Unironically, this is based as fuck
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2026
486 points (96.6% liked)
me_irl
7998 readers
799 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
And implies that dragons may be mammals?
My dragons can have big naturals, as a treat.
Female dragons store extra gas in the tits for combustion. This is used to defend the nest from scavengers and aggressive males. This is why before laying an egg the tits engorge
- sigh... Unzips *
Would you say you're... rock hard?
It's... A soot fetish.
Man the only thing I miss about reddit was gold. I'd give it to you for this comment.
That or he's dragon his balls on something
No one looking at this is able to tell if the images themselves are AI generated at this point in time
I'd say many artists can at least probably tell because he starts out drawing with a light sketch first. People who don't draw wouldn't think to generate the steps in between like that.
Also, the rock is pretty clearly the same. And the drawing is consistent.
I agree that AI slop wouldn't be able to produce this. But for someone who knows what they're doing with image generation and open source tools, these images are easy to generate through sequential generation where: first an overview picture with all the objects is produced and then the first image is used as the input for the second image and so on.
But the way, I don't think that the images are generated. I'm just saying that we wouldn't be able to tell if they were
I'm not doubting what you're saying, if anything I'm trying to make sure I understand how that kind of workflow would create something like this. My understanding of image to image generation wouldn't get results anywhere near this consistent.
I would argue that the medium used doesn't define the artist, but rather how much effort is put into getting the final result. A few prompt words and a button click, that's not an artist. Finding the right combination of things, taking those results, doing further manipulation, that becomes more like artwork, even if it's all digital.
The line has become very blurry, no doubt there. But the people drawing a line aren't helping.
I'm not sure that effort alone is a good enough metric. Some great art actually does just kinda flow out sometimes, to the point where artists often talk about feeling like they're just a channel that the art flows out of.
There's great art that's been born in 30 minutes as a silly afterthought of the artist, and also great art that took the artist's entire life.
I would love to see how many hours of practice and repetition each artist had put in, before the moment they experienced that flowing for the first time.
Sure, there are levels of inspiration and skill, but there's still work to bring it to fruition. There's also the artist's eye to see a sudden masterpiece for what it is, and even stop before they make it less. One could say that someone using digital tools has to have that ability as much as any artist to be successful.
Haven't we had this discussion like a billion times? Isn't every art movement just a rebellion against what "the man" thinks "real" art is?
Yes art = work, genius
All work is effort, but not all effort is work.
Right because effort is art or something?
Again not all effort is art, but all art is effort.
How do you figure when effort is not art?