Macnult posted:

axel from twisted metal going back to school to study law

Allie posted:

a smiling sentient rock at his computer

(add whatever modifiers you’d like)

Slumpy posted:

Manifisto posted:

an epic battle between the warriors of byob and the evil forces of coupons & deals

Slumpy posted:

Chewbecca posted:

"First day of school, but its raining"

biosterous posted:

omniscient orb and computer, movie poster, minimalist

Slumpy posted:

Chewbecca posted:

If I may be so bold as to request another one:

"Woman stuck at work who would rather be having fun" perhaps I should turn off my monitor lol

Heather Papps posted:

"a friendly skeleton"

Heather Papps posted:

"ultimate martial arts technique"

Viginti Septem posted:

I wanted to try this with skeltons as well and it uh... Doesn't handle those too well...

Viginti Septem posted:

Viginti Septem posted:

Heather Papps posted:

"a friendly skeleton"

Slumpy posted:

this is one i modified the prompt a bit

Heather Papps posted:

holy poo poo. can i keep this one and make a shirt or something? this is the best ai image generator i have ever seen, btw.

Viginti Septem posted:

nut posted:

are these things trained with real art? the quality of pics in this thread really make me feel like this generation of ai is a convenient way to steal sufficiently different art, assuming they are trained on pics made by others

Slumpy posted:

nut posted:

are these things trained with real art? the quality of pics in this thread really make me feel like this generation of ai is a convenient way to steal sufficiently different art, assuming they are trained on pics made by others

Finger Prince posted:

A few AI goons (automotive insanity, not artificial intelligence) have discovered that Midjourney is particularly great at drawing cars. I guess the prompts are a big thing but the output seems to vary from "could be a concept sketch from an actual designer" to "pretty sure this is a brochure from an alternate universe". It's amazing.

Manifisto posted:

"stealing" is a pretty interesting way to look at it, I'm not saying it's wrong but there's a lot wrapped up in that concept

the notion that there is even something to be "stolen" is largely wrapped up in the commodification of art as well as a fetishization of what the artist supposedly does. we can say that certain human artists are perhaps hacks because their work is derivative, they largely copy elements of existing works, but this is absolutely allowed except in egregious cases and realistically it's what most self-proclaimed artists do anyway, perhaps with extra steps. how precisely is what the computer does different, setting aside the distinction of who/what happens to execute it? and there are those who would argue that even great artists, who are probably pretty unusual, do not come up with wholly new ideas (or perhaps do so only extremely rarely) but are instead a product of tweaking their influences. "good artists copy, great artists steal" and so on.

there's kind of a catch-22 in any criticism of this kind of art. if it really lacks the "creative spark" that is the hallmark of great art, where is the threat? the computer is just doing a version of what scores of lesser artists do anyway, see the paintings in any hotel room for example. but if it really is that good, such that people take notice of it and maybe prefer it to what human artists do, can we really say that there's something uniquely human about the artistic process? can we lay claim to something as the province of human intellectual achievement when it's something a sufficiently programmed computer can do anyway?

setting all these lofty ideas aside, yeah, I'm sure unscrupulous hacks use it as a shortcut to generating copycat art without having to develop their own talents or pay a better artist to realize them, and can easily skirt the body of copyright law by tweaking the computer's parameters to ensure that the output is "just different enough" to be legally distinct. no different from digital actors I suppose. but this line of thought really depends on the notion that artists, actors, whatever, are owed some kind of compensation for whatever they do, and that's perhaps beyond the scope of this discussion.

Manifisto posted:

"stealing" is a pretty interesting way to look at it, I'm not saying it's wrong but there's a lot wrapped up in that concept

the notion that there is even something to be "stolen" is largely wrapped up in the commodification of art as well as a fetishization of what the artist supposedly does. we can say that certain human artists are perhaps hacks because their work is derivative, they largely copy elements of existing works, but this is absolutely allowed except in egregious cases and realistically it's what most self-proclaimed artists do anyway, perhaps with extra steps. how precisely is what the computer does different, setting aside the distinction of who/what happens to execute it? and there are those who would argue that even great artists, who are probably pretty unusual, do not come up with wholly new ideas (or perhaps do so only extremely rarely) but are instead a product of tweaking their influences. "good artists copy, great artists steal" and so on.

there's kind of a catch-22 in any criticism of this kind of art. if it really lacks the "creative spark" that is the hallmark of great art, where is the threat? the computer is just doing a version of what scores of lesser artists do anyway, see the paintings in any hotel room for example. but if it really is that good, such that people take notice of it and maybe prefer it to what human artists do, can we really say that there's something uniquely human about the artistic process? can we lay claim to something as the province of human intellectual achievement when it's something a sufficiently programmed computer can do anyway?

setting all these lofty ideas aside, yeah, I'm sure unscrupulous hacks use it as a shortcut to generating copycat art without having to develop their own talents or pay a better artist to realize them, and can easily skirt the body of copyright law by tweaking the computer's parameters to ensure that the output is "just different enough" to be legally distinct. no different from digital actors I suppose. but this line of thought really depends on the notion that artists, actors, whatever, are owed some kind of compensation for whatever they do, and that's perhaps beyond the scope of this discussion.

nut posted:

I mean from a purely labour perspective like how humans who are artists have to live in this world