pouët.net

this is clearly, there is a demand for all kinds of images, as evidenced by your demo? you obviously didn't mind that your protagonist's body type changed from panel to panel, or that the glasses and t-shirts were a different color from one image to the next. it was good enough for you, no artist necessary. you had a demand for images, but the AI generated ones sufficed for you. i've explained earlier in the thread how this ultimately hurts the whole field.

the underhanded implication that only artists producing non-fresh or non-original art are threatened by AI generators is cruel in two ways

Wayfinder, you sure the words you wrote were in reply to what you quoted?

But in the broader sense, yes, it's a cruel thing. Machines replacing ever more human labour has been going on for a few centuries now, and won't likely go away.
The actual problem is that humanity hasn't yet learned to get rid of the "no work -> no livelihood" sequitur.

I'm not sure if I should take the 'ahead of the pack' as sarcasm or seriously.

So you seem to understand the purpose of this (or other) tech in the wide world. Why should we bring that shit here, in a small niche with zero realworld economic logic?

sometimes people don't flame you because their opinion differs from yours, sometimes they have a different opinion because yours sucks so much that you get flamed for it.

Because why not? Ideological reasons? There are no livelihoods at stake here, in the scene, regardless of AI usage or not.

Hasnt the Utopian idea of machines replacing human labour so humans may shift all their attention to their well-being been a popular thing/theme since the 50s/60s? Most of radical architecture of the time was about that. And shouldnt that be the ultimate goal of socialism (or perhaps better, communism, since that's the ultimate form of socialism)? Yet, while tools (/machines) have been making our labour easier for 2-3 decades or more, we are required to work more than when labour was harder! Capitalism, I guess... But, anyway, shouldnt AI be regarded as a good thing within that context?

Quote:

sometimes people don't flame you because their opinion differs from yours, sometimes they have a different opinion because yours sucks so much that you get flamed for it.

Wayfinder, would you want to imply that people are sometimes taking a stance in opposition of mine because they feel my stance sucks so much that the exact opposite must be the right one - without even further reflecting on what might be right?

You don't seem to care about people's feelings one bit. You don't seem to appreciate your fellow graphicians. At all. These are your friends who are hurting. Oh, OK.

Yet, while tools (/machines) have been making our labour easier for 2-3 decades or more, we are required to work more than when labour was harder! Capitalism, I guess... But, anyway, shouldnt AI be regarded as a good thing within that context?

Actually it was nice and interesting to see the timelapse of the Revision oldschool graphics winner. It took the artist really many hours of work. And it felt good to see it winning.

I think people were mostly upset by that Toxic Module demo because the A.I. was applied so uninspiringly and boring

I'm not sure if I should take the 'ahead of the pack' as sarcasm or seriously.

Quote:

I don't know. Bifat?

More like upset about using AI at all, it seems to me. =)

"hey, If you can't be bothered putting in some effort, you don't deserve my attention, so piss off."

Because why not? Ideological reasons?

But when done badly, people get upset, they feel like you're wasting their time. You're not giving them satisfaction and they go "hey, If you can't be bothered putting in some effort, you don't deserve my attention, so piss off."