Yet I’m using AI-created illustrations for my graphic novel, fully aware of copyright and legal debates.
Both Copilots and art generators are trained on vast datasets—so why do we cheer one and vilify the other?
We lean on ChatGPT to rewrite blog posts and celebrate Copilot for “boosting productivity,” but AI art still raises eyebrows.
Is this a matter of domain familiarity, perceived craftsmanship, or simple cultural gatekeeping?
> I reflexively told my wife, “That’s AI—skip it.”
> Yet I’m using AI-created illustrations for my graphic novel
Aren't you worried people will skip your graphic novel?
I've used AI art a lot for tabletop RPGs. The level of actual creative control isn't great, even for what should be an easy case of one character in profile against a blank background. Even if you know how to use it well you're wrestling the systems involved to try and produce consistent output ot anything unusual. And that's fine for Orc #3 or Elf Lord Soandso, which are only going to be featured for fifteen minutes at a time and in contexts where you can crop out bad details or use low-effort color grading to get a unified tone.
But for a graphic novel? What? I can't imagine giving up that level of creative control, even as someone who sucks at actual drawing. You'll never be able to get the kind of framing, poses, and structuring you want, doubly so the second you want to include anything remotely original. It's about the absolute worst case for actually using these generation tools.
It takes seconds to generate a panel for a comic; you make a sketch, then generate hundreds of candidates, pick the best one, maybe correct flaws in Photoshop, and it's still faster and cheaper than drawing it yourself from scratch. It's just another workflow for an artist. I use Blender to model rough sketches of 3D scenes, then use ComfyUI to render high quality images with lots of details.