Hey, don't be shooting the messenger. I didn't do anything. The last time humans prevailed over a much cheaper, readily available, technological alternative in the consumer market was... when?
AI discussion broken off the not happy thread
- Thread starter Homer Potvin
- Start date
I know it's a rhetorical question, but it's fun to try to answer it.
Let's say ... before the Industrial Revolution? Certainly before the flying shuttle and the power loom put weavers out of work (and led to the Luddite movement).Or, if we can go further back -- before the printing press? That put a whole bunch of monks out of work.
Why break your back and ruin your eyesight over illuminating a single page, when the printing press can do it for you quicker and cheaper?Or, if go further back still: the horse collar (Europe, sometime between the late 10th and 12th centuries). Before it came along, peasants had to hitch an ox, or themselves - or their wives (!!!) - to the plow. But this was obviously slow and inefficient. Early harnesses pressed on the horse's throat, constricted its windpipe and choked it when it pulled heavy loads. But the padded horse collar was designed to rest on the horse's shoulders and chest, which allowed it horse to push into the collar and use its full strength.
Suddenly, farm horses could pull the plow more efficiently and work more hours. More efficient plowing, combined with the heavy wheeled plow and the three-field crop rotation system = much more food. This led to significant population growth, which led to people moving in search of jobs ... and eventually a cash economy, instead of bartering for goods. (Sorry. I'd better stop or this could go on forever).
Anyway, the short answer is: yes, I agree. (Sorry to be so long-winded about it!)
Cold number 2, guys 
So, sunday, after talking about having to shovel snow, the heat went out in my house. So i came in from shoveling snow, to a freezing house.
Now im sick again.
(We should have an "unlucky" thread....)
《Insert "IM TIRED OF THIS, GRANDPA" gif》
So, sunday, after talking about having to shovel snow, the heat went out in my house. So i came in from shoveling snow, to a freezing house.
Now im sick again.
(We should have an "unlucky" thread....)
《Insert "IM TIRED OF THIS, GRANDPA" gif》
I think AI generated images will take over in the business side of things. I'm talking about those soulless ads, fliers, posters, etc you see about restaurants, products and so on. Why should business executives not use AI generated images and instead spend a lot of money for someone to do it manually? I think Homer is right in that regard. Businessmen and businesswomen will choose the AI route because it's cheaper. No, I don't like it either, but it's just how the world of business works.
The only thing that will prevent this is if the mass adoption of AI graphics somehow causes a significant loss of sales to the companies that use it (i.e. mass rejection by the public). I don't see this happening though for various reasons. That said, apps like Duolingo have received a lot of backlash for their use of AI generated lessons, so maybe things aren't as simple as I make them to be. I certainly hope I am wrong!
But the art world is different. Ads were meh even before AI (so more meh won't matter). Art-related products meant for direct enjoyment have a lot more attention paid to their quality. Moreover, I don't just care about the art, I also care about the artist. The world of books is proof of that because we often talk about what we read in terms of the author, and not just the book.
Art is fueled by the artist's own soul. You can often see it in their work. I care about this and so do others. That's why I refuse to pay attention to AI generated work. It just isn't interesting to me. The machine generated aspect instantly turns me off.
There is the possibility that AI generated work will get passed and advertised as human work in the future. This is not just unethical; it's straight up fraud. You're passing a lie. An illusion. That's why @X Equestris has every right to be angry. If the artist in question used AI in something that was advertised not to be, then that's fraud, and it should be dealt with appropriately.
The only thing that will prevent this is if the mass adoption of AI graphics somehow causes a significant loss of sales to the companies that use it (i.e. mass rejection by the public). I don't see this happening though for various reasons. That said, apps like Duolingo have received a lot of backlash for their use of AI generated lessons, so maybe things aren't as simple as I make them to be. I certainly hope I am wrong!
But the art world is different. Ads were meh even before AI (so more meh won't matter). Art-related products meant for direct enjoyment have a lot more attention paid to their quality. Moreover, I don't just care about the art, I also care about the artist. The world of books is proof of that because we often talk about what we read in terms of the author, and not just the book.
Art is fueled by the artist's own soul. You can often see it in their work. I care about this and so do others. That's why I refuse to pay attention to AI generated work. It just isn't interesting to me. The machine generated aspect instantly turns me off.
There is the possibility that AI generated work will get passed and advertised as human work in the future. This is not just unethical; it's straight up fraud. You're passing a lie. An illusion. That's why @X Equestris has every right to be angry. If the artist in question used AI in something that was advertised not to be, then that's fraud, and it should be dealt with appropriately.
What I would fear if I was an artist is the winnowing of the client base. How many people will shell out real money for a product when there's an essentially free alternative available? It's happening to musicians too in the non-live areas. A couple of guys I know, the work just dried up. They still retain a few of the keep-it-real clients, but not enough to make a living.
Wouldn't dream of shooting you, Adored Leader, but occasionally one must take aim at defeatist attitudes. (Cue music from Man of La Mancha.)
Love for equines is almost as irrational as equines themselves. My son and daughter both trained horses; son still does. In this area, people use horses as well as quads to work cattle. We sold our cattle several years ago when my son's grazing sub-lease fell through. He usees the horses and mules for packing into the backcountry now, though this time of year, they just eat.
We had a gelding who could've hurt himself while locked in an empty padded stall. My quarter horse mare would readily stand off a bull, daintily step around a rattler without raising a hair, then totally freak out over a piece of evil, horse-eating plastic caught in a sagebrush. I miss them both.
Louanne Learning
Active Member
Member
New Member
Role Play Moderator
Winner: 4th Contest August
Winner: June Flash Fiction
here's the ad - and yes it is terrible, a terrible message
Yeah. Of course, no amount of certification can stop an artist from starting to use AI afterwards, but some sort of voluntary certification system would help.
I didn’t even notice this one on my first look, but one of the characters has boots that turn into sandals (or skin?) around the ankles
View attachment 741
I am not a cover designer, but I tried to use AI to design covers for my stories, just for fun. (I wouldn't dream of actually using them).
In the course of five frustrating hours, AI gave me a hero holding a banana-shaped sword, a hero with three hands, a hero with two hands but with six fingers on each, and a hero with four hands ... one of which appeared to be scratching his crotch.
Need I say more? The only positive to come out of this five-hour shitshow is that I more or less laid out what I'd like the images to look like. Now I can contact a real cover artist and discuss it with him/her.
I didn’t even notice this one on my first look, but one of the characters has boots that turn into sandals (or skin?) around the ankles
View attachment 741
Try feeding the image into ChatGPT and asking it to analyse if it is AI or not. No, I'm being serious.
most cover artists use computers and either photo manipulation or vector drawing... in that sense it is over. sure there maybe a human involved too, but the days of cover art being derived solely from human effort have been over for a long time.
rather like with writing, we may rightly in my opinion eschew AI generated text, but it is nearly impossible to avoid using spell checkers and formatters which are computer aided and may already have some AI involved
rather like with writing, we may rightly in my opinion eschew AI generated text, but it is nearly impossible to avoid using spell checkers and formatters which are computer aided and may already have some AI involved
Not everyone can afford a human artist. AI art has, to an extent, democratised it in the same way that self-publishing has done with novels.
Well, I confronted the seller about the obvious AI hallmarks. Predictably, it was all denial and excuses from them, though they couldn’t explain the boot thing. Didn’t even bother trying, in fact!
I asked for a refund, they all but refused and then ghosted, so now it’s on to escalating the matter with PayPal. Probably my best bet at clawing at least something back, since I have to wonder whether I even have accurate info to serve them for small-claims court. At this small of a sum, it’s probably not worthwhile.
So that was the first half of my day!
Not much left to do about this now but wait and see, though I do intend to use my socials to raise awareness about this individual and warn off others. Their “services” seem to be aimed at the indie author scene, so if I can save any of my peers from a similar ordeal, I’ll be happy.
I asked for a refund, they all but refused and then ghosted, so now it’s on to escalating the matter with PayPal. Probably my best bet at clawing at least something back, since I have to wonder whether I even have accurate info to serve them for small-claims court. At this small of a sum, it’s probably not worthwhile.
So that was the first half of my day!
Not much left to do about this now but wait and see, though I do intend to use my socials to raise awareness about this individual and warn off others. Their “services” seem to be aimed at the indie author scene, so if I can save any of my peers from a similar ordeal, I’ll be happy.
I really don't like the false equivalency sometimes made between gen AI and a word processor's spell checker. Not in the same league, or even the same sport.
Same with digital art. No, the cover artists are not often using pencils, paper, paints, and canvas, but they do use their own hand to sketch on a screen with a stylus. They can edit the work using digital tools to make things easier, but it's all still being created by the mind of a human.
Entering words into prompts and having gen AI create some ungodly slop in a matter of seconds is not in any way comparable, and we shouldn't pretend that it is, even a little bit. It's not a new tool like a printing press. Gen AI is removing the human element from creative art. This isn't a simple matter of improving efficiency like other technological innovations. It's destroying everything that makes creative arts special.
As for the "people can't afford real artists" argument that I see pop up from time to time - yes, they can. Some people just don't want to if they don't have to (unless they are literally quite impoverished). When the PS5 was released, or when my laptop died, or when I needed to replace my TV, I didn't just shrug my shoulders and say, "well I guess I'll just go without, can't afford it!" No, I save up, or buy now, pay it off later.
And that's exactly what you can do with a book cover artist. If you want it enough, you make it happen. It's a rare expense. I can't imagine I'll need to hire one more than once a year.
Same with digital art. No, the cover artists are not often using pencils, paper, paints, and canvas, but they do use their own hand to sketch on a screen with a stylus. They can edit the work using digital tools to make things easier, but it's all still being created by the mind of a human.
Entering words into prompts and having gen AI create some ungodly slop in a matter of seconds is not in any way comparable, and we shouldn't pretend that it is, even a little bit. It's not a new tool like a printing press. Gen AI is removing the human element from creative art. This isn't a simple matter of improving efficiency like other technological innovations. It's destroying everything that makes creative arts special.
As for the "people can't afford real artists" argument that I see pop up from time to time - yes, they can. Some people just don't want to if they don't have to (unless they are literally quite impoverished). When the PS5 was released, or when my laptop died, or when I needed to replace my TV, I didn't just shrug my shoulders and say, "well I guess I'll just go without, can't afford it!" No, I save up, or buy now, pay it off later.
And that's exactly what you can do with a book cover artist. If you want it enough, you make it happen. It's a rare expense. I can't imagine I'll need to hire one more than once a year.
Not every illustrator can afford a human writer. AI generated writing democratises it.
Dunno too many illustrators who generates books to get their pictures out there.
Yet
Well, Waterstones (one of the last remaining high street bookshops in the UK) has said they would publish AI written books.
Most spell checkers use AI these days vis for example MS Copilot and its infernal word suggestions and style 'enhancement'. I have to use MS word at work and i keep turning that option off because it keeps trying to change the meaning of what i'm saying
on the cover art front things like adobe photoshop, often used for image composite on book covers, edge detection and selection tools are defintely computer driven and if not AI enhanced already soon will be... sure the image and creative vision might come from a human mind but its not AI free.
