>no you can't make those background details that no one stops to look at with AI you have to steal the artwork from old dead people instead
>>736213017>why does it hasIf someone can't be bothered to learn proper English, then they are a non-participant in existence itself.
Sorry anon but you're kind of a moron if you're using AI for placeholders, placeholder means you're replacing it later so it doesn't have to look nice. You're fooling yourself into thinking it's done if you're using a generated placeholderDon't put your hands on the fucking burning stove and then wonder why you got burned
>>736213083Oh don't worry I don't use AI artwork for placeholders, the AI artwork is the final asset. Human art is trash compared to what AI makes. It's cheaper too.
>>736213147I couldn't conceive a strawman as flanderstastic as the average /v/ contrarian actually really is
>Anti ai twitter ludites aren't mentally il-ACK!
Love seeing it. The whole basis for the contempt towards AI was because it looked worse, which is a somewhat reasonable stance, but it's quickly gotten better and is now basically indistinguishable and it hasn't even stopped improving.So they still claim they can easily tell it apart from human work, but they need disclaimers. If you could tell it apart so easily, why do you need a disclaimer at all?By the way in the OP scenario, the guy was wrong anyway. It wasn't AI, he was actually using old paintings.
>>736213147baased
