If it’s any consolation, we are nearing the point where it’s legit impossible to tell and people will slowly go back to caring about the content instead.
It means that once the comic output from AI is indistinguishable from the output of an artist, then people will stop concentrating on the tools used and go back to judging a comic on if it was funny or entertaining.
This guy draws really well but none of his comics are good. It’s all trite boring pandering.
To be clear, I’m not saying hand made art has no value, just that a shit joke isn’t somehow better than a good one just because of the tools used.
Good content + real art > Good content + AI > boring content + real art
Agreed. That’s why I keep referencing the toupee fallacy: it’s easy to detect AI slop because it’s slop but anything well-made flies under the radar. This leads many people to assume that everything made using AI is by default not good and conversely when something is good they falsely assume a human made it. I’d argue that virtually every devout AI hater has at some point enjoyed AI content because they failed to detect it as such.
So no, not all toupees look bad - you only notice the bad ones.
Not the only value, just that it’s the main one. Because we read comics to be entertained, not to marvel at someone’s drawing talent. If comics were only about art quality, then we wouldn’t have stick figure and paint drawings getting upvotes either.
Like I said, having something hand drawn well is always a huge positive, but it doesn’t make up for trite low denominator content.
Good content + art > good content + AI > bad content + art
Going Art > AI no matter what just means you have little perspective and live your life through knee jerk reactions.
If you go just by content, his comics suck, deal with it.
Speak for yourself. Sometimes I do, but art style is often a critical value for me. I like Revoy’s art, and have done for over 15 years. I agree that his writing is not always amazing, but I still enjoy his work as a whole.
If you go just by content
a) This is a weird definition of “content” - I think most people would include visual art, and b) that’s a big universalising “if” … I don’t think most people only value a comic for it’s words.
My point is that once you can’t tell, then you’ll go back to judging a comic how you used to (a mix of art content + message content)
Right now, you first look if it’s AI or not and toss it in the bin if it is. That’s fine but are you going to start chasing down Krita files for everything you see in a month?
We are seriously close to not being to tell if a comic is AI generated, and I’m talking about raw output from a two sentence prompt.
If it’s any consolation, we are nearing the point where it’s legit impossible to tell and people will slowly go back to caring about the content instead.
What does this mean? Is art not content?
It means that once the comic output from AI is indistinguishable from the output of an artist, then people will stop concentrating on the tools used and go back to judging a comic on if it was funny or entertaining.
This guy draws really well but none of his comics are good. It’s all trite boring pandering.
To be clear, I’m not saying hand made art has no value, just that a shit joke isn’t somehow better than a good one just because of the tools used.
Good content + real art > Good content + AI > boring content + real art
Agreed. That’s why I keep referencing the toupee fallacy: it’s easy to detect AI slop because it’s slop but anything well-made flies under the radar. This leads many people to assume that everything made using AI is by default not good and conversely when something is good they falsely assume a human made it. I’d argue that virtually every devout AI hater has at some point enjoyed AI content because they failed to detect it as such.
So no, not all toupees look bad - you only notice the bad ones.
Damn, that’s a super crass way of approaching the world.
It’s crazy to imagine someone judging something on the value and enjoyment it brings them.
It’s crazy to imagine the only value in an art work is how well it conveys a joke
Not the only value, just that it’s the main one. Because we read comics to be entertained, not to marvel at someone’s drawing talent. If comics were only about art quality, then we wouldn’t have stick figure and paint drawings getting upvotes either.
Like I said, having something hand drawn well is always a huge positive, but it doesn’t make up for trite low denominator content.
Good content + art > good content + AI > bad content + art
Going Art > AI no matter what just means you have little perspective and live your life through knee jerk reactions.
If you go just by content, his comics suck, deal with it.
Speak for yourself. Sometimes I do, but art style is often a critical value for me. I like Revoy’s art, and have done for over 15 years. I agree that his writing is not always amazing, but I still enjoy his work as a whole.
a) This is a weird definition of “content” - I think most people would include visual art, and b) that’s a big universalising “if” … I don’t think most people only value a comic for it’s words.
My point is that once you can’t tell, then you’ll go back to judging a comic how you used to (a mix of art content + message content)
Right now, you first look if it’s AI or not and toss it in the bin if it is. That’s fine but are you going to start chasing down Krita files for everything you see in a month?
We are seriously close to not being to tell if a comic is AI generated, and I’m talking about raw output from a two sentence prompt.