• Hobthrob
    link
    fedilink
    22 months ago

    Right now it is not a tool. Right now it is an attempt at replacing artists.

    It could be implemented in existing softwares in parts to make it a useful tool. Like a tool that could easily recolour parts of a fully rendered illustration, while still respecting the artistic intent with the form and lightning.

    But right now it just spits out the blandest stuff, based on what it has identified as the most common denominators in art.

    • arthurpizza
      link
      fedilink
      English
      42 months ago

      Right now it is not a tool. Right now it is an attempt at replacing artists.

      A lot companies are using the AIl to attempt to replace artists, that does not mean that some artists are not using it like a tool already.

      I know quite a few artists that are already training their own artwork into custom data sets.

      • Hobthrob
        link
        fedilink
        12 months ago

        That is their perogative. It’s still antithetical to the whole concept of art, and if they sell AI generated images as art, then they are no longer artists, but just a middleman for generative images. Whether those images were trained on art or not.

        AI art is also really prone to breaking when fed AI generated images, so it needs artists to work, but it’s use in the industry devalues the artists labour by being able to flood the market with low value replacements for art, thereby pushing actual artists out of the market and it’s own training pool. If the art industry cannot support professional artist because they are driven out of the industry by falling wages, then there will almost only be AI images left, accelerating the staleness of AI generated visuals.

        Artists intent makes the artist, not the ability to make images. Otherwise art would have ceased to exist when cameras got sufficiently capable.