*nod* The synopsis appeals to me a lot more than the screenshots.

I'm someone who plays games like Disgaea but Alice in Wonderland, anime-style, just feels like it'd be as difficult to reconcile the tonal/stylistic/cultural differences as when fanfiction authors try to cross Harry Potter and anime/manga series.

TL;DR: Alice in Wonderland metroidvania? Yes, please. Japanese-originated games? Also, yes, please. "Alice UwU"? Not my cup of tea.

Human artists also base their art on the art of others that they have seen over their lives. Sometimes this is even explicitly called out as "influences".

Even before AI, art did not come completely from humans. Photoshop and other digital art tools have plenty of algorithm-based filters, scripts, etc.

FYI I am not interested in entering debate over this. I only made my post to inform others who care about non-declared ML-generated content infecting their media.
But since I wrote on the matter a while back, and I see the same arguments being made in reply to my post here, I'll copypaste my old posts as replies down below.

However, I'm leaving the conversation after this. The subject is not something I enjoy discussing publicly since people rarely engage in good faith. And debating isn't in my wheelhouse.
I'm only replying because I want to provide information for those who want to educate themselves.


Actually, more than my replies, I'd rather people watch these vids since they do a better job of addressing the issues than I could!:

"AI art is going to have consequences" by T B Skyen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIni6Eeg9rE

"The End of Art" by Steven Zapata
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjSxFAGP9Ss

(They both focus on "AI art", but the ethical arguments are universal and apply to things like ChatGPT too.
Both are chaptered, so you can jump to arguments you want to hear about. But they're worth listening to in full.)


------
On the topic of inspiration/influences: On AI content gen being copyright laundering: * Going to add here, since we're on GOG and talking about games too:
This is why code licensing exists (you're not allowed to take code snippets from others' work, unless you are licensed to do so)


-----
Did you look at the teacups and teapots? I linked to the timestamped section in my last post.
There's a level of warping and nonsense on those that especially doesn't make sense given the how well some other background assets were made (like the flowers and rocks in the GOG screenshots)

I don't want to doxx myself, but part of my job means I spend almost every day looking at human art in great detail. Through this I've come to learn what it looks like when human artists cut corners, leaving some assets less polished than others. I know what it looks like when multiple artists work on the same project and there is inconsistency between their outputs.

But... this is completely different. There's a consistent lack of human missteps, mistakes here that I've never seen human artists make, even amongst the most novice to the most advanced artists. But the same "mistakes" are in the myriad AI images I've studied.


-----
These content generators are not being built as tools, they are being built as outright replacements.
Absolutely it could be used as a tool to aid actual human creativity (eg: like a rorschach for early ideas), but that's not how it's being used by the overwhelming majority of users. And it's certainly not what the "AI art" companies pushing their software want, nor the media companies they're peddling to.


----
Thanks for reading. Hope you have a good day and a great weekend.

Don't forget that an artist can train AI on their own works, thus creating their own lora, and then using it to generate secondary art to save time. People tend to strive to simplify their work, and this is absolutely normal. In this case, no copyright is violated by anyone. With this in mind, high-profile accusations of copyright laundering and plagiarism do not look very good...

The first part would only hold true if the AI had an agenda of it's own. At this point it's simply a cheap building tool that borders on, if not is, counterfeiting and way too often used for a cheap buck.

The second part is true but also a thin line, yeah those tools existed for a long time and I can see the benefit of easing tedious parts by AI but none could substitute any real artistic talent.
There needs to be rules around it, I mean you see how a lot of sites shut down any kind of AI Art because they get swamped by command line prompt pictures and people just don't want to see that either.

You claim that, yet you've made a basic art mistake. The interesting part of your message, the part that makes your argument, is buried in the middle of your post. The tops of each post are where the readers' eyes are drawn, yet your post starts with boilerplate that we've seen before, and ends with boilerplate that we've seen before.

The human mind and an AI algorithm do work quite differently under the hood (though not as differently as some think), but this is beside the point. The point is that both take in existing examples and, based on these, output similar-but-different new works. If the former is non-infringing, then so is the latter. Yes, but again, this is just the same as in the normal human creative process. People spend their lives experiencing the works of others, which teaches them how to create works of their own. We do not owe monetary compensation to artists whose works inspire us and teach us to create works of our own, and neither do users of AI. The analogy is often made with bookkeepers and accounts. Bookkeepers were replaced by computer spreadsheets. Their job required little creativity, just "turning the crank", and spreadsheets did it better and cheaper. Accountants, however, have not been replaced by computers. In fact, their field has flourished; computers have enabled the field to do things no one had dreamed possible.

AI will replace the artistic equivalent of bookkeepers. Writers who crank out generic romance novels, composers who write music for manufactured pop-stars to auto-tune their voices to, their days are numbered. But the artist equivalent of accountants will not be replaced. Instead, their field will expand in ways we cannot yet imagine.