The lack of non proprietary art tools is a big reason I didn’t go into digital art / graphic design. GIMP just cannot keep pace and I did not want to shell out $500 a year or more in subscriptions just to be able to do a job with no security that pays pennies.
Its also a big part of why I’m “pro” AI art (I’m actually pretty neutral, I’m not liking that they’re burning down the Amazon to make shitty ads with). I think it’s gonna be a decent tool for artists to automate repetitive tasks like cutting backgrounds out of photos for collages, upscaling / enlarging images, adding background textures to landscapes, touching up acne in portraits, and animating repetitive shots like walking. but right now we’re unethically sourcing the training data and shoving it into anything and everything with 0 regard for how many resources it’s costing to make content that’s shitty anyway.
The other half of my argument “in favor” is that the only thing worse than AI existing is AI only existing in the hands of the bourgeoisie and is plebs not even knowing how it works in addition to them using it to gain an unfair advantage over us. I think we have an opportunity to make sure that the open source tools are decent to begin with instead of letting them have complete control over even more of the creative world.
I believe you, but so far I can spot AI art from a mile away. When I do, I just hit the back button. It’s not interesting. It’s okay when it’s used as a joke for memes. Maybe it’s going to look different in the real world on an advertisement or something. But, really, if I can spot it in the real world, I’ll think the product is fake. I’m definitely the type of person who wont buy if I think that. I’m sure that’s not everybody but, if it is a good percentage is, I’d say companies are going to want to pay real artists. Interesting to see where it all goes.
The lack of non proprietary art tools is a big reason I didn’t go into digital art / graphic design. GIMP just cannot keep pace and I did not want to shell out $500 a year or more in subscriptions just to be able to do a job with no security that pays pennies.
Its also a big part of why I’m “pro” AI art (I’m actually pretty neutral, I’m not liking that they’re burning down the Amazon to make shitty ads with). I think it’s gonna be a decent tool for artists to automate repetitive tasks like cutting backgrounds out of photos for collages, upscaling / enlarging images, adding background textures to landscapes, touching up acne in portraits, and animating repetitive shots like walking. but right now we’re unethically sourcing the training data and shoving it into anything and everything with 0 regard for how many resources it’s costing to make content that’s shitty anyway.
The other half of my argument “in favor” is that the only thing worse than AI existing is AI only existing in the hands of the bourgeoisie and is plebs not even knowing how it works in addition to them using it to gain an unfair advantage over us. I think we have an opportunity to make sure that the open source tools are decent to begin with instead of letting them have complete control over even more of the creative world.
AI art won’t do shit except boot people out of jobs that would require a real artist but won’t have too many people complaining if it is obvious goo.
As for open-source art tools, krita is fantastic and gets used by a lot of professionals.
I believe you, but so far I can spot AI art from a mile away. When I do, I just hit the back button. It’s not interesting. It’s okay when it’s used as a joke for memes. Maybe it’s going to look different in the real world on an advertisement or something. But, really, if I can spot it in the real world, I’ll think the product is fake. I’m definitely the type of person who wont buy if I think that. I’m sure that’s not everybody but, if it is a good percentage is, I’d say companies are going to want to pay real artists. Interesting to see where it all goes.