AI/LLMs AI art bans are going to ruin small 3rd party creators

[daydreamengine]

So, honest question, no snark. If I don't like any of those options and don't want to collaborate with anyone, don't want to pay for art if I don't have to and in the case of many indies, can't afford, I don't like stock art and I fail to raise money through a Kickstarter... you feel option 8 is best for me and others?

 

[VHawkwinter]

Stock art, stock art, get stock art. I keep seeing this.

The question hasn't been raised: what if I, as a creator don't want or like stock art?

Then you either learn some way to make your own art; hire someone (on fiverr or elsewhere); have no art; or accept that you are using AI art even though it means many potential customers will refuse to buy your work; and now some stores will also refuse to carry your work.

You're basically saying I should get stock art even if I don't like it because it's better than AI, and if I do get AI because I prefer it to stock art, I'm a bad creative at best, a bad person at worst.

Do y'all read this sh**t back to yourselves sometimes?

Many people absolutely think using AI art makes you a bad person, and will boycott you for it. Whether you agree with them or you disagree with them, frankly, is irrelevant. Either you want the many people who hate AI art as customers, or you do not. You will not change the minds of hundreds of thousands of people.

 

[VHawkwinter]

First post so I'm sure you're on the level but here are some options you missed.

Also:

• Paint Minis and make terrain, take photos of them. I have seen this a few times. I assume that's legal. Might want to check.
• Buy character models and compose scenes and make renders in Blender.
• Make text art like it's 2002 and you're releasing pirated software on a warez site? I dunno I'm running out of ideas but I felt like a third one was necessary for the list. You can listen to sick chiptunes while you infect the family computer with viruses while you make it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Many people absolutely think using AI art makes you a bad person, and will boycott you for it. Whether you agree with them or you disagree with them, frankly, is irrelevant. Either you want the many people who hate AI art as customers, or you do not. You will not change the minds of hundreds of thousands of people.

I am curious how large that segment of the population actually is.

 

[daydreamengine]

Then you either learn some way to make your own art; hire someone (on fiverr or elsewhere); have no art; or accept that you are using AI art even though it means many potential customers will refuse to buy your work; and now some stores will also refuse to carry your work.


Many people absolutely think using AI art makes you a bad person, and will boycott you for it. Whether you agree with them or you disagree with them, frankly, is irrelevant. Either you want the many people who hate AI art as customers, or you do not. You will not change the minds of hundreds of thousands of people.

But then there are those that are in favor of AI or just don't care.

At the end of the day, that's really all the Anti-AI crowd can do, isn't it?

'Do this, or we won't buy your stuff, and we might even be mean to you.'

Why do I even want you as a fan of my work at that point?

Also, they money I lose out on those people who won't buy I'm saving in production costs. Maybe more.

Mod Note: language

 

[JiffyPopTart]

What if Andy Warhol had been dead for almost 40 years?
What if Andy Warhol was the only genius to have had a 60 IQ?
What if we talked about reality instead of hypotheticals?

In what way is the vision being tweaked in your example? And for what reason? To say what? These are the important parts. The context.

Readymade art, both in Dada, (the movement that spawned it) and by the pop artists that revived it, were interested in seeing the beauty in everyday objects that people take for granted. Giving them a new context by placing them in a gallery. In most art movements it's the thinking behind the work that's probably more important than the work itself. Which is the issue with AI as an art movement so far, it's all image and no thinking.

I'm sorry you have difficulty understanding that my premise that Andy Warhol used AI art tools wasnt literal. I will be much clearer and lay out the logic below...


In our universe, Andy Warhol traces a soup can and uses stamps, and other tools to produce a canvas that features an altered version of someone else's artistic output to craft his inner mental image of that work in a new context and calls it art.

In an alternate universe without an Andy Warhol, Evilguy Cringe uses iterative AI software, a silk screen printer, and a stolen base image of a soup can to produce a canvas that features an altered version of someone else's artistic output to craft his inner mental image of that work in a new context and calls it art.

Both canvases hang in a gallery and are indistinguishable from each other. How do you identify which one is art and which one is not?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Stock art, stock art, get stock art. I keep seeing this.

The question hasn't been raised: what if I, as a creator don't want or like stock art?

You're basically saying I should get stock art even if I don't like it because it's better than AI, and if I do get AI because I prefer it to stock art, I'm a bad creative at best, a bad person at worst.

Do y'all read this sh**t back to yourselves sometimes?

Yeah, I do, and I don't think you're reading the same thing everyone else is. No one said you have to use stock art if you don't want to or don't like it. I brought it up originally because of the discussion around people who want art but can't/don't want to pay for the "professional" look that that the big publishers have.

It was a solution to a problem. If you don't want or like that solution, no one is forcing you to take it. But then it becomes your problem and no one is going to give you sympathy because you don't want it.

But understand that if you're using something that is stealing from another person, then don't be surprised if a lot of people think pretty low of you. That's the result of your actions. No one else's fault. And frankly, reeks of entitlement to me. "I want to have my product look just like the big publishers who pay artists for that work, but I don't want or can't pay the same."

How do y'all think exchange of goods and services work? Do you think people should just give you stuff for free because you want it? What about their livelihood? Does that not matter?

 

[VHawkwinter]

So, honest question, no snark. If I don't like any of those options and don't want to collaborate with anyone, don't want to pay for art if I don't have to and in the case of many indies, can't afford, I don't like stock art and I fail to raise money through a Kickstarter... you feel option 8 is best for me and others?

If you release products with AI art, hundreds of thousands of people will refuse to buy it on those grounds. Some subset of those will go the step further to make a mental note to boycott your future work, regardless of whether you use AI art in it, and may become a sort of anti-advertiser.

You can publish work with AI art, but you'll be making yourself an artisanal pariah, and it will hamstring your sales. I really wouldn't recommend it, but it's your funeral.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Why do I even want you as a fan of my work at that point?

Point of fact, it's not your work. That's like, literally the entire point of this conversation. And whether you intended to or not, illustrates the divide. Folks like you keep thinking that using AI prompts makes it your work. It's not. And never will be.

Clearly you seem passionate about this subject because you joined just today just to post in this thread.

 

[VHawkwinter]

I am curious how large that segment of the population actually is.

The population as a whole? I would guess not a ton. But the population of people who buy TTRPG products that aren't made by Hasbro and on sale at Barnes and Noble? It certainly seems to be many. I don't have stats, but 1/2 to 2/3 of them wouldn't surprise me.