- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- comics@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- comics@lemmy.ml
From their mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@oatmeal/115333929613343166
From their mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@oatmeal/115333929613343166
I agree that it’s a skill, but I think the point is that it’s a skill with a very low ceiling compared to art.
Like being able to use a coffee machine.
I disagree. While there’s some genai tools that run on autopilot, there’s a whole wide ecosystem around open source tools which have a way higher skill ceiling and allow for way more creativity and control
So you would say the level of skill, study and practice for genai art is approximately the same as a non-ai artist?
Because that was the statement you disagree with.
Honestly I don’t know. Is the skill level of a photographer? I’d say the skill ceiling is just higher than the oatmeal thinks
Those two statements aren’t synonymous at all, but also, yes.
Everything that you do as part of a process to create non-AI art, as soon as there is a digital component (even if the digital component isn’t in the end product), can be done as part of a process involving AI art. The only difference is that non-AI art doesn’t have the flexibility of using the tools available to AI artists.
If anything, the skill floor is lower for AI art, because you can much more easily churn out something that looks technically good at a glance with a single prompt, but the ceiling is higher, because you literally have more skills available to combine when creating your finished product.
(This of course assumes that you consider any art created with GenAI art in the process to be GenAI art, regardless of what else was involved, but most people with a hardline stance that creating GenAI art takes no skill would agree with that statement.)
Setting up an ai to draw the kind of stuff you want is not the same skill as typing in what you want, the former is more akin to setting up a coding environment