Like the last time, virtually all the replies are about the Where (on UHH) for this AI post and not the What! So far three pages of where and where not which section this AI post should be posted. I would think there would be tons of questions. One reply by the OP that explained anything about his technique. Personally it was over my head. And maybe starting simple with one portion of the process would draw more in and be understandable by us non-AI graphic artists. Personally I am not a fan of AI beyond Photoshop Content Aware Fill and Removal. And I am rather fearful of the process for the reasons pointed out well by others. And I am more than aware of the possible negative effects that AI can and will have on employment in Acting, Music, Photography, Graphic Design, etc. I have personally friends who are Musicians, Commercial Photographers, and Graphic Illustrators, etc. For me, I'm retired and Photography is a hobby. But I do feel a lot of UHH members are being disrespectful towards jlg1000.

In my previous post over AI generated, many - correctly - pointed out that there were many defects, especially with the hands, plastiky skin, etc.

Being myself involved in AI research, I continued improving on the matter and wanted to share a sample of my latest results. BTW I've got new hardware... this partly allows me to create more complex imaginery.

As before, Many will ahhh... point out, that it this is not the place for such a post and that it should be ostracized to some obscure sub-forum.

Still, I believe I belongs here - and of course NOT in the photo gallery - because my intentions are to inform this prestigious community on the state of the art on AI image creation and to stir discussion on how it might affect photography.

Full disclosure: ** No, they are not real and I did not use any photo of any kind **

While the impact of this tech on still images is one thing, I think the real impact in the creative community will be felt in the animated versions. This same AI tech can be used to make what are essentially photo-realistic moving images - a gorgeous young woman walking down a pier on a lake with the wind blowing her hair and dress - generated without any human standing in front of a camera, etc. In fact, apparently a couple of top earning "models" on the quasi-porn site "onlyfans" are just that - completely computer generated (and raking in tens of thousands of dollars a month for whoever programmed them). I have heard that for a year or two now many car commercials where we see that vehicle driving across the salt flats or around a mountain switchback or whatever are in fact AI - this time the computer generates that Mustang or Range Rover or whatever over a battery powered blank "sled" that has four wheels (with an adjustable wheelbase) - basically a white box on wheels, as an overlay to give us the impression it was an actual car making those maneuvers.

That is what a large part of the SAG-AFTRA actor strike was about - actors are (rightfully) scared they will be replaced. Which they will. The current argument had to do with producers wanting to pay an actor for a day to take photos that they could then use, royalty free, for any purpose in perpetuity. And it seems perhaps the actors got a bit of a reprieve for now. But there is little doubt that in a few years - 2? 5? certainly before 10 - non existent actors will be generated entirely using AI - no longer will producers need to pay Brad Pitt (or whoever) royalties for using their likeness - we can see above the nature of these images that required no humans on sound stages or in front of or behind cameras, etc.

So once Hollywood is essentially decimated (and imagine if A.I. is put to use to write scripts as well!) what I foresee is a major shift in the world of thespians. Actors who truly love the craft, who want to act in front of other people, will migrate to the stage - live theater might make a comeback as audiences start to get fed up with "fake" talent. Meanwhile, those who today are celebrities without talent (they slept with the right director, whatever) - who I personally think constitutes the majority of that celebrity actor group - they will fade away and perhaps have to learn to code or something.

If you are taking about apps which use AI to process actual photographs, like PS generative fill, then it is a part of photography. But in the case of AI images generated entirely on a computer from text, it may use photos to learn to produce images, but it must also use non-photography images, as evidenced by all the fantasy/sci-fi AI images I see. But it doesn't fit the basic definition of photography, which is images created by the action of light on a light sensitive material. Painters and illustrators also use photography as a base of their images, but that doesn't make them photographs.

In my previous post over AI generated, many - correctly - pointed out that there were many defects, especially with the hands, plastiky skin, etc.

Being myself involved in AI research, I continued improving on the matter and wanted to share a sample of my latest results. BTW I've got new hardware... this partly allows me to create more complex imaginery.

As before, Many will ahhh... point out, that it this is not the place for such a post and that it should be ostracized to some obscure sub-forum.

Still, I believe I belongs here - and of course NOT in the photo gallery - because my intentions are to inform this prestigious community on the state of the art on AI image creation and to stir discussion on how it might affect photography.

Full disclosure: ** No, they are not real and I did not use any photo of any kind **