Whew I'm getting bombarded by people who are upset about AI art. Which I don't really understand; if you don't like something, and you know you don't like it, then don't interact with it. I personally am not a fan of anime art, so I'm not gonna start playing those games and then leave a bad review when it turns out to be a bad time.
Breeding is not your cup of tea? Or first person POV? Or maybe AI art? I can respect all of that. But I can't respect people who shit on other people's preferences just to put themselves on a moral highground. People who knew ahead of time what they'd be getting into and still decided to play, and then left a negative review for a free game. It's crazy.
As for the nonsensical argument that AI art is "stealing"... bitch please, you're on a website that pirates more games than a two-chromosome pelican in a fish market. If there's any place on the internet that understands and loathes the bullshittery that is copyright, it's here.
And even all of that aside (which alone should already be enough to stop people complaining about AI), artificial intelligence is only stealing if you think that a student learning to become an artist using references is stealing - which it is not. If you actually took the time and looked into how Stable Diffusion functions, you'd know it's trained like a human being is trained. Humans learn that a dog is a furry creature with four legs because they encounter dogs in their lives, they see them, including art made by other artists and depictions of them, and eventually they can replicate them on paper. The exact same happens with SD. And then, like humans, AI draws a completely new picture from nothing but noise of the concept they have learned. So if you call AI learning "stealing", you should be calling your second grade art teacher a thief because they used a Picasso piece in their lessons, and the students who get inspired by that art and incorporate it into their own style (which happens all the time) should also be branded thieves.
But that doesn't happen. Reasonable people don't do that. The only people who are upset about the ethics of AI art are those who cannot put down their personal selfish grievances, scared shitless that the constantly rolling wheel of progress will crush them beneath the weight. This is how technological advancement worked since the inception of time. Some people will adapt. Some will be left behind unfortunately, and yeah it sucks to see it happen to friends or people close to you. But AI creating visual and audio-based content/art opens a thousand times more doors than it closes. With easy to access and copyright-free art, aspiring software and game developers living in poverty can actually work toward their dreams without having to pay tens of thousands of dollars for art assets. Authors can get free and good-looking covers for their books. And the list goes on.
Bottom line is, legally AI art is allowed to exist in the public domain - including prompts based on artists. It's an awesome, free, and legal tool for the common man. And for those who worry about artists' livelihood, there will always remain a foothold for human art, because images generated by AI cannot have copyright, and many artists will keep getting hired just for that reason. These two things can coexist.
//rant over
