Hazy Skies
Aura Dust (AURAequine)
[@Background Pony \#9435](/images/3024337#comment_10372040)
> Not gonna lie, I knew I was being lazy with the wing but what's wrong with the eye?
I think Cosmic was referring to Luna's eye on the right-most side (her left eye). Her right one does seem to have a similar slit pupil like Daybreaker, but the other one is a bit wonky and doesn't share that same style.
Classic AI telltale; eye inconsistencies. I'm torn on whether this flaw should remain to help better identify those who have put further effort into AI generated works, or if the technology should be refined towards that to not have as many instances of the flaw in order to to minimize artist corrections.
PS: I think it might be a good idea to also share an image of the base AI-generated result in the description so that others can see more clearly how much work you put into refining it. This will help emphasize that this is an edited AI generated art piece and not solely AI generated.
[@Cosmicscribbles](/images/3024337#comment_10371946)
> Keep Letting people mention that they are going to Mass Spam my art style, and devalue it 100X fold?
Most of the fault should be placed on the people that would abuse AI technology in order to do these acts, like sabotage and bullying; using a technology that's shown to have positive uses instead be used for something very much negative. Of course, I still can understand why the technology that enables them could be seen negatively as a result, but that does seem unfair. The quiet majority use it to create their own works and enables fascination, inspiration and works of beauty and wonder. Don't allow the loud minority of those who would steal and belittle others to distract you from the good that AI can allow people to achieve.
I believe the issues with AI are less technological and legal, and rather societal. Where it's people that would act to perform illegal acts and not the fault of the AI (or developers of) themselves. An AI can spit out tons of a particular artist's work, yes, but in order to do that someone must first:
- Isolate all the works of that artist for use in training
- Finetune/train an AI on those works for a long time, carefully so as not to overfit or otherwise.
- Tell the AI specifically to create works using tags made from the training
- Repeat the process if the works aren't up to par or don't match the style
All actions of a person and the AI does not do any of which on it's own. And so the individual/group is at fault. This also takes considerable time and resources, and unless you have thousands of completed works, most finetuning on limited data looks awful and is easy to tell apart from the original; also it also inherits a lot of style from the base model it was finetuned from, making it unlikely to match your style completely. Your work is unlikely to be affected at all.
> Not gonna lie, I knew I was being lazy with the wing but what's wrong with the eye?
I think Cosmic was referring to Luna's eye on the right-most side (her left eye). Her right one does seem to have a similar slit pupil like Daybreaker, but the other one is a bit wonky and doesn't share that same style.
Classic AI telltale; eye inconsistencies. I'm torn on whether this flaw should remain to help better identify those who have put further effort into AI generated works, or if the technology should be refined towards that to not have as many instances of the flaw in order to to minimize artist corrections.
PS: I think it might be a good idea to also share an image of the base AI-generated result in the description so that others can see more clearly how much work you put into refining it. This will help emphasize that this is an edited AI generated art piece and not solely AI generated.
[@Cosmicscribbles](/images/3024337#comment_10371946)
> Keep Letting people mention that they are going to Mass Spam my art style, and devalue it 100X fold?
Most of the fault should be placed on the people that would abuse AI technology in order to do these acts, like sabotage and bullying; using a technology that's shown to have positive uses instead be used for something very much negative. Of course, I still can understand why the technology that enables them could be seen negatively as a result, but that does seem unfair. The quiet majority use it to create their own works and enables fascination, inspiration and works of beauty and wonder. Don't allow the loud minority of those who would steal and belittle others to distract you from the good that AI can allow people to achieve.
I believe the issues with AI are less technological and legal, and rather societal. Where it's people that would act to perform illegal acts and not the fault of the AI (or developers of) themselves. An AI can spit out tons of a particular artist's work, yes, but in order to do that someone must first:
- Isolate all the works of that artist for use in training
- Finetune/train an AI on those works for a long time, carefully so as not to overfit or otherwise.
- Tell the AI specifically to create works using tags made from the training
- Repeat the process if the works aren't up to par or don't match the style
All actions of a person and the AI does not do any of which on it's own. And so the individual/group is at fault. This also takes considerable time and resources, and unless you have thousands of completed works, most finetuning on limited data looks awful and is easy to tell apart from the original; also it also inherits a lot of style from the base model it was finetuned from, making it unlikely to match your style completely. Your work is unlikely to be affected at all.