AI-generated Art

[Celtic_Minstrel]

I don't understand how telling AI art from human art relates to determining of originality. If a picture is unoriginal, it looks similar to some other picture. In the other case, it's original.

Only someone who has seen every picture in existence can use that metric to determine originality. It should be no surprise that such a person doesn't exist.

[dwarftough]

Only someone who has seen every picture in existence can use that metric to determine originality. It should be no surprise that such a person doesn't exist.

And still there is no other way, there is no other method how originality or unoriginality can be determined. Except maybe google-like image search in recent years. And actually, all that matters in real life is that nobody has legal complaints about a piece of art, so what we really do is just considering how similar the piece is to known protected works. And it has no relation to AI, someone can create an unoriginal piece without any AI. How could you possibly spot it? Judgement, only judgement

[octalot]

Human judgement is not trusted, but by this logic we can't be sure in originality of any art. How can we be sure that this or that non-AI art is original? We don't use any tools generally (although one can try google the image to check), it's all about human judgement in the end. With all of its shortcomings, we have no alternatives anyway

If it's drawn by a human, then their judgement of "is it too influenced by another work" is based on the works that they've seen, which are the same ones that could have influenced the image. A single pool of knowledge, used for two purposes; and the more that the artist studied a work to learn the techniques, the more likely they'll recognise any similarity to that image.

If it's drawn by an AI, but a human has to judge "is it too influenced by another work", then two separate pools of knowledge are involved - the training set for the AI, and set of images that the human remembers.

[Celtic_Minstrel]

If someone creates an unoriginal piece without AI, you can often trace through where they got it from. That's not the case with AI (or at least, with the current AIs). The difference is that the AI obfuscates the source and makes it even harder to determine than it already is.

Certainly this isn't an issue that's unique to AI art. It's just a bigger issue with AI art compared to non-AI art.

[LibreFaso]

For information, there's an interesting and in-depth article about that topic (AI copyright issues) in Ars Technica these days : https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/202 ... ke-for-ai/

[Mabuse]

question is: can we use ai generated pic as placeholders for UMC?

if yes, wonderful, if not: good to know.


whats the decision of the men and women in charge for wesnoth?

[Pentarctagon]

It is not currently allowed.

[Mabuse]

It is not currently allowed.

good to know.

[Atreides]

This whole thing with AI is going crazy. Every day I find new prompts, new AI software that are doing a great job. I am a little bit concerned about where we will get in a few years with it, but I'm trying to seize the moment.

Mind, a lot of it is exaggerated doomsday hype.

AI as it improves will certainly change the world, but many people out there are using it as an excuse to grind their own axes...

[unterwassermann]

question is: can we use ai generated pic as placeholders for UMC?

if yes, wonderful, if not: good to know.


whats the decision of the men and women in charge for wesnoth?

you can if you dont upload it on the official addon server

[egallager]

So with Judge Howell's recent ruling in Thaler v. Perlmutter, I'm wondering if that affects this topic at all? If AI art can't be copyrighted, does that mean it can't be copylefted, either? https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-works-not-copyrightable-studios-1235570316/
Edit: direct link to actual ruling (PDF warning): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.243956/gov.uscourts.dcd.243956.24.0_1.pdf
Edit2: found a Twitter thread that claims the ruling isn't actually that big of a deal: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1692924883263533277.html

[gnombat]

So with Judge Howell's recent ruling in Thaler v. Perlmutter, I'm wondering if that affects this topic at all? If AI art can't be copyrighted, does that mean it can't be copylefted, either? https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-works-not-copyrightable-studios-1235570316/
Edit: direct link to actual ruling (PDF warning): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.243956/gov.uscourts.dcd.243956.24.0_1.pdf
Edit2: found a Twitter thread that claims the ruling isn't actually that big of a deal:https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1692924883263533277.html

Indeed, that seems like a very narrow ruling that is probably not all that relevant to this topic. I am not a lawyer, nothing I say should be considered as legal advice, but it appears to me that the judge intentionally avoided making any decision regarding most of the important issues:

Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works. The increased attenuation of human creativity from the actual generation of the final work will prompt challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary to qualify the user of an AI system as an “author” of a generated work, the scope of the protection obtained over the resultant
image, how to assess the originality of AI-generated works where the systems may have been trained on unknown pre-existing works, how copyright might best be used to incentivize creative works involving AI, and more...

This case, however, is not nearly so complex.

[Emphasis added by me.]

There are several other AI-related cases currently before the courts that are probably more relevant here. In particular there's a lawsuit over the use of Stable Diffusion.

[Mabuse]

personally i think ai art cannot be copyrighted (unless edited by human significantly as mentioned above)

i also dont see much a difference in using ai generated pictures or ai generated stories.

and thus free-to-play projects like wesnoth with no main commercial intention would benefit greaty from ai, imagine you could feed ai with thousands of 72x72 pixel art sprites (and their names etc) and then let ai generate new units. it would be perfectly possible. maybe it is even possible right now.
so every restriction that wesnoth-staff is putting on themselves, will just be to the disadvanateg of wesnoth, since the world around wesnoth will use ai. that is most sure atm.

also ai is great for story writing, unit descriptions, dialogues etc

in the NEAR future ai will write complete storybooks for movies etc, making writers already obsolete at this point.
at one day in FAR Future AI wil be able to generate movies in real time based on hat you want to see. you dont need actors anymore.
a whole industry will complety change

ai will be able to generate comeplete new levels of games while you play it, endless worlds to discover.

ofc a lot of people fear that they may be redundant in the future, and most likely they will be redundant in the classic sense.
however a dialogue writer will still be able (once he learns how to work with ai) to use ai as a tool.

[Pentarctagon]

At that point nobody will play Wesnoth anymore either, since they could just get the AI to generate a game tailored to them.

Anyway though, if/when there's a generally applicable court ruling or law passed (and not just in the USA), then things can be re-evaluated. The worst case scenario would be that we deeply integrate generative AI into Wesnoth and then it turns out we're not allowed to do that and need to undo it all. Steam has also banned a few games that have used generative AI art as well.

[Celtic_Minstrel]

So with Judge Howell's recent ruling in Thaler v. Perlmutter, I'm wondering if that affects this topic at all? If AI art can't be copyrighted, does that mean it can't be copylefted, either?

I am not a lawyer, but I would suspect that to be the case. Copyleft is in effect a copyright license that's more permissive than the norm.

and thus free-to-play projects like wesnoth with no main commercial intention would benefit greaty from ai, imagine you could feed ai with thousands of 72x72 pixel art sprites (and their names etc) and then let ai generate new units. it would be perfectly possible. maybe it is even possible right now.
so every restriction that wesnoth-staff is putting on themselves, will just be to the disadvanateg of wesnoth, since the world around wesnoth will use ai. that is most sure atm.

also ai is great for story writing, unit descriptions, dialogues etc

in the NEAR future ai will write complete storybooks for movies etc, making writers already obsolete at this point.
at one day in FAR Future AI wil be able to generate movies in real time based on hat you want to see. you dont need actors anymore.
a whole industry will complety change

ai will be able to generate comeplete new levels of games while you play it, endless worlds to discover.
ofc a lot of people fear that they may be redundant in the future, and most likely they will be redundant in the classic sense.
however a dialogue writer will still be able (once he learns how to work with ai) to use ai as a tool.

Haha, no, this is very, very far from the truth. There exists no AI right now that would be good at any form of creative writing. The generative text models used by all the so-called AIs out there right now are derivative in nature, which is the opposite of what you need for good creative writing. They're also extremely bad at putting together anything like a coherent plot. The best they can do is output something that vaguely looks like a novel but makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If your goal is to generate false fiction to add flavour to a game setting, then it might work for that, but if your goal is to produce an original work, then it's no use to you.

None of the AI tools I've seen people refer to have the capability to dynamically generate new content endlessly for a game like in Sword Art Online. That does not exist as of now. It might exist someday, but I don't know of anyone working on anything that appears to have potential to reach that. It might be a slightly easier goal to reach than using AI to write an entire novel.

As for AI art, all the tools I've seen similarly have massive flaws that render them unusable for anything where you actually care about the appearance. The AI has no understanding of form and function. It will happily give your character seven fingers on one hand and four fingers on the other, and it has no way to even know that's wrong. It has no understanding of lighting and perspective – it's more likely to output Escherian geometry than something that could actually exist in the real world.

I don't think AI will ever make writers obsolete. It might make actors obsolete someday, but not writers. Even that probably won't be in my lifetime. Rather than rendering writers obsolete, it's more likely it someday reaches a state where it's actually useful as a tool for writers. For example, one common issue when writing is that it's difficult to find the right words to convey what you want. An AI could help work out ways to rephrase or flesh out a sentence or paragraph.

tl;dr: You're way off base. AI may indeed be an exciting new field, but it'll be years, decades, maybe even centuries before it can match a real human.

Even if/when that day comes, I doubt it'll t be one of the existing AI tools. You'll probably need to have a dedicated "novel-writing AI", or "portrait-drawing AI", or "landscape-drawing AI", that understands what it's creating rather than just blindly smudging a bundle of inputs into something that vaguely looks like your target.