Because AI steals from artists, plain and simple. It is unacceptable to use. There's a reason "programmer art" is a just a handwave for early dev games- nobody reasonable expects them to look polished
If you can rig a model, you can make a scene, and if you can make a scene you can make an illustration for your card.
Even then, there's loads of free and paid assets even if you want a quick and easy solution that's positive for both you and the source site.
Viewing post in GET YOKED: Extreme Bodybuilding comments
I agree that AI art often takes from artists’ work, which is valid. However, this isn't the case here. The game developer has stated that they can't spend money to commission art at this stage of development, I assume their focus is on gameplay and the unique style they want to create. They’re choosing AI-generated art because it allows them to maintain that unique style while keeping their costs manageable.
Saying, 'If you can rig a model, you can make a scene, and if you can make a scene, you can make an illustration for your card' oversimplifies the process. It's like saying, 'If you can drive a car, you can drive a bus, and if you can drive a bus, you can drive a truck.' In reality, each of those tasks requires different skills, time, and experience. Creating art for a game, especially when trying to maintain a unique style and updates, is a hard thing that can't always be replaced by an asset.
While free or paid assets are an option, they often don’t offer the flexibility or originality that a developer might need to create something distinct. AI art, while imperfect, can provide a compromise in this situation
AI doesn't steal from artists. And art is not an original form of expression anyway, its just rehashed ideas with small innovations based on steeped heritage of those before.
Or go and tell me how every anime character is its own completely unique design completely original, without inspiration or technique drawn from those before.
Artists are just getting mad, because AI will eventually make a large part of the normal workflow for them redundant, as its already doing for UX designers, because that is essentially "busy work".
The answers is to stop pretending that your hobbies or passions can be used as a replacement for a steady job, as for most people it can't. And hobbies and passions remain for free time, and not their day job.
Copyright massively hinders creativity and free expression, and people who are against AI are basically just being pro-publisher pro hardcore copyright restrictions, where companies can law fair creators into oblivion.
Hi Stag The problem with AI generated content is that it is low effort content and does not showcase your ability nor improve your ability through process learning, that is because AI generated content is not your work, even if it is a model trained on your work. So, it actually misses the point of what the jam is all about, which is improving and showcasing. It is the same reason that AI generated content (prompt based) does not garner copyright attribution regardless of the source material used in its data sets. At best you might claim it created a derivative work based on the prompt itself, but the argument is very poor. Non-prompt based AI is mostly QOL stuff, for example smoothing algo, or animation automation (you specify certain frames and in fills in the gaps), and have been long in use for yearas prior to this every becoming a thing.
You don't need artist consent to train an AI off of their work as the AI does not do anything to breach copyright. However, if the AI produces something far too similar to their work that in and of itself could constitute a breach, but this doesn't preclude all AI generated assets from said data training. So, there is nothing invalid from a creator using prompt based AI. However, prompt based AI is something I believe does not follow the spirit of the jam. Hence my wish/suggestion that all prompt based AI was banned.
You understand the context of that is a casual Jam for groups and individuals to work on a project with one of the primary aims to develop the participants abilities right?
The point being made obviously that prompt based AI usage does not develop your skillset.
The views expressed then and now are entirely consistent.
"will make a large part of the normal workflow for them redundant" as in it will replace a large part of work they'd otherwise have.
For example once the concept art is produced the AI model would be able to effectively produce most of the remaining required art for that character.
I find it odd you cannot understand the difference between a casual jam for improving ones abilities, and the production of a product for consumption.
But the Product is still in production. If it was a finished product then sure, but the product still is being worked on and is being made to improve their ability to make games. Despite this it is pointless as the developer confirmed that the ai will be swapped out once the product is uploaded onto steam.