Consolidated AI Thread: A Discussion For Everything AI

Yes, true. Overall, the need for human artistic endeavours is not going to change, but the ability to earn a livelihood from it is definitely going to change. It’s not even enough that custodians can hold down their job and still pay rent, anymore. I feel like this artistic aspect may be more of a cultural shift, maybe?

I’m still going to be the girl that passes over Triple A titles for Indie titles that have cool, artistic, and clearly original artwork. It’s usually the artwork that draws me into a visual game in the first place. I think the really scary point is going to be when AI can mass-produce a single character in multiple poses exactly how the creator might want them: As in, right profile, center profile, left profile.

Trying to think of a fairly simple-looking artstyle that would be hard for an AI to currently reproduce…how about Wildermyth? Or Stormbound?

1 Like

I dunno, I would love to be able to do that for my own characters. Then again, 3D software can already do that.

1 Like

Would love that for my own DnD characters, for sure. I don’t aim to ever turn a profit off of those, and if someone pushed me to not use AI art and not use Google image search, then I’d just have to draw my own or give the DM one my preschooler’s renditions of what a half-elf looks like. Yes, she has a mustache. Deal with it.

So here’s an art style that I accidently got when I was playing around with StableDiffusion. I know exactly the prompts I used to get it, but I can’t replicate it. I can’t produce a similar looking image for this same character and I can’t produce the same artstyle look for any of my other DnD characters.

This is the prompt I used to finally be able to get this:

Prompt 1: muscular male half-orc with rosy brown skin, cream-colored hair, and plum-colored eyes, small fangs

Prompt 2: head and shoulders portrait, 8k resolution concept art portrait by Greg Rutkowski, Artgerm, WLOP, Alphonse Mucha dynamic lighting hyperdetailed intricately detailed Splash art trending on Artstation triadic colors Unreal Engine 5 volumetric lighting

Prompt 3: Blond half-orc male, rosy brown skin, purple eyes, barbarian, priest

Prompt two is a default prompt, that’s how we know it’s stealing from other artists. I’m on WLOP’s Patreon and it angers me so much that they are a default prompt.

I honestly don’t know how harmful these things are to play around with. Are they just a “fun” tool right now, or are we training them to be better and better each time we use them?

  1. I discovered it couple months back around august, I been previously waiting for about 5 years for an artist I really admired to open commissions. I came to a self realization that I won’t ever be able to get a piece from them, so I came to terms with that. Then I went through another stack of artists I liked to see if I could get commissions. But either they weren’t open or I just couldn’t afford it, the ones I could did specific selections. If they didnt pick you, I would have to wait another two months to do the process again. So I just gave up, until one night I stumbled upon mid journey and that threw me into a loop.

  2. A lot now, though I’m learning to draw as of currently and sometimes use it as references to better my techniques.

  3. Yes,I cannot see that not happening.

  4. It will never compare to human made art, bar none.

  5. Personally, It has helped me in my writing due to the easy accessibility and cost. I don’t have to wait long periods of time for anyone, but I also understand that actual hand made art isn’t easy and it’s time consuming for a reason.


Theyre actually starting to do this for Skyrim modding, and WOW it seems like a helluva great tool.
The AI creates dialogue on the fly somehow as you talk to Lydia.

Some are thinking that AI would be great for non profit works like modding and such for projects like the above. But…making an AI is so expensive that none would want to make one if they get no money out of it. Hence the whole dispute between the ai bros and creative folk. Cause im pretty sure ChatGPT is bleeding Microsoft, even with their premium subscription model they rolled out months back

This isnt even funny, thats bloody depressing! :sob:


Every time you submit a prompt/edit/otherwise interact with a generator, you are training it. That’s how the model learns. Even if you aren’t using a specific artist as a prompt, it’s trained on their data — which is the ethics violation in question, especially because companies are very much going to use it to cut costs.

Like we’re at the point of moving into animation getting ai’d. It’s not hard to imagine other creative careers being affected by it at the rate this is going


Thank you for the confirmation.

So Blizzard is joining Ubisoft and Square Enix in using AI for their games.

Not to be all doom and gloom but this is exactly what artists and writers have been warning and protesting about — AI coming in to put creatives out of work for the bottom line.

On the lighter side, anything made with AI is on shaky legal ground — as far as the USA is concerned at least. Which business wise, seems like a dicey move to greenlight anything with AI given how litigious companies are over that.

I don’t know if there are any challenges that give an affirmative opinion that AI can hold copyright, but as of now, I’m holding out for some hope.

1 Like

Nice, thank you. You’re the most recent timely reply to any of my posts. Also, you’re blue and I think you’re cute. I suck at math(s). I’m sorry. Find your Adonis. She’ll be smart-as-hell.

Well. Japan, who has notorious copyright practices (like would yt strike review channels for clips being used), is entertaining AI since it is in the “public’s interest”


Didn’t that monkey picture decision muddy the waters a ton

Not really. It wasted a lot of money and time but ultimately courts ruled that a non human cannot own the copyright of anything. It is expected that that will be the same argument in AI image generation ownership

I ran into this comment on YouTube about AI generated art/writing and it chuffed me to bits:

"Lol, if we could teach academics and students to value not to lie and value academic integrity we wouldn’t have to wonder why AI keeps being inflicted on us with no thought to the morality.

Tech companies: Free guns, free guns here… The terms of service absolve us of any personal liability for your actions. We have no issue with that because we were engineering students and had no philosophical, civic, or ethics classes.

That’s where we learned to make cool guns like these while you can enjoy a more relaxed hunting experience via AI. And because you can only use a device for the purpose and use case I designed for it and my ulterior undisclosed use case, building this better gun is all I bothered to learn before dropping out of college. Don’t let that worry you though the terms of service also forbid anyone from doing anything bad or criminal buried so deep in the text that if printed they would be on page 23. And since you glanced at that while letting the pages leaf in front of you, you are informed.

Okay ready to get your gun? Just confirm you read and understood everything on all 27 pages of that document you were handed 8 seconds ago. Oop can only confirm by telling me what that is a picture of on the last page before saying “I accept.”

That’s a guy walking across the street? If you say so… I’ll let the guys know in the autonomous driving department know.

Here’s your gun, and 25 trial bullets and a hand grenade to sample. Come back daily and we’ll give you 25 more bullets or you can buy them in our merch store because that gun doesn’t fit any bullets not sold in our merch store.

Thanks from everybody on the team! We are committed to AI breakthroughs and massive bong hits because AI-mHigh."

My personal issue with these grand, declarative statements like: “AI will NEVER replace true art” is that statements like that seem to make the human experience this deeply esoteric, near magical thing that just exists and cannot be explained.

Artists tend to be the type of people who feel their own internal emotions very strongly, which is what makes them good at self-expression, hence good artists, but that very same trait is also making them more vulnerable to be blindsighted when it comes to objectively trying to evaluate what a learning algorithm can and cannot do.

Human mind doesn’t detect and measure meaning, human mind projects meaning into things. It isn’t uncommon at all for people to find immense meaning behind absolutely mundane things, and some people are more susceptible to this than others, especially the type of people who are deeply in-touch with their own inner world.
Many artists seem to be entirely convinced that if something has deep meaning to them, that thing must have some inherent meaning in itself, which i don’t believe to be the case.

Task for the AI isn’t to create true art, but to mimic the properties of it well enough, that most people can easily project meaning into it, and i don’t believe that to be impossible at all. Current systems can’t get there quite yet, but the rate of advancement has been astonishing, and i wouldn’t be surprised at all if it only took a decade or two before these algorithms could create media that most people could easily project profound meaning into.
Quite interesting phenomenon is that quite often the favorite piece of the artist’s work isn’t their most popular piece. Sometimes they even thought the piece that made them famous was actually kinda bad. To me this tells that there doesn’t need to be a link between the artist’s own subjective feelings and the art piece’s potential to inspire others.
Another example of people projecting meaning into things comes to mind is how many of the internet memes work. Something seemingly random and mundane that happens to be seen in the right context at the right time by the right person and shared as a meme catches the attention of millions of people and then people start to create works of art involving the said thing, evolving and molding it as time goes on, and the thing becomes seemingly much more meaningful than it was only a short time ago.

My overall point here being that the way i see it, humans are very good at finding meaning in things, and i don’t see it as ludicrous that an algorithm could eventually become good enough to generate works that most people won’t have any problems projecting meaning into.
If that happens, then the whole question what is and what isn’t true art becomes kind of irrelevant.


Hopefully AI replaces artists and creative types and we can all be thrown into the mines while our AI overlords spend all day drawing 6 fingered paintings and writing poetry just to stick it to all those sci-fi promises where AI replaces labor

1 Like

Hey man, thanks for offering a differing opinion! I think you bring up a good point. However, how hilarious would it be to find that the human ability for art is indeed an esoteric experience that aliens are incapable of doing. :rofl:

Onto a more serious counterpoint, I believe the reason why creatives are fighting so hard against the AI is not just because they’ve seen the historic precedent of new tech replacing people, but because theres also a historic precedent for being able to fight against it so that millions of people arent screwed out of a job or their calling blocked. There was actually a good point made in IFHub surrounding this.

In gist, it relates to the rise of Napster: The whole trial and controversy ended with only two words actually added in legal text (Terms of Service) after the entire Napster debacle were to clarify that copies need to be “lawfully obtained.”

The music industry is an example of tech developing faster than law can keep up with. Its only the same here. I can put down money and say that the creatives arent calling for the destruction of AI (though AI bros are making people lean more into that lmao) theyre just calling to attention the bad shit that bad people have done with AI. To slow down and regulate the tech so that innocent people arent getting robbed.

I loved that meme when it first came out, it really made me think lmao


I believe the reason why creatives are fighting so hard against the AI is not just because they’ve seen the historic precedent of new tech replacing people, but because theres also a historic precedent for being able to fight against it so that millions of people arent screwed out of a job or their calling blocked.

I absolutely agree with this that artists are being poorly compensated for their work as it is, and artists, especially in countries like US, artists have a good reason to be defensive about AI taking over creative jobs, as they have very few social safety nets.
But ultimately this is not an argument about AI’s capability to provide media that people will connect with or not, but about lack of economic compensation for artists.

Only solution i personally can see is some kind of basic income, funded by heavily taxing industries using AI. Some European countries are quite close to doing this already, but getting this through in USA will be a fight.
If we lived in a world where artists wouldn’t have to do art to feed themselves due to basic income/generous welfare or whatever, this entire AI argument would be completely different. What i see is that the economic side of artists being able to feed themselves getting mixed with the argument about if AI is capable of doing art or not. These are two different discussions altogether.

If we manage to tax the companies that use AI to replace its workers, and use that tax revenue to pay for the benefits of the people becoming unemployed because of it, AI, in my opinion can absolutely be one of the greatest assets for humanity.
But if not, then it will be a dystopia.

1 Like

We can have those abstract conversations all day, but the reason why so many people don’t support AI and automation are very real. I don’t want to sound dramatic but we live in a capitalist society and we like to eat. Those UB ideas are nice but unrealistic. Nobody is going to pay us just for living.

Europe is very far from UB and the tests that were done so far came up very inconclusive, though there are still trials made, for example: Universal basic income of £1,600 a month to be trialled in two places in England | Universal basic income | The Guardian.
These extensive welfare systems are not bottomless or even that good. In order not to sound overly optimistic you might want to familiarize yourself with how they work in practice. Europe is not a welfare utopia. Many welfare recipients’ lives did in fact fall apart due to unemployment or disability.
Britain for instance, since I know the most about the situation there, has a massive homeless population.

Automation leads to real problems. Real people get hurt and they can’t be handwaved away with fantasies, like governments stepping in to keep them afloat.


Many European countries might not have complete UBS, but still have quite extensive welfare systems where being unemployed doesn’t mean your entire life is about to fall apart if you don’t find a 9-5 job.
This idea that you have to earn a regular wage or your life is pretty much over is very US centric phenomenon, at least in the west.
I don’t see that as some unrealistic pipedream not worth thinking about. Especially as AI advances and more and more people become unemployed. Eventually a critical mass will be reached and some political action has to be made to address it.

I live in Finland and have lived on welfare in the past. It isn’t that bad, and actually allows me to earn money on the side with part time jobs while still collecting welfare.
I don’t see the system we have as some absolutely unreachable utopic day dream.
We don’t have UBS, but we do have various different social welfare levels, and many of them don’t really require that much from the person using them. I could very easily see someone living off of these for years while doing art.

But to get back to the topic: Idea that a first world nation could afford to fund extensive welfare systems is not only some theory, but has already existed for decades.
As AI technology advances, volume of industry will also advance, which means there is more to tax for the government.
As long as companies are generating profit with their machines, there will be a way to tax some percentage of it.
And about the whole “US is just too big” -argument i tend to hear so much. Aren’t most of the day-to-day stuff in US handled state-by-state basis anyway? It’s not like Washington DC coordinate’s your grandma’s welfare cheque.

But i feel like this entire discussion is veering too much into politics, so i will stop. I have said everything i have to say about this matter.