9 ms·

AI art they clearly does not. It does not 1-1 recreate source material, but if we didn't have human artists anymore and replaced them all with the current stoc

AI art they clearly does not. It does not 1-1 recreate source material, but if we didn't have human artists anymore and replaced them all with the current stock of AI we would have no more developing art movements. It is wholly uncreative in a way that humans are not, and it does not understand what humans would find interesting, only what humans have already made. This makes it a pretty good tool for some amateurish applications or places where quality isn't important, but it is not a 1-1 copy of a human capable of making human art.

oehpr 4y ago
>it is wholly uncreative in a way that humans are not The work I've seen manipulating, weilding, and modifying this new tool, has been very creative In painting, reprompting, texture and uv map generation, dreambooth and dedicated fine tuning. Integrating these workflows into human directed procedures to produce in hours what would take days, sometimes months, sometimes not even within the scope of human capability. If you think the only thing here is people jibbering at a black box and posting 512*512 images, I can see why dumping the entire thing would seem reasonable.