My compromise, which is likely to please no one on any side of the issue--so you've been warned--is for a real artist to use AI-art sparingly to supplement volume.  Specifically, I want the real artist to vet all the AI pieces, touch up where possible, and reject where necessary.

Ideally, the AI art is used mostly for illustrative purposes, not imagination.  For example, I'd like to have a drawing of each of the weapons and armor in my game.  Most of it is based on historical models.  So the artist just needs to bring his own ability as a draftsman plus whatever imagination and skill is needed to translate a few examples into a fantastical thing that fits the style set by the artist (e.g. elven scale tunic instead of a human scale tunic).  I don't want to blow the whole art budget just for illustrations, and those are the kind of things that the AI art is mostly likely to do an adequate job on.

I'd then rather use whatever art budget I have left on a few good pieces showing dynamic scenes.

I am not an artist. I just know what I like when I see it.  For a real artist, I can see how AI art can sometimes be a useful tool.  Part of it being a useful tool, however, is understanding what is being done and its limitations--and thus where to draw the line and stop using it.

I like AI art. I like it a lot better than bad human-made art. Unless you can commission someone on the level of Tyler Jacobson, I would much rather see AI art in a product than bad human-made art.

I myself do not buy anything with AI art, I would rather support a real illustrator and at this point there are a zillion YouTube videos and Domestika classes out there. Why not try to teach yourself? You are not making AI art, you are putting in a prompt and the engine is searching the internet to take what others have done and an amalgamation is produced that often looks like everyone else's attempt.

ai art looks bad. if you want ai art that doesn't look bad, you need to commission someone to do it for you. but in that scenario you could just commission an artist.

Even if AI art looks superficially good, it is still blasphemy against the human soul, harms the careers of conservative artists, and contributes to the global stupidity epidemic.

The response to my question has been quite surprising given literally nobody in my social circles has a negative opinion about AI art, which is why I assumed the complaining must be entirely coming from left wing individuals.

On the subject of just learning to draw myself, I drew an entire game before and the results are so bad its just embarrassing, and drawing all that art gave me incredible wrist pain that took forever to recover from.

The results I've been seeing from my prompts look really good, hence why I'm planning on using them.

I have no problem with AI art,
I have a problem with crappy art.
A lot of AI Art is crappy,
don't use crappy AI art.

I am generally pro-AI, but also against generating AI content with a cloud platform. For reasons I am about to discuss, if it is at all possible you should generate with local hardware.

There are two problems with AIs; the first is that it doesn't do certain things which you may need for an RPG (notably monsters or highly abnormal landscapes.) AI is not going to be able to do everything for the foreseeable future.

But more to the point, we are giving AI companies a whole lot of trust that they are actually generating material legitimately. If you are using a cloud AI service provider, then unless you set up the cloud yourself you really have no way of knowing if it isn't secretly searching Google for a base image or in the case of an LLM, a base set of text. This would significantly improve the output and decrease the computational needs...but it's also not copyright infringement safe.

So for me, the gold standard for everything AI is locally generated on hardware you physically own and operate, ideally with an open source model. If you meet all of those criteria it doesn't really matter if you trained it on copyrighted material or not.

 

I'm curious where you all sit on AI collaboration in art.  I can't draw for shit.  Tried for decades, it just doesn't happen.  But, I can sketch or do 3d modelling and have the AI work from that.  I can do post processing and filtering to get a consistent styles/results.

Quote from: Fheredin on December 22, 2024, 02:29:17 PMI am generally pro-AI, but also against generating AI content with a cloud platform. For reasons I am about to discuss, if it is at all possible you should generate with local hardware.
 

I've been looking into that but I'm not sure how complicated it is to set up, would you recommend any tutorials?

Been struggling with cloud AI platforms due to the fact my game is set in World War 2 but they all refuse to generate anything resembling a german. I get why they ban it, but it is frustrating if you're trying to make anything set during that time period.

Quote from: Sqeek McDohl on December 22, 2024, 02:48:25 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on December 22, 2024, 02:29:17 PMI am generally pro-AI, but also against generating AI content with a cloud platform. For reasons I am about to discuss, if it is at all possible you should generate with local hardware.
 

I've been looking into that but I'm not sure how complicated it is to set up, would you recommend any tutorials?

Been struggling with cloud AI platforms due to the fact my game is set in World War 2 but they all refuse to generate anything resembling a german. I get why they ban it, but it is frustrating if you're trying to make anything set during that time period.

To be honest the censorship of AI art is its biggest drawback as a tool.
That probably wont last forever but for the time being its a legitimate drawback.
As to pro vs anti AI I'm not sure where I fit in that split anymore to much has gone on in my life what I do know is that I lean pro AI in meany regards. Also don't think its just your friend group that is lacking in opinion out side of the art micro universe of our culture there are a lot of people even fairly young people who don't see AI technology as a thing that is going to effect there lively hoods or there lives in a significant way. That view point may not be based in learned fact or practical reality but that's from what I can tell where most people actually seem to sit on the issue.

Imho I think that AI art does have its benefits for the actual artist in that it can produce something quick on a conceptual level. But it does feel cheap and soulless to me if produced and published purely as is. It's ok for your home campaign as long as you don't look to make any money off it.

Personally I love AI art. A lot of RPG art is crap. Most stock art is crap and overpriced. There's probably like 3 stock art artists that are actually good. Dean Spencer is top notch, but his license only lets you use his stuff once, unless you sub to his patreon. Screw that.

And what gets me is that a lot of stock art companies, like Purple Duck, have basically double their prices for the same images. I mean, they commissioned them years ago, the cost is sunk, why double the prices? I used to use their stuff, some of their artists like Brian Brinlee are good, but it's not cost effective anymore.

Rogue Genius Games is probably the only one that has kept prices low and their art is a mixed bag. Also only comes as a PDF

But the other thing is that stock art can never represent exactly what you want. In many cases, it was written for some other product. AI art lets you specify exactly what you want. it might take 50 tries to get something like what you envisioned but it's what you envisioned, not someone else

Just be honest in the credits, about the sources of your artwork.  Let the consumers decide.

AI art is fine.  Go for it.

And keep in mind that I can do art on my own, albeit only as 3D objects.