- Makes sense to me, the whole structure of the artist booth is about connecting with the person that made the art. Why would you want to see a booth showing artworks that weren't even created by the person in front of you but by an AI?
If anything, an AI artwork booth should be manned by the engineers that built and trained the image model and well as scraped the training data. Then they can meet all the people they non-consensually took artwork from :P
- Today there's a (mostly) clear line between "AI" and "not AI" art in terms of process, but I believe as time goes on we'll see more and more blurring of that. I'm thinking the equivalent of the spell-check tool for art, something that takes explicit human input and tidies the details in an interactive, human-in-the-loop sort of way.
by ajayarama
12 subcomments
- Interesting. It seems that in industries where productivity/output isn't the primary goal (so not Software, Analytics, etc), people care more about *where* their content comes from. It's quite indiscriminate in Software, for sure, I feel like people don't care whether you used an AI to write your code as long as it works. But I don't see AI getting real footing really ever in the creative world because people want authenticity there. It's why I think Suno, for example, is never really going to go anywhere.
- How much AI is too much? Are you allowed to use Photoshop to create your digital art? Almost every tool there is now powered by AI in some way (some a lot more than others). Can you use its auto-fill button? What percent of the image can you use it for?
Can you generate something with AI and then manually edit it in Photoshop? How much manual editing is required before it's not considered AI anymore?
My point is, AI is another tool in the toolbox, it can be used well or poorly. How much is too much? Just like back in the day, using Photoshop wasn't allowed, until it was.
Where does one draw the line?
- Luckily the AI artists can set up their own conventions. Considering how unevitable AI art is, I think the cons will be absolutely swarming with visitors!
by shevy-java
2 subcomments
- I tried to read the article but a pop-up blocked me in
the middle, demanding that I subscribe to a newsletter.
I am not subscribed to any newsletter in general, but when
the default setting of a webpage tries to force people into
newsletter via pop-ups, then I'll simply perma-ban such
websites rather than click on anything at all.
- I thought the use of AI in the Secret Invasion title sequence was actually really appropriate, even "meta", maybe even a bit ahead of its time.
The seemingly purposeful AI style made it seem unnatural (on purpose), and like a facsimile of an otherwise trustworthy thing (on purpose), which was exactly in line with the idea of the show.
The execution of that show and that idea was pretty bad, but one of the few positives of it was, to me, an example of using AI art overtly, and leaning into its untrustworthy nature.
- I wish this wasn't so doomed. Coming soon to Comic Con: 1) AI art sufficiently "human-looking" to pass. 2) Human artists falsely accused of using AI. Would there be grounds for a lawsuit in the latter case?
- "Artists" are currently trying to create false scarcity, not totally unlike the DeBeers/diamonds false scarcity.
Historically, Artists have often had (mostly) uncredited assistants that handled a lot of the grunt work. This is particularly common, IME, for physical media artists that do large sculptures and similar pieces. "The Artist" will do the initial design, and then "artists" working under their direction will do a lot of cutting and welding, for example.
AI is upending a lot of this because it is letting more people become Artists in the sense of bringing a vision into reality via the use of various external helpers.
In the end all visual artists are just manipulating how photons hit our eyes, and there are lots of ways to make that happen pleasantly.
by whateveracct
0 subcomment
- AI feels like it's bringing the Matrix to the real world. Imagine you are in a space, and all the posters and text are AI-generated slop. They tickle your dopamine sensors and look good out of focus. But upon closer inspection, they are lacking a substance we didn't even know was there before. It's like living in a simulacrum of the real world. Instead of our energy being harvested, it's our attention.
by joshcsimmons
1 subcomments
- Absolutely idiotic take - ban drawing tablets too? What about paintbrushes?
- > According to Ortiz, the convention is a sacred place she didn’t want to see desecrated by AI.
Maybe tone down the religious framing of what is essentially a cashgrab show for the industry. Also: Does that AI ban apply to e.g. Disney in its entirety? Because if it does, it'll be a very small and pretty bleak Comic Con this year.
by GorbachevyChase
2 subcomments
- Comic production is already heavily machine assisted. I don’t really understand the FUD
Hacker News