Question for the artists:
Have you ever been asked to fix mistakes made by image-generating AIs?

Reason for this question:
I'm on Stack Overflow , a website where people can ask programming questions.
Some people tell ChatGPT to write programs for them, and when these programs don't work, they ask for help on SO.
And this made me wonder if the same thing happens to artists.
"The AI drew me a three-boobed dragon, but the hands are all wrong, please fix them for me, for free! Thanks in advance."

mantikor said:
Question for the artists:
Have you ever been asked to fix mistakes made by image-generating AIs?

Reason for this question:
I'm on Stack Overflow , a website where people can ask programming questions.
Some people tell ChatGPT to write programs for them, and when these programs don't work, they ask for help on SO.
And this made me wonder if the same thing happens to artists.
"The AI drew me a three-boobed dragon, but the hands are all wrong, please fix them for me, for free! Thanks in advance."

That would be horribly ironic if it resembled the artist's own pre-existing artwork (and thus why they asked them specifically).

I think the future of commercial art will be a sort of 'cyborg artist', where a human artist and an AI work together matching their strengths to each others' weaknesses.

I imagine it'll be like

post #2968367

but worse. Like commissioning an artist to fix up a traceover by a virtual Rob Liefeld In A Can.

This is actually something I've been thinking about as a possibly edge that professional artists could have in a world where ai art and image generation becomes common place.

From what I've heard, these programs require a lot of artistic knowledge if you want them to make pieces that have any chance of being passible right out of the render, so there'll likely be a lot of amateurs who will generate images that'll need touching up.

Artists could fill that niche to make up for the losses they may take from getting fewer proper commissions. (among other options)

It'll probably be cheaper work, but also quicker and easier work.

alphamule said:
That would be horribly ironic if it resembled the artist's own pre-existing artwork (and thus why they asked them specifically).

If an artist is being sought out to edit a piece because the piece was made to mimic their style, they can charge extra.

Not can the artist provide the expertise on their own style, but also the ability for the client to say that the piece was still directly handled by the artist in some way.

It makes me wonder if the programs that are trained on public data sets should be made to require the prompter to name specific artists to increase the chance of those artists being reached out for touch ups. (not to mention credited)

thelibertineyeen said:
If an artist is being sought out to edit a piece because the piece was made to mimic their style, they can charge extra.

Not can the artist provide the expertise on their own style, but also the ability for the client to say that the piece was still directly handled by the artist in some way.

Somewhat similar to the business practices of the late Thomas Kinkade.
But at least the actual artist would be doing the touching-up, not an anonymous peon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kinkade#Authenticity
Thus while it is believed that Kinkade designed and painted all of his original paintings, the ones collectors were likely to own were printed factory-like and touched up with manual brush strokes by someone other than Kinkade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kinkade#Business
Some of the prints also feature light effects that are painted onto the print surface by hand by "skilled craftsmen," touches that add to the illusion of light and the resemblance to an original work of art, and which are then sold at greater prices.