D&D General Would It Matter To You if D&D Books Were Illustrated by AI Instead of Humans?

Would It Matter To You if D&D Books Were Illustrated by AI Instead of Humans?

  • No

    Votes: 58 29.0%
  • Yes

    Votes: 142 71.0%

One difference here is that US copyright law recognizes a fair use for educational purposes.
now look at what they call what they do with the AI... teach, show, educate. that is the weird part.
You would be able to, as a teacher, show your students other peoples' work so they can learn from them and those artists would not have to be paid nor would their copyrights be violated.
and I am sure the founder of the AIs (rightly or wrongly I have no idea but I do lean toward the artist) will say that is all they are doing, useing fair use to show and teach a artificial student.
And your students could copy the hell out of them as much as they wanted to learn the techniques and for you to evaluate their progress.
yup
 

log in or register to remove this ad

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
now look at what they call what they do with the AI... teach, show, educate. that is the weird part.

and I am sure the founder of the AIs (rightly or wrongly I have no idea but I do lean toward the artist) will say that is all they are doing, useing fair use to show and teach a artificial student.
An important difference here is in how that is accomplished and how the AI "student" stores what it learns. It's impossible for a human brain to store a copy of someone's art with the kind of reproducible fidelity that a digitized copy can be stored by an artificial storage or reproduction method. Is that information stored by the AI as it learns an illegally distributed copy of a protected artwork? Is anything generated from that stored information an infringement of the works it is derived from?
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
An important difference here is in how that is accomplished and how the AI "student" stores what it learns. It's impossible for a human brain to store a copy of someone's art with the kind of reproducible fidelity that a digitized copy can be stored by an artificial storage or reproduction method. Is that information stored by the AI as it learns an illegally distributed copy of a protected artwork? Is anything generated from that stored information an infringement of the works it is derived from?
Sounds like an issue of fairness based on substantially different capabilities.
 


gnarlygninja

Explorer
It doesn't seem that complicated or nuanced to me, taking someone's work without their consent and using it to make money for yourself without paying or even crediting them is wrong. Full stop.
 

It doesn't seem that complicated or nuanced to me, taking someone's work without their consent and using it to make money for yourself without paying or even crediting them is wrong. Full stop.
except again... what is the point you are using fair use and what is the point you are 'taking without consent' when do you need consent? does every college or high school or middle school (here in the states there may not be many left at that level) art teacher need your permission to teach with your art as an example?
If I can google your art (even an NFT) and look at it and say "Oh I see the inspiration" is it wrong to have an AI do the same?

In Scifi we have MANY levels of AI, but I always think of it as "No one thinks the starship enterprise is alive... but most of us agree data and lore are." so would it be unethical for the enterprise computer to study your art? what about data? at what point is it okay or not?
 

gnarlygninja

Explorer
I don't believe I've said anything about fair use, but AI training wouldn't fall under it. Using art educationally is completely different from training AI beyond some superficial resemblance because similar language is used.
And I could not care less about the ethics of science fiction AI studying art. They're not real, there's no reason to believe AI like that will ever exist, and it certainly doesn't exist now. Until then Data looking at NFTs seems about as relevant as imagining the innkeeper from the Prancing Pony taking a trip to the Getty.
 

Bagpuss

Legend
First the genie is out of the bottle so to speak. AI art isn't going to go away much like the luddites didn't succeed in preventing the industrial revolution.

Recently Chaosium, Stygian Fox Publishing and Kickstarter have all come out with statements generally against the use AI art.

Stygian Fox have pointed out however the practically of not using it, they use Adobe stock art as the basis for a number of their projects and Adobe don't mention if the art is AI created or not. They have contacted Adobe, and currently Adobe don't think it is an issue.

Shutterstock, GettyImages and others don't label AI art currently.

So it puts companies in a difficult position.

They can say no to AI Art, but what if they are use to using Stock Art of models for character portraits, but those images are created by something like This Person Does Not Exist and they aren't to know. Or they use some other piece that later turns out to be AI generated.

What if an artist uses AI for create references? At what point is it AI, or an artists work.

Also currently most AI takes training, and curating to make it passable and usable, unless it is doing something like a headshot. Look at amount of work this fella put into faking his life with AI for a month.


The number of images he is looking through and discarding, the weird hands on some, some of images are just a bit off, etc. Considering the effort needed to be convincing, is AI just another tool, it seems there is still a "job" involved in getting it right.

I vote Yes for but for ethical reasons, practically you aren't going to be able to spot what is and what isn't in a years time. Even now if someone curates the AI, and trains it well, then it is going win competitions, without people telling until it is announced as such.
 
Last edited:

Warpiglet-7

Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
If the AI painted fewer tieflings shooting lasers from their horns and asses and more warriors in medieval inspired armor, I am in.

I don’t want anyone out of a job of course but it’s hard to turn back progress.

Fewer machines so more people are needed in the field? Less word processors so we need more secretaries to type and use white out? Less AI sow we can have more painters?

I cannot turn back time. However I can decide if there is utility in the old methods. Right now I would prefer human created art because it’s more evocative.

In time it may not be.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top