>he doesnt use AI to critique their drawingsImagine having access to instant feedback and not using it because of muh feelings
I've tested ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and they can all be led to give certain answers based on how you write your messages. that isn't to say they can't be helpful to any extent, but it's difficult to say exactly how useful they are (at least currently).
>>7840194To get actual feedback you have to shit on your drawings and present them as shit, and I know myself enough to know that if I do that that will damage my psyche in the long run.
>>7840194it couldn't even critique a sudoku I was doing
>Your drawing look great. :D>No, it's bad.>You are right it's bad. T_T>Do you want to learn more?
You guys are using chatgpt wrong. All of you are noobs.
>>7840223>All of you are noobs.why should we believe you aren't one too?
>>7840221Lmao this.
Is this another sharty thread or is just miku being a retarded low iq faggot?
>>7840221You need to give it a specific objective you want to aim for with the drawing, preferably a style followed by what to fix, how and why otherwise it just spews yes man answers
>>7840240It always spits out worthless generic answers and only über/beg/s are clueless enough that such tripe is useful to them
>>7840194Maybe it's because I don't want to pay for the premium version, but ChatGPT just straight up lies about my art sometimes. Last night I sent my art and asked for critique and it said my line weight is uniform when it very obviously wasn't.I think chatbots can be useful if you know how to talk to them, but I don't know how so it either unconditionally glazes me or hallucinates like a schizo patient. The other use I've tried to get out of it is sending my reference images to it and asking it to simplify it into basic 3D shape volumes so I can better learn construction, but they're never accurate.
>>7840194The great artists of antiquity, of the Renaissance, Baroque, and neoclassical periods achieved the pinnacle of sculpture, drawing and painting without ever having access to computers, 3D models or even photographs. AI is just going to regurgitate modern art instruction orthodoxy that proliferates over the internet, and do so without understanding, often contradicting itself, making you even dumber and more hopeless than you already are. But if you are turning to AI to begin with, it's already over for you.
>>7840194I prefer human feedback
>>7840234its a different character
>>7840221OP btfo and brown
>>7840194I've tried, half of the time it doesn't know what the fuck it's talking about.
>>7840194Yea, asking to something that says 30% of his stuff wrong, but it types so well that makes you believe everything is true.
>>7840194It's useless word salad, would only fool a /beg/
>>7840221kek
I don’t know how reliable AI is for critiquing art, but it does a decent job critiquing my writing when I tell it to be harsh and direct. It pointed out flaws in my story that I hadn’t even realized were there. Most of its suggested fixes are shit, but at least I can get instant feedback to improve my story without worrying about someone stealing it.I assume it won’t be long before they can do the same with art.
>>7840194>run your picture through AI detector>it glazes how "highly skilled" and "professional" the drawing is>you're a permaint
>>7840194what do you even need critique for? since art is so subjective. and when it comes to technical skill, you would have to be an idiot not to know your own skill level.
>>7840831Google steals your story if you put it on Gemini. Whenever I get help from the AI, I always change the name of my characters, change the setting, and change small things in the plot that I can substitute back easily, as well as certain contexts, just so that nobody, not even the AI or Google, can steal my work. I wouldn't trust any AI chatbot with my writing.
>>7840194even the clanker is telling me to study loomis
>>7840194AI doesn't have an opinions, or taste, it works by predicting what's next - so how can that analyse your work and tell you what's needs improving? It's just giving bog-standard responses, ones that it likely would have any work, landscape or figure portrait, a painting of a woman or a painting of a mech.It just fools you into believe its 'advice' because it can tell you what is in your painting - but the ability to categorise and define what is in an image is actually the initial reason people drawings and art were fed into these AI's in the first place, so they SHOULD be able to do that much at least.
>>7840859>art is so subjective.even with the subjective side to art there are objective elements. for instance, depending on your audience, there are different subject matter which you could make art about which would have varying degrees of intrigue. regardless of whether you knew that or to what degree, that is objectively true. and a LLM with knowledge of art history and trends might be able to, at the very least, nudge you in the right direction there. (and that's just one example.)>you would have to be an idiot not to know your own skill level.knowing your full potential/skill level isn't entirely about how smart/dumb or skilled/unskilled you are. your self-understanding is also about how you conceptualize art, what your goals and taste are, how egotistical or diffident you are, your environment (proximity bias, for example).
>>7840877LLMs have no actual knowledge. You are showing your art to a stochastic parrot.
>>7840878
