Thoughts on preemptively banning Gen-AI?
-
I'm afraid the result will be exactly opposite. A lot of smaller creators use AI in some form (some better, some worse), where one most probably won't ban D&D from community named "rpg" because, even with the hatred from non-D&D crowd, the interest is too big to not address it
-
Wouldn't that mean that only those who are big enough to afford commissioning art (or not be afraid to lie about generating it) will pass?
-
-
Public domain or stock images combined with an afternoon of Gimp/Krita. Had a friend who started with no experience and they managed to make some damn professional looking art for their playbook.
-
Just because you generally need a cover image doesn't mean that it's good to support systems whose primary use case is to drive real artists into hiding.
-
Sure. But wouldn't such rule mean we dismiss also those who do bring something to the table but just try to get anyone's attention?
Not if they don't scam people to do it.
-
If someone doesn't care enough about their product to actually do work on it, why should I care about looking at it? If I wanted to see AI generated slop, I'd go to one of the many megacorps that'll generate it for me rather than paying some guy on Itch.io.
-
This is indeed the thing, there is a long road between using an AI powered spell checker, and a full AI generated game. Let's go further, if a volunteer uses their deepl subscription to translate an indie game they like (with the author's permission) , and do a manual review afterward. The kind of stuff you can sometimes do for your player, is it AI slop?
-
That is right. But that is not what all AIGen stuff is. If someone creates a cool adventure but uses AIGen to make their fluff box sound like a radio speaker because they lack the skills to make it so, is that a not caring enough?
Nope, it isn't.
Cheaters should never be allowed to prosper. It undermines the entire idea that creative work is of value, and will inevitably lead to a day when artists are seen as as much of a piece of scum on someone's shoe as cashiers are.
-
Not if they don't scam people to do it.
-
Nope, it isn't.
Cheaters should never be allowed to prosper. It undermines the entire idea that creative work is of value, and will inevitably lead to a day when artists are seen as as much of a piece of scum on someone's shoe as cashiers are.
-
So you're arguing so hard to replace artists because you already don't value them?
-
It's meant to be a high bar forever.
"Generative AI" is a scam perpetrated by people who hate artists, while envying their capacity to create art, while also not understanding what art really is. Period.
-
That is a straw man. I never said banning non open source. I equated corporate "AI" with the corporate practice of stealing open source projects.
