• Ptsf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      So a couple of things. One, he’s right and I agree with him on his first point. There is no such thing as a “ai artist” or a prompt director or whatever you’d like to call it. The machine is not complex enough in use to need a specialized person like that, and I wouldn’t say they were an artist even if it were. Second, I literally follow artists who use ai just for finishing details on their work, sometimes it’s as simple as fur renders that they don’t want to add by hand so they involve an ai renderer to apply the finishing layer, and these are artists I’ve been following since before ai “art” (image generation) existed. So he’s just straight up wrong about there not being a single real artist using ai. It’s a tool, like any other. You can have your negative opinion on it, but it’s honestly useless to be so hostile to something just because it scares you and you don’t understand it, so I’m not going to watch the video past that.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      If current models never changed again - none of what’s happening would “die.” We already have programs that can turn any image you provide into any image you describe, even if you provide solid noise.

      What people do with that tool can be trivial… or it can take immense effort and thought. I don’t understand how an iterative process lasting days could be anything but art. Objecting to where the tools came from can’t change that.