Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsSHINAN'S PROFILE
Shinan
4314
Close
I'm Shinan.
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
Is AI generated art ethical?
I just want to say that talent is meaningless in the big picture. It might give someone a head start and thus an incentive to try something out. But once someone has put in the time to learn something properly there's no difference between the person who started with talent and the person who learned it.
A lot of this is wrong. Some of it are outdated ideas. (it's basically the archeological meme of "we don't know what this is, therefore it must have been used in religious rituals") Some of it are misrepresentations of what religion is. Some of it even contradicts itself, especially the caveats that all art is religious OR depicting rich people.
Saying cave paintings depicting hunting grounds are definitely religious seems very off. Sure the images have a certain divine power, but there are also plenty of theories suggesting they are utilitarian. ("here be dragons"/"here be plenty of game")
The mere mention of calling paleolithic religious practices as "worshiping Gaia" when that whole "gaiaworship" idea is pretty much a neopagan construct (not that Gaia wasn't a greek goddess. But she wasn't one of the really big ones) also sounds a bit like misunderstanding or misremembering the studies.
And calling female Greek statues "rare" is also just factually incorrect.
Did you study art and the history of art? Because I did.
I know it's not enjoyable to listen, but art was born of religion. Emphasis on "was". Times have changed and art changed with them. Religion is no longer as prevalent and therefore art now exists in function of the artist.
The ancient cave painters worshipped Gaia (or women in general for having the gift of giving life), represented as small statuettes of fertile women. This was before they stopped worshipping women and started worshipping men through the use of mehnirs (AKA giant erect penises).
Wall painting also represented religious rituals in addition to big hunts (which can be argued to be part of the rituals).
Later on, when religion took over the world, there were only 2 types of art, the large majority was depicting bible scenes (heaven, hell, etc) to impress the faithfuls and the rest was depictions of rather rich people.
Greece worshipped the male body, so what do we get? A ton of male nude statues (their depiction of the female body was rare) and get this, most of the depicted males were religious figures (Zeus, Hercules, etc) or rich folk.
A lot of this is wrong. Some of it are outdated ideas. (it's basically the archeological meme of "we don't know what this is, therefore it must have been used in religious rituals") Some of it are misrepresentations of what religion is. Some of it even contradicts itself, especially the caveats that all art is religious OR depicting rich people.
Saying cave paintings depicting hunting grounds are definitely religious seems very off. Sure the images have a certain divine power, but there are also plenty of theories suggesting they are utilitarian. ("here be dragons"/"here be plenty of game")
The mere mention of calling paleolithic religious practices as "worshiping Gaia" when that whole "gaiaworship" idea is pretty much a neopagan construct (not that Gaia wasn't a greek goddess. But she wasn't one of the really big ones) also sounds a bit like misunderstanding or misremembering the studies.
And calling female Greek statues "rare" is also just factually incorrect.
Is AI generated AI ethical? Need to know. Thanks.
One of the proofs that the "AI" stuff is not good enough and not real AI is the fact that the developers of said AI specifically don't want AI trained on stuff made by AI.
Which means AI made AI is not good enough for AI!
Which means AI made AI is not good enough for AI!
Is AI generated art ethical?
If we're going to go down the what is good art or what is art and/or if AI can generate it... Then...
I think that AI can be... art. But it is all down to curation. An algorithm can spit out millions of random images but the art comes down to curating the pieces and putting them into a context. Like in many ways it's like traditional pop art (funny how pop art can be called traditional), taking something known and remixing it, giving it new context.
Art, after all, is about giving a statement. So making the explicitly soulless (Algorithmically generated art) is its own statement. And through context it then becomes a thought-provoking thing. (like I can see a thing where someone would use generated art and their own art and then also their own art made to mimic the generated art and make a sort of game about who can spot the fake ones. Context makes the individual pieces meaningless but as they play off each other they create a whole new piece of artwork. I'm sure all of this has been done already)
And as a random aside I also think this is funny:
The dates of when music was ruined moves around a lot depending on one's age. I've heard it was ruined in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s (the 80s ruined a lot of things), 90 and 00s.
And it's usually for the exact same reasons!
Oh and on the ethicalness of it all. The issue always comes down to what was used to teach the algorithms. I'm sure an artist or an artist collective could get together and feed their art into an algorithm and see what it spits out and there wouldn't be any ethical considerations at all. They willingly put that stuff into the machine and thus they also own what it spits out, no ambiguity there.
The reason AI art is so shat upon is that a bunch of people's work was used for it without their permission.
Like I said earlier it says something about the (lack of) power of artists that they just scraped all that stuff and put it into the world and no one gave a shit. Just imagine what the record companies would have done if they had just put the last 100 years of pop music into the algorithm and started generating a bunch of random new pop tunes for people to listen to. (This is something I have no doubt these algorithms could do just as easily as it generates text and images. But I have a feeling that they for some inexplicable (:P) reason just chose to not teach their music bots by throwing in all of Queen's albums in there, instead used... more "ethically sourced" music)
I think that AI can be... art. But it is all down to curation. An algorithm can spit out millions of random images but the art comes down to curating the pieces and putting them into a context. Like in many ways it's like traditional pop art (funny how pop art can be called traditional), taking something known and remixing it, giving it new context.
Art, after all, is about giving a statement. So making the explicitly soulless (Algorithmically generated art) is its own statement. And through context it then becomes a thought-provoking thing. (like I can see a thing where someone would use generated art and their own art and then also their own art made to mimic the generated art and make a sort of game about who can spot the fake ones. Context makes the individual pieces meaningless but as they play off each other they create a whole new piece of artwork. I'm sure all of this has been done already)
And as a random aside I also think this is funny:
Yes, the same is happening with music. There was so much good music when you go back from the 90's up to when music was first invented.
The dates of when music was ruined moves around a lot depending on one's age. I've heard it was ruined in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s (the 80s ruined a lot of things), 90 and 00s.
And it's usually for the exact same reasons!
Oh and on the ethicalness of it all. The issue always comes down to what was used to teach the algorithms. I'm sure an artist or an artist collective could get together and feed their art into an algorithm and see what it spits out and there wouldn't be any ethical considerations at all. They willingly put that stuff into the machine and thus they also own what it spits out, no ambiguity there.
The reason AI art is so shat upon is that a bunch of people's work was used for it without their permission.
Like I said earlier it says something about the (lack of) power of artists that they just scraped all that stuff and put it into the world and no one gave a shit. Just imagine what the record companies would have done if they had just put the last 100 years of pop music into the algorithm and started generating a bunch of random new pop tunes for people to listen to. (This is something I have no doubt these algorithms could do just as easily as it generates text and images. But I have a feeling that they for some inexplicable (:P) reason just chose to not teach their music bots by throwing in all of Queen's albums in there, instead used... more "ethically sourced" music)
There's so much fun stuff here
Just don't be too active on the site because then actual people posting might outnumber bots and spammers posting, thus making my job finding them harder!
Is AI generated art ethical?
Fortunately AI is still pretty shit at writing
But I'm sure spambots on RMN will be algorithm-assisted soon enough. Already a lot of their posts almost seem relevant.
EDIT: Like I'm 90% sure this guy is a spammer/bot:
But I'm sure spambots on RMN will be algorithm-assisted soon enough. Already a lot of their posts almost seem relevant.
EDIT: Like I'm 90% sure this guy is a spammer/bot:
author=RestorMaster
I see nothing wrong with artificial intelligence generating texts. This is why robots and other mathematical models were created - to free people from routine and monotonous work and to allow them to work more creatively.
Is AI generated art ethical?
Fortunately Mona Lisa's copyright has expired. Copyright law hasn't made copyright last quite that long yet.
I read a tweet or something that mentioned the fact that these algorithms happily steal art for their learning process and let the public create a bunch of random images. And that they haven't done the same to music (steal music and teach algorithms to make "new" music and then just throw that stuff into the wild) is just an example of which industries have more power.
I read a tweet or something that mentioned the fact that these algorithms happily steal art for their learning process and let the public create a bunch of random images. And that they haven't done the same to music (steal music and teach algorithms to make "new" music and then just throw that stuff into the wild) is just an example of which industries have more power.
Job Board Post Issue
It's the youtube embed. You have to use a full youtube link and not a shortened one (not you.tube or whatever the shortened one is)
The embed code is ancient and prone to breaking.
The embed code is ancient and prone to breaking.
Lying to Players
If this is going to be about if RNG in itself is good or bad then I probably have lots of opinions on that also.
But I'm also the kind of person who would waffle and "both sides" it. Nearly all games have some randomness. Even chess has the one random factor of who plays white and who plays black (if you really want to stretch it)
Personally I think risk management is one of the most interesting aspects of tactical games. However this can play out in different ways. Fairly recently I played the game Warhammer 40k: Mechanicum. That game has very little hit chance randomness. There are some special abilities where the description is it has a 50% hit chance but I don't know how those work because risk-averse as I am I never picked any of those :)
But that game's RNG comes in the form of damage amounts. A gun will do 3-5 damage and I see that an enemy has 4 health left. Do I play it safe and move a second character in shooting range so that even if my first guy only does 3 damage I can still finish them off or do I risk it and hope that I will do 4-5 damage and spend the other guy on something that is less of a direct threat but something I will still need to deal with at some point?
RNG based games also often rely on having enough numbers to mitigate the acute randomness. If a thing is decided on one die roll, that's probably not great. But if a thing is decided on carefully deploying five die rolls where one or two can fail without the plan falling apart?
This is why Blood Bowl is a favourite game of mine because most of that game relies on a six sided die. That means that one in six of best case scenario actions will likely fail. There are mitigating factors (rerolls, meaning that as long as you have a reroll left the best case scenario failure is one in 36) and that game is all about choosing to do the least risky things first and the riskier things later (because any failure will also result in your turn ending prematurely).
Of course (to put it back on topic) in all of this if the player is being lied to they can't make an informed decision about what to do. And this is different from not being shown certain information. (A big part of these kinds of games is some kind of scouting, finding out an enemy's HP makes a huge difference in decision making. If you know something dies in one hit or two hits greatly impacts how much resources you have to spend to get a near guaranteed kill or a mostly guaranteed kill)
So I might have waffled about lying earlier, but no it's bad.
The thing about this is the abstraction that happens when a game is turn-based. The game shows people taking turns kicking each other and it seems impossible to miss a point-blank shot. But it's just a simplification of what is actually happening. The idea is that everyone is always moving, some games even have a different thing when people are "engaged in melee" (see for example DnD and attacks of opportunity) the idea is not that people are standing on their respective squares occasionally striking at each other instead they are fully engaged, dodging and moving around constantly making what seems in a static picture to be a sure thing possibly be a very different thing indeed (I think a variant of the XCOM meme is someone staring down the barrel of a shotgun and it says like 46% hit chance)
But I'm also the kind of person who would waffle and "both sides" it. Nearly all games have some randomness. Even chess has the one random factor of who plays white and who plays black (if you really want to stretch it)
Personally I think risk management is one of the most interesting aspects of tactical games. However this can play out in different ways. Fairly recently I played the game Warhammer 40k: Mechanicum. That game has very little hit chance randomness. There are some special abilities where the description is it has a 50% hit chance but I don't know how those work because risk-averse as I am I never picked any of those :)
But that game's RNG comes in the form of damage amounts. A gun will do 3-5 damage and I see that an enemy has 4 health left. Do I play it safe and move a second character in shooting range so that even if my first guy only does 3 damage I can still finish them off or do I risk it and hope that I will do 4-5 damage and spend the other guy on something that is less of a direct threat but something I will still need to deal with at some point?
RNG based games also often rely on having enough numbers to mitigate the acute randomness. If a thing is decided on one die roll, that's probably not great. But if a thing is decided on carefully deploying five die rolls where one or two can fail without the plan falling apart?
This is why Blood Bowl is a favourite game of mine because most of that game relies on a six sided die. That means that one in six of best case scenario actions will likely fail. There are mitigating factors (rerolls, meaning that as long as you have a reroll left the best case scenario failure is one in 36) and that game is all about choosing to do the least risky things first and the riskier things later (because any failure will also result in your turn ending prematurely).
Of course (to put it back on topic) in all of this if the player is being lied to they can't make an informed decision about what to do. And this is different from not being shown certain information. (A big part of these kinds of games is some kind of scouting, finding out an enemy's HP makes a huge difference in decision making. If you know something dies in one hit or two hits greatly impacts how much resources you have to spend to get a near guaranteed kill or a mostly guaranteed kill)
So I might have waffled about lying earlier, but no it's bad.
author=Marrend
Maybe it was a meme, but, I recall seeing, somewhere, a screencap of an XCOM game where a soldier's pulse rifle was aiming at an alilen's face. Like, the barrel of the rifle was literally right on the face. The accuracy of that shot? 95%.
While you could parse that into rolling a nat 1 on a D20, what makes me think it was a meme is how ridiculous that kind of setup would be to begin with. Though, I'm not sure how often that situation could actually come up in a game like that, so, maybe it's a moot point.
The thing about this is the abstraction that happens when a game is turn-based. The game shows people taking turns kicking each other and it seems impossible to miss a point-blank shot. But it's just a simplification of what is actually happening. The idea is that everyone is always moving, some games even have a different thing when people are "engaged in melee" (see for example DnD and attacks of opportunity) the idea is not that people are standing on their respective squares occasionally striking at each other instead they are fully engaged, dodging and moving around constantly making what seems in a static picture to be a sure thing possibly be a very different thing indeed (I think a variant of the XCOM meme is someone staring down the barrel of a shotgun and it says like 46% hit chance)
Lying to Players
I prefer transparency because too much lying and you get stuff like being angry about missing a 90% chance to hit because you've been lied to so much that you expect it to be a 100% chance to hit.
Of course I also understand the desire to lie because anything above 66% always feels like it ought to hit.
It also depends on the game. I think the reason it sometimes felt frustrating in XCOM was because you didn't have enough firepower to not. I've seen the post-XCOM XCOM-a-likes (note: not X-COM) often have very transparent determinism instead and that any randomness comes from a hit doing 2-4 damage instead of doing 0 OR 3 damage.
Whereas in the older games (like X-COM maybe. I never actually played original X-COM only Jagged Alliance and later Xenonauts) your squad size was often such that it was tactically sound to bring a backup to every fight.
When it specifically comes to hit chances I've also found it's a lot easier to accept failure when it is shown in some way. Like I play Blood Bowl 2 on PC and the game has two options of showing the chance of success for any given action. It can give you percentages or it can give you the actual die roll. For some reason the die roll is a lot easier to accept because a 3+ roll is somehow easier to parse than that 66% chance of success.
And if the game then also visually rolls these digital dice it somehow becomes easier to accept that I rolled a one than if an action just immediately failed. Even if there is literally no difference in the backend between these two things.
(The die rolling is also why 66% is the magic cutoff number. Because to me personally a 66% chance to hit seems like a sure bet. But a 3+ roll on a die seems a lot less so even though the two are exactly the same)
Of course I also understand the desire to lie because anything above 66% always feels like it ought to hit.
It also depends on the game. I think the reason it sometimes felt frustrating in XCOM was because you didn't have enough firepower to not. I've seen the post-XCOM XCOM-a-likes (note: not X-COM) often have very transparent determinism instead and that any randomness comes from a hit doing 2-4 damage instead of doing 0 OR 3 damage.
Whereas in the older games (like X-COM maybe. I never actually played original X-COM only Jagged Alliance and later Xenonauts) your squad size was often such that it was tactically sound to bring a backup to every fight.
When it specifically comes to hit chances I've also found it's a lot easier to accept failure when it is shown in some way. Like I play Blood Bowl 2 on PC and the game has two options of showing the chance of success for any given action. It can give you percentages or it can give you the actual die roll. For some reason the die roll is a lot easier to accept because a 3+ roll is somehow easier to parse than that 66% chance of success.
And if the game then also visually rolls these digital dice it somehow becomes easier to accept that I rolled a one than if an action just immediately failed. Even if there is literally no difference in the backend between these two things.
(The die rolling is also why 66% is the magic cutoff number. Because to me personally a 66% chance to hit seems like a sure bet. But a 3+ roll on a die seems a lot less so even though the two are exactly the same)
Games - Tester
Games - Other
