OT: 108th Obsequious Banter Thread: Nine dozen eggs and not one broken

[Beef Invictus]

Last one. "A Hot Dog Attacking An Egg"

 

[GapToothedWonder]

Yeah, Magnus coming in with 30 sec left on his clock and winning is an all time chess moment lol

so I should go check out agadmator channel then.

 

[DancingPanther]

so I should go check out agadmator channel then.

If you want. The game itself isn't all that special, just hilarious knowing the situation. You really should check out the chess base vid of him literally running to his board lol

Last one. "A Hot Dog Attacking An Egg"

View attachment 630168

Which one are you using?

I am once again here to tell you that automerge is the worst feature ever rolled out in the history of the internet

 

[Surrounded By Ahos]

Which one are you using?

He uses Neural Blender, same as me. You can tell because of the pixels. And also the watermark in the bottom right.


“Baroque Catman”

 

[swami24]

Last one. "A Hot Dog Attacking An Egg"

View attachment 630168

If.you put an egg on a hot dog, does that make it a sandwich?

 

[Surrounded By Ahos]

“Baroque space shuttle”

 

[Kermit the Prog]

If.you put an egg on a hot dog, does that make it a sandwich?

And here we go...

 

[Beef Invictus]

Enlightened Egg

 

[Kermit the Prog]

Everyone's favorite slasher enjoying a mug of cocoa:

 

[Beef Invictus]

Renaissance Macho Man:

 

[dragonoffrost]

This thread is baroque someone fix it.

 

[Beef Invictus]

This thread is baroque someone fix it.

"Baroque Dragon of Frost"

 

[DancingPanther]

He uses Neural Blender, same as me. You can tell because of the pixels. And also the watermark in the bottom right.


“Baroque Catman”


View attachment 630242

Is it free and unlimited? Or is it like the last one that was free for the first so many tokens, which you paid to create the art

 

[dragonoffrost]

"Baroque Dragon of Frost"

View attachment 630266

I like mine better...

 

[Beef Invictus]

Is it free and unlimited? Or is it like the last one that was free for the first so many tokens, which you paid to create the art

It is free and unlimited if you do the default options. It also seems to be the most insane and grotesque generator, so that's great.

I'm actually deeply opposed to paying for AI art since these things just steal the work of real artists and profit off it. But for free and for screwing around? Eh.

 

[Surrounded By Ahos]

Is it free and unlimited? Or is it like the last one that was free for the first so many tokens, which you paid to create the art

It's been pretty free and unlimited so far. We've been using it for about a year, I think? You can buy credits to make higher resolution/more images at once, but the basic stuff is totally free of charge.

 

[Beef Invictus]

"Renaissance Terminator"

 

[Superman33]

If.you put an egg on a hot dog, does that make it a sandwich?

It makes it breakfast.

 

[Beef Invictus]

 

[Kermit the Prog]

I'm actually deeply opposed to paying for AI art since these things just steal the work of real artists and profit off it. But for free and for screwing around? Eh.

Ah, I was waiting for this.

I actually can associate with both camps on this issue. I wrote a long essay about it on Facebook yesterday, but I'll just provide the highlights of it here.

I will never begin with a "starter" image except for photographs I took myself for landscapes or if a friend requests I transform them into something (neither of which has happened yet, and am dubious I would anyway). I will also never prompt, "Audrey Hepburn as a blacksmith," for example, as then I would be co-opting her likeness.

AI Filters have artistic styles embedded within them, such as Caravaggio, Giger, Rutkowski, etc. Almost every artist, whether they are writers, painters, sculptors, musicians, film directors, photographers, etc., has copied the styles of those who came before them. The difference with AI Art is the user has not put in the work to apply that style. There is talent, hard work, or talent and hard work, depending upon that individual's abilities, which are necessary adjuncts to developing their own "voice." Even still, echoes and elements remain of the original inspiration. T.S. Eliot was more blunt when he said, "Good writers borrow. Great writers steal." This, of course, can be applied to any disciplined field of art.

Personally, it takes, on average, anywhere from 5-10 hours for me to render an image I like. There are small, incremental steps and alterations, via a series of filters (and sometimes no filter), which may directly or peripherally employ the styles of Giger, Frazetta, Raphael, and others, in the various layers without the finished piece resembling their works in any way.

I see it as a tool, no more or less than any studio trickery done in the music business, where it can be greatly abused or responsibly rendered. Both Warhol and Basquiat frequently commandeered existing works for their own artistic idioms. I'm not excusing that, just pointing out what is deemed "acceptable" by the artistic community at large. In the end, it's a personal evaluation, and I can see both sides of the argument.

AI scrapes the webiverse in the same way a writer can scrape books, a painter can scrape an art museum, and a musician can scrape Spotify, with the exception it's being done with artificial intelligence. The Impressionists borrowed from each other all the time, Bach has been ripped off directly countless times, and Hunter S. Thompson had legions of copycats. Listen to Janis Joplin and tell me she wasn't listening to a whole lot of Etta James.

Ultimately, as an artist, I am responsible to myself and my personal integrity. If someone is interested in purchasing something I created, whether it's a photograph, a book, or an AI image, I know I put in the effort.

If you consider it stealing, I support you, but I would support you just the same if you didn't.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Ah, I was waiting for this.

I actually can associate with both camps on this issue. I wrote a long essay about it on Facebook yesterday, but I'll just provide the highlights of it here.

I will never begin with a "starter" image except for photographs I took myself for landscapes or if a friend requests I transform them into something (neither of which has happened yet, and am dubious I would anyway). I will also never prompt, "Audrey Hepburn as a blacksmith," for example, as then I would be co-opting her likeness.

AI Filters have artistic styles embedded within them, such as Caravaggio, Giger, Rutkowski, etc. Almost every artist, whether they are writers, painters, sculptors, musicians, film directors, photographers, etc., has copied the styles of those who came before them. The difference with AI Art is the user has not put in the work to apply that style. There is talent, hard work, or talent and hard work, depending upon that individual's abilities, which are necessary adjuncts to developing their own "voice." Even still, echoes and elements remain of the original inspiration. T.S. Eliot was more blunt when he said, "Good writers borrow. Great writers steal." This, of course, can be applied to any disciplined field of art.

Personally, it takes, on average, anywhere from 5-10 hours for me to render an image I like. There are small, incremental steps and alterations, via a series of filters (and sometimes no filter), which may directly or peripherally employ the styles of Giger, Frazetta, Raphael, and others, in the various layers without the finished piece resembling their works in any way.

I see it as a tool, no more or less than any studio trickery done in the music business, where it can be greatly abused or responsibly rendered. Both Warhol and Basquiat frequently commandeered existing works for their own artistic idioms. I'm not excusing that, just pointing out what is deemed "acceptable" by the artistic community at large. In the end, it's a personal evaluation, and I can see both sides of the argument.

AI scrapes the webiverse in the same way a writer can scrape books, a painter can scrape an art museum, and a musician can scrape Spotify, with the exception it's being done with artificial intelligence. The Impressionists borrowed from each other all the time, Bach has been ripped off directly countless times, and Hunter S. Thompson had legions of copycats. Listen to Janis Joplin and tell me she wasn't listening to a whole lot of Etta James.

Ultimately, as an artist, I am responsible to myself and my personal integrity. If someone is interested in purchasing something I created, whether it's a photograph, a book, or an AI image, I know I put in the effort.

If you consider it stealing, I support you, but I would support you just the same if you didn't.

I thought the best thing to do would be to enter this post into Neural Blender to see what it thinks. It thinks:

It's basically a Bob Ross, if Bob found bath salts

 

[Kermit the Prog]

I thought the best thing to do would be to enter this post into Neural Blender to see what it thinks. It thinks:

View attachment 630311

It's basically a Bob Ross, if Bob found bath salts

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[bennysflyers16]

Worst day fellas, I have talked many a times about my Piper Giroux, today was her last day at 15.25 years old.

It was time, and man did she have a good life !

 

[Magua]

Worst day fellas, I have talked many a times about my Piper Giroux, today was her last day at 15.25 years old.

It was time, and man did she have a good life !

I’m sorry for the loss of your girl, benny. Days like this are so tough only because every other day before was the best. I hope a lifetime of good Piper Giroux memories floods your mind.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Worst day fellas, I have talked many a times about my Piper Giroux, today was her last day at 15.25 years old.

It was time, and man did she have a good life !

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO