>>155882>admittedly I am not liking the visual style results I'm getting from this particular model. but commies' luddite reaction to AI art has been hilarious. suddenly they care so much about copyrights and job creation.No. I just think it's soulless dogshit, and it's annoying sifting through all of this garbage when I'm looking for real art. I'd prefer even bad art to "AI" "art" the vast majority of the time. I find the concept offensive to the expressive character of the human soul.
You've got, you know, a bunch of real estate guys and copyright lawyers now just flooding the search engines with a million derivative pieces based on some classical work, but stripped of meaning and effort and life. It's like that old line, I think it was supposed to be from
Gilgamesh or something…
"then I will open the gates of Hell, and the dead will walk among the living, and the dead will outnumber the living." Very rapidly, this stuff, dull stuff, dead stuff, is obscuring the wealth of art which has been created by much more capable and creative human hands, and the motivation for pumping all of this out is capital accumulation… often just for clicks, IP, etc. so it's the same dumb-ass money-making-game house of cards as all the other, previous, glossy, vapid shit in our culture, but somehow even more shallow.
>AI art allows talentless hacks like me to generate images that nobody would otherwise take the time or effort to make.See, this is just untrue. Back in the day, people drew, painted, etc. loads of crazy, random bullshit. Like, that was a bunch of what drawfag culture was, just drawing stupid insane shit that people requested. There's something really disheartening about seeing someone use a machine to do shit which 10 years ago someone would actually have made themselves, and it's even worse when people convince themselves that no one would ever possibly have done it. No, folks did it all the time, and it was much better.
>if an AI can replace you as an artist you were shit anyway.It's not that it can replace anyone in terms of quality of output. It will be marketed as something which can do that whether or not it is actually capable of doing that, and businesspeople will resort to it even if it creates an inferior product because it is cheaper than hiring an actual person, and audiences are methodically conditioned to consume whatever slop is mass-produced for them. If it was purely a quality question, nobody would need to market any of this stuff.