Repost

[[classic swim]]

5 minutes ago, André Toulon said:

That time he suggested we bring back gas chambers...the actual comment got deleted and I'm almost sure he caught a ban 

Packard wouldn’t know if the bus ride to Auschwitz was bouncy.

[smiradenius]

21 minutes ago, André Toulon said:

Lol, he's just so adamant in being stupid. He doesn't remember he drew it himself in a napkin or some shit...IDK what he's trying to prove now but I'm sure it's going to be part of a huge failure 

You're the guy here who doesn't know the difference between an incandescent bulb and an LED in a schematic.  The picture I just posted here proves that an LED in a schematic does in fact have either wavy lines or arrows printed above it.  That is of course if YOU can find a diode at all in the picture.

Edited Sunday at 06:08 AM by smiradenius

[[classic swim]]

50 minutes ago, smiradenius said:

Pass on this one and yes, you can actually say it was a failure this time.

Scroll down and see the finished reply.

I appreciate that I can just shit on you over anything and you’ll run laps in such a way over stuff no one gives a fuck about.

I said you failed at typing in a separate thread (which, yeah. You did.) and you just gave me your ideology on what constitutes a fidget.

[smiradenius]

3 minutes ago, [classic swim] said:

I appreciate that I can just shit on you over anything and you’ll run laps in such a way over stuff no one gives a fuck about.

I said you failed at typing in a separate thread (which, yeah. You did.) and you just gave me your ideology on what constitutes a fidget.

Did you find the stinking diode yet?  No?  Then stfu.

[Insipid]

Thanks for reminding me of this. Pat's warning is still there too.

lol fuggs

[[classic swim]]

I’d fuck an elephant before I’d fuck your mother.

[smiradenius]

Anyway, let's look again at some Ai and try to figure out what's behind it.

 

Did I take a picture of a real car and alter it with Ai?  Did I download a picture of a random street and alter it with Ai?  Did I just tell the Ai to draw a fictional car?  Is the car really scale model on a stand with the street Ai drawn around it?

 

These are all questions a person should be able to answer if Ai had actually been stealing images from around the web.  Somebody should be able to pick it apart and definitively say something like "That's Bourbon Street in New Orleans." or "That's the same toy car I saw for sale at Amazon."  But nobody can.  Any external image that Ai uses outside of the prompts gets so heavily sliced and diced that it's impossible to determine what or where the source image is.

 

Even my current icon has a story.  The face you see in it was a blotch of dirt on a store window in real life.  The blotch had a very crude face shape.  So, when I took the picture and added the prompts, the prompts used Did not even mention a face.  I just used descriptions of colors along with words like "spooky" and "surreal".  The final print came out with the face you see.

 

 

[naraku360]

26 minutes ago, smiradenius said:

Did you find the stinking diode yet?  No?  Then stfu.

[smiradenius]

Just now, naraku360 said:

He's not even trying.  

[naraku360]

Just now, smiradenius said:

He's not even trying.  

Yeah, because you were talking to the wrong person again.

[smiradenius]

Just now, naraku360 said:

Yeah, because you were talking to the wrong person again.

Okay.  And Andre still can't read a schematic. 

[[classic swim]]

5 minutes ago, smiradenius said:

Anyway,

How are you gonna say “anyway” to ya mother’s cunt being rugged as peanut brittle? Ol horse ass bitch.

[[classic swim]]

DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN

[smiradenius]

5 minutes ago, [classic swim] said:

DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN DUN

Nice if I could have found a block switch in there.

[[classic swim]]

You’re a bitch lol.

[naraku360]

27 minutes ago, smiradenius said:

Okay.  And Andre still can't read a schematic. 

Okay. And you still can't read a screenname.

[smiradenius]

6 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

Okay. And you still can't read a screenname.

Okay.  I got a pm for you, btw.

[scoobdog]

4 hours ago, naraku360 said:

There's a style commonly associated with anime, though. Are you going to pretend Avatar the Last Airbender and Teen Titans, which are openly anime-inspired, have no stylistic imitation? Are you going to claim any show that has the Family Guy or Steven Universe art styles aren't art, despite the fact adult western cartoons often look just like Family Guy and "Cal-Arts" is literally used derisively in animation circles for their style taking over western cartoons?

Whether the imitations are of high or low quality does not change if they are art.

I’m not going to parse this with you.  Doing something in the style of anime isn’t stealing.  Doing something in the style of Family Guy or Steven Universe isn’t stealing unless you drew something else and a computer changed the style of your art to look like Family Guy, and even that is acceptable as long as you’re not trying to imitate Family Guy itself.

When I say style, I mean in the sense of direct imitation.  AI tools have the power now to not only imitate brush strokes or stylistic details, but to modify images in a way to emulate media.  That’s a part of the process of developing AI as its own unique medium, and it’s a critical part of AI art becoming self referential.  But using Family Guy’s style to create a fraudulent Family Guy episode is almost universally accepted as theft.

[naraku360]

1 minute ago, scoobdog said:

I’m not going to parse this with you.  Doing something in the style of anime isn’t stealing.  Doing something in the style of Family Guy or Steven Universe isn’t stealing unless you drew something else and a computer changed the style of your art to look like Family Guy, and even that is acceptable as long as you’re not trying to imitate Family Guy itself.

When I say style, I mean in the sense of direct imitation.  AI tools have the power now to not only imitate brush strokes or stylistic details, but to modify images in a way to emulate media.  That’s a part of the process of developing AI as its own unique medium, and it’s a critical part of AI art becoming self referential.  But using Family Guy’s style to create a fraudulent Family Guy episode is almost universally accepted as theft.

That's why I point to the Rock Paper Scissors anime thing. They used an existing IP, Vampire Hunter D, as the basis for what it converted the live action into, but it's an entirely original work to the point of Vampire Hunter D arguably being so far removed I barely consider it worth mentioning as a citation beyond describing the process used. It's a good practice to provide that, but calling it theft if they hadn't would be taking the claim too far based on the degree to which it is original.

Of course, Packard's understanding of it is pretty inadequate. I just don't think the theft/plagiarism point works well when talking about random imternet chuds posting AI slop. I'm by no means calling Packard's posts good. I don't consider it any more or less unethical to share for fun than memes. He isn't making money off it, so it's pretty whatever to me. The conversation matters far more to me when money is involved.

[scoobdog]

We’re really only discussing it because Kenny is stupid enough to think he did anything meaningful to come up with crappy six fingered art.

[naraku360]

Just now, scoobdog said:

We’re really only discussing it because Kenny is stupid enough to think he did anything meaningful to come up with crappy six fingered art.

The 6 fingers are normal in his family.

[André Toulon]

Wow, I step away for an hour and he drops 5 more failures like Wayne drops mixtapes. 

I guess it's just me and him here, he never has any clues as to just how many people are watching him be unapologetically dumb.

Even at some point I could argue all day with nabs but sometimes say "well, he does have a point" but I don't think Packard has ever been right about anything...not once has dude made a single point. He just frantically creates a dozen non-sequiturs, never fulfils his arguments and then shifts the goalposts.

Tantrums have never been more hilarious.

[André Toulon]

11 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

We’re really only discussing it because Kenny is stupid enough to think he did anything meaningful to come up with crappy six fingered art.

I'll bet he will type AI artist on his Walmart application. 

No, Prompt engineer 

[smiradenius]

Not on the way to Walmart.  This is going to the Herb Denenberg Dump.

[André Toulon]

 

[André Toulon]

 

[naraku360]

44 minutes ago, smiradenius said:

Not on the way to Walmart.  This is going to the Herb Denenberg Dump.

[André Toulon]

Eh, I'm baked enough now so I just want to leave with this. It will be full of hypocrisy, but IDC now because I'm on that platinum clad unicorn of dank.

I hear the arguments here both for and against the use of AI...I think they all have validity, but my only real problem with the shit is Hollywood, game companies, animation studios etc using it for profit while basically sending their pet bot out to piece together a Frankenstein's monster quality product and people actually buying it. Idk whether to be mad at the "creators" or the idiot public that will inevitably pay for it. It's frustrating.

My other problem with it is basically what Benji said...old farts saturating FB with their shitty AI creations. I fucking hate it, and Packfuck is doing the shit ad nauseam here...but it's mostly harmless because who's ever going to see that shit. No one is coming to my friend Jane Doe's FB page and see her 400th pic of thicc Minnie Mouse in a Bentley with $8 bills flying out of the trunk and think "we need more of this" so it's wtfever on that shit.

Raku, for better or for worse is attempting to do the same as large companies because (I could be wrong here) he does intend to possibly use it to create something that he ultimately may try to make a dollar off of. Yes, it's exactly the same in that respect, but it seems pretty benign considering I kinda doubt he'll have the audience Blizzard or Pixar has. No, that doesn't make it any better but I can't really make an adamant decision without seeing his work or just how integral it is to his finished product.... which we may never know just from the scrutiny he's getting for even suggesting it.

To me, it's all just inevitable change to reach the goals of shit we've wished exited years ago. Ever say I wish I could show other people the dream I just had? Well now you pretty much can, but it's at the cost of people with actual talent who created and shared something that now some robot can manipulate it into something unrecognizable just to satisfy the whims of any jackass with an internet connection and $20.

Personally, I don't think the shit should have been rolled out to the public without some way for actual artist to protect their work and demand compensation when it used without permission but no one did that....I have no idea how you can rectify this other than people with talent just stop creating, but who TF does that help. It completely fucks them because the consuming masses are fucking idiots who would pay to watch a 700 lb woman eat an entire 24 piece chicken dinner in one sitting. The internet was a mistake, humanity was a mistake. I wait patiently for the day that mother nature is finally just sick of our shit and cuts the oxygen....but before that, I'm sure we'll just nuke each other.

TL;DR: just tripe, you didn't miss much 

Edited Sunday at 02:04 PM by André Toulon
Packard failed

[naraku360]

8 minutes ago, André Toulon said:

Raku, for better or for worse is attempting to do the same as large companies because (I could be wrong here) he does intend to possibly use it to create something that he ultimately may try to make a dollar off of. Yes, it's exactly the same in that respect, but it seems pretty benign considering I kinda doubt he'll have the audience Blizzard or Pixar has. No, that doesn't make it any better but I can't really make an adamant decision without seeing his work or just how integral it is to his finished product.... which we may never know just from the scrutiny he's getting for even suggesting it.

I really just want a reliable way to rotoscope on an inexpensive set and without needing to focus on the animation technique itself. It's just not the part of the process I'm very interested in, but if I don't do it myself, it won't happen.

I'm not particularly passionate about the process of drawing or animating, and don't have the resources to find an artist. It's a medium to tell my own stories without requiring massive budgets or big production teams made up of people I probably don’t know, and therefore definitely don't trust.

I'm wanting AI to give people the tools to eliminate the need for big budget productions. Like, I want it to end Disney by giving creators the ability to make better films than the incompetent jerkoffs Disney pays to shit out movies that may somehow be made worse by the human proofreaders of their ChatGPT scripts.

If anything stops me from doing it, it's that I need the currently MIA soulmate. I think she's the only person who could help me pull it together. Right now, losing her is like losing passion. She covers my shortcomings, and I don’t think I can take anything to completion without her half.

[André Toulon]

Ok....I'm not sure what to do with the MIA chick thing. I know what I would do of it were any number of other people, but I'm not really inclined to lay into you like I would any average schmo, but focusing on the AI usage, do you have any semi-finalized work where you've used it as you've intended. I'm going to assume no, but I also assumed you've at least payed with it just to see if what you want to do is possible.

I would like to see it. You could always pm me on FB of you didn't want to share here...for reasons.

But what I'm hearing is you're writing stories or something of the sort and want to give it visual representation without involving other people who may take advantage of you, or just never actually take the project seriously and leave it unfinished. If that's the case, I understand why you would like to lean on AI to fill in the gaps where you lack....But I guess I can't in good faith just say it's ok due to my limited knowledge on how AI truly learns and operates.

Like, we are led to believe it learns and evolves as it's given more information, and if that's the case, I can see where after a while, AI isn't "stealing" but creating its own style based on what it's learned.

Like for an example...I used to draw avidly, it was one of my favorite pastimes, especially before the Internet turned my brain into mush, but starting out, I didn't have a style all my own. My entire notebook was filled with character I created by imitating Jim Davis. Garfield was my favorite Comic strip and all of my older drawings were basically templates of shit from Garfield with my own personal style implemented.

I imitated Matt Groening, whoever illustrated the old NES Mario style, and many others. In school I borrowed the styles of different friends who shared our art with each other because like the machine, I was learning. The older I got, the less it was obvious copies and I dare say, my very own style of drawing....I think too many people refuse to give AI that same credit. If I draw something right now, I don't think anyone could just pinpoint where I "stole" it from because it's now an amalgamation of 40+ years of experience work into what is now my personal style. If I did work on someone's project, I'm not going to credit Jim Davis, Matt Groening, and my school friends in my work... that's absurd.

Back when the shit first came out and you could see it adding squiggles to the bottom of a drawing because it didn't know that was an artist's signature and thought it needed to do that in order to sate it's master, I get the ire but 5 years down the line, will that any of that matter when it knows better and has its own distinct preference of what it creates. 

Now the end game is, does the human deserve to profit off something they still didn't actually do despite the AI having its own brand...and to me, it's still no....but I'm not the one that makes the rules and unless you took the road less traveled and created with your own blood sweat and tears, I can't in good faith call anyone who does that an artist or think that I should pay more than maybe a small convenience fee for their effort....so, do with that what you will.

Edited Sunday at 02:03 PM by André Toulon

[SwimOdin]

5 hours ago, naraku360 said:

Yeah, because you were talking to the wrong person again.

This is getting concerning

[André Toulon]

9 hours ago, smiradenius said:

Okay.  And Andre still can't read a schematic. 

You mean like this one....that YOU drew. The one with spidey sense indicating power which doesn't represent power in any electrical schematic🤣 I'm going to take that last part out in case I accidentally teach you something.

STFU you goddammed chud. A bigger waste of space there is not.

Packard, failing hard since 1954.

Edited Sunday at 04:07 PM by André Toulon

[smiradenius]

4 hours ago, André Toulon said:

You mean like this one....that YOU drew. The one with spidey sense indicating power which doesn't represent power in any electrical schematic🤣 I'm going to take that last part out in case I accidentally teach you something.

STFU you goddammed chud. A bigger waste of space there is not.

Packard, failing hard since 1954.

It's not a "Spidey sense" and it does not represent power.  It's an indicator marking that distinguishes between a diode and an LED.  Sometimes, they are printed with arrows above and sometimes they are printed with wavy lines.  A non light emitting diode has nothing printed above it.

[André Toulon]

17 minutes ago, smiradenius said:

It's not a "Spidey sense" and it does not represent power.  It's an indicator marking that distinguishes between a diode and an LED.  Sometimes, they are printed with arrows above and sometimes they are printed with wavy lines.  A non light emitting diode has nothing printed above it.

No and this is the doubling down I was talking about. In fact it's contradictory to your original argument from years ago, but do go on.

Edited Sunday at 06:00 PM by André Toulon

[smiradenius]

1 minute ago, André Toulon said:

No and this is the doubling down I was talking about. In fact in contradictory to you original argument from years ago, but do go on.

I showed it to you, in a book.  Same stuff.  

[André Toulon]

No....you did not. You are trying to control the narrative with your own false and very stupid words. 

Not sure who this actually works on that you keep trying it, but here....it just makes you look stupid, and adamantly so.

[smiradenius]

9 minutes ago, André Toulon said:

No....you did not. You are trying to control the narrative with your own false and very stupid words. 

Not sure who this actually works on that you keep trying it, but here....it just makes you look stupid, and adamantly so.

You didn't see the photo of a book page?

[André Toulon]

2 minutes ago, smiradenius said:

You didn't see the photo of a book page?

I saw it, that isn't the problem and that is the bullshit you're trying to sell....I see you digging up that goalposts but it's just dumb that you think it'll work on me, or anyone for that matter. 

Not sure why you think acting coy hides your stupidity 

Edited Sunday at 06:11 PM by André Toulon

[katt_goddess]

13 hours ago, smiradenius said:

All you're trying to support here is a notion that Garfield is a cheap ripoff of Fritz the Cat and Fat Freddy's Cat just because all three have stripes and big eyes.

 

Anyway, I'd sure like to visit Utah now and see how things levitate above a bridge.  Is the bridge even there at all?  Are there any structures, whether real or in sci fi illustrations that look precisely like what I had posted here?

Do you even know whether the levitating thing in my post is an addition brought by the Ai or just something I have nailed to the wall here?  You don't have any way of knowing that.

Jim Davis physically drew Garfield, he didn't type 'orange cat' in to a computer and call it a day.

Natural stone bridges exist, gomer. And the ones in Utah are famous for being both striking and photogenic. Which means photos exit online to steal. You skipped over the part about stolen book covers.

And it's Hansen. Dr. Demento's last name is Hansen. I should know, I got a piece of infamous fruit cake from him ages ago.

[smiradenius]

1 hour ago, katt_goddess said:

Jim Davis physically drew Garfield, he didn't type 'orange cat' in to a computer and call it a day.

Natural stone bridges exist, gomer. And the ones in Utah are famous for being both striking and photogenic. Which means photos exit online to steal. You skipped over the part about stolen book covers.

And it's Hansen. Dr. Demento's last name is Hansen. I should know, I got a piece of infamous fruit cake from him ages ago.

I'd have to see one of those magical places that have stuff levitating above them.   I'd have to see any building at all, whether irl or on the cover of a science fiction novel that looks one hundred percent identical to what I posted. 

 

Anyway, Google Images shows what a natural bridge really looks like.  There are none in my post.  They are columns and buildings, not natural bridges.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=natural+bridge+state+park&sca_esv=deba1d0118d8a222&sxsrf=ADLYWIIOidO_ACttNvSD3rR_eG13dzqm_g:1732476927400&source=hp&ei=_39DZ_z0FrzJkPIP0IWK0Ao&oq=natural+bri&gs_lp=EhJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWciC25hdHVyYWwgYnJpKgIIADIIEAAYgAQYsQMyCBAAGIAEGLEDMggQABiABBixAzIIEAAYgAQYsQMyCBAAGIAEGLEDSME2UO8FWLUrcAB4AJABAJgB1wGgAdoOqgEGMC4xMS4xuAEByAEA-AEBmAIMoALlD6gCBcICBxAjGCcY6gLCAgQQIxgnwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwHCAgUQABiABMICDhAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGIoFmAOeAZIHBjAuMTEuMaAH0ig&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&udm=2

Edited Sunday at 07:42 PM by smiradenius

[smiradenius]

6 minutes ago, André Toulon said:

I saw it, that isn't the problem and that is the bullshit you're trying to sell....I see you digging up that goalposts but it's just dumb that you think it'll work on me, or anyone for that matter. 

Not sure why you think acting coy hides your stupidity 

In other words, you're unable to identify an LED in a schematic, even when it's literally spelled out for you in the book.  Thanks for playing.

[André Toulon]

2 minutes ago, smiradenius said:

In other words, you're unable to identify an LED in a schematic, even when it's literally spelled out for you in the book.  Thanks for playing.

Not, not in other words, in very clear words your schematic has symbols that don't mean shit and what you posted in that book in no way shape or form supports the idiocy you keep repeating.

Edited Sunday at 06:21 PM by André Toulon

[smiradenius]

Just now, André Toulon said:

Not, not in other words, in very clear words you schematic has symbols that don't mean shit and what you posted in that book in no way shape or form supports the idiocy you keep repeating.

Nope.  You're just throwing a tantrum here, Karen.

[smiradenius]

H H = H

H L = L

L H = L

L L = L

What is it?

[André Toulon]

1 minute ago, smiradenius said:

Nope.  You're just throwing a tantrum here, Karen.

If that's how you'd like to accept your L, that's fine with me. Please use more gibberish to never make a point ever.

[André Toulon]

2 minutes ago, smiradenius said:

H H = H

H L = L

L H = L

L L = L

What is it?

A moving goalpost

[katt_goddess]

15 minutes ago, smiradenius said:

I'd have to see one of those magical places that have stuff levitating above them.   I'd have to see any building at all, whether irl or on the cover of a science fiction novel that looks one hundred percent identical to what I posted. 

Stolen. Sci-fi. Book. Covers.

You seem like the type that thinks reversing an image turns it into a new original thing. Its not. 

[smiradenius]

18 minutes ago, katt_goddess said:

Stolen. Sci-fi. Book. Covers.

You seem like the type that thinks reversing an image turns it into a new original thing. Its not. 

Show me the books, whether mirrored or not.

[smiradenius]

26 minutes ago, André Toulon said:

A moving goalpost

 

[smiradenius]

Looks like my drawing is without the circle.  Is that why you couldn't identify it?