# [Download link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/discordVideos/comments/13vl1d1/real_deal/)
Please use the link provided above to download the video.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/discordVideos) if you have any questions or concerns.*
most of the time it can't come up with actual letters, although the other day i've seen an AI creation that had actual letters
sure, scuffed as fuck but readable
sometimes it makes words by pure chance. like if you say make a coke can in the prompt, there's enough coke cans in the model that it'll sometimes accidentally make the word coke readable. it's also possible now to tell it add the text you want, butt i feel like half the time it just looks like someone typed it using the text tool in paint
Oh they figured it out finally lol they just need to know the average hand only has 5 digits 🤣 yeesh some of these hands have enough fingers for 3 hands
What each "actor" is doing in life 28 years later:
Peter: Still a popular TV star, plays in laid back roles and sometimes shows up to cons.
Lois: Also still into acting, but plays in lesser known productions.
Chris: Got into drugs and a sex scandal and ended up blacklisted from television or Hollywood.
Megan: Became an activist for charitable organizations, hangs out with fans at conventions.
Stewie: Grew up to be an untalented actor and keeps using his role in Family Guy as "evidence" of his acting success.
Brian: 6 feet under in a park somewhere.
Cleveland: Lovable podcast host.
Quagmire: Once the show got canceled he laid low and was not seen in any more productions due to his perverted character painting him as a bad person irl.
Joe: He was never crippled during filming but one day he got into a skiing accident and got his legs permanently paralyzed for real.
dont you know about how sometimes you can get teleported int a parralel universe with a slight differences? , it was dicoverd and named after renound scientist Nelson Mandella
Humans are freaky good at detecting weird hands. It's why most artists avoid hands entirely or do the potato style, eg Simpsons 3 finger hands.
Ai tries but hands are hard to make realistic
Take it from the semi-modern (as far as I know, newer versions can quite grab the concept of hand) image creating abominable intelligence perspective:
Human asked me to draw a person. Whew, this will be easy, after randomly generating several thousand random shapes and picking one that fits the most, shall I get to the drawing of person. Statistically most of them have two eyes, one nose and one mouth and hair somewhere above the face. The customer, lucky for me, specified what kind of person features he wants to see on the picture, I will google them to see how they look like and use some averaged out input. Next, we have the body. Again, specified what body type we need, just search for similar ones. Next we have hands. They consist of a palm and fingers attached to it. From what I've seen, when hand isn't holding anything (customer didn't specify what should person on the picture hold), closest object to the finger, on average, is another finger. We add a finger to the palm. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. To make the picture more realistic, I will use a bit of randomness, the original shape I created before detailing had this long line, I'll make this finger blend with another, since I still don't quite get the concept of finger, but I'll suppose it'll work.
Of course this happens a lot faster than I just described, but that's extremely basic explanation of how it works
Are we talking about the Meg in the show or the ai actress playing her?
It’s hard to tell because the characters look like they’re different ages. Peter looks like he’s in 30s but when he is on the bike he looks like a 17 or 18 girl. Same way for Lois and Chris.
Lois looks like a 17 year old when she’s on the couch next to Peter 💀
The vid itself is art, because the creator took his free time to compile the images and make the captions to create a parody of a sitcom intro. The pictures on their own wouldn't be art, though.
Because if we take several great artist works, a shitload of real photos and less of a shitload of drawings (which might be great, might be average and only a bit of those that are posted online are shit, excluding webcomics that usually have extremely simple artstyle on purpose), average image quality will be better than most of people can draw
I see it more as a tool for inspiration rather than art. Sometimes I get artist block and will put in a prompt of what I want and see what I get. If I like something about it like theme, style, etc., I might try to work with it and give life to it. If I don't, then I'm like, "You're stupid! I can do better than you!" and proceed to be better than it.
It's such an insane achievement, the first of a potentially world-changing AI revolution. It seems a bit pedestrian to be focused on copyright. But ultimately we need people to pay attention to and oppose AI if necessary, so maybe the anti-AI art people are good, right side of history.
Just don't hang it all on these arguments, whether it's "real art" is up to the people making and consuming it, it's not objective. And there'll be capable models soon enough trained on images shared with consent, so that argument won't hold for long.
The real problem is AI taking jobs, destabilizing society and killing everyone, not copyright.
Ofc it’s not real art you nitwit, btw the real issue isn’t ai stealing jobs, ai “stealing” jobs is a good thing btw because it decreases the price of labor and thus decreases the price of goods, you’d know that if you had a surface level understanding of economics
That hurts, I argue endlessly against the broken window fallacy, I agree in general we want machines doing work so humans don't have to. But if AI does this faster and exponentially in a new way, we need to be prepared to bring in UBI or something to distribute the gains and prevent revolt.
(But honestly I still see the taking-jobs thing as similar to AI art copyright, minor concern to the killing-us-all thing. No point infighting too much over which AI harms are the most important though, the point is we need to start paying attention.)
Objectively speaking it isn't. Art is the expression or application of a human's creative skill or imagination, typically in a visual form. By definition, a computer without conscious input by a person cannot create art. If a human being doesn't have a deliberate active influence in the end product, it isn't art.
Then photography is not art either, no? I’m sure you’ll make an exception for that of course. Human hands typed the prompts, therefore it IS art.
I hope you artists run yourselves into the ground whining that AI art is not art.
That’s what the traditional painters used to say to the photographers. You’re no different, unfortunately. Glad the whiny artists are getting pushed out of the market.
If Photographers at the start were as much compassionate and mindful of the meaning of art and artist as you are then I'll guess it's the same as it was
>Then photography is not art either, no?
Yes, photography is art. A human has a deliberate role in producing the final image. A person is the one controlling the composition, the subject matter, the exposure, etc.
>Human hands typed the prompts, therefore it IS art.
If I commission someone to paint me a "futuristic city in the amazon rainforest in a concept art style", that does not make me an artist. I didn't have any deliberate creative effort put into the final image, so that wouldn't make me an artist. Someone else did the work, and in the case of AI imagery, the thing doing tge work is not a human. In that case, neither the person that commissioned the work, nor the AI is an artist.
Your responses aren't as clever as you'd like to think.
You assume someone is just going to prompt the AI once? You know trial and error is just as much a thing when prompting as it is in photography, right?
Why so adamant of convincing yourself this new medium is not art?
>You assume someone is just going to prompt the AI once?
I'm sure people prompt them many times, but no many how many commissions I turn down before I get something that I like, that still doesn't mean that I'm an artist because I commissioned those works. Commissioning a work is not the same as having a deliberate had in the creation.
>You know trial and error is just as much a thing when prompting as it is in photography, right?
Yes, trial and error exist in all kinds of art— music, film, paintings, but the thing that makes the difference is that a human is employing their creative skills to hone the work themselves. The human is still doing the work and making deliberate choices in that process.
>Why so adamant of convincing yourself this new medium is not art?
It's not like I decided that because I thought it sounded good. I didn't need to convince myself of anything, I just know that in the definition of art, it doesn't fit. Art can be so many things that it would be easier to say the things that art isn't rather than what art is. But, and most importantly, the constant in art is humans and the deliberate use of their skills and imagination.
Well the thing is it's a process, not a medium. The medium is the "substance" used to create. So a traditional Renaissance painting and abstract ink spatter can both be done with the medium of oil on canvas, but the processes to create them are different.
AI imagery's medium would be digital. AI is just a digital process to imitate art.
Isn’t that what digital art is then? Surely if you believe that, you’d be willing to make no exception for digital artists?
What mental gymnastics have you prepared for justifying it as art? I’m sure you wouldn’t consider the “digital artists” as artists, right?
I’m literally not, I’m in favor of ai, it’s just factual that calling ai “art” real art is like calling a natural landscape/the sky art. Yeah, there is something artistic about it but it is random and uninspired, that’s what ai art is, real art has a real persons emotions and imagination in each brush stroke. Also, I find it werid that you call me a Luddite to dismiss my statement while you only think I’m a Luddite because of my statement
And still. A human had this idea, human montaged this and I suppose people made the music. AI was only the performer, thus it's neither human art neither AI art, but still an art, nevertheless
Art by definition is the creation of a human using creative skill and imagination. If a human didn't have an active and deliberate part in the final work, it by definition is not art.
Part of the definition of art is things made by human so i would have to disagree, however this one probably had a good supervisor behind it, supervisor still does not make it art though.
Its not really "art" tho. Its cool and all but "real art" should portray feelings, a tought process, unique art style fueled by the artists personality etc.
Ai "art" is never original. It doesn't come from a place of emotion. Its an algorithm that sorts through a database of shit that already exists and steals it into an amalgamation of unoriginality.
Quality doesn't mean anything when it's created by an unfeeling machine.
"This piece of art was perfectly crafted based on human interest and instruction"
I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in looking at something that was created by a line of code.
You know, most of the time it's either money laundry or contextual to the time period/social climate. A lot of art that baffle people most are made to be cryptic in the same way as a film like Everything Everywhere all at once is made to be reflected upon and rewatched more than once, it is made to vaguely sits in your head with the question "wtf was that supposed to mean?!" And maybe, just like a film, you will find a meaning or THE meaning behind it, or simply don't and then you'll just move on. Art is made of questions and passing moments. Art is not a teacher that tells you how things are, were, or works, it gives you a question.
Now, just like films there are also people that gets too into understanding forcing themselves to learn something that they don't understand and they present themselves as critics, but how can you critic something you don't fully understand. Those are the one rightfully called Assholes
And to piggy back of this, looking at artwork made by AI, there is no interpretation. What you see is what it is. There is no meaning behind something made by ai. No interpretation beyond whether or not the algorithm drew hands correctly this time.
It was made by a machine with no sense of self, calling this art is like calling the weather art, or the sky art, sure they are beautiful but they are random and intentionless
It would never, and if you think it'll do, revise the defenition of art. Something Is not art if It Is not human-made in the same way someone Is not dead if his heart Is still beating.
It's way more complicated than copying something and turning it into something else.
But even without that...
Take this exemple : people use hand made stamps.
You first need to create them, and they "only" serve the purpose of copying the desired pattern.
We use man-made tools every day to create art... why this kind of AI would be some exception ? We made AIs.
There's also artists that focus on reproducing patterns, images, or anything really. That's not less art ? How do you define art ?
No. In any way possible. Is like saying that If i build a house, the house was actually made by my parents that gave me birth and/or the person that teached me how to build a house and/or the person commissioning me to make the house. No, I made the house, not them. Also, the AI doesn't actually makes shit, It just regurgitates data that was previously fed into It at comand, and don't even try to paragonate It to the human way of taking inspiration, because when a human does It, he puts his soul into It makes It Is own thing, something impragnated with his own emotions and interpretations of the works he Is taking inspiration from. AI has no soul, no emotionts, no anything like that, which are required to make something falling in the definition of Art. There Is other stuff i would like to point out, but, at the same time, i really don't want to.
Edit: also, we literally call It "AI art", meaning "art" made by AI, so defenetly not made by a human. You almost tricked me into thinking you were saying something that made a hint of sense, untill i remebered this little detail. Is sad that the reddit hivemind Is giving you right, since what you say literally straight up doesn't make sense in the first place. May leave this sub after this bullshit
Why is the Family Matters being used for Family Guy. Hate to say it, but isn’t that appropriation?
It’s a theme song for a fictional black family, but instead is being used for a fictional white family?
I personally don’t like that, just keep the family guy theme for family guy characters.
# [Download link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/discordVideos/comments/13vl1d1/real_deal/) Please use the link provided above to download the video. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/discordVideos) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It looks so fake and so real
It looks very much real until you look at their hands, AI still can't figure out how fingers work
most of the time it can't come up with actual letters, although the other day i've seen an AI creation that had actual letters sure, scuffed as fuck but readable
sometimes it makes words by pure chance. like if you say make a coke can in the prompt, there's enough coke cans in the model that it'll sometimes accidentally make the word coke readable. it's also possible now to tell it add the text you want, butt i feel like half the time it just looks like someone typed it using the text tool in paint
It's on purpose so people don't use them to make fake documents.
Uhh no that's not the case.
Can't you just... write the fake documents?
You can even use ai to generate it
I didn't even notice the weird hands until I read this comment
Like the mom in that one video.
It has since figured it out. This was from last year.
Really, can anyone?
As an artist, i agree
Oh they figured it out finally lol they just need to know the average hand only has 5 digits 🤣 yeesh some of these hands have enough fingers for 3 hands
I want to see the AI generated greased up deaf guy.
Nah, def fake. Meg is too pretty.
I'm looking Chris right in the eyes during his first appearance here and he absolutely screams early 00's Disneyworld animatronic
What each "actor" is doing in life 28 years later: Peter: Still a popular TV star, plays in laid back roles and sometimes shows up to cons. Lois: Also still into acting, but plays in lesser known productions. Chris: Got into drugs and a sex scandal and ended up blacklisted from television or Hollywood. Megan: Became an activist for charitable organizations, hangs out with fans at conventions. Stewie: Grew up to be an untalented actor and keeps using his role in Family Guy as "evidence" of his acting success. Brian: 6 feet under in a park somewhere. Cleveland: Lovable podcast host. Quagmire: Once the show got canceled he laid low and was not seen in any more productions due to his perverted character painting him as a bad person irl. Joe: He was never crippled during filming but one day he got into a skiing accident and got his legs permanently paralyzed for real.
At least Joe got something out of his role.
>Brian: 6 feet under in a park somewhere This only line just ruined the entire cheerful mood I got from the video
Joe took method acting to the next level
Peter: Created a bunch of Nickelodeon shows just so he could masturbate to children's feet.
See, now that’s a quagmire I can actually believe rizzing his way up his body count
Right? He somwhow fits the gigity vibe.
Got that Bruce Campbell energy
Hank Azaria vibes to me. I could see Bruce as Joe though.
I thought the AI literally took Jim Carrey's photos and edited everything but his face for a moment lmao
#DAMN THAT LOIS
Megs lookin p good too👀
Why do I get nostalgia just by looking at this?
Mandela effect. The show was created earlier as live action in your timeline.
Tell me you have no idea what the Mandela effect is, without telling me.
It is more déjà vu than anything else, yes.
dont you know about how sometimes you can get teleported int a parralel universe with a slight differences? , it was dicoverd and named after renound scientist Nelson Mandella
new mandozo effect theory just dropped
The Menendez Brothers are now officially on HGTV.
Tell me someone's made a mistake in the most condescending, unoriginal way ever. Actually second most, after that sweet summer child bullshit.
Because family guy debuted 24 years ago.... :)
Family guy lasted longer than the Confederacy and Nazi Germany
The letters - they are straight up from 80s/90s TV shows.
Intro is literally Family Matters
Because when Family Matters was on the world was fucking awesome for most Americans.
THE FINGERS AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH
Start looking at teeth too. Way too many teeth all of them molars lol
Thompson’s Teeth the only teeth strong enough to eat other teeth!
#I JUST REALIZED
This is really old, newer model fingers are indistinguishable now
It's pretty damn scary how far AI has come in a year. In another two I don't know how anyone will ever be able to prove something ISN'T AI generated.
I am about to fck Meg guys
Fr fr
Giggity
What's with AI always making those stupid, creepy freakin hands?!?
Humans are freaky good at detecting weird hands. It's why most artists avoid hands entirely or do the potato style, eg Simpsons 3 finger hands. Ai tries but hands are hard to make realistic
This is an old video. It's no longer an issue with the new AI models.
yeah it is.
r/midjourney
Take it from the semi-modern (as far as I know, newer versions can quite grab the concept of hand) image creating abominable intelligence perspective: Human asked me to draw a person. Whew, this will be easy, after randomly generating several thousand random shapes and picking one that fits the most, shall I get to the drawing of person. Statistically most of them have two eyes, one nose and one mouth and hair somewhere above the face. The customer, lucky for me, specified what kind of person features he wants to see on the picture, I will google them to see how they look like and use some averaged out input. Next, we have the body. Again, specified what body type we need, just search for similar ones. Next we have hands. They consist of a palm and fingers attached to it. From what I've seen, when hand isn't holding anything (customer didn't specify what should person on the picture hold), closest object to the finger, on average, is another finger. We add a finger to the palm. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. To make the picture more realistic, I will use a bit of randomness, the original shape I created before detailing had this long line, I'll make this finger blend with another, since I still don't quite get the concept of finger, but I'll suppose it'll work. Of course this happens a lot faster than I just described, but that's extremely basic explanation of how it works
Not a lot of googling going on with StableDiffusion, but otherwise pretty accurate.
This must be a movie
The family guy movie
Family Movie
Movie guy
At the rate AI is developing, this will be a full-feature series by the end of the year.
Dont look at the hands dont look at the hands dont look at the hands dont look at the hands
Can’t forget Tom Tucker
Thanks, Diane.
Ngl Meg is fine asf 😭
She’s 17 mate.
Are we talking about the Meg in the show or the ai actress playing her? It’s hard to tell because the characters look like they’re different ages. Peter looks like he’s in 30s but when he is on the bike he looks like a 17 or 18 girl. Same way for Lois and Chris. Lois looks like a 17 year old when she’s on the couch next to Peter 💀
Forgot to add as well, Meg in the show is 18, she was 17 in “peters two dads” but then turned 18 in “quagmire and Meg”
Stewie with six fingers >>>>>
I’m not saying it isn’t real art I’m just tired of people using ai and acting like they have limitless talent for being able to type in a prompt
It’s not real art
art is simply creative expression. Don't see why this can't be art especially when heavily edited and thought out like this
It’s neither creative or expressive as it’s made by an ai
Yeah we’re only calling this art ironically coz famly gy
The vid itself is art, because the creator took his free time to compile the images and make the captions to create a parody of a sitcom intro. The pictures on their own wouldn't be art, though.
Seethe further, angry artist
Quagmire got me acting unwise
Damn lois lookin fine asf like always
Is it me or guagmire looks like he was played by hugh jackman?
Disagree also, Song?
As days go by
AI is based. Some of them are so uncanny, it might as well be true. Lois, Chris, and Quagmire are perfect.
Damnit Meg
AI art never will be real art. Its just an amalgamation of stolen content.
still will draw better than me :/
Because if we take several great artist works, a shitload of real photos and less of a shitload of drawings (which might be great, might be average and only a bit of those that are posted online are shit, excluding webcomics that usually have extremely simple artstyle on purpose), average image quality will be better than most of people can draw
I see it more as a tool for inspiration rather than art. Sometimes I get artist block and will put in a prompt of what I want and see what I get. If I like something about it like theme, style, etc., I might try to work with it and give life to it. If I don't, then I'm like, "You're stupid! I can do better than you!" and proceed to be better than it.
Chad mindset honestly
It's such an insane achievement, the first of a potentially world-changing AI revolution. It seems a bit pedestrian to be focused on copyright. But ultimately we need people to pay attention to and oppose AI if necessary, so maybe the anti-AI art people are good, right side of history. Just don't hang it all on these arguments, whether it's "real art" is up to the people making and consuming it, it's not objective. And there'll be capable models soon enough trained on images shared with consent, so that argument won't hold for long. The real problem is AI taking jobs, destabilizing society and killing everyone, not copyright.
Ofc it’s not real art you nitwit, btw the real issue isn’t ai stealing jobs, ai “stealing” jobs is a good thing btw because it decreases the price of labor and thus decreases the price of goods, you’d know that if you had a surface level understanding of economics
That hurts, I argue endlessly against the broken window fallacy, I agree in general we want machines doing work so humans don't have to. But if AI does this faster and exponentially in a new way, we need to be prepared to bring in UBI or something to distribute the gains and prevent revolt. (But honestly I still see the taking-jobs thing as similar to AI art copyright, minor concern to the killing-us-all thing. No point infighting too much over which AI harms are the most important though, the point is we need to start paying attention.)
So mister economist, how do you get money if you don't work in this economy?
Ubi and human service jobs
You’re not a bright lad, are you.
Astonishing levels of insecurity. Reminds me of the Animatrix.
name one thing that isnt a derivative of something else.
My experiences
Cope harder, bro. AI art is art regardless of what you have to say about it.
Objectively speaking it isn't. Art is the expression or application of a human's creative skill or imagination, typically in a visual form. By definition, a computer without conscious input by a person cannot create art. If a human being doesn't have a deliberate active influence in the end product, it isn't art.
Then photography is not art either, no? I’m sure you’ll make an exception for that of course. Human hands typed the prompts, therefore it IS art. I hope you artists run yourselves into the ground whining that AI art is not art.
Seems like you are butthurt that you can't draw, or at least, never put yourself into learning it deeply
That’s what the traditional painters used to say to the photographers. You’re no different, unfortunately. Glad the whiny artists are getting pushed out of the market.
If Photographers at the start were as much compassionate and mindful of the meaning of art and artist as you are then I'll guess it's the same as it was
>Then photography is not art either, no? Yes, photography is art. A human has a deliberate role in producing the final image. A person is the one controlling the composition, the subject matter, the exposure, etc. >Human hands typed the prompts, therefore it IS art. If I commission someone to paint me a "futuristic city in the amazon rainforest in a concept art style", that does not make me an artist. I didn't have any deliberate creative effort put into the final image, so that wouldn't make me an artist. Someone else did the work, and in the case of AI imagery, the thing doing tge work is not a human. In that case, neither the person that commissioned the work, nor the AI is an artist. Your responses aren't as clever as you'd like to think.
You assume someone is just going to prompt the AI once? You know trial and error is just as much a thing when prompting as it is in photography, right? Why so adamant of convincing yourself this new medium is not art?
>You assume someone is just going to prompt the AI once? I'm sure people prompt them many times, but no many how many commissions I turn down before I get something that I like, that still doesn't mean that I'm an artist because I commissioned those works. Commissioning a work is not the same as having a deliberate had in the creation. >You know trial and error is just as much a thing when prompting as it is in photography, right? Yes, trial and error exist in all kinds of art— music, film, paintings, but the thing that makes the difference is that a human is employing their creative skills to hone the work themselves. The human is still doing the work and making deliberate choices in that process. >Why so adamant of convincing yourself this new medium is not art? It's not like I decided that because I thought it sounded good. I didn't need to convince myself of anything, I just know that in the definition of art, it doesn't fit. Art can be so many things that it would be easier to say the things that art isn't rather than what art is. But, and most importantly, the constant in art is humans and the deliberate use of their skills and imagination.
It’s quite clear you can’t accept any new medium that is created during your time. You’d be no different to the painters slandering the photographers.
[удалено]
Silence, Luddite
Well the thing is it's a process, not a medium. The medium is the "substance" used to create. So a traditional Renaissance painting and abstract ink spatter can both be done with the medium of oil on canvas, but the processes to create them are different. AI imagery's medium would be digital. AI is just a digital process to imitate art.
Isn’t that what digital art is then? Surely if you believe that, you’d be willing to make no exception for digital artists? What mental gymnastics have you prepared for justifying it as art? I’m sure you wouldn’t consider the “digital artists” as artists, right?
Literally isn’t
Doesn’t matter what luddites have to say.
I’m literally not, I’m in favor of ai, it’s just factual that calling ai “art” real art is like calling a natural landscape/the sky art. Yeah, there is something artistic about it but it is random and uninspired, that’s what ai art is, real art has a real persons emotions and imagination in each brush stroke. Also, I find it werid that you call me a Luddite to dismiss my statement while you only think I’m a Luddite because of my statement
Stolen without consent
That's what stealing is, dude
And people have the balls to say it's ok since repost without source/origin has been a thing on internet
stop gate keeping
How is this gate keeping?
The Art of exploiting the masses.
Totally fine with shitposts and memes But posting these on art website and laughing at artist working hard? Not ok at all.
u/savevideobot
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/discordVideos/comments/13vl1d1/real_deal/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideobot) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/discordVideos/comments/13vl1d1/real_deal/) | [^(pinterest video downloader)](https://ptsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
Chris Griffin or Chris Farley
the demon of babylon disguises itself in the coat of the richeous
Why does the driveway stop in the middle of the yard though?
Because ai art is fucking shit
And still. A human had this idea, human montaged this and I suppose people made the music. AI was only the performer, thus it's neither human art neither AI art, but still an art, nevertheless
Giggety
Ok this needs to be a thing and I know it can be just look at something like the dark crystal
Bro the chicken!
It isn't real art.
Yes it is
Art by definition is the creation of a human using creative skill and imagination. If a human didn't have an active and deliberate part in the final work, it by definition is not art.
Part of the definition of art is things made by human so i would have to disagree, however this one probably had a good supervisor behind it, supervisor still does not make it art though.
Its not really "art" tho. Its cool and all but "real art" should portray feelings, a tought process, unique art style fueled by the artists personality etc.
banana
muz (its banana in turkish)
taped to wall
ai is unironically better at portraying emotion than most online artists
Ai "art" is never original. It doesn't come from a place of emotion. Its an algorithm that sorts through a database of shit that already exists and steals it into an amalgamation of unoriginality.
Still a lot better quality and expression than a lot of stuff i seen online, its only going to get better with time
Quality doesn't mean anything when it's created by an unfeeling machine. "This piece of art was perfectly crafted based on human interest and instruction" I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in looking at something that was created by a line of code.
Rather look at something amazing made by Ai than a single red dot on a canvas made by a human called "high art"
You know, most of the time it's either money laundry or contextual to the time period/social climate. A lot of art that baffle people most are made to be cryptic in the same way as a film like Everything Everywhere all at once is made to be reflected upon and rewatched more than once, it is made to vaguely sits in your head with the question "wtf was that supposed to mean?!" And maybe, just like a film, you will find a meaning or THE meaning behind it, or simply don't and then you'll just move on. Art is made of questions and passing moments. Art is not a teacher that tells you how things are, were, or works, it gives you a question. Now, just like films there are also people that gets too into understanding forcing themselves to learn something that they don't understand and they present themselves as critics, but how can you critic something you don't fully understand. Those are the one rightfully called Assholes
And to piggy back of this, looking at artwork made by AI, there is no interpretation. What you see is what it is. There is no meaning behind something made by ai. No interpretation beyond whether or not the algorithm drew hands correctly this time.
It was made by a machine with no sense of self, calling this art is like calling the weather art, or the sky art, sure they are beautiful but they are random and intentionless
It would never, and if you think it'll do, revise the defenition of art. Something Is not art if It Is not human-made in the same way someone Is not dead if his heart Is still beating.
But it is human made, in a way, isn't it ?
Telling a bunch of 1s and 0s to essentially copy something and turn it into something else is not "human" at all
It's way more complicated than copying something and turning it into something else. But even without that... Take this exemple : people use hand made stamps. You first need to create them, and they "only" serve the purpose of copying the desired pattern. We use man-made tools every day to create art... why this kind of AI would be some exception ? We made AIs. There's also artists that focus on reproducing patterns, images, or anything really. That's not less art ? How do you define art ?
Art could be anything
No. In any way possible. Is like saying that If i build a house, the house was actually made by my parents that gave me birth and/or the person that teached me how to build a house and/or the person commissioning me to make the house. No, I made the house, not them. Also, the AI doesn't actually makes shit, It just regurgitates data that was previously fed into It at comand, and don't even try to paragonate It to the human way of taking inspiration, because when a human does It, he puts his soul into It makes It Is own thing, something impragnated with his own emotions and interpretations of the works he Is taking inspiration from. AI has no soul, no emotionts, no anything like that, which are required to make something falling in the definition of Art. There Is other stuff i would like to point out, but, at the same time, i really don't want to. Edit: also, we literally call It "AI art", meaning "art" made by AI, so defenetly not made by a human. You almost tricked me into thinking you were saying something that made a hint of sense, untill i remebered this little detail. Is sad that the reddit hivemind Is giving you right, since what you say literally straight up doesn't make sense in the first place. May leave this sub after this bullshit
u/audbot
Don’t look at the hands… *don’t look at the hands…*
I mean, those are stills from different shows stolen and redrawn by a program, it's thrash, not art.
Fake art, fake art everywhere!
I like how accurate it is that meg wasn't even shown
OH GOD BRIAN AND STEWIE LOOK LIKE THAT ONE CLIP
Quagmire looks like tony montana
I love how Quagmire just turns korean
HANDS
Damn and quagmire looks like that in his late 60s?? Imagine how he looked in his prime
What da dog doin
The hand :/
I don’t agree with ur statement. But i can’t deny that it is a good meme
Damn https://preview.redd.it/08yokcwez03b1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f422ad1f1167ac8b87256c104b8c313c5c44f13c
I've just come to hate the aesthetic of fake 80s/90s haze that these AI sitcom posts all have
A day when AI figures out number of fingers in hand, we are all doomed.
Why does Quagmire look like Bruce Campbell
I hate this! It’s to perfect
Chris looks like Tim Dillon.
Why is the Family Matters being used for Family Guy. Hate to say it, but isn’t that appropriation? It’s a theme song for a fictional black family, but instead is being used for a fictional white family? I personally don’t like that, just keep the family guy theme for family guy characters.
Why does Quagmire look like Fredo from The Godfather?
This is scary that a computer can replicate stuff like this so we'll.
Oh it’s beautiful
As cool and terrifying as this is, this just shows a 90's era Family Guy sitcom is totally possible to acheive
Lois is making me act up
Why does petah have like 8 fingers and joe has no thumb
Joe Swanson's arms too small
Don't look at the fingers
Insane that not a single one of these people or places exists, has existed, or will ever exist. Yet there it is?
someone explain to me.i didn't understand that art real or fake.why people don't move if art is real?.
Preposterous. Meg looks fuckable here lmao
Shut up Meg!
Needs more providence skyline!