I don’t know if I would use the word “cheating.” But it’s definitely outsourcing. Like using a colorist, except instead of hiring a human you’re using a computer program. Using a digital tool for a task is not the same as asking a computer to do a task for you. People can do what they want. But is it worth getting the job done faster if you’re taking the human element out of it (or even half out of it)? I would say no. I wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t hire someone to do it. And I wouldn’t knowingly buy a product, especially a book, that was made this way.
Thanks for the input. Honest question: If I was using detailed prompts to tell the AI how to color, so that I got results fine-tuned to my liking, would that change how you feel about it? Or not?
I’d feel the same way, I think. I use digital tools to add color to my own illustrations (I do block prints) to make the process faster, cleaner, and less expensive. But if I had AI do the painting/coloring it would not be me doing the creating.
What you’re describing sounds more like what an art director rather than an artist would do.
I read your article and remembered an article that I’d read yesterday. An author’s debut novel sold for $2 million. His own agents had it pulled from publication because they thought he had used AI. I thought that was an extreme action to take especially when they couldn’t prove that AI was used. I’ve read that books have been removed from competitions because their covers were made with AI. This may not be the time to use more AI.
AI has hit the arts like an earthquake. It has disrupted everything and people are scrambling to find their footing while waiting for the dust to settle. But just like an earthquake, there is no rewinding the clock. AI is not going away. So I guess the only way though is forward.
Cheating is when you try to present the work of another as your own work.
But IA is not a person: they produce only if solicited (apart from agentic AI, which are damned dangerous). They should be tools and not agent (even though using them might change you, as much as constantly using a lifting crane to lift things will reduce your muscular tone is the long run…)
Thus an artist is entitled to use whatever tool they want: who would now build a skyscraper with their only hands? What count it the end product where the personality of the artist shines through, he makes choices, ponders them and delivers
No AI can substitute for that: if the end product is his art, this is not “cheating”, it is art.
If the end product is just slop, he can call it art, others will see that he is a poor artist, event if he doesn’t use AI.
Slop is slop.
For me, cheating is the wrong question, the importance is the process and the product, not the specific tools used.
If it's consistent, this would be good for cleanup and colouring trad animation. It hasn't done a good job on the hands. It doesn't seem to understand three finger cartoon hands.
Yeah AI has a big problem with consistency. If this was a client project I would for sure have to take it back into Photoshop and make sole changes and tweaks.
The phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" springs to my mind, for some reasons. I understand that illustrators are getting squeezed: work faster for less money. What could it hurt? I'm an artist who works in analog traditional media. Am I skirting a line by using photo editing software to crop paintings and clean up goobers? Maybe, but this seems like a bridge way too far and I wouldn't use AI to clean up my illustrations or knowingly buy a book created this way.
I don’t know if I would use the word “cheating.” But it’s definitely outsourcing. Like using a colorist, except instead of hiring a human you’re using a computer program. Using a digital tool for a task is not the same as asking a computer to do a task for you. People can do what they want. But is it worth getting the job done faster if you’re taking the human element out of it (or even half out of it)? I would say no. I wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t hire someone to do it. And I wouldn’t knowingly buy a product, especially a book, that was made this way.
Thanks for the input. Honest question: If I was using detailed prompts to tell the AI how to color, so that I got results fine-tuned to my liking, would that change how you feel about it? Or not?
I’d feel the same way, I think. I use digital tools to add color to my own illustrations (I do block prints) to make the process faster, cleaner, and less expensive. But if I had AI do the painting/coloring it would not be me doing the creating.
What you’re describing sounds more like what an art director rather than an artist would do.
I read your article and remembered an article that I’d read yesterday. An author’s debut novel sold for $2 million. His own agents had it pulled from publication because they thought he had used AI. I thought that was an extreme action to take especially when they couldn’t prove that AI was used. I’ve read that books have been removed from competitions because their covers were made with AI. This may not be the time to use more AI.
Also, any time an artist or writer uses AI they need to be 100% honest and up front about it. That would solve half the problems right there.
AI has hit the arts like an earthquake. It has disrupted everything and people are scrambling to find their footing while waiting for the dust to settle. But just like an earthquake, there is no rewinding the clock. AI is not going away. So I guess the only way though is forward.
This makes me glad that I never gave up pencilling and real ink on paper. Because there may come a point where you need to show your workings.
Bonjour
Cheating is when you try to present the work of another as your own work.
But IA is not a person: they produce only if solicited (apart from agentic AI, which are damned dangerous). They should be tools and not agent (even though using them might change you, as much as constantly using a lifting crane to lift things will reduce your muscular tone is the long run…)
Thus an artist is entitled to use whatever tool they want: who would now build a skyscraper with their only hands? What count it the end product where the personality of the artist shines through, he makes choices, ponders them and delivers
No AI can substitute for that: if the end product is his art, this is not “cheating”, it is art.
If the end product is just slop, he can call it art, others will see that he is a poor artist, event if he doesn’t use AI.
Slop is slop.
For me, cheating is the wrong question, the importance is the process and the product, not the specific tools used.
Merci pour tous ces dessins et mots délicieux
Très belle journée
Anne
Yes
If it's consistent, this would be good for cleanup and colouring trad animation. It hasn't done a good job on the hands. It doesn't seem to understand three finger cartoon hands.
Yeah AI has a big problem with consistency. If this was a client project I would for sure have to take it back into Photoshop and make sole changes and tweaks.
The phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" springs to my mind, for some reasons. I understand that illustrators are getting squeezed: work faster for less money. What could it hurt? I'm an artist who works in analog traditional media. Am I skirting a line by using photo editing software to crop paintings and clean up goobers? Maybe, but this seems like a bridge way too far and I wouldn't use AI to clean up my illustrations or knowingly buy a book created this way.