One of the questions that arises in my mind is how we can make generative AI art an actual meaningful creative tool that does our bidding, instead of doing its own thing. The ‘slot machine’ effect is very widespread in generative AI tools, and very rarely do you get anything out that resembles the image you had in your mind as you were going in.
I believe generative AI art tools can be an ally for artists, helping us improve workflows, find new ideas and speed up creativity. The generic nature of AI art can work in our favour, as text prompts alone really can’t replace the imagination of artists. This gets to the very heart of what AI means for creativity, and how we manage its use.
Considering the way these systems are trained, it’s no wonder the results of text prompts alone are artistically poor. All of the data is basically condensed into a thick soup of visual data, linked to metadata that explains what the data depicted. Trying to give that data an interesting form through a text prompt alone, is inferior to what you can do with a brushstroke, a few coloured splotches of paint or a detailed sketch or digital painting. Even a quick 3D model says more than a hundred prompts.
I believe that we, as creatives, can steer this generative power in a much more interesting direction by utilising all our existing skills and applying a layer of generative AI where it makes sense for us. By taking a 3D scene 90% of the way, for instance, we can focus much more on storytelling, image composition, aesthetics, and design instead of spending ages in the time-sink that is the last 10% of an art piece or production.
Do you let the generative process define the folds in the clothing of a character based on a brushstroke or two with your tablet? Or do you let a few 3D gestures define the hairstyle of a sidekick in your game with a swing of your 6 DoF VR controller while the AI takes care of the individual strands of hair?
I would much rather see passionate creatives help shape the creative tools of the future, with generative AI art in the picture, than leave it to prompt-jockeys (sorry about the pun) or corporate money people. I hope my work in this field can help inspire others to help with that.
AI art can be generic if you rely on prompts, Martin is looking at new ways to make generative AI art more creative. (Image credit: Martin Nebelong)
Of course, my belief that AI art tools can help and not hinder creativity is set against the heated debate around generative AI’s impact on artists, particularly about the aspect of the training data and the issues around how many systems were trained on data from the internet without regard for copyright and without consent.
Daily design news, reviews, how-tos and more, as picked by the editors.
Systems like Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, ChatGPT, and Sora were all trained on data that was read into the datasets from all available sources. Some argue that it’s direct theft, while others argue that the systems are learning by watching the content, just like we are when we get inspired, read a book, watch a movie, read a news article, or listen to a podcast and form opinions about the world through doing so.
Everyone from acclaimed artist Sacha Jafri to D&D illustrator Greg Rutkowski, whose name has become a style in many AI art systems, have spoken out about the issues with AI. There are also ongoing legal struggles around this very topic, lead by artists like Kelly McKernan whose name has become a prompt, losing her work. The outcome of these is yet to be seen.
Regardless of the outcome of that struggle, generative AI is here to stay. Systems like Adobe’s Firefly are trained on legally sound data (for the most part, outside of the occasional Midjourney or Stable DiffusionAI-generated image that snuck its way into the Adobe Stock library). While in the future AI art tools could be better legislated against and controlled, to protect copyrights, the actual technology is’t leaving us. The challenge, to myself and others, is to find better ways to make AI work for us, not against us.
LONDON (AP) — With a few daubs of a paintbrush, the Brontë sisters have got their dots back.
More than eight decades after it was installed, a memorial to the three 19th-century sibling novelists in London’s Westminster Abbey was amended Thursday to restore the diaereses – the two dots over the e in their surname.
The dots — which indicate that the name is pronounced “brontay” rather than “bront” — were omitted when the stone tablet commemorating Charlotte, Emily and Anne was erected in the abbey’s Poets’ Corner in October 1939, just after the outbreak of World War II.
They were restored after Brontë historian Sharon Wright, editor of the Brontë Society Gazette, raised the issue with Dean of Westminster David Hoyle. The abbey asked its stonemason to tap in the dots and its conservator to paint them.
“There’s no paper record for anyone complaining about this or mentioning this, so I just wanted to put it right, really,” Wright said. “These three Yorkshire women deserve their place here, but they also deserve to have their name spelled correctly.”
It’s believed the writers’ Irish father Patrick changed the spelling of his surname from Brunty or Prunty when he went to university in England.
Raised on the wild Yorkshire moors, all three sisters died before they were 40, leaving enduring novels including Charlotte’s “Jane Eyre,” Emily’s “Wuthering Heights” and Anne’s “The Tenant of Wildfell Hall.”
Rebecca Yorke, director of the Brontë Society, welcomed the restoration.
“As the Brontës and their work are loved and respected all over the world, it’s entirely appropriate that their name is spelled correctly on their memorial,” she said.
