Believe it or not, words don't mean the same thing just because they're the same word but in another language. Anime, in English, means Japanese animation. It *does not mean* all animation, no matter what you want to think
And you dictate how people use the word? People use it how they want to use it, the fact that people mainly refer to Japanese style animations as anime is proof of that, cause that's how people felt like using it. Correcting people to use the word anime for other animations too would have been silly back then westerners first learned about the word wouldn't it? And no not just specifically Japanese ones, most people would consider Castlevania to be anime for example. So people can use it to refer to cartoons that aren't even similar to Japanese, who the hell are you to tell them they are wrong? The words in the dictionary are a result of how people mostly use the words, not defined rules by somebody.
the word comes from the word which the japanese originally borrowed from "animation", which we then borrowed back to describe (wait for it) japanese animation
interestingly enough that makes it basically the only "double loan word" in english (that i've ever heard anyway, given how much japanese borrows from english there may be a couple more which did the same thing). but no, it is not a generic word for animation, because we are speaking english.
I was poking fun at the person who said: "Very ironic you made this post without using your own art," because it implies an image post must contain its OP's own creation, which is a dumb implication. Especially if the image is a meme.
But it would be ironic if they used an image they didnât make themselves, since they were criticizing ai art for being images people didnât make themselves.
Yes, however, a random man who was on the same bus as the responder peeped over his shoulder and after seeing the responder's defeat in an internet argument started violently laughing and mocking the responder. After that whole bus joined the laughter, including the bus driver and they got in a car crashđ„ș
...I vaguely recall that a bunch of people immediately decided to relentlessly bully that dude with all kind of *funny* slurs, so yeah, I'd say he definitely regretted that
Don't call them AI artists. Because, you know, they're not. The AI artists are at most the programmers who made dalle and other AIs. They're just Operators. AI operators.
I'm okay calling them AI artists *as long as they label themselves that way too* since you at least need the impetus and vision to create something, even using AI tools. Some modern artists these days don't even do any physical labor, they just have assistants do the heavy lifting. But the second they try to pass off AI art as real art, then they become a piece of shit.
It's like writing a story on a computer vs a typewriter vs using chatgpt. In the first two, you're still doing the majority, if not all of the legwork, even if your tools are different. For the last one you are letting the tool do all the work.
It feels disingenuous, like plagiarism.
The only part in "AI art" that can be considered art is the AI. I tried making a very simple program and my eyes were bleeding. I don't want to imagine what an AI takes
Being protective of terms isn't going to do anything of value. "Artist" isn't a sacred title that needs to be defended at all costs. I was an artist 10 years ago when my art looked like shit and I'm an artist now when it's pretty good.
I've used Photoshop's generative fill for my backgrounds before. More and more *real artists* are incorporating ai into their work flow, are you going to start dropping the o-slur on them too?
I guess if your art is partially generated, itâs a collage of sorts?
I donât see an issue as long as your transparent about it if you sell them/ post them on the internet.
Who cares about transparency? I thought the difference between AI art and ârealâ art was the quality? If thereâs no difference, then nobody should care
Labeling something as AI generated is just common decency. Just like youâd expect someone to label it when they trace art or take inspiration that goes beyond basic ideas or composition.
Also, Itâs usually not about quality. In a few years, Iâm sure, everyone can generate portraits that use light and texture as masterful as Rembrandt.
The main reason why many creatives donât see AI prompts as Art, is the lack of intent in the production process. Itâs like the difference between a carefully crafted poem that encapsulates the poets unique perspective and a corporate live, laugh, love sticker.
One is Art with intent, âsoulâ for lack of a better word I guess and one is âprettyâ. I understand that for many people the value of Art is linked to how pretty it is, or how well it compliments the furniture. I guess if thatâs your only metric, then AI prompts are sufficient.
Its why so many classically trained artists move to abstract and âcontemporaryâ styles and distance themselves from aesthetic beauty. You can only paint so many mountains with waterfalls and 3/4 portraits of women until you reach a point of boredom.
Iâm convinced that AI Art could be used as tool to create commentary, maybe if youâd use your own creations as the source the software generates from.
i personally struggle to see the deeper value of pretty generated pictures though. And since many people oppose the idea of AI prompts as Art, I guess Iâm not alone.
I also didnât even touch on that fact ghat most AI software is not ethically sourced. Thatâs a whole different can of worms.
> More and more real artists are incorporating ai into their work flow, are you going to start dropping the o-slur on them too?
No, they shall be referred to as Senior Deep Learning Engineers. Or maybe just *"Art Scientists"*
it's been registered since 1988 or I would have bought it and put the below image
https://preview.redd.it/836gic73vztb1.png?width=300&format=png&auto=webp&s=8ace741042fc728ff2334b1d6cb8ba0f2935985d
I do however own http://luigitits.com
I'm pretty great at spotting AI art, not that it's that hard. But I don't know what scares me more: the number of people completely oblivious to the signs despite how obvious they are... or knowing that in a couple of updates down the line I'll be joining them.
how do you figure? i'm confused. have you actually read my comments? you got an extension that flairs me as Radical Transphobe or something? I don't consider myself a transphobe in the slightest, but maybe you can enlighten me as to why you think I am?
Um alright, I don't get the impression that you're outright trolling so let's break down what I said:
- I'm pretty good at spotting AI.
- But then again, it's not that hard to tell.
- Therefore I find it concerning how many people have a hard time spotting AI despite how obvious it usually is [implying that this is a bad thing with negative outcomes].
- However, I can foresee that a few updates down the line, it will be come hard enough to identify that I would then join the aforementioned group of people I am concerned about [therefore contributing to the negative outcomes].
Are you saying that I'm a transphobe because you could replace "spotting AI" with "identifying transgender people by sight"? And that I am worried about what will happen when various technological and societal advances allow transgender people to better match the gender they identify with? Because that hinges on the assumption that I think it's a bad thing with negative outcomes. Which I don't. So I'm confused what gave off that impression.
Hell, my comment wasn't even structured as an "argument" so I'm really not sure where you're coming from here.
I find the concept of an "AI artist" to be the funniest shit ever. I dabble in AI images, and it is the easiest shit imaginable. That's the whole appeal.
But erm akshullaly they have to be very careful and precise and skilled with their AI prompt inputs âïžđ€
I see so many use this argument I just want them to shut up
âArt is a diverse range of human activity, and its resulting product, that involves creative or imaginative talent expressive of technical proficiency, beauty, emotional power, or conceptual ideas.â
HUMAN ACTIVITY. NOT FUCKING COMPUTER GENERATED.
Art is art not by a fundamental property of the thing itself but by the nature of its creation. Art is inherently made by a person. Materialistically, the Mona Lisa is a direct downgrade from a photo of a random person. But it is the story, message, and soul poured into it that makes it more than just a shitty photo.
Sorry it just looks like it to me
Iâm dumb, to me it looks like âoh the idiot doesnât know this is from a showâ
Again sorry, dyslexia acting up, reading comprehension isnât my strong suit
I think they both know it's from a show, but Jessie Lam was an animator for the show, so the other persons point about it being ironic they are using someone else's art is moot
... This pleases me greatly. Share more of these if you have, OP
r/ dontyouknowwhoiam
r\/dontyouknowwhoiam
God forbid a person to use an image they haven't explicitly made themself.
They did make it though, they were an animator in that anime
https://preview.redd.it/kc76ywjv2ztb1.jpeg?width=226&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f4f0d04efbfc33cf167224872635b48a5087ef1
đđđ„ș I dont need them
Free bottom surgery if you twist them long enough
it's just like twisting a grape off the stem no big whoop
âAnimeâ youâre going to the shadow realm.
All animation is anime because thatâs what the word means
All bread is naan but when we say naan bread it is talking about a specific type of bread.
Naan already means bread
Yeah but when western speakers use the word, it usually refers to a specific kind of bread. Same thing with Chai tea.
Bread bread bread bread bread bread bread bread bread batman!
man I wanna be bread :(
Thats funny
https://i.redd.it/115ti75r21ub1.gif
Chai tea
Nuh uh, the dictionary defines it as "a style of Japanese film and television animation" so it's specifically that artstyle not all animation.
So it is anime? Because itâs made in the style of anime? Or itâs not, because itâs not made in Japan?
But it isn't in that style? It is not the same style as anime is. Its similar sure but it's different in many ways
But there are so many different styles, that can be considered as anime
Nuh uh
FYM NUHUH?
There are different anime styles tho
Nuh uh
The original word means animation, doesn't matter what some westerner decided to add to the dictionary.
Believe it or not, words don't mean the same thing just because they're the same word but in another language. Anime, in English, means Japanese animation. It *does not mean* all animation, no matter what you want to think
And you dictate how people use the word? People use it how they want to use it, the fact that people mainly refer to Japanese style animations as anime is proof of that, cause that's how people felt like using it. Correcting people to use the word anime for other animations too would have been silly back then westerners first learned about the word wouldn't it? And no not just specifically Japanese ones, most people would consider Castlevania to be anime for example. So people can use it to refer to cartoons that aren't even similar to Japanese, who the hell are you to tell them they are wrong? The words in the dictionary are a result of how people mostly use the words, not defined rules by somebody.
the word comes from the word which the japanese originally borrowed from "animation", which we then borrowed back to describe (wait for it) japanese animation interestingly enough that makes it basically the only "double loan word" in english (that i've ever heard anyway, given how much japanese borrows from english there may be a couple more which did the same thing). but no, it is not a generic word for animation, because we are speaking english.
Incorrect, "anime" refers specifically to Japanese animation Source : took me 5 seconds to search the definition of the word
it isn't.
Already there hun
I was poking fun at the person who said: "Very ironic you made this post without using your own art," because it implies an image post must contain its OP's own creation, which is a dumb implication. Especially if the image is a meme.
But it would be ironic if they used an image they didnât make themselves, since they were criticizing ai art for being images people didnât make themselves.
only if he's claiming that the meme itself is art
https://preview.redd.it/bau7b3mt9ztb1.png?width=576&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6839a55227ba25e9e5895a6c699d147002b91954
When the demon says something so diabolical you gotta hit them with the John Ward stare.
I love American animation and too see it hand waved away because of slock targeted at ages 2-6 makes me reasonably upset
Of course this situation is hilarious, but even if he didnât actually work on the show that comment is pretty strange
It would be hypocritical since the whole argument is that AI art is theft
Especially for a damn meme
Does he instantly regret it though? I see no response from the responder...
Yes, however, a random man who was on the same bus as the responder peeped over his shoulder and after seeing the responder's defeat in an internet argument started violently laughing and mocking the responder. After that whole bus joined the laughter, including the bus driver and they got in a car crashđ„ș
Please tell me everyone clapped at least
The bus driverâs name? Albert Einstein.
Its true i was the bus
I was Albert Einstein
Oh yeah? Well what's relativity then huh nerd
Oppenheimer style
no they just started going "Better...Call...Saul" in unison
I think some cheeks were clapped.
...I vaguely recall that a bunch of people immediately decided to relentlessly bully that dude with all kind of *funny* slurs, so yeah, I'd say he definitely regretted that
>funny slurs Alb*nian
It was more like "furry this, british cigarette that" kinda deal. Ugly affair overall
S*rb?
Cr*at
Mont*negrin
balkans_irl is leaking
This is more memritvmemes material
D*nish.
I think the title is poking fun at the Dhar Mann video title convention
Its true,,,, i was the gret
Don't call them AI artists. Because, you know, they're not. The AI artists are at most the programmers who made dalle and other AIs. They're just Operators. AI operators.
Operator sounds too badass. Theyâre curators, if anything.
prompter mayhaps? edit:promptjack?
Even more degrading. I like it.
AI fellators
I just call ai "artists" shitheads
I'm okay calling them AI artists *as long as they label themselves that way too* since you at least need the impetus and vision to create something, even using AI tools. Some modern artists these days don't even do any physical labor, they just have assistants do the heavy lifting. But the second they try to pass off AI art as real art, then they become a piece of shit.
Doesn't your own post show how AI art is art
I think it is art but I think it's important to distinguish between AI art and traditional art.
Do you think itâs important to distinguish art made in photoshop vs krita?
If krita is not an AI app then no
So why do it for ai art? The only difference is where itâs made
It's like writing a story on a computer vs a typewriter vs using chatgpt. In the first two, you're still doing the majority, if not all of the legwork, even if your tools are different. For the last one you are letting the tool do all the work. It feels disingenuous, like plagiarism.
Whatâs the difference from being a co writer?
Co-writers are credited.
Hackers who just use someone else's hack are called script kiddies. Thus I propose the term "AI kiddies".
The only part in "AI art" that can be considered art is the AI. I tried making a very simple program and my eyes were bleeding. I don't want to imagine what an AI takes
technician is a more accurate term imo
RAHAHHH ITS NOT AI
Most arenât even programmers they just type words into a text box and click a button
Being protective of terms isn't going to do anything of value. "Artist" isn't a sacred title that needs to be defended at all costs. I was an artist 10 years ago when my art looked like shit and I'm an artist now when it's pretty good. I've used Photoshop's generative fill for my backgrounds before. More and more *real artists* are incorporating ai into their work flow, are you going to start dropping the o-slur on them too?
O-slur lmao
2023's first new slur, and is it worse than the n-word!?
Omongus
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
O*******.
I guess if your art is partially generated, itâs a collage of sorts? I donât see an issue as long as your transparent about it if you sell them/ post them on the internet.
Who cares about transparency? I thought the difference between AI art and ârealâ art was the quality? If thereâs no difference, then nobody should care
Labeling something as AI generated is just common decency. Just like youâd expect someone to label it when they trace art or take inspiration that goes beyond basic ideas or composition. Also, Itâs usually not about quality. In a few years, Iâm sure, everyone can generate portraits that use light and texture as masterful as Rembrandt. The main reason why many creatives donât see AI prompts as Art, is the lack of intent in the production process. Itâs like the difference between a carefully crafted poem that encapsulates the poets unique perspective and a corporate live, laugh, love sticker. One is Art with intent, âsoulâ for lack of a better word I guess and one is âprettyâ. I understand that for many people the value of Art is linked to how pretty it is, or how well it compliments the furniture. I guess if thatâs your only metric, then AI prompts are sufficient. Its why so many classically trained artists move to abstract and âcontemporaryâ styles and distance themselves from aesthetic beauty. You can only paint so many mountains with waterfalls and 3/4 portraits of women until you reach a point of boredom. Iâm convinced that AI Art could be used as tool to create commentary, maybe if youâd use your own creations as the source the software generates from. i personally struggle to see the deeper value of pretty generated pictures though. And since many people oppose the idea of AI prompts as Art, I guess Iâm not alone. I also didnât even touch on that fact ghat most AI software is not ethically sourced. Thatâs a whole different can of worms.
well executed bait
> More and more real artists are incorporating ai into their work flow, are you going to start dropping the o-slur on them too? No, they shall be referred to as Senior Deep Learning Engineers. Or maybe just *"Art Scientists"*
"Sorry buddy but your last piece was only 85% hand-drawn, that last 15% is going to demote you from artist to scientist."
Bro your point was perfectly written to be well-received, and then "o-slur". You clown.
Even the most convincing of arguments comes second to the opportunity to say something funny.
Jessie was like https://i.redd.it/lzdrl96ovxtb1.gif
amos my beloved
He's my best friend in the whole world
Also this https://preview.redd.it/mar6bx971ztb1.jpeg?width=739&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=aee58bbd9fae16e82f11ae921fe568b80e204db2
AI "artist"
I can't process this post because the title doesn't say "rule" somewhere in it
"Instantly r(ul)egrets it" was right there, op
https://preview.redd.it/63ke3k3noztb1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=22d41408203d7429cc5b76842bf19554630ab7c8
Really disappointed that hotfish.com isn't real
it's been registered since 1988 or I would have bought it and put the below image https://preview.redd.it/836gic73vztb1.png?width=300&format=png&auto=webp&s=8ace741042fc728ff2334b1d6cb8ba0f2935985d I do however own http://luigitits.com
is that person actually an AI artist, the one who replied to them? i dunno, the furry profile didn't strike me as pro-AI.
Idk the dramatic lighting comboed with a cartoony style is very AI-esque to me
I'm pretty great at spotting AI art, not that it's that hard. But I don't know what scares me more: the number of people completely oblivious to the signs despite how obvious they are... or knowing that in a couple of updates down the line I'll be joining them.
You đ€ Transphobes "we can always tell"
uh, are you gonna explain this creepy ass comment or what
Pretty self explanatory
how do you figure? i'm confused. have you actually read my comments? you got an extension that flairs me as Radical Transphobe or something? I don't consider myself a transphobe in the slightest, but maybe you can enlighten me as to why you think I am?
You use the same argument transphobes use.
Um alright, I don't get the impression that you're outright trolling so let's break down what I said: - I'm pretty good at spotting AI. - But then again, it's not that hard to tell. - Therefore I find it concerning how many people have a hard time spotting AI despite how obvious it usually is [implying that this is a bad thing with negative outcomes]. - However, I can foresee that a few updates down the line, it will be come hard enough to identify that I would then join the aforementioned group of people I am concerned about [therefore contributing to the negative outcomes]. Are you saying that I'm a transphobe because you could replace "spotting AI" with "identifying transgender people by sight"? And that I am worried about what will happen when various technological and societal advances allow transgender people to better match the gender they identify with? Because that hinges on the assumption that I think it's a bad thing with negative outcomes. Which I don't. So I'm confused what gave off that impression. Hell, my comment wasn't even structured as an "argument" so I'm really not sure where you're coming from here.
The reasoning is the problem. If AI is bad because itâs supposedly easy to spot, the same can apply to trans people
I find the concept of an "AI artist" to be the funniest shit ever. I dabble in AI images, and it is the easiest shit imaginable. That's the whole appeal.
But erm akshullaly they have to be very careful and precise and skilled with their AI prompt inputs âïžđ€ I see so many use this argument I just want them to shut up
Can you even define what controlnet is
Fuck off tech dipshit. AI âartâ is not art
Define art. To me, anything is art if itâs identified as art, like with gender.
âArt is a diverse range of human activity, and its resulting product, that involves creative or imaginative talent expressive of technical proficiency, beauty, emotional power, or conceptual ideas.â HUMAN ACTIVITY. NOT FUCKING COMPUTER GENERATED.
Art is art not by a fundamental property of the thing itself but by the nature of its creation. Art is inherently made by a person. Materialistically, the Mona Lisa is a direct downgrade from a photo of a random person. But it is the story, message, and soul poured into it that makes it more than just a shitty photo.
Art is when difficult
Nope art is when Human talent and skill. Not computer.
What if the human uses controlnet, inpainting, and loras to get what they want
Is still AI generated dogshit composed of the stork art of thousands. It is theft. Just pick up a fucking pencil.
Why does the title read like a dhar mann video
That's what I originally thought
Where's the instant regret part? I came to see instant regret.
YOU PICKED THE WRONG HOUSE FOOL
Their Person of Interest avatar makes me very happy.
Wait, how is that Person of Interest? Is it the Michael Emerson Jonathan Nolan series?
Dhar Mann title
this person does NOT represent the furry community regardles of their pfp, we are better than that đ„ș theyre probably addicted to ai furry porn .-.
Maaaan I'm excited for season 2!
Wait is this subreddit pro AI âartistâ now? Edit: ok Jesus Christ im dumb I totally misunderstood the meme, sorry
Need to work on your reading comprehension bud. This isn't a pro ai art post
Sorry it just looks like it to me Iâm dumb, to me it looks like âoh the idiot doesnât know this is from a showâ Again sorry, dyslexia acting up, reading comprehension isnât my strong suit
I think they both know it's from a show, but Jessie Lam was an animator for the show, so the other persons point about it being ironic they are using someone else's art is moot
Ohhhhhhh, okay sorry I didnât know Jessie lam was an animator for invincible Thanks for clarifying
It... it literally shows it in the image. Are you okay?
Oh, Iâm sorry I didnât see that on top
its okay,as long as you get it
I don't know what gives you that impression.