u/Sabrina_the_Mouse

Mama Alma is telling scary stories. Sadly, at the expense of little Sabrina!

Protect your little one, Petra!

I don't know what I'm doing...

My video editing skills suck... LOL

I want to start by saying that I have wonderful friends, and this isn’t a criticism of them. Many of them are artists who feel strongly against AI art, and they don’t know that I use AI as part of some of my own creative projects.

Earlier today, I showed them a map I’ve been making in Inkarnate. I’m still learning, and my rivers could definitely use some work, but I was having fun and wanted to share it.

They really liked it! One friend even called it my own form of art, which was flattering and got me thinking.

For anyone unfamiliar with Inkarnate, it gives you premade assets that you can place and arrange on a map. You shape the landscape, choose colors and biomes, and add details. The assets aren’t things I drew myself, but the decisions about how they come together are mine.

I didn’t use AI to make this map. But what makes that process meaningfully different from generating an image with AI and then spending time editing it, changing colors, fixing mistakes, and deciding what belongs where? Inkarnate also has a land generator. If I had used that as a starting point, would it change how much of the finished map felt like my own art?

I understand that people’s objections to AI can involve how it’s trained and how it affects artists. Those concerns matter, but the question I’m trying to explore here is about the creative process: how do we understand someone’s artistic contribution when the tools provide some of the material?

I’m an amateur with both tools, but the time, choices, and care I put into each feel real to me. I’m curious how others draw that distinction.