AI Art Removed From Upcoming Terminator RPG Book

(this is not the art in question)​

AI rears its head yet again--this time it's an artist using Artificial Intelligence and then submitting it to Nightfall Games for its upcoming Terminator 2: Judgement Day sourcebook.

The artist in question initially claimed that the art was not generated by AI. Nightfall Games made a statement yesterday indicating that they had detected the AI art during the development phase of the product, and are already in the process of having it replaced for the book's release. The artist has not been named—but it’s probably not Skynet!

This is the second time AI art has hit the headlines, after WotC updated its AI art policy following false accusations by a YouTuber. It's clear that AI art is going to be a major topic in the months and years to come.

As I mentioned in my last update, we just need to do a few quick things over the weekend to finalise both T2 and RESIST. Jared who is our Indesign guru was working through the files when he noticed that one of the art pieces looked suspiciously AI-like. He pointed this out to Benn and Mark, who have led the production of the project. They both confirmed that the 'art-producer' had confirmed multiple times that he wasn't using AI art generators and instead was producing collages and then over painting and using Photoshop filters to make the art. Mark and Benn trusted this individual as both a long term collegue and friend.

The image was run through an AI art identifying program to discover a 99.9% match with the AI art generator 'Midjourney'. We then identified all other art produced by the individual to discover a 99.9% 'Midjourney' hit on 16 of them.

16x99.9% AI or a program that is 16x99.9% wrong?​

We hoped the identifier was wrong, but our art experts quickly noticed things the less experienced members of our team would never have know. Things like image resolution, go to AI filters etc.. We had been duped and paid out a significant amount of money in the duping.

But why does this matter?​

It matters because AI art is theft. It creates art from a massive, massive portfolio of art and images, that have been created by real people. It then splurges out poor mockeries of these arts without any consideration of the artists and can be done by any Tom, Dick or Hary.

We do not want to cheat artists (we are artists), we don't want to cheat you (our backers and customers). We are a small company, who focus on good and original art and pay well for it. We find this situation abhorrent, upsetting and depressing.

Purge or Die?​

A dilemma indeed. Although, as Data from Star Trek would say, we considered it for approximately 0.0002 milliseconds.

What we have done?​

We have great people in our team and Jared has sacrificed his long weekend to fix this. And he has. We need to get approval for the fixes from the IP owners but we will drive that now. Once given we will be back on track.

Watch this space...​

In the meantime, we as a company will be working with our external artists to ensure that all art is confirmed AI free and we will also be implementing a number of checks before payment is made and art is accepted.

 

[Reynard]

Because like it or not AI generated imagery is already indistinguishable from human work, and real humans are being falsely accused of engaging in machinethink on a daily basis.

The reason AI detectors are sending back flase positives is because the AI detectors are terrible, not because the image generators are good. Digital artists use the same kinds of tolls the image generators do, and the image generators were trained on digital images.

it really isn't that difficult to understand.

 

[Helena Real]

I'm really happy they did this and I hope more people give this game a chance if only because of this.

"AI" (LLMs really) is not and can not ever be art. Art can only be created by humans.

 

[Reynard]

I'm really happy they did this and I hope more people give this game a chance if only because of this.

"AI" (LLMs really) is not and can not ever be art. Art can only be created by humans.

I saw something interesting cross my FB feed yesterday that gave me pause. Long story short, it was a series of obviously AI generated images that were obviously intentionally curated by the creator to tell a story in sequence.

Is that art? And if so, how do we feel about the use of AI to generate the images that were used to create the art (the story)?

 

[Helena Real]

I saw something interesting cross my FB feed yesterday that gave me pause. Long story short, it was a series of obviously AI generated images that were obviously intentionally curated by the creator to tell a story in sequence.

Is that art? And if so, how do we feel about the use of AI to generate the images that were used to create the art (the story)?

In short? No, it isn't. Art = Inspiration + Craft. "AI" could in a very special case have Inspiration (although it usually never does), whereas it never has Craft. You didn't draw or paint that; a LLM just stole bits and pieces from other artists' work to patchwork-like join them in a single horrifyingly plastic and inhuman aberration.

"AI" is just the latest techbro scam after VR and NFTs.

 

[Reynard]

In short? No, it isn't. Art = Inspiration + Craft. "AI" could in a very special case have Inspiration (although it usually never does), whereas it never has Craft. You didn't draw or paint that; a LLM just stole bits and pieces from other artists' work to patchwork join them together in a single horrifyingly plastic and inhuman aberration.

Interesting. So, you don't think collage is art. Nor remixes or re-edits? And you don't think narratives are art? So then the comic book writer isn't an artist because someone else drew it?

that's a pretty narrow definition of art you have.

"AI" is just the latest techbro scam after VR and NFTs.

That is an extremely uninformed take on what these kinds of models do and what they are and how they are going to shape the next decade or two. If all you know about "AI" is ChatGPT "writing" and Midhjounrey "drawing" you really aren't qualified to talk about what AI is or isn't.

 

[Helena Real]

Interesting. So, you don't think collage is art. Nor remixes or re-edits? And you don't think narratives are art? So then the comic book writer isn't an artist because someone else drew it?

that's a pretty narrow definition of art you have.

Well, you're ignoring the first thing I said: created by humans. Collage made by humans = Art (inspo + craft). The same with remixes and reedits and all the other strawmen you set up.

That is an extremely uninformed take on what these kinds of models do and what they are and how they are going to shape the next decade or two. If all you know about "AI" is ChatGPT "writing" and Midhjounrey "drawing" you really aren't qualified to talk about what AI is or isn't.

My qualifications are being a professional writer for 15 years, friend and lover to many real artists, and a freaking human being. This last techbro scam is hurting a lot of people, and it'll hurt even more because some greedy people are trying yet another quick get rich scheme, in the process destroying art and artists.

 

[Reynard]

Well, you're ignoring the first thing I said: created by humans. Collage made by humans = Art (inspo + craft). The same with remixes and reedits and all the other strawmen you set up.

And a real person wrote (or at least developed, who knows if they wrote it down) the narrative they then spent real time with midjourney to illustrate. I didn't create any strawmen, YOU said using AI to illustrate a human made narrative was not art. YOU said that art requires craft, and so if you can't draw I guess you can't make art.

My qualifications are being a professional writer for 15 years, friend and lover to many real artists, and a freaking human being. This last techbro scam is hurting a lot of people, and it'll hurt even more because some greedy people are trying yet another quick get rich scheme, in the process destroying art and artists.

Lots of us are professional writers, some for longer than 15 years. And writers know how important research is, and how important understanding a subject is before going on about it is.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
@Helena Real and @Reynard

I am going to have to ask you both to de-escalate this, like, now. Thanks.

 

[Gradine]

And a real person wrote (or at least developed, who knows if they wrote it down) the narrative they then spent real time with midjourney to illustrate. I didn't create any strawmen, YOU said using AI to illustrate a human made narrative was not art. YOU said that art requires craft, and so if you can't draw I guess you can't make art.

Actually everyone can draw (outside severe physical impairment) and everyone can create art. There are no requirements of quality or skill or talent. The person in question could have just as easily put the craft in themselves, and while it may or may not have been more aesthetically pleasing (I can't make any assumptions about their own level of skill), it would almost certainly have been more authentic.

Art is a human activity, and it simply cannot and will not ever be replicatable by machines.

 

[Reynard]

Actually everyone can draw (outside severe physical impairment) and everyone can create art. There are no requirements of quality or skill or talent. The person in question could have just as easily put the craft in themselves, and while it may or may not have been more aesthetically pleasing (I can't make any assumptions about their own level of skill), it would almost certainly have been more authentic.

Art is a human activity, and it simply cannot and will not ever be replicatable by machines.

But is it probitive for people to.use tools to enhance their talent? Does that make it not art?

Gatekeepering art behind "craft and talent" is elitist nonsense. If it weren't, no digital photographer in the world would be an artist, or one who uses CNC machines or other technical aids. The only difference is that right now, people feel perfectly comfortable calling other people names because some techbro venture capitalists want to use the tool in a bad way.

Think of it this way: photoshop is a phenomenally useful tool that has allowed artists to create all kinds of things that simply weren't possible beforehand. It also let's propagandists damage democracy and let's the media and beauty industry harm people (mostly young women). Does that mean there are no legitimate artistic uses of Photoshop?

Another thing to consider I'd that AI can't do anything on its own. It requires human input and curating. Is there a metric buttload of low effort AI generated text and images? Of course there is. But that doesn't mean some people aren't using it for legitimate, interesting, innovative art right now.