Post by Netherzapdos in AI assisted development

Viewing post in AI assisted development

I agree with that, AI isn't a 1:1 copy of someone else's work, it's definitely an 'inspiration' of a reference, much like how majority of artists always get inspiration either from references or other people's work. Sometime down the road an artist will always be inspired by something and they make a version of it, and AI generation is the very definition of that, just at a very extreme level.

I don't see any issues with someone using AI as the backbone of their assets, if it's what's helpful to them then the better. From what I've observed what makes AI-assisted development hard to implement is the potential backlash coming your way. You'll get so many people bashing you for using "stolen" content and not so naturally-looking details.

Like Reply

redonihunter348 days ago(+1)

Very true. Even for things that are not really "AI". Or there is no backlash for things that are AI, but are not called that way. To my knowledge, there are filler filters and tools in photoshop that are AI.

Also you could train some AI with your own samples. Or the AI could be trained with "ethical" obtained material. I think the hate stems from the fact that now AI do things previously thought to be a human only task. But much of "art" is just manual skill and imitation with random inspiration. The current main argument against AI with the copyright and "stealing" will fall apart one way or another. At the latest, when they create AI that genereates Art procedurally and not with a database of things to imitate - some of those are so bad, that you can have signatures of the imitated artists surface.

Like Reply

itch.io

Viewing post in AI assisted development