A Poll On The Use Of AI Art In TAS Products

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

This is fascinating, because the discussion is taking extremes. Yes, we largely all agree that purely generative AI is soulless and not good for the industry (cue any of the thousands of Youtube videos on how to create a low-effort AI side-hustles for details).

I use a specially-trained LLM-enhanced tool as a "second-brain" that I have built over the last three years, while using Obsidian as an editor and a research assistant. I painstakingly fed it my paper notes and drafts, my equivalent of a showrunners' bible. When I ask it to help me edit copy, especially with connecting disparate items, how is that different from asking an editor for assistance? The work is still my own.

I used AI to write python code that created the Jumpspace Weather phenomenon heatmap that I then underlaid on TravellerMap; this took many additions to get it to look right, and weeks of late-night effort.

After watching Bakshi movies as a kid, I used to use a light table and dabble in "rotoscope" animation. The end result was horrible. Now, have been able to take screen captures of designs that I made using 3D models, and then run them through an AI-assist to add texture and background in a manner that takes my boring grey Meshmixer kitbash into something colorful and exciting (see attached for my version of the Type-A+ Free Trader Plus).

Yes, for some character images, I have fed an image-generator paragraphs of description, and then run through multiple edits and revisions until I get the look right. I have also used pictures that I have taken (especially from my time in the military) and had them retextured/reimagined into something suitable for sci-fi.

Shucks, my profile image was a selfie of me diving, that I asked an AI to reimagine as an astronaut.

These have a place in the market. I don't mind letting someone know that I used the tools, but don't ban people like me from participating.

 

[Arkathan]

Using AI to modify material you own the IP for is a different kettle of fish.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

Using AI to modify material you own the IP for is a different kettle of fish.

I absolutely agree, and didn't want that nuance to get lost in the fervor.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I absolutely agree, and didn't want that nuance to get lost in the fervor.

As I understand your post, you trained the AI using your own material, not the material of others. Correct? I see no issue with this if that is the case.

Edit- Seems like an ethical use of AI.

 

[Hermit King]

You don't provide previews to your work, so your "art" isn't a draw. People look at your product description and decide WHOLLY on that whether to buy your products... which means two things: People don't initially buy your products for the art; and people see the AI creation tag and may avoid the product.

I do try to give previews but i have to be honest drivethrus software really sucks. i set it up and sometimes it it shows them some times not. lol and dont even get me started on trying to get the cover to show. As for the tag, well i am ok with AI art but i do believe people should know and they can decide for themselves.

 

[boggo2300]

As I understand your post, you trained the AI using your own material, not the material of others. Correct? I see no issue with this if that is the case.

Edit- Seems like an ethical use of AI.

ALL AI art "creation" engines are trained on stolen art, every single one of them or they wouldn't work at all.

Honestly I have no issue with people using these engines for their private use, for profile pictures things like that, however using something "created" in one of these engines in something you distribute, claiming as your own is distributing someone else's stolen work and lying about it..

 

[Morgoth99]

I'll be honest, I work in other fields (romance writing for one) and the general public attitude is: we don't like AI art because it's samy and doesn't look good. But if it looks good, most consumers don't really care.

But I do know, sure as night follows day, that on boards that tried to ban it, within about 1 attosecond, you had someone scream "look at this AI art" and the artist said "no it isn't." And i'll be blunt, AI art that combined a generator with someone who manually tweaked it with their own skills is going to be increasingly hard to tell apart, so you're going to have a lot of fights over that which would just heat up the board and put Mongoose in the position of having to be art analysts.

As for theft? That's a red herring. We're already getting checkpoints that have been produced using both public domain art, and art that has been purchased with all related rights, and the fact is, the ability to train models on smaller and smaller datasets is only going to see more such models appear. So if you say: you can't use it because it's stolen, you run into the guy saying "Yeah, the model I have legally documented the rights to all their source images."

 

[Arctellion]

I think it should depend on the person publishing. Some might want to commission artists, others might prefer to just do it themselves and create AI Art.

In addition what constitutes AI Art, in this context? If I create an image in <insert AI Art package here> then take it into Photoshop and manipulate it adjust it .. is that still AI Art, or my own personal creative work? Also should it get covered under an AI Art ban, as AI Art was used in it's creation?

 

[MasterGwydion]

I think it should depend on the person publishing. Some might want to commission artists, others might prefer to just do it themselves and create AI Art.

I think it should depend on the AI used, not the person using it. If the AI was not trained using other artist work without their permission or compensation, then that would be fine.

In addition what constitutes AI Art, in this context? If I create an image in <insert AI Art package here> then take it into Photoshop and manipulate it adjust it .. is that still AI Art, or my own personal creative work? Also should it get covered under an AI Art ban, as AI Art was used in it's creation?

Just My opinion, but I see this as the same as if I go and take a picture of another artist's work with a camera and then manipulate the photo digitally afterwards. It is art. It is my art, but what I used as the original image in that photo was someone else's art, used without their permission or compensation. So, still art, but "unethically sourced" art.

 

[gilthy]

I note that much of the discussion is about generative AI images (visual "art"). There's also the option to use generative AI to generate text. I've played with that a bit to see if it could generate fantasy (Forgotten Realms) content, like "retrieve info about Noble House X in Waterdeep, and generate a family tree in 1492 DR". ChatGPT manages to retrieve the info, and then generates a family tree, notes that there isn't info about House X at the given date, and expands it (on demand) with some extra family members.

And that's a small sample, I've seen (fantasy) Kickstarters and DriveThru "products" in which not only the image content, but also the text content sounds very much like that generated by ChatGPT. In my experiments, it's getting less obvious, generating more terse content (closer to what I would do myself), earlier examples have a tendency to be "wordy".

I would still prefer content created by actual humans, or proper Sapient AI's

 

[Sigtrygg]

So what is needed is AI art companies receiving an ethical seal of approval.

"Our generative AI was only trained on ethically sourced artwork"

Spoiler: don't click if you have no sense of humour or take offence at opinions you don't like

"The electricity used to train our AIs was generated from net zero sources"
"The computers our AIs run on were not constructed from components manufactured by slave labour, child labour or that cause environmental damage in their manufacture"
"The raw materials used to make the components above were not extracted using slave labour, child labour, or environmentally damaging processes"

 

[gilthy]

Oh, and if there is AI being used in a product, I'd like it to be properly and clearly declared, so I have a choice.

 

[Condottiere]

I think in Europe it will become mandatory.

 

[Arkathan]

So what is needed is AI art companies receiving an ethical seal of approval.

"Our generative AI was only trained on ethically sourced artwork"

You only need to go so far as no plagiarism occurred in the creation of this product.
If the AI is not utilizing your own, or licensed IP, then that statement cannot be made.

 

[Galadrion]

I think in Europe it will become mandatory.

Either compulsory or forbidden, there is no third option.

 

[Morgoth99]

I mean the biggest problem is that we're talking a spectrum, not a binary. Consider teh following:

1. PUrely prompt generated. "A man in a spacesuit."

2. A sketch of a man sort of in a space suit, use a control net, and then add the prompt, "man in a spacesuit."

3. A detailed ink drawing of a man in a space suit. prompt. "fabric texture, and advanced circuitry."

4. Detailed, colored drawing of a man in a spacesuit, inpainted into a larger canvas, prompt: "against a nebula."

I could do more, but each one of these bits of art uses "AI" to a greater or lesser degree. At what poing do we say that the human element, the work of the artist, is sufficiently dominanting that we can say: this isn't AI generated?

 

[MasterGwydion]

I mean the biggest problem is that we're talking a spectrum, not a binary. Consider teh following:

1. PUrely prompt generated. "A man in a spacesuit."

2. A sketch of a man sort of in a space suit, use a control net, and then add the prompt, "man in a spacesuit."

3. A detailed ink drawing of a man in a space suit. prompt. "fabric texture, and advanced circuitry."

4. Detailed, colored drawing of a man in a spacesuit, inpainted into a larger canvas, prompt: "against a nebula."

I could do more, but each one of these bits of art uses "AI" to a greater or lesser degree. At what poing do we say that the human element, the work of the artist, is sufficiently dominanting that we can say: this isn't AI generated?

I would say anything is "AI art" if the AI is making decisions, but I do not feel that I am well enough informed at this point to decide what constitutes a decision. For example. When you say "against a nebula", how does the AI select the nebula that is decides to show you? Where does that image come from? Where did the AI learn what a nebula is? Lots of different questions need to be asked and answered. My concern is that an AI can not create "art" since art is emotional and a computer can not "paint" a feeling. So, any "AI art" is somewhat of a misnomer. If art is defined as simple a pleasing arrangement of ideas, textures, shape, and reflected light, then AI can create art just fine. Which is true? I am not sure.

Edit- Lots of ideas in My reply, but not a lot of coherence. Sorry about that.

 

[FreeTrav]

I have no real objection to AI-generated content in products, provided that it is so identified. In Freelance Traveller, when AI artwork is provided and properly identified, I will know (a) who provided it to me, and (b) which AI generated it (presumably based on a description provided by (a)). I then will credit it in the artwork section on page 1, as e.g., "John Smith via Daybistro".

There are a couple of articles where a majority of the content was generated by AI, but the contributor was specifically looking to showcase using the AI as an idea-aid, and presented it as such. This, also, I have no objection to, as once again the AI-generated content is properly so identified.

Where I have a problem is when the contributor conceals the AI-generated nature of the content in question, and passes it as xir own.

 

[Grognardia]

I just want products that use AI art or text to clearly state so. Then I can make an informed decision as to whether I want to spend money on it.

 

[Morgoth99]

Be honest, rather than just a "this is AI or not" which as we can see may be too binary, I'd like a little paragraph. You know something like this: "The following text is human authored, while the line art was drawn by a human artist and modified by AI." Because I will be honest, I'm likely to buy that. "This product was generated by chatgpt and prompt only AI art?" Less likely.