# Using generative art models as creative collaborators

DevFeed: [Using generative art models as creative collaborators](<https://devfeed.tech/articles/hallucinating-with-art-models-35521.md>)

Original publisher: [Read original article](<https://meowni.ca/posts/hallucinations/>)

Author: Monica Dinculescu

Published: 2022-09-01T00:00:00Z

Content type: opinion

Language: en

Sources: [Monica Dinculescu](<https://devfeed.tech/sources/monica-dinculescu.md>)

Topics: [Machine learning](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/machine-learning.md>), [AI Development](<https://devfeed.tech/topics/ai-development.md>)

Tags: [art](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/art.md>), [comparisons](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/comparisons.md>), [generative](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/generative.md>), [image](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/image.md>), [machine-learning](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/machine-learning.md>), [models](<https://devfeed.tech/tags/models.md>)

## AI overview

The author reflects on using DALL-E, MidJourney, and other generative art models as brainstorming partners and collaborators. The article compares their potential for creativity rather than realism and argues that they should support an artist's creativity and style rather than replace them.

## Source excerpt

Wow, long time, no posts! Anyway, about them text-to-art generative models going about, eh? Surprising nobody: I am extremely into them. I've been using DALL-E and MidJourney since they came out, and even though tons has been written about them, I wanted to give a slightly different overview: the perspective of someone who isn't interested that much in their realism skills. I think that the most compelling place for ML models in an artist's life is as a tool that specifically enables, and doesn't replace, creativity. Machine Learning is amazing at doing something very specific, lots of times, really fast. It's great at telling me if an image is a cat or a dog. It's also great at generating one hundred half-dog-half-cats, in different positions, so that I can bypass the dozens of hours I would spend sketching out half-dog-half-cats for a painting that's actually about the nuclear apocalypse. I've seen a lot of examples of which model is best at painting "The otter with the pearl earring", but I haven't seen a lot of comparisons of these models in terms of their potential for creativity- likely because "creativity" is not really quantifiable. I wanted to do this for myself, if anything so that I can figure out how to use my money and credits better, but thought that I might as well put it out there in case anyone else was curious. This post ended up being looooong, so here's a Table of Contents: Boring uses of interesting models The (barely scientific) method Models Cherry-picking outputs What I look for Results 1. "Linocut print of a girl bundled up in bed with a stack of books and a cat" 2. "Lithograph of an orchid where each flower has a small skull inside" 3. "Erik Johansson photograph of a woman[sic] hair that is a literal bee hive" 4. "A toucan wearing a 60s apron, sitting on a mid century modern armchair, talking on a rotary phone, retrofuturism" What have I learned? Boring uses of interesting models I use these new models for a very specific thing, and that is