Comment on Dungeons & Dragons tells illustrators to stop using AI to generate artwork for fantasy franchise

• deeroh@lemdro.id ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Paying $60 for a book whose art was generated using some text prompts, especially when I expected it to be human-made, feels like a slap in the face.

  (And definitely, but a human drawing on a screen with a brush tool strikes me as very different than using a generative AI network)

  source

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    “This painting is amazing! I can feel the power in the image. It makes me feel so many emotions!”

    “It was generated by AI”

    “Oh, it’s crap then.”

    source

    • deeroh@lemdro.id ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I don’t have an issue with AI-generated art as a concept. An artist friend of mine did a series of AI art that was really moving, and it wouldn’t have been possible to do without AI. He was upfront about the use of AI and even incorporated it into the art itself.

      My issue is masquerading AI-generated art as human-created. If I pay $60 for a book of art, I’m not just paying for the art. I’m paying for the time it took the artist to create these works, for the creativity they’ve cultivated over the years, and for ongoing support for them to be able to create more works like this in the future. We can debate how you value the worth of a good (ie if you have two identical dishes, one cooked carefully by a trained chef and another made by a machine, which is worth more?), but to me, it’s not simply about the outcome.

      source

      • dartos@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Idk all the details of the current wotc controversy train, but If an AI generates a base image that gets refined by a human, is not that human-created?

        Plus like you know that $60 isn’t for the art or the time it took to make the art. It’s for the Dnd brand.

        source
• halvo317@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  On, not by

  source