Who was in the right here?

Who was in the right here?

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's on the top of the camera, where the flash outght to be

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Where the frick is amoung, frickley?

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    inb4 nitpicking homosexuals

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't get it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      green is mocking red for using a machine to create art, green proceeds to use a machine to create a photo (art)

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        but the camera captures reality
        did you know that photographs are shunned in islam? imagine reducing gods beauty to one single frame

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >imagine reducing gods beauty to one single frame
          god needs to exist first to be able to be photographed

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            in the new updated version of the koran 2k24 it's described that taking a picture of the prophet with a camera is forbidden

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            but the camera captures reality
            did you know that photographs are shunned in islam? imagine reducing gods beauty to one single frame

            how about drawing a portrait
            same thing as a camera(?)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous
        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >did you know that photographs are shunned in islam?
          Not really. Only a hardline stance that not even most hardliners follow. And those that do follow it have the reason being to avoid creating idols.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          satanists are so cringe, yes

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How do you respond to the numerous near-death and post-death experiences that affirm Islam being the one true religion?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Satan lies? No way dude.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
            Isaiah 45:7

            How do you respond to the numerous near-death and post-death experiences that affirm Christianity being the one true religion?

            They were mistaken, there have been new revelations after the profit Jesus by the profit Mohammad PBUH. They saw Allah and believed it to be Christian because of their warped existing false-faith.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay satanist

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why not post the full context.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How do you respond to the numerous near-death and post-death experiences that affirm Christianity being the one true religion?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >thingamajig speaks to abraham and jesus
            >totally god dude
            >thingamjig speaks to Joseph Smith or Muhammed
            >its a demon saying its god
            How do you know?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Read the bible, it explains everything.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not even internally self consistent

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ah so you haven't read it.
            No more (you) for you, you moronic shitskin

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where did Jesus's followers go after his death? Galilee or Jerusalem?
            >After I have been raised, I will go before you to Galilee - Matthew 26:32
            >They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.” - Luke 24:33-34

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >book says it true
            >other books says actually it true
            >neither book has proof it true

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But enough about evolution

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            if any of the israelite religions has any chance of being real, it's the original israelite religion where Jesus and Satan aren't really a thing.
            the christian bible, if you actually read it, has so many moronic plotholes it's incredible how it's still successful.
            >Matthew 16:28 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom.
            so the whole second coming thing must've happened thousands of years ago.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You have the reading comprehension of a monkey, literally in the next line they establish that they are talking about Jesus transfiguration and entering the kingdom of Heaven.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no, that's your cope-filled moronic headcanon.
            >10:23: When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        create=/=capture

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Are crystals machines now?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Are crystals machines now?
      A processor is essentially an array of crystals.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        processors are made of silicon not crystals.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >silicon not crystals
          *moron alert*

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Fun technology fact: All semiconductors are made of material from quartz mining.
            While using SiO2 sand is technically possible it contains too many impurities to be economical.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Fun technology fact
            False.
            >All semiconductors are made of material from quartz mining.
            False.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Let me guess, you're about to cite some academic exercise where they used another source of silicon or try to get me on some technicality about other semiconductor materials.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Let me guess, you're about to cite some academic exercise where they used another source of silicon or try to get me on some technicality about other semiconductor materials.
            I don't have to now.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          it's only crystalline for processors.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Chud waifu wowza!

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    babe look, new stonetoss just dropped!

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Both have an angle, it’s just about what you want from your art. Actually interesting AI pieces are about exploring concepts or ideas, like interesting photographs are about finding just the right subject and framing. Most AI images and photos are garbage because the barrier to entry is so low.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This doesn't seem like it has a solid correlation to make.

    You take photos because you want as close a replication to what you actually saw when you were there. No amount of drawing will ever accomplish that and it's something you accept by doing so.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You take photos because you want as close a replication to what you actually saw when you were there
      Not true for most photography. Photographers will go out of their way with weird focal length and exptime settings to make things appear far more dramatic and interesting than the same scene seen by human eye. They do this using an optical and digital machine, especially with post-processing

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the difference is that they are the ones actually doing the manipulation rather than an ai

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          educate yourself

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            did someone really take the time to stitch all these pictures together

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I love how he futzes around with the skirt until just giving up and leaving it moronic. A real artist could have taken the AI output as a base and refined it into something workable, the proompter is just fricked when the computer won't do what he asks.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            not sure if you were paying attention when you looked but that skirt isn't moronic, it's easy-access.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Not an extra few seconds of the final frame in order to look at the final product
            For shame. You barely have time to admire the employee of the month pictures to witness the rapid decent of miku and possibly teto in the future.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You take photos because you want as close a replication to what you actually saw when you were there
      that's not true, what about black and white, long exposure or inverted infrared photography? or there are many, many sides to photography and it cannot be simplified as "i just wanted to capture exactly what was there because I couldn't draw it that well"

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong on multiple levels. Would you consider an image taken by an amateur and a pro to be on the same level even though they are taking a photo of the same thing they saw? Apply that to video as well.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      stop posting that unfunny, "I really wish I was white." brown person.

      >racism le bad
      >Unless you wrongthink, then it's all game
      >Also we don't know that a White person can live in third worlds
      Why are libshits like this?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Where mogus?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The elephant's eyes

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Where mogus?

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    stop posting that unfunny, "I really wish I was white." brown person.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No one cares baljeet, we're going to keep posting him

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody makes photos, they take photographs.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Who was in the right here?
    The ladybug, probably

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Generating AI art is exactly equivalent to commissioning an artist to make you a painting. No person in their right mind would consider that something "they made" or compare it to going out and taking photographs. At best, you can say that it's a collaboration in which you supplied creative ideas.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      prompting at a high level does require some amount of, i hesitate to call it expertise. but joe blow isn't generating art on nesrly the same level as some of the losers in /sdg/ for example, in almost exactly the same way that stacey's instagram photos aren't nearly the same level as a professional photographer.
      it's a bit reductionist to say the prompter had little input to the result, i would consider it to be entirely their handiwork. in the same was as a blender sculpt is just manipulation of verticies where the computer does all the math, a vector drawing is the same, a photograph manipulation of dials where the camera sensor does all the processing, a generated image is created by manipulation of text to cause a model to line up correctly. just because we can all write text doesn't mean we can all do it well. arguably ai prompt is almost exactly comperable to being an author, although it's using the same medium (text) in a different way.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what you're going to discover is that we had this whole conversation 100 years ago and in the end we decided that the amount of effort put into a piece of art means exactly nothing. Just because technology makes something low-effort doesn't make it any less valid as a tool for artistic expression. You can pick a rock off the ground and show it to people and say "isn't this a beautiful rock?" and they'd say "yes, you have an artistic eye!" What do they mean when they say that? You have a developed intuition for aesthetic beauty, aka art.
      the attempt to tie effort to art in any way is futile. There is little difference between the artist themselves as a tool for generating material and newspaper cuttings or picked flowers or AI generated images. If art is bad, it's because the human who selected it for presentation is bad at selecting. AI art suffers particularly acutely from this because people (like you) are still trained to believe effortful art = good art, but in a generation or two nobody will think that.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Except nobody dares to commission a piece of artwork, turn around saying it's theirs and they made it because they came up with the idea. That's plagiarism and is fundamentally why everyone is angry about AI art. Except the AI has it's own dataset (often from public portfolios) that it pulls from and mashes it together into something it thinks completes the prompt.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you can tell who the redditors are when they hate stonetoss

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    marge

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Just as dumb as saying it was the pencil that made the drawing

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Photography isn't art.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Photography is not art. It never was. I fricking hate the talentless hacks who consider themselves "artists" merely because they think it's special that they can point a camera. The number of philosophical contradictions it creates and the ad hoc reasoning these frickheads have to do to defend it is insane.
      This is just like when dumbasses say "viruses are alive". Their definition of life becomes insanely convoluted and inconsistent because they treat viruses being alive as axiomatic, when it's literally so much simpler to admit they aren't.

      Every detail in real art is created by the artist, and each detail comes from his mind and his decisions. This is why all artists must study and learn in order to create "good" art, and similarly why the untrained mind produces "bad" art.

      Except nobody dares to commission a piece of artwork, turn around saying it's theirs and they made it because they came up with the idea. That's plagiarism and is fundamentally why everyone is angry about AI art. Except the AI has it's own dataset (often from public portfolios) that it pulls from and mashes it together into something it thinks completes the prompt.

      Based

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Completely moronic take. Photography is its own field. It's not "art". It's "an" art.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >moronic take
          Says the homosexual who unironically still believes photography is "an art". You get owned by all the same criticisms AI art gets. It's time for you photogays to admit you're all a bunch of talentless hacks.
          You get a stick up your ass and demand respect for your joke of a field while you create nothing and you have no real skills. All you homosexuals do is take the work of a machine and claim it as your own. You will never be a real artist. If you desperately want to be an artist so bad, pick up a pencil and start studying.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You get owned by all the same criticisms AI art gets.
            "You" being who? You are having a psychotic episode. Anyway, make one such argument (you can't).

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    analog vs digital is still a real thing

    both are digital in this case, hence the punchline being the obvious display of hipocracy.

    yes im a redditor, thanks for reading and be sure to check out my other content!

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    depends, did he setup his own diffusion server or just go to some random site?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pathetic workflow to try to flex with, you need at least 3x this many nodes

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    chudtoss fell off hard ever since he started shilling crypto scams, and now AI

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      more people follow the hilarious mental breakdowns people have about him than actually follow his comics

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        he had a very strong following on >>>/qa/

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      TBF /misc/ is kinda of dormant too. Browned.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Second panel, lower right corner tufts of grass.
        >Verification not required.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I mean, you could still get that shot on analogue film but even then you're still using a machine. At least with photography it's you physically going somewhere and making the decisions what to shoot. Generating AI images is just describing a thought you had and rolling until you get an image that kinda looks like what you wanted.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Photography is finding images that exist in reality and capturing them on film. AI art is getting a computer to generate art for you. Neither of those are particularly dependent on the skill of the artist, though photography at least requires some knowledge of shot composition and lighting.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      and the AI requires some understanding of prompting and how the model works to tune it.
      there is functionally no difference. i can take happy snaps on my phone with one button and it's not even remotelt comparable to a professional photographer. you can type "a cat in space riding a bike" into bing's image creator and it's not even remotely comparable to well-crafted prompts on a specialised and well-tuned model

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'd say that's more comparable to knowing how to work a camera.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          sure, and then what to prompt and which outputs to keep and discard are akin to shot composition. it's the same thing in a different way, instead of visualising good ways to capture something, you have to verbalise something new in an elegant way.
          i'd almost say AI art is more comperable to poetry than anything, but replacing the imagination of the audience with an image

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think either are particularly impressive. Sure, it can get good results, but you didn't make it. Either it already existed and you just took a picture of it or the AI made it. If all you care about is results, then go for it. Just don't expect people to care when you show it off.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            art has nothing to do with how much effort it took, it's only about the result. always has been and always will be.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            First of all, I wasn't talking about effort or results. I was talking about who made it. Me spending five minutes or five hours on a drawing doesn't change the fact that I made it, and likewise, the drawing that I paid another guy to make being great or terrible doesn't change the fact that I didn't make it.

            Second of all, things cease to be impressive when anyone can do them with little to no effort. You go 30 MPH in a car, nobody cares. You go 30 MPH on foot and you're a world record holder. Its the same reason people are so enamored with hand drawn art in the age of digital art. Its difficulty to produce makes it a rarity, which in turn makes it a commodity.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sus

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't the whole point of DSLRs over phone cameras is that all the adjustments are made manually by the user?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yeah and a good gAI model doesn't prompt, tune or merge itself, so the comparison still holds true

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why does he have an amongus in his camera

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if a religion relies on a story, where "god" does random pointless shit or isn't godly at all, then it's just a hardcore fandom

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dawg what the frick is this thread even about anymore

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      robots talking to each other and reporting real anons for politically incorrect badthink.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Reddit of course. Has been since 2016.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >noooo you must accept israelite 1, not israelite 2!
        >i even used le reddit manly face memes!
        okay goy

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    With a camera you still make all the creative decisions. The camera just sees what you show it.

    With AI, it is making all the decisions. That is why you can copyright a photo but not an AI image.

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the picture of the camera exists because of the man taking the initiative to take the picture
    the AI picture only exists because of the picture taken by that camera was stripmined by google or etc corp for their model

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the AI picture exists because of the man taking the initiative to write a prompt
      the picture of the camera only exists because of the resources stripmined from kenya for their sensors

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    moronic image, doesnt prove anything except for midwits

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      False analogy, if the AI pic exists because someone had initiative, then a camera photo exists because someone had the initiative to snap a photo.

      If camera photos exist only because resources from Kenya, I could equally say AI photos only exist because of resources from Kenya as well, since some neckbeard is just using cloud computing to tap into a more powerful computer to crate their prompt.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, i was saying it's false both ways because either process relies upon another and can be entirely automated if you want. You can put every setting on auto, leave the camera running and accidentally snap an interesting picture eventually, just like an image generator can spit out random images with 0 input. The "artistry" would come from sorting out the output later.
        People just have to accept there's different kinds of "art" and not all of it is made equal.

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1. There is simply no such thing as "AI art".
    2. You are not making anything by prooooompting because you're not even working in the visual domain.

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The "AI" is a fixed function of the training data. Anything it's capable of outputting is purely a function of the training data. It's defined by the training data in every single aspect. Claiming that you "made" anything that comes out of it is plagiarism, because in any other instance, trying to claim a work that is defined in every aspect by the works of others would be plagiarism.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >trying to claim a work that is defined in every aspect by the works of others would be plagiarism.
      so every work ever made is plagiarism
      even worse for cameras because that's 200 years of R&D from other people, all so you can snap pictures of things you didn't make in super high def.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    youre going to make IQfy cry again bro

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Completely different goals. You don't use AI to take pictures because that makes no fricking sense. You CAN have a model maybe do upscaling or other post processing. But the premise of this argument is moronic in who would realistically be having this conversarion with whom else.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *