WotC Would you buy WotC products produced or enhanced with AI?

Would you buy a WotC products with content made by AI?

  • Yes

    Votes: 45 13.8%
  • Yes, but only using ethically gathered data (like their own archives of art and writing)

    Votes: 12 3.7%
  • Yes, but only with AI generated art

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Yes, but only with AI generated writing

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, but only if- (please share your personal clause)

    Votes: 14 4.3%
  • Yes, but only if it were significantly cheaper

    Votes: 6 1.8%
  • No, never

    Votes: 150 46.2%
  • Probably not

    Votes: 54 16.6%
  • I do not buy WotC products regardless

    Votes: 43 13.2%

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd say that control is better than through stock sites or drifting through freely licensed existing art.
Only so much.

I am not sure I get it, but if it's correcting little defect in an artwork, there are tool that are doing great in this domain. Can you describe your needs?
There is a step between the inked -or even just penciled- art and the actual shading/rendering. It is placing the raw color on the canvas so that you can select and mask more easily, and of course have the base color. This part is time consuming and prone to errors -many times this is done by one or more assistants-.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This is just not true. I have read through many, many psych-ed reports in my decades as a teacher, as well as doing a required minor in psychology with a focus on adolescent development. It is just not true that brains are all an equal tabula rasa with identical capacities.
That is not even remotely what I said.
 

Sure, if you use a definition of theft that is wide enough to remove the word of its meaning, then yes, of course. I won't argue your definition, but having such a wide definition of theft makes artists thieves because they took inspiration from other people and learnt their techniques by observing how other people did. This make the discussion between us rather ineffective and I agree that we shouldn't continue it.

What AI does is nothing like how an artist learns to draw. If you had ever bothered to learn to draw yourself you would know that.

Forget even taking classes. Just skim through one of Andrew Loomis' instructional books, one of Gottfrird Bammes' books, and Scott Robertson's book "How to Draw" and seriously ask yourself if that is actually how you think AI is learning to draw. Be honest with yourself.
 

You're indeed right when it comes to online models. I think for getting the best results, tools (like controlnets) are more effective for models that you can run at home from your computer (which requires some time investment). Usually online generators (including paid ones) offer few options above just prompting a few words. They emphasize ease of use over getting exactly one has in mind (I'd say that many users don't have something very specific in mind, just general).
Wow! You guys even have to use AI for posing instead of using a basic 3d modeling program like Poser or DAZ?

Jeezus.

You guys know actually making art can be fun, right?
 





What AI does is nothing like how an artist learns to draw. If you had ever bothered to learn to draw yourself you would know that.

So, you do realize that different things need to be named by other names for a useful (or, actually, any) discussion to happen, since you're bothered when someone uses theft to describe being inspired by a piece of art without compensation. Much like I am saying with theft and AI training. We're making progress.

Note that I am not disputing your right to call AI training morally aborrhent. It's just not theft, nor it is jaywalking, embezzlement, or tax fraud.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top