I think internet arguments maybe skewer your outlook, WJAick. My questions were meant to create some room in a very definitive statement. This "Just asking questions" routine refers to people spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. It's a bit weird to apply it to anyone using questions to examine a topic. It's definitely not bad faith on my part. I don't think it's cool to suggest this about someone in a discussion unless they're obviously disrespecting people, promoting hate or stuff like that.

This is a discussion about intent, authorship,using techniques versus a prompt, so you don't need to be dismissive about the questions I posed.

The reason I'm not filling in blanks is because I don't want to create walls of text. The tools I mentioned were described previously in the discussion. To help you out, let me give you an example: using a tool to remove something from the background instantly. Previously, this was done manually, currently, AI can do it for you. It's still your own picture, but the end result is partially generated by AI, at least.

Giving an art generator a prompt isn't that different from giving an anonymous helper instructions to finish a painting that will be sold in your name. The artistic decisions and intent did not come from the helpers, but from the person whose name sold the art. AI imagine generation doesn't occur without decision or intent.

You mention Judas's hand placement - a detail like that can result from a decision made by a person typing a prompt.

The notion generative AI uses previously created texts and images seems like the biggest sore point. I do get that, but it also reminds me of the arguments against samping in music. Since that became more commercial and record labels started paying royalties, that's been largely settled. In the end it was more about money than "what is real art?". I see how this is more complicated with generative AI. That said: several cases of AI copyright infringement have already been succesfully adressed by different courts, so I do think this process is set in motion. I'm not going to pretend this will just work itself out, I really don't know.

I get this all sounds like some sort of attack if you've made up your mind and are defending the fort. I'm not arguing for using generative AI. Like I said, I tend to avoid it myself. At the same time, it's a new technology that's going to impact how things are made.

Alright, thanks polite response and the clarification!

You're welcome. And thank you for not taking it personally. The last thing I want to be is combative. It's just a really sensitive topic when it comes to creative endeavors and there are a lot of people out there who have vested interests (usually financial ones) in steering the conversation away from uncomfortable aspects of the conversation.

I get that! And same. I like arguing but I definitely don't enjoy people dunking on each other or trying to "win" an argument.

Maybe to balance things out: I don't think I've seen an AI generated image that I genuinely liked. Now, I've been mostly avoiding it, so that isn't a total indictment. I'd say people excersizing more control over the creative process than just giving a prompt is good. I'd also agree it's better to employ artists, rather than just using generative AI to replace them.

I think internet arguments maybe skewer your outlook, WJAick. My questions were meant to create some room in a very definitive statement. This "Just asking questions" routine refers to people spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. It's a bit weird to apply it to anyone using questions to examine a topic. It's definitely not bad faith on my part. I don't think it's cool to suggest this about someone in a discussion unless they're obviously disrespecting people, promoting hate or stuff like that.

The "just asking questions" routine means exactly what it sounds like--somebody trying to avoid being seen to stake out a potentially unpopular opinion by couching it as if they're simply wondering aloud rather than actually making an argument. Yes, this tactic is frequently employed by the sorts you describe, but they don't have exclusive rights to it. Anybody can do it, and anybody else can call them out when they think that's what they're doing. "What about forgery then" didn't strike me as a good faith response to an expression of support for artists, and I struggle to see how it could be.

The reason I'm not filling in blanks is because I don't want to create walls of text. The tools I mentioned were described previously in the discussion. To help you out, let me give you an example: using a tool to remove something from the background instantly. Previously, this was done manually, currently, AI can do it for you. It's still your own picture, but the end result is partially generated by AI, at least.

I don't work in the visual arts, so I don't have working knowledge of the kind of tech you're talking about. Neither do a lot of people posting, I'd imagine. If you want us to be able to engage with your point, best to be clear about what it is. How does the program "remove something from the background instantly?" Are we talking about something that fills in the now-empty space with algorithmically generated noise, or the "Undo" function in MSPaint?

Giving an art generator a prompt isn't that different from giving an anonymous helper instructions to finish a painting that will be sold in your name. The artistic decisions and intent did not come from the helpers, but from the person whose name sold the art. AI imagine generation doesn't occur without decision or intent.

This comparison isn't just wrong, it's borderline offensive. The decisions hired laborers make in the process of a job don't count? It's only the employer, not the employee, who works with artistic intent? By that standard we shouldn't praise Bill Tiller's backgrounds for Curse of Monkey Island--he was just doing what Jonathan Ackley and Larry Ahern told him to, after all.

Art across all media is frequently a collaborative process. Every person who contributed to work in the studios of Michelangelo or Leonardo--or on a film set, or in a recording studio, or while developing a game--did so by calling on their personal knowledge, making judgement calls, and deciding with each stroke of the brush what they ought to do next. In the case of the Renaissance painters, those "anonymous helpers" were usually apprentices studying under the master in order to hone their artistic abilities, and were assigned to work on those pieces to do exactly that. They spoke to the master about the work, offered thoughts and insights, asked questions, and contributed to the creation in unique ways. They weren't mindless tools pointed at a canvas and told to work exactly as the master would, and if the master had expected that, the results would have disappointed him.

You mention Judas's hand placement - a detail like that can result from a decision made by a person typing a prompt.

If I commission a painting of the Last Supper--as Leonardo was commissioned by the Duke of Milan--and I instruct the artist to depict Judas's hand so that it's grasping at the air, the artist is the one who ultimately decides what that looks like, taking into account any number of factors including their own preferences and their personal ideas about Judas's character. An image generator considers one factor: "What image is statistically most likely to match the keywords 'hand' and 'grasping' when displayed here."

Having an idea, no matter how detailed, is not the same as creating art. The idea is where art begins, not where it ends. Putting a written description of that idea into a machine that creates a statistically probable image based on the keywords included is no more "making art" than speaking a detailed order into a drive-thru speaker is "working as a line cook."

I am working in the visual art area and have the according educational background. For me this discussion is very interesting and I do not feel attacked by BobVPs questions and thoughts so far.

For me, creating a visual depiction of an idea means translating an idea in a way so that
1. other people are able to perceive it at all
2. by this, making the idea "exist", not just for yourself, but also for others - sharing it, so it may even survive you
3. let people understand what the idea means

The perceiving can happen with text, imagery ... whatever.
The understanding is more difficult. It means communication. Being able to communicate, to speak, and to listen.

I was never sure though when visualizing an idea begins to "be art".

During school, some students may for example always draw heads looking to the left "because I am right-handed and cannot draw people looking to the right properly". This is a simple explanation, not really an "artist decision" (besides that they know it will simply look better when they do it this way). A person may use just grey colors when they are too unsure about using saturated colors, since they cannot handle the contrast properly. They can still create art with just grey. Simply based on artist decisions like "I do it this way, because I am not able to do it another way". Such decions are not always as deep or complex as you might have expected.

And for some ideas that are communicated in the form of "imagery", not every detail in the image matters. It may not matter if the person is looking to the left or to the right, although it might be communicated in a stronger fashion if you respected and applied all available composition, light, contrast, technique tricks to support the main idea. In the end, the artwork would be more impressive.

An artist needs to decide if there is anything left to add, change or remove to make an artwork perfect according to their vision/idea. This is not easy. An AI doesn't make such decision. Other artists may have other opinions though if the artwork is perfect yet. But who can finally judge that, after all?

---

A bit more on-topic:

How a person thinks about usage of AI is one thing. What about how we act, based on our knowledge if AI has been used in the creation of a game?

When checking a game page on steam for example, I try to find out if they used AI for the creation and how. There are specific games that I didn't put on my wishlist after all, after I found out that AI had been used. I do not know if devs / companies are usually honest about it these days or cheating.

In case they are honest about it, and I have a feeling that they used the available AI tools in a way that still supports their own artistic vision - as a helper, not as a "protagonist", I once may decide to still buy and play such a game. So far, until now, I haven't.

How a person thinks about usage of AI is one thing. What about how we act, based on our knowledge if AI has been used in the creation of a game?

Thank you for pivoting the topic back to AI in adventure games. This topic I created ended up being a bit of 'monkey paw' style wish because it turned more into a general AI debate rather than specifically about the video game industry.

Also here is a link for avoiding generative AI in video games, provided for everyone's convenience and at their individual discretion:

https://www.giantbomb.com/generative-ai/...857/games/

I personally am very strongly against AI in video game creation, but do appreciate hearing the differing viewpoints.

Also here is a link for avoiding generative AI in video games, provided for everyone's convenience and at their individual discretion:

https://www.giantbomb.com/generative-ai/...857/games/

Brilliant. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I've shared it on my Bluesky and Mastodon socials.

*high five*

Also that was incredibly quick!

Thank you for pivoting the topic back to AI in adventure games. This topic I created ended up being a bit of 'monkey paw' style wish because it turned more into a general AI debate rather than specifically about the video game industry.

I'll take the blame for that one. Honestly I was just approaching it from the way I've been thinking about it. I also tend to take a detour from time to time, sometimes I maybe need to reel it in some more.

I had no idea the anti-AI stance was this much of a thing and that people are really in one camp or the other. Reading people's input and looking up some articles explaining the movement, I think I have a better sense of how and why.

Reading the list, this is going to be one of those unintentional boycots for me. Like MacDonalds. I could claim to be doing it for about three different causes, but I wasn't going there anyway.

Honestly I was just approaching it from the way I've been thinking about it.

Your input on the topic is always valued and appreciated, Bob. Don't feel any sense of blame. 

I had no idea the anti-AI stance was this much of a thing and that people are really in one camp or the other.

I was fully aware of this from the start of the poll, which is why I knew posing the initial question required a neutral tone of even-handedness to avoid things becoming quickly contentious and heated.