What do you mean? Screenshots of the movie are completely ok. The movie has consumers' rights, and they are not taking credit for the source material. What about this is stolen?
I forgot to mention it in the Titel of the Post. But I mentioned it in several comments. Sadly can't edit the posts title. (Or is there a way?) Will definitely mention it in the title next time
Yha ikr. People are making to big of a deal out of it like a ton of big stuff that is common today was made on accident such as; Penicillin, Smoke Detectors(kind of they were made with the intention of detecting poisonous gas), Velcro, The Microwave Oven, and The X-ray Machine.
Probably because ai art is considered morally wrong, although I think using it for fun isn't bad. It's mostly because ever since ai art has came out lots of people have been crap talking down real artists and getting all smug , while using ai art in competitions and using ai art online to get attention for being a 'real artist'. Overall most people using ai art are using it for bad rather then good, and don't realize it's just a fun tool to mess around with, not to replace real art
This. I have no problem with AI art used in the right ways. I’m someone who draws often and I’m trying to develop my skills but recently my brother started using AI and every now and then he’d call me over and ask me to see what he’s “working” on. It just hurts. Despite this, I do think that AI can be used for good.
For example, someone needs art for their ttrpg (like D&D) to give the players an idea of what they’re looking at but they don’t have the time nor money to commission art. In this case it’s a quick and cheaper alternative, it’s harmless in that it’s just a quick visual for you and a couple friends so I see no problem with this application. When people start claiming it as their work is where I *draw* the line.
**--IMAGE IS AI GENERATED--**
It wasn't clear to me, that the border between AI-Art and Regular Art is that thinn and I Appologize for that. The "Art" tag is removed. My intention wasn't to pretend, that this is regular art. I hope this comment clarifies this.
Not only do I like it a lot. But I also like the fact that you signed it in a sensible way. It's clear enough to claim ownership, but not intrusive as a shameless watermark
I really don't understand why everyone is so aggressive? You never claimed to have drawn it. You even admitted it was AI multiple times and didn't try to hide it.
It's obviously AI, but it's still very beautiful and still art. Art isn't just by hand now, and you were just trying to share.
People always find something to be mad at I suppose.
It's a new genre and people don't know how to deal with it yet. In the end there will be 3 : photography, AI, drawing
All is art, art is the time the person thought about the subject and chose how to portray it. And I the end it's also about how the viewers respond to it. We don't call photography not art just becaueuse the photographer didn't make the buildings or people or parks themselves.
I feel like I personally can't consider AI art a type of art, of course the interpretations the one seeing the art is important but I feel like the feelings behind the creator of that art play a massive role in this story too. AI is a bot, it has no feelings whatsoever, it'll only do what it's asked to do, nothing more nothing else, it doesn't have the "soul of the artist" placed into it unlike photography, writing, drawing whatever. These are things only humans can give to a piece
But see, you’re exactly right - AI only does what the user tells it to do. The "soul" part comes through the artist's vision, the prompt, and any additional effort put into editing the output afterwards. Personally, I believe AI has great potential if used correctly.
Ok, but people had the same argument when the camera was first invented. It has no soul, the person taking the photo didn't have to train for years, etc. This is just the next thing, and people are hating on it way too hard, in my opinion. I'm not saying you are, just saying it's out there. I do think these AI needs more checks and balances.
You definitely need to do more research on ai. It does not directly steal from other artists.
It's the same way how human artists take inspiration from others or recreate work from others that we like.
Would you consider that stolen? No, of course not because every artist takes inspiration from something.
If you don't like ai art, that's completely up to you, but let's not bash other people who aren't using it in a harmful way.
What? I don't use ai art personally, but I can still respect its a form of art when used properly. You seem like you're just looking to argue with someone...
I don't get why everyone has to hate on it. Just because it's technically not art doesn't mean it's not nice to look at. Astrid looks very pretty, does she not?
People hate on AI art cause it's actively stealing other artists' art in order to train it, and a lot of dickheads are posting ai art to pass off as their own art when it's not. People aren't always transparent about it being ai like OP.
Do you genuinely think it's the same thing? Inspiration is not the same as ai art. Ai art is blatant theft. Taking inspiration is something every artist does. It's one thing to say hey, I like the way this artist draws eyes, and to take inspiration from it to make the eyes you draw look better. It is a completely different thing to take an artists hard work and shove it through an AI to create a soulless imitation
No I don't think it's the same, but it's kinda what people are trying to do. Taking a sample from enough art pieces should produce something original in a sense. It's not the same thing yet, but I guess people are trying to make it as close as possible. If that ever succeeds and a sentient AI is made, then I might consider it comparable.
No ai will ever be able to 100% mimic an actual artist without significant amounts of art theft. The main problem with it is its theft. Artists who put their heart and soul into their work are having it ripped and shoved through an AI without their consent. Idk what your point was even supposed to be here, dude.
This is the only argument against AI that I fully support. It's wrong to train models on data that the creator didn’t agree to. Luckily big companies like Pixar are creating their own models based on specifically created artwork, and I hope there will be more approaches like this in the future.
I didn't even know there were other arguments against AI art. My only beef is it being theft. If you draw the images you train it on yourself all the power to yah, or if you get express consent from artists, then go for it. I do think it should stay doing what it was designed for though, as a way to generate references for actual artists. It shouldn't be the death of an industry
haha it is AI xD. The model has been training fore more than 400h and this is about the 15th version of it. Just wanted to see if you guys notice :). Still looks impressiv for AI though, right?
AI art is trained on millions of images, which is impossible to get permission to use all of them. AI art is never ethical, it exists from stolen art and other images.
But it never looks EXACTLY like someone piece of art. Every prompt will yield something different every time. Unless you use a special model to get an exact style or character to look perfect. He says he trained the model for 400hs, which is no different than me spending 40 hours on an art commission. He's taking his time out to train a bot to produce this character at a quality that could be believable with half the amount of time and resources.
I'm an artist who actually draws my art, and even I can see the benefits ai art can have. No matter what art will be stolen. Whats the difference of someone just reuploaded my art to another website. I would never know. But again, I'm just someone on the internet with an opinion like you. But there's no reason to right off the bat say 'ew' to someone who did nothing wrong but tell ya the truth.
That’s like saying blackout poetry is good because the person doing it has spent time looking for what to use. They’re still using other peoples work no matter what. AI art does this to a mass scale, literally millions of images taken to produce something which is the result of just throwing things to a bot and seeing what it comes up with. Those 400 hours would pass either way.
So you're saying if I use other images to help with my art as references, I'm stealing someone else's art? Because that's what it's doing. It's referencing and learning just like every actual artist out there. Someone wasn't just magically good they had to have someone else's art to reference or inspire from.
Tldc: I don't intend on changing your mind, but just don't be surprise when it is normal, just like how people didn't think digital art was art when it first came into play. My main issue was still no need to be rude to someone who simply was honest.
AI art is completely different than referencing. I’m an artist too, don’t think you’ve got some superior higher knowledge to me.
Our human brains can morph images and form our own ideas based on how we experience things, we can mix two completely separate ideas into a single seamless one without even realising we are doing it. We understand how form works in the real world. That’s what creativity is.
AI has to be fed millions of images because it only understands the basic shapes of that image but not how to break them down. It learns what aspects to use and what to not, it’s literally just photobashing but with a robot and they also don’t understand how anything works in the real world. That’s why you end up with melted extra fingers, folds in clothes that don’t make sense, fleshy eyes and two rows of teeth.
Tldr: Humans are creative, robots are not
I don’t like it…beautiful image! But it’s not Astrid…Astrid would be facing the viewer, in a half-sideways manner, with her hand on her hip, either smiling, or saying something like”what are you doing?”, or “whatcha up to?”…this isn’t the Astrid from httyd…not yet!
I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this.
On the one hand I can tell from your comments that you've put a lot of time and effort into training the model, and that part is impressive.
But I dislike the lack of creative spirit in AI generated images. There is no initial creative idea or spark that is worked on and developed to create a finished product, there is simply an image mindlessly generated from words or other pictures. To me this simply is not art in any form.
Between this, and the AI databases being trained on images obtained without the express consent of the original owners, I can see why Reddit is generally not positive about AI images. The AI police on Reddit can be a bit overzealous in their mission though, and I've found myself wrongly accused of using AI generated images before, and some of the comments towards your post have been unnecessarily unkind when you have been nothing but transparent about your process.
As a demonstration of what your model training can do, this is impressive. The image itself does not suffer from a lot of the visual pitfalls that many AI images often do. However judging purely the image itself, it is lacking in creative spirit. I think there may be a use for AI, but I'm personally just not convinced that this is it.
Yeah what effort? Anyone can just input promps into an AI and it'll generate an image, sure it is impressive technology has gone this far to look like an actual drawing.. but still.
>took me like 20 minutes to decide if I want to put a watermark on it... In the end I decided to do it. i have been working on training this model since stable Diffusion 1.5 released more than half a year ago. So I did not just go to some website and generated this in 10 seconds. therefor I think the watermark is ok.
>
>I still respect your opinion though.
I don't think you understand how hard it is to work with ai art generators.
1. It requires a lot of information if you want it to look decent.
2. Even with super specific wording it will still mess up even on basic things.
3. It sucks at drawing fingers.
4. It's not instantly generated even if you pay for premium on certain apps and sites.
5. Please grow up op has already said that it was ai they made a mistake and didn't put the ai tag on it. It's not that hard to understand that humans make mistakes. In fact quite a few things that seem common today were made by mistake such as but not limited to; Penicillin, Smoke Detectors(kind of they were made with the intention of detecting poisonous gas), Velcro, The Microwave Oven, and The X-ray Machine.
I don't think you understand how hard it is to work with ai art generators.
1. It requires a lot of information if you want it to look decent.
2. Even with super specific wording it will still mess up even on basic things.
3. It sucks at drawing fingers.
4. It's not instantly generated even if you pay for premium on certain apps and sites.
5. Please grow up op has already said that it was ai they made a mistake and didn't put the ai tag on it. It's not that hard to understand that humans make mistakes. In fact quite a few things that seem common today were made by mistake such as but not limited to; Penicillin, Smoke Detectors(kind of they were made with the intention of detecting poisonous gas), Velcro, The Microwave Oven, and The X-ray Machine.
I have. Well then since I have to add this I can draw and have drawn pretty decently which is still probably better than what you can draw. So let me get this straight rq since I think ai art isn't bad you assume that I can't draw? Did I get that right? If so that sounds kinda dumb. Maybe you do need to grow up.
I normally don't use ai but when I do it's for dnd NPC art. Since there is only a week between my campaign and I need the art for npc's it just makes it easier for me. So instead of having to hand draw everything which would likely take days of dedication just for the art. That's not including time that I have to create plot points, npc backstories, making and planning encounters, etc. Which if i wanted to I could get all that down in abt 4 is days with breaks, eating, sleeping, hanging out with friends, etc.
took me like 20 minutes to decide if I want to put a watermark on it... In the end I decided to do it. i have been working on training this model since stable Diffusion 1.5 released more than half a year ago. So I did not just go to some website and generated this in 10 seconds. therefor I think the watermark is ok.
I still respect your opinion though.
Without counting every one of them, that's roughly around 100+ people who worked on the movie purely in the art/animation departments. That movie took three years to make. Watermarking this as if you made it is an insult to every last one of them.
A last name isn't a watermark, and a baby isn't made by an AI trained on other people's stolen artwork without their consent. Y'all don't even have arguments that make sense
I don't think you understand how hard it is to work with ai art generators.
1. It requires a lot of information if you want it to look decent.
2. Even with super specific wording it will still mess up even on basic things.
3. It sucks at drawing fingers.
4. It's not instantly generated even if you pay for premium on certain apps and sites.
5. Please grow up op has already said that it was ai they made a mistake and didn't put the ai tag on it. It's not that hard to understand that humans make mistakes. In fact quite a few things that seem common today were made by mistake such as but not limited to; Penicillin, Smoke Detectors(kind of they were made with the intention of detecting poisonous gas [not like smoke or anything like that]), Velcro, The Microwave Oven, and The X-ray Machine.
Also op has said they put a 40 or Smth hours into training the ai. Which imo gives them the right to put a watermark.
Please grow up op has already said that it was ai they made a mistake and didn't put the ai tag on it. It's not that hard to understand that humans make mistakes.
Whats wrong with ai? Op has said that it was ai and even said that they made a mistake when not putting ai in the tags also you don't have to read what comes next but I recommend reading it.
I don't think you understand how hard it is to work with ai art generators.
1. It requires a lot of information if you want it to look decent.
2. Even with super specific wording it will still mess up even on basic things.
3. It sucks at drawing fingers.
4. It's not instantly generated even if you pay for premium on certain apps and sites.
Well first off, at the time i made the comment there were absolutely no mentions of it being AI generated, second i do not really care about Ai, i was just disappointed to see that the image was Ai generated, i'd rather see something that was actually hand crafted by a real living being. But sure if you want to continue this incredibly stupid discussion, then go ahead, i probably won't reply back.
Your free to have you opinions. It's just some people don't have the time to spend weeks making a perfect drawing and then coloring it perfectly. We'll anyway have a good day or night wherever you are.
I don't think you understand how hard it is to work with ai art generators.
1. It requires a lot of information if you want it to look decent.
2. Even with super specific wording it will still mess up even on basic things.
3. It sucks at drawing fingers.
4. It's not instantly generated even if you pay for premium on certain apps and sites.
5. Please grow up op has already said that it was ai they made a mistake and didn't put the ai tag on it. It's not that hard to understand that humans make mistakes. In fact quite a few things that seem common today were made by mistake such as but not limited to; Penicillin, Smoke Detectors(kind of they were made with the intention of detecting poisonous gas), Velcro, The Microwave Oven, and The X-ray Machine.
Yeah, it looks good, only issue is the hair.
I know it's not a easy thing for the ai to fix, I have so many problems when I tried to get normal arms and legs.
I don't think you understand how hard it is to work with ai art generators.
1. It requires a lot of information if you want it to look decent.
2. Even with super specific wording it will still mess up even on basic things.
3. It sucks at drawing fingers.
4. It's not instantly generated even if you pay for premium on certain apps and sites.
HBO not letting me screenshot for some reason but this is her
https://preview.redd.it/bwsk9br15vdb1.png?width=1048&format=png&auto=webp&s=92e2d4e8dfd72d060d718ef7de05dd5c37bb6328
I personally don't care whether they made it with AI or found it on the internet. It looks great, and the skill to train the ai like that is incredible. So stop acting like some assholes who give in to gossip as if you're some high school anime girl and give the creator some credit for their hard work and dedication to their art. Because using only screenshots for this and training an ai to do it that perfectly with only hair slightly glitches is incredible
Ngl this looks like AI
and you are right! its the 15th version of the model. more than 400h in training.
Yet still feels like ai
exactly, i saw this and felt something was off.
the hair is off, look closely at it and you'll see where it breaks apart
Yeah, first thing I noticed was the hair coming out of her shoulder armour like a cape.
Oh yeah that looks weird lol.
How to train your AI :)
You trained the model yourself? That’s cool! Did you only feed it screenshots or anything else?
Only screenshots. In my experience it gets really complicated to train with different styles/types of images. Especially on consumer hardware...
Ew...long process in training but...it's AI so...ew.
[удалено]
Bro is not selling that art so where's the problem calm down
No they just used the movie?
[удалено]
They said they just used screenshots
[удалено]
They’re screenshots from the movie, it’s not anyone’s art :/
Technically it’s the studios art but because it is made for general audience consumption the other persons argument is invalid
Exactly
What do you mean? Screenshots of the movie are completely ok. The movie has consumers' rights, and they are not taking credit for the source material. What about this is stolen?
[удалено]
indeed. model has been training for more than 400h :)
Tell everyone that it’s AI. It’s not your work.
I forgot to mention it in the Titel of the Post. But I mentioned it in several comments. Sadly can't edit the posts title. (Or is there a way?) Will definitely mention it in the title next time
I think you should be able to add it in the text portion of the post, sucks that you're getting downvoted for an accident :(
Yo, man, cut some slack, AI art is still not as simple as you might think.
Yha ikr. People are making to big of a deal out of it like a ton of big stuff that is common today was made on accident such as; Penicillin, Smoke Detectors(kind of they were made with the intention of detecting poisonous gas), Velcro, The Microwave Oven, and The X-ray Machine.
Probably because ai art is considered morally wrong, although I think using it for fun isn't bad. It's mostly because ever since ai art has came out lots of people have been crap talking down real artists and getting all smug , while using ai art in competitions and using ai art online to get attention for being a 'real artist'. Overall most people using ai art are using it for bad rather then good, and don't realize it's just a fun tool to mess around with, not to replace real art
This. I have no problem with AI art used in the right ways. I’m someone who draws often and I’m trying to develop my skills but recently my brother started using AI and every now and then he’d call me over and ask me to see what he’s “working” on. It just hurts. Despite this, I do think that AI can be used for good. For example, someone needs art for their ttrpg (like D&D) to give the players an idea of what they’re looking at but they don’t have the time nor money to commission art. In this case it’s a quick and cheaper alternative, it’s harmless in that it’s just a quick visual for you and a couple friends so I see no problem with this application. When people start claiming it as their work is where I *draw* the line.
**--IMAGE IS AI GENERATED--** It wasn't clear to me, that the border between AI-Art and Regular Art is that thinn and I Appologize for that. The "Art" tag is removed. My intention wasn't to pretend, that this is regular art. I hope this comment clarifies this.
All good, you didn't have bad intentions, though i'm still not a big fan of AI lol.
If it can give us more astrid... we might let it pass this once
Honestly….. agreed 👍
Agreed. Also why do people keep down voting this?
Mostly because its AI, not actual hand made art.
I can see that as a reason but just because someone doesn't spend days hand drawing something doesn't mean it's not art.
Yeah but when someone spends days hand drawing something, there's actual effort put into it.
People are an enigma.
Eh, disagree, but enjoy your AI generated Astrids lmao
Looks like Elsa went to Skyrim
There should be an AI tag. I don’t like seeing ai work under ‘art’ since it’s not art.
agreed. Will add (AI) next time I post AI stuff
Smash- I mean Sorry what was the question
same dude, same
Looks cool, even though it's AI generated.
Thx!
Hiccup be like 
😂
I absolutely love the iridescent breastplate. that is such a pretty color and very fitting for Astrid
Smash, I mean it looks good
She’s gorgeous
That’s AMAZING!!!
Thanks :)
How to train your AI
xD
Not only do I like it a lot. But I also like the fact that you signed it in a sensible way. It's clear enough to claim ownership, but not intrusive as a shameless watermark
yes
Elsa
haha kinda true
I actually thought you were going for a mashup.
Absolutely freaking gorgeous. Both Astrid and the art itself.
It's AI
Ok
And? There isn't anything wrong with that. The op has even said so multiple times.
I really don't understand why everyone is so aggressive? You never claimed to have drawn it. You even admitted it was AI multiple times and didn't try to hide it. It's obviously AI, but it's still very beautiful and still art. Art isn't just by hand now, and you were just trying to share. People always find something to be mad at I suppose.
Thx :)
It's a new genre and people don't know how to deal with it yet. In the end there will be 3 : photography, AI, drawing All is art, art is the time the person thought about the subject and chose how to portray it. And I the end it's also about how the viewers respond to it. We don't call photography not art just becaueuse the photographer didn't make the buildings or people or parks themselves.
I feel like I personally can't consider AI art a type of art, of course the interpretations the one seeing the art is important but I feel like the feelings behind the creator of that art play a massive role in this story too. AI is a bot, it has no feelings whatsoever, it'll only do what it's asked to do, nothing more nothing else, it doesn't have the "soul of the artist" placed into it unlike photography, writing, drawing whatever. These are things only humans can give to a piece
But see, you’re exactly right - AI only does what the user tells it to do. The "soul" part comes through the artist's vision, the prompt, and any additional effort put into editing the output afterwards. Personally, I believe AI has great potential if used correctly.
And the training, in this case. OP trained the AI themselves
Ok, but people had the same argument when the camera was first invented. It has no soul, the person taking the photo didn't have to train for years, etc. This is just the next thing, and people are hating on it way too hard, in my opinion. I'm not saying you are, just saying it's out there. I do think these AI needs more checks and balances.
[удалено]
You definitely need to do more research on ai. It does not directly steal from other artists. It's the same way how human artists take inspiration from others or recreate work from others that we like. Would you consider that stolen? No, of course not because every artist takes inspiration from something. If you don't like ai art, that's completely up to you, but let's not bash other people who aren't using it in a harmful way.
[удалено]
What? I don't use ai art personally, but I can still respect its a form of art when used properly. You seem like you're just looking to argue with someone...
i like it
I legit thought this was a screenshot for. The movies/shows. It’s incredible
I don't get why everyone has to hate on it. Just because it's technically not art doesn't mean it's not nice to look at. Astrid looks very pretty, does she not?
People hate on AI art cause it's actively stealing other artists' art in order to train it, and a lot of dickheads are posting ai art to pass off as their own art when it's not. People aren't always transparent about it being ai like OP.
Ok, random thought I had, isn't that how real art works, people learn how to draw from seeing other drawings
Do you genuinely think it's the same thing? Inspiration is not the same as ai art. Ai art is blatant theft. Taking inspiration is something every artist does. It's one thing to say hey, I like the way this artist draws eyes, and to take inspiration from it to make the eyes you draw look better. It is a completely different thing to take an artists hard work and shove it through an AI to create a soulless imitation
No I don't think it's the same, but it's kinda what people are trying to do. Taking a sample from enough art pieces should produce something original in a sense. It's not the same thing yet, but I guess people are trying to make it as close as possible. If that ever succeeds and a sentient AI is made, then I might consider it comparable.
No ai will ever be able to 100% mimic an actual artist without significant amounts of art theft. The main problem with it is its theft. Artists who put their heart and soul into their work are having it ripped and shoved through an AI without their consent. Idk what your point was even supposed to be here, dude.
This is the only argument against AI that I fully support. It's wrong to train models on data that the creator didn’t agree to. Luckily big companies like Pixar are creating their own models based on specifically created artwork, and I hope there will be more approaches like this in the future.
I didn't even know there were other arguments against AI art. My only beef is it being theft. If you draw the images you train it on yourself all the power to yah, or if you get express consent from artists, then go for it. I do think it should stay doing what it was designed for though, as a way to generate references for actual artists. It shouldn't be the death of an industry
If it wasn't made by ai, I would be impressed, would say it's pretty great and neat or other better words, but since it is, not liking it.
I Fully respect that
She looks like elsa
if it weren’t AI i’d be impressed. but it is, so no thank you.
Looks like Elsa and Astrid had a daughter
It looks amazing. (Yes, I know it's AI. No, I don't care)
Omg...... It looks gorgeous It looks like AI from the belt and arms....I'm creeped out at how technology has turned out
Same here... all the AI stuff is developing like crazy! This is indeed AI. 15th version of the model. :)
Smash
Ikr
This looks like AI, mind showing your layers of the art? Not saying it is, it’s just that it looks like it
haha it is AI xD. The model has been training fore more than 400h and this is about the 15th version of it. Just wanted to see if you guys notice :). Still looks impressiv for AI though, right?
Ew. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but whatever.
Why so hostile? At least he was honest and didn't lie. Ya'll gotta realize ai art is becoming a sub genre of art whether you like it or not.
AI art is trained on millions of images, which is impossible to get permission to use all of them. AI art is never ethical, it exists from stolen art and other images.
But it never looks EXACTLY like someone piece of art. Every prompt will yield something different every time. Unless you use a special model to get an exact style or character to look perfect. He says he trained the model for 400hs, which is no different than me spending 40 hours on an art commission. He's taking his time out to train a bot to produce this character at a quality that could be believable with half the amount of time and resources. I'm an artist who actually draws my art, and even I can see the benefits ai art can have. No matter what art will be stolen. Whats the difference of someone just reuploaded my art to another website. I would never know. But again, I'm just someone on the internet with an opinion like you. But there's no reason to right off the bat say 'ew' to someone who did nothing wrong but tell ya the truth.
thx :)
That’s like saying blackout poetry is good because the person doing it has spent time looking for what to use. They’re still using other peoples work no matter what. AI art does this to a mass scale, literally millions of images taken to produce something which is the result of just throwing things to a bot and seeing what it comes up with. Those 400 hours would pass either way.
So you're saying if I use other images to help with my art as references, I'm stealing someone else's art? Because that's what it's doing. It's referencing and learning just like every actual artist out there. Someone wasn't just magically good they had to have someone else's art to reference or inspire from. Tldc: I don't intend on changing your mind, but just don't be surprise when it is normal, just like how people didn't think digital art was art when it first came into play. My main issue was still no need to be rude to someone who simply was honest.
AI art is completely different than referencing. I’m an artist too, don’t think you’ve got some superior higher knowledge to me. Our human brains can morph images and form our own ideas based on how we experience things, we can mix two completely separate ideas into a single seamless one without even realising we are doing it. We understand how form works in the real world. That’s what creativity is. AI has to be fed millions of images because it only understands the basic shapes of that image but not how to break them down. It learns what aspects to use and what to not, it’s literally just photobashing but with a robot and they also don’t understand how anything works in the real world. That’s why you end up with melted extra fingers, folds in clothes that don’t make sense, fleshy eyes and two rows of teeth. Tldr: Humans are creative, robots are not
Elsa or Astrid?
Holy shit. That's absolutely beautiful. If I could have hair like that, I'd kill for it
Come on guys leave them alone they just forgot to say it was ai
[удалено]
What
It’s beautiful. But this is AI art
I think I don’t like ai art
cringe as hell ai
cringe as hell ai
Dope design!
It looks more like Elsa than Astrid
I don’t like it…beautiful image! But it’s not Astrid…Astrid would be facing the viewer, in a half-sideways manner, with her hand on her hip, either smiling, or saying something like”what are you doing?”, or “whatcha up to?”…this isn’t the Astrid from httyd…not yet!
I genuinely couldn't tell if it was artwork or an actual person, either way it's stunning
Ai shouldn’t be tagged as art
Yooo looks amazing. Ik it’s ai and I get y ppl might not like it but damn they’re being a bit too hostile. Anyway looks pretty af :)
Thx!
I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand I can tell from your comments that you've put a lot of time and effort into training the model, and that part is impressive. But I dislike the lack of creative spirit in AI generated images. There is no initial creative idea or spark that is worked on and developed to create a finished product, there is simply an image mindlessly generated from words or other pictures. To me this simply is not art in any form. Between this, and the AI databases being trained on images obtained without the express consent of the original owners, I can see why Reddit is generally not positive about AI images. The AI police on Reddit can be a bit overzealous in their mission though, and I've found myself wrongly accused of using AI generated images before, and some of the comments towards your post have been unnecessarily unkind when you have been nothing but transparent about your process. As a demonstration of what your model training can do, this is impressive. The image itself does not suffer from a lot of the visual pitfalls that many AI images often do. However judging purely the image itself, it is lacking in creative spirit. I think there may be a use for AI, but I'm personally just not convinced that this is it.
Thx for the honest feedback!
Sorry that all the snowflakes here are dissing you just cause it's AI without seeing the effort you put in. Its still pretty amazing!!!!
Thanks! :)
What effort
Yeah what effort? Anyone can just input promps into an AI and it'll generate an image, sure it is impressive technology has gone this far to look like an actual drawing.. but still.
>took me like 20 minutes to decide if I want to put a watermark on it... In the end I decided to do it. i have been working on training this model since stable Diffusion 1.5 released more than half a year ago. So I did not just go to some website and generated this in 10 seconds. therefor I think the watermark is ok. > >I still respect your opinion though.
I don't think you understand how hard it is to work with ai art generators. 1. It requires a lot of information if you want it to look decent. 2. Even with super specific wording it will still mess up even on basic things. 3. It sucks at drawing fingers. 4. It's not instantly generated even if you pay for premium on certain apps and sites. 5. Please grow up op has already said that it was ai they made a mistake and didn't put the ai tag on it. It's not that hard to understand that humans make mistakes. In fact quite a few things that seem common today were made by mistake such as but not limited to; Penicillin, Smoke Detectors(kind of they were made with the intention of detecting poisonous gas), Velcro, The Microwave Oven, and The X-ray Machine.
Ai 👎👎👎👎
I don't think you understand how hard it is to work with ai art generators. 1. It requires a lot of information if you want it to look decent. 2. Even with super specific wording it will still mess up even on basic things. 3. It sucks at drawing fingers. 4. It's not instantly generated even if you pay for premium on certain apps and sites. 5. Please grow up op has already said that it was ai they made a mistake and didn't put the ai tag on it. It's not that hard to understand that humans make mistakes. In fact quite a few things that seem common today were made by mistake such as but not limited to; Penicillin, Smoke Detectors(kind of they were made with the intention of detecting poisonous gas), Velcro, The Microwave Oven, and The X-ray Machine.
Don’t be a coward pick up a pencil
I have. Well then since I have to add this I can draw and have drawn pretty decently which is still probably better than what you can draw. So let me get this straight rq since I think ai art isn't bad you assume that I can't draw? Did I get that right? If so that sounds kinda dumb. Maybe you do need to grow up.
Why would you use AI if you can draw??
I normally don't use ai but when I do it's for dnd NPC art. Since there is only a week between my campaign and I need the art for npc's it just makes it easier for me. So instead of having to hand draw everything which would likely take days of dedication just for the art. That's not including time that I have to create plot points, npc backstories, making and planning encounters, etc. Which if i wanted to I could get all that down in abt 4 is days with breaks, eating, sleeping, hanging out with friends, etc.
Imagine watermarking something that isn't even your art...
took me like 20 minutes to decide if I want to put a watermark on it... In the end I decided to do it. i have been working on training this model since stable Diffusion 1.5 released more than half a year ago. So I did not just go to some website and generated this in 10 seconds. therefor I think the watermark is ok. I still respect your opinion though.
Who's artwork was the ai trained on? If it wasn't your own then don't watermark it.
Trained on screenshots from the 3rd httyd movie
Without counting every one of them, that's roughly around 100+ people who worked on the movie purely in the art/animation departments. That movie took three years to make. Watermarking this as if you made it is an insult to every last one of them.
*This.*
So since your parents made you with their last name which would count as a water mark. Would that mean your an insult to them? Just wondering.
A last name isn't a watermark, and a baby isn't made by an AI trained on other people's stolen artwork without their consent. Y'all don't even have arguments that make sense
I don't think you understand how hard it is to work with ai art generators. 1. It requires a lot of information if you want it to look decent. 2. Even with super specific wording it will still mess up even on basic things. 3. It sucks at drawing fingers. 4. It's not instantly generated even if you pay for premium on certain apps and sites. 5. Please grow up op has already said that it was ai they made a mistake and didn't put the ai tag on it. It's not that hard to understand that humans make mistakes. In fact quite a few things that seem common today were made by mistake such as but not limited to; Penicillin, Smoke Detectors(kind of they were made with the intention of detecting poisonous gas [not like smoke or anything like that]), Velcro, The Microwave Oven, and The X-ray Machine. Also op has said they put a 40 or Smth hours into training the ai. Which imo gives them the right to put a watermark.
Nooooooo don’t ai httyd nooooo
Agreed, because then it becomes a trend and it’s gonna get spammed. :/
Please grow up op has already said that it was ai they made a mistake and didn't put the ai tag on it. It's not that hard to understand that humans make mistakes.
Beautiful!
Thanks!
It looks amazing!
*Sigh* of course it's AI generated..
Whats wrong with ai? Op has said that it was ai and even said that they made a mistake when not putting ai in the tags also you don't have to read what comes next but I recommend reading it. I don't think you understand how hard it is to work with ai art generators. 1. It requires a lot of information if you want it to look decent. 2. Even with super specific wording it will still mess up even on basic things. 3. It sucks at drawing fingers. 4. It's not instantly generated even if you pay for premium on certain apps and sites.
Well first off, at the time i made the comment there were absolutely no mentions of it being AI generated, second i do not really care about Ai, i was just disappointed to see that the image was Ai generated, i'd rather see something that was actually hand crafted by a real living being. But sure if you want to continue this incredibly stupid discussion, then go ahead, i probably won't reply back.
Also, i don't mean any hate to the creator, i simply dislike AI art.
Your free to have you opinions. It's just some people don't have the time to spend weeks making a perfect drawing and then coloring it perfectly. We'll anyway have a good day or night wherever you are.
Def AI but still gorgeous
Beautiful just beautiful
The body and clothes look like they are real, the head and hair look 3d models and the background looks CGI. None looks like a drawing. Its amazing
because none of it is a drawing. Its all ai generated.
Oh. Im mildly disappointed now
I don't think you understand how hard it is to work with ai art generators. 1. It requires a lot of information if you want it to look decent. 2. Even with super specific wording it will still mess up even on basic things. 3. It sucks at drawing fingers. 4. It's not instantly generated even if you pay for premium on certain apps and sites. 5. Please grow up op has already said that it was ai they made a mistake and didn't put the ai tag on it. It's not that hard to understand that humans make mistakes. In fact quite a few things that seem common today were made by mistake such as but not limited to; Penicillin, Smoke Detectors(kind of they were made with the intention of detecting poisonous gas), Velcro, The Microwave Oven, and The X-ray Machine.
Which AI program did you use?
Custom Stable diffusion 1.5. with more than 400h of training total.
[удалено]
OP already said it was AI....
Yeah, it looks good, only issue is the hair. I know it's not a easy thing for the ai to fix, I have so many problems when I tried to get normal arms and legs.
Cool!
thanks! :)
Oh wow. Great job!
OP didn’t draw it. It’s AI
I don't think you understand how hard it is to work with ai art generators. 1. It requires a lot of information if you want it to look decent. 2. Even with super specific wording it will still mess up even on basic things. 3. It sucks at drawing fingers. 4. It's not instantly generated even if you pay for premium on certain apps and sites.
Hear me out
Hiccup is too lucky
Smash
Looks amazing, the ear and the hair are a bit off, but other than that, it is amazing.
Watching game of thrones, and she reminds me of Kahlessi fr
Do you have a screenshot? Haven't watched game of thrones yet...
HBO not letting me screenshot for some reason but this is her https://preview.redd.it/bwsk9br15vdb1.png?width=1048&format=png&auto=webp&s=92e2d4e8dfd72d060d718ef7de05dd5c37bb6328
Oh I see what you mean! Definitely some similarities
Yee
Kratos armor frfr
Damn 🫠
Pretty cool I thought it was a render until I looked closely at it
Lesbians Enjoy
I don’t know who this is, but she’s cute
Smash
Awesome 👍
https://preview.redd.it/2b9gp4rvj2eb1.jpeg?width=652&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=91841b6a8a4fed86d2fd9a9a04c1ab035b8684fb
"Fap sound"
Looks more like Elsa but it’s the outfit that gives it away
My first thought was "stable diffusion"
Looks good you think you could do an alpha flight mare in red
I personally don't care whether they made it with AI or found it on the internet. It looks great, and the skill to train the ai like that is incredible. So stop acting like some assholes who give in to gossip as if you're some high school anime girl and give the creator some credit for their hard work and dedication to their art. Because using only screenshots for this and training an ai to do it that perfectly with only hair slightly glitches is incredible
Wut ai is this?