Mod+ Ai generated content in RPGs

[Art's Puzzlebox]

Qualify to the bar of that industry and I suspect in almost all but publications aiming to professional artist the bar is far lower than professional artists would like to admit.

I'm of the opinion a) training on art is not theft as it is essentially what all people do to learn skills that exist. I looked at other folks code to learn how to program. I looked at other folks management styles to learn what works for me.
A computer doing the same isn't theft in my mind so we're not likely to agree here.

Mostly though having gone down this road with other professions disrupted by Internet or computer advancement the computers win. They do more work in less time with good enough results for most. I've heard most of the argument why this time it will be different but usually I hear from the say person a decade or two later saying they wish they didn't fight it and just adapted in X, Y or Z way that still let them do most of what they wanted. I'm jaded in this area. The car isn't perfect but I'm not going back to the horse and buggy. I could never draw worth crap but I can describe what I want and get what for me is art. That's awesome.

I fear you are misreading me again. I put a lot of details into my previous posts and I have covered a lot of these points already.

This technology IS different because it exists on less than solid ground. Cars didn't contain stolen copyrighted data in their blueprints when they were first invented, while ai training models, likely do.

I don't want to argue though, so I guess I have to agree to disagree.

 

[Bunch]

I fear you are misreading me again. I put a lot of details into my previous posts and I have covered a lot of these points already.

This technology IS different because it exists on less than solid ground. Cars didn't contain stolen copyrighted data in their blueprints when they were first invented, while ai training models, likely do.

I don't want to argue though, so I guess I have to agree to disagree.

Well I don't agree the art is stolen. I don't agree copyright protects said art from being learned from by a computer.

 

[Art's Puzzlebox]

Well I don't agree the art is stolen. I don't agree copyright protects said art from being learned from by a computer.

That's cool man. I understand that you like it and you are having fun with it. Don't let me stop you by any means. You do you.

As an artist I understand & know that I am in the minority, and that my work is completely obsolete by your standards. I still create physical art & calligraphy with pen and paper, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. I will always be on the outside, of that I have no illusions.

 

[Bunch]

That's cool man. I understand that you like it and you are having fun with it. Don't let me stop you by any means. You do you.

As an artist I understand & know that I am in the minority, and that my work is completely obsolete by your standards. I still create physical art & calligraphy with pen and paper, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. I will always be on the outside, of that I have no illusions.

I do like it and have fun with it but I also liked and had fun with Napster. Napster was clearly illegal. AI art as far as I can tell isn't. It feels to me like artists are asserting rights created whole cloth that never were part of the agreement on copyright. That's why I don't have a problem with it. Computers learning isn't breaking a law that I can see.

 

[TristramEvans]

It feels to me like artists are asserting rights created whole cloth that never were part of the agreement on copyright.

Um, yeah, too bad 200 years ago nobody thought to add in a "no robots" clause...

 

[Agemegos]

I watched my brother go through this as a photographer. With a few exceptions the public doesn't really care about the details nearly as much as the artists and professionals do. Most just want a picture of X +/- a bit. An amateur or a machine could do what most wanted and people would be happy with it. They weren't buying the art really. They were buying a picture of their kid or a building or something else they were attached to and quality only had to pass a certain bar

In this vein, the people who produce and consume RPGs often want illustrations, and so often don't place a lot of value on its being art. We're quite happy with procedurally-generated maps of procedurally-generated worlds provided that they contain about the right amount of geography and have it in plausible places. Similarly, we might want a picture of a Gehennese peltast wearing a Bethanian casque, a khlamys, and a perizoma, armed with a pelta and kopis— not to express the artistic vision of the illustrator we hire, but to make clear to the readers what those things are.

 

[Art's Puzzlebox]

I do like it and have fun with it but I also liked and had fun with Napster. Napster was clearly illegal. AI art as far as I can tell isn't. It feels to me like artists are asserting rights created whole cloth that never were part of the agreement on copyright. That's why I don't have a problem with it. Computers learning isn't breaking a law that I can see.

I do think that there is some middle ground somewhere in there.

I don't personally see anything wrong with the idea of ai tools, as any tool can be used for good or bad, but I think that there should be some kind of framework for ethical uses of an emerging technology to protect artists of all kinds from bad actors who would misuse what could otherwise be a reasonable tool.

 

[Bunch]

Um, yeah, too bad 200 years ago nobody thought to add in a "no robots" clause...

That's the same thing every other human activity. A computer can learn the skills to write a legal contract and that's viewed on even by a good number of the participants but learning to draw and compose is bad? Ultimately these are skills. Every skill I have eventually a computer can emulate. It just can't be me. So there will always be room for human artists, lawyers etc but it will be different.

 

[TristramEvans]

That's the same thing every other human activity. A computer can learn the skills to write a legal contract and that's viewed on even by a good number of the participants but learning to draw and compose is bad? Ultimately these are skills. Every skill I have eventually a computer can emulate. It just can't be me. So there will always be room for human artists, lawyers etc but it will be different.

Well, there's a couple issues I have with that line of reasoning:

first is, as I was deliberately taking the piss out of, the implication that laws and rights should never be redefined in the context of advancing technology. For me, I just can't accept that as an argument or criticism, it simply doesn't make any sense to me.

second) I find your analogy to lawyers rather strange, as so far no one is attempting to have AI replace Lawyers. Them using it as a tool that still requires human oversight and interaction is not "we can cut lawyers out entirely". If it gets to that point, ever, it seems like you are assuming there won;t be the same objections by the same people, and I don't see any reason that is any more valid assumption than the opposite.

third) what we are calling AI is here is not actual Artificial Intelligence. We are still very likely generations out from that actually existing. What people have deemed "A.I" at the moment are programs that are capable of developing preferred sub-routines based on experience. We call this "learning" but it is not the activity that humans engage in that we also call learning. It's a close enough equivalent for shits n' giggles, but anyone who says that what a program is doing when it samples art from other people to develope subroutines is the same thing that an artist is doing is, frankly, just wrong. They don't understand the technology, or they don't understand human beings.

So, yeah, a program can "emulate" presumably almost any human activity. Until actual AI exists however, what they are doing is only approximation by a different path.

 

[SoManyRats]

One caveat about lawyers and AI specific to the profession is that lawyers have built-in niche protection. Pretty much every jurisdiction that has a legal profession also has laws that prohibit anyone not a recognized lawyer from getting paid for doing legal work, and most law societies enforce that aggressively.

There have been a couple of attempts to replace lawyers entirely with AI. One company publicly proposed using AI to actually argue a case in court, but they changed their mind after the threats of jail followed. Lawyers can say, and are saying, "no AI," and it sticks because the lawyers control the rules of the industry. Whether or not AI could replace any part of legal practice, lawyers have the power and the will to prevent it.

Artists unfortunately don't have anywhere near that level of protection. Even unionization wouldn't get to that level, because best-case scenario negotiations between an employer and a union are just that - negotiations. When it comes to the prohibition against legal work by non-lawyers, lawyers don't have to negotiate with anyone.

 

[SoManyRats]

And more directly on-topic:

I might use AI imaging personally, like for a character illustration, because I can't draw for crap and I'd just be right-clicking on an image search result anyway. I wouldn't purchase something that used AI imaging, I'd rather have just plain text. But I also probably wouldn't know something's AI generated or not unless it was specifically labelled, or I was informed another way - I don't trust my eye to accurately distinguish between sophisticated AI imaging and human creations unfortunately.

 

[Yeti Spaghetti]

I guess I'm the wrong person to respond to this thread because I spend WAY too much on traditional artists, and I feel guilty/ashamed when I have to rely "just" on a digital artist's image (no matter how good they are)!

 

[Rob Necronomicon]

Boy, this is a really tough one... I've been pondering this for a while, and my thoughts at this stage are (but could change) generally:

I think that AI 'art' has a right to exist and be used as a technology. However, my big bugbear is the way the algos were taught. This was deplorable by
scraping the works of artists without their consent and no compensation whatsoever. I've seen counter-arguments saying that we all 'copied' other people's work while learning to draw or whatever. And that is very true... However, such is human nature to observe and then recreate but we are not a psychotic corporate entity driven by profit, and the end results will usually look like our own (in the form of our own art style).

I have some interest in the subject as I'm a professional artist, designer, and animator. However, I tend to work in e-learning and the corporate sector (so I'm safe for a while). I have dabbled in stock art for RPGs and have illustrated for some books but I have no real intentions of working in the RPG sector (as an illustrator). But I will always illustrate my own products.

Personally, I can't really fault a small indie designer for using AI art, as they may not have the budget to hire a professional artist. But if and when the bigger RPG companies do it that would be highly unethical as far as I'm concerned. However, I doubt we can really do anything about it. If they can save money and cut corners they will.

I've seen some indie RPG guys (like the Red Room) use AI art and I like some of their later stuff (as they have progressed). TBH, I'm also fascinated by how cool AI art can be. And anyone who suggests it's not a real art form I would say they really should check out the official Mid-Journey FB group because there is some incredible stuff coming out of people's ideas & concepts.

As OP said, sadly I think a lot of lower-end art jobs will be eliminated pretty soon in the next 5 years give or take. And 'stock' photography will be purely be AI, I would think. The top-end jobs I think will be safe for quite a long time.

However, one thing I'm seeing (luckily) is that many people are now valuing human artists as a pushback. So no matter how good an AI is it will always be just 'a tool' as opposed to a person who hand-crafts their own art. So this may actually keep the value of AI art in its place and hopefully behind a talented individual.

Would I ever pay someone to do AI art for me for an RPG product? If I could find an ethically sourced AI program (aka - One that didn't use scraping or at least compensated the artists) then perhaps. I say this because I've seen a few amazing people on the mid-journey FB group do some mind-bending stuff that I thought would suit some of my cosmic horror ideas. I would like to have a few colour plates in a product (along with my black and white stuff) as the old Rifts rulebooks had.

Having said that, while I might like the look of some AI art. I don't value it in the same way as hand-drawn art, and that would reflected in the price I'd be willing to pay for such an illustration. Personally, I could spend anywhere from one to three days on a piece (depending). Whereas AI can take a few minutes and that's not worth a lot of money to me. But if some artist was spending days on a piece they'd simply deserve to be compensated for their time and skill.

Basically, I think it defintely has its place... If we can iron out some of the ethics.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I do like it and have fun with it but I also liked and had fun with Napster. Napster was clearly illegal. AI art as far as I can tell isn't. It feels to me like artists are asserting rights created whole cloth that never were part of the agreement on copyright. That's why I don't have a problem with it. Computers learning isn't breaking a law that I can see.

I mean, the Statue of Anne gives authors the exclusive right to copy, which would seem to apply here.

Generally, my issue with this is the lack of compensation. I think it could probably be solved with an automatic license much like you get with covers of songs. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the argument from big tech that would cost too much money. They're quick to claim that artists need to adapt but as soon as the tables are turned they ask for a pityfuck from the market.

 

[Silverlion]

Just to show some AI weakness, I always wanted art of Dark Sun weapons, or Dark Sun inspired art.

Here is some Dall-E 3 weapons made of bone, wood and/or chitin...These are all overly designed, and non seem to be wood or chitin.





This one is tried-- but there isn't anything resembling a FUNCTIONAL weapon. There, really.




I think living creators are really damn useful for anything creative, and "not just like all the other things."

 

[Bunch]

Well, there's a couple issues I have with that line of reasoning:

first is, as I was deliberately taking the piss out of, the implication that laws and rights should never be redefined in the context of advancing technology. For me, I just can't accept that as an argument or criticism, it simply doesn't make any sense to me.

second) I find your analogy to lawyers rather strange, as so far no one is attempting to have AI replace Lawyers. Them using it as a tool that still requires human oversight and interaction is not "we can cut lawyers out entirely". If it gets to that point, ever, it seems like you are assuming there won;t be the same objections by the same people, and I don't see any reason that is any more valid assumption than the opposite.

Ok. I'd say the current ML art is takes some human oversight still. I can't get a general image but with limited specific control. If I want real control I still need a human artist.

I'm saying it has already happened dozens of times over with existing professions due to various technology and for the most part it happened in areas behind or beneath people's concern. Artist by their nature are more in the public eye. What's happening to them now has already happened in the past with robots, self checkout, stocker, etc. Dozens or hundreds of professions have seen massive change and reduction in participants over the last 100 years due to technology. This is just the latest in a long line. For the most part the world has not ended with the change.

third) what we are called AI is not Artificial Intelligence. We are still very likely generations out from that actually existing. What people have deemed "A.I" at the moment are programs that are capable of developing preferred sub-routines based on experience. We call this "learning" but it is not the activity that humans engage in that we also call learning. It's a close enough equivalent for shits n' giggles, but anyone who says that what a program is doing when it samples art from other people to develope subroutines is the same thing that an artist is doing is, frankly, just wrong. They don't understand the technology, or they don't understand human beings.

So, yeah, a program can "emulate" presumably almost any human activity. Until actual AI exists however, what they are doing is only approximation by a different path.

 

[Yeti Spaghetti]

One more snide remark: Not sure this has already been pointed out, but if you're in the indie RPG business to try to make a "profit" from a "budget," you're in the wrong line of work.

I appreciate indie devs at least trying (hell it's sort of what I'm ostensibly trying to do). But make your product better and spend some damn money on what you love. The idea that you're going to have positive cash flow coming in, short of some huge Kickstarter campaign, is not reasonable.

 

[Bunch]

I mean, the Statue of Anne gives authors the exclusive right to copy, which would seem to apply here.

Generally, my issue with this is the lack of compensation. I think it could probably be solved with an automatic license much like you get with covers of songs. I don't have a lot of sympathy for the argument from big tech that would cost too much money. They're quick to claim that artists need to adapt but as soon as the tables are turned they ask for a pityfuck from the market.

But we aren't talking copying. We are talking imitating style without duplication. I don't think that's a violation as long as you don't try to pass it off as someone else.

 

[Triumvir]

In my working life, I have found AI can be a useful tool for helping structure a first draft. And that's it. As someone above said, like a slightly smarter search engine.

On a different point, to do with visual art especially in RPGs, I think there is an elephant in the room: a lot of it from the pre-AI days (and even now) is really bad. It isn't as if most RPG publishers ever had the budget to hire good illustrators. So I see a democratising angle to widening access to acceptable-quality art for small publishers.

But I see the ethical issue around training the AIs, too. I would change the law to require publishers to source art or text to AI where it's been used, assuming the law doesn't already require this (I am not a lawyer).

I tend to agree with those arguing tech has tended to win out vs craft generally.

But surely only when the tech is good enough, which is in the eye of the beholder. The state of play for now seems to be AI is closer to being competitive in visual art than in writing. We'll have to see how the tech develops, and the market will decide in the end. Clear acknowledgement when AI has been used would at least give people full info on which to base their decisions.

 

[Bunch]

Still, AI can be a useful tool for helping structure a first draft. And that's it. As someone above said, like a slightly smarter search engine.

Except when it isn't. I see that as the greatest problem with AI. It doesn't know if it is unsure of an answer. Everything is said with confidence. It's like dealing with my 11 year old. Dude knows everything. Even things I worked specifically on in software he corrects me and tells it how it is. AI is just like that.

 

[Triumvir]

Except when it isn't. I see that as the greatest problem with AI. It doesn't know if it is unsure of an answer. Everything is said with confidence. It's like dealing with my 11 year old. Dude knows everything. Even things I worked specifically on in software he corrects me and tells it how it is. AI is just like that.

Yes. AI output needs reviewed, which is why I don't feel professionally threatened by it. I have found it can be useful especially for junior colleagues in at least suggesting a sensible structure.

By the way, what you say made me chuckle as my colleague who is evangelical about AI is a bit like your description of your kid! One of the downsides is definitely that it facilitates windbags and chancers... such is life though.

 

[Skarg]

I've been developing a computer game that I thought might benefit from some "AI" art, and I've been playing with generating it, and getting reasonable with it, including making some images that I could make good use of, with some manual tuning in Photoshop. I was starting to look forward to doing so . . .

And then the public upset heated up. And then Steam (a ubiquitous game publisher who would probably be one of my main platforms I'd target) has recently started a policy where they are starting to reject games that use "AI" art, and are even starting to require some evidence that the art in the game is NOT "AI" generated.

And that is the point where it seems like a bad idea to pursue it further, at least at this point. I don't want to invest tons of effort and design focus on thinking I'm using a set of such art, only to find out it may get me into bad relations with my main target platform, and/or users who are anti-"AI"-art.

I also somewhat sympathize with the notion that we ought to be worried about the "AI" essentially ripping off the talent of the people whose work it "trained" on. Also because what it creates is quite often looking very much like something someone made with their skill and genius, and it can be very difficult to tell when it's done that, because there's so much art that goes into the training datasets.

I'm a bit curious about the possibility of compiling my own version of the AI engine, and training it on my own art, photography, and/or art of long-dead & public domain artists. I'm curious what that might look like, and be capable of doing, particularly for specific purposes like making a bunch of game assets that ought to be pretty similar and self-referential anyway.

If it can generate a bunch more art based on my own stuff, or stuff no one alive feels they own, then that seems like a morally-ok and potentially useful/fun way to use it. I'm not sure if it'd work, though.

It might be about as easy/hard for me to make tools that will do that directly with my own art, without using any of those "AI" algorithms.

 

[Silverlion]

I'm a bit curious about the possibility of compiling my own version of the AI engine, and training it on my own art, photography, and/or art of long-dead & public domain artists. I'm curious what that might look like, and be capable of doing, particularly for specific purposes like making a bunch of game assets that ought to be pretty similar and self-referential anyway.

If it can generate a bunch more art based on my own stuff, or stuff no one alive feels they own, then that seems like a morally-ok and potentially useful/fun way to use it. I'm not sure if it'd work, though.

It might be about as easy/hard for me to make tools that will do that directly with my own art, without using any of those "AI" algorithms.

I think you can do that, but that's a lot of work.
(I know a couple who installed versions of Stable Diffusion but I've no idea how "clean" it is from the start)

 

[jamie_graham]

I'm a bit curious about the possibility of compiling my own version of the AI engine, and training it on my own art, photography, and/or art of long-dead & public domain artists. I'm curious what that might look like, and be capable of doing, particularly for specific purposes like making a bunch of game assets that ought to be pretty similar and self-referential anyway.

If it can generate a bunch more art based on my own stuff, or stuff no one alive feels they own, then that seems like a morally-ok and potentially useful/fun way to use it. I'm not sure if it'd work, though.

It might be about as easy/hard for me to make tools that will do that directly with my own art, without using any of those "AI" algorithms.

I think this is where it could become more acceptable as a usage scenario. Similar to the way AI is used by professional copywriters to generate iterations of their own work. It becomes more of a tool guided by the user.

That would get around to some degree the issue with ethics. You are iterating your own style. Its trained on your work not someone elses IP.

I think the most successful AI work at the moment is not the kind of stuff where you try to create something out of nothing using AI. Like the AI text content when you do that its garbage because an AI has no imagination to spark for something unique. Until we come up with some kind of virtual imagination or actual intelligence these things won't be able to do that. I'm hoping that's a long way off or impossible to be honest.

What AI will be able to do is come up with amazing imagery which is iterated on whatever has been fed into it. It has it's flaws at the moment, there are still things it struggles with and tell tale signs that sometimes pop up that can indicate it's not human generated. But there are also works that until pointed out are fooling experts.

I'm hoping that it will settle down into that 'tool' like area where human input and creative input from somebody like me is still required, and I think hat is more likley than the sceanario where all creative output is replaced by AI. That seems very unlikely.

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

But we aren't talking copying. We are talking imitating style without duplication. I don't think that's a violation as long as you don't try to pass it off as someone else.

There's been artist signatures coming up, showing it's just spewing back what human work was put into it after collage using algorythm. Clearly the machine isn't styling out of thin air. Now using key elements of one's professional output including possibly signature, without any attribution, in a way that is evidently controversial and for commercial purposes and with the goal of competing with the artists doesn't seem like your good old fair use to me. And since the product attributes nothing you don't even know how much was copied from any particular work.

 

[lategamer]

This is a tricky one. It brings out a lot of emotions.

I buy art for my books from humans. I'm not sure how they produce it but I presume it uses a lot of computers. I'm spending a couple of hundred a month at the moment for some pictures for books that will make a couple of hundred in a year. It's not about profit (I have no interest in pursuing the big time, Kickstarter or anything like that. These books are just my fun). Any money I make gets ploughed back into buying art.

I use AI art for incidental art during games. This might seem harmless but I'd be surprised if these weren't also training the AI to make better art. I don't rate AI art for the most part.

Adobe's AI tools are really impressive. The fake boyfriend example recently posted is quite breathtaking.

I don't buy that AI art is breaking copyright because the computers are learning from art the same way that current artists learned to draw from studying other artists without compensating them. No, it's not a perfect analogy but it is taking copyright at the letter of the law.

The perfect storm (for me) is that artists start to use AI tools enabling them to produce art quicker (if not cheaper - though time is money)

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

I don't understand how AI supporters can recognize AI is slop and still want to be part of it. Maybe that's why the insistence about it eventually being a must.

Though, it's a complete fiction. AI will take over a limited niche as slop producing machine. A lot of jobs will be lost, but sadly artists themselves sometimes have to rely on slop to live. However, art is still thankfully not a field where slop is the only way. There will always be a market for real art, if only because it gains value with time, whereas cheap produced unattributable slop doesn't, and the people who buy the most art still want the real deal.

So I guess the choice, now is do you want to produce robotic slop or still be an artist. Choice being the keyword is, no matter how much insistence there is that there's no choice - always the sign of something being nonsense.

 

[Rob Necronomicon]

From my experience working as an employee and freelancer (for about 30ish years). I think lot of people don't actually value art - Oh sure everyone wants it in their products or whatever. But many see it as you 'just doing pictures' for a living and will try to pay you accordingly AKA well below the asking price.

That's the main reason I have no interest in the RPG industry from an illustrator's perspective. The offers I've had have been very low-paid from indie devs all of which I've politely refused. In the corporate world, you dictate the rate according to your experience and skills.

So while some of these indie writers are railing against AI art they are rarely willing to pay you the going rate. So I think AI art is here to stay as it will always offer a viable and exceedingly cheap alternative to paying a real artist. IMHO people like art but love to save money more.

Do any other pro artists here feel the same, in the RPG industry and beyond?

 

[lategamer]

From my experience working as an employee and freelancer (for about 30ish years). I think lot of people don't actually value art - Oh sure everyone wants it in their products or whatever. But many see it as you 'just doing pictures' for a living and will try to pay you accordingly AKA well below the asking price.

When I was working in film, screenwriting was the undervalued thing. There would be a budget for camera, for editing, for lighting. Actors would get a nominal amount and writers were working for exposure.

What is the going rate for a professional artist?

(I've been working with artists all around the world and I have to admit that while I pay 20% more than they advertise on Reddit, their rates are pretty low anyway due to exchange rates etc.)

 

[Yeti Spaghetti]

That's the main reason I have no interest in the RPG industry from an illustrator's perspective. The offers I've had have been very low-paid from indie devs all of which I've politely refused. In the corporate world, you dictate the rate according to your experience and skills.

I've encountered a bit of this vibe with some of the artists I've worked with. There are a couple pen and ink artists that do amazing work and that I'd love to work with again, but they've said very plainly to me that they can't take TTRPG work (at least what I can afford to pay them) because the time invested doesn't make sense given what I'm offering, or some such rationale. Still, I would never think of going AI. I just find another artist whose style reminds me of them and give them the commissions. There are plenty of talented folks out there open to doing quality work for reasonable rates.

 

[TristramEvans]

Ok. I'd say the current ML art is takes some human oversight still. I can't get a general image but with limited specific control. If I want real control I still need a human artist.

Yeah, but that's as it is now, I think the concern for what it will inevitably become as the programs are refined. I think we are talking years, not decades until it becomes capable of mass producing useable images to specification.

Personally my issue is with the identification of this as "art". I think it's a distortion of the term that should be separated in concept. I believe art is one of the qualities that defines humans as a species, and that's not something that should be conflated with a technical process. This is something corporate and cold, I can see it mainly utilized for advertising, commercials, billboards and logos. That's the stuff that annoys me more than some one man hobbyist who can't afford to pay for art (I myself have dipped into the public domain for Phaserip so I can have a complete version of it before the time investment to illustrate it myself) .

But how I see people reacting to the latter is with a mind to how the former is on the horizon, and if there's any point that people can get legally defined boundaries, that is now. I think this is why to some Drive-Thru requiring "warning labels" for the use of AI images comes across as ludditism, an overblown or exaggerated reaction, while I see it as an attempt to establish boundaries now.

I do think what this technology is going to do, eventually, is cut artists out of commercial art. And, well, I stopped pursuing art professionally because I found doing commercial art soul-crushing. But it was necessary to live to do art full time. Frankly I prioritized art as a hobby over art as an income, because I like art to make me happy, not cause SAN loss. So, I'm not opposed to the idea of art and commercial images becoming distinct, but I know how important that revenue is for people who want to pursue art full time. Personally I think that the distinction should be defined legally and conceptually rather than just monetarily. And I'd like society to support the arts, or give it more value, just as a quality of life consideration.

I don't mean that I think every artist on DeviantArt need to be given the opportunity to support themselves financially with anime furry cheesecake, mind (crossing fingers for a post-scarcity Star Trek TNG era future, minus the soft jazz, but we aren't there yet and seem to have veered off course).

I'm saying it has already happened dozens of times over with existing professions due to various technology and for the most part it happened in areas behind or beneath people's concern. Artist by their nature are more in the public eye. What's happening to them now has already happened in the past with robots, self checkout, stocker, etc. Dozens or hundreds of professions have seen massive change and reduction in participants over the last 100 years due to technology. This is just the latest in a long line. For the most part the world has not ended with the change.

Yeah, I completely agree. Video Killed the Radio Star, etc. And the technology already exists, there's no turning back the clock on this.

But I do think Art is an important enough concept to mankind that we cannot allow it to be co-opted by an emulation.

And I do think that the distinction between machine learning and how humans learn should never be conflated because that implies some pretty (IMO) Henry Ford-ish ideas about how humans learn that attempts to IMO, mechanize humans. Human learning is not something the fields of science or psychology have entirely nailed down yet, and seems to my perception to be highly individual in its parameters. The more limited our conception of learning, the more that education suffers IMO. And it's why I think this has manifested so strongly in the RPG community first, because besides moms, who thinks as highly of education than a bunch of fucking nerds?

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

Do any other pro artists here feel the same, in the RPG industry and beyond?

Not a pro artist, just artist for now but I know enough of those to know you're right. A lot of people just don't care and lowball artists because whatever reasoning. Mostly a small compagny thinking thing up till now. That said without WOTC marketting money, using AI in a RPG does is devalue your own work in a field where artistic value is still prized by consummers. So I'm with you that it wont stop being used, but I also don't think that'll be too much successful.

I mean I still remember some thread here about some supplement made by chat GPT. Everyone found it lame. So this ratrace for profits from small compagny owners looking to cut costs even at the cost of value, in this specific field, seems like a complete cargo cult. If people buy a heartbreaker they want some soul in it. They want cool art. They don't want robotic slop. So good luck to those who follow that path, they'll have to find cool social media stunts to drive negative engagement so other people reflexively buy the slop or something.

Eventually the fad will settle, novelty will wear off, and it'll be like those factory painted 20$ canvas people sell to tourists. Will sell a few to some berks from time to time but not a real threat to artists any longer at the macro scale.

 

[TristramEvans]

Yeah art is not valued highly by the business world, to the point where doing it full time means committing to living below the poverty line for the period until you "make it", unless you are independently wealthy. This is why in the past it was cut off to just the aristocracy. I don't like the idea of that happening, but I don't think the answer is trying to convince corporations that art is worth more.

 

[Yeti Spaghetti]

Eventually the fad will settle, novelty will wear off, and it'll be like those factory painted 20$ canvas people sell to tourists. Will sell a few to some berks from time to time but not a real threat to artists any longer at the macro scale.

This.

I work in academia, and as both a student and a professor I have seen many fads come and go over the decades. "This is going to be the next big thing, it will change everything" blah blah blah. Classes on television! Massive online open courses! Yawn.

In a field where you need a talented person doing a talented thing, technology will never replace the human. It might help to drive wages down a bit (like everything seems to do for the past 20 years) and pose an annoyance to those in the field, but it will never totally take over. That's why I'm rather skeptical of all the hype about AI. To me it's like everyone freaking out about virtual reality in the 90s. The sooner everyone finds a way to be unconcerned or unmoved by what the fancy gadgets are doing today, the better.

 

[TristramEvans]

To me it's like everyone freaking out about virtual reality in the 90s.

"And Jesus wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer!"

 

[Rob Necronomicon]

There are definitely certain positions that are undervalued in the art/film industry. I have a mate who's a very talented sound designer and unless he works on bigger budgets he gets very little. This seems bizarre to me considering sound is 50% of a movie.

The top-end artists (or those who are well-established) can pretty much charge what they want. I know this because I wanted to get one to do a cover for my RPG (while I did the interior). He quoted me a couple of grand. I can't afford that so I'm doing it myself. I wish I could afford it, however!

It's hard to know the going rate (I guess it depends on the actual piece as well & the level of detail, etc.). I lurk in a Facebook group that is geared toward artists in the RPG industry and the prices vary (wildly). I've seen some very talented but young artists charge a pittance for their work. This is bad for them and undermines the industry as a whole. I mean, who are you going to go to? The best you can get for the lowest amount.

In the real world, as a rough guideline, you'd charge at least 30e (or $35 an hour). Personally, I personally charge 40e an hour at least. Not because of my talent but because of my experience, reliability, and speed. So when I was recently asked to do several character illustrations for $25 a pop I said. No thanks... This has happened to me on several occasions. So much so, I just don't even respond to offers anymore. I've got a lot of work on in the real world, thankfully. But I know quite a few VERY talented Irish illustrators who can't get a job.

 

[Yeti Spaghetti]

In the real world, as a rough guideline, you'd charge at least 30e (or $35 an hour). Personally, I personally charge 40e an hour at least. Not because of my talent but because of my experience, reliability, and speed. So when I was recently asked to do several character illustrations for $25 a pop I said. No thanks... This has happened to me on several occasions. So much so, I just don't even respond to offers anymore. I've got a lot of work on in the real world, thankfully. But I know quite a few VERY talented Irish illustrators who can't get a job.

For what it's worth, some artists will give me this rate for character headshots, but will ask more for larger interior pieces. But yeah, $25 is pretty lowball. Something between $35-55 seems to be more standard for characters.

 

[Vidgrip]

To the OP's questions: Yes, the observations and predictions in your original post are very fair and likely to be correct. You conclude by stating that you are making an RPG and I assume you intend it for publication. If the publication platform requires an AI disclosure, you must of course abide by it. My suggestion would be to consider why you are publishing. Are you doing this to make money, or for the pride in putting your unique product out there for those who love the RPG hobby. If the latter is true, then don't worry about those who would not buy it for using AI-assisted art. If your best vision of the game allows or requires AI to come to fruition, then embrace it and announce it without apology.

If the former is true, and money is the goal, then you must expect that using AI will cost you some sales. So will publishing with bad human-produced art. So will publishing with little or no art. The worst case scenario is to never publish at all because you were worried about what people would or wouldn't buy.

 

[AsenRG]

One caveat about lawyers and AI specific to the profession is that lawyers have built-in niche protection. Pretty much every jurisdiction that has a legal profession also has laws that prohibit anyone not a recognized lawyer from getting paid for doing legal work, and most law societies enforce that aggressively.

Well, technically, AI can do it for free...

There have been a couple of attempts to replace lawyers entirely with AI. One company publicly proposed using AI to actually argue a case in court, but they changed their mind after the threats of jail followed. Lawyers can say, and are saying, "no AI," and it sticks because the lawyers control the rules of the industry. Whether or not AI could replace any part of legal practice, lawyers have the power and the will to prevent it.

Artists unfortunately don't have anywhere near that level of protection. Even unionization wouldn't get to that level, because best-case scenario negotiations between an employer and a union are just that - negotiations. When it comes to the prohibition against legal work by non-lawyers, lawyers don't have to negotiate with anyone.

Hence, when you're engaging in a profession, it pays to be the one making the rules!

Also, thinking of rules-making professions, the ones I'd like replaced by AI are politicians!

 

[lategamer]

In the real world, as a rough guideline, you'd charge at least 30e (or $35 an hour). Personally, I personally charge 40e an hour at least. Not because of my talent but because of my experience, reliability, and speed. So when I was recently asked to do several character illustrations for $25 a pop I said. No thanks..

Just for comparison, how many hours?