man I just posted that youtube video much much earlier and nobody took notice :( never mind

Sorry I just woke up can't think properly. But just saw this yesterday until the end before bed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

oh, I never read that. I just buried mine under a pile of old documents inside a drawer. Fair point.

There is a National Insurance Card.

Nobody here is "from the Left" or "from the Right" you partisan Nonce.

Fucking die already.

Asshole.

still, light bulbs were intentionally made to blow up much sooner back then, the beginning of planned obsolescence.

Kemi and the "rumoured" pig-shagger are blood unrelated, as far as I know. He is only 13 years, her senior.

based on a true story

by pulling their boxer shorts down

The reasoning you need to know:
Humans learn Art very differently from AI
Humans witness Nature, Real Life, mostly, in order to be inspired - which is often where they spend most of their time.

Lame Artists may try to copy other Artists - their ideas and styles - and from my observations, these always tend to end up ultra mediocre.
Talented Artists - the ones that are of interest for AI to copy mostly from - acquire their style from research, their own experimentations, inspection into Natural effects; patterns galore, lighting, and so on. And if they study other people's work, it is part of their curricula, and very limited. They know that "too many cooks spoil the broth", so they limit their sources. Copyrighted instructional books (that they paid for) or treatises at the public domain.

AI does *not* need to know: platonic shapes, theory of light and shade, human and animal anatomy (body landmarks), relative proportions (head-height cannon), 1,2,3, n-points perspectives, body types: aging, distribution of fat, material science; pigments, colour theory, composition ... and so on, in order to create more convincingly. Humans do. Can you see the difference?
The more an artist research and learn from various related fields, the better their results, usually. It is a very conscientious discipline, a long strategical game.
About style. This is often one only and the particular mannerism of the artist, evolved from years of practice, of trials and error discovering what works best. Finding a voice. Not by consciously assimilating others. Unless mediocre. People with their own style tend to attract more interest from others than the generic. It becomes their hallmark, their trademark.

The idea that a machine can be excused digesting billions of images, because humans "learn" by merely looking at photos and art from magazines or the web - is complete fallacy. We do not. We have shitty photographic memory and just-in-time analytical processing. We are pretty crap at learning. Keep repeating the same mistakes. Our brains are lazy as fuck, always finding an opportunity to save energy ... Hence the "AI learns Art just like Humans do!" ... a phrase that keeps getting repeated, again and again, mindlessly by idiots.

no you fuck yourself Dunning-Kruger sufferer.
understand you are an ignorant fool
and just like when you meet others that talk absolute bollocks and that gets to you
it is now you - who is doing the same.

while master copies are sometimes encouraged, that is a minimal part of art training.
this is instructed by a teacher, and i noticed an interesting effect those that do too much of it become worse and worse as time progresses, much like a singer trying to emulate others' voices never finding their own.

great masters' paintings are in the public domain.
AI stole copyrighted works.

AI has stolen fresh copyrighted works en masse, billions of images, without authors' consent, datasets then trained by near-slave labour (Kenya, Venezuela), while burning megawatts of power, and all for what? To empower corporations at the expense of hardworking creative and talented folks. While simpletons like you applaud the move.

So go ahead simp for your AI Corporate Lords.
But remember this, this time *you* are the utter fool that has been programmed, brainwashed and conditioned by AI propaganda.

If you are not a trained artist. Please cease giving out opinions you know nothing about.
It's like non-programmers talking about computer languages. It happened once, there was this guy in a bar, and he opened his mouth and started talking complete and utter nonsense about web programming in an attempt to impress me, going on and on making up stuff on the fly, truly embarrassing. It is exactly the same. And yet somehow a few technical people (with no artistic experience) feel entitled to do that when talking about how artists learn.
Give yourself a year. Learn how to draw. Simple paper and pencil will do.
See if you can at the end draw a tree, a person in front of you, or your pet if you have one.
And if not, then observe how you go about learning or training yourself really.
Answer: it is NOT just by look at other people's artwork mindlessly.

The common instincts are:
(1) I need to be recommended some good books
(2) Must watch some tutorials on Youtube
(3) I should find myself a teacher, an atelier or join some course.

Whatever path you choose, you will find yourself not be on a diet of constant random drawings flashing right before you while you dribble catatonically in the hope to somehow learn by osmosis.

yes, paid for. not stolen.
we gladly support other artists, teachers, authors.
we pay for their training material.
browsing doesn't teach you how to draw or paint.
you have no idea how rigorous *proper* art training can be.
and here's a clue:
to become good you should be drawing from nature almost exclusively, live models, still life, rarely from photographs.
and even if from photos - I subscribe to Croquis Cafe (look it up) in case I need to check proportions
There are other similar resources specific for artists.
Then some take a sketchbook with them wherever they go, to draw non-stop the world around them (urban sketching).
not "google images"
then learning surface anatomy in depth + many other things
for example been reading a book on Light & Water Reflection (Optics) and one on the Botany of Trees.
How human artists are trained well is COMPLETELY different from AI; a very lame & tired & ignorant analogy

i hate Chrome