This fucking peaks

I agree with this message!

This

couldn't have said it any better.

This will find extensive use.

"its not just writing a prompt, it takes hours"
Hours of you telling someone else to do the work you could never do on your own more like

600th post. Nice. 👍

...when you open Youtube and 70% of the ads are all for A.I. products

I'm with funny purple snake, all the way.

No lies found.

iller said:
...when you open Youtube and 70% of the ads are all for A.I. products

Look for a chrome/firefox extension that can block any title that contains keywords such as AI, called YTBlock - Block any content on y(tm) You can just type YTBlock and that should come up, I've been fucking loving it.

cant_find_username said:
too bad ai won't stay slop forever

Ai will always be slop, you dont learn from it, you dont make it, its just generated. Souless generated slop that you get nothing from.

Fuckin' agreed, NCS. Absolutely agreed.

People here really be thinking that A.I will replace actual artists in the market/industry, they do not realise that the companies looking for A.I. image generators are to looking to cut corners, and when it doesn't work out, they will go back to hiring actual artists.

These A.i. image bros are just here for ragebaiting

Found this on youtube,

Computer Rendered Artificial Pictures
C.R.A.P

The only thing that pisses me off about AI art is when people call themselves 'AI Artists'.
There's no such thing like that. You're telling a computer program what you want, and the thing does the work for you. If that could be called an artist, any person who ever commissioned someone would be too.

Lmao, the comments here are FIREY. Remember not to feed the trolls, they thrive off of interaction.

bunussylover said:
Ai will always be slop, you dont learn from it, you dont make it, its just generated. Souless generated slop that you get nothing from.

somebody hasn't heard about slops razor yet...

AI is all inspiration, no creativity. It literally cannot make it's own choices and take liberties like people can.

lazy AI art will never replace our amazing furry artists on this site.

Lotta rage bait here, huh?

bunussylover said:
Ai will always be slop, you dont learn from it, you dont make it, its just generated. Souless generated slop that you get nothing from.

well, there's enough pigs out there to eat that shit right up

just_a_boi said:
Lmao, the comments here are FIREY. Remember not to feed the trolls, they thrive off of interaction.

I thought it was bad here, then I had the brilliant idea to go check the source. It's the sort of thing that makes you crave a lobotomy.

morc said:
Lotta rage bait here, huh?

In fairness, I think only half of it is intentional; there are definitely people here who fail to see the irony of preaching AI superiority on a site made specifically to archive art.

It makes sense that artists would dislike that which seeks to replace them, no matter how good or bad AI art actually is in practice.

emenius said:
It will, however, replace literally every other form of self-expression in society. The future is now, old man.

That's certainly the concern, isn't it? Right now most companies and institutions and also general citizens certainly seem to be on the hype train. I've seen some rather believable (at least at first glance) AI generated results, but there is still a *lot* of question as to how far this technology can practically go. In all honesty the more one is tricked into believing AI generated content is legitimate, the worse it feels when you discover the truth.
The major AI companies like open AI operate at a loss, so there are basically two scenarios I see happening in the future:

1: AI never becomes commercially viable, meaning the hype bubble pops, where one of two things occur: it never reaches parity with human art, or no matter how much fidelity it has, it simply falls out of style, being lost to the annals of history like the Betamax or disco. At least for the average consumer, it is not able to return profits, which means it's kept for government psyops or rich hobbyists which can pay the sustainable fees for using it.
2: AI only gets more popular, and reaches parity with humans or we just lose the feeling of existential dread when thinking of what happens to societies without purpose (read artistic expression and practically all other forms of labor). It replaces the artistic jobs, then the intellectual, except for the fields dedicated to improving it, and then the manual. Humanity has a far worse crisis of purpose than it's having today, and there's a good chance we just kinda... die out. Not cash money.

This topic of discussion, as shown above, can cause people to get pretty heated, so I'll leave it there except to say:
I fall in the camp of "It's hard or impossible to get rid of, but damn does it fill me with dread thinking about the effects this could have on society"

cant_find_username said:
too bad ai won't stay slop forever

bait

jimmychanga said:
2: AI only gets more popular, and reaches parity with humans or we just lose the feeling of existential dread when thinking of what happens to societies without purpose (read artistic expression and practically all other forms of labor). It replaces the artistic jobs, then the intellectual, except for the fields dedicated to improving it, and then the manual. Humanity has a far worse crisis of purpose than it's having today, and there's a good chance we just kinda... die out. Not cash money.

This topic of discussion, as shown above, can cause people to get pretty heated, so I'll leave it there except to say:
I fall in the camp of "It's hard or impossible to get rid of, but damn does it fill me with dread thinking about the effects this could have on society"

Given that art jobs used to be purely the domain of the rich back when artists were commissioned or kept on by rich families in the older eras it'll just look to return back to people with money willing to throw out for Traditional Art. Though these debates over AI reminds me of the hatred Camera art and Digital Art got before. Where they weren't considered "Real Art" compared to putting pen and pencil to paper and that if you were using computer tools it wasn't something to be celebrated.

fluffermutt said:
bait

Is it? The output of AI is getting harder and harder to detect among art these days. I don't think you can really dispute that. It's getting better, whether or not we want it to.

jimmychanga said:
That's certainly the concern, isn't it? Right now most companies and institutions and also general citizens certainly seem to be on the hype train. I've seen some rather believable (at least at first glance) AI generated results, but there is still a *lot* of question as to how far this technology can practically go. In all honesty the more one is tricked into believing AI generated content is legitimate, the worse it feels when you discover the truth.
The major AI companies like open AI operate at a loss, so there are basically two scenarios I see happening in the future:

1: AI never becomes commercially viable, meaning the hype bubble pops, where one of two things occur: it never reaches parity with human art, or no matter how much fidelity it has, it simply falls out of style, being lost to the annals of history like the Betamax or disco. At least for the average consumer, it is not able to return profits, which means it's kept for government psyops or rich hobbyists which can pay the sustainable fees for using it.
2: AI only gets more popular, and reaches parity with humans or we just lose the feeling of existential dread when thinking of what happens to societies without purpose (read artistic expression and practically all other forms of labor). It replaces the artistic jobs, then the intellectual, except for the fields dedicated to improving it, and then the manual. Humanity has a far worse crisis of purpose than it's having today, and there's a good chance we just kinda... die out. Not cash money.

This topic of discussion, as shown above, can cause people to get pretty heated, so I'll leave it there except to say:
I fall in the camp of "It's hard or impossible to get rid of, but damn does it fill me with dread thinking about the effects this could have on society"

I rather have A.I. replacing hazardous and dangerous jobs (Water-welding and Construction comes to mind) rather than letting it replacing creative jobs first, and frankly I would support A.I. machines that can repairs itself like terminators (probably bad comparison) rather than having it trying to be "creative" like humans.

emenius said:
Stay mad, art-lets. While you're slaving away 12 hours a day, killing your wrist and eventually succumbing to arthritis and/or Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, JUST to make ONE mediocre picture; I'll be creating masterpiece after MASTERPIECE stealing all your followers and making millions! How can you even compare! Art-lets, when will they ever learn? AI is the future and they're gonna get left behind in the dust!

Cheap bait is cheap.

AI bros if having copiously stupid takes was a profession: 💸💸💸🤑🤑

Based as always

blackgum said:
generating slop > paying extortionate $$$ to commission slob

False dilemma, you can pick up a pencil.

fluffermutt said:
False dilemma, you can pick up a pencil.

If a person is willing to use machine learning to produce content: What do they gain from this? They're comparable to commissioners, not artists. Their goal is to receive a piece they enjoy with as little resistance and wait as possible and share it with others who may also enjoy the result. Many even share the input prompts.

In this regard, both paying and socializing with another human (miscommunication, negative assumptions, perceived exploitation, social incompatibility, emotional vulnerability, dishonesty, unavailability, harassment, etc.) or learning to draw (a massive time sink) have many pitfalls that writing a prompt following rigid logic (akin to coding, a skill they may already have) doesn't.

I'm not claiming superiority of AI content, just providing a perspective on why neither of those options may be appealing to someone who's already willing to use generative tools for instant gratification.

Edit: Also just remembered a fourth option: Purchasing an artist's galleries, comics, games/simulations, assets, etc. It's (usually) not possible to influence the final product, but it's cheaper than commissions and doesn't involve much interaction with the artist. It's more expensive than a local generation, but it's possibly a lot less time consuming if there's not a readily available prompt to reuse and everything the artist makes is produced deliberately.

Of course, machine content also gets sold, but I feel it's competing on a much more level playing field with pre-made content from actual artists unless its of something that's not easily found elsewhere (e.g. porn of plus size/elderly women with non-fat grown men of equal or greater height).

fluffermutt said:
False dilemma, you can pick up a pencil.

No dilemma. I have a job and more valuable hobbies. I have supported the work of artists I value when I could through patreon and other services. But never commissioned. Much of the commission scene repulsive.

hsauq said:
Some hard facts

hsauq knows what's going on. Genners want that instant good good without having to deal with insufferable penciljockeys trying to drain their wallet. I'd bet that the good artists will always have a career, considering the vehement opposition image generation has, and genners being fully aware their outputs will always be crude imitations that need edits to appear legit.

And people who buy generated content are dummies, but it's a good laugh, respect the hustle.

blackgum said:
No dilemma. I have a job and more valuable hobbies. I have supported the work of artists I value when I could through patreon and other services. But never commissioned. Much of the commission scene repulsive.

hsauq knows what's going on. Genners want that instant good good without having to deal with insufferable penciljockeys trying to drain their wallet. I'd bet that the good artists will always have a career, considering the vehement opposition image generation has, and genners being fully aware their outputs will always be crude imitations that need edits to appear legit.

And people who buy generated content are dummies, but it's a good laugh, respect the hustle.

??? Why do you dislike artists for charging money to draw what people want them to draw but "respect the hustle" of people selling access to random images that their computer generated for money? This is genuinely the most confounding combination of takes I have ever seen.

Fully Agree

Common NCS W