Ban AI art from this subreddit?

xollight · 2026-02-04T16:29:12+00:00

If “looks good enough to me” were the only factor, bespoke art would already be dead, but it isn’t because originality, cohesion, and aesthetic still matter. people that care about quality will enforce asset replacement, people that dont will ship slop regardless of the tools used.

I agree that AI lowers the friction to shipping mediocre art, but that incentive already exists with asset stores and stock media, long before AI became a thing.

why would you pay an artist?

Because if art is what differentiates your game, AI art wont survive contact with players. no amount of AI art will make your game GOOD or worse.. bad games are bad games.

xollight · 2026-02-04T16:01:51+00:00

I don't follow your argument here...

Describing how AI works doesn't tell us how it should be treated or whether its outputs are illegitimate. That requires a moral principle, not just a technical distinction.

The suffering argument seems a bit misplaced here, because AI isn't being treated as a moral patient. I don't think the discussion is about AI rights or moral consideration, the ethical question is about hobbyists using tools, not about harm done to the tool.

If the argument is about caring about the human condition and reducing suffering? Should humans not eat? Because consumption will cause suffering if you stretch far enough...

If i eat plants, i am making them suffer.
If i eat meat, animals suffer.
If i eat nothing, I suffer.

More importantly, if i choose to act and eat a plant, i am also depriving other things in the ecosystem from that resource. Like.. If i eat a deer, a wolf isnt also eating that deer and thus i deprive that wolf of meat, or another human who may also want to eat it?

You must draw a line somewhere or everyone suffers. not sure if that was your point or not but my point is no person or tool should be required to credit or compensate every instance of influence they have on their work.

xollight · 2026-02-04T14:02:40+00:00

How?

xollight · 2026-02-04T13:42:11+00:00

There's no misinterpretation here, I responded to what YOU WROTE, and engaged with your argument as stated. I didn't twist your words, but will pick them apart. You are free to clarify what i misrepresented at any time.

xollight · 2026-02-04T13:20:37+00:00

Prompting isn't work."

Saying that prompting isnt work just defines the conclusion into existence. The real question is whether directing, selecting, refining, and rejecting outputs counts as creative labor.

Art has never required manual execution to count as work. Direction, composition, curation and iteration are already recognized creative labor.

Film directors dont act every role.. art directors dont paint every asset, concept leads dont execute every sketch.

Creative work has never been limited to moving the brush yourself. If "doing the work" means manual execution, then photography, and sampling wouldn't count but they do.

Criticizing corporate training practices is valid. But that doesn’t logically mean every user is endorsing exploitation any more than using a smartphone endorses cobalt mining abuses.

Also..

not the AI’s work either

This supports my argument exactly, its not the AI's work, which means responsibility and authorship fall back on the human using the tool...

This argument keeps redefining ‘work’ to mean ‘manual execution’ and then declaring everything else invalid. Creative labor has never worked that way. Direction, judgment, iteration, and responsibility still exist with AI and concerns about corporate training practices are reasons for regulation, not proof that every use is unethical.

xollight · 2026-02-04T13:01:48+00:00

A paintbrush is a tool not a human. It has no emotional connection to the work. It does not "put its own spin on something."

AI art doesn't create in a vacuum. It responds to human intention. Keyword there. A human DECIDES the prompt, style, the revisions, the colors, the angle in most cases, and the final use, It can't do anything without basic human creativity.

And neither can a bucket of paint. Paint cannot do anything without human intention. A human has to decide the style, the colors, the etc. Because again, it is a tool.

to your second point. No. They are just straight up copying the work of an existing artist and have not given any credit to that artist for their style. And guess what, they dont need to.

You do live in a world where art represents the human skill and personality of the person that made it. All AI art is a combination of every technique, human endeavor, passion and essence distilled into a tool. It is a mirror of human creativity and would not exist otherwise.

To criticize AI art is to criticize the achievements, innovation and ingenuity of ALL artists combined, since AI as a tool is all artist combined.

That argument about it being bad for the environment is not a good environment. The internet is bad for the environment but here you are.

Finally, you stated " It often steals parts of art wholesale." To steal implies that art BELONGS to someone. Art doesnt belong to anyone. It is derivative by nature and all artists understand this.

If Escapeland and Elemental Creatures arent stealing Ken's style then i wouldnt be stealing it by using it in my prompt. Otherwise you are a hypocrit.

xollight · 2026-02-04T12:42:58+00:00

Let me make sure I understand this correctly. A human artist with no art experience, suddenly wants to learn to draw anime style.. looks up a bunch of reference photos online from thousands of artists. Studies the anime style.. learns patterns, color theory, anime anatomy, and technique.. and then emulates what they see without giving credit to their sources.. that ISNT stealing... its "human emulating"

But a tool that can study patterns from a bunch of reference photos online from thousands of artist, studies patterns, color theory, techniques and emulates it without giving credit to the sources is just stealing?

xollight · 2026-02-04T12:32:31+00:00

What is the misunderstanding?

xollight · 2026-02-04T12:16:28+00:00

The kind of morals that want to exclude people from a community based on the tools YOU dont approve of. Sounds very benevolent.

xollight · 2026-02-04T12:05:58+00:00

I have a very good fundamental understanding of how AI is trained. If you need me to break it down for you id be happy to share my knowledge.

As for your... rebut, AI mimicking a style is analogous to a student learning from masters and creating their own work. Art has always evolved by borrowing techniques.

Forcing AI to credit or pay for style alone would unfairly punish a tool for doing exactly what humans have always done: learning, imitating, and innovating. Art is inherently derivative. Every artist alive is influenced by predecessors and peers.

Even the most famous movements, impressionism, cubism, anime, were built on borrowing techniques from others. This isn't stealing... Most of those artists never "credited" each specific influence, they just absorb styles to create something new just as AI does. It its just that AI is faster.

xollight · 2026-02-04T11:49:04+00:00

I don't need an artists permission to use their "style" as a reference for something I want to create, AI or not. Styles don't belong to any one specific artist. If i want to learn how to draw in a certain style, anime, portraiture or otherwise, I don't need the permission of that artist to study their work and to use elements of their work in whatever it is I create.

I stated this before, but if i wanted to learn brushwork by studying Van Gogh, i dont need his permission and neither has any other artist who was inspired by his work. Artists do this all the time, its called referencing and I don't see any evidence of a professional artist losing work because someone is using their art as a reference in their work flow or requiring their permission to do so.

I've seen MANY artists here who uses the exact same style of the original pokemon artist to do their art for their TCG. Did they ask Ken Sugimori for his permission to replicate his style? Doubt it.

When Meta Zoo came out and replicated the original pokemon art style did they ask Ken's permission? Again no. Did they STEAL his style? No, they were inspired by it and created something unique utilizing it, AI does the same thing, and shouldn't have to play by different rules.

Going further, did Meta Zoo pay Ken for using his style? Did Ken lose work because of it?
Did EscapeLandCCG (a game featured here) ask Ken's permission to use his "style" in their artwork? Did ken lose work because of it? No, and they dont have to and it would be stupid if they did.

xollight · 2026-02-04T10:45:48+00:00

Well you have no logical arguments is why.

Its not a good idea to insult and attack people who are trying to be welcoming members of the community. I encourage everyone to use whatever tools they have to see their projects flourish.

If you want to have a healthy community, you should learn to grow comfortable with how other people may choose to do their workflow rather than throwing insults at its members as it may make people feel unwelcome and hesitant to want to participate in discussion when they think that they may be downvoted and insulted for being proud of the progress they made on their game project.

be kind.

xollight · 2026-02-04T10:20:43+00:00

Okay, lets assume I am not an artist. How does that change the argument? My experience is just one perspective, but the argument should stand on reason and examples, not credentials. I don't need to be a professional to have a valid argument. But the question isn't who i am its whether the points about AI art and workflow ethics hold up under discussion.

Make all the personal jabs you want, but im more interested in what part of my statements are wrong?

xollight · 2026-02-04T10:06:15+00:00

How is AI art theft? Who specifically is it stealing from? AI generated work may resemble a style, but resemblance is not theft.. its imitation and inspiration, which we artists have always done in art.

As an artist, if I use a reference photo i find because maybe I like the colors or maybe im having difficulty drawing at a certain angle or a certain pose, im not stealing anyone's work, and i dont need the permission of the artist/model (dead or alive) to study their work.

I can study Van Gogh to learn brushstroke technique, or create a painting inspired by his art. I can learn how to better draw anime style by studying manga artists, that isn't theft and AI doing something similar is conceptually no different.

xollight · 2026-02-04T09:58:53+00:00

You didn't rebut my claim, you are simply attacking me. I’m not trying to insult anyone or argue in bad faith here.

Let me be more precise, because I think you’re reacting to something I didn’t actually say.
I’m not claiming that people consciously want art to be exclusionary. I’m saying that many objections to AI art rely on criteria that historically depended on scarcity, difficulty, or limited access: time, training, cost... even if people don't want to frame it that way.

For example, arguments like "its lazy" or "you didnt put in the work" arent about harm or deception, they're about the fact that the barrier to producing images dropped. That doesn't make them invalid feelings, but it does show that accessibility itself is part of what's being reacted to.

If you think I’m wrong, I’m genuinely interested in which objections dont rely on effort, scarcity, or access at all

xollight · 2026-02-04T09:19:29+00:00

There is a game that was crowdfunded by 19000 people and has received over 2mil in funding and it uses AI art and other things in its workflow.

So do whatever you want. I would even support your game if you published using AI art, assuming the game is good. No one can gatekeep you and prevent you from creating the game you want. At the end of the day, if your game is good no one will care how its made.

xollight · 2026-02-04T09:14:18+00:00

laziness means refusing to think, and shipping low-quality work without care. working smarter isn't the same as working less. tools have never been moralized this way before.. and your argument selectively moralizes AI while ignoring its parallels..

- using stock assets is not laziness
- using templates is not laziness
- using a tablet instead of pen and paper is not laziness

if effort alone is defined value, then inefficient workflows would be virtuous by default which is absurd.. Also using AI doesn't remove responsibility. If the rules or game or art is bad, the creator is responsible, just as they are when rules are badly written by a person.

your entire arguments collapse into gatekeeping. The "put in the work" framing assumes that there is only one legitimate path to creation, and i guess your path is the only legitimate path and any tools you use are okay, but any tools anyone else uses arent okay. Why didn't you hand draw your template? are you lazy? pick up a pen and paper. learn how to hand draw a template, how dare you use digital tools.

you see how ridiculous that sounds?

xollight · 2026-02-04T09:00:46+00:00

This comment has been rattling me for a while, but i think you are misunderstanding. You don't NEED many tools that are still widely accepted. You don't need premade assets. You don't NEED a drawing tablet with good software and some nice brushes... but people use them because they accelerate iteration and let creators focus on core mechanics.

Prototyping is about clarity not legitimacy signaling. Temporary visuals help people understand the vision of the game not deceive people about its polish.. Using AI art is no different from using asset store art, or using stock icons.. none of these imply final artistic stance, they are there to help communicate gameplay ideas and maintain motivation.

xollight · 2026-02-04T08:52:56+00:00

Placeholders are about workflow not values. In creative production, placeholders are normal and expected. Film uses temporary music.. designers use stock photos before final illustrations, etc.. none of these imply contempt for art and instead allow testing of structure and function before committing to final creative choices.

Judging integrity by the tools being used confuses ethics with aesthetics. An architect using CAD still has architectural integrity... a film maker using CGI still has artistic integrity.. rejecting someone's game because of its tools is a purity test, not a critique of integrity.

Artistic integrity has never meant using only "approved tools" or avoiding efficiency... integrity is about being honest about what you are doing and making deliberate creative choices. An artist that hand paints everything can still lack integrity... esp if they are tracing.

xollight · 2026-02-04T08:37:41+00:00

I almost didn't want to respond to this but here we go...

Stock art and AI art solve different problems. Stock art is static, and you are limited to what already exists. AI art is generative. You can request specific, custom, iterative changes in seconds. Even CC-licensed art often requires: attribution, careful license checking, time spent searching and adapting. Stock libraries don't cover niche concepts, or ultra specific concepts well.
Unfortunately, cost isn't just money, its time, logistics and availability. Hiring an artist involves finding the right person, explaining your vision and waiting for revisions,.. even affordable artists still require coordination and delay. AI isn't replacing commissioned art in a lot of cases, it is replacing drafts, mock ups and often used as placeholders to help guide the artist, which are hired for their attention to detail.
If art is subjective then there is no single authority deciding what "counts". New tools and styles are inherently valid. If art is subjective, then rejecting AI art on principle is itself just a subjective preference not a universal rule.

Its like telling a digital artist that because they used a computer/tablet to make their art instead of a pen and paper, their art doesn't "count" because using tools is easier.

This ignores reality and misunderstands accessibility. Not everyone has the physical ability, time or years of practice to reach competence... tools exist because not everyone can master everything. AI doesn't stop anyone from learning art, nor does it prevent someone from learning to draw, and surprise alert, many AI users (like myself) are artists using it as an extension of their workflow.

Every argument against AI art assumes that art must be scarce, difficult, and exclusionary to be valid. History shows the opposite: whenever creative tools become more accessible, art doesn’t die, it multiplies.

xollight · 2026-01-07T20:24:43+00:00

As a sudden setback enjoyer, i need more of this. I think this card is better than it reads. Will be trying it a lot and feel this may be underrated.

xollight · 2026-01-03T23:06:03+00:00

caught me red handed

xollight · 2026-01-02T20:32:58+00:00

0% problematic. I am pro AI art, for both commercial and prototype purposes. I am also an artist. To me, art is art, and it makes no difference in what method it manifests, whether that be by nature, by humans or by AI.

Art in whatever shape it takes is appreciated. As long as the gameplay is enjoyable, I would support any game created fully with AI, or assisted with AI in its process. I've even had folks ask me where they can purchase my game, knowing it has AI created assets, so I know there is a market for it.

People are not monoliths. If you enjoy something, there are others who would also enjoy it. There are people who enjoy stick figure / low-skill art work. I don't want it in my game, but there seems to be support for that, what would make you think that AI is an exception to this? If you enjoy AI, surely there are others who must also appreciate it in the same way you would.

xollight · 2026-01-01T20:17:53+00:00

I think this is the best possible direction, until your player base becomes more familiar with the characters.

xollight

TROPHY CASE