![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rynlingI'm working with a professional commercial artist on a traditional watercolor illustration for my upcoming Philadelphia zine. It's an amazing piece of art, and I can't wait for the artist to share it so I can brag about how cool it's been to work with them.
Once the physical paper flattens out after the final watercolor washes, the painting will be ready to scan, so the artist asked me if I have any preferences regarding the image file. I do in fact have a specific set of dimensions for the zine page, but the truth is that whatever the artist prefers is good. The way I explained it is this: "As much as I dislike AI art, the Spot Healer tool in Photoshop has gotten really useful over the past few updates, so I can seamlessly extend the borders of the unpainted watercolor paper if need be."
What I mean is that the Spot Healer brush in Photoshop uses AI to "fix" the specified area of an image to be consistent with the surrounding area. It's really useful for editing scans of old photos and book covers and such; and (along with my beloved brush smoothing setting), this tool is one of the main reasons why I keep paying for the software despite Adobe's bullshit. Seamlessly extending the borders of an image is one of the many things you can do with the tool, and honestly, it's real wizard hours.
The same applies to the AI spell/style check in Google Docs. I'm a very careful writer, but I'm also ADHD and a bit dyslexic, so this type of AI is super helpful to me. In fact, I'm in the process of editing one of my stories from 2018 in Google Docs, and it's like magic. The AI isn't doing the work for me, obviously, but it's like having a friendly crow sitting on my shoulder.
I'm not trying to make a cohesive argument here, but it's a shame that such a useful set of technologies is being used to plagiarize creative work in order to generate mindless spam for an entropy-spiraling attention economy.
Once the physical paper flattens out after the final watercolor washes, the painting will be ready to scan, so the artist asked me if I have any preferences regarding the image file. I do in fact have a specific set of dimensions for the zine page, but the truth is that whatever the artist prefers is good. The way I explained it is this: "As much as I dislike AI art, the Spot Healer tool in Photoshop has gotten really useful over the past few updates, so I can seamlessly extend the borders of the unpainted watercolor paper if need be."
What I mean is that the Spot Healer brush in Photoshop uses AI to "fix" the specified area of an image to be consistent with the surrounding area. It's really useful for editing scans of old photos and book covers and such; and (along with my beloved brush smoothing setting), this tool is one of the main reasons why I keep paying for the software despite Adobe's bullshit. Seamlessly extending the borders of an image is one of the many things you can do with the tool, and honestly, it's real wizard hours.
The same applies to the AI spell/style check in Google Docs. I'm a very careful writer, but I'm also ADHD and a bit dyslexic, so this type of AI is super helpful to me. In fact, I'm in the process of editing one of my stories from 2018 in Google Docs, and it's like magic. The AI isn't doing the work for me, obviously, but it's like having a friendly crow sitting on my shoulder.
I'm not trying to make a cohesive argument here, but it's a shame that such a useful set of technologies is being used to plagiarize creative work in order to generate mindless spam for an entropy-spiraling attention economy.
no subject
Date: 2024-06-24 08:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2024-07-09 02:13 pm (UTC)And it's a shame, because the medical tech applications of AI are very sexy!!
Anyway, I'm sure you've seen this already, but just in case:
https://x.com/ChrisAlvino/status/1804823161076080887