thing is though, we kinda "humanize" these algorithms by calling them ai. they are not artificially "intelligent" so much as they are algorithms trained using real people's creative works. you can study rembrandt, whereas a dataset that "learns" what elements of art are reminscent of rembrandt doesn't "know" anything.

There are some pretty strong arguments that this is fundamentally no different to what actual humans are doing when they learn from the things that they see. AFAIK there are humans who have "exact" memories and can exactly recreate scenes that they have seen - Mozart could famously do the same thing with music, even after only hearing it played once. So the "AI" is not much different in this than a rare kind of human.

It's not really worth bothering to argue whether these things are "intelligent" or not - our idea of what "intelligence" really means is changing every day right now specifically because these things exist. We have to try and learn to live with the existence of this technology without creating a dystopia, and that's the only thing that matters.

Anyway, I came here to say that MedicineStorm started a more recent thread on the topic which had some really long and detailed replies in it, so there should probably be a link to it here! I'll add a link in this post if I can find that thread again.

So I was looking at some Ai generated artwork on the sight, and thought it must be somewhat irritating to have a submission unavaible for such a long period of time, especially if it's your own. So I went to find some advice on the topic. And who would be best to go to for advice on how to handle AI generated art than... another AI?

Not Siri. ChatGPT.

ChatGPT said this when I told it to act as a lawyer and tell us how we should handle it:

 As a lawyer, my advice would be to carefully consider the legal and ethical implications of using AI-generated artwork on OpenGameArt, and to develop a clear policy or set of guidelines to address these issues.

First, it is important to ensure that any AI-generated artwork submitted to OpenGameArt is an original creation and does not infringe on the copyrights of others. This may require reviewing the source material used to train the AI system and verifying that it was obtained legally and with the necessary permissions.

Second, the issue of authorship and ownership of AI-generated artwork may need to be addressed. It may be necessary to clarify who holds the copyright and how it should be licensed and attributed to ensure that artists and users are aware of the legal requirements.

Third, transparency and accountability in the use of AI systems should be considered. This may include providing information about the training data used, the algorithms used, and any biases that may be present in the system. It may also include providing clear information about the ownership and licensing of any AI-generated artwork used on the site.

Overall, developing a clear policy or set of guidelines for the use of AI-generated artwork on OpenGameArt can help ensure that legal and ethical issues are addressed, and that artists and users are aware of the requirements and implications of using such works. It is recommended to consult with legal and ethical experts in the field to develop an effective policy or set of guidelines.

Most of this I believe has already been said on this topic, but I thought it would be interesting to ask another AI's opinion on it.

Hehehe. I wonder if this very thread has become a component of ChatGPT's training set. Or the Collection discussion that Emcee Flesher mentioned: https://opengameart.org/content/artificial-intelligence-assisted-artwork

They should just call it artificial kit bashing.

That would certainly answer the copyright questions, but kitbashing isn't really what the GANs are doing.

Well, what I'm already tired of is people trying to pass off their ai-generated images as real art that they made. And then trying to sell them on itch. When I'm looking for game assets, I don't want to pay for ai-generated stuff. I'm fine with people posting them, I just don't like it when they lie about it. And then disable comments when I call them out on it. Or just deny it and say that I'm doing a witch hunt or something.

Agreed. 

I have encountered some of that, but I may have had better luck shutting their lies down since the reason I rejected their art was not because it was AI art. It was because it didn't meet my commission criteria. In my case, I didn't care if it was AI or not so long as it created a stable animation loop that transitioned smoothly and realistically. The artwork they tried to give me and say "I finished the commission. pay up." looked like crap when it was animated. So I said, "no, you didn't finish. My requirements clearly say xyz and this doesn't meet that." 

My point being, be sure to define your requirements in a way that excludes the garbage artifacts that often show up in AI art. Specifying "no AI art" might help a little, though I think you'll get more of the 'this is a witch hunt' responses for that. It isn't actually very specific. It's like saying "no blockchain!" but there are multiple forms of blockchain tech, many of which have nothing to do with the typical notorious "Steal art, mint NFT, sell it without artist's permission, argue the theft is actually beneficial to artist when caught" tactic.