I hate AI "artists" so fricking much.

>the First Industrial Revolution is comparable to the Third Industrial Revolution
Gee, I wonder. Perhaps they were both... revolutionary?

At any rate, the criticism was directed at the idea that random people 200 years ago would be like medieval Monty Python characters regarding accusations of witchcraft.

>most of the people spamming ai art are doing it for upvotes and to shit on other people
Nice persecution complex you've got there.

Stay mad, moron.

>American
What language do you think is on the poster and place mat there?

nice~

You're a fricking idiot. You have a background idea in mind, you generate it. Select the one closest to you and that will mesh with the scene you have in mind. Draw in the characters, overpaint the BG so it won't look out of place, adjust the pieces that are not going to work in perspective (any competent artist should be able to do this). Bam, a cohesive work using generated image as the base. You think an artist worth his salt would just generate a background and leave it as is? Fricking moron. "But but but a competent artist will just draw the background from scratch!" They can OR they can just generate something that already does 80~90% of what they want and adjust the rest. You don't know how to fricking draw, why do you even think you know the process of making a piece?

AI struggles to get simple placements of basic shapes right, so I don't see it ever being useful for any good comics, backgrounds, or storyboards.

I actually did a commission piece for someone recently. It's just a simple portrait and they requested for specific elements in the BG. I generated the BG, created the actual characters, overpainted and retouched over everything using a primary overlay layer to make the whole thing cohesive, and it turned out great. Client loved it. Would've taken me longer if I had created the background from scratch.

>You think an artist worth his salt would just generate a background and leave it as is?
An artist worth his salt wouldn't generate a background at all and would instead save a bunch of time and hassle drawing it himself.

So you're just a homosexual consumer who doesn't know how pros work. Got it.

Every time you aigays talk about a subject you show that you don't know what you're talking about. The process you just laid out is not only uncontrollable but also limited and more time consuming than manually creating the visuals. You even know this because you didn't bother to give a particular type of perspective as an example.

>Not an AIgay you fricking moron
You AIgays continue to be such bad liars.
>I just happened to know how to make use of AI in order to optimize my workflow
And as usual you can't even show proof of AI optimizing workflow.

AI struggles to get simple placements of basic shapes right, so I don't see it ever being useful for any good comics, backgrounds, or storyboards.

It's fun and I don't regret spending time doing that instead of responding to Twitter threads here

You don't belong anywhere, worthless shitter. Take your crappy furry art back to grandma's garage sell table, malding ass luddite.

>theres like 8 different light sources in that image but all the shadows are facing the same direction

no one is looking at that. Or her werid hands

BRUH, only thing wrong is her fricked up fingers, rest is more than acceptable.
You sound exactly like camera geeks who fetish technical minutia over the subject matter, those gear-heads who own thousands of dollar worth of lenses and only take pictures of brick walls.

The hilarious thing is the seething honest malice you can safely unleash on ai bots knowing you'd never ever say the same about a fellow artgays, drowning yourself in tippy toes of fake pointless all the time, but it does feel good tho, doesn't it?
At least someone cares, ai-nerds don't, and coomers certainly don't go beyond LOL TIDDIES

>Loser because you don't want to learn a craft which you can get the product for free
nah, keep crying

It done makes purty pictures like them art~ists done up in Par~Ri, it surely do~

>doesn't work by collaging existing art work together
Try making Raven from TT without a single image of Raven in the database and tell me how it goes.

Thanks for backing up my argument, moron

>(which I'd compare more to a digital molecular assembler).

You are mentally moronic. Who the frick do you think you're kidding?

The sheer audacity of a worthless creature like you taking some dogshit that a machine spit out and pointing to it like it gives you credibility, like it makes you superior to actual artists, is as disturbing to my faith in humanity as videos of animal torture.

AI users and defenders deserve to be tortured to death. Many of them are likely to meet that exact end, depending on how successful AI is in destroying our society.

The entire concept of gainful employment will be gone. Capitalists will not have anything to hide behind.

typical losers seething at equally inept ai-rats fondling crumbs whilst the entire alphabet technocracy you've built your lives around spend billions more on ai every year

You didn't say anything about using photographs. You're not actually responding to me, you're just giving propaganda from industry people like Arvalis.

is no afterlife
This will come as a surprise, sheethalian, but except for nihilistic morons, the fact that afterlife doesn't existing is literally the reason to value more what we do during our short lives. As a matter of fact, you can reflect on this: you think you'll spend the eternity sucking on your God, that's why you think real life, the only one you'll have, is worthless.

Value doing what? Working and jacking off? Despite what your Protestant parents told you your religion is supposed to be part of your life, and so without it tons is missing.

>be “chef”
>order from McDonald’s
>claim that you made it since you ordered it and then boast about how good of a chef you are

All you care about is possessiveness then.

That makes a little more sense but still... 100,000 dollars for that?

And even if they are real positions, I'm willing to bet they'll be gutted in a short time span just like those "NFT specialist" jobs/departments that were made over the past couple of years.
Looking up some quick google searches shows how these type of things play out.
> August 23, 2022
>"Brian Beccafico, who goes by Arthemort online, announced his new position at Sotheby’s through a meme. The auction house confirmed in a call that he has joined the company. Sotheby’s has steadily increased its involvement in NFTs since it auctioned its first NFT, one by digital creator Pak for nearly $17 million, in April 2021"
>June, 2023
>"On June 28th, 2023, Sotheby's NFT specialist Brian Beccafico got fired after the auction house decided it would no longer hold NFT sales in Paris. But according to sources, he isn't the only one. ARTnews reports that at least ten senior employees have been fired since April and over the last year, including at least four employees from Sotheby's Metaverse and NFT sales. General manager Jamie Durking is among the layoffs, as well as Molly C. Berry, vice president and director of client experience, who has been with the auction house for almost 20 years."

>e-girlcon picks of Vannelope von Sweetz and oh-so-clever "What if Pixar Hitler" memes.
all things drawn by humans, Cinemaphile drawgays even

So is your argument that AI is fine because now there's even MORE shit?

what does "more shit" have to do with anything?

Honestly that's the worse part of it... it's just spam at this point. No matter what artist the ai is stealing from its just mindless soulless spam being shoved everyone's throat.

>and the human dawn trash never bothered you before,
The time it takes to produce trash by hand acted as a natural bottleneck.

>no person can compete with a machine that shits out images in seconds
>you can not compare yourself to a machine
So you agree?

>e-girlcon picks of Vannelope von Sweetz and oh-so-clever "What if Pixar Hitler" memes.
all things drawn by humans, Cinemaphile drawgays even

Great! Then the magic button AI imagery will also be its own genre separate from the curated/guided AI imagery, in the exact same way that the magic button camera would he its own genre separate from conventional photography.

I literally could not care less about terminology. Call it fhqwhgads for all it matters to me.

And yet, by any definition an AI artist is an artist. Your special snowflake definition of real art will never be adopted. Not critically, not publicly, never. Get left behind.

At best AI "artists" are similar to SEO specialists. There's no art in optimizing texts and what words to use to product results. Fricking lmao.

Technically they'd be most akin to art directors or editors.
But graphic designer also qualities, ie Photoshop monkeys.

Thus empty threats and lies just make you look bad, who the frick would even know about those randoms shits if you didn't hunt them out and make a thread about them 3 times a week?

Won’t be too long when you get cancelled for doing so, boomer.

Nothing to be ashamed about. AI art is a medium I enjoy expressing myself with.

I don’t have a problem doing that at all (though, such demands are not required of most mediums).

It’s an above and beyond expectation in most contexts. For example, digital artists aren’t required to reveal their brushes or the amount of times they clicked undo.
Generally I’d agree that disclosure is best practice for the purpose of better categorization and things like competitions, but you can only enforce this so far.

You're not expressing yourself, you did nothing

>Had idea
>Learned how to gen effectively
>Curated best version
>Edit image
>Present the art in the way it’s meant to be exhibited
That’s not nothing.

>There is an assumption you spent years drawing it if presented otherwise.
This will change as AI art becomes more normalized. I assume the norm will be trad artists being the ones to announce that they’re trad, not the other way around.
>Why hide it
I wouldn’t, merely explaining how that’s unmanageable and also not a requirement for other mediums. You’re not required to disclose if you used a reference or drew from imagination, for example.

>Don’t pirate this movie and there will be no trouble
Good luck enforcing that. I personally do credit the tool (because I think they are super cool and I like this medium), but there will be people who do not, either intentionally hiding or (probably often) a lack of care.
>Thief
That’s not how the tech works.

If you aren’t gonna ready my posts you should probably stop responding. Your accusations mean very little to me.

I believe that AI art should disclose itself simply because the tech will be able to have its own identity and history, adding to its legitimacy and not leeching off of a sister medium. Good luck enforcing that though.

You’re not very bright.

Nope, just a paranoid, emotional, bad faith little luddite.

Subjectivity is a b***h.

I am an "AI shitter." I do not want association with political activists and censorship types. I am happy to give you the word art, because you destroyed that word.

Artists is the accurate descriptor. Art is anything presented as such, the human involved in the creation of art is an artist.
Your malfunction is assuming “artist” is a moniker that implies value. It doesn’t.

>That’s not how the tech works.
it is, you thief, you!

thread is dying, no need to keep lying, thief

Yeah, you don’t understand what the tech actually does haha

Yes, the craft of prompt engineering.
Not art.

>Have idea
>Apply idea to medium
>Have object
>Release object into the wild
It’s art.

AI art isn’t a high tech collage of disparate pieces. It’s a unique image generated by an algorithm that’s learned how different color values tend to relate to eachother in a given subject.
What AI does is no different than studying your favorite artists to derive wisdom that you can apply to your own art.

Yeah, you are either acting in bad faith, too stupid to grasp the concept, or you don’t know what stealing is.

Not legally or logically.
See:

Correct, the two are not the same. That was not the discussion. The discussion was, does AI steal when it trains? The answer is unequivocally no. You’d be hardpressed to come up with a reasonable definition of how this is stealing that doesn’t include traditional references, without naming AI directly or putting in an arbitrary preferential distinction.

"stealing" is illegal
training is not
you are using corpo weasel words
don't be a c**t

Did I stutter, homosexual??

Did I stutter, homosexual??

>rip my style off and laugh in my face using it to make franken images
it sure feels like stealing

it is, they just don't want to admit it to themselves.
except for this guy

>permission or compensation
That's up to giant corpo A to sue giant corpo B over.
It never concerned us.

curious no AI bro is correcting him

a human is not equivalent to a machine

>The process is extremely similar
show me a sentient machine

>2) If the definition of art requires sentience/sapience, then the prompter becomes the artist, and we're right back where we started.
the frick you're talking about you moron?

>the process is based very directly on how brains learn
this is just false, algorithms function actually in a completely different way than how the brain works, that's why machines aren't actually capable of learning from themselves but need to be spoonfed information.

the brain stores information, processes it, gives it meaning and learns from it continuously
Algorythms recognise patterns because a human told it those beforehand and puts symilar things nearby, but it will forget old patterns if it gets punished by using those, even if they're abjectively correct.

Humans are not algos, except for you and other AI bros it seems

>was largely not accurate
it was. You can't recognise it because we trained your algorithmic brain to see how stupid an algoritm could be. Genuinely impressive results

So you concede I was right? Ok good to know I knew that already but ok

you inverted the adjectives buddy, legally we're on the same ground: read

>Did you have to pay DC everytime you drew his 'S?
No but you should
Fanart IS technically illegal, or at least in a grey zone but few companies stop fanart and fan projects because they know it will be a horrible PR
Everybody hates AI slop tho
>Data scraping and training is legal
Not it' s not, it' s unregulated, and it soon will be.
The clock is ticking for your slop AIbros

morally i don't care, but at least my fanart has actually beenn made instead of being frankensteined from stolen artwork.
Artist thank me when I make fanart, they insult you guys when you steal their work instead

repeating a wrong point doesn't make it correct

true but it's infinitely better that your bullshit attempt at high school philosofy. Even uf you're correct (you're not) it only means the artist is actually the algorithm, because it did all the stuff. You're not even the inspiration, you're less than nothing

Your feelings don't really matter though. Hate to be mean but making an image isn't "theft" just because you "feel" like it is. I'm neither of those anons by the way, just saw you say something incredibly dumb and felt like replying.

The tool was absolutely trained on a relevant dataset.
>Took
Only insofar as a person viewing and learning from others is “taking”.

Nothing was taken from anybody. People who create art are artists.

[...]
[...]
My brain has rights no machine can nor should have.

Oh for sure, but what you’re proposing is a brand new right, the right to learn.

>Essence of our being
An imaginary protective barrier that prevents your art from influencing anyone?

So try to sue a computer. See how that works out for you.

What have I stolen? What's your evidence of theft?
You're making baseless accusations.

You're just being ridiculous at this point. You claim I'm a thief, but when I ask what I stole, you just say "everyone knows."
Well I don't know. Show me what I've stolen according to you.

I ask you to prove your baseless accusations and you just pile on more baseless accusations.

>It will never end.
Correct, your schizo tantrum will never end.

If you have to invent a new definition of thief to call someone a thief, they are not a thief. If you don’t want others to be influenced by your art, keep it private.

If you have to invent a new definition of thief to call someone a thief, they are not a thief. If you don’t want others to be influenced by your art, keep it private.

Always there will be one among us, who will point you out, expose your shame and sin.
AI was born cursed, and we are the spirits that will haunt you all.

And you can't acknowledge that your brain does the exact same thing, because you want to believe your creativity is something special that can never be captured by math. But a brain is just an activation network too.

I don't care because I know that's how art has always been made.
>artists/ai learns to draw from looking at what other artists do
>artist/ai creates images based on what other artists did
There's no important difference between AI referencing a database of artists and an artist "learning from the masters."

Why would I do that?

I've been lazy in life, sure. But a thief? You're going to have to prove that claim.

No, I haven't, which is what makes these baseless accusations being thrown around about me even more ridiculous.

The cost of me not making AI art is anons having a meltdown in a thread? Okay, I accept that "cost."

If I see a picture on the internet I like and I download it to my computer, is that theft?

I'm not israeli. I'm Christian. And in Christianity, lying is a sin. You've sinned. You should get right with Jesus.

Why isn't it theft to take an image from the internet and download it?
Also, if I post an image I didn't make online, even if I don't claim I made it, I could still get DMCA'd for copyright infringement, which is a form of theft.
But let's keep it simple and say I save it and I keep it on my computer. If that's not theft, how is it not theft?

Anon, I'm serious. You need to get right with Jesus for sinning and lying about me multiple times in this thread (if you are the anon I think you are). Maybe it's a joke to you now but Hell is no joke.

>It never concerned us.
yeah I know you guys just like to steal other people's works

>crying about ai art
>crying about digits
Is there nothing you won't cry about?

Being a crybaby on this site isn't "/co/ture" it's just you being a crybaby.

The artists who are learning from using references, or getting an education, or drawing from life are actually the ones consciously learning and applying what they've learned. Meanwhile, AI prompters and generators just tap in words and shit and become proud that a work was produced by a software they themselves have no hand in creating. The two are not the same.

>The answer is unequivocally no
if that helps you sleep at night buddy.

and everything else you said just doesn't make sense. The program steals images and frankensteins them together: that's it buddy

But the artists who learn and study actually develop their own style with their own works. That's why no two artists can have the exact same style, even if they might look the same at first glance. Meanwhile, AI does not do this, as all they will ever produce are what's fed of them. They do not learn and they do not create a style all their own. That's why there was such a heavy stink some time ago about AI prompters making artworks obviously emulating a certain artist's styles. You know what AI has a similarity to, though? Fricking tracers. People who trace an artwork and show it to others claiming it as their own are usually called out for stealing. A lot of comic artists get shamed by this, although you have some like Greg Land who doesn't care. But hey, if AI prompters can be equated to Greg Land, then by all fricking means.

The instant you have mixed together two loras in the same prompt, or even used a lora on a model it wasn't explicitly trained for, or any other of the thousands of things you can do (not you individually, because you don't know how the process actually works nor do you want to), you have done what every artists does when taking inspiration from multiple sources to make something new.

I am expressing myself. Difficulty in production has little to do with the ability to express meaning.

>What meaning
Depends on the piece.
>You didn’t choose how it looks
As much as you can decide a photo or how your actor performs in a movie.
>How are you going to edit it
Same way you improve in any medium, learning the skills necessary to take it to the next level (in this case, a level of drawing skill!)

>No it doesn't AI can't have meaning, you didn't choose how it looks
You have just as much influence as you do when lighting or composing a photograph or directing an actor.

photographers , professional ones, go in search of the perfect light for hours and even travel around the globe in search of very specific views or animals. and studio ones have 100% control on lightning and the pose the model uses, that's literally their job.

And it depends on the director but they absolutely have control on how the actor should move or what actually goes in the movie. Try to look up how much Nicholson & Co. had to redo their takes in Shining to find one that was convincing enough for Kubrik, you ignorant fool

no you don't, you can't even have the same character on model twice with AI

>and studio ones have 100% control on lightning and the pose the model uses, that's literally their job.
Congratulations, you just learned why Controlnet exists and why someone might use a img2img composite or a designed latent image.

This. Bullying is wrong unless it's against AI bros

wtf, how do you even read, parse that shit??
frick off

>twatter c**t calling me foreign
lmao, frick face
go back

Do you not know how to read? That image is easy to figure out.

Who am I hunting down? Which threads am I making? Whatever anon you think I am, I'm not that anon.

I'm not even talking about Cinemaphile, learn how to fricking read. In what way is this site a forum meant for posting real celebrity pics?

>noo you can't talk about shit happening on Cinemaphile just ignore it and go somewhere else
>noo you can't talk about it being a more widespread problem online
Cinemaphile has always been used to talk about things that are happening online, you fricking moron.

>he's such an underage newbie that he thinks of facebook or twitter when he hears the word forum
kys yourself

To be fair, nobody will remember anything when the sun envelopes the Earth ion 5 billion years.
And highly unlikely anyone will remember you for your Pokemon vore art.

>it’s just about being recognized as a legitimate form of expression (which it will in time).
It won't. Sorry kiddo. How can you expect anyone to respect you when you didn't do anything? When anyone can just download the same files you did, punch in your prompt and get your results?