AI art

[kyonides]

I simply  read a thread on the official forums the other day and I've been  wondering ever since if SavePoint should update its policies as to include its posture on AI generated art and related stuff.

[DerVVulfman]

“Art” and “intelligence” are two notoriously difficult terms to define. As such, it is no surprise that the boundaries of AI-generated art are unclear. This, an actual quote from the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology.

I recognize that Google's DeepDreams may have caused a stir, taking various animal photographs, using an AI algorithm to detect patterns, and create art that sold for $8000 in a gallery. Even moreso when J. Walter Thompson Amsterdam developed a system that studied Rembrandt's paintings and made its own!

AI systems generally (1) take input of various sources, (2) learn from the sources, (3) develop its own composition, and (4) render the composition in the form of audio or video art.

But, the questions would be if one was making AI art with their own innate work, or if they used public domain content, or if the art presented was even AI generated at all? If the creator/publisher chooses not to label the work as AI generated, of if the generation was solely based on their own content, how can it be enforced without worry about any other medium being submitted?

One could suggest that the generated music from a synthesizer may be partially AI, some soundfonts having been pre-recorded live content and converted. Or if not, then a live product digitally remastered by way of an AI system.

As it stands, there is quite little that can be done, even if the person posting admits producing it via AI.

[Kain Nobel]

Confession : I use semi-automated systems to generate graphics, dubbed KAD; Kain Assisted Drafting.

I do not consider this "AI" but it does utilize some machine learning. Also, it does more work than I do (at this point in time.)

Most screenshots posted after 2012 have utilized this system to assist in the design of tilesets (and other miscellaneous resources). Not all, but most. I use it more frequently than I use GraphicsGale. To be fair, most of that use is in perfecting the system and experimentation, but yes, I do use it as much as I can. It was designed to draw like Kain.


Pictured : KAD assisted trees.

Left sample is hand drawn (trunk only), KAD drew all the leaves and applied all the proper shading in regards to foliage.
Right sample is 95% KAD generated tree, based on a rules file and machine interpreted photographic tree foliage.

(Please note that not all samples wind up turning out this good; they usually need some sort of last minute touch up. These two samples are the most successful / least intervention, as far as trees go.)


Pictured : KAD generated dirt, extracted and reinterpreted from a megapixel photograph. In theory, these should each be a 32x32 seamless tile. This is what the system thinks dirt looks like. After extracting photograph RGB data from a race track, this is how the system would draw the dirt from the race track. It interprets highlights and shadows and attempts to make as many seamless 32x32 tiles as it can muster up from the resampled photo.

The data is actually stored internally as a marshalled table of generic number values (short integers) but, if converted into a grayscale PNG format, this is essentially what the data would look like visually.

This is not the result of noise generation and there are thousands of these tiles embedded within the data suite for which the system can use to generate colorized textures.

The KAD TextureMate system is only designed to interpret and re-create the most primitive of textures; grass, dirt, cement, blacktop, sand, rock, roof shingles, clouds, etc. This aspect of the system is not designed for abstract objects such as cars, trucks, dogs, cats, basketballs, mailboxes, etc. However, if you decided to draw an animated kitty cat, you could probably tell the system to texturize it using "Grass" (and point it to the Siamese color profile) and I think it would look good (or it might look "noisy"...)

Let's generate something...


Pictured : KAD generated Cave sample. Please note that we're borrowing RMXP's Cave02 wall texture in this sample only because it is something familiar to everybody here; however, I don't typically use RMXP resources with these systems. It took 0.0134 seconds to generate 64000 individual tiles for a complete tileset. In other words, this tileset is a complete tileset (but I've cut it down to just a small sample for example's sake.)

The "Cave" recipes are fairly mature, so all I have to do is fill in some data and hit "compile and run". Other resource types aren't as mature, but they're still effective too.


Video : Project BEAST Nagivation Demo. Tilesets used in this demo are KAD generated tilesets. Also, texture mismatches in one of the maps is user error, not system error.

KAD TextureMate was very lightly used in the creation of these tilesets, but it does have the capability to extract, examine and reinterpret primitive textures from megapixel photographs such as the dirt posted above. Some of that dirt from the earlier sample may or may not be present in this demo.

Is it AI? No, not in it's current state. Is it machine learning? Yes, absolutely. Does it still require human input? For now, yes, but in the future it should require it less and less.

This system would never be able to replace a human designer, but it does automate a great chunk of work. It would probably be an 80/20 split insofar as it could generate 80% of the RMXP default set of tilesets on it's own with no human assistance, but the other 20% would be adding all the little doodads such as signs, mailboxes, fencing, special windows, etc. which would need a human designer.

That could change (and, in the case of fences, is changing.)


Pictured : Precursor to training KAD how to make RMXP style picket fencing. This sample is hand-drawn, not KAD generated. Once it is properly trained, it should be able to generate fences with minimal human intervention. Once I've done some brainstorming, this image will be used to guide in the making of a json KAD recipe file (fence.json).

This is not a new system. This predates ChatGPT, Dall E, StyleGAN, TensorFlow, Project BEAST, RPG Maker VX Ace and even the 1st attempt at REGAL (Qt era). The system was started as a JavaScript project written in IntelliJ IDEA, but is now being re-written to C++ OpenGL standards (with ImageMagick).

Current Capabilities

• Examine and reinterpret texture profile chunks from megapixel photographs.
  
• Colorize learned texture styles based on user defined limited color palette profiles.
  
• Can generate animated water tiles (unreliable, I still recommend hand-drawn. Sometimes does well though.)
  
• Generates cave / mountain tilesets (very mature.)
  
• Generates house exterior tilesets (semi-mature.)
  
• Generates house interior tilesets (feature is currently in development / largely undefined.)
  
• Generates trees, bushes and foliage (experimental.)
  
• Generates targeted particle effects (such as the flames in the Belly of the Beast title screen. Experimental.)
  
• Generates prefabricated light and shadow effects (experimental.)
  

I don't consider it AI just as I don't consider RPG Maker's character generation suite to be AI. It is an automation tool and requires specialized training and plenty of image data. If I was to train it to draw fireworks, I would need to submit many stills from a video of fireworks in action. Maybe it could reverse engineer the animation of fireworks, maybe not. Haven't tried (yet) but I'm curious to see how well it would actually do. In the future, it may train on video, but it's only ever trained on still image photographs. As such, it can't interpret an animated GIF reliably or an MP4 or anything else but PNG and BMP (JPEG not recommended).

I have mixed feelings on AI, but I feel it would be way too risky to institute a ban on it. Policies like RPGMakerWeb are a slippery slope towards banning non-AI developments like this one. Systems like mine could be misconstrued and misinterpreted as AI, but it is not. Machine learning could be misconstrued and misinterpreted to be AI; again, it could be a component of AI, but it is not AI itself. Like a child, it needs training, supervision and intervention to be most effective.

(Much love to RPGMakerWeb, but I tend to disagree on certain things. I doth not protest though, let them institute whatever policy they feel they need to institute.)

However, once everything comes full circle, it designs very nice looking tilesets on par with what I would attempt to do by hand. Also, this is not intended to be part of the REGAL suite of software (but that may change as it becomes more mature.)

I never even intended to tell people about it but I figure it's time to come clean, especially now that AI is a mainstream topic. Special thanks to Poccil, Selwyn, and Raitame for early inspiration behind the system as they were experimenting with image manipulation via programming long before I ever attempted.

[Remi-chan]

I have no intention of banning AI art.

It's the thievery committed by systems that unapologetically steal other artists' work without consent or acknowledgement that is what i would like to see destroyed.

AI Generation isn't a problem so long as it's moderated by fair use.

[JayRay]

Agreed, and not all AI Imaging is generative by design. Sometimes, like well, with some of my work currently, a heavily pixelated sprite needs to be resized for a larger, more HD resolution, and in that moment, an AI script like Esreg is a huge timesaver.

And note, I say that with an AI generated image of a pose I did showing in my sig.

[Remi-chan]

Every time you're using the character generator in MV, you are doing image generation. You're just the brains behind it.

But the A.I is technically there, layering things and placing stuff in the right spot. Though at this stage that's basically mechanical obligation.

It's worth noting that the worst thing that can happen in A.I. art, plagiarism: is already listed as an absolute no-no in the forum rules.

Using sprites generated by FSM's tallsprite generator is fine, as long as you credit Mack. (this is why he so often appears in my game's credits.

The reason that's okay is because Mack has created and built up that generator from his own work, and has allowed the public to use it with credit. It's unfortunate that it recently was lost in the geocities breakdown.

Opting to ban A.I generated art wholesale would do more harm than good.

The more shady and scum-infested parts of the A.I. image generation scene are already under fire from the supreme court and many large bodies who they've stolen from in their reckless crusade. They will soon likely be in the same boat as A.I generated music.

Because yeah, this has happened before. Only the music industry clamped down on it, so it became a product of laws and regulations. This will likely be the fate of A.I generated art before long. This is just a phase where plucky opportunists will try their darndest to make a quick buck off of work that isn't theirs. They'll also likely end up filing for bankruptcy by years end due to the amount of lawsuits coming their way.

[Techbot]

My background comes from hacking things into games. We've seen Doom be put into the CPU  of refrigerators and games made from excel spreadsheets and foxpro databases.

Nearly every tech development asks two questions.
Can you watch porn on it?
Can you make games with it?

To not make a game out of A.I seems to me to be completely missing the point. To consider discussing your art as "admitting to use A.I" as if it were a crime is absurd.
Largely what we are discussing here is a commercial entity trying to ban something that might threaten it's profits. This discussion is totally removed from anything to do with games art, technology etc. it's just profit.

The other discussion is that of copyright theft and that's a different story, but again not really related to whether one should A.I rather whether one should use A.I that uses copyrighted input. Or use A.I to mimic an individuals style.

The discussion of taking money from the mouth of artists is a non argument that is present at the dawn of every new technology and not to be entertained IMO.(outside of the above argument).

Meanwhile I use A.I.
When I am being too arty and need to dumb down and instead think like the "average internet user or the sum of all internet use", I use A.I . But inevitably I get these warnings "you cannot discuss murder and drug use in your fictional narrative"  How can that be of any use to a serious writer?

Or when I want to make linear or non linear lists which chat GPT just loves (as do I and most RPG gamers.) This kind of ties in with what I said about the average interent user. Sometimes I think to hard about the progression in my game, but I also dislike making up names for npcs or items (I call everything a transmogrifiier). Hence:

Me: create a recipe for circuit boards using 4 fictitious elements
ChatGPT: Sure, here's an example recipe for circuit boards using 4 fictitious elements:

Ingredients:

    1 unit of zyrenite
    2 units of veridium
    3 units of xanthite
    4 units of hydronite

Instructions:

    Extract zyrenite from its mineral deposit using a plasma cutter and extractive distillation process.
    Purify zyrenite using acid leaching and solvent extraction techniques to remove impurities.
    Combine purified zyrenite with veridium in a high-temperature furnace to create a zyrenite-veridium alloy.
    Add xanthite to the zyrenite-veridium alloy and heat the mixture in a vacuum chamber to create a molten solution.
    Introduce hydronite to the molten solution and stir the mixture to evenly distribute the elements.
    Pour the molten solution onto a cooling plate to solidify into a circuit board with the desired pattern of electrical traces and components.
    Inspect the circuit board for defects and test its performance to ensure it meets quality standards.

Note: The specific methods and equipment used for each step may vary depending on the properties of the fictitious elements and the technological level of the post-apocalyptic society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that not brilliant and hilarous? An instant sidequest!

I've also generated hundreds of tilesets. I then had to put each into photoshop made grids and picked the individual tiles that I could use. It was/is extremely time consuming but increased my available tilesets by about 400% to date.

I'll post a thread of some of the images in a new thread

[kyonides]

If you owned a company, you'd also want people not to use your stuff for their own gain without your consent. It's your right after all and nobody should feel ashamed because of it. So complaining about any A.I. ban that defends any company's profits is hypocritical by default. Nobody should force you to renounce your rights just because other people don't like them.

Can you use copyrighted stuff for personal use only and no profit? Yeah, why not... unless you're making a Pokémon game.

EDIT

Concerning the use of AI, here I gotta say that it can be illegal from the very beginning, BUT I'm not saying it's always case. It's like saying that you can't use Photoshop (with the respective license) or GIMP (for free) to make any pictures, pixel art or pseudo 3D stuff. It simply depends on what you're actually doing with it and what kind of sources you're using there.

[Remi-chan]

To not make a game out of A.I seems to me to be completely missing the point. To consider discussing your art as "admitting to use A.I" as if it were a crime is absurd.

Depending on the source, it very well could be a crime. If not, deeply immoral. I will explain why soon.

Largely what we are discussing here is a commercial entity trying to ban something that might threaten it's profits. This discussion is totally removed from anything to do with games art, technology etc. it's just profit.

I don't know where we ever mentioned anything like that? Are you actually writing this stuff or is this just a copy paste from something?

The other discussion is that of copyright theft and that's a different story, but again not really related to whether one should A.I rather whether one should use A.I that uses copyrighted input. Or use A.I to mimic an individuals style.

Wrong! A.I. art legally speaking cannot be put under copyright, mostly thanks to a ruling by the supreme court. Disney and Hollywood will still try, but they're losing money faster than fanciful and the strikes have only helped. The average A.I. user however, will be held to account.

I won't use A.I. because I have enough confidence in my own writing to not use ChatGPT, I have enough confidence in not only my own, but my artists abilities to not use A.I. art generators, not even legally sound ones. Do i pay my artists? Yes. proudly, too. They earn every dollar.

Likewise, while animating does take a long time, I get so much fulfillment and joy out of it and its process that letting A.I. do anything would feel like robbing myself.

Tilesets are something I have more than enough of, and I'd honestly rather use and make tweaks to DLC I've purchased than go through the work you described. I'm use to that kind of work regularly.

I have a natural aversion to A.I. due to my pride. My pride being that everything I have ever created has been built from the hands of me or my employee's hands directly. And if not, someone real has been paid for resources I would later use.

Allowing a machine to stand in for a person who might prosper and benefit in lieu, even a sad sack of shit like Celianna- is a moral cataclysm of gratification-shattering proportions. I fucking HATE Celianna, but I'd still rather pay for her tilesets than support A.I. because I knwo the worth and work behind it. i know she likely has fucking SLAVED away making those things. Which is more than I can say for you.

I don't think it is fair to say that A.I. art will not negatively effect the art industry and those who work within it. The smaller artists are the most at risk because A.I. removes accountability on you, the A.I. "artist", to be a benefactor.

The discussion of taking money from the mouth of artists is a non argument that is present at the dawn of every new technology and not to be entertained IMO.(outside of the above argument).

You are monstrously wrong and uninformed.

A.I. is an unfeeling machine with no use or appreciation for money. Spending money to use A.I. does not help anyone but its maker, and I do not care to support such people because I would rather support artists who worked for years upon years to hone their craft.

Custom art at all is not something you are entitled to. It is a luxury. I am happy to pay for that luxury, and I would much rather pay an artist than the maker of a career-destroying machine.

And yes, A.I. art has already been on track for destroying careers. Right now there are workers strikes happening in Hollywood due to criminally extortionist behaviors committed by the fatcats of companies like Disney who wish to pay less and make more.

People are striking not because of the idiotic assumption A.I. andies are making that 'they're just making a scene because they're scared A.I. art will outshine them'.

These artists and creatives are sacrificing their paychecks and potentially their entire careers to try and inform the fatcats that this is not okay. That this shit is absolutely not on. The fatcats would like to save money on animation by paying them a pittance and letting A.I. fill in for them, the result would be a horrible amalgamation of shit art and workers rights violations. Both the films we enjoy and the artists who would usually have passion for making them would fall to ruin.

Using A.I. to stand in as a replacement for real people's work is a genuinely horrifying idea and i truly hope you do not support that.

Unfortunately, you yourself have admitted to propagating the same problem.

The attitudes of A.I. Andies and their general entitlement to 'free art' is what sickens me. This attitude then leaks down to others and so this bizarre consensus forms that genuine artists charge too much when A.I. can do as they do for free. it is entitled and only possible due to the programs you have found fit to exploit.

The difference is, A.I in most of its models, even the presently dirt free ones, have learned and been taught on stolen art. A.I. is in its very essence as the image generation software, deeply immoral.

To support it is to support plagiarism. To use it in lieu of something an actual person has produced is robbery. To endorse it is insanity.

I know it feels very nice to not have to ask artists for help while you trample upon the bones of the people you claim you aren't hurting, but the reality is you are hurting artists by using A.I. image generation. Those who came before, and those who are here now.

You happily admitted:

I've also generated hundreds of tilesets. I then had to put each into photoshop made grids and picked the individual tiles that I could use. It was/is extremely time consuming but increased my available tilesets by about 400% to date.

You aren't special or a hard worker for doing something I have to do commonlyy, only at least the art I'm formatting put food on someone's plate.

It should be a moment of pride to pay for a custom piece of art hand drawn by someone else. You are not entitled to that, you only think you are because A.I. has allowed you to gain this primitive and lunatic ideal that art is not a luxury when it always has been.

The discussion of taking money from the mouth of artists is a non argument that is present at the dawn of every new technology and not to be entertained IMO.(outside of the above argument).

Photography did not steal from artists because photography still requires talent and work. I have seen photographs in exhibitions and can tell when there was effort put into them and not, and the ones with genuine effort and planning are what sells.

A.I. art is only effort in regards to formatting such as you mentioned. In other words, it is not.

Oh I'm sure it feels rough spending 8 hours to organize a tileset you grafted from the stolen years upon years of self-improvement and suffering to get better that all actually genuine artists went through just so you could get away with not paying for something that before A.I. you would have had to pay for or use open source materials.

Heaven forbid you grow your own talents like they did and then you might be able to understand just what a monstrous machine of corporate malevolence you are aiding.

A.I. in itself is not the problem. it has existed so long as computers have.

Image generation is not a problem so long as it does not steal from the artists who did not consent to have their work used.

The techies who made the A.I. generation programs would not have ground to stand on if not for the real problem.

People such as yourself. people who feel entitled to custom art that you take giddily while happily trampling upon the careers and potential prosperity of the artists who are the reason you have that toy to begin with.

I sincerely recommend you think about this a bit more than from your own limited experience and try to consider a bit more heavily how it effects the people who actually put in years and years of hard work only for you to push them aside and rely on a program that use their work without consent to create a machine that you now endorse.

Edit: I did some digging and discovered the PFP you're using is a Cryptobot NFT.

Every entry for that avatar when searched by image leads to that crypto beyond the few threads in the two forums.

I have a feeling I'm about to regret inviting you over here.

I really hope I'm wrong about you but at this point I'm not holding my breath.

You made the same ridiculous and flawed justifications for A.I. art that they all do. The same conceited claim that formatting things for a few hours means you worked hard.

[Remi-chan]

OHO~!!!

Oh this man is not retiring without having the entire world of art utterly clown on him.

Him being fired is such a joyous occasion its fucking TRENDING on twitter LMAO!