WotC WotC: 'Artists Must Refrain From Using AI Art Generation'

After it was revealed this week that one of the artists for Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants used artificial intelligence as part of their process when creating some of the book's images, Wizards of the Coast has made a short statement via the D&D Beyond Twitter (X?) account.

The statement is in image format, so I've transcribed it below.

Today we became aware that an artist used AI to create artwork for the upcoming book, Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants. We have worked with this artist since 2014 and he's put years of work into book we all love. While we weren't aware of the artist's choice to use AI in the creation process for these commissioned pieces, we have discussed with him, and he will not use AI for Wizards' work moving forward. We are revising our process and updating our artist guidelines to make clear that artists must refrain from using AI art generation as part of their art creation process for developing D&D art.

-Wizards of the Coast​

Ilya Shkipin, the artist in question, talked about AI's part in his process during the week, but has since deleted those posts.

There is recent controversy on whether these illustrations I made were ai generated. AI was used in the process to generate certain details or polish and editing. To shine some light on the process I'm attaching earlier versions of the illustrations before ai had been applied to enhance details. As you can see a lot of painted elements were enhanced with ai rather than generated from ground up.

-Ilya Shlipin​

​

 

[MGibster]

That's because you're missing the point. It's not about 'technology replacing jobs'. It's about art being plagiarized and copied without renumeration, sometimes even to the point where you can see the actual signatures of artists in the final piece. The issue is the data sets.

Does the AI actually copy images or does it just copy style? If I started hand painting artwork in the style of Frank Frazetta, I don't think I'm going to run into any legal problems so long as I don't reproduce a specific painting of his. But then there's the matter of a creating a collage. If I cut a bunch of photos out of a magazine and repurpose it into a new work of art, isn't that okay?

 

[Morrus]

Does the AI actually copy images or does it just copy style?

Yes. It even copies signatures. It doesn't create, it copies.

 

[nevin]

I think this is the root of the backlash. Right now the AI is not really smart it's just really good scripting and it can sometimes generate stuff that is indistinguishable from human work. When AI becomes actually intelligent it will be able to generate the image to the specs required then go back and make sure that nothing in the image will trigger anything in any currently used software or regulations and do it all in a fraction of the time of a human. Since the 70's or maybe earlier anyone who raised the concern that technology (that thing that lets us do more work with less effort) might get efficient enough to put large sections of the population out of work were gaslighted and called Luddites. Now we begin to see that it is not only possible, it's probably inevitable.

 

[MGibster]

Yes. It even copies signatures. It doesn't create, it copies.

Thank you for that clarification. That certainly puts me firmly in the anti-AI faction.

 

[Morrus]

I think this is the root of the backlash. Right now the AI is not really smart it's just really good scripting and it can sometimes generate stuff that is indistinguishable from human work. When AI becomes actually intelligent it will be able to generate the image to the specs required then go back and make sure that nothing in the image will trigger anything in any currently used software or regulations and do it all in a fraction of the time of a human. Since the 70's or maybe earlier anyone who raised the concern that technology (that thing that lets us do more work with less effort) might get efficient enough to put large sections of the population out of work were gaslighted and called Luddites. Now we begin to see that it is not only possible, it's probably inevitable.

Again, it's not about tech replacing labour, it's about plagiarism.

 

[nevin]

Yes. It even copies signatures. It doesn't create, it copies.

Yep. Honestly they shouldn't be able to Call these things AI. Nothing created by tech has been even remotely intelligent. Which when we see what the dumb AI's can do should scare everyone.

 

[nevin]

Again, it's not about tech replacing labour, it's about plagiarism.

I'd argue the plagiearism is being driven by companies that don't want to pay the money for the jobs and as long as we are attacking the users instead of the creators (f the enabling software) we are ignoring the source. But noted.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yep. Honestly they shouldn't be able to Call these things AI. Nothing created by tech has been even remotely intelligent.

I mean technically grifting people into thinking there's artificial intelligence there is a type of artificial intelligence. It's just.... artificial artificial intelligence.

 

[nevin]

I mean technically grifting people into thinking there's artificial intelligence there is a type of artificial intelligence. It's just.... artificial artificial intelligence.

No that's called Satan's work......Marketing.

 

[Parmandur]

Does the AI actually copy images or does it just copy style? If I started hand painting artwork in the style of Frank Frazetta, I don't think I'm going to run into any legal problems so long as I don't reproduce a specific painting of his. But then there's the matter of a creating a collage. If I cut a bunch of photos out of a magazine and repurpose it into a new work of art, isn't that okay?

It's basically a high tech collage making algorithm. People who think the AI is producing anything are falling prey to an elaborate party trick.