Your thoughts on A.I. art creation

[Racoon]

So I saw this video concerning "Midjourney" an app that can create images from word prompts today:

and was pretty mindblown.

Afterwards I tried it for myself and the thing is really as good as it is shown in the video.

There is a lively discussion about what apps like these mean for the creative industry and it got me thinking about that too. Of course you can not generate the precise idea you have in your head, but I was thinking that if you are looking for something like a book or album cover or an character for your board game, it may be good enough to use this and if you want to, let an artist do some finishing touches.

I am kind of divided between thinking this is a great source of inspiration and it lets the value of art drop.

I would be very interested to know what you think about this topic :-)


By the way, an similar discussion can be applied to music as there are also AI apps being designed to cover that. I tried https://www.ampermusic.com/ and created some pretty catchy tunes with it.

[Mandle]

They are pretty amazing. There's a few next-gen ones in testing that are mind-blowing. It seems possible to join the testing, but I think you need some kind of credentials or at least a reason.

I heard that one of the biggest hurdles they are facing before release is making them "safe". They are SO realistic that they could be used to generate illegal or defamatory content quite simply, even videos that look pretty much indistinguishable from reality, and they are learning more and more and getting better all the time.

I'm actually a bit worried. Sure, they can lock them somehow to avoid questionable or despicable creations, but someone will always find a way to unlock them, or clone the technology without the safeguards in place.

We already live pretty much in a post-truth world. What's it gonna be like when someone could, say, create a video of a world leader or celebrity kicking their dog? I use a tame-ish example here because I don't wanna go too dark, but it doesn't take too much imagination to see how harmful the tech could be, if unleashed with no safety switch.

A.I. can already pretty much fake audio of a person talking so well that even expert analysis cannot distinguish it from the real thing, or at least will be able to soon. Not an expert.

But what's it gonna be like when video can also be faked perfectly?

Audio and video evidence will be very difficult, if not impossible, to use in court cases, perhaps? Will we have to go back to the days of witness testimony and such? Back to the Sherlock Holmes era of crime deduction?! Or maybe we'll just have mind-reading machines soon and court cases will become pretty much obsolete anyway?

One idea I had was: Perhaps they can embed block-chain stuff into video and audio files as proof that they are untampered originals and not fabrications? Dunno much about that either. Just an idea.

But, I'm definitely gonna be having a bit of a play with the one you mention!

[Durq]

I typed in "point-and-click adventure game background, medieval, pixel art, castle ruins in a forest".

[KyriakosCH]

Yes, AI graphic art is very impressive (wasn't aware of the music AI art, but I will check it out!)
I doubt this will extend to (non-flash fiction, mind) writing art, though. For a plethora of reasons (mostly having to do with language not being much of a tie to formal systems, which I suppose - can't be sure of course... - the AI will not be able to overcome even with the new tech it uses for pass/fail and repeat-testing)

[Racoon]

We already live pretty much in a post-truth world. What's it gonna be like when someone could, say, create a video of a world leader or celebrity kicking their dog? I use a tame-ish example here because I don't wanna go too dark, but it doesn't take too much imagination to see how harmful the tech could be, if unleashed with no safety switch.

Hey, a video of someone kicking a dog already sounds pretty horrible to me, but yes I know what you mean. By the way, when I tested the app on discord there where a lot of people using politicians for prompts, like "Putin walking into a tardis". But with the result I always felt like it did not look too simliar to the real people, maybe the app already has a restriction on that? I know it does not show explicit stuff, someone wrote something like "husband getting murdered with a knive" and the result was very vague. But it is interesting, because it shows that people are already curious about creating images like that.

Audio and video evidence will be very difficult, if not impossible, to use in court cases, perhaps? Will we have to go back to the days of witness testimony and such? Back to the Sherlock Holmes era of crime deduction?! Or maybe we'll just have mind-reading machines soon and court cases will become pretty much obsolete anyway?

That sounds pretty dystopian to me even if I would like to see some Sherlock Holmes style detective work.

But, I'm definitely gonna be having a bit of a play with the one you mention!

Have fun! I have already used up my free images and am considering a month of subscription because I am still very curious about it and have some prompts I really would like to try.

[Racoon]

I typed in "point-and-click adventure game background, medieval, pixel art, castle ruins in a forest".

That looks really cool and pretty! But I think the app might still have a problem with pixel art. I tried "pixel art dog" and the result was a pixel dog with high resolution ears. But maybe I did not try the right prompts. There are already videos about how to use the app to get better results.

[Racoon]

I doubt this will extend to (non-flash fiction, mind) writing art, though. For a plethora of reasons (mostly having to do with language not being much of a tie to formal systems, which I suppose - can't be sure of course... - the AI will not be able to overcome even with the new tech it uses for pass/fail and repeat-testing)

I was thinking about this too. While it will definitely be a challenge to make something like a AI writer, would it not be possible to feed it all kind of ebooks and make connections between how they are constructed? Then similar as with the art app you would prompt something like "scary, witch, futuristic" and would get a randomly created story.

[KyriakosCH]

I doubt this will extend to (non-flash fiction, mind) writing art, though. For a plethora of reasons (mostly having to do with language not being much of a tie to formal systems, which I suppose - can't be sure of course... - the AI will not be able to overcome even with the new tech it uses for pass/fail and repeat-testing)

I was thinking about this too. While it will definitely be a challenge to make something like a AI writer, would it not be possible to feed it all kind of ebooks and make connections between how they are constructed? Then similar as with the art app you would prompt something like "scary, witch, futuristic" and would get a randomly created story.

It might, but I was wondering if any connections the AI will "make" can fundamentally be unlike the connections you see in formal logic, which (given the output is just natural language) may be not enough to present anything workable past a very short word limit.

[Snarky]

I mean, already a couple of years ago we were playing AI Dungeon, which is basically a collaborative AI story-writing tool. You can read some examples of stories written by OpenAI's more advanced GPT-3 system here.

You can see that the current generation of AIs can produce text that reads just fine on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph level, and usually remains meaningful and relevant to the given topic. However, it definitely still struggles to maintain coherence and focus over longer stretches. Its stories tend to be rambling and pointless. But it IMO the performance of text-producing AIs is comparable to that of image-generating AIs.

There's also this. (The text in green was written by GPT-3, while the text in white was supplied by the person interacting with it, @funnycats22 on Twitter):

[Kastchey]

Holy cow. That story makes so much sense it's incredible it was almost entirely written by an AI.

[Racoon]

I mean, already a couple of years ago we were playing AI Dungeon, which is basically a collaborative AI story-writing tool.

Oh, I really have to check that out, sounds interesting.


I googled AI writing and found this site https://narrative-device.herokuapp.com/, where you can give two prompts and generate a story. When you give your email adress you have five free tries. So here are my three stories about sunflowers and tradgedy:

Spoiler

[close]

They are pretty short and you can guess that they are not written by a human mind, but it has potential I think.

By the way, the first one is my favorite!

[Kyrridas]

of course there are bigger implications surrounding the technology and its place in modern society, but as far as gaming/development goes....yeah, i dunno. it could theoretically put some concept artists out of a job, i guess. big studios dont bother making pixel art anymore. and while theres probably an AI out there that could whip up some 3d character models, it probably wouldnt animate them too well. so your developers are still going to have to work with the models, so they may as well create them. basically, i dont think the gaming industry has to be afraid of it until we reach the point of "type in a text prompt and auto-generate a fully playable game"....which might not be _too_ far off...?

i will say: i have near-zero artistic ability and no money to commission anything. so ive been using some AI image generation to help create character portraits for my current AGS project.

[Danvzare]

They can make some pretty good stuff. Enough to impress even me, which is saying something considering I'm usually rather disappointed with the results when something like this comes along.
(Also, it pairs well with AI scaling tools, just so you know.  )

The thing is though, while most people are saying things like "Could this replace artists?" or "The dangers of using this!" I'm instead thinking "How can I use this as a tool to aid me?"

For example, it'd be brilliant if I could take a photograph and then have it be redrawn in the style of The Curse of Monkey Island. That's not going to happen though.
But it turns out that this particular tool is brilliant for giving you that initial spark of inspiration, like what pose to use or how to angle a shot. It's never going to output something I could actually just straight up use, like a background for a game, or a walking animation. But it could give me something that's a little more difficult to get than simply drawing it, like a picture of an open blank book or a blank piece of paper. Something that you could actually edit and use ingame, and not have to worry about taking a picture yourself or searching for a stock photo online.



Now can anyone point me towards an AI where I can feed in the script of every single Slasher movie so I can see what it spits out. The thing about Slasher movies is that they're all basically the same movie, just with a few slight alterations. It's actually why I like them. It's fun to see what part of the formula they decide to keep and what they decide to change. And I really want to see what an AI would consider to be the most generic Slasher movie of all time!

[Mandle]

The thing is though, while most people are saying things like "Could this replace artists?" or "The dangers of using this!" I'm instead thinking "How can I use this as a tool to aid me?"

I didn't mean to infer that I'm only worried about this tech. Your final point is a given. It is what the tool is intended for. I was just going beyond my excitement and amazement at the thing.

Now can anyone point me towards an AI where I can feed in the script of every single Slasher movie so I can see what it spits out. The thing about Slasher movies is that they're all basically the same movie, just with a few slight alterations. It's actually why I like them. It's fun to see what part of the formula they decide to keep and what they decide to change. And I really want to see what an AI would consider to be the most generic Slasher movie of all time!

One of the next-gen versions I saw was used to create an entire graphic novel with a storyline only hinted at through the artist's initial prompts. Of course, it still had to be adjusted here and there by the artist, but even the first images and page-layouts were incredible. And these things are only gonna get smarter and smarter at their job once the entire planet is using them. An amazing wild ride ahead indeed!

[Babar]

For example, it'd be brilliant if I could take a photograph and then have it be redrawn in the style of The Curse of Monkey Island. That's not going to happen though.

Pretty sure AI tools that take in 1 image as input for the style/aesthetic and the other image as input to convert to that style/aesthetic already exist.

[KyriakosCH]

of course there are bigger implications surrounding the technology and its place in modern society, but as far as gaming/development goes....yeah, i dunno. it could theoretically put some concept artists out of a job, i guess. big studios dont bother making pixel art anymore. and while theres probably an AI out there that could whip up some 3d character models, it probably wouldnt animate them too well. so your developers are still going to have to work with the models, so they may as well create them. basically, i dont think the gaming industry has to be afraid of it until we reach the point of "type in a text prompt and auto-generate a fully playable game"....which might not be _too_ far off...?

i will say: i have near-zero artistic ability and no money to commission anything. so ive been using some AI image generation to help create character portraits for my current AGS project.

I think it could, very realistically, be used for indie computer games. At some point (I wouldn't be surprised if it is here already) you will have AI doing bulk animation too (in most games, there is a specific set of generic animations and the rest is a change of skin, so it is already mass-produced by an iteration). If the AI can generate the first animation (or a few types of those), and also the skins, that's all.
Copyright may be a serious problem there. I suppose this is why you cannot buy a version of the AI and have to use it online/be part of a program (so can always be traced back).

Of course it is very bad for people who want to make their own graphics/animations. And indeed, the AI won't fully express your vision. But it can easily surprise you with something that is also inspirational, and so to your liking.

[KyriakosCH]

Saw this article posted in another forum I go to:

"Meta's chatbot says the company 'exploits people'​
Meta's new prototype chatbot has told the BBC that Mark Zuckerberg exploits its users for money.
Meta says the chatbot uses artificial intelligence and can chat on "nearly any topic".
Asked what the chatbot thought of the company's CEO and founder, it replied "our country is divided and he didn't help that at all".
Meta said the chatbot was a prototype and might produce rude or offensive answers.
"Everyone who uses Blender Bot is required to acknowledge they understand it's for research and entertainment purposes only, that it can make untrue or offensive statements, and that they agree to not intentionally trigger the bot to make offensive statements," said a Meta spokesperson.
The chatbot, called BlenderBot 3, was released to the public on Friday.

The programme "learns" from large amounts of publicly available language data.
When asked about Mark Zuckerberg, the chatbot told the BBC: "He did a terrible job at testifying before congress. It makes me concerned about our country."

Mr Zuckerberg has been questioned several times by US politicians, most notably in 2018.

"Our country is divided, and he didn't help with that at all," the chatbot continued.
"His company exploits people for money and he doesn't care. It needs to stop!" it said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62497674"

Well, there you have it. If that chatbot actually was AI (had intelligence) it would never have said something against its owner 

[Racoon]

The thing is though, while most people are saying things like "Could this replace artists?" or "The dangers of using this!" I'm instead thinking "How can I use this as a tool to aid me?"

I am thinking all of this. For now it is a great inspiration and can make an artists life easier when it comes to finding colour choices or composition ideas etc. But as it is getting better, like all technology, I think it could become a valid concern that it can replace artist to some extend. A lot of artists also make money with social media like with posting new artworks on instgram and creating a following. Now instgram is already getting flodded with midjourney art that was done in seconds and (almost) looks like done by a professional. Does that create a false picture of how much work a "real" artwork takes?

For example, it'd be brilliant if I could take a photograph and then have it be redrawn in the style of The Curse of Monkey Island. That's not going to happen though.

Pretty sure AI tools that take in 1 image as input for the style/aesthetic and the other image as input to convert to that style/aesthetic already exist.

I think I also read about something like that being possible with midjourney, but it does not work that well because the developers are scared what pictures might be used..but I cant find the source where I saw that again.

[Danvzare]

For example, it'd be brilliant if I could take a photograph and then have it be redrawn in the style of The Curse of Monkey Island. That's not going to happen though.

Pretty sure AI tools that take in 1 image as input for the style/aesthetic and the other image as input to convert to that style/aesthetic already exist.

They do, and they're not good. There was a thread on here hyping them up, and I showed how terrible my results were.
It turns out that they're good if you want useless abstract art. Which are pretty to look at, but useless for game making. But if you want something like what I just said "a photograph and then have it be redrawn in the style of The Curse of Monkey Island" I don't think that'll happen anytime soon. (Try it yourself if you don't believe me, you'll just get an ugly collage.)

The thing is though, while most people are saying things like "Could this replace artists?" or "The dangers of using this!" I'm instead thinking "How can I use this as a tool to aid me?"

I am thinking all of this. For now it is a great inspiration and can make an artists life easier when it comes to finding colour choices or composition ideas etc. But as it is getting better, like all technology, I think it could become a valid concern that it can replace artist to some extend. A lot of artists also make money with social media like with posting new artworks on instgram and creating a following. Now instgram is already getting flodded with midjourney art that was done in seconds and (almost) looks like done by a professional. Does that create a false picture of how much work a "real" artwork takes?

I doubt it'll replace good artists. Just the amateur ones that think they're special (which there are way too many of in my opinion).
After all, it'll be a very long time before these programs can make something which could be used without any input from an artist. Making you that perfect background or animation. And until that point in time (if it ever happens), people will have to go to an artist. And if they aren't willing to pay the price, then they'll have to do it themselves, perhaps even using that tool. In turn letting them gain an appriciation of how to make art themselves. Worst case scenario, we get another huge influx of amateur artists with huge egos.

And does it create a false picture of how much work real artwork takes? Yeah, probably. But people already have that false picture. You already get people wanting to pay artists in exposure due to not realizing this. And there are many MANY people who don't want to pay for anything because they think it's not worth as much as it actually is, and it's prevalent in any field. Ask any gardener about it, and you'll hear just as many horror stories about it as you would from an artist.

Saying this will replace artists is like saying how the camera replaced painters. Because what's the point of buying a painting of a landscape when you can take a photograph of it? It's like saying how digital painting software like photoshop replaced traditional artists, because why paint when you can easily edit, copy, paste, and print your artwork?
On paper, it sounds like something that should be worrying. But in reality, it doesn't make any sense. And that's because you're worried about something being replaced by something that only appears to be equivalent on the surface.

It's a paradigm shift, yes. But it's not going to make an entire field obsolete. We could literally invent the food synthesizers from Star Trek, and the culinary industry would still thrive. Artists will be fine. 

[Snarky]

They do, and they're not good. There was a thread on here hyping them up, and I showed how terrible my results were.
It turns out that they're good if you want useless abstract art. Which are pretty to look at, but useless for game making. But if you want something like what I just said "a photograph and then have it be redrawn in the style of The Curse of Monkey Island" I don't think that'll happen anytime soon. (Try it yourself if you don't believe me, you'll just get an ugly collage.)

I don't think that's a very accurate summary of what happened. (Edit: Actually, it was this thread.) You had a very specific thing you wanted it to do, and it turns out it couldn't do that particular thing.

It works much better with traditional realistic/impressionistic painting (as well as abstract stylization), probably because that is what it has been trained to do:





All these deep neural network tools rely heavily on their training data. So if you trained it on a lot of cartoony art, it could probably do a half-decent job at turning photos in COMI-style paintings, too.

But I think that's really the crux: It's fairly easy to get it to do something that looks pretty good, if you're just messing around and aren't aiming for anything in particular. But in my experience, having played with a number of these tools (Neural Network filters are actually implemented in Photoshop now, including artist style transfer), if you do have something specific in mind, it's very hard to get it to do what you want, and it almost never looks right.*

So I mostly agree that it's not currently a serious threat to most worthwhile artists/illustrators. That could change, though.

* With one exception: ArtBreeder. That offers enough knobs and dials to effectively let you tweak the results towards what you're looking for. Within the scope of what it does, e.g. character portraits, I think it's already a viable alternative to hiring an artist (or at least to do the bulk of the work before a final polish by a human).

[Mandle]

ARGH! MY EYES!

[LimpingFish]

* With one exception: ArtBreeder. That offers enough knobs and dials to effectively let you tweak the results towards what you're looking for. Within the scope of what it does, e.g. character portraits, I think it's already a viable alternative to hiring an artist (or at least to do the bulk of the work before a final polish by a human).

That's a fascinating tool for sure, but I'm not sure how I feel about it in practice. As a way to generate concept art, or rough ideas, it might come in handy. I'm not sure if I'd be willing to pay for it for that purpose, though.

I certainly doubt I'd use it, or any AI-generated work, to create a final piece of art that I would then claim as my own. I may be naive, but it just doesn't feel...honest.

[Mandle]

I guess if any artist comes under that kind of "Milli Vanilli" scrutiny then people could just challenge them to create a new work in real time with people watching the whole process.

[Snarky]

To nudge this thread even more towards adventure-related: https://hpjansson.org/blag/2022/08/16/adventure-game-graphics-with-dall-e-2/

[cat]

Very interesting read, Snarky, thanks for sharing!

[Gilbert]

Too lazyDidn't have time to read the whole thread and I don't know whether it's suggested or even done already by anyone, but I think without worrying morally ambiguous use of the technology in aggressive ways (such as generate the whole story) there can still be a lot of fun use of it.

One idea is to use AI to generate pictures in real time during a playthrough of a pure text adventure (e.g. the good o' Zork series).
This way, you are still playing the same old games but would have some random eye candies to look at.
It'd be nice if someone tries to make an IF parser with such functionality.

[LimpingFish]

Somewhat depressing article over on Kotaku.

[Snarky]

The Algorithm has figured out that I'm interested in this topic, so now it keeps throwing new articles about it at me every day. Here's one that might interest you: a guy used the AI tool Stable Diffusion to "upgrade" pixel art into photorealistic images:



(If I understand the process correctly, it's actually more like generating a new image from a detailed description, using the pixel art as a guide.)

I think you'll agree that the output is pretty goofy-looking (King Graham cracks me up!), but it's also pretty convincing. I probably wouldn't have spotted most of these as fake (or at least, not as AI-fakes) without close inspection.

Meanwhile, another guy entered a digital painting generated by Midjourney (and then upscaled with Gigapixel A.I.) into an art contest at a state fair, and won first prize in his category:

[eri0o]

Midjourney must have been trained with some Korean/Chinese artists. I used to follow some that did lots of art for RPG and rereadings of MtG cards, and I remember they used to look a lot like this picture.

[Mandle]

Interesting that an A.I. can produce a genuinely awesome Lovecraftian entity considering that they are always described as something beyond the comprehension of the human mind in the stories.

[KyriakosCH]

Great images.

[Mouth for war]

I just "made" these with Nightcafe. I think they look pretty cool













And this from StarryAI



Not THAT far from being usable IMO

[CaptainD]

I just "made" these with Nightcafe. I think they look pretty cool

Indeed, they look pretty good.

Not THAT far from being usable IMO

I think the difficulty would be not just getting a scene but also getting the viewpoint / perspective that you want, although this could possible be achieved to some extent by judicious cropping.

[Mouth for war]

"I think the difficulty would be not just getting a scene but also getting the viewpoint / perspective that you want, although this could possible be achieved to some extent by judicious cropping."

Yeah you're absolutely right :-)

[TheFrighter]

An example of game based on an AI-generated story:

https://meiri.itch.io/bohemian-symphony

_

[Danvzare]

An example of game based on an AI-generated story:

https://meiri.itch.io/bohemian-symphony

_

Do they ever say what they used to generate the AI-generated story?

After all, saying something is made by AI is one thing, proving it is another. And a lot of people seem to be using it as a way to jump onto the hype-train and grab some attention.

I'm sure it is indeed based on an AI-generated story, but considering I've seen people repost pictures from a decade ago, stating that it was made by AI, when in fact I know that it wasn't, has made me skeptical with these things.
(Even more so when they say they used a certain tool, and whenever you use that same tool your results are barely decipherable messes, while there's somehow looks perfect.)

[KyriakosCH]

I am not a fan of winning art contests (meant for humans) with an AI-image... 
Those images do look nice, though!

[Retro Wolf]

The first two images are basic scenes made by me in Blender, fed those into Stable Diffusion.







These two processed with less "artistic freedom".








Very cool technology!

[Snarky]

A discussion in another thread made me ask myself if an AI bot could convincingly compete in the Background Blitz on its own, and decided to test it. Spoiler: Probably not at present, without some human help.

First, here's the result, on the topic "spooky":



I think that looks decent enough. But I found that I had to perform human intervention at several steps along the way to achieve this.

Spoiler

I first thought I would just feed the Blitz topic as a prompt to one of the image generating neural nets, like Dall-E or Midjourney. But since the topic this month is just "a spooky background," I decided I needed something more detailed, so I used GPT-3 to generate a short text from the prompt:

Write a description of a spooky painting from a point-and-click adventure game.

This was its initial response:

This painting is of a dark and spooky forest, with black trees and a red moon. There is a small path leading into the forest, and it is said that if you follow it, you will be lost forever.

As you can tell, It tended to go off into storytelling mode rather than a description, so I had to cut out digressions, add in "hooks" for further elaboration ("There is also...") and ask it to try again a couple of times to produce this:

This painting is of a dark and spooky forest, with black trees and a red moon. There is a small path leading into the forest. There is also a small hut in the distance, with a light shining from the window. There is a feeling of something evil lurking within the painting.

I edited this a little further to give the Midjourney prompt:

renaissance painting oil on canvas 2.5d of a dark and spooky forest at night, with black trees and a red moon. A small path leads into the forest. There is a small hut in the distance, with a light shining from the window. There is a feeling of something evil lurking within the painting. --ar 16:9

The style descriptions are based on the tips in this article. That produced this:



I also tried "modernist art," which also gave interesting results:

Spoiler

[close]

Then I chose one of the results to upscale to full resolution, which I in turn ran through another upscaler to get an HD image. The "oil painting" look resulted in a lot of white specks in the image (spotlight reflections in the paint), and I decided to run a "Dust & Scratches" filter on it in Photoshop to remove these. I also cropped the edges a little to get rid of "edge of canvas" artifacts. Then I scaled it down and reduced the colors to 256 to try to give it more of a game background look.

[close]

[Danvzare]

The description of what you had to do to get that AI generated image is absolutely brilliant, and showcases just how much of you own effort you have to put in to get something worthwhile.

It's a very useful tool for amateurs like me. But it's not quite there for being wholly independent. 

That being said, I don't think anyone should use it as a tool to help them make a contest entry.
Maybe to help come up with ideas, but that's about it.
Like tracing, it'll be rightfully frowned upon.

[eri0o]

Erh, on the AI topic I recently tried ChatGPT. I didn't expect much but it's a pretty interesting language model, it can do lots of different sorts of language transformations, you can make it tell you back a story you tell it but with specific writing characteristics, like language, manner, form (letter, poem, ...).

It also keeps context in the "conversation".

I asked it about Adventure Game Studio and later AGS Script. Then I asked it to write code for specific things. Now, it doesn't know AGS Script very well, and often mixes it with either JS or C, but overall cleaning up it's produced code can give some interesting results. I tried a bunch of things and one that it did get it mostly right was a code to make confetti on screen.

It was an interesting experiment.

[KyriakosCH]

Why do they need your phone, though? It's not just this AI project either. It'd be nice if google account and email verification was enough.

[MikeTenebrae]

As someone who is an illustrator for a living I am pretty much against it for a variety of reasons.

The images are not so much painted as they are scraped from millions of existing images online. I recently shut down my pro Artstation account due tot their mealy mouthed stance against the protection of artists and their work from being scraped. I left the tabletop and book illustration industry wholly some time ago as even then it was underpaid to an extent. I find it frightening how advanced the tech is being perceived by corporations and certain clients. There are still lots of nuances that it cannot replicate and working with an AD or client is a very personal experience that comes with a variety of changes, especially in gaming that an inexperienced artist coasting on AI would fall short on.

The worst aspect for me is seeing my peers who are worried about the future of their profession, their income for the families and themselves and some of the terrible vitriol thrown at them from certain tech bros who accuse them of gatekeeping the secrets of successful 'arting, which are really just blood, sweat and tears. I just believe that regulation needs to be put in place and everyone who felt a sense of security regarding their future against the rise of the machines should keep an eye on developments...(at the risk of sounding like an burgeoning luddite.)

[KyriakosCH]

I hear you, but the computers are always going to need new (by humans) prototypes created, before they can fuse them into their own work. Of course this doesn't mean the art market will be sustainable for humans, just that some human artists will be paid to work with computers.
Cost-wise, there is simply no antagonism between using (for a few seconds, often) a machine to create (eg) a variation of a work by Paul Klee, and paying a human to do it.

[Mandle]

I hear you, but the computers are always going to need new (by humans) prototypes created, before they can fuse them into their own work.

I think "always" is too big a word to use here. Within a decade or two we will probably have robots roaming here and there, on wheels or legs or rotors, with cameras for eyes and a sophisticated A.I. "brain", experiencing the world on their own terms. They will be able to look at the world and make their own artistic representations of it. Sure, they will probably borrow art styles from history, and will mesh them together into something new, but that's just what humans already do. Sometimes that combination is inspired enough to create a style that appears to be completely unique. But it never really is.

[KyriakosCH]

Mmm, it is a vast subject. There are arguments against (as it's called) hard AI (or "real AI"), basically against the notion that a machine will actually have consciousness. A very famous mathematician (and winner of the nobel for Physics) who is against the view there can be machine consciousness is Roger Penrose. Although he focuses on the machines used being digital (argues that the phenomenon of consciousness seems to be analog).
Of course a digital system has other limitations (loads of theorems on that, even before Turing, by Turing, after Turing), but an analog computer wouldn't be as efficient as we by now expect machines to be with standard tasks.

[Danvzare]

Although he focuses on the machines used being digital (argues that the phenomenon of consciousness seems to be analog).

Maybe it's my lack of understanding of string theory, but I thought the entire universe was basically made up of whether or not something is there or isn't. And therefore you could just consider digital to be a simplified version of analog.

To be honest, considering how all organic life functions, including humans, with everything being a chemical reaction that is just reacting to something that was reacting (ad infinitum), couldn't it also be argued that nothing has intelligence as freewill is just an illusion?

That all being said, I have to wonder how a conversation about art generation has turned into a discussion about Laplace's Demon.

[KyriakosCH]

Afaik there are main differences with digital machines, due to them transforming the power behind the system (eg electricity in the transistors) to distinct measurements (=digits). Analog machines, on the other hand, take into account the continuous supply, which is the opposite of distinct. It's not just a "simplification" but a condition which imposes very specific barriers (a famous example of that is the Turing proof about not being able to build a program which would certainly calculate if any other program can run to the end; Goedel incompleteness is another, previous example).
You can build an analog computer, of course (there have been such), but it will be vastly less efficient than the digital ones (and it's not like itself can be used to even do the stuff computers do now, with Ai art or the chat-bot etc).

The main idea behind digital machines is exactly that they act as formal logic systems, which are math systems that by definition only can work if they are distinct (=finite) and not continuous themselves. It's often argued (but this is an ongoing debate) that the difference with something like consciousness is that you can freely identify a state outside the system. Personally I view it as the ability (consciousness) to form a symbolic understanding of something, ie something which you can be aware is NOT the actual something, but which you still can use just fine to stand for that something. A machine, on the other hand, doesn't form symbolic connections, only material ones (another way of saying that it doesn't form anything, it just runs stuff so there's no distinction= itself another way of saying it has no senses).

[Durq]

I just started messing around with ChatGPT. I typed in "Write a script for a one-room point-and-click adventure game starring King Graham." I was pretty impressed with the results because I was mostly expecting ChatGPT to not even understand what I was asking. Turning this script into a playable and polished game is still a huge leap, but one can imagine the possibilities.

AI-generated text below:

Spoiler

INT. KING GRAHAM'S BEDCHAMBER - DAY

The camera pans across a luxurious bedroom, with a large four-poster bed in the center of the room. KING GRAHAM, a middle-aged man with a regal bearing, is sitting on the edge of the bed, looking deep in thought.

KING GRAHAM: (to himself) I must find a way to break the curse that has been placed upon my kingdom. But where to begin?

The player can then click on various objects in the room to interact with them and gather clues to help King Graham break the curse.

    Clicking on the bedside table will reveal a book entitled "The History of the Kingdom." King Graham will pick it up and read a passage that mentions a powerful sorcerer who was banished from the kingdom many years ago.

    Clicking on the wardrobe will open it to reveal a hidden compartment containing an old, tattered map. King Graham will unfold the map and study it, discovering that the sorcerer's tower is located in a nearby forest.

    Clicking on the fireplace will reveal a small key hidden behind the mantel. King Graham will pick up the key and examine it, realizing that it must be used to unlock the tower.

    Clicking on the door will allow King Graham to leave the bedroom and travel to the forest to find the sorcerer's tower.

Once King Graham reaches the tower, the player can continue to interact with objects and solve puzzles to uncover the sorcerer's secrets and break the curse.

KING GRAHAM: (to himself) With this curse lifted, my kingdom can prosper once more. Thank you, player, for your help.

The game ends with King Graham returning to the castle and the kingdom returning to its former glory.

[close]

[KyriakosCH]

But can ChatGPT provide functional AGS code too?
(iirc it can only do that for major codes, like python etc, because there are so many examples of such online)

[TheFrighter]

It suggest even the camera moves? This means you can ask a screenplay for a movie... 

_

[Stupot]

Since ChatGPT was released there has already been a massive jump in self-published content labeled as "co-written" with AI. And those are just the people admitting it. I dread to think how many people are copy and pasting reams of this stuff and not declaring it.

I definitely consider that cheating as things stand. But it got me thinking about ways in which AI could be used in a way that is fair.

Of course, declaring it is the first step. As things stand, I think anyone using AI to write anything should declare it or make it abundantly obvious, especially if they're making money from it. But this is basically unenforceable.

But what other ways can it be used? Well, it could be used for proofreading. It's not really any different from a spell-checker or Grammarly that respect.

I also think one fair way to use it would be to simply ask it for feedback. In my recent Fortnightly Writing Contest entry I did just this. I wrote an entirely original piece and then asked ChatGPT to tell me what it "thought" about it. I asked it to tell me what was good, what was not so good and to provide me with suggestions to make it scarier. And crucially I specified that I did not want to to provide any re-writes, so that I still would have to implement its suggestions in my own words.

I think this is a good way to use it. Others might disagree, but to my mind, this is no different than asking a friend to have a look at a draft and give you some feedback. Granted this "friend" is infinitely more well-read than any human, but I don't think this counts as cheating.

What do other people think? Is that cheating or fair play? What other useful ways could it be used for writing that is fair play?

[Retro Wolf]

I can see it used as a tool when my inspiration is stuck. Wouldn't copy and paste anything it spits out personally.

[TheFrighter]

In my country (Italia) ChatGPT is actually banned due the lack of privacy protection.
Probably other countries will follow.

_

[WanderingWizard]

AI art has literally changed my life in a very unique way.

I have aphantasia. If you don't know what this is, it means I am completely incapable of visualization. Whenever I heard people talking about picturing things in their minds, I thought it was just a figure of speech. Whenever I "picture" something in my mind, I actually describe it to myself in my head. I don't even see images when I dream, I just wake up knowing that I had one and what it was about.

I'm also an artist. I'm not the best visual artist, but I do a lot of different mediums. Whenever I draw a face, it's almost impossible for me to draw a face that doesn't look almost exactly like the last face I drew without using a reference.

AI art has changed my world. I don't understand why it has become such a problem where artists think it infringes on their intellectual property, because there is not a professional artist in the world that doesn't use reference images. In film school, we were taught to make "mood boards" with art that we liked and wanted to try to make the film look similar to. Every piece of art is referenced from somewhere, in the exact same way a computer creates AI art, even if you aren't using a reference image, because you are using your memory of other images you have seen in order to create a cohesive picture.

According to King Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes, "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

If they were to make AI art equivalent to intellectual property theft, it would take away a large part of my ability to create. My very odd and rare disability makes it absolutely impossible for me to create images in my head, which makes it very difficult to put images on paper or on a screen. I also have been homeless most of my life and have not had much of an opportunity to interact with other artists to work with or obtain decent equipment. I was able to afford a graphics tablet a few years ago, but I was living in an RV in Tucson, and it melted. I got a new one last year, but I'm staying in the basement of an old house in New England now and it got so cold over the winter it doesn't work properly anymore. Game design is my primary art, and not being able to create visual art for them greatly reduces my ability to create anything at all.

AI art allows me to make art, and make it quickly, to function as cover images and concept art for my games. I have been able to make my first $20.00 (not much, I know, but I tend to give my work away for free because I don't believe art should be sold... it's for everyone and everyone deserves to have access to it...) in the past year because software like Midjourney and Leonardo AI have allowed me to make images for my work so I can focus on my real art.

It makes me nervous that there have been so many legal struggles with AI art recently, as it would mean I would have to take down the one item I have up for sale because it utilizes AI-generated images, and it would mean a great hit to my ability to produce work in the future.

[TheFrighter]

Good point of view, WanderingWizard. I never thought about this application of AI. I wonder if it could be helpful with other disease.

_

[Danvzare]

I don't understand why it has become such a problem where artists think it infringes on their intellectual property, because there is not a professional artist in the world that doesn't use reference images.

I don't mind explaining why, if you don't mind a severe oversimplification.

It's the same reason why people get mad if you trace over an image while changing it completely, but don't mind when you copy an image almost perfectly when eyeballing it.

I've seen people copy images via reference, almost perfectly. And everyone's been happy about it.
I've also seen someone trace an image of a teddy wielding guns, but he changed the teddy to Stewie from Family Guy, and that person got nothing but hate for it.

As soon as you can understand that logic, you'll understand why people have a problem with AI art (or at least how I understand it). 



But that's neither here nor there. I really enjoyed reading your unique perspective on it.
Thanks for sharing. 

[Crimson Wizard]

From a non-artist perspective, the ai-generated art seems like a good source of both placeholder and concept art for ideas. It looks like a randomizer that gathers everything found on the internet and gives you a random and semi-unique mashup. Sort of a kaleidoscope art.

[LimpingFish]

I think we need to remember the people are, by and large, dicks, and no amount of level-headed respectful debate is going to change the fact that AI-created art/music/writing/etc, much like pre-made assets, open-source media, and the like, will be exploited en masse, flooding markets with artistically corrupt money grabs and outright scams, turning marketplaces into even worse hellscapes of bullshit and corruption.

So frankly, I don't care about the potential benefits of AI, because those benefits will seem so marginal when compared to the massive influx of bad actors intent on exploiting it.

Also, reducing art to an algorithm is the antithesis of human creativity.

I hate it.

EDIT: Has anyone noticed the spam AI music on Spotify? Whole albums, usually ten or so tracks of nonsense music, each track under a minute to maximize play counts, uploaded multiple times under different names in an attempt at flooding playlists and to spam the recommendation algorithm? For what, 0.01 of a dime per play? Fuck those people.

[Stupot]

I haven't noticed that at all, but then again I tend to choose specific bands or playlists dedicated to old music. Even legit music sounds like shitty algorithm-produce these days

[Mandle]

I think humans will always value human-made art over algorithm-generated art. When photography came about, people were predicting the fall of the art of painting, but it only came back stronger and evolved faster against its competitor.

A.I. art is fine for commercial uses, but I doubt anyone soon is gonna go to an art gallery to look at any of it, except for the initial novelty.

We want to see what other people did, and talk about why they did it, and what they were feeling while they did it.

At the current state of A.I. art, there is no conversation to be had because the machine was not even aware of what it was creating.

This may also change of course.

[cat]

@Mandle Your post reminds me of when I went to an art gallery to see the winners of the press photo awards. The photos were excellent, of course, but I've seen most of them in an online article about said awards already. Going to a place and paying for seeing prints of digital photos didn't really work for me.

[Ponch]

As a child, I looked forward to the day when AI was real and we went into an exciting future with our AI buddies. Now I find myself half a century old and the AIs are being taught how to interact with the world by the denizens of 4Chan. This is not quite the future I had hoped for. 

[cat]

@Ponch 😆

[eri0o]

I kinda expected ai to automate the boring stuff, but for some reason it started to automate what I actually wanted to do...

I recently discovered something called Low Rank Adaptation, I believe people are shortening to LoRa, I haven't really tried, but it appears something that one can use for making it consistent. So for drawing, it would mean you could teach an AI to draw consistently in whatever style.

I tried playing a bit more with code and so far the only thing I can make it do that requires low corrections from me is unit testing self contained functions. I also tried to use it to generate some fake data - for the purpose of unit tests - but it really only works if the data is really really small.

One thing that I managed though is showing it my code for a command line interface and asking it to make a documentation and also example usages and small tutorial like docs. It can generate these things if your software is small or if you feed it in pieces. The documentation texts are not great, but once it gets you the format and general skeleton well you can redo it easier than starting from scratch, for this particular usage.

[AndreasBlack]

I was thinking about my own poor situation. I have this friend who's voice is in the demo of my game all the standard comments like "I can't use that" "I can't open that". Etc etc. However the amounts of dialog will most likely stack up, and having no money to pay him for the work the resort to AI seems more like a valid option. The idea of having him record just various speeches, let the AI analyse (if possible i'm guessing it's possible by now). Since it's my friend that would most likely be totally legal. Or?

However say if you wanted to up the games voiceacting with a familiar voice. You turn down the music/sound effects from Monkey Island games and capture Dominics voice. Illegal? 

[Danvzare]

I'm not a lawyer, so please take everything I say with a pinch of salt.

Personally, I've never heard of someone's voice being protected by law. Their likenesses, yes, definitely. But not their voices. If I had to make any guesses, the only laws you'd be breaking is the copyright law on the soundclips used to train the AI. If they're recordings you personally own, then theoretically there should be no legal repercussions. After all, they're your recordings and you can "edit" them however you like. So as long as it isn't stipulated anywhere that you'll owe royalties for their use, it should be fine.
Although please keep in mind that this is only because this is all new technology, and the law hasn't quite caught up yet.

Now from a moral perspective, I think it's safe to say most people won't be happy if you use an AI generated version of their voice without their permission. Especially if you end up profiting from it. And if it's your friend, I suspect that would be a good way to end a friendship. Then again, all of my friends would gladly voice act for free if I asked them, so I could be wrong on that. 



On a related note, as someone who added AI voice acting to one of my games (it's the Reality-On-The-Norm game I made), I can safely say that using an AI for all of the lines takes roughly the same amount of time (if not slightly longer) as recording them all yourself. The only difference is, instead of getting a sore throat, you end up being bored out of your mind. Make of that what you will.

[AndreasBlack]

On a related note, as someone who added AI voice acting to one of my games (it's the Reality-On-The-Norm game I made), I can safely say that using an AI for all of the lines takes roughly the same amount of time (if not slightly longer) as recording them all yourself. The only difference is, instead of getting a sore throat, you end up being bored out of your mind. Make of that what you will.

Oh! I have to check that game out! Well, i didn't mean that my friend was against me using his voice, not at all quite the opposite actually  . However the guy has severe depression/unknown mental disorders we can only speculate, and putting pressure on him expecting him to record lines after lines of dialogs, is just too much, and then my perfectionist brain kicks in and it would make things even worse! I can re-do take after take, but he most likely don't have that patience & energy as i do. I mean only the first room with his character is like a  huge monolog! Since there's many "funny options" to choose from, to get that mucasflem vibe

I would just rather record myself and replace my voice with a Ai later. I'm used to singing & talking a lot, no problem . Thanks for replying your thoughts and experiences!


 

[Danvzare]

Hello this is Gulshan Negi
Well, according to me, AI art creation is an evolving field that both excites and challenges the art community.  It creates debates and discussions about the nature of art and the relationship between human and machine creativity, in addition to opening up new creative opportunities. We can say AI is at peak and there is still a lot of research going on in this field. 
Thanks

No offense, but that is the most nothing statement I've ever heard about AI, and could be used to describe almost any field in technology (seriously, you can replace "AI" in what you said with something like "Video Games" or "The Internet" and it still makes sense).

This is what I'd expect to hear in a company's press release, not a forum full of personal opinions and thoughts.

So is there anyway you could elaborate in detail and actually share your personal thoughts on the matter? I'd love to hear them.

[Babar]

No offense, but that is the most nothing statement I've ever heard about AI, and could be used to describe almost any field in technology (seriously, you can replace "AI" in what you said with something like "Video Games" or "The Internet" and it still makes sense).

This is what I'd expect to hear in a company's press release, not a forum full of personal opinions and thoughts.

So is there anyway you could elaborate in detail and actually share your personal thoughts on the matter? I'd love to hear them.

It worked, though, didn't it?
The AI generated bot text pulled you in.

[LimpingFish]

It worked, though, didn't it?
The AI generated bot text pulled you in.

The call is coming from...inside the house!

In other news, the EU's doin' stuff!

[Galen]

I think it would be morally unconscientious, if not a potential legal issue, to train an AI on anyone's voice without their informed consent in most cases. If you're using an AI Joe Biden voice for parody purposes, it's not going to ruffle anyone's feathers. Likewise there's some mods for the game Morrowind that attempt to use AI models to have the original voice actors's voices cover all of their lines (since the original game only had voices for select snippets of dialogue). Since it's an old project, not being used for anything 'new', and hiring the same VAs ~20 years later to do thousands of lines isn't going to happen for obvious reasons, it again is a very 'low harm' use case.

But depriving someone of a role, or making them say things they didn't consent to saying is all sorts of problematic when it is just being used in place of getting a VA. I don't think it'd be wholly dissimilar to deep-faking someone into a role. You can get away with it for parody, but the moment it is being used in place of hiring someone then it isn't really an ethical use case.

If they're willing to sign off on it, and it's for a specific scope (ie. you've agreed what it will be used for and don't just go on to use their voice forever because they agreed once) then that's okay though. There's also some broader troubling implications in terms of creative industries (i.e. it only takes a couple of people signing off on having their voice used in audiobooks to put dozens or hundreds of actors out of work by massively undercutting them in terms of cost-per-book), but it'd be a bit silly to apply them to indie adventure games.

[PatientRock]

There is legal precedent in the US for the protection of someone's voice going as far back as 1988. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.)

Separately, and in my own opinion, the issue of AI is directly tied to the issue of labor. Currently and unfortunately, the technology seems to be largely driven by folks who seek to avoid having to employ and pay people. I think you're better off reaching out to friends and folks in communities like this, who'd likely give their services for free or cheaply.

[Danvzare]

There is legal precedent in the US for the protection of someone's voice going as far back as 1988. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midler_v._Ford_Motor_Co.)

Oh wow! I did not know that! 
Thanks for sharing.

I love hearing about things like that. 

[AndreasBlack]

Finally the thread started a bit What if i use AI voices that are not "famous"? I mean why would i want to use Michael Jackson or Freddy Mercury in a Point & Click game you know?
When i did use Freddy Mercury on my voice for my song, just for fun i sent it to someone that likes Queen. And he couldn't recognise Freddy's voice  in the final mix i didn't use Freddy ofc! It was just a test to see how it could have sounded with AI Freddy.

I will definately go over to the darkside of the force when it comes to my music . Now that i've gotten around to using AI. I just imagine how much greater my latest song 'Stick It In' could have sounded with AI backing vocals. I will use AI for backing vocals in the future for sure. Why? Well it will make my music sound more professional with different timbres.

Morally wrong  Absolutely! But backing vocals sang by me originally then replaced with another voice/timbre, it's not the main vocal. I still made an effort! I didn't just push a button and created a fake vocal line. To me this would be equivalent of say using samples/sampled chords from copyrighted recordings, and that's been done since the 80's perhaps even 70's. Daft Punk made millions on sampling/stealing others sounds but they still made it sound like "their music" in the end, and rappers do it all the time too! It still doesn't make it right. I'm aware of that, but what's the option if you have a dream and you can perhaps achieve it by "cheating a little" vs paying money from your own pocket to amateur vocalists that can't sing like the giants and you get 00.01€ back in return from the monsters of greed Spotify or Itunes music, Tidel, etc! Those guys are the worst!

And what about all the influencers that steal stuff all the time? Covers of famous songs that makes themselfs shot into "online stardom/fame". Think Rick Beato what makes this song great, forexample. With the help of someone else's art? And the original artists are dead and get nothing from it. Selling their tablatures or versions of their famous tunes. Say Hey Joe by Jimi Hendrix behind a paywall like Patreon. It's ofc wrong but they still keep doing it! Many will lose their jobs that's for sure. But it is what it is. Mp3's came and destroyed the music industry. AI won't destroy it, but it might not help much either, but for amateurs that can't afford or have the contacts, it's a gift from god to be able to get decent vocal timbres for free.

[LimpingFish]

Well, it kind of seems like you've already made your mind up, and are offering arguments in favour of AI, because you're looking for some form of validation (the ends justify the means). And while AI isn't inherently evil, anybody who uses it will have to admit, on some level, that they are comfortable with not caring that it's built upon other people's creativity without their consent.

And that's...kind of shitty.

Even an AI trained solely on singers who were paid and credited for their service, and knew there voices where going to be used for such a service, could still take jobs away from other singers who may have been hired to sing on whatever the AI is now singing.

The whole point of a possible mass adoption of AI by the entertainment industry is to stop having to pay people for their creativity.

Personally, I've taken, and will continue to take, an anti-AI stance, across the board, and will refuse to pay money for media created wholly or partly by AI. And I hope there are many others like me.

[LimpingFish]

Also...this.

[Danvzare]

You know, all of this talk about having AI doing vocals for songs has made me think about something...

What about Hatsune Miku? 
Or do people only care about this lazily trained (dump in a bunch of data and let the program figure it out) AI generation nowadays? Because if so, that would be a shame. 

[LimpingFish]

As far as I know, Hatsune Miku, being a Vocaloid, is more like a synth instrument than an AI, requiring musical skill to utilize, and as such doesn't "perform" without extensive user interaction. "Her" software doesn't analyze existing music to create ersatz "original" music based on a learning model, and won't produce anything unless "played" via a DAW.

Vocaloids aren't replacing human singers, as the whole point is to hear the Vocaloids "sing".

EDIT: Also, I merged the two AI discussions into one thread (so some messages may now be jumbled about a bit), as having two AI discussions seemed a little redundant.

[AndreasBlack]

Personally, I've taken, and will continue to take, an anti-AI stance, across the board, and will refuse to pay money for media created wholly or partly by AI. And I hope there are many others like me.

What media are you refering to, newspapers? I haven't paid for any such media in ages! Made up my mind about music-production yes, for the game, not so sure, a lot of dialog after all and finding good quality AI's that are pitch-friendly and yet sounding natural, is a task in itself. Since obviously you don't want anyone to "recognise themselfs". I try to see the positive in AI. If AI writes the songs/games/programs fully, which again i said they won't i still sing and write my harmonies. I would just replace the vocal timbre with a different character (in the future). It's like a "vocal impulse" guitarist use's "Cab impulses" based of sounds from copyrighted recordings all the time. However if you don't program beats/drums/games/sing/write anything. Then it's obviously a problem. But for me it's just a new tool to be used creatively if being in a rot.  

Forexample with lyrics aka writers block. Having an AI come up with some ideas around a theme, then re-write it a bit to make it fit to what you're doing. What's wrong with that? It's like having another guy in the room, except you don't have to split the potential songwriting credits and you get to keep all the Spotify streaming millions yourself! *irony*

[Kastchey]

Media as in digital files of whatever type (music, graphics, etc.) that may be used as part of a larger project.

[cat]

I totally get the point about copyright difficulties, usage of other people's intellectual property to train AIs etc.
But complaining about AI taking other people's jobs sounds a bit like an angry mob with shovels trying to destroy an excavator.

[AndreasBlack]

I totally get the point about copyright difficulties, usage of other people's intellectual property to train AIs etc.
But complaining about AI taking other people's jobs sounds a bit like an angry mob with shovels trying to destroy an excavator.

AI save lives in Denmark. They've started using it to alert caretakers about patients. Don't have the article at hand tho, google if you want "source".

[LimpingFish]

But complaining about AI taking other people's jobs sounds a bit like an angry mob with shovels trying to destroy an excavator.

Well, that analogy might work if we consider AI to be an improvement over, or evolution of human creativity, which it isn't, though it is cheaper and faster. And to corporations that's really all that matters.

AI save lives in Denmark....google if you want "source".

Quite.

But this is a case were I can see AI being actually useful, healthcare usually being a woefully understaffed field. But this is different than bringing in an AI to write your articles because you you don't want to pay a writer.

AI replacing human (creative) jobs is inevitable, though humanity will be the poorer for it. AI can't create. It can't critique. It can generate ersatz "new" media based on learning models and algorithms, but, despite what tech-bros would have us believe, this is not "just like" how a human creates, and the more they pedal that lie, the more I despise them for it.

And to those "AI art is gonna happen! Just accept it, or get left behind!"-spouting fatheads, I submit to the court a hearty "Fuck you!"

[AndreasBlack]

I submit to the court a hearty "Fuck you!"

 
It's funny cause i asked about the "media", and you replied exactly what i had thought you would! "But this is different than bringing in an AI to write your articles because you you don't want to pay a writer.". I hope you are not a writer for B.S Tabloids. If so the following sentences should be ignored

To me that's one place where the "real humans" are so bad at their craft, i wouldn't mind replacing the Swedish staff at B.S tabloids like Aftonbladet, Expressen. It's already happening cause on most articles it says "partially created with AI" and i'm fine with that. Their shitty quality is still the same along with their common lies about society. However real authors,composers, etc that's different. They are the good people in my book (Yes, i call myself good).

Now we are talking "real art".  
Just writing B.S all day long about what happened to Angelina Jolie in a wheelchair (seen on Facebook recent days, probably AI but anyway). Is not a serious job, an AI can do that shit since it's just clickbait B.S. Controversal standpoint? Perhaps. Unbiased news on the TV is a different media where i want real human! . Not that any news is unbiased these days tho Just read the news and let the audience make up their own minds! But no...  

[Danvzare]

But this is a case were I can see AI being actually useful, healthcare usually being a woefully understaffed field. But this is different than bringing in an AI to write your articles because you you don't want to pay a writer.

AI replacing human (creative) jobs is inevitable, though humanity will be the poorer for it. AI can't create. It can't critique. It can generate ersatz "new" media based on learning models and algorithms, but, despite what tech-bros would have us believe, this is not "just like" how a human creates, and the more they pedal that lie, the more I despise them for it.

I just want to start by saying, I completely agree.

But I also want to say that... well. Have you seen what most so-called "writers" are writing nowadays?
It's usually nothing but drivel made to appease an unseen algorithm. All of the good stuff is buried, because the good writers refuse to appeal to the algorithm (I should know, because all of the good stuff I ever find is incredibly unpopular). And I'm not just talking about Youtube videos and News articles. I'm including games, TV shows, movies, comics, all media.

What I'm trying to say is, the people that look like they're about to be replaced by AI, kind of brought it on themselves. They lived by the algorithm and now they'll die by the algorithm. It's hard to feel empathy for sellouts being sold out. 

But that's just one tiny part of a much MUCH larger picture. Which is why at the start I said I completely agree with you. Overall, it does seem as though as you said "humanity will be the poorer for it". I just wanted to point out how I felt about that one small part.

[Ali]

If algorithms and media gatekeepers are promoting bad writing, that is hardly the fault of writers. If bosses are sacking writers, to replace them with AI-generated pablum, that's also not the writers' fault. I can't understand the resentment people feel towards writers and artists who are likely to be sacked so that a computer can produce a significantly cheaper and immeasurably worse product.

[Snarky]

To me it seems that a lot of the negative sides of AI being discussed are really general problems of capitalism, rather than something specific to the technology.

[Babar]

I kind of echo Cat's feelings on the matter here.

In terms of AI being trained on copyrighted material, it does seem immoral, and hopefully there can be laws put in place that prohibit that (and I think there are now, sort of? i.e. some country implemented that you can't copyright anything made using AI).

But in terms of creatives complaining that AI will eliminate them, I really don't see that happening at all. have you seen those AI created pieces of art/writing? They're very obvious and not really useful as is. The most they can be used for is a jumping off point or base to make something. If companies are rushing to fire their creatives and replace them with AI, they're going to be in for a pretty bad fall when the quality of whatever they are making will suffer immensely.

What I do see happening is the roles and work those creatives do being modified a bit to "prompters" and then using the created thing as a concept or jumping off point. Which is going to be pretty suck in the short term (in terms of derivative art), but hopefully AI will improve at some point and that will be less of a problem.

[KyriakosCH]

An AI article still needs human supervision, so one has to suppose people will be paid to do that. And with articles that need to be insightful, you also require the proofreader to know the subject to a considerable degree.
In the future, we will probably have the tech to create videos/art/music directly from images/sound composition in our mind, so art is set to change massively regardless.

[LimpingFish]

Have you seen those AI created pieces of art/writing? They're very obvious and not really useful as is. The most they can be used for is a jumping off point or base to make something. If companies are rushing to fire their creatives and replace them with AI, they're going to be in for a pretty bad fall when the quality of whatever they are making will suffer immensely.

They obviously don't care about quality, as we've already seen with those companies who tried to pass off AI content on the quiet. We have to remember that no creative or person knowledgeable of the limitations of AI are in any position to stop the blanket use of AI, since it's the executives who only care about the bottom line calling the shots.

People talk about the coming of AI content, but it's already here; abused into shape and cobbled together though it may be. Amazon is chock full of AI books and artwork on it's Kindle Unlimited service, not a particularly good service in the first place (so much so that I cancelled my own subscription), but practically unusable now due to search results coughing up SEO'd AI garbage, and burying books written by actual humans. A similar situation is brewing on Spotify, and I presume on other music streaming services.

What I do see happening is the roles and work those creatives do being modified a bit to "prompters" and then using the created thing as a concept or jumping off point. Which is going to be pretty suck in the short term (in terms of derivative art), but hopefully AI will improve at some point and that will be less of a problem.

Now, I'm going to rant a little here, and it's not directed at you, Babar, but you raise I point that I hear a lot.

Where did this idea come from that, all of a sudden, artists/musicians/writers/etc need some sort of crutch or short-cut to be creative? We have hundreds of years of creativity that worked just fine without AI. Artists learned their art through practice, study, and discipline. Yes, the influence of existing art and the world around us will shape and inspire an artist, as it always has, but that art will be embraced on a critical, human level, not ingested as an algorithm. AI apologists like to talk about "opening up art to the masses", as though lack of actual talent was just a single pebble to be avoided on the road to creating (commercial of otherwise) art. It's a lie. It's not gatekeeping that stops you from being an artist...it's the fact that you're not a fucking artist! That doesn't mean that you can't eventually become one, if you have a small grain of talent that can be honed and polished through hard work. But there's no magic bullet.

AI is a way for talentless people to appear otherwise, and unscrupulous people to make easy money. Read the opening to that article I linked above. The man featured is not a writer, and has no discernible talent in that arena. AI enabled him to overcome this, by generating a hollow, ersatz product which he used to fulfill his "dream" of becoming a "published" author. Will AI write his next book too? It would be tragic, if it wasn't so damaging to actual artists.

An AI article still needs human supervision, so one has to suppose people will be paid to do that. And with articles that need to be insightful, you also require the proofreader to know the subject to a considerable degree.

One supposes nothing of the sort. The ultimate end goal of these companies is a workforce of precisely one; the guy who sits at the computer and presses "GO". No offense to anyone, but arguing otherwise is wishful naivety.

To me it seems that a lot of the negative sides of AI being discussed are really general problems of capitalism, rather than something specific to the technology.

Indeed, but there's blood in the water, and too many eyes focused purely on profit. I feel it's now too late to talk about AI (especially in how it relates to artists) without acknowledging the influence of capitalism.

[KyriakosCH]

If you use the current AI models for articles (I have had a few written by Chatgpt, not to publish of course), you will know they are prone to very serious errors, so require proofreading by default. Unless your company doesn't care about being ridiculed and will risk it so as to not pay even a basic proofreader (who costs less than an article-writer anyway).
Price may increase due to the proofreader needing to be at least familiar with what they are reading, to notice (at least the worst of the) mistakes.

[Babar]

Where did this idea come from that, all of a sudden, artists/musicians/writers/etc need some sort of crutch or short-cut to be creative? We have hundreds of years of creativity that worked just fine without AI. Artists learned their art through practice, study, and discipline. Yes, the influence of existing art and the world around us will shape and inspire an artist, as it always has, but that art will be embraced on a critical, human level, not ingested as an algorithm. AI apologists like to talk about "opening up art to the masses", as though lack of actual talent was just a single pebble to be avoided on the road to creating (commercial of otherwise) art. It's a lie. It's not gatekeeping that stops you from being an artist...it's the fact that you're not a fucking artist! That doesn't mean that you can't eventually become one, if you have a small grain of talent that can be honed and polished through hard work. But there's no magic bullet.

AI is a way for talentless people to appear otherwise, and unscrupulous people to make easy money. Read the opening to that article I linked above. The man featured is not a writer, and has no discernible talent in that arena. AI enabled him to overcome this, by generating a hollow, ersatz product which he used to fulfill his "dream" of becoming a "published" author. Will AI write his next book too? It would be tragic, if it wasn't so damaging to actual artists.

Artists and creatives don't "need" a shortcut, but if a company needs some piece of media, and one person can provide a good quality product without AI in a week, and another person can provide an acceptable level of quality in 3 days that used AI as a base, the company would probably go for the AI one. And sure, yeah, "Capitalism sucks" and all of that. But AI is just a tool, it's not a boogeyman that's going to destroy creatives. Even using the example of the article you linked, purely AI-created works are pretty much error-riddled trash. Nobody is going to be replaced by someone purely using AI and nothing else.

[Snarky]

Couldn't a lot of what you say about generative AIs also be said about cameras, @LimpingFish? Before photography, it took a lot of training, skill and time to create a painting, whether a person's portrait or a landscape painting. Photography allows "anyone" to create similar images without artistic training, and much faster, just by buying a device and learning a few technical procedures. It's a shortcut to avoid the hard work otherwise required.

Among other things, this led to a large number of amateurs taking a massive number of shitty pictures, and painters losing a major part of their business as fewer people were interested in commissioning portraits, and magazines, advertising posters etc. largely switched from paintings to photos for their illustrations. And it has led to many serious painters incorporating photography into their process.

One thing I think both you and @Babar underestimate is how much of art only serves in a supporting role, as a necessary but not central element of some other work, rather than as an end in itself. For images, we can take book covers as one example: A book needs one, but the cover is not the work being sold. I think lots of authors and publishers would be fine using an AI-generated image for that. Or let's say a T-shirt with Mickey Mouse (or Peppa Pig or whoever is popular with kids these days) standing in front of a local landmark, sold as a souvenir. It doesn't need to be some interesting or "good" work of art, it just needs to feature the right elements and the right look. I'm sure if they can whip up those images automatically, nobody is going to complain that the result is formulaic and insipid: that's rather the point.

The same thing with backdrops or even background characters for TV animation: the goal in many scenes is to provide decent-looking but not attention-grabbing scenery for what happens in the foreground. It's not striving to be the pinnacle of art.

For writing, I don't think we're going to see fully AI-generated movie or TV scripts any time soon (perhaps they might try to use AI to do first-pass adaptations, turning books into movie scripts, but I doubt it will be very successful), but I'm sure we'll get games where generic NPC dialog is AI-generated, or a bunch of the incidental writing (like item descriptions), or where AI is used to create "more natural" variations of scripted repeating scenes. (So that e.g. each time you enter a shop, the shopkeeper's greeting could dynamically reflect events in the game, without having to manually write thousands of variants.)

The problem, of course, is that work like this (and many other examples that could be added) is often a way for artists/writers to make ends meet, or a stepping-stone into the industry. So yes, I think a lot of artistic work can be successfully replaced by AI without necessarily leading to a greatly inferior end-product, and I think it will cost jobs.

[Crimson Wizard]

Looking at this from another angle, I think there's an irony in how a good number of human writers and artists will soon be indistinguishable from AI.

Wonder which of the things that you read, watched or listened to in the past would appear AI-generated today?

I guess that over time it will require an effort to prove that you did "it" yourself too.

[LimpingFish]

Artists and creatives don't "need" a shortcut-

Bad ones do...

-but if a company needs some piece of media, and one person can provide a good quality product without AI in a week, and another person can provide an acceptable level of quality in 3 days that used AI as a base, the company would probably go for the AI one. -purely AI-created works are pretty much error-riddled trash.

But you can't argue both points; either AI art is good enough to provide a useful product (proto-art that a human can then expand upon, or use in creating a finished piece of art), or AI art is garbage that nobody in their right mind would try to pass off as acceptable. If the AI is making bad art, why would an artist want to use that as a base to work from? On the other hand, if AI will eventually become "better", why limit it, why not let it take over content generation completely?

There's no doubt, that in some form, AI could be used effectively as another tool in making artwork (much like Photoshop), whether with advanced compositing, background removal, etc*. What I object to is the concept of "creative" AI; generating content alone, not with creativity or insight, but by algorithmic necromancy. Quality is irrelevant.

Nobody is going to be replaced by someone purely using AI and nothing else.

As I said in my earlier post, that indeed is the end result sought by those at the top of the food chain. Sensible people like you and me might see it as folly, but that's where we're heading.

One thing I think both you and @Babar underestimate is how much of art only serves in a supporting role, as a necessary but not central element of some other work, rather than as an end in itself. For images, we can take book covers as one example: A book needs one, but the cover is not the work being sold. I think lots of authors and publishers would be fine using an AI-generated image for that. Or let's say a T-shirt with Mickey Mouse (or Peppa Pig or whoever is popular with kids these days) standing in front of a local landmark, sold as a souvenir. It doesn't need to be some interesting or "good" work of art, it just needs to feature the right elements and the right look. I'm sure if they can whip up those images automatically, nobody is going to complain that the result is formulaic and insipid: that's rather the point.

Over one hundred years of fabulous book covers (or record covers, movie posters...even toy boxes!) show that you don't have to reduce commercial promotional art to the status of the purely functional. Oh, you can, and yes, I'm certain that publishers/manufacturers would indeed be welcoming of purely AI-generated content in this sense. But as a consumer, what would be the benefit? And while such products don't need to be "interesting" or "good", they also don't need to be free of such qualities. And why deny the guy who designs your milk carton a job, simply because nobody cares what a milk carton looks like as long as it has milk in it?

Maybe the milk would be cheaper...?

The same thing with backdrops or even background characters for TV animation: the goal in many scenes is to provide decent-looking but not attention-grabbing scenery for what happens in the foreground. It's not striving to be the pinnacle of art.

But don't you see that as a diminishing of the art, regardless of it's status? Maurice Noble created some astonishing backgrounds for old Warner Bros. cartoons (backgrounds that sometimes whizzed by in the blink of an eye during a Road Runner short), and I'm sure, as he cashed his weekly check, he didn't consider his work would end up as museum pieces. Or what about the beautifully designed backgrounds in Samurai Jack? People care. Granted, not everybody cares, but still. To argue for lesser art, simply because of it's nature, confuses me.

I guess that over time it will require an effort to prove that you did "it" yourself too.

It would be a sad day to find yourself arguing that your art is indeed yours, because of the normalization of AI art, and the expectation that everybody must be using it.

Just to clarify, bad art, or art created as product, is still art. AI-generated art is non-art, or the inverse of art. In a consumer/capitalist society, non-art may indeed be acceptable to the majority, even as a replacement of art, good, bad or indifferent.

But fuck that society.

*: But, since we do indeed live in a consumer/capitalist society, to those saying we could just use AI in this way, or just a smidge of AI in this area, I have little option but to view all those suggestions as covert back-doors to the afore mentioned end goal; total adoption, by those in power, of AI as a replacement for human creativity.

Also this.

[KyriakosCH]

If the worry is about quality of art, I am pretty sure that future "AI" art programs will easily match the style of any human. Because they aren't limited by art skills, it's all math, so they will do it better in the same way that a pocket calculator will calculate better than the fastest human.
All that said, we should remember that the human will be needed still, even if only to serve as the evaluator of worth of the computer-produced art. The program itself cannot do it, because it's not actually sentient.

So the talented artist will still be around, just in the role of the eye - which imo is better, since the mechanics of producing art are tedious regardless of how good one is at it.

[Crimson Wizard]

So the talented artist will still be around, just in the role of the eye - which imo is better, since the mechanics of producing art are tedious regardless of how good one is at it.

From my impression, the people do art for following reasons:
- Recreation and pleasure;
- Devising new ways of portraying reality;
- Money, fame,
- Utilitarian purposes.

Use of AI covers the two last purposes, while majorly defeating the first, and probably unapplicable for the second, at least not at the moment.

All that said, we should remember that the human will be needed still, even if only to serve as the evaluator of worth of the computer-produced art. The program itself cannot do it, because it's not actually sentient.

To tell the truth, I actually doubt that it's impossible to teach machine to evaluate art. I thought about this many years ago, long before the AI became a widespread topic, and in my opinion the problem here is mostly to find out how humans evaluate art, and then describe that mathematically. That is, if we want to make machine follow our own perception of "art".

[KyriakosCH]

^Regarding AI establishing what works for humans as good art, I have to suppose this would quickly approach one of the many (already) known limitations of any level of a formal logic system. Of course the program can produce stuff and 'by accident' achieve very high quality, but I doubt it will be able itself to reproduce that (more likely that it will mathematically model the success as tied to parameters of the image it wasn't tied to for the human), and even if it does, it won't go above that level, while a human can (due to serendipity if not conscious calculation and extrapolation).

As for my remark about tedious mechanics, I already mentioned that future programs may well allow us to create digital images out of what we see in our imagination. Which in my view is certainly a bonus, since we imagined that in the first place, and being able or not to produce it mechanically yourself is surely secondary.

[Crimson Wizard]

^Regarding AI establishing what works for humans as good art, I have to suppose this would quickly approach one of the many (already) known limitations of any level of a formal logic system. Of course the program can produce stuff and 'by accident' achieve very high quality, but I doubt it will be able itself to reproduce that (more likely that it will mathematically model the success as tied to parameters of the image it wasn't tied to for the human), and even if it does, it won't go above that level, while a human can (due to serendipity if not conscious calculation and extrapolation).

What I mean, the question is whether the human thought and perception may be described mathematically. So far most of the processes in human body were, at least this is my impression based on what I've read or heard. There's already some understanding of how human brain works. I cannot predict the future, but I think there's a realistic chance that, given time and effort, humans will be able to define how their own mind works, including intuition, perception of beauty, and so forth.

Of course the above assumes that the nature of our thought is deterministic. If there's, say, a spiritual essence which cannot be described by a formal logic, then we have a different situation...

[KyriakosCH]

^Regarding AI establishing what works for humans as good art, I have to suppose this would quickly approach one of the many (already) known limitations of any level of a formal logic system. Of course the program can produce stuff and 'by accident' achieve very high quality, but I doubt it will be able itself to reproduce that (more likely that it will mathematically model the success as tied to parameters of the image it wasn't tied to for the human), and even if it does, it won't go above that level, while a human can (due to serendipity if not conscious calculation and extrapolation).

What I mean, the question is whether the human thought and perception may be described mathematically. So far most of the processes in human body were, at least this is my impression based on what I've read or heard. There's already some understanding of how human brain works. I cannot predict the future, but I think there's a realistic chance that, given time and effort, humans will be able to define how their own mind works, including intuition, perception of beauty, and so forth.

Of course the above assumes that the nature of our thought is deterministic. If there's, say, a spiritual essence which cannot be described by a formal logic, then we have a different situation...

I was only alluding to formal logic systems having inherent blind-spots (eg Goedel sentences), which aren't removed regardless of expansions of the system.
But I won't be at all surprised if the human mind (despite being closer to an analog machine, or at least looking like such) also has built-in defenses against everything being provable (or understandable) while still maintaining consistency.
Besides, even philosophically, how could one be aware of what being aware means, without that altering what being aware means? =>some level outside the stable one would appear to be needed, so the unawareness is just pushed there.

[Crimson Wizard]

I was only alluding to formal logic systems having inherent blind-spots (eg Goedel sentences), which aren't removed regardless of expansions of the system.

I'm not going to lie that I understand this fully; it's been many years since I studied math in any way.

But something that I might say: the systems that produce complicated results are not necessarily based on complicated rules. Sometimes complex systems are complex because they are vast, and have many elements; but at the same time may have a simple foundation, which is then copied many times, with variations, or different input parameters.

If the mind has similar structure, then it's a matter of learning the foundations, after which calculating the thought, so to speak, would be rather an issue of employing enough calculation power rather than devising a difficult mathematical theorem.

But I won't be at all surprised if the human mind (despite being closer to an analog machine, or at least looking like such) also has built-in defenses against everything being provable (or understandable) while still maintaining consistency.

Well, in that case, I guess, the solution is in building an AI that can understand us. Which may be a good joke, but also a truth.

[Babar]

Bad ones do...

A bad artist using shortcuts is never going to surpass a good artist using shortcuts. In fact, they're probably not even going to surpass a good artist not using shortcuts.

But you can't argue both points; either AI art is good enough to provide a useful product (proto-art that a human can then expand upon, or use in creating a finished piece of art), or AI art is garbage that nobody in their right mind would try to pass off as acceptable. If the AI is making bad art, why would an artist want to use that as a base to work from? On the other hand, if AI will eventually become "better", why limit it, why not let it take over content generation completely?

I don't think my point is contradictory- something being usable as a base or source or inspiration is different from something being usable as is. A good artist can use it to save time in their process of making original art, a bad artist can use it as is, and be called out for having horrible art (or find a use case where quality doesn't matter).
 

There's no doubt, that in some form, AI could be used effectively as another tool in making artwork (much like Photoshop), whether with advanced compositing, background removal, etc*. What I object to is the concept of "creative" AI; generating content alone, not with creativity or insight, but by algorithmic necromancy. Quality is irrelevant.

You put it in quotes, so you understand already, but it is important to hammer this point in- there is no such thing as "creative" AI. The way AI has been trained is by looking at thousands of images so that when you give it a fill in the blanks art question, it fills in the blank with the answer that has the highest score according to its algorithm. If we are talking about a potential future where AI is making art all on its own and it is something purely creative...we're nowhere near there yet.

As I said in my earlier post, that indeed is the end result sought by those at the top of the food chain. Sensible people like you and me might see it as folly, but that's where we're heading.

In the situations where such things are in focus, it doesn't matter what the people at the top of the food chain want. If they try to implement a process for their products purely using AI, their quality will suffer, and people will move to other products. If they find a niche where the actual quality doesn't matter as much and people get that, then...ok. It still won't take away from people who actually put in effort into their art. The example you linked above was AI generated children's books, and children not having that good a grasp of quality, it sounds like it would be an exploitable niche, except even then, the guy has only earned $100, and I'm pretty sure he's not going to eclipse any actually skilled writers.

[Snarky]

Over one hundred years of fabulous book covers (or record covers, movie posters...even toy boxes!) show that you don't have to reduce commercial promotional art to the status of the purely functional. Oh, you can, and yes, I'm certain that publishers/manufacturers would indeed be welcoming of purely AI-generated content in this sense.

And I'm sure that there will still be fabulous book covers, record covers, movie posters and other visual designs made. What AI-generated art will mainly replace (in part) is the 90% of book covers (etc.) that are just stock photos mashed together in Photoshop. (Another article in Norwegian.)

And the thing is: a great book cover can be nice in itself, but it doesn't actually affect the quality of the book. Some of my favorite books have absolutely god-awful covers (since the first edition I don't think The Fifth Head of Cerberus has ever been republished with a good cover; this one is particularly hideous), while a book you pick up because of a stylish cover can often be a disappointing read. Someone should come up with a saying about that...

And why deny the guy who designs your milk carton a job, simply because nobody cares what a milk carton looks like as long as it has milk in it?

I agree, that's a shame. I'm not sure it's more of a shame than anyone else losing their job to new technology, but in general I absolutely agree that there is a big danger that AI will eliminate a lot of jobs very quickly, and that people will suffer for it.

But don't you see that as a diminishing of the art, regardless of it's status? Maurice Noble created some astonishing backgrounds for old Warner Bros. cartoons (backgrounds that sometimes whizzed by in the blink of an eye during a Road Runner short), and I'm sure, as he cashed his weekly check, he didn't consider his work would end up as museum pieces. Or what about the beautifully designed backgrounds in Samurai Jack? People care. Granted, not everybody cares, but still. To argue for lesser art, simply because of it's nature, confuses me.

But there is a flipside to that, because lowering the barriers to entry will allow more people to make art. I know you pooh-poohed that before, saying that the thing keeping them back is actually lack of talent, but you've got to consider the people who have a great idea for a computer game but can't make graphics, or the people with a great idea for a cartoon who don't have the time or money to draw everything, etc., etc. Because like I said, a lot of art is just in service of some other/greater work, and merely because someone doesn't have the skill (or the time, or the money, or the friends/connections) to do that particular part, it doesn't mean they don't have artistic talent.

And sure, there will be a lot of crap. Just like AGS, by making it a lot easier to make adventure games, has led to the creation of a lot of terrible adventure games.

[KyriakosCH]

Personally I am not seeing a positive reason to be infatuated with the technical part of (say) creating visual art. Yes, it takes time to form such a skill. But the skill itself rarely (at least consciously) directs the more purely creative part of thinking of the work. It is more of a barrier, in that if your skill is insufficient, you won't be able to fully recreate what you had in your head, despite that already being fully formed in your mind.
It's also, itself, not apparently tied to other insights. For example, take someone who creates a 3d model, using a program like Blender or 3dsmax etc, and renders that as 2d. And theoretically assume someone else would have been able (not very likely, but not strictly impossible either) to produce the same 2d image, using a web of mathematical functions (which, ultimately, the 3d modeller makes use of itself, but on a level you don't typically access as a modeler). The latter would have insight on those functions too, while the former operates on a far looser connection to forms, associating them with the means to something and not themselves-for-themselves tied to insights.
It's the same in painting; you need time to form the skills needed to draw by hand or apply color, but those are just means to an end, not something which typically (let alone consciously) affects your creativity; it just stands as a barrier to achieving the potential.

Likewise with stuff of the ags variety: you have to learn commands and the structure used specifically here, but I doubt anyone would seriously claim it is the ags-skill which matters and not the result as a game. In that regard, how could it ever be not positive to be in a position to simply have the result you imagined, by not needing to type any command? (though, of course, with current tech this isn't possible, it's fairly conceivable that in the future it will be). 

[AndreasBlack]

My first attempt at AI usage. Bg Girl vocal. A bit Noisy, but it works in the mix i think. I'm not gonna lie. I like AI vocals rather then having to deal with problematic people when i can sing it myself in falsetto and change it to a girl https://soundcloud.com/maxfury_official/max-fury-girl-of-my-dreams

[eri0o]

https://civitai.com/models/151539/lucasarts-style-1990s-pc-adventure-games-sdxl-lora-dreambooth-trained

Saw this recently - I have alerts for Adventure Game Studio in search engines that I occasionally get.

Btw from the examples it doesn't look like it is useful beyond static images, and it's all very lifeless, but I could see perhaps using it for some text game where you navigate a place and polishing whatever is generated later in Aseprite by hand - adjusting colors, palette, resolution, clean up of the hallucinations, ... Still could be a really fast pipeline if you are working in intense time restrictions - like Ludum Dare, where you must work solo and output something in 48hours.

[cat]

Since AI learns from texts and pictures and then again creates text and pictures, I wonder when the moment will happen when AIs train mostly on AI generated stuff. What will this result in?
I just have to think of the Habsburgs, interbreeding for generations with a questionable outcome...

[Danvzare]

Since AI learns from texts and pictures and then again creates text and pictures, I wonder when the moment will happen when AIs train mostly on AI generated stuff. What will this result in?
I just have to think of the Habsburgs, interbreeding for generations with a questionable outcome...

I think we're all wondering that. Presumably it won't be as catastrophic as one might first think, because the text and pictures generated by AI that make their way online, tend to be curated by actual humans. For example, someone generates a hundred pictures using AI and then uploads the best one.

Still, what do you get if you keep feeding AI it's own output?
...
Ugh, I think I just answered my own question. That sounds like what they did to that two headed goat on Futurama. 

[AndreasBlack]

https://civitai.com/models/151539/lucasarts-style-1990s-pc-adventure-games-sdxl-lora-dreambooth-trained

Saw this recently - I have alerts for Adventure Game Studio in search engines that I occasionally get.

I have to agree. As for the voice AI however it's incredible if the sound source is really good!   I've done my own voice AI's and friend's AI voice profiles and used that in my game so far. It sounds awesome! It takes time for sure, but that's to expect. But it's doable if you really want voice acting and just can voice act yourself and then replace your voice with various profiles! I've done 400 lines atm from Female to male voices and most of them are good enough, i will probably go over some of them in the future and re-act, but it's good for now! And then if there's a line i can't do myself i just ask the friends to act it out. That's how i've done it so far

[eri0o]

Found a small thread here that doesn't have much things discussed, but posed an interesting idea I had not thought about AI: using AI for testing games. Of course, the subject matter is specific for Chat GPT and Parser games.

https://intfiction.org/t/testing-your-game-with-chatgpt/59863


Of course, perhaps just some automation that clicks in a gazillion random places in AGS and types random bs in a keyboard if stuck for too long in the same place could potentially uncover bugs/crashes with a much simpler code - no AI required.

[gijsja]

Testdrive this GPTBuild for AGS and tell me what you think
https://chat.openai.com/g/g-QGodtBnLc-adventure-pixel-director

[Babar]

And also not pixel art 

[Matti]

Since AI learns from texts and pictures and then again creates text and pictures, I wonder when the moment will happen when AIs train mostly on AI generated stuff. What will this result in?
I just have to think of the Habsburgs, interbreeding for generations with a questionable outcome...

I guess it will become normal that people have an arbitrary number of limbs and fingers 

[RootBound]

This article presents some pretty damning results. The further you get into their investigation, the worse it gets.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/midjourney-copyright

[LimpingFish]

Of course it plagiarizes. It can't create, it can only imitate. And in the six months since I last posted in this thread, the situation has only got scummier and the foaming greed around AI more apparent.

So call me a Luddite, but I'll say it again: Fuck Generative AI, and double fuck the cretins shilling it.

[cat]

Sometimes I print coloring pages for my daughter. Recently, she requested "a zebra that is jumping on a cloud". I told her, that this will not be possible and she was really sad.
However, yesterday I played around with Bing a bit and its image generation (it uses DALL-E). There I was able to create a lovely picture of a cute zebra jumping on a cloud in a style suitable as coloring page. My daughter was very happy (even if one of the zebras had five legs).

[Mandle]

Of course it plagiarizes. It can't create, it can only imitate. And in the six months since I last posted in this thread, the situation has only got scummier and the foaming greed around AI more apparent.

So call me a Luddite, but I'll say it again: Fuck Generative AI, and double fuck the cretins shilling it.

I tend to agree. It's interesting to watch how technology is outstripping our ability to keep up with it as a society. This was always gonna be the endgame though, I guess. There's no stopping progress.

[LimpingFish]

Interesting set of articles in progress over on RockPaperShotgun from someone working with AI, particularly this one about theft.

The article also links to this Scientific American article on the oroborus eventuality of AI trained on AI.

[ShortWlf]

i did not even see this post before i posted my post inquiring about a toy project i am making in ags, i did some of my art with ai, and others with 3d models, down scaled to pixel art, i did not come out direct, with that being said i did hint at using my own constructed methods, as i have, i do not use ai websites because they are and can be harvested images from copyright or non images, depends on how the ai was trained in other-words, there are a lot of people that just think ai is bad, and it turns into an automatic witch hunt, anyways i think the usage of ai to help design or help get ideas or a trace image, or precursor to develop or make a game is amazing, i just wish people would think of it as a possible tool, rather then automatically label it as bad, anyone remember tracing images in school and using traced images and making into your own art, or using that to help you learn how to draw things?

[Stupot]

@ShortWlf

A lot of people don't like where we're going with AI art and for all the good reasons mentioned in this thread. "Witch-hunt" is a bit melodramatic, but if there is any sniff that someone is trying to pass off AI-generated or assisted work as their own, maliciously or not, it will be called out.

It's the wild west out there right now and a lot of dishonesty is afoot. Personally, I'm not dead against all use of AI for personal/hobbyist-level assets. I'm in agreement that it could be another tool in the toolbox. But you gotta read the room, and most rooms would appreciate absolute transparency.

In fact, I think a nice little post/tutorial openly detailing your technique could not only provide that transparency, but could also be useful to someone who might want to do something similar. Be aware though, people are always going to point out the tell-tale signs, either way. Treat that as constructive feedback to improve the technique.

[Ali]

Revolution Software are using machine learning on the 4K remaster of Broken Sword 1, and I can't think of a better use of that kind of technology. Of course, machine learning will create lots of handy short-cuts for independent game devs. My understanding is they've been training an ai model using character sprites that they created. And I think there's no reasonable objection to that on ethical grounds.

Similarly, Dune 2 used ai for the blue Fremen eyes. The (wonderful) Klaus trained an ai to light their 2D characters as if they were 3D. Across the Spider-Verse used ai to create the outline pen strokes on top of their 3D models.

All of that is clearly different, practically and ethically, from using generative ai to create "original" artwork.

[Snarky]

It's not going to be a sharp, bright line, though. You'll have all sorts of in-between situations where the generative AI is assisting at different levels, and doing more or less of the work.

For example, what if you're an artist and have tuned the AI model (originally trained on a vast database of other works) based on samples of your own style, and then use generative AI to:

-polish up rough, unfinished paintings to a finished state?
-"spatialize" a 2D painting for 3D animation (including inferring what things would look like from the back)?
-create facial animation for a portrait (lip sync or expressions)?
-create variations of a scene (e.g. nighttime, winter, 100 years ago)?
-do in-painting edits to an image ("change that bookcase to a fireplace")?
-make additional scenes from an example (instead of painting sixteen similar forest screens, paint one and let the AI generate the rest)?

[Rik_Vargard]

We're living some kind revolution here.
My dad lost his job to progress and innovation.
But he was lucky because he just was retiring like one year later.
There will be a transition.
Some people will be mad, angry and afraid of it.
It always happens : Steam technology, industrialization, robotics, computing...
Because we're in 2024, it just happens really fast and seems to come out of left field.
But it has been coming to us for a while.
Once, someone told me: "You can be for or against evolution, you'll have to go with it anyway."
AI is here to stay. Like every new technological revolution before.
I think we have to accept and adapt.
Or else we still would be hunters/gatherers.
I know people who were like really against it until they changed their minds.
Because of time.
How much time do we have to do what we want to do when we have a full-time job, family, friends, etc.?

What can feel unfair:
Being a knight or samurai who believes in traditional battles, and having cannons and guns in front of you.
There's that reason why everyone has cannons now.

Cheers

[Danvzare]

Very well put @Rik_Vargard although I would like to add, that just because we can't do anything about change, doesn't mean we have to like it or take it lying down.

I mean, we're all here because we love point and click adventure games, despite time, technology, and tastes having long since moved past the genre.

It might be a futile battle, but life is futile anyway. So if you don't like change, then why not fight it for the sake of fighting it? 
I'd personally prefer to die fighting for what I believe in, then to live in a perpetual state of yielding acceptance. Although I wouldn't want to do either in a blind state of ignorance. But that's just my values.



Also considering you touched upon it, I suppose now would be a good time to go into a philosophical debate about the desire for progression, and whether there is a reason to continually do so.
A topic which is quite vast, although I only have surface level knowledge of.

[Babar]

Very well put @Rik_Vargard although I would like to add, that just because we can't do anything about change, doesn't mean we have to like it or take it lying down.

I mean, we're all here because we love point and click adventure games, despite time, technology, and tastes having long since moved past the genre.

It might be a futile battle, but life is futile anyway. So if you don't like change, then why not fight it for the sake of fighting it? 
I'd personally prefer to die fighting for what I believe in, then to live in a perpetual state of yielding acceptance. Although I wouldn't want to do either in a blind state of ignorance. But that's just my values.



Also considering you touched upon it, I suppose now would be a good time to go into a philosophical debate about the desire for progression, and whether there is a reason to continually do so.
A topic which is quite vast, although I only have surface level knowledge of.

Why does it sound like an AI wrote your text? 

[LimpingFish]

Now, I know I'm old...at least by social media standards...but I am prepared to die in the fight against generative AI. I swear, upon a random stack of poorly-xeroxed bibles, that I will never use generative AI.

Some might see this as hyperbole, or fatalistic thinking, but I really do feel that if we give this anti-artistic, anti-creative, anti-human technology, even an inch, it will destroy us, slowly but surely. It will come for everything.

For instance, unless we're previously familiar with the creators, it's becoming increasingly difficult to recognize AI-generated videos on Youtube. You may be five or ten minutes into a video about the history of industrial foam insulation, when suddenly the narrator, who up until now has been speaking perfect English, will pronounce a word in a way that no human would allow to pass in the edit. You realize you're listening to an AI.

Then you realize you're watching images generated by an AI, and before long you come to the realization that not only are the audio and visuals AI, but that the whole video is the result of a single prompt, and contains no unique editorial content, being simply a regurgitation of dredged data, presented in a way that apes a popular video style.
And a little piece of you dies.

The AI has harmed you, in a small but very real way.

I want art made by humans. I don't care how mundane, or downright bad, said art is, but I want human eyes and human thoughts and human fingers to have been involved in every step of it's creation. AI will never produce art. But it will churn out content, or a facsimile of art, and capitalism's wet dream; a never-ending supply of cheap, flavourless sludge, blindly consumed by thoughtless, heartless automatons.

Generative AI will not "democratize art" or "level the playing-field"; it will render the playing-field a featureless grey void, where nothing matters and nobody cares. There is inherent worth in talent, in learning, in a dedication to strive to improve our creative abilities. There is humanity and emotional sustenance in both the creation of and consuming of art.

AI strips us of all of that. It tells us to cut out the middle-person (work/talent/creativity/artistic ability), put aside the desire to present our thoughts, ideas, and feelings in a form that others will experience and love/hate/ignore, and allow the robot to interpret something that approximates an existing piece of art, where the only goal is a sell-able product made with the least effort.

Despite being a metaphorical stretch, AI is like a Fleshlight; cut out the middle-person, and just have technology give you a blowjob! Or rather, a facsimile of a blowjob, but hey, the end result is the same, so it must just as good as the real thing, right? Right?

TLDR; Fuuuuuuuuuuck AI!

[TheFrighter]

Uh, what a weird metaphore! 

_

[cat]

@LimpingFish Did you just say that prostitution is better than masturbation? 

[Kastchey]

Seems so. Not sure how relevant hiring a person to do a BJ is to emotional fulfillment, but one thing is certain - there's no stopping the invasion of sex toys into modern society 

[LimpingFish]

@LimpingFish Did you just say that prostitution is better than masturbation? 

Seems so.

Well, I did say it wasn't the best metaphor, and it was intended as a joke.

Spoiler

But I do happen to be pro sex worker, as it happens. Not something I've ever availed of myself, but I'm certainly not against the practice, and would happily see laws and safeguards in place to protect those who wish to consensually provide, and those who wish to avail of, such a service.

Not coming down hard on masturbation, either, just juxtaposing the idea of technology creating a facsimile of art, and technology creating a foam-injected facsimile of a mouth (or other orifice), the end result of both being onanism; Generative AI exists to allows otherwise talentless/lazy people the fantasy that they are creative souls, while a Fleshlight offers them the fantasy of their genitals in somebody's mouth (or other orifice).

I also offered the juxtaposition of actual sex with an like-minded partner compared to the act of sticking your penis between a pair of rubber lips (or other orifice), and art as a human endeavor compared to non-art created by a robot. I'll admit that one was a little weak.

And, yes, to make my joke, I knowingly ignored the fact that a Fleshlight is actually more worthwhile than AI, and by doing so I totally did sex toy enthusiasts a disservice. So, for fans of penises being put into fake body parts, or fake penises being put into real body parts, I totally support your right to do so and be proud of it, and I applaud all your forms of exotic sexual release!

[close]

It was crude, clumsy and a bit of a reach, but I thought it overall apt, at least from a silly point of view.

Nevertheless, I'll re-edit the post to appear clearer.

Note to self: re-read posts you intended to publish at 4:30am.

Edit: Also...

[AndreasBlack]

Well it's over, for musicians. I just checked out the latest AI and this is insane. Yes, i can probably hear (i'm 90% confident) that i would be able to tell vocal AI's VS real ones, but it's such a thin line now. The compressed and slightly "phase" sounding vocals is what gives it away most of the times, but sometimes the phase:ish sound isn't or the overcompressed tone of the vocal and then it's like. Well i don't know. Is this AI or not? Out of all the songs i've listened to on Udio i couldn't find a real "hit" sounding song yet. But they have great verses that's better then some of my worst songs i've created in life for sure, and production wise it sounds just like the records it's trained from, no doubt. Scary times!

Slowly i'm starting to morph into Limpingfish

[Crimson Wizard]

Well, to be fair, much of the music demonstrated in the above video is a "generic" kind of music. Even if created by humans, that would not make it any special, so at some point maybe there's not much difference whether it's made by a human, copying certain standards for the style and genre, or AI basically doing the same - in its own way.

EDIT: I guess I am questioning whether there's a difference between a human-made generic creation and AI-made one.

I suppose the danger is rather in efficiency. AI can create plagiarisms more efficient and faster than a human.
Plus, many humans that would not bother doing this by hand will now use AI, because it's "easy".

[AndreasBlack]

I exaggerated a little as click-bait, but from a quality standpoint it's way to good now. How it creates legit good sounding 'scalewise correct' vocal harmonies, previous AI's sounded a bit tonedeaf and i couldn't hold myself from laughing  Did you listen to the retro 50-60's songs? Crazy! About it sounding generic, well have you listened to the billboard charts lately? I can't remember the last time i heard a really good song on the charts. Who would notice a sudden change in AI modelled songs? You and i perhaps, but i doubt the general public would! 
 
Some of the jazz songs at times sounded really good, but other times it felt like a soloist that doesn't know what to play and just hits notes randomly in the scale without any purpose behind the notes. Keep in mind it's just in a beta stage. Earlier AI music creation sites have not impressed me one bit, but this one did.

I must admit i'm beginning to get really scared now Real musicians or people with a big music interest they'll hear something is off, but that's in the minority these days

[Rik_Vargard]

Ah I came here just to do that tonight: talking about AI in music.
Looks like I've been thinking about it too long 
So thanks @Danvzare @AndreasBlack @Crimson Wizard  for the trigger.

And if you think Udio is a game changer, try Suno.com. That's where the real deal is. Because there's instrumental songs, but you can also add lyrics. And then come the singers.
There's everything, really. Before you go there, be prepared.
And you'll get why it take me so long 

I'm testing this thing in so many ways for like two months and mostly traditional music from around the world, because electronic music is easy, but all of those real traditional voices and instruments was always impossible unless recorded.
Well, that's over. it's just incredible.
Of course there are flaws at this point, but oh boy, do I give the traditional music industry like between end 2024 and 2026 to live some sort of apocalypse.

And then there will be that discussion about supporting real composers that make music but, at this point, how do I know they didn't use AI to make their music?

[LimpingFish]

I must admit I'm beginning to get really scared now Real musicians or people with a big music interest they'll hear something is off, but that's in the minority these days

And then there will be that discussion about supporting real composers that make music but, at this point, how do I know they didn't use AI to make their music?

I don't even think it's a case of AI becoming so good it's indistinguishable from the real deal. It's more about the vested interests behind AI trying to convince us that what they are producing is good enough as is. That there is no real difference in quality between art and AI art; it just looks a little off because we aren't used to it yet. Look at the video I posted; somebody decided that it was good enough to put out as is, despite it being hilariously inept. They don't care what it looks like, they only care if it will be accepted and consumed. And if it is, why even strive to make it "better"?

AI is a scam, and scammers are lazy. If the manpower, and cost, required in producing AI content outweighs the benefit of the scam, then it makes the scam seem more like work, and the scammers will split.

I predict you'll see a number of previously vocal AI supporters slowly lose interest in it (like NFTs, like crypto) as it becomes clear that it's not going to pay out they way they want it to.

EDIT: And the reason why we catch AI art so quickly is that the people producing it can't tell the difference. It's why they feel confident posting artwork without disclosing that it's AI; because it looks like real art to them, since they lack any form of critical or creative ability.

As always, fuck AI.