AI Art Removed From Upcoming Terminator RPG Book

AI art detected during development and being replaced for the book's release.


(this is not the art in question)

AI rears its head yet again--this time it's an artist using Artificial Intelligence and then submitting it to Nightfall Games for its upcoming Terminator 2: Judgement Day sourcebook.

The artist in question initially claimed that the art was not generated by AI. Nightfall Games made a statement yesterday indicating that they had detected the AI art during the development phase of the product, and are already in the process of having it replaced for the book's release. The artist has not been named—but it’s probably not Skynet!

This is the second time AI art has hit the headlines, after WotC updated its AI art policy following false accusations by a YouTuber. It's clear that AI art is going to be a major topic in the months and years to come.

As I mentioned in my last update, we just need to do a few quick things over the weekend to finalise both T2 and RESIST. Jared who is our Indesign guru was working through the files when he noticed that one of the art pieces looked suspiciously AI-like. He pointed this out to Benn and Mark, who have led the production of the project. They both confirmed that the 'art-producer' had confirmed multiple times that he wasn't using AI art generators and instead was producing collages and then over painting and using Photoshop filters to make the art. Mark and Benn trusted this individual as both a long term collegue and friend.

The image was run through an AI art identifying program to discover a 99.9% match with the AI art generator 'Midjourney'. We then identified all other art produced by the individual to discover a 99.9% 'Midjourney' hit on 16 of them.

16x99.9% AI or a program that is 16x99.9% wrong?​

We hoped the identifier was wrong, but our art experts quickly noticed things the less experienced members of our team would never have know. Things like image resolution, go to AI filters etc.. We had been duped and paid out a significant amount of money in the duping.

But why does this matter?​

It matters because AI art is theft. It creates art from a massive, massive portfolio of art and images, that have been created by real people. It then splurges out poor mockeries of these arts without any consideration of the artists and can be done by any Tom, Dick or Hary.

We do not want to cheat artists (we are artists), we don't want to cheat you (our backers and customers). We are a small company, who focus on good and original art and pay well for it. We find this situation abhorrent, upsetting and depressing.

Purge or Die?​

A dilemma indeed. Although, as Data from Star Trek would say, we considered it for approximately 0.0002 milliseconds.

What we have done?​

We have great people in our team and Jared has sacrificed his long weekend to fix this. And he has. We need to get approval for the fixes from the IP owners but we will drive that now. Once given we will be back on track.

Watch this space...​

In the meantime, we as a company will be working with our external artists to ensure that all art is confirmed AI free and we will also be implementing a number of checks before payment is made and art is accepted.

log in or register to remove this ad

log in or register to remove this ad


Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I anxiously await a creator from one of the programs being used to say they do not and have not used art from artists without permission.
Simplicity itself. Because some many people wrongly conflates the training data (the "model") and the tool ("the program"), when that's not the case. Now, many of the services like Midjourney and Bing are only offering one model, and we're pretty sure that model isn't ethically sourced. Stay away from them.

But you can download a standard diffusion program like automatic1111, and it doesn't come with a model. It meets your requirements by definition.

Now, can that tool use models that are only ethically sourced? Of course. I could train it just on my own artwork. I could use public domain works - because that's what being in the public domain means, everyone has free right to use it.

AI Art generating tools and the models they use are separate things. I'm all for ethically sourced models - I think we need to push hard and loud for that. I'm not for the buggy whip sellers who think that the automobile should just go away, I mean those against AI art generating tools in general.

Someone complained that "any Tom, Dick or Harry" can do art with it - that's a good thing in my book. Because there are times when I go to a restaurant to have a meal made by a professional chef, and there's times I want to throw pre-breaded chicken nuggets in the microwave. There's place for both. Just like digital brushes make things easier for digital artists and stock photos can make things easier for non-artists, AI Art can be a tool for artists and non-artists alike to use.

We need to get the copywrite laws enforced and likely expanded to push non-ethically sourced models out of the picture.
Last edited:

I still have to point out: AI-generated art is still trash. Not because of moral grounds, just because the art lacks context, direction, or understanding of the subject matter. Even if you can't tell it was generated by way of AI, it still tends to be trash quality. Any high-quality material produced by such engines tends to be either due to the RNG taking mercy upon you or you generating enough copies that you can mill one out of a thousand or so.

It's monkeys and typewriters, with the monkeys being replaced by "Lightning fast idiots with a pencil." (that's an ancient term for computers...)

Art Waring
I think we will get a coherent legal framework for generative AI over the next few years. This technology poses deep ethical questions, but it is too powerful to ignore. The main concern is ensuring that AI doesn't become a walled garden controlled by a small number of tech giants.

My concern is that a lot of the discussion at the Copyright Office isn't about protecting the rights of artists - it's about protecting corporate monopolies against competition. There are swarms of lobbyists working on swaying regulators worldwide that only incumbent players can be trusted with AI.

The weaponisation of intellectual property laws to crush dissent and reduce all artists to mere serfdom is well and truly underway.
Sadly, I have to agree.

Artists are in a really difficult position right now and I don't see things improving until we do establish some kind of guidelines for ethical uses for the tools.

Unfortunately, the walled garden approach is their current strategy (and not a new one). Its akin to techno-feudalism, because that's the direction the big tech companies want to go in. In the near future, we will essentially be digital serfs & vassals creating content for feudal digital overlords, who take a direct cut of anything content creators make.

All they have to do is sit back and collect fees, they don't have to produce anything of value. Creators are stuck in the middle. its not easy being an independent creator right now. It really isn't.


AI is bad for everything and should ideally be banned, except banning it is of course pretty much impossible so it's just a big waste of time.

Some people argue that it democratises art but what it does is centralise it under those who own and produce media. Why hire a cover artist when you can AI it? Why hire writers when you can AI it? This is going to **** everyone over for no benefit whatsoever. Social media is already overflowing with auto generated art.

Edit: I realise I might have gone a bit too political, but hope it's not too far out of line :p


What Kind of Bubble is AI?

Cory Doctorow has published a very astute article on AI hype in Locus, comparing it to previous tech bubbles. I agree with his central argument - the large AI models owned by tech giants are not economically viable in the long term. After the inevitable crash, AI is likely to become a tool helping existing artists rather than replacing them. The business model of the major AI companies is based on convincing governments that only they can be trusted to own the technology, prohibiting future competition. In the longer term, from open source competitors will threaten their existence unless they can secure regulatory restrictions ensuring a monopoly

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads