Your anecdote isn’t as against expectations as you seem to think. People just also think that what you’re doing is grody.
If you traced a design you found from a Google result, people would object to you saying it was “your” creation. In the ai case, it just also isn’t anyone else’s.
People used to do your job by learning a bit about what they were designing and applying some creativity. You’re quite literally describing the AI enabling you to be less informed and creative as a creative worker.
No one much cares when the button layout for an accounting firms CRM is rote, but people do care when they hear that the designers for the game they’re playing kinda phoned in the art design and it’s significantly a mathematical approximation of other designs.
I disagree, people fundamentally don’t understand creation and art process if they think it’s an artist in a white room doing everything from the blanks of their mind.
It’s just a vocal minority that’ll eventually grow up.
Saying people who disagree with you are childish is a sure sign that maybe you’re not giving their argument proper consideration.
Particularly when you’re arguing that the consumers are wrong about their feelings towards the product and need to grow up and adapt to how the producers want to make it.
You’ve got a situation where people are seeing the assets, coding, design, and writing of games being moved from being human endeavors to being human supervised endeavors, while also being asked to pay higher prices.
The producers and vendors aren’t entitled to consumers happily letting them do less work to deliver an inferior product for more money just because the graphics card manufacturer says it’s the way of the future.
I don’t think anyone thinks you’re spending your time doing corporate graphic design putting yourself into your work. No one calls you an artist either.
People buying art though have a reasonable expectation that the person they’re buying it from isn’t tracing ai content or random things from google.
Keep in mind that if the “vocal minority” “grows up”, it means people stop paying you, because you’re the one not really adding anything to the equation.
You’re building a strawman as thats not what I said. Consumers fundamentally don’t understand the process, period.
I make casual games and most of the time you are looking for inspiration by copying stuff - this is a fundamental part of the creative process. But americans are brainwashed by copyright and IP law propaganda into thinking that copying and tool assistance is somehow “impure”.
The public sentiment will grow up and shift and I’m willing to take a long term bet here of real money to prove my point. I’ve been a creative since the 90s and seen this same story a dozen times at least.
I apologize if I misunderstood your point, but I truly fail to see how
It’s just a vocal minority that’ll eventually grow up.
And
public sentiment will grow up
Isn’t calling the opposing view childish, which is a pretty strong sign that you’ve failed to actually consider what they’re saying. Same for calling them “brainwashed”.
Consumers fundamentally don’t understand the process
Do they need to? You’ll find that most consumers don’t know how a car works or how industrial design is done but they still have justifiable opinions and concerns about the impacts and quantifiable attributes of them.
If you actually look at what consumers are concerned about you’ll find that IP and copyright concerns don’t even make the list. People are concerned about the errosion of human connection and the diminishment of creativity. Privacy. Data usage and accountability.
And what’s more, even if they were opposed for those reasons the consumer is still intrinsically correct about what they value. If consumers respect your work less because you trace AI art it doesn’t matter if you still creatively contributed, the value has been reduced.
Telling consumers their preference is wrong because you want to be able to copy and trace AI content while viewing yourself as a creative is some backwards boomer shit. 30 years making casual games doesn’t give you lofty insight into the nature of the creative process. It’s just “trust me, I know more”. Same for trying to bolster your position by talking about betting on it.
Yes, a consumer criticizing a process they don’t understand invalidates their criticism.
At the end of the day I don’t have much trust in a consumer being a good custodian of market ethics in general, especially in gaming where AI use is really at the bottom of the list of ethical issues. To me this seems like a pop culture fixation rather than a rational decision making.
Your anecdote isn’t as against expectations as you seem to think. People just also think that what you’re doing is grody.
If you traced a design you found from a Google result, people would object to you saying it was “your” creation. In the ai case, it just also isn’t anyone else’s.
People used to do your job by learning a bit about what they were designing and applying some creativity. You’re quite literally describing the AI enabling you to be less informed and creative as a creative worker.
No one much cares when the button layout for an accounting firms CRM is rote, but people do care when they hear that the designers for the game they’re playing kinda phoned in the art design and it’s significantly a mathematical approximation of other designs.
I disagree, people fundamentally don’t understand creation and art process if they think it’s an artist in a white room doing everything from the blanks of their mind.
It’s just a vocal minority that’ll eventually grow up.
Saying people who disagree with you are childish is a sure sign that maybe you’re not giving their argument proper consideration.
Particularly when you’re arguing that the consumers are wrong about their feelings towards the product and need to grow up and adapt to how the producers want to make it.
You’ve got a situation where people are seeing the assets, coding, design, and writing of games being moved from being human endeavors to being human supervised endeavors, while also being asked to pay higher prices.
The producers and vendors aren’t entitled to consumers happily letting them do less work to deliver an inferior product for more money just because the graphics card manufacturer says it’s the way of the future.
I don’t think anyone thinks you’re spending your time doing corporate graphic design putting yourself into your work. No one calls you an artist either.
People buying art though have a reasonable expectation that the person they’re buying it from isn’t tracing ai content or random things from google.
Keep in mind that if the “vocal minority” “grows up”, it means people stop paying you, because you’re the one not really adding anything to the equation.
You’re building a strawman as thats not what I said. Consumers fundamentally don’t understand the process, period.
I make casual games and most of the time you are looking for inspiration by copying stuff - this is a fundamental part of the creative process. But americans are brainwashed by copyright and IP law propaganda into thinking that copying and tool assistance is somehow “impure”.
The public sentiment will grow up and shift and I’m willing to take a long term bet here of real money to prove my point. I’ve been a creative since the 90s and seen this same story a dozen times at least.
I apologize if I misunderstood your point, but I truly fail to see how
And
Isn’t calling the opposing view childish, which is a pretty strong sign that you’ve failed to actually consider what they’re saying. Same for calling them “brainwashed”.
Do they need to? You’ll find that most consumers don’t know how a car works or how industrial design is done but they still have justifiable opinions and concerns about the impacts and quantifiable attributes of them.
If you actually look at what consumers are concerned about you’ll find that IP and copyright concerns don’t even make the list. People are concerned about the errosion of human connection and the diminishment of creativity. Privacy. Data usage and accountability.
And what’s more, even if they were opposed for those reasons the consumer is still intrinsically correct about what they value. If consumers respect your work less because you trace AI art it doesn’t matter if you still creatively contributed, the value has been reduced.
Telling consumers their preference is wrong because you want to be able to copy and trace AI content while viewing yourself as a creative is some backwards boomer shit. 30 years making casual games doesn’t give you lofty insight into the nature of the creative process. It’s just “trust me, I know more”. Same for trying to bolster your position by talking about betting on it.
Yes, a consumer criticizing a process they don’t understand invalidates their criticism.
At the end of the day I don’t have much trust in a consumer being a good custodian of market ethics in general, especially in gaming where AI use is really at the bottom of the list of ethical issues. To me this seems like a pop culture fixation rather than a rational decision making.