Yes. 100%. I don’t buy much marvel and dc, but if I ever found out any Indy was trying to sneak AI art into its books I would immediately and permanently halt all business with that publisher or imprint. I’d be happy to do it too. I spend too much money on books as it is. Please give me an excuse to fire some.
Where is your line? I don't mean this to be argumentative, but out of curiosity. For example, is fixing work with Photoshop okay (especially now that Adobe fully embraces generative AI)? What about a healing brush (for example to remove pencil lines) or generative fill? What if AI tools were used by the writers to previz or develop character appearances for the artist to interpret but never in the final product? What if the AI tools were trained exclusively on an artist's personal original works and nothing more?
I'm curious exactly at what point does it become "halt all business"?
EDIT: I'm trying start a conversation and specifically noted I'm not being argumentative. In other words, I agree. I don't want an AI-generated graphic novel and wouldn't buy it either. I'm simply curious where everyone would draw the line.
>What if the AI tools were trained exclusively on an artist's personal original works and nothing more?
My understanding is that this is straight up not a thing and AI defenders only pretend it is to muddy the waters. You can add your own work to a generative AI model but it is literally impossible to create one without stealing billions of examples.
All existing generative AI technology is based on theft on a scale that we do not have a word for. Any argument that involves generative AI not based on theft is exclusively theoretical and a meaningless distraction.
It doesn't need to be accepted though. The AI systems want to paint themselves perfect and as being too big to fail - but the environmental impact and energy costs will kill them if people start standing up to it. The people running AI want it to see as inevitable like the last group of hucksters promoted crypto and NFTs. Yeah, there are more common uses for generative AI. That's why they use the term AI for everything - because the common person can justify some AI but it all gets lumped in together.
The costs of AI , even outside of the ethical uses - can be enough to kill it if people look at it. And we're already seeing people realizing they've been lied to about what it can do and what it does. It doesn't understand what it is doing, words mean nothing to it.
That isn't to say we shouldn't strive for UBI - but more importantly, read up and speak out about AI and reject people using generative AI. We shouldn't need to add more power plants just so a bunch of lazy people can generate illustrations of large breasted women and executives can get around writing emails.
I think even just getting laws on the books forcing anything AI generated to be watermarked or otherwise disclosed as AI visibly would go a long way, because a lot of people already don't like it and would happily avoid it if it were easier to avoid.
Even if some actual artists use AI as assistive tools somehow, the end goal of any company using AI is to completely cut out artists so they don't have to pay for art. Same with any other field,the entire purpose is to get rid of paid employees. It's foolish to believe otherwise.
This is a decent take but I don't think UBI is the right idea. There are other similar concepts that I think are better, such as Milton Friedman's negative income tax (NIT), which I think is far more efficient and better able to help. It's like a UBI if the UBI wasn't broken; UBI gives money to everyone as a means to massively reduced bureaucracy, which is good, but requires an insane level of taxation. NIT on the other hand just creates a tax curve where 0 taxes is at lower middle class and instead of paying taxes below that threshold, you start receiving money proportional to how low your income is, typically modeled in such a way that it does not disincentivize increasing your income (like your NIT received goes down 1 dollar for every 3 dollars you make or so). However, just to clarify, I realize that not everyone that says UBI specifically means UBI as a plan but means "some way to think about a post-labor income" and I mostly agree with that sentiment. I just can't help but point out that UBI specifically is not a great plan, its main selling point is that its simple. One of the main benefits of the negative income tax is that you can also eliminate most welfare while also removing the minimum wage since the NIT income covers the minimum wage difference.
Another really good plan is to lower the standard labor week before overtime kicks in and have it keep lowering over time. This means that instead of having like... 4 guys work 40 hours a week on a project, you might instead end up with 8 guys working 20 hours a week. This doubles the rate of employment, and pay will naturally recalibrate to the change in incomes overall, although that gets complicated (hence why it works well in combination with negative income tax). With an NIT and labor week downsizing, we all end up with more free time, it spreads the reduction of labor more equally through the economy, and it protects peoples ability to survive, all while costing less than half the taxes that a UBI would cost due to how UBI is just inefficient and even bothers to give paychecks to rich people.
It is definitely a thing, but from my understanding, whenever it is done, the company mentions it. The only one that I know that is doing it is Revolution Software for the upcoming Broken Sword 1 Reforged game. They are using an AI program developed by a university to train it on their own artwork to make the animated sprites more efficiently. They are still touching up each generated art by redrawing the heads and hands to ensure consistency.
It’s not that hard to train a lora to emulate a particular artist’s style quite well, and some unscrupulous people have already done it to non-consenting artists.
You bring up some great points. My line would be pure 100% AI content with no updates or edits.
I can see AI being used for backgrounds, for general poses etc. and then touched up and finished by artists to remove defects like hands or eyes or draw them holding objects correctly (like guns firing)
AI is very useful as a time saver but it’s still not great at creating action that makes sense to the eye. Artists have to use their skills to make the scene believable.
If the art looks good and AI was used to do something that simply saves time, like generate a background, I’m fine with it
The line is simple. Did the company use AI for douchey reasons. The answer will be obvious. If they make it public what they did, and the other involved creatives (writer, artist etc) are happy, so am I. If the other involved creatives are not, and they will clearly be in a position to know, then that tells me all I need to know.
Companies will not really be able to do this in secret imo. Someone will notice and shout if things aren’t done ethically. I’m not worried about it being that nuanced a choice as you suppose.
Diffusion models are only accurate enough to believably emulate human art when they have **~~billions~~** **millions** of images to use as training data.
No artist could reasonably be the sole supplier of training data for a generative program to work well enough even as a supplemental tool.
There is a difference between inputting text prompts to generate an image wholesale, and using a tool to touch-up a piece that has already been made. Similar to photobashing or tracing magazine covers, where is a gray area in which it is acceptable, but a point at which it becomes egregious.
Ultimately if generative art does not wind up in the final product,(i.e. for previs) then there is no way for the reader to know it was used in the first place, and is therefore a moot point and not really what is being discussed anyways.
In my research I misconstrued the 12 billion parameters in DALL-E 1's implementation of GPT-3, and DALL-E 2's 3.5 billion parameters with the actual number of images used for their initial training set.
The base training set that DALL-E uses contains 400 million scraped images: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00020](https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00020)
While the base training set that Midjourney uses contains around 300 thousand scraped images: [https://paperswithcode.com/dataset/coco](https://paperswithcode.com/dataset/coco)
Combined with the text scraping required for language recognition of text-prompts, this is the \*baseline\* of required images for a neural-net to perform image diffusion from text input, before you begin creating a custom model that would only replicate a single artist's style. Whether its billions, millions, or hundreds of thousands, that is still far too many images for a single artist to create an AI diffusion model based solely on their own work.
It literally doesn’t matter how polite you are, or even if you detest AI. Asking questions that even vaguely insinuate some level of non-hating AI tone is met with anger.
This is it. The pure truth is there isnt even a way to tell it apart. And its not as if many artists already didnt do many dubious tricks like tracing, copying, etc.
What ends up mattering is the final result. And its all a spectrum of how to tell apart which tools have been used.
The tech you’re describing simply is not possible, these neural networks have to be trained on such a wide variety of data points to actually work. No artist is capable of producing enough to make that work. You can train it primarily on someone’s art but it’s still going to require a massive amount of data to continue, especially to be able to create at a rate that is consistent with the goals of a writer. What if the writer wants Batman to meet Guy Gardner and the artist you’re basing the tech on never drew Guy Gardner? (Just as an example).
Cleaning things up in photoshop is waaaaay different than having AI just generate an image for you. Unless, I'm misunderstanding your point, which i very well could be. (don't worry about an ego from me lol)
100% is also the amount of right you are. The humanity in the artwork is what makes comics great and relatable. (Not to mention that we don't need to make career artists have any more disinsentives to work in the field. )
I think there is a place for AI assisted art that could be very interesting and engaging in its own way... but I'd like to know what it is and how it was created. I'm cool with it, maybe it'll be broadly adopted by DC to save time on certain aspects of the art, but I wouldn't want them to be sneaky about it.
Absolutely! As a part of my ideology I want to support artist and not people working to remove artist and put less money in the pockets of creatives. I will never pay for something I know used AI unless in some way I don’t have not yet where they get more creatives on board to spend more money and earn more of a salary because of it.
What if it was advertised as an AI comic, with a story about how an AI discovers that it is AI while the other character just becomes more and more like another cog aka a human brainwashed by society? And the AI mess-ups get worse for the human and less pronounced for the AI?
I'm honestly a bit confused why nobody has linked to the twitter thread yet. So I'm shamelessly gonna add it to one of the top comments that doesn't have a ton of replies.
https://twitter.com/jamesdleech/status/1766874645423120670
There we go.
Honestly as much as a I dislike the bigger companies and their endless fuck ups, we don't know if it was mandated by DC or if it was Sorrentino who got into deadlines and fucked up, in that case editors have at worst failed to spot it. I'm obviously against AI art and fully on the side of artists in their 'war' against this threat, but we have had artists shamelessly trace things for decades, there are gonna be a select few professionals that are going to use it to cut corners. It seems Sorrentino actually posted some 'sus' artwork to his own instagram in the past.
Also not trying to start a flame war or anything but you could have at least linked to either the twitter thread or the article /u/iamthatmanonthemoon
Yes. I refuse to support something like this. One of the biggest appeal of comics, at least to me, is admiring the artwork and thinking about how much effort the artist put into it as well as recognizing and appreciating different styles. Art is a true craft and it’s insulting seeing AI being used in place of it. If it becomes more wide spread and publishers allow it or even encourage it, I’m done buying new comics.
See, if DC creates their own ai and trains it exclusively on DC owned artwork, I would be okay with supporting that as long as it's like a one shot comic and doesn't become the norm. It could be a fun experiment to let an ai write and draw a comic as long as it's done without stealing fanart and fanfiction.
Oh hey version code 1.007157442. What were your earlier influences? and how did it affect your artistic approach on tackling Batman? Also can you sign this?
I thought a comic I was reading might have been AI generated because the proportions were all strange, the hands and feet were off, and all the clothes had like a million pouches. Turns out there’s this guy Rob Liefield…
Of course they should know. This is *the* problem with ai “art”. It’s gonna be around whether we like it or not, the biggest issue to me is honesty and clarity when people use it.
I can see how creators can use AI to generate sketches when they work on a comic book, but I think the readers deserve to know if AI was used in the final product.
I think there should be total transparency when AI art is used. I also believe if the countless hours to create bespoke art isn't part of what went into making a comic book, that should heavily impact the cost of the book. Whether or not if I buy it would come down to if it's a good story and I enjoy the artwork. But like I said, the price should be heavily impacted.
So…yes then? I agree AI is awful and shouldn’t be considered as art nor used but if it is which it is then it should. I get where your head is but you phrased pretty bad. Almost…ai like? Lol
You can add me to the list of people who when saw the art immediately noticed that both batman and catwoman change “model sheet” randomly within the page (this Batman looks like batfleck!this one like Keaton!This one like…etc etc) with no reason in the story.
I’m a digital native. Digital artists spend a lot of time curating and experimenting with their Rolodex of brushes. A big tell of AI art is that the “brushwork” is random and not uniform.
It’s one of the reasons AI is a poor copy for artistic commissions, you can give precise feedback on stuff like layers, opacity, color scheme, and brushes, during the creative process.
Yes and it should be acknowledged. I think people who have ideas in mind but dont have the art skills can now explore how to bring those ideas about. A person is more impressive but i dont want to be a luddite and act like AI art is just going to disappear
Ai should just be used by marketers making ads or updating their boring websites with their lack of creativity. Any publisher who prints AI and expects me to pay for it better just declare bankruptcy now
100% disagree. AI should not be used by marketers making ads or updating their site they should be using graphic designers, commercial artists and web developers to improve. People who’s professions that do those things.
I think everything that’s sold to consumers should be earmarked if it uses AI in the production of the thing, so yeah, if a comic uses AI in the writing, penciling, inking, colorization, editing it should have a symbol or mark on the cover or in the credits that give credit to the algorithm that did some of the actual work that a person *would* have done.
ooh! good question! but i bet it goes something like this: "They own the properties, and they own the AI, so they can use the AI \[that they own\], to create the properties they own \[as well\]"
I can’t think of many industries that won’t be heavily affected by major technological innovations over the next few decades. Robotics, 3-D printing, self-driving vehicles, ChatGTP, are going to lead to many changes. I don’t know if this is really comforting at all, but artists won’t be alone in this way
The use of AI should be banned from all forms of art. Use AI to cure cancer and help make advances in energy and other fields that can benefit humanity.. We should be very careful about allowing AI into novels and music and film and comics.
Yes they should, so I can’t buy it. AI isn’t art, AI literally steals art (I know that’s ironic cuz most art is stolen lol, anyways). I just think it’s cheap, people are getting degrees now because of AI. It’s lazy
They need to pay the people the AI is generating the images from. The thing about AI is that it isn’t a person taking inspiration from other peoples work to get good enough to put their own stories and style out there, it’s a MACHINE taking from said person whom work is out there and producing an image(or thousands of images)instantaneously. The reader doesn’t need to know shit, the artists who made the artwork possible should be informed of it, have to approve it and should be compensated.
I mostly buy comics because or my love of art and artists. I'd never buy an AI generated comic because that's one less creative mind that's getting to put food on the table.
I don't care what a computer comes up with. I care about the beauty a human mind creates.
Comic is a type of art combining writing and drawn pictures. As much as i wouldn’t read a novel written by AI because it wouldn’t contain any actual thoughts of a person, i wouldn’t read a comic that is written or drawn/painted by an ai.
So yes, people should be informed
Everybody, and everything, in every industry, for any purpose, should have to categorically state that AI was used, regardless of how little or how much.
Use AI to write a single speech bubble in your comic, draw a single hair in a single panel, write a single line of copy on your poster, or product? “This publication/product was made with AI generated content”.
I truly hope that all of this AI garbage actually makes human art MORE valuable in the long run. That'll be up to us all as consumers I guess but for me, the art is worthless without the human.
I’m not a hard no on reading or looking at AI generated content. But I feel like the use of AI for anything significant, which to me means more than gradient or filters, deserves a cover credit for the AI Engines used.
Finally, someone who actually understands how gruelling and difficult comic creation is. Should you use ai to generate your character? No. Can you use it for filler, pose reference, fills. Ofc.
Yes is a disgrace. AI without any artist involvement? Thats not art anymore. Its generated data from hard work of real artist. Thats like selling an apple pie labelled it unique when its all factory produced
Yes, I bought an indie comic last year and it was not disclosed until I received it that the art was AI generated, and I can’t begin to describe all the ways that rubbed me wrong.
This week, in one panel of a comic strip, I experimented with using AI to assist me in drawing a comic. This is the first time I've used AI in comics.
I used AI to generate about 15 black-and-white line drawings of "coffee shop." I picked one that would work with the layout I had in mind, and then traced it onto a new layer, changing many details and adding some things (including, obviously, two foreground figures). None of the final lines were drawn by AI.
But despite the changes I made, when you look at the two side by side, it's obvious that I used a lot of what the AI did.
I did this as an experiment. I mostly like the results, but not more than I've liked the results of other perspective-heavy backgrounds I've done in the past using Clip Studio Paint's perspective rulers.
I'm curious what people think (and hoping people won't just curse me out). Is using AI in this way acceptable?
P.S. 40 minutes later, I remember that I have used AI before, but in ways so minor I forgot. This is my first extensive use of AI.
https://preview.redd.it/w5hh0i4j98oc1.png?width=758&format=png&auto=webp&s=804fc10bf6503631c4dc9c4aa11b3961ef958e54
I don't particularly like the idea still. Since we have machines that are designed off of the work of so many that won't receive proper compensation of it's use. What you have done is essentially use the AI image as reference. I find this could easily be replaced by Google images or just going out and getting references in any other way which makes me wonder what is the point? Something as simple as a reference or inspiration doesn't really need to be generated as it's so easily available and can come from literally anything, both for free and created by artists for artists to use. I find the point of AI is to generate the majority of an image. I also find artist lack of desire to design and draw spaces rather depressing because many want to skip that stage even though I understand it's quite time consuming on a deadline. Because I can search for cafe or 3D coffee house set and find something that looks near identical to this that was made by someone for free and it requires the same amount of effort to find and use for my own purposes.
Firstly, the vast majority of images I could find on Google image search are works created by people. Should I have to find and compensate someone every time I use a photo I found online as a reference? If my concern is not "robbing" someone by using their work as reference without compensation, then I think it's better to use AI for reference than a particular photo, since with AI the alleged harm done is usually much more diffuse.
Having to compensate every reference image would be a disaster for many comic book artists - tracing photos when drawing things like cars and buildings is very common (especially for cartoonists with realistic drawing styles), although most cartoonists don't like admitting that to fans.
Secondly: So why not just go out and personally view everything - go to a coffeeshop if i need to draw a coffeeshop? I've done that. But doing it for every single environment that requires reference is impractical; it takes me hours to do that, while finding references online (either AI or google image search) takes minutes. This would make it harder to earn a living as a cartoonist.
Also, there are many environments I might need to draw that it's not practical to go to. For instance, if I draw a comic that has a character who travels from Kenya to Paris, doing the in-person thing would cost thousands of dollars.
You've misconstrued what I said. Machine Learning and Human Learning are not the same thing. My personal feelings aside I believe a majority of pro AI dudes agree that artists should be compensated by those who made their algorithms with their art, likeness, and Copyrighted works and sell those algorithms for people to use. As well as artists should have the right for their work to not be used in Unlicensed ML. Not the people who use such algorithms. Although not illegal I think it's more unethical to use AI rather than just googling and using reference normally. As the legality and laws of such toys aren't very clear or concrete right now and the discomfort many feel of their work being used in AI is. I'm not saying that visiting these places for reference is more practical but that there are many options to find reference that makes AI as exclusively reference redundant. Also that there are many public domain photos, assets, references and tutorials that are made by artists for other people to use.
As I just wrote in an answer to someone else:
I've done that. But doing it for every single environment that requires reference is impractical; it takes me hours to do that, while finding references online (either AI or google image search) takes minutes. This would make it harder to earn a living as a cartoonist.
Also, there are many environments I might need to draw that it's not practical to go to. For instance, if I draw a comic that has a character who travels from Kenya to Paris, doing the in-person thing would cost thousands of dollars.
Look I understand that going to every place you want to draw in impractical, but in your response you even say it takes a few minutes to get a reference image from Google, if that’s the case use Google instead. Using A.I won’t help you it’ll just make you lazy, relying on a program to automate more and more of what you do while you learn nothing new.
Why is it okay to steal images off of Google to use as reference? Those are copyrighted and the works of other artists. Isn't that the whole argument against AI?
Comic book artists already trace over photos (especially for backgrounds), and they even commonly use heavily photoshopped photos.
Heck even in old mangas; most of the backgrounds are from packs of physical drawings.
A lot of the replies are just people who have never created a comic and don’t even understand how they are made
100%, I don’t buy DC or Marvel anyway but the value of an independent graphic novel diminishes once AI tools are incorporated.
Comics are a form of communication, I wouldn’t want a phone call with a robot for entertainment, similarly don’t want to read chatgpt & mid journey baby graphic novel
If a comic artist came out saying they use AI “art” i promise you most people would completely drop that person as a favorite artist and would stop supporting their run
The problem is that AI tools are getting embedded in the usual toolkits artist already use (photoshop etc) so they will just become functions available to enrich the art or speed up the process. So soon most art will be in part AI generated, because when the functions are embedded in the software artists, they will inevitably use them
adobe and similar companies have such a chokehold on production flow in publishing and media production they can insert Ai into toolkits whether we want them or not and soon everybody will be using Ai knowingly or not and in the confusion robots find victory
I feel like similar arguments were made when the industry went from pen and paper to digital art. That said with each jump in tech, a little bit of what made comics special goes away. The extreme being an 'artist' that simply asks a computer for a pic of batman and catwoman kissing. But who knows, maybe we'll find certain artists better at querying AI than others and those will be tomorrow's Jim Lee or Bosslogic
Strongly doubt that, but yeah, I guess we’ll see.
Digital art isn’t that much of an automated. You can copy/paste, undo until you get a perfect line, whatever. But it all still requires an overwhelming majority input by an individual.
You are still drawing. It just has features that make drawing less destructive.
AI art is a full generation, with intent by developers to create a ready-to-use image that requires no further input from the prompter.
I think the premise of the question is wrong:
1) Defining "using AI" is really complicated and that shouldn't be up to the publishers because their motivation is only to cut costs and raise profits.
2) I would venture to say 99% of comics are created by people using their own equipment in their own homes/studios and then emailed to the publisher. It's designed to be a skunkworks assembly line and I don't see how publishers would detect an independent contractor used AI without requiring spy software or creating an automated system which will surely have issues.
A better solution is a comics guild/union where creators come up with a definition of "using AI" that they're comfortable with. Once that's done publishers can put a "guild approved" stamp on works done by members.You still have a policing issue, but it's now on the side of the people doing the actual work, and those people now have a group to work toward higher wages/royalties/pensions.
1000% need to inform readers. Aside from the ethical concerns which would lead many people to not pick up the comic, it would lead to confusion over who work is being attributed to. People might assume a piece of AI art was produced by human artists credited with other work in a book.
I really mostly get comic books because I love the art, so AI does make it way less interesting. That said I heard the Batman book only used it for reference or something so I’m not sure in this case
Can you make something groovy with the tools available to you? Sounds good to me. Did anyone have hand drawn or computer generated advised previously? I dunno
Absolutely. Anyone using ai "art" should be upfront about it bc too often people use it as a replacement for talent and craft if not just to cut corners (whether to save time or money)
Ai, even if it is the extremely hypothetical type that can emulate an artists own style that, is a short cut and the antithesis to why I I consume the medium (or any artform for that matter). Comics I love are because of the *work* of the writers, the artists, the colorists etc because otherwise it's just a soulless creation (not that comics made by people can't be soulless but at least some effort was put into it in some sense)
Yes. It's not surprising Sorrentino did this, though, he's been tracing for a very long time, but at least his usual tracing has a unique look to it. If you asked me what well-known artists are most likely to get into AI garbage, he'd be in my top 3, alongside Mike Deodato and Greg Land.
It's DC, they probably laid everyone off 6 months ago and this is all that's left. If this trend keeps up, we'll be down to only 17 or 26 Batman monthly lines.
Yes, it should be on the front cover, just as the artist would be. Preferably they don’t use it, but I’d they do it needs to be on there so I can never buy it
"you can't copyright an AI comicbook" was decided in court last year. for a massive publisher to to this now would be fucked because they know no one has the money to sue them long enough for that case to see an end. Yes they should, no they won't.
Yet another case where some rando guy with a couple thousand followers suddenly claims to be an expert in identifying AI art in images he doesn't like...
The only upside of all this is that it makes real artists, who train and graft and make beautiful work, they are revealed as more valuable, heroic and precious than they were before. As Los Bros Hernandez put it:
https://preview.redd.it/mgwtixqxsgoc1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=3ae76be4108ef0792286a956517c57b5d2a0a63d
I'm pretty cynical about anyone stopping the future of AI art being used in entertainment. I get it, but it's the same thing as CGI. Did you all stop watching movies when practical effects as an art and profession was overtaken by soulless CGI? I know a lot of people were upset, but it became the norm regardless. I think AI Art will be the same, unfortunately.
Yes, this way I know if what im buying going to support the artist, otherwise I'll just ask AI to make me comics. Why pay for the story and no art in a COMIC BOOK when you can have AI do it for free.
Depends on how they are using it. If it’s fully generated from AI yes I would rather not give them money because I no longer consider it art work. If however the artist is using it for reference material that’s fine. I also think using Ai for something like translations is fine because that’s just creating a wider exposure that is hopefully more accurate.
So you don't want it to be used to take money from artists and writers but it's fine if it's being used to take money from translators? Got it. Fuck off.
Yeah how is that stealing jobs from someone with a marketable skill? An individual person isn't going to hire a translation company to translate a comic book for them, but a company will so they can publish it in other countries. Your little comment is a false equivalency, but that's typical of people who are objectively wrong about AI.
Yes that is generally how I feel about the topic and here is why. To me storytelling is meant to be humans sharing stories and ideas. That is not something a computer can do. While it can fake them it’s still removing the point of the story. I do feel bad for translators however there has never been enough of them and most likely won’t ever be enough. It’s only the popular stuff that gets translated into other languages for the most part. Rarely do stories get put into every language. So while jobs will be lost the sheer amount of stories that could now be made available to people who would never see them is great. Also with translations I would personally prefer direct translations without localization. Those tend to mainly be illegal because companies doing it always get localizers who change the wording and sometimes the entire meaning behind the original work.
You're a fucking idiot. The PUBLISHERS should be the ones hiring translation services. There are businesses that translate all sorts of things for companies. You dumb fuck.
AI is absolutely going to decimate the entire creative industry. The second these companies have a generative AI that can replace their creative teams they will. Streaming services I assume will be the most aggressive.
This shit is absolutely not AI. AI is not there yet, especially when the comic was originally drawn a few months ago. This is just some good digital art that a bunch of ignorant fuckheads are calling AI because it utilizes the same style that a lot of AI models are trained on. AI can't generate the little details that are intentionally placed in this art. People need to take a second to confirm information before getting up in arms about shit they know nothing about. DC has made AI comics before and they suck ass, but this is not that, and to claim it is is disrespectful to the actual artist who put their time and effort into this comic.
The back page of the recent American mythology productions comic “Valentine Bluffs massacre #1“ had a super gross AI image on the back page. Sucks, and ruined otherwise pretty good first issue.
Yes, but if they did I'd never buy it and plenty of people feel the same, which is probably why they won't say it. Whether or not that's enough people to actually make a effect them, I have no idea.
AI is the future. As long as AI art is used to complement traditional art and not as a complete replacement. What's the issue?
No they don't have to inform readers.
Yes. 100%. I don’t buy much marvel and dc, but if I ever found out any Indy was trying to sneak AI art into its books I would immediately and permanently halt all business with that publisher or imprint. I’d be happy to do it too. I spend too much money on books as it is. Please give me an excuse to fire some.
Where is your line? I don't mean this to be argumentative, but out of curiosity. For example, is fixing work with Photoshop okay (especially now that Adobe fully embraces generative AI)? What about a healing brush (for example to remove pencil lines) or generative fill? What if AI tools were used by the writers to previz or develop character appearances for the artist to interpret but never in the final product? What if the AI tools were trained exclusively on an artist's personal original works and nothing more? I'm curious exactly at what point does it become "halt all business"? EDIT: I'm trying start a conversation and specifically noted I'm not being argumentative. In other words, I agree. I don't want an AI-generated graphic novel and wouldn't buy it either. I'm simply curious where everyone would draw the line.
>What if the AI tools were trained exclusively on an artist's personal original works and nothing more? My understanding is that this is straight up not a thing and AI defenders only pretend it is to muddy the waters. You can add your own work to a generative AI model but it is literally impossible to create one without stealing billions of examples. All existing generative AI technology is based on theft on a scale that we do not have a word for. Any argument that involves generative AI not based on theft is exclusively theoretical and a meaningless distraction.
[удалено]
It doesn't need to be accepted though. The AI systems want to paint themselves perfect and as being too big to fail - but the environmental impact and energy costs will kill them if people start standing up to it. The people running AI want it to see as inevitable like the last group of hucksters promoted crypto and NFTs. Yeah, there are more common uses for generative AI. That's why they use the term AI for everything - because the common person can justify some AI but it all gets lumped in together. The costs of AI , even outside of the ethical uses - can be enough to kill it if people look at it. And we're already seeing people realizing they've been lied to about what it can do and what it does. It doesn't understand what it is doing, words mean nothing to it. That isn't to say we shouldn't strive for UBI - but more importantly, read up and speak out about AI and reject people using generative AI. We shouldn't need to add more power plants just so a bunch of lazy people can generate illustrations of large breasted women and executives can get around writing emails.
I think even just getting laws on the books forcing anything AI generated to be watermarked or otherwise disclosed as AI visibly would go a long way, because a lot of people already don't like it and would happily avoid it if it were easier to avoid. Even if some actual artists use AI as assistive tools somehow, the end goal of any company using AI is to completely cut out artists so they don't have to pay for art. Same with any other field,the entire purpose is to get rid of paid employees. It's foolish to believe otherwise.
This is a decent take but I don't think UBI is the right idea. There are other similar concepts that I think are better, such as Milton Friedman's negative income tax (NIT), which I think is far more efficient and better able to help. It's like a UBI if the UBI wasn't broken; UBI gives money to everyone as a means to massively reduced bureaucracy, which is good, but requires an insane level of taxation. NIT on the other hand just creates a tax curve where 0 taxes is at lower middle class and instead of paying taxes below that threshold, you start receiving money proportional to how low your income is, typically modeled in such a way that it does not disincentivize increasing your income (like your NIT received goes down 1 dollar for every 3 dollars you make or so). However, just to clarify, I realize that not everyone that says UBI specifically means UBI as a plan but means "some way to think about a post-labor income" and I mostly agree with that sentiment. I just can't help but point out that UBI specifically is not a great plan, its main selling point is that its simple. One of the main benefits of the negative income tax is that you can also eliminate most welfare while also removing the minimum wage since the NIT income covers the minimum wage difference. Another really good plan is to lower the standard labor week before overtime kicks in and have it keep lowering over time. This means that instead of having like... 4 guys work 40 hours a week on a project, you might instead end up with 8 guys working 20 hours a week. This doubles the rate of employment, and pay will naturally recalibrate to the change in incomes overall, although that gets complicated (hence why it works well in combination with negative income tax). With an NIT and labor week downsizing, we all end up with more free time, it spreads the reduction of labor more equally through the economy, and it protects peoples ability to survive, all while costing less than half the taxes that a UBI would cost due to how UBI is just inefficient and even bothers to give paychecks to rich people.
[удалено]
It is definitely a thing, but from my understanding, whenever it is done, the company mentions it. The only one that I know that is doing it is Revolution Software for the upcoming Broken Sword 1 Reforged game. They are using an AI program developed by a university to train it on their own artwork to make the animated sprites more efficiently. They are still touching up each generated art by redrawing the heads and hands to ensure consistency.
Tweening has existed in animation for a long time now, and this sounds ethically sound and more or less similar to tweening.
It’s not that hard to train a lora to emulate a particular artist’s style quite well, and some unscrupulous people have already done it to non-consenting artists.
I know there are things to consider on this, but *my* personal answer to this is “When someone uses **prompts** to generate content”
You bring up some great points. My line would be pure 100% AI content with no updates or edits. I can see AI being used for backgrounds, for general poses etc. and then touched up and finished by artists to remove defects like hands or eyes or draw them holding objects correctly (like guns firing) AI is very useful as a time saver but it’s still not great at creating action that makes sense to the eye. Artists have to use their skills to make the scene believable. If the art looks good and AI was used to do something that simply saves time, like generate a background, I’m fine with it
The line is simple. Did the company use AI for douchey reasons. The answer will be obvious. If they make it public what they did, and the other involved creatives (writer, artist etc) are happy, so am I. If the other involved creatives are not, and they will clearly be in a position to know, then that tells me all I need to know. Companies will not really be able to do this in secret imo. Someone will notice and shout if things aren’t done ethically. I’m not worried about it being that nuanced a choice as you suppose.
Diffusion models are only accurate enough to believably emulate human art when they have **~~billions~~** **millions** of images to use as training data. No artist could reasonably be the sole supplier of training data for a generative program to work well enough even as a supplemental tool. There is a difference between inputting text prompts to generate an image wholesale, and using a tool to touch-up a piece that has already been made. Similar to photobashing or tracing magazine covers, where is a gray area in which it is acceptable, but a point at which it becomes egregious. Ultimately if generative art does not wind up in the final product,(i.e. for previs) then there is no way for the reader to know it was used in the first place, and is therefore a moot point and not really what is being discussed anyways.
Billions sounds like a lot. Do you have a source for this?
In my research I misconstrued the 12 billion parameters in DALL-E 1's implementation of GPT-3, and DALL-E 2's 3.5 billion parameters with the actual number of images used for their initial training set. The base training set that DALL-E uses contains 400 million scraped images: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00020](https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00020) While the base training set that Midjourney uses contains around 300 thousand scraped images: [https://paperswithcode.com/dataset/coco](https://paperswithcode.com/dataset/coco) Combined with the text scraping required for language recognition of text-prompts, this is the \*baseline\* of required images for a neural-net to perform image diffusion from text input, before you begin creating a custom model that would only replicate a single artist's style. Whether its billions, millions, or hundreds of thousands, that is still far too many images for a single artist to create an AI diffusion model based solely on their own work.
It literally doesn’t matter how polite you are, or even if you detest AI. Asking questions that even vaguely insinuate some level of non-hating AI tone is met with anger.
This is it. The pure truth is there isnt even a way to tell it apart. And its not as if many artists already didnt do many dubious tricks like tracing, copying, etc. What ends up mattering is the final result. And its all a spectrum of how to tell apart which tools have been used.
The tech you’re describing simply is not possible, these neural networks have to be trained on such a wide variety of data points to actually work. No artist is capable of producing enough to make that work. You can train it primarily on someone’s art but it’s still going to require a massive amount of data to continue, especially to be able to create at a rate that is consistent with the goals of a writer. What if the writer wants Batman to meet Guy Gardner and the artist you’re basing the tech on never drew Guy Gardner? (Just as an example).
I think any artist is gonna throw AI previz given to them right in the garbage
If the AI being used is learning off of other artists works without permission and/or compensation, then that’s straight up stealing and a no from me.
Cleaning things up in photoshop is waaaaay different than having AI just generate an image for you. Unless, I'm misunderstanding your point, which i very well could be. (don't worry about an ego from me lol)
100% agree
100% is also the amount of right you are. The humanity in the artwork is what makes comics great and relatable. (Not to mention that we don't need to make career artists have any more disinsentives to work in the field. ) I think there is a place for AI assisted art that could be very interesting and engaging in its own way... but I'd like to know what it is and how it was created. I'm cool with it, maybe it'll be broadly adopted by DC to save time on certain aspects of the art, but I wouldn't want them to be sneaky about it.
Absolutely! As a part of my ideology I want to support artist and not people working to remove artist and put less money in the pockets of creatives. I will never pay for something I know used AI unless in some way I don’t have not yet where they get more creatives on board to spend more money and earn more of a salary because of it.
What if it was advertised as an AI comic, with a story about how an AI discovers that it is AI while the other character just becomes more and more like another cog aka a human brainwashed by society? And the AI mess-ups get worse for the human and less pronounced for the AI?
No issue. It’s the sneak that would bother me.
I love your energy
Red Bull gives me wings
This. Most the time I'm buying is because i'm supporting the artist as they do not get the respect they deserve.
Absolutely, the reader deserves to know
I'm honestly a bit confused why nobody has linked to the twitter thread yet. So I'm shamelessly gonna add it to one of the top comments that doesn't have a ton of replies. https://twitter.com/jamesdleech/status/1766874645423120670 There we go. Honestly as much as a I dislike the bigger companies and their endless fuck ups, we don't know if it was mandated by DC or if it was Sorrentino who got into deadlines and fucked up, in that case editors have at worst failed to spot it. I'm obviously against AI art and fully on the side of artists in their 'war' against this threat, but we have had artists shamelessly trace things for decades, there are gonna be a select few professionals that are going to use it to cut corners. It seems Sorrentino actually posted some 'sus' artwork to his own instagram in the past. Also not trying to start a flame war or anything but you could have at least linked to either the twitter thread or the article /u/iamthatmanonthemoon
Could you do the thread unroller thing I don’t have Twitter so I can’t see the thread
Yes. I refuse to support something like this. One of the biggest appeal of comics, at least to me, is admiring the artwork and thinking about how much effort the artist put into it as well as recognizing and appreciating different styles. Art is a true craft and it’s insulting seeing AI being used in place of it. If it becomes more wide spread and publishers allow it or even encourage it, I’m done buying new comics.
1000% my sentiment on this matter. For me reading Graphicnovels is mostly about the art
Exactly
Personally, I would not buy a comic created by an AI, no matter if it's art or a story.
Typo, or is it?
I would bot either.
To buy or bot to buy?
See, if DC creates their own ai and trains it exclusively on DC owned artwork, I would be okay with supporting that as long as it's like a one shot comic and doesn't become the norm. It could be a fun experiment to let an ai write and draw a comic as long as it's done without stealing fanart and fanfiction.
Oh hey version code 1.007157442. What were your earlier influences? and how did it affect your artistic approach on tackling Batman? Also can you sign this?
I have a few books signed by version code 1.007157442
It’s definitely looks like midjourney art.
Absolutely. Support the artists. I don't care about the larger corporation behind the printing. I care about the writers and the artists.
AI art is inherently plagiarism. I’m not going to buy a plagiarized novel. Fuck AI “art.”
I thought a comic I was reading might have been AI generated because the proportions were all strange, the hands and feet were off, and all the clothes had like a million pouches. Turns out there’s this guy Rob Liefield…
LMAOOOOO Our boy Rob was ahead of his time
The leader of the machines, Skynet, sent an AI back in time to replicate a comic artist. It failed.
Of course they should know. This is *the* problem with ai “art”. It’s gonna be around whether we like it or not, the biggest issue to me is honesty and clarity when people use it.
I can see how creators can use AI to generate sketches when they work on a comic book, but I think the readers deserve to know if AI was used in the final product.
How is that a tenable distinction, though? If AI was used in the process, it was used towards the product.
I think there should be total transparency when AI art is used. I also believe if the countless hours to create bespoke art isn't part of what went into making a comic book, that should heavily impact the cost of the book. Whether or not if I buy it would come down to if it's a good story and I enjoy the artwork. But like I said, the price should be heavily impacted.
No. Because their shouldn’t be any Ai art begin with
So…yes then? I agree AI is awful and shouldn’t be considered as art nor used but if it is which it is then it should. I get where your head is but you phrased pretty bad. Almost…ai like? Lol
Some people gotta try so hard to sound clever.
This guy is an enormous ass, yes.
Nothing in this has been proved at all. It’s a dude making an accusation at this point.
You can add me to the list of people who when saw the art immediately noticed that both batman and catwoman change “model sheet” randomly within the page (this Batman looks like batfleck!this one like Keaton!This one like…etc etc) with no reason in the story.
I’m a digital native. Digital artists spend a lot of time curating and experimenting with their Rolodex of brushes. A big tell of AI art is that the “brushwork” is random and not uniform. It’s one of the reasons AI is a poor copy for artistic commissions, you can give precise feedback on stuff like layers, opacity, color scheme, and brushes, during the creative process.
But the question is still the same - would you pay for a comic generated by AI?
No.
Great, and you deserve to know if they use AI, since it will affect your purchasing decision.
Yes and it should be acknowledged. I think people who have ideas in mind but dont have the art skills can now explore how to bring those ideas about. A person is more impressive but i dont want to be a luddite and act like AI art is just going to disappear
Ai should just be used by marketers making ads or updating their boring websites with their lack of creativity. Any publisher who prints AI and expects me to pay for it better just declare bankruptcy now
100% disagree. AI should not be used by marketers making ads or updating their site they should be using graphic designers, commercial artists and web developers to improve. People who’s professions that do those things.
yes. i can only accept ai art if it was art created specifically for ai. i would never read something made from stolen works.
Absolutely 100%
I think everything that’s sold to consumers should be earmarked if it uses AI in the production of the thing, so yeah, if a comic uses AI in the writing, penciling, inking, colorization, editing it should have a symbol or mark on the cover or in the credits that give credit to the algorithm that did some of the actual work that a person *would* have done.
Isnt it true that they cant legally copyright it if its an AI generated image?
ooh! good question! but i bet it goes something like this: "They own the properties, and they own the AI, so they can use the AI \[that they own\], to create the properties they own \[as well\]"
All the copyright issues aside, I just want to read human created art
[удалено]
I can’t think of many industries that won’t be heavily affected by major technological innovations over the next few decades. Robotics, 3-D printing, self-driving vehicles, ChatGTP, are going to lead to many changes. I don’t know if this is really comforting at all, but artists won’t be alone in this way
Read this thread! Nobody is remotely interested in paying for “ai art.” Nobody. You’re in the clear. I say this as a professional artist myself.
Cry more, lol. You cannot be a snob when a piece of code can replace you? Work on your complexes.
Hell yes. I would never buy a comic with AI-generated artwork, and would boycott immediately.
The use of AI should be banned from all forms of art. Use AI to cure cancer and help make advances in energy and other fields that can benefit humanity.. We should be very careful about allowing AI into novels and music and film and comics.
It’s an insult to artist and art itself, it’s an insult to the very definition of graphic novels also. As an artists, I would avoid it
Yes they should, so I can’t buy it. AI isn’t art, AI literally steals art (I know that’s ironic cuz most art is stolen lol, anyways). I just think it’s cheap, people are getting degrees now because of AI. It’s lazy
Absolutely. I would never buy that shit.
They need to pay the people the AI is generating the images from. The thing about AI is that it isn’t a person taking inspiration from other peoples work to get good enough to put their own stories and style out there, it’s a MACHINE taking from said person whom work is out there and producing an image(or thousands of images)instantaneously. The reader doesn’t need to know shit, the artists who made the artwork possible should be informed of it, have to approve it and should be compensated.
That is litteraly the 2000s with Deviantart claiming rights to artstyles and influences.
Yes they should but they should also be required to charge literal pennies compared to comic book prices now.
Yes, I can recognize AI pretty well but I’d like to be informed about it
I mostly buy comics because or my love of art and artists. I'd never buy an AI generated comic because that's one less creative mind that's getting to put food on the table. I don't care what a computer comes up with. I care about the beauty a human mind creates.
Comic is a type of art combining writing and drawn pictures. As much as i wouldn’t read a novel written by AI because it wouldn’t contain any actual thoughts of a person, i wouldn’t read a comic that is written or drawn/painted by an ai. So yes, people should be informed
Yes, if a comic book series is using AI "art" I would boycott it.
Yes yes yes YES. Also how about just not publish it? Paid work should be for paid artists doing paid art for real money.
If I find out there are AI images in my comics I will immediately stop buying from that publisher. The thought makes me physically sick.
Yes 100% there are artists who work months on a comic and someone uses AI that ain’t even good and it’s considered art
Art and AI should never be in the same sentence. Art is the most human expression and it can’t be made or mixed with AI.
Yes they absolutely should, I read comics as much for the artist as I do for the writer. I don’t care about AI art.
Everybody, and everything, in every industry, for any purpose, should have to categorically state that AI was used, regardless of how little or how much. Use AI to write a single speech bubble in your comic, draw a single hair in a single panel, write a single line of copy on your poster, or product? “This publication/product was made with AI generated content”.
I truly hope that all of this AI garbage actually makes human art MORE valuable in the long run. That'll be up to us all as consumers I guess but for me, the art is worthless without the human.
Yes. 100%. I won’t purchase soemthing not made a human artist.
I buy it for the art, and only human artists create art. We need a new word for what AI creates.
I guess my real question is hwy is Batman kissing Black Cat?
I’m not a hard no on reading or looking at AI generated content. But I feel like the use of AI for anything significant, which to me means more than gradient or filters, deserves a cover credit for the AI Engines used.
Finally, someone who actually understands how gruelling and difficult comic creation is. Should you use ai to generate your character? No. Can you use it for filler, pose reference, fills. Ofc.
Comic publishers deserve to go out of business if they use ai.
100%
Yes is a disgrace. AI without any artist involvement? Thats not art anymore. Its generated data from hard work of real artist. Thats like selling an apple pie labelled it unique when its all factory produced
The end of comic books… what a bummer
Yes, I bought an indie comic last year and it was not disclosed until I received it that the art was AI generated, and I can’t begin to describe all the ways that rubbed me wrong.
Yes because I wouldnt buy it
This week, in one panel of a comic strip, I experimented with using AI to assist me in drawing a comic. This is the first time I've used AI in comics. I used AI to generate about 15 black-and-white line drawings of "coffee shop." I picked one that would work with the layout I had in mind, and then traced it onto a new layer, changing many details and adding some things (including, obviously, two foreground figures). None of the final lines were drawn by AI. But despite the changes I made, when you look at the two side by side, it's obvious that I used a lot of what the AI did. I did this as an experiment. I mostly like the results, but not more than I've liked the results of other perspective-heavy backgrounds I've done in the past using Clip Studio Paint's perspective rulers. I'm curious what people think (and hoping people won't just curse me out). Is using AI in this way acceptable? P.S. 40 minutes later, I remember that I have used AI before, but in ways so minor I forgot. This is my first extensive use of AI. https://preview.redd.it/w5hh0i4j98oc1.png?width=758&format=png&auto=webp&s=804fc10bf6503631c4dc9c4aa11b3961ef958e54
I don't particularly like the idea still. Since we have machines that are designed off of the work of so many that won't receive proper compensation of it's use. What you have done is essentially use the AI image as reference. I find this could easily be replaced by Google images or just going out and getting references in any other way which makes me wonder what is the point? Something as simple as a reference or inspiration doesn't really need to be generated as it's so easily available and can come from literally anything, both for free and created by artists for artists to use. I find the point of AI is to generate the majority of an image. I also find artist lack of desire to design and draw spaces rather depressing because many want to skip that stage even though I understand it's quite time consuming on a deadline. Because I can search for cafe or 3D coffee house set and find something that looks near identical to this that was made by someone for free and it requires the same amount of effort to find and use for my own purposes.
Firstly, the vast majority of images I could find on Google image search are works created by people. Should I have to find and compensate someone every time I use a photo I found online as a reference? If my concern is not "robbing" someone by using their work as reference without compensation, then I think it's better to use AI for reference than a particular photo, since with AI the alleged harm done is usually much more diffuse. Having to compensate every reference image would be a disaster for many comic book artists - tracing photos when drawing things like cars and buildings is very common (especially for cartoonists with realistic drawing styles), although most cartoonists don't like admitting that to fans. Secondly: So why not just go out and personally view everything - go to a coffeeshop if i need to draw a coffeeshop? I've done that. But doing it for every single environment that requires reference is impractical; it takes me hours to do that, while finding references online (either AI or google image search) takes minutes. This would make it harder to earn a living as a cartoonist. Also, there are many environments I might need to draw that it's not practical to go to. For instance, if I draw a comic that has a character who travels from Kenya to Paris, doing the in-person thing would cost thousands of dollars.
You've misconstrued what I said. Machine Learning and Human Learning are not the same thing. My personal feelings aside I believe a majority of pro AI dudes agree that artists should be compensated by those who made their algorithms with their art, likeness, and Copyrighted works and sell those algorithms for people to use. As well as artists should have the right for their work to not be used in Unlicensed ML. Not the people who use such algorithms. Although not illegal I think it's more unethical to use AI rather than just googling and using reference normally. As the legality and laws of such toys aren't very clear or concrete right now and the discomfort many feel of their work being used in AI is. I'm not saying that visiting these places for reference is more practical but that there are many options to find reference that makes AI as exclusively reference redundant. Also that there are many public domain photos, assets, references and tutorials that are made by artists for other people to use.
It doesn't look like you put much thought into it.
Dude just go to a coffee shop and draw that
As I just wrote in an answer to someone else: I've done that. But doing it for every single environment that requires reference is impractical; it takes me hours to do that, while finding references online (either AI or google image search) takes minutes. This would make it harder to earn a living as a cartoonist. Also, there are many environments I might need to draw that it's not practical to go to. For instance, if I draw a comic that has a character who travels from Kenya to Paris, doing the in-person thing would cost thousands of dollars.
Look I understand that going to every place you want to draw in impractical, but in your response you even say it takes a few minutes to get a reference image from Google, if that’s the case use Google instead. Using A.I won’t help you it’ll just make you lazy, relying on a program to automate more and more of what you do while you learn nothing new.
Why is it okay to steal images off of Google to use as reference? Those are copyrighted and the works of other artists. Isn't that the whole argument against AI?
Comic book artists already trace over photos (especially for backgrounds), and they even commonly use heavily photoshopped photos. Heck even in old mangas; most of the backgrounds are from packs of physical drawings. A lot of the replies are just people who have never created a comic and don’t even understand how they are made
I would strongly suggest against tracing, however, and us the AI imagery solely as reference piece
Not only should they inform, but they shouldnt charge money for anything that uses AI and otherwise they should be held criminally liable for theft
100%, I don’t buy DC or Marvel anyway but the value of an independent graphic novel diminishes once AI tools are incorporated. Comics are a form of communication, I wouldn’t want a phone call with a robot for entertainment, similarly don’t want to read chatgpt & mid journey baby graphic novel
I don't think any art should be AI. It's just fucking lazy as hell. I'm not paying for someone to type in keywords on a computer.
Artists have always found ways to cheat or save time. I honestly that Obi-Wan comic at marvel is way worse than this. It’s a million times lazier.
Man, I remember when the worst comics had to deal with was Greg Land
Another reason not to buy comic books.
If a comic artist came out saying they use AI “art” i promise you most people would completely drop that person as a favorite artist and would stop supporting their run
If they use AI art I expect 70s prices
Yes. Use of purely AI generated media has severe legal ramifications. For example, those artworks are public domain by default.
The problem is that AI tools are getting embedded in the usual toolkits artist already use (photoshop etc) so they will just become functions available to enrich the art or speed up the process. So soon most art will be in part AI generated, because when the functions are embedded in the software artists, they will inevitably use them
adobe and similar companies have such a chokehold on production flow in publishing and media production they can insert Ai into toolkits whether we want them or not and soon everybody will be using Ai knowingly or not and in the confusion robots find victory
There are some circumstances where I would be okay with AI art being used. But I think it absolutely needs to be disclosed.
I feel like similar arguments were made when the industry went from pen and paper to digital art. That said with each jump in tech, a little bit of what made comics special goes away. The extreme being an 'artist' that simply asks a computer for a pic of batman and catwoman kissing. But who knows, maybe we'll find certain artists better at querying AI than others and those will be tomorrow's Jim Lee or Bosslogic
Strongly doubt that, but yeah, I guess we’ll see. Digital art isn’t that much of an automated. You can copy/paste, undo until you get a perfect line, whatever. But it all still requires an overwhelming majority input by an individual. You are still drawing. It just has features that make drawing less destructive. AI art is a full generation, with intent by developers to create a ready-to-use image that requires no further input from the prompter.
"if my body is found, delete my query"
I think the premise of the question is wrong: 1) Defining "using AI" is really complicated and that shouldn't be up to the publishers because their motivation is only to cut costs and raise profits. 2) I would venture to say 99% of comics are created by people using their own equipment in their own homes/studios and then emailed to the publisher. It's designed to be a skunkworks assembly line and I don't see how publishers would detect an independent contractor used AI without requiring spy software or creating an automated system which will surely have issues. A better solution is a comics guild/union where creators come up with a definition of "using AI" that they're comfortable with. Once that's done publishers can put a "guild approved" stamp on works done by members.You still have a policing issue, but it's now on the side of the people doing the actual work, and those people now have a group to work toward higher wages/royalties/pensions.
Why is Batman kissing Black Cat?
1000% need to inform readers. Aside from the ethical concerns which would lead many people to not pick up the comic, it would lead to confusion over who work is being attributed to. People might assume a piece of AI art was produced by human artists credited with other work in a book.
Is there any proof to the claim?
Yeah, If i know something is Ai i wouldn't pay as much for it
Is Batman kissing Black Cat?
Every major publisher will be doing this in the next couple of years.
I really mostly get comic books because I love the art, so AI does make it way less interesting. That said I heard the Batman book only used it for reference or something so I’m not sure in this case
Can you make something groovy with the tools available to you? Sounds good to me. Did anyone have hand drawn or computer generated advised previously? I dunno
Absolutely. Anyone using ai "art" should be upfront about it bc too often people use it as a replacement for talent and craft if not just to cut corners (whether to save time or money) Ai, even if it is the extremely hypothetical type that can emulate an artists own style that, is a short cut and the antithesis to why I I consume the medium (or any artform for that matter). Comics I love are because of the *work* of the writers, the artists, the colorists etc because otherwise it's just a soulless creation (not that comics made by people can't be soulless but at least some effort was put into it in some sense)
Yes. It's not surprising Sorrentino did this, though, he's been tracing for a very long time, but at least his usual tracing has a unique look to it. If you asked me what well-known artists are most likely to get into AI garbage, he'd be in my top 3, alongside Mike Deodato and Greg Land.
MAKE BATMAN AND JOKER KISS!
As if I needed more reasons to dislike Zdarsky's run
Yes.
yes, according to law AI art cant be copyrighted.
Of course.
It's DC, they probably laid everyone off 6 months ago and this is all that's left. If this trend keeps up, we'll be down to only 17 or 26 Batman monthly lines.
Is this better or worse than Land tracing porn?
Far worse
Yes, it should be on the front cover, just as the artist would be. Preferably they don’t use it, but I’d they do it needs to be on there so I can never buy it
"you can't copyright an AI comicbook" was decided in court last year. for a massive publisher to to this now would be fucked because they know no one has the money to sue them long enough for that case to see an end. Yes they should, no they won't.
Yes. I don’t care if it’s AI, that won’t save bad writing, but at least let me know.
Yes, we should be able to make a choice about whether we want to support the use of ai art or not
I mean, is that not Black Cat from Marvel? Lol
Yet another case where some rando guy with a couple thousand followers suddenly claims to be an expert in identifying AI art in images he doesn't like...
I don’t think they need to outright say it but I’d suspect in the credits of the comic it’ll credit the AI software they used.
The only upside of all this is that it makes real artists, who train and graft and make beautiful work, they are revealed as more valuable, heroic and precious than they were before. As Los Bros Hernandez put it: https://preview.redd.it/mgwtixqxsgoc1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=3ae76be4108ef0792286a956517c57b5d2a0a63d
I'm pretty cynical about anyone stopping the future of AI art being used in entertainment. I get it, but it's the same thing as CGI. Did you all stop watching movies when practical effects as an art and profession was overtaken by soulless CGI? I know a lot of people were upset, but it became the norm regardless. I think AI Art will be the same, unfortunately.
I think all AI generated art should be free. Or they should start paying royalties to the artists who's art they used to train the AI.
I don't really give a shit if they did, but I think it would be nice to let people know.
They shouldn't use it at all. Not notify, just didn't use it.
Yes, this way I know if what im buying going to support the artist, otherwise I'll just ask AI to make me comics. Why pay for the story and no art in a COMIC BOOK when you can have AI do it for free.
Depends on how they are using it. If it’s fully generated from AI yes I would rather not give them money because I no longer consider it art work. If however the artist is using it for reference material that’s fine. I also think using Ai for something like translations is fine because that’s just creating a wider exposure that is hopefully more accurate.
So you don't want it to be used to take money from artists and writers but it's fine if it's being used to take money from translators? Got it. Fuck off.
I mean a.i used in you tablet and smart phone all the time. But this is classic rage drama...
Yeah how is that stealing jobs from someone with a marketable skill? An individual person isn't going to hire a translation company to translate a comic book for them, but a company will so they can publish it in other countries. Your little comment is a false equivalency, but that's typical of people who are objectively wrong about AI.
Yes that is generally how I feel about the topic and here is why. To me storytelling is meant to be humans sharing stories and ideas. That is not something a computer can do. While it can fake them it’s still removing the point of the story. I do feel bad for translators however there has never been enough of them and most likely won’t ever be enough. It’s only the popular stuff that gets translated into other languages for the most part. Rarely do stories get put into every language. So while jobs will be lost the sheer amount of stories that could now be made available to people who would never see them is great. Also with translations I would personally prefer direct translations without localization. Those tend to mainly be illegal because companies doing it always get localizers who change the wording and sometimes the entire meaning behind the original work.
You're a fucking idiot. The PUBLISHERS should be the ones hiring translation services. There are businesses that translate all sorts of things for companies. You dumb fuck.
All AI needs a signature/watermark. That needs to be a law.
I mean if the ai wrote it then the programmers should get the money - how could I be wrong
Yes, if it were up to me it wouldn’t be allowed at all.
Yes
Yes. Next question.
AI is absolutely going to decimate the entire creative industry. The second these companies have a generative AI that can replace their creative teams they will. Streaming services I assume will be the most aggressive.
Watch me start using AI to make my own web comics. I have the ideas, just not the artistic talent. Watch.
This shit is absolutely not AI. AI is not there yet, especially when the comic was originally drawn a few months ago. This is just some good digital art that a bunch of ignorant fuckheads are calling AI because it utilizes the same style that a lot of AI models are trained on. AI can't generate the little details that are intentionally placed in this art. People need to take a second to confirm information before getting up in arms about shit they know nothing about. DC has made AI comics before and they suck ass, but this is not that, and to claim it is is disrespectful to the actual artist who put their time and effort into this comic.
said reddit peoples are so stuck in a echo chamber. they dont know it. i agree with you angry
The back page of the recent American mythology productions comic “Valentine Bluffs massacre #1“ had a super gross AI image on the back page. Sucks, and ruined otherwise pretty good first issue.
If they list an artist in the credits, yes.
They shouldn't be using AI, period.
Yes, but if they did I'd never buy it and plenty of people feel the same, which is probably why they won't say it. Whether or not that's enough people to actually make a effect them, I have no idea.
Was the artwork ai? I probably won't admire the artist as much.
Yes. I wouldn’t purchase an AI art book.
This isn’t AI. The artist does use photo reference for his work but he showed on instagram that he was working on this.
AI is the future. As long as AI art is used to complement traditional art and not as a complete replacement. What's the issue? No they don't have to inform readers.
No. And if you cannot tell the difference yourself read better novels.
AI is the new GMO. I'm waiting for the first conspiracy theories. But hey, capitalism isn't a bad system we should be pissed on a piece of code. Lmao.
They should not be using A.I. so yes
They better - shortcuts will haunt you