Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Glory of the Giants' AI-Enhanced Art
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9089274" data-attributes="member: 42856"><p>There are several ways of framing the problem.</p><p></p><p>If the problem is... AI art is not good.</p><p>Then let the market decide, no artist is threatend since... it is not good. Only producers of bad art might be threatened, but if their goal was to create bad art, they can become prompt engineer and sell bad art to their usual client for a fraction of the effort needed so far. I do feel it's the weakest argument since progress has been huge over the last few month and it's only a question of time before AI art is of enough quality to satisfy a large part of the audience (who, also, might not be expert enough to mind problematic details. Mickey Mouse has become a popular character despite missing a finger).</p><p></p><p>If the problem is... AI are illegally trained (from the claim that the authors didn't agree to license their art for that)</p><p>Then the problem is <em>transient</em>. It won't take long to have AI trained in Turkmenistan, which according to the US patent office doesn't have copyright laws (whether it is because they never needed them or because they don't believe in a state-sponsored monopoly granted to authors). Also, even without locating a subsidiary in Turkmenistan, at some point enough people will get an Adobe Firefly licence (or another model trained only on public domain art, like mitsua-diffusion). Maybe not everyone, and certainly not the masses who just uses AI to recreate the likeliness of their RPG character to put on the character sheet without having to learn painting, or the masses who just want to generate images of skimily-clad waifus, but professionals likke the one discussed in this thread will certainly afford a Photoshop licence.</p><p></p><p>If the problem is... the claim that an artwork created with IA is a derivative work from, err, anything it was trained for,</p><p>Then it's an interesting legal discussion. Which will probably have a lot of different answers with 190+ countries. For example, according the Bern convention, a derivative work must be a creative work that can enjoy copyright protection. As the US (apparently, I read it in this thread) ruled that AI art can't be copyrighted, by definition it's not a derivative work. But other jurisdiction might have a different approach.</p><p></p><p>If the problem is... the claim that models contain copyrighted works and so they can't be distributed</p><p>Then the problem is lack of understanding of the part of the speaker, and the discussion would focus around educating people on how AI works, as it will be an increasing part of our lives. They are around the corner and understanding AI is certainly a useful skill to get.</p><p></p><p>If the problem is "only legal, not ethical",</p><p>Then it's only a transient problem. In 100 or so years, all of the current art will be public domain. In the interim, all the public domain art will have made its way in digital form with the increase of capacity on the Internet and it will be trivial to build a legal AI model. If the problem isn't ethical, all the questions about the future of artists and whether they can be competitive are temporary, until public domain absorbs enough artwork to make AI training viable. Also, these questions are out of the scope of the case where one of the 190+ countries decides that IA training is fair use -- a position that is a possible outcome. Both Google and Adobe are pushing for a "do not train" tag, implying that they are looking forward to an implicit authorization regime (the second best outcome for them outside of fair use).</p><p></p><p>If the problem is ethical, in the sense that copyright laws don't protect artists enough,</p><p>Then it's an interesting ethical discussion on the correct level of protection an artist should have over its creations. But it's not limited to images and could very well branch into adventure writing. Also, it is a topic that would cover the questions about the future of artists (once the current art is public domain and automatic-artist-replacement are legally feasible without copyright consideration).</p><p></p><p>If the problem is ethical in the sense that art is the product of an artist, so a random guy typing a prompt isn't doing art...</p><p>Then it's an ethical problem, but a very different one from the ones usually discussed. It's an interesting take, which would discount collective artworks (where you can hire a team of artists and instruct them to paint parts of a canvas according to your general specification, and you'd be the copyright holder once you publish the art, even if you don't know what a brush is. While generally accepted, it can be an ethical topic as well.</p><p></p><p>If the problem is ethical in the sense that using artist name in a prompt is very close to plagiarizing said artist,</p><p>Then the discussion is part ethical, part technical. The tech aspect is in prompting/training: (unless artists have a definite style like Mucha, the names in the prompt don't really do a lot... plug names of different impressionist artists, you'll get an impressionist artwork, but it will be difficult to distinguish between Pissaro and Morisot). So the technical part would be to identify keyword that lead to the same result as mentionning an artist name ("worthy of WOTC"?). Also, improving the captioning and traning algorithm to avoid silly things like "since all art by X has a signature, then I am approaching a better work by X by generating a signature). It's also part ethical because nothing in generative IA force one to prompt with "in the style of Corot" instead of "in the style of a Barbizon school painter". The ethicality might not lie with the tool, but with the way people are using it.</p><p></p><p>If the problem is ethical, in the sense that artists deserve income to live and do art,</p><p>Then it's an interesting ethical discussion on whether using employment vs capital as a mean to distribute riches is appropriate to a post-labor society. It isn't limited to art, since after all, the problem with "art" is just that artists usually enjoy their work and we can guess that miners or factory workers didn't enjoy breaking their back doing those jobs. But it's very possible that truck drivers and taxi drivers actually enjoy driving (or plane drivers...) and yet there will be soon a point where they will become unneeded.</p><p></p><p>I am not sure all those discussions can be solved in a single thread, where people will be approaching different things and answering each other while actually discussing widely different problems.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jfdlsjfd, post: 9089274, member: 42856"] There are several ways of framing the problem. If the problem is... AI art is not good. Then let the market decide, no artist is threatend since... it is not good. Only producers of bad art might be threatened, but if their goal was to create bad art, they can become prompt engineer and sell bad art to their usual client for a fraction of the effort needed so far. I do feel it's the weakest argument since progress has been huge over the last few month and it's only a question of time before AI art is of enough quality to satisfy a large part of the audience (who, also, might not be expert enough to mind problematic details. Mickey Mouse has become a popular character despite missing a finger). If the problem is... AI are illegally trained (from the claim that the authors didn't agree to license their art for that) Then the problem is [I]transient[/I]. It won't take long to have AI trained in Turkmenistan, which according to the US patent office doesn't have copyright laws (whether it is because they never needed them or because they don't believe in a state-sponsored monopoly granted to authors). Also, even without locating a subsidiary in Turkmenistan, at some point enough people will get an Adobe Firefly licence (or another model trained only on public domain art, like mitsua-diffusion). Maybe not everyone, and certainly not the masses who just uses AI to recreate the likeliness of their RPG character to put on the character sheet without having to learn painting, or the masses who just want to generate images of skimily-clad waifus, but professionals likke the one discussed in this thread will certainly afford a Photoshop licence. If the problem is... the claim that an artwork created with IA is a derivative work from, err, anything it was trained for, Then it's an interesting legal discussion. Which will probably have a lot of different answers with 190+ countries. For example, according the Bern convention, a derivative work must be a creative work that can enjoy copyright protection. As the US (apparently, I read it in this thread) ruled that AI art can't be copyrighted, by definition it's not a derivative work. But other jurisdiction might have a different approach. If the problem is... the claim that models contain copyrighted works and so they can't be distributed Then the problem is lack of understanding of the part of the speaker, and the discussion would focus around educating people on how AI works, as it will be an increasing part of our lives. They are around the corner and understanding AI is certainly a useful skill to get. If the problem is "only legal, not ethical", Then it's only a transient problem. In 100 or so years, all of the current art will be public domain. In the interim, all the public domain art will have made its way in digital form with the increase of capacity on the Internet and it will be trivial to build a legal AI model. If the problem isn't ethical, all the questions about the future of artists and whether they can be competitive are temporary, until public domain absorbs enough artwork to make AI training viable. Also, these questions are out of the scope of the case where one of the 190+ countries decides that IA training is fair use -- a position that is a possible outcome. Both Google and Adobe are pushing for a "do not train" tag, implying that they are looking forward to an implicit authorization regime (the second best outcome for them outside of fair use). If the problem is ethical, in the sense that copyright laws don't protect artists enough, Then it's an interesting ethical discussion on the correct level of protection an artist should have over its creations. But it's not limited to images and could very well branch into adventure writing. Also, it is a topic that would cover the questions about the future of artists (once the current art is public domain and automatic-artist-replacement are legally feasible without copyright consideration). If the problem is ethical in the sense that art is the product of an artist, so a random guy typing a prompt isn't doing art... Then it's an ethical problem, but a very different one from the ones usually discussed. It's an interesting take, which would discount collective artworks (where you can hire a team of artists and instruct them to paint parts of a canvas according to your general specification, and you'd be the copyright holder once you publish the art, even if you don't know what a brush is. While generally accepted, it can be an ethical topic as well. If the problem is ethical in the sense that using artist name in a prompt is very close to plagiarizing said artist, Then the discussion is part ethical, part technical. The tech aspect is in prompting/training: (unless artists have a definite style like Mucha, the names in the prompt don't really do a lot... plug names of different impressionist artists, you'll get an impressionist artwork, but it will be difficult to distinguish between Pissaro and Morisot). So the technical part would be to identify keyword that lead to the same result as mentionning an artist name ("worthy of WOTC"?). Also, improving the captioning and traning algorithm to avoid silly things like "since all art by X has a signature, then I am approaching a better work by X by generating a signature). It's also part ethical because nothing in generative IA force one to prompt with "in the style of Corot" instead of "in the style of a Barbizon school painter". The ethicality might not lie with the tool, but with the way people are using it. If the problem is ethical, in the sense that artists deserve income to live and do art, Then it's an interesting ethical discussion on whether using employment vs capital as a mean to distribute riches is appropriate to a post-labor society. It isn't limited to art, since after all, the problem with "art" is just that artists usually enjoy their work and we can guess that miners or factory workers didn't enjoy breaking their back doing those jobs. But it's very possible that truck drivers and taxi drivers actually enjoy driving (or plane drivers...) and yet there will be soon a point where they will become unneeded. I am not sure all those discussions can be solved in a single thread, where people will be approaching different things and answering each other while actually discussing widely different problems. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Glory of the Giants' AI-Enhanced Art
Top