It's ethical to buy this game due to AI?

[Charlemagne]

I've noticed that this game is filled with AI art everywhere, paintings, portraits, etc

[Thoggins]

Guess that's a personal choice. IMO using AI to fill out things like family photos and random art assets is a very practical choice for an indie game studio to make, especially when creating a low-cost game like this. Their digital artists' time was better spent working on the assets that actually impact gameplay.

[GoldRabbit]

Too bad she's dead^^

[Discombobulating]

No AI label on the store page, so either it's not AI or they're deceiving both the players and Valve.

[Charlemagne]

Originally posted by Discombobulating:

No AI label on the store page, so either it's not AI or they're deceiving both the players and Valve.

No AI doesn't mean it's not made by AI, it means that the content shouldn't be used to train AI

[Discombobulating]

Originally posted by Omnissiah:

Originally posted by Discombobulating:

No AI label on the store page, so either it's not AI or they're deceiving both the players and Valve.

No AI doesn't mean it's not made by AI, it means that the content shouldn't be used to train AI

If AI tools assisted in creating any kind of assets that's in the game it needs to be disclosed.
A.K.A ''AI GENERATED CONTENT DISCLOSURE''
Not sure if you don't understand or if you think i said NO AI label. If so what i meant is there's no labels disclosing AI usage.

[Akemie]

The images/photos are 1000% AI generated. You can easily tell that by the shading and minor mistakes a human artist with that skill level would never do. For example there is a photo of Tyler with his Dad (?) where he is holding a fish and his hands are weirdly crooked into the fish. Or the photo of the wife: Look at the paintings in the background. The flowers of the right painting blend into the frame and the frame does not have the same thickness all around.
As an artist I am all against AI. I am not sure if I would have bought the game if I knew it contains AI. But as I already had bought and played some time I figured I can live with it. I'd still prefer if the developers swapped out the AI images with stock photos you could even get for free on pixabay and such tho.

TLDR: The game is fun and I can live with the AI images even tho I hate them. At least AI photos are morally more acceptable than AI drawings that copy styles of famous artists lol.

[Legata Flavia]

AI is here to stay, there is no need to over-moralize everything due of butthurt artists.

[Civanfan]

Ethically, I think that every human artist who creates work ought to list every single influence that inspired their art throughout their lives including their teachers, parents and each and every piece of media they absorbed into their brainmeats, otherwise they're just ripping them off.

[Loot Goblin]

I don't understand what makes AI art so different from human art. No human is born with the capacity to create art. We draw from everything around us and ultimately, all human art can be said to be derivative of other human art. AI art is exactly the same thing. It learns from engaging with millions of pieces of human art how to generate similar content. Saying that AI is plagiarizing is like saying any human artist who sees a piece and draws inspiration is plagiarizing. Should every artist be required to credit or pay royalties to the artist of every piece they've ever seen? This would be the only way to be ethically consistent if we're saying AI art is unethical.

[Kali Archon]

Originally posted by Loot Goblin:

I don't understand what makes AI art so different from human art. No human is born with the capacity to create art. We draw from everything around us and ultimately, all human art can be said to be derivative of other human art. AI art is exactly the same thing. It learns from engaging with millions of pieces of human art how to generate similar content. Saying that AI is plagiarizing is like saying any human artist who sees a piece and draws inspiration is plagiarizing. Should every artist be required to credit or pay royalties to the artist of every piece they've ever seen? This would be the only way to be ethically consistent if we're saying AI art is unethical.

the ACTUAL problem is that most AI art programs don't have the permissions from artists to have their art used to train their programs. The actual solution to the "AI art" problem would be for these programs to hire artists specifically for training their programs.

[Discombobulating]

Originally posted by Civanfan:

Ethically, I think that every human artist who creates work ought to list every single influence that inspired their art throughout their lives including their teachers, parents and each and every piece of media they absorbed into their brainmeats, otherwise they're just ripping them off.

Make an AI for the AI that makes a list of all the artists the AI pulled and or trained of, should actually be do-able, AI would win once more.

[Discombobulating]

Originally posted by Kali Archon:

Originally posted by Loot Goblin:

I don't understand what makes AI art so different from human art. No human is born with the capacity to create art. We draw from everything around us and ultimately, all human art can be said to be derivative of other human art. AI art is exactly the same thing. It learns from engaging with millions of pieces of human art how to generate similar content. Saying that AI is plagiarizing is like saying any human artist who sees a piece and draws inspiration is plagiarizing. Should every artist be required to credit or pay royalties to the artist of every piece they've ever seen? This would be the only way to be ethically consistent if we're saying AI art is unethical.

the ACTUAL problem is that most AI art programs don't have the permissions from artists to have their art used to train their programs. The actual solution to the "AI art" problem would be for these programs to hire artists specifically for training their programs.

The other problem is that all the big companies will replace the majority of people working in these spaces. Resulting in them hogging even more money for themselves and getting richer, while people run out of their job, it's doing a disservice to the economical health. But also people saying AI is here to stay are the same types of people unaffected by it. Permanently lose your job which you studied years for and we'll see if you're still so cool about it.

[tmaddox]

Originally posted by Kali Archon:

Originally posted by Loot Goblin:

I don't understand what makes AI art so different from human art. No human is born with the capacity to create art. We draw from everything around us and ultimately, all human art can be said to be derivative of other human art. AI art is exactly the same thing. It learns from engaging with millions of pieces of human art how to generate similar content. Saying that AI is plagiarizing is like saying any human artist who sees a piece and draws inspiration is plagiarizing. Should every artist be required to credit or pay royalties to the artist of every piece they've ever seen? This would be the only way to be ethically consistent if we're saying AI art is unethical.

the ACTUAL problem is that most AI art programs don't have the permissions from artists to have their art used to train their programs. The actual solution to the "AI art" problem would be for these programs to hire artists specifically for training their programs.

Does a human artist need permission to study Monet, Thomas Kinkade or even the hottest Anime artist and copy their styles? If a person's art is out there for anyone to see and gain inspiration and ideas from then why shouldn't AI?

As for the AI discussion as a whole, as a 60 year old, I have to chuckle at a bunch of people playing games on a computer being afraid that AI will eliminate jobs when I can remember when the same thing was said about the computer. What happens to the accountants and bookkeepers when these new fangled machines can do it faster and more accurately?

What of the Board Game makers who saw their profits tumble when people started abandoning board games for multiplayer computer games?

[Corncutter]

Yes, it's ethical. Case closed.

[Akemie]

Originally posted by tmaddox:

Does a human artist need permission to study Monet, Thomas Kinkade or even the hottest Anime artist and copy their styles? If a person's art is out there for anyone to see and gain inspiration and ideas from then why shouldn't AI?

Originally posted by Loot Goblin:

I don't understand what makes AI art so different from human art. No human is born with the capacity to create art. We draw from everything around us and ultimately, all human art can be said to be derivative of other human art. AI art is exactly the same thing. It learns from engaging with millions of pieces of human art how to generate similar content. Saying that AI is plagiarizing is like saying any human artist who sees a piece and draws inspiration is plagiarizing.

I compare AI to a human printing out other peoples artworks, cutting out what they like and putting it back together to a "new" image. I still consider this as stealing, so yes, AI is stealing and not okay. Inspiration is a completely different thing.