‘It’s too powerful a technology’

  • millie@lemmy.film
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    People who haven’t used this tech really have it backward. This enables indie artists to create stuff on their own without corporate oversight. This interview was an opportunity to explore that, but they decided to follow the corporate line of attacking this actually successful four person studio instead of asking about what makes them tick with any actual interest.

    • thewitchofcalamari@bookwormstory.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      the thing is this indie group, have been creating boardgames since before genAI models for artwork were popular. their first game in 2016 (top 10 since its release as rated by hobbyists among over a thousand other games) and subsequent expansions on kickstarter did really well even with public domain artwork that dont even look like they fit into a cohesive set. the expansion fetching usually close to a million dollars on kickstarter each time even before retail release

      what makes the game appealing in-spite of the public domain artwork have long been discussed. so to me and possibly the journalist it seems like a question why they felt the need to use genAI art now with so many successful releases without it in the past seems to come off like not wanting to pay for better than public domain artwork

      • millie@lemmy.film
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Why does the use of AI to modify art require justification?

        We seem to have this general culture of people who don’t make things coming after those who do. Every decision of design, methodology, or artistic preference treated as though the creator has an obligation to please every single person who posts their opinions on the internet.

        The reality is that this simply isn’t true. Art that spends all its energy fretting about whether people will like it ends up being some bland bullshit produced by committee. Art that allows itself to be what it is doesn’t need opinions and suggestions to flourish.

        If the author of that article were remotely interested in their process or what the actual practical implications of using AI on a project are, they could have had something worth reading.

        Instead they went into the interview looking to push a position and badgering without listening rather than making even a passing attempt at something resembling journalism. Because ultimately they don’t care about AI, or art, or games; they care about rage clicks.