Badge for artists NOT using artificial intelligence for designs

Bonjour :slight_smile:
Could we enable something to identify quickly designers using AI programs from the ones actually drawing the art?

I would like to NOT encourage the use of AI, meaning I don’t want to buy it by mistake.
Thank you <3

EDIT: Google is going to label AI-generated images

There’s no way to tell if it’s AI or not.
AI art is not as bad as people making it out to be.

Well, if a robot is stealing a job, it’s indeed not as bad if the job is not your own :wink:

My designs are definitely not AI-generated, and you can tell because I’m not a matte-painting artist at all. I know some artists who would like people to know they spent hours with brushes instead of hours typing keywords.

Some artist say they use AI in their bio. Some don’t.
So maybe “Human-generated”? ^^

How is it stealing a job?
Stuff that I want to design, would takes hours to do. Then take hours to first learn how to do it.
AI is not perfect. So I would still have to fix it afterwards.

:slight_smile: I’ll give you 2 examples:

  • a national theater who was very proud to have the new poster designed for free by an IA (a.k.a. not having to pay a designer for it);
  • a prompt “in the style of [living artist name]” which makes people think the artist did it, then buying it without any money going to that one artist who spent years developing a specific style.

My issue is with people who just take ready-made art and sell it, tricking people into thinking they are the actual designer. This does not seem to be your case :slight_smile:

SO? It is not made yet. The AI is only using their style. Not their art.

I suppose that only an artist with a specific style, being plagiarized by an AI, can understand the problem.
I wish you never have to experience the feeling <3

1 Like


This label was created by the artists working for tabletop games & RPGs.
It’s just a pro-human thing, because some artists are actually able to do things that we could think are AI-generated, and vice-versa.

Hopefully you are considering people who were using only pen and paper before design and illustrating software became available for everybody. You stole the jobs of these people by using a new tool which simplified the work. :wink:

HAHAHA
Well, we need to stop digital printing then.

I’m not very positive about “AI art” at the moment eighter. This is mostly because of the lack of ethical rules and regulations. AI is an artistical Wild West at the moment. Of course it’s a tool that artists can use if they see value in it. In the future I will probably use AI in some shape or form when using Adobe software that could have some AI functions built in. The technique I find interesting, but the AI art itself that I see on Instagram doesn’t speak to me. It screams (movie style) CGI and in movies I like CGI to be as minimal as possible. Use too much and it could ruin the whole experience. But something like the Avatar movies I do appreciate because that can only be made with CGI. It’s all about keeping a good balance.

But for me I like the proces of designing the way I do now and I don’t feel the urge to change much about that. I would never like to type prompts in AI programs that spit out ready made designs. Prompts feel foreign to me just like typing HTML. AI could be a great tool to simplify time consuming tasks that designers much rather shorten. But AI could also bring a tidle wave of generic T-shirt designs that AI has spit out in no time, so I really hope things can still work out fine for those who won’t use AI for their T-shirt designs.

We’ll have to wait and see…

1 Like

Style can be so specific that you could know exactly which artist was used to create the AI art. And if that specific artist never consent to having their art/style used in AI, then I think the style should be protected in some kind of way. It’s okay for art to be inspired by other artists, but you should always be able to tell if an artist made something themselfs.

To me issue #1 is the idea that AI could copy an artist’s style (like some forgers who made new paintings selling them as “by this artist”) and the artist would lose money and credibility because of it. It would also be an attack at the core of their art, their experience and how they express in general. Creative rape.

The #2 issue that really bothers me is “text prompt” AI that renders a relatively finished piece in seconds.
The person writing the prompt is not the artist: it’s a client. That is what we get when we work with clients, and loads of back and forth to achieve desired result. And if you think about the AI as a conscious being, we are teaching it that it’s OK to slave-off for a client, and to never get gratitude or gratification from working so hard at understanding the need and trying to come up with a fitting solution.

So is not “handmade”, maybe “text-prompted by a human to another human”?

Making something in the style of someone, is not the same thing as copying them.

It is not, as long as it cannot be mistaken for art by the original artist. So you ABSOLUTELY need to point out it is not form the artist (and ideally link to their official page so people can see the original).
:wink: