To be fair, it's remarkable how the second looks only this worse given they claim they used a commissioned image set this time that, going by what they show, seems to be a couple dozen images at most.
I see a lot of animators and people saying that it look like shit and horrible and how is the worst thing in the world.
But I dont think it looks that bad specially if most of the work is just putting a filter on top of it and call it a day.
Sure if it was made manually, and consumed so much effort and resources and having real animators working, then it would be bad. but for a dumb free video on the internet is not the worst thing.
I honestly see no problem in them doing their thing, but they tend to really, REALLY want it to matter beyond its scope of… pretty much just that. Being charitable and not simply assuming they're bluntly ignorant, they tend to stretch the meaning of the terminology and concepts they throw around to breaking point, which is a common problem with the related discourse, positive or not. It's ironic because the tech does have creative potential, but by virtue of obsessing about making it pass for what it just isn't, they're robbing it of its own chance at real worth. And the double irony is that makes actual artists too defensive and touchy to even consider it, when they're actually the most qualified to understand that potential.
I can't see anybody calling how these results look "good" even under that sort of heavy semantic stretching, but if they're not full of shit and when they say they used their own legitimately-sourced dataset for this they actually mean they ONLY used that dataset, I guess they in something that could pass for the right direction given the absolute clusterfrick the whole topic amounts to right now. Honestly going by what they just posted that exclusively homegrown claim is a bit dubious lol:
I'm not watching I don't care I only care enough to tell everyone to stop giving a frick and just focus on yourselves for a change maybe then you fricks will get some work done
Whatever draws the YouTube views, no matter how dumb or fake, you gotta me it sound real and groundbreaking. After all, the audience is too moronic to tell or even remember it a week later.
AI shills can't draw so when they finally get a tool that draws for them they want to let everyone know. Even Cinemaphile gets spammed with it despite having little to do with it. Artgays get mad cause AI shills keep saying that Artgays are gonna lose their jobs (despite the fact that AI shills won't get a job either). Now it's just pajeets and thirdies talking about their future animation job they'll totally get while Artgays who don't even draw point out every flaw in an AI pic. Me personally, I don't give a shit. There's good and bad that comes with this and the only thing I have to say is that AI "artists
should stop spamming rule34
these fricking self-aggrandizing homosexuals...
Nice redditspeak gaywash
sirbros… we won
Go be a /misc/tard somewhere else
Designated prompting streets.
In just 2 more weeks, you'll be able to prompt your own toilet
Nobody can.
How is this getting less shit than the Scooby-Doo animation?
meh first one was better
To be fair, it's remarkable how the second looks only this worse given they claim they used a commissioned image set this time that, going by what they show, seems to be a couple dozen images at most.
I see a lot of animators and people saying that it look like shit and horrible and how is the worst thing in the world.
But I dont think it looks that bad specially if most of the work is just putting a filter on top of it and call it a day.
Sure if it was made manually, and consumed so much effort and resources and having real animators working, then it would be bad. but for a dumb free video on the internet is not the worst thing.
I honestly see no problem in them doing their thing, but they tend to really, REALLY want it to matter beyond its scope of… pretty much just that. Being charitable and not simply assuming they're bluntly ignorant, they tend to stretch the meaning of the terminology and concepts they throw around to breaking point, which is a common problem with the related discourse, positive or not. It's ironic because the tech does have creative potential, but by virtue of obsessing about making it pass for what it just isn't, they're robbing it of its own chance at real worth. And the double irony is that makes actual artists too defensive and touchy to even consider it, when they're actually the most qualified to understand that potential.
I can't see anybody calling how these results look "good" even under that sort of heavy semantic stretching, but if they're not full of shit and when they say they used their own legitimately-sourced dataset for this they actually mean they ONLY used that dataset, I guess they in something that could pass for the right direction given the absolute clusterfrick the whole topic amounts to right now. Honestly going by what they just posted that exclusively homegrown claim is a bit dubious lol:
Artgays on suicide watch once again, you love to see it
I'm not watching I don't care I only care enough to tell everyone to stop giving a frick and just focus on yourselves for a change maybe then you fricks will get some work done
>Did we just change animation forever...again?
>...Again?
>Implying the first one changed literally anything
Is that a jojo reference
Whatever draws the YouTube views, no matter how dumb or fake, you gotta me it sound real and groundbreaking. After all, the audience is too moronic to tell or even remember it a week later.
what's with this random serge of AI bait thread anons?
AI shills can't draw so when they finally get a tool that draws for them they want to let everyone know. Even Cinemaphile gets spammed with it despite having little to do with it. Artgays get mad cause AI shills keep saying that Artgays are gonna lose their jobs (despite the fact that AI shills won't get a job either). Now it's just pajeets and thirdies talking about their future animation job they'll totally get while Artgays who don't even draw point out every flaw in an AI pic. Me personally, I don't give a shit. There's good and bad that comes with this and the only thing I have to say is that AI "artists
should stop spamming rule34
So it's AI rotoscope
Do these morons really think they invented rotoscoping?
Looks like Soiderverse
Looks just as hideous as the first one. The soi face is cherry on top.