I started working with Stable Diffusion after buying a 'new' (to me) graphics card to replace my old 4GB Quadro after Photoshop™® all of a sudden made it obsolete becasue it doesn't have full DirectX 12 support. I dread to think how much landfill Adobe have caused with this move...
I picked up a GTX1070Ti with 8GB of VRAM and it worked really well. It was a tad too big for my case though - I had to leave an internal panel out, which effected the airflow and meant the card ran hotter than it needed to. I should have bought a 'founders edition' to get a good fit in my PC, don't you just love standards? Anyway, I really felt I could do with more VRAM, so I decided to upgrade again, to a GTX 1080Ti (11GB).
The price of graphics cards is falling with the burst in the crypto bubble, but it's still ridiculous that a single card can easily cost as much as a complete PC! I was able to get the 1080 for £150. It's a really good card and I couldn't source anything materially more powerful (in the RTX series) for much less than £300.
The 1080 allows me to upscale SDXL images by a factor of 2, up to 4Mpx - which is ideal for my website images (I'm currently using Frida to ensure every page on my website has an associated illustrating image). It's taking about an hour to bake such images. Without upscaling I can make images in around a minute or two, so I work on the prompt etc quite quickly then pop off to do the washing-up or something while the final (upscaled) image cooks. Or I just sit around and smoke too many cigarettes..
I think, if I didn't feel the need to upscale XL images the GTX1070Ti would probably have been a very capable card - and since it draws only 180W (versus the 1080's 250W) would have been a better all-rounder for me. My studio gets really hot in the summer when I'm running the 1080 at full pelt!
I think it will be frustrating trying to run the Stable Diffusion AI on anything less than a GTX1070Ti (which can be bought for less than £100), and anything in the RTX range will work well enough, if you can afford such. Just try to get more than 6GB of VRAM and ensure the card can be powered by your PSU (and it will fit inside your PC's case!).
So what's it all any good for?
With Christie's selling a piece of (really lousy) AI art for nigh on half a million dollars suddenly everyone wants in on AI sales. To be honest, this sale has to be some kind of hype. Billions of dollars have been spent training image AIs, so I really expect some shady coporation spent a few hundred thousand as part of a strategy to get these things bedded into society.
I saw a video where some guy demonstrated that he was earning around $200/mo with AI sales for doing hardly nothing. He would look at images selling the best and then create a knock-off (of a knock-off some would say). About half his revenue was going in fees, but you will also need an AI that permits commercial use of its results. Now out of beta, Adobe®™'s Firefly allows that, as do the paid plans on Midjourney - so you've got another $30+ in one of those subscriptions if you want to sell.
The right to sell content generated from other models (other than Firefly or Midjourney) isn't always (often) clear. I guess you can just do it if you want and maybe by this time next year you'll have earned enough to buy an RTX4090 - if they're still any good then, haha.
All in all, as things stand, you could realistically expect to earn maybe £1000/year selling AI art - if you don't care too much about what you make and sell. But it's all so ludicrous you can expect the bubble to burst pretty soon. The market for large breasted elven nymphs will become super saturated, and the trend will fade quickly. So if you want to mercilessly cash in, get on board quick.
Obviously I've used it to create a short graphic novel, but I kind of cheated! With humanoid characters, it's hard to get usable results frame-to-frame because faces and costumes are so likely to change. It's a lot easier plonking white ferrets in different scenes and poses than a specific humanoid character. Sequential artists (that I've seen) are using AIs to create scenes and characters separetely to then compose frames using traditional image editting techniques. Campfire comics have some good (free) examples but most frames are typical 'single character in middle of frame' type compositions, with the more dynamic scenes looking like they're composites of individual character generations - i.e a lot of intervention, not exactly AI generated (more AI supported).
Theoretically at least, it should be possible to create a very specific and detailed characterisation (face) and then use those generated images to back-train the AI (with its own work). I think this will be my next experiment, I'll follow-up with another article if I have the energy for it!
I've also used Frida to generate around 100 images illustrating each page on this website. I've always wanted to have a lead image for every page (so links share nicely) but using my photography I just never got the job completed. Frida is finishing this task off nicely for me. It was ideal work for her. I wasn't over fussy about how exactly she interpreted my creative works (in fact it was fun to see what she came up with) so the generations weren't a struggle. The images themselves have no need to masquerade as great art, they're just useful illustrations, no pressure on the results.
In summary I think image AIs are good for...
Charlatans who want to try and cash in, earning something for nothing.
Reinforcing and perpetuating the social biases encoded in the billions of images they have been trained on.
Illustrations, where the 'merit' lies more in the thing they illustrate than in the 'artwork' itself.
Ideation, riffing on ideas with a machine that can visualise them, so you can then make them 'properly'
For fun - for folk like me who don't have the skills to paint or draw an entire graphic novel.
I'm almost certainly over harsh in my outlook, but I honestly believe these things are best thought of as toys or distractions. Leastways until we sort out the biases and exploitations explicit in the whole world of AI imaging.
Finally, just as with Sparky (ChatGPT) needing 2,000 words of prompting to write a 3,000-word short story, Frida needed 6 photographs of ferrets to draw a ferret. So the bottom line is:
If you want an AI to make something for you, all you have to do is make something like it for the AI