>>532525 Another reason I hate the "support real artists" mob is that these faggots are full of shit. Have they ever supported my actual art? No. On the contrary they were mocking me, attacking me and shaming me for my art. Some of them (mostly my stalkers and doxxers) have even used my old drawings in a failed attempt to shame me and make me look like a lolcow, with them getting the delusion that they've discovered the new Chris-chan. So fuck the "support real artists" faggots.

>>532525 idk I feel some artists charge ridiculous prices, like 90 dollars for 1 pic while shitting on artists who don't charge a fortune.

>>532525 >Anti-AI art fags be like "Just learn to draw!" Tbf their arguments are more than just that. After having argued online with my share of anti-aifags I've pretty much boiled down their repeated talking points into a list, along with my refutations: <AI is trained off of real artists' work, so you're basically "stealing." You cannot "own" an art style. <AI art isn't "real" art because you're just mashing up images. Photo collages and art mashups IRL are considered "real art", this is just a digital version of that. <AI art isn't "real" art because it's just typing stuff in, there's no real skill required. Photography is possibly the only other medium that I consider to be just as unskilled as AI art, and yet we consider that to be "real art." Think about it: all photography is, is just pointing a camera at something and pressing a button. You didn't spend hours drawing and practicing to get that photograph. Anyone can aim a camera and press a button. Even more so, photographers get all the credit for the "art" that they didn't even create. Even more so than that, they take photos without the express permission of those in them, kinda like how AI art is trained on artists' works without their permission, and yet we still allow them to. <AI art will take away business from "real artists." The French economist Frederic Bastiat already refuted this line of thinking back in 1845, with his famous "Candlemaker's Petition", you can read about it here: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-candlemakers-petition-revised-and-modernized-for-todays-climate-of-rising-trade-protectionism/ http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html <"muh real art has soul" Subjective and unscientific. Besides, this argument is heavily biased: if you see an art piece you don't personally like, you're more likely to decry it as "soulless" whereas I who may love it would disagreee. "It's not REAL art unless *I* like it!" >my drawing has barely improved. Meanwhile many other people I know personally have barely drawn in their lives and yet they were much more skilled than me at drawing. Natural talent is a real thing, so yeah, you're right, that whole "anyone can improve with time and practice" is a myth. To paraphrase Loomis (I think it was), "Drawing is simply about capturing an image in your head, and then putting that image onto the paper." Not everyone has the imagination coupled with the hand-eye coordination to apply that process. People who mention practice don't realize that the great artists already had natural talent, training just made them even better than they'd be without it. Well, nothing we can do about that, except try harder, I guess. >>532529 Of course they do, other artists are their competition, and if they're charging lower prices, that's less commissions for them.

>>532530 Photo collages and art mashups are for morons. I'm not defending them. Manipulating a camera is a skill. Manipulating an AI is a skill. I'll grant you that. But AI art has a quality barrier. The quality barrier is not necessarily skill and effort, but specifically a human element. You can not always tell if some works were made by an AI or by hand. But you can often, predictably, reliably tell when other works were not. They are not even demonstrations of the most advanced techniques ever available to artists. They're simply works where you're able to say "it is unlikely for an AI to have made this". You don't know any candlemakers. They were right. Those jobs can't be sustained any more. If there's more to the argument TL;DR sorry. >Again with the real art does or does not has into soul Your own brain has a register for 'the likelihood in which an AI has drawn this'. Take the title screen for worms. It's pic related. It's not especially pretty, or especially complicated. But do you want to tell me what the likelihood of it is that a robot has drawn it? Whereas the lotus eaters (britbong seethe news show) paid for (patronised, comissioned) real artists to make art for their web store and it was things like a rainbow colored tiger wearing a pair of sunglasses. Human hands created that but an AI could have made it as well. Someone ought to have to break it to them then that what they paid for wasn't that remarkable or wasn't that good. It's only certain art. You can tell human hands have got at it. Maybe it's the nature of their imperfections. The way a robot errs is different from the way a human gets a shape a little wrong. Maybe that's all it is I don't know. But you can tell. Stylistically or otherwise there is something in it. You should be able to tell from the above that I'm anti-AI, slightly, but I'm not an artfag. I ought to defend the rainbow tiger example but I won't. No, I'm not in the drawing market anyway I do the music side of things where it's probably much worse frankly. Those machines are very good. It's tough work to be better than them. It's much harder to me to tell a robotic symphony from a human one. Maybe I just lack refined ears. If none of the above is a sufficient argument to see why a workplace might say to you "no art you can tell an AI might be able to make in our building please" I've got some more arguments for you. 1. The basic ad hominem that your charizard speaks for the kind of person that defends AI. And 2. The UK government has advocated for teaching AI to children in schools. Therefore it's bad. Not just from the pattern-spotting of everything the UK government suggests to do is always wrong, although that's part of it. It's that if you lean on AI to write books or select grammar for you, then that part of your brain will shrivel up from lack of use. Competency will go down by leaning on AI. And this isn't the ability to add up on the fly like a calculator three thruppence and six in a store; this is important for communication. If I ever have children to raise of my own I will teach them as a millennial. You don't lean on AI. AI is good for certain things, but if you write with the grammarly app open then you're short changing yourself. Not just the audience who reads your work. You're handicapping your own skill. That's my argument. You can guess if an AI gave me help with it or not. Suffice to say that my skin in the art game is pretty much none, nothing at all. But to be in awe of AI and not see it as frankly kind of lame, comes from a group of people I don't really understand. Like Hatsune Miku or vtuber fans. I don't hate them. They're just not one of me and I'm not one of them.

>>532532 >They're simply works where you're able to say "it is unlikely for an AI to have made this". But the point is, the barrier is already so low that it pretty much matches the same techniques we as humans utilize, so it may as well be allowed to, and count as real art. To give another example, "overpainting" is the technique of drawing/tracing over photographs, and it's considered to be "real art." This technique even pre-dates computers and even before AI art we had the ability to replicate this: just take a photo or picture and shove it into Adobe Illustrator and pick a filter, and voila, you have an impressionist or other styled artwork. Artists have been tracing and painting over photographs since the first camera was invented, and even before using some other techniques: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura Point of the matter is, if a machine can do it just as well and save us the time, why not count it as real art, then? >You don't know any candlemakers. They were right. Those jobs can't be sustained any more. If there's more to the argument TL;DR sorry. FFS, the point of the argument is that it's ridiculous to outlaw a third party source of competition to appease those already within the circle of business. In this case, AI technology. To give another example, amish people make money by baking and selling goods without the use of electric stoves. Regardless of their hard work, they are still easily outcompeted by food stores that can mass cook food and sell it for a cheaper price. Now, in this case, how can amish people hope to compete against modern day food shops? Should they, A: petition to outlaw the use of electricity so they can compete on 'equal terms' with other food shops, or B: should they cut the crap and embrace electricity so they too can cook the amount of food and sell it at competitive prices? >Your own brain has a register for 'the likelihood in which an AI has drawn this'. Just because we may be able to tell whether or not a human drew a piece of art, doesn't necessarily embibe it with a 'soul' quality, that's the argument here. Furthermore, even if it were true, you have to take into account that not everyone values 'soul', much in the same way that food is mass produced: yes, it's made by machines built by corporations, sure, it may be bad for us, but do most of us care? Not really. We still buy and eat it. And people still make and buy AI art, they don't seem to care about 'soul' inasmuch as the art suits their needs. Food, even corporate crap, suits our needs of being something to eat, at competitive pricing. What you also must consider is that this isn't a "one value vs. another value" argument here, this is a multitude of different values against a multitude of other values: Sure, I could go eat 'soul food' from an optimistic budding chef in his new startup restaurant, but balance that hope of him serving me good food against the value of me not wanting to spend too much money, my value of propensity towards eating the same food I like at other places, and my value of eating at places which are open at my schedule between work and life. With AI art, its the same thing. >1. The basic ad hominem that your charizard speaks for the kind of person that defends AI. Um. What? >And 2. The UK government has advocated for teaching AI to children in schools. Therefore it's bad. Not just from the pattern-spotting of everything the UK government suggests to do is always wrong, although that's part of it. The UK also teaches kids that smoking is bad for your health. Is smoking suddenly healthy now? Not everything has to be a conspiracy, you know. >Competency will go down by leaning on AI No, competency will SHIFT by leaning on AI. That's why we have the distribution of labor; "no man is an island." Example: Back in the good ol' days, you were expected to be able to know how to knit your own clothing so that you could have something to wear and keep you warm. After automation hit during the industrial revolution, factories were able to mass produce clothing so people didn't need to knit anymore when they could just go down to the market and buy clothing. Due to this, knitting fell out of favor in society, most people today don't know how to knit or even own a sewing machine. However, did society collapse? No. We shifted the responsibility of clothes-making to others, and since we didn't need to worry about knitting, it allowed us more free time from which to pursue other interests, now that there was a class of clothes-makers to make our clothes for us. Same thing happened with farming, carpentry, and cooking. However, even so, the areas didn't disappear even after mass production: you'll still find people who grow their own food and make their own furniture. Artists will still keep drawing even after AI art becomes mainstream. I'll continue drawing, as well. Although, I love these AI pokemon pics.

Ai can be alright, tho it has given the cucks and niggers the ability to flood nigger shit I wish there was a free video maker like there is with images

I didn't read what you said cuz I can't read sorry but I like Felicia and I'd like to have sex with her as her claws rip lightly into my back. That's all I got. Thanks for your attention. I may post more Felicia now and then totally unrelated to what you guys might be saying so... buckle up. I don't want to campaign for Democrats anymore I'm getting too old.

It's mostly fan artist shitheads mad they can't sell their IP-infringing unauthorized aet anymore, but you occasionally get some assmad "it took me YEARS to learn this" d-list celebity crying because someone can type words and generate better. >Why am I not known for more than a song from a casual game? It's the new "MP3 piracy is killing music" or "my shitty product failed brcause of SJWs", any excuse to not blame yourself for your failure. Oh and "Grok is totes fascist(until it says what I agree with!)"

>>532540 >That swear filter when Republicans are always outed for chomo acts

>>532551 Swear filter? I didn't swear did I? Damn hell bitch pussy African Americans fuck bastard

Saying 'im an artist that embraced AI' is like saying 'im a chef that uses frozen food and microwaves it'. You are, at best, a nigger with a soldering iron.

>>532563 That's the most retarded analogy I've ever read.

>>532533 Anon this place is a hyperbaric chamber of the right wing. Inward discernment is the alpha and omega here. If an outward entity tells me marilyn monroe in different colors is "real art" then they can get entirely to fuck kill em all 1989. I won't be told what is and isn't "real art" by a bunch of conniving ashkenas. To us Picasso is a waster and Van Gogh an underachiever. We worship the neo-goth and the neo-classic. Of course I'm being a bit hyperbolic. But arguments based on the consensuses for what constitute "real art" bear no weight at all to us. A machine can do it just as well and save us time, but my inner discernment can tell the likelihood of being within a machine's competence. The "real art" debate can go on from there; but I desire to hang only the demonstrable work of human hands on my walls. I suppose the point in there being any exceptions to that would be that I'm unable to find the expression I want done via human work locally to put up there. But I like humanity. I want it cherished. I agree it's pretty ridiculous to grant special legal protections just because they want their career protected by them. It's a very artfaggy talking point. Although I don't agree on the amish at all. I love the amish. The problem is that a cottage industry can only grow so large before there are over 100 bespoke candle makers in the local area and the only thing left to compete on is the price. That's the outcome the artfags fear. Lucrative bread is off the table for most of them. They'll have to do something else. But that part of the argument, that's life. That's how it goes. Potato farming can't ever be the same after the tractor. A cottage industry only supports so much of the hand-picked organic. My point was that you lose something once you stop digging for your own. This is the argument the artfags should lean into more. Forgetting what comes from the earth and why and how it comes from there is a disaster. It stunts humanity. Art isn't as essential for basic survival as farming or communication skills, but arguably the most intangible things are the most essential or beneficial for the soul, and ergo the most valuable of things to those burdened by the drive toward enlightenment. The point about food; that's a tangible good where I either have to compromise away from an idyll or I starve. I'm not pressured by such decisions in art. The temptations to climb down further from an ideal discernment are much lessened when it comes to art. The way I consume art is still not "soul food every day" but rather the climbing down of rabbit holes, since a) there is no perfect map to the locations of "the best edible soul stuff", and b) I hit the limitations of my own discernment. I eat slop and I love it, or I eat truffles and think they're only good for pigs. I guess with AI art it's the curation that injects the "soul". That someone else found it worthy. >Confusion toward ad hominem being a strong highly based argument You might be anti-monarchy or anti-Jesus for le big brain legitimate misgivings about how the catholic church spends money on teen jiggalos but then you look around at who you're sharing the stance with and they've all got purple hair and they hate their own country and they're vegan and they all evidently take it up the chuffer. That's just what you get. You get to pattern noticing. That charizard's an abomination. Stop being a furry. Bad for the soul, bad for the spirit. I'm not fetching fuckin data and graphs. You instinctively know. That's enough to figure it. >same goes for conspiracies Smoking is bad because it reduces stress and obesity, which both kill you better than smoking. Again look who else it is that joins you when you take a stance on something. If it's full of dysgenic mutt then it's probably an L take you have. >being able to knit is the same as rhetoric, word selection, written and oratory skills I know I'm misrepresenting you. I'm just saying. Teach your kids to write without AI. There's no "acktually I will regret doing it" rebuttal to that. Same goes for farming, carpentry, cooking. Only knitting because it's never not completely shit.

>>532529 Continued. Ngl I don't deny the plight of the artists. Very competitive market. A lot of artists flocking to low prices like facebook marketplace and others. 5 artists for 1 buyer. Just no sympathy for the artists charging high prices for 1 simple digital art. I see artists say buying art is a luxury, but there are poorfags and autists who'd gladly share their autismbux if some drawfags didn't count on rich yiff yiff furfag sugar daddies dropping a massive load or something. Some artists appeal to getting paid by the hour or minimum wage, but it's not like I'm some multinational corporation or richfag and can payroll drawfags for a living.

>>532525 They are against AI art because it is beneficial for them. Just don't care about them and do whatever is good for you.

>>532525 >Yet my drawing skills barely improved with the passing of years no matter how much I've practised. I've even took drawing lesson, I have read drawing tutorial books and drawing tutorials at the internet, I've been using photos and other people's drawings as my references...still my drawing has barely improved. Sounds like you need a change of profession.

>>532583 I don't draw for professional reasons, retard.

The only art I've ever paid money for was at goodwill where presumably the artist got post mortem karma points for donating some of their stuff when they died. Not a really sustainable business model tbh. I've seen furries pay $$$ for suits but that shit is cringe. >>532591 Maybe you should see artfagging as like fishing. "Caught a small one that time. Wow a big one" etc. I'm gonna play skribbl.io for a bit now that you mention it. It's full of indians exposing your IP but w/e. Sometimes I think I can't do a shape that represents a word and then it turns out really good. Other time I think "I got dys" and it turns out an abomination.

Sex with Felicia

>>532525 Sex with Felicia onnatopof Morrigan with Lilith watching. But on to more pressing issues. Anon, why do you care? Seriously, do you have art fag friends or are you trying to appease someone? How many "friends" that you are aware of have broken their relationship over (art) and (artificially generated illustrations of felicia being gangbanged), hmm? This back and forth seems meaningless and futile. Persons that want that microwave dinner will microwave. Persons that want that oven baked spaghe will pre-heat that oven will preparing the ingredients. The question is, what's your purpose for making "art?" because if you're not looking to get paid, who cares. if you're not still posting pieces on mom's fridge anymore, who cares. you want some likes, some thumbs up? WHO CARES. You do...make your stuff, (optionally) post it and move on. Let the haters hate and let the awe-strucken revel in awe of your <promoted piece of Felicia getting double dicked by Lady NailKaizer with Angel Blade jilling off in the background