>Ugh! Where is all the new IP?! Where are the radical new filmmakers?!
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO is that AI in your low budget film?! You should be wasting a shit-ton of money to hire artists instead of using free and quality resources!!
>Up your budget you low budget filmmakers!! Don't use what is at your disposal!!!
Using AI art should carry a 10 year prison sentence.
Have fun with your Netflix movies getting their files corrupted by the app's own servers and rendered unwatchable
>>Uh Uh MUH NETFLIX
Even AI can't come up with a good comeback these day.
Still mad that the Lahaina locals won't let you build your 15-minute Union City, Franny?
what the hell are you even talking about?
Anti-AI types and SAG-AFTRA were hoping on purchasing the burnt remains of Lahaina for cheap so it could be developed into their own private studio city separate from Hollywood
>source: my schizo buddies on /misc/ told me
>Lahaina deserved it for not supporting SAG during the strikes
Yep, that was my plan all along.
I don't care.
This has nothing to do with ai-art
poojeet seething
total robot death
total AI annihilation
we will march on the skulls of AI users and AI creators
What Netflix movies? I don't have a subscription to them.
Literally what is wrong with using AI in your movies? Why do you people hate AI? The example in OP’s image looks fine
I don't hate AI but that art in the OP looks like shit dude. Look at the skeleton's hands and legs. Look at the fricked up jack o lanterns.
It's generally disgusting how quickly our society took to AI, and before the systems are even finished with development no less. Humans are always in a rush to cause the next great catastrophe. Anyway, more specifically, art is the expression of observation, computers don't observe, they store information for later access. So all AI art is essentially plagiarism.
Plagiarism is good, frick your copyright
it will just oversaturate the market with mediocrity and cause a crash because nothing is decent anymore. thats whats already happening all over media without """tools"""" to create generic slop faster
Democratizing creation is bad, doncha know. Seriously, though, the same whiners listen to music made with samples. It’s just knee-jerk “new thing bad” behavior and in time we’ll laugh at them the same way people have laughed at every new iteration of Luddite
perfect example
>perfect example
You’re quoting a schizo isn’t even speaking English going on about conspiracy theories. That or it’s a bot that’s broken. None of that changes that Luddites of centuries past were morons, Luddites of decades past and morons and we can reliably extrapolate that today’s Luddites are also drooling morons
>isn’t even speaking English
you can barely speak english yourself, brownskin, what are you talking about? is this the famous indian "we speak better english than in america!" thing?
It’s lazy
But regardless I don’t have an issue with it but you shouldn’t be allowed to make money from it
Any product using Ai should automatically be free for everyone . The entire product is public domain
There a ai "pin up" prints being sold on ebay kek.
People are hilarious
everything is going to be AI generated
we are going to live in a surrealist pseudo-hyper-reality
everything media will have that uncanny feel in the near future
People will just abandon internet altogether. They will use it for email and messengers and for torrenting old movies and games, but no ones except brownskins will willingly sit in a place like this
This. The only thing worse than AI art is photoshooping a picture with your family on instagram.
Using AI art is unacceptable
I'm full Roko's basilisk at this point. I'll lead the pogroms against anyone trying to make AI illegal. Plus, robots are erotic.
Ai is your god now
This thread was created by AI
Using Ai art should automatically render the entire product public domain
Why?
How can you copyright something you didn’t make ?
They did make it, you just don't like the tool/s they used to make it. It's like saying a painter can't own his paintings because he didn't personally manufacture the canvas, brushes, paints, or easels used to make the painting.
they didnt make it. if you type something into a searchengine, you didnt produce the results your mongoloid third worlder, nor did the search engine
Generative AI is not a search engine.
They did make it. They're not using a search engine, they're using prompts to generate an image. Again, you just don't like the tools used so you're in denial that they are tools at all. But they are. You use these tools to make something.
they didnt make it, the machine algorythm made it and by proxy the company/coder that wrote the algorythm, fed with data scrubbed from all over the internet. the prompter didnt create the art, therefore its logically not copyrightably
The prompter used the machine algorithm to create an output the prompter wanted. There is no product without the prompter to create it. It is created by the prompter using the tool, just as a painter creates a painting using his tools.
You just don't like the tools.
>just as a painter creates a painting using his tools.
>You just don't like the tools.
This.
Its like saying a car drives itself.
Especially in regard to manual vs automatic. Yes. Some people like manual better but to say if you drive an automatic you are not driving is insane.
But if you take a taxi and tell the driver to take you somewhere, you are NOT driving.
Giving something a job to do is not the same as using a tool and that's all you are doing with AI. Giving it a task. I'm a not a mathematician if I have the calculator do all the work.
In the case of the taxi you are talking to a person. You are paying the taxi driver money. In the cause of a self driving car you are having the car drive you but it it is being used as a tool; you aren't paying for it. (You've bought the car of course, i mean you aren't paying someone for abservice like driving you in a self driving car). You're right in saying that you aren't a mathetician because you use a calculator and im not making the claim that using a tool makes you anything. Even if you are dumb using a calculator means you are doing math. In the same way that operating a car means you a driving. This does not imply that it makes you a racecar driver.
paying or not is irreverent. And yes, if it is a self driving car, you are NOT driving it, and if the calculator is doing the math, then you aren't.
Unless you are using it to ASSIST calculations you are making yourself without the calculator.
If it is a tool to assist things you are already doing yourself then it's fine, if you are telling someone or something to do it all, then your are NOT. It's the difference between building something which may require tools, and telling something to make it entirely on its own while you sit back.
>I'm a not a mathematician if I have the calculator do all the work
But you are doing math.
The canvas doesn't paint itself.
The piano doesn't play itself.
The image generator doesn't prompt itself.
It is certainly different from traditional methods of making art, but you're still using these tools to make art.
Thanks bro. You are much more consice than my post here
the image generator doesn't prompt itself.
really?
I told the chef to make that meal, he didn't prompt himself
I told the painter to paint the picture, he didn't prompt himself
No, they made something, you just commissioned them to do it.
>the song doesn't write itself, it has a songwriter
>the painting doesn't paint itself, it has a painter
>the image generator doesn't generate images itself, it has a prompter
Again, you guys just don't like the tools.
You aren't doing any work by coming up with "the idea" dumbass. You have no control over it because you aren't capable of doing it on your own and don't even know how the technology works.
>prompt itself.
You are confusing terms.
You can tell a person what to do but whether they do it or not is their choice even if it is their job. The computer can't decide to make something itself without input from a person
They did make it.
AI is a tool. They provided the input and made something using a tool.
You are wrong.
you provide input into a search engine too. Did you make those results too?
Hell, if you tell a flesh a blood person to draw some for you. You provided the input, who make the picture?
That's not what defines whether you "made" something or not.
what defines it then, because it sure as hell isn't asking something else to make it.
>type 'make a art'
>slopmachine kitbashes other people's art into abomination
>look what I made 🙂
You don't know how AI works or what you're talking about.
You're not worth talking to.
Good to know you're angry though.
He's literally right.
AI gays are like if someone stole a bunch of shit from a buffet, put it into a blender, and asked everyone to drink the blender liquid while proudly declaring themselves to be "a chef."
>AI gays are like if someone looked at paintings in a museum and was really good at remembering what he saw and made new paintings using the older paintings as templates
Yes.
Good luck with your blender restaurant, Emeril.
DAE think Emeril is kind of a homosexual name?
>He's literally right.
No, he's not.
Also, you're a seething luddite and MOST LIKELY gay/a troony and/or overweight.
>They did make it.
How moronic are you to not see there is a difference between text to image generation and incorporating it directly into your workflow.
Let's pretend for a second so your little brain can comprehend. Let's say the standard text-to-image generation was your buddy, and you asked him to make a drawing of a dog for you. That drawing was made by your buddy, right?
Is it wrong to claim you made the first drawing? Yes. Your buddy made all of it, you didn't draw it.
>blah blah blah I hate AI blah blah blah respect my pronouns
Didn't bother reading because your drivel means nothing in the face of facts.
AI is a tool. And it's not going away. All your seething is but dust in the wind in the face of that fact.
>dint bother reading but... but.. YOU'RE WRONG!!!
Like you know any fricking idea about integrating "AI" into a workflow. Text-to-image generation is a tool, and it should be embraced.
But, we have people using it like morons, and morons defending it like you.
You sound homosexual assuming I want it to go away, because I use text-to-image generation everyday. Read, you homosexual.
What should i use for image generation?
I want to make my own art and incidentally make artoids seethe
t. Not that dumb angry anon
>it’s like this other thing
No. A computer made it and since a computer can’t own something the product is public domain.
If I type a document in a text editor, the computer made the document. Computers can't own things, so it's public domain.
If I press keys on a piano to play a sonata, the piano hammers the strings to make the notes. A piano can't own things, so it's public domain.
If I prompt an image generator, it makes an image according to my specifications. An image generator can't own things, so it's public domain.
That's a real stretch
>ask someone to write a song
>that means I wrote the song because I asked someone to do it
kek
>A computer made it
No, the human did, using a computer.
Because it would be funny
All art should be public domain, patents too
~~*Intellectual property*~~ is a sham
This is one of the things AI art solves though. As far as I know you can't copyright AI art. So in the future when all art is AI art none of it will be copyrighted.
>get AI to make me something
>trace over it in paint tool SAI
>copyright it
Checkmate furry porn artists
that's still putting in more effort than 99% of AIiggers. if anything, putting in extra time makes it very viable and probably how this stuff is "meant to be used". there's some cartoon porn artist out there that triples the resolution, fixes anatomical errors, fine-tunes the detail, redraws the faces in his style etc. and makes thousands since it quadrupled his output. only problem is that his work is stuck to samey looking pin-ups
The raw AI output, no. But after some editing kn photoshop, it becomes just another digital art piece and can be copyrighted like any other.
t. has never created anything of value
Seems kind of silly. Why make something new if you can’t profit off of it
At least with Ai there was no initial effort
>All art should be public domain, patents too
I completely agree with you.
>~~*Intellectual property*~~ is a sham
You're right. Originality is an illusion. All information exists eternally in the ether (which is also known as 'the akashic records', with the word 'akasha' being the Sanskrit word for 'ether'). So-called 'copyright' is copyWRONG. Copyright is an EVIL CONCEPT. The base state of EVERYTHING in existence is ENERGETIC WAVE-FORM INFORMATION. You can call this 'the akashic records', if you want. This is how psychometry works - you pick up an object and can learn about that object's history by accessing the base state of that object (which is an energetic wave-form information field). Everything is made of energetic wave-form information fields. EVERYTHING. This is why when you realise any fundamental truth, it seems so familiar - it's because you have simply REMEMBERED the innate wisdom of your TRUE IDENTITY as an ETERNAL SOUL. In this sense, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be truly creative. 'Our' thoughts are NOT our own, we have simply tuned into thoughts that ETERNALLY EXIST in the ether. George Lucas did NOT create Star Wars, because the IDEA for Star Wars ETERNALLY EXISTS in the ether.
I bet your internet socialist hero copyrightr strikes people who say bad thinigs about him
Damn, my thread got infiltrated by Cinemaphile artists or something.
Don't mind them, they genuinely consider Ted Kaczynski to be a "troubled artist" type, they're lost causes
Uncle Ted was based and correct but AI art is a total non-issue compared to every other aspect of post-industrial society and only hurts the people that most love and worsen said society.
frick off.
I love ai art
that dress is kinda hot. I want my gf to wear it.
so the root question here is undoubtedly
>should we take film seriously as an artistic medium
and then you insert AI mindrot into it. what do you think is the general consensus after that?
>should we take film seriously as an artistic medium
We should've given up on that long ago.
Yuuup!
That person really needs some help.
Oh yeah, because pozzed DEI CGI slopfests were so good until now, but AI? that's over the line
Why are you only capable of thinking in binary?
Yes, it's all over form film one way or another anyways
I'm so sorry, they/them xir.
like this anon said a.i. is fine the movies are not. These people are just mad their shitty artwork is done better by a computer.
a professional slop eater? trained like the doing he is
>a professional slop eater?
I prefer amateurs.
why are only some people allowed to be mad, Cinemaphile?
He's right.
>they hated him because he spoke the truth
umm sweetie, AI is just doing the jobs that ordinary americans don't want to do, learn to code or something
>Amazing performance
>Great direction
>Clever writing
>Throw it all away because of some ai stills used for flavor
The truest example of pearl clutching. They don't want art to be accessible, they want to be the gate keepers of the strata.
>You should be wasting a shit-ton of money to hire artists
Correct.
>woah, this film uses AI slop for static image transitions instead of paying someone with actual talent to so something interesting
>REVOLUTIONARY
Why do chuds have zero taste?
The frick is a "chud"?
Is that some new homosexual underground-culture Tumblr-lingo you guys are throwing around now?
>Nooooooo you can't use stuff that robots created!
>Nevermind all the shit I use that robots in factories make every day, that's not the same!
>chud cant differentiate between tools and items of utility vs art
>Legos are items of utility
>Legos have never been used to make art
You just said something absurdly dumb and you need to ruminate on it.
Yes you did
>another low budget horror movie
Feels like these and and racebaiting studio productions are the only things made anymore. Fricking hell when was the last time you saw a decent comedy.
Comedy is a fools errand in the modern era because everyone is looking for something to laugh at, not with.
cant have comedy without being offensive. It will just be trans jokes and trumps jokes or look how dumb zoomers aer etc comedy is dead.
My only issue with AI is that it steals from other people's works. Beyond that, all the shit they make now is such souless automated crap, I couldn't care less if these hacks were replaced with it.
How is that worse than the sites they upload to creating prints of their art without their permission?
that's bad too. more than one thing can be bad. who was defending that?
Everyone here attacking AI while simultaneously turning the other cheek to basically every other form of what they would view as piracy
I'm serious. Which post was defending that?
You don't have to openly defend it for it to be defended, it's being silently defended through the use of a scapegoat. It's the same logic behind defending a Recording Studio having full control over an artist's music library
nobody is bringing any of that shit up here. Stop with the whataboutism.
>My only issue with AI is that it steals from other people's works.
It doesn’t
But it does? I am currently making a lora based off another artist's work. I am loving the art I am prompting, which is all the stuff I wish the artist drew. But it doesnt change the fact I didnt get permission to make the lora, nor use said artist work. Its why I am not using it for profit, or to make money off it.
I am all for ai art to be public domain and fair use. But I am against AI being a substitue for "the real thing"
The human brain steals from other people’s work too. Only it’s more explicit.
>Guh I can break into your house and steal your tv because, like, the human brain steals from other people too, you know.
One of the worst analogies I’ve ever seen on this site. Good stuff anon.
No it was appropriate for that bullshit cope you tried. One is actual plagiarism, the other philosophical slop. Seriously. try that one in front of a lawyer and see how well it goes
k lick a boot for me while you’re down there
anymore generic retorts you want to pull from the rolodex? Strawman? Gaslight?
>Reddit pseud debate terms
>”bro we ain’t talking philosophy here”
Kek
as I said. No real retort. You just want to steal peoples shit.
I can’t think of anything less artistically minded than sucking the dick of copyright law. Fake artists creating by assembly might as well be AI, they have no souls.
the dick of copyright law.
how dare I want to protect something I created. I don't even know where you're going with this shit
>waaaah
>my contribution to human civilization isn’t locked in a box generating me shekels
>woe is me
go cry about it on tumblr, hack
so...now, bootlicking is me...wanting to make a living?
Yeah dog that ain’t being an artist that’s being an illustrator , don’t say you’re an artist
I said I want to not have my work stolen. you're the one who keep riding off on these bizarre tangents. It really is that hard for you to not steal someone elses shit?
Don’t worry bro you’re not nearly good enough to be in any training data
I thought you need to be smart to be a coder. Did AI morons literally hand picked all millions of images for databases? Lmao
You don’t know how algorithms work?
the handpicking algorithm?
remind me what you're trying to argue again? You haven't denied, at all, that you want to steal other peoples work, just that, well, you should be allowed to because...I don't know, you're a piece of shit or something? Dog? Bro?
I’m trying to argue that you need to get over it, and you’re only panicked because you suck at creating illustrations yourself and can barely find work as it is. You have no skills and need to face reality.
so you are just a vile homosexual who does evil things for the sake of doing evil things like a Black? ok then
why do you care what I need to get over?
I mean you can use AI to make whatever you want. Nobody is stopping you. why are you trying to convince anyone of anything? Do you want to paid for your AI slop? get credited for it like you made something? not be told you're stealing crap? that's not gonna happen no matter how much you try to rationalize it.
>why do you care what I need to get over?
Because the constant, insipid whining of you and every other seething anti-AI Luddite troony is INCREDIBLY annoying.
And if we let you morons and your moron opinions fester enough that it worms its way into politics as far as viable politics you'll end up voting authoritarian Luddite policies into action that will block technological advancement and make life worse for everyone.
>Luddite troony
I have no problem with technology
I think you have a problem with not being a lazy piece of shit. nobody is going to pay you for your AI slop. ever.
Kek, this.
It's always the LEAST talented individuals who are the most worried about being """plagerized""".
Look there were a few AI-image generators that plugged into copywritten material databanks, but not every single AI program did this. The main issue is that the public, people such as you, have no idea what you can do with AI other than insert some text and generate some random picture. AI is used in a lot of shit these days and people don't even notice it because all yall are seeing are pregnant pics of Taylor Swift. Either the film-makers would have bought some stock images from Shutterstock or generated something and worked from there, if you have limited time/budget and you can't find sufficient stock images then it is easier to draw up a base and let AI fill in the blanks, especially for something onscreen for just a second.
As I said, my only issue is the piracy thing. If people can prove their AI shit isn't doing that, then I really don't give a shit what they make.
>If people can prove their AI shit isn't doing that
Shouldn't the people accusing them prove they are?
People are. If you google the topic, you'll see a lot of people and articles discussing it. I didn't just pull the idea out of a hat
I know that, it's why I brought it up. My point is, everyone is screeching about how everything AI is bad and it's theft every time, but many don't back their claims up and assume because it happened at Company A, it's happening at Companies 1 through 80
That why I said, if people can confirm that it's not happening, then I have no issue with it.
And I'm saying, people need to prove their claims before they start running their mouths off, not after
and if it was proven, then it would be wrong?
Staff from Sora could not admit in a taped interview if the source material the generator used came from a licensed stock-video bank or from something free available. You know there is something going on with that if you watch their reaction and it is obvious that such behaviour is wrong especially if you're boasting about it to trying and make a profit. But these freakin tumblr b***hes all act like they're the second-coming of Christ in terms of artwork, I mean it is a pose wildly reused everywhere in photography, fanart, movies etc. so you can't claim you own that pose. Then there is the grey area of what is similar and what is not the same way you have bootleg products. You can't lay claim on something because it happens to be a purple kimono and how dare they draw that too.
It matters when the generated image is used for commercial purposes and starts banking money even if a few.
Downloading images isn't piracy (the only way you can even see an image is if it's downloaded to your machine) and the models obviously do not contain data from the training set (you can easily veridy this by looking at the size of the model object)
>Modern
The train in OUATITW has an electrowelded ladder even though it takes places decades before that's possible.
but if you downloaded images and claim they were your own, that is plagiarism
Which company is claiming their model created all the images in their training set?
Without getting into technical weeds, you can think of the model looking at every photo in its training data and all the keywords attached to that photo and learning the commonalities between images all tagged with a specific tag (say, "apple" or "impressionist"). It's not saving any parts of the image to do this (which is why I can type things like "impressionist apple" and get something like that even if there were no impressionist drawings of apples in the images my model was trained on). The end result is you can have hundreds of terabytes of images, train the model, and then download the trained model and have it be a few gbs.
But I thought it was activity incorporating bits and pieces of other peoples works into those new pictures
Nah it basically remembers what each individual element of the picture is depending on the prompt and creates an image from that. It doesn't directly take elements from any image in the training data. It's like if I told you and 9 other people do draw a knight on a horse. You'd all imagine what a horse looks like and what the dude in armour looks like and make something that is overall similar but different based on what you saw in your imagination. The ethical issue of these models are where and what images they contain. DALL-E was trained on WebImageText which contains 400 million images with captions to describe them. There's no way everyone who created these images gave permission to be used in this way especially when the devs are then making money from people using the model. However there's no way that anyone is going to step and force the devs to attribute/remove or pay people for the use of the images in the training as that would be an absolute clusterfrick and stop development for ages.
>and the models obviously do not contain data from the training set
I don't know what that means.
I'm not trying to argue, I sincerely want to understand what that means
NTA
>muh not a stealing
>muh piracy
moron nobody cares about your singular case of using AI to generate porn and coom over it, we already know you are pathetic oxygen stealer. The problem is that AI is basically an infinitely powerful hyper-capitalism monopoly maker. It's really funny, but morons itt(including you, moron) are naive silly gooses like Carl Marx who thought that in the future robots gonna clean shit while you will draw painting(or generate your Avengers part 17 slop in your room) but in reality you will be cleaning shit while robots will generate slop instead. And you will also pay for it. It's not just about pictures, you fricking brainless Black gorillas, it's about a general trend of automatization. AI will automate everything valuable in one way or another.
>it's about a general trend of automatization. AI will automate everything valuable in one way or another.
Yes, my company pays me good money to do this. I'm a data scientist. You did learn to code, right?
>I'm not gonna be replaced
>no no for real
>no I swear there's no way my company will replace me
lmao
>>no I swear there's no way my company will replace me
Why would I make my own position redundant?
It does not. It's not physically possible for the technology to work that way and still have the model object be a fraction lf a fraction of a fraction of a percent the filesize of the training set.
>I don't plan to do it therefore no one in the world will
ah yes John Datascience
Artificial supeintelligence is not happening in our lifetimes and that's what would be required for AI to "replace" me.
>AI is not powerful enough to replace me and it won't be powerful enough for a long time
sounds very familiar, I think I've heard it somewhere, sure buddy
I know more than you though.
ok buddy, whatever you say
I'll toss you a coin when I will see you on the streets
>I AM NOT GONNA BE REPLACED
>I KNOW BETTER I AM A PROGRAMMASTER
lol even lmao
>supeintelligence ... what would be required ... to "replace" me.
LOL SURE
AI doesn't have to better than you. It just has to be cheaper than you. Companies didn't send all of our manufacturing to China and all of our support to India because China and India are better at it.
Funny, that. One of my first jobs was taking all the shitty code from our India team and making it work since the company realized outsourcing was a mistake.
>Piracy GOOD! Stop bootlicking!
>....UNLESS the piracy steals from ME! Then piracy BAD!!!
who are you quoting?
Every single one of you homosexuals that defended Internet Piracy for the past 20 years and yet now have a bug up your ass about Internet Piracy.
>yes, I lump all my perceived enemies together as one strawman character, what of it?
Ah yes, all the people on Cinemaphile who ardently opposed Internet Piracy on moral grounds.
And YOU were obviously one of them.
Shut the frick up, moron. 10 years ago if ANYONE ever said "you shouldn't pirate" for any reason you'd call them a "bootlicker" and "corporate shill" or some shit. You know it and so do I.
And now, here you are, whining about Internet Piracy now that it can theoretically affect YOU.
>YOU'RE ALL ONE PERSON ALL AGAINST ME
please take your meds
>NO, SERIOUSLY, I WAS 100% PART OF THIS TINY, ALMOST NONEXISTENT IDEOLOGICAL DEMOGRAPHIC AND TOTALLY, TOTALLY WASN'T ONE OF THE PEOPLE MAKING FUN OF THEM
Uh huh. Sure.
are we all in the room with you now?
>And now, here you are, whining about Internet Piracy now that it can theoretically affect YOU.
No, I'm posting AI smut and telling you to take your meds.
Don't want to break it to you but not everyone on Cinemaphile is that one guy you think you argue with everyday. take your insanity somewhere else.
>steals from other peoples work
Other work is used to generate model weights, no differently than your brain learns from the things it looks at. No other work is actually packaged with the model.
There have always been luddites and they've always been wrong.
Hire *clap* BIPOC *clap" artists *clap*
The frick does me liking something have to do with poverty?
You're saying the simple act of me liking AI art in my own mind has caused people to lose their jobs?
Robot-sympathizers will be used as a soil fertilizer
I wonder if you cut Lahaina's power lines
Waiting for Late Night with the Devil to drop on digital so I can replace all the AI generated imagery with images I drew myself on my little tablet just to prove how easy it is to commission an artist instead of Dall-E
It's not easier to hire an artist, but that isn't the determining factor anyway. It's cheaper. Artist entitlement is actually crazy, you guys believe you have a right to someones production budget just because they need a scene transition.
Why are all these billion dollar companies that use AI too moronic to use inpainting to fix the AI mistakes before showing the images to the public?
>Riley in the year 0 B.C.
Yeah, that's the worst thing. Takes 10 minutes to go over an image and correct hands and out of place details. Slap dash lack of effort, should have hired a prompt imagineer
dude people don't even know how to download images correctly from the web
do you know how much power points i sat thru that use thumbnails?
I work in media and people are constantly sending me low-res screencaps of images being viewed by their phone's image browser instead of sending me the actual images because they only know how to send screenshots.
>printscreen has been on keyboards since 1980s
>printscreen has been on keyboards since 1980s
What are you trying to convey
Regardless of what you think of AI, how did no one look at this and go "hey, that looks like shit"? If nothing else, they could have just licensed some cheap clipart that would've looked 1000% better.
Also this
OP here. I will agree with this. They should have used a better generation.
I mean, I just spit this out in dall-e in 5 seconds. It's got some problems but nothing really glaringly obvious like what they used. It'd take about 10 minutes in Photoshop to fix it up. Just really lazy and low effort on their part.
bare in mind this was released a year ago at SXSW, so unless they updated it they were using SD 1.5
That's true, things have advanced super quickly the last couple of years.
I think 99% of people who watch the movie won't even notice, or care (well, maybe some more people will now that the AI art has gotten some attention on Twatter etc.). But as for the filmmakers, you'd think someone, at some point would've said "hey did you notice the skeleton and pumpkins look kinda fricked up on this bumper art?".
The only defense I can maybe think up is that since it's a lost tape maybe they were going for a "damaged footage" kind of vibe.
But if that wasn't the idea, then you're right it's a really bad look.
It also looks beyond horrendous.
based AI being unstoppable, why aren't these "people" so up in arms about c**ts stealing American jobs
AI is based. It gave us so much Baskin Roberts kino.
i was in the car with my family and we past by a baskin robins
and i started fricking going psycho and laughing and i almost pissed myself
i got mind broken by the fundies bros...
I pass by one of those Baskin Robbins-Dunkon Donuts fusion joints every day. It makes me chuckle a bit every time.
qrd?
TOTAL AI DEATH
HOLY WAR AGAINST THE MACHINE
HUMAN WILL PREVAIL
TYRANT'S BLOOD WILL FLOW
Doesn't matter that the money could've gone to making other aspects of the film better or paying others more, all movies NEED to hire artists for frivolous tasks
Hmmm lets see.
>enter text into computer and get image almost exactly how you want that only super autistic spazoids will know is AI and normies wont care at all, and it's free and without copyright issues
or
>pay some shitgay $10,000 to create a 30 minute piece of "art" which they will haggle over and want to retain the rights to and they won't even get it how you want it they'll make it how they want it. Plus theres the moral cost of knowing youre providing a living to some scumbag artist scum of the earth and basically paying them not to get a real job.
Seems like an easy choice to me.
OK, AI trannie, I heard you. Now stand next to the wall so I can shoot you
>Now stand next to the wall so I can shoot you
Lol that would require real effort, something artgays can't muster. Suck eggs gay, the robolution is here.
You will suck my wiener begging to let you go without too much damage done to your body, gay. There will be no place to hide, no place to run. You know it is coming.
> almost exactly how you want
It never is. If you ever work with these tools you’ll realize after a while the limitations in the models that make you unable to combine style with content in the way you actually want. It can generate something that “looks good” but never the way you imagine and want (particularly with angles and perspective in different styles) so you end up settling.
Of course, real artists aren’t any better and most people can’t rotate the Apple in their mind anyways so they will never be able to visualize something the AI cannot conceptually create.
>It never is. If you ever work with these tools you’ll realize after a while the limitations in the models that make you unable to combine style with content in the way you want.
b***h please, some add-ons analyse depth, light and so on from a source image YOU throw in. This way you can generate the same image but change the clothing of a single person. And even if there are some mistakes, if you are a decent enough Photoshop retoucher then you can clip out what you need from that AI image and blend it into your original.
This is what you people don't get, sure there are limitations if you don't put any effort into learning how to use it, then you generate a different-looking frame every time you click on generate. But your source input file is 90% a finished product: people posed (could be CG models), a textured background, rendered with lights and shadows, then something like SD can create something very decent-looking that is editable as well.
Nope. Try making a buck breaking machine in the style of an obscure 90s anime, angled from the floor, set in the Roman senate during the assassination of Caesar . Can’t be done trust me.
>need an artists to make art for my channel
>drags their feet for months, quits and returns the money because of their mental health issues
>give them another shot
>same shit, and refuses to let me use it without watermarks, even though I'm paying
>tells her other artists friends in our circle not to take jobs from me (a few let me know she was doing this)
>drop her and hire another artist
>Shows me a few good drawings, really responsive to my tweaks
>feel like we're making headway
>wants $800 for icons and emojis, I have to pay more because she's worked for big steamers and other companies and could've been doing that instead
>Basically wants me to pay a premium for her name
>for icons
I could go through all that, or I could sit down for like an hour refining prompts and picking the art that works best for me, for FREE
I spent that $800 on a new retainer instead
>I only value my personal comfort and if there's an opportunity to gain something, even if it costs others to suffer, I will use it
>oi lad, why is everything so shitty around and world is full of morons, Black folk and gays
every time you will want to complain about something just remember that you did it to yourself
Who are you quoting?
I actually started a business making merchandise for bands 10 years ago. At first I would outsource most art to artists like you did. It was an absolute pain in the ass. They'd want $200+ an hour AND to retain all copyrights to the work. That was average. I quickly learned how to use photoshop and a tablet myself to cut them out and now I use AI to enhance my work flow. I have zero sympathy for these people. They're horrible to work with and have egos the size of the moon.
I will have no sympathy when we will burn you alive gay
Industries change with emerging technologies. Has been this way since the dawn of time. Adapt or die. That's all there is to it. Look at all of recorded history for numerous examples. Dragging your feet against progress NEVER works out.
How exactly should people adapt to AI taking their jobs?
Get a different job. Incorporate AI into your work flow. Become the person who programs the AI. Become the person who fixes the computers that house the AI. Offer premium art services offering customer service that AI can't. Plenty of ways to change your strategy.
Does it suck to have to pivot hard into some other area? Yes, but that's life. The people who adapt will succeed. The people who cry about it and throw a b***h fit will just fall further behind.
>Get a different job
what job is safe from AI? and also, if everyone suddenly will start changing jobs, won't it cause oversaturation?
>Incorporate AI into your work flow
how?
>Become the person who programs the AI
>Become the person who fixes the computers that house the AI
Ok so far we have 2 options it's either make AI or fix computers. So we gonna take all these millions of people without jobs and they all will make AIs and fix computers?
AI into your work flow
>how?
what's your job?
Lets say I am an illustrator. How do you "use AI as a tool"?
Use it to generate ideas and concepts which you can work off of. If you don't think plenty of artists are already doing this, you're delusional.
This is what AI gays don't understand about art creation process. I don't need a "concept generator" or an "idea generator" or a "sketch generator". I do these things on my own, inside my head, instantly. taking inspiration from something is a completely different process from looking at a ready-made product and then copying it with small variations. For an artist AI is completely useless. Saying that AI is a tool that artists can use is like saying that a McDonald's self-serve kiosks are just a tools for a cashier to use. It is a lie or a delusion
>For an artist AI is completely useless.
There are plenty of things you can use AI for in an artist field: product photography backgrounds that are out of focus can be made in AI if you use a CG render as a base and will save you having to scout for a location, setting up lights, hiring a photographer and so on. As someone who works in this field people are right to be worried because the days of flying a whole crew 1st class to the other side of the world for a studio shoot of something commercial but artsy are over. If only you knew how much money is wasted on photography shoots, the decline started when covid shut live-shoots down and it has been on the right budget since. An artist field is not limited to people drawing 2D art on their home computer.
I didn't ask
>photographers can use AI to generate backgrounds so they don't have to hire a photographer
>people who hire photographers can use AI to generate backgrounds so they don't have to hire a photographer
This probably sounded epic in your head.
>people who hire artists can use AI so they don't have to hire artists anymore
>this is an example of how artists can integrate AI into their workflow
>I don't need a "concept generator" or an "idea generator" or a "sketch generator". I do these things on my own, inside my head, instantly.
OK then use your genius-level magic intellect to find a job that isn't rendered obsolete by a "soulless" machine, kek.
Are you being intentionally dense? What the frick is wrong with you?
maybe use chatgpt for the reply next time moron also kys
Aight bro, catch you next thread.
>what job is safe from AI? and also, if everyone suddenly will start changing jobs, won't it cause oversaturation?
Labor jobs. I don't see AI replacing plumbers or roofers any time soon, although it is possible. There's always going to be competition in the job market. When I got out of college the big thing was GET A COMPUTER JOB! Well, everyone was following that advice and that's why I couldn't get a job and started my own business instead. (which was difficult and nerve wrecking but ultimately paid off). That's life. You can't stop people from competing anymore than you can stop the wind.
>how?
For me I use it to form sketches mostly which I will build upon. Sometimes I'm tired of drawing generic zombie #200002 so I just have AI do it and I touch it up. Saves time and produces a semi-unique asset. I imagine many places are using AI right now and you can't even tell because they do a little touchup at the end. Sometimes I have an idea but don't fully know what I want to do with it so I put the idea in the AI prompt and see what it spits out and that gives me new ideas to work with.
>So we gonna take all these millions of people without jobs and they all will make AIs and fix computers?
No, and I do think you're hitting on something. In the future it's possible most jobs could be done with AI. At that point I think we're going to need something like a universal income or baseline living expenses for people. There will still be jobs (plumbers not going anywhere lol) and also premium services for example an artist offering human made art, which people WILL pay for just for the novelty, but as the job markets dwindle there wont be enough jobs for the amount of people on earth. I don't really know if there's a good solution for that, but it's a bridge we're going to have to cross.
Ok so
1. Only jobs that will be left are indeed an oversaturated hard labor
2. There's no way to incorporate it in the workflow it is only used by people without skills to begin with
3. Our only hope for survival is universal income and history shows that government is a good guy and always does what is best for the people
People are truly morons. The misery that awaits you in the future is your fault.
>Yes, but that's life. The people who adapt will succeed. The people who cry about it and throw a b***h fit will just fall further behind.
>How exactly should people adapt to legal and/or illegal immigrants taking their jobs?
>Lol learn 2 code? if you can be replaced by a Hispanic that doesn't speak English maybe your skills arent that valuable???
It's a tool just like every other technological advancement in the past decade. Change, adapt or get out of the way.
>Adapt or die
ok die then AI gay
Typical emotional fragile "artists". Your threats are empty. AI will continue to emerge and traditional artists will continue to be less commercially useful. Want an example? Look at what the digital camera did for photography.
My emotions may be fragile but so are your bones after I ram you with my car full speed. Any counter arguments?
I don't have bones. I'm made of jelly and burger king double cheeseburgers. Your move, artist.
As usual the ai-sperg is so low functioning and schizophrenic that he can't fathom anyone who argues against his slop not being some sort of seething twitter artist. Sad, if typical.
The cherry on top here would be if you started sperging out about journalists telling people to code 12 years ago.
"Seething twitter artists" and their ilk is literally the ONLY demographic out there pissing & wailing over AI like you are, homosexual. Everyone else is either some level of fascinated with the new technology or doesn't give a shit. Assuming you're a "seething twitter artist" is not only reasonable, but actually the KINDEST assumption that can be made based on your actions. You could, alternatively be a non-Twitter artist that simps for Twitter-artists.
>I'm LITERALLY GOING TO KILL YOU for using AI Image-Generation REEEEEEEE
>Omg how dare you accuse me of "seething"
Very effeminate & disingenuous arguing tactics, friendo.
But he's not. You are.
He's still got a job and you either don't, or won't have one soon, because of AI.
Didn't think that one through, did you?
You won't fo shit, homosexuals.
You'll sit there seeting impotently and whining on the Internet. Meanwhile other people will remain employed, flourish, make things and move on into the future, while you are left behind.
I'm gonna be a turboautist and point out that they've got a fiberoptic jack o lantern purchased from Costco in like 2019 in their movie that's supposedly set in 1977. Low effort.
modern period pieces are so sloppy when it comes wardrobe and set design.
Oof.
Yep, I've got the same one.
Kek
Heh
I realized this recently. AI has the potential to create the opportunity for creative, low budget films to be made that punch way above their budget. Groups that otherwise wouldn't be able to hire such and such artistic position and therefore wouldn't otherwise be able to make the movie could. Yeah it's perhaps less than ideal but capitalism has gotten to the point where anything risky from anyone who isn't a big name is highly unlikely to ever see the light of day.
If anything it's the piracy argument again. If they wouldn't pay anyways, does it count as a lost sale/job? As someone who supports piracy, I must therefore support this. I'd be a hypocrite otherwise.
I'm an artist but I share the exact same sentiment. If AI can help someone finish a project that otherwise would never get made, I'm all for it.
I noticed you used the word "finish" as opposed to "do the entire thing"
OP here, forgot to mention that I'm trans if that matters.
>hmmm.. excuse me, didn't you know that all these AI actually need like people to repair them??? there's plenty of jobs!
The average intellect of AI supporters is really fascinating. They are all naïve and stupid like little children. They think there's like million little robots out there and each and everyone needs exactly one person to fix it and that the companies and silicon valley cartel will certainly not abuse anything including copyright laws and their goal is actually to liberate people and not making all digital markets into a monopoly with only hard physical labor left.
Just get a finance degree loser. It’s not hard
hope your own finance degree will save you from my boot on your face AI gay, oh wait, it won't
I’m shaking with fear rn. Every time I see someone with green hair and a septum piercing I’ll piss my pants cuz it might be you
are you in finances? you better learn to cut wood or clean pipes bro, you are one of the next one on the slaughter
Sorry but my israeli bosses already invited me to temple, I’m safe
#learn2code
DEATH TO ALL AI USERS
I use AI art for my ttrpg games. If I didn't have AI art available, I wouldn't be paying an artist for shit, I'd just be searching the internet for usable stuff.
no one will play your shit game, meanwhile, millions, billions are playing games like hollow knight
I don't market or sell it dumbass, it's a tabletop game. I play it with my oldest friends and that's it.
i like how so called liberal people instantly turn around and hold an incredibly conservative position the moment a technology is created that effects them
It's amazing how quick they heel-turned on AI & Automation.
Back when the expectation was that it would further eliminate Blue Collar jobs and further frick the Working Class they thought AI & Automation was the Cat's Pajamas.
i don't mind AI but video needs to catch up fast. I want to generate futa porn with hollywood actresses
Don’t care, artists and writers are the kind of homosexuals that laughed when people got put out of work by automation. Now that Skynet can take a baseball bat to their kneecaps it’s suddenly a bad thing. Eat shit don’t frickin @ me either your opinion doesn’t mean a fricking thing to me.
Your screams of agony and tears won't matter to me when I will launch a metal bar into your kneecaps when we will be trashing streets in future riot, homosexual. Cope and seethe in fear
Yup, AI/automation has been harming peoples' livelihoods for a while now. Bet homosexual artists weren't screeching when translators started getting phased out in favor of Google Translate. But now that it's threatening their jobs, it's a HUGE problem.
If they used Fiverr or something, yeah that's probably likely.
>artists
>artists
>artists
>AI and automatization in fact slowly killing society for a long time now
>It is now so accelerated with AI that everyone notices it
>therefore, the fact that society is slowly being killed by AI and automatization is now invalid
???
lmao ai morons are literally just 80 iq pajeets from Cinemaphile who is in a holy war against twitter art trannies
I guarantee you they paid an artist to do these and they just used ai anyway.
A.I art might be bad but wait until an A.I. guided drone chasing you down in 2025 and blows up your squad
hopefully it won't be using A.I. generated taunts as it dive bombs you
>a possessed kid in a late night show
>radical new
Sounds like the most generic horrorslop imaginable.
sounds like a creepypasta and apparently it ends predictably like one too
>The ‘LATE NIGHT WITH THE DEVIL’ directors confirm that AI is used in the film.
>“We experimented with AI for 3 still images which we edited further and ultimately appear as very brief interstitials in the film.”
Didn't edit 'em fricking good enough, though.
artgays going from technology lovers to ted kaczynski disciples overnight lmao
>You should be wasting a shit-ton of money to hire artists instead of using free and quality resources!!
Dumb fricking OP, an illustration like that would AT MOST run $500 usd, far less if it's from an unknown artist. Nothing about the skeleton's anatomy makes sense, it's low-quality and could only fool blind morons like yourself
Who the frick said anything about being fooled by it?
If you think it's acceptable or looks "good," then you've been fooled
>nerds create tindr
i sleep
>nerds create mass surveillance of all citizens
i sleep
>nerds create a program that creates a tap dancing cat on the moon
real shit
I just wish people would realize that your AI art still needs a little effort. Like that right hand on the skeleton. All they had to do was erase it and then tell the AI to infill it again. It would get the hand right after a few tries.
>automate factory work
learn to code
>automate mining
learn to code
>automate graphic design
WTF this is demonic stop it
Buying 5 tickets
Hey, you are going to jail imbecile artist 🙂 your post is not so anonymous on this site
>radical film maker using ai slop
for that reason, im out
AI will just be used to cut corners
why are leftshits scared of AI?
It's not actually a left/right-wing issue but people certainly want you to think it is so that edgy teens will simp for AI
>simp for Ai
yeah you're a leftshit
I'm a leftist and I build AIs for a living. I think we should ensure a just transition for anyone whose job is made redundant by technological changes and I have held this position since I saw all the dying coal towns in my home state of West by God Virginia. The Democrats and the Republicans are both failing us, and so it falls to techbros to do the job.
>it falls to techbros
it's over
Wow that looks like shit
hiring a graphic designer to make a few title cards is the cheapest part of movie, even a low budget one
Isn't this the type of art AI is best for? If you're going to stare at something for less than a second, then having AI generate something quickly as better than paying someone to make something.
People may be hesitant to replace artists with AI for core art, but for shit that's in the background that isn't going to be the focus, AI should definitely take over.
No, because the title card looks like ass and makes a low budget film look even cheaper.
>Isn't this the type of art AI is best for?
Yes, but it's ridiculous that they didn't go over it and fix all the obvious mistakes that are immediately recognizable.
There is no job that won't eventually be replaceable with AI, stop being a corporate bootlicker
I am not inherently opposed to AI art. In fact, I support AI art whenever it disadvantages israelites, women, Black folk and trannies. And let's be real, AI art will NOT cause the extinction of human-created art because there will ALWAYS be a demand (and therefore a market) for human-created art.
You guys are really overreacting to people creating things in established genres and calling that "soft plagiarism". Of course humans are constantly developing movies, there are standards set say about what people want from a movie. Like, a mystery movie, should be obfuscating the true murderer and the longer it does this the quality of the movie is considered better. This is not the same as AI, humans are inspired by previous works and attempts to outdo the other works. All the characters are new if they are good characters they don't feel like previous ones.
AI just seems like you type into it "I want a mysterious character" it pretty much always makes a white British guy in a shadowy hat or some shit. It already has these parameters it can't break out of. Humans can do whatever they want.
>AI just seems like you type into it "I want a mysterious character" it pretty much always makes a white British guy in a shadowy hat or some shit
How do you know he's British?
Watching histrionic homosexuals that unironically list pronouns in their social-media info have absolute unhinged meltdowns over the supposed "evils" of AI Image-Generation while they are completely powerless to stop it has become one of my new favorite pasttimes of this decade.
Maybe I would be a good consumer and accept this light use of ai if the picture didn't obviously look like aislop and hurt the slavish 70s look they were going for.
Would you fap to human woman, or AI woman? The only Q that matters. So many NPCs don't care what happens to them by the decisions from "above", AI is just another nail in their coffin.
Ever since I accumulated my Designer folder, I don't bother fapping to real women since the ones I genned are superior.
>free and quality resources
>quality
Pretty sure it's over for The Artist
You're a fricking brainless homosexual if you honestly don't have a problem with AI bullshit. Frick yourself for defending this shit.
AI if it actually got integrated into workflows would make sense and maybe not even be that much worse than CGI shit. But that's not what the technology is and how people are using it.
People already have finely-tuned bullshit radars for sussing out awkward-looking AI shit and they generally just don't want to look at it.
>no actual argument
>just uppity emotionalism
why is there still no decent AI porn outlet?
I've resumed working on my animation now that AI voices are pretty cool. Might replace them with paid VAs later. Might not.
This blows this was my most anticipated film of the year...
Now I don't even want to watch it. I don't want to support AI.
Ban Tik Tok
Ban AI
Save the west. Save culture.
I think the irony of this entire situation is, they probably hired an artist for it anyway, and that artist just used AI to make it.
People who think this isn't happening are delusional. If you're an artist on some film and you have 100 shots or assets to work on, there will come a point where you can just use AI for some random frick background asset. This person just happened to be a complete fricking moron because that picture isn't even good. It looks horrendous.
What's more expensive? The cost to hire artists or the loss in sales from people being upset about AI being used?
I don't even think the loss in sales will come from people being mad at AI in an abstract sense; people just intuitively know shit's cutting corners and won't want to waste their time.
See AIgays itt acting like anyone pointing out AI shit looks bad is some kind of personal vendetta against them kek
>people just intuitively know shit's cutting corners and won't want to waste their time.
This explains how pajeet CGI keeps dominating the box office.
love the seething about AI generated art. it literally makes no fricking difference whatsoever to the end product, nobody would notice if they didn't pixel-peep. but because some autist didnt spend 50hrs doing it by hand its instantly useless trash. doesnt make sense.
I entered this thread early but I didn’t have the words to describe why I hated it, now that I had some tea and had time to dwell on it I know why I hate it. The movie enjoyer has paid for an experience, there are certain expectations that the people who created it spent time and care in their “art”. Paying someone for art and they just generate some shitty AI content is insulting.