this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
38 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
19 readers
2 users here now
This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sure, that's great. However this is in regards to material published by Hasbro. Were I an author, I would want to employ an actual illustrator or artist to work on my material that's published to an audience.
I believe it's a good thing that Hasbro has taken this stand; that artists should be employed to illustrate their material.
Artists use AI tools too.
Which is exactly what the article said. Hasbro said artists for their D&D products will not use AI.
You said "artists should be employed to illustrate their material" and I was pointing out that allowing AI tools to be used doesn't interfere with that.
@FaceDeer
@Madison_rogue it does. The artwork was detected as being created with AI due to significant quality issues, not through thorough forensic analysis/mathematical models.
Any artist can do shoddy work with any tools. If shoddy work is the problem, ban that.
That's not what Hasbro wants, though, and it's completely within their rights to have this stipulation for artwork that is tied to their brand. You sound offended by their decision, when their decision will likely result in more humans being employed and valued for their human contributions. Seems like a strange thing to have a problem with. No one is saying you can't make your own personal D&D art with AI tools.
Of course they can do it. I'm saying that they shouldn't do it. I'm giving my opinion that they are making a bad decision here. It will result in poorer quality books in the long run because they are needlessly hobbling their artists.
Okay, I get your point now. If all artists had your stance and felt this hobbled them, then I'd understand thinking Hasbro's decision is wrong. But not every artist agrees with you. This is reminiscent of the argument between digital and physical art, with digital artist's struggle to be seen as viable against oil painters and other physical media artists. Except digital isn't any better or worse, they're simply different mediums. You could argue pros and cons for both types, but in the end everyone is entitled to the medium they prefer. This includes AI assisted artwork. If someone prefers digital art but wants no AI influence, that's up to them since art is entirely subjective.
This is a perfectly valid direction for Hasbro to want to take, and they're the ones who get to make the call. Not every artist feels hobbled by being barred from AI tools, some artists prefer to avoid AI entirely. There are plenty of people who would happily accept these jobs.
There's also a huge difference between an AI tool and an AI generative model. There's definitely grey area there, but pretending the background eraser is identical to Stable Diffusion is ludicrous. One of them is used by an artist to gain marginal improvements in quality/workflow, the other has an objective of replacing the artist entirely.
If they want digital artwork, then it's safe to say they accept the typical digital tools and brushes, even if some of those could technically be using algorithms some would describe as rudimentary AI. An artist would have to be purposely obtuse not to understand the difference between the clone brush and telling Bing to draw them a dwarf.
A person being that deliberately obtuse is present in this thread, unfortunately.
Like cool story bro do you honestly think people didn’t know what you meant? Or did you just want to get a bit argumentative for attention?
The person I was responding to said:
That has a very clear implication that people who use AI art tools are not "actual illustrators" or "actual artists." I think this is a position that is very much worth arguing against.
And I said:
But seems like you already answered the question.
Odd what gets under some peoples' skin. @some_guy has been following me around downvoting all of my comments everywhere I make them today. Having fun wasting all that time?