Is it just me or does this look like it was AI generated and then edited by a human?
>>93187310Probably, but digital art isn't exactly uncommon either. At least it isn't just an image shit out by whatever AI thing shits out copied art and then it was flipped right onto production (one can imagine).
>>The aspect ratio and the general art style is suspicious to me.
>>93187310There's a high chance that they are running stock photos through a custom trained AI model and then having artists redraw and paint over the glaring AI-isms.
>>93187491>high chance>source: my assYou have no idea how much stock photography is out there. Everything ever produced will end up looking like the posing of one photo or another. Shit art can be shit art without it being a labor conspiracy.
>>93187310lmao can this be featured in the greatest RPG ever (5e was the previous greatest but they made it greater)?also who is storm?
>>93187310The warped lines and lack of symmetry in the girdle and the sternum thing inclines me to believe AI was definitely involved. Who can say how much else.
>>93187310yes but who cares
>>93187659This is exactly what I came to post. Also the diagonal line on the right sleeve. Also the general... smoothness... of the art. Idonno, that one's hard to oin down. Everything else - hands, coat, hair, face, background - it all seems fine. But unlikely an artist would deliberately make those non-symmetrical on pupose. I bet they started with something 70% close to the final image then corrected the glaring issues. It would save a competent artist hours of work, an incompetent one days.
>>93187310Either way, it looks generic. And that's the worse crime.
>>93187845What's odd to me is that these are really basic things you'd look for if you're cleaning up generative art, and likely the easiest to clean up. I've never used it or worked with it in my life and even I know what it consistently fucks up, so I'm not sure how it got past an 'actual' artist.
>>93187917It's almost like we don't even need computers to invent bad art, humans have been doing it fine for thousands of years.
>>93187310I'd stake money on it being AI sloppa.>>93187945Even bad art has more soul than AI generated images.
>>93188188>soulMeaningless and mostly irrelevant word, especially when discussing art, and this is constantly proven by the spergs that start rambling against supposedly AI pieces that are then proven to be genuine human art. Even if there was some "soul" into some pieces, most here wouldn't be able to recognise it.
Just a reminder that 99% of art was soulless and uninspired before 3 years ago.
>>93188429Issue is that art has been divided into two great blocks of "applied" art and "performative" art. The later often sucks as it serves no purpose other than exist, is used a lot to clean money (you really think people pays millions for flat colored paintings? it's all a scam to wash money)Applied art has mroe souls since it has an itnent and we often enjoy both achivement and failure of this goal, like how you can argue >>93188188 is ugly and wonky, but conveys the idea and became a classic meme.That's the thing about human art, we enjoy both the feats and the fuckups. What annoys us is mediocrity (because it shows a lack of effort/intent) or preteniousness.But msot importantly, people really needs to realsie that the point of "art" applied or not, is to be enjoyed by appealing to your specific desires and preferences. There is no point on complaining that some art is bad or "wrong" because it's not a binary switch: the good stuff that appeals to you can and does exist along this other that does not, but may appeal to other people. The true pointless take on art is caring enough to demand the ones you don't like to stir towards a specific direction rather than support those already doing that.
>>93188700>you really think people pays millions for flat colored paintings?I mean, there lots of people spending good money on items of ducious utility, as this whole board proves. Often enough even people with low income waste their money on useless shit, and the difference with the ones that have billions to burn is just one of scale.We agree on the rest though, in that some people like some art while the same art leaves others indifferent or even moves them to reject it altogether, but in that lies the question: how is AI art to be dismissed entirely, if some like it and others still feel something about it?
>>93188767NTA but for me personally I just see AI art being used by official work the same way I see obvious tracing, a way for hack artists to cut corners and save themselves time. The truth is AI art being used in commercial products is just the latest trend of a long line of cheap tricks companies use to sell you slop they think you'll pay top dollar for. People focus too much on the AI when in reality it's just a tool and what really deserves our disdain are the people that use said tool to cut corners. As for AI itself? Use it how you want, if you like putting in dumb prompts or you want a portrait for your character during a your latest TT campaign then all the power to you, it's only when money is involved that it turns scummy.
>>93187310Digital art with AI assets. The metal thing around her hips and the other metal thing around her sternum have the characteristic asymmetrical warping you see on AI products. The rest is probably just really rushed, shitty, digital art work.
>>93188823I agree completely, it's not the tool but the people behind it. Like there is a split between traditional and digital media, but I feel that this time the backlash is much stronger. Maybe because unironically some people posting about it today have seen digital art all their lives, so this is the first "revolution" in art they're seeing.But artists? Most "real" ones, the professionals, just see another tool, and judge the people using it by the merit of the results it helps provide. A lot of hack artists go against AI as a political stand to get some internet cred.
>>93188767>I mean, there lots of people spending good money on items of ducious utility, as this whole board proves. Oh yeah but that's the other side of the street. That on the "makers" side, the world of performance or """modern""" art it's almsot all about washing money. Often, though, the artist isn't aware of it and does think his stuff is hot shit, which is why the artist in these markets tends to be so far up their own asses. That's also why it's done through auctions and not private deals or comissions, ebcause then it's not a formal purchase and they can writte off.Do note, they don't need to always buy the piece themselves, because rich people who goes to these auctions are foten also the investors and shareholders of the companies setting these up.Of course, this doesn't mean there aren't retards who will buy overpirced shit, but jsut like Funko pop collectors, they want the fame and privilege attached to it, not the artistic or emotional value.t. went' to an art school and some friends became said artists.> how is AI art to be dismissed entirely, if some like it and others still feel something about it?I personally don't think AI should be forbidden despite being an artist myself as I aknowledge how sueful it can be, and don't think it will replace art either. It will fuck up markets because CEOs are retarded but eventually, jsut like it happened with movie VFX, all that technology is pointless if the reason you go for it is cheapness. The only results you'll get are the same as modern VFX where people has grown so used to CGI it looks worse than that used 20 years ago.
>>93188823The issue is that money is involved. And to be quite frank, AI in general just poses a huge threat to the fabric of human society. We need work. Humans need purpose. They go insane without it.And currently AI isn't actually good at the things it's being used for, it's just much cheaper than a human. It is legit dangerous to inject it into many fields.
>>93188823>>93188883>>93188889My fear is - like with CGI and how it has ruined effects in film and animation completely because it is cheap and enables lazy craftsmen - that AI slop will simply crowd out better artists who cost more and take longer.
>>93189002>We need workI'm good actually
>>93187310It's human made and from someone with less of a soul than AI.
>>93189009It will, that's unavodiable due the nature of CEOs. But just like it happened with CGI and animation, what will happen is that many will go indie once they realise they don't ened a big company.Sure, making a whole show or a superproduction might be out of reach, but indie stuff, comissioned work or even smaller scale projects are more than viable. Look at stuff like Punch Punch Forever!, Digital Circus or even Hazbin Hotel, or the many smaller shows on youtube.Patreon gave us a short golden era for artist where they coudl finally focus on their niche preferences before they became schizos with a gun that might shut you for some random reason.It's stupid to approach long term projects liike this without taking the bussiness side into account, but it's also stupid to expect projects to be made if the people behind it can have the rug pulled at any moment.
>>93188700>>93188889This "le modern [sic] art is le money laundering" thing is a cope, a popular cope you fags pass around like you're spitballing cum because abstract art is one of the things that's particularly triggering to spergs, you've got a disorder where you struggle to understand subjectivity like the average 4 year old can, and you're also too fucking spineless to grow some balls and express an opinion without pretending your tastes represent the objective truth. It's not just abstract art, it's food and beverages with strong flavours, there's always a reason why the sperg's opinions on wine or seafood and many others are objectively superior, the same well-worn and warped with exaggeration and use historical anecdotes, misremembered misinterpreted papers. Point out that the thing that makes art great for money laundering is the culture of non-disclosure with galleries and auction houses and the willingness to take cash no questions, so it doesn't matter if the work is abstract and modern or contemporary, or a romantic painting in the grand manner, you lot ignore the post and carry on.Ask for a run down of how it's meant to work and you'll either ignore it or I'll be blessed with a paragraph of pure dumbfuckery that demonstrates you lot have barely any idea of how money laundering works in the most condescending tone you can muster. Real dumb shit that police orgs and tax offices would see through instantly. If it were true you fags would be taking this shit to the IRS and working high paid analytical jobs for them, or maybe running an op for a crime org. Deep down you know you're a coping autistic retard on the wrong side of the bell curve and would get mogged by the high functioning actually high IQ autists they hire so you just keep lying to yourself out loud on the internet.tldr fuck autists
>>93189291
>>93189291Okay, what does this painting mean to you? Subjectively?
>>93189291bot post
>>93189291NTA but >If it were true you fags would be taking this shit to the IRS and working high paid analytical jobs for themThat's a pretty naive take on, well, anything. First of all you'd need physical proof of the crime for the IRS to do anything, which you won't have unless you have acces to the actual documentation being used. And even then, it is pretty likely everything is in order enough for the IRS to do nothing.I had a personal experience like that when I worked as a lfieguard. Our job cotnract was so illegal it didn't even stated the hours or pay we had, it literally said "company decides". We whistleblowed it to job inspectors every year and nothing happened until the third year, where an inspector, by her own decisions, came to us and decided to take the case herself. It then took 3 years for the case to be over with our employee not even denying the claims and all we got was a compensation equal to what we should've been paid...as normal hours, not extra hours.The company is still in charge of lifeguard duty in most local beaches and afaik it still does the same.
>>93189431nta but that's something that you should specifically ask whoever bought it.
>>93189473did you buy it?
>>93187310It's been a race to the bottom of "pro-level digital painters" for WotC over the last few years, and I frankly think 5e has been a downgrade in technical competence from 3rd and 4th edition's art departments.The bottom of the barrel cheap guys they get now are exactly the kind of artist to PROOOOMPT and then go and edit over it, because it means they can bang out more jobs to support themselves in Indonesia or wherever.
>I frankly think 5e has been a downgrade in technical competence from 3rd and 4th edition's art departments.Oh yeah, nobody's arguing that.
>>93189495After what I said? You shouldn't even ask. But I'll bite.
>>93189500What fascinates me is that it's already a pretty fucking cheap market. It's a book with illustrations. Sure you got a lot to do but there's plenty of really good artist at an affordable price, and given how fucking long these books take to make, there's more than enough time to organize a team and work on it slowly.If anything, I always had the impression that one of the main things making WotC lose money is Crawford and the team. You're paying full wage to a bunch of dudes that took 10 years to realise the DMG is wrong, CR doesn't work, many classes are missing key features and still do a worse job than many solo homebrew projects.
>>93189431Kinda lukewarm on Pollock, I've only seen one but it was impressive, hard to get a sense of what this one is like from a 317 KB.pngAnyway are you going to reply to the substance of what I wrote or just try and trap me in gotchas and tangents like a coward? I know he was promoted by a CIA backed cultural program if that's what you're setting up, I don't care. Why don't you man up and give me your opinion about it. Tell me what it means to you, without the arrogant autistic cowardice of telling yourself that your taste is objective. Grow some balls, have real opinions.>>93189460>>93189452>>93189331You're not replying the same to the posts of equal length up thread, must have hit the mark>>93189469It's not naive. Art sales alone are worth just shy of 70 billion annually worldwide, 30 billion of that is in the USA alone. You really think the IRS and other agencies relevant to where these proceeds from crime are coming from wouldn't be interested in putting the better part of 30 billion away from criminals and into federal coffers? Some autist gets mad at a Rothko or whatever selling for a couple of hundred mill, cries "money laundering", you don't reckon if that were true there wouldn't be federal investigations into that shit? Bit different to wage theft at a city contractor. You're goddamn right there's no proof or documentation. It's a a cope.If the le money laundering cope was real, we'd also see zero effort shit like NFTs maintain pricing and the 'modern art' market would bottom out because it had become obsolete. Instead NFTs bubbled and popped.
>>93189716>You really think the IRS and other agencies relevant to where these proceeds from crime are coming from wouldn't be interestedNo, I don't. Because it's cheaper to audit the poor, and the people who would be targeted by these audits are the ones who control the IRS' budget, or know the people who do.
>>93189596>You're paying full wage to a bunch of dudes that took 10 years to realise the DMG is wrong, CR doesn't work, many classes are missing key features and still do a worse job than many solo homebrew projects.Not really. 5e has been a skeleton crew compared to 3rd and 4th. I'm not really sure how much they can slash it further, especially when making a new edition.The only thing losing them money is the inevitable self cannibalization that game lines go through as they release more supplements and splats. I think the game studios making expensive shovelware that bombs and bomb of a movie are what's fucked them.
>>93187518A desperate and weak defense. Do better and maybe they'll promote you to "Guy who leaves youtube comments defending WotC"
>>93189716So you admit it means nothing to you, and acknowledge promotion of postmodern art is a literal CIA psyop, thank you for acknowledging it.>muh NFTsDo not disprove anything. Bitcoin and other tokens show value exclusively because people believe they do, and waxing and waning hasn't killed them yet. Its tulips all the way down.
>>93187310The stylized hair and the water effect's consistency, plus the seams on the sleeves. Nope: that's not AI. It does look super photographed and drawn on, but using models isn't terrible in any way.
>>93187310>art so bad it's being mistaken for AI vs. WotC lied AGAIN and is publishing AI slop AGAINWhichever answer is true is funny.
>>93189911IT's so fun>We value artist and art for our books>Get caught using AI art so bad the guys making the mdoels don't know what to do with the hand>An artist had to rush an illustration so much it got confused by AI>Another artist discovered the concept art WotC comissioned to make was used by another comissioned artist to prompt the final image>Now the PHB has AI art all over itI wish these stuff could be legally called out. I find it fascinating how often companies or criminals go>Nooo I didn't do it!>okay yeah I actually do it and likely do it againand it does not increase the punishment they recive.
>>93189911Is it though? /tg/ is just being whiny contrarian little bitches about D&D and has been since 5e got popular. No one in the real world is confused about whether this is AI. /tg/ is just being a bitch about 5e because it's popular and isn't just for disaffected, angry white guys. Which has more to do w/ 4chan's declining quality than D&D.
>>93190032Buy it, don't. But stop making up things to whine about on the internet just because you saw a black person, anon. They're just not that scary, you pussy.
This was peak.I hate all digital art. Soulless.
>>93190079Are you under the false impression that's acrylic on canvas, or something?
>>93190079>>93190109I stand corrected. Just looked up the artist and it actually is acrylic on canvas.
>>93190079Sorry anon but the last major /tg/ company that produced anything in traditional media is GW with the supposedly oil on canvas cover art for WD 500
>>93189880Some modernism, and some modern artists, and this isn't a gotcha. I basically already replied to your post before you made it>Anyway are you going to reply to the substance of what I wrote or just try and trap me in gotchas and tangents like a coward? I know he was promoted by a CIA backed cultural program if that's what you're setting up, I don't care. Why don't you man up and give me your opinion about it. Tell me what it means to you, without the arrogant autistic cowardice of telling yourself that your taste is objective. Grow some balls, have real opinions.If you were right you wouldn't be selectively replying to a tiny fraction of the points I've made and trying to set up gotchas. Even in a zero stakes anonymous discussion you won't even express your own taste.
>>93188429>Meaningless and mostly irrelevant wordNope. I perfectly defined why art made by people is good and why pastiches made by AI is bad. Btw, stop being a shill for free.
>>93190079>I hate all digital art. Soulless.This has nothing to do with it being digital art. Is just that is not "art" at all. Is a couple of photos put together in a bizarre Photoshop attempt. Is not real. Is cheap and shit.
>>93190252>more buzzwordsRead a book or fall down some stairs.
>>93190297Seethe harder, shill. You will never be tolerated.
>>93187310This is what I get from AI with this prompt in 3 different art styles. So I guess it's possible that AI was used at some stage and then painted over / retouched, but who knows really.>a powerful, mystical sorceress. She is an older black woman with white, curly hair and gold-rimmed glasses. Her intense gaze is directed at the viewer while she holds a crystal shard with her hands, which seem to channel a magical force. She wears a white, flowing robe adorned with gold and silver embellishments, and a grey, textured cloak with intricate patterns. The background is dark and mysterious, with swirling magical energy.
>>93187310some stuff is a bit weird but I'd guess it's heavily photobashed
>>93190282lol no
>>93189460Not a bot, a cluster B artist, even worse desu.
>>93187310>I want my CGI garbage done by a human!AI art isn't a threat to art, because art is dead.
>>93189021Find something you like then
>>93190079>Wayne Reynolds>peak
>>93190135Pretty sure it's not. Many of the strokes have the canvas texture but said texture isn'tfound on the layer of paint below it. I also don't see much "crunchiness" as a result of layering paint.
>>93190896Faggot who defends AI trying to bash digital art.
>>93191141He didn't say anything about being pro-AI, any reasonable person would assume the oppositeI'm assuming you're some malding digital illustrator
>>93187310>can cast literaly blizzards out of her hands.>still wears glasses
>>93188429how can the language processor be able to put soul in a product when itself doesn't have one. there can't be soul without context and these tools don't recognize context.
>>93190038Holy projection
>>93189520
>>93188429>Even if there was some "soul" into some pieces, most here wouldn't be able to do a bit of introspection anon, you're almost there.
>>93190730lol how easy it is to just be able to generate images like this and we all got so quickly used to it, this still blows my mind.
>>93191320But as you yourself are experiencing, AI got better at doing stuff as much as we became used to recognizing it, because AI tends to do the same things. The last 10% of AI will never be "fixed" because it relies on the artist decisions rather than the technical execution of the image. It's not a computing or tech issue, it's a design one.
>>93191320Yeah, people get used to things quickly, that's our best and worst quality.>>93191349This doesn't make sense ot me. I don't see any reason to believe it won't surprass human ability, just like chess AI is better than any human grandmaster, or a calculator for a simpler example.
>>93191404>it won't surpass human abilityHow? besides speed, what feat do you see AI being able to achieve that a human can't? In what way would AI even make it better?The strength of AI is the speed, not the results. It's the microwave food of art: it sure is helpfull to have when needed, specially if you wanna focus on other stuff, but no matter how many improvements you make to cooking tools, it will never be able to make a meal better than a chef unless an actual chef set it up that way, and even then it will be as good as the chef set it up. Chess and calculators can do it because they work in limtied enviroments they can predict further than humans. There is a limited amoutn of states a chess board can be, which a machine can predict easily and act upon it. Here's an example of what I mean by that 10% of decisionmaking. Ask an AI to generate a hand full of rings on each finger. It will generate something really obviously made by AI, even if it makes proper hands with 5 fingers, because where it will fail is on how it "solves2 each ring. What's the thickness? are these markings or words? is this jewel protruding or inside the ring? why do they have different shapes and sizes? Maybe even the fingers change in thickness.This is because AI isn't thinking, it's jsut repeating and trying to "predict" where the image should go, but here's theres infinite possibilities to take the drawing towards. An actual artist will subconsciously draw the rings in the right size fitting the hand or in a similar style. It has a bias, jsut like an AI, but where a human has common sense, taste and other to lead this bias, a machine has a bias based on whatever it was trained. It cannot tell the good from the bad, it just works on it.Do note, this isn't a flaw on tiself, it's working as intended, because it was never intended to think for itself, but to generate based on existing sensitivities without actually understanding them.
>>93191509I don't know how, I'm basing my opinion on historic technological progress. It's not too much of an assumption really, you just need to take 2 things for granted. 1 - nothing magical about brains, it's information processing that can be done in a computer, 2 - in the future computers will be advanced enough to simulate brains, this leads to AGI which leads to ASI and that is by definition super human in every respect. Could be wrong though, who knows.
>>93190982AI art isn't a threat to art because it isn't art. Art is when a human being does something in a skilled manner worth noticing the product or process of. It is artifice. AI Art will replace a lot of cheaply paid art. Just like the automobile replaced the horse. But horses didn't go extinct and neither will art. horse-riding became a high art and leisurely past-time, because it no longer served a basic purpose in commerce. Just like painting will become when any marketing exec can get something ten times more-specific to what he or she wanted from an AI than by ten people submitting ideas for ad campaigns. Art won't go away. Lots of art jobs will be lost, but those people will simply do other things.
>>93187491It's more likely they're paying cheap artists that sketch over stock photos
>>93190079>Wayne ReynoldsAnon, this man is the most vomitous scourge on TTRPG art in living memory, what the fuck are you on about?
>WotC using AI artwork for their imagesSo? They’re big and you’re small. They get away with it.
>>93187310Looks more like lazy photobashing
>>93187848This guy gets it>>93188470Him too
>>93189009Checked. I had this conversation last night.>CGI killed Aliens' and The Matrix sequels.>What was amazing practical FX, Animatronics, Wire work and Kung Fu just got replaced by shoddy work
>>93191860>>93192247It's this, retards. Stop tilting at AI windmills.
>>93191814That's a retarded definition of art.
>>93189825You get the rebuttal that your attack deserves. No one is obligated to even respond to things that can be answered by a lithium prescription.
>>93191320You're easily impressed. It still has melty hands, irregular patterns, boring framing, dropped details, and cost a shit-ton in power, water, and computing that is completely ignored because Microsoft can burn money for a thousand years and not notice. It's inefficient for something that's low quality if you actually looked at it and didn't glance for flashy, easily performed things like a shine texture (that doesn't conform to any consistent light source).
>>93191624The interesting thing about brains is specifically that it works nothing at all like a computer. The information density in even a cricket shames every super-computer in the world. You are drunk on tech-marketer buzz.
>>93193197You operate at a low IQ level because you are low IQ.
>>93189291Random abstract colors and shapes has never and will never be worth more than five bucks.
>>93193267I think you're missing the point, that being - they both do information processing. Now if you're a spiritual sorta guy, then more power to you, I don't completely discount that, but that's why I said you have to take some things for granted.
>>93187310I don't see anything that looks definitely AI, but those sleeves may have been composited from a photo
>>93193785And my point, as a totally different anon from the one you started arguing with, is that you demonstrably know literally nothing about the architecture of a logical computer nor about the functioning of neural tissue and you are conflating what they are and how they interact with data so you can wank about an inevitable techno-rapture that has exactly as much credibility as the Second Coming of Jesus. Kurzweil lied to you, rube. There's not going to be a superhuman self-iterating artificial intelligence. Even a quantum computer can't do that that. The most you'll get is a very expensive algorithm that master-controls specialist subset algorithms, or as an alternative, a vat-grown slave brain made of totally pedestrian meat. Both of those would be worse than the distributed problem solving power of animals in community, dumbass. You have no idea how much you're getting yourself worked up on the hope for a god-king to save you. It's shocking how little you grok that you're the one with the unobjective spiritual belief on display.
>>93192395It's the only one that has ever meant anything.
>>93193859This is quite irrelevant, there is no reason to think human level intelligence is substrate-dependent. I'll leave it at that.
>>93193864I don't sit around wondering at the effort that went into the art I experience. In fact, the art obfuscates the effort that went into it in virtually all cases. Your definition excludes some of the highest effort art pieces in the world because you just don't fucking understand anything. You've never sat down to actually think about what you get from experiencing things. You're mixing in all your retarded preconceptions into a perfectly retarded definition.
>>93191320and its another reminder is that arts purpose is to provoke thoughts, feelings, or to entertain, or please - art that achieves nothing is worthless no matter the technical skill - the best thing AI has done to human artists is devalue skill without soul
>>93193899Don't reply to schizoids like that. It's a waste of energy
>>93192341Wire work is the CGI of kung fu so I don't see an issue.
>>93189002Anon, you're putting to much stock on the term AI. Generative AI is just a tool, analagous to a camera. It's not capable of independent action, it's not a replacement of artists or humans doing artistic work, it's just a new tool for human artists to use.Does it produce a lot of shitty art? Sure, so do cameras.
>>93193899>human intelligence is unrelated to the material that makes it upHoly fucking shit you are literally professing to mind-body duality and you think you're the rational one. Kill yourself.
>>93193965You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Just not a single thought in your head. I don't mind, but you don't have to tell us all about it.
>>93194436>source: trust me bro
i just use the ai to erp
The new art is horrendous, easily the worst that has even been produced for a D&D book. I don't understand how they're able to shamelessly put this stuff out.
>>93194077Uh huh.
>>93187310I can tell this is AI from some of the pixels and because I've seen quite a few slops in my time.
>>93196370Nah, it's a speedpaint over reference photos. I've seen the technique thousands of times. You frankenstein together a collage of images in the right shapes and then you go over it with a transparent layer. You can tell from the (bad) bodice pattern and the (sloppy) water strokes that it's genuine human incompetence.
>>93196418Realise that it can be (and is) both.
>>93196370Got a laugh out of me. Well memed
>>93187491Or they edited a photo, that was a big thing years ago where art of characters was based on the dev team or people they knew.
there probably are some ai-generated assets but the most prominent and egregious thing is the shitty photoshop photobashing.when can we have some art that isn't just someone typing "sassy black chick" into google image search
Is this A.I. life... is this just fantasy...
>>93191999>>93190079At least Reynolds has an identifiable, distinctive style you two can have a sincere disagreement about, more than can be said about a lot of contemporary slop. When the matter of Wayne England comes up in 40k threads, I really dislike his style for most things he portrayed, but at least he had one.
baka we can't even have dogshit art in 5e anymore.because of woke.
>>93196370It's an old meme, sir, but it checks out.
>>93187518Actually, consider how AI art has been a booming and ongoing topic, and has seen use, multiple times, by mutliple people. Note that AI has been used for other creative endeavours, such as dialogue in written fiction.It's not the posing people catch on to. In fact it's just about everything but the posing. Bringing up posing makes that other anon sound crazy, but that anon didn't mention posing.What we're all looking at is probably stuff like the texture of the inside of her cloak, the shape of the metals on her chest and shoulders, the odd angle of her left (our right) wrist with the bangle at a direct side view for us, despte how it should be 3/4 view to match the arm and hand and of course wrist.Then, look at her hair. Her hair is almost tellingly hand painted.I actually kind of like this art, it's a damn sight better than the 2014 art for one thing, but suspect of AI use it is.Not that it's a bad thing, just Son Gokuin'.
>>93196418It's >>93197972 here, and I think you're probably closer to the truth than I was. That does explain the textures.>>93196436Actually, you could also be right.Interesting.
>>93187310No. To me it's too symmetrical, the details are too sensible in 3d space.Instead I think it's mostly a photomanip of stock photography (obviously the fabrics are the main reason to think it's a stock photo)I've heard some artists use AI to render, but I'm not familiar with that.
>>93197972>AI artAI is not art.
>>93194035>you are literally professing to mind-body dualityAnything else is—quite literally—soulless.
>>93193968ThisWhenever someone paints some photorealistic glass of water I think “yeah neat” but it literally says nothing. Might as well be AI
Looks like a mix of real and AI, the filligree on the chest thing especially is very clearly AI. Seems like a weird choice to go full DEI but also use AI, many of the people who would buy something for including a bunch of blacks and gay dwarves would boycott it for using AI.
>>93199975>Looks like a mix of real and AI, the filligree on the chest thing especially is very clearly AI. >>Seems like a weird choice to go full DEI but also use AI, many of the people who would buy something for including a bunch of blacks and gay dwarves would boycott it for using AI.Basic corpo decision making. Cheapest assets possible, designed to cater to the widest possible swath of potential customers.
>>93193197>attackHmmmmm thats really weird anon, why did you see that as an attack on yourself? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?Perhaps thats related to your foolish claims in a way?
>>93187310That decoration beneath the boobs looks potentially AI-ish. AI pften pumps out that kind of swirly semi-organic looking embelishment on tons of character images.
>>93200326It's very asymmetrical, which is a big give-away for ai art. Same with her glasses and her belt thing.
If you can't be sure whether it's AI or not, then what does it matter?>but the starving artistsReally don't give a shit. I'm glad I can finally get art for what I think it's worth (practically nothing) instead of what the artist thinks it's worth (way too much). And everything else is going to get cheaper to buy as AI gets more capable.I mean sucks for horse handlers that cars were invented but it's great for everyone else so fuck em.
>>93199975You need to think like a front office suit.DEI is good because you get money for shilling this ideology, and because you're accessing a new market (in theory).AI (and/or shitty artists) are good because they're cheap.It all comes down to money, and usually short term money.
>>93200154Are you honestly getting triggered by boilerplate debate terms?
>>93197753I guess so, but poaching style is basically what generative algorithms are optimized for. That's why it can easily make things look like the midpoint between every image on the front page of ArtStation.
>>93196461Using real life reference is fine, from an artistic standpoint. Using a photo of someone and drawing over it is a little lazy, but permissible. Taking a photo of someone and slapping a photoshop filter over it so it looks like it was digitally drawn or painted (but not actually because those filters always look like ass) is crossing a line of laziness that a professional, industry artist should not cross. Doing that previous one, but also with AI and we're getting into territory where it's hard to even call them an artist.
>>93187845>handsI dunno, those pinky fingers look bad bad.
>>93201161You're right but it seems like a typical mistake made when trying to do lineless painting with foreshortened anatomy. They didn't go back and overemphasize the forms with unrealistic shadows which would ironically look more natural to us.
>>93202086The suits can't comprehend this because they don't experience emotions like humans do.
>>93187518>WOTC openly says they want to continue with AI Art/Writing>Releases milk toast apology after>Hired AI technicians to the company after laying off hundreds of staffCrazy the amount of Kool aid people are willing to drink to justify their rage boner.
>>93204196Not what milquetoast is. And the other two straight up didn't happen.
>>93189520I just realised that this halfling is a female.
>>93204326The AI stuff is MtG related. Twitter jumped on WotC over AI images on advertisements prompting a response on AI use. Ironically, WotC has had a rash of real artists stealing assets. There's no doubt some are using AI assistance.
I'd honestly rather the money go to the damned computer than to shitty human artists who would produce this corporate shit.
>>93187310I've made a lot of kneejerk reaction dissatisfied noises upon enlarging thumbnails on 4chan but this one elicited an especially disgusted one, so I would that it's at least both you and me. Shameless, shame on anybody buying this shit after the OGL renege last year
>>93188429>Meaningless and mostly irrelevant word,Damn, anon has it all figured out. The wisest man in human history is posting on 4chan in 2024. Only solipsism and materialism for that guy, I guess.
>>93205673You're so shallow.
>>93188470yeah, why do people use ai art instead of commissioning some sovl cal arts
>>93202086DEI serves both to avoid frivolous accusations and to raise the ESG score to facilitate advertising and the overall corporation trust.AI serves to cut corners and money.The final consumer doesn't even figure in the reasoning because it doesn't matter anymore, they're moving past physical media. Any earnings from pdfs and manuals are already considered as a surplus over the one they hope for the d&d-beyond subscription model, that's why they want d&done to be a rolling release "edition".
>>93187310There is an uncanny aspect to ai art that makes it stick out like a sore thumb and I haven't felt it once looking at the nu art. It's mostly questionable, but at least real.
>>93206741Then you've been successfully fooled.
>>93206768I'm not gonna pretend the new phb is ai genned just because it has blacks in it.
>>93187310Hands look too good to be an AI but it could easily be a lazy paintover,Either way it looks extremely soulless
>>93189291FBI should investigate this man, he clearly has family that launders money (He's too stupid to do it himself).
>>93190079Why do people always act like reynolds is shit.He’s got a unique very geometrical style that’s all
>>93207653>Hands look too good to be an AIAre you a time traveler from 2022? We have inpainting these days.
>>93189291It's pretty obvious that the modern art market is just another type of Deutsche Bank.
>>93191624We have to assume that we'll be saved from both AGI and ASI by the fact that scamming is what makes money while delivering a product uses up money.
>>93187310I doubt its AI. I suspect it's actually photo composite and paintover. Notice there is no glaring textural errors and light follows the general same direction, but only the most obvious surfaces self shadow or accept light from the weird mana cone.Similarly the hair and armor pieces are generally blown the fuck out compared to the textiles which don't seem to follow any logic of attachment or wear; which normally might seem like a sign of generative art, but no errant straps or claps seem to be trying to attach them either, so either a large amount of effort was made to clean up rogue supports or they were never generated in error to begin with because the artist was layering photographic elements intentionally.Generally speaking we've seen a lot fucking worse out of published WOTC lately, but it's still not a great piece. I hope that's not a full page splash.
>>93189291>This "le modern [sic] art is le money laundering"https://news.artnet.com/art-world/italian-artist-auctioned-off-invisible-sculpture-18300-literally-made-nothing-1976181Explain this then
>>93187310Wait is this honestly in the Players Hand Book?How does Wisards of the Coast, the same company that owns Magic the Gathering, and for one of the bigest name brands of all time D&D, get away with something so stupendously armature like this?WTF IS WITH THE MODERN ASS LOOKING GLASSES?Her eyes look like they were made to glow in MS paintThe difference between the more realistic person and the more painting like hair and other elements is jaringthe designs on her cloths are horibly fucking muddy as all hellNot to mention the fucking ice spike that looks like its comming out of her tits in a botched photoshop jobJesus christ.
>>93189431I don't care about this argument but the chaos between the black and white almost feels like a battle, it could represent political tribalism in the sense that theres typically an "obvious" right and wrong to each individual person, and yet the scene is still so chaotic in spite of the clear colours and morals of each stroke and side
>>93189716I actually didn't know about the CIA psyop thing. The gotcha I was trying to trap you in was flipping it upside down and seeing if anyone actually noticed.Speaking of which...>>93210860Does the meaning change if I flip it right side up?
>ragebait with "you're all spineless sperging fags that cant see things 4-year olds can" etc>gets people going "aight man">"must have hit the mark"
>>93187310It reminds me less of AI and more of Marvel movies, especially with the color grading.Especially the way Marvel movies never have any true black. Like no part of the screen is #000000.It gives everything a washed out, bland, and soulless look despite technically being realistic, since the human brain registers the darkest thing in its line of sight as "black" even if it's not truly vantablack.
>>93187310I feel like it has to be, look at how weird and asymmetrical this bit is
>>93193253>cost a shit-ton in power, water, and computing that is completely ignored Keeping a human artist alive and sane also costs a shitton in power water and computing while providing mediocre results most of the time. What is your point exactly?
*shits on a canvas*that will be 1 million + tip please>n-n-no, y-you aren't famous, I won't pay that m-muchah, so it's not about the art, it's about a famous person shitting on a canvas. got it, that makes modern art totally valid and not a money laundering scheme lmao
>>93189911I mean, bad faith actors can accuse anything of looking like AI because they don’t like it. It doesn’t mean a lot.
>>93216951Those human artists do not cease to exist as people because there’s AI now.
>>93189895It looks like shit, bro
>>93200431using horses and cars as an example, this is why we are pissed at AI art in products.>Gentlemen, i invented the car.Woah cool, is it faster than a horse?>nope, maybe in 50 years... is it more comfortable than a horse?>nope, at this stage it keeps shaking so hard it can break your spinecan it carry things and move them around?>no not yet, maybe in 20 or 30 yearsalright keep it to yourself>lol no, its cheap, so i will begin replacing horses with cars RIGHT NOW, while its still shit compared to horses.Maybe in the future, like 5 years from now or 10 years, AI art will be good enough to put in expensive books made by massive corporations. However, now its just insulting.Also i dont think the picture is actually AI, maybe its a stock photo with AI used on it, or just photoshopped and edited really badly
>>93189716>Grow some ballsWhy don't you grow some and just admit that Pollock is a fraud? His art is literally meaningless random splashes of paint.But I'm sure they convinced you that the "correct" way of looking at art is squeezing out meaning out of something that has not and pretend that you are smart because you can make up convincing (sometimes not even that) bullshit.
>>93189291Now tell me why AI art is worth any less than human art.If the viewer/customer is the one who has to give subjective meaning to a piece, and not the artist, why does it matter if the art was made by a human or a robot?It's not like you can look at thousands and thousands of both AI and human art and correctly pinpoint with 100% precision which ones were done with AI and which ones were human made, ESPECIALLY if they are abstract.
>>93217436Who cares? Any one person's opinion on Pollock is literally irrelevant to the discussion. Someone exists who is willing to pay millions of dollars for it, thus it's worth that much. Is that retarded? Yeah, obviously. But at the end of the day, that guy has millions of dollars to spend on bullshit, while you're fingering your asshole and posting on 4chan. Many such cases.
>>93217428>Also i dont think the picture is actually AI>maybe its a stock photo with AI used on it
>>93217469i meant not generated by AI, but edited using AI, now that i read it, yeah it sounds stupid.
>>93217464>he fell for the money launderers schemesAlso, stop pretending that money laundering is hard. Every single criminal organization launders money by the millions, and money laundering is the never the crime that gets them.
>>93217464>Who cares?You obviously do. If you didn't, you wouldn't be posting right now about how much you don't care.
>>93217331>haven't ceased to exist as people yet* because there's AI now
>>93193253Neither did pollock. But artists still swears that it's worth millions and not sloppa.
>>93193253I agree. Look at these melty clocks and the shine texture all over the place. It's obviously garbage that can be safely ignored and looks good if you glance at it.
>>93191204Your corporate shit is neither original nor good.
>>93217553I could swear that painting had much darker colors and a more bleak outlook that made you feel bad.But just looking at this makes me think, why is even absurdist art better when made by humans?
>>93217582tl;dr:Intetion and understanding what makes a painting visually interesting. That deflated condom creature merging with the ground means something, whether it was Dali being schizophrenic and changing his mind along the way, to hide a mistake, or because he thought it looked cool. You can speculate on it, what was the painter thinking, what does it mean. With AI it would be nothing but a flaw in the design so there is no speculation. >but muh NighthawksYes, the artist making unintentional mistakes or oddities in their stuff is a thing, but it's now part of the charm of the painting, giving it a story about how Hopper curses out loud because somebody pointed out that the cafe has no door. With AI it's just a flaw that at best makes it look funny, but it has no story or meaning behind it, it's a failure of the machine which is supposed to create perfection.
>>93191320>got so quickly used to it,Nobody is getting used to it, though. This is what people who are pushing for AI want you to believe. That is the "new normal" and everyone has just "accepted it". But the truth is every single person out there that doesn't consume the techbro and megacorpo kool aid is against it. Anyone with a modicum of taste can tell AI "art" from real art. And artists are abandoning all platforms trying to forcefully take their work to steal it and train their new toy so they can sell it later in crappy products such as the one in the OP.
>>93217582If you think melting clocks on a desert with an ugly deflated creature looks good, I'm just sorry for all the people you ever called beautiful.Not even AI looks this bad.
>>93217684I never used the word beautiful, I dont think the artist intended it to be beautiful. I said it made me feel bad and had bleaker colors when i saw it as a child, now it doesnt.Also AI does not look this good, AI's melting clocks don't feel as real or weighted as these clocks. post an example of an AI doing a good melting clock (Your insistence made me actually question if AI art finally understands weight or whatever it is called in english)
>>93191085>thinking paint should be "crunchy"THIN YOUR PAINTS.
>>93187310All you need to do is look at the fucking hands. Anyone that can't see it needs to be killed, because their pattern recognition is so thoroughly compromised as to render them dangerously useless.
>>93218163Anon, human artists fucks up hands all the time.
>>93218408"Bad hands" is one thing. Artists fuck those up all the time. Fucking the hands up in the way AIs fuck hands up is very uncommon. Having a picture that looks like its made by AI that just happens to also have AI-fucky hands but STILL be made by a human is astronomically unlikely.
>>93190730That looks so amazingly fucking shit.
>>93218560>Fucking the hands up in the way AIs fuck hands up is very uncommon.I think AI has been getting a lot better at drawing hands than what people gives credit for. Images like these were not feasible at all 2 years ago, and now anyone can easily make something like these. And overall, hands have been getting much better even in full pictures.
>>93189002>We need work. Humans need purpose. They go insane without it.No you don't. You likely want to accomplish things that take some effort but that's different. Make your own don't rely on a corporation to tell you your purpose in exchange for not starving to death. (they'll let you starve to death anyway)You're already obviously insane. Looking forward to the mass unemployment of the middle management low functioning boiler plate shufflers and bureaucrats though. That shit's going to be hilarious.
>>93199476It can be. Not all art is good or inherently worth something just because its art. The creation of High Art as a selling point is basically a money laundering scam and holding tank for rich people's more retarded children.
>>93218651I kind of miss the old air art where things were a lot less clearly defined and a lot more like someone coming out of a khole trying to piece together 3 dimensional shapes. While technically interesting that a computer can make filler art for the new yorker or some rpg character art, its about as interesting as the original content. Its like having a 3500 heavy duty to drive your kids to the mall. Good job.
>>93218651Yes, AI has been getting better. This is a true statement that is completely irrelevant to anything I said.>>93218764>It can be.No, he's right, it isn't, so it can't.>Not all art is good or inherently worth something just because it's art.No, but it's still art.>The creation of High Art as a selling point is basically a money laundering scam and holding tank for rich people's more retarded children.Is there something up with people making true but irrelevant statements today?
>>93218651nd yet AI tards are always spotted by their fucked up hands
>>93187310Her right eye is completely fucked.
>>93219285It's falling out.
>>93218920>"All you need to do is look at the fucking hands"Tell me, anon. Looking at those pics, can you can tell what are the fuck ups AI did that are so uncommon, only AI would make?Whenever I read statements like those, are by people who only have looked at the shit done like a year or two ago, as if it represents what can be done today.And these that I posted are all from models that can be used on a domestic computer. They aren't from state-of-the-art models that aren't open to the public.
>>93219447Those people are also right tho because most of the AI pictures you see on the internet is people googling image generator and then writing big boobs as promptYou can do some amazing shit with your own models/loras, inpainting and proper prompts, etc but only like %0,1 of the AI pictures on the internet is made with these
>>93218920It can evoke the sublime. If you don't understand this reference via reading the source you can't really talk about art at all. It can be art. Doesn't matter that it can be art. Just because something is art doesn't make it in any way important or inherently valuable.
>>93194020Exactly this.
>>93217511The typical lame response of a fucking loser. You think I give a fuck about your opinion on Jackson Pollock? Jackson Pollock doesn't even give a fuck about your opinion, so why would I?>lol u mad?No, I just enjoy telling mental midgets that they are retarded.
>>93189895>sleevesHer right sleeve is eating itself.
>>93219447>Looking at those pics, can you can tell what are the fuck ups AI did that are so uncommon, only AI would make?Wait, there are people like you who seriously can't tell AI from not-AI apart? Or you're just pretending to be retarded to justify it?
>>93187310No that's a black woman
Art is still art, retards.
>>93220512Shit is still shit, shill.
>>93187340No AI thing "shits out copied art". Text-to-image uses a random noise texture as the base image, and image-to-image uses an image input from the user as the base image. I don't know what it is you think you're talking about exactly.
>>93220833There was that thing where they managed to purposely have it spit out some of the trained images.Though that was only a tiny percentage of the most overrepresented images(lotsa copies) in the training set.But yeah, it CAN overfit.
I am surprised no one has talked about the absolute abomination that is her pinkies. Even if "They were cut off for reason" the nubs are way, way too far down the hand.
>>93221169AI often gets confused with pinkies and tries to position them like thumbs.
>>93190135 >>93191085Made me check, came across the artstation page of the artist, with some WIP shots. Seems legit: artstation com/artwork/xDEOqr
>>93218728Every day Kaczynski is proven right yet again.People think work is important, but their job 90% is a surrogate activity. See below:Here is a rule of thumb for the identification of surrogate activities. Given a person who devotes much time and energy to the pursuit of goal X, ask yourself this: If he had to devote most of his time and energy to satisfying his biological needs, and if that effort required him to use his physical and mental faculties in a varied and interesting way, would he feel seriously deprived because he did not attain goal X?
It's pretty foolish to definitevely claim that anything is impossible, especially something as mundane as AI. 5 years ago nobody on the street would believe computers could do what they are now doing with ease.
>>93216284That made me notice the pose.Look at the way the arms are bent, especially the (her) left arm.Plus the unnatural break halfway down the spine.
>>93217331There's 7 billion people on Earth. I wouldn't rate that as a particularly good argument in their favor. t. Against AI sloppa and CGI laziness
>>93219447Anon, its not that the fuck ups are uncommon, is that in places it is technically perfect, and in other places it is completely messed up in a way a retard would do it. No good artist or bad artist makes something like AI, because it requires you to be shit and great simultaneously. this causes an uncanny feeling, and is the reason most people can detect if something is AIed most of the time.
>>93187310Should've just given her some massive honkers and everybody would be happy
>>93225786Look more closely at the her left arm, you've misread how it's bent. There's a black patch on the sleeve where her elbow is supposed to be, you've accidentally interpreted the hanging part of the sleeve as where her elbow is.As for the pelvis, you've totally missed it. I don't even know how you managed that, but my best guess is, you're trying too hard when you really don't need to.I'd say, look at the oddly fuzzy yet somehow also still detailed texture of the inside of her cloak, with the brown and white pattern. How is it both low res and high res at the same time? It's like a collage asset that's been stretched out.
>>93225786Her right sleeve also has its own sleeve.
A lot of frustration itt
>>93187310It’s me as well.Look at the hands. Look at the asymmetrical and blurry details on the chestpiece. Look at the inconsistent lighting. Look at the complete lack of depth around the platonic solid that looks like it’s emerging from her chest. Look at the juxtaposition of the rendering style and the complete lack of detail behind the subject of the painting.Fuck you, Wizards.
>>93187310It’s always just you.
>>93190079>>93190109>>93190124With the sole exception of Frank Frazetta, Keith Parkinson is the only possible alternative to Wayne Reynolds. There are and will never be any others.
>>93231174I don't like Boris or Julie's art very much.Brom is usually amazing, but not suitable for most settings.
>>93189291It's not abstract, it's just not art. Having money doesn't magically give someone taste. Also, knowing what is actually beautiful is something I'd expect a board full of people who paint tiny armies to know better than a bunch of bored rich people whose understanding of quality is exclusively what is in vogue with other billionaires in between fucking children and drinking human blood.
>>93190124>I stand corrected. Just looked up the artist and it actually is acrylic on canvas.I can't stand Wayne Reynolds' style, but credit where it's due- the man does work with actual physical media.
>>93231559Spotted the autist. Having money does in fact give someone taste, in a roundabout way. This model helped me understand: Wealth and status are directly tied to respect, and generally speaking high art and other forms of rich people culture exist entirely on the basis of Party A is respected, Party A likes Thing B, Thing B is thus considered to be in good taste. Taste is just another wishy washy word people use to couch their opinions in, it's different everywhere you go, and taking exception with how the elite determine what's hot or not in between their adrenochrome injections and livestreamed monkey executions isn't really going to change that.
>>93191295Art's good, but damn that bitch's legs are over half her height. Artist must've gotten the legs done and been told "you know she's supposed to be under 3ft even" and drew the teensiest torso I've seen outside of porn.
>>93218560100% this.Humans fuck up hands by symbol drawing. Or by failing to recognize the parts of a hand individually (i.e. the fingers, palm, knuckles, bones, joints, etc) and just recognizing the entire hand and drawing what can be universally seen as a "hand". AI fucks up hands because it doesn't recognize anything as anything. It produces an image similar to what it's been fed, but because hands can be in so many positions, it confuses the shit out of the AI and it needs to essentially recognize every different hand pose as a different "thing" entirely.
Damn, imagine dropping half a Benjamin for this, lmfao.
I doesn't matter if it's AI or not because I wasn't planning to pay for it anyway.
>>93187310It's either AI or the clothing is heavily referenced, nobody would draw the sleeves like that unless they closely followed a photograph.t. professional artist
>>93187310Some parts are way too detailed, while other parts have weird inconsistencies. My bet is an AI-generated image based on a posed photograph, poorly post-processed by a human "artist".
>>93238636Imagine how she looks pregnant
>>93192070>get awayWhat exactly are they "getting away" with?
>>93190079>This was peak.Peaks shit, you mean?
>>93238636>>93247922well she is a foxy rogue lady pretending to be a bard. best girl in the realms desu.
>>93225786The biceps seem too long, but I don't understand what you're talking about with the forearms and the hips.
>>93247980>get away>What exactly are they "getting away" with?Claiming that they won't use AI images and will instead pay human artists, because they respect human artists, in order to win social points, but then using AI because it's cheaper than paying human artists
>>93216951Are you genuinely deranged? No it doesn't.
>>93188470Most of the AI stuff is similarly soulless. But I will admit I like it much better than the Tumblr & Noodle Arm Beanface Cartoon aesthetics.
