WotC: 'Artists Must Refrain From Using AI Art Generation': EN World Tabletop RPG News & Reviews : daily_rpg

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

~~Also, I think it's patently dishonest for the artist to imply that their sketches (which are not in the same pose as the original concept art made by another artist) was used in the AI generation. The end result clearly used the other artist's work as a basis for the image generation. It seems obvious to me that Ilya profited from other artists' work, and tried to pass it off as his own with some half-baked deceptions.~~

I was in error with this comment! I am leaving it up as an abject lesson. See the below linked set of pictures that gives more or less proof that Ilya Shipkin did use his own artwork for AI processing.

https://imgur.com/8EiAOD9

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How do you come to that conclusion? What other artist are you referring to? All I could find were 4 pieces, 2 before AI enhancement and 2 after. The pre- and post-enhancement pieces are extremely similar. The pose and colors used are identical, the AI basically just smoothed the colors over and brought out some details. I didn't see any differing poses or concept art.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Huh, well I had an incorrect conclusion.

I went to find the original artwork, and I found this picture.

https://imgur.com/8EiAOD9

I had not seen the bottom left picture yet, I had only seen everything else, which lead me to conclude that the artist did a few sketches to imply that he had more intermediary works that he did.

I retract my prior comment!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Bad policy imo.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Artists should be able to make a living with their art.

The fact that anyone in the world is able to do that is great, and we should be allowing for inroad for more people to enter into creative careers, not endorsing technology that aims to make them obsolete while profiting from their efforts.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why do these artists being replaced have a right to make money with their art? Why didn't all the other professions that became obsolete through technological advancement have the same right?

Were cars invented with the aim to make wagon makers obsolete? Were cameras invented to make realistic painters obsolete? They were both, just as all other things, invented because they do something that people want to happen in a way that is easier and more accessible.

Why don't I have a right to have easily affordable art in my works and express myself in a way that I couldn't because I can't afford to hire an expensive artist or learn to make it myself through many hours of work?

And how are other artists not profiting off of artist's efforts by learning from their art and replicating styles, techniques and other such things?

Why are you not instead angry at the fact that an artist even has to make money to do what they want? Why aren't you angry at the fact that anyone has to turn their passions into labour to survive?

If you don't feel like people should be able to make a living off of not working at all, how do you suppose humanity shall move forward in an environment in which anything is starting to be automated? Should be half technological advancement now and forever, fighting tooth and nail against progress? Or should we accept what is inevitable at this point and focus on creating a society in which the common person still has a place?

That all sounds really dramatic and escalating, but many people approach this problem from an emotional position. No one has the right to make money from anything they do. No constitution in the world grants such a right. Making money isn't considered a human need in general. What I do agree with is that artists should be able to live their life and make art. That's what you should desire and fight for.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't think those advancements were categorically good, or were the morally correct things to occur. I won't go through them all, but just because something has happened, doesn't mean it was inevitable, or that it was a good thing to have happened and the world is better for it.

But putting that aside, the clearest difference that I see between those advancements and Machine Learning (A subset of Artificial Intelligence research), is that Machine Learning always takes datasets to train the system. As a result, the Machine Learning Generation truly isn't coming up with something new, it is just repackaging the work of other people. This is further morally fraught, as you have made a system with the aim to make the work of people irrelevant, while using their own work to do so without their consent.

And as to your proposition that artists shouldn't have to make money to live, I agree wholeheartedly. But this technology isn't going to lead to that future. It is currently being used by people with means to make more money by cutting out the people who would have to be paid to make creative works. Machine Learning already did this with language translators.

When Google Translate was getting somewhat good in the early 2000's, many companies fired their foreign language translators. What they discovered quickly is that the technology wasn't quite there yet, so they had to hire them back. But by and large, they didn't hire them back as translators, but as editors, who would clean up the bad translations from Machine Learning language translation software. We're currently on the same trajectory with this technology for a wide swath of creatives.

This is bad for right now, the foreseeable future. I do not foresee a future where we are freed from needing to exchange a majority our waking-lives for money, and this technology will only perpetuate that reality.

That all sounds really dramatic and escalating

And yes I do believe you're being rather dramatic by implying that I'm a luddite who doesn't want technology to work at all. I want technology to work for people, not the other way around. I want the Jetsons future, where people work a minority of their lives, not the majority, where we can focus on quality of life over vainglorious pursuits that ultimately benefit the idle rich. The trajectory of this technology will ultimately only benefit those who don't need to work to live.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

I find it unrealistic to not believe that a future in which we must not necessarily work a large part of our time to gain a living is possible, but believe that somehow you can halt the progress of technology. Instead of directing the outrage against your government and making them acknowledge that before too long automation will make any form of large scale employed a mere farce, you'd rather hope that corporations would be nice and not employ AI generated artwork to make their images.

This technology is on its way to benefit everyone unless you allow it to be monopolised by those who wish to do so. AI empowers their users to do what could have only been done by many people together before, for prizes that are relatively negligible. The fact that AI uses other people's art as input doesn't mean it just repackages other people's content. That's the same as saying that normal artists are just repackaging other people's content because they learned by looking at the art of other people and seeing what works.

The learning process employed in Machine Learning and the learning process that humans engage in is not fundamentally different. While it might not be the exact same set of mechanisms, in the end it just boils down to seeing what works and making things similar to that. That's what humans already do.

The model trained on all the data, if well trained, does not contain the data to reconstruct any of the images used to make it

Something that may be relevent is the application of completely self learned models. If an AI were to be able to learn making art without using human art (just human input on the quality and tagging of created pieces) would you feel better about that replacing artists? Because that is certainly something we will see in the future too. Back in the day when AI started beating the best Go players in the world the critique had been that it hasn't surpassed humans in skill, as it has learned from humans to be so good. So they made a version that only learned by playing against itself with no human input at all. There's nothing stopping art to be created in a similar way, as long humans give the input on what they like and what they don't.

[–] Piecemakers3Dprints 1 points 1 year ago

100% What's next? No digital tools, FFS? Such a pandering, bullshit move. They're only doing this to set it up for a fall, and then refer to said failure to prop up even shittier "policies". Mark my words.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Lory of the Giants wykorzystało sztuczną inteligencję w procesie tworzenia obrazu. Wspomnienie Wizards of the Coast na Twitterze jest pozytywnym krokiem w zademonstrowaniu ich reakcji na rozwój sztucznej inteligencji w branży artystycznej. Może to sygnalizować pogłębiającą się integrację sztucznej inteligencji, być może podobnej do ChatGPT, w dziedzinach kreatywnych.

Daily RPG Blog Roll