>>47029 you despice the fact that art needs inspiration and hard work - artists learn their whole life to interprete their thoughts and ideas on whatever medium they use (clay, paper, marble, etc.) art is never just a single idea, it grows and changes during the process of creation itself - ai points the fact that art comes soley from the imagination of the artist ad absurdum, cuz it uses gigantic databases collected of works of other artists to distille an image (or text, etc.) to produce an output what the prompter not really has a direct influence to it - all the prompter does is react to an output and modify it untill it roughly fits his idea - but that has nothing todo with "actively and purposefully" turning an idea into something - when an artist puts the pen on paper he directly controlls the outcome - sure art never comes out like intended, but the process of creation is directly influenced by thoughts and ideas during the creatiion - ai on the other hand works like an middleman between the orderer and the executioner, while the executioner is just collecting data from different artists and meshing them together till the orderer stops ordering - it's like a collage, but not really independent art... sure, someone could say collages can be classified as art too, and i agree, but still a collage inherits the imagination and ideas of the collagist, while ai, does not contribute any "idea" to it, it just puts stuff together randomly... dont get me wrong, im not telling you to stop doing ai, im not blaming people for not having money to pay artists - what i blame people who do ai is of their lack of action to start their own creativity process - instead you trying to order art from artists or ai, pick up a pencil and start drawing! - it doesnt have to be good or bad (those are concepts which dont matter in the art realm), but it has to be YOUR art! - create!, noit let create... - that's all i wanna say here - i already said enough i think...

maybe, just let me add one more thing... just to let you understand better... try imagine artists who put their whole life into their art, learning, failing, standing up again and again, doing their best of what they can do, just for the sole purpose of creating something they like (im not talking about commission work here, soley about the artists own ideas) you do this cuz you have fun and then... there comes a software, which can produce a piece of imaginery which 8at first glance) looks WAYYYY better than everything you could ever create, your whole life wouldnt fit to learn what this software can do within seconds... it either breaks you, or it will move you todo better, in any case it still downgrades your work in the eyes of "normal" people, people who only watch and have no idea of an artists struggle... all they see is the output done in seconds, but without any of the complicated actions and reactions they have to accept with artists... sure, many artists lose commissioners, but what is more devastating is, that many of them also lose faith in themselves... ai is not really a thread to artists income, seriously... but it is a thread to artists willpower and imagination... i have met many artists who have simply quit because of ai, some other just laught at it and do what they allways did - but the truth is - none of that is of interrest of the viewer... for them all counts are the images... so art becomes "soulless" - it really is depressing...

>>47031 >you despice the fact that art needs inspiration and hard work Apparently it doesn't. It just needs modern tools. >rt is never just a single idea, it grows and changes during the process of creation itself See, right here is the problem. "Art" isn't anything but a humanist flight of fancy. The fact is that the second an artist puts down his tools and says "finished" his input ceases to matter in any practical way. From that point on, a created item's use is solely dependent upon the perception of the people who consume it. Said another way, the artist's vision--that soul, as you put it--dies upon completion, and the consumer's vision becomes the vessel's message. Because of that, it does not really matter if the artist never had a vision to begin with, as is the case with AI-generated images. The artist's vision is only a tool in the creative process. >but it is a thread to artists willpower and imagination... i have met many artists who have simply quit because of ai, some other just laught at it and do what they allways did - but the truth is - none of that is of interrest of the viewer... for them all counts are the images... so art becomes "soulless" - it really is depressing... What artist should be doing is not trying to compete with AI by trying to make better wank fuel portraits of pretty naked girls, because they can't compete, the second they make something good it becomes part of the database. Instead, they should be doing what the AI absolutely cannot do right now--depict complex motion, establish a coherent narrative, build new and distinct settings and characters. No amount of inpainting can make AI generated images do any of that. If there is anything that makes human-made "art" better than AI-generated images, it's that stuff. Give us stories. Give us action. Give us the building blocks for the worlds that we make up in our heads. That is what folks need from you all as much as ever.

>>47029 The volume of AI is eventually going to stop making it valuable. It's like pizza is great but if you eat pizza 3 times a day everyday for 2 years it becomes not just bland but disgusting. AI risks turning all art into the equivalent of flat corporate commercial art. It's probably going to get banned or gimped before long anyway. Or Taiwan will go up in flames and it'll set computing back 20 or 30 years when all the chip plants go. VIDEOGAMES LOLICON

>>47037 Oh yeah, no doubt it will. Automation always drives down the value of what it makes. You are also right that governments will try to ban it first, because entertainment companies really do not want us making our own entertainment when we should be buying theirs.

>>47039 nonsense... "entertainment" doesnt necessairly involve payment - there is a good amount of entertainment out there which barely covers its own costs, it's not the entertainment you are mad of, it's the corporations taking profit - and i dont talk about reasonable profit, like they use to make new products or pay their employees a decent income, but the kind of profit which only makes the rich more richer, it's that kind of profit you should condamn - like marx said, the capital will be used to make rich people control the poor - it is exactly what we have now in this world - why did nobody saw this coming... oh wait, lots of people did, centuries ago... >>47029 i agree, but in the case of ai its even worse, cuz its like it already ate 3000pizzas par year and outputting a equalized version of it for others to consume... maybe comparable if pizzahut (or whatever brand monopolizes rn) has swallowed all other companies and now they're decreasing the diversity of pizzas only serving one kind for people to eat... - and people eat it, cuz its all they want... why does this strangely remind me of soylent green now? >>47036 im not really talking about "wank fuel", im talking about art... some artists just like to draw pictures - i never have seen any rennisance artist putting a lore to their portraits... still they are called masters... anyway... it#s late and i think this conversation already ignored the focus of this thread... let's post some sophies instead!

>>47037 Thanks for reminding. As awful as it will be for everyone (chip shortage), I cannot wait to see the faces of AI bros when all of a sudden they cannot "create" anymore.

>>47037 >to get banned or gimped Nah, like piracy AI is destined to survive all type of regulations, just read Raymond Kurzweil. At this point, trying to stop AI is like try to put a fence to stop the ocean.

>>47042 >"entertainment" doesnt necessairly involve payment That's the point. Stuff like Flash, pre-Google YouTube, and AI all started off free and easy to use. Then companies like Google, Adobe, Microsoft, the feds, etc. walled them off. Why? So people have to pay for shit instead of simply making it. Markets are built on scarcity, and when something becomes abundant by means of technological advancement that abundance must be reigned in so that the market may survive. We could trade our videos freely, so Google turned YouTube into ad-riddled reality TV shit. We could make our own cartoons, so Flash had to be shut down. We could make our own porn, so AI had to be policed within an inch of its digital life by the feds with a bullshit "think of the children" justification. Entertainment does not need to be paid for, but entertainment companies do not want to give up charging us for it. >like marx said, capital will make rich people control the poor FTFY >i agree, but in the case of ai its even worse, cuz its like it already ate 3000pizzas par year and outputting a equalized version of it for others to consume... maybe comparable if pizzahut (or whatever brand monopolizes rn) has swallowed all other companies and now they're decreasing the diversity of pizzas only serving one kind for people to eat... - and people eat it, cuz its all they want... That is not what is happening with AI. AI is filling a niche--a great big goddamned niche but a niche all the same. Namely, AI is (or was before the feds started going after it) taking over the sexy pin-up niche in porn. Scroll up, and you will see that the AI images are all just Penny in common poses or performing commonly depicted sex acts. AI can make that sort of thing better than humans can. It can't do a lot of other things. >i never have seen any rennisance artist putting a lore to their portraits Brother, you need to get you to a museum. Beyond that, why are you so insistent upon drawing portraits? And if I am hearing you right, they're portraits that apparently have no lore or story to them. Where's the soul in that? >let's post some sophies instead! Okay. >>47043 Won't that get all the digital artists too? And aren't they nearly every artist out there anymore? Only the guys with actual pencils and paint brushes who hang their pictures on walls would survive that.

>>47051 Fucking site ate my attachment.

>>47051 >Won't that get all the digital artists too? And aren't they nearly every artist out there anymore? Only the guys with actual pencils and paint brushes who hang their pictures on walls would survive that. Sort of, but if won't necessarily be too bad. You can have a shortage ONLY of the higher end CPUs and GPUs, and then the simpler ones could still run drawing programs. If there is a shortage of ALL chips, then in a few years we could fix the production of the (again) simpler lower end ones, and (again) they would run the drawing software. It takes a lot of time to rebuild the infrastructure to get the super high end chips to be made again. I may be wrong, of course.

>>47052 That Penny is fucking gorgeous. Damn, 2012 was a better time for loli art. There wasn't such a big war against it. People like Alke would create more freely, and loli stuff would get shared much more on the chans. I miss the old 8chan, I miss the old /loli/.

>>47053 >YOUR market maybe Every market, dipshit. You can't sell things to people who can already get those things for free. It's like the old joke about selling refrigerators to Eskimos. >you clearly never have seen art of masters like elfgren, vermeer, dürer, etc. you have no idea what the human mind is capable of if focused correctly... ai produces shit compared to those masters! And they are exponentially more expensive to commission, work on their own time, and may or may not make what you want them to. Artists are a pain in the ass to deal with at the best of times. >i do every month, sometimes even twice - culture is free here and you learn a lot from it... Apparently not what made those fifteenth century Italian portraits that you like so notable. >REAL artists find creativity in almost everything... "Real artistry" is nothing but a conceit. >>47058 For real. The moral panic of late and all the 14 Eyes bullshit have really fucked the scene. I wonder how long the authorities will be able to keep this shit up. It has to be getting expensive to enforce even with the banks and website owners doing most of the work for them.

>>47074 >who can already get those things for free you mean those who steal? pirating is not legal, regardless of what your moral or ethics are, in my country many people respect the law, dude, we are the ones who stop at a red light junction in the middle of the night with nobody around and clearly nobody in danger, we dont do that cuz we fear to get caught, we do it cuz its the right thing todo... same with anime fans for example - i know so many pirates, but as soon as they get a relase here, they buy the official hardcopies too... buying stuff is not just "spending money", it also is supporting those who make stuff... >And they are exponentially more expensive to commission, work on their own time, and may or may not make what you want them to. ye, cuz they're dead... >dipshit. why you insult me?, please have some dignity...

>>47075 You can see my ID and easily see I am not that anon. But I'll reply anyway. I think he called you a dipshit not just out of being a typical anonymous imageboard asshole, but because your argument against AI art is not strong enough. I agree that it is overall bad and better go away entirely, but you are not very convincing as to "why".

>>47009 I agree. What I'm saying is that if yiou can't draw, you can't draw. Either practice to become good or do something else you are sort of okay at.

>>47029 If you can't make the art you want to see, you get to suck it up and eat shit and hair. Sorry, if oyu think AI slop is good enough, you should be fine with the garbage you can make.

>>47036 What the fuck do you mean art is a humanist flight of fancy? YES obviously! Only humans make art! Of course it's humanist. You stupid or something?

>>47074 You absolutely can. that's why people can sell a 400 vase made by hand as opposed to the 3 dollar glass vase you get at Warlmart.

>>47091 perhaps I can help then. AI is garbage ass doodoo from a butt and the people who like it are the ones who eat McDonalds and think it's better than a home cooked meal. They're shit brained midwits who have the intellectual fortitude of a chihuahua and the bladder control of a toddler. People who like AI art should be embarrassed to walk on the same planet as everyone else because they're subhuman.

ok, i think that's far enough - it's one thing to hate ai, but insulting people isn't the way we should act... i don't like ai either, but i don't hate the people who do it, i actually can sort of understand them, just the way i learned about what it means to be an artist and what art really is about conflicts with the way ai is publically displayed... we should not hate each other for liking or hating ai, we should try to understand and show the people who like to sacrifice hard work and inspiration for a quick image... that said...have some penny...

>>47097 Sorry I hate AI people. They don't like art. It correlates with fascism incredibly highly too, so I really don't respect it. If you draw stick figures I respect the hell out of you more than I would someone who not only pretends to be an artist but refuses to put the effort into becoming better.

>>47099 >It correlates with fascism incredibly highly too How to make people not take you seriously 101

>>47112 I don't think he is trying to be taken seriously, just trying to start shit.

>>47439 Interesting use of A.I., more plz

>>47451 Ha Ha, very fucking funny These are from something called, the Penny Project, basically replace scenes when Brain was in disguise with Penny. I even did some myself but sadly they were rejected.