I'm just saying. Kind of dishonest to promote AI images as real.

Ohh.. Oopsies. Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding!

The definition of AI is blurry. That's what I've said so far. But why is that? That's because it's a *marketing term.* A marketing term based off of the idea of bringing science fiction's living machines to life. We need to find better ones that doesn't imply the impossible.

But still... Where do you draw the line? Dalle? Google's Magic Eraser? AI upscalers? Unblurring in Google Photos? All of these are "AI" image tools. And is an algorithm generated by machine learning an AI, too? Could you say that YouTube uses AI to rank videos? It wouldn't be incorrect.

This reminded me of something. I feel like AI these days means nothing. Hearing "AI"-generated "songs" and then hearing songs made by a human using diffsinger AI or similar "AI" voice synths is a very different experience; making them is very different too. I just realised the post said 'image'

WHERE ARE THEY...

Hold on... the honey was necessary if you think about it. You practiced shading liquids which is actually pretty difficult if you've never done it before.

have you ever heard of the shengen area or however you spell it? it's a bunch of countries in Europe with literally no border control amongst each other

This image is AI. Flaws of note: inconsistent tiles, teeth, unnatural wrinkles on her forehead, odd configuration of the bars, no toilet paper, strange necklace, strange pants-colored square behind her, and the hand that's resting near the lid has no fingers. Also, GMoney's posted other AI images.

This image is AI. Note the writing.

wait a minute

fair

self harm, forgot i can just say the words here

i would have thought of sh first

Pyro TF2

Its joever