[blueblimp]

> With the advent of generative AI art, it seems immoral from a fiduciary responsibility point of a view that an art director doesn't train an AI model on their illustrator's art before laying them off.

If they do that, the quality of illustrations they'll get will be vastly worse (as can be seen from the comparisons in the article). If they were willing to spend $1000 on an illustration in the first place, I doubt they'd accept that quality drop.

[yuzuquat]

As someone who's collected roughly ~40k images over the past decade, I'm tempted to say a lot of the images in the article look pretty good. That being said, I think the quality will only continue to improve. Moreover, for an art director who can easily generate a couple hundred images, it shouldn't be difficult to pick out 2-3 good looking ones from a large batch.

[blueblimp]

Superficially, they look good. That's what's new about 2022 AI image generation, and it's legitimately impressive. But as I've seen more of these images (and especially used the tools myself) and taken a closer look, I've noticed that they lack the deeper content that all human art has.

Hollie Mengert points this out in the article:

> “I feel like AI can kind of mimic brush textures and rendering, and pick up on some colors and shapes, but that’s not necessarily what makes you really hireable as an illustrator or designer. If you think about it, the rendering, brushstrokes, and colors are the most surface-level area of art. I think what people will ultimately connect to in art is a lovable, relatable character. And I’m seeing AI struggling with that.”