I always wondered, Why reference the imperfect copies gen AI makes when you have databases of the real original artists and pictures and 3d scans of real things in the world out there to reference, it just makes no sense! It’s like having world class artists in your studio and settling for asset flipping.
Why reference the imperfect copies gen AI makes when you have databases of the real original artists and pictures and 3d scans of real things in the world out there to reference.
I think it is because one of these approaches requires skill and time, the other requires a ChatGPT subscription and George Jetson to push one idiotic button.
It makes people feel that they can contribute in fields where they were previously (and still are) useless.
For that use case, Gen AI lets you draw from thousands of pieces into a singular reference image in seconds tailored to whatever you can ask for. And, yeah, very imperfect and questionably sourced, but you’ve eliminated countless hours of work that could ostensibly be directed towards just fixing any problems created (Rare, but that’s how they sell it). And then, if you don’t like the result there, you can just get a fresh one in another few seconds.
I think it’s useful enough that it’s going to keep being a bigger and bigger problem.
I feel the problem is that in the end referencing isn’t about copying but extracting accurate information. You don’t reference something you want to design but something where you need a very specific object to be accurate. Using AI reference for this just sounds kind of useless. I can understand that very untrained or untalented artists will find most of the AI references useful because they don’t have the design language to construct things themselves. But this brings out the last problem that Generative AI models have a lot of diminishing returns. And after using them for a while everything starts to look the same and you need to steal more stuff to shake things up.
All that time could be better spent forming a design language or gathering useful references.
In the end most design processes I’ve see that use generative AI end up looking very flat and lifeless, because the system tends to veer towards that.
I mean, I can understand the desire to cobble together the ideas you have instead of saying you want certain pieces of 18 different reference photos, but with the vibe of a few others…
Like: I want something like this, but more cohesive.
I feel the problem is that, you deny yourself of forming a design language. I suspect a lot of cultural products will look very samey in the end because in the creative process failure is important. Generative AI denies the designer that failure.; I already know a lot of people who use AI in 3d that have this “asset flip”, “generic style” aesthetic. And in the long time it starts to show in your portfolio overall product. I heard a lot of people watching streams of the game awards saying that a lot of games look too “cloned these days” Also making a piece from 18 different photos is a learning process that can enrich the rest of the product. At some point you need to touch grass, learn from the real thing.
So the generalized impression I get from the article is that gen ai creates more work for artists.
Did you read the whole thing, or even like halfway? Multiple concept artists are quoted in the article saying it makes their lives more difficult. You know, more work in the bad way. The thesis of the article is that it makes the job harder, makes for a less than unique art style, and potentially fewer jobs for artists.
Unless you actually meant “more work” in the bad way, of course. If so, sorry for the rant
Yes, it is creating a change and a change creates many pain points. The same old story of leadership bullshit ideas vs how the work actually gets done is something that will have to be addressed no matter what.
Pandora’s box is open and will never close again. The perception of executive leadership is that it eliminates work, because they have no idea how the sausage is made now, even if they were artists for decades before becoming executives.
Any company that fires their artists today is gonna be hiring all those positions again anyway
Pandora’s box is open and will never close again.
Yes…but this Pandora’s box just had a fart in it.
We know we can’t put the fart back in the box.
We just want people to stop acting like it is about to revolutionize modern cinema.
All it is going to do is clear the room.
It is absolutely astounding how far executives are removed from workflows. And they only want so much automation, lest they can no longer justify being so top-heavy.
