Sorry…Again, what should I be taking from this? What is “ChatGPT font”? ChatGPT and its image tool are distillation models that do not have fonts. They produce images based on per-pixel relational distillation, they are guessing what pixels should be next to each other and do not use fonts. Current models do produce text that can be indistinguishable from fonts, but there is no single “ChatGPT font.” If there is a generic font appearing here, that doesn’t tell us anything new.
For the PS1, I don’t understand what you are referring to. The blurriness and uneven lines happen from compression artifacting and/or resizing to a non-divisible fractional resolution.
If you’re taking some other features as evidence of AI, let me know.
I don’t understand you defending ai art, but here, the extremely obvious odd coloring texturing the surface of the ps1 would be enough for anyone to notice, but the generation error in the top is proof. This smudge line is where the ai failed on its final pass, likely to do with clipskip or whatever crap open ai uses as this is clearly open ai’s image model.
Why are you defending ai art so hard, what do you get from defending a massive cooperation?
Buddy, I’m not defending AI, and you making some conspiratorial allegation about my motivation is just weirdly aggressive. You and other people don’t seem to understand what happens with typical generational lossy compression and resizing. Randomly resize and save any imagine to jpeg 12 times, and see if you don’t see similar artifact noise patterns. That’s a technical literacy thing and not your fault, but the overconfidence here is. The exact thing you’ve marked above is very typical artifacting that occurs for non-AI reasons.
I also know enough to say that I can’t be 100% positive it was or wasn’t AI at some point in the chain. But Ican confidently say nobody has identified credible evidence it is AI compared to a multi-generational lossy resize by a lazy designer (and no, posting a screenshot with a vague circle and “that’s obviously AI” is not great evidence - these are not twelve fingers or mush pseudo text, this is pixel level inconsistency).
The things you and others are pointing out here are very explainable without AI, and AI likely would not be reliable enough to create some of the details you see which survived the lossy compression.
I for the life of me cannot believe that a nsfw account is arguing with me about confidence while not giving an inkling of evidence themselves. You know nothing of AI “art” and it shows.
Here is a ps3 i generated from chatgpt just now, it details every single thing you stated. The prompt was: “Generate me a Playstation 3 pixel art image”
If you aren’t willing to give even an inkling of proof to your claims, or even try to show proof when talking about jpeg errors then you have no grounds to stand on.
You are defending ai art, weather you realize it or not.
ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 2 days ago
Sorry…Again, what should I be taking from this? What is “ChatGPT font”? ChatGPT and its image tool are distillation models that do not have fonts. They produce images based on per-pixel relational distillation, they are guessing what pixels should be next to each other and do not use fonts. Current models do produce text that can be indistinguishable from fonts, but there is no single “ChatGPT font.” If there is a generic font appearing here, that doesn’t tell us anything new.
For the PS1, I don’t understand what you are referring to. The blurriness and uneven lines happen from compression artifacting and/or resizing to a non-divisible fractional resolution.
If you’re taking some other features as evidence of AI, let me know.
Harvey656@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Image
I don’t understand you defending ai art, but here, the extremely obvious odd coloring texturing the surface of the ps1 would be enough for anyone to notice, but the generation error in the top is proof. This smudge line is where the ai failed on its final pass, likely to do with clipskip or whatever crap open ai uses as this is clearly open ai’s image model.
Why are you defending ai art so hard, what do you get from defending a massive cooperation?
ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 2 days ago
Buddy, I’m not defending AI, and you making some conspiratorial allegation about my motivation is just weirdly aggressive. You and other people don’t seem to understand what happens with typical generational lossy compression and resizing. Randomly resize and save any imagine to jpeg 12 times, and see if you don’t see similar artifact noise patterns. That’s a technical literacy thing and not your fault, but the overconfidence here is. The exact thing you’ve marked above is very typical artifacting that occurs for non-AI reasons.
I also know enough to say that I can’t be 100% positive it was or wasn’t AI at some point in the chain. But Ican confidently say nobody has identified credible evidence it is AI compared to a multi-generational lossy resize by a lazy designer (and no, posting a screenshot with a vague circle and “that’s obviously AI” is not great evidence - these are not twelve fingers or mush pseudo text, this is pixel level inconsistency).
The things you and others are pointing out here are very explainable without AI, and AI likely would not be reliable enough to create some of the details you see which survived the lossy compression.
Harvey656@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I for the life of me cannot believe that a nsfw account is arguing with me about confidence while not giving an inkling of evidence themselves. You know nothing of AI “art” and it shows.
Image
Here is a ps3 i generated from chatgpt just now, it details every single thing you stated. The prompt was: “Generate me a Playstation 3 pixel art image”
If you aren’t willing to give even an inkling of proof to your claims, or even try to show proof when talking about jpeg errors then you have no grounds to stand on.
You are defending ai art, weather you realize it or not.