>>284040 Lots of the husbando crowd is into it for the chatbots on sites CharacterAi and Chai. I’ll say that I’m not majorly into the husbando stuff but I do like talking to characters on Chatbot sites. Generative AI worries me though, there was already the Taylor Swift deepfake stuff and it can make realistic security footage which is only giving me red flags about where it will go. Lots of people are into AI songs as well you can make on sites like Suno, Suno in particular is getting pretty hard to distinguish from real music
Definitely not me. I hate LLM generated slop. I wish websites would ban it. There's no reason not to. >"hurr durr you're just like the people who resisted [some old technology that was actually innovative]" Yeah right, horrific remashes of mostly mediocre slop thats already all over the Internet. Thats gonna lead to a cancer cure any day now! I hate tech bros.
I unironically find AI art to have more soul than most human art. There's still good human artist. but 99.99% of artists are just shitting out variations of copyrighted characters(that they don't own the copyright to), because people are addicted to consumer slop, and circumventing it with shit like Patreon. This trend predates competent AI art. People who are so afraid of getting their hands dirty and getting a real job so they scam people into buying their corporate memphis shovelware. There's artists who do it to express themselves. And those ones do have soul. But they are a slim minority of a minority of people who call themselves artists. AI art takes all that out of the equation. (Although there are people who do coms with stable diffusion and shit, but those people are a minority of a minority) People massage their prompts, curate the results, pick the winners, refine, etc. with the end goal of bringing the idea in their head to life. That's soul. The umpteenth stylistically accurate picture of Princess Luna choking on Sanic the Hedghegs dick is not
>>284077 >horrific remashes of mostly mediocre slop thats already all over the Internet
All art is inspired, there's no such thing as original art Unless the artist was born in a vacuum and never experienced a single thing outside of that vacuum, they will inherently be influenced by everything that has ever happened before them simply by the the nature of existing.
Ai image gen has been a fixation of mine since 2016. I think it just goes to show that most people have no taste cause you can make some fantastic images with ai, but most people only care about gen-ing sexy waifus and ai jesus
>>284088 How can AIslop have soul if it's trained on soulless fanart? >with the end goal of bringing the idea in their head to life. And artists don't do that?
>>284099 Fair but there’s a difference between inspiration and straight up stealing. It’s one thing if people are inspired by art but still add their own little spin on it, it’s another thing if it’s just an algorithm that flat out rips off people’s art, it’s legit art theft in lots of cases >>284103 Never seen someone who’s been into AI for so many years. Did you, in 2016, ever think that it would get this good? Additionally how were the images in 2016 compared to present day?
>>284107 >How can AIslop have soul if it's trained on soulless fanart? You can train your own models/loras on anything you'd like. You know very little about this subject and it shows >And artists don't do that? Read my post again
>>284108 I absolutely didn’t expect it to get this good this fast, I remember having my mind blown when google deep dream was doing that psychedelic dog thing and people were making anime characters in spaghetti. I thought it would take like 30 years to see the progress we made in less than 10. I didn’t really expect the artist backlash to ai art but looking back i should’ve. It makes me sad though because I’m also a hobbyist artist and I just love the combination of machine + creativity.
Oh my god all the pro AI posts here read exactly like stupid moids from twitter who lie to themselves that this shit looks good because they're angry at people who worked hard to get good at drawing.
>>284088 >I unironically find AI art to have more soul than most human art. >soul This is literally how moids from 4chan post. Get out. >There's still good human artist. If you can't pluralize artist correctly then you're probably a gross Indian moid. Fuck off and go do a gang rape or whatever else you people do.
Somehow I thought we’d be able to have a discussion in this thread without it immediately devolving into scrotefoiling and racebaiting. Why are all anti ai posters so mad when someone has a different opinion than them?
I've been an artist for many years and honestly think AI image gen is fascinating and fun. It has also inspired me to start studying the code. I wish there were more AI resources and communities that were women-centric however, since most currently are moids churning out porn loras or other dumbass moid grifters posting shitty videos regurgitating "information" they hardly understand themselves. To be honest I think most artists rejecting AI are only screwing themselves over since most are unwilling to learn how the technology works at all and are therefore just that much easier to take advantage of.
>>284195 I feel you, it’s so awesome that something like this exists and as both an artist and ai user I hate how there’s this almost political split. It doesn’t help that most women tend to be artists and emotionally driven by the whole ‘ai is killing artists!’ stance and most pro ai techbros have no artistic eye and make the lowest common denominator crap and I feel stuck in the middle.
>>284099 the main difference is one is a human and the other is a machine, and you shouldn't need an explanation as it why giving a machine that kind of power is dystopic. But keep acting like a pig in a pig sty
>>284176 I think using image gen ai is only lazy if you use it as a replacement for drawing/painting etc. not defending the people who post ai and claiming they drew it but it’s like calling someone lazy for buying a shirt. They could’ve sewn one themselves but sometimes it’s not about the artistic craft of hand making something.
>>284198 This is true and you're right, but I also really think that because we're stuck in the middle we're well positioned to fill that niche and break new ground! I've seen tools around that aren't just moid slop, they're rare but it's out there. I hope with time it might become less contentious and I would hate to see all the knowledge around this technology solely in the hands of moids.
I'm excited for the progress of AI-generated music. I want to be able to hear songs I like in different/niche genres, and listen to covers of all sorts of songs in different musician's voices. In general, I don't respect modern mainstream music enough to believe that sort of thing might be "against real art" or whatever, because it isn't, and modern music is already slop. It's fine to treat hyper-shilled products like Nicki Minaj, Ariana Grande or Lana Del Rey as Vocaloids IMO.
>>284202 I think you bring up an interesting point about the line something is or isn’t art. If art = “expressing yourself” then what about commercial artists who are paid to express someone else’s feelings/ideas? Are they not artists? If they are, then why does ai, which is a machine I’m using to express my own feelings/ideas not count as art? I think art is really only truely in the eye of the beholder and placing arbitrary rules on what is or isn’t art will just limit yourself. I’m not saying you should love ai art and I think it’s perfectly fine to just not like it but so many people just take popular reactionary argument #1 and don’t think about it any more. Maybe I’m just too much of an art theory nerd for this thread.
>>284212 A machine doesn't think about and make deliberate choices regarding every single "brushstroke" according to its own taste and preferences. A machine has no taste for what looks good and what doesn't. Even if an artist has been commissioned to draw someone else's idea, they're making deliberate choices with every single line.
This whole "AI art isn't art!1!1!" shit is so pathetic. Just enjoy generating the goofy images or don't if you don't like it. This is so retarded. The arbitrary definition of it being "art" or not won't stop people who generate AI images from doing so lmao.
>>284212 Not an expert on AI but doesnt it just copy the images it has been trained on? And kinda combine them into something "new." Even if an artist is told to draw something they do make it in their own style. Straight up copying someone elses images would be comparable to AI. But imo a lot of commercial art is so low effort and soulless I dont really care if it is replaced by AI.
>>284224 Who here is against stupid funny pictures? They're funny pics and we can all enjoy them, we can even be amazed by what computers can do, but they're not real art. Why is it wrong to say it?
>>284226 >Straight up copying someone elses images would be comparable to AI. Exactly. AI "art" is comparable to tracing someone else's art for no artistic purpose. >But imo a lot of commercial art is so low effort and soulless I dont really care if it is replaced by AI. AIfags love using shitty generic commercial art to trash on actual art made by humans as a whole. We all agree that kind of art is uninspired shit, but that's not the only kind of art there is. Pretending that it is shows a clear ignorance about art in general.
>>284229 NTA but post yours first. Oh right, you have none because you can't draw anything without an algorithm stitching together parts of a million pre-existing images for you to paint over.
I find it pretty fantastical that you can type in some keywords and a picture just comes out of the ether. (yes, it's not as simple as that, but you get what I mean.) I never thought something like that would be developed within my lifetime. The same sentiment goes for text-generation, which is honestly more fun than image-generation. Still, I can't consider any of it 'art.' My mind just views it as this other 'thing.' It's a pretty irrational position.
>>284226 It actually doesn't copy images unless you're using image-to-image generation. To offer a rough explanation of the actual technology, AI image diffusion models learn concepts by adding noise to many, many images in order to form vectors which correspond to text encoders for concepts. It learns a pattern of noise diffusion for the concept, for example a dog. Kind of similar to how over your lifetime, you've seen thousands of dogs and images of dogs and all of that knowledge compounded forms your concept of what dogs look like, although you would draw a dog mechanically while an AI image model would diffuse noise in the "dog" pattern it has learned. However, the dog you drew and the dog the model diffused from random noise aren't necessarily any one specific dog drawing in your/its "memory".
>>284228 I think all AI generated images are goofy even if they look good, they'll have some flaw that takes you out of it. But my point was that telling people "AI images aren't art! So you should stop making or looking at/enjoying them!" is really stupid because no1currs.
How bad for the environment are chat bots like c.ai?
I keep seeing all these posts on tumblr and Twitter with insane statistics about water usage etc and I’m curious whether or not it’s legitimate. I’m not a user myself and my only real opinion on the ethics of it with my limited knowledge is that people shouldn’t steal others writing to ‘train’ the bots
>>284249 If you want to gaslight yourself and say the image on the left is actually genuinely better than the right one because the right one is ai, be my guest kek
>>284249 I can’t imagine it’s worse than any other app. Like >>284252 said, any tech as of now is gonna cause environmental problems to some extent but they’re not like…mass polluting factory levels >>284253 The one on the left has more life to it tbh and feels more authentic to look at knowing that it was an actual idea that someone put any effort into. The pic on the right, knowing it was AI, immediately kills any interest in it because it was just trained off of similar pictures made by people with actual talent and just copied their homework. If the pic on the left was AI and the pic on the right was authentic it would mean AI actually got a decent sense of humor too which those mfs are not doing anytime soon lmao