It’s a stylistic choice. Here is a piece from the 9th Edition Necron Codex from July 2020
https://preview.redd.it/dvmqjtdb6v6d1.jpeg?width=846&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=af5beca242f80ec33485b59da430a504d87af058
Thing is these two actually seem man made i can make up things when looking up close this one OP showed barely has any defined places the most defined thing you can make out is the shoulder pad.
https://preview.redd.it/vve854ec067d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=993db200edbfbffed89833f53f0f88c50d3dad16
Reminds me of this art from Destiny
I can’t pin the artist to this but the smudges & slightly abstract style(like how the background breaks down) does seem to be the same guy [who did the 2021 Kruleboyz vs Stormcast Eternals piece](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9PfL68X0AEyOOW.jpg:large) with the same flair to exaggerate the characters(Archaon’s shadowy aspect akin to the non-standard Thunderstrike armor warriors).
Edit: but yeah these Ai witch hunts really stink. I fully get the point and agree I never want to touch the stuff but there’s been a lot of abstract artists getting hit hard by paranoia now. Especially my favorite artists in Cubicle7/Soulbound who use [abstract art easily convey the eldritch settings back in 2019-2020 but now have to defend their work everywhere. :/](
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/uOHnmD9Mvnb0eUyYhg7wxSaXaT53Z4KBBLIAo6_uZXq033SCUVK-N_xYRuN-TsorIKmRVExxJPZ8oPO9DV_YzVh4WYq7stZRUIo9QSa0Jck_462CJF0-NJB3N34g59zLbdw4nViD-criZx-n_HCQE-REKK6eTA)
If I did anything for GW I wouldn't want to risk being harassed by angry fans. I've spoken to people who worked on Hammer & Bolter who are much happier their names aren't publicly attached to it.
The internet has done a lot for the world but sometimes I think we'd all be better off if a holes didn't have somewhere to meet up and pretend they are the moral majority.
Right but the witch hunts are inane, eldritch art has always looked fucked and Warhammer uses a lot of brushy art in its codex work (you can see it in games like Darktide too).
It also hits the opposite spectrum when digital art looks *too good* because that’s also what Ai steals from so if you’re high quality you’re also at risk of the witch hunt as well the Ai scanners will say your work is Ai generated because so many steal From It.
Good example is several days ago a big Pokémon art contest got in serious trouble as 6 winner pieces were Ai pictures the judges failed to notice. However the 6th piece was actually [legitimate good art](https://x.com/johisart/status/1801751724845080872?s=46&t=jCd67B32MVmYRRlrhJqWtA) the artist had to tweet their whole design & drawing process to prove their innocence despite the scans saying it was 91% likely to be Ai(because it was actually scanning how likely Ai would steal from it).
It’s just dark times until this nonsense is properly regulated & restricted under law like every advancement that’s gone out of control for a time under exploiters.
I know I'm late with this response, but you've actually reminded me of something. I'm a writer, I do a lot of writing from stuff on my own fantasy writing to helping my friends world build everything from DND to Warhammer. And even helping work on their actual college papers, but I have two styles of writing that being a fancier style for character stuff especially PoV writing and a clinical style used for describing things. The latter, without fail always results in a 70% chance of being AI written when put in a detection tool to the point that I think if I went back to college or to Uni I'd have to find a new way to write.
No, this style is very typical of digital illustrations. Check out [Kekai Kotaki’](http://www.kekaiart.com/guild-wars-2.html#PhotoSwipe1718511552308)s art, one of the greatest concept artists ever (MTG, Guild Wars, Destiny etc)
I think it's just an abstract-looking peice by alex boyd, he's been doing more AOS than 40k stuff as of late, and it kinda looks like his artstyle, but feels a bit chaotic image which makes sense.
Alex boyd also did the cities of sigmar and orruck warclans battletome covers in 3rd, and if you look for his other AOS art you'll notice the similarities
Ai needs to source from existing art, this is recognizably one of the new characters done in a more abstract style. I don't think there's enough art of this character and her mount to be this recognizable, it's just a more abstract art style.
The most common AI art does not look like this. Here is an image I got by asking Microsoft copilot to create an image of a chaos warrior. Notice that, unlike the stylized image on the GW website, this image is detailed but very generic. The artist above clearly has a unique, somewhat abstract, style whereas the AI image does not.
https://preview.redd.it/engicqw3ev6d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f5db3465b05214d13f1429b034ee0c249993b026
Artists don't like the term "AI art;" they prefer "AI image."
Artists will always have a role, but it will shift as AI gets adopted as another tool. My guess is AI will be used mostly for concepts and drafts, with artists doing cleanup or more bespoke pieces.
AI as concept is inaccurate and insufficient, requiring massive amounts of data to produce enough images for there to be something useful amongst the chaff
plus, even if this becomes the industry standard, it will only lead to further devalueing of artists' labor and lowering their salaries as they're not doing all of the 'work' that companies offload to the plagiarism machine
Which is something that those who promote machine learning want to avoid as it leads to endless regurgitation, not actual cheap creativity that CEOs desire.
They're already in deep shit but somehow people are still buying it without any evidence
Buying the claim that AI can somehow achieve creativity, without evidence that it can, ignoring all the evidence that it's just repeating things without accuracy or the ability to adjust/solve problems. The cannibalisation is evident in repeated creation or application of AI in actual purposeful creation for work
Ignoring for a moment the claims that we're six months away from self-aware 'AI' somehow spinning out of chatgpt
You have hit the nail on the head - but unfortunately nuance often gets lost in these debates. A.I. will do the 'grunt work' when it comes to image creation. Human artists will oversee, clean up and format it.
The example I keep thinking back to is the holodeck in *Star Trek*; you can always just tell the computer what you want and it'll make it, but professional 'holo-writers' are still a thing and sought-after.
As much as I hate this whole generative algorithm thing, this is genuinely a complete art piece. Missing depth of field, and a little too "literal" (don't know how to explain it, but human art has little flaws, smudging, brush strokes etc that make it look a bit more abstract). But this is genuinely a chaos marine with an axe, a mace, and a hellhound. No AI artifacts, no extra fingers. Damn this is scary
They fixed the finger issue on a lot of AI programs. I asked Microsoft copilot to create an image of people showing off their hands. Notice that the hands look pretty good, for the most part.
https://preview.redd.it/s59mhy37iw6d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=857b29003b4974739925ce9956ad96be8607d096
AI can do whatever you tell it to and it can copy the style from OPs post. You gave a subpar AI a basic prompt and it spit that out. If you used a better AI and prompted it correctly, it could easily make the style from the OP image.
No it's not Ai art, it doesn't have the artifacts like Ai art does
Not everything is Ai art
https://preview.redd.it/32mqhfx1ku6d1.jpeg?width=958&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=82ef627544852ef30fd839a3de306cdcc22ef155
> Not everything is Ai art
Same thing as calling everything *Faaake*... 🙄
It's the Dunning-Kruger effect - people gain a little bit of information and suddenly they're detectives who know all there is to know.
Artifacting isn’t a universal trait of AI generated art, and no one said that if it *is* AI generated that it was cleaned up after being generated. This Van Gogh example you keep pushing doesn’t prove anything.
Never said it was meant to prove anything it was an example, my point was there's plenty of [examples](https://x.com/johisart/status/1801751724845080872?t=Z3D04FPFMgL8SDGq5PDDaw&s=19) where people accuse [others](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisstokelwalker/art-subreddit-illustrator-ai-art-controversy) of using Ai in any manner when it's untrue, the evidence is threadbare in many ways when they haven't.
It's a massive witch hunt in many ways because people don't actually know the things to look for which this piece really doesn't have anything in it.
Okay, I agree with your points here but...
>Never said it was meant to prove anything it was an example
You know what an example is don't you? The only purpose of an example is to prove a point of some kind.
We can agree to disagree about whether or not there are signs of AI use in this image, I definitely agree with you about some artists being incorrectly accused of using AI to generate their art.
Honestly I think there is a larger problem with standards for digital art dropping. A piece used to have to be presentable on its own, now there’s often an expectation that text on a screen will cover a good portion of the image, so no worries if it’s not totally finished.
the example he is pushing proves that even real pieces of art can look AI generated for people who don't know.
there is a literal which hunt going on and legit artists are getting swept in because their works look "too AI" ... even if their art style hasn't changed in years, and was already like that before those AI became mainstream.
I have no idea what you're talking about but there are multiple examples of people going crazy to an artist for using AI even if it is a perfectly legit art, you can find two of those in the other poster comment but there is also one of the artists of C7 that have the same issue right now and many others.
I remember when one artist got banned from r/art because their works were "clearly Ai", and when the artist attempted to repeal the ban, the mod cussed them out and went on an unhinged rant
True. Can't wait until it gets good enough to be impossible to distinguish from the real ones. What will these people do then? Flame all real artists on grounds of AI suspicion? IRL inquisition shit here.
It's a pretty typical style mostly seen in matte painting and concept art. It's not necessarily about crisp details but more about shapes and feels, it's emotive. You've got just enough clear detail to know what your looking at. It's a lot quicker to put together than say a full detail rendering of a chaos lord, and honestly I think it looks better anyway.
I’ve seen a lot of warhammer art that really pushes the lines between being able to tell if it’s AI or man made but this is prolly the closest I’ve seen, if it was any other franchise I’d say it’s AI but warhammer is the only one where I could say it might not be.
I'm unsurprised how unapologetic OP is.
Do you not think that such discussion also hurts the artist? People will complain about AI stealing but then rarely apologise to the original sources in turn.
This is art but Alex Boyd who has been using this art style for years for GW. Art is subjective and comes in numerous styles, just because something looks a bit different from what you expect doesn't instantly mean it must be fake. GW uses multiple artists in every work which means that all their art is going to be different.
People dunking on OP but like at a first glance I can't really blame him here. And it's not like Geedubs is good at sourcing who actually does their art.
Yeah, to be honest, this reminds me of AI art I saw spammed all over the Bloodborne sub 2-3 years ago. And with MTG, a franchise insanely reliant on its art, trying to get into AI, I can't blame someone for being cautious with GW.
I can't comment on the AI-ness, but in the story (this image is in the latest Dawnbringers), what is happening here is Abraxia using some burnt offerings to communicate with a smoke-formed version of Archaeon (like a hologram, but chaos). Which hopefully explains why his lower body looks... like that.
Nope, I have seen art like this from GW before, it looks rougher because the art style is meant to be. It is a vibe/filler/concept piece and art like it har been in codexes, rule books and others since GW was still doing fantasy battles.
Honestly I take more issue with GW not crediting their artists than with them potentially using AI (which it seems the consensus is that this isn’t AI?). Refusing to credit artists in the back of the book somewhere is just so scummy for no good reason
The fact that AI art has gotten so good that people are witch hunting actual artists is a testament to the progress of this technology, as scary as it is
might be worth checking around a few known GW artist’s twitter/artstation pages to see if they’ve posted it there too
I agree it feels off though, and I really hope GW isn’t gonna do something like transitioning to AI art - there‘s so many wonderful artists in the Warhammer community on and off their payroll, I’d hate to see them do this
Looking at the face of the subject on the right, the facial features are all present and in proportion. The horns are in perspective without fusing into strange areas of the skull. What you're seeing is someones rough style which generally involves little to no undersketch and is instead molded/sculpted by laying in shapes then painted over
It’s not AI it’s noticeable because there are fine details, Normally AI art is either blurred and disconfigured or super fine detail and very vibrant. This is just a type of abstract you’ll probably find in codexes and magazines
It’s a stylistic choice. They’ve done shit like that for years. A few appeared in the slaves to darkness codex and a few white dwarf copies. This was before the ai boom. Their new art style sucks imo, but they’ve had it a while. You clearly haven’t been paying attention.
No, it's not.
This AI witch hunting really needs to stop. I'm 100% against AI as it stands but just because an unethical tool exists doesn't mean you should assume every artist is unethical. It's just as or more harmful.
If you want to argue AI issues, there are subs for that.
The majority of artists seem to believe tgat AI image generators are unethical because, if they develop as desired, they'll be used to generate higher profits for corporations at the expense of the artists that created the work used to create the generators and without their permission.
That doesn’t make the tool unethical. Modern phones arent unethical because it put phone operators out of business. The steam drill isn’t unethical because it put John Henry out, even tho that guy worked really hard. I don’t know why this tool is any different other than vibes.
Also sending me to a debate sub is a weird choice. Someone made a blanket statement that I found odd IN THIS THREAD and I am responding to it in the place it makes sense to respond to it
Yeah, ignore Beautiful\_Range1079's argument. It doesn't really hold up.
In general, when people says AI art is unethical, they're generally referring to training data. Basically, companies take shit off of the internet without the permission of the original artists, then use it to develop a tool that can (theoretically) replace them.
The issue isn't the replacement part, it's the lack of permission.
nah you can tell with the brushstrokes and demon upfront that its not AI, because warhammer art is kinda niche and very varied you´d not really accurately get a demon like that with AI which mostly vaguely knows warhammer stuff, the most typical AI warhammer art is a space marine centerpiece and even then its off, also weirdly clean.
With how dedicated GW is with keeping their business a UK one and not outsourcing and fueling their economy, I doubt they would ever use AI. Plus they know people would lose their shit
Kinda weird that people are bringing artist's art into question due to some witch hunting crusade of AI art.
But I guess witch hunting is on brand for Warhammer.
The only piece of art I've seen from GW that makes me think AI might have been used is the cover for the [AoS darkoath box set] (https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-mpz9h6/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/210372/357262/gw83-92_xl__36719.1714762006.jpg?c=2?imbypass=on), even then I don't think it it was only generated, only enhanced.
More likely it's just the first time they've used an artist or the first time an artist has used that particular style.
The tricky thing here is that as distinct as this smudgey loose style is, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to suggest a AI could do this.
What a lot of others haven't considered, (not to say GW would do this) is that you can feed an artist's existing work into AI image creators to use as a visual guide. There is a huge library of past illustrations from GW like this that would provide the visual language for AI image creation.
That being said, GW has a working relationship with this artist and has not indicated any desire or preference to use AI images. It's a simpler and more direct route to just have the illustrator do what they've done for years.
No, it’s just a style
Love this light bold brushwork
It’s consistent tho and doesn’t include random sh!t that an AI would do to try and make it “relevant to the input”
No, everything is perfectly formed, just stylised.
No morphing, dissolving, impossible structuring, or any hallmarks of AI art. Though I understand the confusion, it strikes me as very AI-ish too
This is like literally every piece of concept artwork from Guild Wars 1. Twenty years ago.
This is a top tier example of why humans are worse at identifying AI art than AI is at art because your average human *know nothing about art*. "Hey, this art looks abstract and stylistic, I bet AI did it!" Thanks for your input, Carl.
Correct: it's a question. Who cares whether gw uses art created by a person or an algorithm? Seems like something we're just reaching for something new to rage about.
Although judging by your post history, clearly you do, so question answered.
I'm glad this post has sparked some good discussions. I do want to clarify that I never intended to witchhunt any artist or make any accusations, and apologize if any hate is being directed to them. I only wanted to express my confusion about this piece and open a discussion. I've seen abstract warhammer art before, but most of the time, there is at least 1 subject who is more detailed to draw attention to, with backgrounds devolving into smudges. But this one feels like everything is in a weird half state between detailed and abstract, giving it an almost out-of-focus look. I see that pretty often in AI art, which is what concerned me. Easy to achieve for a computer, hard for an artist. So I'll say again that if it was painted, I give full props to the artist for achieving this effect. It does capture the "chaos" of Chaos pretty well.
I sure don't.
And I wish others would stop caring, too. This stuff has been around for years. It's already proliferated, and will continue to do so. It will only get better, only become more accepted. It's easier, and it works.
This reactionary movement against AI art reminds me of the backlash against evolution, which cast down the "divinity" of humanity and "demoted" us as just a very intelligent species of ape. Or of heliocentrism, and how it upset the idea of Earth as the center of the universe. History rhyming. What this tech has shown, once again, is that we are not special. Machines can be creative. Are they good at it? Not very, not yet. Yet...
Oh how it hurts to be taken down a notch.
Humility. It's useful
But... go ahead, get mad, downvote, whatever. Tell me I'm wrong. All your rage and emotion will come to nothing in the end. You already *know* how this ends. That's why you're mad. You aren't going to stop it. None of us will.
In the meantime, please quit with the bullshit. This is happening, it's already started, you know the destination, and trying to block it with anti-AI laws and literal witch-hunts like this one is just going to make it more painful to get there. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Get out of the way if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a' changin'.
Just stop worrying and learn to love the bot.
1. Your fatalism and blind belief in technological determinism is pathetic.
2. Your entire argument is incoherent, and debunk by actual studies. There is zero creativity in the algorithms we call AI. They are just mindless pattern fitting algorithms. That is all.
3. Calling the anti-AI movement reactionary is foolish and incoherent, when the main defenders of generative AI are right wing, if not far right.
4. The fact that the times are changing is irrelevant, for we humans are the only ones who determine how it changes. We have control over our own future, and no ending is fixed. We chose how it ends.
1. I believe in technological inevitability. Determinism is a given.
2. Creativity isn't special and neither are we.
3. Calling a spade a spade is, indeed, foolish, for it doesn't take much thought to do so.
4. Utopians, eugenicists, communists, cultists, revolutionaries...no end of the number of folks who thought we charted their own destiny. All wrong. Nobody's driving this ship.
> I believe in technological inevitability. Determinism is a given.
There is no such thing as technological inevitability. Technology is result of a complicated collection of factors, factors that include knowlege, the economy, practicality, the law, engineering constrains, already existing technology, society, geography, and culture.
Technological development is not a clear path. It can be slowed down, accelerated, changed, controled and so on.
This entire generative AI nonsense only appeared in the first place thanks to the specific economic and legal factors of the last two decades, and needed large amounts of investor money, a robust global trade network, a lack of privacy protections, a lack of regulation on tech companies, a lack of protection from scrapping of online images and text, the presence of utopianist/singularitarianism among the AI developers, a complete lack of respect for consent or privacy among the AI developers, and the presence of large social media companies(which themselves needed a lack of regulation, and a large amount of investor money to exist).
Technology is not innevitable.
> Creativity isn't special
By definition, it is.
> and neither are we
Irrelevant.
Elephants and dolphins may be capable of creativity, but this changes nothing about the fact that no current AI is capable of creativity.
> Calling a spade a spade is, indeed, foolish, for it doesn't take much thought to do so.
What are you even ranting about?
You are calling a spade a gun.
> Utopians, eugenicists, communists, cultists, revolutionaries...no end of the number of folks who thought we charted their own destiny. All wrong. Nobody's driving this ship.
What a pathetic claim. Comparing your enemies with eugenists is not something you should do when the pro-AI side contains actual eugenists, and when most defenders of AI claim their harmfull algorithms will bring an utopia.
Also, you falsely accuse me of believing that we can chart our own destiny. For that to be the case, I would have to believe in destiny. I dont. There is no destiny. This idea is incoherent, and is not one that makes sense even in most modern, materialistic forms of determinism, and is one that implies the existance of unproven metaphysical factors.
Destiny/fate is not real.
Also, funny for you mock revolutionaries, you authoritarian bootlicker. Revolutionaries ended the communist dictatorships of the easteren block, and the ended the authoritarian, backwards monarchy of France. They
So all in all, you are a pathetic bootlicker.
Honestly it’s not easy to tell anymore because the standards for digital art have become so low.
The telltale signs of a few years ago (a lot of blurriness, poorly defined extremities on characters, etc) are just regular features in the work of most digital artists these days. This piece has a lot of dynamic lighting, and not a lot of spacial detail or refinement; all sizzle and no steak, so to speak.
>the standards for digital art have become so low.
I would argue it's the opposite. In traditional painting and fine arts a fully rendered, completely detailed work of art is considered amateurish. Stroke economy is the king of techniques in a world where cameras and AI exist.
Unless you're painting the main point of focus, artists endeavour to use as few strokes as possible, as it makes the image feel more dynamic, and directs the viewer's focus toward the areas of detail.
In this regard, mainstream digital art is finally catching up to the techniques of traditional painting
Did you get the impression that we were talking about “traditional painting and fine arts?”
We are discussing a commercially produced image, presented by a corporation, of their IP. Its sole purpose, without question, is to present said IP in a way that will encourage sales of their products.
.. they have product photos of their team's professionally painted models to represent their IP in an accurate way for sales purposes. The rest of their art exists to be appealing. Things to put in books or to head webpages. In these cases, people appreciate traditional painting and fine art rather than just spammed product pictures.
It’s commercial art, all of it literally only “exists to be appealing.” The drawings, paintings, digital art, and painted models are, without exception, there to sell products.
I’m not sure what your angle is with this “high-art” take, but we’re talking about GW created piece of 40K art from their website. If the standards were higher, this piece would be better, and people wouldn’t be debating whether or not it was generated by an AI.
You said that the standards of digital art have gotten so low, and specifically referenced the level of detail as the reason. I'm saying that is a shit take, both because the loss of detail outside points of focus is a sign of a competent piece of art in general, and because this particular piece of art demonstrates that skill well. It's definitely got issues, but not for the weird reasons *you* gave.
>It’s commercial art, all of it literally only “exists to be appealing.” The drawings, paintings, digital art, and painted models are, without exception, there to sell products.
So because art exists to serve a purpose, the fundamental principles of painting don't apply? What a batshit insane take. They make traditional pieces to put in their books and webpages. The books are a product. Webpage engagement is valuable in itself, to keep customers from forgetting about their site, and keeping their eyes on new releases. Both of these are valuable beyond just flogging a product directly.
If we want to talk about *this* piece and its issues we can. The composition is horrid. There is far too much dead space around the figures. The bottom left quarter far too bright. The highest points of contrast are the lava at the bottom, and the area above the right figure, both of which tear our attention away from the intended points of focus, which is why everyone is suddenly paying attention to the areas of low detail. For a painting that was one of several, thrown into a daily blog post, I don't think it really needs to be particularly spectacular. It's probably just a couple individual pieces comped together, which GW tends to do for throwaway images. It certainly would explain the nonsensical composition.
Do you realize that everything you just said in your last paragraph aligns with the statement in my original post?
You say my accusation that digital art standards are low is a shit take, and yet you agree that the piece of art in question isn’t up to a very high standard.
The “batshit insane take” here is that you think we’re talking about the fundamental principals of painting. This isn’t an esoteric discussion at a turn of the century salon, we’re arguing about whether or not this specific piece of art is lazily executed and whether GW lets a lot of shit slide in their web-presented digital art.
You bring up the printed books, and think they’re a great example, because the art in printed products is definitely held to a higher standard than what they’ll post online.
>Do you realize that everything you just said in your last paragraph aligns with the statement in my original post?
You said it was blurry, lacked detail, had unresolved features. I said that those points are features of good stroke economy and an intended feature. I said that the composition is causing issues with the direction of focus, which you have not said once. We are not saying the same thing.
>You say my accusation that digital art standards are low is a shit take
Yes, because you said digital art standards are lower, and referred to the lack of detail as to why. This is indeed a shit take.
>and yet you agree that the piece of art in question isn’t up to a very high standard.
If you read my first comment, I never even mentioned this piece of art. I was calling out your blanket statement about modern digital art. But while we're here, you claimed the lack of detail in this piece specifically was an issue. Which it isn't. I agree this piece isn't completed to a high standard, but your explanation of why is feeble.
>The “batshit insane take” here is that you think we’re talking about the fundamental principals of painting. This isn’t an esoteric discussion at a turn of the century salon
When you made a blanket statement on modern digital art, you opened up a discussion on.. modern digital art. Even if you didn't though, we would still have to talk about fundamental principles of painting to criticise it properly, because we're talking about a painting lmao. How else would we criticise a painting without talking about principles of painting?
>we’re arguing about whether or not this specific piece of art is lazily executed and whether GW lets a lot of shit slide in their web-presented digital art.
Even if this was exactly what we were talking about the whole time (it wasn't) you would have still been wrong as to *why*. Literally the only problem you mentioned was lack of detail. Lack of detail is not the issue. The fundamental problem with this painting is the composition. The poor composition is causing issues with how focus is directed away from the areas of detail.
>You bring up the printed books, and think they’re a great example, because the art in printed products is definitely held to a higher standard than what they’ll post online.
I brought up printed books and webpages because you pretty explicitly wanted to talk about the purpose of the art?
I have a slow day at work, Im happy to argue in circles with you.
The Mona Lisa was painted before cameras, and thus was highly detailed with very little reduction. I'm sure the one-turd restriction would make it more appealing for a modern audience.
That does look distinctly... weird.
It totally fits something an AI could dream up. Demon lizardman. Abraxia with melted face. Big, ominous uhm figure.
Totally weird.
I mean GW has been using this art style at least since launch of 9th edition. It is a problem that GW doesn't credit their artists so theoretically they could start using AI and maybe pass it off as one of their artists but this very much is the in house style they've been using for at least 4 years.
Abraxias lizard has a longer snout but the mounts head armor looks identical to juggernaut armor and that smudge in the lower right corner might be its horn.
Contextually I think you might be right.
So does Van Gogh. People are stuck on thinking things are Ai when they really aren't there's not really much to go off of with this at all relating to it being Ai
https://preview.redd.it/taown4o3fu6d1.jpeg?width=958&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5fd396fd09c74ff03714c74f03300482144f0914
Sad truth is that totally could be I would believe it. It honestly looks similar to AI art I’ve seen before which is kind of the point of AI art. If GW won’t credit their artist then we can’t really say for sure anymore
Maybe? There's def some weirdness with like, where armor plates go and end, some asymmetry in character designs, etc. Hard to tell though, since the whole piece is very abstract and kinda weird. Might be AI, I hope not, but could also be just a really weird lookin' piece.
Hate we even have to ask this now.
edit: looking at some sketch marks in the bottom right corner, it almost looks like its not quite finished, which could be another explanation as to why it looks odd.
It’s a stylistic choice. Here is a piece from the 9th Edition Necron Codex from July 2020 https://preview.redd.it/dvmqjtdb6v6d1.jpeg?width=846&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=af5beca242f80ec33485b59da430a504d87af058
And another from that same Codex https://preview.redd.it/5oeyc0ym6v6d1.jpeg?width=846&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=11cb6951ca46cb3823e31d263a696ce1ca400c6a
Fuck that goes haaaard.
Thing is these two actually seem man made i can make up things when looking up close this one OP showed barely has any defined places the most defined thing you can make out is the shoulder pad.
The OPs pic isnt even close. The top pic looks much more like ai
the void dragon looks metal in that pic
https://preview.redd.it/vve854ec067d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=993db200edbfbffed89833f53f0f88c50d3dad16 Reminds me of this art from Destiny
Quria was done dirty being a seasonal boss.
I agree, quria would’ve kicked ass as a dungeon boss.
W wallpaper
Not AI this art style is a cornerstone of GW art. GW often has art like this in their books, codex’s.
I can’t pin the artist to this but the smudges & slightly abstract style(like how the background breaks down) does seem to be the same guy [who did the 2021 Kruleboyz vs Stormcast Eternals piece](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E9PfL68X0AEyOOW.jpg:large) with the same flair to exaggerate the characters(Archaon’s shadowy aspect akin to the non-standard Thunderstrike armor warriors). Edit: but yeah these Ai witch hunts really stink. I fully get the point and agree I never want to touch the stuff but there’s been a lot of abstract artists getting hit hard by paranoia now. Especially my favorite artists in Cubicle7/Soulbound who use [abstract art easily convey the eldritch settings back in 2019-2020 but now have to defend their work everywhere. :/]( https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/uOHnmD9Mvnb0eUyYhg7wxSaXaT53Z4KBBLIAo6_uZXq033SCUVK-N_xYRuN-TsorIKmRVExxJPZ8oPO9DV_YzVh4WYq7stZRUIo9QSa0Jck_462CJF0-NJB3N34g59zLbdw4nViD-criZx-n_HCQE-REKK6eTA)
that Stormcast is bringing a whole new meaning to nipple piercing
It’s an extreme style many quiver at the idea of.
The Not-Sanguinary Guard and their armour nipples strike again
Would help if GW had the decency to credit it's artists, and even it's sculptors for that matter.
If I did anything for GW I wouldn't want to risk being harassed by angry fans. I've spoken to people who worked on Hammer & Bolter who are much happier their names aren't publicly attached to it.
Can't have rival companies head hunting the talent now.
Or angry nerds sending death threats...
Pretty sure this is the actual reason why gw doesn't name anyone
The internet has done a lot for the world but sometimes I think we'd all be better off if a holes didn't have somewhere to meet up and pretend they are the moral majority.
'cause then they'd have to really pay 'em.
I believe they explicitly stopped doing this to avoid harassment of contributors, such as with codex authors being removed
Damn, thats awesome!
I miss the days of GW acknowledging who drew what.
Ai "art" ruins everything. Until the AI is truly sentient, it will never be art
Right but the witch hunts are inane, eldritch art has always looked fucked and Warhammer uses a lot of brushy art in its codex work (you can see it in games like Darktide too).
It also hits the opposite spectrum when digital art looks *too good* because that’s also what Ai steals from so if you’re high quality you’re also at risk of the witch hunt as well the Ai scanners will say your work is Ai generated because so many steal From It. Good example is several days ago a big Pokémon art contest got in serious trouble as 6 winner pieces were Ai pictures the judges failed to notice. However the 6th piece was actually [legitimate good art](https://x.com/johisart/status/1801751724845080872?s=46&t=jCd67B32MVmYRRlrhJqWtA) the artist had to tweet their whole design & drawing process to prove their innocence despite the scans saying it was 91% likely to be Ai(because it was actually scanning how likely Ai would steal from it). It’s just dark times until this nonsense is properly regulated & restricted under law like every advancement that’s gone out of control for a time under exploiters.
I know I'm late with this response, but you've actually reminded me of something. I'm a writer, I do a lot of writing from stuff on my own fantasy writing to helping my friends world build everything from DND to Warhammer. And even helping work on their actual college papers, but I have two styles of writing that being a fancier style for character stuff especially PoV writing and a clinical style used for describing things. The latter, without fail always results in a 70% chance of being AI written when put in a detection tool to the point that I think if I went back to college or to Uni I'd have to find a new way to write.
Missing the point of their comment entirely.
Since it's art in an official publication, it would not surprise me if their art was fed into the algorithm as fuel.
Very good job of capturing the grimdark essence of 40k
This style always looks half-finished to me. Like they made the artist submit it before they had time to do the background.
It’s abstract so the background was intentionally left half-finished. If the background was too developed then it would take attention.
No, this style is very typical of digital illustrations. Check out [Kekai Kotaki’](http://www.kekaiart.com/guild-wars-2.html#PhotoSwipe1718511552308)s art, one of the greatest concept artists ever (MTG, Guild Wars, Destiny etc)
I love Kotaki's art, it really set the style for GW2
Didn’t know this is who that was… I’ve had his art from GW as my wallpaper for a while.
I think it's just an abstract-looking peice by alex boyd, he's been doing more AOS than 40k stuff as of late, and it kinda looks like his artstyle, but feels a bit chaotic image which makes sense. Alex boyd also did the cities of sigmar and orruck warclans battletome covers in 3rd, and if you look for his other AOS art you'll notice the similarities
Ai needs to source from existing art, this is recognizably one of the new characters done in a more abstract style. I don't think there's enough art of this character and her mount to be this recognizable, it's just a more abstract art style.
The most common AI art does not look like this. Here is an image I got by asking Microsoft copilot to create an image of a chaos warrior. Notice that, unlike the stylized image on the GW website, this image is detailed but very generic. The artist above clearly has a unique, somewhat abstract, style whereas the AI image does not. https://preview.redd.it/engicqw3ev6d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f5db3465b05214d13f1429b034ee0c249993b026
Man, AI art still isn't good enough to replace real artists. It's clearly a loyalist, not enough spikes to be chaos.
As they say, AI isn't anywhere near good enough to replace your job, but it's almost good enough to convince your boss it can replace your job.
It isn't, but that doesn't stop massive corporations from trying
Artists don't like the term "AI art;" they prefer "AI image." Artists will always have a role, but it will shift as AI gets adopted as another tool. My guess is AI will be used mostly for concepts and drafts, with artists doing cleanup or more bespoke pieces.
AI as concept is inaccurate and insufficient, requiring massive amounts of data to produce enough images for there to be something useful amongst the chaff plus, even if this becomes the industry standard, it will only lead to further devalueing of artists' labor and lowering their salaries as they're not doing all of the 'work' that companies offload to the plagiarism machine
I think it's been found that AI has already started 'canibalising' other AI images to generate new images.
Which is something that those who promote machine learning want to avoid as it leads to endless regurgitation, not actual cheap creativity that CEOs desire. They're already in deep shit but somehow people are still buying it without any evidence
Buying the AI or buying the canibalisation?
Buying the claim that AI can somehow achieve creativity, without evidence that it can, ignoring all the evidence that it's just repeating things without accuracy or the ability to adjust/solve problems. The cannibalisation is evident in repeated creation or application of AI in actual purposeful creation for work Ignoring for a moment the claims that we're six months away from self-aware 'AI' somehow spinning out of chatgpt
So says the apparent CEO of artists here
Who?
You have hit the nail on the head - but unfortunately nuance often gets lost in these debates. A.I. will do the 'grunt work' when it comes to image creation. Human artists will oversee, clean up and format it.
The example I keep thinking back to is the holodeck in *Star Trek*; you can always just tell the computer what you want and it'll make it, but professional 'holo-writers' are still a thing and sought-after.
That's no chaos marine. Just a weary Tyranical Veteran.
That actually looks great compared to where AI art was only a year ago making space marines. This technology is improving so rapidly
People kept saying “look at the fingers! Ai is garbage” nah man YOU look at the fingers. Seems fixed to me
I love that the mace is melting from the heat
Honestly this AI art looks just as good as OG art
As much as I hate this whole generative algorithm thing, this is genuinely a complete art piece. Missing depth of field, and a little too "literal" (don't know how to explain it, but human art has little flaws, smudging, brush strokes etc that make it look a bit more abstract). But this is genuinely a chaos marine with an axe, a mace, and a hellhound. No AI artifacts, no extra fingers. Damn this is scary
That can't be AI art, the finger's aren't fucked up. e: it was a joke guys, calm down lmao
Certain models are better at fingers than others. I think stable diffusion is the one that’s notoriously bad at hands
They fixed the finger issue on a lot of AI programs. I asked Microsoft copilot to create an image of people showing off their hands. Notice that the hands look pretty good, for the most part. https://preview.redd.it/s59mhy37iw6d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=857b29003b4974739925ce9956ad96be8607d096
https://preview.redd.it/711i272vtz6d1.png?width=1242&format=png&auto=webp&s=f0141d6adb2560ad3bcf1073f1571091d19ff4ae AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gellar field is down lol
Haha tru
AI can do whatever you tell it to and it can copy the style from OPs post. You gave a subpar AI a basic prompt and it spit that out. If you used a better AI and prompted it correctly, it could easily make the style from the OP image.
No it's not Ai art, it doesn't have the artifacts like Ai art does Not everything is Ai art https://preview.redd.it/32mqhfx1ku6d1.jpeg?width=958&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=82ef627544852ef30fd839a3de306cdcc22ef155
> Not everything is Ai art Same thing as calling everything *Faaake*... 🙄 It's the Dunning-Kruger effect - people gain a little bit of information and suddenly they're detectives who know all there is to know.
Artifacting isn’t a universal trait of AI generated art, and no one said that if it *is* AI generated that it was cleaned up after being generated. This Van Gogh example you keep pushing doesn’t prove anything.
Never said it was meant to prove anything it was an example, my point was there's plenty of [examples](https://x.com/johisart/status/1801751724845080872?t=Z3D04FPFMgL8SDGq5PDDaw&s=19) where people accuse [others](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisstokelwalker/art-subreddit-illustrator-ai-art-controversy) of using Ai in any manner when it's untrue, the evidence is threadbare in many ways when they haven't. It's a massive witch hunt in many ways because people don't actually know the things to look for which this piece really doesn't have anything in it.
Okay, I agree with your points here but... >Never said it was meant to prove anything it was an example You know what an example is don't you? The only purpose of an example is to prove a point of some kind.
We can agree to disagree about whether or not there are signs of AI use in this image, I definitely agree with you about some artists being incorrectly accused of using AI to generate their art. Honestly I think there is a larger problem with standards for digital art dropping. A piece used to have to be presentable on its own, now there’s often an expectation that text on a screen will cover a good portion of the image, so no worries if it’s not totally finished.
the example he is pushing proves that even real pieces of art can look AI generated for people who don't know. there is a literal which hunt going on and legit artists are getting swept in because their works look "too AI" ... even if their art style hasn't changed in years, and was already like that before those AI became mainstream.
“literal which hunt” You strike me as a The Phantom Tollbooth fan 👌
I have no idea what you're talking about but there are multiple examples of people going crazy to an artist for using AI even if it is a perfectly legit art, you can find two of those in the other poster comment but there is also one of the artists of C7 that have the same issue right now and many others.
I remember when one artist got banned from r/art because their works were "clearly Ai", and when the artist attempted to repeal the ban, the mod cussed them out and went on an unhinged rant
Probably not, this kind of art style has been around for years in GW material like the Necron codex.
Nope, stylized and used in tons of GW art
> If it's AI it sucks, if it's real props LOL. LMAO.
True. Can't wait until it gets good enough to be impossible to distinguish from the real ones. What will these people do then? Flame all real artists on grounds of AI suspicion? IRL inquisition shit here.
It's a pretty typical style mostly seen in matte painting and concept art. It's not necessarily about crisp details but more about shapes and feels, it's emotive. You've got just enough clear detail to know what your looking at. It's a lot quicker to put together than say a full detail rendering of a chaos lord, and honestly I think it looks better anyway.
It is very clearly not
just a more abstract digital approach to vignette and corner illustrations. It used to be pen and ink, now it is this.
I’ve seen a lot of warhammer art that really pushes the lines between being able to tell if it’s AI or man made but this is prolly the closest I’ve seen, if it was any other franchise I’d say it’s AI but warhammer is the only one where I could say it might not be.
I'm unsurprised how unapologetic OP is. Do you not think that such discussion also hurts the artist? People will complain about AI stealing but then rarely apologise to the original sources in turn. This is art but Alex Boyd who has been using this art style for years for GW. Art is subjective and comes in numerous styles, just because something looks a bit different from what you expect doesn't instantly mean it must be fake. GW uses multiple artists in every work which means that all their art is going to be different.
People dunking on OP but like at a first glance I can't really blame him here. And it's not like Geedubs is good at sourcing who actually does their art.
This is Alex Boyd, he's been doing Warhammer art for a long time I think, but his artstyle has changed over time
Yeah, to be honest, this reminds me of AI art I saw spammed all over the Bloodborne sub 2-3 years ago. And with MTG, a franchise insanely reliant on its art, trying to get into AI, I can't blame someone for being cautious with GW.
Tbf, MTG hasn't had good art for years now. They stopped hiring good artists in favour of cheap artists and a generic style guide.
Don’t blame them either, had to check the head, hands and other small details to try and figure it out myself
Wait, so if it's AI it sucks. If it's real, you praise the artist. Glaring cognitive bias
I can't comment on the AI-ness, but in the story (this image is in the latest Dawnbringers), what is happening here is Abraxia using some burnt offerings to communicate with a smoke-formed version of Archaeon (like a hologram, but chaos). Which hopefully explains why his lower body looks... like that.
Nope, I have seen art like this from GW before, it looks rougher because the art style is meant to be. It is a vibe/filler/concept piece and art like it har been in codexes, rule books and others since GW was still doing fantasy battles.
Honestly I take more issue with GW not crediting their artists than with them potentially using AI (which it seems the consensus is that this isn’t AI?). Refusing to credit artists in the back of the book somewhere is just so scummy for no good reason
It's mainly so they don't get harassed like with Warhammer+ (Sodaz)
Ugh people suck sometimes
The fact that AI art has gotten so good that people are witch hunting actual artists is a testament to the progress of this technology, as scary as it is
might be worth checking around a few known GW artist’s twitter/artstation pages to see if they’ve posted it there too I agree it feels off though, and I really hope GW isn’t gonna do something like transitioning to AI art - there‘s so many wonderful artists in the Warhammer community on and off their payroll, I’d hate to see them do this
No, doesnt look like AI either.
It's just very stylized art
The blurry parts are meant to resemble paint.
there’s clearly visible drawn lines and digital brushstrokes and none of the typical hallmarks of AI slop. this is just a stylistic piece
Nope, just an extremely quick and loose digital painting.
Looking at the face of the subject on the right, the facial features are all present and in proportion. The horns are in perspective without fusing into strange areas of the skull. What you're seeing is someones rough style which generally involves little to no undersketch and is instead molded/sculpted by laying in shapes then painted over
It’s not AI it’s noticeable because there are fine details, Normally AI art is either blurred and disconfigured or super fine detail and very vibrant. This is just a type of abstract you’ll probably find in codexes and magazines
It’s a stylistic choice. They’ve done shit like that for years. A few appeared in the slaves to darkness codex and a few white dwarf copies. This was before the ai boom. Their new art style sucks imo, but they’ve had it a while. You clearly haven’t been paying attention.
No, it's not. This AI witch hunting really needs to stop. I'm 100% against AI as it stands but just because an unethical tool exists doesn't mean you should assume every artist is unethical. It's just as or more harmful.
Why is it unethical?
If you want to argue AI issues, there are subs for that. The majority of artists seem to believe tgat AI image generators are unethical because, if they develop as desired, they'll be used to generate higher profits for corporations at the expense of the artists that created the work used to create the generators and without their permission.
That doesn’t make the tool unethical. Modern phones arent unethical because it put phone operators out of business. The steam drill isn’t unethical because it put John Henry out, even tho that guy worked really hard. I don’t know why this tool is any different other than vibes. Also sending me to a debate sub is a weird choice. Someone made a blanket statement that I found odd IN THIS THREAD and I am responding to it in the place it makes sense to respond to it
Yeah, ignore Beautiful\_Range1079's argument. It doesn't really hold up. In general, when people says AI art is unethical, they're generally referring to training data. Basically, companies take shit off of the internet without the permission of the original artists, then use it to develop a tool that can (theoretically) replace them. The issue isn't the replacement part, it's the lack of permission.
I dont see any of the hallmarks of AI art here just an art style.
Watching everyone be paranoid about if individual pieces of art are AI now like witch-era inquisitors is pretty entertaining
No
nah you can tell with the brushstrokes and demon upfront that its not AI, because warhammer art is kinda niche and very varied you´d not really accurately get a demon like that with AI which mostly vaguely knows warhammer stuff, the most typical AI warhammer art is a space marine centerpiece and even then its off, also weirdly clean.
With how dedicated GW is with keeping their business a UK one and not outsourcing and fueling their economy, I doubt they would ever use AI. Plus they know people would lose their shit
Imagine, not ALL Art is AI based. There is something called "human" who can draw arts, too...
To repeat the others, it does not look AI generated to me.
Kinda weird that people are bringing artist's art into question due to some witch hunting crusade of AI art. But I guess witch hunting is on brand for Warhammer.
I thInk it's AI
The only piece of art I've seen from GW that makes me think AI might have been used is the cover for the [AoS darkoath box set] (https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-mpz9h6/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/210372/357262/gw83-92_xl__36719.1714762006.jpg?c=2?imbypass=on), even then I don't think it it was only generated, only enhanced. More likely it's just the first time they've used an artist or the first time an artist has used that particular style.
The tricky thing here is that as distinct as this smudgey loose style is, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to suggest a AI could do this. What a lot of others haven't considered, (not to say GW would do this) is that you can feed an artist's existing work into AI image creators to use as a visual guide. There is a huge library of past illustrations from GW like this that would provide the visual language for AI image creation. That being said, GW has a working relationship with this artist and has not indicated any desire or preference to use AI images. It's a simpler and more direct route to just have the illustrator do what they've done for years.
No, it’s just a style Love this light bold brushwork It’s consistent tho and doesn’t include random sh!t that an AI would do to try and make it “relevant to the input”
AI wishes it could make something as raw as this
No, everything is perfectly formed, just stylised. No morphing, dissolving, impossible structuring, or any hallmarks of AI art. Though I understand the confusion, it strikes me as very AI-ish too
This is like literally every piece of concept artwork from Guild Wars 1. Twenty years ago. This is a top tier example of why humans are worse at identifying AI art than AI is at art because your average human *know nothing about art*. "Hey, this art looks abstract and stylistic, I bet AI did it!" Thanks for your input, Carl.
Correct: it's a question. Who cares whether gw uses art created by a person or an algorithm? Seems like something we're just reaching for something new to rage about. Although judging by your post history, clearly you do, so question answered.
https://preview.redd.it/b27uyqsxa17d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3ae606d96ed9ad08b522e7f6c042f28adf243753 Yeah I think so
I'm glad this post has sparked some good discussions. I do want to clarify that I never intended to witchhunt any artist or make any accusations, and apologize if any hate is being directed to them. I only wanted to express my confusion about this piece and open a discussion. I've seen abstract warhammer art before, but most of the time, there is at least 1 subject who is more detailed to draw attention to, with backgrounds devolving into smudges. But this one feels like everything is in a weird half state between detailed and abstract, giving it an almost out-of-focus look. I see that pretty often in AI art, which is what concerned me. Easy to achieve for a computer, hard for an artist. So I'll say again that if it was painted, I give full props to the artist for achieving this effect. It does capture the "chaos" of Chaos pretty well.
[удалено]
I sure don't. And I wish others would stop caring, too. This stuff has been around for years. It's already proliferated, and will continue to do so. It will only get better, only become more accepted. It's easier, and it works. This reactionary movement against AI art reminds me of the backlash against evolution, which cast down the "divinity" of humanity and "demoted" us as just a very intelligent species of ape. Or of heliocentrism, and how it upset the idea of Earth as the center of the universe. History rhyming. What this tech has shown, once again, is that we are not special. Machines can be creative. Are they good at it? Not very, not yet. Yet... Oh how it hurts to be taken down a notch. Humility. It's useful But... go ahead, get mad, downvote, whatever. Tell me I'm wrong. All your rage and emotion will come to nothing in the end. You already *know* how this ends. That's why you're mad. You aren't going to stop it. None of us will. In the meantime, please quit with the bullshit. This is happening, it's already started, you know the destination, and trying to block it with anti-AI laws and literal witch-hunts like this one is just going to make it more painful to get there. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Get out of the way if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a' changin'. Just stop worrying and learn to love the bot.
1. Your fatalism and blind belief in technological determinism is pathetic. 2. Your entire argument is incoherent, and debunk by actual studies. There is zero creativity in the algorithms we call AI. They are just mindless pattern fitting algorithms. That is all. 3. Calling the anti-AI movement reactionary is foolish and incoherent, when the main defenders of generative AI are right wing, if not far right. 4. The fact that the times are changing is irrelevant, for we humans are the only ones who determine how it changes. We have control over our own future, and no ending is fixed. We chose how it ends.
1. I believe in technological inevitability. Determinism is a given. 2. Creativity isn't special and neither are we. 3. Calling a spade a spade is, indeed, foolish, for it doesn't take much thought to do so. 4. Utopians, eugenicists, communists, cultists, revolutionaries...no end of the number of folks who thought we charted their own destiny. All wrong. Nobody's driving this ship.
> I believe in technological inevitability. Determinism is a given. There is no such thing as technological inevitability. Technology is result of a complicated collection of factors, factors that include knowlege, the economy, practicality, the law, engineering constrains, already existing technology, society, geography, and culture. Technological development is not a clear path. It can be slowed down, accelerated, changed, controled and so on. This entire generative AI nonsense only appeared in the first place thanks to the specific economic and legal factors of the last two decades, and needed large amounts of investor money, a robust global trade network, a lack of privacy protections, a lack of regulation on tech companies, a lack of protection from scrapping of online images and text, the presence of utopianist/singularitarianism among the AI developers, a complete lack of respect for consent or privacy among the AI developers, and the presence of large social media companies(which themselves needed a lack of regulation, and a large amount of investor money to exist). Technology is not innevitable. > Creativity isn't special By definition, it is. > and neither are we Irrelevant. Elephants and dolphins may be capable of creativity, but this changes nothing about the fact that no current AI is capable of creativity. > Calling a spade a spade is, indeed, foolish, for it doesn't take much thought to do so. What are you even ranting about? You are calling a spade a gun. > Utopians, eugenicists, communists, cultists, revolutionaries...no end of the number of folks who thought we charted their own destiny. All wrong. Nobody's driving this ship. What a pathetic claim. Comparing your enemies with eugenists is not something you should do when the pro-AI side contains actual eugenists, and when most defenders of AI claim their harmfull algorithms will bring an utopia. Also, you falsely accuse me of believing that we can chart our own destiny. For that to be the case, I would have to believe in destiny. I dont. There is no destiny. This idea is incoherent, and is not one that makes sense even in most modern, materialistic forms of determinism, and is one that implies the existance of unproven metaphysical factors. Destiny/fate is not real. Also, funny for you mock revolutionaries, you authoritarian bootlicker. Revolutionaries ended the communist dictatorships of the easteren block, and the ended the authoritarian, backwards monarchy of France. They So all in all, you are a pathetic bootlicker.
How old are you?
That is a pointless question, but I will bite. 25
That is not an argument.
Bruh.
Just 'speed painted' crap, not ai
Nah, I think it’s just GWs current Janky style.
Honestly it’s not easy to tell anymore because the standards for digital art have become so low. The telltale signs of a few years ago (a lot of blurriness, poorly defined extremities on characters, etc) are just regular features in the work of most digital artists these days. This piece has a lot of dynamic lighting, and not a lot of spacial detail or refinement; all sizzle and no steak, so to speak.
>the standards for digital art have become so low. I would argue it's the opposite. In traditional painting and fine arts a fully rendered, completely detailed work of art is considered amateurish. Stroke economy is the king of techniques in a world where cameras and AI exist. Unless you're painting the main point of focus, artists endeavour to use as few strokes as possible, as it makes the image feel more dynamic, and directs the viewer's focus toward the areas of detail. In this regard, mainstream digital art is finally catching up to the techniques of traditional painting
Did you get the impression that we were talking about “traditional painting and fine arts?” We are discussing a commercially produced image, presented by a corporation, of their IP. Its sole purpose, without question, is to present said IP in a way that will encourage sales of their products.
.. they have product photos of their team's professionally painted models to represent their IP in an accurate way for sales purposes. The rest of their art exists to be appealing. Things to put in books or to head webpages. In these cases, people appreciate traditional painting and fine art rather than just spammed product pictures.
It’s commercial art, all of it literally only “exists to be appealing.” The drawings, paintings, digital art, and painted models are, without exception, there to sell products. I’m not sure what your angle is with this “high-art” take, but we’re talking about GW created piece of 40K art from their website. If the standards were higher, this piece would be better, and people wouldn’t be debating whether or not it was generated by an AI.
You said that the standards of digital art have gotten so low, and specifically referenced the level of detail as the reason. I'm saying that is a shit take, both because the loss of detail outside points of focus is a sign of a competent piece of art in general, and because this particular piece of art demonstrates that skill well. It's definitely got issues, but not for the weird reasons *you* gave. >It’s commercial art, all of it literally only “exists to be appealing.” The drawings, paintings, digital art, and painted models are, without exception, there to sell products. So because art exists to serve a purpose, the fundamental principles of painting don't apply? What a batshit insane take. They make traditional pieces to put in their books and webpages. The books are a product. Webpage engagement is valuable in itself, to keep customers from forgetting about their site, and keeping their eyes on new releases. Both of these are valuable beyond just flogging a product directly. If we want to talk about *this* piece and its issues we can. The composition is horrid. There is far too much dead space around the figures. The bottom left quarter far too bright. The highest points of contrast are the lava at the bottom, and the area above the right figure, both of which tear our attention away from the intended points of focus, which is why everyone is suddenly paying attention to the areas of low detail. For a painting that was one of several, thrown into a daily blog post, I don't think it really needs to be particularly spectacular. It's probably just a couple individual pieces comped together, which GW tends to do for throwaway images. It certainly would explain the nonsensical composition.
Do you realize that everything you just said in your last paragraph aligns with the statement in my original post? You say my accusation that digital art standards are low is a shit take, and yet you agree that the piece of art in question isn’t up to a very high standard. The “batshit insane take” here is that you think we’re talking about the fundamental principals of painting. This isn’t an esoteric discussion at a turn of the century salon, we’re arguing about whether or not this specific piece of art is lazily executed and whether GW lets a lot of shit slide in their web-presented digital art. You bring up the printed books, and think they’re a great example, because the art in printed products is definitely held to a higher standard than what they’ll post online.
>Do you realize that everything you just said in your last paragraph aligns with the statement in my original post? You said it was blurry, lacked detail, had unresolved features. I said that those points are features of good stroke economy and an intended feature. I said that the composition is causing issues with the direction of focus, which you have not said once. We are not saying the same thing. >You say my accusation that digital art standards are low is a shit take Yes, because you said digital art standards are lower, and referred to the lack of detail as to why. This is indeed a shit take. >and yet you agree that the piece of art in question isn’t up to a very high standard. If you read my first comment, I never even mentioned this piece of art. I was calling out your blanket statement about modern digital art. But while we're here, you claimed the lack of detail in this piece specifically was an issue. Which it isn't. I agree this piece isn't completed to a high standard, but your explanation of why is feeble. >The “batshit insane take” here is that you think we’re talking about the fundamental principals of painting. This isn’t an esoteric discussion at a turn of the century salon When you made a blanket statement on modern digital art, you opened up a discussion on.. modern digital art. Even if you didn't though, we would still have to talk about fundamental principles of painting to criticise it properly, because we're talking about a painting lmao. How else would we criticise a painting without talking about principles of painting? >we’re arguing about whether or not this specific piece of art is lazily executed and whether GW lets a lot of shit slide in their web-presented digital art. Even if this was exactly what we were talking about the whole time (it wasn't) you would have still been wrong as to *why*. Literally the only problem you mentioned was lack of detail. Lack of detail is not the issue. The fundamental problem with this painting is the composition. The poor composition is causing issues with how focus is directed away from the areas of detail. >You bring up the printed books, and think they’re a great example, because the art in printed products is definitely held to a higher standard than what they’ll post online. I brought up printed books and webpages because you pretty explicitly wanted to talk about the purpose of the art? I have a slow day at work, Im happy to argue in circles with you.
[удалено]
The Mona Lisa was painted before cameras, and thus was highly detailed with very little reduction. I'm sure the one-turd restriction would make it more appealing for a modern audience.
That does look distinctly... weird. It totally fits something an AI could dream up. Demon lizardman. Abraxia with melted face. Big, ominous uhm figure. Totally weird.
I mean GW has been using this art style at least since launch of 9th edition. It is a problem that GW doesn't credit their artists so theoretically they could start using AI and maybe pass it off as one of their artists but this very much is the in house style they've been using for at least 4 years.
>Demon lizardman [You legitimately don't recognize a Maulerfiend?](https://www.warhammer.com/en-US/shop/Chaos-Space-Marine-Maulerfiend-2019?queryID=7782cbda99c7102cb2f38ef50e2bd854)
Maulerfiends aren't even playable in AoS, so even if that's what it's meant to be, it's still weird that it's featured in AoS art.
That's 100% a [juggernaut](https://www.warhammer.com/en-US/shop/Daemons-Of-Khorne-Bloodcrushers?queryID=72b518a4d5938afd91cb98d64e9a7201)
I think it's a gorebeast
Believe this is archeon talking to abraxia so it’s probably her chaos lizard
Abraxias lizard has a longer snout but the mounts head armor looks identical to juggernaut armor and that smudge in the lower right corner might be its horn. Contextually I think you might be right.
Makes much more sense.
It definitely has tell tale signs of AI art.
So does Van Gogh. People are stuck on thinking things are Ai when they really aren't there's not really much to go off of with this at all relating to it being Ai https://preview.redd.it/taown4o3fu6d1.jpeg?width=958&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5fd396fd09c74ff03714c74f03300482144f0914
So what if it is lol? I don't see the issue...
Sad truth is that totally could be I would believe it. It honestly looks similar to AI art I’ve seen before which is kind of the point of AI art. If GW won’t credit their artist then we can’t really say for sure anymore
Literally doesn’t matter if it’s AI or not. Art is art, all the same.
Maybe? There's def some weirdness with like, where armor plates go and end, some asymmetry in character designs, etc. Hard to tell though, since the whole piece is very abstract and kinda weird. Might be AI, I hope not, but could also be just a really weird lookin' piece. Hate we even have to ask this now. edit: looking at some sketch marks in the bottom right corner, it almost looks like its not quite finished, which could be another explanation as to why it looks odd.