Upcoming D&D Book has preview art that looks wholesale AI-generated. The artist on those pieces does use AI, and also does digital painting, and says AI was used to finish and put polish on his art.
"How much AI is too much AI" being the argument (rather than, say "What platform, and what's in the dataset") makes for a nice wedge-shaped introduction of "Well, surely he can do that", I note.
@LeviKornelsen My opinion on this specific case. bullet points to keep my thoughts coherent.
. Any person, artist professinal or otherwise is free to use ai.
. We choose if we support that and what degree is acceptable.
. Companies like wotc have to decide if that's acceptable to them, to what degree, and how it affects things like payment to the artist and cost of the product.
. companies should state whenever ai is used. Giving consumers the choice of supporting that or not.
@LeviKornelsen I guess that was general and not specific. #adhd
I'm already not supporting wotc anymore but the use of ai to the degree it's used in this case doesn't bother me.
The artist still did work. Using ai as a last detail "improvement" feels equivalent to artists using tools like drawing software and tablets. Those tools come with a wealth of small things that help artists.
A brush that auto draws laces on boots for example.
We as consumers can't draw a hard line in the sand here.
Seconding Levi's assertion. No company is owed my allegiance or cash. WoTC continues to disappoint in ways that I don't have to articulate (though I can if pressed).
@LeviKornelsen I agree so let me try and make myself more clear. You can absolutely say you will never ever use ai or purchase a product that uses or has used ai. Totally up to you.
However, my point was, we should decide case by case whether it really... matters.
Re my example. If an artist uses a drawing software. They have "brushes" that can make just about anything. Objects, colors, textures, lights, shading.
That's not ai but it's a very significant step up from say pencil and paper.
@LeviKornelsen in this specific case, how is the artists use of one tool ,specifically ai, worse than other digital art tools?
According to all the noise, the artist used ai in a minor way to adjust an art piece they had already created.
Likely using some digital art tools. Krita, photoshop, etc.
The artist didn't fully and only use ai like midjourney and pass it off as an original work.
@LeviKornelsen I can't draw a straight line using a pencil and straight ruler.
Yet with a tablet and krita I've been able to actually do some "artsy" stuff. Shitty artsy stuff but a lot more than I could without.
Where do we draw the line? What are we going to consider "cheating" vs using a tool?
All that to say, in this case there's a lot of noise and I don't think it's a big deal. In this one instance.
@LeviKornelsen ok one more because my brain won't stop.
Just FYI I support actors, ai does not write well, put limits on it, etc.
I am a GM. I do not use ai. I will not use ai. But ai is a tool and it's use is not inherently bad.
I have players that use ai to generate backstory and character art. I have no reason to care.
Is it "wrong"? Are they stealing money or work from anyone?
Should I tell my players no use of ai at all no exception?
No.
Add comment