Demesnedenoir
Myth Weaver
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24713789/236697_How_AI_art_killed_an_indie_book_cover_contest_HHerrera.jpeg)
How AI art killed an indie book cover contest
Authors and editors are dealing with a new world.
www.theverge.com
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
The AI Cover Kerfuffle article
- Thread starter Demesnedenoir
- Start date
www.theverge.com
pmmg
Myth Weaver
Pity. But what can one do?
Robots win for now
Robots win for now
Prince of Spires
Auror
It's a bit a weird article arguing that AI is both good enough and not good enough at the same time, without taking a stance on it either way.
Viewed from the market as a whole, it will play out fairly simple. Namely, when AI is good enough for a certain job then it will get used, while where it isn't people will try and fail.
Yes, this was a big deal since the cover broke the contest rules. But a lot of people also object on general principle while arguing that AI isn't good enough or doesn't have enough soul to be helpful. In the end, an AI assisted cover won a cover contest with some pretty good entries in there. Which just proves that in the right hands it can be a great asset to an artist. If it matched my story, I wouldn't have minded having the Bob the Wizard cover, even if it was partially made by AI. Readers don't care who or what made the cover. They want something that catches their eye. That's all. And most will be viewing this cover as a thumbnail on Amazon, where you can't tell the weird pockets or the irregularities in the man's glasses or their weird shape in the cloud.
Same with writing by the way. Magazines don't like AI generated stories, but that's because they're all bad. As mentioned in the article, those editors could tell at a glance that the stories were AI generated. That means they're not good enough. That attitude will shift once the stories do get good enough.
Viewed from the market as a whole, it will play out fairly simple. Namely, when AI is good enough for a certain job then it will get used, while where it isn't people will try and fail.
Yes, this was a big deal since the cover broke the contest rules. But a lot of people also object on general principle while arguing that AI isn't good enough or doesn't have enough soul to be helpful. In the end, an AI assisted cover won a cover contest with some pretty good entries in there. Which just proves that in the right hands it can be a great asset to an artist. If it matched my story, I wouldn't have minded having the Bob the Wizard cover, even if it was partially made by AI. Readers don't care who or what made the cover. They want something that catches their eye. That's all. And most will be viewing this cover as a thumbnail on Amazon, where you can't tell the weird pockets or the irregularities in the man's glasses or their weird shape in the cloud.
Same with writing by the way. Magazines don't like AI generated stories, but that's because they're all bad. As mentioned in the article, those editors could tell at a glance that the stories were AI generated. That means they're not good enough. That attitude will shift once the stories do get good enough.
