D&D General AI Art for D&D: Experiments

[Bohandas]

Eg new book everyone just copied it.

That's as may be but the oft repeated conceit that it would be corporations doing it is clearly not true in this century.

Plus, you've assumed out of hand that it's important for this to always exist as a viable career. But society's need for professional writers stemmed in large part from the same vanished conditions that used to make corporations the most likely people to copy a work. It's so easy to put things out there now that (even without AI) vanity press is more than enough to cover society's content needs. I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but if you are then cast your mind back to the turn of the century - there were tons of videos, games, and and webcomics floating out there with nary a paywall or attempt at monetization in sight. That proves to me that it could work; that the industry is not strictly needed. And what good is an industry that's not needed?

 

[Reynard]

Nobody else will have to pay artists or writers either.

Which means no new art or writing. Or music. Or acting.

Stagnation. Death.

 

[cbwjm]

Which means no new art or writing. Or music. Or acting.

Stagnation. Death.

I don't think that's really true, people will create art and writing and new music, still generally be creative because that is what they want to do, even if they're not getting paid for it, they'll still create. You see this all the time now, people will make mods or 3d models for printing, or sewing patterns for an outfit and they'll release it all for free for others to use.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Which means no new art or writing. Or music. Or acting.

Stagnation. Death.

A lot of art was created between the cave painting in Indonesia circa 48,000 BC and the late 18th century CE when IP was invented. Not to say IP is necessarily bad, but it isn't the only motivator for art to appear. Either through not needing it (Seneca or Voltaire didn't need to actually sell books), alternate subsidization method, or simple willingness to create art (Van Gogh didn't sell his paintings, and yet he didn't stop painting to become an investment banker).

 

[M.T. Black]

I'm curious about your take on something, since you seem to have something of a balanced view here, not always easy to find.

I've been finding lately that I've been enjoying a number of YouTube creators who are, best I can tell, composers; that write songs (possibly with AI assistance) and use vocaloids or other auditory AIs (I'm not entirely clear on the difference) to "sing" them...

What's your feeling about this sort of thing?

"I don't know much about art, but I know what I like" is the most authentic statement about art criticism ever made. If you prefer the AI-gen music to most of the human-gen music, then that's what you like.

Some of my creative colleagues like to claim they've never seen anything of artistic value in AI-gen material, but I think that's a naive statement. Whether it can ever be considered "good art", I don't know. But I'm certain AI can generate stuff that people like and respond to.

When I was a teenager, I was in a garage band in Sydney in the 80s. Even then, we despised "manufactured" music - there was a group of producers called Stock-Aitkin-Waterman (SAW) who churned out hit after hit following strict musical formulas and recent advances in music tech, such as sythesizers, drum machines, and computer mixing. They literally called themselves "The Hit Factory." Their best known song is probably "Never Gonna Give You Up."

To us as 17 year olds, it was plain that we were making "authentic" music and SAW were churning out synthetic bile. In a weird way, we blamed them for our lack of success. With hindsight, I realize something more likely - our "authentic songs" just weren't very good. And these days, I don't mind tapping my toe along to an old SAW hit either.

In about 20 years, I suspect that AI-generated art/music will be as uncontroversial as drum machines are now.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's as may be but the oft repeated conceit that it would be corporations doing it is clearly not true in this century.

Plus, you've assumed out of hand that it's important for this to always exist as a viable career. But society's need for professional writers stemmed in large part from the same vanished conditions that used to make corporations the most likely people to copy a work. It's so easy to put things out there now that (even without AI) vanity press is more than enough to cover society's content needs. I don't know if you're old enough to remember, but if you are then cast your mind back to the turn of the century - there were tons of videos, games, and and webcomics floating out there with nary a paywall or attempt at monetization in sight. That proves to me that it could work; that the industry is not strictly needed. And what good is an industry that's not needed?

Videogames back then cost a fraction to develop vs now.

Consumers want HD graphics but dont want to pay for them. Hence DLC and microtransactions.

 

[Reynard]

In about 20 years, I suspect that AI-generated art/music will be as uncontroversial as drum machines are now.

It won't take 20 years, and it won't be limited to art or music.

"Chat, give me a 100 episode fantasy series about dragons and zombies, starring my favorite actors. Make sure there is lots of violence but no sex, and I want all the mains to be white."

That's 5 years away and a travesty.

 

[Bohandas]

Videogames back then cost a fraction to develop vs now.

Consumers want HD graphics but dont want to pay for them. Hence DLC and microtransactions.

HD graphics are usually corporations' way of papering over bad gameplay and mechanics. The fact that people fall for it doesn't change the fact that the stuff on Newgrounds was just as good. And circling back to the original point the new tech is going to put HD graphics in the hands of everyone anyway

It won't take 20 years, and it won't be limited to art or music.

"Chat, give me a 100 episode fantasy series about dragons and zombies, starring my favorite actors."

You get it! Disney and Paramount aren't gonna be making anything on this; It's all gonna be as cheap as sugar.

 

[Reynard]

You get it! Disney and Paramount aren't gonna be making anything on this; It's all gonna be as cheap as sugar.

You are failing to understand that the only people than can monetize it will be those megacorps. You are imagining democratization without thinking even a little bit about platforms or distribution. It's a pretty naive view.

 

[Bohandas]

You are failing to understand that the only people than can monetize it will be those megacorps. You are imagining democratization without thinking even a little bit about platforms or distribution. It's a pretty naive view.

Maybe megacorps like Google or Microsoft will monetize it, but Disnsy and Paramount will die; They're nothing but useless middlemen now. There won't be any platforms; there will only be, as you said, "Chat, give me a 100 episode fantasy series about dragons and zombies"