Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9238044" data-attributes="member: 18">No.I understand that neither of you are artists (at least in the sense of using digital tools), but you're just making stuff up. There are two issues here:1) You can require, as [USER=6780330]@Parmandur[/USER] correctly points out, proof of work. If you actually did the art, in any normal way, you have this. Period.2) You can forbid the use of AI generative tools, and make it part of your contract, and assess penalties if this contract is violated. So someone may try to sneak AI art by you, but it would be very stupid for them to do so, because the consequences would be serious.The issue here was that WotC did neither - they've required product art to be non-AI for a while, but they didn't do the same with promotional art. Nor did they ask for proof of work, clearly.Also [USER=6807152]@Scribe[/USER], you're significantly overstating the progress. It wasn't &quot;a year ago&quot; (though sure, COVID etc. may make it feel that way) that AI art looked like you describe, it was multiple years ago, and the rate of improvement has declined drastically, and will continue to decline, especially as we're likely to increasingly see AI art face more regulatory challenges, potentially being sent &quot;back to the drawing board&quot;, and so on. The next steps forwards for AI art tools are likely to be usability-related, moving away from carefully-worded and often tricksy prompts to more straightforward selections.Conceptually sure. Practically no. There's no blockchain which can handle large image files well, not without costing people involved huge amounts of money. It's a very long story but yet another place the blockchain ends up failing. There has rarely been as much of a solution in search of a problem. It's much easier and cheaper to just email the dude proof of work (i.e. your layered, unfinished image files from the creation process) than mess around with that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9238044, member: 18"] No. I understand that neither of you are artists (at least in the sense of using digital tools), but you're just making stuff up. There are two issues here: 1) You can require, as [USER=6780330]@Parmandur[/USER] correctly points out, proof of work. If you actually did the art, in any normal way, you have this. Period. 2) You can forbid the use of AI generative tools, and make it part of your contract, and assess penalties if this contract is violated. So someone may try to sneak AI art by you, but it would be very stupid for them to do so, because the consequences would be serious. The issue here was that WotC did neither - they've required product art to be non-AI for a while, but they didn't do the same with promotional art. Nor did they ask for proof of work, clearly. Also [USER=6807152]@Scribe[/USER], you're significantly overstating the progress. It wasn't "a year ago" (though sure, COVID etc. may make it feel that way) that AI art looked like you describe, it was multiple years ago, and the rate of improvement has declined drastically, and will continue to decline, especially as we're likely to increasingly see AI art face more regulatory challenges, potentially being sent "back to the drawing board", and so on. The next steps forwards for AI art tools are likely to be usability-related, moving away from carefully-worded and often tricksy prompts to more straightforward selections. Conceptually sure. Practically no. There's no blockchain which can handle large image files well, not without costing people involved huge amounts of money. It's a very long story but yet another place the blockchain ends up failing. There has rarely been as much of a solution in search of a problem. It's much easier and cheaper to just email the dude proof of work (i.e. your layered, unfinished image files from the creation process) than mess around with that. [/QUOTE]

Verification