We're not arguing about inspiration. I think there is where you get this wrong. Programs can't be inspired, they act from programmed algorithms, in this case AI image generators copy/cut/paste human artist's works put very simple, to generate new images. AI generators don't paint images pixel by pixel.

AI generators use and merge pre-existing images, they can never in the near future learn to paint something on their own without relying on scraped databases of images and photos made by humans, scraped and used without said artists consent.

On one hand, Cory is right: when you get a number of art pieces from an artist and try to emulate their style by copying and arranging - maybe in order to improve your own artistic skills, maybe merely to have a picture of your latest character - I'd guess you don't ask permission either.

Furthermore, style has never been protected. Products are. Intellectual property is, to an extent. But it would be almost impossible to protect style.

There is a bit of an issue when you try to turn a profit from the sale of derivative work, but since style is not protected, it's more a moral issue than a legal one.

No on the other hand, I don't like where this is going. Because derivative work (of any kind - physical, technical, artistic, social...) has the capability to supplant a very large portion of the workforce. I would have no issue with it if we globally had a society where redistribution was a thing, but we don't. Being barred from gainful employment because there is someone, somewhere, that can do the same for one tenth of the wages is bad enough. But being barred from gainful employment because what you are doing is, not obsolete (it is still valuable since it is still in demand), but brought down to the initial cost of acquisition. AIs and robots are the ideal slaves: you buy them once, and then they have a marginal upkeep cost until you decide to upgrade. As long as we, as a society, don't have a solution for all those who will be put out of work, and merely shrug them off by saying "they can just find another job", we will have a major social problem with AI.

And I'm pretty much convinced that those who push for AI-in-the-workplace have no intention to find such a solution.

So, yes, I can see the appeal of being able to get derivative art of a certain style for basically nothing. I can also see the huge problem we are collectively building up.

It's interesting to notice that even the dystopian writers of the cyberpunk movement had not considered the consequences of AI and mobile robotics. Most people in cyberpunk settings are poor, yes, but they still have jobs. But when you truly consider how those jobs could exist - if the wages are lower than the cost of the autonomous machine over time -, you realise that threshold is quite low, and probably not sufficient to provide subsistence for someone.

In the end, social peace will be either bought (welfare) or enforced (dictatorship). And I'm not optimistic about what the people in charge will end up choosing.

Quote from: 5th Knight of Xar on May 03, 2024, 01:42:47 AM

Taking note that your moral compass is off regarding artists and art creation; let's assume you have some high regard towards your own creations since you're listing them in your signature. Would you be ok to have your work and the works of other rpg authors fed into for example ChatGPT, allowing others to use said material to create new works without you being compensated and credited(not to mention making you obsolete in the process)?

How is this different than them having the book, having read it in the past, and using it as inspiration to write an RPG book that is similar, but not exactly the same? Every single new edition of RM has used the information from the previous one and presented it slightly changed. There's a whole lot of what you just said here that's been happening for decades with RM (and lots of other stuff).

Also, I don't particularly have a 'high regard' for my work. I'm simply listing it so if people have questions about them they can ask. (I could point out a number of instances where I've said a whole lot of people could do what I've done if they just sat down and made themselves do it. Even within the last couple of days).

 AI generators use and merge pre-existing images, they can never in the near future learn to paint something on their own without relying on scraped databases of images and photos made by humans, scraped and used without said artists consent.

Thanks guys, but please note the RMU tag in the subject.

Older versions of the game may have different assumptions about what an appropriate level is, after all.

We always played it that the target is under their own power. Hopefully they took some ranks in Acrobatics to be able to control their maneuvers...