/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6896333
>You never seen AI users do their own take on style.
lol

>>6875707
i think i've shown plenty of proof of concepts.
like pic related. i think you can use it to churn through a vast amount of combinations and ideas very quickly.
underpainting, background creation, inbetweening (eventually), all of these are obvious usecases.

>>6875711
i could probably do it by using pens i normally don't use and use a style i'm not used to, but
there is no point in risking it.
i posted shit already, except i blurred it. again, if that can't convince you i genuinely think you're dishonest.
besides i've done this dance in the past here anyway. posting my work doesn't lead to anything. sometimes the opposing side gets a bit more demure, and that's it.
doesn't change that it's inherently an ad hominem: you're not addressing what i'm saying and focusing on me instead.

>>6875716
i make points in every post.
you? you exclusively talk about me.
doesn't that get tiring? do you ever feel like you're a complete waste of breath?
you are tiring to me, that's for sure.


>>6875712
i'm calling you retards because you're giving up.
it's genuinely laughable when i say something, and then you retards will say that i'm trying to "demotivate" you.
you're fucking idiots.

>>6873392
dall-e is shockingly good for inspiration because of how well it takes to natural language prompts. try to prompt the inktober challenges and see what you get.

>it feels like I'm just browsing a bunch of premade images
yes. but i can actually find inspiration faster using AI than searching for it because of how tailor made it is.

>>6873393
as an underpainting too. as a idea generator, color pallete generator.
your imagination is the limit in how you can use this.

>it's not unethical to use ANY reference as inspiration of course. no one, and I mean NO ONE actually said that this is the case
for reference, yes.
but many /ic/tards think using it directly is unethical simply because it has been trained on art.

>>6858905
as in, you prompt the pose you want and use the result as a ref or inspiration?
that's kinda novel i guess. not sure how useful it is.
i feel like SD, just like LLMs can also just be good brainstorming and design tools. even if you don't let it actually generate anything related to your actual output.

>>6859402
the other thread is gone, but i'm still here :)
and no, i'm not ban evading.
this is proof enough that i'm not trolling nor spamming i'd say. and the janny agrees. (he's still a fag for thinking that AI doesn't belong here though.)

>>6859404
they are legitimately delusional. and they want to stay that way.

>>6859450
hello anon. and no. you're being shizo again.

lightning fast underpaintings in seconds. and you can experiment with designs as much as you want.

>>6859353
>"you don't get it bro, it gets concept bro, you just have to tell it every single time it's wrong but it's jsut like udnerstanding bro"
oh? i have to tell it every single time?

>>6859340
it either can or it can't anon. the fact that it can most of the time just means that it does in fact "understand" those concepts.
besides, out of those, it only gets hands wrong the most.
>hands
because hands are complicated while also having contours that are extremely variable from different angles.
so the AI can't just make a blob and then wing it like it does with some other features. it also has to understand the position, angle and alignment of the hands, which it rarely does.

>eyes, clothes, hair,
it's not bad at all with eyes unless it's only a small part of the canvas. that's why the upscaled end images rarely have fucked up eyes, even if you don't inpaint.
the others, not really.

>scale, composition
scale, sometimes. composition, not really.

but again, all of this already shows partial understanding at the very least. you just can't be intellectually honest.
or intellectual in any way, really. :)

>>6859262
>Did I?
yes
>don't you find the astronaut image obviously appealing?
>wow, suck an original concept, never seen that one before.

>Why if I find it appealing? it suddenly makes you a point?
no. like i said, this is a side discussion YOU brought up. i don't even care, i'd rather focus on the learning stuff.

>Oh common, its not so hard to understand
it's VERY hard for me to understand. because as opposed to you, i do not fucking obsess over the crabs at my feet. ESPECIALLY not if they can't draw. if they can make some art they like and have fun, that's good for them.
meanwhile, i'm looking at how the new tech can be used for myself.
instead of fucking denying reality and coping in 20 different ways.

continued.