There are 3 people that are pro-AI art. >I fucking love science nerds who think anything new a computer can do is amazing >salty neets or derelicts who hate that other people are good at stuff they aren't and see AI art as a way to get back at the smug artfags of the world >indians and other STEM thirdies who view AI art as a means to get rich quick
No one else sane sees AI art as anything but awful for society and humanity.
nah, bro. you're just salty for some reason, probably wanted to earn money drawing furry porn or some shit.
ai art is only just starting and you're nitpicking minor shit. just ignore it if you don't like it.
are you reall too dumb to realize when something is inevitable and there's no point fighting it?
9 months ago
Anonymous
AI produces goyslop, because it's a muddled generic rehashing of existing content. No doubt Netflix will eventually produce its shitty "content" via at somepoint and goyium without artistic sensibility will slop it down.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Literally nothing is inevitable.
Shit, not fighting it doesn't help you even because you're a mook who doesn't matter and doesn't have the ability to become an institutional power that will use AI art generation as a means of cheaply flooding the world with more and more bullshit algorithmically designed to be widely appealing.
>systemic negative consequences of AI art generation
there are none, you are like someone in 1800s crying about photography killing art or synthesizers killing music
9 months ago
Anonymous
>1800s crying about photography killing art or synthesizers killing music
you saying it didn't?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Photography heavily damaged the painting industry. Synths heavily damaged the studio musician industry.
Those were both very deleterious, but also very focused in their impact.
AI art generation is very deleterious, but very widely focused.
That is what sets it apart.
AI image and text generation harms the position of every artist around. Regardless of style given the ability of these algorithms of become chameleons that steal the styles of whomever they're fed on.
It allows the companies building the algorithms to bypass significantly any actual human artists. They can automatically generate images and text with just basic prompting in the English language.
Once this stuff becomes properly integrated, artists will exist substantially as just an aesthetic consideration. A company will hire a handful of artists as a means to pretend that they have some integrity, every artist there will live on a knife edge because they are replaceable easily and the AI can generate 'new' content based on what has been found to be popular quickly and cheaply forever.
That you somehow doesn't see this is mindboggling.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>A company will hire a handful of artists as a means to pretend that they have some integrity, every artist there will live on a knife edge because they are replaceable easily and the AI can generate 'new' content based on what has been found to be popular quickly and cheaply forever.
so the status quo for the past 3 decades
9 months ago
Anonymous
Not at all.
First is that simply, AI hasn't been able to generate artwork or text of any quality until the last handful of years.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>>A company will hire a handful of artists as a means to pretend that they have some integrity, every artist there will live on a knife edge because they are replaceable easily and ***artists*** can generate 'new' content based on what has been found to be popular quickly and cheaply forever.
cut the 'ai' out and you have the status quo
You also should realize that AI generation of media will also "cheapen" media. Who is going to care about the newest DIsney movie when anyone can create a Disney-ish movie on their computer.
It cuts both ways. "Art" is going to evolve into a new frontier beyond merely still images or sequences of audiovisual images, as art is always on the cutting edge of culture and exploring the novel and unknown.
lets not pretend that hasn't been happening already, compare Jurassic park's cgi to antman's modok
9 months ago
Anonymous
You also should realize that AI generation of media will also "cheapen" media. Who is going to care about the newest DIsney movie when anyone can create a Disney-ish movie on their computer.
It cuts both ways. "Art" is going to evolve into a new frontier beyond merely still images or sequences of audiovisual images, as art is always on the cutting edge of culture and exploring the novel and unknown.
9 months ago
Anonymous
The standard and bar of expected complexity will simply be raised up.
It won't be a democratization, it will just see a new floor set and then the wealthy companies will once again be at the top because they can do it bigger and more complex.
Neither indie games nor indie films nor indie writing has ever 'beaten' those at the top yet. Sometimes there are successes, but they're devoured rapidly. AI art generation won't change that at all because the same mechanisms are in place.
9 months ago
Anonymous
If anything it'll probably be based on restricted access to the models and computing power based on licensing and the capital for training time and stuff.
I can't really see myself watching much of that but, if there's one thing I want out of AI it's a personal mentor who I can ask about life and have them help me grow.
9 months ago
Anonymous
The standard and bar of expected complexity will simply be raised up.
It won't be a democratization, it will just see a new floor set and then the wealthy companies will once again be at the top because they can do it bigger and more complex.
Neither indie games nor indie films nor indie writing has ever 'beaten' those at the top yet. Sometimes there are successes, but they're devoured rapidly. AI art generation won't change that at all because the same mechanisms are in place.
all development in AI content generation going forward will be based on stable diffusion, stable diffusion is open source, there is no way to rescind that. the people working with stable diffusion know enough about it to instantly glean how it was manipulated by a proprietary imitation.
can't put the genie back in the bottle.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Doesn't matter if its open source.
Writing and drawing are literally free to do right now, and most people can't do either to any skill level and even replicating another's writing or artwork is very difficult. Hence the popularity of these AI art generators by the incompetent right now.
To really answer your post, what a random individual can't mimic regardless is the networking and combination of different materials together that coordinated companies can do. The scaling complexity of combining different AI generated artworks together that the average individual doesn't have the time to copy at the very least. Complexity and scope is going to be the name of the game when it comes to products containing AI generated content. Layers upon layers of content.
As well this assumes that Stable Diffusion is the be-all and end-all of the system. And that private algorithms aren't going to be sold that promise features and abilities that it doesn't have, with their main traits being functioning as black boxes to outsiders.
9 months ago
Anonymous
you're describing training and model merging. this is also open source.
the only advantage huge corporations have in AI generation is access to prohibitively expensive hardware. this is rendered irrelevant by the ability to distribute work between large numbers of consumer grade computers.
you literally don't know what you're talking about.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>the ability to distribute work between large numbers of consumer grade computers
Doesn't matter. Distributed networks have never succeeded at anything important.
Torrents of popular shows and books and media in general die fast. FTP servers die all the time. Folding at Home and similar programs are entirely gimmicks. There has never been an instance where distributing processing and storage among consumer side hardware has succeeded in achieving anything of note compared to centralized systems.
The current methods of training, how it works, how it can be done, are FOSS. There is no reason to think that will continue into the future.
Transparency is not desirable for a company of any sort, so getting into proprietary software is going to be desirable as a matter of course.
The advantages that large companies have is more time and manpower behind generating and integrating content. That is the most important ability they have and is what will lead to them dominating the AI art generation world like they have every other 'democratization' break through that people have hyped up.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>person who doesn't know what he's talking about continues talking
its all so tiresome.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Give it up.
Your fantasies of AI content generation not resulting in a shithole of an art world are just that fantasies.
Every avenue where you think the little guy has a shot of beating the big players are already closed off before the race even began.
9 months ago
Anonymous
you can go learn about whats happening with AI right now, you can play around with it yourself, can do all of it yourself, can even generate some rudimentary videos/animations.
but you would prefer to remain ignorant and speak as if you have any knowledge.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, that is all something that can be done.
We didn't disagree on that.
We disagreed on the reality that large companies are going to dominate that sphere like they have every other entertainment sphere ever.
You can put a play on in your local park today, most of the most popular plays and scripts are public domain. But that doesn't change people will always go to Broadway first.
You can generate AI art and even short clips. Doesn't change that in the future Hollywood and Silicon Valley will dominate the field because they can do it bigger and better than you.
9 months ago
Anonymous
and drawing are literally free to do right now
No they're not, you need time which is money, and a good mental headspace which is also money. You have to be rich and free of worries about how you're going to earn your next meal and pay the rent.
9 months ago
Anonymous
You are ignoring what accessible technology did to content creating and boardcasting already. You are wrong.
9 months ago
Anonymous
What did it do to content creating?
Elaborate on what you think has already changed from whatever you consider the 'before times'.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Legacy dinosaur media lost to kids on youtube in every category.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>kids on youtube
You mean >20 year olds that are part of large channel networks much of the time. And who themselves are often owners of fairly large production studios hiring several editors and artists to help support their business.
Regardless of that, the biggest channels on youtube are primarily corporate channels run by massive media companies. And if you go by most viewed channels, its almost all corporate media.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I shouldn't say 'kids' cause there are plenty of boomers too, but still they are doing it on no budget, most only have 1-2 editors to help them with production - and they have bigger audience than multi-million TV. And everyone can do this. Which was absolutely impossible some ~20 years ago when syndicated media had monopoly on information. > biggest channels on youtube are primarily corporate
what a clueless fossil you are
9 months ago
Anonymous
Seriously, how can you never heard of fucking Pew and MrBeast. Not that you have to watch that garbage, but its impossible to be this out of touch
9 months ago
Anonymous
I shouldn't say 'kids' cause there are plenty of boomers too, but still they are doing it on no budget, most only have 1-2 editors to help them with production - and they have bigger audience than multi-million TV. And everyone can do this. Which was absolutely impossible some ~20 years ago when syndicated media had monopoly on information. > biggest channels on youtube are primarily corporate
what a clueless fossil you are
Its not 2010 anymore, those are small timers.
20 years ago there were still pirate radio stations and amateur tape retailers like CKY that got millions of listeners/viewers . Doesn't change that corporate media was the king.
9 months ago
Anonymous
And? still didnt change the fact that some litearal kids made it to the top.
You are just grasping for straws so I have to repeat. >You are ignoring what accessible technology did to content creating and boardcasting already. You are wrong.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>literal kids
Literal kids with more money funding their channels that your entire family line makes a year.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>What did it do to content creating?
https://twitch-tools.rootonline.de/channel_previews.php?sort_by=reverse
9 months ago
Anonymous
yeah thats the pont that a lot of people fail to realize, if the bar is low the cieling will simply become higher, there will always be someone more skilled than you even if you have the same tools, someone will be capable in making stuff with ai that the average person can't or will need years to reach the same level.
For example if you see picrel the left was a pretty acceptable work for the industry 20 years ago, but today if you can't make something like right, you simply don't get a job, and in the future this will change too. There will be others professionals that we will call "artists".
remember that 600 years ago people didn't even know what perspective was, now is unthinkable drawing without it
9 months ago
Anonymous
forgot pic
9 months ago
Anonymous
>from Touhou to PROhou
9 months ago
Anonymous
>remember that 600 years ago people didn't even know what perspective was
'sup techtard, shilling for NFTs didn't pan out?
9 months ago
Anonymous
yeah AI = democratization of creative industries
only dishonest corporate lapdogs are bemoaning it
9 months ago
Anonymous
Just like Unity democratized video games?
Just like camcorders democratized film making?
Just like e-currencies democratized finance?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Just like e-currencies democratized finance?
I mean they did? Pretty much everyone who got on it when everyone said to get on it is rich now? Sucks if you didn't lmfao.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Cinemaphile really thinks this
I get you all pretend to be crypto millionaires from 2012 but come on
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Who is going to care about the newest DIsney movie when anyone can create a Disney-ish movie on their computer.
That is beyond unrealistic. What sort of fucking hardware do you think most people have on their computers?
9 months ago
Anonymous
I mean in 5 to 10 years.
Also you don't have to do raytracing or actual 3D rendering of particles etc if you just use neural nets.
9 months ago
Anonymous
after effects filters are cute anon, you can make in your home pc a movie with better cgi than 30 years ago!1!!1 But why can't I make something that looks like bollywood disney today? Shit for sure AI will help me out, in 10 years and my stuff will look like them, because it's not like that they will adopt better technology and talent than me in 10 years, they will for sure get stuck
9 months ago
Anonymous
>That is beyond unrealistic. What sort of fucking hardware do you think most people have on their computers?
Some of us remember home computers using cassette tapes. We're all children to punch card pros. Were you alive when the Simpsons 3D Halloween episode first aired?
Barring an EMP or solar flare knocking us back to the stone ages, the affordability of the hardware will catch up. Access doesn't equal talent.
The day will come when you will be able to visit a free AI Movie Generator website, pick a few film genres, pick a few keywords, tags, settings or moods or whatever, pick a few actors or even historical figures, and click GENERATE and (after watching a couple ads) it will generate a movie for you just how you like it!
>But it's gonna be crap
AI is learning to improve, it will become competent eventually and it will keep improving. >But it's gonna be soulless
As if the shit Hollywood is making has any soul >But it's gonna be expensive/hard to make
Remember how personal computer were back in the 90s? See how they are now? Nothing is beyond our reach. >But AI will be taking over the job of humans
If any humans deserve to lose their jobs to AI, these are the Hollywood people. I hope they all go bankrupt and live like hobos. >They will stop it!
Oh no they won't, they can't even stop torrent hubs. They can't even stop cryptocurrencies. >They will control it! >They will try, they will fail.
>The day will come when you will be able to visit a free AI Movie Generator website, pick a few film genres, pick a few keywords, tags, settings or moods or whatever, pick a few actors or even historical figures, and click GENERATE and (after watching a couple ads) it will generate a movie for you just how you like it!
That's sounds absolutely terrible.
it's great if it destroys the current film industry.
actually it will be more like you'll be able to tell a computer to generate a movie, and you'll be able to sell that movie to other people to have no idea what they want to watch or any idea how to describe the movie they want to watch, and your movie looks cool.
Just because these tools make things easier, doesnt really mean everyone will be able to get exactly what they want from it.
>and you'll be able to sell that movie
why do the mindbroken capitalists always assume there's going to be a way to monetize limitless generation of content?
because there are people who capitalize on water, something that falls from the sky and you can collect for free.
9 months ago
Anonymous
the monetizable facet of "water" is transportation and generation of potable water.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>swoosh
there are egirls who make money selling their piss and shit.
buying and selling is a foundation in modern society.
9 months ago
Anonymous
they're monetizing a person's sexual attraction to them.
what is the monetizable aspect of limitless content generation?
that was a great selfie you posted at
because there are people who capitalize on water, something that falls from the sky and you can collect for free.
btw
9 months ago
Anonymous
>what is the monetizable aspect of limitless content generation?
this should be simple enough that you should be able to understandm, if not, too bad.
Just because a tool is easy for someone to use, doesnt mean it is easy for everyone.
A user of this tool can create something actually very difficult if not impossible to duplicate by another user.
10 girls can be a 10/10 but everyone will still find one that's more attractive than the other and still desire that ONE girl over the other 9.
You can create 10,000 movies, but a person can only get a glimps of a limited amount in their lifetime and they will still desire something in particular over something else.
People are limited in their time in life, and it doesnt matter if the options are actually limitless for anything, they can only choose from limited options they have because life is not endless.
just because the tool has endless possibilities, doesnt mean two users of the tool can create something equally desireable.
girl can sell her shit because her shit is desireble.
guy can sell his shit for the same reason, even though everyone takes a shit, it's all different.
9 months ago
Anonymous
so you think the ten minutes of learning how to prompt, which won't even exist in a year, a barrier that can be monetized.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Do israelites run the media?
9 months ago
Anonymous
there aren't any israelites in my computer. or in the room with me. i even have "israeli" as one of my negative prompts.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>there aren't any israelites in my computer.
Are you sure? I bet you have no idea how many intel chips (made in israel) are actually in your computer aside from your cpu. The merchant's tech is good at hiding too.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>anything made by a israelite is a israelite
that would mean you're a israelite too
9 months ago
Anonymous
>anything made by a israelite is a israelite
If it's got the eyes(cameras) of one and the ears(microphones) of one, it might as well be
Their only lens for reality is making money.
And they think that you can make money from anything. And its only them not hustling enough that they themselves aren't rich.
They're all the types to think something like the Polium One was a good idea.
You will be able to generate any kind of movie you want!
You're going to pick your genres, sub-genres. Like Horror? Then Body Horror, Cosmic Horror, Zombie or you want a Crime movie, heist or gang warfare? Military movie? Which war? Whatever you want.
You can pick whatever actors you want, using deep fake technology and it will be impossible to tell they're not real.
You can even pick non-actors to star in your movie, I mean it's all computer generated after all, why stick to actors?
You can have historical figures in it, you can even yourself or your family in it. I mean imagine that, you, yourself starring in some sci-fi or fantasy movie!
You can then choose keywords such as "surprise ending" or "plot twist" or you could even be able to select biases such as make an AI generated War movie on the Vietnam war with a strong bias in favor of the Viet-Cong.
You could even make your AI generated movies be adaptations of already existing sources, such as books, games, sources, AI scans the web reads and learns about them and wham-bam, here's your movie!
It's going to happen. AI can already do text-to-video generation. Give it a few years, a couple decades max, and it's going to happen.
CGI and digital already made people so fucking lazy that 99% of modern films look like crap. I can't imagine how bad AI movies will be.
9 months ago
Anonymous
unless you specifically tell it to generate a "bad movie," it won't.
9 months ago
Anonymous
It's not like they make capeshit bad on purpose.
9 months ago
Anonymous
if blackrock's woke bailouts are more lucrative than drawing an audience, then yes, they are specifically making bad movies on purpose.
Are you actually implying that a soulless hunk of metal is somehow capable of coming up with a layered nuanced subtle character study interwoven into a plot designed to captivate the audiences attention all by its own? You're dumb.
i like how every attempt to belittle whats possible with AI is always refuted with "can you/they?"
9 months ago
Anonymous
Are you actually implying that a soulless hunk of metal is somehow capable of coming up with a layered nuanced subtle character study interwoven into a plot designed to captivate the audiences attention all by its own? You're dumb.
>The day will come when you will be able to visit a free AI Movie Generator website, pick a few film genres, pick a few keywords, tags, settings or moods or whatever, pick a few actors or even historical figures, and click GENERATE and (after watching a couple ads) it will generate a movie for you just how you like it!
This is what dipshit redditors who's only exposure to AI is pop culture science fiction think. In reality AI is a fucking mess that only gives marginally better results SITUATIONALLY with the added burden of massive overheads.
Even if you discount the fact that the subscription fee of an AI program + the cost of setting it up + the cost of hiring people to maintain and debug it + the cost of having backup human resources available in the event of problems/escalations is almost the same if not more than just hiring people to do the job, the fact that it's just a program subject to outages and disruptions in a highly interconnected system with several dependent variables makes it a big risk to bet your money on. And that's not even counting the human factor where incentives and the promise of rewards/threat of job loss makes an employee often perform at a high level and go above and beyond their duties, which is just not possible with soulless 1s and 0s interacting behind a few lines of code.
AI will definitely reduce the quantity of work people do, but nowhere in the next 50 years is it going to completely automate away abstract and decision/analysis driven jobs that are being performed by humans today. And you can forget about the creative gigs being touched by AI in this century.
AI wont stand the test of legality. Theyd have to prove in court that their databanks arent stolen. Especially once you move away from simply pictures. Thats why your fantasy doesnt pan out
any argument that attempts to make ai training/models illegal is akin to claiming all computers should be illegal because all computers have the components of child pornography on them.
not even addressing the fact how, every time lawmakers try to make tech laws, they're always just giant loopholes.
Most artists have zero understanding of anatomy. The AI is already far ahead. AI neural networks are designed based on actual neural networks in the brain, and are very similar, thats why they work well. The brain does basically the same thing by mashing different visual images together. Thats the breakthrough in recent decades, it's modeling real neuroscience. There are already AI models specifically trained on hands and every other details. Its only going to get better exponentially.
>most artists
quirky egirls using tablets to draw the same thing over and over again are not artists
9 months ago
Anonymous
I do not respect artists who cannot draw/paint/create things in the physical world.
9 months ago
Anonymous
my dad does all those things and taught at university. some of his sculptures are proud town monuments >he makes less than a furfag artist
it's just not a realistic career unless you fuck your own asshole and shit on a canvas during a livestream "performative display" and he's over 80 now so his ass is just too broken
I showed him this the AI stuff and he just stared at it, his mind slowly breaking down as regret flooded in
9 months ago
Anonymous
there are actually two to types of modern artists (who can actually make a living. NOT counting starving artists)
one type is the guy that sits in front of the computer all day at some slave game/vfx studio that rape them 80 hours a week, for just above minimum wage. He has talent but sells himself for cheap. And the other is the person who spends most his time selling their 15 minute "paintings" to people with more money than brains. This one has thousands of "art" pieces that range from $100 to the moon, that they sell at galleries and events.
Being an artist is not something anyone chooses to be to make money. You do it because it's what you do and have zero passion to do anything else.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>You do it because it's what you do and have zero passion to do anything else.
>some people just naturally have talent or passion
how
9 months ago
Anonymous
pasion is not enough to make a living, that's why there are a lot of starving artists.
there are very skilled artists who need work very hard to create amazing artworks, and there are very talented artists who dont need to work hard at to create amazing artworks.
there also a many of "artists" who are just good at selling crap.
Most artists I know arent good at doing anything else and would rather be poor and an artist than anything else.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Overdeveloped occipital lobes. Just born that way. Its genetic, some races are better at drawing
9 months ago
Anonymous
You know zero artists. I went to art school in nyc.
99% of illustrators have zero understanding of anatomy. You would think they would learn something about it but no, most suck at it because it's actually difficult. I If you had any understanding of anatomy, muscles, you would see it's obvious. Sculptors the only artists who actually seriously try to study anatomy, but there are very few good sculptors.
9 months ago
Anonymous
There are lots of artists that still understand anatomy but they're mostly outside of the US. Most of the respected art schools are in Russia where they beat anatomy and all the fundamentals into you.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Unironically post your art or youre just some weird preachy hipster >muh art
I did that for a science fair thirty years ago and everybody laughed at me. To be fair just presenting the idea with no application is retarded but it does feel like vindication.
9 months ago
Anonymous
yeah thats the pont that a lot of people fail to realize, if the bar is low the cieling will simply become higher, there will always be someone more skilled than you even if you have the same tools, someone will be capable in making stuff with ai that the average person can't or will need years to reach the same level.
For example if you see picrel the left was a pretty acceptable work for the industry 20 years ago, but today if you can't make something like right, you simply don't get a job, and in the future this will change too. There will be others professionals that we will call "artists".
remember that 600 years ago people didn't even know what perspective was, now is unthinkable drawing without it
>remember that 600 years ago people didn't even know what perspective was, now is unthinkable drawing without it
What if they knew, but that's not what sold? It wasn't what people wanted?
Just so everyone knows, this post is complete bullshit. The idea for artificial neural networks have been around for ~80 years. In that time, we've found out that the neural allegory isn't actually that accurate. And the recent advances happened because of completely different reasons
9 months ago
Anonymous
>The idea for artificial neural networks have been around for ~80 years >The idea
vs, actually implementing and developing it now. >the recent advances happened because of completely different reasons
not really, the development has been in conjunction with computing power and machine learning development platforms and languages like python help speed development.
It's mostly happened in the past 10 years, and has grown exponentially since then.
This is such a cope from internet artists kek. The technology has from from shitty dall.e memes to extremely detailed pieces of art in a year and all they can say is >MUH 6 FINGERS
Cope and sneed
Nah if you actually tried to make up the flaws and inability of AI a year ago you would come up with much more insane stuff than 6 fingers or fucked up hands its actually incredible how it gets more or less 80% right if you think about it
This... there's nothing compelling about that picture. Just "tits.. muh nazi.. sexy" but it lacks anything that makes it actually sexy or interesting. It's "technically" good but it lacks artistic merit and I would not masturbate to it because it's bland and unmoving.
That’s leather not cloth, retard. And you can clearly see how the leather wrinkles while the skin does not. There is even a depression in the skin at the edges that 90% of digital artists wouldn’t bother with. It’s boring and lacks soul, but you’re still fucking blind.
thats because most of the "artists" that generate these images suck, and use the most popular models that the million other ai "artist" use and have no imagination or real idea what it's capable of besides prompting for the same "blonde, girl, big tits" that everyone else does.
Most of the good stuff isn't coming from the coomers
Even that doesn't look moving. It just looks like something with intricate texture.
I think the thing with these things is that AI's are only operating with visual information and they don't have the concept of incorporating more subtle or emotional or spiritual into the images, whereas a human brain can take those into account, consciously or subconsciously, when arranging the piece.
Try adding more abstract concepts and aesthetics into the prompts and you'll see the AI fail to appropriately understand them.
You fail to recognize that it's an actual human that prompted and chose this image because they liked it or this is what they wanted to emote, and not because you cared for it. Also, I posted it because it showed something besides the generic "cute girl, big tits" image that goes around. This doesnt mean these are the limites to the images it can generate. People care training new models every day, anyone can do it. If you have an idea for "emotional or spiritial" artworks, You can train your own model on the types of image keys that you think portray those ideas, and have it generate something to your own vision.
The irony is that you're actually holding the AI to a much higher standard than most human artist, because most people also like a small fraction of human created art. most of what we create is garbage to most other people.
That's demonstrates my point. It fails to convey anything moving or beautiful when asked to produce that type of thing. It's profound lack of spiritual depth is almost sickening.
9 months ago
Anonymous
yes we need REAL and DEEP human art like this 40 million dollar masterpiece
9 months ago
Anonymous
>not posting real peak art
pseud plz
9 months ago
Anonymous
>makes you green with envy
9 months ago
Anonymous
>It fails to convey anything moving or beautiful
you fail to understand that your idea of moving and beautiful is relative, and no one will find that "moving or beuatiful" image for you, because you dont even know what that is until it manifests itself somewhere and connects with you, and then I can say that shit isnt moving at all, and you're just delusional.
9 months ago
Anonymous
If anything it only makes me more misanthropic that so many people, such as you, seem to lack a developed aesthetic sensibility and capacity for spirituality or introspection.
Makes me feel as though I'm surrounded by 'philosophical zombies'. I like to think other people think about things to the extend that I do, but sometimes I come up against the ugly reality that many other people are essentially cattle drone untouchables. This apparently is one such time.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah yeah you're full of yourself, we got that loud and clear already.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Back to the stagnant din of the slop hall with you.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>spirituality or introspection
lay off the weed and egotism. >everyone should think the way I do because I'm more sensible than most people I know.
you have no idea what you're about.
People posted some images they liked. You dont like them. Doesn't mean you have good taste. I can describe the brilliant sfumato that the AI uses, and the subtlety of its technique that gives the illusion of depth and a contradictions of emotions to its characters, but then it that would still be lost on you in the AI, even though it could describe a davinci. because you imagin yourself as special. The neural network is based off of neural nets in th brain. This is just the alpha version. You can deny it as you can deny youself being part of the collective, but it doesn't make a difference.
9 months ago
Anonymous
NTA but I too have yet to see one work of AI art which is truly inspired. The world is already flooded with generic pictures/paintings of hot women. Art has primarily been conceptual for over a century now.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>NTA but I too have yet to see one work of AI art which is truly inspired.
that's fine, maybe you'll never find AI art inspiring, or maybe you'll realize you were actually inspired by something that has been created by an AI and you never realized it, but the fact that it does inspire people, is enough value in itself.
The difference in this dicussion is that everyone knows we're talking about AI generated images. In the general context of society, most people will have no clue, and even more when as AI is improved.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>boohoo i'm smort and misunderstood but le ebil ai stops wimin from touching my sin stick
Fuck off, art is an expression of the human condition not a little club where arrogant pricks like you get to gatekeep
9 months ago
Anonymous
>you fail to understand that your idea of moving and beautiful is relative, and no one will find that "moving or beuatiful" image for you, because you dont even know what that is until it manifests itself somewhere and connects with you, and then I can say that shit isnt moving at all, and you're just delusional.
That's deep.
you sound like an AI "artist"
anyone who checks out deviantart can find it flooded with coomer generated works from people who had no accounts a year ago. Most of these images are from talentless hacks. exactly my point.
the problem is that people just type and push a button, for example yesterday I did this in 30min, just feed a sketch and fix shit (as a proof of concept), if I had to draw it all myself It would have took 6 hours, you know how many shit I can make in 6 hours thanks to ai finishing stuff for me? If you know a bit how to draw and do stuff you can do a lot of things (nonrelated coomershit too). >feed sketch>take ai crap>fix ai crap>feed it, etc.. until you aren't stisfied, you can use it as a tool, and in a day you can make stuff that it would have taken days without it
nice work, that's how I imagin using it also. I consider myself skilled artist, but it take a long time and effrot to create what I imagine. I plan to run some of my unfinished sketches through SD to see if it can do 80-90% of the coloring, inking, ligting work for me.
Amazing, a bland pic of an anime girl in a neutral pose with no expression on her face. The height of artistic achievement.
Which porn artist was this trained on to rip off their style?
>This looks like complete dogshit. There is actual quite cool AI generated art however.
It's dicky softcore porn, and someone's going to make a lot of money producing it via AI.
The uncanniness of AI makes it kino for horror and abstract art
I wish I saved that spooky pic I saw on Cinemaphile. It was way creepier than anything a human could do.
>Can a robot write a symphony?
yes. most syphonies suck actually. The AI can probably write a symphony better than most composers. >Can a robot take a blank canvas and turn it into a masterpiece?
Can you? Most humans suck at art, and even most artists cant turn a blank canvas into a masterpiece. The AI actually does a better job at diffusing visual images than most artists and can do. Yes, thats what people do when the create visual art. they warp together different images and styles that they've all seen before. It's very similar to how the AI does it.
>within our lifetimes we will see the rise of AI supremacy cults who believe in creating a black box AI God and handing the universe to it
You want it, even if those men would be israeli and they would believe that AI is the new prophet that will build the holy Zion on Earth, cleansing it from all goym?
a commonly missed point about the AIs in deus ex is, in current AI terms, they were all trained off the "illuminati" dataset, to say, do, and behave the way the illuminati wants them to.
>The only artists who should be worried by AI art are the mediocre ones
/this
Wrong.
The artists that should be most worried are those of skill and more importantly standards and vision.
Such artists are known for their conflicts with production and executives, and in a post-AI art generator future, won't have the ability to stand strong any longer.
Mediocre hacks will be able to better survive the transition. They're willing to do whatever anyone asks of them, and will live on in the margins and places were the appearance of human artwork's primacy is maintained.
What good will using AI tools do for them?
If you have a vision of your own that conflicts with those in charge, today you can rely on your skills and ability to justify your presence.
When it comes to AI artwork prompting ability, something largely divorced from artistic ability, becomes one of the most important aspects of an "artist's" value. And due to the comparative ease at which correct prompting is taught, being good at it isn't going to grant employment stability.
What good will using AI tools do for them?
If you have a vision of your own that conflicts with those in charge, today you can rely on your skills and ability to justify your presence.
When it comes to AI artwork prompting ability, something largely divorced from artistic ability, becomes one of the most important aspects of an "artist's" value. And due to the comparative ease at which correct prompting is taught, being good at it isn't going to grant employment stability.
>Can a robot appreciate beauty? Can a robot have an orgasm? Can a robot have an out of body experience?
Tanith asked those questions 40 years ago in The Silver Metal Lover. If the robot thinks it does, then it did.
AI art is an interesting as an experiment, but as an engineer I think that AI should focus on developing solutions for fields like medicine, neurology, industrial manufacturing, etc. I don't think that any of us would want to watch a show made by an AI and then have computer-generated sex stimulus with a neovagina.
>AI art is an interesting as an experiment
It's not an experiment. It's a foundation for AI thinking. It's part of the neural network development. It WILL be part of medical science, manufacturing, education, etc. Because all this (ai art) is the AI's ability to generate reply to your visual senses and "create" something in visual form, from what it's seen before. Just like speech AI, learning from all the text, and speech it gathers in order to generate a response, or any other neural network. In the end, it's about being able to communicate to our visual, audio senses.
let me tell you how it's already part of the future.
here is the difference between a AI robot that can create an image and one that can not.
the one that can create an image, can visually imagin something new, and the one that can not, can not do that.
something like the holodeck from star trek would not be able to exist if it coudnt generate new objects that it's never seen before.
a robot would be able to understand what something looks, even though it's never seen it before, simply from a description, and be able to visualize it in order to do what it might need to do.
Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot take a blank canvas and turn it into a masterpiece?
composite sketch artist are going to be replaced soon. saying it now.
no more one sketch at a time.
computer will generate 50 different variations in two seconds, to choose from every description you give it.
>but as an engineer I think that AI should focus on developing solutions for fields like medicine, neurology, industrial manufacturing, etc.
Engineering is not divorced from soul (art), and the best applications of AI in those fields will require the inspiration of art to bust out of sterile boxes.
Critics dont realize that this is not version 1.0 of AI art. It's not even close. This is an alpha version. Beta version is coming with all the refinements that are already out there in limited forms in various models. Version 1.0 will be able to generate art indistinguishable to human created. That doesnt mean that all the genearted works will be masterpieces. But a large number of it will be. It will be like current visual effects, where people dont realize they're watching CG becuse its perfect, but then critize CG when they see bad CG because it's obvious.
shame sandman didn't come out after another 5 or so years because this trippy phasing would work great for the dreaming (and hopefully by then the woke shit will have died off)
i used to love the fuck out of irobot. comfy movie to watch. saw it in theaters too with the family. honestly the quality of irobot is what a "soulless" movie should be. not black panther or marvel shit
Literally every new piece of technology has made things worse for humanity. There was an apparent peak 5000 years ago before the wheel with fire and shelter and defense and art and knowledge, but even that was really worse than just picking berries and chilling. Art is already dead because of computers and photography and a million other pieces of technology exerting influence, so I don’t know how AI art can make it worse, but somehow it will.
You could think of many scenarios where AI controlling something like medicare would decide to end lives of people for the greater good. How about assisted suicide to end suffering?
>for no logical reason
Probably only if it was malfunctioning, but that’s the same with people. Most serial killers have a logical reason, it gets them off. The few cases where no logical reason seems to exist are often attributed to brain tumors or the like.
I'm not an artist but I hate this AI shit. It's really not good enough yet and can be easily recognized. There's something soulless about it. When I jerk off it doesn't feel right to fap to AI generated images.
that's because this is the beginning and every low browed coomer is hitting it hard right now with their 2 seconds. Wait a few years when more skilled artists actually spend time using it as a tool to improve their workflow and the quality of their own works instead of generating generic pieces now. Then it'll be more accepted and recognized as a valuable tool.
>Wait a few years when more skilled artists actually spend time using it as a tool to improve their workflow and the quality of their own works
Can you please explain how exactly do you imagine this would work? Techbros always say this and I don't get it at all, it seems like they don't know what art is or how it's created in the slightest.
This AI does more than simply generate art from a text description.
This AI can redraw your pencil sketches, add color, lighting detail, a backdrop.
A good piece of artwork can take a week, a month, months to create by a really good artist.
Once these good artists actually use this tool, they can sketch, draw out ideas, give it to the AI to do 90% of the work, (coloring, detailing, etc.) then the artist just needs to go in an refine it. This makes the good artist who can push out a few good art pieces a year, that make them money. Into rediculously productive art producing machines.
It's like giving artists the power of Mozart, who could compose a symphony in a few hours vrs months and years.
If there was a tool like this for Beethoven he'd have a thousand symphonies instad of nine.
>>Once these good artists actually use this tool, they can sketch, draw out ideas, give it to the AI to do 90% of the work, (coloring, detailing, etc.) then the artist just needs to go in an refine it.
Why do you imagine I would want to retouch someone else's work? If I wanted to plagiarize, I could just make a collage of GIS images and trace over that instead?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Why do you imagine I would want to retouch someone else's work?
telling an AI to color your sketches, is plagiarizing? haha, you're not going to make it.
AI retouching has been part of photoshop for many years now. Do you have a problem using photoshops' AI to mask an image, or auto color adjust or add smat textures to your drawings? There is no difference in this context.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>haha, you're not going to make it.
Make what? >telling an AI to color your sketches, is plagiarizing?
Why would I want someone else to "color my sketches"? What are you even on about here? I can color them just fine? What exactly do you think is being helped with and how here? I'm completely baffled.
Did you ever draw anything in your life?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>I can color them just fine?
yeah? photoshop never colored in those lines for you huh? you only use the paintbrush. wow, you're like a real OG artist, anon. You must be great!
nah, you're just the one who has no idea how this technology works.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>>yeah? photoshop never colored in those lines for you huh?
What are you talking about even? Are you just trolling at this point? Can you be specific please. Is your only exposure to art twitter furry porn or something?
9 months ago
Anonymous
he's probably making a point as basic as how just the paint bucket in mspaint is a huge amount of automation that has been around so long, most people, even "artists," don't recognize how much work it replaces.
9 months ago
Anonymous
nta, but if you draw professionally you want every tool possible to churn out work fast because more speed=more money, doesn't matter if you spent 100 hours in a background or photobashed a few pics in 2 hours, what matters is the result, is just how it works, but I agree with you that if you just draw for fun then ai is useless and removes all the joy from it, and it's cope for people that have 0 talent and believe that they did themselves what ai churned out.
Like now people will prefer to work digitally and hire digital artists, because having layers makes your work easy to fix and faster to produce
9 months ago
Anonymous
>>nta, but if you draw professionally you want every tool possible to churn out work fast because more speed=more money
That's literally only true for draw monkeys who are employed in some completely unrelated industry, like film, video games, cartoons, whatever else. Everyone who paints actual paintings for example has more of them lying around than they could possibly ever sell in their lifetime, EXCEPT the art elite with connections who can just afford to make one piece per year and get more money than everyone else will in their lifetimes.
So I still don't get how this is helping anyone. The draw monkeys will lose their jobs because they will be completely replaced by AI, the smalltime artists will get fucked because they already can't sell shit, and I guess the bigtime israelite artists will be able to just generate their expensive shit without lifting a finger now by stealing everyone else's work, is that really who you want to help?
9 months ago
Anonymous
well the drawmonkeys is the actual sector that makes money, be it commissions or working for a company.
I'm not even considering the israelite sector of modern art of traditional fine art, they don't matter in a discussion about digital products. Like the small time artists don't matter either since selling 1 painting instead of 2 doesn't really damage their bottom line. What AI affect most is the drawmonkey sector. >The draw monkeys will lose their jobs because they will be completely replaced by AI
and I think you are wrong here, you still need someone at the steering wheel and doing something specific with ai takes hours of figuring it out, and still arrives at it at like 80% and needs manual help to reach the 100%.
The point that I'm trying to make is that you will still end up with people behind the wheel directing shit, be it behind a pencil or behind a keyboard, a director or company will not do it themselves, they will just employ someone to do bigger things since now is faster, they will just change job tags.
3d didn't eliminate animators, it just made a new kind of animator. But I agree that it can shrink the sector since if you are doing a small thing you need less people, but more people could do small things too, and will and already has impacted the commission sector.
But as far as being an "artist" doesn't matter, you can create with a pencil or with feces, the important is effort and ideas.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>>and I think you are wrong here, you still need someone at the steering wheel and doing something specific with ai takes hours of figuring it out, and still arrives at it at like 80% and needs manual help to reach the 100%.
Not really, they will just "streamline the workflow" or whatever the tech retards keep babbling about to 90%, and people will be fine with 90%. >3d didn't eliminate animators, it just made a new kind of animator.
Yeah the kind that doesn't understand volumes and weights, action lines, elasticity, keyframes, or anything really. It made actual animation almost completely impossible unless you do the entire thing yourself, if you wanted to make anything bigger than a festival short, you literally can't find enough competent people in your country to work on it anymore.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Yeah the kind that doesn't understand volumes and weights
yes and you will have someone that will not understand, light, composition, shapes, and colors too, because ai will do that for them, this doesn't change the fact that you probably have more animators than ever compared to when only 2d animation existed.
The cheapening and ease of product usually equals with a drop of quality of that too. But if before you had 2 quality animations in a year, now you have 2 quality and 10 shit animations, and in the future you will have 2 quality and 100 shit animations.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>yes and you will have someone that will not understand, light, composition, shapes, and colors too, because ai will do that for them, this doesn't change the fact that you probably have more animators than ever compared to when only 2d animation existed.
So let's say I'm directing an animated short. Why would I even hire an "animator" that can't do anything? If I have to teach him everything like he's a retarded kid?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Why would I even hire an "animator" that can't do anything? If I have to teach him everything like he's a retarded kid?
HAPPENS DAILY
1. because they're cheap, and so are you
2. because no one capable wants to be involved
9 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not doing it with incompetent people though, I'd rather it isn't done at all? Why would you churn out subpar shit? I'm talking about actual art here, not Generic Anime #12482356.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>I'd rather it isn't done at all? Why would you churn out subpar shit?
Because you want to get paid, and those are the cards you're dealt with.
9 months ago
Anonymous
so now you're just arguing against the monetization of art.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Again, I'm talking about art, not cartoons for children. You know, the stuff that's been relegated to animation festivals and doesn't make any money whatsoever? I guess it's fine if that's done away with?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>the stuff that's been relegated to animation festivals and doesn't make any money whatsoever
NO SUCH THING
In what world does a talented artist work for free or someone pay for a talented artist to create something that doesnt return on the investment?
Animation festival stuff promotional, cost tons of time, if not money to make, and are created in hopes of wining awards, money, contracts.
Either way, no matter what, talent is always limited. The best will be in demand at the highest paying positions. Most will have to do with the lesser talent availble, oftentimes the not so talented is the only choice.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>In what world does a talented artist work for free or someone pay for a talented artist to create something that doesnt return on the investment?
Everywhere outside America apparently?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Everywhere outside America apparently?
what? starving artists? or House of Medicis?
If it's everywhere, shouldnt be difficult to give some examples.
9 months ago
Anonymous
because he can do a things a bit better than you or you are too busy to push 100 buttons so you hire one
I'm not doing it with incompetent people though, I'd rather it isn't done at all? Why would you churn out subpar shit? I'm talking about actual art here, not Generic Anime #12482356.
>why churn out subpar shit
maybe you have standards here, 90% don't and need artists to churn out a product to sell regardless of quality, who has a low budget go to the pajeet, who has some budget go to the artist that can affort a mcdonald meal with his hourly wage, and who has a budget and doesn't want compromises, just wait to assemble his dream team and make quality stuff. And idk what you consider actual art, but a lot of artistic products wouldn't be "art", they are just pieces made by "artisans" a product, and AI impacts that, the "artist" is not relegated to a medium
9 months ago
Anonymous
he can do a things a bit better than you
If I understand all these concepts, and he does not, how can he do what better than me?
>This makes the good artist who can push out a few good art pieces a year, that make them money. Into rediculously productive art producing machines.
Also, where do you imagine the audience for all these billions of "art pieces" will come from? Whoever has contacts in the art world and can sell them for more than $5 already has them and maybe they'll sell two times more, but not two thousand times more, because there simply aren't any buyers. And everyone else won't sell shit.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>where do you imagine the audience for all these billions of "art pieces" will come from
only you're trying to imagin something that was unneccesary to the point made.
point being that it's good a tool that can make a good artist more productive.
Picasso was a prolific artist. He has over 10 thousand paintings to his name, and If he only had 10?
there are inummerable amounts of "art" created by people. so what?
AI is just a tool. The brush is just a tool. In the end someone has to use the tool to make something with it.
>A good piece of artwork can take a week, a month, months to create by a really good artist.
Art takes as long as it takes. The inspiration is what makes it art, not the tweaking. Three brush strokes can convey soul, where technique does not.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>The inspiration is what makes it art
You have no idea what art is, and neither do I. And this is coming from an artist, that went to art school, is surrounded daily by artists, and made a living as an artist for over 30 years.
people and artists have said:
Art comes from the word arm, it's anything created by hand.
Art is an expression in visual form.
Art is art.
Everything is art
Nothing is art
Your definition of art is your own and really not unique or special.
>Why do you imagine I would want to retouch someone else's work?
telling an AI to color your sketches, is plagiarizing? haha, you're not going to make it.
AI retouching has been part of photoshop for many years now. Do you have a problem using photoshops' AI to mask an image, or auto color adjust or add smat textures to your drawings? There is no difference in this context.
Have you ever made a piece of visual artwork in your life?
I'm asking this genuinely.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>I'm asking this genuinely.
30+ years. fine art schools in NYC. art history, color theory, art techniques. Had numerous works published in magazines when I worked at graphics design studio, had works hung in art galleries. Professional sculptor for a mannequin company for 4 years, and 3d artist, technical artist, tecyhnical developer for the past 15-20 years. I am the artist most artists wish they could be.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Post some of your work.
If you're apparently excited about automating 90% of art creation so you can churn out more and more slop I want to see your own work. Something that is uniquely yours.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Post some of your work.
a 10 minute sketch from a figure drawing session from over 10 years ago. not posting anything I publish on my website or did professionally here. U can imagin if I spend a week or more on something.
>excited about automating 90% of art creation
you're short sighted, and unimaginative.
I'm not excited nor care, but I see it as a useful tool that might make me more productive and bring more of my visions into fruition before I die, because I have a lot of ideas and limited time.
most shit artists will just need to >learn to prompt
luckily for them it's designed so an elementary school child can use, so will be no trouble for most artists to transition to.
prompting jobs will still be held by artists though, just less artistically skilled ones.
The good artists will still need to learn to prompt in order to maximize their potential and exceed the shit less skilled artists will produce.
Top talent will still be in demand in lead roles and direction.
Everything is getting worse. First digital crap replaced real art, now even more soulless AI showed up.
And people are perfectly fine with this. It's crazy.
No, you're simply standing on one side of the fence vs the other. New technology is nothing new, and people who have issue with any new technology is nothing knew.
Some people can only see the negative sides of things, and some other people see the other side of things, and some see both negatives and positives.
No, it can not. Machine learning are not true AI and guys writing inputs are not artists. Machines lack creativity and are unable to convey meaning or emotions, all they do is use a set of compiled data extracted from the work of actual artists to perform a technical task. Since there is no intrinsic expressive intention the machine is not performing art. Meanwhile an operator that possesses the expressive intention but lack the skill and knowledge won`t qualify as an artist.
Only the ignorant would fail to understand such productions have no value. Furthermore there are a series of pressing issues that make the whole thing even more worthless. For starters there is the lack of control and inability of refinement. You can play with it all you want but when it comes to actual production requirements tend to be very specific. Art forms have languages, rules and principles that help to interpret ideas and concepts. An uneducated operator won`t be able get past the initial most generic results of a creative process.
That alone makes it almost useless artistically and commercially and we haven`t even mentioned the matter of legislation. I think it`s safe to say artists don`t really have to worry no matter how much simpletons push this as some revolution or democratization of art.
Image and likeness is an important concept in Orthodox Christian theology.
The Antichrist will make an image of himself (AI) and command the world to worship it.
Modern atheist materialists don't understand this, but Orthodoxy understands that an image of someone is like a window of communication to its prototype (the person depicted in the image).
Modernists don't understand the spiritual implications of images.
It is not happenstance or meaningless that the Bible says man is created in the image of God.
I will give you an example.
Forgive the crudeness, but this is an important issue and I will put it bluntly. When you look at pornography and masturbate, you are sending your own energy to the prototype of the image (whatever temptress you are looking at in the image).
There is a reason that pornography has been called the devil's iconography.
>shows examples of art made by a computer >"no, that's not REAL ART"
Way to move the goalposts, nagger. We're just another kind of machine, and you wouldn't know how to draw a person if you didn't see hundreds of examples either.
Seasoned artists practice by replicating the curves of many models and other references before they can reliably draw people from memory. How good can you draw?
Even the ancients like Plato had some understanding of the metaphysical meaning of images.
These modernistically minded people just think "Umm it's just arbitrary pixels on a screen, or arbitrary lines on a canvas, it doesn't mean anything objectively". They are clueless.
Modernists don't understand the spiritual implications of images.
It is not happenstance or meaningless that the Bible says man is created in the image of God.
I will give you an example.
Forgive the crudeness, but this is an important issue and I will put it bluntly. When you look at pornography and masturbate, you are sending your own energy to the prototype of the image (whatever temptress you are looking at in the image).
There is a reason that pornography has been called the devil's iconography.
Image and likeness is an important concept in Orthodox Christian theology.
The Antichrist will make an image of himself (AI) and command the world to worship it.
Modern atheist materialists don't understand this, but Orthodoxy understands that an image of someone is like a window of communication to its prototype (the person depicted in the image).
You realize it's part of the plan don't you? They'll let you have fun with AI for a while, and then they'll use it as the reason for censorship of the Internet and requiring biometric ID to use the Internet, and anyone who disagrees with the mainstream narrative will be called an AI bot
no. ive never seen any impressive ai art
>inb4 souless ai generated dime a dozen supermodel with weird hands
pure cope. AI art kills the drawfag.
Fuck off incel, leave artists alone
Put your convictions to the test pussy. Post your favorite human made art or you're a fucking homosexual
that really didn't age well
why are there so many people on this site salty about ai art?
lmao
There are 3 people that are pro-AI art.
>I fucking love science nerds who think anything new a computer can do is amazing
>salty neets or derelicts who hate that other people are good at stuff they aren't and see AI art as a way to get back at the smug artfags of the world
>indians and other STEM thirdies who view AI art as a means to get rich quick
No one else sane sees AI art as anything but awful for society and humanity.
nah, bro. you're just salty for some reason, probably wanted to earn money drawing furry porn or some shit.
ai art is only just starting and you're nitpicking minor shit. just ignore it if you don't like it.
>for some reason
Are you really too dumb to see the systemic negative consequences of AI art generation?
are you reall too dumb to realize when something is inevitable and there's no point fighting it?
AI produces goyslop, because it's a muddled generic rehashing of existing content. No doubt Netflix will eventually produce its shitty "content" via at somepoint and goyium without artistic sensibility will slop it down.
Literally nothing is inevitable.
Shit, not fighting it doesn't help you even because you're a mook who doesn't matter and doesn't have the ability to become an institutional power that will use AI art generation as a means of cheaply flooding the world with more and more bullshit algorithmically designed to be widely appealing.
>systemic negative consequences of AI art generation
there are none, you are like someone in 1800s crying about photography killing art or synthesizers killing music
>1800s crying about photography killing art or synthesizers killing music
you saying it didn't?
Photography heavily damaged the painting industry. Synths heavily damaged the studio musician industry.
Those were both very deleterious, but also very focused in their impact.
AI art generation is very deleterious, but very widely focused.
That is what sets it apart.
AI image and text generation harms the position of every artist around. Regardless of style given the ability of these algorithms of become chameleons that steal the styles of whomever they're fed on.
It allows the companies building the algorithms to bypass significantly any actual human artists. They can automatically generate images and text with just basic prompting in the English language.
Once this stuff becomes properly integrated, artists will exist substantially as just an aesthetic consideration. A company will hire a handful of artists as a means to pretend that they have some integrity, every artist there will live on a knife edge because they are replaceable easily and the AI can generate 'new' content based on what has been found to be popular quickly and cheaply forever.
That you somehow doesn't see this is mindboggling.
>A company will hire a handful of artists as a means to pretend that they have some integrity, every artist there will live on a knife edge because they are replaceable easily and the AI can generate 'new' content based on what has been found to be popular quickly and cheaply forever.
so the status quo for the past 3 decades
Not at all.
First is that simply, AI hasn't been able to generate artwork or text of any quality until the last handful of years.
>>A company will hire a handful of artists as a means to pretend that they have some integrity, every artist there will live on a knife edge because they are replaceable easily and ***artists*** can generate 'new' content based on what has been found to be popular quickly and cheaply forever.
cut the 'ai' out and you have the status quo
lets not pretend that hasn't been happening already, compare Jurassic park's cgi to antman's modok
You also should realize that AI generation of media will also "cheapen" media. Who is going to care about the newest DIsney movie when anyone can create a Disney-ish movie on their computer.
It cuts both ways. "Art" is going to evolve into a new frontier beyond merely still images or sequences of audiovisual images, as art is always on the cutting edge of culture and exploring the novel and unknown.
The standard and bar of expected complexity will simply be raised up.
It won't be a democratization, it will just see a new floor set and then the wealthy companies will once again be at the top because they can do it bigger and more complex.
Neither indie games nor indie films nor indie writing has ever 'beaten' those at the top yet. Sometimes there are successes, but they're devoured rapidly. AI art generation won't change that at all because the same mechanisms are in place.
If anything it'll probably be based on restricted access to the models and computing power based on licensing and the capital for training time and stuff.
I can't really see myself watching much of that but, if there's one thing I want out of AI it's a personal mentor who I can ask about life and have them help me grow.
all development in AI content generation going forward will be based on stable diffusion, stable diffusion is open source, there is no way to rescind that. the people working with stable diffusion know enough about it to instantly glean how it was manipulated by a proprietary imitation.
can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Doesn't matter if its open source.
Writing and drawing are literally free to do right now, and most people can't do either to any skill level and even replicating another's writing or artwork is very difficult. Hence the popularity of these AI art generators by the incompetent right now.
To really answer your post, what a random individual can't mimic regardless is the networking and combination of different materials together that coordinated companies can do. The scaling complexity of combining different AI generated artworks together that the average individual doesn't have the time to copy at the very least. Complexity and scope is going to be the name of the game when it comes to products containing AI generated content. Layers upon layers of content.
As well this assumes that Stable Diffusion is the be-all and end-all of the system. And that private algorithms aren't going to be sold that promise features and abilities that it doesn't have, with their main traits being functioning as black boxes to outsiders.
you're describing training and model merging. this is also open source.
the only advantage huge corporations have in AI generation is access to prohibitively expensive hardware. this is rendered irrelevant by the ability to distribute work between large numbers of consumer grade computers.
you literally don't know what you're talking about.
>the ability to distribute work between large numbers of consumer grade computers
Doesn't matter. Distributed networks have never succeeded at anything important.
Torrents of popular shows and books and media in general die fast. FTP servers die all the time. Folding at Home and similar programs are entirely gimmicks. There has never been an instance where distributing processing and storage among consumer side hardware has succeeded in achieving anything of note compared to centralized systems.
The current methods of training, how it works, how it can be done, are FOSS. There is no reason to think that will continue into the future.
Transparency is not desirable for a company of any sort, so getting into proprietary software is going to be desirable as a matter of course.
The advantages that large companies have is more time and manpower behind generating and integrating content. That is the most important ability they have and is what will lead to them dominating the AI art generation world like they have every other 'democratization' break through that people have hyped up.
>person who doesn't know what he's talking about continues talking
its all so tiresome.
Give it up.
Your fantasies of AI content generation not resulting in a shithole of an art world are just that fantasies.
Every avenue where you think the little guy has a shot of beating the big players are already closed off before the race even began.
you can go learn about whats happening with AI right now, you can play around with it yourself, can do all of it yourself, can even generate some rudimentary videos/animations.
but you would prefer to remain ignorant and speak as if you have any knowledge.
Yes, that is all something that can be done.
We didn't disagree on that.
We disagreed on the reality that large companies are going to dominate that sphere like they have every other entertainment sphere ever.
You can put a play on in your local park today, most of the most popular plays and scripts are public domain. But that doesn't change people will always go to Broadway first.
You can generate AI art and even short clips. Doesn't change that in the future Hollywood and Silicon Valley will dominate the field because they can do it bigger and better than you.
and drawing are literally free to do right now
No they're not, you need time which is money, and a good mental headspace which is also money. You have to be rich and free of worries about how you're going to earn your next meal and pay the rent.
You are ignoring what accessible technology did to content creating and boardcasting already. You are wrong.
What did it do to content creating?
Elaborate on what you think has already changed from whatever you consider the 'before times'.
Legacy dinosaur media lost to kids on youtube in every category.
>kids on youtube
You mean >20 year olds that are part of large channel networks much of the time. And who themselves are often owners of fairly large production studios hiring several editors and artists to help support their business.
Regardless of that, the biggest channels on youtube are primarily corporate channels run by massive media companies. And if you go by most viewed channels, its almost all corporate media.
I shouldn't say 'kids' cause there are plenty of boomers too, but still they are doing it on no budget, most only have 1-2 editors to help them with production - and they have bigger audience than multi-million TV. And everyone can do this. Which was absolutely impossible some ~20 years ago when syndicated media had monopoly on information.
> biggest channels on youtube are primarily corporate
what a clueless fossil you are
Seriously, how can you never heard of fucking Pew and MrBeast. Not that you have to watch that garbage, but its impossible to be this out of touch
Its not 2010 anymore, those are small timers.
20 years ago there were still pirate radio stations and amateur tape retailers like CKY that got millions of listeners/viewers . Doesn't change that corporate media was the king.
And? still didnt change the fact that some litearal kids made it to the top.
You are just grasping for straws so I have to repeat.
>You are ignoring what accessible technology did to content creating and boardcasting already. You are wrong.
>literal kids
Literal kids with more money funding their channels that your entire family line makes a year.
>What did it do to content creating?
https://twitch-tools.rootonline.de/channel_previews.php?sort_by=reverse
yeah thats the pont that a lot of people fail to realize, if the bar is low the cieling will simply become higher, there will always be someone more skilled than you even if you have the same tools, someone will be capable in making stuff with ai that the average person can't or will need years to reach the same level.
For example if you see picrel the left was a pretty acceptable work for the industry 20 years ago, but today if you can't make something like right, you simply don't get a job, and in the future this will change too. There will be others professionals that we will call "artists".
remember that 600 years ago people didn't even know what perspective was, now is unthinkable drawing without it
forgot pic
>from Touhou to PROhou
>remember that 600 years ago people didn't even know what perspective was
'sup techtard, shilling for NFTs didn't pan out?
yeah AI = democratization of creative industries
only dishonest corporate lapdogs are bemoaning it
Just like Unity democratized video games?
Just like camcorders democratized film making?
Just like e-currencies democratized finance?
>Just like e-currencies democratized finance?
I mean they did? Pretty much everyone who got on it when everyone said to get on it is rich now? Sucks if you didn't lmfao.
>Cinemaphile really thinks this
I get you all pretend to be crypto millionaires from 2012 but come on
>Who is going to care about the newest DIsney movie when anyone can create a Disney-ish movie on their computer.
That is beyond unrealistic. What sort of fucking hardware do you think most people have on their computers?
I mean in 5 to 10 years.
Also you don't have to do raytracing or actual 3D rendering of particles etc if you just use neural nets.
after effects filters are cute anon, you can make in your home pc a movie with better cgi than 30 years ago!1!!1 But why can't I make something that looks like bollywood disney today? Shit for sure AI will help me out, in 10 years and my stuff will look like them, because it's not like that they will adopt better technology and talent than me in 10 years, they will for sure get stuck
>That is beyond unrealistic. What sort of fucking hardware do you think most people have on their computers?
Some of us remember home computers using cassette tapes. We're all children to punch card pros. Were you alive when the Simpsons 3D Halloween episode first aired?
Barring an EMP or solar flare knocking us back to the stone ages, the affordability of the hardware will catch up. Access doesn't equal talent.
This.
I actually have a need *right now* for lots of high quality art and I’ve resigned myself to hiring some Slav to draw it all for me.
I unironically wouldn't even be mad, he could pull it off.
The day will come when you will be able to visit a free AI Movie Generator website, pick a few film genres, pick a few keywords, tags, settings or moods or whatever, pick a few actors or even historical figures, and click GENERATE and (after watching a couple ads) it will generate a movie for you just how you like it!
>But it's gonna be crap
AI is learning to improve, it will become competent eventually and it will keep improving.
>But it's gonna be soulless
As if the shit Hollywood is making has any soul
>But it's gonna be expensive/hard to make
Remember how personal computer were back in the 90s? See how they are now? Nothing is beyond our reach.
>But AI will be taking over the job of humans
If any humans deserve to lose their jobs to AI, these are the Hollywood people. I hope they all go bankrupt and live like hobos.
>They will stop it!
Oh no they won't, they can't even stop torrent hubs. They can't even stop cryptocurrencies.
>They will control it!
>They will try, they will fail.
>The day will come when you will be able to visit a free AI Movie Generator website, pick a few film genres, pick a few keywords, tags, settings or moods or whatever, pick a few actors or even historical figures, and click GENERATE and (after watching a couple ads) it will generate a movie for you just how you like it!
That's sounds absolutely terrible.
it's great if it destroys the current film industry.
actually it will be more like you'll be able to tell a computer to generate a movie, and you'll be able to sell that movie to other people to have no idea what they want to watch or any idea how to describe the movie they want to watch, and your movie looks cool.
Just because these tools make things easier, doesnt really mean everyone will be able to get exactly what they want from it.
>and you'll be able to sell that movie
why do the mindbroken capitalists always assume there's going to be a way to monetize limitless generation of content?
because there are people who capitalize on water, something that falls from the sky and you can collect for free.
the monetizable facet of "water" is transportation and generation of potable water.
>swoosh
there are egirls who make money selling their piss and shit.
buying and selling is a foundation in modern society.
they're monetizing a person's sexual attraction to them.
what is the monetizable aspect of limitless content generation?
that was a great selfie you posted at
btw
>what is the monetizable aspect of limitless content generation?
this should be simple enough that you should be able to understandm, if not, too bad.
Just because a tool is easy for someone to use, doesnt mean it is easy for everyone.
A user of this tool can create something actually very difficult if not impossible to duplicate by another user.
10 girls can be a 10/10 but everyone will still find one that's more attractive than the other and still desire that ONE girl over the other 9.
You can create 10,000 movies, but a person can only get a glimps of a limited amount in their lifetime and they will still desire something in particular over something else.
People are limited in their time in life, and it doesnt matter if the options are actually limitless for anything, they can only choose from limited options they have because life is not endless.
just because the tool has endless possibilities, doesnt mean two users of the tool can create something equally desireable.
girl can sell her shit because her shit is desireble.
guy can sell his shit for the same reason, even though everyone takes a shit, it's all different.
so you think the ten minutes of learning how to prompt, which won't even exist in a year, a barrier that can be monetized.
Do israelites run the media?
there aren't any israelites in my computer. or in the room with me. i even have "israeli" as one of my negative prompts.
>there aren't any israelites in my computer.
Are you sure? I bet you have no idea how many intel chips (made in israel) are actually in your computer aside from your cpu. The merchant's tech is good at hiding too.
>anything made by a israelite is a israelite
that would mean you're a israelite too
>anything made by a israelite is a israelite
If it's got the eyes(cameras) of one and the ears(microphones) of one, it might as well be
Their only lens for reality is making money.
And they think that you can make money from anything. And its only them not hustling enough that they themselves aren't rich.
They're all the types to think something like the Polium One was a good idea.
why?
I watch movies to experience something new. See new visions and ideas.
I don't really watch movies based on genre or whatever.
It's going to be glorious!
You will be able to generate any kind of movie you want!
You're going to pick your genres, sub-genres. Like Horror? Then Body Horror, Cosmic Horror, Zombie or you want a Crime movie, heist or gang warfare? Military movie? Which war? Whatever you want.
You can pick whatever actors you want, using deep fake technology and it will be impossible to tell they're not real.
You can even pick non-actors to star in your movie, I mean it's all computer generated after all, why stick to actors?
You can have historical figures in it, you can even yourself or your family in it. I mean imagine that, you, yourself starring in some sci-fi or fantasy movie!
You can then choose keywords such as "surprise ending" or "plot twist" or you could even be able to select biases such as make an AI generated War movie on the Vietnam war with a strong bias in favor of the Viet-Cong.
You could even make your AI generated movies be adaptations of already existing sources, such as books, games, sources, AI scans the web reads and learns about them and wham-bam, here's your movie!
It's going to happen. AI can already do text-to-video generation. Give it a few years, a couple decades max, and it's going to happen.
>glorious
That's not glorious. I watch something to see someone else's vision, not choose your own adventure kind of shit.
then use someone else's prompt.
CGI and digital already made people so fucking lazy that 99% of modern films look like crap. I can't imagine how bad AI movies will be.
unless you specifically tell it to generate a "bad movie," it won't.
It's not like they make capeshit bad on purpose.
if blackrock's woke bailouts are more lucrative than drawing an audience, then yes, they are specifically making bad movies on purpose.
i like how every attempt to belittle whats possible with AI is always refuted with "can you/they?"
Are you actually implying that a soulless hunk of metal is somehow capable of coming up with a layered nuanced subtle character study interwoven into a plot designed to captivate the audiences attention all by its own? You're dumb.
>The day will come when you will be able to visit a free AI Movie Generator website, pick a few film genres, pick a few keywords, tags, settings or moods or whatever, pick a few actors or even historical figures, and click GENERATE and (after watching a couple ads) it will generate a movie for you just how you like it!
This is what dipshit redditors who's only exposure to AI is pop culture science fiction think. In reality AI is a fucking mess that only gives marginally better results SITUATIONALLY with the added burden of massive overheads.
Even if you discount the fact that the subscription fee of an AI program + the cost of setting it up + the cost of hiring people to maintain and debug it + the cost of having backup human resources available in the event of problems/escalations is almost the same if not more than just hiring people to do the job, the fact that it's just a program subject to outages and disruptions in a highly interconnected system with several dependent variables makes it a big risk to bet your money on. And that's not even counting the human factor where incentives and the promise of rewards/threat of job loss makes an employee often perform at a high level and go above and beyond their duties, which is just not possible with soulless 1s and 0s interacting behind a few lines of code.
AI will definitely reduce the quantity of work people do, but nowhere in the next 50 years is it going to completely automate away abstract and decision/analysis driven jobs that are being performed by humans today. And you can forget about the creative gigs being touched by AI in this century.
AI wont stand the test of legality. Theyd have to prove in court that their databanks arent stolen. Especially once you move away from simply pictures. Thats why your fantasy doesnt pan out
>they'd have to prove a negative.
then the case gets tossed.
any argument that attempts to make ai training/models illegal is akin to claiming all computers should be illegal because all computers have the components of child pornography on them.
not even addressing the fact how, every time lawmakers try to make tech laws, they're always just giant loopholes.
Someone post that sonic pic AI art screencap
you sound like a fuckin pussy.
can a robot be cuckolded
its over
Can a nagger?
First post is best post, as usual
Black crime rates are completely unacceptable and inexcusable.
Sort your race out Mr Smith. You are an utter baboon.
It turns out with AI art they can actually make art better than most internet artists
Because they just trace or ripoff other human art
the ultimate cope
at what point are humans NOT doing this?
>do Loomis
>follow the instructions
>i can now draw Loomis hands
Humans are also ripping off other human art. Or just ripping off reality.
That is literally not how AI art works.
Digital art is not a blank canvas, friend
human artists have a thousand images of other art in their head, and conceptions of art, that they use to paint.
no one has a truly 'blank canvas'. you'd have to go back 50,000 years, and even then, they just copied nature.
every thing in art is influenced, or based on, or is an imitation of something else.
the only true art which is without a blank canvas, is the art of manifesting some physical reality out of nothingness. so the only real artist is god.
>the only real artist is god.
that would imply god didn't know anything before he created everything.
its possible if the god is autistic.
Man you zoomers are completly fucking lost when you think thats "actual art"
Absolutely filtered
>Taylor Swift's likeness can show up in some anime girl
impressive
That's her true form
>6 fingers
cant make this shit up
Most artists have zero understanding of anatomy. The AI is already far ahead. AI neural networks are designed based on actual neural networks in the brain, and are very similar, thats why they work well. The brain does basically the same thing by mashing different visual images together. Thats the breakthrough in recent decades, it's modeling real neuroscience. There are already AI models specifically trained on hands and every other details. Its only going to get better exponentially.
>most artists
quirky egirls using tablets to draw the same thing over and over again are not artists
I do not respect artists who cannot draw/paint/create things in the physical world.
my dad does all those things and taught at university. some of his sculptures are proud town monuments
>he makes less than a furfag artist
it's just not a realistic career unless you fuck your own asshole and shit on a canvas during a livestream "performative display" and he's over 80 now so his ass is just too broken
I showed him this the AI stuff and he just stared at it, his mind slowly breaking down as regret flooded in
there are actually two to types of modern artists (who can actually make a living. NOT counting starving artists)
one type is the guy that sits in front of the computer all day at some slave game/vfx studio that rape them 80 hours a week, for just above minimum wage. He has talent but sells himself for cheap. And the other is the person who spends most his time selling their 15 minute "paintings" to people with more money than brains. This one has thousands of "art" pieces that range from $100 to the moon, that they sell at galleries and events.
Being an artist is not something anyone chooses to be to make money. You do it because it's what you do and have zero passion to do anything else.
>You do it because it's what you do and have zero passion to do anything else.
>some people just naturally have talent or passion
how
pasion is not enough to make a living, that's why there are a lot of starving artists.
there are very skilled artists who need work very hard to create amazing artworks, and there are very talented artists who dont need to work hard at to create amazing artworks.
there also a many of "artists" who are just good at selling crap.
Most artists I know arent good at doing anything else and would rather be poor and an artist than anything else.
Overdeveloped occipital lobes. Just born that way. Its genetic, some races are better at drawing
You know zero artists. I went to art school in nyc.
99% of illustrators have zero understanding of anatomy. You would think they would learn something about it but no, most suck at it because it's actually difficult. I If you had any understanding of anatomy, muscles, you would see it's obvious. Sculptors the only artists who actually seriously try to study anatomy, but there are very few good sculptors.
There are lots of artists that still understand anatomy but they're mostly outside of the US. Most of the respected art schools are in Russia where they beat anatomy and all the fundamentals into you.
Unironically post your art or youre just some weird preachy hipster
>muh art
>Here’s your egirl, bro.
I did that for a science fair thirty years ago and everybody laughed at me. To be fair just presenting the idea with no application is retarded but it does feel like vindication.
>remember that 600 years ago people didn't even know what perspective was, now is unthinkable drawing without it
What if they knew, but that's not what sold? It wasn't what people wanted?
Just so everyone knows, this post is complete bullshit. The idea for artificial neural networks have been around for ~80 years. In that time, we've found out that the neural allegory isn't actually that accurate. And the recent advances happened because of completely different reasons
>The idea for artificial neural networks have been around for ~80 years
>The idea
vs, actually implementing and developing it now.
>the recent advances happened because of completely different reasons
not really, the development has been in conjunction with computing power and machine learning development platforms and languages like python help speed development.
It's mostly happened in the past 10 years, and has grown exponentially since then.
This is such a cope from internet artists kek. The technology has from from shitty dall.e memes to extremely detailed pieces of art in a year and all they can say is
>MUH 6 FINGERS
Cope and sneed
Nah if you actually tried to make up the flaws and inability of AI a year ago you would come up with much more insane stuff than 6 fingers or fucked up hands its actually incredible how it gets more or less 80% right if you think about it
I’m not looking at her fingers homosexual
ew six fingers
>korean mmo tier AI cumbrain "art"
literally the pinnacle of goyslop
This... there's nothing compelling about that picture. Just "tits.. muh nazi.. sexy" but it lacks anything that makes it actually sexy or interesting. It's "technically" good but it lacks artistic merit and I would not masturbate to it because it's bland and unmoving.
still, automating just that absolutely CRUSHES 80% of online "artists" income
Good.
Not even hot.
You can tell that the Bot can't depict skin and skin tight cloth differently so it does both with the same style.
That’s leather not cloth, retard. And you can clearly see how the leather wrinkles while the skin does not. There is even a depression in the skin at the edges that 90% of digital artists wouldn’t bother with. It’s boring and lacks soul, but you’re still fucking blind.
Based steamroller rider
Cringe parts of the road
okay, schlomo
These all look the same though.
thats because most of the "artists" that generate these images suck, and use the most popular models that the million other ai "artist" use and have no imagination or real idea what it's capable of besides prompting for the same "blonde, girl, big tits" that everyone else does.
Most of the good stuff isn't coming from the coomers
Even that doesn't look moving. It just looks like something with intricate texture.
I think the thing with these things is that AI's are only operating with visual information and they don't have the concept of incorporating more subtle or emotional or spiritual into the images, whereas a human brain can take those into account, consciously or subconsciously, when arranging the piece.
Try adding more abstract concepts and aesthetics into the prompts and you'll see the AI fail to appropriately understand them.
Its just that most human drawings are like that already
You fail to recognize that it's an actual human that prompted and chose this image because they liked it or this is what they wanted to emote, and not because you cared for it. Also, I posted it because it showed something besides the generic "cute girl, big tits" image that goes around. This doesnt mean these are the limites to the images it can generate. People care training new models every day, anyone can do it. If you have an idea for "emotional or spiritial" artworks, You can train your own model on the types of image keys that you think portray those ideas, and have it generate something to your own vision.
The irony is that you're actually holding the AI to a much higher standard than most human artist, because most people also like a small fraction of human created art. most of what we create is garbage to most other people.
Yet I remain unmoved by AI art, whereas I can see paintings from hundreds of years ago and find them stirring on a spiritual level.
Personal bias. Many such cases.
ai slop by coomer prompters is not even remotely art
here's something more spiritual for you
That's demonstrates my point. It fails to convey anything moving or beautiful when asked to produce that type of thing. It's profound lack of spiritual depth is almost sickening.
yes we need REAL and DEEP human art like this 40 million dollar masterpiece
>not posting real peak art
pseud plz
>makes you green with envy
>It fails to convey anything moving or beautiful
you fail to understand that your idea of moving and beautiful is relative, and no one will find that "moving or beuatiful" image for you, because you dont even know what that is until it manifests itself somewhere and connects with you, and then I can say that shit isnt moving at all, and you're just delusional.
If anything it only makes me more misanthropic that so many people, such as you, seem to lack a developed aesthetic sensibility and capacity for spirituality or introspection.
Makes me feel as though I'm surrounded by 'philosophical zombies'. I like to think other people think about things to the extend that I do, but sometimes I come up against the ugly reality that many other people are essentially cattle drone untouchables. This apparently is one such time.
Yeah yeah you're full of yourself, we got that loud and clear already.
Back to the stagnant din of the slop hall with you.
>spirituality or introspection
lay off the weed and egotism.
>everyone should think the way I do because I'm more sensible than most people I know.
you have no idea what you're about.
People posted some images they liked. You dont like them. Doesn't mean you have good taste. I can describe the brilliant sfumato that the AI uses, and the subtlety of its technique that gives the illusion of depth and a contradictions of emotions to its characters, but then it that would still be lost on you in the AI, even though it could describe a davinci. because you imagin yourself as special. The neural network is based off of neural nets in th brain. This is just the alpha version. You can deny it as you can deny youself being part of the collective, but it doesn't make a difference.
NTA but I too have yet to see one work of AI art which is truly inspired. The world is already flooded with generic pictures/paintings of hot women. Art has primarily been conceptual for over a century now.
>NTA but I too have yet to see one work of AI art which is truly inspired.
that's fine, maybe you'll never find AI art inspiring, or maybe you'll realize you were actually inspired by something that has been created by an AI and you never realized it, but the fact that it does inspire people, is enough value in itself.
The difference in this dicussion is that everyone knows we're talking about AI generated images. In the general context of society, most people will have no clue, and even more when as AI is improved.
>boohoo i'm smort and misunderstood but le ebil ai stops wimin from touching my sin stick
Fuck off, art is an expression of the human condition not a little club where arrogant pricks like you get to gatekeep
>you fail to understand that your idea of moving and beautiful is relative, and no one will find that "moving or beuatiful" image for you, because you dont even know what that is until it manifests itself somewhere and connects with you, and then I can say that shit isnt moving at all, and you're just delusional.
That's deep.
>the pretentious pseud is above the lowely coomers who like big tit blondes
You are painfully full of yourself
you sound like an AI "artist"
anyone who checks out deviantart can find it flooded with coomer generated works from people who had no accounts a year ago. Most of these images are from talentless hacks. exactly my point.
I love big titty blondes so stop shitting on them like its beneath you.
I'm only shitting the majority of them because they look like generic crap.
I prefer my bimbos well crafted by more seasoned artisans.
the problem is that people just type and push a button, for example yesterday I did this in 30min, just feed a sketch and fix shit (as a proof of concept), if I had to draw it all myself It would have took 6 hours, you know how many shit I can make in 6 hours thanks to ai finishing stuff for me? If you know a bit how to draw and do stuff you can do a lot of things (nonrelated coomershit too).
>feed sketch>take ai crap>fix ai crap>feed it, etc.. until you aren't stisfied, you can use it as a tool, and in a day you can make stuff that it would have taken days without it
nice work, that's how I imagin using it also. I consider myself skilled artist, but it take a long time and effrot to create what I imagine. I plan to run some of my unfinished sketches through SD to see if it can do 80-90% of the coloring, inking, ligting work for me.
Based I've been doing this too and finally after decades I'm making money off my no longer perpetually shitty art. Fuck you /ic/
>two sets of breasts
Amazing, a bland pic of an anime girl in a neutral pose with no expression on her face. The height of artistic achievement.
Which porn artist was this trained on to rip off their style?
That’s 100% dogshit you moron
This looks like complete dogshit. There is actual quite cool AI generated art however.
>This looks like complete dogshit. There is actual quite cool AI generated art however.
It's dicky softcore porn, and someone's going to make a lot of money producing it via AI.
ayy
>It turns out with AI art they can actually make art better than most internet artists
Internet artist here, I just made this so no.
Do you have to specify that nipples are not to be visible to the ai?
generally, yeah.
Sick of seeing this imitation booba garbage. Always looks shit and is some tasteless braindead coomer or pajeet pushing it.
The uncanniness of AI makes it kino for horror and abstract art
I wish I saved that spooky pic I saw on Cinemaphile. It was way creepier than anything a human could do.
Yes
>Can a robot take a blank canvas and turn it into a masterpiece?
>Can a robot write a symphony?
yes. most syphonies suck actually. The AI can probably write a symphony better than most composers.
>Can a robot take a blank canvas and turn it into a masterpiece?
Can you? Most humans suck at art, and even most artists cant turn a blank canvas into a masterpiece. The AI actually does a better job at diffusing visual images than most artists and can do. Yes, thats what people do when the create visual art. they warp together different images and styles that they've all seen before. It's very similar to how the AI does it.
>within our lifetimes we will see the rise of AI supremacy cults who believe in creating a black box AI God and handing the universe to it
I'm down for it.
You want it, even if those men would be israeli and they would believe that AI is the new prophet that will build the holy Zion on Earth, cleansing it from all goym?
better than israelites
>black box
>black cube
you are almost there
who do you think are the main ones implementing it? who's funding it?
yes it's me, hello. I for one welcome our new robot overlords.
a commonly missed point about the AIs in deus ex is, in current AI terms, they were all trained off the "illuminati" dataset, to say, do, and behave the way the illuminati wants them to.
part of the Satanic agenda
https://youtube.com/live/qKiaAALbxLI?si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE
Yes
>programmers' whole point is to automate work
>"nooo i didn't mean MY work!"
AI can't even get fingers right
New versions do hands perfectly.
So 99.9999% of modern "artists."
The only artists who should be worried by AI art are the mediocre ones
>The only artists who should be worried by AI art are the mediocre ones
/this
Wrong.
The artists that should be most worried are those of skill and more importantly standards and vision.
Such artists are known for their conflicts with production and executives, and in a post-AI art generator future, won't have the ability to stand strong any longer.
Mediocre hacks will be able to better survive the transition. They're willing to do whatever anyone asks of them, and will live on in the margins and places were the appearance of human artwork's primacy is maintained.
because those artists are prohibited from using AI tools?
What good will using AI tools do for them?
If you have a vision of your own that conflicts with those in charge, today you can rely on your skills and ability to justify your presence.
When it comes to AI artwork prompting ability, something largely divorced from artistic ability, becomes one of the most important aspects of an "artist's" value. And due to the comparative ease at which correct prompting is taught, being good at it isn't going to grant employment stability.
AI tools remove the need for them to kowtow to corporate edicts?
the people screaming hardest about this are the people who need to be needed by corporate pukes
Did you misunderstand my post?
AI tools do no such thing.
What they do is remove the ability for anyone to resist corporate edicts almost totally.
AI isn't real.
>THERE'S NO SOUL TO IT
>AI, draw something with soul
>NOOOOOOOO, THAT'S CHEATING
The bait was boat-sized and these retards took it.
>AI art can look like real art
Cinemaphile breaking new ground there in December 2022
What will happen to Chris Chan now?
its sad that he had to go and fuck his mom on the eve of being able to get AI to spam us with his every beautiful thought.
i've been doing AI art for years, we didn't reveal AI art to the public until now.
Can a robot appreciate beauty? Can a robot have an orgasm? Can a robot have an out of body experience?
>Can a robot appreciate beauty? Can a robot have an orgasm? Can a robot have an out of body experience?
Tanith asked those questions 40 years ago in The Silver Metal Lover. If the robot thinks it does, then it did.
AI art is an interesting as an experiment, but as an engineer I think that AI should focus on developing solutions for fields like medicine, neurology, industrial manufacturing, etc. I don't think that any of us would want to watch a show made by an AI and then have computer-generated sex stimulus with a neovagina.
>I don't think that any of us would want to have computer-generated sex stimulus with a neovagina.
Speak for yourself
>AI art is an interesting as an experiment
It's not an experiment. It's a foundation for AI thinking. It's part of the neural network development. It WILL be part of medical science, manufacturing, education, etc. Because all this (ai art) is the AI's ability to generate reply to your visual senses and "create" something in visual form, from what it's seen before. Just like speech AI, learning from all the text, and speech it gathers in order to generate a response, or any other neural network. In the end, it's about being able to communicate to our visual, audio senses.
what if it hits a "peak" and it's nifty, whether as a passing novelty or genuinely useful, but then that's it?
explain, AI bros.
let me tell you how it's already part of the future.
here is the difference between a AI robot that can create an image and one that can not.
the one that can create an image, can visually imagin something new, and the one that can not, can not do that.
something like the holodeck from star trek would not be able to exist if it coudnt generate new objects that it's never seen before.
a robot would be able to understand what something looks, even though it's never seen it before, simply from a description, and be able to visualize it in order to do what it might need to do.
composite sketch artist are going to be replaced soon. saying it now.
no more one sketch at a time.
computer will generate 50 different variations in two seconds, to choose from every description you give it.
you're pretty retarded for an engineer anon
>but as an engineer I think that AI should focus on developing solutions for fields like medicine, neurology, industrial manufacturing, etc.
Engineering is not divorced from soul (art), and the best applications of AI in those fields will require the inspiration of art to bust out of sterile boxes.
Critics dont realize that this is not version 1.0 of AI art. It's not even close. This is an alpha version. Beta version is coming with all the refinements that are already out there in limited forms in various models. Version 1.0 will be able to generate art indistinguishable to human created. That doesnt mean that all the genearted works will be masterpieces. But a large number of it will be. It will be like current visual effects, where people dont realize they're watching CG becuse its perfect, but then critize CG when they see bad CG because it's obvious.
Can a black not commit violence at a "prestigious" awards show
I have never felt any emotion looking or listening to AI "art" so I don't consider it art. Post something that made you feel something
AI won tho...
It's like she's wearing nothing at all.
Can a white woman actually compete?
robots are getting too advanced, we are doomed
>no asian centaur gf
sadness and pain
Apparently this is the only thing a robot can do.
look at those terrible hands
AI will never be real art
Maybe the future is artists who work with machines to create great works of art?
shame sandman didn't come out after another 5 or so years because this trippy phasing would work great for the dreaming (and hopefully by then the woke shit will have died off)
i used to love the fuck out of irobot. comfy movie to watch. saw it in theaters too with the family. honestly the quality of irobot is what a "soulless" movie should be. not black panther or marvel shit
Literally every new piece of technology has made things worse for humanity. There was an apparent peak 5000 years ago before the wheel with fire and shelter and defense and art and knowledge, but even that was really worse than just picking berries and chilling. Art is already dead because of computers and photography and a million other pieces of technology exerting influence, so I don’t know how AI art can make it worse, but somehow it will.
can a robot become a paedopile and serial murderer killing people for no logical reason?
just train your random pedophile murderer model
You could think of many scenarios where AI controlling something like medicare would decide to end lives of people for the greater good. How about assisted suicide to end suffering?
Mayhaps? If we train them good enough.
>for no logical reason
Probably only if it was malfunctioning, but that’s the same with people. Most serial killers have a logical reason, it gets them off. The few cases where no logical reason seems to exist are often attributed to brain tumors or the like.
malfunctioning OS's shut themselves down
Only the toppest tier pencil artists will still have a job by next year.
I'm not an artist but I hate this AI shit. It's really not good enough yet and can be easily recognized. There's something soulless about it. When I jerk off it doesn't feel right to fap to AI generated images.
You're jerking off to a cartoon, homosexual. That shit will never feel right.
that's because this is the beginning and every low browed coomer is hitting it hard right now with their 2 seconds. Wait a few years when more skilled artists actually spend time using it as a tool to improve their workflow and the quality of their own works instead of generating generic pieces now. Then it'll be more accepted and recognized as a valuable tool.
>Wait a few years when more skilled artists actually spend time using it as a tool to improve their workflow and the quality of their own works
Can you please explain how exactly do you imagine this would work? Techbros always say this and I don't get it at all, it seems like they don't know what art is or how it's created in the slightest.
This AI does more than simply generate art from a text description.
This AI can redraw your pencil sketches, add color, lighting detail, a backdrop.
A good piece of artwork can take a week, a month, months to create by a really good artist.
Once these good artists actually use this tool, they can sketch, draw out ideas, give it to the AI to do 90% of the work, (coloring, detailing, etc.) then the artist just needs to go in an refine it. This makes the good artist who can push out a few good art pieces a year, that make them money. Into rediculously productive art producing machines.
It's like giving artists the power of Mozart, who could compose a symphony in a few hours vrs months and years.
If there was a tool like this for Beethoven he'd have a thousand symphonies instad of nine.
>>Once these good artists actually use this tool, they can sketch, draw out ideas, give it to the AI to do 90% of the work, (coloring, detailing, etc.) then the artist just needs to go in an refine it.
Why do you imagine I would want to retouch someone else's work? If I wanted to plagiarize, I could just make a collage of GIS images and trace over that instead?
>Why do you imagine I would want to retouch someone else's work?
telling an AI to color your sketches, is plagiarizing? haha, you're not going to make it.
AI retouching has been part of photoshop for many years now. Do you have a problem using photoshops' AI to mask an image, or auto color adjust or add smat textures to your drawings? There is no difference in this context.
>haha, you're not going to make it.
Make what?
>telling an AI to color your sketches, is plagiarizing?
Why would I want someone else to "color my sketches"? What are you even on about here? I can color them just fine? What exactly do you think is being helped with and how here? I'm completely baffled.
Did you ever draw anything in your life?
>I can color them just fine?
yeah? photoshop never colored in those lines for you huh? you only use the paintbrush. wow, you're like a real OG artist, anon. You must be great!
nah, you're just the one who has no idea how this technology works.
>>yeah? photoshop never colored in those lines for you huh?
What are you talking about even? Are you just trolling at this point? Can you be specific please. Is your only exposure to art twitter furry porn or something?
he's probably making a point as basic as how just the paint bucket in mspaint is a huge amount of automation that has been around so long, most people, even "artists," don't recognize how much work it replaces.
nta, but if you draw professionally you want every tool possible to churn out work fast because more speed=more money, doesn't matter if you spent 100 hours in a background or photobashed a few pics in 2 hours, what matters is the result, is just how it works, but I agree with you that if you just draw for fun then ai is useless and removes all the joy from it, and it's cope for people that have 0 talent and believe that they did themselves what ai churned out.
Like now people will prefer to work digitally and hire digital artists, because having layers makes your work easy to fix and faster to produce
>>nta, but if you draw professionally you want every tool possible to churn out work fast because more speed=more money
That's literally only true for draw monkeys who are employed in some completely unrelated industry, like film, video games, cartoons, whatever else. Everyone who paints actual paintings for example has more of them lying around than they could possibly ever sell in their lifetime, EXCEPT the art elite with connections who can just afford to make one piece per year and get more money than everyone else will in their lifetimes.
So I still don't get how this is helping anyone. The draw monkeys will lose their jobs because they will be completely replaced by AI, the smalltime artists will get fucked because they already can't sell shit, and I guess the bigtime israelite artists will be able to just generate their expensive shit without lifting a finger now by stealing everyone else's work, is that really who you want to help?
well the drawmonkeys is the actual sector that makes money, be it commissions or working for a company.
I'm not even considering the israelite sector of modern art of traditional fine art, they don't matter in a discussion about digital products. Like the small time artists don't matter either since selling 1 painting instead of 2 doesn't really damage their bottom line. What AI affect most is the drawmonkey sector.
>The draw monkeys will lose their jobs because they will be completely replaced by AI
and I think you are wrong here, you still need someone at the steering wheel and doing something specific with ai takes hours of figuring it out, and still arrives at it at like 80% and needs manual help to reach the 100%.
The point that I'm trying to make is that you will still end up with people behind the wheel directing shit, be it behind a pencil or behind a keyboard, a director or company will not do it themselves, they will just employ someone to do bigger things since now is faster, they will just change job tags.
3d didn't eliminate animators, it just made a new kind of animator. But I agree that it can shrink the sector since if you are doing a small thing you need less people, but more people could do small things too, and will and already has impacted the commission sector.
But as far as being an "artist" doesn't matter, you can create with a pencil or with feces, the important is effort and ideas.
>>and I think you are wrong here, you still need someone at the steering wheel and doing something specific with ai takes hours of figuring it out, and still arrives at it at like 80% and needs manual help to reach the 100%.
Not really, they will just "streamline the workflow" or whatever the tech retards keep babbling about to 90%, and people will be fine with 90%.
>3d didn't eliminate animators, it just made a new kind of animator.
Yeah the kind that doesn't understand volumes and weights, action lines, elasticity, keyframes, or anything really. It made actual animation almost completely impossible unless you do the entire thing yourself, if you wanted to make anything bigger than a festival short, you literally can't find enough competent people in your country to work on it anymore.
>Yeah the kind that doesn't understand volumes and weights
yes and you will have someone that will not understand, light, composition, shapes, and colors too, because ai will do that for them, this doesn't change the fact that you probably have more animators than ever compared to when only 2d animation existed.
The cheapening and ease of product usually equals with a drop of quality of that too. But if before you had 2 quality animations in a year, now you have 2 quality and 10 shit animations, and in the future you will have 2 quality and 100 shit animations.
>yes and you will have someone that will not understand, light, composition, shapes, and colors too, because ai will do that for them, this doesn't change the fact that you probably have more animators than ever compared to when only 2d animation existed.
So let's say I'm directing an animated short. Why would I even hire an "animator" that can't do anything? If I have to teach him everything like he's a retarded kid?
>Why would I even hire an "animator" that can't do anything? If I have to teach him everything like he's a retarded kid?
HAPPENS DAILY
1. because they're cheap, and so are you
2. because no one capable wants to be involved
I'm not doing it with incompetent people though, I'd rather it isn't done at all? Why would you churn out subpar shit? I'm talking about actual art here, not Generic Anime #12482356.
>I'd rather it isn't done at all? Why would you churn out subpar shit?
Because you want to get paid, and those are the cards you're dealt with.
so now you're just arguing against the monetization of art.
Again, I'm talking about art, not cartoons for children. You know, the stuff that's been relegated to animation festivals and doesn't make any money whatsoever? I guess it's fine if that's done away with?
>the stuff that's been relegated to animation festivals and doesn't make any money whatsoever
NO SUCH THING
In what world does a talented artist work for free or someone pay for a talented artist to create something that doesnt return on the investment?
Animation festival stuff promotional, cost tons of time, if not money to make, and are created in hopes of wining awards, money, contracts.
Either way, no matter what, talent is always limited. The best will be in demand at the highest paying positions. Most will have to do with the lesser talent availble, oftentimes the not so talented is the only choice.
>In what world does a talented artist work for free or someone pay for a talented artist to create something that doesnt return on the investment?
Everywhere outside America apparently?
>Everywhere outside America apparently?
what? starving artists? or House of Medicis?
If it's everywhere, shouldnt be difficult to give some examples.
because he can do a things a bit better than you or you are too busy to push 100 buttons so you hire one
>why churn out subpar shit
maybe you have standards here, 90% don't and need artists to churn out a product to sell regardless of quality, who has a low budget go to the pajeet, who has some budget go to the artist that can affort a mcdonald meal with his hourly wage, and who has a budget and doesn't want compromises, just wait to assemble his dream team and make quality stuff. And idk what you consider actual art, but a lot of artistic products wouldn't be "art", they are just pieces made by "artisans" a product, and AI impacts that, the "artist" is not relegated to a medium
he can do a things a bit better than you
If I understand all these concepts, and he does not, how can he do what better than me?
>This makes the good artist who can push out a few good art pieces a year, that make them money. Into rediculously productive art producing machines.
Also, where do you imagine the audience for all these billions of "art pieces" will come from? Whoever has contacts in the art world and can sell them for more than $5 already has them and maybe they'll sell two times more, but not two thousand times more, because there simply aren't any buyers. And everyone else won't sell shit.
>where do you imagine the audience for all these billions of "art pieces" will come from
only you're trying to imagin something that was unneccesary to the point made.
point being that it's good a tool that can make a good artist more productive.
Picasso was a prolific artist. He has over 10 thousand paintings to his name, and If he only had 10?
there are inummerable amounts of "art" created by people. so what?
AI is just a tool. The brush is just a tool. In the end someone has to use the tool to make something with it.
>A good piece of artwork can take a week, a month, months to create by a really good artist.
Art takes as long as it takes. The inspiration is what makes it art, not the tweaking. Three brush strokes can convey soul, where technique does not.
>The inspiration is what makes it art
You have no idea what art is, and neither do I. And this is coming from an artist, that went to art school, is surrounded daily by artists, and made a living as an artist for over 30 years.
people and artists have said:
Art comes from the word arm, it's anything created by hand.
Art is an expression in visual form.
Art is art.
Everything is art
Nothing is art
Your definition of art is your own and really not unique or special.
Have you ever made a piece of visual artwork in your life?
I'm asking this genuinely.
>I'm asking this genuinely.
30+ years. fine art schools in NYC. art history, color theory, art techniques. Had numerous works published in magazines when I worked at graphics design studio, had works hung in art galleries. Professional sculptor for a mannequin company for 4 years, and 3d artist, technical artist, tecyhnical developer for the past 15-20 years. I am the artist most artists wish they could be.
Post some of your work.
If you're apparently excited about automating 90% of art creation so you can churn out more and more slop I want to see your own work. Something that is uniquely yours.
>Post some of your work.
a 10 minute sketch from a figure drawing session from over 10 years ago. not posting anything I publish on my website or did professionally here. U can imagin if I spend a week or more on something.
>excited about automating 90% of art creation
you're short sighted, and unimaginative.
I'm not excited nor care, but I see it as a useful tool that might make me more productive and bring more of my visions into fruition before I die, because I have a lot of ideas and limited time.
most shit artists will just need to
>learn to prompt
luckily for them it's designed so an elementary school child can use, so will be no trouble for most artists to transition to.
prompting jobs will still be held by artists though, just less artistically skilled ones.
The good artists will still need to learn to prompt in order to maximize their potential and exceed the shit less skilled artists will produce.
Top talent will still be in demand in lead roles and direction.
wake me up when its copying 18th to 19th century White art instead of animu coom waifus. pic unrelated its a photo
Everything is getting worse. First digital crap replaced real art, now even more soulless AI showed up.
And people are perfectly fine with this. It's crazy.
I'm perfectly fine with it because celebrities piss me off with their holier-than-thou virtue-signaling finger-pointing attitude. Fuck them!
No, you're simply standing on one side of the fence vs the other. New technology is nothing new, and people who have issue with any new technology is nothing knew.
Some people can only see the negative sides of things, and some other people see the other side of things, and some see both negatives and positives.
I wouldn't call digital art new. I still have issues with it. More than 20 years later. Same with CGI. I still don't like it.
Yes it can and so could Will Smith character. That dialogue is stupid. Art is entirely subjective. Anyone can create anything.
No, it can not. Machine learning are not true AI and guys writing inputs are not artists. Machines lack creativity and are unable to convey meaning or emotions, all they do is use a set of compiled data extracted from the work of actual artists to perform a technical task. Since there is no intrinsic expressive intention the machine is not performing art. Meanwhile an operator that possesses the expressive intention but lack the skill and knowledge won`t qualify as an artist.
Only the ignorant would fail to understand such productions have no value. Furthermore there are a series of pressing issues that make the whole thing even more worthless. For starters there is the lack of control and inability of refinement. You can play with it all you want but when it comes to actual production requirements tend to be very specific. Art forms have languages, rules and principles that help to interpret ideas and concepts. An uneducated operator won`t be able get past the initial most generic results of a creative process.
That alone makes it almost useless artistically and commercially and we haven`t even mentioned the matter of legislation. I think it`s safe to say artists don`t really have to worry no matter how much simpletons push this as some revolution or democratization of art.
>Machines lack creativity
every argument based around this idea is undermined by how "true creativity" doesn't exist in people either.
jenny
can your bio-artist do this? Didn't think so.
Image and likeness is an important concept in Orthodox Christian theology.
The Antichrist will make an image of himself (AI) and command the world to worship it.
Modern atheist materialists don't understand this, but Orthodoxy understands that an image of someone is like a window of communication to its prototype (the person depicted in the image).
Can an AI DRERJ? I mean, I mean, I mean....can AI hold a leg in one hand and a BRERB in the other?
Modernists don't understand the spiritual implications of images.
It is not happenstance or meaningless that the Bible says man is created in the image of God.
I will give you an example.
Forgive the crudeness, but this is an important issue and I will put it bluntly. When you look at pornography and masturbate, you are sending your own energy to the prototype of the image (whatever temptress you are looking at in the image).
There is a reason that pornography has been called the devil's iconography.
>shows examples of art made by a computer
>"no, that's not REAL ART"
Way to move the goalposts, nagger. We're just another kind of machine, and you wouldn't know how to draw a person if you didn't see hundreds of examples either.
> and you wouldn't know how to draw a person if you didn't see hundreds of examples either.
are you fucking retarded rajeesh?
you're just proving you didn't understand what he said.
Seasoned artists practice by replicating the curves of many models and other references before they can reliably draw people from memory. How good can you draw?
AI generated kino when??
i never realized how low the framerate of the simpsons is.
nah that's kinda shitty and unfunny lame, not kino at all
same as that Seinfeld thing that was shut down because of trannies
Even the ancients like Plato had some understanding of the metaphysical meaning of images.
These modernistically minded people just think "Umm it's just arbitrary pixels on a screen, or arbitrary lines on a canvas, it doesn't mean anything objectively". They are clueless.
Images are tricks of vision to make us think the thing is the actual thing. How is that metaphysical?
see
It is all fun and games now, but when you have to carry biometric Id's you wont be laughing
The mark of the beast which Saint Paisios predicted decades ago along with the covid "vaccine".
>when you have to carry biometric Id
You already have to in 90% of the world?
I love how much ai makes drawfags shit and piss themselves in anger
AI doubters are retarded, it's like saying in 1900 that cars will never go faster than a race horse
or that airplanes will never be able to carry more than one person and a bag of mail
AI isn't real.
You realize it's part of the plan don't you? They'll let you have fun with AI for a while, and then they'll use it as the reason for censorship of the Internet and requiring biometric ID to use the Internet, and anyone who disagrees with the mainstream narrative will be called an AI bot
>they'll let the genie out of the bottle for a little while, and then they'll magically stuff it back in, its all planned, its all under control
lol