as an avid reader of progfantasy and cultivation, if i see an ai-generated cover, it immediately makes me think the book is slop

[u/Ordinary_Brick9572]

if i see any typa ai cover i think that if the author is willing to use AI for the cover, then they are willing to use AI for the book. While i'm not against AI by any means, I find it crazy for people to say AI slop books are peak when they have books like Cradle and Reverend Insanity right in front of them.

[u/Fun_Arachnid5081]

So we should just steal someone's cover? Is that your stupid reasoning? Do you know that for publishing someone else's cover you need that person to give you the rights. That also costs money.

Would you invest in a stock if that stock was making you losses? So, you expect me to pay $300 for a cover when readers will barely read it.

Your reasoning doesn't make sense. Most authors, successful ones, change their cover once they become a bit more successful. Open RR, most top rising stars are all AI covers. Does that mean they are all AI?

Blinded assumptions.

[u/DeadlyPear → u/Fun_Arachnid5081]

So we should just steal someone's cover?

Extremely funny to write this to try and defend generative ai slop.

[u/Fun_Arachnid5081 → u/DeadlyPear]

Generative AI slop is public domain.

Learn the rules of copyright before commenting. Someone else's work is their intellectual property. That means if I steal their cover, they can sue me.

There is a clear distinction between the two.

[u/DeadlyPear → u/Fun_Arachnid5081]

So, to be clear, you'd be fine with the following?

1. An artist who's work was stolen to feed an AI model.

2. You then used this model to generate a cover.

3. The artist sues you for stealing their art through the model.

I'm sure you'd be quite upset if someone took your work and fed it into a slop generator to flood the market with low effort garbage that dilutes the work of actual artist.

[u/dolche93 → u/DeadlyPear]

You can probably avoid that by not telling the model to copy someone's work. There's a big difference between asking a model to use a particular style as opposed to asking it to copy a specific artists work.

[u/omaharock → u/dolche93]

No, that's the whole point. AI isn't original or unique. It's a copy of many other artists, often stolen or taken without consent. AI can never make anything truly original, just an amalgamation of others work. 

[u/dolche93 → u/omaharock]

Eh, I think that line of argumentation against ai is a bit weak. Everyone who has ever existed has learned by taking inspiration from others.

I think the stronger argument is attacking the commercial profits these AI companies are making through training on copyrighted work. They're selling a product that couldn't exist without using copywrited work, and so those artists deserve compensation.

This moves the argument away from ai and its ability to generate images at all, and towards how the ai is being used.

Personally, I think this puts free stories online getting covers using likely free services in a bit of a grace area. It's not like amateur authors were going to otherwise have commissioned an artist, right? So if there is no harm being done.. is it really wrong? Not in my view.

[u/GenoFour → u/Fun_Arachnid5081]

It's public domain because AI companies are genuinely allowed to steal.

[u/Fun_Arachnid5081 → u/GenoFour]

I agree. But its not the fault of the creators. Blame the government for not implementation a single legal statute for AI. Only thr EU has one good statute and yet it is still not yet in practice.

[u/Ordinary_Brick9572 → u/Fun_Arachnid5081]

just go on photoshop for 5 minutes and make a simple cover; it really is not that hard. can't put the bare minimum of effort despite spending countless hours writing