MAFAB 3 Train Station: AI Art Debate

[Lord Ruby]

Relevant video:

Relevant on-rail posts:
https://talkhaus.raocow.com/viewtopic.p ... 13#p481213
https://talkhaus.raocow.com/viewtopic.p ... 21#p481221
https://talkhaus.raocow.com/viewtopic.p ... 22#p481222
https://talkhaus.raocow.com/viewtopic.p ... 23#p481223
https://talkhaus.raocow.com/viewtopic.p ... 24#p481224 (the most important post)
https://talkhaus.raocow.com/viewtopic.p ... 25#p481225
https://talkhaus.raocow.com/viewtopic.p ... 26#p481226
https://talkhaus.raocow.com/viewtopic.p ... 27#p481227
https://talkhaus.raocow.com/viewtopic.p ... 28#p481228
https://talkhaus.raocow.com/viewtopic.p ... 29#p481229
https://talkhaus.raocow.com/viewtopic.p ... 30#p481230
https://talkhaus.raocow.com/viewtopic.p ... 31#p481231
https://talkhaus.raocow.com/viewtopic.p ... 32#p481232
https://talkhaus.raocow.com/viewtopic.p ... 34#p481234
https://talkhaus.raocow.com/viewtopic.p ... 36#p481236
https://talkhaus.raocow.com/viewtopic.p ... 37#p481237
https://talkhaus.raocow.com/viewtopic.p ... 38#p481238
~~~~~~~~
This unfortunately seems to be a topic where people get defensive about heavily entrenched opinions rather than debating with an open mind. I'll at least try to be open and respectful myself, hoping that will lead to an interesting discussion.

Whether AI art is legally considered "stolen" (that is, an unlicensed derivative work of training works) is ultimately an issue for the courts. As far as I am aware, there are no rulings on this, but I would be interested to hear about them if there actually are. Instead, let's discuss the moral side of the issue.

First, I think that being against AI art for the reason of it using "stolen" art (see: Rixi on Discord, Hoeloe's linked post) is in contradiction to maintaining and providing the SMBX engine. SMBX directly includes works produced by regular workers at Nintendo (as well as other companies) without the necessary licenses. Training graphical generators does something comparable, making inspired/derivative works based on works produced by independent artists (among others), again often without the necessary licenses. In case the conditions under which these were made is important as part of this reasoning, then I'd propose that the insecurity of independent art is to some degree comparable to the harsh working conditions imposed by the infamous Japanese work ethics (although I have not looked into specific accounts in the writing of this post). If using AI art, even for non-profit purposes, is a problem because it's based on protected works, then fangames that exploit protected assets should also be problematic, even if they're also completely free.

On the other hand, my position is that both graphical generators and fangame engines like SMBX make art creation more accessible, and that's a wonderful thing. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that simply inputting "dragon miku" into the first generator you find produces an original work of true art, originality and artistry requires a human touch that is beyond contemporary algorithms. However, I do think people can create art while being assisted by AI by providing their own ideas, effort, and aesthetic choices as part of the process, whether that be through manual refinement, software-enabled interactive iteration, or composition into a multifaceted piece. And the last of these is exactly what WinterSweater did! The graphics may not be original (not Miku, not Mario, and not the tileset), but together they're a crucial part of an original and charming game fragment.

Now, I do recognize that some economic issues have arisen from the emergence of this technology. Ideally, I think I'd say a system kind of like music royalties should be established, where people get compensated if their works are used to train AIs, or something to such an effect. But I think the current lack of such a system is a legal (if current copyright laws are sufficient) or political (if new laws are needed) issue, not an inherent problem with the technology. To pin blame on individual independent artists sharing their work for free is particularly misguided, if not even cruel. I'd be willing to elaborate more on the economic issues, but most arguments I've seen focus on whether it's theft or not and whether it counts as art or not, so I'll hold it here in the interest of not arguing against strawmen.

[camwoodstock]

allow us to present our exhibit a,


this miku head was just in the first google results for "hatsune miku head" and we feel like it's probably traced ngl

[KobaBeach]

i want this in the louvre like no joke

[Chirei]

As someone who has family that is heavy into the art industry, I am coming out of the void to say my piece even though I am not following this contest:

The big problem is that AI art inherently takes away recognition from everyone else doing it legit - this isn't in economic terms or anything, but if it's so easy to do it, then everyone's going to start doing it and interest for legit art will begin slowly dying - and I do mean slowly.

One day it's vilified, but if we let up on the gas even a little bit, it's going to go from that to "annoying but tolerated" - just look at mobile games and predatory microtransactions. People are still making honest, good games, but the sector that's been taken over by it has such damaged integrity that it's unknown if it will ever recover.

Even if someone uses royalty-free assets, this is nowhere near the same thing as using AI. Here is one example that comes to mind for me:



This is music by Rengoku Teien. If you dabble in japanese fangames, you've probably encountered their music at least once at some point. They have a very notable style that after hearing enough, you'd be able to immediately recognize it's them, and more importantly, it fucking slaps.

Pieces made by an AI have no such style - they kind of average out something from their dataset (which has probably scraped real art!), and people know AI art more for what it doesn't get right rather than what it does.

Even someone straight up taking sprites from another game doesn't lose this recognition. People will know it's from that game, and then it's up to them to judge how it fits or if it's appropriate. In some cases it even leads some people to check out the source if the sprites are that good or interesting!

I don't doubt that there are some people who might use AI to learn how to draw better or something, but those people are very few and far between - and some of them have the sense to not submit a final piece that used the AI parts in the first place.

If people could just plug in stuff to a machine that is riding off the backs of everyone else's without their consent, it discourages people to actually try to learn or seek out those who are good with it to help them. The result is a degradation of the craft in most regards.

Lastly, I do understand that for some reasons someone could just not have the money or even be too shy to try to ask someone else. I've been there. But then the solution is just to not go that far in the first place and scale back your plans.

Don't eat the forbidden fruit and propagate this practice just so you can have your 15 minutes of fame in someone's mayro level contest.

[Chirei]

Lastly, I do understand that for some reasons someone could just not have the money or even be too shy to try to ask someone else. I've been there. But then the solution is just to not go that far in the first place and scale back your plans.

allow us to present our exhibit a,

Unironically, something as jank as this could have actually been used instead as the boss sprite and it would have worked and been funnier because this is the kind of thing raocow's community exists with. Alternative solutions exist!

[Rixithechao]

(see: Rixi on Discord,

To be clear and for the added context, you're talking about what Koba mentioned in the spoilertag, right?

Last night I drafted a statement about not wanting AI assets in the few remaining A2XT2 submissions we'll be asking for (mainly just sections for the world 9 relay) and posted it in the #a2xt2-dev channel of the ASMT server for the sake of workshopping it with Hoeloe before she or I published it in the THE PLAN thread. I was a bit sleepy and didn't want to dwell on this stuff, but felt like I should get my thoughts down before getting to bed. This is what I wrote in its entirety:

So hey, in light of a MaFAB3 entry using AI art I just want to take a moment to say we don’t want any AI-generated assets in the remaining submissions. That means all the diffusion models, chatGPT writing, modern text-to-speech… basically anything produced by the neural network tech that silicon valley’s been obsessed with in recent years.

Those tools are trained and refined through horrendously unethical means — scraped media across the internet without consent or regard to licensing and curated via sweatshop labor — and are overwhelmingly being used to replace and devalue creative work by humans in the entertainment industries. Fan game or not, we want zero part in that.

(Here's a source for the sweatshop curation thing, Time Magazine article back in January.)

In retrospect, specifying it was prompted by WinterSweater's entry was a bad idea for many reasons and if that's why Koba decided to drag it back over to the MaFAB3 thread then, fair enough. I do stand by the rest of the statement, though, even if I think Marina's post over on the SMBX forums covers the issues better overall.

Also, a recommended watch for anyone who has 2 hours to spare: someone shared this video essay in codehaus a couple months ago and iirc it's a decently thorough overview that doesn't condemn the underlying neural network technology while still outlining many of the major problems with the specific mainstream models like ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion, etc and the culture surrounding them.

[Daizo]

This might come as maybe a form of ignorance, but I will say that AI is more of an issue if you're paying for the thing that it is being used in. This boss was for a free project where commissioning an artist for something that you're not getting any money back is a lot more forgivable.

If you're trying to fight a "Miku Dragon" in something you paid money for, and an AI was 'asked' to make it instead of an artist being comissioned, well that's a different story entirely since an artist was actually robbed in favour of a free AI where the developer don't spend a dime. It feels like you're paying the game developer more money than the amount they spent to make the game, whereas here...it's not?

But I also get that if the developer DID pay an artist, and the project was released it for free, it's a lot more respectable since it shows that they care about the product they are making than the potential profit behind it. Plus, that is more support for artists as it feels like a donation.

Besides, I feel it's kinda too late anyway; the AI art showed up in the raocow video (the guy that this is being made for), so it's now on record.

[ano0maly]

I have yet to be up to date on watching MAFAB3 but this incident here is making me doubt if I should bother.

I do grant the presence of potential problems with AI (and even before this discussion, I too was aware of concerns about these kind of things displacing humans). But I feel that posts making these proposals are generally focusing on only their own thesis and not quite adequately addressing what Lord Ruby said here:

First, I think that being against AI art for the reason of it using "stolen" art (see: Rixi on Discord, Hoeloe's linked post) is in contradiction to maintaining and providing the SMBX engine. SMBX directly includes works produced by regular workers at Nintendo (as well as other companies) without the necessary licenses.

I've seen AI art and musical mixes done and, despite what Chirei said, in a pretty impressive quality. And I think as far as "stolen works" go, I think there is a difference between playing around with AI tools for fun just to check out what it can do, and using it for a commercial application, which raises up the thorny issues with copyright/licensing. (This kind of feels like cryptocurrency in that a new technology is introduced and people need to start reining it in to avoid problems with a naive unregulated usage.)

But this isn't a commercial use. It's a 19-entry fan engine contest. In this regard,

Fan game or not, we want zero part in that.

I find this statement kind of unconvincing. It reads to me like "We, who are using Nintendo and other game assets w/o permission for our own games, gotta have standards!" If people point out the irony of complaining about copied work in a project of copied works, you need to give a proper defense. Have actual sensible standards, and be willing to abide by them yourself. As a start: if say, you want any borrowed assets to at least be credited, then be prepared to have a credit list for every single borrowed asset in SMBX engine (if that's not the case already).

Again, I don't want to simply dismiss the points made about the general subject matter of AI and how it is being used. I just don't think this contest is the hill to die on. And mind you, there was no contest guideline about anything AI-related. It's not the right call to retroactively take out the graphic and especially to disqualify the entry. A contest can always be imperfect, and we should put up with the results even if there are things we don't like. If you really wanted to deter people from using AI-traced plaigirism to boost their aesthetics score in a contest, you could state in a respectful, fair manner:

For the purposes of this contest, please do not use AI-generated assets. They would be considered unauthorized copied work and can lead to score penalty.

So that's my reaction. Am I speaking from a position that is not sufficiently informed? Perhaps, and if I spent more time on this, I might be able to articulate a more refined response, perhaps agreeing more with what was said here. But I don't want to spent that much time on this. It's just MAFAB3.

[SAJewers]

I've seen AI art and musical mixes done and, despite what Chirei said, in a pretty impressive quality. And I think as far as "stolen works" go, I think there is a difference between playing around with AI tools for fun just to check out what it can do, and using it for a commercial application, which raises up the thorny issues with copyright/licensing. (This kind of feels like cryptocurrency in that a new technology is introduced and people need to start reining it in to avoid problems with a naive unregulated usage.)

Yeah. While I can understand why people were angry for that DnD Artbook or whatever that had AI Art, I also thoroughly enjoy Roborosewater_Masters

[Rixithechao]

I have yet to be up to date on watching MAFAB3 but this incident here is making me doubt if I should bother.

I do grant the presence of potential problems with AI (and even before this discussion, I too was aware of concerns about these kind of things displacing humans). But I feel that posts making these proposals are generally focusing on only their own thesis and not quite adequately addressing what Lord Ruby said here:

First, I think that being against AI art for the reason of it using "stolen" art (see: Rixi on Discord, Hoeloe's linked post) is in contradiction to maintaining and providing the SMBX engine. SMBX directly includes works produced by regular workers at Nintendo (as well as other companies) without the necessary licenses.

I've seen AI art and musical mixes done and, despite what Chirei said, in a pretty impressive quality. And I think as far as "stolen works" go, I think there is a difference between playing around with AI tools for fun just to check out what it can do, and using it for a commercial application, which raises up the thorny issues with copyright/licensing. (This kind of feels like cryptocurrency in that a new technology is introduced and people need to start reining it in to avoid problems with a naive unregulated usage.)

But this isn't a commercial use. It's a 19-entry fan engine contest. In this regard,

Fan game or not, we want zero part in that.

I find this statement kind of unconvincing. It reads to me like "We, who are using Nintendo and other game assets w/o permission for our own games, gotta have standards!" If people point out the irony of complaining about copied work in a project of copied works, you need to give a proper defense. Have actual sensible standards, and be willing to abide by them yourself. As a start: if say, you want any borrowed assets to at least be credited, then be prepared to have a credit list for every single borrowed asset in SMBX engine (if that's not the case already).

Again, I don't want to simply dismiss the points made about the general subject matter of AI and how it is being used. I just don't think this contest is the hill to die on. And mind you, there was no contest guideline about anything AI-related. It's not the right call to retroactively take out the graphic and especially to disqualify the entry. A contest can always be imperfect, and we should put up with the results even if there are things we don't like. If you really wanted to deter people from using AI-traced plaigirism to boost their aesthetics score in a contest, you could state in a respectful, fair manner:

For the purposes of this contest, please do not use AI-generated assets. They would be considered unauthorized copied work and can lead to score penalty.

So that's my reaction. Am I speaking from a position that is not sufficiently informed? Perhaps, and if I spent more time on this, I might be able to articulate a more refined response, perhaps agreeing more with what was said here. But I don't want to spent that much time on this. It's just MAFAB3.

I mean, you're certainly free to disengage with the LP and not bother reading any of the readily available information on AI art out there (or watching video essays or documentaries on the subject, such as the one I shared). But even if you don't care enough about this stuff to exercise due diligence, you clearly care enough to argue against people who have taken the time to learn about this stuff and whose hobbies and careers are directly affected by it.

"But copyright hypocrisy" is hardly a smoking gun, and I would've addressed it first popping up in the OP in my earlier post if I weren't pressed for time when writing it; my main focus was just getting the dang thing I've been cited over twice now in a place where people can actually read it (even though it was a first draft I wrote right before bed) and sharing some of the resources that informed that stance. At this point, though, it's already been discussed at length in the spotzone, so to quote some responses from different folks in there (kept anonymous for privacy reasons):

Also, the issues with ai art are not just "process", and it's not the same as just using something in a fanwork without permission
There's so many concerns with it aside from just "copyright" that i don't even know where to begin
Ai art isn't bad because it's technically illegal, it's bad for the harm it does in so many ways

I gotta say, comparing the use of ripped assets to AI art is pretty wild.
Not even apples to oranges, more like... apples to potatoes
When people use ripped sprites, there's usually no illusion about it

I think one distinction is that most art assets used in SMBX are easy to tell where they come from
like, everyone is pretty much guaranteed to know or learn that tiles come x game, most of which are games made or owned by big corporations
the artists who drew the Mikus and the Dragons that ended up being used for the AI art here, there's not really any way to tell
even if the level author wanted to credit all art assets involved in their level, they can't do that with ai art

I get where the "99%" is coming from, you could in theory build your own model on 100% public domain art and make "John Oliver marries a cabbage" style silly nonsense with it - but unfortunately in practice that's not even close to what's happening with AI art.
--
yep
like is it technically possible to make "ai art" that is morally defensible? sure, and people did years ago, but in practice that's not what these models are now
none of them
--
They take so much wonderful creative human effort and churn it all into content slurry based on mathematical approximations
--
And then spew it out onto the web.
To the point where model degradation starts becoming a problem for them because they accidentally feed AI slop back in as their input and that makes the whole thing degenerate.
Which, sure, hoist by their own petard, but the fact that that's happening implies a lot about the state of internet content as a whole.
--
not to mention smaller artists losing work because of it
--
Yup, because, again, the people who love generative AI don't actually respect artists
And, just to circle back to my first remark, all this is really nothing like using sprites from Super Mario All-Stars to make a fan game.

The Nintendo assets argument was raised in the SMBX forums server as well, back when the staff made their own stance clear. I could probably throw some of the counters from back then into the mix as well, but these already get the points across.

Regarding "have sensible standards and follow them" onward, you're largely suggesting things Hoeloe and I are both already doing and positions we already have. With Episode 2 we've been getting permission for character cameos and compiling work and artist credits for as many assets as we can source in Episode 2, and we'd rather see future contests explicitly forbid AI assets than retroactively disqualifying an entry. (Disqualifying it at this point wouldn't be feasible anyway, it'd require substantial work to update the episode accordingly.)

But you and I will have to agree to disagree about the option Hoeloe proposed of patching the compiled game with a replacement graphic and adding a note about it in the hub; if not for the other reasons that have already been discussed, the fact that this is a cross-community event that goes against the values of the other community seems like it should be enough to warrant it, in my opinion. It's not like this is a matter of preservation -- the original submission is publicly available to download in the submission thread and will continue to exist after the episode is released for as long as the upload remains. And as Daizo mentioned, the AI mikudragon has already been shown on video, so there's that record of it too.

EDIT: also I just noticed, why is this thread both in the LP subforum and with MAFAB3 in its name? People are gonna mistake it for the LP's main thread.

[Chirei]

I've seen AI art and musical mixes done and, despite what Chirei said, in a pretty impressive quality.

I did not say they could not be high quality, but explicitly that they have no style. I would even say quite a bit of the concern for some, is that they CAN be high quality for basically no effort.

An AI generated thing could be made of thousands of different pieces and methods averaged together, and of course if the dataset is of high quality work, it will probably turn out something nice. It's just an extremely soulless and unethical way of generating something of that quality.

[raocow]

I understand the passion behind the moral dubiousness of ai art and all that but, at the end of the day, this all hinges on the original author's intents. if they don't want to change it, then it is not correct to change it, even if it goes against all morality laws of the community or whatever.

It was accepted in the contest as such. it wasn't, like, hidden or anything, the author didn't try to slip it past the censors or whatever. the smbx bylaws do not explicitly ban ai art, even if they are 'heavily discouraged'. it is done.

as much as you are passionate about ai art, I am passionate about censorship. Don't fuck around with someone's submission unless they explicitly agree to it.

(unless there's a thing somewhere in the mafab3 contest thread that said things might get modified for x reasons or whatever)

[Rixithechao]

For my part, I'm just trying to make my case, do my part in organizing A2XT2, and live my life. I don't have any sway in what the MaFAB3 team actually does, I'm just a participant in the contest. Whether I think something should be done about WinterSweater's entry and whether something will actually be done were always two different things and I never had any illusions to the contrary.

I wouldn't be responding here if not for the fact that it feels like I was dragged into the extended conversation by people responding to a thing I started writing before it was finished in spaces outside of where I was workshopping it. I've already said my parts elsewhere, I would've read the OP of this thread and moved on. But if people are determined to keep me in the extended conversation as it applies to the entry, then I'm going to stand my ground on the subject overall both for moral reasons, personal reasons, and general annoyance.

But as I'd very much rather not be here, at this point I'll gladly take a declaration from the top of the chain that nothing's going to be done. I will, however, repeat the last-minute addition to my previous post:

EDIT: also I just noticed, why is this thread both in the LP subforum and with MAFAB3 in its name? People are gonna mistake it for the LP's main thread.

Because I'd just like to enjoy tonight's video and it fills me with dread to think people might come in here confused and @ me or other folks to continue a debate I don't think anyone actually wants but everyone feels like it needs to be held.


EDITING MY RESPONSE IN BECAUSE I GOT A NOTIFICATION FOR THIS AND AM NOT GOING TO BUMP THE THREAD:

If my posts sounded combative it's because I've been getting increasingly frustrated from the mentions and notifications, including both notifications I mistook as quotes and actual quotes by someone I have come to understand is lax and dismissive about a number of issues I have strong feelings about, whom I've marked as a forum enemy but is enough of an active participant in the community that I either end up displaying their posts anyway so I don't miss important context in a conversation or get quoted by them as a result of participating in those conversations myself.

Lord Ruby only mentioned me in this thread because Koba mentioned me in the other thread first. It was clearly a mistake on my part to share that draft; I felt pressured to share this thing I posted on a discord server that people had mentioned twice now on the forum because if it was going to be mentioned in the OP of this thread then it should be made available, especially if folks would assume the worst otherwise.

You're fixating on the "stolen" part of it and ignoring all the other issues. That is far from the only problem, and I only included it as one of the two in the initial draft (WHICH I CANNOT EMPHASIZE ENOUGH THAT PEOPLE WERE RESPONDING TO BEFORE IT WAS FINISHED) for the sake of trying to keep it brief. All I wanted to do was work with Hoeloe to establish a statement of policy FOR A PROJECT WE'VE BEEN RUNNING TOGETHER, NOT HAVE THAT FUNNELED BACK INTO THE MAFAB THREAD.

You say you don't care but then you demand we strengthen our argument. If you actually want more info about the issues with AI art then reread Hoeloe's essay-length vent and verify each of her statements with a google search, watch the video, I don't know. It's not my job to spoonfeed you the information but I still provided some resources anyway. I too would rather Hoeloe be here answering this stuff and elaborating on everything, but also I completely understand if she doesn't want to deal with this either.

I am TRYING to walk away, and in hindsight unsubscribing from the thread would've prevented me from getting notifications from Chirei and raocow and mistaking them for quotes. Gonna do that now, and then again after finishing this edit to be extra sure. But unsubbing would not have prevented me from getting notifications from actual quotes, and still will not, so I would greatly appreciate it if people stopped quoting me here. Thank you.

Actually, no, you know what, it's that point again. I'm done. I'm tired. I'm letting my anger and stress get the best of me. I need a break from this site. Maybe this community, idk. I'm reporting this post, and whichever staff member sees this please just temp ban me for a few days, or until the end of the contest, or however long you feel this rant and/or your assessment of my emotional state warrants. I won't be able to NOT walk away, it should disable ALL forum notifications, and if I'm lucky it could even remove the red name in the process without troubling anyone to mess with my account further.

[ano0maly]

Honestly now that raocow's put his foot down I'm reluctant about replying here or the thread continuing at all, but since there is a response I will give my own.

I could probably throw some of the counters

Please don't describe it as "counters" like this has to be a fight. Your whole post is needlessly combative in tone, even though I started my post acknowledging the potential issues brought up in this discussion, along with my own concerns.

The way I see is that Lord Ruby is not saying that AI art overall is directly equivalent to unauthorized asset flips. The problem is calling AI art stealing, and then calling stealing a problem. I just see armchairing about stolen work in a game that's using Nintendo (and other, non-Nintendo commercial) assets to be a weak position, and I'm encouraging you to strengthen the position in a workable manner.

And I don't think people are trying to drag you specifically into this. You participated in this thread, and others are replying, that's all. Not like you started this conversation.

Because I'd just like to enjoy tonight's video and it fills me with dread to think people might come in here confused and @ me or other folks to continue a debate I don't think anyone actually wants but everyone feels like it needs to be held.

Then I'll be blunt about this, even if it hurts to hear, and I don't want people to get hurt:

I was irritated at how Hoeloe came with an uncompromising essay-length vent about AI generated art and then dumping the full wrath of that essay on WinterSweater. You know, WinterSweater feels some regret over what happened. I sincerely hope that Hoeloe also feels at least some regret over how all of this blew up beyond necessity. KobaBeach is right in that regardless of the problem you believe there is, this response was just too far beyond warranted. You don't have to watch all the levels and if you disagree with what this level/designer does, feel free to turn it off. But realize that sometimes what you don't like has presence and the best thing to do is to walk away instead of trying to impose your demands.

Really, this whole thread is just incomplete without Hoeloe.

[KobaBeach]

i hold no ill will towards anyone for any reason im just glad raocow isn't mad at me for being an autistic idiot again
like i saw this mentioned on discordhaus and i was legit feeling anxiety he was gonna reply to me again

i'm willing to consider offering my art services (not pixel art, im not good enough at that yet) for anyone who needs em, but im not the best at discipline and i tend to draw a lot of mlm porn and macrophilia, so if that makes you uncomfy i apologize and understand if you don't want to deal with that

[raocow]

out of respect for hoeloe and rix I'm gonna go ahead and lock this thread. if anyone feels like continuing this debate for some reason, do so in general or something.