5 thoughts on “Tweet of the Day, AI Schemes Have A Certain, Ah, *Gravitational* Pull To Them edition.”
It feels a lot like blockchain did … or does, I guess, since we seem to have given up on NFTs, but cryptocurrencies are still around. Can’t wait for the stupid tech fads to start interbreeding for maximum memery. Blockchain-based LLMs driving the next generation of cloud-based Web 3.0 cryptocurrency as a service ecosystems ought to be just the thing to filter out the biggest suckers in the VC world.
Meh.
On the first hand, comics are not a purely visual medium. If it were, Schlock Mercenary would never have survived, and Basic Instructions couldn’t have gotten away with reusing the same drawings over and over (and over).
Without strong writing, the art doesn’t matter.
On the second hand, the visual aspect needs to be, if not unique, readily identifiable. While also being consistent within itself. At a glance, can tell if a comic strip is Peanuts, Hagar the Horrible, Garfield, Prince Valiant, Calvin and Hobbes, The Far Side, or Girl Genius.
An image generator will either churn out cookie cutter designs, or will not generate consistent images for the same character. It’s the nature of the beast.
On the third hand, generating caricatures via algorithm will necessarily produce exaggerated features, a goodly number of which will be stereotypes. And I have popcorn ready for when the kneeler is condemned as racist.
I do miss Schlock Mercenary, though I respect that it had a definite and satisfying end to it.
Then you’ve got the Dragon Awards abruptly kicking Cedar Sanderson’s cover for “Goblin Market” off the ballot.
Because she transparently uses AI tools to block out the rough drafts of her cover concepts. (And has posted tutorials showing her workflow.)
Meanwhile, some of the remaining covers on the ballot associated with major publishers appear to have used AI tools to at least an equal extent.
But they weren’t transparent about it, and aren’t being punished.
Dragon awards went after Sad Puppies didn’t they? Seems consistently evil.
It feels a lot like blockchain did … or does, I guess, since we seem to have given up on NFTs, but cryptocurrencies are still around. Can’t wait for the stupid tech fads to start interbreeding for maximum memery. Blockchain-based LLMs driving the next generation of cloud-based Web 3.0 cryptocurrency as a service ecosystems ought to be just the thing to filter out the biggest suckers in the VC world.
Meh.
On the first hand, comics are not a purely visual medium. If it were, Schlock Mercenary would never have survived, and Basic Instructions couldn’t have gotten away with reusing the same drawings over and over (and over).
Without strong writing, the art doesn’t matter.
On the second hand, the visual aspect needs to be, if not unique, readily identifiable. While also being consistent within itself. At a glance, can tell if a comic strip is Peanuts, Hagar the Horrible, Garfield, Prince Valiant, Calvin and Hobbes, The Far Side, or Girl Genius.
An image generator will either churn out cookie cutter designs, or will not generate consistent images for the same character. It’s the nature of the beast.
On the third hand, generating caricatures via algorithm will necessarily produce exaggerated features, a goodly number of which will be stereotypes. And I have popcorn ready for when the kneeler is condemned as racist.
I do miss Schlock Mercenary, though I respect that it had a definite and satisfying end to it.
Then you’ve got the Dragon Awards abruptly kicking Cedar Sanderson’s cover for “Goblin Market” off the ballot.
Because she transparently uses AI tools to block out the rough drafts of her cover concepts. (And has posted tutorials showing her workflow.)
Meanwhile, some of the remaining covers on the ballot associated with major publishers appear to have used AI tools to at least an equal extent.
But they weren’t transparent about it, and aren’t being punished.
Dragon awards went after Sad Puppies didn’t they? Seems consistently evil.