It's very easy to see that he is using ai, the artstyle is totally inconsistent if you check his uploads on his Patreon. And he just suddenly appeared in January out of nowhere. It looks to me like he often takes Optionaltypos artstyle and has a model based on it, but on his Patreon it can be seen he has used other artists styles too and generated pictures with it.
I'd honestly suggest reporting him on Patreon too... He's not disclosing the use of ai and is scamming people out of money.
It's very easy to see that he is using ai, the artstyle is totally inconsistent if you check his uploads on his Patreon. And he just suddenly appeared in January out of nowhere. It looks to me like he often takes Optionaltypos artstyle and has a model based on it, but on his Patreon it can be seen he has used other artists styles too and generated pictures with it.
I'd honestly suggest reporting him on Patreon too... He's not disclosing the use of ai and is scamming people out of money.
Yes really, I dunno who you think that you're kidding. It's not only unethical it's also a really bad idea because it's not going to last. In China you're already legally obligated to clearly label things as ai generated chances are very high it's going to be the case globally sooner or later.
Everyone can see through your scam and it won't last.
Yes really, I dunno who you think that you're kidding. It's not only unethical it's also a really bad idea because it's not going to last. In China you're already legally obligated to clearly label things as ai generated chances are very high it's going to be the case globally sooner or later.
Everyone can see through your scam and it won't last.
tracynla said:
AI is not welcome here your posts will be deleted, go plug your scam elsewhere
What's wrong with generated images? I make fans of various characters happy. I don't scam people. I'm not saying that I generate pictures or draw them, I let people think the way they like. What problems?
What's wrong with generated images? I make fans of various characters happy. I don't scam people. I'm not saying that I generate pictures or draw them, I let people think the way they like. What problems?
You are scamming people because you didn't create any of it and are trying to profit off of it, if you really cared about just '' making people happy '' then you wouldn't be trying to make money off of it. There was even a recent legal case for a comic where this was again reinforced. You have no ownership over these generations, how can you sell something that you don't own?
You're also taking the art of real artists and use it for financial gain by making a model out of it without their consent ( as others have pointed out, it looks like you used Optionaltypos art without their consent ).
Regardless of what you think it's not allowed on this website too. And not disclosing that you're using ai is extra cringe and shady, you know why you're not doing it don't pretend to be stupid.
You are scamming people because you didn't create any of it and are trying to profit off of it, if you really cared about just '' making people happy '' then you wouldn't be trying to make money off of it. There was even a recent legal case for a comic where this was again reinforced. You have no ownership over these generations, how can you sell something that you don't own?
You're also taking the art of real artists and use it for financial gain by making a model out of it without their consent ( as others have pointed out, it looks like you used Optionaltypos art without their consent ).
Regardless of what you think it's not allowed on this website too. And not disclosing that you're using ai is extra cringe and shady, you know why you're not doing it don't pretend to be stupid.
Damn, do you really cry? All this time, I did not hide that I created images using a neural network, but I decided to do it especially for you. Why are these images not mine? I created these images using the power of my own PC and spent my time editing in Photoshop. Also, I can mine bitcoin on my PC, and you will say that it does not belong to me? Also, other artists use characters that don't belong to them for their own purposes (to make money), but you don't hate them. (Why?) You mentioned that I wanted to make money from this. Of course, I would like to live off the money that I get from what I do. Wouldn't you like to?
Damn, do you really cry? All this time, I did not hide that I created images using a neural network, but I decided to do it especially for you. Why are these images not mine? I created these images using the power of my own PC and spent my time editing in Photoshop. Also, I can mine bitcoin on my PC, and you will say that it does not belong to me? Also, other artists use characters that don't belong to them for their own purposes (to make money), but you don't hate them. (Why?) You mentioned that I wanted to make money from this. Of course, I would like to live off the money that I get from what I do. Wouldn't you like to?
This guy understands the hypocrisy of hating AI-generated art while supporting others profiting from copyrighted works, referenced images and good will fandoms. "This booru is not themed for AI-generated art" is enough without falling in stupid excuses now butthurt artists make about a tool that allows everyone to create images (like Photoshop, GIMP or even Paint).
This guy understands the hypocrisy of hating AI-generated art while supporting others profiting from copyrighted works, referenced images and good will fandoms. "This booru is not themed for AI-generated art" is enough without falling in stupid excuses now butthurt artists make about a tool that allows everyone to create images (like Photoshop, GIMP or even Paint).
Comparing photoshop to ai art is the dumbest shit I've heard in my life and I can't believe it's such a common talking point... Photoshop literally require the same fundamental art skills as drawing/ painting traditionally does. Photoshop doesn't automatically generate an image for you like ai does... When we're talking about photoshop tools we're talking about things like maybe being able to cut things out and resize it because you drew it the wrong size, or using layers to help fix the lighting or easily change colors.
Traditional art may have some unique challenges but so does digital, you still need to learn how to actually use all of the digital tools photoshop has which can easily be overwhelming for someone with little experience with it. But you are still ultimately painting and drawing with the same fundamental skills that a traditional artist does.
Calling yourself an artist because you use ai is like calling yourself an artist because you commissioned someone and then taking credit for their work. I'd even argue that more effort goes into commissioning art than ai generating it. So it's even dumber even if both of them would be dumb.
There is no hypocrisy here because actual artists create things themselves, when you pay them you're paying them for THEIR WORK. You do not create or own anything that you generate with ai art, it's not yours and you didn't make it and there is already legal precedence for this. You're not acknowledged as the creator even on a legal level, the ai is considered to be the creator.
Do you know why those artists don't use Paint or any simple pixel editor tool to profit from their art? Because they let the tool improve their style for them using a (mostly pirated) professional tool like Photoshop.
"Artists" learned to draw copying their teachers, copying their "how to draw manga" books, copying other's artists styles that copied yet more styles. Most of them initiated tracing over photographs with sheets of thin paper. Of course I know how artists do their work.
I also understand now how AI art is generated. You have to carefully choose the prompt words to obtain the result you expect. You can even use your own drawings or photos to assist an improving AI to obtain the result you needed. Quite similar to what an "artist" did to improve their art.
AI art is like the recent invention of photography where analog artists were against the invention of cameras and home personal computers to create digital art years later. History repeats itself in a new era.
Even if you like it or not, an artist is anyone using tools to make art. Hence "no AI-generated art themed on this booru" is enough without falling into ellitisms proud of the Nazi era. There are photographers and 3D artists that make art too, also discouraged here because simple renders and unretouched photographs aren't welcomed here at all.
Do you know why those artists don't use Paint or any simple pixel editor tool to profit from their art? Because they let the tool improve their style for them using a (mostly pirated) professional tool like Photoshop.
"Artists" learned to draw copying their teachers, copying their "how to draw manga" books, copying other's artists styles that copied yet more styles. Most of them initiated tracing over photographs with sheets of thin paper. Of course I know how artists do their work.
I also understand now how AI art is generated. You have to carefully choose the prompt words to obtain the result you expect. You can even use your own drawings or photos to assist an improving AI to obtain the result you needed. Quite similar to what an "artist" did to improve their art.
AI art is like the recent invention of photography where analog artists were against the invention of cameras and home personal computers to create digital art years later. History repeats itself in a new era.
Even if you like it or not, an artist is anyone using tools to make art. Hence "no AI-generated art themed on this booru" is enough without falling into ellitisms proud of the Nazi era. There are photographers and 3D artists that make art too, also discouraged here because simple renders and unretouched photographs aren't welcomed here at all.
That is why, 3D artistry, photography and artistry are different things. Each use a tool to help them, but do not bold-facedly rip one thing off literally with no effort (photography is scrutinised for how it is captured, although it is a copy of the thing it is capturing, it is also based on how well the portrayal is captured in that moment and uses other techniques to improve its craft). AI art is borne not from effort, but from a copy-bank, whereas an artist, despite having gained their abilities and skills, have done so through practice and learning effort, taking their steps along the way and expressing it either on canvas or on a digital sheet. Their tools, are different from people who claim to make art by writing two lines of words and then dragging and dropping said generation to fit a match, such a thing is not art. Your argument tries to draw on the principles of hand-made and machine made notion, yet it is all different when it comes to the definition of art itself, which is a completely human creation, but when we invite AI-work into this, that is the exception, not because of elitism, but because it has seen no effort, those lines, those colours, those poses and strokes, they are not made by a person working to get them right, even if it is copying off a reference, whereas with AI they have just been pasted there.
This is why there is always going to be a divide between Hand-made and Machine-made, we are here not to celebrate the copy paste efforts of AI, but to celebrate the effort people have put in to actually draw their art from scratch or reference, their technique and style is the work. Whether that art is inferior or superior is not why we are against AI-art, nor the efficacy at which it is produced, but the fact it was not done by a person taking the steps to actually learn the craft, but taking the craft without effort and lauding it as their own achievement.
Do you know why those artists don't use Paint or any simple pixel editor tool to profit from their art? Because they let the tool improve their style for them using a (mostly pirated) professional tool like Photoshop.
There's no way you actually think Photoshop does all the work for you. There's no way you're that stupid. Actually, you spend so much time shit talking artists, despite having been a member of this "community" you love annoying so much for over a decade, why don't you shut up and make something yourself? Without using AI, of course. You do seem to think that being an artist is effortless and none of them deserve any praise or funding. What's your excuse going to be when you inevitably come back to us with nothing? No time? Too poor to afford the tools, and too moral to pirate them?
That is why, 3D artistry, photography and artistry are different things. Each use a tool to help them, but do not bold-facedly rip one thing off literally with no effort (photography is scrutinised for how it is captured, although it is a copy of the thing it is capturing, it is also based on how well the portrayal is captured in that moment and uses other techniques to improve its craft). AI art is borne not from effort, but from a copy-bank, whereas an artist, despite having gained their abilities and skills, have done so through practice and learning effort, taking their steps along the way and expressing it either on canvas or on a digital sheet. Their tools, are different from people who claim to make art by writing two lines of words and then dragging and dropping said generation to fit a match, such a thing is not art. Your argument tries to draw on the principles of hand-made and machine made notion, yet it is all different when it comes to the definition of art itself, which is a completely human creation, but when we invite AI-work into this, that is the exception, not because of elitism, but because it has seen no effort, those lines, those colours, those poses and strokes, they are not made by a person working to get them right, even if it is copying off a reference, whereas with AI they have just been pasted there.
This is why there is always going to be a divide between Hand-made and Machine-made, we are here not to celebrate the copy paste efforts of AI, but to celebrate the effort people have put in to actually draw their art from scratch or reference, their technique and style is the work. Whether that art is inferior or superior is not why we are against AI-art, nor the efficacy at which it is produced, but the fact it was not done by a person taking the steps to actually learn the craft, but taking the craft without effort and lauding it as their own achievement.
So we agree an artist depends on how it uses the tools at hand rather than the copycat references they used. AI art is not easy either, you have to know how it works to get a good result. It takes effort just as anyone with Photoshop can't get good results just for using it. I follow Japanese artists on Twitter and they post AI generated art too. Do they stopped being artist as well?
Definition of art states as "the conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words". An AI does not have conscious or imagination, the one operating the AI however does. Definition doesn't state you can't use AI machines to create art, the rules on this site however do. Come and tell me this picture is not beautiful.
In any case I'm extending too much on this. This is a comment section not a discussion forum. I put my opinion (that's what this is for) and that's it, I can't change your opinion in the same way you can't change mine. It would be foolish from me to think I'm better in any way than you, I humbly accept I'm not. However I'm also proud to be different in the aspect I can see everything from both sides without the fear to be left alone. Some of you think in closed squares because you fear being left appart from the social circle you want to stay, even when you don't think like the rest. If you see honest words like "trolling" only because I don't share your collective minded opinion there's nothing I can't do about it.
AI art IS easy. That's why it's implementation resulted in so many random people with no art-fundamentals whatsoever suddenly posting fully rendered pieces at rates even the most skilled (actual) artists can't do, and in some artists with "room for improvement" suddenly get an abrupt improvement in their "art" with no effort. if anyone can just up and do it, it not hard, nor is it a skill. Art is a skill that's the sum of a whole bunch of skills (anatomy, perspective, color, composition, just to cite the most obvious ones, speed is also an art skill, and mastery of the tools as well, and there's much more), skills that AI doesnt need you to have at all, which i do not (or shouldn't) need to precise since we all now that now, literally anyone can just go pick up one of those algorythms and start trying to monetize labor they never provide. Digital art never did have those ridiculous consequences, it never did make it look like your art skills were above what they really are, it never was built on unauthorized use of other people's work. What it did was make the art process more flexible, potentially faster if you work for it, and above all, not require a constant resupply of expensive stuff that is sometimes even dangerous to use (some paints not being safe to touch with your skin for example). So i say it again, even though it should be obvious: AI art takes 0 skill, that's a factual thing. It does not require you to learn any skill, it just lets you randomly generate an image that was unethically leeched from other people's time and skill, in just a few minutes of your day, and potentially monetize that non-commitment, in the world of sane people we call that scamming. If civilization wasnt degenerate, this type of AI would have first been used for things like reducing the inhumane amounts of work on the shoulders of artists in industries i need not to name, without reducing their often unfair paychecks, but no, instead we are in the worst timeline.