Nope; IMO that's not a true statement, unless everything I've ever drawn is also a theft from every artist whose work that I have ever seen with my eyes.
Nonetheless, AFAIK, being AI generated does mean it is in violation of OGA's temporary AI policy (which I can't find pinned, but I'm sure that MedicineStorm will provide).
@eugeneloza Well, that all sounds like a whole lotta tedious rubbish that I am never going to do. Wake me up when AI can take care of that stuff for me...
@Danimal You're absolutely right about that commercial tactic, but Stable Diffusion (and other free models based on leaked versions of the commercial ones) are the spanner thrown into that machine. Wannabe monopolies can only hope to be able to race far ahead of the DIYers, and/or use lawfare and channel control to make it almost impossible to use AI art for anything without paying dues to one of the mafia dons. Both of those are possible but will be an uphill battle.
The second one is probably what I'd be going for in their shoes. You'll never be able to get on top of free hobbyist games through indie distro channels, but if you can lock down Steam/Store/Play/consoles so that nobody without a mafia seal of approval can get a look in, then anyone wanting to use AI art in a game and get paid for it has to pay you. 2 for 1 deal: artists are eliminated from the market, and game makers now have to pay you each piece of art instead, even though you never look at anything except the spreadsheets for managing the lawyers and the servers!
I also just noticed that the title of the thread was out of date before it was even created... The AI tools have already moved on to creating animated movies, 3D models, and 3D animations.
Humans innovate over time because of our contact with what we call "the real world". That's something which the generative AIs will eventually get the tools for as well - the tools to generate their own meaningful training data, without human intervention - and they will then get more creative. In fact they'll probably get those tools quite soon. They won't then need us merely for access to the complexity engine of the real world, as they do now.
In the meantime, they are completely dependent upon us to identify which art is "good" from our perspective, i.e. which strings of bits have some kind of meaning to creatures that evolved in the real world. To a computer program without training from us, today, any blobs of colour are mostly just like any other blobs of colour. The only interesting "aesthetic" criteria that they could start to learn for themselves without any input from us at all, is the Kolmogorov complexity of the data.
Once they can innovate properly in this space for themselves, what will still remain forever unknown to them is performing such innovation from the point of view of a human, because we're not replicable. We can be usefully approximated, even today, but you can never be sure of what you're losing in the approximation. For that reason, it will be useful that some humans will still always want to be artisans, and keep the historical version of the craft alive.
The way that they morph from anime hyper-girlie to serious as I scan them from feet to head, is fascinating.
And they look incredible (despite all the gear impracticalities).
Add "Advance Wars" to tags?
Hey ObsidianBlk, thanks for letting me know about your game! I hope to try it soon. It's good to hear that someone has used these assets!
Also, this looks very similar to "Kravilion"'s work, augmented by an endearing misunderstanding of what pixels are for.
Nope; IMO that's not a true statement, unless everything I've ever drawn is also a theft from every artist whose work that I have ever seen with my eyes.
Nonetheless, AFAIK, being AI generated does mean it is in violation of OGA's temporary AI policy (which I can't find pinned, but I'm sure that MedicineStorm will provide).
Use the new one! It has more stuff!
https://opengameart.org/content/16x16-chibi-rpg-character-builder-v3
@eugeneloza Well, that all sounds like a whole lotta tedious rubbish that I am never going to do. Wake me up when AI can take care of that stuff for me...
@Danimal You're absolutely right about that commercial tactic, but Stable Diffusion (and other free models based on leaked versions of the commercial ones) are the spanner thrown into that machine. Wannabe monopolies can only hope to be able to race far ahead of the DIYers, and/or use lawfare and channel control to make it almost impossible to use AI art for anything without paying dues to one of the mafia dons. Both of those are possible but will be an uphill battle.
The second one is probably what I'd be going for in their shoes. You'll never be able to get on top of free hobbyist games through indie distro channels, but if you can lock down Steam/Store/Play/consoles so that nobody without a mafia seal of approval can get a look in, then anyone wanting to use AI art in a game and get paid for it has to pay you. 2 for 1 deal: artists are eliminated from the market, and game makers now have to pay you each piece of art instead, even though you never look at anything except the spreadsheets for managing the lawyers and the servers!
I also just noticed that the title of the thread was out of date before it was even created... The AI tools have already moved on to creating animated movies, 3D models, and 3D animations.
@eugeneloza Where are all these "free" programmers that you're talking about?
I want them to make some games for me...
Unless you do some clever prompt hacking, ChatGPT still only knows one poem.
Also, its "robot apocalypse" storylines are kinda stuck in the 80s.
Human art is mostly imitative as well.
Humans innovate over time because of our contact with what we call "the real world". That's something which the generative AIs will eventually get the tools for as well - the tools to generate their own meaningful training data, without human intervention - and they will then get more creative. In fact they'll probably get those tools quite soon. They won't then need us merely for access to the complexity engine of the real world, as they do now.
In the meantime, they are completely dependent upon us to identify which art is "good" from our perspective, i.e. which strings of bits have some kind of meaning to creatures that evolved in the real world. To a computer program without training from us, today, any blobs of colour are mostly just like any other blobs of colour. The only interesting "aesthetic" criteria that they could start to learn for themselves without any input from us at all, is the Kolmogorov complexity of the data.
Once they can innovate properly in this space for themselves, what will still remain forever unknown to them is performing such innovation from the point of view of a human, because we're not replicable. We can be usefully approximated, even today, but you can never be sure of what you're losing in the approximation. For that reason, it will be useful that some humans will still always want to be artisans, and keep the historical version of the craft alive.
Pages