...."And the Winner of Miss AI America is........"

[Rusty Heap]

https://www.the-sun.com/tech/11105613/worlds-first-ai-beauty-pageant-slammed-by-techies/

[Steve Carlton]

Those Artificial Insemination models are awesome.

[jyl]

Reminds me of kids [deleted] to female comic book drawings.

[2.7RS]

What???

Fake???

For real???

[Bill Douglas]

"AI, now I want a picture of the blonde girl mowing the lawns.""

[stevej37]

She looks like M3GAN

[HobieMarty]

Why would this AI Generated model have over 100,000 followers on Instagram?
Used to be the blind leading the blind, now it is the bots leading the bots.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Zeke]

100,000 wankers.

[wdfifteen]

Is there really a big difference between these AI images, Photoshopped girly images, and the airbrushed pictures in Playboy? None of them look like real women. They are all someone’s fantasy.

[sc_rufctr]

"We've" always been really good at creating problems"

[Tervuren]

The difference is speed of content production.

Type a few words, and instead of posing with a Ferrari in the mountains its posing with a model A on the beach.

My hoped for result is that this will take things so ridiculous that real females stop trying to look like the fakes.
*

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Is there really a big difference between these AI images, Photoshopped girly images, and the airbrushed pictures in Playboy? None of them look like real women. They are all someone’s fantasy.

[Bob Kontak]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Is there really a big difference between these AI images..........

Not much at all.

Tiny bit off topic below....

Crossing the AI porno line with celebrities is headed towards illegality. I support that 100%.

Article below was a link in OP 's post. The US Sun is not the WSJ but it makes sense.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/11101537/creating-deepfake-porn-to-be-made-illegal/

At the extreme, even creating AI content of a celeb (fictional copyrighted person also?) may be considered illegal at some degree of provacativeness.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Is there really a big difference between these AI images, Photoshopped girly images, and the airbrushed pictures in Playboy? None of them look like real women. They are all someone’s fantasy.

The big difference is the AI fake will never get arrested, never have a messy divorce, or any scandal of any sort. A company can use an AI fake to promote their company, and never have a situation anything like Jared Fogle and Subway debacle. And no paying for the rights to use their image.

[911 Rod]

How long till you can design your own sex doll using AI?
Or maybe you can already.

[Zeke]

True, AI art can't be copyrighted.

[LWJ]

Because I am bored, I clicked the link.

Meh.

Flawless? Maybe so. Something there is really lacking. As mentioned above, sort of like the weird fantasy animated women. I will pass.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by HobieMarty

Why would this AI Generated model have over 100,000 followers on Instagram?
Used to be the blind leading the blind, now it is the bots leading the bots.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Zeke

100,000 wankers.

That's exactly it. My guess is that there's 85,000 13 year old boys, 10,000 old men, and 5,000 others that are hoping to attract some of those followers to their own social media accounts.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

Is there really a big difference between these AI images, Photoshopped girly images, and the airbrushed pictures in Playboy? None of them look like real women. They are all someone’s fantasy.

The AI images and photoshopped images are not my thing. I don't understand the appeal behind the current style/fad of overly "filtered" images. I feel like it's a thing that should only appeal to 12 year olds, but I think it appeals to lots of folks. If I look at a photo of a person whether it's art, porn, journalism, whatever, I want it to look like a real person. When they've been edited in ways that are obvious and they don't look "real", it's creepy.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by masraum

The AI images and photoshopped images are not my thing. I don't understand the appeal behind the current style/fad of overly "filtered" images. I feel like it's a thing that should only appeal to 12 year olds, but I think it appeals to lots of folks. If I look at a photo of a person whether it's art, porn, journalism, whatever, I want it to look like a real person. When they've been edited in ways that are obvious and they don't look "real", it's creepy.

100% in agreement. When I asked, "What's the difference," I should have asked what's the difference in the appeal. I think there is none. Once I experienced real women, and got over the idea that they don't look like the girls in Playboy, I lost interest in girly pictures - except the ones I take of Vicki.