You are spot on. That underlying general human training is the core of intelligence, whatever that actually is. When given a task, humans get to start on the mountain top of reason while computers get massive memory/compute to solve a simple math problem that the humans came up with. Two completely different things. We give up a lot of memory/compute in exchange for our intelligence. If they ever do figure out the “intelligence” part and combine it with massive memory/compute, we are toast.
1 Like
I studied AI in school, AND the philosophy of thought. AND as an artist, I have always found this subject… annoyingly relevant. AI created works have successfully won competitions, invoked emotion, and been perceived as artistically good, BUT I think there is a more basic point. “ALL creations come from something.” There’s the notion that there is no new idea, but I think instead, there ARE new ideas, but they are novel combinations and perceptions of previous ideas. That’s beside the point though. Let’s hammer at this objectively.
This will be a legal and financial question before it’s a practical one.
-
If AI is to be used for commercial purposes, then it must cost something. Someone has to make money from its product. Then, AI developers will need to make money as well, renting it out, selling its work, etc. BECAUSE the AI is trained from a set of data that includes copyrighted work, and those copyright holders are gonna want their dues. Each and every copyright holder will be owed, and these AI are trained on thousands or works, if not more, That’s a big check to cut.
IFF that’s the case, it might not be worth it to train the AI for commercial use at all. -
At least in the US, copyright laws are formed such that only parties with self-agency, and I think specifically humans can file copyrights. There was a case of an ape or monkey that took a selfie, and someone tried to file a copyright on their behalf… Dead On Arrival. As well as others. So, since AI is the creator, and AI cannot file the copyright as a party with self-agency (since someone has to either program the AI to file, or the AI has to have someone file for it, which is not an Autonomous Intelligence) no one can hold Intellectual Property rights to it. Making copies of the work would be legal, and we know that TPCI and Nintendo are huge control freaks over their IP.
- Can AI create good art that imitates other good art and makes a “hit”? Absolutely.
- Can anyone make money from it? Absolutely not, as things stand.
- Will Pokemon cards use AI generated illus? Not until we have a true AI, and we’re not there yet. We just have Intelligence-regurgitators.
2 Likes
AI will not replace pokemon illustrators - pokemon illustrators using AI will replace pokemon illustrators. I’m already using AI tools daily in my workflow (software development) and would consider myself less efficient without them. I imagine the best illustrators will have models trained on their style to rapidly prototype new ideas/compositions to use for their final “hand-made” illustrations.
I’m curious how the Japanese feel about AI tools. Anecdotal but here’s Studio Ghibli founder Hayao Miyazaki calling it “an insult to life itself”
2 Likes
This has become a really interesting discussion and you guys bring up many aspects I didn’t consider before (for example the legal side of things). It seems that the opinion on the quality of current AI-generated Pokemon pictures is split, so I picked some of the better ones I found and you can see for yourself if it does anything for you.
The last one would be a dope full art trainer card in my opinion.
9 Likes
Imho Lucario, eevee, and the last one trainer are super passable. Non biased eye won’t notice anything, especially the typical consumer.
3 Likes
This is quite possibly one of the most important topics of conversation in our time.
It isn’t because art is appealing to look at that it resonates with our feelings, with our soul. It is because other people made it. Why we look at wonder and fulfillment at art is because it is an expression of our unique experiences and feeling, a reaction to life. It doesn’t matter that the imagery we construct from isn’t technically novel. Technically, the way we foresee imagery isn’t novel. But the overall expression, the way we use images and built memories is unique to us. It is novel. Every artist, every human, no one could create art the exact same way. From the line detail, to the imperfections, to the entire constitution of elements.
Why we watch a film and cry, or feel overwhelming joy, fulfillment at not being alone in our feelings and thoughts… this is because we inherently know it to be an expression from another human being. It is the human condition that we crave a sort of fellowship, of mutuality, of belonging. Of friendship, of love, of community. But also an understanding of life’s pain, hardship, all these complexities and simplicities to being human. It is all about that expression coming from another person. That’s what’s most important about how we relate to it. That is the core essence. When it comes to more abstract terms, like still art, it is still a composition from the mind, from our imagination. Or even our own take/tweak on a preexisting thing (pokemon). Even if that landscape is a distortion/manipulation of all past memories and elements. The choices we made in creating it are what are meaningful to observe.
AI art is a damnation. It isn’t art. It is imagery. Art is that which is creatively and expressively made by humans. That is objectively what art is. All else is imagery. Even if it is interesting or cool to look at. It will never, ever mean the same thing as what humans express. And the intent that non artists have on using it for monetary gain, the plans they desire and have in store, well, it is the most bleak aspect of the future. I won’t even begin to get started on the whole late stage economic thing here. That in of itself is a whole other aspect and talking point. An even easier reasoning that everyone should want to reject it as anything more than just an assistance tool with strict limitations with a clear line beyond which your work wouldn’t actually be yours. Imagine, people, imagine a dark world where you don’t know what is real, whether what you see is made by your fellow souls, or by computers. Let us make our reality even more consumptive and thoughtless.
Regarding what wisewailmer said, this is the era of rereleases… just so everyone knows, if you really believe artists are getting lazy, please go read and learn. These decisions on all the dreadful, dead stuff coming out is the decision made by non-artists (anti-artists, if you will). They are made by the producers, the investors, the board members. Artists have little say (always have had too little and hence why society has always being tumultuous) in what happens. While they should be the decision makers, they are far from it. Don’t blame shite work on artists. Also, easy access, self publication has implications here, but again, another, different point.
Manny, this is why Miyazki is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. He understands this. He is an epitome of expressing the human condition. His films are among the most beautiful ever created. His opinion should be respected with very high regard. He doesn’t even want to go beyond using computers as an accessory in limited capacity (rendering premade elements)–meaning he still hand draws everything. For the reason that it is purely from the artist’s hand, that the best, most pure art is expressed. This is exactly why the above imagery is so bland and soulless. And we already started to blur the line between AI and human work. When we started using computers beyond the means of assistance, but instead started using them as the drawing tool. This is exactly when such pokemon cards started appearing extraordinarily dull and lifeless. Why you often can’t distinguish many artists from one another. Even with their patterns and approaches being different, if their pen (meaning their hand) and the variables are the same, they won’t look distinct enough as two hand made pieces would from one another.
13 Likes
Relevant:
6 Likes
This is a good thought. Training a personal AI on your own style would not require copyright, fees, or anything, and it’s still your work. I wonder though, that might lead to stagnation. I’m not sure how you use AI, but I use it to help me write scripts… cuz I’m terribly slow. In art, however, style changes over time, and for example, we would not see Komiya’s style change over time as we have, if he used AI to replicate his own style… What would it rob us of?
I agree with Miyazaki, in general, but specifically on training your own AI… if I could train something to create rhythms in my style, that might be cool…
My first response:
I agree with you, Art necessarily includes the motivations and intentions that created it, as well as the feelings and responses that it invokes. BUT it also must have a creator. A creative soul behind the canvas, lens, instrument, pen, or code (video games). If the creative endeavor was not created by a thinking feeling thing, then it’s merely an arrangement of stuff - interesting, entertaining, or otherwise - but not art.
Is the natural world art? No. But it does invoke the same responses as art. Still, it is not art.
As I wrote this, I thought, “What of those who chose the training data for the AI?” They put something of themselves, their soul into it, and thus it is THEIR art. And the person that provided the prompt. No? But it is not the AI’s art. In this sense, AI is a tool to create art, but it’s not the creator. A paint brush is not the artist, but without it, the painter would be unable to create paintings the same way. This gets to scotts’s iRobot clip above. Smith’s character’s inability to respond “Yes” doesn’t mean he can’t create. The quality of art, does not mean it’s not art.
So perhaps our question should is AI-created art “Good art”?
Now, if an AI was fully aware and functioning with a self-determinate soul, then its creations would most certainly be it’s own art, not that of the AI’s creators and users.
The natural world inspires us, and that inspiration drives us to create.
Those who chose the training data for AI did not put their soul into it. Blood sweat and tears, perhaps? Sure, perhaps. But not soul. You can’t put soul into AI. Saying it would just be poetic license. I disagree that it is their art. An AI tool is not art. It is a program.
AI would never, even with self awareness, have soul. Sorry, that right is reserved for humans, or other naturally created beings by the universe, not digital creations of theirs. I would never be emotionally interested in the imagery created by even an advanced, self aware AI. Sure, the mind blowing potential of what it could create might be fascinating or interesting in some cerebral or technological perspective, but concerning art, no. Because it isn’t, as said above. Without the human behind it, it has no artistic purpose outside of raw intrigue or curiosity.
1 Like
Sad as it is, I would be shocked if AI hasn’t already sneakily snuck its way into a few card artworks already. Could be anything really: ideas for a pose, setting ideas, straight up tracing, background elements etc. Pokemon card artists aren’t paid a lot, they aren’t famous and if they are on a tight deadline then it would be easy to just drop some AI generated assets into a card artwork.
The saving grace is that Nintendo does value human creativity and ideas a lot more than some other corporations but how long will it last no one knows.
1 Like
Right now AI art is bad business because communities and consumers who appreciate art fucking hate it, which is why so many places don’t allow it and why companies come out and make pledges not to use it.
No business that relies on the enthusiasm of its consumers can use AI art as a cost-saving measure because that content is so resoundingly renounced. AI art lost the public perception battle extremely quickly and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
1 Like
That’s because a computer potentially has access to all of human knowledge and creation. It is beyond humanly possible but its product is 100% derived from humans. But, as @brendantheclayboy said, there is no soul behind it, no meaning.
Why are people amazed by AI? If it weren’t allowed to consume basically everything as data, then it wouldn’t be able to produce anything.
And if it did eventually gain consciousness, this debate would be pointless because humans are inefficient and would, like the movies suggest, be wiped out by AI.
This isn’t driven by art but by greed. As @xileets said, if everyone whose data was shoved into the database were to be compensated for every work produced, it would be dead on arrival. This is a redux of big Pharma and other oligopolies where they take publicly funded research/work and privatise the profits.
It is not exciting, it is another feather in the cap for the destructive model of capitalism.
2 Likes
I feel like once they figure out rules/develop AI slightly more once companies stop saying publicly to stop development while releasing their own AI, we’ll probably see some AI artwork on cards.
But I feel like it will remain mainly human artwork due to just public sentiment of training AI on someone’s work and the resulting work not being attributed to them. That, and at the end of the day, art is one of those things that even if AI can replace everyone in the field, people will still continue to make art because it’s a passion for them. That and they can use artists to help inspire and interact with kids who’s officially their target audience. If you go AI, that inspiration is gone.
ChatGPT says:
It’s unlikely that AI will completely replace human Pokemon card artists in the near future. While AI technology has advanced significantly in recent years, it is still limited in its ability to replicate the creativity and artistry that human artists possess.
Pokemon card artists bring a unique perspective and style to their artwork that is difficult for AI to replicate. They are also able to incorporate their own personal experiences and emotions into their work, which adds an additional level of depth and complexity to their creations.
Furthermore, the process of creating Pokemon cards involves more than just drawing or painting the artwork. The artists also need to work closely with the game designers to ensure that the artwork fits with the overall game mechanics and theme. This requires a level of collaboration and communication that AI is currently not capable of.
That being said, AI technology could potentially be used to assist human artists in certain aspects of the creative process, such as generating initial sketches or providing suggestions for color palettes. But ultimately, the human touch will likely remain an important part of the Pokemon card creation process for the foreseeable future.
3 Likes
I would be surprised if you haven’t unknowingly been emotionally interested in something created by AI. Many news articles, for example, are being written by AI. And that’s in the 1.0 AI era (or beta AI era even) that we’re in.
2 Likes
Elephants can paint paintings, and have clearly shown an appreciation for aesthetics. So it’s not just humans. Also, I have to disagree with you that the AI creators don’t put soul into their work. I’ll make the argument this way,
1) Art is created from the feelings, experiences, and arbitrary choices of the artist, regardless of the artist’s skill.
2) Programmers of novel code, applications, and engineers absolutely put their own arbitrary choices into their designs.
Therefore, it’s reasonable to say programmers and system engineers who create AI could be artists.
Are any premises here wrong, thus proving the argument unsound and jeopardizing the conclusion?
I’m genuinely asking. I have no ego in this.
I think this is a great illustration 
of how we can’t even agree on the concepts of “art”, “artist”, and “AI”, and as such, the conversation about the merits of AI art are… dubious at best.
AI can replace 5Ban easily. The victory series trophy cards would be much more expensive if they have better art.
1 Like
I agree with many of the statements in this thread. One of the things that I find interesting is that to some degree, the output of AI always starts with a prompt/request from a human that has human meaning behind it. AI can draw a “cute and fierce yellow electric mouse with pointy ears” but it doesn’t know why - at least not yet.
1 Like
maybe Artist will be… I bet players are next 
. Collectors, don’t think so 
, scalpers maybe with AI bots developed directly by eBay and amazon in collaboration with Walmart 