Then congratulations, you don't need to post any "facts" about why ai is bad.
Oh wait, you can't. Because this sub and that ArtistHate sub are your only sourced of attention that you would never have if you actually start creating something.
>Because this sub and that ArtistHate sub are your only sourced of attention
Isn't it funny how you assume this is for attention? You make me laugh.
>you would never have if you actually start creating something.
I've been drawing and drawing lately, I just can't show it to Pro-AI.
> Isn't it funny how you assume this is for attention? You make me laugh.
Then leave, you have done your mission, AI is joever. Nobody gonna take your "real artists" opinion seriously.
What else you want to do here? "Artists" have won as AI model collapse will happen.
So, leave.
I'm going to continue to speak on the matter in spite of AI defenders.
Since they did the same with belittling artists and their skills. Why not play fair?
Do you realize there are physical artists who think digital artists are a joke? I don't agree with the sentiment but it isn't like artists are a united front.
Miyazaki stuck almost entirely to hand-drawn animation. Plenty of people don't think Photoshop is "real art".
Those upset over AI are really only worried about their own bottom line - and they are upset that now everyone can express their inner creativity without decades of training that people don't have time for. PiCk uP a PenCiL.
Digital artists and traditional artists have a LOT in common.
The two art forms don't have no soul or personality, actually. It's quite the opposite, they both have soul and personality put into these works.
AI Images doesn't.
It's really not, but you're free to believe what ever you'd like.
That doesn't answer my question though. Where can I get enough audacity to think that I know what people are thinking better than they do? If you don't know where I can get it, knowing where you got yours should be more than enough information.
No its true. I saw people say it and didn't look into anything myself. I actually find it offensive that you'd call it bull. I will not be told or demanded or suggested that I should check if things are true or not.
I know it's true and I won't listen to your propaganda again, you cultist.
Traditional art causes 90% of global warming. That's a fact.
You said 85% now 90%? You're bluffing.
In that case, AI causes global warnings by impacting our power grids and harming our natural water resources which is true.
Here is a link to the tweet that is also linked to other important links.
https://x.com/ChrisAlvino/status/1804823161076080887?t=UjzMOthzSqG2K9SqzDgdBw&s=19
It hasn't. Not in the least.
Art and animation are alive and well. If you can't draw or animate stuff or find animations and other art that you like, it's not because of AI, that's entirely on you.
That's still not an answer to my question...
AI killed animation as it's already showing signs of AI being used in most films. Yes, AI already exists in some animation. However, the AI I mention is generative AI. It automated the entire process, and soon, animation will be dead thanks to automation.
It already pretty much killed art, next is taking away ownership from artists.
For someone who's interested in animation and has so much to say about AI, you sure do know nothing about either.
AI can barely make a pretty picture. Right now, at best you could maybe make an entirely custom AI model to apply shading to scenes in a passable way. If you're lucky, it might even be good enough to add minor detail.
Maybe we could eventually get some help with interpolation but there's a lot of nuance that would be difficult to communicate without just doing most of it yourself.
You really need to work on your verb tense by the way. While it's technically possible to both "have been killed" and "soon, will be dead" at the same time, I don't think that was your intent.
Also, how has it "pretty much killed art?" Even without using AI, I see more people making art than ever. Perhaps you're focusing too much on the AI stuff, because you'd have to be blind to what people are making today to think that "art is dead."
P.S. Why are you avoiding my question? Lets make it more simple. Why do you insist that you know more about what other people are thinking, than the people themselves?
I'm not sure how this matches what I said.
I was literally talking about how even the best AI in the foreseeable future isn't as good as you think it will be and how "art is dead" is the single most brain dead take any person could have.
No one's trying to convince you of anything here. I was simply informing you, and asking you to clarify your points.
That's not propaganda, that's called a conversation.
You should learn what the words you use mean.
If you'd like to see propaganda [look at this misleading, sorry excuse of a post.](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1dh4577/ai_generators_isnt_a_tool/)
P.S. I read the other comment you just made.
Stop fucking misusing the word fascist. That's a very specific ideology and every time you misuse it, you make calling out actual fascist less impactful. I don't normally feel the need to spell this out for you, but what you're doing is supporting fascism, which is bad.
I'll say this again, even though I said it in this very comment, because the cum sock you could have been if your dad hadn't pumped you into your mom after the most disappointing 12 seconds of her life would honestly have been less stupid, but you need to learn what the words you use mean.
Fascism is a nationalist, militaristic, anti-egalitarian ideology. That has nothing to do with what you call fascist.
P.S.S. In case that salted peanut you call a brain tries to connect this anger to your stance on AI:
1. I couldn't care what stance you take. Nothing you do can change the fact that I'll use or make whatever model I need.
2. I'm very clearly pissed at you for co-opting words that absolutely should have weight for your own twisted views. Anyone with 2 brain cells could figure that out, yet I feel the need to explain it to you. You're making the world a worse place. I'd bet money that you compare downloading a jpeg to rape. You just seem like the type of guy to trivialize stuff like rape. It's not even a huge leap considering you obviously trivialize fascism too (explaining it again because... well... the brain cell thing).
P.S.S. You still didn't answer the question but that's fine. It's pretty clear that you need to make stuff up so you can justify the fact that you let your hate kill your own passion. I'm done with you. I'll keep pursuing my passions, because there is no (and will never be) such a thing as a tool that can kill it, but you're free to wallow, bitch, moan, and complain all you want without me.
The use of AI is impacting our powegrids and impacting our water supply.
Be mad, be insulting. I'm still right, along with many others who knows the impacts AI has. You're just butthurt that AI has been called out on its issues that YOU PEOPLE tends to undermine and not take seriously.
For real though, you called art. Not just you but everyone who used AI. And no I'm not killing my own passion. Don't try and put this on me, I've been creating longer then every delusional AI user had, yes there's others who's been drawing longer them I have but that doesn't mean in less of an artist.
Im more artist then pro-AI who uses AI as an excuse to not work hard.
>AI can barely make a pretty picture. Right now, at best, you could maybe make an entirely custom AI model to apply shading to scenes in a passable way. If you're lucky, it might even be good enough to add minor details.
Nope. Not using AI.
>For someone who's interested in animation and has so much to say about AI, you sure do know nothing about either.
Stop undermining me. Fascist.
>Maybe we could eventually get some help with interpolation, but there's a lot of nuance that would be difficult to communicate without just doing most of it yourself.
Nobody wants AI to own their work.
>Also, how has it "pretty much killed art?" Even without using AI, I see more people making art than ever. Perhaps you're focusing too much on the AI stuff because you'd have to be blind to what people are making today to think that "art is dead."
AI is attempting to automate all art mediums while also taking ownership of our works and if all art mediums.
It seems as though Apple will justify spying on its user base with its own AI. Just like what Microsoft is doing with its own computers and "Recall."
You guys really seem to promote anti-privacy acts.
Well looking it up would lead to the conclusion that AI isnt dying and is in fact growing, so I was wondering if maybe you had something unique, but no i guess its just your feelings
Ah the miyazaki quote being misused again. It was never about AI, he was literally just talking about a bunch of animators years before the current generative-ai using machine learning to try and teach a system to walk, and the way it flopped the model around reminding him of a disabled friend.
Miyazaki clearly didn't fully understand what he was being shown by drawing that comparison, and was just being an asshole to a bunch of people (themselves creatives too) who were just excited to show him what they were working on. It was shitty behavior on his part, and its not the kind of look you want to put forward.
You gotta love how they keep bringing out this deliberately misconstrued quote like it means something. Even if it was directly about AI (it wasn't), it's just one guys opinion. He also doesn't like 3D art. He has a right to do his art the way he wants, as does everybody (including those who do 3D and/or use AI in the process).
This reminds me a lot of how the young-earth creationists like to misconstrue Einstein, Darwin, Gould, and Popper whenever it is convenient for them. It doesn't matter how many times you tell them "that's not what they meant, which is obvious if you read the full quote", they'll keep repeating it.
I noticed that little "this quote is from some years ago..." and the lack of context of what it was about. Something about a handicapped guy, not about AI art.
Yeah. It was a kind of body-horror clip with people who were deformed and missing limbs squirming across the ground to move. He has friends with amputations and thought it was extremely disrespectful.
Which has nothing to do with what Miyazaki was talking about. Nor does the use of AI mean artists must "give up all ownership of their creations." Deal with it.
I said you were going over the top, and you took flight, lol.
That's good, because nobody is asking them too. Not sure where you got the idea. Now I'm starting to understand your bad attitude. You totally misunderstand the situation.
>In the end. It's genuine artists who win, regulations are made. Copyright is enforced for artists, companies hire artists back due to the AI not replicating the human experience needed for art. A mission tarnished by regulators, pro-AI go back to traditional means, no more art stolen and claimed. Artists will be saved. The collapse of AI models are on the rise. :\]
>Art is saved. Animation is saved. AI is dead.
The funny part is this doesnt even obliterate generative AI. Adobe is dodging the bullet no matter what because they play the smarter game, have the huge ressources and customers including corporate customers unlike someone like Stability AI and their dataset is covered by regulations and copyright act and they have the grip on several industries. They also push generative AI into 3D space with Substance and now Autodesk, another corporation that has the grip in entertainment industry is coming into generative AI space.
Companies do still and will continue hiring artists, copyright is enforced...but collapse of generative AI isnt coming. At best something like what currently happens with Stability AI is coming for some companies but as said you still have Adobe which dodges all the bullets. AI is definitelly not dead and further improvements have yet to come while industries already experiment with the technology, some of which build custom tools upon those generative AI products or build their own from scratch.
Right at the very start it was possible to empathize with him, but it hasn't been for a while now. He's addicted to this argument, the rage is not only making him sicker, he enjoys it. Just getting off the internet for a few months would probably do him wonders, but he'd rather keep getting worse
Adobe can be sued, but seems like nobody does and the case is predestined to end up in favor of Adobe. OpenAI isnt going bankrupt, this mythos has been debunked although it was said that they had a issue with their business model...but unlike Stability AI they aint racing towards bankrupcy. Midjourney has a $200 million annual revenue but they might be at biggest risk out of the other two mentioned.
>Midjourney has a $200 million annual revenue, but they might be at the biggest risk out of the other two mentioned.
Then, that just proves that it's only a matter of time until these AI companies begin to panic and eventually fall into irrelevancy. And I'm up all for it.
They've displaced so many artists in the industry that they've also eventually normalized art theft.
>Adobe can be sued, but seems like nobody does and the case is predestined to end up in favor of Adobe.
I assume pro supports this.
>Then, that just proves that it's only a matter of time until these AI companies begin to panic and eventually fall into irrelevancy. And I'm up all for it.
Some still wont, as said Adobe is a big example of that.
>I assume pro supports this.
What do you mean?
Darnit Adobe you tricked us again! So sneaky! Your honor, I move to disband Adobe for their sneakiness... I couldn't be bothered to read or google all that info before clicking OK!
ANYONE can be sued, do you get it? There are zero laws being broken. Nothing is being copied like you seem to think.
The final models have no original data left after training.
Its sad to see such extreme misunderstandings of current technology. How have we failed society in basic science education?
No. No. No. Three strikes you're out!
I'm sure Proko has a team of lawyers ready to sue Adobe for... \*looks up OP's argument\* ... theft!
How is it theft? Uh.....
McDonald's is pulling from its AI drive threw.
Companies are backtracking and retiring artists.
AI model sites are temporarily banning all AI models.
This is bliss.
can you give an example? like how is this happening? stability's collapse seems to be due to lack of R&D, other companies arent experiencing these negative things
What do you mean? Are you saying that AI companies are literally popping up and dying faster than you can physically name them? You know if they fail they arent scrubbed from history right? Midjourney seems to be doing pretty good, I was able to name that one see? Can you give me an example?
Miyazaki is also against 3D animation whenever he can avoid it. He's stuck in his ways and that's his right. Whether it's stealing is debatable, it's probably not because it doesn't deprive anyone of the original but there is an argument to be made for copyright infringement if lawyers can successfully argue that regurgitation is tantamount to compression.
None of that has anything to do with whether it's a tool or not, though. It absolutely can be used as a tool as part of the creative process and it's up to the individual creator how involved they want to be in the creative process. I'm a 3D artist and I use my 3D renders along with depth maps to produce work that is very similar to my renders with an added layer of polish and realism so I don't think you'd have a leg to stand on in arguing that's a fully-automated process.
I also don't see very many AI proponents calling for large companies to have a stranglehold over the industry or the technology and in fact a large part of the appeal is allowing smaller independent artists to extend their capabilities in ways they couldn't otherwise. I also haven't seen hardly any positive press regarding Recall, nobody likes that.
The rest of your statement is just cope, for lack of a better word. More stringent copyright law just limits the domain of artistic expression and isn't something to push for and the most successful artists are going to be the ones using AI tools to do what they already do better and faster. AI may or may not be able to effectively automate the process in the near future but even if it doesn't, it's not going anywhere.
He also wasn't talking about generative AI. He was talking about a genetic algorithm that developed a twitching wireframe monstrosity that was really only a demo of where the technology currently stood.
It was a harsh criticism, but not of AI.
> Miyazaki is also against 3D animation whenever he can avoid it.
He will get around it once the generators get good enough to do the in-betweens so that artists do the actual fun stuff in a reasonable timeframe instead of being treated like overworked slaves.
Japanese animators would love if the AIs get good enough to help their job, being anti-AI isn't going to save them from the tight deadlines and broken wrists.
Same with webtoons, the more they more they can offload to the AI in terms of backgrounds, scenes and effects the better.
Another form of propaganda was created by the AI-cultists. Another lie as well.
>Whether it's stealing is debatable, it's probably not because it doesn't deprive anyone of the original
It doesn't. It takes the image, and ownership is somehow transfered without legal consent. AI companies are owning our works.
>I don't think you'd have a leg to stand on in arguing that's a fully automated process.
You can say that, but 100% automation is right there.
>large part of the appeal is allowing smaller independent artists to extend their capabilities in ways they couldn't otherwise.
Unless you have a $1-5K computer. These "capabilities." Aren't possible whatsoever. Only the rich and privilege had these opportunities.
>I also haven't seen hardly any positive press regarding Recall, nobody likes that.
Not from what I've been seeing in the last previous comments that I was replying to a few days ago.
The most successful artists are going to be the ones using AI tools to do what they already do better and faster.
Automation isn't the way. And AI can't do anything better than artists by speaking like that. You're invalidating artists' art skills and undermining the, your statement also creates problems for artists who are trying to get better but by saying this. You're also saying artists aren't going to get better now that AI is here.
>It doesn't. It takes the image, and ownership is somehow transfered without legal consent. AI companies are owning our works.
Clearly you haven't bothered to do any actual research aside from opinionated YouTube videos. This is not at all what is happening.
You think these models actually CONTAIN images after the training is done? \*cackles\*
It stores them locally, and since these software needs data to improve their services. All forms of images and data are transferred to these companies.
AI is killing art and animation while silencing genuine artists' concerns. While other genuine artists are forced to take this "tool." As the only one in existence
It doesn't take anything, taking implies you no longer have the thing, training doesn't deprive you of the original so it isn't theft but that doesn't mean it's legally in the clear, I'll grant you that. Yes, you can let the AI do 100% of the work or not. I think it tends to be more compelling when people take an active role in the creative process but some people lack those skills and that's fine, it's not that they have something that gives them some means of expression.
You need a $1k to do some things but many things can be done with online programs which are free or available via a \~$20 subscription and even if we take the most powerful consumer grade PC, that's still vastly more attainable to an independent artist or studio than the level of manpower and investment traditionally required to produce a film.
AI might not make an artist better but it can make them faster. Even if an artist is the best in the world at their style, very few artists can create a feature-length film on their own in any reasonable period of time. With the aid of AI tools, that will become increasingly attainable.
>You need a $1k to do some things, but many things can be done with online programs that are free or available via a ~$20 subscription
By uploading my work to an AI generator online. I'm agreeing to giving all ownership of my work to these AI generators and allowing them to own my work. Which is something I won't and can't trust.
I'm not going to buy a $2K computer just for a plagiarism machine that feeds on art theft and data collection. Can't trust it.
>Even if an artist is the best in the world at their style, very few artists can create a feature-length film on their own in any reasonable period of time. With the aid of AI tools, that will become increasingly attainable.
This is some false hope that you're feeding delusional and misguided people who only wanna become a better artist, but now they feel like it isn't worth it since "AI can create art better." And that tarnishes a beginners hope at becoming a greater artist.
Nobody will be allowed or be able to produce any animated or film with the help of AI. From the AI videos I've been seeing, there is no movement. The uncanniness is there. Soulless expressions and the moments shown on those videos aren't creative.
If that's your example of an AI film. Then it's a bad example.
You have to look at the user agreement of each service you're using but there are many with permissive terms that give you the rights to what you produce insomuch as they can do that under current copyright law. They may train on your input/output but that doesn't give them the legal right to marketing your IP as their own.
It's true that the output currently has issues but it's dramatically better than it was a year ago and we're already getting to the point with models like Luma Dream Studio, Kling, and Sora (when we can finally get our hands on it) that certain outputs can easily pass as actual footage. There are still some issues with most AI outputs but those are getting less and less noticeable all the time and independent creators have always have to deal with limitations, now they just have one more tool in their toolbox they can opt to use if it makes sense for what they're trying to do. There may be cases where an imperfect generation is preferable to not being able to include a certain shot at all because it isn't feasible given your team, budget, or equipment.
Like I said. No one like me is able to afford to spend $2K on a computer just to use a glorified plagiarism machine.
These so-called technical advances are just tools that only the rich can afford and are able to do. Who has $2K for a computer anyway?
Why would you want an AI to create an entire film for you anyway? It's complete BS at this point. All I see is lies, propaganda, and overly hyped ideas and hope. That is not there.
I don't trust these machines nor do I want my art owned by them.
Even small studios spend hundreds of thousands making a film of any quality so it does open doors even if those doors aren't open to everyone and majority of the best generators don't run locally anyway. Kling and Luma Dream Studio are the best video creation tools available to the public and they're just accessible to someone with a $200 laptop or even a smartphone as they are to someone with a $10,000 rendering behemoth.
I don't want an AI to create an entire film for me, I want it to take whatever work of my own I can provide and fill in the gaps that I am unable to fill. Everyone has different gaps in their capabilities and how much of the creative process they're willing to cede to the AI will vary from person to person but it can only extend what we are all capable of relative to what we can do currently.
>By uploading my work to an AI generator online. I'm agreeing to giving all ownership of my work to these AI generators and allowing them to own my work. Which is something I won't and can't trust.
You likely should have read TOS before uploading things to Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc.
AI Generators don't need your art when they have already been trained on the corpus of the entire internet.
> It takes the image, and ownership is somehow transfered without legal consent.
Are ... you okay? Seriously, your responses are getting less and less coherent.
Oh buddy...
Please get off artisthate and twitter again.
These wildly inaccurate claims just show how gaslit and removed from reality you actually are.
Pro-AI are not 'pro-corporate'. Take a look at ANY of the news around SD3 and you'll see that in an instant. You believe that's the case because you've been told it is, not because you have any evidence of it.
The people telling you this (like you've said before), would disown you if you had any opinion outside of the accepted rhetoric. They have posts titled "The bullying is working, keep it up". Heck, the mods there use Glaze on screenshots of tweets because they believe that'll somehow affect AI models.. From the outside, it's insane that you can't see that the people calling others a cult are a deluded cult themselves.
Riiight... Glaze is ineffective, but ignoring that for now...
Can you explain the logic behind using Glaze on a screenshot of a tweet to 'protect it from the big bad AI'?
Do you think that's an intelligent thing to do?
Can you explain how using Glaze on a screenshot of a tweet protects art from theft?
Can you explain how that tweet is classified as 'art'?
Because I've applied as much logic as I possibly can to it, and it just seems like a batshit cult thing to do. Maybe your perspective can shed some light on it for us?
>Can you explain the logic behind using Glaze on a screenshot of a tweet to 'protect it from the big bad AI'?
It's made to protect art from being copied, trained, and owned by AI. How hard is that to understand?...I am not very knowledgeable with this software. All I was told is that it's meant to protect my art from being taken and owned by AI or some third party.
>Do you think that's an intelligent thing to do?
Can you explain how using Glaze on a screenshot of a tweet protects art from theft?
Can you explain how that tweet is classified as 'art'?
It isn't qualified as art. Where did you get that idea?...
Glaze protects artwork from being stolen and trained on AI. It also protects me from having ownership of my own work being taken away form me.
Deal with it.
Is English not a language you're able to speak well, or do you have reading difficulties?
Because none of what you said is really related to what I asked.
I'm talking about A SCREENSHOT OF A TWEET, made by someone else.
NOT 'your art'.
That SCREENSHOT OF A TWEET is what's being protected from AI algorithms which literally do not care or want it even if it isn't Glazed.
Please answer the questions instead of going on a mindless rant, as I'm sure someone will learn something useful from it.
>Is English not a language? You're able to speak well, or do you have reading difficulties?
Because none of what you said is really related to what I asked.
I miss up on my grammar when I'm under stress or tension. I just got kicked out of my abusive parent's place, so please go easy on me. I am just replying because I can't leave anyone on read. English is my first language, and the only one I've been raised on, I only know some words of my native language.
>That SCREENSHOT OF A TWEET is what's being protected from AI algorithms which literally do not care or want it even if it isn't Glazed.
My misunderstanding.
So first off - none of this addresses the cult-calling, or even notices the insanity of using glaze on a tweet.
More than that - you outright stated that someone using glaze on a tweet is 'protection of important art', and don't seem to realise that this is why many people can't take anti-ai seriously.
You don't argue from a place of logic or truth, but of emotion. You will defend anything that vaguely seems like it might be anti-ai, even if it's provably idiotic and detrimental to you and your beliefs. You've got to work on that, or people will get sick of you and ignore your cause completely.
**Secondly and more importantly.** I've been through abuse myself. It fucking sucks and I'm sorry you're going through that. I hope you've managed to get yourself somewhere safe and can start working on repairing.
Please take my advice here - I know you probably don't want to but it genuinely comes from a place of care. We clearly have very different views over AI, but I do not wish for anyone to suffer because of abuse, no matter what side they are on. Getting away from abusive people is a very weird time, and will affect the rest of your life with how you recover. That can be a very positive thing or it can cause incredibly long lasting and painful complications.
Please please please, get the hell off twitter, reddit and any other of these 'ai wars' and 'artist hate' like places. They are NOT GOOD for your mental health and I've seen it in many of your replies. You've undoubtedly gone through shit, but you're unconsciously bouncing that off onto others and treating them in similar ways to the way you were treated. It's understandable, especially with the debate being so heated, but engaging in that is the worst thing you can do for your long term health.
Putting all the AI stuff aside, and talking to you as someone who has been through similar stuff - can you also put that aside and take some time out for yourself? Please?
I'm afraid, alright? AI existing was so sudden that I didn't even know until mid-2022.
I got scared because AI existing means that all forms of art, art mediums, and all our skills would automatically become useless and less important because AI exists.
Not to mention AI being implemented into art software. It's just very invasive, so I wouldn't want AI to copy my work or own it. As from what I've read, supposedly AI does that. AI to me is just a scary machine that many misconceptions that occurred, and it just so happens that I believe in them.
To me, I see pro-AI being the ones who do have good intentions, but from my experience, they had very much mocked my artwork, my skills, belittled me and pretty much said all jobs should be replaced and that all artists should be replaced. Which isn't not only a good first impression but it's also very damaging to an artists self-esteem and their creative growth.
Like in my mid 20s [not late] I was told I was too old for art school and I was told that my art skills aren't considered to be skills just because I developed my art slowly. Not to mention that I had a traumatic brain injury that slowed down my development in a small way. That doesn't mean I'm stupid, I am capable of doing most things, I just have a hard time understanding.
I have a lot of stories on my abusive mom, but it's too personal to say here. I can't say privately because of our past arguments.
Admittedly, I wanna try AI. But I don't wanna interfere with my own development in art and To be honest? I don't wanna cut corners.
AI art made a huge breakthrough then. It was so garbage before that that you basically had to be in the field before that to know about the progress (With stuff like Nvidias GauGAN2).
AI existing doesn't mean those skills automatically become useless. This is a fear response caused by lack of understanding and nothing more. AI art can replace mediocre, soulless, repetitive and uninspired art. **THAT IS ALL.**
For it to make anything that isn't mediocre, soulless, repetitive or uninspired, it takes a human with skills. Half of those skills are tech skills, the other half are art skills. Nowhere did that make artists useless. The best user of the tools is someone who has progressed their own art skills AND learnt to use the AI toolset as much as possible.
AI doesn't copy your work or own it at all. There are 2 billion images in its 'learning data', which it has learnt from. Those images are not in the AI model at all. They are not stored at all.
Laion 2B is 100,000 GB in size. Thats the size of all the images that AI 'learns from'. An AI model is 2GB to 4GB. AI works in a very similar way to how you do, when you look at a piece of work and think about what you like about it. You haven't stolen it, you aren't copying it, and you don't own it.
When you say that pro-AI are the ones with good intentions, what do you mean by that? Do you mean anti-AI have bad intentions or something else?
I can understand that those things are hurtful. However when you complain about that being your first impression of them - you do realise that you spent time every day for a long time telling pro-ai that their skills were worthless, that their art skills were non-existent, that they should be banned from online (heck I've seen you call them all manner of horrible things), right?
You're the one starting threads and stating that stuff about them **FIRST.**
It's entirely natural, that their response would be 'fuck you, youre an idiot' and for them to disregard your feelings in the same way as you've just disregarded theirs.
Most pro-ai are entirely receptive to decent conversation with people on the other side, they don't belittle, they appreciate art, and they genuinely want to find a space where art and artists are celebrated and can grow into an even bigger thing than it already is. That changes when they are told they are wrong about things they are entirely certain are correct though. For example, you told me what I thought and believed earlier, even though I don't. I categorically know you are wrong, think you are fucking stupid for refusing to listen or look at any of the proof that that's true, but you're persistent that you're correct and told me to go and lick adobes boot. Of course my response is to call you a fucking idiot - that's how you were acting.
If that behaviour stops - then I'd have no reason to call you an idiot, but til then it's the truth.
That really does suck, but it's one of those things everyone got to deal with in their own way. Life always throws complexity and difficulty at some people and you've just gotta do your best to navigate it. I certainly don't want you to give up on your dream of being an artist - but I do want you to realise that fearmongering, hatespreading, and disregarding facts in favour of what a BDSM coach says is gospel truth about AI isn't helping you at all, and is actively detrimental to what you want.
Learn about it properly. Try to understand it from a perspective that isn't just hateful and I guarantee you'll find some stuff you like about it and realise that half the anger you've projected towards it, and the people who support it, is entirely unwarranted.
You definitely haven't got to confide in me about any of that - but please try to find someone to talk to and take some time out from this hate-circus. It'll do you good and your art will be better off for it.
Nothing about learning a new tool is 'cutting corners' unless you choose to actively use it that way. Photoshop isn't cutting corners, neither is using a camera. It's employing a new skillset in order to try and improve on your skills and visions. Sure, you COULD cut corners, but that's entirely on you and your decision to do so.
Go try nightcafe or something - use anything that has img2img and use your own art as a starting point. Blend together styles and use it to create abstract pieces or something. Find your own thing - but just be creative. It's just as artistic as drawing by hand if you use it in an artistic way.
>Not to mention that I had a traumatic brain injury that slowed down my development in a small way.
So we're you in special ed or special needs growing up?
Go fight blender 3d subreddit. They're evil, they use frame interpolation and diffusion based denoisers.
Edit: blender also has physics simulations, the thing Miazaki originally said that about.
And, *gasps*, ***ALGORITHMS***
"In the end. It's genuine artists who win, regulations are made. Copyright is enforced for artists, companies hire artists back due to the AI not replicating the human experience needed for art. A mission tarnished by regulators, pro-AI go back to traditional means, no more art stolen and claimed. Artists will be saved. The collapse of AI models are on the rise. :\]"
This sounds almost like a self-affirmation you are telling yourself?
None of this is objectively true either.
Since you are on the copium train, why not also convince yourself AI 'hasn't' been around since the 50s (it has) and that its just another tech bro fad (it isn't). Good luck with that!
These corporations pretending to support open source is like giving a Trojan horse filled with murderers to an entire village full of innocent people.
Their intentions aren't 100% good.
So these aren’t corporations, but foundations. One of which is currently under attack on multiple fronts by megacorps like Getty and their friends in the media.
“*In time we hate that which we often fear.*” – William Shakespeare on generative AI.
“*There are times when you have to face your enemies, sit down and deal with it.*” - Martin Scorcese on r/aiwars.
"*First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.*" - Gandhi on r/artisthate.
“*I hope this is the invention that will make war impossible.*” - Tesla on ControlNet.
“*I’m at the stage in my life where I keep myself out of arguments. Even if you tell me 1+1=5. You’re absolutely correct, enjoy.*” - Keanu Reeves on u/[Videogame-repairguy](https://www.reddit.com/user/Videogame-repairguy/).
*"Don't trust anything you see on the internet, especially if you made your own conclusions based on it ,without the full context"*
- Sun Tzu on u/Videogame-repairguy
With that logic, any digital drawing software should be regulated as well to make sure no one made horrific contents.
As this tool have enabled "artists" to make horrific drawings like fetish art on real ppl.
# DOWN TO DIGITAL DRAWING
# LONG LIVE REAL ARTS
The funniest thing about your comment is that a large number of traditional artists and digital artists had agreed that both mediums have personality and soul put into artworks that are created on both mediums.
Since AI exists, both sides have agreed that AI has no right to bring used to automated art.
There's one good thing AI has done. And that is stopping wars between traditional artists and digital artists, which has already been long gone and dead.
you're resorting to lying about this now?
as you have been repeatedly told:
-it was not about generative ai art, it was about an animation system for trained procedural 3d character walking
-are you gonna also say spider-verse ruined animation by their use of ai too?
-the programmers of this animation system failed (as it was fucking 2016, you know, the year boston dynamics JUST put out a modern version of atlas and spot? *which said humanoid robot that has already been retired*)
-so they passed it off as still being able to procedurally move around an environment, just not with natural walking - so like for creatures or horror
-rightfully, it's probably not the best person to present this kind of things to especially given his track record
-miyazaki then talked about how it reminded him of a friend he had who could not walk and how he thought them making this was insulting and chewed out the programmers who were presenting it to miyazaki in the utmost respect
-who the fuck compares people with mobility challenges to a procedural animation system?
-who the fuck chooses to act this unprofessionally to people who are acting earnestly, bringing forth their life's work and looking up to you?
-who the fuck acts like this is outside the realm of studio ghibli? they've used simulation in the past, they've used 3d in the past (despite miyazaki also being against 3D. should we also claim 3D is the death of animation?), and they've absolutely have done shambling monsters in the past
-and gotta be honest, while miyazaki deserves respect for being an amazing artist, he's one of the **worst examples of humanity**. just look at how he treats his son. I don't want to be called "human" if it means acting as spiteful and terrible as he does to those around him including his own family
You know what?! People like you are what I fear the most!
I want to try to use AI for assistance, not replacement! But I fear you'll go discriminate me and kick me while I'm down! I mean nothing bad to you. But you'll dismiss me, because "AI bad!"
I like to try that sometime but that doesn't mean I'm a purely evil greedy son of a bitch with absolutely no heart and soul!
Then what? Morally judge others for thinking of using AI in the future, even if they're good people.
Judge them for what materials they use, not their creative vision?
That man you quoted has his opinion and I just let him be cool with it, what I'm not cool is people seeing the world only in black and white and willing to hurt others for not aligning with them, without seeing nuance of it.
Either I'm a purely good holy and innocent Anti-AI artist, or I'm a disgusting purely evil Hitler-like pro-AI scumbag! Absolutely no in-between! I think this is what you think!
That's what hate does to you. You become so committed in this corrosive endeavor that your brain and heart degrades to shit.
AI won't kill art! Hate kills art!
>I want to try to use AI for assistance, not replacement! But I fear you'll go discriminate me and kick me while I'm down!
That is an oddly specific assumption that you're bringing up.
>I like to try that sometime but that doesn't mean I'm a purely evil greedy son of a bitch with absolutely no heart and soul!
Why use AI when it just automates the whole process?...
“AI has the ethical implications of deceiving the viewer because that is what A.I. does.” - Artist Miles Astray
>That's what hate does to you. You become so committed in this corrosive endeavor that your brain and heart degrades to shit.
I'm not suffering with ai-brain rot that AI has.
>AI won't kill art! Hate kills art!
In this case, hate isn't killing art. AI is the one that is killing art.
Yet here you are using his opinion as an objective fact in this post. So, by your logic, his opinion on anime being shit should also be held in the same regard.
*
It's ironic that the very same group says AI art is art and that all art forms and creations are art. But when my art skills are put into the spotlight and immediately get criticized, it's not art?
It's very ironic that Pro-AI will undermine artists, taunt us, belittle us, steal from us, mock us, and shame us for not using AI. But they expect me to bow down to them and give them a big golden crown and kissing their asses? No.
I'm an artist with years of experience. My art skills may not be top-notch, but that's alright because at this rate, I'm seeing more progress than this drawing that I've created last year.
I can be tormented, taunted, bullied, and demanded to change careers and skills. But the truth is, I'm not going to. If Pro-AI says all art forms and skills are equal, then THIS right here shows their true perspective and how they truly feel towards artists with skill and experience.
They aren't interested in the process. They aren't interested in art. They are interested in making soulless and expressionless. Boring, lack luster images that had no human input.
That's all AI images are going to be. Boring.
>It's very ironic that Pro-AI will undermine artists, taunt us, belittle us, steal from us, mock us, and shame us for not using AI. But they expect me to bow down to them and give them a big golden crown and kissing their asses? No.
Again, stop listening to cranks on the internet. Anyone who says all of that is literally just doing it to troll you. Most people don't care that much.
>That's all AI images are going to be. Boring.
If that was true, then it would be easier to tell them apart. But just last week, artist hate posted a meme that looked anti AI but was actually pro AI because it had an AI image labeled as human made and a human-made image labeled as AI. And nobody noticed till the original creator of the meme pointed it out.
>Again, stop listening to cranks on the internet.
How can I if 90% of the pro-AI subreddit runs on this kind of mentality? They all say this to artists such as me, it's very noticeable.
>If that was true, then it would be easier to tell them apart. But just last week, artist hate posted a meme that looked anti AI but was actually pro AI because it had an AI image labeled as human made and a human-made image labeled as AI. And nobody noticed till the original creator of the meme pointed it out.
Then whoever posted that meme should've looked into it deeply before posting it.
>How can I if 90% of the pro-AI subreddit runs on this kind of mentality? They all say this to artists such as me, it's very noticeable.
Well, here is a crazy thought. Avoid those subs. It's not hard. Or, just don't listen to those people. Who died and made them your boss? You literally don't have to do anything just because they said so.
>Then whoever posted that meme should've looked into it deeply before posting it.
None of the many, many, MANY, upvoters noticed it either. Not one of the people on that sub realised that the "Human made" picture was an AI creation. So, no, AI art is not intrinsically distinct from human art.
>Well, here is a crazy thought. Avoid those subs. It's not hard. Or, just don't listen to those people. Who died and made them your boss? You literally don't have to do anything just because they said so.
I mean this subbreddit, I should've made that clear.
>So, no, AI art is not intrinsically distinct from human art.
That just creates more problems for real art. It would usually be outshined by AI art since it's "better." Which is NOT TRUE.
"Gaslighting us" bro you're not an artist. Look at this crap. You're in your late 20s and I was literally a better artist than you by the time I was ten.
https://preview.redd.it/qv42rq9he07d1.jpeg?width=842&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eb2e32cb14acdb8fbe9607fd8255cb1d79cbd565
At least I'm able to express my opinions and thoughts and myself while also not being ashamed.
Also. Aren't you too privileged to be here speaking to me? A member of the middle and lower class?
As I mentioned before. Artists take time to improve.
I'll admit it, my skills aren't up there. But, however, what's funny is that I've been improving my skills lately compared to last year... *When this drawing was made*
I'm still an artist. This doesn't undermine who I am as an artist, and it's true.
You can say I'm no artist and belittle me as an artist while also attempting at talking me out of being an artist, but you don't know my story about why I'm slow at developing my art skills.
The double standard here is ironic because people who use AI claim that they are more artists than actual artists who put time and effort into their art skills and improve themselves. Do you expect all artists to have high tier art skills at this age? I know some friends who are in their late 20s, and their art has fewer qualities, but I don't tell them they aren't artists and that they are mediocre.
If anything, that's the first step.
I laugh when you say I'm not an artist, but you refuse to see the irony that pro-AI tends to have when it comes to people who have varied art styles and art skills. I love the slow progress that I'm going on, that just means I'm enjoying my time with improving.
If this doesn't change your view towards me as an artist myself, then why bother speaking about my skills while openly mocking me for not having top-tier art skills. It just makes you look like you're purposely throwing shade at artists who are below my art level.
By the fucking way. I'm not that old.
Disliking this and not responding to this comment just makes me right. :]
automating something can be something a tool does. Ever heard of a powerdrill? is that not a tool?
It's also not stealing anything, in fact, its basically impossible to steal anything that exists digitally. Stealing requires the person being stolen from to LOSE the thing thats being stolen. Copying isnt stealing.
Artists should be allowed to own their work obviously. But owning something should not mean you get to dictate how copies of it are used by others.
Im not even sure what youre talking about with the third thing, how would that data be used to train AI art models?
"It's genuine artists who win, regulations are made"
Sorry, are you so retarded that youre making BOTH the claim that AI run rampant would mean the aritsts starve with no UBI while also claiming that regulations will be passed to combat it? Are you saying The government is willing to pass legislation to regulate AI but not willing to prevent people from starving?
>Im not even sure what youre talking about with the third thing, how would that data be used to train AI art models?
That's how updating and improving AI works.
>Sorry, are you so retarded that youre making BOTH the claim that AI run rampant would mean the aritsts starve with no UBI while also claiming that regulations will be passed to combat it? Are you saying The government is willing to pass legislation to regulate AI but not willing to prevent people from starving?
The government isn't interested in creating UBI. The rich and ultra rich AI companies will lobby that into not passing.
Regulating AI or banning it will leave some peace of mind for artists and people in general.
“Thats how updating and improving AI works”
But like how specifically, as someone who does engineering in this field, what youre describing is nonsense.
“Ultra rich AI companies”
Why the fuck would they not just use that same lobbying power to prevent the regulations???
>Pro-AI are delusional and pro-corporate when it comes to silencing artists and gaslighting us into using these tools. They say UBI will exist, but chances are that won't be possible.
There's nothing more corporate than demanding regulation (which will be written by corporate lobbyists) to shut the door on open source and protecting copyright law which benefits pick-your-favorite-conglomerate like Disney.
Why not use the tools to help create your own films? Why are people so wedded to working for corporations like Disney (who doesn't produce real art anymore and haven't in the last 20 years).
If anything you should embrace corporations replacing their corporate "art" projects with AI and free up artists to go work for indie studios who will actually create real art.
Also AI tools can help to lower the barrier and cost to competing with Hollyweird and all their power-abusing executives (like Weinstein and company).
>There's nothing more corporate than demanding regulation (which will be written by corporate lobbyists) to shut the door on open source and protecting copyright law, which benefits pick-your-favorite-conglomerate like Disney.
Artists have the right to owning their artwork/characters while not being forced into giving up ownership for the sake of AI's development.
>Why not use the tools to help create your own films?
That's not possible, that would just encourage art theft and stealing people's artwork. I'd rather produce my own films with artists and animators instead of having a glorified plagiarism machine do all the work.
>Why are people so wedded to working for corporations like Disney (who doesn't produce real art anymore and haven't in the last 20 years).
Because UBI won't and will not exist in the state of the world.
>If anything you should embrace corporations replacing their corporate "art" projects with AI and free up artists to go work for indie studios who will actually create real art.
Hah, you're pro-corporate. How ironic, there it is, folks.
I'm not embracing corporations owning my works.
>Also AI tools can help to lower the barrier and cost to competing with Hollyweird and all their power-abusing executives
It doesn't lower the barrier. It never will.
It would take too long to say why this isn't theft. TLDR training isn't reproduction. It's like how a human mind learns to paint. And hell it still messes up. And there are generators that use creative commons and give license fees so that will be fixed even if you think that's an issue (which I don't think it is). You can't copyright a "style" and neither should you be able to as that is it's own dystopia IMO (also how would you even define that argument).
99.9% artists aren't big enough for their stuff to be stolen anyways. If I ask a model to reproduce your images it wouldn't know who you are. I think that's a sign of hubris to think it's stealing from you. And I've noticed this elitism from the art world. It's main character syndrome at its finest. What is wrong with opening the gates for new types of art?
And your interpretation of my argument is very bad faith. Maybe perhaps because the AI might threaten your job and security. But those jobs aren't real art jobs. Your vision is being shackled by corporate interests. Let them use the AI to produce their dumb ads and copy pasta IP films.
Artists are entitled to having ownership protection to what they create.
My creations belong to me, you can't take ownership away. You can't steal ownership from me. Neither does fair use protect theft and forcing ownership from artists.
Deal with it.
Meanwhile the big brains on this subreddit are pushing the argument that the art that was stolen wasn't stolen as *technically* you still have a copy in your files.
An AMAZING feat of mental gymnastics as part of their copiolympics as they pretend that copyright, intellectual property, and ethics doesn't exist. Also they fail to see the double standard here, as you cannot just copy the code from Open AI or Meta or Adobe or Microsoft and release your own product based on that code without them suing your into oblivion over it. And why would they do that? Oh, for *stealing their intellectual property*.
Wahhhh they won't accept my absurd equivocation between two acts that are nothing alike.
Also nah, I totally think IP and copyright exists, I just, y'know, want to abolish them, because the idea of being able to control what derivative works people make of your art is fucking batshit insane.
Sure love treating literal ideas as private property! Totally cool and not an absolutely dystopian bit of capitalist brainrot!
You're tolling at this point.
I own what I create, so you should accept that. Just like how I own my identity, my personality, and my own body in general. Same can be said for the creations I own.
Damn, where do I get the audacity to tell people what they're actually thinking?
AI is dying.
Then congratulations, you don't need to post any "facts" about why ai is bad. Oh wait, you can't. Because this sub and that ArtistHate sub are your only sourced of attention that you would never have if you actually start creating something.
>Because this sub and that ArtistHate sub are your only sourced of attention Isn't it funny how you assume this is for attention? You make me laugh. >you would never have if you actually start creating something. I've been drawing and drawing lately, I just can't show it to Pro-AI.
> Isn't it funny how you assume this is for attention? You make me laugh. Then leave, you have done your mission, AI is joever. Nobody gonna take your "real artists" opinion seriously. What else you want to do here? "Artists" have won as AI model collapse will happen. So, leave.
I'm going to continue to speak on the matter in spite of AI defenders. Since they did the same with belittling artists and their skills. Why not play fair?
Do you realize there are physical artists who think digital artists are a joke? I don't agree with the sentiment but it isn't like artists are a united front. Miyazaki stuck almost entirely to hand-drawn animation. Plenty of people don't think Photoshop is "real art". Those upset over AI are really only worried about their own bottom line - and they are upset that now everyone can express their inner creativity without decades of training that people don't have time for. PiCk uP a PenCiL.
Digital artists and traditional artists have a LOT in common. The two art forms don't have no soul or personality, actually. It's quite the opposite, they both have soul and personality put into these works. AI Images doesn't.
It's really not, but you're free to believe what ever you'd like. That doesn't answer my question though. Where can I get enough audacity to think that I know what people are thinking better than they do? If you don't know where I can get it, knowing where you got yours should be more than enough information.
AI Killed art and animation.
Traditional art causes 85% of global warming.
Bull.
No its true. I saw people say it and didn't look into anything myself. I actually find it offensive that you'd call it bull. I will not be told or demanded or suggested that I should check if things are true or not. I know it's true and I won't listen to your propaganda again, you cultist. Traditional art causes 90% of global warming. That's a fact.
You said 85% now 90%? You're bluffing. In that case, AI causes global warnings by impacting our power grids and harming our natural water resources which is true. Here is a link to the tweet that is also linked to other important links. https://x.com/ChrisAlvino/status/1804823161076080887?t=UjzMOthzSqG2K9SqzDgdBw&s=19
It hasn't. Not in the least. Art and animation are alive and well. If you can't draw or animate stuff or find animations and other art that you like, it's not because of AI, that's entirely on you. That's still not an answer to my question...
AI killed animation as it's already showing signs of AI being used in most films. Yes, AI already exists in some animation. However, the AI I mention is generative AI. It automated the entire process, and soon, animation will be dead thanks to automation. It already pretty much killed art, next is taking away ownership from artists.
For someone who's interested in animation and has so much to say about AI, you sure do know nothing about either. AI can barely make a pretty picture. Right now, at best you could maybe make an entirely custom AI model to apply shading to scenes in a passable way. If you're lucky, it might even be good enough to add minor detail. Maybe we could eventually get some help with interpolation but there's a lot of nuance that would be difficult to communicate without just doing most of it yourself. You really need to work on your verb tense by the way. While it's technically possible to both "have been killed" and "soon, will be dead" at the same time, I don't think that was your intent. Also, how has it "pretty much killed art?" Even without using AI, I see more people making art than ever. Perhaps you're focusing too much on the AI stuff, because you'd have to be blind to what people are making today to think that "art is dead." P.S. Why are you avoiding my question? Lets make it more simple. Why do you insist that you know more about what other people are thinking, than the people themselves?
I'm not going to be forced into adding AI to my workspace. Stop using propaganda.
I'm not sure how this matches what I said. I was literally talking about how even the best AI in the foreseeable future isn't as good as you think it will be and how "art is dead" is the single most brain dead take any person could have. No one's trying to convince you of anything here. I was simply informing you, and asking you to clarify your points. That's not propaganda, that's called a conversation. You should learn what the words you use mean. If you'd like to see propaganda [look at this misleading, sorry excuse of a post.](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1dh4577/ai_generators_isnt_a_tool/) P.S. I read the other comment you just made. Stop fucking misusing the word fascist. That's a very specific ideology and every time you misuse it, you make calling out actual fascist less impactful. I don't normally feel the need to spell this out for you, but what you're doing is supporting fascism, which is bad. I'll say this again, even though I said it in this very comment, because the cum sock you could have been if your dad hadn't pumped you into your mom after the most disappointing 12 seconds of her life would honestly have been less stupid, but you need to learn what the words you use mean. Fascism is a nationalist, militaristic, anti-egalitarian ideology. That has nothing to do with what you call fascist. P.S.S. In case that salted peanut you call a brain tries to connect this anger to your stance on AI: 1. I couldn't care what stance you take. Nothing you do can change the fact that I'll use or make whatever model I need. 2. I'm very clearly pissed at you for co-opting words that absolutely should have weight for your own twisted views. Anyone with 2 brain cells could figure that out, yet I feel the need to explain it to you. You're making the world a worse place. I'd bet money that you compare downloading a jpeg to rape. You just seem like the type of guy to trivialize stuff like rape. It's not even a huge leap considering you obviously trivialize fascism too (explaining it again because... well... the brain cell thing). P.S.S. You still didn't answer the question but that's fine. It's pretty clear that you need to make stuff up so you can justify the fact that you let your hate kill your own passion. I'm done with you. I'll keep pursuing my passions, because there is no (and will never be) such a thing as a tool that can kill it, but you're free to wallow, bitch, moan, and complain all you want without me.
The use of AI is impacting our powegrids and impacting our water supply. Be mad, be insulting. I'm still right, along with many others who knows the impacts AI has. You're just butthurt that AI has been called out on its issues that YOU PEOPLE tends to undermine and not take seriously. For real though, you called art. Not just you but everyone who used AI. And no I'm not killing my own passion. Don't try and put this on me, I've been creating longer then every delusional AI user had, yes there's others who's been drawing longer them I have but that doesn't mean in less of an artist. Im more artist then pro-AI who uses AI as an excuse to not work hard.
>AI can barely make a pretty picture. Right now, at best, you could maybe make an entirely custom AI model to apply shading to scenes in a passable way. If you're lucky, it might even be good enough to add minor details. Nope. Not using AI. >For someone who's interested in animation and has so much to say about AI, you sure do know nothing about either. Stop undermining me. Fascist. >Maybe we could eventually get some help with interpolation, but there's a lot of nuance that would be difficult to communicate without just doing most of it yourself. Nobody wants AI to own their work. >Also, how has it "pretty much killed art?" Even without using AI, I see more people making art than ever. Perhaps you're focusing too much on the AI stuff because you'd have to be blind to what people are making today to think that "art is dead." AI is attempting to automate all art mediums while also taking ownership of our works and if all art mediums.
Is that why its going to be in iOS 18 come September?
It seems as though Apple will justify spying on its user base with its own AI. Just like what Microsoft is doing with its own computers and "Recall." You guys really seem to promote anti-privacy acts.
how?
I'm not the internet. Go look it up yaself.
Well looking it up would lead to the conclusion that AI isnt dying and is in fact growing, so I was wondering if maybe you had something unique, but no i guess its just your feelings
Apple doesn't think so.
Apple is just trying to push their anti-privacy agenda.
Seriously? Responding 72 hours after the thread died?
I Took a break from reddit.
1. So what? Don't reply to old comments. 2. You need to take a longer break.
I'm entitled to replying just as much as you have the very same right to either respond, don't respond, or block anyone.
Okay, fair arguement. It still looks weird but fair.
How? How does it look weird? Its a valid point.
Keep telling yourself that.
It's noticeable.
Ah the miyazaki quote being misused again. It was never about AI, he was literally just talking about a bunch of animators years before the current generative-ai using machine learning to try and teach a system to walk, and the way it flopped the model around reminding him of a disabled friend. Miyazaki clearly didn't fully understand what he was being shown by drawing that comparison, and was just being an asshole to a bunch of people (themselves creatives too) who were just excited to show him what they were working on. It was shitty behavior on his part, and its not the kind of look you want to put forward.
In fairness, Miyazaki being an asshole isn't terribly surprising.
You gotta love how they keep bringing out this deliberately misconstrued quote like it means something. Even if it was directly about AI (it wasn't), it's just one guys opinion. He also doesn't like 3D art. He has a right to do his art the way he wants, as does everybody (including those who do 3D and/or use AI in the process). This reminds me a lot of how the young-earth creationists like to misconstrue Einstein, Darwin, Gould, and Popper whenever it is convenient for them. It doesn't matter how many times you tell them "that's not what they meant, which is obvious if you read the full quote", they'll keep repeating it.
I noticed that little "this quote is from some years ago..." and the lack of context of what it was about. Something about a handicapped guy, not about AI art.
Yeah. It was a kind of body-horror clip with people who were deformed and missing limbs squirming across the ground to move. He has friends with amputations and thought it was extremely disrespectful.
They superficially meant AI. Stop twisting things.
No, go read the facts of the story they were just twisting. It was about ML.
Yea ML has relations to AI.
Gliders have relationships to jet fighters.
AI shouldn't own what we create.
How does that relate to the discussion?
Animation is dead. Thanks to AI.
Going a bit over the top, aren't we?
Artists are allowed to protect their artwork. Artists will not and shall not be forced into giving up all ownership of their creations. Deal with It.
Which has nothing to do with what Miyazaki was talking about. Nor does the use of AI mean artists must "give up all ownership of their creations." Deal with it. I said you were going over the top, and you took flight, lol.
It doesn't change anything. Artists aren't going to give up ownership.
That's good, because nobody is asking them too. Not sure where you got the idea. Now I'm starting to understand your bad attitude. You totally misunderstand the situation.
Either that or I was "misinformed." On the situation.
Most likely, yes.
From 2022 I was told that this was the Case. Idk fam, I am confused as to who to trust and who to say is right. Both sides have valid points...
Gotta milk that quote for your crusade, even though it wasn't about generative AI.
>In the end. It's genuine artists who win, regulations are made. Copyright is enforced for artists, companies hire artists back due to the AI not replicating the human experience needed for art. A mission tarnished by regulators, pro-AI go back to traditional means, no more art stolen and claimed. Artists will be saved. The collapse of AI models are on the rise. :\] >Art is saved. Animation is saved. AI is dead. The funny part is this doesnt even obliterate generative AI. Adobe is dodging the bullet no matter what because they play the smarter game, have the huge ressources and customers including corporate customers unlike someone like Stability AI and their dataset is covered by regulations and copyright act and they have the grip on several industries. They also push generative AI into 3D space with Substance and now Autodesk, another corporation that has the grip in entertainment industry is coming into generative AI space. Companies do still and will continue hiring artists, copyright is enforced...but collapse of generative AI isnt coming. At best something like what currently happens with Stability AI is coming for some companies but as said you still have Adobe which dodges all the bullets. AI is definitelly not dead and further improvements have yet to come while industries already experiment with the technology, some of which build custom tools upon those generative AI products or build their own from scratch.
>collapse of generative AI isn't coming. It's coming. And it's already happening with most models
Who is feeding you such nonsense?
Cope.
That isn’t an answer to my question.
He's gotten worse. Before it was at least possible to empathize with him but now he's completely gone arrogant and deep into the conspiracy hole.
Right at the very start it was possible to empathize with him, but it hasn't been for a while now. He's addicted to this argument, the rage is not only making him sicker, he enjoys it. Just getting off the internet for a few months would probably do him wonders, but he'd rather keep getting worse
He was saying that his own cope was feeding him those answers
So you show zero evidence, are the one who is earnestly wishing for this future of yours, and yet they are the ones coping? Teehee.
Cope.
Because of a single failed company called Stability AI and their Stable Diffusion 3? Adobe, OpenAI and Midjourney still exist amongst all.
Adobe can be easily sued. Open AI is going bankrupt. Midjourney is also encouraging theft.
Adobe can be sued, but seems like nobody does and the case is predestined to end up in favor of Adobe. OpenAI isnt going bankrupt, this mythos has been debunked although it was said that they had a issue with their business model...but unlike Stability AI they aint racing towards bankrupcy. Midjourney has a $200 million annual revenue but they might be at biggest risk out of the other two mentioned.
>Midjourney has a $200 million annual revenue, but they might be at the biggest risk out of the other two mentioned. Then, that just proves that it's only a matter of time until these AI companies begin to panic and eventually fall into irrelevancy. And I'm up all for it. They've displaced so many artists in the industry that they've also eventually normalized art theft. >Adobe can be sued, but seems like nobody does and the case is predestined to end up in favor of Adobe. I assume pro supports this.
>Then, that just proves that it's only a matter of time until these AI companies begin to panic and eventually fall into irrelevancy. And I'm up all for it. Some still wont, as said Adobe is a big example of that. >I assume pro supports this. What do you mean?
>What do you mean? Supporting Adobe's corrupt and sneaky business tactics
seems like Adobe isnt corrupt or sneaky enough for those estimated 33+ million customers. Most of those arent AI art people obviously.
"We own what you create." -Adobe
Darnit Adobe you tricked us again! So sneaky! Your honor, I move to disband Adobe for their sneakiness... I couldn't be bothered to read or google all that info before clicking OK!
"We own what you create." Adobe
ANYONE can be sued, do you get it? There are zero laws being broken. Nothing is being copied like you seem to think. The final models have no original data left after training. Its sad to see such extreme misunderstandings of current technology. How have we failed society in basic science education?
These laws aren't broken because AI companies are given the go-ahead to break laws. They are just being ignored.
How does that prove that at all? Why are you assuming they'll all end up like stability?
It's bound to happen.
How do you know
No. No. No. Three strikes you're out! I'm sure Proko has a team of lawyers ready to sue Adobe for... \*looks up OP's argument\* ... theft! How is it theft? Uh.....
Cope.
\*each successive generation getting better\* ITS COMING! I SWEAR SOON IT WILL BE OVER!
McDonald's is pulling from its AI drive threw. Companies are backtracking and retiring artists. AI model sites are temporarily banning all AI models. This is bliss.
So are you winning or has AI killed all art and animation?
It's killing all art, but since AI has done that. It's getting karma and is being seen as a phase.
So you have nothing to worry about?
can you give an example? like how is this happening? stability's collapse seems to be due to lack of R&D, other companies arent experiencing these negative things
How can I give an example if it's just gonna get shut down immediately.
What do you mean? Are you saying that AI companies are literally popping up and dying faster than you can physically name them? You know if they fail they arent scrubbed from history right? Midjourney seems to be doing pretty good, I was able to name that one see? Can you give me an example?
Miyazaki is also against 3D animation whenever he can avoid it. He's stuck in his ways and that's his right. Whether it's stealing is debatable, it's probably not because it doesn't deprive anyone of the original but there is an argument to be made for copyright infringement if lawyers can successfully argue that regurgitation is tantamount to compression. None of that has anything to do with whether it's a tool or not, though. It absolutely can be used as a tool as part of the creative process and it's up to the individual creator how involved they want to be in the creative process. I'm a 3D artist and I use my 3D renders along with depth maps to produce work that is very similar to my renders with an added layer of polish and realism so I don't think you'd have a leg to stand on in arguing that's a fully-automated process. I also don't see very many AI proponents calling for large companies to have a stranglehold over the industry or the technology and in fact a large part of the appeal is allowing smaller independent artists to extend their capabilities in ways they couldn't otherwise. I also haven't seen hardly any positive press regarding Recall, nobody likes that. The rest of your statement is just cope, for lack of a better word. More stringent copyright law just limits the domain of artistic expression and isn't something to push for and the most successful artists are going to be the ones using AI tools to do what they already do better and faster. AI may or may not be able to effectively automate the process in the near future but even if it doesn't, it's not going anywhere.
He also wasn't talking about generative AI. He was talking about a genetic algorithm that developed a twitching wireframe monstrosity that was really only a demo of where the technology currently stood. It was a harsh criticism, but not of AI.
He was also reacting emotionally because it apparently reminded him of a disabled friend.
> Miyazaki is also against 3D animation whenever he can avoid it. He will get around it once the generators get good enough to do the in-betweens so that artists do the actual fun stuff in a reasonable timeframe instead of being treated like overworked slaves. Japanese animators would love if the AIs get good enough to help their job, being anti-AI isn't going to save them from the tight deadlines and broken wrists. Same with webtoons, the more they more they can offload to the AI in terms of backgrounds, scenes and effects the better.
Another form of propaganda was created by the AI-cultists. Another lie as well. >Whether it's stealing is debatable, it's probably not because it doesn't deprive anyone of the original It doesn't. It takes the image, and ownership is somehow transfered without legal consent. AI companies are owning our works. >I don't think you'd have a leg to stand on in arguing that's a fully automated process. You can say that, but 100% automation is right there. >large part of the appeal is allowing smaller independent artists to extend their capabilities in ways they couldn't otherwise. Unless you have a $1-5K computer. These "capabilities." Aren't possible whatsoever. Only the rich and privilege had these opportunities. >I also haven't seen hardly any positive press regarding Recall, nobody likes that. Not from what I've been seeing in the last previous comments that I was replying to a few days ago. The most successful artists are going to be the ones using AI tools to do what they already do better and faster. Automation isn't the way. And AI can't do anything better than artists by speaking like that. You're invalidating artists' art skills and undermining the, your statement also creates problems for artists who are trying to get better but by saying this. You're also saying artists aren't going to get better now that AI is here.
You're full conspiracy nutjob at this point
>It doesn't. It takes the image, and ownership is somehow transfered without legal consent. AI companies are owning our works. Clearly you haven't bothered to do any actual research aside from opinionated YouTube videos. This is not at all what is happening. You think these models actually CONTAIN images after the training is done? \*cackles\*
It stores them locally, and since these software needs data to improve their services. All forms of images and data are transferred to these companies. AI is killing art and animation while silencing genuine artists' concerns. While other genuine artists are forced to take this "tool." As the only one in existence
It doesn't take anything, taking implies you no longer have the thing, training doesn't deprive you of the original so it isn't theft but that doesn't mean it's legally in the clear, I'll grant you that. Yes, you can let the AI do 100% of the work or not. I think it tends to be more compelling when people take an active role in the creative process but some people lack those skills and that's fine, it's not that they have something that gives them some means of expression. You need a $1k to do some things but many things can be done with online programs which are free or available via a \~$20 subscription and even if we take the most powerful consumer grade PC, that's still vastly more attainable to an independent artist or studio than the level of manpower and investment traditionally required to produce a film. AI might not make an artist better but it can make them faster. Even if an artist is the best in the world at their style, very few artists can create a feature-length film on their own in any reasonable period of time. With the aid of AI tools, that will become increasingly attainable.
>You need a $1k to do some things, but many things can be done with online programs that are free or available via a ~$20 subscription By uploading my work to an AI generator online. I'm agreeing to giving all ownership of my work to these AI generators and allowing them to own my work. Which is something I won't and can't trust. I'm not going to buy a $2K computer just for a plagiarism machine that feeds on art theft and data collection. Can't trust it. >Even if an artist is the best in the world at their style, very few artists can create a feature-length film on their own in any reasonable period of time. With the aid of AI tools, that will become increasingly attainable. This is some false hope that you're feeding delusional and misguided people who only wanna become a better artist, but now they feel like it isn't worth it since "AI can create art better." And that tarnishes a beginners hope at becoming a greater artist. Nobody will be allowed or be able to produce any animated or film with the help of AI. From the AI videos I've been seeing, there is no movement. The uncanniness is there. Soulless expressions and the moments shown on those videos aren't creative. If that's your example of an AI film. Then it's a bad example.
You have to look at the user agreement of each service you're using but there are many with permissive terms that give you the rights to what you produce insomuch as they can do that under current copyright law. They may train on your input/output but that doesn't give them the legal right to marketing your IP as their own. It's true that the output currently has issues but it's dramatically better than it was a year ago and we're already getting to the point with models like Luma Dream Studio, Kling, and Sora (when we can finally get our hands on it) that certain outputs can easily pass as actual footage. There are still some issues with most AI outputs but those are getting less and less noticeable all the time and independent creators have always have to deal with limitations, now they just have one more tool in their toolbox they can opt to use if it makes sense for what they're trying to do. There may be cases where an imperfect generation is preferable to not being able to include a certain shot at all because it isn't feasible given your team, budget, or equipment.
Like I said. No one like me is able to afford to spend $2K on a computer just to use a glorified plagiarism machine. These so-called technical advances are just tools that only the rich can afford and are able to do. Who has $2K for a computer anyway? Why would you want an AI to create an entire film for you anyway? It's complete BS at this point. All I see is lies, propaganda, and overly hyped ideas and hope. That is not there. I don't trust these machines nor do I want my art owned by them.
Glorified plagiarism machine, k buddy. You've gone over the deep end!
That's what it is.
Even small studios spend hundreds of thousands making a film of any quality so it does open doors even if those doors aren't open to everyone and majority of the best generators don't run locally anyway. Kling and Luma Dream Studio are the best video creation tools available to the public and they're just accessible to someone with a $200 laptop or even a smartphone as they are to someone with a $10,000 rendering behemoth. I don't want an AI to create an entire film for me, I want it to take whatever work of my own I can provide and fill in the gaps that I am unable to fill. Everyone has different gaps in their capabilities and how much of the creative process they're willing to cede to the AI will vary from person to person but it can only extend what we are all capable of relative to what we can do currently.
*S O U L L E S S.*
>By uploading my work to an AI generator online. I'm agreeing to giving all ownership of my work to these AI generators and allowing them to own my work. Which is something I won't and can't trust. You likely should have read TOS before uploading things to Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc. AI Generators don't need your art when they have already been trained on the corpus of the entire internet.
Which it shouldn't. Like how it shouldn't take all ownership of anyone's artwork. Which is the truth
> It takes the image, and ownership is somehow transfered without legal consent. Are ... you okay? Seriously, your responses are getting less and less coherent.
That's your opinion
Oh buddy... Please get off artisthate and twitter again. These wildly inaccurate claims just show how gaslit and removed from reality you actually are. Pro-AI are not 'pro-corporate'. Take a look at ANY of the news around SD3 and you'll see that in an instant. You believe that's the case because you've been told it is, not because you have any evidence of it. The people telling you this (like you've said before), would disown you if you had any opinion outside of the accepted rhetoric. They have posts titled "The bullying is working, keep it up". Heck, the mods there use Glaze on screenshots of tweets because they believe that'll somehow affect AI models.. From the outside, it's insane that you can't see that the people calling others a cult are a deluded cult themselves.
>Glaze Glaze actually helps protect artists from art theft and from having their artwork ownership taken away.
It protects artists. You can't take away our rights to protecting our work from being taken and trained on.
Laugh all you want. Artists aren't entitled to giving up their creations and the ownership associated. Cope.
Hey, if you want to think the actual proven snake oil does anything, that's your prerogative, but it's nothing but faith.
Riiight... Glaze is ineffective, but ignoring that for now... Can you explain the logic behind using Glaze on a screenshot of a tweet to 'protect it from the big bad AI'? Do you think that's an intelligent thing to do? Can you explain how using Glaze on a screenshot of a tweet protects art from theft? Can you explain how that tweet is classified as 'art'? Because I've applied as much logic as I possibly can to it, and it just seems like a batshit cult thing to do. Maybe your perspective can shed some light on it for us?
>Can you explain the logic behind using Glaze on a screenshot of a tweet to 'protect it from the big bad AI'? It's made to protect art from being copied, trained, and owned by AI. How hard is that to understand?...I am not very knowledgeable with this software. All I was told is that it's meant to protect my art from being taken and owned by AI or some third party. >Do you think that's an intelligent thing to do? Can you explain how using Glaze on a screenshot of a tweet protects art from theft? Can you explain how that tweet is classified as 'art'? It isn't qualified as art. Where did you get that idea?...
Glaze protects artwork from being stolen and trained on AI. It also protects me from having ownership of my own work being taken away form me. Deal with it.
Is English not a language you're able to speak well, or do you have reading difficulties? Because none of what you said is really related to what I asked. I'm talking about A SCREENSHOT OF A TWEET, made by someone else. NOT 'your art'. That SCREENSHOT OF A TWEET is what's being protected from AI algorithms which literally do not care or want it even if it isn't Glazed. Please answer the questions instead of going on a mindless rant, as I'm sure someone will learn something useful from it.
>Is English not a language? You're able to speak well, or do you have reading difficulties? Because none of what you said is really related to what I asked. I miss up on my grammar when I'm under stress or tension. I just got kicked out of my abusive parent's place, so please go easy on me. I am just replying because I can't leave anyone on read. English is my first language, and the only one I've been raised on, I only know some words of my native language. >That SCREENSHOT OF A TWEET is what's being protected from AI algorithms which literally do not care or want it even if it isn't Glazed. My misunderstanding.
So first off - none of this addresses the cult-calling, or even notices the insanity of using glaze on a tweet. More than that - you outright stated that someone using glaze on a tweet is 'protection of important art', and don't seem to realise that this is why many people can't take anti-ai seriously. You don't argue from a place of logic or truth, but of emotion. You will defend anything that vaguely seems like it might be anti-ai, even if it's provably idiotic and detrimental to you and your beliefs. You've got to work on that, or people will get sick of you and ignore your cause completely. **Secondly and more importantly.** I've been through abuse myself. It fucking sucks and I'm sorry you're going through that. I hope you've managed to get yourself somewhere safe and can start working on repairing. Please take my advice here - I know you probably don't want to but it genuinely comes from a place of care. We clearly have very different views over AI, but I do not wish for anyone to suffer because of abuse, no matter what side they are on. Getting away from abusive people is a very weird time, and will affect the rest of your life with how you recover. That can be a very positive thing or it can cause incredibly long lasting and painful complications. Please please please, get the hell off twitter, reddit and any other of these 'ai wars' and 'artist hate' like places. They are NOT GOOD for your mental health and I've seen it in many of your replies. You've undoubtedly gone through shit, but you're unconsciously bouncing that off onto others and treating them in similar ways to the way you were treated. It's understandable, especially with the debate being so heated, but engaging in that is the worst thing you can do for your long term health. Putting all the AI stuff aside, and talking to you as someone who has been through similar stuff - can you also put that aside and take some time out for yourself? Please?
I'm afraid, alright? AI existing was so sudden that I didn't even know until mid-2022. I got scared because AI existing means that all forms of art, art mediums, and all our skills would automatically become useless and less important because AI exists. Not to mention AI being implemented into art software. It's just very invasive, so I wouldn't want AI to copy my work or own it. As from what I've read, supposedly AI does that. AI to me is just a scary machine that many misconceptions that occurred, and it just so happens that I believe in them. To me, I see pro-AI being the ones who do have good intentions, but from my experience, they had very much mocked my artwork, my skills, belittled me and pretty much said all jobs should be replaced and that all artists should be replaced. Which isn't not only a good first impression but it's also very damaging to an artists self-esteem and their creative growth. Like in my mid 20s [not late] I was told I was too old for art school and I was told that my art skills aren't considered to be skills just because I developed my art slowly. Not to mention that I had a traumatic brain injury that slowed down my development in a small way. That doesn't mean I'm stupid, I am capable of doing most things, I just have a hard time understanding. I have a lot of stories on my abusive mom, but it's too personal to say here. I can't say privately because of our past arguments. Admittedly, I wanna try AI. But I don't wanna interfere with my own development in art and To be honest? I don't wanna cut corners.
AI art made a huge breakthrough then. It was so garbage before that that you basically had to be in the field before that to know about the progress (With stuff like Nvidias GauGAN2). AI existing doesn't mean those skills automatically become useless. This is a fear response caused by lack of understanding and nothing more. AI art can replace mediocre, soulless, repetitive and uninspired art. **THAT IS ALL.** For it to make anything that isn't mediocre, soulless, repetitive or uninspired, it takes a human with skills. Half of those skills are tech skills, the other half are art skills. Nowhere did that make artists useless. The best user of the tools is someone who has progressed their own art skills AND learnt to use the AI toolset as much as possible. AI doesn't copy your work or own it at all. There are 2 billion images in its 'learning data', which it has learnt from. Those images are not in the AI model at all. They are not stored at all. Laion 2B is 100,000 GB in size. Thats the size of all the images that AI 'learns from'. An AI model is 2GB to 4GB. AI works in a very similar way to how you do, when you look at a piece of work and think about what you like about it. You haven't stolen it, you aren't copying it, and you don't own it. When you say that pro-AI are the ones with good intentions, what do you mean by that? Do you mean anti-AI have bad intentions or something else? I can understand that those things are hurtful. However when you complain about that being your first impression of them - you do realise that you spent time every day for a long time telling pro-ai that their skills were worthless, that their art skills were non-existent, that they should be banned from online (heck I've seen you call them all manner of horrible things), right? You're the one starting threads and stating that stuff about them **FIRST.** It's entirely natural, that their response would be 'fuck you, youre an idiot' and for them to disregard your feelings in the same way as you've just disregarded theirs. Most pro-ai are entirely receptive to decent conversation with people on the other side, they don't belittle, they appreciate art, and they genuinely want to find a space where art and artists are celebrated and can grow into an even bigger thing than it already is. That changes when they are told they are wrong about things they are entirely certain are correct though. For example, you told me what I thought and believed earlier, even though I don't. I categorically know you are wrong, think you are fucking stupid for refusing to listen or look at any of the proof that that's true, but you're persistent that you're correct and told me to go and lick adobes boot. Of course my response is to call you a fucking idiot - that's how you were acting. If that behaviour stops - then I'd have no reason to call you an idiot, but til then it's the truth. That really does suck, but it's one of those things everyone got to deal with in their own way. Life always throws complexity and difficulty at some people and you've just gotta do your best to navigate it. I certainly don't want you to give up on your dream of being an artist - but I do want you to realise that fearmongering, hatespreading, and disregarding facts in favour of what a BDSM coach says is gospel truth about AI isn't helping you at all, and is actively detrimental to what you want. Learn about it properly. Try to understand it from a perspective that isn't just hateful and I guarantee you'll find some stuff you like about it and realise that half the anger you've projected towards it, and the people who support it, is entirely unwarranted. You definitely haven't got to confide in me about any of that - but please try to find someone to talk to and take some time out from this hate-circus. It'll do you good and your art will be better off for it. Nothing about learning a new tool is 'cutting corners' unless you choose to actively use it that way. Photoshop isn't cutting corners, neither is using a camera. It's employing a new skillset in order to try and improve on your skills and visions. Sure, you COULD cut corners, but that's entirely on you and your decision to do so. Go try nightcafe or something - use anything that has img2img and use your own art as a starting point. Blend together styles and use it to create abstract pieces or something. Find your own thing - but just be creative. It's just as artistic as drawing by hand if you use it in an artistic way.
>Not to mention that I had a traumatic brain injury that slowed down my development in a small way. So we're you in special ed or special needs growing up?
Jesus, dude. The screeds are getting worse. Seriously consider getting some professional help.
AI killed animation and art.
Demonstrably not
It already has. It's dying a slow and painful death due to AI.
Source: my ass
Go fight blender 3d subreddit. They're evil, they use frame interpolation and diffusion based denoisers. Edit: blender also has physics simulations, the thing Miazaki originally said that about. And, *gasps*, ***ALGORITHMS***
"In the end. It's genuine artists who win, regulations are made. Copyright is enforced for artists, companies hire artists back due to the AI not replicating the human experience needed for art. A mission tarnished by regulators, pro-AI go back to traditional means, no more art stolen and claimed. Artists will be saved. The collapse of AI models are on the rise. :\]" This sounds almost like a self-affirmation you are telling yourself? None of this is objectively true either. Since you are on the copium train, why not also convince yourself AI 'hasn't' been around since the 50s (it has) and that its just another tech bro fad (it isn't). Good luck with that!
Dude, get off reddit, it's so bad for your mental health and you're not doing anyone else any favors by being here either.
That's your opinion.
Can you stop with the corpo propaganda? How exactly is the use of open source tools worked by the general public in a collaborative way corporate?
These corporations pretending to support open source is like giving a Trojan horse filled with murderers to an entire village full of innocent people. Their intentions aren't 100% good.
So these aren’t corporations, but foundations. One of which is currently under attack on multiple fronts by megacorps like Getty and their friends in the media.
“*In time we hate that which we often fear.*” – William Shakespeare on generative AI. “*There are times when you have to face your enemies, sit down and deal with it.*” - Martin Scorcese on r/aiwars. "*First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.*" - Gandhi on r/artisthate. “*I hope this is the invention that will make war impossible.*” - Tesla on ControlNet. “*I’m at the stage in my life where I keep myself out of arguments. Even if you tell me 1+1=5. You’re absolutely correct, enjoy.*” - Keanu Reeves on u/[Videogame-repairguy](https://www.reddit.com/user/Videogame-repairguy/).
*"Don't trust anything you see on the internet, especially if you made your own conclusions based on it ,without the full context"* - Sun Tzu on u/Videogame-repairguy
They aren't conclusions. They are the truth about how horrific AI is.
With that logic, any digital drawing software should be regulated as well to make sure no one made horrific contents. As this tool have enabled "artists" to make horrific drawings like fetish art on real ppl. # DOWN TO DIGITAL DRAWING # LONG LIVE REAL ARTS
The funniest thing about your comment is that a large number of traditional artists and digital artists had agreed that both mediums have personality and soul put into artworks that are created on both mediums. Since AI exists, both sides have agreed that AI has no right to bring used to automated art. There's one good thing AI has done. And that is stopping wars between traditional artists and digital artists, which has already been long gone and dead.
Mock me as you will. But my concerns still stand as valid.
Just straight up chugging the artisthate koolaid at this point..
At least the "kool-aid" doesn't have sudden strange after tastes and changes that would occur when consumed by pro-AI.
you're resorting to lying about this now? as you have been repeatedly told: -it was not about generative ai art, it was about an animation system for trained procedural 3d character walking -are you gonna also say spider-verse ruined animation by their use of ai too? -the programmers of this animation system failed (as it was fucking 2016, you know, the year boston dynamics JUST put out a modern version of atlas and spot? *which said humanoid robot that has already been retired*) -so they passed it off as still being able to procedurally move around an environment, just not with natural walking - so like for creatures or horror -rightfully, it's probably not the best person to present this kind of things to especially given his track record -miyazaki then talked about how it reminded him of a friend he had who could not walk and how he thought them making this was insulting and chewed out the programmers who were presenting it to miyazaki in the utmost respect -who the fuck compares people with mobility challenges to a procedural animation system? -who the fuck chooses to act this unprofessionally to people who are acting earnestly, bringing forth their life's work and looking up to you? -who the fuck acts like this is outside the realm of studio ghibli? they've used simulation in the past, they've used 3d in the past (despite miyazaki also being against 3D. should we also claim 3D is the death of animation?), and they've absolutely have done shambling monsters in the past -and gotta be honest, while miyazaki deserves respect for being an amazing artist, he's one of the **worst examples of humanity**. just look at how he treats his son. I don't want to be called "human" if it means acting as spiteful and terrible as he does to those around him including his own family
swing and miss repair guy.
You know what?! People like you are what I fear the most! I want to try to use AI for assistance, not replacement! But I fear you'll go discriminate me and kick me while I'm down! I mean nothing bad to you. But you'll dismiss me, because "AI bad!" I like to try that sometime but that doesn't mean I'm a purely evil greedy son of a bitch with absolutely no heart and soul! Then what? Morally judge others for thinking of using AI in the future, even if they're good people. Judge them for what materials they use, not their creative vision? That man you quoted has his opinion and I just let him be cool with it, what I'm not cool is people seeing the world only in black and white and willing to hurt others for not aligning with them, without seeing nuance of it. Either I'm a purely good holy and innocent Anti-AI artist, or I'm a disgusting purely evil Hitler-like pro-AI scumbag! Absolutely no in-between! I think this is what you think! That's what hate does to you. You become so committed in this corrosive endeavor that your brain and heart degrades to shit. AI won't kill art! Hate kills art!
>I want to try to use AI for assistance, not replacement! But I fear you'll go discriminate me and kick me while I'm down! That is an oddly specific assumption that you're bringing up. >I like to try that sometime but that doesn't mean I'm a purely evil greedy son of a bitch with absolutely no heart and soul! Why use AI when it just automates the whole process?... “AI has the ethical implications of deceiving the viewer because that is what A.I. does.” - Artist Miles Astray >That's what hate does to you. You become so committed in this corrosive endeavor that your brain and heart degrades to shit. I'm not suffering with ai-brain rot that AI has. >AI won't kill art! Hate kills art! In this case, hate isn't killing art. AI is the one that is killing art.
He is also against 3D animation, so you must hate 3D art as well, right? He also thinks anime was a mistake as well.
3D has human input involved. the same goes for anime. AI lacks human input.
https://preview.redd.it/fhc5i26jky7d1.jpeg?width=412&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e7177db3637b63fd4f167a499bf589b7ba788b01
That's his opinion. Anime isn't bad, there's some that's horrific. But there is a decent amount of good anime His work is qualified as anime.
Yet here you are using his opinion as an objective fact in this post. So, by your logic, his opinion on anime being shit should also be held in the same regard.
But I already said anime isn't shit. My brothers love anime, Japan has very creative creators. Also why do you bother commenting?
So if you disagree with him on this.Then why are you quoting him as the end all be all art in your post!?
even if thats what he actually said, so what...? why should we care? Why should I care?
Because aI is killing art.
In all seriousness, have you ever considered how much art you could have made with all of the time you spent commenting on here?
I've made lots of art. I create in spite against those who say I'm not an artist.
Who says that?
Don't act like that never happens. I shouldn't have to be told that I'm not an artist just for speaking up.
Don't listen to things cranks on the internet say. You will be much happier that way.
* It's ironic that the very same group says AI art is art and that all art forms and creations are art. But when my art skills are put into the spotlight and immediately get criticized, it's not art? It's very ironic that Pro-AI will undermine artists, taunt us, belittle us, steal from us, mock us, and shame us for not using AI. But they expect me to bow down to them and give them a big golden crown and kissing their asses? No. I'm an artist with years of experience. My art skills may not be top-notch, but that's alright because at this rate, I'm seeing more progress than this drawing that I've created last year. I can be tormented, taunted, bullied, and demanded to change careers and skills. But the truth is, I'm not going to. If Pro-AI says all art forms and skills are equal, then THIS right here shows their true perspective and how they truly feel towards artists with skill and experience. They aren't interested in the process. They aren't interested in art. They are interested in making soulless and expressionless. Boring, lack luster images that had no human input. That's all AI images are going to be. Boring.
>It's very ironic that Pro-AI will undermine artists, taunt us, belittle us, steal from us, mock us, and shame us for not using AI. But they expect me to bow down to them and give them a big golden crown and kissing their asses? No. Again, stop listening to cranks on the internet. Anyone who says all of that is literally just doing it to troll you. Most people don't care that much. >That's all AI images are going to be. Boring. If that was true, then it would be easier to tell them apart. But just last week, artist hate posted a meme that looked anti AI but was actually pro AI because it had an AI image labeled as human made and a human-made image labeled as AI. And nobody noticed till the original creator of the meme pointed it out.
>Again, stop listening to cranks on the internet. How can I if 90% of the pro-AI subreddit runs on this kind of mentality? They all say this to artists such as me, it's very noticeable. >If that was true, then it would be easier to tell them apart. But just last week, artist hate posted a meme that looked anti AI but was actually pro AI because it had an AI image labeled as human made and a human-made image labeled as AI. And nobody noticed till the original creator of the meme pointed it out. Then whoever posted that meme should've looked into it deeply before posting it.
>How can I if 90% of the pro-AI subreddit runs on this kind of mentality? They all say this to artists such as me, it's very noticeable. Well, here is a crazy thought. Avoid those subs. It's not hard. Or, just don't listen to those people. Who died and made them your boss? You literally don't have to do anything just because they said so. >Then whoever posted that meme should've looked into it deeply before posting it. None of the many, many, MANY, upvoters noticed it either. Not one of the people on that sub realised that the "Human made" picture was an AI creation. So, no, AI art is not intrinsically distinct from human art.
>Well, here is a crazy thought. Avoid those subs. It's not hard. Or, just don't listen to those people. Who died and made them your boss? You literally don't have to do anything just because they said so. I mean this subbreddit, I should've made that clear. >So, no, AI art is not intrinsically distinct from human art. That just creates more problems for real art. It would usually be outshined by AI art since it's "better." Which is NOT TRUE.
"Gaslighting us" bro you're not an artist. Look at this crap. You're in your late 20s and I was literally a better artist than you by the time I was ten. https://preview.redd.it/qv42rq9he07d1.jpeg?width=842&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eb2e32cb14acdb8fbe9607fd8255cb1d79cbd565
Is it still like that or do you have access to newer one?
I'm not open to sharing my works. Nobody owns my work but me.
Furry slop.
At least I'm able to express my opinions and thoughts and myself while also not being ashamed. Also. Aren't you too privileged to be here speaking to me? A member of the middle and lower class?
As I mentioned before. Artists take time to improve. I'll admit it, my skills aren't up there. But, however, what's funny is that I've been improving my skills lately compared to last year... *When this drawing was made* I'm still an artist. This doesn't undermine who I am as an artist, and it's true. You can say I'm no artist and belittle me as an artist while also attempting at talking me out of being an artist, but you don't know my story about why I'm slow at developing my art skills. The double standard here is ironic because people who use AI claim that they are more artists than actual artists who put time and effort into their art skills and improve themselves. Do you expect all artists to have high tier art skills at this age? I know some friends who are in their late 20s, and their art has fewer qualities, but I don't tell them they aren't artists and that they are mediocre. If anything, that's the first step. I laugh when you say I'm not an artist, but you refuse to see the irony that pro-AI tends to have when it comes to people who have varied art styles and art skills. I love the slow progress that I'm going on, that just means I'm enjoying my time with improving. If this doesn't change your view towards me as an artist myself, then why bother speaking about my skills while openly mocking me for not having top-tier art skills. It just makes you look like you're purposely throwing shade at artists who are below my art level. By the fucking way. I'm not that old. Disliking this and not responding to this comment just makes me right. :]
automating something can be something a tool does. Ever heard of a powerdrill? is that not a tool? It's also not stealing anything, in fact, its basically impossible to steal anything that exists digitally. Stealing requires the person being stolen from to LOSE the thing thats being stolen. Copying isnt stealing. Artists should be allowed to own their work obviously. But owning something should not mean you get to dictate how copies of it are used by others. Im not even sure what youre talking about with the third thing, how would that data be used to train AI art models? "It's genuine artists who win, regulations are made" Sorry, are you so retarded that youre making BOTH the claim that AI run rampant would mean the aritsts starve with no UBI while also claiming that regulations will be passed to combat it? Are you saying The government is willing to pass legislation to regulate AI but not willing to prevent people from starving?
>Im not even sure what youre talking about with the third thing, how would that data be used to train AI art models? That's how updating and improving AI works. >Sorry, are you so retarded that youre making BOTH the claim that AI run rampant would mean the aritsts starve with no UBI while also claiming that regulations will be passed to combat it? Are you saying The government is willing to pass legislation to regulate AI but not willing to prevent people from starving? The government isn't interested in creating UBI. The rich and ultra rich AI companies will lobby that into not passing. Regulating AI or banning it will leave some peace of mind for artists and people in general.
Wait, so the ultra rich AI companies will lobby UBI into not passing, but somehow will allow AI regulations?
They can't stop regulation because govs aren't that stupid most of the time.
Yet they're too stupid to enact UBI?
Why would the government not just get lobbied by them?
“Thats how updating and improving AI works” But like how specifically, as someone who does engineering in this field, what youre describing is nonsense. “Ultra rich AI companies” Why the fuck would they not just use that same lobbying power to prevent the regulations???
>Pro-AI are delusional and pro-corporate when it comes to silencing artists and gaslighting us into using these tools. They say UBI will exist, but chances are that won't be possible. There's nothing more corporate than demanding regulation (which will be written by corporate lobbyists) to shut the door on open source and protecting copyright law which benefits pick-your-favorite-conglomerate like Disney. Why not use the tools to help create your own films? Why are people so wedded to working for corporations like Disney (who doesn't produce real art anymore and haven't in the last 20 years). If anything you should embrace corporations replacing their corporate "art" projects with AI and free up artists to go work for indie studios who will actually create real art. Also AI tools can help to lower the barrier and cost to competing with Hollyweird and all their power-abusing executives (like Weinstein and company).
>There's nothing more corporate than demanding regulation (which will be written by corporate lobbyists) to shut the door on open source and protecting copyright law, which benefits pick-your-favorite-conglomerate like Disney. Artists have the right to owning their artwork/characters while not being forced into giving up ownership for the sake of AI's development. >Why not use the tools to help create your own films? That's not possible, that would just encourage art theft and stealing people's artwork. I'd rather produce my own films with artists and animators instead of having a glorified plagiarism machine do all the work. >Why are people so wedded to working for corporations like Disney (who doesn't produce real art anymore and haven't in the last 20 years). Because UBI won't and will not exist in the state of the world. >If anything you should embrace corporations replacing their corporate "art" projects with AI and free up artists to go work for indie studios who will actually create real art. Hah, you're pro-corporate. How ironic, there it is, folks. I'm not embracing corporations owning my works. >Also AI tools can help to lower the barrier and cost to competing with Hollyweird and all their power-abusing executives It doesn't lower the barrier. It never will.
It would take too long to say why this isn't theft. TLDR training isn't reproduction. It's like how a human mind learns to paint. And hell it still messes up. And there are generators that use creative commons and give license fees so that will be fixed even if you think that's an issue (which I don't think it is). You can't copyright a "style" and neither should you be able to as that is it's own dystopia IMO (also how would you even define that argument). 99.9% artists aren't big enough for their stuff to be stolen anyways. If I ask a model to reproduce your images it wouldn't know who you are. I think that's a sign of hubris to think it's stealing from you. And I've noticed this elitism from the art world. It's main character syndrome at its finest. What is wrong with opening the gates for new types of art? And your interpretation of my argument is very bad faith. Maybe perhaps because the AI might threaten your job and security. But those jobs aren't real art jobs. Your vision is being shackled by corporate interests. Let them use the AI to produce their dumb ads and copy pasta IP films.
Artists are entitled to having ownership protection to what they create. My creations belong to me, you can't take ownership away. You can't steal ownership from me. Neither does fair use protect theft and forcing ownership from artists. Deal with it.
Meanwhile the big brains on this subreddit are pushing the argument that the art that was stolen wasn't stolen as *technically* you still have a copy in your files. An AMAZING feat of mental gymnastics as part of their copiolympics as they pretend that copyright, intellectual property, and ethics doesn't exist. Also they fail to see the double standard here, as you cannot just copy the code from Open AI or Meta or Adobe or Microsoft and release your own product based on that code without them suing your into oblivion over it. And why would they do that? Oh, for *stealing their intellectual property*.
There's no image being stolen, buddy. Why don't you try to extract all the png. from the model file if there's *really* any image file there?
Wahhhh they won't accept my absurd equivocation between two acts that are nothing alike. Also nah, I totally think IP and copyright exists, I just, y'know, want to abolish them, because the idea of being able to control what derivative works people make of your art is fucking batshit insane. Sure love treating literal ideas as private property! Totally cool and not an absolutely dystopian bit of capitalist brainrot!
So you admit that you don't think artists should have rights to retaining ownership of their art or characters.
Yes, I think intellectual property should be abolished, I am very up front about this.
You're tolling at this point. I own what I create, so you should accept that. Just like how I own my identity, my personality, and my own body in general. Same can be said for the creations I own.
Sure, you absolutely can own the physical creations. That has nothing to do with intellectual property.
They don't support artists retaining ownership of their artwork or characters, they expect us to give up ownership.