>>11358310
>>11358782
To put it into terms that even you can understand, Qufo is using a traditional medium to obfuscate the fact that the majority of the image he delivers is created by AI.
His intention is to trick clueless commissioners who do not understand his process into thinking that they are paying for the time of someone skilled, when in fact all he does is create an image with AI, print it, and then draw over it, which takes a minute fraction of the time which actual illustrators would spend on a piece.
He does not in fact have the skill his art would indicate, as the characters that aren't the main focus have entirely different styles and poor anatomy, which is because they are not generated by AI as it struggles to create multiple characters in size difference art and he supplements this with his own drawing.
He doesn't make any mention of using AI, and doesn't make commission prices public, so he can go for whatever high price the particular commissioner thinks is fair for any normal artist they have commissioned in the past.
My original point is that I find it ironic that several skilled artists who have expressed a dislike for AI using their art as training data to generate variations of their art without credit are following this account, implying that they might approve of the process.
I'd love to hear in more detail about your thought process about this. Do you believe that if you are overcharged for at best traced, at worst computer generated art, you deserve to be because you can't tell? Are you not entitled to know what you are paying someone for?