And the problem with Al is that it greatly limits the vision. It’s almost impossible to truly move the image or the concept you have in your head to the canvas using thar technique. Because the model will produce the images it has been train for, not the image in your head.
This one statement invalidates everything you said because you clearly have no idea how these tools actually function.
And honestly, I think this is one of the biggest problems with people who argue against what they call “AI.” They’re so blindly opposed to these tools that they won’t even take the time to learn how they work, what they’re capable of, or how people actually use them. They form an opinion first, then refuse to do the research necessary to see whether that opinion even holds water.
You don’t have to like AI. You don’t have to use it. But if you’re going to argue against it, you should at least understand what the hell you’re arguing against.
Using Anima as base model, with controlUI, trying loras, IMG2IMG with flux.
It’s very clear that the generation is limited to a dataset.
Even more clear when you use SDXL that basically works by tags.
But even with models which process natural languages you see the limitations imposed by the training data.
If you want to make a generic image that’s been done 10000 times it’s very easy. But if you want to do something very specific that the thing have not been trained to do… you are not going to make it. Unless you literally paint want you want and train a lora with it, which kind of defeats the purpose.
Hold on a second. If what you’re saying is true, which you have no way of proving to me that it is, I’ll take it at face value nevertheless. But if that’s the case, then you clearly do have some understanding of how these technologies work.
You’re telling me you’re upset that an LLM, which has been trained on pre-existing data, can’t produce something completely novel without referencing some kind of source?
That’s simply how the technology functions. What a lot of people actually do is come up with their own original ideas and put them on paper or into a digital drawing program. Then they take that original picture or concept and put it into AI tools, where the AI can manipulate, refine, or transform that original work and save them significant amounts of time on tasks that artists traditionally had to do manually.
So your gripe with AI is essentially describing a limitation of the technology. That’s not really an argument against its use. It’s a limitation that can be worked around depending on how you use the technology.
This one statement invalidates everything you said because you clearly have no idea how these tools actually function.
And honestly, I think this is one of the biggest problems with people who argue against what they call “AI.” They’re so blindly opposed to these tools that they won’t even take the time to learn how they work, what they’re capable of, or how people actually use them. They form an opinion first, then refuse to do the research necessary to see whether that opinion even holds water.
You don’t have to like AI. You don’t have to use it. But if you’re going to argue against it, you should at least understand what the hell you’re arguing against.
I have tried.
I spent several days on a comfyui workflow.
Using Anima as base model, with controlUI, trying loras, IMG2IMG with flux.
It’s very clear that the generation is limited to a dataset.
Even more clear when you use SDXL that basically works by tags.
But even with models which process natural languages you see the limitations imposed by the training data.
If you want to make a generic image that’s been done 10000 times it’s very easy. But if you want to do something very specific that the thing have not been trained to do… you are not going to make it. Unless you literally paint want you want and train a lora with it, which kind of defeats the purpose.
Hold on a second. If what you’re saying is true, which you have no way of proving to me that it is, I’ll take it at face value nevertheless. But if that’s the case, then you clearly do have some understanding of how these technologies work.
You’re telling me you’re upset that an LLM, which has been trained on pre-existing data, can’t produce something completely novel without referencing some kind of source?
That’s simply how the technology functions. What a lot of people actually do is come up with their own original ideas and put them on paper or into a digital drawing program. Then they take that original picture or concept and put it into AI tools, where the AI can manipulate, refine, or transform that original work and save them significant amounts of time on tasks that artists traditionally had to do manually.
So your gripe with AI is essentially describing a limitation of the technology. That’s not really an argument against its use. It’s a limitation that can be worked around depending on how you use the technology.