AI assists in tablet art = pose generators, auto-coloring, line stabilizers, generative fill, and background/texturing tools.
AI assists in tablet art = pose generators, auto-coloring, line stabilizers, generative fill, and background/texturing tools.
AI assists are generative fill tools because it's crawling someone else's work without attribution you create that fill. Using a 3D pose to help you understand perspective is the same as the lighting model I have on my desk, that's not AI.
Line stabilizers are not AI, they correct for deficiencies in programs that can't keep up with the speed of a stroke, no AI use there, it's literally reading what you did for accuracy.
Background/texturing tools... I don't really know what you mean by this. Do you mean taking a sample of a texture from a picture and using overlays? That's not AI either, you have to choose the texture reference (so many free to use ones online) and choose how it's applied.
I feel like people aren't understanding what artists mean when we say we're anti AI. We're not anti drawing tools. We're against prompts and scraping other people's art without attribution in the name of repackaging it as your own. That's not this.
Line stabilizers do alter what ends up on the canvas, so they “create” in the sense of modifying output, they follow fixed ai algorithms to smooth or predict your strokes. We have just become so accustomed to using it, much like autocorrect in writing, so it really is just a sense of this vs that
The point of line stabilizers is to make drawing on a tablet closer to what it's like to draw on paper. There are many reasons why tablets have inconsistencies with strokes, but it's not referencing anyone else's work. It's a tool using math to correct, it's not machine learning.
I'm truly trying to understand if you're making an argument for being a traditional art purist. If that's your line of thinking, that's ok. It just isn't the same argument as being anti AI.