- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://awful.systems/post/5962853
science shows as true what you thought was only 99% true
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVf7VUX_iUk&list=UU9rJrMVgcXTfa8xuMnbhAEA - video
https://pivottoai.libsyn.com/20251015-ai-is-not-popular-and-ai-users-are-unpleasant-asshats - podcasttime: 5 min 57 sec
Show me any image generator produced—and I mean produced as in no human input except text, not humans touching it up and editing the output—animation that doesn’t look like shit and I’ll consider believing it. Show me someone doing it on camera, stating their intended vision and specific scenes/shots and character designs that they want before they start, and they’re able to come up with something that matches what they set out to do and doesn’t look like shit or have absurd mistakes in it, and then I’ll believe it.
Not once have I seen anything suggesting the people using image generators are engaging in anything except constantly readjusting their expectations based on whatever slop pops out rather than seriously engaging with anything being generated on an artistic level, or having a set vision they want to create.