Thoughts on AI Usage

AI is a tool, it should always be managed, monitored and the finished product reviewed and amended by a human.

An artist who uses AI should always use the power to physically edit the work to align with their wants. Otherwise it is not a finished piece of art – it is just an AI generated object and should be classified as such (digital, AI:[source; rendering comment/original reference])

Any production medium should have the AI used as a reference. In the case of content on Restenford.com, I commonly put in references for articles – such as where the idea for the article came from (commonly a YouTube video, and any resources/references used ei. ChatGPT “what ever statement used.”

You will always need a human to judge the product, AI or otherwise, as something interesting. And the Artists eye to create, discern, and train AI will always be needed.

I do not have an art budget for this site – I don’t have a budget at all infect. The site is just a passion project.

With that in mind, I do use generative systems to create articles and sometimes illustrations – and will mark those items as AI in any article Reference.

My first degree is in fine art, my last in computer science. Having AI involved in art is fine and good, but I don’t believe it should be the end result.

We’re just seeing the beginnings of the use of the technology, and I think we can all agree AI can create some amazing images. However, they just seem to be missing ‘something’, and that, in my opinion, is the experienced and discerning eye of artists. Taking the product from AI and making it their own, being hyper critical and obsessive about their pieces I think we’ll be the next elevation in AI art form.

“AI is not a replacement for human creativity.” – Daniel D. Fox of Zweihander RPG

Reference

Some thoughts on “AI Art” by Thought Slime; https://youtu.be/BSLd3Mb85BY?si=rVQOrRghazbNZtfl

D&D Doubles Down on A.I. For Some Reason by Dungeon Craft https://youtu.be/jiVXJekukqE?si=ZMuCuN2OWT9Qbdeu