Post by crowTbirb in AI art games again?

Viewing post in AI art games again?

Your opinion is valid and and I'm not trying to toss you too much shade here, but can we stop complaining about free stuff that's obviously far from being a finished product?

AI generation is a tool and getting mad about it won't make it go away. It's becoming more ubiquitous because humans inherently do not want to do more work if they don't have to. While Enrayne's utilization of AI in this project is adequate at best, it debatably gets the job done. This is visibly a character, that is visibly a crate. Aesthetically pleasing? Meh, maybe not. But these are placeholders for a game that is not finished. A prototype.

Using AI generated anything as assets in a prototypical project is absolutely valid.

While this is all subjective, there actually are totally valid places for AI generated assets, especially in unfinished projects.

Also note that Enrayne was totally upfront about their use of AI, as well. Not all developers are as forthcoming. So, kudos to you, Dev!

TheSunGuy1 year ago(+3)

That's fair. And I should apologise, as I didn't read that it was a prototype. But regarding AI art used as a "tool" is something I completely disagree with. The developer said he'd fix it and I accept it because they seem to be aware of its flaws, so yeah, kudos to him! But people shouldn't focus on AI art too much, because it's disrepectful to other artists. I can accept it in game developing because some people have given valid points, despite the presence of AI art, the developer put work on it through coding and that is obviously a great feat. As I said to someone else, I disapprove of AI art, so I think I'll offer help to the developer in the future. I'm not talented, nor a great pixel artist, but I'll improve as best as I can, instead of relying on AI. Moreover, AI shouldn't touch skills where other people put work on. This is a rant, and I can accept the developer's choice this time, because they gave me a fair and understable reason. It's also true that artists require quite some money, which is as fair as the person using AI art. As a pixel artist though, that AI art looks like ass. And, sorry that I'm repeating myself, I'd like to help the developer in the future!

crowTbirb1 year ago(-1)

I appreciate your ability to have a normal conversation with someone who disagrees with you. That's pretty rare these days, so thanks for that! Kudos to you! :D

(wall of text incoming, pls forgive me)

Regarding your disagreement with the idea that AI is a tool, I wanted to see what you thought about one of Enrayne's previous comments:

"You don't need to learn instruments to make music. You can be a DJ and mix your tapes."

When people started using computers to make, mix and generate music, there was major backlash against it. There were (and still are) many people who believed that if you didn't make sounds with a traditional instrument, it could not be considered music. And to keep the discussion in the visual realm, when photography first became accessible to the masses, the art community was polarized since many believed photography devalued art made by hand with traditional mediums such as paint or charcoal. There was even a similar reaction when digital art (e.g., pixel art, vector graphics, image manipulation) was accessible to the general public. Digital art was considered dishonest to the viewer and something the artist couldn't have made without the use of digital manipulation tools.

I think you would agree that in hindsight, these are ridiculous claims. Alarmist, even. There's very little mainstream music released today that doesn't used digitized assets, digital mixing, et cetera. And photography never devalued hand made art, instead they became separate pursuits with different means and ends. Digital art is one of the cornerstones of my life and has been for years. I can't imagine where I would be if I wasn't able to make art digitally versus painting or sketching on physical medium.

What we're all witnessing right now in regards to AI is referred to as a 'paradigm shift' (please look it up). Historically, something new (an idea, a technology, etc.) comes along and people usually have a problem with it (often rightly so). As people learn more about the questionable thing and/or as the thing evolves and grows, the stigma around it is slowly reduced. No one can 'stop' the thing, so the people who have issues with it either choose to ignore it, tolerate it's existence or they embrace it. All are valid choices. Just like the choice to use these tools.

Anyone can hate all these tools with their raging passion all they want. People can wish these things didn't exist and they can curse the people that use them. But the choice to use any of them, all of them; digital music, digital art, photography and yes, even AI, are all valid choices.

I totally believe AI needs significant regulation. I think there are very deep issues with it that we haven't even scratched the surface of. But is using AI or any of these other tools immoral? Maybe. Unethical? Very possibly. It certainly depends on who you ask. But it's absolutely not inherently wrong or an affront to others.

I hope you do not blame the tools for the choices people make.

TheSunGuy1 year ago(+1)

Yes I've heard of innovations that received negative criticism from people but that are nowdays accepted or are about to be normalized. It's true that people are the ones who give meaning and purpose to tools by how they use it. Like martial arts: boxers are usually considered as aggressive beasts, while such people are actually met in the streets at night. While there are some people who brag about being a martial artist, there are some who don't and use it when needed. So as you said, how AI is used depends on the person, and in this case is acceptable, or rather, understandable. But AI has something way different to it, unlike digital art, that while gives many tools to make your work easier, still requires a good art knowledge to draw well, in fact, it's a great innovation that made artists' work more comfortable! As for photography, I don't see it as something bad at all, and I wouldn't understand the issues people used to have, because those pictures can be used as a good reference. And there is a bit of skill required, since you might need good reflexes to capture certain moments. But AI? It can be used as an anatomy reference to some extent, the lighting can be sometimes wrong. And, as if it wasn't enough, some people opened a Patreon and gain money by basically generating art! The context in here is different, because this is completely disrespectful to some other artists, of any kind, that put hard work to reach a certain level. Luckily they didn't reach a level of fame like various artists, so this puts me at ease. And sadly, as you said, I can complain as much as I want, AI art might continue existing. But at least, I can say I still have won this non-existent pointless battle, because I didn't lose my pride, and I'll keep putting more work to become a better artist. :)

itch.io

Viewing post in AI art games again?