Unironically, this is based as fuck
And implies that dragons may be mammals?
My dragons can have big naturals, as a treat.
Female dragons store extra gas in the tits for combustion. This is used to defend the nest from scavengers and aggressive males. This is why before laying an egg the tits engorge
No nipples, so not mammal.
Its the social media censorship. I saw it irl and the dragon nipples are real
…social media censorship…
Boooooo
Boooooo
🐝🐝🐝
And tasty.
- sigh… Unzips *
Would you say you’re… rock hard?
It’s… A soot fetish.
Man the only thing I miss about reddit was gold. I’d give it to you for this comment.
That or he’s dragon his balls on something
same vibe. ravioli art https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOnIv6LP96U
No one looking at this is able to tell if the images themselves are AI generated at this point in time
I’d say many artists can at least probably tell because he starts out drawing with a light sketch first. People who don’t draw wouldn’t think to generate the steps in between like that.
Also, the rock is pretty clearly the same. And the drawing is consistent.
I agree that AI slop wouldn’t be able to produce this. But for someone who knows what they’re doing with image generation and open source tools, these images are easy to generate through sequential generation where: first an overview picture with all the objects is produced and then the first image is used as the input for the second image and so on.
But the way, I don’t think that the images are generated. I’m just saying that we wouldn’t be able to tell if they were
I’m not doubting what you’re saying, if anything I’m trying to make sure I understand how that kind of workflow would create something like this. My understanding of image to image generation wouldn’t get results anywhere near this consistent.
I would argue that the medium used doesn’t define the artist, but rather how much effort is put into getting the final result. A few prompt words and a button click, that’s not an artist. Finding the right combination of things, taking those results, doing further manipulation, that becomes more like artwork, even if it’s all digital.
The line has become very blurry, no doubt there. But the people drawing a line aren’t helping.
Haven’t we had this discussion like a billion times? Isn’t every art movement just a rebellion against what “the man” thinks “real” art is?
I’m not sure that effort alone is a good enough metric. Some great art actually does just kinda flow out sometimes, to the point where artists often talk about feeling like they’re just a channel that the art flows out of.
There’s great art that’s been born in 30 minutes as a silly afterthought of the artist, and also great art that took the artist’s entire life.
I would love to see how many hours of practice and repetition each artist had put in, before the moment they experienced that flowing for the first time.
Sure, there are levels of inspiration and skill, but there’s still work to bring it to fruition. There’s also the artist’s eye to see a sudden masterpiece for what it is, and even stop before they make it less. One could say that someone using digital tools has to have that ability as much as any artist to be successful.
Yes art = work, genius
All work is effort, but not all effort is work.
Right because effort is art or something?
Again not all effort is art, but all art is effort.
How do you figure when effort is not art?
The fact that you can whittle a paintbrush in the wilderness but cant build an LLM in the wilderness really doesn’t mean anything.
A zine-maker can’t make paper and a photocopier in the wilderness but they’re still an artist. A digital artist can’t code photoshop in the woods, but they’re still an artist. And some percentage of prompt fondlers could still draw in the wilderness but that doesn’t make their ai art real art.
This is just a bad argument because the complexity of your tools is not what defines an artist.
The meme is referring to tech bros who equate text prompts to creating visual art. The person who put art on a rock is a digital artist showing that actual digital artists can still create art even without their digital tools.
For example, someone who does 3d modeling but never sculpted could could make something decent out of clay on the first try because they understand proportion.
Tech bro prompt engineers would not be able to apply their text prompts to other contexts.
You missed the point. It says directly in the screenshot that the artist is a digital artist. The entire point is that an artist is not tied to a medium.
I think the argument is that artists will create art even with limited tools regardless.
I’m an artist that works on computers all day doing things like Photoshop touch-ups. But to use those tools, I started out by scribbling on anything and everything with whatever I had available all my life. Doing so let me understand the the finer details as well as how to achieve certain looks. I carried those skills into my digital work.
If I don’t have a computer, I still create art even if I have not used the medium before. I might not pick up a paintbrush and become Caravaggio, but what I will do is draw on my experience to make something a tad better than someone who has never made anything themselves.
This person probably never drew on a rock with charred sticks. But they probably used a pencil on paper and those skills are similar.
But then everyone is an artist, like what makes yoy an artist and not me an artist? Oh you pay your rent by creating art? Then you’re a “professional” artist.
What makes an artist an artist is a question that will be debated for a long time.
But someone jamming a prompt into a LLM does not make them an artist.
