I’ve been reading about the user revolt on the Twin Peaks subreddit calling for a ban on AI art. As best I can tell we don’t really have people posting AI stuff here yet, but I’m wondering if it would be a good idea to ban it before it becomes a problem. I’m soliciting feedback from y’all on this, please let me know what you prefer.
Or willing to, y’know, use stock art or not include art, and damn the people who think TTRPG books only have value insofar as they have lots of new pictures.
I share the view that rpg content mostly does not need images. But I can bet it sells better and gets better reach when it does
I have personally found that art from fairytale stories that’s too old to have copyright can be a fun way to fill in little margins and decorate things. There are some sites that make them available with an explicit “this is way out of copyright, you can use this for whatever you want but please credit us for supplying it”
That’s great. And it should be encouraged. But what about modern+ settings?
Oh definitely, it’s not a universal solution. Just figured I’d mention a less obvious option that has helped me out before
So… you have no concrete support except a gut feeling?
I have an example where I’m sure the dry presentation does a disservice to the content. For someone who does not care about AI vs no-AI, it will look less professional than the titles next to it. But I don’t want to turn this into a vivisection of a particular example
Hence my calling out the “necessary evil” excuse.
I’m afraid it’s not an excuse but the reality. Whatever the reason one does content for, whether it’s additional income, trying to change career or just clout, without reach you don’t have an audience. In order to have reach, someone has to choose to click on that link in the feed. I am sure that an image does help with that And stock art places often either have non-stock art pirated anyway, or there’s nothing in there
Just because you generally need a cover image doesn’t mean that it’s good to support systems whose primary use case is to drive real artists into hiding.
Sure. But wouldn’t such rule mean we dismiss also those who do bring something to the table but just try to get anyone’s attention?
Not if they don’t scam people to get that attention.
I’m afraid that’s a very high bar ATM
It’s meant to be a high bar forever.
“Generative AI” is a scam perpetrated by people who hate artists, while envying their capacity to create art, while also not understanding what art really is. Period.