this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2024
329 points (99.7% liked)
TechTakes
1437 readers
74 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's pretty great for DnD. A lot of people have trouble imagining things in full detail from a text or spoken description, so being able to generate images of the scene, characters, objects etc is super fun and adds a lot of richness to the experience.
This is the best use I've found for it as well. Especially if I want to quickly create a unique token for an NPC.
Generally speaking I'll commission actual artists for pictures of PCs, but for a named NPC sorcerer who's just going to be in a handful of scenes? AI has been great.
It's also good for concepting an idea before commissioning a real artist.
as someone who only draws as a hobbyist, but who has taken commissions before, i think it would be very annoying to have a prospective client go "okay so here's what i want you to draw" and then send over ai-generated stuff. if only because i know said client is setting their expectations for the hyper-processed, over-tuned look of the machine instead of what i actually draw
Would you rather have a dozen back and forth interactions?
Besides, this is something I've heard from other artists, so it's very much a matter opinion.
The main opposition to ai images by artists is that it steals art from artists to make plagiarized versions, thereby taking away from paid work from those artists. If in the end, an artist is still being paid, what's the difference between a commissioner handing a pile of reference sheets? Annoying, sure, but not immoral.
these aren't the only two possibilities. i've had some interactions where i got handed one ref sheet and a sentence description and the recipient was happy with the first sketch. i've had some where i got several pieces of references from different artists alongside paragraphs of descriptions, and there were still several dozen attempts. tossing in ai art just increases the volume, not the quality, of the interaction
i have interacted with hundreds of artists, and i have yet to meet an artist that does not, to at least some degree, have some kind of negative opinion on ai art, except those for whom image-generation models were their primary (or more commonly, only) tool for making art. so if there is such a group of artists that would be happy to be presented with ai art and asked to "make it like this", i have yet to find them
annoying me is immoral actually
An opinion is still an opinion no matter how widely held it is.
Also, I like how I've made a minor carve out for ai images as a tool with limited use, yet I still refuse to call it art. And then we have people who are attacking any use of ai images that are willing to call it "AI Art"...
I believe that you believe that.
and if we needed more proof you’re lazy and creatively bankrupt, this swing and a miss at a gotcha confirmed it
why did you even bring up your one artist friend's opinion if you're just gonna be like "well actually that's just YOUR opinion" when i disagree
Duchamp wants a word
good thing i, me, the person you're responding to, isn't those people. makes me wonder why you even brought it up in the first place
i also believe you're deliberately trying to be as insufferable as possible, so be sure to add that to the bizarre collection of things you think i believe while you're at it. or better yet: don't