>>937263180
well i mean face swaps are still valid entries and relevant to these threads as ive been told. all i can really do are shitty faceswaps so i hope they're valued at least a little. ive even done some requests like pic rel. so that tells me theyre valued somewhat. though the question being en masse, thousands. i personally wouldnt complain if they were done well enough which is what id say the problem is with deepfake videos. theyre horribly uncanny. fully genned AI videos and images at least are seamless enough. even my face swaps arent perfect i know. artifacts that simply img2img baking it once would cover up. deepfakes will never really look seamless and convincing imo unless theyre also img2img each frame or something which is boring and dumb.

idk what point im even going for at this point. ultimately ill say the more celeb lewds the better, regardless if theyre deep fakes/face swaps, AI, or even old school photoshopped fakes. theyre all relevant enough to the thread. the latter probably only if theyre done very well. no one's going to complain here if a post isnt 100% AI. especially if its a good pic.

>>937173399
hell yeah brother now youre starting to see the light

>>936953490
>>936953537
>>936953559

that was me. thank you for being so chill and altruistic with your gens. 10/10 stuff as always dude.

finally got around to removing the watermark from this faceswap.