That stained glass whale thing makes me especially grumpy. When it scrolled onto the page, my first thought was "whoah, what a neat idea" and then it was _immediately_ followed by "what a terribly execution."

Like, I'm not even an artist, so I'm sure there's a million things I'm missing, but it's just so upsetting to look at. There's weird random reflections on things that shouldn't have reflections, the coloured light absolutely doesn't actually track through the stained glass onto any surface that makes any sense, light is coming from every which way, it's just... gross to look at for anything more than a quarter of a second.

And this is what they're using to hype people up for it. /shrug

▲

phoghed 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

sethaurus 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

> Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	phoghed 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]

▲

Conscat 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If not by the pixels, how else could you assess the quality of an image?

	▲	mindcandy 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's a reference to the very old https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-looks-shopped Long before generative AI, unpleasant nerds would poop on fun images by claiming they could "just tell" that they were altered in photoshop. Today I'm seeing a complaint that the path tracing from the multi-layered stained glass into the cloud simulation is not as accurate as a human would have painted by hand. And, that apparently makes us grumpy. There have been unending examples of people liking an image until informed it was made by AI. Then, suddenly they see all sorts of fine-detail excuses to dislike it. And, of people calling out "obviously AI" problems in the works of human master artists when someone lies and tells them it was generated. I'm not seeing any difference in the discussion here. The whale is a bit overly high-frequency. The owl is fine. The guy at the computer would be considered great if a human made it. The travel ad is bland. The balloon letters are fine. None of these are "terrible eye sores". Some people don't like AI generated imagery as a process. Seeing generated images make them feel upset. That's reasonable. But, claiming these images in isolation are objectively awful regardless of their source is reactionary. If any of them were made by a person using Photoshop and/or Blender, they would be received with a resounding "Meh" or better.
	▲	swivelmaster 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Vibes?

▲

minimaxir 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> There's weird random reflections on things that shouldn't have reflections

It's an image depicting a whale made of stained glass; realism is off the table there.

	▲	Feathercrown 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I've never understood why people have this viewpoint. If there is no preference for one property of a work (ie. lighting) to match reality just because another unrelated property (biology) doesn't, then surely the only possible scenarios remaining are an exact replica of the real world (where all properties match the real world) or an entirely arbitrary construction (where no properties should match reality). Fiction is predicated on the idea of "reality, but...". Saying that any single difference from reality should lead you to expect no similarities to reality at all, if followed, would collapse all fictions into pure arbitrary soup.
	▲	post-it 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Well no. I can imagine lots of things in my head that are impossible but would be correctly lit, and I could do the same in Blender.
	▲	mplewis an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		nah, the physical light is still a real concept, and it looks really shitty here.
	▲	casey2 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Not really, you could imagine another technique that 3D models it without force but with raytracing, puts it in that scene and takes a picture, the result would look better. That could then be a starting point for trying to get the lighting an panels just right to make the best reflections. When you forgo process the odds that you'll make good art drop to 0. Tool use is a much better path forward for self driving, artistic computer than big data. Images 2.6 only has use as a tool.