is. "LOL IT'S JUST A MACHINE COMPUTER" bro isn't a good explanation of what human consciousness is.
I can tell you have tears in your eyes typing this lmfao, it's fricking hilarious watching you cope and seethe.
Or they’re pointing out your requirements for AI are higher than your standards for humans.
Not really. Humans can make shit art, that doesn't change anything. If you think it does I'd love to hear it
Therefor AI is just as capable of “creating art” as a human.
You're talking about a statue in a small town in Illinois anon. Why are you acting like this imbred moron who's uncle let him out up his statue is tje end all say all for art? Yes humans can be moronic, that has nothing to do with art or soul
Or I’m just laughing at you clinging to the final cope level of “why ai can’t make art.”
You don't really have any arguments, you're desperately grasping at straws trying to come up with copes about how a turd has more merit than AI art simply because it was made by human hands. No doubt if it was revealed to you that turd was AI-generated, you'd flip completely and say the turd is actually "not real art" either. You are a fricking homosexual.
>art is something made to convey a feeling
>"this is something made to convey a feeling"
>okay, then it's art
>"actually, it was just averaged out by a machine!"
>okay, then it's not art. There was no feeling and no attempt to convey one.
>"BUT... B-BUT I LE TRICKED YOU INTO BEING LOGICALLY CONSISTENT! THAT MEANS I'M SUPPOSED TO WIN! THIS... THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooo.......... *melts into a steaming pile of shit*
Yes, you have been tricked into thinking artistic intent is real, perceptible.
You don't believe artistic intent is real? So when someone phrases a stanza in a poem to have a certain rhythm, that, what, doesn't exist to you? It just doesn't happen? How do you think people make art? WHY do you think people make art?
You don't create anything yourself, do you?
people make art to impress other people. that's it. ai make art to impress people. that's it.
>people make art for other people
Child like reductionism. Kill your self.
you can wax lyrical about how your masturbation is actually bringing you closer to the spirit of creation all you want. and I'm sure it'll impress some stupid women (which is the whole point). it's still just masturbation.
Pure fricking babble.
>word sounds like previous word
>"""art"""
lmao
Stop having conversations in your own head and take your meds, schizo.
>"humans will always be better artists"
>well this moron in Alabama isn't a good artist so that can't be true!
>look this AI in Colorado won a state fair ribbon!
You guys sound so fricking moronic
>humans will always be better artists
No one said this, stop projecting.
All the thread is about the legitimacy of machines as producers of art.
It's really good though.
They had a shitton of material to adapt from Asimov's books. They could have adapted the short story "Liar" from I Robot and it would've been kino of the highest order. But instead they went with the cliché robots turn evil and try to take over the world.
So much fricking wasted potential.
>Can a robot turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece
It can make visually appealing things sure but it will never produce art. AI might spit out a nice looking picture, it might even be so nice you decide to put it on your wall. But no matter how good it looks it's completely empty and void, like mass produced motel art, because it's lacking in the fundamental essence of art which is humanity. Art is a projection of the artists soul and homosexual AI robots can never achieve.
this. bananas taped to wall are trve art with soul
Actually yes. An AI would never do something like that because AI and humans brains operate differently
It's a stupid ass line in the first place. If course they can. They can do whatever you program them to do. Like, these homies out there walking around thinking and calculating and shit and you think that amazing machine can't put a paintbrush to a canvas? Frick outta here bro
By that definition, neither can women.
It still needs human intent to work, it doesn’t produce a masterpiece on its own accord
He already proved him wrong in that very scene. The point was that he was wrong. You absolute fricking mongoloid.
>can a Black person?
Film got a lot of shit, but it had some cool action setpieces
this film is fun. i always sit down to watch when it's on tv.
still dont understand how sphere wheels work
They don’t.
Did you watch the movie? Sonny was specifically capable of imagining things and drew them.
Of course he watched the movie. He’s baiting Cinemaphile and Cinemaphile took it because this board is moronic.
>can a robot make a painting of two people holding hands?
>sort of.
An AI can’t do anything because it currently has no free will. We barely know how the human brain works yet because an algorithm generated a pretty picture, morons will claim that we’re 5 years away from a revolution.
So did cuckie smith
the line "can you" is way less on the nose and basically says the same thing. thank you for proving writing is hard
>taking the algorithmic average of petrabytes of input data and spitting out a composite result when instructed to
That's not art. It can look good and it can sound good, but it's completely devoid of meaning, subtext, intent, and emotion.
Human artists also learn from other art.
Humans aren’t just machines either
Prove it.
We are THOUGH
>noooo I'm heckin different!
Okay then
>*gives you a lobotomy*
Whoops looks like your machinery is busted.
You don’t even know how the human brain works, nobody does.
I don't know exactly how a computer's machinery works either, but I know if I start smashing it with a hammer, it will stop working, and same goes for your brains. How are you different?
Yeah, and then they make their own art with meaning, subtext, intent, and emotion.
you couldn't distinguish between a piece of art made with meaning, subtext, intent and emotion, and one that's pure imitation
Neither could you.
proving that artists are worse at their jobs than engineers
Or it’s proving that the modern art movement is 100% correct in asserting artist intent is meaningless and all that matters is the interpretation of the viewer.
>artist intent is meaningless and all that matters is the interpretation of the viewer
That's wrong, though.
Nope. Can you tell if Picasso had any intent beyond becoming famous? No, you can’t.
>fooling people with a hollow imitation means it's real
Did you hear that from your Discord friends?
is that where you got your arguments, homosexual? you don't have to be brainwashed to hate modern artists. you have to be brainwashed to NOT hate them. or BE one of them. only modern artists who deserve anything but revulsion are the ones churning out art for games like mtg, and those guys are basically assembly line artists. the indomitable human spirit doesn't enter into it, they just sit down and slap some splotches on a digital canvas and paint something that looks cool by the time they're done with it.
What's your point, moron? Some humans make artless work. So? ALL machines make artless work.
The point is you can’t tell. This is the foundation of the modern art movement.
>If people can't tell that I didn't put any thought or effort or emotion or sincerity into something, that means I did
You're like the moronic human equivalent of those cardboard bricks in China that kill people lol
What’s funny is I can tell you aren’t pretending to not understand, you literally can’t.
>lying about something makes it true
Is that what you tell yourself when you look in the mirror?
trannies are disgusting
Yes, but people create art with intent because they have will.
AI algorithms, like other programs, produce something because they were instructed to.
It's a huge difference.
There was no Picasso before Picasso
Picasso Sr.
Just curious where you gentlemen fall on this here chart.
Good job not refuting the argument.
Can they? AI can't make masterpiece art because it's soulless. What the frick is the point of art if there is no emotions involved
>Not art.
By art he means "referencing millions of other peoples artwork and combining them together"
How's that different from humans? We are nothing but our experiences and what we've seen.
Well we don't directly plagiarize
>Well we don't directly plagiarize
Lmao are you joking?
Name any random animal. That animal is more capable at making art than any AI will ever be. You could tape a paint brush to a rhinos horn and what ever he paints will have more soul than AI
GOOD Morning Sirs!!
but isn't the point of the scene that he can while will smith couldn't?
the best artists steal yadda yadda
Proompters won.
Well, Cinemaphile?
>Take a picture of yourself
A woman wrote this
Sir do Not Not buy the Bloody AI Art, You fricking buy AI.
Sir I Bloody reedemed the AI, Do Buy SIR!
Artgay seethe gives me joy.
future of AI scares me, and I'm not even in a danger of losing my job (perma neet)
>homosexuals complain about modern art
>don't commission any work themselves
>surprised when no one gives a shit about their opinion.
Commission it.
apart from the text on the sign, this is easy stuff for AI if you know what you're doing with your prompts and inpainting
Yes I'm sure it's easy for machine learning to recreate what's already been put in the model.
so? every piece of art is a derivative of something else in some form
if you're commissioning stuff like this it's more a charity thing than anything else
Yeah that's why we never advanced beyond cave paintings, moron.
you can still find "modern" art that is inspired by cave paintings, it's not like they're completely gone in any way
and guess what artists were inspired by? the fricking earth. and guess what AI models also get trained on? a frickload of photos from fricking earth
I'm not impyling I'm some kind of art conniseur, I don't really give a shit but if I had to choose between commissioning an artist or using AI for some simple shit I know what I'd choose.
>the NPC's idea of art is paying someone to make him something, probably porn, because he is an insect not capable of creating anything himself
This is a hilarious thread.
I'm not interested in art and I am not interested in creating it. My point is you don't need "artists" for shit like album covers, avatars, stupid desktop wallpapers etc.
If you want to pay millions for pic rel, go ahead, support money laundering
The seethe from artgays is always fricking delicious
You have trapped yourself into needing for form a meaningful distinction between “art” and “artistic merit.”
You have lost.
>some human art is soulless
>all AI art is soulless
That's it. There's no need for any more argument. Anyone who disagrees is a uncultured homosexual
That's your new cope since the old one got destroyed, huh?
Sorry, meant to reply to
None a ya's can explain how these AI (demons) work.
?
>Pure fricking babble.
AI wrote this short film 7 years ago.
WOW IT'S FRICKING GARBAGE AMAZING
>whole entire thread
>no one is able to provide a example of good AI art
do the need full sir much poo
https://www.pixiv.net/en/tags/AI生成
You’re arguing on the level of
>you can’t prove I’m breathing air becsue you can’t show me a picture of air
Thanks for tag to filter out the garbage lol
I accept your concession.
Anon wtf are you showing me? This is art to you? I feel like the feds are coming for me now
>you're a idiot this is AI art that's emotional
>it'd literally e-girls
Fricking kek. Pro AI gays are literally autistic morons who's best art was finger paintings
>behold the power of AI...
>generic anime girl number 58395483043!
AI sisters... I don't feel so good
IT'S GOOD ENOUGH YOU FRICKING BENCHODE DON'T BE BABY EAT THE SLOP
I could forgive everything except the samegay NAI faces. Literally a line and a dot for a nose. so cringe and disgusting. Only an anime avatar troon could accept that as good.
Screaming that you don’t like something doesn’t affect anything.
>nooooo stop posting opinions on the chon. I will become a troon artist in two weeks
>it's good enough sirs
Who said it was good enough? AIgays recognize every current generation as just a step of progress.
>I don't know
lol
>dude it's going to progress 2 more weeks sirs
You’re losing your composer. Well, you never had any.
Also “two more weeks” is the exact same level of thought as “but I did have breakfast.” You’re proving you are incapable of basic mapping.
I'm waiting on that explanation on you've solved human consciousness bro. You should have that published and get your Nobel prize.
>haha you can’t explain how the magician did the trick therefore it’s really real magic checkmate atheists
We’ve been over this.
Me saying you don't know how it works doesn't mean I'm implying it's magic.
See
“Soul” is a magical concept.
>>dude it's going to progress 2 more weeks sirs
yeah and the next steps will be within mega corporations / studios.
It’s open source bro.
a pajeet spent like $1 million for training and released it
some nerd leaked NAI's finetune. Everything after than is shitty remixes of that.
What is next? This is what annoys me. You AIgays are so delusional and think you are part of some ebin movement and automatically get stuff for free.
In the real world, a business spends millions investing in the data and doesn't give it away.
>ai can barely generate coherent images
>one goes open source
>another gets leaked
>ai content generation suddenly surges forward to create video/animations from text
>you: NOOO ITS BECUSE CORPOS SPENT DA MONEHS
The reality is last year of AI development has been the result of open source collaboration.
it will be increasingly cucked as it gets better
>okay so it’s pretty good now but… IT willbe LE BAD
You literally can’t help yourself.
globohomosexual is centered in USA
USA is very prudish
I already see lots of fear about CSAM. It's going to get more locked down and censored as it becomes more viable.
We only have the shitty demo version, that is barely passable at making anime girls and landscapes. cope.
Bruh. It’s open source. Genie out of the bottle.
Lawmakers will never be able to generate a law capable of banning or limiting AI generation.
it costs millions of dollars to train and also collect data
good luck collecting that if globohomosexual does not cooperate
Bruh I can train models locally right now. It’s ALL open source.
and your LORAs are S.H.I.T you delusional AIgay.
keep spamming your 1girls and bragging
the actual next steps are instruction-based, with text and image input, and will require huge training costs, and also lots of human labeling and data collecting
Is it delusional to know how I’d feel if I didn’t have breakfast this morning?
>meanwhile on Cinemaphile
>LOOK AT LE CUTE HECKIN ANIME GIRLS DRAWN BY HUMAN ARTISTS, THIS IS MY SPECIAL WAIFU UWU AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
I asked for the best example of emotional AI art and that was the only example they gave me. Do you want to give me one?
>emotional
not every piece of art leads to people feeling something about it. I can post some shit I made a couple of months ago with SD 1.4 before I got bored
>copy paste face
>nonsensical dress
checks out
We had already agreed that emotion was the basis for art. You would know that if you weren't a dumb homosexual who jumped into conversations
You’re skipping the part where that argument was completely annihilated from no less than four angles.
Where?
I’ll reiterate
>a viewer can’t tell if emotion was present in the creation
>things created without emotion can still convey it
>emotion is little more than programmed response
>you’re attributing magical properties to emotion
>things created without emotion can still convey i
No they cant
>you’re attributing magical properties to emotion
no im not
>a viewer can’t tell if emotion was present in the creation
I assure you anyone with a brain and a heartbeat can
>emotion is little more than programmed response
Nope
I posted
without emotion and it made you mad.
Checkmate atheist.
you're mad
these are all as is, no img2img, additional editing, upscaling or anything else, literally shat out in 1 second with a 3080Ti
>shat out in one second
Guess what anon, we can tell. Thats not a good thing
it literally is, these were made with a few hours of research and some trial and error from someone who doesn't know shit regarding tech
imagine what a fricking backwards AI gay can do with that stuff if he learns how to prompt, can do img2img and fixes the usual errors with photoshop
in case I didn't make myself clear, chinese cartoons are bland shit that all looks the same and is extremely easy to do with AI
most anons posting AI stuff here are falseflagging, just go to the AI generals and you find way better stuff in EVERY thread
if you ignore the usual shizo posters
The only reason I linked pixiv was to expose bad faith arguments.
If you look in a mirror right now, you’d see someone who’s completely lost every single argument they’ve tried in this thread.
>He's mad because anons don't think e-girl is a art form
to make it actually good will need lots of training data
but even that is pretty cheap compared to billion dollar movies
(the AIgays using stolen weeb art are delusional though btw)
>to make it actually good will need lots of training data
Translation: We need other peoples work to make the dumb machine to work.
And now you’re claiming we teach art without referencing any other material, that all artists have their eyes removed at birth, etc.
People don't save every piece of work in their brain they've seen and then regurgitate it you moron.
Okay, so the list of things you don’t understand now has “memory” in addition to
>the brain
>neurons
>synapses
>electricity
>chemistry
>physics
>art
>the brain
>memory
Ok bro give us a model on how the brain produces art work. We'll wait.
You see things. Then you smear some shit on a wall.
probably the same way the AI do
smears some shit together, then takes a step back and looks at it and goes "this sucks" and starts over, or "this rocks" and posts it online
Cool bullshit bro.
literally how it works
No it isn't. You've never drawn anything in your life.
same as openai and chatgpt
you pay lots of workers to make detailed labels and ratings
and maybe they would hire artists for specific things they want to improve
Wow so the machine didn't create anything. Great.
Man you just know it's art when any random pajeet can put the words
>BOOBS vegana WOMAN SEXY GIRL
Into a AI and a image comes out. Now THATS art
>dude I programmed the computer to make drawing OMG the computer made drawing by itself
technophiles deserve the rope
>robot "creates" its masterpiece by using a sophisticated collage of existing images found online.
turns out AI is overrated
as opposed to people who were taught how to draw
People don't learn to draw be looking at thousands of images then regurgitating them on a canvas. Go look at any art tutorial.
pssst, you’re back at
Go watch someone draw on youtube. It's in no way the same as what a machine learning algorithm does it.
Again me saying you don't know how the brain works doesn't mean I'm saying it's magic. Please demonstrate how the brain is a computer.
>Go watch someone draw on youtube
You mean the guys who scribble, erase, scribble, erase, then start drawing with ink within the scribbles to form “clean lines?”
Yes which is not how a machine learning algorithm does anything.
… yeah, it does. Each “step” is essentially the generator evaluating the scribbles and determining whether or not the pixels resemble the prompt, and removing bits that don’t.
lol now you're just fricking lying. the ai doesn't do a sketch see if it correct then does the coloring and shading. If it did you wouldn't have such comical frick ups.
So in addition to
, you also don’t understand how AI image generation works.
Ok bro show me the computer sketching out image then doing the line art. You can't because it doesn't.
You can find AI generators that will show you every step between prompt and final image.
It’s funny how literally all you can do is be disingenuous or proudly ignorant.
Ok post it bro
>haha you aren’t going to spoon feed me I win
lol. Lmao even.
lol Yeah that's what I thought. It doesn't sketch out the image at all and that's why it's garbage. Shut the frick up.
Note that
doesn’t contain the word “sketch.”
Ok so the what machine learning algorithm is doing is different then what human is doing. Got it
>we can see what AI does therefore it’s different than what humans do
Ok and?
Just pointing out the absurdity of your “argument.”
I like how it’s seated in you, essentially, claiming to have never dreamt or even seen the shapes your visual cortex will generate when you close your eyes.
Machine learning algorithms and people don't make images in the same way. The machine process is inferior :^)
So now you need to prove you know exactly how a human mind creates images.
Fun fact: only a tiny fraction of your visual field comes from your eyes. The rest is “outpainted” by your visual cortex. Also you have a blind spot in the dead center of your visual field, which your visual cortex “inpaints.”
lol no i don't. Machine learning algorithms don't work the same way people do.
Prove it.
you can’t
SD works in a latent space. And it doesn't sketch and erase or plan anything. It only denoises in fixed increments. So you are the one larping about using a drawing analogy to explain what SD does.
Art is a hobby. A trivial pursuit that people do in their spare time.
Making a career out of it is a tragedy. How many advances in science have we missed because people were too lazy?
so did his marriage
Being able to aggregate and average images based on input provided by humans is not creating a painting. It's not a creative or imaginative process.
If I splice together scenes from other movies, I haven't directed a movie.
More than that, AI art is directly reliant on human programming. If we told it Picasso only ever painted teapots and said "paint me a Picasso", it would give you an image of a teapot. Automated responses to pre-programmed instructions is not creativity.
Your responses are automated.
>If I splice together scenes from other movies, I haven't directed a movie.
That’s called editing and is part of directing.
>Editing is part of directing
First, no it isn't. That's why they are different words and different jobs. Second, splicing together scenes from two movies is not editing, it's just splicing. Editing is a creative process using footage to construct and cohesively tell a story. Splicing is just splicing.
>nerds think computers are drawing those pictures rather than millions of asians chained to computers
>I made
>aged like shit
>denoising is sort of like sketching, erasing, and drawing!
>training on stolen copyrighted images is sort of like me going to art school and looking at drawings
lol at these AIgay copes
I like trying to generate fake shitty art. This one tricked /ic/ they praised it as "at least a real human made this even if it looks bad" in an anti-ai thread.
that's cruel kek, drawgays really don't need that these days
I forgot how to crosspost but this one is from a current /sdg/, how is that any different than any of the type of rendered artgay video game advertising?
Making this from scratch by hand is definitely not a thing of a few minutes.
You won't get those results if you start doing work with SD, you need to learn how to properly use prompts, which ones are better than others, etc. etc.
Sure it's not like pressing a button and it's done but if artgays don't incorporate at least some level of AI stuff into their products, they won't make it very far.
The competition will use it anyway and produce far cheaper.
The only way you can earn decent money as an artgay in the near future will be if you're the next Picasso. And most artgays seething hard are only delusional and think they are exactly that.
>Making this from scratch by hand is definitely not a thing of a few minutes.
Fricking esl curry Black person. Everything your AI makes is shit.
I do have better reading comprehension than you do. Doesn't really surprise me but it's still sad.
Keep seething harder, jobless artgay.
AI """art""" is trash. Sorry it makes you mad 😉
You’re the one who seems mad. I’m just enjoying the “debate.”
I'm not the one who's mad, lol
Wow it's shit.
Wow it's you in a few years, kek
Why did you post a picture of yourself?
here you go
its funny how the artgay has nothing but programmed "no you" responses anymore.
Holy shit dude why are you still posting? Machine learning Diarrhea is garbage.
its better than you, and that makes you mad.
Is it comparable to what photography did to painting? I'm not an expert on the subject but I understand that painting went through a lot of "expressing yourself" movements when photography became a thing, instead of being more about describing the world, if so, I guess it's a good thing since most of the paintings that are most beloved today came from that era, Van Gogh, Klimt etc
but coomer-drawgays will suffer I guess