I'm not a fan of AI-art either, but "a spit to the face to actual artists" is a bit harsh. I think both can co-exist. And even if AI gets better than us at art -which it never 100% will IMHO- then that's just how it is. Are cars a spit in the face to coachman with their horse carriage?
@TrulyMalicious Some of the pieces have blue lighting and some don't. Also the ones with blue lighting have the light coming from different angles. But this is really good quality and it's free! <3
A.I. generated art is trained using images created by artists without the artists permission. Now, many people choose to use A.I. generated art instead of paying actual artists.
So, art is stolen from artists to train the A.I. and then jobs are stolen from artists because people use the A.I. I am not being harsh, I am pointing to the fact that A.I. generated art is unethical but you don't want to care because "it's free!" and more convenient.
This isn't about innovation, it's about stealing from artists.
Also, art generated by A.I. automatically cannot be copyrighted according to U.S. law. Due to the legal ramifications this could have for game devs, people like malicious here should atleast warn people that what he's offering cannot be copyrighted because it was generated by a computer.
I too would be okay with A.I. if the developers had just used images they had permission to use (or that were in the public domain). But, yeah, pandora's box is already open, and there's not much we can do now but encourage people to use A.I. art responsibly (e.g. for brainstorming, as a placeholder, etc.)
