WotC WotC: 'Artists Must Refrain From Using AI Art Generation'

After it was revealed this week that one of the artists for Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants used artificial intelligence as part of their process when creating some of the book's images, Wizards of the Coast has made a short statement via the D&D Beyond Twitter (X?) account.

The statement is in image format, so I've transcribed it below.

Today we became aware that an artist used AI to create artwork for the upcoming book, Bigby Presents: Glory of the Giants. We have worked with this artist since 2014 and he's put years of work into book we all love. While we weren't aware of the artist's choice to use AI in the creation process for these commissioned pieces, we have discussed with him, and he will not use AI for Wizards' work moving forward. We are revising our process and updating our artist guidelines to make clear that artists must refrain from using AI art generation as part of their art creation process for developing D&D art.

-Wizards of the Coast​

Ilya Shkipin, the artist in question, talked about AI's part in his process during the week, but has since deleted those posts.

There is recent controversy on whether these illustrations I made were ai generated. AI was used in the process to generate certain details or polish and editing. To shine some light on the process I'm attaching earlier versions of the illustrations before ai had been applied to enhance details. As you can see a lot of painted elements were enhanced with ai rather than generated from ground up.

-Ilya Shlipin​

​

 

[cbwjm]

This is the over-reaction I expected from WotC.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm really curious if the managers/bean counters who make those decisions wonder if they can also be replaced?

There have been Hollywood executives insisting that they cannot be replaced with AI, which is hilarious, given that all they're allegedly doing is evaluating which proposed projects will be successful based on past data and then managing spending on ongoing projects, which are both tasks that absolutely we can teach software to do, especially given that these executives get paid millions of dollars, so it's incredibly cost effective to replace them ASAP.

Replacing extras with AI-generated actors, in contrast, is extremely stupid, because extras are dirt cheap. At this point, it's not a big financial win to cut them out of the process.

 

[Charlaquin]

"Since the majority of people need to work to survive" was the quote. It was a specific quote from a specific person. I was looking for clarification on their thoughts.

It’s a pretty straightforward statement. For the vast majority of people, no work means no money, and money is necessary to obtain basic necessities like food and shelter.

 

[Zardnaar]

There have been Hollywood executives insisting that they cannot be replaced with AI, which is hilarious, given that all they're allegedly doing is evaluating which proposed projects will be successful based on past data and then managing spending on ongoing projects, which are both tasks that absolutely we can teach software to do, especially given that these executives get paid millions of dollars, so it's incredibly cost effective to replace them ASAP.

Replacing extras with AI-generated actors, in contrast, is extremely stupid, because extras are dirt cheap. At this point, it's not a big financial win to cut them out of the process.

The idea is they xan use the extras forever and on the off chance sonebof them strike it big.....

 

[CapnZapp]

The headline can be read to imply restrictions on people playing D&D.

Thankfully, it only applies to artwork commissioned by WotC for their official products.

The former would not be okay. The latter is perfectly fine - WotC can create their art however they want.

 

[orial]

The wolves had human hands for paws.

Have you seen it youself, or just go with the flow? Looking at the art, i can't say they are human hands. Looks like paws to me.

 

[Blue]

I've written about this before in the Unpopular Opinions thread: https://www.enworld.org/threads/unpopular-opinions-go-here.698817/page-51#post-9079308

But let me just tell you, on a global scale it is not possible to put this genie back in the bottle. AI is here, in art, in chat, and the challenge is not trying to say "No!" because that will at best just cause a local gap, even if that local is the size of a nation. The challenge is adapting to the new norm, just like we've adapted to everything throughout history from windmills or waterwheels grinding flour and saving labor to selective breeding creating multiple different modern vegetables.

And yes, part of that adaption can be "this part is unethical, we don't accept it". But that doesn't mean it can't be done ethically, and the technology is still here.

 

[orial]

The Lary Elmore's who really paint by hand with real paint and brush for weeks are long gone (sadly).
I have no problem with AI art, if it looks cool it looks cool ( i know that it's difficult to give credits to the original artitst whose art is used, that is a thing that must be worked out).
Everyone has their eyes now on WOTC, but i asure you that AI art is used by lot's of other developers. Enhancing art is what photshop is doing for years.
This art in question was just enhanced, not stolen buy any artist.
The proces with using concept art from one artist to be used by another is how it's done for years.
i'm curious about the future.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Have you seen it youself, or just go with the flow? Looking at the art, i can't say they are human hands. Looks like paws to me.

I have seen it and it's not too far off. They honestly look more like hands than proper paws, but the blobbiness of it all makes it difficult anyways. The back paws honestly might look even worse, and they also resemble closed hands a bit.

 

[Nikosandros]

Have you seen it youself, or just go with the flow? Looking at the art, i can't say they are human hands. Looks like paws to me.

Indeed. They are not human-looking at all.