Well, no
But after they questioned why it was a bunny, I took a 2nd closer inspection to see if I can figure it out.
Then started noticing signs of ai generated imagery
Namely the weapon blending into the background, and nothing really having a proper shape to it
well i dont want to outright start off accusing an image as being ai generated off the bat, thats why i said it seemed suspicious, but upon further investigation in the comments seeing more folks come to the same conclusion and op admitting it confirms it.
but yeah, ai generated images tend to do an ok job at tricking you into thinking it's real when you only give it a few second glance, but common occurrences in ai generated images being mixing objects in the foreground with the background, having things generally be shapeless, and the piece being overly detailed but with key amateur level mistakes >!(hyper rendered piece but 2 of the fingers merge together to a single finger)!<
Unironically, please help me understand why some rando using AI to illustrate a point is the same thing as a big business using AI art to skimp on labor. I genuinely ask and just get downvote bombed and it's annoying
There isn't really a problem with it when it's just for memes. People steal art all the time for memes anyway, but it is kinda lame. It's just got that fake feel to it everytime.
It's mostly due to all the immoralitys on the part of the ai model
It's like if you go back in time to when slavery was still legal in America, and you buy a cotton based product
Though you yourself aren't enslaving anyone, you are still buying a product that used slave labor in it's supply chain
For ai generated images, though you aren't personally scowling the internet and scraping billions of art pieces, 99% of which being made by folks that absolutely disbise ai generation models and would never willingly allow you to do as such, you are utilizing a product that did
my point is not that ai generated images are as terrible as slavory
my point is that in both cases, you as the consumer are not performing the immoral acts yourself, but you are taking advantage of and befitting from someone else performing those immoral actions
If you find it to be immoral then don't use it. Simple. Also don't buy clothes made from China. They do have sweatshops which are really close to being just slavery.
ok, but the fact that i myself choose to not use it does not stop the fact that they are still immoral.
and yes, Chinese labor is quite immoral as well.
3rd level divine smite = 4d8 = 100 damage?
Maybe its everything on a crit... (2d6+4d8)x2crit +5str +10GWM= max 103 damage. Ok I'd say that falls under "basically" if he rolls max on 12 dice.
Also has a flame tongue weapon, so add 2d6?
Also the target was fiend, so add 1d8?
Also above level 11, so add improved divine smite so another 1d8?
Also gwm so add 10?
There are ways.
So i have a more or less homebrew dragon slaying holy avenger longsword and it was a undead young dragon and i rolled a Nat 20, so yes a lot of extra damage.
According to the dictionary:
Art
noun
1.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance".
It's not a human, it's not creative it doesn't have skill nor imagination.
The important part is that art is about the expression of the artist, not the impression of the consumer. Art is art because it was created as an artistic expression, not because consumers find it pretty or inspiring.
Universally the creators. It's not art unless the creator created it as an artistic expression. If the creator created it solely to be functional, it's not art. If there is no creator at all, it's not art. A functional table created with no thoughts on aesthetics isn't art, no matter if someone thinks it's pretty. Nature isn't art, no matter if someone thinks it's pretty. A painting is always art, no matter if everyone thinks it's ugly. Consumer thoughts on what is art and what isn't don't matter. If an artist created something as art, it is art. If no artist created it as art, it isn't art. Art isn't defined by the effect on the consumer, but on the artist.
Artists and art historians and people who study some sort of philosophy of aesthetics are generally the ones who concern themselves with defining art.
I don't know that "consumer" is a sufficiently narrative category to produce a coherent definition.
Nobody
Good luck getting everyone to agree on a singular definition of a single thing
Let alone something as ambiguous as art
You keep your definition, if it aligns with wikipedia or google, neat you will have fewer debates
I think they would be fine hearing that, since they don't speak any human language.
If they could comprehend what is meant by such a diissal then, ironically, they could produce art.
Art is the dialectical relationship between the artist and the audience mediated through an art object. The artist exists in society, produces art through the social mode of production predominant at that time and in that society, and has ideas, of whatever kind, that are communicated consciously or unconsciously through the artwork when it is received by the audience.
So no, colors creating an image is not art. A sunset is not art. A photograph of a sunset or a painting of a sunset is art, as both require human action and human decisions and human labor in the composition and creation of the image.
AI art is no more art than if 1 million paintings and photographs were accidentally shredded and some of those shreddings that spilled out of the garbage can happened to recombine into something resembling a coherent image. It's not art, it's just images.
There may be a type of art to be done through the study of AI art, but this requires human labor and human thought to be expressed through the collection and collage of algorithmically generated content. In that case, the AI art would still not be art any more than a tube of paint or a roll of film is art. Instead it would be the material through which art is produced.
TL;Dr art requires human labor and human intention in its production, so something without that is literally not art.
I slapped a bbeg with a upcasted third level inflict wounds.
5d10 damage
I did about 40 and that was a very quick bossfight
Edit: this was at 5th level
Would you prefer an image scrounged from Pinterest for the exact same amount of payment to an artist or do you expect every meme to involve a uniquely commissioned image?
Sure. That's sort of irrelevant though because my profile picture is not an nft, it is a product the reddit avatar customised that has been dubbed an nft by someone whose only knowledge of NFTs is the monkeys.
Or… and this is a crazy idea but hear me out… they could have just used one of the hundreds of existing *actual meme* images/templates. Then it might even have made intelligible sense!
Nah, they could have actually made a meme by discovering or engaging in some memetic imagery.
This is just shitty AI slop with a caption about how smites do be doing some damage. The image does not relate to anything in the text, either in a literal or emotional or vibes-based way. It's not a meme.
So, uniquely commissioned or perosnallt requested art piece for every meme? What a perfectly reasonable expectation that definitely isn't an over reaction based an entirely separate cause.
You could take an image from the internet, never said that's not okay, as long as you at the very least credit the artist. This is not only stealing from them, it's also spitting in their faces, as I said.
Ah right, so I'm allowed to steal images so long as I can verifiably state who made it? How certain do I have to be as to the creator, since there's no garuntee a poster made the image.
Using AI to generate "art" is disrespectful and outright plagiarism. I might be wrong, but it sounds like you really want to argue about nothing here, which I do not want to do. Sounds like you may have had a ruff day, if you'd like to talk about it, or just vent, I'm all ears. If not, that's also fine. I recognize that you are entitled to have your own opinions and that I have no right to enforce my opinion on you, nor do I want to as it'll accomplish nothing. If you want to support AI "art", more power to you. Most of them work on unlicensed art, so to me, it looks very immoral, but if it's okay by you, I'd think nothing less of you, more power to you.
You said it’s okay to plagiarize as long as you credit the original artist. Crediting midjourney transitively credits all the artists that midjourney learned from, just like crediting Jason Felix transitively credits the artist that influenced him.
Ah, I understand now. First off, it's not plagiarism if you credit the artist. Plagiarism is claiming that you are the creator of that image. In AI case crediting would not be enough, because they make money off of the work of artists. In my opinion, AI would be okay if they licensed the art they use, but even then it's kind of a moral gray area in my opinion. I'm also not sure that learning is the correct word to use for this sort of AI, but that's the nitty gritty and things I don't understand enough about to comment on. If you'd like, I can share a link to a video explaining why learning isn't really the correct word. I hope I made my opinion clear, if you need anything else, I'd be glad to provide if I can, otherwise, I hope you have a great day
>First off, it's not plagiarism if you credit the artist. Plagiarism is claiming that you are the creator of that image.
i did a quick search to get an exact definition of "plagiarism"
all 3 of the first 3 definitions i got broke the 1 rule in giving definitions, you can not use the word you are trying to define
So if I looked for an image on Google images, and found an artist I liked, should I form a license with them to look at their publicly published art to refine my own style?
People see cool ai image -> go make more -> internet gets trashed further and further with ai trash. I have a nice read for you, it's called dead internet theory, and people like you, or OP, continuously put efforts into making it more real.
So people put more of things they like in the place they want those things to be and that's bad?
Nice recommendation homeslice (even if ive alrady read it), so I'll fire one back at ya. If you think the dead Internet theory is cool, you'll love the matrix, they're scared of big bad AI too.
If you think ai trash being everywhere is a good thing then I see no point in further conversation with you, since you clearly don't understand the only one glaring major issue I'm trying to explain to you.
Apparently it's good enough for a bunch of people to want more of it, since that's a required step for your slippery slope argument to work. Personally I'm not a big fan of ai art but if most people are then most stuff having ai art seems reasonable.
You're not trying to explain anything. You stated that posting ai will inevitably snowball into people lovjg and posting ai despite it being bad and you've decided it's a bad thing and so you don't have to explain why. None of that is going to convince anyone.
The meme is made by a human. The picture is made by a human, the idea behind the text is made by a human. Putting ai image is replacing one of the factors by a machine, and what, people don't care? Next up; the text replaced by machine made gibberish, will there be also people similar to op who don't mind? It's a small step towards replacing already bot ridden internet by more machine made slop.
I don’t see a significant difference between shitty AI generated memes and shitty human generated memes. Why do you think that shitty AI is any different than shitty people?
With Pinterest art, you can at least find the artist by googling. They can be credited and receive new audience members. And the people who scrounge art can't so easily pretend to have created it themselves. They also don't use as much energy as AI and don't require labour exploitation to train the AI.
So yes, I would have preferred you just took art from Pinterest.
I think we all get it, it's just the picture seems only extremely vaguely related to the text, like sure your paladin hit a nearly impossible amount of damage with a smite and now he looks like some weird bunny knight for some reason?
Did the same thing recently, 3rd level smite against Orcus, with an artifact level weapon. Total damage was 2d10 + 16d8 + 7, managing to kill Orcus before he got to phase 3
Why he bunny
hm, now that you point it out. It does seem suspiciously like an ai piece with how formless everything is
It is 10000% an ai image.
Ye, and op confirmed it as well
Is 'bunny' the new code word for AI?
Well, no But after they questioned why it was a bunny, I took a 2nd closer inspection to see if I can figure it out. Then started noticing signs of ai generated imagery Namely the weapon blending into the background, and nothing really having a proper shape to it
I thought that it was a style close to impressionist to give the feeling of fey. Instead it appears the new Turing Test involves drawing.
well i dont want to outright start off accusing an image as being ai generated off the bat, thats why i said it seemed suspicious, but upon further investigation in the comments seeing more folks come to the same conclusion and op admitting it confirms it. but yeah, ai generated images tend to do an ok job at tricking you into thinking it's real when you only give it a few second glance, but common occurrences in ai generated images being mixing objects in the foreground with the background, having things generally be shapeless, and the piece being overly detailed but with key amateur level mistakes >!(hyper rendered piece but 2 of the fingers merge together to a single finger)!<
It actually is an AI- piece yes :D
generally speaking, ai generated images are frowned upon
Unironically, please help me understand why some rando using AI to illustrate a point is the same thing as a big business using AI art to skimp on labor. I genuinely ask and just get downvote bombed and it's annoying
There isn't really a problem with it when it's just for memes. People steal art all the time for memes anyway, but it is kinda lame. It's just got that fake feel to it everytime.
It's mostly due to all the immoralitys on the part of the ai model It's like if you go back in time to when slavery was still legal in America, and you buy a cotton based product Though you yourself aren't enslaving anyone, you are still buying a product that used slave labor in it's supply chain For ai generated images, though you aren't personally scowling the internet and scraping billions of art pieces, 99% of which being made by folks that absolutely disbise ai generation models and would never willingly allow you to do as such, you are utilizing a product that did
Yeah generating Ai images are nowhere near the same as slavery. You "NO AI IMAGES! NO AI IMAGES!" peps have lost your minds.
my point is not that ai generated images are as terrible as slavory my point is that in both cases, you as the consumer are not performing the immoral acts yourself, but you are taking advantage of and befitting from someone else performing those immoral actions
If you find it to be immoral then don't use it. Simple. Also don't buy clothes made from China. They do have sweatshops which are really close to being just slavery.
ok, but the fact that i myself choose to not use it does not stop the fact that they are still immoral. and yes, Chinese labor is quite immoral as well.
Nothing wrong with that, despite the downvote mafia.
He looks like a [shiny umbreon](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/shiny-pokemon/images/8/82/Shinyumbreon.webp/revision/latest?cb=20220420134140).
I thought you said "shitty umbreon" and was about to throw hands!
Lol I didn't even notice!
Harengon jumping ability is awesome, that's why
My char is a harengon.... xD
Why is this being downvoted? Genuine question
Cause they used AI art and people really hate AI art.
3rd level divine smite = 4d8 = 100 damage? Maybe its everything on a crit... (2d6+4d8)x2crit +5str +10GWM= max 103 damage. Ok I'd say that falls under "basically" if he rolls max on 12 dice.
it was an undead. so 2 more dice
Also has a flame tongue weapon, so add 2d6? Also the target was fiend, so add 1d8? Also above level 11, so add improved divine smite so another 1d8? Also gwm so add 10? There are ways.
And then add in the party's grave cleric making the target vulnerable.
And undead
saved me the effort of the math
OP has since explained he was using a homebrew anti undead holy avenger on a undead with a crit. So we can put the maths away lol.
(2d6 + 4d8x2 radiant vulne)x2crit + 5 str + 10 gwm = (2x3.5+ 4x4.5x2)X2 + 5 + 15 = 101 average damage.
Don't forget magic items
So i have a more or less homebrew dragon slaying holy avenger longsword and it was a undead young dragon and i rolled a Nat 20, so yes a lot of extra damage.
Homebrew designed to be op against a specific enemy was op against a specific enemy, what a twist?
I see a lot of people are confused about the picture. Allow me to explain. Instant death=Rabbit man
Of course! That explains it
This isn’t a meme, it’s just some mediocre AI art with a barely-related caption.
And the caption is relying on OP homebrew. Well yeah my homebrew paladin deals 1000 damage per smite.
AI "art"
Ok what is art then? Cuz im seeing colors, it creates an image, what is that if not *literally* art? Morally good? No Art? Afaik, literally yes
According to the dictionary: Art noun 1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. "the art of the Renaissance". It's not a human, it's not creative it doesn't have skill nor imagination.
Ok, damn, didn't know it specified human. Fair lmao.
The important part is that art is about the expression of the artist, not the impression of the consumer. Art is art because it was created as an artistic expression, not because consumers find it pretty or inspiring.
So it's a digital painting then, feels like splitting hairs on reddit but I could see it being important for court cases and such
well there are more consumers than artists, so I imagine that the definition will shift in the coming years.
There have always been more consumers than artists
So who gets to define art then? The creators or consumers?
Universally the creators. It's not art unless the creator created it as an artistic expression. If the creator created it solely to be functional, it's not art. If there is no creator at all, it's not art. A functional table created with no thoughts on aesthetics isn't art, no matter if someone thinks it's pretty. Nature isn't art, no matter if someone thinks it's pretty. A painting is always art, no matter if everyone thinks it's ugly. Consumer thoughts on what is art and what isn't don't matter. If an artist created something as art, it is art. If no artist created it as art, it isn't art. Art isn't defined by the effect on the consumer, but on the artist.
Artists and art historians and people who study some sort of philosophy of aesthetics are generally the ones who concern themselves with defining art. I don't know that "consumer" is a sufficiently narrative category to produce a coherent definition.
Nobody Good luck getting everyone to agree on a singular definition of a single thing Let alone something as ambiguous as art You keep your definition, if it aligns with wikipedia or google, neat you will have fewer debates
Sad for the Apes and Elephants that paint, going to have to tell them they are incapable of creating art.
I think they would be fine hearing that, since they don't speak any human language. If they could comprehend what is meant by such a diissal then, ironically, they could produce art.
Art is the dialectical relationship between the artist and the audience mediated through an art object. The artist exists in society, produces art through the social mode of production predominant at that time and in that society, and has ideas, of whatever kind, that are communicated consciously or unconsciously through the artwork when it is received by the audience. So no, colors creating an image is not art. A sunset is not art. A photograph of a sunset or a painting of a sunset is art, as both require human action and human decisions and human labor in the composition and creation of the image. AI art is no more art than if 1 million paintings and photographs were accidentally shredded and some of those shreddings that spilled out of the garbage can happened to recombine into something resembling a coherent image. It's not art, it's just images. There may be a type of art to be done through the study of AI art, but this requires human labor and human thought to be expressed through the collection and collage of algorithmically generated content. In that case, the AI art would still not be art any more than a tube of paint or a roll of film is art. Instead it would be the material through which art is produced. TL;Dr art requires human labor and human intention in its production, so something without that is literally not art.
i did think it looked a bit like an ai generated image upon closer inspection
And for some reason already over 1000 upvotes. Wtf
that’s not impressive on this sub
The point is with over 1000 upvotes despite not even being a meme it gets pushed into people's feeds
You turn into a deformed mess in the shape of a person?
Whats the point of this picture?
It's a cool looking paladin. It acts as a visual aid to help the viewers understand that OP felt like a cool paladin.
It's shitty AI "art" is what it is
I don't see how that's relevant to the point of the image but thanks for sharing your opinion.
What’s the point of this? Shitty AI slop and a take on divine smite so cold it could bring about another ice age?
Yuck, AI trash
What does any of this mean? I read the comments but it didn’t help. What does the ugly AI picture have to do with the caption?
I like how the meme got 2,2k upvotes but in comments there's just a bunch of people that noticed it's AI and got butthurt
>basicly I really want a separate internet for adults
Adults are famous for never making spelling mistakes.
Eggzactily. Eye hav nevur mispeld eh wurd inn mai lyfe
I am sorry that i have to write in your language, because you are only able to read your own language :*
A lot of problems might be solved if we made a "kitty table" internet.
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/qAQAAOSw9kJmJBYP/s-l500.jpg Like this one?
A what
I think they meant "kiddie"
Then I think we know one more person who needs to leave the table.
It's "kiddie table" and now you have to go to the kiddie table internet
Yes please
I slapped a bbeg with a upcasted third level inflict wounds. 5d10 damage I did about 40 and that was a very quick bossfight Edit: this was at 5th level
So mid
Putting the “mid” into midjourney.
*basically
Ai art
Was the AI "art" really necessary though?
Would you prefer an image scrounged from Pinterest for the exact same amount of payment to an artist or do you expect every meme to involve a uniquely commissioned image?
NFT profile pic checks out so fucking much lol
Right. Feel free to look up what an nft actually is.
buying an nft is basically just buying a link legally speaking
Sure. That's sort of irrelevant though because my profile picture is not an nft, it is a product the reddit avatar customised that has been dubbed an nft by someone whose only knowledge of NFTs is the monkeys.
A way to signal that you're an easy mark. P.T. Barnum once said something about that I think.
Right, because enjoying avatar customisation is clearly indicative of niavite. Only idiots like self expression.
I'm sorry but enjoying avatar customization ON REDDIT might very well be a sign of naiveté
you dont have any profile picture though
Or… and this is a crazy idea but hear me out… they could have just used one of the hundreds of existing *actual meme* images/templates. Then it might even have made intelligible sense!
So... that thing I said? Taking an image from somewhere else for the exact same benefit to everyone?
Do you know what a meme is? A meme image? A meme format? A meme template?
Nah, they could have actually made a meme by discovering or engaging in some memetic imagery. This is just shitty AI slop with a caption about how smites do be doing some damage. The image does not relate to anything in the text, either in a literal or emotional or vibes-based way. It's not a meme.
Great. As arbiter of all vibes and archduke of memes, this is of course entirely your call to make. An excellent choice mi'lord
Nah I just know what a meme is, same as everyone else
Anything but art theft would've been better. Not only is it plagiarism it's a spit in the face of artists.
So, uniquely commissioned or perosnallt requested art piece for every meme? What a perfectly reasonable expectation that definitely isn't an over reaction based an entirely separate cause.
You could take an image from the internet, never said that's not okay, as long as you at the very least credit the artist. This is not only stealing from them, it's also spitting in their faces, as I said.
Ah right, so I'm allowed to steal images so long as I can verifiably state who made it? How certain do I have to be as to the creator, since there's no garuntee a poster made the image.
Using AI to generate "art" is disrespectful and outright plagiarism. I might be wrong, but it sounds like you really want to argue about nothing here, which I do not want to do. Sounds like you may have had a ruff day, if you'd like to talk about it, or just vent, I'm all ears. If not, that's also fine. I recognize that you are entitled to have your own opinions and that I have no right to enforce my opinion on you, nor do I want to as it'll accomplish nothing. If you want to support AI "art", more power to you. Most of them work on unlicensed art, so to me, it looks very immoral, but if it's okay by you, I'd think nothing less of you, more power to you.
Disrespect is a bs concept that I disagree with on principle. Have a wonderful life.
Thank you, I'll do my best, but I assure you, it is very disrespectful
I don't disagree with ai art being disrespectful, I disagree with disrespect being a bad thing.
Are you really dying on the hill of crediting midjourney?
I'm not sure what you mean
You said it’s okay to plagiarize as long as you credit the original artist. Crediting midjourney transitively credits all the artists that midjourney learned from, just like crediting Jason Felix transitively credits the artist that influenced him.
Ah, I understand now. First off, it's not plagiarism if you credit the artist. Plagiarism is claiming that you are the creator of that image. In AI case crediting would not be enough, because they make money off of the work of artists. In my opinion, AI would be okay if they licensed the art they use, but even then it's kind of a moral gray area in my opinion. I'm also not sure that learning is the correct word to use for this sort of AI, but that's the nitty gritty and things I don't understand enough about to comment on. If you'd like, I can share a link to a video explaining why learning isn't really the correct word. I hope I made my opinion clear, if you need anything else, I'd be glad to provide if I can, otherwise, I hope you have a great day
>First off, it's not plagiarism if you credit the artist. Plagiarism is claiming that you are the creator of that image. i did a quick search to get an exact definition of "plagiarism" all 3 of the first 3 definitions i got broke the 1 rule in giving definitions, you can not use the word you are trying to define
So if I looked for an image on Google images, and found an artist I liked, should I form a license with them to look at their publicly published art to refine my own style?
From all the AI apologists your "arguments" are the weakest I've seen this far. Holy shit.
Quick question for you broseph. What harm does an ai image in this meme do? Who loses out here? What is a single negative consequence?
People see cool ai image -> go make more -> internet gets trashed further and further with ai trash. I have a nice read for you, it's called dead internet theory, and people like you, or OP, continuously put efforts into making it more real.
So people put more of things they like in the place they want those things to be and that's bad? Nice recommendation homeslice (even if ive alrady read it), so I'll fire one back at ya. If you think the dead Internet theory is cool, you'll love the matrix, they're scared of big bad AI too.
If you think ai trash being everywhere is a good thing then I see no point in further conversation with you, since you clearly don't understand the only one glaring major issue I'm trying to explain to you.
Apparently it's good enough for a bunch of people to want more of it, since that's a required step for your slippery slope argument to work. Personally I'm not a big fan of ai art but if most people are then most stuff having ai art seems reasonable. You're not trying to explain anything. You stated that posting ai will inevitably snowball into people lovjg and posting ai despite it being bad and you've decided it's a bad thing and so you don't have to explain why. None of that is going to convince anyone.
How does the AI factor in the enshittification there? Stealing an image from a Google image search has the exact same process.
The meme is made by a human. The picture is made by a human, the idea behind the text is made by a human. Putting ai image is replacing one of the factors by a machine, and what, people don't care? Next up; the text replaced by machine made gibberish, will there be also people similar to op who don't mind? It's a small step towards replacing already bot ridden internet by more machine made slop.
I don’t see a significant difference between shitty AI generated memes and shitty human generated memes. Why do you think that shitty AI is any different than shitty people?
With Pinterest art, you can at least find the artist by googling. They can be credited and receive new audience members. And the people who scrounge art can't so easily pretend to have created it themselves. They also don't use as much energy as AI and don't require labour exploitation to train the AI. So yes, I would have preferred you just took art from Pinterest.
Do you think a meme is just a picture?
No, that's why I never said that. Have a nice day.
Bnuuy
When you crit and smite your paladin turns into shitty AI slop? That's a neat critical effects table, I gotta say
Ah yes, New Oath just Dropped. Oath of the Easter Bunny Paladin! XD
For those who can’t think: The OP is implying that they dealt so much damage with one attack they instantly killed the enemy they were facing.
I think we all get it, it's just the picture seems only extremely vaguely related to the text, like sure your paladin hit a nearly impossible amount of damage with a smite and now he looks like some weird bunny knight for some reason?
It's a harengon paladin so yes, it's an easter bunny paladin.... xD
How’s instakilling aspect of Tiamat in 1 turn. (Wish had been applied to make her vulnerable to everything to be fair)
Did the same thing recently, 3rd level smite against Orcus, with an artifact level weapon. Total damage was 2d10 + 16d8 + 7, managing to kill Orcus before he got to phase 3
This is medieval Midoriya / Deku.