D&D General AI Art for D&D: Experiments

[Zardnaar]

I felt it looked a little to sci-fi

That one or WotC one?

 

[cbwjm]

That one or WotC one?

That one. I'm not actually sure how the wotc one looks.

 

[Zardnaar]

That one. I'm not actually sure how the wotc one looks.

WotC ones even more robot looking.

 

[cbwjm]

WotC ones even more robot looking.

Oh, in that case this was an improvement.

 

[Lanefan]

I think it speaks for itself that this thread has 645 pages and ai slop still failed to produce a single good picture.

Gotta disagree hard on that one.

I've already ripped at least three really excellent character portraits from this thread (thanks, guys!) and maybe a dozen others I can use as setting illustrations, deity portraits, nd so forth.

That's a far better batting average than I ever achieve wandering around in google looking for such images.

 

[Lanefan]

Its not bad. Warforged looks better than WotC current effort.

If her left arm was real instead of mechanical, that artificer would be one of the best Gnome portraits I've ever seen.

As for how she's hammering the spear without it resting on the anvil: the cradle the spear-point goes through could be a super-magnet holding it in place.

 

[cbwjm]

I had a look way back in this thread to see what I'd posted, some cool stuff I created with bing, some that weren't so great but were on the way to being what I wanted (no idea how many iterations I went through but I checked Bing and I have a lot of saved images). Then I got to looking at some of the other stuff and there were some cool ranger images made made by @pukunui. Even just starting out the images could be pretty good.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It is, but have we reached a point, or are we close, where the majority of consumers don't or won't notice or care?

It doesn't need to be perfect to be good enough for the unwashed masses.

I'll also go as far as to suggest that to many people the flaws are possibly different but not necessarily worse than most human artists (including some who work regularly) have (Rob Liefeld doesn't seem to have spent a lot of time lacking for work) . So is it more a case that there's an actual difference that matters in practice, or is it a case that people who are (legitimately) concerned about the negative impact of AI art on human artists are simply more likely to focus on the ones in AI?

 

[Scribe]

I'll also go as far as to suggest that to many people the flaws are possibly different but not necessarily worse than most human artists (including some who work regularly) have (Rob Liefeld doesn't seem to have spent a lot of time lacking for work) . So is it more a case that there's an actual difference that matters in practice, or is it a case that people who are (legitimately) concerned about the negative impact of AI art on human artists are simply more likely to focus on the ones in AI?

Any and all of the above.

I'm going to stop my AI rant though, as this isnt the thread for it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Any and all of the above.

I'm going to stop my AI rant though, as this isnt the thread for it.

Is that Knight in your profile picture not AI generated? I had assumed it was.

Either way, I am not a fan of AI in general, but I find the picture programs have their (limited) uses for quickly-generated character and monster pics. I would HATE for humans to lose work over it, though!