Raw LLM Responses

I'll try to give my 2 cents about this, and despite not agreeing with basically any of your points i'll try to be polite and precise, going per paragraph. • Define "augmentation": i draw illustrations and comics for a living, and i can't think of a *single* part of my work that can be helped from AIs as they are now. Given that i don't want them to draw *any* of the final work because it would be unprofessional towards my patrons and commissioners that buy my art because it's *mine* and they value the craftmanship, what remains? - Reference? I mainly draw pinups, so i need perfect anatomy and posing, and i can't trust a machine that hallucinates, *especially* with the most complex ones which are the ones i would need a reference the most. Actual photos and mannequins are still 100% better. I'll think about AI when i'll be able to digitalize a photo into a 3d model already posed. - Composition? With a single character is way faster to sketch it by hand (which is also useful to warm up the wrist in the morning) while with multiple i face the same problem, AI hallucinations are easier to come by, especially when bodies intertwine. Also, some complicated perspective are way harder to explain to the machine rather than drawing them or referencing them with mannequins. - Designs? I could use AI to mishmash some reference into designs to use them as reference, but given that at this point is, again, just faster to do it alone, there's also the fear i have to lose my imagination skills by delegating that to the machine over the years. Of course i don't have proof of that, but seeing just how many people lost the skill to read because of the audiobooks before and ChatGPT now, i want to be cautious before hindering a skill needed for my work. Basically, there's nothing to "augment" in my work with AI as now, everything is better with older tools, and every other thing i could ask for would stuck it in that limbo where it isn't a tool, but a replacement, and would hinder not only my dignity as a person who draws since 25 years and more, but also be a really disrespectful move towards my patrons, which pay for the best i can offer, and that brings us to the "traitors": i, for example, would never pay for machine-made images because i want handmade drawings, and the public has all the right to dislike artists for shifting to AI in order to speed up the artistic process, especially when it's a public built around quality and not quantity. I wouldn't call someone who shifts from hand-made drawings to AI for finished products a "traitor", but i for example wouldn't buy their pieces and would at least question their love for drawing, and if by any chance i was to find someone who would try to *claim* to draw handmade when they're instead making the final product with AIs i wouldn't have a single problem calling them out for that since they're lying to their public. Last but not least, for the reference part, there's a big difference, at least to me: "stealing" from another artist is a tiring task, something that needs concentration and time, you have to explore that artist's pieces for hours, and that's almost an act of awe and love towards another person, just willing to put hours for "stealing" their secrets shows a big committment, we could almost say that to steal from an artist you have first to fall in love with them, which is something that a machine can't do, you just fed it the pieces with *minimal* human intervention and it matches patterns. I will never force anyone to talk about their "thefts" or inspirations wrether they use AI or not, but at least to me only one of these two thefts is done with passion, and is a sentiment fairly shared in the art community. • That's a false equivalence. Given that many artists just use a couple brushes for their entire drawings, even when you have a dozen of them those don't draw in their place, something that the AI, when used for the final product, inevitably does like i said before. There's a big difference from using a ruler to get a straighter line for a perspective grid and using a machine to get the final drawing or part of it *immediately* . The vision can be important, but 99% of the art we consume still relies on craft, from comics, to music, to animation and illustrations. Not everything is Manzoni's shit in a can. • Then again, you seem to be reshaping words to suit your narration. Tracing is a form of blatant copy and is something rarely done by serious artists in a professional setting. It can be useful to study a pose or a composition, but tracing it 1:1 is a bad thing to do and something which is *always* deemed as bad. Just look at how the community reacted when Shexyo was caught doing it, and we're talking about the NSFW community, probably the most consumerism-oriented one across the entire art community, which still destroyed him to the point that the traced artist had to step in and ask to not cancel the guy. Or you can check what happened to Toyotaro too. None of them was in the right by selling completely traced pieces. Usually, artists trace to study, not to sell, and in the rare case they trace, is something really, really small and not done on other artist's images, but on photos. • I didn't really understood this part. If we're referring to 3d models for poses, i don't know what professional artist you met that directly traces them. Usually they're used as reference for poses, tracing them can be useful to understand the given pose but it's always better to redraw them to understand. • The "purity" thing really doesn't apply with AI. Like i said before, this is something stuck in a limbo where it can be a powerful tool (look at Across the Spiderverse) or a complete fraud that floods the internet with slop made from people with zero taste that suddendly had the illusion to be able to create, and despite surely being some good prompters among them, no form of art made such a mess of an entire creative space before. Machine-made images aren't "pure" because everyone can create hundreds of them, industrializing the artistic process and bastardizing it like *anything* have ever did and with a speed that destroyed the entire web. And the worst part is that it doesn't even create a new medium, because it generates the same thing people were already able to create, unlike photography (tho it should be noted that this could change in the next years, when AI will be able to generate something uniquely "theirs"). • "Real" art is a subjective concept, so anyone is free to have their idea and discussing about what is and is not art is useless. If you ask me, we'll have AI art when we'll have a *real* AI and not an LLM deemed as such capable of creating by its own decision, without a prompt to tell it what to do, and as now what hinders it are the humans themselves, because they inevitably force their vision onto the machine. As for the money part, remember that as now AI art isn't profitable, and the studios that took prompters in did it mainly for concepts or being relevant to shareholders, while any AI-intensive project we've had until now miserably failed, and many smaller studios don't want machine-generated images because they look cheap, with some platforms like Steam and many art ones directly not allowing AI in the first place to prevent it from flooding them like Deviantart did: just remeber that Rule34 created an AI filter before Google, just saying. Not to mention that causes like Disney's put even more pressure on the shareholders, while the public backlash for using AI is huge. As where we are, the only people who don't care about AI are the ones who wouldn't really pay for art anyway, or those who want to sell it to the public. Capitalism or not, generative AI in art is miserably failing unless we're talking about taking jobs off small people who had the misfortune to interact with awful commissioners. • Like i said before, AI isn't still really useful as part of the process in many fields, so i see why people still would choose to not use it, and that's also a valid marketing move. In a world where AI is hated and deemed as cheap for its overwhelming presence, making 100% human art is a valid selling point. Like you said, in a capitalist world money talks and people must be able to sell their product. You gain in popularity and money, and you don't get to face what conseguences AI might be Responsible of in the next 2-3 years to human brain. To me, this seems like a win-win, and in many fields i'd almost say that prompters would need to learn how to actually draw instead of the opposite. Of course, i don't know how things will turn in 10 years from now, but your vision seems rather extreme to me. That said, many people create because they like it, and unless we're talking about cinema, where AI at least could give a huge way to save money, we're not really talking about environments that needed to be industralized in the first place, so don't believe that artists hate AI just because they're afraid for their jobs. There's also that, but AI is a huge slap to everything artists love, and yet another nail in the coffin of artist's trust in society, especially for those who love their work (and since it's a work you study your entire life for, it's usually something you know you love). Sorry for the long comment, but i had a lot of things i wanted to discuss. I hope i wasn't boring to read or seemed angry at you, and despite finding your points flawed, i like to keep discussions pleasuring. Peace, mate, and thanks for reading until here.