How will this shit impact the industry? Because there's obviously no way to undo the damage. In a couple of years, there will be no need for artists or 3D modellers because the industry will obviously adopt this.
Where the frick do we go from here? You can attempt to regulate it, but this obviously won't do shit because it's way too fricking late. This is the singularity as far we're concerned.
Are we just going to be subjected to endless soulless algorithmic slop? It seems like AI's only weakness is the ability to come up with decent stories. ChatGPT crap is pleasant to read at a glance but it has absolutely no merit.
What is The Animation Guild's stance on all this? Will you guys be seeking AI protections when your contract expires? Or will you let IATSE sell you out again.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>Serious AI Discussion
>How will this shit impact the industry?
Serious answer is "who knows?"
Maybe people will find AI shit distasteful and studios might abandon it.
Maybe it'll turn all artists into walmart workers.
Maybe it'll be a little bit of column A and B
There are examples that support all 3 scenarios.
Companies are going to pour billions into R&D for it. The results will LOOK promising, but will ultimately not be the "hit button to make content" tech that execs believe it to be. Studios are going to try to incorporate AI into the pipeline in order to justify these investments.
This might go on for a couple of years as execs scramble to figure out, "Okay, what fricking jobs CAN AI actually replace?". They'll find that the production pipeline didn't change all that much and now they've sunk tons of money into tech that didn't give them the immediate return they were hoping for.
I think, at the most, AI is going to help with the bookend parts of production. It can jump start concept art for artists to build off of and it can help with revisions with short turnaround times. The actual raw creation though? Probably not.
Entry jobs are going to get fricked the most. Senior positions will be the most secure.
AI will never be 'hit button to make content' for full tv shows.
Because then you'd sacrifice all creative direction, and if even one thing was wrong, you'd need to generate it again.
AI will only alter animation when you can AI generate specific assets, like a walking animation, or lighting in a pre-existing scene, or a character model, or physics.
Also, for it to become useful in a creative sense, you would need for the AI to understand the context of the scene, it would need to be built in with animation tools.
Even then, it would probably only be good for realistic CGI, and maybe extremely derivative 2D animation (like literally copies of existing styles.)
>AI will never be 'hit button to make content' for full tv shows.
It won't, but tech companies are trying their hardest to make it SEEM like you can and I think people in charge of major studios are tech-illiterate enough to buy into it. People like Katzenberg are already promoting the idea when I'm betting he barely understands how the tech even works-- and these are the guys making the huge million-dollar investments.
Yeah 90% of the hype around AI is for investors. It's people who don't know what AI can do, making up shit so that other people who don't know how AI works will buy more stock.
Katzenberg has no idea what he's talking about.
He is an old fart, with no idea how this tech works - he thinks that AI is a "push to make film" button, when no serious artist would ever sacrifice the entire creative and visual direction of their movie just to make a shit product.
AI needs to create isolated assets, and work within an animation program in order to be useful, since it would be far quicker to just edit a work to fix errors then it would be to re-generate film after film for small errors.
We already have decent AI photo editors, who's to say we won't have decent AI video editors next year? Frick, how about 10 years?
Also, AI won't generate 1 film at a time. It will generate 100 similar, but diffierent films dependant on the prompts you give. Then you pick out the scenes you like, splice and edit it with AI, and bam you have a movie by your choice. Just like it is today with AI photos.
>no serious artist would ever sacrifice the entire creative and visual direction of their movie just to make a shit product.
With AI we don't need "serious artists." Average Joe can finally release his autistic worldbuilding he has spent the last 10 years creating in his head. He won't care about more goyslop.
You realize these only exist because of those serious artists, right? That every Average Joe will spam "in the style of so-and-so" in order to get anything like their supposed vision? The funny thing is that most people don't really have any vision. Most people don't skip out on art because of barriers to entry, it's because they don't have a story they care enough about to tell.
So you're saying AI movies will mostly be porn, and coomers will flood the market with their homecooked degeneracy?
Either way, most people will use AI to create content for their own enjoyment. Most of it will be shit, but there will be a big amount of gems aswell. And as I wrote earlier in the thread, art will be made for art's sake. There's no need for money to be involved if you do it by your own volition.
This. Every avid "AI art" pusher is either a non artist or a lazy amateur artist who believes that an algorithm generating a highly rendered picture automatically makes it good. No "AI art" shill knows what they're talking about because they can't even answer basic questions on why someone would use it over manual control.
When it comes to illustration, why would professional illustrators waste time prompting shit when they can turn out decent works in a better timeframe and with more reliable variety?
Why would artists give control to machines that the (according to people who actually worked in ML and LLM fields before the recent hype) are inherently incapable of understanding 3D space in 2D media and proper object amounts no matter how much training data and processing power you give it?
When it comes to animation, would animators use something that doesn't understand weight, movement, and style consistency?
When it comes to internet fan stuff, why would people want to try or look at AI slop when internet artists have proven to make great fanart of things almost immediately that's both varied and consistent?
>When it comes to internet fan stuff, why would people want to try or look at AI slop when internet artists have proven to make great fanart of things almost immediately that's both varied and consistent?
Because people want free shit and DALL-E can churn out more garbage for some obsessed Elsa fan than drawgays can.
Sure, but if something is so easily accessible, then it has no worth.
People who can't draw, but can crudely make a face and breasts don't post them, since it's worth nothing.
So DALL-E pictures won't ever be a commodity
>something is so easily accessible, then it has no worth.
it has worth, but not on your capitalistic terms
On that particular individual basis, sure. But that's no different than a dude who draws the same crude child-skill-level pictures of his favorite Sonic character inflating over and over. It's just filling the very unwanted niche of people with abnormal and extremely low standards.
Meanwhile, you can go on Deviantart or Pixiv 's top daily uploads right now and see that charming simpler art is still beating the top viewed AI slop. That's because AI pics are just the samey generic and uncanny pictures being spammed all the time, while plenty of human even made by non-professionals are conveying more interesting or fun scenarios.
*while plenty of human-made art even by non-professionals are conveying more interesting or fun scenarios.
Citing furry porn as an example is a bit of a low brow demonstration but it's difficult to call the people who are most proficient at molding prompts to their particular desires as not being men practicing a learned skill or craft. They make analogies to promptwork as being like trimming a hedge.
https://e6ai.net/posts/13430
>When it comes to internet fan stuff, why would people want to try or look at AI slop when internet artists have proven to make great fanart of things almost immediately that's both varied and consistent?
It's cheaper.
And really the fact that an ai artist's creationshttps://e6ai.net/posts/13430 was hot enough to have gotten to e621's daily 'popular' section months ago before the art got removed for being a ai is proof enough that AI does art well enough to eat great bites of humans' lunch.
Looking through this guy's tags still shows what people have been saying about AI slop. Generic blank stares, mangled body parts, samey poses, and blurry distorted backgrounds and attire.
>the people who are most proficient at molding prompts to their particular desires
That's incorrect too since there's a comment in one of the posts from the person you linked saying otherwise.
>"Yeah it's a chicken originally. When working with real unusual pairings, it'll most likely just not work at all. Asking for human x eagle got 0% usable results. So a chicken is used, which sometimes works, and it's just used as an approximate placeholder of sorts to inpaint in the species swap. Basically I just tweaked the limbs around and re-rendered it and then doodled in some wings, etc."
So the prompt literally couldn't give him what he wanted no matter how hard he tried.
Meant to say in this post it's incorrect to claim the they're molding prompts to their particular desires (unless AI users want to claim they intended for their pictures to come out looking wonky).
>inherently incapable of understanding 3D space in 2D media and proper object amounts no matter how much training data and processing power you give it
I am fairly surprised at how these programs can make photo real details, but fail at basic human anatomy or even counting things that even a kid in a grade school art class can do.
>serious discussion
>repeat ridiculous assertations as fact
you see that shit that released this week? the new live video?
it's full of dogscape shit in the margins, and those are the demo videos
remember when UE5 was revealed with real-time raytracing four years ago and nobody's frickin making movies in it at all, despite it being the simplest thing to possibly do, because it takes real skill and time/hardware investment to make it pay off?
and here you are practically claiming that AI's gonna do it all in a few years, but we're no closer to AGI now than we were at the turn of the century, we're just working with bigger and very often more broken databases
in conclusion get fricked you dresden kodak looking motherfricker
>we're just working with bigger and very often more broken databases
which reminds me, what yhe frick databases are these AI programs learning from anyway?!
>what yhe frick databases are these AI programs learning from anyway?!
generic shit, marvel slop and other AI generated stuff
They literally use danbooru's tagging system for a reason
Stable Diffusion used Laion5b
https://laion.ai/blog/laion-5b/
None of the other closed source companies ever disclosed their source, but they can use every publicly accessible data online and spend more of the money of tagging it to use as workable database.
AI will absolutely destroy Eastern media
you know I'm actually pretty glad AI is making more representation
>It seems like AI's only weakness is the ability to come up with decent stories.
And consistency in design
Remember how fricked up pictures made by AI was a few years ago, pic related.
Now look at Openai's Sora that was shown last week
What will happen is that the big companies will keep putting heavy restrictions on their models, like Google's new AI that has a hard time drawing white people.
They'll put themselves further and further behind while opensource AI will flourish. Within 10-20 years there will be a marketcrash in the entertainment-sector.
Imagine 1000s of hourlong AI movies flooding the market every week. Most of it will be trash, but some autists will be able to create true masterpieces.
We will enter a time where art is made for art's sake, and as the technology is further developed it will be easier and easier for the average person to participate
>It will be better for the average person!
When it comes to animation this is especially wrong.
Regardless of technology changes, you will need some actual skilled artists at the creative reins. The trouble is, the only ones who will be able to survive as "artists" long enough to become "actual skilled artists" are people with family money. See, AI is going to gobble up all the little shitty art jobs, like making company logos, doing crappy commercials, in-betweening, all that stuff. The low-end jobs will dry up.
The poor kid in Bumfrick Wisconsin, who isn't actually very good right now but MIGHT polish it into something real if he had a few years of doing shitty low-end jobs? Well those low-end jobs are going to vanish, so he's not going to polish his skills, he's not going to become a showrunner, and instead that job will go to some rich girl whose parents supported her as she spent years building up her skills. This doesn't open things up more for poor artists, anon. This isn't great for "the average person."
It does the exact opposite, making it far harder for poor newcomers to get those "it keeps a roof over the head" jobs that people need while they hone their craft. You're cheering as we accelerate our way toward trustfund babies being the dominant creative force in art, even more so than now.
Look on the bright side. Eventually those rich kids that were able to polish their skills are also going to be replaced by the producer's kid who has no skills but can "prompt engineer". Probably one of Musk's word salad named brats. Or Gene Simmon's kid; we already know he's okay with tracing Bleach.
the video itself shows ai's flaws - parts of the prompt are nearly always completely ignored
If there's one entertainment sector which shouldn't be completely altered by AI, it's western, cartoon animation.
Because cartoons always try to establish a distinct visual style, that's a huge part of the legacy of cartoons from back before they were even animated.
Thus, AI programs which can only recreate from a bank of studied footage won't be useful to new cartoons.
Thus these tools would only be used in circumstances where art style is irrelevant. So all realistic CGI animation, especially special effects for live action films, will be done through AI software.
So will shows which are made solely for profit and aren't cared about, like the slop made for babies that isn't like the well put together real shows on PBS. You know, they baby shark spiderman and elsa shit.
Western animation studios like Disney, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, likely will be pressured by their unions into not using AI to animate their cartoon TV shows or animated films.
So I think specifically cartoons won't be changed that much.
Because, also, I don't think anyone who's passionate enough to go into animation as a career, would wish to make an AI animated show.
Though using AI to automatically add more frames for a more fluid look seems probable.
That would just make it cheaper though, it won't be changing the content of what we get, just its production
>Though using AI to automatically add more frames for a more fluid look seems probable.
More frames = better is Cinemaphile mentality. A lot of animation actually looks terrible once it's artificially upped to 60fps.
60fps would look fricking terrible.
I was thinking that it would be more like 13/15 frames being turned into 30 or 24. Just some inbetween frames to make it somewhat fluid. For shows which would otherwise look choppy like idk Legend of Korra. That show would have been positively effected by having more frames.
Point is, instead of animators (for cartoon studios) loosing their jobs, their jobs would just become a bit easier with these tools for various small things, so they would just animate marginally faster.
i'd be fine with AI helping with inbetween frames if it keeps cartoons as the only genre of TV able to put out more than 10 episodes every two years
>I was thinking that it would be more like 13/15 frames being turned into 30 or 24. Just some inbetween frames to make it somewhat fluid. For shows which would otherwise look choppy like idk Legend of Korra. That show would have been positively effected by having more frames.
Yea but you have to remember this is in the hands of idiots that barely know tech and sure as frick don't know shit about film or animation. They're gonna think "more definition is better than a unique style. more frames is better"
The suits will think that, but would test groups, would the artists?
If it fails in testing, they'd go for more mild assistance.
If a show done mostly in AI causes a strike, or controversy and public ire because of anti AI sentiment, then the suits have to drop it.
>The suits will think that, but would test groups, would the artists?
Test groups probably yes.
Artists? The entire point of this shit is to phase those out.
You are making up limitations for AI that don't actually exist as well as stigmatizing normal learning as you stigmatize AI learning as usual
You're the kind of parasite I aim to make suffer by overturning careerism in favor of reminding industry people that they have built careers on using random people online
It has already extrapolated styles that have never seen before
Frick off, namegay. Ro-bootlicker.
Why are you celebrating the loss of humanity in creativity and art?
Does Google or Microsoft or OpenAI pay you five cents per post?
>Projection
Do it again and I'll message industry AI haters to wrangle you
Guy is quite literally moronic. I remember seeing him on /ic over a decade ago, drawing like a 5 year old while insisting he had skill and getting butthurt over people not seeing the "creativity" in his terrible fanart. He hid behind "hurrdurr John K is God and he says off model good" to justify why his fanart looked like schizo doodles, constantly insisting that people refer to the John K curriculum. Which John K's curriculum offered good advice -- the funny thing is, though, that if guy had any reading comprehension, or even attempted the curriculum himself, would've seen that one of the first things John K talked about was the importance of making accurate copies and being able to draw on-model when it comes to learning. The man even noted how people erroneously neglected to add the little seal creases and wrinkles when he suggested people do a study of a cartoon balloon. guy just tried to justify his absolute lack of skill and effort by intentionally misunderstanding the thing he (to this very day) insists would be the savior of western animation.
tl;dr guy is a lazy, delusional, self-aggrandizing crab who has nothing positive to contribute to any conversation beyond parroting shit he doesn't even understand.
Ah, that's why he's so hyped on AI, he feels that's the only he can create 'art.'
I don't believe you that guy's been here a decade. In the archives he only goes back as far as covid. I'd never seen nor heard of him until lockdown too.
Oh he was on /ic. Name redacted to avoid NYPA
Well I'll be damned. I had no idea. But I still think he's an attention prostitute troll intentionally doing/saying whatever will get a reaction like Roasted Bread though
>but he's been doing it for so long, he has to be serious
Nah, being a NEET with no social life is one hell of a drug
The only solution is to make AI more taboo than it already is. Like not tipping in America: perfectly legal, but you're socially fricked by doing it.
>serious
>ai discussion
Its a double edged sword
The better and easier AI becomes, the less we need the industry since we can simply create our own content.
They face destroying themselves if the technology gets too good.
This might be singlehandedly the best post I've seen in all these discussions.
There is no way this shit can get so advanced that it risks making the common person able to utilize it like we can now for great benefits for everyone, it reduces how profitable it can be for companies who wish to abuse it into the ground.
If anything this honestly seems like it's an overall win for everyone but corpos, even normal ass artists can use the AI for help in places and pretty much just improve as long as they use it in tandem properly to maximize their output.
Techcompanies are already fricking this up for themselves. Heavy restrictions can only create dumb AI
>Techcompanies are already fricking this up for themselves
I mean not really. They're not trying to sell this to you guys. You're shilling for them but their goal is to get hollywood investors to buy in. The endgame for this technology was never going to "give you your freedom from your prison of goyslop" or whatever. It was to get companies like Disney to do what they're already doing, just for cheaper.
Why does Cinemaphilemblr hate ai again, it's doing a better job pushing diversity than Hollywood ever could.
Perhaps you should come on over to the rigth side of history.
Obviously anyone on a forum about animation, is concerned about art and artistic merit.
AI, literally getting rid of the human touch in art, is obviously in opposition to the values of most people here.
There's a reason the only people pushing for it here are those who want to frick around with it as a toy
There hasn't been a cartoon animated in United States in 40 years, you send the scripts/boards to Korea.
You know, it's funny actually, if AI makes animating much easier, animation jobs may actually come here, back to the US.
But they won't be "animating jobs," just Photoshop monkeys for the machine to clean up edge cases that the suits were too cheap to pay for another round of generations.
they will be auto-tweened flash sprites. nobody will be animating, they will be curating and prompting
Just like Ruby Gloom.
I'm black but this just seems performative to me. If I wanted a black person id just ask for one. I hate diversity hires because they always hire the worst people from our races so they can say "well we hired you aren't you happy?" No you hired a highly underqualified nepobaby and you knew it, but you're going to act like you're a savior of the brown races when you could just have easily hired a capable person. "Inclusivity" is at a all time high yet I feel meagerly represented
It's fine, they don't care about you, yer kind is just a tool.
>manufactured /misc/ outrage du jour
it's gonna be really funny to watch the wojack "AI GOOD! WE R GODZ!!!1!!! TUMBLR UNICORNS SUCK!!!" crowd finally turn against AI because of this...
The people who Produce shows are going to use AI as much as possible to cut costs. The people who create shows probably will be using as little AI as possible to be closer to their creative intention.
These are diametrically opposed.
If it's like what happened with Text generations, expect it to be really big on the lower end. It won't be as bad for writers for animators unless someone makes a model heavily tailored for it for the lower end.
It's just more annoying bullshit tech that share the same elements of Metaverse, NFTs, Cloud Gaming, and Web3.0.
>a bunch of crap frequently shilled by Silicon Valley startups
>made to bait money from investors, rich suckers, and grifters who want a get rich quick scheme
>the people who push it can't articulate why those who actively participate in specified fields would actually want or need to use it
>is actually just an excuse for corporations to cut costs regardless of quality or in order hop on a seemingly financially beneficial trend regardless if it actually makes sense
AI will entirely annihilate realistic CGI animation.
It might put a huge dent into Anime as well.
But commercial cartoons? Like for TV or Disney movies?
Probably won't be effected too much.
there is no difference to ai, any ai that can put out commercially usable CGI can output cartoons
But people want creative control, hell you need it. For a show to visually look different, for characters to be visually distinct and resemble their concept, for jokes to land, and action to be good.
Because of this, it would just be an inferior product to make AI generated 2D animation.
Whereas with realism, the more believable it is, the more it follows the laws of physics, the better. And visual style is obviously irrelevant.
So there's no need to have creative control
A isn't a magic box there are as much parameters to control as you want or need.
It's pointless to argue about a theoretical use-case anyway, there is nothing usable now, won't be for a while, those Sora clips took days to hours to make.
Just draw the fricking designs and put it into the damn AI. Write the script, oversee the result, edit it to your liking, and you're fricking done.
A 5 man group will be enough to do the job of 200 people.
I'm sure we'll get a lot of indie movies in the coming years. Think videogames, AAA games take 7 years in development, and crash and burn at release, while indie-games thrive
>I want things faster, not better
>what is a decade of AI development
>EIGHT MORE YEARS
How to brutally murder anime characters.
>>what is a decade of AI development
Tech companies exploiting gullible dumbasses and to get free beta testing before they censor the shit out of their programs and sell them to the highest bidders, using indian wageslave labor to silence opposition. That's what "development" is in this case.
when will aibros finally get out of the "2 more weeks" phase
Are you claiming AI isn't getting better? Sure as shit doesn't need to be two more weeks. But it will keep developing. There's no rush. There will always be investments and it's not like it'll ever threaten you specifically, right?
>TWO MORE WEEKS
Is't Hatsune Miku a a.i too?
It's cool, she's a vocal ai, not visual arts.
Now that you mention it, it's kinda funny that usage of AI for music shit is pretty well-liked by the crowd, as opposed to visual art AI shit that's very polarized
i hate anime.
>he says while posting on the anime website
Go back
>Just draw the fricking designs and put it into the damn AI.
I've yet to see AI animations do decent titty bounce animation so there's no point in me doing that.
If studios actually go hardcore on using it its gonna lead to absolute dogshit movies and shows getting cranked out left and right as they're also gonna use AI scripts and not check or correct it because doing so would cost x amount of dollars and that money can be used to buy 20 more boats, leading to steaming piles of garbage.
Ai animation is going open the flood gate for content farm shit even more so then now. Guess that's was always the destiny of a children medium.
oh the horror, no way that can actually happen!
>*opens netflix catalog*
>I'm all for the situation getting worse instead of better if it means I can laugh at people from the safety of my basket weaving forum
https://x.com/Aweztube/status/1760359283550572573?s=20
The potential damage to artists' profits is the sole reason for opposition. You would be lying to think this generation has any "ethics" they don't hypocritically contradict.
>The potential damage to artists' profits is the sole reason for opposition.
but a majority of the censorship of this technology came due to faking images of people doing stuff and thus spreading misinformation and accusations of racism.
It won't
It's censored and neutered beyond belief and so amped up on woke garbage Google can't even gen a picture of a white man. It will never EVER be free and unfiltered for use
then why are people generating porn already?
Chosen have always liked porn
>AI's only weakness is the ability to come up with decent stories.
AI's crippliingflaw is hat it's not real AI. It doesn't know what it's doing andwhy, annd can only approximate what it's being told to do, based on an ocean of similar requests.
Therefore it cannot create. It will always be bad.
Until the day it will be able to think annd understand things. That wil be another story,but won't happpen soon.
The real question is: will this spawn a generation with even less critical thinking and even lower tastes who will like and defend this shit?
Who knows. Can't predict evolution
>The real question is: will this spawn a generation with even less critical thinking and even lower tastes who will like and defend this shit?
It already has.
>Ai is so amazing it's making this Cuck Prince popular again
based, ngl
the bottom is actual will smith reversing some footage and intentionally eating bis friends dreadlocks.
Yeah, that's the joke.
I thought it was legit AI
Sora certainly could have made it, but it would likely take days to weeks right now and OpenAi is way too corporate to indulge themselves like that.
No way, I'd have to see that for myself. Personally, I was shocked seeing how coherent the hands looked when the machine currently can't even get them right in still images.
That's why I said weeks, they'd just keep "rolling" until they got it right by pure chance.
>believing guy
Heard it is capable of making video games to some extend.
Maybe finally people will get the video games they always wanted.
How do people feel about ai voice acting IF it’s a sequel to a movie and the actor was playing the same one in the first movie? I think as long as the studio pays the family a fair price it should be okay, using ai to save money and not cast real people sucks though
Counterpoint, what if that actor was part of a union? It'd be scab work at that point.
Nope voice actors have already consented to ai voice acting it would only be scab work if they were live action
I guess that's a fair point, considering fans use voice ai all the time for their animations and/or animatics.
Hopefully it destroys it. Frick every corporate artist. They're all scumbags who enable abusers. They don't care about art, only making money. They pretend they're for the people but they defend corporations. They say AI art is soulless but anything corporate and made for money is just as inherently soulless. Frick them.
No offense, but shilling for AI isn't any better.
>someone generates a video of Mitch McConnell saying "I am Mitch McConnell and I think we should exterminate all black monkey Black folk"
>AI either gets the frick regulated out of it until it's useless or is banned outright
>b-b-but muh first amendment
You can make a video like that now. You don't need AI.
And that would be first amendment violation.
This whole idea of artistic merit is laughable. There is no secret human spirit that is embedded into a formation of colors that gives it merit. Images are images, computer-generated or not. This contention is religious nonsense. There is no such thing as a soul. The meaning of art comes from the subject seeing it. There's nothing stopping a person from seeing something in AI-generations. People already look up at the clouds and find meaning in random cloud formations. Now that we've gotten past that, I foresee it being highly disruptive in the near future. It's all dependent on how consistent it can be. I see it being used for early drafting. Ways for people to guide artists in a certain direction for what they want. Replacement of artists won't come until it's more consistent. You expect artists to try and curtail it with legislation. So there will be a fight over the next 20 years. I won't give much of a damn who wins. If we get something that can generate long form animation videos, I'll be making my own cartoons for my friends/family the rest of my life.
Why can't AI be used in tandem with art, rather than it replacing art outright?
Slippery slope. Either way AI is never replacing art.
Good, because artists know better.
The "inherent human soul" argument is pretentious bullshit. There are practical reasons to be against AI, soul shit is too abstract and relies on you not being a reactionary sperg. Whenever art made by humans gets mistaken for AI, people point out its every flaw and why it looks like shit. Suddenly soul doesn't fix bad anatomy or make every carefully placed brush stroke matter.
On the plus side, it's a good way to avoid getting hugboxed. Just lie to people that some art you drew is AI generated and you'll get a full list of where you fricked up. It's really helped me to get 3D perspective to click in my mind.
That sounds like the greatest way to troll schizzos ever, thanks anon.
I don't do it to troll, it's just a good way to get raw critique since it makes your art a socially acceptable target to dunk on. Exploiting, maybe. But not trolling.
Heh, still serves as a good way to get critique outside of /ic/. Perhaps I can get Nu-Groundsers to "critique" my work.
That is, assuming Tom Fap doesn't ban me for being too critical of his hugbox.
Making people eat crow because they thought real art was AI is still a great trolling method
>eat crow
They literally never admit they're wrong or feel bad about devaluing genuine art.
I remember reading on kf about how the r/art subreddit removed someone's art and banned him because they thought he was using AI. He messaged them to ask why and they said it was obviously prooompted. So he sent the .psd file to prove he painted it himself. Then they told him he should draw with a different style because it looks like AI and blocked him.
This is why I'm a dirty fencesitter. I don't like AI art but I don't agree with these kinds of people at all. Cinemaphile chimps out about AI almost as badly as literal fricking plebbitors do. Remember the dragon?
AI is just a tool, like any other. Real artists will use it to enhance their vision. The hysteria is completely unwarranted and nonsensical, and I enjoy mocking anyone who is seething about it.
That incident never made any sense. Why not just apologize and reverse the ban
>reddit mods are homosexuals so AI good
>AI is bad because... because...
>IT JUST IS OKAY!
Who are you quoting?
It's bad because it devalues the most precious thing in the universe, creativity.
I see it as an enhancement for creativity.
Enhancement how? Making AI art is LITERALLY not creative in any way at all. It's the equivalent of commissioning art from somebody else, and that somebody is a slightly moronic robot. Nobody says people who commission art of Finn blowing that dog are creative.
People make video games using existing engines. They don't write code from scratch. I see AI eventually being used the same way, to create something similar to what you want, that you can then refine, saving lots of time and money. It will be a while but I think that's the endgame.
Only if it's open-source, and I still find that extremely skeptical.
>People make video games using existing engines. They don't write code from scratch
I don't think you understand what an engine is
>They literally never admit they're wrong or feel bad about devaluing genuine art.
They're not devaluing it, the existence of AI is devaluing it. Everything that AI makes is _defined_ as worthless and this has nothing to do with the end result and everything to do with the fact that it wasn't a product of human creativity. That's one of the worst parts of AI: as it gets better, more and more man-made things will look like AI products, which will cause people to reject them because everything that's AI or even suspected of being AI is defined as worthless. We will soon arrive at a stage where only art that has value is art that's accompanied by a video showing how you drew it. And then those videos will start to get faked with AI, and soon all art of any kind loses all value as people will simply reject everything as "possibly AI-adjacent". The result will be the death of the human soul.
>Then they told him he should draw with a different style because it looks like AI
Love seeing people who make generic, overrendered crap get accused of having an "AI artstyle" because their art is what the AI was trained on in the first place
This shit isn't will never be useful, AI can't even go 30s without fricking something up because it doesn't understand physics. It generates this stuff based on a bunch of tags in a database. Doesn't matter how big that database gets, AI will always stumble along the way somewhere.
Then I hope artists break the frick out of it, because it would be hilarious.
AI is STEALING from artists and that's not okay! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go pirate every comic released this week.
AI still can't do consistency between shots or give fine-grained control, and no real progress towards those has been seen
I hear the new dictator China wants to use artificial intelligence to help control China.
?t=1030
glowpost
What is that supposed to mean?
When the AI hysteria dies down and everyone forgets about it like net neutrality hysteria, what will be the next harbinger of doom and gloom I'm supposed to piss my pants over?
Silicon valley falls into bankruptcy after the tech bubble bursts and we'll be in the next recession. You think $20 for a hamburger is bad now?
WW3/nukes or murica's imminent civil war
China invades Taiwan. WW3 already started with Russia/Ukraine.
AIgays, if AI is democratizing art for everyone, why do you need to be tech literate to run the only worthwhile models? Sounds like gatekeeping and elitism to me
I'm one of the few tech literates who's able to offer help when needed. However, I know nothing about AI shit. (Emulation's more of a thing I'm interested in.)
Here's the deal with AI. I'll explain it in a way that makes sense. AI is a woman.
You know how everything that a woman does is worthless? And when a woman becomes a president or scientist or something it doesn't mean she's now cool, it just means that being a president or scientist is now worthless for everyone because women are doing it.
That's the deal with AI. Things AI can do are worthless. If AI can make perfect art, perfect art becomes worthless. If AI can do everything, everything is worthless. It's a thing, like a woman, that just bit by bit robs the universe of meaning because it's beneath us and anything it touches is also beneath us.
AI can't be a woman, it draws sexy girls with big honkers
I don't think AI will seriously affect actual industries except for making more garbage. The real singularity is the potential complete destruction of the concept of truth and information, which was a reality we were already well headed for some time ago.
>If an artist wants to make a shitty video game, they are totally allowed to just go download some sort of premade engine like RenPy, throw together a dogshit visual novel or something, and they get praised for it because "well the art style is good". Zero code of their own, copy/pasting code from tutorials is completely acceptable, using ChatGPT to write code, etc. They're still a "game dev".
>But when a programmer wants to make a video game and they do anything but hire an artist for all their assets, they are creative Hitler. Absolutely cannot use anything you didn't make/pay for, AI is strictly forbidden because it is "stealing", and god fricking forbid you ask for volunteers to work with you on your game because it is unacceptable to ask artists to work "for free" or "for exposure", even if it is only a fan game with no profits or something.
>Even Steam will allow the former, and not the latter. They don't give a shit where your code comes from, but if there's a single even thought that you used AI art, your game is banned.
>It's such a massive double standard. Programming/coding is expected to be free and open, but art is strictly locked down and only allowed if you are an "artist" yourself. "Just pick up the pen and learn lol", sure, as soon as you go pick up a Python tutorial.
/co/'s thoughts?
>>But when a programmer wants to make a video game and they do anything but hire an artist for all their assets, they are creative Hitler. Absolutely cannot use anything you didn't make/pay for, AI is strictly forbidden because it is "stealing", and god fricking forbid you ask for volunteers to work with you on your game because it is unacceptable to ask artists to work "for free" or "for exposure", even if it is only a fan game with no profits or something.
So true. And you know every one of these people pirates every show they watch and every comic they read. It's bullshit.
>copy/pasting code from tutorials
>go pick up a Python tutorial
So this is the brain power of AIjeets
Copypasting someone else's code is different from learning how to code yourself. It's the equivalent of tracing off someone.
This perfectly betrays the AIgay mindset. Art and code are not comparable. There's no correct way to do art. There is a correct way to code, because if your programming is incorrect then your game won't work. They can't just draw, they NEED it to look technically good. But technically good =/= soulful. Same with voice acting. They can't just do a charmingly bad impression into their fuzzy computer mic, it HAS to sound EXACTLY like the original character. AIdroids are vampires, passion and creativity are the garlic and crosses. Why should artists and VAs suffer because you're insecure and lazy?
I don't particularly care what you think is or isn't "soulful", and no one is suffering because some guy uses AI to make stuff.
>suffer
I can't believe Daphne's VA lost her millionaire status after some random nobody teenager made a parody animated short on youtube. So glad she got that chud techbro blacklisted, his animation was probably AI too anyway.
I joke but Cinemaphile unironically acted like this at the time, I'm not a fan of AI either but this board's AI hateboner is unreal
>this board's AI hateboner is unreal
Cinemaphile can't decide if AI is a passing fad who can't make professional grade artwork or if AI is a big soulless evil that must be resisted at all costs
I lean towards the latter, because it stifles artistic creativity.
/co/mblr is not a meme, even though these days the actual tumblr isn't what it used to be and those people have moved to twitter. They're used to very loud performative activism/virtue signaling, and right now the virtue signaling meta is the fight against AI, to the point like an obviously ridiculous reaction to the short seemed like a good idea.
Remember, the angrier you are, the more morally correct you are. If you decide to get really angry at AI, that MUST mean it is correct to get that angry, and whoever happens to get in your way deserves whatever happens to them (besides, they must be villains, or else you wouldn't be angry at them).
How is AI comparable to the vocal minority of tumblr users?
Comparable? What do you mean? The tumblrite kind of person has moved on to Twitter, but they're still the kind of person whose main engagement with a subject is performative activism. AI just happens to be today's big topic.
You could see the desperate reaching recently with the Palworld stuff, where they were making up just about anything in order to smear the game and kept getting proven wrong (complete with "okay maybe they didn't actually steal assets but it was real in my head!") and eventually settled on the AI accusation because it couldn't be disproven. I doubt any of them have spent more than five minutes actually thinking about AI or how it works, all they know is that being loudly anti-AI gives them social approval.
While I get there are extremely vocal people who go too far, the grief people have with AI is much deeper than what most people realize.
Oh sure. AI is absolutely going to overturn so much of what we take for granted, and not necessarily for the better. I myself am not immune. But the vast majority of what I see is artists with commission pages of characters who do not belong to them suddenly arguing that copyright is sacred, or laughably incorrect understandings of how the technology actually works. Why care what uninformed hypocrites say?
I'm not sure if it actually comes from a place of hypocrisy. I'd go as far as to say artists within the animation industry itself are on the fence about AI.
If you make your living or have a side gig drawing pictures of Superman kissing Batman, and you say something like "AI cannot profit from copyrighted works!" then yes, that comes from hypocrisy.
I still find that example to be flimsy, because the side-drawing was made by a human. It falls under the same umbrella as fanart, which this board cannot survive without.
Why isn't AI art considered transformative?
I'm not saying that it CAN'T be. However, I also think it can be used by bad actors to shit on those who actually take the time to DRAW shit.
Sentence splicing shits on people who actually take the time to voice act
The image provided only proves my point that corpos don't care.
YTPs and other fan works (ask the bronies, they know) infamously have always been raped by corpos for copyright infringement. The pic is the exception, not the rule, that's why it was celebrated.
>exception
>celebration
I'm confused, anon
>Wow, thank god the company had mercy on a content creator this time since they have such a poor track record of doing so, glad it's back on youtube without needing to be reuploaded every month by throwaway channels
What's not to understand? It's a relief a company saw sense, but note they still fricking copyright claimed it in the first place. I'm still pissed about the Waluigi Hallelujah video. They really stretch for what they consider a violation. Throwing AI-related shit under the bus hoping it'll spare other forms of fan shit won't work, companies don't see the difference between an AI voiced character or a sentence spliced character. They just see their character and hit strike.
Because uhhhhhhhhhh poo in the loo or something
>It's a relief a company saw sense
Ahhh okay, I was worried it'd devolve into AI shilling.
Now I'm confused.
You know, that video uses the voice of a dead man to say sexually explicit things without his or the company's consent. Why's that acceptable, but an AI voice doing the exact same shitpost should be illegal? Alternatively, why doesn't the creator get flak for not using a Wallace impressionist and instead stealing audio he doesn't own?
>because the side-drawing was made by a human
And?
That's a vague question. Almost reeks of twitter...
Not really. It's a rhetorical way of saying "that is not a convincing objection". But okay, why not be explicit? Explain why, exactly, it is "okay" that someone profits from unauthorized DC yaoi unless they used AI in the process.
You realize Zone also profits from Jenny getting raped by Crater Critters, right?
Yes, and I do not actually have an issue with that. I just also don't have an issue if someone animates that exact same thing using AI instead of flash. You are the one saying one program is okay but the other is not.
AI isn't comparable to any other animation program, because animation programs are meant SOLELY for animation.
I would say "And?" again, but you're not a fan of that, so I will instead repeat "that is not a convincing objection." Of what relevance is what you said to whether or not AI is okay to use? I am asking for a logical argument, not random disconnected emotions.
I don't think it's okay when it's THE ONLY THING people use. (Not as something that actually HELPS artists.)
Why? How is your position any different than someone who says digital art is only okay if the artist used physical media first and then scanned it? When someone makes a 3D model, do you think it's not okay unless someone also draws on the finished printed render?
Now you're throwing a bunch of other mediums that have nothing to do with AI itself. I'm not convinced that you're in this to have a meaningful discussion.
>I'm not convinced that you're in this to have a meaningful discussion
Probably because I was correct in my initial assessment that you both do not actually understand how the technology works and you have not spent even five minutes thinking about it. Let's cut to the chase: every single objection you have to AI was a conversation that was already had, either during the dawn of digital art or when people began profiting off of fanart. That exact same objection of "okay, but it only counts as okay if..." was extremely common in the late 90s and early 00s. Your only actual objection is "I don't personally like it," because the rest of those arguments were already embedded in the past victories of mediums you currently appreciate uncontroversially.
Cinemaphile is just a twitter DLC. Anything that gets posted on twitter inevitably gets a bump limit hitting thread here.
Is that why I keep seeing moronic template threads fricking EVERYWHERE on this board? I guess that's proof that we can't have nice things...
The obvious easy use is tweening. Look for otherwise cheap animation, at 60 frames per second.
I think Toon Boom Harmony would like a word.
That's exactly the use. AI will be used to do the parts of the creative process that people don't want to do. Another potential use for it is creating NPC dialogue in an open world game. Obviously a real person would want to craft the story and the missions, and side quests, but for just the random NPCs that populate the world, you could set some parameters and have their lines be generated without having to write and record all of it.
I can go on youtube right now and look at people using AI to up cartoons and anime intros to 60fps and it always looks like shit.
More Frames does not automatically translate to better. That's just a techbro ideal.
Exactly, it fails at imitating what makes the principles of animation work in the first place. It's all linear keyframing bullshit.
Designated shitting/shill thread aside, I've yet to see any examples of actual cartooning in generations. It's always either semi or hyper realism or extremely simplified CGI-esque forms. Probably because things like that actually requires an autonomous mind to create.
I don't think there are enough crumb-minded artists.