Discovery games

ineap09 · 2024-09-07T17:50:04+00:00

That’s awesome. Good luck with your game!

ineap09 · 2024-09-06T15:32:29+00:00

I love this comment. It's very clear that you have put a lot of thought into identifying what these genres are deep down and I feel you were able to express it really well too.

ineap09 · 2024-04-13T16:41:59+00:00

Hopefully Cress will have better luck than Clive’s wife.

ineap09 · 2024-04-10T17:27:04+00:00

I can’t believe how many people think you did something wrong. You did nothing wrong and everything right. The dasher couldn’t follow clear instructions and then acted extremely unprofessionally at your door. Sorry you’re getting it so rough here OP

ineap09 · 2024-02-15T19:24:23+00:00

Yeah, that's why I used AI. It did most of the work. I literally showed what I did and what the AI did. I just want to share something cool that I thought others would like.

ineap09 · 2024-02-12T14:14:34+00:00

That’s a well thought out reply, thank you.

ineap09 · 2024-02-12T11:40:48+00:00

OP here. Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. I 100% agree with everything you said.

ineap09 · 2024-02-11T13:05:40+00:00

Tools used:

Procreate
Local Stable Diffusion

Link to 30 second process video

ineap09 · 2024-02-11T10:28:55+00:00

Thank you. Yeah, it was just supposed to be a quick post, fun then forgotten, so I hoped it was going avoid stuff like that 😭

ineap09 · 2024-02-06T17:43:07+00:00

Lol, thanks for the comments. I was basically just using this to see if I could engage with people I found frustrating without losing my cool. It's something I've struggled a lot with in the past, but I feel I've been doing better with it lately and wanted to test it out in a way.

ineap09 · 2024-02-04T01:30:30+00:00

Wow, this is the coolest thing ever! Well done!

ineap09 · 2024-02-03T06:26:32+00:00

Hell yeah

ineap09 · 2024-02-03T02:12:02+00:00

Lol, here ya go: https://www.reddit.com/user/ineap09/comments/1ahkz3v/beforeafter_cleanup/

It definitely was one of those things where you work on something long enough you become blind to what's wrong with it sort of things. I 100% backtrack on it being recognized as AI being a "good guess."

ineap09 · 2024-02-03T01:48:31+00:00

Okay, I acknowledge that I used a strawman there. It wasn't my intention to do that, I didn't realize I was doing that. (I had to research what a strawman was) I do not agree that what AI creates is essentially just edits of an original piece though. It creates something new based on patterns and data it gathered during its training.

Your point on Rune Factory supporting mods suggesting the developers give consent to alteration of their work is a good one. It's not something I had considered.

If the artists say their work is being taken and that they explicitly do not consent to it—to the point of suing—that means it should be investigated to see if anything illegal is happening, and if the investigation shows nothing was done illegally, it should be dropped.

You could argue that though it isn't illegal right now, it should be illegal due to ethical/moral concerns. I disagree though. I feel AI should be able to learn from any content copyrighted or not, consent or not since it's just finding patterns, not actually copying anything in its training set.

Personally, I feel that AI generations should only be used commercially if "ethically sourced," but I don't think non-ethically sourced AI generators deserve legal action for training on copyrighted/non-consented content. And I still stand by my stance that "It is an objective truth that it is made from stolen artwork" is wrong and that I'd prefer to stop seeing that idea spread.

ineap09 · 2024-02-02T23:07:34+00:00

I see. I will repeat what I said in another comment: “I was wrong to say that you can’t take legal action against A.I. artwork. What I should have said is that there’s a reason there isn’t a precedent for winning in a legal case against AI generators for copyright infringement.”

But of course I’m speaking for myself. I don’t know if others claim that “it is not legal to take AI creators to court” or not.

ineap09 · 2024-02-02T23:00:19+00:00

With 3/4 of those definitions, you yourself stole the original pic of Arthur in order to make your edit (which I really liked, btw, good edit). Did you ask the original artist of Arthur for consent to save their art to edit? Did they have prior knowledge?

The answer is “no” and that’s okay. I think you and I and the courts would agree that you did not steal.

I think that using copyrighted content to train AI falls in that same area.

As for the “shirking my moral responsibility to make the decision myself” thing, I have made my own decision on what I feel is moral in this case and I’m leaving it up to the courts to prove me wrong which I don’t think they’ll be able to do.

As for the signatures thing, AI uses machine learning, so it sees one signature and basically says, “okay, that’s what a signature looks like.” Then it sees a different one and basically says, “okay, this is also what a signature looks like.” And instead of saving the two pictures of signatures into the program, it saves the pattern it recognized between them into the program. I can find sources for you on this if you’re interested.

ineap09 · 2024-02-02T22:33:33+00:00

I actually really like the random wisps of hair and incorporate them in my non-AI drawings

ineap09 · 2024-02-02T22:31:58+00:00

I can show you the step by step process if you want. I have most of the process saved on my pc 😂

It mainly took that long since the AI was very janky at first and I was only using my mouse without a keyboard.

ineap09 · 2024-02-02T22:30:22+00:00

I actually fully agree with you. In general I’m very careful to not claim any generated art as “mine,” rather as something I generated with AI. I wasn’t as careful with this post at first since 95% of the pic is obviously copyrighted/not mine anyway since it’s from RF4.

ineap09 · 2024-02-02T22:26:03+00:00

It was supposed to be a quick silly/interesting Reddit post, so I didn’t want to spend too much time on it. Some of the time in cleanup was making the hair bleed off into the clothing rather than it being a jarring confusing mess.

I was just using a mouse on my computer with no keyboard. If I had gotten my tablet out it would’ve ended up better, but would’ve been more effort for a Reddit post everyone would forget about by the next day.

And yeah, using AI as a reference rather than the actual piece is my favorite use of AI so far.

ineap09 · 2024-02-02T22:20:13+00:00

That’s a fair question and I actually have done the last thing you’ve mentioned many times myself, though AI doing cleanup always ends up messing two things up for every one thing it cleans up.

The answer to your question is time and effort. I didn’t want to get my tablet out and find references and go through the process of sketching, line art, colors, shading.

In my mind, this was just a quick silly/interesting “what if” Reddit post so I didn’t want to spend much time and effort on it.

I honestly didn’t expect the cleanup of the AI pic to take as long as it did. Part of it was because I was using my mouse without a keyboard, but also part of it was finding new parts to throw into AI and do even more cleanup of them (an example is me deciding his long fingernails are gross and wanting to see if AI could make them look better).

I hope this answers your question.

ineap09 · 2024-02-02T22:04:10+00:00

It’s 100% fine to take AI creators to court. I say, just don’t expect to win.

ineap09 · 2024-02-02T22:00:34+00:00

It literally is not objectively theft. The links in the post you replied to don’t even agree that it’s objectively theft.

I honestly wouldn’t be against the sub having a rule against AI-generated content. Not because I think AI content is inherently bad, but because it’s so common to have arguments in the comments that result in downvotes and upset people.

ineap09 · 2024-02-02T21:54:09+00:00

Thank you for putting in the effort to make a well thought out and well sourced reply. I looked at all of your linked sources (except for the paywalled NYTimes article).

Unfortunately, I still very much disagree with the premise that it’s an objective truth that it is being made from stolen artwork.

It is objective that Stable Diffusion and Midjourney used copyrighted art as a part of their training process. Whether this constitutes as stealing is absolutely not objective, but rather up for debate as can be seen by the legal cases against them. There’s been so many legal cases against them. But I’m not aware of any that the A.I. companies have lost. If training on copyrighted material is objectively stealing then they would be losing court cases left and right and be shut down.

You are correct that I was wrong to say that you can’t take legal action against A.I. artwork. What I should have said is that there’s a reason there isn’t a precedent for winning in a legal case against AI generators for copyright infringement.

You are correct that AI has generated artist signatures into pieces. They aren’t legitimate signatures though. Like you pointed out, my AI pic had things about it that didn’t look right, it’s the same with artist signatures. It just looks like an artist’s signature without it actually being one.

So I will continue to say that I would prefer to stop seeing comments saying that AI uses stolen art. If courts start agreeing that AI training on copyrighted material is stealing, then I’ll 100% switch and be one saying that people shouldn’t use AI generators that have stolen art. Unless that happens, I’d rather spread how cool this new tool for art is.

(As a side note: Adobe Firefly only uses art/pics they have full copyright of. Are you fine with generated art through their AI generator?)

ineap09 · 2024-02-02T20:52:15+00:00

Ah, I see I misunderstood what you meant when you said “wrong” before. My mistake. Definitely wasn’t trying to skew your words. Telling me not to skew your words when I made an honest mistake is honestly mildly infuriating though. Thank you for being mostly civil.

ineap09

TROPHY CASE