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

[The Firebird]

Wow! You guys even have to use AI for posing instead of using a basic 3d modeling program like Poser or DAZ?

Jeezus.

I don't think any of us were marveling at anyone's lack of talent, presumed or otherwise. I think maybe there is a real misunderstanding somewhere.

How was I supposed to read the first post?

 

[Lanefan]

Right. Not only do the AI steal the artists' jobs, if the artist doesn't want to be complicit in this they need to stop displaying their artwork. And yeah, this is happening, I know a lot of people are these days reluctant to post their art online. Dead internet theory becomes more likely every day.

Dead internet? Not as long as people are using it to freely exchange ideas, opinions, and - yes - creations.

But the key word there is freely. Put it online, it's public domain for people to do whatever with; where immorality comes into it is when someone uses this free stuff for monetary gain, and to me that's an entirely different conversation.

I've no idea whether I technically hold the copyright to the words I'm posting here, or whether Morrus does because it's his site, or whether it's both of us in tandem, or what. But for my part as the author of said words, I don't care if they're scraped or discussed or copied etc. for free public use; if I did care, I wouldn't post them.

 

[Metroido]

How was I supposed to read the first post?

a) That wasn't a direct response to you.
b) Do you know what Poser or DAZ 3D are? That was a comment on people's laziness, not their lack of talent. DAZ and Poser provide you with 3d models already modeled and sculpted for you. You can even buy more models. You can buy 3d models of anything you can think of, sculpted by 3d modelers from all over the world! In DAZ and Poser, you can then pose the figures however you want. You can even add however many lights you want and light the scene any way you desire. It's a lot more control than any AI and it doesn't take any talent.

 

[Faolyn]

a) That wasn't a direct response to you.
b) Do you know what Poser or DAZ 3D are? That was a comment on people's laziness, not their lack of talent. DAZ and Poser provide you with 3d models already modeled and sculpted for you. You can even buy more models. You can buy 3d models of anything you can think of, sculpted by 3d modelers from all over the world! In DAZ and Poser, you can then pose the figures however you want. You can even add however many lights you want and light the scene any way you desire. It's a lot more control than any AI and it doesn't take any talent.

There's also sites like Figurosity as well as various other apps that give you mannequins you can pose.

 

[The Firebird]

b) Do you know what Poser or DAZ 3D are?

No. Why would I know what they are?

That was a comment on people's laziness, not their lack of talent.

Well. Laziness. Familiarity. Knowledge of the field. It doesn't come off well.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Dead internet? Not as long as people are using it to freely exchange ideas, opinions, and - yes - creations.

But the key word there is freely. Put it online, it's public domain for people to do whatever with; where immorality comes into it is when someone uses this free stuff for monetary gain, and to me that's an entirely different conversation.

That's basically the situation we were in before 1700-1800 depending on where you lived. Since ideas come from inspiration, and inspiration and talent comes from God, not from a specific person... the identity of the author wasn't something that mattered a lot. Art and science in general were thought as a collective heritage. Artists and scientists found other means to get paid -- they needed to eat, after all -- than selling the work they produced. They could sell for a high price the initial copy to printers, or keep control on the distribution of the work (ie, they didn't put in on the Internet ). Mozart made subscription concerts, famously, but many had a side, or rather main job or did commissioned work -- which meant that they were paid by someone to create something specific, and as soon as it was created, it was put into the public domain, not restricted for the use of big IP holders that paid the commission.

At some point, however, it was collectively decided -- well, petitionned to the ruler, who single-handedly decided, to be honest -- that MORE art and science would be created if the people who wrote books coud get money from it. It actually was the end of a process that started earlier, with the printing press. Circulation of information was more centralized and some authors could get a printing privilege, for a limited amount of time, to be the only person allowed to print a specific book. So, in order to replicate a work, they could charge what they wanted for the printed book. They couldn't be competed out by other printers, since it wasn't allowed to publish unlicensed books.

At some point the idea that everyone should get the royal privilege of being the only one to copy their books emerged and was passed into law. The reasoning was that if artists were financially incentivized, they'd produce more art and society, as a whole, would be better. In the UK, the Statute of Anne granted everyone the monopoly on printing the book they wrote for 14 years (renewable once) because it was deemed that more book would be produced. The Statute aimed, according to its title, at the "encouragement of learning": a short temporary monopoly for the author, more art rapidly available for everyone.

While the circumstances have greatly changed since, we've mostly seen the collective choice moving toward more extension of the monopoly (70 years, 50 years after death of author...) than the reverse. You're advocating for a serious shift in methodology, but it's not something unheard of, it was just the general situation that surrounded the creation of art for millenia, except in the 200-300 last years, where the state-enforced monopoly granted to authors has been deemed more beneficial than the alternative.

I am finding it extremely difficult to quantify whether it's collectively better to have the market determine the value of art and using it as an incentive to produce more. It can cause a shift toward producing low quality content that will sell well. It is also reaching a coverage that really limits the diffusion of art, especially in a period where reproduction of it, in digital form, has become costless, which wasn't really considered in the earlier centuries.

I am not certain that having authorities stop granting temporary monopolies to authors would have a positive influence on the amount of art provided. It is sure, however, that most of the art that is produced now won't benefit the public until nearly 100 years. That's a long delay, especially with most art having lost marketable value long before this date. Don't you think one would need an incentive to publish anything online if it was tantamount to renouncing to IP? Though as you mention, most of what we write on this board isn't written with the expectation of profit and yet we do it... In the least, it should remove commercial influence off the Internet.

 

[Umbran]

Heh, the little kid blocked me. Oh well. It was like arguing with a pigeon anyway. He would just knock all the pieces over, crap all over the board, and then strut around like he won anyway.

Mod note:
And, if you had kept cool about it, you could have kept the moral high ground. But, no, you couldn't just let it be, you had to be insulting.

Maybe you shouldn't be too proud of that.

In any case, it has earned you a warning point, and a trip out of this thread.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Everyone in the thread ought to take a double-check on their rhetoric as they continue. If you get insulting, or heated, you're likely going to find yourself involuntarily cooling off, which pretty much none of you like.

Keep your cool. Double check that continuing a confrontation is likely to go somewhere useful. If you aren't actually trying to help someone, maybe don't bother, hm?

Thanks, all.

 

[Luxor the Moonprince]

Personally I don’t care if art comes from real people or AI. All I care about is if I like it or not.

 

[ezo]

Paying for something anybody can do like telling AI to create something is not what I would do.

Why? Because it makes no sense. Why pay someone for Ai art when I can use that myself; however, in order to get specific poses that i want I will commission an artist to make the art piece. For example here is an artist piece for my Shaper class using an artist.

View attachment 403208

AI cannot get the pose right or the colors that I wish even when I am descriptive.

I suppose it depends on precisely the look, how exact you want image colors, etc.

For non-commerical use, I've found AI has gotten pretty good over the last couple years. Here is a quick AI of the above image (I have color-issues so I wasn't sure if the overcoat was supposed to be more green or blue... nor if background or not was desired, what style you wanted, etc.

Now, what bothers me a lot about AI is if you give it the same prompt and just want to change some things, it can drastically change others! I know you can train it in this respect, but 99% of the time I can live with what AI produces and sometimes I really like the results. For example, for this image I rather like the 1880's vintage photo look, but then you lose the color: