hugob00m wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2024 5:22 pm
I'm back again.
I suppose that if it's advanced enough and is fed enough information, A.I. could do a story-line that resembles the style of a human author.
As for the pictures, maybe A.I. can do that too.
I'm currently using an art program to draw my panels for
O.T. Katie. Computer art is really good for repetitive stuff.
The first
O.T. Katie strips were mostly hand-drawn... but even in the beginning I used a bit of computer editing to clean up some lines and correct some mis-drawn parts. Lately, I've been doing all of my drawing on the computer. I use a line tool that starts a line where I click the cursor, and then I move the cursor to another point and click for a straight line, or click and drag to make a curved line. It's almost like drawing by hand, but easier to correct mistakes,
I've turned most of my characters into what I call "electronic paper dolls". They're divided up into hands. forearms, torsos. heads. etc. Once I get each body part placed correctly, I use the line tool to trace the entire character.
That was one way of getting a consistency of the characters from one frame to the next without having live models to draw from.
I started drawing by hand when I was very young. As far back as I can remember, I was three and illustrating stories that I made up. At about ten, I used to watch Jon Gnagy on T.V. and I talked my dad into buying an instruction book that he had written. I took some art classes in high school that helped me learn some things about using pencils, pens and paintbrushes. However, when it comes to computer art, it's all been trial-and-error.
Things like perspective, composition and shading carry over from what I've learned about traditional art methods. I suppose you could say that I'm combining traditional art with some
more-or-less modern tools.
B00m:
To me, this means you're using digital tools to create your art (which is standard procedure these days, a point I'll return to in a moment), but it's still being driven by your own creative intellect. AI has no creative intellect or any intellect at all;
artificial intelligence is really a misnomer because as I noted above, it's really just a very sophisticated program. In fact, I think the best way to view it is as a supervising program that designs and executes another program on the fly when stimulated to do so by some human input, for example "Draw a picture of Captain Kirk spanking Lt. Uhura". This "called subroutine" as we used to call them would itself probably call on other subroutines to handle each sub-task.
AI would take that question and somehow find examples of Kirk and Uhura (by searching relevant data bases on the internet, one supposes - subroutine #1), pose them as spanker and spankee (subroutine #2), and then fill in some stylistic details (subroutine #3). Each of these subtasks might be further broken down, of course, but I think this has to be basically how it all works. An amazing degree of programming sophistication, yes, but it's more
simulated intelligence than
artificial intelligence. Indeed, AI basically crashed and burned when it was recently rolled out rather prematurely, mishandling any questions having to do with politics or the broader culture.
Google's
Gemini, for example, produced German Nazis of African descent (I guess Gemini didn't know about Nazi theories of Aryan superiority) and Nordic Vikings who looked like American Indians. Now, this was not a case of "garbage in, garbage out" because the data being input was not the problem - the
actual programming behind Gemini was contaminated by cultural Marxism, producing inaccurate, culturally-biased results. But suppose that had not been the case - could AI produce really good art (spanking or not)?
I think the answer is no, because AI-generated art would have to be derivative. AI would search out previous examples and try to produce something similar - exactly what we used to call a "swipe" with one artist copying another.
The days when comics artists inked over pencilled drawings and then painted them with colored inks are over; no one would produce a comic book that way today. Indeed, my one and only comic book, which I wrote and edited and which cannot be identified here, was drawn by one collaborator, colored by another, and lettered by a third all using digital techniques. And yet, it was a 100% human product and not AI-produced. So it is with your work on
O. T. Katie: you may use digital tools, but they are still
tools guided by you even if of a different kind than were used in the past.
I would guess that AI drawings are not going to be a big part of CSR's future, but it must be said that AI can already produce some decent (if unoriginal) spanking art, and expect it's going to make earning a living even more difficult for human artists than it is today. You can see how advertisers will try to replace human commercial artists with AI. Since I can't draw myself, I'd experiment with it a little if I had the time but I wouldn't want to rely on it for the majority of CSR's content.
) about the theoretical drawbacks to AI spanking art; the question before the House is "What role should AI play at CSR?"
