To contend the point that some publishers need to have a way to get art in their published works to move sales: not everyone are entitled to succeed. Some, nay, most new business ventures will fail. If a project needs to steal in order to succeed, then it deserves the same amount of respect as what was paid to the artists who actually put in the work the AI "collaged": none.
Excellent review. This sounded right up my alley until I saw it contained A.I. art. I understand the temptation, but the cost of putting artists out of work is too high for me to accept.
Dungeon Crawl Classics, a modern OSR game (based on D&D 3.5) uses line drawn black and white art and it's in no way lackluster or uninspiring. They chose that art style to evoke the feelings of original and Advanced D&D. Saying that art must be in color to inspire players and GMs is a bad take. That said I have a real hard time supporting any RPG product using AI generated art no matter how good the art. Failing to put a disclaimer that their art isn't made by humans makes it seem like they're trying to hide the fact. I am intrigued by the game but it's going to take a lot of convincing for me to actually pay for it. Thanks for the review.
DCC was certainly not the sort of independent TTRPG's line art I was talking about; I've seen plenty of one or two person designs which have some of the absolute worst looking scribbles, which detract from what could be a great game design. ~ Jeff
Thanks for the review and caveats Jeff, they are appreciated. I was intrigued by this product until -- you guessed it -- "AI" art. If a publisher/producer can't be bothered to obtain original art for their product and instead chooses to steal art from other people, I cannot support them. If you think the only way you can get art for your project is to use these "AI" engines, then you are not trying hard enough.
In most situations, as I understand it, AI generated art uses dozens of published images to build a single computer image. It's not all that easy to determine the original images which were used for the program to build the offending image.
Because it's not stolen artwork. You are allowed to have an opinion of course though! All images present in the book, never existed prior to this book. If I were to ask you to draw an Orc, you would have to refer to images which would reference the Orc. The generative process of an image is compiled from machine learning. Much like the human brain, by compiling information to create something new. You are of course welcome to take issue with it, as people have done with any new invention which levels the playing field. (The printing press for example). But being accused of stealing is where we draw the line. Given, we are using a legal technology which massive corporations are currently levying which is present in our day to day lives unavoidably. The future is now and it's not going away.
@@lucideyepublications4601 human inspiration and running thousands of images from an algorithm without their creators consent to replicate their style is not the same thing. The latter is more akin to going to museums, taking pictures of different artwork, piecing it together, and selling it as your own original art. On the matter of ''future is now and it's not going away''. Not a single artist me included are asking for ai to stop existing. It's a tool, and a nice tool. Especially for people who did not have talent or put in the effort to press a button and feel like they created something pretty. But there's an ethical way to do this. Like getting consent from the creators, or compensating them in someway if you're profiting through their work.
You, alongside other creators did not contribute to this project. Your analysis is objectively wrong. Taking pictures of other peoples work and comprising them is a collage. The generative process of AI is trained upon images, as is the human brain. A style you draw is derivative of everything you’ve seen. Style does not exist in a vacuum. By the same token. The creation of images, be they ‘pretty’, or not, become their own entity upon point on conception. Your contempt for people using the technology does not take away from our project, and we will not intentionally handicap ourselves from using technology because people believe it to be ‘immoral’. I disagree with your point. There is a difference between the learning models you are portraying. The difference between supervised learning, where AI models are trained on a dataset of labeled data, and unsupervised learning, where AI models are trained on a dataset of unlabeled data. This can lead to the misconception that all AI models are simply copying and pasting existing data, rather than being able to learn and generate new content. The content is new. The technology is perfectly legal, I suggest you take this complaint up with Midjourney or other providers of the tech.
@@lucideyepublications4601 Incredible feats of acrobatics here, as you bend over backwards and jump through hoops to try to rationalize how the AI models you utilized did not plagiarize styles of famous illustrators and are actually "creating" something. If that's your perspective on creative work then I wish you the worst of luck with your morally bankrupt and mediocre game.
