Comment by 542458
6 months ago
Today there's a (mostly) clear line between "AI" and "not AI" art in terms of process, but I believe as time goes on we'll see more and more blurring of that. I'm thinking the equivalent of the spell-check tool for art, something that takes explicit human input and tidies the details in an interactive, human-in-the-loop sort of way.
That's a weird comparison because it's a mechanical and deterministic task. Bad autocomplete is just a bad algorithm. As far as I know, (word) artists are usually following the grammatical (or orthographic) rules of their target language by default, and if they want to do something else they would disable that. But it's not really a question of style if you misspell certain words. Your example would be like letting a Thesaurus suggest different words in every sentence.
> But it's not really a question of style if you misspell certain words.
Sure it is. Flagging vernacular, phonetic spelling for accents, punning, signalling a character's use of a word they are unfamiliar with, and so on and so forth. Intentionally misspelling words can definitely be a stylistic choice.
Maybe a linter is a more accurate allegory. I think there are parts of art that could sometimes be suggested in terms of anatomy, symmetry, shading, color theory, etc. You'd configure your art linter to your preferences/style (or target style) and it would point out the things you're doing wrong and offer suggested fixes.
Hi, it looks like you are drawing a human. Humans do not have eyes of this size. Also the nose can't just be an upside down v. Why are you even drawing Manga, freak? Don't forget to color this panel.
-- the Clippy for comics
You could argue red and blue squiggles have been nudging us that way for a few decades.
There's been a schism for some time between "Artists" (that's with a capital "A", mind you) and, oh, graphic designers, photographers… The latter are not real artists.
While I suspect the AI fracas within the art community will never go away, I suspect within a decade AI-assisted art (or whatever you want to call it) will be a non-issue for everyone else.
Photography, computer graphics, Photoshop, synthesizers, samplers, and others have all been considered "not real art."
The irony is that the kind of genre art you see at Comic-Con is mostly reproductions of commercial properties or standard tropes and formulas, with very little original vision and creativity. Being able to draw something recognisable as [genre character name goes here], even with some skill, is not that high a bar, and it lives in a tiny niche in the art world as a whole.
AI brought something fresh to art for a while, but now I think creative people are more aware of the limitations. It's in a strange mid-way place between being fascinating, and being frustratingly limited compared to what it could be.
I suspect we'll start seeing meta-art soon with a much more interesting mix of creation, original thought, and execution.
A key difference is that each of the mediums you mentioned are deterministic and unbiased (to a certain degree.) The the work created can therefore be inferred to be a "pure" expression of the artists intent. A pro photographer and my mom will get wildly different results even with the same equipment. Not so with AI, which very much has it's own bias and is eager to inject it.
The other question is, is AI a tool or a medium? I often hear people say "Well EDM was looked down on when it first came out," but EDM is not a tool, it's a genre. I think most artists wouldn't really care about "AI" becoming a genre of art, but it's silly to think that all future art will be AI just as it would have been silly to think EDM would have replaced all future music.
5 replies →
"…computer graphics, Photoshop, synthesizers, samplers…"
Andy Warhol…
> AI brought something fresh to art for a while,
What fresh new ideas did it bring? Most of what I see is generic AI slop pictures tossed in articles I mostly ignore.
5 replies →
Thing is, image generators might be better than when SD came out years ago, there's been zero progress on actually meaningfully integrating AI into artists' workflow.
The problem is AI assisted art does not yet exist the same way you can get an LLM to help you finish a project you started by hand, where you can arbitrarily decide how much control you want to exercise over the output.
> Thing is, image generators might be better than when SD came out years ago, there's been zero progress on actually meaningfully integrating AI into artists' workflow.
That’s an interesting opinion, but I have no idea what, other than ignorance, it is based on.
> The problem is AI assisted art does not yet exist the same way you can get an LLM to help you finish a project you started by hand, where you can arbitrarily decide how much control you want to exercise over the output.
Except it exactly exists in that way, and (while the tooling was more clumsy than today) it has at least since SD1.5 was SOTA.
If you are judging image generation by the native web interfaces provided as the public face of the big hosted models, you really have no understanding of what is out there, and if you aren't doing that, I don't know where your claims could come from.
2 replies →
> there's been zero progress on actually meaningfully integrating AI into artists' workflow.
This simply isn't true. An easy way someone who does most of their art more "traditionally" can use Krita to very much just use AI to help finish a project.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly6USRwTHe0
ComfyUI was also designed from the ground up to follow the same sort of node-based workflow that many CG artists are used to with things like Houdini, Blender, Substance Designer, etc., and includes all sorts of ways you can arbitrarily control where and how much the AI is used for.
“Good” is some mix of taste and skill.
People without taste hide behind skill. They do everything technically correctly and still make something bad. This is the threat of new mediums to them — it takes away their only strength.
But at the same time, something like AI suddenly enables people with neither taste nor skill to produce. I don’t want to see AI art right now — AI art is currently a lot of noise.
The sentiment of photography not being real art hasn’t been a thing for a while now though.
For me, the killer feature would more be _autocomplete_ for art. I love to cartoon and doodle, but don’t have the time/patience/skillset to build professional digital assets. If I could go from my pencil drawn sketch to a flashy png, that would be awesome! I think it’d be a nice use of AI, since it just allows me to do more with my own creativity.
Unfortunately whenever I’ve tried uploading a sketch to ChatGPT or Gemini, it seems to fixate on details of my sketch, and recreates my mistakes in high fidelity. It fails to take a creative leap toward a good result. I’ve heard some professionals have gotten good results building custom workflows in ComfyUI.
[flagged]
@dang I'm pretty sure this is a troll account
Try https://vizcom.ai, it might be closer to what you are looking for.
No, seems to be about "turns X into Y", while what parent seems to want, is something that just makes making X easier/better, instead of doing those sort of "transformations" which is usually where the human feeling gets lost.
Got a warning about vizcom.ai wanting to connect to any device on my local network...
1 reply →
This exists, most artists that are using ai models are building complex compositions using comfyui https://education.civitai.com/category/guides/ It's a skill to compose and create with these tools. It's a craft, and just as much art as any other medium.
I think you misunderstood term art. AI cannot generate something like art. Otherwise it's just an image. Or kitsch.
I'm not sure if there is clear line in creative process to tell what is too much of AI and what is not. Which leads to above mentioned. AI is just a tool.
I guess if you keep repeating this enough, maybe it will come true.
Reaction for overusing nonsenses like AI art. I need explanation about how art could be generated.