I had lots of lovely conversations at Consequences, but one that stayed with me was one that I had with Kris that covered all sorts of topics and inevitably stumbled on to the subject of AI.
And, as is often the way, I realised later what I should have said at the time. So here I am.
While we mostly agreed, I found the conversation slightly awkward because I’ve used AI art for character portraits in my Other London RPG books. I don’t hide the fact, or try to pass them off as anything other than AI art. But they’re there and it was clear that Kris disapproved.
 |
| Evil AI character portrait from The Dead Undead |
As I understand it, the two main arguments against using AI art are copyright and employment.
(There’s also an argument against AI about their huge energy costs, but I don’t know enough about it to argue either way.)
Stealing copyright
So, one of the complaints about AI is that it steals the copyright of real artists.
I have no idea how true this is.
I have a vague sense of how ChatGPT and text-based AI tools work (they’re a bit like suped-up predictive text on a smartphone), and as a result, to me, they don’t feel like a breach of copyright. (I am sure my words have been used to train the models at some point, and I’m relaxed about it.)
But AI art? That seems like magic to me. Maybe it’s exactly the same, maybe it isn’t. I don’t know.
So I genuinely don’t know if AI art is stealing copyright. (And when you dig into what copyright actually is, things aren’t much clearer.)
But I’m not a lawyer, and it’s been ages since I played one in a game. Right now, as far as I am aware, all that the courts have ruled is that AI art cannot be copyrighted. (So if you want to steal the character portraits in my books, I can’t stop you.)
They’ve yet to decide whether using art to train an AI model is theft – but that’s a matter of time before that decision is made.
Stealing work
The other argument is that AI art puts real artists out of a job.
That may be true. But in playing with AI art, I’ve learned that it’s very hard to get exactly what you’re looking for. If you’re looking for a consistent vision, or if you have a particular idea of what you want illustrated, you’re better off with a human. (At least, for now.)
If you just want generic fantasy art and you’re not too fussy, then AI will suit you fine.
Otherwise, you’ll need a real artist.
(For the rest of the art in Other London, I took photos and played around with them in an art package. I couldn’t get what I wanted from AI.)
Mediocre artists at risk
Much in the same way that artisan bakers exist alongside mass-produced sliced bread, I don’t think talented artists have much to fear from AI art – as their art will always be in demand. However, I think mediocre artists have more to worry about.
Mediocre artists like me.
I create the art for most of the games at Freeform Games. I create a pen-and-ink sketch for each item, scan it in, tidy it up, then print it out and colour by hand, before scanning it in. I’d be so happy if I could replace that with AI art.
Here’s a teabag I did for one game.
So for the purposes of this post, I tried to get an AI programme to give me a picture of a teabag. Here are the results:
 |
| These are what Artflow's AI thinks a teabag is... |
I admit that my prompting skills need work, but I don’t think I’m out of a job just yet.
But what about Other London’s AI art?
I tried to argue with Kris that no artists were hurt by my use of AI art in Other London because I was never going to use human art anyway. If AI art hadn’t been an option, there would be no character portraits, and the book would be a little less attractive.
However, I think there may be a deeper point that I only thought of afterwards.
Without AI art, Other London might not exist at all.
Now, I can’t remember my thinking at the time, but I’m pretty sure that without being able to use AI for the portraits, Other London would still just be a pile of notes on my hard drive.
So maybe AI art isn’t the destructive force it’s often taken for?
Maybe, like word processors and DTP software, it creators like me bring their work to a wider audience.
Yes, some of that work may be mediocre (I hope Other London isn’t, but your opinion may vary). And yes, AI art has a certain “look” that isn’t always appealing.
But if AI art means that people like me can bring their words to life, then surely that’s a good thing?
At least, I think it is. But maybe I would say that.
Other London’s future
Should Other London become a success (and it’s not even sold 50 copies yet), then I’m happy to find an artist to work with to replace the AI portraits.
But right now, it’s either AI character portraits or no portraits, and I like to see what my NPCs look like.
