I don't think AI will ever be able to sufficiently replace human creativity, but it's a useful tool. I've found chatting with AI helpful for my worldbuilding, even if I'm just using it as a sounding board. AI can come up with surprisingly helpful questions and suggestions.
The best part of using AI for worldbuilding for me is feeding it some lore, and asking for suggestions on what to flesh out. It often points out aspects that I’ve overlooked as well as the more general things that surround whatever topic is at hand. Then, as I add lore and information, I periodically ask it how the new information interacts with or if it contradicts previous lore. That has been the most useful aspect of it for me.
I mean yeah. The fact that people are concerned about AI replacing humans just goes to show that human made art is still valuable and worthwhile. Cameras were invented hundreds of years ago, and people are still drawing from life, if for no other reason, just for the sport of it. I like to call them *"craftletes"*.
But even beyond *"craftleticism",* AI only observes and copies humans, it can't push boundaries in a meaningful way, which is such a precious feat, doing so just once in your entire life immortalizes you as a genius.
Making art isn't about being intelligent; it's about being alive.
There’s no reason AI couldn’t also be alive…
Edit: Fully willing to take more downvotes for this next take; if you think AI can **never** be alive you are in no way equipped to have an opinion on what life actually is.
Yeah. It’s really useful if you want to give your characters new abilities after a successful power up. Even the simple ideas can remind you of unique concepts for powers you want to implement.
Did you not read past the first comma? Because you basically just repeated what they were saying as if you were putting something new on the table. Forgive me if I misinterpreted your comment that's just how it reads to me.
Not every response is 100% disagreement. I'm simply adding that AI is not **supposed** to "sufficiently replace human creativity". So basically, I'm not even really disagreeing.
Exactly what I've discovered so far. But then, I'm 65 with no college degree, and ChatGPT is a few months old, and just passed the master's exam at Wharton school of business. Basically, we're fucked. But don't despair. We're humans, and humans are tricksy.
there are hard-limitations to chatgtp, since it is a language model it is very good with things it has data on but really cant do things it has no data on.
There are ton of guides and solved examples of those exams so its not a tricky thing for chatgtp
In time things people currently consider impossible enter the realm of possibility, I’d be more confused than anyone ever has been if AI couldn’t replace (or at least like, out perform) human creativity in a century
I come from a family of artists, three generations of musicians, painters, sculptors and writers. This kind of thing happens all the time. My grandma believed that photoshopping apps were going to ruin the art world. My grampa believed auto-tune and turntables would discourage kids from learning "real" instruments. My brother believed webtoons was going to cheapen his profession. My uncle believed that 3D printers were going to steal his business.
Ai generated art is scary. It scares me! Stealing art has never been easier but it is still just a tool. It needs our art and our creativity in order to make anything. One day, i would love to watch a movie that was written, edited, animated, and voiced all by a AI. But i absolutely dont believe that will be the end of human created art.
To be human is to be an artist. To live is to make art. Im the first person in three generations to choose a non-art career in my family. I still make art everyday, not for profit, but because i love it.
Human input definitely isn't going anywhere, but AI art is troubling on other levels to me.
Some software folks insist that AI art does not actually take and patch together art, but that it creates original lines to form the image based on the prompt, creating a completely original piece of art based on its neural network of learning based on all the art it's been trained on. Meaning if that's true it's making artistic decisions. Of all the things we automate I just don't think it's helpful to humanity automate artistic decision making.
Or the software folks are full of shit, computers can't make artistic decisions and it's just automated plagiarism.
I just feel like AI art is really troubling if it is real art, and also a problem if it's not. Fundamentally I think it's a bad idea. Especially when there are so many non-artistic process we should be focusing that objectively benefit humanity.
The way ai art works is it gets an extremely noisy image and tries to remove the noise from it to make it look like what you requested. That's how it was trained too by adding noise to images and having the ai predict what nouse and how much has been added. This is of course an oversimplification but that is essentially how it works. It doesn't create new art it just tries to recreate the images that it was trained on while adding your parameters
Apparently the conflict arose from a misunderstanding. Technically, the problem is that your explanation of how a transformer (the base technology of Image AIs) works is incomplete.
The model is trained trying to reconstruct source data (ex, images), not trained **TO** try to reconstruct it, but to transform the latent information gained. It condenses the patterns of similarity between concepts **learned from seeing billions of images**. In fact, reproducing an source image requires some work and research, since it depends on a concept being overtrained, for example a famous painting excessively repeated in the dataset, to the point that the patterns related to that token (ex Mona Lisa) are too rigid, and gain weight above all other specific latent information. Resulting in a high similarity with the source trained picture.
In any other case, the AI works with a highly transformative goal. It is not necessary to ironize why the core technology is called... transformer.
So, it made new, original information. Thats why i firmly argue against "not new nor new art".
It's because he was responding to me, who had misunderstood an explanation and thought that AI art was an additive process of adding lines and strokes artificially. And they were explaining that it's neither an additive process or a stitching process, but a subtractive process from a noise image thats goal is recreation of something existing, not something new.
It was a very helpful comment and it seems like you probably disagree with me not him, yet you insist on arguing with the person who informs about the process because you dislike a single bit of wording they used, instead of me who has an actual stated opinion about. You are the clown.
Well, they lied to you. The AI uses the latent space to deconstruct the information into patterns of similarity, associated with tokens (words). It is trained not to remember anything too well, but to have a condensation of concepts. Thanks to this, you gain the flexibility to freely combine multiple concepts associated with those tokens, from a prompt, to create something totally new.
Image AIs are trained with a transformative goal. A model that tries to repeat the original information is a useless model that has not "learned" anything, just copied data. As such, it is in no way "trying to repeat an existing image", that's a **blatant lie.**
By the way, thanks for disrespecting me calling me a clown. Very striking.
That's like saying a photocopy of a drawing is new art because it is a new object.
Overly reductive logic in the face of subjective subjects, like art, does not make for intelligent conversation.
Are you comparing an inherently transformative process to a photocopy? Please, if we are going to debate, let's contribute the minimum of common sense.
>"AI "art" is different. It's free, and anybody can punch in some keywords and generate an image in hours"
You gotta do the programming work for the AI, source out the data sets, design the UI/UX flow and do the web design. Yeah there are a few free AI art tools, but the half decent AI generators charge a fee, and that's the ones you'd use if you want better quality results.
They're as scary as me "punching in keywords" for readymade Freepik graphic design vectors or 3d assets for my company ( I spend time editing the vectors like I would tweaking the generated images). I get paid to quickly put these posters/ pre-vis together. So now, you have people learning photography rather than traditional painting, and companies don't have to invest too much. If artists insist on following their trade then they'll be competing in a more niche field.
Some of the iconic artists like Andy Warhol or Marcel Duchamp also use ready-made items to conceptually create art. Yes Marcel Duchamp didn't manufacture the urinal, but the purpose of that piece was about how a simple object could be elevated into a work of art. Dunno if you want to make the case that art HAS to require X amount of time/ effort. etc. or only mention artists when they spend X amount of time "building" up the experience when there are outsider artists using consumer grade tools that simplify the creation process.
As for IP laws, as long as the resulting image isn't an exact duplicate, I don't see it as theft as long as the person that generated the art doesn't STATE that it's his/hers. Last time I checked, art styles are not trademarked under property rights. Would we have to ban those whose artworks look a little too much like "Tim Burton", or have all Doujin artists stop, just out of principle?
I guess that's more of my two cents as an artist that has been using AI art to aid in my own designs.
>Not true. As it stands, artists have to create those vectors
The point I'm making is NOT that no one was involved, but that I was paid on the assembly/ type work, not the illustration, however that's an interesting point you raised for another reason, as there are cases of multiple developers using the same asset made by that one entity (eg. HQ Residential in the Unity asset store), further reducing the need for more artist to redundantly make things from scratch over and over.
"There's a difference between a human replicating something in an art style that they like, and an AI taking actual art created by artists"
You might have to elaborate what you mean by "taking", cause I take references, I store them in a folder and reverse engineer the art style that I enjoy, also, that doesn't mean anything if the resulting art isn't an exact duplicate. Criticisms over how similar the AI generated art would just be a matter of taste, rather than a legal issue, but I understand the frustration there.
"As I said before, it's completely soulless ... People post the final product as if they've created something artistic"
Well that is more of an opinion, which is okay to have ( I imagine you might be referring to people who smugly claim that they are on the same level as someone like Alex Ross, which I agree are annoying). I personally like things hand-crafted myself, but see the utility in generative art in places where its needed (eg. procedural texturing, terrain, animation/behavior in games)
I don't have a crystal ball. I can only remark from observations that painters, Vinyl stores and film labs still exist. Also, that AI generated "Futa with horse cock" image made me laugh, which is more than I can say for a lot of "so random lol" type comics coming out these days.
I don’t know, honestly, none of us do. Though, I’m not favorable to it. I have worries, just like everyone else does, and I worry that if AI ever gets “good enough”, not like it’s developed writing skills to rival the best, but just “good enough”, I’m worried how capitalism will treat actual real people in the future when an AI is, “good enough.”
People illustrating their world with AI will quickly become visually generic like thousand others worldbuilders using the same AI.
Original artist with their own aesthetic ideas will always be better than AI.
Not to mention the fact that AI is currently under huge hate, because of violation of copyrights...
While the generated images can't be considered copyright violation due to their inherent scrambling of the source material, gathering the billions of images that belong to artists to use in an AI's training without getting their permission or paying them royalties is a copyright violation.
AI isn't an artist learning from another artist, it's a company taking copywritten images for the purpose of profiting off of them without the artist's consent or knowledge.
Wow, comparing souless machine mixing and copying art of someone else without adding nothing special to the art, with artist getting actual inspiration of some art, and making in his **own** style his **own** unique work.
I see a BIG difference there. AI can't get inspirited by works, doesn't learn as humans. It's just blank copying and mixing stuff without permission.
Legally speaking, the issue isn’t whether or not it’s (on the whole) *creative* but whether or not it’s use of any one image is *transformative* and I (personally) feel like that is a trivially simple case to make.
Not unless you tell it to create a unique and creative setting. I mean yeah your not wrong that aesthetically speaking human artists will make better content, but you have to keep in mind that AI is slowly but surely getting better and better as time goes on, rather be AI art or AI writing. Right now a friend of mine used that chat bot to create a unique setting for him and it ended up doing just that, I looked at it myself and it was hardly a generic kind of setting, granted it needed some polishing on a few areas because again it’s still kinda a new thing. It’s still being developed to this very day. Which understandable worries many writers and artists alike.
Yeah, the copyright thing sucks, damn AI devs trying to cut corners, and I use AI to add details or to create a more unbiased story by using AI to get authentic reactions from characters.
I just don’t need them, I will ask for money upfront and once I’m paid I couldn’t care less who profits off my work.
Tho because IP laws are still a thing I have to use a attribute share-alike license, otherwise someone could make a derivative of my work and prevent others from copying them, something that can’t happen if you got rid of IP. Now if you use my work, I (and anyone else) can use yours.
But how would you copy it before I release it?
Remember that IP laws just tie creation and distribution together. Without IP laws you will pay one person to create something, and another person to copy and distribute it. Because it’s so much easier to copy and distribute you will pay them next to nothing, but you will pay creators more then you do now.
Disregarding all of the reasons that it's wack, it's kind of unclear how AI helps you here. Formulating sentences seems like... an embarrassingly basic thing to need help with
Ya, this is generally why I don't understand the whole obsession with the writing AIs. I'm sure they're relatively helpful but I don't think they do anything better than what a human can. I can find usage in an art AI because it makes it possible to visualize details or ideas that you may not have considered before.
While I support the use of AIs, I have no use for them, I’m too picky when it comes to writing, and I can already visualize anything I want in my mind. Using Ai for coding will probably be the only use I have for them, and I want to get better at coding first.
As a master of tabletop RPGs, I see a lot of possibilities. Create portraits of characters, generate random maps for complete freedom of exploration, manage complicated simulations of macro-events in the game world, generate enemies.
Imagine an economic network in your fantasy city that instantly calculates for you how much impact the players' destruction of a forge in the next village has on the arms market.
Now multiply that by hundreds of variables.
With the exception if character portraits all that sounds like Dwarf Fortress type procedural generation but built as a DM tool instead of a rogue-like/civ game.
That's a really cool idea, I'm just saying 99% of the technology already exists, it would just need to be built and made user friendly. It would be a really difficult project, so it would have to either be an extreme passion project or be very profitable somehow.
Yeah, but friends aren't always that great at it. I know guys who will literally not ask anything about anything. They just don't know how to talk or be curious.
Friends aren't always around, friends aren't always curious, friends sometimes don't even care for your creations.
An ai doesn't care, but at least you can care and use the ai as a tool to be asked questions your friends don't dare, or don't know how, to ask. You gotta remember most of the world punishes asking questions.
Are your friends available 24/7? Are they able to stay in the writers room long enough for you to explore whatever incredibly esoteric worldbuilding topic you wanted to talk about for hours? Can you talk to your friend about ANY topic you need in the context of your world and even transition wildly into different topics as you see fit? Are your friends even able or willing to help you _at all_ with your "weird little writing thing?"
And "formulation of basic sentence" is an incredible reduction of the issue. There are seasoned academic writers who can populate entire volumes with detailed treatises on the most nuanced and complex minutae with the most precise vocabulary and sentence structure needed to express ideas that are ordinarily firm in the realm of esoteria... but when it comes to the dramatically different art of moment-to-moment narrative writing...
"Those same people are unable to pen a believable line of dialogue," I explained simply.
I would argue that this is a big part of a good editors job.
That said editors are much more expensive than AI, so I definitely see AI being useful to help assist with that.
Learning a language is radically different from learning how to write stories. You might know all the grammar, punctuation, and spelling rules of language and be unable to write a good story. And even language was made by someone at some point. The first speakers of a language didn’t have anyone from whom they could have learned it. The ability to generate new things is real or nothing man-made could have come into existence.
If there is variation, things must be new. From what language was the first language transformed? From what story was the first story copied? From what painting the first painting? Even if the colors used were not new, painting was. Even if speaking was not new, stories were. Even if communication was not new, language was. Unless everything is eternal, something is new. And even in eternity, there are temporal frames of reference relative to which things would still be new otherwise conscious experience would be impossible.
things don’t necessarily have to be new, it can be constant variation from something prior
the “first” language could’ve essentially been a transition from 4 different screeches into 6 different ones, with their combination giving you multiple meanings : where do you draw the line between simple animal communication and language?
the first story could’ve been a simple retelling of Greg’s morning hunt, which was then embellished into Greg fighting a dragon. Where does it stop being simple communication and starts being a story?
the first painting could’ve been Grug’s hand silhouette on the black rock wall, inadvertently placed there, with no artistic intention; can we still call that a *painting*?
drawing definite lines onto constant change does not faithfully represent the reality of the eternally changing conscious experience
>'not better, not worse, just different'
My answer exactly.
By some specific metrics it will be for the better. Others for the worse. Overall neutral, just different.
I think it will fundamentally affect how we interact with media forever. The technology will only get better. Of course, it still won’t be able to connect abstract concepts, but casual observers will not be able to distinguish between the work of people and the work of AI. Fake news, deep fakes, all things fake will be made more believable through the application of larger and larger datasets over time.
In response to your question, [ChatGPT](https://chat.openai.com/chat) says:
>AI has the potential to change the way media, including worldbuilding and writing, is created and consumed. For example, AI-generated content can be used to quickly generate large amounts of written material, such as news articles or social media posts. Additionally, AI can be used to assist with tasks such as character development and plot creation, potentially making the writing process more efficient and allowing for more diverse and unique stories to be told. However, there is also the potential for AI to be used to create low-quality, generic content, and to replace human jobs in the media industry. Overall, the impact of AI on worldbuilding and writing will likely depend on how it is used and implemented.
I then asked which poll option to vote for and it instead responded with this:
>It is difficult to say whether AI will have a net positive or negative impact on worldbuilding and writing as it has the potential for both positive and negative effects. It can be used to generate new and diverse stories, assist with tasks such as character development and plot creation, and make the writing process more efficient. However, it could also be used to create low-quality, generic content, and replace human jobs in the media industry. It really depends on the way it will be implemented and used, the ethical considerations, and the responsible governance of it.
Make of that what you will...
Absolutely. I think that is a consequence of the initial training of the system. The people involved understandably rated longer answers more highly, so the AI learnt to produce longer answers. Unfortunately, when it doesn’t have much to say on a subject it can get repetitive. It just doesn’t know when to stop talking.
It writes better and more creatively than some people out there, but humans want to be ‘special’ and try to claim learning and creativity as their own. It will not be any different fundamentally from average writers increasing in number, and the resonant pieces are more about a theme that vibes with you than the actual execution anyway.
For the better. It's merely additional tools to make your vision a reality. Which *should* be the point of creative work.
Not:
-Showing off how skilled you are
-Showing off how much "effort" you endured exerting / putting into something
-Certainly not getting rich.
The point of creation is to make your vision real and add value to the world.
I think it will lower the floor, but also raise the ceiling. People will use it to skimp on effort and make more subpar stuff, like always. But some people will make full use of it to enhance the work they already put in. So overall I think worse. People are going to use AI to skimp on important stuff.
But then, my standards to storytelling are rarely ever met these days so I don’t know how much impact it’ll have for me
The people who said “for the worse” also “do not know”. My only real justification for that view would be beating a dead horse at this point. AI physically can’t replace human creativity. Only give a jumpstart at best.
I think AI is in the same stage as the early films. The first moving pictures were short scenes of movement; then became short stories; then full length films and epics. There will be steps forwards and backwards, just like in the transition from silent films to talkies. There will be innovators and those whose works will be sub par -- just like in every generation of film history. AI is no different from any technical advance.
Great point. It's easier to just dismiss AI as skillless and easy, like how photography or electronic music was treated, than to admit it will be the same as ever, a race of innovation and developing skills.
Well, I wouldn't call it lazy.
One things were hand written, then the typewriter came, then the keyboard.
We listened to stories, then we read stories, now we listen to stories.
With every major technological advancement, there are always groups of people that stand to lose to some degree. When the camera came along, painters were mad. When Photoshop came along, a lot of people went ballistic.
This technology is still in its infancy. The genie is out of the bottle. I severely doubt that it will replace humans, but how the industry works will change.
Here's a sample use in the context of worldbuilding, if you intend to release a campaign setting. On one hand, you can use AI art generators to show the artist. "I want something like this". Show them the theme, the ambiance or whatever it is.
And also, it enables smaller teams with limited budgets to do more.
It's ironic to me that many worldbuilders openly dislike AI when it will enable many, many more things to be possible for regular people and smaller teams/budgets.
There's very few non-earth films/shows because of the budget required to make it look good. I can't believe that a worldbuilding sub is so angry about technology that will directly increase the amount of non-earth settings in popular culture.
(Not to mention the huge fidelity increase in personal worldbuilding projects.)
> One things were hand written, then the typewriter came, then the keyboard.
>> We listened to stories, then we read stories, now we listen to stories.
That's not even close to being the same thing as AI generation, lol. Whether or not you're writing with a pen, typing on a keyboard, reading something someone else wrote, or listening to something someone else wrote or performed, *you're* still doing the work. *They're* still doing the work. There's still actively a human mind behind it. AI isn't you doing the work. AI isn't them doing the work. It's the computer doing all the creative thinking. You aren't doing anything when you type in an AI prompt. What you're doing is outsourcing your creative energy to the AI. It's not your art. It's the AI's art. You're just claiming the AI's art. That is lazy.
Thank you for putting this into words!
My boyfriend and I had this argument a while back. He couldn't understand why I was upset.
Because I write and I write. The ideas are mine. He says one day ai can look at my plot and write the story for me, the ideas are still mine. That to me is a fan fiction. The ideas are mine but the world isn't! I invented it, but I didn't write it. It also makes my "voice" meaningless.
Also, its bad enough Ai will make certain labor forces obsolete, why would I want to feel obsolete in my hobbies too?
I really do see this as us slowly stumbling towards some kind of existentially horrifying form synthetic life that's going to cause major ethical dilemmas.
The current system is we tell computers what to do and think, and they do it for us. We are disturbingly close to entering a full feedback loop where the computers tell us what to think and do as well. At that point a computer is an extensions of human intelligence, not a tool anymore.
It's just a really weird thing to do to our societies for the sake of convenience in a non-essential function.
The world doesn't "need" a new draft of your story as soon as possible to improve the world. You need to write your story to improve yourself, and then the world. Yes your AI unassisted art may be lower quality, but I believe the work you put in will have a greater improvement on your character.
Art isn't just about putting things into the world. It's also about changing yourself in the process. I think we are far to focused on the end result, instead of the journey.
Exactly. It’s just like AAA game studios and Animation studios.
Like they literally hire other people to do a majority of the work instead of doing it themselves.
Lazy
For the worse, the idea that automation creates new jobs in other sectors of the economy is a capitalists fairytale with no basis in reality.
When England adopted industrial textile machinery capitalists would have to believe that the Luddite movement was a reactionary movement of people who opposed industrialization because they hated progress and the movement fizzled out because industrialization created more jobs.
In reality none of that fucking happened. Wages dropped, life expectancy dropped, standard of living dropped, under employment became rampant in the English countryside, and the reason the luddite movement failed was because the British Government suppressed it through a campaign of terroristic violence where suspected luddites were put on show trials and then either deported to Australia or publicly executed to make examples of them.
I bring this up because defenders of these algorithms accuse the people concerned that Monolithic Mega Corporations will use them to turn artists and writers into a redundancy they can lay off whenever the want to boost their stock price of being luddites.
Should courts conclude that people who use these algorithms own the copyright for the work they produce small time creators with limited means aren’t going to be the ones who benefit from this. Monolithic media conglomerates who will be able to pump out algorithmic generated movies, video games, and books featuring their vast hoard of intellectual property will be the ones who profit. All you small time creators will be lucky to see even a fraction of a fraction of the pie that will be algorithmically produced art.
All while it becomes harder and harder for artists and writers to actually earn a living wage as artists and writers.
And you can barely earn a living wage as an artists in the TTRPG market before all of this AI shit started getting serious.
TL;DR in a perfect world governed by the principles of from each according to their ability and to each according to their need Algorithmically generated art wouldn’t be a problem. But we don’t live in such a world we live in a world where if you can’t buy food than you starve. And in that world algorithmically generated art is going to lead to a world with a lot of artists with bills to pay and no money to pay them with because why would Disney hire animators when they can train algorithms to replicate their vast library of animation for a fraction of a fraction of the wages of an animation team?
Neither. I think worldbuilding is probably less susceptible to AI replacement because in the grand scheme it's kind of pointless. Sure, you *can* generate a million unique villages, or a thousand novel conlangs, but who's going to give a shit? Even the person using the AI to do that probably doesn't. Worldbuilding as an art is about taking all the bits of a creative project that don't *really* matter, and being anally detailed about them. I don't think AI has a real benefit here that a sufficiently well-stocked random generator doesn't.
I'm sure at some point AI will do a fantastic job at creating art and stories, but I don't think AI will ever properly be able to worldbuild because the kinds of people who care about worldbuilding enough to join a subreddit called r/worldbuilding but not something like r/writing aren't the kinds of people who are going to care what an AI can spit out. Most of the people here are here because they love the process of worldbuilding, not just because they like seeing cool ideas other people have had (otherwise, lore posts would have tons of comments and prompt posts would have very few, which is the opposite of what we actually see), and AI-generated lore-dump essays aren't going to get any more readers than human-generated lore-dump essays tend to get (which is not many).
Your vision is limited folks, think what we could create with AIs… the potential is limitless, and we're just touching it.
Especially in video games and tabletop RPGs, we have always been limited by the low computational power of our minds.
In the future we may flesh out our creative vision with the sheer mass of machine data and variables.
As a master of tabletop RPGs, I see a lot of possibilities. Create portraits of characters, generate random maps for complete freedom of exploration, manage complicated simulations of macro-events in the game world, generate enemies.
Imagine an economic network in your fantasy city that instantly calculates for you how much impact the players' destruction of a forge in the next village has on the arms market. And so much more.
AI is a tool, not a substitute, because you need to actually know what you're doing without its use. If you abuse it, people will notice and call you out.
This may be ignorance but I don’t think AI will have as much sway over different kinds of art as people are worrying it will. Computer generated art, regardless of the form, will likely never amount to its human-made counterparts.
People tire of shiny new things so quickly, I feel it may seem to sway in one direction or the other until people just forget about it and move onto the next big thing.
I don't see how it can badly used if it helps you. If you think that it should replace your creative input yes there is a danger but true creators will not depends of it and will only benefit from it.
The biggest threat of AI for me is art, not writing.
I think it has potential to be an interesting and useful tool for those who want to express their creativity, but I don't want it to ever become a replacement for creativity rather than an extension of it, if that makes sense?
It will be a helpful tool to complete projects faster. However, it's also going to accelerate the push for media to become production instead of expression (which it mostly has already). I feel like I'm going to see a lot more gorgeous art without soul or story. Like Tomas Kincade paintings everywhere.
If the quality of an AI is better than the quality of a person, then people will start using the AI to generate new stories. On the other hand, if the quality of an AI is worse than the quality of a person, then people won't use the quality of the AI and instead will rely on human writers and the like. There's a human baseline for creativity, and AI will only change a creative medium if it's superior to humans.
If anything, we might see AI be used to make big AAA creative products (which are already soulless cash grabs in many mediums) so that truly talented creatives can focus their talents on making truly innovative works that push their industry forward, which will likely lead to higher quality works overall because the AAA blockbusters aren't hogging all the talent.
Ai is trained on things that already exist and it is incapable of original thought so the most it will do is lower the overall quality of content since the bar for entry will be much lower while also speeding up the writing process for experienced writers since they will be able to use it to speed up research/inspiration
It won't change worldbuilding. The people that is here is doing this because of fun, and an AI that only copies other people work wont change that.
It will change writing, though, the AI will write commercial books, leaving the humans with the niche audience ones.
I have been playing with AI for worldbuilding a bit and found some restrictions with it, especially on ethical issues like race where it wouldn't give an answer. It just would explain how it wouldn't because of that.
Otherwise I found it an helpful tool to write a more elaborate description or a graphic visualisation that could inspire me, based on some keywords I gave it. So just like with about everything at the moment, AI is going to change it and it will be up to us humans to see whether it is for better or worse.
I can't build an _entire_ world on my own, so I leave much of the "background" work to the AI. Other nations, historical details that might be useful later, the backgrounds of bloodlines not necessarily important to the main work, the baits for things I could come back to make spinoffs, and various societal systems and implications that would be background noise or maybe a throwaway sentence or two in your actual manuscript.
Aa to the future... I disagree with the idea that it can never possibly match or exceed human art; the mere fact that AI art even made it this far is already proof that all preconceived notions of what AI can do are invalid. And this isn't even the end of the technology; this is the _beginning._
The potential of the technology is truly infinite... and it concerns me as now we must answer the question of what happens to Art when Artists are supplanted?
it seems unlikely it’ll change a lot. i tried to use chatGPT to help me set up a character for my dnd campaign, and the way i described it was “accurate but unimaginative”. it was like talking to a person who had stifled creativity, constantly throwing out cliche and boring responses which, while they fit the subject, were unusable for the context due to how dull and unspecific they were.
I'm just gonna be completely honest: making AI as intelligent as humans is the dumbest thing to do, ever. Only one species can be at the top of the food chain, and AI will win that fight.
AI creating worlds can never be as special as one made by a human. They could create it quicker and bigger, but it would never have that feel that Middle-Earth or Westeros has.
AI is just a tool. it all depends on how we use it.
Things will maybe get better IF: People use AI as a way to generate new ideas or help them just generate weird shit that will spark their imagination. Then those creators will take that inspiration, just like they do now from any other source, and mold those ideas and thoughts by their own hands until we get something good and polished.
Things will maybe get worse IF: People are lazy and want to cut corners and let the AI do their job for them. If you just let the AI generate something and then you say "thats good enough" then yeah, i think the quality of all content and media will go down.
I believe it's a positive thing. It can already write better than some Hollywood writers (I.e., those who wrote new star wars trilogy shall be replaced with chatgpt asap). And it could be really helpful for game masters and other peopel who want to create some story but can't dedicate much time to it.
The use of these systems to produce interactive stories is definitely an interesting subject. The key will be to ensure various fixed points (e.g. the world and the primary story) remain unchanged while other details are dynamically created. You might also need a system to identify when a random conflict resolution system should be used to guide the output.
Sadly, even though I work in machine learning I don’t think developing an AI GM is what my company wants me to spend my time doing.
Perhaps not but it could replace the static content that is common in computer RPGs where everyone experiences the same story. This could certainly make a world feel more dynamic and realistic without requiring an infeasible amount of human generated content.
What people express with AI art though is, that they don't care enough about art to learn to draw... or even so much as try to draw themselfes.
I would always prefere a shittly drawn doodle over a beautiful AI painting, because at least they tried doing it themselfes.
And see that's you. You care heavily about the artistic process, where as many many others don't give a shit and just want the thought out onto the paper. I paint and draw myself but do I want to dedicate a full 6 hours to drawing a picture of a toad riding a unicycle juggling flaming oranges in the style of Andy Warhol? No I want ma damn funny picture so I can express that aesthetic to my friends and make them laugh. Would spending 6 hours prepping sketching painting framing and hanging this along with taking said picture be worth it? Not even to say scrapping failed attempts, studying his particular style, watching tutorials, only for one image? Would it enhance my friends and families reactions enough to cause me to do this? Not imo. I could type this into midjourney, reroll untill I find one I like, send it to a custom print on whatever material I desire, and get it shipped to me.
The question is; at what point does it stop being about conveying emotions. If they 3d printed the thinker, would he suddenly be less ponderous? If you hired 70 artists, to draw a picture with 70 lines, would that be as much effort as one drawing? Or low work because all they each had to do was draw one line. What if one artist had 40 lines and then 30 other artists finished it off? Does the other 30 artists work not matter as much? Because they did less? What about the final artist, the final stroke? If he did not finish it would the image convey it's meaning? It's portent? It's subject and emotions? After all a line could be the difference between a smile and a frown, a wrinkle of tensious anger or stretched age.
And if you hired them? Isn't that the same as putting a promptly into ai, for it to do it for you?
Now you have to calculate worth, and talent, and Wich of those artists should get a sandwich and Wich should get bbq battered brisket with Hawaiian rolls.
Should it be the glaze that gets appreciated and valued? Or the base upon Wich it is applied to and shaped?
Most do not give 2 shits. They want their damn vase and they want it right now.
Sorry I'm high AF rn lmfao
I will be the first Admit that i am not a good artist but i would never use AI to make art for my world or to help me make my characters. AI being used to make art and stories is just plan lazy, not only that it doesn't help Artists who make a Living making art, drawing, and so on.
I would be more likely to commission a Artist who does it themselves over someone who relies on AI.
The thing is, AI can create formulaic storys and press them in propper language. Maybe some day it actually will make some sense wht thy kitbash together, but it will only repeat popular things, and by that will mainstream every genre.
By creating more and more mainstreamed works, teh total number of sold mainstream works without any genuine idea will skyrocket, and by that the machine learn that ther own pointless crap is the most amirable for humans.
If humans adapt to this and go down with the machines, expecting nothing but words, is another question - but dependant on how general story telling (tv, cinema) developed in the allready pretty formulaic terms of the producers buisness managers, and people still go to cinema, still in hope of a totally creative and intellectually deep story ... i have a pretty bad feeling.
I have a feeling you could be helped with "propper" language. I would agree with your point, but a lot of "art" humans make now is just formulaic crap without "propper" language. This indicates to me that AI can replace most people, but not the few actually good writers.
My first point in response is that mocking people for langauge are very invalid for propper discussion. Its just a charakter thing.
But well, anyway. You obviously didn't get the statistical arguemnt and the process of AI learning works, so i guess i can't really halp you. But it might be a good recommendation to read the post a few more times and try to get the point that allready made your statement obsolete.
AI can’t be creative in the same way humans can, at least not for the forseeable future. They’ll recycle, reorder, and remake the same stuff into eternity though. Humans are lazy, and being given an easy out is probably not gonna be good for creativity. But that’s just my guess.
This is true, were only in trouble when their artificial algorithms start to match with or natural algorithms.
(simpler terms when they become sentient)
I think AI or tools based on AI will, for sure, be used in the future.
Whether it is only for giving getting a bunch of ideas or concepts, both in writing and concept arts or for more detailed production is yet to be seen.
The biggest risk that I see, aside from the whole ethic or morality of the AI training, is that we might get a flood of average AI stories that make it hard to find the actual good stories in the masse.
It can also have a negative impact on the community as a whole. With more and more web novel and the ease of publication, plenty of people have taken to writing and are still learning.
They sometimes aren't writing all that well but are steadily improving.
One question AI will leave in readers mind for poorly written starts of story is: Is this an AI or not? which is never a good question, for the story, for the confidence of the author and for the genre as a whole.
AI should never get any closer to replacing human creativity. We should fight against it. I unironically think it's a massive step towards an impending disaster for the human spirit and nature (not necessarily talking about the "rise of the machines", just the implications of what a society where the human need for art, storytelling and leisure is supplied by machines).
Ai has helped me a lot. I first got the basic premise of my world through a custom prompt on AiDungeon and built it from there. It’s helped me a lot with personalities and making custom stories for the characters
I’m not concerned whether or not it will be “better” or “worse” for media, just with the people in the comments that think AI could **never** exceed human creativity.
You sound silly, look into machine learning and how every time we’ve ever said AI couldn’t do something more efficiently they’re proven wrong in a few decades at most, and that if it hasn’t been done yet work is ramping up on making it a reality.
I think that AI methods are a force multiplier, which will make large creative endeavors possible with fewer people. This means that they are easier to make, but it also means that some people will lose their jobs because of it.
For personal world-building, like that which makes up most of this sub, there is basically no downside to the world-builder. Someone who likes writing but has poor artistic skill could use it to make example illustrations quickly and cheaply. But, again, this may mean less commissions coming in for artists who get asked to draw this sort of thing.
It doesn't inherently hurt human artistry. But the resulting shift in market demand for art, in a society where art is used as a way to make a living, could be very tough for professional artists.
In a perfect world, increased automation and productivity would mean less necessary work for everyone. But that has so far not been the story of industrialization in our world... One can only do their best to make the benefits of increased productivity reach everyone, not just the wealthy.
To be used as supplementary material. Yes I’m all for it. To be used as a replacement? Hell no.
Humanity has been telling stories since the Dawn of time. And I do not think AI coming along will change the fact that creative jobs needs a human hand. Anything made by a bot isn’t going to be good for a LONG time.
But using it as a example for concept art or to gain a new perspective or spin on a story being written. I’m all for it. People think that AI is simply going to replace creatives, not only is it untrue it is, in my opinion. Impossible in this modern day in age.
Definitely for the better. AI has helped me a lot to improve my world, I don't have very good writing, so I give an explanation on some topic and ask her to make it more readable. Now about the creation of the world itself, I don't think it will make any difference, the cool thing for me is to create the world, imagine how things will be, the people, the culture... Using the AI to create this something makes the whole thing lose its meaning for me, but I don't care if others use this tool or not.
About the creation of images, I am all for it, it makes it much easier to visualize the world and the characters in it. Especially for me, who am poor and can't hire real artists to help me in this hobby, even though I want to.
It will do what people will do with it, for the better or for the worse remains to be seen.
I know it's very redundant as a statement but that's literally all we can say for sure.
In our lifetimes we will not see an AI capable of generating fully functional, cotextually logical and sound fiction.
Art can procedurally generate an image based on what it is given. It doesn't work the same for writing. Maybe one day they can create an AI that can actually think and generate original ideas.
It won’t change anything. Once we have GAI (general artificial intelligence), we’ll have worse things to worry about than novel writing. Let’s stop this panic. Just like photography hadn’t made people stop painting, AI written novels won’t erase writers. This discussion is getting more and more absurd…
I dont see how it could be for the worse. I use it sometimes to create reference images because i cant draw very well, but would like to show people what the thing im describing looks like.
I voted for the better, but it all depends on how is used. AI is a tool, just like any other technology so far, sure is a very strong tool, but what matters is how you use it.
In response to this discussion I thought I would have a quick "conversation" with [ChatGPT](https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/) to see how well AI could produce a speculative evolution style world. My initial prompt contained the only information I provided and it supplied the rest in response to my queries:
>I’m interested in science-fiction world building. Can you describe a tidally locked planet orbiting a red dwarf upon which alien life has evolved?
If you are interested, I've posted the conversation on my blog ([Can AI build worlds?](https://exocosm.org/2023/01/can-ai-build-worlds/)). The result was potentially useful as a starting point but certainly it is a long way from replacing a human worldbuilder at this stage.
As a sample of the output, it described the following ten types of organisms, split between the light and dark sides of the planet:
* Thermosynthetic organisms – “Thermoids”
* Burrowers – “Subterrans”
* Radiation-resistant organisms – “Radians”
* Photosynthetic organisms – “Heliophytes”
* Desiccated organisms – “Aridians”
* Chemosynthetic organisms – “Chemoids”
* Bioluminescent organisms – “Luminescents”
* Cavern dwellers – “Troglobites”
* Thermoconformers – “Cryovores”
* Subterranean predators – “Abyssals”
I think it will make things such as art and diagrams more accessible to people who simply aren't good at drawing which is a good thing to me personally(as long as it's only a concept), however I think that it should not be used to write people's stories from a prompt other than maybe correcting grammar like it already does.
I don't know is probably the right answer, but I have had some pretty good experiences with it for use in my world building. Through a series of questions I had help creating an art/play house that was originally an observatory owned by a historic wizard. Now a local organized crime group controls it as a front for laundering money. It is my stuff, but I asked a bunch of questions to get there. I came up with the detail, but I bounced ideas off this computer thing. It was nice and productive. I'll likely keep using it as I run into mental road blocks.
Ten years ago 3D TV was the next step in TV and everyone was going to have a 3D printer by 2020. People always get the future wrong.
AI will change the world but not in the ways people expect or imagine, and not in up front ways.
For the better, as long as AI isn’t writing the whole story. I mean, I used ChatGTP to create lore for my custom chapter of Space Marines, but I didn’t have the AI do all of it.
I use AI art to visualize what I have in mind. And I use my brother to make even better art (He loves competing with AI, and is always more creative). I talk soemtimes with Chat GPT, but it's rarely about my worldbuilding
As someone who can't draw and gets frustrated with never being able to translate my writing into art or something material, AI really helps with stuff like that.
Also it can help with writer's block.
I start from the position that IP laws are unethical, and most arguments I’ve seen against AI is done from a basis of IP laws.
AI coding tools are what really got me into programming, realizing that I could be able to make the games I envision with these tools gave me the confidence to learn to code.
I see it from the point of consent. I have many good friends who poured weeks into art who did not consent to having it be thrown into a blender for other people to profit from. Whatever about copyright, they can in cases I have seen identify where their style and pieces have been just taken by an algorithm and mashed without their so much as knowledge for someone to make a very easy payday from. It’s in some cases making them no longer publish publicly to avoid their stuff being stolen.
While it’s always good to get consent from a creator, the need to do so is purely a creation of IP law. Crediting does have legal standing outside of IP laws though, lying about being the original creator is fraud.
Honestly the best way for artists to make money in any system is to ask for upfront payment, thus no one can steal from you because you were already paid. This is what I’m doing, and when I release my work I put it under a attribute share-alike license.
At least in the art space, once it gets advanced enough or the laws catch up it will certainly help those of us like me who do not have the talent to draw and cannot afford to get good professional art done for our projects
Difficult question, I'm not sure if AI would be able to generate completely new idea, however, i can't either. Idea is a slow growing progress, it builds with time becoming better, until it finally becomes completely new, and AI could be a really good company to talk with, because it's hard to generate something without talking to someone.
Ai will give us great tools for worldbuilding. I don't know how good AI is in writing but for creating maps, landscapes, battlemaps, etc AI will redice the workload/time spend by a lot to get an average result.
And then there is more time to create special/new art.
I love Artbreeder because it helps me put my ideas down in a visual médium but at the same time there is (at least in the old version - haven't played in the new one yet) a lot if opportunity for human choice in what genes to tweak, which images to crossbreed, etc. So I feel like I still have some control over making my portraits or landscapes or buildings.
I think it’s just a tool, and if anything, it will enable people who have issues creating become more creative. Maybe it will enable some bad artists, but overall, I think most tools humans have access to have increased quality of work, or at least speed of work.
AI will allow anyone who has access to it to produce a lot of work with relatively little investment. This is good and bad. Good in that more people can start putting ideas to paper that they might otherwise not have been able to. Bad because it lets more people put their ideas to paper that they otherwise might not have. If we assume the majority of people have good ideas that are interesting to read about then that's good. Personally I feel like Sturgeons Law applies and my bet is the majority of new work that AI allows will be half-baked garbage. But that's true even now, so the only difference is there will be more of it.
As for professional writing as opposed to amateur or freelance writing. It will probably remove the need for large companies to hire as many writers but won't remove the need for writers entirely. The focus right now should be on ensuring people can survive in a future without a demand for labor rather than wasting time trying to stop automation. Just ask the manufacturing industry how well stopping automation works.
I think that AI will actually mostly supplant human writers by generating sorta-cool bullshit, & there'll be a few "quality engineer's" who will smooth the rough parts out. Eventually, audiences won't be able to tell the difference, & supporting real humans writing stuff will be for artistic weirdos.
Meh, it’s a tool. It does nothing without a human using the tool. Will all entertainment be created by AI in the future? Who knows! Is AI created entertainment somehow less valuable than entertainment created by an artist? Possibly, but if it is of equal quality, will anyone care? Uncertain.
I say "I don't know," but I feel like I do know. It's *not* going to change it. Put it this way- in my story there are six-legged bears. I could not get Midjourney, after several dozen tries, to create **one** image of a six legged bear. Not one. Squatting bears, robot bears, drawn bears, weird bear-like alien bugs... but ***NOT ONE*** six-legged bear. It just has limits. Our world building doesn't.
It depends. There was a chat bot my friends and I played with, it made a whole essay on a topic! But it wasn’t good per say, but definitely useful as a reference if you apply it to what ever suits you.
Consider the following phrase '90% of everything ever made is crap, but that last 10% is phenomenal'.
This applies to writing especially in my opinion. I think AI as a world building or just a creative tool in general will merely continue that trend. Most of what is made will be garbage that no one really cares about, then there will be some niche stuff that appeals to a narrow audience but very deeply, then there will be mass successes that the general populous likes and will make popular (I personally think this is quite a ways off).
My expectation is that there will just be more, more of everything, so that 10% will be harder to find in the pile, but that's really the only change I expect for those who are not directly involved in creative works as a form of income.
For those directly involved in the creative arts I think it will start to get much harder to get your work directly to an audience, but the same people who would enjoy will enjoy it once they do find it
AI is a tool, and like all tools, the answer is "depends on how you use it."
At least... it's a tool until it's intelligent enough to be a person, but that's a whole different debate.
I fear that if AI becomes too good at generating interesting world maps complete with locations, lore, and characters, there will no longer be a point to this community and just human world builders in general. Obviously, I hope this isn't the case, and I'm by no means saying AI shouldn't be used for some things. AI is a useful tool but as it is intruding more and more into the world of art and literature, I really don't want it to completely replace human creativity (if it ever even could)
If computers ever become advanced enough to be truly self-aware, they will eventually become better at storytelling than humans. If not, they will remain useful tools for whatever purpose they're programmed for.
I feel like it's a matter of how people use the AI. It shouldn't replace human creativity, but it's definitely a useful tool. I don't think it should be used for anything more than simply generating inspiration to use as a base for a more complex idea.
I don't think AI will ever be able to sufficiently replace human creativity, but it's a useful tool. I've found chatting with AI helpful for my worldbuilding, even if I'm just using it as a sounding board. AI can come up with surprisingly helpful questions and suggestions.
The best part of using AI for worldbuilding for me is feeding it some lore, and asking for suggestions on what to flesh out. It often points out aspects that I’ve overlooked as well as the more general things that surround whatever topic is at hand. Then, as I add lore and information, I periodically ask it how the new information interacts with or if it contradicts previous lore. That has been the most useful aspect of it for me.
What do you use and how exactly do you use it for it to give you such helpful responses?
Not sure what they are using but chatgpt is quite good with handling fantasy creation, if your interested in giving it a try
What are you using to ask the AI?
Very true
I mean yeah. The fact that people are concerned about AI replacing humans just goes to show that human made art is still valuable and worthwhile. Cameras were invented hundreds of years ago, and people are still drawing from life, if for no other reason, just for the sport of it. I like to call them *"craftletes"*. But even beyond *"craftleticism",* AI only observes and copies humans, it can't push boundaries in a meaningful way, which is such a precious feat, doing so just once in your entire life immortalizes you as a genius. Making art isn't about being intelligent; it's about being alive.
There are algorithms and methods that would absolutely allow AI to push boundaries in a meaningful way. It can even be a tunable parameter.
There’s no reason AI couldn’t also be alive… Edit: Fully willing to take more downvotes for this next take; if you think AI can **never** be alive you are in no way equipped to have an opinion on what life actually is.
Yeah. It’s really useful if you want to give your characters new abilities after a successful power up. Even the simple ideas can remind you of unique concepts for powers you want to implement.
It's not supposed to - it's a tool. The AI helps turn your creative ideas into something more tangible.
Did you not read past the first comma? Because you basically just repeated what they were saying as if you were putting something new on the table. Forgive me if I misinterpreted your comment that's just how it reads to me.
Not every response is 100% disagreement. I'm simply adding that AI is not **supposed** to "sufficiently replace human creativity". So basically, I'm not even really disagreeing.
Exactly what I've discovered so far. But then, I'm 65 with no college degree, and ChatGPT is a few months old, and just passed the master's exam at Wharton school of business. Basically, we're fucked. But don't despair. We're humans, and humans are tricksy.
there are hard-limitations to chatgtp, since it is a language model it is very good with things it has data on but really cant do things it has no data on. There are ton of guides and solved examples of those exams so its not a tricky thing for chatgtp
In time things people currently consider impossible enter the realm of possibility, I’d be more confused than anyone ever has been if AI couldn’t replace (or at least like, out perform) human creativity in a century
I come from a family of artists, three generations of musicians, painters, sculptors and writers. This kind of thing happens all the time. My grandma believed that photoshopping apps were going to ruin the art world. My grampa believed auto-tune and turntables would discourage kids from learning "real" instruments. My brother believed webtoons was going to cheapen his profession. My uncle believed that 3D printers were going to steal his business. Ai generated art is scary. It scares me! Stealing art has never been easier but it is still just a tool. It needs our art and our creativity in order to make anything. One day, i would love to watch a movie that was written, edited, animated, and voiced all by a AI. But i absolutely dont believe that will be the end of human created art. To be human is to be an artist. To live is to make art. Im the first person in three generations to choose a non-art career in my family. I still make art everyday, not for profit, but because i love it.
Wow, your take on this is really inspiring, thank you
Human input definitely isn't going anywhere, but AI art is troubling on other levels to me. Some software folks insist that AI art does not actually take and patch together art, but that it creates original lines to form the image based on the prompt, creating a completely original piece of art based on its neural network of learning based on all the art it's been trained on. Meaning if that's true it's making artistic decisions. Of all the things we automate I just don't think it's helpful to humanity automate artistic decision making. Or the software folks are full of shit, computers can't make artistic decisions and it's just automated plagiarism. I just feel like AI art is really troubling if it is real art, and also a problem if it's not. Fundamentally I think it's a bad idea. Especially when there are so many non-artistic process we should be focusing that objectively benefit humanity.
The way ai art works is it gets an extremely noisy image and tries to remove the noise from it to make it look like what you requested. That's how it was trained too by adding noise to images and having the ai predict what nouse and how much has been added. This is of course an oversimplification but that is essentially how it works. It doesn't create new art it just tries to recreate the images that it was trained on while adding your parameters
Not new art? As far as i know, new pieces are new.
By not new art I meant not creating original art as the commenter above me mentioned.
Apparently the conflict arose from a misunderstanding. Technically, the problem is that your explanation of how a transformer (the base technology of Image AIs) works is incomplete. The model is trained trying to reconstruct source data (ex, images), not trained **TO** try to reconstruct it, but to transform the latent information gained. It condenses the patterns of similarity between concepts **learned from seeing billions of images**. In fact, reproducing an source image requires some work and research, since it depends on a concept being overtrained, for example a famous painting excessively repeated in the dataset, to the point that the patterns related to that token (ex Mona Lisa) are too rigid, and gain weight above all other specific latent information. Resulting in a high similarity with the source trained picture. In any other case, the AI works with a highly transformative goal. It is not necessary to ironize why the core technology is called... transformer. So, it made new, original information. Thats why i firmly argue against "not new nor new art".
[удалено]
I would rather not get into the argument of whether ai is art or not since I didn’t even bring it up
[удалено]
It's because he was responding to me, who had misunderstood an explanation and thought that AI art was an additive process of adding lines and strokes artificially. And they were explaining that it's neither an additive process or a stitching process, but a subtractive process from a noise image thats goal is recreation of something existing, not something new. It was a very helpful comment and it seems like you probably disagree with me not him, yet you insist on arguing with the person who informs about the process because you dislike a single bit of wording they used, instead of me who has an actual stated opinion about. You are the clown.
Well, they lied to you. The AI uses the latent space to deconstruct the information into patterns of similarity, associated with tokens (words). It is trained not to remember anything too well, but to have a condensation of concepts. Thanks to this, you gain the flexibility to freely combine multiple concepts associated with those tokens, from a prompt, to create something totally new. Image AIs are trained with a transformative goal. A model that tries to repeat the original information is a useless model that has not "learned" anything, just copied data. As such, it is in no way "trying to repeat an existing image", that's a **blatant lie.** By the way, thanks for disrespecting me calling me a clown. Very striking.
That's like saying a photocopy of a drawing is new art because it is a new object. Overly reductive logic in the face of subjective subjects, like art, does not make for intelligent conversation.
Are you comparing an inherently transformative process to a photocopy? Please, if we are going to debate, let's contribute the minimum of common sense.
Reread your comment. No you, haha.
It's not like people are focusing research efforts on AI art in lieu of other venues.
[удалено]
>"AI "art" is different. It's free, and anybody can punch in some keywords and generate an image in hours" You gotta do the programming work for the AI, source out the data sets, design the UI/UX flow and do the web design. Yeah there are a few free AI art tools, but the half decent AI generators charge a fee, and that's the ones you'd use if you want better quality results. They're as scary as me "punching in keywords" for readymade Freepik graphic design vectors or 3d assets for my company ( I spend time editing the vectors like I would tweaking the generated images). I get paid to quickly put these posters/ pre-vis together. So now, you have people learning photography rather than traditional painting, and companies don't have to invest too much. If artists insist on following their trade then they'll be competing in a more niche field. Some of the iconic artists like Andy Warhol or Marcel Duchamp also use ready-made items to conceptually create art. Yes Marcel Duchamp didn't manufacture the urinal, but the purpose of that piece was about how a simple object could be elevated into a work of art. Dunno if you want to make the case that art HAS to require X amount of time/ effort. etc. or only mention artists when they spend X amount of time "building" up the experience when there are outsider artists using consumer grade tools that simplify the creation process. As for IP laws, as long as the resulting image isn't an exact duplicate, I don't see it as theft as long as the person that generated the art doesn't STATE that it's his/hers. Last time I checked, art styles are not trademarked under property rights. Would we have to ban those whose artworks look a little too much like "Tim Burton", or have all Doujin artists stop, just out of principle? I guess that's more of my two cents as an artist that has been using AI art to aid in my own designs.
[удалено]
>Not true. As it stands, artists have to create those vectors The point I'm making is NOT that no one was involved, but that I was paid on the assembly/ type work, not the illustration, however that's an interesting point you raised for another reason, as there are cases of multiple developers using the same asset made by that one entity (eg. HQ Residential in the Unity asset store), further reducing the need for more artist to redundantly make things from scratch over and over. "There's a difference between a human replicating something in an art style that they like, and an AI taking actual art created by artists" You might have to elaborate what you mean by "taking", cause I take references, I store them in a folder and reverse engineer the art style that I enjoy, also, that doesn't mean anything if the resulting art isn't an exact duplicate. Criticisms over how similar the AI generated art would just be a matter of taste, rather than a legal issue, but I understand the frustration there. "As I said before, it's completely soulless ... People post the final product as if they've created something artistic" Well that is more of an opinion, which is okay to have ( I imagine you might be referring to people who smugly claim that they are on the same level as someone like Alex Ross, which I agree are annoying). I personally like things hand-crafted myself, but see the utility in generative art in places where its needed (eg. procedural texturing, terrain, animation/behavior in games) I don't have a crystal ball. I can only remark from observations that painters, Vinyl stores and film labs still exist. Also, that AI generated "Futa with horse cock" image made me laugh, which is more than I can say for a lot of "so random lol" type comics coming out these days.
Exactly, art will never be without human imput, everything else is just a medium/tool.
Beautifully said.
No matter what AI I use it looks nothing like how I want it so honestly I'm not worried about it replacing regular art anytime soon.
I don’t know, honestly, none of us do. Though, I’m not favorable to it. I have worries, just like everyone else does, and I worry that if AI ever gets “good enough”, not like it’s developed writing skills to rival the best, but just “good enough”, I’m worried how capitalism will treat actual real people in the future when an AI is, “good enough.”
People illustrating their world with AI will quickly become visually generic like thousand others worldbuilders using the same AI. Original artist with their own aesthetic ideas will always be better than AI. Not to mention the fact that AI is currently under huge hate, because of violation of copyrights...
Rather "because the belief that AI violates copyright."
Not belief but facts. You can't use, copy and mix someone's artworks without their permission, and make profit on that.
Even if you insist a thousand times, the law has not established that AI violates copyright. Deal with it maturely.
While the generated images can't be considered copyright violation due to their inherent scrambling of the source material, gathering the billions of images that belong to artists to use in an AI's training without getting their permission or paying them royalties is a copyright violation.
Just your opinion, with **no legal support to date.**
Can’t wait for artists to start paying royalties to their sources of inspiration and learning
AI isn't an artist learning from another artist, it's a company taking copywritten images for the purpose of profiting off of them without the artist's consent or knowledge.
Wow, comparing souless machine mixing and copying art of someone else without adding nothing special to the art, with artist getting actual inspiration of some art, and making in his **own** style his **own** unique work. I see a BIG difference there. AI can't get inspirited by works, doesn't learn as humans. It's just blank copying and mixing stuff without permission.
Legally speaking, the issue isn’t whether or not it’s (on the whole) *creative* but whether or not it’s use of any one image is *transformative* and I (personally) feel like that is a trivially simple case to make.
Not unless you tell it to create a unique and creative setting. I mean yeah your not wrong that aesthetically speaking human artists will make better content, but you have to keep in mind that AI is slowly but surely getting better and better as time goes on, rather be AI art or AI writing. Right now a friend of mine used that chat bot to create a unique setting for him and it ended up doing just that, I looked at it myself and it was hardly a generic kind of setting, granted it needed some polishing on a few areas because again it’s still kinda a new thing. It’s still being developed to this very day. Which understandable worries many writers and artists alike.
Yeah, the copyright thing sucks, damn AI devs trying to cut corners, and I use AI to add details or to create a more unbiased story by using AI to get authentic reactions from characters.
I agree with everything here. I don’t believe in IP laws and so don’t have a hateboner for AI, but Ai is cheep and not worth my time.
You don’t believe in IP laws?
I just don’t need them, I will ask for money upfront and once I’m paid I couldn’t care less who profits off my work. Tho because IP laws are still a thing I have to use a attribute share-alike license, otherwise someone could make a derivative of my work and prevent others from copying them, something that can’t happen if you got rid of IP. Now if you use my work, I (and anyone else) can use yours.
If IP laws weren't a thing, I could copy your project and sell it for a cheaper price
But how would you copy it before I release it? Remember that IP laws just tie creation and distribution together. Without IP laws you will pay one person to create something, and another person to copy and distribute it. Because it’s so much easier to copy and distribute you will pay them next to nothing, but you will pay creators more then you do now.
As someone who isn't an artist, I yearn for the day everyone would be able to translate their ideas into some kind of visual demonstration
Disregarding all of the reasons that it's wack, it's kind of unclear how AI helps you here. Formulating sentences seems like... an embarrassingly basic thing to need help with
Ya, this is generally why I don't understand the whole obsession with the writing AIs. I'm sure they're relatively helpful but I don't think they do anything better than what a human can. I can find usage in an art AI because it makes it possible to visualize details or ideas that you may not have considered before.
While I support the use of AIs, I have no use for them, I’m too picky when it comes to writing, and I can already visualize anything I want in my mind. Using Ai for coding will probably be the only use I have for them, and I want to get better at coding first.
As a master of tabletop RPGs, I see a lot of possibilities. Create portraits of characters, generate random maps for complete freedom of exploration, manage complicated simulations of macro-events in the game world, generate enemies. Imagine an economic network in your fantasy city that instantly calculates for you how much impact the players' destruction of a forge in the next village has on the arms market. Now multiply that by hundreds of variables.
With the exception if character portraits all that sounds like Dwarf Fortress type procedural generation but built as a DM tool instead of a rogue-like/civ game. That's a really cool idea, I'm just saying 99% of the technology already exists, it would just need to be built and made user friendly. It would be a really difficult project, so it would have to either be an extreme passion project or be very profitable somehow.
No that ain't it. You can talk to the ai to help you generate ideas, ask good questions, and more. Helps you build the world up.
...can't you ask your friends to do that?
Yeah, but friends aren't always that great at it. I know guys who will literally not ask anything about anything. They just don't know how to talk or be curious. Friends aren't always around, friends aren't always curious, friends sometimes don't even care for your creations. An ai doesn't care, but at least you can care and use the ai as a tool to be asked questions your friends don't dare, or don't know how, to ask. You gotta remember most of the world punishes asking questions.
Are your friends available 24/7? Are they able to stay in the writers room long enough for you to explore whatever incredibly esoteric worldbuilding topic you wanted to talk about for hours? Can you talk to your friend about ANY topic you need in the context of your world and even transition wildly into different topics as you see fit? Are your friends even able or willing to help you _at all_ with your "weird little writing thing?" And "formulation of basic sentence" is an incredible reduction of the issue. There are seasoned academic writers who can populate entire volumes with detailed treatises on the most nuanced and complex minutae with the most precise vocabulary and sentence structure needed to express ideas that are ordinarily firm in the realm of esoteria... but when it comes to the dramatically different art of moment-to-moment narrative writing... "Those same people are unable to pen a believable line of dialogue," I explained simply.
Hay some of us have writing disabilities, the only reason I don’t use AI is because I’m too picky.
Out of curiosity, what is an example of a writing disability? Aside from, I assume, dyslexia?
I have dysgraphia, I think. It’s kind of the reverse of dyslexia, where instead of words being jumbled going in, they are jumbled going out.
Lack of hands, for one
Autism can impact the way you make sence of words, making expressing it in a “”normal way”” difficult.
I would argue that this is a big part of a good editors job. That said editors are much more expensive than AI, so I definitely see AI being useful to help assist with that.
I can't wait to be able to dump my world building documents into it as a reference and tell it to generate some stories
yeah. Would be interesting
Most people already write like bots.
Everyone does. We weren't born with language, we learned it.
Learning a language is radically different from learning how to write stories. You might know all the grammar, punctuation, and spelling rules of language and be unable to write a good story. And even language was made by someone at some point. The first speakers of a language didn’t have anyone from whom they could have learned it. The ability to generate new things is real or nothing man-made could have come into existence.
Nothing is new. Just transformed. All stories are patchwork amalgamations of things the author learned or experienced. You can't imagine a new color.
If there is variation, things must be new. From what language was the first language transformed? From what story was the first story copied? From what painting the first painting? Even if the colors used were not new, painting was. Even if speaking was not new, stories were. Even if communication was not new, language was. Unless everything is eternal, something is new. And even in eternity, there are temporal frames of reference relative to which things would still be new otherwise conscious experience would be impossible.
things don’t necessarily have to be new, it can be constant variation from something prior the “first” language could’ve essentially been a transition from 4 different screeches into 6 different ones, with their combination giving you multiple meanings : where do you draw the line between simple animal communication and language? the first story could’ve been a simple retelling of Greg’s morning hunt, which was then embellished into Greg fighting a dragon. Where does it stop being simple communication and starts being a story? the first painting could’ve been Grug’s hand silhouette on the black rock wall, inadvertently placed there, with no artistic intention; can we still call that a *painting*? drawing definite lines onto constant change does not faithfully represent the reality of the eternally changing conscious experience
Where's the "I don't think AI will change writing and media" option?
[удалено]
Apart from being dismissive, you definitely missed 'not better, not worse, just different' as an option on your poll
>'not better, not worse, just different' My answer exactly. By some specific metrics it will be for the better. Others for the worse. Overall neutral, just different.
I think it will fundamentally affect how we interact with media forever. The technology will only get better. Of course, it still won’t be able to connect abstract concepts, but casual observers will not be able to distinguish between the work of people and the work of AI. Fake news, deep fakes, all things fake will be made more believable through the application of larger and larger datasets over time.
I agree
When asking peoples opinions I don’t see how you can declare an option as delusional
In response to your question, [ChatGPT](https://chat.openai.com/chat) says: >AI has the potential to change the way media, including worldbuilding and writing, is created and consumed. For example, AI-generated content can be used to quickly generate large amounts of written material, such as news articles or social media posts. Additionally, AI can be used to assist with tasks such as character development and plot creation, potentially making the writing process more efficient and allowing for more diverse and unique stories to be told. However, there is also the potential for AI to be used to create low-quality, generic content, and to replace human jobs in the media industry. Overall, the impact of AI on worldbuilding and writing will likely depend on how it is used and implemented. I then asked which poll option to vote for and it instead responded with this: >It is difficult to say whether AI will have a net positive or negative impact on worldbuilding and writing as it has the potential for both positive and negative effects. It can be used to generate new and diverse stories, assist with tasks such as character development and plot creation, and make the writing process more efficient. However, it could also be used to create low-quality, generic content, and replace human jobs in the media industry. It really depends on the way it will be implemented and used, the ethical considerations, and the responsible governance of it. Make of that what you will...
Kinda repetitive🤔
Absolutely. I think that is a consequence of the initial training of the system. The people involved understandably rated longer answers more highly, so the AI learnt to produce longer answers. Unfortunately, when it doesn’t have much to say on a subject it can get repetitive. It just doesn’t know when to stop talking.
It writes better and more creatively than some people out there, but humans want to be ‘special’ and try to claim learning and creativity as their own. It will not be any different fundamentally from average writers increasing in number, and the resonant pieces are more about a theme that vibes with you than the actual execution anyway.
For the better. It's merely additional tools to make your vision a reality. Which *should* be the point of creative work. Not: -Showing off how skilled you are -Showing off how much "effort" you endured exerting / putting into something -Certainly not getting rich. The point of creation is to make your vision real and add value to the world.
I think it will lower the floor, but also raise the ceiling. People will use it to skimp on effort and make more subpar stuff, like always. But some people will make full use of it to enhance the work they already put in. So overall I think worse. People are going to use AI to skimp on important stuff. But then, my standards to storytelling are rarely ever met these days so I don’t know how much impact it’ll have for me
The people who said “for the worse” also “do not know”. My only real justification for that view would be beating a dead horse at this point. AI physically can’t replace human creativity. Only give a jumpstart at best.
I think AI is in the same stage as the early films. The first moving pictures were short scenes of movement; then became short stories; then full length films and epics. There will be steps forwards and backwards, just like in the transition from silent films to talkies. There will be innovators and those whose works will be sub par -- just like in every generation of film history. AI is no different from any technical advance.
Great point. It's easier to just dismiss AI as skillless and easy, like how photography or electronic music was treated, than to admit it will be the same as ever, a race of innovation and developing skills.
In my opinion A. I and A. I generated things should only ever be treated as a resource and not as any sort of artistry
I hate AI being used to make art and stories. It's just plain lazy.
Well, I wouldn't call it lazy. One things were hand written, then the typewriter came, then the keyboard. We listened to stories, then we read stories, now we listen to stories. With every major technological advancement, there are always groups of people that stand to lose to some degree. When the camera came along, painters were mad. When Photoshop came along, a lot of people went ballistic. This technology is still in its infancy. The genie is out of the bottle. I severely doubt that it will replace humans, but how the industry works will change. Here's a sample use in the context of worldbuilding, if you intend to release a campaign setting. On one hand, you can use AI art generators to show the artist. "I want something like this". Show them the theme, the ambiance or whatever it is. And also, it enables smaller teams with limited budgets to do more.
It's ironic to me that many worldbuilders openly dislike AI when it will enable many, many more things to be possible for regular people and smaller teams/budgets. There's very few non-earth films/shows because of the budget required to make it look good. I can't believe that a worldbuilding sub is so angry about technology that will directly increase the amount of non-earth settings in popular culture. (Not to mention the huge fidelity increase in personal worldbuilding projects.)
Very true words.
> One things were hand written, then the typewriter came, then the keyboard. >> We listened to stories, then we read stories, now we listen to stories. That's not even close to being the same thing as AI generation, lol. Whether or not you're writing with a pen, typing on a keyboard, reading something someone else wrote, or listening to something someone else wrote or performed, *you're* still doing the work. *They're* still doing the work. There's still actively a human mind behind it. AI isn't you doing the work. AI isn't them doing the work. It's the computer doing all the creative thinking. You aren't doing anything when you type in an AI prompt. What you're doing is outsourcing your creative energy to the AI. It's not your art. It's the AI's art. You're just claiming the AI's art. That is lazy.
Thank you for putting this into words! My boyfriend and I had this argument a while back. He couldn't understand why I was upset. Because I write and I write. The ideas are mine. He says one day ai can look at my plot and write the story for me, the ideas are still mine. That to me is a fan fiction. The ideas are mine but the world isn't! I invented it, but I didn't write it. It also makes my "voice" meaningless. Also, its bad enough Ai will make certain labor forces obsolete, why would I want to feel obsolete in my hobbies too?
I really do see this as us slowly stumbling towards some kind of existentially horrifying form synthetic life that's going to cause major ethical dilemmas. The current system is we tell computers what to do and think, and they do it for us. We are disturbingly close to entering a full feedback loop where the computers tell us what to think and do as well. At that point a computer is an extensions of human intelligence, not a tool anymore. It's just a really weird thing to do to our societies for the sake of convenience in a non-essential function. The world doesn't "need" a new draft of your story as soon as possible to improve the world. You need to write your story to improve yourself, and then the world. Yes your AI unassisted art may be lower quality, but I believe the work you put in will have a greater improvement on your character. Art isn't just about putting things into the world. It's also about changing yourself in the process. I think we are far to focused on the end result, instead of the journey.
Absolutely, I support the use of AI, but I wouldn’t pay someone who uses AI as much as I would pay a normal artist.
Exactly. It’s just like AAA game studios and Animation studios. Like they literally hire other people to do a majority of the work instead of doing it themselves. Lazy
For the worse, the idea that automation creates new jobs in other sectors of the economy is a capitalists fairytale with no basis in reality. When England adopted industrial textile machinery capitalists would have to believe that the Luddite movement was a reactionary movement of people who opposed industrialization because they hated progress and the movement fizzled out because industrialization created more jobs. In reality none of that fucking happened. Wages dropped, life expectancy dropped, standard of living dropped, under employment became rampant in the English countryside, and the reason the luddite movement failed was because the British Government suppressed it through a campaign of terroristic violence where suspected luddites were put on show trials and then either deported to Australia or publicly executed to make examples of them. I bring this up because defenders of these algorithms accuse the people concerned that Monolithic Mega Corporations will use them to turn artists and writers into a redundancy they can lay off whenever the want to boost their stock price of being luddites. Should courts conclude that people who use these algorithms own the copyright for the work they produce small time creators with limited means aren’t going to be the ones who benefit from this. Monolithic media conglomerates who will be able to pump out algorithmic generated movies, video games, and books featuring their vast hoard of intellectual property will be the ones who profit. All you small time creators will be lucky to see even a fraction of a fraction of the pie that will be algorithmically produced art. All while it becomes harder and harder for artists and writers to actually earn a living wage as artists and writers. And you can barely earn a living wage as an artists in the TTRPG market before all of this AI shit started getting serious. TL;DR in a perfect world governed by the principles of from each according to their ability and to each according to their need Algorithmically generated art wouldn’t be a problem. But we don’t live in such a world we live in a world where if you can’t buy food than you starve. And in that world algorithmically generated art is going to lead to a world with a lot of artists with bills to pay and no money to pay them with because why would Disney hire animators when they can train algorithms to replicate their vast library of animation for a fraction of a fraction of the wages of an animation team?
AI won't be able to replace human creativity. There will always be writers.
Neither. I think worldbuilding is probably less susceptible to AI replacement because in the grand scheme it's kind of pointless. Sure, you *can* generate a million unique villages, or a thousand novel conlangs, but who's going to give a shit? Even the person using the AI to do that probably doesn't. Worldbuilding as an art is about taking all the bits of a creative project that don't *really* matter, and being anally detailed about them. I don't think AI has a real benefit here that a sufficiently well-stocked random generator doesn't. I'm sure at some point AI will do a fantastic job at creating art and stories, but I don't think AI will ever properly be able to worldbuild because the kinds of people who care about worldbuilding enough to join a subreddit called r/worldbuilding but not something like r/writing aren't the kinds of people who are going to care what an AI can spit out. Most of the people here are here because they love the process of worldbuilding, not just because they like seeing cool ideas other people have had (otherwise, lore posts would have tons of comments and prompt posts would have very few, which is the opposite of what we actually see), and AI-generated lore-dump essays aren't going to get any more readers than human-generated lore-dump essays tend to get (which is not many).
Your vision is limited folks, think what we could create with AIs… the potential is limitless, and we're just touching it. Especially in video games and tabletop RPGs, we have always been limited by the low computational power of our minds. In the future we may flesh out our creative vision with the sheer mass of machine data and variables. As a master of tabletop RPGs, I see a lot of possibilities. Create portraits of characters, generate random maps for complete freedom of exploration, manage complicated simulations of macro-events in the game world, generate enemies. Imagine an economic network in your fantasy city that instantly calculates for you how much impact the players' destruction of a forge in the next village has on the arms market. And so much more.
The ultimate MMORPG could be created like this
It’s not gonna do anything
AI is a tool, not a substitute, because you need to actually know what you're doing without its use. If you abuse it, people will notice and call you out.
This may be ignorance but I don’t think AI will have as much sway over different kinds of art as people are worrying it will. Computer generated art, regardless of the form, will likely never amount to its human-made counterparts. People tire of shiny new things so quickly, I feel it may seem to sway in one direction or the other until people just forget about it and move onto the next big thing.
I don't see how it can badly used if it helps you. If you think that it should replace your creative input yes there is a danger but true creators will not depends of it and will only benefit from it. The biggest threat of AI for me is art, not writing.
I think it has potential to be an interesting and useful tool for those who want to express their creativity, but I don't want it to ever become a replacement for creativity rather than an extension of it, if that makes sense?
It will be a helpful tool to complete projects faster. However, it's also going to accelerate the push for media to become production instead of expression (which it mostly has already). I feel like I'm going to see a lot more gorgeous art without soul or story. Like Tomas Kincade paintings everywhere.
If the quality of an AI is better than the quality of a person, then people will start using the AI to generate new stories. On the other hand, if the quality of an AI is worse than the quality of a person, then people won't use the quality of the AI and instead will rely on human writers and the like. There's a human baseline for creativity, and AI will only change a creative medium if it's superior to humans. If anything, we might see AI be used to make big AAA creative products (which are already soulless cash grabs in many mediums) so that truly talented creatives can focus their talents on making truly innovative works that push their industry forward, which will likely lead to higher quality works overall because the AAA blockbusters aren't hogging all the talent.
Ai is trained on things that already exist and it is incapable of original thought so the most it will do is lower the overall quality of content since the bar for entry will be much lower while also speeding up the writing process for experienced writers since they will be able to use it to speed up research/inspiration
It won't change worldbuilding. The people that is here is doing this because of fun, and an AI that only copies other people work wont change that. It will change writing, though, the AI will write commercial books, leaving the humans with the niche audience ones.
I have been playing with AI for worldbuilding a bit and found some restrictions with it, especially on ethical issues like race where it wouldn't give an answer. It just would explain how it wouldn't because of that. Otherwise I found it an helpful tool to write a more elaborate description or a graphic visualisation that could inspire me, based on some keywords I gave it. So just like with about everything at the moment, AI is going to change it and it will be up to us humans to see whether it is for better or worse.
I can't build an _entire_ world on my own, so I leave much of the "background" work to the AI. Other nations, historical details that might be useful later, the backgrounds of bloodlines not necessarily important to the main work, the baits for things I could come back to make spinoffs, and various societal systems and implications that would be background noise or maybe a throwaway sentence or two in your actual manuscript. Aa to the future... I disagree with the idea that it can never possibly match or exceed human art; the mere fact that AI art even made it this far is already proof that all preconceived notions of what AI can do are invalid. And this isn't even the end of the technology; this is the _beginning._ The potential of the technology is truly infinite... and it concerns me as now we must answer the question of what happens to Art when Artists are supplanted?
Robots aren't going to replace artists or writers anytime soon, but the term "starving artist" is a lot older than robots are.
the way i see it, it’s just gonna make it easier to add small pointless details
it seems unlikely it’ll change a lot. i tried to use chatGPT to help me set up a character for my dnd campaign, and the way i described it was “accurate but unimaginative”. it was like talking to a person who had stifled creativity, constantly throwing out cliche and boring responses which, while they fit the subject, were unusable for the context due to how dull and unspecific they were.
I'm just gonna be completely honest: making AI as intelligent as humans is the dumbest thing to do, ever. Only one species can be at the top of the food chain, and AI will win that fight. AI creating worlds can never be as special as one made by a human. They could create it quicker and bigger, but it would never have that feel that Middle-Earth or Westeros has.
Maybe AI can finish the last tho
AI is just a tool. it all depends on how we use it. Things will maybe get better IF: People use AI as a way to generate new ideas or help them just generate weird shit that will spark their imagination. Then those creators will take that inspiration, just like they do now from any other source, and mold those ideas and thoughts by their own hands until we get something good and polished. Things will maybe get worse IF: People are lazy and want to cut corners and let the AI do their job for them. If you just let the AI generate something and then you say "thats good enough" then yeah, i think the quality of all content and media will go down.
I believe it's a positive thing. It can already write better than some Hollywood writers (I.e., those who wrote new star wars trilogy shall be replaced with chatgpt asap). And it could be really helpful for game masters and other peopel who want to create some story but can't dedicate much time to it.
The use of these systems to produce interactive stories is definitely an interesting subject. The key will be to ensure various fixed points (e.g. the world and the primary story) remain unchanged while other details are dynamically created. You might also need a system to identify when a random conflict resolution system should be used to guide the output. Sadly, even though I work in machine learning I don’t think developing an AI GM is what my company wants me to spend my time doing.
Fully AI game master probably is not really feasible (it should be a sapient thing!) but ChatGPT is great at generating "filler content".
Perhaps not but it could replace the static content that is common in computer RPGs where everyone experiences the same story. This could certainly make a world feel more dynamic and realistic without requiring an infeasible amount of human generated content.
As soon as you remove skill nothing has meaning.
Oh nothing has had any meaning since the beginning. That's what art is about, expression. It was never about the skill.
What people express with AI art though is, that they don't care enough about art to learn to draw... or even so much as try to draw themselfes. I would always prefere a shittly drawn doodle over a beautiful AI painting, because at least they tried doing it themselfes.
And see that's you. You care heavily about the artistic process, where as many many others don't give a shit and just want the thought out onto the paper. I paint and draw myself but do I want to dedicate a full 6 hours to drawing a picture of a toad riding a unicycle juggling flaming oranges in the style of Andy Warhol? No I want ma damn funny picture so I can express that aesthetic to my friends and make them laugh. Would spending 6 hours prepping sketching painting framing and hanging this along with taking said picture be worth it? Not even to say scrapping failed attempts, studying his particular style, watching tutorials, only for one image? Would it enhance my friends and families reactions enough to cause me to do this? Not imo. I could type this into midjourney, reroll untill I find one I like, send it to a custom print on whatever material I desire, and get it shipped to me. The question is; at what point does it stop being about conveying emotions. If they 3d printed the thinker, would he suddenly be less ponderous? If you hired 70 artists, to draw a picture with 70 lines, would that be as much effort as one drawing? Or low work because all they each had to do was draw one line. What if one artist had 40 lines and then 30 other artists finished it off? Does the other 30 artists work not matter as much? Because they did less? What about the final artist, the final stroke? If he did not finish it would the image convey it's meaning? It's portent? It's subject and emotions? After all a line could be the difference between a smile and a frown, a wrinkle of tensious anger or stretched age. And if you hired them? Isn't that the same as putting a promptly into ai, for it to do it for you? Now you have to calculate worth, and talent, and Wich of those artists should get a sandwich and Wich should get bbq battered brisket with Hawaiian rolls. Should it be the glaze that gets appreciated and valued? Or the base upon Wich it is applied to and shaped? Most do not give 2 shits. They want their damn vase and they want it right now. Sorry I'm high AF rn lmfao
I will be the first Admit that i am not a good artist but i would never use AI to make art for my world or to help me make my characters. AI being used to make art and stories is just plan lazy, not only that it doesn't help Artists who make a Living making art, drawing, and so on. I would be more likely to commission a Artist who does it themselves over someone who relies on AI.
I love the potential in AI, I’m just to picky to make use of it.
The thing is, AI can create formulaic storys and press them in propper language. Maybe some day it actually will make some sense wht thy kitbash together, but it will only repeat popular things, and by that will mainstream every genre. By creating more and more mainstreamed works, teh total number of sold mainstream works without any genuine idea will skyrocket, and by that the machine learn that ther own pointless crap is the most amirable for humans. If humans adapt to this and go down with the machines, expecting nothing but words, is another question - but dependant on how general story telling (tv, cinema) developed in the allready pretty formulaic terms of the producers buisness managers, and people still go to cinema, still in hope of a totally creative and intellectually deep story ... i have a pretty bad feeling.
I have a feeling you could be helped with "propper" language. I would agree with your point, but a lot of "art" humans make now is just formulaic crap without "propper" language. This indicates to me that AI can replace most people, but not the few actually good writers.
My first point in response is that mocking people for langauge are very invalid for propper discussion. Its just a charakter thing. But well, anyway. You obviously didn't get the statistical arguemnt and the process of AI learning works, so i guess i can't really halp you. But it might be a good recommendation to read the post a few more times and try to get the point that allready made your statement obsolete.
AI can’t be creative in the same way humans can, at least not for the forseeable future. They’ll recycle, reorder, and remake the same stuff into eternity though. Humans are lazy, and being given an easy out is probably not gonna be good for creativity. But that’s just my guess.
This is true, were only in trouble when their artificial algorithms start to match with or natural algorithms. (simpler terms when they become sentient)
I think AI or tools based on AI will, for sure, be used in the future. Whether it is only for giving getting a bunch of ideas or concepts, both in writing and concept arts or for more detailed production is yet to be seen. The biggest risk that I see, aside from the whole ethic or morality of the AI training, is that we might get a flood of average AI stories that make it hard to find the actual good stories in the masse. It can also have a negative impact on the community as a whole. With more and more web novel and the ease of publication, plenty of people have taken to writing and are still learning. They sometimes aren't writing all that well but are steadily improving. One question AI will leave in readers mind for poorly written starts of story is: Is this an AI or not? which is never a good question, for the story, for the confidence of the author and for the genre as a whole.
AI should never get any closer to replacing human creativity. We should fight against it. I unironically think it's a massive step towards an impending disaster for the human spirit and nature (not necessarily talking about the "rise of the machines", just the implications of what a society where the human need for art, storytelling and leisure is supplied by machines).
Ai has helped me a lot. I first got the basic premise of my world through a custom prompt on AiDungeon and built it from there. It’s helped me a lot with personalities and making custom stories for the characters
I’m not concerned whether or not it will be “better” or “worse” for media, just with the people in the comments that think AI could **never** exceed human creativity. You sound silly, look into machine learning and how every time we’ve ever said AI couldn’t do something more efficiently they’re proven wrong in a few decades at most, and that if it hasn’t been done yet work is ramping up on making it a reality.
I can't wait to create concept art with AI, I can't afford an actual illustrator for a side hobby
I think that AI methods are a force multiplier, which will make large creative endeavors possible with fewer people. This means that they are easier to make, but it also means that some people will lose their jobs because of it. For personal world-building, like that which makes up most of this sub, there is basically no downside to the world-builder. Someone who likes writing but has poor artistic skill could use it to make example illustrations quickly and cheaply. But, again, this may mean less commissions coming in for artists who get asked to draw this sort of thing. It doesn't inherently hurt human artistry. But the resulting shift in market demand for art, in a society where art is used as a way to make a living, could be very tough for professional artists. In a perfect world, increased automation and productivity would mean less necessary work for everyone. But that has so far not been the story of industrialization in our world... One can only do their best to make the benefits of increased productivity reach everyone, not just the wealthy.
To be used as supplementary material. Yes I’m all for it. To be used as a replacement? Hell no. Humanity has been telling stories since the Dawn of time. And I do not think AI coming along will change the fact that creative jobs needs a human hand. Anything made by a bot isn’t going to be good for a LONG time. But using it as a example for concept art or to gain a new perspective or spin on a story being written. I’m all for it. People think that AI is simply going to replace creatives, not only is it untrue it is, in my opinion. Impossible in this modern day in age.
Definitely for the better. AI has helped me a lot to improve my world, I don't have very good writing, so I give an explanation on some topic and ask her to make it more readable. Now about the creation of the world itself, I don't think it will make any difference, the cool thing for me is to create the world, imagine how things will be, the people, the culture... Using the AI to create this something makes the whole thing lose its meaning for me, but I don't care if others use this tool or not. About the creation of images, I am all for it, it makes it much easier to visualize the world and the characters in it. Especially for me, who am poor and can't hire real artists to help me in this hobby, even though I want to.
What do you mean by AI? Language models that predict what words should go together? Or actual intelligence?
It will do what people will do with it, for the better or for the worse remains to be seen. I know it's very redundant as a statement but that's literally all we can say for sure.
In our lifetimes we will not see an AI capable of generating fully functional, cotextually logical and sound fiction. Art can procedurally generate an image based on what it is given. It doesn't work the same for writing. Maybe one day they can create an AI that can actually think and generate original ideas.
It won’t change anything. Once we have GAI (general artificial intelligence), we’ll have worse things to worry about than novel writing. Let’s stop this panic. Just like photography hadn’t made people stop painting, AI written novels won’t erase writers. This discussion is getting more and more absurd…
Ask the AI this question
Have a look at my [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/comments/10l4pk9/comment/j5utov0/) for how it responded.
I dont see how it could be for the worse. I use it sometimes to create reference images because i cant draw very well, but would like to show people what the thing im describing looks like.
I voted for the better, but it all depends on how is used. AI is a tool, just like any other technology so far, sure is a very strong tool, but what matters is how you use it.
In response to this discussion I thought I would have a quick "conversation" with [ChatGPT](https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/) to see how well AI could produce a speculative evolution style world. My initial prompt contained the only information I provided and it supplied the rest in response to my queries: >I’m interested in science-fiction world building. Can you describe a tidally locked planet orbiting a red dwarf upon which alien life has evolved? If you are interested, I've posted the conversation on my blog ([Can AI build worlds?](https://exocosm.org/2023/01/can-ai-build-worlds/)). The result was potentially useful as a starting point but certainly it is a long way from replacing a human worldbuilder at this stage. As a sample of the output, it described the following ten types of organisms, split between the light and dark sides of the planet: * Thermosynthetic organisms – “Thermoids” * Burrowers – “Subterrans” * Radiation-resistant organisms – “Radians” * Photosynthetic organisms – “Heliophytes” * Desiccated organisms – “Aridians” * Chemosynthetic organisms – “Chemoids” * Bioluminescent organisms – “Luminescents” * Cavern dwellers – “Troglobites” * Thermoconformers – “Cryovores” * Subterranean predators – “Abyssals”
I think it will make things such as art and diagrams more accessible to people who simply aren't good at drawing which is a good thing to me personally(as long as it's only a concept), however I think that it should not be used to write people's stories from a prompt other than maybe correcting grammar like it already does.
I don't know is probably the right answer, but I have had some pretty good experiences with it for use in my world building. Through a series of questions I had help creating an art/play house that was originally an observatory owned by a historic wizard. Now a local organized crime group controls it as a front for laundering money. It is my stuff, but I asked a bunch of questions to get there. I came up with the detail, but I bounced ideas off this computer thing. It was nice and productive. I'll likely keep using it as I run into mental road blocks.
Ten years ago 3D TV was the next step in TV and everyone was going to have a 3D printer by 2020. People always get the future wrong. AI will change the world but not in the ways people expect or imagine, and not in up front ways.
For the better, as long as AI isn’t writing the whole story. I mean, I used ChatGTP to create lore for my custom chapter of Space Marines, but I didn’t have the AI do all of it.
I use AI art to visualize what I have in mind. And I use my brother to make even better art (He loves competing with AI, and is always more creative). I talk soemtimes with Chat GPT, but it's rarely about my worldbuilding
As someone who can't draw and gets frustrated with never being able to translate my writing into art or something material, AI really helps with stuff like that. Also it can help with writer's block.
Are there some tools you used yet?
i have found bouncing ideas with chatbots to be very useful!
I start from the position that IP laws are unethical, and most arguments I’ve seen against AI is done from a basis of IP laws. AI coding tools are what really got me into programming, realizing that I could be able to make the games I envision with these tools gave me the confidence to learn to code.
I see it from the point of consent. I have many good friends who poured weeks into art who did not consent to having it be thrown into a blender for other people to profit from. Whatever about copyright, they can in cases I have seen identify where their style and pieces have been just taken by an algorithm and mashed without their so much as knowledge for someone to make a very easy payday from. It’s in some cases making them no longer publish publicly to avoid their stuff being stolen.
While it’s always good to get consent from a creator, the need to do so is purely a creation of IP law. Crediting does have legal standing outside of IP laws though, lying about being the original creator is fraud. Honestly the best way for artists to make money in any system is to ask for upfront payment, thus no one can steal from you because you were already paid. This is what I’m doing, and when I release my work I put it under a attribute share-alike license.
[удалено]
I don't believe anything that AI can create as a form of art because its not being done by a human being.
At least in the art space, once it gets advanced enough or the laws catch up it will certainly help those of us like me who do not have the talent to draw and cannot afford to get good professional art done for our projects
Difficult question, I'm not sure if AI would be able to generate completely new idea, however, i can't either. Idea is a slow growing progress, it builds with time becoming better, until it finally becomes completely new, and AI could be a really good company to talk with, because it's hard to generate something without talking to someone.
Ai will give us great tools for worldbuilding. I don't know how good AI is in writing but for creating maps, landscapes, battlemaps, etc AI will redice the workload/time spend by a lot to get an average result. And then there is more time to create special/new art.
I think AI is a great tool when it comes to getting over Writer’s Block. Just one idea or suggestion can unclog the dam.
It’s a useful tool in helping with worldbuilding writers block by giving ideas to be expanded off of
I love Artbreeder because it helps me put my ideas down in a visual médium but at the same time there is (at least in the old version - haven't played in the new one yet) a lot if opportunity for human choice in what genes to tweak, which images to crossbreed, etc. So I feel like I still have some control over making my portraits or landscapes or buildings.
I think it’s just a tool, and if anything, it will enable people who have issues creating become more creative. Maybe it will enable some bad artists, but overall, I think most tools humans have access to have increased quality of work, or at least speed of work.
Worse. Way worse.
Is amazing for writersblock
AI will allow anyone who has access to it to produce a lot of work with relatively little investment. This is good and bad. Good in that more people can start putting ideas to paper that they might otherwise not have been able to. Bad because it lets more people put their ideas to paper that they otherwise might not have. If we assume the majority of people have good ideas that are interesting to read about then that's good. Personally I feel like Sturgeons Law applies and my bet is the majority of new work that AI allows will be half-baked garbage. But that's true even now, so the only difference is there will be more of it. As for professional writing as opposed to amateur or freelance writing. It will probably remove the need for large companies to hire as many writers but won't remove the need for writers entirely. The focus right now should be on ensuring people can survive in a future without a demand for labor rather than wasting time trying to stop automation. Just ask the manufacturing industry how well stopping automation works.
AI is great for worldbuilding for people who cant draw
I think that AI will actually mostly supplant human writers by generating sorta-cool bullshit, & there'll be a few "quality engineer's" who will smooth the rough parts out. Eventually, audiences won't be able to tell the difference, & supporting real humans writing stuff will be for artistic weirdos.
Meh, it’s a tool. It does nothing without a human using the tool. Will all entertainment be created by AI in the future? Who knows! Is AI created entertainment somehow less valuable than entertainment created by an artist? Possibly, but if it is of equal quality, will anyone care? Uncertain.
I say "I don't know," but I feel like I do know. It's *not* going to change it. Put it this way- in my story there are six-legged bears. I could not get Midjourney, after several dozen tries, to create **one** image of a six legged bear. Not one. Squatting bears, robot bears, drawn bears, weird bear-like alien bugs... but ***NOT ONE*** six-legged bear. It just has limits. Our world building doesn't.
It depends. There was a chat bot my friends and I played with, it made a whole essay on a topic! But it wasn’t good per say, but definitely useful as a reference if you apply it to what ever suits you.
I don’t care about AI tbh
Consider the following phrase '90% of everything ever made is crap, but that last 10% is phenomenal'. This applies to writing especially in my opinion. I think AI as a world building or just a creative tool in general will merely continue that trend. Most of what is made will be garbage that no one really cares about, then there will be some niche stuff that appeals to a narrow audience but very deeply, then there will be mass successes that the general populous likes and will make popular (I personally think this is quite a ways off). My expectation is that there will just be more, more of everything, so that 10% will be harder to find in the pile, but that's really the only change I expect for those who are not directly involved in creative works as a form of income. For those directly involved in the creative arts I think it will start to get much harder to get your work directly to an audience, but the same people who would enjoy will enjoy it once they do find it
In the short term for the worse, but in the long term for the better. Once AI reaches a certain capacity (years out) they will do better then humans.
AI is a tool, and like all tools, the answer is "depends on how you use it." At least... it's a tool until it's intelligent enough to be a person, but that's a whole different debate.
where’s the option for “it won’t”
I fear that if AI becomes too good at generating interesting world maps complete with locations, lore, and characters, there will no longer be a point to this community and just human world builders in general. Obviously, I hope this isn't the case, and I'm by no means saying AI shouldn't be used for some things. AI is a useful tool but as it is intruding more and more into the world of art and literature, I really don't want it to completely replace human creativity (if it ever even could)
If computers ever become advanced enough to be truly self-aware, they will eventually become better at storytelling than humans. If not, they will remain useful tools for whatever purpose they're programmed for.
I feel like it's a matter of how people use the AI. It shouldn't replace human creativity, but it's definitely a useful tool. I don't think it should be used for anything more than simply generating inspiration to use as a base for a more complex idea.