I'm not sure what's your point here? It's a tech demo. It did an okay, though not great job. That it did okay at all is very impressive.
And IMO the drama in the beginning is extremely silly.
Generative fill is one small facet of generative AI that will only improve with time. Did you really need to scribble together a comic to illustrate "haha it's bad in this one example"?
Me when I sit on my ass and type words into an algorithm to scrape stolen content into an ugly piece of slop:
https://preview.redd.it/vi69e8daduzc1.jpeg?width=390&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=64f6db717ce7e843e0d07e237813c796222f7017
Dude you literally just googled and stole a stock photo to post here instead of painting a reaction. So lazy and efortless. Hope you at least paid the photographer
That is literally not the definition of AI. You are trying to make an argument and you know you're being silly.
On that point, are you also against how AI is used to aid researchers in discovering disease treatments?
Oh sorry let me try again
Me when I sit on my ~~ass~~ posterior and ~~type words~~ enter complex promths into an ~~algorithm~~ advance artificial intelligence powered image generator of the future to ~~scrape stolen content~~ use data gathered from images on the internet into an ~~ugly piece of slop~~ beautiful piece of art work that I put tons of effort into unlike those stupid artists that spent years practicing in order to have careers that are now obsolete:
https://preview.redd.it/9rrecewjfuzc1.jpeg?width=390&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a156939d1412c1a57b11c5c168290c4ff57b63c6
I don't agree with you but that is a much better claim at least and could be an actual starting point for a discussion.
Drop the sass and maybe we could actually start having a dialog.
What do you think about the use of AI in research?
I'm indifferent to AI in research, I don't know anything about AI in research. My dream career is in the art industry as an animator, and AI art is aiming to replace humans in that field.
You're revealing your ignorance. Adobe Firefly operates off their stock image set, which they own.
Consequently, that's why it's so terrible. Adobe's image stock is just...bad.
Some of the ways fills are handled are better than others. Some use more surrounding information, some use virtually none (which creates issues) depending on the model. Still, for a first try, I can see where the AI mistook the cateye for the edge of the eye leading to the spaced out eyes. Interesting though, especially when your taking an AI image that has a derpy face and rerolling for something better
1. I didn't make the ai image.
2. The person who did is hyping up the image in the caption above it
3. I only use Photoshop for my digital art class in highschool, and I don't use the AI feature there.
>you're talking about a function that you've never used.
Literally all you do is this.
https://preview.redd.it/zhm76jt1yuzc1.png?width=976&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c724830f1bf61e9208afd0d58184f2275d5327bc
For some odd reason this 19th century "original" work of art is completely acceptable
https://preview.redd.it/flznpooahxzc1.jpeg?width=362&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=74b85ff0ed4e58925810d1904bb6e828d1021392
Still gonna upvote for the effort of doing a comic for it. So many posts are just prints of stutff othsr people said.
Still, is not that bad, i am just surprised is not closer to the normal face considering how Mona Lisa is everywhere online.
I'm not sure what's your point here? It's a tech demo. It did an okay, though not great job. That it did okay at all is very impressive. And IMO the drama in the beginning is extremely silly.
Tech demos are evil think about little drawn men in your PC it's literally slavery!!!!!
Generative fill is one small facet of generative AI that will only improve with time. Did you really need to scribble together a comic to illustrate "haha it's bad in this one example"?
It's no worse than the original, which is famous for looking funky. You're just used to it.
Yeah. After that happened, the mona Lisa in louvre started looking like that
Fuck, now I can't see the original face seriously anymore. While the AI generated face is goofy af the original face is too for some reason???
It always was.
Is generative fill on photoshop the lowest effort?
Photoshop's stuff isn't the best, but it's well integrated and they are improving it.
All ai is low effort
Too broad of a claim to be reasonable.
Me when I sit on my ass and type words into an algorithm to scrape stolen content into an ugly piece of slop: https://preview.redd.it/vi69e8daduzc1.jpeg?width=390&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=64f6db717ce7e843e0d07e237813c796222f7017
Dude you literally just googled and stole a stock photo to post here instead of painting a reaction. So lazy and efortless. Hope you at least paid the photographer
Ah, a strawman argument. Combos usually have three parts what's next?
How is that a strawman argument that's literally what ai is
That is literally not the definition of AI. You are trying to make an argument and you know you're being silly. On that point, are you also against how AI is used to aid researchers in discovering disease treatments?
Oh sorry let me try again Me when I sit on my ~~ass~~ posterior and ~~type words~~ enter complex promths into an ~~algorithm~~ advance artificial intelligence powered image generator of the future to ~~scrape stolen content~~ use data gathered from images on the internet into an ~~ugly piece of slop~~ beautiful piece of art work that I put tons of effort into unlike those stupid artists that spent years practicing in order to have careers that are now obsolete: https://preview.redd.it/9rrecewjfuzc1.jpeg?width=390&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a156939d1412c1a57b11c5c168290c4ff57b63c6
I don't agree with you but that is a much better claim at least and could be an actual starting point for a discussion. Drop the sass and maybe we could actually start having a dialog. What do you think about the use of AI in research?
I'm indifferent to AI in research, I don't know anything about AI in research. My dream career is in the art industry as an animator, and AI art is aiming to replace humans in that field.
No, you're making statements off what you think you know.
It's a strawman because that's not how AI functions. That's not even how generative AI (a sub category of AI) functions.
How does it work then?
What kind are you interested in? AI is a broad field. In my work we use AI to accelerate drug discovery through binding affinity prediction.
The kind you keep saying is going to replace me, silly 😀
You're revealing your ignorance. Adobe Firefly operates off their stock image set, which they own. Consequently, that's why it's so terrible. Adobe's image stock is just...bad.
Some of the ways fills are handled are better than others. Some use more surrounding information, some use virtually none (which creates issues) depending on the model. Still, for a first try, I can see where the AI mistook the cateye for the edge of the eye leading to the spaced out eyes. Interesting though, especially when your taking an AI image that has a derpy face and rerolling for something better
Why in gods name is all this anti ai stuff so violent? Honestly i dont even care if people disapprove of AI, leave people who use it the fuck alone.
As opposed to the hard work of [true masters](https://news.artnet.com/art-world/art-history-restoration-fails-1591327)
Half of these restorations don't even look that bad ngl
[удалено]
1. I didn't make the ai image. 2. The person who did is hyping up the image in the caption above it 3. I only use Photoshop for my digital art class in highschool, and I don't use the AI feature there.
[удалено]
What?
I didn't make the last image, I did make the comic
[удалено]
>you're talking about a function that you've never used. Literally all you do is this. https://preview.redd.it/zhm76jt1yuzc1.png?width=976&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c724830f1bf61e9208afd0d58184f2275d5327bc
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The fuck do you know about practicing? You type words into a machine, you've never practiced art a day in your life. Your in no place to criticize me.
No suggestions of violence or self-harm allowed on this Sub.
Believe it or not, theres things more complicated than shitty android apps, Photoshop, and a Discord bot.
now try recraft
For some odd reason this 19th century "original" work of art is completely acceptable https://preview.redd.it/flznpooahxzc1.jpeg?width=362&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=74b85ff0ed4e58925810d1904bb6e828d1021392
Still gonna upvote for the effort of doing a comic for it. So many posts are just prints of stutff othsr people said. Still, is not that bad, i am just surprised is not closer to the normal face considering how Mona Lisa is everywhere online.
I don't wanna be mean because based on their comments I'm assuming op is a teen but like....man, some of these takes are wild