AI should be used for other things —
not to replace artists / creative people
(writers, actors, designers, artists, cinematographers, editors, illustrators, animators, etc)
The argument of being a good prompter is moot as these systems are trained on language models and know how to read and are rapidly improving. Content under the AI tab are not to be confused with my artwork on other pages of this website. AI generated works will always be in a separate gallery. I explored this to see for myself, as an "early adopter" of technology. I don't condone the use of AI art in production.
Experiment pages in the links below:
For a Digital Artist it cannot be ignored that the systems couldn’t do this without scraping a lot of imagery made by humans uploaded to the web.
It’s theft because the artists weren’t consulted first.
It crappy that companies are charging people to use these tools which have been trained on artists work without their consent or any form of royalties. What makes it worse, is the ability for people to include an artists name in the prompt to further clone the style.
Artists copy/steal from other artists with the eyes to learn and grow but when an algorithm does it, its worse.
It’s also weird people say,
“look what I did” when in fact its the algorithm that did the work.
– –
When testing a bunch of AI tools, the best results achieved by adding a human gallery and render engine as a reference prompt – like:
” artstation, behance, deviantart, octane, redshift, render, digital art. “
Without including the source of the style or reference for the AI – the artwork produced is pretty terrible. (NOT ANYMORE)
Things are moving fast in this space, so it is quite concerning.
Eventually it will just make good art with enough training without having to reference the artists by name.
UPDATE:
A user no longer has to include the source for where the good art lives…
(human art galleries)
The models have been updated to just make good art with minimal prompting. This can be seen in all the AI image creation tools.