AI is the single biggest disruption in all of human history. It will make the invention of the computer and the internet footnotes in comparison, only devices of interest to understand that they led to the advancement of ai.
Anyone who clings to the notion that ai can't do [x] or can only imitate is either an idiot or wilfully ignorant to its exponential advancement
It's glorified spiderwebs son, it's the same way we've been computing since the beginning. In fact the models are becoming more imprecise and derivative of themselves since databases are becoming proprietary or worse, they're training off dishonest models like reddit. You overestimate the technology and the desire of people to even use it.
Yeah, but look at all the ai slop people post here. So rarely is it good, and because it all comes from a few sources, looks really "samey". It would get monotone real frickin quick
This but the opposite. AI porn at its full potential is a suitable replacement for any other kind of porn. If AI will replace anything, it's how porn is produced.
The people who are happy jacking off to assembly line AI porn weren't paying for regular art in the first place. The people who pay for porn generally do it because they want to support a specific artist or want art from that specific artist because of his name.
I don't really care. I generally try to avoid watching shitty TV and movies because they're not entertaining.
If a LLM (AI doesn't exist at all yet, I wish people would stop using the term) is largely responsible for the plot of a movie and it's garbage then I'll say it's garbage. If it's good then I'll say it's good.
I think Hollywood is doing much worse things right now (from an artistic perspective, I'm not talking about the rape) than their possible usage of LLMs could ever hope to do. Movies have been commercialized for a very long time. If you made a new Marvel or Star Wars movie entirely using a LLM trained on the existing movies and didn't tell audiences until a month afterwards, I don't think anybody would notice.
Cameras, more specifically the camera obscura, helped make painting even better. If these people weren't morons, they'd use generative tools to speed up and improve their process.
they already are, it's a fantastic tool. the money-grubbers (i.e. you know whos) in charge don't know that though or care and thinks its literal sorcery that automatically makes usable assets on its own, so they "cut the fat" and end up with no one capable of using the things properly in the first place. hilariously, lesser teams have gone belly up and are hitting the panic button as we speak
Everybody get ass blaated when new shit comes around. It's surprising how after so many inventions, people are still getting mad. They learn nothimg from history
you don't need to hire original creators when you can shit out cheap imitations at a fraction of the cost that are enough to bait streaming platform viewers in long enough to count as a view
Like there's any fricking difference nowadays. If someone told me that everything (games, movies, tv shows) had been written by AI in the past 10 years I'd believe it.
AI is a tool, it will replace a lot of grunt work. Those people WILL lose their jobs and be unemployable in the future. Directors however are safe. No AI can do what a director does and won't be able to anytime soon. So he's entirely safe. The guy who spends all day adding trees and little bushes to the background of a set extension shot, he's totally fricked.
That's the thing though. As it is right now, nobody's really making AI pictures. You give some prompts and then machine proceeds to ignore half of it and add some shit it made up.
Once they're actually able to follow detailed descriptions to the letter and adjust things on the fly we can talk about AI being a valid way to create a picture. And even then it'll always be a lot more rigid and less dynamic than just manually painting it.
I don't think so. Not everything created by humans is automatically art. A tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver, isn't art. It can be art if it's presented as such, if it's framed and exhibited, but then it's made art by through that context.
Likewise AI images can be art. But not because they just inherently are but because a human being chose to curate them and picked ones that resonated enough with him to seem them worthy to be presented as works of art.
I said it before, as it works right now, AI imagery leaves up too much to coincidence to really count as creative work. You make a prompt and on the picture will be plenty of stuff that's not in the prompt, ignores the prompt or outright contradicts the prompt. When you paint a picture, not a single brushstroke is there you didn't make. When you write a song, not a single note is there you didn't write. And so one. When you generate an image, you leave too much of the process to the arbitrary whims of the program, i.e. coincidence. To the point you can't really claim to be the creator of the picture that comes out.
This isn't some luddite shit. I'm not dismissing the possibility of AI image generation as a medium to create art. All I'm saying is, it isn't right now, or at best only at a very primitive level. You need to be able to actually micromanage the process and to make changes to the product. You need to be able to give detailed descriptions and have control over every single element of the composition and be able to make changes whenever you want. At which point creating AI art will be a painstaking process that can take hours or days or weeks much like any other artistic endeavor.
It will never be as easy as to just make an input and get a fresh piece of art out of a free art dispenser like a bunch of dumbasses now think they're doing. You can't bypass the actual creative process when making art, because the creative process is the art.i
This I can agree with. I see generative AI as a tool, not as a replacement. The only people who think it is a replacement and feel threatened by it are hacks who were never that good in the first place.
People with real skill and talent don't have time to waste whining about technology.
>Anything that isn't naturally occurring, i.e. is made by humans, is art.
Art is anything intended to evoke an emotion, not just anything made period. But yes, quality is not in question, you are correct there.
>Art is anything that evokes an emotion, not just anything made period. But yes, quality is not in question, you are correct there.
ftfy
Intention is irrelevant
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I think intent is important because I don't believe natural phenomena should be lumped in with manmade paintings and such. A beautiful vista is great, but it's not really art. A photo of it is, but the scene itself is just nature.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I disagree.
Think about images of faces seen in coffee accidentally. Or rocks/clouds that look perfectly formed.
Or someone who made something amazing by accident.
To use a dumb example, the simpsons episode where Homer accidentally becomes a modern artist by failing to make a grill. There was no intent there but it really resonated with the art community.
If you find a stone pot from 3000 years ago, can it not be called art because we don't know if it was intentionally crafted to be artistic? Or if it was even crafted at all? Even if it's beautiful?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Think about faces...
Seeing faces where they aren't is more of a byproduct of how human brains seek patterns more than evidence of art. As for clouds and stuff, yeah they look nice, but again I don't think they can be called art although a photo or painting of them can be.
>To use a dumb example, the simpsons episode..
This is actually a very good example and I might have to refine my definition a bit. It was definitely "infused" with or made with emotion, but that's even harder to quantify or define and might make it too vague.
>If you find a stone pot from 3000 years ago...
That's an entirely separate argument about the field of archaeology. You can make reasonable assumptions even if you don't know the creator, but at that point I don't think its classification as art or not really matters outside of answering the question of whether or not these people were capable of creating art. The Simpsons example actually made me think more.
No, art doesn't need to evoke emotion to be art. Art doesn't need to be beautiful to be art. Art is art is art is art. Bad art is art and good art is art.
Get over equating art as a qualifier of good. A stick drawing is art as much as Christ in the Storm on the Sea of Galilee.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Found the Zionists.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
|
|>
|
|3
|
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Get over equating art as a qualifier of good.
I did not do that.
>No, art doesn't need to evoke emotion to be art. Art doesn't need to be beautiful to be art
I said neither of these things. The artist must intend for it to evoke an emotion. Whether it actually does evoke that or any emotion is another matter entirely. Anger at a show for being so terrible counts, for instance.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>The artist must intend for it to evoke an emotion
Not really. The only requirement is that the artist is creating something for non-practical purposes. The intent to evoke emotion may or may not be there.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>non-practical purposes
This is the maximally gay definition of art. Art infuses sublimity into ordinary tools. Art that is not useful, that does not contribute to some practical end, is turbohomosexualry.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
God you're pathetic
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Get sodomized, homosexual.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Art that is not useful, that does not contribute to some practical end, is turbohomosexualry
So, what's the difference between art and craftsmanship, if not the purpose they serve? What separates a wooden spoon from a sculpture if not functionality?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I disagree with that definition. Define 'practical purpose' for me first to make sure we're on the same page and then I'll give you a proper refutation once I'm sure.
To be fair to that poster, the "art is subjective" crowd is the same college liberal elite that is railing so hard against AI.
"Art is subjective" might be one of the most damaging thoughts to circulate through society. The lower our standards fall, the shittier everything gets, and that is evidenced perfectly by the last 30 years of media.
Shockingly stupid thread, especially you
Correct posts:
Who cares? It's not gonna stop now. You homos had a chance to see where it was going when it started. I don't wanna sit around hearing how terrible it is while nothing stops it. Stop it or shut up.
This is the truth of the matter, it doesn't matter how hard artists whinge and shit themselves over AI. It isn't going away. It's going to continually improve. Either adapt to it and use it to your benefit or get run over by its progress, there isn't a third option.
Who cares? It's not gonna stop now. You homos had a chance to see where it was going when it started. I don't wanna sit around hearing how terrible it is while nothing stops it. Stop it or shut up.
This is the truth of the matter, it doesn't matter how hard artists whinge and shit themselves over AI. It isn't going away. It's going to continually improve. Either adapt to it and use it to your benefit or get run over by its progress, there isn't a third option.
The problem is the money people don't see the difference. It's like saying shitty CGI isn't an issue because actual professional VFX artists and practical exists but then Disney sends the movie off to have Indian CGI.
I'll spare you a lot of time. The movie studios are gonna exhaust AI to the max when it's convenient and cheap enough, and if they get away with it (they will). They only deal with real people because they have no other choice. They may in fact hate people and can't wait to get rid of them.
It will ultimately be a threat in the long run but it will still need to experience more growing pains for a while. There's going to be AIs training from other AIs and create an AI version of inbred bumpkins at first.
>There's going to be AIs training from other AIs and create an AI version of inbred bumpkins at first.
people are more stimulated by social media than by other human interaction so it's actually going to be us as well who are being made moronic, and there will not be a rich human existence to create the intelligence from, it, and us, will be moronic for ever.
He's right. AI is the purest definition of algorithmic regurgitated slop. The people who actually use the tools to create something original will be incredibly rare, most people will use it purely for porn and homework, if they use it at all. Consider also that most peoples relationship with entertainment is passive, they don't WANT to create.
Its a tool. (like you) You have to a story teller first and want to entertain NOT MAKE MONEY, to see that AI will help productions. Frick off. Most of the people on this board are not entertainers. You want the cash only. just like a israelite.
They were. We've had this same argument dozens of times through humanity. There are still people who say that photography isn't art since you're just capturing something that already exists and not truly creating something new.
If you're a good artist, you really don't have anything to worry about. If you're an artist AND a writer, and you're actually talented, you doubly don't have anything to worry about.
AI art is going to take over illustrious industries like >digital art >sign art >advertisement art >poster art >shitty t-shirts at the mall art
We don't live in a communist society so you don't always get to decide what you work on and we don't assign people to work based their talent so actually no the world does need to allow people to work on shit they don't care about to climb the ladder because the whole system relies on upward mobility.
So how do you expect artists to get experience and jobs in this brave new world of yours where the extreme majority of art jobs don't exist? Do you think there's a lot of people working with software like houdini, maya and cinema4d just for the fun of it?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Do you think there's a lot of people working with software like houdini, maya and cinema4d just for the fun of it?
Yes. What? Am I missing something here? There's an entire fricking board on this site dedicated to learning art for no reason except as a hobby. I use clipstudio and maya myself.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
what percentage of that board do you think has the experience needed to work on something big budget? you expect these studios to hire hobbyists and then what? also train them?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>work on something big budget?
Ask yourself: Do you really have a vision? Or are your highest aspirations making something "big budget" for some studio? The world is not lacking in content creators, but their is a heavy shortage of actual visionary artists.
I take it that you're an aspiring artist. This is a genuine question: what is it that you're trying to make?
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Nice dodge
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
the irony
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Train them for what? Portfolios speak for themselves. What 'experience' is suddenly needed to use the same thing you've been using to make the same thing you've been making? I feel like people have this weird understanding of art careers like they think of it like tech careers. There's no certifications or programming languages you need to learn, and you don't need a degree or a number of 'startups' under your belt when you have a portfolio showing what you actually do.
>>AI art is going to take over illustrious industries like
art >>sign art
art
art
t-shirts at the mall art
aka 99% of actual art related jobs, and the only thing that will be left is nepo morons getting free money for menstruating into spaghetti cans
I hate to break this to you, but throughout history, it's always been a nepo baby's playground. Outliers will always find a way to be seen.
Learn how to paint, learn how to sculpt, learn how to make art outside of technology. The old boomer artists are going to die off, and local art communities are actually not that hard to break into if you can make something decent.
>>I hate to break this to you, but throughout history, it's always been a nepo baby's playground.
In what moronic zoomer dream? Literally every single product you see in front of you that existed in the last 6k years until was visually designed by someone. Why are people so brain damaged nowadays that they don't even understand how many people it took to make something look like it does?
If Hollywood hadn’t spent the last 20 years shitting out endless slop, confident that they’re the only game in town, they wouldn’t be so easily replaced. The only way they’ll survive is if they somehow lobby congress into sweeping legislation that will somehow gimp AI, but you know that China’s not going to play ball.
I was somewhat surprised to learn just how much art nowadays that looks like drawing/painting isn't actually done "IRL" but is done on a computer/tablet. AI is likely to reach a point where it's equivalent to cutting out the "mediums" such as paint and pencil, and instead be more like the scene below where people have an image in their mind and try to communicate it to the computer
eventually with brain-computer links it will be possible to cut out the "communication" part and turn mental images into visual images/material objects
Meanwhile human beings definitely pull their genius out of the aether and don't ever imitate pre-existing things when creating.
That's why you see baby born perfectly fluant in English and know how to wipe themselves.
if ai wasn't a threat, he wouldn't mention it
This
AI is the single biggest disruption in all of human history. It will make the invention of the computer and the internet footnotes in comparison, only devices of interest to understand that they led to the advancement of ai.
Anyone who clings to the notion that ai can't do [x] or can only imitate is either an idiot or wilfully ignorant to its exponential advancement
>Exponential advancement
It's glorified spiderwebs son, it's the same way we've been computing since the beginning. In fact the models are becoming more imprecise and derivative of themselves since databases are becoming proprietary or worse, they're training off dishonest models like reddit. You overestimate the technology and the desire of people to even use it.
I like the way you so confidently dismiss something you clear have zero understanding of.
Don't post if you don't understand English.
Because studios would just use it to fire people.
Why pay people when you can have an ai program shit out 10,000 scripts in a minute
Just learn to prompt lmfao?
Yeah, but look at all the ai slop people post here. So rarely is it good, and because it all comes from a few sources, looks really "samey". It would get monotone real frickin quick
Ok and?
and what
it's trash for less than mediocre morons with no concept of taste or beauty
Yeah. The only "artists" shitting themselves about AI are the trash ones who think an idea is "wot iv stah wahs wiv giant robots".
the ones i see the most are the degenerates who draw anime girls for fat incels to jack off to.
The funny part is that porn artists are the ones least in danger from AI by far.
This but the opposite. AI porn at its full potential is a suitable replacement for any other kind of porn. If AI will replace anything, it's how porn is produced.
The people who are happy jacking off to assembly line AI porn weren't paying for regular art in the first place. The people who pay for porn generally do it because they want to support a specific artist or want art from that specific artist because of his name.
In other words the moron audience.
Porn isn't art you fricking simp.
I don't really care. I generally try to avoid watching shitty TV and movies because they're not entertaining.
If a LLM (AI doesn't exist at all yet, I wish people would stop using the term) is largely responsible for the plot of a movie and it's garbage then I'll say it's garbage. If it's good then I'll say it's good.
I think Hollywood is doing much worse things right now (from an artistic perspective, I'm not talking about the rape) than their possible usage of LLMs could ever hope to do. Movies have been commercialized for a very long time. If you made a new Marvel or Star Wars movie entirely using a LLM trained on the existing movies and didn't tell audiences until a month afterwards, I don't think anybody would notice.
AI tool the same way camera is.
Even painters weren't this pathetically scared when photography was invented.
They were but the internet wasn't around for them to seethe endlessly about it
Cameras, more specifically the camera obscura, helped make painting even better. If these people weren't morons, they'd use generative tools to speed up and improve their process.
they already are, it's a fantastic tool. the money-grubbers (i.e. you know whos) in charge don't know that though or care and thinks its literal sorcery that automatically makes usable assets on its own, so they "cut the fat" and end up with no one capable of using the things properly in the first place. hilariously, lesser teams have gone belly up and are hitting the panic button as we speak
Everybody get ass blaated when new shit comes around. It's surprising how after so many inventions, people are still getting mad. They learn nothimg from history
>it just imitates
so do most artists
Just the good ones.
The great ones steals.
yeah but with effort and possibility of SOUL
cringe
you don't need to hire original creators when you can shit out cheap imitations at a fraction of the cost that are enough to bait streaming platform viewers in long enough to count as a view
Humans do the same thing, the most 'creative' ones just do it slightly better. Ai can and will become more creative than the most creative humans
Most human creators are like that too.
Like there's any fricking difference nowadays. If someone told me that everything (games, movies, tv shows) had been written by AI in the past 10 years I'd believe it.
This Black person spent half his career making Transformers sequels
AI is a tool, it will replace a lot of grunt work. Those people WILL lose their jobs and be unemployable in the future. Directors however are safe. No AI can do what a director does and won't be able to anytime soon. So he's entirely safe. The guy who spends all day adding trees and little bushes to the background of a set extension shot, he's totally fricked.
Yes. Mike's always been one of the good ones. You can't take the humanity out of art.
>art is subjective
>"I like ai art"
>but you're not allowed to! It's bad!
It's not that it's bad, it's just not art. I like staring at clouds, but that doesn't make clouds art.
They would be if somebody'd made them. That's the qualifying part, ARTificiality. ARTifice.
No. Art is an interpretation of the human experience.
That's exactly what I just said homosexual
And we built computers that produce art, based, on top of that, on art we already made
No. Creating a cloud, is interpreting God.
wut
why
how can anything we possibly make interpret God's experience, it's impossible for us to know
You're directly contradicting your post here
an artificial cloud is going to be an expression of our human experience of clouds
You're not even fricking trying to think, you fricking moron
This guy thinks God doesn't make the clouds.
true dat
So, what is the fundamental laws of the universe. Is it God. AI "art" is not human. It functions via God's will.
I don't believe in God
God is beyond human comprehension, it's a endless paradox and at the same time a very simple thing
No. You just have a lot of distraction in your life. God is easy to know.
That's the thing though. As it is right now, nobody's really making AI pictures. You give some prompts and then machine proceeds to ignore half of it and add some shit it made up.
Once they're actually able to follow detailed descriptions to the letter and adjust things on the fly we can talk about AI being a valid way to create a picture. And even then it'll always be a lot more rigid and less dynamic than just manually painting it.
Is this art?
Anything that isn't naturally occurring, i.e. is made by humans, is art. Quality is not in question.
So AI art generated by prompts is art
Yes, 100%
I don't think so. Not everything created by humans is automatically art. A tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver, isn't art. It can be art if it's presented as such, if it's framed and exhibited, but then it's made art by through that context.
Likewise AI images can be art. But not because they just inherently are but because a human being chose to curate them and picked ones that resonated enough with him to seem them worthy to be presented as works of art.
I said it before, as it works right now, AI imagery leaves up too much to coincidence to really count as creative work. You make a prompt and on the picture will be plenty of stuff that's not in the prompt, ignores the prompt or outright contradicts the prompt. When you paint a picture, not a single brushstroke is there you didn't make. When you write a song, not a single note is there you didn't write. And so one. When you generate an image, you leave too much of the process to the arbitrary whims of the program, i.e. coincidence. To the point you can't really claim to be the creator of the picture that comes out.
This isn't some luddite shit. I'm not dismissing the possibility of AI image generation as a medium to create art. All I'm saying is, it isn't right now, or at best only at a very primitive level. You need to be able to actually micromanage the process and to make changes to the product. You need to be able to give detailed descriptions and have control over every single element of the composition and be able to make changes whenever you want. At which point creating AI art will be a painstaking process that can take hours or days or weeks much like any other artistic endeavor.
It will never be as easy as to just make an input and get a fresh piece of art out of a free art dispenser like a bunch of dumbasses now think they're doing. You can't bypass the actual creative process when making art, because the creative process is the art.i
skill issue
Just gonna have to agree to disagree. If we make it, it's art.
This I can agree with. I see generative AI as a tool, not as a replacement. The only people who think it is a replacement and feel threatened by it are hacks who were never that good in the first place.
People with real skill and talent don't have time to waste whining about technology.
>Anything that isn't naturally occurring, i.e. is made by humans, is art.
Art is anything intended to evoke an emotion, not just anything made period. But yes, quality is not in question, you are correct there.
>Art is anything that evokes an emotion, not just anything made period. But yes, quality is not in question, you are correct there.
ftfy
Intention is irrelevant
I think intent is important because I don't believe natural phenomena should be lumped in with manmade paintings and such. A beautiful vista is great, but it's not really art. A photo of it is, but the scene itself is just nature.
I disagree.
Think about images of faces seen in coffee accidentally. Or rocks/clouds that look perfectly formed.
Or someone who made something amazing by accident.
To use a dumb example, the simpsons episode where Homer accidentally becomes a modern artist by failing to make a grill. There was no intent there but it really resonated with the art community.
If you find a stone pot from 3000 years ago, can it not be called art because we don't know if it was intentionally crafted to be artistic? Or if it was even crafted at all? Even if it's beautiful?
>Think about faces...
Seeing faces where they aren't is more of a byproduct of how human brains seek patterns more than evidence of art. As for clouds and stuff, yeah they look nice, but again I don't think they can be called art although a photo or painting of them can be.
>To use a dumb example, the simpsons episode..
This is actually a very good example and I might have to refine my definition a bit. It was definitely "infused" with or made with emotion, but that's even harder to quantify or define and might make it too vague.
>If you find a stone pot from 3000 years ago...
That's an entirely separate argument about the field of archaeology. You can make reasonable assumptions even if you don't know the creator, but at that point I don't think its classification as art or not really matters outside of answering the question of whether or not these people were capable of creating art. The Simpsons example actually made me think more.
No, art doesn't need to evoke emotion to be art. Art doesn't need to be beautiful to be art. Art is art is art is art. Bad art is art and good art is art.
Get over equating art as a qualifier of good. A stick drawing is art as much as Christ in the Storm on the Sea of Galilee.
Found the Zionists.
|
|>
|
|3
|
>Get over equating art as a qualifier of good.
I did not do that.
>No, art doesn't need to evoke emotion to be art. Art doesn't need to be beautiful to be art
I said neither of these things. The artist must intend for it to evoke an emotion. Whether it actually does evoke that or any emotion is another matter entirely. Anger at a show for being so terrible counts, for instance.
>The artist must intend for it to evoke an emotion
Not really. The only requirement is that the artist is creating something for non-practical purposes. The intent to evoke emotion may or may not be there.
>non-practical purposes
This is the maximally gay definition of art. Art infuses sublimity into ordinary tools. Art that is not useful, that does not contribute to some practical end, is turbohomosexualry.
God you're pathetic
Get sodomized, homosexual.
>Art that is not useful, that does not contribute to some practical end, is turbohomosexualry
So, what's the difference between art and craftsmanship, if not the purpose they serve? What separates a wooden spoon from a sculpture if not functionality?
I disagree with that definition. Define 'practical purpose' for me first to make sure we're on the same page and then I'll give you a proper refutation once I'm sure.
No.
I worked at Tate Modern for a summer and saw some really dumb shit. Only art in the whole place was the actual building itself.
Art isn't subjetive actually, people who who like bad art are incorrect.
To be fair to that poster, the "art is subjective" crowd is the same college liberal elite that is railing so hard against AI.
"Art is subjective" might be one of the most damaging thoughts to circulate through society. The lower our standards fall, the shittier everything gets, and that is evidenced perfectly by the last 30 years of media.
100% agree
Shockingly stupid thread, especially you
Correct posts:
the ratio of browncels compared to whites on Cinemaphile is 10:1, just like in real life
who are you quoting
When did he turn into Fabio
>Michael Bay complaining about AI art causing laziness
Someone post the Transformers nanobot animation
Someone post the webm of all those iconic movie scenes just ripping off famous art. I know someone here has it.
Who cares? It's not gonna stop now. You homos had a chance to see where it was going when it started. I don't wanna sit around hearing how terrible it is while nothing stops it. Stop it or shut up.
This is the truth of the matter, it doesn't matter how hard artists whinge and shit themselves over AI. It isn't going away. It's going to continually improve. Either adapt to it and use it to your benefit or get run over by its progress, there isn't a third option.
Why does he look like Ashley Schaefer
No, shitposting is a form of artistic expression and AI has enhanced it.
The problem is the money people don't see the difference. It's like saying shitty CGI isn't an issue because actual professional VFX artists and practical exists but then Disney sends the movie off to have Indian CGI.
>>88
i didn't realize this guy updated, I didn't see a notification on sadpanda
I'll spare you a lot of time. The movie studios are gonna exhaust AI to the max when it's convenient and cheap enough, and if they get away with it (they will). They only deal with real people because they have no other choice. They may in fact hate people and can't wait to get rid of them.
Actors and writers are fricking insufferable so I don't blame them.
>They only deal with real people because they have no other choice
Based studios.
It will ultimately be a threat in the long run but it will still need to experience more growing pains for a while. There's going to be AIs training from other AIs and create an AI version of inbred bumpkins at first.
>There's going to be AIs training from other AIs and create an AI version of inbred bumpkins at first.
people are more stimulated by social media than by other human interaction so it's actually going to be us as well who are being made moronic, and there will not be a rich human existence to create the intelligence from, it, and us, will be moronic for ever.
"It's MA'AM Michael Bay"
So since I am not allowed to make art(I haven't practiced in years), then I should be allowed to use AInto make art.
*AI to make art
He's right. AI is the purest definition of algorithmic regurgitated slop. The people who actually use the tools to create something original will be incredibly rare, most people will use it purely for porn and homework, if they use it at all. Consider also that most peoples relationship with entertainment is passive, they don't WANT to create.
Its a tool. (like you) You have to a story teller first and want to entertain NOT MAKE MONEY, to see that AI will help productions. Frick off. Most of the people on this board are not entertainers. You want the cash only. just like a israelite.
One of the worst superficial israelite directors out there, He'd be more at home directing a porn then making a real film. Frick him!
He should be worried because his movies are FRICKING SHIT!
Good artists create, great artists steal. Isn't that how it goes?
Y'all, blackroc ain't paying money for no chudspiration.
>humanity rejects Hitler's art
>starts World War 2
>humanity rejects AI art
You are here
No he's too optimistic. Billions will starve.
Billions already starve
Starvation isn't an issue in the modern world except for small pockets of dumb Black folk too stupid to farm.
I'm talking about begging for crumbs.
So AI is israeli.
I wonder if theater actors and directors had the same malding when film was invented
They were. We've had this same argument dozens of times through humanity. There are still people who say that photography isn't art since you're just capturing something that already exists and not truly creating something new.
>malding when film was invented
>Had no sound
>was in black and white.
>business was booming
If you're a good artist, you really don't have anything to worry about. If you're an artist AND a writer, and you're actually talented, you doubly don't have anything to worry about.
AI art is going to take over illustrious industries like
>digital art
>sign art
>advertisement art
>poster art
>shitty t-shirts at the mall art
Plenty of good artists have to get their foot in the door doing shitty jobs like that though.
The world can do without a few "artists" trying to "make it" by making t-shirts of Goku smoking a blunt.
We don't live in a communist society so you don't always get to decide what you work on and we don't assign people to work based their talent so actually no the world does need to allow people to work on shit they don't care about to climb the ladder because the whole system relies on upward mobility.
I don't care about this argument. We don't need those people and their "art".
So how do you expect artists to get experience and jobs in this brave new world of yours where the extreme majority of art jobs don't exist? Do you think there's a lot of people working with software like houdini, maya and cinema4d just for the fun of it?
>Do you think there's a lot of people working with software like houdini, maya and cinema4d just for the fun of it?
Yes. What? Am I missing something here? There's an entire fricking board on this site dedicated to learning art for no reason except as a hobby. I use clipstudio and maya myself.
what percentage of that board do you think has the experience needed to work on something big budget? you expect these studios to hire hobbyists and then what? also train them?
>work on something big budget?
Ask yourself: Do you really have a vision? Or are your highest aspirations making something "big budget" for some studio? The world is not lacking in content creators, but their is a heavy shortage of actual visionary artists.
I take it that you're an aspiring artist. This is a genuine question: what is it that you're trying to make?
Nice dodge
the irony
Train them for what? Portfolios speak for themselves. What 'experience' is suddenly needed to use the same thing you've been using to make the same thing you've been making? I feel like people have this weird understanding of art careers like they think of it like tech careers. There's no certifications or programming languages you need to learn, and you don't need a degree or a number of 'startups' under your belt when you have a portfolio showing what you actually do.
One day I'll realize my dream of making pronographic picture books.
>>AI art is going to take over illustrious industries like
art
>>sign art
art
art
t-shirts at the mall art
aka 99% of actual art related jobs, and the only thing that will be left is nepo morons getting free money for menstruating into spaghetti cans
I hate to break this to you, but throughout history, it's always been a nepo baby's playground. Outliers will always find a way to be seen.
Learn how to paint, learn how to sculpt, learn how to make art outside of technology. The old boomer artists are going to die off, and local art communities are actually not that hard to break into if you can make something decent.
>>I hate to break this to you, but throughout history, it's always been a nepo baby's playground.
In what moronic zoomer dream? Literally every single product you see in front of you that existed in the last 6k years until was visually designed by someone. Why are people so brain damaged nowadays that they don't even understand how many people it took to make something look like it does?
The ego of only thinking only your era will matter and things have always been that way.
AI could easily do a better job than michael bay
If Hollywood hadn’t spent the last 20 years shitting out endless slop, confident that they’re the only game in town, they wouldn’t be so easily replaced. The only way they’ll survive is if they somehow lobby congress into sweeping legislation that will somehow gimp AI, but you know that China’s not going to play ball.
China has never made a film
Fricking pot calling the kettle black. What has this hack ever created thats original?
Con Air
That's rich coming from a guy who stole his entire style from Tony Scott.
We teledep now?
Should this hack be allowed to talk about original creators?
BAYsed.
For now.
>everyone in hollywood is shit
>have no fear, AI is not coming for you!
He's heavy in Nvidia, guaranteed.
>it doesn't CREATE
>And will create
>it doesn't CREATE
>And will create
I was somewhat surprised to learn just how much art nowadays that looks like drawing/painting isn't actually done "IRL" but is done on a computer/tablet. AI is likely to reach a point where it's equivalent to cutting out the "mediums" such as paint and pencil, and instead be more like the scene below where people have an image in their mind and try to communicate it to the computer
eventually with brain-computer links it will be possible to cut out the "communication" part and turn mental images into visual images/material objects
Meanwhile human beings definitely pull their genius out of the aether and don't ever imitate pre-existing things when creating.
That's why you see baby born perfectly fluant in English and know how to wipe themselves.
>ripped
>still has hair like a 20 year old
>makes kino occasionally
>fricks models
He makes Zack Snyder look like a nerd