As a (I dare to say) rather advanced hobbyist digital painter, I don't want generative AI. I want a good image search engine + database.
When I say "a woman looking outside from her seat on a train" I don't want it to generate such an image for me. I want it to literally give me existing images that more or less fit the description, with full credit. If it's from a movie I'd like to know the movie's name and timestamp and the actor's name and everything.
I know the difference between referencing and plagiarism. And if I'm going to cross the line, at least I know I am the one who makes this decision and takes the legal risk. With the current generative AI I don't even know who holds accountability. Likely nobody, or worse, an unaware me.
This is why I think the copyright law is very broken. If someone made the database I described above, their pants, house and first-born would be sued off. But I'd argue it's a not just more useful, but also more ethical product than generative AIs.
Both GenAI and that database could exist - they'd complement each other perfectly. You could use generative models in the privacy of your home, for reference or inspiration or to quickly explore possibilities, and then paint like you normally do - or even use generated images as they came out. When the time comes for you to publish your work, you could use the database with an image search engine, to compare your work against already published works, and determine if you haven't accidentally violated copyright, or created something that could be seen as plagiarism.
Similarly, other people could use that database to check newly published work, making it easier to detect and stop obvious copyright infringement.
Problem is, the copyright system - both as a body of laws and as a spirit and mindset behind them - prevents the database from ever being created. At least in any form other than "yes / maybe?" responses from comparing perceptual hashes; go beyond that, someone comes out of the woodwork, seeking royalties. Reverse image search engines exist, but are barely helpful because of that.
Anyway;
> And if I'm going to cross the line, at least I know I am the one who makes this decision and takes the legal risk. With the current generative AI I don't even know who holds accountability. Likely nobody, or worse, an unaware me.
Ultimately, you're still the one making the decision. No one forces you to publish whatever a generative model produced in response to your prompt. It's up to you what to do with the output. You also exercise creative control - both during and after generation.
The legal situation of GenAI in general is still uncertain - but at the very least, you're still in control of whether you're referencing or plagiarising in a moral sense.
You would think we'd be there already. But search as a field has died. Hopefully temporarily but pretty dead. This is interesting because good search is supposedly how Google make their profit. And for years now they have obsessed about anything but good search. It's now a given that a google search will give you anything BUT what you want. I know: there are upstarts - are the upstarts that good? For example, is there a great image search upstart?
My educated guess is that the profit for such a "magic" search engine is way too small than a magic "painter" that is more likely to replace a real artist. So the AI tech companies prefer the latter. It is all about the business model of the world we are in.
GenAI models are meant to create, not retrieve. The model being able to sometimes reproduce copyrighted material in training data is an unintended side effect, and usually requires the user to intentionally cause it to happen. Their business model is indeed a "magic painter" (and/or "magic writer", "magic coder", etc.), which is IMHO valuable and fair - again, it's meant to create, not reproduce or retrieve.
One could hire a software developer to write such a program. But, in general, software developers can be untrustworthy and prone to stealing ideas for their own selfish purposes.
Before Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of college, he answered a classified ad from someone in the real world^1 who wanted to create a website that could search a database of images. Nothing to do with "social media". IIRC the target market was the auto insurance industry (I could be wrong).
1. Not Winklevoss brothers. That is another story.
Zuckerberg never finished the job but he did create his own website which searched and served up images of students at Harvard. He was of course sued by this person after Facebook became popular.
Perhaps it is not a coincidence that so many software developers commenting online seem to have an extreme dislike for intellectual property.^1 It interferes with the stealing and copying they practice to compensate for their won lack of creativity. For example so-called "Big Tech" companies that do not produce any content despite billion of dollars at their disposal; instead they copy and store other peoples' work, so-called "user-generated content" (UGC).
1. With the exception of any intellectual property underlying software licenses. Microsoft wants a fair use exception for copyrighted works used by OpenAI but aat the same time it aggressively pursues copyright enforcement over its software, such as "Windows" and "Office".
> One coulld hire a software developer to write such a program. But, in general, software developers can be untrustworthy and prone to stealing ideas for their own selfish purposes.
Ehhhh? Yes there are examples of that, as there are for any arbitrary group of humans you could select, but [anecdotally] I've noticed the opposite... it's not uncommon to find a passionate developer that's only interested in the challenge/problem solving aspect - it's a lot less common for say.. real estate agents.
I don't really get the point you're making beyond "people be greedy sometimes" (which I do agree with, don't get me wrong).
I had the same interpretation and in fact there's some truth in it. I recently did procreate and realized how primitive AI is compared to human beings and how long it might take for it to catch up.
The rate of learning for infants is rapid, but unlike LLMs. Every day there are very small steps that eventually add up. The size and quantity of each step is often not that impressive, but the number of tries from first random attempt at something to consistent behaviour is impressively low.
Same. Completely forgot that there's a product with that name. I mean, it's already hard to read that name with a straight face under normal circumstances, but they've really outdone themselves with this headline.
"AI" is just a tool like any other- creatives will use these tools to make things they couldn't make before because of the limits of their budget and/or scale-
I just made an original animated feature film where I sang %75 of the roles by using an AI tool(audimee.com) to convert my voice into others- I couldn't do that before- we're now creating Portuguese and Russian language versions of the songs with a tool that has a $20 usd/month subscription! Couldn't do that before!
For creatives/artists- As long as we don't use AI to generate ideas we're good, human generated ideas are a must- bring on all the AI tools!
The whole built on theft thing- as a human film director I could rattle off endless examples just in cinema of human directors "stealing" premises, sequences, shots, styles etc from other filmmakers with no consequences- so why stop the AI now?
I see the "theft" as being democratized now- large studios/entities with large resources have always been able to legally "steal" so with these AI tools I guess we all can now?
I make original animated films, games, music, art etc etc and I feel no "threat" at all from AI-
I feel the opposite as I'm excited to see what things they will allow me to do next as a micro-studio with limited budgets but unlimited creativity.
Aesthetics are dead now imo because of generative AI as anyone can be any "style" so now it is all about ideas- original human ideas.
A majority of which will go to already rich people.
Its a sad state now, and a sad state in the future for humanity, where technology enables and accelerates accumulation of wealth, aided and abetted by the very consumers it consumes.
Regarding "we're now creating Portuguese and Russian language versions of the songs" - have you contacted any native speakers of those languages to listen to those songs? Since the translation part isn't that hard, making it actually sound native and nice is hard.
Native speakers are the ones doing the re-writing of the lyrics in those languages. The ai tool just converts the say Russian singer voice into different voices.
> I see the "theft" as being democratized now- large studios/entities with large resources have always been able to legally "steal" so with these AI tools I guess we all can now?
You don't see any issue with machine learning models trained on huge amounts of copyrighted and patented materials basically scraped from the internet. Yes you can make your animated film and audio but at the cost of hugely controversial and non-transparent generative models.
> Aesthetics are dead now imo because of generative AI as anyone can be any "style" so now it is all about ideas- original human ideas.
This argument kind of conflicts with itself, no? Aesthetics are inferred from ideas either inspired or original.
The proposition that "aesthetics is dead" because of [insert new thing here] is one of practically comical ignorance. I have never seen someone with at least a modicum of competence make it; it carries the same desperate, self-validating stench as "history is dead" or "truth is dead", etc.
No I don't see it as theft- in that I choose to not be a part of the formal film industry- I don't "monetize" any of my work- I have nothing that can be stolen but my aesthetics- but aesthetics are dead imo- they no longer have value- as an artist my ideas are what is valuable- and no ML/AI etc can "steal" my ideas as I haven't thought of them yet- my art and ideas are an expression of my soul- no machine will ever have a soul so I'm not threatened one bit my Ai etc
Why is that the line in the sand? And if someone did find inspiration and ideas from an AI, and made something popular with it, wouldn’t it be indistinguishable from any other piece of popular content?
Sure- as the AI is trained on the work of humans- so if someone had an idea "inspired by ai" its really just saying they were inspired by humans anyway- for me personally I'll never ask an LLM for "ideas" though-
The capabilities are interesting and useful, but the wider practical impact is that we're already being flooded with cheap cookie-cutter slop, while original artists' copyrights are completely disregarded.
If you're building tools to empower artists, this is antithetic to your mission, and simply unethical.
I do agree with the original artists work being disregarded but I think that has more to do with the aggregation and the lack of curation that is not motivated by $- as an unknown artist creating original work for 20+ years I'm optimistic about permission-less donation supported AI curators digging up unknown creative works and sharing them with humans.
The "just a tool like any other" perspective can't account for how much talentless slop is in practice created by AI.
Look at the work spotlighted by Google to promote their new Flow tool: https://x.com/GoogleLabs/status/1925596282661327073 . This is a garbage imitation of a Guy Ritchie film or a Jose Cuervo ad (maybe more the latter).
Instead of being a tool for creatives it has empowered a number of grifters to churn out more and more "content" bypassing any concern about craft and formal restrictions that help generate creative work. The work that is most often created with the help of AI is not creative, it's a bland, tasteless simulacrum of creativity.
I think we're really missing the forest for the trees here - which is that generative AIs completely obliterate truth. Like, as a concept.
We pretty much cannot prove what's real and what's not anymore. Who knows the consequences of this. At worst, we might transform to an abysmally low-trust third-world society.
For filmmakers- smart phones + cheap video cameras + free video editors + youtube monetization create what from my perspective is human made content slop. So to me slop is slop- it doesn't matter if a machine or a human "made" it. It's all slop and it all sucks haha.
Grifters will always grift- curation is what is important to sort through and ignore the slop- maybe there will be some systems with special fingerprinting algo's to "find" original human made non slop?
For me, Procreate is the killer app that made me want an iPad and my 7 year old iPad Pro is my favorite computer.
I can't believe it's only $13 (I think I paid $10 many years ago). It's one of those rare apps that I wish was more expensive because a $13 purchase doesn't feel sustainable.
I should probably sign up for a Procreate course. The app is so deep that I know I'm only using the most basic features. If anybody has books or courses to recommend, I'm all ears.
The marginal cost of selling software is so small that with enough customers, almost any price is sustainable. They are estimated to earn $2M/month from this app [1], which should be more than enough to cover their costs. 150k new customers per month is pretty incredible, when you think about it.
Well, people who make a lot of money, do so, by selling lots of cheap, as opposed to few expensive, and I think that Procreate may be one of the best-selling apps ever.
I remember Corel Painter. It was about $400, and did many similar things.
You will probably be very happy with the Air. I'd recommend the big one.
I use a 2018 13" iPad Pro and I love that size because it's basically the same size as a sheet of 8.5x11 (or A4) paper. It's the perfect size for reading and marking up PDFs too.
Last year I bought and returned the M4 iPad Pro because they didn't make a Smart Keyboard Folio for it which I prefer to the more heavy duty Magic Keyboard. So I'm still using my 7 year old iPad worrying about what I'm going to do when it dies. I thought for sure somebody would make a knock off, but nobody has made anything that I think is as good as the Apple product.
For me, Procreate and GoodNotes are a killer combination that justify owning the device.
About the same. The 120Hz on the pro feels very slightly better and has slightly lower latency. This does help a tiny bit for detail work. But you get used to not having it after about 30 mins.
Yeah that article was the first time I heard of the Butlerian Jihad not being used outside of the context of Dune, and as an actual thing.
And since we can talk about it without engaging with the article points, and talk about the words “Butlerian Jihad” I foresee many posts coming forth, decrying the luddites of the world
I don't think we'll go quite that far but I can easily imagine a revival of a world in which the Internet is just a box in the corner of your office, and the church, driven by AI slop everywhere.
I suspect that ubiquitously forcing people to use models that do reliably shit the bed (on coding and everything else) is an excellent way to get a real world Butlerian Jihad.
Tron (1982) which was disqualified from Oscar contention as they had heavily used computers for the graphics and this was considered "cheating".
I feel like we're at a similar spot today with AI.
There's a big YouTube channel that does special fx challenges that proudly proclaims "No AI" but the winner of the challenge used tons of physics and crowd simulators.
That’s not cheating according to the definitions within this article that you’ve commented on.
Procreate is against gen AI on the grounded that it was unethically trained, and has become a vehicle of theft away from artists. They make a distinction between that and machine learning which is a very useful tools.
Easy for them to say that. The product is about manual drawing. It’s difficult to imagine where would you insert the AI in that process.
And maybe a smart strategy? If they add AI that will learn how you draw, and after couple of drawings will be able to draw for you, that may kill the product because artists will lose interest or reason to spend time with their product.
Maybe they realise that and just want to push away inevitable for as long as possible.
I wonder, they probably have same stance about AI coding, and have no need for that either.
> "The product is about manual drawing. It’s difficult to imagine where would you insert the AI in that process."
I can imagine. In fact, I wrote a scifi novel that imagines it! :)
In the story, the idle elite has painting classes with an AI teacher. They have levels of engagement they can choose from: see something and paint it, see an AI-made painting of that something and copy it, copy it over projected lines into your canvas, paint only the filling colors over AI-created lines delineating it, let the AI-teacher-robot fix the painting for you after you are done. Every student goes home happily with the same painting in the same high AI-made quality. :)
I think there are two key differences: a spell checker doesn’t write the document for you or change your style (grammar checkers are closer to that) so your work is still your style and something you can claim copyright on. If you sell your work, that last part can be important. If you’re an artist, customers are paying you for your skills and the more you say a tool can do, the less they’re going to think your time is worth.
They also have a bit of a different market: their customers are people whose work has been used commercially without compensation to endanger their future livelihoods. It may be futile in the long run but I’d imagine there is a substantial market of people who don’t want to contribute to the problem or worry whether Adobe’s terms of service give them rights to screw you.
> Adobe seems to be getting a lot of backlash from creatives at least on social media.
That mainly seems to be about Adobe doing opt-out training on people's art and data (and sneakily re-enable that option for people who've already disabled it in the past), not just because Adobe now has AI features you could use. But maybe we're stuck in different bubbles/echo chambers.
Why do you say they "push away the inevitable"? Why would it be inevitable to have quality apps without AI integration? I would even argue that in a lot of cases, no AI integrationadds quality to the app.
It's a brilliant strategy, IMO. Maybe not to take over the whole industry, but to carve out a loyal niche. Are there many other top-tier creative apps that take such a clear position?
CSP once tried to develop a full generative AI, but they killed the project after a big backlash on social media (especially from Japanese on twitter).
It seems that the current line drawn by artists is: the app dev can do anything with neutral network as long as it doesn't generate a whole image.
The thing that pops in my mind on misplaced AI integrations is: Copilot on Microsoft Word—infusing the caret with that God-Awful, purple Copilot “call to action.” Intuitively it makes sense to add AI capabilities to a writing program, but enough is enough. At this point it’s an insult on our collective intelligence.
If you ask me, keep the AI in a new, separate program.
Generative AI has a distinct workflow that is unique and the UX patterns will likely be different than traditional workflows. For instance: the generate, reject-or-accept loop.
I’m wondering how many people just copy and paste from their chat agent and simply ignore the other integrations (with respect to consumer products).
While I agree that we should procreate, I disagree with the entire premise of this post.
I have always been garbage at the visual arts. Art classes in school were my worst class every year, I just could not get the pictures in my head down on to paper. I accepted that I just wasn't "creative". This mentality persisted through my school years and I ended up getting a business degree because it's not "creative". I was miserable. Eventually saw the light and got into web dev. I believe this is a creative pursuit, and the issue is the medium. Everyone is inherently creative and the general act of creation is one of the most fulfilling things you can do to occupy your time.
As a web dev AI allows me to be creative in my ideas and prompting, generating pictures that I would otherwise not have the ability to create myself. Before you say I'm taking the job of graphic designers, I assure you none of these uses would have ended in me spending any money or even someone else's time if AI image gen didn't exist. AI lowers the bar for people to pursue the act of creativity in a medium they otherwise struggle in.
Readit News
When I say "a woman looking outside from her seat on a train" I don't want it to generate such an image for me. I want it to literally give me existing images that more or less fit the description, with full credit. If it's from a movie I'd like to know the movie's name and timestamp and the actor's name and everything.
I know the difference between referencing and plagiarism. And if I'm going to cross the line, at least I know I am the one who makes this decision and takes the legal risk. With the current generative AI I don't even know who holds accountability. Likely nobody, or worse, an unaware me.
This is why I think the copyright law is very broken. If someone made the database I described above, their pants, house and first-born would be sued off. But I'd argue it's a not just more useful, but also more ethical product than generative AIs.
Similarly, other people could use that database to check newly published work, making it easier to detect and stop obvious copyright infringement.
Problem is, the copyright system - both as a body of laws and as a spirit and mindset behind them - prevents the database from ever being created. At least in any form other than "yes / maybe?" responses from comparing perceptual hashes; go beyond that, someone comes out of the woodwork, seeking royalties. Reverse image search engines exist, but are barely helpful because of that.
Anyway;
> And if I'm going to cross the line, at least I know I am the one who makes this decision and takes the legal risk. With the current generative AI I don't even know who holds accountability. Likely nobody, or worse, an unaware me.
Ultimately, you're still the one making the decision. No one forces you to publish whatever a generative model produced in response to your prompt. It's up to you what to do with the output. You also exercise creative control - both during and after generation.
The legal situation of GenAI in general is still uncertain - but at the very least, you're still in control of whether you're referencing or plagiarising in a moral sense.
https://lenso.ai/en/search-by-text?desc=a+woman+looking+outs...
You would think we'd be there already. But search as a field has died. Hopefully temporarily but pretty dead. This is interesting because good search is supposedly how Google make their profit. And for years now they have obsessed about anything but good search. It's now a given that a google search will give you anything BUT what you want. I know: there are upstarts - are the upstarts that good? For example, is there a great image search upstart?
One could hire a software developer to write such a program. But, in general, software developers can be untrustworthy and prone to stealing ideas for their own selfish purposes.
Before Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of college, he answered a classified ad from someone in the real world^1 who wanted to create a website that could search a database of images. Nothing to do with "social media". IIRC the target market was the auto insurance industry (I could be wrong).
1. Not Winklevoss brothers. That is another story.
Zuckerberg never finished the job but he did create his own website which searched and served up images of students at Harvard. He was of course sued by this person after Facebook became popular.
1. With the exception of any intellectual property underlying software licenses. Microsoft wants a fair use exception for copyrighted works used by OpenAI but aat the same time it aggressively pursues copyright enforcement over its software, such as "Windows" and "Office".
Ehhhh? Yes there are examples of that, as there are for any arbitrary group of humans you could select, but [anecdotally] I've noticed the opposite... it's not uncommon to find a passionate developer that's only interested in the challenge/problem solving aspect - it's a lot less common for say.. real estate agents.
I don't really get the point you're making beyond "people be greedy sometimes" (which I do agree with, don't get me wrong).
I just made an original animated feature film where I sang %75 of the roles by using an AI tool(audimee.com) to convert my voice into others- I couldn't do that before- we're now creating Portuguese and Russian language versions of the songs with a tool that has a $20 usd/month subscription! Couldn't do that before!
For creatives/artists- As long as we don't use AI to generate ideas we're good, human generated ideas are a must- bring on all the AI tools!
The whole built on theft thing- as a human film director I could rattle off endless examples just in cinema of human directors "stealing" premises, sequences, shots, styles etc from other filmmakers with no consequences- so why stop the AI now?
I see the "theft" as being democratized now- large studios/entities with large resources have always been able to legally "steal" so with these AI tools I guess we all can now?
I make original animated films, games, music, art etc etc and I feel no "threat" at all from AI-
I feel the opposite as I'm excited to see what things they will allow me to do next as a micro-studio with limited budgets but unlimited creativity.
Aesthetics are dead now imo because of generative AI as anyone can be any "style" so now it is all about ideas- original human ideas.
A majority of which will go to already rich people.
Its a sad state now, and a sad state in the future for humanity, where technology enables and accelerates accumulation of wealth, aided and abetted by the very consumers it consumes.
You don't see any issue with machine learning models trained on huge amounts of copyrighted and patented materials basically scraped from the internet. Yes you can make your animated film and audio but at the cost of hugely controversial and non-transparent generative models.
> Aesthetics are dead now imo because of generative AI as anyone can be any "style" so now it is all about ideas- original human ideas.
This argument kind of conflicts with itself, no? Aesthetics are inferred from ideas either inspired or original.
Why is that the line in the sand? And if someone did find inspiration and ideas from an AI, and made something popular with it, wouldn’t it be indistinguishable from any other piece of popular content?
If you're building tools to empower artists, this is antithetic to your mission, and simply unethical.
Look at the work spotlighted by Google to promote their new Flow tool: https://x.com/GoogleLabs/status/1925596282661327073 . This is a garbage imitation of a Guy Ritchie film or a Jose Cuervo ad (maybe more the latter).
Instead of being a tool for creatives it has empowered a number of grifters to churn out more and more "content" bypassing any concern about craft and formal restrictions that help generate creative work. The work that is most often created with the help of AI is not creative, it's a bland, tasteless simulacrum of creativity.
We pretty much cannot prove what's real and what's not anymore. Who knows the consequences of this. At worst, we might transform to an abysmally low-trust third-world society.
I think the blame is on the people who consume it.
Grifters will always grift- curation is what is important to sort through and ignore the slop- maybe there will be some systems with special fingerprinting algo's to "find" original human made non slop?
I can't believe it's only $13 (I think I paid $10 many years ago). It's one of those rare apps that I wish was more expensive because a $13 purchase doesn't feel sustainable.
I should probably sign up for a Procreate course. The app is so deep that I know I'm only using the most basic features. If anybody has books or courses to recommend, I'm all ears.
[1] https://app.sensortower.com/overview/425073498?country=US
I remember Corel Painter. It was about $400, and did many similar things.
I think it may no longer be around.
A close friend of mine (art college degree) has switched from oil / acrylic / watercolor to iPad - after trying it once.
The iPad/Pencil combo knocks it into a cocked hat.
The kicker is that the Cintiq is around the same price (or more), and is less ergonomic.
I use a 2018 13" iPad Pro and I love that size because it's basically the same size as a sheet of 8.5x11 (or A4) paper. It's the perfect size for reading and marking up PDFs too.
Last year I bought and returned the M4 iPad Pro because they didn't make a Smart Keyboard Folio for it which I prefer to the more heavy duty Magic Keyboard. So I'm still using my 7 year old iPad worrying about what I'm going to do when it dies. I thought for sure somebody would make a knock off, but nobody has made anything that I think is as good as the Apple product.
For me, Procreate and GoodNotes are a killer combination that justify owning the device.
https://www.creativebloq.com/buying-guides/best-ipad-for-pro...
Deleted Comment
And since we can talk about it without engaging with the article points, and talk about the words “Butlerian Jihad” I foresee many posts coming forth, decrying the luddites of the world
I feel like we're at a similar spot today with AI.
There's a big YouTube channel that does special fx challenges that proudly proclaims "No AI" but the winner of the challenge used tons of physics and crowd simulators.
Is that not cheating?
Procreate is against gen AI on the grounded that it was unethically trained, and has become a vehicle of theft away from artists. They make a distinction between that and machine learning which is a very useful tools.
And maybe a smart strategy? If they add AI that will learn how you draw, and after couple of drawings will be able to draw for you, that may kill the product because artists will lose interest or reason to spend time with their product.
Maybe they realise that and just want to push away inevitable for as long as possible.
I wonder, they probably have same stance about AI coding, and have no need for that either.
I can imagine. In fact, I wrote a scifi novel that imagines it! :)
In the story, the idle elite has painting classes with an AI teacher. They have levels of engagement they can choose from: see something and paint it, see an AI-made painting of that something and copy it, copy it over projected lines into your canvas, paint only the filling colors over AI-created lines delineating it, let the AI-teacher-robot fix the painting for you after you are done. Every student goes home happily with the same painting in the same high AI-made quality. :)
Then you don't use your imagination. Obviously one can "snap" a sketch into a car or an owl or a house or whatever, keeping the style similar.
You could use your reasoning similarly to spell checkers.
They also have a bit of a different market: their customers are people whose work has been used commercially without compensation to endanger their future livelihoods. It may be futile in the long run but I’d imagine there is a substantial market of people who don’t want to contribute to the problem or worry whether Adobe’s terms of service give them rights to screw you.
“Sketch me a wireframe of a person running”
“Can you add a flowing cape to my character in a similar art style?”
“Add stippling for the shadows on these objects assuming the light comes from the left of the scene”
As you say though, it could be good business sense. Adobe seems to be getting a lot of backlash from creatives at least on social media.
That mainly seems to be about Adobe doing opt-out training on people's art and data (and sneakily re-enable that option for people who've already disabled it in the past), not just because Adobe now has AI features you could use. But maybe we're stuck in different bubbles/echo chambers.
Microsoft Paint has AI these days.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/use-image-creato...
> And maybe a smart strategy?
It's a brilliant strategy, IMO. Maybe not to take over the whole industry, but to carve out a loyal niche. Are there many other top-tier creative apps that take such a clear position?
Deleted Comment
It seems that the current line drawn by artists is: the app dev can do anything with neutral network as long as it doesn't generate a whole image.
Automated pattern and design fillers? Colour palette testers?
If you ask me, keep the AI in a new, separate program.
Generative AI has a distinct workflow that is unique and the UX patterns will likely be different than traditional workflows. For instance: the generate, reject-or-accept loop.
I’m wondering how many people just copy and paste from their chat agent and simply ignore the other integrations (with respect to consumer products).
I have always been garbage at the visual arts. Art classes in school were my worst class every year, I just could not get the pictures in my head down on to paper. I accepted that I just wasn't "creative". This mentality persisted through my school years and I ended up getting a business degree because it's not "creative". I was miserable. Eventually saw the light and got into web dev. I believe this is a creative pursuit, and the issue is the medium. Everyone is inherently creative and the general act of creation is one of the most fulfilling things you can do to occupy your time.
As a web dev AI allows me to be creative in my ideas and prompting, generating pictures that I would otherwise not have the ability to create myself. Before you say I'm taking the job of graphic designers, I assure you none of these uses would have ended in me spending any money or even someone else's time if AI image gen didn't exist. AI lowers the bar for people to pursue the act of creativity in a medium they otherwise struggle in.
Dead Comment