"Products With AI-Generated Art" Topic

Would you be less likely to buy a product if it used AI-generated art on the cover or interior?

I think I would not know how the art was created unless it was brought to my attention somehow. I have attended plays that use computers to turn one violin into many, so I probably would.

Wouldn't know. Wouldn't care.

No. Some AI art looks bad, and it would put me off. But then so does a lot of traditional art. If it looks good or even just ok I'll be fine, if it is spectactularly ugly or silly it might be a deal breaker. I'm buying the rules or scenarios after all, not the art.

I know some folks hate AI art for a variety of reasons. I am not one of them.

I don't think that I would even know. If I did know, it wouldn't stop me from buying the product. Bad art might, regardless of how it was generated.

I have attended plays that use computers to turn one violin into many,

That's simple signal processing. Totally different to AI.

Would you be less likely to buy a product if it used AI-generated art on the cover or interior?

Probably not. LLMs have been shown to breach copyright.

LLMs have been shown to breach copyright.

You can't be "shown" to breach copyright. You can be found guilty in court of copyright infringement. Or accused of it. Which has happened?

I suspect most of us have unknowingly already made a purchase of AI Art or assisted art.

The buzzword "AI" is not going to affect my buying decisions one way or the other, regardless of whether or not they actually used an AI.

I've seen some very dodgy AI art which, if that's all I had to go on, would put me off. Then again, as others have said, not all human-generated art is great either.

"Product?"

Art, good or bad, does not sell me rules. I was going to say bad art is discouraging in selling me scenarios, but since I have a copy of Scenarios for All Ages, pretty clearly I'll buy good scenarios no matter how bad the art.

Or does "product" extend to actual artwork? In that case, I buy good and don't buy bad, and I really, really don't care what tools the creator used.

You can't be "shown" to breach copyright. You can be found guilty in court of copyright infringement. Or accused of it. Which has happened?

link

Depends on how many fingers the subjects in the AI art have. More than 10 probably not

"Depends on how many fingers the subjects in the AI art have. More than 10 probably not"

Exactly. AI seems to have a problem with generating human hands in it's "art"…

MajorB – Someone sued someone over something is a far cry from has been shown to do that thing. A decision in court is not necessarily correct, either, just legally binding. Until another decision reverses it.

The problem with the discussion of AI is that there are people who believe that there is such a thing as AI. Much of what was called AI twenty years ago is not called that today. What we call AI today probably won't be called AI in ten years. AI, ultimately, is simply a set of deterministic algorithms, like any other piece of code.

Ethics and legality of using AI has nothing to do with using AI. It only has to do with the actions being taken. In the NYT case, if a person who had read all the articles the AI was trained with composed content that competed with the NYT it is no more or less copyright infringement than if the same content were generated using an "AI" tool. Or any other tool. What if the person used a search engine to find the content they read as opposed to scanning tons of content themselves and picking and choosing? How about copying important bits into a spreadsheet, marking them and sorting on your marks to generate the outline for the content you write?

Why do I sense that AI Art is the new "bioengineered" food logo.

I'm with Etotheipi

The problem with the discussion of AI is that there are people who believe that there is such a thing as AI. Much of what was called AI twenty years ago is not called that today. What we call AI today probably won't be called AI in ten years. AI, ultimately, is simply a set of deterministic algorithms, like any other piece of code.

Absolutely agree! It's just deterministic algorithms as you say. Personally I call it Artificial Ignorance.

Just a bit of fun, obviously!

Art is art…Doesn't matter how it's generated. If it's good (in my opinion) I like it.
I wouldn't care if a burger was flipped by an AI machine or a person. If it's good, I'll buy and eat it.

I wouldn't care if a burger was flipped by an AI machine or a person.

A machine cooking burgers … big news in the 609's.

But…are they good ? <lol>

That pic is the original Burger King auto cooker … so you make the call.

Ah. Never really cared for BK That might have been the reason ? Doesn't taste good.

It will not affect my purchasing of the product.

Personally, I would care more about what is inside the box, not the artwork outside it

We've had a couple of obviously AI cover art rulebooks popping up in the newsfeed lately. It does make me less likely to want to look into the games. Even when the finger counts are correct, I find them creepy. Something is just off with the faces in an uncanny valley way.

Even cheesy 1970s style line drawings are much more inviting than AI.

I wouldn't be happy to find out I bought something AI-generated. I bought another product (non-miniatures related) and returned it for a refund when I found out the promotional website was using gen AI for the product images.