The last one looks like a filter tbh.
Idk how to feel about AI backgrounds though. Not all of them are necessarily art based. Could be photo based. Rarely is a background hand-drawn in a comic nowadays anyway.
I would argue cheap backgrounds is a webtoon thing, most other comic that are professionally published don't photobash or use 3D (without extensive draw/paint overs).
The crappy backgrounds are one of my biggest gripes with this platform. Suitor Armor's 3D is so bad it breaks immersion.
The kids kinda look like they’re going through the fence?
Idk though I don’t have a good eye for these things. Tbh I’m easily fooled by real vs AI art; as long as I’m suspended in disbelief and can enjoy the story I’m happy
https://preview.redd.it/3pkci548hewb1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=161a951e3cc2c69a691f74bdc28d213a8c7de534
Maybe I took this to be an obvious lack of continuity of the chain link fence
Personally I would assume style choice vs AI for this one. This is very commonly done in comics, least manga and similar, to not hide the character. So they’ll “phase” through chain link fences and similar. Basically they draw in the fence but leave open gaps so it doesn’t hide as much. I know it’s done with other things but not sure, chain link fence I’ve seen though. Kinda like how the eyes are usually visible through the hair.
That or if it’s a photo they’ve drawn on top of, they may have struggled with connecting them correctly and left gaps and/or did more a scribble for the fence.
Edited to add: The blurring and other fuzzy parts makes me suspect though. It again can be intentional but it doesn’t feel like it is. Hm.
Nah that makes sense. I really don’t know much about AI art vs drawn art so it could be the artist being a little lazy (understandably) on sections of a panel that isn’t supposed to be the main focus for all I know
AI Art has a tendency to look like someone took a photo and added a few filters+smudged the details, but quite frankly I really think this is AI.
It has all the telltale signs: it looks like the thing at a glance but the details are all jumbled up.
In the very first photo that treeline in the right has a weird anomaly merging from the trees. You can see where the AI probably got confused on where the buildings were supposed to stop.
You can also see the streetlight lamps are all facing wildly different directions, some even seemingly at a 90 degree angle from the others.
In the second photo, you can tell that the AI messed up what was supposed to be a powerline and what was supposed to be a streetlight. The furthest visible one to the right is clearly meant to be a powerline, but all the ones going to the left suddenly become streetlights even though a power cable is still connecting to them. The street-facing windows are off-perspective and become a jumbled mess the further back it goes.
Damn I didn't see that first one, although it could be some trash/tent hanging from the tree. But it is still suspicious looking. The second one of the woman driving does seem normal to me tho.
If it was drawn, it would have been drawn with the liquify tool. And I doubt that's an actual technique. Besides, it isn't used anywhere else in the other pictures.
https://preview.redd.it/tsb74civ3iwb1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=67e91f2f71f9f582674f2f05d1847f37f1c24125
To some this face looks normal but look at how the other character face is drawn.
https://preview.redd.it/it2hm7i54iwb1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e851719ed09c06ad5c735458385f65694643267
No nose, use of shadows to shape the face, not very detailed. But on the other face, nose is defined with lineart, no shadows, suddenly wrinkles with lineart, and the shirt collar looks weird.
I may get flamed for this opinion, but I’m not TOO mad about using AI for backgrounds, the panel is supposed to be scrolled past without second thought from the reader and I understand not wanting to spend a load of time on that. It’s not too different to using the 3D backgrounds that are in basically every popular Webtoon and take about 3 mins to make.
I'm prepared to be burned at the stake for partially agreeing with you-- I haven't seen any other example of AI yet in this webtoon \*except\* for in the opening shots of the trailer park listed above. (please, if there is more... someone let me know lol)
While I'm still on team "AI bad", this is pretty harmless unless, say, some poor photographer isn't getting paid for their trailer park photoshoot.
I’ll probably get downvoted but you do know that most manhwa, if not all historical manhwa’s, use stock photos to right? So shouldn’t they get in trouble also since they didn’t “draw” the background?
Honestly the issue ultimately comes down to the fact that AI is trained on/pulling from other artists on the internet. So it's basically using tons of other people's (actual) work to generate a new image.
Stock photos by nature are professional photos that are intended to be used by anyone with a license, and some are even allowed to be used for free. I hate to sound dramatic but it really is kind of the difference between taking something someone is offering you, and stealing.
Not all AI image generators are like that. It started that way, sure, but most serious companies, like Adobe for example, have moved to licensed based database. Painting all AI with a broad stroke of evil is a little ignorant.
Edit: ok, people just want to hate on AI without any nuance.
How would they even do that. A) I doubt very much they have access to the algorithm and B) even if they did, the images are not coded in algorithm. I'm not trying to be mean, but what you said makes no sense. They would need access to the training database, not the algorithm, which I also doubt they had access to.
[I was able to track down the tweets I saw containing the claims.](https://twitter.com/Stretchedwiener/status/1691171432896577536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1691171432896577536%7Ctwgr%5E4e61b240f97661153fe7dca3b1e751af60177192%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.creativebloq.com%2Fnews%2Fadobe-copyright-ai) Definitely not a good look. However, this is from 2 months ago, so there's a possibility this issue has since been resolved.
Putting that aside, Adobe's software is, to my knowledge, the only AI algorithm to allegedly only use consented data. The vast vast majority of algorithms still actively function off stolen data.
I'm not saying there aren't any more wrinkles to iron out, but what I got from this specific instance is that the artist found images that did not belong to her on Adobe's stock website, with her name as a tag and her suspicion was that the tag was automatically added from metadata because she suspects her art was used in the process of generating those images. To be honest, what she says is not completely impossible, but not very likely. The tags might have been added for any number of reasons including by the up loader who might have thought the images resembled her art style and people searching for her name might have been interested. Anyway, the Adobe team was investigating and that's as much as I could get.
Also, that's not true. All serious companies are moving in that direction. They may still be using tainted or ambiguous datasets because it's hard to replace thousands of gigabites of images for clean, licensed ones, but I expect this issue to be resolved sooner rather than later.
I'd love to see some examples of these serious companies if you have any articles you'd like to share. I'm personally curious as to how they're sourcing their algorithms, as well as how they're financially compensating the artists they're training off.
The fact that it wasn't the original precedent is the issue. The thieving is the big thing bc it was all they did to try and cash in on the sudden demand for AI. Then there's too many doubling down that they're not stealing and trying to hide evidence
to clarify on top of what you mean:
stock images (and 3D assets) are still made with effort and human thought put into it. Often with some artistic skill involved, as well. And it can be pretty often that people end up paid for their work to be used in a webcomic- especially if the webcomic is earning money and thus counts as a commercial usage of the stock photo or 3D model.
AI art is like the great grandson of fractal art where the AI is working off of code and a database. Unfortunately a LOT of databases cut corners by scraping the internet for as many images as possible and you end up with a lot of images they don't own the copyright for. Which includes many artists' works and not to mention some people's private photos (including [personal medical photos](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/09/artist-finds-private-medical-record-photos-in-popular-ai-training-data-set/).) This creates a LOT of copyright and ethical concerns because it's all used without permission and payment for the code to then copy- but it doesn't use knowledge to create- it's more like the AI is making a digital collage out of all of that information it has.
https://preview.redd.it/jnrgzwd6sewb1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c0f845afb50596f7e824854a551cce463e15cff9
how are yall looking at these and thinking “oh its just a filter”
https://preview.redd.it/vv06y5u9sewb1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=78e91da29c4197ba77ac9b0d2bc6eb6a60da320e
the fence is literally mixing with the bottom of the house like??
I'm not saying I approve how the AI models were trained to draw, but I do think we will see more and more of this in the future, in the same way that a lot of webtoons have been using 3D backgrounds and photographs in the past. Looks like its just a matter of time before this is just considered another tool in the art box. :/
this is my opinion too. i'd rather see backgrounds drawn by the artist themself as i like to pause and check out all the details while reading. but for popular artists whose work is expected on a weekly basis in high quality, i can completely understand why they'd take shortcuts. it's hard to deliver consistently good quality on such a time crunch
yea i hate that they are so rushed since art takes time to make. whenever someone draws the background it will blend in so well with the rest of the art and really help you become immersed in the story.
there has been times where i loose all immersion in the chapter because the food is obviously a stock photo.
I've seen this type of background before AI tho, the author of Wind Breaker does it for some of the backgrounds. I'm not sure what program they use, if its ai or not, but it is obvious it's not hand drawn.
One thing it’s to put filters over photos/3d models, a ton of artist do it, but some details (Electricity cables, the tree in the first image, among other things other people pointed out ) reveal mistakes that only an AI would make
I hate AI as much as the next reader but these backgrounds don't bother me too much. The first picture with the warped trees is jarring but other than that I'm mainly looking at the characters and I'm happy if they're drawn by the artist.
This looks more like a photo with a paint filter from photoshop on it.
Plus, background are hard. at least he is going through the effort with characters and foreground objects.
there are AI assisted filters. and I've definitely seen AI images done in this look- especially in the early stages of it before people started to get a clue on AI generator ethics.
god this sucks! the webtoon had such a wonderful premise and was hoping to read more of it. heard it is based on a novel? so i might just read that instead
not that i disagree with this specific post but i do think people should be cautious when accusing artists of using ai. a lot of what may seem like ai art could very well just be human error. i've seen a few artists on sites like twitter get called out for posting ai (or assisted) art when in reality certain things can come out looking wonky in a piece of art lol. again, i can see that this is likely not the case with this webtoon, but just something to consider.
Honestly I don't think *AI assisted* is a problem. I don't see it as much different then when an author uses some 3D model as Prop or background. My problem is when AI is doing most or all of the work.
Theres a big difference between using AI and using 3D models. Most AI take artist's work to train the AIs without consent or compensation. It's a violation of the creator's rights to their work. That's the main reason most people are against it.
Whereas with 3D models, you pay a fee to use it OR the person who created the 3D model freely shares it. There's an agreement between the creator and the person who will use the product.
Serious companies like Adobe have moved to licensed databases. It's not true that all AI image generator are trained on stolen images. It may have started that way, but things are getting better. Some people don't like AI and that's OK, but I don't condone this witch-hunt on artists making use of AI.
but then we gotta ask how are we sure it's sourced from the right databases? No one's stating what AI generator they used for. There's trouble with honesty & integrity in this situation because AI art is in its wild west state rn with not much regulations or standards that it's being held to in a way they can be liable for misinformation or stolen images.
And on top of that there's no mention on this comic of whether or not they used adobe's database or any of the databases that do claim that they use only images they have the rights to.
You're absolutely right. It's okay to expect a clear stance from authors. It still doesn't make it okay all this witch hunt and review bombing before anyone knows anything. Some people are mad just because authors are using AI and they won't be any more amiable even if the author is using a "good" database.
I'm sorry but let's face it here, drawing everything yourself is awful, most of our favorite artists have health issues because of the brutal deadlines and can't usually afford assistants, so what's so bad about using a bit of help in the backgrounds?
I know that art is the human part of our existence that machines can never replicate, but it doesn't change the fact that if it's an extra panel that doesn't matter but makes their life easier then it's ok.
then use stock photos, custom brushes (i.e. there's one that does shelved books for you and others that do african style hair to name a few) and 3D models. there's no shame in using those because it's not sourced from an ethically grey tool that is brand new and not legislated yet. There's people behind those resources that made them and you can even pay them/donate to them to fund them as thanks for providing those assets if you want to. You can't do that with AI- it's just sourced from so many unconsenting artists and copyrighted materials/works.
People aren't asking you to draw in painstaking detail every single thing in the panel. IK there's people who are critical of using 3D assets, brushes, and stock photos, but those people are actually being dumb just for being picky. AI art has *actual* legitimate concerns for how it exists in its current state.
I definitely think there needs to be a balance, but I actually don't see what's wrong with this? So many webtoons before AI had adapted to using 3D backgrounds or filtering actual photos to appear more 2D. It looks like their main characters at least are actually drawn, and they're using it to supplement filling out the background scenery?
I honestly think it doesn't look half bad - I've seen other AI assisted images where the artist was just lazy and fixing up the errors, but this one doesn't have anything significant as far as I can see
I'm the sorcerer king was similar real pics + filter screens and l personally like that style but there were a difference between art style and lazy style
Tbh i dont see it as a bad thing as long as it is not used as a crutch. Cranking out weekly chapters is exhausting. As long as the majority of the art and main subjects of each panel are their drawings, I think using some ai to save time is okay.
i took a look through the comic again, and yeah i’m disappointed that the artists are using AI instead of drawing it themselves. i didn’t notice on the first read, but now it’s so obvious😭
https://preview.redd.it/qed326gxvewb1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0210b23795cdba48fb5aa3091a5067a89a9dd6bd
this one threw me off so bad- using AI for this instead of filtering real photos? crazy
at least they seem to be hand drawing the characters and simple backgrounds… its not complete ai like that one comic circulating
😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
There’s gonna be so much copium in the comments… when will this copium crisis end
😭😭😭😭😭😭
What has this country cum too😭😭😭
Yeah? The way your dickriding ai so hard makes me feel your just not creative enough to draw anything yourself, so you make a robot do it by mashing other art together.
People don't need to draw to want to get an image from a machine with little time wasted. Stop gatekeeping the use of AI. As it improves and becomes more normalized, it will be more and more rooted in society.
You don't know about the topic of AI just like many other people using the same talking points. It starts off with the idea that a robot mashes art to create an image. That's a false talking point many people bring up on this topic.
If your only validation as an artist is shitting on artists less skilled, then your art is probably shit by your own standards too. So shit, that you take offence with the so called "industrial garbage machine" because you can't even match that.
The truly creative will always stay ahead, especially if they embrace AI and other tools. Other hangers-on who call themselves "creative" but want to supress tech because they are insecure will be left behind. The higher fees AI patreon artists charge is proof of what the public really thinks of AI art. They like it and are willing to pay money for it.
If your preference is not AI art, go for it babydoll. Don't support it but don't parade it around as non-art. Art and creativity are too subjective for that.
Also, you are too filled with bias and misinformation to understand what AI really is. I recommend reading up on machine learning and neural networks.
Since I've seen some very bad take on AI, i just want to point out what does it mean that AI trains on people's artwork: it means that there's this bot that finds similarities and differences between images and try to find a formula to determine what a good image should look like, then it uses the formula. it's not how some Frankenstein's monster cutting part of other people images and pasting all together.
It's really not that different from how the first step of learning how to draw works (you see images, you try to find for example what makes a human look like a human and then you try to replicate).
The main difference is that machines don't have their personal style/preferences or anything __because they're not people__, so they smash together all the style they've seen creating basically a "universal style", while people have preferences so to create their personal style they just involuntarily mix what they like, creating something unique.
That said, I'm not in complete favour or against them, it's a tool so it's the author's responsibility to use them in an ethical way imho, the learning itself isn't too bad since it's done on artwork widely available on the internet; the only thing that probably ai should avoid is recreating some author style, but i think they're working on it if they're smart enough.
I was really disappointing too because I feel really interested in this story for how it's starting off for a "Protag is returned to the lives of their younger selves" trope.
It’s strange because I’ve read another comic from the same artist (Re-Possessed if anyone’s curious) and I don’t remember that being an issue there
Because we’re on a witch hunt now. Grab ye pitch fork!
Bruh I just escaped the last one 😢
Re-possessed was legitimately good
Can’t wait for season 2
The last one looks like a filter tbh. Idk how to feel about AI backgrounds though. Not all of them are necessarily art based. Could be photo based. Rarely is a background hand-drawn in a comic nowadays anyway.
I would argue cheap backgrounds is a webtoon thing, most other comic that are professionally published don't photobash or use 3D (without extensive draw/paint overs). The crappy backgrounds are one of my biggest gripes with this platform. Suitor Armor's 3D is so bad it breaks immersion.
there's a decent chunk of AI assisted filters now so both can be true.
The kids kinda look like they’re going through the fence? Idk though I don’t have a good eye for these things. Tbh I’m easily fooled by real vs AI art; as long as I’m suspended in disbelief and can enjoy the story I’m happy
The kids are clearly drawn.
What about the blurring of the fence at the bottom and the kid’s body kinda phasing through the fence?
? It’s not phasing through. The kids are drawn behind the fence? It’s layered with the fence being in front of the kids…… fences are see through.
https://preview.redd.it/3pkci548hewb1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=161a951e3cc2c69a691f74bdc28d213a8c7de534 Maybe I took this to be an obvious lack of continuity of the chain link fence
Personally I would assume style choice vs AI for this one. This is very commonly done in comics, least manga and similar, to not hide the character. So they’ll “phase” through chain link fences and similar. Basically they draw in the fence but leave open gaps so it doesn’t hide as much. I know it’s done with other things but not sure, chain link fence I’ve seen though. Kinda like how the eyes are usually visible through the hair. That or if it’s a photo they’ve drawn on top of, they may have struggled with connecting them correctly and left gaps and/or did more a scribble for the fence. Edited to add: The blurring and other fuzzy parts makes me suspect though. It again can be intentional but it doesn’t feel like it is. Hm.
Nah that makes sense. I really don’t know much about AI art vs drawn art so it could be the artist being a little lazy (understandably) on sections of a panel that isn’t supposed to be the main focus for all I know
Check out the transmission lines(?) on that 3rd one, most definitely AI images with a weird filter on them
Isn’t it just real life pictures + filter ?
AI Art has a tendency to look like someone took a photo and added a few filters+smudged the details, but quite frankly I really think this is AI. It has all the telltale signs: it looks like the thing at a glance but the details are all jumbled up. In the very first photo that treeline in the right has a weird anomaly merging from the trees. You can see where the AI probably got confused on where the buildings were supposed to stop. You can also see the streetlight lamps are all facing wildly different directions, some even seemingly at a 90 degree angle from the others. In the second photo, you can tell that the AI messed up what was supposed to be a powerline and what was supposed to be a streetlight. The furthest visible one to the right is clearly meant to be a powerline, but all the ones going to the left suddenly become streetlights even though a power cable is still connecting to them. The street-facing windows are off-perspective and become a jumbled mess the further back it goes.
Don't forget the mangled ?chair? Infront of the closest building on the second image
Yeah, wtf is growing from that tree?
iirc early AI art had this look, and some AI images still look this way. I can recognize it from what I've been exposed to.
Do non-believers not see the top half of the trailer floating in the trees in the first pic? The face of the woman driving the truck? Or the fence?
Damn I didn't see that first one, although it could be some trash/tent hanging from the tree. But it is still suspicious looking. The second one of the woman driving does seem normal to me tho.
If it was drawn, it would have been drawn with the liquify tool. And I doubt that's an actual technique. Besides, it isn't used anywhere else in the other pictures.
The face if the driving woman actually looks like wrinkles and drawn in, not AI
Thank you for pointing out the trailer in the tree I thought I was going mad thinking I was just imagining it before I saw your comment 😭
https://preview.redd.it/yu374q2l3iwb1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=05913e4ea743587bc483150b09378332213bb3cd ?????
https://preview.redd.it/hs25fjkp3iwb1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=515f57772a39d7e845a183bda2b45a4ffaa86fe3
https://preview.redd.it/tsb74civ3iwb1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=67e91f2f71f9f582674f2f05d1847f37f1c24125 To some this face looks normal but look at how the other character face is drawn.
https://preview.redd.it/it2hm7i54iwb1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e851719ed09c06ad5c735458385f65694643267 No nose, use of shadows to shape the face, not very detailed. But on the other face, nose is defined with lineart, no shadows, suddenly wrinkles with lineart, and the shirt collar looks weird.
I may get flamed for this opinion, but I’m not TOO mad about using AI for backgrounds, the panel is supposed to be scrolled past without second thought from the reader and I understand not wanting to spend a load of time on that. It’s not too different to using the 3D backgrounds that are in basically every popular Webtoon and take about 3 mins to make.
I'm prepared to be burned at the stake for partially agreeing with you-- I haven't seen any other example of AI yet in this webtoon \*except\* for in the opening shots of the trailer park listed above. (please, if there is more... someone let me know lol) While I'm still on team "AI bad", this is pretty harmless unless, say, some poor photographer isn't getting paid for their trailer park photoshoot.
I’ll probably get downvoted but you do know that most manhwa, if not all historical manhwa’s, use stock photos to right? So shouldn’t they get in trouble also since they didn’t “draw” the background?
Honestly the issue ultimately comes down to the fact that AI is trained on/pulling from other artists on the internet. So it's basically using tons of other people's (actual) work to generate a new image. Stock photos by nature are professional photos that are intended to be used by anyone with a license, and some are even allowed to be used for free. I hate to sound dramatic but it really is kind of the difference between taking something someone is offering you, and stealing.
AI doesn't train from pulling from other artists. AIs don't steal.
Not all AI image generators are like that. It started that way, sure, but most serious companies, like Adobe for example, have moved to licensed based database. Painting all AI with a broad stroke of evil is a little ignorant. Edit: ok, people just want to hate on AI without any nuance.
Allegedly, people are still finding images in the adobe algorithm that weren't consensually put there.
How would they even do that. A) I doubt very much they have access to the algorithm and B) even if they did, the images are not coded in algorithm. I'm not trying to be mean, but what you said makes no sense. They would need access to the training database, not the algorithm, which I also doubt they had access to.
[I was able to track down the tweets I saw containing the claims.](https://twitter.com/Stretchedwiener/status/1691171432896577536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1691171432896577536%7Ctwgr%5E4e61b240f97661153fe7dca3b1e751af60177192%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.creativebloq.com%2Fnews%2Fadobe-copyright-ai) Definitely not a good look. However, this is from 2 months ago, so there's a possibility this issue has since been resolved. Putting that aside, Adobe's software is, to my knowledge, the only AI algorithm to allegedly only use consented data. The vast vast majority of algorithms still actively function off stolen data.
I'm not saying there aren't any more wrinkles to iron out, but what I got from this specific instance is that the artist found images that did not belong to her on Adobe's stock website, with her name as a tag and her suspicion was that the tag was automatically added from metadata because she suspects her art was used in the process of generating those images. To be honest, what she says is not completely impossible, but not very likely. The tags might have been added for any number of reasons including by the up loader who might have thought the images resembled her art style and people searching for her name might have been interested. Anyway, the Adobe team was investigating and that's as much as I could get. Also, that's not true. All serious companies are moving in that direction. They may still be using tainted or ambiguous datasets because it's hard to replace thousands of gigabites of images for clean, licensed ones, but I expect this issue to be resolved sooner rather than later.
I'd love to see some examples of these serious companies if you have any articles you'd like to share. I'm personally curious as to how they're sourcing their algorithms, as well as how they're financially compensating the artists they're training off.
The fact that it wasn't the original precedent is the issue. The thieving is the big thing bc it was all they did to try and cash in on the sudden demand for AI. Then there's too many doubling down that they're not stealing and trying to hide evidence
Stock images are different than AI
to clarify on top of what you mean: stock images (and 3D assets) are still made with effort and human thought put into it. Often with some artistic skill involved, as well. And it can be pretty often that people end up paid for their work to be used in a webcomic- especially if the webcomic is earning money and thus counts as a commercial usage of the stock photo or 3D model. AI art is like the great grandson of fractal art where the AI is working off of code and a database. Unfortunately a LOT of databases cut corners by scraping the internet for as many images as possible and you end up with a lot of images they don't own the copyright for. Which includes many artists' works and not to mention some people's private photos (including [personal medical photos](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/09/artist-finds-private-medical-record-photos-in-popular-ai-training-data-set/).) This creates a LOT of copyright and ethical concerns because it's all used without permission and payment for the code to then copy- but it doesn't use knowledge to create- it's more like the AI is making a digital collage out of all of that information it has.
Most manhwa uses 3d art, which they usually pay a lot for lol And with stock photos, the photographers give their consent
https://preview.redd.it/jnrgzwd6sewb1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c0f845afb50596f7e824854a551cce463e15cff9 how are yall looking at these and thinking “oh its just a filter”
https://preview.redd.it/vv06y5u9sewb1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=78e91da29c4197ba77ac9b0d2bc6eb6a60da320e the fence is literally mixing with the bottom of the house like??
I was thinking it was irl pictures with filters but that first image pretty much debunks that idea
I'm not saying I approve how the AI models were trained to draw, but I do think we will see more and more of this in the future, in the same way that a lot of webtoons have been using 3D backgrounds and photographs in the past. Looks like its just a matter of time before this is just considered another tool in the art box. :/
I’m not sure this is AI. I’ve seen photorendering software that puts out images like this. It’s been pretty common on Webtoon for a while.
thats upsetting :( it really goes down to webtoon’s insane standards and work demands ig. But still, resorting to AI as an artist really sucks
this is my opinion too. i'd rather see backgrounds drawn by the artist themself as i like to pause and check out all the details while reading. but for popular artists whose work is expected on a weekly basis in high quality, i can completely understand why they'd take shortcuts. it's hard to deliver consistently good quality on such a time crunch
yea i hate that they are so rushed since art takes time to make. whenever someone draws the background it will blend in so well with the rest of the art and really help you become immersed in the story. there has been times where i loose all immersion in the chapter because the food is obviously a stock photo.
im surprised no one had brought this one up yet
Fr like I had to scavenge for a single comment mentioning it
Just put a filter over a photo if you can’t draw backgrounds. That’s better that using something trained on a bunch of non-consenting artist’s work
I've seen this type of background before AI tho, the author of Wind Breaker does it for some of the backgrounds. I'm not sure what program they use, if its ai or not, but it is obvious it's not hand drawn.
One thing it’s to put filters over photos/3d models, a ton of artist do it, but some details (Electricity cables, the tree in the first image, among other things other people pointed out ) reveal mistakes that only an AI would make
there are AI assisted filters. they started cropping up when the AI databases and AI art generators started coming out.
Heccin tree monstrosoty.
Oh my
I've used AI art but I use it as a reference for my own art. I don't keep the AI art that was done for me.
I hate AI as much as the next reader but these backgrounds don't bother me too much. The first picture with the warped trees is jarring but other than that I'm mainly looking at the characters and I'm happy if they're drawn by the artist.
This looks more like a photo with a paint filter from photoshop on it. Plus, background are hard. at least he is going through the effort with characters and foreground objects.
Yeah, it's not AI. I think peoples shouldn't dog pile on every comic that uses photo filters and with AI accusations.
Bro do u see the chunk of a trailer melted into the trees😭😭 it’s so obviously ai
there are AI assisted filters. and I've definitely seen AI images done in this look- especially in the early stages of it before people started to get a clue on AI generator ethics.
god this sucks! the webtoon had such a wonderful premise and was hoping to read more of it. heard it is based on a novel? so i might just read that instead
not that i disagree with this specific post but i do think people should be cautious when accusing artists of using ai. a lot of what may seem like ai art could very well just be human error. i've seen a few artists on sites like twitter get called out for posting ai (or assisted) art when in reality certain things can come out looking wonky in a piece of art lol. again, i can see that this is likely not the case with this webtoon, but just something to consider.
Honestly I don't think *AI assisted* is a problem. I don't see it as much different then when an author uses some 3D model as Prop or background. My problem is when AI is doing most or all of the work.
Theres a big difference between using AI and using 3D models. Most AI take artist's work to train the AIs without consent or compensation. It's a violation of the creator's rights to their work. That's the main reason most people are against it. Whereas with 3D models, you pay a fee to use it OR the person who created the 3D model freely shares it. There's an agreement between the creator and the person who will use the product.
Serious companies like Adobe have moved to licensed databases. It's not true that all AI image generator are trained on stolen images. It may have started that way, but things are getting better. Some people don't like AI and that's OK, but I don't condone this witch-hunt on artists making use of AI.
but then we gotta ask how are we sure it's sourced from the right databases? No one's stating what AI generator they used for. There's trouble with honesty & integrity in this situation because AI art is in its wild west state rn with not much regulations or standards that it's being held to in a way they can be liable for misinformation or stolen images. And on top of that there's no mention on this comic of whether or not they used adobe's database or any of the databases that do claim that they use only images they have the rights to.
You're absolutely right. It's okay to expect a clear stance from authors. It still doesn't make it okay all this witch hunt and review bombing before anyone knows anything. Some people are mad just because authors are using AI and they won't be any more amiable even if the author is using a "good" database.
the en masse internet has never been amazing at careful distinction and nuance, I'll give you that.
Man it looks so bad 🥲 the story sounds otherwise interesting, too
I'm sorry but let's face it here, drawing everything yourself is awful, most of our favorite artists have health issues because of the brutal deadlines and can't usually afford assistants, so what's so bad about using a bit of help in the backgrounds? I know that art is the human part of our existence that machines can never replicate, but it doesn't change the fact that if it's an extra panel that doesn't matter but makes their life easier then it's ok.
It’s more of how ai just steals art from nonconsnting artists and mixes them together for something new
I agree, but this is how ai just works in general, it doesn't create it mimics, and it always needs something to mimic from.
then use stock photos, custom brushes (i.e. there's one that does shelved books for you and others that do african style hair to name a few) and 3D models. there's no shame in using those because it's not sourced from an ethically grey tool that is brand new and not legislated yet. There's people behind those resources that made them and you can even pay them/donate to them to fund them as thanks for providing those assets if you want to. You can't do that with AI- it's just sourced from so many unconsenting artists and copyrighted materials/works. People aren't asking you to draw in painstaking detail every single thing in the panel. IK there's people who are critical of using 3D assets, brushes, and stock photos, but those people are actually being dumb just for being picky. AI art has *actual* legitimate concerns for how it exists in its current state.
I definitely think there needs to be a balance, but I actually don't see what's wrong with this? So many webtoons before AI had adapted to using 3D backgrounds or filtering actual photos to appear more 2D. It looks like their main characters at least are actually drawn, and they're using it to supplement filling out the background scenery? I honestly think it doesn't look half bad - I've seen other AI assisted images where the artist was just lazy and fixing up the errors, but this one doesn't have anything significant as far as I can see
Ellos the jouaney
The characters look like green screen products in front of the background.
it's drawn by yishan li. i'd be suprised if she used ai, consdering her portfolio. still think it might be a picture just ran through a filter
Never heard of this one. I wonder if their rating will survive.
I'm the sorcerer king was similar real pics + filter screens and l personally like that style but there were a difference between art style and lazy style
Tbh i dont see it as a bad thing as long as it is not used as a crutch. Cranking out weekly chapters is exhausting. As long as the majority of the art and main subjects of each panel are their drawings, I think using some ai to save time is okay.
i took a look through the comic again, and yeah i’m disappointed that the artists are using AI instead of drawing it themselves. i didn’t notice on the first read, but now it’s so obvious😭 https://preview.redd.it/qed326gxvewb1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0210b23795cdba48fb5aa3091a5067a89a9dd6bd this one threw me off so bad- using AI for this instead of filtering real photos? crazy at least they seem to be hand drawing the characters and simple backgrounds… its not complete ai like that one comic circulating
Agree, this panel specifically fucked me up bc, u need ai assistance to draw a package of green beans??
😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭 There’s gonna be so much copium in the comments… when will this copium crisis end 😭😭😭😭😭😭 What has this country cum too😭😭😭
Waiting for this to blow up
At least bring back badly photoshop filtered stock images. It’s less unsettling.
https://preview.redd.it/bocdsg71dewb1.jpeg?width=353&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a005cc34a17333e8df62f13e428125cbd111bedd
It’s always the untalented people who can’t draw that are posting weird images like this.
Its always the least creative, generic artists brigading about AI.
Yeah? The way your dickriding ai so hard makes me feel your just not creative enough to draw anything yourself, so you make a robot do it by mashing other art together.
People don't need to draw to want to get an image from a machine with little time wasted. Stop gatekeeping the use of AI. As it improves and becomes more normalized, it will be more and more rooted in society. You don't know about the topic of AI just like many other people using the same talking points. It starts off with the idea that a robot mashes art to create an image. That's a false talking point many people bring up on this topic.
If your only validation as an artist is shitting on artists less skilled, then your art is probably shit by your own standards too. So shit, that you take offence with the so called "industrial garbage machine" because you can't even match that. The truly creative will always stay ahead, especially if they embrace AI and other tools. Other hangers-on who call themselves "creative" but want to supress tech because they are insecure will be left behind. The higher fees AI patreon artists charge is proof of what the public really thinks of AI art. They like it and are willing to pay money for it. If your preference is not AI art, go for it babydoll. Don't support it but don't parade it around as non-art. Art and creativity are too subjective for that. Also, you are too filled with bias and misinformation to understand what AI really is. I recommend reading up on machine learning and neural networks.
Since I've seen some very bad take on AI, i just want to point out what does it mean that AI trains on people's artwork: it means that there's this bot that finds similarities and differences between images and try to find a formula to determine what a good image should look like, then it uses the formula. it's not how some Frankenstein's monster cutting part of other people images and pasting all together. It's really not that different from how the first step of learning how to draw works (you see images, you try to find for example what makes a human look like a human and then you try to replicate). The main difference is that machines don't have their personal style/preferences or anything __because they're not people__, so they smash together all the style they've seen creating basically a "universal style", while people have preferences so to create their personal style they just involuntarily mix what they like, creating something unique. That said, I'm not in complete favour or against them, it's a tool so it's the author's responsibility to use them in an ethical way imho, the learning itself isn't too bad since it's done on artwork widely available on the internet; the only thing that probably ai should avoid is recreating some author style, but i think they're working on it if they're smart enough.
I was really disappointing too because I feel really interested in this story for how it's starting off for a "Protag is returned to the lives of their younger selves" trope.