"c'est ne pas un pipe" and all that but there'd be no point in making images that aren't real, for me. Even cloning out little things makes me feel uneasy. This stuff probably will be a big deal commercially though, where a client just wants the best looking images possible.

here's the day after picture, and a crop of the part that's in the best focus

Oh interesting, I didn't know there were lookalikes. I have some pictures from the day after, I'll post them here when I'm back home

This guy did stunts for 80s era star trek, but he's also known for this:

If only that were the choice we were making, I don't think there's any putting the genie back in the bottle here.

... What was it made for? I can't think a single legitimate use.

Like, if we're generating something, it's generative. But the people I'm talking about do so with intention, and they write the systems that do the generating.

Algorithmic art is a more common term, the example I always think of is Casey Reas who does live pieces that grow organically. I was going to say demo scene stuff also qualifies, but that's usually totally deterministic even if it is algorithmically generated.

I also feel like it kind of throws genuine generative artists under the bus, ironic since AI boosters have always wanted to claim them as their own when what they do is very different.

Agreed, I also think even the term "GenAI" isn't especially helpful, a lot of people seem to have decided that's the line they're going to draw between good math and evil math, when an AI that generates proteins is just as generative as one that generates knock off concept art.

Thanks, I was getting back from work and that was the very last of the light, so just those are highlighted

I really thought he would be an immortal cyborg tbh, just too evil to die