DELETE TOPIC

[Freakbunny]

DELETE TOPIC

[timepatches]

For what it's worth I think you'll probably get different answers here than in your target audience, because lemma is mostly devs, who will care much more about how something is made (and be more equipped to tell the difference) than some audiences.
But no. I wouldn't touch a vn made with AI art until it can be made without infringing on the rights of human artists.

[RoyaltyScroll]

I'm with timepatches, I have seen how much the current ai art is effecting artists... I can't support AI art or anything using it right now. Even if they do manage to teach a new AI without art that was stolen I'm not sure I would... If it takes over, and it will if it becomes good enough without stealing, as it's faster and it's only a matter of time before they learn to fix issues like wonky hands... But if it takes over no real human artist will be able to keep up... Already we artists are expected to draw and produce faster then in the past, but we can't beat an AI that can make limitless images in a second. I don't like like how little people value art, and it hurts how happy people are to devalue human creators even more to gain quick and cheap images. I understand really, but it hurts.

[Deimos96]

Currently, it's really hard to make a game's art look coherent using any AI models without a lot of post-processing/editing. So AI generated art will still need a bit of human touch to create a game with coherent art. If it's using art straight out of the generator then I doubt it will look good. So no I won't.

A VN is heavily story based so having a good illustration will magnify the player's emotional connection to a character (imo). But simulation/strategy games where those things don't really matter and it's art is more for giving information rather than an emotional connection, then if the gameplay is good enough, I probably would play it.

You can say I'm morally on the fence. If it blatantly looks like someone's art style then playing that game might be disturbing, even if it was made with human hands. But if it looks super generic or is post-processed a lot that it can be considered it's own art then I'll give it a pass.

[Fuseblower]

I wouldn't want to play any game, VN or other, created with artificial intelligence but I'm afraid it won't take long before people can't tell the difference anymore between AI generated art and human created art. On a side note : there are itch.io jams that prohibit the use of AI generated art.

It's not only the art that will be generated by AI, we got ChatGPT now that can write entire stories.

Music is next. There are AIs being developed that can analyze music and establish the genre of that music (which has always been a fuzzy concept) and even tell whether the instruments are played by a professional or a beginner. It won't take long before the process will be reversed in order to have the AI generate music.

Couple these things with the exhaustive consumer profiles companies generate about us and we won't even need a so-called "prompt engineer" to get games, music, movies, comics, cat videos, etc. that are uniquely tailor-made for the consumer. These products will be generated on-the-fly by an AI and bought with a single button click.

Of course, it won't be the end of art. People make art simply because they want to. It's the activity itself that is the prime motivation behind the creation of art.

But it will seriously impart monetization and with that it will reduce the time and financial costs the artist can spend on his or her art.

Still, people will want to spend money on art that is made by humans.

Even a lousy sketch by Vincent van Gogh will be worth thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars. Not because it's of unparalled quality (it's probably made with inferior materials and, to be honest, van Gogh wasn't that good to begin with) but because of the singular fact that it was made by Vincent van Gogh, a real human being with a dramatic history. A perfect copy won't command the same price (and there are perfect copies of his paintings which were made at great expense).

So, the original can be monetized on the unique virtue that there's only one.

But anything made with the computer doesn't have an original. The art needs to be made the old fashioned way. All of my own art (I use the term loosely) is hand drawn meaning it exists in the real world. It is drawn and painted on real paper, with real pencils, pens and brushes. The "Doomed Diner" exists as an original in the real world as a stack of water colors. The "Doomed Diner" is free but I could sell the originals. *Looks at number of downloads* Well... I could! In theory! That's the point

Sure, a machine could paint an original somewhere close in the future but this would be waaaay more expensive both in financial cost and time than simply crank out a bunch of numbers that make up a computer image or even a complete video game.

So, that's my two cents. I don't think AI will threaten art itself but it will damage the monetization of it. Having originals (and preferably a dramatic life) is a way around it.

Oh boy! I'm gonna be rich!

[Yomic]

I think if the creator was 100% up front about it and didn't charge for it not many people would have a problem with it. On the other hand, if someone made an abstract AI game ABOUT AI, it would be a very artistic decision to do so as well. There's always the ethics to consider as well so if the person made sure the training data wasn't used on assets without permission and could prove that, most people wouldn't be able to complain about it.

I on the other hand have used it for temporary assets. Another valid use case in my opinion as I am current paying artists to replace them.

[endless_midnight]

I use them as placeholder assets for the most part, even so I'm aiming to get an artist to replace them. I think I agree with timepatches the real iffyness of the whole deal comes from the fact that AI art often derives its art from copyrighted material as of now, as such, it's probably not a good idea to use it commercially or for monetization. I don't really see a problem if it was upfront, and I might play it. Right now, there are still sort of issues regarding it, and I use it as a visual prototyping tool mostly to help me figure out what they will look to a very high degree before I decide to engage an artist.

[toastybread]

I would, especially because I haven't really seen something like that anywhere. It would be something new, but I think It's important to be upfront about using AI generated art. The problem is just, AI art is generally kind of problematic since it creates art using real works. It basically steals the art from others (small artists for example) and just kinda mixes it up. Also, I think it could be hard for AI to create all the illustrations for a game without it looking completely thrown-together and random. If you can make it work though, I'd like to see it.

[Elsa Kisiel]

But no. I wouldn't touch a vn made with AI art until it can be made without infringing on the rights of human artists.

Same.

I might make an exception if there's a good artistic reason behind it. Like a game about AI. Or a creepy element of the story, made creepier with distortions and incoherences. But even in these cases, I would prefer to buy a game illustrated by a real artist, who is purposely imitating AI's faults to induce a feeling of creepiness.

[AgentCandy]

If the game is well-presented and the creator of the game is upfront and honest about using AI, then I will be inclined to give the game a try. I understand not everyone is a competent artist (in fact, that is why I took up computer animation in the first place) and they may have brilliant ideas which AI can help them with. Obviously there seem to be some ethical concerns about AI stealing the work of others and I can only hope legislation can keep up!

[dotHack]

Did photo cameras replaced art? Not really, but it may have changed it. Realistic art is not the standard, anymore.
I think, if AI becomes good enough to make consistent VN art, then artists have to find a new way to make their VN special and interesting.

[RizVN]

I gave it some thought.

I think yes, I would.

I know this because I have read web novels with AI cover and illustrations in it. There's no reason for me to be okay with reading one, but not the other.

It's a very unpopular opinion though. This thread alone proves it. Currently, even people who would play AI games might not come out and say it openly, considering the negative attention they might receive. However, the market for AI works already exists.

The market will always win. What does the winning market looks like? I don't know. Probably a clear separation of AI works and non AI works.

If any artist is reading this and feel fear of being replaced, think of AI as a tool to enhance your work instead. Not replace.

If you believe AI will replace you, I think it definitely will. If you believe AI will enhance you to be better artist, I think it definitely will.

Either way, I wish you well.

[Triority]

Yes, don't see why not.

[ISAWHIM]

Honestly, you would be surprised at number of games using AI art, and recycled art, currently...

It takes a bit of skill to get some good art generated, from textual commands. That, in a sense, is an art too. It is NOT difficult to get a coherent "style" of art, when you know what you are doing. Literally, you just have to tell the AI to make something "like SOMEARTIST in SOMESTYLE", and it can make it, if it has "learned" that artist and style.

There is still a BIG misconception that AI is "using art" to make art. It is not, it is using "learned data" from art, which is used to make similar art. It knows what "faces" look like, in a general sense. Of the millions of faces it learned, it knows that faces have eyes, eyes have eyelashes, eye-lids, eyebrows, pupils, irisies, eye-whites, moisture/gloss, etc... From all the data, not the images, it has learned what pixel-colors, directions, saturations, shades, tones, hues, gloss, sharpnesses, etc... belong where. It layers data after data after data, creating more and more details of "similarity", not images of similarity. It is actually an interesting process to watch the actual "build-up" from a blob, to a person-shaped blob, to a toon-like person, to a semi-realistic person, to a real-like person, to a highly detailed image that could be mistaken for an actual photograph which matches NOT ONE ARTISTIC CREATION EVER MADE, from anyone. Just from asking for "a cute girl in the woods with a bear, wearing a red outfit, holding a basket of food". Filling that basket with different food every time. A different basket. A different girl. Different trees... etc...

You can even use masking, which involves taking one creation and masking an area, like a face, and asking the AI to generate something different there. It will use that "face", to detect that it is a face, and come up with another "fitting face", as if it belonged there, in the same style.

The possibilities are endless, and the plethora of "concept art" that most AI has trained-on, is expansive. Just don't expect hands, sometimes limbs, or complex poses to be perfect. Having an actual artist "fix" the AI creations is often a valid solution to save a LOT of trial and error, in AI creations.

You don't have to say that your artwork was created with AI... It currently isn't really a "selling point", and your post is a clear indication that it is actually a "counter selling point", if mentioned.

Also, for the record, people are using AI to also WRITE and enhance many of these new VNs. This INCLUDES coding them! AI is NOT limited to only drawing art! They have whole AI services out there, for almost everything now, including spamming, call-center help, call-center sales, etc... Yes, AI is used to actually SELL things now, by calling people and having conversations with them. Quite convincing actually. They know, almost, the perfect thing to say, to every type of response. Including the ability to know if the person is at a stalemate and totally NOT interested, so it is not wasting time talking further. AI even makes MUSIC... Lyrics and playing actual songs!

They are never going to know... They're gonna know... They're never gonna know!

Heck, even photoshop now uses AI, heavily, within the program, for various things. That is one of the new selling-points for photo-shop! There is no escaping it, it is here, it will stay, and everyone will be subjected to it. Don't limit yourself to NOT using the latest tools in creation, because of a few resistant people who have misinformed, hypocritical and extremist views. Focus on the majority who want the VN, not the minority who would exclude the VN for frivolous reasons.

My personal views about "art tools"...

Complaining about AI art, is like a painter complaining about someone taking a photograph of the same scene they spent hours painting by hand, to look like a photograph. It is like a physical painter complaining about a digital painter, using a computer instead of oils and acrylics to paint. It is like complaining about someone using a digital camera, with filters, instead of hand-developing real photographs. It is like complaining about someone using photo-shop to manually "touch-up" a poorly photographed image, instead of taking a better camera shot. It is like someone complaining about someone using a "filter", to "touch-up" a poorly, digitally painted image or photograph...

It is like complaining about someone using AI, asking it to make something, instead of asking a person to create it. Even though you have NO idea what the person is going to make, it takes long to make, and it costs you no matter what the end result is. As opposed to just changing the "ask" or the "values", and instantly getting a new result, without spending a dime or wasting an artists time.

The funny thing is... Now, we have no clue if the artist is using AI, or manually creating things either!

Those fingers... LOL. Artists are not obsolete... Just put into new places and demands! (Or you just crop the unwanted parts out!)

[Wiktor Borsuk]

I see no problem in reading really any creation that contains AI-generated art.
Often, I won't even know if something is AI-generated or a human creation. It's getting difficult to tell as AI generators are getting really good at it. In the end if I don't like the style, I don't like the style, regardless of who or what created it.

Note that there are also artists who decided to embrace AI, and they use it as a tool to get inspiration or just get a base on which to paint. This is the case at the company where I work; artists are in fact encouraged to use AI to augment their work, and not a single one has gotten replaced by it.

I genuinely do feel sorry for artists who may lose their livelihood - some will not be as lucky, others will not adapt. I hope this will be as few people as possible.
But I think asking if I'd read a VN with AI art is like asking if I'd wear a mechanically woven shirt, or use an Ikea wardrobe in my home. Yes I would, yes I do, and yes I will.