Ban the usage of AI-generated content on the Wiki (and elsewhere?)

[greenjoe]

There has been discussion on the use of AI art that is currently used on the wiki, which has brought some people to say about removing it. I'm bringing it forth as a suggestion to implement a policy to ban the usage of AI generated content on the wiki, perhaps elsewhere too. As for existing AI art, that could potentially be removed or handled in some other way.

[dessysalta]

They've explained the current AI-gen content on the wiki as being from a time when AI generation was more novel than offensive, and as much as I understand that point of view, I've also seen people use AI in their FT or post it every now and then in a channel or two. It's very much progressed from a neat piece of tech to a very real travesty that's been affecting jobs and the perception of artistry as a whole.

I'll be frank, AI-generated anything sucks, period full stop. It is soulless, annoying, and used as a scapegoat by the laziest and lowest people of society because they can't be bothered to pay 15 dollars for a sketch (or better yet, try their hand at it themselves). Since it's conception it has only been used to hurt and nowadays you can find it in so many massive projects that make real money off that predatory behavior. At it's best it's used for short concepts and then refined by real people—but I can't remember the last time I've actually seen that, especially not from any big-name company or video game.

AI art is not mandatory. Not everything needs visuals. Even so, we already have visuals to be represented in game, countless artists or coders who work on the game completely for free, including fan-artists and people dedicated enough to commission artwork of their characters or even for the lore team. The server would be better off without it and I'm getting tired of looking at it or trying to explain to my friends (especially fellow artists) that Aurorastation is good despite having a good few instances of AI nonsense in their wiki, or the occasional player which seems to give as much of a damn as the average unemployed twit with a computer they got from Hobby Lobby.

I'm surprised it's even still up in more than one micro instance on the wiki. Again, at the time, new fun thing to try out for shits and gigs. Nowadays it makes me depressed. I hate seeing it.

[Triogenix]

From my perspective, the issue is more the conclusion of four separate things;

1) It's up to the relevant team if they want art/graphics (of some form) for their wiki lore pages - they determine the necessity.

2) Being able to draw/create graphics isn't and should never be a requirement to be on the lore team.

3) It is unfair to expect staff members to spend their own money - in addition to the time they already contribute to Aurora - to commission artists to do stuff for the wiki.

4) EU copyright law (and copyright law in general) is weird, and I don't fully understand it. I don't know what non-AI images/graphics can be taken from the internet outside of ones created for the purpose of the AuroraStation wiki.

Therefore, the conclusion I come to is that we can't ban AI art because its one of the only ways for us to get free art/graphics we can use for the wiki, other than creating something ourselves (again, not something that should be a requirement), even if it doesn't look good. If we had an "artist" staff position similar to spriters who just made art, for free, for the wiki, I'd approve a ban like this in a heartbeat.

However - this is not a dismissal of the suggestion, merely an explanation as to why this is something that can't be implemented with a snap of my fingers -  Kermit and I will discuss this with input and help from the Head-Devs to figure out the best path forward.

[Arrow768]

@greenjoe
You are suggesting that the use of AI art should be banned but do not elaborate why.
This elaboration is required per the forum rules.
Please explain your reasoning behind this suggestion in sufficient detail.

The reasoning behind a suggestion should be elaborated upon in the initial post to a reasonable extent.

 

[greenjoe]

@dessysalta Has given some good reasoning that I agree with, and shares some of the thoughts I have on the use of the AI art on the wiki. Others have stated things such as making it look amateurish, as AI art tends to do, and it being seen as cheap and low-effort.

[dessysalta]

3 hours ago, Triogenix said:

1) It's up to the relevant team if they want art/graphics (of some form) for their wiki lore pages - they determine the necessity.

2) Being able to draw/create graphics isn't and should never be a requirement to be on the lore team.

I'd like to address both of these points because I think they go hand in hand, with some much-needed clarification on my end: it's true that the lore team is (and should be) able to decide exactly what graphics are required and when/to what extent, but nobody's arguing that the lore team should be artists or be able to perform artistry. In my initial argument I meant more that making an attempt at art yourself, purchasing art, etc. are more preferable and ethically sound than generating AI images of any kind. In any case, projects like these don't deserve to be visualized just for the sake of it, there should be intention behind any art at all used on the wiki or elsewhere (something I'll get to later on). It is a luxury to have any art in any medium be created for anyone, and utilizing something that only furthers the already-oppressive narrative that artists are optional will only run this project and other creatives into the ground as time goes on.

In short: Good things are not made with convenience inherently.

 

3 hours ago, Triogenix said:

3) It is unfair to expect staff members to spend their own money - in addition to the time they already contribute to Aurora - to commission artists to do stuff for the wiki.

I have mixed feelings on this, and as a foreword I'm not suggesting anyone on staff should necessarily spend money on the project that is Aurora. I am however suggesting that specifically choosing not to do so when you have the funds available, when the interest is there, and instead opting to generate AI images raises questions of exactly how important the project (and to an extent the many fans and creators of Aurora and SS13 in general) is to whoever is generating them. This isn't to denigrate the already monumental efforts of staff on every team and front, but I would imagine asking ChatGPT to pad out a wiki page or come up with a new corporation or planet when you could do it yourself/pay someone to do it for you would be just as insulting and belittling to the process and the message. 

Something I'll get to later in this reply is art contests that we've seen in the past, admittedly with my fairly narrow view of Aurora's lifespan.

 

3 hours ago, Triogenix said:

4) EU copyright law (and copyright law in general) is weird, and I don't fully understand it. I don't know what non-AI images/graphics can be taken from the internet outside of ones created for the purpose of the AuroraStation wiki.

I'm not a savant when it comes to this, so I can't comment on it extensively other than the idea of how copyright law works in my head, being licensing and the like. Although, that's kind of a bureaucratic and financial headache depending on just how deep it goes.

 

3 hours ago, Triogenix said:

[...] we can't ban AI art because its one of the only ways for us to get free art/graphics we can use for the wiki, other than creating something ourselves (again, not something that should be a requirement), even if it doesn't look good. If we had an "artist" staff position similar to spriters who just made art, for free, for the wiki, I'd approve a ban like this in a heartbeat.

I think there's a lot to cover in this section, so bear with me.

AI art is cheap, mass-produced, and neither iconic nor intricate; it lacks the human touch that is needed to get those points across. The crux of my argument isn't that specifically, but it does loop back around into SS13's history and the actual act of making a server, lore, sprites, etc. for it all. Most devs on indie projects like this, especially SS13, are working for free already and funnel profits from their time at work into getting the thing moving. I imagine the server costs for Aurora are a not-insignificant amount of money, as are the various licenses, sounds, and sprites/art acquired over the years, at least the ones that weren't made pro-bono. In spite of the obvious costs and difficulties associated with not only keeping a server up, but actually afloat with an interested playerbase, these projects (like Aurora) exist and continue to exist, even outside of the SS13 format.

I know I'm probably parroting things you already know, but as a creator and artist who consumes other creations and art pieces, I need to emphasize that the longevity of a project is tied to appeal and genuine creatives or scholars will look at something like Aurora and admire it for the messages and depth that was placed there with intention and discretion. The reason Aurora hasn't died yet is because of the fundamental differences in development and choices it makes along the way compared to nearly every other server that tries to fly the flag of "HRP" and "immersive lore". Most of the people on the staff team have tenures of several years and don't fold under the pressure that comes from a wildly ambitious project like this one. That sort of dedication isn't something broadly overlooked and for all the hate staff gets on the occasion, even those people can see and admire the drive to create and stick to something.

Now, of course, this is wholly undone by using anything that is specifically designed to mass produce something with zero creative spark or intention behind what it creates. Aurora is not, has never been, and never should be a medium for that kind of content and behavior to get its foot in the door, lest we in five years see a steep decline of creatives bothering to do anything for Aurora and the existing staff team either work to further that mindset or give up on what was a very unique and soulful project to be replaced with robots. SS13 is a breeding ground for awesome community-driven projects and indie dev shenanigans, but it very quickly goes from being a noble and awesome thing to work on it for free to one that's shitty and lazy by reducing any aspect of your server to AI art. You know how many genuine creatives will tread where there's AI art? I do, it's not very many. Aurora would be losing players, artists, and torching its reputation (and it still kinda is given there's still AI art in the wiki in more than one place).

I mentioned in one of my initial rebuttals that convenience does not make for good creations, and putting it into perspective here, the people who started SS13 servers were probably not 40 y/o self-employed developers with a safety net and countless contacts and experience. They were mostly people working full time at some 9-5 or other possibly soul-sucking job that doesn't make use of the degree they studied for, that or they were high schoolers with pet projects for funsies. Back in the 90s, Exadv1 used a bunch of shitty, convoluted tools by today's standards in order to get something halfway working, and only when the source code was leaked did other people have that same spark of creativity to recognize the potential with something like SS13 in the system of BYOND. That's some real dedication we're talking about, especially when most methods nowadays revolve around the (thankfully much more intuitive) interfaces and spaghetti code to make things work in this absolute trainwreck of an engine (from what I've heard at least—I'm not a coder).

For all that I do to bitch about how Space Station 14 sucks doodoo ass and completely undermines what makes SS13 unique and fun, it's pretty topical and honorable that they wanted to at least try and recreate it, and in doing so made their very own engine for handling all of the shit in that "sequel". I can't vouch for how they just take the sprites from /TG/ and do nothing to actually emulate what makes SS13 a roleplaying game, but I can definitely say the coders are, as always, the ones picking up the slack.

To be honest, if price and convenience were to be prioritized to such an extent, I imagine the Aurora devs would have swapped over to Godot or Unity ages ago and only ever hosted the server on their PC a night at a time until they got some kind of donation or sponsor that funded a $4 server to host on in India, but I would hazard a guess to say that the people who have been developing for Aurora the longest (Matt, Arrow, etc.) chose the medium for what it is and not because they're too stubborn or lazy to port or even attempt Aurora somewhere else, going so far as to refuse donations or to set up any kind of crowdfunding. Although there is something to say about how modifying a game or code can be easier than developing it from the ground up, Aurora has had so many hours and so many features sank into it that I can't in good faith consider that argument to be at the table.

Okay, that's a lot of words, and I hope the meaning is taken there from the absolutely massive pile of them, because there's not much else to say on that end. So, let's go visit that point I made earlier about there being other options even for the desperate developer to take in order to include or create something for their video game.

Community Art, Contests And Feedback 
you know I mentioned chatgpt earlier and honestly blocking out headers like this makes it feel like it wrote it, but i like blocking my shit and i do it all the time on gdocs, sue me

These have been explored more than once over the years, or constantly if we're counting the Developer role spriters, enough for me to bring them full-force into this debate about using AI art. Simply: why not more art contests? They've been wildly successful in the past, doing great things for both the server (receives art) and the creators (inspiring them to create), with the various Unathi flags and other lobby art pieces done for funsies and accepted in a heartbeat. We've got canonization applications which can include art, we had a channel dedicated to suggestions for Unathi fashion, if we want to be really pedantic and stretch the idea as thin as humanly possible we could suggest how some events and their outcomes were choose-your-own-adventures with volunteers or crewmen being able to decide how things played out and what exactly would be added to the wiki in some cases, which in turn would fuel more artistic endeavors from staff and fans. I still occasionally swing by to see if my buddies or mutuals on the dev teams need some new sprites or artwork, provided I have the time.

So, I reiterate: Why not more of that? Why not send out a ping every so often, even one that you get from opting into a role maybe? There doesn't need to be prizes, there haven't been in the past to my knowledge, but there could be if you wanted to sweeten the pot I guess. Yeah, spriting is a lot easier and more common than detailed or anatomically correct and shaded artwork, but again, if we can see people pulling up to make lobby art and flags and planets, we can definitely see them showing up to take a stab at wiki art. 

Now, I understand the stigma of asking for free art, and if done too often it could get stale quickly, so this might not be the perfect solution but I do think it would do wonders both for the development team and the people who want their artwork featured in the Aurora lore or anywhere else in the project.

god that header really does feel like chatgpt doesnt it. is it because i see it so often? these comments are my way of keeping my sanity throughout writing this btw jesus chr

You mentioned an artist dev role, I know you said it as an offhand comment in reference to an argument that hinges around it not existing, but hear me out: what if it did? Spriters, coders, artists? Why not lump in spriters with artists? Yeah it'd be weird as hell to see it become that and could cause some confusion if the coders ping for a spriter and get someone who does portraits, but that seems like a position that would get filled near instantaneously. They've got artists on other servers, and they're unpaid too, just doin' it for the love of the game (both as in SS13 and like the phrase "love of the game" btw). I know LVS is kind of a sore subject around here, but having her on the lore team was pretty rad for as long as it lasted because she drew all sorts of shit just for fun. Why not make a role exclusively for that? Don't take this as me grabbing you and shaking you down for the role, I know you said you'd discuss it with the rest of the head devs, I'd just like to emphasize that it's a cool as fuck decision if you choose to make it.

Crowdfunding
i ate some cold little caesar's pizza today. i hate how the tips of their slices are always mushy these days. god i want Hungry Howie's or Domino's or even Papa John's, that prick

I know this is also a long shot, and so I'm not giving it a bunch of space because it's fairly simple and I don't know to what extent the rest of the devs care about it other than not having a system like this in place for the past ten years. Crowdfunding. It's on the tin. Set up a Ko-Fi or more likely Patreon or make an account on Venmo or Cashapp or something whose whole reason for being is to fund artistic endeavors. This comes with its own risks and can seem stingy, so again, not a perfect solution but it's still showing up to the argument because it's an option.

Closing thoughts: I like Aurora. I mean I really like Aurora. I like creating for Aurora, I like seeing the new things the devs come up with, I like being involved with gimmicks and side plots in game. I like everything that goes into the creative process in every aspect for Aurora and I have on more than one occasion aspired to be a spriter or artist or lore dev or even moderator. I'd guess other people like Aurora too, given it has a routine playerbase and active devs that care a bunch about the same things. Bluntly, if AI art is pursued more than it already has been, especially in a project where corner-cutting comes once in a blue moon, I'm going to like Aurora less. I would like Aurora more if there wasn't any AI art at all, and as a creative I understand that even "bad" or "inexperienced" art is much better than going to Stable Diffusion and typing a good two lines of text for a bunch of random colors placed in the same shape of a picture.

I would really appreciate it if more people were to take AI and its ramifications seriously, because the less people who do, the angrier I get and the more zero-tolerance I become because of the slop-loving idiots who straight up just don't give a damn (not that this is Aurora, I would just really rather this never is the case). Part of the reason I'm going so hard on it is because it's only getting worse and worse and I'm a firm believer we should chain it unconditionally before we so much as think of trying to keep it around and what rules are to be in place for it. It just works.

TL;DR AI art sucks, fund artists, hold art contests, consider an artist developer role, consider crowdfunding, and again, AI art sucks.

Edited Saturday at 23:41 by dessysalta
dont stop. belie-vin

[KingOfThePing]

What page on the wiki uses AI art?

[FlamingLily]

I'm entirely in support of removing AI art from the wiki. To be completely blunt about it, absent any arguments of morality or environmental damage, the stuff on the wiki right now just looks bad. It's off putting. There's a building on there with windows the size of a 2x4. I firmly believe that, for those images, no images are better than what is objectively slop.

 

However.

 

I really, really want to push back against some of the stuff I've seen from people opposing AI art lately. Stuff like calling people who play around with it for their own personal creative endeavours (like flavour text images) lazy and "the lowest members of society" (?????) and being extremely aggressive when they show things off, even if said things are AI generated. That's an extremely solid way to burn people off creative exploration at all (and yes, I acknowledge that a lot of AI art usage is used to fill a gap in creativity in the corporate sphere, but this is not the corporate sphere, and you cannot assume that anyone using AI art is doing it out of a purely soulless creatively-dry place). A lot of people lack the physical skill to create art pieces but have a creative vision, and want to explore that creative vision with AI art. Maybe they'll eventually graduate to commissioning people. Maybe they'll be inspired and build off that AI piece with their own edits, maybe that'll get them learning how to make art of their own and eventually they'll leave AI behind.

None of that will happen if we shit on people for wanting to express a creative vision.

We are not a community of soulless corporates sucking humanity out of creativity just to afford a fourth house. It's not fair to treat people like that just because they wanted to experiment with a technology that is absolutely not going anywhere any time soon.

And, sure, could someone instead commission an artist to get an art piece instead? Yes, of course. I don't think it's fair to expect someone to spend their money on something like that. That's a choice someone can make. Am I a piece of shit for taking a screenshot of my character's ss13 sprite and using it for their relay profile picture? Of course not. It took less effort and arguably less creative input to get that image that it would have if I generated it through some AI, but no one would ever consider denigrating me for it.

And, yes, sure, there is a concern about training data and all that. We're not profiting off of space station 13. If the art was part of a business, sure, but it's not. There's no profit to be made here.

 

So, sure. Remove it from the wiki. Enforce quality standards (or outright ban it) for actual server materials.

But don't be an asshole to people. Be kind.

[Triogenix]

3 hours ago, dessysalta said:

all the words

Hi. I'm only responding to this because I feel the need to. The topic of images on the wiki - and how we get them - is something that has the potential to get the owner(s) of the server in legitimate and serious legal trouble; this is not a hyperbole or overstatement to my knowledge. It might sound silly, and I may be incorrect, but in cases like this, I've learned it's better to stay on the safe side.

Therefore, while I understand people in the community have strong thoughts and opinions on this topic, now that the suggestion has been made, this is something that will be discussed and decided on internally. I don't mean to sound rude or dismissive, but the community isn't the ones at risk of getting into legal trouble or having to deal with similar issues over stuff on the wiki (and how we got it), and I give all the weight to the thoughts of those who are at risk. If I want outside opinions, suggestions, or otherwise, I'll ask for them. Until then, this is the last post I'll make on this thread.

Edited Sunday at 02:45 by Triogenix

[dessysalta]

44 minutes ago, KingOfThePing said:

What page on the wiki uses AI art?

Off the top of my head, Port Antilla. I know either Vaurca or Diona lore have generated images for a couple teasers in the lorecord before, also. If anyone has any other examples, feel free to chime in.

To Lily, I have very strong words to use in your direction because I take offense to what was said, but I will do my best to remain civil for the sake of brevity and because I think there's a disconnect here. Let's break this down piece by piece.

44 minutes ago, FlamingLily said:

I really, really want to push back against some of the stuff I've seen from people opposing AI art lately. Stuff like calling people who play around with it for their own personal creative endeavours

To preface, I am not able to force you—or anyone else, for that matter—to take any actions regarding this at all. What you do in private is not my business, and if you were to, say, create a project that involves some close friends in private I would neither judge nor question you. It is not my place, it is not my business, I don't care in confined instances or spaces like that. In fact, I imagine the effect on me or anyone else would be pretty minimal if that were the case.

However, this is on the internet. This isn't just any place on the internet, mind you- this is a server that has a large, cult-like playerbase, and up until recently would have about ~100 recurring players with 900 more who would occasionally show up to boot (going off Discord statistics and my own knowledge, at least). The population not withstanding, this is still a public space that advertises itself as such and makes an effort to take in new players as much as possible. This is not "in private" nor does it deserve the benefit of the doubt just because it's a "personal" endeavor; if I endeavored to set up a table and bring my own frozen meals inside of a restaurant I would hopefully be shooed away from the premises for the insult if not the loitering, regardless of if I paid for the drinks. In the circumstances you're using and applying the word "personal" you seem to be conflating the idea of autonomy with the respect for the choices made with it, especially in a setting where others are able (and to a degree have a right) to criticize you.

To be clear, I think AI image, sound, etc. generation is extremely novel and is probably one of the coolest advancements of the last decade. It raises the bar technologically speaking and is what garnered a lot of interest for AI inside of other fields, and to your later point, yes, it has inspired people to partake in the creative process. It is without a doubt something incredibly impressive that should be worth celebrating. With that out of the way...

57 minutes ago, FlamingLily said:

lazy and "the lowest members of society" (?????) and being extremely aggressive when they show things off, even if said things are AI generated

The issue begins when you factor in the software again churns meaningless images that have no creative direction. There is no thought, no feeling, no intention behind the process, there is no workshopping, effort, or anything else of the sort. You can say whatever you want about how "refining it takes time", or maybe "using the write prompt can take hours", or even "I want to make something at all", to which I will inevitably shoot back: "Have you tried artistry?" I don't mean monkey-see-monkey-doing artistry, I mean genuinely attempting to compose a song on FL Studio, trying to draw a figure on Medibang, going out to your local Hobby Lobby and making woodcrafts, any of that. If you have, you should understand that it doesn't matter how many "takes" anyone does with artificial intelligence, be that from tweaking prompts, changing poses, designs, whatever, it's never going to hold a candle to the sheer amount of effort and training that's required to just be afloat in the art field as a career.

My point of people who generate images like that being lazy is not an opinion, it's an empirical observation. The people who use artificial intelligence to click a button and completely disrespect the artistic medium existentially, threaten livelihoods, contribute to an already steadily-rising power cost and expansion into all sorts of geological areas we probably shouldn't be meddling in just for the sake of "muh anime image" are completely, unequivocally lazy in regards to drawn art. I'm not saying you have to spend art on artists to do anything ever, I'm saying it is a choice and if you choose not to make anything yourself or commission someone else, but rather make use of a software whose entire reason for being nowadays is to undermine and demean the artistic medium, you are a lazy person (at least, you're lazy in that specific field). Worse, you're putting that laziness not into actually becoming a creative, but taking a shortcut that can, will, and has left people out of jobs. The people who do that want all the payoff of art with none of the risk and effort. If they would just go to Walmart and buy a $3 notepad and a $2 pen they would learn faster than they think with one of the countless tutorials online.

I am an artist. I would like to do art as a full-time career. I cannot do that if people value me less than a website that makes soulless slop in half a second. It doesn't matter if it's done in a niche circle of 100 people or on display in front of millions by corporations, the harm is still the same, and much like how seeing normal art can inspire people to make it, seeing AI art can inspire people to generate it. After all, it's cheaper, faster, and "close enough" to what they envision in their head. 

1 hour ago, FlamingLily said:

That's an extremely solid way to burn people off creative exploration at all

No, we shouldn't turn people off from being entrepreneurs and creatives, in fact I think we should have more of them all of the time and I'm not being facetious. I, obviously, have a great deal of respect for anyone who wants to dip their toes into creation of any kind, be that something physical or mental. I think everyone should be given the resources and acceptance to pursue that kind of career if they want and be able to make a living wage even with a hobbyist mindset. If you want to try any art in any form at all, I am rooting for you, and I will be there with you on your journey if you so wish. 

If, however, you decide to come into any topics of expertise within that broader field and try to take shortcuts, break ethical guidelines and rules, or especially fund something or someone who will do more of that, I'm not going to defend you and I don't think anyone in their right mind should. If you choose to do as little research as possible, blatantly ignore the many written and verbal warnings from everyone, use a tool that is known to be controversial and then post your creation anywhere thinking you should be immune to criticism just because this is your "first experience with art" then by all means you are not prepared for any kind of creative endeavors due to a fundamental misunderstanding of how and why art is made in the first place.

You also need to accept that even with real artists, they're subject to that same kind of gatekeeping and criticism and the mark of an artist is not just mindlessly creating until told to stop, but rather being able to push back against conflicts and continue creating even when you're told or called many vile things just for picking up a pencil in the first place. Art is reliant on emotion and thought. It literally could not exist without it. If your sole goal is to make an image that looks like something you thought of, then you are not making art. Even the most diehard pro artists who don't get out of bed for less than ten grand a piece are still influenced by their experiences, all of what they've seen and everything they've ever felt. You, and I cannot stress this enough, cannot be an artist if you do not have a drive to actually create something with thought and feeling behind it. I'm not gatekeeping art—a stick figure or a single stroke of crayon has thought and feeling behind it. Pressing a button to put a bunch of pixels on the screen that looks vaguely like a person or place does not.

If you crumble just for being told to put in effort into creating something or to at least value the people who do, then I wouldn't be the first and only person to say you shouldn't explore that medium for the sake of everyone involved's sanity. If you just want to shoot people, don't be surprised if people tell you that you shouldn't become a cop. But even this argument relies on the idea that other people, or more specifically my post above suggest that if you make AI art you just shouldn't create ever. That is never what has been said. If someone has said that I assure you it's a generalized statement that has very obvious subtext, whose core is not exiling these people from art just for some instance of laziness. I don't agree with generalizations like that, but I disagree with people who fail to understand that with much more vehemence. It has always been do not use AI art to create something when you have so many other options available. I disagree with people who can't be constructive, but at the same time we should be coming together to understand what's meant over what's actually said.

Once again, if you take "do not use this tool that threatens my field and hurts me fundamentally as a person trying to earn a living wage in a profession I love" as some mythical barrier to prevent anyone from ever dipping their toes into artistry, you don't belong in that field. Even so, don't let that stop you from trying to be in the field, just don't use the Torment Nexus in order to exist within it. I am begging you.

1 hour ago, FlamingLily said:

you cannot assume that anyone using AI art is doing it out of a purely soulless creatively-dry place

I am absolutely within my right to make these assumptions regardless of whether or not it's an over-generalization, which it very much is not. Hell, corporations aren't doing it from a purely soulless place aside from maximizing profits, and I'm still going to do it to them because it's close enough that splitting hairs over what remains a very real issue is pointless.

1 hour ago, FlamingLily said:

A lot of people lack the physical skill to create art pieces but have a creative vision

I lack the physical skill to create some art pieces. I am barely alright at shading, I can hardly do satisfying line art, I don't even have a tablet and I'm horrible with levels. That frustration and inability is what pushed me to keep trying. I have filled countless sketchbooks and will fill so many more because I know what I want to reach and I'm not there yet, and I probably never will be. That is the human condition in every single profession taken seriously. My inability to code didn't stop me from submitting PRs, I either asked for help or did what little I needed to. At a point I was curious about cooking and wanted to try making something myself, and I did, and it was delicious for my family and I. I'm not even in art school, but I'm going to be very soon and that is because I am inadequate. People who care about art don't care that they're bad at it at first...well, people who care about any profession don't.

If you're referring to disabilities, I definitely do sympathize and I would never, ever suggest that someone's involuntary inability should be limited from art. In line with that, there are many routes for physically disabled or incapable people to pursue art, such that suggesting they should reduce themselves to a piece of technology that just does it for them is more of an insult than telling them not to try in the first place. The majority of people with disabilities who ask for accessibility options aren't asking for their hands to be held but rather a way to perform at least somewhat on par with the average joe. Those people don't need to be more infantilized and marginalized than they already are.

1 hour ago, FlamingLily said:

Maybe they'll eventually graduate to commissioning people. Maybe they'll be inspired and build off that AI piece with their own edits, maybe that'll get them learning how to make art of their own and eventually they'll leave AI behind.

This is the bare minimum. This has been the bare minimum for years until this tech suddenly popped up out of nowhere, Going back to my police officer analogy, not shooting people willy nilly was also the bare minimum and we didn't learn anything from shooting everyone, and the people who did still did plenty of harm in shooting people in the first place. See my point about burning people off creative exploration for more on this, I guess.

2 hours ago, FlamingLily said:

It's not fair to treat people like that just because they wanted to experiment with a technology that is absolutely not going anywhere any time soon.

What do you mean it's not fair? It's not fair for my and anyone else's work to be reduced to a picture, with the argument everyone should be able to get without any difficulty at all. I am just as much entitled to my opinions and observations on something that, contrary to popular belief, is a very real problem. I'm not even being hateful against the people who use it outside of that very specific case of calling them lazy and the lowest of the creative medium because, I reiterate, they are not creating. That just isn't what's going on. 

I say again: If you come into an artist's field of expertise and you make 2 grand a month on Patreon just because you put together a half-baked tech demo that uses exclusively AI art (something I have seen multiple times with my own eyes), you are lowering my value as an artist and you are insulting the creative process.

2 hours ago, FlamingLily said:

Am I a piece of shit for taking a screenshot of my character's ss13 sprite and using it for their relay profile picture? Of course not. It took less effort and arguably less creative input to get that image that it would have if I generated it through some AI, but no one would ever consider denigrating me for it.

No one would consider denigrating you for it because you actually made the character with those tools, and that's still not even in the same vein as hating AI art because

• A real person with a pulse made the sprites you're using for your character, with the understanding they can and will be used in many other contexts
• You can actually creatively tune the colors, change the markings, all sorts of things
• Generally, you're playing dress up. Dress up is art given the customizability and way for people to add new markings or loadout items.

You actually put effort into the creation of the character, getting the hair color and gradient just right, wrote the flavor text to accompany it and sifted through the countless loadout items to make sure this was your character. Even if you don't want to pick up a pencil or do pixel art, you didn't resort to AI art and you still made use of any tools at all to make your character. We could argue that putting a bunch of assets together isn't "real" art but I think that would be a silly argument that gatekeeps something that has no business being gatekept, especially given the above points.

I do take issue with what you say about "creative input" because you cannot convince me transmogrifying "1boy, male, blonde hair, smirk, smile, red jacket, turtleneck, blue visor, short beard, brown eyes, eyeliner, scarf, toned muscles" into a bunch of colors is anywhere near as soulful or creative as physically making the best character you can with the tools you have, even if it's some random F2P sci-fi roleplay server.

2 hours ago, FlamingLily said:

But don't be an asshole to people. Be kind.

Being an asshole is using strong language without reason and thoughtlessly attacking people and not their ideas. I hope my willingness to break down what you've said and neither completely ignore you nor outright insult you speaks to my character of being kind, as well as my previous wording in the massive wall of text that precedes this.

[Sniblet]

Unless Aurora's gotten deep into some esoteric contractual binds while I wasn't looking, I suspect that there's no risk of legal trouble inherent to removing unwanted images from the wiki and not replacing them. I'm not sure what about this requires consulting the lawyers internally.

AI is GARBAGE And Here's Why: A Short Video Essay (10 hrs)

Spoiler

• It's founded on theft. Most images used to train image AI (and most written works used to train writing AI) are obtained without permission or notification, and often from sources that the trainers do not have legal or ethical access to use. Think paywalled research papers, and slashfics on Wattpad where the creator checked the "do not reuse without permission" box.
• It's not AI. AI is a marketing term. These are neural networks. We call them AI because a corporate husk or two Synergized™ and had a Lightbulb Moment™ and went "ah! we can pretend we're doing an AI revolution like the sci-fis. You ever read one of them? I haven't." And we let it stick. This isn't even primitive AI; the programs that have stolen the valor of that name and use it now, will never produce anything that resembles artificial intelligence. This method will always hallucinate and lie and forget what it's doing and add extra fingers for no reason. It is foundationally flawed.
• This is more writing AI, but ChatGPT and its devilspawn are rapidly killing schoolchildren's ability to learn for themselves. Ask a teacher. It's constantly in the news. StableDiffusion is not ChatGPT, but they use the same unearned epithet of AI. It's just contributing to the bad look.
• It's being pushed into a space meant for humans. I'm not appealing to God here or anything. Humans like doing art, and AI's current purpose is to push us out of art so that we can do more work, which is like, the opposite of how we dreamed it. This is kind of bad because I dunno about you but I, for one, like to do more art and less work. But it's doing our art. And making it harder to get paid for doing art.
• It's making it easier to get paid for doing not-art. Sometimes corporate husks use it for money, and get away with it. You've got people on Pixiv and Artstation posting AI art and saying "hey look at me wanna pay for this?" and sometimes they use it to intentionally spite people who actually feel things about their work. I believe that the guy who did Studio Ghibli has some strong feelings on record.
• Its energy demands are ludicrous.
• Just in general, it's got these corporate-husk overtones that I keep touching on, and that's ironic and bad because we're *checks notes* Citadelstation, I think.
• *sigh* It just sucks, man. Look at it. With adblock on, of course.

AI is just sooo bad. It's cryptocurrency again but worse. Are we killing anyone by using it? Maybe, with the energy demands thing. Otherwise, we're nonetheless doing something that looks really really really bad for us ethically for... no particularly strong reason.

Did you know that AI is bad?

When we invent real-life positronics, I'll probably flip my opinion. Right now, Port Antilia can look a lot more boring and I will sleep soundly. We come to it for the text, and it's not winning awards as-is given it was built using Argent Energy.

Edited Sunday at 07:15 by Sniblet

[FlamingLily]

1 hour ago, dessysalta said:

A lot of words.

You're missing my point. Badly.

 

I'm not defending AI art. I couldn't give less of a shit.

What I'm trying to convey here is that the attacks against people using AI art are just that. Attacks. They feel like bullying. They're conveyed in such a way that you're the asshole putting a million artists out of a job every time you even look in the direction of a generative AI system. It's cruel. Attacking people, calling them lazy, creatively bankrupt. Saying they don't deserve to participate in the creative field. (Which you said isn't what people are saying and then proceeded to say yourself).

 

Quote

I say again: If you come into an artist's field of expertise and you make 2 grand a month on Patreon just because you put together a half-baked tech demo that uses exclusively AI art (something I have seen multiple times with my own eyes), you are lowering my value as an artist and you are insulting the creative process.

This sure is a valid point if anything that I'm talking about is monetized, which it isn't. That's what I meant by personal creative endeavour. It's not made for money. It will NEVER see profit.

 

But that's not, and never was, what I was talking about. Neither is large multinational corporations replacing their staff with AI. This is a roleplaying server on a ~22 year old atmospherics simulator.

You're not calling the CEOs soulless, or the Director of AI media creatively bankrupt or the cost-cut-happy HR manager a lazy, lowest member of society prick.

You're saying all that to someone who just wants to create and play a character in a funny spaceman game.

 

1 hour ago, dessysalta said:

Being an asshole is using strong language without reason and thoughtlessly attacking people and not their ideas.

This is what's happening. This is what I've seen happen, and what you're actively doing right now. No amount of words and detailed reasoning can overshadow the fact that you are repeatedly calling anyone who has ever experimented with AI art lazy, that they're insulting the entire creative field. No amount of moral superiority can justify attacking someone personally over them just sharing something they were interested in. It's the kind of thing that pushes people away.

[Coalf]

7 hours ago, Triogenix said:

The topic of images on the wiki - and how we get them - is something that has the potential to get the owner(s) of the server in legitimate and serious legal trouble; this is not a hyperbole or overstatement to my knowledge. It might sound silly, and I may be incorrect, but in cases like this, I've learned it's better to stay on the safe side.

Therefore, while I understand people in the community have strong thoughts and opinions on this topic, now that the suggestion has been made, this is something that will be discussed and decided on internally. I don't mean to sound rude or dismissive, but the community isn't the ones at risk of getting into legal trouble or having to deal with similar issues over stuff on the wiki (and how we got it), and I give all the weight to the thoughts of those who are at risk. If I want outside opinions, suggestions, or otherwise, I'll ask for them. Until then, this is the last post I'll make on this thread.

12 hours ago, Triogenix said:

2) Being able to draw/create graphics isn't and should never be a requirement to be on the lore team.

3) It is unfair to expect staff members to spend their own money - in addition to the time they already contribute to Aurora - to commission artists to do stuff for the wiki.

4) EU copyright law (and copyright law in general) is weird, and I don't fully understand it. I don't know what non-AI images/graphics can be taken from the internet outside of ones created for the purpose of the AuroraStation wiki.

This is enough of a justification to suspend their usage. As you said, Wiki has always erred on the side of caution since time immemorial. And as you said image creation is not a requirement for the wiki, nor to join the staff. So there won't be a big loss for suspending them.

We've always banned the use of images from Google specifically because we cannot guarantee we have permission for their usage. Similarly, we cannot guarantee any of the images Cael generated on the Port Antilla page were made by him. There is no signature on the artwork itself, besides it being obvious it was generated. He does not have any files proving he made it, nor can we ask the artist. And I doubt he has screenshots of himself generating that content. For all we know he found these AI generated images on Google, put them on the wiki, and said "made by Dreamjourney" or whatever the software is. I am not saying he did so. But it's an unnecessary risk we're setting up ourselves for. This is a huge vulnerability, mainly now when copyright bots are rampant. As you said, the server owners are the ones who are going to face legal trouble, not the person who uploads these.

Outside of that, to re-iterate others points, insane aura loss. It's at this point proven that most people attribute obviously AI generated images to scams, grifters, and lazy/cheap businesses. The fact that none of the ugly-ass mangastudio images I made for Taj lore were ever the center of this many controversies speaks volumes about how little people value AI images over the shittiest artworks made by humans.  Not to mention we have previously removed images because they created bad associations even if they were legal to use. As a Taj writer, I distinctly remember removing the WW2 propaganda images of nazis and soviets portrayed as cats, because it created a bad association with the species. Even though those images were by that time in public commons and thus allowed.

For flavor, this is a conspiracy theory and I have no way to prove it. But ever since the playerbase has started enaging more and more with AI art, AI articles and AI generated whitelist applications. There has been an exponential increase in bots that prowl this forum. There have always been "waves" of bots. But now they stick around and obviously read anything we post here.

I frankly think it is absolutely bizzare that aurora is batting for this at all. It's already had an internal discussion on this in the past, it was decided to not allow it for reasons stated above. Cael was told multiple times not to do it, it's disappointing he had done it by the time I quit.  It's my fault for not writing that down as head wiki dev at the time as I could have prevented this entire frankly stupid headache. But I suspect it would have been ignored anyway even if I had written it down.

And to put things in context.

The entire face of the wiki was created from scratch by Kyres. The aurora lobby flashes images made by artists, commissioned or free, from the community. The wiki is littered by works from me, for lore I wasn't even part of or after I had left staff. The entire Unathi page glistens with Wolfies art. Hell, the heads of Idris? Zavod? NT? Made by Lancer in mspaint using mouse and keyboard. Not to mention the numerous small artworks and graphic designs people have made in gimp or photoshop. And of course, the innumerable sprites made by volunteers from every part of the world, dedicated spriters. Hell the code itself! Generations of coders building off of each other's backs to make this server what it is. All of this was made voluntarily, donated voluntarily.

I think it's hyena-like behavior to continuously take from a community and then refuse to simply remove a few images you yourself claim are "unimportant".

Finally, if you haven't read any of the above. I don't hold it against you. Shits long and boring. But I want you to read this lower part.

In Unathi lore there is a page called "Unathi Guilds".

On top of that page, is one painting that Wolfie made. I watched her make it in a stream. It's not her best work, and she'd be the first to admit it. But it's hers, it is there, and it will always be hers no matter what names you change on it. Writer, artist, very controversial figure, and roleplayer, nevertheless she contributed what she could. Beneath it is the Heph logo, made by Nursiekitty, an iconic logo for an iconic company. She was a moderator, admin, and contributor, and the name of her character is still immortalized as the first person to ever encounter Vaurca.

Beneath these two images rest three more. The first one made by "StarryAI" is large, but kept very small, I assume so it is harder to notice the vague nonsensical smear square shape in the middle of it. I guess the free trial ran out before it could be generated out. Even lower, two images by "NightCafe", 200x200 pixels large. Did the free version not provide bigger ones? Or were they shrunken this way? Maybe they're just thumbnails saved off of google images, and that's why they're so small and low quality? I don't know, I can't talk to the computer. But neither of these AI's ever was in the community. Noone here talked to them. Neither of them know what Aurora is. I doubt anyone here even knows these two companies existed (or if they still exist).

I think I'd be on the side of the first two rather than the latter two.
 

[hazelmouse]

I feel this thread would benefit strongly from a little more brevity.

Ignoring the ethical discussion, I don't particularly like AI-generated content on our wiki because I think the role of our art is to bring the setting visually to life, and this only works when it is being made by a real person who knows and understands the setting. AI doesn't have this understanding, so in my mind any art an AI can create for the setting is so unmeaningful I'd rather a page just had no art at all.

I do also agree that it doesn't reflect particularly well on the server's image. The surplus of real, human-made artwork we have to work with is a blessing and an asset - I can say that I was drawn particularly to Aurora when I was first checking it out specifically because of the beautiful artwork. I don't think my first impression would've been as positive if this artwork was clearly not made by a human.

[KingOfThePing]

Oh wow. I never seen these images. I guess both Port Antilla and Unathi lore pages are ones I haven't looked at in quite some time. I agree with most statements here. These images don't even look good. They should be removed because they add nothing and are actually detrimental to the pages itself and I think most would agree when presented with these images outside of the context of the wiki pages.
I guess it can be frustrating for lore writers to seek out, coordinate and wait for proper artworks (no matter if paid or offered for free), but these AI images don't really do our server justice. Especially looking at Port Antilla, there are enough (free to use) images/art creations out there that depict tropical islands/beaches/etc. There is literally no need to use a bad AI model for pictures like these.

Thus, I agree that they should be removed and maybe an internal talk by the lore writers on how to proceed or how to handle this topic in the future should be held.

 

Edited Sunday at 12:44 by KingOfThePing

[Shimmer]

I am going to echo the quality argument people have brought up before but this time bring up examples, specifically from the PA page and why I think that the generated images gives the page a far worse impression than it'd have without them.

For the sake of the argument - please put yourself into the shoes of either a new player, or someone who has never read the PA page before and has gotten a spark of interest in the origins. And think of the impression you get when you see the following:

An image where the hands melt into the dress, part of the dress around the waist / hips takes on the color of the woman's skin, random bits of gold on the lower part of the dress that don't make sense. Two different sleeves. Anyone taking a closer look at this will know it's AI generated, and it looks extremely shoddy.

 

Look at this structure. Have you ever seen a building that's got weirdly inconsistent windows like that? A nothing-burger architecture that doesn't convey the culture of the planet, even the clouds are confused, the cloud at the top of the building tries to conform to the structure there of. Then look at the ground level - it looks uncanny, it looks shoddy.

 

What impression will people who have just started reading the page get from these images if they give them any closer look? Speaking for myself - the impression I got when first reading the page and taking a closer look at those images was that of complete disappointment. The quality difference between what is written, and then the images presented is far too grating. To me the impression here is that corners were cut, and that the same effort that went into writing the page and that went into the flags of PA and the cute little FC symbols wasn't put into those particular images. It doesn't give the planet any meaningful further characterization because AI doesn't put thought into it, it just makes what it makes based off of what it cannibalized from other unrelated images.

There is no vision here, there is no thought here, none of those images are in any way tied into the actual lore of the planet and it's people. How could they? They weren't made by a human over the course of weeks if not months with actual passion and love for the origin, it was generated by a machine that cannot replicate that same effort.

 

The ethics of AI use can be argued until we are all blue in the face - what can't be argued is that this is not a standard that should ever be set for the wiki. It's low quality, it looks ugly, and it looks low effort. The page would be far and away better without those images than with them; purely from a quality standpoint.

[dessysalta]

9 hours ago, FlamingLily said:

It's cruel. Attacking people, calling them lazy, creatively bankrupt. Saying they don't deserve to participate in the creative field.

AI art as a system, economically, is cruel. As I said, it is an empirical observation that you would only understand if you attempted real artistry. Past that I refer you back to my point about "don't be a cop if you just want to shoot people" and "you can still participate in the field if you want, just don't use the Torment Nexus to do so" and especially "artists get all sorts of criticism just for existing, if you crumble because people tell you not to use an unethical tool then please don't feel obligated to come back" because the amount of things that you're expected to bounce back from is going to be a lot worse than whatever it is you think we're (as in, the artist community) saying.

But, sure, I'm bullying these people out of artistry plain and simple, or something. There's no nuance to it at all, especially not to the thesis material above.

9 hours ago, FlamingLily said:

This sure is a valid point if anything that I'm talking about is monetized, which it isn't. That's what I meant by personal creative endeavour. It's not made for money. It will NEVER see profit.

 

But that's not, and never was, what I was talking about. Neither is large multinational corporations replacing their staff with AI. This is a roleplaying server on a ~22 year old atmospherics simulator.

I don't care that it's in a niche circle, something I went over in my many points that you appear to have glossed over. These things have impact It doesn't matter if you're a corporate executive or a random schmuck on the street, using AI at all is what makes people think it is profitable. If we all collectively agreed that it was shit and didn't use it then I guarantee you next to no one would use it. That is not up for debate. Plus, reducing Aurora to that and not putting any interest or value on anything or anyone inside of it is very low.

9 hours ago, FlamingLily said:

You're saying all that to someone who just wants to create and play a character in a funny spaceman game.

I am saying DO NOT USE THE ETHICALLY GREY TOOL THAT MARGINALIZES AN ENTIRE FIELD if you want to do anything creative. So yes, if applying that everywhere means I have to do it as equally on Call of Duty as I do on some cult on an engine from the 90s, then I am absolutely calling those people lazy. Once again, this is not something I'm saying ad hominem or just because I feel like being mean today. 

9 hours ago, FlamingLily said:

No amount of words and detailed reasoning can overshadow the fact that you are repeatedly calling anyone who has ever experimented with AI art lazy, that they're insulting the entire creative field.

This right here shows that you have completely missed the point, and moreover are willing to excuse everything I just said about AI generators just because I made an observation that you don't happen to agree with—which is irrelevant in any case, because I assure you if you ask anyone who performs art as more than a side project (and even most of the people who do) you will hear the exact same things for the exact same reasons. If strong words or calls to action are somehow offensive or cruel to you in such a way that you cannot take any of what's said in the way that it's supposed to be taken, especially in circumstances that more than warrant these kinds of terminology, then you are part of the problem.

I am not going to "be nice" or nod my head and pat these people on the shoulders when they are, without exception, funding and furthering a piece of technology which I say again, is aiming to remove me from existence. It has happened before. It will happen again. These are problems that should be dealt with cordially, but with a firm tone of voice, something I am certain I have embodied in my last few statements.

I sincerely hope you do more research in the creative field and find people who can better explain to you why AI is inherently a plague.

Edited Sunday at 16:05 by dessysalta
hold on to that feel~iiin'

[Arrow768]

This topic has been discussed by the Headmins/devs and the Lore Masters.

The following measures/rules will be implemented:

• AI Art will not be permitted on the Wiki
• AI Art in other places (primarily character art) is not banned.
• Any kind of AI content needs to be clearly labelled as such. (Including, but not limited to: pictures, text, code, ...)
• Anyone contributing to Aurora is discouraged from using AI generated content in "official" works (i.e. news articles, sprites, code, ...)
  • Using AI generated content for personal works (i.e. flavour text, character images, ...) is permitted.
• A "artist" staff role will be established.

These measures will be re-evaluated in the future.