The Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game franchise says it won’t allow artists to use artificial intelligence technology to draw its cast of sorcerers, druids and other characters and scenery.
Of course not, they want new stuff; artwork that evolves over time and feels fresh. Automatic generative art algorithms aren’t capable of that.
And artists are?
Yes? That’s how art has always worked.
Nothing new under the sun.
That’s not why at all. This happened because someone published AI art with a wonky limb and people noticed. “Generative art algorithms” are completely capable of producing art that feels new and fresh. The biggest problem with them currently is producing art that is undetectable as AI art.
The biggest problem with them currently is producing art that is undetectable as AI art.
I don’t really buy that for the most part. A lot of generative AI art looks real generic and undetailed. It could very well pass for human art but I’ve yet to see anything that looks good.
That’s fine, I don’t need their artists to illustrate anything for the characters I play or adventures I run. I do it myself with Stable Diffusion.
Sure, that’s great. However this is in regards to material published by Hasbro. Were I an author, I would want to employ an actual illustrator or artist to work on my material that’s published to an audience.
I believe it’s a good thing that Hasbro has taken this stand; that artists should be employed to illustrate their material.
Artists use AI tools too.
Which is exactly what the article said. Hasbro said artists for their D&D products will not use AI.
You said “artists should be employed to illustrate their material” and I was pointing out that allowing AI tools to be used doesn’t interfere with that.
@Madison_rogue it does. The artwork was detected as being created with AI due to significant quality issues, not through thorough forensic analysis/mathematical models.
Any artist can do shoddy work with any tools. If shoddy work is the problem, ban that.
That’s not what Hasbro wants, though, and it’s completely within their rights to have this stipulation for artwork that is tied to their brand. You sound offended by their decision, when their decision will likely result in more humans being employed and valued for their human contributions. Seems like a strange thing to have a problem with. No one is saying you can’t make your own personal D&D art with AI tools.
Of course they can do it. I’m saying that they shouldn’t do it. I’m giving my opinion that they are making a bad decision here. It will result in poorer quality books in the long run because they are needlessly hobbling their artists.
Okay, I get your point now. If all artists had your stance and felt this hobbled them, then I’d understand thinking Hasbro’s decision is wrong. But not every artist agrees with you. This is reminiscent of the argument between digital and physical art, with digital artist’s struggle to be seen as viable against oil painters and other physical media artists. Except digital isn’t any better or worse, they’re simply different mediums. You could argue pros and cons for both types, but in the end everyone is entitled to the medium they prefer. This includes AI assisted artwork. If someone prefers digital art but wants no AI influence, that’s up to them since art is entirely subjective.
This is a perfectly valid direction for Hasbro to want to take, and they’re the ones who get to make the call. Not every artist feels hobbled by being barred from AI tools, some artists prefer to avoid AI entirely. There are plenty of people who would happily accept these jobs.
Like cool story bro do you honestly think people didn’t know what you meant? Or did you just want to get a bit argumentative for attention?
The person I was responding to said:
Were I an author, I would want to employ an actual illustrator or artist to work on my material that’s published to an audience. I believe it’s a good thing that Hasbro has taken this stand; that artists should be employed to illustrate their material.
That has a very clear implication that people who use AI art tools are not “actual illustrators” or “actual artists.” I think this is a position that is very much worth arguing against.
And I said:
Like cool story bro do you honestly think people didn’t know what you meant? Or did you just want to get a bit argumentative for attention?
But seems like you already answered the question.
I work in an industry that will be heavily effected by AI over the next few years. My own opinion is that if you do not embrace and understand AI in your workflow, as a digital creative, you will be left behind. It is one thing to ban AI in your domain, like Hasbro has done, but a different matter where you are competing with other companies or creatives for the same business.
A few years ago, you’d see comments just like this but with Blockchain instead of AI.
True, but I feel this change may be a bit deeper. Blockchain served very little purpose, beyond its trust. With AI i am seeing proof of concept projects coming in for distilling client briefs, ideation of concepts and even release planning. Not replacing the people yet, but making processes faster. And that is just in my industry. Marketing and advertising.
The other issue with ai art folks seem to be forgetting is, in the US at least, it can’t be copyrighted. The law is still fuzzy right now, but no company is gonna want to risk using anything they might not be able to copyright.
So what is the art in question that people realized was AI generated?
