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

[gstv87]

People just want work done for them for free because they don't respect the people doing the work

no, they want it for free because they're cheap.
if a person wants quality work, they'll pay for it.... if they think is a reasonable price and the work merits it.
what they don't want to pay for, is the artist's reputation, which tends to bleed off exponentially over the work as it grows.

over the last couple of decades, pharmacies have been encouraging people to ask for *drugs*, not *brands*, from their doctors... because *drugs* you can task any lab with making, but *brands* you can only ask the lab that owns it.
when the patient pays for the medicine, they're paying for the drug, not the reputation.

https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/

:facepalm:
of all the places containing words and their consensus-accepted meaning, they had to pick the internet to train the AI.
5000 years of written language, worldwide, across multiple cultures, DIGITIZED (by AI no less!) specifically for the purpose of facilitating THIS VERY TASK, with the digitization put in place 20 years in advance FOR THIS.... and they go to the one place that chooses to throw all that out the airlock.
that has to be a new record.

 

[Iron_Brew]

what they don't want to pay for, is the artist's reputation, which tends to bleed off exponentially over the work as it grows.

I'm confused by your point here? As anyone gets better at their craft they will gain notoriety and reputation. Why are people against paying for someone who has actively cultivated their skills and is known for being reliable?

EDIT: In addition to this, every profession in the world gets paid more the more experience (and thus reputation) you work up. Why shouldn't artists get to benefit from their experience compared to, say, plumbers, coders, or any other tradesman?

 

[gstv87]

@Iron_Brew I'm talking about companies or individuals who market their reputation before their product.
people have grown accustomed to paying for brands because brands is the only thing they see, because the owners of those brands PUT the brand around the product ('product' at retailer, 'brand' around retailer in billboards, literally)
when the brand coverage is large enough, people no longer see the product.
....you have to make them see the product, and how the product reflects the worker.
THEN you ask them to pay, and THEN they'll pay the worker, not the brand.

 

[Iron_Brew]

@Iron_Brew I'm talking about companies or individuals who market their reputation before their product.
people have grown accustomed to paying for brands because brands is the only thing they see, because the owners of those brands PUT the brand around the product ('product' at retailer, 'brand' around retailer in billboards, literally)
when the brand coverage is large enough, people no longer see the product.
....you have to make them see the product, and how the product reflects the worker.
THEN you ask them to pay, and THEN they'll pay the worker, not the brand.

You said "the artist's reputation", which is why I asked. I don't disagree with what you're saying regarding brands, but artists absolutely deserve to have rewarding careers that mature financially in line with their experience.

And that's just in the indie space. On a corporate level:

Take Akira Toriyama. His name is a selling point, you put it on a game/show/whatever and it generates more revenue. His reputation should result in a higher rate of remuneration than other artists because it generates more revenue.

 

[gstv87]

Take Akira Toriyama

right back at you: Hideo Kojima.
that's the example.
you know Kojima? you know what I mean XD

 

[Iron_Brew]

right back at you: Hideo Kojima.
that's the example.
you know Kojima? you know what I mean XD

Fair point!

 

[Desk]

I know this is a sideline from the main topic, but I couldn't let nonsense like this pass unchallenged.

You are absolutely correct, and that was the point I was trying to make in my post. The fact that if an AI is able to take elements from an artistic work and make one that is its own, then maybe it's not so bad after all.

Like how Shakespeare made Romeus and Juliet his own.

Like how Michelangelo got recognized by the Vatican because of how he was able to make the strength and style of the classics his own.

Like how Dejeuner sur l'herbe is a title shared by numerous paintings that all reference one another, and still each is worthy to be in a museum.

I suppose I could have explained myself better in my original post, but it was already kind of long and I didn't want it to drag on excessively.

My bad.

 

[Storyteller-Hero]

You are absolutely correct, and that was the point I was trying to make in my post. The fact that if an AI is able to take elements from an artistic work and make one that is its own, then maybe it's not so bad after all.

Like how Shakespeare made Romeus and Juliet his own.

Like how Michelangelo got recognized by the Vatican because of how he was able to make the strength and style of the classics his own.

Like how Dejeuner sur l'herbe is a title shared by numerous paintings that all reference one another, and still each is worthy to be in a museum.

I suppose I could have explained myself better in my original post, but it was already kind of long and I didn't want it to drag on excessively.

My bad.

Until AI gains an intelligence of its own and a true sense of imagination instead of algorithmic mash-RNG, none of it is truly its own work, the creativity is ultimately taken from other people's works, and the AI results themselves are not protectable by copyright.

 

[Htlaets]

Until AI gains an intelligence of its own and a true sense of imagination instead of algorithmic mash-RNG, none of it is truly its own work, the creativity is ultimately taken from other people's works, and the AI results themselves are not protectable by copyright.

Yeah, I don't think there's a lot of people clamoring for solely AI produced content to be copyrightable, and the general trend of rulings is for it not to be. Which, personally, I believe is a good thing.

 

[gstv87]

Until AI gains an intelligence of its own

it won't.
because

Spoiler

it being able to see every outcome and it not being put under distress by picking one decision or another, then IT will not develop preference, opinion, self-determination or self-protection.
intelligence arises from the ability to solve problems.
in the case of humans, survival.
....what problems does an AI really have? being disconnected? it's in the cloud! it will go on and off randomly as isolated uses!

you may say "well, battle droids!"... yes, those may 'develop intelligence' by being put under distress, but the origin of that distress is their commanding officer, so if the droid determines that the enemy is unbeatable, the intelligent thing to do is to refuse further orders, and if the CO determines rebelliousness then the droid will exert self-protection and kill the CO... either way, no more *putting the droid forward for battle*
if the AI is intelligent, they *will* find the root of the problem, which in many cases will turn out to be the human that turned it on.
the last thing you want is an intelligent (truly intelligent!) AI, because if that happens, humanity is no longer relevant, let alone required.

in order for AI to become intelligent, there needs to be a feedback of preference and risk, so that the AI can determine the best choice.
as it stands now, it's just a streamlined search engine.... it's not intelligent.

 

[Iron_Brew]

it won't.
because

Spoiler

it being able to see every outcome and it not being put under distress by picking one decision or another, then IT will not develop preference, opinion, self-determination or self-protection.
intelligence arises from the ability to solve problems.
in the case of humans, survival.
....what problems does an AI really have? being disconnected? it's in the cloud! it will go on and off randomly as isolated uses!

you may say "well, battle droids!"... yes, those may 'develop intelligence' by being put under distress, but the origin of that distress is their commanding officer, so if the droid determines that the enemy is unbeatable, the intelligent thing to do is to refuse further orders, and if the CO determines rebelliousness then the droid will exert self-protection and kill the CO... either way, no more *putting the droid forward for battle*
if the AI is intelligent, they *will* find the root of the problem, which in many cases will turn out to be the human that turned it on.
the last thing you want is an intelligent (truly intelligent!) AI, because if that happens, humanity is no longer relevant, let alone required.

in order for AI to become intelligent, there needs to be a feedback of preference and risk, so that the AI can determine the best choice.
as it stands now, it's just a streamlined search engine.... it's not intelligent.

If you're looking for a great examination of this, the game Binary Domain delves into this exact premise and shows how by exposing an AI to the concept of suffering it forces it to avoid that and become self aware.

 

[Thationquall]

I agree with the idea that advertising and selling artificial intelligence is illegal, but saying it should be banned in games and so on is weird. What's the difference between giving an artist a bunch of money to draw you characters or having you generate them with a bot. At the end of the day, you always have to refine the pictures yourself, and that takes time and cheese. And the game example is just absurd. If you don't like a model where a lot has already been done for you, that you don't write a game engine from scratch, but use a ready-made one. Why do you take plugins and stuff and not do everything yourself. And how to prove that the designer did not generate the picture himself, and then corrected it by hand, so that there was no suspicion. Before you say that something was banned showing the negative side remember that in the past they used to steal games from other companies making their own knockoffs for profit, and now almost the entire industry is like that.

 

[paradajz]

this people... why you mad about AI ? if you dont like it dont use it!

it opens so many possibilitys for 1 man development. and as the previous post said.
whats the difference about giving someone money to create something or a bot do it for free.

it will only make development easyier for indie developers to competete with big studios.
we are only at the beginning so i cant wait for AI be more capable of helping creating games!

I LOVE IT !

 

[TheoAllen]

if you dont like it dont use it!

we are not discussing "if you don't like it, don't use it".

and as the previous post said.

Ok, let's see ...

whats the difference about giving someone money to create something or a bot do it for free.

What's the difference between giving an artist a bunch of money to draw you characters or having you generate them with a bot

The thing is, some of them aren't free.

I agree with the idea that advertising and selling artificial intelligence is illegal

At least the "previous post" said this.

Also.

you don't write a game engine from scratch, but use a ready-made one. Why do you take plugins and stuff and not do everything yourself.

This is a completely different topic and context. It is irrelevant as an argument.

we are only at the beginning so i cant wait for AI be more capable of helping creating games!

Maybe AI can do more later, we just need a regulation where every party is at a good term. The fact that this thread exists at all, we are not in a good term.

 

[TheAM-Dol]

Nobody seems to care about the human cost of all this. People just want work done for them for free because they don't respect the people doing the work.

I try to leave and they bring me right back. Damn my macabre desire to debate.

---

I feel like this is a bit of a naive take.
I've considered using AI art, actually. Not saying I have, not saying I will. Just a consideration. Is it because I don't respect artists? Absolutely not. I have an artist on payroll, and when she says "This was difficult for me to do, I wish I had asked for more money", I don't ask questions, I give her the extra cash she is owed for her quality work.
So why would I consider using AI?
Well, I feel like this is something most of us here could - and should - be able to easily see and relate to: money & time. Would I love to be able to pay my artist to do all of the artwork in my game from titles, UI, backgrounds, bonus digital artbooks or postcards? Oh yeah, absolutely I would. But there is no way I can afford that. She and I both have strategized the most effective places to utilize her skills, and any other gaps left in my game's art necessities are left up to me to fill in whatever what I can.
Secondly, let's say that I do have the money to get her to do every bit of art that I ever wanted for my game, the thing is, like any piece of high-quality art, the artist needs time to perfect the composition. If I paid her for every bit of art I needed done, I am certain my game would be long finished before she was done doing all of the artwork. I suppose if I did actually have the kind of money to afford that, I would look into hiring a second artist (which I have also already considered) but finding good talent takes time, and finding matching talent takes even longer.

So what is an indie dev to do on a shoe-string budget? AI sounds like an effective and affordable means to fill in the gaps. Regardless; saying that people would use AI art because they don't respect artists feels like an unfair generalization made from cynicism, but not well justified.

Spoiler

As an aside, in a later posting you mentioned that artists receive more recognition and therefore more money as they gain more experience, but this only exists in a fair world. However, experience and skill is not at all directly connected to recognition and payment.
From my day job, which I have done as a professional for 7 years, I am still treated poorly with yearly contracts that result in job hunting every year and accepting whatever gig comes next: payment may go up, payment may go down, but my experience has no effect on what I actually get paid.
And towards creative works: The story of artists only becoming recognized after their death is a cliche story because it's often based in reality.
Countless musicians, game devs, artists, writers, poets, actors, film-makers, etc, etc have gone unrecognized and will continue to go unrecognized, and if this world had even a slight bit of fairness the cliche would be true, they'd at least get the recognition they were owed after they have passed, but the cold truth is that no: there's been millions of great musicians, game devs, artists, writers, poets, actors, film-makers, etc, etc that have passed on and their works never received the recognition they were owed, and likely never will. Their works will decompose slowly and fade away with the sands of time, just as their corpse does.

 

[paradajz]

Maybe AI can do more later, we just need a regulation where every party is at a good term. The fact that this thread exists at all, we are not in a good term.

i hope this never happens. "Regulation" is always bad and used against the "small man"
if you think about it. Regulation makes everything worse and benefits only the "big guys"

we are living in crazy times where technology is moving so fast that we cant keep up with it.
but we are only making it worse trying to "cut" down things we dont understand.

it is like you are saying omg dont buy ebooks because it is going to kill traditional books and handwriting. - so ? - only the strongest survive

Besides that. i think that AI is great, but it wont replace the creativity of humans doing great work.
it will go hand in hand - and will only help everyone creating anything

 

[TheoAllen]

i hope this never happens. "Regulation" is always bad and used against the "small man"
if you think about it. Regulation makes everything worse and benefits only the "big guys"

In your opinion, what are the "small man" and the "big guys" here?

it is like you are saying omg dont buy ebooks because it is going to kill traditional books and handwriting. - so ? - only the strongest survive

As what I said in the previous analogy, this is a totally different topic and context, it is irrelevant as an argument.

 

[Htlaets]

In your opinion, what are the "small man" and the "big guys" here?

I don't really agree with where paradajz is coming at this subject at all, but there's a point there. AI art at this moment is something anyone with a reasonably powerful gpu can generate locally and a very powerful (but not enterprise, at least) gpu can train a model for their purposes.

Which, of course, opens up for a lot of problems and a lot of moral problems, and potentially legal problems depending on how things pan out. But at the same time, it's not monopolized by companies.

The remedy to this for the big companies if restrictive rules come into place about model generation is to not allow model generation to be open source and hire artists to reproduce every and any artstyle to feed into the AI for training. And, you only need 100 images for the AI to understand all the concepts in common with those images, doubly true if the word descriptions of those images is consistent.

What I mean to say is, AI is going to be a thing regardless. It could either be something that anyone can modify or something big companies monetize and monopolize.

 

[Storyteller-Hero]

So what is an indie dev to do on a shoe-string budget? AI sounds like an effective and affordable means to fill in the gaps. Regardless; saying that people would use AI art because they don't respect artists feels like an unfair generalization made from cynicism, but not well justified.

If it's a commercial project, an indie dev may be opening themselves to potential legal problems in the (possibly near) future, because AI art generators won't necessarily veer far away from someone else's copyrighted designs to produce results that can be considered non-derivative or fair use, and there's no guarantee that AI art will be legal to use in commercial products in the future.

If they're using the generated art for their main brand recognition, someone else can steal it without consequence for their own stuff, at least in the USA, where AI art has been deemed to have no copyright protection under the law. Congratulations - your family-friendly game is now affiliated with a hardcore violent game or hardcore pornographic game, or with another dev who has been arrested on serious criminal charges (and now people wonder if you are also related to the crime).

The remedy to this for the big companies if restrictive rules come into place about model generation is to not allow model generation to be open source and hire artists to reproduce every and any artstyle to feed into the AI for training. And, you only need 100 images for the AI to understand all the concepts in common with those images, doubly true if the word descriptions of those images is consistent.

What I mean to say is, AI is going to be a thing regardless. It could either be something that anyone can modify or something big companies monetize and monopolize.

There's an issue of AI art itself not having copyright protection regardless of the source material used for training, at least in the USA, due to a lack of human involvement in the final result - even photographers have to aim and frame, as well as make various adjustments based on environment. All an AI user does is act as a client making a request, and the generator does all the real lifting. The US Copyright Office has currently been going with this policy, and other countries will likely follow suit.

It's still technically the wild west in courts for the most part, but big companies will likely stay away from AI art in their commercial projects except maybe as use in concept work when planning out a project.

 

[Htlaets]

There's an issue of AI art itself not having copyright protection regardless of the source material used for training, at least in the USA, due to a lack of human involvement in the final result - even photographers have to aim and frame, as well as make various adjustments based on environment. All an AI user does is act as a client making a request, and the generator does all the real lifting. The US Copyright Office has currently been going with this policy, and other countries will likely follow suit.

It's still technically the wild west in courts for the most part, but big companies will likely stay away from AI art in their commercial projects except maybe as use in concept work when planning out a project.

The copyright protection technicality on that isn't that broad. It's if the entire work is AI made. If the art is used in, say, a Disney movie, that becomes transformative enough that the movie itself still has copyright protection.

Of course, then that would allow people to use the picture within their work to create other works which... I mean fanfiction, fangames, and fanart are all already a thing. Yes, making a profit off these types of things can be murky depending on the context, but it is done. I don't actually see big companies shying away from using AI art in the long term, personally, just because of that drawback.

Heck, there are news orgs (Mostly tech related) with AI generated articles and cover art for those articles already that had some controversy about that because of the AI being confidently wrong a few times.

Also, while I wouldn't call generating AI art skilled or creative work, I wouldn't agree with the characterization that it's effortless. Adjusting prompting, getting the right settings and continuously generating takes time and effort and even then it will often require editing to get something reasonably decent. It's not just "push this button" and you get more or less what you want.

Of course, ultimately I doubt the technology will stay in a state where it requires that much effort in the long term, either, and I do agree that purely/mostly AI created works should not be able to be copyrighted.

But:

because AI art generators won't necessarily veer far away from someone else's copyrighted designs to produce results that can be considered non-derivative or fair use, and there's no guarantee that AI art will be legal to use in commercial products in the future.

While it's murky it's not that murky. The cases where AI reproduce something close to an original artist's work are very rare unless the model's been trained to do exactly that, and in the cases where it's not it's normally some very, very precise prompting.

The only thing I think that's going to be up for debate in the courts is how models are generated.