this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
41 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

49268 readers
688 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This is not about any specific case. It's just a theoretical scenario that popped into my mind.

For context, in many places is required to label AI generated content as such, in other places is not required but it is considered good etiquette.

But imagine the following, an artist is going to make an image. Normal first step is search for references online, and then do the drawing taking reference from those. But this artists cannot found proper references online or maybe the artist want to experiment, and the artist decide to use a diffusion model to generate a bunch of AI images for reference. Then the artist procedes to draw the image taking the AI images as references.

The picture is 100% handmade, each line was manually drawn. But AI was used in the process of making this image. Should it have some kind of "AI warning label"?

What do you think?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Mothra@mander.xyz 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It just gives the audience a clearer picture of the artist's process. I'm not saying artists (and btw I'm an artist) need to disclose every piece of reference they use for everything, every time. However many artists do share their process, and the way in which reference is used can vary greatly. Many artists use reference to practically copy the subject, others just use reference to understand the subject and then create something completely different. Or in a completely different pose.

As someone consuming art, I would appreciate knowing what type of mastery and skills the artist has- did they envision this in their minds? How much? What inspired them? Is this an accident or deliberate? Etc. This may be irrelevant to some people, but many at some point want to understand how the artist thinks and feels.

Before AI it would have been obvious that if the subject is not realistic and not found elsewhere then it has to be the artist's imagination, or an accident. Now an artist could be copying AI instead and you would never know.

I find that artists that tend to copy their references with high fidelity (such as many wildlife painters or illustrators, or personal portraits) are also among those disclosing their references the most. This makes the audience appreciate the artists' skills more. You can see the difference between the original and the result whereas you would otherwise have to guess.

[โ€“] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

Thanks for the explanation, makes sense.