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

[VHawkwinter]

That makes the experience so, so much more rewarding, and the time of production is halved.

Can you understand why AI hasn't gone away yet, not even in the TTRPG where it's not always welcome? We love making sh** in this space as much as anyone else, but AI is a tool and nothing more--it cuts out the drama, the resource expenditures, and the middle-men.

Alright. Yes you've explained how it makes it easier to be a "one man show".

So at a certain point, we're willing to face the backlash. But the overhead is so low that it's impossible to lose money, even if thousands of people who don't like AI opt out of buying.

Personally I'm gonna stick to doing the writing and art myself / hiring someone(s) for supplemental art as budget permits. I don't have the level of anti-ai conviction many people here do (hence my earlier comment that I will check out the custom-AI filtered blender-animated Undergrads film if/when it's ever complete), but I'm really not looking to piss off most of the target market for my game that I've put years of my life into building. If you want to pick a fight with most of the customers that's your business.

(Also I think the image generators and text writers mostly do bad/bland work, so that makes me feel less bad about doing more effort. If I were to have an LLM and Diffusion generator I actually liked, I'd need custom or customised models like the undergrads guys are doing, else I'd need to redo the work afterward anyway).

Obviously YMMV.

 

[daydreamengine]

I’ve worked with lots of artists over the past 25 years. 95% have been great to work with. Reading these posts, and it seems to me it’s not the artist’s egos that are the problem …

Even if that were the case--why should anyone work with one if they don't want to and most importantly, don't really need to anymore?

Because the community might hate them if they don't?

When faced with that, the creators might as well do what they want--whatever makes them happiest in terms of creation. And they should be able to do that without having morality and ethics they don't agree with crammed down their throats.

 

[gban007]

Even if that were the case--why should anyone work with one if they don't want to and most importantly, don't really need to anymore?

Because the community might hate them if they don't?

When faced with that, the creators might as well do what they want--whatever makes them happiest in terms of creation. And they should be able to do that without having morality and ethics they don't agree with crammed down their throats.

You can do what you want, use AI if you want.

I am free to think less of you for doing so.

Foundry and the like are free to ban AI content on their marketplace as well, as is their marketplace, without others cramming their morals and ethics down Foundrys throats.

 

[Autumnal]

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

1. No art
2. Art drawn by you
3. Art drawn by a friend or playtester
4. Art that isn't art (e.g. photos)
5. Art funded by you
6. Art funded by a kickstarter
7. Art funded by making something smaller first
8. Don't publish

This is a great roundup. Every option is time-tested, with a spread of successful and unsuccessful outcomes amenable to analysis and discussion.

 

[VHawkwinter]

This is a great roundup. Every option is time-tested, with a spread of successful and unsuccessful outcomes amenable to analysis and discussion.

I'm doing #2 & #3 already, and I have some of #4 I've processed that I'm considering. Some CC0 material textures got used as well, either as-is, or as part of an original piece. Plus textures gotten my scanning or photographing real world objects and then processing the hell out of them myself, and some CC0 plant motif page embellishments. Because I have basically no budget, just my own labour (and people hate AI imagery even for low importance pieces).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm still not getting this 'AI is theft' argument and never have.

Copyright attorney with an MBA as well as being a lifelong visual artist & musician here.

The definition of “theft” has A BUNCH of definitions in Black’s Law Dictionary, and copyright infringement does meet at least one definition (exercing unauthorized control of property).

As others have already pointed out, you can choose to DIY, use stock art, pay an artist for original work, or use AI in your publications. Each has pros and cons.

One thing I can tell you is that making a choice a certain part of your market sees as a negative, then doubling down on it by confronting them for their choice is not a winning business strategy. Worse, in the current day, it’s the kind of strategy that internet sleuths can ensure follows you- we’re not as anonymous as we like to think.

I’m not telling you how to run your business. But I am advising you that you might want to keep closer counsel with controversial opinions that could affect your business.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, there's one upside: you have at least convinced me that that thread was just a repository of AI slop, and not an informative discussion thread of the capabilities of AI.

A repository of AI art (not "slop", thanks) is still a useful resource to have here; at least I found it so.

So, on reflection, I think we won't be allowing that thread to reopen. Thanks!

 

[Lanefan]

A prompt engineer doesn't create pixels any more than a recipe writer creates food. A prompt engineer creates prompts. Any pixels an AI creates based on a prompt one feeds into it are created by software with no human creative intent, not by the prompt writer.

Likewise, if someone in the future invents an automated kitchen, a recipe writer still doesn't produce food. A recipe writer produces recipes. Any food an automated kitchen produces based on a recipe one feeds into it is created by robots with no human creative intent, not by the recipe writer.

Correct. The original idea and human creative intent all comes from the recipe writer.

After that, it matters not whether the recipe is then followed by a robot or a human, provided each executes that recipe precisely. Either one is, at that point, just an instructions processor; similar to a pianist perfectly playing sheet music exactly as the sheet tells him to.

(The above remains true even if the recipe writer tastes the food produced by the automated kitchen, writes an improved recipe to adjust the flavor, and iterates the process in a back-and-forth conversation between the written recipes and the automated kitchen. Despite all the human creativity the writer puts into the iterated recipes, none of the writer's actions are producing any food. The kitchen is producing the food.)

Just like the AI generator is producing art as instructed by deatiled and amended prompts. It's just a tool at that point; the creativity all came from the mind of the person visualizing the desired image then writing the prompts that (ideally) tell the machine to produce that image.

 

[Lanefan]

Foundry and the like are free to ban AI content on their marketplace as well, as is their marketplace, without others cramming their morals and ethics down Foundrys throats.

Seems Foundry wants to do the reverse, though, and force their morals and ethics on to their users.

Why, from an objective viewpoint, is one of these OK and the other not?

 

[BenjaminPey]

The idea that art somehow pre-exists in the head of an artist and is only reified through a mechanical process using tools is misguided, in my opinion. Art doesn't work like that at all.