pouët.net

More useful than strongly-worded opiniated posts would be to map out what's okay and what's not.

Type in prompt, use result verbatim obviously isn't.

"he said that actually, he had used AI to plan the painting." seems to be okay, so is "IF you coded (and trained) the AI all by yourself".

Meanwhile, PhotoShop (and probably others) have an AI-fill tool. Is using that in any way already not okay?

And what about AI tools that help with menial gruntwork tasks such as dithering and shading?

Pixel art on the Amiga, Atari, or any other old machine is, above all, a passion.
The passion for creating images in pixels just like in the past. AI has no place here.
I believe that graphic artists who use AI are no longer driven by passion; they are merely seeking notoriety and nothing more.

from Krill:

I agree, a better tone. When I started this thread, I had serious thoughts, tried to link to background material what I found here but same day this post when to "residual" sadly.

I also understand that some people are really frustruated and leaving amiga pixel graphics for other platforms because they lost the trust in how Amiga art is done.

Like the idea to map out whats ok and whats not. Me personally dont like a tool to do any of these feature "saving time", because pixel art for me has the beauty of taking time. But, I respect others art, and would be happy if they just tell what they use. Maybe also the time they spent.

inspired by @Krill, for a list I try in a top-down approach make a list, where answers can be like "yes/no" or like checkboxes, because it get messy. Hopefully its self-explained with sentences, here we go:

Amiga pixel art - for artists doing Amiga graphics [version 0.1] :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
START
a) "Noooo waaaay! Take me to step 6 - DISAGREE !"
b) "I will tell directly what I have used, no list needed": ______
c) "No clue, I probably use a lot of tools, Im new in Amiga art or old skool pixel art"
d) "Yep, I know amiga pixel art, and will answer below"

ETHICAL
0) "I guarantee on my Amiga pixel scene honour, that my best of knowledge I answer how I see this"

INSPIRATION SOURCE
1) When I draw my image, I was inspired (or used a photo/model etc) by xxxxxx
1.1) I also have a link to my inspiration source: xxxxxxxxxxxx

PIXEL PROGRAM
2) "I only used a simple pixel program to create Amiga pixel art (e.g. Deluxe Paint, brilliance, ...) ?
yes/no"

OTHER TOOLS (INCL AI)
3) "I use other tools, like:"
3.1) Artificial intelligence (AI)
3.2) Photoshop/gimp ....

TOOL SUPPORT DETAIL
4) "I use tools to create my pixel art, helping me with these things:
4.1) dithering
4.2) shading
4.3) scale down colors
4.3) ....

REASON USE OF TOOLS
5) "I feel confident to use other tools than an Amiga based pixel program when I release Amiga pixel graphics, because:
5.1) "...all tools I use I can draw my self, so its saving me time"
5.2) "... AI-tools improve my art"
5.3) "...Other tools than pixel program on Amiga improve my art"
5.4) "...I do not have an Amiga, but want to do Amiga pixel art

DISAGREE
6) "I will not tell, I do not need to tell, just enjoy my art"

Order of these things are not important. I write how I would see this (for example I go with honesty and start with trusting what someone says before accusing someone). I also set little effort in work stages, because that can always be cheated around. but I think worksteps are needed, and also sometimes its really nice to see how an artist work with an image, thats a really nice insight :)

Appreciate if people add their perspectives, what should be added, maybe rearrange the order, or add key words to include + explanations if needed?

from tikitikiST:

agree! maybe you can add your thoughts to a list (see post above)?

@Frost: would the list I started make sense to you? I try to capture AI-use high up, and also leave a backdoor if people dont want to answer?

@NR4: Do I cover what you say? Do you know anyone using AI its free to point that out, because gdpr do not go with nicknames

IMO there's a difference between "this is illegal" and "this is not respectable". Use of AI is poorly regulated and many AI-related workflows and business strategies are legal that obviously shouldn't be, and likely soon won't be anymore (a matter of time). But that's not the point in demoscene prouctions. We have our own set of rules (like we don't rip, effort spent to make something is respected, same as slowly and gradually improving by spending the hours and hours necessary to master a skill). From that point of view, it's completely unclear to me why we're even discussing AI tools (that out-source all of the well-respected effort and skill to an algorithm - only a small part of creating a successful piece of art remains with the artist if they use AI tools, which is "Describe what you want to do with words". The "learn how to do it" and "do it" parts vanished from the equation and are now replaced with commercial AI models, that kill the internet (with web crawlers autostealing and dragging service performance), the planet (by absurd power consumption), original art (by replacing paid artists with cheap and generic interpolated slop), and gfx hardware (by turbo-inflating card prices and addition of useless AI cores that are difficult to use effectively for gfx). But everyone here knows that, right?

also have you noticed how terribly ineffective searching the internet has become? thank you AI summaries and LLM ad farms!

Yeah fuck techbro AI and fuck everyone using it.

Everything I said before still stands, and has been vindicated.

i dont want AI to make the entries i want AI to vote for me!

*voting at parties instead of myself, to avoid confusion ;)

Gargaj: your input text is well written I think and was part of the background links, i.e. thread start. So, where does that leave it to the diverse Amiga community? In the list above, I would argue that your own route would be START-b, and ending there, emphasizing transparency. What does the list not cover?

NR4 wrote:

I can just speak for myself, and I feel confident in my own art (for example spending time in setting pixels etc - agree with you).

So your perspective (I assume not Amiga, but doesnt matter!), you would for people using AI in their art into scene productions, the list above do this path according to your quote:
START (c) > OTHER TOOLS (3.1) > REASON USE OF TOOLS (5.2) ?

Did I cover your reasoning or did I miss something? Maybe I should add something like "I am not aware of/don't care that AI-tools may use other's graphic" , I just think some people entering a compo, may not understand that, and the scene will be diverse.

uncle-x wrote:

How can your oppinion be captured in the list, if you imagine that someone enter a compo, that you vote for, which turns out to be AI?

Your link doesn’t work, but to answer your question:

Fuck techbro AI and fuck everyone using it.

Amiga isn't special in this regard, the problem there is the same as it is on C64.

Re: techbros et al.:

For a fruitful discussion, it's probably important to distinguish

the technology itself
https://fabien.benetou.fr/Content/SelfHostingArtificialIntelligence

from various forms of misuse associated with it, especially with cloud-based "free" implementations and models on offer
https://fabien.benetou.fr/Analysis/AgainstPoorArtificialIntelligencePractices

But we're not researchers, at least most of us. We're demosceners, we're putting nicely colored pixels on screens. For our use cases, AI is a fairly simple subject, with not many of the nuances you have to consider when you're looking at the larger picture from the point of view of academia.

So, until someone makes a self-hosted image generator about it, one that somehow adheres to all the best practices, including not gobbling up energy like it's going out of style, I think we're not losing out on much if we just label all GenAI as techbro bullshit.

uncle-x wrote:

I was refering to an entry higher up called 'the list'. So for fruitful discussion, I made a link for you. Let me rephrase:
if you imagine that someone enter a gfx-compo, that you vote for, which turns out to be AI - how can that be avoided? And is it covered
in this link?

gargaj wrote:
Maybe, cannot tell because not enough knowledge on c64-scene.

And the unanswered part from me again (with link for you to easier find):
I would argue that your own route would be START-b, and ending there, emphasizing transparency. What does the list not cover?

@Krill: thanks for your links. I have just called everything AI (I made a seperate link now so easier to follow), because for me AI is "same-same". Do you think I should split it? and if so, can it be done without going down into tech details (because many people will get lost, AI will be updated with new names, versions etc...?

Check
here I just call AI for AI without any sub categories

jobe wrote: Can you provide input on this flow-chart that I left out so easier to refer to, and see if that make sense/easy to follow, add/modify/disagree with parts?

Somehow this whole outcry about using AI or not reminds me a lot of how cross assemblers and code libraries were considered lame and the spawn of evil by a bunch of people (some well known even) in the late 80s

AI frustrates my right now. There is too much hype and sell around them. The deceive you to believe they are brilliant. Most coder friends I know from outside the scene, they use it to help them in their jobs and are very enthusiastic. So, sometimes I want to find a good use of it, I don't want it to write my code, not even the "boring" parts, but I just tested it at times, asking it to code something for me, or I pasted some of my code and asked it to analyse it and while sometimes the answers are very impressive, I know it didn't reach those answer as a precise engineer who understands the context of every line of code and how it's all connected to each other. And it shows in later subsequent answers where it makes and obvious mistake and you correct it and it pretends that now it understood it's mistake.

I feel a bit gaslit by something that is presented to you as very intelligent, but it's really not what it seems (or what the big corpos or influencers want to market it to you) and many times is unreliable but doesn't tell you that. At least a compiler did one job perfectly using traditional algorithms. It would be a disaster for compilers to generate the faulty machine code from high level language that is written correctly. It has to do that job with full precision. Code AIs don't work like this, it's just some probabilistic matching of your input to the most convincing output, with variations. God, it makes me angry whenever I tried it, as it impresses me at first and then I realize I have been gaslit by something that pretends to be something else.

Maybe if AI changed in the future the entire model they are based upon? I think it's too bruteforce and very unrealiable right now and not like a "conscious" precision planning/thinking engineer you can really make sense communicating with.