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

[Poryg]

Being around game dev since 2009, I find the development interesting.
2009 - games almost exclusively non-commercial. Rampant graphics ripping communities. People were split about them, but in the end many accepted edited rips as necessary evil, because it was much easier to edit rips than to make good looking custom resources. Overall however nobody cared - people loved quality games made by hobbyists.
2015 - ripping communities pushed to the background as companies have clamped down on them and many people begun to commercialize their games. People were less forgiving when your game doesn't have its graphics up to par. But if you wanted to make your game look good, you had to burn a hefty sum of money.
2023 - we now have AI capable of making graphics.
I wonder what's going to be in 8 years.

I personally would not stigmatize AI generated art. In its current form we don't have the proper legislation to deal with it. But that can change. In its current form there are issues with copyright. But now that they've arised, they can be tackled. It might take a couple of years, but I believe we might find a compromise that benefits both sides of the camp.

 

[Iron_Brew]

Saw this fascinating take and figured I'd post it here to hear what you guys think about it:

 

[TheoAllen]

In this case, we redefine "art" as "the process" of making the picture.
... we might need to invent a new word for a picture or scenery that is pleasant to see.

 

[123edc]

... but, isn't exactly that human nature?
trying to get the best possible outcome, with the least (tediouse) "work" possible

i mean, humans invented farming machines, to avoid having to manually harvest ...
isn't that too just beeing "lazy", isn't that too just "not wanting to work"

fundamentally, every big human invention came from the wish, to mak ones work easier or add value to youre daily lives

the work simply changes into new forms ...

 

[Poryg]

It kind of reminds me of those snobs who think every program should be made in C, because higher level languages make it "too easy".

AI art making is not about avoiding making art. It's a different approach. Instead of developing human skills, you apply brute force. This makes it more accessible to everybody. I also disagree with it levelling the playing field, because if you use AI to make art, unless you've made the AI, you're still allowed to call yourself an artist about as much as someone who makes a game in RPG maker is to call themselves programmer.

 

[Blindedjourneyman]

Saw this fascinating take and figured I'd post it here to hear what you guys think about it:

View attachment 251861

eh, personally since Ive been trying to make my own for months on end, with even my simple edits feeling shoddy at best, feel a bit insulted lol. this kind of tech can be used to help those like me, without the funding for a ton of resource packs or sadly talent, to make assets that are decent. sides in my case I would be feeding it my own drawings in a desperate attempt to refine them into something of worth. many overlook the good it could do for the people who cant afford to pay commissions either way, (cough cough you arent getting $70 out of a guy who cant find work and cant afford his own coffee) however as many bots including the popular are mostly online and use other's art instead of letting the user supply pieces of their choice, I've been just copin and keeping at it even as Ive tossed thousands of attempts cause they just dont pass when I compare my chickenscratch even to free assets. but, I know the subject outright triggers some so as far as Ill go on it from the perspective of one of the artistically unskilled. plus again, aint quiting and am still trying to make something passable in photoshop without stooping so low as Ive seen these companies go.

It kind of reminds me of those snobs who think every program should be made in C, because higher level languages make it "too easy".

AI art making is not about avoiding making art. It's a different approach. Instead of developing human skills, you apply brute force. This makes it more accessible to everybody. I also disagree with it levelling the playing field, because if you use AI to make art, unless you've made the AI, you're still allowed to call yourself an artist about as much as someone who makes a game in RPG maker is to call themselves programmer.

a fair point, I call myself rtptrash for a reason.

 

[GmOcean]

I'm not really against AI art, but I do feel that it needs to have it's place in the world in a fitting copyright protected place.

Saw this fascinating take and figured I'd post it here to hear what you guys think about it:

View attachment 251861

I don't think that's a fair assessment for a language model AI. An Algebra math book, will have everything you need to know about learning Algebra. A history book that has everything that ever happened in the year 1950, will have everything you need to know about that year.

All you have to do is read it, or skim through it to find the answer to your question. If I opened both of those books and new nothing about Algebra and nothing about the year 1950, then I'd have to read it a few times to learn the content.

In comes a 'teacher' a person who has learned this and can assist in my learning by giving me analogies or breaking down nuances to help understand the contents. Replace the teacher and the book with an AI language model. The AI has both the contents of the books, and the ability (to a certain degree as of now) to answer questions you may have.

I ask the teacher a question, they tell me an answer. I ask the AI the same question, it tells me the same answer. Am I not learning because an AI told me as compared to a teacher? Regardless of what people may think, I have indeed 'learned' that the answer to my question is what was told to me. I am learning.

AI image generation is a different thing entirely. While I will say it needs copyright laws to be put in place to protect works created by artists, it should also not be a thing that is shunned. Some people just don't have the time and/or money to create a piece of art when they want one.

 

[Htlaets]

Here's legaleagle's take on what's going on with the AI stuff for something useful:


It's a very much "it depends" series of arguments and how fair use will break down. AI models might fall under the same fair use as google image search and book search.

Also, the way he goes over it, the artists vs AI suit is unlikely to succeed (because of the angle it comes at it and the fact that the filing doesn't understand how the law works), but the Gettyimages vs AI lawsuit is likely to succeed.

One thing that I thought about from how he mentioned that copyright takedown rights probably only really comes up when the generated image looks sufficiently like a copyrighted image (like a mickey mouse) to convince a court.

It brings up the point: what if disney, for example, puts out artist drawn character concept art, copyrights them, and then uses AI to make an animated image. They haven't lost their copyright on the characters, if someone random made an image with exact copies of those characters, they'd still be up for copyright infringement.

So, big companies can sidestep AI images themselves not being copyrightable pretty easily. Or even not big companies now that I think about it. So long as a hand drawn version of the character is copyrighted, the AI-drawn version of that character would also technically fall under copyright.

Saw this fascinating take and figured I'd post it here to hear what you guys think about it:

Putting aside what else I think about Chomsky (and his inconsistent views when it comes to imperialism), the person mentioning him expanded the point past where it was likely made (school and ChatGPT) and where it makes sense (not that a 94 year old's take on tech is something to really rely on anyway, but I digress).

Either way, if "dude just go learn art LOL" is the position, the argument, especially when applied to art, is countering itself isn't it?

People commission art because they don't have the time or ability to learn a whole new craft to the level they want to be at while pursuing their own crafts. If "lol just learn to art" was a reasonable thing to ask, then people would never commission art.

The point gets a little lost here, because to some extent anyone making an RPG maker game has to wear many hats, but bigger and medium sized games don't do that, they spread the workload. Telling a developer at a game company at any size to just learn how to do art would be laughed at.

So, no, I don't think that makes a congent point at all, Chomsky's original point as it applied to chatGPT and specifically schoolwork is very debatable, expanding that point too broadly doesn't work, however.

There are plenty of perfectly good points artists can make, I just really don't think this one is fully baked.

 

[Garryg]

Well, I'm fairly rubbish at art but there can be an argument that anything however bad that's 'origonal' and made from the processing in a human brane and hand eye coordination is 'art' (definitely in quotes there) but any machine learning is a mechanical, purely mathematical, process so in one sense will never be 'art.'


So is a game with 'bad' human-made art intrinsically better than one with better looking AI art?

 

[Iron_Brew]

Hey folks! Really interesting takes on the above; sorry I don't have time to reply to every point, but there's just so many

So is a game with 'bad' human-made art intrinsically better than one with better looking AI art?

Yes.

People commission art because they don't have the time or ability to learn a whole new craft to the level they want to be at while pursuing their own crafts. If "lol just learn to art" was a reasonable thing to ask, then people would never commission art.

Doesn't this kind of prove the point that AI art is hurting people's incomes by removing that avenue as a necessity for those who can't create their own art? Supply and demand are a tricky beast when suddenly there's no demand because someone's automated you out of a job.

I don't disagree with your points about Chomsky, but the real point there isn't what Chomsky said, but rather the Chomsky-inspired point the post was about:

AI art isn't about making art, it's about avoiding making art. You still end up with art, but you didn't make it.

AI art making is not about avoiding making art. It's a different approach. Instead of developing human skills, you apply brute force. This makes it more accessible to everybody.

But people employing AI aren't "making art", they're avoiding making art by having a machine do the work for them. It's not the same as replacing your horse-drawn plough with a combine harvester because in farming you at least have to understand the processes involved, there's literally no skill or knowledge barrier to typing the words "RPG hero with blue hair" into a website.

I also disagree with it levelling the playing field, because if you use AI to make art, unless you've made the AI, you're still allowed to call yourself an artist about as much as someone who makes a game in RPG maker is to call themselves programmer.

I think this is very fair! I think that this is the crux of the issue. There's no artistry to making AI art, and it's hurting people's incomes, so when people herald it as a new great tool I'm like ?????????

 

[GmOcean]

So is a game with 'bad' human-made art intrinsically better than one with better looking AI art?

Yes.

I don't think that's right. A game with better looking AI art will be better than the same game made with 'bad' human-made art. After all visual graphics are a part of game design. If a human individual isn't able to make art that fits the scope of their game and meshes together well, then it'll be a big mess and people will not want to play it. But if art created by an AI can fix those issues then yes, AI art-powered game will be better than 'bad' human-made art game.

Sorry, but that is an undeniable fact. A good game with good art will do better and is better then the same game with bad art.

Whether or not you should 'legally' is a different matter. And that's the crux, should you use AI generated art in your game? Arguably No, not at this point in time due to copyright law ambiguity on the matter.

 

[Garryg]

Theres a court case going on just now that may set a precedence as to whether or not AI is seen as a derivative-work or fair-use. The consequences of the outcome could be massive.

Personally I think it depends entirely on how it's used. If it's trained to produce work like an existing artist then surely it's clearly derivative!?


This will be a legal, not philosophical, decision...

 

[Iron_Brew]

I don't think that's right. A game with better looking AI art will be better than the same game made with 'bad' human-made art. After all visual graphics are a part of game design. If a human individual isn't able to make art that fits the scope of their game and meshes together well, then it'll be a big mess and people will not want to play it. But if art created by an AI can fix those issues then yes, AI art-powered game will be better than 'bad' human-made art game.

Sorry, but that is an undeniable fact. A good game with good art will do better and is better then the same game with bad art.

Whether or not you should 'legally' is a different matter. And that's the crux, should you use AI generated art in your game? Arguably No, not at this point in time due to copyright law ambiguity on the matter.

How "well the game does" wasn't the question though. The question was is a game that uses poor human-made art "intrinsically better" than a game that uses AI art.

I think that the answer to that is yes.

In the same way that clothes produced in sweatshops may look better than those created by a person who's crap at sewing does not make those garments "better", because the way something is made matters to whether or not a thing is "good" or not, not just the quality of what is produced.

As much as food analogies are overused: Free Range eggs might taste the same as those from battery hens, but that's only the point if you're more concerned in what you're paying for eggs than you are about the ethics of how those eggs got to your plate.

It's about doing the right thing.

 

[sunnyFVA]

I'm not going to pretend this extremely dense and technical subject can produce a productive discussion between outsiders to the field, so I hope this reply does not constitute my dignifying it. Philosophize and claim and speculate as you please. However, this in particular struck a nerve for me.

I don't think that's right. A game with better looking AI art will be better than the same game made with 'bad' human-made art. After all visual graphics are a part of game design. If a human individual isn't able to make art that fits the scope of their game and meshes together well, then it'll be a big mess and people will not want to play it. But if art created by an AI can fix those issues then yes, AI art-powered game will be better than 'bad' human-made art game.

Sorry, but that is an undeniable fact. A good game with good art will do better and is better then the same game with bad art.

Sorry, but it's not. Visual fidelity is not artistic merit. Art "goodness" and "badness" are not determined by whatever arbitrary technical metric you have selected. The interpretive layer is and must always be the determining factor of the quality of art. Any basic understanding of art and media history inevitably leads to that conclusion. Too, that interpretive layer is fickle and effervescent and cultural and personal.

Surely people have preferences (and surely people don't always interface with the circumstances of creation for the media they consume), but to say there is an objectively superior execution of art is a fundamental misunderstanding. Sloppy crayon art by a child will have qualities and value that can't be achieved even by an adult artist emulating the style, never mind a neural network. I mean this in the most human and compassionate way possible: I truly hurt for you if commercial viability and technical flash are how you decide what to feel about art.

 

[lianderson]

Artists, use the tools you require.

 

[Tai_MT]

My two cents on AI generated art (not that it matters or is even important what-so-ever):

It is a tool and nothing more. It can do as much or as little as you want. More clever people make it do a lot more. Less clever people can't make it to much at all.

We are arguing what is "artistic" from a community where about half its members view the act of "making a video game" as "creation of art". This is something I view as incorrect. I think a video game can CONTAIN art, but that it is NOT ART on its own. It is "not art" in the same way the sidewalk being poured on the ground outside isn't art. Can you write something meaningful on that sidewalk and have it stand the test of time? Absolutely. But, it is the WORDS that contain the art, at that point, and the sidewalk remains the MEDIUM for delivering your artistic words.

Video games are art in the same way a canvas and paintbrushes are art. They are art in the same way the paint dries on said canvas. Video games are art in the same way the piece of paper or text box I write into is art.

The story of a video game is art. The message of the video game is art. The manipulation of the player through various emotional states is art.

But the game itself is not art. The act of play is not art. The act of designing a system to do rudimentary tasks is not art.

If all it takes for something to "be art" is to "make the person feel something", well, then stubbing my toe is art. A spouse cheating on someone is art.

If all it takes is "self reflection", than anytime you are punished for something wrong and have to consider what you did wrong is "art".

"Art" is more than an image or an experience. Art is more than words on a page. It is more than the right notes played at the right time.

Art is more akin to a religious experience. Like finding and feeling faith. It is life altering. It changes your point of view on a fundamental level that "opens your eyes to new possibilities". This is art.

Anything that doesn't do such a thing... Is just set dressing. Or exists purely for entertainment value.

The problem is that creatives like to try to elevate themselves and inflate their ego where it isn't warrented. Where it never was warrented. They proclaim their medium of choice to "be art" in order to convince others around them, and even themselves, that what they've done is more grandiose than it is. Because if it isn't more grandiose... than anyone and everyone can do it, if they really want to.

Anyone can splash paint on a canvas. Anyone can string together a 4-chords song and sell a million records. "Art", by definition, is something few people EVER attain. Because it is the pinnacle. The very top. It can't be duplicated. Because for it to truly be "art", it must be a spiritual experince to interact with it, view it, hear it, whatever. It must change your life, shift your perspective, and open your eyes. THAT is art.

I view "AI Art" as no different than what most people who create "art" do. The same drab "create something that looks nice" experience with no emotion, feeling, or message held within.

If you're worried that "AI Art" will steal your job and creativity... don't be. You never had any to begin with. Only trained "skills" that the AI can learn better and faster than you. In short... you produce nothing more valuable than what AI Art can do... you aren't producing art. You're producing corporate product for consumption that is no deeper than the image created.

 

[GmOcean]

I'm not going to pretend this extremely dense and technical subject can produce a productive discussion between outsiders to the field, so I hope this reply does not constitute my dignifying it. Philosophize and claim and speculate as you please. However, this in particular struck a nerve for me.


Sorry, but it's not. Visual fidelity is not artistic merit. Art "goodness" and "badness" are not determined by whatever arbitrary technical metric you have selected. The interpretive layer is and must always be the determining factor of the quality of art. Any basic understanding of art and media history inevitably leads to that conclusion. Too, that interpretive layer is fickle and effervescent and cultural and personal.

Surely people have preferences (and surely people don't always interface with the circumstances of creation for the media they consume), but to say there is an objectively superior execution of art is a fundamental misunderstanding. Sloppy crayon art by a child will have qualities and value that can't be achieved even by an adult artist emulating the style, never mind a neural network. I mean this in the most human and compassionate way possible: I truly hurt for you if commercial viability and technical flash are how you decide what to feel about art.

I think what you interpreted as 'bad' and my interpretation as bad may have differed quite a bit. My interpretation to that statement was whether or not the human made art could portray what the creator intended. Whether or not the art is superior in quality by any technical rules wasn't my intention, just that if a game made with human art, could not properly portray what the individual wanted the players to see or feel, while a the same game was made with AI generated art that could indeed accomplish this, then yes it would be better.

If you were to replace all the dinosaurs in Jurassic park with a picture of a square and told someone that it was in fact a dinosaur, that wouldn't do very well, now would it? The viewers have a knowledge of what a Dinosaur is, and a square is not that. This is on the extreme end of examples, but I hope that makes my point clear.

I do admit, I misread 'intrinsically' as inherently while trying to get through the comments.

 

[Iron_Brew]

If you were to replace all the dinosaurs in Jurassic park with a picture of a square and told someone that it was in fact a dinosaur, that wouldn't do very well, now would it? The viewers have a knowledge of what a Dinosaur is, and a square is not that. This is on the extreme end of examples, but I hope that makes my point clear.

The difference is that human beings made those dinosaurs. They imbued it with something ineffable by doing so. There is value to the artistic process, even if some people seem to think that creativity can be outsourced to machines without losing anything.

Artists, use the tools you require.

I agree with this statement. Typing words into a box and having a machine churn out something you have no idea how to produce isn't artistry though, and I think that's where my frustration on this topic comes from.

TL;DR meme summary:

 

[sunnyFVA]

Whether or not the art is superior in quality by any technical rules wasn't my intention, just that if a game made with human art, could not properly portray what the individual wanted the players to see or feel, while a the same game was made with AI generated art that could indeed accomplish this, then yes it would be better.

Though I remain skeptical of representing pure curation without creation as being able to capture artistic intent in a way I recognize, I do find this more agreeable than my initial reading of your post. Sort of how I would take issue with a film director being praised for the visuals of an animation in a case that they didn't themselves work on them. Perhaps they showed strong management or hiring or whatever else to contribute to the outcome, but I could could not confidently call those visuals their artistry.

 

[Htlaets]

Doesn't this kind of prove the point that AI art is hurting people's incomes by removing that avenue as a necessity for those who can't create their own art? Supply and demand are a tricky beast when suddenly there's no demand because someone's automated you out of a job.

I wasn't arguing against that point in the long term, not in the slightest. I think it's a real thing that will happen eventually, just like how other types of crafts have become more rare. And, I do think it's a bad effect. But, automating out of jobs is a thing that happens, constantly. And, AI is going to be replacing more than just artists (I'd say an AI being able to properly recognize what objects actually are in a picture is going to be a long term requirement for putting truck drivers out of work, too, for example).

I was simply responding to the point you posted that AI art is about trying to avoid learning like people using ChatGPT to do their literal homework for their literal education is avoiding learning, when, no, that is not a well thought out point.

To be clear, though, I wouldn't say we're at the point where AI art is good or consistent enough to take away artist income in a significant way, it's more at a toy stage. Or as an aid for getting concept art/recoloring/background removal. Or even a "get something that someone less skilled can heavily edit into something good-looking". Though, it does make really good whacky inhuman fever-dream nonsense images if that's the aesthetic you're trying to get out of a picture.

I think in its current state it might take away some business, but I think if someone is OK with 'good enough' random fan art of what they want drawn they probably weren't going to get a commission for that piece in the first place.

I do think it's inevitably going to happen, however, and it really doesn't matter how the court cases that are being discussed end, all that's really going to be up for grabs on that point is how corporate it will be, since it'll just change how models can be legally generated if it comes to that.

I don't disagree with your points about Chomsky, but the real point there isn't what Chomsky said, but rather the Chomsky-inspired point the post was about:

The majority of my point was not on Chomsky, and, as I said, his point on ChatGPT and schoolwork was actually cogent and something that could be discussed, regardless of my dislike for him. The way that the person you quoted shifted that separate point into AI art was not, however.

AI art isn't about making art, it's about avoiding making art. You still end up with art, but you didn't make it.

If that's your takeaway you're not getting my point. I'm not saying that people using AI to wholesale generate art are artists, I certainly do not think that.

I am saying that the logical conclusion of the point made was that someone is trying to remain ignorant if they do not learn how to do a craft that they use/view/consume the results of, which is just nonsense.