For many of us, even if drawing that line exactly is debatable, a prompt-generated image, where the "artist" didn't interact with any of the pixels is across the line for "too much AI".

It can definitely take creativity and fortitude to get an AI model to draw what you want it to. But if you worked at a fantasy publishing house and commissioned a cover painting, it might take a fair amount of work for you to get the artist to create something in line with what you envisioned. But you wouldn't get artistic credit for the resultant painting; the artist would! If AI is creating the piece, it is the artist; and you're merely the commissioner of the work.

▲

cthalupa 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> But if you worked at a fantasy publishing house and commissioned a cover painting, it might take a fair amount of work for you to get the artist to create something in line with what you envisioned.

If you do this infrequently, you're a commissioner of work.

If you do it daily, in-house, for your own products... you might just have the title "Art Director."

▲

networked 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> If you do it daily, in-house, for your own products... you might just have the title "Art Director."

"Art director" seems accurate for what a skillful user of art generators with a specific vision does.

I have also thought that since people find "director" lofty (thanks to auteur theory?) and therefore pretentious to assume, one could borrow "producer" from Vocaloid: https://vocaloid.fandom.com/wiki/Producer (alternative front end: https://antifandom.com/vocaloid/wiki/Producer).

	▲	cthalupa 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I would agree. And the best Art Directors today almost all have a background in creating art themselves, in some fashion. I suspect that will remain true in the AI world as well, at least for the foreseeable future.