Topic: Rolemaster Unified art: what happened?

[MisterK]

AI can't match natural intelligence.

Yet.

And that's only for activities where actual intelligence is required.

Creativity ? I'd agree, it will not be in the near future. But most people are not able to distinguish derivative works from originals when there are no obvious defects, so I would expect AI "art" to become almost ubiquitous in the next decade or so.

But it is mostly our collective fault - we are used to having things for cheap. And so, if they are not, we look to the ones who can sell us the stuff cheap (or give it for 'free'), and then we consume en masse until the next fad comes in. Intelligence is not required for being a consumer - why should it be required to produce ?

AI can have a myriad of useful applications that will help humanity. It can also have a myriad of lucrative ones that won't. You don't need intelligence to see where this leads, either.

[Thot]

This whole "hire humans!!" movement will die anyway. We might as well get the best results now rather than later.

Let's get these humans back to producing the good stuff... washing dishes, mining coal... none of this creative endeavours!  Leave that to the experts - the machines!

I will keep running my own campaigns, and writing my own books, but I am not mad enough to believe that any of that will be competitive to all the stuff machines are going to create.

But I insist on the machines also doing the dishes and cleaning my apartment. They will be much better at it than I ever want to be.

FWIW: I have a simple rule when it comes to AI artwork in creative products:  Absolutely not.   
[...]

We will see how you view that in 5 years.

[5th Knight of Xar]

I'm certain artists will still call AI generated imagery art theft, 5 years from now.

[Thot]

I'm certain artists will still call AI generated imagery art theft, 5 years from now.

There will be very few full-time professional artists below the "I sold my paiting in a gallery for 20,000 bucks" level who don't use AI themselves in their work in five years.

[5th Knight of Xar]

I'm certain artists will still call AI generated imagery art theft, 5 years from now.

There will be very few full-time professional artists below the "I sold my paiting in a gallery for 20,000 bucks" level who don't use AI themselves in their work in five years.

I'll log that under "biased predictions"

[nash]

I'm certain artists will still call AI generated imagery art theft, 5 years from now.

There will be very few full-time professional artists below the "I sold my paiting in a gallery for 20,000 bucks" level who don't use AI themselves in their work in five years.

There are very few artists selling things above 20k.   I think Angus McBride would have failed to hit that target.  And he definitely would not have got there if he could not make money doing books.   

You may be right, but you better hope you are not.

[Thot]

I'm certain artists will still call AI generated imagery art theft, 5 years from now.

There will be very few full-time professional artists below the "I sold my paiting in a gallery for 20,000 bucks" level who don't use AI themselves in their work in five years.

There are very few artists selling things above 20k.   

That was kind of the point.

I think Angus McBride would have failed to hit that target.  And he definitely would not have got there if he could not make money doing books.   

Yes. But we don't want Angus McBride, we want art that looks as if he made it.

You may be right, but you better hope you are not.

There is nothing stopping machines and robots from doing all the labour in the world in a few years.

[jdale]

Then they'll have to also be the ones buying all the products too.

[Cory Magel]

I have a simple rule when it comes to AI artwork in creative products:  Absolutely not.   
Use it at your table for personal stuff (AI icons for characters in a game... sure).

What do you see as the difference?

The problem I see with all those who are trying to say AI art is copyright infringement is that it's using a massive existing database of media to create new art. That is what the vast majority of living human artists do. So long as you're not trying to pass work off as an original you can create close facsimiles of existing art and sell them. Otherwise there wouldn't be categories of art, like 'Impressionist'. Only a vast collection of individual and unique pieces of art that couldn't be labelled by a category.

Now, don't get me wrong... I don't particularly want AI generated art on my walls. Hell, I'll take that a step further and say I'd rather have actual paintings and not prints of those paintings. But in a board game or RPG books? Couldn't care less. I'm not going to hang them on my wall.

[5th Knight of Xar]

I have a simple rule when it comes to AI artwork in creative products:  Absolutely not.   
Use it at your table for personal stuff (AI icons for characters in a game... sure).

What do you see as the difference?

The problem I see with all those who are trying to say AI art is copyright infringement is that it's using a massive existing database of media to create new art. That is what the vast majority of living human artists do. So long as you're not trying to pass work off as an original you can create close facsimiles of existing art and sell them. Otherwise there wouldn't be categories of art, like 'Impressionist'. Only a vast collection of individual and unique pieces of art that couldn't be labelled by a category.

Now, don't get me wrong... I don't particularly want AI generated art on my walls. Hell, I'll take that a step further and say I'd rather have actual paintings and not prints of those paintings. But in a board game or RPG books? Couldn't care less. I'm not going to hang them on my wall.

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)?

[nash]

Yes. But we don't want Angus McBride, we want art that looks as if he made it.

I guess there is the fundamental difference here.

[Cory Magel]

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).

[Thot]

Yes. But we don't want Angus McBride, we want art that looks as if he made it.

I guess there is the fundamental difference here.

Well, if you want Angus McBride, you are out of luck, he died in 2007. But as you can see above, there is still the option to have new images in the way he made them, and completely free.

Edit: Huh, where is my linked AI-generated image? Anyway, here it is again.

[5th Knight of Xar]

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.

[MisterK]

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.

[Cory Magel]

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.

And, if you haven't figured it out by now, I still contend that one artist inspired by others isn't really doing anything all that much different than this.
It is rare you find a truly unique artist.  Otherwise there would be no 'impressionism', there would only be Monet. There would be no 'cubism', there would only be Picasso.

[5th Knight of Xar]

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.

[Cory Magel]

Now 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.

This is one of two pieces of the problem that I partially agree with, but have my doubts it'll really become a problem for professional artists. The digital camera is almost comparable to what AI art is doing.

When digital cameras came out, and as cell phone cameras have improved, people have expressed concern that photographers would be put out of a job. They contended that, now that anyone with a cell phone (let alone a digital cameras of various capabilities) was going to be able to magically take just as good of photographs as professionals. A portion of the argument comes from the removal of the investment into film and film development. I took 10,000+ photos during a month long trip to the UK using the first Digital SLR camera. Today it would have cost me around $3750 to develop that much film. But all it cost me was my own time sifting through them and less time tweaking the good ones I wanted to keep with Photoshop (another thing some expressed the same concern over). I got a lot of really cool shots. I got way, way, way more that were not. The average person out there would think I have a lot of camera gear, but compared to a pro I do not. Yet, I'd likely be put in the 'amateur' category (probably even the lower half of that) and I'm not replacing a professional photographer anytime soon.

I've seen people state that they think AI art has no 'soul' as their argument. But that's just a sliding scale of what you think does. I could just as easily say that a print of a painting has no soul. That Parkinson's 'The North Watch' (probably one of my favorite fantasy pieces) doesn't inspire or move me because what I have was pumped out of a printer and not hand painted. Here's where the real money aspect comes into it if you ask me. We could then argue that only the rich have the ability to possess (buy) art with a 'soul'. Cause I'm sure even when Keith was alive I'd have to have paid $5,000 or more to buy that painting. So I don't swallow the 'soul' thing either. Those who make that claim need to prove to me that they can reliably tell the difference between human and AI created art. As soon as they say 'There! That piece speaks to me! It has a soul' about an AI piece they've proven to me they're full of crap.

AI doesn't remove the creative process at this point either. You don't just plug in a few words and get exactly what you want. I've played with AI art and you typically have to work at getting what you've envisioned, going through many iterations, tweaking it over and over, if you don't want mediocre results of if you want as close to what you envisioned as possible. In my view, one of the valid criticisms is that AI removes is the actual skill of physically drawing or painting. But, as I've said before, couldn't I say that about digital art created by a human to some degree? Couldn't I say that about post production photography programs like Photoshop? Couldn't I say that Hollywood 'rebooting' movies over and over is taking jobs away from writers?

I think AI art is more dangerous to beginner graphic designers that are coming up with logo's and non-artistic pieces. I mentioned over on Board Game Geek that I couldn't care less that Terraforming Mars used AI art for the cards in the game. I don't need a Mona Lisa on every piece of paper, I just need a halfway decent graphic representation. Now, the game Inis, I think they were going for true artistic value (Jim Fitzpatrick created that art) and it's one of the things that got me to buy the game. So using AI didn't stop me from buying Terraforming Mars, however a talented artist is part of what prompted me to buy Inis. So, a point I've made on other AI discussions (more on the writing side) is that it's going to impact people who aren't skilled far more. Is that bad? Eh... debatable. It means they have to learn and grow more in their medium, but wasn't that already true if they want to be dubbed a 'professional' artist or writer?

My concern with AI art isn't that it's scraping whatever database of art it's been fed to create new art and the, claimed, legal implications of that, it's that too many people (from the general population) may not place enough value in creativity of truly talented artist for them to be able to make a living at it. It's not that the process has become cheaper, it's that there were too many people who weren't willing to pay for it in the first place. But even then, isn't there a danger that the less wealthy you are the less access you have to purchasing that art? I can say I'm okay with not being able to buy original paintings because I can buy prints, but there are those out there who don't even have the spare money to buy prints.

In the end, I don't see AI art replacing talented artists so long as there exist people who appreciate their efforts and not just 'Oh pretty colors!'

[Cory Magel]

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.

I don't agree. Firstly, the person plugging the information into the AI program is still looking for something. They still have some inspiration they've going for. So far as 'copy/cut/paste' I think you're splitting hairs. Like I said, artists copy each others style all the time. It's why there's 'Impressionism' and not just 'Monet'. In the theoretical sense they are copying/cuting/pasting like work.. or pixels. Their just doing it using physical media. We could say digital art created by a human is doing what you claim AI art is doing.

[5th Knight of Xar]

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.

I don't agree. Firstly, the person plugging the information into the AI program is still looking for something. They still have some inspiration they've going for. So far as 'copy/cut/paste' I think you're splitting hairs. Like I said, artists copy each others style all the time. It's why there's 'Impressionism' and not just 'Monet'. In the theoretical sense they are copying/cuting/pasting like work.. or pixels. Their just doing it using physical media. We could say digital art created by a human is doing what you claim AI art is doing.

The person looking to generate something is programming the AI generator with the input used. You do not have to agree with any of it, that is your choice, but I'm telling you how it is in reality.

Unless the fictional artist is copy pasting parts of other artists works into a new creation, there is no similarity between a human and an AI generator