>>2858179
>>2858334
AI is only bad when you notice it or someone tells you
otherwise it's just art - theres good and bad, and just like human art 80% of it is bad but that doesn't mean the other 20% isn't good>>2858707
ok, and when noone tells you it's AI, it's perfectly acceptable? you can't tell the difference between high quality generative art and manual art anymore, and whatever slim gap there is is only getting smaller.

i laugh at people like you, because if social media was around in full force in the 1990s, you retards would have been saying the same shit about digital art.>>2858794
ah, i see, my mistake
you have abaolutely no idea what you're talking about outside a few buzzwords, I should have noticed earlier.>>2858776
>you can't tell the difference between high quality generative art and manual art anymore
Maybe you can't because you fried your sense of quality looking at so much AI, I sure can tell the difference. Even without the mangled fingers and other nonsensical anatomy that used to be the norm.

What you say might be true for fully clothed pics. I don't know, I don't look at those. But for anything at least semi-worthy of /e/ and beyond, AI usage is still completely obvious.

It has gotten better, as you say, but I've still not seen a single AI pic that was worth looking at, let alone keeping.>>2858776
you seem to be missing the point that people complain about it BECAUSE they can easily tell, how else do you think they even find outnice on-topic thread

previus

next

< Go back