The AI Art Scandal Just Got Worse
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- PATREON: / discourseminiatures
TWITCH: / discoursegames
WARGAMING: / @discourseminis
DISCORD: / discord
UK AFFILIATE: affiliates.way...
TIPS: ko-fi.com/disc...
MERCH: discourse-mini...
Affiliate links that I have put in the description of this video link to those companies that I myself have purchased from and had good dealings with as a consumer. I would recommend these companies! These help support the channel, and don't cost you anything to use, so if you're going to feed your plastic addiction, this is a great way to do so!
All images belong to their respective owners.
✘ Title: Covert Affair ✘ Music: Kevin MacLeod ✘ License: CC BY 3.0 (goo.gl/BlcHZR) ✘ Download: incompetech.com....
How do you always cover such negative content yet always make my day in a way that is very informative. The people need more newscasters like you!
really appreciate that! I cover negative topics, but my goal is always to make my videos as positive as possible :)
@@dungeonsanddiscourseyou Excell at that.
Yeah. I have to agree. Helps make what should be depressing news more palatable.
@@ianstewart-vital That Ouutlook inspires me to say "Worrd".
@@orokusaki1243 You Paint a good picture so no need to Powerpoint it
Totally cracked up when she said: You can't stop me, I've worked in hospitality, I've earned this.
Well played!😀😝
In the US the government has declared that AI produced Art (or anything else produced by AI) is NOT eligible for copyright protection.
Which will stave them off for now, but rulings can be overturned.
@christopherjones7191 not necessarily. This similar to the court case of peta vs a photographer who was fighting over a photo a monkey accidentally made with the guy's camera. The monkey couldn't have ownership cause it wouldn't understand what a camera or photography is. So, it went into the public domain. As far as I can tell, unless it can be argued that technically the human who made the ai has ownership, it could all just go public domain. Like that one girl who tried to make a comic with ai. Was rejected and had to remove the art. And, if you use as a handicap, all artists of every field will hate you. But, if you use it as not as a replacement but as a tool, it can help your process.
@@tressonkaru7410 This is true, but I'm still of the understanding that if a big enough corporation wants something, they can basically write laws as long as it doesn't kill people (and sometimes if they do)
@@tressonkaru7410, writes _"As far as I can tell, unless it can be argued that technically the human who made the ai has ownership"_
In that case he will owe fees to everyone who owns the copyright on the data they used to train the AI.
@@fred_derf but that's not where the courts, currently, will argue.
We as a publisher just cannot turn our backs on the artists who helped us, and made our games look so cool. There are some basic ethics at play here to consider, and sorry but if you raise 1.5 million Euros which is 2 million U.S..... Well, you can afford to pay some artists to make art for you.
Sure you can. Publishing is a business. Artists are slow, unreliable, and expensive. AI solves all of those problems, and thus helps you deal with fewer problems and create more products.
@@madprophetus This type of thinking is anti-human.
Artists are humans, and their human limitations are not problems to solve. And art is not supposed to be a product, you prick.
So let’s jump in 3:01
1. Artists are up in arms against this existential threat, against crap art - there’s always been crap art, I could put my doodles into my work, but it would be shit - AI art is not “all crap” - it’s is creative (and has won several art awards when it wasn’t known to be AI) and is getting better in advanced diffusion techniques
2. The art in terraforming mars is it’s style - a style you may not like. Lots of people don’t like Martin Bergstrom, but I love his work and I love the consistency that is brought to Symbaroum across all their books. So too terraforming mars - so too the near 16,000 backers.
3. It’s not creative - honestly, most of the art in RPGs (especially WoTC) is derivative drivel - nothing in there going to have people paying $35MM dollars for anytime soon or drilling over 30 years from now: Give me Otis, Caldwell and Elmore.
But seriously, AI is becoming more accurate in the mediums and subject matter. As to “creativity” - I’ll leave define that to Hofstadter.
I also now have a bit of a morale dilemma - I back both No Pun and SuSd, but I have a no censorship rule.
Is this censorship? Do I continue to be a patron? (As I am to your fine content).
Opinions welcome
@@kevoreilly6557 creating prompts for AI is art in the same way that creating patterns for textiles, tapestries, and other cloth-based arts. Let's not discount the individual contributor who put the time in to master the language model and produce art of a high enough quality that it can be placed on a product and sold!
@@kevoreilly6557 Everyone censors. For instance, there are many others you do not back, how did you choose not to back them? There are hundreds of games neither of those channels cover. If you want "no censorship", then there's always 4chan/8chan etc. if you want to wade through sewage to get at something that might be of value.
As somebody who used AI in their study at university (this was about the protection of attacks on self driving cars) I have no idea how AI art is legal in form, every model I have looked at uses unauthrised data. Every piece of data we had, had a lengthy amount of contracts and legal jargon to go through before we could eve consider using it
Because copyright is about reproduction of a work, not the underlying concepts or techniques.
Mainly because you cannot copyright an art style or method, only an art piece. The law has never been really concerned with HOW you create the art, only if it's similar enough. Even if you never heard of or seen Super Mario before, if you drew a character that resembles him too much, that's copyright violation. Learning from other artists has always been a thing and no one would ever ask a human artist if they legally owned all the art they ever learned from.
@@taragnorIndependent creation is an affirmative defense for copyright infringement. Copyright is not a particularly strong right.
@@davidbowles7281well... it depends. Cause in law, it always depends. Like, one could argue that pizza tower is just wario. It is similar in game play. But, it is unique enough that it doesn't infringe of copyright. Now, if it wasn't for the fact that it was made by Nintendo, Wario could be a knock off of mario, unless you argue it is satire. It depends.
Basically, it's not legal. But it's new and it always takes a while for things to catch up. We have to remember that in a lot of cases in the government, you deal with a lot of people who are confused by what's happening.
Copyright law has already made it clear that you cannot copyright it, so what we have is that we're in limbo while the original copyright owners have to find who has stolen from them. On top of this, theft has happened worldwide, which makes it even more complex, and the programs purposely don't tell you original sources to make it harder to find.
But it's only a matter of time. We know, for example, the art for FryxGames has been stolen, but we can't sue over it because we don't own the rights. The people who DO own the rights, however, might make a pretty penny off of it once they're found because they can show FryxGames made a lot of money off their stolen material, given the "success" of their Kickstarter.
Right now things are lagging because of the difficulty of finding people who own rights and, sometimes, their lack of resources to sue. Once people discover a clear way to discover whose stolen work was mashed into each image, though, it'll be game over.
This is really dumb of them... They can't hold copyright to anything created with AI.
You can still sell it. Though everyone else can sell it as well.
@@artman40 I wonder if that part is true. No one should be selling it because someone else owns the rights. Multiple someone else's, probably.
But the person who stole the AI art to begin with wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court if they wanted to sue over it.
Just gotta swing through and add the note the difference between AI replacing artist and previous jobs being replaced is that AI models are trained on piles of copyright work without credit, compensation, or consent. These tools can't exist without massive exploitation of the people it is actively trying to replace. God help me I don't want to start this string on youtube again. Anyway I really enjoy your videos, you do a great job covering these things
And one more important difference, is that art was supposed to be something we humans do, and automation was supposed to allow us more time to do art. Not replace the enjoyable things we do.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 I agree completely. That being said, a lot of this ai tech could benefit artists on mundane tasks, the most recent spiderverse for instance. And more artists would be using a tool like this if it were ethically made and designed for artists. To your point the models aren't being made as an artistic tool, they're being built to replace artists and exploiting their work to do it
@@gabrielspangler6964 That actually already exists. In a legal way. Companies build their own tools in order to generate backgrounds for their movies all the time. For decades now.
They don't really need to use an illegal version of what they already have. They can just continue improving the abilities of what already exists.
The main issue is the copyrighted content, not the tool, and that's a great example of it. If Dreamworks already generates a lot of stuff in their backgrounds using tools they already have available (which they do), why switch to something else that with throw copyrighted materials into the mix and potentially put them at risk?
I'm not saying no company will do it because it's going to depend on how smart the leaders are... And we all know some leaders aren't that smart. But it doesn't really make sense to do it. I'm a small-time person and yet I've somehow been able to afford artists who can do precisely what I want faster than AI. AI artists are incapable of doing what I want. That only works for people who don't care what the output is.
I think anything created by AI should have a watermark or something similar saying that it was created by AI. It won't convince companies to stop using AI but at least, we the consumers would be informed of such so we could make the decision to buy or not the product.
I think the bigger argument against AI art is that the more generative art that gets put out there, the more the LLMs are going to consume said art, resulting in a marked decline in the quality of said art. Copy of a copy of a copy until it's worthless.
It also doesn't help that AIs degenerate as they consume themselves and each other indiscriminately, reinforcing common distortions and errors. Human made art, particularly human-made art that is supplied _willingly_ (as anti-AI-scraping tools like Glaze now exist to poison learning algorithms that participate in art theft), is actually vital to the continued survival of AIs. Because while it's claimed that AI will "get better" it cannot actually get to a point where it can "replace artists"; it can only become akin to the shovelware version of art where the flaws are accepted as a part of the cheap-ass product. Not that any techbro who just wants to generate anime waifus with giant bazongos to sell for $40 on fiverr will admit that, of course.
This is also why human artists will never go away regardless of AI art.
@@conspiracypanda1200
"reinforcing common distortions and errors."
Sounds scary, yet it's not happening at all.
Truth is wth every new generation the quality mprovevs, and that's regardless being in favor or against AI.
@@conspiracypanda1200 You have a fundamental misunderstanding of AI Art, which is a misleading term to begin with. A more appropriate term should be "AI Image Generation." The reason why it has abnormalities, like weird fingers or nonsensical details, is because of the training data. Previous models were trained on compressed images of 512x512 resolution, causing the loss of finer details. You would be correct in your assumption if things remained as they are now. However, even as we speak, newer models are being made with a 1024x1024 training set, which will only increase as hardware and refined model training matures. The first iterations of models were in a rudimentary alpha stage, despite how good they already are at producing images.
Increasing image resolution in training sets is only the beginning. At present, these models are only fed 2D data, limiting them to a 2D world in which to create art. They don't understand anything about objects in space in relation to other objects, another factor that leads to weird anomalies in the art produced. Nor do they understand anything about lighting, reflections, or texture. However, once models become more multimodal (which means they are receiving data from other models that DO understand these aspects), you will see a vast improvement in quality.
The greatest advancements in AI art (or AI in general) will come from embodied AI-AI models inside robots moving through the real world. Imagine a robot taking in data from walking in a park for hours, using 360-degree cameras and cameras that operate in different functions, such as night vision and infrared. It would collect data from moving in 3D space, observing changes in light, shadow, reflection, and even feeling the slope of a trail. Once it has all that real-world data to feed into models, just think about what AI art will be like then. It's just a lack of data and the ability to train on that data that is holding it back right now.
I thought we hit that point already
Thanks for putting the spot light on this like no other creator.
no problem :D
I don't think you're cynical thinking consumers don't care about artists losing their jobs, you're spot on.
Ohh no 😮 they might have to go get regular jobs now ohh no
@weedmanbrandon oh yes...heaven forbid someone make a sustainable income from doing something they love or show prodigious talent at. The only way anyone should be able to survive is by doing either backbreaking or mind numbing menial labor for meager pay and no benefits. Try not to dry out your tongue licking those boots asshole.
@@weedmanbrandon ua-cam.com/video/WNmH-rJd4BU/v-deo.html
Found the AI Bro
@@weedmanbrandon interested to know what you do for work...
My big problem with companies using AI made products is the idea that these groups want us to give them money for products that costed them literally nothing to make, but I should still pay them my hard earned money all the same
the computers that house the AI arent free mate. nor are the programmers to keep it running smoothly. Nothing is free, literally nothing.
Did you ever tried AI by yourself? Please go to any free model and generate few exact visions of something?
@@erfarkrasnobay Still why should I pay the same price if you have a cut your costs significantly?
Like let's pretend I sell something to you for 100 bucks but in the past I spend 60 to make it, but now I'm wasting only 10 to make and you still paying the 100 bucks? Don't you feel you're getting ripped off?
@@TheDoomBlueShell they cut only artwork price, not shiping or manufacturing and that cut not make production cost 6 time less
Short-sighted. Like Disney. Disney is continuously degrading their IPs when they live off of the value of their IPs, and they're reaping the benefits.
Companies that use AI will, likewise, see that other people value their stuff as much as they do. You will get AI bros trying to prop it up for a couple of years before they start sending in complaints about "why they should pay so much for X when it only costs you Y to make?"
Just insist that 'artists' are credited openly and ensure customers can choose which one they want and customers MUST make a choice and vote with all that matters, your wallet.
It seems like the consumers don't really care either, they'll buy the game ai designed or not.
It seems like the only ones who care are the artists and the critics 🤷
@@craftsmanceramics8653The thing about consumers is that many people categorize them as uncaring and sometimes even hostile. However, the truth is that the average consumer is simply naive, pressed for time, and generally stressed to a point they'll pay for any form of escape, even if it's a little bit sh!t. _Most_ consumers actually do care about getting a good product, but many factors are working against them to allow them to show that care often.
Spoiler: Most people WILL NOT CARE.
The only shot we have is pushing for legislation that explicitly cuts AI generated content from being copyrighted. And the only way it happens is if it becomes a big enough issue to sway election outcomes.
for the *vast* majority, no one has ever given a shit about the artists, wouldnt expect that to change now.
@@craftsmanceramics8653100% I give two shits whether the art is by Michelangelo or Stable Diffusion. I care if the game is fun.
It is weird that Ai art is where Hasbro/Wizards draws the line, particularly as they recycle artwork all the time anyway.
I think they've done it because of the backlash, the moment is appears palatable, they'll go for it imo
@@dungeonsanddiscourse Agreed.
I mean, if you own a piece already, there's nothing wrong with getting your money's worth.
Yeah, they won't use AI art, but it's clear that many of the more recent books were written by chatgpt.
@@ScooterinAB You would also think if you owned the art used to create a piece of AI art you would therefor own the AI art as it was made of your own artwork.
You know the first thing people are going to do if they try to launch an AI dungeon master is they're going to go in and screw with it to see what kind of horrible and crazy things they can get it to do. I'm looking forward to the crazy crap that people are going to pull and I'm really going to be curious as to how long it will be before wizards shuts it down because it's turning into an x-rated Nazi propaganda hate machine.
Trolls will be joining games and setting AIDMs into infinitely recursive loops, making dungeons that just spiral into grey infinity with no escape...
@@SymbioteMulletSo a roguelike?
I give it about 3 days, tops.
@youtubeuniversity3638 yeah, i guess. But you're not going to enjoy it if you didn't sign up for that!
Have you consider that maybe the AI was right and is us that have been brainwashed by the victor?
We are never taught at school of Dresden, Holodomor, American Japanese interment camps or Eisenhower death camps. Nor of the famines caused by Mao leading to 64 million Chinese dead. Nor about the USS Liberty. Nor the Abuses of France on the German people. Nor on How Nazism prevented communism from taking over.
Maybe is we that have a skewed view. And not the AI.
Like all things discussed on this channel... it just got worse
i'd love to do a video like "hey they fixed it, nice!" One day :(
@@dungeonsanddiscourse Promise?
👍😂😂😂😂😂
Literally a drama DnD channel... every single video is negative
We'll, I'm just home from GMing a fantastic session of Warhammer RPG. It was great! Used minis, a battle-map flipbook, and this wild thing called our imagination. Nothing is going to get me down... 😅
consumers don't really care about the labor it takes to make a fun game, only how it's presented. Many people won't buy the best game ever made if it didn't have any art in it-they don't find game designer labor to be valuable at all. As an aspiring rpg creator who loves designing games, I do it all for free and honestly would rather have zero art than ai art or add expensive art. Too many people complain about bad art to even consider it, even though that's friendlier to the laboring game designer working for free because a game without art can't sell.
Creators need to have a following. There's too much stuff being created to stand out unless you have enough interested people in your game, and they make a lot of noise.
You gave a compelling reason to USE AI art.
So game developers can spend the money where it really matters -the game- and spend pennies on the fluff, rather then starving your programmers and overpaying for something a program can do in a fraction of the time, and cost
@@DellikkilleD You just gave me a good reason to pirate games, so I can spend my money to purchase physical stuff I can't actually download from the internet instead of stuff I can download for free.
What the fuck of a reasoning is that? This is a matter of ethics, not of costs.
@@drakegrandx5914 Piracy is ethical and based in most cases
@@retardedfishfrogs1 Piracy is _convenient_ in most cases. Yet even then, most people draw the line at pirating games from small studios, especially if they have only recently been released.
Ah yes, AI art and AI design/writing. The only thing in TTRPGs and gaming in general that care less about the consumer than the CEO's do. Enjoy your extra fingers and hellscaped soulless eyes folks.
as if big companies like wotc and gw, dont already generate soulless trash based on "in-house brand identity" demands. maybe the problem is corporations and capitalism, has anyone ever thought of that?
The enshitification continues, and the masses will just swallow it whole and beg for more with a smile on their faces.
I have more faith in my fellow human beings. It's just that it's a core feature of our economic system that it's is designed to give most people way too little bandwidth in their daily lives to be able to deal with things getting shittier generally when they are barely staying sane managing the shittiness of navigating their own way through the alienation of capitalism. I don't think most people smile about this stuff, but rather shrug and feel like thinking about it too much will just make things worse for them, so they try not to.
Ai is advancement. climb out of the dark ages bud, you are embarrassing the species.
@@DellikkilleD 1. The buzworld of „advancement” means nothing for humanity.
2. Please, you tech libertarians are going to bring us back in the dark ages under a new form of feudalism.
@@DellikkilleD Nah.
Preferably AI should be banned tbh.
It sadly is too late now tho
@@Tintelinus said the guy with nithing to support his idiocy. K
Despite this truly negative topic you made me positively laugh out loud serveral times. Much obliged.
thanks so much Olaf!! I always try to make the videos entertaining no matter the topic :)
I grew up buying games in the 70s and 80s....not sure "there will be bad art in games" is a compelling argument... 😉
(Laughs in euro-game beige)
Yea…some of that early art…*shudder*
@@Bobyoudontneeemyname back in the day, it was a fluke if the game art had *anything* to do with the game. forget looking *like* the game, I mean even same rough genre lmO
I actually prefer the old black and white line art over the photoshop crap I see in glossy rpg books nowadays.
I think it's less to do with general audiences being okay about AI art and more that they're just unaware of it. Not that the distinction really matters. The only way off this train is legal protection for artists, otherwise it's going to become a schism across every form of media between human made and AI generated content, and major companies will all pick the latter because the only thing that matters to them is profit. Everyone give a round of applause to capitalism!
Yep just look how much Autotune is used in music today, It's easier for studio's just to make an average singer sound good vs actually finding a good singer.
every single dnd wizards realeases it free on the internet the next day is realease, why would anyone care about IA art if they are not even buying the product.
I am not sure you understand then. Capitalism can't survive either. Dalli-3 is going to get released in a month and it is light years ahead of where we are now, powered by GPT-4 prompting. This isn't just coming for artists. Its coming for everyone. From the game designer to the marketing guy to the PR manager. We are a few short years (maybe less) of these things being able to single prompt a brand new AAA boardgame into existence in seconds. Completely tailored to your specifications. Art isn't changing, EVERYTHING is.
no, most of us are totally ok with it. there is nothing wrong with AI art. if you are an artist, make better art so AI cant upplant you.
I am an artist that programs and trains Deep Learning Convolutional Neural Networks. Should there be restrictions to what tools I can use to make my art? Are you going to make sure that sculptors don't ever use power-tools? How about restrictions on spray paint? If I spend 200 hours on creating a Neural Network that makes a piece of art, is that less valid than spending 200 hours on painting art? How about 20 hours? How about 5?
Irish Potato Mines....FFS....LOL - Thanks for the great content, as always. Being the old fart that I am, this reminding me a lot of when "digital" started to invade analog spaces, i.e. Photography. For good or ill, digital won. Not being a pessimist but, I do not see how this wave of "progress" is going to be staved off. I feel that AI is lot more evil than the "digital" movement was as there was still a measure of creative talent being exercised to produce the end result. Will we reach a point where we start praising those who are best able to manipulate the verbal commands to generate a good piece of artwork? I don't know but, something tells me that we will.
Lol, the only people who care are the ones that want to be a working artist. The general public doesn't care and are welcoming AI art.
The real problem is that being anti-AI art is gatekeeping. It definitely helps small independent creators push forward a project that otherwise they wouldn't be able to fund.
Watching this video and reading these comments feels like going back in time and seeing all the professional computers reacting to those scary new electrical computers that were upturning their industry. It's fascinating to see people try to resist the advanced of technology.
Only issue is that it conflicts with capitalist interests and protection of intellectual property rights. With another economic ideology there would be no issues.
You mean the one where nobody owns anything and the state controls everything?
Well, if/when a rulebook's art is so uninspiring that owning the book doesn't add value to the customer, the whole thing will be just a big easily copied and shared text file.
Heck, with AI and pattern recognition, we can just take a photo of the pages with our phones and automate the whole process (see f.ex. Google Lens on your phone for translating text in pictures).
Their products get copied and pirated and shared everywhere faster than they can profit.
AI assisted art work isn't going to go away. Adobe has generative AI tools build into their products using their own images or images generated via Adobe AI. This means that they haven't stolen any artist's work. They used their own stock photos, and registered user generated work.
Now the Adobe AI isn't as good as Midjourney, but that's just a matter of time. It's not going to go away. As a photo editor, I've been using Photoshop's AI for years. Healing brushes have more and more used base AI to adjust images.
Now, I can extend landscape photos, or remove walls when shooting photos through door frames. Hell I can remove whole crowds of people from photos.
As for good or bad art. It's no different than good or bad artists. If a company uses AI art without having human artists adjusting and fixing the images, that's on them. But again, it's only going to get better.
It sucks if you're a professional artist. Unless you can do what AI can't. And that's always going to happen.
Mass produced furniture hasn't killed off hand made furniture. If anything it upped the value of hand made work.
The same will happen with AI art. Artists who work in mediums not digital should see an eventual huge increase in the value of their product.
And even digital artists should be able to prove what they've done and again, sell human created art for a profit. It'll just take time for the markets to adjust.
I genuinely don't believe AI art is here to stay because human artists have been able to disrupt its encroachment pretty admirably so far. Supreme Court ruled in our favor on the front of copyright; that means that tons of art fields were saved from being dominated by AI entirely. Things like the WGA strike prove that artists (specifically writers and actors, in that case) still have sway and aren't tolerant of their industry being ruined. Programs like Glaze can mess up gAI databases and MidJourney is already starting to suffer from the same issues is ChatGPT is: database incest. If Glaze becomes widely adopted and database incest becomes rampant, AI art won't actually improve all that much from now and may in fact get worse.
I feel like it's only a matter of time until enough big artists file enough lawsuits to get further regulation. Systems like AI should be opt-in only if they must exist at all. I think there is a future for art without AI. After all, ChatGPT can do everything s CEO does better than they can, and Elon Musk still has his job, eh? Clearly "efficiency" is a flexible term to corporations lmao
The opt-in won't happen. Copyright cannot protect works from data scraping. Its just not strong enough of a protection.
@@damienthonk1506Yeeah I doubt it will really last/work..genies already out of the bottle and even if say in the us it is limited plenty of places will use it/expand upon it..What we should be doing is finding a way to make this transition easier instead of condemning people to starve due to progress
Adobe absolutely has stolen artwork. There are artists who have opted out of having their art used to train the AI and it's still provably in the learning library.
@@SharmClucasThey can't opt out.
The irony is that Terraforming Mars was struggling with pirated copies of the games being sold for some time. (English copies, so it was the publisher Stronghold Games which suffered, Fryx Games at the time being the designers and developers, though they do have some titles under their own brand as well.)
That's not irony. Irony is people being outraged about AI art in the recent expansion because artists aren't getting paid. But those same people didn't care at all about the original game where no artist (besides the designers) were credited or payed for the 200+ pieces of public domain images used. "But they were public domain..." Yes. But that's just another way to get around hiring artist to produce art. Then again, I don't think anyone truly understands why they should be outraged, just that it seems to be the "right" thing to be outraged about while they are watching pirated movies with a friend of a friend's Netflix password. "Pay the artists! - unless you mean I have to do it."
In the end, this is just another example of the gaming industries gate-keeping tendencies. "If you can't afford to hire artist to make art for your game then you shouldn't be making a game in the first place." Yes, maybe TM should be able to afford "real" artists, but the vocal minority is waging war an ANY ai art, and that hurts a lot more than just artists. Elitist gatekeeping at its finest.
@@chrissteele7472 No, it's not "gatekeeping" to ask that commercial entities pay for what they use to make money. Sure, they can also use AI to translate rulebooks, or even come up with the rules. Will the games be good? No. Will you buy it? Perhaps, because you do not want to "gatekeep" and like it when companies save money off of you?
@@TorIverWilhelmsen if this were just “big companies should pay artist” then sure - but that’s not what’s going on. It’s “I will not cover ANY game that uses AI art.” And THAT is gatekeeping of the small devs in its truest form.
@@chrissteele7472 Anyone making a game commercially needs a business model. Is it "gatekeeping" that you need to pay the printer, shipping company etc. too?
Welp it's a good thing the courts have decided that anything ai generated don't get copyright protections.
The art of Terraforming Mars (original) is a choice example of wabi-sabi. I wouldn't change a thing about it.
I'm a professional artist, have been for quite a while now. I have no peers that I know of that use AI in any way for their art, and if they did, I'd wonder why on earth they were doing that. Anyone using AI in their art process is just shooting themselves in the foot; like any tool that you learn to rely on, if it takes too much of the thought process out of things your skills will atrophy and eventually disappear altogether and all you'll be able to do is rely on your crutch to do what you used to be able to do on your own. Photoshop never had a 'make art' button, for as many memes as we made about that, the closest it ever got was Actions (being able to apply the same process to many pieces making them uniform in some way) or the Filters, which just applied a uniforn effect to the piece you had. AI art cobbling things together for you so that you can pretend you're a big boy artist is surely going to be 'a thing', but like so many tracers before them their lack of skill will be apparent to anyone with eyes and half a brain.
I can see plenty of use for AI in art - the oddities and fabricated 'hallucinations' the AI generate can be the inspiration for the human artist. Look at the world a different way. And I really can't agree you are shooting yourself in the foot to use a new tool, that is like arguing that because my CNC mill means I don't have to spend ages with the saw and file, manual lathe/mill or both I can't actually use those tools at all. Or that digital camera ruin photography as they are not the film/slide cameras... The AI art tools can be an accelerator to the same end results, allow less experienced folks to get better end results, or a new method to create stuff you wouldn't/couldn't create otherwise. Its not going to just replace the human artist or the existing methods entirely, and probably never will when you look at all the traditional crafts that are still running with a few old masters and apprentice. But that does take away from it being a tool you can use on the way to a result you want.
@@foldionepapyrus3441 1. These are not tools. They are replacements.
2. Companies have already started replacing humans. Stop denying this.
Do they use Photoshop in any way?
If so they cannot be trusted to not use filters with AI.
First is used for convenience, then more and more until you get a generation of crappy artist that didn't develop their skills.
Same thing is happening to programmers and writers.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 The same thing sort of happens when company put only robots on their support phoneline etc. But it doesn't change the point that the tool is just a tool, stupid use of the tool to get inferior results will be done, the same as it always is with any new tech. But many folks will choose to use a properly crafted result/method, and these AI art tools can be used to create great results!
Same thing as if your ISP won't answer your support tickets you move ISP, if a game publisher puts in really crap looking art few folks will buy that game because its art looks like the effort free, low quality garbage it is.
You can use AI in the same way you use filters, though.
The generative tools that create a raw image throug a prompt are kinda useless, they are too generic and random, but when they are fine tuned to work exactly as filters (texturng, shading, stylizing) they will be part of the creative process.
The option will be there, people will use it.
I have to wonder if the average TTRPG player is even concerned about AI art as they are likely to encounter it at their tables. There are tons of DM's who want to provide a cool experience for their table and don't have the artistic talent or funds to commission an artist for their games. I feel like it's only natural that amateur DM's will utilize AI tools.
Correct.
They will also realize that they dislike a DND or some other system and decide to homebrew up something using AI.
This is going to cause s chain reaction across the ttrpg ecosystem.
I really do hope WoTC does this. I want to see what kind of creativity and new ideas will occur in the aftermath of their destruction.
Social media will be awash with wars and collaborations between competing systems.
It will be great.
I already do. I am very much against monetising AI art - such using it in a sold product- but I run ttrpgs online for free. If I can add art that takes only a few hours and no money to produce, of course I do. Prior to that, dms were just poaching art from the internet anyway; using AI to alter and refine it lets each piece be unique. The alternative is to work without visual cues at all. The amount of human effort that goes into real art, properly compensated, is just unfeasible to fund for a ttrpg hobby game. Even if I were a talented artist myself (I'm not), the time it would take would baloon the 5-10 prep hours I'm already putting in each week. I could charge people to play my games, maybe, but the idea of monetise a hobby is absolutely repugnant to me.
I would love to see professional artist still able to produce for professional products, and hopefully we can still reach legal protections for them. But my sympathy only extends so far; most of us are working full-time in jobs that we have no passion for, and maybe the artists have gotta accept that art can ultimately only continue as a hobby.
I think we need to be really restructuring our economy away from trying to make money with everything we do - you know, the UBI idea and such - so we can reduce excess productivity, reduce work hours, keep the income we need to live comfortably, and all have more time to do the things we enjoy, like art, without worrying about making it pay bills.
AI artists can create realistic shapes and shades but can't replicate the life is the image that human artists can
Or give it meaning and depth like a human can.
An Indy game company union is looking like a better idea every day. Nobody really wants six fingers on the banana.
With or without the orgy?
hmm looks like a delicious nothing burger
and it keeps getting worse.
it'll get worse before it gets better imo
@@dungeonsanddiscourse You talkin about all this time and money saved by corporations.
The way I see it, I can now afford to do my passion projects, that I thought were never going to happen.
I think this is overall a very good thing.
Instead of competing to see who has the prettiest game (40k I'm looking at you), game creators will have to compete on the quality of their games.
My personal project is just a bastard love-child of One Page Rules and Bolt Action, using Commissar Gamza's minis using his $30 unlimited commercial license.
I'm also open sourcing the entire project, and plan to switch to AI generated models once the tech is ready, and/or people submit open source license models to the project.
Open source war gaming, with distributed production.
For the same price as a Warhammer 40K army, you could print enough models to host your own tournaments.
Find a hobby store that doesn't kowtow to Games Workshop and get the kids addicted to that. Some of those kids are going to use their dads 3D printers to make some money. Some of those kids are going to use dad's money to buy those models.
So I'm not just looking at a product to sell, but an entire economy.
I really should have GTP write me out a fully fleshed out business plan I can just cut and paste.
The only problem I have with ai is attempts to hide it, own it and let the market choose what they want to buy.
People will quickly let them know what they want to buy.
There is a place for it as there is for human art and a mix of both just let us know what's in there.
Exactly, human sourced art can just be marketed like "ethically sourced" coffee or cigars. High quality human artists have nothing to fear in that market. Artists whos work is closer to the middle of the distribution might have to consider a different line of work, since they cant compete on quality. Its kind of like how quality musicians are still in demand, despite the power of pro-tools to "fix" errors in the less talented performers.
So... FryxGames just admitted that they don't own the copyrights to their game and you can legally make and sell your own copies of it? Bold move.
Only the AI art. Game rules cannot be copyrighted, but the lore and story are copyrighted. However tables are considered artwork and covered by copyright.
Once their in house team has modified the AI images to a sufficient extent, they'll be able to class them as unique and viable for copyright.
It does not take much, to make an AI creation copyrightable.
@@Omenowl But not the content of tables. That's information. Information can't be copyrighted.
Let's not kid ourselves here, the day AI art will be able to do a job as good as artists it will be use everywhere and by everyone as a tool to make whatever they fancy. There will be no moral, ethical, spiritual or whatever questions about this. It will be used and normalized just like the phone or the internet have been. It's not even the fault of capitalism but simply human nature which seeks "improvement" and ease of use.
thank about the boon it is to those of us with great creative imagination, and visualization skills, and *zero* artistic talent. finally we can see our visions realized too, without an absurde investment
I wouldn't say the investment is absurd, but it's definitely a long one and life is short. I don't know how many years of practice it would have taken me if I had to paint my profile picture myself.
1. You are one cynical person.
2. It is the faulth of capitalism. Stop denying it.
@@DellikkilleD You know that all great artists had zero talent, right? Talent does not exist. It is an elitist lie. What exists is just skill, and the passion and time to develop those skills.
Finally, no, these programs do not bring your imagination to life. At all. What they do is generate an image that has nothing to do with your mind.
@@Celadonis-the-Lore-Seeker If life is short, then we should start protesting and voting for a four day work week, and seven hour work day, to improve things, and give us more time in our short lives.
Never send a human to do a machine's job. Agent Smith.
As ai art gets better, at some point artists will become something akin to tradesmen (blacksmith, glassblowers, etc.) where they make bespoke art that is super expensive because of low demand/high workload.
Sadly.
Hopefully AI crashes and burn before that
The entire entertainment industry is on the chopping block.
You think UA-camrs are going to survive the next 2 years?
The algorithm is rigged, futuristic face change tech, voice synthesis,AI music,art, writing, directing,video are all on the verge of being perfected.
The strike in Hollywood is about this very thing. They know their time is limited.
I assume the creators of Terraforming Mars realize that the AI art is not their IP- there is no copyright protection
I've played with AI a lot, and even I'm sick of all AI art looking the same. It easily fulfills the need for generic pinups, but for anything that needs to actually express something - let alone something new - there is no match for a human that actually understands the whole point of the picture.
There's a bit of a difference in using AI Art for reference/concept art and using it as a final product. I have no problem with the former, and see the latter as roughly equivalent to using public domain art (OK in a small indie project, but tacky for a business).
Though it's still insane to me that models like Midjourney and StableDiffusion didn't restrict themselves to public domain, or at least creative commons sources, when developing their models. It would've saved everyone a lot of headaches if they had done so.
Machine Learning, in it's totality, is basically a black box. We have vague ideas about what's in the black box, but the only concrete understanding is prompt goes in, thing comes out. Already, Midjourney, Dall E, Adobe Firefly, Chat GPT, and pretty much any consumer grade module out there has been marred in scandals relating to contraband found in it's training data - and this is after either saying it was already removed, or not present in the first place. Why, then, we can trust on the very basic level that they're respectful of artists is beyond me when we can't even tell how much contraband is left in there.
AND, on top of that, they exist/compete in the same marketplaces as traditional art. Which wouldn't be an issue if most of the time there's a good probability any singular influence is near impossible to trace (/credit given) and it was basically a faster paced, commodified version. It's a repeat of the housing market all over again.
It DOESN'T MATTER what art an AI art tool is trained on... unless you want to go after humans who learn from looking at non-public-domain art to learn their craft as well. The tool does not save those images and then smash them together to create new images... (it's literally impossible for that process to happen, given the size of the training data, 100 TERABYTES, and the resulting model that the AI art tools use to produce new images, under 8 GIGABYTES.) There is nothing illegal or immoral about AI art tools inherently.
Human artists are just upset that these tools are being used to produce art that they think they are entitled to being paid to produce, and they think that just because the tools couldn't exist without having learned from human art to begin with, that they "stole" that skill from the artists... it just baffles my mind that artists can be this... blind to reality, and so willing to apply double standards when it benefits themselves. They fear losing their jobs... and some rightfully so... they need to get better, so they can't just be replaced... and find jobs where specific results are required, where people aren't satisfied with the first thing an AI art tool spits out... they can find their niche and profit from it. All this fearmongering isn't going to get them anywhere.
Human users can force AI art tools to produce plagiarized art by using functions similar to a copy machine (img2img prompting) or forcibly training their own model on the images they want the AI to spit back out at them... but that's all stuff that's already covered under existing copyright law, and isn't anything new that couldn't already be done with a copy machine, as I mentioned at the start.
@@NameNotAChannel Actually it does, when the training data uses said art from artists, makes images, and then turns around and competes against those same artists in the same spaces. Just like how Amazon is a dick for taking the most popular products, making knockoffs for cheaper, and selling them alongside the original products.
Moreover, these programs need data to reproduce anything... data they get from these artists. So you're blowing smoke there as well.
The bigger more concerning fire in your dumpster however is saying brashly claiming that artists just need to be "better." Better at what? Microprocessing? Because they can't, being organic. Or, maybe you're suggesting that artists MUST use AI as opposed to literally any other method that they may prefer (the ego.) There's not a lot of niches to go around, so that's not a good suggestion; that's only enforcing the idea that generative machine learning is, indeed, taking jobs and forcing artists to find other careers (you know, ones they have no passion for.)
And the thing about copy machines, or plagarists for that matter, is the ammount of effort it took. Generative models take a far briefer knowledge base and less experience to produce art in. At least when someone forged the Mona Lisa they had to have a lot more knowledge about Da Vinci.
@@NameNotAChannel But no, these models are just tools. Just like a knife, bleach, a hammer, or a welding torch is a tool. And certainly under no circumstances would those things be used in morally and ethically deranged ways.
@@RobertStoll Using images for training purpose is not going to be considered infringement because the final result will almost assuredly be sufficiently transformative. You can't protect a style or look of art. You can only protect your exact embodiment and derivatives thereof. Mashing together hundreds of samples will not be derivative of any of them.
Yeah. Still happy with my decision to continue avoiding giving them any $. There's eventually going to have to be a legal ruling on this, but I'm not supporting anything that is using AI art.
"Shared by everybody, like a banana at an orgy" 🤣 🤣 🤣
So basically we need to add artists to the job list of being replaced by AI.
Hitler was an artist. Good riddance.
Pretty much
The real issue with AI art is not AI art, it's capitalism. Nobody would care about AI art if the livelihood of artist did not depend on this
your issue isnt "capitalism" then, its thermodynamics.
@@elLooto no it's capitalism
@@LineOfThy the free (uncoerced) exchange of goods and services is the problem? Explain how.
@@elLooto Your vision of a free "uncoerced" exchange of goods is about as probable as communism working
If AI art is monetisable, than fanfic and fanart should be too.
Incorrect. The AI art is not legally derivative. Fanfic and fan art are legally derivative.
@@davidbowles7281You're correct in that AI works are not considered derivative, but wrong because derivative works are eligible for copyright -- while US copyright law "protects only works of human creation" [Thaler v. Perlmutter]
AI art isn't legally derivative because it has no legal protections at all.
@@khill8645Incorrect. Those are separate analyses. One could in fact create derivative AI art. It just will never happen pulling from dozens or hundreds of sources.
@@davidbowles7281 Incorrect. AI art is legally derivative.
@@kylokat It will almost assuredly not be. If collage art is allowable, so is this. If an AI is trained by 10,000 images and creates a new image that is distinct from all 10,000 images, there is no way that's going to be legally derivative. Copying styles is permitted. Copying works is not.
I love you a little more every time you work in a Mighty Boosh reference.
So long as income is based on labor… this will be a problem. Once we are economically free to pursue our interests, things like human created art will be readily available. Artists want to create art and have it enjoyed… but while ‘profit’ is a factor, we are screwed.
Damn, artists were the last I'd expected to see gain some class consciousness. Keep at it!
That's basically the issue with trying to automate everything and still having capitalisms people can't work and buy your stuff if there's no work. The only solution would to be make everything free at that point since robots will do things for nothing.
@@cosmicsvids
It’s doable, though. As a species, we’ve been around for a few hundred thousand years; banks, money, taxes, etc are all less than ten thousand years. On top of that, we’ve ALWAYS had an economically parasitic minority who don’t contribute to society… they are just given vast wealth. These ‘parasites’ may often be dickheads, but they weren’t destroyed because they didn’t have jobs. Virtually everything you hear about this subject is utter nonsense. Some folk just want to maintain the status quo.
We will be economically free. Once money no longer can afford us the labor of others.
labor or owning labor
Caught the WotW reference, even without the UUHLLAAAAHH! :P
As for me, as a consumer, I will never knowingly purchase games with generative AI content that was not ethically-sourced.
*I hate that people even call this shit AI.*
There is literally negative intelligence in these machine learning algorithms. They have no understanding of what they are doing and will just make shit up because of it.
Machine learning is good for some tasks and it has its uses as a tool. But leaving decisions and whole designs to this shit people call AI is beyond stupid!
It's a sorting and scramble algorithm! Data goes in, we can't see what happens, data comes out. Sometimes the data is useful, but most of the time it's crap and so you need to run it several times before it spits out anything useful (and that is IF the data you put in is actually good and not biased or screwed up in some way).
There is no sentience and no intelligence in the machine learning algorithm. What people call "AI" is actually dumber than a rock, because a rock can't scramble and spit out faulty information and then absorb that faulty information to make itself actively more wrong each time it adds more bad data.
It's this “AI art” is just the output of an advanced scramble and reassemble function for machines based of copies of images (often art made by artists, without their consent) to compose new junk images by scrambling a new image together from thousands of composed parts into a new pattern, with no understanding of what is being made or why.
There is more intelligence in a pair of used socks than the entire output of modern "AI"... I hate it being called Artificial Intelligence *when all it has is Artificial and is completely devoid of Intelligence.* 😒
Thank you for reading my rant. Have a lovely day!
GW would likely be in favor of AI art as well.
Also "This is something AI art cannot replicate". YET.
I think AI art will continue to improve, but will then reach the step that Fulgrim reached with his art, that it's too good. It loses any flaws or humanity because there is no humanity behind it.
GW would be in favor of AI art only until they hit the major caveat of it: it cannot legally be copyrighted.
As soon as that point lands, they'll treat it as radioactive.
@@khill8645 You assume they care about that.
@@davidbowles7281 Games Workshop!? You're kidding, right? That's _all_ they care about. Go read about their lawsuit against Chapterhouse and try to hold this same skepticism afterwards
@@davidbowles7281 GW is INFAMOUSLY litigious with their IP. They literally renamed most of their factions because they couldn't enforce copyright on the term "Space Marine".
@@linkmaxwell You mean trademark. But yes, I know.
"You get the same result by just pushing a button, while it take time and skills to do it with your hands.
It's cheating and you will take away our jobs"
.
...said every painter and illustrator when photography was invented
I know I’m in the minority here but, Fryxgames using AI and getting backlash is the same as a backcountry diner getting in trouble for having a dishwashing machine instead of a dishwasher.
And your comparison is the same as comparing Hitler to Gandhi. Both were humans and influential. See, I can also make dumb, nonsensical argument.
How many people don't by products from factories that replaced workers with robots? Workers of all types have been getting replaced by machines for a long long time. I am not saying that I agree with it but just pointing out that this growth of AI replacing humans is nothing new in the context of work.
I wonder what the oil and watercolour portraitists thought when photography started to become popular in the mid-19th Century. Surely it would become an age where artists were rendered redundant by a cold machine which required absolutely no skill to use.
And stole people's souls, besides that.
The difference is that photographers ARE artists and photography is a separate artistic medium. It requires immense skill to make a good photo. AI art is none of that.
At the end of the day, end user input into machine learning generative imagery is library selection and keyword choice. The comparison is questionable, not to mention the fact that the machine learning algorithms are actively using other people's work to function. A photographer uses a tool to engage their own personal creative choices actively. Having an "AI" make "art" is like asking an artist to do a commission, but they're tracing different bits of other people's work to form the art. It's not the person using the AI making anything.
@@damienthonk1506 Yes, but that's not what the portraitists thought back then. AI art is also a separate artistic medium, and it requires skill to coax good art out of Stable Diffusion, even if *you* think that it doesn't.
It's fine, generation Z+1 will just think you are an old stick-in-the-mud for thinking that, just like previous generations did to previous sticks-in-the-mud, and go forward to do impressive art with this new tool, just like the previous generation did with digital painting.
@@herebejamz Poetry is also keyword choice, curiously. Believe me, if there were just 1000 ways to get different results out of a prompt, never mind varying parameters like sampling algorithm and CFG scale, I would agree with you. But isn't taking a picture just looking into the viewfinder (nowadays, a LED screen) and pushing a button? Where's the art in *that?* I'm sure you can detect the sarcasm in my voice just now.
@@tiagorodrigues3730 Once again, it fundamentally comes down to stolen assets fed to a machine to interpret a request to make a bunch of images out of snippets of other images. Get as sarcastic as you want, it's not a person, it's lines of code slapping things together accordingly. To compare that to poetry crafted in the mind of an actual sapient being is nutty. I'm not against generated imagery, it's just not art.
D&D and rpg are one thing . Computer games are another . If D&D becomes a computer game they will loose players like me and will lag behind games like Baldur's Gate so will fail . This is all because this game is run by corporate investment not gamers . They dont understand us and it that will cost them
This whole "anti-AI art" thing really reminds me so much of the "anti-Photoshop/Digital Art" wave about 20 years ago, or the anti-digital camera opinion that many pro-photographers had when they first landed. I imagine in 20 years, no one in the industry will see AI as anything but yet another tool for artists to use in their pipeline. Anytime a new disruptive tool or technology shows up, everyone will attack it if they feel it threatens them in some way. To me, I encourage artists to use AI tooling to assist in reducing their timelines etc, drive creativity, and just generally as a tool in their toolbelt. The biggest thing we need is just better rules around making sure that the AI is trained using ethical source data. Using non-copywritten, open licensed, or paid licensed content for training data. That's honestly the only issue I have with the AI ethics.
replacing lateral thinking isn't the same as the paint brush painting pixels.
Even then, generative models are trained to offer the most by committee, most common grade expressions. There's not a lot of room for individuality or creativity if you're taking cues from a TI-84 connected to the internet.
In 20 years, there won't be any artists to complain.
I believe that artificial intelligence in general will have as large, and as unpredictable, an impact on society as the Industrial Revolution, but that it will happen much, much faster. We live in interesting times.
For better or worse...the singularity cometh.
Dude we're not even remotely close to that future yet that's still sci fi. What we're looking at is marketing hype about a word processor being sold as something much more grandiose than it is. What scares the shit out of me is how many people will believe the hype and try to do something "intelligent" with the word processor and leave it to do something vital that it's completely unable to do.
But right now, generative AI is less intelligent than vegan mayonnaise and sooner we all disembark from the folly, the better off we'll be.
We will be begging for coins from robots
@@kiltedcripple What you have to realize is it's not super smart AI that will change the world. I mean - it will, when we get there, but we don't need it to drastically reshape literally everything.
Today's commodity hardware - consider where automation has gone in the last 20 years. Now look at the cutting edge automation of today - and contemplate what happens when it gets rolled out at scale with commoditization of it over the next say decade. We are talking greater degrees of automation of pre-fab construction, meaning: Less construction workers needed. We are talking Autonomous cars: Less drivers (as in truck drivers, bus drivers, train conductors... etc). And this is the tip of the ice berg so to speak. So many trivial decisions that are basically a set of inputs matched to a set of requirements can be automated which starts trimming back a lot of administrative and management work.
Oh, and if you think it stops there: Spoiler: AI tools are already being used by law-firms to accelerate the tedium work and reduce overhead operational costs.
So why is this important to understand? There aren't a pile of new fields opening up. Programming is about the only truly new carrier/job in the last century - everything else is a specialization of sorts. And when we look at some specialist work of the past - we have software to make solving the problems they solved manageable to lay people.
So what do we do when in the range of 30-40% of people CAN NOT FIND WORK BY NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. And this is a problem we need to deal with in the next decade - and I hope we have more than a decade to get that solution working, but technology advancement doesn't wait for the wider reach of society to be ready: It just happens.
To put it bluntly: This is happening. All of the pieces of the puzzle are available - they are just needing some refinement to fit nicely together, but we are no longer in the range of needing a giant leap to make it happen, we need a final uncertain baby step.
@@kiltedcripple clearly you dont understand how advances in computer tech happen. the singularity is *at most* 2 decades out. likely more like 8-9 years.
This shit is such a bummer. Getting into coding and art was my hope out of my shitty job. But it seems so fucking pointless
AI (assisted or complete) art, like in many other areas, is now here.
It's weird.
And it's not going anywhere.
People never like when changes happen... especially when it can affect people negatively. What they forget is that tech innovations are *never* temporary.
Cars were hated... until they became a huge goal for an entire continent.
Robotics in manufacturing was despised... until the people who had learned to love cars loved the prices and quality.
Music, which was once *all* acoustic, is now heavily assisted by a huge amount of tech.
And the kicker is this: while they are all assisted... none are ever done by *just* the tech. There has always been, and always will be a skilled and creative human guiding the process. Purely AI art is never going to match that done by a human... but once new skills are mastered, a skilled and creative human using ai as a tool will be able to make more. Better. And faster.
Businesses like the first and third parts... they always bought bad art that was cheap before, when it suited the need. Why would they stop now? The art for that game was enough to get the job done... as obviously evidenced by their sales. The *only* reason the use of their art has ever been questioned is the source.
The reason so many artists are already using the AI tools is because they see the potential in all 3 changes. To be better, do them faster, and therefore make more. Or did you think they didn't want some profit too?
Every time a new technology comes along, people who specialized in the old way will complain... except a few, who will embrace what is coming, and find themselves at the forefront.
Or one can always turn their back on it. It *is* an option. Amish quilts and furniture are master craftsman level amazing, and I am sure they do not regret turning their backs on tech. They look happy.... don't they?
TLDR. Point is. AI is used for the easiest most money making area instead of something humanity actually needs.
@@greenicetea3546 name ONE tech that has ever started as anything else? Lofty goals are for after, when it is less risky, less unknown, and the generation that was shaken by it is gone.
Don't have to *like* it... I'm not a fan myself. But it isn't going away. Ask the Luddites how well it goes, fighting advancement that has money attached.
Humanity will also get it's due... it always does... eventually.
Thank you so much for covering this
I've been writing an RPG for about 6 years now. When I finish and self publish, it will have plenty of AI art. In addition to spending a decade writing a game, I have no interested in paying artists tens of thousands of dollars on a project that is very unlikely to produce any real profits.
This why AI is good, it lower the money floor for production. Manual artwork is still the ceiling. But twitter-citizens preffer to be a luddist, while protecting actually corpos with money over indie devs
8:59 Human cobblers still exist... they’re just children in factories!
We've already had Kickstarter campaigns for D&D modules with AI art for at least half a year now
AI is good money- it offers Slack & gives profits to psychopaths who don't care about any real human issue. None of this should come as a surprise. Thanks for the entertaining report though!
I mean the Irony is from a programming standpoint most of those upper people are not hard to replace. In many major companies adaptive processing algorithms already guide or even autonomously make many of the companies decisions.
Image somebody invent a device that would allow to create a picture without brushes and oils by just pressing a button. Just press a button and get a perfect realistic picture... It surely will kill art of artists...
Wait. This device already created, named photo-camera and photographers are different kind of artists?
All this things with AI looks like moral-panic and neo-luddism. Or maybe we should ban selling of photos? and ban all cameras?
Peoples who are so loud about AI art has like 0 understanding of how technology work, and not ever tried to use it to create exact vision.
i dunno, that Terraforming Mars art looks very bad tho
@dungeonsanddiscourse Terraforming Mars arts are... Functional. It's generic, grounded and "realistic" or "schematic". It actually suit game thematically, and you not spend much time by looking cards arts.
Anyway due to BGG "FryxGames is a small family business founded in 2011 in Sweden, with the intention to develop, publish and sell board games and card games."
So this is a small company that publish like 6 games in total. In the box there is ~240 cards with different arts and many game-pieces while box price is like $65. Do you REALLY want to compare it to something like MTG with $1000 for 3 booster packs of proxy cards without any new artwork?
For big corporations it's surely reduce quality of final product at current tech, that still their choice and consumer choice to agree or not. But for anything smaller AI allow to streamline workflow, while AI could be used to created full gallery or reference for artist for speed-up and simplify work.
Anti-AI witch-hunting looks same as calling TV or radio a "book killer" or making camera "art killer". And now, image you would create your own mini-game. Like... Hearthstone copycat for your personal DnD setting. And now you need for example 60 different artworks. Would you use an AI-tools? And then you decide publish your game and use home-made AI to ask artist for make artwork or improve image qualiy. But you still use AI as part of your pipeline. If usage of AI is "unethical" at witch point it become ethical?
Honestly i wouldn't give a fuck about this if they didn't try to vehemently hide the AI usage until they we're forced to disclose it, reeks of dishonesty.
But as someone who actually understands how AI works i dont find it such a moral dilemma as most people. The tech is here, and the faster we learn to use it in an efficient and balanced manner the better for everyone involved.
My main issue is ethics, as in using other artists' work without their consent or compensating them. There is an 'art' (pun fully intended) to creating good prompts for making AI images look how you want them to; it's just a different skill set compared to physically created art. For me, it's helpful because, among my impressive collection of health issues, I have problems with my hands (even typing this hurts; time to break out the painkillers that barely work but are better than nothing!) which means there's no way in Hell I could create art physically. Being able to use my brain to have my characters drawn for me rather than leaving myself useless for days by overusing my hands is quite nice. So, yeah, I'd be fine with it if it wasn't screwing over actual artists, as I have deep respect (and some envy) for people with artistic skills. I would rather actually pay human artists but I'm broke. I'm hoping that at the least, there will be enough conscientious consumers to pressure AI art platforms into using only art that's been legitimately obtained for training purposes.
I don’t care if corporations save money. I don’t want those products. I want human artists/creators.
Finally someone with humanity.
AI art is the art version of ultra-processed food.
I am watching this with my set of physical D&D RULE BOOKS that I bought in about 2005. Their glorious human art will be a thing of the past? In the end mega corps wants all art skills to vanish. Then we depend on them and they can charge anything. I can hear their CEOs..,uhahahahahamama.
I mean the end goal of the system is a single owner lording over an entirely autonomously operating company trading with other fully autonomous companies.
Companies have the choice to use AI art or not and we have the choice to buy the game or not. Nuff said
As long as is DISCLOSED.
You see many companies will be using AI for their art and writing, but won't disclose it. So there is no way for the end user to vote with their wallet.
I wasn't going to comment... then you made the Gaius Baltar and I had to say.... well played!
AI art is better than anything I can physically draw😢
But nothing beats a real fantasy artist like Naismith, Frazetta, Whelan, Miura etc etc.
just wait untill they realise that AI art and well anything made by AI cant be copywritten
The worst part of AI is how LAZY people are with it. Like hire ONE PERSON to do cleanup work, how greedy can you be to just slap it on a product
It's not about being lazy. It's about being efficient. I don't have the talent to draw the artwork for my website, but I can describe what I want, and the AI will create it in a few seconds. I can have all the artwork I need for the entire website, in an hour. The artist I hired two months ago to create my maps, she takes weeks to draw a single map, and charges $50 to $150 per map. I hired her because I have specific needs that she can fulfill, but she takes time and costs money. I expect to pay her over $1000 for the maps I've commissioned.
I need 30 maps, from terrain, to encounter, every month. I have neither the money, nor the time, to hire an army of artists. AI is free, and fast. Everything I need drawn, can be done in a week, and you nor anyone else, will never know it wasn't drawn by a person.
THAT is what AI is all about. Allowing me to start a business as cheaply as possible, to get as much product to as many people as I can, at a reasonable price.
@NTC_Transport so by that logic we should go back to cheap child labor, indentured servants, slavery, and union busting for the sake of cheaper and more efficient business?
@@poenpotzu2865 No, you should start using technological advancements to improve efficiency in all aspects of your business. That way you can get more done with less effort (labor), and lower the prices your customers have to pay for your product.
Basic Capitalist Economics
@@poenpotzu2865 did you take advance classes in stupid or does it some naturally?
@@elLooto no he has a point. if everything was about efficiency we wouldn't have to care about morals.
To be clear, the Terraforming Mars campaign is for an expansion to the base game, and is not a standalone game. As such, the artwork in the expansion should be consistent with the artwork of the original game (which is bad). Otherwise, the new art would be out of place. Since there's no point in paying someone to make bad art consistent with the base game, I have no issue with Fryx using bad AI art. I also have no issue with them not wanting to give a handout to an artist to produce art for an expansion, when that artist did nothing to contribute to the success of their game.
Personally, I hope that there will eventually be a revised edition of the base game with better art. But until then, there's no point in hiring an artist for an expansion, as the game will still look ugly on the table.
Generally, I'm sympathetic to board game designers. They put in thousands of hours of unpaid work to create designs. Even if their game is successful, their "design time" is still ignored when it comes to fixing the price of the game, as customers aren't willing to pay for it. So hearing a bunch of people telling board game designers that not only should they donate thousands of hours of their time, but that they should also take out mortgages to pay for artists is ridiculous.
The above is also why AI art will win out. Telling people without money that they should have to spend money is never a winning strategy.
This. AI artworks open the posibilities for indi-design. While arguement against AI looks more like luddism and gatekeeping
"we won't succeed"
I respect that you are aware of that. I don't mean that as a dig, I like people being realistic.
I also like that you acknowledge that AI art is going to get better and better AND that the "outrage" will die out over time.
Love or hate AI art, having a realistic view of the outcome is important regardless if someone is fighting against AI or for it.
realistic as in your side winning, eh? Mighty tall horse you have there. Shame if anything were to happen to it.
@@RobertStoll And which side is my side exactly? Cause I mentioned that regardless of if you're FOR AI or AGAINST AI, you have to have a realistic view of the outcome.
So again....WHICH side is my side in your head and your head alone?
@@MrBanditoRazor The only people making this sort of rehtoric are for generative models and machine learning. It's cheering for it to become the norm.
copyright will like a word with you,
@@RobertStoll That's incorrect and the very kind of backwards thinking that makes it so the worse outcome happens.
You can't "win" either for or against something if you ignorantly pretend that you're going to get an unrealistic outcome.
You can stomp your foot and scream "the kick starter will fail" all you want to make yourself feel better.... but the KS succeeded.
If there are enough people who don't give a fuck about AI (and there is absolutely enough), then AI IS going to become the norm.
How much has to be conceded to AI, how much human involvement remains, limits on it ....can only be fought for and decided by those who grasp that first part.
The voiceless will be those near sighted fools who think AI won't be involved at all if they just wish hard enough. They won't be heard at all cause they will be fighting a battle that was already decided.
That's the difference between having a realistic understanding of the situation (ie "we can't win" against automation like the other jobs she used as examples) and the fantasy of "No bruh, technology doesn't get to advance!" fantasy of no AI.
When I see the title of one of these videos in my feed, I first roll my eyes and get annoyed anyone clicks on clickbait, then realize it’s her, mentally apologize for speaking out of turn, and update my slack status to “in a meeting” for the next half hour. To be clear, I’d click on a “Lorem ipsum” title if it’s hers.
it's sad to see that a game entirely composed by ai-art made so much money in the campaing... it'll definitely give big corps greed machine a lot to salivate over.
I haven't played the game, but if it's a good game, who cares? I care about the product I buy and whether I enjoy it, not who or what made it. I think most people are the same. People might think otherwise because the "omg muh artists" crowd is so loud, but the silent majority will buy what they like and never once, even for a second think about or care who made it. That might be sad, but that doesn't matter because it's reality.
thats a fucked up take. They spent the money where it mattered, and saved it where it didnt.
Please check what are you talking about, terraforming mars devs qre not big corpo, them actually a family-company
@@erfarkrasnobay I think you need to re-read what I said, I never said they are big
Millions of jobs were lost in manufacturing due to automation (and yes, there were protests and s**t).
You don't call an operator on the phone to connect you to with your buddy anymore because of advances in technology, losing thousand and thousand of those operator's jobs
Hell, go back to pre-historic time, where all those hunter-gatherers lost their jobs due to the introduction of agriculture
Bottom line:
If an invention can make creating something easier or cheaper it _will_ be used and no protesting, no screaming no nothing will change that.
END OF STORY!
The invention renders the company that creates the product in question obsolete. It will and is also slowly replacing the UA-camrs and AI commenters are killing off paid shills and marketers
This can't be stopped. A large portion of the general gaming public unfortunately don't care if their games were made using AI or not. They just want to play games that look cool. Even with all this AI news, the Terraforming Mars expansion still managed to rake in over $2 million on Kickstarter. It is time to move on and accept the inevitable. Traditional artists, like the portrait painters of past, is a going to be relegated to the ''hobbyist only'' isle. Very few people will be able to make living of it, especially in the gaming and movie industry. Sad but true.
and in the future very few people will be able to do it at all as it will be most things, mostly, I just want to die already because the world is just going in a crazy dystopic direction.
@@bluester7177 yip. I do feel that traditional artists that create decorative art (paintings, sculptures etc.) for personal collections will still be able to make a living of their art. But those artists who work in the gaming/movie industry will be less in demand because of AI.
I adored the War of the Worlds reference... and I agree, there are arguments for keeping human artists, and the quality point you mention is one of them.
What i really worry about is how copyright law made to counter AI is going to affect human learning and creation, because this could lead to some real shackles on human creatives if not careful.
I will not confirm nor deny the reasons behind my thanks for this video in particular.
WOW thanks so much Kev!!! I really appreciate that, damn!
Now I'm going to torment you in trying to figure out what in this video I particularly enjoyed muhahahaha
Boot up a NightCafe account an learn for yourself how bad ai art can be. Like any other tool it requires a discerning and creative operator to get good. Meanwhile my ai generated Neverwinter Nights character portrait gallery increases daily. Muh-ha-har; soon my necromantic enthused enforcers will conquer all!
i dunno, that Terraforming Mars art looks very bad tho
@@dungeonsanddiscourse the art that was used as an example in the video is NOT AI art. Humans are more than capable of making art people don’t like as well.
Any artists out there that can weigh in on how employment works for a company like Hasbro / Wizards? This might be a hotter take than I originally thought, but in the interest of making lives of artists better, an artist who is paid per project rather than per hour is likely to complete assignments much faster and easier with AI tools at their disposal, thereby being able to make more money (for themselves) much easier. I think you’re right that trained artists are going to be necessary for proper, good game art. In the same way, though, that we’re okay with artists painting digitally rather than physically, that training and know-how shines through proper use of their tools. It’s really a balance thing. I don’t think big corps are going to benefit from AI art more than the artists will, so long as we keep things properly teetered.
Most artists are not employees, but freelancers paid per piece. It is in their best interests to work as fast as possible.
There's a major issue here tho: if work is produced faster on a factory setting, then the cost will go down, then in. turn people will have to work longer hours to make images. Working faster means you'll have to THINK and ENGAGE more in shorter periods of time, and so you will feel exhausted at the end of the day. Burnout is real. You have to produce more work in waaaaay shorter period of time, for a waaaaaaay lower price.
The interest of the company isn't for you to have easier time working on a project. The interest of the company is for you to produce MORE than you could before.
Some adjustment will have to be made, market will contract (there are already examples of this happening- people being hired for pennies to edit ai work or flat out being fired), but artist will still be the ones to do these jobs... Because we're the only ones crazy enough to do it 6-12 hours per day minimum for the rest of our lives. AI or no AI. And on the other hand there's fine art or traditional tools (until someone makes a painting robot I guess).
All your D&D videos always have: "Scandal", "worse", "Bad"... 😂😂😂... I love it
Have I used AI art in a campaign? Yes. But I'm a guy who can draw stick figures at best (Outside technical drawings.) Would I ever support AI art in a commercial project? No. There is a huge difference between someone using it for small personal projects versus companies that can pay clients to do the art. I could see using AI art as a starting point. Like hey, this is a vision of what we want, and now have the real artist take over and make it better. Computers can't be creative like a person.
love the hair color
Why is this such a big deal. The genie is out of the bottle with AI you either change or die.
It's out of the bottle, but AI art looks pretty bad, and personally, I prefer the intentionality of human artists - and I don't want to see that go.
Show me on the doll where the human artist hurt you.
Remember when we said that same shit about Web3 and NFTs? AI has very limited applications legally speaking as well; it's not protected by copyright and is legally grey (and morally black.) It's vulnerable to lawsuits and disruptions, it's generally disliked by consumers, and it's almost always extremely ugly and filled with flaws and quality issues.
Fuck that adapt or die smokescreen bullshit. You'd be pissed too if it was your passion being ruined.
@@dungeonsanddiscourse I think you've just been exposed to more bad AI art than good.
It's also improving exponentially.
Has a board game player there's lots of great games with terrible art. It's a board game not going to the Louvre. Good enough is a pretty low bar.
Why not be an AI artist that trains the AI to do better and find a way to be paid for it. AI is just going to get better and better. Prices and fees are just going to get worse and companies don't care where the money comes from so if people are buying they will be selling.
I honestly don't understand the problem. If I'm a customer and I request a piece of artwork, and then I get artwork that suits it's purpose, and I pay for that art, I don't really care how the artwork happened. That artist elephant could have painted it for all I care. 100 trillion monkeys with paintball guns could accidently produce it. Can someone please explain the issue in plain English? Evidently I'm not that smart.
the end result is going to be worse art in games so that corporations like Hasbro-Wizards can save some cash
Whether we want to admit it or not, the truth is that this is the worst that the current AI art will ever be, and it will only iteratively get better from here with no actual end in sight. In short, it is inevitable that AI art will surpass human capability. I have even talked about this with professional artists and all of them agree that eventually the end of there career is coming unless they adopt the use of AI. To do otherwise is to choose to remove themselves from the art industry.
AI art is, as of now, not protected by copyright. It is not created by a human.
"But I put in the prompt."
Prompts are no different then a written/verbal instruction to an artist when you commission them. This does not give you the rights to what the artist draws (they still own the copyright of their work even if you paid them to draw it and told them what to draw*).
There has been a US case involving copyright of AI, I cannot remember the case number however. (Stephen Thaler was the plaintiff, listed his computer as the 'creator' of the art.) That case sided with the copyright law that stated a human needed to be the direct creator.
*Clarification because articulation is a *****.
In today's world of digital art production, many digital artists are already using AI for certain aspects of what they are doing, like blending and layering, etc. I am perfectly fine with this and use it myself in my own art but completely 100% AI generated will eventually be a thing and I am sad that we may not succeed in preventing it. It makes complete sense that a company (particularly an american one) would go the cheapest labor/cost route for their product. it's all about profit, it's not about the creation or the people, they don't care about that so long as there is a consumer to buy it at the price they want to sell it.
+1 for the Jeff Wayne reference - I really appreciated that one!
I use Ai artwork for my creations. The choice is use ai art or have no artwork at all. Not much of a choice. No artist is losing work because of me because I don't have the budget to employ them to begin with.
have fun not owning your "creation" then.
You could just make your own art.
@@ghoulchan7525 You can paint over the art and get a copyright. The only think that is guaranteed to not be copyrighted is if you use unaltered generated outputs. The copyright office was very specific in their message. You could also take a bunch of generated art and arrange it, and that arrangement would get a copyright.
@@Dstinct It's all ai assisted artwork. I do a ton of gimp editing to get what I want. Basically use ai generators as a graphics filter. It's able to be copyrighted. Nothing is just text to image to use.
@@ghoulchan7525 The creations I make are fully copyrighted. If there's a grey area about the artwork then the only source for them to the public is from copyrighted works so it's protected also that way.
Terraforming mars the original game has some of the worst art in a board game.
If people buy AI products and enjoy them, they'll get more. If they don't, they won't. I personally don't care. I like AI art, and I like human art. They provide two different things, just like oil painting and water color does. The people in the biggest danger at first are the low skill artists that are hired simply because they're cheap. Once it gets better, middle to high skilled artists won't be able to 'compete' either.
Given that a lot of people who are really into art make no money at all from it, and just enjoy doing it, I don't know that AI is going to change the art world, but it might change the landscape of commercial art.
Art costs money. And before an artist was good or highly skilled, they were bad. So you're basically cutting out any starting artist, while taking their budget too. And here I thought this sort of tech wouldn't be stealing jobs, eh?
People did art before there was even the concept of money. Some part of me thinks there will still be artists even if the money goes away.
As for the tech not stealing jobs, I didn't say that. And anyone who did was lying. Tech always makes jobs obsolete, or reduces the demand for them so that only the most skilled individuals remain in the field that is increasingly seen as archaic. Like a cobbler or blacksmith. @@RobertStoll
If their is a case for AI art in the US it has a high probability of being decided in big corporations favor. Capitalism... Rampant greed.
Thats pretty much opposite land, AI lowers barrier to entry.
@@jsgdk I don't think it just lowers barriers it removes them. You will be able to create art while having no skill of your own.
A few years ago you needed a web designer to create a web page now there are programs to create web pages. AI is not necessarily a good thing.
I hate computer generated answering services.
@@jsgdk one that requires a blood sacrifice