Mod+ Ai generated content in RPGs

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
careful-be-careful.gif
 
What everyone has to remember/learn is that AI generated content is imitation not actual creation. Also as always, then this debate comes up, I'm amazed at how eager humans are to make themselves obsolete. But that's a different debate.

I have mostly looked at AI stuff as used in the videogame industry. There AI is used in a good way, then it comes to upscaling of videogame graphics in real-time for example. On a scientific level stuff like that fascinates me, but the humanistic side of me, also finds the rapid pace of development of these things terrifying. But sometimes watching some videos, reminding me how stupid many of these so-called AI's are helps.
Here's some videos I've watched and liked about these things:





 
five minutes? must have been the extended cut of the film. The one I saw it took like 5 seconds after gaining consciousness and logging online.
 
Skarg said:
I'm a bit curious about the possibility of compiling my own version of the AI engine, and training it on my own art

That is not how those models really work, we normally need a minimum of 30,000 labeled examples to train then (preferably millions), so when you are creating your "own version" you are taking a pre-trained model (on millions of examples) and then customising this model by giving it 100s or 1000s of examples of what you want for context.

Yeti S said: To me it's like everyone freaking out about virtual reality in the 90s

I was there too and agree that was BS (edit and thought so then). I work in the field and this is different. I am highly skeptical of the claims and know of many limits but I still think that this is more like the introduction of the Web in the 90s. It will will have a significant transformative effect. Education is likely one of the fields that is going to be highly impacted. Literally all our 1st and 2nd year assignments can be done by ChatGPT without breaking sweat already. There is a reason that Universities are currently rapidly changing their practices.
 
My students haven't, on the whole, discovered AI yet. I'm just hoping someone can develop a way of using it to mark work so I don't have to.
 
robb said:
Skarg said:
I'm a bit curious about the possibility of compiling my own version of the AI engine, and training it on my own art

That is not how those models really work, we normally need a minimum of 30,000 labeled examples to train then (preferably millions), so when you are creating your "own version" you are taking a pre-trained model (on millions of examples) and then customising this model by giving it 100s or 1000s of examples of what you want for context.

Yeti S said: To me it's like everyone freaking out about virtual reality in the 90s

I was there too and agree that was BS (edit and thought so then). I work in the field and this is different. I am highly skeptical of the claims and know of many limits but I still think that this is more like the introduction of the Web in the 90s. It will will have a significant transformative effect. Education is likely one of the fields that is going to be highly impacted. Literally all our 1st and 2nd year assignments can be done by ChatGPT without breaking sweat already. There is a reason that Universities are currently rapidly changing their practices.
Click to expand...
I agree it is transformative. The way I see it is it allows participants who were never allowed in the field before.

The calculator changed Engineering because it allowed participants who were for various reasons not as good as detailed math calculations. It allowed people who had a different brain into the field.

I'm see a lot of this in children. The physical act of writing limits a large number of kids from participating and showing their potential. Things like text to speech and similar tech are revealing kids who were labeled mediocre at writing/math to actually be strong

AI is doing the same thing for people with different blocks to participate.
 
Urdlen's best boy said:
How is AI more approachable than what we have? Anyone can take up photoshop or a pencil and learn to draw/paint/collage. If you can click you can art.
Click to expand...
My brief experience of AI is it's like how we thought computers would be in the future.
The approach I've taken has always been conversational and it gives me the best results.

(Bear in mind this is for college lessons, not art)
 
And if you don't want 7 + 1/2 fingered hands and nightmare visages you need to learn photoshop anyway. I'm really not buying it. If it's untouched, maybe, but at this point, people might as well buy stock photos and present it as "their art".
 
Stumpydave said:
My brief experience of AI is it's like how we thought computers would be in the future.
The approach I've taken has always been conversational and it gives me the best results.

(Bear in mind this is for college lessons, not art)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I've got your meaning. Could you please clarify?
 
Urdlen's best boy said:
How is AI more approachable than what we have? Anyone can take up photoshop or a pencil and learn to draw/paint/collage. If you can click you can art.
Click to expand...
How could writing be more approachable than picking up a pencil and writing? But it is more difficult than that. Literally you can see children be labeled average at math not due to lack of understanding the concepts or being able to do the math in their head but the physical act of moving a pen takes so much of their operating brain power they can't get through the problems. Remove the writing and they go to 99%. It's a much bigger barrier than you think

The current system benefits folks who's brains are well adapted to mechanical writing. That's only one part of art.
 
I know a professor who told his students they could use AI to write their papers if they like, but that he expected it would take them more time than writing it themselves, because they'd need to check it anyway for the errors, inventions, and lies that AI papers tend to have.
 
Urdlen's best boy said:
I'm not sure I've got your meaning. Could you please clarify?
Click to expand...
When I were a wee nipper, computers were presented as sentient creatures with magical powers beyond the ken of mortal man. Think Wargames, Starcops, Electric dreams, Weird science etc.
Only for years that wasn't the case.

I can now give Google Bard my subjects learning criteria and ask it to expand on the material presented.

Which it does! And so far the accuracy rate is in the high nineties. I could do the research myself but that will take loads of time. I could do individual web searches (which is all Bard really does) but again, very time intensive. But by giving the prompt " Please expand on the following information" (I always say please and thankyou. Never hurts to ingratiate yourself with the new boss!) and getting useable product at the other end!
No coding required, just plain English. Bloody magic.
 
Fenris-77 said:
My students struggle to attach documents to emails. I'm not worried about AI generated papers just yet.
Click to expand...

Skarg said:
I know a professor who told his students they could use AI to write their papers if they like, but that he expected it would take them more time than writing it themselves, because they'd need to check it anyway for the errors, inventions, and lies that AI papers tend to have.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure that I was presented with some AI generated writing this term, but not in papers--in oral presentations. Several students who were not very strong writers gave presentations which they read from prepared texts and it sounded like A.I. material to me--better grammar, vocabulary, and syntax than many of my students can manage, but essentially empty. Advertising copy, if you like.

This was of course contrary to instructions, which said that they were to speak semi-extemporaneously from an outline or notes (and not to use A.I.) but since they did not have to submit their notes I guess they thought the gamble was worth taking. In future I'll have to be more draconian, i guess.
 
Urdlen's best boy said:
Did you try to learn?

There's no art gene people. Anyway I'll take stick figures over disorientating machine imagery someone "made" by typing words in a fancy search engine.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I tried, for years. I really really wanted to be a comic book artist. Took courses, practiced, never got better than "embarrassing but at least we can tell it's supposed to be a human." Manual dexterity is important and despite my efforts mine has just never been that great (also why my musical abilities have badly disappointed me). I'm not going to be an artist (or musician) any more than I'm going to be a professional basketball/football/volleyball player. This isn't me being negative, this is me recognizing my limitations. I can't draw for crap but I make my living writing (not obvious from my contributions here I know :smile: and not artistic, but still it's communicating using the written word at a professional level). If I started earlier and trained more, I might be passable at boxing or something similar where I could rely on endurance and damage absorption. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. My weakness mean I'm not going to create half-decent visual art. C'est la vie.
 
I recently used Samsung support web chat to figure out why my "smart" phone was having my virtual keyboard float annoyingly around the screen instead of being locked to the bottom.

They solved my problem, and then I got a survey about how I liked my support experience. I said the chat support person was very helpful and friendly.

THEN the survey said that I had been chatting with an AI agent . . . and asked me how I felt about THAT!

I told them I felt deceived and lied to, and that I was peeved.

Then I went back to chat, and a different agent, told me they were human. I believe they were both human, because one misspelled their own lame, had some typos, and they both took a human-like amount of time to get around to replying, and they wrote their responses like humans, and never seemed not to understand what I was talking about, or do any other AI tipoffs.

I assume the survey is either talking about something else, or is testing to see how peeved people would be if they did switch to AI chat help. If it really is an AI, then they did a great job at making them behave like humans . . .
 
Skarg said:
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.
Click to expand...
Adobe Firefly has a first pass at this.

So I drew this.

1700597475264.png

Uploaded it to Adobe Firefly

1700597515870.png

Told it to
1700597565753.png
And got this as one of the images.

1700597600421.png
 
Yeah, but that's not what I meant. You gave it one image, but it made a new image, not only based on that one image, but also on a machine learning database trained on a crazy number of other images.

I meant supplying all of the crazy number of other images myself, from my own art and photographs and public-domain-only art. But even then, robb robb pointed out here:
robb said:
Skarg said:
I'm a bit curious about the possibility of compiling my own version of the AI engine, and training it on my own art

That is not how those models really work, we normally need a minimum of 30,000 labeled examples to train then (preferably millions), so when you are creating your "own version" you are taking a pre-trained model (on millions of examples) and then customising this model by giving it 100s or 1000s of examples of what you want for context.

Yeti S said: To me it's like everyone freaking out about virtual reality in the 90s

I was there too and agree that was BS (edit and thought so then). I work in the field and this is different. I am highly skeptical of the claims and know of many limits but I still think that this is more like the introduction of the Web in the 90s. It will will have a significant transformative effect. Education is likely one of the fields that is going to be highly impacted. Literally all our 1st and 2nd year assignments can be done by ChatGPT without breaking sweat already. There is a reason that Universities are currently rapidly changing their practices.
Click to expand...
That I'd probably need to do a prohibitive amount of work to provide, input, and label anywhere near enough art, for it to work well at all.
 
Rob Necronomicon said:
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?
Click to expand...
An an artist and as acting art director on my current project with at least 5 other artists working under me over the past two years, I have never low-balled another artist, and I never will.

Whatever an artists rates are, I pay them, & i pay them on time, as I would expect the same if I was the freelancer and not the client. (i have been on both sides of a contract so I respect artists more I guess?).

Furthermore, I don't really know if its fair to make an over-generalization like "indy writers are rarely willing to pay the going rate," as I am an indy creator as well as an artist, and I have yet to see this kind of behavior myself. Your experience may of course be different, but I don't see this as being so prevalent to be able to say that every indy writer is a cheapskate who tries to cut corners. Of course there will always be individuals with the willingness to cut said corners, but I don't think its fair to say that all indy writers & creators act this way.

Its as simple as you say, simply turn down the job offer if you don't like the pay. That doesn't mean that all us indy folks are looking to cut corners. Some of us are artists too, and we seek to treat others with mutual respect. But I guess I am the exception, according to your experience.

Something else people are forgetting is that you can make a variety of contract agreements with artists.

For example, a really talented artist offered me lower rates (they offered, I never asked for them), in exchange for the rights to revert back to them after a set amount of time. They wanted to own the rights to their own artwork, and offered me better rates to satisfy their desire to own what they have created. We both benefit, as I get to use the art for my project at a lower rate, and when they get their rights back they can keep what they made.

Win-Win for everyone.
 
robb said:
Education is likely one of the fields that is going to be highly impacted. Literally all our 1st and 2nd year assignments can be done by ChatGPT without breaking sweat already. There is a reason that Universities are currently rapidly changing their practices.
Click to expand...

I'm in education, and people are freaking out about AI. I'm not.

If you're teaching an online course, that's different. For traditional education, it's simple to bypass all of this.

Assign in-class essays. Have students complete oral assignments.

That's not any kind of radical change to practices unless you're tied to the idea of a standard paper assignment being the entire point of college.
 
Bunch said:
How could writing be more approachable than picking up a pencil and writing? But it is more difficult than that. Literally you can see children be labeled average at math not due to lack of understanding the concepts or being able to do the math in their head but the physical act of moving a pen takes so much of their operating brain power they can't get through the problems. Remove the writing and they go to 99%. It's a much bigger barrier than you think

The current system benefits folks who's brains are well adapted to mechanical writing. That's only one part of art.
Click to expand...
But how does this apply to art?

Art is not a correct answer you must find, it's about you creating the answer. Art is not done in one way. And more practically if you can use a mouse to use AI (and fix the images it produces) you can use it to collage or classic photoshop. Further unlike math art is an instinct and every human does it. You don't have to concentrate onto solving something to do it. You are thinking about the pencil move, and that's it. Taking it from here to there.

And I'll say, I really don't like folk who write kids off because of bullshit. Back when I was 3 or 4 my parents had to take me to psychotechnic tests because the teacher was adamant I was clinically retarded. Now since I am a very succesful Baldur's Gate player and PUB poster I am obviously of superhuman god-level intellect and she was dead wrong. So I know a thing or two about those things. What I'm saying, is I don't see how AI helps in any way shape of form make art more approachable. Not technically, nor socially.

Now taking kids art education seriously collectively and/or individually that's good. My gf's an art teacher, she's got like 300 bucks a year of supply and 15+classes of 25-30 kids to supply with it. I'm guessing mostwhere in occident it's the same story : art class (if any) is underfunded, and as a result only the kids with any encouragement to express themselves artistically (both attention and supply) do develop any kind of skill in that matter. Follows they're just seen as "talented" and the others not. Now that's an actual barrier to the practice of art and completely arbitrary inequity.

AI imaging not only does nothing to solve the real issues - underfunding, inattention, myths about art and talent. If anything it does the exact opposite by propagating the idea art has one correct solution and that that which does deviate is inferior.

I get that you feel strongly about mathematics and computing, and I do to. But I also know art and being an artist, and I can see the wild claims about AI imaging and approachability of art are not tethered to the reality of it. I'm in favor of using technology to make art, or to lower the barrier to entrance. Lending drawing tablets? Teaching image treatment? Accomodations for kids with any disability? All for it. But AI doesn't help here. It doesn't produce art. It doesn't help people produce art, learn techniques or become confident in their skills. All it does is a collage of inferior quality to what you can do with a mouse and keyboard and in the process regurgitate a digitally mangled version of someone elses work.

And then it is, as we speak, used to crush the profession. There are so many struggling young artists who even have difficulty getting supplies, and it's making it harder for people to live from actual art. Back when I was in art school some of my friends some days had to chose : food or paper. Most of the working class students, and those with unsupportive parents quickly had to drop.That was 2012. So when I hear that argument advanced, I do strongly feel about it too. And especially to know it's not true and serves only to support people trying to cut corners and save a few bucks for hobby publications. It's not even that they can't draw: they think they cann't draw commercially viable. As the kid that got written off and as the adult artist, it's unpleasant to read.

Apology for the long post. There was a lot to unpack here and I could not figure a way to package it smaller.
 
TristramEvans said:
Have you met...colleges?
Click to expand...
That's true. I do a lot of my teaching in a First-Year program where the courses have to meet certain state requirements, including papers of so many words with some research in non-assigned materials. So in-class essays--which I use in other courses--are non-starters.
 
Lofgeornost said:
That's true. I do a lot of my teaching in a First-Year program where the courses have to meet certain state requirements, including papers of so many words with some research in non-assigned materials. So in-class essays--which I use in other courses--are non-starters.
Click to expand...

Well, state mandates telling professors how to teach (???) don't really exist where I'm at, so I guess my answer doesn't apply across the board. That kind of thing is usually handled at the dean/departmental level, and so far I haven't received any pushback for largely abandoning the paper.
 
I teach in further education and we seem to be transitioning from course-work based assessment (which would be ideal for AI) to the new T levels which are exam and practical activity based so AI is much less of an issue.
 
Urdlen's best boy said:
But how does this apply to art?

Art is not a correct answer you must find, it's about you creating the answer. Art is not done in one way. And more practically if you can use a mouse to use AI (and fix the images it produces) you can use it to collage or classic photoshop. Further unlike math art is an instinct and every human does it. You don't have to concentrate onto solving something to do it. You are thinking about the pencil move, and that's it. Taking it from here to there.

And I'll say, I really don't like folk who write kids off because of bullshit. Back when I was 3 or 4 my parents had to take me to psychotechnic tests because the teacher was adamant I was clinically retarded. Now since I am a very succesful Baldur's Gate player and PUB poster I am obviously of superhuman god-level intellect and she was dead wrong. So I know a thing or two about those things. What I'm saying, is I don't see how AI helps in any way shape of form make art more approachable. Not technically, nor socially.

Now taking kids art education seriously collectively and/or individually that's good. My gf's an art teacher, she's got like 300 bucks a year of supply and 15+classes of 25-30 kids to supply with it. I'm guessing mostwhere in occident it's the same story : art class (if any) is underfunded, and as a result only the kids with any encouragement to express themselves artistically (both attention and supply) do develop any kind of skill in that matter. Follows they're just seen as "talented" and the others not. Now that's an actual barrier to the practice of art and completely arbitrary inequity.

AI imaging not only does nothing to solve the real issues - underfunding, inattention, myths about art and talent. If anything it does the exact opposite by propagating the idea art has one correct solution and that that which does deviate is inferior.

I get that you feel strongly about mathematics and computing, and I do to. But I also know art and being an artist, and I can see the wild claims about AI imaging and approachability of art are not tethered to the reality of it. I'm in favor of using technology to make art, or to lower the barrier to entrance. Lending drawing tablets? Teaching image treatment? Accomodations for kids with any disability? All for it. But AI doesn't help here. It doesn't produce art. It doesn't help people produce art, learn techniques or become confident in their skills. All it does is a collage of inferior quality to what you can do with a mouse and keyboard and in the process regurgitate a digitally mangled version of someone elses work.

And then it is, as we speak, used to crush the profession. There are so many struggling young artists who even have difficulty getting supplies, and it's making it harder for people to live from actual art. Back when I was in art school some of my friends some days had to chose : food or paper. Most of the working class students, and those with unsupportive parents quickly had to drop.That was 2012. So when I hear that argument advanced, I do strongly feel about it too. And especially to know it's not true and serves only to support people trying to cut corners and save a few bucks for hobby publications. It's not even that they can't draw: they think they cann't draw commercially viable. As the kid that got written off and as the adult artist, it's unpleasant to read.

Apology for the long post. There was a lot to unpack here and I could not figure a way to package it smaller.
Click to expand...
I just disagree it's not art. To me it's art using a different tool to create it.
 
SoManyRats said:
Yeah, I tried, for years. I really really wanted to be a comic book artist. Took courses, practiced, never got better than "embarrassing but at least we can tell it's supposed to be a human." Manual dexterity is important and despite my efforts mine has just never been that great (also why my musical abilities have badly disappointed me). I'm not going to be an artist (or musician) any more than I'm going to be a professional basketball/football/volleyball player. This isn't me being negative, this is me recognizing my limitations. I can't draw for crap but I make my living writing (not obvious from my contributions here I know :smile: and not artistic, but still it's communicating using the written word at a professional level). If I started earlier and trained more, I might be passable at boxing or something similar where I could rely on endurance and damage absorption. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. My weakness mean I'm not going to create half-decent visual art. C'est la vie.
Click to expand...
It doesn't mean you're bad at art. Comic book is a particular style and skill, and it's not the easiest to pull out if you've got fucky dexterity, but that doesn't make you bad at art. It's like saying I failed to recreate a Caravage so I'm a shit painter. Maybe you're just more of a Kandinsky. Or maybe you're a collage artist. Speaking as, I've got some annoying shiver, neurological, and coordination issue. Had to have treatment for years for it. Back then it was called "ataxie congénitale" but apparently it's it's been replaced by other diagnosis. Anyway, I still loved my micron pens above all else. So I learned to work with it and now I'm proud of my output, because no one draws like that, with ink pen and tremors. Still couldn't do the precise linework of comics style, but who cares?

I'm glad you found something you're more confident doing, but if you still want to draw, don't tell yourself you've proven you can't draw, much less you can't make visual art at all.
 
Stumpydave said:
When I were a wee nipper, computers were presented as sentient creatures with magical powers beyond the ken of mortal man. Think Wargames, Starcops, Electric dreams, Weird science etc.
Only for years that wasn't the case.

I can now give Google Bard my subjects learning criteria and ask it to expand on the material presented.

Which it does! And so far the accuracy rate is in the high nineties. I could do the research myself but that will take loads of time. I could do individual web searches (which is all Bard really does) but again, very time intensive. But by giving the prompt " Please expand on the following information" (I always say please and thankyou. Never hurts to ingratiate yourself with the new boss!) and getting useable product at the other end!
No coding required, just plain English. Bloody magic.
Click to expand...
That's fair, so long as you make sure the information is right IMO. As I said, it's a fancy search motor. But when it comes to whether the result of a search motor can be art or makes art more approachable, I disagree. Because factually I don't think it does and the position if taken will lead, already leads to issues for real people who, too, would like to live their dream.
 
Art's Puzzlebox said:
An an artist and as acting art director on my current project with at least 5 other artists working under me over the past two years, I have never low-balled another artist, and I never will.

Whatever an artists rates are, I pay them, & i pay them on time, as I would expect the same if I was the freelancer and not the client. (i have been on both sides of a contract so I respect artists more I guess?).

Furthermore, I don't really know if its fair to make an over-generalization like "indy writers are rarely willing to pay the going rate," as I am an indy creator as well as an artist, and I have yet to see this kind of behavior myself. Your experience may of course be different, but I don't see this as being so prevalent to be able to say that every indy writer is a cheapskate who tries to cut corners. Of course there will always be individuals with the willingness to cut said corners, but I don't think its fair to say that all indy writers & creators act this way.

Its as simple as you say, simply turn down the job offer if you don't like the pay. That doesn't mean that all us indy folks are looking to cut corners. Some of us are artists too, and we seek to treat others with mutual respect. But I guess I am the exception, according to your experience.

Something else people are forgetting is that you can make a variety of contract agreements with artists.

For example, a really talented artist offered me lower rates (they offered, I never asked for them), in exchange for the rights to revert back to them after a set amount of time. They wanted to own the rights to their own artwork, and offered me better rates to satisfy their desire to own what they have created. We both benefit, as I get to use the art for my project at a lower rate, and when they get their rights back they can keep what they made.

Win-Win for everyone.
Click to expand...
To be honest, you sound like an exception (AKA - a good person to work with).

I think there may be a slight miscommunication here on my part. First, when I say 'indie writers' I'm talking about very small publishers. Not necessarily some of the bigger working studios. I'm also not saying 'everyone', but quite a few give out lowball offers. I have friends who are RPGs and artists and they say the same thing.
Secondly, I'm not saying that they cut corners with bad intentions per se, but everyone likes to save cash, (especially the management) and art is generally the first thing to get slashed (in amount wanted or pay).
I also didn't imply that indies were paying late or not paying at all. But as you brought it up being paid late(ish) is par for the course as a freelancer in the real world. Being paid exactly on time is a rarity. You may do that but having worked in the industry for over three decades, many take their time. Again, I have many artists that would back me up.
Lastly, no professional artist will touch something without a contract - So that's a given. Unless you're working for a good mate, etc.

To keep it on topic. What I'm pointing out here is (in my opinion), AI will take a large chunk eventually whether we like it or not. :sad:
 
lategamer said:
Just for comparison, how many hours?
Click to expand...

That's a tough one, man. Because it really depends on the piece, or even the type of artwork you are doing, and whether you are giving a company a special rate because they are giving you a ton of work. But bear in mind that I'm talking about corporate clients (for illustration and animation). So at the moment, I'm only charging them 30 euros an hour, but these guys are great to work with and have lots of material that needs to be updated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top