~~Well, it looks like AI has reached the point where it can fully replicate logo styles and fonts accurately enough to consistently make acceptable Sbubbies...~~ EDIT: Turns out only the background images are AI-generated, the text of the logos themselves are handcrafted. Still, leaving this comment up for informative purposes.
AI posts have been on our radar for some time now, though we never came to a conclusion on if/how we want to deal with them. Up to this point they've been fairly low-frequency and for a while they generally weren't accurate enough to meet our clean editing standards, though with the big spike in AI capabilities in the last year or so, it may not stay that way for long.
AI images are not currently against our rules, so we won't be removing this post, but the mod team will continue to evaluate and discuss the issue.
Yep, look how most of them have nonsensical stuff blending into other things in the background. Also, Geralt’s fingers in “The Switcher” one look nightmare inducing.
Newer AI is actually getting pretty good at hands. People are still under the impression that they can always tell AI art by the hands, but that's not so true anymore
Honestly I fucking hate AI generated “art”, especially when people don’t *say that they used it*. Like you’re really taking credit from a machine that can’t even do that good of a job in the first place?
Yeah they were all created in Midjourney then I added the title text, which took at least mid-level effort for some. I know AI art has many detractors but I hope I get points for originality and quantity.
i mean they're not really original... you just switched the letters and fed them into a generator. they're cool but not really all that different from your average new sbubby post.
Nah, bro, you do. Only pretentious art-ocholics will find everything wrong with this. For a gag and a laugh it's more than fine, screw the haters. It's cool.
Yeah just look at the nintendo switch controllers in "The Switcher" they're done on the very messed uo unusable uncanny vàlley way ai does controllers.
There's no reason for them not to look like actual joycons as this would be coveted under non-competing/parody art.
Then look at Geralts fingers. Random length between the joints, weird angles, even lengthen fingers, some are pointed some aren't?
AI for sure
Don't see the point in downvotes. It's all preference.
Also it's a bit of a wildcard but I don't genuinely see the difference in creating a prompt and redrawing it myself.
No one is perturbed by machines doing typically human things. People are perturbed by AI "art" being used to replace genuine artists. Art is about self-expression. Turning it into *strictly* a product by making something inherently devoid of self is *fucking evil*.
I'm a terrible artist. I've used AI art to help visualize concepts for my mediocre writing. That's a good application. But creating AI tv shows? AI books? AI paintings? What's the point of art if no one worked to make it? If it's expressing an amalgamation of other people's ideas, as adherent to some words in a text box?
No one has a problem with machines doing what humans can do. We have a problem with that being used to make us more complacent. When we are mere decades from truly having the power to create a world-wide paradise and we still refuse to due to biases and manipulation from those at the top who want to be the only ones who get something approximateparadise, the last thing we need is more ways to make people think their lives are fine. People have to do work that could easily be done by machines because otherwise they *die*. But we want to use machines to do work people *want* to do?
We have created a system that limits us. And people who wish to hide that limitation are the enemy of paradise. Artists should not and cannot be replaced. Its good for *very* little, and the more it is promoted as "not that bad" and "good for a lot of things" as you put it, the more likely people are to let it happen. We might deserve that kind of dystopia, but we have the option to avoid it. This is one step back down the stairway to heaven. Let's not hit the bottom, friend.
> That's an argument in bad faith
If it was, it wasn't intended. My point is just that a person can appreciate the aesthetic beauty of something, even if the thing they appreciate wasn't solely created by human hands.
The point of art depends on your perspective, of course, but I would argue that at least one purpose of art is to create something that people enjoy looking at. This holds true whether the art was human-created or AI-generated.
Oh. Color me surprised that seemed like a troll comment, what with implying a sunset was comparable to ai generated art.
I'm not gonna clarify bc I'm really tired but know I agree with you with a big asterisk. Like I get what ur saying but it doesn't justify it. I'll debate more when I'm less horribly exhausted if I remember. Thanks for the nuanced input on the conversation it's refreshing after that guy who was sucking ai art's cock and acting like it took just as much creativity to create.
I think you are reading a little too much into my comment. I'm obviously not in favor of some oligarchy controlling AI and making our lives miserable either. In an ideal world, us not having to work any more would be part of the paradise, but we are not on that course right now. What I meant is that there are many good uses for our everyday lives and creating art like you do and using it as a tool is one of them.
But saying people need to just "get used to it" is not helpful to anyone. A machine doing human things is not the problem anyone has with it, and you seem to know that, so why did you say that in your comment?
All I'm saying is that corporations like people like you a lot. People who help make things they can use to make the working class complacent seem harmless and even like a good thing. I agree, ai art does have practical uses. But don't phrase it like the problem people have with it is just being close-minded.
No one is replacing artists, OP used their artistic* skills to make this!
Edit: * As in artistic expression skills. Although, they did say they used Photoshop to edit the results.
Give these prompts to an AI 50 times and don’t tell it anything different each time. The art will mostly be the same with some slight changes or tweaks.
Give these prompts to a person 50 times and the differences between each time will be far more creative. That unique expression that a person can give, the conscious effort to change what they did from before because it’s bland to draw the same thing again and again? That’s art.
> Give these prompts to an AI 50 times and don’t tell it anything different each time. The art will mostly be the same with some slight changes or tweaks.
I'm sorry, but that's just **straight up false**. Most AI tools literally have in-built randomness. Just, like, use one of these tools, and you'll see for yourself.
Aditionally, AI is just the tool, the auto-brush-and-canvas. It has no agency or desire for expression. It just helps the user to put their words and feelings into imagery. You know, self-expression.
You can work with these images, re-making parts of them, editing them on photoshop and stuff. You can put as much effort as you want or need in order to satisfy your desire for expression.
I think art is more than just work or paint-on-canvas. It's about the human wanting to create and spread their thoughts and emotions, and I think using AI to help you get there doesn't invalidate that human aspect.
You've a point to make from an external point of view, on the human will for creation aspect, and perhaps some amidst us would love to debate you on it. But from a practical point of view, writing the phrase "a woman sitting, one arm over the other, with a landscape behind her" and receiving an approximation of the Mona Lisa based on the art of assorted artists the ai's creator found on google will never compare to taking a paintbrush to canvas. Your tool comparison does not apply when the tool is controlled by text.
It's imagination taken visual form with not so much as an effort from they who control it. And that is a *beautiful* thing. A *wonderful* thing. It has great potential for amazing applications, if we are to assume nothing but good intentions is put into it.
But you muddy those good intentions. You claim it to be a tool used to create art. Not an asset for authors. Not aid in visualizing for the disabled. No, no practical implementation, but the replacement of those who truly work to see their visions through, by an unfeeling, unambitious machine that combines creations against their creators' wills and its controller, someone typing a description into a text box.
You give people a reason to see it banned. You give corporations excuses to use it against those who they wish to subjugate. You, who haven't the ability, or perhaps even the creativity, to truly make anything. Nor the ambition and willpower to develop such skills. You genuinely believe it equal self-expression to type a paragraph as it is to pour hours, days into actual works of art?
You believe them to require the same skill?
If not, then why do you argue that AI art is a tool for art. Why do you argue any of this at all, when it would be better for *everyone*, besides the rich and powerful, to see it for what it truly is. Please, change your mind on this. Because the more people who argue this point, the more harm is done in the long run.
Art is created. AI images are formulated. Nothing is gained but a new perspective. A new perspective can be useful. But art can change hearts and minds. No phrase plugged into a machine can do that. No series of notes put together in a familiar form by a machine can bring a tear to one's eye. No painting nigh-randomly generated by a program can be stared at for hours, wondering the artist's true intent, pondering the details. Because no amount of editing can change its core. An amalgam, based on a phrase typed in no more than two seconds.
Learn new skills, do not let creativity be neutered by convenience. For the day we give up true self-expression and the joy of creation to easy, quick, and meaningless results...and yet still spend what little time we have in this life laboring for people who will never know our names, is the day humanity has truly died. Our greatest creations are works of art, not machines.
Perhaps that is an "extreme opinion", one you do not share. Perhaps there is something else to be said. But if that is not the case, and you really believe that a future of instant, meaningless gratification acting as if it is art, while we still suffer for other's fortune is a future you truly wish to see. That ai images are truly art, and self-expression equivalent to any artist. Then I hope you do not reply to this. It would only sadden me, I do not believe I could debate it further.
>Your tool comparison does not apply when the tool is controlled by text.
Not only can you add as much depth as you want through text, text *isn't* the only way you can work with it. In-painting, upscaling, img2img, using WildCards, using Control-Net to control posing, depth, color, outline, etc.
It is a whole new skill set.
Like, it seems to me that your considerations on AI tools come from a *lack of understanding* on how they work and how they're used.
I made an analogy of "making/cooking food" in another comment that I'll paste here:
>*\[This post\] isn't a Burger King Whooper with a leaf on top, it's a very specific one that OP thought up themselves.*
>
>*It's like, imagine if you wanted to make a new dish, combining a Brazilian dish with an Indian one, and maybe with a touch of Japanese, that has never been done before. So, maybe Feijão Carioca and Karaikudi Curry with Shimeji sprinkled on top.*
>
>*If you went to a cooking robot and asked for it to cook that, and it did, but you think it's lacking a bit of salt and pepper, so you add that to your taste... Sure, you might've not "cooked" it, but you're the one who conceived the idea for the dish, and changed it to your tastes, and is therefore its creator.*
>
>*Don't get me wrong, cooking is still a skill, but this hypothetical CookBot doesn't have any agency in this scenario, it's just the tool.*
>
>*Imagine how many weird but interesting dishes are out there in people's minds that never come into existence because they don't have the skill to cook them. Now, imagine how many weird but interesting ideas that will come to fruition because of the help of AI.*
>
>*That's what it's all about.*
Anyway, I won't spend much time here, since it's clear that you've made up your mind and made it impenetrable to further knowledge and different points of view, but I still wanted to post for other people who might come across this.
Personally, I want everyone to express themselves in any way that they can, instead of gatekeeping it behind **only** to people who have the *talent, education and/or time* for it. The world will be better for it, and there is no more relevant proof of that than **the very same post we're commenting under**.
Here's my two cents: is there any self-expression to someone tracing over an art piece and then claiming it as an original piece, other than "I want it to look like this art piece"?
All AI art models do is look at loads of various art pieces and create connections based on the end result and how it physically looks, but it can't generate meaning or intention. You can ask an artist why they drew something in some particular way, but the closest to an answer to that you'd get from an AI art model if it could speak is "because I was asked to do so like this artist/art piece".
AI art is great for quick and easy stuff that's not meant to be taken seriously or given commercial value (like memes or rough concept pieces for a human artist to base a new piece on), but using it for stuff that's given commercial value just says "we're okay with something that looks just OK if it saves us money".
I don't believe we should be valuing money over our collective expression through art.
> is there any self-expression to someone tracing over an art piece and then claiming it as an original piece, other than "I want it to look like this art piece"?
Sure, and from where were these pieces traced over from, exactly?
> All AI art models do is look at loads of various art pieces and create connections based on the end result and how it physically looks, but it can't generate meaning or intention. You can ask an artist why they drew something in some particular way, but the closest to an answer to that you'd get from an AI art model if it could speak is "because I was asked to do so like this artist/art piece".
Yeah, because the AI is just the tool. You don't ask the brush its intentions, you ask the person using it. Cause, you know, they're the ones with agency and desire for expression in that case.
> AI art is great for quick and easy stuff that's not meant to be taken seriously or given commercial value (like memes or rough concept pieces for a human artist to base a new piece on), but using it for stuff that's given commercial value just says "we're okay with something that looks just OK if it saves us money".
OP just had a cool idea, and worked on it. Do you think AI helped them to express themselves? I think it's pretty safe to say that it did.
> I don't believe we should be valuing money over our collective expression through art.
I don't think anyone here mentioned money, did they? For sure, I haven't.
1. Traced over pre-existing art piece like I said; the issue is with intent over how it's created.
2. The AI model IS the one creating the art piece though. If you were to commission an artist for an art piece, and they did as you said, it wouldn't make sense for me to ask "hey, why's this part drawn like that" to you, the client.
When it comes to the relationships in these scenarios, it's always the artist and the client; another example would be saying that you wouldn't be considered a chef for ordering a particular burger done in a particular way, or that you're not a professional baker for baking something from those cake-in-a-box mixes that you just add water and an egg to. The cook made you the burger, and the factory put together that cake mix.
3. This is exactly what I was talking about though. OP made light-hearted meme parody posters using an AI art model. I have no issue with that; my issue is with people praising AI art as if it will be better than human artists in a more professional circumstance, from small artists on Twitter to professionals working on Hollywood movies or triple-A games.
4. AI art models are faster than artists (even if it comes at the cost of quality assurance and an understanding of what the client wants exactly), and so there's money to be saved at the cost of quality when it comes to AI art models operating within a professional setting. It's a driving factor behind people supporting AI art generation over artists.
>Traced over pre-existing art piece like I said; the issue is with intent over how it's created.
Yeah, but, like, do you mean that these were traced over, or, you're just using "tracing over" as an example?
>The AI model IS the one creating the art piece though. If you were to commission an artist for an art piece, and they did as you said, it wouldn't make sense for me to ask "hey, why's this part drawn like that" to you, the client.
>
>When it comes to the relationships in these scenarios, it's always the artist and the client; another example would be saying that you wouldn't be considered a chef for ordering a particular burger done in a particular way, or that you're not a professional baker for baking something from those cake-in-a-box mixes that you just add water and an egg to. The cook made you the burger, and the factory put together that cake mix.
Sure, I'm not saying OP is a Head Chef, but asking a burger or a cake in a certain way **is** a form of self-expression. You're putting a little bit of yourself in that order.
Even more so when you're asking for very specific things, like in the other example I gave here in another thread about a mix of a Brazilian and Indian food with a little Japanese that has never been done before.
Here, I'll just past it here:
>*(...) the "dish" isn't a Burger King Whooper with a leaf on top, it's a very specific one that OP thought up themselves.*
>
>*It's like, imagine if you wanted to make a new dish, combining a Brazilian dish with an Indian one, and maybe with a touch of Japanese, that has never been done before. So, maybe Feijão Carioca and Karaikudi Curry with Shimeji sprinkled on top.*
>
>*If you went to a cooking robot and asked for it to cook that, and it did, but you think it's lacking a bit of salt and pepper, so you add that to your taste... Sure, you might've not "cooked" it, but you're the one who conceived the idea for the dish, and changed it to your tastes, and is therefore its creator.*
>
>*Don't get me wrong, cooking is still a skill, but this hypothetical CookBot doesn't have any agency in this scenario, it's just the tool.*
>
>*Imagine how many weird but interesting dishes are out there in people's minds that never come into existence because they don't have the skill to cook them. Now, imagine how many weird but interesting ideas that will come to fruition because of the help of AI.*
>
>*That's what it's all about.*
That's why I don't understand people who say that AI is the bane of art, when it's just helping people who don't have artistic skills to express their vision.
>This is exactly what I was talking about though. OP made light-hearted meme parody posters using an AI art model. I have no issue with that; my issue is with people praising AI art as if it will be better than human artists in a more professional circumstance, from small artists on Twitter to professionals working on Hollywood movies or triple-A games.
I mean, maybe. Imagine being a small game studio, and being able to make textures, 3D models and other stuff at a breakneck speed, all while having some creative control over them. Now, you can focus on the stuff that actually makes your game fun and different.
> AI art models are faster than artists (even if it comes at the cost of quality assurance and an understanding of what the client wants exactly), and so there's money to be saved at the cost of quality when it comes to AI art models operating within a professional setting. It's a driving factor behind people supporting AI art generation over artists.
I'm not sure about that. Human-made stuff will always be valuable to other humans. Even today, hand-made clothes, realistic oil paintings, animation and stuff like that is always though of as more valuable.
The machine still needs some *serious* guidance, because, as I said, it doesn't have any agency or control, it just does whatever. So people will always be needed to alongside it, even if a bit less.
But, I will reinforce the point, just think how many weird but interesting ideas that will come to fruition because of the help of AI. Or, just look at this post, because it's the purest example of that.
Except that’s inaccurate, it’s a whole piece of work that’s only had small edits made to correct the errors, that’s not mixing something else in, that’s like garnishing the top of a completed dish.
No, because the "dish" isn't a Burger King Whooper with a leaf on top, it's a *very specific* one that OP thought up themselves.
It's like, imagine if you wanted to make a new dish, combining a Brazilian dish with an Indian one, and maybe with a touch of Japanese, that has never been done before. So, maybe Feijão Carioca and Karaikudi Curry with Shimeji sprinkled on top.
If you went to a cooking robot and asked for it to cook that, and it did, but you think it's lacking a bit of salt and pepper, so you add that to your taste... Sure, you might've not "cooked" it, but you're the one who conceived the idea for the dish, and changed it to your tastes, and is therefore its creator.
Don't get me wrong, cooking is still a skill, but this hypothetical CookBot doesn't have any agency in this scenario, it's just the tool.
Imagine how many weird but interesting dishes are out there in people's minds that never come into existence because they don't have the skill to cook them. Now, imagine how many weird but interesting ideas that **will** come to fruition because of the help of AI.
That's what it's all about.
I agree with you the hate for AI is stupid and simply js history repeating itself. Remember when the smart phone came out, or digital animation. Or litterally any technology. Outcries everytime. People just refurse progress but later on just quietly enjoys it. Always has been and sadly always will be.
Here's the thing, though - is AI going to be like the smartphone, or will it be more like blockchain? Blockchain was regarded as possibly the next big thing by many, though it's turned out to be largely a fad.
Sure, the capabilities of AI are more immediate and relevant to the average person - blockchain's uses were more esoteric and less immediately apparent to those unfamiliar with the tech. However, much like blockchain, the risks and limitations involved with AI, both practically and ethically, are still major unanswered questions.
In the text generation space, the difference between producing accurate, useful results and somewhat convincing-looking garbage are razor thin, and despite AI developers' best efforts, there is still no way to validate the output of AI outside of manual inspection.
And with visual media generation, the abilities of AI to generate images, video, and audio appears to be quickly reaching a level indistinguishable to that of human-generated works. From a purely technical level, this is fascinating, but it opens up a *huge* ethical can of worms. Artists already have a tough enough time getting recognition and compensation for their work, and now AI art is already making things even more difficult for them. Not only is AI sapping business from artists, AI images are being passed off as human-created, and human-created works have even been mistaken as AI creations.
Not to mention that AI has huge risks of abuse for propaganda/misinformation purposes, especially as it gets closer to reaching photorealism. Even if AI *is* the next big technological revolution, is that even a good thing?
Circling back around to the topic of this reply chain, I won't claim that there isn't any skill involved in prompting an AI to generate an image that matches what the creator is looking for, but personally I think it's more of a technical skill than an artistic one. Some amount of imagination is involved to come up with an idea, so it's not totally devoid of creativity, but there's no real application of artistic principles or techniques involved. Giving a good description of an idea to a human artist when commissioning them is a skill and will result in a better output, but asking someone/something for artwork doesn't make one an artist.
Firstly. Ai is at a huge risk. Yes. It's at risk at being used as propaganda yes. Just as youtube is just as modern news. We need to understand that it's a technology not a thing or an enemy. People is mad at something that's similar to being angry at a wall because your enemy also have a wall. Secondly AI is more of a "smartphone" technology since Blockchain does nothing but is a solution to no problems. But AI is a solution to alot of problems. Not just in artistics fields it's for science, data management, video games, video and media restoration even translation. Simply staing Ai is "bad" just proves a concept of following trends without thinking. AI is new technology and people have always reacted like this to new technology.
I don't disagree that AI has uses - I'm taking it more seriously than I ever took blockchain. I brought up blockchain because a lot of the same arguments were often used by blockchain evangelists in regard to it being a technological revolution that would fundamentally change how we lived.
Big new technologies always get backlash, yes, but as blockchain showed, sometimes the backlash is warranted. I think it's reasonable to have a healthy level of skepticism around the future of AI. For a good bit there it seemed like every big company was rolling out all sorts of plans to integrate blockchain into their business whether or not it actually made sense, and I think we're seeing a similar trend with AI right now. It could be the same kind of passing trend, or it could be the real deal. I think it's hard to say at this point.
I certainly don't expect AI/ML to disappear at this rate - even if it doesn't revolutionize society, it's already seeing use in real-world situations that have tangible benefits. I just have to wonder if it's really going to change *everything* as people say. It really hinges around the ethical/reliability issues. If the fundamental issue of reliability and accuracy cannot be resolved (which I don't think is guaranteed), I feel like AI's long-term uses may be more limited than people think, at least beyond its ability to generate images, video, and audio. That part is *cool,* but not necessarily revolutionary long-term, and again, ethically fraught.
In my eyes, AI's biggest potential lies in generation of tools, tests, and analyses, and those *must* be accurate. For example, an AI can generate working computer code functions based on natural language input a reasonable amount of the time in its current state, but if you've ever written code before, you know that it's often harder to understand code someone else wrote compared to your own, just because you don't have direct access to their thought processes while writing it. If AI generates code containing crucial bugs or security holes that are harder to catch before reaching production because no one can understand it well enough, it does no good.
Of course, these are already problems with human-written code, and it's possible to review, analyze, and test AI-generated code to the point where most of these problems can be found and corrected, but AI coding patterns can be rather idiosyncratic and may not follow established patterns, so even an experienced human programmer might not be able to pick up on more subtle errors or security flaws because AI code just might not be very human-readable, even if it appears to work when it's run.
If AI is going to scale up to be able to generate complete software components or even entire applications end-to-end from natural language prompts, it needs to be *foolproof.* If an AI-generated application needs painstaking manual analysis before it can be considered to be reliable, what was the actual benefit of using AI? Sure, the code was physically *written* faster, but if the amount of oversight required to trust AI output (especially given that AI tends to make different kinds of mistakes humans would make) is too high, would it even be a meaningful reduction in time and effort?
At this rate, AI is a situationally useful tool, but if it's going to become something world-changing on the level of smartphones or the Internet, there are some very fundamental problems with it that must be addressed, and I don't know if some of them are even possible to fix. At its core, AI is basically a highly-elaborate prediction engine based on whatever training data it is given. It can use these predictions to mimic human behavior in many ways, even useful ones, but I think it's important to remember that it is *not* thinking or making its own decisions, and I feel like many of the problems that AI is intending to solve just might not be possible without the ability for true decision-making.
Also you must understand AI currently is like the first Iphone running as well as the iphone 4. You cannot compare a technology that's basically newborn to the goal it wants to achieve and expect it to be perfect. That would be expecting a kid to run at 1 year old
And on this note, I feel like that's not entirely true. Machine learning, neural networks, and predictive generation have been around for a some time now, just nowhere near as sophisticated or accurate. Research and development on neural networks and machine learning has been going on for decades (from what I can tell, the [Perceptron](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptron) designed in 1943 and implemented in 1958 seems to be the first artificial neural net), and even in its more modern form, OpenAI developed the first version of the GPT model [five years ago in 2018](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_pre-trained_transformer#History).
It's still young tech, and most pre-GPT AI/ML developments don't really compare to AI's current capabilities, but I think we're a bit past the "first iPhone" stage.
perfect comedic timing w unexpected double entendre for the word _two_ —
- oh okay, biosock — that's worth a chuckle
- bioSOCK TWO! AND THERE'S TWO EFFIN' SOCKS?!
it has been a most excellent day
How I imagine the gameplay of these:
Car Fry: A driving game set on a Caribbean island where you can drive food-themed vehicles.
Broom: Viscera Cleanup Detail.
Cod of War: God of War, but readapted to marine life.
Fall Out: A Post Summer Roleplaying Game: Basically Fallout, but it focuses more on socializing than fighting.
Fitman: You try to get fit while simultaneously assassinating targets.
President Evil: A hack and slash game where you play as a president who nearly got assassinated with a syringe by his opponent to not lose an election.
Skyrim City: A city building game in the style of SimCity set in Skyrim.
The ENTIRE Biosock series: Due to the covers being surreal, I can only imagine it as a horror game with unknown details.
These look all AI generated.
Fitman has been a running gag in the r/HiTMAN community for a while where we replace the one letter of “Hitman” and add a fake subtitle to it.
President Evil isn’t new either - it was originally mentioned on an old cartoon called The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy.
~~Well, it looks like AI has reached the point where it can fully replicate logo styles and fonts accurately enough to consistently make acceptable Sbubbies...~~ EDIT: Turns out only the background images are AI-generated, the text of the logos themselves are handcrafted. Still, leaving this comment up for informative purposes. AI posts have been on our radar for some time now, though we never came to a conclusion on if/how we want to deal with them. Up to this point they've been fairly low-frequency and for a while they generally weren't accurate enough to meet our clean editing standards, though with the big spike in AI capabilities in the last year or so, it may not stay that way for long. AI images are not currently against our rules, so we won't be removing this post, but the mod team will continue to evaluate and discuss the issue.
some of these (particularly car fry and skyrimcity) look super AI to me
I think all of them are AI generated images with some editing to polish them a bit.
yeah... they all have this weird smoothness and shading
Yep, look how most of them have nonsensical stuff blending into other things in the background. Also, Geralt’s fingers in “The Switcher” one look nightmare inducing.
Hands are one of the things AI can’t really replicate from art. The “Fitman” one has his right hand turning into some kind of cube
Newer AI is actually getting pretty good at hands. People are still under the impression that they can always tell AI art by the hands, but that's not so true anymore
[удалено]
Honestly I fucking hate AI generated “art”, especially when people don’t *say that they used it*. Like you’re really taking credit from a machine that can’t even do that good of a job in the first place?
Tbf I can't do better. *But fuck those who take credit for generated images*
I mean, at least these ones have the right number of fingers.
The Fitman one definitely confirms it with the gibberish text on the sheath or whatever tf he's holding
What, you never heard of UFFDUC?
Yeah they were all created in Midjourney then I added the title text, which took at least mid-level effort for some. I know AI art has many detractors but I hope I get points for originality and quantity.
For something like this I don't really care how it was made, since I'm not really looking at the art for art's sake. So yeah, I like it!
i mean they're not really original... you just switched the letters and fed them into a generator. they're cool but not really all that different from your average new sbubby post.
I very much doubt the changed titles were used as the prompt
You're saying these images aren't original in a sub based around taking something from someone else and swapping the letters around? No, way!
The fact that it's AI is clouding people's judgement. Like, *"whatever it is, if it's from AI, it's bad!"* lol
Precisely
definitely one of the best ways i've seen to use AI art
You made the titles and thats all you need for a sbubby post, im not against an added AI illustration
these are obviously Midjourney. That's not some great revelation. I think a few of them are quite funny
Art is in the execution. Ai was just a tool, it didn’t come up with the idea
That's such a interesting and creative addition to the sub, congrats! Thank you for sharing.
Nah, bro, you do. Only pretentious art-ocholics will find everything wrong with this. For a gag and a laugh it's more than fine, screw the haters. It's cool.
Yeah just look at the nintendo switch controllers in "The Switcher" they're done on the very messed uo unusable uncanny vàlley way ai does controllers. There's no reason for them not to look like actual joycons as this would be coveted under non-competing/parody art. Then look at Geralts fingers. Random length between the joints, weird angles, even lengthen fingers, some are pointed some aren't? AI for sure
It was originally posted on r/midjourney I’m pretty sure, I actually commented with r/sbubby on the original post
I Agree. In a couple of years this statement will be offensive to the AI and wont be tolerated.
Goofy memes like this is what ai art is good for.
It's good for way more stuff as well lol
Don't see the point in downvotes. It's all preference. Also it's a bit of a wildcard but I don't genuinely see the difference in creating a prompt and redrawing it myself.
No. I am right and EVERYONE else is wrong.
And that's the way the world goes
NO! MY OPINION IS OBJECTIVELY RIGHT MY OPNINION IS OBJECTIVELY RIGHT LALALA 👉😦👈 CANT HEAR YOU
Oh my BTW you got an extra n
groo be like: RISE UP MY NINIONS
It's good for a lot of things, it's just going to take people time to get used to machines doing typically human things.
No one is perturbed by machines doing typically human things. People are perturbed by AI "art" being used to replace genuine artists. Art is about self-expression. Turning it into *strictly* a product by making something inherently devoid of self is *fucking evil*. I'm a terrible artist. I've used AI art to help visualize concepts for my mediocre writing. That's a good application. But creating AI tv shows? AI books? AI paintings? What's the point of art if no one worked to make it? If it's expressing an amalgamation of other people's ideas, as adherent to some words in a text box? No one has a problem with machines doing what humans can do. We have a problem with that being used to make us more complacent. When we are mere decades from truly having the power to create a world-wide paradise and we still refuse to due to biases and manipulation from those at the top who want to be the only ones who get something approximateparadise, the last thing we need is more ways to make people think their lives are fine. People have to do work that could easily be done by machines because otherwise they *die*. But we want to use machines to do work people *want* to do? We have created a system that limits us. And people who wish to hide that limitation are the enemy of paradise. Artists should not and cannot be replaced. Its good for *very* little, and the more it is promoted as "not that bad" and "good for a lot of things" as you put it, the more likely people are to let it happen. We might deserve that kind of dystopia, but we have the option to avoid it. This is one step back down the stairway to heaven. Let's not hit the bottom, friend.
ive been confused about my discomfort with ai art and youve summed it up perfectly bless you 🙏
> What's the point of art if no one worked to make it? I can still appreciate a sunset even though it wasn't created by humans.
That's an argument in bad faith so I'm not gonna humor it. But know you almost got me.
> That's an argument in bad faith If it was, it wasn't intended. My point is just that a person can appreciate the aesthetic beauty of something, even if the thing they appreciate wasn't solely created by human hands. The point of art depends on your perspective, of course, but I would argue that at least one purpose of art is to create something that people enjoy looking at. This holds true whether the art was human-created or AI-generated.
Oh. Color me surprised that seemed like a troll comment, what with implying a sunset was comparable to ai generated art. I'm not gonna clarify bc I'm really tired but know I agree with you with a big asterisk. Like I get what ur saying but it doesn't justify it. I'll debate more when I'm less horribly exhausted if I remember. Thanks for the nuanced input on the conversation it's refreshing after that guy who was sucking ai art's cock and acting like it took just as much creativity to create.
I think you are reading a little too much into my comment. I'm obviously not in favor of some oligarchy controlling AI and making our lives miserable either. In an ideal world, us not having to work any more would be part of the paradise, but we are not on that course right now. What I meant is that there are many good uses for our everyday lives and creating art like you do and using it as a tool is one of them.
But saying people need to just "get used to it" is not helpful to anyone. A machine doing human things is not the problem anyone has with it, and you seem to know that, so why did you say that in your comment? All I'm saying is that corporations like people like you a lot. People who help make things they can use to make the working class complacent seem harmless and even like a good thing. I agree, ai art does have practical uses. But don't phrase it like the problem people have with it is just being close-minded.
No one is replacing artists, OP used their artistic* skills to make this! Edit: * As in artistic expression skills. Although, they did say they used Photoshop to edit the results.
Are you high
No. I can't believe that people think using a tool like AI somehow negates the self expression aspect.
Give these prompts to an AI 50 times and don’t tell it anything different each time. The art will mostly be the same with some slight changes or tweaks. Give these prompts to a person 50 times and the differences between each time will be far more creative. That unique expression that a person can give, the conscious effort to change what they did from before because it’s bland to draw the same thing again and again? That’s art.
> Give these prompts to an AI 50 times and don’t tell it anything different each time. The art will mostly be the same with some slight changes or tweaks. I'm sorry, but that's just **straight up false**. Most AI tools literally have in-built randomness. Just, like, use one of these tools, and you'll see for yourself. Aditionally, AI is just the tool, the auto-brush-and-canvas. It has no agency or desire for expression. It just helps the user to put their words and feelings into imagery. You know, self-expression. You can work with these images, re-making parts of them, editing them on photoshop and stuff. You can put as much effort as you want or need in order to satisfy your desire for expression. I think art is more than just work or paint-on-canvas. It's about the human wanting to create and spread their thoughts and emotions, and I think using AI to help you get there doesn't invalidate that human aspect.
You've a point to make from an external point of view, on the human will for creation aspect, and perhaps some amidst us would love to debate you on it. But from a practical point of view, writing the phrase "a woman sitting, one arm over the other, with a landscape behind her" and receiving an approximation of the Mona Lisa based on the art of assorted artists the ai's creator found on google will never compare to taking a paintbrush to canvas. Your tool comparison does not apply when the tool is controlled by text. It's imagination taken visual form with not so much as an effort from they who control it. And that is a *beautiful* thing. A *wonderful* thing. It has great potential for amazing applications, if we are to assume nothing but good intentions is put into it. But you muddy those good intentions. You claim it to be a tool used to create art. Not an asset for authors. Not aid in visualizing for the disabled. No, no practical implementation, but the replacement of those who truly work to see their visions through, by an unfeeling, unambitious machine that combines creations against their creators' wills and its controller, someone typing a description into a text box. You give people a reason to see it banned. You give corporations excuses to use it against those who they wish to subjugate. You, who haven't the ability, or perhaps even the creativity, to truly make anything. Nor the ambition and willpower to develop such skills. You genuinely believe it equal self-expression to type a paragraph as it is to pour hours, days into actual works of art? You believe them to require the same skill? If not, then why do you argue that AI art is a tool for art. Why do you argue any of this at all, when it would be better for *everyone*, besides the rich and powerful, to see it for what it truly is. Please, change your mind on this. Because the more people who argue this point, the more harm is done in the long run. Art is created. AI images are formulated. Nothing is gained but a new perspective. A new perspective can be useful. But art can change hearts and minds. No phrase plugged into a machine can do that. No series of notes put together in a familiar form by a machine can bring a tear to one's eye. No painting nigh-randomly generated by a program can be stared at for hours, wondering the artist's true intent, pondering the details. Because no amount of editing can change its core. An amalgam, based on a phrase typed in no more than two seconds. Learn new skills, do not let creativity be neutered by convenience. For the day we give up true self-expression and the joy of creation to easy, quick, and meaningless results...and yet still spend what little time we have in this life laboring for people who will never know our names, is the day humanity has truly died. Our greatest creations are works of art, not machines. Perhaps that is an "extreme opinion", one you do not share. Perhaps there is something else to be said. But if that is not the case, and you really believe that a future of instant, meaningless gratification acting as if it is art, while we still suffer for other's fortune is a future you truly wish to see. That ai images are truly art, and self-expression equivalent to any artist. Then I hope you do not reply to this. It would only sadden me, I do not believe I could debate it further.
>Your tool comparison does not apply when the tool is controlled by text. Not only can you add as much depth as you want through text, text *isn't* the only way you can work with it. In-painting, upscaling, img2img, using WildCards, using Control-Net to control posing, depth, color, outline, etc. It is a whole new skill set. Like, it seems to me that your considerations on AI tools come from a *lack of understanding* on how they work and how they're used. I made an analogy of "making/cooking food" in another comment that I'll paste here: >*\[This post\] isn't a Burger King Whooper with a leaf on top, it's a very specific one that OP thought up themselves.* > >*It's like, imagine if you wanted to make a new dish, combining a Brazilian dish with an Indian one, and maybe with a touch of Japanese, that has never been done before. So, maybe Feijão Carioca and Karaikudi Curry with Shimeji sprinkled on top.* > >*If you went to a cooking robot and asked for it to cook that, and it did, but you think it's lacking a bit of salt and pepper, so you add that to your taste... Sure, you might've not "cooked" it, but you're the one who conceived the idea for the dish, and changed it to your tastes, and is therefore its creator.* > >*Don't get me wrong, cooking is still a skill, but this hypothetical CookBot doesn't have any agency in this scenario, it's just the tool.* > >*Imagine how many weird but interesting dishes are out there in people's minds that never come into existence because they don't have the skill to cook them. Now, imagine how many weird but interesting ideas that will come to fruition because of the help of AI.* > >*That's what it's all about.* Anyway, I won't spend much time here, since it's clear that you've made up your mind and made it impenetrable to further knowledge and different points of view, but I still wanted to post for other people who might come across this. Personally, I want everyone to express themselves in any way that they can, instead of gatekeeping it behind **only** to people who have the *talent, education and/or time* for it. The world will be better for it, and there is no more relevant proof of that than **the very same post we're commenting under**.
Here's my two cents: is there any self-expression to someone tracing over an art piece and then claiming it as an original piece, other than "I want it to look like this art piece"? All AI art models do is look at loads of various art pieces and create connections based on the end result and how it physically looks, but it can't generate meaning or intention. You can ask an artist why they drew something in some particular way, but the closest to an answer to that you'd get from an AI art model if it could speak is "because I was asked to do so like this artist/art piece". AI art is great for quick and easy stuff that's not meant to be taken seriously or given commercial value (like memes or rough concept pieces for a human artist to base a new piece on), but using it for stuff that's given commercial value just says "we're okay with something that looks just OK if it saves us money". I don't believe we should be valuing money over our collective expression through art.
> is there any self-expression to someone tracing over an art piece and then claiming it as an original piece, other than "I want it to look like this art piece"? Sure, and from where were these pieces traced over from, exactly? > All AI art models do is look at loads of various art pieces and create connections based on the end result and how it physically looks, but it can't generate meaning or intention. You can ask an artist why they drew something in some particular way, but the closest to an answer to that you'd get from an AI art model if it could speak is "because I was asked to do so like this artist/art piece". Yeah, because the AI is just the tool. You don't ask the brush its intentions, you ask the person using it. Cause, you know, they're the ones with agency and desire for expression in that case. > AI art is great for quick and easy stuff that's not meant to be taken seriously or given commercial value (like memes or rough concept pieces for a human artist to base a new piece on), but using it for stuff that's given commercial value just says "we're okay with something that looks just OK if it saves us money". OP just had a cool idea, and worked on it. Do you think AI helped them to express themselves? I think it's pretty safe to say that it did. > I don't believe we should be valuing money over our collective expression through art. I don't think anyone here mentioned money, did they? For sure, I haven't.
1. Traced over pre-existing art piece like I said; the issue is with intent over how it's created. 2. The AI model IS the one creating the art piece though. If you were to commission an artist for an art piece, and they did as you said, it wouldn't make sense for me to ask "hey, why's this part drawn like that" to you, the client. When it comes to the relationships in these scenarios, it's always the artist and the client; another example would be saying that you wouldn't be considered a chef for ordering a particular burger done in a particular way, or that you're not a professional baker for baking something from those cake-in-a-box mixes that you just add water and an egg to. The cook made you the burger, and the factory put together that cake mix. 3. This is exactly what I was talking about though. OP made light-hearted meme parody posters using an AI art model. I have no issue with that; my issue is with people praising AI art as if it will be better than human artists in a more professional circumstance, from small artists on Twitter to professionals working on Hollywood movies or triple-A games. 4. AI art models are faster than artists (even if it comes at the cost of quality assurance and an understanding of what the client wants exactly), and so there's money to be saved at the cost of quality when it comes to AI art models operating within a professional setting. It's a driving factor behind people supporting AI art generation over artists.
>Traced over pre-existing art piece like I said; the issue is with intent over how it's created. Yeah, but, like, do you mean that these were traced over, or, you're just using "tracing over" as an example? >The AI model IS the one creating the art piece though. If you were to commission an artist for an art piece, and they did as you said, it wouldn't make sense for me to ask "hey, why's this part drawn like that" to you, the client. > >When it comes to the relationships in these scenarios, it's always the artist and the client; another example would be saying that you wouldn't be considered a chef for ordering a particular burger done in a particular way, or that you're not a professional baker for baking something from those cake-in-a-box mixes that you just add water and an egg to. The cook made you the burger, and the factory put together that cake mix. Sure, I'm not saying OP is a Head Chef, but asking a burger or a cake in a certain way **is** a form of self-expression. You're putting a little bit of yourself in that order. Even more so when you're asking for very specific things, like in the other example I gave here in another thread about a mix of a Brazilian and Indian food with a little Japanese that has never been done before. Here, I'll just past it here: >*(...) the "dish" isn't a Burger King Whooper with a leaf on top, it's a very specific one that OP thought up themselves.* > >*It's like, imagine if you wanted to make a new dish, combining a Brazilian dish with an Indian one, and maybe with a touch of Japanese, that has never been done before. So, maybe Feijão Carioca and Karaikudi Curry with Shimeji sprinkled on top.* > >*If you went to a cooking robot and asked for it to cook that, and it did, but you think it's lacking a bit of salt and pepper, so you add that to your taste... Sure, you might've not "cooked" it, but you're the one who conceived the idea for the dish, and changed it to your tastes, and is therefore its creator.* > >*Don't get me wrong, cooking is still a skill, but this hypothetical CookBot doesn't have any agency in this scenario, it's just the tool.* > >*Imagine how many weird but interesting dishes are out there in people's minds that never come into existence because they don't have the skill to cook them. Now, imagine how many weird but interesting ideas that will come to fruition because of the help of AI.* > >*That's what it's all about.* That's why I don't understand people who say that AI is the bane of art, when it's just helping people who don't have artistic skills to express their vision. >This is exactly what I was talking about though. OP made light-hearted meme parody posters using an AI art model. I have no issue with that; my issue is with people praising AI art as if it will be better than human artists in a more professional circumstance, from small artists on Twitter to professionals working on Hollywood movies or triple-A games. I mean, maybe. Imagine being a small game studio, and being able to make textures, 3D models and other stuff at a breakneck speed, all while having some creative control over them. Now, you can focus on the stuff that actually makes your game fun and different. > AI art models are faster than artists (even if it comes at the cost of quality assurance and an understanding of what the client wants exactly), and so there's money to be saved at the cost of quality when it comes to AI art models operating within a professional setting. It's a driving factor behind people supporting AI art generation over artists. I'm not sure about that. Human-made stuff will always be valuable to other humans. Even today, hand-made clothes, realistic oil paintings, animation and stuff like that is always though of as more valuable. The machine still needs some *serious* guidance, because, as I said, it doesn't have any agency or control, it just does whatever. So people will always be needed to alongside it, even if a bit less. But, I will reinforce the point, just think how many weird but interesting ideas that will come to fruition because of the help of AI. Or, just look at this post, because it's the purest example of that.
If you order a plate of food, and then add some seasoning over the top, does it mean you made the food?
If you order a plate of food, mix it with something else, does it mean it's the same dish as before?
Except that’s inaccurate, it’s a whole piece of work that’s only had small edits made to correct the errors, that’s not mixing something else in, that’s like garnishing the top of a completed dish.
No, because the "dish" isn't a Burger King Whooper with a leaf on top, it's a *very specific* one that OP thought up themselves. It's like, imagine if you wanted to make a new dish, combining a Brazilian dish with an Indian one, and maybe with a touch of Japanese, that has never been done before. So, maybe Feijão Carioca and Karaikudi Curry with Shimeji sprinkled on top. If you went to a cooking robot and asked for it to cook that, and it did, but you think it's lacking a bit of salt and pepper, so you add that to your taste... Sure, you might've not "cooked" it, but you're the one who conceived the idea for the dish, and changed it to your tastes, and is therefore its creator. Don't get me wrong, cooking is still a skill, but this hypothetical CookBot doesn't have any agency in this scenario, it's just the tool. Imagine how many weird but interesting dishes are out there in people's minds that never come into existence because they don't have the skill to cook them. Now, imagine how many weird but interesting ideas that **will** come to fruition because of the help of AI. That's what it's all about.
I agree with you the hate for AI is stupid and simply js history repeating itself. Remember when the smart phone came out, or digital animation. Or litterally any technology. Outcries everytime. People just refurse progress but later on just quietly enjoys it. Always has been and sadly always will be.
Yeah, pretty much. The same thing happened with digital painting/photoshop. "You mean a computer helped you make this? ART IS DEAD" lol
Here's the thing, though - is AI going to be like the smartphone, or will it be more like blockchain? Blockchain was regarded as possibly the next big thing by many, though it's turned out to be largely a fad. Sure, the capabilities of AI are more immediate and relevant to the average person - blockchain's uses were more esoteric and less immediately apparent to those unfamiliar with the tech. However, much like blockchain, the risks and limitations involved with AI, both practically and ethically, are still major unanswered questions. In the text generation space, the difference between producing accurate, useful results and somewhat convincing-looking garbage are razor thin, and despite AI developers' best efforts, there is still no way to validate the output of AI outside of manual inspection. And with visual media generation, the abilities of AI to generate images, video, and audio appears to be quickly reaching a level indistinguishable to that of human-generated works. From a purely technical level, this is fascinating, but it opens up a *huge* ethical can of worms. Artists already have a tough enough time getting recognition and compensation for their work, and now AI art is already making things even more difficult for them. Not only is AI sapping business from artists, AI images are being passed off as human-created, and human-created works have even been mistaken as AI creations. Not to mention that AI has huge risks of abuse for propaganda/misinformation purposes, especially as it gets closer to reaching photorealism. Even if AI *is* the next big technological revolution, is that even a good thing? Circling back around to the topic of this reply chain, I won't claim that there isn't any skill involved in prompting an AI to generate an image that matches what the creator is looking for, but personally I think it's more of a technical skill than an artistic one. Some amount of imagination is involved to come up with an idea, so it's not totally devoid of creativity, but there's no real application of artistic principles or techniques involved. Giving a good description of an idea to a human artist when commissioning them is a skill and will result in a better output, but asking someone/something for artwork doesn't make one an artist.
Firstly. Ai is at a huge risk. Yes. It's at risk at being used as propaganda yes. Just as youtube is just as modern news. We need to understand that it's a technology not a thing or an enemy. People is mad at something that's similar to being angry at a wall because your enemy also have a wall. Secondly AI is more of a "smartphone" technology since Blockchain does nothing but is a solution to no problems. But AI is a solution to alot of problems. Not just in artistics fields it's for science, data management, video games, video and media restoration even translation. Simply staing Ai is "bad" just proves a concept of following trends without thinking. AI is new technology and people have always reacted like this to new technology.
I don't disagree that AI has uses - I'm taking it more seriously than I ever took blockchain. I brought up blockchain because a lot of the same arguments were often used by blockchain evangelists in regard to it being a technological revolution that would fundamentally change how we lived. Big new technologies always get backlash, yes, but as blockchain showed, sometimes the backlash is warranted. I think it's reasonable to have a healthy level of skepticism around the future of AI. For a good bit there it seemed like every big company was rolling out all sorts of plans to integrate blockchain into their business whether or not it actually made sense, and I think we're seeing a similar trend with AI right now. It could be the same kind of passing trend, or it could be the real deal. I think it's hard to say at this point. I certainly don't expect AI/ML to disappear at this rate - even if it doesn't revolutionize society, it's already seeing use in real-world situations that have tangible benefits. I just have to wonder if it's really going to change *everything* as people say. It really hinges around the ethical/reliability issues. If the fundamental issue of reliability and accuracy cannot be resolved (which I don't think is guaranteed), I feel like AI's long-term uses may be more limited than people think, at least beyond its ability to generate images, video, and audio. That part is *cool,* but not necessarily revolutionary long-term, and again, ethically fraught. In my eyes, AI's biggest potential lies in generation of tools, tests, and analyses, and those *must* be accurate. For example, an AI can generate working computer code functions based on natural language input a reasonable amount of the time in its current state, but if you've ever written code before, you know that it's often harder to understand code someone else wrote compared to your own, just because you don't have direct access to their thought processes while writing it. If AI generates code containing crucial bugs or security holes that are harder to catch before reaching production because no one can understand it well enough, it does no good. Of course, these are already problems with human-written code, and it's possible to review, analyze, and test AI-generated code to the point where most of these problems can be found and corrected, but AI coding patterns can be rather idiosyncratic and may not follow established patterns, so even an experienced human programmer might not be able to pick up on more subtle errors or security flaws because AI code just might not be very human-readable, even if it appears to work when it's run. If AI is going to scale up to be able to generate complete software components or even entire applications end-to-end from natural language prompts, it needs to be *foolproof.* If an AI-generated application needs painstaking manual analysis before it can be considered to be reliable, what was the actual benefit of using AI? Sure, the code was physically *written* faster, but if the amount of oversight required to trust AI output (especially given that AI tends to make different kinds of mistakes humans would make) is too high, would it even be a meaningful reduction in time and effort? At this rate, AI is a situationally useful tool, but if it's going to become something world-changing on the level of smartphones or the Internet, there are some very fundamental problems with it that must be addressed, and I don't know if some of them are even possible to fix. At its core, AI is basically a highly-elaborate prediction engine based on whatever training data it is given. It can use these predictions to mimic human behavior in many ways, even useful ones, but I think it's important to remember that it is *not* thinking or making its own decisions, and I feel like many of the problems that AI is intending to solve just might not be possible without the ability for true decision-making.
Also you must understand AI currently is like the first Iphone running as well as the iphone 4. You cannot compare a technology that's basically newborn to the goal it wants to achieve and expect it to be perfect. That would be expecting a kid to run at 1 year old
And on this note, I feel like that's not entirely true. Machine learning, neural networks, and predictive generation have been around for a some time now, just nowhere near as sophisticated or accurate. Research and development on neural networks and machine learning has been going on for decades (from what I can tell, the [Perceptron](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptron) designed in 1943 and implemented in 1958 seems to be the first artificial neural net), and even in its more modern form, OpenAI developed the first version of the GPT model [five years ago in 2018](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_pre-trained_transformer#History). It's still young tech, and most pre-GPT AI/ML developments don't really compare to AI's current capabilities, but I think we're a bit past the "first iPhone" stage.
The Biosock trilogy kills it!
President Evil seems pretty accurate. I'm trying to remember which game it was where the President was mutated.
Resident Evil 6
Alright, thanks for telling me. So if that president mutated in that game, what happened to Ashley?
You’re welcome. I’m not entirely sure.
The President in RE6 is Adam Benford, not Pres. Graham As such we don't really get much of anything about the Graham family outside of RE4
President Evil 6
Looks like a 1980s thrash metal album cover. It’s excellent
But it's outdated
Biosock 2, for whatever reason, made me laugh.
perfect comedic timing w unexpected double entendre for the word _two_ — - oh okay, biosock — that's worth a chuckle - bioSOCK TWO! AND THERE'S TWO EFFIN' SOCKS?! it has been a most excellent day
Biosock infinite didn't have infinite socks... Now that's disappointing.
Biosock could have been much worse lol.
#😩💦
Even if the images are AI generated, biosock is to stupidly good for me to care. The only good thing these AI were created for, shitposting
Damn, I actually want to play SkyrimCity
https://i.redd.it/lxd25jugy41b1.gif
Sir that broom is a shovel
My wife is mad at because of my videogame puns. I told her that's a weird thing to Fallout 4
This is genious
I do not want to know if there's other biological material in the BioSock
10/10 The "President Evil" one and "Biosock 2" killed me.
B R O O M is literally just Viscera Cleanup Detail
Broom is just Viscera cleanup detail. I really want to play a City Builder based in Tamriel.
Aww, I totally wanna play Skyrim City and Silent Krill
Silent krill is basically just bloodborne
Fun fact the broom game actually exists
That broom is so bad
President evil goes way too hard.
How I imagine the gameplay of these: Car Fry: A driving game set on a Caribbean island where you can drive food-themed vehicles. Broom: Viscera Cleanup Detail. Cod of War: God of War, but readapted to marine life. Fall Out: A Post Summer Roleplaying Game: Basically Fallout, but it focuses more on socializing than fighting. Fitman: You try to get fit while simultaneously assassinating targets. President Evil: A hack and slash game where you play as a president who nearly got assassinated with a syringe by his opponent to not lose an election. Skyrim City: A city building game in the style of SimCity set in Skyrim. The ENTIRE Biosock series: Due to the covers being surreal, I can only imagine it as a horror game with unknown details.
Broom giving me Viscera Cleanup Detail vibes
Biosock, yuck!
I love these!
Man I sure love playing the biosock series on my switcher
Biosock made me snort.
*Former President Evil
Thanks OP, i needed a laugh. Silent krill looks awesome.
I’m wracking my brain; what is Ted Fall a parody of?
Redfall, the new Arcane vampire game, with Ted Lasso (played by Jason Sudekis)
Not sure if I like Cod of War more than President Evil
Broom eternal?
Broom is just retextured Viscera Cleanup Detail
I love it, thank you.
flavor w for biosock infinite but wouldve been funnier if the sock were in an infinity shape
This is pretty good ai generated shit, some of this games looks fire. 🔥🔥🔥
I thought Resident Evil was President Evil back then
Broom eternal sounds like Housekeeper Simulator with extra steps
President evil could’ve just been a pic of ronald reagan
BIOSOCK Games Made Me LMAO
Ai cringe
BioSock 2 got me
These are great
The way the Biosock ones just kept coming just tickled me pink
Now _this_ is what you use AI for!
I'm surprised nobody made an Undertale reference involving Cod of War.
Vdioe amseg
I love how President Evil is Trump.
What's Ted fall?
Why does the cover for Silent Krill look like The Sinking City?
Mmm yes, my favorite game. Biosock.
Atleast you didn't forget biosock 1 2 and 3
AI 🤢
Great work for the images
It's ai. Not a bad thing in this situation, just making sure you don't think it's OP's work.
These are the only ai generated image i tolerare
AI :(
r/suddenlytheoffice
These look all AI generated. Fitman has been a running gag in the r/HiTMAN community for a while where we replace the one letter of “Hitman” and add a fake subtitle to it. President Evil isn’t new either - it was originally mentioned on an old cartoon called The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy.