You're viewing part of a thread.
Gonna guess you don't make art for a living.
Please do a little bit of reading before you go saying stupid things.
Or, you know, you could just properly staff and pay the share holders a little bit less? Lmfao
My dude has no idea how gamedev works at the AAA level. It's not that simple, smartass. You can be fully staffed, with outsourcers and even have contract workers and still have to crunch; there are a limited number of people who know how to build certain proprietary systems on this earth, and having limits on your budget and having to pivot major parts of your game late in development are both extremely common things. This is why custom efficiency tools are made in the first place, to make highly competent people with rare skill sets and with limited time more efficient. The solution isn't "hurr durr just throw more people and money at the problem". Having a larger number of developers without the proper skillsets (because those are the only other people on the job market you can feasibly hire to staff up) can actually make a project take MORE time, not less, believe it or not. This is why coder interview processes have, like, 4 or 5 phases at some companies. You're handing somebody the keys to the kingdom (for a fairly large paycheck, no less) and they might accidentally burn down the castle with you in it if they're not the right fit for whatever it is you're working on.
So yeah, AI art is not all bad. Please sit down.
So yeah, AI art is not all bad. Please sit down.
All ai art trained on stolen databases is bad either way. "Helpful to game dev" is not a justification for theft.
Massive pivots and the like are also issues with gamedev.
Dude, did you even read the article I linked? You train your AI models on databases of your OWN ART. That's literally the only way it works properly. Otherwise it would just be a mishmash of different styles that don't fit whatever it is you're trying to do.
Even the point you're trying to make doesn't make sense, and it's being addressed in the exact same article:
"Smith agrees with all artists who don’t want their work to be used for training different AI tools. At the same time, he thinks that we should be prepared that lawyers will argue that the process of AI training is similar to how real artists learn from other people’s work."
He then compared the AI to the bombs activated by Ozymandias at the end of Watchmen. This has already happened, and artists now should realize how to deal with the outcome.
of a tool it can be in ideation and pre-production, as well as inspiration and other things. It also already has your data. Moving your images to another site isn’t going to stop the scrape. Nothing will until laws are passed and enforced. ArtStation knows this.
— Ryan James Smith (@OverdrawXYZ) December 18, 2022
That’s why Smith thinks that artists should learn how to use AI as soon as possible. “It is a tool just like anything else, and when time = money, knowing how to effectively use powerful tools will make you a showstopper in this industry,” he noted. “And having the added bonus of being able to actually art direct these things will make you more powerful, not obsolete.”
All art is derivative. Pandora's box is open. Either learn to leverage it in creative ways or get left behind. That's the unfortunate reality.