I’m no Luddite. I was raised on hard sci-fi as much as any other sort, and as an adult I’ve dealt with much more code and gear than is typical for my profession. I wouldn’t be surprised if a machine intelligence inherits this earth from us in the far future, as the next evolution of human intelligence.
That having been said, what we’re being pitched as AI right now is a buzzword for a stock market feeding frenzy. For a few educated opinions on that subject, see “Anatomy of an AI Reckoning,” “This is How the AI Bubble Bursts,” and “AI Is the Bubble to Burst them All.”
The purpose of this post, however, isn’t to debate the bubble. It’s to focus on how the narrative is used in game publishing as an excuse for sidestepping artists. Something referred to by the scholars cited in that third article as “Coordination or Alignment of Beliefs Through Narratives.”
The narrative is that “AI art is inevitable.” I’m here to push back against the proliferation of that nearsighted notion. If you want to use AI art in your publications, that’s all well and good, but let’s not pretend it’s justified as inevitable.
Let me start with a straightforward practicality: The US Copyright Office stated that AI-generated artwork based on text prompts isn’t protected by copyright. Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court declined to review the lawsuit challenging that. Which is to say that if you publish a book with an AI-generated cover and illustrations, anyone is free to take all that art and use it on their own product. Same cover, same interior art, conceivably even an AI rewrite on the same topic, resulting in a book nearly indistinguishable from your own.
And let me follow by stating that the proliferation of AI art in publishing is based upon a couple of amateurish assumptions:
First, the assumption that every game needs art. This is ignorance of the power of graphic design. (Consider Cards Against Humanity as a perfect example of artless design.)
Second, the assumption that AI can make art virtually as good as a human illustrator could. This one, I suspect, is the heart of the matter. The thought that AI brings out the natural talent in someone, putting them on par with a trained illustrator. But the thing about true expertise is that it makes things look easier than they really are. True art takes passion, training, and materials. AI art will always lack the first of those three.
AI art is a parlor trick. And in this case, the person most fooled is the stage magician themself.
I agree with you on everything. For long-winded but painstakingly thorough explorations of the AI bubble, I recommend Ed Zitron.
A game-writer friend we know said he felt he was a buggywhip-maker in the age of automobiles. I feel otherwise, and I do not fear for my career. Why? People can live on Wonderbread and Coors, but I’d lay money that most people with any disposable income have *some* organic produce, artisinal bread, craft beer, free-trade coffee and chocolate, and/or sustainable/humane proteins in their fridge and pantry. They pay more but find value in something that is ultimately “just calories.” If their favorite bakery sells out, or has long lines — they walk away and won’t just make do with Wonderbread instead. Ewww.
Generative AI can give you an end result, but it has zero depth or added value.