Shadowdark General Thread [+]

[aiouh]

From a business standpoint, not having a bunch of people pile on judgement is also an important factor.

Public Domain Art/Illustrations ripped out of context are getting pretty close in that regard for me

 

[Fenris-77]

Public Domain Art/Illustrations ripped out of context are getting pretty close in that regard for me

What exactly does 'ripped out of context' mean here? Are you saying there's something wrong with using classic public domain art for RPGs? I'm confused. Anyway, I'm very happy with the art in Shadows of Empire, and aside from one image I got off Freepik and manipulated myself, everything else is public domain and used as-is save for a wee bit of cropping. I can provide some solid PD art links if anyone is floundering around looking for some and not finding it.

 

[Scribe]

Isnt Knock! full of Public Domain stuff? It sells. Same with a lot of cy_borg/mork borg?

I get it, I didnt HAVE TO pay for art, I could have just used AI, or I could have used my very limited time to search for public doman.

But as of today? Yeah, AI art is still unethical when there are several viable options outside of AI art.

 

[Fenris-77]

Lots of OSR properties make good use of PD art.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Thing is, now chances are that the person I'm paying used Midjourney or whatever.

ROFL what are you talking about? No, the "chances are" not that at all. Artists have galleries. Artists have histories. Artists can send the layered files that show how the art was constructed.

Hell, just look at the Kickstarter we're discussing, they SHOW THIS, because they're proud not to use AI! So they show the progress of an art piece, which is naturally recorded by all real art tools! If someone can't send you those files, that's how you know they used AI. And so-called "visual prompt" stuff is just a failed attempt to launder AI art - it's no different from any other AI art.

It's not complicated, it's not hard, and you can't be tricked unless you want to be, and don't look into it. That's on you if you intentionally choose to:

A) Not look at the history and galleries of an artist you're hiring or buying from.

B) Not ask for the actual layered files which contain the history of the piece being constructed. Again note this isn't some "special new thing", this has been how art programs have worked for multiple decades!

And even before AI people sometimes wanted them to ensure than artist hadn't just nicked a piece off someone else or the like.

That's just as unethical and classist.

You literally don't get to complain about ethics and classism if you're suggesting the use of a tool founded entirely on stealing the art of millions of working people by a tiny ultra-wealthy elite, and then using it to develop a clumsy tool to attempt to put those working people out of a job lol. What a ridiculous position lol! Even if you don't consider that illegal, it is unquestionable deeply unethical and obviously morally wrong, and it's classist in the very straightforward sense that these AI tools have been created and funded by extremely rich people to take money out of the pocket of working class and (more rarely) middle class people and put in the pockets of talentless already-rich people.

Also, what social class do you think most people who write RPGs are and pay for art are? Because I guarantee you the vast majority of them are working class and middle class, and I'm pretty sure you're middle class. In fact if anything, the most reliable commitment to paying for art is usually from working class people, so claiming "classism" here is fascinating.

And I absolutely don't believe in "if you can't draw and are broke you don't deserve to create a saleable RPG product."

You know that countless RPG products are released every month with no AI art, by people who can't draw, who just pay for very cheap art libraries or use public domain art, right? And those products sell, some of them very well, so are inherently "saleable". Plus, if you think AI art makes products "saleable", you should probably think again - a lot of people won't buy works with AI art at all and it's a lot more obvious than people think.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Isnt Knock! full of Public Domain stuff? It sells. Same with a lot of cy_borg/mork borg?

I get it, I didnt HAVE TO pay for art, I could have just used AI, or I could have used my very limited time to search for public doman.

But as of today? Yeah, AI art is still unethical when there are several viable options outside of AI art.

Yup. It's very easy to prove that both:

A) Products with crude/amateurish art.

and

B) Products heavily using PD art or similar.

Sell extremely well. So the idea that a product is rendered not "saleable" by not being stuffed full of full-colour AI art is pretty laughable. If anything it's a liability, especially if you target market is under about 45.

 

[Reynard]

ROFL what are you talking about? No, the "chances are" not that at all. Artists have galleries. Artists have histories. Artists can send the layered files that show how the art was constructed.

Hell, just look at the Kickstarter we're discussing, they SHOW THIS, because they're proud not to use AI! So they show the progress of an art piece, which is naturally recorded by all real art tools! If someone can't send you those files, that's how you know they used AI. And so-called "visual prompt" stuff is just a failed attempt to launder AI art - it's no different from any other AI art.

It's not complicated, it's not hard, and you can't be tricked unless you want to be, and don't look into it. That's on you if you intentionally choose to:

A) Not look at the history and galleries of an artist you're hiring or buying from.

B) Not ask for the actual layered files which contain the history of the piece being constructed. Again note this isn't some "special new thing", this has been how art programs have worked for multiple decades!

And even before AI people sometimes wanted them to ensure than artist hadn't just nicked a piece off someone else or the like.


You literally don't get to complain about ethics and classism if you're suggesting the use of a tool founded entirely on stealing the art of millions of working people by a tiny ultra-wealthy elite, and then using it to develop a clumsy tool to attempt to put those working people out of a job lol. What a ridiculous position lol! Even if you don't consider that illegal, it is unquestionable deeply unethical and obviously morally wrong, and it's classist in the very straightforward sense that these AI tools have been created and funded by extremely rich people to take money out of the pocket of working class and (more rarely) middle class people and put in the pockets of talentless already-rich people.

Also, what social class do you think most people who write RPGs are and pay for art are? Because I guarantee you the vast majority of them are working class and middle class, and I'm pretty sure you're middle class. In fact if anything, the most reliable commitment to paying for art is usually from working class people, so claiming "classism" here is fascinating.


You know that countless RPG products are released every month with no AI art, by people who can't draw, who just pay for very cheap art libraries or use public domain art, right? And those products sell, some of them very well, so are inherently "saleable". Plus, if you think AI art makes products "saleable", you should probably think again - a lot of people won't buy works with AI art at all and it's a lot more obvious than people think.

It is like you wrote all that without paying attention to what you were quoting.

More and more stock art folks are using AI generated art in their stock. If you don't know that it is because you have not looked. Most artists don't have galleries, they have outlets they post their work to in order to sell it.
And I never advocated the use of AI art. I advocated people having a different response than just being a snob about it. Because if you just tell people they have to suddenly become professional art directors, you aren't helping even a little bit.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

More and more stock art folks are using AI generated art in their stock.

Then don't buy from them? Do they lie about it or do they admit it? You can't buy from suppliers who aren't upfront - that's true in any business. Suppliers who lie or mislead or won't provide details on their product or its provenance are an absolute menace. You don't buy meat from the guy who won't tell whether it's cow or horse, for god's sake lol.

Use PD art if you can't trust them.

If all else fails, and you do think there's AI art in among the stock art, don't use the stuff you're suspicious of in your work (it's usually fairly easy to tell by it being wildly more detailed than other art in the price bracket), and apologise to people who bought your work if it turns out you did, and don't work with that supplier again.

Most artists don't have galleries, they have outlets they post their work to in order to sell it.

I don't think that's true at all re: the sort of digital artists who often work on TTRPGs. Do you mean people who make generic stock art specifically?

Because if you just tell people they have to suddenly become professional art directors, you aren't helping even a little bit.

Oh and you think claiming its "classism" and "unethical" to expect you to do the same work as thousands of other solo or small-group RPG creators is helping? Because otherwise, what's your point? Anyone can do what I'm suggesting, there's no skill or training or even experience required - claiming that's the job of a "professional art director" is like claiming a person who writes emails sometimes as part of their job is a "professional communications manager"!

Again, re: saleable, if you think AI art makes a product more saleable, either you have a very specific market (again, likely 45+ and with weirdly high expectations re: the art in an indie solo publication), or you're in for a nasty surprise.

 

[Micah Sweet]

ROFL what are you talking about? No, the "chances are" not that at all. Artists have galleries. Artists have histories. Artists can send the layered files that show how the art was constructed.

Hell, just look at the Kickstarter we're discussing, they SHOW THIS, because they're proud not to use AI! So they show the progress of an art piece, which is naturally recorded by all real art tools! If someone can't send you those files, that's how you know they used AI. And so-called "visual prompt" stuff is just a failed attempt to launder AI art - it's no different from any other AI art.

It's not complicated, it's not hard, and you can't be tricked unless you want to be, and don't look into it. That's on you if you intentionally choose to:

A) Not look at the history and galleries of an artist you're hiring or buying from.

B) Not ask for the actual layered files which contain the history of the piece being constructed. Again note this isn't some "special new thing", this has been how art programs have worked for multiple decades!

And even before AI people sometimes wanted them to ensure than artist hadn't just nicked a piece off someone else or the like.


You literally don't get to complain about ethics and classism if you're suggesting the use of a tool founded entirely on stealing the art of millions of working people by a tiny ultra-wealthy elite, and then using it to develop a clumsy tool to attempt to put those working people out of a job lol. What a ridiculous position lol! Even if you don't consider that illegal, it is unquestionable deeply unethical and obviously morally wrong, and it's classist in the very straightforward sense that these AI tools have been created and funded by extremely rich people to take money out of the pocket of working class and (more rarely) middle class people and put in the pockets of talentless already-rich people.

Also, what social class do you think most people who write RPGs are and pay for art are? Because I guarantee you the vast majority of them are working class and middle class, and I'm pretty sure you're middle class. In fact if anything, the most reliable commitment to paying for art is usually from working class people, so claiming "classism" here is fascinating.


You know that countless RPG products are released every month with no AI art, by people who can't draw, who just pay for very cheap art libraries or use public domain art, right? And those products sell, some of them very well, so are inherently "saleable". Plus, if you think AI art makes products "saleable", you should probably think again - a lot of people won't buy works with AI art at all and it's a lot more obvious than people think.

So disagreeing with you about the ethics of one issue makes it impossible or disallowed to have ethical concerns about another?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then don't buy from them? Do they lie about it or do they admit it? You can't buy from suppliers who aren't upfront - that's true in any business. Suppliers who lie or mislead or won't provide details on their product or its provenance are an absolute menace. You don't buy meat from the guy who won't tell whether it's cow or horse, for god's sake lol.

Use PD art if you can't trust them.

If all else fails, and you do think there's AI art in among the stock art, don't use the stuff you're suspicious of in your work (it's usually fairly easy to tell by it being wildly more detailed than other art in the price bracket), and apologise to people who bought your work if it turns out you did, and don't work with that supplier again.


I don't think that's true at all re: the sort of digital artists who often work on TTRPGs. Do you mean people who make generic stock art specifically?


Oh and you think claiming its "classism" and "unethical" to expect you to do the same work as thousands of other solo or small-group RPG creators is helping? Because otherwise, what's your point? Anyone can do what I'm suggesting, there's no skill or training or even experience required - claiming that's the job of a "professional art director" is like claiming a person who writes emails sometimes as part of their job is a "professional communications manager"!

Again, re: saleable, if you think AI art makes a product more saleable, either you have a very specific market (again, likely 45+ and with weirdly high expectations re: the art in an indie solo publication), or you're in for a nasty surprise.

I think there are a number of people who don't think about AI art all that much or don't see it's use as some kind of monstrous act that would perhaps surprise you.