/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6791345
>2 years ago we couldn't generate anything
publicly, sure.
(I agree it will get better, it's just funny the ignorance that leads to this type of comment)

>>6640678
AI generation got faster and broader(almost all) subjects, but it's not exponential progress. This was done training on just Rembrandts work with AI facial recognition assist. This was also super high res, higher than 8k with full 3d height map brush strokes.

>>6629408
>but just ten years ago it was an open question whether computers could EVER do what they're doing now
was it though?

>>6592681
>If AI was done ethically it would be fucking shit.
I feel like you could do a photo-real one ethically, but art would then take a lot longer, would require new techniques to get. But combining the photo one with all the art made 70+ years ago, that's millions of images, would be enough to make a good, while limited, art AI.
Add ethical LoRA training on top that artists could sell themselves if they wished.

>>6545690
sure, that would be fun, problem is that's not really possible right now. If you mean train on top of SD, you still have the unlicensed images as the foundation. Training it solely on your own work, will not be enough images for the AI to have much function, you've not drawn everything, at best you might have done a lot of portraits, like Rembrandt, and use a different AI to generate more portraits.

I forgot the info. now it's ready to share with your friends on facebook.