millie

Why does the use of AI to modify art require justification?

We seem to have this general culture of people who don't make things coming after those who do. Every decision of design, methodology, or artistic preference treated as though the creator has an obligation to please every single person who posts their opinions on the internet.

The reality is that this simply isn't true. Art that spends all its energy fretting about whether people will like it ends up being some bland bullshit produced by committee. Art that allows itself to be what it is doesn't need opinions and suggestions to flourish.

If the author of that article were remotely interested in their process or what the actual practical implications of using AI on a project are, they could have had something worth reading.

Instead they went into the interview looking to push a position and badgering without listening rather than making even a passing attempt at something resembling journalism. Because ultimately they don't care about AI, or art, or games; they care about rage clicks.

They can be binding in the sense that they can govern the licensing or potentially ownership of submitted assets. So like, for example, a ToS could have a bunch of clauses that carry no legal obligation for you, but could also include a clause that grants the company licensing to use your likeness or things submitted to the server or interaction with it. The same way any ToS can license the use of your metadata for sale to 3rd parties.

That doesn't have any particular legally binding requirements of you, but it can serve as a shield in the event of a lawsuit if, say, Facebook uses your profile photo in some advertising materials.

It can also be useful if you're running a small project like an independent game server. Even if there's literally no money in it, it can be helpful to clarify who owns what in the event of something like a false DMCA. If a developer who once was doing work with you suddenly decides to take their ball and go home, some sort of agreement that outlines your ownership or usage rights surrounding code submitted to your mod can protect you when they turn around and send Steam a DMCA.

But yeah, nobody's going to get sued for using a service in a way that the ToS prohibits unless it's already illegal, like theft.

Artists aren't lawyers and don't want to be. Except for the ones that are. But that isn't most of us.

Artists make art. If you want to look for the people who like to make policy, look to the jackasses in suits who sit around having meetings about meetings all day to justify scalping the work made by actual artists. The same kinds of people who fund stories like this blatantly uninformed hit piece.

Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

At some point the line will have to be discovered, because the use of AI for art isn't going away. Suits can whine about it all they want. Art doesn't really care.

AI art of any reasonable quality still requires significant human input. I don't just mean prompt engineering, I mean actually having an artist using more traditional techniques to make adjustments or provide a base for the AI work. The output of raw AI art on its own can be impressive at times, but it's not consistent enough to maintain a style for any sizeable piece of work.

If you want to be able to create a bunch of assets that look like they were designed for the same project with AI, somebody still needs to do some art.

What AI does do, though, is give those artists the ability to exponentially increase their productivity independently, with no particular need for the sort of labor-hour organization that a corporation provides.

It should be telling that the corporate media spin on this is to attack it and to publicize voices that criticize it, but never those that express nuance. That's because it terrifies every useless corporate lackey who understands its actual potential to empower independent artists of all kinds.

You'd be making a mistake there. AI elements can't be copyrighted, but human-created elements can. There's also a line somewhere at which point AI generation is used as a tool to enhance hand-made art rather than to generate entire pieces wholesale.

Like, let's look at this Soul Token for my Planescape themed Conan Exiles server (still in development).

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1097400802764664843/1110453997413867560/image.png

I went into GIMP, drew a simple skull based on a design I found on google image search, slapped it on a very simple little circle, and popped it into NightCafe for some detail work. The end result is something I composed myself, with the most significant visual elements created by hand and spiced up a bit essentially using a big complicated filter. The result saved me hours and gave me one of many little in-game items to mod into my server that I never would have had the resources to produce in bulk otherwise as an independent developer.

Who owns it?

Well, I drew the skull after training myself on google image search data, but presumably my hand drawing of a fairly generic object still belongs to me. I drew the circle that makes up the coin itself, but NightCafe added some nicely lit metallic coloring, gave it a border, and turned my little skull into a gem. This, of course, requiring some prompt engineering and iteration on my part.

So is adding a texture and a little border detail enough to interfere with my ownership? Should it be? If I didn't hand-create enough of the work to constitute ownership, surely there's some point at which a vanishingly small amount of AI detail being added to the art doesn't eliminate the independent creation of the art itself. If I were to paint an elaborate landscape by hand and then AI generate a border for it, surely that border shouldn't eliminate the legitimacy of my contributions.

At some point, the difference between the use of AI and the use of a filter in an image editor becomes essentially non-existent. Yes, an AI can create a lot more from scratch, but in practical terms it's much easier to get it started with a bit of traditional art than it is to spend hours engineering prompts trying to get rid of weird extra eyeballs and spaghetti fingers.

I'd love to see a more elaborate discussion on this topic, but so far all we get is some form of 'AI bad!' and then some artists dropping a little bit of nuance without it really seeming to go anywhere.

This technology has the potential to elevate independent artists to the sort of productivity that only corporations, with their inherent inspiration-killing bureaucracy, could previously achieve. That's a good thing.

People who haven't used this tech really have it backward. This enables indie artists to create stuff on their own without corporate oversight. This interview was an opportunity to explore that, but they decided to follow the corporate line of attacking this actually successful four person studio instead of asking about what makes them tick with any actual interest.

What a terrible interview. The interviewer literally repeatedly asks questions that they've already answered and shows pretty clearly that they haven't bothered actually researching or trying AI art technology. They certainly seemed to have read plenty of articles about how bad AI is, but didn't even bother scratching the surface of how it's actually used.

It reads like a hit piece coming from someone who only reads what comes up in their feed.

I feel like my cold brewed espresso with dark chocolate oatmilk says: "mmm".

My memory really only seems to function properly for keeping track of large sets of complicated variables, like writing lore or designing a rule set or coding. Ask it to remember something simple and it'll completely throw it out the window. Which, okay, it's a pain in the ass, but I can really do that first bit in a way that I watch other people struggle with.

I may operate like a confused blob spreading in all directions, but every little piece of that work is a chunk of a bigger picture that I can see clearly. I may be flitting from task to task within that work and advancing ideas as my brain spontaneously shifts focus, but when they're all tied to the same end result they all advance the work in an organic and automatic way.

When I let myself work that way, that's when I really feel what Bukowski meant by "Don't try".

Yes, it takes me literally forever to leave the house in the morning. Sure, numbers without a specific meaning and immediate use swim around in my head like alphabet soup. Okay, I literally can barely tell the difference between one hour and six hours if I'm not using some sort of event to track the time.

But my awareness in the moment is pretty on point. I'll catch things other people won't. I'm great at spotting the silhouettes of animals out in the dark and I notice erratic drivers from a mile away. The same things about my memory that make me terrible at getting my day going or that make it hard for me to keep up to date with people or deal with paperwork also make me way more observant than I would be otherwise. They're also the reason I can track these massive piles of inter-related data and not feel overwhelmed. My memory works differently, but it's pretty useful for what I need it for.

We're different, and sometimes it sucks. But a big part of the reason it sucks is because society isn't built for our particular variety of human. That doesn't mean we're not beneficial to ourselves or our species, and it doesn't mean we're broken. It means we work differently and we have different capabilities.

For some people it may make sense to medicate to make it easier to keep track of things, and some people may not have or may not have found applications for the way their memory works differently; we all have to find what works for us.

But I also think that we don't necessarily have to frame our experience of our own brains around apologizing for not being what society expects or overly pathologizing our own variation from the perceived norm.

I hate bald boys.

Whenever I see a bald boy, I feel like I'm back in the pants.