>>96479448
Why does everyone assume that because I have opinions about 'AI' image-generation that aren't just incoherent poorly-informed hatred, I must be aiming to make a living as a prompter?
I'm actually fairly decent at traditional drawing, have a perfectly nice job in another field, and am shit at prompting.
Fact of the matter is, the professional illustration industry has been rife with 'cheating' for many years; lots of use of 3d models, photobashing, and tracing. Dan Smith, who GURPS fans praise frequently, traces photos for composition, for example. Neural nets take it to another level, but you've almost certainly been consuming 'slop' for years without noticing and odds are good that many people who claim to be traditional artists now are using 'AI' somewhere in their workflow. Fine-tune a model, prompt it with a quick sketch or photo, let it do most of the boring work, then correct the mistakes with a bit of overpainting. People literally can't tell the difference between that and normal commercial art, if you do it right. Of course, you're aware of examples of it being done badly, because plenty of people are either unwilling to pay someone with the skills to do it right or overconfident in their own abilities, so there is lots of bad stuff out there. Plus you saw the results of state-of-the-art a couple of years ago, which was genuinely awful except for hyper-specific uses, and those memories are still associated with the idea of 'AI art' in your mind long after they stopped being relevant.

I sympathise with the general hatred of 'AI' for creative work. It's disturbing for a machine to do that, and it's certainly producing a large volume of worthless shit. But saying all AI generated images look bad, that it is somehow plagiarism, or that anyone who questions you must be a professional prompter just makes you look foolish and misinformed.