They don't just mess with prompts. Proper AI artists will feed the image back through the system afterwards for minor variations, as well. Beyond this, they'll highlight segments of the image (often hands, but anything) and select-edit JUST those elements, akin to a photoshopping session... And some even straight-up just use photoshop to gussy up the image afterwards, too.
"AI Art" is like saying "Paint art" or "pencil art" or "chalk art". It's a medium and a tool that an artist uses.
The issue is when a non-artist uses it, and effectively tries to pass off low-effort crayon drawings as high art.
Yeah, if someone goes the full mile to "perfect" the work its very much a passion project that requires considerable amounts of work, though maybe not exactly "skilled" work the same way non-AI art creation would. Though you can certainly combine those two to make some truly great works as well.
One of the issues with this entire ethical debate is that the guy saying "draw this girl giving birth" in some program is getting treated as equal to someone going that extreme mile, despite at some point it clearly becoming a creative endeavor all on its own.
You won't convince people with hate boners over it otherwise, but at the same time too many companies/creators have also gone way too "all in" on it without the proper controls/vetting to make it seamless and functional on any level beyond cost cutting.
The downvotes in this thread are hilarious, but everything you say is spot on.
AI is the future, and as a toolset for improving pipeline efficiency, it's an absolute God-send.
The amount of work it nullifies (in the right hands) is uncanny. Good artists -- as you note -- will use it to drastically speed up a number of ways in which voice acting, music composition, sound editing, and animation cells are produced, not unlike how fill-frames in 3D animation drastically speeds up the keyframe animation process.
Every time I mention this in animation communities there are liberal faggots everywhere decrying how AI is just "slop" and would never be used for animations. Within a few years anyone who isn't using AI as part of their toolkit within their workflow will be left behind.
I'm just waiting on Japanese animators to realise they can finally get back to making fluid, highly detailed works like in the late 80s and early 90s in cost-effective ways, all thanks to he help of AI filling in frames instead of working those poor animators to the bone for 16 hours a day.
The same ones who downvote, also would have downvoted the concept of typewriter. It removes all "soul" from calligraphy! It conglomerates a hundred different ways of people writing letters into one frankensteinian too-clean typeset! It's robbing the important jobs of calligraphists and copysetters!
And yes, it is, and does. And yet, they'll use a computer keyboard over writing by hand, 99.99999% of the time.
It is nowhere near as bad as a shithole like reddit, but even on this board there are plenty of people who have a stick up their ass about AI. Two things can be true at the same time:
The current (and forthcoming) iterations of AI are revolutionary in their ability to increase productivity in capable hands. Most people shitting on it act like it is a failure because it isn't perfect or because it doesn't fit their preconceived notion of what AI is that they picked up from sci-fi. But its imperfections do not nullify the sheer magnitude of productivity increase one can extract from it if they are capable.
"AI" has become a buzzword and the vast majority of people and companies are not utilizing it effectively. The insane levels of capital expenditure directed toward data centers is unlikely to be worth it in the long run. The AI craze has formed a bubble and the pop and resulting fallout will be interesting to watch.
They don't just mess with prompts. Proper AI artists will feed the image back through the system afterwards for minor variations, as well. Beyond this, they'll highlight segments of the image (often hands, but anything) and select-edit JUST those elements, akin to a photoshopping session... And some even straight-up just use photoshop to gussy up the image afterwards, too.
"AI Art" is like saying "Paint art" or "pencil art" or "chalk art". It's a medium and a tool that an artist uses.
The issue is when a non-artist uses it, and effectively tries to pass off low-effort crayon drawings as high art.
Yeah, if someone goes the full mile to "perfect" the work its very much a passion project that requires considerable amounts of work, though maybe not exactly "skilled" work the same way non-AI art creation would. Though you can certainly combine those two to make some truly great works as well.
One of the issues with this entire ethical debate is that the guy saying "draw this girl giving birth" in some program is getting treated as equal to someone going that extreme mile, despite at some point it clearly becoming a creative endeavor all on its own.
You won't convince people with hate boners over it otherwise, but at the same time too many companies/creators have also gone way too "all in" on it without the proper controls/vetting to make it seamless and functional on any level beyond cost cutting.
The downvotes in this thread are hilarious, but everything you say is spot on.
AI is the future, and as a toolset for improving pipeline efficiency, it's an absolute God-send.
The amount of work it nullifies (in the right hands) is uncanny. Good artists -- as you note -- will use it to drastically speed up a number of ways in which voice acting, music composition, sound editing, and animation cells are produced, not unlike how fill-frames in 3D animation drastically speeds up the keyframe animation process.
Every time I mention this in animation communities there are liberal faggots everywhere decrying how AI is just "slop" and would never be used for animations. Within a few years anyone who isn't using AI as part of their toolkit within their workflow will be left behind.
I'm just waiting on Japanese animators to realise they can finally get back to making fluid, highly detailed works like in the late 80s and early 90s in cost-effective ways, all thanks to he help of AI filling in frames instead of working those poor animators to the bone for 16 hours a day.
The same ones who downvote, also would have downvoted the concept of typewriter. It removes all "soul" from calligraphy! It conglomerates a hundred different ways of people writing letters into one frankensteinian too-clean typeset! It's robbing the important jobs of calligraphists and copysetters!
And yes, it is, and does. And yet, they'll use a computer keyboard over writing by hand, 99.99999% of the time.
It is nowhere near as bad as a shithole like reddit, but even on this board there are plenty of people who have a stick up their ass about AI. Two things can be true at the same time:
The current (and forthcoming) iterations of AI are revolutionary in their ability to increase productivity in capable hands. Most people shitting on it act like it is a failure because it isn't perfect or because it doesn't fit their preconceived notion of what AI is that they picked up from sci-fi. But its imperfections do not nullify the sheer magnitude of productivity increase one can extract from it if they are capable.
"AI" has become a buzzword and the vast majority of people and companies are not utilizing it effectively. The insane levels of capital expenditure directed toward data centers is unlikely to be worth it in the long run. The AI craze has formed a bubble and the pop and resulting fallout will be interesting to watch.