• Jojo, Lady of the West
    link
    12 months ago

    Hours of effort to create prompts to maneuver the models output until it looks closer to what you wanted, possibly with the addition of touch-up or addition steps at the end likely needed for certain kinds of image to clean up things the ai struggles with (like, say, hands) or to add something in particular the ai didn’t understand (like, say, a monster of your own invention or something).

    It’s easy to say that doesn’t count, that the prompt engineer could have just come up with their final prompt in the first place, but then does it count when a digital painter sketches an outline a dozen times before deciding it’s where they want it? After all, the digital artist could have just drawn it the way they wanted at first blush. But I’d bet you’ll say the time the digital artist spent “counts” as time spent working on an art piece, even if you might be inclined to say the prompt engineer’s time doesn’t. I’d be interested to hear your take.

    • @petrol_sniff_king
      link
      12 months ago

      Dude, I don’t care how many iterations a person goes through. I care that the piece contains a bit of their soul.

      The argument you’re making fails to appreciate why two images, one made by gen AI, one by a real human person, both exactly identical pixel by pixel, could possibly be valued differently.

      If you want to know why I seem to lack respect for the prompt artist who spends a 3-month chunk of their life toiling over their latest piece, making everything just so, because some part of them desperately needs to say something and this piece is the only way they can—I would ask you to show me one.

      But further, the prompt artist doesn’t even make it. Even if they did spend the time, credit goes to the AI. The prompt artist is welcome to claim their prompt, I guess, but I don’t often see them sharing those around. Would that even be entertaining?

      • Jojo, Lady of the West
        link
        12 months ago

        Dude, I don’t care how many iterations a person goes through. I care that the piece contains a bit of their soul.

        the prompt artist who spends a 3-month chunk of their life toiling over their latest piece,

        I’m curious what could possibly convince you that someone put their soul into their work? Or why the assumption is always that ai is the only tool being used.

        Here’s a list of artists using ai tools in their work.

        But further, the prompt artist doesn’t even make it.

        Again, ai is a tool. That’s like saying digital artists didn’t make their paintings, the printer did. Or maybe it’s like saying the director didn’t make the movie, the actors and cameras did. Actually, I really like the director analogy. They give directions to the actors as many times as they need to get the take they want, and then they finalize it later with post production.

        • @petrol_sniff_king
          link
          12 months ago

          When it contains their soul, I already said this.

          Actually, I really like the director analogy.

          Yes, it’s very quaint.

          Does the director take credit for their actor’s acting, though? Usually, the actors win the award for best acting.

          • Jojo, Lady of the West
            link
            12 months ago

            Does the director take credit for their actor’s acting, though? Usually, the actors win the award for best acting.

            So an ai artist shouldn’t earn any awards for best painting. Directors are still credited as artists. I’m not saying using ai makes you a painter, or any other kind of artist. I’m just saying that “ai” doesn’t magically make a creation “not art”. And yeah, it’s possible to create zero effort slop with ai that can look a lot more interesting than the zero effort slop you can make with just paint, but a kid splattering paint everywhere doesn’t make Jackson Pollock not be an artist.