AI artists

[Nogsec]

Are half of them trolling?

I feel a wave of cringe when I hear one say I "drew/composed/wrote/came up with/created" this with AI!

LIKE there's no way they're serious right?

Please tell me Im not the only sane one who thinks they're just failurebound cheating themselves

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Maria a écrit :

... As long as you don't have permission to use them from the original artist, you can't and mustn't use them as a basis....

Copyright doesn't even protect things from being traced and used as a pose basis, which happens all the time, and good thing too or you'd never be able to draw anything humanoid in any pose because Disney would have already snatched up all of the poses that are useful for a person or character to make, with their large library of movies. You'd either have to make everything about aliens that are somehow different from everyone else's aliens (this is comparable to how much of a nightmare copyright actually currently is for music composers who are frequently hit with frivolous cases by companies trying to claim exclusive ownership of the chromatic scale (that's all of the keys you can play on the piano) ) or only ever use poses for extremely uncomfortable and esoteric yoga positions.

If you successfully motion for copyright law to be expanded to provide even more exclusive protections than it already does, just to combat one issue that you see with A.I. (that could often be better combated by bringing cases against individuals who misuse the tool) then it will have a huge amount of byproduct effects that I guarantee you won't like.

Maria a écrit :

... Well, then just remove every copyright and trademark altogether in the world today because every single one is a byproduct of inspiration from others. ...

Copyright is important but narrow and it's important that it stay narrow.

That one big issue with false DMCAs on YouTube and misuse of DMCA to get the information of creators and dox them, is entirely due to how the copyright system is implemented.

Mickey Mouse already extended copyright vertically twice by extending its duration - and corporations use this to take down any fan projects even very far after the original author is no longer around, thus making copyright a bit of a disaster for freedom of expression.
We don't need to extend it horizontally too.

...and have you heard about Nintendo?

The issues with copyright need to be rectified without throwing away the entire system.
imo, copyright should last about as long as patents do but be renewable like trademarks.
ie. at least pretend to use it or lose it,
rather than hoarding ideas to troll people with lawsuits over.

PC director a écrit :

...
Who is to blame for the fact that artificial intelligence began to work faster than the human brain?

Maria a écrit :

I'm really impressed by the point that you've made, ngl. I think it was a very legit question,
...

I don't understand the relevance of his question and when I asked for elaboration, I didn't really get anything that made sense to me.

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

I've seen several A.I generated movie clip and A.I still does the same mistakes then on day one with characters having 6 fingers , deformed hands and legs on top of the weird combinations where it's mix crystal clear and blurry elements together in ways that doesn't make sense.

I have a hard time seeing A.I getting integrated into a professional workflow inside a company in a efficient manner unless the model itself have large meaningful changes to it.

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏 a écrit :

🍋 Lemonfed 🍋 a écrit :

I've seen several A.I generated movie clip and A.I still does the same mistakes then on day one with characters having 6 fingers , deformed hands and legs on top of the weird combinations where it's mix crystal clear and blurry elements together in ways that doesn't make sense.

I have a hard time seeing A.I getting integrated into a professional workflow inside a company in a efficient manner unless the model itself have large meaningful changes to it.

Relevant :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm7BwEsdVbQ

corridors did two A.I rotoscoped video and I found them to look bad and less interesting to watch then their live videos.

even the second video where they used their own artist as a reference , the animation had a lot's of obvious inconsistencies where you'd need a humans artist to go back to and manually edit frame by frame in order for it to look good.

[tf2 pomson enjoyer #FIXVACPLS]

We need to kill ai image generator

[Kamiyama]

Saturn830 a écrit :

Kamiyama a écrit :

AI is just a tool. The same as a paintbrush, or photoshop.

Nope. Complete false equivalency.

When an artist makes a piece of visual art, whether they use their fingers cave painting or a digital stylus, they control every stroke and detail. Every line, every texture, every shade, every pixel or square millimeter of canvas is a conscious creation. When someone prompts a large language model, they supply the idea but all those details are generated by the algorithm. If you prompt a tree, it creates a tree, but every curve of every leaf and knot on the trunk is the work of something else. You can always increase the specificity of the prompt, but unless you're prompting every pixel - which would be as redundant as it is impossible - the machine is doing the actual work.

The easiest way to disprove that prompters are artists is to point out that the work involved in prompting - supplying an idea - is the same as commissioning a human artist to create a work. Under the argument that prompters are artists, Pope Julius II would be the artist of the Sistine Chapel and Francesco di Bartolomeo del Giocondo would be the artist of the Mona Lisa. But obviously Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci are the artists there. Large language models are not a tool for art but a replacement. Except they still require the work of actual artists to be fed into them in order to function.

Actually is is the same. AI cannot own artwork and has no rights under law. So it's just a tool used to make artwork. The owner of that artwork is the person using the AI.

The only way things could be different is if AI was acknowledged as sentient and granted rights and liberties under law, the same as humans.

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏 a écrit :

Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏 a écrit :

...
Relevant :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm7BwEsdVbQ

🍋 Lemonfed 🍋 a écrit :

corridors did two A.I rotoscoped video and I found them to look bad and less interesting to watch then their live videos.

even the second video where they used their own artist as a reference , the animation had a lot's of obvious inconsistencies where you'd need a humans artist to go back to and manually edit frame by frame in order for it to look good.

Even if they or their target audience agreed with that, it's still less work to clean it up that way.

Furthermore, the Disney animator in the video seems to like it - and I'm not sure that it matters that he's a Disney animator in the case of this point because there are people who like things that you don't like.

What is relevant about him being a Disney animator though, is that you said that you don't see this being integrated into a professional workflow but both the Disney animator and Corridor who he is reacting to, are demonstrating it being integrated into a professional workflow in a way that you can actually see just by looking at the video and their process.

It's fair to say that you don't like this and you don't see it as high-art, and you would even prefer it if people made other forms of art that are more to your liking, but in order to also be unaware of how it can and will be used professionally, you have to ignore the reality that's right in front of you.

tf2 pomson enjoyer #FIXVACPLS a écrit :

We need to kill ai image generator

Good luck uninventing the wheel.

but it's look bad and often moves and flow in such unatural ways where you could argue that the work put to fix an A.I made animation could sometime be as large then if you just had artist animate it by hand right away.

I also said in a "efficient way" and before I admit to be wrong on this there I'll need more then just a rather bad rotoscoped short that took months to create.

[Saturn830]

Kamiyama a écrit :

Actually is is the same.

It is not and I explained in detail why.

AI cannot own artwork and has no rights under law. So it's just a tool used to make artwork. The owner of that artwork is the person using the AI.

The only way things could be different is if AI was acknowledged as sentient and granted rights and liberties under law, the same as humans.

Rights under the law are irrelevant. They are human constructs that can change, not facts of what happened. The discussion is who or what is doing the work in creating a piece of content. A court recently determined that a monkey did not have a legal right to a selfie it took, but that does not mean it did not pull the trigger. The monkey took a picture but it doesn't have a legal right to it because it's not legally a person. If a meteor falls on your property you have a legal right to collect it, but you did not create the meteor or the crater it left behind.

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

if you don't rotoscope on a pre-filmed video footage this is the kind of nightmare fuel that A.I create.

https://youtu.be/zfbK1U0jWiw?si=ai8Acj3YLCgtncag

it is so bad , gosh.

[Kamiyama]

Saturn830 a écrit :

Rights under the law are irrelevant.

lol
lmao

Okay. Keep living in your delusional little world where you can make up anything you want.

But it's not the same world the rest of us live in.

[Ȼħⱥꞥꞥēł8753452]

BBQ Shampoo a écrit :

Are half of them trolling?

I feel a wave of cringe when I hear one say I "drew/composed/wrote/came up with/created" this with AI!

LIKE there's no way they're serious right?

Please tell me Im not the only sane one who thinks they're just failurebound cheating themselves

Every AI "artist" i see are literally just people who envy actually talented individuals, and who openly admit to using AI to make "art" out of pure spite.

Sucks to suck I guess

[Saturn830]

Kamiyama a écrit :

lol
lmao

Okay. Keep living in your delusional little world where you can make up anything you want.

But it's not the same world the rest of us live in.

You've failed to respond to a single point I've made. First you said that a large language model is the same as a paintbrush, then you moved the goalpost to a legal discussion, and now you're just pouting in the corner.

This discussion can be wrapped up by a series of questions that a child could answer:

1) You tell a person to paint a portrait for you. That person paints a portrait. Who painted the portrait?

2) You tell a slave to paint a portrait for you. That slave paints a portrait. That slave has no rights under the law. Who painted the portrait?

3) You tell WALL-E to paint a portrait for you. WALL-E paints a portrait. WAll-E is a machine. Who painted the portrait?

I don't expect to win over any right wing propagandists, but I do think there are well-meaing people who can fall for the slop rhetoric which is why I continue to respond.

[Fuki 11in2000]

Saturn830 a écrit :

Rights under the law are irrelevant.

Whats?

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

🍋 Lemonfed 🍋 a écrit :

Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏 a écrit :

...

...
I also said in a "efficient way" and before I admit to be wrong on this there I'll need more then just a rather bad rotoscoped short that took months to create.

That part is debatable on a case by case basis, since sometimes it might not be as efficient if that super cleaned up style is what you're actually going for - which is why I didn't make more points against that and focused more on the aspect about it being used professionally and there actually being other people who like it, because that part I actually can demonstrate.

I think that only sometimes it would be more efficient to clean it up afterwards.

🍋 Lemonfed 🍋 a écrit :

if you don't rotoscope on a pre-filmed video footage this is the kind of nightmare fuel that A.I create.

https://youtu.be/zfbK1U0jWiw?si=ai8Acj3YLCgtncag

it is so bad , gosh.

I was prepared to say "not all A.I. models are well-trained or capable or proficient" but then I pressed play. ...The video that you linked does not act as an example of the argument / position that you seem to think that it does.

[Saturn830]

Fuki 11in2000 a écrit :

Whats?

Read the full statement. Not a line out of context.

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

A.I to create art is a waste of resources and the amount of resources we pour on them could be used for something else , you want to create art , become an artist or hire a real artist.

we don"t need A.I slop.