Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 8758291" data-attributes="member: 42856">It wouldn't matter. If I can get an AI to generate NPCs pictures for free, even if I must click a few times on the link thiswizarddoesnotexist before I get a good result for my evil necromancer, it is obviously much better than having a human work for me to do this. Unless I am interested in something very specific (assuming an AI can accept orders like "a guy wearing a crown") and I have a need for the feel I want to have, because it will be meaningful, AI is obviously better than manmade.D&D art is supposed to inspire. It sure can be directing inspiration toward the views the authors have envisionned, and that might require specific drawings that AI can not yet provide, but if they want to illustrate a necromancer, hey... I have an idea of what is a necromancer, sure, but I got that on a website mentionned here (wombo.art)[spoiler][ATTACH=full]260092[/ATTACH][/spoiler]It wasn't what I had in mind. It is more evocative of a lich for me, but the distorted image evocative of an imp familiar is great... it was certainly not what generated that but my mind is able to make sense of the images, and that's the exact inspiration I need. So I feel this artwork is totally successful in reaching the goal I assigned to it (and I'll probably save this illustration for a future NPC, even if I don't know yet who he'll be... To get a picture from a human, I'll certainly have to detail what I want and it's not feasible to commission random art just to see if something triggers creative juices.So to answer the poll, if D&D books had computer-generated art, I wouldn't see any problem. I guess they would still select the art and not randomly put AI-generated illustrations, so it would achieve the same as the illustrations that are currently inside the books.</blockquote>

Verification