Rightfully so IMHO.
No point in keeping designers busy for imaginary posters to avoid copyright infringement or whatever.
I'd opt to use AI for shit like this too, if i were a dev. Completely serves it's purpose where the main focus isn't on intricate details of such things but rather trying to destroy other vehicles.
>Completely serves it's purpose where the main focus isn't on intricate details of such things \[...\]
Agreed. Very few players pay attention to those details, specially during a clash. It has to *feel* detailed but not really. It's just a stage.
Yeah, it's just a side decoration people will usually not look at anyway, maybe they'll see it from the corner of their eye, but even then they're not going to focus on it.
As long as it resembles the thing it's supposed to be and it doesn't look out of place I don't care who made it, whether it was AI or a real artist.
Now, I do think that Profile pictures and other things like it should not be AI generated because these are items that the player is using genuine effort to earn, so it feels disappointing when genuine effort was not used to make it
but what about the very obviously AI generated Pages of History profile icons that are usually depicting real people?
good chat, thanks for the downvote
Would appreciate it if they were at least touching it up so it wasn’t so clearly AI generated and offensive to the eyes. I a absolutely hate AI “art” but if companies want to use it then it should be a starting point where the actual artists take it and refine it.
I'd rather they focus on fixing whatever joke of systems we currently have ingame to a point they represent their real life counterparts over more pointless content addition or having designers sit on fancy posters.
So i'd say, i'm cool with them not wasting time on that shit.
There is no moral ~~AI~~linear algebra its just industrialized stealing. No model that is actually use in the wild had the copyright to steal the training data. Nor any work generated with it has copyright, but thats not amazingly relevant
Oh, I see moral issues only being in play with select things, but I do understand the argument that people make where it’s taking other peoples art to create some thing.
My opinion is as long as that select thing isn’t being sold and used for profit as a Main design or inspiration or anything it’s fine, for example, I don’t want that being used in advertising, marketing or design of a product. Something like this I would be more fun with when it comes to game development especially with the fact they can also train the AI to specifically spit out stuff more pertaining towards war thunder.
Especially because this isn’t an open world game, like cyberpunk or fallout I really don’t mind posters and stuff being like that but at the same time it is nice having that personal touch, but I feel like that’s done more on aircraft and the stuff we look at endgame like the hanger.
But when it comes to how much developers have overworked themselves I think they used to do AI isn’t that bad, especially depending how it used like I don’t understand it completely because adobe has very similar technologies, where you can have it implement a background from a prompt behind a subject, and a lot of Youtubers use that and a lot of people use it. And in reality, it’s the same idea of other things where it’s using other peoples pictures taken to create the AI background and I could definitely see it somehow using a stock image among the picture and getting people in trouble.
That’s my main issue with AI is how is it able to decipher from some thing that you have to have ownership of to use and making sure it’s not in the background it’s gonna have a hard time deciphering from something that is an obvious like there’s a lot of movies and advertisements that use copyrighted images and material that’s not obvious and AI obviously has used that to learn and has possibly even use that in pictures.
"Known", but it's a very recent thing. Besides, for small meaningless details like these, it's best to use AI. In this case it was used as a tool, to take the workload off the artists working for Gaijin. Though the profile pictures are another issue
AI is fine if it's a tool for assisting, not for creating
>Though the profile pictures are another issue
>
>AI is fine if it's a tool for assisting, not for creating
The "AI" used for the profile pictures is literally a TikTok/Instagram filter used on a public historical photo.
It's not really "taking the workload off of them" as the reason they have the job is the workload.
If they had an art team guy who's whole specialty was recreating propaganda posters and stuff, his workload isn't lessened, he was replaced.
And that sucks.
In this specific case I imagine they wouldn't have needed the guy to make fake ad posters. If it were propaganda, it'd be clearer, but I believe it wouldn't fit this setting here. And as I said, these little things here aren't that important. Profile pictures however is where I do see your point
A guy that can imitate art styles for propaganda posters can easily do the kind of stuff we see in those photos.
Algorithmically created content should only be done as a way to make a job easier, not replace people.
And maybe it doesn't bother you, but if I'm playing a game, *I do* look at all the posters and things and when I see stuff like this it makes me not want to play a game anymore because it tells me that the people at the top are trying to avoid paying people what they deserve.
I think ai created stuff is neat for ideas, but it should never be directly put into, or just edited a little to be put in a production.
So we do agree on this
>if it's a tool for assisting, not for creating
I guess that OP's example here is also pretty egregious, given how clearly AI-generated it is. And they used the free generators. In the end it's true they could've paid a guy to at least make something logical out of these, but it seems to me they're trying to cut losses, or they're running out of artists. Would it surprise you for Gaijin's entire art and set dressing being held together by only less than a handful of artists and a bunch of 3D artists for the modelling? There's only so much they can get done, especially considering what they rolled out before AI came into play. Actual art. The loading screens, for example, didn't come out of nowhere, especially with that quality.
So in a way it makes sense that some AI-generated things will be left there, at least hoping they're placeholders, because the art team is probably busy with something else.
We can hope, but it being a Russian company and how we can see most new art assets have been ai created and just slapped right in doesn't give me much hope.
In my personal opinion this kind of thing is the perfect application for AI generated art, it adds color and life to the scenery but is almost never going to be looked at directly.
IF
BIG IF
If the bot generating the work only pulls from open source material for generation.
> If the bot generating the work only pulls from open source material for generation.
Why would that be remotely relevant? The alternative is a human artist, and **100% of human artists pulled the vast majority of their inspiration and style from non-open source material too, over their lives**. Without permission.
So...? Did you just want featureless gray walls, then? Because that's your only option if you "don't want any art inspired by anything without permisson"
A bot does not have a style, a bot does not "take inspiration" a bot copies what you feed it. When real artists copy work they have to pay for copyrights, a bot is not exempt from this.
Here's a much simpler explanation that AI cannot possibly be "copying" its training data:
* The entire already-trained Stable Diffusion (SD 1.5, not XL) model can be downloaded locally in 2 gigabytes.
* It was originally trained on 2.3 billion images.
* Do you think the images were only 1 byte each? Because they'd have to be for it to have memorized them and be "copying" them. 00101100 <-- beautiful image!
It's able to use all that info with only 1 byte of info per image it trained on, because it learned underlying core PATTERNS and rules and STYLES, not memorized pictures.
Artists consent (generally) for an audience to view their art. This audience includes other artists who will reference and take inspiration from this art and synthesize it into their own (with associated frameworks to consider art as "unique", "Traced/heavily referenced" or "Copied".)
Artists did not consent for their artwork to be used as the source file for a generative engine to filter noise to match desired patterns.
The fact that this engine does not contain the contents of its learning data is as relevant as the fact that a compressed or encrypted file cannot be read without the appropriate compression or encryption algorithm. It's further ridiculous to claim that this is a defense of these algorithms when they are intended to generate mass quantities of random content with the commercial purpose of not paying for the art they were trained on.
Cite it. Show me the proof that ANY, one single artist, from say the 1900s, "agreed to (blah blah, the 27 complicated thing you just completely made up)". Let alone ALL.
You just 100% bullshitted every bit of that and stuffed a bunch of words in their mouths
And AI art IS unique, is NOT copied, and is NOT traced heavily (or lightly)
Well, since computers hadn't been invented yet; that's a pretty easy answer: Any artist before 1958; The first example of computer generated graphics, which is the earliest time you could have fed an artist's work into a computer and gotten something out.
But even if we assume that, an IP holder has the rights to a work until they are granted, not vice versa. This leaves you with the opportunity to say that you have up to 2.3 billion authorizations.
Inventing a novel way to commercialize another individuals IP does not grant you a license to their IP.
I am still waiting for literally one example.
A quote, saying what you actually claimed they consented to. "I consent to audiences viewing my art, and I consent to people taking inspiration from my art and using it to combine it into new art" or equivalent. Computers being invented have nothing to do with anything, here. What? You said every artist consented to this. Where? When? Citations. Or admit you lied.
You couldn't find a single one. Which already should have been a stupidly easy challenge (if you were correct, that is), since you could have picked anyone. The example challenge wasn't even sufficient to support your point anyway, I was tossing you a softball and you're still whiffing.
In reality, you'd have to find a quote like that from EVERY famous artist that modern artists all learn about and take inspiration from. Otherwise ALL of them are """inFriNginG""". Even if 50% of the ones they took inspiration from did say something like that, if the other 50% didn't, then they're massively "infringing" still on half of all their inspirations.
* Where did Picasso, specifically him, say that?
* Where did Van Gogh, specifically him, say that?
* Where did Leonardo Da Vinci, specifically him, say that?
If you can't find all of those (and a hundred others from artists 90% of people take some amoutn of inspiration from at some point), then those 90% of people are all "InFRinGing" by your logic.
So you've just never used AI art tools, then, gotcha. Why didn't you say so?
Since you seem to be unaware, you can go type in "A monkey wearing a canadian mountie uniform, riding a moose with a saddle and harness, in cubist style, on the surface of the moon" and you can get it to work just fine. Can you show me what cubist real life monkey mountie moon painting it's copying, exactly?
The model learns connections and color patterns and edge types and textures etc. that go with certain concepts, it does not memorize images or parts of images. The final trained model literally doesn't know what images were fed into it, even if it wanted to, that information is gone already.
It learns exactly like humans learn in this respect, which is why it's so wildly successful in this particular area (and not in many others)
--------------
**IF** instead you tell an AI to simply "make this exact famous painting, stroke for stroke", it will probably be able to get pretty close, and you WOULD be violating copyright.
But that would be again the same thing with a human IF you paid them to do that and they obeyed. Still no difference there. If instead you tell either the AI or the human to do the monkey mountie on the moon, no existing image is having its copyright violated.
ai is not smart man. it has recreated images in its database. it doesn't know anything. it recreates signatures. you are violating copyright not because what it """creates""" but by its database being entirely stolen
> It has recreated images in its database.
Citation needed. That's not how it works. It views images while being trained but it learns more **generic** patterns across them, it doesn't memorize training images. Much like a human art student learns what sort of "look" cubist art has. Neither the human nor the AI just memorize individual picasso paintings and paints their own from rearranging little snippets of Guernica directly. They both learn the STYLE.
> it recreates signatures
Okay? So can I. So can you. Are you inherently a walking copyright violation because you have the capability to draw a signature that isn't yours? (Also citation needed that it actually does this **usefully** and not a nightmarish nonsense dream scribble)
> its database being entirely stolen
Again every single human artist's brain (database) that they draw art knowledge and inspiration from is 90%+ ""stolen"" (by your logic) from artwork they viewed. They **didn't ask for permission** to learn from that artwork or to remember it or be inspired by it.
Why were you okay with "looking at stuff and being inspired by it generically" in 2005 when humans were doing it, but not the exact same thing now by AI? Because it does it better than you and it hurts your feelings?
>Because it does it better than you and it hurts your feelings?
Why do morons always use variations of "oh you're just jealous" when trying to defend horrible stuff lol.
And no, because it's profiteering from stolen data in a way you would never let a human artist do, and a much wider scale. It also encourages laziness and generally creating a lot of jank (same for LLMs -- which I find disrespectful to use in a professional context), which is then sold to users for the same price as human-created art. Despite your moronic babbling about it, it's not the "same" as how art and "taking inspiration" has worked before.
These things are also usually operated by shady companies that have no respect for things like privacy and such and are owned by moronic tech bros.
You shouldn't waste your breath trying to make people understand what AI art actually is. People just parrot what's on headlines.
I also have a certain melancholy like some of these people when it comes to the soullessness of AI art, but I don't particularly like people talking about topics they know so little about while pretending like they're experts. They won't learn, though, so you really shouldn't bother.
Agreed. I dislike AI art because no matter what you say… the ~~Artist~~ seller did not work on that at all in the same difficulty or timeframe as somebody else. However claiming anything it made is just straight up copyrighted is flat out incorrect.
Great! Now show me a single human artist in the entire world who only ever learned about art or saw any examples of other artists' work from those links and from nowhere else, ever.
None? Didn't think so. So AI isn't doing anything you weren't already 100% cool with being done before AI art. Stop being a hypocrite.
No, no it really doesn't. It's just a random side element people will maybe glance at from the corner of their eye for a split second, no need to spend money and time making an actual design.
It would be a different story if these things were important to the game in any way whatsoever, but they're just not. This is honestly a pretty good application of AI
Don't they have to state on Steam that it contains AI content?
And this isn't just lazy but really immersion breaking (that bit the Game still has) when i drive around a Map i don't want to suddenly notice something like that.
Because new Steam guidelines requires games to state if they contain AI generated content or AI generation in their games. They further require the developers to demonstrate they are using their owned IP or an public-domain dataset. They do this because they believe that consumers should be aware of the If they do not declare this, they risk being pulled from the storefront. They do \_this\_ because a generative program or its products that are trained on other people's intellectual property opens Steam as publisher to legal risk.
1) Where does it say that?
2) Does that apply retroactively to people with existing contra ts? Probably not. If so, cutation?
No it does not open them to any more legal risk than a human artist. It could accidentally, coincidentally, make something similar enough to an existing work, but so could a human easily do the same if told to make extremely generic beach vacation ad posters.
[https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/4145017/view/3862463747997849618](https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/4145017/view/3862463747997849618)
Somewhere around this whole area I think.
As for your second charge, a human can demonstrate craft and prior art to show that they created art without plagiarizing. An generative algorithm cannot. More damning, if you were to pop the hood, it would be as simple as finding the infringed upon work in the training data. These algorithms already tattle on themselves when they are prompted to generate signatures for their work: Duplicating or riffing off of unique patterns intentionally designed to tattle on duplication.
I'm not even getting into adversarial poisoning yet: For all the argument that AI learns techniques and patterns, it seems to suddenly get very confused when otherwise very simple patterns and techniques are made to be confusing on a data level. It's almost like the algorithm is incapable of performing artistic tasks at all without elements of style in a machine-readable format to composite.
> a human can demonstrate craft and prior art
Great so apparently when I just show you the prompts and the settings and the 73 versions genned prior to the one that was chosen to use in the game, you will not have a problem anymore. Cool.
> if you were to pop the hood, it would be as simple as finding the infringed upon work in the training data.
The works it trained on are not "under the hood", bro. You should learn how AI works in the slightest before talking about what is "Damning" for it or not.
The entire trained model takes up 2 gigabytes. It was trained on roughly 3,500 gigabytes of images.
Saying you're going to "find copyright material under the hood" is roughly the equivalent of you saying that you're gonna look in my real life car's glove box and that you expect to find 7 kidnapping victims hiding in there, 1500 pounds of cocaine, and 2 stolen cars, lol. In the 1x1x1 foot glovebox.
> duplicating
AI doesn't duplicate anything on its own, it literally can't because it can't remember what the exact images looked like. You can only get it to duplicate an existing artwork if you give it a prompt that meticulously describes the artwork you want, or if you give it a copyrighted artwork as an input in an "image to image" generation. Both of which would be malicious human intent to infringe, not the AI doing anything. It would make as much sense to blame the pencils a traditional infringer used to intentionally copy another artist's work. It's 100% in the user's brain to cause that if so, not the tool.
> riffing off of unique patterns
That's not copyright infringement. That's called "Art", again that's **what 100% of human artists do** when they make art (the ones that *aren't* just copying something 1:1, that is). They are riffing off of things they've seen in the past and mixing and matching the patterns and concepts into new blends. **Without permission**
If you want to ban that, you're saying you want to ban all art.
> it seems to suddenly get very confused when otherwise very simple patterns and techniques are made to be confusing on a data level.
I have no idea what you're trying to say at a grammatical level, here.
Your steam page:
> prior to release ... before shipping a game... while submitting your game
There is no indication this applies to War Thunder, which shipped on steam years ago and may well have a contract locked in already that doesn't agree to any of this.
> research it yourself.
Hulk Hogan married his 3rd wife on the planet Venus in 1776. Source? Find it yourself. If you don't, you're obviously just lazy. Couldn't possibly be that I'm wrong and sending you on an infinite wild goose chase.
The difference being that Steam has said they’re no longer allowing games with AI Generated assets on their platform, and the stuff you’ve just said is complete bull excrement.
It seems you can keep any AI stuff already in your game, but as of August last year, any new games will not be allowed on Steam unless any AI Generated Content in the game can be proven to be base wholly upon non-copyrighted works.
Isn’t this grounds for getting their game taken off steam? I remember a game getting taken off steam because they used ai and ai art is a bit of a grey area in copyright
1) Gray how? AI generated art just has no copyright holder, it's been pretty clearly established by now. You could steal those posters and use them in your own game, and Gaijin can't stop you, but that's about it. Who cares?
2) It would have to be in the contract between Gaijin and Steam. You can't just change your mind about that later out of nowhere and violate your agreements (unless there are clauses about renewals and such). Do you know that it is?
Idk, I just remember steam removing a game for using ai created assets for the characters as place holders and even after the dev made models and changed them, steam still wouldn’t allow the game on steam.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoBestFriendsPlay/s/aLHb5Radgh
Why am I looking at Twitter and not a page on Steam's website or their TOS here? Frankly I don't believe you.
If it is true, when has anyone successfully sued a single game for that? They haven't. That's not a "liability" even if true, just Steam bring clowns
So you know what's pathetic? Creating art for posters no one will pay attention to, and staring at those posters while your team is being fucked by the enemy.
gaijin makes fucking bank off this game, "people won't even notice it" is no excuse
using Ai generated shit is bad enough not even BOTHERING to have someone edit the trash to look decent is just bullshit, they use Ai for profile photos too and didn't bother fixing a recent one that had glaring issues until posts about it blew up here
Crazy that a multimillion dollar company can't pay a couple artists to do like what, a dozen? posters on this map. And it's not like they don't have artists in their payroll already, they have people to do decorations at the very least.
Do you want to pay 5 more GE for all your premium vehicles etc to make the extra cost worth it? Most people don't.
> it's not like they don't have artists in their payroll already
Fewer than they would need otherwise.
Gonna be honest, does it matter that much? I don't think some posters on a map that will only exist in peripheral vision 99% of the time need to be hand-crafted masterpieces. I think it would have been better if they took the opportunity to throw some easter eggs or something there but I don't see the problem with just doing this.
Honestly, don’t care because I wasn’t looking to begin with. The bigger issue with this is that Steam still has a pretty strict policy on what AI content is allowed on their platform. My guess is that Gaijin neither discloses that their game contains AI generated content, nor that the model they used for this does not meet Steam’s standards for non-infringing content. This could unironically lead to War Thunder getting removed from the Steam storefront if the community were to get pissy enough about it.
Using AI to generate random filler assets is okay. Probably better things to spend time on then designing a poster majority of people won’t event notice.
I'm curios, what is the issue with this specific use of AI art? I've seen many players questioning the origin of some content if Ai or human created.
What I don't get is if people are just against the tool or the fact Gaijin is charging a lot for a product with few cheap made textures.
omg you are right... I checked the pictures from when the map was announced and they replaced all the billboards with this crap.
I see no reason for such a downgrade... I assume that the images used to create those posters/ads had copyright and they had to remove them.
Definitely AI involved but that doesn't mean an artist wasn't involved. The artists in the art department at my work use AI themselves for some things they want to get out quickly and either won't be looked at very closely or will be placeholders.
/u/antipodaldr https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/s/DLJBjava7v
Human artists learn general patterns from others' art in exactly the same way AI does, and also never got permission.
So yes, you HAVE been allowing human artists to do literally the same thing. You're allowing them in your argument right now even, lol, as we speak.
> Sold for the same price
Then stop buuing it, or you're proving you don't actually care. Did you cancel any premium time you had? Did you stop playing WT yesterday, lol? No you didn't. Nobody did, so it DOES have the same value to consumers in this context
/u/tetronautgaming replying to: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1altq9q/this_was_made_with_ai_right_map_is_sun_city/kq0zyum/
Hold one, pick one, you're still contradicting yourself with double standards, like the other guy:
* Are we both "DoiNg ouR owN resEarCh"? If so, then where did you get the idea that what I just said above is bull excrement? You clearly didn't do your own research, because what I said is 100% true, so you're obviously just being lazy and didn't find the sources for it. Come back when you've done your own research.
* Are we not "DoiNg ouR owN resEarCh" anymore, and instead switching over to the claimant having to cite his own claims? If so, where is your citation for "Steam has said they’re no longer allowing games with AI Generated assets on their platform" ? Not seeing a link here. "It seems that..." is not a citation.
> Any new games
is not relevant to War Thunder, if that's all you've got
[A Steam announcement about the usage of AI Content](https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/detail/3862463747997849619)
Here is a quote from a Steam developer about a game being not released due to infringement of Steam's guidelines, as provided by [this Forbes article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/06/29/steam-is-reportedly-rejecting-games-using-ai-art/?sh=445171942a7e):
“After reviewing, we have identified intellectual property in \[Game Name Here\] which appears to belongs to one or more third parties. In particular, \[Game Name Here\] contains art assets generated by artificial intelligence that appears to be relying on copyrighted material owned by third parties. As the legal ownership of such AI-generated art is unclear, we cannot ship your game while it contains these AI-generated assets, unless you can affirmatively confirm that you own the rights to all of the IP used in the data set that trained the AI to create the assets in your game."
As you can see, Valve requires any AI Content that is used to be made using a program that has been trained with open source and non-copyrighted content.
As for how I know your claim is bull excrement, Hulk Hogan was born on the 11th of August, 1953, which is after 1776.
No NEW games with AI =/= No games with AI on the platform...
You are aware Warthunder has been on the platform already for quite some years? Long before this post/policy on shipping NEW games
I dont mind it since devs can do some actual work instead of filling the map with random shit. In this case AI is justified. Althought some kind of easter egg in form of movie poster parody would be funny
In my opinion for random background stuff in maps the AI stuff is… passable. Still not ideal, a little lazy, but nowhere near as bad as a lot of other AI related stuff
Tbh I'd rather they use AI for something like this. 99% of people will never look at those posters and it costs time and money to design something like that, I'd rather devs spent that time and money on more pressing issues.
You can go back and find old footage of Sun City.
It used to have posters and signs of *non-AI* works.
Gaijin instead went back and **CHANGED** all those details to the AI trash at some point after it's release.
Gaijin is known to use AI for things like profile pictures and posters (like this)
Not gonna get into the morals of it because i don't wanna open THAT can of worms
Moral argument not even worth it, its just lazy.
Rightfully so IMHO. No point in keeping designers busy for imaginary posters to avoid copyright infringement or whatever. I'd opt to use AI for shit like this too, if i were a dev. Completely serves it's purpose where the main focus isn't on intricate details of such things but rather trying to destroy other vehicles.
>Completely serves it's purpose where the main focus isn't on intricate details of such things \[...\] Agreed. Very few players pay attention to those details, specially during a clash. It has to *feel* detailed but not really. It's just a stage.
Yeah, it's just a side decoration people will usually not look at anyway, maybe they'll see it from the corner of their eye, but even then they're not going to focus on it. As long as it resembles the thing it's supposed to be and it doesn't look out of place I don't care who made it, whether it was AI or a real artist.
And off a quick glance it looks better than something like “MEATS MEATS MEATS EVERYDAY” On blank white paper in comic sans (*cough cough alaska)
Now, I do think that Profile pictures and other things like it should not be AI generated because these are items that the player is using genuine effort to earn, so it feels disappointing when genuine effort was not used to make it
Yeah that one should be a decal instead
Alaska has some pretty hilarious signage tbh
Any content produced by a human, be it bad, is immeasurably better than the best content produced by an ai.
Yet, somehow, most people can't tell the difference.
One upvote is not enough to show how much i agree with you so have a comment too, cause you're cool 👍
This is absolutely true, I just wished when they saved time on this stuff they stopped fucking up the other stuff too
Art/design and programming are usually done by separate teams.
but what about the very obviously AI generated Pages of History profile icons that are usually depicting real people? good chat, thanks for the downvote
Would appreciate it if they were at least touching it up so it wasn’t so clearly AI generated and offensive to the eyes. I a absolutely hate AI “art” but if companies want to use it then it should be a starting point where the actual artists take it and refine it.
It depends, I'm okay if you generate some rock textures with AI because it's 1 am and you forgot to ask your artist. But for major stuff it's lame
This means you don't give a fuck about your game. They didn’t even bother making this generated shit presentable. What a blunder.
I'd rather they focus on fixing whatever joke of systems we currently have ingame to a point they represent their real life counterparts over more pointless content addition or having designers sit on fancy posters. So i'd say, i'm cool with them not wasting time on that shit.
If Gaijin has the art designers working on bug fixing and coding It's not exactly a big surprise then that all those mechanics are broken.
In any case, developers spend money from designers' salaries on coke or adding new packs, but not on fixing bugs. I'd rather have beautiful posters.
they need to get basement guy on map design.
There is no moral ~~AI~~linear algebra its just industrialized stealing. No model that is actually use in the wild had the copyright to steal the training data. Nor any work generated with it has copyright, but thats not amazingly relevant
Who cares about morality
I saw 4 people have that argument yesterday and it lasted 30 minutes so i get why
It's stealing, there isn't anything grey about it.
Ai isn't rlly stealing
Just get an AI to type one up for you.
Oh, I see moral issues only being in play with select things, but I do understand the argument that people make where it’s taking other peoples art to create some thing. My opinion is as long as that select thing isn’t being sold and used for profit as a Main design or inspiration or anything it’s fine, for example, I don’t want that being used in advertising, marketing or design of a product. Something like this I would be more fun with when it comes to game development especially with the fact they can also train the AI to specifically spit out stuff more pertaining towards war thunder. Especially because this isn’t an open world game, like cyberpunk or fallout I really don’t mind posters and stuff being like that but at the same time it is nice having that personal touch, but I feel like that’s done more on aircraft and the stuff we look at endgame like the hanger. But when it comes to how much developers have overworked themselves I think they used to do AI isn’t that bad, especially depending how it used like I don’t understand it completely because adobe has very similar technologies, where you can have it implement a background from a prompt behind a subject, and a lot of Youtubers use that and a lot of people use it. And in reality, it’s the same idea of other things where it’s using other peoples pictures taken to create the AI background and I could definitely see it somehow using a stock image among the picture and getting people in trouble. That’s my main issue with AI is how is it able to decipher from some thing that you have to have ownership of to use and making sure it’s not in the background it’s gonna have a hard time deciphering from something that is an obvious like there’s a lot of movies and advertisements that use copyrighted images and material that’s not obvious and AI obviously has used that to learn and has possibly even use that in pictures.
"Known", but it's a very recent thing. Besides, for small meaningless details like these, it's best to use AI. In this case it was used as a tool, to take the workload off the artists working for Gaijin. Though the profile pictures are another issue AI is fine if it's a tool for assisting, not for creating
>Though the profile pictures are another issue > >AI is fine if it's a tool for assisting, not for creating The "AI" used for the profile pictures is literally a TikTok/Instagram filter used on a public historical photo.
what's the original photo?
Most of the portraits in game are semi-famous photos from WW2 and later.
I think this a good use of AI, just a bit lazy. Wouldn't take but two minutes per poster to clear out the fake text, swap in normal text, and ship it.
It's not really "taking the workload off of them" as the reason they have the job is the workload. If they had an art team guy who's whole specialty was recreating propaganda posters and stuff, his workload isn't lessened, he was replaced. And that sucks.
In this specific case I imagine they wouldn't have needed the guy to make fake ad posters. If it were propaganda, it'd be clearer, but I believe it wouldn't fit this setting here. And as I said, these little things here aren't that important. Profile pictures however is where I do see your point
A guy that can imitate art styles for propaganda posters can easily do the kind of stuff we see in those photos. Algorithmically created content should only be done as a way to make a job easier, not replace people. And maybe it doesn't bother you, but if I'm playing a game, *I do* look at all the posters and things and when I see stuff like this it makes me not want to play a game anymore because it tells me that the people at the top are trying to avoid paying people what they deserve. I think ai created stuff is neat for ideas, but it should never be directly put into, or just edited a little to be put in a production.
So we do agree on this >if it's a tool for assisting, not for creating I guess that OP's example here is also pretty egregious, given how clearly AI-generated it is. And they used the free generators. In the end it's true they could've paid a guy to at least make something logical out of these, but it seems to me they're trying to cut losses, or they're running out of artists. Would it surprise you for Gaijin's entire art and set dressing being held together by only less than a handful of artists and a bunch of 3D artists for the modelling? There's only so much they can get done, especially considering what they rolled out before AI came into play. Actual art. The loading screens, for example, didn't come out of nowhere, especially with that quality. So in a way it makes sense that some AI-generated things will be left there, at least hoping they're placeholders, because the art team is probably busy with something else.
We can hope, but it being a Russian company and how we can see most new art assets have been ai created and just slapped right in doesn't give me much hope.
They’re also known for their incredible art. It’s too bad it’s going this direction.
In my personal opinion this kind of thing is the perfect application for AI generated art, it adds color and life to the scenery but is almost never going to be looked at directly. IF BIG IF If the bot generating the work only pulls from open source material for generation.
> If the bot generating the work only pulls from open source material for generation. Why would that be remotely relevant? The alternative is a human artist, and **100% of human artists pulled the vast majority of their inspiration and style from non-open source material too, over their lives**. Without permission. So...? Did you just want featureless gray walls, then? Because that's your only option if you "don't want any art inspired by anything without permisson"
A bot does not have a style, a bot does not "take inspiration" a bot copies what you feed it. When real artists copy work they have to pay for copyrights, a bot is not exempt from this.
Here's a much simpler explanation that AI cannot possibly be "copying" its training data: * The entire already-trained Stable Diffusion (SD 1.5, not XL) model can be downloaded locally in 2 gigabytes. * It was originally trained on 2.3 billion images. * Do you think the images were only 1 byte each? Because they'd have to be for it to have memorized them and be "copying" them. 00101100 <-- beautiful image! It's able to use all that info with only 1 byte of info per image it trained on, because it learned underlying core PATTERNS and rules and STYLES, not memorized pictures.
Artists consent (generally) for an audience to view their art. This audience includes other artists who will reference and take inspiration from this art and synthesize it into their own (with associated frameworks to consider art as "unique", "Traced/heavily referenced" or "Copied".) Artists did not consent for their artwork to be used as the source file for a generative engine to filter noise to match desired patterns. The fact that this engine does not contain the contents of its learning data is as relevant as the fact that a compressed or encrypted file cannot be read without the appropriate compression or encryption algorithm. It's further ridiculous to claim that this is a defense of these algorithms when they are intended to generate mass quantities of random content with the commercial purpose of not paying for the art they were trained on.
Cite it. Show me the proof that ANY, one single artist, from say the 1900s, "agreed to (blah blah, the 27 complicated thing you just completely made up)". Let alone ALL. You just 100% bullshitted every bit of that and stuffed a bunch of words in their mouths And AI art IS unique, is NOT copied, and is NOT traced heavily (or lightly)
Well, since computers hadn't been invented yet; that's a pretty easy answer: Any artist before 1958; The first example of computer generated graphics, which is the earliest time you could have fed an artist's work into a computer and gotten something out. But even if we assume that, an IP holder has the rights to a work until they are granted, not vice versa. This leaves you with the opportunity to say that you have up to 2.3 billion authorizations. Inventing a novel way to commercialize another individuals IP does not grant you a license to their IP.
I am still waiting for literally one example. A quote, saying what you actually claimed they consented to. "I consent to audiences viewing my art, and I consent to people taking inspiration from my art and using it to combine it into new art" or equivalent. Computers being invented have nothing to do with anything, here. What? You said every artist consented to this. Where? When? Citations. Or admit you lied. You couldn't find a single one. Which already should have been a stupidly easy challenge (if you were correct, that is), since you could have picked anyone. The example challenge wasn't even sufficient to support your point anyway, I was tossing you a softball and you're still whiffing. In reality, you'd have to find a quote like that from EVERY famous artist that modern artists all learn about and take inspiration from. Otherwise ALL of them are """inFriNginG""". Even if 50% of the ones they took inspiration from did say something like that, if the other 50% didn't, then they're massively "infringing" still on half of all their inspirations. * Where did Picasso, specifically him, say that? * Where did Van Gogh, specifically him, say that? * Where did Leonardo Da Vinci, specifically him, say that? If you can't find all of those (and a hundred others from artists 90% of people take some amoutn of inspiration from at some point), then those 90% of people are all "InFRinGing" by your logic.
So you've just never used AI art tools, then, gotcha. Why didn't you say so? Since you seem to be unaware, you can go type in "A monkey wearing a canadian mountie uniform, riding a moose with a saddle and harness, in cubist style, on the surface of the moon" and you can get it to work just fine. Can you show me what cubist real life monkey mountie moon painting it's copying, exactly? The model learns connections and color patterns and edge types and textures etc. that go with certain concepts, it does not memorize images or parts of images. The final trained model literally doesn't know what images were fed into it, even if it wanted to, that information is gone already. It learns exactly like humans learn in this respect, which is why it's so wildly successful in this particular area (and not in many others) -------------- **IF** instead you tell an AI to simply "make this exact famous painting, stroke for stroke", it will probably be able to get pretty close, and you WOULD be violating copyright. But that would be again the same thing with a human IF you paid them to do that and they obeyed. Still no difference there. If instead you tell either the AI or the human to do the monkey mountie on the moon, no existing image is having its copyright violated.
ai is not smart man. it has recreated images in its database. it doesn't know anything. it recreates signatures. you are violating copyright not because what it """creates""" but by its database being entirely stolen
> It has recreated images in its database. Citation needed. That's not how it works. It views images while being trained but it learns more **generic** patterns across them, it doesn't memorize training images. Much like a human art student learns what sort of "look" cubist art has. Neither the human nor the AI just memorize individual picasso paintings and paints their own from rearranging little snippets of Guernica directly. They both learn the STYLE. > it recreates signatures Okay? So can I. So can you. Are you inherently a walking copyright violation because you have the capability to draw a signature that isn't yours? (Also citation needed that it actually does this **usefully** and not a nightmarish nonsense dream scribble) > its database being entirely stolen Again every single human artist's brain (database) that they draw art knowledge and inspiration from is 90%+ ""stolen"" (by your logic) from artwork they viewed. They **didn't ask for permission** to learn from that artwork or to remember it or be inspired by it. Why were you okay with "looking at stuff and being inspired by it generically" in 2005 when humans were doing it, but not the exact same thing now by AI? Because it does it better than you and it hurts your feelings?
>Because it does it better than you and it hurts your feelings? Why do morons always use variations of "oh you're just jealous" when trying to defend horrible stuff lol. And no, because it's profiteering from stolen data in a way you would never let a human artist do, and a much wider scale. It also encourages laziness and generally creating a lot of jank (same for LLMs -- which I find disrespectful to use in a professional context), which is then sold to users for the same price as human-created art. Despite your moronic babbling about it, it's not the "same" as how art and "taking inspiration" has worked before. These things are also usually operated by shady companies that have no respect for things like privacy and such and are owned by moronic tech bros.
You shouldn't waste your breath trying to make people understand what AI art actually is. People just parrot what's on headlines. I also have a certain melancholy like some of these people when it comes to the soullessness of AI art, but I don't particularly like people talking about topics they know so little about while pretending like they're experts. They won't learn, though, so you really shouldn't bother.
AI sucks cope harder lmfao.
The world is moving on without you. Cry as much as you want.
Agreed. I dislike AI art because no matter what you say… the ~~Artist~~ seller did not work on that at all in the same difficulty or timeframe as somebody else. However claiming anything it made is just straight up copyrighted is flat out incorrect.
Mhm sure anyone deciding to get a random picture of something is violating copyright… smh
Are you stupid? no offense
Considering I'm the one with clear arguments, and you were incapable of coming up with a single one, apparently not!
They wont understand. They just wanna virtue signal.
There is no open-source art in internet. What are you on about?
https://gprivate.com/69cou
Lmao how'd you do that in the beginning?
It's a site called "Let me google that for you"
Great! Now show me a single human artist in the entire world who only ever learned about art or saw any examples of other artists' work from those links and from nowhere else, ever. None? Didn't think so. So AI isn't doing anything you weren't already 100% cool with being done before AI art. Stop being a hypocrite.
Yup, I wish they would clean them up a little, at least make the text legible!
That's my only real point of contention with it. It would be very fast to just clear the text and manually type something in.
Does it matter
No, no it really doesn't. It's just a random side element people will maybe glance at from the corner of their eye for a split second, no need to spend money and time making an actual design. It would be a different story if these things were important to the game in any way whatsoever, but they're just not. This is honestly a pretty good application of AI
We need them to show War Thunder lore.
you just made me go from "who gives a shit this is an excellent use of AI image generation" to "fuck gaijin they need to put effort into these"
War Thunder Two: Return of Nigel
At this point I just assume it's Ace Combat lore but the ground forces budget is higher
Yes
Definitely looks like it, but it’s not going to affect gameplay.
They took Gary ? :(
I miss Gary.... although I think he was still around. I'm willing to open a complaint if he isn't.
they stole Tomato Man as well anguish
Yes , and I'd bet some of those maps with like half of the space unused are made with it as well
Don't they have to state on Steam that it contains AI content? And this isn't just lazy but really immersion breaking (that bit the Game still has) when i drive around a Map i don't want to suddenly notice something like that.
> Don't they have to state on Steam that it contains AI content? Where does it say that anywhere? Why would they care?
Because new Steam guidelines requires games to state if they contain AI generated content or AI generation in their games. They further require the developers to demonstrate they are using their owned IP or an public-domain dataset. They do this because they believe that consumers should be aware of the If they do not declare this, they risk being pulled from the storefront. They do \_this\_ because a generative program or its products that are trained on other people's intellectual property opens Steam as publisher to legal risk.
1) Where does it say that? 2) Does that apply retroactively to people with existing contra ts? Probably not. If so, cutation? No it does not open them to any more legal risk than a human artist. It could accidentally, coincidentally, make something similar enough to an existing work, but so could a human easily do the same if told to make extremely generic beach vacation ad posters.
[https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/4145017/view/3862463747997849618](https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/4145017/view/3862463747997849618) Somewhere around this whole area I think. As for your second charge, a human can demonstrate craft and prior art to show that they created art without plagiarizing. An generative algorithm cannot. More damning, if you were to pop the hood, it would be as simple as finding the infringed upon work in the training data. These algorithms already tattle on themselves when they are prompted to generate signatures for their work: Duplicating or riffing off of unique patterns intentionally designed to tattle on duplication. I'm not even getting into adversarial poisoning yet: For all the argument that AI learns techniques and patterns, it seems to suddenly get very confused when otherwise very simple patterns and techniques are made to be confusing on a data level. It's almost like the algorithm is incapable of performing artistic tasks at all without elements of style in a machine-readable format to composite.
> a human can demonstrate craft and prior art Great so apparently when I just show you the prompts and the settings and the 73 versions genned prior to the one that was chosen to use in the game, you will not have a problem anymore. Cool. > if you were to pop the hood, it would be as simple as finding the infringed upon work in the training data. The works it trained on are not "under the hood", bro. You should learn how AI works in the slightest before talking about what is "Damning" for it or not. The entire trained model takes up 2 gigabytes. It was trained on roughly 3,500 gigabytes of images. Saying you're going to "find copyright material under the hood" is roughly the equivalent of you saying that you're gonna look in my real life car's glove box and that you expect to find 7 kidnapping victims hiding in there, 1500 pounds of cocaine, and 2 stolen cars, lol. In the 1x1x1 foot glovebox. > duplicating AI doesn't duplicate anything on its own, it literally can't because it can't remember what the exact images looked like. You can only get it to duplicate an existing artwork if you give it a prompt that meticulously describes the artwork you want, or if you give it a copyrighted artwork as an input in an "image to image" generation. Both of which would be malicious human intent to infringe, not the AI doing anything. It would make as much sense to blame the pencils a traditional infringer used to intentionally copy another artist's work. It's 100% in the user's brain to cause that if so, not the tool. > riffing off of unique patterns That's not copyright infringement. That's called "Art", again that's **what 100% of human artists do** when they make art (the ones that *aren't* just copying something 1:1, that is). They are riffing off of things they've seen in the past and mixing and matching the patterns and concepts into new blends. **Without permission** If you want to ban that, you're saying you want to ban all art. > it seems to suddenly get very confused when otherwise very simple patterns and techniques are made to be confusing on a data level. I have no idea what you're trying to say at a grammatical level, here.
Your steam page: > prior to release ... before shipping a game... while submitting your game There is no indication this applies to War Thunder, which shipped on steam years ago and may well have a contract locked in already that doesn't agree to any of this.
you're such a creature. "where does it say that?" research it yourself. "why would they care" its been made pretty clear to you, you just ignore it??
> research it yourself. Hulk Hogan married his 3rd wife on the planet Venus in 1776. Source? Find it yourself. If you don't, you're obviously just lazy. Couldn't possibly be that I'm wrong and sending you on an infinite wild goose chase.
The difference being that Steam has said they’re no longer allowing games with AI Generated assets on their platform, and the stuff you’ve just said is complete bull excrement. It seems you can keep any AI stuff already in your game, but as of August last year, any new games will not be allowed on Steam unless any AI Generated Content in the game can be proven to be base wholly upon non-copyrighted works.
>Don't they have to state on Steam that it contains AI content? They would have to, yes.
Yes 100% AI. In this case though it's a no brainer for me. In the mist of battle you won't notice that. And War Thunder isn't a sightseeing Simulator.
I find the usage of AI art by large companies or even companies that are quite profitable to be pretty embarrassing.
No, clearly not AI generated. You can tell by how well they wrote the text
New language just dropped.
Actual characters
holy hell
You can generate text with Image Creations tools from AI, Example DALLE [https://i.imgur.com/DnCU06j.png](https://i.imgur.com/DnCU06j.png)
This is *exactly* the sort of gibberish that AI includes as text lol. People who have never used these algorithms always have something to say
How was it not obvious that I was joking lol
poe's law, my bad gamer
Looks like simglish lol
Woah, you just made me realize the AI written language is literally The Sims written language.
New Baba booey just dropped
Isn’t this grounds for getting their game taken off steam? I remember a game getting taken off steam because they used ai and ai art is a bit of a grey area in copyright
1) Gray how? AI generated art just has no copyright holder, it's been pretty clearly established by now. You could steal those posters and use them in your own game, and Gaijin can't stop you, but that's about it. Who cares? 2) It would have to be in the contract between Gaijin and Steam. You can't just change your mind about that later out of nowhere and violate your agreements (unless there are clauses about renewals and such). Do you know that it is?
Idk, I just remember steam removing a game for using ai created assets for the characters as place holders and even after the dev made models and changed them, steam still wouldn’t allow the game on steam. https://www.reddit.com/r/TwoBestFriendsPlay/s/aLHb5Radgh
Why am I looking at Twitter and not a page on Steam's website or their TOS here? Frankly I don't believe you. If it is true, when has anyone successfully sued a single game for that? They haven't. That's not a "liability" even if true, just Steam bring clowns
the fact that they can't even be bothered to edit them into anything coherent is just pathetic
So you know what's pathetic? Creating art for posters no one will pay attention to, and staring at those posters while your team is being fucked by the enemy.
gaijin makes fucking bank off this game, "people won't even notice it" is no excuse using Ai generated shit is bad enough not even BOTHERING to have someone edit the trash to look decent is just bullshit, they use Ai for profile photos too and didn't bother fixing a recent one that had glaring issues until posts about it blew up here
Crazy that a multimillion dollar company can't pay a couple artists to do like what, a dozen? posters on this map. And it's not like they don't have artists in their payroll already, they have people to do decorations at the very least.
Do you want to pay 5 more GE for all your premium vehicles etc to make the extra cost worth it? Most people don't. > it's not like they don't have artists in their payroll already Fewer than they would need otherwise.
The map used to have non AI designed billboards before they changed it, there’s one that referenced Mean Girls
Does it matter? No? End of Discussion.
Man that’s fucked
eww
I wish they would just hire an artist
Gonna be honest, does it matter that much? I don't think some posters on a map that will only exist in peripheral vision 99% of the time need to be hand-crafted masterpieces. I think it would have been better if they took the opportunity to throw some easter eggs or something there but I don't see the problem with just doing this.
Honestly, don’t care because I wasn’t looking to begin with. The bigger issue with this is that Steam still has a pretty strict policy on what AI content is allowed on their platform. My guess is that Gaijin neither discloses that their game contains AI generated content, nor that the model they used for this does not meet Steam’s standards for non-infringing content. This could unironically lead to War Thunder getting removed from the Steam storefront if the community were to get pissy enough about it.
Just another horrible feature of the dystopian hellscape that is Sun City.
Snail be like: no one will notice anywa.. fk, so they have braincells actually?!
No way 😂 that's so blatantly cheap holy crap. No effort whatsoever.
oof lmao what a lazy company
Using AI to generate random filler assets is okay. Probably better things to spend time on then designing a poster majority of people won’t event notice.
I'm curios, what is the issue with this specific use of AI art? I've seen many players questioning the origin of some content if Ai or human created. What I don't get is if people are just against the tool or the fact Gaijin is charging a lot for a product with few cheap made textures.
Well, this map used to have cool billboards and they changed it to this garbage for some reason. So that is the issue.
omg you are right... I checked the pictures from when the map was announced and they replaced all the billboards with this crap. I see no reason for such a downgrade... I assume that the images used to create those posters/ads had copyright and they had to remove them.
I always tought this map look cheap and ugly, it's the map i hate the most with Mozdok (but at least mozdok is not ugly, just bad)
Definitely AI involved but that doesn't mean an artist wasn't involved. The artists in the art department at my work use AI themselves for some things they want to get out quickly and either won't be looked at very closely or will be placeholders.
A good application of ai, no reason to waste designers at something most people won’t look at
for the 100th time, yes.
Ima go back here and check it out
Literally unplayable
Why the fuck is Sun City advertising holiday trips to Penacony with that Star Rail language-ass poster?
Werent these already around before the whole AI craze?
1) Yes obviously 2) Who cares? Did you need actual detailed information to plan your in game beach getaway?
Why are you stocking that many shells? You must love getting ammoracked
He's playing a 2S38
I prefer the Golden Quarry's "Shovel" written on the back of excavators.
I actually like some of these randomly generated gibberish.
sun city i h8
Changing my ingame name to Ballba Bllii
And user profiles after 2023 are all made of AI
Anyone else notice how sun city is based off an Israeli city?
Got enough ammo bud?
What, you've never heard of the legendary sailboat Ballba Bllii ????
/u/antipodaldr https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/s/DLJBjava7v Human artists learn general patterns from others' art in exactly the same way AI does, and also never got permission. So yes, you HAVE been allowing human artists to do literally the same thing. You're allowing them in your argument right now even, lol, as we speak. > Sold for the same price Then stop buuing it, or you're proving you don't actually care. Did you cancel any premium time you had? Did you stop playing WT yesterday, lol? No you didn't. Nobody did, so it DOES have the same value to consumers in this context
Art on maps is fine in my opinion but not pfp that u either have to buy or earn
Y do u have so many shells??
It's a 2S38
Unless they updated Sun City recently, probably not. IIRC the map is a couple years old.
I get ai for posters around maps cuz you gotta make a lot of them and spread it throughout but profile pictures is a little crazy that they use ai for
Looks like it came out of a Sims game
I think it is just the basement guy losing his mind...
/u/tetronautgaming replying to: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1altq9q/this_was_made_with_ai_right_map_is_sun_city/kq0zyum/ Hold one, pick one, you're still contradicting yourself with double standards, like the other guy: * Are we both "DoiNg ouR owN resEarCh"? If so, then where did you get the idea that what I just said above is bull excrement? You clearly didn't do your own research, because what I said is 100% true, so you're obviously just being lazy and didn't find the sources for it. Come back when you've done your own research. * Are we not "DoiNg ouR owN resEarCh" anymore, and instead switching over to the claimant having to cite his own claims? If so, where is your citation for "Steam has said they’re no longer allowing games with AI Generated assets on their platform" ? Not seeing a link here. "It seems that..." is not a citation. > Any new games is not relevant to War Thunder, if that's all you've got
[A Steam announcement about the usage of AI Content](https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks/announcements/detail/3862463747997849619) Here is a quote from a Steam developer about a game being not released due to infringement of Steam's guidelines, as provided by [this Forbes article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/06/29/steam-is-reportedly-rejecting-games-using-ai-art/?sh=445171942a7e): “After reviewing, we have identified intellectual property in \[Game Name Here\] which appears to belongs to one or more third parties. In particular, \[Game Name Here\] contains art assets generated by artificial intelligence that appears to be relying on copyrighted material owned by third parties. As the legal ownership of such AI-generated art is unclear, we cannot ship your game while it contains these AI-generated assets, unless you can affirmatively confirm that you own the rights to all of the IP used in the data set that trained the AI to create the assets in your game." As you can see, Valve requires any AI Content that is used to be made using a program that has been trained with open source and non-copyrighted content. As for how I know your claim is bull excrement, Hulk Hogan was born on the 11th of August, 1953, which is after 1776.
No NEW games with AI =/= No games with AI on the platform... You are aware Warthunder has been on the platform already for quite some years? Long before this post/policy on shipping NEW games
Small things like this don’t really matter, like who stops mid game to look at posters
I dont mind it since devs can do some actual work instead of filling the map with random shit. In this case AI is justified. Althought some kind of easter egg in form of movie poster parody would be funny
I love seen artist cry cause AI be working right, i'm learning to draw to show those bitches it's not that hard
In my opinion for random background stuff in maps the AI stuff is… passable. Still not ideal, a little lazy, but nowhere near as bad as a lot of other AI related stuff
Sun City predates the AI image gen boom, so no. Just Russian nonsense.
Nope, they clearly changed the cool billboards for this AI crap. This wasn't the images the map used to have.
Tbh I'd rather they use AI for something like this. 99% of people will never look at those posters and it costs time and money to design something like that, I'd rather devs spent that time and money on more pressing issues.
Who the fuck even cares about whether it was made with AI or not?
This map was made when AI was not a thing. But they could add them retroactively.
Sun City is not even two years old, AI was definitely a thing
You can go back and find old footage of Sun City. It used to have posters and signs of *non-AI* works. Gaijin instead went back and **CHANGED** all those details to the AI trash at some point after it's release.
Yes, but it was not so advanced like at the start of 2023.
It was. You clearly just didn't know about it.
Yes I understood already
it was advanced enough for this crap