What do you think about AI generated characters?

[DreamCity]

Hello to everyone in F95!

I would like to take your opinions about AI generated characters. Do you think AI generated characters can be the future of character creation of visual novel games? Could it make all the characters look same and not natural ? Excited to hear what you think about this issue.

Peace !

 

[Nadekai]

I think that most characters will just be common thropes and not be unique.

 

[Living In A Lewd World]

Hello to everyone in F95!

I would like to take your opinions about AI generated characters. Do you think AI generated characters can be the future of character creation of visual novel games? Could it make all the characters look same and not natural ? Excited to hear what you think about this issue.

Peace !

If all the characters look same and not natural, why should someone bother to buy a game, that uses the images. If someone has played one game, he doesn't need to play another game, when it's still the same.
Who really wants to buy the 500th game, where every girl looks like Emma Watson?
I think, AI won't be the future, but a part of the future, as it is currently a part of the present supply of VNs.
How much VNs with purely AI-generated images we will have in the future will depend on:

• how easy it is
• to create good looking images
• with diverse characters
• that don't look too different from one image to another
• but can be put in any pose and get any facial expressions, you want.
• and that in any style an artist or an audience prefers.

 

[Hypocryte72]

Most of the time, it looks cheap.. it's like you are simply using the default game engine assets that many other devs also use.
The only good looking ones are from devs who train it on their own art style.

 

[Spiderling77]

Hello to everyone in F95!

I would like to take your opinions about AI generated characters. Do you think AI generated characters can be the future of character creation of visual novel games? Could it make all the characters look same and not natural ? Excited to hear what you think about this issue.

Peace !

I am doing a fun thing where I go into the unnatural and weird look of the characters for my game. Basically, the story is most of the people had cosmic horror blood and that is why they are so fuck up. This really works for monster fuckers like me. A few examples:

 

[6ft3btw]

I am doing a fun thing where I go into the unnatural and weird look of the characters for my game.

AI seems like it would be good for stuff like this - rather than having to comission someone to create a niche model or image, you can have AI make it for you. I've been playing around with Automatic1111 and I've managed to do something similar.

 

[woody554]

they all look weirdly the same. and also like someone told them to not look straight in the camera but they're too stupid to stop doing it.

 

[Count Morado]

I posed this question to an AI:

Spoiler: First response

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Spoiler: Second response

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Finally, I asked it to briefly respond:

AI-generated characters can be a fascinating development in the creative and entertainment fields. They offer new possibilities for generating unique and diverse characters in video games, movies, literature, and more. However, there are also concerns about the ethical and artistic implications of relying too heavily on AI for character creation, as it can potentially lead to a loss of human creativity and a lack of personal touch in storytelling and character design. Balancing the benefits and challenges of AI-generated characters will be an ongoing discussion in the creative industry.

 

[Deleted member 6650724]

Well the future is 3D+AI, not A1111 though.
When 3D programs such as Blender and Maya start to add that kind of integration, it will be a lot easier to create scene then A1111 one.

Only AI = low effort

 

[anne O'nymous]

Finally, I asked it to briefly respond:

AI-generated characters can be a fascinating development in the creative and entertainment fields. They offer new possibilities for generating unique and diverse characters in video games, movies, literature, and more. However, there are also concerns about the ethical and artistic implications of relying too heavily on AI for character creation, as it can potentially lead to a loss of human creativity and a lack of personal touch in storytelling and character design. Balancing the benefits and challenges of AI-generated characters will be an ongoing discussion in the creative industry.

There's another issue, legal this one.

In a recent case (something like a month ago), an US judge have come to the conclusion that AI generated content can not be copyrighted. It's still to be confirmed by further case, but so far it's the sole example I know about (probably because it's really the first case) and therefore would serve as jurisprudence. From memory the judge based his decision on the fact that you can't copyright what you haven't created yourself, and a software can't claim property on something.

This mean that, since there's no copyright, everything is free of use. Anyone can take your art and use it to make a better game, or if you go as far as using AI to also write the story, take your own game and sell it himself, and there's nothing you can do against this.

 

[Spiderling77]

This mean that, since there's no copyright, everything is free of use. Anyone can take your art and use it to make a better game, or if you go as far as using AI to also write the story, take your own game and sell it himself, and there's nothing you can do against this.

You are talking like that is something bad; I think that is another perk of the AI. I think that makes AI stuff a lot more open-source and collaborative. You paid the price of having it AI-generated by giving up your rights to that work; it sounds like a fair deal.

 

[Deleted member 4771842]

Hello to everyone in F95!

I would like to take your opinions about AI generated characters. Do you think AI generated characters can be the future of character creation of visual novel games? Could it make all the characters look same and not natural ? Excited to hear what you think about this issue.

Peace !

Yes, but not for all people. Why?
Because:

1) You need to put a lot of effort in order to teach and customize your AI to let it create both unique and quality enough images.

2) You need a powerful PC to quickly generate images of high quality (high resolution images I mean)

Without these two requirements you will not succeed or pray to God that people without a taste will be interested in mediocre/bad results.

Also you should be wary, since AI creates something by using examples of other people. It will copy their styles and images as well to some extent. It may cause legal problems, I mean some companies, like Steam, is already banning products that are using AI generated images.

 

[anne O'nymous]

You are talking like that is something bad

You are talking like you have no fucking clue about what "copyright", "open source" and "collaborative" means...

It's not because it's open source that there's no copyright owner. The said owner decided to not aply some of his rights, what doesn't mean that he have none. One of the first open source license, the

You must be registered to see the links

, starts by those words: "Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holder>. All rights reserved." And most open source license starts by nearly the same words.
And, of course, collaborative works do not imply an absence of copyright, but a shared copyright, each participant owning the rights on their own content.

 

[Spiderling77]

You are talking like you have no fucking clue about what "copyright", "open source" and "collaborative" means...

It's not because it's open source that there's no copyright owner. The said owner decided to not aply some of his rights, what doesn't mean that he have none. One of the first open source license, the

You must be registered to see the links

, starts by those words: "Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holder>. All rights reserved." And most open source license starts by nearly the same words.
And, of course, collaborative works do not imply an absence of copyright, but a shared copyright, each participant owning the rights on their own content.

Yeah, I kinda fumble the bag by mixing all the concepts in the same paragraph. I know that a collaborative and/or open-source project can have a copyright. What I wanted to mean is that the fact that you cannot copyright your AI work is like the price you have to pay for producing AI art (Making it not so free). I personally don't like the concept of copyright so I don't see it as a bad thing.

 

[anne O'nymous]

What I wanted to mean is that the fact that you cannot copyright your AI work is like the price you have to pay for producing AI art (Making it not so free).

On this I agree, but surely not for the same reasons than you...

I personally don't like the concept of copyright so I don't see it as a bad thing.

I'm sure that it's not true, and that what you don't like isn't the concept of copyright, but the concept of commercial rights. Those are two different notions.

Copyright ensure that your work will be respected. Even Creative Commons licenses do not get rid of the copyright, and you sill have to credit the author/creator/programmer for his works. And this is the base of a copyright, it define who own the paternity of the creation.
With this paternity come a series of rights, that you have the liberty to apply or not. And, as I said, I'm pretty sure that what you are against is the strong and commercial application of those rights, not the fact that a creator own the paternity over his creation.

 

[Spiderling77]

I'm sure that it's not true, and that what you don't like isn't the concept of copyright, but the concept of commercial rights. Those are two different notions.

I am against both. I don't want to go off-topic, but basically, what I think is that since intellectual and digital stuff is not a scarce thing (technically, there is an unlimited amount of it), there shouldn't be any control over the artist's work once it goes public. Basically, if you post a drawing of a girl and then someone edits it to be used in a random internet forum, I don't think I should ask for permission from the artist or even mark him as a source. I know that morally I should do it, but let's be honest: how many people put a link on their profile to the author of the picture they use as an avatar? or like if I am chatting with someone and I share a meme edit of an image. I know this is extremely controversial stuff and I suggest making another topic if you want to keep talking about this further.

 

[♍VoidTraveler]

I would like to take your opinions about AI generated characters.

Same as non-AI art:
1. Low effort = No thanks.
2. High effort = Yes please.

 

[Living In A Lewd World]

I am against both. I don't want to go off-topic, but basically, what I think is that since intellectual and digital stuff is not a scarce thing (technically, there is an unlimited amount of it), there shouldn't be any control over the artist's work once it goes public. Basically, if you post a drawing of a girl and then someone edits it to be used in a random internet forum, I don't think I should ask for permission from the artist or even mark him as a source. I know that morally I should do it, but let's be honest: how many people put a link on their profile to the author of the picture they use as an avatar? or like if I am chatting with someone and I share a meme edit of an image. I know this is extremely controversial stuff and I suggest making another topic if you want to keep talking about this further.

There is quite a scarce thing about created content, which is the time and money, the content creators have to put in to create it. If there is no control about content, once it is published and people can not make money from it, why should content creators even start to create?
If content creators would have no rights about created content, this would just lead to the situation that content creators only start to create content, if enough people are paying for them creating regardless of the outcome. They would basically be forced more and more to use payment-models similar to Patreon. You can assess yourself, how well this works...

 

[Spiderling77]

There is quite a scarce thing about created content, which is the time and money, the content creators have put in to create it. If there is no control about content, once it is published and people can not make money from it, why should content creators even start to create?
If content creators would have no rights about created content, this would just lead to the situation that content creators only start to create content, if enough people are paying for them creating regardless of the outcome. They would basically be forced more and more to use payment-models similar to Patreon. You can assess yourself, how well this works...

I never said you shouldn't monetize your work. I work full-time doing commissions, and I do not have the copyright to my work, personal choice. So . . . yeah, it works really fine for me. Also, let's be honest, commission work and payment models like Patreon account for 90% of the artist's income. As I said, that model is what most people do now, and it works fine (not perfect).

EDIT: Also I forgot to mention that the ART itself is not scarce, you can duplicate it at infinitum. Not the resources put into creating that art. By copy-pasting your work I am not taking an equal amount of the money and time that it took you to create that piece.

 

[hu lover]

I think ai characters are greatly rendered and stand out better than most other pictures.