 |
AI-generated and AI-assisted contentby
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Viewed: | 18,472 times |
| Added: | 1 year, 5 months ago |
| Site News Item: | yes |
| " | CaolanTheWolfYT wrote: |
| Looks all good to me, making it a rule to have the ai_assisted tag is a good idea, it means it's easy for people who don't want to see ai art to easily block it all from their blocked keywords 👍 |
| " | KlinKitty wrote: |
| Yeah, AI art is very flawed, but it is still an interesting tool. This seems like a good step; let people experiment with it, but be restrictive re: the training data and selling it as original work. |
| " | Why do you think anti-nazi and antifascist groups and writers in scifi depict armies of cyborgs as fascist regimes? |
| " | Tell me why a consumerist who can do it themselves would pay someone who uses AI? |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| We shall prevail! 📺 🔨 |
| " | ILoveJudyHopps wrote: |
| literally 1984 |
| " | AutoSnep wrote: |
| You shouldn't be worried! Now you can become an artist in just one hour! 😁 |
| " | AutoSnep wrote: |
| You shouldn't be worried! Now you can become an artist in just one hour! 😁 |
| " | OnyKR wrote: |
|
I like the idea to make the Inkbunny own tool for this service :3 That gonna help much for people which use it to post their arts. |
| " | In all cases you must not upload content for which you used closed-source tools or those which charge a subscription fee to access a gated model. For example, content generated by NovelAI or Midjourney must not be uploaded to Inkbunny, because the models they use are not freely available. |
|
Balmung |
| " | Balmung wrote: |
|
Sounds good! I'm actually quite excited about the requirement to disclose how an image was generated, because I hope that will result in a rapid process of refinement and improvement. The basic stuff is easy to make but gets very repetitive, but by having people show their bag of tricks we'll hopefully avoid a flood of mostly the same thing done slightly differently a hundred times. I also think it's a good idea to require some quality and variety. |
| " | Juno wrote: |
| If someone wanted to generate art using current furry artists as a reference, couldn't they just not mention that those artists were used as a reference? |
| " | our upcoming refresh of our Acceptable Content Policy |
| " | roboart wrote: |
| I also think that 25 years for a deceased artist is too long. Could it be reduced to 5 or 10 years? It would rule out using artists such as Thomas Kinkade or Pino Daeni, and I think most people would consider it OK to include them in the prompts. |
| " | GreyMaria wrote: |
|
By the time a final policy is established, one way or the other, it'll already be too late and none of them will tell you that their images are AI. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| This was actually a significant consideration - it's bad policy to make a rule you can't effectively enforce. So... we want to make it reasonably easy to comply with the rule |
| " | Avalony wrote: |
|
To me that would be a scam, because doing something with an AI doesn't make you an artist, the robot is doing it for you. And anyway, why make a commission? If the client can make the art with an AI by himself and save money. Anyone could make art with an AI. |
| " | ZekLullaby wrote: |
|
Did you really spend hours reading a comment section from a year ago? I wish I had that much free time. I still think not allowing AI on the art sites could be a net positive, that's the line and most artists will agree and it doesn't need to be a slippery slope, the sentiment is pretty settle now with over a year to discuss it. |
| " | ZekLullaby wrote: |
|
Who said I consider myself a furry? I care a lot more about the low quality results in google with all the AI pollution lately. AI generation is literally poisoning the web, but go ahead, I don't have anything else to add. I'm busy creating things I enjoy doing. Arguing isn't one. |
| " | KevinSnowpaw wrote: |
| Most importantly, Inkbunny has thus far only allowed you to upload work that YOU created or that was created for you. |
| " | KevinSnowpaw wrote: |
| On top of that the AI uses other peoples art to MAKE the art... |
| " | Which artists? |
| " | The laborious efforts of self-expression should be protected, as much as labour itself. |
| " | strikecentral wrote: |
| Making sure people understand what they're looking at and not being scammed into buying a commission that was made with no actual effort on the artist's part is not luddite at all. |
| " | AlexReynard wrote: |
| 1) I have no idea how to find the generator and model numbers of what I've been using. It's just standard-ass browser-version Stable Diffusion. |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| Despite what you say, those models are full of what you term "overfitting". People are doing this intentionally and even using LoRAs and DreamBooth to literally guarantee that the AI model doesn't just plagiarise, it does it so recognisably. |
| " | ChatGPT [...] breaks words into reusable tokens |
| " | NeiNing wrote: |
| This ai_art thing is completely new to me so I must ask few things: 1. Is other peoples' arts used in these arts? |
| " | KinoKinotsu wrote: |
|
Second, the exclusion of walled garden models like NovelAI and Midjourney. This basically has two effects: You will almost never see high quality ML works, furthering the impression that it is not and can not be art. *shrug* (The quality of a model is entirely based on how much money was put in to make it. It's not feasible to train a good model for free.) *double shrug* And, you are making a statement that, paying for your tools is not competitive, fair... I don't actually follow the implied reasoning. A cynical interpretation could read it as: "We don't think using high quality art supplies is fair to users working with less." |
| " | KinoKinotsu wrote: |
|
First, the mandatory inclusion of prompts and generation data: This is basically devaluating the work itself further. By explicitly mandating that the artist divulge all their techniques for the public if they want to share their work. A cynical interpretation could read it as "You may only upload your art if you tell us exactly what paints and brushes you used, and what music was playing in the background." While making prompt data publicly available helps artists using ML make better stuff. It also means they will never be able to "compete" with each other. It is invalidating the skill that can and must be acquired to make quality works with these systems. |
| " | People who generate art are not artists. |
| " | Amaterasu wrote: |
|
Imagine if i got someone to make me a picture, i told them everything I wanted down down to a 2000 word essay and had it revised several times until it was to my liking and it took me several hours on my end reviewing revising and telling the other person any changes that should be made. Am i the artist of that picture? If you say no, then what makes that scenario any different than AI generated art? the fact that its a machine creating the art and not a human? please elaborate on how those two things are different because you want so bad for people who make ai images to be considered artists but you wouldnt extend the same rules to commissioners. |
| " | Athari wrote: |
| Furthermore, some artists who can draw well lack imagination, so only commissions are worth any attention. |
| " | And, you are making a statement that, paying for your tools is not competitive, fair... I don't actually follow the implied reasoning. A cynical interpretation could read it as: "We don't think using high quality art supplies is fair to users working with less." |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
|
The goal is not to deliberately use bad models; it is the principle that as the models were obtained from the commons, they should be available to the commons. It's an extension of "don't use materials you don't have the right to" [to make money]. It wouldn't apply if they did what they are doing now but also made the code and models freely available, because then they'd just be charging for a technical service that anyone could do rather than collecting rent on harvested experience. |
| " | Chira wrote: |
| an AI however would not be able to do this, she needs to steal A TON of artwork from other artists to get to the point what the comissioner would want from the AI. AND THAT is the problem, that an AI steals other artists work. thats why this is such a huge issue. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| is that it has transformed a common good (art made available for access - not always legally to start with) into private property for which access is almost inevitably charged for. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| Many have an issue with people making money off their art, and that logically extends to those providing gated online services |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| and AI image models are restorative. |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| inputs are extremely important in the output as per GIGO |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| Quantum isn't random either, quantum data responds to wave functions and distribution responds to frequency. |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| And no, SD treats training images as the lookup tree, the input of the lookup tree abides to GIGO. |
| " | Lol if quantum mechanics was random, quantum entanglement wouldn't work. |
| " | And the mods talk about making money from it instead of with artists, though e6 did kind of start out as a borderline piracy site prior to artists posting to it. Artists hated it so much they had to split e621 and e6ai in two, e6ai is nowhere near as successful as even other newer furry boorus, and the overall view is that most artists just don't want their artwork criminally data laundered. |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| txt2img and img2img has a very different quality of output because YiffyMix lacks a great deal of image consistency in txt2img due to the sheer variance anthros and fantasy animals have compared to humans. |
| " | ...the quality of copyright protection for the crossed legs is very weak. Without the Gucci sandals (in which Blanch [the plaintiff] has no copyright interest) all that is left is a representation of a woman's legs, crossed at the ankle. That is not sufficiently original to deserve much copyright protection. |
| " | Early on, we used sketches and a mash-up photo technique called “photobashing” to try to capture the spirit of the Inquisition’s fortress. Once actual construction began, we used the development model as a base for more detailed production paintings. |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| Name me one reputable studio that allows unethical photobashing. |
| " | Furx wrote: |
| (Stable Diffusion for instance has relatively high GPU requirements). |
| " | Furx wrote: |
| The cheapest card with 6 GB of VRAM that I can go and actually buy from a store locally right now costs 330 euros. |
| " | Furx wrote: |
| It's more expensive than the 970 GTX that I have was when it was new. |
| " | Furx wrote: |
| Also 35% of people in Steam hardware survey have less than 6 GB of VRAM. |
| " | AutoSnep wrote: |
| OMG. The level of elitism. |
| " | AutoSnep wrote: |
| "If you don't earn $1000, you have no right to be interested in machine learning." |
| " | AutoSnep wrote: |
| I'm Russian. I can survive on $250 a month. I can't afford a new GPU. |
| " | AutoSnep wrote: |
| What was your point again? |
|
fireYtail |
| " | This is a furry forum, not a socialist forum. |
| " | Should we ban fan art because it uses characters created by a supposed "proletarian"? |
| " | Our production is NOT your private property, AI plagiarists! |
| " | why are you endorsing a technology that is measured by hardware core-count and memory size expenses and not the artistic merit of working artists? |
| " | And why do you think everyone is rich. |
| " |
expensive VRAM GPU integrated CPU graphics middle class and lazy non-disabled welfare-abusing classes stealing spam leeches afforded data launder mortal time heavy computation environmental damage, energy crisis and climate change corps and miners. richest people mining world population RTX GPU. second hand the best semi-affordable 300 euro second hand 300 euro cost of GPU: |
.gif "Rakuen"){kind=avatar}
| " | Rakuen wrote: |
|
AI is not just magic. It's a tool, just like Photoshop is a tool. There is a skill to real-life drawing which is different to using a drawing programme with layers, an undo button, automatic filters, blurs and the ability to tweak colours after the fact, use smart selection, clone areas and so on. Similarly using AI correctly has its own skills in correctly defining prompts, combining the generated images and whatever else is done. To quote Ashtarat from higher in the comment thread: When I create AI-assisted art, I'm not jamming the 'start' button 100 times and picking the best one. It goes through hours of prompt tweaks, emphases, and several rounds of additional rendering/post production editing. You may as well ask every artist to upload all of their line art, roughs, and vectors/layers separately for each submission. |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
| Or, wait, i seen a lot of art in my life, my own artstyle is an amalgam of the things i like in other artist's art, my brain takes all that shit and... generates drawings out of it. Is every art ever made stolen in that case? Since my brain is using everyone else's art as a subconscious "model" to generate art when i draw art. Clearly my brain has stolen all the art I have ever seen in my entire life, my body is just less effective than an A.I. and takes 2 hours to render it into an image, instead of 1 second. |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
|
Also you are underselling how much computation is involved in photoshop's varous filters and tools. Photoshop is way more than a pencil.Imagine you can talk to your pencil, tell it, "make my image sharper and prettier" and the pencil says "yes master", flies out of your hand and is done 1 second later. That's not a pencil. Actually i find most of this whole debate and most of these comments very funny. I'm fairly sure most people come here to watch generic vanilla porn with generic characters fucking, while they masturbate. They don't come here to debate artistic merits, very few do. So this is all very funny when suddenly everybody cares what is or isn't art. |
| " | Athari wrote: |
| Mmm, technological singularity. Haven't heard about it recently. Maybe the humanity will be satisfied with neural waifus and will abandon technological progress. |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
| Turn paintings into videos? Or into 3d renders? |
| " | Chira wrote: |
|
AI steals copyrighted artwork. (well a lot of art is not copyrighted but still its called respect to not steal it, an AI doesnt knows the word "respect") that is the whole issue. if you would be an artist and let me say you drawn in your career 2000 pictures (which is a lot) and now comes an AI and STEALS ALL OF THEM!!! to generate from your content new pictures and even more worse, the person using it makes money out if it with your scanned and stolen artwork. i would bet that you will be NOT happy about this. |
| " | Chira wrote: |
| is a really dumb argument and it certently WONT win. |
| " | Chira wrote: |
| fact is, how AI today grabs (aka steals) artwork to generate new content is not ok. if an artist wants to feed an AI with its own stuff is that ok in my opinion. if he trains the AI with his own stuff is that ok aswell. the only thing i am saying is that i find it not ok how AI takes artwork from artists without permission. if you say thats ok because its not copyrighted or the copyright ran maybe out shows this to me that you seem to have no respect torwards artists and just taking it because "its not copyrighted or copyright ran out". >w> i mean, prove me wrong but you literarly said "i would take the art if it has no copyright". |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
| i would dare to say that barely anything here artwork wise is copyrighted because artists here would need to go through a lot of paperwork with the DMCA etc. and what you saying is basicly "i can take all the artwork from IB and they can do nothing *evil grin*" thats how i understood it >w>. |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
| However, "This thing is bad but you cannot stop everyone from doing it therefore we shouldn't try to stop it at all or make any rules" is not a good argument. By this argument one has to abolish all laws and rules, so this type of argument never works well. |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
| You cannot permanently stop technological progress, but you can certainly slow it down, temporarily pause it, and sometimes even push it backwards for a while. And, if the society becomes sufficiently antagonistic, they can even "nuke it all back to stone age" |
| " | Chira wrote: |
| in short, i do not understand why you both defend it that artwork gets stolen to create new content. |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
| Being the endless devil's advocate that I am. |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
|
I'm gonna pose this thesis. Shouldn't training an A.I. on copyrighted content fall under fair use? Isn't what the A.I. makes a logical equivalent of transformative work which is technically protected under fair use? |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
| If I look at a bunch of artists and draw something vaguely resembling amalgam of their things, I have created transformative work protected under fair use. |
| " | supremekitten wrote: |
| Granted, A.I. isn't a person and has no right of it's own, and if it's an A.I. generating transformative work, rather than a person, I wonder where that would even fall into. |
| " | We have no plans to create our own training model from Inkbunny's art, or provide the means to generate such work through the site. |
| " | SourCherryAD wrote: |
|
I think there is some unclarity though. Like someone mentioned, there are tools in some programs that are AI powered, such as CSP's colorize tool. Many animators use this tool. Would all those animations have to be labelled as AI assisted? I also can't say I agree with the no closed or paid AI. Then the only restriction that imposes is that your AI art should be made with the shittiest resources available? Meanwhile plenty of us use paid art software such as CSP or Adobe Suite. Other than that, AI art disclaimers are totally necessary and I 100% agree with those. Overall, just wanna comment IB for not taking the big hammer approach and, as always, giving furry artists the room to express our own versions of art. |
| " | To my understanding, AI art has the same legal repercussions as art made by an animal. None of it is copy-rightable in any regard. It's pretty well accepted in the English common law countries that only products produced by people. |
| " | What's the legal test? You have to have a specific expectation of what shape and form the actions you take have on the "canvas." |
| " | To my understanding, AI art has the same legal repercussions as art made by an animal. None of it is copy-rightable in any regard. It's pretty well accepted in the English common law countries that only products produced by people. |
| " | It's not like it's hard to apply a filter or crop an image an AI produced. One could easily claim the work as one's own then. |
| " | What I want to know is how is this not going to turn into a witch hunt as the machine learning art programs get better and people start blaming newer artists of being "A.I. Generated" when they have no proof? |
| " | Mylen wrote: |
|
Following your example: if a hat existed that could near instantaneously project your imagination onto a canvas, and then you give everyone that hat, what then? That would entirely gut what gives the work meaning. What would be the point of being an artist anymore if it's just millions of images shat out of someone's mind every 3 seconds, one after the other? |
| " | Mylen wrote: |
|
Using your mind to tell your arm to draw a line on a tablet is human. Typing in lines of text which feeds a mechanical brain to do your bidding by yoinking a bunch of art from people who probably want nothing to do with this, to the best of its ability, is not human. |
| " | Mylen wrote: |
| I'm shaming people who steal pieces of the dining room table and have a machine use those pieces to make something similar very quickly for profit or social gain. |
| " | Mylen wrote: |
| If you can't draw and you wanna do it, learn. I used to fucking suck at drawing. I spent 13 years off and on. |
| " | Mylen wrote: |
| I think I'm gonna be done responding to this thread, because I don't really vibe with things that damage humanity. |
| " | Mylen wrote: |
|
This is a dangerous slippery slope. Following your example: if a hat existed that could near instantaneously project your imagination onto a canvas, and then you give everyone that hat, what then? That would entirely gut what gives the work meaning. What would be the point of being an artist anymore if it's just millions of images shat out of someone's mind every 3 seconds, one after the other? |
| " | Art requires a human's touch, a soul. |
| " | Photography is the same, it requires knowledge of lighting, composition, depth of field, and so on. |
| " | The idea that the worth of art is decided by the aesthetic tastes of a gaggle of random strangers is so perverse it's hard to even express. The decisions the artist makes- hell, the MISTAKES the artist makes- are what makes art interesting at all. |
| " | The vast, vast majority of what makes thousands of dollars on the furry commission circuit is what the public would consider "perfect"- detailed, rendered, stamped out "professional art." |
| " | The idea that we should appeal to this endless appetite to see Lion King characters copied perfectly without any of the context or character or creative intrigue |
| " | Athari wrote: |
| If the price we pay is artists working in this genre going bankrupt then so be it. |
| " | "I don't care if thousands of humans starve to death so long as I get to see my well rendered Lion King characters cuddle." |
| " | There's not really any way for you to know that, if you haven't submitted anything recently, but your anecdote is dated. |
| " |
from Athari at 03 Oct 2019 15:13 from Inkbunny Support Team at 15 Sep 2022 00:53 |
| " |
from Athari at 02 Dec 2021 09:48 from Inkbunny Support Team at 16 Jul 2022 22:56 |
| " | Keris wrote: |
|
The human brain is doing something similar, you see something and get inspired by it, you learn from it. That's why there are art tutorials and so on. |
| " | AutoSnep wrote: |
| When we lose the ability to tell the difference, people will learn to stop caring and everybody will forget these rules exist. 🤪 |
| " | I don't see how you could tell a prompt to be specific with composition |
| " | to get those eyes looking up at the camera just right |
| " | Nor does it really understand layout or using the majority of the canvas space, or finding your focal point and building up from there. |
| " | I'd imagine it just kinda puts your subject in the middle of the canvas, and just kinda guesses what you wanna see :p |
| " | Can an ML content creator get /experience/? |
| " | Can they /refine/ their own work and hone it to a fine edge? |
| " | I believe this is an overreaction born out of fear. |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
|
"Is the future?" Uh, says you and what anti-democratic regime? Reverting to the social darwinistic Manifesto of Italian Futurism are we now? Destroy art, worship the machine and all that world war causing hubbub. And no machines don't do what humans do, humans don't interpolate thousands of data laundered images and then psychically transfer it from neurons to paper without any effort. Artwork is protected as labour not thought. Also you'd have to have some pretty amazing superhuman hyper-phantasia to even hold such information in your brain. Considering most people can't even what they wore the day before. Art is a visuospatial learning process not a visual computational one. |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| "Uh, says you and what anti-democratic regime?" |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| "Social darwinistic Manifesto of Italian Futurism?" |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| "Destroy art, worship the machine and all that world war causing hubbub." |
| " | Inafox wrote: |
| "And no machines don't do what humans do, humans don't interpolate thousands of data laundered images and then psychically transfer it from neurons to paper without any effort. Artwork is protected as labor not thought..." |
| " | Athari wrote: |
|
Screenshots and ML-assisted content are different cases. I'd say the main problem with screenshots is that they take a lot of space while nobody actually views them, so they're wasting server storage. ML-assisted art, on the other hand, does atract views and favs. Despite some people claiming that it's low quality and soulless. That means that InkBunny's users actually want to see more of it. |
| " | Athari here believes in nothing but metrics and algorithms, as that's all that matters to them. They believe artists are merely racing to receive the biggest numbers, as though this is a certain social media website. Users are likewise just a means to an end to them, demographics to be marketed to and harvested for views and favorites, more numbers under a content creator's belt rather than actual people. |
| " | They believe prompts and asking the AI for their wishes is an abstract art, requiring clever wordsmithing and years of contemplation to give them that level of “experience” |
| " | They're willing to throw so many under the bus, all because existing artists don't make the art they want at a constant pace and for free. |
| " | EmptyAli wrote: |
| All steps of picture generating video from one of the articles in the internet |
| " | recording that "noise", blended between no matter how many superposing radio/TV station signals, unless it's completely worthless noise it is still recording signals. |
| " | EmptyAli wrote: |
| Also, are you trying to tell me that it stores billions of images for every possible prompt in a 4GB file? |
| " | bestbuds wrote: |
| I don't consider collection of publicly available artworks for use as training data as art theft. These models do not stitch together or combine various artworks to make the image, they generate original images. To say that learning to do art by looking at the work of others is somehow stealing, exploiting, abusing the work of others is just plain nonsense. |
| " | Inafox wrote: | ||
There's a difference between publicly available and public domain. Public availability of art is under the rights of worker exposure, while public domain is posthumous ex-copyright and de-copyrighted works. "these models do not stitch together or combine various artworks to make the image" yes they do, they use restorative diffusion which breaks a composition, denoises it "restoring" the image using feature maps, taken and broken down from the most difficult elements of artistic images. AIs are not sapient or blackboxes when perceived in physicalist terms, wherein they are entirely derivative of image data, interpolation and estimation. I advise you read some scientific papers instead of anthropomorphising estimative restorative algorithms. |
|
LustPuppet |
| " | Athari wrote: |
| By the way, I find it amusing that some people are interested in using ML-generated art for inspiration, while other people claim such art is empty and soulless. 😆 |
| " | Cuddleboy19 wrote: |
| Oh, NOW they decide to crack down on the art-bots! |
| " | losira wrote: |
|
I can tell the person who wrote this has zero clue what they are talking about. "The image must not have been generated using prompts that include the name of a living or recently deceased (within the last 25 years) artist. Well this includes literally all furry art. So I fine tune my model with their art as training data, but I just can't use them in the prompt? You realize you can still use the artists data even if they aren't in the prompt right? These are some completely nonsensical rules. Please educate yourself or just ban it outright. |
| " | ThePhantomMeanie wrote: |
|
AI art is nothing more than high-tech tracing. Ban it and good riddance |
| " | For that rules like don't upload AI to ink bunny and I will not share my ai arts to Ink bunny I don't want to everyone see my prompts. |
| " | Showing prompts and every detail give (so everyone need to give up their style make it public) and generated ai and midjorney and novel banned. |
| " | or people move to other sites. |
| " | Also Ink bunny allow them to burry by other arts with that rules. Other web site only ask is this AI yes or no. Done. Example Pixiv or Devianart. |
| " | And for people still complaining about AI. Wake up there is no turning back everyone moving to AI. |
| " | Like it or not. It will become more more more better every seconds |
| " | Also it makes no one can do things and god like speed. |
| " | You can do what you do but AI changed things forever like it or not genie out of the bottle no one can't do anything about it. |
| " | Even Lets say you ban it here it will always be out there and it will still effect you. You just bury your head in the sand. And blocking consumer to see more products. |
| " | Suggestion adapt instead of complaining. Even its effect real jobs and make people jobless. |
| " | Yes its sad but there is no one can do anything about it because genie out of the bottle remember this complaining can't do anything adapt. |
| " | my drawing results are amazing |
| " | Its not coprigtable mean its not art. |
| " | And look at Nvidia stock did you see anything like it even crpyto things never close to that. And lots AI papers release in secs |
| " | For me its better than lots of things and it my own style of want because of my promps showing my soul in them. |
| " | Art is art like or not. Somepeople deny still not change fact. Consumers takes it as art. Even AI destroy humans in art contents prove its better art. |
| " | Your saying or others saying won't change AI revulation on all sectors and real life aplications. This is not crypto or NFT this thing can do what can you do in so fast and bigger amounts. And its evolve so fast every day getting so better and learning more faster with new Nvidia cards. |
| " | And like humans do AI need to be train on what humans train on... |
| " | In future money open doors all AI patents. You will see just wait. World is about change soon. |
| " | People trying to block AI afraid of AI replace of them. And sad reality is yes it will. |
|
| " |
You don't need accept but it will forcely accepted in future. Genie out of the bottle trying to stop only burry your hand in sand. Lots of AI protesters now using AI. Because people understand how it usefull and less eford need to make samethings. |
| " | Bold of you to assume AI artists don't have a creation process or vision that they apply and enjoy! I spend as much time on my pieces as any traditional artists, and very little of that time is spent 'generating'. |
| " | Your entire argument boils down to protectionism and creating a wall around art skills so they are only acquired in the way YOU deem acceptable. |
| " | Do you not understand how your statements are not just wrong but deeply ignorant? |
| " | I am an AI artist. I care about my process AND results, and my process is enjoyable even if it's different from yours. |
| " | There are plenty of "horse tracks". E621 is one of those. They don't allow AI Art... so why do you want to attack it on the ONE place that does other than bigotry, the same thing that keeps pretty much all CUB art siloed between here and E621? |
| " | The AI Bros--they're always straight men. |
