This a commission by Madhatter, who has graciously allowed me to post it here. First six panels are story, followed by bonus art.

If you enjoy, feel free to visit my BMC and become a member and support my art/writing.

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jnightshade

I am also available for commissions…

Imagine some cretin spewing out this shit, thinking they've done something. Now imagine some cretin paying for it.

Base +6, zodaloo +6, MehMeher +9, kakuman1995 +7, Mordai +7, oggebogge +7, testuo01 +13, kafi +10, as2t2 +8, IttePerkele +8, repeatedmeme +10, min1230 +6, albertzeb +6, and 4 more...

Try reading before criticizing.

Base +6, kakuman1995 -7, Mordai -7, oggebogge -7, BakaG -13, testuo01 -13, kafi -10, zodaloo -6, as2t2 -8, JohnShepard45 -6, IttePerkele -8, albertzeb -6, PoisonElf -7, and 1 more...

Ai art goes in Misc, not Western

Base +7, Mordai +7, zodaloo +6, min1230 +6, albertzeb +6

I enjoy constructive criticism, but calling someone a cretin without even reading is simply rude.

Base +6, as2t2 -8, IttePerkele -8, albertzeb -6, Ronir69 +6, PoisonElf -7, Abajaba -6

AI generated content should have it in the title so it can be tagged properly.

Base +6, as2t2 +8, min1230 +6, albertzeb +6

Gallery is AI, actual first six are hybrid, but my apologies if I breached AI etiquette.

Base +6, as2t2 -8, IttePerkele -8, albertzeb -6, PoisonElf -7

Ai generated content is a plague on art. Sure it helps people with no talent at all visualize something, but for it to get that far it, for the most part, finds and analyzes copy written works illegally and just samples them together.
Unless your only sampling exclusively your own work or public domain works it should be illegal to even use; an no just because it's online doesn't make it public domain. I know there is irony talking about that on a site that commonly has uploads that are piracy and thus illegal themselves, but calling ai generative work art and their handlers artists and the work art is similar to calling a yourself a barista for using a keurig.
It's the same thing for people who use chatgpt for writing research papers or novels; more times than not it comes back plagiarized to hell and if you're profiting off of it, have fun if you happen to get hit by a lawsuit from someone actually successful.

Base +8, as2t2 +8, JohnShepard45 +6, albertzeb +6, Ronir69 -6, Snariaz +6, Abajaba +6

You’re wrong about a number of things. First the art here is in vision sequencing and writing. As of now things AI doesn’t do particularly well.

As to AI “sampling” and thus being not original work, you are wrong (it does devalue art and artists to an extent, which saddens me). However, how is AI different than Daz? How is AI different than an artist who looks at a painting and is.inspired? All art is to an extent iterative. Pop eats itself. At some point Chatbots may be able to tell a story as well as me. This will make me both sad and happy…

Base +6, JohnShepard45 -6, IttePerkele -8, albertzeb -6, Ronir69 +6, as2t2 -8, PoisonElf -7, Abajaba -6

Did you just ask how an artist being inspired is different than ai? How Daz is different than ai? Bitch what?

How is telling a program that has a library of almost exclusively stolen art and photos and telling that program to shit out images based on a as little as a single word even remotely associated with an artist having inspiration and creating something on their own based on the inspiration? Sure shitty people exist who just take the "inspiration" and photoshop over it and call it new, but they're assholes and wrong.

Daz is a program that allows you to manipulate 3d models. Someone still has to make those 3d models they don't make themselves. Just like shitty "artists" that photoshop over other peoples work and call it their own the same thing happens with 3d programs as well. Someone still took the time to make the model. Some models are public use free, some licensed, some violate IP laws, and some are just flat out stolen work that an asshole claims they made.

Ai art is just assholes claiming they made something they did not, giving no credit to those whom they stole from.

I'm sorry you have so little dedication, drive, skill, and/or talent for creation that you equate pushing a button and getting results to being an artist. Sorry to say, but ai can already tell a story better than you, you're just that uneducated and delusional.

Base +8, albertzeb +6, as2t2 +8, JohnShepard45 +6

Dude, I’m a writer. I’m well aware I’m not Van Gough, nor is that where my talents lie. Try writing a coherent story and sequencing coherent art to it and get back to me.

Your main issue with AI seems to be it’s too easy. Sorry that’s life kid. Eventually, someone may come up with AI good enough to replace me as a writer. That time is not yet here.

Base +6, albertzeb -6, Ronir69 +6, as2t2 -8, PoisonElf -7

Glad to see you here! Don't let folks get to you, it can be rough here depending on what one uploads. Anyway, thanks for sharing with the community!

Base +7, albertzeb -6, Ronir69 +6, PoisonElf -7

Thanks Anax, Given the immense popularity of some of the stuff I’ve done, I don’t let a little AI hate bother me. Makes me want to post more.

Base +6, PoisonElf -7, as2t2 -8

Wtf are these comments? Jnightshade is awesome.

Base +6, as2t2 -8

"How is AI different than an artist who looks at a painting and is.inspired?" You are trying to distort what people are saying to you. It's not the same thing. If I print out your pictures, put those in frames and start to sell them, are you ok with that? All profit would be mine ofc.

Base +6

You’ve made an invalid assumption, that AI is simply a search engine. I put in “man with hat” and it finds a pic of a man with hat and returns it. That isn’t the case. Perhaps you are even suggesting that AI is merely a collagist. This has some basis in fact, but is still wrong. You can give AI a command of draw me the Mona Lisai in an Andy Warhol style and likely you’ll get something like 4 soup cans with the Mona Lisa as subject. This would be original art as no one has done it (that I’m aware of, if it has substitute a painting which hasn’t been done). This is highly derivative-but is still original art. I’m sure no artist has ever copied another artists style (haha). However, that still isn’t what AI is doing. It is actually taking from scratch what it has pieced together to create something new. Trust me, I have a vivid imagination of things I’ve never seen before and AI can produce these. Is AI a genius like Van Gogh, Dali, or Geiger? It most certainly is not. What some people are concerned with is it learning from their works, which it does (in art it’s rather pointless though as there is a ear infinite variety of copyright free images for it to learn from-even if every copyrighted image was disallowed from its learning, and arguably it should be, there is still plenty of art for it to learn from). As a side this is of greater concern with the written word where facts and quotes need to be properly footnoted (AI does collage its writing thus creating an academic issue).

I strongly suggest before crudely bashing you get a full mechanistic understanding of AI and perhaps try it yourself creating images of things which don’t presently exist.

Can an AI system truly create art?
Now coming to the point, yes, AI art is actually original. But creativity depends on how you define the prompt. While AI can create stunning pieces, the debate on originality and creativity sparks curiosity.

https://digital-photography-school.com/ai-images/

Base +6, as2t2 -8