It’s a demo for an unreleased game. Give them some slack. Placeholder art is nothing new. Using AI to generate it is a legit practice because you aren’t wasting an artist’s time on shit that won’t make it into the game.
Using AI to generate it is a legit practice because you aren’t wasting an artist’s time on shit that won’t make it into the game.
I’m sure those artist’s would like to earn a paycheque regardless of whether their work is in the final game or not. That’s my main beef with A.I.
Edited: The amount of slack I’m prepared to give in the case of placeholder assets depends entirely on the size and financial backing of the development team creating the game. Am I going to flip out about a small developer with very little money creating their small passion project for using AI because he can’t afford a bigger dev team. No. I’ll wish him/her all the success in the world so that they reach a point where they no longer HAVE to use A.I. to generate placeholder assets. But will I give a billion dollar company slack for using A.I. instead of paying artists? Hell no.
Long story short. If you’re a big company with the money in your couch cushions to pay artists, than PAY ARTISTS. If your a small indy dev just starting out, A.I. placeholders can help you a bit until you can afford proper artists.
Every single generative model in existence was produced by stealing the work of artists for training data.
There is no nuance to this. Never mind the argument about generative AI taking away potential future work from artists. The training of these models is theft now. To use these models is to be complicit in the theft.
Edit: the people who downvote this while making no counterargument are doing so because they wish to remain in denial, so that they do not have to admit to themselves that they are complicit in the theft.
It’s a demo for an unreleased game. Give them some slack. Placeholder art is nothing new. Using AI to generate it is a legit practice because you aren’t wasting an artist’s time on shit that won’t make it into the game.
I’m sure those artist’s would like to earn a paycheque regardless of whether their work is in the final game or not. That’s my main beef with A.I.
Edited: The amount of slack I’m prepared to give in the case of placeholder assets depends entirely on the size and financial backing of the development team creating the game. Am I going to flip out about a small developer with very little money creating their small passion project for using AI because he can’t afford a bigger dev team. No. I’ll wish him/her all the success in the world so that they reach a point where they no longer HAVE to use A.I. to generate placeholder assets. But will I give a billion dollar company slack for using A.I. instead of paying artists? Hell no.
Long story short. If you’re a big company with the money in your couch cushions to pay artists, than PAY ARTISTS. If your a small indy dev just starting out, A.I. placeholders can help you a bit until you can afford proper artists.
Every single generative model in existence was produced by stealing the work of artists for training data.
There is no nuance to this. Never mind the argument about generative AI taking away potential future work from artists. The training of these models is theft now. To use these models is to be complicit in the theft.
Edit: the people who downvote this while making no counterargument are doing so because they wish to remain in denial, so that they do not have to admit to themselves that they are complicit in the theft.
That edit: yuuup 🎯