> but is not productionizable due to a lack of creative control.
It's just a matter of time until some big IP holder makes "productionizable" generative art, no? "Tweaking the output" is just an opinion, and people already ship tons of AAA art with flaws that lacked budget to tweak. How is this going to be any different?
I don't think it is a question at all. It is not just possible, it's implemented in reality. Compositing is a thing in imagen space, and source adjustments in this scheme are trivial. I'm talking about controlnets, style transfer adapters, straight up neural rendering of simplified 3D scenes, training on custom references, and a ton of other methods to establish control. Temporal stability is also a solved issue.
What it really lacks is domain knowledge. Current imagen is done by ML nerds, not artists, and they are simply unaware of what needs to be done to make it useful in the industry, and what to optimize for. I expected big animation studios to pick up the tech like they did with 3D CGI in the 90s, but they seem to be pretty stagnant nowadays, even besides the animosity and the weird culture war surrounding this space.
In other words, it's not productized because nobody productized it, not because it's impossible.
It's just a matter of time until some big IP holder makes "productionizable" generative art, no? "Tweaking the output" is just an opinion, and people already ship tons of AAA art with flaws that lacked budget to tweak. How is this going to be any different?