To everyone supporting AI images.

[PlanktonHatesTheWorld]

Listen, we get it. There's definitely people out there who don't care about AI images and you're one of them. Maybe you even think your prompts are some Van Gogh level wonder. Remember though, without Van Gogh's talent you could never ask for an image in his style.

Overall, I do believe AI image supporters are in the minority as far as whether or not the general populous cares about AI image creation. Once people have suspicion, they obviously care, enough to throw a stink and try to remove it. I'm speculating based on vibes because I'm human, but that's where my mind is at on it.

I suspect people who don't care about AI images also don't consider video games art either and just think a game is a game. Games are art, as much as movies and actual paintings and anything else that requires genuine creativity.

The thing is, if the Devs had not removed the AI images, there's a good chance that myself and everyone else who does care would have review bombed the game despite the fact that we like the game. AI images cheapen all actual art, including game development. There's a reason people get upset.

I imagine that in the future when the AI's have gotten to the point where they can simulate games, the developers here will be rather unhappy if someone just went online and said "Make me a game that's Project Zomboid but..." and then just used that as their "own creation" for monetary gains, when obviously, it wouldn't be their "genuine creation" it'd be a prompt made by a system that scanned and copied PZ to spit out an uninspired facsimile.

AI as a tool, is fine. AI as a "creative" force is not.

[Mirage]

Don't know why people care, artists got paid for it.

[Khergit Horse Archer]

Originally posted by funni_noises:

Originally posted by Khergit Horse Archer:

it requires training data and that comes from artist but i bet none of em got paid for their work lol

its happening in the same scene for programmers in that copilot is probably reading all of our source codes and using it to train itself

we are all rats in a giant rat race to the bottom, open your eyes sheeples

people who draw fanart do not pay the companies who own the characters they draw either... you should not have to pay someone to draw in their style cause if that was the case then 99.9% of fanart would not exist

the scope isn't the same thou? the user buying an unlicensed fanart/commission isn't going to distribute it for profit, if that chain is long and wide then sure we have a case where the original trademark/copyright holder should go after them.

unless you are talking about a user buying a fanart/commission and then using it in a commercialized game?

[Bomb ass dank ass down up north]

who cares

[funni_noises]

Originally posted by Khergit Horse Archer:

Originally posted by funni_noises:

people who draw fanart do not pay the companies who own the characters they draw either... you should not have to pay someone to draw in their style cause if that was the case then 99.9% of fanart would not exist

the scope isn't the same thou? the user buying an unlicensed fanart/commission isn't going to distribute it for profit, if that chain is long and wide then sure we have a case where the original trademark holder should go after them.

unless you are talking about a user buying a fanart/commission and then using it in a commercialized game?

does not matter what it is used for as with most of these people will harass people for using ai at all. even go after them if it is just an assumption with no proof. according to them the use of ai makes you no better then a criminal. it is witch hunting and many artists that do not use ai have been attacked just because someone said it was ai and everyone jumping at them to join in on the hunt.

[Frogging101]

You have no way of knowing who here has or had solidarity with what though :P

Maybe """they""" weren't there. Maybe "they" were too young to have an opinion. Maybe "they" did speak up about what you think they should have spoken up about, but not somewhere you could see it.

"You didn't have solidarity". It's an accusation directed at an imaginary person, or a completely different person, or at a group that you can only assume someone belongs to.

[wirewitch]

Originally posted by funni_noises:

people who draw fanart do not pay the companies who own the characters they draw either... you should not have to pay someone to draw in their style cause if that was the case then 99.9% of fanart would not exist

Fan-art is a symbiotic relationship with the studios and companies who own the Intellectual Content. The amount of money THEY SAVE because they essentially get an entire community, doing the work for them, for free.

[Khergit Horse Archer]

Originally posted by funni_noises:

Originally posted by Khergit Horse Archer:

the scope isn't the same thou? the user buying an unlicensed fanart/commission isn't going to distribute it for profit, if that chain is long and wide then sure we have a case where the original trademark holder should go after them.

unless you are talking about a user buying a fanart/commission and then using it in a commercialized game?

does not matter what it is used for as with most of these people will harass people for using ai at all. even go after them if it is just an assumption with no proof. according to them the use of ai makes you no better then a criminal. it is witch hunting and many artists that do not use ai have been attacked just because someone said it was ai and everyone jumping at them to join in on the hunt.

if we just scope it down back to the original context, theres many reasons to argue why ai was at least involved, due to artifacts that are commonly associated and mistakes that are too detailed to be deliberately made.

i think at the very least, ai art should be labeled as such. and btw steam requires any game to use tags(?) or description to denote ai assets were used.

[TrollFaceIncident]

i really think it should have a option to enable it in the settings , if the people dont like it , just disable , it think it was so cool , idk why they removed it :(

[funni_noises]

Originally posted by Khergit Horse Archer:

Originally posted by funni_noises:

does not matter what it is used for as with most of these people will harass people for using ai at all. even go after them if it is just an assumption with no proof. according to them the use of ai makes you no better then a criminal. it is witch hunting and many artists that do not use ai have been attacked just because someone said it was ai and everyone jumping at them to join in on the hunt.

if we just scope it down back to the original context, theres many reasons to argue why ai was at least involved, due to artifacts that are commonly associated and mistakes that are too detailed to be deliberately made.

i think at the very least, ai art should be labeled as such. and btw steam requires any game to use tags to denote ai assets were used.

My involvement in this thread was to fight misinformation about ai as most of the people here were spouting the same stuff that others say without doing any research on how it works. hating something cause of what others said without looking into it yourself is a dangerous thing and that is what most anti ai people do.

[Khergit Horse Archer]

Originally posted by funni_noises:

Originally posted by Khergit Horse Archer:

if we just scope it down back to the original context, theres many reasons to argue why ai was at least involved, due to artifacts that are commonly associated and mistakes that are too detailed to be deliberately made.

i think at the very least, ai art should be labeled as such. and btw steam requires any game to use tags to denote ai assets were used.

My involvement in this thread was to fight misinformation about ai as most of the people here were spouting the same stuff that others say without doing any research on how it works. hating something cause of what others said without looking into it yourself is a dangerous thing and that is what most anti ai people do.

there was a massive reddit thread with many of the tells, i dont agree with many of them but some of the points are irrefutable unless you want to argue artist just made a teehee mistake

[Owl]

Originally posted by funni_noises:

Originally posted by Khergit Horse Archer:

if we just scope it down back to the original context, theres many reasons to argue why ai was at least involved, due to artifacts that are commonly associated and mistakes that are too detailed to be deliberately made.

i think at the very least, ai art should be labeled as such. and btw steam requires any game to use tags to denote ai assets were used.

My involvement in this thread was to fight misinformation about ai as most of the people here were spouting the same stuff that others say without doing any research on how it works. hating something cause of what others said without looking into it yourself is a dangerous thing and that is what most anti ai people do.

You're spreading misinfo by claiming AI art is art, it isn't. You are not an artist, this is exactly what a monkey on a typewriter does.

[HUNTER]

It doesn't matter, iirc PZ is a one-man job, so auxillary art being generated doesn't matter, and it def doesn't matter in general.

[funni_noises]

Originally posted by Owl:

Originally posted by funni_noises:

My involvement in this thread was to fight misinformation about ai as most of the people here were spouting the same stuff that others say without doing any research on how it works. hating something cause of what others said without looking into it yourself is a dangerous thing and that is what most anti ai people do.

You're spreading misinfo by claiming AI art is art, it isn't. You are not an artist, this is exactly what a monkey on a typewriter does.

Art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. got that from one single search. ai requires a humans imagination as it needs a prompt which is up to the persons imagination and creativity. the ai is the tool that turns it into art.

[funni_noises]

Originally posted by funni_noises:

Originally posted by Owl:

You're spreading misinfo by claiming AI art is art, it isn't. You are not an artist, this is exactly what a monkey on a typewriter does.

Art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. got that from one single search. ai requires a humans imagination as it needs a prompt which is up to the persons imagination and creativity. the ai is the tool that turns it into art.

without a person there is no image for the ai to produce. therefor nothing to look at and appreciate.

[xAlphaStarOmegax]

Originally posted by juan:

how can the people in this comment section support the previous ai art on the loading times is lowkey a surprise to me

I actually really liked it; I just think that it should have been touched up in certain places, like Bob's hand and Kate's tummy, which looked like it had a head growing out of it.