Mastodawn

People who use "AI" a lot convince themselves it's effective (and will only become more so) because they become habituated to its flaws and limitations. The weird glitches and half-assed outputs become part of the process.

Because this essentially random process sometimes appears to hit gold, they become convinced they have more control over the process than they actually do. Hence the cargo cult behavior of crafting ever more elaborate and lengthy prompts to coax out the desired response.

Show thread

Orange Lantern

Jan 30

@gwynnion That might be true for people who rely on a prompt alone.

All I can say is, that I use it in combination with „traditional“ work and it’s doing miracles reliably. Is the output flawed? Yes, very often. But it doesn’t matter — I go over it myself for finishing touches anyway (it would feel odd not to) and for that it’s usually good enough and a huge timesaver to boot.
In fact, I usually generate on relatively low resolution and upscale it afterwards to roughen up the result so that it blends in more easily with my painting.

So, in summary — I use it on my own drawings (for colour, backgrounds or effects) and therefore only in the cartoony anime-esque style of mine. And for these purposes it works perfectly. I actually don’t want or need it to do more.

People are sorely mistaken if they think it can replace an artist. But it can augment creative work quite a bit.

Show thread

Arrakissian

@orangelantern @gwynnion - I agree. AI is pretty good at whipping up tables and can help a lot with organizing. I don't use it for "research" or generating creative content though.