Your thoughts on A.I. art creation

[LimpingFish]

I think you've got that the wrong way around. Someone using AI image generators probably does so because they only care about what they are creating, and much less about the other issues you and Limpingfish bring up (learning a skill, collaboration, providing an artist with an income, and all the ethical issues that have been mentioned).

Sure, none of my opinions will have any impact on those people to whom "art" is irrelevant, in the sense that it wouldn't even cross their mind. We can't assume they'll think about AI as anything more than another option on their phone.

But, if a person wants to work in the medium of illustration, and sees AI as a springboard to clear the "talent" obstacle, then I would alter the text "what they are creating" to "how they are benefiting." These are the people I would challenge, on the off chance it's simply a case of not knowing, rather than not caring, about any potential downfalls to using AI.

But I really do believe that within probably a single-digit number of years, practically all professional/commercial illustrators will use generative AI as part of their toolbox, much the same way practically every film made today uses CG - Complete rejection will be marginalized to "arts & crafts" hobbyist work on the one side, and "fine art" for a niche, luxury clientele on the other.

I disagree, not on any moral grounds, but simply looking at how Generative AI operates. The argument about what Generative AI can do, and how it will inevitably improve, is, at best, misguidedly optimistic. At worst, it's plain misguided. If anything, Generative AI will likely get worse, as data becomes more and more infected by Generative AI output, as less and less "clean" data is fed to it, and as algorithmic biases inevitably emerge. This isn't even taking into account that leaps in AI computational abilities are outpacing memory, network, and power technology advancements, resulting in a very real bottleneck in AI effectiveness.

But if you mean that, say, Photoshop will use AI in everything from the Magic Wand tool to color-correction, then yes, I would agree. I wouldn't even object to such a future. Using AI in lieu of "traditional" computing is potentially one of the more positive ways in which such technology could be implemented.

But, to go back to your earlier point, I can see mass adoption to be far more likely among the general public, simply due to it being forced into every type of product. If everyone buys an IPhone, and every IPhone is "powered" by AI, then by default you end up with (arguably involuntary) mass adoption. Whether this would lead to mass acceptance depends entirely on the product being offered. I suppose the same could be said about professional creatives, but while the general public may be happy with an AI chatbot, and something to fiddle with their photos and such, I'm not so sure about artists.

I also don't disagree that "traditionalist" cliques may form, much like how streaming has replaced mass-consumption of physical media, but a number of people still opt to purchase physical products. In fact, I'd point to the continued "enshittification" of digital media services as a cause in increasing numbers of people earning a new found respect for physical media. One might consider a similar response to AI in the future, as the same capitalistic forces chip away at any potential in the name of profit. But I would argue about just how niche such movements might prove to be.

I mean, I'm not simply pulling opinions out of the air; AI, in it's current form, is already showing it's limits, and tech companies are fully aware that to not address them is leaving themselves open to potential legal trouble. Look at Google's Gemini, and the small print that accompanies it's advertisements. You'll see terms such as "All results for illustrative purposes" or "Check responses for accuracy". Thanks, Gemini! Instead of just googling something, I ask a chatbot, and then google it anyway, because the chatbot isn't really intelligent at all and may be telling me to eat rocks. Never mind that algorithmic abuse has rendered Google as a search tool almost unusable. Or look at the ChatGPT update fiasco. Not exactly confidence-inspiring.

This article, by Cory Doctorow, though eighteen months old (a lifetime in tech), is worth a read, as it highlights just how unsustainable large AI models might prove to be, while also addressing the potentially positive outcome for the technology should the AI bubble burst.

Yet, presently I mostly use generative AI to help me build my backgrounds. Not just by writing a clever prompt. But mostly by using a photograph I made and ask the AI to create a background based on it in a certain pixel art style. And then use that as a basis to further edit it into something that fits in my game. Or I ask generative AI to make a nighttime version of a daytime background. So far I've managed to get a consistent enough style. And enough of myself in it to not make it feel as 'soulless' as Generative AI art often feels.

I would argue, looking at your examples, that AI is almost superfluous to your needs, though it may be saving you time. It seems like a case of removing a splinter with a samurai sword. The sword is sharp, and will likely remove your finger along with it, but it's quicker than poking at the splinter with a needle!

I'm not going to shout "No AI! Bad man!", though. If a quick result is the driving force behind your use of AI, as you've detailed your workflow, and despite Grok being trained on similarly questionable large datasets as Stable Diffusion or Midjourney, I'm not going to harangue you into not using it.

I will say that to achieve a similar style in a graphics package would likely require minimal extra work (a posterize filter, a little blurring, maybe a pixelize filter, some minor paint-overs, though maybe not even that), and provide a lot more control over the outcome, while removing the threat of inconsistency. If I was using Photoshop, say, I would create an automated action (run filter x, run blur, run filter y, etc), and simply apply the action to my photos, one by one. Fairly instant results, that cost an initial (minor?) expenditure of effort. But as I said, I'm not going to personally condemn you for doing otherwise.

I've not used it with having a picture as input, but I feel it'd be faster for me to just shrink down a photograph and pixel over it.

And this is the problem with a lot of AI; a false sense of time-saving. I think I've previously referenced (a number of times!) the case of the film editor who attempted to use Generative AI video in an experiment to judge just how it would measure up to a traditional editing pipeline. What they found was that, though AI could do some cool things, they needed to produce so many iterations (literally hundreds!) just to get something that was passably close to what they were trying to do, that any time gained over traditional time-sinks, was ultimately lost to new time-sinks inherent to AI. And this was just to get something passable!

[Zwiffer]

I would create an automated action (run filter x, run blur, run filter y, etc), and simply apply the action to my photos, one by one.

And that is the gist really. That is what you would do. For you it wouldn´t save time and give a sub par result. But since I´m presently not proficient enough with drawing software and I´m already investing a lot of learning time in learning to code in AGS and learning to create sprites and animations. The fact that I can make backgrounds relatively quickly to practise these new skills on is pretty great.

That said, I'm really enjoying creating my own characters and animations in Asesprite. So I can see myself taking that joy and knowlegde further into my backgrounds (with other drawing packs). I don't rule out the possibility that I will eventually redo all the backgrounds.

I'm really just a noob starting out. And the usage of AI for me is a huge kickstarter.

[LimpingFish]

Two Hollywood Giants Sue AI Image Engine Midjourney Calling It A 'Bottomless Pit Of Plagiarism'



EDIT: YouTube Can't Put Pandora's AI Slop Back in the Box

[LimpingFish]

https://www.destructoid.com/candy-crush-devs-laid-off-reportedly-replaced-by-ai/

Workers replaced by the AI they trained...



https://www.destructoid.com/james-cameron-joins-board-of-big-ai-company/

Those shitty 4K AI upscales make sense now...

[TheFrighter]

This sounds like the next speculative bubble.

_

[LimpingFish]

This sounds like the next speculative bubble.

https://gizmodo.com/wall-streets-ai-bubble-is-worse-than-the-1999-dot-com-bubble-warns-a-top-economist-2000630487

It's much worse, apparently.

EDIT: And, for a change, a non-judgemental look at the increase in GenAI being used in games recently released on Steam.

[Danvzare]

It's much worse, apparently.

I can't wait until it bursts. 

I know that it's the normal people like us who will be forced to bare the brunt of the impact from such a huge bubble bursting.
But things can't improve until it does. And hey, when it does, we all get to say "I told you so!"

[WHAM]

And, for a change, a non-judgemental look at the increase in GenAI being used in games recently released on Steam.

In a way this is quite interesting. It shows there are tons of people out there who want to make a game, but lack a team to work with. They might have a story idea but little programming skills, or they might be programmers capable of creating a game but lack the artistic talent to create even passable materials to fulfil their vision.

Sure, these people might have been able to find a group of people to work with or hired outside help, but in bringing in a group of people to work with you either need enough funds to act as an authority on the project, or you need the social skills and flexibility to navigate a team of equals that might lead to altered visions and outcomes, for better or for worse. As someone who is absolutely terrible at collaborating in projects, I can see a kind of value in there.

Now these people or smaller, more limited teams can be as antisocial as they want and create what they want, using machine generated content to patch up the gaps and release something where previously they might never have released anything. Seeing the state of Steam in the past years I do not see how the influx of games created with machine assistance would make thing any more bloated or worse, it's just a different brand of mass produced junk thrown onto the platform. And who knows, amidst that trash we might still find interesting creators and projects. A well written story does not (have to) become bad if it is acted out by machine generated sprites or 3D models, nor does a finely handcrafted visual style (have to) become bad if it is subjected to a wild and nonsensical story generated by a soulless machine.

To try and find some positive to this trend: it gives people who would not have created a finished project in the past a chance to create a finished project now. It might enable solo creators and smaller teams to achieve more than before, though this sort of broadening of the playing field always creates more trash as well, as we've seen with every step towards making art creation easier for the masses.

In this context I see this machine created content as a tool similar to AGS itself: it's a tool that enables people who lack the capability to program their own engine to create something they would not have been able to create otherwise. We might just as well scoff at one another for using AGS and not being REAL programmers who create their own engines, just as we might scoff at the creators of games who had to resort to machine generated content to patch up their project.

From "Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book." to "Times are bad. Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is using machines to create their games instead of doing it properly themselves."

[eri0o]

That equivalency is false, A.I. can and do use Copyrighted material ignoring it's license. For instance, my AGS modules have mit license, so if you use it I expect you mention me in your game credits. If you instead ask a machine to write the same module, the machine can spit the same, since my modules are open source, but it won't have my license, thus now you are using my work without mentioning me. I know since a significant part of the AGS script stuff on GitHub is written by me I see it trying to use just copy pasted code I wrote depending on how I prompt.

So you are not doing it "all alone" as you mentioned, the work is built on other people's work, you are just letting the machine washout the copyright.

I am really burned by this weird freedom A.I. companies suddenly got to ignore copyright and licenses, and struggle to get excited about tech these days. Most of tech related things I do at home now is playing with old equipment that is offline and requires none of these things.

[WHAM]

I don't question that aspect of it, eri0o, but the fact also remains that it's absolutely nothing new. Stolen spritesheets, colour swaps, stolen audio, video, text and other content has been a thing for as long as the internet has been a thing and beyond. I doubt anyone would claim with a straight face that no game in the AGS database contains questionably sourced assets nor that it has been a major issue for any of us, save perhaps some more bold and unique cases that I've missed over the years.

Hell, if that is the issue than my very first game here would have to be taken down for using stolen audio assets I snatched from Counter Strike and Half Life 2 sound assets without permission, hoping nobody would notice, because I was a kid at the time with no way of creating or purchasing suitable sounds.

So what these 'machine created' assets amount to in is little more than a more efficient and easy to use asset bank to draw from, with a built in toolset of muddling those stolen assets so that they begin to border between the grey area of stolen and new. If I as a human took a bunch of screenshots and videos from AGS games, drew on top of them to create "new" walkcycles, animations and sprites, I doubt many would notice anything at all, yet it'd still be pretty much exactly what the machine asset banks now do: taking a bunch of stuff I had no right to take, jumbling it all up and calling it 'new creation'.

EDIT: let me put my view a bit differently.

The cat has left the bag and is not going back into the bag.
A human can take other humans works, be 'inspired by' them to whatever degree and then 'create' new art based on that inspiration. We accept this as being fine.
A machine can take other humans works, run an algorithm that tries to mimic being 'inspired by' them to whatever degree and then 'mixes up' new art based on that inspiration.

As long as we accept one, I think we have to accept the other. And if we cannot accept either, then we've got a pretty major creative issue on our hands on rooting out the art that was illegitimately inspired by someone else's work without permission.

[eri0o]

The cat has not left the bag, the way this works is that you can not actually violate copyright laws, but a bigger company, with a powerful team of lawyers can.

My prediction is that you will have to pay as a person to use the works from these models a forever increasing fee, and at some point that will include royalties too. At some point there will be models you can run locally and they will watermark their output in some way to be able to automatically force you to pay said royalties - some mechanism like what exists on YouTube.

Anyway, I think you are thinking about the individual benefiting, which frankly, I don't see it, and what I am seeing is that big companies will use this to get more from the individual while giving less. The individual usage is just crumbles given, while the big companies will be getting bigger and bigger, and try to insert themselves in everything until they will make you think you depend on them.

[Snarky]

And who knows, amidst that trash we might still find interesting creators and projects. A well written story does not (have to) become bad if it is acted out by machine generated sprites or 3D models, nor does a finely handcrafted visual style (have to) become bad if it is subjected to a wild and nonsensical story generated by a soulless machine.

A good example is The Roottrees Are Dead, a kind of indie adventure/puzzle game (along the lines of Her Story and Obra Dinn) where you are researching a family tree. A great game, it was originally released with AI art, which worked really well to produce the large number of family photos needed. When it got a commercial re-release, Jeremy Johnston hired an artist (Henning Ludvigson) to redo the graphics for the remaster.