Welcome to Furry_irl, a community for furry memes, shitposts, and other relatable images or comics.
Community rules:
Source (Bluesky)
I have a pretty quick ~$500 phone (snapdragon 8 gen 3) and tried this local AI app once (just something on fdroid, you could probably find it) but the experience was pretty terrible. Like a minute per image on the small local models from 2022. I'm sure you could do better, but my conclusion is that an $800 phone is as useful as a $60 phone for generative ai because you're going to have to use some remote service anyways.
A minute per image, on a pocket computer, sounds like Marty McFly Jr. making a three-second pizza and going "C'mon, c'mon!'
Hehe "borrowed"
What does that phrase even mean? Asking something else to make something for you is not artistic, so it can't be that. People who commission other humans to make things aren't suddenly artists. If they literally just mean consumption of images, it's not as if web searching for images has been difficult for the last couple decades at this point. If you don't care about art at all and just want content, there are lifetimes of things you could look for readily available to indulge. Just start typing and away you go! Literally the only thing that has changed is that now you are accelerating dead internet theory and removing human interaction from what you consume. Of course, if you don't care about art that is a moot point, since human self-expression and communication never meant anything to you in the first place.
At best, the phrase should be specialized, on demand consumption of niche content is more accessible, not art.
Artists understand that art is primarily about self-expression. Non-artists often instead think art is about producing nice pictures. When all nice pictures come with self-expression baked in, the two groups seem to be on the same page, but when a computer makes nice pictures that are completely devoid of self-expression, we find out they're not on the same page at all.
If what you need is a constant stream of ever-changing imagery that you don’t glance at for more than a second or two before moving on, I’m sure AI is great for that. So are jangling keys and those slime ASMR videos. But if that’s what you want from viewing or making art, you are an alien to me.
I use it for illustrations of characters, items, and locations for my homebrew TTRPG campaign. That's basically exactly what happens: party looks at it once, gets a general idea, and usually never looks at it again. Without AI, I just wouldn't have the illustrations; I'm not commissioning art that's going to get looked at once.
I wouldn't call that "art", in any real sense. They're visual aids, not aesthetic masterpieces.
Without AI, I just wouldn't have the illustrations
Well, this situation has existed for a long time. You can buy extant asset packs, no commission necessary. They’re not too expensive, either. As you noted they are just visual aids. Actually I happen to have a supermassive amount laying around from random humble bundles over the years, that were pack-ins with other items I wanted
No judgement or anything, it’s just far from an “AI or nothing” situation
I'm very particular, and my setting is not thematically typical. AI gives me the power to have a decent degree of control over the content when it's difficult, if not impossible, to find media that's appropriate for a particular character or scene.
As much as i hate AI generated art, this is a shit argument. You can run an AI on your phone (which you would have anyway) without a subscription. You can also doodle on your phone for free.
Yeah I feel it would be better if they they have shown the sheer cost of making these models and their upkeep instead.
It's perfectly fine price to use in cancer treatment. But when they mention AI girlfriends I want to scream.
It's not even the cost of training the AI. A better argument is that using AI for art is pure fucking laziness in 99.9% of cases.
Also, why have an AI waifu when you can have a real one and touch grass at the same time?
I wish we could start arguing about the ethics of compensation for training data and requiring a concrete way to both protect opt-out, as well as compensate those who contribute, rather than argue about a product that absolutely does have a user base (as is continually proven). I don't think there's a win against the demand, but you can win the ethics battle and force better regulations.
I keep seeing this kind of argument, and I understand, but I disagree.
The comparison isn't between using an ai service and doing it yourself, but rather between using an ai service and commissioning an actual artist. I can afford $20/mo for infinite mediocrity. I cannot afford $20/image (or more depending on the artist).
Of course, there is a flaw in my argument, in that I was assuming that the techbro was being honest. People aggressively pushing dalle or midjourney or whatever aren't interested in "making art accessible". They hate art and artists, and want to force creative types to be miserable doing jobs they hate. I have to remind myself that this is the kind of person that the comic is complaining about.
Lol right, because there are no free AI art services and you need a dedicated iPhone to do AI art. OP forgot to add $400 for a leather upholstered "gaming chair".
What someone practiced can do with nothing, and what a newbie can do with nothing, drastically differ.
These dipshits are trying to communicate that this tech offers half-decent results. Immediately. For no effort. They could surely do better, themselves... if they spent an entire year trying. Opportunity be damned, most people just don't want to. Developing a skill is a process that sucks. Vanishingly few people learn to paint portraits, and code games, and play piano. But any idiot can now use a program to do a half-assed job of all three.
Experienced artists, programmers, and musicians will recognize the flaws. They can declare the results useless slop. But it's being generated by people who would do even worse without it.
Source (Mastodon)
That's nice.
Meanwhile, the average person only sees results. They do not seem to share your fundamental aversion to how a JPG was made. They didn't experience whatever grand philosophical journey produced it. It doesn't need to be artisanal grass-fed human Art.™ It either provokes an emotional response, or not.
If AI slop is a text in the absence of subtext, it is still a text. Comes with death-of-the-author built in. And people can still say something with works they did not make themselves... as you're doing right now.
You could run it on your own PC instead
You could also draw in the sand with a stick or piss in the snow. I'm pretty sure the point is it doesn't take advanced technology to make art.
Yeah it didn't take computers or anything to make art. More about the artists than the method right?
Then instead of a subscription, you're paying for a gpu and power. Not everyone has the money for a computer, but pretty much anyone can afford a pencil and paper.
Oh yeah, I forgot everyone is born with inmate talent, time and privilege.
I know what I want to draw, but there's something missing between that idea and the paper. I can imagine what I want it to look like, in a way, but only as a vague reification of a concept, not as something made of lines and colors, and it's useless for trying to get it down on paper. I inevitably end up with something so far from my original idea that it's massively discouraging.
I expect that I'd develop a better eye for this sort of thing if I was to practice it for years, but it's very difficult to feel motivated to do that when you can't produce anything remotely like what you were going for.
To be blunt, I think the powers behind project 2025 do believe the common man has inmate talent #modernamericanslavery
… but I suspect you meant "innate" talent
“innate talent” is a pervasive idea that undercuts years of work and practice. art is HARD and most people just don’t find the doing part to be fulfilling.
everyone wants to make a masterpiece, but no one is born with some kinda artist-gene that gives them the ability to do so as if by magic. outside of savants at least, but that’s a whole other thing lmao
Yes, talent is oversold and used as an excuse to often HOWEVER there ARE differences in people's skill level and rate of learning. Especially if learning disabilities are involved.
I really really wanna draw regularly. And i practice regularly have for years. Ive gotten much better than couple years ago me but overall my art still sucks (others confirm not just the usual artist hates own work) and it's mainly because i have a learning disability that affects my spacial reasoning and ability to visualize shapes.
This may come as a surprise to some people but that makes drawing very difficult, i can't get proportions correct and I struggle to find shapes. My best drawings are ones that i practically traced the initial outline to get the shapes. AI generated art absolutely makes getting an idea out of my head more accessible. And i can then trace the outline of the ai art and draw the rest myself.
I know people hate it but just blindly saying "anyone can draw just do it bro" is basically just as worthless of an argument that ignores reality
this too, it’s a lot like singing in that way. anyone can train their vocal control, but some folks just will have a much harder time with it for all sorts of reasons they can’t control. both sides of that “only some people can do it/anyone can do it” coin can be damaging for their own reasons.
i think it’s really important to talk about these things in a frank way, thank you for contributing to the discussion ^^
I forgot every artist had all of those things in spades
Forgot the
Disability
Part
Society thinks everyone is able-bodied. Until a machine is made so I can draw directly with my mind, creating art is a pipe dream. I need something that doesn't require any type of force, so no pencils, pens, mice, etc. I always associate the word "accessible" with disabled people so this meme was funny to me.
