{"views":["
\"sCeege\"<\/a>
sCeege<\/a> \u2013 193074<\/a><\/small><\/header>

ForestMimic<\/a> I know you have a predisposition against AI generated content, but do wish I could delete some of the older uploads, tweaking out the artifacts takes a lot of practice and unfortunately I have no way of removing older uploads.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"ForestMimic\"<\/a>
ForestMimic<\/a> \u2013 193075<\/a><\/small><\/header>

sCeege<\/a> I wish I could delete your uploads, too.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"sCeege\"<\/a>
sCeege<\/a> \u2013 193076<\/a><\/small><\/header>

ForestMimic<\/a> but alas, we can't. I guess we'll all just have to deal with it like grown ups then lol<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"ForestMimic\"<\/a>
ForestMimic<\/a> \u2013 193080<\/a><\/small><\/header>

sCeege<\/a> Yeah. Have fun with your trash. I'd encourage you get better with it, but having talked at length with others like you it's clear the complete lack of standards is why you're so attracted to it in the first place.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"sCeege\"<\/a>
sCeege<\/a> \u2013 193083<\/a><\/small><\/header>

ForestMimic<\/a> Do you have any standards? Have you found any AI generated content that you regard as passable?<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"ForestMimic\"<\/a>
ForestMimic<\/a> \u2013 193092<\/a><\/small><\/header>

sCeege<\/a> No, because it all looks like ass to anyone who isn't an idiot. The whole thing relies on something I'd liken to pareidolia, but doesn't hold up to any amount of scrutiny to people with a discerning eye. The illusion works best with hyperminimal items (line arts or out-of-focus photography simulacra) or low-res, high-noise imagery (like your bot's attempts at nebulae), but the issues are still readily apparent to anyone who knows what they're looking at- kind of like how a non-car person might be fooled by a fiero in a bodykit, but a car persony will know it's not a lamborghini based on peculiarities only someone actually concerned with the subject might recognize.<\/p>\n

But even if it did look passable it would still irk me on a number of fronts. "It's bad" isn't the sole criticism.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"sCeege\"<\/a>
sCeege<\/a> \u2013 193125<\/a><\/small><\/header>

ForestMimic<\/a><\/p>\n

I get why<\/em> AI images have certain defects (hopefully no one is confused on this?), I mean I<\/em> think most AI outputs are kinda unusable as wallpapers due to the defects, but no one makes abstract wallpapers at 6k x 2k, so SD fills that void very well for me, I happen to use all the 6k x 2k generations I've uploaded due to my monitor arrangement, and they look indistinguishable from any other content here after upscaling to the same resolution. Like you said, AI is good at a certain type of looks, so of course that's the kind of content that gets generated.<\/p>\n

Nothing holds up to scrutiny with enough effort, I mean there's tons of low quality wallpaper here, AI or non AI, but if you're encouraging people to get better with AI generated images, there's no way for that to happen without iterating. I'm an amateur photographer myself, and basic photography concepts like horizon alignment, thirds rule, etc, would rule out like 50+% photos here, there's also a ton of weird content like scans and screenshots that confuses me on why people would use them as a wallpaper, but I just scroll past and look for something else. The car hobby is an excellent example, I doubt most people care about kitting out their cars, and I hate to break it to you, but most people aren't visual artists either. This is a wallpaper site, not an art gallery. Maybe some people want to get a sick wrap or tune a sub 10sec car, but I'm just trying to get a cheap commuter.<\/p>\n

If you think all AI generations are automatically bad, then there really is no way to get better, so I don't understand why you bother critiquing AI generated content. Find or create a community that's more strict on upload quality or a functional AI filter (I understand the current issue with subscriptions).<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"ForestMimic\"<\/a>
ForestMimic<\/a> \u2013 193138<\/a><\/small><\/header>

sCeege<\/a> I don't generally critique ai art here. I actively try to avoid it as much as possible. The problem is that people keep tagging it with things like "architecture" when it's not that, so it shows up in my subscriptions (you can't block ai art, ai related tags, or even specific users in your subscriptions- a point I've raised on the forums). Or they don't tag it, like you, and I give them a quick reminder to tag their bullshit since it's so easy to spot.<\/p>\n

Asking a prompt writer to improve at ai art is like asking a fish to improve at climbing trees- if it possessed the capacity, it wouldn't be a fish.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","

\"sCeege\"<\/a>
sCeege<\/a> \u2013 193152<\/a><\/small><\/header>

ForestMimic<\/a> I've tagged all of my uploads with the required AI tag. If someone is removing them, I can't really help that. Since all of my uploads are AI generated, it is literally the first tag I add before anything else. I understand the subscription issue, but it's not my site and there's nothing I can do about a broken site feature; also, low quality posts exists with or without AI generated content, I scroll past most uploads even prior to the AI stuff, the main reason I even tried to generate the 6K pictures is because I couldn't find any suitable wallpapers for my resolution. Again, I approach AI output as a functional product, not an artistic one.<\/p>\n

I don't think it's fruitless to try to improve AI outputs though, there are clear differences in the same prompt if you adjust the workflow, checkpoints and loras are also getting better by the day, while I don't think it's a substitute for artistic expression, there's still a mechanism to produce better or worse outputs, which is a different skill in itself.<\/p><\/div><\/article>","