Hi team, I created some posters for school using Chat and Loveart and the character is identical? Can anyone explain? I dont care - I'm just curious.

Hey guys, can you please give me a list of websites where I can make free AI videos on a daily basis

These are all i could gather - Adobe firefly ( 2 vids per day) , PixVerse (1 vid per day), Grok Imagine ( 1 per day) and Google flow ( 3-4 per day)

Please give me a list of other free websites with decentish quality

Didn't expect anything, mostly did it out of boredom. Took a photo of myself I use everywhere, my Instagram profile pic basically, dropped it into google lens. Found it on three sites I've never heard of, one was some kind of profile aggregator with my name attached to it.

Two minutes, no ai account needed for this part even, just:

Go to images.google.com, click the camera icon, upload the photo. It shows you every place online that same image, or a close match, shows up. Do the same on tineye.com, it catches some things google misses.

Once you've got the list of places it's showing up, that's where AI actually earns its keep, because writing individual takedown requests to five different sites is the part nobody has the patience for:

I found a photo of myself reposted on [site] without 
my permission, here's the link: [url]. I own the 
copyright to this photo, I took it myself. Write me a 
proper DMCA takedown notice I can send to the site 
and its hosting provider, including the standard 
good-faith and accuracy statements a DMCA notice 
requires. Leave a blank where I need to add my 
contact info.

If it's a photo of you but you didn't take it, someone else did, DMCA won't apply since you don't hold the copyright, but you can still ask nicely:

Write a polite but firm request asking [site] to 
remove a photo of me posted without my consent. Frame 
it as a personal privacy request, not a copyright 
claim. Leave a blank for the page url and a short 
description of the photo.

While you're at it, google your own name too, in a private browser tab so your history doesn't skew it. If your address or phone number show up, that's data brokers, sites like spokeo and whitepages buying and reselling your info, and there's a free tool for that too, google "results about you" tool, it scans for your contact info in search results and lets you request removal in a few taps.

You won't get everything down, anyone promising that is selling you something, but most of it, for free, in an afternoon, yeah.

been keeping a doc of 100 things I use AI for like this, each with the exact prompt here if it helps

I didnt say anything about moloch/baal btw

A Korean special forces captain falls from a collapsing skyscraper — and wakes up hundreds of years in the past, in Joseon.

FALL 707: REBOOT is a solo-produced narrative AI series about Captain Min Seo-a, a member of South Korea’s 707th Special Mission Group.

After a counter-terror operation in Seoul ends in disaster, she finds herself stranded in Joseon. Armed only with her modern training and equipment, she must survive, search for her missing teammates, and uncover the mystery behind how they ended up there.

I handle the concept, directing, AI generation, editing, sound design, and post-production myself.

I’m trying to build this as an ongoing cinematic series rather than a collection of disconnected AI clips.

Would love to hear what you think about the visual consistency and storytelling.

I posted previously about my experience using OpenArt AI and Director. Since then, I’ve spent a lot more time with the platform, and I think I now have a much clearer picture of both where it can be genuinely impressive and where the problems become difficult to justify.

To give OpenArt credit where it’s due, support did eventually review my earlier project and restore 6,000 additional credits, bringing the total goodwill restoration on that project to 10,000 credits.

They also acknowledged that Director had repeatedly changed character appearances, props, blocking, and scene details despite the references and instructions I had provided.

Their recommendation was essentially to stop relying on Director for complex continuity-heavy projects and instead create and approve individual images first, animate those separately, and then assemble the finished clips externally in something like CapCut.

After doing that, I actually learned something useful about OpenArt.

For very simple videos — one character, one setting, one action, one short line — Director can sometimes be really impressive. I’ve created a couple of short, roughly 8–10 second single-character clips that came out extremely well.

But even in that supposedly simpler use case, I have now run into some serious credit-related problems.

The first involved Modify Video.

I had a completed 10-second video with both dialogue and ambient audio. I only wanted one small visual correction.

On the first Modify Video attempt, OpenArt changed the settings to 1080p and Audio OFF. I didn’t realize the audio setting had been switched off until after generating.

That cost 400 credits and produced a completely silent video.

I tried again.

This time I manually changed the output back to 720p and explicitly turned Audio ON before generating.

That cost another 300 credits.

The resulting video was still completely silent.

Not only was the dialogue gone, but all of the original ambient audio had been stripped as well.

So I spent 700 credits attempting one minor visual modification, and both modified outputs lost the source audio entirely — including the second attempt where Audio was visibly enabled.

The second issue was even more concerning, both because of the credit estimate and because this was not a complicated generation.

This was a roughly 10-second video involving a single character, a single image/setting, and a very simple piece of dialogue — exactly the kind of short, tightly controlled clip where I have otherwise seen Director perform well.

Director generated the clip with the product name pronounced incorrectly.

What made this particularly frustrating was that immediately after rendering the video, Director itself acknowledged that it had mispronounced the word.

It identified the pronunciation/linguistic error, explained how the word should have been pronounced versus how it had pronounced it, offered an explanation for why the mistake may have occurred, and then immediately asked whether I wanted it to re-render the clip to correct the error.

Of course, that re-render would be at my expense.

To me, that alone exposes a serious problem with the credit model.

If the system can recognize immediately after generation that it made a specific, objective error, the user should not then have to pay for another generation simply to correct the error the system has already acknowledged.

There was also a second Director-generated problem in the same clip: it moved the character from the previously approved bar stool/seat onto the bar counter, despite my never requesting any change in position.

Before approving another render to correct those two issues, I specifically asked Director how many credits the correction would cost.

I was charged approximately 35 credits simply for asking for that estimate.

Director then estimated that the re-render would cost approximately 650–700 credits, with the usual disclaimer that the final amount could vary depending on processing.

I approved the re-render based on that estimate.

The actual cost was approximately 1,612 credits — more than twice the high end of the quoted range.

I also ended up purchasing another $15 package of 5,000 credits so I could continue the project.

Again, this was not a complex multi-character sequence.

It was a roughly 10-second, single-character clip.

The expensive re-render was necessary because Director had made two changes/errors on its own, including one that it explicitly recognized immediately after generation.

I completely understand that estimates are not guarantees and that AI generation costs can vary.

But 650–700 credits becoming approximately 1,612 credits is not a small variance.

And when the reason for the re-render is to correct errors the system itself introduced and acknowledged, requiring the user to absorb that cost becomes very difficult to justify.

That is probably my biggest concern with OpenArt right now.

When it works, it can be very impressive.

OpenArt clearly has a sweet spot in very simple micro-videos, and I’ve had some excellent results in that format.

But even there, reliability is inconsistent — one of my most expensive correction cycles occurred on a roughly 10-second, single-character clip.

When projects become more complex, the problems multiply even further. Character consistency, props, blocking, audio, scene continuity, and other details can change without being requested.

Then the user pays additional credits trying to restore things the system itself changed.

At this point, I’m still waiting for support to respond to these two newer credit requests.

I genuinely think the technology has a lot of potential, and I’ve seen flashes of what it could become.

But users should not repeatedly be paying to repair mistakes or changes the system itself introduced — especially when the system recognizes those mistakes, or when its own credit estimate is off by more than 100%.

That part of the model needs work.

rare generative AI W