/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6670416
>Your advice isn't bad on its own, but when people see where it led you, I'm pretty sure no one is going to listen to it.
I hate to point this out for you, and I don't mean it in a bad way, but you kind of contradicted yourself in your own reply. I used to do that a lot too, don't worry. When you get older, it'll make more sense to you. : )
>I'm not talking about your art, I'm talking about your advice.
>Your advice isn't bad on it's own...
Find happiness in your art. It's a lot of fun, you should try it. I hope you learn.
>>6670417
>see pic related

>>6254953
to be fair why would anyone use this ai generated art rather than use the images that were mashed up for its creation?
I mean wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that there are enough reference images in the Ai's database for something like this to be made
is using the original images not technically more efficient than having some esoteric arcane horror mash up images for an inherently derivative product?
like legit at what point will people realize that just having an optimized browser is almost as good as "creating" Ai "art?

am i missing something here?
stringing along a slurry of keywords and praying for the best can't be fulfilling for the artist beyond trying to rub the result in everyone's face yeah?
so if the process doesn't give any fulfillment and efficiency wise having an optimized image browser is more energy and time efficient then who exactly is the Ai field marketting their shit to?
you can't tell me ruthless megacorps/consumers wont immediately realize how redundant this whole flavor of the year thingamajig is

am i missing something here how isn't anyone talking about this
if there is enough "reference" for an Ai to create a gimmick derivative wouldn't it stand to reason that just using the original refernces themselves be apt?