No. Instead of making designers work on Brick Texture #7298, they allowed them to work on actually interesting design bits while the necessary textures were placeholdered by AI.
Also, stolen art… The same argument comes up here as with piracy. If I take something you created, BUT you’re not deprived of said thing, then it’s not theft. It is a breach of licence but not theft.
I do agree that some genAI models have very questionable copyrighting issues due to source dataset usage, but, just by creating a model you haven’t deprived anyone of ownership of their property. You haven’t actually done any financial damage to them.
So please stop overblowing the issue and instead begin by pushing for support of artists’ rights to decide if their art can be used by third parties for the purpose of AI training, which is the core issue here. And even go and push for artists’ rights to reserve their art’s training data usage to themselves, thus allowing artists to create their own specialised models with their own style that they can use to offer cheaper art, or even license the use of the model out for money, thereby allowing artists to directly benefit from AI instead of being fervently against it.
You’re also forgetting that most companies like Sandfall Interactive, that work on a budget, have their own designers so they don’t just shop around for artists, even without AI. But without AI it would’ve meant that those hundreds of brick etc. textured would’ve gotten a placeholder that was unsightly. See e.g. Valve’s Source Engine pink-black checkerboard placeholder. Would you have preferred that?
Did you even read my short comment? They can buy a brick texture from one of many marketplaces. Giving an artist money directly. Instead of giving money to use stolen assets. So that argument doesnt hold up.
Why are you being obtuse? If the in-house designers didn’t want to make some placeholder textures, they could have used a marketplace instead of AI. Are you just going to keep going in circles?
No company with an in-house design team will start trawling marketplaces to spend money on PLACEHOLDERS.
And it’s not like the designers “didn’t want” to make the textures, you donut - it’s that resources need to be allocated, and making minor textures falls on very tail end of the priority list.
At which point they probably had one designer generate the needed placeholders using AI, to ensure they’re good enough for placeholders, and called it a day.
I’ll ask you one better - why are you trying to force companies to go out of their way to spend money? When digital design tools hit the market, would you have been standing in line telling companies to instead hire out actual manual art instead of working with digital tools, if they didn’t have the required in-house resources?
No. Instead of making designers work on Brick Texture #7298, they allowed them to work on actually interesting design bits while the necessary textures were placeholdered by AI.
Also, stolen art… The same argument comes up here as with piracy. If I take something you created, BUT you’re not deprived of said thing, then it’s not theft. It is a breach of licence but not theft.
I do agree that some genAI models have very questionable copyrighting issues due to source dataset usage, but, just by creating a model you haven’t deprived anyone of ownership of their property. You haven’t actually done any financial damage to them.
So please stop overblowing the issue and instead begin by pushing for support of artists’ rights to decide if their art can be used by third parties for the purpose of AI training, which is the core issue here. And even go and push for artists’ rights to reserve their art’s training data usage to themselves, thus allowing artists to create their own specialised models with their own style that they can use to offer cheaper art, or even license the use of the model out for money, thereby allowing artists to directly benefit from AI instead of being fervently against it.
You’re also forgetting that most companies like Sandfall Interactive, that work on a budget, have their own designers so they don’t just shop around for artists, even without AI. But without AI it would’ve meant that those hundreds of brick etc. textured would’ve gotten a placeholder that was unsightly. See e.g. Valve’s Source Engine pink-black checkerboard placeholder. Would you have preferred that?
Did you even read my short comment? They can buy a brick texture from one of many marketplaces. Giving an artist money directly. Instead of giving money to use stolen assets. So that argument doesnt hold up.
Did you read MY comment at all?
When you have in-house designers you won’t go shopping around for textures, especially not placeholder ones.
Why are you being obtuse? If the in-house designers didn’t want to make some placeholder textures, they could have used a marketplace instead of AI. Are you just going to keep going in circles?
Why are YOU being obtuse here?
No company with an in-house design team will start trawling marketplaces to spend money on PLACEHOLDERS.
And it’s not like the designers “didn’t want” to make the textures, you donut - it’s that resources need to be allocated, and making minor textures falls on very tail end of the priority list.
At which point they probably had one designer generate the needed placeholders using AI, to ensure they’re good enough for placeholders, and called it a day.
I’ll ask you one better - why are you trying to force companies to go out of their way to spend money? When digital design tools hit the market, would you have been standing in line telling companies to instead hire out actual manual art instead of working with digital tools, if they didn’t have the required in-house resources?
Predictable deflection and going in circles again.
They are spending money on AI, more than the cost of a texture :^)
Alright troll, off you fuck then.
Cute.