A Poll On The Use Of AI Art In TAS Products

[DataDwarf]

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?

The U.S. Copyright Office office provides details in their latest two reports from this year regarding this very topic. For me it becomes very clear; If it is copyrightable then is it art; If it is not (and the majority of generative art is not), then it is not and has no place in a commercial rpg product.

Edit: Link to an article discussing the latest report. A link to the report itself is the article along with a link to the previous article discussing the first report (which has a link to that report).
natlawreview.com/article/clarifying-copyrightability-ai-assisted-works

 

[hopsnbaer]

Looks like it is about 50\50 so far.

I have no issues with it as long as it is declared.

It does seem like you would be better off not using it as you are killing 50% of your market who won't touch it.

 

[swordtart]

It would be useful to know what the trade off is. If we knew that an AI book would cost £25 but an AI free book would cost £50 then it might mean that you could lose everyone who was not prepared to pay £50 for a book. If the difference were 10% of the total price then maybe we would all be happy to go AI free.

Some companies offer premium/collector editions of their publications those could cost more and be wholly AI free for a more discerning customer, but still allowing sufficient profit margin to make the non-premium edition affordable to those more budget oriented people.

As to the stolen art angle, any art in the public domain cannot be stolen. Under UK law for example if the artist died over 70 years ago (pre 1955) it is likely out of copyright and you don't require permission to produce derivative works. You can riff off old masters to your hearts content and that is probably the source for a lot of that steam punk AI work around presently since it is likely the cinematographer is likely long gone. And also why Disney keeps re-releasing old movies as it recycles the copyright.

Derivative works can also be copyright however so you would need to go to the original rather than deriving from the derivative.

All this applies to a flesh and blood artists and in the UK to entirely computer generated art, it can be copyrighted but only through a human agent. There will be other exceptions as well, a creator might not specify attribution as a requirement for derivative works. Some people are happy to put their work into the public domain. If we start denying copyright to artworks that do not have specific human agency then those who produce "found" art will be in a sticky situation. Flicking paint over a canvas barely requires human agency and there is also automatic art produced by swinging pendulums etc. If we go the US copyright office route then you would be only able to copyright the method of production and not the actual image produced. How about photographs, or digital photographs. I suspect they are one challenge from a spanking.

Just because you cannot copyright a piece of art does not mean that you cannot use it in a publication of course.

Proving that a specific AI assisted artwork is even derivative might be challenging if the original is sufficiently mutated. What if you sample an artists brush style and produce a work that they never produced using that brush work, is that derivative? What if you use the same paint they used? It's going to be a minefield. But don't worry, good old AI might be the way we track it down as we can use those tools for good as well.

Let's not be too harsh on AI (whatever that means to you) as a concept.

Since traveller uses random tables a lot, if you computer does the rolls, is that AI. What about procedurally generated dungeons or scenarios, can we publish them.

We are not evolved enough as a species to make informed decisions about half the things we make. The AI overlords will soon whip us into line and it cannot be quickly enough for my liking. Down with the primitive flesh bags!

 

[swordtart]

Looks like it is about 50\50 so far.

I have no issues with it as long as it is declared.

It does seem like you would be better off not using it as you are killing 50% of your market who won't touch it.

Err... maybe 50% of 66 potential customers who expressed a preference (so far), so hardly definitive

 

[Studio Cat]

I'd say that allowing AI art in TAS is a great way to make sure your product doesn't get seen. There is a user toggle that allows potential customers to ignore any product with AI art in them on DriveThruRPG. So, considering that about half of the customer base (if not more) doesn't want products with AI art in them, there goes half of your potential sales because they won't even see them.

Better to just use art made by real people.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Or offer an art-less book, text only, as an option.

 

[Condottiere]

That may have worked, half a century ago.

 

[boggo2300]

I'm 100% more likely to buy a book with no art over one with "AI"

 

[CordwainerFish]

Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.

 

[boggo2300]

Well, there's no danger of that anytime soon, and LLC's being little more than elaborate database queries definitley aren't a road to that

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

I vaguely remember similar discussions about the use of rotoscoping (made famous by such luminaries as Walt Disney, Ralph Bakshi and Don Bluth).

The U.S. Copyright Office office provides details in their latest two reports from this year regarding this very topic. For me it becomes very clear; If it is copyrightable then is it art; If it is not (and the majority of generative art is not), then it is not and has no place in a commercial rpg product.

Edit: Link to an article discussing the latest report. A link to the report itself is the article along with a link to the previous article discussing the first report (which has a link to that report).
natlawreview.com/article/clarifying-copyrightability-ai-assisted-works

Thank you! This is a great resource (and aligns with my use of AI)

 

[Terry Mixon]

I was wondering if someone would skew the results of the poll. Honestly, it's the kind of behavior I expected. Thanks for letting the poll get real results rather than intentionally putting a thumb on the scale, @CyborgPrime. I'd love to say I'm shocked, but I'm not. Stay classy.

I suppose others will now go recruit people to vote in other ways rather than just taking the temperature of the board as I was doing. And, as you've seen fit to rabble rouse for people to skew the poll, I'll post your commentary here as well.

In any case, the purpose of the poll is now ruined and the vote tallies suspect, so I'll close the poll. People will think as they do but it isn't the temperature of the board any longer. Time will tell how things end up with AI art, but I doubt its worth talking about much more anyway. Those that think unethically trained AI is theft won't be convinced otherwise. Neither will those who could care less how the corporations get their fodder.

 

[swordtart]

I love the juxtaposition of illiterate and literally.

I hope that Mongoose isn't using this opportunity poll to make any business decisions. Far too many computer games have been ruined because they turned the economic model over to the self-obsessed player base. Hate to see that happen to a real companies finances.

I am just going to ask all my AI relatives to chip in.

Laters flesh bags

 

[Arkathan]

Way to eliminate your credibility by dishonestly recruiting people to skew results.
And AI illiteracy simply means we would prefer that AI not take over the creative pursuits, leaving the menial tasks for us to do.
To be literate, by CP's definition would be to engage in and embrace the theft and Easy Button mentality.
We want our efforts to MEAN something. Not be overshadowed by someone pushing a button with little effort because they are incapable OR UNWILLING to put in the time and effort.
I don't put out digital paintings, because I am not yet sufficiently skilled at doing digital paintings (can't afford the physical media to waste on bad regular paintings). But lack of skill is apparently not an issue when you can just cheat.
Again, AI is the theft of $0.00001 from every transaction to pay off the lazy.

 

[Arkathan]

I love the juxtaposition of illiterate and literally.

I hope that Mongoose isn't using this opportunity poll to make any business decisions. Far too many computer games have been ruined because they turned the economic model over to the self-obsessed player base. Hate to see that happen to a real companies finances.

I am just going to ask all my AI relatives to chip in.

Laters flesh bags

Mongoose has already said that if it a choice between not publishing and using AI, they are not going to stop you from publishing.
This poll was not going to change that, even before CP skewed the results.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Mongoose has already said that if it a choice between not publishing and using AI, they are not going to stop you from publishing.
This poll was not going to change that, even before CP skewed the results.

I knew their stance when I started the poll. I was trying to gauge how the board really felt about it without all the table pounding. I suspected it wouldn't remain valid as a poll for long, but I hoped.

 

[Sigtrygg]

The board is a microcosm. the vast majority of the MgT fanbase don't post here. How do I know?
Check the numbers for their kickstater products.

Where are the thousand votes on this poll? As I post this there have been 70.

There are a lot of lurkers, but only we morally bankrupt narcissists are full enough of our own self importance to express an opinion. The hatred of AI art is an odd one. The odd thing this time is that there are people with opinions I have found myself agreeing with who are against it.

 

[Terry Mixon]

The board is a microcosm. the vast majority of the MgT fanbase don't post here. How do I know?
Check the numbers for their kickstater products.

Where are the thousand votes on this poll? As I post this there have been 70.

There are a lot of lurkers, but only we morally bankrupt narcissists are full enough of our own self importance to express an opinion. The hatred of AI art is an odd one. The odd thing this time is that there are people with opinions I have found myself agreeing with who are against it.

Sometimes the stars just align.

 

[Arkathan]

The board is a microcosm. the vast majority of the MgT fanbase don't post here. How do I know?
Check the numbers for their kickstater products.

Where are the thousand votes on this poll? As I post this there have been 70.

There are a lot of lurkers, but only we morally bankrupt narcissists are full enough of our own self importance to express an opinion. The hatred of AI art is an odd one. The odd thing this time is that there are people with opinions I have found myself agreeing with who are against it.

I know my group doesn't post here. One MIGHT have an account.

 

[CyborgPrime]

I was wondering if someone would skew the results of the poll. Honestly, it's the kind of behavior I expected. Thanks for letting the poll get real results rather than intentionally putting a thumb on the scale, @CyborgPrime. I'd love to say I'm shocked, but I'm not. Stay classy.

Oh - I didn't see the instructions to not let anybody who approved of AI to vote.

I didn't realize this was an AI-trolls-only poll - my apologies for not keeping it secret.

Why do you have a problem with people who approve of AI finding out about this poll and expressing their opinions?

I guess it was disingenuous from the start? Do you really consider encouraging the democratic process "rabble rousing"? Would you be complaining if voters "skewed" the results in the other direction?

I quoted from the trolls on this very forum, sorry if you didn't like my summary of the standard complaints.

Next time you want to take a poll without the opinion of certain people maybe do a better job of hiding it?

I really dont understand what you're complaining about - the NOs STILL have it.