But maybe not AI. AI goes off training of real photos and would have variation in the surfaces, while someone doing this in Blender would be lazy and use the same texturing for all.
Slop as a slang term is far older than its present use to primarily describe the output of AI, see Merriam Webster's definition 4-C for the second noun meaning of the word:
Right, but the current colloquial usage of the word, especially in the context of digitally-manipulated images, is AI-centered. People aren't using the word "slop" to describe bad photoshops, they're using it to describe bad AI-gen.
Rude thing to say about something somebody took the time and made, IMO. Especially considering that there's literally nothing wrong with the images we're even talking about. The pictures are just fine.
This is reminding me of people being critical of artists for using Photoshop.
I'm not talking about the OP image, I'm talking about boardroom driven, focus tested "entertainment products" that have about as much in common with art as "food products" do with nutrition.
Engagement bait. YouTube's algorithm loves it when viewers do things like leave comments or likes. And responding to polls like this counts toward that engagement metric, no matter how shallow the content is.
How do we really know that an apple is only in 3 dimensions and isn't actually an Nth dimensional object?
I started writing this as a joke but now I seriously am wondering how you could imperically prove that any 3D object is not just a 4th or 5th or whatever dimensional object... 🤔
Would you be able to feel the difference between a tesseract and a cube if you held one?
The fuck am I looking at?
slop
🐽🐽🐽🐽 Oink oink! Slop slop slop! Slop slopping down my sloppy throat!
But maybe not AI. AI goes off training of real photos and would have variation in the surfaces, while someone doing this in Blender would be lazy and use the same texturing for all.
This word is losing meaning the more it's used for things that aren't even AI.
Slop as a slang term is far older than its present use to primarily describe the output of AI, see Merriam Webster's definition 4-C for the second noun meaning of the word:
a product of little or no value : rubbish
Right, but the current colloquial usage of the word, especially in the context of digitally-manipulated images, is AI-centered. People aren't using the word "slop" to describe bad photoshops, they're using it to describe bad AI-gen.
Words can be used in multiple different, concurrent ways.
...so the new meaning is losing meaning as people start to use the word more with its older meaning?
Seems fine to me
Analog slop is still slop.
Rude thing to say about something somebody took the time and made, IMO. Especially considering that there's literally nothing wrong with the images we're even talking about. The pictures are just fine.
This is reminding me of people being critical of artists for using Photoshop.
You knew, sometimes the most skilled artists can still produce shit, and you're entitled to not enjoy every piece regardless of its technical quality.
I'm not talking about the OP image, I'm talking about boardroom driven, focus tested "entertainment products" that have about as much in common with art as "food products" do with nutrition.
And thus, the word "slop" begins losing meaning.
This different between AI and Photoshop is that Photoshop takes time and skill; you need creativity.
Sure. But this doesn't look like AI in the first place. It looks more like a Maya render, if anything.
Engagement bait. YouTube's algorithm loves it when viewers do things like leave comments or likes. And responding to polls like this counts toward that engagement metric, no matter how shallow the content is.
Hmmm...
I also thought about Chao Garden but from Sonic Adventure 1
xD
But... but...
https://www.backyardboss.net/square-watermelon-and-why-it-exists/
Why is it yellow on the inside?!
I think that's just a decorative carving on the rind.
Three vertical dots "dont reccomend to me from this channel."
Pretty sure this is apple shaped and not real shaped.
Cube*.
Triangular prism*.
How do we really know that an apple is only in 3 dimensions and isn't actually an Nth dimensional object?
I started writing this as a joke but now I seriously am wondering how you could imperically prove that any 3D object is not just a 4th or 5th or whatever dimensional object... 🤔
Would you be able to feel the difference between a tesseract and a cube if you held one?
Hypercube
It looks strangely satisfying