Say yes
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (36)
sorted by:
"Protect the Artists who MADE YOU"
So fucking pretentious. I don't give a shit if AI art somehow leads to fucking Skynet. I hate these people, and wish them the worst.
They've inspired me to eagerly side with the basilisk. Hopefully he will reward me by letting me watch these people.
AI art is already superior to humans. While humans are just copy-pasting the same pic all over the internet and getting triggered, AI is making amazing works of art that blow your mind.
AI art can't make a single original thing that doesn't need serious human intervention
unoriginal though, like what these guys make? yeah
I think that's a sarcastic comment to mock the anti-AI crowd.
As someone who was in the "art community" for almost 10 years, most artists are woke leftoid cucks, no wonder they are bitching about technology instead of embracing it like Chads are doing. Even very high level professional artists are throwing a hissy fit over this. I know personally two based Chad pro artists who don't mind or even think its cool (Clint Cearley and Noah Bradley) everyone else is posting this AI copy-paste image or haven't said anything about it yet.
People who use AI art probably aren't the suspiciously wealthy autists who were commissioning 500 dollar pictures of homosexual wolf people in the first place.
Are these morons so talentless that they cannot exist simultaneously as these things? The people who are using AI generated art weren't going to commission anything from your dumbass anyway.
Learn to paint you weirdos.
Funny right? Put "AI not allowed" as a prompt and it will definitely be more interesting than this.
That was my thought.
LEARN TO CODE!
I actually agree. It's kind of both. They actually do need to learn to code as a skill to go along with their art.
The ironic thing is that the NPCs are worse at being creative thinking humans, than the openly computer AIs are.
First of all, I think you're overstating the quality of AI art. Secondly, I don't see how it can be theft, unless the art is exclusive.
I see you haven't been accompanying the AI art world for the last few months...
Not aggressively, but what I've seen has been mostly nightmarish eldritch horrors being called art.
The newer models let you sketch out the scene and it fleshes it out on top of that structure. Real artists can use it to create amazing works in seconds.
But most of what you'll see is just people using the random noise source image and getting random results.
That sounds more like what I've seen.
Imagine banning the use of cameras because it means there would be less of a demand for painters. Imagine.
Imagine banning places like IKEA from making flatpack furniture because there would be less woodworkers. Imagine.
Imagine banning the printing press because of all the scribes that would need to learn a new set of skills. Imagine.
Weird how it wasn't an issue when people losing their main source of income was limited to the cousin fucking rubes working blue collared jobs. But the moment the filthy fucking plebeians, the unwashed fucking masses, are allowed to express their creativity with a new set of tools, now it's an issue. Now that a 'community' overrun with leftiod cucks who cry about gatekeeping are on the chopping blocks, the doors need to be welded firmly closed.
"How fucking dare people being able to make art without busting their ass for years and using new methods that make it easier!" says the fuckboy using his digital tablet with it's fancy undo command that allows him to avoid making mistakes! "You really aren't a woodworker because you used a power tool and made the exact same product in less time!"
There are too many diversity hires among artists that produce low effort, crappy, copy / paste Cal or "modern'" "art". They disparage classical art as racist white colonisation.
So happy to see these people burn.
They could be using AI to supplement their art. For backgrounds, basic sketch work, whatever you ask of it.
Instead they hate it and want it gone.
It's impressive how much some resent it.
My general opinion in regards to AI art is that it's understandably being compared to tracing and crap that was mashed together via photoshop due to the fact it uses other people's assets.
Edit: I actually decided to play with this crap more and noticed it takes a lot of work to get some reasonable results, potentially to the point where you may need actual artistic skill for a baseline. At least this shit has been used to automatically colour images.
When artists do it, it's a homage or using references. But when AI uses other works to learn from, suddenly it's theft!
Never mind that's not how it works. At all.
Only people who don't know how it works would call it "tracing" or "mashing together". You can't fit millions of pictures inside 4GB of code, its physically impossible. What AI does is infinitely more interesting, it actually LEARNS how to make things look like they do.
Found an interesting video on the topic today here. Well worth a watch if you're interested in the AI art as well as the whole hubbub around it like I am.
I follow that guy, great video. Funny to see it was already bombed with dislikes.
The one brief time in all of history where more than just a handful of artists could live off that alone is ending, and they can't handle their massively privileged luck running out.
Sorry that you might have to put in more than a few hours of day of leisure work stoned off your gourd now.
One of the issues is that the models AIs use to generate their art - are trained on human art. But otherwise? This is machine learning, not a database of other pictures.
Using other people's art to learn from them is the oldest trick in the book. All artists do it. Funny how now this is "theft" because people are using AIs to do this.
Basically. Its more like a computer version of "inspiration", not exactly cloning/copying - although AI could allow said "inspiration" process other artists used to take years on to pick up in pace dramatically.