The art and images that image AI’s are based off of, are stolen. They diffuse them as a legal loop hole. That’s the main issue. I want to see AI pushed forward, but not when they’re scraping data and not crediting artists. The amount of data required for an image AI is crazy; we have to figure out a way of legally and respectfully requiring that data.
Text AI’s are marginally better, because a lot of the data acquired was opt in. It was just people talking. There is the issue with them ripping books, though.
It does make it different by virtue of sheer scale and efficiency.
A single human artist, no matter how good and fast they are, could ever singlehandedly damage the livelihoods of millions of other human artists. But a machine can. That’s a meaningful distinction.
Granted, your point is valid in its purest sense. If we lived in a world where everyone could benefit from AI art without the real-world downsides, I’d agree with you, full stop. But we do, and those ramifications matter.
It’s tone deaf as fuck. From the article: “If you can’t hire an artist to do advertising, I highly doubt you’ll do it with independent developers.”
This is the only point that matters. Even if AI is here to stay, that’s fine, you just don’t use it when specifically highlighting the demographic most threatened by its usage. The post was just a bad business decision; they should have known how it could come across. It’s their job to know that kinda stuff before hitting Post.
If an independent developer is threatened by AI, then they’re using it wrong.
From a development standpoint, it is so nice if you are someone who is good at coding but bad at art to be able to use AI to help with the visual design of the game. It’s easy to say “just hire an artist” when so many indie devs are literally one-person operations who can barely afford rent, let alone wages for an artist.
Gosh, I pray they’re not using Photoshop as well! Won’t someone think of the children??
I really don’t care one way or the other. I think AI being used is an inevitability. I think it would only really be relevant if Microsoft had a policy against AI being used in games for things like asset generation for example.
gods am i glad microsoft didn’t have to dip into their literal trillion dollar valuation to pay independent artists any money at all to advertise the independent developers they’re so gleeful to take credit for
I’m not defending Microsoft. They’re a soulless corporation releasing an ad around a holiday where a lot of people have time off and recently received gift cards and spending cash. I don’t think them paying for an artist one time when they hope to use AI for a majority of their throwaway adverts really matters.
Yeah or an artist they already have on salary. This was just less work for someone already working for them.
It doesn’t matter if you all don’t like ai art. It’s not going away and it will only continue to be more prevalent.
You should embrace it. I say this as someone who has a ton of debt from art school still. Resistance is futile.
AI art is always so immediately obvious. I understand the temptation. Oh wow, I can jazz up this throw-away post that no one really cares about.
But everyone that sees that post immediately notes oh its ai art again. Because our brains are picking up on all the details. So it kind of defeats and distracts from the point.
There might be ways of encorporating ai generated images into things, but it’s not gonna be by just generating an image with a prompt and running with that as your main graphic.
Never say never. I wouldn’t be too sure whether or not it remains obvious when AI is being used, and for how long. Right now though it’s definitely nothing that should be used as a final result. Really good way to get inspiration for moods and motives though
I don’t think it’s even good as inspiration, since it pretty much always just ends up looking fairly generic. Better to spend some time crawling the internet for more interesting and unique inspo
No offense, but I strongly disagree. For an initial inspiration sure, arch daily is still my go-to as well. But once you have some idea of what you want to propose to a client it’s honestly been a gamechanger to me. Much easier to get specific using prompts instead of searching some tags hoping someone already made, photographed, uploaded and tagged what you are looking for. In terms of how generic it is; so is most of the stuff on say Pinterest. I think it’s how you combine and implement what you find/generate. No matter the process. At the agency I work at AI image generation has been a great tool for the past half year. The release of Midjourney 4 made it viable for us, although I prefer StableDiffusion. Either way, I would not want to miss it.
it’s ironic, since AI generated always looks polished - but the identification is mostly context-based i.e. we know nobody would pay anyone for making that illustration from scratch: because it’s a throw-away
illustrations will be ubiquitous but mostly shit, only the shit will be more polished
so if an illustration is highly polished but otherwise garbage, it’s AI with high probability - because the craftsmanship of the generator exceeds the artistic taste and development of the user
This is why we need a rule that if you incorporate your logo into AI art, your logo becomes public domain.
This is technically already legal precedence in USA, copyright requires human expression and without sufficient human creative control in ML generated works they’re effectively public domain
Edit: why downvotes?
Yes, for the imagery itself, but their logo is still under trademark. What I’m saying is if you put your logo on AI generated imagery and release it to the public, you no longer own a trademark for your logo.
That’s not how courts are going to treat it. Public domain (lack of) licensing is not “infectious”. Instead you can just cut out the trademark and reuse ML images because under current legal precedence they’re in public domain but the trademark isn’t
