Your thoughts on A.I. art creation

[eri0o]

Erh, on the AI topic I recently tried ChatGPT. I didn't expect much but it's a pretty interesting language model, it can do lots of different sorts of language transformations, you can make it tell you back a story you tell it but with specific writing characteristics, like language, manner, form (letter, poem, ...).

It also keeps context in the "conversation".

I asked it about Adventure Game Studio and later AGS Script. Then I asked it to write code for specific things. Now, it doesn't know AGS Script very well, and often mixes it with either JS or C, but overall cleaning up it's produced code can give some interesting results. I tried a bunch of things and one that it did get it mostly right was a code to make confetti on screen.

It was an interesting experiment.

[KyriakosCH]

Why do they need your phone, though? It's not just this AI project either. It'd be nice if google account and email verification was enough.

[MikeTenebrae]

As someone who is an illustrator for a living I am pretty much against it for a variety of reasons.

The images are not so much painted as they are scraped from millions of existing images online. I recently shut down my pro Artstation account due tot their mealy mouthed stance against the protection of artists and their work from being scraped. I left the tabletop and book illustration industry wholly some time ago as even then it was underpaid to an extent. I find it frightening how advanced the tech is being perceived by corporations and certain clients. There are still lots of nuances that it cannot replicate and working with an AD or client is a very personal experience that comes with a variety of changes, especially in gaming that an inexperienced artist coasting on AI would fall short on.

The worst aspect for me is seeing my peers who are worried about the future of their profession, their income for the families and themselves and some of the terrible vitriol thrown at them from certain tech bros who accuse them of gatekeeping the secrets of successful 'arting, which are really just blood, sweat and tears. I just believe that regulation needs to be put in place and everyone who felt a sense of security regarding their future against the rise of the machines should keep an eye on developments...(at the risk of sounding like an burgeoning luddite.)

[KyriakosCH]

I hear you, but the computers are always going to need new (by humans) prototypes created, before they can fuse them into their own work. Of course this doesn't mean the art market will be sustainable for humans, just that some human artists will be paid to work with computers.
Cost-wise, there is simply no antagonism between using (for a few seconds, often) a machine to create (eg) a variation of a work by Paul Klee, and paying a human to do it.

[Mandle]

I hear you, but the computers are always going to need new (by humans) prototypes created, before they can fuse them into their own work.

I think "always" is too big a word to use here. Within a decade or two we will probably have robots roaming here and there, on wheels or legs or rotors, with cameras for eyes and a sophisticated A.I. "brain", experiencing the world on their own terms. They will be able to look at the world and make their own artistic representations of it. Sure, they will probably borrow art styles from history, and will mesh them together into something new, but that's just what humans already do. Sometimes that combination is inspired enough to create a style that appears to be completely unique. But it never really is.

[KyriakosCH]

Mmm, it is a vast subject. There are arguments against (as it's called) hard AI (or "real AI"), basically against the notion that a machine will actually have consciousness. A very famous mathematician (and winner of the nobel for Physics) who is against the view there can be machine consciousness is Roger Penrose. Although he focuses on the machines used being digital (argues that the phenomenon of consciousness seems to be analog).
Of course a digital system has other limitations (loads of theorems on that, even before Turing, by Turing, after Turing), but an analog computer wouldn't be as efficient as we by now expect machines to be with standard tasks.

[Danvzare]

Although he focuses on the machines used being digital (argues that the phenomenon of consciousness seems to be analog).

Maybe it's my lack of understanding of string theory, but I thought the entire universe was basically made up of whether or not something is there or isn't. And therefore you could just consider digital to be a simplified version of analog.

To be honest, considering how all organic life functions, including humans, with everything being a chemical reaction that is just reacting to something that was reacting (ad infinitum), couldn't it also be argued that nothing has intelligence as freewill is just an illusion?

That all being said, I have to wonder how a conversation about art generation has turned into a discussion about Laplace's Demon.

[KyriakosCH]

Afaik there are main differences with digital machines, due to them transforming the power behind the system (eg electricity in the transistors) to distinct measurements (=digits). Analog machines, on the other hand, take into account the continuous supply, which is the opposite of distinct. It's not just a "simplification" but a condition which imposes very specific barriers (a famous example of that is the Turing proof about not being able to build a program which would certainly calculate if any other program can run to the end; Goedel incompleteness is another, previous example).
You can build an analog computer, of course (there have been such), but it will be vastly less efficient than the digital ones (and it's not like itself can be used to even do the stuff computers do now, with Ai art or the chat-bot etc).

The main idea behind digital machines is exactly that they act as formal logic systems, which are math systems that by definition only can work if they are distinct (=finite) and not continuous themselves. It's often argued (but this is an ongoing debate) that the difference with something like consciousness is that you can freely identify a state outside the system. Personally I view it as the ability (consciousness) to form a symbolic understanding of something, ie something which you can be aware is NOT the actual something, but which you still can use just fine to stand for that something. A machine, on the other hand, doesn't form symbolic connections, only material ones (another way of saying that it doesn't form anything, it just runs stuff so there's no distinction= itself another way of saying it has no senses).

[Durq]

I just started messing around with ChatGPT. I typed in "Write a script for a one-room point-and-click adventure game starring King Graham." I was pretty impressed with the results because I was mostly expecting ChatGPT to not even understand what I was asking. Turning this script into a playable and polished game is still a huge leap, but one can imagine the possibilities.

AI-generated text below:

Spoiler

INT. KING GRAHAM'S BEDCHAMBER - DAY

The camera pans across a luxurious bedroom, with a large four-poster bed in the center of the room. KING GRAHAM, a middle-aged man with a regal bearing, is sitting on the edge of the bed, looking deep in thought.

KING GRAHAM: (to himself) I must find a way to break the curse that has been placed upon my kingdom. But where to begin?

The player can then click on various objects in the room to interact with them and gather clues to help King Graham break the curse.

    Clicking on the bedside table will reveal a book entitled "The History of the Kingdom." King Graham will pick it up and read a passage that mentions a powerful sorcerer who was banished from the kingdom many years ago.

    Clicking on the wardrobe will open it to reveal a hidden compartment containing an old, tattered map. King Graham will unfold the map and study it, discovering that the sorcerer's tower is located in a nearby forest.

    Clicking on the fireplace will reveal a small key hidden behind the mantel. King Graham will pick up the key and examine it, realizing that it must be used to unlock the tower.

    Clicking on the door will allow King Graham to leave the bedroom and travel to the forest to find the sorcerer's tower.

Once King Graham reaches the tower, the player can continue to interact with objects and solve puzzles to uncover the sorcerer's secrets and break the curse.

KING GRAHAM: (to himself) With this curse lifted, my kingdom can prosper once more. Thank you, player, for your help.

The game ends with King Graham returning to the castle and the kingdom returning to its former glory.

[close]

[KyriakosCH]

But can ChatGPT provide functional AGS code too?
(iirc it can only do that for major codes, like python etc, because there are so many examples of such online)

[TheFrighter]

It suggest even the camera moves? This means you can ask a screenplay for a movie... 

_

[Stupot]

Since ChatGPT was released there has already been a massive jump in self-published content labeled as "co-written" with AI. And those are just the people admitting it. I dread to think how many people are copy and pasting reams of this stuff and not declaring it.

I definitely consider that cheating as things stand. But it got me thinking about ways in which AI could be used in a way that is fair.

Of course, declaring it is the first step. As things stand, I think anyone using AI to write anything should declare it or make it abundantly obvious, especially if they're making money from it. But this is basically unenforceable.

But what other ways can it be used? Well, it could be used for proofreading. It's not really any different from a spell-checker or Grammarly that respect.

I also think one fair way to use it would be to simply ask it for feedback. In my recent Fortnightly Writing Contest entry I did just this. I wrote an entirely original piece and then asked ChatGPT to tell me what it "thought" about it. I asked it to tell me what was good, what was not so good and to provide me with suggestions to make it scarier. And crucially I specified that I did not want to to provide any re-writes, so that I still would have to implement its suggestions in my own words.

I think this is a good way to use it. Others might disagree, but to my mind, this is no different than asking a friend to have a look at a draft and give you some feedback. Granted this "friend" is infinitely more well-read than any human, but I don't think this counts as cheating.

What do other people think? Is that cheating or fair play? What other useful ways could it be used for writing that is fair play?

[Retro Wolf]

I can see it used as a tool when my inspiration is stuck. Wouldn't copy and paste anything it spits out personally.

[TheFrighter]

In my country (Italia) ChatGPT is actually banned due the lack of privacy protection.
Probably other countries will follow.

_

[WanderingWizard]

AI art has literally changed my life in a very unique way.

I have aphantasia. If you don't know what this is, it means I am completely incapable of visualization. Whenever I heard people talking about picturing things in their minds, I thought it was just a figure of speech. Whenever I "picture" something in my mind, I actually describe it to myself in my head. I don't even see images when I dream, I just wake up knowing that I had one and what it was about.

I'm also an artist. I'm not the best visual artist, but I do a lot of different mediums. Whenever I draw a face, it's almost impossible for me to draw a face that doesn't look almost exactly like the last face I drew without using a reference.

AI art has changed my world. I don't understand why it has become such a problem where artists think it infringes on their intellectual property, because there is not a professional artist in the world that doesn't use reference images. In film school, we were taught to make "mood boards" with art that we liked and wanted to try to make the film look similar to. Every piece of art is referenced from somewhere, in the exact same way a computer creates AI art, even if you aren't using a reference image, because you are using your memory of other images you have seen in order to create a cohesive picture.

According to King Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes, "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

If they were to make AI art equivalent to intellectual property theft, it would take away a large part of my ability to create. My very odd and rare disability makes it absolutely impossible for me to create images in my head, which makes it very difficult to put images on paper or on a screen. I also have been homeless most of my life and have not had much of an opportunity to interact with other artists to work with or obtain decent equipment. I was able to afford a graphics tablet a few years ago, but I was living in an RV in Tucson, and it melted. I got a new one last year, but I'm staying in the basement of an old house in New England now and it got so cold over the winter it doesn't work properly anymore. Game design is my primary art, and not being able to create visual art for them greatly reduces my ability to create anything at all.

AI art allows me to make art, and make it quickly, to function as cover images and concept art for my games. I have been able to make my first $20.00 (not much, I know, but I tend to give my work away for free because I don't believe art should be sold... it's for everyone and everyone deserves to have access to it...) in the past year because software like Midjourney and Leonardo AI have allowed me to make images for my work so I can focus on my real art.

It makes me nervous that there have been so many legal struggles with AI art recently, as it would mean I would have to take down the one item I have up for sale because it utilizes AI-generated images, and it would mean a great hit to my ability to produce work in the future.

[TheFrighter]

Good point of view, WanderingWizard. I never thought about this application of AI. I wonder if it could be helpful with other disease.

_

[Danvzare]

I don't understand why it has become such a problem where artists think it infringes on their intellectual property, because there is not a professional artist in the world that doesn't use reference images.

I don't mind explaining why, if you don't mind a severe oversimplification.

It's the same reason why people get mad if you trace over an image while changing it completely, but don't mind when you copy an image almost perfectly when eyeballing it.

I've seen people copy images via reference, almost perfectly. And everyone's been happy about it.
I've also seen someone trace an image of a teddy wielding guns, but he changed the teddy to Stewie from Family Guy, and that person got nothing but hate for it.

As soon as you can understand that logic, you'll understand why people have a problem with AI art (or at least how I understand it). 



But that's neither here nor there. I really enjoyed reading your unique perspective on it.
Thanks for sharing. 

[Crimson Wizard]

From a non-artist perspective, the ai-generated art seems like a good source of both placeholder and concept art for ideas. It looks like a randomizer that gathers everything found on the internet and gives you a random and semi-unique mashup. Sort of a kaleidoscope art.

[LimpingFish]

I think we need to remember the people are, by and large, dicks, and no amount of level-headed respectful debate is going to change the fact that AI-created art/music/writing/etc, much like pre-made assets, open-source media, and the like, will be exploited en masse, flooding markets with artistically corrupt money grabs and outright scams, turning marketplaces into even worse hellscapes of bullshit and corruption.

So frankly, I don't care about the potential benefits of AI, because those benefits will seem so marginal when compared to the massive influx of bad actors intent on exploiting it.

Also, reducing art to an algorithm is the antithesis of human creativity.

I hate it.

EDIT: Has anyone noticed the spam AI music on Spotify? Whole albums, usually ten or so tracks of nonsense music, each track under a minute to maximize play counts, uploaded multiple times under different names in an attempt at flooding playlists and to spam the recommendation algorithm? For what, 0.01 of a dime per play? Fuck those people.

[Stupot]

I haven't noticed that at all, but then again I tend to choose specific bands or playlists dedicated to old music. Even legit music sounds like shitty algorithm-produce these days