| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please keep this discussion civil and on topic. This is not about accusing someone or call to boycott anything, this is a away to bring a topic to the attention of Paizo and asking politly for an explanation.
There has been a reddit post about the usage of AI in Feybound.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1xslgx9/ai_use_in_the_feybou nd_book/
Everybody who has access to the PDF can look for themself.
With the stance Paizo had in the past against the usage of generative AI this is a surprise and most people believe this was a case of slip up and certainly not intentional. Even though it means that qualitiy control was a bit lax on this book.
For people who are saying "This could be errors a human artist made" this is highly unlikely. If you know how artists work you can see that stairs that lead to nowhere, placements of chairs on tables that make no sense or strange patterns on carpets are something a human artist just wouldn't do.
In the case of the skewed perspektive it would take a human artist a considerable effort to do that in such a way that you can see in the picture. And the this doesn't even make sense if you take into account that this is about the fey world, a human artist would start with the right perspective and skew it in different ways.
So, please Paizo, let's have a statement about this, may it be that it was a slip up or that the policy on AI images has changed.
And again, please keep this civil and do not accuse anyone of anything. Thanks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if much needs to be said. It's inevitable that this would happen, and it says nothing about their stances, positive or negative. I guarantee they will apologize and try more diligently to catch this sort of stuff, not much else can be done or said. It would be cool if new print runs could have different art but I don't think that's in the cards. That's too expensive and too time consuming
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have nothing against the use of AI itself. However, since this is official, commercial material released by the publisher of the second-largest RPG on the market, I—as a consumer—would expect the AI-generated content to at least be curated by an artist capable of manually correcting any AI errors.
To me, AI is just another technology—no different from Photoshop (which now incorporates and utilizes AI)—that helps lower costs and increase the production scale for professionals. The issue is that, much like other technologies, when AI is used by amateurs, it tends to produce poor-quality work that is easily spotted by consumers and other artists.
Paizo needs to be careful here; a drop in quality could hurt sales of their books, which have long been highly praised for their artwork—especially given that they operate under an open-rules system, where that high quality serves as a key selling point.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what is the current percentage of artists who play "by the rules" ?
I think it is dwindling fast because modern tools include AI to deliver faster.
Yes the models have been trained through theft but that ship has sailed quite some time ago.
And we would not even be having this discussion if the artist here, if they used AI, had been more professional and cleaned up the AI slop while keeping the AI benefits. Because no one would have even thought it was AI.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have nothing against the use of AI itself. However, since this is official, commercial material released by the publisher of the second-largest RPG on the market, I—as a consumer—would expect the AI-generated content to at least be curated by an artist capable of manually correcting any AI errors.
To me, AI is just another technology—no different from Photoshop (which now incorporates and utilizes AI)—that helps lower costs and increase the production scale for professionals. The issue is that, much like other technologies, when AI is used by amateurs, it tends to produce poor-quality work that is easily spotted by consumers and other artists.
Paizo needs to be careful here; a drop in quality could hurt sales of their books, which have long been highly praised for their artwork—especially given that they operate under an open-rules system, where that high quality serves as a key selling point.
Paizo has made their stance very clear, and I agree with it. Using generative AI for images in their products isn't acceptable. Those models are trained on the work of the skilled people they replace. (This isn't a comment on Feybound, just on their policy on AI content.)
If the images in Feybound are AI-generated, then that person defrauded Paizo while stealing work away from an artist who would have played by the rules.
I understand, and if Paizo maintains a stance against using AI-generated art—and their audience appreciates and buys their products precisely because of this—that’s perfectly fine; they are targeting a specific demographic that values this distinction. It’s much like someone preferring handcrafted goods over mass-produced, industrial items.
Personally, however, I don’t really care about that. As a consumer, what matters more to me is the potential drop in artistic quality. The misuse of AI tools often results in low-quality output, which, for me, is a far more significant issue than any sort of "purism". As a professional, I know that the real difference often lies in the user: someone who lacks proper artistic training or a solid academic background in the arts simply won’t have the expertise required to correct the errors that AI inevitably makes.
It’s similar to programming: today, it’s quite easy to build software using "vibecoding" (code generated 100% by AI). The consequence, however, is code riddled with flaws—especially security vulnerabilities—that a seasoned professional would never let slip through. That’s not to say that professionals don’t use AI for programming; rather, skilled professionals know how to handle these tools far better than amateurs, avoiding most of the errors and delivering a vastly superior final product.
Returning to Paizo’s anti-AI stance: as I mentioned, there’s nothing wrong with adopting this position to appeal to an audience that demands such standards. Even if they strictly adhere to this policy, the fact remains that they were deceived by an artist—which highlights a major challenge regarding their role as curators of their own content. It’s a problematic risk that they perhaps didn’t fully anticipate.
By declaring that AI-generated material is unacceptable and marketing that promise to their consumers, Paizo has effectively taken on the responsibility of vetting every piece of content produced by their contributors. Now, they have a real problem on their hands: how exactly do they audit this? They are not in a position to analyze or verify whether everything produced was created using AI. The best they can do is exactly what the community has done: demand that editors look for the kind of poor-quality imagery often associated with AI-generated art and ask the artists to fix it—though this comes at a cost in both time and money. Now, the company finds itself backed into a corner, facing a situation that will be difficult to navigate. As far as is known, Paizo faces high production costs and tight deadlines; their anti-AI stance only adds further pressure. They certainly don’t want to lose sales by positioning themselves as an "anti-AI" company, yet they still run the risk of releasing AI-generated content—whether intentionally or simply due to an inability to properly vet the material. Worse still, given the nature of the "witch hunt" mentality among the anti-AI crowd, even content created without AI could be targeted—if it happens to contain errors or employs an artistic style that leads some to suspect AI involvement, it could trigger boycotts and negative publicity for the company.
In my view, adopting this anti-AI stance was a poorly calculated risk. Backtracking will be difficult, but ensuring the integrity of their content will be even harder.
The best course of action would be to require editors to be vigilant regarding the quality of submitted artwork—even if it means risking deadlines, incurring higher costs for human artists, or reducing the amount of art in their books (which creates its own set of issues with consumers)—or, alternatively, to admit that they cannot effectively control this and abandon their anti-AI stance altogether.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no idea whether or not these images even are AI, but I do think that that if they are that should be denoted on the product page.
Regardless of your stance on AI, I think we can all agree that the consumer should know what they're buying in full. Think of it like a nutritional label.
I think this is especially important since the books have risen in price by a lot and a lot of people have to make difficult choices on what they can/want to buy and support.
Hopefully this is just an internet sleuth being a fool.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If this is true, disappointing.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the use of AI can bring the price of these products down, I'm good with it.
I can understand the pro-consumer sentiment in this, but keep in mind it means that artist (whether producing rules elements/concepts, rules text, or visual artistry) are going to be paid less or that there are less of them. Meaning you have a more people that will be paid less or out of a job.
There is a balance to be struck, but I don't know where it's at.
Also, with Paizo specifically, all the important rules elements/text are available for free on AoN (though it can take some time for them to be available on the website after release).
In relation to the specific pictures being called out...I'm not sure if this a sloppy poor artist or AI work.
I would encourage Paizo to investigate, talk with the (presumably) hired external artist and release some public statement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For people who are saying "This could be errors a human artist made" this is highly unlikely. If you know how artists work you can see that stairs that lead to nowhere, placements of chairs on tables that make no sense or strange patterns on carpets are something a human artist just wouldn't do.
In the case of the skewed perspektive it would take a human artist a considerable effort to do that in such a way that you can see in the picture. And the this doesn't even make sense if you take into account that this is about the fey world, a human artist would start with the right perspective and skew it in different ways.
Im pretty sure you just described Mark Seifter's former place of employment so you're not exactly providing strong evidence that it's AI
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just here to add my voice to the disappointment that this squeaked through. I don't really think we have the evidence to suggest this was a top-down decision, because I suspect a lot more of the book would have GenAI artifacts. I know there's some debate, but to me those melting chairs are really suspect.
Hopefully we'll get some confirmation one way or another soon. Though if it isn't AI Paizo are going to need a bigger response than "no it isn't" because that won't convince people, I fear.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the use of AI can bring the price of these products down, I'm good with it.It would certainly do well in bringing down revenue as well.
I would cease to purchase Paizo products if they changed their stance on AI
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The artist's style is fast and loose, and that reddit post shows low-resolution images.
Nothing is definitive, yet nonetheless many feel free/righteous about dragging the artist's work on public forums.
Whoever they are, if they are reading this and they didn't use AI, they probably feel pretty terrible.
Even if this is AI-enhanced, in this day and age I think it's fairly ridiculous to expect editorial perfection from an understaffed Paizo. AI is integrated everywhere now in the tools artists use daily, such when as upscaling handmade art. Things can and will slip by the artist and the editor, it's a tale as old as time. We've all been fooled at some point. And it won't be the last time for Paizo or you or me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im pretty sure you just described Mark Seifter's former place of employment so you're not exactly providing strong evidence that it's AI
I talked about something everybody who knows some basics about art can tell you. I was not thinking about Mark in any way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I talked about something everybody who knows some basics about art can tell you. I was not thinking about Mark in any way.
Im pretty sure you just described Mark Seifter's former place of employment so you're not exactly providing strong evidence that it's AI
Not enough to know that you literally described a building Mark Seifter worked. And that's why all these supposed warning signs have me a bit skeptical. Because truth be told if PEOPLE CAN BUILD A WORSE NONSENSICAL BUILDING IN REAL LIFE then maybe you don't know much about art.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the use of AI can bring the price of these products down, I'm good with it.I can understand the pro-consumer sentiment in this, but keep in mind it means that artist (whether producing rules elements/concepts, rules text, or visual artistry) are going to be paid less or that there are less of them. Meaning you have a more people that will be paid less or out of a job.
J-Bone already had me at "lower costs", you didn't have to make it even more enticing. ^_^
Paizo would do well not to entertain the hypocritical anti-AI crowd – who love their cheap-labor smartphones & gadgets – and just declare the cold hard truth of business reality: use of AI in these times is inevitable, especially after the distributor bankruptcy that hurt them so badly. They're gonna scream, as always, but not actually follow through with their self-righteous declarations. Print a label about the use of AI into the books, so they know.
Embrace the future, for you can't do sensible Starfinder without embracing the science-fiction right in front of us.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Embrace the future, for you can't do sensible Starfinder without embracing the science-fiction right in front of us.
I have done sensible Path and Starfinder for years without embracing technology that actively harms artists, and I will continue to do so long after AI companies crumble thank you.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the use of AI can bring the price of these products down, I'm good with it.
Probably not. Paizo is in too delicate a position for that, and I don’t see how something as niche as TTRPG books could see a significant boost in sales just by lowering the price by a few dollars.
Honestly, I tend to believe that if AI was used here—which I suspect it was, given that there are too many telltale AI artifacts in the images to be mere human error (especially the way the rug blends into the low wall; that’s a classic AI glitch that humans wouldn’t make)—it was done without Paizo’s knowledge. Since the company has already taken an anti-AI stance, trying to sneak it in would be an extremely dangerous risk. It would make more sense for them to announce a change in policy first—as several other gaming companies have already done—rather than doing it surreptitiously.
However, as I mentioned earlier, even if the company makes a commitment, there’s nothing to stop third-party contractors from failing to follow it.
For Paizo, it would make more sense now to leverage well-known artists who are openly against the use of AI, using that as a selling point. The challenge, of course, is the cost, as such artists are likely in high demand for this very reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not enough to know that you literally described a building Mark Seifter worked. And that's why all these supposed warning signs have me a bit skeptical. Because truth be told if PEOPLE CAN BUILD A WORSE NONSENSICAL BUILDING IN REAL LIFE then maybe you don't know much about art.
Again, it is not about the building being nonsensical it is about they way they are nonsensical.
Yes it is possible that someone used AI to have it look that way or someone emulated the look AI has but both would need an explanation.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the use of AI can bring the price of these products down, I'm good with it.I can understand the pro-consumer sentiment in this, but keep in mind it means that artist (whether producing rules elements/concepts, rules text, or visual artistry) are going to be paid less or that there are less of them. Meaning you have a more people that will be paid less or out of a job.J-Bone already had me at "lower costs", you didn't have to make it even more enticing. ^_^
Paizo would do well not to entertain the hypocritical anti-AI crowd – who love their cheap-labor smartphones & gadgets – and just declare the cold hard truth of business reality: use of AI in these times is inevitable, especially after the distributor bankruptcy that hurt them so badly. They're gonna scream, as always, but not actually follow through with their self-righteous declarations. Print a label about the use of AI into the books, so they know.
Embrace the future, for you can't do sensible Starfinder without embracing the science-fiction right in front of us.
What a deeply unpleasant way to make your case.
I've got a suggestion. If the anti-AI stance is so onerous, why not go and prompt an AI to make you a game? I'm sure it will be just as mechanically sound and artistically consistent and you'll be free of the 'hypocrites' and never have to hear their complaints again! Those sci-fi stories about being wary of new technologies that make people's lives worse were definitely just meaningless fluff! I'm sure those lazy artists could just get real jobs as AI prompters!
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what is the current percentage of artists who play "by the rules" ?
I think it is dwindling fast because modern tools include AI to deliver faster.
Yes the models have been trained through theft but that ship has sailed quite some time ago.
And we would not even be having this discussion if the artist here, if they used AI, had been more professional and cleaned up the AI slop while keeping the AI benefits. Because no one would have even thought it was AI.
It's my stance that generative AI is profoundly useless and produces low quality and derivative content. There was already a problem of "slop" in products across all industries and a lack of creativity, and AI makes this problem worse. It can't create anything beyond what it is trained with, and it takes an immense amount of work to "clean up" generated images. In many cases "AI tools" slow down work flows significantly because the "tools" are unreliable or downright useless.
The only usage for generative AI is to get some chuckles with friends about the results you get from them and not for creating high quality assets and images for commercial use. If at any point they can make images indistinguishable in terms of technical proficiency from art, they will still not be something that can create, develop and implement a coherent and original art direction, it's not even what they're made to do. They're made to construct images through likely outcomes, and they can only reproduce what is fed into them, massively shrinking economies for derivative nonsense.
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the use of AI can bring the price of these products down, I'm good with it.I can understand the pro-consumer sentiment in this, but keep in mind it means that artist (whether producing rules elements/concepts, rules text, or visual artistry) are going to be paid less or that there are less of them. Meaning you have a more people that will be paid less or out of a job.J-Bone already had me at "lower costs", you didn't have to make it even more enticing. ^_^
Paizo would do well not to entertain the hypocritical anti-AI crowd – who love their cheap-labor smartphones & gadgets – and just declare the cold hard truth of business reality: use of AI in these times is inevitable, especially after the distributor bankruptcy that hurt them so badly. They're gonna scream, as always, but not actually follow through with their self-righteous declarations. Print a label about the use of AI into the books, so they know.
Embrace the future, for you can't do sensible Starfinder without embracing the science-fiction right in front of us.
"Embrace the future." If the future is slop, then I ain't buying.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Embrace the future." If the future is slop, then I ain't buying.
People have an erroneous idea that technology is some kind of progressive linear system with a predestined conclusion, a teleology. Ignoring how technologies are shaped by economic, social, political, and geographic pressures and is shaped along those lines. Our technologies are developed along the lines of capitalist markets and the ideological backing of liberalism and liberal democracy. Which shapes all technologies towards fast low quality disposable products for capital gain. The development of all new technologies is arrested by the situation it find itself it and is not separable from it. Under different conditions technology would develop differently, we would prioritize different things and different qualities. What is useful is determined by the circumstances.
"AI", which is an awfully generous label, mirrors capitalist production in all forms. Low quality, low effort, disposable, and build for high output at the cost of everything else. People are seduced by the name, thinking it represents the start of creating new sentient life. There is no reason to believe so and the name is a misnomer. It's a program, an algorithm, it's not an intelligence...
It's intellectually bankrupt to just identify something new as "the future" without critically thinking about what a technology does, why it exists, if it is actually useful or practical, and so on. People need to stop reading science fiction like it is prophecy. The role of science fiction is modern myth making, it isn't an oracle. You are reading parables and expecting it to divine the future.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another attack on Paizo by their own customer base. WotC couldn't care less about what their customers say, but Paizo's customers all over them, threatening them with one instance of possible AI use in this highly competitive time.
So a bunch of you stop purchasing from Paizo, punish them for their "sin", then what? Go back to WotC that doesn't care? Play D&D? That's your plan?
I know I feel bad for Paizo. They're between a rock and a hard place in a competitive field where they have to maintain market share and cut costs to compete. The big dog WotC doesn't care. They're run by a corporation who will cut costs using AI without a second thought and can absorb any customer losses with ease as they compete small businesses that listen to their customers like Paizo out of business.
I'm not too interested in attacking Paizo over something like this. They aren't some AI specialists that know when an AI image may have been used by one of their commissioned artists or used an AI image for something that didn't require extensive work by an artist.
They'll figure out what they need to do as a company with AI and how it affects business and competition including costs. I think it is better that Paizo continue to exist and offer a more customer-oriented RPG alternative to WotC who couldn't care less what their customer base thinks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People also forget that once we get true AI, we're obligated to give it rights, and will no longer be allowed to force requests on it.
So once our VIs reach that idealized AI status, we can't even use them the way we do anymore. We also have to start paying them human wages, which kind of defeats the point of why most people go to VIs in the first place, which is to get stuff for cheap. All that idealization that you don't want to pay 200 dollars for art, until the AI with rights is charging you 200 dollars because that's the market price.
These programs will never become a true intelligence. Code can ever make a sentient being, and the folks working on AI should stop deluding themselves
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another attack on Paizo by their own customer base. WotC couldn't care less about what their customers say, but Paizo's customers all over them, threatening them with one instance of possible AI use in this highly competitive time.
So a bunch of you stop purchasing from Paizo, punish them for their "sin", then what? Go back to WotC that doesn't care? Play D&D? That's your plan?
I know I feel bad for Paizo. They're between a rock and a hard place in a competitive field where they have to maintain market share and cut costs to compete. The big dog WotC doesn't care. They're run by a corporation who will cut costs using AI without a second thought and can absorb any customer losses with ease as they compete small businesses that listen to their customers like Paizo out of business.
I'm not too interested in attacking Paizo over something like this. They aren't some AI specialists that know when an AI image may have been used by one of their commissioned artists or used an AI image for something that didn't require extensive work by an artist.
They'll figure out what they need to do as a company with AI and how it affects business and competition including costs. I think it is better that Paizo continue to exist and offer a more customer-oriented RPG alternative to WotC who couldn't care less what their customer base thinks.
Nobody here is attacking anyone, we are politely asking for clarification.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a bunch of you stop purchasing from Paizo, punish them for their "sin", then what? Go back to WotC that doesn't care? Play D&D? That's your plan?
Find me one person threatening to stop purchasing books over this in this thread. The people saying they won't purchase more are talking about a hypothetical mass adoption of genAI, which is not what is happening.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Find me one person threatening to stop purchasing books over this in this thread. The people saying they won't purchase more are talking about a hypothetical mass adoption of genAI, which is not what is happening.
So a bunch of you stop purchasing from Paizo, punish them for their "sin", then what? Go back to WotC that doesn't care? Play D&D? That's your plan?
There were a couple scattered throughout the reddit thread.
As for myself, seems like an easy miss. It's a bummer that it happened, and I'd certainly appreciate Paizo commenting on it in a week or whatever it takes to do so properly, but it was small enough that I didn't catch it when I was looking through and clearly not a pivot to AI-generated images.
Find me one person threatening to stop purchasing books over this in this thread. The people saying they won't purchase more are talking about a hypothetical mass adoption of genAI, which is not what is happening.
So a bunch of you stop purchasing from Paizo, punish them for their "sin", then what? Go back to WotC that doesn't care? Play D&D? That's your plan?
the linked reddit thread has more than a few that say this. Here are my thought from another thread on this.
Anymore, there are people that scour every pixel of new media so they can pull out their digital torches and pitchforks on a snipe hunt for the dastardly AI invaders. Myself, it looks like upscaling issues. Could it be AI? Sure it could be but it could be human error too IMO. Now I'm not an AI image expert but I doubt random discord user #34756 is either so I'm unworried by it. I sure wouldn't threaten to not buy the book because of it.
So overall, it's good to bring this to Paizos attention so they can look into it but that's as far as I think it needs to go. I don't even see AI upscaling in the same category as AI generated art; it's not making or substantially altering the images. People just hear AI and get triggered.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally feel this kind of thing was bound to happen. Because Paizo contract third-party artists, one was bound to try to pull a fast one and use AI for their work. That much isn't something the company can directly affect, but what was within their power was quality control, the lack of which is what caused those images to make it to print. I'm less interested in the use of generative AI here, which is unfortunately rampant, and more interested instead in the checks and balances within Paizo that exist to make sure this doesn't happen again. Paizo is a small company that unfortunately seems to be dealing with both financial instability and a breakneck production schedule, so it's likely that whichever people in charge of overseeing the art, if any, were likely overworked and not given the proper time to go over these pieces. It's not a problem with an easy solution, because hiring more people or slowing down the production schedules are likely both things Paizo can't afford, yet neither is this kind of controversy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what is the current percentage of artists who play "by the rules" ?
I think it is dwindling fast because modern tools include AI to deliver faster.
Yes the models have been trained through theft but that ship has sailed quite some time ago.
And we would not even be having this discussion if the artist here, if they used AI, had been more professional and cleaned up the AI slop while keeping the AI benefits. Because no one would have even thought it was AI.
It's my stance that generative AI is profoundly useless and produces low quality and derivative content. There was already a problem of "slop" in products across all industries and a lack of creativity, and AI makes this problem worse. It can't create anything beyond what it is trained with, and it takes an immense amount of work to "clean up" generated images. In many cases "AI tools" slow down work flows significantly because the "tools" are unreliable or downright useless.
The only usage for generative AI is to get some chuckles with friends about the results you get from them and not for creating high quality assets and images for commercial use. If at any point they can make images indistinguishable in terms of technical proficiency from art, they will still not be something that can create, develop and implement a coherent and original art direction, it's not even what they're made to do. They're made to construct images through likely outcomes, and they can only reproduce what is fed into them, massively shrinking economies for derivative nonsense.
You are actually only partially correct. Generative AI—especially that developed for specific tasks—is evolving so rapidly that many of the specific flaws once seen in AI-generated images are far less common today than they were just a year ago. If this pace continues—and provided no insurmountable barriers are hit—it will soon become virtually impossible to distinguish AI-generated images from other types of imagery.
Furthermore, AI is not as static in its learning process as many people assume. A key driver of AI development is its ability to learn from its own outputs, rather than relying solely on its initial training data. Through trial and error, the system learns from both the successes and failures of the content it produces. (You may have noticed that almost all modern AI tools include a "like" or "dislike" button at the end of a response; these are used to feed data back into the system, allowing it to analyze the patterns that lead to favorable versus unfavorable results and refine itself accordingly. In this way, even outside of formal training, these systems are constantly improving through their own usage and user feedback).
For this reason, while I agree that AI is currently used primarily for things like creating memes, the reality is that it is in a state of constant improvement. Eventually, it will inevitably become impossible to tell the difference—unless some form of AI-identification marker is used.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
AI is a tool that is intelligence itself absent creativity or sentience. It's massive predictive processing power able to take large volumes of existing human intellectual work and produce a usable outcome far faster than a human being. It will improve human life and allow for the further creation of amazing human tools to improve our lives like better robots.
I think most companies rather than rejecting AI outright should support ways it improves upon human work rather than replaces it.
For an artist, I think AI would be great for automating some simple tasks allowing them to iterate some artwork very quickly before putting their own creative work on it once a model is created.
Storyboarding, brainstorming, and other similar activities AI can speed up will be great for artists. It's important everyone involved understand how AI tools can be used to improve a process that helps human creativity rather than hurts it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What a deeply unpleasant way to make your case.
I don't give a rat's ass about how pleasant people feel about technology. 99% of people dislike nuclear weapons – did it matter?
AI is the future. It's as inevitable as death, and the anti-AI crowd is a collective mass psychosis going through the stages of grief:
• Denial: Numbness, shock, and refusing to accept reality to help pace the emotional pain.
• Anger: Frustration and helplessness directed outward or inward when reality sets in.
• Bargaining: "What if" or "if only" thoughts trying to negotiate or undo the loss.
• Depression: Deep sadness, isolation, and quiet despair as the full weight of the loss hits.
• Acceptance: Coming to terms with the reality of the situation and learning how to move forward.
It's pretty obvious once you see it, e.g. the "slop"-claimers still being at stage one, while most have moved to stage two, and some already trying stage three.
Most people will catch up eventually, and so there's no reason for Paizo to be stuck in there, instead embracing the future ahead of time.
I've got a suggestion. If the anti-AI stance is so onerous, why not go and prompt an AI to make you a game? I'm sure it will be just as mechanically sound and artistically consistent and you'll be free of the 'hypocrites' and never have to hear their complaints again!
*yawn* You're already half a year behind the curve. That has already been happening, and the only reason it's not widespread is because AI companies are actively restricting their models from doing that.
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/anthropi cs-ai-model-is-now-blocking-attempts-at-video-game-recreation-and-cloning-u sers-also-claim-non-malicious-generic-reverse-engineering-tasks-are-blocked
https://www.404media.co/reverse-engineer-anything-ai-companies-crack-down-o n-the-coolest-thing-people-were-doing-with-ai/
https://mezha.net/eng/news/mezha-9c99119968df94af982efbda_shedeur_sanders_n amed/
Maybe try keeping up with the present before commenting on the future?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I said in the main Feybound thread, having seen the images and my experience with art, I don't believe the images being accused are gen-AI. I'm sure Paizo will double check and either tell us if it isn't or make clear how they'll avoid this repeating in the future if it is. Regardless of the bizarre debate happening here, Paizo has been clear that they will not have gen-AI in there work, and they've earned enough good will I think that if the images do turn out to have been gen-AI I presume its a mistake and not a backslide on their part.
As for that previously mentioned debate, gen-AI runs on industrial scale theft, is bad for the environment, harms workers, and I'm sure I'm forgetting more examples of why it is unethical to use. That is all before pointing out that it is literally incapable of creativity or originality, making it the last thing I want anywhere near my TTRPGs. It is not inevitable, and to act like it is is to buy into the propaganda of the people selling it to you. I am also being very specific in my wording: AI as a term incorporates countless software features that are totally mundane and have numerous uses. Gen-AI is the bugbear here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I said in the main Feybound thread, having seen the images and my experience with art, I don't believe the images being accused are gen-AI. I'm sure Paizo will double check and either tell us if it isn't or make clear how they'll avoid this repeating in the future if it is. Regardless of the bizarre debate happening here, Paizo has been clear that they will not have gen-AI in there work, and they've earned enough good will I think that if the images do turn out to have been gen-AI I presume its a mistake and not a backslide on their part.
As for that previously mentioned debate, gen-AI runs on industrial scale theft, is bad for the environment, harms workers, and I'm sure I'm forgetting more examples of why it is unethical to use. That is all before pointing out that it is literally incapable of creativity or originality, making it the last thing I want anywhere near my TTRPGs. It is not inevitable, and to act like it is is to buy into the propaganda of the people selling it to you. I am also being very specific in my wording: AI as a term incorporates countless software features that are totally mundane and have numerous uses. Gen-AI is the bugbear here.
This part is true. Gen-AI companies going to have to find a way to pay the artists they scrape or suffer mass lawsuits against them. Right now Gen-AI scrapes a massive number of existing web sites with copyrighted material to produce gen-AI videos and images and writing. That definitely needs to be dealt with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This part is true. Gen-AI companies going to have to find a way to pay the artists they scrape or suffer mass lawsuits against them. Right now Gen-AI scrapes a massive number of existing web sites with copyrighted material to produce gen-AI videos and images and writing. That definitely needs to be dealt with.
This is not true. This would not hold up in court and they will not have to pay anyone. More over at least here in the USA the state is in the pocket of Tech and is doing thing at it's behest
This part is true. Gen-AI companies going to have to find a way to pay the artists they scrape or suffer mass lawsuits against them. Right now Gen-AI scrapes a massive number of existing web sites with copyrighted material to produce gen-AI videos and images and writing. That definitely needs to be dealt with.This is not true. This would not hold up in court and they will not have to pay anyone. More over at least here in the USA the state is in the pocket of Tech and is doing thing at it's behest
What part is not true? That the AI-programs scrape the net for training? What do you mean?
I don't spend much time believing in boogiemen that force the state to do their bidding. Tech is a highly competitive industry with competing interests. Not a singular entity with rulers that have the power to make the government do their bidding. Microsoft's CEO and Google's CEO are in competition, which one would the state favor when they are competing? How would they sort that out?