While so much of the comic book industry is fighting against AI, there are some who are stopping, kicking and screaming, and realizing the inevitable: that the tool is only going to get better and will be a force multiplier that isn’t going to go away.
So many projects await the day when the AI tools gain a better ability to maintain a consistent character across multiple scenes. I sense a flood gate set to be unleashed.
From that same Brevoort blog post: “how bizarre and unlikely O’Brien’s success was in the first place. He’d only had limited experience as a performer when he was tapped to take over LATE NIGHT following David Letterman’s departure, and that series stayed on life support for three or four years”
All of the arguments against AI art fail, and fail comprehensively.
1. The "equity" arguments are all retarded, and range from an appeal to Marxist economic theory to a childish sense of unfairness. There is no equity in economics.
2. The arguments on quality are in AI's favor. Compare the medians, not the best, as that's what's relevant. Most human-generated art is terrible, so the bar is very, very low.
3. Training isn't stealing. And taking pictures of images isn't stealing either. Anthropic, at least, has paid for the works it pirated, so that argument can't be applied to its AI systems anymore.
4. Art doesn't have a soul. It's not alive.
You can go on as long as you like. You'll still be wrong. But more important, you'll still be irrelevant. Nothing is going to stop AI from being used or from improving.
Your arguments are retarded. You haven't said anything that hasn't been said many, many times before. Your complaint that creating a technology that produces billions of dollars of business is "unfair" is obviously childish. Your grasp of business and economics is observably that of a child.
And your arguments are completely irrelevant. Nothing you say, do, or think is going to affect the adoption of AI in the least. It's a literal description.
And now you're resorting to a womanish rhetorical tactic by asking "why all the anger?" Why do you imagine that someone has to be angry with you to tell you that you're stupid? The fact is that I just think your arguments are invalid and incorrect because you're too stupid to produce better ones.
Most people are idiots, so it's hardly a surprise that a few of them stumble upon this site from time to time and express their retarded opinions. That's fine, but don't expect any of the contributors here to take them seriously.
Calling someone retarded is not intellectual debate. Dismissing their arguments out of hand because you don't like them is childish. Disagreeing with you does not make him wrong. And banning someone because they do not bow to your repetitious opinions does not make you right. I expect you'll call me retarded and ban me, but I happen to agree with Steve Lane. AI is everything he said it is. Your position that it equalizes is incorrect. AI does not make "the average person" an artist any more than a photocopy machine does. You sit an artist down next to someone who is not an artist, let them draw something, then explain to me how they are equal. Benioff just fired 4000 people because he was able to replace them with AI. Those people are permanently unemployable in their chosen profession. Those jobs are gone forever. That is not an improvement for them or any other human being.
So many projects await the day when the AI tools gain a better ability to maintain a consistent character across multiple scenes. I sense a flood gate set to be unleashed.
Cool. Something else to try.
From that same Brevoort blog post: “how bizarre and unlikely O’Brien’s success was in the first place. He’d only had limited experience as a performer when he was tapped to take over LATE NIGHT following David Letterman’s departure, and that series stayed on life support for three or four years”
All of the arguments against AI art fail, and fail comprehensively.
1. The "equity" arguments are all retarded, and range from an appeal to Marxist economic theory to a childish sense of unfairness. There is no equity in economics.
2. The arguments on quality are in AI's favor. Compare the medians, not the best, as that's what's relevant. Most human-generated art is terrible, so the bar is very, very low.
3. Training isn't stealing. And taking pictures of images isn't stealing either. Anthropic, at least, has paid for the works it pirated, so that argument can't be applied to its AI systems anymore.
4. Art doesn't have a soul. It's not alive.
You can go on as long as you like. You'll still be wrong. But more important, you'll still be irrelevant. Nothing is going to stop AI from being used or from improving.
Your arguments are retarded. You haven't said anything that hasn't been said many, many times before. Your complaint that creating a technology that produces billions of dollars of business is "unfair" is obviously childish. Your grasp of business and economics is observably that of a child.
And your arguments are completely irrelevant. Nothing you say, do, or think is going to affect the adoption of AI in the least. It's a literal description.
And now you're resorting to a womanish rhetorical tactic by asking "why all the anger?" Why do you imagine that someone has to be angry with you to tell you that you're stupid? The fact is that I just think your arguments are invalid and incorrect because you're too stupid to produce better ones.
Most people are idiots, so it's hardly a surprise that a few of them stumble upon this site from time to time and express their retarded opinions. That's fine, but don't expect any of the contributors here to take them seriously.
And you're gone. This is not the place for anti-AI Luddites and their emotional rhetoric.
Calling someone retarded is not intellectual debate. Dismissing their arguments out of hand because you don't like them is childish. Disagreeing with you does not make him wrong. And banning someone because they do not bow to your repetitious opinions does not make you right. I expect you'll call me retarded and ban me, but I happen to agree with Steve Lane. AI is everything he said it is. Your position that it equalizes is incorrect. AI does not make "the average person" an artist any more than a photocopy machine does. You sit an artist down next to someone who is not an artist, let them draw something, then explain to me how they are equal. Benioff just fired 4000 people because he was able to replace them with AI. Those people are permanently unemployable in their chosen profession. Those jobs are gone forever. That is not an improvement for them or any other human being.