I thing that companies that are creating AI should list used sources and they should be given some realistic compensation. Including opting out of future Creations of AIs.
LLM's should be required to label their outputs as having been created by an LLM, and anyone using one should be required to disclose what data set they were using to train their LLM on.
Unlicensed art being used in an LLM constitutes theft and should be treated as such. While I understand using LLM art as a place holder, or as a sample for an actual artist to use in reference, it's another problem entirely when LLM art is being used in a product that's collecting money. For a game that's pulling ~2250 USD a month I'd wonder where the money is going.
The artist for the one quoted is nitrotitan I think
The game lists
ModeSeven, Anon Smith, Chrissy, GomiCake, Mephiscrypie in the credits. You're probably mistaking NitroTitan for ModeSeven. Easy mistake to make. Regardless, I'd be pretty miffed if the game dev had trained an LLM without my permission on my art and didn't bother paying for it. And at least one of the art previews he's shared is a dead ringer for ModeSeven's art style.
We are getting offtopic (from the game), but I thing you are not thinking realistically enough.
The choice of art direction for a game is on topic for that game. Of course the actual story is that- per the dev's claims at least- ModeSeven is incredibly flakey on communicating, and no one else came close to producing art on the quality ModeSeven was producing. Which makes the use of AI much more understandable. Especially if they're taking the time to make it work consistently instead of the volume model. LLM's are still a new technology so you may as well try to get away with what you can, while you can because there will come a day when generic AI slop stops selling and until that day there's going to be no reward for playing hall monitor.
