D&D (2024) This Dragon Art Is From The 2024 Player's Handbook

 

[Demetrios1453]

I went out of my to specify that I wasn't saying this was AI... everyone can calm down...

You throwing in a disclaimer at the end of your post ("Not saying this...") doesn't negate the entire rest of your post insinuating (unsubtly) that they did. If you actually don't think they used AI, what exactly were you trying to tell us with that post?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I went out of my to specify that I wasn't saying this was AI... everyone can calm down...

“I’m not saying it is, but doesn’t it kind of seem like it is,”/“I’m just asking questions,”/“A lot of people are saying that it might be.”

This is what you’re doing right now. Please stop it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Sigh.

Anyhoo... As far as the dragon being not "grungy" enough, I'd say that a Silver Dragon ought to be all tarnished under normal circumstances, but this is a Parade! Imagine the hours it took to buff that dragon's scales up to look so pretty for the celebration!

Peter Bunnyman was so impressed, he almost wrung his own neck trying to tell his buddy about how impressed he was!

 

[Jahydin]

You throwing in a disclaimer at the end of your post ("Not saying this...") doesn't negate the entire rest of your post (unsubtly) insinuating they did. If you actually don't think they used AI, what exactly are you trying to tell us with that post?

That overall it gives me the same uneasy vibe as when I look at AI art. That's a hard thing to explain, since it just comes from the gut, so pointing out the blurriness of the "camera", the amount of "noise" (confetti, artificial bush strokes, shiny glinting, etc.), and the out of place humanoids in the foreground as the possible reasons for my unease.

For me, I think there was some reliance on digital tools (I'm talking specifically built in Photoshop like ones) that might contribute to the "unnatural" nature of this picture for me.

Had no idea bringing up AI was going to ruffle so many fathers, especially since the CEO of Hasbro just this month couldn't stop gushing about how much AI is going to benefit both D&D and Magic. Didn't get the memo we were no longer allowed to bring it up, sorry guys.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Had no idea bringing up AI was going to ruffle so many fathers, especially since the CEO of Hasbro just this month couldn't stop gushing about how much AI is going to benefit both D&D and Magic. Didn't get the memo we were no longer allowed to bring it up, sorry guys.

I mean is is just one of the most divisive subjects of the last two years and the CEO's comments already started a massive flamewar on this very site.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Everything about the full picture feels "off" to me. The blurry details, the random "noise" in the colors, the humanoids in the foreground that look like they were "pasted" in (especially the kid), the uncannily ugly bunny creature.

Certainly gives me the same uneasy feeling whenever I see AI generated images. Not saying this is, but it might have had a little too much digital "help" maybe?

Just the opposite for me. It gives me none of the "valley of the uncanny" that AI art often creates for me. That being said, AI used by artist to modify, add to, touch-up, their own real art is virtually indistinguishable from digital art done without AI.

People keep complaining about the bunny PC and it makes me think they haven't spent much time with really rabbits. They will absolutely twist their necks/heads like that. Now, would I have chosen to be that literal in my translation from reality to humanoid fantasy? Probably not.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Had no idea bringing up AI was going to ruffle so many fathers, especially since the CEO of Hasbro just this couldn't stop gushing about how much AI is going to benefit both D&D and Magic. Didn't get the memo we were no longer allowed to bring it up, sorry guys.

That is a total different can of worms than AI art though.

 

[Demetrios1453]

That overall it gives me the same uneasy vibe as when I look at AI art. That's a hard thing to explain, since it just comes from the gut, so pointing out the blurriness of the "camera", the amount of "noise" (confetti, artificial bush strokes, shiny glinting, etc.), and the out of place humanoids in the foreground as the possible reasons for my unease.

For me, I think there was some reliance on digital tools (I'm talking specifically built in Photoshop like ones) that might contribute to the "unnatural" nature of this picture for me.

Had no idea bringing up AI was going to ruffle so many fathers, especially since the CEO of Hasbro just this month couldn't stop gushing about how much AI is going to benefit both D&D and Magic. Didn't get the memo we were no longer allowed to bring it up, sorry guys.

Oh, you're allowed to bring it up. But you need something much nearer actual proof - this piece has been out for days and absolutely no one, apart from you, has pointed out any suspicious AI activity. "Gut feelings" just aren't going to cut it - point out exactly, preferably circled, the exact parts of the picture that you believe is AI generated, with a detailed explanation why (using your undoubted knowledge of how AI art works and doesn't work), beyond just "feelings".

And you definitely shouldn't add a disclaimer at the end in an attempt to disown what you were insinuating in the rest of the post.

(Bluntly, it seems you were attempting to come on here to get some quick internet points, and found out, to your surprise, that randomly accusing every piece of art as being AI generated in some way with no real proof is so 2023. This sort of thing has lost its luster after the last AI art witch-hunt, which resulted in all the accusers being burned when the artist posted dated work-in-progress pieces to utterly disapprove their unwarranted accusations.)

 

[Jahydin]

Oh, you're allowed to bring it up. But you need something much nearer actual proof - this piece has been out for days and absolutely no one, apart from you, has pointed out any suspicious AI activity. "Gut feelings" just aren't going to cut it - point out exactly, preferably circled the exact parts of the picture that you believe is AI generated, with an explanation why, beyond "feelings".

And you definitely shouldn't add a disclaimer at the end in an attempt to disown what you were insinuating in the rest of the post.

My guy...

The picture feels unnatural to me. I likened it to the same feeling I get when I see AI art. I attempted to point out a few reasons why I think that is. That's it. You're reading way more into this.

I have nothing against AI art. If I thought it was AI generated, I would just say it.

 

[Jahydin]

“I’m not saying it is, but doesn’t it kind of seem like it is,”/“I’m just asking questions,”/“A lot of people are saying that it might be.”

This is what you’re doing right now. Please stop it.

I can't count the number of times you have incorrectly deduced what I "really mean" when I post.

Please stop it.