You can't jerk off to AI Art.

[AlluraHikaru]

The saddest lot is those who take pride in a machine doing all the work for them.

Like bragging about your prowess at footracing when you use a moped.

Said the guy who have low effort 3DCG slop in his sign lol, lmao.

 

[AlluraHikaru]

Transformative? Oh, that's why all AI output lacks any copyright protection huh?

Are you Shadaversity? You sound like Shadaversity.

Yes 100% transformative. Get a clue and learn how technology actually work before making a comment. And not on Twitter, where you get your propaganda but from actual trusted sources, like scientific papers and tech-documentation.

Shadaversity is based tho

 

[EvolutionKills]

Said the guy who have low effort 3DCG slop in his sign lol, lmao.

Have you actually played Pale Carnations or Now & Then?

Of course you haven't. They're easily some of the highest tier shit here. Their work actually IS transformative, because the work they produce is a far cry from just the Honey Select models they borrow and the 3D environments picked up from a marketplace. The lighting, the posing, the shot composition? All of that is being done by a human, and with clear deliberate artistic intent. When they frame a shot a certain way, it is because they are trying to tell the audience something. They are purposely relaying information to the audience with their choice in how to frame and what to include in each shot. Things like the lighting can tell you what time of day it is without needing to be explicitly told so with text at a basic level, or can be used in more dramatic fashions to highlight certain emotions. A character's feelings can be conveyed with their posture and facial expressions (one of the reasons the good Honey Select stuff stands out so much is because their models have very emotive faces). Doing good work in 3D takes a lot of work (even if you aren't personally modeling and rigging everything is a scene), and the difference between those who know how to use those tools and those who do not is quite apparent.

So either you're just too oblivious to understand any aspects of visual storytelling, or you're just being obtuse in an attempt to win an internet argument. Either way, kindly kiss my ass.

 

[EvolutionKills]

Yes 100% transformative. Get a clue and learn how technology actually work before making a comment.

Shadaversity is based tho

View attachment 3291806

Shad is nothing but COPE.

Take away his model, and he can no longer create at that level. He lacks in basic fundamentals, and using prompts won't get him any better. Using an AI slot machine is just patience and a willingness to pull that lever one more time.

 

[heralder]

The saddest lot is those who take pride in a machine doing all the work for them.

Like bragging about your prowess at footracing when you use a moped.

Did i hit a nerve?
Do you consider photography art? cause there you can do even less of the work and just aim and click a button. you don't even need to type. But surely you know that it can vary from point and shoot and setting up a whole scene for example. same for ai, you can do something quick or you can do more.

Do you consider thing less art if it's easier? in which case have you ever done digital art and hit undo?

And your foot race race is silly. If it was a human drawing only competition you'd have a point but that's not the scene. A more appropriate analogy would be a race where anything goes.

 

[AlluraHikaru]

Shad is nothing but COPE.

It's you who are COPING dear 3DCG slop loving hog. lol, lmao

NO matter what you do, no matter what you say, you will not stop AI art, it will ONLY get better. Now C O P E harder.

 

[EvolutionKills]

Did i hit a nerve?
Do you consider photography art? cause there you can do even less of the work and just aim and click a button. you don't even need to type. But surely you know that it can vary from point and shoot and setting up a whole scene for example. same for ai, you can do something quick or you can do more.

Do you consider thing less art if it's easier? in which case have you ever done digital art and hit undo?

And your foot race race is silly. If it was a human drawing only competition you'd have a point but that's not the scene. A more appropriate analogy would be a race where anything goes.

Wow. You are being very disingenuous. Photography is a long standing and well established art. Having better cameras won't make you a better photographer if you don't understand the fundamentals. Take a camera from 100 years ago and a skilled photographer will still be able to do something interesting with it, because they have skill and understanding the medium they're working in. Give a top of the line DSLR to a chimpanzee while it clicks the shutter button on accident indiscriminately. Which of those two scenarios is likely to produce something with artistic intent?

If you understand the fundamentals, you can take the Photoshop or other digital imaging tools away from an artist, and they can still create in other mediums. Removing Photoshop doesn't destroy your ability to understand color theory, or utilize 3 point perspective with whatever focal length you want. An artist who knows the fundamentals can apply those in whatever medium they want, familiarity with the tools at hand just speeding up the process.

But if you take someone who lacks fundamentals and relies entirely upon AI, and you remove that AI? They're dead in the water. Folks who use AI are not artists. They are clients. If they take the output and edit it in image editing software before spitting it back into the AI again to make changes? At best, they're an art director; the equivalent of giving notes to the actual artists doing the actual work. Touch-up of AI output =/= Digital Illustration.

 

[EvolutionKills]

It's you who are COPING dear 3DCG slop loving hog. lol, lmao

NO matter what you do, no matter what you say, you will not stop AI art, it will ONLY get better. Now C O P E harder.

Thanks for proving how little you can comprehend.

I bet your ancestors cheered at the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

 

[AlluraHikaru]

Thanks for proving how little you can comprehend.

I bet your ancestors cheered at the burning of the Library of Alexandria.

He thinks 3DCG slop is high art LOL LMAO

Thanks for proving you have no idea what you actually talking about and have no idea how actually good AI art is made.

 

[ChadChan3D]

Talk for yourself, I find plenty of stimulation in AI art. Like I said, tech will be better (first open source models appeared LESS than 2 years ago) and if human finds something appealing, AI will lean from it and will add it to the latent space's whole. I trust technology NOT artists and game developers.

Are these what "tech is the next religion" beliefs sound like?

Faith alone doesn't move mountains. Men with tractors and excavators do.

Similarly, AI doesn't learn, it collects data and arranges it into word categories. Even your typical Google image search today will show results with AI images--it's saturating the internet at great speeds.

What that means is that the future data sets from which AI will learn will be recursive--it will be training off poor art it itself has made. It's basically technological incest with the same grotesque results.

I want to stop the inbreeding of bland, meaningless, and flawed art. I believe it takes a human to fix it; praying for AI to do so is foolish.

 

[AlluraHikaru]

Are these what "tech is the next religion" beliefs sound like?

Faith alone doesn't move mountains. Men with tractors and excavators do.

Similarly, AI doesn't learn, it collects data and arranges it into word categories. Even your typical Google image search today will show results with AI images--it's saturating the internet at great speeds.

What that means is that the data set is learning from will be recursive--it will be training off poor art it itself has made. It's basically technological incest with the same grotesque results.

You have no idea how algorithms are trained and how training data is gathered. Learn about the technology before making a comment.

 

[heralder]

Wow. You are being very disingenuous. Photography is a long standing and well established art. Having better cameras won't make you a better photographer if you don't understand the fundamentals. Take a camera from 100 years ago and a skilled photographer will still be able to do something interesting with it, because they have skill and understanding the medium they're working in. Give a top of the line DSLR to a chimpanzee while it clicks the shutter button on accident indiscriminately. Which of those two scenarios is likely to produce something with artistic intent?

If you understand the fundamentals, you can take the Photoshop or other digital imaging tools away from an artist, and they can still create in other mediums. Removing Photoshop doesn't destroy your ability to understand color theory, or utilize 3 point perspective with whatever focal length you want. An artist who knows the fundamentals can apply those in whatever medium they want, familiarity with the tools at hand just speeding up the process.

But if you take someone who lacks fundamentals and relies entirely upon AI, and you remove that AI? They're dead in the water. Folks who use AI are not artists. They are clients. If they take the output and edit it in image editing software before spitting it back into the AI again to make changes? At best, they're an art director; the equivalent of giving notes to the actual artists doing the actual work. Touch-up of AI output =/= Digital Illustration.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Your certainly makes it sound like you'd be hating on photographers if you were around when that was invented, cause then it wouldn't be long standing and established.

And of course knowing more fundamentals and such makes you more capable than if you don't have them, i've never said otherwise. But you sound like you're hating just to hate.

Please do explain how I'm being disingenuous.

 

[ChadChan3D]

It's not like humans can make bad proportions hand bodies and so forth...oh wait.
Clearly human art has that special thing that apparently is so unique that they can attack each other in witch-hunts when they can't tell. lol

This is so very true. Bad art is not unique to the robots. But robots produce art at such a scale, however, that it dilutes the good by placing it in an ocean of bad.

A poor human artist can only produce so much bad art; an AI can produce in volume that artist's lifetime of work in a day.

This is why it is so important to address what makes the art so uncanny and lifeless. Make it better!

You think humans make detailed art in one go without iterations or fixing things on the way?

And if you complain about small things being wrong in generated images, great! then you can generate and just fix the small problems and save yourself a lot of time then.

I think here is the answer: Use the human eye to fix the robot's mistakes.

I've been taking AI generated images and inpainting specific areas over and over. Hands, eyes, feet, etc. The process feels a lot like stitching, or collage. I dig it because it makes me feel like I'm working alongside the robot instead of asking it to dump garbage visuals onto my lap.

Things don't have to be profound or meaningful.

Here I disagree. I believe all art has meaning, and AI art is so uncanny precisely because it is meaningless.

It is inert until a human infuses that art with meaning. Otherwise it is elements arranged to an algorithm, lifeless.

 

[Icarus Media]

 

[ChadChan3D]

3DCG, so long as you're buying the models and have any modicum of skill with posing and lighting your render? They have to potential to be far less 'soulless' than anything generative AI spews out. Because you'll still be able to infer intent from the work, with the choices they made in their shot composition; photography and videography are now rather mature art forms with a deep communication visual language. What intent can you infer from a algorithm blackbox you have no control over, whose output even with identical input/prompts will still be entirely randomized? None. That is soulless.

Agreed! It is the human choices that make alive inert art. That's why I believe that getting control over the AI output--reining in the AI's freedoms to choose--is the way to make better AI art.

Thankfully there is ControlNet, which constraints the AI both to the pose depicted and the camera angle chosen. What I cannot figure out is how to get the AI (Stable Diffusion) to allow me to choose the lighting. Words like "light from above" or "lamp lit room" are poor visual instructors.

 

[ChadChan3D]

...and the difference between those who know how to use those tools and those who do not is quite apparent.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the problem with AI art is not the AI but the lazy human artists.

Someone brought up how easy it is to take photos, a great comparison.

Yes, all it really takes to take a photograph is the press of a button. But that alone won't produce a photo people will care to see.

The understanding of when and where to click that button (and, if advanced, how to adjust ISO/Aperture settings) and what to capture in the lens--that's the decision-making of an artist.

People are just prompting the AI and posting whatever it spits it out like they're taking photographs of anything and everything. It really is a similar phenomenon. People amazed by the technology will call it art to take a picture of a brick wall. They're fascinated by the new tool and are not applying their ingenuity to use it to show something powerful.

 

[heralder]

Agreed! It is the human choices that make alive inert art. That's why I believe that getting control over the AI output--reining in the AI's freedoms to choose--is the way to make better AI art.

Thankfully there is ControlNet, which constraints the AI both to the pose depicted and the camera angle chosen. What I cannot figure out is how to get the AI (Stable Diffusion) to allow me to choose the lighting. Words like "light from above" or "lamp lit room" are poor visual instructors.

One way you can control lighting for example is to make for example a lightmap to denoise, in a more manual way. another thing is normal stable diffusion tends to keep images in a average color instead of dark and light, but you can either use lora or an image of lighting to guide

 

[| Vee |]

 

[ChadChan3D]

One way you can control lighting for example is to make for example a lightmap to denoise, in a more manual way.

That's pretty smart. I did some Googling and found a guide using your idea (

You must be registered to see the links

). The lightmap part is the bottom third of the article.

I'm going to experiment with lightmaps this evening and see how well it works out.

 

[qwsaq]

Sorry for the long rant, but I feel like people are just looking at AI art the wrong way.
Remember clip art? All those preloaded images that you'd litter your powerpoint presentations with for some low-effort school project to break up the wall of text with "visual aides?" You know why you don't see that anymore?

Corporate Memphis.
It's a very low effort art style ubiquitous in big tech presentations. These are basically all churned out by some unpaid/low-paid intern with the benefit of being able to specifically match the presentation rather than searching through an album for something vaguely relevant.
The general theme here is that this stuff gets used where the artwork is not the end product, but simply a supplement to the content actually being presented. Given the topic of this thread, I think it should be obvious what the next stage is gonna be:

AI art is positioned perfectly to fill this role. You can, with minimal time investment, generate a scene depicting basically any scenario you want to coincide with whatever idea you're trying to present. There might be some kinks to it. But it looks a hell of a lot better than fucking Corporate Memphis. And you don't even need some underpaid lackey to make it for you.

Now, what does this have to do with porn? Well, the kinds of people gravitating towards AI art are the same breed who would otherwise be slapping real porn in their games. As much as some hate the practice, the images are just to supplement the story. AI has given these people, storytellers who are not visual artists, an inlet to the scene without the need to commission an artist to break up the walls of text they're actually producing.

AI will never replace skilled artists any more than assembly lines replaced skilled craftsmen. There will always be demand for expertly crafted furniture. But when all you want is a place to rest your ass, some shit slapped together by a machine works just fine.