While so much of the comic book industry is fighting against AI, there are some who are stopping, kicking and screaming, and realizing the inevitable: that the tool is only going to get better and will be a force multiplier that isn’t going to go away. Tom Brevoort, best known for being the editor of the X-Men line at Marvel Comics, has come to accept that it is unlikely to be stopped.Part of the fun of AI is that eventually people will be able to make their own movie posters, comics, films, games, and more, which would have required thousands or millions of dollars of investment to conceptualize art before. It’s the great equalizer, where large corporations can’t have a stranglehold on storytelling in certain media because the barrier to entry will be a $10/month subscription.Comic books, especially, will be interesting for the art form. One artist who’s working with me is already using the tool to take his own pencil sketches and fill in the line work for the details. The results are fantastic, and though it still requires a lot of work on his part, the effort is a lot faster than if he had inked the pictures himself. Meanwhile, in the mainstream comic book industry, they’ve been initiating various witch hunts against AI art, specifically at conventions as they have gone from protesting AI, to narcing on AI artists to forcibly remove them from conventions. Several comic cons are adopting “no AI art” policies as a consequence, which is nonsensical as so much of the industry is already moving that direction.
Tom Brevoort from Marvel took a more rational look at AI on his blog, toying around with the idea to make some concept art for personal use. He posted about his experience:There’s obviously been a lot of concern about the impact that A.I. programs are going to have on the creative arts, and how such programs remix and repurpose the works of other artists without credit or recompense. And these are all very sound arguments and matters that are going to need to be worked out. By that same token, the history of human innovation proves pretty conclusively that once something is discovered, all efforts to halt its further use are likely to be in vain. Technology changes the world, whether we want it to or not. So it falls to us to make sure those changes are proper and fair and equitable.All of which is to say that I wound up messing around with Google’s Gemini AI program for a little bit this past week, and with it I generated a couple of things that I’m going to share with you here. Irresponsible? Probably. But for all that the software is undeniably dangerous, it’s also pretty fun to use. And as this remains and will always remain a free feature, well, you get what you pay for.From there, he posted a couple of images he used for AI for his blog branding, which looked pretty interesting. But the takeaway here is very interesting. As he says from his position of authority in the industry, technology that is unleashed is not going to simply go away because non-adopters cry about it. It’s here to stay, and it’s only getting better by the day, and more useful for artistic design and more.Brevoort rationalizes his use as he’s trying to remind his readers that he’s toying with it in a non-commercial manner, but so many commercial artists are already using it, at least in a partial form for their creations.
As much as conventions are going out of their way to try to ban AI artists from existing, it’s a tacit admission by the cons and by the artists present that the AI art is more commercially viable than their human-made pieces. That fear is why they’re trying to stop the flow of free commerce, as they know they can’t compete under free market circumstances.For the convention circuit it’s more mind-boggling why they’re panicking about it. So much art in those spaces is comprised of artists making prints, t-shirts, and sketches of corporate trademarked IPs like Batman or Spider-Man, so if their problem with AI art is “it’s stealing art!” they’re often quite literally IP thiefs in those spaces for the most part already.All of the arguments against AI art usually come down to emotional fear and not any logical reasoning, and as Tom Brevoort says, that’s exactly why it’s inevitable.
Translation:>there isn't enough demand for comics anymore to justify spending almost $60/page to hire someone to write, pencil, ink, color, and letter the thing.
>>150237781Thank you, Ollie.
>capeshit publisher that only publishes slop uses AI to publish more slop for a lower cost to publish slopcapeshit was already completely worthless shit. this won't make things either worse or better
Dunno about the rest of you but I have no desire to read an AI generated story nor look at AI generated art. Land's art is basically a prequel to AI generated art. And considering how often Marvel continue to use Land despite his blatantly obvious tracing, I no doubt that they will definitely use AI generated art.
>>150238049What if they're already tracing AI generated art?
>>150237649>commentary on someone else's week old blog postThis is yet another dumbfuck shilling his substack of worthless chatgpt assisted blog posts. The writer apparently goes by Vox Day and has a bunch of other slop content attempting to cash in on culture war outrage.
>>150237649If someone can't be bothered to make it then why should I be bothered to buy and read it?
>>150238107They you haven't been paying attention. What do you think all the beaner artists they've been hiring have been doing?
>>150238107>What if they're already tracing AI generated art?What's the difference with a normal human being tracing from someone elses art? What's the difference from AI getting inspiration from other peoples works while the human does the same thing?
Why the fuck are we getting so many blog reposts this is like the fourth in the last few days
>>150239558What the fuck is a blog?
>>150237878Stfu troon
>>150239432>What's the difference with a normal human being tracing from someone elses art?Almost nothing. I think that sometimes it can be more efficient >What's the difference from AI getting inspiration from other peoples works while the human does the same thing?You're refuting your own argument. One problem with tracing is that you're not innovating, adding something new to the medium. Something that hasn't been seen before and that will influence people to do something similar but not the same. Because if they did the same then the audience will point out that this artist is overrated or just a worst version of the former one. So the reason why ai art looks so generic and uninspired most of the times is because it gets inspiration (adds to its database) from human artists without doing something new. And then you have those normal human beings tracing its stiff, soulless art. Just like how Greg Land traces stock images. Will you defend Greg Land?
>>150239761>So the reason why ai art looks so generic and uninspired most of the times is because it gets inspiration (adds to its database) from human artists without doing something new. I disagree. The way the AI gains inspiration is doing exactly what a human does. In order to create something, you gotta copy a few things here and there. And lets not forget that the way the AI creates something is entirely up to the person typing the prompt.
AI is going to make /co/'s dreams come true
>>150239829You're right but still not disproving my post. Any artist can find a movie with interesting shots, pause it, and copy that frame. It may look nice, but the artist still isn't experimenting with new techniques, different ways to use paneling, etc. Someone that uses ai for stuff like that isn’t trying to push for new concepts and ideas, it's just for finishing something fast. I'm not even saying that modern art is good, it sucks. But using ai will make things worse. By accepting that there's no problem with it, you're also accepting that it lost its quality as a medium for expressing ourselves and is instead objectively just one way to cheaply produce money
>>150240643>Any artist can find a movie with interesting shots, pause it, and copy that frame. It may look nice, but the artist still isn't experimenting with new techniques, different ways to use paneling, etc. Someone that uses ai for stuff like that isn’t trying to push for new concepts and ideasAgain, I disagree. You can push AI to do unique things if you wish it too. It can also copy every single thing an artist can. It really depends on who's using the AI and what it commands it to. Hail AI.
>>150237649Why would I pay money for something an AI shat out in 20 seconds?
>>150237649Why would anyone think otherwise? They all went digital, because it was cheaper.
>the editors ruining marvel will soon have 100% creative control and will start pumping out comics with ai scripts and ai artFucking grim.
>>150243285Brevoort can flood comic shops with his cuck fantasies
>>150243285I will learn how to draw and make my own comics, I'm not kidding. It will take manu years, but I have a lot of ideas and I'm tired of the dire state of the indystry. Im sure that my fanfiction will be better
>>150243311Great, customers will promptly not read them
>>150243580name 1 idea or fanfic under your belt
>>150238143It's always the right-wing grifters that do it because they know people will dismiss their shit if they reveal themselves. The Vox Day substack is a new one but Jon Del Arroz does it with his and Bounding Into Comics would do it with theirs. Ironically for them, the fact that they're the only ones who go out of their way to hide the source means that everyone knows immediately it's coming from the griftosphee.
>>150244483I have many but I won't share them. It's very ambitious, and I fear that Marvel employees are lurking itt. That would explain some posts
