You don’t see the use in an artist viewing an approximation of the finished product in order to see what can be improved?
Do you suppose all conductors just write symphonies in their heads and never have to hear them out loud before deciding they’re done? Would it be useful to replace the tuba with a placeholder of a duck quacking, or do you think they might want it to sound like a tuba even though it’s not the final product?
Even a cheap toy synthetizer can make something close enough to a tuba sound to get an idea of what it sounds like. Need something better? people make sound fonts for that.
But maybe it’s better to use generative AI to potentially have something close to the real thing, just so you can have huge datacenters consuming absurd amounts of power and water too.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 hours ago
I don’t because that’s not what artists do.
Artists are not people who bring nearly finished projects over the finish line. And if your finished project does not look anything like your nearly-finished AI assets, what are you actually using them for?
moakley@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
You’re saying artists never look at their work and decide to change something. Ok, buddy.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 hours ago
Okay, well if you’re going to be like that, I’ll talk to someone else:
An artists job is to pull together research, resources, history, knowledge, opinions, their own fluency in the language of the medium they’re using, and a bit of inspiration, and turn that into something interesting, or cool, or flashy, or thought provoking.
AI generation, even for the concept phase, skips 90% of that effort.
You can’t fabricate something with AI and then re-make it by hand later because these are two halves of the same process. By the time the hands are involved, there is very little left for them to do.
moakley@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
That’s a narrow definition of an art that doesn’t apply to real life. Like it or not, Marcel Duchamp won the argument over whether or not he was an artist.