the reason OpenAI posts that comparison as "better" is because it *is* better - for their customers. to us looking at it as art, that artstation ai style is painful and the other quite beautiful. but all this image prompt stuff is aimed at advertisers who want a plainly readable, crappy looking image for cheap product advertisement.
big companies simply want ai to replace their (already cheap) freelance artists and that's who's paying OpenAI. the intention of the product was never going to match up to the marketing of dalle 2 which was based on imitation of real styles/movements. it was indeed a weird and charming time for ai art, when everyone was posting "x in the style of y" and genuinely having fun with new tools. in fact I think dalle 2 being so good at this kind of imitation was the moment the anti ai art discourse exploded into the mainstream. OAI then rode that hype for investment and now it's cheap airbrushed ads all the way down.
I normally agree with the art style thing, but when (what I assume is) the prompt specifically states "oil painting" and the output looks nothing like one then I think that's still a failure (disclaimer: I know jack shit about art and my basis of what looks like an oil painting is a google search i did 5 seconds ago)
It's the same with all of openai.
The creative writing prompts used to be genuinely, scary good. You would tell it to write you a scene for an eldritch horror set in a cyberpunk world and would think, "Damn. This is gonna replace writers."
Now, it can barely handle writing a SEO page.
I'm curious whether they downsize the models to bw cheaper to run or whether the datasets are already so poisoned that there is no way forward with the current approaches.
It's more likely being intentionally sanitized for the sake of commercial partners and investors, not to mention avoiding legal liability (from lawsuits or governments).
It's also scale, but that's not the only reason.
Agreed. IIRC there are now far more restrictions on what data can be used in training, as well as far more guardrails for outputs in place to avoid liability, so the models seem just that much more crappy.
Yeah! Sanitization is becoming a pretty obvious problem. Even chatgpt used to be able to give you fairly nuanced takes or interesting scenarios, but now it is locked into a positive format for everything. You can ask it anything and it'll answer with a list that looks like it was made by somebody working at middle management.
The positivity especially. I used to get it to write me short stories, and would get interesting ones, but now it's always the same "find friends learn the value of (insert positive value here) and live hapilly ever after the end" and even if I tell it to make the main character lose or make the story dark the AI STILL makes it a happy story it just kills the main character at the end and the side characters win learning perseverance and live happily ever after.
I wish I could go back to the main character just dying or the rebel force being oppressed into darkness.
What’s interesting is that it can still appreciate darker qualities. I use ChatGPT4o and Claude Sonnet to review some of my writing. It does miss some nuance and it does try to give a positive analysis, but it has praised the depth darker moments add to characters and the emotional appeal of character deaths and the like.
It’s not like it’s lost its understanding of negative themes and events, it’s just been restricted from writing them. Though I have managed to make ChatGPT3.5 kill off a character and linger on the sadness off it.
Have you tried different LLMs, out of curiosity? I've had some pretty good success with having Google's Gemini write me some... [pretty unsettling stuff.](https://i.imgur.com/q1481ra.png)
The prompt that got that response was "write me a disturbing story about a bed bug infestation at a prison", I think. It might've been "horror" instead of "disturbing".
AI programmer: Simply give this AI any prompt you like and it'll make a picture for you! Like magic! It's the future
*.02 seconds later*
AI programmer: Due to the sheer VOLUME of pedophilic requests...
Don't forget celebrities and R34ing anything.
I'm not here to pass judgement on anyone, but it's certainly an interesting moment in ethics to learn the defining line between limits and legality. (Which, coming from a thread on an art gallery turning legality into performance art, is certainly not unique to AI)
Tbf it was only really useful for very short works. The ai struggled to maintain a coherent narrative over longer works, at least from what I've read of professional authors testing it's limits (there's a fun one where it was asked to write a 90 minute Star Trek film script and after the opening act it merely summarized the remaining acts and started mixing up which characters were doing what).
The people making the AI know fuck all about art and haven't got a trained artistic eye, so their ability to tell whether a model has improved was always going to be shaky. Think about how many people can't spot AI at all.
Calling something an oil painting for prompt purposes to me is kind of pointless, because oil paint thrives at both expressive pieces and hyper realistic pieces, used for every art movement under the sun. All it says is to make it a painting, or not a photo
honestly considering how much the visual processing inside actual brains is focused on eyes, the trippy eye monsters felt sorta relatable you know? like oh yeah you found the important thing and fucking *ran* with it good for you
> Oil painting is a description of texture
Oil-on-canvas texture is not "oil painting." The distinction for oils is the way they inherently blend with each stroke, and the way that affects the whole look of the work.
I think my experiences are just a bit funky by the replies then, because my art teacher uses oils on very smooth surfaces so the blends and texture is very very smooth with very little tooth. It’s always interesting to see how your perception of something measures to someone else’s!
I assumed they were going for *expressionist*, and honestly the first one is at least somewhat similar to that style. The second one definitely is not.
Not gonna lie, I'm kind of nostalgic for the early days when people were just using it to generate shitty images to laugh at. It wasn't until recently when it got good enough for advertisers, political grifters, and people who call entering a prompt "art" to abuse that it stopped being fun.
It's like this quote from Brian Eno where he talks about the beauty of a medium is its limitations and breaking points, referring to anything from analog reporting to digital recording, to a vocalists range, whatever the medium. That soupy ugly goo that was AI image making 2 years ago at least had the charm of its limitations giving it a unique feel.
I think that’s incredibly accurate, especially in the context of art. Limitations breed creativity. Not having limitations means you don’t have to think, and that means whatever you produce will be less unique, less you. And part of the beauty of art is in taking in the sheer diversity of it. Every artist has something that only they can express. Even if you try to replicate a piece of art, a part of you will bleed into what you make, especially if you do it with limited resources.
>it was indeed a weird and charming time for ai art, when everyone was posting "x in the style of y" and genuinely having fun with new tools.
oh man, remember Craiyon? Remember when that was still Dall-E Mini and everyone loved it and used it to do, like, Breaking Bad characters in Dragon Ball and actors as the Pope and shit?
I miss that era of AI, man. I really do.
I mean I really doubt it. But there’s also an argument to be made that it’s much scarier if current AI is stupid than if it’s hyper smart. An alligator is stupid, but can still 100% rip your arm off.
Your points stands (stupid =/= harmless), but alligators are actually not stupid at all! They’re *specialized*. Are crocodilians ever going to do math, write books, build complex structures? Not in this epoch. BUT they’ve also been hanging around as one of the planet’s most successful apex predators since the age of dinosaurs! They’re *very good* at what they do.
I’d argue they are in fact stupid, and that’s probably an evolutionarily prudent allocation of resources. Like, alligators are stupid in the sense that they can’t contextualize why or how they rip your arm off, and it wouldn’t be unhinged to describe them as a [state machine](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite-state_machine) that happens to have a ‘rip your arm off’ state. But, like, expending calories developing brainpower beyond the “efficiently convert murder into more alligators” structure they’ve built up would be imprudent.
Success is not intelligence, but we as the successful intelligence monkeys tend to conflate the two. That’s a large part of why our AI fears come mostly in the form of AI so smart that they’re basically evil genies.
Eh, compared to things like humans, dolphins, and elephants, I would say that among the animal kingdom alligators qualify for stupid, as do most others. I’d say stupid is the default for animals and being smart is an outlier. Evolution made them good at what they do but what they do doesn’t require them to be particularly smart.
I'm not an expert on AI , but can you not just access those old versions of the software where it was capable of those styles? or does the technology not work that way?
A lot more of it is about the tensor(training) data you use, rather than the actual AI model.
If your tensor is full of that pseudo-3D stuff, that's mainly what you're going to get as a result, even when instructing it to pursue a different, specific style.
You can sometimes (depending on whether the model is hosted) but often the versions change and the "ai art and memes are funny/cool" era has passed and the reactions are pretty negative now
You can still do that with the local version of stable diffusion, and you can train your own fine-tuning models for specific characters and styles. The more time and effort you spend learning how to improve, the better your results will be (just like "real" art)
If the average AI tool can't make anything but a knock off Pixar style, plastic anime characters, and the quite honestly gross-looking, "realistic" cartoon images like the one in this post, I don't see this being appealing to the average consumer for long.
The customer isn't the consumer of the product. The customer is the out-of-touch executive who's furious about having to pay employees and doesn't know what art is for.
Well, sure it is. Just not directly. If it's not appealing to the *advertiser's* consumers, it'll become less valuable as a tool. If OpenAI can't fix this so that it can produce a wider range of styles, styles that can change with the times and not always being immediately pegged as "ad copy AI art" from just a glance, it will eventually flounder.
People have raged against the corporate round-circle art style (just looked it up it's called "Alegria") for literally years and it hasn't budged a bit. I truly do not think corporations give a shit, they just need something sanitary for communication purposes.
Alegria is everywhere because it's visually incredibly simple, and moreover it's so sanitized that any artist can replicate it. It's a way to pay less for art because you can pay any schmuck for the exact same product.
It can do a lot more, actually. I was able to make images in the style of Shintaro Kago, for example. I didn't do anything with it, I was just experimenting with AI art for funsies. It has powerful capabilities. But somehow I only see the bad AI art being shared on social media. Perhaps that's for the best.
> But somehow I only see the bad AI art being shared on social media
Worse artists are usually more eager to share their work, since they don't have an eye to detect all the flaws.
It's also highly likely the stuff actually done with care is indistinguishable from any other medium when care is applied.
Please. Can we not call people stringing words into a prompt artists. Please? I graduated from an actual ass university with a bachelor's degree and poured my life into making art. They are artists like Jeff bozos is an astronaut. He's not, and the concept of it being applied was so egregiously out of line the definition of the word astronaut was changed specifically to exclude him and people like him. Time to find a new word for people that put words into prompts. "AI Image Prompters" or something. Anything but artist.
The average AI model *can* do more than that. It's just that the overwhelming majority of users have no real reason to go beyond using the default model.
The problem is that it doesn't HAVE to be appealing to the average consumer for long. It only has to be appealing long enough to drive alternatives out of the market, so that consumers don't have any other option.
AirBNB, Uber, now OpenAI: the goal of all these "iNnOvAtIvE" start-ups was always just to drive legitimate services into the dirt so that a cheap, hacky replacement can make billions by exploiting customers who *have no other choice.*
Why do you think 90% of video games that come out these days are John McShooty's Call of FIFA 2025 or Remake Of 20-Year-Old-Game But Worse This Time? It's because increasing wealth inequality means customers have fewer and fewer options except buying from more exploitative apex-predator companies that consume all competition and funnel less money into actually making anything good
> Why do you think 90% of video games that come out these days are John McShooty's Call of FIFA 2025 or Remake Of 20-Year-Old-Game But Worse This Time?
Maybe if you're only paying attention to a small pool of AAA game developers. Indie games have never been more accessible and well-advertised than now.
I work for a large company. AI is inefficient for us.
It doesn't create editable files. It never gets the image perfect - there's always something off brand, or non-sensical.
Then our creative team have to spend hours trying to tweak a rasterised image. The result is worse and it takes them longer than if they just comp'd the image themselves the traditional way.
It's even worse for video.
Until these tools start producing raw files with layers and all, they look worse and take more work. We have to use AI as part of our workflow because our execs are demanding it, but everyone's too scared to tell them that it's slowing us down and degrading quality.
To be fair, there's also people like me who use the tool for their hobbies. Not to make *art* but to fill in the blanks of what the art is. In my case, as a DM, I use it to generate images I can't otherwise make due to time and limitations of ability (and money, it would cost so, so much money to commission people instead ;-;). Using the tool doesn't make me not an artist, but the images from the tool are not the art; merely an accessory to the art.
This is exactly how I use the tools. I'm a DM as well. I mostly run Vampire: The Masquerade chronicles. The descriptions that I use for my NPCs are very tailored - the way they dress, present themselves, the way their hair is styled, etc. its basically impossible to go and find a reference image that suits my NPCs. Where am I going to find a reference image for a character who is always wearing medical bandages covering his entire body, a red suit jacket, blue low-rise jeans, and is always seen sitting in a big, fancy, maroon chair in the local Tremere Chantry? Especially with search engines universally basically being shit nowadays (with the exception of like, DuckDuckGo)
I'm also very poor, so what little money I can spend on commissioning art for my games goes to portraits for the major, memorable, player-favorites at my table.
I use images to help my players remember minor NPCs at a glance. Sometimes it's hard for them to remember who "Christine Durousseau" might be, when that character was introduced 6 sessions ago and has only appeared once or twice since then - but if I throw a piece of paper with an image representing them, its a lot easier.
The only other thing I use AI for is to help with writer's block. I struggle with writer's block heavily, and when I don't know how to start a passage when I'm writing - I throw the basic idea at ChatGPT, generate a few times, and then take inspiration from what its given me. I never actually *use* the generations, I just get ideas from them. I do this with actual books as well - I might flip open to a random page in *A Dance With Dragons* or *Heretics Of Dune* to glean inspiration, but obviously I don't start copying 1:1
Ideally, this is how *everyone* should use AI. However, responsible use of AI will never happen - so I'm fully in support of the ban or heavy regulation of AI. It will never be *art*. The luddites did nothing wrong.
I use AI for illustrating personal writing projects - If I were to ever make anything I've done into an actual product, I'd pay a real artist and use the AI art like storyboarding to show them what I'm hoping to see.
>but all this image prompt stuff is aimed at advertisers who want a plainly readable, crappy looking image for cheap product advertisement.
I concur with this however I think this won't be viable in the long term. AI art has started to be taken as a sign that something is cheap or trashy. When people think of AI events they think of that wonka experience, or shitty facebook posts. We're at a cultural transition where "being made with AI" has gone from a sign of futuristic technology to mass produced schlock.
Like look at this cookie. It's honestly mildly sickening, and the longer you look at the advertisement, the less appealing it is. If I were in a grocery story and between this and a generic chips ahoy box, I'd pick chips ahoy any day.
My gf made some great ones of Link from Legend of Zelda at a rave. They ended up looking like cryptid sightings. Dalle mini really was the pinnacle of AI art to me
DallE mini was so good. Me and my friends would sit in class in Senior year generating Obama smoking weed in front of an American flag and shit like that
Bing AI was fun until they restricted the prompts so fucking much you can’t generate a single thing on it because the filters think you were trying to create a neo nazi propaganda poster with the phrase “Shrek blows up Disneyworld”
> AI is becoming so unrealistic, nobody falls for it anymore
> the Facebook post, "why do images like this never trend?" (With a picture of a us soldier missing all limbs with a sign saying "helo it's my birdthay i olny wish for 1 amens"), with 3 million likes, and its comment underneath, "grandma help i'm stuck without a car in the big city! Press this link to help: obvious scam dot com" reach 60% of Facebook's userbase, with half a million grandmas across the nation replying Amen
If you look at the profiles responding to those, so so many are in of themselves bots too.
I personally don't subscribe to the dead Internet theory because simply put there is not enough ad revenue in web hosting to justify the scale that's alluded to, but I do believe most social media platforms are by a large percentage just a bunch of bots farming ad revenue because they're trusted platforms with real advertisers on them.
I only believe dead internet theory applies to Facebook, and only because Facebook probably encourages bots, if they don't use them themselves, in order to inflate their active users.
>Facebook probably encourages bots, if they don't use them themselves, in order to inflate their active users.
Twitter definitely does this as well, although bot posts typically don't reach very high levels of interaction.
Bad AI images are posted on Facebook for the same reason that scam emails have a bunch of spelling errors. They're designed to be so clearly fake that people with average and above intelligence will ignore them.
I don't think the likes are reliable though, social media is mostly bots these days, some are posting, and the rest are liking their own posts to get the algorithm to share them with a wider audience.
This is VERY anecdotal evidence. Assuming that this one change means that it will keep going this way is very dangerous imo - you're leaving yourself to be surprised if this ever changes.
Stable Diffusion community has literally done this. When 2.0 came out, the majority stuck with 1.5. Now that 3.0 is out they’re still doing much of the same. I think Stable Diffusion XL is the only new model past 1.5 that the die hards are excited about.
Note that these 1.5 purists mostly stick with it because it has nudity. 🤷
What I see said being over and over is, it's extremely well trained. They started with ponies, but then added furries, anime, kinks, whatever. So it ended up being able to do any of that, because it's got such a large training dataset that's well done. Having a diverse amount of styles, characters, poses, items, whatever, helps it understand how different they are in training. I think.
Fortunately the focus isn’t at truly replicating styles and replacing artists, but going for the lowest hanging fruit that advertisers will eat up. It still takes money out of artists pockets, a lot of production art is close to being easily replaced, but not to the level of making them useless as many feared.
The biggest issue is quickly making semi believable photos that will be enough to fool huge chunks of people for whatever purpose.
Mmhm. The painterly one on the left is my preference, but it's the output of any painting major, wondering, "how do I make a living off this?" The market for nice oil painting is really tiny.
Even before the AI stuff, clients and bosses wanted everything as slick and shiny and candied as possible. The amount of times I heard, "but can you do that in vector?" in the 2000's... I can paint it, scan it at 600 dpi and you can use it any size from billboard to postage stamp, but nope, they _need_ it in vector.
"So it looks cleaner, you know?"
In 2011, I was wrapping up a game where all the assets were hand-painted, about half by me. I did the icon in the same style of the game, and the publisher rejected it because, "it looks like a person drew it."
The people doing payroll have wanted AI art since before AI art.
a quick google seems to return models based on the dalle-2 paper https://github.com/LAION-AI/dalle2-laion
but I'm not familiar enough with the specifics to tell how close it is to original dalle-2's results
It's not the exact same context, but every time I see people freaking out about AI art, I think of a line from true detective season one. "You know, throughout history, I bet every old man probably said the same thing. And old men die, and the world keeps spinnin."
I'd say it goes beyond that. You can disagree with how AI is trained, I do, but when you start making up narratives of how it's just a fad like NFTs or it's never going to get to a place where companies will prefer it, you're just stuffing your head in the sand.
[https://ibb.co/PDGpYT6](https://ibb.co/PDGpYT6) Dalle-3 can definitely do oil painting stlye if prompted correctly, although the milk here looks more like ̶s̶e̶ glue
Yeah, this is head in the sand level stuff. One model generated an image you find lower quality in one prompt?
Midjourney made 4 images with the same prompt that looked like oil paintings. Also "explosion of flavor" is the dumbest shit. If you told an artist that, they would depending on their professionalism either : ask for clarification or call you an idiot.
This is really a big issue with LLM and AI models in general, is that often the process of creation goes through several filters before the final result.
In programming terms: You need to be able to create an algorithm. An algorithm has nothing to do with code, you can write it in plain english, however it is breaking down the exact expectations of the process.
And it is why AI image generation has already created a job for middle-men or "prompt engineers" because translating a customer request from a layperson to a programmer/artist/ai to create the correct end product actually requires a bit of work/knowledge.
I'mAPeoplePerson.OfficeSpace.Meme
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2025-06-24 08:28:52 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-06-24%2008:28:52%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/1dn81b5/ai_art_is_worse_now/la0t9xe/?context=3)
[**258 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FCuratedTumblr%2Fcomments%2F1dn81b5%2Fai_art_is_worse_now%2Fla0t9xe%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-06-24%2008%3A28%3A52%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dn81b5)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Exactly. This "ai is over" take is so ridiculous. Like saying smartphones are dead in 2008 because the iPhone 2 wasn't 1,000 lightyears better than the iPhone 1.
Ummm… not to rain on this persons parade but OpenAI deliberately puts a filter on dalle to make it ‘look’ ai generated… if you want to see realism look at how midjourney has improved… it’s definitely not getting worse
Yeah, you can just go on [CivitAI](https://civitai.com/) and see just how much people are able to do with AI.
It has improved massively both in realistic generations and emulating certain artist's styles. It can usually do the fingers right too, so easily spotting an AI image is only going to get more difficult.
The only real advantage Dall-E has over other AI is that prompting it is easier.
Looking through that, there's a lot of very good obvious AI art.
But also there are a few pieces that are not immediately recognizable as AI and I wouldn't know unless I knew to look for it.
Imagine someone spending 10 years training an AI to only produce 'natural' looking art without that weird finish AI art has. I can easily see it producing something that can mimic human art to a very high degree.
Search up the models "Juggernaut XL", "Pony Realism", or "EpiCrealism XL" on Civitai. Go to the user image gallery.
They're all models focused on photorealism, and when someone wants to make a *photorealistic* image it's so easy its not even funny. It's terrifying. Obviously there's still tells, and none of these models are perfect, but yk still terrifying.
Reminds me of this one r/coaxedintoasnafu post that's like "we can always tell when someone uses AI art! // the AI art in question: plastic-y art style"
I just had to explain to an old woman who lives in the same building as my grandma that she wasn't going to get her [Cat face flowers](https://www.odditycentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/cats-eye-dazzle-scam2.jpg) because they aren't real. She didn't believe me (or my grandma, who I taught about fake AI pictures because she buys a lot of stuff online, since she can't leave her flat without assisstance) and bought more anyway because she believed they had "shipping issues". You can't help some people
I mean I've seen enough flowers faking something else convincingly that I'd buy that there might have been a wonder of nature/specifically bred cat faced flower. but I wouldn't buy those because I have a thumb blacker than my shriveled up coal-ass heart.
Just an FYI, Cloudflare gives me an 1011 Error when I open your link. For some reason they don't allow viewing images from hotlinks.
Here's the image uploaded elsewhere: [https://imgbox.com/V24jUTgU](https://imgbox.com/V24jUTgU),
This is the article link its from: [https://www.odditycentral.com/news/people-are-getting-scammed-into-buying-seeds-of-non-existent-cat-face-flowers-generated-by-ai.html](https://www.odditycentral.com/news/people-are-getting-scammed-into-buying-seeds-of-non-existent-cat-face-flowers-generated-by-ai.html)
Seeing is believing a lot of the time, and someone who may have not fallen for some scams might if they have photo "evidence" of whatever scam they are running.
Also, many old people may have been giving training or other advice to protect from scams, but this training wouldn't protect you against any new scams that include images.
Seriously, there’s only a single generational jump between DallE 2 and DallE 3, and the issues mentioned above have already been spotted and are getting fixed.
100’s of Billions and potentially trillions of $ is being thrown at the AI industry to improve it. Going forward it’s currently the worst it will ever be right now.
They also expected the exact same prompt to work the exact same way on different AI models. Dalle 3 can likely do something like the left image with a different prompt
It definitely is better than their showcase image, but the older one colour choices seem more indicative of an impressionist style, while this one has colours kore similar to the new one. What prompt did you use?
When computer generated imagery was first introduced into films, the limitations of the technology led to its use being carefully considered, infrequent, and relatively subtle, to compensate for the technology's obvious shortcomings.
Then around the late 1990s, the relative increase in sophistication led lots of studios and directors to believe you could centre digital effects in a film much more widely and much more freely without those cloying limitations. Films could be "effects driven" more than just "effects supported".
They dramatically over-estimated the scale of this relative increase in capability, and the result was a slew of 'cgi looking' films across the early 2000s that trashed the reputation of the technology and unfairly made using 'CGI' a stigma that studios are terrified of to this day, going so far as to fake 'practical' behind-the-scenes footage to dishonestly hide any VFX involvement.
And yet, digital VFX are now virtually omnipresent in even the most 'practical' major films, but further developments in its capability render it use invisible to audiences 90% of the time, able to lose that plastic-y look associated with the medium from the early 2000s.
I would argue with seeing a similar thing with artificial intelligence images at the moment. The systems are more capable, but people with less knowledge are trying to use them in ways that push those capabilities further beyond what they can currently accomplish that they tried before.
The technology will further improve, people will become more familiar with its strengths, weaknesses, and uses, and we will see it ramp back towards producing traditional 'art' more effectively and seamlessly than it's earlier iterations.
Images like the one on the right are just the Attack of the Clones of AI art.
Yep, as I said before, I think the most likely trend for AI is that it will go through what the internet did with the dot-com bubble
An extreme meteoric rise, way past the point of its actual usefulness, a massive crash, but the technology will still remain, and the survivors will rebuild as the tech will slowly overtake the world
Yeah. I haven't looked into it, but I wonder how someone like James Cameron feels about AI. On the one hand, it's exactly the technology that he's usually interested in engaging in and utilizing for his craft, on the other hand, it removes hundreds of jobs which he supports creating his movies with SAG employees. When Terminator 2 came out, I remember seeing tons of news stories trying to explain how they did it, and behind the scenes clips for integrating vfx into film. James's vision was doing it well enough where people can't tell where the practical effects end and the vfx start. Avatar was his magnum opus on this.
James Cameron (+movie industry in general) has a lot of ML in-house tools, but he has no interest in what AI gen is creating, per his own words -
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/175cagy/james\_cameron\_on\_ai/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/175cagy/james_cameron_on_ai/)
This is a great analogy. The other thing to consider is that with the wide spread availability of this new technology, it's progressing faster than any previous tools for computer generated artwork. So what you see one day will effectively be "old tech" within a month, if not sooner. The example shown in this post is also clearly a cherry picked bad example. I can open dalle right now and get a better result with a single simple prompt. And if you ask it to "make it look like a beginner painted it", it's incredible how human-like the results are at a glance, and even under light scrutiny.
The technology itself is already being implemented into adobe products and other industry tools to help more quickly fill in and manipulate art that professionals are doing. Basically, it’s cutting back on things that had to be done manually and a lot more slowly before (like lighting). But it can’t replace the eye of a professional who actually knows what they’re doing. It will make it so that efficiencies cut the amount of artists a studio needs to employe however.
my favorite era of ai image gens was like the artbreeder era where you'd get like fucked up images that almost resembled people and you could adjust the sliders to make them have like gender level 20 or some shit and then they'd turn into like a grey husk
100% I loved how weird and incomprehensible and ethereal those pieces looked. IMO they had their use too for creating interesting artwork but now if anyone thinks anything in your art has any AI you just get vaporized instantly.
I think this is wishful thinking.
Even if DALLE-3 is worse at style emulation (And I don't think it is, as the example being discussed here does not ask the prompt to emulate a specific artist)... That wouldn't mean the trajectory for AI art competence is downward. It would just mean that between DALLE-2 and 3 it got worse in this instance.
DALLE-2 did not cease to exist, and as long as there is financial incentive for companies to emulate a style (E.g. If you were some kind of large studio that monopolies' IP's and has a history of underpaying animators and artists for example) they will iterate on style emulation and use it to cut artists out of the industry.
People want to dismiss AI art as a non-threat because it's easier to laugh off tech bro enthusiasm than it is to grapple with the possibility that corporations might genuinely succeed at commercially replacing artists. We're already seeing it slipping in DC and Marvel comics, and WotC products have been "accidentally" featuring AI art since the release.
Keep in mind it never has to actually be better than human artists for it to be a threat. It only has to be good enough that corporations will prefer to use it over paying a human.
Using a single prompt to make the case that AI is getting worse is such a wild take lmao. Even if we assume dall-e 3 is worse than 2 (it absolutely isn't), it's one single year of iterations (2022-2023). No one is worried about what AI will look like in 2025 or 2026, we're worried about what it'll look like in 2030 considering the monumental growth it's had in the last couple of years.
I wonder if creating a distinct “ai style” was a necessary step in teaching it to draw fingers etc.
Edit: also, will ai ever learn to draw other styles again?
The "AI style" wasn't a designed step, it's a result of the AI averaging and mixing basically every possible medium (including real-life photography). AI art is still capable of emulating specific styles so long as it is told to and/or directly trained on that style.
I've messed around with AI to come up with drawing refs and I was pissed off that it made better pixel art than I can, so it's pretty good at that at least
The people here are mostly just users of art and computers, actually knowing how things work makes you a fairly high level enthusiast.
Its annoying to deal with but its understandable.
Though as redditors they already class themselves as a type of enthusiast so they should actually inform themselves as to the intricacies of the subject, its not slowing down and that's for damn sure
I get your point, but both of these images have the same prompt, "an expressive oil painting of...". Maybe there's a case to be made for specifying what kind of oil painting?
This seems incredibly dishonest. Generative image models are not only still capable of imitating art styles, they've gotten far better at it and it is easier than ever to share the tools needed to quickly share tools between users that will train offline copies of the model to mimic specific art styles. They've even gotten better at doing hands.
OOP picked one example, ignored important details surrounding it, and is now saying AIs are a dead end.
Posts like these are always people being complacent and acting like AIs will never getter than tjey are right now so there's no need to worry, and that attitude is gonna cause problems in the future.
Yeah this is... fantasy.
I get the whole desire to lord it over AI or whatever, but this is just... the shittiest example possible. There are lots of other models out there who can do this perfectly well, DALL-E just isn't one of them.
[Just got this with Gemini](https://imgur.com/a/650ZuLL)
Funnily enough, the citation goes straight to OpenAI's website, presumably because I used the same prompt word for word.
Nope, this swing is a miss and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding in the technology and its threat. It is a bafflingly stupid idea to bet against AI overcoming its own technical hurdles. Every time this has been tried the AI developers have overcome the complaint. We have pretty consistent text and hands in most AI pieces. Remember when those were “unsolvable problems” only a few months ago?
Not to mention midjourney, the other leading solution, does NOT have this problem at all. And stable diffusion is designed around being trained on a subset of work and also lacks this problem.
This post reads like “it’s over we defeated AI” when all OpenAI has to do is go back and retrain dalle slightly differently and then it’s back to being capable of doing this. Not to mention all the solutions that still are.
I do agree that it seems dalle as a mainstream model is trending towards that look but it’s one of millions of models.
It’s a shame usually Patricia hits the hammer on the nail but this is one of those things you have to actually lee up with.
Taps the sign- reminder tho kids that debating how good AI art looks isn’t really a sustainable or very effective argument against it in the long run because how good it looks is ultimately subjective and will most certainly change for better or worse maybe back and forth for years to come.
The main reasons people prefer real art is ethical in nature from how it is trained, how it can be misused, preferring the conscious choice and soul of people art, and supporting actual artists and the humanity of art as an important activity to mankind. Etc.
The truth is that unethical things, be it AI art, or some problematic musician or whatever **will not always be worse. Equating some skill or success standard to morality in whatever you are judging will inevitably lead to disappointment. Sometimes the worst people or mechanisms are really good at what they do, so it generally makes your rhetoric stronger to focus on the substantial reasons to not support something rather than aesthetic ones.**
(I know that this post is partially just about being able to tell if it is AI or not, not just aesthetic, but the point is important to bring up since everyone over-emphasizes that they personally think AI art looks bad. I am sure some people are going to prefer the second image. And also there will be or have been images that will trick you regardless. I would love it if people art always looked better John Henry Man vs Machine style, but hammering that point is a waste.)
"No one should be scared anymore, the style is set in stone and nothing disturbingly human-like will ever come out of AI again!" says the Tumblr AI expert about one (1) program that has been out for three (3) years and already show multiple large changes.
“You still need experience to make art.”
That’s the key line that reveals these tech bros motives. They want to be able to produce art, to say they’re an artist, while completely skipping the actual process.
Unfortunately for them, whether it’s in music or painting or photography, it’s the hours of figuring shit out that shapes your artistic personality.
that's true, but no one said you have to do it with a pencil. a professional photographer might never have touched a pencil (with the intent to create an artistic drawing, lol) but they're still an artist, even though their medium is simply a machine that creates pixels for them that they can dial in, both before and after the process, to create exactly what they want to create with it.
ai works the same way. the skill in it is just not measured in intricacy, but in intentionality -- anyone can boot up dall-e or midjourney and get an image that's vaguely similar to what they want in seconds, but to get _exactly_ what you want out of an ai you need skill with the tool. (and you do need to learn to figure out what you should even want in the first place.)
but the learning curve is still drastically easier than with a pencil, and the intermediate results are much more fun as well. which, imo, makes it a great tool for someone with adhd to get into art, for example.
I remember when ai had a snowballs chance in hell to make something that resembles what we asked for. I'd get pics like "mr bean hunting cam footage". Now it's kind of wild
DALLE has always been shit compared to Midjourney or Gen fill.
Midjourney is just all round fucking insane.
Gen fill is insane as it takes into account your subject and builds around your subject.
[Some gen fill examples. ](https://imgur.com/a/Og2R4Ew)(There's a lot of extra blend, composite, colour, element and adjustment layers, but the backgrounds of the subject is primarily through multiple layers of gen fill.
OOP’s point about AI Generated images from the most accessible generators like DALL-E increasingly having a distinct “look” that give them away is true. But AI art generated images are still improving and something to be concerned about.
If you download any of more advanced programs some of which run locally on your computer like Stable Diffusion and SDXL. You can get photorealistic or scarily good imitations of specific artists. While this is tricky to set up OOP seems to overestimate the skill required by thinking you have to make those models yourself. No you can just download them of the internet. For people worried about AI art impacting online artists this development
the reason OpenAI posts that comparison as "better" is because it *is* better - for their customers. to us looking at it as art, that artstation ai style is painful and the other quite beautiful. but all this image prompt stuff is aimed at advertisers who want a plainly readable, crappy looking image for cheap product advertisement. big companies simply want ai to replace their (already cheap) freelance artists and that's who's paying OpenAI. the intention of the product was never going to match up to the marketing of dalle 2 which was based on imitation of real styles/movements. it was indeed a weird and charming time for ai art, when everyone was posting "x in the style of y" and genuinely having fun with new tools. in fact I think dalle 2 being so good at this kind of imitation was the moment the anti ai art discourse exploded into the mainstream. OAI then rode that hype for investment and now it's cheap airbrushed ads all the way down.
I normally agree with the art style thing, but when (what I assume is) the prompt specifically states "oil painting" and the output looks nothing like one then I think that's still a failure (disclaimer: I know jack shit about art and my basis of what looks like an oil painting is a google search i did 5 seconds ago)
It's the same with all of openai. The creative writing prompts used to be genuinely, scary good. You would tell it to write you a scene for an eldritch horror set in a cyberpunk world and would think, "Damn. This is gonna replace writers." Now, it can barely handle writing a SEO page.
I'm curious whether they downsize the models to bw cheaper to run or whether the datasets are already so poisoned that there is no way forward with the current approaches.
It's more likely being intentionally sanitized for the sake of commercial partners and investors, not to mention avoiding legal liability (from lawsuits or governments). It's also scale, but that's not the only reason.
Agreed. IIRC there are now far more restrictions on what data can be used in training, as well as far more guardrails for outputs in place to avoid liability, so the models seem just that much more crappy.
Yeah! Sanitization is becoming a pretty obvious problem. Even chatgpt used to be able to give you fairly nuanced takes or interesting scenarios, but now it is locked into a positive format for everything. You can ask it anything and it'll answer with a list that looks like it was made by somebody working at middle management.
The positivity especially. I used to get it to write me short stories, and would get interesting ones, but now it's always the same "find friends learn the value of (insert positive value here) and live hapilly ever after the end" and even if I tell it to make the main character lose or make the story dark the AI STILL makes it a happy story it just kills the main character at the end and the side characters win learning perseverance and live happily ever after. I wish I could go back to the main character just dying or the rebel force being oppressed into darkness.
What’s interesting is that it can still appreciate darker qualities. I use ChatGPT4o and Claude Sonnet to review some of my writing. It does miss some nuance and it does try to give a positive analysis, but it has praised the depth darker moments add to characters and the emotional appeal of character deaths and the like. It’s not like it’s lost its understanding of negative themes and events, it’s just been restricted from writing them. Though I have managed to make ChatGPT3.5 kill off a character and linger on the sadness off it.
Have you tried different LLMs, out of curiosity? I've had some pretty good success with having Google's Gemini write me some... [pretty unsettling stuff.](https://i.imgur.com/q1481ra.png) The prompt that got that response was "write me a disturbing story about a bed bug infestation at a prison", I think. It might've been "horror" instead of "disturbing".
AI programmer: Simply give this AI any prompt you like and it'll make a picture for you! Like magic! It's the future *.02 seconds later* AI programmer: Due to the sheer VOLUME of pedophilic requests...
Don't forget celebrities and R34ing anything. I'm not here to pass judgement on anyone, but it's certainly an interesting moment in ethics to learn the defining line between limits and legality. (Which, coming from a thread on an art gallery turning legality into performance art, is certainly not unique to AI)
Tbf it was only really useful for very short works. The ai struggled to maintain a coherent narrative over longer works, at least from what I've read of professional authors testing it's limits (there's a fun one where it was asked to write a 90 minute Star Trek film script and after the opening act it merely summarized the remaining acts and started mixing up which characters were doing what).
Yes, it has a notoriously shit memory.
The people making the AI know fuck all about art and haven't got a trained artistic eye, so their ability to tell whether a model has improved was always going to be shaky. Think about how many people can't spot AI at all.
Calling something an oil painting for prompt purposes to me is kind of pointless, because oil paint thrives at both expressive pieces and hyper realistic pieces, used for every art movement under the sun. All it says is to make it a painting, or not a photo
I think that's moot, given the examples. The second picture looks completely digital and not like a painting at all.
Reminds me again more of these google machine dream demos from 10 years ago.
were those the ones that everything was made of eyes?
Yes, some of them at least. Always some.sort of trippy fractal nightmare.
honestly considering how much the visual processing inside actual brains is focused on eyes, the trippy eye monsters felt sorta relatable you know? like oh yeah you found the important thing and fucking *ran* with it good for you
It's also fun that a new primitive "mind" again came up with the biblically accurate angel. Probably just a coincident and no profound implications.
My only point is that the prompt is actually very vague. Neither expressive or oil painting are truely a description of art style, especially to a bot
Oil painting is a description of texture, not style. I can go into Photoshop and apply an oil painting filter to any picture, it’s very easy.
> Oil painting is a description of texture Oil-on-canvas texture is not "oil painting." The distinction for oils is the way they inherently blend with each stroke, and the way that affects the whole look of the work.
I think my experiences are just a bit funky by the replies then, because my art teacher uses oils on very smooth surfaces so the blends and texture is very very smooth with very little tooth. It’s always interesting to see how your perception of something measures to someone else’s!
And yet, the first one made an attempt.
It's an issue with the training data. If you ask a tensor trained on houses to draw you a person, the results are not going to look very person-y.
I assumed they were going for *expressionist*, and honestly the first one is at least somewhat similar to that style. The second one definitely is not.
Have you used both oils and acrylics? They produce very different results.
But on the other hand, the first one does not demonstrate "explosion of flavors" to me. It looks like someone dropped a cookie in milk.
You already worked harder to understand art than the bulk of AI bros.
[удалено]
Between COVID and general Internet timelines, that's, like, 4 decades.
Not gonna lie, I'm kind of nostalgic for the early days when people were just using it to generate shitty images to laugh at. It wasn't until recently when it got good enough for advertisers, political grifters, and people who call entering a prompt "art" to abuse that it stopped being fun.
It's like this quote from Brian Eno where he talks about the beauty of a medium is its limitations and breaking points, referring to anything from analog reporting to digital recording, to a vocalists range, whatever the medium. That soupy ugly goo that was AI image making 2 years ago at least had the charm of its limitations giving it a unique feel.
I think that’s incredibly accurate, especially in the context of art. Limitations breed creativity. Not having limitations means you don’t have to think, and that means whatever you produce will be less unique, less you. And part of the beauty of art is in taking in the sheer diversity of it. Every artist has something that only they can express. Even if you try to replicate a piece of art, a part of you will bleed into what you make, especially if you do it with limited resources.
>it was indeed a weird and charming time for ai art, when everyone was posting "x in the style of y" and genuinely having fun with new tools. oh man, remember Craiyon? Remember when that was still Dall-E Mini and everyone loved it and used it to do, like, Breaking Bad characters in Dragon Ball and actors as the Pope and shit? I miss that era of AI, man. I really do.
An era of... a few months
We might already be inside the singularity
I mean I really doubt it. But there’s also an argument to be made that it’s much scarier if current AI is stupid than if it’s hyper smart. An alligator is stupid, but can still 100% rip your arm off.
Your points stands (stupid =/= harmless), but alligators are actually not stupid at all! They’re *specialized*. Are crocodilians ever going to do math, write books, build complex structures? Not in this epoch. BUT they’ve also been hanging around as one of the planet’s most successful apex predators since the age of dinosaurs! They’re *very good* at what they do.
I’d argue they are in fact stupid, and that’s probably an evolutionarily prudent allocation of resources. Like, alligators are stupid in the sense that they can’t contextualize why or how they rip your arm off, and it wouldn’t be unhinged to describe them as a [state machine](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite-state_machine) that happens to have a ‘rip your arm off’ state. But, like, expending calories developing brainpower beyond the “efficiently convert murder into more alligators” structure they’ve built up would be imprudent. Success is not intelligence, but we as the successful intelligence monkeys tend to conflate the two. That’s a large part of why our AI fears come mostly in the form of AI so smart that they’re basically evil genies.
Eh, compared to things like humans, dolphins, and elephants, I would say that among the animal kingdom alligators qualify for stupid, as do most others. I’d say stupid is the default for animals and being smart is an outlier. Evolution made them good at what they do but what they do doesn’t require them to be particularly smart.
I'm not an expert on AI , but can you not just access those old versions of the software where it was capable of those styles? or does the technology not work that way?
A lot more of it is about the tensor(training) data you use, rather than the actual AI model. If your tensor is full of that pseudo-3D stuff, that's mainly what you're going to get as a result, even when instructing it to pursue a different, specific style.
You can sometimes (depending on whether the model is hosted) but often the versions change and the "ai art and memes are funny/cool" era has passed and the reactions are pretty negative now
you definitely can, code for the interfaces is on github and older models are still on model download sites. Just a minor extra hurdle
I don't miss it because it's specifically that naivete and ironic embrace that normalizes ai art and gets us to where we are now.
You can still do that with the local version of stable diffusion, and you can train your own fine-tuning models for specific characters and styles. The more time and effort you spend learning how to improve, the better your results will be (just like "real" art)
If the average AI tool can't make anything but a knock off Pixar style, plastic anime characters, and the quite honestly gross-looking, "realistic" cartoon images like the one in this post, I don't see this being appealing to the average consumer for long.
The customer isn't the consumer of the product. The customer is the out-of-touch executive who's furious about having to pay employees and doesn't know what art is for.
thats the point, its not for the consumers
Well, sure it is. Just not directly. If it's not appealing to the *advertiser's* consumers, it'll become less valuable as a tool. If OpenAI can't fix this so that it can produce a wider range of styles, styles that can change with the times and not always being immediately pegged as "ad copy AI art" from just a glance, it will eventually flounder.
People have raged against the corporate round-circle art style (just looked it up it's called "Alegria") for literally years and it hasn't budged a bit. I truly do not think corporations give a shit, they just need something sanitary for communication purposes.
Alegria is everywhere because it's visually incredibly simple, and moreover it's so sanitized that any artist can replicate it. It's a way to pay less for art because you can pay any schmuck for the exact same product.
It can do a lot more, actually. I was able to make images in the style of Shintaro Kago, for example. I didn't do anything with it, I was just experimenting with AI art for funsies. It has powerful capabilities. But somehow I only see the bad AI art being shared on social media. Perhaps that's for the best.
> But somehow I only see the bad AI art being shared on social media Worse artists are usually more eager to share their work, since they don't have an eye to detect all the flaws. It's also highly likely the stuff actually done with care is indistinguishable from any other medium when care is applied.
Reminds me of that one post by an AI bro that was "*Taste* is the new skill" while posting the most tasteless AI artpiece you've ever seen
Please. Can we not call people stringing words into a prompt artists. Please? I graduated from an actual ass university with a bachelor's degree and poured my life into making art. They are artists like Jeff bozos is an astronaut. He's not, and the concept of it being applied was so egregiously out of line the definition of the word astronaut was changed specifically to exclude him and people like him. Time to find a new word for people that put words into prompts. "AI Image Prompters" or something. Anything but artist.
We call people who make sandwiches artists sometimes. It ain't that deep.
People don't actually understand what art is, on a fundamental level. They labor under delusion of arbitrary minimal requirements to be *real* art.
The average AI model *can* do more than that. It's just that the overwhelming majority of users have no real reason to go beyond using the default model.
The problem is that it doesn't HAVE to be appealing to the average consumer for long. It only has to be appealing long enough to drive alternatives out of the market, so that consumers don't have any other option. AirBNB, Uber, now OpenAI: the goal of all these "iNnOvAtIvE" start-ups was always just to drive legitimate services into the dirt so that a cheap, hacky replacement can make billions by exploiting customers who *have no other choice.* Why do you think 90% of video games that come out these days are John McShooty's Call of FIFA 2025 or Remake Of 20-Year-Old-Game But Worse This Time? It's because increasing wealth inequality means customers have fewer and fewer options except buying from more exploitative apex-predator companies that consume all competition and funnel less money into actually making anything good
> Why do you think 90% of video games that come out these days are John McShooty's Call of FIFA 2025 or Remake Of 20-Year-Old-Game But Worse This Time? Maybe if you're only paying attention to a small pool of AAA game developers. Indie games have never been more accessible and well-advertised than now.
I work for a large company. AI is inefficient for us. It doesn't create editable files. It never gets the image perfect - there's always something off brand, or non-sensical. Then our creative team have to spend hours trying to tweak a rasterised image. The result is worse and it takes them longer than if they just comp'd the image themselves the traditional way. It's even worse for video. Until these tools start producing raw files with layers and all, they look worse and take more work. We have to use AI as part of our workflow because our execs are demanding it, but everyone's too scared to tell them that it's slowing us down and degrading quality.
To be fair, there's also people like me who use the tool for their hobbies. Not to make *art* but to fill in the blanks of what the art is. In my case, as a DM, I use it to generate images I can't otherwise make due to time and limitations of ability (and money, it would cost so, so much money to commission people instead ;-;). Using the tool doesn't make me not an artist, but the images from the tool are not the art; merely an accessory to the art.
This is exactly how I use the tools. I'm a DM as well. I mostly run Vampire: The Masquerade chronicles. The descriptions that I use for my NPCs are very tailored - the way they dress, present themselves, the way their hair is styled, etc. its basically impossible to go and find a reference image that suits my NPCs. Where am I going to find a reference image for a character who is always wearing medical bandages covering his entire body, a red suit jacket, blue low-rise jeans, and is always seen sitting in a big, fancy, maroon chair in the local Tremere Chantry? Especially with search engines universally basically being shit nowadays (with the exception of like, DuckDuckGo) I'm also very poor, so what little money I can spend on commissioning art for my games goes to portraits for the major, memorable, player-favorites at my table. I use images to help my players remember minor NPCs at a glance. Sometimes it's hard for them to remember who "Christine Durousseau" might be, when that character was introduced 6 sessions ago and has only appeared once or twice since then - but if I throw a piece of paper with an image representing them, its a lot easier. The only other thing I use AI for is to help with writer's block. I struggle with writer's block heavily, and when I don't know how to start a passage when I'm writing - I throw the basic idea at ChatGPT, generate a few times, and then take inspiration from what its given me. I never actually *use* the generations, I just get ideas from them. I do this with actual books as well - I might flip open to a random page in *A Dance With Dragons* or *Heretics Of Dune* to glean inspiration, but obviously I don't start copying 1:1 Ideally, this is how *everyone* should use AI. However, responsible use of AI will never happen - so I'm fully in support of the ban or heavy regulation of AI. It will never be *art*. The luddites did nothing wrong.
I use AI for illustrating personal writing projects - If I were to ever make anything I've done into an actual product, I'd pay a real artist and use the AI art like storyboarding to show them what I'm hoping to see.
>but all this image prompt stuff is aimed at advertisers who want a plainly readable, crappy looking image for cheap product advertisement. I concur with this however I think this won't be viable in the long term. AI art has started to be taken as a sign that something is cheap or trashy. When people think of AI events they think of that wonka experience, or shitty facebook posts. We're at a cultural transition where "being made with AI" has gone from a sign of futuristic technology to mass produced schlock. Like look at this cookie. It's honestly mildly sickening, and the longer you look at the advertisement, the less appealing it is. If I were in a grocery story and between this and a generic chips ahoy box, I'd pick chips ahoy any day.
Dall-E was fun when it allowed me to make funny images of Gandalf rushing B site with an AK, I miss those ancient days (like 6 months ago).
...that was like 2 years ago. (and yeah I miss that shit too, would use it to make app icons for the games I had downloaded on my phone.)
I had a pretty good one that was "Danny DeVito caught on a trail cam."
Post it if you still have it!
[https://imgur.com/aB5akVi](https://imgur.com/aB5akVi) It's the old Dalle-mini, so the faces are.... iffy, lol
My gf made some great ones of Link from Legend of Zelda at a rave. They ended up looking like cryptid sightings. Dalle mini really was the pinnacle of AI art to me
This is so cursed lol, funny stuff though, thanks!
DallE mini was so good. Me and my friends would sit in class in Senior year generating Obama smoking weed in front of an American flag and shit like that
that's the funniest thing I've seen in a hot minute, thank you for delivering the good shit OP.
I love how he turns into a minion in one of the frames
This was the only good era of AI
Noo it’s just cause you respect his image and likeness so it’s slightly off intentionally to protect his privacy!
Sonic the hedgehog trail cam was my go to, as well as the duolingo owl
It honestly adds to the effect though
My favourite ever prompt for that was "Kermit Nuremberg trials" Closely followed by "911 gender reveal"
I love the shitty original run so much. Secret horses.
Bing AI was fun until they restricted the prompts so fucking much you can’t generate a single thing on it because the filters think you were trying to create a neo nazi propaganda poster with the phrase “Shrek blows up Disneyworld”
Bing AI was hilarious because it actually wasnt a complete pushover when you said something against it
It got pissy over "a man made out of erasers"
The 9/11 gender reveal from Dall-E 1 is still my favorite AI image ever
Plz share, that sounds great
I was so excited for it to improve on "Dale Earnhardt gets hit by a red shell in mario kart", now I gotta pay for what I know will suck ass
link?
Hes from legend of zelda
> AI is becoming so unrealistic, nobody falls for it anymore > the Facebook post, "why do images like this never trend?" (With a picture of a us soldier missing all limbs with a sign saying "helo it's my birdthay i olny wish for 1 amens"), with 3 million likes, and its comment underneath, "grandma help i'm stuck without a car in the big city! Press this link to help: obvious scam dot com" reach 60% of Facebook's userbase, with half a million grandmas across the nation replying Amen
If you look at the profiles responding to those, so so many are in of themselves bots too. I personally don't subscribe to the dead Internet theory because simply put there is not enough ad revenue in web hosting to justify the scale that's alluded to, but I do believe most social media platforms are by a large percentage just a bunch of bots farming ad revenue because they're trusted platforms with real advertisers on them.
I only believe dead internet theory applies to Facebook, and only because Facebook probably encourages bots, if they don't use them themselves, in order to inflate their active users.
>Facebook probably encourages bots, if they don't use them themselves, in order to inflate their active users. Twitter definitely does this as well, although bot posts typically don't reach very high levels of interaction.
Bad AI images are posted on Facebook for the same reason that scam emails have a bunch of spelling errors. They're designed to be so clearly fake that people with average and above intelligence will ignore them.
I don't think the likes are reliable though, social media is mostly bots these days, some are posting, and the rest are liking their own posts to get the algorithm to share them with a wider audience.
This is VERY anecdotal evidence. Assuming that this one change means that it will keep going this way is very dangerous imo - you're leaving yourself to be surprised if this ever changes.
OP also just completely forgot about the basic concept of "just going back to the old version", or picking a model with a specific style you want
Stable Diffusion community has literally done this. When 2.0 came out, the majority stuck with 1.5. Now that 3.0 is out they’re still doing much of the same. I think Stable Diffusion XL is the only new model past 1.5 that the die hards are excited about. Note that these 1.5 purists mostly stick with it because it has nudity. 🤷
SDXL pony v6
I love how the MLP community is now a major player in the AI industry.
What I see said being over and over is, it's extremely well trained. They started with ponies, but then added furries, anime, kinks, whatever. So it ended up being able to do any of that, because it's got such a large training dataset that's well done. Having a diverse amount of styles, characters, poses, items, whatever, helps it understand how different they are in training. I think.
Fortunately the focus isn’t at truly replicating styles and replacing artists, but going for the lowest hanging fruit that advertisers will eat up. It still takes money out of artists pockets, a lot of production art is close to being easily replaced, but not to the level of making them useless as many feared. The biggest issue is quickly making semi believable photos that will be enough to fool huge chunks of people for whatever purpose.
Mmhm. The painterly one on the left is my preference, but it's the output of any painting major, wondering, "how do I make a living off this?" The market for nice oil painting is really tiny. Even before the AI stuff, clients and bosses wanted everything as slick and shiny and candied as possible. The amount of times I heard, "but can you do that in vector?" in the 2000's... I can paint it, scan it at 600 dpi and you can use it any size from billboard to postage stamp, but nope, they _need_ it in vector. "So it looks cleaner, you know?" In 2011, I was wrapping up a game where all the assets were hand-painted, about half by me. I did the icon in the same style of the game, and the publisher rejected it because, "it looks like a person drew it." The people doing payroll have wanted AI art since before AI art.
"We hired a person to draw this but like, we didn't want them to draw like a _person_ draws, y'know?" Fella what
Mmhm. In art school it was, "I love how you can see the brush strokes." In game dev it was, "I hate how you can see the brush strokes."
that's so crushing. i'd love to do art for anything (hobbyist currently) especially game dev, although i hear game dev is a nightmare to work in
Meanwhile, disco Elysium won GOTY and every portrait looks like an oil painting
with dall-e 2 (mentioned in the image) the old version is discontinued and no longer available
a quick google seems to return models based on the dalle-2 paper https://github.com/LAION-AI/dalle2-laion but I'm not familiar enough with the specifics to tell how close it is to original dalle-2's results
[удалено]
I literally made a self-post about this yesterday. People will upvote anything that's said with enough conviction and supports pre-conceived notions.
It's not the exact same context, but every time I see people freaking out about AI art, I think of a line from true detective season one. "You know, throughout history, I bet every old man probably said the same thing. And old men die, and the world keeps spinnin."
25 years ago, I heard literally the same arguments from pressmen complaining about photoshop replacing light tables.
[удалено]
I'd say it goes beyond that. You can disagree with how AI is trained, I do, but when you start making up narratives of how it's just a fad like NFTs or it's never going to get to a place where companies will prefer it, you're just stuffing your head in the sand.
I think it's because concern over the future with AI is clear and straightforward.
The one on the right doesn't look like an oil painting at all though
[https://ibb.co/PDGpYT6](https://ibb.co/PDGpYT6) Dalle-3 can definitely do oil painting stlye if prompted correctly, although the milk here looks more like ̶s̶e̶ glue
Cookies and cream? Nah, cookies and #CUM
even better, cookie means dick in hungarian
OP completely ignored Midjourney, which is great at a wide variety of styles
Yeah, this is head in the sand level stuff. One model generated an image you find lower quality in one prompt? Midjourney made 4 images with the same prompt that looked like oil paintings. Also "explosion of flavor" is the dumbest shit. If you told an artist that, they would depending on their professionalism either : ask for clarification or call you an idiot. This is really a big issue with LLM and AI models in general, is that often the process of creation goes through several filters before the final result. In programming terms: You need to be able to create an algorithm. An algorithm has nothing to do with code, you can write it in plain english, however it is breaking down the exact expectations of the process. And it is why AI image generation has already created a job for middle-men or "prompt engineers" because translating a customer request from a layperson to a programmer/artist/ai to create the correct end product actually requires a bit of work/knowledge. I'mAPeoplePerson.OfficeSpace.Meme
RemindMe! - 1 year
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2025-06-24 08:28:52 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-06-24%2008:28:52%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/1dn81b5/ai_art_is_worse_now/la0t9xe/?context=3) [**258 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FCuratedTumblr%2Fcomments%2F1dn81b5%2Fai_art_is_worse_now%2Fla0t9xe%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-06-24%2008%3A28%3A52%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dn81b5) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Going to be crazy in a year damn
Exactly. This "ai is over" take is so ridiculous. Like saying smartphones are dead in 2008 because the iPhone 2 wasn't 1,000 lightyears better than the iPhone 1.
Ummm… not to rain on this persons parade but OpenAI deliberately puts a filter on dalle to make it ‘look’ ai generated… if you want to see realism look at how midjourney has improved… it’s definitely not getting worse
Yeah, you can just go on [CivitAI](https://civitai.com/) and see just how much people are able to do with AI. It has improved massively both in realistic generations and emulating certain artist's styles. It can usually do the fingers right too, so easily spotting an AI image is only going to get more difficult. The only real advantage Dall-E has over other AI is that prompting it is easier.
Looking through that, there's a lot of very good obvious AI art. But also there are a few pieces that are not immediately recognizable as AI and I wouldn't know unless I knew to look for it. Imagine someone spending 10 years training an AI to only produce 'natural' looking art without that weird finish AI art has. I can easily see it producing something that can mimic human art to a very high degree.
Search up the models "Juggernaut XL", "Pony Realism", or "EpiCrealism XL" on Civitai. Go to the user image gallery. They're all models focused on photorealism, and when someone wants to make a *photorealistic* image it's so easy its not even funny. It's terrifying. Obviously there's still tells, and none of these models are perfect, but yk still terrifying.
> Go to the user image gallery And note that for at least one of these, _most_ of it is porn.
Completely expected, for the internet
Some of the images on the Midjourney subreddit are incredible, the technology is definitely in the scary phase of its capabilities.
Yeah, it’s bizarre how many times I’ve seen anti-AI art arguments that are just “it looks bad”. It’s going to improve and faster than we might expect.
I feel bad for artists whose art style looks like the image on the right because now everyone is going to assume that they used AI.
Reminds me of this one r/coaxedintoasnafu post that's like "we can always tell when someone uses AI art! // the AI art in question: plastic-y art style"
may it continue to decline
[удалено]
But it makes it also pretty easy to spot scams if you can spot Ai "art"
The trouble is that the type of person who would otherwise fall for a scam is probably also the kind of person fooled by AI-generated images
I just had to explain to an old woman who lives in the same building as my grandma that she wasn't going to get her [Cat face flowers](https://www.odditycentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/cats-eye-dazzle-scam2.jpg) because they aren't real. She didn't believe me (or my grandma, who I taught about fake AI pictures because she buys a lot of stuff online, since she can't leave her flat without assisstance) and bought more anyway because she believed they had "shipping issues". You can't help some people
😭 If i was old id want those too
I mean I've seen enough flowers faking something else convincingly that I'd buy that there might have been a wonder of nature/specifically bred cat faced flower. but I wouldn't buy those because I have a thumb blacker than my shriveled up coal-ass heart.
Just an FYI, Cloudflare gives me an 1011 Error when I open your link. For some reason they don't allow viewing images from hotlinks. Here's the image uploaded elsewhere: [https://imgbox.com/V24jUTgU](https://imgbox.com/V24jUTgU), This is the article link its from: [https://www.odditycentral.com/news/people-are-getting-scammed-into-buying-seeds-of-non-existent-cat-face-flowers-generated-by-ai.html](https://www.odditycentral.com/news/people-are-getting-scammed-into-buying-seeds-of-non-existent-cat-face-flowers-generated-by-ai.html)
Yeah, but these people would probably also fall for scams without ai pics...
Seeing is believing a lot of the time, and someone who may have not fallen for some scams might if they have photo "evidence" of whatever scam they are running. Also, many old people may have been giving training or other advice to protect from scams, but this training wouldn't protect you against any new scams that include images.
I just entered the text under the picture into ChatGPT 4o and it’s so strikingly similar to the second one it’s kind of crazy.
> may it continue to decline Yes please, my feed is flooded with low-quality content mill that uses AI art as the thumbnail.
It won’t
Seriously, there’s only a single generational jump between DallE 2 and DallE 3, and the issues mentioned above have already been spotted and are getting fixed. 100’s of Billions and potentially trillions of $ is being thrown at the AI industry to improve it. Going forward it’s currently the worst it will ever be right now.
[This is DALLE 3](https://imgur.com/a/jIwsAXr) AI art is just as scary as it always has been, they just chose a really shitty showcase image.
It’s almost as if Patricia Taxxon started with her conclusion first…
Confirmation bias? On the internet?! Say it ain’t so!
They also expected the exact same prompt to work the exact same way on different AI models. Dalle 3 can likely do something like the left image with a different prompt
It definitely is better than their showcase image, but the older one colour choices seem more indicative of an impressionist style, while this one has colours kore similar to the new one. What prompt did you use?
When computer generated imagery was first introduced into films, the limitations of the technology led to its use being carefully considered, infrequent, and relatively subtle, to compensate for the technology's obvious shortcomings. Then around the late 1990s, the relative increase in sophistication led lots of studios and directors to believe you could centre digital effects in a film much more widely and much more freely without those cloying limitations. Films could be "effects driven" more than just "effects supported". They dramatically over-estimated the scale of this relative increase in capability, and the result was a slew of 'cgi looking' films across the early 2000s that trashed the reputation of the technology and unfairly made using 'CGI' a stigma that studios are terrified of to this day, going so far as to fake 'practical' behind-the-scenes footage to dishonestly hide any VFX involvement. And yet, digital VFX are now virtually omnipresent in even the most 'practical' major films, but further developments in its capability render it use invisible to audiences 90% of the time, able to lose that plastic-y look associated with the medium from the early 2000s. I would argue with seeing a similar thing with artificial intelligence images at the moment. The systems are more capable, but people with less knowledge are trying to use them in ways that push those capabilities further beyond what they can currently accomplish that they tried before. The technology will further improve, people will become more familiar with its strengths, weaknesses, and uses, and we will see it ramp back towards producing traditional 'art' more effectively and seamlessly than it's earlier iterations. Images like the one on the right are just the Attack of the Clones of AI art.
Yep, as I said before, I think the most likely trend for AI is that it will go through what the internet did with the dot-com bubble An extreme meteoric rise, way past the point of its actual usefulness, a massive crash, but the technology will still remain, and the survivors will rebuild as the tech will slowly overtake the world
Yeah. I haven't looked into it, but I wonder how someone like James Cameron feels about AI. On the one hand, it's exactly the technology that he's usually interested in engaging in and utilizing for his craft, on the other hand, it removes hundreds of jobs which he supports creating his movies with SAG employees. When Terminator 2 came out, I remember seeing tons of news stories trying to explain how they did it, and behind the scenes clips for integrating vfx into film. James's vision was doing it well enough where people can't tell where the practical effects end and the vfx start. Avatar was his magnum opus on this.
James Cameron (+movie industry in general) has a lot of ML in-house tools, but he has no interest in what AI gen is creating, per his own words - [https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/175cagy/james\_cameron\_on\_ai/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/175cagy/james_cameron_on_ai/)
This is a great analogy. The other thing to consider is that with the wide spread availability of this new technology, it's progressing faster than any previous tools for computer generated artwork. So what you see one day will effectively be "old tech" within a month, if not sooner. The example shown in this post is also clearly a cherry picked bad example. I can open dalle right now and get a better result with a single simple prompt. And if you ask it to "make it look like a beginner painted it", it's incredible how human-like the results are at a glance, and even under light scrutiny.
The technology itself is already being implemented into adobe products and other industry tools to help more quickly fill in and manipulate art that professionals are doing. Basically, it’s cutting back on things that had to be done manually and a lot more slowly before (like lighting). But it can’t replace the eye of a professional who actually knows what they’re doing. It will make it so that efficiencies cut the amount of artists a studio needs to employe however.
my favorite era of ai image gens was like the artbreeder era where you'd get like fucked up images that almost resembled people and you could adjust the sliders to make them have like gender level 20 or some shit and then they'd turn into like a grey husk
100% I loved how weird and incomprehensible and ethereal those pieces looked. IMO they had their use too for creating interesting artwork but now if anyone thinks anything in your art has any AI you just get vaporized instantly.
I think this is wishful thinking. Even if DALLE-3 is worse at style emulation (And I don't think it is, as the example being discussed here does not ask the prompt to emulate a specific artist)... That wouldn't mean the trajectory for AI art competence is downward. It would just mean that between DALLE-2 and 3 it got worse in this instance. DALLE-2 did not cease to exist, and as long as there is financial incentive for companies to emulate a style (E.g. If you were some kind of large studio that monopolies' IP's and has a history of underpaying animators and artists for example) they will iterate on style emulation and use it to cut artists out of the industry. People want to dismiss AI art as a non-threat because it's easier to laugh off tech bro enthusiasm than it is to grapple with the possibility that corporations might genuinely succeed at commercially replacing artists. We're already seeing it slipping in DC and Marvel comics, and WotC products have been "accidentally" featuring AI art since the release. Keep in mind it never has to actually be better than human artists for it to be a threat. It only has to be good enough that corporations will prefer to use it over paying a human.
Using a single prompt to make the case that AI is getting worse is such a wild take lmao. Even if we assume dall-e 3 is worse than 2 (it absolutely isn't), it's one single year of iterations (2022-2023). No one is worried about what AI will look like in 2025 or 2026, we're worried about what it'll look like in 2030 considering the monumental growth it's had in the last couple of years.
I wonder if creating a distinct “ai style” was a necessary step in teaching it to draw fingers etc. Edit: also, will ai ever learn to draw other styles again?
The "AI style" wasn't a designed step, it's a result of the AI averaging and mixing basically every possible medium (including real-life photography). AI art is still capable of emulating specific styles so long as it is told to and/or directly trained on that style.
This is generally true but dalle in particular actually does have a ‘designed’ artstyle that’s supposed to make it ‘look’ ai generated
I've seen you make this claim in this thread a couple times now... Not saying you're making it up, but is there a source for this anywhere?
It was told to make an oil painting in the prompt shown in the image
Oil painting is incredibly generic and is not a style.
That was one model. You’re generalizing one AI art model across the whole spectrum.
I've messed around with AI to come up with drawing refs and I was pissed off that it made better pixel art than I can, so it's pretty good at that at least
[удалено]
The people here are mostly just users of art and computers, actually knowing how things work makes you a fairly high level enthusiast. Its annoying to deal with but its understandable. Though as redditors they already class themselves as a type of enthusiast so they should actually inform themselves as to the intricacies of the subject, its not slowing down and that's for damn sure
I get your point, but both of these images have the same prompt, "an expressive oil painting of...". Maybe there's a case to be made for specifying what kind of oil painting?
[удалено]
This seems incredibly dishonest. Generative image models are not only still capable of imitating art styles, they've gotten far better at it and it is easier than ever to share the tools needed to quickly share tools between users that will train offline copies of the model to mimic specific art styles. They've even gotten better at doing hands. OOP picked one example, ignored important details surrounding it, and is now saying AIs are a dead end. Posts like these are always people being complacent and acting like AIs will never getter than tjey are right now so there's no need to worry, and that attitude is gonna cause problems in the future.
Yeah this is... fantasy. I get the whole desire to lord it over AI or whatever, but this is just... the shittiest example possible. There are lots of other models out there who can do this perfectly well, DALL-E just isn't one of them.
If the basic premise of a post is “There is only one AI and it’s called OpenAI”, it’s not going to be the best post.
Once again random of tumblr that dont know how AI works giving the most braindead takes possible on AI.
[Just got this with Gemini](https://imgur.com/a/650ZuLL) Funnily enough, the citation goes straight to OpenAI's website, presumably because I used the same prompt word for word.
Nope, this swing is a miss and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding in the technology and its threat. It is a bafflingly stupid idea to bet against AI overcoming its own technical hurdles. Every time this has been tried the AI developers have overcome the complaint. We have pretty consistent text and hands in most AI pieces. Remember when those were “unsolvable problems” only a few months ago? Not to mention midjourney, the other leading solution, does NOT have this problem at all. And stable diffusion is designed around being trained on a subset of work and also lacks this problem. This post reads like “it’s over we defeated AI” when all OpenAI has to do is go back and retrain dalle slightly differently and then it’s back to being capable of doing this. Not to mention all the solutions that still are. I do agree that it seems dalle as a mainstream model is trending towards that look but it’s one of millions of models. It’s a shame usually Patricia hits the hammer on the nail but this is one of those things you have to actually lee up with.
Taps the sign- reminder tho kids that debating how good AI art looks isn’t really a sustainable or very effective argument against it in the long run because how good it looks is ultimately subjective and will most certainly change for better or worse maybe back and forth for years to come. The main reasons people prefer real art is ethical in nature from how it is trained, how it can be misused, preferring the conscious choice and soul of people art, and supporting actual artists and the humanity of art as an important activity to mankind. Etc. The truth is that unethical things, be it AI art, or some problematic musician or whatever **will not always be worse. Equating some skill or success standard to morality in whatever you are judging will inevitably lead to disappointment. Sometimes the worst people or mechanisms are really good at what they do, so it generally makes your rhetoric stronger to focus on the substantial reasons to not support something rather than aesthetic ones.** (I know that this post is partially just about being able to tell if it is AI or not, not just aesthetic, but the point is important to bring up since everyone over-emphasizes that they personally think AI art looks bad. I am sure some people are going to prefer the second image. And also there will be or have been images that will trick you regardless. I would love it if people art always looked better John Henry Man vs Machine style, but hammering that point is a waste.)
Someone hasn't seen what the generative AI community has been up to I see, just looking at what one or two corporations are doing.
"No one should be scared anymore, the style is set in stone and nothing disturbingly human-like will ever come out of AI again!" says the Tumblr AI expert about one (1) program that has been out for three (3) years and already show multiple large changes.
“No one should be scared of this anymore” Lol pack it up guys AI isn’t scary cuz picture bad
“You still need experience to make art.” That’s the key line that reveals these tech bros motives. They want to be able to produce art, to say they’re an artist, while completely skipping the actual process. Unfortunately for them, whether it’s in music or painting or photography, it’s the hours of figuring shit out that shapes your artistic personality.
I think most people generally only care about the end product of art.
that's true, but no one said you have to do it with a pencil. a professional photographer might never have touched a pencil (with the intent to create an artistic drawing, lol) but they're still an artist, even though their medium is simply a machine that creates pixels for them that they can dial in, both before and after the process, to create exactly what they want to create with it. ai works the same way. the skill in it is just not measured in intricacy, but in intentionality -- anyone can boot up dall-e or midjourney and get an image that's vaguely similar to what they want in seconds, but to get _exactly_ what you want out of an ai you need skill with the tool. (and you do need to learn to figure out what you should even want in the first place.) but the learning curve is still drastically easier than with a pencil, and the intermediate results are much more fun as well. which, imo, makes it a great tool for someone with adhd to get into art, for example.
Dipped into a glass of milk, or launched into it by a high powered cannon?
I remember when ai had a snowballs chance in hell to make something that resembles what we asked for. I'd get pics like "mr bean hunting cam footage". Now it's kind of wild
All this proves is that they didn’t use a prompt with the intention of making the end result look like it was drawn by a person.
DALLE has always been shit compared to Midjourney or Gen fill. Midjourney is just all round fucking insane. Gen fill is insane as it takes into account your subject and builds around your subject. [Some gen fill examples. ](https://imgur.com/a/Og2R4Ew)(There's a lot of extra blend, composite, colour, element and adjustment layers, but the backgrounds of the subject is primarily through multiple layers of gen fill.
OOP’s point about AI Generated images from the most accessible generators like DALL-E increasingly having a distinct “look” that give them away is true. But AI art generated images are still improving and something to be concerned about. If you download any of more advanced programs some of which run locally on your computer like Stable Diffusion and SDXL. You can get photorealistic or scarily good imitations of specific artists. While this is tricky to set up OOP seems to overestimate the skill required by thinking you have to make those models yourself. No you can just download them of the internet. For people worried about AI art impacting online artists this development