[7moritz7]

I agree with this despite using SD a lot myself. It's fun to use until you realize the majority of people posting stuff generated with it have almost no creativity, all generating the same things over and over again, mostly without any manual work involved. that uncanny realism style with the generic Stable Diffusion face and one of 5 different poses. The number of people putting any sort of effort into it is way, way lower than the number of users thinking they are making art. It's more of a slot machine in the majority of cases

[vunderba]

Unfortunately, yeah 99.9% of images you're going to see generated from stable diffusion models are going to be either selfies, portraits, or porn.

What's you're not going to see is things like "a divine gigantic textile loom sewing together a white horse and a black horse in an interlaced pattern to create a zebra." for example.

[ToucanLoucan]

Honestly, if you want to make art, AI is a hindrance not a tool. You have to engineer what you say to maximum exactness, and even then it'll still just ignore certain words, or skip them over, or get basic details wrong.

Way back when all this stuff first popped off, I did try it out. I was unimpressed. It was like playing a game of telephone with my ideas, having to describe them into one end and have a thousand people repeat it to one another and make little contributions till it came out the other end, most of the time looking absolutely nothing like I expected.

People who say this makes art accessible... I dunno, I've never gotten it. I've seen people with all manner of disabilities, deformities, etc. all manage to express themselves creatively with practice and accessibility tools far more reliably than trying to make an AI pop out what you actually want. It seems to be the accessibility claims really only hold water if the accessibility feature is "I don't want to learn any skills" which... I mean, okay. But as with all art, your end product will reflect that level of care.