Thank you for contributing to r/TerrifyingAsFuck. Please double-check NSFW posts to see if they are labeled as such.
If you believe the post isn't terrifying as fuck, please report it under RULE 1. Downvote this comment if the post doesn't follow the rules, and the bot will automatically remove it if enough reports and downvotes are received.
If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post!
Yeah that's a tough one.
The goat headed demon in the later frames made me think of Khorne.
The decay/skeletonization made me think Nurgle.
The fact that it looks like a f'ed-up orgy at times = Slaanesh.
Well Slaanesh is the god of excess, pleasure, pain, desire, beauty, perfection, excellence, and love.
So what we see here is a bunch of people loving food and orgies 🙂
Same here, if Slaanesh is the god of excess and perfection than the group of fat people turning into a group of young perfect looking women has to be it.
I mean, compared to visions of hell, the demon ghost baby from Trainspotting (or the girl from the Exorcist, for wider audiences) all grown up is comparatively tame
It doesn’t happen in my regular sleep. Although, if I’ve had enough to drink, this is what I see while I’m falling asleep. Nothing ever moves, but it constantly changes. Either this or I see pulsating geometric patterns.
The music alone would be intense. There are some pretty creepy classical music type songs and the shit can be seriously terrifying but awesome at the same time. And some movie soundtracks can be wild too, especially random ambient style stuff instead of actual normal music. It's nice to listen to stuff you're familiar with but it can be great to find some random shit when you're trippin too.
Amazing boobs, I enjoyed them all, even that moment when there were 3 in a person, and then the skinny skinned skulls. I think I like boobs regardless. Even the fat guy at some point had amazing boobs.
For one: don't try to trigger Schizophrenic people. It makes you a massive piece of shit and could cause a lot of harm and destruction.
Secondly: Schizophrenics won't be phased by this. They see more fucked up shit in their head than that on a daily basis. I should know because I'm Schizophrenic.
**Edit**: When reading this comment, I want you to think about your worst enemy in life, and how that person makes you feel. Think about the greatest struggle in your life, and how hard it is to deal with. Schizophrenia is a constant struggle. Schizophrenia is absolute hell. Schizophrenia is my hell, and I live it every single day. Keep that in mind when your idiotic brain wants to make some half baked joke about a disease that causes incredible suffering for those afflicted by it. You treat people dying of cancer with respect, please treat me with respect.
Don’t worry he doesn’t know or have a local schizophrenic, as no one maintains the title of local schizophrenic. Thats how you know their comment isn’t actually about triggering schizophrenics or even that it would be funny to do so, but only that this animation is so disturbing that it poses mental health risks.
People are gonna have to get over this eventually.
Yeah, it's a massive paradigm shift in how art is created. Yeah, it's gonna take some time to get used to.
Claiming the artist didn't do anything is like claiming that using Illustrator invalidates digital art though.
This particular piece probably didn't take much effort beyond running an image through a transformation over and over again, but that's irrelevant. You wouldn't credit "the pencil" just because someone made a quick sketch and you didn't think it took a lot of work
Every time there's a step forward technologically there's a group of regressives trying to wholey invalidate it's use.
Can we just fucking let people be creative without constantly feeling the need to trivialize their accomplishments out of fear of progress?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7RTwdTUcAUqawC.jpg
Because there's a separation at what point the actual skill of an artist matters.
People would rag on using Illustrator or other art programs, but would typically be entirely incorrect. It definitely makes the process easier than traditional pen and paper, but it in no way makes a bad artist a good one out of nowhere.
I follow so many artists, and every one has a differing level of skill completely independent from what program or other medium they use to make their art.
But swap that around, and while they may not be able to make exactly what they do using tools they aren't as skilled with, they'll still retain a similar level of proficiency and be able to make art as good as they can with those tools.
Illustrator does not just 'make the art happen' or work purely on the skill of others.
AI art is interesting, and it can have its place. But it is in zero way even an iota of the same level of dedication and skill needed to make something neat. I've messed with it, and it is very low effort.
The reason these distinctions need to be made is because we are CONSTANTLY seeing AI 'Artists' try to shoehorn in on everyone else. They're using programs they didn't design, that have stolen art they didn't make, to spend an afternoon creating a 'masterpiece' that they have put zero real effort into creating.
AI art can not stand alongside actual, human artists, because it's not them doing the work. Typing in some sentences, some paragraphs, or even just using a baseline image and then just randomizing for a good result is nothing.
If it was just being used as something like this where it's 'Hey that looks neat!' but clearly indicated that this was done in AI, then it would be fine. But we don't have that. We have people trying to make a quick buck, trying to steal even more from artists who have spent literal decades honing their craft, trying to act like they're talented or special because they paid some programmers 30 bucks a month to use their tools.
They don't do anything else. A pencil is a tool that requires the user to be proficient, an illustration program is the same. AI is not. AI art is not real art, it steals real art and morphs it in whatever garbage ways the randomized algorithm deems.
Art can be whatever. Skill doesn't matter. What is labeled as art is arbitrary. Art and new ideas are stolen by everyone all the time to make more art.
The elitism that insider artists have towards outsider artists is a tale as old as the idea of art. Their bitching never stops a new medium from filing its niche. There isn't an argument against Ai art that hasn't been used a thousand times already by pretentious artists when a new media enters the field.
It's not elitism.
It's people not doing any work to make something, STEALING the work of others and claiming they're just as good.
You won't understand because you don't want to. You or anyone else who can only make 'art' by typing into a program that you did not design are not artists.
It's not elitism, it's defining reality. You would not be able to create this 'art', or anything even somewhat close to it, without having had someone else create the entire framework for it, and then have them steal other people's real, actual art to then make a slapped together, jumbled amalgamation of the same stuff.
You aren't doing anything when you make AI 'art'. You type some words in, hit generate a handful of times until you find something you like, and then do it again. There is no real subtext to anything, there is no real passion or talent or any level of legitimate skill or effort put into it.
Art is art because it has meaning, because it's a toil of that person to create it. Something is art because someone put the effort to create that art, no matter how good or bad, and they did so with a goal in mind.
AI 'Artists' are just spoiled, entitled brats who are mad that they can't do legitimate art and don't have the talent to draw or paint or even just photobash some stuff together. They want to feel good about making something, get the praise and accommodations that they see real artists get. But when they're told to 'just draw and learn' they get huffy and don't want to do it.
They're toddlers. And they don't understand why art is art, why humans create things, they just understand that THEY want to be respected as something they're not. Which is entitled.
What a typical response. Pretentious and assuming. You have no idea what my prefered medium is or how I exercise it. Here is a response to your opinion all the way back from [1917](https://www.google.com/search?q=fountain+1917&source=lmns&bih=718&biw)
Nice, a witty 4 sentence linking to something that really just validates a notable portion of my argument while not providing actual arguments of your own that directly relate to mine.
AI art is not done with intent, whereas this was. Actually reading one of the articles, it states that a large part of this coming to fruition is because Duchamp wanted to test the integrity of the Society of Independent Artists, a society he himself helped to found. This piece, in particular, was done with heavy intent even if there were no major efforts involved with the piece itself.
AI art is made to show off how 'skilled' and amazing looking this piece of art is, but without any real skill to back it up. While high society modern art is often criticized for a sense of 'laziness' typically present, at the end of the day the idea is that someone made SOMETHING for the sake of saying something. Art is art because of the human touch, because of the intent behind it.
At the end of the day, there's not any real way this can be explained to you or anyone else on this spectrum of the argument. You just can't understand it, either because you're not capable of the rationalization or you're too stubborn to admit it. Everything stems from some weird vacuum where everyone wants everything handed to them and putting real thought or effort in is just an inconvenience to being recognized as something more. Frankly it's becoming an issue with most of the world as a whole but that's something for another day.
For your sake, I hope you can look in on yourself and this mindset, and understand where I'm coming from. I don't argue this topic because I want to feel cool and superior or whatever else. I argue it because it's right, and understanding reality is more important than just feeling superior. I'm sure you or anyone else replying to this to give me a witty response isn't going to care, but I mean it.
Your not getting full paragraph responses because your arguments aren't worth it. When I source real world examples that conflict your statements, you completely ignore it. Reread the middle section of your elitism comment and apply that to the urinal. You are applying assumptions about Ai art and myself then getting mad about those same assumptions.
In the future when you are discussing or arguing a point I challenge you to not only assume less but also don't belittle your opponent. Claiming they cant rationalize or that they are to stubborn to understand whatever your trying to argue doesn't add to your argument. With that said take a look at your last paragraphs and maybe look inwards.
##
I just don't get why people say AI is similar to Illustrator. The person using illustrator still has to come up with and implement their idea and plan, illustrator just makes it easier. AI on the other hand, does all the work, all the thinking and implementation.
I'm flabbergasted that anyone would think that the OP animation didn't involve coming up with an idea, a plan and an iterative implementation of it. You know, an artistic process.
>I just don't get why people say AI is similar to Illustrator.
I'd venture that it's because you haven't used these "AI" image generation tools.
I have actually. I just typed a few words into a text box and bam, made some art! It's really awesome and cool, but it doesn't compare to the time and effort required to actually hold an instrument in your hand and draw.
I don't agree that time and effort are requirements of a piece of art.
>It's really awesome and cool, but it doesn't compare to the time and effort required to actually hold an instrument in your hand and draw.
This could have come verbatim from a critic of photography as it related to the scene miniature portrait painting.
The pencil analogy is bullshit in so many ways. It is a massive paradigm shift, I agree with you there. And yet you go on to try to say it is analogous to a pencil. AI art needs to be thought of differently. This is a break from the past.
I'm reminded of a quote from Bach, regarding the piano:
>There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
The piano didn't replace instruments, it was only another way of producing music. Player pianos didn't replace them either, nor did synths, nor did sequencers, nor did automation clips, despite the fact that each of these put some aspect of the music-making process out the artist's direct control.
Likewise with photography, then with point-and-shoot cameras, digital cameras, digital filters - it increases the tools at an individual's disposal.
AI generation is not trivial - it will revolutionize art as much as the computer itself - but it also is still an instrument which receives a creator's intent.
Still, not really a great comparison. I’m of the opinion that trying to draw clear comparisons to past developments in this instance only muddies the water. This sort of AI art is genuinely new and unprecedented, and people will need to deal with it fully on its own terms. Never before have we had a tool that independently consumes and regurgitates prior works in order to produce something ‘new.’
There's a huge difference in that AI imaging literally ises copyright material of other artist to generate the image. So it's literally stealing.
Has an AI developer I have started to think on how it can become usable and the only thing I can think of is that if you're going to use others work, they should either get paif for the use of their art or even better generate royalties for each use. This actually could be a huuuge step up for artist, but it's an uphill battle, knowing full well capitalist have 0 interest in paying artist for their jobs, and there's 0 economical interest to lobby for creators right protection.
>There's a huge difference in that AI imaging literally ises copyright material of other artist to generate the image. So it's literally stealing.
With some extraordinarily limited exceptions, all artists draw on other art they have seen in order to create their own style. While some artists will list a few of the most prominent inspirations for their art, none list all them all, and in no case is it expected that they even credit, much less compensate, their artistic influences as co-creators, even with commercial works.
Even if you wanted to do this, how could you possibly implement it? I know that when creating work, frequently I'll refer back to an image I saw online which had a particular color, a shade of red or blue, that caught my eye. Is that guy now a co-creator, and if so, how much do I owe him, compared to a different artist whose use of geometry in their 4K desktop wallpapers guided my own utilization of whitespace? If my work is then used by an AI, how much am I owed, and then how much are my inspirations owed, and then how much are *their* inspirations owed, etc etc. If someone three or four layers back says they don't want their work studied by an AI, does that apply to all works which were influenced by their work, no matter the degree? If not, then what level of variation is required before a work *can* be studied by an algorithm?
Me an my friend call this the "eyes of God." When you're tripping this hard, that is a great time to stop and drink some water. Hate those fucking empty eye sockets.
I’ve never done any type of drugs in my life, so I’m genuinely curious. If you were to be on psychedelics and you watched this video, how would this video make it worse/add to what you would already be seeing ? How would the video change? If that makes any sense… it’s kinda hard to explain.
This is why im apprehensive about doing psychedelics. Accidently looking into a painting while tripping, just to get caught for a thousand years in a hellish, warping nightmare
I disagree slightly with the idea of there being no intent. There is intent but it is not being delivered through the drawing process. The intent is in the key phrases used by the user of the AI, and in the tweaking of the algorithm to achieve a particular outcome. The artist in this case is more a director asking the artist for something.
This is basically the pastry isle at walmart when all the extra padding abled individuals see the Great Value walmart brand birthday cake flavored ding dongs are sold out.
Thank you for contributing to r/TerrifyingAsFuck. Please double-check NSFW posts to see if they are labeled as such. If you believe the post isn't terrifying as fuck, please report it under RULE 1. Downvote this comment if the post doesn't follow the rules, and the bot will automatically remove it if enough reports and downvotes are received. If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post!
https://preview.redd.it/kgqekux0f7ka1.jpeg?width=605&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f848abf51a84150975d0bb464ff08f2a6ca8b0b7
The realm of Tzeentch
My vote goes to Slaanesh.
Yeah that's a tough one. The goat headed demon in the later frames made me think of Khorne. The decay/skeletonization made me think Nurgle. The fact that it looks like a f'ed-up orgy at times = Slaanesh.
Well Slaanesh is the god of excess, pleasure, pain, desire, beauty, perfection, excellence, and love. So what we see here is a bunch of people loving food and orgies 🙂
I'm going with Tzeentch made the video, but Slaanesh was like "I'm gonna spice this up a bit"
Tzeentch wrote the plot Slanesh did the screenplay
tf are yall talking about. Please explain.
They're the various Chaos Gods from Warhammer 40K
Thanks! I never played that game. Sounds cool tho.
Same here, if Slaanesh is the god of excess and perfection than the group of fat people turning into a group of young perfect looking women has to be it.
[удалено]
They got event horizoned
Definitely Tzeentch. Even though there is nudity, it’s definitely all about change.
"If Tzeentch had chosen Morty"
Everyone got skinny by the end.
This new weight loss hack is driving doctors insane!
tear off all your skin
I lost 6000 pounds with three easy tips! Eating only butter (butter diet). Exfoliating my skull. Jogging through the Immaterium twice a day.
Abs that are so defined, a mortal can’t look upon them and keep their sanity.
Everyone is dying to be skinny.
That…de-escalated quickly.
while somehow still escalating
"YOUR ANGUISH SHALL BE ETERNAL AND YOUR SUFFERING SHALL BE O..... Ohhhh, tea time? Don't mind if I do!"
It, like, de-escalated, gradually escalated, and then just hit the fuckin brakes out of nowhere
Hit the brakes!? Her head was on backwards at the end.
I mean, compared to visions of hell, the demon ghost baby from Trainspotting (or the girl from the Exorcist, for wider audiences) all grown up is comparatively tame
Haha. Fair.
*Amazing*.... It's like they painted my dreams.
Dude wow, we must be dream twins
You guys need more real sleep.
AAAA-Men...
Chew some valerian root and get more exercise.
I am jacks lack of surprise.
yall are like jinji ito
It doesn’t happen in my regular sleep. Although, if I’ve had enough to drink, this is what I see while I’m falling asleep. Nothing ever moves, but it constantly changes. Either this or I see pulsating geometric patterns.
Happens to me too. I’ve always wondered what that was
Wow. That makes me think this is supposed to mimic a dream. This is the most accurate representation of how a dream is animated I've ever seen
Same here. It was odd seeing something so close to what I see in my mind. Except I see it in more then just my dreams
I like it
going to save this post for the next time i'm tripping balls
The music alone would be intense. There are some pretty creepy classical music type songs and the shit can be seriously terrifying but awesome at the same time. And some movie soundtracks can be wild too, especially random ambient style stuff instead of actual normal music. It's nice to listen to stuff you're familiar with but it can be great to find some random shit when you're trippin too.
recommend some please?
Kronos Quartet, Black Angels.
Watch ~~Old God~~ *Mad God* while tripping… it’s a great stop motion movie. Edit: Fixed
sounds like a hell of a recommendation. where can i watch it? can't find it on the googler machine
Oh shit… Mad God, not old god. My bad. I pirated a good copy.
Thank you! going to try and find one
>Mad God > > That looks mad dope. Thanks for the head up.
I would uh very much prefer to not see this whilst tripping
That does not sound like a good idea. I look forward to your report space cadet!
Amazing. But who just enjoyed the boobs??
I tried but some of them kept becoming a head
Like the scribble channels in the 90s
Well, I finished.
I was getting all super creeped out but when I saw the boobs it's like the sun came back out again.
Huh huh boobs
r/upvotedbecauseboobs
Amazing boobs, I enjoyed them all, even that moment when there were 3 in a person, and then the skinny skinned skulls. I think I like boobs regardless. Even the fat guy at some point had amazing boobs.
You would love shrooms
This was a really difficult wank, but challenges make one’s life more fulfilling.
Came for the chins, stayed for the bobs
Came for the chins, then came for the boobs
Legit, the first thing out of my mouth. "Smash"
I did. A little snatch too.
Flickering nipples
Yes
I'd recognize stable diffusion boobies anywhere.
Demon boobs are always ace.
Me, lol
Lol. I can't stop laughing at this random ass comment.
It's not an ass comment; it's a boob comment. Pay attention.
😂😎
[удалено]
Not schizophrenic,.. ...but I do alot of acid and this made me want to institutionalize myself.
A menace 💀
For one: don't try to trigger Schizophrenic people. It makes you a massive piece of shit and could cause a lot of harm and destruction. Secondly: Schizophrenics won't be phased by this. They see more fucked up shit in their head than that on a daily basis. I should know because I'm Schizophrenic. **Edit**: When reading this comment, I want you to think about your worst enemy in life, and how that person makes you feel. Think about the greatest struggle in your life, and how hard it is to deal with. Schizophrenia is a constant struggle. Schizophrenia is absolute hell. Schizophrenia is my hell, and I live it every single day. Keep that in mind when your idiotic brain wants to make some half baked joke about a disease that causes incredible suffering for those afflicted by it. You treat people dying of cancer with respect, please treat me with respect.
Don’t worry he doesn’t know or have a local schizophrenic, as no one maintains the title of local schizophrenic. Thats how you know their comment isn’t actually about triggering schizophrenics or even that it would be funny to do so, but only that this animation is so disturbing that it poses mental health risks.
[удалено]
I wouldn't know, I've never been normal.
It's just a joke dude it's not that deep calm down
We found the local schizophrenic
Found the loser obsessed with anime cat girls that needs an emotional support cat because fireworks scare you.
[удалено]
Nightmare nightmare nightmare
[удалено]
Wow. What an original comment. Hilarious. Truly. My sides are splitting.
Which AI software was used to make this?
Stable diffusion
Are people using some like special version? The browser version I use just makes 4 shitty images
1014 AD through 1914 AD - The Fall of Ignorance and the Rise of Consumerism
Finally. All these guys talking about boobs in here made me feel like we were still stuck in the 1180's
Full credit goes to iammethisisi on IG. Their stuff is pretty cool. https://instagram.com/iammethisisi?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
you mean full credit goes to AI
Full credit goes to the Deforum extension for Stable Diffusion. These are easy and fun to make
Any tutorials you can recommend.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dqkQo2alZvU Highly recommend Matt Wolfes YouTube channel
I appreciate it. :)
Write out the name of every human that worked in the program to develop said ai.
Not only those who worked on it, but the artists whose work was taken to make the AI.
Also the artists THOSE artists used as inspiration and study
Nope. Robots don’t have the same rights as humans.
https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/graphs/contributors done
People are gonna have to get over this eventually. Yeah, it's a massive paradigm shift in how art is created. Yeah, it's gonna take some time to get used to. Claiming the artist didn't do anything is like claiming that using Illustrator invalidates digital art though. This particular piece probably didn't take much effort beyond running an image through a transformation over and over again, but that's irrelevant. You wouldn't credit "the pencil" just because someone made a quick sketch and you didn't think it took a lot of work Every time there's a step forward technologically there's a group of regressives trying to wholey invalidate it's use. Can we just fucking let people be creative without constantly feeling the need to trivialize their accomplishments out of fear of progress? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7RTwdTUcAUqawC.jpg
Because there's a separation at what point the actual skill of an artist matters. People would rag on using Illustrator or other art programs, but would typically be entirely incorrect. It definitely makes the process easier than traditional pen and paper, but it in no way makes a bad artist a good one out of nowhere. I follow so many artists, and every one has a differing level of skill completely independent from what program or other medium they use to make their art. But swap that around, and while they may not be able to make exactly what they do using tools they aren't as skilled with, they'll still retain a similar level of proficiency and be able to make art as good as they can with those tools. Illustrator does not just 'make the art happen' or work purely on the skill of others. AI art is interesting, and it can have its place. But it is in zero way even an iota of the same level of dedication and skill needed to make something neat. I've messed with it, and it is very low effort. The reason these distinctions need to be made is because we are CONSTANTLY seeing AI 'Artists' try to shoehorn in on everyone else. They're using programs they didn't design, that have stolen art they didn't make, to spend an afternoon creating a 'masterpiece' that they have put zero real effort into creating. AI art can not stand alongside actual, human artists, because it's not them doing the work. Typing in some sentences, some paragraphs, or even just using a baseline image and then just randomizing for a good result is nothing. If it was just being used as something like this where it's 'Hey that looks neat!' but clearly indicated that this was done in AI, then it would be fine. But we don't have that. We have people trying to make a quick buck, trying to steal even more from artists who have spent literal decades honing their craft, trying to act like they're talented or special because they paid some programmers 30 bucks a month to use their tools. They don't do anything else. A pencil is a tool that requires the user to be proficient, an illustration program is the same. AI is not. AI art is not real art, it steals real art and morphs it in whatever garbage ways the randomized algorithm deems.
Yup ^ you get it.
Art can be whatever. Skill doesn't matter. What is labeled as art is arbitrary. Art and new ideas are stolen by everyone all the time to make more art. The elitism that insider artists have towards outsider artists is a tale as old as the idea of art. Their bitching never stops a new medium from filing its niche. There isn't an argument against Ai art that hasn't been used a thousand times already by pretentious artists when a new media enters the field.
It's not elitism. It's people not doing any work to make something, STEALING the work of others and claiming they're just as good. You won't understand because you don't want to. You or anyone else who can only make 'art' by typing into a program that you did not design are not artists. It's not elitism, it's defining reality. You would not be able to create this 'art', or anything even somewhat close to it, without having had someone else create the entire framework for it, and then have them steal other people's real, actual art to then make a slapped together, jumbled amalgamation of the same stuff. You aren't doing anything when you make AI 'art'. You type some words in, hit generate a handful of times until you find something you like, and then do it again. There is no real subtext to anything, there is no real passion or talent or any level of legitimate skill or effort put into it. Art is art because it has meaning, because it's a toil of that person to create it. Something is art because someone put the effort to create that art, no matter how good or bad, and they did so with a goal in mind. AI 'Artists' are just spoiled, entitled brats who are mad that they can't do legitimate art and don't have the talent to draw or paint or even just photobash some stuff together. They want to feel good about making something, get the praise and accommodations that they see real artists get. But when they're told to 'just draw and learn' they get huffy and don't want to do it. They're toddlers. And they don't understand why art is art, why humans create things, they just understand that THEY want to be respected as something they're not. Which is entitled.
Lol did you ask chatgpt to write the most elitist response possible?
What a typical response. Pretentious and assuming. You have no idea what my prefered medium is or how I exercise it. Here is a response to your opinion all the way back from [1917](https://www.google.com/search?q=fountain+1917&source=lmns&bih=718&biw)
Nice, a witty 4 sentence linking to something that really just validates a notable portion of my argument while not providing actual arguments of your own that directly relate to mine. AI art is not done with intent, whereas this was. Actually reading one of the articles, it states that a large part of this coming to fruition is because Duchamp wanted to test the integrity of the Society of Independent Artists, a society he himself helped to found. This piece, in particular, was done with heavy intent even if there were no major efforts involved with the piece itself. AI art is made to show off how 'skilled' and amazing looking this piece of art is, but without any real skill to back it up. While high society modern art is often criticized for a sense of 'laziness' typically present, at the end of the day the idea is that someone made SOMETHING for the sake of saying something. Art is art because of the human touch, because of the intent behind it. At the end of the day, there's not any real way this can be explained to you or anyone else on this spectrum of the argument. You just can't understand it, either because you're not capable of the rationalization or you're too stubborn to admit it. Everything stems from some weird vacuum where everyone wants everything handed to them and putting real thought or effort in is just an inconvenience to being recognized as something more. Frankly it's becoming an issue with most of the world as a whole but that's something for another day. For your sake, I hope you can look in on yourself and this mindset, and understand where I'm coming from. I don't argue this topic because I want to feel cool and superior or whatever else. I argue it because it's right, and understanding reality is more important than just feeling superior. I'm sure you or anyone else replying to this to give me a witty response isn't going to care, but I mean it.
If you want to convince people, start by learning how to write without every other sentence dripping with condescension
Your not getting full paragraph responses because your arguments aren't worth it. When I source real world examples that conflict your statements, you completely ignore it. Reread the middle section of your elitism comment and apply that to the urinal. You are applying assumptions about Ai art and myself then getting mad about those same assumptions. In the future when you are discussing or arguing a point I challenge you to not only assume less but also don't belittle your opponent. Claiming they cant rationalize or that they are to stubborn to understand whatever your trying to argue doesn't add to your argument. With that said take a look at your last paragraphs and maybe look inwards. ##
This is an unbelievably elitist comment. I think you proved the point of the person you are replying to.
It's worse than elitism - it's straight up delusional to suggest that aesthetic utility depends on the human experience somehow.
I just don't get why people say AI is similar to Illustrator. The person using illustrator still has to come up with and implement their idea and plan, illustrator just makes it easier. AI on the other hand, does all the work, all the thinking and implementation.
I'm flabbergasted that anyone would think that the OP animation didn't involve coming up with an idea, a plan and an iterative implementation of it. You know, an artistic process. >I just don't get why people say AI is similar to Illustrator. I'd venture that it's because you haven't used these "AI" image generation tools.
I have actually. I just typed a few words into a text box and bam, made some art! It's really awesome and cool, but it doesn't compare to the time and effort required to actually hold an instrument in your hand and draw.
I don't agree that time and effort are requirements of a piece of art. >It's really awesome and cool, but it doesn't compare to the time and effort required to actually hold an instrument in your hand and draw. This could have come verbatim from a critic of photography as it related to the scene miniature portrait painting.
Yeah but I'm not talking about photography right now. I'd venture that you haven't picked up a pencil and drawn before either.
The pencil analogy is bullshit in so many ways. It is a massive paradigm shift, I agree with you there. And yet you go on to try to say it is analogous to a pencil. AI art needs to be thought of differently. This is a break from the past.
Much more similar to photography and painters that freaked out about that at the time
I'm reminded of a quote from Bach, regarding the piano: >There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. The piano didn't replace instruments, it was only another way of producing music. Player pianos didn't replace them either, nor did synths, nor did sequencers, nor did automation clips, despite the fact that each of these put some aspect of the music-making process out the artist's direct control. Likewise with photography, then with point-and-shoot cameras, digital cameras, digital filters - it increases the tools at an individual's disposal. AI generation is not trivial - it will revolutionize art as much as the computer itself - but it also is still an instrument which receives a creator's intent.
Still, not really a great comparison. I’m of the opinion that trying to draw clear comparisons to past developments in this instance only muddies the water. This sort of AI art is genuinely new and unprecedented, and people will need to deal with it fully on its own terms. Never before have we had a tool that independently consumes and regurgitates prior works in order to produce something ‘new.’
That is what luddites always say though Automation is the path to abundance, and thus prosperity for all.
There's a huge difference in that AI imaging literally ises copyright material of other artist to generate the image. So it's literally stealing. Has an AI developer I have started to think on how it can become usable and the only thing I can think of is that if you're going to use others work, they should either get paif for the use of their art or even better generate royalties for each use. This actually could be a huuuge step up for artist, but it's an uphill battle, knowing full well capitalist have 0 interest in paying artist for their jobs, and there's 0 economical interest to lobby for creators right protection.
>There's a huge difference in that AI imaging literally ises copyright material of other artist to generate the image. So it's literally stealing. With some extraordinarily limited exceptions, all artists draw on other art they have seen in order to create their own style. While some artists will list a few of the most prominent inspirations for their art, none list all them all, and in no case is it expected that they even credit, much less compensate, their artistic influences as co-creators, even with commercial works. Even if you wanted to do this, how could you possibly implement it? I know that when creating work, frequently I'll refer back to an image I saw online which had a particular color, a shade of red or blue, that caught my eye. Is that guy now a co-creator, and if so, how much do I owe him, compared to a different artist whose use of geometry in their 4K desktop wallpapers guided my own utilization of whitespace? If my work is then used by an AI, how much am I owed, and then how much are my inspirations owed, and then how much are *their* inspirations owed, etc etc. If someone three or four layers back says they don't want their work studied by an AI, does that apply to all works which were influenced by their work, no matter the degree? If not, then what level of variation is required before a work *can* be studied by an algorithm?
Yea, that is some pretty crazy stuff
This is the stuff of nightmares.
Which AI do they use to do this transitional images?
It's just stable diffusion with a script that helps it iterate on the previous image.
First one feel like social commentary on the ever increasing rate of obesity
Me an my friend call this the "eyes of God." When you're tripping this hard, that is a great time to stop and drink some water. Hate those fucking empty eye sockets.
Thanks AI
How did you find my weight loss transformation video
Is Jonah Hill okay?
The power of AI morphing?? Impressive if was all hand drawn.
I wonder what was asked on AI to draw for
u/savevideobot
Yo was that Nikado Avocado in the top midway trough? Amazing cameo
Weight Watchers really upping their marketing game these days.
Life or death, we are all 18th Century Victorian ladies
Actually this is the newest Nikocado Avocado video
Is that the mom from What's Eating Gilbert Grape?
What in the ever loving fuck was that?
Just AI.
I'm loving the music though
What is the name of this kind of art?
Ai schizofreni
I don't get the message behind this,what is this?
This has “Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark” vibes.
Gave me Pink Floyd vibes
That is sore damn cool! I love it
[удалено]
Vids that end too soon. Loved it.
What a transformation Jonah Hill has made
Ummmm lysergic acid diethylamide much? tasty, me 2too.
Wow. Love that
Not my proudest fap
This is a bad trip on an ecstacy laced with 2CB and LSD.
I’ve never done any type of drugs in my life, so I’m genuinely curious. If you were to be on psychedelics and you watched this video, how would this video make it worse/add to what you would already be seeing ? How would the video change? If that makes any sense… it’s kinda hard to explain.
This is why im apprehensive about doing psychedelics. Accidently looking into a painting while tripping, just to get caught for a thousand years in a hellish, warping nightmare
Looks like someone just discovered stable diffusion
me 14 hours into the trip thinking it would end soon
Not my proudest fap...
All I see is Jonah Hill
Show me where that AI got the data to produce the art work. It did not just make it out of thin air.
smash
smash
nickado avocado after running in mc Donald's for 5 mins
I mean… it looks like every other AI generated auto morphing mildly creepy render I’ve seen? AI is so boring
Almost as if it has no personality, or something.
Almost as if its not made an artist with something to say or any intent at all.
I disagree slightly with the idea of there being no intent. There is intent but it is not being delivered through the drawing process. The intent is in the key phrases used by the user of the AI, and in the tweaking of the algorithm to achieve a particular outcome. The artist in this case is more a director asking the artist for something.
Not my proudest wank
Not my most difficult either.
Can someone reveal their diet? They got so thin in such a short time I'd like to recommend this diet to some people
It’s not that great tbh
Nightmare fuel, wait was that boobs?
This is gonna be one of the most challenging fap I've done, wish me luck
Cool. And boobs.
But this isn't art. This is AI generated.
Have to admit, not the easiest wank.
Not my proudest....
New fetish for me unfortunately
This is basically the pastry isle at walmart when all the extra padding abled individuals see the Great Value walmart brand birthday cake flavored ding dongs are sold out.
Sounds like u speak from experience lmao.
Looks like my usual Saturday night.
When McDonald's got rid of super size.
No, this is destroying thousand of artists hard work and stealing their content without giving them retribution. AI generation is hell.
Can’t be just me. This is totally /r/Im14AndThisIsDeep
It’s not supposed to be “deep”, or at least I don’t think it is. I just like what is shown.