I think AI is a tool and people are known to abuse tools that make it worse for everyone else.

All AI arguments aside, AI in its current form sucks. ChatGPT may hallucinate bullshit. Stable Diffusion generates people with 6 fingers and understands danbooru tags only. It's too early to hype AI for the things it's currently being hyped for.

All AI art is drawn by the same artist
https://www.pixiv.net/en/tags/AI

>>3100
discussion isn't allowed if people have opinions...

>>3100
>discussing US politics
Why do people do this? US politics is so fucking boring, it's a literal puppet show.

>>3099
Who is this "AI" guy and why is he so popular?

Oh, I just realized I forgot to say that if this thread gets too heated I send it into /secret/ quarantine.

I dislike AI-generated fanart. I think all AI-generated images should come with a watermark so I don't accidentally download one of the few pieces of slop that I don't recognise on first glance. I am neutral to all other uses of AI. I think this is a reasonable position.

>>3096
As an AI major, I think generative AI FUCKING SUCKS.
It makes for good fap material, but that doesn't excuse the retards who religiously believe it will replace human creativity because they're RETARDS who SUCK.
>>3100
As an emotionally unstable AI major, BEHEAD THOSE WHO DISCUSS US POLITICS. This is a credible threat of violence (lol) (despite the fact that I don't live in the US and do not have legal access to axes and am too physically weak to swing one in the general direction of anyone who lives thousands of kilometers away from my jurisdiction).
>>3103
>Why do people do this?
Because the internet keeps telling them it's the only thing that matters.
>US politics is so fucking boring, it's a literal puppet show.
Most people have less going on in their lives than a literal puppet show. Consider that and weep.
>>3105
Butte

As far as ethics go I can see both sides of the isle. It would be good practice to label that you used AI in the creation of media, but with how hostile many are to AI it's the equivalent of saying "I made this dish with 0.001 grams of cat feces." So I get hiding it if you can. On the otherhand I've seen a few sloppers get quite good at making their "own style" and put a ton of effort into refining the generated images. I take a look at /jp/'s 2huAI thread and /v/'s Dall-E thread and the difference is night and day.

It's a tool that is very easy to abuse by the lowest common denominator of retard. The speed at which anyone can spam images on a hosting service is staggering and it's no wonder so many people fucking LOATHE the shit and want it dead and buried. There's also the actual ethical issue of training data. Such things cannot be made without an unfathomable quantity of images, it is impossible to get permission for all of it within any amount of time without being sniped by someone who doesn't care and gets their service first. What I find interesting is no one cared when OpenAI and Google were doing it to train their language models off of scraped literature used without permission, but because art as a medium is much more visible now 'stolen art' is a huge problem. The reaction to it has negatively impacted the artist sphere since styles are so easily replicated and caused many to quit since they see themselves as entirely replaced, and many more put those god awful filters and obnoxious watermarks.

I like it, I think it's neat and has its applications, but it has been an undeniable a pandora's box. We'll see what the future brings when lawmakers catch up in a few years and make some retarded uneducated judgement.

I don't like how AI gives power to big companies. Making AI models is hard and requires incredibly computing power, so they're in the advantage. They will add all kinds of censorship and bias to AI, either out of corporate interest, or because of legal obligations. Ultimately it will be used to control the people.

I think the only ethical angle to have on AI in a safety unrelated context really is copyright. But IP as a whole is so flip fucked anyway that I just dont care to formulate an opinion on that.

>Maybe it's because programmers are smarter than artists who only give emotional arguments.
It's more like programmers lack empathy and that's why they don't understand the argument of artists.

>>3111
You simply repeated his post.

>>3112
Do programmers have trouble understanding nuances too?

when i raise technical problems to programmers they definitely give me emotional responses
trust and believe.... trust and believe

>>3112
The two anons had a very different meaning behind their words.

>>3115
Yes, they are both trying to make emotional appeals about why a tool is "bad" or "good". It's a pencil, if it's useful use it if not, don't.

>>3105
ugggghhhhhhhhhhhhhf

That said, I feel indifferent on the topic of AI

>>3116
Why would you deny that a technology has good and bad consequences? Yes, usually it's both, yes it affects people differently, yes most of their completely different reactions are justified.

>>3116
Pencils don't automatically generate art. You are oversimplifying it on purpose because you cannot empathize with an artist and why they do what they do. It's usually not because they want to get rich quick.

>>3119
No, it's because they're attention whores and this thing drastically limits their ability to do so with their mediocre skills. People who want to draw art aren't going to stop drawing because they can now automatically generate some boilerplate images, they'll draw more because they want to draw. The people upset by this are people who got into the porn meme too late and cant be bothered to set up a simple model, or people who exclusively draw for social media attention that are now getting flooded out. No actual artist is going to stop drawing art because a pencil that can generate some random 80% correct images exists.

>>3120
who have you been arguing with, that doesn't bring up its impact on the job market?

>>3121
What impact lol? Everything "impacts" the job market because it's a constant battle of companies inventing new reasons to pay you less for more work and workers trying to squeeze out some pay raises. AI is nothing special or unique, just the latest convenient excuse to feed to the masses as the new milking cycle began. AI is not the reason for anyone getting fired, it's the convenient scapegoat.

>>3122
sasuga shitpostard

99.9% of AIfags simply make 500 attempts, pick 20 of them without trying to clean the many imperfections of their results, and flood every gallery with their crap. They are the art equivalent of throwaway chink shit sold im bulk on Temu for 1 cent. That's why I dislike them and their "gens".

art, words, communication really only has value you can take out by interpreting intent and a process that zombifies existing intent (or worse, has its own hardcoded intents it breathes into your prompts) into unintelligible frankensteins increases the amount of unintentful trash people need to filter out in their lives. the pissing contest between programmers who are learning a skill to shit out images at hypersonic speed and artists that spend too long getting an idea across isn't the issue.

the people salivating over its immediate applications have no concerns about that lack of intent. they are simply looking to milk you, pad 'content', or overload your alternatives to become unusable atm, and that is becoming increasingly obvious (and desperate, as they look at the feasibility of making good on their gigantic loans) by the day.

https://kissu.moe/amv/res/2266#q4477 this post got me thinking more about this.
When you look at a drawing you get a glimpse at the person behind it. It can tell you things like, the mood they were in, their interests, their values, their fetishes and much more if you choose to look for it. It's like how you can come across a picture and almost immediately tell it's drawn by a woman.

With AI you don't get that. There's no communication. A picture's composition, colors, pose, and everything else aren't a reflection of the artist behind them but of the AI. When I see an AI image the only thing it tells me is that the guy that generated them is lazy and thoughtless.

>>3096
AI is fundamentally unethical, because what it produces is bad. Subjecting people to AI outputs is an unethical thing to do. I can see this problem being remedied if AI ever gets better, but it won't, because so-called AI is bad on a conceptual level.

>>3108
>both sides of the isle.
Aisle. As in a row of shelves at the supermarket.
A typical isle is too large too see both sides from any possible vantage point.
Unless you're standing on top of the isle's only lighthouse, in which case please post pics.

I don't think AI is actually a significant issue becuz of what >>3129 says. What it produces is just immediately less interesting than a human directed work. This also means that, AI is not a real threat to human art, because it simply will never be as interesting as human art past the level of curiosity about the prompt or the AI creation process itself. The popular hysteria over AI art also (on some level) indicates this; the people want humans! All AI is *really* destroying are the already barely-human art processes, such as social media engagement farm slop, ads, corpo-music, etc. While, yes, artists did indeed get money from doing corpo-slop, it must be understood that that art was not actually worth much of anything, and it's probably better that we automate that stuff away anyway, and let humans do the cool stuff. It is not AI in itself that is unethical, it is the endless garbage corpos and algorithms want to shove in everyone's faces. The only problem is where do artists get their money now...

>>3131
I will never recover from such a blunder. I shall kill myself posthaste!

>>3133
Be yourself, failord. You're among fellow failures here.

I'm someone that's spent a lot of time messing with AI stuff since the first SD leak and AI Dungeon. Image-wise I'd say I have more experience as an end-user making merges and messing with settings than 99% of people out there. I think AI should be limited to a personal experience. It's a runaway train on the internet filling every site that doesn't instantly ban it. It should not exist on pixiv or any similar site. AI images aren't interesting enough to persist on a sharing website made for artists.
I can see its value for doing mundane things like filling in backgrounds if the artist wants to focus on the people for a quick sketch. It's fun to just let it go wild and then see what it does, particularly the "errors" can be very neat or humorous.
I don't think it should be an end product.

An artist's style is just the styles of a handful of his favorite artists mixed together, very rarely is there any innovation and when there is it's copied by every other artist. Most art parodies copyrighted characters, scenes from other works of art etc. and some artists still don't see the hypocrisy in claiming AI is infringing on their IP. It's as silly as a 6/10 prostitute wanting porn banned because nobody will hire her, or 3DPD pornstars wanting 2D porn banned for the same reason.

Sites being spammed with low quality AI shit isn't an AI issue, it's a quality control issue the same as with wojak edit spam and ebonics phoneposter spam.

>>3140
The way robots and humans get information and create art is completely different, quit being disingenuous

Human artists incorporate what they learn from viewing existing art and create new art from what they learned. They don't steal art styles. AI uses a statistical algorithm to create art, and the way it trains on artwork is by mimicking patterns that it sees in art styles it is trained on.

AI is basically fine, scraping is basically fine, training it is basically fine, generating AI images that someone else doesn't want you to generate is basically fine.