If you respect the art of game development in any way, please, do not use AI Art.

[Yrythaela]

AI art is the world's biggest art theft that everyone publicly use for free with no repercussions to create their art. I'm not gonna deny that I haven't used it, but I have because it was interesting at first but I never used it for a game or in developing a game. Knowing the truth behind AI art is just absolutely wrong.

Imagine making a game that you spent days, months or years creating. Only for someone to completely steal it without your permission, publicly distribute it for free and make it so that anyone can change it freely.

That's what AI Art is.

Anything that you generate with AI art are stolen art from DeviantArt, ArtStation, Pixiv, real life people, dead or alive. Every single AI art has no soul, far from being called an actual art. This is the biggest art theft and everyone simply accepts it because it creates "art" in a matter of seconds.

What AI art is doing is harmful, wrong and is straight up just a disrespect for any artists that are drawing tirelessly just for a random person to feed it to their AI without the artist's consent. Another fact is that at the death of Kim Jung Gi, a few days after his passing not even his memorial, AI programmers took his art and used it to make an AI Art generator of his art style. This is the AI "art" community.

Proof:


It is ethically wrong, unprofessional and is straight up a violation of anyone's copyright rights.

Never use AI art. Never advertise AI art. If you do, all you're doing is promoting the use of art theft. I'd rather see people create something whether its objectively good or bad rather than relying on an AI that stole creativity from everyone.

If you respect the art of game development in any way, do not use AI Art.

 

[SGHarlekin]

Knowing the truth behind AI art is just absolutely wrong.

Well, what is your so called truth about A.I. art then?

Anything that you generate with AI art are stolen art from DeviantArt, ArtStation, Pixiv, real life people, dead or alive.

How exactly is it stolen? From what I could gather, ai uses images on the internet to generate a new image. I have not once received a copy of an existing image while checking out what A.I. art is. If you use a reference image for your character, are you also stealing their art? Or is it just that you don't like that a machine made it?

It is ethically wrong, unprofessional and is straight up a violation of anyone's copyright rights.

Ethicallity is subjective. As I said, are you stealing art when using someones image as reference? What if I used images that I paid for? How is it unprofessional? If anything, we'd need to wait and see what the laws say about this. When is something just a reference, and when is it a copy that violated copyright?

To me this just sounds like some angy dude fearing to be obsolete. Keep in mind these are genuine questions of mine and I'm not trying to invalidate your opinion here.

 

[Yrythaela]

Well, what is your so called truth about A.I. art then?

Well the fact that AI artists desecrate actual artists such as Kim Jung Gi as an example, the fact that big companies that hosts arts supports it and advertises it such as ArtStation and DeviantArt, the fact that AI Art is basically morphing multiple images, rendering it to be a completely "new" image while keeping the art style. Its like when you see someone trace an art but they change the details like the color of the hair, and such in order to make it "original" when it is in fact, NOT.

How exactly is it stolen? From what I could gather, ai uses images on the internet to generate a new image. I have not once received a copy of an existing image while checking out what A.I. art is. If you use a reference image for your character, are you also stealing their art? Or is it just that you don't like that a machine made it?

"AI uses images on the internet to generate a new image." There's your answer. Do you think Kim Jung Gi gave permission to a random twitter account to AI generate their art? Do you think artists that are currently protesting right now in ArtStation gave their permission to use their art for AI generation? Do you think DeviantArt artists gave their permission for their art to be used? Do you think Pixiv artists gave their permission for their art to be used? No. Most of the people in these communities has been protesting incredibly hard against the use of AI art.

I don't care that a machine made it. I care that its using other people's art to make its own art. As I referenced with Kim Jung Gi, it just took hundreds of his art and compiled it, merged it, manipulated the art to make it look like his artstyle when its just a disgusting cannibalism of Kim Jung Gi's art. Its sickening and wrong.

Imagine if someone stole your game Dungeon Rummage, and then they took it apart and allowed people all over the world use it, without a credit to you, and changing it to be unrecognizable to you because they added other games in the mix, mixing it and creating a new product of an abomination from multiple art and games. And then the owners who stole it from your are generating money, popularity and fame without even sharing that success to you. That's what AI art is.

Ethicallity is subjective. As I said, are you stealing art when using someones image as reference? What if I used images that I paid for? How is it unprofessional? If anything, we'd need to wait and see what the laws say about this. When is something just a reference, and when is it a copy that violated copyright?

To me this just sounds like some angy dude fearing to be obsolete. Keep in mind these are genuine questions of mine and I'm not trying to invalidate your opinion here.

"Are you stealing art when using someone's image as reference?" No. But does AI programs do that? No.

AI programs uses multiple images, morphs it into a figure from multiple artists to create its own art style unrecognizable to the artists. Imagine taking 10 images, morph it into each other. That's an example of a very basic AI art. It won't look like anything because it's your first try. But that's what AI art does. It moshes multiple arts into one art.

"What if I used images that I paid for?" AI Art programs does not pay for the artists for their "inspiration." AI Art programs does not give any cent, nor credit to the original artists. AI Art programs does not notify the original artists. AI Art does not give anything to the original artists. Whether it be credit or money.

"How is it unprofessional?" "We'd need to wait and see what the laws say about this." Its a copyright infringement. AI Art is meant to be built from something in order to generate something.

AI Art is like food. You can't get a Spaghetti unless you have the ingredients. You need the cheese, the sauce and the pasta. Combine it all together it becomes Spaghetti.

Now if we apply that logic into AI art, AI art cannot become an AI art if it does not have an art to be based on. Using anime AI art for example, it needs anime art for it to generate anime AI art etc.

AI Art is breaking copyright for individual artists. That's what the fact is.

 

[OcRam]

Well I know some human artists that also uses multiple images from internet without permission from orginal artists to compose image out of them with slight modifications (as does AI).

And reference images (used by humans) are used mostly without permission from the orginal artist. And these can be sometimes very similar to orginal work!

And if reference image is used when generating AI art you must own that image to use it! (Way more ethical)

And what if you draw 'orginal' work, but you subconsiously draw something you have seen before? Is that OK?

IMO same ethical questions applies to humans also.

I can totally understand your point of view "AI is stealing our art", but the fact is that so are humans.

Times are changing and we need to make progress. My only true consern here is that humans are getting worse in every field as AI comes to 'aid' us...

AI is present in many field now days and their training technique is same as in art. Are you only conserned about art or AI in generally?

I'm a programmer and I wouldn't mind if AI is trained with all the code I've written in my lifetime (almost 30 years of programming by now so there are millions of code lines in that timespan). But that is just my opinion.

At the end you can try to be better than AI. And if not better just do what you like to do! I certainly will program even if AI would do it better.

Even Visual Studio 2022 uses AI to guess your next code lines! (It's super cool!)

 

[SGHarlekin]

"AI uses images on the internet to generate a new image." There's your answer.

So what I'm understanding is you're saying it should also be illegal to use any images as reference for my own drawings, since I'm essentially just copying and morphing the poses, hairstyles, eyes and everything else and call it my own art?

I care that its using other people's art to make its own art.

That sounds like every artist. It's not like any artist goes and reinvents the wheel on how to draw a character for example.

AI programs uses multiple images, morphs it into a figure from multiple artists to create its own art style unrecognizable to the artists.

I don't see a problem with that. The end product is a completely new image, is it not?

"What if I used images that I paid for?" AI Art programs does not pay for the artists for their "inspiration." AI Art programs does not give any cent, nor credit to the original artists. AI Art programs does not notify the original artists. AI Art does not give anything to the original artists. Whether it be credit or money.

I was refering to me having paid images and feeding those into the AI to generate my own AI art. To be honest, I'm not notifying you for looking at your pictures either.

Imagine if someone stole your game Dungeon Rummage, and then they took it apart and allowed people all over the world use it, without a credit to you, and changing it to be unrecognizable

If that was the case, nobody would've stolen anything. They would've made a completely different game at that point. I don't see nobody suing TemTem or any other "not pokemon" game despite it being very much the same thing, save for some different looking "not pokemons". People usually call that "being inspired by".

AI Art programs does not pay for the artists for their "inspiration." AI Art programs does not give any cent, nor credit to the original artists. AI Art programs does not notify the original artists. AI Art does not give anything to the original artists. Whether it be credit or money

Are you notifying, crediting and/or paying square enix for having limit break abilities? Blue mage mechanics? A clearly FF inspired title screen? Didn't think so. (These are general examples, I have no clue what you are implementing in your project.)

If someone went and took my original art stuff, put it in their game and called it their own then fair enough it is copyright infringement. If someone took it and changed it so drastically that not even I, the original creator could recognize it anymore, how is it still considered theft? At best, you took my image as reference or template.

That being said, I do understand where you're coming from. If I was an artist, it would probably also leave a bitter taste in my mouth. I'm just here trying to understand the thought process behind being so vehemently against it and calling it copyright infringement.

Obviously copyright law is very confusing and complicated, but from my noob point of view, I see no issue here. You can say it's unethical all you want, it still subjective.

Now, do we need laws for this? Absolutely. Options for artists to opt out of having their images used? Absolutely. But I don't think this will ever be possible. After all, once you post something online, anyone can take it one way or another.

Personally, I'm more on the embrace it side of the fence. I don't think AI art will go anywhere but up in the following years. And speaking from a monetary standpoint as a developer, if I have the option to get the same quality image for free instead of spending 50+ bucks per image, I'm going with free.

You might find that unethical, but I can assure you it's a business decission many will take. And you won't even know since you can't tell the difference if it was done right. (Judging based on my tests I ran with a couple of my commissioned anime-style art pieces)

 

[Tamina]

If you use a reference image for your character, are you also stealing their art?

No, because when you look at a reference image and reproduce a piece of art on your own, your brain reinterpret the reference image then reproduce it with your own style.

This process is called creating and it is what gives an art value in the market. Because we value such ability as a human.

Or is it just that you don't like that a machine made it?

In the world of capitalism, hand-made products(like handmade car, handmade cloth etc) is often more valuable than machine-created products. So it is not surprising that AI art is being viewed as "lesser" than art made by real artists.

Call it machine-discrimination if you wish, that's just how it goes.

The problem is, AI art atm is almost indistinguishable from real artist's work. That is where the unethical issue is. You can sell a piece of creation, like a piece of art work or game using AI, but never disclose that it's made by AI. So people who wants to pay for real human's creation wouldn't know easily.

Further more, once this become a norm we'll just see the entire entertainment industry full of mass produced AI work with an incredibly low cost. And those who really spent time to create things will eventually leave the market because they can't compete with a higher production cost. And those who doesn't want to pay for AI art will have a harder time finding the right product.

To me this just sounds like some angy dude fearing to be obsolete.

Many people made such comment within the art community. But this is missing the point.

AI isn't just a "tool" that helps artists create things. It's not like when a camera, or Photoshop, or Blender/Zbrush was introduced artists changed their tools to create art.

The way AI art operates completely changed how the market functions. This is why there is such a debate in the community. It is not just some angry dude fearing to be obsolete.

 

[Tamina]

Personally, I'm more on the embrace it side of the fence. I don't think AI art will go anywhere but up in the following years. And speaking from a monetary standpoint as a developer, if I have the option to get the same quality image for free instead of spending 50+ bucks per image, I'm going with free.

You might find that unethical, but I can assure you it's a business decission many will take. And you won't even know since you can't tell the difference if it was done right. (Judging based on my tests I ran with a couple of my commissioned anime-style art pieces)

This is where the potential problem is. It isn't just "art" being devalued with mass production in the industry at this point, but games too.

You may think you are saving "production cost" with AI now, in the long run we'll have more identical, mass produced AI games in the market competing with super low price, gamers are less willing to pay for a higher priced games because low priced mass production games weed out the higher budget titles paying artists industry salary.

In the end no one would want to be an artist since nobody wants to pay and no one will generate art to train these AIs. The entire industry will wane and die.

 

[SGHarlekin]

No, because when you look at a reference image and reproduce a piece of art on your own, your brain reinterpret the reference image then reproduce it with your own style.

This process is called creating and it is what gives an art value in the market. Because we value such ability as a human.



In the world of capitalism, hand-made products(like handmade car, handmade cloth etc) is often more valuable than machine-created products. So it is not surprising that AI art is being viewed as "lesser" than art made by real artists.

Call it machine-discrimination if you wish, that's just how it goes.

The problem is, AI art atm is almost indistinguishable from real artist's work. That is where the unethical issue is. You can sell a piece of creation, like a piece of art work or game using AI, but never disclose that it's made by AI. So people who wants to pay for real human's creation wouldn't know easily.

Further more, once this become a norm we'll just see the entire entertainment industry full of mass produced AI work with an incredibly low cost. And those who really spent time to create things will eventually leave the market because they can't compete with a higher production cost. And those who doesn't want to pay for AI art will have a harder time finding the right product.



Many people made such comment within the art community. But this is missing the point.

AI isn't just a "tool" that helps artists create things. It's not like when a camera, or Photoshop, or Blender/Zbrush was introduced artists changed their tools to create art.

The way AI art operates completely changed how the market functions. This is why there is such a debate in the community. It is not just some angry dude fearing to be obsolete.

I'd say I agree with almost anything you've said here. Reason why I'm "mad" about it is the way people voice their concerns. It's no use to tell people "Don't endorse A.I." because it's unethical, because nobody cares. (Of course some do.)

When I was trying to look up what all this fuss was about, I could only find angry artists crying bloody murder and copyright infringement, and people defending A.I. as just another tool.

It doesn't help anyone understand anything. Hence why I dared to even reply to this controvertial topic in the first place.

You may think you are saving "production cost" with AI now, in the long run we'll just have more identical, mass produced AI games in the market competing with super low price, and gamers are less willing to pay for a higher priced games because low priced mass production games weed out the higher budget titles paying artists industry salary.

To be completely honest, that's just how it goes. Old things get replaced with new things. And if I look at the indie game landscape, people are already competing with dirt cheap prices for even a little bit of attention. Meanwhile you got AAA studios blatantly stealing images without even bothering of removing the watermark (As seen on twitter today)

I can agree that it is a mess, and people will likely suffer, but in the end, I also don't see anyone complaining about not using old typewriters to write letters anymore.

I highly doubt that artist or the gaming industry would die or come even close. If anything, the abundance of A.I. games will likely raise the price of "handmade" games further. Artist jobs can adapt and become something like make art to train A.I. Happens all the time. People adapt.

So for me... Am I using AI to generate art for my games? No. I am not able to keep the arstyle consistent with what I already commissioned, but would I consider it? Absolutely. Not only would it save me a lot of trouble dealing with the amount of time everything takes, the ridiculous costs that come with it, artists dropping out on a whim and stuff like that, I could achieve all of that within minutes at 0 cost.

I totally understand that artists also need to pay their bills, but frankly so do I.

 

[Cynwale]

Paid AI Art is absolute bullcrap, like why would I pay for something randomized when I can commission an artist to make something consistent and beautiful?

That's the only problem I have with AI Art, it was supposed to be the cheap option for people that cannot pay for art. At the end of the day, it's just another thing made to suck our money.

 

[Indinera]

I just want to say, I hope the OP never ever pirated a game.

If you respect the art of game development in any way, please, do not use pirated copies.​

 

[JohnDoeNews]

How exactly is it stolen? From what I could gather, ai uses images on the internet to generate a new image.

That is still stealing. If I take graphics from Mario and then base my own graphics on it, it is still stealing. If you'd ask an AI artist to make a drawing of Mario and Donkey Kong making out in Mushroom Kingdom while princess Peach watches, it will.

So... Is it stolen art? It all depends on what you make them draw.

(Oh poop... Now I want to see the result of that command, just to see what the AI would make of it.)

I just want to say, I hope the OP never ever pirated a game.

I hope none of you ever pirate a game.

But downloading a game and play it without paying is a whole different story then taking someones art and make a game out of it.

---

OP is kinda getting over emotional about it, but I do understand their concerns.

Proof:


It is ethically wrong, unprofessional and is straight up a violation of anyone's copyright rights.

Actually, that is untrue. You can't claim any rights on the drawing style. You can claim rights on the actual drawing, the design, the characters, etc etc, but you can't claim any rights on the style.

Doesn't mean I do not agree with the statement: "Don't use AI art in games" though. I do. But that tweet is not proof that AI steals art.

 

[SGHarlekin]

That is still stealing. If I take graphics from Mario and then base my own graphics on it, it is still stealing.

I would argue it depends on how different it is. Of course if you use that prompt, the ai will attempt to go for as original mario and donkey kong as it can get. If you took a picture of mario, used it as a base and then made it so different from the original that not even the original creator would recognize it anymore, I'm arguing it's original art.

Either way, of course nobody is going to change anyone's mind here, but I got some insights on it, so mission accomplished I would say.

Paid AI Art is absolute bullcrap, like why would I pay for something randomized when I can commission an artist to make something consistent and beautiful?

That's the only problem I have with AI Art, it was supposed to be the cheap option for people that cannot pay for art. At the end of the day, it's just another thing made to suck our money.

I'm not seeing why. You can get thousands of good looking ai icons for dirt cheap. If you don't have the rig to generate your own, or don't want to bother fiddling around with prompts for every icon, considering you need at least hundreds, it is a very valid service to pay for. Someone still spent their time generating, resizing and perhaps even editing out weird ai stuff. You can pay 8 bucks for 70 icons 512x512 or you can spend at least 3 dollars per icon 32x32 from a pixel artist. Do the math.

Now will the ai icons be the most unique, charactistical things ever? Probably not. But beggars can't be choosers.

 

[JohnDoeNews]

I would argue it depends on how different it is. Of course if you use that prompt, the ai will attempt to go for as original mario and donkey kong as it can get. If you took a picture of mario, used it as a base and then made it so different from the original that not even the original creator would recognize it anymore, I'm arguing it's original art.

If you took a pic of mario, then you need to change everything about him to make it an original. The huge nose, the thick stash, the plumber clothes, the way he walks, the way he jumps... It is all 100% Mario.

There is plenty bases meant to be used as a base, when an artist takes Mario as a base and not one of the available ones, then it is because they want someone Mario has that other bases do not. That part is then ripped from Mario.

If one takes Mario as a base, one is ripping off at least parts of Mario.

Either way, of course nobody is going to change anyone's mind here, but I got some insights on it, so mission accomplished I would say.

Okay cool. Changing minds wasn't my goal, though. I just wanted to say art based on other art is never an original. I can make a character set based on Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse and Goofy and be convinced it is my own work, but Disney will strongly disagree.

The truth is: Our opinions on being right or wrong, does not matter. Something is either an original, or it is not. And when it is ever so slightly based on anything else, it is not an original.

Paid AI Art(...) suck our money.

You continued the quote there, but I didn't say any of that. That quote came from someone else.

-----​

This all being said... I think AI art is awesome. It is sci-fi becoming real. It is a very cool toy and it is more advanced then I could have ever dreamed. However... I don't think it is a good idea to use it in a game.

 

[Indinera]

then taking someones art and make a game out of it.

It's not someone's in this specific case, it's from the AI.

 

[SGHarlekin]

If you took a pic of mario, then you need to change everything about him to make it an original. The huge nose, the thick stash, the plumber clothes, the way he walks, the way he jumps... It is all 100% Mario.

There is plenty bases meant to be used as a base, when an artist takes Mario as a base and not one of the available ones, then it is because they want someone Mario has that other bases do not. That part is then ripped from Mario.

If one takes Mario as a base, one is ripping off at least parts of Mario.



Okay cool. Changing minds wasn't my goal, though. I just wanted to say art based on other art is never an original. I can make a character set based on Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse and Goofy and be convinced it is my own work, but Disney will strongly disagree.

The truth is: Our opinions on being right or wrong, does not matter. Something is either an original, or it is not. And when it is ever so slightly based on anything else, it is not an original.



You continued the quote there, but I didn't say any of that. That quote came from someone else.

-----​

This all being said... I think AI art is awesome. It is sci-fi becoming real. It is a very cool toy and it is more advanced then I could have ever dreamed. However... I don't think it is a good idea to use it in a game.

Must've used the wrong quote or something. Oops.

Well, with what you said, just means pretty much nothing is original. Everyone and everything is based off of something.

 

[Popoto_milk]

Not really interested in a protracted debate about this, but I think the way a lot of people look at AI art is wrong in regards to other artist's works.

With an AI, you're using other people's data (in this case, art) in a piece of software. That's different from a human directly studying an image. The human is putting forth skill, effort and creativity to create their own work. I think this justifies any sort of "stealing" for most if not all artists. By contrast, the AI literally just does it for you. And getting permission for using people's data can be a big deal too.

The process is fundamentally different. The AI has no creativity, how it creates art is an objective process of logic and math. Even the final product is dependent on human operation.

 

[Lord Vectra]

Imma copy/paste what I said on social media:

"Arguments against AI is the same and/or similar arguments made against Photography being it's own art. Artists thought Cameras would destroy artists because a Camera can capture real life better than any artist can, but guess what? We learned that, that crap doesn't matter.
All forms of art will still coexist with AI Art running about."

That's all I gotta say.

 

[JohnDoeNews]

It's not someone's in this specific case, it's from the AI.

And the AI can rip off originals. I say can, doesn't mean it always does. It depends on what the user asks of it.

 

[ATT_Turan]

That is still stealing. If I take graphics from Mario and then base my own graphics on it, it is still stealing.

If you took a pic of mario, then you need to change everything about him to make it an original. The huge nose, the thick stash, the plumber clothes, the way he walks, the way he jumps... It is all 100% Mario.

Unless you're using your own made up definition of "stealing" rather than what has been legally established, this is incorrect.

Under copyright/trademark laws, you can absolutely draw/create a character with a big nose, thick mustache, plumber clothes, whatever "way he walks/jumps" means. It is only infringement if those details so closely emulate the original Mario artwork that an average consumer would actually believe it is the Nintendo character.

If you're choosing to use your own principles and still consider that to be stealing, that's your prerogative, but I think that should be made clear.

Note also that this is different from the thread as a whole - you're now talking about a specific copyright/trademark issue. Drawing something in the style of Mario art isn't any of that.

Its like when you see someone trace an art but they change the details like the color of the hair, and such in order to make it "original" when it is in fact, NOT.

No, it's not. Tracing is copying. Analyzing something to see what makes it visually distinctive is not.

"AI uses images on the internet to generate a new image." There's your answer. Do you think Kim Jung Gi gave permission to a random twitter account to AI generate their art? Do you think artists that are currently protesting right now in ArtStation gave their permission to use their art for AI generation?

This seems like a silly argument to me. As has already been pointed out, actual human artists are inspired by existing art styles in almost every single thing they create. Did Kim Jung Gi give other people "permission" to be inspired and create similar art?

"Are you stealing art when using someone's image as reference?" No. But does AI programs do that? No.

AI programs uses multiple images, morphs it into a figure from multiple artists to create its own art style unrecognizable to the artists. Imagine taking 10 images, morph it into each other. That's an example of a very basic AI art. It won't look like anything because it's your first try. But that's what AI art does. It moshes multiple arts into one art.

I don't understand what you think this difference is. You seem to be arguing that the AI art programs are literally manipulating the existing images, but I don't believe you have the technical knowledge of their software to make that claim legitimately.

AI Art is breaking copyright for individual artists. That's what the fact is.

You seem uninformed as to the facts of copyright.

No, because when you look at a reference image and reproduce a piece of art on your own, your brain reinterpret the reference image then reproduce it with your own style.

This process is called creating and it is what gives an art value in the market. Because we value such ability as a human.

I don't understand how you think this is different from what AI does.

The problem is, AI art atm is almost indistinguishable from real artist's work. That is where the unethical issue is. You can sell a piece of creation, like a piece of art work or game using AI, but never disclose that it's made by AI. So people who wants to pay for real human's creation wouldn't know easily.

Is anyone actually doing this? Have you seen people saying "Here's a lost drawing by Kim Jung Gi, you can buy it!" and it's actually AI-generated? Artwork made by a human to intentionally emulate someone else's style is also going to be indistinguishable from that artist's work.

This is why there is such a debate in the community. It is not just some angry dude fearing to be obsolete.

Sorry, but with the quality of your arguments, that's exactly what it sounds like.

I have no particular interest in AI art or music or stories, but none of your posts in this thread have come across as being rationally thought out.

 

[Cynwale]

I'm not seeing why. You can get thousands of good looking ai icons for dirt cheap. If you don't have the rig to generate your own, or don't want to bother fiddling around with prompts for every icon, considering you need at least hundreds, it is a very valid service to pay for. Someone still spent their time generating, resizing and perhaps even editing out weird ai stuff. You can pay 8 bucks for 70 icons 512x512 or you can spend at least 3 dollars per icon 32x32 from a pixel artist. Do the math.

Now will the ai icons be the most unique, charactistical things ever? Probably not. But beggars can't be choosers.

I wasn't talking about Icons in particular, but more of AI generated Characters, Places, Buildings and Interiors. Paying for exemple, 1 AI Generation for a Character, and the consistency following it is wrong, it will make you pay for 1 more. And if this one more is still wrong, it will make you pay for another Generation. Until you get a good one, and after that, you will need to take care of all the others AI Generated Arts. Paying for all of them, and for all the retries, would result in a much higher price than the 8 bucks first time offer for AI Generation.

If it doesn't have any qualities and has a high price, what is the point of it?