An AI Generated disclaimer attached to this masterpiece would be an absolute disgrace to the game. You expect games like Motel Simulator and other passionless shit to have that label, sure, but not The Alters with such incredibly minor AI generated stuff in there. Apart from it being a disgrace to such a masterpiece, it would also entirely remove the meaning of the label.

The Alters is among my top 10 games of all time, so the "heat" this game is getting over this kinda pisses me off.

PS: I stumbled upon the PC GAMER article about Bluesnews, today, which surprised me to my core. It reminded me that I've been visiting this website since 2003 while I was still an idiot child and it was a strange, sentimental feeling that washed over me. Since I self-ejected from here, I'll just inject myself again.

It sucks that your job is being phased out. And yes, you being a very prolific artist means you know way more about art creation and the art industry. I am confused, however, as to why that is relevant. The guy who was an expert in horse-and-buggy transportation and the industry was still put out of a job when the automobile was created. The guy who built a really good abacus is probably not doing so well either. If your contention is that as a human artist your work can still outstrip anything AI can come up with currently, I would wholeheartedly agree. That will inevitably change, however, sooner or later. The only thing that I know for sure is that you believe that an AI being trained on a human's body of work is theft. It's not black and white for me exactly, but I disagree. Strongly. Not because I like the big bad corporations better than I like the starving artist (it's decidedly opposite) but because I am basing it on what precedence so far exists. If the law is adjusted or a high court rules definitively in another direction, then I too will adjust. I work with what's here, not how I wish it was. What's right and what's wrong for me isn't affected by whom I am more sympathetic to. Sorry. You probably think that I am a brainwashed corporate shill but that is so opposite the truth that it is laughable. If you care to, scroll through my post history.

This comment was edited on Jul 4, 2025, 13:47.

Prez wrote on Jul 4, 2025, 00:55:
Okay. So I am stupid. Got it.

I've never called you stupid, nor have I thought it. If we were talking about music production I would shut up and give you the floor. I just happen to know a great deal about this subject because:
- I'm an artist, a writer, a photographer, and more.
- I worked at BioWare several years ago, and before that I was was the Technical Director for an animation studio
- it directly affects me, and many of my friends, so I've researched it extensively

It shouldn't be so hard for you to accept that I might know more about this *one very specific issue that I care about* than you.

Prez wrote on Jul 4, 2025, 00:55:
Okay. So I am stupid. Got it.

I too am dumb because a guy who said he was an artist is now not an artist and AI is to blame.

Okay. So I am stupid. Got it.

Prez wrote on Jul 3, 2025, 22:59:
I am not a tech bro nor am I a grifter.

And I don't think that you are a techbro or grifter, but I do think you've bought their lies.

I am not a tech bro nor am I a grifter. But this is where we agree to disagree.

Prez wrote on Jul 3, 2025, 11:48:
Of course it isn't selfish to want to work, but progress is going to happen, and in a lot of cases it's going to be messy and there's going to be casualties. That's just how it's gone throughout history. Stating that fact doesn't make me heartless. I had dreams of being a rock star when I was 18 too, but for every Steve Vai or Joe Satriani, there's a million Prez's.

But you're *not* stating a fact. Generative AI isn't "progress". It doesn't imagine or innovate, it appropriates and regurgitates, and it's a dead-end as far as creativity is concerned. People who actually understand the technology know this. The "progress" argument is a lie told by marketers and techbro grifters who only care about cashing in on the latest fad and don't care how many people they hurt or how much of the world they burn along the way.

Whoa, calm down there friend. Waving the white flag and all that. We disagree on the copyright thing, or theft, or whatever you want to call it, but disagreement doesn't need to mean enemies. Of course it isn't selfish to want to work, but progress is going to happen, and in a lot of cases it's going to be messy and there's going to be casualties. That's just how it's gone throughout history. Stating that fact doesn't make me heartless. I had dreams of being a rock star when I was 18 too, but for every Steve Vai or Joe Satriani, there's a million Prez's.

Prez wrote on Jul 3, 2025, 09:41:
Look, you are a creative, and I think that's fantastic. Before my stroke I used to be a musician. Artists tend to be the most negative about AI because of what it could mean for their hobby/passion/career. No offense but it's a self-serving negativity that I don't share. It's not theft, it's not stealing, it's just using information that we put out into the world. In my opinion anyway, obviously in opposition to yours.

When you take something without permission, it's theft. Putting an image on the internet doesn't make it public domain. I know a lot about copyright law (I've had to make a few DMCA strikes of my own in the past): My work remains my work and cannot be used commercially without my permission unless I explicitly license it out or make it CC0/public domain, but those shitbags at OpenAI etc ignored copyright to use my work (and the work of millions of others) to make their plagiarism machines anyway. If you're okay with your work being used that way, then go ahead and sign your rights away, I've no reason to stop you, but I never gave them permission to do that and that makes if fucking theft.

And yeah, this might be a little self-serving too. Artists are forced to live in a world where we need to monetise our work to stay alive. We'd like nothing more than to paint/write/compose whatever we want, and not care about what happens to our work because we're driven by passion, but we're not allowed to do that because we need to pay bills just like everyone else. Many artists have already lost work over the past few years due to generative AI, and it's especially bad for freelancers who rely on commissions and short-term projects*.

Is it selfish to want to earn a fucking living? Is it negative to want to work?


*I used to freelance and have basically given up (I survive on disability support). These days, to support yourself on art alone, you have to be the best of the best, or charge so little that you end up far below the poverty line. Even the legendary Craig Mullins is having trouble finding work.

You kind of said the same thing I did when you said

(or, more correctly, the fault of the companies pushing it).

The companies pushing it and AI are not the same thing.

Look, you are a creative, and I think that's fantastic. Before my stroke I used to be a musician. Artists tend to be the most negative about AI because of what it could mean for their hobby/passion/career. No offense but it's a self-serving negativity that I don't share. It's not theft, it's not stealing, it's just using information that we put out into the world. In my opinion anyway, obviously in opposition to yours.

Prez wrote on Jul 2, 2025, 13:25:
Energy is only a problem if it's not clean energy. That's not AI's fault, and considering the future computational power of AI and quantum computing, it's not unreasonable to expect amazing advancements in clean energy.

It absolutely is AI's "fault" (or, more correctly, the fault of the companies pushing it). It's an extremely inefficient technology that relies on brute force rather than intelligence, and the overwhelming majority of its applications are frivolous and don't come anywhere close to justifying the expense. It should be heavily regulated, but our governments are too craven to take action.

Also "we might have cleaner energy one day" doesn't excuse wasting energy now, especially since we could have cleaner energy right now but the proliferation of AI data centres is actively delaying the closure of coal-powered plants.

Prez wrote on Jul 2, 2025, 13:25:
As far as copyrighted works, it's only an issue if the final output is infringing. Were I an artist I could look at all of your works and draw inspiration from them couldn't I? Then produce my own works that were inspired by yours? I assume you know copyright law enough to know that if a work is transformative enough it's fair use.

The software itself is the infringement. Sam Altman has stated very clearly that if OpenAI had compensated artists for their work, then OpenAI wouldn't exist. Generative AI only exists because these people stole our work and crammed it into a black box.

Fair use only applies when a person creates a transformative work. Computers aren't people. Computers can't be "inspired" - they take input and turn it into output. But OpenAI et al keep trying to blur that distinction by pushing the lie that Gen-AI is somehow intelligent, self-aware, and imaginative* when it's none of those things. It's a probabilistic copying machine drawing from a massive database of stolen work.

*ignorant journalists and even many Gen-AI opponents also feed into this lie when they treat Generative AI as intelligent or compare it to Skynet.

Prez wrote on Jul 2, 2025, 13:25:
EDIT: And I am not sure you would qualify as a Boomer in youth speak. I'm 55 and my favorite shooters are "Boomer Shooters" even though I think they are GenX. I guess not as catchy. I'm GenX (I think) but I get told "Okay Boomer" all the time by my nephews. To anyone in their teens or early 20's... yeah you could be a Boomer 😁

Yeah, "Boomer" has come to mean "old and out-of-touch", which TBF does apply to me in many ways (WTF is Tic Toc? Why are so many games multiplayer only? Why do people keep talking about the Kardashians - didn't they conquer Bajor?), but when it comes to using computers to make art, I know what I'm talking about

The only complaints in your list that seem legitimate are 1 and 3, and only 1 deals with AI specifically. Energy is only a problem if it's not clean energy. That's not AI's fault, and considering the future computational power of AI and quantum computing, it's not unreasonable to expect amazing advancements in clean energy. As far as copyrighted works, it's only an issue if the final output is infringing. Were I an artist I could look at all of your works and draw inspiration from them couldn't I? Then produce my own works that were inspired by yours? I assume you know copyright law enough to know that if a work is transformative enough it's fair use.

EDIT: And I am not sure you would qualify as a Boomer in youth speak. I'm 55 and my favorite shooters are "Boomer Shooters" even though I think they are GenX. I guess not as catchy. I'm GenX (I think) but I get told "Okay Boomer" all the time by my nephews. To anyone in their teens or early 20's... yeah you could be a Boomer 😁

This comment was edited on Jul 2, 2025, 13:44.

Kosumo wrote on Jul 2, 2025, 01:55:
If you are such an expert at art and understand it so well, why does it sound like you are scared of AI?

I'm *angry* at generative AI (and the people who make, use and promote it) because:
1. It steals copyrighted work from professional artists, photographers, and writers.
2. Executives are using it as an excuse to lay off professional artists, choosing quantity over quality, because they're more interested in making money than making good games.
3. It's extremely energy hungry, wasting an extraordinary amount of electricity and contributing to an already dire global environmental crisis.
4. It's an absolute gift for grifters, scammers, and political nutjobs
5. It's training a generation to accept confident bullshit (the product of all Gen-AI) instead of skill, expertise, research and critical thought.

Midnight wrote on Jul 1, 2025, 23:45:

RogueSix wrote on Jul 1, 2025, 12:19:
Human artists usually don't start from scratch either. They will use established asset databases, photographs (and I doubt they care about the copyright in every instance because they will be altering it to the point of unrecognizable condition anyway) and they'll generally use all sorts of sources to have a baseline to work from.

If you seriously believe that human artists always create everything from scratch in a creative process that is 100% their own then I have real estate to sell on Uranus. Deal?

Again: The only thing that counts is the end result. Everything else is just the usual boomers yelling at the clouds because they don't understand technological progress and innovation.

Hi, I'm an artist. I know many artists. One of my friends is a professional concept artist for D&D and MTG. Listen up:

Yes, artists use references. It's essential to our process. I have hundreds of GBs of reference photos. When I'm painting a character I'll typically refer to at least dozen images, as well as building a scene in 3D for perspective and lighting reference. I take some of my reference photos myself (especially of hands holding props), and professional artist often help each other out (I posed with an LED lamp in my hand once so my friend could have reference for a bearded wizard casting a spell) but I do find most of my references online.

I'm very careful about sourcing my reference photos. Some are CC0, many are commercial packs which specifically allow artistic reference in their licenses. I've lost track of how much money I've spent on professional reference packs from Artstation, Gumroad, and Flipped Normals, but it's a lot*. Artist take copyright seriously - partly for legal reasons (look at Bungie's Marathon foul-up), but largely because we value the work of other artists (including photographers*).

And what do we do with these reference photos? We don't just mash them together and say "look, I did an art!". We learn from them so we can understand our subject. It's not enough to copy a hand, artists need to understand what's happening under the skin: The bones, the muscles, the tendons, the number of fingers... We build these skills over decades, and over time we absorb so much that some of it starts to come naturally (I still suck at hands, but I'm getting better at eyes).

Now here's the thing: That process and those skills aren't secondary to the creation of art, and they're not nuisance steps that we want to avoid. They're integral. The decisions we make about lighting, composition, which sources to use - it's all part of the art. Skipping that process and calling yourself an artist would be like ordering take-away and calling yourself a chef.

I'm not ignorant of "technological progress and innovation". I'm always looking for new tools to streamline the process and make it easier. I'm skilled in both traditional and digital media, but I work almost exclusively digitally because I like being able to Undo (not to mention working with dozens of layers, blending modes, clipping masks, adjustment layers etc.). I taught myself Blender, and I'm currently learning Geometry Nodes. I even installed Stable Diffusion locally on my PC a few years ago so I could get under the hood and understand how it actually works, and that experience informed my opinions about it.

Also: I'm not a boomer, I'm only 46

Generative AI isn't a tool for artists. It's a tool for people who want free art. It exists not to help artists but to lay them off.

Also: I disagree that the only thing that counts is the end result. How something is made is important. There are reasons why most movies have statements about how no animals were harmed to make this film.

BUT even if I did agree that the end result is all that matters, then that's still a good reason *not* to use Generative AI: Gen-AI is unfit for production. Sure, you can churn out a hundred generic fantasy character portraits, but good luck tweaking them according to a director's notes.

And finally, the other key problem with using Gen-Ai for game development is that it lacks *humanity*. If games are art (I believe they are), then I want my art to be made by humans, not by an algorithm. As people say about AI-generated books: "Why should I bother to read something that you didn't bother to write?"



*side note, I'm also a photographer and sell many reference packs of my own, mostly of bird anatomy for creature artists, so I'm coming at this from multiple angles

If you are such an expert at art and understand it so well, why does it sound like you are scared of AI?

RogueSix wrote on Jul 1, 2025, 12:19:
Human artists usually don't start from scratch either. They will use established asset databases, photographs (and I doubt they care about the copyright in every instance because they will be altering it to the point of unrecognizable condition anyway) and they'll generally use all sorts of sources to have a baseline to work from.

If you seriously believe that human artists always create everything from scratch in a creative process that is 100% their own then I have real estate to sell on Uranus. Deal?

Again: The only thing that counts is the end result. Everything else is just the usual boomers yelling at the clouds because they don't understand technological progress and innovation.

Hi, I'm an artist. I know many artists. One of my friends is a professional concept artist for D&D and MTG. Listen up:

Yes, artists use references. It's essential to our process. I have hundreds of GBs of reference photos. When I'm painting a character I'll typically refer to at least dozen images, as well as building a scene in 3D for perspective and lighting reference. I take some of my reference photos myself (especially of hands holding props), and professional artist often help each other out (I posed with an LED lamp in my hand once so my friend could have reference for a bearded wizard casting a spell) but I do find most of my references online.

I'm very careful about sourcing my reference photos. Some are CC0, many are commercial packs which specifically allow artistic reference in their licenses. I've lost track of how much money I've spent on professional reference packs from Artstation, Gumroad, and Flipped Normals, but it's a lot*. Artist take copyright seriously - partly for legal reasons (look at Bungie's Marathon foul-up), but largely because we value the work of other artists (including photographers*).

And what do we do with these reference photos? We don't just mash them together and say "look, I did an art!". We learn from them so we can understand our subject. It's not enough to copy a hand, artists need to understand what's happening under the skin: The bones, the muscles, the tendons, the number of fingers... We build these skills over decades, and over time we absorb so much that some of it starts to come naturally (I still suck at hands, but I'm getting better at eyes).

Now here's the thing: That process and those skills aren't secondary to the creation of art, and they're not nuisance steps that we want to avoid. They're integral. The decisions we make about lighting, composition, which sources to use - it's all part of the art. Skipping that process and calling yourself an artist would be like ordering take-away and calling yourself a chef.

I'm not ignorant of "technological progress and innovation". I'm always looking for new tools to streamline the process and make it easier. I'm skilled in both traditional and digital media, but I work almost exclusively digitally because I like being able to Undo (not to mention working with dozens of layers, blending modes, clipping masks, adjustment layers etc.). I taught myself Blender, and I'm currently learning Geometry Nodes. I even installed Stable Diffusion locally on my PC a few years ago so I could get under the hood and understand how it actually works, and that experience informed my opinions about it.

Also: I'm not a boomer, I'm only 46

Generative AI isn't a tool for artists. It's a tool for people who want free art. It exists not to help artists but to lay them off.

Also: I disagree that the only thing that counts is the end result. How something is made is important. There are reasons why most movies have statements about how no animals were harmed to make this film.

BUT even if I did agree that the end result is all that matters, then that's still a good reason *not* to use Generative AI: Gen-AI is unfit for production. Sure, you can churn out a hundred generic fantasy character portraits, but good luck tweaking them according to a director's notes.

And finally, the other key problem with using Gen-Ai for game development is that it lacks *humanity*. If games are art (I believe they are), then I want my art to be made by humans, not by an algorithm. As people say about AI-generated books: "Why should I bother to read something that you didn't bother to write?"



*side note, I'm also a photographer and sell many reference packs of my own, mostly of bird anatomy for creature artists, so I'm coming at this from multiple angles

Kosumo wrote on Jul 1, 2025, 17:12:

Prez wrote on Jul 1, 2025, 12:35:

RogueSix wrote on Jul 1, 2025, 12:19:

Midnight wrote on Jul 1, 2025, 10:43:
And, once again, all the datasets used by Gen-AI were trained on copyrighted content without the creator's consent so *it doesn't matter* how useful the software may or may not be when its *very existence* is only possible due to massive theft.

Human artists usually don't start from scratch either. They will use established asset databases, photographs (and I doubt they care about the copyright in every instance because they will be altering it to the point of unrecognizable condition anyway) and they'll generally use all sorts of sources to have a baseline to work from.

If you seriously believe that human artists always create everything from scratch in a creative process that is 100% their own then I have real estate to sell on Uranus. Deal?

Again: The only thing that counts is the end result. Everything else is just the usual boomers yelling at the clouds because they don't understand technological progress and innovation.

Again, I am agreeing with Roguesix. Damn you all for forcing me to this state!

Plot twist, Roguesix is just an AI bot.

Dammit! Foiled again

Prez wrote on Jul 1, 2025, 12:35:

RogueSix wrote on Jul 1, 2025, 12:19:

Midnight wrote on Jul 1, 2025, 10:43:
And, once again, all the datasets used by Gen-AI were trained on copyrighted content without the creator's consent so *it doesn't matter* how useful the software may or may not be when its *very existence* is only possible due to massive theft.

Human artists usually don't start from scratch either. They will use established asset databases, photographs (and I doubt they care about the copyright in every instance because they will be altering it to the point of unrecognizable condition anyway) and they'll generally use all sorts of sources to have a baseline to work from.

If you seriously believe that human artists always create everything from scratch in a creative process that is 100% their own then I have real estate to sell on Uranus. Deal?

Again: The only thing that counts is the end result. Everything else is just the usual boomers yelling at the clouds because they don't understand technological progress and innovation.

Again, I am agreeing with Roguesix. Damn you all for forcing me to this state!

Plot twist, Roguesix is just an AI bot.

Of course I've dealt with them. And yes, I assume something as easily evidenced as the fallibility of early AI should be understood. People might not be aware of it if they don't bother with different AI programs, but they will be aware in short order once they do. It's not like huge amounts of misinformation didn't exist before AI became a thing. Those who were fooled before of course will be fooled now that it's improved. They're unreachable most of the time, so I don't worry about them.

And a study is only as good as the size of the available data pool. No matter which accredited university or organization does it. There's simply not a big enough test sample to draw any conclusions of any value. Right now it sounds a lot like "calculators make you bad at math" that I heard all of the time as a kid. SPOILER: They don't.

Prez wrote on Jul 1, 2025, 11:37:
I'm not conveniently failing to mention anything. I thought that it was understood that LLM's/AI are notoriously unreliable in answering general questions. I wouldn't take financial or health advice from an extremely precocious grade schooler either, even if they had a 200+ iq.

You've dealt with enough willfully blind enthusiasts in your life. Do you really think anything should be assumed to be understood?

Prez wrote on Jul 1, 2025, 11:37:
As for cognitive depreciation, I don't see that there's anywhere close to sufficient data avaliable to take any studies seriously.

While it is true that MIT's study is so far the first, I think it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss it out of hand given the pedigree of the institution. Would you dismiss the CDC (pre-Trump CDC to be clear) if it came out and said "We did a study and found that eating spent nuclear rods is bad for you"? Or would you let kids eat spent nuclear rods until ten other bodies did studies that confirmed the same? Hyperbolic, yes, but the point is that when you have data you start to plot its arc instead of dismissing it outright.