Transcription:

A picture of a skinny female orc with the side of her head shaved. She wears an armless red dress and a black shawl, as well as matching red bracelets and a black choker with a gold heart at the front.

At the top of the image is the text “You may not like it, but this is what” in large bubble font

At the bottom of the image is a screenshot from the new D&D changelog, reading “• Orcs no longer have the Powerful Build feature.”

And below that, the text “Peak 2024 D&D orc performance looks like” continues the bubble font from the top.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      4·
      4 months ago

      Yes, blatantly. The earrings don’t make a ton of sense, the overgarment doesn’t make any sense, and all the metallic bits are kinda gloopy.

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.worldEnglish
      41·
      5 months ago

      Nah this is hands drawn correctly but not well, AI draws hands well but incorrectly.
      (relatively speaking, its still hands drawn better than I can)

      Edit: Then again the ears are odd and the black thing vanishing under the clothes is confusing. Normally AI can’t understand that objects going behind another object have to come out the other side and this passes that test but it also just looks weird in a way a human wouldn’t do.

    • Kedly@lemm.ee
      14·
      5 months ago

      Lmao at DnD players witch hunting for AI art when 75% of you rip your character pics off Pinterest

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        11·
        5 months ago

        I like to think those are two very separate issues. Since they’re not selling or repackaging the art from pinterest it is fair and protected use. AI Art, conversely, is pretty much always shit and unethical and by very nature stolen and sold without consent of real artists.

        • Kedly@lemm.ee
          21·
          5 months ago

          How the fuck is directly stealing art from an artist more fair use than making an entirely new piece of artwork that was trained off of (MANY) other artwork(s) if both arent being used for profit?

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            41·
            5 months ago

            If you take a picture of my painting, idgaf. If you sell those pictures as your work and don’t even credit me, we’ve got a problem.

            Your failure to grasp such simple ethics is astounding.

            • Kedly@lemm.ee
              11·
              5 months ago

              You are assuming the vast majority of AI works are made for sale, they arent. One artists contribution to any AI work is miniscule. A picture grabbed off pinterest is 100% that singular artists work who NEVER got asked if they were ok with someone using that image since it probably wasnt even the artist that put it on Pinterest.

              You’re a hypocrite that just doesnt like AI because the internet told you not to. Pinterest is 300x more closer to theft than AI Art is.

                • Kedly@lemm.ee
                  31·
                  4 months ago

                  If someone goes into an art museum and gets inspired by an Emily Carr painting so much that they go home and paint their own back yard in her style, if they dont think to credit her when they show their friends their painting, is that stealing from Emily Carr? Howabout if they were instead inspired by the entire museum, and used bits amd pieces of art styles from so many different art pieces to the point they dont know which parts of their own painting to credit to which artist? Is that more theft than the Emily Carr example? Or Less?

                  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                    2·
                    4 months ago

                    If a person goes into an art museum, samples 1000 Emily Carr paintings, and makes an automated Emily Carr painting generator to sell en masse without her permission and without giving them any credit, then that person owes Emily Carr a lot of fucking money.

                    Your attempts to reduce or boil down an already simple issue is telling of your intentions.