I love how much work went into this.

There's a great deal of pushback against AI art from the wider online art community at the moment, a lot of which is motivated by a sense of unfairness: if you're not going to put in the time and effort, why do you deserve to create such high equality imagery?

(I do not share this opinion myself, but it's something I've seen a lot)

This is another great counter-example showing how much work it takes to get the best, deliberate results out of these tools.

Unfortunately it's become a meme among AI art haters that AI art is "just inputing text into a text box" despite the fact that is far from the truth, particularly if you want to get specific results as this blog post demonstrates.

Some modern AI art workflows often require more effort than actually illustrating using conventional media. And this blog post doesn't even get into ControlNet.

> Some modern AI art workflows often require more effort than actually illustrating using conventional media. And this blog post doesn't even get into ControlNet.

Indeed. Another criticism that I can definitely somewhat see the idea behind, is that the barrier to entry is very different from for example drawing. To draw, you need a pen and a paper, and you can basically start. To start with Stable Diffusion et al, you need either A) paid access to a service, B) money to purchase moderately powerful hardware or C) money to rent moderately powerful hardware. One way or another, if you want to practice AI generated art, you need more money than what a pen and paper cost.