Have you ever had AI try to draw your characters/covers?

[Leyelle]

I'm stating that I've seen cover artists take pictures they got off Google, invert the image, and sell it to writers for 50 bucks. I've seen people take celebrity photos, toss on a filter, and sell them as covers. I've seen artists make generic covers and sell them at high markups. I've also them charge 50 bucks an edit on a 200 dollar custom cover. I've also seen artists claim an AI generated picture is their own work and sell it for the same rate they'd charge for one they painted by hand. I've also seen artists charge 50+ bucks an hour for a piece that looks like it was done on Microsoft paint by a toddler

While scammers are a real thing, I do think this is kind of an unfair statement as there are so many scams in this world and so many real people willing to do work, even for really really cheap. I just got a very good cover from vapidink for my novel "Sun with a Paper Crown" for FREE just because an artist felt like gifting one to somebody. It's freaking gorgeous

I've also seen artists charge 50+ bucks an hour for a piece that looks like it was done on Microsoft paint by a toddler.

Also like, art is hard, and subjective, so please try to respect artists more with your statements.

[KevinReijnders]

Yeah, but it's made, used and championed by people. The machine is a machine and could not exist without the people behind and in front of it. Granted, my biggest distaste goes out to the founders and those who religiously champion it. But I offer no sympathy to those who, in a sense of uncaring centrism, use it casually either. It's as WildMoon says:

I think people who use AI just don’t care about how it affects other people and the planet

[Leyelle]

But, I think AI doesn’t really understand the difference between a light skinned black person and a dark skinned black person. Because to AI, these are both darker than someone with pale skin.

Makes sense. It's not like a computer can be racist/colorist, just ill-informed.

[llobucervallince]

I remember an anectdote of an art teacher showing their class this image generators, then asked the class to think very hard what they want the AI to do, and to describe the best they can the image in their mind. The students kept trying, but it wasn't quite what they wanted, while the concept was what they described, the AI couldn't replicate what was in their minds, and they kept trying and trying.

The conclussion was, that AI artist, don't really think about the art they're doing, they just know the words associate to a very vague idea, actual artist knows exactly what they want to draw, and even if they can't make it as beautiful as the AI would, the AI wouldn't get as close as that with just words.

Or something like that, I read it last year, but can't remember where to find it.

[Leyelle]

The conclussion was, that AI artist, don't really think about the art they're doing, they just know the words associate to a very vague idea, actual artist knows exactly what they want to draw,

I agree. because humans with feeling will always be able to create something more heartfelt than a machine ever can

[llobucervallince]

There's also this tumblr saying that AI just proved the existence of souls by showing what art is without it.

[Leyelle]

Exactly, honey. Exactly. I don't think AI should be being used to replace artists because creativity is meant to express feeling. We can't (or shouldn't) replace people with machines in any kind of art, be that music, illustration, composition, writing and so on. But as a writer (for a living) and comedic writer, I do find the stand-ups written by robots interesting and even amusing, along with the movie scripts and such (the Hallmark movies written by robots are, albeit unintentionally, a riot.)

I would never replace a real story made by a real writer with robots, but I do find it interesting to see. Now, I didn't know they were stealing pieces from existing art, which is something new I learned today. But I do see there as a difference between experimenting with what CAN be done, and using it to harm others. Just my perspective.

[abigaillmartin]

I tried it with my man Houdini

IT SUCKS

I’D RATHER GO ON BLIND DATE WITH MR PEABODY AND SHERMAN SHOW HOUDINI THAN LOOK AT WHATEVER THE HECK THIS IS

Cause at least that one is ANIMATED BY HUMANS

Excuse me while I go cry.

AI sucks and I’ll keep saying it until the day I die!

[Leyelle]

that first one looks like a creepy puppet. Kinda like the toyman.

[abigaillmartin]

Ventriloquist actually

And here’s an actual ventriloquist puppet of my man

And I’d rather look at cursed merchandise of my man rather than generate more of this.

I learned to live with that his merch is nightmare fuel for some reason

ANYWAY

AI SUCKS

[thepenmonster]

We get 3-4 bucks per book. So selling 20-30 books only nets you between 60-90 bucks. That gets eaten up really quickly when a basic FB ad costs about 50 bucks

AFAIK Chuck Tingle makes his own book covers.

Sure, the title does a lot of work, but isn't having a good title something we all have to make sure of?

[moontokkym]

They all read like drunk texts this would be hilarious if I hadn't seen 2 ads done by AI just existing outside this week (in my country you have to declare on the ad that the image is AI, so I had confirmation even though I could tell by looking).

[Leyelle]

Maybe it's just because my country's a bit old fashioned, but as of right now, we still have like all our ads with real people. Maybe if we move slowly enough the whole world will give up on AI before we ever get a chance to transition

[cherrystark]

There are great artists out there that would love to work with people. Im not denying that at all. I'm simply saying that it takes time to find them. Writers need to be able to earn money in the mean time. I have never said all artists are scammers. I do commission work. As a writer and artist, I've seen the stress people go through to get covers.

I think both sides should be more respectful. It takes a lot of skill to use the models to get what you need, just like it takes skill to photshop. I know artists who use AI for mock ups, inspiration, sample drawings. I even know artists who can no longer draw at the same level they once did use AI to fill in the gaps. Its a tool, just like every other piece of tech out there.

[Leyelle]

I agree that both sides should speak respectfully to each other, as everyone should always treat other people with care and kindness. But both sides also need to be acknowledged.

It's hard to get covers made. It's equally hard for artists of all kinds to get work. Everyone needs to be able to live. We can try to work together as teams and form partnerships to help everyone succeed rather than one side completely losing out, which will always be the case if people use AI in professional settings in the place of human creators (artists, writers, musicians etc.)

I can't begin to list the amount of time I spend looking for work as a writer to see positions looking for people to train AI writers. So that I can be out of a job?

Literary magazines are already having to make strict instructions that people can't use AI for the works they submit because if they did, they could swamp all human writers submitting way more stories, poems etc, that take them less time to make, and human writers would be out of a job.

To end, I'm not opposed to Photoshop or photo editing art made by humans on the computer as long as the work being edited is still the work of a person. I wasn't (though I recently learned it scrapes in it's 'training' which I did NOT know/understand) opposed to AI being used for inspiration, as long as finished products made for work projects are made by people (i.e., generate a picture idea, and then drawing your own based on the picture or inspired by the picture, but for challenges, not for work purposes.)

Or opposed to using AI for games and challenges (like artist vs. AI, drawing from the same prompt type ideas.)

But I AM opposed to robots being used to unemploy real people because we are struggling just as much as the people who need the work they can use a robot to create in our places. The fact that it is faster to ultimately cause harm to others, even very far down the line, does not justify it.

[meap]

Supporting generative ai is inherently disrespectful to artist so that's not possible

[Leyelle]

I just mean talking to people civilly. Not that you have to respect the use of AI.

[thepenmonster]

Supporting generative ai is inherently disrespectful to artist so that's not possible

Are you saying that Dropdown Plagiarism is akin to saying, "I can't afford to pay you so I'll use your art anyway?" and that people who slap you in the face like that haven't earned the right of politeness?

I'm on board.

[KevinReijnders]

That's just civility for civility's sake.

There are just some fundemantal issues where I am not going to engage someone on in a "civil discussion". There is just no point in it.

This feels like a variation of the "you shouldn't punch a nazi" arguement. When in reality, no. There are occasions when someone deserves a slap in the face, be that physically or verbaly.

[WildMoonCrow]

It uses a lot of power to train and run the AI models, also huge amounts of water is used to cool down servers. It’s just not sustainable. I think CO2 emissions for training one model is like 5 times that of an average car in its whole lifetime.