Heck, your inspiration can be a stain on the wall... I misunderstood your point, when you said basis I thought you meant basis as in the first sketch that brings the layout, composition and so on. Not inspiration. Though I would question a bit if AI "art" was the only inspiration -because it seems like it would be increasingly narrow and cookie cutter-.
I absolutely agree, "AI" art as it is at the moment can only "create" pieces that are derived from preexisting works.
Sure, that sounds like a useful tool for an artist to use. An ordinary person wouldn't get much benefit out of an AI that does the base flat colors. If the AI is designed to be flexible and to make it very easy to adjust individual colors once it generates a file, that would be even better, a tool for quickly and efficiently completing a tedious but necessary task, like a washing machine does.
The current technology being used cannot ever truly create anything new. It is very literally only recombining elements it has been taught exist. It can combine those elements in surprising ways, but it cannot invent new elements to put into the composition. If you ask it to give you something it has truly zero training to cover, it will give you gibberish. E.g. if 2024 D&D introduces a brand new race called fnords, which have two krangles on their forehead and fluorescent purple skin, then an AI trained to make D&D character portraits will simply be incapable of producing that race.
Not to mention, that the AI will constantly need to keep recombining elements from existing artists, and the more artists that leave the pool of available working artists, the less it will have to compose AI art from.
One Bookshelf said:
Yeah, this is pretty typical. Now, in fairness, the easily accessed (read: free) AIs are usually inferior models rather than the best in the business, so it can be tempting to draw strident conclusions. But it really does have some issues with a variety of stuff people would often want to see, dragons and other monstrous creatures being a primary example.
Almost guaranteed to be a CYOA clause, yeah. Honestly it's a smart move on their part.
That is exactly my concern, because this is newly emerging technology the laws have not had time to catch up, They are covering themselves from any future liabilities from AI art and its legality in a commercial product.
Not the way they worded it. Including things like Inkcarnate? Their phrasing implies that anything digitally assisted needs to have that disclaimer, including anything made in photoshop, InDesign, ProCreate, and others. Which is ironic, because they themselves push templates for you to use, using those tools.
I meant the underlying idea. Had not considered the implications there, so yes, the implementation is bad, but the notion of asking creators to specify in advance that they used AI art generation is good.
I mean maybe that would be cool for a aberration book
Sure. But the rewards of the work will go to the tech company, generally speaking. Unless you mean to say that journalists and authors are a large portion of people working inside Google and other AI platform places....which I highly highly doubt. Part of the problem is that you don't need to be an artist to train an AI on other people's art.
Again the issue is not the provenance. I am in fact actually very much in favor of reducing copyright term limits. My issue is that these tools are almost guaranteed to get used by greedy corporations that want to cut costs wherever they can. If you can generate halfway decent art using DALL-E at one-tenth the cost (and time) of hiring an actual living artist, you do it, hands down, no question. Because the bottom line is everything, as we have seen from numerous problems arising over the past 30-50 years.
That do you base that on? What I've seen of the AI art companies are that they're started by people who want to be good at art but quit on day two because no noticeable skill change*. The machine learning software analyses what's popular in the image set, but it has no compositional weighting that I'd expect someone who was knowledgeable in art would put in.
I think what you are referring to is the "uncanny valley" effect. The artwork too closely mirrors the object that it reflects that it sits in an uncomfortable space between realistically mirroring the subject matter but being "off" at the same time.
No, Neural networks are basically pure math constructs. People creating a neural network bot don't really need to know -or bother- with the specifics of the thing the bot will work with. It isn't trivial per se, it takes a lot of code monking and creativity to make good bots, but the bot itself is a huge group of relatively simple units, and the actual final products depend solely on the training the bot has and the computer power that can be given to the bot. Source art major and Math/CS dropout.
The CNC is still working using a design that a human created. A person had to take the decisions. AI art is instead replacing the human, not that there aren't humans giving maintenance to the bot, but they aren't making any decisions on the products of the bot. (However, I think it might be possible to have a bot that produces 3d models that in turn can be CNC'd/3d printed)
No, if you want a result that is anything other than atrocious, you have to input certain commands and parameters into AI art, just like you do with a CNC machine. You have to know at least a little about what you're doing to use MidJourney or other AI programs effectively, just like any other tool
Absolutely this.
