http://demos.algorithmia.com/colori ze-photos/ So computers

>>2604467

It'll never happen because the end times are near.

>>2604467
Are you retarded or just shilling your shitty page?
Either way, fuck off.

>>2604480
No Anon. Try running some of your own paintings and you'll see. This is legit.

File: aaaa.png (1MB, 1371x609px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1371x609px

You do realize this program only colors over an image that already has good perspective, a well defined light source, realistic detail, etc.

It won't take your job away unless all you want to do is color black and white photos. Stop finding excuses not to draw.

it's a glorified filter

it would only work if people could take credit from it. like guys who throw some blur and filters at pics and call those their own drawing

>>2604515
kek
Also I was on that drawing's thread but I now just realised how small that boob is, as in, it's starting from the wrong place even in perspective. It's a shame, the rest is freaking awesome.

I don't think this is going to replace artists, but it will probably be used by some (especially the ones who need a large output quickly IE concept art) to make their workflow more efficient.

It might mean less artists can do more, resulting in less jobs.

Feels good being a dirty hobbyist who does it for fun. Remember, just because a new and more efficient method comes along doesn't mean the older ones fall out of use or favor, lots of people still admire traditional art and scoff at digital, for example. Some people appreciate art for the skill involved or the quirks of the artist rather than solely a pleasing image.

File: 8195aeef125a98848813a79e6e7128df.jpg (56KB, 564x330px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 564x330px

I give it about 15-20 years.

Though it'll be more like everyone becomes an artist thanks to computers. Instead of actually painting and putting down marks, they'll describe what they want to see to a computer and something aesthetically pleasing will be produced.

Design requires consciousness, otherwise it will always just be a bunch of filters put on top of someone elses design. Artists will be replaced by computers when true AI is developed. Which is literally the very last step of robotization, when every other profession has already been replaced by AI.

Art survived the photocamera.
It can withstand anything.

>>2607991

You don't get it. If we get true AI it will be able to create art, as good as any art ever created by man. It won't be a filter or a weird gimmick. It will be art created by a mind, just not a human one.

>>2604467
What are the chances some idiot will make this same retarded thread in a week?

>>2607933
I don't think humans and governments will learn to cooperate well enough in order for computers to reach that level of advancement. But if it does happen, we can all have fun in our floating chairs and VR sims without having to worry about working hard.

>>2608007

you dont get it

true ai is a century ahead at the very least

and humans don't have to remain what they currently are either

>>2604467
Stop promoting your shitty photo filters.
Most financially successful artists are getting paid for their ideas and vision. Art related jobs will be last when it comes to your technocracy nonsense.

>>2604467
> OP uploads picture
> Simple script checking for colored version of picture (or similar picture) in Google search
> new layer
> colorize
> ctrl v
> OMG MUH VIRTUAL REALLITY 2016 DID SCIENCE GONE 2 FAR? SAKIMICHAN HATES THIS! LEARN ONE SIMPLE TRICK AND MAKE $ ON PATREON

>>2608082

good post, I hate it when people think there will be some Singularity in our lifespan.

>
and humans don't have to remain what they currently are either

And ART doesn't have to remain what it currently is either. The photocamera stimulated abstract and nonrepresentational art; and even if you don't like these, they changed figurative drawing (e.g. Milt Kahl's draftmanship was inspired by picasso; video game art inspired by minimalism; etc.) for the better

I think programs will exist that will replace the need for some forms of "art" like photobashing generic Sci Fi concept art. By 2030 I suspect we'll have libraries where you can go:

> "generate(humanoid, tall, soldier, helmet{sleek, binoculars}, armor{titanium, dull}, gun{4 barrels, plasma{red}, heavy, two-handed}, evil{spooky, terrorist}, blue, difficult-to-beat)"

And it spawns an enemy model with programming into Gamemaker 203X or whatever. Or a program like:

"post_on_reddit(draw(style::Picasso, 'C:\Alex\me.png', mixedmedia), "So I drew myself during work", "/r/art")"

But a computer doing something more creative without any simple neural network? probably 2100 or much later

>>2608114
>"post_on_reddit(draw(style::Picasso, 'C:\Alex\me.png', mixedmedia), "So I drew myself during work", "/r/art")"

Also I'll clarify that such a program would not do any more than make a picasso out of a photo, which is basically almost possible now and is just a matter of training neural networks between 2016 and 2030 where they can accomplish these feats perfectly. Or they can photobash a landscape or concept quickly and mechanically. They will not be creative, as in, producing something profoundly new.

not that computers never will be creative, but I think it's not anytime soon (slow down of computer architectural advances since the 90s, end of moore's law; computer science discoveries slowing down; no true AI in our lifetimes, if ever)