>>57660786Yes retard, you very very clearly can't distinguish it because you seriously thought
>>57659888 was AI generated when it's definitely not
Just look at the eyes and the small imperfections in the lineart, AI can't do that, not yet at least
Small imperfections in art are human because AI is incapable of replicating this, they way AI images work make it impossible since it uses such a large amount of image samples that it smoothes out all minor imperfections
>nowadays you can generate pictures that are indistinguishable from human made art.LMFAO you really are retarded
AI is definitely getting really good, but I can still easily tell human art and AI slop apart in 99% of cases even with the newest models
And I've generated a few things myself in fact fyi
>believed I referred to the linked monochrome pic also as an AI generation, right?No of course not, I don't think anyone could be this retarded anyway, not even you thankfully
>>57660805Lol what are you talking about? I don't have a weird hangup over AI, I'm making fun for that other anon for being unable to distinct human art from AI art
You probably thought I inherently hate AI because I called it "slop", but that's literally what it is: quick and easy content made by conglomerating masses of data and automatically spitting out things they have in common visually
AI images have its value, but it is in a whole different league then human art, only a fool would think these things are comparable
It's just like how shitty processed foods like microwave meals have their value and should exist, but thinking those are "indistinguishable" from an actual meal cooked by a person is an utterly retarded take and clearly indicates very poor taste
