>...while still providing the general results you want.
Pound on this point. All the generative images are... stunning. Their ability to make pleasing to the eye images that don't overtly offend the senses is an impressive technical accomplishment (I have more of a fascination of the early days of image generation, when less refined, it came up with semi-abstract images.)
But I tend to find them ... a little off. Not quite right. Not the sort of thing I would save to make into a desktop background, or want to use on my own articles. Not the sort of deep artistic thing that catches me in reverie, awed at their details, and wondering at the choices made. No idiosyncratic touches.
>His hand will be nowhere and what he generated could have been generated by anyone else with the same prompts.
In a 5th of the words I used, you struck on the same idea!
Disclaimer, I don't have the innate disgust of AI art that many people seem to have. But may I present an argument? You may have heard it before, but which was not one I saw you discuss, not at any length at least - and perhaps it'd be more accurate to call it a use case.
When I want covers for the short stories I post, I use Substack's built-in AI image generator to save myself the bother of paying an actual artist the $500 he would deserve for his work. I think my writing lends enough soul to the illustration, and I think the illustration lends enough of a vibe to the writing for it to be a beneficial addition.
Of course I would prefer an actual artist. Of course I would like to have the skill to be that artist myself. And maybe my mediocre drawing skills could put out something better than the generator produces. But AI is the cheaper option, considering the header image of a short story is hardly the most important part of it.
You discuss artists using AI to create art, but have you considered writers or any other sort of non-artist using AI to create art? Especially for a purpose where the art's quality is a lesser consideration compared to its mere existence?
AI art is not good (yet). I would not consider using it for something more serious like a book cover. I would not oppose you if you refused to call it art. But it is good enough for me in some situations and has the capacity to be better than nothing.
Thank you for your compliments; I’m glad you enjoyed the essay.
Before I answer your questions, I want to make it explicitly clear to anyone reading that my arguments and essay do not just concern AI image generators but also concern AI film generators, AI text generators, AI sound generators etc. This article (and indeed the next and last one) are not just about AI image generators.
My position is that no one should use AI generators. Full stop.
AI Generators can be likened to the ring of power in LOTR. Just as the ring only serves Sauron and not the ring bearer, an AI generator only serves Silicon Valley and not the prompter.
Regarding your specific query, which is one I’ve encountered before, I know someone who does this as well despite my own protestations to him, the problem is using AI generators to make images for short stories etc. is that it cheapens your stories by association.
Book art has to sell the story or signal something about the tale to the reader and viewer. By using AI generated images, you signal that your story is soulless, mass-produced and inhuman.
Even a mediocre cover has a soul and is the opposite of mass-produced. Bad art is human at least.
Practically speaking, it’s not financial viable for the vast majority of writers to commission full-blown, detailed covers for short stories on a regular basis. However, minimalist style covers are always an option. If you type “original lord of the rings book cover” into a search engine, you will find that a minimalist design was one of the first covers used for the book.
At one point, I considered using minimalist style covers for my High Realm Trilogy but I realized it wasn’t the right decision for that particular set of stories, even thought it would have been far cheaper.
Since you’ve mentioned your short stories, I’d look into minimalist styles and options since they are relatively inexpensive and fully human. You also might be able to make them yourself.
>And neither society nor individuals will ever be challenged by AI generated art because AI generators don’t have their own thoughts, feelings and experiences which could influence their prompt-driven generations. They will simply churn out what they are prompted to churn out based on a catalogue of images, scenes and text tagged with those same prompts.
@ kmoptimal has an interesting series of articles entitled "The Safety Layer vs. the Social Primate".
A concern when reading: the "author" indicates he is just editing the outputs from some pre-config-ed AI. In so far as the observation that many of the big AIs sanitize their outputs, there is some utility. The extent of which you choose to read in or out of the articles, is up to you.
There's a simile here. I listened up through the video and that hit me like a brick when it happened. Totally lost interest in even trying to finish the video.
Interesting experiment:
1. Take songs you haven't heard yet and have someone feed the first half into an AI and tell it to finish it.
2. Do a blind test between the two and see which one makes more sense.
Please forgive the extensive length.
>...while still providing the general results you want.
Pound on this point. All the generative images are... stunning. Their ability to make pleasing to the eye images that don't overtly offend the senses is an impressive technical accomplishment (I have more of a fascination of the early days of image generation, when less refined, it came up with semi-abstract images.)
But I tend to find them ... a little off. Not quite right. Not the sort of thing I would save to make into a desktop background, or want to use on my own articles. Not the sort of deep artistic thing that catches me in reverie, awed at their details, and wondering at the choices made. No idiosyncratic touches.
>His hand will be nowhere and what he generated could have been generated by anyone else with the same prompts.
In a 5th of the words I used, you struck on the same idea!
Disclaimer, I don't have the innate disgust of AI art that many people seem to have. But may I present an argument? You may have heard it before, but which was not one I saw you discuss, not at any length at least - and perhaps it'd be more accurate to call it a use case.
When I want covers for the short stories I post, I use Substack's built-in AI image generator to save myself the bother of paying an actual artist the $500 he would deserve for his work. I think my writing lends enough soul to the illustration, and I think the illustration lends enough of a vibe to the writing for it to be a beneficial addition.
Of course I would prefer an actual artist. Of course I would like to have the skill to be that artist myself. And maybe my mediocre drawing skills could put out something better than the generator produces. But AI is the cheaper option, considering the header image of a short story is hardly the most important part of it.
You discuss artists using AI to create art, but have you considered writers or any other sort of non-artist using AI to create art? Especially for a purpose where the art's quality is a lesser consideration compared to its mere existence?
AI art is not good (yet). I would not consider using it for something more serious like a book cover. I would not oppose you if you refused to call it art. But it is good enough for me in some situations and has the capacity to be better than nothing.
Good essay though. Will read part 2.
Thank you for your compliments; I’m glad you enjoyed the essay.
Before I answer your questions, I want to make it explicitly clear to anyone reading that my arguments and essay do not just concern AI image generators but also concern AI film generators, AI text generators, AI sound generators etc. This article (and indeed the next and last one) are not just about AI image generators.
My position is that no one should use AI generators. Full stop.
AI Generators can be likened to the ring of power in LOTR. Just as the ring only serves Sauron and not the ring bearer, an AI generator only serves Silicon Valley and not the prompter.
Regarding your specific query, which is one I’ve encountered before, I know someone who does this as well despite my own protestations to him, the problem is using AI generators to make images for short stories etc. is that it cheapens your stories by association.
Book art has to sell the story or signal something about the tale to the reader and viewer. By using AI generated images, you signal that your story is soulless, mass-produced and inhuman.
Even a mediocre cover has a soul and is the opposite of mass-produced. Bad art is human at least.
Practically speaking, it’s not financial viable for the vast majority of writers to commission full-blown, detailed covers for short stories on a regular basis. However, minimalist style covers are always an option. If you type “original lord of the rings book cover” into a search engine, you will find that a minimalist design was one of the first covers used for the book.
At one point, I considered using minimalist style covers for my High Realm Trilogy but I realized it wasn’t the right decision for that particular set of stories, even thought it would have been far cheaper.
Since you’ve mentioned your short stories, I’d look into minimalist styles and options since they are relatively inexpensive and fully human. You also might be able to make them yourself.
>And neither society nor individuals will ever be challenged by AI generated art because AI generators don’t have their own thoughts, feelings and experiences which could influence their prompt-driven generations. They will simply churn out what they are prompted to churn out based on a catalogue of images, scenes and text tagged with those same prompts.
@ kmoptimal has an interesting series of articles entitled "The Safety Layer vs. the Social Primate".
A concern when reading: the "author" indicates he is just editing the outputs from some pre-config-ed AI. In so far as the observation that many of the big AIs sanitize their outputs, there is some utility. The extent of which you choose to read in or out of the articles, is up to you.
>I’ve cast away my fears like a veil
There's a simile here. I listened up through the video and that hit me like a brick when it happened. Totally lost interest in even trying to finish the video.
BTW, I now like this song. Thank you.