WotC So it seems D&D has picked a side on the AI art debate.

[J.Quondam]

Playing around on Dream and I got this when asking for an elf paladin riding a unicorn, I think it's brilliant (even with all the weird mistakes)!
View attachment 278123

What makes that extra-awesome is that the farther down you scroll, the weirder it gets.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Playing around on Dream and I got this when asking for an elf paladin riding a unicorn, I think it's brilliant (even with all the weird mistakes)!
View attachment 278123

Who gave Lisa Frank the LSD?

 

[cbwjm]

What makes that extra-awesome is that the farther down you scroll, the weirder it gets.

Yep, I actually missed that weird looking 5th leg of the bottom unicorn until I posted, and the top unicorn looks like it is some sort of reverse centaur

 

[theCourier]

Everyone who's dunking on how the art looks is missing the point of it all. It doesn't matter that it looks goofy now, or doesn't draw hands well, because the method of creation is unethical.

Is it going to be ok for it to exist once it looks better? Is that really what it all hinges upon? No.

 

[cbwjm]

Is it going to be ok for it to exist once it looks better?

Yeah, it will be OK for it to exist.

 

[Clint_L]

Also, as someone already pointed out, outsider art is a thing. The notion that humans can’t create art without an preexisting art backlog to draw from just does not hold water.

I'm trying to think of a single example, and failing. Outsider art does not mean the artists have no exposure to art, it just means they are not really part of the art world. New knowledge doesn't come out of a vacuum; it normally happens by bending, breaking, recombining, blending other knowledge. To claim ownership of an idea, you have to show have added enough originality to make it unique; I don't see why I can't do that using an AI.

Earlier, I posed you a thought experiment that, to my knowledge, you never answered. But I'm curious to see what others think.

If I get my neighbour, who is a talented artist, to study a bunch of Frank Frazetta art so I can pay them to do me a painting of my D&D character in that exact style, is it art? Is it ethical?

Because I think it would be both art and ethical. And I'm not sure I see the difference between that and what an AI "artist" is doing.

 

[see]

I still have yet to see an argument about AI art being "unethical" that doesn't translate to either "Andy Warhol's unethical career was based on theft" or "Well, Andy Warhol had a soul and the AI doesn't have one."

As I don't particularly care about various religious dogmas, only the former argument has any space to move me.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

AI is only a tool, but your effort and creativity are more important. With AI you can create hiperealistic images of Dragonlance characters, for example, but these will be only in portrait pose but if somebody creates previously certain software files. Some times the AI only retouchs a sketch created previously by an artist.

 

[Jadeite]

I still think it's less about ethics in art and more about the justified fear of losing one's livelihood, which, while tragic for those affected, has happened many times throughout history (like photography making portraits more widely available). Many jobs done by programmers today might also become automated in the future.
Similar to Poser art, it gives less artistically talented people a way of expressing themselves, even if the results can be somewhat lacking.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm trying to think of a single example, and failing. Outsider art does not mean the artists have no exposure to art, it just means they are not really part of the art world. New knowledge doesn't come out of a vacuum; it normally happens by bending, breaking, recombining, blending other knowledge.

I’m not saying humans don’t build on existing knowledge (or existing art). I’m saying they can create art without drawing on existing art, which algorithms cannot. The fact that art exists at all is proof that humans can create art without drawing on existing art.

To claim ownership of an idea, you have to show have added enough originality to make it unique; I don't see why I can't do that using an AI.

I am not making any claims about who owns art generated by algorithms. I said several pages back, that’s a complex legal question that I have no answer to. I am talking about the ethics of how those algorithms function, not about legal ownership.

Earlier, I posed you a thought experiment that, to my knowledge, you never answered. But I'm curious to see what others think.

If I get my neighbour, who is a talented artist, to study a bunch of Frank Frazetta art so I can pay them to do me a painting of my D&D character in that exact style, is it art? Is it ethical?

Yes, it’s art, and it isn’t unethical.

Because I think it would be both art and ethical. And I'm not sure I see the difference between that and what an AI "artist" is doing.

Your hypothetical neighbor may be imitating Frank Frazetta’s style, but they are still using their own brain, their own experiences, and their own learned skills to accomplish that task. While it may or may not resemble a Frank Frazetta piece, it is still fundamentally your neighbor’s creation. That’s not how algorithms work. They do not have brains, they do not have experiences, they do not have learned skills. They are (admittedly very complex) mathematical formulas that sample art without the knowledge or permission of the artists, and recombine that art. An artist may think about other art that inspires them or that they wish to imitate, but they are ultimately always interpreting that art through their own lens. An algorithm cannot think and has no lens through which to interpret art. It can only reproduce other art.