[schmidtleonard]

> I'll be blunt, all of those images look comically generic and extremely "AI".

Ok, now I know you're watching through hate goggles. Fortunately, not everyone will bring those to the party.

> Using AI is akin... [goes on to describe a clueless iterative prompting process that wouldn't get within a mile of the front page]

You've really outed yourself here. If you think it's all just iterative prompting, you are about 3 years behind the tools and workflows that allow the level of quality and consistency you see in the best AI work.

[blargey]

I scrolled through and...have to agree with their impression. I'm confused as to what you thought is being demonstrated by images on https://civitai.com/images of all things, since it's all very high-concept/low-intentionality, to put it nicely. Did you mix it up with a different link?

[Nadya]

My litmus test is to simply lie. It weeds out the people hating AI simply because they know or think it is AI. If you link directly to an AI site they're already going to say they hate it or that it all "looks like AI slop". You won't get anywhere trying to meet them at a middle ground because they simply aren't interested in any kind of a middle ground.

> https://www.reddit.com/r/greentext/comments/zq91wm/anons_dis...

Which is exactly the opposite of what the artists claim to want. But god is it hilarious following the anti-AI artists on Twitter who end up having to apologize for liking an AI-generated artwork pretty much as a daily occurrence. I just grab my popcorn and enjoy the show.

Every passing day the technologies making all of this possible get a little bit better and every single day continues to be the worst it will ever be. They'll point to today's imperfections or flaws as evidence of something being AI-generated and those imperfections will be trained out with fine tuning or LoRA models until there is no longer any way to tell.

E: A lot of them also don't realize that besides text-to-image there is image-to-image for more control over composition as well as ControlNet for controlling poses. More LoRA models than you can imagine for controlling the style. Their imagination is limited to strictly text-to-image prompts with no human input afterwards.

AI is a tool not much different than Photoshop was back when "digital artists aren't real artists" was the argument. And in case anyone has forgotten: "You can't Ctrl+Z real art".

Ask any fractal artists the names they were called for "adjusting a few settings" in Apophysis.

E2:

We need more tests such as this. The vast majority of people can't identify AI nearly as well as they think they can identify AI - even people familiar with AI who "know what to look for".

https://www.tidio.com/blog/ai-test/

Artworks (3/4) | Photos (6/7) | Texts (3/4) | Memes (2/2)

Fun excerpt by the way:

> Respondents who felt confident about their answers had worse results than those who weren’t so sure

> Survey respondents who believed they answered most questions correctly had worse results than those with doubts. Over 78% of respondents who thought their score is very likely to be high got less than half of the answers right. In comparison, those who were most pessimistic did significantly better, with the majority of them scoring above the average.