Not sure where the corrections are, look at the complete mess around her belt, sleeves, broken collarbone with hair melding into it, and collar that doesn't know what shape it's supposed to be. It's kind of annoying to see images with extremely blatant artefacting and no discernible human input (big ugly watermark notwithstanding I guess) churned out en masse and getting away with ai-assisted over ai-generated because the creator claims to have a drawing program installed alongside SD.
Actual ai-assisted would be stuff like guilegaze's, for contrast. I personally don't like it either, but it meets the standard of "edited to not look like garbled garbage", unlike this pic. I feel like most claims of photoshop/CSP/MS Paint/whatever retouching in twitter bios come from people who aren't trying at all and just want an easy #NotLikeTheOtherProompters badge.
Not sure where the corrections are, look at the complete mess around her belt, sleeves, broken collarbone with hair melding into it, and collar that doesn't know what shape it's supposed to be. It's kind of annoying to see images with extremely blatant artefacting and no discernible human input (big ugly watermark notwithstanding I guess) churned out en masse and getting away with ai-assisted over ai-generated because the creator claims to have a drawing program installed alongside SD.
Actual ai-assisted would be stuff like guilegaze's, for contrast. I personally don't like it either, but it meets the standard of "edited to not look like garbled garbage", unlike this pic. I feel like most claims of photoshop/CSP/MS Paint/whatever retouching in twitter bios come from people who aren't trying at all and just want an easy #NotLikeTheOtherProompters badge.
i feel like some people are misinterpreting what i'm saying. i'm not really talking about this piece specifically, and i personally hate the involvement of ai in any capacity, so the distinction is kinda moot for me. i was just asking if it being "corrected in photoshop" like azusachan suggested would qualify it as ai-assisted rather than ai-generated, since this was tagged as ai-generated when i originally commented.
but yeah, it's funny to think about people claiming they touched up their ai slop, lol. it's like they couldn't get any clout from pretending their ai art was real, so the next best thing was to pretend they at least helped make it look better somehow
They decide the output using prompt words. They help make it look better or correct, so a third arm doesn't appear out of nowhere or strange artifacts contaminate the picture. Of course, given their lack of experience drawing from zero, some details suffice just like noob artists that recently start drawing.
Funny thing is most of the DevianArt artists that put their "no AI" symbol on their profiles because they are against art thief, are the same people that theft from Disney, WB and anime. It's like they can't look at themselves in the mirror.
Funny thing is most of the DevianArt artists that put their "no AI" symbol on their profiles because they are against art thief, are the same people that theft from Disney, WB and anime. It's like they can't look at themselves in the mirror.
Drawing someone else's character is not stealing, especially if you're not even making a profit off it. But it wouldn't be one of your comments if you weren't saying something moronic and disingenuous.
