What AI art can't do. And why maybe that doesn't really matter :-(

[Bill Zebub]

Question for the (strongly anti-AI) community: would you ever back a Kickstarter that promised to deliver only human-made art, but needed the Kickstarter to pay for that art, and therefore used AI to generate example/conceptual art, to make the Kickstarter more visually appealing?

I think there's a secondary use, as well: times when I've hired artists (illustrators, graphic designers, and also architects) I have struggled to put my requests and ideas into the correct words, and there has been a lot of (expensive) back-and-forth as I say, "No, no, that's not what I meant...". I'd rather do that iteration myself, working with AI, and then look at the results with the artist in order to have a more concrete discussion.

 

[Morrus]

Question for the (strongly anti-AI) community: would you ever back a Kickstarter that promised to deliver only human-made art, but needed the Kickstarter to pay for that art, and therefore used AI to generate example/conceptual art, to make the Kickstarter more visually appealing?

I would not. I am happy to back a Kickstarter which doesn’t have art yet. They don’t need to use AI to convince me, and that will push me away not draw me in.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I would not. I am happy to back a Kickstarter which doesn’t have art yet. They don’t need to use AI to convince me, and that will push me away not draw me in.

Can I ask why temporary AI art would be worse than one with no art? What does that use signal to you, that would push you away?

 

[Morrus]

Can I ask why temporary AI art would be worse than one with no art? What does that use signal to you, that would push you away?

You can ask, but honestly I’ve explained my positions on generative AI so many times on this forum, I just can’t face doing so again. Sorry.

I feel I’m clearly and publicly on record many times over and the thought of having the same conversation yet again in the same thread yet again for the 381st time is enough to drive me to drink. It’s excruciating!

 

[Bill Zebub]

You can ask, but honestly I’ve explained my positions on generative AI so many times on this forum, I just can’t face doing so again. Sorry.

I feel I’m clearly and publicly on record many times over and the thought of having the same conversation yet again in the same thread yet again for the 381st time is enough to drive me to drink. It’s excruciating!

Ah, sorry; I mostly try to stay away from the AI threads.

 

[Dire Bare]

Question for the (strongly anti-AI) community: would you ever back a Kickstarter that promised to deliver only human-made art, but needed the Kickstarter to pay for that art, and therefore used AI to generate example/conceptual art, to make the Kickstarter more visually appealing?

No.

AI-generated art used in marketing and promotion is a no-go for me. Even if the publisher promises to replace it with human-generated art later, if certain funding goals are met.

 

[ART!]

Question for the (strongly anti-AI) community: would you ever back a Kickstarter that promised to deliver only human-made art, but needed the Kickstarter to pay for that art, and therefore used AI to generate example/conceptual art, to make the Kickstarter more visually appealing?

I think there's a secondary use, as well: times when I've hired artists (illustrators, graphic designers, and also architects) I have struggled to put my requests and ideas into the correct words, and there has been a lot of (expensive) back-and-forth as I say, "No, no, that's not what I meant...". I'd rather do that iteration myself, working with AI, and then look at the results with the artist in order to have a more concrete discussion.

This reminds me of the dangers of temp-tracking during film production. This is when the director, editor, et al will drop in pre-existing music while editing a movie. They do this to get feel for what the film or a scene will feel like, and/or to suggest to a film score composer the kind of music they're looking for. The problem with this approach is that a composer can't help but be influenced by the pre-existing music, especially if they're pressed for time. Over time, as a result, you wind up with movies of similar types that have very similar music in similar kinds of scenes, and it all feels very formulaic.

I would not. I am happy to back a Kickstarter which doesn’t have art yet. They don’t need to use AI to convince me, and that will push me away not draw me in.

Same.

Also, as much as I love me some nice art, ultimately the art in a ttrpg book does not effect whether I use or enjoy the nuts and bolts of that product. So promoting it with "AI"-generated images - even if I wasn't opposed to such things - is not going to push me to back the project.

Also also: there's no guarantee that those images will be an accurate predictor of what the final, human-made art would actually look like. Things happen, priorities change, budgets change, artist availability changes, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

AI art can not be copyrighted. At least not in the US.

There is growing awareness and backlash against AI-generated art amongst consumers.

AI tools are run by techbros who use the enshittification playbook.

But, AI tools are getting better and better . . . .

Most small time publishers who use AI-generated art, IMO, create obviously crap art for their books.

Unless there's blatant errors in the art (too many/few fingers, anachronistic elements, etc.) most of us plebes can't tell, and can't be bothered to look for, the difference between a) AI art, b) human-made art, and c) a combination of both.

To me, c) there is the key. If a human artist uses AI as part of the art-making process, where's the harm?

 

[zakael19]

Question for the (strongly anti-AI) community: would you ever back a Kickstarter that promised to deliver only human-made art, but needed the Kickstarter to pay for that art, and therefore used AI to generate example/conceptual art, to make the Kickstarter more visually appealing?

I think there's a secondary use, as well: times when I've hired artists (illustrators, graphic designers, and also architects) I have struggled to put my requests and ideas into the correct words, and there has been a lot of (expensive) back-and-forth as I say, "No, no, that's not what I meant...". I'd rather do that iteration myself, working with AI, and then look at the results with the artist in order to have a more concrete discussion.

I was just reading article about incredible success Slay the Spire 2's placeholder art being intentionally and clearly not AI. It's wonderfully charming quick sketch stuff that's the sort of "rapid storyboard" concept that you'd hand to a real artist to fill in with their vision and consistency later. It doesn't promise something that will change later (eg: AI art that differs from the final direction or house style); nor does it bind your artists into trying to match something you've shown on a KS page (and also make genuine artists have a sad when you hand them a bunch of AI crap).

As somebody who has commissioned a good bit of art to the tune of thousands of dollars spent, I've never had an issue with giving a set of references and like really crappy sketch art and getting glorious results even better then anything I had in mind back.

 

[Morrus]

To me, c) there is the key. If a human artist uses AI as part of the art-making process, where's the harm?

I think you’ve read and been involved with enough threads on that exact subject that you know what the arguments against it are. Do we have to do it yet again? At this point I could write a (non AI) script to just fill these identical threads. Nobody says anything different or new. Much like AI, come to think of it.