I use Stable Diffusion daily. I’m vehemently against people spouting nonsensical fear mongering against AI. But I completely agree with the author here: a company using AI-generated images in a published book that they charge money for is despicable. AI should be a tool artists choose to use to enhance their workflow, just like Photoshop and tablets. It cannot and should not replace them entirely.
I had no idea that Hasbro had done this. Have they released a statement trying to justify this, or are they just hoping that nobody will care?
Not from comicbook.com, but close. Looks like you’re right: just more anti-AI nonsense. I wonder if there was this much vitriol when Photoshop first released.
I’ve heard art student friends 20 years ago talk about how digital art isn’t real art. I’ve also heard from them that in art history (although I can’t confirm) that oil painters had a similar opinion of acrylic painters.
I use Stable Diffusion daily. I’m vehemently against people spouting nonsensical fear mongering against AI. But I completely agree with the author here: a company using AI-generated images in a published book that they charge money for is despicable. AI should be a tool artists choose to use to enhance their workflow, just like Photoshop and tablets. It cannot and should not replace them entirely.
I had no idea that Hasbro had done this. Have they released a statement trying to justify this, or are they just hoping that nobody will care?
From the comicbook.com article regarding what the artist did:
I think you are getting upset over an AI outrage piece.
Not from comicbook.com, but close. Looks like you’re right: just more anti-AI nonsense. I wonder if there was this much vitriol when Photoshop first released.
I’ve heard art student friends 20 years ago talk about how digital art isn’t real art. I’ve also heard from them that in art history (although I can’t confirm) that oil painters had a similar opinion of acrylic painters.