Bob the Wizard AI Kerfuffle

[Demesnedenoir]

For those not following SPFBO9, they had a rule that books with AI-assisted covers were not banned from the writing contest, but the covers wouldn't count toward the cover contest. After all, it is to promote human artists.

We probably have a lot of this to look forward to in the future.

First, the cover was accused of being AI-assisted, and as it turns out, the accusation was (apparently) correct as the Photoshop file had layers with AI-generated names.

Now, the book itself is being accused of being AI-assisted.

FUN!

 

[pmmg]

Brave new world.

 

[Devor]

That kind of begs the question, but where's the line? If I hire an artist, who uses two pieces of stock art, one AI-generated image, and does tons of editing work to make it work out, then does the character art themselves and adds artistic stylings all over the place.... just how much assistance is too much?

 

[pmmg]

If it says no AI, any Ai would be too much.

 

[Devor]

If it says no AI, any Ai would be too much.

What if I hired someone to do all that, and they didn't tell me they used the one AI image as part of it?

 

[pmmg]

What if butterfly's didn't have wings?

If I hire and artist, and ask them, or they say, that they do not use AI and they do, what am I do to? Maybe I wont know. The world works on trust. Be worthy of it.

 

[Queshire]

Whelp, sucks to be you. Shoulda vetted the people you work with better.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

This appears to be what happened, and from what I gather, the flaming went after the author. It doesn't help that the cover creator then defended and lied about it. Possibly on the notion that they'd done enough work to make it not AI. Who knows? Apparently, the AI cover guy deleted his social media accounts and disappeared afterward.

I said "I don't know" when asked about my cover because, while I don't think it used AI, there's no way I'd know for sure. Better safe than sorry.

What if I hired someone to do all that, and they didn't tell me they used the one AI image as part of it?

 

[Prince of Spires]

In my opinion, this simply shows the fear that always accompanies new, paradigm-shifting technologies. Just look back in history, and each similar technology has similar cries of people having all sorts of opinions about the technology. The fact that AI now assisted in generating a cover capable of winning a cover contest shows how far the technology has come. Given this, I would be surprised if in 5 years time most covers wouldn't contain some bits of AI generated images.

It's simple economics. I can create a unique image in seconds for next to no cost. Why pay for the use of stock photos that look the same for everyone when I can have it cheaper and more unique by using AI? With a bit of practice a professional could then probably create a great looking cover in an hour or two. Make it 3 hours if the author has an opinion. That means in 3 hours a cover creator could create a completely unique cover as good as anything handdrawn (for the purpose of selling books). Why then would anyone pay a thousand+ dollars for a handmade one if you can get the same quality for $200 - $400? Or alternatively, a creator can create unique and better pre-made covers using AI for $50. Why pay $250 then?

For many publishing is a business. One of the biggest fixed expenses for a book is the cover. If someone can reduce that to a fraction of the cost for a higher quality, then they are going to do so. Not everyone of course, and I'm sure that if you sell Brandon Sanderson levels of books you will still get your favorite artist to create unique pieces of art. But if you expect to sell 1.000 copies, then you'll pay $50 to a cover creator to use AI and give you a cover that's almost as good.

And in 5 years it will be a non-issue, and people will look back and wonder what the fuss is all about.

If you're a cover designer my advice would be to adapt to the new reality...

**Small editorial note: The legal side of this does need to be figured out. AI needs to be trained on something. There need to be rules about what that something is, and if people deserve compensation for that something and all that. That discussion just won't change the outcome of the technology.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Well, maybe, but this is a cover contest. SPFBO's argument is not "no AI covers allowed" it's "no AI covers in the art contest" which makes sense. The point is to help promote an artist, not a machine. From what I am gathering, the artist here lied and then attempted to cover the AI tracks in the Photoshop files, making it look like they did way more work than they actually did.

If there had been no lie, then the brouhaha would not have happened. There isn't an exact % given, but I'd guess around 2-3% of the covers claimed AI content and maybe another 5% said "I don't know" like I did, and nobody is bitching about that... I'm sure someone is, but the reality is that it's the deception that is the crime.

Personally, I think the use of AI by talented artists will lower costs and improve quality/diversity, because until now graphic designers mostly dipped into the exact same pool of stock photos to the point of my being able to pick out the base images used. The bigger problem here is when AI becomes a thief. That's where it gets tricky.

In my opinion, this simply shows the fear that always accompanies new, paradigm-shifting technologies. Just look back in history, and each similar technology has similar cries of people having all sorts of opinions about the technology. The fact that AI now assisted in generating a cover capable of winning a cover contest shows how far the technology has come. Given this, I would be surprised if in 5 years time most covers wouldn't contain some bits of AI generated images.

It's simple economics. I can create a unique image in seconds for next to no cost. Why pay for the use of stock photos that look the same for everyone when I can have it cheaper and more unique by using AI? With a bit of practice a professional could then probably create a great looking cover in an hour or two. Make it 3 hours if the author has an opinion. That means in 3 hours a cover creator could create a completely unique cover as good as anything handdrawn (for the purpose of selling books). Why then would anyone pay a thousand+ dollars for a handmade one if you can get the same quality for $200 - $400? Or alternatively, a creator can create unique and better pre-made covers using AI for $50. Why pay $250 then?

For many publishing is a business. One of the biggest fixed expenses for a book is the cover. If someone can reduce that to a fraction of the cost for a higher quality, then they are going to do so. Not everyone of course, and I'm sure that if you sell Brandon Sanderson levels of books you will still get your favorite artist to create unique pieces of art. But if you expect to sell 1.000 copies, then you'll pay $50 to a cover creator to use AI and give you a cover that's almost as good.

And in 5 years it will be a non-issue, and people will look back and wonder what the fuss is all about.

If you're a cover designer my advice would be to adapt to the new reality...

**Small editorial note: The legal side of this does need to be figured out. AI needs to be trained on something. There need to be rules about what that something is, and if people deserve compensation for that something and all that. That discussion just won't change the outcome of the technology.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I do agree that for a "No AI Allowed" cover contest that the entry should have been disqualified (if it hadn't been pulled by the author / artist). And the artist can righly be called out about that. Though I don't blame the author for entering the novel, since he did it in good faith.

It was more a general observation on a lot of the comments I say in a few Twitter threads about this cover.

 

[pmmg]

Edited to remove superfluous comment.

I'd not blame the author for not knowing, specially if they were led to believe something else. But people have also called into question is his work does not also use AI, if that was discovered, that would also be disqualifying. Otherwise...game on.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Another confirmation: By my answering "I don't know," the Contessa cover was disqualified for consideration.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I'm wondering at what point people consider something done by AI. I understand that for this competition, the use of any image created by AI meant you were excluded from the competition. That's fair. I'm more curious in general what people think.

Does any bit created by AI mean it's done by AI? What if it was only 1 or 2 images out of a dozen? How is it then different from just using stock photos and manipulating those? After all, an AI created image is just an original stockphoto... What if I only asked an AI for ideas and examples?